Category Archives: Syria

#Harper’s War(s): The Next Generation(s) of Serfs #cdnpoli #elxn42

For this (hopefully last) installment of the “#Harper’s War(a) series we thought it might be a good idea to consider the actual costs vs benefit of the Harper’s ongoing far-right Economic Extraction Action Plan with regards to the current hybrid “Millennial” generation and next generation(s). At this stage in this game as the election draws near we must also ponder the mysteries within the “text” of the highly secret TPP that was “promised” to be released prior to election day but for rather lame “Go along, to get along” reasons, it will not be available.

The Harper Regime’s non-stop divisive Babylonian shell-game economics, fear-mongering, war profiteering, script regurgitation, hyperbolic rhetoric and it’s pandering for strategic voters to the extreme far-right minority segments for support is a very real and significant problem. They have purposely timed this coordinated operation to coincide with a very small Parliamentary calendar and will complete the far-right takeover with 3 successive blows. While all persist in the war-drumming and Bill C-51 distractions the delayed omnibus budget will go unchallenged, un-scrutinized and unnoticed. Since we know that there is no Parliament sitting until after the election, serious questions have and will continue to simply go unanswered and unaddressed. Win or lose, the Harper Regime wins in the end since if they lose, they won’t have to answer for a lot of issues that are bubbling over, the next group will yet if they do win, it’s full steam ahead until they ultimately lose control of the narrative, message and messengers. Unfortunately if they manage to steal a majority, it will propel us past the point of no return.

Before proceeding further down this rabbit hole, we should contemplate the shorter term consequences with regards to the safety and security of the younger generations, domestically. One thing that we are certain of is that each and every Government policing and security agency  across the board are undergoing sweeping downsizing and compounding budget reductions. In other words, more budget cuts and downsizing measures are being implemented before any review of the cost/benefit analysis of past cuts to see where shortfalls have been discovered and persist to be problematic. With the massive and solitary refocus upon the minimalistic lone-wolf “terrorist” attack scenario, the already stressed system will deteriorate and downgrade the Police State’s collective ability to provide adequate resources for investigations into crimes that affect almost everyone, everyday. The trade off, we as a society are being forced to accept in the form of Bill C-51, is that all resources, real and imaginary, must be allocated to waging a war against an invisible needle-in-a-haystack boogeyman and not against those countless, easy to find, individuals engaging in organized crime, money laundering, Ponzie scheming, fraud, corruption, drug smuggling, gun running, child exploitation, human trafficking, gang warfare, armed robbery and the like. Since we must be made less-safe at all costs to be more-safe with future costs, all that will be needed in the future will be the stoke of a pen and an ever expanding list of “terrorists” can be determined and declared as necessary.

Even putting aside that all of the opaque enemies, boogieman and murky allies in these officially declared and unofficially undeclared ideological wars by the Harper Regime and their globalist comrades, aka: Bolsheviks, are between ultra-right entities fighting for dominance in their sphere of influence and then compound that with the way Bill C-51 is worded to declare the “official” far-right and ultra-right “enemies” and pay attention to the lack of certain “useful” far-right entities. Fast forward a bit and one may notice that in any foreign intervention scheme the Harper Regime’s choice is always in support of the furthest to the right of the embattled parties in the region with the most advantageous economic trade-route territories and better financed private mercenary armies. If we disregard any “left” opposition exists in any region, we can only presume that this Government sanctioned strategy in-itself creates an immediate far-right adversary within itself and is designed for almost immediate failure.

We also know that once any Party is beholden to an assortment of competing unholy fringe alliances for electoral convenience, ultra-far-right (or left) extremist segments can and will, easily coalesce, conspire and ultimately seize complete power and control over the government, economy and the military in one sweep. Isn’t this how the previously far-right Reform/Alliance coup transpired? First they acquired the party apparatus then they seized total control of the PMO and consolidated the powers within itself and the Treasury Ministry and Justice Ministry. Now we will bear witness to the evolution of extreme politics as the Liberal Party will transition further to the right to appeal to the former conservative base that oppose Harper and to piggyback on the politics of fear-mongering and war profiteering that made the “West” great. If recent history is to be proven correct, the best way to form a Party quickly is to coordinate, co-op and/or outright hijack one. In the above scenario, either way the vote goes, the “right” retains control of the Government apparatus with a solid plan b that on the surface seems palatable with the added bonus of redrawing the boundaries and redefining the “left” side of the spectrum.

Considering the generations that will pay for these wars, with their lives and limbs and odious unpayable debts by insulated older generations have zero voice, we must explore and understand the costs, ramifications and implications of an unfettered march to war policy for both the short term and long term. Having driven their carefully “controlled messages” this far into the collective psyche, the Harper Loyalists, propagandists and apologists can now begin probing even further towards the far-right extremes based upon zero facts, tin-foil hats and illogical fears by way of deception and subversive intimidation.

The oddly concealed and/or conveniently overlooked fact remains that these younger generations, with absolutely no voice, will be the bearers of the debts and actions of today’s political establishment. The veil is finally lifting and exposing the “invisible hand” of the economy and how many, if not most, of the publicly elected officials are beholden to the interests of the top 15% of the population. This may well be the ideal scenario, who knows, but even if it is there should be a system of checks and balances so that they do not go off the rail off into some ideological fantasy land. Contrary to the constant “…net new jobs…” mantra we hear repeated, consider real math and compare that to the actual number of newly work-aged employes into the workforce since the Harper Regime first came to power, their employment opportunities and their debt servitude.

The Harper Regime’s job creation results are truly pathetic and serve only the wants of a coddled 15% that will never serve in a war, nor suffer on any battlefield at the expense of the 85% majority. Compound that even further by looking at the age demographics of the actual hiring and associated pay scales, one will see that skewed in favour of the expanding 55+ segment as opposed to the expanding 25 and under segment. Once again, the beneficiaries will never have to serve in military services, but will be free to profit off such endeavours.

This seems to be the beginnings of the perfect generational storm as one generation seeks to reap the rewards of their labours, irregardless to their losses while the generations that will be necessary to fund these rewards remain jobless. This poses a problem since this age segment lost a significant portion of their savings, investments and pensions, aka: “wealth”, in the aftermath of the economic crisis and may never recover. This presumes that one will only have the freedom of choice to choose to be sent off to slaughter as cannon fodder abroad or exist within a rationed impoverishment at home. This also begs the question, how are such a select few able to initiate and instigate problems seeking solutions that they themselves never end up paying for, or adequately funding and/or administering, the long term solutions.

Pay close attention to the shell gaming by way of omnibus budgeteering only short gains profits and all real costs of their selectively interventionist backstopping practices are allowed to download the costs of their imposed austerity measures and military backed foreign financial adventurism, the lower 85% will continue to spiral downward and rapidly converge into a broader society with an overall lesser quality of life. Oddly enough, the data shows that within a zero-sum economic model, the top 15% are pretty much immune to the effects of deteriorating economy and  due to the constraints and trade offs that accompany globalization schemes and economic integration agendas, the younger generations are constrained by the vary same global investors that discourage “public” investment necessary to properly educate our children and instead favour various privatization schemes. This financial downloading can be witnessed in real time with regards to health care, infrastructure, First Nations, Veterans and other public service cuts such as police, fire and other emergency first responder services.

We really can’t proceed without pondering the relativity of the abrupt resignation of John Baird, the shady foreign endeavours file, think Myanmar/Burma and Hillary Clinton’s email (treason) scandal, the pending Iraq/Syria and Beyond War Act, Bill C-51 and the delayed budget fit into this toxic mix. The combination of these three topics uncovers an entirely new perspective into how pervasive and powerful the anti-diplomatic, antagonistic, pro-war lobby has become and how any anti-war dissent will be stifled and suppressed with extreme prejudice and impunity.

Now, one must consider and compare how vigorously the Harper Regime fully endorsed, sanctioned and supported the Maidan, and set the stage for this tragically epic battle of the oligarchs civil war, in Ukraine with how vigorously, through legislation such as the Fair Elections Act and Bill C-51 or violence as in the case of the Toronto G8/G20 kettle filled crackdown, they are assuring that any popular demonstrations and/or uprising against their ideological rule, are fearfully discouraged and cannot happen in Ottawa or elsewhere. In this new norm, only Harper Loyalist’s and apologists will be afforded to any rights and/or freedoms such as speech, thought, association and/or assembly. The inconvenient truth is that all of these bits and chunks of power consolidation to the PMO and Treasury will be afforded to any/all future Governments.

It seems plausible that the fear-mongering, war drum beating and shell-game economics propaganda can easily neuter any opposition. It’s a major trump card and it is being played in much the same way as it was in the lead up to WW1. The pre-war propaganda that sets the stage campaign is in full gear as we speak.

First of all we should remember the timing of the “Arab Spring” and how the Libyan intervention, sprinkled with the “Assad Must Go” sideshow narrative, contaminated the 2011 election campaign that was fraught with several seedy and shady election shenanigans by outside market players beyond the legal jurisdiction of Canadian law enforcement agencies and the reach of Elections Canada. This deviously cleaver tactic conveniently led to major distractions with regards to the fundamental issues that lead up to the Election of 2011 and the ongoing epic failures of the Harper Regime at the time.

Remember, while some have slithered their way into the courts, the major issues with their governance and opacity were never resolved while their dirty deeds remain hidden and concealed from the public by the politicos and media alike for the most part. With cunningly shrewd manipulation of legislation and the subsequent consolidation of powers into the PMO and Treasury Ministry, their collective “documented” shenanigans will be sealed as classified far beyond the reach of the youth of today and tomorrow.

In other words, it is in their collective (15%) opinion, most of which invest and shelter their ill gotten “wealth” abroad, that after they themselves so greatly benefited from, and fully reaped the fruitful rewards of a rigged system, that very same system must be destroyed from the inside and out. This “controlled demolition” will hypothetically assure by way of distraction and diversion that their collective (15%) future prosperity, safety and security is assured at the expense of the remaining 85%, aka: serfs…


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Advertisements

#Harper’s War(s): Peddling #C51 & #Terrorism via #Syria, #Iraq, #Russia, #Ukraine #cdnpoli #pnpcbc

In this rare and under-seen February 2015 clip, Harper’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander blatantly sells moar fear, moar hate and moar war by blending subversive Bill C-51 innuendo, Syria, Iraq, Russia and Ukraine into a toxic propaganda stew while pandering to an Ukrainian Canadian audience for votes and donations.

If one were to pay close attention to the “selling” points and the followup interviews, no costs are ever projected nor discussed, yet this speech does expose the dark underbelly of the Harper Regime’s Trojan Horse Bill C-51 and how it’s rather opaque definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist” may be misused by special interests groups that have acquired undue influence with the Harper Regime.

Lest we forget, Harper’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander’s rather transparent, ignorance of the ultra-far right reality is bliss moment, that was caught on tape and documented last August (2014): https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/harpers-minister-alexander-ukraine-rightsector-ignorance-is-cdnpoli-bliss/


(Note the proximity of the Right Sector Flags in relation to the location and position of Alexander during the interview segment.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgsIoa0RK8

If the un-calculable costs to Canadian and Ukrainian society are being ignored for the sake of ideological fear and hate based vote pandering. If ultra-nationalist rhetoric and fear mongering is not kept in check, will this acceptance of radicalization not in the end, doom us both?

The eerie feeling is emerging that pro-war advocates with interests abroad that support future “elected governments” will ultimately have a blank check to declare anti-war advocates or opposition parties as terrorist threats, at will.

At what point do we debate this “future” like reasonable adults?

View video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3zs58l6K7Q


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): #Harpernomics, #C51 and the #NATO Cruz Missile! #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp

Much can be gleaned about the rise and tightening grip of the far-right globally if one dares to look outside the box that is framed by the media conglomerates. The repetition that the “media” is somehow a soapbox for the “left” has run it’s coarse as is evident with the rise of the far-right phenomenon that finds the media on board, full steam ahead. At best the media may be a few steps away from the ultra-far right but it is closer to the far-right than ever and is certainly going along to get along. One question may be, are they willingly going along or have they been secretely legislated?.

This mashup summary will be a somewhat long rant that will pose some seriously neglected questions, expose some uncomfortable gaps and potential connections and exploit some rather historical similarities. This summary may be updated but more than likely will branch off into further research. If anything it should prompt many to delve deeper into any of the issues that are connected.

We intend to additionally explore if we are actually in an “official” state of war that has been secretly declared. Is it possible for a War Measures Act to be secretly or subversively implemented? If so, how do we actually know if this is the case and who the “enemy” is? Or is this where “Harper’s Enemies Lists” somehow fits in? This may explain the virtually one-sided presentations across the various conflict zones and hot spots that emanate from the same handful of global conglomerates. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for a much bigger glacier.

How can an ideological war between the ultra-far-right and the far-right politically or a cultural/tribal/civil war pitting nationalists vs ultra-nationalists militarily, be fought simultaneously at home and abroad?

How far to the “right” must one travel and give up personally to acquire perceived safety and security provided by the oppressive Harper Regime over real life freedom and liberty in the pursuit of prosperity provided by democracy and credible market based capitalism?

How much further to the “right” will the Liberal Party creep and how far will the NDP choose to follow behind?

We only ponder this because some circles are harder to square than others. The further to the right you travel, you’ll notice that moar war and less freedom are on the agenda while the less war factions simply go along to get along for the most part.

We are also beginning to contemplate how the destabilization in Ukraine and Iraq are not being used as some sort of “incentive” to members within the E.U. with regards to expediting and completing the pending cross-Atlantic Free Trade Agreements. Cutting of access to Eurasian markets under the cover of sanctions against Russia seems like a good strategy as is the display of how quickly organized violence against any State can be launched. Add that with the secret TPP and it gets much clearer but we might have to ask Nigel Wright since he has his fingerprints all over the place. The Duffy scandal forces one to consider how much access and influence really had and how he used it to further his own financial portfolio.

How do all of these tie in with the SPP and Bill C-51?

Who are Harper’s advisors anyway and who advises them?

Are these the same type of ideological “foreign policy” advisors that the G.W. Bush Iraq team “employed” to cherry pick reams of intel for a needle in a haystack, pie in the sky, unsubstantiated documents/clauses to fabricate the conditions that justify immediate and massive military intervention?

“We the People” are certainly being groomed for a war of unimaginable scale and consequences, but it will be very, very good for some global investors. The “Police State” conditions are being arranged via the Trojan Horse Bill C-51 to “legally” stifle any/all anti-war and/or anti-austerity protests. There will be no Ottawa Maidan, period. If we were to boil it down to it’s murky base, we would notice that all of the current conflict zones that require liberation are concentrated along various pipelines, energy, transportation, shipping and rail corridors. When the long dust settles, new borders will be redrawn to consolidate and secure trade routes. The real problem is that no State can control what it’s oligarchs invest in or how they invest it, move it, offshore it or divest it. Another thing that is certain is that professional mercenary alliances and the black market only serve those that provide the necessities of war and are loyal only to those that can provide them financing and armaments.

The key fact is that through the various narratives being weaved about Bill C-51, it is a massive Trojan Horse with the anti-war movements in it’s sights. All of the others that will be caught up in this dragnet operation that fall on the “left” side of the political spectrum will be either considered a “bonus” or as acceptable collateral damage and cannon fodder. Keep in mind that fear, intimidation and propaganda plague all cultures/regions and are utilized by multiple overlapping players with their own ultimate agendas. while violent persecution attempts to solve dissent abroad, the “West” achieves this control of dissent easily by way of economic persecution. In either case, the “life” of the individual involved is lost, one by loss of blood, the other by loss of assets/income/credibility/career.

One of the key provisions of Bill C-51 that needs to be examined is the “language” about the censoring of the interwebz of “terrorist” propaganda. If we harken back to WWI and ponder the implications of how propaganda and censorship are used to sell wars and interventions, we need to ask ourselves one fundamentally important question, who decides this opaque definition. Then we need to ask ourselves, where, why and how opaque definition based declarations are decided. The logical follow up question would be who has the most to benefit from the proceeds of the declaration?

If we look at the deteriorating situation in Ukraine from beyond the lens of the AP/Reuters reports, we see a nation that is spiraling into chaos and various oligarchs have their own loyal “volunteer” battalions. Many estimates put these far-right extremist “anti-Russia” mercenary groups at approx 17, each with it’s own vision, mandate and source of funding. The same might be presumably said for the “pro-Russian” side as well. These would be players that are being employed to either secure business interests or expand land claims.

Some other interesting points to ponder may be related to the bursting of the Commodities Super Cycle during a highly concentrated, uncertain, oversupplied and illiquid global market based upon unsustainable debt.

Have we reached peak energy?

How low can the price of oil/energy go before the serviceable-debt bubble pops?

Are these wars being waged to assure that the flow of energy profitability increases in an otherwise oversupplied market?

Since no Central bank or amount of austerity can ever balance the costs of misguided military interventions and the effects of previous omnibus budgets yet to be felt, let’s review a small segment of what has transpired since debt based Harpernomics has replaced surplus based economics.

Even with the massive downloading of costs onto the Provinces without balancing the tax system and revenue sharing, the Federal Debt has exceeded $600 Billion, with debt servicing alone growing daily at a steady clip. Since those costs are immediately download to the Municipalities/etc. the costs to service existing debts becomes an issue that rapidly prevents proper infrastructure maintenance and upgrade investments.

Since Harpernomics has replaced economics with selective inflation based shell-game budgetary tricks to acquire a magical surplus of everything just before an election, the fact remains that job creation continues to lag far behind the amount necessary to accommodate new entries into the work force, wages are stagnant at best and according to the Harpernomicists themselves, the average hours worked per week is in a steady decline and is projected to continue the trend downward.

Will the drop in oil and commodities afford the Harper Regime the “right” to encourage wage reductions throughout the energy sector like they did to the non-outsourced manufacturing sector?

At what point does using a sliding scale for the hours worked considered “full time” for job numbers presented by the Harpernomicists become a purely mythical and unreliable set of digits to an actual number?

Other than the Harper Loyalists, Harpernomicists and apologists, who actually thinks that misguided war waging is free?

Even though the Harper Regime cannot provide a final figure for the Afghanistan intervention, the costs estimates thus far range between $20-30 billion CDN + uncountable collateral damages. The results of the intervention, other than the huge short term gains by military contractors, are far from conclusive. No matter how hard anyone tries or how many times it is invaded and/or occupied it, Afghanistan is going to be whatever it wants to be based upon their own best interests within boundaries on a map that they had no voice in drawing. In the overall case of the invasion, on paper it looked all good and noble and just, but not far under the surface the truth existed. The entire process was manipulated and intelligence was distorted so that one of the more sinister and nefarious minority groups were given authority over the majority. Surely a group will accept “aid” to gain their own syndicate a competitive advantage but there will always be shifting of the balance of power between tribal alliances as power is gained. This is not the first rodeo of this kind for Afghans and they know that any “foreign” presence will be short  sights and short lived in the big picture and have pretty much decided where the boundaries lie between themselves.  The greatly under-reported violence that we see now in Afghanistan is the end result of external military intervention and occupation that allowed certain tribes to immediately fill the vacuum and consolidate “legal” authority by force. Not only that but, the blowback from the flourishing Poppy boom and trade is already being felt globally and the negative effects will be long lasting across the board.

In much the same way the Afghanistan costs were budgeted, contrary to the initial “estimates” provided by the Harper Regime, the Libya intervention Harpernomiced out several times higher at approx. 1/2 billion + uncountable collateral damages that has resulted in a completely insecure failed state embroiled in a civil/tribal war intermixed with various mercenary groups seeking weapons and training. The fact that there were no attempts by Canada or other NATO Allies to secure cooperation with the remnants of the Libyan Military to secure the armories and military facilities is highly suspicious at best. Has anyone pondered the thought that maybe John Baird was communicating about Libya/Syria with Hillary Clinton via her unsecured private email server? What happens if those communications get leaked?

Who is ultimately paying for this high, long-term debt-servicing-cost agenda?

What is the motivation, and what are the true long term costs in blood, currency value and purchasing power, behind the fascinating objective of creating an “invisible” self-perpetuating unsustainable debt burden?

How can Harper promise that 2 wars, in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq, can be fought and funded on the backside of lower oil revenues, stagnant at best wages, massive looming job losses, deflationary housing market pressures and lower tax revenues.

As the debates surrounding war and electioneering take center stage, Bill C-51 and the “delayed” budget simmer away. One affects our assets and the other affects our liberties bad both are being looted by the pro-war insiders. This brings us to a rather oddly timing of the NATO meeting, the U.S. Presidential campaign bid that was declared by Canada’s own export, far-right winger Ted Cruz and the devious election tactics used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to court, fear-monger and rally the farther-right elements to assure his grip on power. These “faces” present the sell-siders of apocalyptic evangelical wars in their respective domains and propose, foster and initiate discontent within and interventions abroad to protect opaque “national” interests. Ultimately, since Cruz has zero chance just based upon the amount of cash he has, we conclude that he is simply strategic investment in the global game of consensual election engineering and a political pawn that posed no threat to the U.S. status quo. His entry is a pre-election campaign aimed at intended to influence and engage Canadians to bolster far-right support for the Harper Party in the short term from beyond the realm and jurisdiction of Election Canada. Since Cruz is staunchly anti-Obama, pay attention to which slogans and taking points get highlighted, accentuated and repeated by whom, on this side of the border. Then pay closer attention to how the media in the U.S. respond to hostile rhetoric from the anti-Obama/pro-Bibi Harper Loyalists. Then pay attention to how the Liberals respond.

This combination sets the stage for Harper’s  sell-side that supports NATO’s expansion into sovereign Syrian territory against “darker” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire with the bonus prize of additional Ukraine territory to train “lighter” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire that will eventually become a battle hardened menace to the E.U. and the West. Fear not, Harper’s Bill C-51 will protect us.

Is widespread war and discontent the Harper Regime’s reverse Soylent Green Solution for youth unemployment and lack of opportunity?

Are these strategic regions being justifiably destabilized in order to profitably reduce the stockpiles of Cold War era armaments and battle-harden the next generation of unaccountable and subcontract-able mercenary units?

What about the Yemen powder keg that is exploding and what about the current and ongoing collateral damages, dislocations and refugee crisis?

In one instance, international law isn’t relevant as Harper Loyalists proclaim that they are defending the autonomy of “Kurdistan” against a threatening “darker” ultra-far-right terrorist threat emanating from Syria that has no legal standing. One that, oddly enough, is fully armed with American equipment, hardware and armaments and has secured funding from several regional players with varied agendas. We need to remember that “Kurdistan” is a province within Iraq in what amounts to a breakaway region that has been planning and forming an independent State since at least 1991. It is rather obvious that the Sykes-Picot concept over and the position and/or agenda of the Kurds and that of the Iraq Government in Baghdad are not necessarily in sync. Their ultimate vision is the combination of the greater Kurdish regions that span across Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq or maybe the recreation of Assyria. This which would provide “space” for the Kurds to consolidate authority as well as provide regional protection for the remaining Christians and other targeted minorities. The only way for that to unfold would be if the primary players decided to seriously negotiate satisfactory representative regional agreements that settles the power/land dispute between the Sunni and Shiite populations in Iraq and Syria, below Kurdistan. These primary players would have to coordinate with Baghdad and Damascus and consider splitting off Sunni chunks into an independent state that lies between Syria and Iraq. With the hidden civil war in Iraq bubbling over and the chaos in Syria putting more pressure on the border, this seems like the most plausible end-goal as this strategically concentrated and central swath would be able to control the flow of resources and mercenaries between all of the surrounding nations and let the Sunni/Shiite and Islamaphobia battles ensue.

In another instance, in a quasi-mixed role reversal as far as international law is concerned, the autonomy of “Novorossiya” within the Ukraine is being denied to it’s inhabitants while they are being attacked by far-right mercenary groups funded international and regional players with diverging, converging and overlapping interests. Another odd twist with regards to interpretations and reinterpretations of international laws is in the way Crimean autonomy post 1991 has been interpreted

In a coinciding instance in Syria itself, much like the propaganda campaign to bomb freedom into Libya, an actual far-right terrorist threat was detected from a very small and problematic region and was identified as emanating from the same roots as the armed insurrection in Libya. In these cases, the media portrays these known terrorists as peaceful liberators and gives them a free pass to do their dirty deeds without question.

Then we have the Yemen civil war being reignited in what is a very strange play with regards to the loose application regarding international law, violating sovereignty and crossing borders. In this case, unlike Ukraine, the President that fled to safety abroad is given authority over the security situation. In some ways it almost seems as if there are some interesting energy power alliances behind the scenes that may be trying to isolate the House of Saud by drawing them into a trap in Syria or is the House of Saud is pursuing more calculated and nefarious deeds by isolating it’s own allies into convoluted quagmires with it’s adversaries and enemies.

Maybe Gaddafi was right, over the years he repeatedly told all of the Arab leaders that eventually they will all be deposed and replaced eventually, just like Saddam. It is probable that some of those leaders realized this threat existed, or quickly became aware with the prophetic demise of Gaddafi, and have been engaged in developing solid contingency plans for the stability of the most vital economic regions while destabilizing others in-between the regional economic hubs. This situation has the potential to close vital sea traffic between the Red Sea and Arabian Sea and if it accelerates quickly may well put the traffic thru the Persian Gulf at risk/mercy of counter measures since port and seaway blockades are typically dealt with with military means.

All of this will of coarse, allow the price of oil to rise. the problem is that the overall fuel savings did not provide any real measurable “spending the savings” injection into the economy. The price of fuel and energy went way up too fast and for far too long that it was a drain on the overall disposable income of everyone all along. We can now see what a negative effect the post economic crisis energy boom was really having. Considering actual inflation for necessities, Canadians have not seen any measurable savings in the retail, supply chain or transportation sectors due to the reduction in fuel costs, we know that any increases at the pumps, scales or meters will be felt hard by everyday Canadians.

The odd denominator is that even if we were still able to ignore the armed foreign factions, the peaceful anti-regime factions that were caught in the crossfire were all declared terrorists by some and/or liberators by others. Either way, with complete disregard to civilian casualties entire villages and communities are being bombed into ruins by their own government forces vs foreign funded mercenaries that are both engaged in scorched earth policies. Whomever keeps fighting for the most piles of rubble the longest, wins and eventual gains access to various economic aid and stimulus packages with the high interest portion of the debt shifted off as a Government obligation and the next to zero interest portion to the private interests

These facts along countless fronts and lines in-between sides and within context “paints” pretty much anyone and everyone as a hostile target, enemy and/or terrorist threat. It’s only a matter of time before someone/something of importance is downed and the tragedy and chaos that follows. It’s only a matter of time until some politico spouts off the wrong thing that lights the fuse.

Does any of this sound familiar? What about the “geographical” turf being disputed? Look at the “lines” and former boundaries of nations and empires after the tumultuous 1800’s that were drawn on paper pre-WWI. Look for connections to the competing oligarchs, moguls, robber-barons and profiteers that supported the pro-war expansionist parties and lobbies, some of the links still exist today.  and then follow whomever eventually held/holds the war debts of the winners and losers for more insight.

As in the past, the financial structure will be recalculated based upon the final holdings of the competing oligarchs and the division of power that will have afforded themselves. With these “rights” they will reserve the “right” to redraw secure trade routes, “lines” and boundaries in order to forcibly open new markets for some and close them to others. As far as Iraq is concerned, Harper advocated, without question, the deceptive 2003 strategy and subsequent invasion and destabilization of Iraq. Harper Loyalists and apologists ideologically accepted the potential for collateral damage and to this day are committed to pursing an opaque end goal of Middle East liberation and democratization, by hook or by crook. The plan is several years behind and like ll government projects, grossly over-budget and rife with corruption.

Has anyone considered that the “national” interests in Libya that Harper sent the Military to protect were none other than those of Canada’s former spy watchdog, Arthur Porter and other SNC Lavelin insiders? The timing of it all behind the backdrop of the “Arab Spring” that followed the financial “crisis” is rather intriguing. War provides a very effective duck, dust and cover opportunity for those with the inside power to wage war to their own benefit. It is also rather revealing how deep the plot(s) really are and how many of Harper’s current and past advisers and insiders have run amuck or gone rogue.

Moving back a bit to Ted Cruz and the upcoming Harper campaign, let’s ponder a few facts/fictions. The first point is that, in case anyone has not noticed, the far-right Ted Cruz will never win, period, but his “views” on Iraq/Syria, NATO and Ukraine will provide a nice background for Harper’s campaign with it’s shared agenda of instigating hostilities and division and discrediting honest questions, dialog and diplomatic/political compromise. His entry will serve to rally and kettle the far-right fringe groups into more manageable small subgroups that can/will be pigeonholed within the current North American Conservative/Republican base. They will, at least in the short term, be given maximum exposure followed by a carefully controlled rhetoric that mimics the views of the far-right in Canada. This is important because these are the far-right fringe groups that have felt betrayed by the Harper Regime. This propaganda tactic cements them into the Conservative caucus and this empowerment and coverage gives the formerly fractured fringe groups a vast illusion that they will ultimately benefit if victory is achieved, which will further radicalize them. This of coarse, will only radicalize and encourage other far-right-wing anti-elements to thrive. This sets the stage for the able, mobile and nimble enemy of the future to be created and fostered in much the same way as how, what was framed initially as an al Qaeda offshoot, IS/ISIL/ISIS has mystically conquered the Middle East. Strip out the foreign fighters and interventionists and one might be surprised that “We the People” know how to live side by side for the most part and what our regional and national interests are based upon facts on the ground, not dreaming and pondering of right-wing thinktanks.

To truly this perspective one must, at least partially, appreciate how intricate these apparatuses are linked, since this pro-war vs anti-war propaganda phenomenon has often been repeated. One only needs to look back to the pre-WWI era though the various national lenses, media presentations and political rhetoric compared to the rush into the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires and fiasco in Libya. Keep in mind that the declared military campaign was to be “over by Christmas” and lasted years beyond and effectively set the stage for the Stock Market Crash and WWII that set the stage for the Cold War, etc. Since most publications are/were heavily censored depending upon the “official” states of war in each of these cases, one does need to differentiate between the sell-side war players, the active-side war players and the instigating, agitating warmongering and escalation sided players. Combine those sides together and the un-holy trio radicalizes into an axis with the powers of the Wall Street insider syndicates behind them.

Is it possible to acquire a true cost vs benefit to overall society analysis that is not based upon the ideological zero-sum economy that transforms sovereign state wealth into publicly subsidized debt and then concentrates the usury proceeds to the upper percentile? When one considers the above it seems as if the governments of “sovereign on paper” Nations are really nothing more than fronts for various financial criminal cabals and those that require capital.

Until next time, we’ll leave you with the following press release that pretty much sums up the state of the “independent” and “free” press…

News Release Article from  Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Statement by Jean-Pierre Blais, Chairman and CEO of the CRTC, on journalistic independence

March 25, 2015 – Ottawa-Gatineau – Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

One of the pillars of Canada’s broadcasting system—and, in fact, of our country’s democracy—is that journalists are able to report news stories independently and without undue editorial interference. This principle, along with other fundamental journalistic values, is enshrined in the Code of Ethics that was developed by RTDNA Canada (The Association of Electronic Journalists).

Further to section 2(3) of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has been entrusted by Canadians, through Parliament, to defend the principles of fair comment, freedom of expression and journalistic independence.

That a regulated company does not like one of the CRTC’s rulings is one thing. The allegation, however, that the largest communication company in Canada is manipulating news coverage is disturbing. Holding a radio or television licence is a privilege that comes with important obligations that are in the public interest, especially in regards to high-quality news coverage and reporting.

An informed citizenry cannot be sacrificed for a company’s commercial interests. Canadians can only wonder how many times corporate interests may have been placed ahead of the fair and balanced news reporting they expect from their broadcasting system.

The RTNDA Code of Ethics is administered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Canada’s private broadcasters, including CTV, are members of this independent body and must adhere to its codes of conduct. Complaints about this matter should be directed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for investigation.

We expect Canada’s broadcasters to live up to their responsibilities and adhere to a high standard in their news and information programs.

– 30 –

Contacts

Follow us on Twitter: @CRTCeng

Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/crtceng

Media relations:
Tel.: 819-997-9403; Fax: 819-997-4245

General inquiries:
Tel.: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423; Fax: 819-994-0218
Toll-free No.: 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD – Toll-free No.: 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Ask a question or make a complaint

These documents are available in alternative format upon request.

source: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=955409


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): #Ukraine, #Iraq, #Censorship, #Propaganda and False Narratives #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp

Just when we thought the Harper Regime’s fear-mongering and war-profiteering propaganda had no “legitimate” counter narratives thanks to gaslighting media conglomerates, yellow journalists and cowardly controlled Oppositions, Friday the 13th presented a couple of rather odd surprises from the most unusual sources. Thanks to an attempted censorship of an article/video published/uploaded 12Mar2015 by the Voice of America (VOA), an article that seemingly flew under the radar via  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) published 08Mar2015 and another under the radar article via ABC News published 11Mar2015, we can actually present some facts about the situation in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria that may come to a surprise to many but unsurprising to others. One may begin to wonder who “We the People” should really be afraid of, who the enemy actually is and who should be incarcerated for life.

Sadly, this tri-fecta is not really good for the actual People of Ukraine nor Iraq nor Syria or here, but you can be assured that the People of Ukraine and Iraq and Syria, and their respective regions, their collective peace, prosperity, safety and security, are feeling the full brunt of this wonton military adventurism and they certainly will not forget these omissions and facts.  While our attention is being diverted every which way but loose, the Harper Regime and their foreign partners are taking full advantage of the ongoing distractions and fear-mongering while at the same time coordinating very similar draconian legislation, such as Bill C-51, to curtail the fundamental liberties of the collective citizenry and populous. Let’s face the facts, the Harper Regime is merely going along, to get along.

Below, we will present everyone with 3 articles that should concern everyone for multiple reasons. After you take the time to review them, ponder the wars that are being sold by way of deceptive propaganda techniques sand the flooding of vast regions with weapons and armaments. Then question the role that the “legitimate” media conglomerates playing to sell these foreign endevours as legitimate and necessary as well as the way that our elected politicians are turning a blind eye to certain facts to go along, to get along. Discuss them with your friends, political representatives and adversaries alike. Upon reflection, utilize some critical thinking skills and ask yourself and decide for yourself, Cui bono?

The first article is the most recent and the one that prompted this summary that should stir the debate about the situation in Ukraine, who is fighting who and why. The article/video from the VOA was censored within a day of being published for some odd reason. Since this one requires a bit of an introduction, we will present an embedded summary video, that may also be viewed via our ytube channel, followed by screengrabs of the pages and the content of the original article.

Censored VOA: In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels #cdnpoli

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Wid7I0tWk

12mar2015 VOA In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels Cached 12Mar2015 15:39:57 GMT
Cached 12Mar2015 15:39:57 GMT
VOA: In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels Cached 13Mar2015 Page Not Found
Retrieved: 13Mar2015 Page Not Found

In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels
Published March 12, 2015

After months of fighting in eastern Ukraine, the presence of the Ukrainian military and the shelling of civilian neighborhoods seem to be pushing more men to join the rebellion. VOA spent a day with a group of new recruits undergoing weapons and explosives training. Patrick Wells reports from Donetsk.

original: http://www.voanews.com/media/video/2677066.html
cached: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tU8tTSud0JMJ:http://www.voanews.com/media/video/2677066.html

This article should cause alarm bells to go off far and wide, considering the non-stop, wall to wall coverage of a single suspicious recently slain politician in Russia. Oddly the “international” community is loud with regards to one individual in Russia yet completely silent about several suspiciously dead individuals in Ukraine. Once again, Cui bono?

Suicide Or Homicide? In Ukraine, Old-Guard Officials Dying Mysteriously


Mykola Serhiyenko apparently shot himself dead with a hunting rifle.

By Marichka Naboka
March 08, 2015

This year Ukraine has seen a bizarre string of deaths involving high-ranking officials, including a ex-city mayor, a former railway executive, and the former head of the state body in charge of privatization.

A total of five officials died in a single 34-day period between January 28 and February 28. In each case, the deaths have been ruled probable suicides. But the victims’ political allegiances and job histories have led many in Ukraine to suspect that the men were in fact murdered:

January 26 — Mykola Serhiyenko, the former first deputy chief of the state-run Ukrainian Railways, died in his Kyiv home after apparently shooting himself with a registered hunting rifle.

Investigators said Serhiyenko, 57, was alone at the time of the tragedy, and that all of the flat’s doors and windows had been locked shut from the inside and showed no signs of tampering.

Serhiyenko, who worked with Ukrainian Railways from April 2010 to April 2014, had been appointed to the post by Mykola Azarov, the former prime minister under Viktor Yanukovych. Azarov and Yanukovych are both wanted by Interpol on charges including embezzlement and misappropriation.


Oleksiy Kolesnyk

January 29 — Oleksiy Kolesnyk, the former head of the Kharkiv regional government, died after apparently hanging himself.

Kolesnyk, 64, did not leave a suicide note, but media and investigators have hinted he may have killed himself, noting that his death took place on the birthday of his friend and fellow politician, former Kharkiv Governor and Party of Regions ideologue Yevhen Kushnaryov, who died in 2007 after being shot on a hunting expedition.

Kolesnyk began serving as chair of the Kharkiv Regional Council in 2002, but resigned prematurely in 2004.


Serhiy Walter

February 25 — The former mayor of the southeastern city of Melitopol, 57-year-old Serhiy Walter, reportedly hanged himself. A member of the Party of Regions who had served as the head of Melitopol since 2010, Walter had been dismissed from his post in 2013 and put on trial for abuse of power and ties to organized crime.

Walter was forced to attend some 145 hearings during his trial, with prosecutors calling for 14 years’ imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings, he insisted he was innocent. Walter was due to attend a new hearing on the day he died.


Oleksandr Bordyuh

February 26 — One day after Walter’s death, the body of the 47-year-old deputy chief of the Melitopol police, Oleksandr Bordyuh, was found in a garage. According to news reports, Bordyuh’s former boss was a lawyer involved in Walter’s trial.

Media reported that the cause of Bordyuh’s death was ruled a “hypertensive crisis,” or stroke — a term that police frequently use in instances of suicide. Additional details were not provided.


Mykhaylo Chechetov

February 28 — Mykhaylo Chechetov, the ex-deputy chairman of the Party of Regions faction in Ukraine’s parliament, died after jumping or falling out of the window of his 17th-story apartment.

The death came just days after Chechetov was arrested for fraud and abuse of office stemming from his two years at the helm of the powerful State Property Fund. (Chechetov posted bond to avoid being held in pretrial detention.)

Chechetov’s time at the property fund, from April 2003 to April 2005, marked one of the busiest periods of post-Soviet privatization, with the steel giant Kryvorizhstal among the cut-rate sales made during his tenure. The plant, notoriously, was sold to a group that included the son-in-law of former President Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Pinchuk, for just $850 million. (In October 2005, Viktor Yushchenko reversed the sale, reselling a 93-percent stake in the plant to Mittal Steel for $4.8 billion.)

Anton Herashchenko, a Popular Front lawmaker and adviser to the Interior Ministry, has speculated that Chechetov may have been driven to suicide by fellow old-guard members whose role in the deal stood to be exposed by his testimony. “It’s a shame we’ll never get to learn all of the interesting things we would have heard from Chechetov’s evidence,” he wrote on Facebook.

Chechetov isn’t the first head of the State Property Fund to die an unnatural death.

On August 27, 2014 the body of Valentina Semenyuk-Samsonenko was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, with a gun lying nearby. She led the agency from April 2005 to December 2008. Her family told reporters they dismissed the possibility of suicide, saying that she had spoken fearfully of someone taking out a contract on her life.

The third death of an official tied to Ukraine’s privatization took place even earlier. In May 1997, the head of the Crimean branch of the State Property Fund, Oleksiy Holovizin, was killed in the entryway of his house.

Lawmaker Ihor Lutsenko, a member of the new government’s anticorruption committee, wrote in Ukrainska Pravda that eliminating Property Fund chiefs makes it almost impossible to reverse corrupt privatization sales, like that of Kryvorizhstal.

“Semenyuk and Chechetov won’t be saying anything,” he wrote. “And that will cost us, the citizens of Ukraine, tens of billions of dollars.”

The recent string of deaths comes 10 years after two more resonant cases that followed closely on the heels of the Orange Revolution. Heorhiy Kirpa, transport minister under Kuchma, was found dead in late December, 2004. His death came two days after the rerun of the second round of presidential elections that handed Yushchenko the win over Yanukovych.

The following March, Kuchma’s former interior minister, Yuriy Kravchenko, died one day after being called as a witness in the resurrected case of slain journalist Heorhiy Gongadze.

Both deaths were officially ruled suicides — even though, in Kravchenko’s case, it had taken two gunshots to kill him.

Written in Prague by Daisy Sindelar based on reporting in Kyiv by Marichka Naboka

source: http://www.rferl.org/content/suicide-homicide-ukraine-officials/26888375.html

Now this article is the most troubling since it not only affects the credibility of the military interventions, but it also poses the greatest threat to our soldiers that are being deployed. make no mistake, if ABC News decided to run this story, it has already been widely disseminated abroad by so called enemies and allies alike. This is where the Harper Regime has sent our special forces to “train” Iraqi soldiers/miltia and where they want to deploy even more in an offensive capacity. It may be time to question this misguided mission before more flag draped coffins begin to arrive home. Does anyone really believe that those foreign funded mercenaries or our so called allies in Iraq/Syria can tell the difference between an American and Canadian? Once again, Cui bono?

‘Dirty Brigades’: US-Trained Iraqi Forces Investigated for War Crimes
Mar 11, 2015, 2:18 PM ET
By JAMES GORDON MEEK, BRIAN ROSS, RYM MOMTAZ and ALEX HOSENBALL

PHOTO: A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.

A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.

Obtained by ABC News

U.S.-trained and armed Iraqi military units, the key to the American strategy against ISIS, are under investigation for committing some of the same atrocities as the terror group, American and Iraqi officials told ABC News. Some Iraqi units have already been cut off from U.S. assistance over “credible” human rights violations, according to a senior military official on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.

The investigation, being conducted by the Iraqi government, was launched after officials were confronted with numerous allegations of “war crimes,” based in part on dozens of ghastly videos and still photos that appear to show uniformed soldiers from some of Iraq’s most elite units and militia members massacring civilians, torturing and executing prisoners, and displaying severed heads.

The videos and photos are part of a trove of disturbing images that ABC News discovered has been circulating within the dark corners of Iraqi social media since last summer. In some U.S. military and Iraqi circles, the Iraqi units and militias under scrutiny are referred to as the “dirty brigades.”

“As the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] and militias reclaim territory, their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL [ISIS] fighters,” said a statement to ABC News from the U.S. government. “If these allegations are confirmed, those found responsible must be held accountable.”


[In an image posted on Instagram, six black-uniformed men who appear to be Iraqi Special Operations Forces from the “Golden Brigades” surround an alleged ISIS suspect who has been dragged with a rope or cable tied to his foot.]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, along with international human rights advocates and military experts, called the photos evidence of Iraqi “war crimes.”

“I guarantee you ultimately we get blamed for it whether we did it or not,” Leahy predicted.

Under what is known as the Leahy Law, the U.S. is required to cut off funds to any foreign military unit when there is “credible evidence” of human rights violations. In Iraq the responsibility of determination falls to the Department of Defense. In recent Senate testimony, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed the Iraqi investigation had been ordered and said the Leahy Law applies to units operating alongside the many militias also fighting in Iraq against ISIS.

“I would say that involves the Leahy Law,” Leahy recently told ABC News after viewing the shocking imagery. “And I’d argue that we should be withholding money.”

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. already has. In a statement to ABC News, the Joint Staff official revealed that in the months since the U.S. began airstrikes and military assistance to Iraq last August, “We have withheld assistance from certain Iraqi units on the basis of credible information in the past. Due to the sensitive nature of our security assistance, we are unable to discuss specific units.”

In Washington today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers the U.S. military is keeping a close eye on the militias as well.

“What we are watching carefully is whether the militias — they call themselves the popular mobilization forces — whether when they recapture lost territory, whether they engage in acts of retribution and ethnic cleansing,” he said.

An Iraqi government spokesperson previously said while the dozens of photos could be ISIS propaganda, a full investigation was warranted.

“Yes, of course we will investigate these pictures,” the spokesperson, Gen. Saad Maan, said in an interview in Baghdad as he viewed a selection of images provided by ABC News.

“We don’t have anything to hide,” the general said. “We don’t have anything to be in, let’s say, in a black corner.”


[A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.]

The Iraqi military is key to the U.S. strategy to fight ISIS and stop its atrocities, which have outraged the world. The U.S. is shipping almost $1 billion in weapons, as well as providing U.S. military trainers to instruct new Iraqi recruits. A special operations official in Baghdad, however, said it’s the government of Iraq that decides — not the Pentagon — which Iraqi units get U.S.-donated weapons, such as 43,000 M4 rifles and thousands of other light infantry weapons Congress approved for shipment in December. American troops are not known to be operating on the ground in combat in Iraq or Syria. No Americans are shown in the images or footage ABC News has found, nor have any Americans been implicated in any of the alleged atrocities.

Officials from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who reviewed the library of horrors assembled in the ABC News investigation said it is rare to see so much visual evidence of human rights abuses.

“Usually when forces commit such crimes they try to hide them. What we are seeing here is a brazen, proud display of these terrible crimes,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Executive Director at Human Rights Watch, said in an interview as she and the group’s lead investigator in Iraq, Erin Evers, surveyed the carnage.

ABC News came upon the first such images last September, when a reporter following personal Instagram accounts of Iraqi counter-terrorism troops spotted a video of a handcuffed prisoner shot in the head by a man in camouflage — which more than 600 users “liked.” The English and Arabic captions by a self-identified member of the Iraqi security forces said, “We have arrested this terrorist yesterday and we killed him after completion of interrogation.”

A separate photo posted in September showed the severed head of a long-haired and bearded alleged ISIS fighter lashed to the grill of a U.S.-donated Humvee bearing an Iraqi Army license plate. A second related photo eventually surfaced of what appeared to be an Iraqi Army soldier holding up the same severed head next to the gun truck. Desecration of war dead and extrajudicial killings are violations of the Geneva Conventions.

“You don’t behead someone and place their head on the front of your Humvee. That’s unacceptable — because it’s a war crime. And it’s an atrocity,” retired U.S. Army Special Forces Lt. Col. James Gavrilis told ABC News.

As a senior officer in 5th Special Forces Group in Iraq a decade ago, Gavrilis was deeply involved in counterinsurgency during the U.S. war and creating Iraqi counter-terrorism units from Special Forces and special police teams.

“I think it’s horrible. I think this really shows a failure of our policy for Iraq,” Gavrilis said, confirming that the imagery looked authentic and too plentiful online to be faked.

“Both sides are committing war crimes,” he said. “This is widespread, it’s endemic.”


[A man wearing a uniform with a patch that appears to be from the Emergency Response Brigade steps on two severed heads in a photo posted on Instagram.]

In another video posted online in October, two unarmed civilians are shot to death after being questioned, and denying, whether they were part of ISIS. When the camera pans to one man with a gun, he appears to be wearing a uniform and shoulder patch of Iraqi Special Forces, with Iraqi Army officers also nearby observing the atrocity.

Fighters who appear to be a mix of militia and army appearing in a separate 78-second video circulating in January — including some wearing Iraqi flags and Iraqi Special Forces patches — take pictures of a captured teenaged boy who appears terrified. “Didn’t you just shoot?” demands one fighter. The handcuffed boy, shoved to the ground, insists, “No, no, I did not shoot a single bullet.”

The men argue over whether to kill him, some asking the others to calm down, but they shoot him to death anyway as the sound of mortars and gunfire nearby punctuate the crime. “This is to avenge the martyrs,” one man says.

“I’ve seen all sorts of horrible things over the years… but I have never seen anything this bad in my life,” said Ali Khedery, an American former diplomat in Baghdad who advised five U.S. ambassadors in the Iraqi capital and three generals overseeing Middle East operations at U.S. Central Command.

Khedery recently wrote in Foreign Policy about another video, where a man was beaten and machine gunned to death by a gang who appeared to be both militias and Iraqi Special Forces with U.S.-donated M4A1 rifles. He said the video slaughter of the Iraqis accused by their killers of smuggling weapons for ISIS was far worse, because Iraqi government troops were present.

“It was the shooting of unarmed men. This is a U.S.-backed government. They carried U.S. weapons,” he said.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities say they have been working to fully authenticate the content posted online on sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter connected to the Iraqi military. The uniforms and insignia of Iraqi Special Operations Forces under the command of Baghdad’s Counter-Terrorism Forces as well as special police and Emergency Response units from the Ministry of the Interior are clearly identifiable in many of the photos and videos, which include many severed heads and corpses dragged behind humvees.

Gen. Maan, the Iraqi government spokesperson, claimed the patches identifying Iraqi military units could be bought on Iraqi streets and that the gruesome images could be a clever ploy by ISIS to discredit the Iraqi military.


[The patches worn by the men in one of the photos posted to Instagram appear to match the patches of the Iraqi Emergency Response Brigade (E.R.B.), a counter-terrorism unit within the Ministry of Interior.]

“It does not look like ISIS propaganda at all,” Gavrilis said. “I don’t know how we could support them, if they are spearheading a lot on the front lines alongside these militias, and if they are conducting these kinds of atrocities as well… These Shi’a militias are just as barbaric as ISIS.”

Some militias take pride in their atrocities and appear to often be calling the shots on the battlefield, not the government forces, BloombergView columnist Eli Lake found when he recently visited the front lines north of Baghdad.

Officials said that the State Department’s human rights observers and military intelligence had viewed examples of Iraqi Security Forces posting atrocities on personal social media for over a year. But one knowledgeable U.S. official said that since ABC News began asking about the many disturbing images last fall, the atrocities allegations against Iraq’s fighting forces have grown “more severe” and the “very concerning” allegations are being raised at high levels in Baghdad.

The Pentagon spokesperson told ABC News the U.S. military has “discussed with Iraqi leaders the paramount importance of maintaining high standards of conduct and protecting civilian populations of all sects.”

“The actions of a small minority, if left unchecked, could do serious harm to the efforts of the Iraqi government,” the spokesperson said.

With several thousand American troops back in Iraq as trainers, the alleged atrocities by Iraqi troops puts U.S. military commanders in the unenviable position of having to sort out which units are clean or dirty, Gavrilis said.


[The severed head of an alleged ISIS fighter is being held up by a desert camouflage-uniformed individual in front of a Humvee in this image uploaded to Instagram. Patches on his uniform match those often worn by the Iraqi Army.]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights last month released a report on Iraq that both condemned ISIS for its campaign of killings verging on genocide, but also criticized Iraqi Security Forces for military operations that “which may have amounted to war crimes.”

Last March, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor also issued its own damning report on Iraq, stating that government officials under then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki committed “extrajudicial killings” — meaning battlefield executions of ISIS suspects and killing individuals in custody without trial.

“Ministry of Interior officials tortured detainees to death, according to reports from multiple government officials and human rights organizations,” read the annual report. The Bureau explicitly fingered the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Forces and Interior Ministry’s special police units — which the U.S. established, trained and armed from 2003-2011, and whose troops are seen in many of the atrocities images.

But the State report was issued before the U.S. began airstrikes in Iraq last August to assist security forces in successfully retaking the Mosul Dam, and long before President Obama deployed thousands of American infantrymen, special operations forces and enablers back into Iraq beginning last fall to assist the Iraqis in fighting ISIS. A new report is expected soon, officials said.

Now that the alleged war crimes of the U.S.-backed forces have become public, the Iraqi spokesman stressed that his government will not tolerate “bad behavior.”

Using the Arabic slang for ISIS, Gen. Maan said, “We do not allow any person to be a savage like Daesh.”

ABC News’ Divya Kumar, Cho Park, Rhonda Schwartz, Randy Kreider and Lee Ferran contributed to this report.

[A black uniformed individual holds the severed head of a purported Saudi ISIS fighter while standing on top of a black-painted Humvee. In the background, a man wears two patches signifying the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s Emergency Response Brigade.]

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/dirty-brigades-us-trained-iraqi-forces-investigated-war/story?id=29193253

Cui bono?

 

 


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): Ten + Reasons to Vote Against the Use of Military Force #cdnpoli #GPC #NDP #LPC #CPC

With the hyper-accelerations and unprecedented fear-mongering campaign being waged upon “We the People” of Canada and our “Allies” with regards to the “terrorist” threat posed by IS/ISIL/ISIS. With the recent tragic friendly-fire death of a Canadian soldier, the reports that an Agent employed by a Canadian intelligence organization was involved in the delivery of the 3 U.K. schoolgirls into Syria and the media blackout by the Canadian media conglomerates regarding the very important Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled “The President’s Request for Authorization to Use Force Against ISIS: Military and Diplomatic Efforts” (AUMF), we feel it is necessary to republish an open letter by former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich Members of Congress detailing 10 reasons to vote against the use of military force.

The reason this is of utmost importance is that the Harper Regime is hell-bent on furthering our military intervention and has thus far been less than transparent, actually rather deceptive and opaque, regarding our role in Iraq/Syria and beyond while the U.S. is proposing an initial 3 year open ended commitment. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, President Barack Obama’s proposed resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State contains no geographic limitations. The proposal allows attacks on “associated persons or forces” or any “closely related successor entity” to IS/ISIL/ISIS that is at war with the United States or its partners.

Yes, this is the very same Dennis Kucinich that announced the raising of the Al Qaeda flag over the courthouse in Benghazi in Libya back in November 2011 after the “successful liberation” of Libya by NATO air power. Oddly enough, the Canadian military predicted Libya would descend into civil war and Top Pentagon officials distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya as well.

We may also presume why John Baird has decided to “quit” the game of geo-poltics, maybe there was too much blood on his hands and realized that the fix is in within the Harper Regime. Now this is extremely problematic considering the rush by the war-mongering Harper Regime to ram Bill C-51 through and the implications of these combined issues. Within a few days we have several “Allies” that are publicly stating views that counter the narrative of not only the Harper Regime, but our so called “free and independent” media conglomerates. Unlike the coordinated one-sided Ukraine/Russia propaganda campaign, this poses such an interesting and convoluted conundrum that even the AP and Reuters can’t seem to deliver a straight storyline. This is presumably, much like the dueling Israel/Iran narrative, due to the fact that their dueling narratives reach a much broader audience on both sides of the false left/right paradigm with the single solid connection that there are a small group of fear-mongering war-profiteering NeoCons within both “official” political Parties, whether they may be Liberal/Democrats or Conservative/Republicans. Below this open letter, we will embed the above mentioned video uploaded by former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich along with another article titled “How Governments Twist Terrorism” since there seems to be no clear “definition” being presented by the Harper Regime with regards to Bill C-51 and the Harper Regime members of the Committee seem to have a serious problem asking questions of the witnesses and instead are presenting monologs to the witnesses.


Ten Reasons to Vote Against the Use of Military Force

Dear Colleague,

I was honored to serve in Congress for 16 years. During that time I provided information and helped to create debates over U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other nations, defending the Article I, Section 8 responsibilities of Congress on matters of war and peace. Those of you who know me are aware that I avoid partisanship. I have challenged Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Congress rightfully lacks confidence in this administration, given its bungling of a war against Libya and its general mishandling of international policy.

Why would Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, be so ready to give up its constitutional power to this president with an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which represents a wholesale appropriation of war power?

This could be one of the most important votes you will ever cast, so I want to share with you, collegially, information that I hope will be of use in your deliberations.

I present some thoughts for your consideration as you enter into a momentous, new debate over the authorization of military force, this time against the Islamic State.

This could be one of the most important votes you will ever cast, so I want to share with you, collegially, information that I hope will be of use in your deliberations.

Here are 10 reasons why Congress should not grant the president authority to use military force against the Islamic State, based on fact, consequences and the U.S. Constitution:

  1.  ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland.

Writing in The American Conservative, Senior Editor Daniel Larison points out that the U.S. is taking on an unnecessary risk:

“… the U.S. mistakenly volunteers to address a regional security problem that poses no real threat to America, [while] its regional partners do as little as they can get away with, and in some cases stop doing even that in order to get the U.S. to take additional risks on their behalf.”

If the U.S. enters the fray, of course, regional partners will let us do the fighting.

There is no credible information available that indicates ISIS is a direct threat to the U.S. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “Lawmakers Told Islamic State Isn’t Terror Threat on U.S. Soil,” Congress has already been advised by U.S. counterterrorism officials that ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland. Additionally, no new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been produced alleging ISIS is a direct threat to America. However, an all-out U.S. war against ISIS could expose America to unnecessary threats, without any national security benefits.

  1. The AUMF disingenuously calls for a “limited” war, while it is written to guarantee a permanent war, thus nullifying the power of the people’s representatives in Congress.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were vitally concerned with the separation of powers, especially when it came to war. The power to declare war is vested in the Congress, in Article I, Section 8. The AUMF is written to enable the administration to conduct war, unilaterally, against any group, anywhere, at any time, over a period of three years, which opposing combatants will ignore.

If the administration succeeds in gaining approval for this particular AUMF, it will not have to return to Congress for approval as it takes its war from nation to nation. This is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders. It weakens Congress’ constitutional power (checks and balances) and undermines the Constitution.

  1. The AUMF is a blank check and a fiscal black hole.

Since the AUMF sets the stage for a worldwide conflict, the cost of action will run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, particularly if ground troops are involved in a war with religious overtones that go back 14 centuries. This war will inevitably require an emergency wartime supplemental appropriation and massive borrowing, adding to the $16 trillion U.S. deficit and weakening the U.S. economy internally while providing great wealth to war profiteers who are already draining America’s wealth.

  1. Regional armies appear to be rising to their own defense; U.S. presence will escalate war.

At this very moment ISIS is finally under pressure from Iraqi forces and pro-government militias, without U.S. boots on the ground. Additionally, ISIS is said to be experiencing internal pressures and conflicts. The Washington Post points out: “The Islamic State is battling major offensives waged on at least three fronts — by Kurds in northern Syria, Kurds in northern Iraq and the combined force of Iraqi army and Shiite militia fighters advancing on the central Iraqi city of Tikrit.”

“…the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An [U.S.] invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide … they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims.” — Graeme Wood in the Atlantic Magazine, March 2015.

ISIS desperately needs to draw the U.S. in, to provide a rallying cry “against the foreign invader.” Why should America put our troops in harm’s way to provide this terrorist organization with new life, especially since armies in the region are stepping up to take the fight to ISIS?

In the AUMF, the president wants language that provides for U.S. ground forces to have “flexibility.” Read: “Boots on the ground!” If Congress passes the AUMF, it will have no say in the conduct of this war, except for appropriations.

  1. The U.S. could get drawn into a worldwide religious war.

President Obama says, “We are not at war against Islam.” Congressional approval of the president’s request for the AUMF against the Islamic State will change that quickly. The AUMF will become a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. How else will it be interpreted abroad, other than America at war with Islam? The U.S. could blunder into a complex, multidimensional conflict with explicit religious overtones, no matter what the president says.

ISIS wants to draw the U.S. into a religious war, to secure its role as the self-proclaimed defender of Islam against crusading foreign invaders.

Jihadis, anticipating a great war for Islam, have streamed into the region from all over the world to join ISIS ranks. An estimated 20,000 fighters from 90 nations have converged to fight alongside ISIS.

“This is a fight the Islamic State should be denied. And yet we should have learned that it is a bad idea to get into a ground war with people whose idea of victory is martyrdom.” — Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2015.

  1. ISIS and Al Qaeda are divided. US re-entry into war could unite them.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are in a deep rift. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri differ on strategy, tactics, methods, religious interpretations and on Baghdadi’s establishment of a caliphate.

An all-out U.S. military attack against ISIS will force Al Qaeda into an alliance it does not want, to join ISIS in a “fight against Western invaders,” creating a united front much stronger and more deadly to America and her allies.

  1. A Solution: Follow ISIS’ money, and shut it down.

Where is ISIS getting its money? Up to 100,000 ISIS fighters are funded by Gulf State donors, identified in the past as being from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Fully equipping and providing for one modern combat-ready soldier can cost $850,000 to $1,000,000 a year. ISIS’ army could be gaining $85 billion to $100 billion a year from various sources. We can either commit the U.S. military to another war, and the U.S. to further risk of impending attacks through the genesis of a new crusade, or we can fight this threat with intelligent power and high technology.

The administration must identify the specific sources of ISIS’ money, the individuals, the nations and the means of transfer, and shut them all down. It must sanction countries and individuals, tie up their bank accounts and commercial activities, freeze their assets and cancel their credit cards. Send platoons of accountants from the Treasury Department and the IRS into the fray, not platoons of U.S. soldiers. The U.S. must track oil sales, sales of antiquities and other valuables. Anyone involved in any transactions of any kind with ISIS must be identified and sanctioned.

  1. Solution: Cyber response.

The U.S. has the ability to identify and disrupt terror networks using digital technology. The CIA, in a major reorganization, has just created a fifth directorate, the Directorate of Digital Innovation, in recognition that intelligent power means using the most technologically advanced tools available. For its part, the NSA, which has admitted gaps, is also strengthening its information collecting. If, as Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” in the 21st century we  have other means to avoid a “boots on the ground” shooting war.

  1. Endless wars enable Washington to ignore a domestic agenda.

It has been said that others attack us in order to destroy the way we live. Since 9/11, our own government has been responsible for shredding the Constitution through wars of choice and the imposition of a national security state with a permanent state of emergency.

The U.S. now spends about $1 trillion a year to “defend” America using lethal means. Yet the more money we spend, the greater the peril. Why? Meanwhile, at home, America’s middle class is falling apart, wages and benefits have dropped, retirement savings have vanished and Wall Street and war profiteers clean up. Americans, punished through unwarranted, massive surveillance, have forfeited constitutional rights and civil liberties. The right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, has been destroyed in the name of security.

  1. The time has come for the U.S. to review the effects of interventionism.

ISIS grew out of U.S. interventions. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria have disintegrated into chaos and violence. The price tag has been extraordinary in loss of human life and the cost of trillions of dollars. Bad judgments, misinformation and even lies have caused our nation to intervene, inspiring radical elements, stoking the fires of nationalism and engendering religious conflict. A great price has been paid and continues to be paid by our troops and their families.

This is the time for Congress and the administration to rethink the failed national security strategy, the failed doctrine of intervention, the failed “right to protect” doctrine and the abominable intrusion into the private lives of Americans.

Congress must refuse to give up its constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 and hold the executive branch in check on matters of war. It should defeat the AUMF and stop the administration from spreading war around the world.

Congress has a new opportunity to get control of runaway spending and keep America strong without wasting resources. In my early years in Congress, I was shocked to learn, from the inspector general to the Department of Defense, that DOD had over $1 trillion in accounts that could not be reconciled. According to the GAO, the Army “lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.” The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires an accounting. With the national security budget at $1 trillion annually, and trillions spent for wars of choice, and a trillion unaccounted for, and countless billions in cost overruns, the question is who is defending the taxpayers?

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides a new opportunity for a much-needed debate over the direction of America, our priorities and the best way to protect our nation from harm. Thank you for considering my views.

Respectfully,

Dennis Kucinich
Member of Congress 1997 – 2013

source: http://www.kucinich.com/?_escaped_fragment_=10-Reasons-to-Vote-Against-the-Use-of-Military-Force/c1z12/5500a8330cf27b8ab26b528e
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/11/open-letter-to-members-congress-about-authorization-to-use-military-force/


Uploaded on Nov 2, 2011

Hi, Congressman Dennis Kucinich here. I just got off the phone with a very well-known talk show host from Cleveland, Mike Trivisonno, who told me about calls that he is getting from people who are concerned that there is an Al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi in Libya. It was put there by the same group that we helped to oust the Gaddafi regime.

What is going on in America? On the one hand, we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan fighting Al Qaeda. On the other hand, we just helped a group of people take over Libya and the Al Qaeda flag is flying over their capital city headquarters.

What are we doing? It is time for America to get its story and its priorities straight about what we stand for as a nation. Its time to get out of all these wars and all of these conflicts where we think we can play both sides against the middle and it usually ends up with U.S. soldiers getting killed.

Its time to bring our troops home and take care of things here at home. As we approach Veteran’s Day 2011, we should really honor those who serve by having a foreign policy that is straight. That speaks directly to the concerns of the American people. That is mindful of the fact that we can’t tell the whole world what to do and we have an obligation to get our own house in order here at home and put people back to work.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FQzhWy0VI


How Governments Twist Terrorism
By Philip Giraldi | March 12, 2015

States craft terror definitions and designations to absolve themselves and satisfy their constituencies.

The Washington Post reports that “terrorism trend lines are ‘worse than at any other point in history.’” But what is terrorism? It has frequently been pointed out that “terrorism” is a tactic, not an actual physical adversary, but it is less often noted that a simple definition of what constitutes terrorism is hardly universally accepted, while the designation itself is essentially political. The glib assertion that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter fails to capture the distinction’s consequences as the terror label itself increasingly comes with a number of legal and practical liabilities attached. Describing an organization as terroristic in order to discredit it has itself become a tactic, and one that sometimes has only limited connections to what the group in question actually believes or does.

The bone of contention in defining terrorism is where to draw the line in terms of the use of violence in furtherance of a political objective. In practice, it is generally accepted that state players who employ violence do so within a social framework that confers legitimacy, while nonstate players who use political violence are ipso facto terrorists, or at least susceptible to being tagged with that label, which confers upon them both illegitimacy and a particularly abhorrent criminality. But some on the receiving end of such a Manichean distinction object, noting that the laws defining terror are themselves drawn up by the governments and international organizations, which inevitably give themselves a pass in terms of their own potential liability. They would argue that established regimes will inevitably conspire to label their enemies terrorists to marginalize both resistance movements and internal dissent in such a way as to diminish the credibility of the groups that are so targeted. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently been doing precisely that, and one might reasonably argue that government use of violence is often in practice indistinguishable from the actions of nonstate players.

Some common dictionary definitions of terrorism include engaging in “the systematic use of terror,” surely an indication of the inscrutability of an issue when the word must be used to define itself. The United Nations has been unsuccessfully negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism since 2002 that would define terror as causing death or serious injury or destroying or damaging public or private property “to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”   The United States Federal criminal code uses similar language, as does the Patriot Act, with the key elements being the use of violence or physical destruction to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population or an existing government.

Governments are aware of what can be accomplished by invoking the word “terrorism.” The diplomacy-averse United States frequently hides behind the label, as it is prohibited by law from negotiating with groups so-labeled, and thereby avoids having to confront the possible legitimacy of what they represent. And it also justifies a uniformly violent response, which is invariably described as self-defense.

Fourteen years ago the “global war on terror” was used to justify wholesale American intervention in predominantly Muslim countries. A number of European countries, including France and Britain, have followed the example of the two Patriot Acts by introducing antiterrorism legislation that provides special police and intelligence service authorities that limit normal legal protections in terrorism cases. The broadly written laws have largely rendered the authorities immune from either regulation or prosecution, and governments in the West have generally been reluctant to allow any third-party inquiries into the related behavior of military and police forces. In the United States the state secret privilege, originally intended to prohibit the exposure of classified information in court, has been used to completely derail judicial proceedings relating to offenses allegedly committed by the government in terrorism cases.

And critics of the essentially hypocritical double standard used in defining terrorism certainly have a point. One might reasonably argue that the use of drones, in which “signature” targets are killed because they match a profile, fits comfortably within the definition of terrorism. During 2003-4, American Army and Marine forces in Fallujah sometimes shelled and bombed targets in the city indiscriminately and were certainly responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. The Israeli Defense Forces killed thousands of civilians in two incursions into Gaza as well as several attacks on Lebanon. There was no declaration of war to justify the use of armed force in either case, and independent observers noted that many of the civilian casualties could have been avoided, normally a defining factor that makes an incident terror. Both Israel and the United States turned the tables on the situation by referring to their opponents and victims as “terrorists.” There has been no accountability for the deaths because it was two governments that carried out the killing.

In a world seemingly obsessed with terrorism it was inevitable that something like an anti-terrorism industry would grow dramatically. Every television and radio network has its own stable of pundits who pontificate on every violent incident, and there also are well-compensated freelancers, who describe themselves as experts, such as Evan Kohlmann and Steve Emerson. Emerson recently had to apologize after claiming that Birmingham, England had a number of no-go areas controlled by local Muslim extremists.

It should be no surprise that lawyers have now also gotten into the game. In 1996 Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which allows victims of terrorism to file civil suits in federal and state courts against sponsors or supporters of terrorism. Once you have a group or individual labeled as terrorist, or providing assistance to terrorists, there are a number of options you can pursue. The burgeoning antiterrorism industry appears to be in some ways linked to the increasing employment of Lawfare, which uses the legal system to wage war by alternative means, making it possible to obtain a favorable judgment and damages from the assets of a recognized terrorist organization. Such litigation benefits from favorable legislation in the United States that makes terrorism a worldwide crime subject to U.S. judicial review.

Recent court cases have involved both states that allegedly sponsor terrorism or actual organizations that are now parts of governments that either currently or at one time were perceived to be terrorists. Many of the groups targeted are enemies of Israel, and the Israeli Lawfare center Shurat HaDin is most active in pursuing such litigation. In a recent case in New York City, the Palestinian Authority was successfully sued by a group of Israelis and Americans over terrorist attacks that took place in Israel in 2002-4. If the appeal fails, the Palestinian Authority will be required to pay $1 billion in damages and will be bankrupted, with negative consequences for the United States, which has been seeking to create a viable government on the West Bank.

The U.S. Department of State identifies four countries as state sponsors of terrorism, making them prime targets for sanctions and other legal action. They are Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Cuba is an anomaly as it has not threatened anyone in decades but remains on the list due to the deep passions within America’s politically powerful Cuban Lobby. Sudan likewise should not be so designated, as even the U.S. government admits that it is cooperative on terrorism issues.

This leaves Syria and Iran, both of which are regarded as state sponsors of terrorism even though both are themselves victims of terrorist attacks carried out by groups supported by the United States. They are on the list because they harbor or cooperate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All three groups consider themselves to be resistance movements against the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, but Israel regards all three as terrorists, a view shared by the United States on the state department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. That viewpoint is not necessarily shared by many European governments, which regard the organizations as having evolved into legitimate political parties. There are also thousands of individuals and groups considered to be terroristic or criminal, collected by the U.S. Department of Justice on its Special Designated Nationals List. Individuals and organizations on the list have their assets blocked and are subject to other punitive action by the United States government.

Being designated by the Department of the Treasury or state does not necessarily mean that someone or some organization was actually involved in terrorism. The Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity, was declared a terrorist organization in 2001. Its officers were convicted and imprisoned in a 2008 trial because the Treasury Department determined ex post facto that it had given money to Hamas before that group was itself named as a terrorist organization.

Inclusion on the State or Treasury lists can mean that there is solid evidence of wrongdoing, but it can also represent mere insinuations or a strong desire to see a group singled out for punishment. In any event, once a group or person is designated for a list, it is difficult to get off. Organizations that have not engaged in terrorist activity for many years remain on the list while other groups that are active escape censure. Recently, the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that killed six Americans in the 1970s, was removed from the list under political pressure from Congress and the media. Again, Israel was involved. MEK is an enemy of the current government in Tehran and is itself an important component of the Israeli intelligence effort against Iran, having been involved in the fabrication of information suggesting that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program as well as participating in the assassinations of Tehran’s scientists.

So what terrorism actually consists of very much depends on one’s perspective, rendering the word itself largely meaningless. But those who are listed as terrorists experience real consequences even accepting that the designation is both selectively applied and politicized. The United States and Israel in particular use the terrorism label to demonize opponents, drum up fear, and generate popular support for security policies that might otherwise be unpalatable. They also justify their own behavior by asserting that they occupy the moral high ground in the defense of the world against terror, a claim that certainly should be regarded with considerable skepticism.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-governments-twist-terrorism/

 

 


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): #Canada vs #C51 vs #CSIS vs #RCMP – #cdnpoli #pnpcbc

In our previous brief summary,  The Rise of the #NeoBolsheviks aka #NeoCons, we touched upon the various similarities between the Harper Regime and the Bolsheviks counter-revolution that violently seized power in Russia in 1917. For this brief summary we will pose a few questions and issues that seem to be missing from the current discourse, dissemination, conversation, reporting and debate about Bill C-51.

When will the Opposition and those opposed to the Orwellian and dystopian Bill C-51 mobilize in mass protests and how long will they remain committed?

Before we delve into the content, or lack thereof, we feel it is necessary to question the “Bread and Circuses” methods that are being utilized to “frame and mandate” the debate via the MSM and social media. The easiest way to present this is by utilizing our own CBC News coverage. At a later date we hop to present a summary that compiles the result of our in-depth analysis into how the CBC News and especially CBC’s Power and Politics, and to a lesser degree the Exchange, are nothing more than well organized and scripted “Limited Hangouts” that are engaging in a full spectrum “Gaslighting” operation against the citizenry that is being guided directly via the PMO. Not only are the hosts actively engaged but the supporting staff and reporters, guests, panelists, lobbyists and free-lance journalists are as well. This does nothing but cast a broad cloud of suspicion and call into question their own ethics and legitimacy. This harms our economy, society, peace, safety and security more than anything and everything else combined.

The short and simple overview is that the primary mandate is one that completely reinforces the PMO scripts and message about the geo-political and economic environment with a shrewd blend of “Yellow Journalism” and a tightly “Controlled Opposition” counter narrative when necessary, if at all. To observe this one only needs to inspect the language that is crafted within their coverage and articles and how “Sockpuppets” and carefully placed commentary divert the comments sections and social media discussions.

For the above to be addressed, we propose a few remedies that may open the debate and conversion. In our opinion, the collective Opposition and concerned backbenchers must, on behalf of all Canadians, demand a formal, immediate, open and transparent inquiry into how the PMO is utilizing tax-payer resources to contaminate and gaslight discussion and comment threads.

  1. Who are those being employed and who is actually accountable for the scripts and narrative?
  2. What are the costs vs benefits and implications vs opposition associated with these activities and what amount of resources are being utilized?
  3. When will there be an initial investigation and/or formal inquiry.
  4. Where are the message control operatives operating from, where are they being deployed?
  5. Why is there no public and/or Parliamentary scrutiny and/or oversight and why has this issue been allowed to fly under the radar for so long?
  6. How much is this actually costing, how can these practices be acceptable to anyone that is not in power and how will the results of any investigation be presented?

Moving forward to the Bill C-51 “Bread and Circuses” debate, keeping in mind that this is directly related and overlaps several narratives that converge the economy and security amongst others. These narratives are in full view and converging rather rapidly. We need to point out that this is by design and being controlled by a relatively small few that have the controlling stake within the Harper Regime itself, the segment that is completely protected from the implications and/or ramifications of Bill C-51 for various reasons.

Bill C-51, like all of the previous Omnibus Bills, many of which we have still not felt the ramifications of, is an extremely opaque, ill-conceived, bloated and convoluted piece of oppression. Just observe the smugness, arrogance, and self-absurdness of the Harper Regime and their Loyalists.

  1. Who ultimately controls the fear-mongering narrative surrounding Bill C-51 and who ultimately benefits other than the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists?
  2. What measures are in place to assure the legality the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists?
  3. When will the illegal terror propaganda being disseminated and propagated, fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists be investigated and prosecuted?
  4. Where are the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists being organized and are they legal?
  5. Why are the scripts, talking points, narrative and spin by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists surrounding Bill C-51 being endlessly regurgitated and why have the Opposition not formed, fostered, nutured and/or encouraged protests?
  6. How are the the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 being addressed and countered?

To move forward a bit, we also need to open the debate about expanding the powers of CSIS, especially intervention strategies, when they conflict with the RCMP and/or contaminate and/or corrupt active investigations by other law enforcement agencies. We know there are serious flaws with the U.S. with regards to the conflicting agendas of the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. When one or more agencies are directing resources in what amounts to turf wars, which take precedence and who reimburses the resources that were wasted.

We already have serious backlogs and deficiencies within our own systems and entities. The most troubling stem from the lack of adequate funding, manpower and resources across the board. These deficiencies have bogged down investigation, burdened the courts and crated an extremely insecure environment. Considering the lack of security within the various Government controlled Ministerial databases and web portals, one must ponder how these can be adequately addressed without proper funding and oversight. In short, the entire “system” is insecure and that places all Canadians at risk.

  1. Who will assure that the activities and expanded powers being proposed do not encourage a “spy vs spy” scenario playing out and who will assure the integrity of the investigations?
  2. What provision will be utilized to assure that there are absolutely no conflicts of interest between CSIS interventions and RCMP investigations along with covert foreign intelligence operatives/agencies operations and what steps are being taken to assure that the expansive inter-Ministerial data sharing system is secured and invulnerable to exploits and back door attacks?
  3. When will the public be allowed to address their concerns about the ramifications of entrapment and dragnet surveillance?
  4. Where are the provisions that address the activities of foreign intelligence operatives and agencies that are actively conducting their own independent operations in Canada?
  5. Why is the Harper Regime entitled to be given a blank check free pass to directly and indirectly seize complete control of Canada and the lives of Canadians at home and abroad?
  6. How can CSIS and the RCMP assure Canadians that rogue agents within their own ranks or the ranks of Government are identified and eliminated as potential threats to our collective safety and security?

In addition to the above questions and concerns we need to be very mindful of the potential long term effects regarding Bill C-51 especially the budgetary implications. We presume that, based upon the previous failed budgets, that none of the programs and/or operations will be allocated adequately. This presumption is based upon several key components and the inadequate funding that are associated with the unbroken string of failed budgets by the Harper Regime and taking into consideration that the across the board austerity cuts have yet to actually fully be realized nor have they borne any positive results.

We realize that Bill C-51 is the most opaque, broad sweeping, dangerous and un-democratic Trojan Horse legislation ever proposed by the Harper Regime. We also realize that the language about “economic” security is even more opaque. What we take great issue with is the way in which the likes of the oppressive Regimes of Egypt, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are glorified as proponents of liberty, freedom, democracy, peace, safety, security and prosperity with regards to the funding of ongoing terrorist activities in Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East and North Africa, while other less oppressive regimes are demonized, targeted and sanctioned.

Contrary to the published punditry, we realize that while the Harper Regime insists that the provisions contained within Bill C-51 is not a treat to legitimate forms of dissent and/or protests, past experiences and practices employing agent provocateurs by policing agents at the Montebello SPP Summit in 2007, the kettling, arrests and mass detention of “legal” protesters at the Toronto G8/G20 while suspected agent provocateurs went unattained, the various attacks and anti-protest legislation passed nationwide, but specifically against Quebec students and the storm trooping of the Occupy protests.

In other words, since the foreign funded bloodless coup d’état by Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance cabal over the past decade that brought them to power, virtually all forms of opposition, legitimate dissent and legal protests have either been co-opted, infiltrated by agent provocateurs, faced threats and intimidation, been financially sanctioned, silenced, censored, slandered and discredited.

Most of all and probably of utmost importance, protests to the actions and inactions of the Harper Regime have been either declared illegal, disallowed and/or severely limited by way of legislation and/or by-laws.

If we were to foresee “who” Bill C-51 is targeting. Based upon the militarism and foreign adventurism trend by the Harper Regime and their failed attempts to become actively involved and deploy forces into the 2003 GW Bush fraudulent WMD War upon Iraq that was blocked by “We the People”, anti-war advocates, activists and protesters are the intended targets. All of the others that are already on Harper’s Hit List are just gravy on the potatoes and frosting on the cake.

Now, keeping in mind that the Harper Regime actually sent officials to stand by those protesters at the Ukrainian Maidan and supported, advocated and encouraged the overthrow of an corrupt albeit elected Regime, not to mention their active involvement into the affairs of Libya and Syria, both of which are mired in foreign funded civil wars, that directly fostered the foreign funded “barbaric terrorists” of today, the only real questions that remain are really simple:

  1. Who benefits from the Harper Regime’s opaque agenda and mandate?
  2. What is the true agenda the Harper Regime’s Loyalist and supporters?
  3. Where is this mass suppression and surveillance data accumulation by the the Harper Regime ultimately headed?
  4. When will the will of “We the People” be heard and acknowledged by the Harper Regime?
  5. Why does the Harper Regime fear and refuse to address questions and concerns?
  6. How far will the Harper Regime go in their quest of full spectrum domination of Canada and Canadians?

Wake up, smell the coffee and face the cold hard facts, this may well be the last time Canadians will ever be able to protest anything that is not sanctioned by the Regime that controls the Parliament and Government of the day.

 

 


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

What is the #Harper Delegation to #Ukraine hiding from #cdnpoli? #CPC #GPC #NDP #LPC

We would like to probe and issue that will most surely have dire consequences regarding the escalating situation in Ukraine. For this summary article we will purposely exclude the propaganda that is being repeated by virtually all of the msm outlets and conglomerates as they are readily available elsewhere and more than likely already embedded into your subconscious via the unrelenting narrative. Instead we will take this opportunity to explore the darker information that has been hidden in plain sight all along.

We believe that this seemingly purposeful commission is the most troubling aspect of the Regime’s delegation that is completely outta touch with reality as the history and run up to WW1 and WW2 has shown us, it only takes one useful idiot and some carefully crafted propaganda to spark a war of epic proportions and collapse the entire global economy as well as millions of lives that are lost, displaced and impoverished for generations. Typically politicians are usually self-serving dupes serving the interests of globalist investors that hide behind the scenes as advisers.

It is also worth noting that, as far as we are concerned, the entire Harper Party along with the Opposition Party’s and all of the msm conglomerates are either intentionally and/or conveniently following the narratives from “both” sides, ignoring and/or simply ignorant of the facts on the ground as well as history and/or willingly complicit and/or being truly opportunistic capitalists by purposely suggesting that this is a battle between the “democratic” EU and the “repressive” Kremlin in this violent uprising. More simply the msm keeps reporting this as a battle being waged by Putin’s Russia to prevent Ukraine’s “integration” into the EU. If so, the Right Sector that is controlling the ground in Ukraine is having none of that as they are against any integration into either side of the equation.

Below are 5 points to ponder and as you review the information below and keep in mind that the leader of the Right Sector was also fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan at the same time that Osama bin Laden’s Muhajahadeen, predecessors to the modern day al Qaeda, were fighting the Soviets. This would seem rather important considering the seemingly never-ending and long lasting implications that the multi-trillion dollar “War on Terror” has brought forth, not to mention the countless lives and casualties of innocent civilians caught in the chaos and destruction as well as the thousands upon thousands of affected Military personnel that thought they were fighting for our collective freedom.

  • Why is the Harper Regime playing partisan games with the Ukraine issues and what are they hiding besides the neo-nazi fascist Svoboda Party and the paramilitary Right Sector’s involvement?
  • Is this simply another attempt at pandering for votes like the 9 figure pilgrimage to Israel or is something more sinister at play?
  • Why is the focus of the msm being shifted to Crimea exclusively, with daytime images, propaganda and video being repeated, and away from the radically right-wing controlled Maidan in Kiev, with nighttime images and video being repeated?
  • Why is there such an absence of any reporting from any of the other regions in a rather large and diverse country?
  • Will these unseen events eventually lead to perpetual civil wars that will spill across all borders in all nations or simply be isolated with Ukraine?

Below are several interviews that should be read, re-read and shared to really understand some of the underlying powers structures now that the Ukraine vacuum has been created. Keep in mind that this is essentially the “militia” that now controls the security services for all intents and purposes…

Interview with Dmytro Yarosh, Leader of Right Sector

7 Feb 2014

YaroshUkrains’ka Pravda, 4 February 2014, 15:59

Dmytro Yarosh, Leader of Right Sector: When 80% of the Country Does Not Support the Regime, There Can’t be a Civil War

An Interview by Mustafa Nayyem and Oksana Kovalenko (Translated from Ukrainian by William Risch)

Dmytro Yarosh, leader of Right Sector, has been the least well-known figure over the past two months. Just two weeks ago, only a narrow circle of people involved with organizing the Euromaidan even knew about the very existence of the Sector and Yarosh. Today, it’s impossible not to describe events in Kyiv without mentioning Right Sector.

On January 19, after events on Hrushevskyi Street started, world media exploded with fiery scenes of young guys with Molotov cocktails and masks over their faces. Right Sector’s actions tore the term “peaceful protest” to pieces, but at the same time, Right Sector forced the regime to listen to the Maidan and repeal the January 16 laws.

The headquarters of this still informal group is on the fifth floor of the Trade Unions’ Building. Photography is forbidden in the hallway, numerous matresses are spread on the floor, next to which, besides wood and metal sticks, lay textbooks – most of Right Sector’s members are young guys of university age.

We met Dmytro Yarosh in one of the floor’s offices – two by three meters – where Right Sector press conferences usually take place. Here, too, is the fully-equipped office for the sector’s leader. Three guys with walkie-talkies, dressed in camouflage, with masks over their heads, man the office’s “reception room.”

THEY CALL ME A HAWK IN TRIDENT

What is your personal story, and what have you done with your life?

I am leader of the all-Ukrainian organization, Stepan Bandera Trident. I have been involved in public life for the past 25 years. I’m from Dniprodzerzhyns’k, in the Dnipropetrovs’k Oblast’ (Region). I raised the first blue-and-yellow flag in April 1989 in Dniprodzerzhyns’k.

I was one of the founders of the People’s Movement of Ukraine (Rukh). I was a member of the Ukrainian Helsinki Union; in 1989 I received recommendations (to join it) from Levko Luk’ianenko and Stepan Khmara in Moscow, on the Arbat, where we picketed then for the renewal of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s activities. Since 1994, as a founder of the Stepan Bandera Trident, I have had various positions in it: first as leader of Trident’s city structure, then as leader of its oblast’ structure, then its regional one, and so on.

I was commander of the organization from 1996 to 1999, then I was chief inspector of Trident, then I became commander of the organization again, then I passed on my duties as chief commander to my successor, Andriy Stempits’kyi. I’ve actually spent a lifetime in this. I have been trained as an instructor of Ukrainian language and literature, and in 2001, I finished the Drohobych Pedagogical University in the Philological Faculty.

How did Right Sector emerge?

There was a big protest in Kyiv on November 24-25 because of the decision to cancel the Eurointegration program. In general, Trident is not an active supporter of any integration processes, but we announced that we would create Right Sector as a platform for coordinating the actions of various revolutionary-oriented groups, because to a considerable degree, from the very beginning, we were perfectly aware that we couldn’t live in the system of state structures that has existed up to now.

Right Sector fully emerged after the events of November 30, when we went out to protest on Mykhailivs’kyi Square.

It was there that we started training and getting our defenses ready. Then we were at the Maidan all the time, and we entered the Maidan’s self-defense force. Other organizations that entered Right Sector were Trident, UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defense), and Carpathian Sich from the Subcarpathians.

Have you conducted training before?

Yes, for 20 years. We already have a lot of generations who have been changed by it. My kids were small at one time, and now my daughter is 20 years old, and she’s spent her whole life in Trident.

Trident is an organization with narrow operations, like an order of knights. We have three specific tasks: propagandizing the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism as interpreted by Stepan Bandera; raising up Ukrainian youth in a spirit of patriotism; and national defense activity, that is, defending the honor and dignity of the Ukrainian nation in all forms by all methods and means available.

In general, Ukrainian nationalism and Banderites are not narrow-minded plebs with sadistic tendencies; these are intellectuals, people who write, who publish, who are involved not just in using force. Trident is an organization that produces certain ideas.

We are not a political party. In Trident, we’re even forbidden from taking state jobs.

Serhiy Kvit, President of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, is among Trident’s well-known members. He’s my good friend and comrade. At one time, he was a sotnyk in our organization. There’s also Petro Ivanyshyn, a doctor of philology, head of an academic department at the Drohobych Pedagogical University, who was also a sotnyk.

Where exactly do these training sessions take place?

At camps throughout Ukraine: Dnipropetrovs’k, Dniprodzerzhyns’k, Kryvyi Rih, Pavlohrad, Nikopol’ and so on. Guys get together, and they have their plan of activities for a month, for half a year, for a year. They go through training and lessons. They conduct various events aimed at the de-communization and decolonization of Ukraine.

I think you’ve heard about events from 2011, when our mobile group blew up the head of Stalin’s bust in Zaporizhzhia; that was a rather notorious thing.

We never made PR out of it. We simply do what is for our nation’s good, for our state’s good. Those of us who can do it close down drug dealerships and help law-enforcement organs (if you can call them that, because it seems to me that the police are the most active drug dealers).

Was what happened on January 19 on Hrushevs’kyi Street something planned in advance?

No, of course not. We were always on the front lines those two months. The dictatorship laws that were passed January 16 were the stimulous for these events. We couldn’t live under state rules like those. On January 19, Automaidan activists drove up, and they wanted to go to the Supreme Rada and picket it. Right Sector came up there in organized fashion when hundreds of people were already there.

We tried to talk with the police and get them to agree to let us through. They responded rather aggressively. And what happened next, you know – we committed active deeds, and our guys defended the people. And I think that what happened was very good, because if it hadn’t been for those events on the nineteenth, I don’t think the regime would have made concessions and negotiate with the opposition.

How many of your people are at the Maidan?

Around 1,500 people, along with a mobilization reserve from Kyiv. But right now, affiliates are emerging all over Ukraine. They are organizing on their own, they call themselves Right Sector, and we are working to coordinate their activities as much as possible.

How many people in general can you mobilize across the country?

I think that for now, we can already mobilize 4,000 – 5,000 people.

How do you finance your organization?

I am not involved in that issue, but it’s all financed by people. We even opened up bank cards, but they were blocked right away. And after January 19 – there’s just been a flood of help. We need everything, because we’ve been here for two months already. People bring packs of money. We keep a complete account, everything is transparent, and guys buy equipment with the money.

Tell us about your organization’s structure.

The structure will be completely finalized after these events. Right now, Right Sector is a completely orderly organization; it’s not at all an extremist one, or a radical one; in general, I don’t like the word “radical.” Right now there is a unit on the Maidan, there are units in the oblasts, and there are spontaneous groups that have emerged. We invite leaders, we talk with them, we look to see if these are decent people, and then we make decisions about them. Right now we have started coordinating our actions with those of Afghan War veterans, too. They haven’t officially entered Right Sector, but we now coordinate our activities with them completely, because I don’t bring guys together just like that.

How do you make decisions?

There are strategic decisions, there are emergency ones, and there are tactical ones. People themselves make them at all levels. Regarding strategic matters, we discuss this or that problem with a leadership group of up to 12 people, including me, and we make a decision. And all the commanders decide all the other things. For example, we have Iranian – he makes a decision in his group whether or not to send people to the barricades.

Iranian? Is he from Iran?

No, that’s just his pseudonym. All the guys have pseudonyms for obvious reasons, because we live in such a state system. For example, since 1994, I have had the code name Hawk (Iastrub) in Trident. And we have one Pylypach and one Letun. Everyone chooses his own name, just like in the Cossack Sich.

AFTER JANUARY 19, NOT A SINGLE OPPOSITION LEADER CAME UP TO SEE OUR GUYS

Do you coordinate your activities with opposition forces?

First of all, we have relations with Andriy Parubiy as Maidan commander and de-facto leader of Self Defense (Samooborona), which we formally belong to as the 23rd hundredth (sotnia), though we have over 1,500 people.

But if you talk about the entire opposition, for the most part, we have no relations with them at all. They don’t recognize our existence. It seems to me that this is a big mistake of the opposition, that they don’t consider the forces of the Afghan veterans, Right Sector, or even Self Defense.

It seems to me that even Andriy Parubiy doesn’t have such an easy time coordinating actions with the trio of opposition leaders. Because I see some of the remarks that they make there. Andriy says one thing, while the leaders say something slightly different.

For example, I’m surprised that after January 19, opposition leaders didn’t come upstairs and thank the guys. Approach people, talk with them. These are live people, and they’re good, too.

Yesterday, a television crew came by, and the cameraman said, “I was surprised. One guy was reading a textbook on materials’ resistance, while the other was fluent in English and was speaking with some foreigner. You have such great guys!”

Well, it’s true. They’re the flower of the nation. These are people who right now are sacrificing their lives and their freedom for the sake of the Fatherland. This is something else, but politicians close their eyes to it.

Though there was Vitaliy Klychko – I met with him twice, and we had absolutely normal conversations. However, the opposition often fulfills part of our demands, because they are perfectly aware of our presence, and they see that Right Sector is a certain factor to be reckoned with on the Maidan.

But didn’t you try to contact them for the sake of coordinating activities?

We had no direct contacts. I had the impression from the very start of the peaceful Maidan that they operated very much on impulse, not on a system of actions thought through. They didn’t even set up a unified headquarters. From the very beginning, we called for unity at the Maidan so that there would be no divisions between politicians, Civic Sector, and Right Sector. In all interviews I’ve had, I’ve stressed that the uprising must be unified, and that I don’t want to provoke responses from the opposition.

But everything has its limits. When the country faced a real threat of war, great distrust of opposition leaders surfaced on the Maidan. They just talked for two months. Even though they had been given a mandate – “Take it, decide things!” – they couldn’t do anything. On January 19, we went on the offensive, and they started doing something. Well, we’ll keep putting pressure on them.

As far as we understand, the Freedom (Svoboda) Party is closest to you in ideological views…

Yes. We have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions, but there are big differences. For instance, I don’t understand certain racist things they share, I absolutely don’t accept them. A Belarusian died for Ukraine, and an Armenian from Dnipropetrovs’k died for Ukraine. They are much greater comrades of mine than any, sorry, Communist cattle like Symonenko, who play for Russia but are ethnic Ukrainians.

Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions.

Social nationalism is very complicated for me, because it is my belief that nationalism does not require anything extra; it is enough. Oleh (Tiahnybok – Ukrains’ka Pravda), too, has lately tried to go the way of traditional nationalism. Thank God. Although there isn’t much of a point talking about ideological discussions during a revolution. Finally, our guys stand at the barricades just like guys from Svoboda. This unites us.

People from the regime say that during negotiations, opposition leaders claimed that people were ready to leave administrative buildings if those arrested and prosecuted were released. Is this true?

I think the regime lied. I think that the opposition didn’t say any such thing. Before the amnesty law was voted on, we made clear our position, and it was like the same thing the opposition had said. That is, if the regime made a compromise and passed the law for a so-called amnesty drafted by the opposition, then Right Sector was ready to withdraw its fighters from Hrushevs’kyi Street and unblock the street. This would be a reasonable compromise.

This doesn’t cancel out our political demands. We must change the country at another level. The Maidan is only a Sich (a Cossack military and administrative center – WR), a training ground, but it’s not about constant fighting.

Your opponents would reply that you were the first ones to open fire and go on an all-out offensive…

No, no, no! Excuse me, Berkut special forces beat children on the Maidan on November 30, 2013. For two months, people stood at the Maidan and took no action. Then came the regime’s usual provocation – passing the laws of January 16. They started beating activists, kidnapping people. Look what they’ve done with the Automaidan.

They were the very ones who provoked this situation, and people went on the attack, because people couldn’t take it anymore. How much longer could you stand there and dance on the Maidan? We’re not sheep, Ukrainians must have some pride, and they showed that Ukrainians do have pride.

What do you think, why did Right Sector have to show up for this, why didn’t the opposition do it?

Because Right Sector is the Maidan’s most revolutionary structure. Let me emphasize: revolutionary, and not radical. Revolution is reason, a plan, action. When the people are in an uproar, you can’t avoid using this situation for the people’s own benefit. The opposition, unfortunately, is incapable of doing this, maybe because their seats in parliament are very soft and they can’t take decisive steps. We can take such a step.

Have you spoken with the opposition about this?

I’m telling you, we have no contact with them. I’ll stress it again – I am for unifying the opposition movement, the one involved in protests and in the general uprising. Thus, any explanation I give will wind up being used against me. They’ll start yelling that I’m a provocateur. If you want my honest opinion, I don’t care what they say about me. Our difference is that I’m not interested in political ratings.

Right now, representatives of opposition parties are taking part in negotiations with the regime. What do you think, can these people take responsibility for the Maidan’s actions and give some guarantees on its behalf?

That’s the problem; the Maidan doesn’t control the negotiations process. The levels of trust opposition leaders had at the beginning and now are completely different.

We demand that not only opposition leaders be in the negotiations, but also representatives from the Maidan. At least as observers. Then you can offer some guarantees and at least articulate here, to people on the Maidan, that we have this agreement reached between the regime and the opposition, and it should be carried out.

Because otherwise, there’s the impression that they agree on one thing, and then they change something among themselves, and then the result turns out to be completely different.

Our goal now is to force the opposition to go back to negotiations with specific demands and achieve a certain compromise. But this absolutely must happen with Maidan representatives.

Those Afghan veterans or Andriy Parubiy as self-defense commander can be in the negotiating group. If they invite me, I’ll go. We see nothing awful in this. We can argue our position and compel both the regime and the opposition to make an agreement, so that there will be no bloodshed, and so that the state will take different actions. I’m ready to go negotiate for this.

Let’s make this simpler. Imagine that you are in negotiations, and Viktor Yanukovych is sitting across from you. What arguments would you use to convince him to change his actions?

I would seek a compromise. I would put pressure on him, though I know he wouldn’t like that very much. I’m not sure that Yanukovych is getting reliable information. It seems to me that he has some inadequate understanding of the situation. For example, I think he doesn’t understand that 80% of the people right now do not trust the regime. I think that his advisors are giving him slightly different figures and are showing him different scenarios from the real ones.

First, I’d start out by saying that he can’t fight his own people. No one yet has defeated his own people. I would explain that those things that law enforcement are doing is a real war against Ukrainians. Second, and this is very important – I would try to explain to him that those thousands of self-defense forces that have already been formed will not give Berkut or riot police an easy time clearing the Maidan and pass through it in parade fashion.

They don’t understand that the Maidan is a phenomenon with its own army, with its own medical services, with its own structures, and that it’s already a certain state. And they won’t be able to take it over without shedding a lot of blood.

It’s already impossible to drive it away with clubs. They’ll have to use weapons, real ones, not like the ones they use on Hrushevs’kyi Street. And they’ll really get it from us, that I can guarantee Viktor Yanukovych.

All right, but what do you want? So you tell Viktor Fedorovych (Yanukvoych) that the situation is like this. What next?

A precondition for any negotiations must be the freeing of all those arrested. These people aren’t terrorists and they aren’t extremists. I think you even know some of those people. They are absolutely normal, decent people who got fed up. People should be freed. Any talk about normalizing the situation can only happen after this.

Second, the regime should stop using force. In the regions, above all. Stop kidnapping activists. This is terror against one’s own people.

They must immediately start investigating crimes that have taken place on the streets. Berkut special forces couldn’t have been shooting without the knowledge of the Minister of Internal Affairs. It’s a military structure; there has to be discipline there, a clear sense of subordination. If they were provocations, then we need to find out who was doing the shooting. Give people information, don’t be silent, don’t close your eyes to what has been going on.

Yanukovych indeed has fulfilled several of our demands regarding the government’s resignation and the repeal of the laws of January 16. But changing an existing office to another that has the prefix “v.o.” (“acting” – translator) doesn’t solve any problems.

We need to form a compromise government that could be made up of people who are not leaders of political parties, but professionals. Moreover, all those odious figures – all the Zakharchenkos, the Tabachnyks, and other politicians like them – should be replaced. This is the first step they would need to make, and it would remove the tensions immediately.

Who do you see heading the Cabinet of Ministers?

I can’t say, because I’m not an expert at forming governments. Politicians should talk about that.

But when you don’t have your own proposals, you take away all responsibility from yourself and remove yourself from political developments.

For 25 years, I’ve avoided public politics. That’s not a problem for me. Although now, we are looking into the possibility that, if there will be peace, Right Sector will grow into a political organization. All the guys have said this. For God’s sake! We can always get involved in politics. For me, they’re the flower of the nation, and they can’t be cannon fodder people use and then forget. But it’s still too early to talk about anything specific. Right Sector today can’t be narrowed down to some political matters.

But that’s exactly what it looks like right now – you’re being used: you’re standing at the barricades, while they offer government posts to Arseniy Iatseniuk and Vitaliy Klychko.

The fact is that the life of the state and the life of our people aren’t limited to a sole Cabinet of Ministers. Let them take those positions. If they invite us to help, we will. We’ll take over law enforcement, and we’ll bring order in the state. But I doubt that we’ll get even just one office.

WE WILL HAVE OUR OWN CANDIDATE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

What will you propose to Viktor Yanukovych if the revolution is victorious?

It depends on him. Some time ago, we gave him 24 hours to leave the country, and no one would touch him. Today, if he made a smart decision, we could even grant him safety in his own state. Just so there would be no war, so there would be no bloodshed. Let him stay in Mezhyhir’ia, take care of his ostriches, and no one would bother him there. But that has to be his decision.

Do you see yourself in some office?

Right now, no. I have a really good office right now – I’m leader of Trident. It’s easier for me to speak in front of members in formation, not onstage.

But that’s not an office that can change the country. What would you do in a time of peace?

If you want peace, get ready for war. We started Right Sector, and Right Sector has changed the country a little. During peace, I would continue being involved in Trident. Like I’d been doing for the last twenty years.

You understand, Trident is not a structure that has an unequivocal goal of setting up some armed conflict. No. Any kind of normal state must have state paramilitary structures that prepare youth for service in the army, which gives it a chance to mobilize a certain personnel reserve for defending the people’s interest in times of foreign or domestic peril. It’s a normal thing in most civilized countries of the world. Trident will always be relevant. Even if we have the best president and the best government.

Do you have any information regarding who’s kidnapping people?

Unfortunately, we don’t. We are trying to dig this information up, but we’ve had no luck so far. We ask the regime to activate law enforcement, its Security Service (Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU – WR), so that all investigation teams are employed in this search. Finally, [the SBU] is not as compromised in all these events as the MVS (Ministry of Internal Affairs) is. But there’s been nothing so far.

So you sincerely trust regime structures to investigate this issue?

I’m not certain that the regime is guilty of these crimes. I don’t rule out foreign special services being responsible for this. For example, the FSB (Federal Security Service). Russia always makes use of instability in Ukraine. As soon as there is instability in Ukraine, they come over here and deal with certain issues they have. Putin has said more than once that Ukraine is not a state. And I am more than convinced that up to the present, there have been plans for splitting Ukraine up into two or three, or five, or six zones of influence.

But Right Sector and its activities have been called a destabilizing factor.

It seems to me that it’s the opposite – over the last few months Right Sector has shown that it is a stabilizing factor. If it hadn’t been for Right Sector, there wouldn’t have been any negotiations, radical moods would have increased, and they would have exploded in regions as partisan warfare. Why doesn’t anyone think about that?

As for now, the situation anyway is under control, and it it is now at some negotiating stage. If they don’t reach an agreement, the risk of partisan warfare in Ukraine will sharply increase. We know Ukrainians have a very glorious tradition of waging partisan warfare. They’ve fought for decades. Only will this be useful for the state?

But aren’t you afraid that a partisan war could grow into a civil war?

There can be no civil war. When 80% of the people do not support the regime, it will be a struggle between society, the people, and the regime. And these two things make great differences between a civil war and what we are talking about. This will be a national liberation war. But we’d rather not have one. We have a state, we have a foundation for developing nation building and state building.

But a lot of people in eastern Ukraine sincerely believe that Banderites and nationalists are gathered here, and they are really convinced that they must fight this. What should we do with these people?

According to the information I have, this is a very small percentage of people. I myself am from the Dnipropetrovs’k Oblast’, and I completely understand the situation. These are mostly people working for hire. You saw the events near the Dnipropetrovs’k Oblast’ Administration building. There, local (Party of) Regions deputy Stupak for a year and a half got scumbags together and formed fight clubs and guard structures that, together with the police, out of “conviction” defend the Oblast’ Administration.

Did you see at least one normal citizen among those defenders of the administration building who went out there voluntarily? Or in the Crimea itself, they’ve set up units of hatted Cossacks, chauvinists, who form Black Hundreds and defend the regime. But where are the masses of people? Besides that, Crimean Tatars are completely on the side of the Euromaidan. So none of this is simple.

If you’d speak with people in the East, they’d say the same thing about the Maidan: that there is a very small percentage of sincere supporters, and that the majority are hired nationalists. Both you and they have very similar rhetoric, which in the end is very unlikely to produce a compromise.

Let’s consider some examples. The Party of Regions tried to set up an Anti-Maidan by bringing in people from all over Ukraine. Who actually has been standing there? It’s either really asocial elements or state employees and recipients of state aid who simply were forced to come. I spoke with a whole bunch of such people, and when I yelled out, “Get out, crook!” (Zeka het’!), they waved and laughed. It’s a myth that there’s some social support for Yanukovych and his regime.

The soccer ultras all over Ukraine, the ones who supported the Maidan, are clear examples of this. These are people with real ideas, from Luhans’k Zoria, Simferopil’ Tavriia, Zaporizhzhia Metalurh, Dnipropetrovs’k Dnipro, Kharkiv Metalist, and so on. How many times did Dopa and Hepa (Mykhailo Dobkin, governor of the Kharkiv Oblast’, and Hennadiy Kernes, mayor of Kharkiv – WR) try to gather those hired thugs and send them here to Kyiv, and they haven’t been able to do it. What support can you talk about? This idea about a split in the country is a big lie. There is no split. Yanukovych, bless his heart, united the country.

All the time there’s been this call made at the Maidan to the three opposition leaders to make a decision on a single candidate. Do you support this call?

It doesn’t seem that relevant because you more often hear calls to make decisions with Maidan leaders. The leaders of the resistance which is going on. The importance of presidential elections for people has gone down to second or third place.

During presidential elections – early or regularly scheduled ones – what will be your strategy: will you support someone, or will you run on your own?

We don’t rule out Right Sector nominating its own candidate for elections. But it’s still too early to talk about this.

So you sincerely believe that a candidate from Right Sector has a chance at winning across the country?

If you took at reality, there is always a chance for it. Right Sector became an all-Ukrainian phenomenon in a few weeks. It’s Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovs’k, Donets’k, the Crimea. On the other hand, presidential elections can bring quite a bit of attention to our ideas of revolutionary changes for the state.

Aren’t you afraid that your electoral campaign could divide up the opposition’s electorate and lead to you being blamed for causing a split?

Listen, let this process finish, and then we’ll see what’s going on and how things are going. Fairy tales about fragmenting one’s forces, which they tell each other, is some kind of child’s play. They all know that they’re running as three separate candidates, thus breaking up forces from the very beginning.

Either you sit down and make a real agreement and fulfill what you’d agreed to do, or each should play his own game. For us, at this stage, it’s not that important to take part in presidential elections. We need peace.

The fact is that there are people who talk a lot and do little, while there are people who act and demonstrate with their sweat and blood that they can change things, that they can act, that they can achieve a result.

Right Sector is a platform for guys who have demonstrated their ability to change something, to sacrifice the gifts they have received to achieve something higher. Politicians in recent years have not demonstrated this. I don’t see them having demonstrated this kind of sacrifice, the desire and the ability to sacrifice.

So who for you is the leader of the resistance?

There is no one for now. I made an announcement that I was ready to bear responsibility for all those things that happened. This doesn’t mean that I have some presidential ambitions. I simply see that there needs to be complete coordination and control over the situation. Let politicians settle those issues for themselves. If one of them is ready to do it, then let him do it, and we will sincerely support him. But I don’t see anyone doing this.

RIGHT SECTOR DOESN’T FIGHT WITH FAMILIES

Are you aware of the fact that if you are defeated, or even if there is a compromise between the regime and the opposition, a jail cell might be waiting for you?

Yes, of course. I’ve been ready for it for the past 25 years. What can you do? That’s life. I go there but for the grace of God. What will be, will be. If there will be a criminal case, then there will be a criminal case. I am ready to fight for Ukraine. Let them try to put me in jail. Finally, we’ve yet to see who will imprison whom.

Have you been given a police summons?

No. I live here, what do I need a summons for? They don’t deliver them to the Maidan, and guys don’t let cops enter the fifth floor.

But something could happen before you’re even arrested. You could face the fate of Ihor Lutsenko or Dmytro Bulatov…

I know in whose name I’m waging this struggle. Of course, I don’t want that, I’m a living human being, and I have the instinct of self-preservation. But guys are protecting me, they go around with me, and they wear armored flak jackets.

Do you go outside the Maidan in general?

I’m rarely outside it. I won’t tell you where I go.

What is happening with your family right now?

I last saw my family for Christmas. They’re in Ukraine, but I’ve temporarily changed their residence. The fact is that all information about our addresses has been posted on the Internet, and about our families, so there is a certain danger.

But there’s also the very same information on the Internet about Berkut forces, for instance. Can you give guarantees to all law enforcement and regime officials that nothing threatens their families?

I can guarantee that Right Sector in no way will touch any child, or any family, of any law enforcement personnel, from any structure. Right Sector doesn’t fight women and children. We are not beasts from Berkut who beat up journalists and medical personnel. So you don’t have to worry – no one will be taking any actions like those. I can vouch for Right Sector.

But you still set an ultimatum… you have this demand for the Fourth (of February): either you release everyone, or there will be… Can you say what this is about? Why exactly the Fourth?

The Fourth of February is the next session of parliament. We demand that the Supreme Rada produce a document announcing the unconditional and complete freeing and rehabilitation of people arrested. And this is no amnesty, because there were no crimes committed.

We also demand the regime end any use of force – this would be kidnappings, burning cars, and so on. I think that they will listen to us. I am 90 percent certain that they will listen to us.

Otherwise, we are on the edge of a bloody conflict. I don’t rule out that people who are standing on the Maidan will conduct a very serious mobilization and go to the government offices district. And they will take it – and I am more than convinced of this – though it will be with blood, with great losses. Because we’ve been left with a pathological situation. Then all of them will be taken out: both the regime guards and Yanukovych. That’s why it’s better for them to reach an agreement with us.

Do you understand that even what you just said now can be used against you?

Yes, of course. It’s a revolution. There are two sides of the barricades – it’s a basic fact. Right now everything is being used either against us or against them.

Do you select in some way people who come to you? Do they go through some selection process?

Without a doubt. We are signing up volunteers all the time, especially during some active campaigns. Regarding criteria, you need to talk directly to the commanders. They work with people. I know exactly that they don’t take in people who are under age. Because they run in packs at age 15-16.

Do you issue people weapons (that is, ones that are not firearms)?

They show up on their own with either some baseball bats or with some sticks. We don’t equip them with them. As for the money that we get from people, we use that to buy all kinds of little shields, helmets, shields, a very big arsenal of all that stuff. They get all the necessary equipment, and then they have lessons with them.

If a person is in poor physical health, then he or she gets other work – in the kitchen, in the medical station, and so on. Our girls are great, simply great; they’ve done so much good already. They even took away the wounded during fighting, and they help us here all the time.

Regarding firearms, you called on people to bring them to the Maidan. Why have you done that?

When the MVS issued an order allowing use of firearms against people, I called on people who had legally registered firearms to join us, to create a group for supporting us with firearms in case they came to the Maidan and started shooting. I think that you can only return fire, because there are no other alternatives. But that’s only if they open fire first.

Has this unit been created?

That’s a secret, sorry.

Who has all the information that is now at Right Sector? There is a person who knows everything.

No one knows everything. The political leadership has the information.

How do you coordinate your actions? It’s not a secret that all telephone conversations are listened in on, how do you do it?

Regarding messengers and go-betweens, all the guys have walkie-talkies, but they also monitor them, and we know that. I get the impression that they have listening devices installed in all the buildings around us. Operational vehicles are in place and so on. By the way, I don’t regard guys sitting in them as enemies or something like that. They’re doing their job, and they have to do it.

Moreover, I am more than convinced that in law enforcement structures, attitudes toward the regime, the opposition, and the Maidan are very, very ambiguous. Some of them hate us, but that’s a small percentage. Others are sympathetic toward us, because we also have been conducting certain negotiations with law enforcement personnel. Guys come to us and talk. The regime is falling apart. You just need to put enough pressure on it so that they take those political steps.

There are two barricades on Hrushevs’kyi Street. Do you talk at all with Berkut forces? Do you bring them warm tea or coffee? I know that there used to be such initiatives.

I don’t know if we bring them right now. Earlier, when they blocked us in at the Maidan itself, we gave them food. I was against this, not because these cops, these guys, are not friends. They’re also Ukrainians, they simply are on the other side of the barricades. They serve the enemy. But it’s not worth doing. The more they are driven crazy by not getting enough food and so on, the less chances there are that they will go on the offensive and on the attack, and begin beating people like they’ve done several times. Thus, out of purely pragmatic reasons, I don’t think that we should bring them sandwiches or coffee.

source: http://seansrussiablog.org/2014/02/07/interview-dmytro-yarosh-leader-right-sector/


Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group Talks Revolution With TIME

Simon Shuster / Kiev @shustry
Feb. 4, 2014

Dmitro Yarosh, the leader of Pravy Sektor, a coalition of ultra-nationalist groups in Ukraine, stands with some of his fighters at the scene of the worst clashes last month between the group's fighters and police in Kiev.
Dmitro Yarosh, the leader of Pravy Sektor, a coalition of ultra-nationalist groups in Ukraine, stands with some of his fighters at the scene of the worst clashes last month between the group’s fighters and police in Kiev. Maxim Dondyuk

In his first interview with foreign media, Dmitro Yarosh, leader of the far-right militant group Pravy Sektor, says he and his antigovernment cohorts in Kiev are ready for armed struggle

Take the smell of an army barracks, add a bit of char and gasoline, and you’d have a rough idea of the air on the fifth floor of the House of Trade Unions, the headquarters of the revolution in Ukraine. When protesters first occupied the building in December, their leaders divvied up its floors among the political parties and activists involved in the revolt. Since then, the only floor off-limits to journalists has been the fifth, which houses the militant arm of the revolution, Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), the coalition of right-wing radicals that grew out of the uprising. They had good reason to avoid publicity. After their violent clashes with police last month, their members could face years in prison if the ruling government survives the revolt.

But on Sunday night, their leader Dmitro Yarosh agreed to give his first interview to a foreign media outlet. It was not so much an act of vanity as a political coming-out. He has clearly grown tired of being the movement’s anonymous enforcer. In recent days, as a negotiated end to the crisis has started coming into view, the need for a military wing of the revolution has diminished. And so has the trust in its upper ranks. The mainstream opposition leaders, like the former world boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, have faced growing pressure to distance themselves from Pravy Sektor, which the U.S. State Department has condemned for “inflaming conditions on the streets.” Increasingly marginalized, the group has grown much more assertive and, in some ways, has started going rogue.

In his interview with TIME, Yarosh, whose militant brand of nationalism rejects all foreign influence over Ukrainian affairs, revealed for the first time that Pravy Sektor has amassed a lethal arsenal of weapons. He declined to say exactly how many guns they have. “It is enough,” he says, “to defend all of Ukraine from the internal occupiers” — by which he means the ruling government — and to carry on the revolution if negotiations with that government break down.

But so far, those negotiations have been making significant strides toward resolving the crisis. On Tuesday, the parliament began debating a sweeping reform of the constitution, while allies of President Viktor Yanukovych suggested for the first time that he is ready to consider early elections. Both moves would mark a major breakthrough. But Yarosh, watching from the sidelines, has begun to doubt whether the negotiators have the interests of his men at heart. “This whole peaceful song and dance, the standing around, the negotiations, none of it has brought real change.” Dozens of his men, he says, remain behind bars after their street battles against police two weeks ago.

With that in mind, Yarosh and another militant faction began a parallel set of negotiations over the weekend. On Monday, they claimed to be in direct talks with Ukraine’s police forces to secure the release of jailed protesters, including members of Pravy Sektor. Mainstream opposition leaders said they had not authorized any such talks. At the same time, Yarosh has demanded a seat at the negotiating table with the President. Once again, he was flatly denied. His ideology, it seems, is just too toxic to let him in the room.

But neither can Klitschko and his fellow politicians easily sever their ties with Pravy Sektor. The group serves some of the uprising’s most essential functions. Its fighters control the barricades around the protest camp in the center of Ukraine’s capital, and when riot police have tried to tear it down, they have been on the front lines beating them back with clubs, rocks, Molotov cocktails and even a few catapults, in the mold of siege engines of the Middle Ages. Around the country, its fighters have helped seize government headquarters in more than a dozen cities. “Pravy Sektor has proved its loyalty to the ideals of freedom,” Yarosh says. “Now we needed to present this movement as a source of leadership.”

In any kind of fair election, that would be nearly impossible. Pravy Sektor’s ideology borders on fascism, and it enjoys support only from Ukraine’s most hard-line nationalists, a group too small to secure them a place in parliament. But taking part in the democratic process is not part of Yarosh’s strategy. “We are not politicians,” he says in his office, a pack of Lucky Strikes and a walkie-talkie on the table in front of him, while a sentry in a black ski mask and bulletproof vest stands by the door. “We are soldiers of the national revolution.” His entire adult life has been spent waiting for such a revolution to “steer the country in a new direction, one that would make it truly strong, not dependent on either the West or the East.”

Through all his years in the nationalist movement, Yarosh, a 42-year-old father of three, says he has never had any form of occupation apart from his activism. The son of two factory workers, he was born and raised in a provincial town in eastern Ukraine, and became involved in the nationalist underground in the late 1980s, just as the Soviet Union was disintegrating. Nearly all of the satellite states of the USSR, from the Baltics to Central Asia, were then pushing to break away from Moscow’s control, and in 1988, Yarosh joined one of the more radical groups fighting for an independent Ukraine.

The following autumn, months after the Soviet Union pulled its troops out of Afghanistan, Yarosh was drafted into the Red Army, a common form of punishment for political activists at the time. He was stationed briefly in Belarus before being transferred to Siberia, where he served as a guard at strategic missile sites. The Soviet doctrines of unity between Russia and Ukraine did little to soften his views. “If anything, the army made me more convinced that my path is correct,” he says. When Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Yarosh went on hunger strike to demand a transfer to the newly established Ukrainian army. His commanding officers ignored him.

In 1994, a few years after he was discharged and returned to Ukraine, he joined a right-wing organization called Trizub (Trident), and slowly climbed its ranks before assuming leadership in 2005. Along with several other far-right groups, Trizub formed the core of Pravy Sektor when the current uprising broke out in Ukraine two months ago. Its main adversary has always been Russia, although it also has little patience for Western influence on Ukraine. “For all the years of Ukraine’s independence, Russia has pursued a systematic, targeted policy of subjugation toward Ukraine,” Yarosh says. “So of course we will prepare for a conflict with them,” he adds, especially after Russia’s recent invasion of another one of its former satellites, Georgia. “If they stick their faces here like they did in Georgia in 2008, they’ll get it in the teeth.”

So far, his jabs at the leaders of the opposition in Ukraine have not been quite as pointed. He has accused them of vanity and ineffectiveness, but he has also observed the truce they called a week and a half ago to allow their negotiations to proceed. “Not a single Molotov cocktail has gone flying since then,” he says proudly. “A truce is a truce. They want to negotiate, let them negotiate.” But as Yarosh realizes, he and his men have staked a great deal on the outcome of these talks.

If the ruling government holds on to power, Pravy Sektor could be forced to take the blame for the violence that left dozens of police officers in the hospital two weeks ago. “All those criminal charges are already waiting in the prosecutor’s office,” he says. On the other hand, if the opposition forms a new government, they are not likely to carve out a place for Yarosh and his men in the halls of power. So it is no surprise that he has begun to show some political initiative.

For the past two decades, he has been waiting and preparing for the start of the “national revolution,” and now that he finds himself at the head of its armed division, he does not seem ready to let it pass peacefully away, at least not on anyone else’s terms. “People have gotten in touch with us from around the country, saying, ‘Guys, don’t let us down. Take us to victory, to independence, if the other leaders are incapable of that,’” Yarosh says. “So if the time has come for an active struggle, I am ready to carry it to the end. I am not afraid of that responsibility. I see no reason to hide my face.”

source: http://time.com/4493/ukraine-dmitri-yarosh-kiev/


Dmitry Yarosh, the Man Who Claims Victory in the Ukrainian Revolution, Speaks

By / March 12, 2014 4:33 PM EDT

3.12_Ukraine
A leader of a once obscure right wing group is now at the center of a geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States David Mdzinarishvili/Reuters

Newsweek spoke with Dmirtry Yarosh, 42, a leader of the once obscure right wing group that is now at the  center of a geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States

Q: Is it true that you have been training Right Sector forces for over 20 years?

A: I was training paramilitary troops for almost 25 years. Although we just came out of the revolution, my guys are continuing military training all across Ukraine, ready to cleanse the country of the occupiers.

Q: How many are you?

A: I cannot give you the exact number, as our structure and divisions are constantly growing all over Ukraine, but over 10,000 people for sure. We have certain preconditions for our recruits: patriotism and other criteria for proper behavior.

Q: Are you aware that a Moscow court is trying you for calling for terrorist actions against Russia?

A: That is Putin’s idea. He is a political corpse.

Q: Do you have many war veterans in your ranks? Are your forces a part of Ukraine’s army?

A: As soon as Russia declared the war we recruited retired officers, generals of the interior ministry and security agencies. We are coordinating our actions with the council of the National Security and Defense, as well as with the army’s General Headquarters. We are currently negotiating to put our forces on a proper legal footing.

Q: If the Crimea population decides to become a part of Russia at the referendum on Saturday, what will be Right Sector’s reaction?

A: Right Sector, together with all other Ukrainian citizens, are ready to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity by all possible means. In case the Kremlin decides to attack us, they will have a major partisan war on  Ukraine territory.

Q: Do you think Ukraine has enough forces to defend itself?

A: I am realistic about the pitiful conditions of our military forces, including Right Sector. Our army is many hundreds of times weaker than Russia’s army so it’s important for Ukraine to do everything to resolve the crisis through negotiations.

Q: Why do you call your organization paramilitary? are you armed just with Kalashnikov’s or do you also have more serious weapons?

A: As in any army, we have specialists trained to shoot S-300 missiles. In case of a partisan war, there  will be shooting from every house.

Q: Do you realize that the majority of Russians including cultural and intellectual leaders support Putin’s actions in Crimea because they see you as a leader of a fascist, radical movement? Are you ready to become the reason for the end of years of Russian-Ukrainian friendship?

A: Unfortunately, Russia is largely brainwashed. Ukrainian nationalists have nothing to do with fascism. The powerful Russian propaganda machine knows what it’s doing. The beliefs of Right Sector are against chauvinism. We base our views on nationalist ideas. The proof is that 40 per cent of our members speak Russian; Jews and other nationals feel comfortable in our forces.

Q: What then makes your movement “Right”?

A: We believe Ukraine deserves to have its own national state. That is what makes our movement “Right.”

Q: Was your book “Nation and Revolution” — where you defined your movement’s enemies as the Russian Federation and the Russian Orthodox Church — a prediction of “the liberating war” of the Ukrainian nation?

A: The book is a collection of my articles that was criticized when it first came out. But now we see that it predicted many events that have now happened. I would advise Russian citizens to start their struggle against Putin’s fascist regime. That would be the best guarantee of friendship between Russian and the Ukrainian people. So long as Putin is in power, Russian imperialism will always be putting improper pressure upon Ukraine.

Q: Why do you refer to the Russian president, who enjoys high popularity ratings, as a “fascist”?

A: Putin built up his power by fascistic methods. He ignored the constitutional rights of Russian citizens. In Russia, police beat up those taking part in mass protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg. That smells of fascist methods to me. They arrest protesters carrying anti-war signs. That is fascism.

Q: It is broadly believed in Ukraine that the revolution would not have happened without Right Sector. What kind of revolution was it?

A: We had a nationalist revolution to create a state where Ukrainian people would be the master of their own destiny in their own land. Until now, we have had an occupying regime. We’ll do everything to give our people full freedom, justice and a share of the nation’s wealth.

Q: Your men are all over the center of Kiev. Why do you and your men wear black uniforms?

A: This is not an official uniform. We bought uniforms sold to security guards. I have taken professional advice about strengthening our security. We have been given information that some Russian forces are interested in kidnapping, arresting or liquidating me.

Q: Who  is it that is shooting on the Maidan every night?

A: That is not my people. My men never use their weapons unless there is a specific need.

Q: You are running for president. What special attributes do you have that qualify you to be a politician? Do you think you have a chance to win the presidential election?

A: I graduated from university, specializing in Ukrainian language and literature. I never intended to be a politician. But since January 19 this year, I have been responsible for all the events. We have seen two miracles happen already: politicians have not betrayed the revolutionary spirit of the Maidan; and we won the revolution. I expect one more miracle  to take place at the presidential election.

Q: Did your movement support Chechen insurgencies in Russia?

A: We supported the first Chechen war against Russian empire. We sent a delegation to Chechnya. We helped treat the Chechen wounded here. And we publish Chechen books.

Q: Did you really call for Islamic insurgencies to support Ukraine in the war against Russia? Did any of your men meet with the Chechen insurgency leader Doku Umarov?

A: I didn’t say that. I am not sure. When we were helping Chechnia, Doku Umarov was just an ordinary field commander. We are not supporters of the Islamist war against defenseless women and children.

Q: Yesterday, Ukraine’s former president Victor Yanukovych said the new leadership is going to raise Bandera flag that is considered fascist in Russia.  Is that true?

A:  We stood under red and black flags throughout the revolution. Red Ukrainian blood spilled on the black Ukrainian earth –  that flag is the symbol of the national revolution. I am convinced that this flag will bring us freedom.

Q: Who finances you? Do you think the West is going to support Ukraine?

A: As a matter of principle l do not take money from oligarchs as we do not want to be dependent. We received some US dollars from the Ukrainian Diaspora. Otherwise the entire country supports the Right Sector.

I am sure that if Russians bombed Kiev — and we believe there is 50/50 chance that will happen — NATO will not come to fight for Ukraine. Europe has betrayed Ukraine many times. We are not counting on them. We can only count on our own forces and our ingenuity.

source: http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/28/exclusive-dmitry-yarosh-man-who-launched-ukrainian.html


In Ukraine, New Government Must Reassure Jewish Community

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Posted: 02/28/2014 2:35 pm EST Updated: 02/28/2014 2:59 pm EST

The Ukrainian Jewish community is nervous. The ultra-nationalist Svoboda party, with its history of anti-Semitism and platform of ethnic nationalism, won more than 10 percent of the vote in October 2012, shared the political leadership of the Maidan revolution over the past months, and just this week received three ministries in the new Ukrainian government.

While Svoboda’s leaders have refrained recently from making anti-Semitic statements, it is troubling that Oleksandr Sych, Svoboda’s chief ideologue, was named vice prime minister. Sych’s speeches over the years have focused on promoting Ukrainian nationalism, which he says is exemplified by Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. Bandera was at times aligned with the Nazis during World War II and was complicit in mass killings of Jews and Poles by Ukrainian partisans.

Sych has also said that Ukrainian nationalism is threatened both by “the Communist Russian regime and liberal Europe.” How ironic that he was brought to power by a revolution sparked by former President Viktor Yanukovych’s sudden refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union.

Interestingly, the armed nationalist groups that fought on the Maidan against government troops and police have made important gestures toward the Jewish community this week.

Dmitro Yarosh, leader of Right Sector, met with Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine, Reuven Din El, and told him that their movement rejects anti-Semitism and xenophobia and will not tolerate it. He said their goals were a democratic Ukraine, transparent government, ending corruption, and equal opportunity for all ethnic groups.

The day before, Ukrainian Jewish journalist Eleonora Groisman interviewed Sergei Mischenko, the leader of “Spilna Sprava,” and told him that Ukraine’s Jews were worried about the nationalists. Mischenko responded that Jews will not have any problems and shouldn’t worry. He went on to say, “On the Maidan there were Jews with us who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. We got along excellently and fought shoulder to shoulder.”

In November 2013, not long before the anti-Yanukovych protests began, ADL honored Metropolitan Archbishop Andrei Sheptytsky, a spiritual leader of Ukrainian Catholics who headed the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from 1900 until his death in 1944. Metropolitan Sheptytsky was posthumously awarded ADL’s Jan Karski Courage to Care Award for his undaunted heroism in saving Jews from the Holocaust.

After lauding Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s actions, I said:

I want to make one last point, regarding the situation today in Ukraine. There is a strong and growing Ukrainian nationalist movement. It faces a choice of role models: the Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera, who declared an independent Ukrainian state on June 30, 1941 in Lviv, when the Nazis drove out the Soviet army, and the next day began murdering Jews. Or it can be inspired by the Ukrainian nationalist Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky, who wrote on July 1, the day after the state was declared, that the new government should exercise – quote — “wise, just leadership and measures that would take into consideration the needs and welfare of all citizens who inhabit our land, without regard to what faith, nationality, or social stratum they belong.” The Ukrainian nationalism of Andrei Sheptytsky, one of compassion, even love, for his Jewish neighbors, is one that Jews around the world can embrace and support. And we ask all who are inspired by the Metropolitan’s actions and words to help oppose the destructive Banderite strain.

Will Vice Prime Minister Sych renounce Bandera and embrace Europe? Will Svoboda accept Jews as full-fledged Ukrainians and follow the welcome assurances of the armed nationalists? Or will the promises of Right Sector and Spilna Sprava be overtaken by the ethnic nationalism of Svoboda?

Meanwhile, security is being upgraded at Jewish institutions. Over the past several weeks, two Jews in Kiev were violently attacked and Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in Zaporozhe. Some Jewish leaders have even raised the possibility of a mass exodus from Ukraine.

The future of the Ukrainian Jewish community could depend on the choices made by Svoboda and the actions of Ukraine’s democratic leaders.

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, together with UDAR leader Vitaliy Klichko, brought Svoboda into the opposition coalition in 2012. Now, having brought Svoboda into the government, it is up to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to ensure that anti-Semitism is not tolerated and that democratic norms are adhered to. By sending that message to the people of Ukraine now, the prime minister will reassure the Jewish community and set an admirable example.

Guiding Ukraine’s nationalists to adopt the path of Metropolitan Sheptytsky will be a major test of Ukraine’s democratic development and an important step forward for the country. If achieved, the future of Ukraine’s Jewish community may be bright, not bleak.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/in-ukraine-new-government_b_4875833.html


It is also worth noting that after exploring the various groups/boards/sites it seems that Svoboda element has been overlooked and not mentioned much in the msm because they, along with the “modern” NeoNazi factions while still being fervently anti-Semetic and anti minority, have seemingly allied and self identified themselves with the “modern” far-right Zionist, NeoCon and Wahhabi/Salafist factions as they admire their ultra Nationalistic ideologies and violent strategies…


Ukraine: “Right Sector” Leader Dmitry Yarosh Meets with Israeli Ambassador, Pledges Allegiance to the Jewish Race

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer

February 28, 2014

"We exist only to serve you, oh Chosen Ones, oh Masters of Earth." -Pravy Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh to the Jews

“We exist only to serve you, oh Chosen Ones, oh Masters of Earth.” -Pravy Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh to the Jews

From the beginning of the Ukrainian revolution late last year, I have taken a staunchly pro-Russian, anti-coup position.  Throughout the course of events, it has become more and more undeniable that the entire situation was one created and managed by subversive Jews, for the purpose of weakening Russia by tricking the Ukraine into joining the European Union.

However, many nationalist activists remained supportive of the revolution, promoting it on the internet as a positive thing, even after it was discovered that Vitali Klitschko, the most prominent leader of Maidan, is a Jew, that the American Jew Victoria Nuland was playing a role in planning the operation, and that IDF agents were responsible for managing much of the terrorism against the elected government of the Ukraine.

The average age of the revolutionary footsoldiers of Pravy Sektor is about 17. I would never blame these boys for not knowing any better.

The average age of the revolutionary footsoldiers of Pravy Sektor is about 17. I would never blame these boys for not knowing any better, as they likely did not have access to the information we have had access to.

Though it was discouraging to me to see so many who consider themselves supportive of the nationalist cause voicing their support for this Jewish power-grab, I understood that people were excited to see nationalist symbols among the protestors, and thus made the decision to indulge in a fantasy about a “National Socialist Revolution” in the Ukraine.

This week, that fantasy can be seen clearly for what it is, as Dmitro Yarosh, the leader of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) has met with the Israeli ambassador to the Ukraine, Reuven Din El, and pledged his allegiance to the Jewish race.

Abe Foxman: Pravy Sektor fanboy
Abe Foxman: Pravy Sektor fanboy

As Abe Foxman writes in the Huffington Post:

Dmitro Yarosh, leader of Right Sector, met with Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine, Reuven Din El, and told him that their movement rejects anti-Semitism and xenophobia and will not tolerate it. He said their goals were a democratic Ukraine, transparent government, ending corruption, and equal opportunity for all ethnic groups.

Abe closes with this:

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, together with UDAR leader Vitaliy Klichko, brought Svoboda into the opposition coalition in 2012. Now, having brought Svoboda into the government, it is up to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to ensure that anti-Semitism is not tolerated and that democratic norms are adhered to. By sending that message to the people of Ukraine now, the prime minister will reassure the Jewish community and set an admirable example.

Guiding Ukraine’s nationalists to adopt the path of Metropolitan Sheptytsky will be a major test of Ukraine’s democratic development and an important step forward for the country. If achieved, the future of Ukraine’s Jewish community may be bright, not bleak.

The Israeli embassy in the Ukraine released a press statement on the meeting:

February 26, 2014 the Ambassador of Israel to Ukraine, Reuven Din El, met with the leadership of the “Right sector” movement, including its figurehead, Dmitry Yarosh.

The leaders of the movement informed the Ambassador about their position on the future of Ukraine, and stressed that they follow a tolerant policy on national issues.

Dmitry Yarosh also stressed that all hateful rhetoric, especially anti-Semitism, was not only condemned by “the Right Sector,” but that they would continue to fight it through all legitimate legal means. The aim of the movement is to build a democratic Ukraine, establish government transparency, combat corruption and provide equal opportunities for all nations and peoples; they intend to unify the people and build a state ruled by the people.

The parties agreed to establish a hotline to prevent provocations and coordination issues that arise.

The leaders of the movement stressed that any manifestation of chauvinism and xenophobia would be punished.

So there you have it.  It turns out I was in fact more correct than even I had understood, having previously allowed that the leaders of Pravy Sektor could have themselves been confused.  Well, when you meet with Israelis and pledge to defend the Jews and punish anyone who dares question them, you aren’t confused – you are a shill.

Though it is possible that the boys out fighting on the streets will stand up and oppose their leaders pledging their lives to the defense of the Jewish people, I see it as highly unlikely.  No, this is all going to go exactly how the Jews planned it – the Ukraine will enter the EU, take on massive debt, and eventually be totally destroyed.

What We Can Learn

Hopefully, after the debacle of reckless support being irresponsibly thrown behind this Jewish operation by various sectors of the activist community, no doubt ending with a lot of people feeling very foolish, we can learn something for the future.

The most obvious thing to note here is that it is not only possible, but highly probable, that a group wearing nationalist symbols is being managed by Jews.  They understand that the most effective way to neutralize the opposition is to become the opposition.  As such, when a group claiming to be nationalist is engaging in behaviors which are inconsistent with the symbols they wear, their actions should be considered more relevant than what they are wearing.

When the actions conflict with the t-shirts, you have a duty to judge the actions over the t-shirts.

Remember this: When the actions conflict with the t-shirts, you have a duty to judge the actions over the t-shirts.

The bottom line is that serious opposition will not endorse Jewish revolution, in the way that both Svoboda and Pravy Sektor did when they refused to question the Jews who were managing the revolution.  We should also note that when you see Jews openly endorsing an allegedly nationalist organization, as they did with the alleged nationalists in the Ukraine, you should assume that they know something that you don’t know.

Thankfully, the fact that so many in the internet activist scene supported this Jewish coup did not have any effect on its outcome.  The Jews would have won here whether or not you supported them, or condemned them as I did.  However, it will not be long before your support does matter, and if you decide to support an openly Jewish-driven revolution, the consequences will be dire.

If we truly wish to stand in opposition to the Jewish parasite, we must be wise as serpents, and not fall into the traps they lay.

source: http://www.dailystormer.com/ukraine-right-sector-leader-dmitry-yarosh-meets-with-israeli-ambassador-pledges-allegiance-to-the-jewish-race/


Here is a follow up to the original post/interview above courtesy The Saker…

Meet the (real) new authorities in the Ukraine, example #1
Published on Feb 25, 2014

Forget Klitchko, Iatseniuk, Tiagnibok or Tymoshenko. Though they all have some degree of popular support, what they don’t have is power. The real authorities in the Ukraine is the so-called “Right Sector”, their leader, Dmytro Yarosh, and his brownshirts. This video shows the reaction of one of these gentlemen, a certain Alexander Muzychka aka “Sashko Bilyi”, a veteran of the war against Russia in Chechnia, addressing a meeting the administration of the Roven region in the northeast of the Ukraine. Mr Muzychka, upon being informed that the new (official) authorities in Kiev have decided to collect unregistered weapons, addressed the meeting with the following words:

Who of you wants to take my assault-rifle away?
Who of you wants to take my pistol?
Who wants to take away my pistol, my assault-rifle or my knives?
If somebody wants to take them, let him come near and try!

Needless to say, none of the politicians in the room said a single word.

This is the new regime in the Ukraine. And this is not going to change any time soon. The Ukrainian military is a joke and exists only on paper. The Ukrainian police has almost totally vanished and the only force which now has a monopoly on violence are the neo-Nazis.

The US and EU can really be proud of themselves. This is indeed a stunning success for “democracy”.

The Saker

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7FH2kgjtfU


Here is a follow up to the above video re: Alexander Muzychko

A Nazi leader Alexander Muzychko humiliates a public prosecutor (Rivne, Ukraine)
Published on Feb 27, 2014

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vSCGSvf3U


Ok, at some point the topic needs a perspective that will never be spoken of nor seen by the vast majority. This is the point of our exploration into this ugly situation that is unfolding and hidden in plain sight. Surely the source, content and details will be offensive to most but please consider reviewing the following few comments courtesy the white supremacists at Stormfront message boards. Be sure to inform your elected politicos on all 3 sides, especially the Regime loyalists, that we know more than they do and sooner or later they will be brought to account considering the Right Sector does not intend to allow EU integration either…

New heroes of Ukraine. Nationalists in Ukraine uprising. Right Sector.

“Right sector – against the regime and integration”

Thread for collecting best interviews, articles, videos and anything else that explains: who are nationalists fighting on the frontlines of Ukraine Uprising, what are their organizations, ideologies, goals and motivations. Who are their leaders, heroes and martyrs. Why do they fight to the death?

Топик для сбора правдивой информации о героях Украинского Правого сопротивления. Кто их герои и лидеры, какова идеология ключевых организаций, какие причины заставляют их бороться насмерть против Хануковича?
__________________
Essential read: WhiteNationalism.com TOO White History
White-friendly movies to promote (imdb etc); Black inventions myths

Dog “racism” – not obliged to follow the white-lies of the human world, the world of canines offers obvious parallels. Study rates dog breeds by intelligence. Insurers profile “aggressive breeds”. Note: “[..] less genetic difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the ethnic groups of the human species […]”.
Academic anti-racism? Charlatans and wishful thinkers.”I have used Boas’s study to fight what I guess could be considered racist approaches to anthropology,” said Dr. David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. “I have to say I am shocked at the findings [of it being wrong].”

Diversity is: no cohesion, no trust, no consensus, no freedom, invasive statism, dystopia, entropy. Some of the most tyrannical, repressive and unfree societies were/are some of the most “diverse”.

source: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1025158/


While “our” elected leaders, especially the Regime’s hand selected delegation as well as those from the rest of the “western” world might like to point in only one direction, EU integration as opposed to closer ties to the Kremlin, when placing blame for the violence and seem to be fixated on the events that spawned from WW1 and WW2…

re: New heroes of Ukraine. Nationalists in Ukraine uprising. Right Sector.
Copying from the big Ukrainian thread

Published on Feb 21, 2014

The Great Ukrainian Reconquista: What is the Right Sector fighting for?

We, the warriors and commanders of the Right Sector are actively fighting the regime, remembering the heroism of King Svyatoslav the Courageous of Kyiv, King Danylo of Galicia, of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the warriors of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army; implementing the right of a people to rise against injustice; and aware of our responsibilities before the dead and injured heroes of the Maidan.

For the right of every Ukrainian to human dignity…

For a fair criminal trial of Berkut and other dogs of the occupational system…

Against the humiliation and impoverishment of the Ukrainian people…

Against the war of the government with its own people…

For responsible voters and politicians…

For the election of judges…

Against corrupt and marginal democracy…

Against degeneracy and totalitarian liberalism…

For traditional folk morality and family values…

For Ukrainian families having many children…

For a spiritually and physically healthy youth…

Against a culture of consumerism and eroticism…

Against any form of “integration” on terms dictated from outside of Ukraine…

For unity and worldwide greatness of the Ukrainian nation…

For a great Ukrainian and European Reconquista… Everything is only beginning! From our Maidan, the rebirth of Kyivan-Rus/Ukraine commences, the rebirth of Europe commences.

Glory to Ukraine!

Glory to our heroes!

source: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t414368/


Sorry friends, but sometimes we need to look directly into their eyes to see what lies within their minds in order to fully understand their ultimate intentions…

The Ukraine riots should be called the 2nd Jewish war on Ukraine
The 2nd Jewish war on Ukraine

I wrote an article for discussion on the blatantly Jewish origins of these riots in Ukraine. It is self-evident, it cannot be denied, Russia has even stated that it was caused by ‘international’ influences, it is quite literally the 2nd Jewish War on Ukraine!

Quote:
The majority of protests occurred after the Ukrainian government refused to ratify or participate in the discussion of legislation from November the 21st 2013, that would have moved Ukraine into further trade deals and political union with the collapsing European Union… As outlined in an article the day the trade deal between the EU and Ukraine was de-facto rejected: The Jewish ‘community’ or kabal in Ukraine was staunchly in favour of joining the EU in order to subject the Ukrainian people to another phased Holodomor…Jewish supremacists in Ukraine, including the various unofficial chief Rabbi’s of Ukraine called for Ukraine to enter the EU, this call was not adhered to and subsequently many Jewish-supremacists inside Ukraine and through the United states took it upon themselves to instigate, fund and organise mass-riots and demonstrations against the pro-Ukrainian independent President and government of Ukraine…

Quote:
Like Syria this conflict has been instigated by foreigners allegedly by 100% percent, primarily as a result of subversion organised by Jewish-activists, Jewish front-groups and Jewish political figures on an international level

Read the full article…

If anyone has anything else that they believe needs to be said on the riots, just state such, I might edit the article with more information as time goes on, or write another one, if there is enough of a demand for more coverage.
__________________
Nationalist Ásatrú News
Nationalist News – Ásatrú Inspiration

All encompassing professional news service and more: economics, demographics, criminology, racial realism, exposing the causes, promoting and providing the infrastructure for the courageous solutions, -telling the straight truth-.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1019607/


Here is the “Read the full article” referenced above…

Article author: Nationalist Ásatrú News / Published: 23rd Æfterra Jéola 2014 / 23rd day After Yule 2264.RE

The 2nd Jewish war on Ukraine

(UPDATED -1800hrs- 23/1/2014)


In-between 10,000-40,000 anti-government protestors, demonstrators and rioters led by Jewish protest leaders and organizer’s have led continual protests in Kiev through Wednesday night and today especially that have caused the confirmed death of in-between 2* and 5 Ukrainian people and has left thousands injured and with hundreds of serious injuries including severe burns and fractured bones many thousands of protestors have been hurt, who following the vile orders of often-times Jewish organizers have led these nieve protestors into violent confrontations with riot police and military drafted riot police.

Dozens of state police have also been critically or seriously burned and injured, with over 80 police officers having been hospitalized and over 200 injured and millions of pounds equivalent has been lost in the loss of national productivity, property damage and the enormous policing costs primarily in the capital of Ukraine, Kiev. The majority of the rioting occured and is still occuring (albeit at lower concentrations) around Maidan square and Europe square in Kiev.

*The two confirmed deaths were as a result of bullet wounds, the Kiev police issued a statement that they were not carrying any metal bullet (as opposed to rubber bullet) ammunition. The opposition leaders are now split as to whether violence is the way forward, with some calling for more violent protests, Jewish opposition leaders such as Vitali Klitschko (not even a Ukrainian, but is a Jew from Kyrgyztan) was calling instead for a nation-wide general strike.

Like Syria this conflict has been instigated by foreigners allegedly by 100% percent, primarily as a result of subversion organised by Jewish-activists, Jewish front-groups and Jewish political figures on an international level

Why are there protests in Ukraine?

The majority of protests occurred after the Ukrainian government refused to ratify or participate in the discussion of legislation from November the 21st 2013, that would have moved Ukraine into further trade deals and political union with the collapsing European Union.

As I outlined in an article the day the trade deal between the EU and Ukraine was de-facto rejected: The Jewish ‘community’ or kabal in Ukraine was staunchly in favour of joining the EU in order to subject the Ukrainian people to another phased Holodomor.

Although this might sound like an outlandish statement to make, the EU, through the free movement of people, coupled with the Jewish ambition for the EU to accept Turkey as an EU member state would, undeniably and inevitably result in the comparative demographic genocide of the Ukrainian and all European people if it were to continue unabated.

Jewish supremacists in Ukraine, including the various unofficial chief Rabbi’s of Ukraine called for Ukraine to enter the EU, this call was not adhered to and subsequently many Jewish-supremacists inside Ukraine and through the United states took it upon themselves to instigate, fund and organise mass-riots and demonstrations against the pro-Ukrainian independent President and government of Ukraine.

The protests had also been occurring before the rejection of the EU trade deals, this was primarily once again as a result of Jewish-supremacist instigation as Ukraine was moving towards further alliances and trade deals with Russia. There is a culture of anti-Russian sentiment inside Ukraine from the general population, as many Ukrainians still remember and lived through the end years of the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus some have been fooled into thinking alliances and trade deals with Russia would be a return to the Soviet Union days.


This is the opposite of the truth (and thus it is no surprise that we find Jewish supremacists promoting the opposite of the truth), as “The EU is the new Communism” (in this video Farage also promises Racial nationalist’s unstoppable return to power that even he cannot stop) and it is being increasingly acknowledged as such in Western Europe.

The Ukrainian government has already accused the EU and American efforts of attempting to subvert Ukraine. It is evident that the protests in Ukraine started literally minutes after EU integration talks ceased.

This fact alone proves that there is an epidemic of systematic anti-Ukrainian (and ultimately anti-white, as shown via the above argument) motivation behind the organizers of the recent protests, which have taken advantage of nieve and uninformed protestors and has, as all Jewish-supremacist revolutions or attempted revolutions do, resulted in the death of numerous Europeans already as of the time of publication of this article.

The fact that the Ukrainian public do not widely speak English has made it harder for them to be made aware of the horrific nature of the EU as revealed in our cultural discussions and in France, Scandinavia and Greece.

This has subsequently made it easier for Jewish-supremacists to play both sides of the political debate in Ukraine, stirring up fears of Russia (and Putin) by using anti-Russian and then anti-Soviet arguments at the same time, in front of different audiences, to create widespread anti-government sentiment over numerous sides of the political spectrum and debate within Ukraine. Although the silent majority (the small middle class and educated folk especially) of Ukrainians are still in support of Ukrainian independence from the EU, but as in all Jewish-supremacist revolutions or cultural upheaval attempts, the silent majority are always sidelined, for the interests of Jews themselves.

The Ukrainian anti-government protestors need to realize they are mistakenly on the side of communism, Jewish-supremacists and Globalist forces by demonstrating against their own freedom as a sovereign nation. Ukrainians need to wake up to the sheer idiocy of protesting against their own freedom, in the name of ‘freedom to be in the EU’.

This predicament of small proportions of Ukraine fighting against their own interests whilst thinking they are standing up for them, is akin to all the Jewish-supremacist manipulations, such as arguing for diversity which means less diversity (white genocide and multi-cultural nothingness) or arguing for equality, which actually means less equality (with more money going to Jewish bankers and the gab between the rich Jewish bankers and everyone else increasing until serfdom).

The anti-Ukrainian government protests and the recent ‘ultimatum’ for new elections is akin to the US pressure exerted on Russia, after Putin’s 1st successful re-election last election cycle, where democratic legitimacy means nothing to do with democratic legitimacy but whether that democratic government fully supports the Jewish-supremacist geo-political objectives or not.

The anti-Ukrainian protests are thus an attempt, to try to deny Russia a key geo-political, economic and military ally in Ukraine, in a wider, well-established anti-white effort to surround, isolate and attempt to destroy Russia on behalf of Jewish financial and racial interests who still hate the Russian people (as European people) for their defiance and destruction of communism in the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.

Some intelligent and well-informed Ukrainians have instead protested and surrounded the US embassy in Kiev, against the US (via Jewish-supremacists based in the US administration through figure-heads such as Kerry, McCain and Schumer*) subversion in Ukraine.

Several Nationalists in Ukraine have also used the protests as sufficient cover in order to engage in protesting at Jews and Jewish Synagogues, having correctly identified the cause of the current anti-Ukrainian disturbances. Some Nationalists have also taken part in demonstrations albeit for entirely different reasons. There are numerous pictures of well-equiped nationalists taking part in the riot in very small numbers.


The symbol on the shield there is quite evidently an Odin rune, the symbol of the Nordic and Germanic God Odin, the religion of our ancestors is popular throughout nationalist circles even in non-Northern European nations such as Ukraine and Russia and such persons as expected are on the frontlines, using the protest as cover for their own operations and to satiate their anger at the Ukrainian regime for its anti-protest laws and rampant corruption from Christian and Jewish political leaders. (Right) Look closely, that is a German Flecktarn jacket, popular with nationalists, and I can bet only nationalists are as well prepared and armoured as that person there.

The semi-nationalist and anti-interventionist policies of Vladimir Putin, is another reason why Ukraine is being pressured, via internal subversion to move away from Russia, because Russia (and China) are the only major powers who pose a colossal threat to Jewish-supremacist globalist ambitions.

These Jewish ‘opposition leaders’ (much like the foreign backed opposition leaders of Syria*) have made the ludicrous assertion that President Viktor Yanukovych has to call early elections within 24 hours from today (23/1/2014) or face massive protests.

*The same divide and rule (through internal subversion and the creation of factions) tactic resulting in the creation of “provisional” or opposition leaders or factions in countries opposed to Jewish-supremacist geo-political and racial objectives is blatantly clear.

Although it seems that many political factions are attempting to seize the moment, created by Jewish-international subversion, ironically even nationalists, as the above picture demonstrates are seeking to make an impact in their own way. It is likely that the Jewish international media may use pictures such as this to attempt to blame the whole protest on Nationalists, when it is a well-established fact that in previous Ukrianian riots it is Jewish thugs (or often-times Christian) and Jewish communists who are always the violent criminals in such events, nationalists are out on patrol to prevent the Jewish thugs from completely controlling the direction and messages of the protests, this is evident from the protestors denounciation of the so-called opposition leader of Yatsenyuk and others.

“You, Mr. President, have the opportunity to resolve this issue. Early elections will change the situation without bloodshed and we will do everything to achieve that,”

One of many opposition leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk in front of 40,000 people, whom he turned up to claim to represent.

The allegedly racially Jewish and evidently pro-Jewish opposition leader (one of many) Yatsenyuk has openly sought to escalate the violence and urge nieve Ukrainians to literally kill themselves in the face of Ukrainian police for Jewish interests by stating that:

“tomorrow we will go forward together* And if it’s a bullet in the forehead, then it’s a bullet in the forehead, but in an honest, fair and brave way”

*”Forward together” being an age old Jewish-communist phrase, but it will not be Jewish-subversives taking bullets to the forehead but European Ukrainians who will be killed for the sake of these Jewish-subversives and pro-EU (pro-white genocide) subversives like Yatsenyuk.


The Russian state Duma has also issued a unanimous statement warning western powers from continuing their incitement of the Ukrainian crisis, although in reality these Western powers, are almost entirely Jewish-supremacists, and their Communist and Socialist slave-followers in the EU commission.

‘On aggravation of the situation in Ukraine’

“In essence, there are attempts to forcefully overthrow the legitimate power institutes in the country… It is regrettable that all these events are provoked and used by representatives of the political opposition who cynically call themselves supporters of democracy… The State Duma again warns that the external pressure on Ukraine and artificially imposing the geopolitical choice of EU association are unacceptable,”

-Russian MPs of the Duma, by unanimous declaration.

The Duma, also ‘expressed readiness to boost the cooperation with the Ukrainian parliament – the Vekhovna Rada – in order to further develop the partnership between nations’ -according to RT.

This statement in this context, could be an indication of Russian willingness to intervene in Ukraine if the protests reach any serious military proportions, in what is obviously a Russian declaration of intent to stand by the true interests of Ukraine and its elected democracy.

It is reported that Military-grade Armoured Personnel Carriers are now on several streets of Ukraine with further mobilization inevitable, in what is evidently an increase in the response to the violent Jewish-supremacist-instigated protests.

*When looking someone up on Wikipedia go straight to the ‘Early life and education’ section and that will allow you to see whether someone is publically Jewish or not in a few seconds, subsequently this normally tells you all you need to know about their ideology, racial interests and motivations.

The Ukrainian people should remember the Holodomor and the majority-Jewish perpetrators who designed, created and then staffed the Soviet government responsible for the genocide of over 7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s and realise that allegedly the very same ethnic culprits who were behind the Holodomor are rallying against their nation once again, turning neighbour against neighbour, friend against friend, in a war that only benefits and can only benefit Jewish interests through what would be the destruction of Ukraine under the EU and the further attempts to isolate Russia.

Jewish-Supremacists have declared that Ukraine should be forced along with their agenda, to its own destruction long-term or be reduced to civil-war in the short-term, this is what malign Jewish-subversion looks like in reality in the videos below, behind the facade of media control and PR, this day the smell of burning flesh and ruined lives fills the air of our nations.”

Keep positive, Keep practical, Keep persevering.

source: http://nationalistasatrunews.com/complete-chronological-archive/the-2nd-jewish-war-on-ukraine.html


Here is a couple of short Right Sector propaganda videos…

Right Sector. The Great Ukrainian Reconquista (English subtitles)
Published on Feb 21, 2014
Rostyslav Ivanyk

The Great Ukrainian Reconquista: What is the Right Sector fighting for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU

Right sector. Ukrainian Revolution 2014
combat907
Published on Feb 12, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJmHIXVK95Y

Since the association to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was mentioned by Dmytro Yarosh in the interview, this video may offer some more insight that may be rather important…

Greek Catholic (Uniate) Clergyman in Ukraine calls to kick out Blacks, Jews and Russians
Andre Fomine
Published on Feb 24, 2014

A Sunday sermon by Rev. Mikhaylo Arsenych delivered in 2010:

“Today we are really ready for a revolution.
Would the fighters of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army tolerate Tabachnik and Yanukovych today?
The only effective methods of combat are assassination and terror!
The right way to communicate with the enemies is to fire at them!
Our message to them is the message of death by hanging. We’ll send all communists to the gallows-tree in our forest!
The message is our cry for vengence — take your weapon and chase all fear!
It is not a good time to be afraid!
We have been waiting for 20 years!
The situation will get better only if each of us makes a contribution to the construction of our national state.
We must first knock down the old house, and then build the new one.
We must rebuild our political regime and create a new sovereign state.
Only then will we live in our own country – in a country that takes care of our needs.
We want to be masters in our own house and decide for ourselves.
We want to be sure that our children will go to Ukrainian school.
We want to be sure that no Chinese, Negro, Jew or Muscovite will try to come and grab our land tomorrow!
Our success depends on each of us. We shouldn’t waver, we must keep covered todays political regime. The ground will be burning under their feet, like our torches are burning today!
Our hand must be firm! Glory to the Ukraine!”

ANALYSIS: http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/24/the-ukraine-neo-nazi-criminal-state-looming-in-the-centre-of-europe/

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5EXdbzIDEk


While we choose to not post additional links, there are literally dozens upon dozens of rather graphic and gruesome videos and hundreds of self-fulfilling articles posted by the militants themselves that have not been shown nor discussed via the msm conglomerates. We suggest that everyone begin to question everything you see and hear from the various politicians, analysts, think tanks and their profiteering propaganda outlets.

Keep in mind that while we hope we are incorrect, just like the “War on Terror” they are all selling the illusion of spreading peace, prosperity and democracy.

Before jumping to conclusions or on any bandwagons and remember that the People of Ukraine may not be aware of what lies ahead and what lies ahead will not be good considering it has all been based on lies and deception by modern day snake-oil salesman.


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Censorship + #Harper + #Israel vs #Palestine – (#GolanHeights + #Syria) = #cdnpoli #Error404

Chronology of Events leading up to Stephen Harper and the Harper Regime’s hurried trip to Israel

The premise of this investigative chronological summary timeline is based upon the questions and evidence raised after reviewing and following up on an couple of articles recently published, Conservative party launches website to promote Stephen Harper’s first official Middle East trip by Jason Fekete, Published January 14, 2014 and Foreign Affairs website at odds with PMs comments in support of Israel, group says By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News January 15, 2014, regarding the current Harper Government’s Foreign Policy vs. the previous Canadian Government’s Foreign Policy as it relates to Israels economy, the Occupied Territories and Golan Heights.

The timing of a couple of hastily, oddly removed and edited, censored information, that were previously accessible and available via the official tax-payer funded Government of Canada’s websites that are currently being redirected to 404 “Page Not Found” error pages. Along with the PMO based Senate Scandal and past Harper Party electoral shenanigans, the timeline of this censorship is suspicious at best. Once combined with couple of new dedicated websites launched by the Harper Party that utilize taxpayer-funded government assets to promote support for Israel while propagandizing it’s foreign policies domestically and abroad, it gets worse considering how the Harper Government treats Canada’s Veterans.

This certainly appears to be a coup d’etat of sorts by Big Oil driven Fracking special interest groups in an apparent effort to capitalize on the chaotic and deadly situation in Syria, that was encouraged and instigated by the Harper Regime, in-order to subversively exploit the occupied Golan Heights while leveraging, manipulating and diverting Asian, Middle Eastern, African political support and financial assets between various taxpayer-funded government missions and groups domestically and abroad.

Questions to Ponder

  • Who is currently dictating and scripting Canada’s Foreign Policy and who is benefiting from this speculative Economic Diplomacy?
  • What are the costs and motivators behind the timeline and sequence of events?
  • When was the recently updated propaganda narrative mandated?
  • Where is the investment funding coming from and where will the profits go?
  • Why is there so much secrecy in the present and censorship of the past?
  • How does this “timing” affect Canada and Canadian interests in the future?

Please review the following trilogy of topics and chronological sequence of articles, archives, caches and snapshots of retrieved pages, paying close attention to the removed text, links and information from the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada websites:

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East: Canada’s Explanation of Vote: The Syrian Golan


August 2011

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 03Jun2011
Date Cached: 11Aug2011
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” is included.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Cached 11Aug2011
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

March 2012

Syria’s Assad ‘must go,’ Baird warns

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird condemned the continued violence and aid impasse in Syria as heavy shelling continued in Homs over the weekend, saying that Canada is considering new measures to make clear that Syrian president Bashar Assad “must go.”

By Edmonton Journal March 5, 2012
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=d4095b41-bb18-4232-902b-37b79fe87982&sponsor=dumpharper


July 2012

Two Sides of the Same Flag: How Israel’s Natural Gas Will Change the World

By Marin Katusa, 17 Jul 2012
https://www.caseyresearch.com/print/two-sides-same-flag-how-israels-natural-gas-will-change-world


August 2012

The Russian gas giant that haunts Europe – and Israel

Visiting Russian leader Valdimir Putin last month reportedly proposed bilateral energy cooperation, but a Haifa University expert warns that partnerships with the state-owned company are not of equals.

By Avi Bar-Eli | Aug. 1, 2012 | 5:20 AM
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gJhuYxdJ1L0J:http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-russian-gas-giant-that-haunts-europe-and-israel-1.455117


September 2012

Israel and Russia join forces over gas

Lawrence Solomon | September 7, 2012 9:00 PM ET
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n4RDS1OJsccJ:http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/07/lawrence-solomon-israel-and-russia-join-forces-over-gas/


Syria rebels get tactical help from Toronto IT specialist Behind the scenes, armchair military strategists from U.S., Canada crowdsource a war

CBC News Posted: Sep 26, 2012 9:46 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 26, 2012 9:43 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-rebels-get-tactical-help-from-toronto-it-specialist-1.1149361


Crowdsourcing a War

The National | Sep 26, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2284250890/


October 2012

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East

UN Votes and Statements

Please note that “59th Session: 2004” currently redirects to a 404 “Page Not found” error message.
Date Modified: 01Mar2012
Date Cached: 20Oct2012
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014

http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Canada’s Explanation of Vote

The Syrian Golan

Date Modified: 17Jun2009
Date Cached: 20Oct2012
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Please note that “UN Votes and Statements General Assembly 59th Session: 2004” currently redirects to a 404 “Page Not found” error message.

Canada's Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan: Cached 20Oct2012
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/session_59_2004/explanation-explication_59_33.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

February 2013

Israel approves drilling in contested Golan Heights ahead of Obama visit Provided by The Canadian Press

By Canadian Press | Feb 21, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6FNJOoyLhIAJ:http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/21/israel-approves-drilling-in-contested-golan-heights-ahead-of-obama-visit/


Israel grants Golan exploration licence

By John Reed in Jerusalem, February 21, 2013 2:27 pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CBc1yudcUDIJ:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/471a183a-7c28-11e2-bf52-00144feabdc0.html


Israeli Licence to Cheney-Linked Energy Firm on Golan Heights Raises Eyebrows

By Jim Lobe | WASHINGTON, Feb 23 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Vmn-z7nbwlsJ:http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/israeli-licence-to-cheney-linke-energy-firm-on-golan-heights-raises-eyebrows/


April 2013

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Date Modified: 26Oct2012
Date Cached: 26Apr2013
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” is included.

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process: Cached 26Apr2013
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/index.aspx?lang=eng

Israel in gas talks with Russia

Russian companies are examining options of participating in the development of Israeli gas, the Prime Minister’s Office says.

29 October 13 14:48, Amiram Barkat
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nf8ts1GiJDEJ:http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000889580


May 2013

Canada and Israel — best friends forever?

Why is Ottawa so extraordinarily supportive of the Jewish state? Has the Harper administration gone too far, and cost itself influence in the Arab world? And would a change of government see an altered stance?

By Raphael Ahren May 19, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S11NKe9XBAwJ:http://www.timesofisrael.com/canada-and-israel-best-friends-forever/


September 2013

Shale: A key to Israel’s future

by Neil Goldstein, Guest Columnist Sep 09, 2013
http://thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/23570187/article-Shale–A-key-to-Israel-s-future?instance=secondary_stories_right_column


October 2013

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Date Modified: 29Apr2013
Date Cached: 05Oct2013
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has been removed.

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process: Cached 05Oct2013
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/index.aspx?lang=eng

November 2013

Stephen Harper planning first visit to Israel, will announce details at Jewish National Fund dinner

John Ivison | November 29, 2013 | Last Updated: Nov 29 6:40 PM ET
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:97Lhd0mynMwJ:http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/stephen-harper-planning-first-visit-to-israel-will-announce-details-at-jewish-national-fund-dinner/


Stephen Harper to be feted for support of Israel at Negev dinner

Bird sanctuary in Israel to be named after Harper

The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 30, 2013 9:09 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 01, 2013 5:55 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2446730


December 2013

Stephen Harper breaks into song after Israel trip announcement

The PM belted out his own rendition of the Who’s “The Seeker” and a string of other classic songs.

The Canadian Press Published on Sun Dec 01 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b1n42kxHyacJ:http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/01/stephen_harper_breaks_into_song_after_israel_trip_announcement.html


Israel Wants Harper’s Advice On Natural Gas: Ambassador

CP | By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press Posted: 12/03/2013 5:03 pm EST | Updated: 12/04/2013 11:23 am EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/03/harper-israel-rafi-barak-natural-gas_n_4380127.html?view=print


Israel’s best friend: Stephen Harper

The Prime Minister’s support seems less strategic than a reflection of his deeply held personal beliefs

by Nick Taylor-Vaisey on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:05pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IUkP5y_nqc8J:http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/04/israels-best-friend-stephen-harper/


Will Egypt Purchase Gas from Israel via Cyprus?

Karen Ayat, December 05th, 2013 12:15am
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hz2AJRD6mUsJ:http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/will-egypt-purchase-gas-from-israel-via-cyprus-14407


Israel seeks to tap Canada’s expertise in natural gas: new ambassador

David Lazarus, Staff Reporter, Monday, December 23, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Anw74gRhUQMJ:http://cjnews.com/privacy-policy?q=node/119772


Putin’s Mediterranean Move

The race is on to exploit off-shore energy around Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus — and Moscow is crashing the party.

BY Keith Johnson, DECEMBER 27, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9q1uBbLU33UJ:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/27/putin_s_mediterranean_move


Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant

29.12.2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RK6t-hMdUuQJ:http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-12-2013/126507-israel_gas-0/


January 2014

24 Seven

Jan 2-8, 2014
Transcript: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/video/34741/transcript

Video: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/videos-ctg/34741


Overhaul of Israel’s Economy Offers Lessons for United States

By STEVEN DAVIDOFF, January 7, 2014, 4:54 pm
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/overhaul-of-israels-economy-offers-lessons-for-united-states/


Canada names a partisan voice as new ambassador to Israel

By David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief First posted: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 02:43 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 04:20 PM EST
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YPYVmeo3dtYJ:http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/08/canada-names-a-partisan-voice-as-new-ambassador-to-israel


Baird defends appointment of new pro-Israeli ambassador ahead of Harper trip

by Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:13pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lo4qIHMtbwwJ:http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/08/baird-defends-appointment-of-new-pro-israeli-ambassador-ahead-of-harper-trip/


Toronto lawyer Vivian Bercovici is Canada’s next ambassador to Israel as Harper government ‘affirms unfailing support’ for Jewish state

Stewart Bell | January 8, 2014 | Last Updated: Jan 8 5:51 PM ET
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NcQRblQW4iYJ:http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/08/toronto-lawyer-vivian-bercovici-to-serve-as-canadas-next-ambassador-to-israel-in-latest-sign-of-ottawas-approach-to-middle-east/


Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 26Oct2012
Google Cached: 09Jan2014
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has not been removed.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Cached 09Jan2014
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_n8LTF1AYFkJ:http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx%3Flang%3Deng

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 13Jan2014
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has been removed.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

PM Harper embarks on first trip to the Middle East

January 13,2014
http://www.stephenharper.ca/pm-harper-embarks-on-first-trip-to-the-middle-east/


Conservative party launches website to promote Stephen Harper’s first official Middle East trip

Jason Kenney will join Harper on trip that includes Israel, West Bank and Jordan

By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News January 14, 2014
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=9386948&sponsor=dumpharper


Foreign Affairs website at odds with PM’s comments in support of Israel, group says

By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News January 15, 2014
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=9387318&sponsor=dumpharper


Harper’s Israel Trip Comes Amid Changes Back Home

Althia Raj, Posted: 01/15/2014 11:08 am EST | Updated: 01/15/2014 1:55 pm EST
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zpP9PP8KJ8UJ:http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/15/stephen-harper-israel-jewish-support_n_4598535.html


Stephen Harper’s deceased father a key influence in PM’s support for Israel

PM has called his father the ‘greatest influence’ on his life

Mark Kennedy, Published: January 15, 2014, 4:10 pm
www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=9392305&sponsor=dumpharper


Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East

Date Modified: 26Jun2013
Date Cached: 03Jul2013
Date Retrieved 15Jan2014
Note that the page “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East last modified 26Oct2013” now redirects to a 404 “Page Not Found” error message.

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Canada’s Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan

Date Modified: 26Jun2013
Date Retrieved 15Jan2014
Note that the page “Canada’s Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan last modified 26Oct2013” now redirects to a 404 “Page Not Found” error message.

Canada's Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/session_59_2004/explanation-explication_59_33.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Russia Finds Path Into Mediterranean Gas Through Syria

Christopher Coats, Energy Contributor | 1/16/2014 @ 11:47AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophercoats/2014/01/16/russia-finds-path-into-mediterranean-gas-through-syria/


Syrian energy deal puts Russia in gas-rich Med

Jan. 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/01/16/Syrian-energy-deal-puts-Russia-in-gas-rich-Med/UPI-32731389905770/


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Is One of Israel’s Strongest Backers — But Why?

Conservative Leader Visits Jewish State for First Time

By Ron Csillag Published January 16, 2014
http://forward.com/articles/191070/canadian-prime-minister-stephen-harper-is-one-of-i/


Another Canadian jihadi reported dead in Syria

By Michael Woods, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 16, 2014
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9397373&sponsor=dumpharper



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Another CFR Conversation with Stephen Harper

A Conversation with Stephen Harper

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper discusses trade and the economy, current and future energy issues, and security concerns.

SPEAKER: Stephen Harper
PRESIDER: Robert E. Rubin

http://www.cfr.org/canada/conversation-stephen-harper/p30715

Published on May 17, 2013
Council on Foreign Relations

Category: Nonprofits & Activism
License” Standard YouTube License

Transcript: A Conversation with Stephen Harper
Speaker: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Canada
Author: Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations
May 16, 2013ROBERT RUBIN: All righty. Welcome. I’m Bob Rubin, co-chairman of the council. And we welcome you here today. We are absolutely delighted to have with us our distinguished guest, the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. I will not recite from his resume; as you know, it’s council practice to simply welcome our distinguished visitor. But it’s worth looking at that resume. It’s extremely impressive and this is an extremely accomplished prime minister.

Let me just make one personal observation. I had the good fortune to be at breakfast with the prime minister this morning. We discussed — or the group that was there discussed economic issues, we discussed the Mideast, about which he knows an enormous amount. And he is very, very thoughtful, as you will quickly find out.

So we again, Prime Minister, are just delighted to have you with us. Our program will be as follows: I’ll spend about, oh, the first half of the program posing a few questions to the prime minister and then we’ll open it up to all the participants. And then we will adjourn on time.

If you do ask a question, raise you hand. Somebody will come to you with a microphone. State who you are, your affiliation, and be very brief so we can get as many questions in as possible.

Let me start you off in this way, Prime Minister — as I mentioned at breakfast, I happen to have a very small investment account, so it kind of interests me — (laughter) — what do — what do you — and I think, you know, I do, because I think Canada has a very strong position. But as you look forward over the next five or 10 years, what do you think about when you think about risks, problems, concerns, issues that Canada needs to address?

PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER: Sure. Well, first of all, thank you for the kind introduction and thank you, everybody, for having me today. I’m delighted to be back here.

Bob, let me just say this, what I said this morning, you know, we can point to little things, there’s always things you want to see better in your economy. But the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are very strong. Our growth is slow, but it has been extremely steady — the best overall since the end of the recession in the G-7. We continue to create jobs. We have the lowest tax rates at the federal level we’ve had in 50 years. And our debt and deficit levels are lowest in the G-7 by a long way — by a long way.

RUBIN: Can you tell people what they are? I think —

HARPER: Well, at a federal level we’re now peaking at about 33 percent. So it’s a very, very manageable level.

I can point to little things, but all of the risks to Canada are really external. There were never in Canada any of the fundamental problems that led to the recession globally — the banking problems, the housing market problems, the sovereign debt problems. None of these things were present in Canada in any significant way.

And our recession came about entirely due to our external markets, our export markets and the effect of commodity prices. And these things remain our significant risks in the — in the near and medium term. What I have told Canadians repeatedly in the last few years is those risks are there, they’re going to continue to be with us. And our finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, will continue to dialogue with his partners around the world, our central bank will try and deal with those things.

What we have to do in Canada is, quite frankly, simply look past those things and ask ourselves what can we do to try and increase the growth potential of our economy over time going forward. And that’s why we are working on trade agreements, including completing the one we’re in — negotiating with the EU right now; why we’re keeping our taxes down, getting our budget balanced; why we’re making investments in long-term economic infrastructure and innovation; why we’re focusing — are trying to focus our training programs increasingly on economic and labor force needs; why we’re reorienting our very — I think very positive immigrations programs even more towards the labor force. We’re trying to do all the things we can to deal with the growth potential of the Canadian economy, and as I say, not that there are no risks in Canada, but the real significant risks are all external.

RUBIN: May I ask you a question, Prime Minister? My impression — I think this is right — is that with all the great strengths of Canada, productivity still has not increased at the rate that it has in some of the competitive countries — for example, ours.

HARPER: Yeah.

RUBIN: And what would you think, if that’s right — and I think it’s right — what would you think the reasons would be? And what can be done to address that?

HARPER: Yeah, it is — it is true. I don’t think we entirely know why it is true, but you know, we’re doing a couple things that are important. In terms of particularly our manufacturing sector, we’re doing things to encourage innovation and investment in that sector. We’ve had accelerated capital cost allowance write-downs for new machinery and equipment. We’ve eliminated all tariffs, incoming and outgoing, on manufactured goods. And we’re putting more money into — government money into the commercial side, commercialization side, of research and development.

These are all things on which we’re starting to see some improvements in productivity, particularly in that — I think that’s the really key place where it has to be done.

The other thing we’re doing more going forward is looking at — you know, given that we’re — like all big Western economies, we have large government, what can we do to improve productivity and efficiency in government. As we’re trying to balance our budget, rather than cutting services left, right and center, we’re trying to look at ways we can reduce back office overheads, we can find more efficiency through application of new technology, how we can improve our performance management system for our public servants, to make sure that we’re getting the highest levels of results.

So those are some of the things we’re trying to do on productivity, and I think I see some sign it’s starting to have some effect. But it’s something we’ll have to watch going forward.

RUBIN: You obviously are an enormous producer of energy — gas, oil, coal and so forth. How do the environmental versus the production of energy forces weigh out in Canada? You’ve got the gateway pipeline —

HARPER: Right.

RUBIN: — which I think now has run into some difficulty in British Columbia, if I remember correctly.

HARPER: Well, then the Northern Gateway is still — it’s still part of a regulatory review process. I — as I tell people repeatedly, we in Canada — you know, we have a market-driven energy system; the government does not fund or invest in particular energy products — projects, outside of the hydroelectric sector.

We have vigorous regulatory systems to look at the economic, environmental and other impacts of environmental — of energy projects.

I’ll repeat what I said this morning: to repeat kind of what you said, Bob, that, you know, whether it’s coal, hydroelectricity, uranium, natural gas, oil, you name it, Canada is one of the largest producers in the world, and in almost every case with some of the largest reserves in the world. So whatever the energy mix of the future, as I tell people, Canada will be a major provider.

Look, environmental challenges are real. They have to be dealt with. You know, in terms of the one that — probably one I do want to talk about today, the Keystone pipeline in particular —

RUBIN: (Chuckles.) Thought you might.

HARPER: — and the oil sands, let me just talk a little bit about the environmental side of that, because I know that’s something we’re going to be focused on.

Oil sands — first of all, one needs to put this in a global perspective. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of global emissions are in the oil sands. And so it — it’s, you know, almost nothing globally.

Now obviously it’s a significant part of the — of our own pressures in terms of our targets, the targets we share — we share a Copenhagen target with the United States. We have the same target and obviously constraining emissions there in the oil sands is going to be important.

We’ve had a 25 percent reduction over the past decade or so in emissions intensity out of the oil sands — 25 percent down.

The province of Alberta already has a technology fund, a regulatory approach in the oil sands that is going to lead to even more investments in technology that will continue to reduce our emissions. So look, truth of the matter is heavy oils out of the oil sands — yes, there still are emissions issues, but no — no more so than heavy crudes in other parts of the world, including Venezuela. And I don’t have to tell you there are probably reasons beyond just emissions why you would want to have your oil from Canada rather than from Venezuela.

You know, this project — well, if I can just take a second, four things. I talked about the environment. You know, on the economic side, 40,000 jobs in this country alone over the life of the project — I don’t think, given the growth and job record in North America, we can afford to turn down — turn up our nose at that. Energy security — this project will bring in enough oil to reduce American offshore dependence by 40 percent. This is an enormous benefit to the United States in terms of long-term energy security. And finally, of course, I think when you weigh all these factors, including the environmental factors, it explains why there is such overwhelming public support for this pipeline in the United States and why the — in the — particularly in the regions affected, there’s such broad bipartisan support.

So I think this absolutely needs to go ahead, but you can rest assured that making our emissions targets, including in the oil sands sector, is an important objective of the government of Canada.

RUBIN: This may be an unfair question. You don’t have to respond to it. But you’ve obviously been touched with the — or involved with the — our government quite a bit on this subject. What would your prognosis be for approval? You can not respond to that, and you can say that — (laughter) — you can say it’s complicated — (inaudible) —

HARPER: (Inaudible) — ask Ambassador Jacobson that question. (Laughter.) Look —

RUBIN: I don’t think he wants to take personal responsibility for this. (Laughter.)

HARPER: I think — you know, as I say, I think all the facts, including the recent — you know, recent State Department had a pretty thorough analysis of this, including the environmental impact. And the immediate — the only real immediate environmental issue here is that we want to increase the flow of oil from Canada via pipeline or via rail. If we don’t do the pipeline, more and more is going to be coming in via rail, which is far more environmentally challenging in terms of emissions and risks and all kinds of other things than building a proper pipeline. I think all the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of approval of this, but there is a process in the United States. As I’m told by those who know, the process is subject, as in everything in this country, to a massive potential litigation on either side, so the — I know the administration will do a thorough analysis before arriving at the right decision.

RUBIN: Let me go back to my first question. (Laughter.) That was what — that’s what I thought you were going to say. Let me go back to the first question again. It really — I’ve spent a fair bit of time on this. It’s hard to see internally — for the external difference — internally, where Canada could go wrong. Yet every economy has its risks. So if you were to identify the 1 percent risk that would worry you, what would it be?

HARPER: Well, as I say, they are — they are external. That’s what keeps me up at night. We’ve had — I think there’s been some comment on it here. We have had, as you know, growth of household debt in Canada. I think it’s — it — the assets behind it still speak to the fact that it’s well-supported. The financial institutions lending are the most solid in the world. But household debt has risen. We’ve taken some important steps in Canada to cool that trend through changing some mortgage rules, which is having a noticeable impact. You know, there’s always risks you can’t predict in this world. There are security risks. There are terrorist attacks. As you know, we just have been working with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation working to make arrests on a particular incident we had not long after the Boston bombings. So there’s political risks. There’s always the risk of — there’s always the risk of people picking the wrong government, but my primary job is to make sure that doesn’t happen. (Laughter.)

RUBIN: Well, since you raise that, I wasn’t going to. But you do have — (laughter) — you have to have an election within the next 2 1/2 years sometime.

HARPER: Yeah, actually, we have a date set for October 25th.

RUBIN: Oh, you do? OK, I didn’t realize that. What will the issues in that election likely be?

HARPER: (Chuckles.) You know, I — look, I tell — in fairness, Bob, I tell people that my focus right now is the economy. And I am not — you know, I’m trying to — trying to stay out of campaign mode as long as I can. The — that’s one of the differences between our system and your system. The campaign mode is not perpetual in Canada, although when we had minority governments, it sometimes seemed that way. I believe that in the foreseeable future, to most people, the economy, the future of jobs and opportunities for themselves and for their children — those will continue to be the major issues. I think they’ll be the major issues for some time to come.

I think — look, I think, in the developed world, we’re going to have some ongoing challenges, particularly in Europe, and, for that matter, U.S. fiscal situation is likely to remain challenging for a while. But I think we’re at a crossroads as I think we all recognize there is a — there really is a shift, an unprecedented shift of power and wealth away from the Western world.

And in many ways, that’s a good thing, because we’re seeing hundreds of millions of people come out of poverty who never had opportunity before, and it’s something we want to see continue. But at the same time, if these trends continue, they will be a real threat to our standards of living. And what we keep telling Canadians, and I think all Western governments need to tell their people, is we can maintain and increase our standard of living and opportunity for our children and grandchildren, but we have to govern ourselves responsibly, we have to live within our means, and we have to not develop a mentality that somehow, the wealth we have today is a right, and it is simply going to be taken as a given. It’s going to be earned in a very competitive world. We’re prepared as government to make the investments and decisions necessary to grab that future. And I think we have to keep working with our people to make sure they understand those challenges, not just in their communities but obviously business leaders as well.

RUBIN: Look, I think that’s a very good statement of the challenge that faces all of us. Would you like to comment is another question you might want to be diplomatic about. (Chuckles.) As you look south — you obviously have a very strong economic relation with our country — what is — how does it strike you that we’re doing —

HARPER: Well —

RUBIN: — in the context of the framework you just set out?

HARPER: Look, we’ve made — you know, Canadians are very — you know, very proud of the fact that the country has performed so well over the past seven or eight years. And, you know, for the first time in a very long time, maybe ever, we now have numbers on standard of living that are at or exceed the numbers of the United States as a consequence of some of the trends of the last few years. And Canadians always — I tell people from around the world, Canadians always compare themselves to the Americans because you’re our only real neighbor, and it’s the only real comparison that matters to us. And we’re proud of that comparison.

But we also know that for our country to realize its potential, the United States has to do better. I’m encouraged by growth signs I see in the United States. As I mentioned here earlier today, I have enormous — first, I’m an enormous admirer of this country. And in spite of the fact I value the differences we have as Canadians, I’m an enormous admirer of this country, and I have enormous faith in the ability of the American people and particularly the American business community to always find opportunity, always seize it and always create a better future. That’s been the history of this country. I think it requires a hell of a lot of effort by everybody in Washington to make that not true. (Laughter.) And I just — I just don’t think they can sustain that kind of effort indefinitely, so — (laughter) —

RUBIN: Boy. Well, that’s a — (chuckles) — that, Prime Minister, is very well said. I hope that — (inaudible) — I hope that your bet on their inability to maintain that indefinitely has turned out to be right. (Laughter.)

Before we turn to everybody else, let me ask you, I had not realized, actually, until you were coming here just how deeply you’ve been involved with the Mideast and how constructively, from our point of view, at least. Why don’t you tell people a little bit about your involvement, how much you’ve been involved and what you’ve done and what your views are, including in — with respect to your views, if I may, on Israel, Syria and Egypt?

HARPER: Sure.

Well, look. I think like everybody we’re very concerned about what’s happening in the Mideast. I was criticized somewhat at home for maybe not as enthusiastically embracing the Arab Spring as some, not because I didn’t see positive there, but because I also saw enormous risks. And in some countries like Egypt, I think we’re starting to see the implications of maybe unrealistic expectations, both foreign and often on behalf of the populations themselves.

We were very supportive of our allies on the Libya mission. In fact, it was a Canadian commander, actually, in charge of that mission, with, obviously, our American, British and French and other allies, a mission I think, notwithstanding the problems we see today, was still worthwhile for all kinds of reasons.

Look, the one that’s on everybody’s mind is Syria. And I will just say this: You know, all joking aside about Washington, I — you know, we’ve — I have a really good relationship with the president. And, you know, obviously, think within the constraints of the American system, he’s doing what he can do on all kinds of issues. On Syria, I see a lot of criticism about inaction. I look at Syria over the past couple years, and I would urge the president and everybody else extraordinary caution in jumping into this situation. This is a terrible regime. Canada has some of the toughest sanctions in the world against the Assad regime. We believe, as everybody believes, that he should step down and there should be a transition.

But we should not fool ourselves about what is happening in Syria. The overwhelming complexion of the events in Syria is that of a sectarian conflict on both sides, with brutality and extremism on both sides. And to just start talking about, you know, as some do, arming unnamed people whose objectives — whose identities we don’t know and whose objectives we do not understand I think is — I think is extremely risky. So I think we are best to try and continue to work — we’re making — doing humanitarian aid, as I know the United States is. Best that we keep doing that nonlethal aid, that we assist the neighboring countries, particularly Jordan, who are threatened by this and that we continue to try and do what we can diplomatically, notwithstanding the obstruction of some at the United Nations, that we continue to do what we can diplomatically to try and see if we can’t bring the sides together and lead to a more peaceful transition. I think those are still the best options. Even if they don’t appear attainable, none of the other options, to me, are very pleasant.

I think it is also important — and I’ll use this opportunity to say it again, as I think many of you know, our government has been very well known for its strong support of the state of Israel. I think there is nothing more short sighted in Western capitals, in our time, than the softening support we have seen for Israel around the globe. This is the one strong, stable, democratic, Western ally that we have in this part of the world, and the worst possible thing we could do in the long term for any of our governments is to be anything less than fully supportive of Israel. As long as I’m prime minister, this government will remain very supportive, you know, and — of that country in what is a very challenging neighborhood.

RUBIN: As soon as you said — we’ll turn to everybody else, but now you lead me to a follow-up question, if I may. One would think that, in some respects, they have a very difficult situation right now. If you were Israel, how would you navigate in this — in this water?

HARPER: (Chuckles.)

RUBIN: And you may also — on that one our may find some equal answer, like saying it’s complex.

HARPER: Yeah, you know, it’s so hard. I speak frequently with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and it’s so hard for me to put myself in that kind of environment. As president — or Prime Minister Netanyahu always says to me, he says, I have the worst neighborhood in the world and you have the best neighborhood in the world, because you know where I am and you know all the turmoil around me. And he says, you have three oceans — you have oceans on three sides and the United States on the other. There is no possible better arrangement any country could ask for — (laughter) — in the entire world, and I think he’s absolutely right on that.

You know, obviously first and foremost — first and foremost, Israel has to be preoccupied with its own security, given all the risks — the immediate risks of — in the immediate neighborhood and the farther off but very real risks of places like Iran and its nuclear weapons ambitions, which I consider to be the biggest single threat to the globe today.

At the same time, obviously we encourage Israel to try and work with its neighbors to establish workable relationships, as it has with a couple. And we encourage Israelis and Palestinians to return to the peace table and try and make some progress there. But we should — I really think we should back away from a mythology that there is some kind of magic bullet in Palestinian-Israeli talks that would affect the wider region. The wider region is in turmoil for reasons that go way beyond the Palestinian question or, for that matter, the existence of Israel.

RUBIN: Prime Minister, thank you.

Now we will take questions from anybody who would like to begin the process of asking questions.

Yes, ma’am. Just state who you are and what your affiliation is.

QUESTIONER: Hello. Peggy Hicks with Human Rights Watch. Prime Minister, your government has looked at the issue of violence and murders against indigenous women, and it has been supportive of a parliamentary — special parliamentary committee that’s been set up but so far hasn’t been willing to take up the recommendation of a national commission of inquiry to address that very desperate problem, with hundreds of women missing or dead. This featured prominently in Canada’s UPR, Universal Periodic Review, in Geneva, and now some provinces and territories have come out in support of National Commission of Inquiry. Is it time for the government to support it as well?

HARPER: Yeah, I remain very skeptical. You know, I, first of all, tend to remain skeptical of commissions of inquiry generally. Not to say they never work or never produce good recommendations, but my experience has been, they almost always run way over time, way over budget and often, the recommendations prove to be of limited utility.

This issue has been studied; the government itself — the federal government itself — it’s been studied in several different venues — the federal government itself provided funding or multi-years of study within various branches of our government. We do really think it is time to pass to action.

We have been funding increasing elements — a number of elements in the justice system to increase the efficacy of both prevention programs as well as investigate techniques on behalf of the police. You know, we’re talking about a large number of cases, many of which bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever. And a lot of it is just a matter of getting — getting better processes to both prevent and investigate these kinds of disturbances.

But I think the other thing, more broadly, that is required — and something we have been battling in parliament for some years — is to really enhance the status of women in aboriginal communities. For instance, something we have been trying to pass for some years, when we were a minority, without success, and now advancing — we’re a majority is matrimonial property rights on reserve — women on Canadian reserves, for various reasons — historical reasons — don’t enjoy the same kinds of property and other rights that women off reserves enjoy.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission was, for all intents and purposes — its authorities were not applied on reserves until a couple of years ago when this government managed to amend legislation. So I think there are practical things besides, obviously, enhancing the efficacy of police work. There are things we have to do to increase and raise the status of women in aboriginal communities. And this has been a bit of a pitched battle, because there are forces within aboriginal communities and outside who have been resisting those kinds of changes.

RUBIN: Yes, sir.

QUESTIONER: Ralph Bertrands (ph), New York University. Prime Minister, in recent times, ethnic problems around the world have risen — ethnic separatism has risen. But in Canada, it seems to have declined. Why is that so, and what are the mechanisms the Canadian government has used in this process, and are there any lessons that the rest of the world can learn from this?

RUBIN: That’s a good question.

HARPER: You know, broadly — I won’t comment at great length on the issue of Quebec separatism. As you know, we have a separatist government in Quebec right now, primarily because it was the principal opposition, and Quebecers wanted to change the government, but in fact, support for their actual option of separation is at historic lows.

Look, I think one of the things we’re very proud of in Canada is the general approach we’ve had to diversity. It obviously has origins in the country, because almost from the outset, we’ve had two national languages. We’ve had a policy of multiculturalism for some years. The approach we have used in Canada that I think has been very effective — it’s not perfect — is that we have always taken the view that when people are prepared — people who have lived millennia in other nations pull up their roots and come to Canada, that this is a very dramatic decision they are taking.

And in wanting to do that, we should be very clear that in almost every case, they really want to become Canadians. And so as much as we want and expect them to integrate, we also view that it is our role as the country they’re coming to to make that integration process easier and to accept that when immigrants and when people of different cultures come to Canada, they will not only change to suit the country, but the country will, in some — in some measure, also evolve to reflect them.

And so I think, in understanding that this is a two-way street and that we accept diversity as a positive, this is a deeply-rooted, across the political spectrum in Canada. I think it’s been something that’s served us very well. And I say, notwithstanding problems that arise from time to time, I think it’s fair to say that there’s probably no country in the world with greater cultural diversity, but also greater cultural harmony than Canada, simultaneously.

RUBIN: In that context, Prime Minister, do you have an illegal immigrant problem in Canada of any dimension?

HARPER: We have — we certainly have illegal immigrants in Canada, but nothing like the problem in the United States. Our problems in Canada have tended to be more problems of people coming and making bogus claims in what is a very generous refugee system, as opposed to mass migration from across the border. So we certainly have illegal immigration, but it is — it would be a fragment of the phenomenon in the United States.

QUESTIONER: Mr. Prime Minister, Gordon Giffin, a lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia, proud graduate of Richview Collegiate Institute.

HARPER: My high school, same high school. (Laughter.)

QUESTIONER: And a former ambassador to Canada. Welcome, sir.

I hope I can formulate this question where it is coherent. 1988, Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement; 1994, NAFTA. Almost 20 years later, some significant, I’ll call them incremental initiatives, largely led by the two gentlemen sitting in front of me here, to improve how we work at the border together. But no big moves to try and make a difference in North America to make us more efficient economically. I’m not talking about in any way political integration or even currency integration, nothing like that.

But I even look at the Keystone debate right as evidence of the issue. The only reason we’re having this debate is because of an anachronistic provision in our law that relates to a permit to take infrastructure across the 49th parallel. Why we need that in North America, I’m not sure, when all of the jurisdictions along the route get to approve it or not under their own state laws.

So my — really, my question is, is there a chance of a much bigger initiative between our two countries at some point, to break down the anachronistic rules that impede economic efficiencies in North America, some of which have been done in Europe? I’m not talking about creating an EU with a large governance or anything, but the economic efficiencies.

Last thing I’ll say, when I was in Canada working on things like this, I found the impediment to that to be an insecurity in Canada about dealing with the United States, that we were somehow going to assimilate Canada. I don’t see that anymore. I think Canada’s much more self-confident in dealing with the United States and the world. So if that’s the case, is there a chance at doing a bigger deal going forward?

HARPER: Well, Gordon, let me just begin by just repeating — I know you’re familiar with it — some of the things we are doing, because I think we do have some significant initiative going forward.

We have the — what we call the Beyond the Border Initiative where we are attempting through a series of individual initiatives and investments and closer cooperation between border authorities, to make things more seamless at the border and to push a lot of — you know, inspections out around the perimeter of North America to try and arrange our affairs so that, as we say things, are — things are — you know, may enter twice, but are inspected only once. And we’re doing some of those things.

We also have a parallel initiative called the Regulatory Cooperation Council, where we’ve identified 29 areas to create greater consistency and harmonization of regulations and more importantly, in my judgment, especially for our side, is to find ways in those areas where we will prevent regulatory — unnecessary regulatory difference and duplication going forward, where we try and identify some of those things in advance, try and change some of the processes.

And I should mention one very specific project of international cooperation, which is the president just issued a permit for the Detroit River International Crossing, which this is financed largely by Canada, but this will be — this is a huge piece of infrastructure in what is — and we often forget the size of this relationship — what is the largest single trade corridor in the entire world, the Detroit-Windsor trade corridor.

So we have some important initiatives going forward. Could they lead to something systemically more integrated? Look, I think on our side, they could. I think on our side, they could. I agree with your assessment. I think the view — we had a watershed election in 1988 over the free trade agreement with the United States, and the opponents argued that whether economic integration with the United States — greater economic integration and trade would lead to wealth or not, it would cause Canada to lose its political independence and identity.

What we’ve seen is it has led to vast increases in cross-border trade without any such loss of political independence or identity. In fact, this past year, as you know, we’ve been celebrating the War of — the War of 1812, which —

RUBIN: I know. (Chuckles.)

HARPER: — permanently established this — (laughter) — this independence and separate identity. So I think that — there will always be opponents in Canada, but I think that is a real minority view now.

I think the resistance to this kind of thing’s far more in the United States than in Canada, for reasons that — and maybe, Bob and others, for reasons you would better fathom than me.

Some of it’s post-9/11 security concerns, but I’ve never seen — the United States in the past decade is — the sensitivity here about sovereignty and the negative assessments I often read of NAFTA — completely counterfactual assessments of NAFTA — I think, are the real barriers. I think the real barrier to making some of these arrangements broader and more systemic in terms of the integration are actually on this side of the border.

RUBIN: (Chuckles.)

HARPER: So I leave that to you guys to work out.

RUBIN: To the best my knowledge, Prime Minister, there’s never been a serious study of NAFTA that has shown it not to have been positive, but it lives in the politics of the United States in a very powerful way, because I think it symbolizes a lot of other issues that people are concerned about. That would be my impression, anyway.

HARPER: That’s — it — I don’t think there’s any evidence that it’s been anything but positive. And it’s one of these things — you get this sometime in politics — you get odd things where nobody would repeal it, yet nobody will admit it works.

RUBIN: (Chuckles.)

HARPER: And I don’t know why that is. In Canada I say the — there were many people opposed. It was a very close election, 50-50, Canadians’ original support, on the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement. Any political party that advocates backing away from this trade relationship or from NAFTA would never a general election in Canada, would never be a serious contender.

So that was a watershed, and people understand that this trade is necessary, essential and beneficial.

RUBIN: We’ll go back again. Right there. Yeah.

QUESTIONER: Stephen Blank, Fulbright professor, University of Ottawa. Back to risk. Three factoids: Canada’s increasingly a commodity-driven economy now. We see a decline of Canadian manufacturing competitiveness. And the trick — Canadian dollar trades about 10 to 15 cents higher than we always thought was appropriate. Do these pieces connect with each other? And is this a risk?

HARPER: I wouldn’t want to say they necessarily connect with each other.

We talked earlier today about commodity prices. I’m not sure I agree that we’re more commodity-dependent than ever. In fact, I think what distinguishes us from some countries like Australia is we’re actually less commodity-dependent.

But look, commodities are important. My own view is that commodity prices are likely over any significant period of time to track the general level of global economic activity. Obviously if there’s — if we were to see a recession or vast slowdown in the emerging economy, that would have a real impact on Canada through commodity prices, but it would have a real impact on everybody, whether you were commodity-dependent or not.

So I — you know, as I said earlier, I think — I think the fact that Canada actually is an advanced economy with a commodity side is actually one of our strengths. The fact that we have both traditional and nontraditional industries distinguishes us from some other developed countries where the kinds of problems you see in manufacturing and elsewhere are much more fatal in the long term.

We do need — as I said earlier, we do need to do more to make our secondary manufacturing sectors more competitive, more effective. We are working with the manufacturing sector through a series of sectoral initiatives as well as general tax policies to make that happen. I think those sectors are very supportive of what we’re doing in Canada to make that happen.

And on the research side, as you know, we have been making significant changes to try and make sure the vast — as we — you know, we are a very big funder of public R&D in Canada — to make that connect better with private R&D and to have better results on commercialization.

So look, those things are all — we can point at all kinds of things in Canada where things are not ideal or where there are weaknesses. And they’re all true. We have strengths and we have weaknesses. I don’t think any of these things individually would say that Canada, in isolation, is suddenly going to have a major economic problem. They’re all weaknesses we would have that — on which we would be susceptible, if there were a continued general global economic lowing. So I think our risks primarily (really ?) are external.

RUBIN: Over here.

QUESTIONER: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Daniel Arbess, Parella Weinberg Partners. I wanted to take the opportunity to ask about universal health care. You know, I was born and grew up in Montreal and had the experience of living with universal health care as an adolescent, and my family did. It provided full access to health care, but it always — it wasn’t always to the highest-quality health care and to the most accessible when you needed it. As you know, the United States is moving in this direction. And getting universal health care right is probably the most important economic imperative. I’m sure Bob Rubin would probably agree with that assessment. Being able to create a universal health care system in this country where costs will be managed but so will the quality and accessibility of service balanced against that is critically important as the demographic advances here. So I wondered whether you could illuminate lessons in the Canadian experience with universal health care that would be applicable to our experience here?

HARPER: You know, in all fairness, probably not. (Laughter.) And the reason — the reason I say that is my experience with the health care system is similar to yours, and that — as you know, in Canada, the federal government doesn’t run the health care system. We provide some significant funding through transfer payments to the provinces, but we actually have very little to do with actually running a health care system. And I don’t proclaim any particular expertise in running a health care system.

I would agree with your assessment that we have a system of — a system of universal access. I would actually say that I think, in my own experience, the quality of care is actually quite high. Timeliness is sometimes an issue and becoming more of an issue as we face some of the demographic pressures on that system. And sometimes a system that’s publicly dominated innovation is also — may also be a bit more of a challenge in some areas.

But look, as you know, the fact of the matter is, Canadians across the political spectrum, including our party, we are very supportive of the fundamental premise of the Canadian health care system, which is that when somebody is sick and needs medical care, their ability to pay should not be a factor in them being able to access medical care. And that is a principle that Canadians believe in and, I know, one that remains a matter of some debate in the United States.

I would also made the following observations — when I say that I can’t give you an easy answer — I’d make this observation. In spite of the differences between Canadian and American health care and the health care systems in many other Western countries, it seems to me that health care systems around the world, regardless of how they’re structured, seem to have a lot of the same problems, the more I actually look at them.

And a lot of the reason for the problem is actually a positive thing. It is that with the — with the great strides we’ve made in both the professions, professional training, and especially technology and drugs, that there is just more and more and more we can do to improve people’s lives and to keep them living longer. But these things all come with price tags and, in some cases, with enormous price tags.

And the fact of the matter is it is very difficult for systems to assess, however they assess it, where you’re going to put these resources. Resources are never unlimited. And the demands and the ability to treat in many cases are virtually unlimited. And so decisions have to be made, and however those decisions are made, whether they’re through queuing or through pricing or whatever they are, are very difficult decisions. And I just think those are challenges.

And they’re going to be compounded, as we all know, because of the demographics in Western countries, where the population’s aging, people will need more health care, and more health care professionals themselves are aging, there will be less and less practitioners. So those are going to be some of the common challenges.

In our country, previous federal governments — well, not running a health care system — made a point — our ambassador was a former premier — they made a point of periodically picking fights with the provinces over health care to demonstrate that somehow we were going to be great defenders of the system. I think that was an entirely negative dynamic. The approach we now take is we try to work with the provinces to assist them in tackling what are very real challenges going forward.

RUBIN: Prime Minister, if a province decided they didn’t want to have a single-payer system, would they be in a position where they could move away from that?

HARPER: They — technically yes, but they would not be receiving significant transfer payments from the federal government if they did that. And in fairness, there is no political appetite that I’m aware of in any province in any segment of — significant segment of political opinion to do that.

RUBIN: The gentleman over there. Yeah, that’s it.

QUESTIONER: My name is Andrew Gumlock (sp) from — (inaudible). You’ve had some recent bruising battles on economic nationalism. In the fertilizer sector you chose not to allow foreign investors in. In two recent energy deals, you debated it a lot but you ultimately allowed them in, ring-fenced some assets.

How do you see this playing out in the short term with the election? But more broadly, and perhaps more importantly, how do you see Canada attracting in the surplus countries into very capital-intensive industries? Frankly, they need capital well in excess of the savings of Canada.

HARPER: Yes, that’s true. We need — we need foreign investment and, at the same time, you should be under illusion that we want foreign investment in Canada. And in fact, although we screen all major foreign investments, only twice in our history have we actually rejected foreign investments.

I just want to talk briefly about the two issues you raised. The one where we did not allow the investment, this was a case of the potash industry, where currently it’s a Canadian/American company, and Canada is a dominate producer. And through a Canadian/American organization, it’s headquartered — or, you know, partly headquartered in Canada.

Canada has significant market power in that industry. In one single transaction, what was going to occur was that that significant market power as going to shift out of the country and towards a foreign, private investor. Our judgement was that, because we do screen foreign investments, that that simply was not in the long-term interests of the Canadian economy. I’d say that was fairly unique circumstances.

The second case you raise was our decision to allow certain state-owned investments — one by a Chinese state-owned corporation, another by a Malaysian state-owned corporation — into the energy sector. And we allowed those after considerable deliberation.

And while we allowed those, we were very clear going forward that in areas of the economy — like, for instance, the oil sands — where we see now a significant risk that if we did not restrict foreign ownership that we would have in — essentially have that sector be nationalized by some other state-owned enterprise.

Our view is that is not the direction we want for the Canadian economy. We want to have foreign investment. This government — in fact, it’s conservative governments in our country, like mine, who have opened up the economy for foreign investment and have privatized crown corporations. We did not privatize state corporations in order to see other governments nationalize our industry.

So while some foreign state-owned investment is desirable, we would not want it at a level at any critical part of the economy where essentially we began to put that sector of the economy under a foreign state management system, rather than having it essentially run by commercial forces. So as they say, it’s a matter of level and degree. And we’ll deal with that going forward.

The risk Canada actually has, given the attractiveness — we’re now rated — I forget — was it Forbes who said now Canada’s in the best place in the world to make an investment. We get that kind of rating elsewhere. Given the relative smallness of the Canadian economy and the relative size of some potential investors, I do think that if we don’t — if we don’t have this concern in mind, we could see our economy morph in a way we don’t intend.

And as I say, it’s not about foreign or domestic. It’s about the nature of state-owned enterprises versus genuinely commercial operations. And that’s the thing we’re keeping an eye on.

RUBIN: Yes, sir.

QUESTIONER: Jeff Laurenti with The Century Foundation.

Mr. Prime Minister, the gradual melting back of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean, attributed usually to global warming, raises two issues, as you now have long, frozen territorial claims suddenly heating up as well. And I wonder if you might elucidate for us, first, on the mega-issue of global warming, on which Canada has taken a somewhat more nuanced stand — walking back from Kyoto — whether — for Canadians, perhaps the prospect of having a climate more like New Jersey’s is so appealing that, you know, it doesn’t seem to be urgent. So where do you see the global climate change issue going on the mega level?

And then, on the Arctic territorial claims question, what are the major claims and dispute that affect Canada, and do you see that as resolved by the six countries adjacent to the ocean relative to their bargaining power with each other, or under broader principles of international law like the Law of the Sea? What’s the interplay between those?

HARPER: First of all, on the issue of climate change — our government’s position from the outset is that we need a mandatory international protocol that includes all significant emitters, and that if we do not get that, we will not be able to control global emissions. Part of the reason our government was not supportive of the Kyoto protocol is it controlled one-third of global emissions and a shrinking proportion of global emissions. Even if the Kyoto protocol had — every country in it had realized their targets, which, of course, most weren’t — they would have had no impact whatsoever on the growth of global emissions.

So we need — we need some of the big emitters outside the developed world — not just the United States — China and others — to be part of a — of a global system. And I do believe a couple of things going forward if we’re going to make that global system effective. It’s not just a matter of setting targets. We actually have to have ways of reaching them. You know, many countries have tried simply setting a target as a way of demonstrating that they’re going to achieve something. We need a couple of things.

I think, first and foremost, we do need technological change. I am convinced that over time, we are not going to effectively tackle emissions unless we develop the technology — lower emission technology in energy and other sectors. And that is the thing that will allow us to square economic growth with emissions reduction and environmental protection. And I’m convinced that if we cannot square those two things, we’re not going to make progress globally.

And I don’t just say that about developed countries like ours, where people are still saying they need jobs as a consequence of the recession, but certainly, in the developing world, we’re not going to simply be able to put caps on economic growth as a way of achieving environmental targets. So that’s the framework we’re approaching it from, but look, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of work to be done. There is still not — the reality is, there is still not an acceptance in many countries of the need for mandatory targets at all.

On the — on the issue of territorial claims, you know, with one — with one small exception, from our standpoint — with one small exception, there really aren’t significant land and territorial claims. There are some disputes, including with your country, on some offshore claims. We have some with the United States on the Beaufort Sea, we obviously have an ongoing dispute about the international status of the Northwest Passage; we have some dispute in the Lincoln Sea area with Denmark.

I think these are things that can be resolved bilaterally. We are obviously, at the same time, big supporters of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the process that’s going on there to deal with the — you know, the much farther offshore. And we will continue to support those international efforts. But I actually think the immediate territorial disputes, if they are to be resolved at all, can be resolved or managed bilaterally.

RUBIN: We have time for half a question more — (laughter) — and I’m going to — I’m going to take the liberty, if I may, of asking the question, because it relates to the question just answered. How do — can you see any way that the international community is actually going to effectively reach some kind of way of dealing with global climate change before it becomes a crisis that forces action? And in that context, is the G-20 an effective vehicle for dealing with transnational issues?

HARPER: Boy, that’s a big question.

RUBIN: Well, I — it’s a half a question, if you have a half an answer.

HARPER: Yeah. Well, look, I think the answer to the first question is yes. I think it’s going to be difficult. I think that — I think that most countries understand not just the question of climate change is serious, but understand that the price of having no effective environmental framework is already causing significant impacts and will cause greater impacts in the future.

I think even with marginal progresses in standard of living in places like China and India, there will be overwhelming public demand for environmental improvement in those countries. You know, it’s incomprehensible to me, when I look at the growth of China and India and I see the kind of environmental challenges that exist today, how those challenges could be tolerable if they became five or 10 times as bad. So I do think everybody will — will come to the realization, whether it’s on climate change or these broader economic problems of pollution and other such matters, that these things do have to be tackled.

I — I really do think that we’ll — we’ll get farther on these things if we take serious approaches. And serious approaches, Bob, means that we admit that not just they are big challenges, but they are also difficult ones. It is not a matter of just getting on a street corner and yelling and that will somehow lead to a solution. These are real challenges that — where environmental needs intersect and often appear to be at cross-purposes with economic and social development. And unless we realize that, take those things seriously, we’re going to keep talking around the real issues. So I think if we admit they’re real problems with real, difficult solutions and real, difficult choices that have to be made, that everybody has to contribute to, then I think we’ll make progress.

And I do think as time wears on and as we’ve had, you know, failures as we have through Kyoto and failures at some of these international conferences, I do think it will increasingly dawn on actors that we’ll just keep failing unless we actually get together and realize this is a — these are issues that — that don’t have simple, quick answers.

That was the first. What was the —

RUBIN: Oh, I’m just curious whether you think the G-20 is an effective mechanism for —

HARPER: Well, look, I don’t know. I — you know, I don’t — I wish I could tell you yes to that one. The G-20 was extraordinarily effective when President Bush first convened it in late 2008. It was extraordinarily effective at that meeting, at the subsequent ones in London and Pittsburgh, at arriving at a consensus on a series of issues that had to be addressed. And you know, we did a global stimulus. We worked for — we all worked together on — we shared, in fact, the panel on working together in more effective financial regulation. There’s been another — a number of other agreements.

What my observation would be, that going forward — when we all faced exactly the same problem, which was a collapse in economic activity, it — it — it sure led much more quickly to a consensus on what to do. Now that countries find themselves — you know, we talk about two three — two-speed, three-speed developed world, emerging economies on a different trajectory. As the situations and needs of these different countries diverge, getting consensus on these issues is proving to be more and more difficult. I don’t know whether it will be — whether it will be as effective going forward as it needs to be.

I do know this, that I think it’s the only mechanism at our disposal. I don’t think you’d want more than 20 players in the room. Unfortunately, the G-20 tends to mean, in practice, G-20 — something like G-35. But with 20 to 30 to 35 people in the room, I think you’re squeezing the — the bounds of effectiveness anyway, and — and there is nothing else that I see as a plausible substitute, other than the major sovereign players getting together and trying to — to work through some global needs.

What — what we lack — I would say often the real crucial problem is this. It’s — it’s not that — it’s not that — just that we have divergent paths and — and different situations. It’s that there is still often in these discussions a failure of many people around the table to fully grasp the holistic nature of the approach we need to take.

And look, we — Canada, like everyone else, we defend our national interests and our national perspective. But given that we are part of a global economy, effective — for lack of a better words, effective global governance through the G-20 — and that’s the closest thing we got — is only going to work if a lot of people around the table bring a holistic and global perspective to that economy and to — to what needs to be done globally. And that is still an area where we’re deficient, where I don’t think there’s still enough of a realization that the best we’re going to do — even in some of the largest economies, the best we have is coping mechanisms, unless we actually work together on how we address some of these challenges.

RUBIN: Prime Minister, we thank you for being with us and — (applause) — you were terrific.

(C) 2013 Federal News Service

continue viewing source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNR0_ved98

Related:


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

The end of the New World Order

The upheavals of the early 21st century have changed our world. Now, in the aftermath of failed wars and economic disasters, pressure for a social alternative can only grow

By
The Guardian
Friday 19 October 2012 18.00 BST

lehman-new-world-order
Culture shock … the collapse of Lehman Brothers ushered in the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

In the late summer of 2008, two events in quick succession signalled the end of the New World Order. In August, the US client state of Georgia was crushed in a brief but bloody war after it attacked Russian troops in the contested territory of South Ossetia.

The former Soviet republic was a favourite of Washington’s neoconservatives. Its authoritarian president had been lobbying hard for Georgia to join Nato’s eastward expansion. In an unblinking inversion of reality, US vice-president Dick Cheney denounced Russia‘s response as an act of “aggression” that “must not go unanswered”. Fresh from unleashing a catastrophic war on Iraq, George Bush declared Russia’s “invasion of a sovereign state” to be “unacceptable in the 21st century”.

As the fighting ended, Bush warned Russia not to recognise South Ossetia’s independence. Russia did exactly that, while US warships were reduced to sailing around the Black Sea. The conflict marked an international turning point. The US’s bluff had been called, its military sway undermined by the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. After two decades during which it bestrode the world like a colossus, the years of uncontested US power were over.

Three weeks later, a second, still more far-reaching event threatened the heart of the US-dominated global financial system. On 15 September, the credit crisis finally erupted in the collapse of America’s fourth-largest investment bank. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers engulfed the western world in its deepest economic crisis since the 1930s.

The first decade of the 21st century shook the international order, turning the received wisdom of the global elites on its head – and 2008 was its watershed. With the end of the cold war, the great political and economic questions had all been settled, we were told. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism had triumphed. Socialism had been consigned to history. Political controversy would now be confined to culture wars and tax-and-spend trade-offs.

In 1990, George Bush Senior had inaugurated a New World Order, based on uncontested US military supremacy and western economic dominance. This was to be a unipolar world without rivals. Regional powers would bend the knee to the new worldwide imperium. History itself, it was said, had come to an end.

But between the attack on the Twin Towers and the fall of Lehman Brothers, that global order had crumbled. Two factors were crucial. By the end of a decade of continuous warfare, the US had succeeded in exposing the limits, rather than the extent, of its military power. And the neoliberal capitalist model that had reigned supreme for a generation had crashed.

It was the reaction of the US to 9/11 that broke the sense of invincibility of the world’s first truly global empire. The Bush administration’s wildly miscalculated response turned the atrocities in New York and Washington into the most successful terror attack in history.

Not only did Bush’s war fail on its own terms, spawning terrorists across the world, while its campaign of killings, torture and kidnapping discredited Western claims to be guardians of human rights. But the US-British invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq revealed the inability of the global behemoth to impose its will on subject peoples prepared to fight back. That became a strategic defeat for the US and its closest allies.

This passing of the unipolar moment was the first of four decisive changes that transformed the world – in some crucial ways for the better. The second was the fallout from the crash of 2008 and the crisis of the western-dominated capitalist order it unleashed, speeding up relative US decline.

This was a crisis made in America and deepened by the vast cost of its multiple wars. And its most devastating impact was on those economies whose elites had bought most enthusiastically into the neoliberal orthodoxy of deregulated financial markets and unfettered corporate power.

A voracious model of capitalism forced down the throats of the world as the only way to run a modern economy, at a cost of ballooning inequality and environmental degradation, had been discredited – and only rescued from collapse by the greatest state intervention in history. The baleful twins of neoconservatism and neoliberalism had been tried and tested to destruction.

The failure of both accelerated the rise of China, the third epoch-making change of the early 21st century. Not only did the country’s dramatic growth take hundreds of millions out of poverty, but its state-driven investment model rode out the west’s slump, making a mockery of market orthodoxy and creating a new centre of global power. That increased the freedom of manoeuvre for smaller states.

China’s rise widened the space for the tide of progressive change that swept Latin America – the fourth global advance. Across the continent, socialist and social-democratic governments were propelled to power, attacking economic and racial injustice, building regional independence and taking back resources from corporate control. Two decades after we had been assured there could be no alternatives to neoliberal capitalism, Latin Americans were creating them.

These momentous changes came, of course, with huge costs and qualifications. The US will remain the overwhelmingly dominant military power for the foreseeable future; its partial defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for in death and destruction on a colossal scale; and multipolarity brings its own risks of conflict. The neoliberal model was discredited, but governments tried to refloat it through savage austerity programmes. China’s success was bought at a high price in inequality, civil rights and environmental destruction. And Latin America’s US-backed elites remained determined to reverse the social gains, as they succeeded in doing by violent coup in Honduras in 2009. Such contradictions also beset the revolutionary upheaval that engulfed the Arab world in 2010-11, sparking another shift of global proportions.

By then, Bush’s war on terror had become such an embarrassment that the US government had to change its name to “overseas contingency operations”. Iraq was almost universally acknowledged to have been a disaster, Afghanistan a doomed undertaking. But such chastened realism couldn’t be further from how these campaigns were regarded in the western mainstream when they were first unleashed.

To return to what was routinely said by British and US politicians and their tame pundits in the aftermath of 9/11 is to be transported into a parallel universe of toxic fantasy. Every effort was made to discredit those who rejected the case for invasion and occupation – and would before long be comprehensively vindicated.

Michael Gove, now a Tory cabinet minister, poured vitriol on the Guardian for publishing a full debate on the attacks, denouncing it as a “Prada-Meinhof gang” of “fifth columnists”. Rupert Murdoch’s Sun damned those warning against war as “anti-American propagandists of the fascist left”. When the Taliban regime was overthrown, Blair issued a triumphant condemnation of those (myself included) who had opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and war on terror. We had, he declared, “proved to be wrong”.

A decade later, few could still doubt that it was Blair’s government that had “proved to be wrong”, with catastrophic consequences. The US and its allies would fail to subdue Afghanistan, critics predicted. The war on terror would itself spread terrorism. Ripping up civil rights would have dire consequences – and an occupation of Iraq would be a blood-drenched disaster.

The war party’s “experts”, such as the former “viceroy of Bosnia” Paddy Ashdown, derided warnings that invading Afghanistan would lead to a “long-drawn-out guerrilla campaign” as “fanciful”. More than 10 years on, armed resistance was stronger than ever and the war had become the longest in American history.

It was a similar story in Iraq – though opposition had by then been given voice by millions on the streets. Those who stood against the invasion were still accused of being “appeasers”. US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the war would last six days. Most of the Anglo-American media expected resistance to collapse in short order. They were entirely wrong.

A new colonial-style occupation of Iraq would, I wrote in the first week of invasion, “face determined guerrilla resistance long after Saddam Hussein has gone” and the occupiers “be driven out”. British troops did indeed face unrelenting attacks until they were forced out in 2009, as did US regular troops until they were withdrawn in 2011.

But it wasn’t just on the war on terror that opponents of the New World Order were shown to be right and its cheerleaders to be talking calamitous nonsense. For 30 years, the west’s elites insisted that only deregulated markets, privatisation and low taxes on the wealthy could deliver growth and prosperity.

Long before 2008, the “free market” model had been under fierce attack: neoliberalism was handing power to unaccountable banks and corporations, anti-corporate globalisation campaigners argued, fuelling poverty and social injustice and eviscerating democracy – and was both economically and ecologically unsustainable.

In contrast to New Labour politicians who claimed “boom and bust” to be a thing of the past, critics dismissed the idea that the capitalist trade cycle could be abolished as absurd. Deregulation, financialisation and the reckless promotion of debt-fuelled speculation would, in fact, lead to crisis.

The large majority of economists who predicted that the neoliberal model was heading for breakdown were, of course, on the left. So while in Britain the main political parties all backed “light-touch regulation” of finance, its opponents had long argued that City liberalisation threatened the wider economy.

Critics warned that privatising public services would cost more, drive down pay and conditions and fuel corruption. Which is exactly what happened. And in the European Union, where corporate privilege and market orthodoxy were embedded into treaty, the result was ruinous. The combination of liberalised banking with an undemocratic, lopsided and deflationary currency union that critics (on both left and right in this case) had always argued risked breaking apart was a disaster waiting to happen. The crash then provided the trigger.

The case against neoliberal capitalism had been overwhelmingly made on the left, as had opposition to the US-led wars of invasion and occupation. But it was strikingly slow to capitalise on its vindication over the central controversies of the era. Hardly surprising, perhaps, given the loss of confidence that flowed from the left’s 20th-century defeats – including in its own social alternatives.

But driving home the lessons of these disasters was essential if they were not to be repeated. Even after Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror was pursued in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks from Pakistan to Somalia. The western powers played the decisive role in the overthrow of the Libyan regime – acting in the name of protecting civilians, who then died in their thousands in a Nato-escalated civil war, while conflict-wracked Syria was threatened with intervention and Iran with all-out attack.

And while neoliberalism had been discredited, western governments used the crisis to try to entrench it. Not only were jobs, pay and benefits cut as never before, but privatisation was extended still further. Being right was, of course, never going to be enough. What was needed was political and social pressure strong enough to turn the tables of power.

Revulsion against a discredited elite and its failed social and economic project steadily deepened after 2008. As the burden of the crisis was loaded on to the majority, the spread of protests, strikes and electoral upheavals demonstrated that pressure for real change had only just begun. Rejection of corporate power and greed had become the common sense of the age.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm described the crash of 2008 as a “sort of right-wing equivalent to the fall of the Berlin wall”. It was commonly objected that after the implosion of communism and traditional social democracy, the left had no systemic alternative to offer. But no model ever came pre-cooked. All of them, from Soviet power and the Keynesian welfare state to Thatcherite-Reaganite neoliberalism, grew out of ideologically driven improvisation in specific historical circumstances.

The same would be true in the aftermath of the crisis of the neoliberal order, as the need to reconstruct a broken economy on a more democratic, egalitarian and rational basis began to dictate the shape of a sustainable alternative. Both the economic and ecological crisis demanded social ownership, public intervention and a shift of wealth and power. Real life was pushing in the direction of progressive solutions.

The upheavals of the first years of the 21st century opened up the possibility of a new kind of global order, and of genuine social and economic change. As communists learned in 1989, and the champions of capitalism discovered 20 years later, nothing is ever settled.

This is an edited extract from The Revenge of History: the Battle for the 21st Century by Seumas Milne, published by Verso. Buy it for £16 at guardianbookshop.co.uk

continue reading source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/19/new-world-order

dfsg


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Salafism and Arab Democratization

Salafism and Arab Democratization

By Kamran Bokhari
Vice President of Middle Eastern & South Asian Affairs
October 2, 2012 | 0900 GMT

The outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 brought significant attention to groups — known as Islamists — seeking to establish Islamic states in countries once ruled by secular autocrats. The bulk of this attention went to already established political groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which caused consternation in the West when its Freedom and Justice Party won control of both Egypt’s parliament and its presidency.

Much less attention was paid to the Brotherhood’s principal Islamist competitors, members of the ultraconservative Salafist movement, despite their second-place finish in Egypt’s parliamentary elections. This changed in late September when certain Salafists played a key role in the unrest in reaction to an anti-Islamic video posted on the Internet.

Since then, Salafism has become the subject of much public discourse — though as is often the case with unfamiliar subjects, questions are vastly more numerous than answers. This is compounded by the rapidity of its rise from a relatively minor, apolitical movement to an influential Islamist phenomenon.

Origins and Goals of Salafism

Modern Salafism is based on an austere reinterpretation of Islam, calling for Muslims to return to the original teachings outlined in the Koran and the practices of the Prophet Mohammed as understood by the earliest generation, i.e., the Companions of the Prophet. From the Salafist perspective, non-Islamic thought has contaminated the message of “true” Islam for centuries, and this excess must be jettisoned from the Islamic way of life.

Salafists are a minority among the global Muslim population and even among Islamists. Unlike members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists do not belong to a singular organization. Instead, the movement comprises a diffuse agglomeration of neighborhood preachers, societal groups and — only very recently — political parties, none of which are necessarily united in ideology.

In many ways, Salafism can be seen as a rejection of the political ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. For most of the movement’s existence, it shunned politics — and thus Islamism — in favor of a focus on personal morality and individual piety, arguing that an Islamic state could not exist without Muslims first returning to the tenets of “true” Islam. This means Salafism also was at odds with the concept of jihadism — itself a violent offshoot of Salafism — as practiced by groups such as al Qaeda that sought to use force to manifest their Islamist ideology.

The Salafist movement could also afford to stay away from political activism in large part because it had a political backer in the government of Saudi Arabia. While many Salafists didn’t agree with some of Riyadh’s policies, its historical role as the birthplace of Salafism and role as the patron underwriting the global spread of Salafist thought kept the movement within the Saudi orbit.

This remained the case until the 1991 Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was forced to allow some 500,000 U.S. troops into the kingdom to protect itself from Baathist Iraq, after the latter’s brief occupation of Kuwait. The move caused an uproar over the religious legitimacy of allowing non-Muslim soldiers on what many consider to be holy grounds, and it also gave way to a wider debate about the political state of affairs of the Saudi kingdom. Prominent scholars began publicly calling for reform, which led to Salafists in general engaging in political discourse and, eventually, to the concept of Salafism as an Islamist philosophy.

Nevertheless, Salafists would not become a political force for another two decades, simply because it takes time for an apolitical religious movement to develop a political philosophy. At the same time, the Saudi leadership was rallying the country’s religious establishment to contain these newly politicized Salafists. The 9/11 attacks and subsequent U.S. actions against jihadism further advanced Salafist thought as the sect tried to hold on to its core values amid U.S.-led international pressure for reform, distinguish itself from jihadists and come up with a viable political alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab Spring

By the end of the 2000s, Salafism had spread across the Arab world, most notably to Egypt and Tunisia, expanding both the number of its adherents and its institutional scope, which now included social organizations engaged in charity, relief and community work. They stopped short of formal political groups, largely because of the autocratic regimes under which they lived, but they quietly developed the infrastructure for such groups. It was under these circumstances that the Salafists found themselves at the beginning of the Arab Spring.

The case of Egypt’s Salafists is the most telling. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, they were caught unprepared when the popular agitation largely led by liberal youth groups broke out and began to consume decades-old secular autocratic regimes. While they eventually were able to overshadow the largely non-Islamist forces that played a key role in forcing the ouster of then-President Hosni Mubarak, they lacked the political machine that the Brotherhood had developed over the course of some 80 years. The result was the rise of various Salafist forces haphazardly trying to assert themselves in a post-authoritarian Egypt.

Several Egyptian Salafist groups applied for licenses to form political parties. Two prominent parties — al-Nour and al-Asala — emerged along with a host of individuals, such as Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, who ran as an independent candidate for president. The two Salafist parties banded together with the newly formed political wing of the former jihadist group Gamaa al-Islamiya — the Building and Development Party — to form the Islamist Bloc. The alliance was able to garner more than a quarter of ballots cast in the parliamentary polls late last year, coming in second place behind the Brotherhood.

What was most important about these Salafists participating in mainstream politics is that they embraced the electoral process after decades of having denounced democracy as un-Islamic. In other words, they ultimately adopted the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they had hitherto vehemently rejected. This transformation has been more a rushed affair stemming from expediency rather than a natural ideological evolution.

There is an expectation that radical forces joining the political mainstream could, over time, lead to their de-radicalization. That may be true in the case of states with strong democratic systems, but in most Arab countries — which are just now beginning their journey away from authoritarianism — the Salafist embrace of electoral politics is likely to delay and perhaps even disrupt the democratization process and destabilize Egypt and by extension the region.

Much of this chaos will stem from the fact that the move to accept democratic politics has led to further fragmentation of the Salafist landscape. Many Salafists still are not comfortable with democracy, and those who have cautiously adopted it are divided into many factions. The result is that no one Salafist entity can speak for the bulk of the sect.

What Lies Ahead

Clearly, the Salafists are bereft of any tradition of civil dissent. That said, they have exhibited a strong sense of urgency to exercise their nascent freedom and engage in political activism. The outcome of this was the rioting that took place in reaction to the anti-Islamic film.

The Salafists are not just suffering from arrested political development; they face an intellectual discrepancy. On one hand, they wish to be part of the new democratic order and a mainstream player. On the other, they subscribe to a radical agenda that dictates the imposition of their stern interpretation of Islamic law across the Arab and Muslim world.

Their envisioned order is not just a problem for secularists, Christians, Jews and other minorities but also for more moderate Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood lost its monopoly on Islamism close to four decades ago but back then it didn’t matter because the Brotherhood was an opposition movement. Now that the group has won political power in Egypt, the Salafists represent a threat to its political interests.

Some of the more politically savvy Salafists, especially the political parties, are willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood toward the common goals of furthering the democratic transition and containing radical and militant tendencies. Ultimately, however, they seek to exploit the Brotherhood’s pragmatism in order to undermine the mainstream Islamist movement’s support among religious voters. Additionally, the Salafists are also trying to make use of their role as mediators between the Brotherhood-led government and the jihadists active in the Sinai region to enhance their bargaining power and lessen the Brotherhood’s.

Salafists — whether they operate through legal means or through raw street power — can be expected to create problems for Egypt’s new government led by President Mohammed Morsi, especially when it comes to foreign policy matters. A prime example is the recent case of the film-related violence, during which Morsi had a difficult time balancing the need to placate the masses at home and maintain a working relationship with the United States, upon which Egypt relies for its economic well-being. While the anger over the film is a passing phenomenon, the underlying dynamic persists.

There is also no shortage of issues for right-wing Islamists to exploit. U.S. imperatives in the region will continue to place the Morsi government in a tight spot and provide reasons for the Salafists to oppose Cairo’s policies. Even more volatile than the dealings between the Morsi administration and Washington will be Israeli-Egyptian relations.

So far, Morsi has managed to avoid dealing too directly with Israel. But the Egyptian president and the Brotherhood cannot avoid this for too long. They know that they will face situations where they could be caught between the need to maintain peaceful relations with Israel and deal with Salafists taking advantage of the widespread anti-Israeli sentiment among Egyptians. This is one of the reasons Morsi and his associates have been speaking of revising the peace treaty with Israel, which is an attempt to manage the inevitable backlash on the home front.

Egypt’s difficulties are particularly pronounced given the country’s status as the leader of the Arab world, but Salafists of various stripes are slowly emerging as political stakeholders across the region, especially in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Democratization by its very nature is a messy affair in any context, but in the case of the Arab spring, Salafist entities can be expected to complicate political transitions and undermine stability and security in the Middle East.

The major challenge to stability in the Arab world thus lies only partially in the transition to democracy from autocracy. Greater than that is the challenge mainstream Islamists face from a complex and divided Salafist movement.

Salafism and Arab Democratization is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.
Simply copy and paste this code: “:<a href=”http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/salafism-and-arab-democratization”>Salafism and Arab Democratization


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada at the Appeal of Conscience Foundation’s Annual Awards Dinner

28 September 2012
New York City, New York

Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered the following remarks at the Appeal of Conscience Foundation’s Annual Awards Dinner:

“Thank you very much Rabbi Schneier, Chairman Chenevert, Louis; my colleagues Ministers Baird, Kent, Fantino,Ablonczy; Parliamentary Secretary Obhrai; Senator Wallin; Ambassadors Doer and Rishchynski; High Commissioner Campbell; Consul General Prado; my fellow award winners Vikram Pandit and Virginia Rometty; all the honoured guests of our head table and distinguished guests; ladies and gentlemen.

“First, I want to begin by thanking Henry Kissinger for that generous introduction.

“I have to say Dr. Kissinger, I am of course aware not only of your immense contributions to your country and international relations, but I have long been an admirer.

“I have to tell you, I have been an admirer indeed since before I was old enough to vote.

“So being able to share the stage with you and to be introduced really does mean a great deal to me.

“I’m also, of course, honoured and want to thank Rabbi Schneier for the fact that we are all here tonight.

“I don’t just refer to this large and impressive gathering, but more particularly to the cause for which you have brought it together and have brought it together for so many years.

“In a globe of conflicting and complex and competing interests, it is far too easy to set aside the silent and subtle appeals of the conscience.

“But, if we do, the world is lost.

“You have made it your life work to take the horrors of your own experience and to use them to remind us of something truly hopeful: the freedom and human dignity of every person.

“And so you have our admiration and our appreciation!

“Ladies and Gentlemen, it is upon this foundation – of freedom and human dignity – that Canada seeks, in an uncertain world to articulate a foreign policy built on certain principles.

“These principles are rooted in our own country’s ancient heritage and long practice of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

“But it is more than that.

“On foreign affairs, there is a widely shared consensus among Canadians, a generosity of spirit that one might describe as a simple desire for fair play.

“We Canadians, for example, are very conscious of our own sovereignty and we expect our governments to make pragmatic decisions in Canada’s national interest.

“But we also want those governments to be good world citizens, to try to understand other points of view and to act in concert with our partners, for the wider interests of humanity.

“That is, of course, not the same thing, friends, as trying to court every dictator with a vote at the United Nations or just going along with every emerging international consensus, no matter how self-evidently wrong-headed.

“When confronted with evil in the world, we do take a stand, we take strong, principled positions in our dealings, whether popular or not.

“And that is what the world has counted on from Canada – and received – in two world wars, in Korea, in a generation of peacekeeping operations, Gulf War One, and of course, most recently in Afghanistan and also in Libya.

“Finally, I came to tell you that Canadians are proud, fiercely proud, of the reputation we have established for both a competitive economy and a compassionate society, and for the unparalleled combination of cultural diversity and harmony which draws to us people of all nations.

“In short, ladies and gentlemen, I come here tonight to accept your award, not for any qualities of my own, but on behalf of the unique and magnificent country that I have the privilege of leading.

“Among the many assets of Canada is its neighbourhood.

“That is to say that Canada has only one real neighbour, and it is the best neighbour any nation could possibly have.

“Now Rabbi, we do remember that 200 years ago this year began the last war between our two countries, the war that effectively established our independence.

“That our comparatively small country has since lived in secure peace and growing prosperity for almost two centuries is a testament to the enduring strength and the essential benevolence of the United States of America.

“So thank you for our great partnership and for your unwavering friendship.

“And, friends, allow me in this vein to offer you, let me offer you our unequivocal condemnation and outrage over the recent anti-American riots around your embassies and the deadly attack upon your consulate in Libya, and the deep sympathies of the Canadian people for all who lost friends and loved ones in that violent event.

“And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to want I want to do tonight which is a brief reflection on the state of the world in which we live and the state of our values in the world in which we live.

“I referred a few moments ago to our uncertain world.

“What are the uncertainties and what are their consequences?

“The years through which we are now passing seem to be times of extraordinary change, as if some great hand is spinning the wheel of history.

“Nations with a history of shared values, like many of our friends in Europe, are weighed down by debts they cannot seem to control, by entitlements they can no longer afford, and by sluggish economies that show few signs of growth.

“Meanwhile, new powers are rising, whose commitments to our ideals are often neither firm nor clear.

“What appears to some a hopeful spring for democracy quickly becomes an angry summer of populism.

“Old resentments seem to come back to life, energizing groups who advocate terror and dangerous, rogue states seek nuclear weapons.

“Of course, these great global changes often present us global opportunities.

“The world is probably a freer and more democratic place today when I look at it than at any point in my lifetime.

“Yet, paradoxically, rarely has the future of the free and democratic world been less secure.

“As I said, some new powers are neither sure friends nor implacable foes.

“Because these are perhaps the most difficult, the hardest to evaluate, I will not elaborate on them here other than to say, it is ever important in interacting with them that we clearly understand and always remember what we are dealing with.

“Other countries, however, constitute unambiguously a clear and present danger and thus demand a very sober assessment.

“First among these is the Government of Iran.

“I speak not merely, friends, of its appalling record of human rights abuse or its active assistance to the brutal regime in Syria, or its undeniable support for terrorist entities, or its continued denial of diplomatic rights, or its pursuit of nuclear weapons, rather it is the combination of all these things with a truly malevolent ideology that should concern us.

“I believe that the appeal of our conscience requires us to speak out against what the Iranian regime stands for.

“Likewise, it requires us to speak in support of the country that its hatred most immediately threatens, the State of Israel.

“Now friends, in supporting Israel, we don’t sanction every policy its government pursues.

“When, however, it is the one country of the global community whose very existence is threatened, our Government does refuse to use international fora to single out Israel for criticism.

“And it is important to state, that whatever Israel’s shortcomings, neither its existence nor its policies are responsible for the pathologies present in that part of the world.

“And we are also mindful of an lesson of history, that those who single out the Jewish people as a target of racial and religious bigotry will inevitably be a threat to all of us.

“Indeed, those who so target Israel today are, by their own words and deeds, also a threat to all free and democratic societies.

“Now friends, I say these things not to counsel any particular action, not to wish any additional hardship on the long-suffering Iranian people and certainly not to advocate war, but rather so that we not shrink from recognizing evil in the world for what it is.

“Our Government simply contends that the international community must do more, must do all it can, to further pressure and isolate this regime.

“Ladies and gentlemen, let me just conclude with this.

“We should never consider others evil merely because they disagree with us or because they compete with us.

“But where evil dominates, you will invariably find irreconcilable disagreement with the ideals that animate Canada, America and like-minded nations, the ideals which assert that all people possess human dignity and should be accorded equal rights.

“It is not for Canada to lecture others, but it is the responsibility of our Government to make the choices that circumstances force upon us, and these are the choices we shall make.

“First, we shall choose our friends well.

“And our true friends are those who to their core both respect the will of their majority and the rights of their minorities.

“Second, we shall deal openly and fairly with those who may not be our friends, but we will not deceive ourselves about those relationships.

“And we shall not sacrifice our guiding principles in the interests of some transient advantage.

“Third, we shall endeavour to recognize clear and unequivocal threats and we shall speak out against them when they stand before us.

“And finally this, for ourselves, we shall strive to manage our own house, our economy and our finances, in such a way that our own freedom of action is not compromised.

”Because we must remember that the ideals for which we stand may be invaluable, but they are not invincible.

“They require our countries to be vigilant and well governed.

“And they require us to forever impress their privileged nature upon our successive generations.

“We therefore must hold on to them ourselves and teach them to our children.

“We must speak of democracy in our schools.

“We must praise freedom as we go out and justice as we come in.

“We must value our institutions and their endurance.

“And we must cherish the individual rights for which our ancestors bled and inscribe upon our hearts, the vision of citizens who know what it is to live without fear.

“For in the end, that is the mark of liberty.

“My friends, if we do these things, our nations shall endure and shall continue to inspire others.

“And those of us to whom leadership has been entrusted will have done all that can be expected of them.

“Thank you very much for having me, for the honour you’ve extended, for your invitation this evening.”

source: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=3&featureId=6&pageId=49&id=5052


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Who’s the man between the prime ministers?

Who’s the man between the prime ministers? iPolitics Insight

By | Sep 28, 2012 5:00 am | Comments

Whatever the relationship between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Nathan Jacobson, the high-flying Canadian businessman now a fugitive from U.S. justice, one thing is certain: they certainly didn’t just run into each other at a “community event” as the PMO claims.

Jacobson had an intimate relationship with several senior Harper cabinet ministers, paid off a CSIS agent while doing business in Russia, and apparently finessed a secret settlement out of the Canadian government under the Liberal administration of Jean Chretien even though the government denied ruining Jacobson’s business interests abroad.

Notwithstanding the Harper PMO’s ludicrous official line that “the prime minister may have met with Mr. Jacobson at a community event, as he meets thousands of Canadians from all walks of life each year,” perhaps they would be good enough explain this: who is the man standing between the prime ministers of Canada and Israel and how did he make his way into the inner sanctums of the current government?

For a prime minister who has lived through the murky departure of Arthur Porter, his handpicked chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, and who also hired convicted felon Bruce Carson as a senior policy analyst and troubleshooter, it is a momentous question.

Porter left office under a cloud after his dealings in Africa with an arms dealer were revealed, and now faces a police investigation from his days at the McGill Hospital Health Centre and a billion-dollar contract the hospital awarded to disgraced Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin Group Inc.

Carson was a lawyer who had been jailed and disbarred for multiple counts of fraud, a criminal past that, according to his own lawyer, was fully disclosed to the government during a security check before joining the inner circle of the PM’s staff.

And so, to Nathan Jacobson: For a man with a devastating secret, the Winnipeg-born businessman lived like a male version of Cinderella – until the legal clock struck midnight.

He was rich, powerful, funny, generous, and very well-connected. The Jewish community never had a more dedicated son. Well known for his philanthropy, Jacobson and his wife Lindi were staunch backers of Israel. After high school in Winnipeg, Jacobson spent six years in the Israeli Defense Forces.

The couple were major sponsors of an event in September 2007 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the “re-unification of Jerusalem.” Jacobson was also a sponsor of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football club, a franchise that Gerald Schwartz of Onex Corporation once considered buying. (It was ultimately acquired by two Russian oligarchs in December 2007. Ironically, they were associated with the Russian defence corporation Rosoboronexport, Syria’s top weapons supplier.)

In October, 2010, when the Royal Winnipeg Ballet celebrated its 70th anniversary with performances in Israel, two of the major funders of the tour were Gerald Schwartz and Nathan Jacobson.

Even Jacobson’s anonymous philanthropy sometimes drew attention. A visitor to his ancestral home, Pavolitch in western Ukraine, admired how the Jewish cemetery there had been restored and noted the local talk about the modest benefactor whose name doesn’t appear at the site. “The renovations were done there a couple of years ago by a guy named Nathan Jacobson…”

The blogger posted photos of the restored graveyard on the internet. On the chain-link fence around the burial ground was a sign that read, “The cemetery is renovated by descendants of the Jews buried here, in their blessed memory.” The blogger got this response from a native son of Winnipeg who knew Jacobson from childhood days: “He’s about 10 years older than me and grew up around the corner … Nathan is an apparently successful international-man-of-mystery kind of guy.”

Not badly said.

Jacobson’s business acumen and philanthropy made him legendary in both Canada and Israel. He was honoured at the 38th Annual Sports dinner in Winnipeg on June 23, 2010. “Nathan lives in Herzylia, Israel and is the current International Ambassador of Jerusalem,” a local paper gushed. Eleven hundred people attended the event, including the Israeli ambassador who flew in to the evening.

There were glowing profiles in the Winnipeg Jewish Review, a favorable notice in the Jewish National Fund of Canada newsletter, and praise in newspapers like the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz for his entrepreneurial brilliance.

Jacobson was busy in the world of the boardroom too, holding positions on the Jewish National Fund, Meir Hospital and the Ukrainian Jewish Congress. He also sat on the Board of Tel Aviv University and personally funded two faculty recruitment chairs at TAU, bringing over young researchers from Toronto. One of his fellow board members was Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate and, according to Forbes, the 12th richest person in America.

The two men shared the same working-class roots as descendants of immigrants from the Ukraine and both were self-made tycoons. The businessmen have given generously to a variety of charitable causes and shown unwavering loyalty to the staunch right-wing policies of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and to neo-conservative causes in their own countries.

Adelson, for example, has worked ceaselessly to have convicted spy Jonathan Pollard released from a U.S. prison, lobbied Washington to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and championed former GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich after he declared the Palestinians to be an “invented people.”

In the current U.S. election, Adelson has promised “limitless” funding to defeat the Democrats. He may be the only political donor in history to have given $10 million to political activists who also happen to be billionaires themselves. Charles and David Koch, the recipients of the contribution, and whose own companies have annual revenues of $100 billion and estimated personal net worths of more than $30 billion each, have dedicated the donation to taking down Barack Obama through their action committee, Americans for Prosperity.

If Romney and the GOP couldn’t imagine a better supporter than Sheldon Adelson, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party would have trouble finding a more dedicated backer than Nathan Jacobson.

Jacobson not only shared their conservative ideology, but put his money where his political heart was; from 2007 to 2011, he made the maximum donation to the party, and also gave to several individual Conservative riding associations.

The love did not go unrequited. Jacobson was a fixture at major events involving senior Harper cabinet ministers.

12345 Next >>>

© 2012 iPolitics Inc.

continue reading: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/09/28/whos-the-man-between-the-prime-ministers/


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Mr. Harper’s new diplomacy

By Jeremy Paltiel
The Globe and Mail
Tuesday September 11 2012

What a difference six years make.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s initiation into summit diplomacy came in 2006 at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Hanoi. There, he buttonholed Chinese President Hu Jintao over the detention of Husseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen imprisoned on terrorism-related charges, and was given a cold shoulder and a brushoff. It took two years for Sino-Canadian relations to reach room temperature.

On the weekend, Mr. Harper met formally in what’s likely to be a valedictory meeting with Mr. Hu on the margins of the APEC summit in Vladivostok. By now, the two are old friends, with Mr. Harper’s having visited Mr. Hu twice in Beijing and Mr. Hu’s having travelled to Canada for a state visit ahead of the G8/G20 meetings in 2010. Mr. Hu will be stepping down as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party later this year and as President early next year.

This time, Mr. Harper signed a key deal on investor protection with his Chinese counterpart. The Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement is likely to temper any criticism of China’s growing footprint in the oil sands and Canada’s resource and energy sector.

For good measure, Mr. Harper put China’s leader on notice over issues of reciprocity in our bilateral trade and investment relationship but deftly stopped short of linking these to pending cabinet approval of China National Offshore Oil Corp.’s $15.1-billion takeover of Calgary-based oil and gas producer Nexen Inc. Mr. Hu knows how to take a hint.

Mr. Harper also raised human-rights concerns, as well as Canadian impatience with Iran’s nuclear program and dismay over the slaughter in Syria. No cold shoulder this time, and no break in the smiles before the cameras. Canada and China are once and future strategic partners.

Our Prime Minister has learned to align our interests when he should, and speak directly and frankly when he must. Mr. Harper’s performance at APEC is a telling benchmark of his emergence as a statesman and as an interlocutor for Canada’s interests on the global stage. For this, he should be applauded.

Jeremy Paltiel is a professor of political science at Carleton University.

source:


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper and Putin talk tough on trade, Mideast, but warm up over hockey

Mark MacKinnon
Vladivostok, Russia — The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Sep. 08 2012, 7:49 AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Sep. 08 2012, 4:08 PM EDT

‘There’s lots of things that Mr. Putin and our government do not necessarily agree on, but our conversations are extremely frank on these issues,’ Canadian Prime Minister says.

At least there was hockey to talk about.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Russian President Vladimir Putin reminisced briefly but warmly about the epochal hockey series 40 years ago between Canada and the Soviet Union during a bilateral meeting Saturday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit.

More Related to this Story

It was the only time the two leaders found common ground during a meeting marked by disagreements about policy toward Iran and Syria, as well as the unimpressive Canada-Russia trade relationship.

The meeting – the first tête-à-tête between Mr. Putin and Mr. Harper since 2007 – began awkwardly with Mr. Putin running more than an hour late because of a packed schedule of other bilateral meetings. Mr. Harper then made Mr. Putin wait several minutes before finally entering the meeting room to stiff smiles and handshakes.

continue reading: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harper-and-putin-talk-tough-on-trade-mideast-but-warm-up-over-hockey/article4529251/

More Related to this Story


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

By cutting ties with Iran, we just shot ourself in the foot

By Doug Saunders
The Globe and Mail
Saturday, September 08 2012

The boxy red-brick building on Metcalfe Street looks more like a medium-security prison than an embassy, and its air of menace extends beyond its architectural design and impenetrable gates.

Iranian Canadians have long believed that Tehran’s outpost in Ottawa is used to spy on their activities, in less than subtle ways, and occasionally to send intimidating messages to expats.

That sort of subterfuge, if it got out of hand, might have been a good reason to expel Iran’s ambassador to Canada. Likewise, the torture killing of Canadian-Iranian photographer Zahra Kazemi in 2003 and its subsequent cover-up were good reasons to withdraw Canada’s ambassador from Tehran.

But those were not the sorts of reasons given by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird on Friday when he tried to explain the extraordinary step he had just taken of cutting diplomatic relations with Iran, closing Canada’s embassy in Tehran and expelling Iran’s diplomatic staff from Ottawa.

Instead, Mr. Baird said, at some length, that Canada simply does not like Iran. The Islamic Republic supports Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in his brutal crackdown against rebels. It continues to be dishonest with the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear programs. It backs dangerous organizations, including terrorist groups, in Lebanon and Afghanistan. Its loudmouth president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, often rails against Israel and Jews and doesn’t treat leaders and diplomats with respect.

Mr. Baird even went so far as to claim that the current government of Iran is “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.” Even if that were true, it would not be a reason to sever diplomatic ties – in fact, it would be a very good reason to maintain them.

Closing an embassy is rarely done even in moments of hostility. By its very nature, it prevents the possibility of further relations with the country in question, good or bad, influential or ineffective. Messages of protest, off-record moves to quell an eruption, clandestine efforts to build relations with reformists within the regime – all of these options are no longer possible. Once you’ve pulled the plug, you’re out of the game.

Libya’s embassy in Ottawa was more menacing than Iran’s has ever been – it employed goons in Moammar Gadhafi’s intelligence agency to infiltrate visiting students, follow them daily, and sometimes threaten to kill their families.

Even after Libyan embassies in other countries had fallen to anti-Gadhafi rebels last year, the Ottawa mission remained firmly loyal to the dictator. Yet, Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t order it closed until August of 2011, after Canada and its NATO partners had been at war with Libya for months. Up to that point, it made sense to maintain the embassy: It was a vital channel to the regime.

Iran is a deeply troubled country controlled by a religious dictatorship and an elected president who have little respect for international agreements. Yet, these are matters of diplomacy, negotiation and sanctions – and Iran’s leadership is factional and fragmented and very likely rejected by a majority of the public, so has genuine potential for movement.

There’s no imminent risk. U.S. intelligence agencies and Israel’s military chief, Benny Gantz, have said recently they believe Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. There’s no suggestion of any Iranian military attack against any other country at the moment. The Iranian menace is all politics and potential.

The crucial milestone in Iran is not the acquisition of nuclear weapons – which, even if they began pursuing them, would be years away. It’s the June 14, 2013, presidential election – which could repeat the crackdowns, reprisals and fraud of the 2009 vote, but also have real potential for leadership change. (Mr. Ahmadinejad, facing a term limit, will not be running.)

Sanctions have the power to sway that vote. So do diplomatic acts. Canada has now abandoned such possibilities.

“This is the first time in decades that a Canadian prime minister, Liberal or Conservative, appears to be advocating approaches that reduce diplomatic opportunities for peace during an international crisis,” Canada’s last full ambassador to Tehran, John Mundy, wrote on this page this year when Stephen Harper began talking about abandoning negotiations. We now have another unfortunate first. The Prime Minister ought to listen to his diplomats.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/by-cutting-ties-with-iran-we-just-shot-ourself-in-the-foot/article4527936/


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Cameron and Obama ended the neocon era. But the era of Assad goes on

David Cameron and Barack Obama buried the neocons in Washington. But the west will pay a price for the quiet life

By
The Guardian
Wednesday 14 March 2012 21.20 GMT

Barack Obama welcomes David Cameron
Barack Obama welcomes David Cameron during an official arrival ceremony on the south lawn of the White House in Washington today. Photograph: Mark Wilson / POOL/EPA

It is as easy to be distracted by the outward glamour of a prime ministerial visit to Washington as it is to fail to discern its occasional real inner substance. Both things apply in the case of David Cameron’s White House talks with Barack Obama. On one level they were the very embodiment of the self-indulgent vacuity of which Simon Jenkins wrote here. On another, they marked the end of a chapter in modern history.

On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.

Of course, like most attempts to draw a line in the sand of history, this one is approximate and inconclusive in many ways. The Afghanistan campaign which, along with the jihadist threat, is one of the few constants of the past decade, is not over yet. There will still be nearly 70,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the turn of this year and 9,000 British until late next, with an “enduring commitment” beyond that. The interventionist reflex, the wish to nurture liberal institutions as a counterweight to jihadism, and the sheer ability to act with greater military effectiveness than most rivals will all continue to shape US and UK foreign policy in the Muslim world and elsewhere for as far ahead as the eye can see.

Meanwhile, for all the buddiness of the US visit and the Churchillian rhetoric of their Washington Post op-ed piece this week, the two leaders do not march in lockstep anyway. Obama put it with utter clarity in Wednesday’s White House press conference. Britain and America are different economies in different places. The one nation is an indisputable first-rank world power. The other is a leading second-rank one that cannot act unilaterally even if it wanted to. The US is bound into the Middle East, in particular in relations with Israel, in ways that do not apply to Britain to the same degree. Cameron was more committed to intervention in Libya and is keener on intervention in Syria than Obama.

Yet, even when all these and many other provisos are taken into account, Wednesday was still the end of an era. Over Afghanistan – despite all the talk about the upcoming Nato summit, the handover to Afghan security forces and Obama’s claim that there will be “no steep cliff” of rapid pullout at the end of 2014 – the aim is withdrawal. Recent killings of Brits and by Americans and Wednesday’s audacious attack inside Camp Bastion are all harbingers of that. “People get weary,” said Obama, in a moment of frankness. The pullout will happen because the voters have lost the will to fight.

The similar surface noise over Iran and Syria also conceals a deeper current, a long withdrawing roar of disengagement. Cameron and Obama dwelt less on Iran and Syria than they did on Afghanistan. That’s partly because there is less they can do there, even the Americans, certainly the British. The Washington Post joint article emphasised that there is time and space to pursue a diplomatic solution in Iran, buttressed by stronger sanctions. There is not an iota of ambiguity in the toughness of the language, but the unspoken reality is that Obama would do almost anything to avoid getting trapped into a military strike against Iran. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. But it does mean that he thinks, rightly, that it would be a mark of failure if it did.

In Syria the limits of engagement are even more stark. At the White House press conference, Obama spoke about aid to the opposition, about pressure on the regime, about mobilising the nations and tightening the sanctions. Cameron threatened the Assad dynasty with the international criminal court. It all sounds like action, and it is all useful incremental stuff. But it is action at a distance, with strict limits. It is not intervention, because the international order has a collective interest in inaction and because the costs – not least the political costs at home – are deemed too high.

All this is, in very large part, the politics of where we are now. Faced with all three of these grim situations at once – a decade-long losing struggle against a feudal patriarchal narco-state, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a paranoid revolutionary theocracy, and the readiness of a corrupt Arab socialist autocrat to kill his own people for the sake of the revolution – it is hardly surprising that Obama and Cameron hold back. Who’s to blame them for doing so? The historic failure in Iraq leaves them little choice. But so does the fragility of the global economy. Even if the US and the UK were faced with only one of the three problems, Iraq and the recession would make them think twice.

A large part of all of us breathes a huge sigh of relief at this. The post-George Bush era finally beckons. Withdrawal from Afghanistan means no more pointless deaths of young soldiers, no more massacres, insults and acts of desecration against Afghans – at least by Americans. Western nations think in instant gratification terms and short timescales and this has all gone on too long. The west has had enough of fear and shame and hard times, of making enemies out of strangers and realising that getting people to change their ways is harder than it first seemed. People get weary, just like Obama said.

Another part of us, though, ought to reflect on what is being lost by this overwhelming collective disengagement. The disengagement is happening because the mistakes – crimes if you prefer – of the past have created a collective war-weariness that has now become a collective war-wariness. It is natural to want the conflict to end.

Who wouldn’t? It’s not wrong to want a quiet life, but how right is it when it comes at a price that someone else will inevitably have to pay? That wasn’t acceptable to earlier generations who scorned non-intervention in Spain or Abyssinia. Obama and Cameron closed the door on the George Bush era on Wednesday, to the general relief of the world. But the era of Mullah Omar, Ayatollah Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad goes on, posing questions that will one day have to be answered.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

continue reading source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/14/cameron-obama-ended-neocon-era

Related