[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Central Europe, Visegrad Group – Although the number of illegal immigrants flooding to Europe has been significantly reduced since the crisis of 2015, when about one million migrants made their way north through the Balkans in just a few months, this issue remains unresolved, and many Africans and Middle Easterners continue to arrive illegally in the European Union each year. The permanent compulsory reallocation scheme formerly advocated by the European Commission and by many EU countries including Germany, France, Italy and Greece, but opposed by others, not least by the Visegrád Four, was formally abandoned in 2018, although not all have given up on the idea. In Italy, the League’s coalition partner the 5-Star Movement (M5S) and its leader Luigi Di Maio still demand that illegal immigrants should be reallocated to other EU countries, as does Greece’s Syriza-led leftist government under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. In the last days of January 2019, Spanish socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez reacted to Italy’s refusal to open its ports to an NGO vessel with 47 African men on board by renewing calls for financial sanctions against countries that do not take their share of illegal immigrants. Spain’s government intends to side with France and Germany to have European funds withheld from countries like Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary until they agree to open their borders to asylum seekers (most illegal immigrants apply for asylum in order to avoid deportation).
As a matter of fact, under its new socialist minority government supported by the far left (Podemos) and regional nationalists, Spain has become, since Sánchez took office in early June 2018, the main gateway for illegal immigration to the EU. This is partly due to signals sent from the very beginning by Spain’s new government, such as the welcoming in the port of Valencia of the 600+ immigrants rescued by the Aquarius, the announcement that razor wire would be removed from border fences in Ceuta and Melilla, and the decision to restore free medical care for illegal residents. The second factor which led to this new situation was of course the formation in Italy of a new coalition government by the M5S and the League, with the League’s leader Matteo Salvini becoming Italy’s interior minister and taking the reins of Rome’s immigration policy. That meant, as the League had promised voters, that Italy would now close its ports to NGO vessels carrying illegal immigrants from the coast of Libya, and also to illegal immigrants rescued by navy ships taking part in Operation European Union Naval Force Mediterranean (EU NAVFOR Med, also known as Operation Sophia). Under the terms of that joint operation, all migrants rescued at sea were to be taken to Italy. With Italy now requesting that migrants rescued by Operation Sophia should be taken to the country of origin of each rescuing ship, some countries are now withdrawing from the operation, as is the case with Germany, which will not replace its frigate after it ends its current mission in early February.
The consequences of Spain’s taking a more pro-immigrant stance while Italy was doing just the opposite can be seen in statistics. While the overall number of illegal immigrants who made it across the Mediterranean in 2018 (135,798) was significantly lower than in 2017 (184,374), the figure increased very significantly on the Western Mediterranean route from Morocco to Spain: from 23,143 in 2017 to 56,644 in 2018, plus some 6,800 illegal migrants who forced their way into the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla on Morocco’s northern border. At the same time, the number of arrivals in Italy – via the Central Mediterranean route – fell from 118,912 in 2017 to 23,276 in 2018. On the Eastern Mediterranean route through Turkey and Greece to the Balkans, the number of illegal immigrants rose in 2018, to 55,878 from 42,319 in the previous year, reflecting the shortcomings of the EU–Turkey agreement.
Dave Cameron has gone off to write his memoirs, leaving our country in a state of chaos. He was one of the worst prime ministers in British history. He picked a fight with the EU to appease the right wing of the Tory Party, but he got nowhere with Brussels so he called a referendum. ‘The People’, led by the popular press and pissed-off by ten years of austerity, voted to leave the EU, but there was no plan for such a decision and after years of argument we are due to leave the EU on 31st March unless Brexit is delayed or abandoned.
Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg predict a Brexit boom but the Governor of the Bank of England is less optimistic, and to add to the confusion the our withdrawal is led by Theresa May who voted to remain in the EU.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision but whatever happens, we will still have an unbalanced economy, a divided society, a housing crisis, a staggering national debt, cash-strapped armed forces, a National Health Service dependant on foreign labour, and an educational system that impoverishes students. None of these problems will be helped by Brexit, they all require the sort of political action that our politicians are incapable of delivering.
Impossible Dreams?
Fascism today is just a political insult but in 1922 it was a populist revolution that swept Benito Mussolini to power in Italy. At first, the regime was content to govern but by the time of the Italian Social Republic, it had developed a full range of progressive policies; a guaranteed minimum wage,, workers’ partnership, free education, and social security from the cradle to the grave. These ideals were enshrined in the constitution of the RSI. Unfortunately, by then it was too late.
The post-war Labour government introduced the National Health Service but by the time of the Korean War, it dropped some services to save money. That’s why opticians, chiropodists, and most dentists are outside of the system. The present Tory government loudly proclaims its support for the NHS but suspicions remain that they want to sell it off to the private health care providers and insurance companies. At present, the NHS is protected by legislation but the Tory desire for a trade deal with the United States could open the door to American competition.
The Welfare State costs money that the Tories would rather spend on royal weddings, aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles. But the rise in homelessness and the use of food banks is a national disgrace. The main parties have acknowledged the problem but at the moment they are preoccupied with Brexit. Perhaps the splits now tearing the old parties apart are the start of a realignment of politics. We can only hope so because social justice is not an impossible dream.
Donald Trump equates health care with Communism. He thinks that everybody should pay for their own doctors. But the sick and the unemployed can’t afford expensive medical insurance. As fair-minded Europeans, we must reject Trump’s selfishness and defend our NHS.
Oil
It is fashionable to criticise the banks but the oil companies are just as bad. In his autobiography, ‘Pantaraxia’, Nubar Gulbenkian tells how his oil billionaire father took him to lunch in New York while he was on holiday. The first day they were treated royally, and as they left the restaurant Calouste told his son, “I’ve got a million dollars in that bank.” The second day was just as good and as they left daddy told him that he had a million dollars in that bank. And so it went on with all the major American banks. On the last day, after a sumptuous lunch his father said nothing, so Nulbar asked him: “how much have you got in their bank daddy?”, he replied: “not a cent, I owe them a million dollars.”
Debtors without collateral are written off but those with assets are treated as valued customers. And its the same with countries. Venezuela is bankrupt and its people are starving but they are sitting on one of the world’s biggest oilfields. It’s only a matter of time before a consortium of banks and oil companies takes over the country. Venezuela tried to install a socialist system under Hugo Chavez but the experiment was ruined by the collapse of oil prices.
But Venezuela is not the first state to be taken over by the oil companies. Britain controlled Iran through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and when prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (pictured) tried to nationalise it in 1953 he was ousted in a coup mounted by the CIA. The Shah was installed as a Western puppet but when he showed signs of independence in 1979, he was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini who had been given refuge by France. Currently, Iran is being strangled by American sanctions.
President Trump has reneged on his agreement to lift sanctions against Iran in return for them scrapping nuclear weapons. Iran is no threat to the US but her armed forces are engaged in Syria and Yemen.
Calouste Gulbenkian was known as Mr Ten Percent because creamed-off 10% of all the oil traded in the British Empire. Today, more countries are producing oil and Britain and America no longer dominate the market. Oil will run out one day but the producers are already investing in alternative energy. People all over the world think that their fates are decided by the illiterate crosses they put on ballot papers, but the important decisions are made in the boardrooms of the big oil corporations.
Oil dominates the economies of the Western nations and influences their foreign policies. Russia is accused of being too authoritarian and aggressive but her real crime is to be a major oil producer.
Jimmy Miller
I first met my friend Jimmy Miller in 1983 when I moved back to South London. He was living in a council flat awarded to him by Lambeth Council. But a highly organised gang of middle-class squatters was occupying all the vacant flats in the area and forcing out the working-class tenants. They only wanted their own kind to be housed. Jimmy was having none of that and he defended himself vigorously, only to be arrested and evicted for his bravery.
Jimmy was born in Liverpool in the Thirties. I don’t know exactly how old he was but he was older than me. He served in the Royal Corps of Signals and he took part in the defence of Kuwait in 1961. General Qasim of Iraq massed his forces on the Kuwaiti border ready to invade The British rushed 7,000 troops to Kuwait and broadcast bogus messages indicating a massive military build-up. Qasim fell for the deception and promptly withdrew his forces.
After the army Jimmy worked as a painter at the giant Cammell Laird shipyard. There he was elected as a shop steward representing the painters. Most of the union officials were communists who put up posters of Marx and Lenin on their office walls. Not to be outdone Jimmy put up a poster of Adolf Hitler and defied anyone to touch it.
After leaving Liverpool, he worked all over the country renovating Woolworth’s stores and eventually got a job as a maintenance man at Bon Marche in Brixton. For all his National Socialist convictions Jimmy got on well with the West Indian community. He always used to say that its the politicians who are to blame not the immigrants.
He moved back to Liverpool when he retired but he always sent me a Christmas card and a calendar. He was suffering from Parkinson’s and his handwriting grew more erratic each year, but this year his package did not arrive at all and I guess that he has passed away.
Jimmy Miller was a brave, intelligent, and generous man. He was raised as a Catholic but in later life, he was attracted to the Salvation Army. And that’s how I picture him, to the words of the anthem, “Onward Christian Soldiers marching on to war.”
Assassination
Government agents and terrorists regularly kill each other. Recent murders by the Russians and the Saudis have been roundly condemned by the West but we have a long and distinguished history of political assassination. Britain’s most famous hit happened on 4th June 1942 when two Special Operations Executive officers, Josef Cabcik and Jan Kubis, shot dead Richard Heydrich the Deputy Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. Nazi reprisals were expected but the British government did not know that the town of Lidice would be destroyed together with thousands of civilians.
The Nazi reaction was as cruel as the British treatment of dissidents in India. In April 1919, following days of rioting in which four Europeans were killed, Brig Gen Dyer (pictured) ordered his men to open fire on an unarmed crowd of protesters, 379 were killed and 1,200 wounded. The Amritsar atrocity was more mass murder than assassination but it showed the world who was in charge of India; at least, for the next thirty years.
Throughout the Northern Ireland Troubles, IRA terrorists were shot by Protestant paramilitaries on information supplied by MI5. Sometimes the government acted in the other direction. Lenny Murphy, the Protestant terrorists known as the Shankhill Butcher, was killed because he had become an embarrassment.
Our fictitious national hero, James Bond has a licence to kill. Commander Bond 007 was an invention but his creator, Ian Fleming, was a British agent who understood how these things are done.
Our American allies shot dead Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. American Special Forces killed him and dumped his body in the sea. His death was announced by President Obama who welcomed the death of the leader of Al-Qaeda.
It seems that bumping off political opponents is not necessarily a crime. When we kill our enemies we are fulfilling the will of the people, but when authoritarian foreign governments kill their opponents they are acting like savages.The truth is that all governments conduct under-cover operations and no individual government has the right to give lectures on good behaviour.
Mosley on Race, from “Union” May 1948
When Oswald Mosley wrote this article in 1948 it would have been possible to send back recently-arrived West Indian workers. Today things are different. We can enforce our rules of entry and deport foreign criminals but a mass round up of immigrants is out of the question.
Race is the first reality of European Unity. This unique stock of men in Europe has, in fact, produced the culture, the values and the achievements of the West. This race, in their family of Europe, has produced most things that matter on this globe. This achievement has been the result of their character, which in turn was the result of their race.
Horses go further and faster than donkeys because they are horses and not donkeys. We cannot avoid the basic facts of nature, even if we would. Nor can we drown them beneath a verbiage of words. If we are to build then surely we must build on real foundations, and I know that we do.
Therefore, I affirm the fact that the first reality and rock foundation of European Union is Race! Who are our nearest kindred? The answer is the German people. The British and the Germans are the most closely related of all European peoples. The Northern French also belong to this close circle of Race or Family and were united with the Germans under Charlemagne.
Near in blood to us, and the Germans, are the whole Northern block of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. A related stock is also the great family of the Latin nations, whose culture has adorned the illuminated pages of European history.
You cannot deny nature; you cannot create in defiance of reality.
An Alternative View - Bernard Franklyn
Since the early 1950s, every aspect of our once great country has been destroyed. Only old age pensioners in their seventies, like myself, are aware of the changes that have been made. When we are gone there will be no one left to explain what we have lost to the younger generation. I feel that we need to urge OAP’s to become vocal, but that is hard work. Still, I am going to urge more of my generation to explain the situation to their children and grandchildren. My daughter and her husband both work but are unable to keep up with the bills. In the 1950s wives didn’t work, the families were able to survive and pay all the bills on the husband’s wage. In the 1950s and ‘60s, virtually everyone could afford a mortgage so long as you were a regular saver. In 1958 a terraced house in the suburbs of London would have sold for £10,000; today it would be £500,000. The house would not be worth any more, that is how our fraudulent governments have reduced the value of money by just creating it out of thin air. Parliament is run by our enemies and has been throughout my life. The time is long overdue to find our own BRITISH candidates who have the knowledge and skills to run the country. You need no qualifications to or knowledge a prime or cabinet minister. You only have to be subservient to political Mafia that really rules our country, nay the world.
The people of Europe have no control over the EU. It is an ever growing nightmare with even more power over its people than the Soviet Union had. If the public had elected the National Front in the 1960s we wouldn’t have joined the EEC which became the EU, we could have saved what was left of our manufacturing industry, we wouldn’t have allowed the standard of education to be lowered through the introduction of the comprehensive system, there would have been no mass immigration programme, anti-British Jews wouldn’t have been appointed to the senior positions of the judiciary, proper sentencing of murderers and criminals would have continued, the drug problem would not have escalated like it has, there would be no national debt as we would have created interest free banking which the EU would never allow.
Britain was extremely successful at managing its own affairs long before the EU was thought of. We will manage again, so long as we have a government that doesn’t want to keep us tied to the United States, Israel and the EU. If you are not sure, watch RT news on channel 234 and see how often these three work in instantaneous harmony whenever they want to do something diabolical.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Nation Revisited
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.
Comments
Use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say.
Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison for his role in making illegal hush-money payments to two women to help Trump in 2016 in violation of campaign laws, and for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower project in Russia.
Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, once said he would take a bullet for Trump, who called his former close confidante a “Rat” on Twitter in mid-December.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 23 February 2019 20:41.
Occidental Dissent, “President Trump Reverses His Plan To Withdraw From Syria”, 22 Feb 2019:
As I said in December, the Israel Lobby, the Pentagon and the GOP establishment would find some way to pressure Trump into reversing his withdrawal of troops from Syria:
“WASHINGTON — First, President Trump was going to pull all 2,000 American troops out of Syria immediately. Then he was going to slow down the withdrawal. Then he was going to leave troops in neighboring Iraq.
Now, in the latest about-face, Mr. Trump has agreed to leave about 400 troops in Syria — 200 in a multinational force in the northeastern part of the country and another 200 at a small outpost in the southeast, where they will seek to counter Iran’s influence throughout the country.
His decision to commit what one senior administration official described on Friday as a “couple hundred troops” to the multinational force, operating south of the Turkish border, came after European allies refused to send troops if the United States would not.
Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, pressed the president to make the decision on Thursday, this official said, amid signs that the Pentagon’s negotiations to put together a stabilization and monitoring force were foundering on European resistance. …”
Such has been the story of the Trump administration:
– Big Ag and the Chamber of Commerce have gotten Trump to support increasing legal immigration
– Republican senators loudly condemned Trump for withdrawing from TPP and renegotiating NAFTA until he essentially replaced NAFTA with TPP
– The tax reform bill passed without closing the carried interest loophole
– The GOP Congress punted on funding the border wall half a dozen times
– Various immigration bills like Kate’s Law have died in the Senate
– Trump was persuaded to sign the 2018 Omnibus and to cave on the shutdown by Republican senators
– The GOP Congress passed heavy sanctions on Russia and Trump yielded to pressure from conservatives to arm Ukraine and expand NATO
– Trump was convinced by Ryan and McConnell to prioritize their agenda of health care, tax reform and welfare reform
At the end of the day, conservatives in Congress have prevailed on nearly every issue, and Trump has walked back his populist promises over and over again.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 09 February 2019 07:49.
TruthDig.Org., “The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy”, 7 Feb 2019:
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is getting significant media attention these days, after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that it should “be a larger part of our conversation” when it comes to funding the “Green New Deal.” According to MMT, the government can spend what it needs without worrying about deficits. MMT expert and Bernie Sanders adviser professor Stephanie Kelton says the government actually creates money when it spends. The real limit on spending is not an artificially imposed debt ceiling but a lack of labor and materials to do the work, leading to generalized price inflation. Only when that real ceiling is hit does the money need to be taxed back, but even then it’s not to fund government spending. Instead, it’s needed to shrink the money supply in an economy that has run out of resources to put the extra money to work.
Predictably, critics have been quick to rebut, calling the trend to endorse MMT “disturbing” and “a joke that’s not funny.” In a Feb. 1 post on the Daily Reckoning, Brian Maher darkly envisioned Bernie Sanders getting elected in 2020 and implementing “Quantitative Easing for the People” based on MMT theories. To debunk the notion that governments can just “print the money” to solve their economic problems, he raised the specter of Venezuela, where “money” is everywhere but bare essentials are out of reach for many, the storefronts are empty, unemployment is at 33 percent and inflation is predicted to hit 1 million percent by the end of the year.
Blogger Arnold Kling also pointed to the Venezuelan hyperinflation. He described MMT as “the doctrine that because the government prints money, it can spend whatever it wants . . . until it can’t.” He said:
To me, the hyperinflation in Venezuela exemplifies what happens when a country reaches the “it can’t” point. The country is not at full employment. But the government can’t seem to spend its way out of difficulty. Somebody should ask these MMT rock stars about the Venezuela example.
I’m not an MMT rock star and won’t try to expound on its subtleties. (I would submit that under existing regulations, the government cannot actually create money when it spends, but that it should be able to. In fact, MMTers have acknowledged that problem; but it’s a subject for another article.) What I want to address here is the hyperinflation issue, and why Venezuelan hyperinflation and “QE for the People” are completely different animals.
What Is Different About Venezuela
Venezuela’s problems are not the result of the government issuing money and using it to hire people to build infrastructure, provide essential services and expand economic development. If it were, unemployment would not be at 33 percent and climbing. Venezuela has a problem the U.S. does not, and will never have: It owes massive debts in a currency it cannot print itself, namely, U.S. dollars. When oil (its principal resource) was booming, Venezuela was able to meet its repayment schedule. But when the price of oil plummeted, the government was reduced to printing Venezuelan bolivars and selling them for U.S. dollars on international currency exchanges. As speculators drove up the price of dollars, more and more printing was required by the government, massively deflating the national currency.
It was the same problem suffered by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, the two classic examples of hyperinflation typically raised to silence proponents of government expansion of the money supply before Venezuela suffered the same fate. Professor Michael Hudson, an actual economic rock star who supports MMT principles, has studied the hyperinflation question extensively. He confirms that those disasters were not due to governments issuing money to stimulate the economy. Rather, he writes, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”
Venezuela and other countries that are carrying massive debts in currencies that are not their own are not sovereign. Governments that are sovereign can and have engaged in issuing their own currencies for infrastructure and development quite successfully. I have discussed a number of contemporary and historical examples in my earlier articles, including in Japan, China, Australia and Canada.
Although Venezuela is not technically at war, it is suffering from foreign currency strains triggered by aggressive attacks by a foreign power. U.S. economic sanctions have been going on for years, causing the country at least $20 billion in losses. About $7 billion of its assets are now being held hostage by the U.S., which has waged an undeclared war against Venezuela ever since George W. Bush’s failed military coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002. Chávez boldly announced the “Bolivarian Revolution,” a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically reduced poverty and illiteracy as well as improved health and living conditions for millions of Venezuelans. The reforms, which included nationalizing key components of the nation’s economy, made Chávez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela’s oligarchs.
Nicolás Maduro was elected president following Chávez’s death in 2013 and vowed to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Recently, as Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had done before him, he defiantly announced that Venezuela would not be trading oil in U.S. dollars following sanctions imposed by President Trump.
The notorious Elliott Abrams has now been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela. Considered a war criminal by many for covering up massacres committed by U.S.-backed death squads in Central America, Abrams was among the prominent neocons closely linked to Bush’s failed Venezuelan coup in 2002. National security adviser John Bolton is another key neocon architect advocating regime change in Venezuela. At press conference on Jan. 28, he held a yellow legal pad prominently displaying the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a country that shares a border with Venezuela. Clearly, the neocon contingent feels it has unfinished business there.
Bolton does not even pretend that it’s all about restoring “democracy.” He blatantly said on Fox News, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” As President Nixon said of U.S. tactics against Salvador Allende’s government in Chile, the point of sanctions and military threats is to squeeze the country economically.
Killing the Public Banking Revolution in Venezuela
It may be about more than oil, which recently hit record lows in the market. The U.S. hardly needs to invade a country to replenish its supplies. As with Libya and Iraq, another motive may be to suppress the banking revolution initiated by Venezuela’s upstart leaders.
The banking crisis of 2009–10 exposed the corruption and systemic weakness of Venezuelan banks. Some banks were engaged in questionable business practices. Others were seriously undercapitalized. Others still were apparently lending top executives large sums of money. At least one financier could not prove where he got the money to buy the banks he owned.
Rather than bailing out the culprits, as was done in the U.S., in 2009 the government nationalized seven Venezuelan banks, accounting for around 12 percent of the nation’s bank deposits. In 2010, more were taken over. Chávez’s government arrested at least 16 bankers and issued more than 40 corruption-related arrest warrants for others who had fled the country. By the end of March 2011, only 37 banks were left, down from 59 at the end of November 2009. State-owned institutions took a larger role, holding 35 percent of assets as of March 2011, while foreign institutions held just 13.2 percent of assets.
An Anarchist in Syria Speaks on the Real Meaning of Trump’s Withdrawal
Analysis Current Events
Following Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he is withdrawing US troops from Syria, we’ve received the following message from an anarchist in Rojava, spelling out what this means for the region and what the stakes are on a global scale. For background, consult our earlier articles, “Understanding the Kurdish Resistance” and “The Struggle Is not for Martyrdom but for Life.”
I’m writing from Rojava. Full disclosure: I didn’t grow up here and I don’t have access to all the information I would need to tell you what is going to happen next in this part of the world with any certainty. I’m writing because it is urgent that you hear from people in northern Syria about what Trump’s “troop withdrawal” really means for us—and it’s not clear how much time we have left to discuss it. I approach this task with all the humility at my disposal.
I’m not formally integrated into any of the groups here. That makes it possible for me to speak freely, but I should emphasize that my perspective doesn’t represent any institutional position. If nothing else, this should be useful as a historical document indicating how some people here understand the situation at this point in time, in case it becomes impossible to ask us later.
Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria is not an “anti-war” or “anti-imperialist” measure. It will not bring the conflict in Syria to an end. On the contrary, Trump is effectively giving Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan the go-ahead to invade Rojava and carry out ethnic cleansing against the people who have done much of the fighting and dying to halt the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS). This is a deal between strongmen to exterminate the social experiment in Rojava and consolidate authoritarian nationalist politics from Washington, DC to Istanbul and Kobane. Trump aims to leave Israel the most ostensibly liberal and democratic project in the entire Middle East, foreclosing the possibilities that the revolution in Rojava opened up for this part of the world.
All this will come at a tremendous cost. As bloody and tragic as the Syrian civil war has already been, this could open up not just a new chapter of it, but a sequel.
This is not about where US troops are stationed. The two thousand US soldiers at issue are a drop in the bucket in terms of the number of armed fighters in Syria today. They have not been on the frontlines of the fighting the way that the US military was in Iraq.
The withdrawal of these soldiers is not the important thing here. What matters is that Trump’s announcement is a message to Erdoğan indicating that there will be no consequences if the Turkish state invades Rojava.
There’s a lot of confusion about this, with supposed anti-war and “anti-imperialist” activists like Medea Benjamin endorsing Donald Trump’s decision, blithely putting the stamp of “peace” on an impending bloodbath and telling the victims that they should have known better. It makes no sense to blame people here in Rojava for depending on the United States when neither Medea Benjamin nor anyone like her has done anything to offer them any sort of alternative.
While authoritarians of various stripes seek to cloud the issue, giving a NATO member a green light to invade Syria is what is “pro-war” and “imperialist.” Speaking as an anarchist, my goal is not to talk about what the US military should do. It is to discuss how US military policy impacts people and how we ought to respond. Anarchists aim to bring about the abolition of every state government and the disbanding of every state military in favor of horizontal forms of voluntary organization; but when we organize in solidarity with targeted populations such as those who are on the receiving end of the violence of ISIS and various state actors in this region, we often run into thorny questions like the ones I’ll discuss below.
The worst case scenario now is that the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (TFSA), backed by the Turkish military itself, will overrun Rojava and carry out ethnic cleansing on a level you likely cannot imagine. They’ve already done this on a small scale in Afrin. In Rojava, this would take place on a historic scale. It could be something like the Palestinian Nakba or the Armenian genocide. I will try to explain why this is happening, why you should care about it, and what we can do about it together.
To understand what Trump and Erdoğan are doing, you have to understand the geography of the situation. This site is useful for keeping up with geographical shifts in the Syrian civil war.
First of All: About the Experiment in Rojava
The system in Rojava is not perfect. This is not the right place to air dirty laundry, but there are lots of problems. I’m not having the kind of experience here that Paul Z. Simons had some years ago, when his visit to Rojava made him feel that everything is possible. Years and years of war and militarization have taken their toll on the most exciting aspects of the revolution here. Still, these people are in incredible danger right now and the society they have built is worth defending.
What is happening in Rojava is not anarchy. All the same, women play a major role in society; there is basic freedom of religion and language; an ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse population lives side by side without any major acts of ethnic cleansing or conflict; it’s heavily militarized, but it’s not a police state; the communities are relatively safe and stable; there’s not famine or mass food insecurity; the armed forces are not committing mass atrocities. Every faction in this war has blood on its hands, but the People’s Protection Units (YPG/YPJ) have conducted themselves far more responsibly than any other side. They’ve saved countless lives—not just Kurds—in Sinjar and many other places. Considering the impossible conditions and the tremendous amount of violence that people here have been subjected to from all sides, that is an incredible feat. All this stands in stark contrast to what will happen if the Turkish state invades, considering that Trump has given Erdoğan the go-ahead in return for closing a massive missile sale.
It should go without saying that I don’t want to perpetuate an open-ended Bush-style “war on terror,” much less to participate in the sort of “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West that bigots and fundamentalists of both stripes have been fantasizing about. On the contrary, that is precisely what we’re trying to prevent here. Most of the people Daesh [ISIS] have killed have been Muslim; most of the people who have died fighting Daesh have been Muslim. In Hajin, where I was stationed and where the last ISIS stronghold is, one of the internationals who has been fighting Daesh longest is an observant Muslim—not to speak of all the predominantly Arab fighters from Deir Ezzor there, most of whom are almost certainly Muslim as well.
The Factions
For the sake of brevity, I’ll oversimplify and say that today, there are roughly five sides in the Syrian civil war: loyalist, Turkish, jihadi, Kurdish, and rebel.
At the conclusion of this text, an appendix explores the narratives that characterize each of these sides.
Each of these sides stands in different relation to the others. I’ll list the relations of each group to the others, starting with the other group that they are most closely affiliated with and ending with the groups they are most opposed to:
Loyalist: Kurdish, Turkish, jihadi, rebel
Rebel: Turkish, jihadi, Kurdish, loyalist
Turkish: rebel, jihadi, loyalist, Kurdish
Kurdish: loyalist, rebel, Turkish, jihadi
Jihadi: rebel, Turkish, Kurdish and loyalist
This may be helpful in visualizing which groups could be capable of compromising and which are irreversibly at odds. Again, remember, I am generalizing a lot.
I want to be clear that each of these groups is motivated by a narrative that contains at least some kernel of truth. For example, in regards to the question of who is to blame for the rise of ISIS, it is true that the US “ploughed the field” for ISIS with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its disastrous fallout (loyalist narrative); but it is also true that the Turkish state has tacitly and sometimes blatantly colluded with ISIS because ISIS was fighting against the primary adversary of the Turkish state (Kurdish narrative) and that Assad’s brutal reaction to the Arab Spring contributed to a spiral of escalating violence that culminated in the rise of Daesh (rebel narrative). And although I’m least sympathetic to the jihadi and Turkish state perspectives, it is certain that unless the well-being of Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria is factored into a political settlement, the jihadis will go on fighting, and that unless there is some kind of political settlement between the Turkish state and the PKK, Turkey will go on seeking to wipe out Kurdish political formations, without hesitating to commit genocide.
It’s said that “Kurds are second-class citizens in Syria, third-class citizens in Iran, fourth-class citizens in Iraq, and fifth-class citizens in Turkey.” It’s no accident that when Turkish officials like Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu list the “terror groups” they are most concerned about in the region, they name the YPG before ISIS. Perhaps this can help explain the cautious response of many Kurds to the Syrian revolution: from the Kurdish perspective, regime change in Syria carried out by Turkish-backed jihadis coupled with no regime change in Turkey could be worse than no regime change in Syria at all.
I won’t rehash the whole timeline from the ancient Sumerians to the beginning of the PKK war in Turkey to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Let’s skip forward to Trump’s announcement on December 19: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
Let me be clear: Daesh has not been defeated in Syria. Just a few days ago, they took a shot at our position with a rocket launcher out of a clear blue sky and missed by only a hundred yards.
It is true that their territory is just a fraction of what it once was. At the same time, by any account, they still have thousands of fighters, a lot of heavy weaponry, and probably quite a bit of what remains of their senior leadership down in the Hajin pocket of the Euphrates river valley and the surrounding deserts, between Hajin and the Iraqi border. In addition, ISIS have a lot of experience and a wide array of sophisticated defense strategies—and they are absolutely willing to die to inflict damage on their enemies.
To the extent that their territory has been drastically reduced, Trump is telling a bald-faced lie in trying to take credit for this. The achievement he is claiming as his own is largely the work of precisely the people he is consigning to death at the hands of Turkey.
_(1).jpg?r=1551432004)
.jpg?r=1551432315)
