No Monthly Fee Debit Card
Ukraine in NATO? Brazil on UN Security Council?
from infected Nepalese peacekeepers was discharged into water system from UN barracks in Haiti. Epidemic has killed 8,300 and made 650,000 ill
since outbreak in 2010. Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks
show the motives behind Brazil taking the lead for MINUSTAH were largely political. One such cable, from March 2008 asserts:
Brazil has stayed the course as leader of MINUSTAH in Haiti despite a lack of domestic support
for the PKO [peacekeeping operation].
The MRE [Ministry of External Relations] has remained committed to the initiative because it believes that the operation serves [Foreign Minister Celso] Amorim's obsessive international goal of qualifying Brazil for a seat on the UN Security Council
, the only objective accomplished being the military occupation
of the country on behalf of interests that are not those of the Haitian people.
One of Martelly’s campaign promises was to restore the Haitian Army, and now new Haitian troops are being trained by Ecuador and Brazil
But many of the international soldiers who have taken part in MINUSTAH have been anything but “good diplomats.” As we have detailed in the past, some troops have assisted police in deadly raids in slums that resulted in innocent people (including children) killed, are accused of lynching a boy for stealing, have violently attacked demonstrators, have impregnated minors, many Haitians have accused them of stealing livestock and other possessions, and they have raped women, children, and young men, among other crimes. These are all reasons why calls for MINUSTAH’s withdrawal from Haiti are getting louder. On June 1, marking nine years of MINUSTAH’s presence in Haiti, civil society groups from all over the world and including many in Haiti issued a statement demanding the mission’s withdrawal.
"Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine..in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. On Aug. 29, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the Feb. 22 coup d’etat in Kiev. 'Yats is the guy,' said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, 'Fuck the EU.' " -Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again
Yuriy RUBTSOV | 01.09.2014
Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.
Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to the Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amuck Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.
It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was connived at by the United States. The US penetration was significant and intensive, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donut Bank etc.
Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for the National Socialist German Workers' Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations of from Fritz Thyssen’s group United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.
British business also started to give donations to Fuhrer and his Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German Chancellor Franz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The both Dulles brothers were present at the meeting. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world. During the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, two immensely powerful brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.
The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into the Germany’s and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».
The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – were formally announced to the party faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to have capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in German and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for airplane factories, which would soon produce German aircraft. Germany received a large number of patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the «Junkers-87» dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.
What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany? The goal was to direct Hitler to the East and invade Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with all of the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of «conquest of Lebensraum in the East and its ruthless «Germanization» as his ultimate foreign policy objectives. For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which for Hitler was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler saw as Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent Jewish revolutionaries. These people were not Germanizable in his eyes; only the soil was. Anglo-Saxons, their hearts filled with hatred towards Russia, were happy as Hitler stated his goals. Their hearts were also filled with gladness as they learned that he wrote in his Mein Kampf: «We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we can primarily only to Russia and the border states subjects him think».
The policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against the background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-Saxon business with Nazi Germany.
In October 1930 Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations. In March 1936 Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty. In March 1938 Austria was annexed. The West did not react; it looked at what was happening coldblooded. Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938. But Hitler never refused his intention as he was putting the signature along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for final onslaught to annex the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which was part of Lithuania since 1923. In March 1939 Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.
But Memel and Danzig were not the main missions to make Fuhrer satisfied as they were accomplished. He could clearly see that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.
With the seizure of Czechoslovakia the Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But the talks showed the Western partners were reluctant to hinder the Hitler’s movement to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the «Soviets».
When the Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed finger at the Soviet Union and Germany signing the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda masters and partial historians dancing to their tune, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany agreement that provoked the war.
Neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about those events, no matter they signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war. One can clearly see what’s behind it. The political and financial circles of the United States, Great Britain and France were too much involved in fostering the fascist regime and connived at what it did while sticking to the appeasement policy. They incited Hitler to move east.
The West does not recognize the responsibility for supporting the Hitler’s regime, and it refuses to admit its guilt. It does its best to prevent the Russia’s return on world stage as a leading actor. It fosters the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of its eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about «Russian aggression» against Ukraine. Russia is demonized and provoked into direct intervention to become a party to the Ukraine’s internal conflict.
I will repeat that the Kiev junta is not in the same league with the Hitler’s regime. But history proves that the ulcer of Nazism mixed with the poisonous substance of Russophobia grows rapidly, and sooner or later it will be on its own beyond the control of those who encouraged it. The slogan «Ukraine above all» sound very much like a remake of German Nazi «Deutschland über alles», («Germany above all»). It inspires the crimes committed by Ukraine’s rulers in Novorossia.
Warning Merkel on Russian ‘Invasion’ Intel
EDITOR'S CHOICE | 02.09.2014 | 22:26
Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Official Washington – and the specter of a new Cold War – U.S. intelligence veterans took the unusual step of sending this Aug. 30 memo to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian “invasion.”
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried on Aug. 29 to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift.”
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy.
One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know.”
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were “increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence” and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to “widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic.
Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptoris an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a Feb. 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”
On Aug. 29, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the Feb. 22 coup d’etat in Kiev.
“Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, “Fuck the EU.”
Timing of the Russian “Invasion”
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.
According to the “press service of the President of Ukraine” on Aug. 18, Poroshenko called for a “regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances.”
If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)
Ezili Danto, Haitian Lawyers Legal Network
-The three Haiti questions all Haitians and world citizens should have an answer for:
1. QUESTION: What’s so important in Haiti that the US would built its fourth largest embassy in the world there, while funding a UN proxy occupation force for nearly 10-years now?
Haiti homicide rate is 6.9 per 100,000. But the Dominican Republic has FOUR times more violence than Haiti at 25.0 per 100,000. Why is the UN not bringing stability to the more violent DR?
2. QUESTION: Why is there a UN, Chapter 7 peace enforcement mission in Haiti for nearly 10 years? A country not at war, without a peace agreement to enforce and with less violence than most countries in the Western Hemisphere?
3. QUESTION: Haiti has trillions of dollars in natural resources - gold, oil, natural gas, iridium, copper, et al-- why does Haiti need Obama/Bush/Clinton's meager 41cent an hour sweatshop jobs or US charity (false aid) with so much of its own resources to develop the local economy?
Legal responsibility of UN/US for reckless transmission of a contagious disease
"19th century, the U.S. Army disseminated contaminated blankets to the Indians for extermination purposes. Smallpox, now available in a dry state, and CHOLERA
were very effective..."