Archive for the Kosovo Category

Feature: People of former Yugoslavia pay respects to Tito [Xinhua]

Posted in Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia - former FRY on May 13, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

BELGRADE, May 4 (Xinhua) — Several thousand people coming from across their former country walked on Sunday around the grave of the lifetime president of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and lied wreaths and flowers on the 34th anniversary of his death on May 4th, 1980 at the age of 87.

People from all six former republics of the former Yugoslavia: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Montenegro gathered since the morning in front of the “House of Flowers” that is a part of the Museum of Yugoslavian History and contains graves of Josip Broz Tito and his wife Jovanka that died in 2013.

All of them came here with organized tours across the former Yugoslavia, because, as they say, all of them share the same feeling that Tito’s country was a fulfilment of a dream that will hardly ever repeat.

“Our father died on this day, but he is still in our hearts. In his time we had everything and it was all for free-medicine, books everything. That is why we come here for ten consecutive years”, says Zivko Mitrev from Kocani, Macedonia to Xinhua.

Another one from the same Macedonian group, Georgi Nikolov says that Yugoslavia for him never fell apart. “In my heart Yugoslavian spirit still survives, and I’ll never give up from it, as it is my path – Tito’s path for all of us,” he told Xinhua.

Rade Sobic that was born back in 1940s in Drvar, Bosnia and Herzegovina but lives for 50 years in Belgrade says that he owes everything to Yugoslavia and Tito, as he got educated, had a job, and now receives a pension.

“Josip Broz Tito liberated the people from Hitler’s slavery but our nations got divided twenty five years from the outside, by foreign mercenaries,” he says, after leaving a red flower at the white marble plate with four large golden letters carved on top.

Sadika Badic Abdic from Cazin in Bosnia and Herzegovina says that seeing all these people “and to see all this, presented in front of me raises on my head and tears rushed on my eyes.”

“Tito’s country was a state. This now is nothing,” she says and explains she came to the “House of Flowers” for the first time and is amazed with the look of the grave of Josip Broz Tito and his wife Jovanka who died in 2013 and buried next to her husband.

Ramiza Bemic also from Cazin came to Belgrade with her friend, Emina Hadzic, to celebrate her 31st birthday, and visit Tito’s grave.

“Although I only lived in Tito’s country for a short while, everything echoes with memories on what things once were. I came here to see it”, Ramiza Bemic told Xinhua.

Several hundred people attended the ceremony at the Museum that started with anthems of Yugoslavia and the official anthem of the Socialist International.

Lieutenant General of the Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA Stevan Mirkovic, that was also a member of the Yugoslav Partisans during the liberation struggle in the Second World War made a speech to the gathered people in which he criticized former republics of Yugoslavia for misinterpreting historical facts and denying the benefits that communists brought to the Yugoslavian people.

Editor: Mu Xuequan

Article link:


Anti-Empire Report #127: “Barack Obama – Indoctrinating a new generation with Washington’s lies” []

Posted in DU Depleted Uranium weapons, Genocide, George W. Bush, Historical myths of the US, Iraq, Kosovo, NATO, Nelson Mandela, Obama, Pentagon, Psychological warfare, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, State Department, Ukraine, UNSC, US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, War crimes, Yugoslavia - former FRY on April 21, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

‘Indoctrinating a new generation’

by William Blum

April 7, 2014

Is there anyone out there who still believes that Barack Obama, when he’s speaking about American foreign policy, is capable of being anything like an honest man? In a March 26 talk in Belgium to “European youth”, the president fed his audience one falsehood, half-truth, blatant omission, or hypocrisy after another. If George W. Bush had made some of these statements, Obama supporters would not hesitate to shake their head, roll their eyes, or smirk. Here’s a sample:

– “In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent – an example they say of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years.”

Most people who follow such things are convinced that the 1999 US/NATO bombing of the Serbian province of Kosovo took place only after the Serbian-forced deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo was well underway; which is to say that the bombing was launched to stop this “ethnic cleansing”. In actuality, the systematic deportations of large numbers of people did not begin until a few days after the bombing began, and was clearly a reaction to it, born of Serbia’s extreme anger and powerlessness over the bombing. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the night of March 23/24, 1999, and the few days following. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:

… with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina [the main city of Kosovo] that the Serbs would NOW vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation. [emphasis added]

On March 27, we find the first reference to a “forced march” or anything of that nature.

But the propaganda version is already set in marble.

– “And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized, not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. one of that even came close to happening in Crimea.”

None of that even came close to happening in Kosovo either. The story is false. The referendum the president speaks of never happened. Did the mainstream media pick up on this or on the previous example? If any reader comes across such I’d appreciate being informed.

Crimea, by the way, did have a referendum. A real one.

– “Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan … As the Iron Curtain fell here in Europe, the iron fist of apartheid was unclenched, and Nelson Mandela emerged upright, proud, from prison to lead a multiracial democracy. Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies … “

The president might have mentioned that the main beneficiary of the Marshall Plan was US corporations 1, that the United States played an indispensable role in Mandela being caught and imprisoned, and that virtually all the Latin American dictatorships owed their very existence to Washington. Instead, the European youth were fed the same party line that their parents were fed, as were all Americans.

– “Yes, we believe in democracy – with elections that are free and fair.”

In this talk, the main purpose of which was to lambaste the Russians for their actions concerning Ukraine, there was no mention that the government overthrown in that country with the clear support of the United States had been democratically elected.

– “Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. … But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.”

The US did not get UN Security Council approval for its invasion, the only approval that could legitimize the action. It occupied Iraq from one end of the country to the other for 8 years, forcing the government to privatize the oil industry and accept multinational – largely U.S.-based, oil companies’ – ownership. This endeavor was less than successful because of the violence unleashed by the invasion. The US military finally was forced to leave because the Iraqi government refused to give immunity to American soldiers for their many crimes.

Here is a brief summary of what Barack Obama is attempting to present as America’s moral superiority to the Russians:

The modern, educated, advanced nation of Iraq was reduced to a quasi failed state … the Americans, beginning in 1991, bombed for 12 years, with one dubious excuse or another; then invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, tortured without inhibition, killed wantonly … the people of that unhappy land lost everything – their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives … More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile … The air, soil, water, blood, and genes drenched with depleted uranium … the most awful birth defects … unexploded cluster bombs lying in wait for children to pick them up … a river of blood running alongside the Euphrates and Tigris … through a country that may never be put back together again. … “It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003,” reported the Washington Post. (May 5, 2007)

How can all these mistakes, such arrogance, hypocrisy and absurdity find their way into a single international speech by the president of the United States? Is the White House budget not sufficient to hire a decent fact checker? Someone with an intellect and a social conscience? Or does the desire to score propaganda points trump everything else? Is this another symptom of the Banana-Republicization of America?..

Full text of Anti-Empire Report #127, with notes:

U.S. bombing of Serbia, after 15 years [Workers World]

Posted in Fascism, GDR / East Germany, Germany, International Action Center, Kosovo, NATO, Pentagon, Serbia, UNSC, Wall Street, Yugoslavia - former FRY on March 29, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

March 25, 2014

by Sara Flounders

The following statement was issued March 24 by the International Action Center in advance of a demonstration outside the United Nations in New York set for 5 p.m. on the same day. It was 15 years ago on this day that the United States began bombing Serbia in its quest to break up Yugoslavia and further expand NATO. The demonstration will demand recognition of Kosovo as part of Serbia and U.S./NATO hands off the Balkans, Ukraine and Russia.


On the 15th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Serbia, and as new, even more ominous dangers arise in Ukraine and Crimea, it is important to remember history.

Wall Street dominates peoples through the destructive strategy of “divide and rule.” In the Balkans and in Eastern Europe this has meant policies aimed at breaking solidarity among different nationalities and religions by imposing sanctions and economic destabilization and by funding right-wing and fascist organizations and granting immediate recognition to their regimes.

It was U.S. and European Union criminal policy that broke the Yugoslav Federation into six unstable, impoverished micro-states. They executed this crime by bombing Bosnia in 1994 and carrying out a 78-day bombing in 1999 of Serbia, especially the Serbian province of Kosovo. These wars aimed at expanding the U.S.-commanded NATO alliance into the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics.

Despite U.S. and German commitments to the former Soviet Union not to expand NATO one inch further if Soviet troops were withdrawn from East Germany, NATO has now expanded to 12 countries in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics.

After the massive destruction of schools, hospitals, industries and communication in Yugoslavia in 1999, Washington still agreed, in the imposed ceasefire and in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, that Kosovo is historically part of Serbia and would remain an autonomous part of sovereign Serbia, although under U.S./NATO occupation and administration. In 2008, in violation of this signed U.N. agreement, the U.S. recognized the puppet government it had set up and that government’s illegal declaration of independence for Kosovo. The overwhelming majority of the people of Serbia of all nationalities opposed this theft of Kosovo by NATO. They continue to raise the slogan: “Kosovo is Serbia.”

Article link:

Articles copyright 1995-2014 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

The Anti-Empire Report #124 by Wm. Blum – US gov’t leaders actually love jihadis, terrorists & dictators []

Posted in Afghanistan, Colombia, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Kosovo, Nobel Peace Prize, Obama, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Syria, Torture, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, USSR, Yugoslavia - former FRY on January 26, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

January 9, 2014

by William Blum

The horrors reported each day from Syria and Iraq are enough to make one cry; in particular, the atrocities carried out by the al-Qaeda types: floggings; beheadings; playing soccer with the heads; cutting open dead bodies to remove organs just for mockery; suicide bombers, car bombs, the ground littered with human body parts; countless young children traumatized for life; the imposition of sharia law, including bans on music … What century are we living in? What millennium? What world?

People occasionally write to me that my unwavering antagonism toward American foreign policy is misplaced; that as awful as Washington’s Museum of Horrors is, al-Qaeda is worse and the world needs the United States to combat the awful jihadists…

…let me tell you about American leaders. In power, they don’t think the way you and I do. They don’t feel the way you and I do. They have supported “awful jihadists” and their moral equivalents for decades. Let’s begin in 1979 in Afghanistan, where the Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) were in battle against a secular, progressive government supported by the Soviet Union; a “favorite tactic” of the Moujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their nose, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another”, producing “a slow, very painful death”.

With America’s massive and indispensable military backing in the 1980s, Afghanistan’s last secular government (bringing women into the 20th century) was overthrown, and out of the victorious Moujahedeen arose al Qaeda…

…President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a leading force behind the US support of…the Moujahedeen…What does that tell you about that American leader? Or Jimmy Carter – an inspiration out of office, but a rather different person in the White House? Or Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama, who chose Brzezinski as one of his advisers?

Another proud example of the United States fighting the awful jihadists is Kosovo, an overwhelmingly Muslim province of Serbia. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began an armed conflict with Belgrade in the early 1990s to split Kosovo from Serbia. The KLA was considered a terrorist organization by the US, the UK and France for years, with numerous reports of the KLA having contact with al-Qaeda, getting arms from them, having its militants trained in al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan, and even having members of al-Qaeda in KLA ranks fighting against Serbia. But Washington’s imperialists, more concerned about dealing a blow to Serbia, “the last communist government in Europe”, supported the KLA.

The KLA have been known for their torture and trafficking in women, heroin, and human body parts (sic). The United States has naturally been pushing for Kosovo’s membership in NATO and the European Union.

More recently the US has supported awful jihadists in Libya and Syria, with awful consequences.

It would, moreover, be difficult to name a single brutal dictatorship of the second half of the 20th Century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population. And in recent years as well, Washington has supported very repressive governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Qatar, and Israel.

Not exactly the grand savior our sad old world is yearning for. (Oh, did I mention that Washington’s policies create a never-ending supply of terrorists?)

And what do American leaders think of their own record? Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was probably speaking for the whole private club when she wrote that in the pursuit of its national security the United States no longer needed to be guided by “notions of international law and norms” or “institutions like the United Nations” because America was “on the right side of history…”

Excerpted; link to full report with footnotes:

“Intervention, Reloaded: Empire Studios’ Syrian Sequel” – Myths about Bosnia, Kosovo proliferate to cloak imperialist aggression []

Posted in Afghanistan, Bill Clinton, Black propaganda, Corporate Media Critique, EU, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, NATO, Syria, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, Yugoslavia - former FRY on March 8, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Nebojsa Malic

Syria is just like Kosovo, argued one interventionist two weeks ago, on the pages of the War Street Journal. According to Fouad Ajami, both involve a brutal dictator oppressing innocent civilians, and the Empire ought to act the same way, bypassing the U.N., and — to borrow a phrase from the late Richard Holbrooke — bombing for peace.

Sadly, Ajami’s “logic” is shared by much of the interventionist camp. It appears that film and television aren’t the only industries that have run out of ideas, relying instead on remakes and “reboots.” Though at the time it was a near-disaster averted only through last-minute subterfuge, it is easy to see how Bill Clinton’s evil little war might be mistaken for a splendid success following the megaflops that were Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Obama’s administration being a revival of Clinton’s, it’s no surprise that last year in Libya they green-lit a sequel.

Trouble is, this is 2012, not 1999 — and intervention cinema is being shunned by both the critics and the box office.

* The Land of Blood and Failure *

A perfect example is Angelina Jolie’s directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey, which opened in the U.S. in December and finally premiered in Bosnia and Croatia last week. The preachy and derivative film is a “dreary slog,” as one critic described it: “Subtlety and understatement become collateral damage as Jolie drives her points home as forcefully as possible and the film devolves into a grubby melodrama that fails to edify or entertain.”

Most critics agree, even as they give politically correct praise to Jolie’s assumptions about the Bosnian War. For example, a highly favorable review in The Atlantic loves Jolie’s politics but chides her for lack of subtlety. The sledgehammer approach certainly didn’t work on American moviegoers, who would rather watch a 3D tribute to a German choreographer [from director Wim Wenders].

Alas, that has not stopped Jolie in fancying herself a screenwriter, director, and even international diplomat (in the Holbrooke vein, at least). Following a worshipful reception in Sarajevo, she gave an interview to Al-Jazeera Balkans (video), in which she not only demonstrated an appalling ignorance of Bosnia’s history, but also used her war porn to advocate an intervention in Syria.

“Syria has gotten to the point where some form of intervention is absolutely necessary,” pontificates Jolie, proceeding to reminisce about the beauty of Damascus and proclaim that this is no time to ask who and why, but to “do something” to “stop the civilians being slaughtered.”

Well, she is a member of the CFR [Council of Foreign Relations]…

Whatever Jolie’s failings as a diplomat, screenwriter, and director, though, her acting chops are still in fine form. She’s a perfect example of hysteria politics, straight out of Central Casting.

* Facts vs. Narrative *

Jolie may actually believe her film is faithful to the reality of the Bosnian War, but it bears more resemblance to the apocalyptic reporting by the glory-hound Western media, which for years tripled the death tolls of the conflict, counted tens of thousands of soldiers as “civilians,” and ignored the jihad angle entirely — to name just three of its many sins.

Yet those are the very sins we see repeated today when it comes to reporting about Syria. How many of the civilians being supposedly massacred are actually armed and masked rebels? How many have actually died, and how much of the death toll is just plain propaganda? How come the bleeding hearts don’t care when the “unarmed civilians” actually murder clerics preaching peace? And what about terrorists in rebel ranks? Let’s not forget that much of the Syrian “news” last year was provided by an American blogger posing as a Syrian lesbian. As usual, when facts get in the way of the interventionist narrative, they are either trampled or tossed aside.

Especially galling is the interventionist prattle about civilians and the supposed care for their well being. Who do they think is going to get killed by the “liberating” bombs? Perhaps they believe in the miraculous transubstantiation of anyone killed by the Empire into an enemy combatant?

Whenever Imperial ordnance atomizes a wedding party, a refugee column going the wrong way, or just plain civilians minding their own business (the nerve!), the first response is to deny everything. Once that’s no longer possible, spokesmen say “terribly sorry” and the planes (or drones) keep bombing. It never occurs to the interventionists that this callous disregard of common decency may have something to do with the missing gratitude of the “liberated.”

How About Kosovo, then?

Not only have the myths about Bosnia and Kosovo contributed to needless bloodshed there, they have also been used to bolster arguments for murder elsewhere, from Iraq to Libya and now Syria. Invoking Kosovo to justify an attack on Syria was predictable. Yet what is going on in Kosovo is actually the best argument against the laptop bombardiers.

Four years ago, the ethnic Albanian provisional government set up under NATO occupation declared Kosovo an independent country. The “Republic of Kosovo” is a bit of a joke in many respects, but the few Serbs who have managed to survive in the province aren’t laughing. Over a thousand have been murdered since the beginning of the occupation in 1999, while some were carved up for body parts. In 2004, a three-day pogrom compared to Kristallnacht raged across the province, while most NATO “peacekeepers” stood by or hid in their bunkers.

Western talk of “human rights” and a multi-ethnic future is science fiction to the Serbs. Most of Kosovo is now completely Albanian, with the few remaining Serbs surviving in ghettos guarded by NATO troops and barbed wire. In the north of the province, several counties have successfully resisted Albanian occupation and have refused to recognize the “independent” government. Last summer, the regime in Pristina tried to conquer them; they said no.

In their peaceful standoff against the combined might of NATO, EU, the U.S., and even the quisling government in Belgrade, they’ve been gassed, shot at, and smeared in the press but have remained steadfast . Last week, they held a referendum — on the anniversary of Serbia’s 1804 rebellion against the Ottoman Empire — in which they overwhelmingly rejected the self-proclaimed independent Kosovo. Over 75% of registered voters showed up at the polls, a remarkable feat given that the entire area was blanketed by several feet of snow and ice, the worst winter in recent memory.

Yet what is the reaction of the Empire to civilians nonviolently protesting to protect their right to life, liberty, and property? Do the self-anointed champions of democracy and human rights applaud the Serbs of Kosovo? Are columnists lining up to support peaceful dissent against the government, whether in Belgrade or in Pristina? Think again.

Mainstream Western reports dismiss the Serbs as “nationalists” who “want close relations with Russia and are against joining the EU,” quote Belgrade quislings who declare the vote irrelevant or harmful, or obsess over the anniversary of “independent” Kosovo.

* A Question of Power *

So, alleged civilians allegedly being murdered are cause enough to reject the entirety of international law — except when it’s the Empire and its clients doing the murdering, because then it is magically OK. Democracy is the embodiment of virtue, but only the Empire gets to decide who is a democrat and what is democratic. Sovereignty and territorial integrity apply to Bosnia and “Kosovo,” but not to Serbia or Russia. And so on.

Interventionism isn’t about principles; it’s about power. Even champions of intervention admit that Syria isn’t being bombed yet because that would be too difficult. That doesn’t mean they won’t try. The “American Century” may be over, but the imperialists haven’t gotten the memo.

Article link:

Imperialism and the “Anti-Imperialism of the Fools” [James Petras Website]

Posted in Afghanistan, Allende, Chile, China, Corporate Media Critique, Cuba, Historical myths of the US, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kosovo, NATO, NATO invasion, Obama, Pentagon, Philippines, Pinochet, Poland, Psychological warfare, Russia, Spain, Syria, U.K., US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR, Venezuela, War crimes, World War II, Yugoslavia - former FRY on February 4, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

12.30.2011 :: by James Petras

* One of the great paradoxes of history are the claims of imperialist politicians to be engaged in a great humanitarian crusade, a historic “civilizing mission” designed to liberate nations and peoples, while practicing the most barbaric conquests, destructive wars and large scale bloodletting of conquered people in historical memory. *

In the modern capitalist era, the ideologies of imperialist rulers vary over time, from the early appeals to “the right” to wealth, power, colonies and grandeur to later claims of a ‘civilizing mission’. More recently imperial rulers have propagated, many diverse justifications adapted to specific contexts, adversaries, circumstances and audiences.

This essay will concentrate on analyzing contemporary US imperial ideological arguments for legitimizing wars and sanctions to sustain dominance.

* Contextualizing Imperial Ideology *

Imperialist propaganda varies according to whether it is directed against a competitor for global power, or whether as a justification for applying sanctions, or engaging in open warfare against a local or regional socio-political adversary.

With regard to established imperial (Europe) or rising world economic competitors (China), US imperial propaganda varies over time…

…[i]n the run-up to World War II, European and US imperial powers, while exploiting their Asian colonies condemned Japanese imperial powers’ invasion and colonization of China. Japan, in turn claimed it was leading Asia’s forces fighting against Western imperialism and projected a post-colonial “co-prosperity” sphere of equal Asian partners.

The imperialist use of “anti-imperialist” moral rhetoric was designed to weaken rivals and was directed to several audiences. In fact, at no point did the anti-imperialist rhetoric serve to “liberate” any of the colonized people. In almost all cases the victorious imperial power only substituted one form colonial or neo-colonial rule for another.

The “anti-imperialism” of the imperialists is directed at the nationalist movements of the colonized countries and at their domestic public. British imperialists fomented uprisings among the agro-mining elites in Latin America promising “free trade” against Spanish mercantilist rule; they backed the “self-determination” of the slaveholding cotton plantation owners in the US South against the Union; they supported the territorial claims of the Iroquois tribal leaders against the US anti-colonial revolutionaries … exploiting legitimate grievances for imperial ends. During World War II,the Japanese imperialists supported a sector of the nationalist anti-colonial movement in India against the British Empire. The US condemned Spanish colonial rule in Cuba and the Philippines and went to war to “liberate” the oppressed peoples from tyranny….and remained to impose a reign of terror, exploitation and colonial rule…

The imperial powers sought to divide the anti-colonial movements and create future “client rulers” when and if they succeeded. The use of anti-imperialist rhetoric was designed to attract two sets of groups. A conservative group with common political and economic interests with the imperial power, which shared their hostility to revolutionary nationalists and which sought to accrue greater advantage by tying their fortunes to a rising imperial power. A radical sector of the movement tactically allied itself with the rising imperial power, with the idea of using the imperial power to secure resources (arms, propaganda, vehicles and financial aid) and, once securing power, to discard them. More often than not, in this game of mutual manipulation between empire and nationalists, the former won out … as is the case then and now.

The imperialist “anti-imperialist” rhetoric was equally directed at the domestic public, especially in countries like the US which prized its 18th anti-colonial heritage. The purpose was to broaden the base of empire building beyond the hard line empire loyalists, militarists and corporate beneficiaries. Their appeal sought to include liberals, humanitarians, progressive intellectuals, religious and secular moralists and other “opinion-makers” who had a certain cachet with the larger public, the ones who would have to pay with their lives and tax money for the inter-imperial and colonial wars.

The official spokespeople of empire publicize real and fabricated atrocities of their imperial rivals, and highlight the plight of the colonized victims. The corporate elite and the hardline militarists demand military action to protect property, or to seize strategic resources; the humanitarians and progressives denounce the “crimes against humanity” and echo the calls “to do something concrete” to save the victims from genocide. Sectors of the Left join the chorus, finding a sector of victims who fit in with their abstract ideology, and plead for the imperial powers to “arm the people to liberate themselves” (sic). By lending moral support and a veneer of respectability to the imperial war, by swallowing the propaganda of “war to save victims” the progressives become the prototype of the “anti-imperialism of the fools”. Having secured broad public support on the bases of “anti-imperialism”, the imperialist powers feel free to sacrifice citizens’ lives and the public treasury, to pursue war, fueled by the moral fervor of a righteous cause. As the butchery drags on and the casualties mount, and the public wearies of war and its cost, progressive and leftist enthusiasm turns to silence or worse, moral hypocrisy with claims that “the nature of the war changed” or “that this isn’t the kind of war that we had in mind …”. As if the war makers ever intended to consult the progressives and left on how and why they should engage in imperial wars.!

In the contemporary period the imperial “anti-imperialist wars” and aggression have been greatly aided and abetted by well-funded “grass roots” so-called “non-governmental organizations” which act to mobilize popular movements which can “invite” imperial aggression.

Over the past four decades US imperialism has fomented at least two dozen “grass roots” movements which have destroyed democratic governments, or decimated collectivist welfare states or provoked major damage to the economy of targeted countries.

In Chile throughout 1972-73 under the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, the CIA financed and provided major support – via the AFL-CIO–to private truck owners to paralyze the flow of goods and services. They also funded a strike by a sector of the copper workers union (at the El Tenient mine) to undermine copper production and exports, in the lead up to the coup. After the military took power several “grass roots” Christian Democratic union officials participated in the purge of elected leftist union activists. Needless to say in short order the truck owners and copper workers ended the strike, dropped their demands and subsequently lost all bargaining rights!

In the 1980’s the CIA via Vatican channels transferred millions of dollars to sustain the “Solidarity Union” in Poland, making a hero of the Gdansk shipyards worker-leader Lech Walesa, who spearheaded the general strike to topple the Communist regime. With the overthrow of Communism so also went guaranteed employment, social security and trade union militancy: the neo-liberal regimes reduced the workforce at Gdansk by fifty percent and eventually closed it, giving the boot to the entire workforce. Walesa retired with a magnificent Presidential pension, while his former workmates walked the streets and the new “independent” Polish rulers provided NATO with military bases and mercenaries for imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2002 the White House, the CIA , the AFL-CIO and NGOs, backed a Venezuelan military-business – trade union bureaucrat led “grass roots” coup that overthrew democratically elected President Chavez. In 48 hours a million strong authentic grass roots mobilization of the urban poor backed by constitutionalist military forces defeated the US backed dictators and restored Chavez to power .Subsequently oil executives directed a lockout backed by several US financed NGOs.They were defeated by the workers’ takeover of the oil industry. The unsuccessful coup and lockout cost the Venezuelan economy billions of dollars in lost income and caused a double digit decline in GNP.

The US backed “grass roots” armed jihadists to liberated “Bosnia” and armed the“grass roots” terrorist Kosova Liberation Army to break-up Yugoslavia. Almost the entire Western Left cheered as, the US bombed Belgrade, degraded the economy and claimed it was “responding to genocide”. Kosova “free and independent” became a huge market for white slavers, housed the biggest US military base in Europe, with the highest per-capita out migration of any country in Europe.

The imperial “grass roots” strategy combines humanitarian, democratic and anti-imperialist rhetoric and paid and trained local NGO’s, with mass media blitzes to mobilize Western public opinion and especially “prestigious leftist moral critics” behind their power grabs.

* The Consequence of Imperial Promoted “Anti-Imperialist” Movements: Who Wins and Who Loses? *

The historic record of imperialist promoted “anti-imperialist” and “pro-democracy” “grass roots movements” is uniformly negative. Let us briefly summarize the results. In Chile ‘grass roots’ truck owners strike led to the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and nearly two decades of torture, murder, jailing and forced exile of hundreds of thousands, the imposition of brutal “free market policies” and subordination to US imperial policies. In summary the US multi-national copper corporations and the Chilean oligarchy were the big winners and the mass of the working class and urban and rural poor the biggest losers. The US backed “grass roots uprisings” in Eastern Europe against [the] Soviet[s], exchanged Russian [satellite-hood] for US domination; subordination to NATO instead of the Warsaw Pact; the massive transfer of national public enterprises, banks and media to Western multi-nationals. Privatization of national enterprises led to unprecedented levels of double-digit unemployment, skyrocketing rents and the growth of pensioner poverty. The crises induced the flight of millions of the most educated and skilled workers and the elimination of free public health, higher education and worker vacation resorts.

Throughout the now capitalist Eastern Europe and USSR highly organized criminal gangs developed large scale prostitution and drug rings; foreign and local gangster ‘entrepeneurs’ seized lucrative public enterprises and formed a new class of super-rich oligarchs Electoral party politicians, local business people and professionals linked to Western ‘partners’ were the socio-economic winners. Pensioners, workers, collective farmers, the unemployed youth were the big losers along with the formerly subsidized cultural artists. Military bases in Eastern Europe became the empire’s first line of military attack of Russia and the target of any counter-attack.

If we measure the consequences of the shift in imperial power, it is clear that the Eastern Europe countries have become even more subservient under the US and the EU than under Russia. Western induced financial crises have devastated their economies; Eastern European troops have served in more imperial wars under NATO than under Soviet rule; the cultural media are under Western commercial control. Most of all, the degree of imperial control over all economic sectors far exceeds anything that existed under the Soviets. The Eastern European ‘grass roots’ movement succeeded in deepening and extending the US Empire; the advocates of peace, social justice, national independence, a cultural renaissance and social welfare with democracy were the big losers.

Western liberals, progressives and leftists who fell in love with imperialist promoted “anti-imperialism” are also big losers. Their support for the NATO attack on Yugoslavia led to the break-up of a multi-national state and the creation of huge NATO military bases and a white slavers paradise in Kosova. Their blind support for the imperial promoted “liberation” of Eastern Europe devastated the welfare state, eliminating the pressure on Western regimes’ need to compete in providing welfare provisions. The main beneficiaries of Western imperial advances via ‘grass roots’ uprisings were the multi-national corporations, the Pentagon and the rightwing free market neo-liberals. As the entire political spectrum moved to the right a sector of the left and progressives eventually jumped on the bandwagon. The Left moralists lost credibility and support, their peace movements dwindled, their “moral critiques” lost resonance. The left and progressives who tail-ended the imperial backed “grass roots movements”, whether in the name of “anti-stalinism”, “pro-democracy” or “anti-imperialism” have never engaged in any critical reflection; no effort to analyze the long-term negative consequences of their positions in terms of the losses in social welfare, national independence or personal dignity.

The long history of imperialist manipulation of “anti-imperialist” narratives has found virulent expression in the present day. The New Cold War launched by Obama against China and Russia, the hot war brewing in the Gulf over Iran’s alleged military threat, the interventionist threat against Venezuela’s “drug-networks”,and Syria’s “bloodbath” are part and parcel of the use and abuse of “anti-imperialism” to prop up a declining empire. Hopefully, the progressive and leftist writers and scribes will learn from the ideological pitfalls of the past and resist the temptation to access the mass media by providing a ‘progressive cover’ to imperial dubbed “rebels”. It is time to distinguish between genuine anti-imperialism and pro-democracy movements and those promoted by Washington, NATO and the mass media.

Excerpted / edited by Zuo Shou

Full article link:

War-related carbon emissions deserves attention [People’s Daily]

Posted in Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Pentagon, Pollution, US imperialism, USA, War crimes on January 19, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

The Pentagon is a humungous polluter, the worst polluting sub-state entity in the world. I like this article better if one searches and replaces “carbon emissions” with “pollution”. – Zuo Shou

By Liu Jiangyong (People’s Daily Overseas Edition)
08:16, December 26, 2011

Edited and translated by People’s Daily Online

The international community has not paid enough attention to war-related carbon emissions, a major contributor to global warming. If such emissions continue to go unnoticed, there will be a “war over carbon emissions” sooner or later.

War-related carbon emissions can be divided into three categories. The first category are carbon emissions produced during the research and development, production, storage, transportation, and utilization of weapons, equipment, ammunition, and supplies used in the war that a country or group of countries waged against a sovereign state, as well as during long large-scale civil wars.

The second category includes the destruction of urban and rural buildings, infrastructure, industrial and mining establishments, oil and gas facilities, forests, and grassland caused by wars, as well as carbon emissions produced during rescue operations and post-war reconstruction.

The third includes carbon emissions produced throughout the production and exports of weapons, equipment, and ammunition to one of the warring parties in a country or region. The international community should revise the international law based on scientific research to curb war-related carbon emissions because the existing energy conservation and emissions reduction measures are not enough to resolve global warming.

Although estimates on this type of emissions need to be done by scientists, common sense says the fact that cities are devastated by a number of missiles and warplanes and then reconstructed after the war will inevitably lead to the most serious carbon emissions.

Calculated according to output power, a U.S. M1 main battle tank’s carbon emissions are equivalent to those of 10 ordinary Mercedes-Benz cars. Therefore, war-related carbon emissions’ impact on climate change are much greater than those caused by industry, thus belligerent countries’ overall carbon emissions more should be counted in.

After the Cold War, the United States has launched and participated in five high-tech local wars since 1990, namely, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the Iraq War and the Libya War. What these wars have brought are ruins on blocks, dark smoke in oil wells and scorched earth.

Long-term local wars lead to the normalization of war-related carbon emissions and increase of global accumulated carbon emissions. It is worth mentioning that the period of local wars overlaps with that of climatic anomaly and warming. The Libyan War lasting for more than six months ended in late October this year, while the global temperature during this period was higher than that in previous years. This is probably not accidental.

However, some developed countries still turn a blind eye on war-related carbon emissions, which greatly affect the global climate. They do whatever they want to, and do not assume any moral or legal responsibilities. On the other hand, they ask the developing countries to assume the same obligations in reducing industrial and domestic carbon emissions. The world seems to have become more and more absurd.

Article link: