Contents:

News, Opinion & Interviews (below)

News & Opinion (Archive 1) / News & Opinion (Archive 2)

Special Story: The Biggest Lie in History - 'War on Terror', Planned to Be Endless Before 9/11

“Brazil above everything, God above everyone,” Jair Bolsonaro's campaign motto, plagiarized from Nazi Germany.

"Today at 9 p.m. I was stopped by the military and lynched because, they said, I look like a drug smuggler. They said now Bolsonaro is the commander. I regret for had voted for Bolsonaro," Douglas Barcellos on October 28, shortly after Bolsonaro had been declared the winner of Brazil's presidential election.

“I'm going to vote... armed with a knife, pistol, devil, crazy to see a lounger, bum with a red shirt and to immediately kill... This bunch of negroes is going to die! Gonna die!!! He is a captain, [calling names]!!!,” said the lawyer Pedro Baleotti as filmed himself in his car, on October 28.

One week before the election, university students in Campinas city were banned by the Police from giving out Haddad tracts: “military dictatorship is back!” the policemen said.

November 1, 2018


Jair Messias Bolsonaro is the 38th president of Brazil, elected with 55.14% of the valid votes, 44.86% of the Brazilians' preference in the second round. At least 43 million Brazilians abstained from voting, annulled or voted blank, something like 29% of the entire contingent of voters.

The former army captain received 57.7 million votes out of 147.3 million voters, that is, he was elected by 39% of eligible voters. Fernando Haddad, a professor, economist, political scientist, lawyer, and philosopher, received 47 million votes, 32% of the voters in a country of 210 million people.

An expected victory after a large difference in favor of Bolsonaro in the first round, on October 7; shortly after that date, according to polls, the difference was day by day increasing even more in favor of the candidate whose professional propaganda structure was carefully set up, with no clear sources yet. the former army captain

As soon as his victory had been declared, in a national speech, Bolsonaro appeared eager to dispel concerns that he would govern despotically, vowing to govern respecting the Constitution, democracy, and liberty. “Enough of lies, enough of fake news in Brazil,” he hypocritically said later.

In his campaign, among many other terrible words Bolsonaro, a declared admirer of the military dictatorship who is used to saying that, “the dictators' mistake has been only torturing but not killing about 30,000 people,” vowed during an address, delivered via a video linkup, to thousands of supporters gathered in São Paulo city, that,

“Those red good-for-nothings will be banished from the homeland. It will be a clean up the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history.

Once again, Bolsonaro is not only vague but contradictory: he says some tragic thing, some days later states he has not said that as accuses others of spreading fake news, to soon say the same thing in even worst words.

He refused to debate during all the campaign, an omission that makes many people wonder about this project for Brazil – including among thousands of his supporters.

The opponents state that Bolsonaro has not any Project for the South-American nation; the latter really are not concerned about any Project, but a declared “anti-Workers' Party sentiment” which justified their votes for the admirer of Adolf Hitler. The former army captain himself focused his campaign on that deeply hateful sentiment.

At the same time, the Workers' Party has promised to contest the electoral process in court, due to Bolsonaro's innumerable threats, excessively aggressive incitement to violence, had been funded by private companies, and spread fake news up to the last minute – in the election day, Haddad was falsely accused via WhatsApp of having raped an eleven-year-old girl.

Progressive sectors have been too aggressively attacked by Bolsonaro supporters, a declared civil war though across the country there have been armed attacks by Workers' Party voters, too. A chaos state is installed in Brazil.

Since President Michel Temer took power substituting Dilma Rousseff, impeached without any crime two years ago, the South-American giant has gone down many steps in the international scenario.

Brazil has the largest hydrological reserve on the planet; the oil discovered in the late 2000's in the pre-salt layer may elevate the country to have the world's biggest reserves of the product; is the world's richest territory in biodiversity; and by strengthening South-South alliances, during the Workers' Party years was creating powerful international blocs and institutions, such as BRICS and Unasur's Banco del Sur (Southern Bank).

US President Donald Trump and the Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, shortly after knowing the Brazilian electoral results, called Bolsonaro to congratulate him.

What does Bolsonaro's victory mean to Brazil? Is he really going to forget his old criminal sayings and doings, increased in this campaign, respecting the rule of law? Does the extreme right-wing now president-elect have any government program? Why has the Workers' Party lost, and what does it mean to the South-American nation?

These questions will be discussed in the lines below.


“I do not know anything about economics, I am a military, but I'll have a minister of economy in my government. Am I going to a campaign or to an entrance examination?”, Bolsonaro replied to a journalist question in an interview last July, and in October of 2017.

Like Donald Trump, Bolsonaro is culturally and intellectually too poor; as Trump, the Brazilian president-elect believe much more in persuasion and force; alike the American fascist felt as he won US presidential campaign, the Brazilian neo-nazi is not sure now about what he will do in Brazil's Presidency.

So the Trump-Bolsonaro's proximity goes far beyond the fact that Steve Bannon has advised both.

That said, unlike what so many people think, Bolsonaro has a government program: it is an ultra-neoliberal one, outline by Paulo Guedes, a Chicago Boy who proposes to “slim Brazil's puffed-up, ineffective and near-bankrupt state through privatizations and public-spending cuts, and to undo the country's serpentine red tape.”

As Bolsonaro's candidacy has been confused in part as a tactic to reach everybody, he has been vague and fled debates for people not to know the essence of the unpopularity of his “proposals” to the country.

He also fled debates due to his total lack of moral, cultural and intellectual skills. Not for not having a project as many people have said. Much likely, Bolsonaro's absence in debates was due to afraid of himself as he is excessively talkative, but there is a program.

His campaign, movements, and individuals in the favor of Bolsonaro dedicated much more to attack the Workers' Party than to advocate for the then-extreme-right candidate, and his agenda. As never seen before in any campaign in the South-American country.

Constructing more and more prisons – privatizing all of them instead of confronting social problems, also improving prisons trying to recover individuals and opting for alternative methods for minor crimes –, making the society free to get guns instead of discussing public security and social issues, the traditional war on drugs, the privatization of water and everything, no rights to workers and to minorities. Independence to the central bank, free to take every measure of big banks' interests.

This is Bolsonaro, eased out of the army in 1988, after trying to explode bombs in his institutions due to salary issues.

Neoliberal policies are themselves empty and deeply contradictory, so Bolsonaro's team feared, of course, the candidate debating face to face with his opponents, especially on the eve of the second round. His hysteria and deep intolerance would surely be much more evident and exposed to public shame along with every Bolsonaro's anti-virtues. But cannot be said that there is no a program by Brazil's president-elect.

It has been much easier to keep the Brazilian society submerged in fear, hysteria, discrimination, hate, and blindness.

Objectively, Brazil's so fragile democracy, unlike some analysts have said, has not been overthrown by democracy last October 28, but by a strong network of false propaganda, and countless electoral and social crimes. By an omissive justice system. Not to mention foreign shadows behind the scenes.

Surprisingly to many people, is the fact that the mainstream media, the Brazilian justice system and the people themselves, too hateful standing against corruption and political deceives since 2013, now keep silent before Bolsonaro's endless lies and crimes.

That is not a surprise at all if the last electoral process is considered a continuation of the coup d'Etat through former President Dilma Rousseff's impeachment in 2016, and the criminalization of progressive sectors.

As the far-right program has been hidden from most Brazilians, its only evident project is barbarism, accepted by almost 60 million Brazilians. A total confusion is just getting worse and worse in Brazil. In essence, Brazilians, stuck in hate by hidden powers, have been killing themselves by nothing.


The Brazilian “left” has opted to an identity politics and sectarianism. Priority is not fighting capitalism and social inequality anymore. For this sector, if one does not share some social values in a minimal detail about abortion, gender, feminism, drugs, and so on even tireless combating poverty under genuine progressive politics, is aggressively condemned and rejected, not considered a real progressive citizen – but a potential “fascist”.

As discrimination is strongly rooted in a historically authoritarian nation, the last one to abolish slavery in America, every “liberation” movement is permeated by this sentiment – discrimination against others and even against them themselves. It is something very clear among Brazilians.

Generally, what fewer matters to consider one a progressive, in practice, has been its economic ideas: it has been common a question from the Brazilian “left” about the social values like those pointed out above, to consider an individual one of them, or not.

The country, included the “left”, has not been preparing itself to the current political crisis drawing for at least five years and a half. Until recently, talking to many “leftist” leaders one could feel them highly skeptical about a new military coup in Brazil.

Particularly, the Workers' Party (PT) rejected any constructive criticism even from progressive sectors, aggressively labeling them “fascists” or “radical left”, to lead its neoliberal policy with a human face for thirteen years in power, beginning to Luiz Inacio da Silva in 2003.

Though important – and ephemeral – social gains proportionated especially by Family Allowance program (an improved continuation of the predecessor Fernando Henrique Cardoso's School Allowance), and some real increase on minimum wage, social inequality never left the Brazilian society, one of world's most unequal.

A tragic public health, basic sanitation, access to justice, housing and working conditions, social and institutionalized discrimination, and education.

About the last point, it is important to highlight that during PT years, not very different from its predecessors, Brazil under-invested in public education: around 5%. In short, every government from the military dictatorship to Michel Temer amounts to the same (tragic) thing as the “investment” has been absolutely inefficient and the practice, taken into account terrible Brazil's educational level, is even more disastrous.

The PT lifted 30 million people out of poverty, and the country was removed from the U.N. World Hunger Map; at the same time, never in Brazil's history bankers had gained too much as in PT years. The same can be said about the mainstream media, agribusiness, and currency evasion.

The PT hypocritically today manifests indignation towards Bolsonaro against indigenous people, as the party which presented himself as promoting a “Social Revolution”.

In PT years, the native people were murdered by agribusinessmen, supported by the party, like never before in the country's recent history – neither in the military years in power, from 1964 to 1985: a rise year by year from Lula to Dilma, getting 269% in both governments compared to the eight years that former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso was in the Presidency.

The indigenous question during PT years is another practical example of its authoritarian way of governing, only or, at the best, mostly concerned about keeping itself in power.

As the party was never willing to dialogue with popular sectors, during the 2013 protests when many people required a political reform, the then-President Dilma refused to even put it in the discussion: PT lost its greatest chance of being closer to the society, winning the local oligarchy that would destroy the party in the near future.

In the name of power, PT used to ally itself to the elites, never listening to some claims that everything would end up in tragedy, to the party and local democracy. Worst of all, year by year since Dilma was impeached, the PT has refused to recognize its mistakes, something required even by internal militants.

All in all, PT's principal “project” for Brazil has been the same through years, even since Dilma's impeachment including this Haddad's presidential campaign, wins the election and retakes the power.

So it has been so easy for the local and foreign elites to – once again – overthrown Brazil's democracy. Now PT desperately needs the masses supporting it, a politized society never created by the party. Power was the limit for PT.

It is worth remembering that it was Dilma who passed the Anti-Terrorism Act on the eve of 2014 World Cup, which actually gives to public forces the power of repressing public manifestations.

Though the mainstream media tried so hard to present both candidates in extreme points (as part of the anti-PT discourse), the big difference between Bolsonaro and Haddad is that if the academic had won the last election, Brazil would now be sure that there would be an election in 2022, fact surrounded by too many uncertainties as the first has won.

Haddad is not an extremist, far from it; Bolsonaro is the most one in Brazil's presidential history. The “left” in general, trying to preserve the PT, in its years in the Presidency, during the massive protests in 2013 and in the last campaign, not mobilizing itself, what ended up opened gaps and, finally, strengthening to the extreme right.

As mediocrity is the great winner in Brazil's presidential election, the PT is the principal and a most pathetic loser; its national recovery is unthinkable for the coming years.


The destruction of the national industry, of Brazil's regional alliance and its inclusion in the BRICS, are the first evident tragedies Bolsonaro will continue to do, a job begun in 2015/2016 by the Judge Sergio Moro, the mainstream media and the most corrupted politicians in the Brazilian Congress, when they overthrew Dilma without any crime.

He also promises a withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and is eager to deforest even more the Amazon, saying that the native people do not want to live in a forest, which has to be given to big companies to produce. Large latifundia, according to Bolsonaro, are the wealthy and progress of the nation.

Though PT has not been a progressive party, what was at stake in these elections was the privatization of water, Petrobras, Eletrobras (an energy public company), Caixa Economica Federal (a public bank).

In an open letter published last week, 136 Brazilian geographers from Pará state manifested their serious concerns about Bolsonaro: the researches and professors pointed out that the extreme right-wing candidate presents a "political stance" of delivering the natural resources of the world's largest rainforest "to the private initiative of foreign countries, thereby eliminating areas of environmental protection, extractive reserves and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that have historically been fighting for the traditional populations of the country."

Last year, Temer invited US Armed Forces to participate in joint in joint military exercises in the Amazon, “to develop a greater knowledge, share experiences and develop mutual trust.” It is absolutely evident that Bolsonaro will continue to open Brazil's doors to Uncle Sam's Southern Command silent occupation of the world's richest region in biodiversity – as Brazil's Armed Forces themselves, who support him, does and did in the dictatorship times. It is worth remembering that, in his visit to Washington D.C. in October of 2017, Bolsonaro saluted US flag.

The Bolsonaro regime, as it has catastrophically been presented, and Jair Bolsonaro character itself as Brazilians historically know very well, will not be able to minimally mediate democratic relations, far from it. In Brazil's particular case, given the current social, political and economic crisis, such a possibility is even most remote – unthinkable, we could say.

Bolsonaro's “government” will be totally incapable of ordering that, and promised to cut even more social investments, far from good during PT years, which Temer started to totally destroy. Times sign to a disaster in the near Brazilian future.

His anti-corruption speech cannot become reality, not even taking seriously as another Bolsonaro's opportunist verbiage. His historical truculent and corrupted essence, and his agenda reinforce the possibility of a self-coup leaned on falsely fighting the internal enemy violence, and corruption itself.

The militarization of Rio and the terror spreading across the country are examples that Brazil is an advanced Police State where, last year, 64,000 were killed – and Bolsonaro, a declared fan of Augusto Pinochet, has insisted that more assassinations, much more are necessary to combat violence in Brazil (!).

In a country where 55 percent of people are black, Bolsonaro and his vice, General Antonio Hamilton Mourao, dare to state that Afro-descendants are second-class citizens.

Bolsonaro will have to handle with the monster he has set up, the deep hate in many cases repressed for so long in a hostile society; a campaign based on the fake news is socially terrible and will surely charge its high price.

Sadly, this way democracy has been finished in Brazil by local and international oligarchies, in the person of Jair Bolsonaro. In times of capitalism deep depression, nothing more appropriate to the owners of international power than, once again, substituting the fragile representative “democracy”, by a nazi-fascism regime.

In the absence of something to justify a hardline policy back to Brazil, a neo-McCarthyism has hysterically been imposed. Blindness is the raw material for such an “ideology”. Given the world's economic crisis, the Bolsonaro regime tends to be even more aggressive as any hard-liner, in such circumstances.

As the Workers' Party is one of the biggest lies in Brazil's history, Jair Bolsonaro tragically is one of the truest faces, in his neo-McCarthyism sense.


October 24, 2018 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia), and Global Research (Canada)


“It is difficult to explain the emergence of a phenomenon best described as pathological politics on a large scale” according to French-Brazilian sociologist Michael Löwy, in an interview when asked about Jair Bolsonaro's ascension, Brazil's presidential candidate whose great-grandfather was a Nazi soldier.

A former lawmaker that delivered just two bills across almost three decades, as a presidential candidate now Bolsonaro promises, among many other fascist “policies” layered in a total lack of project to the country as he refuses to debate, to make the “police free to kill” without any investigation.

The candidate of the Liberal Social Party (PSL, totally in favor of privatizations, and deeply nationalist) who leads the polls, has once said that a civil war is the only solution for Brazil. Bolsonaro often attacks his opponents with much violence, especially leftists and homosexuals promising a “zero tolerance” against them once he is elected, which includes torture and assassination.

Not surprisingly, the nation is living a vertiginous growing of violence of the eve of the second round of the election.


In June of 2013, Brazil lived its social “Spring”: another sociological “enigma”: hardly explained up to date, it was very similar to others all over the world whose multitudes did not know exactly why, how and to what they suddenly took to the streets (as teleSUR showed interviewing Brazilian citizens at the time).

Movements which have produced around the world, cooperated by the mainstream media – locally and internationally distorting facts, or not putting news in context: the minimization of the rule of law hurting civil liberties, increasing repression, corruption, and foreign influence.

Filled with hate, resentment, discrimination, and violence including by State forces, sometimes infiltrated among people: even those protests, an important part to overthrow the then-President Dilma Rousseff three years later and to boost Bolsonaro, were a consequence of dark winds blowing from the offshore against the South-American giant.

“The stranger, of course, is not the fascist preaching of an individual, but the adhesion of a large part of the electorate to these ideas,” observed the sociologist based in Paris.

“The spectacular success of Bolsonaro is something that still needs to be explained,” stated Löwy as he astonishingly mentioned that the former captain army does not care about being compared to Adolf Hitler – Bolsonaro also praised the Nazi as a great strategist, saying he would have enlisted in Hitler's Army.

In retribution, David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, has manifested his enthusiastic support to Bolsonaro: “Sounds like us.” Inside his country, Bolsonaro's supporters are in general on the same level, of course.

In the Information Age, there is no international conspiracy that both Julian Assuage and Edward Snowden cannot bring to light.



The Brazilian Economist Ladislau Dowbor in an interview with the author said by supporting Bolsonaro, the oligarchy once more time in Brazil's history “prefers to bury the country than to acknowledge the mistakes.”

The fragility of the democratic institutions have been aggravated since President Dilma Rousseff was impeached, in August of 2016. “There is not much mystery about what is happening in Brazil. This is the good old fight for social surplus”, the specialist says.

Talking to sociologist Löwy, three important factors could have contributed to Bolsonaro's ascension leading to the possibility of a Brazilian police State:

Politics is socially discredited;

The long vacuum left by the main opposition to the Workers' Party (PT), the Brazilian Social-Democratic Party (PSDB) through a lack of political proposals, and moral crisis (largely hidden by the mainstream media, and the Brazilian “Justice”);

An international scenario which, under U.S. President Donald Trump, favors far-right wing politicians.

The specialist agreed, adding some more points:

“The social impact of crime in Brazil; leading sectors of society opting for violent repression as the only solution; the hatred of certain social strata to PT, leading them to support the 'totally destruction of the party'; the strong political influence of conservative evangelicals; and the hostility to democracy of important sectors of the ruling classes.”


Economist Dowbor pointed out some of the contradictions of the PT years:

“Family Allowance [a national program that helped lift millions of Brazilians out of poverty, and remove the country from the U.N. World Hunger Map], which reached 50 million poor people, cost about 30 billion reais [about U$D 8 billion]. In comparison, in 2015 the payment of interest on the public debt was 500 billion reais [about U$D 134 billion]”,

said the economist.

Dowbor recalled that in 2012, Dilma decided to contain interest rates:

“From that moment, a war started. Many account holders left private banks such as Itaú, Bradesco and Santander, taking refuge in the public banks.

“As of 2013 there is no more government in Brazil, only boycotts [by the Congress], and [public] protests enthusiastically inflated by the media. Dilma was impeached without any crime, Lula is imprisoned without any proven guilt.”

According to Löwy:

“The coup against Dilma is explained by the oligarchy's desire – agribusiness, entrepreneurs, financial capital, rentiers – to end the long PT realm, despite the willingness of the center-left governments to negotiate agreements, and make numerous concessions [in favor of the oligarchy].

“The oligarchy, in the new economic situation created by the crisis, no longer wanted to negotiate anything, and was not content with concessions: it wanted to directly govern, and fully put into practice its anti-popular neoliberal program.

“At first, thanks to the media and corruption scandals also involving PT leaders, an important part of the population seemed to accept the arguments of the coup.”

The sociologist also pointed out that Temer's “solution” on behalf of the local oligarchy, had devastating consequences including:

“The aggravation of the socio-economic crisis, the deeply anti-popular measures of the Temer administration, corruption scandals against several members of his government and his parliamentary base, and above all with the growth of unemployment, poverty and social inequality.”

In an international context, Lula and Dilma highlighted the cooperation South-South, supported Venezuela and strengthened the BRICS.

All this, intolerable to the local oligarchy and the Washington regime, which historically fights democracy in the region through boycotts, coups, and assassinations.

'Phenomenon' Made in U.S.A.

In July of 2013, less than a month after the “Brazilian Spring” had started, the national paper O Globo published a series of reports denouncing US espionage directed against Brazil. Quoting Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee, Brazil was the Latin American country most spied upon in the 2000's, leading up to the impeachment of Dilma.

The mainstream media (including The New York Times), well-known by its conservative and pro-elites biases, praised “Brazil's Spring” and its vague “purpose”: like Bolsonaro's today it was based on the rhetoric, “we are against everything.”

The local media performance was then very similar to that on the eve of the 1964 military coup, with a tendency towards a new authoritarianism within the Armed Forces.

Largely promoted by fake profiles on Facebook, these protests were the result of foreign support and influence, In this regard, the movements which have led t massive protests in the last years, such as Movimento Brasil Livre (Free Brazil Movement) and Vem pra Rua (Take to the Streets), are funded by US billionaires.

Threats of a coup d'Etat emanating from the highest levels of the military hierarchy in recent years especially since Dilma won her second term in 2014, were followed by Marielle Franco's murder (mocked by many conservatives, who falsely fight corruption and violence in Brazil), which coincided with the militarization of Rio: since the first days of the intervention, the military is giving out magazines to children with a cover that shows a red monster (the “red danger”) trying to attack a white-skinned, blond-haired boy, protected by the military.

The Brazilian “Justice”, historically pro-upper class and corrupt, has been trained by Washington which also funds, via the State Department, the travel of Brazilian judges and prosecutors to the US according to cables recently released by WikiLeaks. These include judge Sergio Moro, responsible for Lula's imprisonment; Moro has a longstanding background of corruption.

Marielle's assassination itself has not been clarified, though the evidence points to a state crime as Bolsonaro freely commits, without any punishment, several electoral crimes, such as:

Indiscriminately funded by private companies, spreading fake news;
illegal use of social media;
getting private funding for his campaign, not permitted by the Brazilian electoral law, since 2016;
his well-known incitement of violence against those he opposes,
praising the crimes against humanity committed by the military dictatorship (1964-1985).
The Brazilian “Justice” system has been too strict in fighting corruption, arbitrarily condemning some parts at the same time it is now, in the Bolsonaro scandal, totally silent: how to explain that?

Moreover Brazil's “Justice” (supported by Washington) has persecuted leftist journalists, human rights activists, social movements and academics. And this expanded unabated since the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff.

Under the “no ideology” discourse promoted by the mainstream media and “politicians” like Bolsonaro, Brazilians have been forbidden to think.

The impossibility of dialogue, the spread of violence and the worship of his image, raw materials of fascism, are resources on which Jair Bolsonaro relies upon. He has promised a constitutional breakup. So it has been easy for Bolsonaro's campaign, which prevails through demagogy and irrationality, to use hate and fear as a political instruments coupled with propaganda slogans which completely distort reality:

Fear of the PT as the icon of the Great Satan, the origin of all the problems (“We have to strafe PT militants”);
Fear of the local “red danger” (“Dictatorship's big mistake was torturing without killing”).
Fear of Venezuela (“One of my first measures, will be the invasion of Venezuela”).
In his hysteria against leftists, followed by reactionary movements and the local society as a whole, Bolsonaro has said that anyone less than the former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a rightist of PSDB, should be killed as a “communist.”
Fear of homosexuals (“I'd rather my son to die in an accident, than to appear with a mustache guy”).
Fear of women (“A woman has to receive lower wages [than the man], because she can get pregnant”).
Fear of black people [“They (negroes descendant from slaves, from “Quilombola” community in Brazil) do nothing! I do not think are useful neither to procreate”).
Fear of all “immoralities” threatening religion and family – solution: killing immoral people, in the name of God and good customs.
Fear of real problems like violence to be “resolved”, as Bolsonaro and his followers often rampage, “arming people, and authorizing policemen to indiscriminately kill.”
Fear of the economic crisis to be resolved by “privatizing everything.”
Fear of corruption authorizing the “Justice” to put itself against Brazil's “enemies”, or even closing every institution linked to justice in the country.
Fear of democracy [“He (Adolf Hitler) was a great strategist: annihilated his enemies as everyone does at was; I would have enlisted in Hitler's Army”; "I will only accept my victory in this election").

As fear increasingly permeates Brazilian society, Bolsonaro's campaign is based on a total absence of rational thought and critical political analysis.

Any similarity to nazi-fascism “policies”, that takes advantage of fear and hate, of an enemy, generally nonexistent, to force people to abandon their liberties in the name of the common good and security?

Democratic institutions have been totally destroyed by fascist influences in Brazil, who openly break the law without any embarrassment and excess of aggressiveness, as if they (including judges, public prosecutors, policemen and even public workers) were the owners of the state and a blatantly corrupt power.

The nation has been delivered to the hands of the worst bandits.

A totally demoralized “Justice” system: this weekend, Federal Member of Parliament Elect Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of the messianic candidate, threatened the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) saying that “a soldier and a corporal are enough to close the institution,” after calls for an investigation to bar the popular right-wing candidate from the presidential race, and from politics for the next eight years due to spreading fake news along with Brazilian big companies.

All this, under the world's sheriff silence: so where is now Uncle Sam, to advocate for democracy in Latin America?

Though the Brazilian culture is deeply colonized, elitist and reactionary, deeply discriminatory (Brazil was the last American country to abolish slavery) which, of course, favors authoritarianism in politics and in social relations in general, there is not any phenomenon to be sociologically understood from the many coups against democracy in the South-American country; the most recent assassin puppet terrifying the Brazilian long nightmare is called Jair Bolsonaro, who saluted the U.S. flag in a travel to that country in October of 2017.

None of this can be understood without considering the international scenario, neither fundamentally helped by Assange and Snowden.


Löwy sees military intervention as a real danger. “For the first time since the end of the military dictatorship, generals begin to intervene in political life for example by threatening judges, if they free Lula.”

Brazil's Superior War College in Rio, which has been the object of indoctrination by the Pentagon, calls for a gradual militarization of politics.

The Brazilian military has for many years embraced America's national security doctrine:

combating the enemy, starting by the internal one – a communist, the poor, the [leftist] subversive.

Brazil's “justice” system, including the Public Ministry, follows this pattern, which helped this sector to work side by side with the military dictatorship, torturing and murdering.

In the case of a Haddad victory, Michael Lowy points to the danger of a “parliamentary coup,” modelled of what happened to then-President Joao Goulart in 1964. The objective was “to weaken the President's power”.

“The Parliament in Brazil is a caricature of democracy, entirely dominated by the Bullets (military, police, paramilitary), Bull (agribusiness), Bible (conservative evangelical)” and Banks lobby in Congress,” he says.

“The oligarchy, which controls the Assembly, has lost all presidential elections since 2002, hence the possible 'parliamentary' coup against the presidency,” added the sociologist.

Both Lowy and Dowbor agree that if Bolsonaro is elected president, a chaotic situation will unfold whereby prevailing neoliberal policies (as promised by the far-right candidate), will be multiplied by several times.

“Bolsonaro's election would be an immense disaster for the country, for democracy, for the Brazilian people,” pointed out the sociologist who says his popularity is an icon of the hate that marks the Brazilian society.

Fleeing from debates, Bolsonaro reflects and at the same time incites even more the social aversion to a political dialogue.

The former army captain and his running mate, General Antonio Hamilton Mourao, have threatened a de facto military coup if they are elected next October 28.

Another troubling scenario is considered, in the case of PT victory of Fernando Haddad (image on the left), Bolsonaro has said he would not accept the result of his opponent. Brazil seems like a dead-end country...

The imperialist tactic in Brazil is clearcut: fomenting social divisions, generating extreme poverty and violence – to justify a hardline policy.

The State against its citizens, and the citizens against themselves tragically is the most accurate way of describing today's Brazil, left by Michel Temer – the commencement of a historic tragedy in Brazil?



May 18, 2018 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia), in Portuguese on Pravda Brasil, and in Spanish on Globalización (Canadá)


Edu Montesanti: Great Oliver Stone, I would like to thank you so very much for the honor of interviewing you, and congratulate you for your matchless contributions for peace, and social justice all over the world.

What are your thoughts about the Democratic Unity Roundtable`s (MUD) and Washington regime`s boycott to the Venezuelan election?

Oliver Stone: It is part of a strategy of both the MUD and the Trump administration of dismissing the election in favor of extra-legal regime change. It is also convenient for the MUD, because the opposition cannot agree on a candidate, and if they had multiple candidates, they could easily lose.

Of course, both the Bush and the Obama administrations pursued regime change most of the time for the 15 years preceding Trump. Examples include the 2002 military coup, which Washington was involved in; and in supporting the 2013 violent street demonstrations that rejected the presidential election results, which were not in doubt.

The US has also poured many millions of dollars into Venezuela through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and other sources that are public and included in the US federal budget -- not including any covert aid -- to promote regime change.


Edu Montesanti: How do you see both sides in this campaign, President Nicolás Maduro who seeks re-election, and the opposition?

Oliver Stone: Well, your first question was about the MUD, and they are boycotting. But there are actually four candidates opposing Maduro, and one of them is ahead of all the others, and according to the more reliable polls has a good chance of winning if people vote. That is Henry Falcon, a former Governor and military officer who is more of a centrist than the far-right-led MUD coalition.

The US government threatened him with personal financial sanctions if he entered the race, because, as I noted, they don't want an election. And they don't want a centrist candidate who might try to make peace with the Chavistas if he were to win.

Basically, Washington and the MUD believe that the government can be overthrown as hyperinflation accelerates and the economy continues to decline.

At the same time, the Trump administration has imposed a financial embargo on Venezuela, which makes it nearly impossible for the Venezuelan government to borrow internationally or restructure its foreign debt.

So they are basically telling the Venezuelan people that their suffering will get worse so long as Maduro remains in power, and exacerbating the shortages of food, medicine, and many other goods, as well as hurting oil production, which the economy depends on.

Despite the depression and hardships of daily life, the country remains politically polarized. If you look at the crowds of pro-government and anti-government demonstrators over the years, you can see the difference in class and also race -- since the two are highly correlated in Venezuela, as in most of the Americas.

And millions of Venezuelans got health care, college education, and pensions for the first time in the 21st century under Chavez and his party.

So, even though the depression and hyperinflation have erased many of these gains, the government still has a base of about a third of the electorate.

That's why, no matter who wins the election, there will have to be a negotiated solution in order to resolve the political crisis. And whoever wins will have to fix the economy.


Edu Montesanti: What is the importance of this election to Latin America, especially in this moment of an agressive advance of hate, intolerance and attack against human rights and social justice in favor of local elites, all over the region?

Oliver Stone: Well, the last few years have definitely been a period of resurgence of the right in Latin America.

In Brazil, President Dilma Rosseff was impeached in 2016 without even being charged with a crime and replaced with a right-wing government.

And now Lula, who remains the most popular politician in Brazil, has been imprisoned under the most dubious of legal procedures.

Convicted without material evidence on the basis of plea-bargained testimony from a witness who was cut off from plea bargaining until he said what the judge -- who did not hide his political motivations -- wanted. And all this to prevent Lula from running in the October presidential election, where he has a substantial lead in the polls.

And in Argentina, there is a right-wing president since the end of 2015, and he is also using the legal system to persecute the former president Cristina Fernandez and other officials of her government.

These new governments are very loyal to the US government, which has helped them, and very allied in terms of foreign policy in the region. So there has been a serious reversal.

There is an attempt to get rid of the Nicaraguan government too, and Washington is pouring millions of dollars into that effort as well, according to the US federal budget.

It so happens that the left governments that were elected in the 21st century -- in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and others -- asserted their rights to self-determination and national sovereignty as perhaps never before, on so large a scale, in the history of the region.

And so, naturally, they ran into trouble with the US, which considers the region its "backyard." I think that is a very important part of the context in which we can see what is happening in Venezuela, although the role of the US is almost never mentioned in the major media.

But this reversal is temporary. The right doesn't offer any solutions to the problems of economic and social injustice that propelled the left, pro-self-determination movements and governments to power.

Brazil's President is deeply unpopular, and in Argentina, President Macri is also in trouble half-way through his term. And in Mexico, the leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is expected to win the Presidency in six weeks, an unprecedented, historic event if the polls are correct and it occurs.

So the left will come back in Latin America, more likely sooner than later.



December 6, 2017 / Published on Pravda Report, Instituto Presidente João Goulart, and Global Research


"Jango was very well physically, taking care, taking seriuosly his diet, and lively to celebrate Christmas and New Year with our children, João Vicente and Denize, in London," Maria Theresa Goulart, Jango's widow, told Pravda Report.

December 6 is one of the saddest anniversary for Brazilians, and the democratic world who fights for social justice and peace: on this day in 1976, former President João Goulart (1961-1964), overthrown by a military coup with more than 70 percent of an approval rating, passed away at 57 years old in his exile with family, in Argentina.


Jango, as the most progressive president in Brazil's history was popularly known, suffered from heart disease but his passing has been kept in mystery even today, 41 years after his death. There are lots of evidences that Jango was poisoned.

The more the family investigates, the more it becomes clear that secret agents, largely infiltrated in the Goularts house, changed Jango's heart medicine for poison.

"It is a long, painful, painful process to undergo this kind of investigation, especially when we have a country [Brazil] subservient to the United States of America," said João Vicente Goulart, Jango's son, to Pravda.

"Documents prove the clandestine subtraction of my father's personal documents inside our apartment in exile by an agent B of the room where he slept, according to a statement to our Federal Police of a Uruguayan secret agent, Mario Barreiro, who attended the meeting in August 1976 at the Uruguayan secret police headquarters in the presence of Fleury's delegate [Sérgio Fernando Paranhos Fleury, a Brazilian police official who tortured in the years of dictatorship in the South American country], the CIA Chief Frederick Latrash, US Ambassador Slauderman, the head of the Uruguayan Armed Forces with Chilean agents who brought from Santiago the Operation Condor extermination poisons, commanded by the chemist of the DINA (Chilean secret police) Hermes Berríos and the agent Michael Townley, that lives under protection of the American State under another name," Goulart added.

""There are so many indications, that the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in Rio Grande do Sul state (southern Brazil), conducted by prosecutor Suzete Bragagnolo, did not close the investigation even after the exhumation [in 2013] of the remains that have not yet been conclusive, for the time between death and exhumation," regrets Goulart.

Maria Theresa, Jango's widow, said that time is not enough to forget her husband, and everything he did to a better world. She has been seeking comfort in her family through the years. "Nowadays I have the compensation of being always with my son and daughter, João Vicente and Denize, and of all my family who means the world to me."


"It was a brilliant period, where Cinema Novo [New Cinema], Bossa Nova, and Arena Theater in the cultural sector came up in Brazil," remembers the 60's João Vicente Goulart. "New social movements such as peasant leagues, industrial and rural syndicalism, the student movement that, in the fervor of the debate during the Jango administration, emerged as a nationalist nation in opposition to the internationalism of its opponents.

"The João Goulart government brought to the broad discussion of society the reform of the Brazilian State, through the 'Basic Reforms', a set of proposals aimed at the development of the internal market as a lever of development."

"The agrarian, tributary, banking and university reforms, the National Literacy Plan, urban reform, the remittance law of multinational companies, the expropriation of oil refineries granting the monopoly not only of exploration, but also of refining to Petrobras [state oil company], were nationalistic measures that displeased the owners of the world, and the national elites.

"In foreign policy, for the first time Brazil positioned itself internationally with absolute independence and sovereignty: Jango established the policy of self-determination of peoples. Brazil reestablished relations with the Soviet Union, voted against colonialism in the UN, moved forward with the reestablishment of relations with China and with the Asian and African peoples, in short, all these achievements were denied by the military dictators who, for years, tried to hide these proposals from the Brazilian people," observed Goulart.

The Brazilian Historian Vitor Schincariol told Pravda: "He was trying to continue Getúlio Varga's efforts of building a sovereing and economically developed nation on capitalist grounds," and added the researcher at University of ABC in São Paulo that "his presidential term was marked by a growing economic crisis caused by structural factors - foreign trade, financial crisis, cyclical downturn-, by wrong economic decisions such as former President Jânio Quadro's economic reform in the exchange rate system that, as the Brazilian Economist Celso Furtado (1920-2004) pointed out years ago, caused a loss of 30% of government's revenues. Also by the economic terrorism by the domestic bourgeousie and the international enterprises, that did not want a government that was supported by workers and that wanted to implement social reforms, which was not exactly socialist."

Professor Doctor Schincariol pointed out that when the economic and social situation worsened, President João Goulart chose the path of a more radical policy, so "the Army decided, side by side with the domestic elites and the United States, to implement a coup d'etat.

"The United States, the domestic bourgeousie, the ring wing forces in the Army could not tolerate Goulart, because of his honesty, his good relations with worker's movements and his genuine will of transforming Brazil into a developed, just and sovereing nation.

"Goulart was genuinely compromised with democracy, and social peace," stated Professor Doctor Vitor Schincariol.


Jango's son said that the story told during the period of the dictatorship tried not only to erase President Goulart's period of government from history, but also "to alienate two Brazilian generations from the banner of nationalism while giving the international capital the reaction capacity of a free people."

Historian Schincariol pointed out to the same direction: "Goulart's and Varga's legacy was erased, phisically and ideologically, by the military dictatorship between 1964 and 1985. The economy was 'globalised'; the case for a industrialization with national capitals, social justice and national independence was substituted by 'dependence', 'fascist' policies and censorship; the democratic and left wing forces were imprisoned, killed or left the nation."

U.S. Historian Peter Kuznick considered that the military coup against President Jango was a thoroughly deplorable period in U.S. history, and a tragic one for the people of Brazil.

"When Humberto Castelo Branco [a military official and first president of Brazil after the coup] seized power, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Lincoln Gordon cabled Washington that the generals had carried out a 'democratic rebellion', which was 'a great victory for the free world' that had prevented a 'total loss... of all South American Republics' and improved the climate for 'private investments'," the head of the Institute of Nuclear Studies of the American University in Washington told Pravda.

"U.S. President Lyndon Johnson sent "warmest good wishes" to Castelo Branco. Secretary of State Dean Rusk told the NSC and congressional leaders that the 'United States did not engineer the revolt. It was an entirely indigenous effort'. Repression began immediately.

"Johnson told National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy that he wanted to send Castelo Branco a warm message on his inauguration. Bundy warned Johnson about the repression that was occurring. Johnson replied, 'I know it. But I don't give a damn. I think that...some people... need to be locked up here and there too',", pointed out Professor Doctor Kuznick.

"The new Brazilian regime complied, locking up more than 50,000 people the first month alone. U.S. aid flowed into the new government. A repressive military regime ruled for the next 20 years, leaving Brazil with the largest gap between rich and poor in the world. Equally bad, Brazil worked closely with U.S. leaders to defeat progressive movements throughout Latin America."

The renowned Brazilian historian reminded that when the dictatorship ended, Brizola and other democratic political forces tried to implement some of Goulart's ideas. "But the international environment, 'globalization' in 1990's, was still very hostile, and Brazilian left wing forces were more divided, with a new left-wing party, Workers' Party, having no direct relation and in fact lack of will to discuss or remember Varga's legacy, which they labelled 'populist'."

Goulart was incisive in comparing the 21 years of military dictatorship which murdered 455, left 155 "disappeared" and tortured more than 30,000 people, to today's Brazil under President Michel Temer, a deeply corrupted politician who, as vice-president, colluded against former President Dilma Rousseff, overthrown through a parliamentary coup in 2016: "Any similarity with what we are experiencing today is not mere coincidence, it is the purest reality of those who cowardly sell the country, of an illicit government that has once again taken over Brazil."


Recently, João Vicente Goulart authored a book titled Jango e Eu, Memórias de um Exílio sem Volta (Jango and I, Memories of an Exile with No Return), reporting the period of the Goularts. Jango's son told Pravda about the sufferings and persecutions in the exile, in Uruguay and Argentina.

"Exile brought not only to my father, but to every patriot from different nations that, at that time, fought in the exile to restore local democracies and freedom, which dictatorships had imposed in Latin America.

Asked about how was feeling his father in his latter days, Goulart said: "Sad, very sad... but always thinking of returning to his land when Brazil and the suffering people could finally get freedom, sovereignty and social justice."

Goulart said that in exile the family had moments of hope and faith. "Exile builds inside of us such an armor of resistence, based on faith that someone is fighting for your homeland which is not a bad luck for anyone."


"Jango, my father, undoubtedly brought within me teachings that I will take as an example until the end of my days," Responded Goulart full of passion when asked about the legacy left by his father. "Growing up in exile with him built solid foundations. Today, are present among us his struggle and examples not only for granting rights to a more fair society, but also to a fraternal and more distributive system to Brazilian workers.

"It also built within us the certainty that social and collective goals should never be abandoned, in order to keep us alive and standing to face the resistance and tyranny of oppression."




December 6, 2017 / Published on Telesur


On December 6, 1976, former President João Goulart, popularly known as "Jango", passed away when he was 57 in his exile with family in Mercedes, Argentina. Officially, he died by a cardiac attack, but many evidences point to poisoning.

"There are still some available tissue samples at Criminalistic Institute of Federal Police in Brazil, for a new investigation as new evidences are expected, if we can have new documents declassified, and testimonies that would bring new informations," told teleSUR João Vicente Goulart, Jango's son.

"In the first results analyzed, a substance appeared in tiny amounts which should not be in a human body, called pentaerythritol tetranitrate or erythrin tetranitrate, also known as pentrite,", revealed João Vicente. "It is a chemical with characteristic and end of explosives that, at the time, was only controlled as a weapon of exclusive use of the American Army," added Jango's son, pointing out that secret agents used to infiltrated the family's house in exhile. "As it is proven that spies removed my father's documents, they could have easily changed his heart medicine for a poison. Itamaraty lacks of sovereignty to require a response from the U.S. government".

Jango's body did not undergo an autopsy at the time he died. His body was only buried in São Borja, Brazil, after the assurance that the coffin would not be opened. According to João Vicente, "there was a severe military repression at my father's funeral." There were military officials everywhere at the place, monitoring Jango's coffin so it could not be open. In 2006 Mario Neira, a former Uruguayan secret agent, told João Vicente that his father had been really poisoned.

Overthrown from the Brazilian Presidency by a military coup d'état on April 1, 1964, the democratically elected João Goulart at the time with more than 70 per cent of approval ratings, exiled with family three days later to Uruguay, and in 1973 to Argentina welcomed by the then President Juan Domingo Perón. In exile, the Goularts were constantly threatened so the son, João Vicente, and Denize, the Goularts' daughter, went to study in London. Some friends warned former President Jango several times, that he could be killed.

On March 13, 1964, 18 days before the coup, President João Goulart gave a speech to more than 200,000 people in Central do Brasil square (Rio de Janeiro), with his wife Maria Theresa Goulart beside him, for the first time in his years in the Brazilian Presidency. Then, he promised an agrarian reform, reducing remittances of profits overseas, extending democratic rights among other very popular reforms. "Goulart committed the crimes of reforming the economy. That was more than Lyndon Johnson could tolerate and he opted to destablize the economy and assist a right-wing military takeover," said to this report the U.S. historian Peter Kuznick.

"The 1964 coup that toppled Goulart's government was extremely significant," added Professor Doctor Kuznick. "Oliver Stone and I begin our documentary episode about the invasion of Vietnam with a discussion of that coup. We then talk about the Dominican Republic, Greece, Indonesia, and Chile to show that the Vietnam War was part of a pattern.

"A National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 1963 had warned that Goulart might be establishing 'an extreme leftist regime, with a strongly anti-US character'. Johnson's appointment in December of Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann to coordinate Latin American affairs was another nail in the Goulart government's coffin.

"When Goulart the next year responded to U.S. demands to impose austerity on the Brazilian people by instead offering land reform and control of foreign capital and by recognizing Cuba, the U.S. moved quickly to destabilize the economy. Goulart seized U.S. properties.

"Ambassador Lincoln Gordon and U.S. embassy officials urged right-wing Brazilian officers to overthrow Goulart. The U.S. backed Army Chief of Staff General Humberto Castelo Branco. The CIA assisted behind the scenes," observed the researcher of the Institute of Nuclear Studies, at the American University.

The Brazilian Historian Victor Schincariol observed to this report that in order to preserve national peace and people's security, the then President Jango didn't call for a military intervention tp protected him. "Goulart was genuinely compromised with democracy and social peace. He said that he could not tolerate the death of Brazillians in a virtual civil war.

"At the same time, he knew that the US would support the right wing forces, which would make the case for the defence of the democracy very hard indeed to win," added the Brazilian researcher at University of ABC (São Paulo).

On December 18, in the presence of the heads of the Armed Forces and the then President Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian Congress symbolically returned President João Goulart's mandate, as OAS exhorted Brazil in 2010 for the crimes against humanity never punished, committed by the military dictatorship that killed 475, left 144 "disappeared", tortured more than 30,000 people.

There is an Amnesty Act in Brazil, elaborated and passed in 1979 by Brazilian military officials themselves and never confronted in the country by politicians, mainstream media and local elites, that acquits the dictators of the crimes committed between 1964 and 1985, when the regime ended.

"Goulart's and Varga's legacy was erased, phisically and ideologically, by the military dictatorship between 1964-1985. The economy was 'globalised'; the case for a industrialization with national capitals, social justice and national independece was substituted by 'dependence', 'fascist' policies and censorship; the democratic and left wing forces were imprisoned, killed or left the nation," told Professor Doctor Schincariol.

"The most important legacy Jango left to Brazil was his tireless fight for workers' right and social justice", said to this report Maria Theresa Goulart. "And for us, his family, his generosity and partnership."




December 3, 2017 / Published on Telesur and on Global Research


The risk of war between the US and North Korea is "increasing every day", US National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond McMaster has said, adding that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is working to advance his country's nuclear capability against the US.

“The greatest immediate threat to the United States and to the world is the threat posed by the rogue regime in North Korea, and his continued efforts to develop a long range nuclear capability,” McMaster told Fox News Saturday, after Pyongyang's launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) last November 29.

Wednesday's missile test, North Korea's first since mid-September, came after Pyongyang had denounced Trump's decision to relist it as a State sponsor of terrorism, calling it a “serious provocation and violent infringement.” Kim Jong-un claimed it as a “breakthrough” that will allow it to strike the mainland United States, adding that his nation has “completed” the state nuclear force.

“After watching the successful launch of the new type ICBM Hwasong-15, Kim Jong-un declared with pride that now we have finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power,” a statement read on state television said.

In the statement, North Korea described itself as a “responsible nuclear power”, saying its strategic weapons were developed to defend itself from “the US imperialists' nuclear blackmail policy, and nuclear threat”.

President Trump has said repeatedly that all options, including military ones, are on the table in dealing with North Korea, and has traded insults and threats with Kim. In September, US president said that Washington would have no choice but to “totally destroy” North Korea if forced to defend itself or its allies.

North Korean state media has repeatedly called President Trump an “old lunatic,” as American leader called Kim Jong-um "a sick puppy" last week.

On November 30, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, said that the regime in Pyongyang would be "utterly destroyed," if war were to break out in the wake of the latest ballistic missile test by Pyongyang. “We have never sought war with North Korea, and still... we do not seek it," Nikki Haley said.

"If war does come, it will be because of continued acts of aggression like we witnessed... And if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed. No one can doubt that this threat is growing.”

UN ambassador also called on all nations to "cut ties" with North Korea. “Yesterday the North Korean regime made a choice. It chose to feed its nuclear aggression” and to “thumb its nose” at the world, she said.

The Finnish Professor of International Relations Timo Kivimäki, Director of Research at the University of Bath in England, told this report that "while Ambassador Haley feels that North Korea is begging for a war, and that it is blackmailing the region with nuclear weapons, North Korea can, actually, be begging for peace. It may be building a nuclear deterrent to react to what it sees as US nuclear blackmail."

"The North Korean situation is very dangerous. We've got to irresponsible, impulsive, reckless, bullying, threatening leaders with access to nuclear weapons. They're playing an apocalyptic game of chicken," pointed out to this report the American nuclear expert, Peter Kuznick.

"Both keep escalating the rhetoric and the provocations. This might end very, very badly. Neither wants to back down and look weak. They both base their reputations on being strong and always winning, regardless of the costs or how much suffering they cause".

President Trump has repeatedly and openly dismissed efforts to start talks with North Korea. In early October, he said that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was “wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man [Kim Jong-un]” in putting out feelers for negotiations with Pyongyang.

On October 9, Defence Secretary James Mattis declared that the armed forces had “to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our president can employ if needed.”

During a Moscow conference dedicated to peace on the Korean peninsula, and the future reunification of its two states on September 30, North Korean Ambassador to Russia Kim Yong-jae said: "If the US behaves in ways that deny our state's right to exist, our republic, as our supreme leader Kim Jong-un has said, will make them pay in full by the just power of our nuclear arsenal.”

Prof. Dr. Kivimäki said that "only with dialogue can both sides see that what both see as nuclear blackmail, could actually be just deterrence."

"Unfortunately, it seems, North Korean leader has been unable to understand that his provocative moves not only deter, but also provoke, and instead of provocations, both North Korea and the US should focus on dialogue, so that the core interests of both countries could be secured.”

In mid-October, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier along with a guided-missile cruiser, nearly 80 aircraft on board and a nuclear-powered submarine, arrived in the Korean Peninsula to prepare for a potential war with North Korea.

Since then, US and South Korea are conducting joint drills to detect, track, and intercept ballistic missiles, in addition to anti-submarine warfare training.

Prof. Dr. Kuznick said that the world lives under a deep uncertainty. "We know what the ultimate solution will have to be. The world will have to accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state, as odious as that prospect might be," the expert said, adding that a peace treaty ending the Korean War is fundamental, as both parties has signed an armistice agreement at the end of the war on July 27, 1953.

"The U.S. will have to reduce its military presence and training exercises in South Korea and stop threatening regime change. It may have to also ease its sanctions," the Director of Nuclear Studies at the American University added. "North Korea will have to halt its missile and nuclear weapons tests and freeze its programs. It will have to stop making threats. This is what we call the 'freeze for freeze' option.

"Something like that was in place between 1994 and 2002 and it was largely successful though neither side fully met its responsibilities. It can work again. But it doesn't look like Trump and Kim are capable of working this out.

"Therefore other international leaders will have to take the initiative. I hope this happens quickly because the situation gets more dangerous by the day. And this is the closest we've come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the possible exception of the dangerous standoff between India and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, another crisis that continues to fester," observed Prof. Dr. Kuznick.

US human rights attorney Azadeh Shahshahani, Founder and Advocacy Director for the Project South in the US, spoke to the report considering that Washington has no the right of a preemptive attack against North Korea. "From a legal point of view, the launch of a military attack against North Korea will be very problematic," she pointed out.

"The UN Charter only allows the use of military force by states for self defense or when there is collective action by the UN Security Council. Neither of these pre-requisites are met here. As a result, US military action against North Korea under current conditions should be considered illegal under international law."

US Historian Kuznick observed that North Koreans would rather "eat grass" than give up their nuclear weapons, as Russian President Vladimir has said.

"They feel under attack from the United States. They vividly remember what the U.S. did to them in the Korean War, when the U.S. burned down every city in both North and South Korea.

"The U.S. dropped four times as many bombs on Korea as it did against Japan in World War II. They know that the Korean War never officially ended."

Prof. Dr. Kivimäki pointed out to the same direction, reminding that North Korea's foreign minister Ri Yong Ho claimed in his paper at the ASEAN Regional Forum on August 7, that "North Korea's fear is rational. given that the US has actually used nuclear weapons against civilians, that it has placed nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, that it keeps on practicing war operations that simulate regime change, that it has changed regimes in several authoritarian non-nuclear countries and that it has refused the commitment to non-use of nuclear weapons against countries with no nuclear weapons."

"None of this can be read from the world media," stated the Finnish researcher.

Concluding his analysis, International Relations expert Kivimäki considered that Pyongyang fear is not irrational, given that president NIxon has actually once given an order for a nuclear attack against North Korea.

"The CIA's top Vietnam specialist, George Carver, reportedly said that in 1969, when the North Koreans shot down a US spy plane, 'Nixon became incensed and ordered a tactical nuclear strike.'

"Someone has said that Nixon was like Trump but without the Twitter. Trump, again, was like Nixon, but without Kissinger. Hopefully, the obvious conclusion is not a nuclear strike against North Korea."

On the other hand, Prof. Dr. Kuznick warned, deeply concerned: "we don't know what to expect. These situations can not be allowed to turn into nuclear holocausts, from which our species and our planet may never recover."



October 3, 2017 / Published on Telesur


Democratic People`s Republic of Korea has toned up nuclear force rhetoric, as UN Security Council Resolution passed tougher sanctions after Pyongyang's latest missile test in September.

Renewing North Korea's commitment to becoming a “state nuclear force,” the sanctions are "futile" and will "lead to their final doom," said he country's state news agency KCNA on Sunday, referring to the US and allies.

UN Security Council Resolution 2375 restricts the supply of fuel into DPRK, and imposed a ban on North Korean textile imports. "The US and the South Korean puppet forces are mistaken if they think that sanctions and pressure will keep [North Korea] from attaining the goal of completing the state nuclear force," said KCNA.

On September 26, Donald Trump warned again Pyongyang at a White House news conference, saying that any U.S. military option would be “devastating” for North Koreans.

As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday in Beijing, discussing efforts to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, Trump posted on Twitter that Tillerson "is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man [Kim Jong-un]."

US Secretary of State told reporters during his visit to China that the US is “probing” North Korea to see if it is interested in dialogue.

“We ask: Would you like to talk? We have lines of communications to Pyongyang. We're not in a dark situation,” stated Tillerson.

In an exclusive interview with teleSUR, former CIA agent John Kiriakou says that a South Korean general told him on condition of anonymity, that Seoul "believes the Chinese will urge all sides to go to the negotiating table."

According to Kiriakou, the South Korean official "believes the US is overreacting to the North Korean threat."

Despite crescent belligerent rhetoric on all sides, Choe Son-hui, director general of the North American department at the North Korean foreign ministry, and one of its most prominent nuclear negotiators, talked with top Russian diplomat Oleg Burmistrov in Moscow on Friday.

Moscow and Pyongyang are ready to “find ways to solve regional problems through peaceful, political and diplomatic means,” said a statement from Russia's foreign ministry after the meeting wrapped up, reported RT.

China and Russia are trying long ago to normalize tensions between DPRK and the US, proposing a 'double-freeze' plan in which Pyongyang suspends its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, in exchange for a halt in joint US-South Korea military exercises, an alternative firmly rejected by Washington.

"The most likely scenario that I see is that the Chinese will intervene to push the idea of diplomacy. This will lead to talks, either directly or indirectly, between Washington and Pyongyang," says the former CIA agent.

"War in the region serves nobody. It will endanger South Korea and Japan, it will force the US and China to the brink of conflict, and, of course, it could destroy North Korea," points out Kiriakou, who doesn't believe things will get worse.

"I don't believe that President Trump's saber-rattling is a 'policy', observes, too, the whistleblower, detained for two years by the US government for denouncing the secret CIA torture methods, according to him directly commanded by President George Bush (2001-2009).

"I think it is an uncoordinated action, off the cuff, that Trump did without consulting any of his advisors, including those in the Departments of State or Defense. Those advisors will now try to walk him back from the statements. They will likely ask the Chinese to engage to smooth the path," says Kiriakou.

Kiriakou agrees to some analysts, that Kim Jong Un wants to stay in power, which is an argument against nuclear war. "If war breaks out, whether it's nuclear or conventional, there is no way that Kim Jong Un can survive. If war breaks out, and I think it is highly unlikely, the US will not stop until the North Korean government is destroyed."

The American historian Peter Kuznick, a nuclear expert, says in an exclusive talking to teleSUR that while he doesn't like seeing nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, he understands why Kim Jong-un wants them. "He feels he needs a credible deterrent against the United States in the wake of George W. Bush declaring North Korea to be part of the 'axis of evil.'"

"He believes that otherwise the U.S. will overthrow him. After what happened in Iraq and Libya, he's got good reason to think that way."

Asked about the current risk of a nuclear confrontation, Kuznick differs from Kiriakou: "The situation is very dangerous. This is the closest we've come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the possible exception of the dangerous standoff between India and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, another crisis that continues to fester, and it doesn't look like Trump and Kim are capable of working this out."

Kuznick takes into account recent history as a resource, especially the Cold War, to warn what may happen today. "What Kennedy and Khrushchev learned during the Cuban Missile Crisis is that once a crisis develops, it quickly spins out of control.

"Despite the fact that both of them were trying desperately to avoid a nuclear war in 1962, they realized that they had lost control. They moved after that to eliminate any conflict that might cause another crisis. That was Khrushchev's initiative and Kennedy eventually responded."

"Imagine what would be left of the world today if that was Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un confronting each other in October 1962, instead of Kennedy and Khrushchev."

Azadeh Shahshahani, Legal and Advocacy Director at Project South in the US, told this report that ,"from a legal point of view, the launch of a military attack against North Korea will be very problematic. The UN Charter only allows the use of military force by states for self defense or when there is collective action by the UN Security Council."

"Neither of these pre-requisites are met here. As a result, US military action against North Korea under current conditions should be considered illegal under international law," adds the lawyer.

The Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky, director of Centre for Research on Globalization, is even more incisive in his talking to teleSUR: "Who is the threat to world security? The United States is. Does any country threaten US security? The answer is no."

Kuznick points out to the same direction. "The US has created a new kind of empire undergirded by between 800 and 1,000 overseas military bases from which US special forces operate in more than 130 countries each year."

Chossudovski reminds that DPRK "lost 30% of its population from 1950 to 1953 as a consequence of US bombings in the Korean Peninsula, destroying every city and village, and 97% of the North Korean landscape. Every single family has lost their family members."

"Since then, every year the US and South Korea have conducted military exercises against North Korea. They decided to defend themselves as the US is not a model society," remarks the economist.

The American nuclear expert says he doesn't know what to expect from US-DPRK tensions, pointing out to only one solution, "an acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state, as odious as that prospect might be."

"There will have to be a peace treaty ending the Korean War. The U.S. will have to reduce its military presence and training exercises in South Korea and stop threatening regime change. It may have to also ease its sanctions.

"North Korea will have to halt its missile and nuclear weapons tests and freeze its programs. It will have to stop making threats. This is what we call the 'freeze for freeze' option. Something like that was in place between 1994 and 2002 and it was largely successful though neither side fully met its responsibilities. It can work again."

The US historian based out in Washington also points out that "Trump needs an external threat to justify his regime's massive increase in military spending and unconscionable cuts to domestic programs and social spending."

Recently the US Senate passed a $700 billion defense policy bill for 2018, as the World Health Organization (WHO) admonishes the country for “not having a universal health coverage."

In July 2010 in North Korea, some 99 percent of the population had access to sanitation, and 100 percent had access to water. According to WHO's director-general, Margaret Chan, the country had "no lack of doctors and nurses," pointing out that local "health system is the envy of the developing world.”

According to UNESCO, Public Education in DPRK is universal and fully funded by the State. “Education in North Korea is free, compulsory, and universal for 11 years, from ages four to 15, in state-run schools.

The national literacy rate for citizens 15 years of age and older is 99 percent," reported the Library of Congress, Federal Research Division in July 2007.

Such facts evidence a contradiction in the Western concept of democracy, especially regarding the U.S., the only country in history which has ever dropped atomic bombs on populations.



On September 25, 92 percent from the total of 8.4 of Iraqi Kurds have voted "yes" to independence on the Iraqi Kurdish referendum, on whether to secede from the Iraqi territory. That was a symbolic step for the world's largest ethnic group composed by more than 30 million people spread across five countries, to settle a homeland of their own in northern Iraq where the Iraqi Kurdistan is made up of three provinces run by an autonomous regional government, and protected by their own security services.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has called on foreign states to stop cooperating with the the Iraq's autonomous and oil-rich Kurdish on issues in the oil sector, and also demanded that all border posts with Turkey, Syria and Iran be placed under Baghdad's supervision, closing airports. Turkey also responded aggressively, threatening military action and sanctions in order to force the Kurds to "give up on this adventure that can only have a dark end.”

The mainstream media and even a large part of the alternative media all over the world have enthusiastically supported the Kurdish secession, generally neither listening to the Iraqi part in the issue nor putting facts into context. A blustering "coincidence" in this case s that, as the international community and regional neighbors have opposed the referendum, there is only one government all over the world which has openly supported it: the State of Israel, year by year condemned by several international organizations for crimes against humanity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But in this no sense support to the Kurdish case, there is some facts that perfectly fit to the Benjamin Netanyahu regime's contradictory posture towards the Iraq Kurds.

As "coincidences" regarding the Zionist state and international media go even farther in the issue, an Iraq senior government official, speaking to Pravda Report on condition of anonymity, has stated that "Tel Aviv is only interested on weaken Iraq." As Lebanese journalist and political commentator Osama al-Sharif wrote in the Jordan Times, “Netanyahu and his far right allies know very well that a unilateral Kurdish decision to cede from Iraq in the absence of an agreement over a number of contentious issues, least of which is the future of oil-rich Kirkuk province, would trigger a civil war that is likely to spill over.

In the mid 1960s and 70s, Mossad planned and funded a Kurdish Army to fight Iraqi troops in northern Iraq, and other Israel enemies in the Middle East: Syria and Egypt. One of Zionists's partner then was Mullah Mustafa Barzani, Masoud Barzani's father, currently the (illegal) President of Kurdistan, and Nechirvan Idris Barzani's grandfather, Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) a nephew of Masoud Barzani, who rules the region without any legal basis since 2015: in 2013 he concluded his eight-year term in the Kurdish Presidency, extended by two years by the local Parliament but, since the mandate totally expired, Barzani has prevented the Members of Parliament from setting up new elections.

As observes the website The Moon of Alabama, Barzani's corrupted power has also been propelled by the United States oil interests in the region. "The Kurds pumped and sold oil without the consent of Baghdad. Corruption rules in Kurdistan and the regional government had to rob local banks to find fresh money. That still wasn't enough to pay salaries. The Barzani family mafia has robbed the region blind. To keep going, the local government needs to annex more riches and widen its business base."

In August 24, 2015, The Jerusalem Post reported, "Majority of Israeli Oil Imported from Kurdistan [report title]. Importing crude from Erbil [capital of the KRG] could be geopolitically, economically favorable for Jerusalem. Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Kurdistan [KRG] in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a third of all northern Iraqi [KRG] exports, shipped through Turkey's Ceyhan port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1 billion.”

As reported Telesur English on September 26, "an official within Iran's Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Velayati, stated before the vote that the existence of a secessionist Kurdish state in Iraq would only benefit the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel, both of whom seek to “colonize and dominate” the Middle East."

In an exclusive interview, the Iraqi Ambassador to Russia, Doctor Haidar Mansour Hadi, affirms that the Kurdish referendum is a severe violation to the Iraqi Constitution, ratified by the Kurdish people. "The international community recognized the illegitimacy of the referendum, rejects its results and expressed its support for the unity of Iraq," says Ambassador Hadi.

The diplomat also reminds that the Kurds are genuine participants in the Federal Government since 2003, what does not justify a secession. "The Kurdish people are part of Iraqi people."

Below, the full talking to Ambassador Hadi: the Iraqi version of the facts, largely forgotten by the international press.

October 2, 2017 / Published on Pravda Report and Pravda Brasil


Edu Montesanti: His Excellency Ambassador Haidar Hadi, first of all I'd like to thank you so very much for this honorable interview. The Iraqi government has opposed Kurdish referendum, considering the separatist vote as "unilateral and wrong step". Please explain the Baghdad position.

Ambassador Haidar Hadi: Thank you, Edu, for this important interview which will give me the opportunity to talk about the Kurdish referendum, from the Iraqi government point of view.

Until the last minute, the Iraqi federal government hoped that the regional government retreats of its unilateral and wrong steps, and the federal government followed all the means to convince the region, but there was no avail.

The international community recognized the illegitimacy of the referendum, rejects its results and expressed its support for the unity of Iraq: the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation decision, the Security Council statement, official statements issued by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and other countries, in addition to all neighboring countries.


The Kurds alleges the right to self -determination, guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How does the Iraqi government respond to it?

The Kurdish leadership determination to conduct the referendum was a severe violation to the Iraqi Constitution, that represents the social contract between all Iraqi components, ratified by the Kurdish people in a way exceeded other Iraqi provinces: Erbil 99.36%, Dohuk 99.13% and Sulaimania 98.96% votes.

There is a clear and sharp division between the Kurdish forces regarding the referendum. This was clear through the statements issued by those forces, political and popular movements for fear of that one party will dominate the power in Iraqi Kurdistan; this was clearly addressed in reports of the international press agencies in this regard.


The Kurds say the vote acknowledges their contribution in confronting Islamic State group after it overwhelmed the Iraqi Army in 2014, and seized control of a third of Iraq. How does Baghdad respond to it, especially now that ISIS has is defeated in Iraq?

The Kurdish referendum undermines the international efforts to combat terrorism, especially the battle against Daesh, therefore it's considered a danger on the security of the region.

Not just Kurdistan fought ISIS. All Iraqis fought hand in hand and sacrificed their lives in order to win the war against ISIS.


Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said, previously to the vote, that Kurds will not declare independence, but "will engage in serious negotiations with Baghdad." Do you think that Prime Minister Barzani really means that, or he is trying to distract and get time?

Kurdish leadership made it very clear, from the beginning, that they want their own independent state, so I would strongly disagree with what Prime Minister of Kurdistan said.

The Kurdish referendum was the first step in making the Kurdish dream come true.


What could Baghdad negotiate with the Kurds, if so?

Baghdad refused the referendum to go ahead as it is a clear violation of the Iraqi Constitution, which the Kurds themselves were part of it.

Therefore, the Federal Government in Baghdad refuses any negotiation with the Kurdish leadership unless they admit the referendum results are void, and the referendum itself is a violation of the Constitution.


Don't you see the referendum as a result of the tragedy caused by US-led invasion in 2003, weakening the Iraq State?

The US-led invasion in 2003 was a result of the actions by the brutal dictator's regime of Saddam Hussain, coordinated by the Iraqi oppositions in Exile.

Since 2003, our Kurdish brothers were an important part of the Iraqi political process we together, as Iraqis, worked closely to convince the US-led forces to leave Iraq after signing a strategic agree with the United States.

Kurds are genuine participants in the Federal Government since 2003, and have senior positions represented by the President, Members of Parliament, ministers including Foreign Minister from 2003-2014, deputy ministers, Ambassadors and private positions in an equal proportion to their population, so the marginalizing claims are false.


The Kurdish leadership is claiming that Baghdad government is punishing the Kurdish people by closing borders and airports, for trying to express their rights. How does the Iraqi government respond to it, Ambassador Haidar?

The Kurdish people are part of Iraqi people, and the governmental procedures are basically addressed to deter the Kurdish government for fragmenting Iraq's unity and preserve its regional position. Prime Minister Doctor Haider Alabadi made this clear in his media office statement

Iraqi Federal Government has full rights to control the airports in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, subject all border crossings to federal authorities and close all non-official ports.

Oil exporting, foreign trade, investments, bank transactions and the diplomatic and consulate representations are subjected to the federal government authority.





Edu Montesanti: What did disgust you so deeply to protest against the then-US President Barack Obama, during his speech in May, 2013? [vídeo below]

Medea Benjamin: I was totally disgusted during President Obama's speech in May 2013 that I decided to get up and challenge him. I was disgusted because he continued to justify the use of drone warfare, I had been to Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where I met with families who had lost their loved ones to US drones.

The president said that we only used the drones when there was near certainty that no civilians would be killed, but I knew that was not the case. I knew that many civilians were being killed, and that the US government has keeping this information from the American public.

I felt compelled to challenge the president on a program that was murdering many innocent people and making us more hated in the world. As a constitutional lawyer, he should never have authorized the use of killer drones, particularly in countries where we were not at war.



The US government assures that drone operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground, authorized only when an “imminent" threat is present and there is "near certainty" that the intended target will be eliminated. The justification for the use of drones is that they are surgical and precise, and don't kill civilians. However, the official number of civilians killed by drones is so large, for so long.

a) What do you think of US "policy" substituting boots on the ground, by drones?

b) How much are drones precise in targeting combatants?

and c) How do you see the US justification for the use of drones as "collateral damege" or that every killed was an enemy, when they kill civilians, Medea?

a) Using drones instead of boots on the ground is a way to get the US involved in military action without putting the lives of our soldiers at risk. If the cause is so critical to the security of the United States, we should be willing to engage our soldiers.

Also, precisely because the use of drones keeps our soldiers out of harm's way, it is easier for the United States to get involved in military interventions and makes the US government more belligerent;

b) Drones are not precise. The vast majority of people killed are people who the US military (or CIA) can't even identify. The missiles fired by the drones have hit weddings, funerals, marketplaces, residential houses, and health facilities. This is certainly not “precise.”

c) The US military and CIA call the people they kill combatants, and in most cases, have no proof of that. It is also criminal and callous to just dismiss the killing of innocent people as “collateral damage” as if their lives didn't matter.

Most of the time the US government does not even bother to acknowledge its mistakes, and apologize or compensate the family for its terrible loss. It is only because the US is so powerful that it can get away with such arrogant behavior.


Professor Doctor Azadeh Shahshahani, a respected lawyer and Director for Project South, recently observed to me that:

a) In the domestic (US) context, they be used for artistic or investigative purposes. For example, they can be used to investigate agribusinesses to see if they are engaging in animal abuse or not. In that sense, they can play an important and legitimate role. However, their use needs to be regulated to ensure that they are used for surveillance by law enforcement agencies;

b) Per international humanitarian law, drones can only be used as bombs in an active armed conflict and even then with certain restrictions including military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality. Only combatants or civilians who are directly participating in hostilities may be targeted. Targeting of other civilians is prohibited and may constitute a war crime,

How much the US government is respecting these principles, Medea, using drones both as surveillance and bombs?

There are many positive uses for drones but not for killing or for illegal surveillance. In many cities throughout the United States, community groups are trying to stop their police forces for getting access to drones that would be used to invade their privacy.

As far as war crimes, I am certainly that the US government has committed such crimes with its use of drones. One particularly egregious example is the use of “double taps”, or firing a missile and then following up with another one shortly afterwards to target the rescuers. That is certainly a war crime.


Which is worse in the drone program, being used as "an engine of surveillance that threatens privacy", or as a “killing machine,” both points observed recently to me by Professor Peter Kuznick [interview below]?

It is certainly worse to kill people than to spy on them. But much of the time the two go hand-in-hand.

The drones can hover over villages, terrifying the entire population, and then a few days later drop missiles to kill the people they were spying on.


Contrary to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants. The situations is going to get even worse, isn't it, Medea?

Yes, the situation is getting worse under Trump. He is giving more authority to both the CIA and the military.

He is no longer involved in the targeted killing but has designated this authority to others. In all areas of combat (whether with drones or piloted aircraft), the air wars are being intensified under President Trump.




Edu Montesanti: US government assures that operations with drones are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground, authorized only when an “imminent" threat is presente and there is “near certainty”; that the intended target will be eliminated. The justification for the use of drones is that they are surgical and precise, and don't kill civilians.

However, the official number of civilians killed by drones is so large, for so long much larger than combatentes killed. US drone program have been used as bombs out of regions at war such as Yemen and Somalia, and as surveillance all this mostly in secret by the Washington regime.

What is the impact of the US drone program on international relations?

Prof. Dr. Timo Kivimäki: Drones are part of a slightly colonial ethos in which US and a few other countries feel that they can protect people in fragile states in far-away places against criminals, terrorists and dictators. This ethos has led to military operations that tend to escalate conflicts and kill the people that we originally wanted to protect.
This is because of two reasons:

1. From the distance it is difficult to know how different societies react to military operations;

2. These apparently altruistic operations are often corrupted by selfish objectives (access to oil, geopolitics, etc.),

and 3. Because external influence gives “criminals, terrorists and dictators” nationalist legitimacy to their violence: it is justified as “protection against intruders”.

Classified, leaked US documents on the Haymark Operation in Northern Afghanistan reveal that from February 2012 to March 2013 nearly 90% of those killed by drones were not the intended targets. Data by a human rights organization, Reprieve, suggests that the percentage might be even higher. How the unintended targets still get classified as militants, escapes me.

Furthermore, precision does not mean accuracy. Even the intended targets may not be legitimate. When the US tries to avoid American fatalities by reducing presence on the ground, it will understand even less about the dynamics of the society it operates in. Thus it will be even less able to identify who is a terrorist and who is not, let alone that it will have an even weaker legitimacy to make that call.

When we look at the faces of the terrorists that have made violent operations in Europe, we can see that they look the same as any other people. Visual images do not reveal them, especially since the visual imagery drone targeting must rely on is so inaccurate that the drone operator cannot, according to one of them, Brandon Bryant, see if the target is carrying a rifle or a spade.

Telephone metadata is problematic, too. Whether a known terrorist calls someone for a barber's appointment or for a shipment of AK47s , is not revealed by metadata. If then the barber becomes classified as a terrorist because of his telephone contacts, there is a risk that the barber's other customers also become terrorist contacts, too.

I am sure that the network analysis of the metadata is more sophisticated that what I am making it look like, but the fundamental problem is that metadata is technical and thus it cannot penetrate the meanings, motives and intentions of people. From the distance, it is hard to understand people.

Acting as the judge, jury, police and the executioner is so difficult from the distance. Even identifying the right target succeeds only in one of the ten cases. Thus, it is understandable that US drone program is not very popular among people who live under the hovering US drones.

The fact that the judge/jury/police/executioner is a foreigner of another religion does not help. It is, therefore, likely that drone warfare does, indeed, escalate resentment and conflict and give rise to anti-Western militias and terrorists.

This does not mean that innocent Western civilians would be legitimate targets for terrorists who have lived under the shadow of drones. Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that conflicting sides tend to seek legitimacy for their own violence from the violence their opponents have subjected themselves to.

All this, has so far looked at the problem of violence from a perspective that sees the militant terrorist violence as the only problem. The use of drones has fuelled that violence, not dealt with it. But the other side of the problem of US drones is that warfare without a risk for one's own side encourages American violence.

Thus, drone technology in the use of the military is problematic also because it encourages the US to get militarily involved in an increasing number of areas. That, too, is a conflict problem. Yet, one should realize that drones are just one element of the problem, an element that is often exaggerated.

For example, until rather recently in Iraq and Syria, drone strikes constituted only less tan 10% of all US airstrikes (while the rule of drones in the UK air battle was more extensive). So the problem is more broadly the air-based warfare that aims to police the world, not just drone warfare.


Contrary to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants. The situations is going to get even worse, isn't it?

Yes, there is already some evidence (compiled by the UK-based organization Airwars) of the increase of proven civilian fatalities of US military operations in the Middle East after the beginning of the Trump presidency. This was disappointing given that originally Trump seemed to be less interested in this military “protection” in the Middle East and given that Trump did not originally have such good relations with his intelligence bureaucracy.

Yet, it seems that the CIA has gained the upper hand in the power battle and the democratically elected political leader has had to yield to the will of the his securocracy. This became quite clear already with the dismissal of president's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. Flynn was a strong opponent of the ways in which the US intelligence apparatus operated.

He was forced/encouraged to retire in 2014, after his critique of the way in which US intelligence failed to understand the society in Afghanistan, even though the causal relationship between his critique and his early retirement has not been reliably shown.

In his damning report, Fixing Intel in 2010, he claims that soldiers tasked to fight insurgency often “acquire more information that is helpful by reading U.S. newspapers than through reviewing regional command intelligence summaries”.

Now with Flynn gone, and the president harassed by legal investigations, it seems that the CIA is running the drone show. This is not the first time, though, as, according to leaked confession by a senior US State Department official, at least in Pakistan, there has been a period when the CIA was clearly in control of the drone warfare, with President Obama securely in the passenger's seat.

The degree of CIA control and the number of civilian fatalities was then, too, clearly correlated. So, yes, growing power of the CIA is a concern for all those people living in the shadow of US drones.


How can drones be useful particulary to international relations, and to humanity in general?

Surely, there are useful ways to utilize drone technology for humanity. It is just in the realm of warfare where the technology affords developments that are dangerous.

The fact that with drones you can fight wars without being at personal risk, and the fact that you can monitor you enemies from the sky by relying on visual data, are the reasons for the negative consequences.

For such a long time the US was “monopolizing” drone technology in global conflicts. This made them reluctant to negotiate on the regulation of the use of drones.

Today almost hundred countries have mobilized drones for their defence effort, and the world with limited regulation of how drones can be used is a dangerous world.




Edu Montesanti: When the Obama administration discussed drone strikes publicly, it offered assurances that such operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground and are authorized only when an “imminent” threat is present and there is "near certainty" that the intended target will be eliminated. How do you see such a "policy", that of substituting boots on the grounds by drones?

Peter Tatchell: Drones serve the same purpose as boots on the ground. They are merely a different way of achieving the same military objective.

The drone strategy of the US armed forces is intended to improve target-hit accuracy and enhance the elimination of enemy combatants, while reducing civilian and US military deaths.

But the reality is that flawed intelligence has led to civilian casualties, including the killing of wedding parties and others.


Professor Doctor Azadeh Shahshahani, a respected lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, recently observed to me that:

a) In the domestic (US) context, they be used for artistic or investigative purposes. For example, they can be used to investigate agribusinesses to see if they are engaging in animal abuse or not. In that sense, they can play an important and legitimate role. However, their use needs to be regulated to ensure that they are used for surveillance by law enforcement agencies.;

b) Per international humanitarian law, drones can only be used as bombs in an active armed conflict and even then with certain restrictions including military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality. Only combatants or civilians who are directly participating in hostilities may be targeted. Targeting of other civilians is prohibited and may constitute a war crime.

How much the US government is respecting these principles, Peter, using drones both as surveillance and bombs?

Drones can be used for benign purposes, such as monitoring bushfires and floods, delivering aid to remote earthquake victims and finding sailors lost at sea.

The US use of drones for military purposes is purportedly restricted and within the confines of the international laws of war.

However, civilians are being killed. In some cases, it looks like these deaths may have been the result of the reckless use of unreliable intelligence sources or broad-brush indiscriminate targeting.

These instances may amount to war crimes.


What do you think of the UK government historically supporting US attacks with drones and surveillance, including using it in the Great Britain to spy?

The UK complicity with US drone attacks and surveillance is too open ended. London seems to not ask questions or assess consequences.

Britain's 'special relationship' with Washington often involves giving the Pentagon a free hand. What the US wants, the US gets.

Contrary to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants. Your view, please, Peter.

The problem is mostly not drones per se, but the military strategy and decisions that direct their use. It is the military and targeting policy that needs to change.

Drones are sometimes used as a way of circumventing congressional and public opposition to troop deployment. They become tools for the subversion of the democratic process.




Edu Montesanti: When the Obama administration discussed drone strikes publicly, it offered assurances that such operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground and are authorized only when an “imminent” threat is present and there is "near certainty" that the intended target will be eliminated. How do you see such a "policy", that of substituting boots on the grounds by drones?

Peter Kuznick: I'm very much opposed to widespread U.S. use of drones, especially outside of declared war zones. I don't see it as a choice between drones, manned bombers, and boots on the ground. I see it as a choice between war and diplomacy. There are certainly situations in which diplomacy doesn't work, but the U.S. has been much too quick to resort to military means to resolve all disputes and problems.

Take the case of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan for example. Yes, the Taliban government in Afghanistan had sheltered Al Qaeda when it planned the attack on 9/11 and the Taliban government was extremely repressive, especially toward women. But has 16 years of U.S.-led war been an improvement? Some Afghans and American defense contractors have gotten rich, but most Afghans have been pretty miserable.

After 9/11, the U.S. insisted that the Afghans turn over the Al Qaeda leaders. On October 15, one week after Operation Enduring Freedom had begun, the Taliban foreign minister offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for trial, but the U.S. accused them of stalling.

But Milton Bearden, the former CIA station chief who had overseen the 1980s covert war from Pakistan, the Taliban was sincere. “We never heard what they were trying to say,” he insisted. “We had no common language. Ours was 'give up bin Laden.' They were saying 'do something to help us give him up.'” U.S. representatives had met with Taliban leaders more than 20 times the previous three years. Bearden said he had “no doubts they wanted to get rid of him,” but the U.S. was intent on going to war and never offered the face-saving measures the Taliban needed.

Since then, Afghanistan has been a playground for U.S. drone warfare, especially after Obama withdrew most of the hundred thousand troops he and Bush had deployed.

But the justification for the use of drones is that they are surgical and precise and don't kill civilians. President Obama made this case repeatedly when he was in office.

Speaking at the University of Chicago Law School in April 2016, he declared, “What I can say with great certainty is that the rate of civilian casualties in any drone operation are far lower than the rate of civilian casualties that occur in conventional war.” That sounds good, but it's not true. A 2013 study by Larry Lewis of the Center for Naval Analyses and Sarah Holewinski of the Center for Civilians in Conflict concluded that drone use in Afghanistan caused ten times as many civilian deaths as manned fighter aircraft.

In 2016, Micah Zenko and Amelia Mae Wolf of the Council on Foreign Relations reported that “The Obama administration's assumption that drones cause less collateral damage than piloted aircraft is simply untrue. According to the best publicly available evidence, drone strikes in non-battlefield settings — Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia — result in 35 times more civilian fatalities than airstrikes by manned weapons systems in conventional battlefields, such as Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.”

The real advantage of drones is that they result in far fewer U.S. combat deaths than would manned flights and boots on the ground.


Contrary to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants. Your view, please, Professor Peter Kuznick.

As odious as Obama's use of drone warfare was, he appears as the voice of moderation compared to Trump. Obama had his weekly meetings at which he personally signed off on his “kill lists.” After much criticism, he crafted new rules to limit the harm to civilians. Toward the end of his administration, he didn't allow drone strikes outside war zones unless there was “near certainty” that civilians wouldn't be injured, capture of the offenders was “not feasible,” and the target posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S.

Trump, on the other hand, has given carte blanche to his generals. He says he “trusts” his generals to make military decisions and leaves it up to them. As a result, the number of drone strikes has actually risen dramatically since Trump took office.

The Long War Journal reported that in Obama's last year in office, there were only three drone strikes in Pakistan, down sharply from previous years, and 38 in Yemen. Trump has relaxed the rules Obama instituted and gives the CIA and military much more latitude in targeting Al Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As a result, the number of civilian deaths has skyrocketed.

Whereas Obama had sharply limited CIA involvement in drone warfare, Trump has expanded the CIA's role.


How do you see the official version in the US, that asserts "collateral damage" involving drone "efficient" attacks, whenever they kill civilians?

As I mentioned before, the cavalier attitude sometimes expressed about “collateral damage” is unconscionable. It is obscene. As Archbishop Desmund Tutu said in his letter to the editor of the New York Times, “Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours?”

But the United States found a solution to the problem of “collateral damage.” The Obama administration defined the problem out of existence by assuming that any male of military age in a war zone is a militant and worthy of execution in a “signature” strike. In most of these strikes, the U.S. has no way of knowing whether those targeted were terrorists.

These attacks are not only morally objectionable and often illegal, they are also counterproductive. They produce more terrorists than they kill. As Faisal Shahzad, “the Times Square Bomber,” responded to the judge who asked him how he could risk killing innocent children and women, the drone strikes, he said, “don't see children. They don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody.” Drone operators often dehumanize the victims by referring to them as “bug splats."


Professor Doctor Azadeh Shahshahani, a respected lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, recently observed to me that:


a) In the domestic (US) context, they be used for artistic or investigative purposes. For example, they can be used to investigate agribusinesses to see if they are engaging in animal abuse or not. In that sense, they can play an important and legitimate role. However, their use needs to be regulated to ensure that they are used for surveillance by law enforcement agencies;

b) Per international humanitarian law, drones can only be used as bombs in an active armed conflict and even then with certain restrictions including military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality. Only combatants or civilians who are directly participating in hostilities may be targeted. Targeting of other civilians is prohibited and may constitute a war crime,

How much the US government is respecting these principles, Peter, using drones both as surveillance and bombs?

Like with most scientific and technological innovations, drones can be used for war or peace. They can be used to enrich human life or to destroy it. They represent not only an engine of death in warfare but an engine of surveillance that threatens privacy. Their potential uses go far beyond making deliveries like Amazon has in mind.

They can be used for monitoring the environment, protecting wildlife, and firefighting among other things. The sky, so to speak, is the limit for them. But right now the uses are mostly negative. They have been turned into killing machines. And, as we've learned with nuclear arms and other dangerous weapon systems, once one country has them, others will too.

So right now the U.S., Israel, and Britain have been weaponizing them for use in “war zones,” but what's to stop the Russians from using them to kill Chechins or the Chinese from killing Uighurs? The U.S. approach is very shortsighted if U.S. leaders think they'll retain a monopoly on this type of warfare. China, Russia, and Iran also have very advanced systems of predator drones. The face of modern warfare is ugly and about to get uglier. Watch out.



Edu Montesanti: Lisa Ling, thank you so very much for granting this so important interview. When, how and why did you blow the whistle against US drone program ?

I blew the whistle on the drone program by going on the record in Sonia Kennebeck's documentary film National Bird. It wasn't something I took lightly after spending so many years in the military. I am not against my fellow service members in the U.S., or abroad; I am against policies that can claim lives and limbs of innocent non-combatants even in places we are not at war.

I believe that if it is something where we are unwilling to send troops, and have the public be fully aware of what is being done in our name, than there is something definitely wrong about it that must be addressed. I also believe that governance over such a massive system is important and that discussion and public awareness is the only way that will happen.

I knew I was going to speak out and that I am against weaponized drones, but it wasn't until Sonia Kennebeck approached me during a veterans conference that I had any idea of how it would be possible for me to speak out. Since the film, I have had numerous opportunities to engage with people and learn how little the public knows about the drone program.

Sonia Kennebeck discovered how little was known or talked about with regard to the military drone program, and that service members who worked in the drone program had actually taken their own lives. She did an enormous amount of preliminary research before making the film; much of her research she showed me after several meetings where we discussed my participation.

Finally after much thought, I said I would do it, and be on the record. It was a difficult decision, but I still believe it was the right one. I have nothing but respect and trust for Sonia and her team for giving me the opportunity to share my story, and most importantly for giving the Afghan victims an opportunity to share their story with the world. That was one thing that really motivated me to participate in the film.

When the Obama administration discussed drone strikes publicly, it offered assurances that such operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground and are authorized only when an “imminent” threat is present and there is "near certainty"; that the intended target will be eliminated. How do you see such a “policy”, that of substituting boots on the grounds by drones - in the case of the Obama administration, using it much more than the Bush administration? And how precise are drones?

I do not think drones are a good alternative to human intelligence. I do not see how technology, no matter how “good” it is, is an effective replacement for human beings in the current situation. I do not see how a two dimensional image is good enough to replace the situational awareness of trained soldiers on the ground. All lives of innocent human beings require the same reverence; in my view no life of innocent non-combatants is more important than another.

Here in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and even then innocent people are imprisoned. That is a much higher standard; one I believe should be met, especially in countries where we are not at war. The people on the ground do not have an ID card, or a driver's license. Many people in Afghanistan do not know the exact date they were born. It is not always clear who is and who is not an enemy combatant, under these conditions nothing can really be “precise”.


Contrary to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants. War crimes by US drone program are going to increase even more, aren't they, Lisa?

What is needed is human intelligence, and the CIA, I believe, is the organization responsible for gathering it. The intelligence community seems to have lost its way. Instead of studying different cultures or appreciating social and traditional nuances it is depending on technology and quantity of data collected - not quality actionable information.

The data gathering and collecting capacity means nothing if there is too much to actually analyze effectively by those who understand the cultural or traditional implications found in it.

Oversight and governance globally and locally is necessary to keep this immense power in check. This will never happen in the hands of any clandestine organization. It could take years for the public to find out about faults costing thousands of innocent human lives, and the ability to correct any disparity could take decades. Keeping an eye on the proportionality legally required would be exceedingly difficult if it were even possible at all.

The world is now our battlefield; this already violates the Nuremburg principles and other international laws. I do not see how effective governance or oversight is practical or achievable under these conditions.


How do you see the official version in the US government involving drone “efficient” attacks as they actually kill much more civilians?

Technology will never replace real situational awareness and without that, how can we know who lives and who dies with any certainty at all. Efficient is an interesting word to use. Wouldn't “efficient” mean a quick end to these wars? I am not sure how to use the word efficient in the context of wars that have lasted as long as these wars have with no end in sight.

Peace is efficient, and preferable. I assume efficient could mean a clear winner and looser in the context of war, and yet as it stands this doesn't seem to be where we are. War is not efficient by it's very nature. Killing other human beings is not a matter of efficiency and relegating human lives to such sanitized terms seems cruel to me.

I do not think armed drones are efficient or proportional when used to seek out individual human beings. I do not think armed drones are efficient or even ethical in this context. Sending Drones is also enabling war to be invisible, there is no weighing it against sending troops so there is less of a connection to it. There is less discussion or assertion because it isn't publically announced like it often is when we deploy troops.

It has made a kind of new normal of constant war. There is a dangerous separation that is allowing the wars to continue with very little pushback, no one says send our troops home when fewer and fewer troops are being deployed.

It is easier to send drones without loosing political capital, it makes endless war too easy and we are living with the evidence of this, and more importantly the innocent civilians living under drones are living with it.

Those living under armed drones are living in constant terror. I don't think we can fight a war on terror with more terror.


The renowned lawyer, Professor Doctor Azadeh Shahshahani of American Civil Liberties Union observed recently to me that:

a) In the domestic (US) context, they be used for artistic or investigative purposes. For example, they can be used to investigate agribusinesses to see if they are engaging in animal abuse or not. In that sense, they can play an important and legitimate role. However, their use needs to be regulated to ensure that they are used for surveillance by law enforcement agencies;

b) Per international humanitarian law, drones can only be used with bombs in an active armed conflict and even then with certain restrictions including military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality. Only combatants or civilians who are directly participating in hostilities may be targeted. Targeting of other civilians is prohibited and may constitute a war crime.

How much the US government is respecting these principles, Lisa, using drones both as surveillance and bombs?

In my view, it is not possible in the absence of ground troops, to know the answer to this question with any certainty. Much of their use is in secret, which is another reason it is hard to be certain.

It is difficult to tell who is and isn't an enemy combatant. It is not like there is a uniformed opposing military force and the battle lines are clear. This is global and borders don't seem to matter.

This is why I believe global governance specific to armed and unarmed drones is necessary. I believe drone specific agreements between nation states must be made. I also believe there should not be weapons on drones; I believe that the missiles and bombs should be removed.

Proportionality does not seem attainable when weaponized drones have relegated war to a kind of hunter vs. prey. The truth is that living under drones when you don't know if and when something is going to come down from the sky and kill you or someone you love is terror by it's very definition.

Drones have killed people of all ages and professions. No one has respite; they can't say I am holding an infant so it will not come for me or I am a doctor, it will not attack me. I couldn't imagine living like that. That is one reason I think the weapons should be removed from drones.


Given all this, why do you think US government and the CIA insist on using drones? What are the real interests behind it?

There is a lot of money to be made; there is political expedience when a drone is sent instead of someone's son or daughter. There are so many possible answers to this question; many are well above my pay grade.

What I know is that these wars are still going on, and that blowback is a thing that happens. Mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers are still dyeing both at home and overseas. There is still no end in sight to the devastation in countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and all the other places where armed drones fly.

I know that as a nation when we set our collective agency to a goal, we generally achieve it. The global arms trade is a powerful thing. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the military–industrial; in his farewell address. Perhaps we are now in the place he warned us about.

That being said, it is time to rearrange our collective priorities to a place where humanity and the sanctity of all human life are at the top of the list. We all must start doing all that we can to ensure that is the case.


How are drones going to affect humanity in the near future, being used this way both in wars and surveillance by the US?

We are now at a pivotal point in the use of armed drones. Soon, if not already, drones will be stealth and capable of deployment to developed countries such as our own. Artificial intelligence will be implemented and human intervention will become unnecessary. When this happens, how will the Global West react? Will we choose global governance? Will we change the precedence we are setting by what we do? It is illogical to believe that the use of any military technology will not be used against us at some point in time.

Maybe speaking this truth will get others to engage in the realities of what the future has in store if we leave things as they are. Maybe by acknowledging that weapons have a way of proliferating out of control, things will change. It is not that I believe that lives of people in the Global West are any more valuable than the lives of people from any other place on earth; it is just that if something is happening “over there” we tend to think as if it has nothing to do with us.

How we treat humanity has everything to do with all of us and I believe that is the most important thing we ought to consider when we talk about drones and other military technology. It is true that what goes around comes around, it is just a matter of when.



As US mainstream media criminalizes Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 9, 2016 at Trump Tower in New York, US President Donald Trump posted last July 17 a defense on Twitter of his son's meeting with the lawyer promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to then-presidential candidate by Democratic Party Hillary Clinton, by saying that it was simply politics as usual.

US media in general alleges that the meeting broke the American law which prohibits foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any [federal] election.” US "presstitute" as Paul Craig Roberts is used to saying, also criminalizes the Kremlin for the meeting during US Presidential campaign, based on facts never proved, that Moscow hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC), one of the reasons that, according to US media portrait, Ms. Veselnitskaya wanted to meet Mr. Trump Jr. last year. However, according to its participants the subject at the meeting was only the Magnitsky Act.

In the following and exclusevily talking, former CIA agent John Kiriakou depicts the events, especially the meeting and the allegedly Russian espionage on US campaign heralded by US media without any evidence, never proved, on the contrary: all evidences have pointed out to an “inside job.”

As Mr. Kiriakou affirms that meeting with Russians is not a crime, he reminds US perjury law broken by Mr. Trump Jr., which says: "I swear or affirm that the above mentioned information is true and complete to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury." “Not reporting that meeting to the FBI on a Standard Form 86, which is necessary for a security clearance, is a crime,” observes Kiriakou.

Mr. Kiriakou co-authored with Michael Ruby the book The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror, published in 2009, is the author of Doing Time Like A Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison, and was honored with the January 2016 Patriot Award by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation. Kiriakou spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle in 2007 about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners.

July 20, 2017 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia)


Edu Montesanti: John Kiriakou, thank you so very much for the privilege of having your so important participation in one more publication. Your view, please, on Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any [federal] election.” The statute also says no American shall “knowingly solicit, accept, or receive” any “contribution or donation” from a foreign national in connection with an election. Don't you think that a meeting itself is not a real donation, a concrete contribution - in this case, to then-candidate Donald Trump to the point of breaking the law? There has been observations in news outlets in Russia that every candidate all over the world and his/her electoral team meet foreigners, which is not a crime at all.

John Kiriakou: First, I think many Americans, especially in the media, have already taken sides on this issue.

But I believe that the issue is not whether there was a meeting or not. Of course, there was a meeting. But meeting with Russians is not a crime.

Not reporting that meeting to the FBI on a Standard Form 86, which is necessary for a security clearance, is a crime. Not registering with the Justice Department as a representative of a foreign government (Manafort and Flynn) is a crime. I mean the Standard Form 86, which every American applying for a federal security clearance fills out: Trump Jr. did not disclose his contact with the Russians. That's a crime.
In the end, I believe that the criminal charges that will come out of this case will not be directly tied to Russian meddling or collusion. They will be perjury, conspiracy, making a false statement, and failure to register as a foreign agent.


Stephen Duke, a Yale University law professor, told Vox in 11 July: “If receiving information that Hillary was being helped by the Russians is a crime, so, too, would be receiving information that the Russians were helping Trump in the election”. To date there is no evidence of Russian espionage: The New York Times, who also strongly criminalizes the meeting, recognized this fact last week, saying that "In other words, informed of a secret Kremlin effort to use highly sensitive information about a former secretary of state (presumably obtained by espionage, for how else?) to manipulate an American election, Trump Jr. signaled, 'We're in!'.” And even more: the so-called "very high level and sensitive information" has not come to light, and the DNC itself has repeatedly refused to hand over the hacked servers to the government for examination. What we really know so far is a meeting and even what was discussed there is not clear. Do you believe Russia committed any crime against US election and “democracy”?

I have seen no proof whatsoever that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. If the US government has such proof, it must release it for there to be any case at all.


Mint Press reported this last week: "(...) Files and email stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were copied to a USB drive by someone with physical access to a computer that had DNC server access. The analysis shows that the files, published as a .7z archive file, were transferred from the server at a speed of 23 MB/second, leading the investigator to conclude that it was 'unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.' The investigator also found that the copying of the files from the DNC servers took place either over a local high-speed network (LAN) or by someone who had physical access to the computer where the data was stored. (...) This makes it unlikely that Russian military intelligence remotely hacked the DNC servers from abroad."

How important are these facts, and could them change the story heralded by the mainstream media, that the Kremlin really influenced US election and further investigations?

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, told Th Guardian that he was the conduit between a DNC whistleblower and WikiLeaks. Ambassador Murray says that there was no Russian hacking.

A DNC staff member downloaded the information, gave it to Murray, and Murray passed it to WikiLeaks.




July 1, 2017 / Published on Telesur


Edu Montesanti: Professor Doctor Peter Kuznick, thank you so very much again for the unspeakable privilege of being your partner in publications all over te world. How do you evaluate American media coverage of Oliver Stones's recent interviews with the Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Peter Kuznick: I completely understand why Oliver Stone would want to interview Vladimir Putin. I completely understand why the interviews would be so controversial. And I completely understand why so many of the critics would want to kill Oliver – the Messenger – rather than deal with the content of what Putin told Oliver in the interviews.

Oliver's interest in Russia and Putin is not some kind of passing whimsy. Oliver is a child of the Cold War, who grew up in its shadow. His father was a conservative Republican. In his home, the Soviets were the bad guys out to conquer the world. Most Americans believed that in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Oliver was very patriotic and politically conservative. As a freshman at Yale in 1964, he supported Barry Goldwater for president. Oliver later dropped out of Yale and volunteered for combat in Vietnam, where he was wounded twice and highly decorated. Not only did he believe that the United States was on the right side, he risked his life for his convictions. Vietnam planted some seeds of doubt, but he was just beginning to figure things out. He didn't have some sudden epiphany.

As late as 1980, Oliver voted for Ronald Reagan. It wasn't really until his visit to El Salvador in the early 1980s that he began to understand the nature of the American empire and the insidious impact of American exceptionalism. Then his views began to change, as was evident in his movies Salvador, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, and JFK--all made during an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented, burst of creativity between 1886 and 1991.

As with all of us who grew up during the Cold War, Oliver was fascinated with Russia. In the 1980s, he visited the Soviet Union, met with dissidents, and wrote a script about them. Oliver says it was very good. I'm sure it was. However, it was too serious a movie for Hollywood at that time and never got made. But Oliver's interest in Russia never waned.

U.S.-Russian relations are at the heart of our Untold History of the United States documentary film and book project. While we worked on this for five years, Oliver studied Russian history as well as the history of U.S. foreign policy. We presented a very different portrait of these topics than most Americans learn in school or in the U.S. media. We showed that the armed U.S. opposition to the Russian Revolution and the overt U.S. support for the counter-revolutionaries.

We demolished the myth that the Americans won the Second World War in Europe, showing that it was the Soviets who did the bulk of the fighting, the bulking of the dying, and the bulking of the killing of German forces, suffering 27 million dead in the process.

While deploring Stalin's extraordinary brutality, we showed that it was the U.S. that held all the cards after WWII – from a booming economy to a network of bases around the globe to a monopoly of atomic bombs - and bore the principal responsibility for starting the Cold War.

We delved into the history of the Cold War, focusing largely on the ways the U.S. departed from its professed ideals to overthrow popular democratic leaders, interfere in other countries' political processes, support dictators and tyrants who gave free rein to avaricious U.S. corporations and banks, and intervene militarily across the globe – the nearly four million dead Vietnamese being only the most obvious victims.

But Russia remained at the center of the story as the Soviets responded to the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal built largely under President Eisenhower by building one of their own as the world quaked under the prospect of universal annihilation.

Subsequent decades saw the easing and heightening of tensions, but the danger of mutually assured destruction never abated until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. There was even a brief moment of hope for humanity as Gorbachev, a true visionary, tried desperately to create a world of peace and democracy. Unfortunately, he lacked a partner in the United States or Europe.

The 1990s were a disaster for the Russian people as Boris Yeltsin, with the prodding of U.S. advisors, put the economy through shock therapy so savage that it wrecked standards of living and created a new group of blood-sucking plutocrats or oligarchs almost overnight.

During that dismal decade, Russian life expectancy plummeted and the economy shrank to the size of Holland's. Russia went from being a superpower to being a doormat on which the United States wiped its feet. It was Putin who engineered Russia's dramatic recovery and restored it to the status of a great nation and major player in world affairs.

At first, Putin reached out to the United States, seeking friendly relations. But U.S. policymakers had grown accustomed to treating Russia with contempt in the 1990s and getting away with it. They assumed that Russia would continue to roll over upon U.S. command under Putin. They were in for a rude awakening.

With the help of higher energy prices, Putin reversed Russia's economic decline and its economy grew rapidly. Standards of living and life expectancy rose. He also reversed Russia's military decline, bolstering and modernizing its armed forces.

In 2006, the Council of Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine even published an article claiming that the U.S. had achieved its long-sought first-strike capability. The authors argued that if the U.S. launched a nuclear attack on Russia, Russia would be defenseless and incapable of striking back. That sent heads spinning in the Kremlin.

On top of that, Russia was surrounded by NATO. Despite promises by President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, NATO expanded 12 (now 13 with Montenegro) countries to the east, right up to Russia's doorstep.

When George W. Bush began promoting further expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine, Putin decided enough was enough and began his resistance. He decided that the U.S. and Europeans were not trustworthy partners. He realized that they were out to weaken, humiliate, and marginalize Russia.

The European Union's effort to ensnare Ukraine was another step too far for Putin who responded to the U.S.-backed coup by seizing the former Russian territory of Crimea and supporting the resistance in the Donbass.

Russia became more assertive on other fronts too, including Syria. It strengthened ties to China and other nations that mistrusted U.S. hegemonic intentions. Under Putin's leadership, Russia became a player again on the world stage.

In response, American political leaders and the lapdog media began a campaign of Putin vilification in the U.S. and parts of Europe. Tensions escalated between the U.S., NATO, and Russia in Syria, Ukraine, and the Baltics. Neither side respected the other's red lines. The threat of war loomed larger and larger.

Oliver and I, along with many of our colleagues, grew alarmed and said so publicly as often as we could. But Oliver had a chance to do more and he seized it. He wanted to bring Putin's views to the public in hopes that understanding how the world looks to Putin would help ease tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

He wanted to show that Putin was not the bloodthirsty ogre he is often portrayed to be. He hoped to break through the U.S. media vituperation toward Putin and his policies so the U.S. and Russia might be able to find common ground, act together where we have common interests, and ease tensions where we don't.

Oliver is well aware that the U.S. and Russia have more than one thousand nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. He is well aware that two individuals – Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin –have veto power over the future existence our species.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy and Khrushchev discovered how fragile life on this planet really is and endeavored to work together to eliminate everything between our two nations that could cause another such crisis. Unfortunately, they were not able to see that effort through to fruition.

In bringing Putin to the American public and letting him speak for himself, Oliver was acting in the tradition of Kennedy and Khrushchev. He was being a peacemaker. Oliver reached out his hand and stuck out his neck.

And the lockstep American media, led by the New York Times, Newsweek, and the Daily Beast, stomped on his fingers and tried to cut off his head. That's what happens to peacemakers in this sick world.


Why do you think the American media demonizes President Putin?

The American media demonizes Putin because he defends what he believes to be Russia's national interests, which often puts him at odds with America's neocon-dominated leaders and their efforts to maintain U.S. unipolarity.

In fact, American policymakers don't even recognize that Russia has national security interests that need to be respected. The U.S. media lacks historical context and perspective. One can turn on CNN or other networks and hear all the "experts" agree that Russia's alleged hacking of the U.S. election was an "act of war." They call for sanctions and boycotts and aggressive measures. No one ever mentions the U.S. history of intervening in election after election all over the globe, including in Russia, since 1947 and throughout Latin America starting long before that.

The pundits talk about the need to punish Russia for its actions in Ukraine. Did they call on the world to boycott the United States for its invasion of Iraq? Did they call for sanctions against the U.S. and NATO for overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and further spreading chaos throughout the region? Are they even capable of judging the U.S. the way they judge other nations? Of course not. This is the sickness of nationalism and parochialism. It is what we call American exceptionalism--a blindness toward America's own "mistakes" because our motivations are so pure.

Well, after you see the U.S. intervening into, bombing, invading, hacking, surveilling, droning, looting one country after another, you start questioning the purity of America's motives--at least you do if you're still able to think rationally and critically.

The problem with the American media is not that it knowingly spreads "fake news." The problem is that its frame of reference is so narrow that it excludes versions of history, truth, and reality that challenge the American exceptionalist framework. As Samuel Huntington wrote, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

Knowing how dismissive the American media is of views that in any way challenge the mainstream consensus, as Oliver obviously does, he might have adopted a slightly different approach in his own media appearances around the Putin interviews.

Instead of stating categorically that Putin didn't hack the U.S. election, I think it's better to say that we have yet to see solid evidence to support that charge. Russia has the capability to hack those emails and might have had the motivation to do so, given hostile U.S. behavior that goes back several years. We can't rule out the possibility. But, on the other hand, there are reasons to question the certainty of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, which essentially boils down to the three that did the study.

First, the hack was extremely sloppy and the hackers left so many fingerprints behind that it appears that they wanted to get caught or, alternatively, to cast blame on Russia.

Second, it would have been uncharacteristically risky behavior on Putin's part to do something that would antagonize the U.S. and Clinton, especially in light of the fact that neither he nor anyone else in either country expected Trump to win, probably including Trump himself.

Third, it defies credulity to believe that both the FBI and the Democratic National Committee thought it was sufficient to accept the private security firm CrowdStrike's investigation of the hack without the FBI conducting its own investigation.

And fourth, the argument that the Russians wanted to undermine American democracy makes no sense. Nothing could possibly have done more to make a mockery of American democracy than the Republican primary campaign and Trump candidacy.

With 17 flat-earthers arguing over who was the biggest ignoramus when it came to climate change and science in general and debating who had the biggest penis, did Russia really need to intervene to discredit American democracy? The Americans were doing a good enough job without Russian help. That U.S. voters chose a colossally ignorant and bigoted reality TV host and pathological liar as president is more than sufficient proof that the U.S. is a failed democracy.

But Oliver, not wanting to give an inch to the Putin-bashers who run roughshod over American political discourse, dug in his heels and denied the possibility that Russia was behind the hack and distribution of emails to Wikileaks. I would have just said that that many governments and private outlets hack and there has been no proof yet provided that the Russians were Wikileaks' source.

In fact, Julian Assange has adamantly denied this on numerous occasions. But I would not reject the possibility that the Russians did this and that Putin was involved because governments often act irrationally and go against their own interests.


What is the importance of such interviews, and what are the most important passages of them to you?

The most important thing about the interviews is that they humanize Putin. That in itself is a major achievement at a time when the U.S. media presents him as a comic book villain.

In the interviews, Putin comes across as a knowledgeable and reasonable defender of Russian national interests even if he clearly dissembles on occasion. He has a coherent view of history, much of which I tend to share. I was glad to see a copy of the thousand-page Russian translation of our Untold History book on his desk.

I certainly don't agree with Putin on everything. For example, I have a much more laudatory view of Mikhail Gorbachev than Putin does. Yes, Gorbachev should have been more practical and less trusting, as Putin tells Oliver. He should have gotten in writing the promise from Bush and Baker not to expand NATO one thumb's width to the east. That was extremely naïve of him.
But I welcome and admire Gorbachev's utopianism and faith in humanity and wish that more shared it. He wanted to replace the failed Soviet system with a democratic socialist one and establish a new international order based on shared peaceful development.

Unfortunately, he never got the chance. Yeltsin replaced him. Putin rescued Russia from the Yeltsin debacle, but the country, like its leader, has some profoundly and disappointingly conservative tendencies in its embrace of capitalism, nationalism, and religion and in its ties to some pretty unsavory characters around the world.

Putin justifies many of Russia's excesses by saying that its democracy is still young. To me, an outspoken critic of American “democracy,” that is not good enough.

In Russia, I would much rather see a more open media, a more equal distribution of wealth, not only toleration but encouragement of dissent, explicit repudiation of all forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians, greater protection for journalists and more vigorous prosecution of their assailants, and a diminished role for religion. But Putin has different ideas and he expressed them clearly in the interviews. His ideas apparently resonate with the vast majority of Russians.

His approval ratings still top 80 percent and the hit that the economy has taken due to falling oil and gas prices and U.S. and European sanctions has not dented those approval ratings. Gorbachev, who provided the first blurb in support of our Untold History project, is, I'm sorry to say, much less popular in Russia despite the fact that he came so tantalizingly close to abolishing nuclear weapons at Reykjavik in 1986 in what would have been one of the greatest achievements in all of human history.

Those quibbles aside, the interviews provide an unprecedented opportunity to understand the Russian perspective on many of the crucial issues of our time.

Putin details his views on Syria, Ukraine, NATO, U.S. politics and foreign policy, cyberwarfare, terrorism, climate change, and a host of other issues.

I found his cautionary statements about the nuclear threat to be particularly revealing and I very much appreciated that Oliver convinced Putin to sit down with him and watch Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick's brilliant black comedy about nuclear annihilation.

Putin thought the film raised “serious issues” about “real threats that exist.” He said that “little has changed” since the film was made in 1964. Though modern nuclear weapons, he warned, are “more sophisticated, more complex,” the “idea of a retaliatory strike and the inability to manage these systems” is just as relevant today. And these things, he predicted, will “become even more difficult and more dangerous” in the future.

Oliver got Putin to talk about his own background and family history and questioned him about his desire to retain power and control. In the fourth interview, Oliver pushed Putin hard to defend alleged Russian hacking of the recent U.S. election. Putin's repeated denials were less than convincing.

His statement that Russia doesn't intervene in other countries' internal affairs sounded ludicrous. We know that all powerful nations do so. Perhaps his comment that every action brings a counter-action was more to the point, especially after he detailed a long list of U.S. actions that were hostile toward Russia.

What one comes away with is a good understanding of how Putin views the collapse of U.S.-Russian relations since the end of Communism. He clearly doesn't like the current hostility between the two nations, repeatedly referring to the Americans as his “partners” and urging improved relations between the world's two most powerful nations.

He says he is cautiously optimistic. But he is also a realist. At the end of the interview, after they had watched Strangelove, Oliver handed Putin the DVD case to keep in case he wanted to watch it again. Putin thanked him and opened up the case to find that it was empty. “Typical American gift!” he declared.

Oliver knew that he was going to pay a steep price for giving Vladimir Putin a platform to express his views on American television. And he has been pounded mercilessly across American media.

At the end of the third interview, Putin asked Oliver if he'd ever been beaten. “Oh, yes, many times,” Oliver said. Putin responded presciently, “Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you are about to do.” To which, Oliver replied, “I know... but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace and consciousness to the world.” Sadly, there are many who don't share that goal.




June 2, 2017 / Published on Telesur (Venezuela)


A suicide attacker struck the heavily guarded diplomatic quarter in Kabul with a massive truck bomb during rush hour on Wednesday morning, killing over 100 people, and wounding more than 400. There was no claim of responsibility.

"I have been to many attacks, taken wounded people out of many blast sites, but I can say I have ever seen such a horrible attack as I saw this morning," ambulance driver Alef Ahmadzai told The Associated Press. "Everywhere was on fire and so many people were in critical condition."

Contacted moments after the attack, Friba, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan's representative, said: “Everyone is still rattled. The city died with the blast.”

In a short interview, the Afghan women's leader speaks on one of worst suicide attacks in Afghanistan in many years, and the mockery of the U.S. “War on Terror”. Friba, who doesn't mention her real name for security reasons as RAWA works underground, unmasks once again local government and intelligence, and U.S. led coalition which promised to free her people 16 years ago, especially the women.

Corruption and alliance with terrorists, according to RAWA's representative, permeates all powers in her country, including the foreign ones. “Traitors that sell their country to aliens obviously do not care about their people or their security. A government that welcomes their killers with open arms despite countless massacres committed by them; and a government whose foreign backers provide these enemies with arms and money!” she says.

Friba states that insecurity has increased in her country after U.S. invasion in October 2001, and the solution is not with any foreign power, but only in the hands of the Afghan people. “Barely a month goes by without one or two attacks that leave tens dead and hundreds of loved ones in mourning.” A reality not shown in the West by a mainstream media, supported by weapons manufacturers, which raises the question once again: are some human lives more valuable than others for Westerners?

“'War on Terror' is not actually waged against terrorists, only those terrorist groups that do not comply with the U.S's orders. Just like the U.S., the puppet Afghan government also uses terrorist groups for its purposes. It is no secret that the U.S. actively nourishes terrorism in Afghanistan and the region to attack its rivals, Russia and China,” says RAWA's representative.

Below, the full interview with Friba.

Edu Montesanti: What exactly happened and why the Afghan forces, financed and trained by US military, cannot keep your country safe 16 years after US-led coalition invasion of Afghanistan, as attacks like this are frequent and even grow, month by month, in number and intensity?

Friba: The death toll has climbed to over 100 now with more than 400 injured. These are however official statistics which we cannot entirely trust, the casualties may be higher than this. Insecurity in Afghanistan has been the biggest hardship our people have faced after the US invasion.

To begin with, the “war on terror” is not actually waged against terrorists, only those terrorist groups that do not comply with the US's orders. This means that the US and its allies do not target the Taliban or other terrorist groups fighting the Afghan forces, uniformly. In fact Afghan soldiers have witnessed foreign forces' helicopters dropping off weapons in Taliban-held areas, and the payment of huge bribes to the Taliban.

It is no secret that the US actively nourishes terrorism in Afghanistan and the region to attack its rivals, Russia and China – the growing instability and shift of terrorist presence to northern Afghanistan is proof of this policy.

The Afghan apparatus is comprised Jehadi criminals who are lackeys of foreign countries and whose own lives depend on the support of their foreign masters. Traitors that sell their country to aliens obviously do not care about their people or their security. Their only aim is to fill their pockets by taking money from foreign countries and in return, allowing them to influence the state at the highest levels, maintaining their mafia ties, dealing drugs (many prominent Afghan government officials are mafia figures and drug lords), running kidnapping rings, and other such criminal activities.

This greedy mercenary nature of the state also translates into corruption in the high ranks of the military and Defense Ministry. These bodies have been hit with high-level corruption cases, with scandals ranging from land grabbing, “ghost soldiers” cases, and fuel theft worth millions of Dollars, to accusations of collusion with the Taliban.

While Afghan youngsters die on the war front every day, the brethren-in-creed of the Taliban in the Afghan government, propose "peace talks", calling the brutal Taliban "upset brothers". They have released countless dangerous terrorists from jails over the years. It is natural that this entire situation kills the spirit and will of the young Afghan soldiers, dying in battles every day, to fight against these terrorists resolutely. These forces are fighting for a government and military that do not care about them, are deeply embroiled in corruption and rolling about in money; a government that welcomes their killers with open arms despite countless massacres committed by them; and a government whose foreign backers provide these enemies with arms and money!

These soldiers have been deserted by their superiors when they were under Taliban siege, and several bloody attacks on these soldiers have carried suspicions of inside collusion. How can these youngsters fight whole-heartedly in such a situation? Today, the purpose of most Afghan soldiers is to earn a mouthful for their families in this extreme poverty and unemployment, with the salaries they are paid, their intension is not to fight Taliban, as they don't see any major difference between the Taliban and the army generals and high ranking officials who mostly have bloody and dark past and implicated in war crimes.

This is not to mention that the police and army force is already ravaged by illiteracy, drug addiction, and poor management. All these are reasons that the Afghan forces have failed continuously for the past fifteen years.


It is curious that, again, a very safe place has been attacked in Afghanistan - months ago, the Afghan military area was strongly attacked by the Taliban, too. What can you say about the Afghan intelligence?

The situation described above extends to the Afghan intelligence as well. Just like the US, the puppet Afghan government also uses terrorist groups for its purposes, and turns a blind eye to terrorists on the orders of their foreign masters.

According to former intelligence chief, Rahmatullah Nabil, figures within the highest ranks of the government maintain the interests of different foreign countries, yet continue to enjoy their position and the backing of the president – in other words they are “untouchable”. Hanif Atmar, senior national security advisor, and Masoom Stanekzai, the intelligence chief, are called the “suit and tie wearing” Taliban by our people for their lack of action against the Taliban, and those figures within the government who serve the intelligence agencies that support the Taliban.

The corruption and absolute breakdown of military leadership means that the Taliban can easily penetrate the capital city, military bases, ministries, military hospitals, and now the diplomatic area. Although commissions are made for investigation of every such incidents, but they never share the results with the public. Everyone knows that such complex attacks are made possible through the help from the within the Afghan security and intelligence agencies.


No group has claimed responsibility: what is said in Afghanistan about the author of this attack?

The Taliban denied any responsibility, and Afghan intelligence have stated that the Haqqani Network inside Pakistan carried out the attack with the help of the Pakistani intelligence. The specific target of the attack is also unknown, which would have offered clues as to which country was behind the attack. Afghanistan has become the center of intelligence warfare between the West and its regional rivals, Russia, China, Iran, and India.

Most regional powers and the US/NATO, are heavily engaged in fostering terrorism and designing plans using terrorist groups as their strategic weapon. If Russia or Iran supports a certain Taliban leader or group, he/they is/are immediately targeted by the US. Similarly, if India supports some group of terrorists, it is immediately attacked by the US, with Pakistan at its heels. In this complex and foggy situation, it is very difficult to ascertain exactly which intelligence agency is behind such attacks, but the US knows this very well and might even have prior knowledge of such attacks, but it never reveals such information. Such is the game ongoing in Afghanistan today.


What must happen to attacks like this have an end?

We have said this before, and will say it again: the only solution to this situation is in the hands of the people of Afghanistan. An end to the US/NATO occupation should be the first step of our struggle for justice, peace and democracy. Occupation and terrorism are two sides of the same coin. If our people are mobilized and organized under a truly democratic and national leadership, and rise up against their enemies – Islamic fundamentalists inside and outside the government and their foreign masters – only then can our country escape from this quagmire.



March 21, 2017 / Published on Global Research (Canada)


Edu Montesanti: Dear Professor Doctor Asem Khalil, thank you so very much for granting this interview. How do you see the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15? “I'm looking at two-State and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”. Your view, please.

Asem Khalil: The Palestinians always called for a One State; as a compromise they accepted to enter a peace process where two state solution is envisaged as a way to get peace. If by one state, we mean equal rights for all citizens,

I don't see why Palestinians would reject that – if they were first to ask for it and accepted only as a compromise the call for two state solution where most of historic Palestine will be part of the now state of Israel.

I think the answer given by Trump wasn't thought through enough, and I don't think Israel would go for a one State where one person one vote anyway.


Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Palestinians are under occupation. It is not their own responsibility to negotiate with the occupier; for sure, it is not part of any negotiation whether to maintain or end occupation – negotiation may be on the modalities on how to do that only.

So far, Palestinians are in a weak position. They are requested to chose pacific means to reach liberation and end occupation, while at the same time, they are asked to negotiate directly with an occupier who continues to confiscate land day on day out.

It is the responsibility of the international community to put an end to one of the last occupations in the world. It is the responsibility of all community of states to make sure that rights of Palestinians – which are erga omnes – are respected.


The passage of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member states "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. Journalist Daoud Kuttab observed in Al-Jazeera in February, in the article US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood: "Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 'emphasising inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'." Why does nothing change year by year, massacre after massacre?

Change doesn't come by UN resolutions. There are few cases like the one of Israel where the UN and the Security Council in particular showed how incompetent they are in dealing with Israel's violations of Palestinians' rights on their land and their right to self-determination.

Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, still think that such resolutions are important. They help maintain clear what is just and what is not.

What is acceptable and what is not. Changes in international relations and power relations between states may help in the future bring the change that is needed. Although it may be too late by then.


You know the Western media distorts the facts involving this massacre against Palestinians, Professor Khalil. Please number the crimes or at least some of them commited by Israel.

There are various massacres that were committed by Israel against Palestinians surrounding the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 – causing and contributing to forced displacement and refugeehood of thousands of people.

Many other massacres were committed afterwards, either directly or indirectly. Bombings directed towards civilian areas and facilities continued in recent years when attacking Gaza.


How is life in Gaza and in the West Bank?

Gaza is being qualified as a big prison – unqualified for human living because of lack of necessary civilian infrastructures and lack of jobs.

Most West Bank populated cities are living under Palestinian Authority rule – which coordinates with Israel in security and civil matters too.


Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago, in Al-Jazeera: "Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas." Your view on the internal politics among Palestinians, please, Professor Doctor Khalil.

He is right. This is part of the problem and why stagnation is in place. It is part of the story though.

The full picture is an Israeli occupation which separated Gaza from West Bank and maintained legal and political fragmentation since then; it is also in the way Oslo separated de facto the two areas and maintained a status quo where Palestinians are not dealt with by Israeli occupation – and contrary to the wordings of Oslo – as one political community and West Bank and Gaza Strip were not in reality considered or dealt with as one political entity.


What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on?

We don't have much expectations. We think the Arab region is now busy with their own problems.

They are now seeing the Palestinian issue as marginal and secondary. This is very problematic now.


How do you see the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement?

The BDS movement can be the way ahead for peaceful resistance to occupation and apartheid in Palestine. Israel is aware of the historical precedence of South Africa and the boycott movement that ended up at the end in delegitimizing the apartheid regime in South Africa, and contributed to the entry of a new era there.

We hope similar thing happens now – not delegitimizing the state of Israel, but the apartheid regime in place.


What is the solution to the conflict, Professor Doctor Asem Khalil?

There is no conflict. There is an occupation that needs to come to an end; a colonization project that needs to be aborted; an apartheid regime that needs to be dismantled; justice and equality to be restored.

If and when this is done, no need to think of mechanisms to end a conflict because it wouldn't exist.



March 21, 2017 / Published on Global Research (Canada)


Edu Montesanti: How do you see the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15, especially the following observations by the American president: “I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”?

Hatem Abudayyeh: Half of what Trump says is based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of domestic or foreign policy. He says the first thing that comes into his head with no regard for precedent or ramifications. He wants to run the U.S. like he runs his businesses and his relationships with women, like an autocrat. But the other half of what he says is based on an ultra-right wing worldview, so this could be that.

This sounds like he wants to help Israel achieve the Ersatz (Greater) Israel dream of the most fascist and rabid of zionists, not the one state solution that most progressive Palestinians like we in the U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN) would want.


Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Hatem Abudayyeh: The Palestinian question is not only one that affects us and the settler-colonialist Europeans who live on our land, but the entire region of the Arab World and the Middle East. So it's a global question that does not necessarily need only a third party, but many parties.

We know clearly that the U.S. is not an honest broker and has never been one, so we have absolutely no interest in Trump or his ideas, even if he has invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the White House.

The Israelis will not accept any political or diplomatic pressure, so the pressure must instead come from the Palestinian resistance, in all its forms.

Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) has become an international phenomenon, even in the U.S., and Palestinians inside the borders of historic Palestine, including those who live inside the 1948 territories, must continue organizing and struggling to put pressure on the racist Israeli regime.


The passage of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member states “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council” according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. As journalist Daoud Kuttab observed last month in Al-Jazeera, in the article US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood:”Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 “emphasizing inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Why does nothing change year by year, massacre after massacre?

Nothing changes because of the U.S., which uses and needs Israel as its proxy state in the Arab World. Many people misrepresent the conflict and believe that the zionists dictate U.S. foreign policy, whether those zionists are in Israel, Europe, the U.S., or even the Arab World. But in reality, it is U.S. imperialism that unequivocally supports Israel diplomatically, politically, militarily, and financially, because the U.S. needs Israel to safeguard its economic interests in the Arab World.

The U.S. knows that the Arab masses will not stay silent, and will rise up to overthrow dictators like they did in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen in 2011. The white, settler-colonialist state of Israel provides the U.S. security that Arab states (regardless of how corrupt and autocratic they are) cannot.

So it is U.S. policy that allows Israel to continue to violate the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including self determination, the Right of Return, and independence.


You know the Western media distorts the facts involving this massacre against Palestinians. Please number the crimes or at least some of them committed by Israel.

Collective punishment, home demolitions, expropriation of land, administrative detention, settler violence and killings, military violence and killing, racist legislative and judicial decisions inside Israel affecting 1948 Palestinians, and many others.


How do you evaluate the Western media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ultimately, the media is the tool of the government in the U.S. and other Western countries. As I stated above, the U.S. needs Israel to safeguard its interests in the Arab World and Middle East, so its media coverage of the conflict must reflect almost unequivocal support of Israel as well.

That is why there is no balance in the Western media coverage, and why independent media is so important in this day and age.


Would you please comment a little more about the Zionist lobby in US politics? And comment please how it interferes in the peace process in the Question of Palestine.

The zionist lobby is powerful, we acknowledge, but it is not the ultimate determinant of U.S. foreign policy. It has money and political capital, of course, and definitely pushes Israeli propaganda in the U.S. Congress and across the country, but even if it were non-existent, the U.S. government would still support Israel the way it does currently.


Professor Avi Shlaim observed weeks ago, in Al-Jazeera: ”Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas.” Your view on the internal politics among Palestinians, please.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank became a comprador years ago, and the cabal around PA President Mahmoud Abbas will continue to work with the enemy to repress Palestinian resistance.

There are many elements of Fatah that are patriotic and want to resist Israel, but ultimately, they never truly challenge the PA. Hamas, on the other hand, has recently played the most leading role in the military resistance against Israel, so its popularity has risen accordingly over the years.

But it is also guilty of some repression against non-Hamas Palestinian forces in Gaza, and it has not been able to administer the Gaza Strip in a way that makes people's lives better, but this is mostly due to the Israeli and Egyptian siege on the tiny piece of land.

The vast majority of Palestinians want peace and justice, and know that can only happen if we continue our resistance against the oppressor.

The best way for that to happen is to give up on the notion that we are in a “state building” stage of our revolution. We are not. We are still in the national liberation stage, so it doesn't matter who the president of the PA is, or even that there are two PAs right now, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza.

What needs to happen is for true national unity that includes not only Fatah and Hamas, but all the other Palestinian political parties and forces as well. The Palestinian victory against Israel in 2014 was won because the resistance was unified, and only political unity can win freedom and independence.

We need a re-formed PLO that does not make concessions to Israel and the U.S., and that truly represents all the resistance forces and social sectors of Palestinian society.


What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on?

Most Arab leaders in the Arab World are corrupt tools of the U.S., and by extension, Israel. These leaders will do nothing to challenge the status quo, and only care about keeping themselves in power.

On the other hand, the Arab masses can and will make a difference, by winning their own independence in their own countries, and then providing leadership that supports the Palestinian people in our struggle for freedom.


What is the solution to the conflict? And what are the principal obstacles to a fair agreement and solutions?

The solution is a simple one. We do not accept the notion of a racist, white, settler-colonialist state, like the one in South Africa during the Apartheid regime there.

Israel is a racist state, and so it must be dismantled like Apartheid South Africa was. If this happens, and if Palestinian refugees are able to return to their homes and lands inside historic Palestine, and if the military occupation is defeated and ended, then all the people can live together in one, single state.

This is the only solution, because Palestinian refugees will never give up their Right of Return, and Israel will eventually be forced to end its occupation and oppression of Palestinians in the 1948 territories, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

When the racist structures of zionist Israel are dismantled, then there can be equality for all people living there. And this will happen as long as the international community continues to organize BDS campaigns, the people of the U.S. continue to strike blows against U.S. imperialism they way they have been in the anti-Trump movement, and the Palestinians continue their legitimate resistance against occupation, colonialism, and apartheid.




March 20, 2017


How do you evaluate the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15? “I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, President Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.”

One feels sorry for having such a passive position by the President of superpower-America, as leaving the solution to “the one that both parties like.”

This can have only one meaning that is letting Israel enjoy unchallenged impunity and violation to international law. The solution that Israel likes is that of land without Palestinians.

In fact Israel is actually acting according to this attitude. One only needs to have a look at the expansion of settlements across the West Bank and Jerusalem, the siege of Gaza, all of which can only have one goal, which is to have the Palestinian people leave their homeland.

Israel seems to be totally indifferent to the world and international law, because of the support it enjoys by the US and some western countries.

There is no country in the world that detains remains of dead civilians it killed and keeps them as bargain chips for over 40 years other than Israel.

There is no country that moves its militant immigrant population into occupied territories, by force, without the consent of the original and legitimate owners of the land.

There is no country in the world that openly builds separation walls right inside the territories it occupied by force and builds separate roads for its nationals, while denying the occupied nationals access to such roads.

Israel is the only country that denies the occupied people, the Palestinians, access to telecommunication technology; such as the 3G technology.

Israel is the only country that openly acknowledges enforcing a calorie restriction ration system against the besieged Palestinians in Gaza Strip. Israel is the only occupier that oppresses the Palestinians and expects them to show gratitude for that.

We believe that the US should revise its policies in respect to democracy and human rights principles that are indivisible and can't be enjoyed by some and denied for others. Ending the Israeli occupation is the only way to achieve peace in the region.

The Palestinian people should be able to enjoy all the rights the world nations enjoy. Land theft and daily murders and intimidations can't bring stability nor peace. Israel must take the ICC and ICJ most seriously and the several international tribunals are but examples that Israel must remember, while these mechanisms are expected to take up their responsibilities towards the protection of the oppressed and suffering Palestinians.


Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Israel seems to be determined to go all the way to a worse and more horrible apartheid model by combining occupation, land grab, ethnic cleansing and playing the role of chronic-victim, while enjoying the unconditional US support.

The Palestinians have already made their historical decision by recognizing state of Israel over more than two thirds of historical Palestine, while Israel signs agreements and then violates them.

The Palestinians are the occupied oppressed, who demand for statehood and independence like any other free country.

A third fair party is a must to ensure that Israel complies and respects the agreements it signs. Israel effectively controls all of the Palestinian land and controls all aspects of life. Thus having a fair third party is paramount to achieving justice and peace.

There are dozens of international resolutions and UN Security Council resolutions that Israel continue to violate, thus, there is a need for a third party to have this humanity nightmare come to a speedy and just end.

In fact, the situation will continue worsening, murders committed by Israel against the Palestinians, unless the free world wakes up to the fact that occupation corrupts, not only the free world but Israel as well. Just remember Tom Hurndel and Rachael Cure, Israel doesn't even blink at killing any non-Israeli, without limiting that to Palestinians.

The army that kills injured civilians, while under control and then consider the murderer soldier a national hero and even ask school students to wear military uniform in solidarity with the murderer, this can only end with sincere, fair intervention efforts that observe international law and integrity principles.


You know the Western media distorts the facts involving this massacre against Palestinians, Mr. Maher Awawdeh. Please number the crimes or at least some of them commited by Israel.

The bias and/or negligence or ignorance of the Western media concerning the Palestinian cause is well known, there were several recent incidents, such as the Israeli army murder of Abdul Fattah Elsharif in Hebron, although he was bleeding and controlled on the ground..

Many western media simply focussed on the farce trial by Israel to the murderer Israeli soldier and showed him as a foolish ignorant boy instead of showing his real terrorist character and the military incitement to murder among the Israeli soldiers.

That soldier was sentenced to 18 months in prison, although he is still at large. The farce prison sentence is uglier and more criminal when compared to prison sentences ordered by the same Israeli court against Palestinian children, whom the court sentences to several years just for alleging they were throwing stones at the strongest army of the world.

The western media did very little in covering the many murders of Palestinian women and children at Israeli checkpoints and even ignored videos of Israeli soldiers planting knives near the bodies of Palestinian children after killing them to allege they were attacking soldiers.


How do you evaluate the Western media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian confict?

I see it as negative, considering endless examples of using the situation of occupation and lack of Palestinian control to borders, thus you see many of such outlets simply entering the Palestinian territories without meeting the official Palestinian requirements for international journalists.

The Western media is doing very little to shed light on the Israeli incitement to murdering and killing the Palestinians in the Israeli schools. Instead, that media focusses a lot on Israeli allegations against Palestinian schools, the same schools that Israel is demolishing and destroying.

The Israeli racist separation wall that walls out majority of the occupied West Bank and only leaves the Palestinian citizens away from their land, hoping that they eventually leave their land after Israel restricted their ace their farms, the Western media; such as the AFP published a photo named “70 walls around the world protecting national borders” including that Israeli wall.

The news agency simply ignored the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that considered the Israeli wall and settlement as a crimes, which must be removed and prohibited the international community from facilitating or acknowledging that crime.

The State of Palestine has asked many such media outlets to visit hunger striking Palestinian prisoners in Israel, but they declined in most of the cases, or publish things that were totally distorted or biased to the criminal Israeli occupation. Israel has installed gates at the entrance of every Palestinian community and closes them according to the whims of criminal military officers hoping to have the Palestinians leave their country, but the western media rarely writes about the suffering of Palestinians because of these restrictions or the suffering of women who have to give birth at these gates while waiting for such soldiers to allow them to proceed to hospitals.


How is life in Gaza and the West Bank?

In Gaza, as I mentioned before, Israel is operating a calorie racist system, as they acknowledged that, whereby Israel allows food to enter in quantities enough for people stay in a miserable life.

In Gaza you can't travel for any reason, including medication or study. Israel rations electricity-generation fuel supply to limit power supply by 4 hours a day maximum.

Same thing applies for construction materials that are mostly needed to reconstruct the devastated housed that Israel bombed and destroyed in the several wars it waged against Gaza.


Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago: "Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas." Your view on the internal politics among Palestinians, please, Mr. Maher Awawdeh.

The Palestinian leadership is restricted by the Israeli occupation restrictions, as no Palestinian leader can supply fuel for electricity in Gaza without the consent of the Israeli occupation army, for instance.

The Palestinian leadership has been lobbying for international support to end this Israeli occupation and we all know that all starts or ends at the UN Security Council, nonetheless, the Palestinian leadership has succeeded in expanding international recognition of the State of Palestine and solidarity with the Palestinian people by raising international public awareness on this issue, take for instance the several arrest warrants against Israeli leaders in different countries and the expanding boycott against Israel.

Yes, the internal Fatah-Hamas rivalry is negatively impacting the Palestinian cause, but one mustn't forget the Israeli and international interventions in this issue; such as limiting Palestinian self-healing potential by means of restrictions on the Palestinian leadership or public, including the ability to have elections, reconstruct destroyed houses and run a smooth democratic life at large.


What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on?

Many of the Arab leaders are too busy with their internal issues, nonetheless many of them continue to support the Palestinian cause, thus, we are hopeful that the Arab countries would step up their support at the international forums, including the UN and use their relations with the US and other countries to ensure a more balanced and urgency for ending this Israeli occupation.


What is the solution to the conflict, Mr. Maher Awawdeh?

One can't have illegal occupation and ongoing crimes while expecting to have this conflict resolved. Israel is if flagrant violation to international law and continues wasting time and opportunities for peace.

The Palestinians have already made a historical concession and recognized Israel, but Israel continues asking for more and doing nothing to meet the Palestinian minimum, which is a sovereign state along the 1967 borders. Israel must comply with the endless international resolutions calling for ending the conflict based on this position, otherwise, Israel is simply going for a one state apartheid regime that is already existing.


Do you want a two-State solution?

Yes, I believe in the two-State solution where Independent Sovereign democratic State of Palestine can prosper, live in peace and contribute to international stability and peace.


Why not a one-State solution?

If you read the recent UN report by ESCWA which the UN Secretary General ordered canceling it before ESCOWA Secretary General Rima Khalaf had to resign, you will see how Israel operates as a shameless Apatheid regime.

In historic Palestine, the Palestinians can make a great majority, do you think the US and the west will allow for that? In few words the answer is - Israeli racism won't allow for that.


What are the principal obstacles for a fair agreement and solutions?

Only one obstacle that is the Israeli disregard to international law that calls for ending the Israeli occupation and establishment of independent State of Palestine across the 1967 borders.

This Israeli disregard to international law is certainly unjustly shielded and supported by the US and several US countries.



Established 28 years ago by a group of a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members, B'Tselem, in Hebrew "in the image of," is an Israeli human rights organization which endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

Independent and funded by contributions from foundations in Europe and North América, B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.

Edu Montesanti speaks to Amit Gilutz, B'Tselem spokesman, on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. "We welcome (UN) resolution 2334 [condemning the Israeli settlements, voted last December]", Amit says.

Below, the talk with B'Tselem spokesman

March 20, 2017


Edu Montesanti: Would you please tell about B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories? How exactly does it work, and what have the organization got for justice and a solution towards the so long Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands?

Amit Gilutz: B'Tselem －The Israel Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, was founded in 1989 by a group of journalists, academics, lawyers, and MK Members, during the height of the first Intifada, when there was need of accurate and verifiable information about events in the occupied territories.

Until this day we are primarily an information and research center; we document, analyze and publish violations of human rights occurring under the Israeli military occupation, now in its fiftieth year.

Our end goal is to close our offices, once the occupation －a grave and fundamental human right violation in and of itself－ends.


How do you see the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15? “I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”? Many say that President Trump has "killed"two-state solution in that speech...

B'Tselem is not invested in a particular political formulation for ending the occupation, so long as it upholds the human rights and dignity of all people. We follow the developments and statements of the Trump administration and fear that the same trends we've been seeing will continue or escalate by an emboldened extreme right Israeli government.

2016 for example, saw a record high number of home demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and from what we are seeing currently, 2017 is on the same path or worse, with whole communities facing the risk of expulsion, to make room for Israeli settlements' expansion.

Regardless of Trump however, the Israeli policy of settlement construction and expansion, while fragmenting Palestinian space into 165 enclaves that cannot thrive, and an ongoing occupation not designed to ever end, has been wholly consistent.


What do you think of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution?

We welcome resolution 2334 and hope it will be followed up by decisive action from the international community to bring an end to the occupation.

There's a huge power disparity between Israel and the Palestinians, and lack of political will on part of Israel to change that brings not simply stagnation, but rather, the occupation becoming more and more entrenched as time goes by.




March 20, 2017


Edu Montesanti: How do you evaluate the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahy on February,15? “I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr.Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.”

Bader Araj: Trump's statement is a first official step to change the American stand towards the two-state solution, which has been declared and emphasized by three American previous presidents who were in office before Trump - Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

It also shows that Trump is accepting Netanyahu's attempts to avoid the two state solution and to impose the one state solution.


Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Our main problem is that our enemy, the Israeli State, does not commit to agreements that they reach and sign with us, due to the that fact that they are the stronger party in the conflict. Therefore, we need a third party or parties to put pressure on the Israelis to implement such agreements.

However, the question in this regard is that not whether we need a third party to facilitate negotiations and monitor the implantation of reached agréments, but which third party we should resort to: the U.N or the USA? PLO during the Oslo process, resorted to the Americans and as we have seen from Trump's stand referred to in the previous question, the USA is biased and cannot be trusted as a third party.


The passage of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member states "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. Journalist Daoud Kuttab observed in Al-Jazeera last month, in the article US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood: "Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 "emphasising inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" Why nothing changes year by year, massacre after massacre?

The main reason behind this is the imbalance of power between the Israelis and the Palestinian and the American unconditional support of Israel in the U.N and Security Council which make such institutions unable to force Israel to comply to international resolutions.


How is life in Gaza and the West Bank?

It is difficult politically, economically, and socially. In Gaza, Palestinian suffer form a siege imposed by Israel since 2016 which affect all aspects of life that in addition to four wars and attacks on Gaza which led to huge destruction.

The same applies to the West Bank but to a lesser degree; the confiscation of Palestinian land, the building of the separation agreement which spate 12 percent of the West Bank from the rest of the region, as well as controlling borders, water, check-points...etc. all of that makes the Israeli occupation literary affects all aspects of Palestinian daily.

As a result, unemployment rate is about 26 percent in the West and Gaza Strip , one-fourth of Palestinian families live under poverty line, etc.


Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago, in Al-Jazeera: "The Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas." Your view on the internal politics among Palestinians, please, Professor Doctor Araj.

Throughout their Palestinians suffer because of thier leadership. This happened during the 1936-1939 revaluation against the British colonialism when its leader Haj Ameen Hoseini believed British promises to stop the revolution and achieve national independence gradually.

A similar mistake by the Palestinian leadership took place during the Oslo agreement in 1993; stop the First Intifada or Uprising (1987-1993) and leave the final issues to be negotiated in the future. We are now 24 years after that agreement and we all know how things turned out.

Another major problem face the Palestinians is the weak democratic commitments of their leadership. This has led to the internal division and the Hamas-Fatah conflict due to not respecting the result of lections in 2006. Also this leads to the lacks of democracy either in the GS where Hamas is tacking control or the West Bank where Fatah is taking control.

Decision making institutions in both regions suffer from the lack of democracy. In short, Palestinians badly need democratic transition and reform which is the best way to have an elected and countable leadership that can lead the national struggle and the national state-building process.


What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on, to get a solution?

In the light of the consequences of the Arab uprisings which started in December 2010 in Tunissia and led to civil wars in several Arab countries, the expectations of Palestinians from Arabs and Arab leaders are lower than any other stages in recent history.

However, I still believe that democratic transition will take place in Arabic counties if not now in the future and that going to be the best way to have strong Arabic support to Palestinian national struggle.


What is the solution to the conflict, Professor Doctor Bader Araj?

The two-State solution. I prefer the one democratic state solution for all of its citizens but I know that is hard to achieve due to the Zionist nature of the Israeli state but that can be a long-term solution.

However, the best and most realistic solution now is the two-State solution, a Palestinian state on the whole of West Bank and Gaza Strip with east Jerusalem as its capital, and this is consistent with international resolutions concerining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on February 15, in which the peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians was discussed, has generated surprise and outrage all over the world.

President Trump's statements about the creation of the Palestinian state then, was a metaphorical mark of his ambiguous and full of contradictions presidential campaign, an incognito as said the American historian Peter Kuznick: "Trump is a wildcard. Trump is full of contradictions that are obvious to everyone, but himself. No one knows what he will do -- probably including him" (seeinterview below, on US-Russia relations).

“I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu, both leaders' first meeting since the new United States administration took office. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one."

Daoud Kuttab, an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University, says in an exclusive interview that the meeting and Trump's statement reflect the usual American-Israeli search for a solution that favors the powerful. "It fits the saying 'might is right', not right is might," observers Kuttab.

In an article for Al-Jazeera on February 17, Daoud observed: "Apparently fearing the repercussions of Washington's withdrawal of both support for the two-state solution and recognition of the legitimate Palestinian leadership, the US sent CIA chief Mike Pompeo to President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Tuesday, February 14. By sending the CIA chief rather than a political figure to visit President Abbas, the US is prioritising security issues - including joint security cooperation with Israelis - over the need to recognise Palestinian political and national aspirations."

The Palestinians live surrounded by the 5th largest army on the planet - that of Israel, historically supported by the great powers, and financed by the United States. Gaza has the largest population density on the planet: 1.8 million Palestinians live squeezed in 48 km wide by 4 km long, in some points reaching a maximum of 7 km; so the region comprise no less than 5 thousand inhabitants per km².

This makes for 360 km² of Gaza, which has only three exits (one south on the border with Egypt, and the other north and east on the border with Israel) the world's largest open air concentration camp: Israel has occupied it criminally, ignoring international law and international clamors.

The humanitarian crisis in besieged Gaza is critical, according to human rights organizations and the UN itself, which accounts for about 5 million Palestinians refugees today. Transformed into the largest ghetto in the world, the region is controlled by Israel in relation to everything in and out: food, medicines and hospital instruments, resources in general, doctors and journalists. The Palestinians, locked as pointed out above, only come and go if Israel allows, such a situation often supported by Egypt's control of its borders. Such a control causes permanent hunger in Gaza: Israel even imposes a "diet" on Palestinian society, determining how many daily calories to eat.

As wrote the Israeli author Benny Morris in his book Righteous Victims: "The Jewish state would not have arisen without the removal of 700,000 Palestinians, so it was necessary to expel them." There was no choice but to expel the population, cleaning the interior, surrounding areas and main roads. The villages from where our convoys and settlements were shot."

On February 10, President Trump had said in an interview with the paper Israel Hayom that ""they [settlements] don't help the process [óf peace]", so minimizing the crimes against humanity committed by the Zionist government. It became clear Mr. Trump's pro-Israel tendency in that same interview with the paper whose owner is Sheldon Adelson, a Jewish-American business man with strong ties to Netanyahu and the United States Republican Party: Mr. Adelson donated millions of dollars to the Republican-elected campaign, and one of the only donors invited to Trump's inauguration oath. A few days ago, on February 7 he had attended a dinner with his wife in the White House with the Trump family.

"I don't want to condemn Israel. Israel has had a long history of condemnation and difficulty. And I don't want to be condemning Israel. I understand Israel very well," said US President. Daoud Kuttab observes that one sided US policy pro-Zionism refuses to support international law, and refuses to allow Israel to be sanctioned. "The US is part of the problem since they fund Israel to the tune of three-four billion dollars a year, plus give Israel protection in the UN," he says referring to "the illegal settlement and then the restriction on movement, and the collective punishment in form of house demolitions", which are the biggest crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

On February 24, prominent hard-right Israeli Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, welcomed Trump's statement, saying: "The era of a Palestinian state is over. There already exists two states for the Palestinians: one in Gaza, a full blown state run by Hamas, and the other is Jordan, where 70 percent of the citizens are, indeed, Palestinians," Bennett told. "So, the discussion is whether we need a third Palestinian state smack in the heart of Israel, and the answer is no." When asked about the Israeli Supreme Court's 2005 ruling describing the West Bank as under "belligerent occupation", Bennett called it a "political decision" and cited the Bible as proof of Israel's right to the West Bank. "If you want to say that our land does not belong to us, I suggest you go change the Bible first."

At the same time, wrote The New York Times on February 15, a well-known paper by Zionsit positions as Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., NYT publisher, is himself a Zionist: "President Trump jettisoned two decades of diplomatic orthodoxy on Wednesday by declaring that the United States would no longer insist on the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians", in the report titled Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State.

About the mainstream media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Daoud Kuttab says the public rarely sees the human side of Palestinians, while the Western media is always exagerating the human suffering of Israelis.

At the end of July 2014, when a new Israeli massacre on the Gazan Strip was going on, the Italian-Palestinian journalist Rula Jebreal was dismissed from the MSNBC network for publicly criticizing the ample space to Israeli politicians, compared to the minimum provided to the Palestinians. "Maybe, about 30 seconds [for Palestinian voices on MSNBC show], while you have a 25-minute space on Bibi [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and half an hour for Naftali Bennett and many others."

In an interview with Democracy Now!, a few days after the resignation of MSNBC Jebral pointed out that, "in 2012 you had, on CNN alone, 45 Israeli officials interviewed versus 11 Palestinians. And when it comes to this conflict today in 2014, you have 17 Israeli politicians, official interviewed versus one Palestinian."

Below, the full interview with journalist Daoud Kuttab.

March 3, 2017 / Published on Telesur (Venezuela), and on Global Research (Canada)


Edu Montesanti: Dear Daoud Kuttab, thank you so very much for granting this interview. How do you see President Donald Trump's meeting with Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahy at the White House on February, 15, especially the following observations by the American presdident in the Press Conferemce: “I'm looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”?

Daoud Kuttab: I think that meeting and that statement reflect the usual American-Israeli attempts to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, simply by pushing both sides to work things out, a solution that favors the powerful. It fits the saying "might is right", not right is might.

The idea of a US president agreeing to a one state solution, less than 20 years after President Clinton insisted on the PLO to amend their charter to remove the idea of a one state solution, shows how the Americans are not serious about genuine peace.


Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

It would work if there was an agreement on the reference point but when you have the powerful side, Israel controling the areas, this means that an agreement will be dictated by the powerful. As the saying goes posession is two thirds of the law.

Also the third party here, the US is part of the problem since they fund israel to the tune of three-four billion dollars a year, plus give Israel protection in the UN. If the US was not so involved in defending the Israelis, it might be a different issue.


The passage of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member states "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. As you observed in US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood:
"Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 "emphasising inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" Why nothing changes year by year, massacre after massacre?

Because of this one sided US policy that refuses to support international law and refuses to allow Israel to be sanctioned the same way, Russia was sanctioned for its occupation of Crimea.


What are the biggest crime commited by Israel agains Palestinians?

The biggest crime is the occupation itself, then comes the illegal settlement and then the restriction on movement and the collective punishment in form of house demolitions.


How do you evaluate the Western media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian confict?

The Western coverage is mixed. While the major issues are covered, the public rarely sees the human side of Palestinians while exagerating the human suffering of Israelis.


Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago: "Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas." Your view on the internal politics among Palestinians, please, Daoud.

I agree about the problem of leadership, but this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the world, especially the Western world treats this conflict differently: the Iraqis were routed out of Kuwait by force when they occupied it, Russia is sanctioned for its occupation, and here the problem is not the Israelis but Palestinian incitement, or weak leadership.

This is not the main problem, the main problem is the occupation.


What could we expect from the Arab League and Arab leaders in general, from now on?

Not much. The Arab League and Arab leaders have and continue to give lip service to the Palestinian issue.

The only exception is the Jordanians, and especially when it comes to Jerusalem. Jordan's King Abdullah has worked hard in defending Al-Aqsa Mosque, and has spoken well in favor of Palestinian rights.


What is the solution to the conflict, Daoud?

The solution is for the World to treat Israel like any other agressor, and not give them a special treatment.


What are the principal obstacles to a fair agreement and solutions?

Absence of an agreed to reference point. The solution has to be either sharing the land, that is, two-state solution, or sharing the power, that is, genuine one state solution with equal rights to all and not the Israeli version of apartheid annexation.



In September of 2010, American federal agents in Chicago unjustifiably raided the Jefferson Park residence of Hatem Abudayyeh, Executive Director of Arab American Action Network (AAAN), in a time that federal agents were executing search warrants in residences and offices of several people in Chicago and in Minneapolis. Some of many "Muslim hunts " everywhere since the 9/11 attacks

The FBI agents took away a computer, video tapes and a cell phone of the Muslim civil rights leader. "They took everything in my home that had the word Palestinian on it," Abudayyeh said. The federal investigation was focused on whether Abudayyeh and the others have funded foreign terrorist organizations. Abudayyeh has never been charged

According to the AAAN leader, son of Palestinians, the FBI then targeted him merely for having a pro-Palestinian view. "This is a massive escalation of the attacks on people that do Palestine support work in this country and anti-war work," said Abudayyeh at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, three months later as he refused to grant an interview for ABC. "We're not going to stop speaking out against the war. We're not going to stop speaking out against U.S. support of Israel's violations of the Palestinian people."

In this exclusive interview, Hatem Abudayyeh speaks out about President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration that bars citizens of Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days, and refugees from around the world for four months. He says: "Trump and the other racists and white supremacists in his government are extremely dangerous, not only to Arabs and Muslims, but also to immigrants in general, black people, workers, women, and all other marginalized and oppressed communities in the US. I believe that Trump wants to truly 'make American white again'."

He states that Arabs and Muslims want to live in peace and dignity, as many of them have been intimidating and a number of their organizations devoted to social services, youth programming, and cultural outreach have been shut down in the "craddle of democracy".

Nothing has changed in the United Police States of America since the oppression he suffered in 2010, in the name of an endless "War on Terror" which spreads fear, violence and hate in the country, and all over the world. "Post 9-11 policies have criminalized Arabs and Muslims to such an extent that we are living in constant fear of detention, deportation, surveillance, and general repression," he says. "Our community is facing massive, documented surveillance and repression."

But not only that, according to the Muslim activist: "He [Trump] criminalizes Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. to get support from the people here for imperialist goals in our countries abroad."

Nothing has changed in US "security policy" (a eufemism for institutionalised crimes) since the dark years of George W. Bush - but a world and the United States themselves much more insecure. That is all that totalitarian powers need to justify the lack of civil liberties and hard-line policies in general, in order to dominate and explore.

Below, the full interview with Hatem Abudayyeh.

February 27, 2017 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia) and Telesur (Venezuela)


Edu Montesanti: Hatem Abudayyeh, thank you so very much for granting this interview. Would you please tell us how does the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) work?

Hatem Abudayyeh: The AAAN was established in 1995 to provide support to the Arab community of Greater Chicago in the areas of community organizing, advocacy, social services, youth programming, and cultural outreach.

It is unique in that we are the only Arab organization in Illinois, and one of the very few in the entire U.S. that challenge structural and institutional racism and national oppression with a grass-roots, base-building organizing lens.

We provide leadership development for youth and immigrant women, and the most affected community members lead our campaigns for social justice and systemic change.


What does it mean being an Arab in the United States today, especially Muslim Arabs after 9/11/2001, and what has changed since President Donald Trump won the American election?

Arabs in the U.S. have faced national oppression and racism for many decades, since way before 9-11 and now Trump, but the challenges are much more acute now.

Post 9-11 policies have criminalized Arabs and Muslims to such an extent that we are living in constant fear of detention, deportation, surveillance, and general repression.

A number of our organizations have been shut down; prominent individuals like Rasmea Odeh have faced political indictments; and the court system, the media, the educational system, and others have made it very intimidating for Arabs and Muslims to live here in peace and dignity.


In his inauguration speech, President Donald Trump called for the “civilized world” to unite “against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.” Later, President Trump confirmed Rep. Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA: Pompeo is a Tea Party Republican. Pompeo favors the reinstatement of “waterboarding, among other torture techniques”. He views Muslims as a threat to Christianity and Western civilization. He is identified as “a radical Christian extremist” who believes that the “global war on terrorism” (GWOT) constitutes a “war between Islam and Christianity”. Your view, please, Hatem.

Trump and the other racists and white supremacists in his government are extremely dangerous, not only to Arabs and Muslims, but also to immigrants in general, Black people, workers, women, and all other marginalized and oppressed communities in the U.S.

There is not much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats in this country, especially when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and even most domestic and economic policy, but Trump is clearly different.

He is clearly pandering to the worst racism in U.S. society, has put avowed white supremacists in his government, and is attacking immigrants, Black people, and workers with every executive order that he signs.

The specific attack against Arabs and Muslims serves a very specific cause, a cause that has been served by every president since 9-11; i.e., to justify U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East -- invasion, occupation, support for the destabilization of Syria, the threats against Iran and Lebanon, etc.--the government here needs to put a local face on the "enemy" abroad.

He criminalizes Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. to get support from the people here for imperialist goals in our countries abroad. Yes, Trump and Pompeo are ultra-right radical racists, but this is just a continuation of imperialist policy, albeit maybe more devastating.


How do you see Trump's executive order on immigration that bars citizens of Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - from entering the United States for the next 90 days, and refugees from around the world for four months?

I believe that Trump wants to truly "make American white again." The #MuslimBan and previous executive order implementation memos have the express intent of banning immigrants of color from coming here, and kicking out others who are already here--mostly Mexicans and Central Americans.

The AAAN does not believe that these policies are only affecting Arabs and Muslims. In fact, the people who are and will bear the brunt are Latinos, who constitute the largest population of undocumented immigrants in this country.

The vast majority of them work and pay taxes and try to support their families here, but Trump wants to deport them all. He is claiming that they have "broken the law," but the only thing broken is our immigration system, which has a massive backlog of applications for people trying to become permanent residents.

They have been here for years and years, and have mostly been forced here because of neo-liberal economic policies like NAFTA and CAFTA, but now they are being threatened daily with deportations.

Trump is a racist autocrat who is using executive actions to try to make the country look more like what his supporters want it to, i.e. the white European politically dominated society of the 30s, 40s, and 50s in the U.S.


How will it affect the American society and the world in the coming years?

These #MuslimBan and anti-immigrant policies in general are already affecting American society, causing massive apprehension and intimidation, but also massive resistance.

We have not seen the kinds of daily, consistent protests like those triggered by Trump and his racism since the civil rights era, and it is clear that they will not slow down. At the same time that immigrants are under attack, Black people and their Black Liberation Movement are as well, as evidenced by the Trump plan to rescind Obama's policy of phasing out private prisons, and the Trump administration's propaganda attacks on the Movement for Black Lives and its demands that law enforcement in this country stop its racial profiling and killing of Black people.

The other current danger that we see today is white supremacist crimes against people in communities of color. Because Trump has normalized racism against Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Muslims, and so many others, white supremacists have perpetrated racist hate crimes against all of these communities.

From a massacre in a Black church and armed white racists protesting against mosques to an Indian American shot because he looked Arab and Latinos being assaulted by white mobs, Trump's America looks very much like "Bull" Connor's America in Alabama in the 50s and 60s.

But like the civil rights movement in Alabama and throughout the U.S., people today will not allow themselves to be victims. They will defend themselves, they will resist, and they will fight back.

And Trump's policies will be stopped by the masses, like the #MuslimBan was. The federal court that froze the ban stated clearly that it had caused "chaos," meaning our resistance, mass protests, and shutting down of airports had as much to do with the court decision as the unconstitutionality of the ban.


You once denounced F.B.I. repression against activists, and you was victim of an F.B.I. raid in 2010. Does it still happen? Do you and your community feel vicitm of any surveiiance and repression?

Our community is facing massive, documented surveillance and repression. There are thousands of FBI informants in our communities, staking out mosques, community centers, and small businesses.

A federal program started by Obama's administration, called Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), gives massive amounts of money to communities to target young Arabs and Muslims, and considers our community to be extreme, but not the white supremacists who have perpetrated more terrorist attacks than anyone else in this country over the years.

Most specifically, we believe that surveillance and political repression affects Palestinians and their supporters the most, from students advocating for Palestinian rights and the Midwest 23 to community based Palestinian organizations and the aforementioned Rasmea Odeh.

Political criticism of Israeli occupation and colonization is becoming the norm in this country, and the U.S. government, because of its unequivocal support of Israel, needs to repress Palestine support organizing to continue to ensure that Israel remains its watchdog in the Arab World.

And now the ultra-right government of Trump is in place at the same time as the ultra-right government of Netanyahu rules Israel, so we should expect the repression to get worse.




February, 2017


"Those who die for life cannot be called dead", was used to sing Venezuelan Alí Primera, Hugo Chávez's preferred songwriter. Few words depict Meena's life like these ones.

As we miss Meena for long 30 years, it is important to understand that Meena's resistance was not only for the so noble and hard Afghan cause - surely not. Meena gave her life away for her people, and for ideals. So precious ones. Her matchless grace, passion and bravery are examples for all mankind - and much more than examples: her life and blood are for every hungry in every corner of the world, for every child who cries, for every sick and raped everywhere.

In Latin America we have a long history of resistance against foreign powers, and against local cowardly as puppets of the Empire as those the Afghan people have been facing since the 19th century. Common fights, common losses, common dreams, common victories.

Meena's life and blood cry out today among Afghan stones for her invaded and stolen homeland, as much as for every humankind she loved so much. Meena and Alí Primera; Afghans and Hugo Chávez' "sons" today: common ideals of freedom, justice and peace as we miss Meena for so long 30 years. Meena died so young to live for ever.

If Meena could cry out among us in Latin America today, I would dare to invite her to cry out these words by Alí Primera being sure she would love to do so, and that she would repeat them to the Afghan people she loved so deeply, as well to the whole world:

Mother, how I adore you / because I love my people / and you've taught me / to fight for them / You've taught me / to share my bread / to share my love / to share my dreams / I want now / to share my arms / the same ones / I embrace you / I want to hug my people / Mother, let me fight / You've taught me not to kill the butterflies / not to cut the roses / that in your garden you cultivated / I learned, little by little, to love others / For the humble, mother, let me fight / I hope you understand / that the struggle for men and women is not done for charity / Mama, let me fight...

For Meena, all our love. All she wants is, surely, us to follow her victorious paths today. An example and inspiration for all mankind.



Several experts all over the world state that the global scenario today is more troubling than at any point in the Cold War. This is what the renowned American Historian Peter Kuznick believes. too, who also points out that the risk of nuclear confrontation are the most serious in decades, comparable to the highly tense years 1953 and 1949.

The world is living under the uncertainty of what will accompany President-elect Donald Trump upon his arrival at the White House, especially with regard to US relations with Russia. Professor Dr. Peter Kuznick talks about the escalating tensions between Washington and Moscow and what can be expected from the President-elect. The head of the Institute for Nuclear Studies at the American University in Washington points to positive matters in Trump's election for US-Russia relations, but warns: "Some of the people who have advised and will advise Trump are Russophobes."

The historian refutes the widespread idea in the West that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to recreate the Russian empire. "The U.S. media and political leaders have been demonizing Putin". He also comments US foreign policy all over the world according to international law: "The United States made a mockery of international law throughout the Cold War and continues to do so today".

Below, the full interview with one of the most respected historians in the world.

January 17, 2017 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia)


Edu Montesanti: How do you evaluate the Barack Obama administration's policy toward Russia, both about Russian borders and especially about what can be considered the epicenter of the new Cold War, that is, Syria?

Peter Kuznick: Obama's foreign policy has been very much of a mixed bag. He has resisted the hawks in a number of areas and done some positive things such as the Iran nuclear deal. But his policy toward Russia has been narrowminded and wrongheaded.
He and other policymakers think they can treat Russia the way the elder Bush and Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. It took them a while to realize that Vladimir Putin is not Boris Yeltsin.

Yeltsin was willing to acquiesce in almost anything the U.S. wanted to do, including the dangerous expansion of NATO, even though top U.S. officials promised Gorbachev that they would not expand NATO one thumb's width to the east. NATO has now expanded to 12 more nations, the final two under Obama.


Is the world living a new Cold War between the US/allies and Russia, with "proxy wars"? Annie Machon, a former intel­li­gence officer for MI5, observed two years ago: "Unfortunately, I have to agree with Gorbachev - we are indeed facing a new Cold War, and this time it is of America's making". She added: "This is being fabricated by the USA, as that country always needs an Emmanuel Goldstein figure to justify its military-industrial complex (...). The first front line in this new Cold War is the internet." Your view, please, Professor Kuznick.

Yes, there is a new Cold War and the situation is very dangerous.It has been driven in large part by Obama, Clinton, Gates, and Kerry. In some ways it is more dangerous than the old Cold War. At least then the two sides respected and understood each other. They knew that there were certain red lines that they avoided crossing. This time the two sides are disdainful of each other and the rules are in flux.
We've been in a new Cold War for years now. Perhaps it started in 2003 with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Perhaps it started in 2008 with Bush's announcement that he wanted to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. Libya was a major blow.

It got worse in 2014 with the coup in Kiev, followed by the annexation of Crimea and the civil war in the Donbass. Then the U.S. and Europeans imposed sanctions and began planning for a troop buildup in the Baltics. On top of that the U.S. deployed its missile defense systems to Poland and Romania.

The Russians have responded with their Iksander system. Plus the Russian bombing in Syria in 2015 caught the West off guard. Russia has been modernizing its military and dramatically improving its capabilites. it is not the same force that looked so inept in 2008.

So the danger is not just of a new Cold War but of a new hot war. Clinton's proposed no-fly zone over Syria would have been extremely dangerous. Gen. Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would have provoked a war between the U.S. and both Syria and Russia.

There are three major fronts -- anyone of which could explode at any time.

The Ukrainian/Crimean situation seems to be a frozen conflict of late. Kiev refuses to implement the Minsk agreement. Sakashvilli recently resigned as governor of Odessa, citing the rampant corruption in the Porshenko administration. Others are equally frustrated with the deepseated corruption. And there is no motion toward decentralizing power and granting more autonomy to the Donbass region as required under the Minsk agreement. But that conflict is more frozen than volatile.

The other two are more dangerous. First comes Syria where Hillary Clinton and others have been calling for a no-fly zone. Obama has limited direct U.S. military involvement, but the U.S. has been intensely involved indirectly, supplying arms and assistance to groups that refuse to separate themselves from the Al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. Many of those arms end up in Al Qaeda or ISIS hands. Russia has renewed its assault on Aleppo.

American leaders like Samantha Power accuse them of "barbarism." This sounds hypocritical when the U.S. is taking similar actions in Mosul. Gen. Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a no-fly zone would mean war with both Russia and Syria. Both the U.S. and Russia are flying over Syria and conducting bombing campaigns. That poses the risk of a military confrontation.

The situation there looked more promising for a while when Kerry and Lavrov came up with plans for a joint bombing campaign on September 9--a deal that many in the U.S. opposed, including Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. The whole thing blew up when U.S. forces "accidentally" bombed and killed dozens of Syrian army troops. A Russian ceasefire calmed the situation for a brief while, but now it is heating up again.

The other is in the Baltics and Poland, where NATO has been putting troops, tanks, and other military equipment on Russia's border. Russia has responded by putting its S-400 anti-missile system and its Iksander nuclear capable missile system into Kaliningrad, a small enclave between Poland and Lithuania.


How do you evaluate Trump's victory regarding terrorism specifically in Syria, and for the normalization of US-Russian relations?

Trump is a wildcard. No one knows what he will do -- probably including him. He is not very well informed when it comes to world affairs.
He has said some wise things about Russia and NATO. He indicates that he will seek friendlier relations with Russia, which would be a good thing. Anything right now that can reduce the rise of war between our countries is extremely welcome.

We should be working together in Syria. Without U.S.-Russian collaboration, there is no hope for a settlement. That will involve keeping Assad in power for the time being, but I think he will ultimately have to go. He has behaved in a brutal and repressive fashion and will not be able to bring the opposition back into the political process. I think Putin understands this. But this is no other alternative to Putin in the short run. Trump and Putin say they can work with each other. Let's give it a try.

During the campaign, most of my Russian colleagues supported Trump. I gave several addresses at universities and conferences in Moscow and on other forums in which I supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. This was not a popular view in Russia, although the majority of students at MGIMO, who were planning to be future diplomats, agreed with me.

That was not the case among students and professors at Moscow State University. But I warned them that it was better to stick with the devil you knew than take a chance on the devil you don't know, especially when that devil was as rash and unpredictable as Donald Trump.

Trump may sound better on U.S.- Russian relations, but he was worse on other things, including his nuclear policies, which were frightening. Clinton was bad; Trump is potentially disastrous. I'm holding my breath. Some of the people he has appointed to Cabinet and advisory positions are extremely hawkish.

Some of the people who have been and will be advising him are Russophobes. They still see Russia as the enemy and are trying to convince Trump to reverse himself on Russia. Almost the entire Republican and Democratic foreign policy establishments feel this way. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain are leading the charge. Hillary Clinton is not far behind. Will Trump stay resolute in the face of so much pressure? No one knows.

Gen. Michael Flynn, his national security advisor. has been more reasonable. Trump, you must remember, is full of contraditory ideas and impulses. He wants to work with Russia against terrorism. Good. But he has also called the Iran nuclear deal a terrible agreement that he wants to change. Russia was instrumental in bringing that into effect. Putin also knows how important Iran has been in Iran and Syria. So Trump will have to reverse himself on Iran or face a confrontation with Russia.

Unfortunately, Trump's inner circle and potential appointees are united on one thing--they all want a tougher policy toward Iran. So that is very troubling. What does Trump do there? Putin also understands the importance of dealing with global warming.

Trump is a climate denier, which makes him a science-denying ignoramus. But the consequences of that position can also be disastrous. So the situation is compilcated.


What do you think of the Kremlin's position on Washington?

The U.S. media and political leaders have been demonizing Putin. This is counterproductive. It gets us nowhere. They have been stoking fears of a Russian invasion of the Baltics. There is no evidence to support this. Putin doesn't want to recreate the Russian empire.

During the Soviet period, Russia maintained friendly governments as a buffer zone between itself and the West, particularly Germany, which it feared after being invaded twice by Germany in a 25 year period. But Eastern Europe wasn't an asset for Russia. In fact, it was a drag on the Russian economy. That plus a bloated military budget caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin doesn't need or want a new empire. He just wants Russia to be taken seriously as a major power and consulted on decisions affecting its fate.

During the Yeltsin years, the U.S. and the Western Europeans got used to riding roughshod over Russia. Yeltsin gave in on almost everything they wanted from imposing shock therapy on the Russia economy, which allowed the West and Russia's new gangster capitalists to basically ransack it, to expanding NATO, which eventually reached Russia's border.

When NATO and the EU overreached, Putin said enough is enough. The West needs to start recognizing that there are limits as to how far they can go in imposing their views on the world. Russia and China are making that clear. Trump seems to understand better than Bush and Obama did. But we have to wait to see if his actions are true to his words.


According to international law, how do you see US foreign policy, which imposes American economic interests first everywhere, using miitary force?

The United States made a mockery of international law throughout the Cold War and continues to do so today. It is almost comical to hear American officials complain of Russian interference in the U.S. elections when the U.S. has been interfering in elections all over the world for 70 years. It is almost comical to hear the U.S. complaining about Russia hacking emails and committing cyber theft when the Edward Snowden exposed the extent of U.S. cyber operations that reached into every country on the planet.

It is almost comical to hear the U.S. take umbrage over the Russian incorporation of Crimea or intervention into Ukraine, when the United States has been invading country after country and has its Special Forces operating in some 135 nations. Trump has said some very troubling things along these lines. He has embraced the use of torture. He expressed his desire to maintain the prison at Guantanamo. He has threatened to not only kill terrorists but also to kill their family members. These would all be violations of international law.

How do you evauate Washington's view having Russia as his enemy number 1, an increasing threat to its national secutiry? The New York Times wrote on November 17, 2016: "(...) The new administration should confront fast-evolving threats involving Iran, North Korea, Syria and Russia, among others, and how it should manage relations with allies in Europe and Asia".

Trump says he wants to get along with Russia and thinks he can. The New York Times, Washington Post, and the foreign policy elites, both neoconservative and neoliberal, are pushing for confrontation.

Mitt Romney said four years ago that Russia was the United States' number one enemy. And he's supposed to be the adult in the room.


Do you think that Presidnt-elect Trump will not give in to the intense pressure around him, to confront Russia? Let's remember that President-elect Trump said during his campaign: "We have been disrespected, mocked and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher." Mr. Trump also criticized President Obama for pulling troops out too soon from Iraq. Doesn't his discourse evidences a deep contradiction?

Edu, the main point is that Trump is full of contradictions that are obvious to everyone but himself. No one has any idea which Donald Trump will actually win out. He is trying to placate both his base, who want no part of war and empire, and the establishment figures who demand the U.S. remain the world's sole superpower and hegemon.

There is strong potential for an alliance of the progressive left and the libertarian right--the Bernie supporters and the Paul supporters -- to defeat the hawkish policies of the establishment aimed at maintaining the American empire.

Trump and Putin have both decried the notion of American exceptionalism, but then Trump contradicts himself with the nonsense about making America great again. Who knows what that means?


Do you think the world, or at least the West really needs NATO and the UE army?

I agree with Trump that NATO has outlived its usefulness. In fact, the world would have been better off if Truman had never created it in the first place. Khrushchev and Kennedy were moving toward ending the Cold War and dismantling the military alliances in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated.

Gorbachev again proposed such measures in 1989. Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush squandered that opportunity as Reagan had squandered the chance to eliminate nuclear weapons in 1986.

At a minimum, NATO needs to reverse its recent military expansion and drop plans to send thousands of NATO troops to the Baltics.


Is the world under the risk of a nuclear attack?

The risk of nuclear warfare is very serious. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its Doomsday Clock at 3 minutes to midnight. The most dangerous it's ever been was 2 minutes to midnight. The reality is that tensions between the U.S. and Russia are the worst they've been in 54 years.

What Kennedy and Khrushchev learned during the Cuban Missile Crisis is that once a crisis develops, it quickly spins out of control. Despite the fact that both of them were trying desperately to avoid a nuclear war in 1962, they realized that they had lost control. It wasn't brilliant statesmanship that saved us, it was pure dumb luck. They moved after that to eliminate any conflict that might cause another crisis. That was Khrushchev's initiative and Kennedy eventually responded.

There are now several situations that could spin out of control. If that happens, they could escalate without anyone wanting them to. Who backs down? Who accepts defeat? Putin? Trump? We need to defuse all the crises before they get to that point.

We also have a very dangerous situation between India and Pakistan. Recent scientific studies by Professors Robock, Toon, Stenchikov, and others show that even a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 small Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used could cause partial nuclear winter resulting in the death of up to 2 billion people.

There are currently 15,300 nuclear weapons in the world. 95 percent or so are controlled by the U.S. and Russia. Most are 8 to 80 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. What would happen if there was a relatively small nuclear exchange? We know that if the cities burned, they would produce so much smoke that the sun's rays would be blocked and termperatures would drop below freezing for years. Humans and large animals would die off as agriculture collapsed. All life on the planet would be threatened.

The nuclear winter theory that scientists had developed in the 1980s came under heavy assault and was widely ridiculed. But the latest studies show that scientists were only wrong in that they underestimated the extent of the damage that would be caused. It is actually worse than we thought in the 1980s. The threshold for ending life on our planet is lower.

While there are far fewer nuclear weapons now than the 70,000 that once existed, there are far more than enough to cause nuclear winter. So that is the challenge for our species. We must avoid conflicts and wars that could lead to nuclear war.

Does Trump understand this? I hope so for all of our stakes.



John Kiriakou, First Amendment Award Prize-Winning author and a former CIA agent who spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners, who granted an interview for us last June speaking about his life, CIA tortures and the 9/11 attacks (roll the window), grants another exclusive interview.

This time, he speaks of US tense relationship with Russia, the Civil War in Syria, global terror, US presidential elections' 2016, and of what he calls "a deeply flawed democracy" in his country.

Below, the interview with John Kiriakou on US domestic and foreign policy.

9.19.2016 / Published on Pravda Report (Russia)


Edu Montesanti: How do you evaluate accusations that Russia is behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers, which leaked Hillary Clinton's e-mails to WikiLeaks?

John Kiriakou: I have been consistently disappointed by accusations that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee. It's an election year. It's easy to make accusations. But absolutely no proof has been offered.

If it was true that the Russians had hacked into the DNC for the purpose of influencing the presidential election, this would be a serious international incident. Show the proof. Otherwise, the accusations are just meaningless words.


Edu Montesanti: What about many US politicians, echoed by the mainstream media, trying to generate a permanent state of tension with Russia? Don't you think the Kremlin has been decisively efficient in combating ISIS, as well as sincerely willing to be a US ally in Syria to stabilize the region? Wouldn't these facts be sufficient for Washington to be a Russian allied in the Middle East, or at least to try it?

John Kiriakou: I believe that the US has no meaningful policy in Syria. The Russian military was invited into Syria by the internationally-recognized government. Russians have every right to be in Syria.

The Russian military has been effective in fighting Syria. This is no less true just because the US has different interests in Syria.


Edu Montesanti: Why accusing exactly the Kremlin? Do you think Washington is trying to promote a new Cold War with Russia?

John Kiriakou: I don't think Washington is trying to promote a new Cold War with Russia. Instead, this is a normal election year for us. The Democrats need a "whipping boy," and Russia is an easy foil. After all, Putin doesn't get to vote.


Edu Montesanti: Does President Bashar al-Assad pose a threat to US security? Why does the White House target Damascus?

John Kiriakou: I do not believe Assad poses any threat to the United States. He has never been a threat in the past. The US made a decision in 2009 to oppose Assad and to support a "moderate opposition." In fact, no such opposition exists, and Washington is stuck with a failed policy.


Edu Montesanti: Bahsar al-Assad was a US ally in combating terrorism before the current civil war, started in 2013. What are US real interests in Syria, then? And how the CIA takes its part on this "mistake" in Syria mentioned by you, as the Agency accused President Assad of attacking with chemical weapons, what is absolutely false (the "moderate" rebels, supported by Washington, has done that according to United Nations reports, and US government memorandum)?

John Kiriakou: The U.S., frankly, has very few national interests in Syria, other than counterterrorism and regional stability. The basis of the failure of U.S. policy in Syria is the fact that there IS no real policy.

As things stand now, a group supported by the CIA is fighting a group supported by the Defense Department. That's a recipe for failure.


Edu Montesanti: Please explain which group is supported by the CIA, which is supported by the Defense Department, John, and precise why it happens.

John Kiriakou: I don't have any firsthand knowledge of what group the CIA supports versus the Defense Department, but the American press has reported that the CIA supports the Jabhat al-Nusra. Many people believe that this group has ties to al-Qaeda and, for that reason, the US Defense Department supports Kurdish forces. The Kurds of Iraq and Syria have proven to be reliable allies of the United States. The al-Nasra Front has not. The CIA's argument that the situation calls for unusual battlefield alliances is short-sighted and wrong-headed. Multi-lateral diplomacy, including the Russians, the Syrians, and the Americans is the only way to stop the fighting.


Edu Montesanti: Do you think the use of force is really efficient to defeat terrorism? How could ISIS be effectively defeated?

John Kiriakou: Use of force must be a component of any fight against terrorism. To defeat ISIS, though, it requires a combination of force, diplomacy, partnership with regional and international powers, and a cessation of arms sales to the region.


Edu Montesanti: Do you really think the US have been sincere in the so-called "War on Terror"?

John Kiriakou: I think the people responsible for the "War on Terror" BELIEVE that they have been doing the right thing. They have largely been wrong.


Edu Montesanti: After 15 years of US "mistakes" in the Middle East, violating international laws and even the US Constitution declaring preemptive "wars" against States which haven't attacked the country, or better said, invasions which, based on crimes of war, have cost millions of innocent lives, John, don't you think the people responsible for this endless "fight" which just spread more terrorists all over the world, are either excessively incompetent or acting motivated for imperialist and even their own interests?

John Kiriakou: I feel that the U.S. leaders responsible for miring the country in wars of choice since the September 11 attacks should be called to account for their actions. Iraq, for example, was a war of choice.

A war of choice is, by its definition, a war of aggression. If George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and others had been from any other country, they might have found themselves on the dock at the Hague.


Edu Montesanti: The FBI could not find the 13 devices used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, to send classified information from a personal e-mail server while she was US Secretary of State. Questioned by the FBI if she had been told by the people that worked for her to handle information appropriately, Mrs. Clinton said she doesn't recall - 39 instances of "don't recall", according to the FBI report. Your opinion, John.

John Kiriakou: To tell you the truth, after having been through a major court case of my own, there were many facts that I simply couldn't recall.
It is far, far better to tell the FBI that you don't recall than it is to say something that is wrong, change your answer later, and be charged with perjury or making a false statement.

Edu Montesanti: How do you see the mainstream media's coverage of the current presidential campaign?

John Kiriakou: The mainstream media has given Donald Trump literally billions of dollars worth of free coverage, all the while ignoring legitimate third party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. It is a conspiracy of the two-party system.


Edu Montesanti: What must be changed in US electoral system totally controlled by big companies money, in which third party candidates cannot equally participate in the campaigns and even in the votings?

John Kiriakou: We must have comprehensive election reform, including public financing, immediately. It is the only way to get corporations out of our elections.


Edu Montesanti: The list of donors to the Clinton campaign includes many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others (source: Truth Out.org). Before this fact, John, how do you evaluate Hillary Clinton supporters claims that the mainstream media is persecuting the Democratic candidate?

John Kiriakou: Hillary Clinton's problems are of her own making. The American people simply do not trust her.. No amount of campaign contributions from media institutions can change that.


Edu Montesanti: Given the current scenario, John, comment please your prospect to the future.

John Kiriakou: The American people are in an unfortunate position of choosing between two deeply flawed candidates. Hillary Clinton is seen as untrustworthy and possibly as a criminal because of the email scandal. Donald Trump is unhinged, polarizing, and angry.

Americans will elect the lesser of two evils. At this point it looks like that will be Hillary Clinton.


Edu Montesanti: Your words make me understand you do not agree on the myth that the US have the best democracy in the world...

John Kiriakou: We have a deeply flawed democracy. Some people would argue that because we are a republic that we do not have a true democracy at all. Just look at the election of 2000. That was certainly not democracy.


Edu Montesanti: Why exactly is Mrs. Clinton lesser evil than Mr. Trump? The Republican candidate, though the nazi hysteria against Muslims and immigrants, heralds he would dialogue with other powers, especially with Russia as the Democratic nominee's speeches evidence she is a warmonger who would deepen the aggressive foreign policy of coups, invasions and wars. As Secretary of State, she led US invasion of Lybia, and when her husband Bill Clinton was President, she supported him to attack Yugoslavia. Domestically, Mrs. Clinton is supported by big companies in general, which clearly hate Mr. Trump as the biased mainstream media, totally pro-Mrs. Clinton...

John Kiriakou: To me they are both terrible candidates, and for many of the reasons you cite. I am personally supporting Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President. He's the only candidate I trust.

Edu Montesanti: Long ago, Americans have no choice as Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. The nation does not believe in both parties anymore, for so long. What should American citizens do, how should they act to change this situation if there is anything to do being subjected by a corrupted media, dirty politics, and a general dumbing down via educational system, John?

John Kiriakou: Third parties are a real choice in America. We must stop looking at third parties as "wasted votes." To me, a wasted vote is a vote for somebody you don't believe in. Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.



The Finish Professor of International Relations and Director of Research at the University of Bath (UK), Timo Kivimäki, granted this interview speaking of global terrorism: the causes, consequences and possible ways of combating it.

Professor Kivimäki has been a frequent consultant to several governments, as well as to several UN and EU organizations on conflict and terrorism. He is the author of The Long Peace of East Asia (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), and Can Peace Research Make Peace. Lessons in Academic Diplomacy (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012, nominated for the prestigious Best Book Prize by the Conflict Research Society in year 2014).

Timo Kivimäki's recent articles on peace and conflict topics were published in the Chinese Journal of International Relations, Pacific Focus, the Pacific Review, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, Journal of Peace Research, Asian Security and the Middle East Policy.

June, 4, 2016 / Publicado em Global Research (Canada) and on Pravda Report (Russia)


Edu Montesanti: Professor Timo Kivimäki, you have been a frequent consultant to the Finnish, Danish, Dutch, Russian, Malaysian, Indonesian and Swedish governments, as well as to several UN and EU organizations on conflict and terrorism. Please, Professor Kivimäki, speak a little of these consultations.

Timo Kivimäki: Actually, not only these: I have helped altogether 11 governments with conflict related problems. But the ones you mention I have helped more than others. I have helped Finland and Denmark (and marginally Sweden, too) to design their strategy of development cooperation so that it would be more conflict sensitive, i.e. that it helped prevent rather than fuel conflicts.

For Finnish, Danish and Russian foreign ministries I have offered some help for their foreign policy argumentation, by offering reviews on how different arguments relate to existing research findings. I have also tried to help these three government with initiative they have had to launch peaceful dialogue processes.

I trained the Moldovan government negotiation team to their peace negotiations with Transnistrian separatists and I have also trained some Indonesian and Myanmar conflicting parties for peace negotiation. Furthremore, I have helped one of the defence ministers of Thailand to understand some of the complications of the conflict in Southern Thailand.

All in all I have realized that many goverments are very eager to promote peace despite their public unwillingness to show any signs of willingness to make compromises. Governments tend to try to avoid signals that could be interpreted as weakness and this is why it is sometimes important for academics to take the initiative and help governments in something they cannot do without showing signs of weakness.


In the article First Do No Harm: Do Air Raids Protect Civilians? [Middle East Policy 22, no. 4 (2015): 55–64] you revealed that protection wars, that is, wars that are justified by referring to the cosmopolitan motive of protection of "global civilians", kill more civilians than any other type of warfare. Would you please detail this?

There is a growing cosmopolitan, universalist sense of solidarity in the world now and this solidarity of citizens urges leaders to "do something" when the media reveals unfairness and violence against civilians, regardless where these civilians are. This in general is very good and offers opportunities to build a less violent and more just global order.

If within the next 100 years the international security system moves from state-based communities to one global community, this could be very good. Historically wheneven securty governance is moved to greater communities – from familities to clans, from clans to sedentary societies, from small societies to city states, from city states to nation states – a lot of violence disappears. So the growing solidarit is potentially a good thing.

However, today, solidarity is not followed by an effort to allow common security agency: those nations that have been keen on punishing Saddams and Talibans and imposing they interpretation of global norms have not been keen on strengthening the UN, the so far only truly global organization that could represent the world in the imposition of compliance with global humanitarian norms.

On the contrary, those powers that are imposing norms on other countries have been reluctant to commit to the strengthening of global norms together with all countries, and instead of working through the UN, they have formed ad hoc coalitions of the willing. In the imposition of justice and fairness these countries have become actors while others, especially developing countries and Muslim countries, have become the objects of the discipline of coalitions of the willing.

This has caused resentment and the military operations to intervene in violence in the Middle East have escalated the violence that has existed there, and protection has turned against the ones it has intended to protect. If we look at those countries where our protection has operated we can see that more than half of world's conflict fatalities are produced there.


How do you see United States invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Iraq in 2003, from a legal point of view?

I think that from the legal point of view they have been slightly different types of operations as Iraq has been explicitly outside the UN mandate. At the same time the continued military operations there has been very unpopular in both places and it has resulted in a lot of suffering. From the point of protection of civilians both operation has been a disaster.

Washington and its allies has hardened the speech and policies toward terrorism, harming human rights and diminishing civil liberties. The Barack Obama regime has dramatically increased the drone strikes. Has the "War on Terror" helped secure the United States and its allies from terrorism?

The war against terrorist organization has been a cathalyst of terror simply because of the fact that conflict and terror is always interaction, not just action of one side. While the reason for our violent countering of terrorists has been the horrific actions of the terrorists, it is clear that the reason for the terrorists violence has been our violence. The logic of escalation in the war against terrorist organizaiton has always been interactive, and only through interactive, dialogical peace action could this spiral of escalation be ended.

I think the problem has been that there has never really been a war of terror, there has only been a war on terrorists. This is very different, as a war on terror would be focusing on the targeting of civilians trying to prevent that, while the war on terrorists has aimed at killing as many terrorists as possible even if this means a lot of collateral damage, i.e. loss of civilian life.

A war on terror would not be able to use means that border terroristic, as it is against terror, while war on terrorists has often used means that might be effective against terrorists but increase terror. Focusing on principles rather than demonizing enemies would be important in this situation to de-escalate tension, and that would also mean that we should not point our fingers at the United States or its allies, but instead we should blame bad strategies for the violence we see around us.

We should try to negotiate ways to limit these violent strategies rather than demonicing each other, since the logical conclusion from a view attributes violence to a demonizes "other" is the motive to destroy this "other". Destruction and demonization of our enemies is not a way to peace.


What are the real roots of terror, Professor Kivimäki, and what would efficient policies should be envisaged to terrorism?

I think we should not think of terror as something that has roots that simply cause terror. Terror is an immoral tactic that people use, even though they should not, for their political goals. If we look at terror that abuses Islam as its platform, it seems clear that at the roots of this type of terror is the perception that there are no peaceful options to bring about chance.

More than ten years ago I studied the origins of terrorist individuals and organizations statistically and also by commissioning and conducting a lot of interviews among people suspected or convicted of acts of terror. Then I was working for the Danish and Finnish foreign ministries. It turned out that most of the terrorist individuals came from countries where any mobilization for a peaceful change is completely impossible. Saudi Arabia was the birth place of 15 of the 19 operative perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, while at the time Algeria was the main source of terrorist individuals in the European list of terrorist individuals.

Due to the fact that any organization was impossible in these countries and in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt many of these desperate people moved to failed states where they could mobilize resistance. Afghanistan became the hub of terrorist organization despite the fact that not many terrorists originated from there.

In these failed states individuals who were prepared for violence to advance their goals could not find a common agenda in their resistance of their own governments as they came from different countries, and consequently the fact that many of authoritarian regimes of these countries were supported by the USA and some of its European allies became the target of their new common focus.

This I think is the origin of the current type of terrorism, but once the process of fight against the West and the West's fight against these terrorists had began it started getting new forms. Some margins of immigrant communities found resonance to their frustration of their own marginalization in the radical anti-Western rhetoric of these original Islamist groups, and new types of terror started emerging.

The massive Western military operations that undermined the sovereign rights of many Muslim countries, and caused a lot of fatalities gave rise to the expansion of anti-Western Third World Muslim radicalism. The logic of escalation, deepening and spreading of hatred on both sides took over and new forms of terrorism emerged.

What is common to all these processes was that hate and destruction gives rise to hate and distruction and the only way forward would be dialectical focusing on our common interest in the prevention of violence. The mutual focus on the destruction of one's enemy only fuels violence.


Syria has drawn the world attention, and has divided the mainstream and the alternative media. How do you see the roots of the Syrian civil war, and how do you evaluate the United States and Russia intervention in that country, the first oppositionist to the President Bashar al-Assad, the second one supportive to the Syrian government?

I think it is sad that we have wasted the peaceful diplomatic opportunities that existed in 2011. This is also what I wrote about in my article First Do No Harm that you mentioned. I do not see any positive opportunities for solutions in the supporting of the capacity to kill on either side of the conflict: the US military support to very shady violent groups Syria and the Russian support to a rotten violent regime are both just ways to expand the magnitude of violence in Syria.

I think the only way forward is inclusive negotiation between all conflicting parties, including the ISIS.


Would you please comment about the limits between resistance and terror?

I think resistance is activity defined by the goal of the action while terror should be defined as a specific tactic. Resistance is activity against a rule that is perceived as illegitimate, and it can be violent of non-violence, terrorist or non-terrorist depending on the methods resistance uses.

Terrorism, again, is tactics in which a person or a group tries to infuence decision-makers by using the lives of innocent civilians as a barganining chip. I think it is useful to create, with the concept of terror, a distinction between violent tactices that target innocent civilians and other types of violence. Without the concept it would not be possible to define the norm against the targeting of civilians.

However, there is a problem even with the correct definition of terror, let alone the politically manipulated definitions. The main problem I see with the correct definition of terror is the ”either-or” nature of the concept. If someone intentionally targets civilians as a conflict strategy that someone is a terrorist, but what if you have conflicting parties that target military targets but use weapons and target areas that are known to result in collateral damage? Are these people then slightly terroristic? In the Palestinian conflict there are actors that intentionally target civilians in some of their operations. They are rightfully called terrorists. But there are also actors, like the state of Israel, that target militants, but do it by hitting militants in civilians centers with cluster munitions. Could this also be called terrorism? Can it be that one killed militant makes an operation that kills tends of civilians something less than a terrorist operation?

In Palestine, I have realized that fatality statistics make it very difficult to justify the concept of terrorism as an either-or concept: there are clashes with more Palestinian child fatalities than Israeli fatalities. This means that even if Israeli operations managed to kill a few militants, too, they tend to kill more civilians than militants. Should we not then call Israeli operations terroristic, even if they also target militants?

The main problem with the current usage of the word terrorism is that more and more often terrorism is associated with political goals that some terrorists aim at. In order to foster a norm against terror one should try to avoid associating terrorism with specific political objectives, as we would like to think that peaceful resistance and the promotion of political objectives is legitimate even if there are terrorists that also promote those same objectives by using immoral terroristic tactics.

Too often we use the concept terrorism to describe activities to promote Islamist political goals even if they were not promoted with terroristic means. This practice obviously erodes the legitimacy of the norm against civilian targeting among communities that would like to see Islamist political order if the term reserved to targeting of civilians is confused with actions to promote Islamist politics. This conceptual practice of associating terror with Islamism makes it also easier to the War of Terror to target civilians if terrorism is associated with Islamism. Thus we should not be fooled about this manipulation of the concept ”terrorism”.


Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post: "[The US must create] the psychology of fear' in order to ensure 'deep respect for the American power". How do you see it?

I do recognize that control with power can keep violent opportunities in check. Conflicts in weak, fragile states prove this point: without competent law enforcement there will be anarchy.

Yet when there is a will there is a way: if the US uses a lot of violence to create that fear, it will also create the will to resist its order. I am more in favor of Henry Kissinger's conclusion in his book World Order, according to which power has to be coupled with legitimacy in order for it to produce stability and peace. Right now, it seems that legitimacy, not power, is what is missing from the US global governance.

It is the US imposition of its order and the resistance of that order that is the source of so much violence in areas where the United States is operating militarily. More fear will not result in more legitimacy of US imposition of its order, quite on the contrary. Thus I think Krauthammer is wrong with his prescription.


How much has the "War on Terror" widened the prejudice against Islamists around the world?

The problem has been the escalation of tension and violence between terrorists that misuse Islam as their platform and the violent War on Terrorists (there is no War on Terror. If there was, it would not use terror as its tactic).

This escalation has created prejudice against Muslims in the Western world, and against Americans and Westerners in the Muslim world. This escalation is one thing we should try to reverse by means of dialogue and negotiations rather than by killing our opponents.


How do you evaluate the coverage of the mainstream media on global terror?

The so-called free Western media has occassionally in reality been amazingly unfree in their practices of repeating the terms, labels and narratives of Western politicians and securocracy. When a group is called terrorist because of its objectives by politicians that oppose those objectives the media too often simply publicizes the label.

A critical media should always be alert to the interests of politicians to avoid uncritically serving them. I sometimes find it amazing what we can read even from the most respected newspapers about world terror even after we have had access to the revelations by Chelsie Manning, Wikileaks, Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. It is sometimes as if none of these revelations were ever made.



John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent, spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners, "obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United States," he says in this exclusive interview.

Since then, Kiriakou has lost almost everything: federal pension, house, friends, some family members - but never his dignity and bravery.

"I remained silent from 2002 until 2007. I decided finally to blow the whistle in December 2007 after President George W. Bush twice lied to the American people. He said first that the United States did not torture anybody," speaks out Kiriakou.

Co-author with Michael Ruby of the book The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror, published in 2009, John Kiriakou was honored with the January 2016 Patriot Award by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation.

"The Committee acknowledged Kiriakou for his three statements that would change both US national discourse and his life forevever: The CIA tortured prisoners, torture was the official policy of the United States, and President George W. Bush approved and signed off on the use of torture."

The Committee also declared that:

"Thanks to Kiriakou's courageous decision to tell the truth about the U.S.'s use of torture, as well as his work on intelligence and prison reform, he has helped to build exactly the kind of movements that are necessary to make intelligence and law enforcement agencies respect civil liberties. For this he receives January 2016 Patriot Award."

In 2015, PEN Center USA awarded Kiriakou the prestigious First Amendment Award. Enganged in stimulating and maintaining interest in the written word, fostering a vital literary culture, and defending freedom of expression domestically and internationally, PEN Center USA told John Kiriakou that they “are admirers of your bravery in the face of unspeakable adversity.”

"The cost has been high, but I would do it all over again", John Kiriakou states in the following lines, pointing out, too, what has changed during the Obama regime on torture techniques: absolutely nothing.

May 31, 2016 / Published on Global Research (Canada), and and on Pravda Report / In Portuguese on Jornal Pravda (Russia)


Edu Montesanti: Dear and admired John Kiriakou, I'd like to thank you so very much for this interview. It is a great honor for me. When PEN Center USA awarded you the First Amendment Award in November 2015, they said they “are admirers of your bravery in the face of unspeakable adversity.” And that “Board and staff of PEN Center USA have followed your story with equal parts interest and shock. The stress of what you bore witness to during your time in the CIA, and the losses you've suffered as a result of your disclosures, is unfathomable. You join a group of patriotic whistleblowers who have our deepest respect ad admiration.” Would you please, John, comment the unspeakable adversity and losses you've suffered?

John Kiriakou: There is a very high price for blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality in the United States, especially when you are blowing the whistle against an intelligence agency. For me, the price was especially high.

I spent two years in prison, separated from my wife and five children. My legal bills were more than one million dollars. I lost my federal pension. I lost my house. My friends, former colleagues, and even some family members stopped speaking to me.

I still owe my lawyers $880,000. I can never work in government again. The government's goal is not necessarily to protect the information that the whistleblowers is revealing. The goal is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally, socially, and financially.

The cost has been high, but I would do it all over again.


Why did friends and some family members stop speaking to you? Have they got any threat? Have you got any threat, John?

No, neither my friends nor I have been threatened. But I was friends with a lot of people in the CIA and the FBI.

Many people in those organizations hate me because I blew the whistle on torture and so they cut me off. I am too controversial, and they don't want to look like they support what I did.


About the CIA tortures, why and how exactly were they achieved during your time at the Agency, and what role did you play in that?

I am proud to say that I never participated in the CIA's torture program in any way. I never took any action that resulted in the death of any person.

The reason that the CIA began torturing prisoners is that the CIA's leadership was obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United States.

Bin Laden said this attack would come, and the CIA's leadership was ready to do anything to stop it. As a result, the CIA began a torture program to try to collect that information. They also created a system of secret prisons. And most prisoners eventually were sent to Guantanamo.

I am proud to have directed CIA counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after September 11. In that position, I led capture operations against dozens of al-Qaeda fighters who had escaped to Pakistan from Afghanistan.


How, John, could you be apart from torturing prisoners?

A senior CIA officer asked me if I wanted to be trained in the torture techniques. I said no. I said that I was against torture and that I didn't want any part of it.


When did you decide to blow the whistle?

I remained silent from 2002 until 2007. I decided finally to blow the whistle in December 2007 after President George W. Bush twice lied to the American people. He said first that the United States did not torture anybody.

A few days later he told the press that if there was torture, it was the result of a rogue CIA officer. This also was a lie. I knew that the CIA was torturing its prisoners, that torture was official CIA policy, and that the President personally approved of the torture.


In what ways President Barack Obama differs from former President George W. Bush on torture techniques, if there is any difference between them?

Honestly, I don't think there is any real difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

On intelligence issues they are exactly the same.


Would you speak of your time in prison, and how is your life today, please?

Prison was very difficult, but mostly because the prison guards are uneducated, lazy, and cruel. I never had any problems with any prisoners. But I had a lot of problems with the guards, who did not like that I was very high-profile and that I continued to write a blog from prison. It made them very angry.

With that said, I made some real friends in prison, almost all of them from among the "Italians," who were from New York's five "families." I sat with the Italians, I ate with them, I socialized with them. Everybody knew that I was with the Italians, and so nobody ever bothered or challenged me.

I got home from prison on February 3, 2015. The adjustment was a difficult one, especially because I had to find a job that allowed me to provide for my family.

That was harder than I had expected, and so I had to patch together a new life writing, speaking, and teaching. But things are good now. I have just started a new job and for the first time in many years I feel like I have a bright future.


The US Inteligence community has been first protecting people or government? What must improve and/or be changed?

Everybody I ever worked with in the CIA believed in their hearts that they were protecting the American people. Don't forget how the September 11 attacks traumatized the country.

Bin Laden promised a bigger attack, and we thought it would come. There was never any discussion, ever, of protecting the "government" versus the "people."


How do you see, John, CIA failures to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

September 11 was, of course, the worst intelligence failure in the history of the United States. The CIA will never be able to change that.

But at the same time, it has to work to protect the American people while respecting human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties. It is not doing that. Security and freedom are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

But without real oversight by Congress, the CIA will continue to do whatever it wants all around the world.


What do you think of the 9/11 official story? And, John, do you think there is any possibility that the 9/11 attacks could have been an inside job?

I believe the official story of 9/11 because I lived it. I saw the evidence. The United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Period.

There is no possibility that it was an inside job. This is just uninformed conspiracy theories.


How do you see the killing of Osama bin Laden, as US government never showed his body? And how do you see such a killing in the legal viewpoint as US Navy SEALs invaded Pakistan without any previous authorization by the local goverment, and even more: Bin Laden, who never claimed participation in the 9/11 attacks, on the contrary, he denied since that very day any participation on them, he was never carried into a court?

I disagree with you on this question. Osama bin Laden DID take responsibility for 9/11 in an interview with Aljazeerah. He planned it for years along with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. He gloated over the death toll. He promised a bigger attack.

I have no reason to not believe the official story of bin Laden's death. Frankly, he deserved to die. I don't care if we got to see the body or not.

And I have not lost any sleep over the Navy SEALs activities inside Pakistan. The Pakistanis either were hiding bin Laden or were too stupid to know he was there. We had a job to do to find bin Laden. The Pakistanis were not helping us to do it. So we did it ourselves. The Pakistanis have no choice but to accept that.

Obama tells intelligence chiefs to draw up cyber target list – full document text. Eighteen-page presidential memo reveals how Barack Obama has ordered intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber attacks / Written in October, 2012; Leaked on June 7, 2013

"The identity of the person who gave those documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post is not known, but The Post has described its source as a career intelligence officer angry at “what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy” by the Obama administration," reported The New York Times on June 7.

William Binney, who worked at nearly 40 years at the NSA and resigned shortly after the 9/11 attacks over his concern over the increasing surveillance of Americans, said to Democracy Now!:

"There's just—in my estimate, it was — if you collapse it down to all uniques, it's a little over 280 million U.S. citizens are in there, each in there several hundred to several thousand times."

President Barack Obama is conducting a massive domestic surveillance program by collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon customersbased on the Patrot Act (26 Ocotber, 2001), Section 215, which says:

'Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

What if the author of the following memo were Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, or any other Latin or Arab leader?

TOP - PRESIDENTIAL POLICY

MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

SUBJECT: U.S. Cyber Operations Policy (U)

This Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) supersedes National
Security Presidential Directive of July 7, 2004. This directive complements,
but does not affect, NSPD--54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive on
"Cybersecurity Policy" of January 8, 2008; National Security Directive
on "National Policy for the Security of National Security
Telecommunications and Information Systems" of July 5, 1990; and
PPD--8 on "National Preparedness" of March 30, 2011.

I. Definitions (U)

The following terms are defined for the purposes of this directive and should be used when possible in interagency documents and communications on this topic to ensure common understanding. (U)

Cyberspace: The interdependent network of information technology infrastructures that includes the Internet, telecommunications networks, computers, information or communications systems, networks, and embedded processors and controllers. (U)

Network Defense: Programs, activities, and the use of tools necessary to facilitate them (including those governed by and conducted on a computer, network, or information or communications system by the owner or with the consent of the owner and, as appropriate, the users for the primary purpose of protecting (1) that computer, network, or system; (2) data stored on, processed on, or transiting that computer, network, or system; or (3) physical and virtual infrastructure controlled by that computer, network, or system. Network defense does not involve or require accessing or conducting activities on computers, networks, or information or communications systems without authorization from the owners or exceeding access authorized by the owners. (U)

Malicious Cyber Activity: Activities, other than those authorized by or in accordance with U.S. law, that seek to compromise or impair the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of computers, information or communications systems, networks, physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or information systems, or information resident thereon. (U)

Cyber Effect: The manipulation, disruption, denial, degradation, or destruction of computers, information or communications systems, networks, physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or information systems, or information resident thereon. (U)

Cyber Collection: Operations and related programs or activities conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, for the primary purpose of collecting intelligence -- including information that can be used for future operations -- from computers, information or communications systems, or networks with the intent to remain undetected. Cyber collection entails accessing a computer, information system, or network without authorization from the owner or operator of that computer, information system, or
network or from a party to a communication or by exceeding authorized access. Cyber collection includes those activities essential and inherent to enabling cyber collection, such as inhibiting detection or attribution, even if they create cyber effects.

Defensive Cyber Effects Operations (DCEO): Operations and related programs or activities other than network defense or cyber collection - conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside

United States Government networks for the purpose of defending or protecting against imminent threats or ongoing attacks or malicious cyber activity against U.S. national interests from inside or outside cyberspace.

Nonintrusive Defensive Countermeasures (NDCM): The subset of DCEO that does not require accessing computers, information or
communications systems, or networks without authorization from the owners or operators of the targeted computers, information or communications systems, or networks or exceeding authorized access and only creates the minimum cyber effects needed to mitigate the threat activity. Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO): Operations and related programs or activities other than network defense, cyber collection, or DCEO -- conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside United States Government networks.

Cyber Operations: Cyber collection, DCEO (including NDCM), and OCEO collectively. (U)

Significant Consequences: Loss of life, significant responsive actions against the United States, significant damage to property, serious adverse U.S. foreign policy consequences, or serious economic impact on the United States. (U)

U.S. National Interests: Matters of vital interest to the United States to include national security, public safety, national economic security, the safe and reliable functioning of "critical infrastructure," and the availability of "key resources."1 (U)

Emergency Cyber Action: A cyber operation undertaken at the direction of the head of a department or agency with appropriate authorities who has determined that such action is necessary, pursuant to the requirements of this directive, to mitigate an imminent threat or ongoing attack against U.S. national interests from inside or outside cyberspace and under circumstances that at the time do not permit obtaining prior

1 As these terms are used in on "Critical Infrastructure, Identification, Prioritization, and Protection" from December 17, 2003. (U)

Presidential approval to the extent that such approval would otherwise be required.

II. Purpose and Scope (U)

The United States has an abiding interest in developing and maintaining use of cyberspace as an integral part of U.S. national capabilities to collect intelligence and to deter, deny, or defeat any adversary that seeks to harm U.S. national interests in peace, crisis, or war. Given the evolution in U.S. experience, policy, capabilities, and understanding of the cyber threat, and in information and communications technology, this directive establishes updated principles and processes as part of an overarching national cyber policy framework.

The United States Government shall conduct all cyber operations consistent with the U.S. Constitution and other applicable laws and policies of the United States, including Presidential orders and directives.

The United States Government shall conduct DCEO and OCEO under this directive consistent with its obligations under international law, including with regard to matters of sovereignty and neutrality, and, as applicable, the law of armed conflict.

This directive pertains to cyber operations, including those that support or enable kinetic, information, or other types of operations. Most of this directive is directed exclusively to DCEO and OCEO.

The United States Government has mature capabilities and effective processes for cyber collection. Therefore, this directive affirms and does not intend to alter existing procedures, guidelines, or authorities for cyber
collection.

This directive provides a procedure for cyber collection operations that are reasonably likely to result in "significant consequences."2

The principles and requirements in this directive apply except as otherwise lawfully directed by the President. With the exception of the grant of authority to the Secretary of Defense to conduct Emergency Cyber Actions as provided below, nothing in this directive is intended to alter the existing authorities of, or grant new authorities to, any United States Government department or agency (including authorities to carry out

2 referred to operations with significant consequences as "sensitive offensive cyber operations." operational activities), or supersede any existing coordination and approval processes, other than those of Nothing in this directive is intended to limit or impair military commanders from using DCEO or OCEO specified in a military action approved by the President and previously coordinated and deconflicted as required by existing processes and this directive.

In addition, this directive does not pertain to or alter existing authorities related to the following categories of activities by or on behalf of the United States Government regardless of whether they produce cyber effects:

Activities conducted under section 503 of the National Security Act of l947 (as amended);

Activities conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the approval authority delegated to the Attorney General (AG) by section 2;5 of Executive Order 12333 (as amended), or law enforcement authorities; however, cyber operations reasonably likely to result in significant consequences still require Presidential approval, and operations that reasonably can be expected to adversely affect other United States Government operations still require coordination under established processes;

Activities conducted by the United States Secret Service for the purpose of protecting the President, the Vice President, and others as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3056; however, cyber operations reasonably likely to result in significant consequences still require Presidential approval, and operations that reasonably can be expected to adversely affect other United States Government operations still require coordination under established processes;

The use of online personas and other virtual operations3 -- undertaken exclusively for counterintelligence, intelligence collection, or law enforcement purposes that do not involve the use of QCEO or Activities conducted in cyberspace pursuant to counterintelligence authorities for the purpose of protecting specific intelligence sources, methods, and activities;

Signals intelligence collection other than cyber collection as defined in this directive;

Openwsource intelligence collection;

Network defense;

3 Human intelligence operations undertaken via the Internet.

Traditional electronic warfare4 activities;

The development of content to support influence campaigns, military deception, or military information support operations;

or

Simple transit of data or commands through networks that do not create cyber effects on those networks.

Guiding Principles for DCEO and OCEO (U)

DCEO and OCEO may raise unique national security and foreign policy concerns that require additional coordination and policy considerations because cyberspace is globally connected. DCEO and OCEO, even for subtle or clandestine operations, may generate cyber effects in locations other than the intended target, with potential unintended or collateral consequences that may affect U.S. national interests in many locations.

The United States Government shall conduct DCEO and OCEO in a manner consistent with applicable values, principles, and norms for state behavior that the United States Government promotes domestically and internationally as described in the 2011 "International Strategy for Cyberspace."

National--level strategic objectives and operational necessities shall dictate what the United States Government seeks to accomplish with DCEO and OCEO.

The United States Government shall integrate DCEO and OCEO, as appropriate, with other diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement options, taking into account effectiveness,
costs, risks, potential consequences, foreign policy, and other policy considerations.

The United States Government shall reserve the right to act in accordance with the United States' inherent right of self defense as recognized in international law, including through the conduct of DCEO.

The United States Government shall conduct neither DCEO nor OCEO that are intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States unless approved by the President. A department or agency, however, with appropriate authority may

4 As defined by the Joint Dictionary 1-02, "Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms" (as amended through February 15, 2012):

military action involving the use of electromagnetic or directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy. Electronic warfare consists of three divisions: electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. (U)

conduct a particular case of DCEO that is intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States if it qualifies as an Emergency Cyber Action as set forth in this directive and otherwise complies with applicable laws and policies, including Presidential orders and directives.

The United States Government shall obtain consent from countries in which cyber effects are expected to occur or those countries hosting U.S. computers and systems used to conduct DCEO or OCEO unless:

Military actions approved by the President and ordered by the Secretary of Defense authorize nonconsensual DCEO or OCEO,
with provisions made for using existing processes to conduct appropriate interagency coordination on targets, geographic areas, levels of effect, and degrees of risk for the operations;

DCEO is undertaken in accordance with the United States' inherent right of self defense as recognized in international law, and the United States Government provides notification afterwards in a manner consistent with the protection of U.S. military and intelligence capabilities and foreign policy considerations and in accordance with applicable law; or

The President -- on the recommendation of the Deputies Committee and, as appropriate, the Principals Committee - determines that an exception to obtaining consent is necessary, takes into account overall U.S. national interests and equities, and meets a high threshold of need and effective outcomes relative to the risks created by such an exception.

The information revealed to other countries in the course of seeking consent shall be consistent with operational security requirements and the protection of intelligence sources, methods, and activities.

The United States Government, to ensure appropriate application of these principles, shall make all reasonable efforts, under circumstances prevailing at the time, to identify the adversary and the ownership and geographic location of the targets and related infrastructure where DCEO or OCEO will be conducted or cyber effects are expected to occur, and to identify the people and entities, including U.S. persons, that could be affected by proposed DCEO or OCEO.

Additional Considerations for DCEO (U)

The Nation requires flexible and agile capabilities that leverage the full resources of the United States Government to conduct necessary and proportionate DCEO. These operations shall conform to the following additional policy principles:

The United States Government shall reserve use of DCEO to protect U.S. national interests in circumstances when network defense or law enforcement measures are insufficient or cannot be put in place in time to mitigate a threat, and when other previously approved measures would not be more appropriate, or if a Deputies or Principals Committee review determines that proposed DCEO provides an advantageous degree of effectiveness, timeliness, or efficiency compared to other methods commensurate with the risks;

The United States Government shall conduct DCEO with the least intrusive methods feasible to mitigate a threat;

The United States Government shall seek partnerships with industry, other levels of government as appropriate, and other nations and organizations to promote cooperative defensive capabilities, including, as appropriate, through the use of DCEO as governed by the provisions in this directive; and Partnerships with industry and other levels of government for the protection of critical infrastructure shall be coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), working with relevant sector~specific agencies and, as appropriate, the
Department of Commerce (DOC).

The United States recognizes that network defense, design, and management cannot mitigate all possible malicious cyber activit and reserves the right, consistent with applicable law, to protect itself from malicious cyber activity that threatens U.S. national interests.

The United States Government shall work with private industry -- through DHS, DOC, and relevant sector--specific agencies to protect critical infrastructure in a manner that minimizes the need for DCEO against malicious cyber activity; however, the United States Government shall retain DCEO, including anticipatory action taken against imminent threats, as governed by the provisions in this directive, as an option to
protect such infrastructure.

The United States Government shall - in coordination, as appropriate, with DHS, law enforcement, and other relevant departments and agencies, to include sectorwspecific agencies -- obtain the consent of network or computer owners for United States Government use of DCEO to protect against malicious cyber activity on their behalf, unless the activity implicates the United States' inherent right of selfwdefense as recognized in international law or the policy review processes established in this directive and appropriate legal reviews determine that such consent is not required.

Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (U)

OCEO can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging. The development and sustainment of OCEO capabilities, however, may require considerable time and effort if access and tools for a specific target do not already exist.

The United States Government shall identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power, establish and maintain OCEO capabilities integrated as appropriate with other U.S. offensive capabilities, and execute those capabilities in a manner consistent with the provisions of this directive.

IV. Cyber Operations with Significant Consequences (U)

Specific Presidential approval is required for any cyber operations including cyber collection, DCEO, and OCEO -- determined by the head of a department or agency to conduct the operation to be reasonably likely to result in "significant consequences" as defined in this directive.

This requirement applies to cyber operations generally, except for those already approved by the President, even if this directive otherwise does not pertain to such operations as provided in the "Purpose and Scope" section of this directive.

V. Threat Response Operations (U)

Responses to Persistent Malicious Cyber Activity (U)

Departments and agencies with appropriate authorities consistent with the provisions set forth in this directive and in coordination with the Departments of State, Defense (DOD), Justice (DOJ), and Homeland Security; the Federal Bureau of Investigation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the National Security Agency the Central Intelligence Agency the Departments of the Treasury and Energy and other relevant members of the Intelligence Community (IC) and sector--specific agencies -- shall establish criteria and procedures to be approved by the President for responding to persistent malicious cyber activity against U.S. national interests. Such criteria and procedures shall include the following requirements:

The United States Government shall reserve use of such responses to circumstances when network defense or law enforcement measures are insufficient or cannot be put in place in time to mitigate the malicious cyber activity; and Departments and agencies shall conduct these responses in a manner not reasonably likely to result in significant consequences and use the minimum action required to mitigate the activity.

Emergency Cyber Actions

The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized to conduct, or a department or agency head with appropriate authorities may conduct, under procedures approved by the President, Emergency Cyber Actions necessary to mitigate an imminent threat or ongoing attack using DCEO if circumstances at the time do not permit obtaining prior Presidential approval (to the extent that such approval would otherwise be required) and the department or agency head determines that:

An emergency action is necessary in accordance with the United States inherent right of self--defense as recognized in international law to prevent imminent loss of life or significant damage with enduring national impact on the Primary Mission Essential Functions of the United States Government,5 U.S. critical infrastructure and key resources, or the mission of U.S. military forces;

Network defense or law enforcement would be insufficient or unavailable in the necessary timeframe, and other previously approved activities would not be more appropriate;

The Emergency Cyber Actions are reasonably likely not to result in significant consequences;

The Emergency Cyber Actions will be conducted in a manner intended to be nonlethal in purpose, action, and consequence;

The Emergency Cyber Actions will be limited in magnitude, scope, and duration to that level of activity necessary to mitigate the threat or attack;

The Emergency Cyber Actions, when practicable, have been coordinated with appropriate departments and agencies, including State, DOD, DES, DOJ, the Office of the DNI, FBI, CIA, NSA, the Treasury, DOE, and other relevant members of the IC and sector--specific agencies; and

5 As defined in on "National Continuity Policy" of May 9, 2007. (U)

The Emergency Cyber Actions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and other applicable laws and policies of the United States, including Presidential orders and directives. In addition, Emergency Cyber Actions that are intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States (or otherwise likely to adversely affect U.S. network defense activities or U.S. networks) must be conducted:

Under the procedures and, as appropriate, criteria for domestic operations previously approved by the President; and

Under circumstances that at the time of the Emergency Cyber Action preclude the use of network defense, law enforcement, or some form of DOD support to civil authorities that would prevent the threatened imminent loss of life or significant damage.

Department and agency heads shall report Emergency Cyber Actions to the President through the National Security Advisor as soon as feasible. If the coordination specified above is not practicable in the available time, then notification shall occur after the fact as soon as possible to inform subsequent whole" ofmgovernment response and recovery activities.

Until such time as any additional criteria for domestic operations are approved by the President, authorization by department and agency heads for Emergency Cyber Actions that are intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States (or otherwise likely to adversely affect U.S. network defense activities or U.S. networks) shall be granted only if the President has provided prior approval for such activity, or circumstances at the time do not permit obtaining prior approval from the President and such actions are conducted within the
other constraints defined above.

VI. Process (U)

The National Security Staff (NSS) shall formalize the functions of the Cyber Operations Policy Working Group (COP--WG) as the primary United States Government forum below the level of an Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) for integrating DCEO or OCEO policy, including consideration of exceptions or refinements to the principles of this directive. The COP--WG shall work with other elements of the policy community as appropriate to the geographic or functional context of the DCEO-- or OCEO~related policy discussion at the earliest opportunity. The COPMWG is not an operational group, but will address policy issues related to the conduct of operations raised by departments and agencies or the NSS.

Departments and agencies shall work through the to raise unresolved or ambiguous policy questions in an integrated IPC meeting of all appropriate national and economic security stakeholders. The N88 shall use existing channels to elevate any unresolved policy conflicts to the Deputies and Principals Committees, as appropriate.

Departments and agencies shall continue to use existing operational processes for cyber operations, except as those processes are modified by or under this directive. Other types of operations that are supported or enabled by cyber operations shall use their existing operational processes. This continued use of existing operational processes applies, for example, to operations conducted under military orders that authorize DCEO or OCEO, including clandestine preparatory activities.

Departments and agencies, during planning for proposed cyber operations, shall use established processes6 to coordinate and deconflict with other organizations - including, as appropriate, State, DOD, DOJ, DES, members of the IC, and relevant sector- specific agencies -- and obtain any other approvals required under applicable policies, except as those processes are modified by or under this directive. Departments and agencies shall modify or enhance these processes as future circumstances dictate.

Departments and agencies shall coordinate DCEO and OCEO with State and Chiefs of Station or their designees in countries
where DCEO or OCEO are conducted or cyber effects are expected to occur.

Coordination of DCEO and OCEO with network defense efforts shall be sufficient to enable a whole~of~government approach to the protection of U.S. national interests and shall identify potential implications of proposed DCEO and OCEO for U.S. networks, including potential adversary responses or unintended consequences of U.S. operations for which the United States Government or the private sector would need to prepare. This coordination shall occur in a manner consistent with operational

6 Including the May 9, 2007, "Trilateral Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community Regarding Computer Network Attack and Computer Network Exploitation Activities," and other operational Coordination processes that exist between departments and agencies. security requirements and the protection of intelligence sources, methods, and activities.

Toward this end of ensuring a unified whole--of~government approach, departments and agencies shall coordinate and deconflict DCEO and OCEO with network defense efforts of other departments and agencies as appropriate.

In addition, DCEO and OCEO with potential implications for U.S. networks shall be deconflicted as appropriate and coordinated with DHS, appropriate law enforcement agencies, and relevant sector--specific agencies.

The United States Government shall make all reasonable efforts to identify and notify, as appropriate, private sector entities that could be affected by DCEO and OCEO.

Policy Criteria (U)

Policy deliberations for DCEO and OCEO shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria:

Impact: The potential threat from adversary actions or the potential benefits, scope, and recommended prioritization of proposed U.S. operations as compared with other approaches -- including, as appropriate, network defense by the

United States Government or private sector network operators;

Risks: Assessments of intelligence gain or loss, the risk of retaliation or other impacts on U.S. networks or interests (including economic), impact on the security and stability of the Internet, and political gain or loss to include impact on foreign policies, bilateral and multilateral relationships (including Internet governance), and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behavior;

Methods: The intrusiveness, timeliness, efficiency, capacity, and effectiveness of operational methods to be employed;

Geography and Identity: Geographic and identity aspects of the proposed activity, including the location of operations and the resulting effects, the identity of network owners and users that will be affected, and the identity or type -- when known -- of adversaries to be countered or affected by U.S. operations;

Transparency: The need for consent or notification of network or computer owners or host countries, the potential for impact on U.S. persons and U.S. private sector networks, and the need for any public or private communications strategies before or after an operation; and

Authorities and Civil Liberties: The available authorities and procedures and the potential for cyber effects inside the United States or against U.S. persons.

Policy decisions shall be broad enough and include rationales in order to provide guidelines and direction for future proposals with the same operational and risk parameters.

Annex: Implementation (U)

Departments and agencies shall establish necessary Capabilities and procedures for appropriate and timely implementation of DCEO and OCEO policies in the national interest.

Policy Process (U)

Departments and agencies shall, as appropriate, conduct DCEO and OCEO in accordance with the principles set forth in this directive and shall bring forward to the COP--WG situations that require policy discussion, including considerations of exceptions to those principles, using the policy criteria described in this directive. {Action: All; ongoing]

The National Security Advisor, through the NSS, shall establish and operate the COP--WG to serve as the entry point for interagency deliberations of policy matters related to DCEO and OCEO. [Action: ongoing]

The National Security Advisor, through the NSS, as needed, shall use the existing policy escalation process through an appropriate joint IPC"level group involving all stakeholders for a given situation, the Deputies Committee, and the Principals Committee. This process shall clarify the application of the principles set forth in this directive to specific operations, including consideration of exceptions or refinements to those principles. [Actionz ongoing]


The NSS, as needed, shall lead reviews by appropriate departments and agencies of legal issues associated with DCEO and OCEO.

The NSS shall refer legal questions to the chief legal officers of the appropriate departments or agencies or to DOJ for resolution of interagency disagreements or as otherwise appropriate. [Action: ongoing]

The DNI shall continue to ensure, through appropriate policies and procedures, the deconfliction, coordination, and integration of all IC cyber operations and serve as the EC focal point for strategic planning and policy coordination related to cyber operations, both within the EC and with other departments and agencies in interagency coordination processes. [Actionz ongoing]

Policy Reviews and Preparation (U)

The Office of the DNI, in coordination with appropriate departments and agencies, shall prepare a classification guide for departments and agencies to use in the implementation of the policies in this directive. [Actionz Office of the

2 months after directive approval] (U)

The National Security Advisor, through the NSS, shall lead an interagency review of the United States Government's communications strategy: including public affairs guidance, regarding DCEO and OCEO. Pending approval of this strategy by the Deputies Committee, the United States Government's public posture on related matters shall be: "All United States Government activities in cyberspace are consistent with the principles stated in the May 2011 International Strategy for Cyberspace." [Actionz NSS report to Deputies; 1 month after
directive approval]

The National Security Advisor, through the NSS, shall work with the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, the AG, the DNI, relevant IC and sector-specific agencies, and other heads of departments and agencies as appropriate to develop for the conduct of Emergency Cyber Actions, as set forth in this directive -- in addition to the previously cited procedures and, as appropriate, domestic criteria to be approved by the President -- detailed concepts of operation, supporting processes, communications capabilities, exercises, and training. In addition, the NSS -- working with these same departments and agencies shall, as necessary, develop for Presidential approval procedures and criteria for DCEO to be conducted in response to malicious cyber activity. [Action: NSS update on implementation to Deputies; 3 months after directive approval]

The Secretary of Defense, the DNI, and the Director of the CIA in coordination with the AG, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, and relevant IC and sector--specific agencies shall prepare for approval by the President through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes, and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities;

proposes circumstances under which OCEO might be used; and

proposes necessary resources and steps that would be needed for implementation, review, and updates as U.S. national security needs change. [Action: DOD, Office of the DNI, and CIA update to Deputies on scope of plans; 6 months after directive approval]

The Secretary of Defense and other department and agency heads as appropriate -- in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Securityshall develop and maintain a flexible, agile capability for the purpose of using DCEO to defend U.S. networks consistent with the provisions set forth in this directive. [Action: DOD and others; ongoing]

The Secretary of Defense -- in coordination with the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Commerce, and State, the AG, the DNI, and relevant IC and sectorwspecific agencies shall develop a multi--phase plan to be approved by the Deputies Committee for testing, reviewing, and implementing NDCM.

The plan shall be subjected to legal review and address authorities, technical feasibility, operational risks, and coordination procedures. [Action: DOD present first phase of plans to Deputies; 2 months after directive approvalcollaboration with the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Homeland Security, and relevant IC and sectorwspecific agencies shall develop a multi--phase plan to be approved by the Deputies Committee for a test of the applicability and efficacy of counterintelligence authorities in the conduct of DCEO. The plan shall be
subjected to legal review and address technical feasibility, operational risks, and coordination procedures. [Actionz D03 and Office of the DNI present first phase of plans to Deputies; 2 months after directive approval]

The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, the DNI, the AG, and the Director of the CIA in collaboration as appropriate with the Secretaries of State and Commerce and the heads of relevant IC and sector--specific agencies shall develop proposals to be approved by the President through the National Security Advisor to ensure that a necessary framework of proposed options, roles, and levels of delegation is in place for the use of all appropriate United States Government DCEO and OCEO capabilities to advance and defend U.S. national interests, including actions taken in response to indications of imminent threat or when the United States or the Internet is subjected to a debilitating attack. This framework shall consider how cyber operations capabilities will complement other United States Government cyber capabilities, including network defense and law enforcement. [Actionz DOD, DHS, DOJ, Office of the DNI, and CIA update to Deputies; 6 months after directive approval]

Department and agency heads conducting DCEO or OCEO covered under this directive shall report annually on the use and effectiveness of operations of the previous year to the President through the National Security Advisor. [Action: relevant departments and agencies; ongoing until otherwise directed]

Foundation Building (U)

The DNI, working with appropriate departments and agencies, shall continue to lead interagency efforts to improve intelligence collection in support of DCEO and OCEO, including under conditions when Internet infrastructure is significantly degraded. These efforts shall include an enhanced process for sharing intelligence--based cyber threat information with the private sector and international partners in the interest of
minimizing the need for DCEO. The DNI shall identify needed investments -- including in research and development, testing, and evaluation - to help develop intelligence capabilities in support of DCEO and OCEO. [Action: Office of the ongoing]

The Secretary of State -- in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, the AG, the DNI, and others as appropriate shall continue to lead efforts to establish an international consensus around norms of behavior in cyberspace to reduce the likelihood of and deter actions by other nations that would require the United States Government to resort to DCEO. [Action: State; ongoing]

The AG -- through the FBI and in coordination as appropriate with DHS, appropriate elements of the EC, and other departments and agencies - shall continue to identify, investigate, mitigate, and disrupt malicious cyber activity in the interest of minimizing the need for DCEO.

The AG, through the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, shall lead related interagency efforts by integrating, sharing, coordinating, and collaborating on counterintelligence, counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement information from member organizations concerning investigations of malicious cyber activity in order to facilitate the use of all available authorities to address such threats. These activities shall be coordinated with other entities and the private sector as appropriate.

[Action: ongoing]

The Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce -- along with the AG, the DNI, and others as appropriate shall continue to advance interagency efforts with international partners to increase their cyber capacities for self protection and, where appropriate, to facilitate cooperative defense of cyberspace in the interest of minimizing the need for DCEO. The partnerships shall include application of not only improvements to network defenses, but also sharing -- as appropriate and consistent with operational security requirements and the protection of intelligence sources, methods, and activities -- of DCEO--related information, tools, and methods consistent with the provisions set forth in this directive, the National Disclosure Policy, and with U.S. national interests. [Action: State, DOD, DHS, DOC, and Office of the ongoing]

The Secretary of Homeland Security in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, the AG, the BN1, and the heads of relevant sectormspecific agencies - shall continue to lead interagency efforts to develop partnerships with other levels of government and the private sector to increase the nation's cyber capacities for self protection and, where appropriate, to facilitate cooperative efforts to secure cyberspace in the interest of minimizing the need for DCEO.

[Action: ongoing]