Thursday, August 20, 2020

Are Egypt and Turkey heading for war in Libya?



Dejan Kukic
19 August 2020

http://www.marxist.com/are-egypt-and-turkey-heading-for-war-in-libya.htm

In recent weeks, the potential for open conflict between various states in the South-Eastern Mediterranean has increased dramatically. The Communist Tendency (IMT section in Greece) has already released a statement on the escalation of war tensions between Greece and Turkey over access to hydrocarbons in specific areas of the Mediterranean Sea. Since then, the Turkish air force and navy have been carrying out military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, which the Egyptian and French navy have countered with their own joint training drills.

These developments come just days after the Egyptian parliament voted unanimously to send ground troops to Libya, six months after the Turkish government authorised their own army’s intervention there. There are genuine fears – particularly in Egypt – that the two largest military powers in the region are heading for war.

The Egyptian government also signed a maritime agreement with Greece on 6 August, which provides an exclusive economic zone for oil and gas drilling rights. This agreement is a response to Turkey’s own memorandum of understanding with Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) last year. That agreement also asserted a shared exclusive economic zone in the waters between the two countries signing it – the very same waters to which Greece and Egypt are now claiming exclusive access for drilling. In reality, the agreement between Egypt and Greece is the formalisation of an alliance on this question that existed long before Turkey’s deal with the Tripoli government, and also includes Cyprus and Israel.

Our previous detailed analysis of the scramble for hydrocarbons in the South-East Mediterranean and Turkish President Erdogan’s aggressive turn towards expansionism can be found here. We are now witnessing the conflicting interests of various states vying for their own share of the oil and gas resources of the Mediterranean Sea coming to a head. Late last month it was reported that Turkey had withdrawn some warships from an area off the Greek coast as the situation came a little too close to open conflict. Now, there is the very real possibility of the Egyptian Armed Forces entering into direct combat with soldiers carrying out the orders of the Turkish state in Libya.
The Haftar offensive

The Egyptian state has been backing the forces led by General Khalifa Haftar, which control Eastern Libya, known as the Libyan National Army (LNA), since early on in Libya’s civil war. Meanwhile, Erdogan’s Turkey has been in close contact with Tripoli-based GNA – now led by Fayez al-Sarraj – since its inception. The Turkish state was initially keen to protect the interests that Turkish construction companies had held in Libya since the days of Gaddafi. One contract given out by the precursor to the GNA had a Turkish company extending the coastal road in Tripoli. Most of the construction contracts from the last years of Gaddafi and the years after he was deposed soon turned to dust as civil war took hold of Libya and the country descended into barbarism.

However, now the Turkish regime has found an opportunity to turn the links it has to the GNA to its advantage.

Last year, with the support of Egypt and several other countries including France, Russia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, General Haftar launched an offensive with the aim of taking Western Libya, and in particular its capital Tripoli. This result would have given his forces decisive control over the country. The LNA did make considerable advances: by January this year they had taken the strategically important city of Sirte in the heart of the country’s ‘oil crescent’, along with Sidra – Libya’s largest oil depot. They also have control over the al-Jufra airbase – the largest in Libya – which they use as a command centre, and for importing weapons and supplies.

But Erdogan’s decision to intervene late last year has likely been a major factor in the LNA’s failure to capture Tripoli. There’s no doubt that Turkish-supplied troops and weaponry played a key role in the retaking of the al-Watiya airbase by the GNA in May this year. The LNA had been using this base as a launch pad from which to attack the Libyan capital. When it lost the base, it was forced to withdraw its forces from parts of Tripoli and come to the negotiating table.
Turkish intervention in Libya

Soon after signing the memorandum of understanding with the GNA last November, the Turkish Army began flying hundreds of soldiers over to Libya. These were not soldiers of the Turkish Army, though; they were mercenary Islamist fighters from northern Syria, who had gained experience from fighting Kurdish YPG forces and pro-Assad forces in their home country. Thousands more of these mercenaries followed earlier this year, along with armed drones. Turkish guided-missile frigates are also stationed off the Libyan coast. There is at least one confirmed case of them shooting down an LNA drone to defend Tripoli airspace. Some Turkish military officers have been sent to Libya in ‘advisory’ roles.

We have discussed Turkey’s motives for intervening directly in Libya in our previous articles. Erdogan is looking to attain a geopolitical position for Turkey in the Mediterranean region that more closely reflects its growing economic and military clout (with the second biggest army in NATO, and one of the most advanced), and his imperialist aspirations. The current situation in Libya presents the perfect opportunity for the Turkish ruling class to advance its regional position. The more immediate catalyst for the intervention, though, is the Turkish state’s desperation to get a seat at the table when newfound natural gas resources are explored in the Mediterranean Sea; and when the spoils of the Libyan Civil War (chiefly oil reserves) are divided amongst the foreign powers who meddled on the side of the victors.

It is also true that Erdogan’s imperialist dream grows in inverse proportion to the waning of his popularity and his regime’s stability at home. By portraying himself as the figurehead of a new Ottoman empire, the president hopes to distract from the devastating economic crisis and accompanying austerity measures the Turkish working class is facing. This may be a temporary fix among certain layers, but sooner or later, pent-up class division within Turkish society will burst to the fore on a mass scale.

Yet the neo-Ottoman pretensions of a wing of the Turkish ruling class, and their desperation to exploit gas reserves, are to the detriment of Turkey’s nearest rival powers – Greece and Egypt. They are having a destabilising effect on the entire Mediterranean region.
Are Egypt and Turkey on a collision course?

The idea of direct, full-blown conflict between the Egyptian and Turkey armies is still unlikely even as events in Libya continue to gather momentum towards a war footing. Each power is more than flexing its muscles, and exchanging threats which are not entirely idle in relation to the other’s actions. But the political and economic costs of a general, all-out engagement in conflict for either ruling class would be so severe that they will be extremely wary of being drawn into such a situation.

For Egypt, there is the additional danger that a war being fought on their own land border with an army the size of Turkey would bring. For Turkey, Egypt has the only standing army in the entire region which can match them for numbers and weaponry. The Turkish armed forces may have far more advanced naval and missile capabilities, but Egypt has aircraft carriers and French-produced Dassault Rafales multirole combat planes with long-range Storm Shadow missiles capable of evading lower altitude air defences. These planes were used to devastating effect in a surprise attack on the al-Watiya airbase in July, not long after it was captured by the GNA. Of course, the Egyptian Air Force didn’t acknowledge it was behind the attack.

Both military powers are aware of the damage that could be done by an opponent of these capabilities, and the huge consequences it could have for their respective regimes. They are each testing how far they could push the cause of consolidating their regime’s interests without crossing the line into open warfare. One problem with this strategy is that both regimes are prone to impulsive, heavy-handed decisions – a tendency embodied by their leaders Erdogan and President Sisi of Egypt. One false step in this situation with tensions so high could lead to a serious military clash.

Nevertheless, it’s important to recognise how the civil war in Libya is being fought to understand the limited scope for a full-scale direct intervention from either Egypt or Turkey. The Syrian mercenaries shipped over via Turkey are a slight upgrade from the rag-tag bands of Islamist militias fighting on behalf of the GNA. It’s one thing for these fighters to successfully defend the Libyan capital – the stronghold of GNA support – with the help of Turkish drones and missiles. It’s something else entirely for them to launch a counter-offensive with the aim of taking both Sirte and the al-Jufra air base, as the GNA and Erdogan claim as their next move. There are already reports of infighting between some of the native militias and the Syrian Islamists.

While General Haftar is the renegade former chief-of-staff of Gaddafi’s Libyan Army (and was later involved in a coup attempt against Gaddafi), his forces are scarcely more homogenous and well-drilled than the GNA-backed militias. Until Turkey’s entrance on the scene they were certainly better armed and funded – by Russia and the UAE in particular – but their forces on the ground are propped up by around 1,500 Russian mercenary soldiers who also have a background fighting in Syria.

These mercenaries, for their part, have taken over the port of Sidra and Libya’s largest oil fields, effectively placing the control of most of Libyan oil in Russian hands for the time being.

The scale of direct military intervention in Libya required by either Egypt or Turkey to tip the balance in the civil war fundamentally would be a huge commitment and a very big risk. Sisi’s ‘red line’ of Sirte is very unlikely ever to be crossed by GNA and Turkish-backed forces in their current form – which is probably why he used it as a threat. Egyptian ground forces are still stationed on the Libyan border as they have been since 2011. The idea of them going as far as even central Libya to grapple with thousands of heavily armed militias, when they have struggled so badly to deal with several hundred ISIL guerrilla carrying more primitive weapons in Sinai, is not very feasible. Meanwhile, for GNA forces to reach anywhere close to Sirte would need a huge operation from the Turkish side, almost certainly meaning the Turkish Army would have to put thousands of boots on the ground. The Turkish Air Force would also probably need its own air bases within Libya, given that it doesn’t have Egypt’s advantage of being only a few hundred kilometres from potential targets.

Yes, both states are committed to backing their sides in this vicious proxy war with a lot of firepower. The Egyptian government has been increasing its military spending – specifically on modernising its naval and air fleets – over the last five years with precisely this situation in mind. And from the Turkish side Erdogan means business. But this does not mean they are ready to engage in direct combat with each other.

And that’s without bringing larger imperialist powers into the equation, powers which – in the event of a war between Egypt and Turkey – would have to take some action to protect their own interests. The French government, which is backing Haftar in Libya, has already taken Erdogan’s move to intervene as a severe provocation. Their joint naval exercises with Egypt in the Mediterranean are only a hint at what could happen in the event of a full-scale Turkish invasion of Libya. Erdogan would really be playing with fire in that scenario.
The war at a stalemate

Currently, there is a stalemate between the two sides of the civil war. Haftar’s forces are fighting themselves into the ground, having been beaten back from the far west of the country, while the GNA-supporting forces are in no position to advance much further. Behind these two camps, Egypt and Turkey are testing their ability to affect the situation.

Despite all the bluster from all parties, peace talks have been taking place since May, reflecting this stalemate. These talks have been punctuated by skirmishes and displays of strength by the interfering powers, which will continue even if an agreement is reached.

What will follow will be a highly unstable and probably short-lived peace, as none of the contradictions of the civil war or the appalling social situation in Libya will have been resolved. Meanwhile, every clash between different sets of reactionary militias or crude act of chest-thumping by a foreign power heaps yet more misery on the Libyan people.
Russia and the impotence of the United States

Interestingly, it is Russia brokering the peace deal, and this was top of the agenda when Vladimir Putin met Erdogan in June. This underlines the position that Russian imperialism has now attained as the power player in the Libyan situation. It is Russian mercenaries who made the decisive difference to Haftar’s offensive – only with their support on the ground was he able to start moving into central and western Libya after years of fighting. It was Russian planes that were delivered to the al-Jufra air base prior to the bombardment of Tripoli. And now it is Russia deciding on the peace with Turkey, effectively trying to dictate terms to Erdogan.

Russian interests in Libya are not limited simply to the oil that can be plundered there. Like Erodogan’s Turkey, they are looking to play a more significant part in international relations, more befitting their rise in stature as an imperialist power. They have come out of the Syrian Civil War enormously strengthened due to the pivotal role they ended up playing, while the United States totally lost control of the situation. But Syria was already in Russia’s regional sphere of influence. Although the development of the war certainly changed the balance of forces between different imperialist countries, Russia’s involvement was no surprise. The Russian ruling class is demonstrating even more ambition by intervening in Libya as they have done.

There is a more specific reason why they are so interested in what happens to Libya, and it is to do with oil. But not just Libyan oil – Russian oil and natural gas too. For Russian oil barons, there are major concerns not only about who has control over Libyan oil but also about the hundreds of new potential sites for oil and liquid natural gas extraction in the Mediterranean, many of which are already being drilled. At the moment, the cost of extraction at most sites means that Western-backed oil companies can’t match their Russian competitors. Technology is advancing quickly, though, and the process will soon become more cost-efficient.

Both these newly-tapped reserves and Libyan oil could be factors in allowing the European market to reduce its reliance on Russian companies for fossil fuels. This is a move which is also politically expedient for European imperial powers, given their antagonism towards Russia’s strengthened position as a rival power. Russian mercenaries taking direct control of the Sidra oil port and the oil fields around Sirte (over and above Haftar’s command) is a kind of protectionist measure as well as an act of imperialist plunder.

It is also a clear signal of intent: they are very much present in the conflict over oil and gas in the Mediterranean, and will do what it takes to secure their interests. Likely this will later extend to a deal with Egypt, their ally in Libya, prioritising the rights of Russian companies to extract hydrocarbons from sites in Egyptian waters. They may even be able to work something out with Turkey on that same issue, such is the strength of their position.

The United States, on the other hand, is nowhere to be seen, despite its weapons and finances being used in both sides of the war. The Trump administration’s confused and hands-off approach to Libya is a further sign of the weakening of US imperialism, which is no longer capable of acting as the decisive factor in a situation like this one. As are the completely hopeless attempts of the United Nations to enforce the arms embargo they put in place nearly a decade ago. A UN report published at the end of last year found that several member states had “systematically violated” the embargo for some time. Anyone who’s heard anything about Libya over the last few years would wonder why a report was needed to confirm that. In February this year, a UN report on the bombing that killed 53 people at a migrant detention centre in the west-Libyan town of Tajoura last year confirmed that “a foreign state” was responsible. Which foreign state, though, didn’t seem like a detail worth mentioning!

All year, the UN has been crying out for a ceasefire in Libya, like a small dog yapping at the door while its owners carry on their day oblivious. When fighting has stopped, it’s been because Turkish-backed forces have made some progress repelling Haftar’s offensive. The wretched pleas of the United Nations have played no role whatsoever. Russian imperialism, by contrast, is now capable of playing precisely that role even in a country outside of its immediate sphere of influence.
French interests

France is another key imperialist power both in Libya and the conflict over hydrocarbons in the Mediterranean. From the beginning of the movement against Gaddafi in Libya, France saw an opportunity to carve out its own powerful position in the southern Mediterranean. The initial reticence of the United States over intervening to overthrow the regime in 2011 gave French imperialism a leading role in the intervention.

It has retained its interest in Libya ever since (France officially recognises the GNA while backing Haftar in practice), and used it as a platform to build an alliance with the Egyptian state, with whom it already had close ties. It was the French state that sold Egypt the new multirole fighter jets they have used against GNA forces in recent weeks, back in 2015. And it is France that has increased its naval presence significantly in the South-Eastern Mediterranean over recent months.

In June, a French frigate was actually targeted by the radar of a Turkish warship, leading to a serious diplomatic issue between the countries. President Macron didn’t mince his words: “I think that it’s a historic and criminal responsibility for a country that claims to be a member of NATO. We have the right to expect more from Turkey than from Russia, given that it is a member of NATO.”

Here the President of France is effectively comparing Russia – his country’s de-facto ally in the Libyan Civil War – favourably with Turkey – his country’s official ally in NATO. This episode has led to a further fragmentation of the NATO alliance, which is already riddled with contradictions following Turkey’s actions in Syria and the US’ turn towards protectionism.

Behind Macron’s hypocritical moralising about “criminal responsibility”, we see the naked interests of the French ruling class exposed. Through their involvement in Libya and alliance with Egypt, the French state hopes to be the senior partner in any agreement to explore new prospective sites for extracting hydrocarbons from the Mediterranean Sea. By offering its support to one side in the Libyan Civil War and the conflict in the South-Eastern Mediterranean, it is buying a place at the front of the queue to exploit the resources of other countries – something in which it has centuries of expertise.
Why is Egypt involved in the Libyan Civil War?

There is certainly an aspect of Egypt’s backing of Haftar, related to the infiltration of terrorists into Egypt from Libya, which the Egyptian Army has completely failed to stem. Haftar is a ruthless Bonapartist warlord who’s been able to draw together disparate elements and crush Islamist militias, among other things, in Eastern Libya. He’s a useful bulwark against terrorist infiltration – and against refugees, who have arrived in Egypt from Libya in their thousands throughout the war. He’s also Egypt’s best bet for political stability, at least in the eastern part of Libya, in the short-term, and so could be the one who paves the way for lucrative deals to be struck with Egyptian construction magnates and financiers. That explains why the Egyptian regime is behind Haftar, but not why it became so involved in the war in the first place.

The Egyptian ruling class has long harboured designs on reconstructing Libya once the war is over, and, in doing so, gaining a significant stake in the Libyan oil business. This is why Sirte, in particular, is a red line for Sisi. Despite its own sizable oil fields, Egypt is a net importer of oil. In recent years, the government has repeatedly cut oil subsidies at the insistence of its Gulf allies and the IMF, which has led to sudden jumps in prices across the Egyptian economy and the impoverishment of millions more Egyptians. The Sisi regime looks at its future involvement in the rebuilding of Libya as an opportunity to import oil more cheaply.

But the recent developments in natural gas extraction in Egypt demonstrate who would really benefit from the Sisi regime’s possible future stake in Libyan oil. It certainly wouldn’t be the 90 million Egyptians living in or close to poverty, never mind the Libyan masses who’ve suffered the complete destruction of their country through a civil war which is the direct result of imperialist meddling.

Until recently, Egypt was also a net importer of gas, until new exploratory drilling in the Mediterranean Sea and the Nile Delta led to new extraction sites being developed. These sites were only developed because Sisi privatised the majority of the oil and gas sector, meaning that multinational companies carried out the drilling so they could sell the gas to state-owned power stations in Egypt, among other buyers, for a huge profit. Incidentally, these power stations are next in line to be sold off by the state. And this profit is what lies behind the maritime deal between Egypt and Greece.

Under Sisi, Libyan oil will be used to line the ever-growing pockets of Egyptian capitalists and their friends in the multinationals. It won’t end the price rises in Egypt, which will continue until the masses can’t take it anymore and return to the streets.

To the Egyptian regime, a stabilised situation in Libya appears to be a panacea capable of solving many of the problems they are incapable of handling at home. They could bring down unemployment by exporting Egyptian workers, rake in massive oil revenues for their own ruling class, send back the thousands of refugees who fled the war that they would rather have off their hands, and cut off one channel of terrorist infiltration at its source. This partly explains the lengths to which they are willing to go to back Haftar against the meddling of the Turkish state.

But all of these aims are utterly utopian on the basis of Egyptian capitalism, even in the best case scenario, let alone in the midst of the deepest crisis in capitalism’s history. It’s more likely that Sisi’s lunatic attempts to strongarm Erdogan will incite the Egyptian masses into a movement against his regime, as they fear for their own safety and stand in solidarity with their Libyan brothers and sisters.
Down with all warmongering capitalist regimes!

In previous decades, Libya was the envy of its larger neighbour for concessions it continued to afford its working class in housing, healthcare and education on the basis of its oil wealth. Egyptian engineers and doctors would go to Libya for better pay and working conditions. After imperialist intervention, only rubble now remains of that Libya, while the Egyptian and Turkish ruling classes can add their names to the list of those foreign powers with so much Libyan blood on their hands.

And now, as the Egyptian and Turkish masses are forced to suffer ever-worsening living conditions, all their governments can think of is how to manoeuvre militarily to secure national-bourgeois interests in another country. No matter that these actions destabilise the Mediterranean region and the Middle East further, leaving the masses living in more fear and degradation as billions are spent on war machines.

The entire Libyan situation perfectly exemplifies Rosa Luxemburg’s old adage that capitalism offers us only two possible futures: socialism or barbarism.

We call on the working class organisations of Egypt and Turkey to raise their voices against the warmongering actions of their regimes. We urge them to campaign amongst the masses and rank-and-file soldiers against their country’s involvement in this barbaric civil war, and for international solidarity with the Libyan people condemned to misery.

Only the struggle for socialism, throughout the Middle East and the world, can save humanity from the further spread of barbarism.

Venezuela: The Real Enemy



By Pasqualina Curcio on August 17, 2020

https://www.resumen-english.org/2020/08/venezuela-the-real-enemy/

We began to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. imperialism in 1999 soon after Hugo Chavez came to power. From that moment on, they declared themselves our enemy, framing this as a war, not a conventional war but a war nonetheless. At the start, they were disguised with the masks of the meritocracy bureaucrats of Petróleos de Venezuela, the Federación de Cámaras y Asociaciones de Comercio y Producción), and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela, and the political elements of the opposition. Today, as they despair, their masks have fallen.

The original cause of this conflict was our decision to be free and independent and to advance toward socialism of the 21st Century, an alternative model to capitalism. It is a recognized part of this sovereign decision that we as a people shall control all the riches of resources that imperialism is seeking in order to recover some of the scope that it has been losing in the geopolitical world for decades now: gold, oil, minerals of all kinds; in addition there is our enviable strategic geographical location.

Recognizing our real enemy in this unconventional warfare is strategically necessary in order to ensure victory and the peaceful and democratic continuity of the revolutionary process, particularly now on the eve of parliamentary elections.

Those who, with a shameless and stateless attitude, tour the world asking for an increase in the economic blockade to limit the importation of food, medicine, repair parts, machinery, and supplies for national production, are enemies of the people. Those who have taken money from Washington to promote acts of violence in the streets and who have encouraged hate among Venezuelans, to the extreme of burning alive their countrymen for being Chavistas. Those who have signed contracts employing mercenaries to kill Venezuelans like the mercenaries of SilverCorp, of Gideon. Those whose pretext of humanitarian aid in January of 2019 was used to justify an invasion of our sacred territory at the Colombian border. They are the monopolies that, following the economic warfare manuals, hid and hoarded food and medicine, making people stand in long lines while those so called “political leaders” deceived their followers in December 2015, promising them a “last line.” These are also enemies.

The enemies of peace are those who manipulatively speak of the Bolivarian Revolution as a dictatorship, while they call for abstaining from voting which is an anti-democratic attitude. Those who, without proof, have cried fraud about every electoral result that has not been in their favor in the 24 elections that have taken place during 22 years. Those who demanded changes in the administration of the electoral system and nevertheless have just signaled that they won’t be participating in the next election on December 6. Those who on April 11, 2002, in the setting of a coup d’état and kidnapping of our Constitutional President Hugo Chávez, renounced our liberator Simón Bolívar, committing the shameful act of hiding his portrait in the presidential palace – they do not love their country or their people. They are the same as those who today disrespect our glorious national armed forces, offending and attempting to blackmail them with so-called promises of amnesty if they will legitimize a possible disruption in the orderly constitutional succession of power.

Our enemies are those who have attacked out currency, the bolivar, beginning in 2013, manipulating its value more than 300 billion percent via web portals, so that it has gone from 8.26 bolivars to the dollar to 300 billion bolivars to the dollar. Those same people who have used this weapon of war to cause inflation of all prices of 12,493,965,695% between January 2013 and May 2020, and to contract national production more than 50%. But, at this point, those who refuse to recognize this attack and who attempt to explain and cover up the hyperinflation with a veil of monetarist theory are also enemies. Those who celebrate new attacks on our sovereignty daily at 9am and 1pm are, also, enemies.

All of these are no more than mouthpieces for the real enemy who – and let us not make any mistake about this – are not Donald Trump who is also a spokesman, just as Barack Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton were. The real enemy is imperialism, constituted of the great multi-national corporations, financial and communications conglomerates, the owners of the Federal Reserve of the U.S., and those of the World Economic Forum of Davos. These are the great capitalist powers that feel threatened by the possibility of a just and egalitarian model, and that hate the word socialism. They are the same as those, represented by Truman as lead spokesman in 1947, of the Containment Strategy and the Cold War against the socialist hopes and aspirations of the Soviet Union.

The real enemies are the designers of the Conservative Revolution with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as figureheads, who in the 1980s established neoliberalism in Latin America, filling our people with hunger, poverty, and misery, who dismantled the Welfare state in Europe, who confessed to doing even the impossible in attempting to destroy the Bolshevik Revolution.

It is these capitalist forces, and not by chance, that were behind the coups against Federico Chaves (Paraguay, 1954), Jacobo Árbenz (Guatemala, 1954), Juan Bosch (República Dominicana, 1963), João Goulart (Brazil, 1963), Salvador Allende (Chile 1973), María Estela Martínez de Perón (Argentina, 1976), Juan José Torres (Bolivia, 1971), Manuel Zelaya (Honduras, 2009). It is they who invaded Panama in 1989, who carried out Plan Condor, who supported the Contras in Nicaragua in the 80s. Those who ordered the assassination of Ché Guevara in Higuera Bolivia in 1967. Those who for 60 years have maintained a criminal blockade of the Cuban people and for 40 years of the people of Iran those are the real enemies.

This is not just any enemy that the people of Venezuela, with all our enviable riches, have had to confront since we declared to the world our intention to be sovereign and socialist in 1999. In these 22 years of revolution we have seen what they are capable of doing, to what depth of criminality they will sink in attacking us without caring about the suffering of women, children, and elders.

The unity of the revolutionary forces is essential now more than ever, in these moments of assaults and menaces by U.S. imperialism, as is mass participation by our patriotic people at the polls in the coming elections.

Let us not see specters where they do not exist. Let us not lose perspective or get distracted. The real enemy is imperialism. We should concentrate all our forces on defeating it, in recognizing that the attack on the bolivar currency is the most powerful and effective weapon that has been employed economically against Venezuelans. We should do everything possible to destroy this weapon. We must concentrate on circumventing and dealing with the commercial and financial blockade instead of using it as an excuse. The Russians, Cubans, and Iranians have a lot to teach us.

The only way to defeat the real enemy is to deepen the Bolivarian Revolution and this occurs when we, day by day, in all our areas, decisions, and actions, ask the unfailing question about them Comandante Hugo Chávez: “And where is the Socialism there?” This should be our guide to defeating the real enemy.

Trump’s Venezuela Regime Change Alliance Dwindles, but Trudeau Hangs On





By Arnold August on August 17, 2020




https://www.resumen-english.org/2020/08/trumps-venezuela-regime-change-alliance-dwindles-but-trudeau-hangs-on/




On December 6, Venezuelans will go to the polls to elect a new National Assembly. Since the last election in 2016, self-declared interim president and opposition leader Juan Guaidó has seen his domestic popularity—and his standing among many foreign nations—slide.

In fact, upon Guaidó’s return last year from an international tour—financed by the United States—to seek backing for more sanctions and the ouster of elected president Nicolás Maduro, Guaidó was booed out of the Caracas airport. Such was the anger of ordinary Venezuelans against an individual who recently signed a contract with US-based mercenaries to overthrow the government in a bizarre failed plot that has come to be known as the “Bay of Piglets.”

Now, Guaidó and right-wing factions within the National Assembly are boycotting the elections, as opposition leaders have vowed not to recognize the “false” electoral body designated by the Supreme Court. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV) and its allies are expected to win on December 6.

While Guaidó’s standing in Venezuela is currently at rock bottom, the self-declared interim leader has also seen much of his international support evaporate. According to an August 14 press statement issued by the US State Department entitled “Joint Declaration of Support for Democratic Change in Venezuela”:

We call on all political parties and institutions in Venezuela to engage promptly in, or in support of, a process that will establish a broadly acceptable transitional government that will administer free and fair presidential elections soon and begin to set the country on a pathway to recovery. For a peaceful and sustainable resolution of the crisis, a transitional government is needed to administer presidential elections, so that no candidate has an improper advantage over others.

For its part, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) issued an identical statement, calling for a “swift and peaceful transition to democracy” in Venezuela.

Like Venezuela’s opposition leaders, US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will not recognize the upcoming legislative elections. They have instead demanded “a process that will establish a broadly acceptable transitional government that will administer free and fair presidential elections,” which are not yet due, and which would necessarily exclude Maduro. This is the usual formula: one that establishes a pretext for more sanctions, violent regime change actions and open coup attempts, all geared to stoke a revolt among the Venezuelan people and a mutiny among the armed forces.

However, the press statement issued by the US State Department and GAC is notable because of the dwindling number of ally countries that are now “committed to the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.” What used to be a long list of more than 50 nations is now down to just 19: Albania, Australia, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

This is a far cry from the formerly extensive coalition of dozens of states that have heretofore unequivocally recognized and supported Guaidó. The State Department could not even get sign-on from all of the members of the Lima Group—the multilateral body consisting of 14 countries, including Canada, that is dedicated to a “peaceful exit to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.” Thus, the list of partner states now includes Israel, along with some of the most servile allies of the US (and notable violators of human rights and democracy) such as Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, and Haiti.

More intriguingly, the two rivals to Canada’s defeated bid for a United Nations Security Council Seat last June, Norway and Ireland, do not appear on the list of countries dedicated to “an end to the Maduro dictatorship.” This appears to vindicate those who had lobbied the UN and other international organizations to reject Canada’s campaign for a UNSC seat, citing the Trudeau government’s support for anti-democratic actions in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Haiti, to name just a few examples.

Even many in the US Congress admitted the failure of the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy in a recent hearing.

“Our Venezuela policy over the last year and a half has been an unmitigated disaster,” said Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “If we aren’t honest about that, then we can’t self-correct.” Murphy continued, declaring that US support for Venezuela’s opposition forces has handed Maduro an opportunity to label Guaidó an ‘American patsy’ while hardening support for his government around the world.

Ironically, Trump may have been better off if he considered some of the diplomatic overtures coming from within the Venezuelan government. Its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jorge Arreaza, wrote an op-ed for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), stating, “Trump would do better if he followed his initial instinct of talking to President Maduro. A respectful dialogue with Venezuela is what is really in the interest of the United States.”

It is not surprising that Senator Murphy’s admission of failed coup attempts at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on August 4 has become a popular YouTube video. During the hearing, Murphy pressed Special Representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, on the administration’s disastrous policy on Venezuela, which has “left America in a weaker position, failed to restore democracy, and allowed the humanitarian situation to worsen.” Murphy continued:

“We thought that getting Guaidó to declare himself president would be enough to topple the regime. Then we thought putting aid on the border would be enough. Then we tried to sort of construct a kind of coup in April of last year, and it blew up in our face when all the generals that were supposed to break with Maduro decided to stick with him in the end… I think this is just a prescription to get stuck in a downwards spiral of American policy from which we cannot remove ourselves”.

The Canadian media should take a similarly critical stance toward the Trudeau government’s dubious attempts to oust the Maduro regime, including its failure to condemn Guaidó for his partnership with armed US mercenaries to foment a violent coup within Venezuela. Anything less is an endorsement of generations of failed US-led policies in Latin America, ones that have contributed to violence and destabilization throughout the entire hemisphere.




Source: Canadian Dimension

How the US helped push Lebanon to the brink of collapse, and now threatens more sanctions




While the media blames the crisis in Lebanon solely on corruption, the US government unleashed a “maximum pressure” campaign to push regime change and crush Lebanese resistance with sanctions and aggressive hybrid warfare.


By Ben Norton



https://thegrayzone.com/2020/08/13/us-lebanon-sanctions-regime-change/

As the people of Lebanon suffer through one of the worst economic crises in their nation’s conflict-ridden history, the Donald Trump administration is exploiting the disaster to force regime change and weaken Lebanese resistance groups.

A massive explosion on August 4 devastated Lebanon’s capital Beirut, killing more than 150 people, wounding thousands, leaving hundreds of thousands homeless, and ravaging a sizable chunk of the city.

The massive blast also destroyed Lebanon’s most important port, where 80 percent of food was imported into the country.

Even before the apocalyptic incident, Lebanon was enduring an economic calamity that had caused hyperinflation and wiped out the wealth of much of the country, fueling widespread food shortages and 20-hour blackouts.

Lebanon’s economy is now in a state of total collapse. The value of its national currency has plummeted by 80 percent, and more than half of the population is languishing in poverty.

Political kingpins, activists, Western government-funded NGOs, and international corporate media have blamed Lebanon’s problems solely on corruption. And there is no question that widespread financial impropriety and outright theft was a key factor in bringing the country to such a dismal point.

But an even more important element that has been conveniently left out of this picture is the role of the United States, and its allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia, which have pursued a concerted policy of destabilization, or what they call “maximum pressure.”

Washington has suffocated Lebanon and its neighbors with aggressive economic warfare, explicitly aimed at paralyzing the country and weakening Hezbollah, one of the most powerful and popular resistance forces in the region, which has successfully resisted US and Israeli interventionist designs, helped defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, and even expelled the Israeli military after two decades of brutal military occupation of south Lebanon.

Hezbollah has a political arm that is democratically elected, holding 12 seats in Lebanon’s parliament, and which has been a member of the country’s governing coalition for a decade. Because of the resistance movement’s presence in government, Washington and Tel Aviv have refused to recognize the legitimacy of Lebanese democracy, and have desperately pursued regime change.

The crushing sanctions Washington has imposed on Syria and Iran have not only devastated the economies in the area; they have produced a ricochet effect back in Lebanon, severing the country from regional trading partners.

Then there is the nine-year Western-backed proxy war on the government in Damascus, which has destabilized Lebanon’s neighbor and unleashed a historic refugee crisis, putting enormous pressure on Beirut.

All of these factors have led to a catastrophe in Lebanon.
Trump administration pushes ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Lebanon

The response of the Trump administration to the fateful Beirut blast was more sanctions.

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 12 that the US government was preparing to impose new sanctions “against prominent Lebanese politicians and businessmen in an effort to weaken Hezbollah’s influence.”

The newspaper noted that the blast “has accelerated efforts in Washington to blacklist Lebanese leaders aligned with Hezbollah.” It added that US officials see the post-explosion chaos as “an opportunity to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and its allies as part of a broader effort to contain the Shiite force backed by Tehran.”

Top US officials want to “turn the screws in Lebanon,” the Journal reported. It quoted an unnamed official who remarked, “I don’t see how you can react to this kind of event with anything other than maximum pressure” – a reference to the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign to bring about regime change in Iran.




Senior US officials remarked bluntly that they want Lebanon’s current government to be replaced with a “technocratic” regime that shuns Hezbollah.

This demand confirmed a 2019 report in The Grayzone by journalist Rania Khalek, which detailed how Western-backed NGOs in Lebanon were exploiting anti-corruption protests to advance a strategy to remove Hezbollah from the country’s governing coalition and install US-aligned, IMF-friendly technocrats.

The Wall Street Journal also acknowledged that the Trump “administration’s existing sanction programs against Hezbollah” have already “taken an economic toll” on Lebanon.

Washington has therefore made it clear that it has no problem pushing Lebanon deeper into the economic abyss, to the edge of state collapse, in hopes of neutralizing Hezbollah.
Washington’s all-out war on the ‘Resistance Axis’

The crisis in Lebanon cannot be understood outside of the wider context of the overarching, obsessive US strategy aimed at crushing what is known as the “Resistance Axis,” in which Hezbollah serves as a key actor.

The ongoing, nearly decade-long war on Syria looms large in this situation. When the US government and its allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey initiated a regime-change war against Syria in 2011 and 2012, Hezbollah immediately recognized the proxy conflict as an attack on all resistance forces in the region, which would inevitably swallow Lebanon as well.

So while Washington and the Wahhabi Gulf monarchies poured billions of dollars into arming and training Salafi-jihadist rebels groups in Syria, giving birth to ISIS and fueling the spread of al-Qaeda, Lebanese Hezbollah helped to prevent state collapse in Damascus, battling Western proxies that threatened to turn the country into a failed state, as they did in Libya after the 2011 NATO regime-change war.

Some US lawmakers openly argued in Congress that it was a “good thing” that ISIS and other Sunni extremists were attacking “Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us.” And an Israeli think tank funded by the US government and NATO even insisted in 2016 that ISIS should not be defeated, precisely because it could “be a useful tool in undermining” Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

Meanwhile, as Israel treated al-Qaeda militants in its hospitals and Israeli officials said they preferred ISIS staying in power, Hezbollah played a key role in the fight to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which had crossed from Syria into Lebanon and took over Sunni-majority border towns, which they subsequently used as bases to launch attacks on Shia- and Christian-majority Lebanese villages.

Hezbollah successfully expelled these extremist Salafi-jihadist groups, and defended Lebanese sovereignty, in collaboration with Christian militias, Sunnis and Druze, and the Lebanese national army itself.

Faced with its own failure in the military component of the war in Syria, Washington then turned to full-scale economic warfare.
US economic warfare on Lebanon, Syria, and Iran

In June, the US government imposed a crushing unilateral coercive measures regime on Syria known as the “Caesar” sanctions. The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal detailed how the US and European sanctions on Syria effectively amount to a medieval-style siege of the entire country, and all of the millions of civilians who live inside of it.

Humanitarian experts have even warned that the Western economic warfare could unleash a famine. The United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization’s Syria representative, Mike Robson, cautioned there may soon be bread shortages in Syria. “There is already some evidence of people cutting out meals,” he stated.

The economic blockade has also damaged the economy in Lebanon, which has been virtually unable to do business with one of its most important trading partners. In 2017, Lebanon was by far the largest recipient of Syrian goods, receiving nearly 32 percent of its exports. Now, the sanctions have made that exchange nearly impossible.

The US ambassador in fact explicitly stated that Lebanon would not be allowed to buy energy from Syria due to the Caesar sanctions. The US-imposed severance of the two neighbors has exacerbated the electricity crisis in Lebanon, where there are often power shortages for up to 22 hours per day.

The US economic blockade of Iran has also caused a fuel shortage in Syria, forcing people to wait in lines for hours to get gasoline.

Moreover, Damascus had relied on the Beirut port for imports prior to the explosion. Now that its crucial economic lifeline has been destroyed, both Lebanon and Syria are facing extremely severe crises and the serious possibility of famine.

A Syrian-American economist, financial analyst, and prominent online commentator known by the pseudonym Ehsani told The Grayzone “there is little doubt” that the Syria war has terribly impacted Lebanon’s economy.

While disastrous, fiscally unsound policies overseen by the Lebanese central bank – which is also heavily influenced by the US embassy – played an important role in pushing the nation to the economic brink, the war on Syria has also hurt the Lebanese economy “in a big way,” Ehsani said.

“Economic growth clearly decelerated since 2011,” the start of the war in Syria, he explained. “And it ground to a halt in the past few years, leading up to the financial crisis. Between 2016 and 2019, Lebanon’s economic growth was practically zero. And it kept declining from its pre-2011 levels steadily.”

While corruption is an endemic problem in Lebanon, it has plagued the country for decades. Yet a pivotal economic shift occurred with the introduction of the US policy of exacerbating the crises in the region to destabilize independent governments and weaken the Resistance Axis, explained journalist Elijah J. Magnier, a war correspondent who has covered the region for decades.

“The US sanctions crippled the Syrian economy due to the restriction of the flow of cash, oil, and machinery needed to re-boost the local economy,” Magnier told The Grayzone. “Moreover, the US presence in north-east Syria and their control of the oil and gas prevented the country not only from vital energy but also from the rich agriculture resources the area is known for.”

“The US sanctions on Syria stopped all Arab and Gulf countries from rebuilding the country and pushed back all possible financial investment,” he said. “This has caused the devaluation of the local currency and prevented the Lebanese market from offering an alternative to Syria for fear of direct sanctions on the Lebanese government.”

Magnier added: “As far as it concerns Lebanon, the US asked a local bank to collect over $20 billion in cash and to ship it abroad, creating a real thirst for foreign currency in the country. Moreover, the US imposed sanctions on wealthy Lebanese living abroad and on more than one bank, injecting real fear among the population of being accused of supporting terrorism or seeing their savings confiscated by the US authorities abroad. That has starved Lebanon of several billion dollars in cash that family members used to send back home to their relatives.”
US boasts of impact of sanctions on Lebanon, and CENTCOM commander visits

While imposing de facto economic blockades on Syria and Iran, the United States has hit Lebanon with several rounds of what it calls “targeted sanctions.” These US Treasury sanctions on Lebanon have sought to punish Hezbollah and its allies in the government and business sector.

While Washington portrays targeted sanctions as supposed humanitarian measures that do not hurt civilians, economic experts say this is patently false.

Ehsani, the Syrian-American economist, told The Grayzone, “The effects of the US sanctions on the region is to push most business transactions underground. Lawless rogue elements typically fill the void as more legitimate businesses exit the scene. Such legitimate businesses do this because most global organizations opt to follow an ‘over-compliance’ posture to avoid any chance of getting entangled in such transactions.”

US sanctions have also hurt Lebanon by “the loss of potential money inflows that had fallen under significantly more scrutiny from US Treasury,” Ehsani added. “How much of the average $7-8 billion yearly inflow got affected by these sanctions is hard to ascertain.”

“While Western capitals speak of ‘smart sanctions,’ the fact is that even industries exempt from sanctions tend to quickly fall under the sanctions regime. This can be seen with importers of raw materials for medicine for example,” he explained.

“What has been clear is that benign sanctions are a myth,” Ehsani said. “Sanctions are akin to carpet bombing the standards of living of the average citizen.”

Before the August 4 explosion, Washington itself acknowledged that its sanctions were stinging Lebanon.

Just two weeks before the Beirut blast, the US government-run media outlet Voice of America (VOA) celebrated the effect its coercive measures were having. “US Sanctions on Syria Leave Hezbollah More Isolated in Lebanon,” it gloated.

The VOA report noted that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had described the US sanctions as part of an “economic war” aimed at “starving both Syria and Lebanon.”

The neoconservative group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) approvingly tweeted the VOA article, insisting that the resistance “network is vast, but it can be reined in.”




This VOA report came on the heels of a quiet yet important visit that the commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), General Frank McKenzie, took to Beirut on July 8, to pressure the Lebanese Army to distance itself from Hezbollah and strengthen its bonds with the US military.

The US embassy in Lebanon reported that the CENTCOM commander met with top Lebanese political and military officials. Lebanese President Michel Aoun tweeted a photo of a meeting with McKenzie and the US ambassador, Dorothy Shea.




Saudi monarchy-backed media outlet Al Arabiya reported gleefully on the CENTCOM visit, chirping, “US general affirms support for Lebanon; Hezbollah supporters burn Trump photos.”

The quiet US junket demonstrated that, on the eve of the Beirut blast, Washington was already ratcheting up its pressure on Lebanon’s government.



Western governments, NGOs, and media try to pin Beirut blast on Hezbollah

The August 4 explosion appears to have been the result of the explosion of thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate that the Lebanese government confiscated from an abandoned ship in 2013 and improperly stored at the Beirut port, violating safety protocol.

The Lebanese government, which resigned a week after the blast, officially attributed the incident to negligence. But President Michel Aoun acknowledged it could have possibly been the result of an attack.

Some Beirut residents told Asia Times that they saw and heard military aircraft flying overhead moments before the explosion.

Asia Times also reported, citing unnamed Western officials, “that Western reconnaissance craft were in the skies above the Lebanese coast at the time of the blasts,” although the officials denied carrying out an attack.

A US Central Command official told Asia Times that the “cause of the first fire/explosion is still an unanswered question,” adding that there is no “actual evidence to support or confirm that” it was caused by ammonium nitrate, and that “other alternatives” are possible.

Although the incident appears to have been an accident, some Lebanese analysts have suggested the blast could have potentially been an attack by Israel, which militarily occupied south Lebanon for more than 20 years and waged a devastating war in 2006, brutally bombing Lebanon and leaving more than 1,000 Lebanese dead and parts of the country in ruins.

Israel violates Lebanon’s sovereign airspace on a daily basis. In 2019, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon reported an average of 96.5 violations each month. UN Secretary-General António Guterres even spoke out against the Israeli aggression, stating, “I reiterate my condemnation of all violations of Lebanese sovereignty and my call for Israel to cease its violations of Lebanese airspace.”

Despite the presence of Western aircraft during the explosion, the history of Israeli attacks, and the constant Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace, there has been a concerted campaign to try to pin the blast on Hezbollah, waged by the US and Israeli governments, a coterie of hawkish think tanks, and a sizable portion of the corporate media.

There is not even a scintilla of evidence linking Hezbollah to the explosion. In fact, the Lebanese resistance group would have everything to lose if it were involved.

But this didn’t stop the Atlantic Council, NATO’s de facto think tank, which is funded handsomely by the governments of the United States, Britain, and United Arab Emirates, along with top weapons and oil corporations. The Atlantic Council’s Gulf monarchy-backed Rafik Hariri Center tried to link Hezbollah to the blast with nothing more than insinuations.




Then there was the hawkish executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth. Never one to let something like a dearth of evidence get in the way of his mindless speculation about Washington’s foreign adversaries, Roth immediately implied after the blast that Hezbollah was responsible. He did not provide a shred of evidence; it was just his gut instinct.

Pro-Western protesters in Lebanon have also seized on the chaos to call for the dissolution of the Lebanese armed resistance.

Following the explosion, anti-Hezbollah groups took over Lebanese government buildings and unfurled banners calling for Beirut to demilitarize — an obvious demand for Hezbollah to put down its weapons and end its fight against Israel.




The US embassy in Beirut openly welcomed these demonstrations, tweeting openly, “We support them.”



US pledges ‘aid’ while intentionally exacerbating Lebanon’s economic crisis

Even as the Trump administration threatens to impose more aggressive sanctions on Lebanon, seeking to punish forces that support the Resistance Axis, the US government has pledged humanitarian aid to the country.

Moments after the explosion, Washington put its public relations operations into hyperdrive, seeking to portray itself as a noble protector of Lebanon.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – the former CIA director who quipped, “We lied, we cheated, we stole; we had entire training courses” – promised support following the blast.




The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a soft-power arm that Washington uses to destabilize foreign governments it has targeted for regime change, announced it would be providing Lebanon with humanitarian aid.

John Barsa, the hardline neoconservative Trump loyalist recently installed as head of the USAID, who has explicitly used the ostensible aid agency as a weapon to overthrow the progressive governments in Latin America, announced support for Lebanon the next day.




US Central Command revealed that they were working with USAID to distribute medical supplies to Lebanon.




Ironically, in the weeks before the explosion, as Lebanon’s government begged for an economic lifeline, Washington was dragging its feet.

As millions of Lebanese citizens struggled to put food on the table, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also refused to play ball. This baffled many international observers. Left unmentioned in coverage of the IMF’s behavior was the de facto veto the US holds in the organization, which it wields as a neoliberal instrument of Washington’s economic power.

“The IMF conditions include privatization and taxes the Lebanese society can’t afford,” the journalist Elijah Magnier explained to The Grayzone. “Moreover, the IMF is controlled by the US administration, which is asking for a new government without Hezbollah. That is not feasible because Hezbollah represents 13 MPs and enjoys the support of the majority of the parliament.”

Magnier also emphasized that when Lebanon had assembled a new government in the middle of the crisis, under Prime Minister Hassan Diab, Washington waged a destabilization campaign.

“With the formation of a new government, the US boycotted it and pressured Europe and the Gulf countries to cease any support, defining it as ‘Hezbollah’s government,'” Magnier said. “These measures contributed in the hectic financial situation in the country, which was also triggered by decades of corruption and mismanagement by the US friends who ruled Lebanon for all these years.”

The pro-Israel lobby group the American Jewish Committee (AJC) let the cat out of the bag when it tweeted on August 9 that international assistance to Lebanon following the explosion “must be conditioned on the long-promised, long-avoided disarmament of Hezbollah.”

AJC made it clear that Western aid will be hung over Lebanon like a sword of Damocles, adding, “Unless the malignant role of Iran’s terror proxy is addressed there will never be meaningful change for the people of Lebanon.”




Magnier also pointed out that the amount in international aid being offered to Lebanon is relatively little. “35 countries gathered all to offer to the UN and NGOs in Lebanon $300 million, the equivalent of what Hezbollah spend in less than five months in the country, only on salaries,” he said.

Meanwhile, as millions of Lebanese civilians suffer, financial analysts expect the US campaign of economic warfare and “maximum pressure” to only continue going forward.

“The sanctions policy are likely to stay,” Ehsani told The Grayzone. “This policy is more acceptable to the average Western electorate than direct military involvement. Policy makers are therefore likely to make more use of them post the Iraq debacle. Regional governments and average citizens will bear the brunt of this silent evisceration of their economic well being.”




The Tight Rope is going live at the Democratic National Convention Thursday, Aug 20th from 9-11pm ET















DNC Live Watch Party














The Tight Rope is going live at the Democratic National Convention Thursday, Aug 20th from 9-11pm ET!

Tune in to hear Howie Hawkins, Angela Walker, Zephyr Teachout, and other's speeches along with expert commentary and insights from Dr. West and Professor Rose.

Sign up for reminders of the event here:



Sign Up for the Event





Thank you to The Real News Network for helping produce this special event.





“That tight rope, it gets slippery at times, but we stay on it. We keep on moving.” - Cornel West







Progressives: hold your nose and eat the Biden shit sandwich



from David Sirota's TMI newsletter

[...]

Democratic officials decided to turn this year’s convention into a promotional platform for Republican icons who attacked unions, laid off thousands of workers, promoted climate denial, endangered 9/11 survivors and lied us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

I’m also not glum just because the Democrats’ presidential standard-bearer is often an uninspiring mishmash of incoherent here’s-the-deal colloquialisms that mean nothing.

I think the despair is deeper — and has something to do with the now-yawning gap between social expectation and reality.

Right now, if you are following politics at all, you are asked to feel chipper and energized. We are expected — no, required — to conjure 2008-level enthusiasm during this even darker time than the financial crisis, all so that we can move into a new, glorious moment of Hope™.

Enthusiasm, though, comes from the assumption that the the process is authentic and that what we’re told by our leaders is real. But that feeling has waned, because there is no pretense. For all the high-minded rhetoric, everyone on all sides of this situation — and I mean literally everyone — knows that Democratic politics today is more about brand and pantomime than about power and legislative action. You may not say it out loud, you may not like thinking about it — but I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, because somewhere deep down in there, everyone senses the fraudulence at hand.

This is a moment of apolitical crises — that is, crises that aren’t just manufactured by and confined to the political soundstage, but instead life-and-death, out-here-in-the-real-world emergencies in the realms of money, biology and ecology. We’re facing an economic and environmental collapse in the midst of a lethal pandemic. And we’re going through this cataclysm with a legislative branch controlled by right-wing senators, a court system that rubber stamps corporate demands and an authoritarian president whose major crisis-management experience was firing people on The Apprentice.

And yet, in the middle of this five-alarm garbage fire, we’re asked to white-knuckle it and feign excitement for an opposition party machine run by insiders, lobbyists and careerists who keep letting us know that they think campaign promises are distinct from policy. In so many ways, they keep telling us over and again that the most we can hope for is, in the words of the nominee himself, that “nothing would fundamentally change.”

There has certainly been a lot of inspiring talk about the health care emergency and the climate crisis and oligarchy, but the party platform says it all.

During a recession that has resulted in millions losing health insurance, Medicare for All is nowhere to be found in the platform. During climate-intensified wildfires, inland hurricanes and — yes, really — fire tornados, the platform’s section on ending fossil fuel subsidies was removed. The lobbyists who run the DNC also killed an initiative to reduce the influence of corporate money on the party. Meanwhile, Joe Biden himself rolled out a whole package of legislative promises, and then told his Wall Street donors that, in fact, changing corporate behavior is “not going to require legislation” and he won’t be proposing any. Please clap.
Brent Welder @BrentWelderToday as a @BernieSanders nominee on the @DNC Rules Committee I proposed an anti-corruption amendment to ban corporate PAC money to the DNC, and to ban corp lobbyists from serving on the DNC. The Biden camp recruited a corp lobbyist on the Rules Cmte to speak against it, then...


July 30th 20202,373 Retweets9,439 Likes


The worst part is that dispassionately recounting any of these facts obviously proves you love Trump and Putin — at least that’s what you’ll be told if you dare even whisper this. In our tribalized politics, war is peace, freedom is slavery and dissent is disloyalty. Failure to match the rah-rah spirit of the Blue Team, refusal to get psyched for the charade, asking questions about inconvenient facts — it all means you must be on the Red Team and are being paid in rubles, comrade.

As an electoral strategy, this kind of vote shaming and dissent suppression doesn’t have a winning track record. It is both immoral and bad politics. There must be a better strategy — and for the love of god, with polls now tightening, the world needs the Democrats to find one fast, because another Trump term is unthinkable.

Either way, the constant, incessant demand to be happy about fraudulence — the insistence that we put on a smile and insinuate that the New Deal is on the ballot — is shamefully dishonest. It helps make the whole process into exactly what Ohio Sen. Nina Turner described: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of shit in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still shit.”

This is demoralizing for obvious reasons, but to feel demoralized is to feel like you’re crazy and alone — because it requires you to deviate from the norm of blissful and willful ignorance. It requires you to pay attention and reject a culture that tries to turn you into a goldfish, forgetting your entire world every 15 minutes.

To be demoralized at this political moment is to remember that for all the great progressive oratory during the convention, the Democratic presidential ticket is the guy who wrote the crime bill, spearheaded the bankruptcy bill and worked with Republicans to authorize the Iraq War -- and, oh yeah, a runningmate who blocked her law enforcement staff from prosecuting Steve Mnuchin.

To be demoralized is to feel momentarily uplifted by Michelle Obama’s inspiring convention speech deriding our “greed is good” culture from her Martha’s Vineyard castle — and to then remember that the Obama administration knowingly fortified that culture when it protected the Wall Street firms that destroyed millions of lives during the financial crisis.

To be demoralized is to make the mistake I made during my family break — to sit along the shore of Lake Michigan and for some reason reject a mindless beach novel and instead read Ron Suskind’s old book Confidence Men. That tome meticulous recounts Obama and Biden promising real health care reform during the 2008 campaign, and then steamrolling a public option -- and dishonestly pretending they never even pushed such a modest reform in the first place (they did). The book reads like a cautionary tale of what could come during the next Democratic presidency — especially if you believe the signals already coming from Capitol Hill.
David Sirota @davidsirotaA reminder from @RonSuskind’s book: Dems used their congressional majorities to kill the popular public option & replace it with the unpopular individual mandate in a bill expanding the power of the insurance industry — and then Dems immediately got destroyed in the 2010 election


August 13th 202071 Retweets150 Likes


To be demoralized, in other words, is to remember -- and that’s not what Democrats do in America.

Minds are wiped and Iraq War architects become Resistance heroes and Democratic convention speakers. Memories are scrubbed and Wall Street thieves become Democratic economic gurus and treasury secretaries. Amnesia takes hold and the Democratic governor of Mount Covid becomes a pandemic mancrush. Democrats lose a presidential campaign to Donald Trump by defending the Washington establishment — and now four years later they are running the same Washington valor campaign again, telling themselves they’re too legit to quit, baby.

Our society is not interested in recollection and learning from the past. We are immersed in short-attention-span media and propaganda that doesn’t want us to remember, and therefore goes out of its way to omit mention of historical context.

Indeed, this is part of why it’s almost sad that podcasts like Slow Burn seem like such wonderful aberrations -- they are fascinating because they resurface lost history, but it shouldn’t be such a fascinating novelty because political history should never be lost in the first place. Memory is the last defense against repeating catastrophes — but we choose to live in the memory hole.

On the long drive back from Michigan, I listened to some of those lost-history podcasts, and their themes mixed with my recent reading of Confidence Men. That first morning back home, I laid in bed scrolling the news with that feeling of dread, wondering whether we have forgotten the most important history of all: the history of how authoritarianism rises.

We’ve seen this parable over and over again - elite-run, neoliberal governments are democratically elected and then do not economically deliver for the vast majority of the population, creating popular frustration and the political space for a right-wing strongman to seize power.

This is the taboo tale tying together the Obama and Trump eras. Though oversimplified, the broad strokes are clear: A populist campaign won the election, before an elite-run administration capitulated to corporate power, sowing frustration and disillusionment, which helped a demagogue peddling racism and sexism successfully vault himself into the presidency.

We’ve been lucky that Trump is so narcissistic, clumsy and inept -- in many cases, his own idiocy has inhibited his ability to make things even worse than they are.

However, if our goldfish culture means we omit inconvenient facts and no longer allow ourselves to remember that journey from Obama to Trump, then what is to prevent us from repeating the journey again?

If we forget how bad the old “normal” was and just have to go back to a Wall Street-run White House championing incrementalism in the face of existential crises, what is to stop another Trump from emerging afterwards?

If the 2009 capitulations of a new Democratic president, his party and liberal groups in Washington become the 2021 capitulations of a new Democratic president, today’s party and liberal groups, then what is to prevent 2024 from ending up like 2016, only with President Tom Cotton?

I probably should’ve read a pulp novel during my time off because I don’t want these questions haunting my mind. I’d prefer that innocent, moronically naive hope I felt standing with tens of thousands of others when Obama visited Denver at the very end of the 2008 campaign.

But now here in the middle of the country, with the sun blocked out by wildfire ash, with people losing jobs and health care, with schools closed, with a Democratic governor refusing to halt evictions -- I can’t find that feeling. It’s gone.

That doesn’t mean I don’t know what to do when I get my ballot. I know I’ll have to deliver it to a drop box rather than by mail if I want to make sure it gets there on time. And I know to vote the Democratic ticket because I live in a swing state and I know that fascism’s bid for reelection must be defeated.

But I also know that the threat of fascism isn’t going away after November, so don’t ask me to be excited or feel happy.

[...]




Reaganland and the Rise of the New Right



You're invited to join us for a Prospect virtual event...


Monday, August 24, Noon Eastern


Over two decades (and more than three thousand pages), Rick Perlstein has published definitive works about the emerging dominance of conservatism in American politics: Before the Storm (2002), Nixonland (2008), and The Invisible Bridge (2014). Now, the saga's final installment, Reaganland — covering the years from Jimmy Carter's election to his defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan — has been released.

Perlstein's body of work explains the nation's journey from rejecting Barry Goldwater as a dangerous ideologue to embracing Reagan, who had much the same agenda. New Right organization and a pallid Democratic Party at war with itself led to this outcome, and the result helped produce the world we live in now.

On the first day of the Republican National Convention, Perlstein joins Prospect executive editor David Dayen for a one-hour discussion about the lessons of the 1970s and the rise of the conservative movement, as well as where it finds itself today.








CLICK HERE TO REGISTER















Advance registration is limited! However, the session will be live-streamed on YouTube, and a recording will be posted after the event. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing a personal link to join.