Chinese President Xi Jinping on Russian-Chinese partnership in WW II– “To remember history, to open the future”

Translation in Unz Review, May 9, 2015
By Anatoly Karlin

xi-jinping-and-patriarch

Xi Jinping (pictured right, meeting the Patriarch Kirill) penned an op-ed in a Russian newspaper on May 6th in which, in stark contrast to the typical Western bile and hostility, he acknowledges the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Nazism and warns off against attempts to revise that outcome, be it on paper or in real life.

I am translating it in full for two reasons.

First, it constitutes a first-hand glance at official relations between China and Russia, which – much to the consternation of neocons, Russophobes, Sinophobes, and Western imperialists – are instead of fighting each other for make benefit of the US are instead building strong relations and continuing to ink dozens of deals whose total value now probably stands at close to a trillion dollars.

Second, to explicitly give the lie to Western propaganda that Russia is somehow “isolated” by the fact that none of Washington’s European stooges turned up at the Victory Day parade in Moscow this May 9th. Who cares? Not many Russians, at any rate. China, India, and dozens of other countries did turn up. That’s the world’s second superpower and the representatives of half of humanity. As for Obama, Merkel, Hollande, and Dave – quite frankly, the air is cleaner for their absence.

*Soundtrack – Russians and Chinese are Brothers Forever*

To Remember History, To Open the Future

by Xi Jinping

On May 9th, Victory Day in the world war against fascism, at the invitation of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, I will visit Russia and take part in the celebrations in Moscow devoted to the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This sacred day I will celebrate together with the Russian people and the entire world.

Everyone remembers that the aggressive wars begun by the fascists and militarists inflicted unprecedented damage and suffering on the peoples of China, Russia, and the countries of Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world. The relentless struggle between justice and evil, light and darkness, freedom and slavery, was joined by the peoples of China, Russia, and more than 50 other countries, as well as by all the other peace-loving peoples of the world, who stood up as one and formed a broad international anti-fascist and anti-militarist front. All these nations fought in bloody battles against the enemy, and in so doing defeated the most evil and brutal aggressors, bringing peace to the world.

I remember, in March 2013, when I first visited Russia on a state visit, I laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near the Kremlin walls. There was a depiction of a soldier’s helmet and a red banner on the tomb, and there burned an eternal fire, symbolizing the unbroken life and unwavering fearlessness of our fallen heroes. “Your name is unknown, your deeds are immortal.” They will never be forgotten by the Russian people, the Chinese people, or anyone else.

China was the main theater of military operations in Asia during the Second World War. The Chinese people stood up before anyone else in the struggle against the Japanese militarists, waged the longest war, fought in the hardest conditions, and, like Russia, suffered the most enormous losses. The Chinese army and people fought stoically and persistently, locking down and destroying numerous contingents of the Japanese aggressors. At the cost of a huge national sacrifice – the lives of more than 35 million people – a great victory was finally won and an enormous contribution was made to victory in the world struggle against fascism. The exploits of the Chinese people in the war against the militarists, just like the exploits of the Russian people, will be immortalized forever in history and will never die.

The Chinese and Russian peoples supported each other, helped each other, they were comrades in arms in the war against fascism and militarism, and built a friendship with each other forged with blood and life. In the most difficult times of the Great Patriotic War, many of the best sons and daughters of the Chinese people decisively joined in the battle against German fascism. Mao Anying – the eldest son of Chairman Mao Zedong – fought on many battles as a political officer of a tank company of the 1st Belorussian Front, up to the storming of Berlin. The Chinese fighter pilot Tang Duo, as deputy commander of a fighter company of the Soviet Army, distinguished himself in air battles against the fascist forces. Children of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and descendants of the fallen heroes of the Chinese Revolution, when studying at the Ivanovo international boarding school, despite that they were still only children, nonetheless went off to dig trenches, prepared Molotov cocktails, prepared food and clothes for the fighters, chopped trees, dug out potatoes, and looked after the wounded in hospitals. Apart from that, many of them regularly donated blood – 430 millilitres once per month for the soldiers at the front. The Chinese female journalist Hu Jibang, small and weak, underwent the entire war from the first day to the last, through bullets and fire, writing about the resilience and courage of the Soviet people, the barbarous cruelty of the fascist hordes, and the joy of the Russian soldiers and people in their times of triumph. It emboldened the armies and peoples of both countries, raising their will to fight to the end, to the final victory. Alongside the above heroes there are many other representatives of the Chinese people who contributed to the Great Patriotic War while remaining unknown soldiers.

The Russian people gave the Chinese people valuable political and moral support in their war against Japanese invaders. This included large convoys of arms and war material. More than 2,000 Soviet fighter pilots joined the Chinese air force and helped in the air battles over China. More than 200 of them died in battles over Chinese soil. In the closing phase of the war, Red Army soldiers of the Soviet Union were sent to north-east China. Together with the Chinese army and people they fought against the Japanese militarists, which helped China tremendously in achieving final victory. The Chinese people will always remember the Russians, both soldiers and civilians, who gave their lives for the independence and liberation of the Chinese nation.

The famous Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky said, that, having forgotten history, our soul can get lost in the darkness. To forget history is to commit treason. The Chinese and Russian peoples stand ready, together with all peace-loving countries and peoples, and with the automost determination and decisiveness, to oppose any actions or attempts to deny, distort, and rewrite the history of the Second World War.

This year, China and Russia will hold a series of events to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Second World War. There will also be many other events conducted by the UN and other international and regional organizations. The purpose of these events and celebrations is to demonstrate our determination to defend the results of the Second World War, to protect international equality and justice, and to remind out contemporaries that it is necessary to preserve and guard the peace that was won for humanity at too high a price.

The hard lessons of the Second World War tell people, that humanity’s coexistence is not subject to the laws of the jungle; that world politics is diametrically contradictory to belligerent and hegemonic power politics; and that the path of human development is not founded on the principle of “winner takes all” or in games with zero-sum outcomes. Peace – yes, war – no, cooperation – yes, confrontation – no, mutual gains are honored, while zero-sum results – are not: This is what constitutes the unchanging core and essence of peace, progress, and the development of human society.

Today, mankind has unprecedentedly good opportunities for the realization of our goal – peace, development, and the formation of a system of international relations that is ever more strongly based on the spirit of cooperation and mutual benefits. “Unity – is strength, while self-isolation – is weakness.” Cooperation and the win-win principle should be adopted as the basic orientation of all countries in international affairs. We have to unite our own interests with the common interests of all countries, find and expand on the common points of interests of different parties, develop and establish a new conception of multilateral win-win, to always be ready to extend a helping hand to each other at difficult times, to partake together of rights, interests, and responsibilities, and to collectively collaborate to solve growing global problems such as climate change, energy security, cybersecurity, national disasters, and so on. In short, we are in it together on our planet Earth – the homeland of all humanity.

The Chinese people and the Russian people – they are both great peoples. In the years of grief and misery, our indestructible camaraderie was cemented in place with blood. Today the peoples of China and Russian will hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder defend peace, promote development, and make their contributions to lasting world peace and human progress.

Copyright  RG.ru (Russian) and the Unz Review 2015

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/translation-xi-jinping-remember-history/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=translation-xi-jinping-remember-history

http://www.globalresearch.ca/chinese-president-on-russias-role-in-crushing-fascism-to-remember-history-to-open-the-future/5448750

Nalivaychenko to purge, reorganize Ukrainian Security Service along OUN-UPA lines

SBU is the Ukrainian Security Service
OUN-UPA are fascist Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. These organizations were responsible for the massacres in Volynia.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/07/11/volynia-massacre-in-light-of-the-politics-of-memory-ii.html

See interview below of former Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) Chief Yakimenko about current SBU Chief Nalivaychenko.

FSB is the Federal Security Service of Russia.

From Fort Russ

4/1/2015
Nalivaychenko to purge, reorganize SBU along OUN-UPA lines
By J.Hawk

SBU head Nalivaychenko gave an interview in which he said two things of interest:

1. He is aggressively purging the organization of its mid-level management. This is consistent with earlier statements by Poroshenko that a year ago 80% of SBU were FSB agents (!), which is why it was not able to prevent the Crimea and Donbass secession.

2. He believes that the best experience on which the SBU can rely is that of OUN-UPA counter-intelligence between 1930-1950. This implies a highly ideologized political secret police which is more concerned with maintaining a specific ideology or political course, rather than the integrity of the state.

How Ukraine intends to maintain its territorial integrity is a mystery that grows with every passing day. One day Poroshenko or Yatsenyuk claim ownership of victory over fascism, while the next they embrace OUN-UPA and other aspects of Ukrainian nationalism. These are entirely incompatible traditions–you can embrace one or the other (and then watch the other half of the country drift away), but not both. Then there’s the question of neighboring countries, none of which view the OUN-UPA as a benign phenomenon.

As a side note, the emphasis on ideological purity and reliance on the most fanatical factions of Ukraine’s political spectrum suggests Poroshenko increasingly views the domestic situation as the greatest threat to his power–which of course he should. I suppose the good news is that if most money, personnel, and attention is focused on the SBU, it makes life easier for the Donbass.

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/04/nalivaychenko-to-purge-reorganize-sbu.html

Excerpt from interview with former Security Services Chief Aleksandr Yakimenko
http://rt.com/op-edge/mercenaries-at-maidan-ukraine-558/

Q: Is it true that Nalivaichenko allowed the CIA agents to work in the Security Service building?

AY: Yes, that’s true. He also handed personal files of his own employees over to the CIA agents to study. But their mission was interrupted by an armed coup. The Maidan do not appoint these people; rather, it’s the US that does it. It’s enough to look at the newly appointed officials: Parubiy, Gvozd, Nalyvaichenko are all people who followed somebody else’s orders, the orders of the US, not even Europe. They are directly linked to the American intelligence. They sought to delay the negotiations and prevent the incumbent president from striking a deal with Russia and Russia from helping to prop up the social and economic order in Ukraine. After that they were planning to depose the president and integrate Ukraine into Europe, using Russian money. Who was troubled by the victory of the EU and the pro-integration forces? Only the US. It was the only country concerned over a possible alliance of Europe, Russia and Ukraine. The Customs Union and the connection between Russia and Ukraine did not sit well with their plans, either.

They’d been doing it ever since Yushchenko was president, and we couldn’t get rid of them. Once we started to put pressure, they relocated to Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. The most interesting part is that many regional governments spent budget money to pay for the so-called vyshkoli, i.e. training camps for militants to fight with various types of weapons.

All the orders were given either by the US embassy or by Jan Tombinski, a Polish representative who worked in the EU mission in Kiev. Poland played an invaluable role in the coup. It has always dreamt of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Ever since the Maidan kicked off, our security service registered a dramatic increase in diplomatic correspondence coming in to various Western embassies in Kiev. There is one more mystery. Straight after this influx of correspondence we saw some foreign money at the Maidan and in Kiev exchange bureaus: the new, re-designed US dollar bank notes.

Q: So they were bringing in cash?

AY: Yes. Poroshenko, Firtash, Pinchuk – they all poured money into the Maidan. With all their assets in foreign banks, they found themselves trapped. So they had to follow orders from the West. All they were supposed to do was back the Maidan; otherwise they would have lost all their assets. They were thinking about their money rather than their own country. Unfortunately we couldn’t prevent the casualties, the people, mainly those who had come from the Western regions, were sent into the line of fire. The Maidan militants had left the barricades after the sniper fire started. But time will set the record straight.

Greece: Fascists at the gate

By Conn M. Hallinan
From Dispatches From The Edge, March 20, 2015

When some 70 members of the neo-Nazi organization Golden Dawn go on trial sometime this spring, there will be more than street thugs and fascist ideologues in the docket, but a tangled web of influence that is likely to engulf Greece’s police, national security agency, wealthy oligarchs, and mainstream political parties. While Golden Dawn—with its holocaust denial, its swastikas, and Hitler salutes—makes it look like it inhabits the fringe, in fact the organization has roots deep in the heart of Greece’s political culture.

Which is precisely what makes it so dangerous.

Golden Dawn’s penchant for violence is what led to the charge that it is a criminal organization. It is accused of several murders, as well as attacks on immigrants, leftists, and trade unionists. Raids have uncovered weapon caches. Investigators have also turned up information suggesting that the organization is closely tied to wealthy shipping owners, as well as the National Intelligence Service (EYP) and municipal police departments.

Several lawyers associated with two victims of violence by Party members—a 27-year old Pakistani immigrant stabbed to death last year, and an Afghan immigrant stabbed in 2011— charge that a high level EYP official responsible for surveillance of Golden Dawn has links to the organization. The revelations forced Dimos Kouzilos, director of EYP’s third counter-intelligence division, to resign last September.

There were several warning flags about Kouzilos when he was appointed to head the intelligence division by rightwing New Democracy Prime Minister Antonis Samaras. Kouzilos is a relative of a Golden Dawn Parliament member, who is the Party’s connection to the shipping industry. Kouzilos is also close to a group of police officers in Nikea, who are currently under investigation for ties to Golden Dawn. Investigators charge that the Nikea police refused to take complaints from refugees and immigrants beaten by Party members, and the police Chief, Dimitris Giovandis, tipped off Golden Dawn about surveillance of the Party.

In handing over the results of their investigation, the lawyers said the “We believe that this information provides an overview of the long-term penetration ands activities of the Nazi criminal gang with the EYP and the police.” A report by the Office of Internal Investigation documents 130 cases where Golden Dawn worked with police.

It should hardly come as a surprise that there are close ties between the extreme right and Greek security forces. The current left-right split goes back to 1944 when the British tried to drive out the Communist Party—the backbone of the Greek resistance movement against the Nazi occupation. The split eventually led to the 1946-49 civil war when Communists and leftists fought royalists and former German collaborationists for power. However, the West saw the civil war through the eyes of the then budding Cold War, and, at Britain’s request, the U.S. pitched in on the side of the right to defeat the left. In the process of that intervention—then called the Truman Doctrine—U.S. intelligence services established close ties with the Greek military.

Those ties continued over the years that followed and were tightened once Greece joined NATO in 1952. The charge that the U.S. encouraged the 1967 fascist coup against the Greek government has never been proven, but many of the “colonels” that initiated the overthrow had close ties to the CIA and the U.S. military.

Golden Dawn was founded by some of the key people who ruled during the 1967-74 junta, and Greek dictator Georgios Papadopoulos, the leader of the “colonels” who led the 1967 coup, groomed the Party’s founder and current leader, Nikos Michaloliakos. Papadopoulos was a Nazi collaborator and served with the German “security battalions” that executed 130,000 Greek civilians during WW II. Papadopoulos was trained by the U.S. Army and recruited by the CIA. Indeed, he was the first CIA employee to govern a European country.

Golden Dawn’s adherence to Hitler, the symbols of Nazism, and the “Fuehrer principle”—investing the Party’s leader with absolute authority—is, in part, what has gotten the organization into trouble. According to an investigation by Greek Supreme Court Deputy Prosecutor Haralambos Vourliotis, Golden Dawn is split into two wings, a political wing responsible for the Party’s legal face and an operational wing for “carrying out attacks on those deemed enemies of the party.” Michaloiakos oversees both wings.

Prosecutors will try to demonstrate that attacks and murders are not the actions of individuals who happen to be members of Golden Dawn, because independent actions are a contradiction to the “Fuehrer principle.” Many of the attacks have featured leading members of Golden Dawn and, on occasion, members of Parliament. Indeed, since the leadership and core of the Party were jailed last September, attacks on non-Greeks and leftists have fallen off.

There is a cozy relationship between Golden Dawn and some business people as well, with the Party serving as sort of “Thugs-R-Us” organization. Investigators charge that shortly after two Party MPs visited the shipyards at Piraeus, a Golden Dawn gang attacked Communists who were supporting union workers. Golden Dawn also tried to set up a company union that would have resulted in lower pay and fewer benefits for shipyard workers. In return, shipping owners donated 240,000 Euros to Golden Dawn.

Investigators charge that the Party also raises funds through protection rackets, money laundering and blackmail.

Journalist Dimitris Psarras, who has researched and written about Golden Dawn for decades, argues that the Party is successful not because it plays on the economic crisis, but because for years the government—both socialists and conservatives—mainstream parties, and the justice system have turned a blind eye to Golden Dawn’s growing use of force. It was the murder of Greek anti-fascist rapper/poet Pavlos Fyssas that forced the authorities to finally move on the organization. Killing North Africans was one thing, killing a Greek quite another.

Instead of challenging Golden Dawn in the last election, the New Democracy Party railed against “Marxists,” “communists” and—pulling a page from the 1946-49 civil war—“bandits.” Even the center parties, like the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK) and the new Potami Party, condemned both “left and right” as though the two were equivalent.

Golden Dawn did see its voter base shrink from the 426,025 it won in 2012, to 388,000 in the January election that brought left party Syriza to power. But then Golden Dawn is less interested in numbers than it is in wielding violence. According to Psarras, the Party’s agenda is “to create a climate of civil war, a divide where people have to choose between leftists and rightists.” 

Some of the mainstream parties have eased Golden Dawn’s path by adopting the Party’s attacks on Middle East and African immigrants and Muslims, albeit at a less incendiary level. But, as Psarras points out, “Research in political science has long since showed that wherever conservative European parties adopt elements of far-right rhetoric and policy during pre-election periods, the upshot is the strengthening of the extreme far right parties.”

That certainly was the case in last year’s European Parliamentary elections, when center and right parties in France and Great Britain refused to challenge the racism and Islamophobia of rightwing parties, only to see the latter make strong showings.

According to the Supreme Court’s Vourliotis, Golden Dawn believes that “Those who do not belong to the popular community of the race are subhuman. In this category belong foreign immigrants, Roma, those who disagree with their ideas and even people with mental problems.” The Party dismisses the Holocaust: “There were no crematoria, it’s a lie. Or gas chambers,” Michaloliakos said in a 2012 national TV interview. Some 60,000 members of Greece’s Jewish population were transported and murdered in the death camps during World War II. 

The trial is scheduled for April 20 but might delayed. Golden Dawn members, including Michaloliakos and many members of Parliament, were released Mar. 18 because they can only be held for 18 months in pre-trial detention. The Party, with its ties in the business community and its “wink of the eye” relationship to New Democracy—that mainstream center right party apparently printed Golden Dawn’s election brochures—has considerable resources to fight the charges. Golden Dawn has hired more than 100 attorneys.

If convicted, Golden Dawn members could face up to 20 years in prison, but there is not a great deal of faith among the anti-fascist forces in the justice system. The courts have remained mute in the face of Golden Dawn’s increasing use of violence, and some magistrates have been accused of being sympathetic to the organization. Golden Dawn is charged with being a criminal organization, murder, assault, and illegal weapons possession under Article 187.

Thanasis Kampagiannis of “Jail Golden Dawn” warns that the Party will not vanish on its own. “Many are under the impression that if we stop talking about Golden Dawn the problem will somehow disappear. That is not the case. The economic crisis has burnished the organization, but there are other causes that have contributed to its existence and prominence, such as the intensification of state repression and the institutionalization of racism by the dominant parties.”

But courts are political entities and respond to popular movements. Anti-fascists are calling on the Greeks and the international community to stay in the streets and demand that Golden Dawn be brought to justice. Germans missed that opportunity with the Nazi Party and paid a terrible price for it.

Thanks to Kia Mistilis, journalist, photographer and editor, for providing material for this column

https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/

NATO: the imperial pit-bull

Posted on Global Research
Original source: Z Magazine, February 2009  — 23 January 2009
By Edward S. Herman

One of the deceptive clichés of Western accounts of post World War II history is that NATO was constructed  as a defensive arrangement to block the threat of  a Soviet attack on Western Europe.  This is false. It is true that Western propaganda played up the Soviet menace, but many key U.S. and Western European statesmen recognized that a Soviet invasion was not a real threat.  The Soviet Union had been devastated, and while in possession of a large army it was exhausted and needed time for recuperation. The United States was riding high, the war had revitalized its economy, it suffered no war damage, and it had the atomic bomb in its arsenal, which it had displayed to  the Soviet Union by killing a quarter of  a million Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hitting the Soviet Union before it recovered or had atomic weapons was discussed in Washington, even if rejected in favor of “containment,”  economic warfare, and other forms of  destabilization. NSC 68, dated April 1950, while decrying the great Soviet menace, explicitly called for a program of destabilization aimed at regime change in that country, finally achieved in 1991.

Thus,  even hardliner John Foster Dulles stated back in 1949  that “ I do not know of any responsible high official, military or civilian…in this government or any other government, who believes that the Soviet now plans conquest by open military aggression.”   But note Dulles’ language—“open military aggression.”   The “threat” was more a matter of  possible Soviet support to left political groups and parties in Western Europe. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a prime mover of NATO, openly stated that the function of  a NATO military buildup would be “chiefly for the practical purpose of assuring adequate defense against internal subversion.”  The much greater support of  rightwing forces by the United States was, of course, not  a help to internal subversion,  and a threat to democracy; only possible Soviet  help to the left fit that category. (Recall Adlai Stevenson’s claim in the late 1960s that the resistance within South Vietnam by indigenous forces hostile to the U.S.-imposed minority regime was “internal aggression.”)

The non-German Western European elites were more worried about German revival and a German threat, and, like U.S. officials, were more concerned about keeping down the power of the left in Europe than any Soviet military threat—and the United States was pressing the Europeans to build  up their armed forces, and buy arms from U.S. suppliers! Although knowingly inflated or even concocted, the Soviet military threat was still very useful in discrediting the left by tying it to Stalin and bolshevism and an alleged Soviet invasion and  mythical world conquest program.

In fact, the Warsaw Pact was far more  a “defensive” arrangement than NATO; its organization followed that of  NATO and was clearly a response, and it was a structure of the weaker party  and with less reliable members.  And in the end, it collapsed, whereas
NATO was important in the long-term process of  destabilizing and dismantling the Soviet regime. For one thing,  NATO’s armament and strength were part of the U.S. strategy of forcing the Soviets to spend resources on arms rather than provide for the welfare, happiness and loyalty of their population. It also encouraged repression by creating a genuine security threat, which, again, would damage popular loyalty and the reputation of the state abroad.  Throughout this early period the Soviet leaders tried hard to negotiate some kind of peace settlement with the West, including giving up East Germany, but the United States and hence its European allies-clients would have none of it.

As noted, in the U.S. official–hence mainstream media– view, only Soviet intervention in Western Europe after World War II was bad and threatened “internal subversion.” But in a non-Orwellian world it would be recognized that the United States far outdid the Soviet Union in supporting not only “internal subversion” but also real terrorism in the years after 1945. The left had gained strength during World War II by actually fighting against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The United States fought against the left’s subsequent bids for political participation and  power by any means, including direct warfare in Greece and by massive funding of anti-left parties and politicians throughout Europe. In Greece it supported the far right, including many former collaborators with fascism, and succeeded in putting in place a nasty rightwing authoritarian regime.  It continued to support fascist Spain and accepted fascist Portugal as a founding member  of NATO, with NATO arms helping Portugal pursue its colonial wars. And the United States, the dominant NATO power,  supported rightwing politicians and former Nazis and fascists elsewhere, while of course claiming to be pro-democratic and fighting against totalitarianism.

Perhaps most interesting was the U.S. and NATO support of  paramilitary groups and  terrorism. In Italy they were aligned with state and rightwing political factions, secret societies (Propaganda Due [P-2]), and paramilitary groups that, with police cooperation,  pursued what was called a  “Strategy of Tension,” in which a series of terrorist actions were carried out that were blamed on the left. The most famous was the August 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station, killing 86. The training and integration into police-CIA-NATO operations of former fascists and fascist collaborators was extraordinary in Italy, but common elsewhere in Europe (for the Italian story, see Herman and Brodhead, “The Italian Context: The Fascist Tradition and the Postwar Rehabilitation of the Right,” in Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection [New York: Sheridan Square, 1986]. For Germany, see William Blum, on “Germany 1950s,” in Killing Hope [Common Courage: 1995]).

NATO was also linked to “Operation Gladio,” a program organized by the CIA, with collaboration from NATO governments and security establishments, that  in a number of European states set up secret cadres and stashed weapons, supposedly preparing for the threatened Soviet invasion, but actually ready for “internal subversion” and available to support rightwing coups. They were used on a number of occasions by rightwing paramilitary groups to carry out terrorist operations (including the Bologna bombing, and many terrorist incidents carried out in Belgium and Germany).

Gladio and NATO plans were also used to combat an “internal threat”  in Greece in 1967: namely, the democratic election of  a liberal government. In response, the Greek military put into effect a NATO “Plan Prometheus,”  replacing  a democratic order with a torture-prone military dictatorship. Neither NATO nor the Johnson administration objected. Other Gladio forces, from Italy and elsewhere, came to train in Greece during its fascist interlude, to learn how to deal with “internal subversion.”

In short, from its inception NATO showed itself to be offensively, not defensively, oriented, antagonistic to diplomacy and peace,  and intertwined with widespread terrorist operations and other forms of political intervention that were undemocratic and actual threats to democracy (and if traceable to the Soviets would have been denounced as brazen subversion). .

The Post-Soviet NATO

With the ending of the Soviet Union, and that menacing Warsaw Pact, NATO’s theoretical rationale disappeared.  But although that rationale was a fraud, for public consumption NATO still needed to redefine its reason for existence, and it also soon took on a larger and more aggressive role. With no need to support Yugoslavia after the Soviet demise, NATO soon collaborated with its U.S. and German members to war on and dismantle that former Western ally, in the process violating the UN Charter’s prohibition of  cross-border warfare (i.e., aggression).

Amusingly, in the midst of  the NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia, in April 1999, NATO held its 50th anniversary in Washington, D.C.,  celebrating its successes and with characteristic Orwellian rhetoric stated its devotion to international law while in the midst of its ongoing blatant violation of the UN Charter. In fact, the original  1949 NATO founding document had begun by reaffirming its members “faith in the UN Charter,” and in Article 1, undertaking, “as set forth in the UN Charter, to settle any international disputes  by peaceful means.”
The April 1999 session produced a   “Strategic Concept” document that laid out a supposedly new program for NATO now that its “mutual defensive” role in preventing a Soviet invasion had ceased to be plausible. (“The Alliance’s Strategic Concept,” Washington, D.C., April 23, 1999 (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm )). The Alliance still stresses “security,” though it has “committed itself to essential new activities in the interest of a wider stability.” It welcomes new members and new “partnership” arrangements, though why these are necessary in a post-Cold War world with the United States and its closest allies so powerful is never made clear. It admits that “large-scale conventional aggression against the Alliance is highly unlikely,” but of course it never mentions the possibility of  “large-scale conventional aggression” BY members of the Alliance, and it  brags about the NATO role in the Balkans as illustrative of  its “commitment of a wider stability.”  But not only  was this Alliance effort a case of  legal aggression—“illegal but legitimate” in the Orwellian phrase of  key apologists–contrary to this paper, NATO played a major destabilization role in the Balkans, helping start the ethnic warfare and refusing to pursue a diplomatic option in Kosovo in order to be able to attack Yugoslavia in a bombing war that was in process while this document was being handed out. (For a discussion of the NATO role, see Herman and Peterson, “The Dismantling of Yugoslavia,” Monthly Review, Oct. 2007: http://monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.php )

“Strategic Concept” also claims to favor arms control,  but in fact from its very beginning NATO promoted more armaments, and all the new members like Poland and Bulgaria have been obligated to build up their “inter-operable” arms, meaning  getting more arms and buying them from U.S. and other Western suppliers. Since this document was produced in 1999, NATO’s leading member, the United States, has more than doubled its military budget and greatly increased arms sales abroad;  it has pushed further into space-based military operations; it has  withdrawn from the 1972 ABM treaty, refused to ratify the Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty, and rejected both the Land Mine treaty and UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms. With NATO’s aid it has produced a new arms race, which  many  U.S. allies and clients, as well as rivals and targets, have joined.

The 1999 document also claims NATO’s support for  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but at the same time it  stresses how important nuclear arms are for NATO’s power—it therefore rejects a central feature of the NNPT, which involved a promise by the nuclear powers to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. What this means is that NATO is keen only on non-proliferation by its targets, like Iran. Nuclear weapons “make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable.”  But if Iran had such weapons it could make “Alliance”  “risks of aggression”—which Alliance member the United States and its partner Israel have threatened—unacceptable. Obviously that would not do.

In its Security segment, Strategic Concept says that  it struggles for a security environment “based on the growth of democratic institutions and commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force.”  The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The very essence of NATO policy and practice is to threaten the use of force, and U.S. national security policy is now explicit that it plans to maintain a military superiority and prevent any rival power from challenging that superiority in order to hold sway globally—that is, it plans  to rule by intimidation.

NATO now claims to threaten nobody, and even talks in Strategic Concept  about possible joint “operations” with Russia. Again, the hypocrisy level is great.  As we know, there was a U.S. promise made to Gorbachev when he agreed to allow East Germany to join with the West, that NATO would not  move “one inch” further East. Clinton and NATO quickly violated this promise, absorbing into NATO all the former  Eastern European Soviet satellites as well as the Baltic states. Only self-deceiving fools and/or propagandists  would not recognize this as a security threat to Russia, the only power in the area that could even theoretically threaten the NATO members. But Strategic Concept plays dumb, and only threats to its members are recognized.

Although “oppression, ethnic conflict” and the “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” are alleged great concerns of  the new NATO, its relations with Israel are close, and no impediment whatsoever has been (or will be) placed on Israeli oppression, ethnic cleansing, or its semi-acknowledged substantial nuclear arsenal, and of course neither its war on Lebanon in 2006 nor its current murderous attacks on Gaza have impeded warm relations, any more than the US-UK unprovoked attack on Iraq reduced NATO-member solidarity. If Israel is a highly favored U.S. client, it is then by definition free to violate all the high principles mentioned by Strategic Concept. In 2008 NATO and Israel have signed a military pact, so perhaps NATO will soon be helping Israel’s “security” operations in Gaza. (In fact, Obama’s choice as National Security Adviser, James Jones, has over the past year or so been clamoring for NATO troops to occupy the Gaza Strip and even the West Bank. He is not a lone voice in the U.S. establishment).

The new NATO is a U.S. and imperial pitbull. It is currently helping rearm the world, encouraging the military buildup of  the  former Baltic and Eastern European Soviet satellites–now U.S. and NATO satellites–working closely with Israel as that NATO partner ethnically cleanses and dispossesses its untermeschen–helping its master establish client states on the Russian southern borders, officially endorsing the U.S. placement of  anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, and threateningly elsewhere, at a great distance from the United States,  and urging the integration of  the U.S. plans with a broader NATO “shield.” This virtually forces Russia into more aggressive moves and  accelerated rearmament (just as NATO did in earlier years).

And of course NATO supports the U.S. occupation of  Iraq. NATO secretary-general Scheffer regularly boasts that all 26 NATO states are involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom, inside Iraq or Kuwait.  Every single  Balkan nation except for Serbia has had troops in Iraq, and now has them in Afghanistan. Half of  the former Soviet Commonwealth of  Independent States have also provided troops for Iraq, with some of these also in Afghanistan. These are training grounds for breaking in and “inter-operationalizing” the new “partners,” and developing a new mercenary base for the growing “out of area” operations of NATO, as NATO participates more actively in the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As noted, NATO brags about its role in the Balkans wars, and both this war and the wars in Iraq,  Afghanistan and Pakistan have violated the UN Charter. Lawlessness is built-in to the new “strategic concept.”  Superceding the earlier (fraudulent) “collective self defense,”  the ever-expanding NATO powers give themselves the authority to conduct military campaigns “out-of-area” or so-called “non-Article V” missions beyond NATO territory.  As the legal scholar Bruno Simma noted back in 1999, “the message which these voices carry in our context is clear: if it turns out that a Security Council mandate or authorization for future NATO ‘non-Article 5′ missions involving armed force cannot be obtained, NATO must still be able to go ahead with such enforcement. That the Alliance is capable of doing so is being demonstrated in the Kosovo crisis.” (“NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects,” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999, reproduced at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/ab1.html).

The new NATO is pleased to be helping its master project power across the globe. In addition to helping encircle and threaten Russia,  it pursues “partnership arrangements” and carries out joint military maneuvers with the so-called Mediterranean Dialogue countries (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania and Algeria). And NATO has also established new partnerships with the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates), thereby expanding NATO’s military  ambit from the Atlantic coast of Africa to and throughout the Persian Gulf. In the same time frame there has been a unbroken series of NATO visits to and naval exercises with most of these new partners as well as (this past  year) the first formal NATO-Israeli bilateral military treaty.

The pitbull is well positioned to help Israel continue its massive law violations,  to help the United States and Israel threaten and perhaps attack Iran, and to enlarge its own cooperative program of  pacification of distant peoples in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no doubt elsewhere—all in the alleged interest of peace and that “wider stability” mentioned in Strategic Concept.  NATO, like the UN itself, provides a  cover of seeming multilateralism for what is a lawless and virtually uncontrolled imperial expansionism.  In reality, NATO, as an aggressive global arm of  U.S. and other local affiliated imperialisms, poses a serious threat to global peace and security. It is about to celebrate its 60th anniversary, and while it should have been liquidated back in 1991, it has instead expanded,  taking on a new and threatening role traced out in  its 1999 Strategic Concept and enjoying  a frighteningly malignant growth.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-the-imperial-pitbull/11989

John Pilger on modern fascism and the lies of America’s warmongers

Why the rise of fascism is again the issue
By John Pilger
February 26, 2015

ukraine-riots-33

The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

“To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.

Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya. Continue reading

“This is what Ukrainian fascism looks like”–One year under the Wolfsangel

Posted on Fort Russ

2/23/2015
One Year Under the Wolfsangel
By Aleksey Albu, the Borotba [Struggle] Movement

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

It’s been a year since the coup. Time to tally the results.

Remembering last year’s Maidan protests, one reaches the following question: what justified such casualties, if Yanukovich and his “bloody regime” had only one year left? What was the hurry? He could have been defeated during the elections, which would have given the new government legitimacy.

I reject the notion that the leaders of the Maidan wanted to improve the lives of their people.

What did Ukraine lose? Well, naturally, Crimea (almost two million people), Donbass (about five million people), and we have to keep in mind the process is not over. Next in line are the regions of Odessa, Kharkov, Zaporozhye, whose population will never accept the rule of neo-Nazis and oligarchs. But the main thing that Ukraine lost was the societal sense of balance, under which people of various political persuasions could discuss them without weapons but instead behind a glass of tea, or perhaps behind a negotiating table. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of people who do not want to meet with one another ever again, do not want to discuss anything together, and will never forgive.

There used to exist rules of the game in Ukraine, and those rules were violated a year ago. Judge yourselves—if earlier people could discuss those or other problems, they could convince one another of the validity of those or other ideas, could express their positions during elections, a year ago the aggressive nationalistic minority broke the mechanism of changing the government and brought their masters into power. The disorganized peaceful majority began to come out in protest, there were spontaneous uprisings in Kharkov, Nikolayev, Donetsk, Mariupol. Tens of thousands of people participated in protest actions in Odessa, Lugansk, and other cities. We need to emphasize that wherever those protests were peaceful they were drowned in blood or burned with fire.

What did people lose? It depends on the individual. Some lost their work, others their health, or their relatives, or…their life. Maidan’s result is counted in thousands of broken lives. The insane inflation had consumed both salaries and pensions. Inept economic policy destroyed hundreds of enterprises.

It’s no secret to anyone that the shock force of the Maidan were the right nationalist organizations, whose leaders obtained several key positions in the state and enormous financing. Naturally, all of the actions of the government were undertaken with an eye to the nationalists, who were willing to create a new Maidan at any moment. Human rights violations have become the norm in Ukraine. Every day there are arrests and beatings of dissenters.

The opposition forces which even recently could operate legally are now practically in the underground. Any protests driven by the catastrophic conditions in the industry are labeled as aid to the “occupiers.” Workers who have not been paid in months have also been deprived of their right to protest. The Labor Code is simply not adhered to at most enterprises.

Ukraine currently has a regime in which the big property owners and oligarchs can do anything they want to: not pay salaries, not pay benefits, fire people in violation of procedures, ban protests, suppress discontent. And to suppress it, and to reapportion property, they use the ultra-right militants. Nazi greetings, such as “Glory to Ukraine—Glory to Heroes!”, “Glory to the Nations—Death to Enemies!”, “Ukraine above everything!” are now deeply embedded in young minds. Thousands of people shout them out without thinking. This is what Ukrainian fascism looks like.

The year was spent to the sound of bombardment of civilian areas, the screams of people killed in the Labor Union building in Odessa, the cries of the mothers. May everyone who unleashed this war be damned! All who could not wait for the elections and led people to the Maidan. Everyone who gave orders to bomb peaceful cities and villages.

Glory and honor to all defenders of the Donbass, all participants in the anti-fascist underground, all progressive forces who fight against Ukrainian fascism!

Victory will be ours!

 

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/this-is-what-ukrainian-fascism-looks.html

Open letter from members of the French Resistance to President Hollande

Posted on Vineyard of the Saker, February 3, 2015

The voice of France, the UN and Russia, an open letter to Monsieur le Président de la République 

Monsieur le Président de la République

Fascisme is reemerging everywhere in Europe, singularly in countries which have been freed from the USSR where powerful and dark forces are using NéoNazism as an ideological vector for their national emancipation and their territorial sovereignty .In these circles and beyond them, the Ukrainian crisis, which is politically and diplomatically overexploited to undermine the Russian Federation is used as a pretext for multiple attempts to rehabilitate the Third Reich, especially in the Baltic Countries, where monuments commemorating the 1945 victory are often desecrated with the covert or overt complicity of the concerned governments.

The Western world is in no way immune from these dangerous overflows. In defiance of it’s historical status, the European Union tolerates within itself, political movements which have been able, with impunity, to send to the EU Parliament, legally elected deputies, although self styled Nazis.

In face of this situation, which is fed and worsened by a never ending economical crisis on the old continent, Russia submit every year to the general assembly of the United Nations, a resolution calling for the refusal of « this glorification of Nazis and their collaborators who, waiving Swastika banners and marching with their right arms held up, are overtly promoting xenophobia and racial superiority.

Unfortunately, the United States of America, Canada and the Marshall Islands, systematically oppose this text and the European Union – among which is France-, choosing in that respect to renew with the disastrous spirit of Munich, chose to refrain. Opponents and abstentions, put forward as an excuse… Respect for freedom of expression, to justify their decisions. Under the same pretext, they block the passing of similar decisions within the OSCE. This attitude is pitiful and dangerous and can be considered as a signed blank paper for the Fascists to keep on with their criminal activities.

This year, the pretext put forward for a ‘no’ vote or abstention to the resolution, is the Ukrainian crisis and the « annexation » of Crimea. Putin should be made to understand that the West won’t tolerate an expansionist Russia. This is of course only a pretext because in November of 2013, as the Ukrainian crisis was just unfolding, their was no separatists claims of any sort in Eastern Ukraine or in Crimea. The vote had been the same. Most noticeable is the 2010 vote, during which the Russian President was Medvedev, known to be closer to the West than the actual President.

The fact that the Russian diplomatic initiatives are thus subjected to contempt is unacceptable. The tremendous death toll paid by the USSR during the second world war, morally forbid it. Resistants in Europe and especially in France, know what they owe to the Red Army. Without the decisive victories over Hitler, the world battle for liberty wouldn’t have been possible and the allies would have never landed in Italy nor on the Coast of Normandie. Must it be reminded, that on the D Day, June the 6th of 1944, the Werhmacht was collapsing everywhere on the East front and that Hitler had thus already lost the war ? Must it be reminded that, without the Soviets sacrifices, France would have never recovered its freedom ? Must it be reminded that without Moscow, Stalingrad and Koursk’s victories – the mains Nazis military defeats- the world could never have freed itself from fascism and the United Nations Organisation would have never existed ?

We would also want to remind you, mister President, that during the spring and summer of 1942, the General De Gaulle had, in vain, tried to persuade the allies to open a « second front ». If the General De Gaulle had been heard, millions of people in the Soviet Union and in the concentration camps, wouldn’t have lost their lives. Must we remind you that the landing in France as suggested by the General de Gaulle, was replaced by a landing in North Africa and that the first version of the now famous American « regime change » took place at that time, the Americans having chosen the General Giraud instead of De Gaulle.

France, which as a member of the Security Council, have a right of veto, must not forget history and the lessons it teaches. France must not forget the responsibilities which have been bestowed to her by the fact of having been able to sit at the winners table. France must not forget that without the resistance movement, without the commitment of the General De Gaulle saving the honor of our country from London, France wouldn’t enjoy the diplomatic weight and prestige which it has acquired. Consequently, its voice, which is heard, when relying on historical principles, used and exalted by the National Resistance Council, its voice must be heard in the fight against the rebirth of Nazism, which is to say, in fact, its own values. Values that you invoked during your multiple public interventions, especially during the commemorations of the landings in Normandie and Provence.

As a Head of the State, it thus belongs to you to break the guilty and spineless caution of a Europe which flimsiness in foreign affairs never stops to tarnish the brilliance.

Consequently, the signatories request from you, that next year, the signature of France be added to those of the nations having already backed the resolution of the Federation of Russia.

Armand Conan, Résistant, membre du Comité Départemental du Morbihan
René Jassaud, Résistant, ravitailleur du maquis « camp Robert » dans le Var
Colette Lacroix, Résistante, membre du réseau SOE « pimento » dans l’Ain
Antoine Payet, Résistant, membre du groupe de St Fons dans le Rhône
Paul Raybaud, membre du réseau Camp Robert dans le Var

Source:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/open-letter-of-members-of-french.html