Conflict in Ukraine moves to dangerous rhetoric of chemical weapons

 

With the war in Ukraine entering its second month, several media outlets have started speculating over the possibility of chemical weapons being used in warzones across Ukrainian territory. 

During his official visit to Brussels last week, US President Joe Biden said NATO “would respond” if Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine. When asked if the US had evidence that Vladimir Putin is under the possession of chemical weapons, Biden said he wouldn’t comment.

"We are partly concerned because we see the rhetoric and we see that Russia is trying to create some kind of pretext that it could use chemical and biological weapons in Ukraine,” said NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Blame game

The concern, however, seems to be weaving on both sides of the battling parts. According to The Telegraph, Russia has accused US President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, of funding biological weapons labs in Ukraine. The paper claims that the accusation has raised fears that the Kremlin is laying the groundwork to use chemical weapons in Ukraine.

On 8 March, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also accused Ukraine of maintaining dangerous biological weapons labs: "The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone. It should give a full account of its biological military activities at home and abroad and subject itself to multilateral verification," said the spokesperson Zhao Lijian. 

US aware of “biological research facilities”

The US responded on 9 March with Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, long in charge of US policy in Ukraine, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Marco Rubio, hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, asked Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Nuland did not deny the claim. With palpable discomfort and halting speech, the US diplomat acknowledged the existence of “biological research facilities” saying the US was concerned they would be used by Russian forces. “We are working with the Ukrainian forces to prevent that these research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach,” said Nuland.

On 15 March, in a short video, Gabbard said there are more than 25 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine and called for a ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. Gabbard urged for the labs to me “shut down immediately” and the pathogens they hold to be destroyed.

“Instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden-Harris Administration need to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO and the UN to immediately implement a ceasefire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs,” urged Gabbard.

The Republican Senator Mitt Romney accused his ex-House counterpart of spreading “treasonous lies” that amounted to Kremlin propaganda: “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives,” tweeted Mitt Romney in response to Tulsi Gabbard’s video post.

Russia speaks

As for Moscow, it maintains that laboratories in Ukraine have been funded by the US military to develop biological weapons components, yet local staff was being kept in the dark about their research. 

The statement was given by Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, who commands the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces of Russia. “We believe that components of biological weapons were being made on the territory of Ukraine,” said Kirillov to RT .

On 17 March, Kirillov presented documents and imagery during a briefing with the Russian Defense Ministry, showing why the military has come to such a conclusion: “The documents have the signatures of real officials and are certified by the seals of organizations,” he said adding that “journalists and experts in the West” can “verify their veracity”.

One document, dated March 6, 2015 reportedly confirms the “direct participation of the Pentagon in the financing of military biological projects in Ukraine”, according to Kirillov. 

Kirillov went on saying that the US officially funded the projects through the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, based on the Agreement on Joint Biological Activities. However, the evidence shows that the real recipients of some $32 million in funds were Ukrainian Defense Ministry laboratories in Kyiv, Odessa, Lvov and Kharkov.

Countering bioweapons

As the blame-game goes on, evidence from the Washington Post’s archive dating back to 2005, reveals that, as of that year, the US and Ukraine agreed to work jointly to prevent the spread of biological weapons in Kyiv. The agreement was announced by former Senators Richard G. Lugar and Barack Obama.

One of the labs that received funding, according to the report, was the I.I. Mechnikov Antiplague Scientific and Research Institute, in the Black Sea port city of Odessa. It’s not clear, however, until when the agreement was in place between the US and Ukraine. 

Syria's reminiscences

On April 7, 2018, Douma, Syria, traveled the world after reports of the use of chemical weapons. To this day, what happened in Douma remains to be explained. After the episode, an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) began. Expert toxicologists have ruled out the possibility that chlorine gas was the cause of the victims' deaths. However, leaked information from Wikileaks exposed how senior OPCW officials had censored the explosive discovery.

In the early days of the OPCW investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, toxicology experts ruled out the use of chlorine gas as the cause of death for the more than 40 civilians found at the scene. Instead of publishing this finding, senior OPCW officials withheld it and then launched an investigation into a veteran inspector who questioned OPCW's censorship.

The suppression of toxicologists is among a number of deceptions by the OPCW leadership aimed at corrupting the scientific process of the investigation at Douma, as detailed in The Grayzone’s investigation and the various official documents presented by Wikileaks.  

German toxicologists

In early June 2018, four OPCW staff went to Germany to meet with toxicologists/pharmacologists, all recognized world experts in chemical weapons poisoning. The trip was approved at the highest levels through a Mission Alert Order. The delegation consisted of Dr. Brendan Whelan and Dr. Sami Barrek, both senior members of Douma's investigation team, Dr. Marc Blum, Head of the OPCW Laboratory, and Dr. Soumik Paul, Head of the OPCW Health and Safety Branch.

German experts saw numerous photos and videos of the victims and were told what the alleged witnesses had described to inspectors. Some alleged witnesses claimed a rapid, even immediate onset of severe foaming due to exposure to a toxic chemical (Original Report for 7.82). As the final report revealed: “Victims began arriving [to the hospital known as Site 1] shortly after 7 pm with excessive salivation or foaming at the mouth.” (paragraph 8.56). The alleged attack took place around 7:00 pm (paragraph 8.58).

Within an hour, toxicologists easily confirmed what the OPCW team and other experts already suspected – that such a rapid onset of profuse foam was incompatible with exposure to chlorine. According to the leaked minutes of that meeting, previously published by Wikileaks:

“…experts [toxicologists] were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and exposure to chlorine. In particular, they stated that the appearance of excessive foam, due to pulmonary edema, observed in photos and reported by witnesses, would not occur in the short period of time between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time when the videos were recorded (approximately 3-4 hours).”

 

The evidence was now overwhelming that the more than 40 victims filmed at Site 2 had not been killed by nerve agents or chlorine gas. But the Douma samples did not reveal any other toxic chemicals that could have caused the rapid foaming. Could it be that the highly toxic chemical had not been detected in the samples? The OPCW team and German toxicologists discussed this possibility, but found it unlikely.

Julian Assange, State Hypocrisy and the end of the Fourth Estate

On Thursday, April 11, after being cornered for almost 7 years by the UK government, the British police forcedly removed the Australian Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Assange was jailed on the US extradition warrant, where he is expected to be charged with conspiracy (with Chelsea Manning) for committing computer intrusion. The truth is the US government has been salivating for Assange since 2010, when US military crimes were widely exposed, leaked by Chelsea Manning and published by Wikileaks. 

The revoking of Assange's asylum by the Ecuadorian government, which triggered the arrest, was an evident part of a large international plot against Wikileaks' Editor-in-chief Julian Assange. The tide started turning after the Presidential elections in 2017 in Ecuador, which ended up replacing Rafael Correa for Lenin Moreno. On April 6, the American journalist Cassandra Fairbanks shared that a leaked court transcription from Assange shared light on US-backed Ecuadorian expulsion plans.

One day before the arrest, on April 10, Wikileaks declared that the Ecuadorian government was caught in a massive espionage operation against Julian Assange. On the same day, Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, revealed that “the Spanish police uncovered videos, documents and photos, including of legal meetings with Assange, taken from inside the Ecuador embassy in an extortion sting operation, in Spain.”

Assange's arrest brings up to light the importance of protecting whistleblowers and media workers, particularly journalists and publishers.

Shortly after Julian’s detention, the barrister Geoffrey Robertson, one of Assange’s many lawyers said that “if they get away with extraditing Julian Assange they could extradite Alan Rusbridger, and the editors and journalists from the Guardian, and put them inside in America for a very long time.”

After the detention, Gleen Greenwald, Guardian's journalist during Snowden's revelations said that “Obama DOJ tried to concoct a theory to justify arresting Assange for more than merely publishing documents such as claiming he aided Manning in the the theft of documents. They found no evidence for it. Trump DOJ will likely manufacture some falsehood to claim it's more than publishing.” Back in 2010, Greenwald listed the major crimes, corruptions and abuses exposed by Wikileaks. This ought to be remembered as the number one reason for Assange's detention and not the DNC emails. 

The end of the Fourth Estate

Assange's removal from the Ecuador embassy in London was brewing and it will greatly impact freedom of expression and our right to know. Meanwhile, the Australian media, decided to mock Julian Assange rather than address the real issues at stake. On April 7, the  TV program from Channel 10, “The Project”, broadcasted so-called journalists sniggering at the political persecution, torture and suffering of Julian Assange. Lisa Wilkinson, Hamish Macdonald, Tim Blackwell and Susie Youssef proved to be unprofessional and unscrupulous, spreading misinformation, not once mentioning why Assange was gagged in the first place.

It was in 2010 when Wikileaks denounced the US military were killing civilians and journalists in Afghanistan and Iraq, amongst many shocking revelations pointing to the lack of government transparency. Nine years have passed and it's  appalling to witness how media outlets chose to blatantly deviate from the real source of the news. It's only logical that Julian Assange was gagged for sharing evidence on state wrongdoing, GITMO, war crimes, corruption and many other shocking government secrets such as the revelation of mass surveillance programs.

This was obviously not supposed to fall under the public eye. Assange became the enemy number one and had to be silenced.

“Most of the big leaks WikiLeaks has published meet a reasonable definition of public interest journalism, the kind that resulted in the publication of the Pentagon Papers or The Washington Post’s reporting on Watergate,” wrote Leonid Bershidsky in the Japan Times, three days prior to the arrest.

On April 9, the Guardian’s Editorial came forward expressing that “it would be wrong to extradite him [Julian Assange]”. “When the call comes from Washington, it requires a firm and principled no. It would neither be safe nor right for the UK to extradite Mr Assange to Mr Donald Trump’s America,” reads the communicate. In 2017, Wikileaks sued the UK-based newspaper on allegations of a fabricated story claiming Paul Manafort, former Trump’s campaign chairman, had met Julian Assange. These claims have helped building up the strong smear campaign against Assange, claiming he was a Russian agent.

Wikileaks reacted on Twitter saying that: “If the US can apply laws to publishers in the UK then any state can and it is an extradition free for all.”

Another rather coincidently and timely move from the UK government was the launch of the “Media Freedom” bogus initiative, presented by UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Amal Clooney. The choice of Amal Clooney to “Ambassador” of Media Freedom was not innocent. International and Human Rights lawyer and married to Hollywood movie star George Clooney, she seemed to be the perfect combination for a likely more influential and socially acceptable PR coup.

On April 7, the independent journalist Patrick Henningsen penned an article to the 21^st Century Wire stating: “amid a media symphony, he [Jeremy Hunt] announced an attention-grabbing campaign, while staying completely silent on his government’s treatment of WikiLeaks founder Assange which is by now widely recognised as a direct attack on press freedom.” Moreover, it was kept in total silence that Amal Clooney has represented Assange in the past. Let’s not talk about the elephant in the room?

Twitter censors pro-Assange comments

It seems evident that Twitter has become incredibly politicised. More than a social media channel, often Twitter has become the primary channel chosen by politicians to convey positions and communicates. This "new" digital form of making politics brings some strings attached. As it seems, Twitter has been labeled by several members a "censorship machine". I personally saw a nasty tweet I was typing being deleted three times in front of my eyes. It was directed to Senator Chuck Shumer who congratulated Assange's arrest and called him a Kremlin agent, for there is no evidence whatsoever. It was the second time that Twitter deleted a tweet I was writing and other members shared the same concern.

The censorship does not seem to stop with Twitter. Youtube video platform, Google owned, is also well-known for withdrawing links from the platform as they please. There is a particular concern when those actions happen during sensitive times such as Assange's arrest, as divulged by Wikileaks on April 11.

The whole scenario leads inevitably to question mass control and surveillance practices within the media and social media world. 

The article published in SAGE Journals, “Reluctant activists? The impact of legislative and structural attempts of surveillance on investigative journalism” (2016), sheds a light on the pressure felt by journalists and publishers, particularly investigative journalists who tend to focus on a particular niche. The paper reveals that "one of the documents released by Edward Snowden in 2013 - destined for army intelligence - warned that ‘journalists and reporters representing all types of news media represent a potential threat to security’, adding: ‘Of specific concern are “investigative journalists” who specialise in defence-related exposés either for profit or what they deem to be of the public interest’". 

Luke Harding, journalist for the Guardian during Snowden’s revelations, divulged that when he was writing his book about the Snowden affair, “the noticeable surveillance took a bizarre turn: ‘At certain points in the text … someone would start remotely deleting the text.’”

In the investigative paper, Harding recalled the covert surveillance during the reporting period of Snowden’s revelations. “Janine Gibson [then-US-editor of The Guardian], her chats with Glenn Greenwald kept on falling through, there was someone trying to get a “man in the middle” [interception hack] on her laptop.”

“If you work in this field you can be sure that your phone numbers, your email address and so on will end up on some selectors list of the National Security Agency or Government Communications Headquarter - GCHQ,’” added Michael Sontheimer from Der Spiegel, which learned from the Snowden leaks that half a year after it covered the WikiLeaks cables in 2010, its research was monitored and phone calls surveilled. 

Please sign the petition to stop Assange’s extradition.

The Persecution of Julian Assange: Wikileaks Editor says Media is giving the US Cover to extradite him | Opinion (newsweek)

Shame on the @guardian & @KathViner who are promoting & propagating a massive misinformation using the man who exposed inconvenient truths as a scape goat in the USA-Russian affair.

"Last week, The Guardian published a "bombshell" front-page story asserting, without producing any evidence, that Julian Assange had secretly met the recently convicted former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in 2013, 2015 and 2016. The Guardian's attack on Assange came only days after it was confirmed that he has been indicted some time ago,under seal, and that the U.S. will seek his extradition from the U.K. The story was published just hours before a hearing brought by media groups trying to stop the U.S. government from keeping its attempts to extradite Assange secret.

The story went viral, repeated uncritically by many media outlets around the world, including Newsweek. This falsely cast Assange into the center of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump.The Guardian even had the gall to post a call to its readers to donate to protect "independent journalism when factual, trustworthy reporting is under threat."

These three meetings with Manafort did not happen.

As The Guardian admitted, the Embassy's visitor logs show no such visits. The Guardian claims they saw a separate internal document written by Ecuador's Senain intelligence agency that lists "Paul Manaford [sic]" as one of several well-known guests.'

Manafort, through his spokesman, has stated: “This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him.”

It appears The Guardian editors tried to backpedal from the original story with post-publication stealth edits, but they have not issued a correction or apology.

The journalists who wrote this story must surely know that guests who enter the embassy must be registered in logs, as pointed out by the former first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2010 to July 2018.

Ecuadorian intelligence has spent millions of dollars on setting up security cameras inside its embassy in London to monitor Julian Assange and his visitors. The Guardian has previously published still shots from those cameras. However, in the case of the claimed Manafort visit, they apparently demanded no such verification.

They also overlooked the simple fact that millions of pounds have been spent over the years by the Metropolitan police and secret services on monitoring the entrances of the embassy 24/7.

This is part of a series of stories from The Guardian, such as its recent claim of a "Russia escape plot" to enable Assange to flee the embassy, which is not true.

What do these stories have in common? They all give the U.K. and Ecuador political cover to arrest Assange and for the U.S. to extradite him. Any journalists worth their salt should be investigating who is involved in these plots.

Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director, said the U.S. was "working to take down" WikiLeaks. This was months after WikiLeaks released thousands of files on the CIA, the "largest leak of CIA documents in history," called Vault 7. The Guardian seems determined to link Assange to Russia, in full knowledge that such claims are prejudicial in the context of Mueller's probe in the U.S. and the Democratic National Committee lawsuit against WikiLeaks.

Numerous commentators have criticized The Guardian for its coverage of Assange. Glenn Greenwald, former columnist for The Guardian, writes that the paper has "...such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him." Another former Guardian journalist, Jonathan Cook, writes: "The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump's supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race."

Hours before The Guardian published its article, WikiLeaks received knowledge of the story and "outed" it, with a denial, to its 5.4 million Twitter followers. The story then made the front page, and The Guardian asserted they had not received a denial prior to publication—as they had failed to contact the correct person.

A simple retraction and apology will not be enough. This persecution of Assange is one of the most serious attacks on journalism in recent times."

Article published in Newsweek on 7 December 2018 by Kristinn Hrafnsson 

Palestinian protestor uses tennis racket to smack back tear gas canister fired by Israeli troops (Reuters)

May 14, 2018: US inaugurates its newest embassy in Jerusalem while IDF shot dead over 50 unarmed Palestinians protesters and injured more than 2400, on the Gaza border.

Photo by Reuters

Against all odds Donald Trump becomes US President

Donald Trump won the race to the White House, becoming the 45th President of the United States. © Flickr Michael Vadon

On November 9, the world woke up to see Republican tycoon Donald Trump becoming President-elect in the United States after beating rival Democrat Hilary Clinton.

“It is time for us to come together,” said the 70-years old businessman in his victory speech. “Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people,” Trump continued in a rather modest and inclusive speech compared to his hatred narrative during the presidential campaign. Following the ceremony tradition, the Inauguration Day will be on January 20 2017, when Donald Trump will start official functions.

After 15 months of debauchery and a decadent presidential campaign coined by personal accusations and very little policy talking, the American people seem to be ready for something disruptive after voting against the establishment. “His victory is a humbling blow to the news media, the pollsters and the Clinton-dominated Democratic leadership,” wrote the New York Times.

What seemed to be a neck and neck race, turned out to be an ugly defeat for Clinton, beaten in the Electoral College. Noteworthy however is that Hilary won the popular vote against Trump. Still, the fight for the White House couldn’t be worse for the Democrats who also failed to retake the Senate and to grant a majority in the House of Representatives. With the Congress – the US legislative branch - dominated by the Republicans, Donald Trump will seize more power than his predecessor Barack Obama. “It gives them control of the Supreme Court for years to come, a huge issue for the conservative base. When combined with a favourable map in 2018, Republicans could be on the verge of building a majority that could last well into the next decade,” wrote Politico.

Nevertheless, during the campaign Trump managed to alienate several Republicans due to his insensitive behavior. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Mike Murphy are just but a few of the conservatives that turned against Trump. With GOPs opposing the President-elect, chances are that Trump might see his legislative power more limited.

Talking on Trump’s possible policy agenda on Bloomberg Surveillance, Dan Glickman, former US agriculture secretary under Clinton administration (1985-2001), said that even with a Congress dominated by the Republicans, he has faith on the United States’ checks and balances, which are in place to avoid absolute power therefore limiting the influence of the three branches of government.

How did this happen?

To say that US citizens are blatantly weary with the enrooted system is an understatement. Trump was elected under the promises of combating inequalities by dropping taxes for families and companies and creating jobs for millions of Americans. The classic populist appeal strategically made to attract dissatisfied segments of the population. “The gap between the fortunes of elites and those of the rest of the public has been growing for two generations, but only now is it coming to dominate national politics,” wrote the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama.

On the other hand, Trump sparkled countless controversy after his racist comments blaming the Mexicans of being  “criminals” and “rapists” (even though he “assumed” that some of them are “good people”) and pledging to build a wall in the Mexican border. The Democrats thought they had nailed it after Trump’s bohemian and misogynist behavior was flagrantly exposed in the media, but still, it wasn’t the last straw for Donald Trump.

In addition, war fatigue of the Bush years and Hilary Clinton’s lack of credibility were also likely to have contributed for the general anti-establishment feeling. During the campaign, Hilary’s wrongdoings as Secretary of State and her close ties to Wall Street were repeatedly exploited by Trump, who conveyed the image of a “crooked” and “corrupt” woman. Indeed, during the campaign, Trump threatened to take judicial action against Clinton and according to the Financial Times, the future US President does not rule out that possibility. It seems hard to believe though, after his “sincere” words of recognition for the service Hillary has done to the US. “She fought very hard. Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump noted during his speech.

Finally, social media and Wikileaks played a major role in this odd presidential campaign. Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange damaged Hilary’s crusade after releasing a series of harsh evidence of her political conduct - such as the content of the emails scandal or her role during the Benghazi assault. Assange, who is exiled in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since August 2012, perhaps strategically or not, seized the presidential campaign to publicly slash Hilary’s reputation. When Assange’s allegiance to Donald Trump was questioned by the media, the Australian journalist denied being fond of Trump: “You’re asking me do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?” he questioned referring to both disliked candidates Trump and Clinton.

What can we expect from this outcome?

While most US citizens are worried with Trump’s future domestic agenda, EU citizens and beyond are apprehensive as to his future foreign policy. Described as entirely unfit for the President’s role, the unpredictability of Trump’s election is the cause for the generally installed anxiety. Trump is pictured as an irascible man with a very bad temperament, a fickle businessman who constantly changes his mind, who casted very depreciative comments towards women and shows very little compassion for the immigrants’ crisis. “After Brexit and this election, everything is now possible,” Gérard Araud, the French ambassador to the United States, wrote on Twitter. “A world is collapsing before our eyes.”

Overall, Trump poses considerable threats to the world order. During his rambling speeches, the mogul put the US’s relations with NATO at stake, demanding its members to pay for the defense services given by the US. He vowed to scrap the Paris climate change deal and pledged to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran. Moreover, Trump has been against Obama’s stance in Iraq and Syria. But will he accept Russian intervention in the region? Crispin Blunt, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Britain’s House of Commons, said, “We are plunged into uncertainty and the unknown.”  The dark side of the story continues to be immigration and Trump’s harsh ideas of curbing it with the construction of a wall in the Mexican border. Will this be a physical wall or will Trump convert his idea into a metaphoric wall meaning more border patrols and increased surveillance?

Nevertheless, the year 2017 will see elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Fears loom as whether Trump’s recent election will strengthen the populist voices beyond seas. The right-wing parties embodied by French Marine Le Pen leading the Front National, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Dutch Party for Freedom have shown particular joy for Trump’s triumph.

So far, markets seem to be responsive

For investors, Trump’s victory means driving through unknown roads. Fears of market disruptions were subject of speculation throughout the media before the closing electoral result. Yet, according to the Financial Times, “Investors display calm rather panic on Trump win.” Donald Trump’s anti-trade stance was one of the reasons of unsteadiness amongst investors. Nevertheless, Trump’s victory speech as President-elect was more comprehensive and in a way, it seemed to calm down the financial markets. At least for now.

Speaking on Bloomberg Surveillance, Erik Nielsen from Unicredit Group Chief Economist joined the “wondering club”: “It is unpredictable to know what to expect from a Trump presidency,” said Nielsen. “Volatility and growth might be part of the next 6 months because people are nervous about what is going to happen,” he added. However, Nielsen confessed that the market reacted less severely than he thought it would.

On the aftermath of the election, Bloomberg reported, “US stocks surge as banks, drug makers rally amid Trump victory”. Lowell Yura, head of multi-asset solutions for BMO Global Asset Management in Chicago said “our base case is we’re more likely to see a more moderate president than we saw as a candidate and the market’s agreeing with that.”

Alex Dryden, Global Market Strategist, JP Morgan Asset Management, discussed on CNBC what might happen when Trump enters office: “I think we need a bit of clarity from president-elect Trump about what he’s actually going to do when he steps into office. There’s been an awful lot of rhetoric in the campaign leading up to this with very little detail on actually policies that he will implement.” Dryden raised the question of the Republican-dominated Congress and whether that means Trump will manage to pass legislation as he pleases. “The other question to ask is whether or not his policies will actually be able to make their way through Congress,” Dryden added.

Documentary: Clinton Cash

Clinton Cash was directed by M.A Taylor in 2016. © Youtube

Distressing questions remain regarding the trustworthiness of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. This documentary focus on her finances, and the workings of the (in)famous Clinton Foundation she co-founded with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Has the enormous success of the world-renowned philanthropic organisation fattened the wallets of this political power couple? 

Have foreign governments been given special privileges that are commensurate with the magnitude of their donations?

Wherever the Clintons go, controversy follows. The film contends that their improprieties begin with the questionable associations they keep. Such is the case in the Republic of Congo, a devastated region damaged by widespread human rights catastrophes. According to the information contained in the film, the foundation received $100 million dollars from the country's dictator - Mobutu Sese Seko. Following this generous donation, then Secretary of State Clinton ended her public pleas for freedom and democracy in the region. The filmmakers detail similarly shady incidents in the foundation's connections with Nigeria, Africa, Haiti and other devastated regions of the world.

Also included in the discussion are Bill Clinton's astronomical speaking fees, possible political favors that have transpired in the wake of sizeable donations, charitable outreach efforts that may have doubled for "pay and play" deals, and the couple's mounting personal fortunes in the years since they first left the White House. In each instance, the film charges that these curious dealings and a significant lack of transparency speak to a larger cover-up of global proportions.

Is Clinton Cash an honest examination of corruption at the highest level? Or is it merely one component of a baseless, unsubstantiated smear campaign meant to derail her current race to the White House?

Iran Nuclear Deal, a Win-Win Solution?

Article published in Cafebabel

Iran nuclear negotiations were tough but constructive. © European External Action Service

After ten years of negotiations, a historic nuclear deal has been sealed between six world powers (USA, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the 14th of July. What’s behind this agreement? 

Despite all efforts, the agreement is still subject to long discussions as President Barack Obama’s words have indicated, “this agreement is not made in trust but in verification.” Iran will dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure while the UN, US and EU will take down a range of sanctions that were imposed on Iran over the past nine years. 

Among the conditions determined by the agreement, Iran will: reduce its enrichment capacity by two thirds while closing its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium; Iran’s accumulation of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 96%; the core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed and redesigned in a way that will not produce significant amounts of plutonium; Iran will allow a UN inspector to enter in certain places, such as military sites, should the inspectors have any doubts regarding Iran’s nuclear activity. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has moved forward in order to reduce its programme, the UN, US and the EU will lift the sanctions. 

Reactions to the Nuclear Agreement 

In his declaration, Barack Obama has said that this was the best agreement in order to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. He also promised to veto any attempt of the Republicans who are opposing the nuclear deal. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif defined the outcome of the negotiations as a “win-win” solution, though not perfect. 

As for Netanhyahu, he described the moment as a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” The Israeli President was clearly dissatisfied with the agreement and has even demanded the US Congress kill it. The sense of insecurity has grown in the Zionist country, as the hypothesis of the end of the Iranian sanctions might canalize billions of dollars to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, is now on the table. 

On the European side, French President François Hollande has manifested optimism before this historic step but warned, “we must be extremely vigilant on what Iran will be.” Both Frans Timmermans and Federica Mogherini have shared words of optimism, congratulating the historic agreement and all the efforts involved. 

When did this all begin? 

Shortly after World War II, in 1953, an orchestrated plan from the CIA overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, in a coup that defeated a democratically elected Prime Minister. Mossadeq, just like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, had sought to nationalise Iran’s oil industry. The US didn’t like it. 

Later on, in 1979, the Iranian revolution began when the Shah of Iran, an American puppet called Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, was obliged to leave the country. This revolution happened following months of protests and strikes against his policies. Once Pahveli was exiled, Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeni returned from exile. The Iranian people then voted a referendum and on the 1st of April the Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. In 1979/1981 the US Embassy hostage crisis determined the loop of bad relations between the two countries that seemed not to have an end. After 444 days, the final 52 hostages were released. A few years later, in 1985/86, under Reagan administration, the US secretly shipped weapons to Iran in exchange for help in liberating America hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as to illegally head off profits from these sales to the Contra rebels fighting to takeover the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This ended up in a major political crisis for President Reagan. In 1988, an American warship shoots down an Iran Air flights in the Gulf, killing all people on board. The US claimed that the Iranian Airbus was mistaken for a fighter jet. 

After these consecutive attacks towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and its people, still, in 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected President and has called for a dialogue with the American people, which never really happened. 

George Bush’s allegations towards Iran 

Nevertheless, the major accusation concerning Iran came in 2002, when president George Bush, in his State of the Union address, denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. This claiming with no real evidence had full support from the mainstream media across the United States. Speculation had been implanted in the American citizens’ minds and Iran was set to be the next target. From 2002 onwards all nuclear fears and sanctions began, when an opposition group reveals that Iran was developing nuclear facilities including a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz as well as a reactor at Arak. Naturally, the US accused Iran of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon programme, which Iran vehemently denied. 

More than a decade of talks and discontinuous attempts of engagement between Iran, the UN and the US, a big pack of sanctions over the nuclear issue was imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, between 2006 and 2010, by the UN. The US and the EU have also imposed sanctions on Iran, extending its measures in 2012 to the financial sector. Bilateral sanctions were applied in several other countries. 

Ahmadinejad’s allegations towards the US 

In 2005, when Ahmadinejad was elected President, the relations between Iran and the West got worsen. During his speech at the UN in 2010, the former Iranian President claimed that most people believed the US government had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Since 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became Iranian President, the relationship between the West and his country turned a lot smoother. Thirty years later, an Iranian President held a phone call with the US head of state, Barack Obama. 

Conclusion 

Following a historic and political timeline of the US and Iran, the big winner of this agreement is the US. Iran will visibly win as well, primarily by expanding its financial sector through negotiations with external investors once the sanctions are lifted. Also, Iran represents the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. However, due to international sanctions, Iran’s ability to export became seriously restrained. If the nuclear agreement passes in the Congress and the sanctions are lifted, the country could increase its oil production by approximately 50% and consequently lower oil prices. 

But the main question remains: why was Iran submitted to sanctions in the first place? What legitimacy has a country like the US, or some other country with a history of invasions and plotting, to impose sanctions in a sovereign state? Real evidence was never found, just like in Iraq, but a single suspicions from the West, namely from the US, seems to be enough to dictate deals and agreements as if the other part had any choice. 

As I have mentioned in previous articles, I am totally against political and military interference in other states, be it directly or indirectly (via coup attempts). By sanctioning Iran, the UN, US and the EU kept on impoverishing the Islamic country, based on political fears. Iran is not being given anything new because much of its chance of generating wealth was taken away nine years ago, and yet the US, not directly, still wins the legitimate control of Iranian facilities. Nevertheless, this was indeed a memorable deal, considering the past relations between Iran and the West, and Iran’s geographical position in the world, as Iran has the capacity of fueling prosperity throughout the Middle East.