- As UK Election Looms, Corbyn Is The Most Unpopular Opposition Leader Since 1977
As UK Election Looms, Corbyn Is The Most Unpopular Opposition Leader Since 1977
Even before the hammer blow of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, it was for many a damning indictment on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, that in a time of such disarray and division in the (now minority) government, that they are still behind in the polls and showing no real signs of being able to beat Boris Johnson and the Tories in an election.
As Statista’s Martin Armstrong points out, this situation is now also underscored by historic survey analysis by Ipsos MORI. Going all the way back to 1977, there hasn’t been a leader of the opposition which has inspired so little confidence among the British public.
You will find more infographics at Statista
When comparing the lowest ‘net satisfaction rate’ (see infographic footnote for a definition) of all opposition leaders, Corbyn is, with his current minus 60 percent, the most unpopular in over 40 years. Michael Foot managed to sink to minus 56 percent when sitting across from Margaret Thatcher in August 1982, but otherwise, no other leader has come close to Corbyn’s September 2019 low.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 09/25/2019 – 02:45 - They're Murdering My Son – Julian Assange's Father Tells Of Pain And Anguish
They’re Murdering My Son – Julian Assange’s Father Tells Of Pain And Anguish
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, gave an interview to Strategic Culture Foundation over the weekend. After arriving from his home country of Australia, Shipton is visiting several European states, including Russia, to bring public attention to the persecution of Julian Assange by British authorities over his role as a publisher and author.
First though an introduction to the Assange case.
Few media figures can be attributed with transforming international politics and the global media landscape. Arguably, Julian Assange, author, publisher and founder of the Wikileaks whistleblower website (2006), is in the top tier of world-changing individuals over the past decade.
The Australian-born Assange has previously been awarded with accolades and respect for his truth-telling journalism which exposed massive crimes, corruption and nefarious intrigues by the US government and its Western allies.
One of the most shocking exposés by Wikileaks was the video ‘Collateral Murder’ (2010) which showed mass, indiscriminate deadly shootings by US troops in Iraq. Similar war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan were also revealed by Wikileaks. The so-called US and NATO “war on terror” was exposed as a fraud and gargantuan crime.
Assange worked with American whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the latter revealing the illegal systematic global surveillance by US spy agencies against ordinary citizens and political leaders around the world in flagrant violation of human rights and Washington’s much-vaunted claims of upholding civil liberties and international law.
The powers-that-be have gone after these truth-tellers with a vengeance for daring to expose their hypocrisy and vile record. Snowden is in exile in Russia unable to return to the US out of fear of imprisonment for “treason”. Manning is currently being detained indefinitely in the US because she refuses to testify against Assange. Julian Assange’s ground-breaking journalism exposing government crimes did so in a way that so many established Western news media outlets failed to do out of cowardly deference to the powers-that-be. Such so-called “independent” media are now facilitating the persecution of Assange by smearing his reputation and ignoring his plight in prison. He has been smeared, among other slanders, as a “Kremlin agent” and a “cyber terrorist”.
After almost seven years (2012-2019) confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he sought political asylum to avoid arbitrary arrest by British authorities over trumped-up sex assault claims (since dropped), Assange was illegally arrested in April this year by UK police storming the Ecuadorian embassy. He has since been detained in maximum security Belmarsh prison where he is held under conditions of solitary confinement. He is being detained indefinitely while the US prepares a request to British authorities to extradite him. If he is extradited to the US, Assange will face charges under the Espionage Act which could result in 175 years in jail.
Belmarsh prison in London is a Special Category A jail (the most severe of four grades of detention centers in the British penal system). It has been used previously to detain mass murderers and the most dangerous convicted terrorists. Julian Assange’s ongoing incarceration there under lockdown is preposterous. It is an outrage, and yet Western media show little or no concern to report on this gross violation of due process and human rights law.
Earlier this month, on September 13, Assange was ordered by a British judge to be detained further even though he was due to be released this week on September 22, after having served out his sentence over a minor bail infringement that occurred back in 2012 when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. That bail infringement is null and void since the original sex-assault claim in Sweden has been dropped due to lack of evidence against Assange.
Evidently, his detention is being used by the British government (no doubt at the behest of Washington) in order to destroy his health and very being. At age 48, his physical and mental condition are deteriorating by the day under the extreme conditions which amount to torture, as the UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer noted after visiting the prisoner back in May this year. The UN report called for Assange’s immediate release.
The following is an interview conducted with Assange’s father, John Shipton. He is currently on a tour of European countries to highlight the gross miscarriage of justice against his son. Shipton is visiting Britain, Ireland, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden to campaign for Julian’s immediate release. He is also traveling to Russia.
In contrast to Western media indifference, John Shipton says he has encountered great public support for Julian, demanding his freedom. Among his supporters are prominent public figures, award-winning journalist John Pilger, renowned thinker and writer Noam Chomsky, Pink Floyd singer-songwriter Roger Waters and the courageous actress Pamela Anderson.
Interview
Q: Can you describe the current prison conditions for Julian and his state of health?
Julian has lost 15 kilos in weight, is held in Belmarsh Maximum Security prison hospital 22 hours per day in solitary confinement. Nils Melzer, United Nation’s special rapporteur on torture, visited in company with two people expert in recognizing the effects of torture. Nils’ report stated Julian showed the effects of torture physically and mentally. Since Nils’ visit in May 2019, Julian continues to lose weight, now totaling 15 kilos. Nils and company describe Julian’s deeply distressing condition in firm language. UN report linked.
Q: It is reported that you are being restricted from contact with your son in prison despite you having traveled from Sydney, Australia, to visit him. Is that correct?
Julian can receive two, two-hour social visits per month. My visit was double-booked with another thus cancelled. A week later, in company with Ai Wei Wei, we visited Julian. Sitting in the prisoners’ meeting room for 46 minutes, upon complaining we were told Julian could not be found. Couple of minutes later Julian was brought in.
Q: Is Julian being restricted from contact with his lawyers in order to prepare his defense against the pending extradition case from Britain to the US?
Yes, severely. Sentenced to maximum security as a Grade B prisoner in solitary confinement, without access to computer or library. I gather the prison library has no books on criminal law.
Q: The latest development this month on September 13 saw a British judge rule that Julian’s detention in London’s max security Belmarsh prison is to be extended indefinitely despite him being due to be released on September 22 after serving his time for a bail infringement back in 2012. What, in your view, is objectionable about the latest ruling by the British judge?
The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, made her own application for Julian’s bail which, with bottomless ignominy, she promptly refused. Baraitser in summing her judgement used the phrase, “likely to abscond”. Julian has partaken of legal conventions of asylum, and to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, reviewed and supported by 32 states in the American Organization of States, and he has ceaselessly offered Swedish prosecutors opportunity to interview him on allegations or travel to Sweden if guarantees of no onward extradition to the United States. Stephania Maurizi’s Freedom of Information requests of United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecuting Service and Swedish Crown Prosecuting Authority had revealed irregular anti-procedural state cooperation keeping Julian in Ecuador’s London embassy. Mini Adolf Eichmanns all of them are.
Swedish prosecuting authority has had four prosecutors, two interviews, one in Sweden 2010 and 2017 in Ecuador’s London embassy, during nine years under regulations stating that cases must be progressed. To land a man on the moon took eight years!
This is prosecutorial and judicial insouciant malice towards Julian.
Q: What are your concerns about what could happen if your son is extradited to the US where he is facing charges of violating the Espionage Act?
They will murder Julian one way or the other.
Q: What do you say to politicians and media figures, like Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late US senator John McCain, who denounce Julian as a “cyber terrorist”?
US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, moron and crook or if you prefer, crook and moron, if memory serves, first uttered this phrase purportedly bringing Julian under the Patriot Act as a terrorist, thereby able to be extra-judicially murdered. Floundering morons repeat meaningless phrases echoing other bubble-head nonsense. Everyone of those morons are horrified by and terrified by truth and facts which everyone all can see and read on Wikileaks.
Q: Are you proud of your son’s work as a publisher and whistleblower? What do see as his main achievement from his publishing work?
The achievements are many. In diplomatic cables we can read of how the geopolitical world is composed and disposed of people therein. We can understand what Uncle Sam wants and how the US state gets what its wants. Many millions of people, communities and states benefit from Wikileaks, some greatly. Example, Chagos Islanders at the International Court of Justice. Iraq War and Afghan files exposing war crimes. Vault 7 exposing CIA cyber illegalities and crimes. The ‘Collateral Murder’ video’s revelation of US war crimes in Iraq. The list of revelations and beneficiaries is long and deep. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a necessity.
War crimes revealed, sordid practices, blackmail and bribery. Seven countries destroyed, millions dead, rivers of blood and millions displaced. Yet only Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, both innocent of giving hurt and crime, rot in jail.
Q: Is Julian’s treatment by British and US authorities a grave warning to all citizens about the danger to their right to freedom of expression and independent media?
Yes, a grim warning. Shut up or be crushed. What free press? English-speaking mass media is homogenous in its deceptions, prevarication and banal lies. Popular internet search engines deflect enquiry to corporate cronies. Facebook corporation is greed incarnate. All these entities can be simply regulated. Nations states have powers, however, do nothing but salivate over access to data we generate… our data.
For Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are icons of oppressive state violence towards revelation of astonishing corruption and staggering criminality.
Many gifted, brave writers, commentators and film-makers continue a furious fight in alternate media and blogs. We give our gratitude and salute such men and women, for they all know, intimately, there is no monster colder than the US state and its allies.
Q: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the government in Canberra have refused to make appeals for Julian’s release despite him being an Australian citizen. How do you view the Australian government’s lack of response to the case? Why are they apparently derelict? For example, Premier Morrison is visiting US President Donald Trump this week but he is reportedly scheduled to not raise the Assange case or to request his release. Why is Morrison acting with such indifference, and deference to the US?
The Australian government is complicit. More than complicit as silence indicates agreed involvement. Notable exception are ex Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, with concordance of ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, raising Julian with Jeremy Hunt, the former United Kingdom Foreign Minister and Mike Pompeo, the current United States Secretary of State.
Q: Are you hopeful that Julian will be released in the near future? How important have public supporters like journalist John Pilger, Pink Floyd singer-songwriter Roger Waters and actress Pamela Anderson, as well as ordinary members of the public, been to Julian’s spirits?
To Julian’s spirits, friends and supporters are alpha to omega of life.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 09/25/2019 – 02:00 - Sergei Lavrov Warns "The World Is At A Crossroads"
Sergei Lavrov Warns “The World Is At A Crossroads”
Via Dmitry Orlov’s Club Orlov blog,
Sergei Lavrov is a world-class diplomatic heavyweight and Russia’s foreign minister. As the saying goes, if you don’t deal with Lavrov, you’ll end up dealing with Sergei Shoigu, defense minister. This speech is important in the context of the borderline nonexistent relations between Russia and the United States. It explains why that is and orders ways out.
The question is, are American government officials capable of accepting reality and acquiescing to the fact that the world has changed and that they are no longer the ones calling the shots.
These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.
The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.
Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.
The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.
It is regrettable that these obvious truths are being deliberately silenced or ignored by certain influential forces in the West. Moreover, some have intensified attempts at privatizing the Victory, expunging from memory the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism, condemning to oblivion the Red Army’s feat of sacrifice and liberation, forgetting the many millions of Soviet citizens who perished during the War, wiping out from history the consequences of the ruinous policy of appeasement. From this perspective, it is easy to grasp the essence of the concept of expounding the equality of the totalitarian regimes. Its purpose is not just to belittle the Soviet contribution to the Victory, but also to retrospectively strip our country of its historic role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and label it a “revisionist power” that is posing a threat to the well-being of the so-called free world.
Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.
The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global decision-making center.
It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.
All that is greatly disturbing to those who for centuries have been accustomed to setting the patterns of global development by employing exclusive advantages. While the majority of states aspire to a more just system of international relations and genuine rather than declarative respect for the UN Charter principles, these demands come up against the policies desighned to preserve an order allowing a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations to reap from the fruits of globalization. The West’s response to the ongoing developments reveals true worldview of its proponents. Their rhetoric on liberalism, democracy and human rights goes hand in hand with the policies of inequality, injustice, selfishness and a belief in their own exceptionalism.
“Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.
In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.
What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?
Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.
The West’s unwillingness to accept today’s realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.
The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.
The initiatives to regulate journalism seeking to suppress media freedom in an arbitrary way, the interventionist ideology of “responsibility to protect”, which justifies violent “humanitarian interventions” without UN Security Council approval under the pretext of an imminent threat to the safety of civilians are part of the same policy.
Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.
The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”
Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.
Now we are witnessing alarming signs that a media campaign in the United States is being launched to lay the groundwork for abandoning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has not been ratified by the United States). This calls into question the future of this treaty, which is vital for international peace and security. Washington has embarked upon the implementation of its plans to deploy weapons in outer space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.
There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.
Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.
At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.
So, what do we have as a result? In politics, erosion of the international legal basis, growth of instability and unsustainability, chaotic fragmentation of the global landscape and deepening mistrust between those involved in the international life. In the area of security, blurring of the dividing line between military and non-military means of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increased reliance on nuclear weapons in US security doctrines, lowering the threshold for the use of such armaments, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflicts, the persistence of the global terrorist threat, and militarization of the cyberspace. In the world economy, increased volatility, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and their supply routes, trade wars and undermining the multilateral trade system. We can add a surge of migration and deepening of ethnic and religious strife. Do we need such a “rules-based” world order?
Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.
As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.
What is being proposed by Russia? First of all, it is necessary to keep abreast of the times and recognise the obvious: the emergence of a polycentric world architecture is an irreversible process, no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially hold it back (let alone send it in reverse). Most countries don’t want to be held hostage to someone else’s geopolitical calculations and are determined to conduct nationally oriented domestic and foreign policies. It is our common interest to ensure that multipolarity is not based on a stark balance of power like it was at the earlier stages of human history (for example, in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century), but rather bears a just, democratic and unifying nature, takes into account the approaches and concerns of all those taking part in the international relations without an exception, and ensures a stable and secure future.
There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.
No doubt, life does not stand still. While taking good care of the post-WWII system of international relations that relies on the United Nations, it is also necessary to cautiously though gradually adjust it to the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This is completely relevant for the UN Security Council, where, judging by today’s standards, the West is unfairly overrepresented. We are confident that reforming the Security Council shall take into account interests of the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations whilst any such design must rest upon the principle of the broadest consensus among the UN member states. The same approach should apply to refining the world trade system, with special attention paid to harmonizing the integration projects in various regions.
We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.
It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.
It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.
As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.
Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.
Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.
Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.
Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.
There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:45 - Abortion Rates Fall To Lowest Level Since Procedure Was Legalized In 1973
Abortion Rates Fall To Lowest Level Since Procedure Was Legalized In 1973
A new study released on Wednesday by the Guttmacher institute shows that abortion rates have fallen to their lowest level since the procedure was legalized in 1973, according to the BBC.
The study shows that abortion rates declined 7% from 2014 to 2017 and that, in 2017, 862,320 abortions were performed. This is lower than 2011 by about 200,000 abortions and down from a high of 1.6 million in 1990.
The institute says that the lower number isn’t necessarily a result of new laws or conservative politicians trying to restrict access. Rather, it offers several different theories as to why the rate could be plummeting.
First, it suggests that better reproductive healthcare could be part of the reason. The authors of the report found that better access to contraception and improvement in female contraception, like IUDs and implants, may have contributed to the decline. These forms of contraception are now covered by insurance companies due to the 2009 Affordable Care Act.
Elizabeth Nash, a policy manager for the Guttmacher Institute said that the report shows the national average. She pointed out that even though the average distance traveled for an abortion was 34 miles, some women were forced to travel much further.
“Some people are going hundreds of miles while some people are living in cities where they can take the bus or the train,” she said.
Second, the report suggests that at-home abortions could be contributing to the rate falling. Despite 95% of all procedures taking place in clinics, use of the abortion pill accounted for 39% of abortions in 2017, up from 20% in 2014. These abortions are harder to track.
Increased legal restrictions may also be part of the reason the rate is dropping. Between 2011 and 2017, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions on abortions. Some of the “harshest restrictions to date” have been passed by conservative leaning states in 2018, even though some have been blocked by courts temporarily.
Anti-abortion advocates believe that the legal restrictions are helping slow the abortion rate.
Laura Echevarria of the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee said: “I think they are having an impact. If it’s not having a huge impact then why is everyone in the abortion industry up in arms every time a law is passed?”
Nash thinks that even though increased restrictions “play a role” that “the numbers don’t tell the whole story”.
She continued: “The abortion rate, whether it declines or increases, is not really the indicator of access. What we need to do is think about what abortion services look like for each individual and whether or not they’re affordable and available.”
Some states that passed harsher abortion laws between 2014 and 2017 actually saw increases in abortion rates. Several states that opened new clinics saw abortion rates move lower. Overall, the US saw a net gain of clinics between 2014 and 2017.
Lower birthrates are also likely helping the abortion trend. In general, women are choosing to have fewer children. With the US birthrate at its lowest level since 1987, the number of births per thousand – and fertility – both fell to their lowest levels since 1987.
The decrease in births is being attributed to women seeking higher education and employment, as well as changing societal expectations and limited provision for parental leave from work.
Finally, some believe the decline in abortion rates is a result of anti-abortion advocates having more of an impact.
National Right to Life Committee President Carol Tobias said: “The pro-life movement’s efforts to educate American’s about the humanity of the unborn child and pass protective pro-life legislation are having an impact.”
NRLC Laura Echevarria spokeswoman concluded: “Knowledge of what happens inside the womb has become mainstream.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:25 - NASA And ESA Announce Plans For "Insurance Policy For Earth"
NASA And ESA Announce Plans For “Insurance Policy For Earth”
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the ESA (Europeans Space Agency) are finally ready to test the Earth’s planetary defenses to see whether we can successfully defend ourselves from the apparent scourge of “space rocks”. Calling it an “insurance policy for Earth,” scientists intend to smash a spacecraft into an asteroid at over 14,000 miles per hour.
According to RT, the target they have chosen to crash a spacecraft into is the asteroid Didymos B. This space rock is roughly 160 meters in diameter, one half of a binary asteroid system. Didymos B orbits the larger asteroid Didymos A every 11.92 hours and this will help determine the ultimate success (or failure) of the mission. The Didymos system is classified as a Near-Earth Object (NEO), meaning it’s close but not too close that it might hit us, making it the perfect test subject to see how well Earth is prepared to steer an asteroid off a collision course with the Earth.
The joint asteroid impact and deflection assessment (AIDA) project launched by the ESA and NASA in 2015, and Earth’s champion selected for the mission will be NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft.
“Today, we’re the first humans in history to have the technology to potentially deflect an asteroid from impacting the Earth,” astronomer Ian Carnelli of the ESA told Technology Review.
“The key question that remains to be answered is, are the technologies and models that we have good enough to actually work? Before you drive a car, you need to have an insurance policy. Well, AIDA is the insurance policy for planet Earth.”
Both space agencies are anticipating some problems with this mission, however. Things may not go as smoothly as planned. For example, when the Japanese space agency JAXA bombed the asteroid Ryugu in April, it made a far bigger crater than anticipated. Additionally, the material on the surface behaved like sand, which may impact the effectiveness of deflection. There is no way to tell how Didymos B will react when it is struck with a man-made spacecraft.
“If gravity is also dominant at Didymos B, even though it is much smaller, we could end up with a much bigger crater than our models and lab-based experiments to date have shown,” explained planetary scientist Patrick Michel of CNRS.
“Ultimately, very little is known about the behavior of these small bodies during impacts and this could have big consequences for planetary defense.”
The DART will ram into Didymos B at 23,760 kilometers per hour (14,760mph). However, all that force will only translate into a change in the asteroid’s velocity of just a centimeter per second or so, which could change the orbital period from almost 12 hours to a mere matter of minutes.
The mission is set to launch in July 2021, with the impact expected in September 2022.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:05 - IG Says Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Had 'Bias' In Favor Of 'Rival Candidate'; Retains Clinton, Schumer Attorney
IG Says Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Had ‘Bias’ In Favor Of ‘Rival Candidate’; Retains Clinton, Schumer Attorney
The Trump administration is set to release a document from the intelligence community inspector general which concluded that the whistleblower behind the explosive allegations against President Trump had ‘political bias’ in favor of ‘a rival candidate’ for US president, according to Fox News, citing a senior Trump administration official.
What’s more, the whistleblower has retained attorney Andrew Bakaj – who “interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year,” per The Federalist.
“Attorney For Anti-Trump ‘Whistleblower’ Worked For Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer” https://t.co/yxQ5obwB6K
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile, the White House has also been working as fast as possible to release the whistleblower’s complaint involving phone conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Congress, “as long as it’s legally possible.”
The news came just hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a formal impeachment inquiry by alleging that the administration was hiding the complaint.
The senior administration official told Fox News that the White House had nothing to hide, that there has been no wrongdoing, and that the White House’s general position has been that it will make everything possible available to Congress or the public regarding Trump’s conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint to the intelligence community’s inspector general.
A source familiar with the matter told Fox News this week that the whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s July call with Zelensky. Trump vowed earlier Tuesday to release a “complete” transcript of the call by Wednesday. –Fox News
On Friday, Trump described the whistleblower as ‘partisan,’ and that he had a “totally appropriate conversation” with Zelensky – warning the press that they’re making a giant mistake.
“You know the press has had a very bad week with Justice Kavanaugh and all those ridiculous charges, and all of the mistakes made at the New York Times and other places,” said Trum, adding: “You’ve had a very bad week, and this will be better than all of ’em, this is another one. So keep playing it out because you’re gonna look really bad when it falls, and I guess I’m about 22 and 0 and I’ll keep it that way.
“…keep asking questions and building it up as big as possible so you can have a bigger downfall.”
According to the senior Trump admin official there are a “few words” in the transcript which may raise eyebrows, however it is nowhere near the quid pro quo, pressure tactics or threats that Democrats and the MSM have suggested.
Throwing a wrench in the gears of ‘justice’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday went against her better judgement and launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump – specifically charging that the administration violated the law by refusing to turn over the whistleblower complaint.
“Today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella … The president must be held accountable,” Pelosi said in a press conference.
Other prominent Democrats also seemingly said Trump should be impeached no matter what.
“The president has committed several impeachable offenses,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told reporters after Pelosi’s remarks on impeachment. In another indication that Democrats were apparently hedging their bets on the Ukraine matter, Ocasio-Cortez said alleged Emoluments Clause violations by the president could be included in prospective articles of impeachment.
Republicans said the move would prove to be a major political mistake.
“It is a colossal error,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told Fox News just prior to Pelosi’s comments. “And, I’m kind of surprised that Speaker Pelosi, as shrewd as she is, would let it get to this point.”
Swing district Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., acknowledged to Fox News that supporting the impeachment inquiry “could” affect her electorally, but she maintained that Trump voters in her district “understand,” and that Trump crossed a red line. –Fox News
While taking great pains not to discuss Biden’s alleged malfeasance in Ukraine, Democrats have also latched onto the Trump administration’s decision to pause $391 million in military aid to Ukraine about a week before the call between the two world leaders – suggesting that Trump threatened to withhold it unless they investigated claims that Biden abused his position as US Vice President to benefit his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company which was under investigation. The elder Biden openly bragged about threatening to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:45 - Normal Intrusions: Globalising AI Surveillance
Normal Intrusions: Globalising AI Surveillance
Authored by Binoy Kampmark via Oriental Review,
They all do it: corporations, regimes, authorities. They all have the same reasons: efficiency, serviceability, profitability, all under the umbrella term of “security”. Call it surveillance, or call it monitoring the global citizenry; it all comes down to the same thing. You are being watched for your own good, and such instances should be regarded as a norm.
Given the weaknesses of international law and the general hiccupping that accompanies efforts to formulate a global right to privacy, few such restrictions, or problems, preoccupy those in surveillance. The entire business is burgeoning, a viral complex that does not risk any abatement.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has released an unnerving report confirming that fact, though irritatingly using an index in doing so. Its focus is Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. A definition of sorts is offered for AI, being “an integrated system that incorporates information acquisition objectives, logical reasoning principles, and self-correction capacities.”
When stated like that, the whole matter seems benign. Machine learning, for instance, “analyses a large amount of information in order to discern a pattern to explain the current data and predict future uses.”
There are several perturbing highlights supplied by the report’s author, Steven Feldstein. The relationship between military expenditure and states’ use of AI surveillance systems is noted, with “forty of the world’s top fifty military spending countries (based on cumulative military expenditures) also [using] AI surveillance technology.” Across 176 countries, data gathered since 2017 shows that AI surveillance technologies are not merely good domestic fare but a thriving export business.
The ideological bent of the regime in question is no bar to the use of such surveillance. Liberal democracies are noted as major users, with 51 percent of “advanced democracies” doing so. That number, interestingly enough, is less than “closed autocratic states” (37 percent); “electoral autocratic/competitive autocratic states” (41 percent) and “electoral democracies/illiberal democracies” (41 percent). The political taxonomist risks drowning in minutiae on this point, but the chilling reality stands out: all states are addicted to diets of AI surveillance technologies.
Feldstein makes the fairly truistic point that “autocratic and semi-autocratic” states so happen to abuse AI surveillance more “than governments in liberal democracies” but the comparisons tend to breakdown in the global race for technological superiority. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are singled out as “exploiting AI technology for mass surveillance purposes” but all states seek the Holy Grail of mass, preferably warrantless surveillance. Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 did more than anything else to scupper the quaint notion that those who profess safeguards and freedoms are necessarily aware about the runaway trends of their security establishment.
The corporation-state nexus is indispensable to global surveillance, a symbiotic relationship that resists regulation and principle. This has the added effect of destroying any credible distinction between a state supposedly more compliant with human rights standards, and those that are not. The common thread, as ever, is the technology company. As Feldstein notes, in addition to China, “companies based in liberal democracies – for example, Germany, France, Israel, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the United States – are actively selling sophisticated equipment to unsavoury regimes.”
These trends are far from new. In 1995, Privacy International published a report with the unmistakable title Big Brother Incorporated, an overview of surveillance technology that has come to be aptly known as the Repression Trade.
“Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders, and political opponents.”
Corporations with no particular allegiance except to profit and shareholders, such as British computer firm ICL (International Computers Limited) were identified as key designers behind the South African automated Passbook system, Apartheid’s stand out signature. In the 1980s, the Israeli company Tadiran, well in keeping with a rich tradition of the Repression Trade, supplied the murderous Guatemalan policy with computerised death lists in their “pacification” efforts.
The current galloping power in the field of AI surveillance technology is China, underpinned by the clout-heavy Belt and Road Initiative rosily described by its fans as a Chinese Marshall Plan. Where there are market incentives, there are purchasing prospects for AI technology.
“Technology linked to Chinese companies are found in at least sixty-three countries worldwide. Huawei alone is responsible for providing AI surveillance technology to at least fifty countries.”
Chinese technology, it is speculated, may well boost surveillance capabilities within certain African markets, given the “aggressiveness of Chinese companies”.
Other powers also participate in what has become a field of aggressive competitors. Japan’s NEC is its own colossus, supplying technology to some 14 countries. IBM keeps up the pressure as a notable American player, doing so to 11 countries. That particular entity made something of a splash in May, with a report revealing sales of biometric surveillance systems to the United Arab Emirates security and spy agencies stirring discussion in May this year. Another recipient of IBM surveillance technology is the Philippines, a country more than keen to arm its police forces with the means to monitor, and more than occasionally murder, its citizens. (The Davao City death squads are a bloody case in point.)
Issues with the report were bound to arise. A humble admission is made that the sampling method may be questionable in terms of generating a full picture of the industry. “Given the opacity of government surveillance use, it is nearly impossible to pin down by specific year which AI platforms or systems are currently in use.” Nor does the index “distinguish between AI surveillance used for legitimate purposes and unlawful digital surveillance.” A murky field, indeed.
For all the grimness of Feldstein’s findings, he is also aware of the seductive element that various platforms have offered. Rampant, amoral AI surveillance might well be a hideous by-product of technology, but the field teems with promise in “deep learning; cloud computing and online data gathering”, “improved performance of complex algorithms; and market-driven incentives for new uses of AI technology.” This shows, in a sense, the Janus-faced nature in critiquing such an enterprise; such praise tends to come with the territory, given Feldstein’s own background as former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau of the US State Department.
Feldstein leaves room to issue a warning. “As these technologies become more embedded in governance and politics, the window for change will narrow.” The window, in many instances, has not so much narrowed as closed, as it did decades ago.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:25 - Macron Slams Greta Thunberg After Teenage Activist Sues France Over Climate – But Leaves Out China
Macron Slams Greta Thunberg After Teenage Activist Sues France Over Climate – But Leaves Out China
French President Emmanuel Macron slammed Greta Thunberg after the 16-year-old climate activist filed a legal complaint accusing five countries of inaction on global warming in violation of the 30-year-old UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey.
Notably, she left out China – which is the world’s worst polluter by total volume.
Good morning to everybody except China for being the biggest polluter in the world yet somehow escaping the wrath of Greta Thunberg
— Ashley StClair 🇺🇸 (@stclairashley) September 24, 2019
After browbeating the UN for ‘stealing her childhood‘ on Monday, Thunberg tweeted “Today at 11:30 I and 15 other children from around the world filed a legal complaint against 5 nations over the climate crisis through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Thunberg’s complaint calls out nations that have ratified the UN treaty, yet – according to her – have not upheld their obligations. And again, she’s said nothing about pollution from China or India.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Maybe China is backing her so she can destroy other nations’ industries so China gets what remains of Western manufacturing.
— Texarkana Fed 🇺🇸 (@TexarkanaFed) September 24, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Are the Greta Thunburg handlers going to take her over to our pals in China next? #HowDareYou pic.twitter.com/WPFMv9gZDm
— |01101010| (@skidmarkymarkk) September 24, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In response to the Swedish activist, French President Emmanuel Macron told Eruope1 that her stance was “very radical” and likely to “antagonize societies.”
“All the movements of our youth — or our not-so-young — are helpful,” said Macron, adding “But they must now focus on those who are furthest away, those who are seeking to block the way.”
The head of state stressed that he didn’t feel “that the French government nor the German government, currently, were blocking the way.”
Macron also said he wanted young people to “help us put pressure on those who are blocking the way” and to “partake in very clear action.” –Business Insider
President Trump, meanwhile, appears to be having fun with the whole thing.
She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! https://t.co/1tQG6QcVKO
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2019
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:14 - US Special Forces Still Deploying Banned Chinese-Made Drones In 'Sensitive' Operations
US Special Forces Still Deploying Banned Chinese-Made Drones In ‘Sensitive’ Operations
A searing report in the major US government-funded Voice of America has spotlighted that despite growing controversy over Chinese tech and communications products used in American government, especially in light of the recent Huawei affair, the Air Force and Navy have continued to rely on Chinese-manufactured drones for elite forces even months following a prior DoD ban on their use.
Despite a May 2018 formal Pentagon order which prohibits “all commercial off-the-shelf drones,” by US armed forces, which cited “cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” it appears some of the military’s most elite squads are still relying on them.
Apparently a ‘special exemption’ is required for special forces to continue using Chinese drones “on a case by case basis, to support urgent needs,” according to a Pentagon spokesman cited by VOA.
US military file image via Reuters. But the report finds alarmingly, that the exception increasingly looks to be the “norm” even when it comes to the most sensitive operations by such elite teams as the Navy SEALS.
According to documents examined by VOA:
…purchase orders completed in August and November 2018 show that the Navy spent nearly $190,000 and the Air Force spent nearly $50,000 on drones made by DJI.
The Air Force bought 35 DJI Mavic Pro Platinum drones, and the Navy bought an undisclosed number of drones from DJI’s “Inspire” series.
The 2018 drone purchase orders obtained by VOA via public records appear to be for some of the military’s most sensitive and secretive operators, including the Air Force’s only special tactics wing and Navy Sea Air Land (SEAL) teams.
DJI, it must be remembered, is China’s drone-market-leader Da Jiang Innovations, which Washington officials eyed closely in 2017 on suspicion the company was assisting Beijing in spying efforts abroad, and specifically on the United States government.
Speaking of DJI drones, Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, admitted to reporters last month, “We know that a lot of the information is sent back to China from those, so it is not something that we can use.”
In 2017 the US Army ordered all units to stop using China’s DJI drones.
Getty Image So it appears the potential for China’s military to gain a peak into US elite forces’ most sensitive operations has been acknowledged by US officials as a distinct possibility, even likely, yet the military has said it is developing ‘software fixes’ to thwart equipment being used as a Chinese spying ‘back door’.
The VOA report continues:
Partially-redacted copies of documents justifying the purchase of DJI drone kits for the 24th Special Operations Wing confirmed that 15 Chinese-made drones were already being fielded by eight Air Force Special Tactics Squadrons and warned that tactics, “software, and optical system development would be negatively impacted if this system was abandoned.”
One document acknowledged the security concerns raised over the Chinese-made technology and claimed the military had developed a fix.
Specifically, it said that “software has been developed (specific to this model) and implemented to eliminate the cyber security concerns that are inherent to the DJI Mavic Pro.”
Currently, a there’s a bipartisan Congressional effort to further investigate the military’s continued use of the security-vulnerable drones, given the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee put a provision into the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) effecting a blanket ban on their use by the armed forces.
The bill delineating the DoD budget for the upcoming year is expected up for debate in the coming weeks.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:05
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/usdroneschina.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/dji-drones.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}