The article that is linked below is showing once again, how one brain can influence another. Intelligence agents have known about this for years. Unfortunately, like so many other important facts in this world, they are covering this up from you. This is what I am showing here, here, here, here and here.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Zionism Moves Against the United Nations
As an addition to the article below, see this, this, this, this and this.
The United Nations (UN) has been shelved, sidelined, consigned to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dreamers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world hegemon.
Today’s imperialists—standard bearers for an ancient philosophy hostile to all forms of nationalism other than their own—now envision the United States as the driving force to implement the New
World Order of which they have dreamed for generations. The United States is their “New Jerusalem” and they intend to use America’s military might to achieve their aims.
For nearly 50 years, the major media in America told Americans—and people around the globe—that the UN was “the last best hope for mankind.” That theme was a ritualistic mantra in American public schools. Anyone who dared criticize the UN was marginalized— damned as an “extremist” hostile to humanity itself.
However, in the 1970s, things began to change. As Third World nations emerged from their colonial status, and as Israel’s oppression of the Christian and Muslim people of Palestinian-Arab heritage
became a topic of worldwide concern, the UN took on a new complexion— at least as far as the media monopoly in America was concerned.
Suddenly, the UN was no longer considered such a wonderful thing after all. Finally, when—in 1975—the UN passed its historic resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, the wheel turned full circle. For issuing a direct challenge to Zionism, the foundation behind the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel (as well as a spiritual capital of an impending worldwide Zionist empire), the UN was painted by the media—much of it in the hands of Zionist families and financial interests—as an unquestioned villain.
Suddenly, criticism of the UN was quite “respectable.” And in the United States, an emerging so-called “neo-conservative” movement— led by a tightly-knit clique of Jewish ex-Trotskyite communists under the tutelage of one Irving Kristol and his acolyte, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the American Jewish Committee’s highly influential monthly journal, Commentary—made the burgeoning attack on the UN a centerpiece of its agenda.
However, it was not until the ascension to power in January, 2001 of President George W. Bush’s administration that the effort to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.” (or variants
thereof) became part of the actual policy-making framework in official Washington.
The appropriation of the American national security establishment by a host of neo-conservatives appointed to office by Bush—every single one of them, to a man, proteges of the aforementioned
Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, a powerful media commentator and behind-the-scenes policy maker in his own right—assured that the campaign against the UN would be central to Bush administration policy.
In addition, of course, the anti-UN rhetoric received increasingly even more widespread support throughout the American media. For example, writing in The New York Daily News, a journal published by Mortimer Zuckerman, the former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (the governing body of the American Zionist movement), one columnist, Andrea Peyser, referred to “the anti-American, anti- Semitic rats infesting the banks of the East River.”
Should anyone still doubt that the reason for opposition to the UN stemmed from the fact that the world body stood in the way of the demands of Israel, note the revealing commentary by
Cal Thomas, a long-time associate of Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the most vociferous advocates for Israel in America today.
In a Dec. 12, 2004 column for The Washington Times, Thomas endorsed long-time criticisms of the UN which he—by his own admission—previously considered the work of “the fringe.” Thomas said that “the world would be better off without this body.”
Noting that many Americans never felt the UN would be good for America, Thomas asserted that he always felt that those who said such things were to be ignored. Here’s what Thomas wrote:
In college days, I was aware of them. They were the fringe, and beyond, those who believed Dwight Eisenhower was a closet communist; the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations were part of the drive for “one world government”; Jewish bankers ran the world economy, and the United States should get out of the United Nations.
According to Thomas: “Without buying into the paranoia and conspiracy theories, I am now a convert to the last one.” Thomas’s assertion in this regard is a candid exposition of the Zionist
lobby’s attitude toward the UN, now that the world body has very clearly fallen out of the hands of the Zionist movement and is considered, in their view, “un-manageable” or “beyond repair,” so to
speak.
In fact, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Zionists do indeed perceive the United States as the new mechanism by which they seek to accomplish their goals, pushing the
UN to the sidelines. The grand scheme for a New World Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial” role—was imparted quite directly in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs, voice of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA).
Previously a little-known Washington think tank, JINSA is now often publicly acknowledged as the guiding force behind Bush foreign policy today. One JINSA critic, Professor Edward Herman,
has even gone so far as to describe JINSA as “a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”
The author of the JINSA paper, Alexander H. Joffe, a pro- Israel academic, has been a regularly featured writer in JINSA’s journal, certainly reflecting the high regard in which his views are
held by the Zionist elite. His two-part series was entitled, The Empire That Dared Not Speak Its Name, propounding the theme that “America is an empire,” suggesting that, yes, this is a very
good thing.
The new global regime to be established would find America as “the center of a new international system” in “a world that looks like America, and is therefore safe for all.” However, what
America “looks like” is what the Zionists want it to look like—not necessarily what the American people perceive America to be.
Joffe stated flatly that: “The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975,” (which, incidentally, has
since been repealed). The JINSA author contended that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt.” As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, wrote Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation,
to begin again.” However, he warned that even the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire (at least, obviously, in the view of the Zionist movement).
The JINSA writer asserted that the EU is an “alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he put it frankly, is “the authentic counter-vision to an American Empire.” According to Joffe, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.” (A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer doesn’t seem to see the logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism.)
Joffe complained that although “the new European Empire is multicultural in theory … in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.” Today, in the
EU, he said, “Driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui, the door has been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion
of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspiracy theories.”
In any case, what Joffe described as “the other kind of liberal internationalism” is what the Zionist movement favors. Joffe defined it as such: Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic
international system.
In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.”
Yet, in spite of his rhetoric about “democracy,” Joffe frankly talked about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—presumably after the
United States has already made havoc in the Arab countries of the Middle East: The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for intervention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control to go along with political and cultural control.
Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to), and whether America has the stomach. Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his likeminded schemers. Joffe wrote of a wide-ranging global agenda—
well beyond the African continent. In the end, however, Joffe let the cat out of the bag about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.
“New arrangements,” he said, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.” Joffe dreams of a
United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing: Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger,
which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [emphasis added]
Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might—someday, somehow—
be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states,
sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.
Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:
The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. Setting the stage for
global governance can only be done with American leadership and American-led institutions of the
sort schematically outlined here.
What it all comes down to is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Here, in the pages of a Zionist journal, we have learned precisely what the “story behind the story” actually is. It has nothing to do, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.
The United States is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. Further evidence that this is indeed the view of the Zionist movement comes from no less a source than Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold. In his 2004 book, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Gold outlined a scenario for a new global regime—under United States diktat—pushing aside the UN. He wrote: The United States and its Western allies won the Cold War but obviously no longer have the common goal of containing Soviet expansionism as the
glue holding together a coalition. Still, a coalition of allies could start with neutralizing the greatest
threat to international peace today: global terrorism, another threat that the UN has failed to counter
effectively … the issue of terrorism relates to a number of other concerns common to all of these nations: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of sensitive military technologies, terrorist financing and money laundering, and the incitement of ethnic hatred and violence in national media as well as in educational institutions. Their commitment to curtailing these threats would lead democracies around the world to join together and take action …
Such a democratic coalition would be far more representative of the national will of each country’s citizens than the UN currently is. Oddly, by going outside the UN, these countries would be
recommitting themselves to the principles of which the UN was originally founded. They would embrace the principles laid out in the UN Charter and insist that members of the coalition fully adhere—not just give lip service—to a basic code of international conduct … in short, while Gold and his Zionist allies see global government worthy of support, they do not see the UN as the means by which to achieve it. Gold elaborated further, describing a new mechanism for achieving a New World Order: Because the UN has lost the moral clarity of its founders, the United States and its allies must take the lead. The world will follow in time. If more than one hundred nations wanted to join the Community of Democracies, the democratic ideal must be powerful.
In fact, although it was not widely noticed at the time, a so called “Community of Democracies” was inaugurated by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in June, 2000. So the mechanism is already in place. Gold concluded that the United States and it allies might ultimately “reinvigorate the UN and make the organization’s system of collective security,”
but, he added, “That day is a long way off.” In the meantime, media voices for the Israeli lobby have promoted Gold’s concept of what might be described as a “parallel” UN under the domination of the United States and its purported allies.
For example, on February 6, 2005 writing in The Washington Times, Clifford D. May raised this question: “Is it not high time at least to consider alternatives to the United Nations, to explore
possibly developing new organizations in which democratic societies would work together against common enemies and for common goals?”
However, the evidence is indisputable that this is not just the Zionist propaganda line. This philosophy directed the thinking of the Bush administration. When President George Bush made his
call for a worldwide “democratic” revolution in his second inaugural address, he was doing little more than echoing the opinions of Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, an influential figure
who is considered more hard-line than even Israel’s ruling premier, Ariel Sharon. Not only did Bush publicly and warmly endorse Sharansky, but media reports revealed that Sharansky played a major part in helping draft Bush’s inaugural address.
This is particularly relevant in the context of Sharansky’s harsh words for the UN and what he has offered in his own work, The Case for Democracy, widely touted as “the bible” of Bush foreign policy. In the closing pages of his book, Sharansky summed it up: To protect and promote democracy around the world, I believe that a new international institution, one in which only those governments who give their people the right to be heard and counted, will themselves have a right to be heard and
counted can be an enormously important force for democratic change … This community of free
nations will not emerge on its own … I am convinced that a successful effort to expand freedom
around the world must be inspired and led by the United States.
So it is once again: the concept of the United States being the force for global realignment. And although there was worldwide criticism—even from so-called “democracies”—of Bush’s call for
worldwide democratic revolution based on the Sharansky model, the American Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted on January 28, 2005 that “one world leader endorsed Bush’s approach unreservedly”— former Israeli Prime Minister (and current finance minister) Benjamin Netanyahu.
Citing a speech the Israeli leader recently gave in Florida, Forward said Netanyahu proclaimed:
President Bush called for democratization and he’s on to something very profound. Can the Arab
world be democratized? Yes—slowly, painfully. And who can democratize it? As in everywhere else in the world, in all societies, whether it’s Latin America, the former Soviet Union, or South Africa, democracy was always achieved by outside pressure. And who delivered that pressure? One country: the U.S.
To say more would belabor this simple conclusion: Although, for years, the Zionists denounced American patriots for saying that it was time to “Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of
the U.S.,” now that the Zionists have lost control of the UN—which they originally perceived as their vehicle for establishing a New World Order—the Zionists are targeting the UN precisely because
they have determined that the military and financial resources of the United States are their best bet for establishing that New World Order of which they long dreamed. The Zionists want the United States to serve as the engine for assembling a world empire under their control.
In the end, this does tell us who “The High Priests of War” are and what their agenda really is. Remaining to be seen is what the American people—and all other real patriots around the
globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide that it is time to declare war against The High Priests of War?
The United Nations (UN) has been shelved, sidelined, consigned to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dreamers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world hegemon.
Today’s imperialists—standard bearers for an ancient philosophy hostile to all forms of nationalism other than their own—now envision the United States as the driving force to implement the New
World Order of which they have dreamed for generations. The United States is their “New Jerusalem” and they intend to use America’s military might to achieve their aims.
For nearly 50 years, the major media in America told Americans—and people around the globe—that the UN was “the last best hope for mankind.” That theme was a ritualistic mantra in American public schools. Anyone who dared criticize the UN was marginalized— damned as an “extremist” hostile to humanity itself.
However, in the 1970s, things began to change. As Third World nations emerged from their colonial status, and as Israel’s oppression of the Christian and Muslim people of Palestinian-Arab heritage
became a topic of worldwide concern, the UN took on a new complexion— at least as far as the media monopoly in America was concerned.
Suddenly, the UN was no longer considered such a wonderful thing after all. Finally, when—in 1975—the UN passed its historic resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, the wheel turned full circle. For issuing a direct challenge to Zionism, the foundation behind the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel (as well as a spiritual capital of an impending worldwide Zionist empire), the UN was painted by the media—much of it in the hands of Zionist families and financial interests—as an unquestioned villain.
Suddenly, criticism of the UN was quite “respectable.” And in the United States, an emerging so-called “neo-conservative” movement— led by a tightly-knit clique of Jewish ex-Trotskyite communists under the tutelage of one Irving Kristol and his acolyte, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the American Jewish Committee’s highly influential monthly journal, Commentary—made the burgeoning attack on the UN a centerpiece of its agenda.
However, it was not until the ascension to power in January, 2001 of President George W. Bush’s administration that the effort to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.” (or variants
thereof) became part of the actual policy-making framework in official Washington.
The appropriation of the American national security establishment by a host of neo-conservatives appointed to office by Bush—every single one of them, to a man, proteges of the aforementioned
Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, a powerful media commentator and behind-the-scenes policy maker in his own right—assured that the campaign against the UN would be central to Bush administration policy.
In addition, of course, the anti-UN rhetoric received increasingly even more widespread support throughout the American media. For example, writing in The New York Daily News, a journal published by Mortimer Zuckerman, the former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (the governing body of the American Zionist movement), one columnist, Andrea Peyser, referred to “the anti-American, anti- Semitic rats infesting the banks of the East River.”
Should anyone still doubt that the reason for opposition to the UN stemmed from the fact that the world body stood in the way of the demands of Israel, note the revealing commentary by
Cal Thomas, a long-time associate of Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the most vociferous advocates for Israel in America today.
In a Dec. 12, 2004 column for The Washington Times, Thomas endorsed long-time criticisms of the UN which he—by his own admission—previously considered the work of “the fringe.” Thomas said that “the world would be better off without this body.”
Noting that many Americans never felt the UN would be good for America, Thomas asserted that he always felt that those who said such things were to be ignored. Here’s what Thomas wrote:
In college days, I was aware of them. They were the fringe, and beyond, those who believed Dwight Eisenhower was a closet communist; the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations were part of the drive for “one world government”; Jewish bankers ran the world economy, and the United States should get out of the United Nations.
According to Thomas: “Without buying into the paranoia and conspiracy theories, I am now a convert to the last one.” Thomas’s assertion in this regard is a candid exposition of the Zionist
lobby’s attitude toward the UN, now that the world body has very clearly fallen out of the hands of the Zionist movement and is considered, in their view, “un-manageable” or “beyond repair,” so to
speak.
In fact, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Zionists do indeed perceive the United States as the new mechanism by which they seek to accomplish their goals, pushing the
UN to the sidelines. The grand scheme for a New World Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial” role—was imparted quite directly in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs, voice of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA).
Previously a little-known Washington think tank, JINSA is now often publicly acknowledged as the guiding force behind Bush foreign policy today. One JINSA critic, Professor Edward Herman,
has even gone so far as to describe JINSA as “a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”
The author of the JINSA paper, Alexander H. Joffe, a pro- Israel academic, has been a regularly featured writer in JINSA’s journal, certainly reflecting the high regard in which his views are
held by the Zionist elite. His two-part series was entitled, The Empire That Dared Not Speak Its Name, propounding the theme that “America is an empire,” suggesting that, yes, this is a very
good thing.
The new global regime to be established would find America as “the center of a new international system” in “a world that looks like America, and is therefore safe for all.” However, what
America “looks like” is what the Zionists want it to look like—not necessarily what the American people perceive America to be.
Joffe stated flatly that: “The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975,” (which, incidentally, has
since been repealed). The JINSA author contended that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt.” As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, wrote Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation,
to begin again.” However, he warned that even the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire (at least, obviously, in the view of the Zionist movement).
The JINSA writer asserted that the EU is an “alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he put it frankly, is “the authentic counter-vision to an American Empire.” According to Joffe, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.” (A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer doesn’t seem to see the logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism.)
Joffe complained that although “the new European Empire is multicultural in theory … in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.” Today, in the
EU, he said, “Driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui, the door has been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion
of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspiracy theories.”
In any case, what Joffe described as “the other kind of liberal internationalism” is what the Zionist movement favors. Joffe defined it as such: Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic
international system.
In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.”
Yet, in spite of his rhetoric about “democracy,” Joffe frankly talked about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—presumably after the
United States has already made havoc in the Arab countries of the Middle East: The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for intervention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control to go along with political and cultural control.
Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to), and whether America has the stomach. Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his likeminded schemers. Joffe wrote of a wide-ranging global agenda—
well beyond the African continent. In the end, however, Joffe let the cat out of the bag about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.
“New arrangements,” he said, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.” Joffe dreams of a
United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing: Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger,
which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [emphasis added]
Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might—someday, somehow—
be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states,
sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.
Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:
The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. Setting the stage for
global governance can only be done with American leadership and American-led institutions of the
sort schematically outlined here.
What it all comes down to is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Here, in the pages of a Zionist journal, we have learned precisely what the “story behind the story” actually is. It has nothing to do, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.
The United States is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. Further evidence that this is indeed the view of the Zionist movement comes from no less a source than Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold. In his 2004 book, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Gold outlined a scenario for a new global regime—under United States diktat—pushing aside the UN. He wrote: The United States and its Western allies won the Cold War but obviously no longer have the common goal of containing Soviet expansionism as the
glue holding together a coalition. Still, a coalition of allies could start with neutralizing the greatest
threat to international peace today: global terrorism, another threat that the UN has failed to counter
effectively … the issue of terrorism relates to a number of other concerns common to all of these nations: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of sensitive military technologies, terrorist financing and money laundering, and the incitement of ethnic hatred and violence in national media as well as in educational institutions. Their commitment to curtailing these threats would lead democracies around the world to join together and take action …
Such a democratic coalition would be far more representative of the national will of each country’s citizens than the UN currently is. Oddly, by going outside the UN, these countries would be
recommitting themselves to the principles of which the UN was originally founded. They would embrace the principles laid out in the UN Charter and insist that members of the coalition fully adhere—not just give lip service—to a basic code of international conduct … in short, while Gold and his Zionist allies see global government worthy of support, they do not see the UN as the means by which to achieve it. Gold elaborated further, describing a new mechanism for achieving a New World Order: Because the UN has lost the moral clarity of its founders, the United States and its allies must take the lead. The world will follow in time. If more than one hundred nations wanted to join the Community of Democracies, the democratic ideal must be powerful.
In fact, although it was not widely noticed at the time, a so called “Community of Democracies” was inaugurated by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in June, 2000. So the mechanism is already in place. Gold concluded that the United States and it allies might ultimately “reinvigorate the UN and make the organization’s system of collective security,”
but, he added, “That day is a long way off.” In the meantime, media voices for the Israeli lobby have promoted Gold’s concept of what might be described as a “parallel” UN under the domination of the United States and its purported allies.
For example, on February 6, 2005 writing in The Washington Times, Clifford D. May raised this question: “Is it not high time at least to consider alternatives to the United Nations, to explore
possibly developing new organizations in which democratic societies would work together against common enemies and for common goals?”
However, the evidence is indisputable that this is not just the Zionist propaganda line. This philosophy directed the thinking of the Bush administration. When President George Bush made his
call for a worldwide “democratic” revolution in his second inaugural address, he was doing little more than echoing the opinions of Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, an influential figure
who is considered more hard-line than even Israel’s ruling premier, Ariel Sharon. Not only did Bush publicly and warmly endorse Sharansky, but media reports revealed that Sharansky played a major part in helping draft Bush’s inaugural address.
This is particularly relevant in the context of Sharansky’s harsh words for the UN and what he has offered in his own work, The Case for Democracy, widely touted as “the bible” of Bush foreign policy. In the closing pages of his book, Sharansky summed it up: To protect and promote democracy around the world, I believe that a new international institution, one in which only those governments who give their people the right to be heard and counted, will themselves have a right to be heard and
counted can be an enormously important force for democratic change … This community of free
nations will not emerge on its own … I am convinced that a successful effort to expand freedom
around the world must be inspired and led by the United States.
So it is once again: the concept of the United States being the force for global realignment. And although there was worldwide criticism—even from so-called “democracies”—of Bush’s call for
worldwide democratic revolution based on the Sharansky model, the American Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted on January 28, 2005 that “one world leader endorsed Bush’s approach unreservedly”— former Israeli Prime Minister (and current finance minister) Benjamin Netanyahu.
Citing a speech the Israeli leader recently gave in Florida, Forward said Netanyahu proclaimed:
President Bush called for democratization and he’s on to something very profound. Can the Arab
world be democratized? Yes—slowly, painfully. And who can democratize it? As in everywhere else in the world, in all societies, whether it’s Latin America, the former Soviet Union, or South Africa, democracy was always achieved by outside pressure. And who delivered that pressure? One country: the U.S.
To say more would belabor this simple conclusion: Although, for years, the Zionists denounced American patriots for saying that it was time to “Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of
the U.S.,” now that the Zionists have lost control of the UN—which they originally perceived as their vehicle for establishing a New World Order—the Zionists are targeting the UN precisely because
they have determined that the military and financial resources of the United States are their best bet for establishing that New World Order of which they long dreamed. The Zionists want the United States to serve as the engine for assembling a world empire under their control.
In the end, this does tell us who “The High Priests of War” are and what their agenda really is. Remaining to be seen is what the American people—and all other real patriots around the
globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide that it is time to declare war against The High Priests of War?
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Private Intelligence Agencies Receiving Government Contracts
Please see here , here and here about private and outsourced intelligence fronts. See here for the evidence of the CIA working with drugs and organized crime. Also, see these previous posts on private intelligence agencies here, here, and here.
See here for where Homeland Security started from and the driving force behind it. See here for more about the ADL working with the police and its ties to organized crime. See here for more about the precursor to this program. As these articles show, the technology that these people have access to is beyond what most people could even comprehend. The mainstream and the alternative media are lying to you, this blog is telling you the truth. They are telling you some truth, but, they are lying by omission. They are not telling you how bad it is or who is predominantly behind it and why. These people (predominantly Israeli apologists,) are engaging in broadcasting the lives of people like reality TV shows, while remotely torturing them with electronic warfare.
They are complete psychopaths. They are so crazy and out of control, it is beyond what most people could even imagine. It sounds unreal --- and they know this. IT IS THE TRUTH. It is the intention of these government torture programs to be as violent and harsh as possible so victims sound crazy when they describe the events. The tactics used by the CIA/DoD (department of defense) for massive human experimentation has not changed. Acting like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde allows them cover and plausible denial while they cower back into the fringe and shadows of government. If they made the experiments mild, people would be more likely to believe the DoD/CIA conducted this kind of torture research.
Congress in the United States and the House of Commons in Canada are a part of the problem, they are going along for the ride. It is time that people begin to call these losers out, they are complicit in these criminal governments. They are not representing the people. We must fight to spread the truth through word of mouth and other yet to be controlled information channels. Ignorance is the only enemy and everyone working to keep secrets or spread disinformation are merely the unimportant pawns to be sacrificed in this classic metaphorical battle between good and evil.
The United States and Canada, (because of their joint border protection contracts that have sprung up since September 11th,2001 and their special relationship with Israel, example here,) have become like Banana Republics. The people that have access to this technology are above the law. They are essentially organized crime with intelligence contracts and high-security clearance. They are the real ones running the United States.
========================================================================
See here for where Homeland Security started from and the driving force behind it. See here for more about the ADL working with the police and its ties to organized crime. See here for more about the precursor to this program. As these articles show, the technology that these people have access to is beyond what most people could even comprehend. The mainstream and the alternative media are lying to you, this blog is telling you the truth. They are telling you some truth, but, they are lying by omission. They are not telling you how bad it is or who is predominantly behind it and why. These people (predominantly Israeli apologists,) are engaging in broadcasting the lives of people like reality TV shows, while remotely torturing them with electronic warfare.
They are complete psychopaths. They are so crazy and out of control, it is beyond what most people could even imagine. It sounds unreal --- and they know this. IT IS THE TRUTH. It is the intention of these government torture programs to be as violent and harsh as possible so victims sound crazy when they describe the events. The tactics used by the CIA/DoD (department of defense) for massive human experimentation has not changed. Acting like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde allows them cover and plausible denial while they cower back into the fringe and shadows of government. If they made the experiments mild, people would be more likely to believe the DoD/CIA conducted this kind of torture research.
Congress in the United States and the House of Commons in Canada are a part of the problem, they are going along for the ride. It is time that people begin to call these losers out, they are complicit in these criminal governments. They are not representing the people. We must fight to spread the truth through word of mouth and other yet to be controlled information channels. Ignorance is the only enemy and everyone working to keep secrets or spread disinformation are merely the unimportant pawns to be sacrificed in this classic metaphorical battle between good and evil.
The United States and Canada, (because of their joint border protection contracts that have sprung up since September 11th,2001 and their special relationship with Israel, example here,) have become like Banana Republics. The people that have access to this technology are above the law. They are essentially organized crime with intelligence contracts and high-security clearance. They are the real ones running the United States.
========================================================================
What is A Private Intelligence Agency?
Before reading any of this, see here and here. Also, see this. The privatization of "bads" or questionable governmental practices (like warfare and intelligence,) has always been looked at as something that would be unacceptable to do because it leaves less accountability. These contracts are being awarded to companies and are paid by taxpayers. Please see here for when the Soviet Union fell apart and the so-called "privatization" that took place. Are we seeing something similar in the United States? Massive looting while the government falls apart?
A 'PIA' or Private Intelligence Agency is a private sector (non-governmental) or quasi non-government organization devoted to the collection and analysis of information, most commonly through the evaluation of public sources (OSINT or Open Source INTelligence) and cooperation with other institutions. Some private agencies make their services available to governments as well as individual consumers; however, most of these agencies sell their services to large corporations with an interest or investment in the category (e.g. crime, disease, corruption, etc.) or the region (e.g. Middle East, Vietnam, Prague, etc.).
The private intelligence industry has boomed due to shifts in how the U.S. government is conducting espionage in the War on Terror. Some US$56 billion or 70% of the US$80 billion national intelligence budget of the United States was in 2013 earmarked for the private sector according to the New York Times' Tim Shorrock.
Functions previously performed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and other intelligence agencies are now outsourced to private intelligence corporations. The AMC series Rubicon was devoted to the fictional intelligence consultancy American Policy Institute (API).
Functions previously performed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and other intelligence agencies are now outsourced to private intelligence corporations. The AMC series Rubicon was devoted to the fictional intelligence consultancy American Policy Institute (API).
Outsourcing Intelligence
Outsourcing Intelligence is a method by which a country gathers information using non-governmental employees. In the United States of America, at least 50% of intelligence gatherers are contractors instead of governmental employees.
The government of a country may outsource intelligence gathering that may not be obtainable through other means, they may also need to use human intelligence such as the CIA's National Clandestine Service (NCS). It may mean outsourcing to foreign nationals from a country of interest, they may outsource to private companies as well to gather the specified intelligence needed. For a company, the ways of outsourcing intelligence are the same, in which third party individuals and corporations are hired to obtain data and other intelligence. Intelligence can also be outsourced for analysis by a third party, in a similar fashion to what the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence does.
Former analysts and officers of the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of National Intelligence are allowed to leave their government positions and go work for companies in the private sector the next day doing the same job. This is known as "butts in seats." The reason one former government analyst did go work for a private intelligence firm was that the pay in the private sector was about 50% higher than the one he had from the government.
Private Sector Dominance
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States Congress increased the funding flow to the intelligence community. In November 2005, a CIA official revealed the intelligence budget to be $44 billion, which increased from a $26.6 billion budget reported by CIA Director George Tenet in 1997.
The intelligence community is allowed to keep its budget secret. With this secrecy comes speculation that at the absolute least 50% of the entire budget now flows to the private sector. It is also estimated that in the intelligence community much of the 15,000 analysts are drawing private-sector paychecks as a result of “butts in seats.”
According to R.J. Hillhouse, "Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) workers revealed at a conference in May that contractors make up 51% of the staff in the DIA." Hillhouse goes further to say that, "the CIA has a similar situation…between 50% and 60% of the workforce of the CIA’s most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS)… is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.” Hillhouse also says that in terms of oversight the ratio is 1:25 (one government employee supervising twenty-five private contractors), which means that it will "involve multiple companies and multiple layers of administration."
Since the September 11 attacks, U.S. telecommunications giants AT&T and Verizon have actually outsourced all their controversial NSA-mandated internet and telephone surveillance to the contractors Narus andVerint respective, both of which have close ties to Israeli intelligence services, although they maintain headquarters in the U.S.
Some Notable private intelligence companies
- AEGIS (UK-based)
- Black Cube (Israel&UK-based)
- Booz Allen Hamilton (US-based)
- Control Risks Group (UK-based)
- Groupe GEOS (France-based)
- Hakluyt & Company (UK-based)
- Kroll Inc. (US-based)
- OPSEC (UK-based - West Africa specialist)
- Oxford Analytica
- Pinkerton National Detective Agency (US-based but worldwide)
- Smith Brandon International, Inc. (US-based)
- Stratfor (US-based)
Monday, April 4, 2016
NGOs: The Missionaries of the United States Empire - Fronts for the CIA Part 3
Please see my past posts on this issue located here and here. This post is not about Human Rights Watch, but, it is still related to the same topic.
Many people know that the CIA funds various covert operations throughout the world. They do this through front organizations including known CIA operations groups which funnel funds to “various non-governmental agencies” (NGOs) which then use those funds to achieve objectives both foreign and domestic. There is a tremendous history of this funneling to quasi-private organizations … but it’s also interesting how overt some of it is. Much of how the CIA operates has bubbled up due to failures and successes around the world in places like Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Haiti, Pakistan and Eastern Europe thanks to some American whistle-blowers.
The #1 thing you have to understand about this…all of this taxpayer money (your money) that is being spent to further geopolitical and corporate goals is not just money spent to overthrow foreign governments…a good amount of that money is being spent to influence the hearts and minds in America too.
America is a case study of how to successfully let the tail wag the dog; there are LOTS of journalists, editors and influential people on the take (propaganda assets). And there is always a concerted effort to punish those of us who know or attempt to share any semblance of truth. (See here, here, here, here, here, for what I wrote about the Phoenix Program and the system they have set up to find potential political dissidents. This is the precursor to Homeland Security and it is a joint operation between the intelligence agencies. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here and here for some of the tactics they use. See here for some more about CIA front groups that are set up near political dissidents.)
Many people know that the CIA funds various covert operations throughout the world. They do this through front organizations including known CIA operations groups which funnel funds to “various non-governmental agencies” (NGOs) which then use those funds to achieve objectives both foreign and domestic. There is a tremendous history of this funneling to quasi-private organizations … but it’s also interesting how overt some of it is. Much of how the CIA operates has bubbled up due to failures and successes around the world in places like Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Haiti, Pakistan and Eastern Europe thanks to some American whistle-blowers.
The #1 thing you have to understand about this…all of this taxpayer money (your money) that is being spent to further geopolitical and corporate goals is not just money spent to overthrow foreign governments…a good amount of that money is being spent to influence the hearts and minds in America too.
America is a case study of how to successfully let the tail wag the dog; there are LOTS of journalists, editors and influential people on the take (propaganda assets). And there is always a concerted effort to punish those of us who know or attempt to share any semblance of truth. (See here, here, here, here, here, for what I wrote about the Phoenix Program and the system they have set up to find potential political dissidents. This is the precursor to Homeland Security and it is a joint operation between the intelligence agencies. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here and here for some of the tactics they use. See here for some more about CIA front groups that are set up near political dissidents.)
To see a video introduction with Mike Wallace about NGO's, Charities and Think Tanks that front for the CIA, see here. This video series is from 1967, but that doesn’t make it any less relevant to today. The explanation of how the CIA operates begins at about 5:23.
One point I want to make about this, in some situations, the CIA has decided to select a strategy to create revolutions in countries that are non-bloody and leave very little trace of what they are doing. A case example would be to occupy a country by infiltrating its government and media, then begin to influence elections. They would then proceed to take the country over without anyone really knowing what is going on. We can see something similar happening in Canada right now. Canada has pretty much become another state of the USA, just like Israel has.
One point I want to make about this, in some situations, the CIA has decided to select a strategy to create revolutions in countries that are non-bloody and leave very little trace of what they are doing. A case example would be to occupy a country by infiltrating its government and media, then begin to influence elections. They would then proceed to take the country over without anyone really knowing what is going on. We can see something similar happening in Canada right now. Canada has pretty much become another state of the USA, just like Israel has.
Non-governmental organizations are an increasingly important part of the 21st century international landscape performing a variety of humanitarian tasks pertaining to issues of health, poverty, the environment and civil liberties. However, there is a dark side to NGOs. They have been and are currently being used as tools of foreign policy, specifically with the United States. Instead of using purely military force, the US has now moved to using NGOs as tools in its foreign policy implementation, good examples of this are the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House.
National Endowment for Democracy
According to its website, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is “a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world,” however this is sweet sounding description is actually quite far from the truth.
The history of the NED begins immediately after the Reagan administration. Due to the massive revelations concerning the CIA in the 1970s, specifically that they were involved in attempted assassinations of heads of state, the destabilization of foreign governments, and were illegally spying on the US citizens, this tarnished the image of the CIA and of the US government as a whole. While there were many committees that were created during this time to investigate the CIA, the Church Committee (led by Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho) was of critical importance as its findings “demonstrated the need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence community and resulted in the creation of the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” The Select Committee on Intelligence’s purpose was to oversee federal intelligence activities and while oversight and stability came in, it seemed to signal that the CIA’s ‘party’ of assassination plots and coups were over. Yet, this was to continue, but in a new way: under the guise of a harmful NGO whose purpose was to promote democracy around the world- the National Endowment for Democracy.
The NED was meant to be a tool of US foreign policy from its outset. It was the brainchild of Allen Weinstein who, before creating the Endowment, was a professor at Brown and Georgetown Universities, had served on the Washington Post’s editorial staff, and was the Executive Editor of The Washington Quarterly, Georgetown’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, a right-wing neoconservative think tank which would in the future have ties to imperial strategists such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. He stated in a 1991 interview that “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
The first director of the Endowment, Carl Gershman, outright admitted that the Endowment was a front for the CIA. In 1986 he stated:
We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the ‘60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created. (emphasis added)
It can be further observed that the Endowment is a tool of the US government as ever since its founding in 1983, it “has received an annual appropriation approved by the United States Congress as part of the United States Information Agency budget.”
No sooner than the Endowment was founded did it begin funding groups that would support US interests. From 1983 to 1984, the Endowment was active in France and “supported a ‘trade union-like organization that for professors and students’ to counter ‘left-wing organizations of professors,’” through the funding of seminars, posters, books, and pamphlets that encouraged opposition to leftist thought. In the mid and late 1990s, the NED continued its fight against organized labor by giving in excess of $2.5 million to the American Institute of Free Labor Development which was a CIA front used to undermine progressive labor unions.
Later on, the Endowment became involved in interfering with elections in Venezuela and Haiti in order to undermine left-wing movements there. The NED is and continues to be a source of instability in nations across the globe that don’t kneel before US imperial might. Yet the Endowment funds another pseudo-NGO: Freedom House.
Freedom House
Freedom House was originally founded in 1941 as a pro-democracy and pro-human rights organization. While this may have been true in the past, in the present day, Freedom House is quite involved in pushing US interests in global politics and its leaders have connections to rather unsavory organizations, such as former Executive Director David Kramer being a Senior Fellow to the Project for the New American Century, many of whose members are responsible for the current warmongering status of the US.
During the Bush administration, the President used Freedom House to support the so-called War on Terror. In a March 29, 2006 speech, President Bush stated that Freedom House “declared the year 2005 was one of the most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago” and that the US should not rest “until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation” because “In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for generations to come.”
Later, it was revealed that Freedom House became more and more supportive of the Bush administration’s policies because of the funding it was getting from the US government. According to its own internal report in 2007, the US government was providing some 66% of funding for the organization. This funding mainly came from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Thus, we see not only the political connection of Freedom House to US government but major financial connections as well.
It should be noted, however, that Freedom House was not alone in supporting the government. Under the Bush administration, the US government forced NGOs to become more compliant to their demands. In 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios stated in a speech given at a conference of NGOs that in Afghanistan the relationship between NGOs and USAID does affect the survival of the Karzai regime and that Afghans “believe [their life] is improving through mechanisms that have nothing to do with the U.S. government and nothing to do with the central government. That is a very serious problem.” On the situation in Iraq, Natsios stated that when it comes to NGO work in the country “proving results counts,but showing a connection between those results and U.S. policy counts as well.” (emphasis added) NGOs were essentially told that they were tools of the US government and were being made part of the imperial apparatus.
Most recently, Freedom House was active in the Arab Spring, where they aided in the training and financing of civil society groups and individuals “including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen.”
Human Rights Watch - a Front for the CIA Part 2
Please see my previous post on this matter located here.
Human Rights Watch's affiliation with ex-CIA and NATO officials generates perverse incentives and undermine its reputation for independence
In a May 12 letter published on AlterNet, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 scholars, journalists and human rights activists called on Human Rights Watch to close its revolving door to the U.S. government. On June 3, HRW published a response from executive director Kenneth Roth on its website, arguing that their “concern is misplaced.”
In a June 11 debate on Democracy Now!, HRW Counsel and Spokesman Reed Brody similarly rejected their recommendations. Now, Nobel Laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel join fellow signatories Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2008-14) and Hans von Sponeck (UN Assistant Secretary General from 1998-2000) in demanding that their proposals be taken seriously, and additionally, that HRW remove former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana from its Board of Directors.
Dear Kenneth Roth,
While we welcome your stated commitment to Human Rights Watch's independence and credibility, we are dismayed by your rejection of our common-sense suggestion for strengthening them: bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board members—or, at a bare minimum, mandate lengthy “cooling-off” periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government.
Nobel Peace Laureates Slam Human Rights Watch's Refusal to Cut Ties to U.S. Government
Human Rights Watch's affiliation with ex-CIA and NATO officials generates perverse incentives and undermine its reputation for independence
In a May 12 letter published on AlterNet, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 scholars, journalists and human rights activists called on Human Rights Watch to close its revolving door to the U.S. government. On June 3, HRW published a response from executive director Kenneth Roth on its website, arguing that their “concern is misplaced.”
In a June 11 debate on Democracy Now!, HRW Counsel and Spokesman Reed Brody similarly rejected their recommendations. Now, Nobel Laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel join fellow signatories Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2008-14) and Hans von Sponeck (UN Assistant Secretary General from 1998-2000) in demanding that their proposals be taken seriously, and additionally, that HRW remove former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana from its Board of Directors.
Dear Kenneth Roth,
While we welcome your stated commitment to Human Rights Watch's independence and credibility, we are dismayed by your rejection of our common-sense suggestion for strengthening them: bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board members—or, at a bare minimum, mandate lengthy “cooling-off” periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government.
Before addressing your letter’s objections to the three instances of HRW’s advocacy that suggest a conflict of interest, we would like to reiterate that they were “limited to only recent history,” and that other cases could have been raised as well. One obvious example of HRW's failure to appropriately criticize U.S. crimes occurred after the 2004 coup d’état against the democratically elected government of Haiti.
The U.S. government essentially kidnapped Haiti’s president; thousands of people were killed under the ensuing coup regime; and deposed officials of the constitutional government were jailed.
In the face of what were likely the worst human rights abuses of any country in the Western hemisphere at the time, HRW barely lifted a finger. HRW never hosted a press conference criticizing the coup or post-coup atrocities. In contrast to HRW’s appeals to the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Democratic Charter for Venezuela and Cuba, HRW never publicly invoked the Charter in the case of Haiti, even as Articles 20 and 21 afforded multilateral measures “in the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime.” HRW never placed an op-ed about the overthrow in a prominent newspaper. (In 2004 The New York Times alone published at least five HRWopinion pieces and four HRW letters on other subjects.) It is reasonable for outside observers to question whether this lack of response from HRW to such large-scale human rights violations had anything to do with U.S. foreign-policy priorities.
The very existence of such questions regarding HRW’s advocacy should be reason enough to impose sharp restrictions on HRW's close ties to the U.S. government. Given the impact of global perceptions on HRW’s ability to carry out its work, simply the appearance of impropriety can impede HRW’s effectiveness. Closing HRW's revolving door would be an important first step to allaying or preempting concerns that HRW's priorities are compromised.
Concrete evidence of a revolving-door phenomenon between HRW and the U.S. government renders crucially incomplete your admission that “it is true that some served in the US government before or after their involvement with Human Rights Watch.” We provided examples of those who served in the U.S. government both before and after their involvement with HRW, a norm widely recognized to generate perverse incentives and undermine an institution's reputation for independence.
For instance, you may disagree with our view that a former official of the Central Intelligence Agency—one of the world’s greatest institutional human rights violators over the past half-century—has no standing to advise on human rights issues for your organization. Surely you must concede, however, that a conflict of interest was raised when Miguel DÃaz, the ex-CIA analyst in question, exploited the eight years of experience and relationships he accumulated within HRW's advisory committee for his subsequent role as the U.S. State Department’s “interlocutor between the intelligence community and non-government experts.”
Your colleague, HRW Counsel and Spokesperson Reed Brody, seemed to misunderstand the nature of our proposal, arguing in a June 11 debate on Democracy Now! that “Miguel DÃaz never worked at Human Rights Watch,” and that the organization is “a big tent—we’ve got people on the right; we’ve got people on the left.” In fact, our letter suggested prohibitions or cooling-off periods for “any associate,” including advisory-committee members like DÃaz. Secondly, our proposals would not impact political diversity; rather, they would make it more difficult for those previously employed by human rights-abusing organizations like the CIA from adversely influencing HRW’s priorities or damaging HRW’s reputation.
It is important to further clarify our request, as Brody made two mutually irreconcilable claims: that “there is no revolving door,” and that “this revolving-door policy, if we implemented it, would have changed one person at Human Rights Watch.” Both statements are untrue. A cooling-off period, which all HRW associates would accept, would have prevented both DÃaz and former HRW Washington director Tom Malinowski from almost immediately entering the U.S. State Department (Malinowski is now Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor), and would have also applied to Nik Steinberg, a senior researcher in HRW’s Americas division as of May 2014.
Just one week after you received our May 12 letter, Mr. Steinberg announced that he was leaving HRW to take a position with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, which he described as an “extraordinary opportunity.” This is disturbing from a human rights perspective, because Ms. Power’s July 17, 2013 confirmation hearing was riddled with provocative comments, including her evidence-free claim of an Iranian “nuclear weapons program,” her promise to “never apologize for America,” and her commitment to “work tirelessly to defend” Israel. After assuming her post, she advocated in favor of a U.S. strike against Syria in 2013, defending it as “legitimate” while tacitly acknowledging its illegality. She later declared that the United States has “nothing to apologize for” in Afghanistan, despite its record of numerous atrocities. Most recently, Ms. Power engaged in a coordinated media event with Henry Kissinger, whom Mr. Brody once referred to as a war criminal.
HRW’s proximity to Ms. Power damages HRW’s stated independence in light of her declarations that “the United States is the greatest country on Earth,” “the leader in human rights,” and “the leader in human dignity.” Shortly after leaving HRW, Malinowski similarly lauded the “bipartisan consensus for America’s defense of liberty around the world” and the “exceptional” nature of the United States at his own September 24, 2013 confirmation hearing.
Mr. Roth, we are deeply worried that Mr. Steinberg’s announced transition to Ms. Power’s office—a week after your receipt of our letter—is just one of many more revolving-door episodes that will continue to create perverse incentive structures within the organization. How can we expect HRW associates to be completely unafraid to hold human rights violators in the U.S. government accountable for their offenses and crimes when they are hoping to work for some of these very same functionaries immediately upon leaving HRW? That is the question that you must answer, Mr. Roth, in light of the transitions of Malinowski, DÃaz and Steinberg to the U.S. State Department.
If you nevertheless object to prohibiting the involvement of U.S. foreign-policy officials at HRW or instituting cooling-off periods for them, we suggest, in parallel, an even narrower proposal: bar the participation at HRW of those who bear a direct responsibility for violating international humanitarian law. Javier Solana, currently a member of HRW's board of directors, served as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Secretary General during its 1999 military campaign in Yugoslavia. NATO's use of cluster munitions and its bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia led HRW itself to conclude that the organization “committed violations of international humanitarian law.”
Solana is therefore a poor choice for HRW's board of directors. His removal from your board would signal HRW's good-faith effort to bolster its independence and credibility as an advocate for human rights. When Mr. Brody was asked on Democracy Now! to respond to the argument that “those who bear direct responsibility for human rights violations should not be on the board of directors of an independent human rights organization,” Mr. Brody said, “I would agree with that.” We hope you concur with your colleague.
We will now address in turn your responses to the three cases of problematic HRW advocacy mentioned in our letter:
First, you objected to our concerns over the 2009 statements made by Tom Malinowski as HRW’s Washington director to the LA Times. He contended that “under limited circumstances” there was a “legitimate place” for renditions. You argue that our letter “mistakenly claims he was supporting unlawful CIA renditions,” and that “Malinowski was certainly not endorsing the CIA’s illegal rendition program, which entailed transferring individuals without due process protections to countries where they faced torture.” You further define renditions as simply “the transfer of a person in custody from one jurisdiction to another, which is legal under certain circumstances,” and cite extraditions as a legitimate form of rendition.
We appreciate your attempt to clarify Malinowski’s statement, which at the time provoked public consternation from law professors specializing in constitutional law and international law, such as Darren Hutchinson and Kenneth Anderson. This reaction arose because the LA Times article in question focused exclusively on CIA renditions and President Barack Obama’s executive order, which preserved them through a redefinition that allowed the transfer of suspects on a “short-term, transitory basis.” All CIA renditions, whether long- or short-term, whether they lead to torture or not, deny suspects the right to legal proceedings in which they can challenge their transfer from the country in question. Unlike commonplace extraditions, CIA renditions—extraordinary or otherwise—do not guarantee the detainees’ right to legal counsel or access to the court system of the country where they are seized.
In our previous letter to you, we cited Obama’s “preservation of renditions” as a serious human rights concern, and hyperlinked to a widely cited Open Society Justice Initiative report from 2013 which observed that Obama’s 2009 “executive order did not repudiate extraordinary rendition,” and that “it appears that the Obama administration did not end extraordinary rendition.” In light of this and the fact that the LA Times solely focused on an executive order pertaining to CIA renditions, Malinowski’s comment on their “legitimate place” was troubling and remains so, especially given his now-senior position within the Obama administration. Controversy around the practice persists, as exemplified by the headline of a 2013 Washington Post news article: “Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns.”
Malinowski’s subsequent statement to the LA Times was perhaps even more dubious, for additional reasons. As HRW’s Washington director, he paraphrased the Obama administration’s claim that designing an alternative to “people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured” was “going to take some time,” without questioning whether a gradual approach to ending such abuses was justifiable or even legal. For an organization that operates under the principle that human rights are absolute rights, not rights to be traded away for expediency or other political goals—which is the only way that a credible human rights organization can or should operate—such a statement should be deeply alarming. In fact, the Obama administration did proceed to “take some time,” sustaining the use of such “foreign dungeons” for years—likely up to the present day.
Numerous eye-witness testimonies led to articles by Der Spiegel in 2009 and the BBC in 2010 that reported on torture conducted under Obama’s presidency at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where detainees have had no right to habeas corpus. A 2011 Nationinvestigative piece detailed the conditions of an underground “secret prison” in Somalia used by the CIA, which serves as a destination for U.S.-assisted renditions. U.S. officials are said to conduct joint “debriefings,” or interrogations, at the site. The report’s author, Jeremy Scahill, found that the prisoners were unable to be seen by the Red Cross, and “they are not ever presented with charges.”
We note with interest that none of the HRW reports on rendition that you listed and hyperlinked to in your letter refer to torture, CIA renditions, or long-term detention without due process that have occurred under the Obama administration. While we welcome HRW’s call for criminal investigations regarding Bush-era human rights abuses, it appears that HRW has not advocated for criminal investigations into any of these Obama-era abuses. In fact, two HRW researchers have publicly fretted over the U.S. handover of the Bagram base to the Afghan government due to concerns over Afghanistan’s use of torture, without ever mentioning Obama-era, U.S.-directed torture at the same base. There may be some legitimate reason for HRW’s very different positions regarding the two administrations, but combined with the existence of HRW’s revolving door, they reinforce a reasonable suspicion that Malinowski’s inappropriate comments in 2009 as an HRW employee were influenced by his intention to serve in the Obama administration, and that HRW’s decidedly more muted position today on Obama’s policies is perhaps related to its ties to the administration.
Your second point pertains to our argument that in light of HRW’s 2012 letter to President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela questioning the country’s suitability as a candidate for the UN Human Rights Council, HRW had reason to write a similar letter to President Obama expressing reservations over the U.S. position in the same council. In our previous letter to you, we cited the U.S. record of human rights abuses that include a secret, global assassination program and the illegal detention of individuals at Guantánamo Bay. You have countered by avoiding a discussion of comparative abuses between the two countries, and have instead argued that for HRW, a “central concern on council membership is whether a government takes the council and its special procedures seriously,” and that Venezuela, unlike the United States, does not.
However, under no objective standard was this a “central concern” of the 2012 letter to Chávez signed by your colleagues José Miguel Vivanco and Peggy Hicks that we originally cited. After asserting in their introduction that “Venezuela currently falls far short of acceptable standards” in “promoting and protecting human rights,” Vivanco and Hicks outlined specific “policies and practices of [the Chávez] administration” and argued for their reversal. Their letter then dedicated the next 10 paragraphs to arguing that Venezuela has failed in the areas of judicial independence, media freedom and civil society. Before concluding their letter, Vivanco and Hicks devoted only one paragraph to “cooperation with the Human Rights Council.”
Given the broad scope of the content and priorities of HRW’s letter to Chávez, HRW simply has no tenable justification for its continued support of the U.S. presence on the UN Human Rights Council. Aside from its far grimmer human rights record than Venezuela, “[t]he United States is the only country to vote against all the Council’s resolutions focusing on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” admits HRW. “The US rejection of any resolution focusing on Israel and the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] and Israel [sic] exposes its double standards.” HRW’s own finding, coupled with theU.S. role in blocking the implementation of the Council’s recommendations of the Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes during the Gaza attack of 2008-09, certainly weakens your letter’s claim that “on balance, the United States has played a constructive role at the Human Rights Council.”
It is not too late for HRW to demonstrate its independence from the U.S. government by writing a letter to President Obama outlining the most egregious U.S. human rights violations that should be reversed in order for the country to serve as a credible member of the UN Human Rights Council. HRW’s letter could demand an end to the Obama’sextrajudicial “kill list,” an authoritarian U.S. policy for which a Venezuelan analogue is nonexistent and inconceivable, and the letter could also condemn U.S. intransigence within the Council, particularly toward Palestinian human rights.
Our third and final example questioned HRW’s lack of opposition to Obama’s consideration of a missile strike on Syria in 2013—a violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the unilateral “threat or use of force” in international affairs. We appreciate your clarification of HRW’s mandate, “which is to monitor governments’ adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law.” We would urge HRW to consider expanding its purview to adopt the UN Charter as a foundation for its legal determinations due to the inevitable human rights violations that occur as a result of a war of aggression, considered the “supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
We express our concern, however, that HRW’s stated neutrality on matters of war and peace is compromised by your public statements of questionable judgment. At the height of intense pressure for a U.S. bombing campaign on Syria in late August of 2013, you all but advocated military intervention on social media, while maintaining plausible deniability in the context of a climate of warmongering. A sampling of your tweets include:
- To justify #Syria inaction, top US general trots out age-old ethnic animosities line. Heard that B4? Bosnia. Rwanda. trib.al/qSzrz1N
- Top general suggests US is more interested in a geopolitical partner in #Syria than saving civilians from slaughter. trib.al/WElNRGM
- It took chemical attack to convince Obama/Kerry that Assad isn't interested in negotiated solution!? No more excuses. trib.al/viu2scd
- If the appalling slaughter in #Syria won't get Obama to act, maybe ridicule will: trib.al/gp7HDo1
- If Obama decides to strike #Syria, will he settle for symbolism or do something that will help protect civilians? trib.al/hl6QhA1
Such behavior is unbecoming for the head of a major human rights organization and runs counter to the spirit of HRW's official neutrality toward the impending intervention in Syria. We encourage you to demonstrate greater tact and responsibility in light of the near-inevitability that U.S. missile strikes would have led to violations of international humanitarian law, including the killing, maiming, and displacement of many innocent civilians—as shown by the U.S. bombings of Yugoslavia in 1999, and of Iraq during the 2003 invasion and subsequent years of war.
HRW’s official abstention from endorsing or opposing wars also appeared to be broken by Tom Malinowski’s March 27, 2011 article in The New Republic on NATO’s Libya intervention. The piece was originally titled “Why Isn't Obama Getting Credit For Stopping An Atrocity?” and contended that “NATO acted more quickly [than in Bosnia] to stop atrocities in Kosovo.” In the case of Kosovo, “we could see and feel the difference Clinton and NATO had made.” Malinowski then celebrated NATO’s intervention in Libya as “the most rapid multinational military response to an impending human rights crisis in history” for which “we should be grateful.”
As Washington director for HRW at the time of the article, Malinowski offered no disclosure of his previous responsibilities in foreign-policy speechwriting as the Senior Director of the White House’s National Security Council during Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Nor did his sanitized portrayal of those actions include his own organization’s inconvenient conclusion that “NATO committed violations of international humanitarian law.” Malinowski’s piece also omitted the clearly unconstitutional nature of Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Furthermore, he excluded evidence that the NATO coalition quickly had moved away from the scope of the civilian-protection mandate provided in UN Resolution 1973 and toward the aim of regime change, which conformed with Obama’s comments weeks prior that “it’s time for Qaddafi to go.”
More egregiously, the following year—months after your organization’s report, “Unacknowledged Deaths: Civilian Casualties in NATO’s Air Campaign in Libya,” examined eight NATO strikes that killed 72 civilians—Malinowski offered unalloyed praise for the NATO intervention. He argued that “Barack Obama's administration made its most unequivocal stand on behalf of an Arab Spring uprising” in Libya, where the destabilizing consequences of the administration’s support in arming rebel forces continue to be felt. Completely ignoring the issue of civilian deaths at the hands of NATO (confirmed by HRW itself), Malinowski claimed in this October 2, 2012 Foreign Policy article that “recent events have reinforced, not weakened, the rationale for supporting political change in the Arab world.”
Advocacy divorced from HRW’s own empirical findings, unconditionally applauding U.S.-NATO military actions in Libya and endorsing their suitability elsewhere, is a predictable outcome for a former Clinton official who became HRW’s chief lobbyist in Washington, and who may have aspired to a position in the Obama administration as he wrote such statements. However, such advocacy is unhelpful to HRW’s stated concerns over NATO’s airstrikes and its failure “to acknowledge these casualties or to examine how and why they occurred.”
We are heartened, Mr. Roth, by your expressed willingness to “speak out, as we have done” in Kosovo and elsewhere. But HRW’s track record for holding NATO accountable for its violations of international humanitarian law is wholly inadequate. Javier Solana initiated a war in violation of the UN Charter in 1999 and presided over the deliberate NATO bombing of a Serbian television station, a war crime that killed 16 civilians including a make-up artist, a cameraman, an editor, and a program director.
In your May 1999 letter to Solana, which mentioned that bombing, you urged that “these issues be scrutinized promptly and rigorously,” and that “disciplinary or criminal investigations be launched.” NATO implemented none of your suggestions and has held no one to account for that atrocity or for any other crime in Yugoslavia. And yet Solana was awarded a position on HRW’s board in 2011. It is hard to escape the conclusion that HRW’s admonishments of NATO’s behavior are toothless, and that Solana’s subsequent leadership role at HRW signals to former and future NATO leaders who violate international law that they should be undeterred by HRW’s objections and inquiries.
Finally, you responded to our emphasis on HRW’s ties to the United States by mentioning the involvement of former government officials of Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and other countries at HRW. But our focus is HRW’s ties to the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government, which, unlike the foreign-policy arms of many of the governments you cite, are continuously engaged in massive human rights abuses. This is a consequence of the status of the United States as the world’s sole military superpower, which frequently violates international law with impunity, and, as in the case of its invasion of Iraq, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. As a recent poll showed, the rest of the globe sees the United States as “the greatest threat to peace in the world today” by a wide margin, so HRW’s unabashed closeness to that government is understandably viewed as an extremely political decision.
One of us would be delighted to meet with you whenever convenient at your New York offices to discuss these matters further and to personally deliver a petition signed by over 15,500 people so far along with their individual comments in support of the following demand:
The credibility of a global human-rights organization depends on its independence. Human Rights Watch has done important, critical work, but it can do better. It should implement at least a five-year "cooling-off" period before and after its associates move between HRW and the U.S. government's foreign-policy divisions. Human Rights Watch associates should concentrate on protecting human rights. They should not have conflicts of interest with past or future careers in branches of the U.S. government that may themselves be involved in human-rights violations.
We eagerly await your reply, and believe that HRW’s implementation of cooling-off periods for its associates and its removal of Solana from its board of directors will represent valuable first steps toward greater independence. Thank you for engaging with us on issues that we believe are essential to the pursuit of human rights throughout the world.
Sincerely,
Mairead Maguire - Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1977)
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel - Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1980)
Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (2008-14)
Hans von Sponeck – United Nations Assistant Secretary General (1998-2000)
Keane Bhatt - activist, writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)