Commentators have spoken and written reams regarding U.S. President Trump’s imposition of tariffs, his refusal to sign a new NAFTA deal and the Mafia-style language used at the G7 Summit in Quebec. The incoherence masks the crisis in the G7 and the substance of the neo-liberal Summit | German-foreign-policy.com commentary
BERLIN (June 11 – The G7 summit in La Malbaie, Canada, ended in open dissent on Saturday without a joint final declaration. After the G7 state and government leaders had already agreed on a joint statement, US President Donald Trump withdrew his endorsement. The document is still supported by the other six G7 states and is occasionally referred to as the “G6” declaration, to point out the deep rift in the traditional West. Continue reading
Demonstration in Quebec City, April 5, 2018, against upcoming G7 summit in La Malbaie. Banner reads: “The G7 Does Not Represent Us.”
The 44th G7 Summit is hosted by Canada. It will take place June 8 and 9 in the luxury hotel Fairmont Le Manoir Richelieu in La Malbaie in the Charlevoix region of Quebec. It is preceded by ministerial meetings.
La Malbaie is a small town of 8,000 people about 150 kilometres north-east of Quebec City. The Summit area has been secured behind a $3.8 million, three-metre high, 3.7-kilometre long fence anchored in cement posts sunk half a metre into the ground. A temporary prison will be set up near the arena in Clermont, a neighbouring municipality, at a cost of $1 million, according to local radio station CIHO. The budget for the G7 events will be more than $600 million with $259 million to be allocated to the RCMP alone for security, over $35 million to National Defence, $99 million to Public Safety Canada, $2 million to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and $1 million to the Canada Border Services Agency. Continue reading
By ELIIJAH J. MAGNIER
(Damascus) – Donald Trump has climbed down from the tree he climbed up a few days ago when he gathered a large military force and firepower similar to “operation desert storm” (but without ground forces). “Plan A” consisted of a destructive attack on Syria to destroy its army, presidential palace, command and control bases, elite force, strategic military and ammunition warehouses, radar, defence systems and political leadership institutions.
Prior to the triple attack on Syria by the US – UK – France, intensive contacts were carried out by Russia and President Vladimir Putin himself – at around 04:00 am– to reduce the attack and go to a softer, less significant “Plan B”. Continue reading
US definition of ‘surgical’: 105 missiles against 3 targets, or something else? Two reports.
There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense’s report of strike and the description in the Pentagon briefing on the strike. According to the Pentagon, only three places related to non-existing Syrian chemical weapons were targeted:
This combined military strike was directed against three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program targets.
In summary, in a powerful show of allied unity, we deployed 105 weapons against three targets.
It does not make any sense to send 35 cruise missiles against each of those not hardened, not defended targets like the now destroyed Barzeh research center which was a small two story building complex and had been declared free of chemical weapons and weapon research by the OPCW. Why would the U.S. military use such a high number of precision weapons against only three targets? This is extremely unusual and does not make sense at all. Continue reading
No airstrikes against Syria in the name of high ideals!
On April 13 at approximately 8:30 pm the U.S. imperialists, in coordination with Britain and France, launched a criminal attack by firing missiles on Syria. News agencies reported loud explosions and smoke in the Syrian capital Damascus in the aftermath. The Syrian government reported April 14 that its air defences shot down 73 of 103 missiles. Continue reading
By M. K. Bhadrakumar*
Haligonians rally against threats of war against Syria, September 7, 2013
(April 11) – The United Nations Security Council turned down a compromise resolution on Syria, proposed by Sweden and seconded by Russia seeking investigation on the alleged chemical attack in Douma. Five countries supported the resolution with two permanent members – United States and Britain – opposing it. Earlier, a resolution on the same lines which was supported by Russia and China was also opposed by the US and Britain.
This is a significant political and diplomatic victory for Russia insofar as only two other countries joined the US and Britain to oppose the Swedish resolution. Six countries abstained. Continue reading
Introduction to the current edition of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol, 47, No. 2, 2018 | RASHID I. KHALIDI*
Mass Land Day demonstration in Gaza, near the border with the Zionist State of Israel, March 30, 2018, as the March of Return begins.
THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES where Palestine is concerned. In December 2017, a U.S. president arrogated to himself the prerogative of making far-reaching decisions that strike directly at Palestinian rights and at the Palestinians’ claims on the most crucial and sensitive of final-status issues: Jerusalem. Far from reacting strongly to this unprecedented action, Arab governments did little more than register their formal disapproval. There are credible reports that some of them surreptitiously condoned the move. In Israel, meanwhile, the ruling coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to up the ante. He and other senior government leaders have declared openly that Israel will retain permanent control of most of the occupied territories and never allow a fully sovereign Palestinian state to come into being there, while the Likud Party Central Committee at the end of December 2017 unanimously called for annexation of large parts of these territories. Continue reading