Rodrigue Tremblay

The Parthenon is regarded as an enduring symbol of Ancient Greece and of
Athenian democracy. Modern Greece now is being destroyed by fascist EU.

Refusing to accept the obvious, i.e. an orderly default, would please Greece's banking creditors but will badly hurt its economy, its workers and its citizens.

On the 4th of July, the credit agency Standard & Poor’s called the country of Greece for what it is, i.e. a country in de facto financial bankruptcy.

No slight of hand, no obfuscation, no debt reorganization and no “innovative” bailouts can hide the fact that the defective rules of the 17-member Eurozone have allowed some of its members to succumb to the siren calls of excessive and unproductive indebtedness, to be followed by a default on debt payments accompanied by crushingly higher borrowing costs.

Greece (11 million inhabitants), in fact, has abused the credibility that came with its membership in the Eurozone. In 2004, for instance, the Greek Government embarked upon a massive spending spree to host the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which cost 7 billion euros ($12.08 billion). Then, from 2005 to 2008, the same government decided to go on a spending spree, this time purchasing all types of armaments that it hardly needed from foreign suppliers. —Piling up a gross foreign debt to the tune of $533 billion (2010) seemed the easy way out. But sooner or later, the piper has to be paid and the debt burden cannot be hidden anymore.

More »

Stephen Lendman

"According to the law, a person or an organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, can be sued by the boycott’s targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. The court will then decide how much compensation is to be paid. The second part of the law says a person or a company that declare a boycott of Israel or the settlements will not be able to bid in government tenders." (Shalom Rav/Haaretz)

A previous article discussed it in detail, accessed through this link.

Before and after its July 11 passage, critics called it outrageous, shameful, lawless, and anti-democratic. More on that below.

In contrast, Netanyahu praised the measure, saying he authorized the bill:

"If I hadn't authorized it, it wouldn't have gotten here. I am opposed to boycotts against Israel and boycotts against groups within Israel."

The pro-Israeli NGO Monitor (NGOM) tried having it both ways, saying:

It doesn't "see this legislation as the appropriate means to combat the BDS movement. However, numerous NGOs have released misleading and false statements about the new law, (including saying it) criminalizes freedom of speech."

In fact, that's precisely what it does, infringing on the right of Israelis to speak freely on any issue without fear of recrimination.

NGOM, however, called public debate about it "indicative of the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy," when it exists solely for Jews, increasingly only well-off ones, benefitting at the expense of lower income Israelis like in America and other Western states.

More »

Current Concerns

Taking the Principle of the Subject’s Dignity Seriously - A criticism of the Libya war, the necessary reform of the United Nations and the dialogue among the civilizations.

An Interview with Professor Hans Köchler (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, President of the International Progress Organisation)

Current Concerns: Professor Köchler, 3 months ago you published a memorandum to the attention of the UN Secretary General and the President of the Security Council (cf. Current Concerns No 5, June 2011). This memorandum deals with the Security Council’s resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March and the ensuing war against Libya 2 days later. Could you tell us the core ideas of your memorandum? What induced you to write this memorandum?

Professor Dr Hans Köchler: The principal reason, why I made this step and sent a text to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council, lies in my fundamental refusal of the instrumentalization of the Security Council for superficial purposes in power politics. This resolution is more or less a full authorization for the interested states to intervene in another country at their own discretion.

As for myself, I was personally not only irritated, but shocked about the hard to beat hypocrisy forming the basis for the adoption of this resolution; the official reason for adopting this resolution or the goal of this resolution was the protection of civilians in Libya. Actually, the resolution is about some countries’ military intervention in Libya in the name of the United Nations, even if the United Nations themselves do not have any influence on the actions – on the one hand they wanted to install a so-called no fly zone, on the other hand they wanted to protect the civilian population, a goal separately formulated in the resolution.

In reality the use of armed forces has endangered the lives of civilians even more, and another fact is above that this resolution was decided when a civil war situation had already developed in Libya; so that now the intervention by these interested states – and it is not at all the international community of states – is more or less siding with one conflict party against the other one. In the meantime we have seen the implementation of the resolution degenerate into a war, by means of which the government in Libya is to be altered – a goal, that is not compatible with the spirit and the letter of the Security Council resolution.

More »

James Petras

The US government (White House and Congress) spends $10 billion dollars a month, or $120 billion a year, to fight an estimated “50 -75 ‘Al Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA and quoted in the Financial Times of London (6/25 -26/11, p. 5). During the past 30 months of the Obama presidency, Washington has spent $300 billion dollars in Afghanistan, which adds up to $4 billion dollars for each alleged ‘Al Queda type’.

If we multiply this by the two dozen or so sites and countries where the White House claims ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists have been spotted, we begin to understand why the US budget deficit has grown astronomically to over $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year.

During Obama’s Presidency, Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment has been frozen, resulting in a net decrease of over 8 percent, which is exactly the amount spent chasing just 5 dozen ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’ in the mountains bordering Pakistan.

It is absurd to believe that the Pentagon and White House would spend $10 billion a month just to hunt down a handful of terrorists ensconced in the mountains of Afghanistan. So what is the war in Afghanistan about? The answer one most frequently reads and hears is that the war is really against the Taliban, a mass-based Islamic nationalist guerrilla movement with tens of thousands of activists. The Taliban, however, have never engaged in any terrorist act against the territorial United States or its overseas presence. The Taliban have always maintained their fight was for the expulsion of foreign forces occupying Afghanistan. Hence the Taliban is not part of any “international terrorist network”. If the US war in Afghanistan is not about defeating terrorism, then why the massive expenditure of funds and manpower for over a decade?

More »

Stephen Lendman

On June 29, Reuters writer Daniel Trotta headlined, "Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting," explaining:

In June, when Obama claimed America's post-9/11 (Iraq/AfPak) wars cost $1 trillion, he did what he does best - lied about how much, in fact, was spent and projected, five or more times his figure.

According to a June Brown University Watson Institute for International Studies (WIIS) "Cost of War" report, up to $5,444 trillion was spent and projected with all related expenses and obligations included. More on that below.

In March, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) made its own estimate in an Amy Belasco report titled, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," saying:

Post-9/11, America "initiated three military operations:"

>1) Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in:

● Afghanistan (OEF-A), combined with an undeclared Pakistan one; as well as small Global Wars on Terror (GWOT) in
● the Philippines (OEF-P);
● Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA);
● Pankisi Gorge (near Russia, completed in 2004);
● Trans Sahara (OEF-TS, in 10 North and Sub-Saharan African countries);
● Caribbean/Central American (OEF-CCA) ones; and
● Kyrgyzstan (completed in 2004).

(2) Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) for military operations related to homeland and base security, including mobilizing National Guard troops to protect military installations, airports, power plants, port facilities, and other vital infrastructure.

(3) Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), renamed Operation New Dawn in September 2010.

Through FY 2011, CRS lowballed a $1,283 trillion cost, including:

● $806 billion for Iraq;
● $444 billion for Afghanistan;
● $29 billion for enhanced security; and
● an unallocated $6 billion.

The full CRS report can be accessed through this link.

More »