Saturday, September 6, 2014

Sept. 6: Let's forget the Irving press for a bit...

...there's nothing in it anyway. But something happened yesterday that can only be understood with a lot of history.

While suffering the boredom forced on us seniors by exercise instructors who condemn us to forever walking on treadmills, I watched Obama's press conference on Ukraine. At first, I was infuriated by his lies, his spewing of hatred, and his threats. Then, as  it went on, the truth dawned on me. It was all huff and puff. What he was really saying is that he isn't going to do anything about Ukraine.

To understand all this, why it's happening and what it means, we have to go back, way back to the 1870s.

That's when Germany was uniting and  industrializing. That would make Germany a formidable competitor both for trade and for empire. So Britain needed friends. It needed it's own gang. That's when you start to read of the British calling for US friendship. That's why Churchill called  his history series "History of the English-speaking Peoples".

But the US wasn't interested. It was busy building its own empire, something which might involve gobbling up bits of the British Empire - like China and Canada. So Britain had to settle for another gang. That's why it asked Canada, Australia and New Zealand to send troops to fight the Boers in South Africa. It was a warning to Germany. As I used to say as a kid, "You fight me; you fight my gang."

Later, the US would fight on the British side. But that had nothing to do with helping Britain. The US intervened in the two world wars very late, and only to further its own interests. One of the those interests, incidentally, was to snap up the British and European empires in Asia - as in the case of   French Indo-China (Vietnam).

That's why, even before Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt and Churchill met in Quebec City to outline the purpose of going to war. In what became called the Atlantic Charter, they promised a world of freedom and democracy.

In fact, that was pure PR. Both Britain and the US had substantial empires, with US imperial wars beginning even before American independence - as the wars against native peoples. (There is no evidence it was part of God's plan for the US to occupy all that land.) After independence, it fought imperial wars against Canada, Mexico, then a hundred years of imperial wars in Latin America, planting dictatorships like dandelions, then moving against Hawaii and The Phillipines.

No. Freedom and democracy were not really on the British and American agendas. But the Atlantic Charter did lay the groundwork for the United Nations, an organization that would establish law and order throughout the world. But the US and Britain, along with the other major powers of the day - Russia, China and France - wrote a charter that gave them, individually, the right to veto any UN action. They, all of them, had no intention of submitting to law and order.

Any charge or investigation against any of them was immediately vetoed. They also vetoed charges against their friends - as the US, for example, has on some 50 occasions vetoed any examination of war crimes charges against Israel.. They only time the UN was able to take a major action was in the case of the North Korean invasion of the south. And that was only because the Russian delegate was not there to use his veto.

The UN was destroyed as a form of world government before it even started. It was deliberately destroyed by the major powers of the time. And their weapon was the veto.

But the US was finding, as Britain had a century earlier, that conquering the world can be a demanding business. It needed its own gang, people it controlled, to help out. And so the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created.

At least one person, a Canadian, saw where this was leading. Prime Minister Pearson was a man with a long experience of foreign affairs. He saw immediately that NATO was really a rebirth of the old British idea of the Boer War period, the creation of a gang - but in this case, a gang to serve US interests. That's why he pioneered the idea of the Canadian army as peacekeepers. It was quite clear to him. Either we are street thugs for some gang boss or we are working toward a world of law and order.

It was a very sensible idea. So, of course, it was opposed by the armed forces and by those who saw nothing wrong with street thugs. The concept of peacekeeping  was also abused by the US.

When an army of  soldiers for the former dictator of Haiti invaded that country, the US sent a military force to establish peace. It was a farce. The US invasion force ignored the gunmen, and kicked out the country's elected president, the first one they'd had after decades of rule by American dictators. Then, to complete the cover-up for what they'd done, they asked other countries (like Canada) to send peacekeepers - to make it all look legitimate. And we did.

NATO is now what the US wanted, it's own gang to help fight its wars and to give them an air of legitimacy. There's even talk now of sending them to Iraq -which is a long way from the North Atlantic. So it was natural for the US to call in NATO as trouble developed in Ukraine. It also increased the dangers of the situation. (Can you imagine the reaction of the US if Russia were to station troops in Mexico to threaten the US?)

From the start, Obama's tone has been belligerent, aggressive, accusatory. And lying.The problem did NOT begin with any incursion of Russia troops anywhere.

Before it began, Ukraine had a legal, elected government which was on friendly terms with Russia, even being permitted to gobble up billions in Russian oil without paying for it. Then there was street violence in Kiev, and the government was overthrown. That was how this all started.

Our news media repeatedly and routinely say that Russia started all this with incursions into Ukraine. But no such incursions had happened. It was the street rioters in Kiev who did it. It would make no sense whatever for Russia to have provoked those riots; there is no evidence it did; and, in fact, I have seen no reports in any news medium that Russia had any connection with those riots.

But this is where it all started. So why do our news media repeatedly tell us that Russia started it? This is one  hell of a demonstration of the bias, the lying - and the tremendous influence - of our news media.

In fact, the only public statement we have on responsibility for the overthrow of the elected Kiev government comes from an American Associate Secretary of State. She has claimed credit for organizing  the coup, and for spending millions to organize the riots.

Now - Obama immediately recognized the new government. Huh? People riot, illegally overthrow the government, a new government with Nazi Party members prominent in it is appointed - and Obama instantly recognizes it?  Gee! How come he's so slow in recognizing the government of the Islamic State in Iraq?

Why would the US do this? Well, it might have something to do with pushing its gang (NATO) up to the Russian border at a point so close to Moscow that American missiles could destroy it in minutes.

From the start, Obama's tone has been accusatory and threatening. And the North American news media have followed his gang's line.  Russians evil. US good.

Putin may very well be evil. He didn't slaughter millions in Vietnam and Iraq like the US did. But, sure, he could be a bad guy. But there's precious little evidence that he's the bad guy in this case - and lots of evidence that Obama is. (If Obama is really in control - which I doubt.)

So I listened to his press conference as I plodded my weary way on the treadmill. And then it began to dawn on me.

Obama was talking tough, very tough, indeed. But the real message tucked in there was that he is not going to intervene in Ukraine. Yes, he will set up a Russian strike force - in a year or so. Big deal.  But he is not going to risk a nuclear war. Ukraine is going to have to work out peace terms with Putin, and with its own people.

Why this sudden change? For a start, it could be that the NATO countries are not nearly so keen as our press has led us to believe. Like Harper, they all talk a good game - but they aren't really interested in the commitments or the risks. As for sanctions, they hurt some of the NATO powers more than they hurt Russia.  Obama was talking tough to cover the reality that NATO leaders are telling him to back off.

As well, the threat of the Islamic State may be more important than Ukraine to both the US and NATO.

Whatever the case might be and whatever the Irving press might tell us, Obama and NATO have lost the showdown in Ukraine. Putin has won.

That reminds me. Some weeks ago, on TV news, Brian Mulroney laughed at the idea that Putin could challenge Obama, and said Putin would soon learn his lesson. More recently, he's been publicly criticizing Harper, and today we have a breathless story that Mila Mulroney knew Joan Rivers. I was so thrilled to read that.

Mulroneys have not been in the news since he confessed to accepting large sums of money in unusual ways and evasion of paying taxes - and, being one of the boys, suffered almost no penalty at all. He's a proven thief and a liar. Mila has a craving for public attention and living expensively.

Is it possible that we are witnessing the organized return of those two to public life? Does Brian now hope we've forgotten, and will let him back as an elder statesman? Does Mila hope the world will tell her again how lovely her dresses and jewelry are? It looks that way.


  1. Why do I know so much of the history of the UN and of NATO? I'm in my late 50s, have the media leaks been squeezed shut that much since the then 'common knowledge' of UN corruption abounded? To be aware of these same truths these days, one must dig for the pay-dirt.
    Btw, thank you shining that incriminating light on Moron Balogny. He stepped around what he should be laying in.

    1. Oh, I have no idea what the level of corruption (in the sense of pay-offs) might be at the UN. I was more concerned with how it was designed from the start to be ineffective - so that the major powers could continue their usual bullying and law-breaking.

      As for Mulroney, he also has lots of enemies in the Conservative party - though I'm not sure what that's all about. I can remember being in a roomful of wealthy Conservative supporters at some sort of social evening. Mulroney and Mila came in a little later than me - and everyone pretended not to see them.

  2. interesting. and the media has opened up a new front, in the Baltics. making wild accusations about possible threats from an assertive Russia.
    I work with a Latvian. He is fairly smart, and well travelled, including a couple of years in the USA. But his upbringing in the old Soviet Union has taught him to fear and loathe Russia. He sees a possible threat from the old bear, and does not understand the American threat.

    1. Understandable. In the same way, many nations in Central America fear and loathe the US - but don't show much concern about Russia.