TBR News July 3, 2017

Jul 03 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., July 3, 2017:” When an empire slips into decline, it does so in clearly identifiable stages.

This is the case with the American empire at the present time.

Franklin Roosevelt pushed the US into what became the Second World War for personal reasons. (The Roosevelt family were Jewish on both sides and Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies enraged the president) and the result of this was that at its conclusion there were two dominant nations left in the rubble.

These were the United States and Russia and the struggle then began to see which would dominate.

Initially, the United States was successful, and through duplicity and threats, reduced Russia to a squabbling and disintegrating state.

But those in power in the United States also saw that Russia had enormous natural resources and so a frantic effort was made to not only subjugate Russia but also get physical control of her oil, gas and other assets. America was initially a democracy, then a republic and finally, an oligarchy.

The men who controlled the policies of this country are a handful of very rich and powerful people; bankers and the oil industry predominant.

And to secure America’s world leadership designs, small wars were fought to gain control of natural resources and establish American business interests and the American dollar as the world standards.

The British empire had achieved this goal at one point but lost everything through arrogance and carelessness and now the American empire finds itself in the same position as Britain did in 1914.

Like the British, America has fought a series of wars against small and relatively defenseless countries to gain control of their resources.

As an example of this, America attacked Iraq, not because we disliked Saddam Hussein (whom we captured and subsequently executed) but to gain control of the enormous but untapped Iraqi oil reserves.

Iraq slipped through American control because of religious infighting and with that defeat, the next goal was Russia and her Arctic and Black Sea  oil reserves.

That project fell apart as Putin, taking advantage of a CIA-fomented rebellion in Kiev, got back Russian control of the Crimea with its vital naval base and extensive offshore oil deposits.”

Table of Contents

  • Saudi Arabia’s Ruthless Crown Prince Threatens Neighbors, Unsettles Middle East
  • UK’s Jeremy Corbyn: Halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia
  • The Growing U.S.-Iran Proxy Fight in Syria
  • Saudi Arabia’s Ruthless Crown Prince Threatens Neighbors, Unsettles Middle East
  • U.S. no longer a ‘friend’ in Merkel election program
  • Macron seeks to cut number of MPs by a third
  • Surprise war vote points to shift in GOP
  • Greek coast guard opens fire on Turkish-flagged cargo vessel in Aegean Sea – report
  • The Control of the American News Media
  • Analysis: Threat from disease weapons

Saudi Arabia’s Ruthless Crown Prince Threatens Neighbors, Unsettles Middle East

July 1, 2017

by Doug Bandow

Huffpost

Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdulaziz has shaken his nation’s closed political system by making his youngest son his heir. Although heralded as a “modernizer,” 31-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, is the architect of Riyadh’s disastrous attack on Yemen and disingenuous campaign to turn Qatar into a Saudi satellite. Given President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of the monarchy, Prince Salman’s recklessness is likely to draw the U.S. more deeply into destabilizing regional conflicts.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an anachronism, an absolute monarchy in a democratic age. A few thousand princes sit atop a society of roughly 32 million, treating the nation’s wealth as their family’s piggy bank. The royals live a generally licentious lifestyle outside of public view, but buy off the KSA’s fundamentalist Muslim clergy by promoting the intolerant Islamic sect of Wahhabism worldwide. The kingdom’s population long has been a generous source of people and money for radical and terrorist groups, including those attacking the West.

What amounts to a totalitarian state—there is no religious or political liberty and only limited social freedom, at least in public—has no popular appeal other than its open checkbook. Which makes political Islam so threatening: a country like Iran is an awful model, but life revolves around something other than money. For that people are willing to fight and die. In contrast, the Saudi royals buy domestic loyalty while hiring foreigners to do the dirty work. With little to fight for, even the Saudi military performs poorly despite the best American weaponry.

The kingdom confronts a multitude of challenges. For years a group of elderly brothers held the kingship and other top positions among themselves. This self-aggrandizing gerontocracy lost what little public appeal it had when oil prices dropped, reducing the financial benefits for the average Saudi. Riyadh’s cash reserves have fallen by almost a third since 2014.

In 2015 King Salman succeeded to the throne. He appointed his nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef, as Crown Prince, and his favorite son, MBS, as Deputy Crown Prince. But the king emasculated his nominal successor, merging Prince Nayef’s court with his own and stripping the Crown Prince’s other positions of authority. The 81-year-old king introduced his son to Washington, seeking unofficial blessing for his plans to anoint MBS his successor.

The young prince, whose experience had been limited to serving his father, had the latter’s ear and effectively ruled. MBS won praise for seeking to diversify the economy. Last year he initiated Project 2030, which promotes development beyond oil. He also imposed an austerity program, cutting benefits for the entitlement-minded population—only to restore some of them recently, to quiet discontent. Moreover, he loosened some social strictures and restricted the religious police, to the applause of many younger Saudis.

However, his highly-touted liberalism does not extend to religion or politics. There is not one church, synagogue, or temple in the entire kingdom. No public worship or other activity is allowed any other faith, even though the KSA is filled with contract workers, many of whom are Christians or Hindus. The Shia minority worships only at sufferance, while facing persistent discrimination and repression. Saudi Arabia ranks with North Korea in its extraordinary hostility to religious liberty. MBS has changed nothing.

As for politics, the reigning prince has demonstrated no inclination to allow those not of royal blood to have any say in their own government. Freedom House ranks the KSA as “Not Free,” with the lowest possible rating for both political freedom and civil liberties. The human rights group declared simply: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties through a combination of oppressive laws and the use of force.”

The U.S. State Department detailed Riyadh’s manifold crimes in its latest human rights report, explaining: “The most important human rights problems reported included citizens’ lack of the ability and legal means to choose their government; restrictions on universal rights, such as freedom of expression, including on the internet, and the freedoms of assembly, association, movement, and religion; and pervasive gender discrimination and lack of equal rights that affected most aspects of women’s lives.” Other than that, life in the KSA is great.

Indeed, the kingdom’s hated enemy, Iran, looks like a democratic paragon compared to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia does not hold elections. Or allow organized political opposition. Or tolerate media criticism, or criticism of any sort. Dissident blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced to ten years and 1000 lashes for his writing; his attorney then was tossed into jail for 15 years. Observed Maya Foa of the human rights group Reprieve, “The reality is Prince Mohammed has stood alongside and publicly defended the king as young men have been tortured and executed for peacefully protesting.” Where is MBS the reformer?

Of greater concern to the U.S. is the crown prince’s international aggression. He is pushing a quasi-war against Iran, pledging to “work so that the battle for them is in Iran.” Antagonism toward Tehran sparked Riyadh’s destabilizing support for radical jihadists in an attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

MBS orchestrated the invasion of Yemen two years ago to restore to power a friendly autocrat ousted in the latest iteration of that nation’s endless internecine conflict. What was supposed to be a brief cakewalk morphed into a lengthy sectarian struggle in which more than 10,000 civilians have died, most from Saudi bombing—for which the U.S. provided the weapons, refueled the planes, and suggested the targets.

After Riyadh sowed the wind, Iran encouraged the whirlwind, providing modest aid to Riyadh’s Houthi opponents. Tehran seeks not to “win” but to bleed its Saudi antagonist. There is no end in sight to the immoral, counterproductive conflict into which Washington is being ever more deeply drawn. In contrast, Prince Nayef, well regarded as interior minister by foreign governments, was skeptical of MBS’s Yemeni misadventure.

The young ruler-in-waiting also apparently is the driving force behind the Saudi-led assault on neighboring Qatar. Although Saudi Arabia has done more than any other nation to fund and staff anti-Western terrorist organizations, Riyadh accused Doha of supporting terrorism.

The Saudi royals were angered by Qatar’s friendly relations with Iran, growing naturally out of their shared natural gas field. These ties also encourage the world’s most populous Shia nation’s more responsible participation in the international system. The Saudis criticized Qatar for backing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most important exponent of political Islam, a diverse activist (not terrorist) group whose members serve in at least two governments and are well integrated into other Arab nations. Riyadh’s war on the Brotherhood threatens to drive its activities underground and radicalize even more young Muslims, who find no appeal in a discreditable corrupt monarchy.

Finally, Riyadh, which allows no media freedom, targeted Al Jazeera, the Qatar-backed television network which publicized the 2011 Arab Spring and criticized the Saudi royals, among others. MBS is seeking to impose his own nation’s totalitarian controls abroad. No independent state could accept Saudi Arabia’s outlandish demands. Again, Prince Nayef was more cautious, urging a diplomatic resolution. His opposition to MBS’ international thuggery reportedly triggered his ouster as royal heir. Indeed, after the switch it was reported that Prince Nayef was put under palace arrest, presumably to prevent any opposition to the new regime.

Even Riyadh’s Sunni neighbors are not entirely comfortable with MBS’s outsized ambitions. Warned Chas Freeman, George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia: “Some of the neighbors regard it as a drive for Saudi hegemony in the region.” Which could be as unpleasant as Iranian domination.

Despite the good press received by MBS as a dynamic new ruler, so far he has demonstrated an unerring ability to fail upward. Yemenis continue to successfully resist Saudi aggression, Qatar so far has withstood Riyadh’s attempted extortion. The government has had to retreat from last year’s budget cuts. Only the young heir’s modest social reforms have survived. With MBS poised to officially rule, the U.S. should back away from a relationship which has simultaneously undermined American values and security. The Saudi regime is destined to fall. Then Washington will pay a heavy political price for having supported the oppressive royals for so long.

The new Saudi crown prince’s pleasant countenance cannot disguise the brutal character of the system he represents. Even assuming the royal family is truly united—and there likely is greater disquiet than publicly known—anointing a younger, more vibrant ruler in Saudi Arabia is like putting lipstick on a pig. The essential problem remains the dictatorial theocracy’s lack of public legitimacy and appeal. The only question is when the Saudi people will finally free themselves.

UK’s Jeremy Corbyn: Halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Labour Party leader condemns use of UK weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen war, and calls for the suspension of arms sales.

July 1, 2017

aljazeera

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK’s main opposition Labour Party, has called for a halt in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and a ceasefire in Yemen.

Since the start of the war in Yemen, the UK has approved arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth $4.1bn, according to London-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Corbyn said: “We have constantly condemned the use of these weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and called for the suspension of the arms sales to Saudi Arabia to show that we are wanting a peace process in Yemen, not an invasion by Saudi Arabia.

“We’ve made that very clear.”

Yemen has been devastated by a war between forces loyal to the internationally recognised government, led by President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and a Houthi rebel movement. Concerned by the rise of the Houthi rebels it believes to be backed by regional rival Iran, Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Sunni Arab states launched an intervention in 2015 in the form of a massive air campaign aimed at reinstalling Hadi’s government.

More than 10,000 people have been killed and at least 40,000 injured in Yemen since March 20, mostly from Saudi-led air strikes, according to the United Nations.

The Saudi-led air campaign and subsequent blockade have created a humanitarian disaster in the Arab world’s poorest country. Cholera is on the rise and nearly 70 percent of the population is dependent on aid.

‘Totally shocked’

“I’m totally shocked by the war in Yemen. Totally shocked by the bombardment that’s taken place, by the killings that have happened, by the cholera outbreak that’s now rife. And the numbers who are affected, the numbers who have already died,” Corbyn said.

More than 1,300 people have died of cholera since late April, in the second outbreak of the infection in less than a year.

In March, the UN’s World Food Programme said that nearly half of Yemen’s 22 provinces were on the verge of famine.

Corbyn said the Labour party had called on the previous British government to suspend its arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and would continue to do so in the next.

“We have already put that resolution to parliament in the last parliament. We’ll continue to do that when there’s a new parliament formed after this general election. Our policy of the Labour Party is unchanged,” he said.

The Labour leader also touched on alleged instances, revealed in two separate investigations last week, of forced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and abuse by troops backed by the United Arab Emirates in Yemen.

“All of those allegations have to be investigated, and the evidence has to come forward,” said Corbyn.

“And arms sales policy has to reflect that we do not believe those countries that commit abuses of human rights or kill civilians with the use of those weapons should continue to receive British arms.”

Last week rights groups and activists called on the UK to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its allies, warning that continuing to do so may be a violation of international law.

A statement issued by the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK (AOHR) said British manufactured weapons sold to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt were being used to carry out abuses in Yemen and Libya.

“[AOHR] is calling on the UK government to review its role in the sale of arms to a number of Arab governments that are known for gross human rights violation,” the statement read.

“A Saudi-led coalition has killed hundreds of Yemenis, destroyed scores of homes in addition to obliterating most of Yemen’s core infrastructure,” the AOHR said, adding: “Saudi Arabia has also turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by UAE in southern parts of the country.”

In Libya, the UAE has transferred British-produced arms to the renegade Libyan general Khalifa Haftar, who is also accused of a raft of abuses, including indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and summary executions.

The Growing U.S.-Iran Proxy Fight in Syria

The scramble for Islamic State territory is raising the risks of escalation.

June 20, 2017

by Mohamad Bazzi

The Atlantic

On Sunday evening, a U.S. warplane shot down a Syrian jet after it bombed American-backed rebels in northern Syria. This marked the first time the United States has downed a Syrian warplane since the start of the country’s civil war in 2011. On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that the United States had shot down an Iranian-made drone in the country’s southeast, where American personnel have been training anti-Islamic State fighters.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. military has struck the Syrian regime or its allies at least five times, in most cases to protect U.S.-backed rebels and their American advisers. Even if the Pentagon may not want to directly engage Syrian forces or their Russian and Iranian-backed allies, there’s a danger of accidental escalation, especially as various forces continue to converge on eastern and southern Syria to reclaim strategic territory from ISIS. Russia, for its part, angrily condemned the U.S. action and threatened on Monday to treat all coalition planes in Syria as potential targets.

But the dangers are perhaps particularly acute when it comes to Iran, which made dramatic battlefield moves of its own on Sunday, when it launched several missiles from inside Iran against ISIS targets in eastern Syria. Officially, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said the volley of missiles fired at Deir Ezzor province was a response to a pair of attacks by ISIS in Tehran on June 7, which killed 18 people and wounded dozens; the attacks marked the first time that ISIS had struck inside Iran. But the Iranian regime had several less-dramatic means to exact revenge against ISIS targets in Syria—after all, there’s no shortage of Iranian allies operating in the war-ravaged country.

Instead, Iran’s fiery act of vengeance seemed to be a message aimed at both the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia. (The six ballistic missiles used by Tehran against ISIS, with a range of 700 kilometers, could reach major Saudi cities.) The kingdom has become emboldened regionally and escalated its anti-Iran rhetoric thanks, in part, to Trump’s message of seemingly unconditional support.

At the same time, Trump’s apparent willingness to use military force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his chief supporters risks sparking a widening confrontation, while distracting from what he insists is his top priority: defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria. This, from a president who campaigned, in part, on a pledge to avoid direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. Now, Trump has become a major player in an exploding regional proxy war that could determine the Middle East’s post-war dynamics.

Sunday’s events place the danger of escalation and the staggering complexities of the phalanx of alliances in Syria into stark relief. The confrontation began when U.S.-allied fighters with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition of Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian, and Turkmen rebel groups anchored by the largely Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), came under attack from “pro-Syrian regime forces” in a town south of Tabqa, the site of a strategic dam that had been under ISIS control for several years until the SDF captured it in May. (Over the past year, the SDF and YPG had largely avoided confrontation with Syrian forces—a modus operandi that may be changing as Assad and his allies grow bolder in the race for control of southeastern Syria.) The Pentagon coordinates its activities in Syria with Russian forces, and U.S. officials said they contacted their counterparts on a “de-confliction” phone line asking them to intervene with Syrian forces to stop the attacks. But two hours later, the Pentagon said, a Syrian-regime jet dropped bombs near SDF fighters, and it was shot down by a U.S. Navy plane.

Afterwards, the Pentagon said it would protect the Syrian rebels it has been training and arming for more than year to launch the assault on ISIS in Raqqa. “The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the U.S. statement said. “The coalition does not seek to fight [the] Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat.”

And foremost among those threats, in the eyes of the Trump administration, is Iran. While Trump has changed his mind on a number of foreign-policy questions since taking office, he has been consistent in his belief that Iran, the world’s main state sponsor of terrorism, poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East. He’s surrounded himself with advisers like Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, battle-hardened former military commanders who want to take an aggressive approach to contain Iran.

Nowhere is Iran projecting its regional power more extensively than Syria. Since the war started, Tehran has sent billions of dollars in aid and thousands of troops and Shiite volunteers to support Assad’s men. Over the past two years, Russia and Iran, along with Hezbollah and several Iraqi Shiite militias, helped Assad consolidate control and regain territory he lost to Syrian rebels and foreign jihadists. In December, with intensive Russian airstrikes and Iranian ground support, Assad’s forces recaptured the rebel-held sections of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. It was Assad’s biggest victory since the war began.

The next prize for the Syrian government and its allies is the eastern province of Deir Ezzor, home to the country’s modest oil fields. Most of this region was lost to the Assad regime by late 2013, although the Syrian military remains in control of parts of Deir Ezzor city, where about 200,000 people are besieged by ISIS. This desert expanse includes several border crossings between Syria, Iraq, and Jordan—and the strategic highway connecting Damascus and Baghdad. In recent weeks, Syrian troops, along with Hezbollah and other Shiite militias, have been moving to consolidate control over the area and to connect with Iranian-backed militias who are fighting to dislodge ISIS from the Iraqi side of the border.

What worries the Trump administration: that with these gains, Iran and its allies will carve out a “Shiite crescent” extending from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, and into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political and military force. Such a prospect looms large not only for the Trump administration, but also its allies in the Arab world, especially the Saudis.

Since taking office, Trump and his top advisers have shifted their rhetoric to reflect more explicit support for Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies, and, in turn, a harsher view of Iran. The shift was cemented during Trump’s much-hyped visit last month to the kingdom, which he chose as the first stop on his maiden overseas trip as president. Like his Saudi hosts, Trump framed the problems of the Middle East as due solely to Iran’s belligerence and terrorism by Islamic extremist groups, despite the kingdom’s destabilizing activities across the Middle East, including its ongoing catastrophic war in Yemen and blockade of Qatar.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials are growing increasingly frustrated at the Trump administration’s constant attacks on the July 2015 agreement Tehran signed with the United States and five other world powers to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Perhaps still smarting from Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia, in which he castigated Iran for stoking “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also stepped up his anti-Trump rhetoric on Sunday, calling him “an inexperienced thug.”

In truth, the United States has already been making risky bets and forging fragile alliances that threaten only to heighten the complex conflicts underlying Syria’s war. Under the Obama administration, U.S. policy in Syria was focused on containing ISIS, largely ignoring Assad, and keeping America’s allies from fighting each other. Today, Trump is abandoning that ambiguity, whether by trying to blunt the ambitions of Iran and the Assad regime in southern Syria, or by backing a Pentagon plan to arm the Syrian Kurds over the objections of Turkey. In May, his administration approved the Pentagon’s plan to provide heavy weapons to the SDF-led rebels fighting to expel ISIS from Raqqa, capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. The decision pitted two main U.S. allies in the Syrian war, Turkey and the Syrian Kurds, against each other.

While the Pentagon is eager to portray its latest actions as a defensive measure, Assad’s regime and its Iranian allies view it as an aggression, noting that Washington shot down a Syrian jet in Syrian airspace. And by flexing their military reach in Syria with Sunday’s missile launch, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and other regime hardliners risk inflaming more tension with the Trump administration—tension that could boil over in the coming war for dominance of southern Syria. One danger, among many, is that Assad and Tehran, which both have a history of testing their adversaries’ boundaries, could overreach and provoke a confrontation that spirals out of control.

U.S. no longer a ‘friend’ in Merkel election program

July 3, 2017

by Noah Barkin

Reuters

BERLIN-In their campaign program for the German election, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives have dropped the term “friend” in describing the relationship with the United States.

Four years ago, the joint program of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), referred to the United States as Germany’s “most important friend” outside of Europe.

The 2013 program also described the “friendship” with Washington as a “cornerstone” of Germany’s international relations and talked about strengthening transatlantic economic ties through the removal of trade barriers.

But the words “friend” and “friendship” are missing from the latest election program – entitled “For a Germany in which we live well and happily” – which Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer presented on Monday ahead of a Sept. 24 election.

Instead, the United States is described as Germany’s “most important partner” outside of Europe. CDU officials were not immediately available to comment on the change in wording.

The change in wording underscores how relations between Berlin and Washington have deteriorated since U.S. President Donald Trump entered the White House in January.

During his campaign for the presidency, Trump said that Merkel was “ruining” Germany with migration policies he described as “insane”.

He has repeatedly denounced Germany’s trade surplus with the United States, accused Berlin and other European partners of owing “massive amounts of money” to NATO, and unsettled western partners with his decision last month to pull out of the Paris climate accord..

A survey by the Pew Research Center last week showed that just 35 percent of Germans have a favorable view of the United States, down from 57 percent at the end of President Barack Obama’s term.

Merkel is due to host Trump and other leaders at a G20 summit in Hamburg later this week.

In place of the 2013 passage about strengthening economic ties, the 2017 program refers to historical U.S. support for Germany after World War Two and in the run-up to German reunification.

The new CDU/CSU election program also repeats a line that Merkel used in a speech in Munich in late May after a difficult summit of G7 leaders, where Trump resisted pressure from six other nations to stay in the Paris agreement.

“The times in which we could fully rely on others are, to a certain extent, in the past. We Europeans must take our fate into our own hands more decisively than we have in the past,” the program reads.

While affirming Germany’s commitment to the NATO military alliance, the program says that the EU must be in a position to defend itself independently if it wants to survive in the long run.

It also adds a special section entitled “Germany and France as the Motor of Europe” which vows to “reinvigorate the friendship” between the two countries.

“We are ready, together with the new French government, to further develop the euro zone step by step, for example through the creation of its own monetary fund,” it reads.

But it also rules out the mutualization of debt in Europe and says that “solidarity” will only be possible if EU countries stick to the rules of the bloc’s Growth and Stability Pact.

(Reporting by Noah Barkin, editing by Larry King)

Macron seeks to cut number of MPs by a third

July 3, 2017

BBC News

French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed a radical overhaul of the country’s government.

Speaking at the historic Palace of Versailles, he said he planned to cut the number of lawmakers by a third.

Doing so would produce a more efficient government and put France on a “radically new path”, said Mr Macron.

The French president says he has a broad mandate after sweeping wins in presidential and parliamentary elections this year.

If his proposed changes were not passed by parliament within a year, he said he would take the decision to a referendum.

In his 90-minute speech, the 39-year-old leader vowed to return a “collective dignity” to France.

“In the past, procedures have taken preference over results, rules over initiative, living off the public purse over fairness,” he said.

The proposed cuts would reduce the number of National Assembly members from 577 to 385, and the numbers of Senate members from 348 to 232.

He also said:

  • The European Union had “lost its way” in the past 10 years amid growing bureaucracy – a solution was a “new generation of leaders”
  • France’s electoral system would be changed to allow more proportional representation, so more voices would be heard at government level
  • France’s state of emergency, put in place after terror attacks, would be removed by the autumn

Mr Macron is not the first president to convene a session at Versailles, the grand 17th Century palace outside Paris built by Louis XIV, “the Sun King”.

The decision to convene Congress at the palace has come in for criticism, however, and has provided further material for critics of Mr Macron who have accused him of aloofness.

While he engaged freely with the press during his electoral campaign, he has made little contact since, and will not conduct the traditional presidential interview for the 14 July national holiday, Bastille Day.

Three parties, including Jean-Luc Mélénchon’s far-left France Unbowed, boycotted the event. Mr Mélénchon accused Mr Macron of “crossing a line with the pharaonic aspect of his presidential monarchy”.

The front page of Monday’s Libération showed an image of Mr Macron as Jupiter, the king of the gods, holding forked lightning. Expressing concern, the centre-left newspaper said the session in Versailles was the latest manifestation of the president’s authoritarian nature.

Mr Macron’s La République en Marche (LREM) party began life only in April 2016, but the former finance minister swept to victory in the second round of the presidential election on 7 May.

A month later, his party and its allies went on to claim 350 of the 577 seats in parliamentary elections, a win he says has given him the mandate to push through wide-ranging social and economic reforms.

Meanwhile, police have confirmed that a suspected far-right extremist has been charged with plotting to kill Mr Macron at the Bastille Day parade later this month.

Macron revelling in symbolism – Hugh Schofield, BBC News, Paris

The style of the Macron presidency is becoming clearer. He thinks that Charles de Gaulle, founder of the Fifth Republic, got it right: France’s head of state should be distant, surrounded by symbolism and mystique, above the fray.

That is why he decided to call this exceptional joint session of the Senate and the National Assembly – to set out to lawmakers from his position of supreme authority what he expects of them in the years to come.

Of course it’s convenient that the session took place in Versailles, a place of monarchical associations like no other.

Emmanuel Macron feels the presidency was debased by his predecessors, who either interfered too much in the detail of policy, or pandered to the media.

He wants to stop that, but critics are already saying he is getting above himself – and assuming powers he should not have.

Surprise war vote points to shift in GOP

July 1, 2017

by Ellen Mitchell

The Hill

No one was more surprised than Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday when her language revoking the administration’s war authority was unexpectedly backed by Republicans and added to a must-pass defense spending bill.

“Whoa,” Lee wrote on Twitter following a voice vote that pushed through her amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Lee’s measure, which prompted applause when it was adopted in the House Appropriations defense bill, would revoke the AUMF eight months after the passing of the defense act, forcing Congress to vote on a new law in the interim.

Lee for years has attempted to shutter the law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but this week’s backing reflects shifting politics and unusual bipartisan support.

GOP lawmakers, growing more frustrated with years of unresolved military conflict, are now pushing to create a new war bill specific to current conflicts.

“I feel like my world is rocked, because I see these very different opinions and yet I agree with you,” Air Force veteran Rep. Chris Stewart(R-Utah) told Lee during the amendment’s debate.

“My friends in the military now … they notice that Congress doesn’t have the guts to stand up and have this debate and give them the authority with their continuing every day,” he added.

Stewart later told The Hill he has tried in the past to convince fellow Republicans to discuss a new AUMF, and the new shift is likely the result of having a new president in the White House.

“President Obama wasn’t interested in expanding this authority and he wasn’t interested in this debate,” he said. “Many of us believe we have a president that is more likely to help us on this rather than resist.”

The AUMF has been used by the George W. Bush, Obama and Trump administrations to justify a number of military actions, including the Iraq War and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

While Libertarian outliers including Sen. Rand Paul(R-Ky.) have pushed for a new war authority — arguing that any president needs Congressional authorization for military action — lawmakers have been stalemated for years amid myriad political and policy divisions.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, argued that the time is now for Congress to debate a new measure.

“We’re at war against an enemy that did not exist in a place that we did not expect to fight. How an AUMF that was passed 16 years ago — before I was in Congress — could possibly be stretched to cover this is just beyond belief to me,” Cole said Thursday during debate.

Conservative experts weren’t able to point to one specific example that tipped Republicans in favor of an AUMF debate this time around, and said the outcome was likely the result of a variety of frustrations.

Judson Phillips, the founder of conservative advocacy coalition Tea Party Nation, said “one of the sentiments among the grassroots has been that Congress has abdicated too much of its power to the executive branch.”

“While the Afghan authorization issue is not something that’s specifically on a lot of people’s radar, government overreach and the power of the presidency is,” he said.

“This is an issue that would pick up some traction among the grassroots,” he added.

A.J. Spiker, the former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party who served as a senior political adviser to Paul’s leadership PAC, said the 2001 war authorization was passed when many of today’s troops were still in elementary school.

“A lot of the soldiers that are now going off to fight in these wars they were not even in middle school at the time of 9/11. Here they are being sent off with a war authorization from two presidents ago,” he said.

“Nobody thought an authorization for war would last 15 years. That’s just ridiculous. I think that’s something Democrats and Republicans should be able to come together on,” Spiker said

Recent events in Syria — including the U.S. downing a Syrian drone and Russian aircraft within the same week earlier this month — have also caused concern over the authority, according to retired Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“The U.S. military on the ground in Syria is more than just special operations — that’s raised some questions in Congress’ mind,” Spoehr told The Hill. “All these things coming together tilted the board.”

Regardless of the cause, the results surprised many.

“I didn’t expect this to happen, to be honest with you,” said Rep. Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, who also backed the amendment during debate.

Stewart also said that he was shocked the amendment passed, but “that gives me hope that we can engage other members on this issue. Let’s just have the debate and not drag this thing on for another 16 years.”

Of course, there are Republican lawmakers who are not happy with the provision.

Defense subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Kay Granger(R-Texas) called the amendment “a deal breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to al Qaeda and … affiliated terrorism.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee has already pushed back on the language, arguing it violates the House’s rules and suggesting it may be stripped from the bill.

And Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a former Air Force pilot, said he was “shocked and deeply troubled” by the amendment.

The question now is which GOP side will prevail in keeping the language in the House defense bill.

“I think it’s going to get ruled out of order,” Spoehr predicted, before adding that the idea is likely to stay.

“We think somebody should have this discussion again, but I don’t think this bill is the right tactic,” he said. “We have a proven track record in setting up a deadline, we think there’s no way we can miss it, and then we always find ourselves right against the deadline. We create an artificial crisis.”

Stewart said that the bill will be discussed by the House leadership when lawmakers return from the July 4 recess, but a date has not been set.

“We’re going to have to talk,”  he said. “We just haven’t had the time to look at it. We will, I just don’t know when.”

Greek coast guard opens fire on Turkish-flagged cargo vessel in Aegean Sea – report

July 3, 2017

RT

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it strongly condemns the incident in which Greek coast guard boats reportedly fired shots at a Turkish freighter in the Aegean Sea on Monday, calling it an “unmeasured” act on the part of Athens.

A cargo vessel sailing under the Turkish flag, , named ‘ACT,’ has come under fire from Greek coast guard boats in the Aegean Sea, Turkey’s NTV broadcaster reported.

The freighter reportedly picked up cargo in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and was moving in the direction of the Izmit Bay of the Sea of Marmara.

While in the Aegean Sea, the Turkish ship was approached by Greek coast guard vessels, which demanded that it enter a port on the Greek island of Rhodes for cargo inspection.

The Turkish captain allegedly ignored the call, which led to the Greek coast guards opening fire on the freighter.

The crew of the ‘ACT’ said they discovered 16 bullet holes in the ship’s hull following the incident.

There were no reports of injuries or fatalities on board, and the freighter continued on its route.

Two vessels of the Turkish coast guard reportedly arrived at the scene of the incident shortly afterwards.

The freighter’s captain, Sami Kalkavan, told CNN Turk that the Greek coast guard approached his ship when it was passing Rhodes and demanded that it enter the port on the island.

“We did not accept this. They wanted to check (the ship), and we didn’t accept that. They said they would fire if we didn’t stop, they did what they said. Now there are 16 holes in the ship,” he said.

According to the captain, the damage done to the ship hasn’t affected its buoyancy and there’s no danger of water getting in.

Kalkavan didn’t specify what cargo his ship was carrying and why he didn’t want it to be inspected.

The Greek coast guard said in a statement that only warning shots were fired as a vessel carrying a Turkish flag refused to cooperate before returning to Turkish waters.

Relations between Turkey and Greece have been strained for decades, as the neighbors fought over Cyprus in 1974 and stood on the brink of another conflict over an uninhabited isle in the Aegean Sea in 1996.

Greece says it registers thousands of violations of its airspace by Turkish military jets every year, as well as frequent incursions by Turkish research vessels into its territorial waters.

Athens also refused to hand over to Ankara the eight officers who are accused in Turkey of participating in the attempted coup last summer.

The recent referendum to expand the powers of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan also added fuel to the fire, with the Greek military saying it was “ready to answer any provocation… because that is how we defend peace.”

The Control of the American News Media

by James Kelso

A covert policy, formulated by Ronald Reagan in conjunction with the CIA, was termed “perception management” and was formalized on January 14, 1983 when President Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive No. 77.  The Reagan White House and the CIA felt that a resurrection of anti-war activism in the United States as had occurred during the prolonged and futile Vietnamese war could curtail or halt the Reagan/CIA policy of  “aggressive containment,” specifically in Central America.

This project was also called ‘public diplomacy’ and while it was ostensibly created to develop American public support for Reagan’s foreign policy, it also was constructed to effect control over the opinions of the American public through control of the American media, both TV and press reportage.

Under the “perception management/public diplomacy” program, the CIA was instructed to take a number of steps to bring the American public’s perceptions into line with an official U.S. governmental policy.

The first step in this program was to fully analyze the cultural, ethnic, political and religious backgrounds of the general population and attempt to discover what themes resonate best with the greatest number of Americans. When this was been achieved, the next step was to create specific themes to address these cultural weak spots, or “points of public concern.”

The second step was to gain control over organs of public information such as existing media outlets, so-called “think tanks” ( the Rand Corporation}, political opinion polling agencies, national news wire services, and the creation and promotion of media news personalities entirely in the pay of the government and obedient to their demands.

Although the Central Intelligence Agency is not mandated to operate within the United States, nevertheless, it has been heavily involved in influencing domestic American public opinion almost since its inception in 1948. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hoover long had a friendly and very effective relationship with the media but the CIA siezed upon Hoover’s idea and made it their very own.

Through their efforts, many major American newspapers, and early television stations, were developed as CIA-responsive entities. In return for valuable news information, the media was expected to support international policies of the CIA, protect its interests by not reporting certain matters and, most especially, to attack individuals and organizations that were felt to either be hostile or potential impediments to CIA policies. These policies were initially foreign in nature but later, under the Nixon administration, expanded to cover domestic issues as well.

The Cold War was, in essence, not an ideological war between capitalism as represented by the United States and communism as represented by Soviet Russia. It was in reality a trade war between the two countries and in America, the CIA was in close connection with, and heavily influenced by, American commercial interests. Many top CIA officials had the closest economic and social connections with the business leadership of the United States and more often than not, acted as their enforcing arm in international matters. Governments hostile to American business interests were undermined and overthrown by CIA operatives by misrepresenting the aims of these foreign governments to the President and Congress.

While one element of the CIA had put Fidel Castro in power in Cuba (because Batista was considered unacceptable to several major American business concerns) another branch sought to remove him because he had, among other acts, nationalized the nickel industry (owned by American interests) and the lucrative casinos. The latter were owned and operated by the American Mafia who also had strong connections with the CIA. When Guzman in Guatemala tried to nationalize United Fruit holdings in that country, the CIA forced his ouster and replacement by a CIA informant, Arbanez.

In addition to foreign policy matters, the public resistance to the war in Vietnam was of great concern to not only the Johnson White House but also to the CIA. The US had initially entered that area at the request of the withdrawing French because the vast and very profitable rubber plantations in Vietnam were being threatened with seizure. CIA units under William Colby were brought into Vietnam for the express purpose of removing any anti-American elements from South Vietnam while American military units were detailed to put down the guerrilla activities of the North Vietnamese Viet Cong.

This “civil pacification” program was called “Operation Phoenix,” and was run by Colby with the aid of South Vietnamese police and security forces, supported by US Special Forces. This program, which failed in its goals, unleashed a bloody terror that surpassed anything the Third Reich’s SS Combat Groups ever did in Eastern Europe.

The eventual failure of the Vietnam campaign and the resultant collapse of the liberal Johnson administration brought a very conservative Republican Nixon into power. This president was clearly determined to halt the growing anti-war, and by definition liberal, movement in the United States and to fully prosecute the policies of “aggressive containment” throughout the world.

Nixon and his administration viewed the American media as liberal and anti-conservative and during both his first and into his second terms, Nixon sought by every means, legal and otherwise, to break up anti government groups by using the FBI against them, to destroy their leadership by any means available and to bring the American media under control.

The CIA was involved in much of this, opening first class mail, electronically spying on many Americans in direct competition with the FBI and both agencies engaged in ferocious territorial wars. Too much of this manipulation became public, again through the medium of the press, and Nixon was eventually forced from office, the FBI and CIA publicly discredited and much of their power greatly curtailed.

As American conservatives regrouped after their defeat, they became firmly determined to both regain power and prevent the media from its perceived anti-governmental policies during the Vietnam struggle.

Out of the political ruins, Richard Nixon’s former Treasury Secretary William Simon  was one of the leaders of a powerful movement to not only establish better control of what they viewed as a far left media but to set up various support organizations like think tanks and supportive private economic organizations that would fully support government policies, whatever they might be. From many wealthy individuals and corporations, millions of dollars were raised. In addition to open sources, even more money was obtained from dubious sources, such as the Reverend Moon and a number of Asian groups whose names never appear on any donors list, although a number of them are known to international law enforcement agencies involved with the interdiction of narcotics. The CIA first got into the drug business when they inherited a complete system from a former KMT General operating against the Communists in Burma. When the CIA discovered the incredible amounts of off-the-books money they could make running, and later refining, opium products, they took to the business like a duck takes to water. Much of this illegal money went back into the political coffers of whatever political organization that could best  keep secure the CIA’s official position in whatever administration chanced to be in power.

As George H.W. Bush had been DCI in 1976, his elevation to Vice President under Reagan and later, to the Presidency itself was considered to be of great importance to the Republican/CIA axis of power and many ultra-conservative CIA agents were brought into both the Reagan and, especially, into the following Bush administration..Chief among these émigrés were Donald Gregg and Walter Raymond, Jr. who left the CIA and moved into the White House. After the promulgation of the National Security Decision Directive No. 77.Raymond, who had conducted what was euphemistically called “public awareness” for the CIA took over the duties of the Reagan “public diplomacy” section of the White House. A small army of professional “psywar” (or psychological warfare) experts from the CIA, the DIA and the NSA flooded into the White House to develop and firmly cement a strong, coordinated policy of complete media control. Their agents, acting under the highest authority, developed working relationships with mainstream book and newspaper publishers and the rapidly-amalgamating television industry. Blandishments were tried, followed by veiled threats and eventually, a strong network of massive American print and television media cooperation was secured.

During the Reagan-Bush administrations, powerful media controls were developed and successful tactics for the destruction of any opposition and the media support of any and all ultra-conservative ventures solidified.

With the unexpected loss of the White House to the liberal Clinton, the fury of the dispossessed Republicans knew no bounds and they renewed their plans for the discrediting of any liberal elements in American politics and the strengthening of the machinery needed to remain in what they hoped would be permanent power.

Determined to regain the White House and hopefully, control of both the Senate and the House, the Republicans, allied with fanatical Neocons and the equally fanatical Christian Right, launched a long and thoroughly vicious campaign against the liberal Democrat Clinton. This did not result in his being removed from office as his enemies devoutly prayed but gave the political very far right the foundation for the next campaign. George W. Bush, a political cipher, was chosen as their candidate because it was well known that he was easily controlled and with his nomination, the state was set for an unprecedented campaign of savagery and massive vote fraud. In all of this, the American media, attempting to avoid the stigma of liberalism, joined in the attacks and often spearheaded them.

In the 2000 Presidential campaign, an obedient media turned from savaging the liberal Clintons to an ugly campaign against Al Gore and this pattern of  conservative viciousness started again in the 2004 campaign but as public perception of Bush’s gross and growing failures both in Iraq and the field of domestic economics grew, the media began to alter its stance. Presidents come and Presidents go but the media wishes to abide so allegiances shift. The business community, seeing Bush’s growing and deep unpopularity with a significant part of American consumers, now hedges its bets. No one likes to back a loser and CEOs are not idealists.

The Republican “informational message” machine, taking a leaf from the activities of Hitler’s brilliant Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, became unrivaled in its ability to shape how a majority of Americans perceived events. All media is dependant for income from advertising revenues. With their unrivalled and powerful business connections, the Republicans have been easily able to use economic pressure against media entities that they viewed as uncertain. Also, most of the news in the United States does not come from local reporters but from the wire services. Firm control of the few remaining American news services guarantees that a newspaper in Keokuk, Iowa and Alviso, California receive the same news copy at the same time as the major papers and television stations. De facto Republican  control of the wire services guarantees that a small paper without correspondents in Washington or Moscow are forced to take what is called “boilerplate” (fully controlled)  news for their local papers and other media outlets.

.It is interesting to note that the public Internet has made great inroads into the once-exclusive domains of the American media and the public, obviously disbelieving and disillusioned about the accuracy and fairness of the media are turning more and more to the Internet as a source of news. There exists a great body of highly accurate, non-controlled and very informative news information available to the American public. This consists of hundreds of very reputable news sites but unfortunately, they are only available on the Internet. Among these are: The British Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the French AFP, the Toronto Globe and Mail and many mid-East, Russian and Asian English-language daily news sites. Much of this uncensored and objective news is culled by various American news website operators and given to a public on a daily basis. Anyone who does not believe that the American media is a fully controlled entity need only look at foreign news sites to see what may be known by but is never reported in the American press. This growing trend is frightening to both the Republicans and their allies in the mainline media  because it is free and the Internet sites are not responsive to pressure from any governmental agency or corporate advertising entity.

It is a sad commentary on the decline of the American media’s  reportage when 65% of Americans between 18 and 25 openly acknowledge getting all of their news from the satiric John Stewart’s program. “The Daily Show”  and not from the major networks.

Analysis: Threat from disease weapons

BBC News

Anthrax is not the only potential biological weapon. Other well-known diseases such as smallpox, botulism and Ebola could also be used in a terrorist attack.

And biological warfare is not only limited to diseases that directly target humans. Those that affect our food sources – wheat smut, rice blast, insect infestations, even foot and mouth – will in turn affect the humans that depend on them.

BBC News Online examines the diseases that could become weapons of war.

Botulism

What is it?

Botulism is a muscle-paralysing disease caused by a toxin from the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. There are three main types – food-borne, wound and infant botulism.

Symptoms

The first recognisable symptoms, usually appearing 12 to 36 hours after exposure to the toxin, include blurred vision, vomiting and difficulty in swallowing.

If untreated, the disease can eventually lead to respiratory failure and paralysis. It is fatal in 5 to 10% of cases.

How is it spread?

Botulism is caused by eating or inhaling the bacterial toxin. It cannot be spread from person to person.

If used as a biological weapon, the toxin could be sprayed as an aerosol – it is colourless and odourless – or used to contaminate food.

Is there an antidote?

Anthrax is caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthacis

An antitoxin is available, but it is only effective if administered early in the course of the disease. There is also a vaccine, but concerns about its effectiveness and possible side-effects mean it is not widely used.

Availability

The bacterium from which botulism is derived occurs naturally in the ground, so many samples are likely to be held around the world. The Japanese cult Aum Shikrikyo dispersed it in aerosols on at least three occasions in the early 1990s. According to John Eldridge, the editor of Jane’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence, Iraq, Russia and Iran are likely to have large quantities at their disposal.

Overall risk

One problem for health experts would be distinguishing a terrorist attack from a natural outbreak of food poisoning.

John Eldridge said: “Botulism toxin was considered by coalition forces to be a viable threat during the Gulf War. Some 10,335 kg was destroyed under UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] supervision.”

Smallpox

What is it?

Smallpox is a viral infection caused by the variola virus. One of the biggest killers in history, the disease was effectively wiped out in the 1970s by a worldwide vaccination plan.

Symptoms

The incubation period is about 12 days. First symptoms include fever, tiredness and an aching head and back. Over the next few days, a distinctive rash develops, usually on the face, legs and arms.

Lesions then appear, which form crusts and fall away within a few weeks. Death occurs in up to 30% of cases.

How is it spread?

Smallpox can be caught by inhaling the virus from an infected person. Sufferers are most infectious during the first week of illness.

In the event of a purposeful attack, the virus could be released in an aerosol, or suicide attackers could deliberately infect themselves. Its stability in air and high infection rate make the smallpox virus potentially very dangerous.

Is there an antidote?

There is a vaccine against smallpox but routine public inoculation ended in the 1970s as incidence of the disease declined. Everyone born before 1972 was vaccinated, but immunity has probably worn off by now.

In people exposed to smallpox, the vaccine can lessen the severity of, or even prevent, illness if given within four days of exposure. The US currently has an emergency supply of the vaccine.

There is no proven treatment for smallpox victims – except supportive therapy to combat the symptoms.

Availability

There are two World Health Organisation-approved repositories of variola virus – one at the US Center for Disease Control and the other in Novosibirsk, Russia.

The extent of secret stockpiles in other parts of the world remains unknown, but according to Jane’s Defence, Iraq and Russia are likely to have the virus.

Overall risk

Smallpox is often cited as the most feared biological weapon. There is no proven treatment, and the virus could race through a population before anyone realises it has been released.

According to John Eldridge: “It is possible that cultures have found their way out of Russia and could be in the hands of terrorists.”

Plague

What is it?

Plague is an acute bacterial infection caused by Yersinia pestis. There are two main strains – bubonic and pneumonic.

Symptoms

India had an outbreak of pneumonic plague in 1994

In bubonic plague, the bacteria invade the body causing swollen lymph nodes and fever. The less frequent pneumonic plague causes severe respiratory problems, including coughing and breathing difficulties. The incubation period is usually between one and seven days.

How is it spread?

Bubonic plague is generally not spread from person to person, except through direct contact with fluids from the swellings. The disease is mainly transmitted from the bite of infected fleas carried by rodents.

But pneumonic plague can be passed on by face-to-face contact, through the inhalation of bacteria from a sneeze or cough of an infected person.

Terrorists would most likely attack by spraying an aerosol containing plague bacteria, causing the pneumonic variety.

Is there an antidote?

Plague can be effectively treated with antibiotics such as streptomycin and tetracycline. In treated cases, death occurs in fewer than 5% of victims, but if left untreated mortality rates can be higher than 90%. There is no vaccine.

Availability

Natural outbreaks of plague still occur – most notably in Africa, Asia and western USA. The bacterium responsible is also widely available in microbe banks around the world.

According to Jane’s Defence, America, Iraq, Russia, Iran and possibly North Korea have supplies of the bacterium.

Overall risk

Pneumonic plague is less virulent than smallpox but more so than anthrax. John Eldridge said: “Plague is a possible low-tech choice as successful vectors include insects and rodents.”

 Tularaemia

What is it?

Francisella tularensis, the organism that causes tularaemia, is one of the most infectious bacteria known.

Symptoms

Symptoms vary according to the method of infection. If the bacteria are inhaled, symptoms can be similar to pneumonia.

Victims who ingest the bacteria may get a sore throat, abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting. Untreated, the disease could progress to respiratory failure, shock and eventually death. The overall mortality rate is about 5%.

How is it spread?

Tularaemia is not spread though human-to-human transmission. Many small mammals harbour the disease, and naturally-acquired human infection occurs through animal bites, ingestion of contaminated food or water and inhalation of infective aerosols.

Aerosol dispersal would be the most likely method of terrorist attack.

Is there an antidote?

There is an effective vaccine, and the disease is treatable with antibiotics.

Availability

Quarantine is used to prevent the spread of Ebola in Africa

During World War II, the potential of F. tularensis as a biological weapon was studied by both sides.

Tularaemia was one of the biological weapons stockpiled by the US military in the late 1960s, but the supply was subsequently destroyed.

The Soviet Union continued production into the early 1990s. Jane’s Defence believe that Iraq and Russia are likely to have stockpiles of this bacterium.

Overall risk

Tularaemia is considered to be dangerous because of its extreme infectivity and because it is easily spread. But it would not kill the vast majority of those infected.

Haemorrhagic fever

What is it?

The most well-known haemorrhagic fever is Ebola, caused by a virus of the same name. A similar disease, also found in the tropics, is caused by the Marburg virus. Both are lethal and relatively easily transmitted.

Symptoms

Within a few weeks of exposure, ebola victims suffer from headaches and muscle aches. They may also experience nausea, chest pain and profuse bleeding. More than half of all Ebola sufferers die from the disease.

How is it spread?

The virus can spread from person to person, through direct contact with blood or other secretions.

Is there an antidote?

For both Ebola and Marburg, there is no cure, no vaccine and no treatment.

Availability

Like cholera and typhoid, these diseases are endemic in many poor countries. There is also speculation that the Soviets experimented with the Marburg virus for its use as a biological weapon.

Overall risk

Haemorrhagic fevers are unlikely to be an obvious choice as they are so hazardous to work with. But, said John Eldridge, perpetrators could quickly acquire the capability to use these germs as weapons.

Crop diseases

Many countries have investigated the effects of purposefully inflicting crop diseases on an enemy. Japan, Germany, France, Britain, the former Soviet Union and the US have all – at various stages – invested in anti-crop warfare of various kinds.

Potato blight, soybean rot and diseases that can affect staple crops like wheat and rye are all capable of decimating huge swathes of agricultural land. So too are infestations by insects such as the Colorado and rapeseed beetle.

The potato blight of 19th Century Ireland and the brown spot disease responsible for the Bengal famine in 1942 show just how devastating these crop diseases can be.

Many developing countries are largely reliant on rice

Dr Simon Whitby, from the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, said that while attacking a crop is unlikely to cause widespread starvation in anywhere but the very poorest countries – those largely reliant on one staple crop – the method could still be effective as an “economic weapon” elsewhere.

This is especially true when the agriculture is concentrated on intensive farming of genetically similar crops.

“There would be social disruption at one end of the scale, and starvation at the other,” he said.

Two of the main crop diseases identified as potential bio-weapons are wheat stem rust and rice blast.

Rice blast

What is it?

This is one of the most important rice diseases and is caused by the fungus Pyricularia oryzae. There are 219 types, so breeding a resistant crop is complex.

Characteristics

Grey-white lesions appear on the leaves, which eventually produce a brown margin when the lesion stops growing. The fungus may also attack the stem of the plant. Yield losses may be large as few seeds are likely to develop.

Availability

The US chose blast disease as its main anti-rice agent. The US anti-crop programme, an intensive operation throughout the 1950s and 60s, had a cache of nearly a tonne of rice blast at the time it was disbanded. The stockpile would have been intended for a potential attack on Asia, said Dr Simon Whitby.

Other countries apart from the US are also likely to have investigated this disease as a biological weapon, but information is limited.

Overall risk

Rice blast is a fungal disease, in which thousands of spores form on the infected plant. These spores multiply rapidly and float through the air infecting other plants. This easy dispersal, coupled with the complexity of breeding resistant plants, make rice blast a potentially dangerous biological weapon.

Wheat stem rust

What is it?

Stem rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia graminis tritici.

Characteristics

Dark red postules appear on both sides of the leaves and stems of the infected plant. As well as attacking wheat, the fungus can also affect barley, rye and other grasses.

Availability

Between 1951 and 1969, the US stockpiled more than 30,000 kg of wheat stem rust spores, which Dr Simon Whitby estimated is probably enough, in theory at least, to infect every wheat plant on the planet.

The US used to have a stockpile of over 30,000 kg of anti-wheat spores

The US also developed means of disseminating the spores. An early design, according to Dr Whitby, was a 500-lb bomb originally designed to release propaganda leaflets. Instead it was packed with bird feathers which carried the fungal spores.

Other countries have also investigated the use of wheat diseases in biological warfare. Dr Simon Whitby said: “Iraq has looked into its military capability and has carried out limited testing. The potential target was probably Iran.”

And the USSR’s huge programme in the 1970s, mostly concentrated on wheat diseases, is believed to have employed 10,000 personnel working solely on agricultural biowarfare, said Dr Whitby.

Overall risk

As stem rust is a fungal disease, the spores are easily dispersed in air. The use of resistant wheat strains limits its effectiveness as a biological weapon, but it still has the potential to be dangerous.

Animal diseases

The warfaring potential of diseases that affect animals is often overlooked. “This is a new type of hazard,” said John Eldridge, from Jane’s Defence. “In the UK we are already experiencing the effects of one of the most virulent animal pathogens, from a natural outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.”

According to Piers Millett, a specialist in anti-animal biowarfare from the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, the main targets for terrorists are likely to be rinderpest, anthrax, foot and mouth, swine fever and Newcastle disease, which affects poultry.

Could foot-and-mouth disease be used as a biological weapon?

During the two world wars, both sides investigated the capability of anti-animal weapons. In World War I, Germany conducted a sabotage programme infecting animals destined for use on the battlefield.

In World War II, the British trials of anthrax infection on Gruinard Island off the coast of Scotland rendered the island uninhabitable for almost 50 years.

The Americans also experimented with rinderpest and swine fever, but according to Piers Millett, this was abandoned through fear of spreading the disease to America’s own cattle. “The last thing you want to do is end up infecting your own country,” he said.

Other countries such as Russia, Iraq and Japan have also investigated biowarfare of this kind, and Piers Millett said that anti-animal weapons were technologically easier to develop than anti-crop weapons.

While unlikely to kill humans, a biological attack on livestock can have severe results.

According to Piers Millett, “The recent foot and mouth disease in the UK is a good simulation of what a biological attack of this nature would look like.”

 

 

 

 

No responses yet

Leave a Reply