Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zaterdag 24 maart 2018

Paul Craig Roberts 258

Washington Has Declared Hegemony or War

Washington Has Declared Hegemony or War
Paul Craig Roberts 
I agree with Stephen Lendman (below) that the Russian government’s efforts to deal with the West on the basis of evidence and law are futile.  There is only one Western foreign policy and it is Washington’s.  Washington’s “diplomacy” consists only of lies and force.  It was a reasonable decision for Russia to attempt diplomatic engagement with the West on the basis of facts, evidence, and law, but it has been to no avail.  For Russia to continue on this failed course is risky, not only to Russia but to the entire world.
Indeed, nothing is more dangerous to the world than Russia’s self-delusion about “Western partners.”  Russia only has Western enemies. These enemies intend to remove the constraint that Russia (and China) place on Washington’s unilateralism. The various incidents staged by the West, such as the Skirpal poisoning, Syrian use of chemical weapons, Malaysian airliner, and false charges, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine, are part of the West’s determined intent to isolate Russia, deny her any influence, and prepare the insouciant Western populations for conflict with Russia. 
To avoid war Russia should turn her back, but not her eyes, on the West, stop responding to false charges, evict all Western embassies and every other kind of presence including Western investment, and focus on relations with China and the East.  Russia’s attempt to pursue mutual interests with the West only results in more orchestrated incidents. The Russian government’s failure to complete the liberation of Syria has given Washington Syrian territory from which to renew the conflict.  The failure to accept Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia has provided Washington with the opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian army and renew the assault on the Russian populations of Ukraine. Washington has gained many proxies for its wars against Russia and intends to use them to wear down Russia. Israel has demanded that Washington renew the attacks on Iran, and Trump is complying. Russia faces simultaneous attacks on Syria, Iran, and the Donatsk and Luhansk Republics, along with troubles in former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union and intensified accusations from Washington and NATO. 
The crazed neoconservatives, such as Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton, think that Russia will buckle under the strains, sue for peace, and accept US hegemony. If this assumption is incorrect, the outcome of Washington’s hostile actions against Russia is likely to be nuclear war. The side that Stephen Lendman and I are talking is neither the side of Washington nor Russia, but the side of humanity and all life against nuclear war. 
How the Russian government could ignore the clearly stated US hegemony in the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine is a mystery. The Wolfowitz doctrine states  that the US’s primary goal is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” The doctrine stresses that “this is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.” In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, Washington’s “overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.” The doctrine also states that the US will act to restrain India’s alleged “hegemonic aspirations” in South Asia, and warns of potential conflicts requiring military intervention with Cuba and China.
By “threat” Wolfowitz does not mean a military threat.  By “threat” he means a multi-polar world that constrains Washington’s unilateralism. The doctrine states that the US will permit no alternative to US unilateralism. The doctrine is a statement that Washington intends hegemony over the entire world.  There has been no repudiation of this doctrine.  Indeed, we see its implementation in the long list of false accusations and demonizations of Russia and her leader and in the false charges against Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela, China, Iran, and North Korea.  
If Russia wants to be part of the West, Russia should realize that the price is the same loss of sovereignty that characterizes Washington’s European vassal states.  
Neocon Takeover of Washington Completed
Pompeo at State and Bolton as Trump’s national security advisor completed the neocon takeover of Trump’s geopolitical agenda. Wall Street is running domestic affairs.
The combination represents a major setback for world peace and stability. Greater aggression is likely, along with the triumph of neoliberal harshness over social justice, presenting a dismal and frightening state of affairs. 
What to expect ahead? War in Syria is more likely to escalate than wind down, an unthinkable US/Russia confrontation ominously possible.
The Iran nuclear deal is either doomed, or likely to be gutted by Washington, accomplishing the same thing — with only tepid, ineffective opposition from P5+1 countries Britain, France and Germany.
The EU most often bends to Washington’s will when enough pressure is applied.
A relatively quiet Ukraine period could explode in greater Kiev war on Donbass, US-supplied heavy weapons and training aiding the aggression.
A Kim Jong-un/Trump summit is likely to fail to step back from the brink on the Korean peninsula, falsely blaming the DPRK for hostile US actions.
It’ll prove again Washington can never be trusted, its commitments are consistently breached when conflicting with its imperial objectives.
A possible trade war with China would be hugely destabilizing, along with being economically harmful to both countries and the global economy.
Further EU/US sanctions and other harsh measures are likely to be imposed on Russia over the Skripal affair, an escalated attempt to isolate the country and inflict economic harm – despite Western nations knowing Moscow had nothing to do with what happened.
Theresa May-led Tories are considering tough actions against Russia over the incident. So are other EU countries and Washington.
On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the Trump administration is considering a range of options against Moscow over the Skripal affair – “both to demonstrate our solidarity with our ally and to hold Russia accountable for its clear breach of international norms and agreements.”
No breach occurred. Neocons running US foreign policy don’t let facts and rule of law principles compromise their imperial objectives.
Theresa May provided Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron with cooked results of Britain’s investigation so far into the Skripal affair — “convincing” them the false accusations are “well-grounded,” despite knowing UK claims are pure rubbish.
Macron issued a deplorable statement, saying “there is no…plausible explanation” for what happened to the Skripals other than Kremlin responsibility – abdicating to US/UK-led Russophobic hostility.
On the world stage, Trump is hostage to neocon dark forces controlling him. Relations with Russia, China, and other sovereign independent nations are likely to worsen, not improve.
Unthinkable nuclear war remains an ominous possibility. Russia’s only option is building on its alliance with China and other allies, staying committed to respond firmly to US-led Western harshness against its sovereignty.
Virtually no possibility for improved Russian relations with Washington and Britain exists. It’s fruitless pursuing it.
German and other European dependence on Russian energy, mainly gas, offers only slim hope for improving things with these countries.
Looking ahead, prospects for world peace and stability are dismal. US-led Western hostility toward Russia could erupt in open conflict by accident or design.
The unthinkable could become reality. Preparedness should be Moscow’s top priority given the real danger it faces.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Nerve Agent Story is Fake News

20 reasons why the Skripal nerve agent story is fake news - by former BBC Salisbury reporter




Tom-Jan. Meeus en 'Links'

In de NRC van vandaag, zaterdag 24 maart 2018, beweert opiniemaker Tom-Jan Meeus:
Nieuw rechts moet oppassen niet de weg van links in de jaren zestig en zeventig te gaan. Dit verkwanselde zijn agenderende kansen destijds vaak met onderlinge verdeeldheid, waarna het door middenpartijen uit elkaar werd gespeeld. Intussen weigerde het in te zien dat de meeste Nederlanders redelijkheid boven radicaliteit verkiezen. En handelen boven haarkloverijen. 
Ook dit laatste is woensdag opnieuw gebleken.
Is deze voorstelling van zaken juist? Alleen wanneer de lezer gelooft dat wij in een democratie leven, waarin een progressieve meerderheid daadwerkelijk de macht bezit om fundamentele veranderingen in het economische en financiële bestel door te voeren. In werkelijkheid begon in de jaren zeventig de economische en financiële elite in de kapitalistische 'democratieën' terug te vechten tegen de gematigd progressieve initiatieven van de hervormingsgezinden. Het vuile en zware werk werd in toenemende mate naar lage lonen landen verplaatst, waar bovendien de milieuwetgeving nauwelijks of niet bestond. Daardoor konden de winsten van wat toen nog 'het grootkapitaal' werd genoemd nog meer stijgen dan voorheen. Bovendien kon de invloed van westerse vakbonden drastisch worden ingeperkt door het dreigement dat als zij hun eisen niet naar beneden afstelden, het werk zou worden ge-outsourced. Ondertussen bedreigde ook de automatisering steeds meer de positie van de middengroepen in de dienstensector. Als er al sprake was van 'radicaliteit' dan was het de radicalisering van de ware macht in de toenmalige verzorgingsstaat, die door haar neoliberale ideologie van  deregulering en privatisering niet meer de samenleving in haar geheel  als uitgangspunt had, maar het maximaliseren van de eigen winsten. Gaandeweg werd het socialisme voor de kansarmen vervangen door het socialisme voor de rijken. De mainstream-media speelden in dit proces een doorslaggevende rol door dit ingrijpende neoliberale radicalisme te blijven rechtvaardigen. Met als gevolg dat geruime tijd 'de meeste Nederlanders redelijkheid boven radicaliteit' leken te 'verkiezen.' Maar daaraan is nu met de opkomst van 'nieuw rechts' en zijn 'populisten' een voorlopig einde gekomen. Dat beseffen Tom-Jan Meeus en zijn mainstream-collega's evenwel nog niet. Opnieuw hollen ze achter de feiten aan. Zij beseffen nog steeds niet welke radicale verandering er voor hun ogen en onder hun neus zich heeft voltrokken. Wonderlijk nietwaar, hoe de mainstream-journalist ziende blind kan zijn. 


  

All of Damascus Liberated


I could never be happier❤️❤️ Damascus, my city, rejoices as all of its suburbs have officially been liberated. Citizens are hoping this marks the END of terrorists shelling the capital (this has killed more than 11,000 in Damascus alone since March 2011)

For Over a Decade, John Bolton Has Insisted Bombing Iran

For Over a Decade, John Bolton Has Insisted Bombing Iran Is "the Only Real Option"

Friday, March 23, 2018 By Amy GoodmanDemocracy Now! | Video Interview 
President Trump has tapped John Bolton to become his next national security adviser, replacing H.R. McMaster. Bolton is known for his ultra-hawkish views. He has openly backed war against Iran and North Korea, and was a prominent supporter of the US invasion of Iraq. Just three weeks ago, Bolton wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal titled "The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First." In 2015, while the Obama administration was negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, Bolton wrote a piece titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." We speak to longtime investigative reporter Gareth Porter. His new piece for The American Conservative is titled "The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran."

TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: In the latest White House shake-up, General H.R. McMaster is resigning as national security adviser. President Trump has tapped John Bolton to replace him. Bolton is known for his ultra-hawkish views. He has openly backed war against Iran and North Korea, and was a prominent supporter of the US invasion of Iraq, to this day. Just three weeks ago, Bolton wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal headlined "The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First." In 2015, while the Obama administration was negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, Bolton wrote a piece headlined "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran."
Bolton will take over the position on April 9th and will not need to be confirmed by the Senate. Under President George W. Bush, Bolton served as US ambassador to the United Nations. He was given a recess appointment, after Bush feared he would not be confirmed by the Senate. For decades, John Bolton has been one of the most vocal critics of the United Nations.
JOHN BOLTON: The point that I want to leave with you, in this very brief presentation, is where I started, is there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along. … The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
AMY GOODMAN: John Bolton has also been a leading critic of the International Criminal Court. Human rights groups have condemned the selection of Bolton. Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International said, quote, "This is a reckless decision. Bolton's influence over national security policy could result in even more civilian deaths and potentially unlawful killings given his disdain for international law and international institutions." Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council also criticized the selection of Bolton. He said, quote, "Bolton now represents the greatest threat to the United States. This is a dangerous time for our country and a slap in the face even to Trump's supporters who thought he would break from waging disastrous foreign wars and military occupations."
One longtime supporter of Bolton has been right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer. Jane Mayer of The New Yorker reports Mercer has donated $5 million to Bolton's super PAC since 2013 and is Bolton's biggest donor.
We go now to Washington, DC, where we're joined by longtime investigative reporter Gareth Porter. His new piece for The American Conservative is headlined "The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran."
Gareth Porter, welcome to Democracy Now! When you heard the news yesterday, though it has been rumored for months, what were your thoughts?
GARETH PORTER: Well, I thought that it was very probable that John Bolton was going to become the next national security adviser for the Trump administration, but I wasn't expecting it this soon. So, it was, in fact, a bit of a surprise in terms of the timing. But it's really been a matter of some weeks now that there have been rumors that -- not rumors, but reports based on leaks from the White House, that McMaster was going to be replaced and that Bolton was clearly the leading candidate. So, that's why I wrote that piece, in anticipation of the likelihood that this was going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what are your major concerns?
GARETH PORTER: Well, I think everyone knows, by now, that John Bolton has been, in fact, a very vocal advocate of the -- of war with Iran, as well as with North Korea. I mean, he has, for years, been appearing on Fox News regularly. And I haven't counted them, but there must be dozens of times that he has publicly called for the United States to attack Iran militarily. No one else in American life has done anything even remotely similar to what John Bolton has done in terms of advocating war with Iran. He's not the only one, but he's done it more consistently. And since he left the Bush administration in 2005, basically, he has been -- or, rather, 2007, I guess it was, he has been the leading advocate of war with Iran. So, for President Trump to make him his national security adviser, clearly, is the most alarming thing that has happened in terms of US foreign policy under this administration thus far.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to John Bolton speaking on Fox News in 2015.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: Ambassador, you've written an op-ed today in The New York Times. And here's the headline -- it's an eye catcher: "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." What do you mean?
JOHN BOLTON: Well, the negotiations, whether they lead to an agreement or not, are not going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They are so far advanced now, the concessions they've made are so trivial and easily reversible, that the deal actually legitimizes Iran's existing nuclear program. So, my conclusion is not a happy one, but given that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, so will Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and maybe others, that just as Israel twice before has struck nuclear weapons programs in the hands of hostile states, I am afraid, given the circumstances, that's the only real option open to us now.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Gareth Porter?
GARETH PORTER: Well, John Bolton actually began to make that argument as early as 2003, 2004, when he was the point man for Vice President Dick Cheney in the Bush administration for policy toward Iran, and the leading -- I mean, the key point of contact with the Israeli government on this question. And during that time, 2003, 2004, Bolton was consciously maneuvering to get the United States in a position where it could exercise the option of an attack on Iran.
And what he did was to basically make sure that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, could not or would not make an agreement, have an agreement, with Iran that would resolve the issue of whether Iran had a nuclear weapons program. He was so afraid that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of IAEA, would do that, that he consciously maneuvered to try to move the file from the IAEA -- the file on Iran -- from the IAEA to the U.N. Security Council, where he believed the United States would be able to then, essentially, accuse Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, and have the option available to use military force. And in his memoirs, he's very candid about the fact that he did do that and that the purpose was to basically give that option a real chance of being carried out.
And he said that he was doing so because the Israelis were telling him that Iran was very close to what they called the point of no return, which meant that at that point the United States would not be able to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon without using force. And, of course, as I have documented in my book Manufactured Crisis, that whole story about Iran having a nuclear weapons program was really a falsified account, which the Israelis planted with the international community. And Bolton, maybe, maybe not, was aware of that, of that Israeli plot, but he worked with the Israelis very closely to try to bring about a situation where the Iranians would be accused of having a nuclear weapons program. That's for sure.
AMY GOODMAN: To this day, John Bolton says the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. He doesn't have to be approved by the Senate right now. He didn't have to be approved by the Senate to become U.N. [sic] ambassador to the United Nations, not because you don't -- the US ambassador to the United Nations, not because you don't have to, but because Bush understood he might not get approved, so he made a recess appointment. So, his support for the invasion of Iraq went right through today, but it was back in 2003. Just three weeks ago, this Wall Street Journal piece he wrote, "The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First." This is three weeks ago, in February. Can you talk about his views on North Korea? And as NSA, as national security adviser, what power does he actually have? What is the significance of his position so close to President Trump?
GARETH PORTER: Well, first of all, with regard to his Wall Street Journal piece, it is really quite astonishing. The kind of argument that he made was, essentially, claiming to give a legal argument for bombing North -- a first strike against North Korea. But what he did, in fact, was simply to say, "The North Koreans are getting the capability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. That means that the United States must strike first." It was simply a sort of psychological argument, rather than a legal argument or even an argument that took into account the fundamental notion of deterrence. He never used the word "deterrence" in the entire article. It was as though that concept doesn't exist. So, that sort of gives you an insight into the mentality that John Bolton will bring to this job.
With regard to what he could do as national security adviser, obviously, he will have the ear of Donald Trump more than anyone else in the administration at this point. And despite the fact that Donald Trump has committed himself to a summit meeting with Kim Jong-un in May, you know, we have to anticipate that there are bumps in the road in the future that will give John Bolton the opportunity to try to convince him to move not just away from that agreement with the North Koreans, but towards the kind of unilateral first-strike policy that Bolton has championed in the past.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have a minute, but I wanted to ask you two questions: What is the Gatestone Institute that he chairs, and also, his super PAC, the major funder of it being the ultra-right billionaire funder Robert Mercer?
GARETH PORTER: Well, the Gatestone Institute is one of the many think tanks that have an extreme right-wing, anti-Islamic, pro-war, obviously, very aggressive foreign policy orientation. And basically, it's not just -- I want to add that it's not just Mercer who has been very close to Bolton or who Bolton has been close to. It's also Sheldon Adelson, who has been Donald Trump's main funder during the 2016 presidential election. And it's no accident that it was in Las Vegas, meeting with Adelson, that -- from which Bolton called the White House last October and convinced Trump to basically take the position that he would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, unless the US allies and Congress agreed to changes which obviously were deal killers.
AMY GOODMAN: And the super PAC. Time magazine says, "President Donald Trump's pick for his new national security advisor has ties to Cambridge Analytica, the voter-profiling firm currently facing criticism for its use of improperly obtained Facebook data. A super PAC run by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has paid Cambridge Analytica more than $1.1 million since 2014 for research." That's according to the Center for Public Integrity review of campaign finance records. We'll end with that, Gareth Porter.
Gareth, I want to thank you for being with us, investigative journalist. His new piece for The American Conservative, which we'll link to, "The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran." Gareth Porter is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
When we come back, we look at Donald Trump Jr., his trip to India, President Donald Trump, his daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump. We'll look at Trump family and their investments in India. We'll look at corruption and the White House. Stay with us.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

AMY GOODMAN

Amy Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide. Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its "Pick of the Podcasts," along with NBC's "Meet the Press."

vrijdag 23 maart 2018

Paul Craig Roberts 257

Trump: Conflict Between His Words And Deeds

Trump: Conflict Between His Words And Deeds
Paul Craig Roberts
President Trump (belatedly) congratulated Russian President Putin on his smashing reelection and said, again, that he favored getting along with Russia. Yet, how can Trump mean it when he follows up by appointing John Bolton, America’s most notorious warmonger, National Security Adviser? It makes no sense.
Bolton is the third national security adviser in 14 months. To Bolton, getting along with Russia requires Russia to be a US puppet state such as the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and all the rest. In other words, accept Washington’s hegemony or we will bomb you into the stone age.
Russia, desperate for a sign of hope, risks self-delusion by seizing on Trump’s gesture and ignoring Bolton’s appointment. No US president who wanted to get along with Russia would have appointed Bolton to be his National Security Adviser.
The constant drum beat of false allegations against Russia and the demonization of Putin, which has reached down into the British school system where children are being taught that “‘Toxic’ Putin is on mission to poison the West,” indicate that conflict with Russia was on the agenda prior to Bolton’s appointment.  https://www.rt.com/uk/421977-uk-toxic-putin-lesson/ 
Now that Putin has announced Russia’s new weapon systems, an array that clearly puts the US in an inferior position, hegemonic voices are rising that the US must strike Russia before the new superweapons are all deployed. 
Russia would do well to avoid being put off guard by her unrealistic hope for peace and friendly words from Trump’s mouth.

140 Million Climate Refugees by 2050

World Bank Expects 140 Million Climate Refugees by 2050

A Fulani cattle herder in West Africa. (Brendertogo / Wikimedia Commons)
The number of climate refugees – people migrating to escape the effects of the warming climate – could reach many millions in barely 30 years from now, the World Bank says.
The total is a conservative one: it is based on just three regions of the developing world, and considers only people migrating within their own countries, not those seeking a new life abroad.
World Bank Group report says the worsening impacts of climate change in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America could mean that by 2050 more than 140 million people had moved within their own countries’ borders, creating a human crisis and threatening development.
But concerted action – including global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and robust development planning at country level – could sharply reduce this worst-case scenario, the report says – by as much as 80%, or more than 100 million people.

In another perspective on climate migration, other analysts argue that it can be a valid way of adapting to a warmer future.
Wake-up Call
The Bank’s researchers say their report is the first and most comprehensive study of its kind to focus on the link between slow-onset climate change impacts, internal migration patterns, and development in three developing regions.
It defines climate migrants as people forced to move from parts of their countries where life is increasingly unsustainable because of worsening problems like water scarcity, crop failure, sea-level rise and storm surges. They would be additional to the millions of people already moving within their countries for economic, social, political or other reasons.
The World Bank CEO, Kristalina Georgieva, says the report is a wake-up call to countries and development institutions. “We have a small window now, before the effects of climate change deepen, to prepare the ground for this new reality,” she said.
“Steps cities take to cope with the upward trend of arrivals from rural areas and to improve opportunities for education, training and jobs will pay long-term dividends.
“It’s also important to help people make good decisions about whether to stay where they are or move to new locations where they are less vulnerable.”
They looked at three potential climate and development scenarios, comparing the most “pessimistic” (high greenhouse gas emissions and unequal development paths) with “climate-friendly” and “more inclusive development” scenarios in which climate and national development action increases in line with the challenge.
Across each scenario, they applied demographic, socio-economic and climate impact data at a 14-square kilometre grid-cell level to model probable shifts in population within countries.
This approach identified major “hotspots” of climate in- and out-migration – areas from which people are expected to move, and urban, peri-urban and rural areas to which they will try to move.
Crisis Not Inevitable
“Without the right planning and support, people migrating from rural areas into cities could be facing new and even more dangerous risks,” said Dr Rigaud. “We could see increased tensions and conflict as a result of pressure on scarce resources.
“But that doesn’t have to be the future. While internal climate migration is becoming a reality, it won’t be a crisis if we plan for it now.”
But there is an argument that migration is anyway a successful way of adapting to climate change, and that all governments should legalise and regulate temporary climate migration, both within and between countries
Alex Randall, co-ordinator of the UK-based Climate and Migration Coalition, writes in an opinion article on Al-Jazeera:  “Governments should be harnessing, rather than preventing, the use of migration as a climate adaptation strategy.
Prevention No Answer
“Governments must begin to understand that allowing this to happen, making it legal and facilitating it, is their best option. The alternative is trying to prevent it and creating a crisis,” he argues.
Randall quotes Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, an indigenous woman from the Mbororo pastoralist community of Chad, who says: “Migration has now become an inevitable method of adaptation for us … As a means of survival for us and our animals, we are forced to continuously migrate despite all the risks involved.”
Randall says: “Governments often fail to understand that people will migrate, even if a safe, legal option doesn’t exist. They have a stark choice ahead of them.
“They can either facilitate safe, legal migration. Or they can attempt to stop people moving and create crises like the one that is currently unfolding along Europe’s southern coastline.”

Chris Hedges: Don Corleone Trump

  Chris Hedges @ChrisLynnHedges https://x.com/ChrisLynnHedges/status/2084328759633850729 I visited Donald Trump’s Taj Mahal Casino in Atlant...