iftttwall

Authored by Jon Hall via Free Market Shooter blog,

On the heels of the United Kingdom’s and Europe’s disastrous immigration policies, both Denmark and Italy are fighting back against open borders.

Inger Støjberg, Danish Integration and Immigration Minister, recently rejected EU migrant quotas for 2018, detailing that refugees do not do enough to contribute to Denmark.

Støjberg told Jyllands-Posten:

Although we have gained significantly better control over the influx, we are still in the position that we are struggling to integrate the many refugees who have come to Denmark in recent years. Despite the fact that more refugees have come to work, there are still too many who do not support themselves… That is why I have decided that Denmark should not take quota refugees in 2018…

In her tenure as Integration and Immigration Minister, Støjberg has been vocally critical of mass migration – even saying she was open to the idea of placing failed asylum seekers on deserted Danish islands. However, she admitted there would definitely be “legal challenges” to that notion.

After it was revealed that migrants were among the majority represented in rape cases, Støjberg said that “it’s something we’ve seen through the years, that crime rates are much higher in immigrant circles than they are among Danes”.

Støjberg isn’t the only one ruffling feathers in regards to opposing open borders…

Ministry of the Interior, Matteo Salvini led the Italian government’s deportation of three African migrants suspected of plotting with Islamist terrorist groups, including one refugee who expressed the desire to kill “Christians” and white tourists”.

Along with the deportations of the three African refugees, an imam who was charged with “inciting to Islamic terrorism” saw expulsion from the country as well. The imam, Ahmed Elbadry Elbasiouny Aboualy, shared radical Islamist viewsconfirmed by electronic surveillance of his communications and in his dealings at his local mosque.

In a statement released last week, Salvini pointed out that in Italy, there have been 339 expulsions from January 2015 to present, 102 of which occurred in 2018.

The statement also details the rap sheets of the deported African migrants, specifying that one of them “praised ISIS and attacked prison police”; while another was suspected of “having served in international terrorist groups… and trusting in Allah for the success of his” attacks on tourists and Christians. The last African refugee deported by the Italian government had “molested passersby to the cry of ‘Allah Akbar’”.

Amidst the political correctness and ignorance taking Europe by storm, it’s relieving to see political leaders who do understand the stakes at hand and the imminent dangers of unfettered immigration across open borders.

Even with leaders waking up and fighting back against the threat, it’s going to take a monsoon of fantastic grit and fight to turn the already catastrophic tidessweeping across the continent, irrevocably changing traditional cultures and societies.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yKjq3p Tyler Durden

Venezuela has just taken the next step in its quest to “free” itself from the tyranny of US dollar hegemony. One year after the country said it would stop accepting US dollars as payment for its (ever shrinking) oil exports (saying the country’s state-run oil company would accept payment in yuan instead), Venezuelan Vice President for Economy Tareck El Aissami said Tuesday that Venezuela will officially purge the dollar from its exchange market in favor of euros.

While we’re sure that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would love to frame this as his latest gesture of defiance against tyrannical imperialist overreach by Washington, which he has blamed for aggravating the country’s humanitarian crisis by waging an “economic war” against the oil-rich nation, remember that the US effectively blocked the Venezuelan government from transacting in dollars last year when it imposed restrictive sanctions on the Maduro regime and the country’s state-run oil company, PDVSA. Maduro started the process of moving the country’s DICOM system of official tiered exchange rates in September 2017 when he declared that Venezuela would use a “new system of international payments.”

“Venezuela is going to implement a new system of international payments and will create a basket of currencies to free us from the dollar,” Maduro said in an hours-long address to a new legislative superbody, without providing details of the new mechanism.

“If they pursue us with the dollar, we’ll use the Russian ruble, the yuan, yen, the Indian rupee, the euro,” Maduro declared.

The sanctions have largely excluded Venezuela from international capital markets and the US dollar-based financial system, forcing Maduro’s regime to rely on money-for-oil loans extended by China. 

Maduro and many senior members of his government have been personally singled out for sanctions by the Treasury Department, a punishment that Maduro has called “an honor.”

To help seed the Venezuelan financial system with euros, the country’s cash-strapped central bank is planning to auction 2 billion euros some time between November and December.

The American “financial blockade” of Venezuela affects both the country’s public and private sectors, including pharmacy and agriculture, and shows “just how far the imperialism can go in its madness,” the vice president said.

Venezuela’s floating exchange rate system, Dicom, “will be operating in euro, yuan or any other convertible currency and will allow the foreign exchange market to use any other convertible currency,” El Aissami said.

The vice president added that all private banks in Venezuela are obliged to participate in the Dicom bidding system.

Even if it’s insignificant relative to Russia and China’s plans to create an alternative global financial system based on rubles and the yuan, this move is one more blow against US dollar hegemony, and one more step into the open arms of China, which has helped keep Maduro’s teetering regime afloat in the face of an assassination attempt and an aborted US-backed coup.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ymuCDX Tyler Durden

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The reported torture, murder, and dismemberment of Washington-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate-general in Istanbul reminded the world that an intense power play is now taking place within the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula and between them.

In November 2017, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the arrest and detention at the Riyadh Ritz Carlton Hotel of over 200 members of the Saudi royal family, including eleven rival princes, as well as government ministers and influential businessmen. That came after an October 2017 meeting in Riyadh between MBS and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, conclave that lasted well into the early morning hours. At the meeting, Kushner is said to have turned over to MBS a list of the names of the Crown Prince’s opponents: leading figures of the Saudi royal house, government, and major businesses.

The list may have also contained the name “Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi.”

The list of Saudi names was, reportedly, compiled by Kushner from top secret special code word documents he had specifically requested from the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency. The documents were specifically requested by Kushner, not because he was an expert in communications intercepts, but because he likely had a control officer who told him what files to obtain. The Kushner family have longstanding ties to the Israeli Likud Party, as well as the Mossad intelligence service. The Mossad enjoys a close working relationship with the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, which is now firmly committed to MBS after a previous purge of its upper ranks following MBS’s rise to the heir apparent position in the House of Saud.

Those on the list handed over to MBS by Kushner were all subjects of NSA and CIA communications intercepts of phone calls, video conferences, and emails. Kushner is said to have had a phone conversation with MBS a day before Khashoggi was murdered.

Reports from U.S. intelligence sources report that the NSA had intercepted high-level communications between the Saudi government in Riyadh and the Saudi consulate-general in Istanbul indicating that there was a plot afoot to either kidnap Khashoggi and fly him back to Riyadh or murder him on the spot. Kidnapping and detention is definitely part of MBS’s playbook as seen with his kidnapping and detention in Riyadh on November 3, 2017 of arriving Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. No sooner had Hariri’s plane touched down in Riyadh, was his cell phone confiscated by the Saudis and he was detained. Hariri was forced to resign in a forced statement read by him on a Saudi television network. MBS was hoping to replace Hariri with his older estranged brother, Bahaa Hariri, someone that MBS had in his pocket.

MBS had bragged to close advisers that he also had Jared Kushner “in his pocket.” Lebanese President Michel Aoun demanded Hariri’s immediate release by the Saudi regime and his return to Beirut. Just as Riyadh denied it had murdered Khashoggi, it refused to admit that it was holding Hariri against his will. MBS ordered Hariri flown to Abu Dhabi to meet with MBS’s on-and-off-again ally, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), the heir apparent to the presidency of the United Arab Emirates. At the age of 57, MBZ is not as brash as the young and impetuous MBS. This has been witnessed by MBZ’s willingness to work with Jordanian King Abdullah II to seek an accommodation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. MBS is reportedly furious with MBZ and Abdullah, the latter a member of the Hashemite family, who were ejected from their rule over Mecca and Medina by the British and Sauds, following World War I. Ever since the Hashemites’ loss of the Hejaz region of Arabia to the radical Wahhabist Sauds, there has been bad blood between Riyadh and Amman.

MBS is also upset over MBZ’s support for rival claimants to power in South Yemen. MBS is supporting the rump Yemeni government, much of it in exile in Saudi Arabia, against the Iranian-supported Houthi government ruling from Sana’a in north Yemen in a bloody and genocidal war being orchestrated by Riyadh, with the support of the Trump adminstration and the Israeli regime.

The UAE has been supporting the Southern Transition Council (STC), which strives for South Yemen’s reversion to an independent state, a status it enjoyed before a forced merger with north Yemen in 1990. Caught in the middle are forces loyal to Sheikh Abdullah bin Issa al Aafrar, the Sultan of the Mahra State, which was disestablished when South Yemen achieved independence in 1967. The Mahra Sultan, who is living in the neighboring Sultanate of Oman, under Sultan Qabus bin Said’s protection, is also in the gun sights of MBS, who does not want any competition for Saudi control of all of Yemen.

Oman is reportedly backing the Al-Mahra and Socotra People’s General Council, which is composed of the Mahra Sultan and Mahri tribal elders. This rival governing authority wants to be free of any control by the Saudi, Emirati, Houthi, and the pro-Saudi Yemen government. Through the offices of Oman’s mission to the United Nations, the General Council has been in direct contact with the UN Security Council. The STC also includes members of the tribes and royal families of other former states of the British colonial era Federation of Arab Emirates of the South and Protectorate of South Arabia. These include the Kathiri State, Sultanate of Lahej, the Qu’aiti State of Hadhramaut, and the Emirates of Dhala and Beihan.

MBS is known to be angling to select the successor to Qabus, who has no children and has been a thorn in Riyadh’s side. Under Qabus, Oman has been friendly to Iran and the Assad government in Syria, as well as Qatar, where the 36-year old Emir, Tamim bin Hamad, has infuriated MBS by maintaining relations with Iran. In 2013, Tamim’s father, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, formally abdicated the throne in favor of his son. However, it is well known that Hamad still pulls the strings in Doha. In 1995, Hamad deposed his father, Khalifa BIN Hamad al Thani, who was undergoing medical treatment in Geneva. In 1972, Khalifa ousted his cousin, Ahmad, while he was on a hunting trip in Iran. Ahmad settled in Dubai, where he married the daughter of the Emir of Dubai. MBS and MBZ are anxious to prop up a rival to the current Qatari emir from the ranks of potential claimants to the throne in Doha, including two rival al-Thani clan members who the Saudis have claimed have rightful claims to the Qatari throne – Abdulla bin Ali Al Thani and Sultan bin Suhaim Al Thani.

MBS, along with all the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, have instituted a punishing economic and diplomatic embargo on Qatar. There is some speculation in the Middle East that MBS is quietly backing to succeed Qabus, Taimur bin Assad, the 37-year old son of Qabus’s cousin, Said Assad bin Tariq. As the deputy prime minister for international cooperation, Said Assad bin Tariq was designated as the official heir to the ailing Qabus.

In this Arabian “Game of Thrones,” MBZ may have his own favorites among other claimants to the sultan’s throne in Muscat. These include Said Assad bin Tariq’s half-brothers, Haitham bin Tariq, currently the culture minister, and Shihab bin Tariq, a former commander of the Omani navy. MBZ is reportedly running a network of spies within the Omani royal court to influence the succession to Qabus. There is another, non-Arabian prince, who could also have a great deal of influence in the Omani royal succession. He is the Prince of Wales, Charles, the future King of England, who has been a longtime friend and confidante of Sultan Qabus.

Oman and Qatar have their own agents of influence within the royal families of the seven emirates that make up the UAE. In July, Sheikh Rashid bin Hamad al-Sharqi, the second-in-line for the throne in Fujairah, the UAE emirate that borders Oman, turned up in Qatar to ask for asylum. He said that MBZ’s government was using extortion to eke out transfers of large sums of cash by Emirati royal families to unknown parties around the world, including those in Ukraine, India, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. The UAE, along with the Saudis, are major financial supporters of jihadist elements around the world. Sheikh Rashid has also provided Qatari intelligence with details of discontent among the emirates of the dictatorial policies of MBZ in Abu Dhabi. The other emirs are also critical of the UAE’s involvement in the genocidal civil war in Yemen, one in which troops from Fujairah, Umm al Quwain, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al Khaimah, are used for cannon fodder, while those from the wealthier Abu Dhabi and Dubai avoid frontline combat.

Recently, the Saudis have pressured their puppet king in Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, to fire his uncle, Prime Minister Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. Prince Khalifa is the world’s longest-serving prime minister. However, he has apparently irritated MBS with his work to protect the rights of foreign workers, including those from the Philippines and south Asia, in Bahrain and the wider Gulf region.

MBS and Kushner are known to view Iran as the chief threat to peace in the Middle East. MBZ shares in their view of Iran, something that is, apparently, not shared by the emirates of the northern Gulf region, including Fujairah. From their actions, MBS and MBZ are, along with their Israeli and American allies, the major threat to peace in the region. The assassination of a journalist resident in the United States in a third country, Turkey, and the kidnapping and house arrest of a sitting prime minister of another nation is unprecedented behavior in the Middle East. The Saudis are only matched by Israel in their total disregard for international norms of behavior in the Middle Eastern region as they and their cohorts engage in their bloody “Game of Thrones.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ep0WLO Tyler Durden

Beer is the most popular alcoholic beverage in the world by volume consumed, and yields of its main ingredient: barley, decrease sharply in the event of extreme weather 

A team of agricultural specialists and climate economists published a new study Monday in the Journal of Nature Plants, found the connection between extreme weather conditions, such as drought or heat, and the global consumption of beer. 

Fig.2 | Average barley yield shocks during extreme event years 

Researchers from the University of East Anglia warned that global beer supply could be in jeopardy due to extreme weather conditions affecting the production of barley — the main ingredient in beer. 

Their computer models found barley yields could plunge 3% to 17% across the world by the end of the century, which would trigger a 16% decline in global beer consumption and cause beer prices to inflate massively. 

The report shows that the consumption of barley, by country, is used primarily for animal feed, with only 17% of the crop used for brewing. 

Fig.3 | Barley consumption by country and globally under future climate change 

Researchers said that declining yields could have a disproportionate impact on beer production, making a cheap cold beer unaffordable for the working class. 

“We made the assumption that farmers may be able to adapt to gradual changes, but it may be harder to adapt to more extreme events,” said Steven Davis, the study’s lead author, who studies environmental impacts of global trade at the University of Calfornia, Irvine. 

To model extreme events, the team identified droughts and heat waves that might co-occur during growing seasons.

“The aim of the study is not to encourage people to drink more today,” Dabo Guan, a co-author of the study and professor of climate change economics at the University of East Anglia, told CNN. Instead, the team wanted to show how volatile weather patterns could impact the quality of life for the working class. 

In the event of a substantial barley crop failure, computer models show beer prices could double worldwide, and the US would see a 20% collapse in beer consumption — that would be equivalent to approximately 10 billion cans of beer. Places like Ireland could fair worse; beer price inflation would add an extra $21 per six-pack. 

Fig. 4| Changes in beer consumption and price under increasingly severe drought-heat events 

“If you don’t want that to happen–if you still want a few pints of beer–then the only way to do it is to mitigate climate change,” said Guan.

The study’s co-author also said global beer shortage would have the most impact on the working class, thus triggering significant social and political consequences for governments.  

The Wall Street Journal said brewers and farmers had been geoengineering barley to increase resilience to get ahead of climate changes. 

“We have seen there are changes that are already happening,” said Jess Newman, director of U.S. Agronomy at AB InBev, which is currently testing new barley strains among its 4,500 farmers. “We are proactively investing in breeding and crop management to make sure our growers can thrive in the new world.” 

Bart Watson, the chief economist for Brewers Association, told WSJ that such extreme effects were unlikely considering current efforts to protect beer’s ingredients. “Not to underrate the challenges of climate change but we’d anticipate the barley system will continue to evolve and adapt,” he said. 

The study raises important questions about how the global food supply chain is going to adapt to climate change.

President Trump on Sunday told CBS’ 60 Minutes in an interview that climate change is ‘not a hoax’ but suggested that humans might not cause it. 

Trump also said that climate change scientists have a “political agenda,” as the study above is certainly based on fearmongering propaganda towards the working class. Otherwise, why would climate researchers examine beer? Most working class folk wash down their gig-economy woes with a cheap cold beer — what happens if climate change causes price inflation? As explained above, a beer shortage would lead to societal upheavals.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QPKohe Tyler Durden

Authored by Jan Keller (a Czech Social Democrat Member of the European Parliament), via The Gatestone Institute,

Multiculturalism is not a manifestation of Europe’s generosity, or some noble embodiment of love and truth. Multiculturalism is what remains after mass migration reveals itself as a threat, rather than a benefit, to the economies of European countries.

Take, for instance, the example of France. After the Second World War, when France underwent a boom of economic growth, waves of migration were viewed favorably: there were many job opportunities for unskilled and medium-skilled laborers, and the native French population aspired to work in the tertiary sector, which offered more qualified, better-paid jobs. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, foreign workers tended to come to France temporarily, without their families, and return to their countries of origin. These workers were generally recruited from former French colonies to do menial and low-paying jobs — not in order to enrich the culture of the host country.

At the end of the 1970s, that situation changed. Foreign workers began coming to France with their families and also having children after arriving in the country. At the same time, however, there were changes in the economy that ended up leaving descendants of the recruited workers hopeless. While their parents had experienced some upward mobility, they themselves — even those with a higher level of education than their parents — were left with fewer job opportunities and became a surplus on the labor market; they also did not have another place to go. In other words, they had been born in a country that suddenly had nothing to offer. The only thing that the government could come up with was a rationale for the dire situation — a mission for these children of migrants: that they should enrich themselves culturally in the country to which their parents had migrated. This new policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

Now let us look at those who favor multiculturalism for the Czech Republic, in Eastern Europe, which has been resistant to it. What they do not grasp is that the Czech Republic today does not resemble France in the early part of the 20th century. We Czechs do not need to recruit foreign workers to perform menial jobs. On the contrary, we need to develop an economy based on skilled labor. It also does not make sense for us to seek highly skilled migrants for this purpose. Such migrants prefer countries whose languages they speak and in which they can earn higher wages than those offered in the Czech Republic. Furthermore, given the problematic nature of our current education system, which is unable adequately to prepare graduates for jobs in tech companies, it would be absurd for us to rely on technology experts from developing countries to rescue our economy.

Some politicians claim that we need a mass wave of immigrants to care for our elderly. This is controversial: in a new country, if they are unskilled, they will barely be able to care for themselves, let alone for others, and will present an additional burden to our already overburdened social security system. If, on the other hand, we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer. What right do we have to use them to solve our own problems? If we take them away from their countries of origin, the situation in those countries will further deteriorate. The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries. These new arrivals will create an even greater burden on the social security system than it will incentivize economic development. That consequence is not because migrants are lazier or less ambitious than the local population. Their disadvantages are due to other factors, such as difficulty with a new language and that they tend to have larger families.

For decades, there has been a debate in Europe between the effort to slim down the welfare state, as opposed to continuing it to meet the needs of various disadvantaged sectors of the population. This debate has intensified sharply as the mass wave of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East has threatened to increase significantly the number of welfare recipients in Europe.

Under these circumstances, the nature of multiculturalism has changed. It has become a means to exert fierce psychological pressure primarily on the middle- and lower-income sectors in Europe. One form this pressure has taken is the equating of the plight of the current refugees to emigrants escaping to the West from behind the Iron Curtain. The comparison, however, does not really apply. The Eastern European at that time emigrants did not aspire to achieve “multicultural status”. Their goal was to integrate — to adapt to a society that was so generous as to have accepted them.

In short, mass waves of migrants represent statistically significantly greater risks than opportunities. They do not serve to boost prosperity. Our insurance systems, which were founded by, and developed for, the nation states whose populations they were meant to serve, were simply never designed to cover them.

The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2RVjLJm Tyler Durden

Last week, the Global Times confirmed that the Hong-20, China’s newest long-range stealth bomber was ready for imminent trial flights. 

Now, it seems Chinese media, as per Defense Blog, has indicated that the stealth bomber will be unveiled during a massive military parade in 2019. 

While there is no official statement or confirmation from the Chinese government or military, the unveiling is expected to occurring during a period where JPMorgan expects a full-blown trade war between the US and China. 

According to fresh reports, China will show the world its new stealth bomber at an air force military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in the second half of 2019. 

The program was confirmed in 2016 when official PLA-affiliated sources announced the developed of the bomber. PLA Air Force General Ma Xiaotian, stated, “our long-range strike capability has much improved compared to the past, and an even bigger improvement is coming. We are developing a new generation of long-range bomber.” 

Andreas Rupprecht, an aviation journalist at Jamestown Foundation, recently reported that the stealth bomber has been in development since the late 1990s and or early 2000s. 

Last week, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times that trial flights of China’s stealth bomber would be immient. He said disclosing the new plane is a potential deterrence to our enemies. 

“Usually the development of equipment and weaponry of the People’s Liberation Army is highly confidential,” he said, but with the threat of a full-blown trade war in 2019, and a potential flare-up of military conflict in the South China Sea; Beijing is trying to flex its military muscles for the fight ahead. 

The Global Times quoted air force researcher Fu Qianshao as saying the ultimate goal for the stealth bomber is to boost operational range to 12,000 kilometers with 20-tons of payload.

Asia Times said the bomber could be the solution for China to fire missiles at American mainland assets. 

In addition to this, the outline of an unknown stealth aircraft was spotted earlier this month on a large banner at a celebration for China’s strategic bomber division; military observers speculate it could be the new bomber. The party was held on Oct. 07 at an unspecified strategic bomber division facility under the PLA Eastern Theater Command. 

The frontal view of the aircraft was shown at the party but did not match China’s known stealth bomber because of its angled winglets on the ends of its wings; also there was no visible tail. 

This is not the first time an aircraft rumored to be the mysterious stealth bomber has made a public appearance. 

China’s aviation giant, Aviation Industry Corporation, revealed a model jet, believed to be the US B2 stealth bomber-like model “H20”, in a 9-second Easter egg in a video commemorating 60 years of its subsidy Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. https://t.co/yD5k0Ecc0O pic.twitter.com/kLWJkxSaXh

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) May 9, 2018

In May, we reported that Aviation Industry Corporation of China, one of China’s most significant aerospace and defense companies (ranked 159th in the Fortune Global 500 lists), released a five-minute video commemorating the 60th anniversary of its subsidiary the Xi-an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. In the last 10-seconds of the footage, a sneak peek into one of the most secretive aerospace projects to date — the development of the next-generation stealth bomber. 

Looks like US war planners will have to factor in China’s next-generation stealth bomber into the fight, as the threat of trade war could send both countries into a potential hot conflict. 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CP4IMK Tyler Durden

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

World leaders wrestle with a maelstrom of complex, burning issues as they prepare for November 30 summit…

The G-20 in Buenos Aires on November 30 could set the world on fire – perhaps literally. Let’s start with the US-China trade war. Washington won’t even start discussing trade with China at the G-20 unless Beijing comes up with a quite detailed list of potential concessions.

The word from Chinese negotiators is not at all bleak. Some sort of agreement could be reached on about a third of US demands. Debate on another third could ensue. But the last third is absolutely off-limits – due to Chinese national security imperatives, such as refusing to allow the opening of the domestic cloud computing market to foreign competition.

Beijing has appointed Vice-Premier Liu He and Vice-President Wang Qishan to supervise all negotiations with Washington. They face an uphill task: to pierce through President Donald Trump’s limited attention span.

On top of it, Beijing demands a “point person” with the authority to negotiate on behalf of Trump – considering the mixed-message traffic jam out of Washington.

Now compare this with the message coming from the research institute fabulously named Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era under the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC): the US has started the “trade friction” essentially “to hinder China’s industrial upgrading.”

That’s the consensus at the top.

And the clash is bound to get worse. Vice President Mike Pence accused China of “meddling in American democracy,” “debt diplomacy,” “currency manipulation,” and “IP theft.” The Foreign Ministry in Beijing dismissed it all as “ridiculous.”

It’s enlightening to pay close attention to what Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Council on Foreign Relations – as diplomatically as possible: “China will follow a path of development different from historical powers.” And China will not seek hegemony.

From the point of view of the US National Security Strategy, that’s irrelevant; China has been framed as a fierce competitor and even a threat. President Xi Jinping will not cave in to Washington’s trade demands. So expect a possible non-meeting between Xi and Trump in Buenos Aires.

The threat of a nuclear first strike

Things look even hairier on the Russian front. For all of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Taoist patience, Moscow’s diplomatic circles are exasperated by serious American threats – as in the US Navy possibly enforcing a blockade to restrict Russia’s energy trade. Or worse: the ultimatum that Russia must stop developing a missile that according to Washington violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, otherwise the Pentagon will destroy it.

This is as serious as it gets – because it amounts to committing to a US nuclear first strike.

In parallel, BP CEO Bob Dudley told the Oil & Money conference in London that any additional US sanctions against top Russian energy companies would be disastrous. “If sanctions were put on Rosneft or Gazprom or Lukoil like what happened with Rusal, you would virtually shut down the energy systems of Europe, it is a bit of an extreme thing to happen,” he said.

On the BRICS front, Russia and India deftly maneuvered on their own and managed to squash some US geostrategic planning against the three major poles of Eurasia integration: Russia, China and Iran.

The Quad – US, Japan, Australia, India – was conceived to box in China across the Indo-Pacific, in parallel to confining Russia’s margin of maneuver. The Quad is not exactly in sterling form after India decided to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Trump has promised revenge.

On top of the S-400 deal, Russian companies will be building six additional nuclear reactors in India, at a cost of $20 billion each, over the next decade. Rosneft signed a 10-year deal to sell India 10 million tons of oil a year. And India will continue to buy oil from Iran, paying for it in rupees.

On the EU front, it’s all about Germany. There are few illusions in Berlin about the EU’s wobbly future. The export-centered German economy is focused on Asia. Germany is doubling down on solidifying an Asian-style model – a few large companies that are national champions able to turbo-charge exports. The US market – under protectionist winds – now is just an afterthought.

Toxic tropics

Then there’s the Brazilian tragedy. President Mauricio Macri ruined Argentina with a neoliberal shock. The nation is now a hostage of the IMF.

A possible scenario is a G-20 in which Argentina will be learning how to deal with a fascist leading its close neighbor and top trade partner, Brazil.

Former paratrooper Jair Bolsonaro may be xenophobic and mysoginistic, but is certainly not a nationalist. The self-billed tropical “Messiah” routinely salutes the US flag. His economic hit man is a Chicago Boy bent on selling the country out – much to the delight of “investors” and “market” experts from New York and Zurich to Rio and Sao Paulo.

Forget about creating jobs or even attempting to solve Brazil’s immense social problems: acute social inequality, pressing investments in health and education, urban insecurity. Bolsonaro’s only “policy” is to weaponize the population in a Mad Max remix.

Everything under Bolsonaro should proceed under the unmitigated reign of a Hobbesian “free” market. Forget about any possibility of a moderating state intervention in the complex relations between Capital and Labor.

This is the apex of a complex process unleashed years ago in Brazil via think tanks such as the Atlas Network, loads of money and, last but not least, an evangelical/neo-pentecostal tsunami.

The pillars of the Brazilian carnage are powerful agro-business and mineral exploitation interests, toxic Brazilian mainstream media, evangelicals, a financial sector totally subservient to Wall Street, the weapons industry, the completely politicized judiciary, the police, intel services, and the armed forces.

And the stars of the show are of course the Beef-Bible-Bullet combo – with their scores of Congress members – overseen by the Goddess of the Market.

Neoliberalism never wins elections in Brazil. So the only way to implement “reforms” is via a sub-Pinochet. Expect widespread social-environmental havoc, indiscriminate killing of rural and native Brazilian leaders, an unmitigated bonanza for the weapons industry, banks celebrating Christmas every week, abysmal cultural repression, total denationalization of the economy, and workers and pensioners paying for all these “reforms.” Call it business as usual.

Bolsonaro’s fascist tendencies were normalized not only by the powers that be in Brazil. Argentina’s Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie qualified him as a “center-right” politician.

Beijing and Moscow – for BRICS reasons – and the EU in Brussels are appalled by Brazil’s descent into the maelstrom. Russia and China were counting on a strong Brazil contributing to a multipolar world as during the time of Lula, who was a major BRICS driving force.

For the EU, it is hard to stomach a fascist leading their top trading partner in Latin America, and the heart of Mercosur. For the Global South as a whole, the implosion of Brazil, one of its leaders, is an unmitigated tragedy.

Now picture Washington as a raging compendium of threats and sanctions. An EU fractured to the hilt – denouncing Asian illiberalism while impotent to fight the “rise of the deplorables” at home. BRICS in disarray, with two in a serious clash with Washington, one out of the game and one on the fence – among the top four. The House of Saud rotting from the inside. Iran not even at the G-20 table.

Time to sing What a Wonderful World.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Co8DiW Tyler Durden

Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50, who are now more likely to die from a drug overdose than from car accidents or firearms. The United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of drug-related deaths in the world.

However, while opioid abuse is a nationwide problem, Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes that there are specific areas that are being hit harder by this epidemic. Using the location data above, from NORC at the University of Chicago, we can see clusters of counties that have an extremely high rate of overdose deaths. Between 2012 and 2016, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio saw a combined 18,000 deaths related to opioid abuse.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

A sharp increase in prescribed opioid-based painkillers and the rise of illegal fentanyl – which is up to 50 times stronger than heroin – has unleashed the worst public health crisis in American history.

It’s a problem that can be tough to understand, but by delving into the data, some key observations emerge.

DOCTORS PRESCRIBED A LOT OF PAIN KILLERS

Beginning in the 1980s, prescription opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone were heavily marketed as a treatment for pain, and at the time, the risk of addiction to these substances was downplayed. Opioid prescriptions nearly tripled between 1991 and 2011.

Sales of these powerful painkillers are beginning to drop, in part because the risk of addiction has now been widely publicized. Another decelerating factor is the crackdown on clinics and pharmacies that were over-dispensing painkillers, in some cases directly feeding the elicit drug market.

In 2015, nearly 100 million Americans were prescribed painkillers by their doctor. A recent survey showed one-third of people who abused prescription painkillers in the past year got pills directly from a physician.

This abundance of pills impacts the community at large when excess pills are sold, stolen, or simply given to others. In fact, receiving painkillers from a friend or family member was the most common gateway to abusing opioids.

FENTANYL IS KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE

If doctors have been prescribing opioids for decades, what is causing this recent spike in overdoses? The answer, for the most part, is fentanyl.

This synthetic opioid presents a problem because it’s extremely potent – it only takes about 2 milligrams to overdose on the drug. Since much of the fentanyl on the market is sourced illegally, doses can and do exceed this amount on a regular basis.

As a result, overdose deaths related to opioids have skyrocketed in recent years:

OVERDOSES ARE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG

The thousands of overdose deaths around the country are the most extreme symptom of the opioid epidemic, but the problem runs much deeper.

In 2017, there were over 11 million “opioid misusers” in the United States. To put that number in perspective, that’s equivalent to the entire population of Ohio. In fact, the problem is so widespread, that it’s suspected to be influencing workforce participation rates.

The health care burden of the crisis is also staggering. The cost of opioid abuse ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 in annual medical costs per patient.

The hard truth is that, unless bold action is taken, the opioid epidemic is projected to claim nearly 500,000 lives over the next decade.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2P2k9XW Tyler Durden

Authored by Conn Hallinan via Counterpunch.org,

The Syrian civil war has always been devilishly complex, with multiple actors following different scripts, but in the past few months it appeared to be winding down. The Damascus government now controls 60 percent of the country and the major population centers, the Islamic State has been routed, and the rebels opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are largely cornered in Idilb Province in the country’s northwest. But suddenly the Americans moved the goal posts – maybe – the Russians have fallen out with the Israelis, the Iranians are digging in their heels, and the Turks are trying to multi-task with a home front in disarray.

So the devil is still very much at work in a war that has lasted more than seven years, claimed up to 500,000 lives, displaced millions of people, destabilized an already fragile Middle East, and is far from over.

There are at least three theaters in the Syrian war, each with its own complexities: Idilb in the north, the territory east of the Euphrates River, and the region that abuts the southern section of the Golan Heights. Just sorting out the antagonists is daunting. Turks, Iranians, Americans and Kurds are the key actors in the east. Russians, Turks, Kurds and Assad are in a temporary standoff in the north. And Iran, Assad and Israel are in a faceoff near Golan, a conflict that has suddenly drawn in Moscow.

Assad’s goals are straightforward: reunite the country under the rule of Damascus and begin re-building Syria’s shattered cities. The major roadblock to this is Idilb, the last large concentration of anti-Assad groups, Jihadists linked with al-Qaeda, and a modest Turkish occupation force representing Operation Olive Branch. The province, which borders Turkey in the north, is mountainous and re-taking it promises to be difficult.

For the time being there is a stand down. The Russians cut a deal with Turkey to demilitarize the area around Idilb city, neutralize the jihadist groups, and re-open major roads. The agreement holds off a joint Assad-Russian assault on Idilb, which would have driven hundreds of thousands of refugees into Turkey and likely have resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties.

But the agreement is temporary – about a month – because Russia is impatient to end the fighting and begin the reconstruction. However, it is hard to see how the Turks are going to get a handle on the bewildering number of groups packed into the province, some of which they have actively aided for years. Ankara could bring in more soldiers, but Turkey already has troops east of the Euphrates and is teetering on the edge of a major economic crisis. Pouring more wealth into what has become a quagmire may not sit well with the Turkish public, which has seen inflation eat up their paychecks and pensions, and the Turkish Lira fall nearly 40 percent in value in the past year. Local elections will be held in 2019, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party ‘s power is built on improving the economy.

In Syria’s east, Turkish troops – part of Operation Euphrates Shield – are pushing up against the Americans and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces fighting the Islamic State (IS). Erdogan is far more worried about the Syrian Kurds and the effect they might have on Turkey’s Kurdish population, than he is about the IS. 

Ankara’s ally in this case is Iran, which is not overly concerned about the Kurds, but quite concerned about the 2,200 Americans. “We need to resolve the difficulty east of the Euphrates and force America out,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in early September.

That latter goal just got more complex. The U.S. Special Forces were originally charged with aiding the Kurdish and Arab allies drive out the IS. President Donald Trump told a meeting in March, “we’ll be coming out of Syria like very soon.” But that policy appears to have changed. National Security Advisor John Bolton now says U.S. troops will remain in Syria until Iran leaves. Since there is little chance of that happening, the U.S. commitment suddenly sounds open-ended. Bolton’s comment has stirred up some opposition in the U.S. Congress to “mission creep,” although Trump has yet to directly address the situation. 

The Kurds are caught in the middle. The U.S. has made no commitment to defend them from Turkey, and the Assad regime is pressing to bring the region under Damascus’ control. However, the Syrian government has made overtures to the Kurds for talks about more regional autonomy, and one suspects the Kurds will try to cut a deal to protect them from Ankara. The Russians have been pushing for Assad-Kurd détente.

Turkey may want to stay in eastern Syria, but it is hard to see how Ankara will be able to do that, especially if the Turks are stretched between Idlib and Euphrates Shield in the east. The simple fact is that Erdogan misjudged the resiliency of the Assad regime and over reached when he thought shooting down a Russian fighter-bomber in 2015 would bring NATO to his rescue and intimidate Moscow. Instead, the Russians now control the skies over Idlib, and Turkey is estranged from NATO. 

The Russians have been careful in Syria. Their main concerns are keeping their naval base at Latakia, beating up on al-Qaeda and the IS, and supporting their long-time ally Syria.  Instead of responding directly to Erdogan’s 2015 provocation, Moscow brought in their dangerous S-400 anti-aircraft system, a wing of advanced fighter aircraft, and beefed up their naval presence with its advanced radar systems. The message was clear: don’t try that again.

But the Russians held off the attack on Idlib, and have been trying to keep the Israelis and Iranians from tangling with one another in the region around the Golan Heights. Moscow proposed keeping Iran and its allies at least 60 miles from the Israeli border, but Israel—and now the U.S.—is demanding Iran fully withdraw from Syria.

The Assad regime wants Teheran to stay, but also to avoid any major shootout between Iran and Israel that would catch Damascus in the middle. In spite of hundreds of Israeli air attacks into Syria, there has been no counter attacks by the Syrians or the Iranians, suggesting that Assad has ruled out any violent reaction.

That all came to end Sept 17, when Israeli aircraft apparently used a Russian Ilyushin-M20 electronic reconnaissance plane to mask an attack on Damascus. Syrian anti-aircraft responded and ending up shooting down the Russian plane and killing all aboard.  Russia blamed the Israelis and a few days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow was sending its S-300 anti-aircraft system to Syria, along with a series of upgrades in Damascus’ radar network. Syria currently uses the S-200 system that goes back to the ‘60s.

The upgrade will not really threaten Israeli aircraft – the S-300 is dated and the Israelis likely have the electronics to overcome it – but suddenly the skies over Syria are no longer uncontested, and, if Tel Aviv decides to go after the Syrian radar grid, the Russians have their S-400 in the wings. Not checkmate, but check.

How all of this shakes down is hardly clear, but there are glimmers of solution out there.

Turkey will have to eventually withdraw from Syria, but will probably get some concessions over how much autonomy Syria’s Kurds will end up with. The Kurds can cut a deal with Assad because the regime needs peace. The Iranians want to keep their influence in Syria and a link to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but don’t want a serious dustup with Israel. 

An upcoming Istanbul summit on Syria of Russia, France, Turkey and Germany will talk about a political solution to the civil war and post-war reconstruction.

Israel will eventually have to come to terms with Iran as a major player in the Middle East and recognize that the great “united front” against Teheran of Washington, Tel Aviv and the Gulf monarchies is mostly illusion. The Saudis are in serious economic trouble, the Gulf Cooperation Council is divided, and it is Israel and the U.S. are increasingly isolated over in hostility to Teheran.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2EtYbZF Tyler Durden