Ukrainian Svoboda fascists and the European Union


This video is called Surviving the Holocaust in the Ukraine (Full Documentary).

By Alex Lantier:

What the European Union said in 2012 about its current fascist allies in Ukraine

12 March 2014

Since last month’s putsch in Kiev, the US and European media have denounced reports from Russia and internationally of fascist involvement in the new, Western-backed Ukrainian regime.

The media has attacked such reports as “empty” (New York Times), “a fancy” (Guardian), “Putin plays the Nazi card” (Fox News), and “the supreme lie” (Le Monde). One source that inspires total confidence, Russian oligarch and convicted felon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, speaking on Monday to a right-wing crowd in Kiev, summed up the line of the corporate media. He called reports of fascist influence over the new regime “lying Russian propaganda.”

To evaluate this torrent of pro-fascist apologetics, it is worth recalling what the European Union itself said only two years ago about its current partners in Kiev. Today, the far-right Svoboda party holds top ministerial positions (deputy prime minister, education, ecology, and agriculture) and advisory posts in a regime that enjoys the economic and military backing of the EU and Washington.

Svoboda was condemned in an official resolution voted and adopted by the European Parliament. The document, titled “European Parliament of 13 December, 2012 on the Situation in Ukraine,” is available online.

In section 8 of the resolution, the EU’s legislative body declares itself “concerned about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda party, which, as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada,” the Ukrainian parliament.

Stating that “racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values,” the European Parliament “therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse, or form coalitions with this party.”

When the imperialist powers embarked on a critical foreign policy operation, however—the installation of a pro-Western regime in Kiev—they easily overcame whatever scruples EU legislators may have had about Svoboda’s racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. It fell to a corrupt media, academic and cultural elite to package the resulting collaboration with fascists as a struggle for democracy, misleading the public through a combination of complicit silence and active falsification.

The author also recommends:

The fascist danger in Ukraine
[6 March 2014]

Ukraine and the pro-imperialist intellectuals
[5 February 2014]

In addition to fascistic elements from the Svoboda Party controlling six key government ministries, the new administration has appointed prominent oligarchs to head regional administrations in Ukraine’s most important industrial eastern regions: here.

With Ukraine facing the likely secession of Crimea, the far-right regime in Kiev is moving to slash social spending and build a new army: here.

War propaganda in the German media: here. And here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NSA spies on billions of people, Snowden says


This video from the USA says about itself:

Snowden Testifies to EU Parliament Friday and Austin TX Interactive Conference Monday

7 March 2014

Snowden, Assange and Glenn Greenwald will speak on government spying at the Austin Texas video conference.

Breaking News

Edward Snowden answered questions before the European Parliament on Friday, saying that the United States spy agency pressures its allies to take steps towards further enabling widespread and indiscriminate surveillance.

“One of the foremost activities of the NSA‘s FAD, or Foreign Affairs Division, is to pressure or incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance,” Snowden said in a testimony delivered remotely from Russia. “Lawyers from the NSA, as well as the UK’s GCHQ, work very hard to search for loopholes in laws and constitutional protections that they can use to justify indiscriminate, dragnet surveillance operations that were at best unwittingly authorized by lawmakers.”

“These efforts to interpret new powers out of vague laws is an intentional strategy to avoid public opposition and lawmakers’ insistence that legal limits be respected,” Snowden added.

The NSA lobbied heavily for leaders in Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Germany to authorize mass surveillance operations, including programs in which intelligence is gathered and then shared across borders with allied nation-states abroad, the former intelligence contractor said.

“Each of these countries received instruction from the NSA, sometimes under the guise of the US Department of Defense and other bodies, on how to degrade the legal protections of their countries’ communications,” he said, including one instance in Germany where officials there were allegedly pressured by the US to modify the country’s G-10 law “to appease the NSA” while at the same time “it eroded the rights of German citizens under their constitution.”

Pressuring those countries to increase their surveillance capabilities and adopt new technology created a “European bazaar” that enabled EU member states to essentially funnel intelligence to spy firms around the globe, Snowden said.

According to Snowden, “an EU member state like Denmark may give the NSA access to a tapping center on the [unenforceable] condition that NSA doesn’t search it for Danes, and Germany may give the NSA access to another on the condition that it doesn’t search for Germans. Yet the two tapping sites may be two points on the same cable, so the NSA simply captures the communications of the German citizens as they transit Denmark, and the Danish citizens as they transit Germany, all the while considering it entirely in accordance with their agreements. Ultimately, each EU national government’s spy services are independently hawking domestic accesses to the NSA, GCHQ, FRA, and the like without having any awareness of how their individual contribution is enabling the greater patchwork of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens as a whole.”

“By the time this general process has occurred, it is very difficult for the citizens of a country to protect the privacy of their communications, and it is very easy for the intelligence services of that country to make those communications available to the NSA — even without having explicitly shared them,” he said.

“The Parliament should ask the NSA and GCHQ to deny that they monitor the communications of EU citizens, and in the absence of an informative response, I would suggest that the current state of affairs is the inevitable result of subordinating the rights of the voting public to the prerogatives of State Security Bureaus,” Snowden added.

By Robert Stevens:

Snowden’s testimony to European Parliament: “Billions of innocents” unlawfully spied upon

10 March 2014

On Friday, the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee published the written testimony of US whistleblower and former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden agreed to give testimony to the EP’s ongoing inquiry into the Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU Citizens.

The European Parliament (EP) took his statement despite the fact that it has already agreed to publish a 60-page report based entirely on the secret documents that Snowden made public, which entirely excises any mention of his name. (See “European Parliament kills call to protect Edward Snowden”)

The EP rejected an amendment to the document that would have committed it to offering Snowden protection as a whistleblower.

These decisions were made under pressure from the US government and carried out with the support of the Social Democratic and Conservative groupings in the Parliament.

Snowden’s 12-page testimony consists of a two-page statement and a series of answers to questions posed by Members of the European Parliament.

His testimony was an eloquent and wide-ranging summary of what has been revealed so far about the mass spying operations and a rebuttal of the constant and ongoing lies and falsifications aimed at him from the US political and intelligence elite and its supporters internationally.

Snowden refutes claims by US spy chiefs who “once claimed that 54 terrorist attacks had been stopped by mass surveillance.” He notes that such claims have never been verified, adding that even the “White House’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, determined that the mass surveillance program investigated was not only ineffective—they found it had never stopped even a single imminent terrorist attack—but that it had no basis in law.”

The “greatest success the program had ever produced was discovering a taxi driver in the United States transferring $8,500 dollars to Somalia in 2007,” writes Snowden.

While the whole population was under surveillance, this did not prevent the Boston Marathon bombers from carrying out their operation. Snowden wrote, “Despite the Russians specifically warning us about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI couldn’t do more than a cursory investigation—although they did plenty of worthless computer-based searching—and failed to discover the plot. 264 people were injured, and 3 died. The resources that could have paid for a real investigation had been spent on monitoring the call records of everyone in America.”

Snowden summarises a number of the revelations of mass state surveillance that have been published in several newspapers, particularly the Guardian, stating that the “rights of billions of innocents—and I say billions without exaggeration,” are being unlawfully done away with.

Describing the extraordinary means at the disposal of the NSA to spy on anyone it chooses, Snowden explained his role as an intelligence operative:

“The NSA granted me the authority to monitor communications worldwide using its mass surveillance systems, including within the United States. I have personally targeted individuals using these systems under both the President of the United States’ Executive Order 12333 and the US Congress’ FAA 702.”

He added, “I am telling you that without getting out of my chair, I could have read the private communications of any member of this committee, as well as any ordinary citizen. I swear under penalty of perjury that this is true.”

Shadow Rapporteur, MEP Sophie In t’Veld, vice-chair of the Civil Liberties committee, asked Snowden if he thought that procedures for whistleblowing have been improved. He replied, “No. There has not yet been any substantive whistleblower reform in the US, and unfortunately my government has taken a number of disproportionate and persecutory actions against me. US government officials have declared me guilty of crimes in advance of any trial, they’ve called for me to be executed or assassinated in private and openly in the press, they revoked my passport and left me stranded in a foreign transit zone for six weeks, and even used NATO to ground the presidential plane of Evo Morales—the leader of Bolivia—on hearing that I might attempt to seek and enjoy asylum in Latin America.”

In reply to a question by Rapporteur and MEP Claude Moraes, “on the extent of cooperation that exists between the NSA and EU Member States in terms of the transfer and collection of bulk data of EU citizens,” Snowden explained that such collaboration is central to the operation of the NSA.

He said, “One of the foremost activities of the NSA’s FAD, or Foreign Affairs Division, is to pressure or incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance. Lawyers from the NSA, as well as the UK’s GCHQ [Government Communications Headquarters], work very hard to search for loopholes in laws and constitutional protections that they can use to justify indiscriminate, dragnet surveillance operations that were at best unwittingly authorized by lawmakers. These efforts to interpret new powers out of vague laws is an intentional strategy to avoid public opposition and lawmakers’ insistence that legal limits be respected, effects the GCHQ internally described in its own documents as ‘damaging public debate’.”

Giving examples, Snowden wrote, “In recent public memory, we have seen these FAD ‘legal guidance’ operations occur in both Sweden and the Netherlands, and also faraway New Zealand. Germany was pressured to modify its G-10 law to appease the NSA, and it eroded the rights of German citizens under their constitution. Each of these countries received instruction from the NSA, sometimes under the guise of the US Department of Defense and other bodies, on how to degrade the legal protections of their countries’ communications.”

Snowden wrote that he would welcome any offer of safe passage or permanent asylum in Europe, but, “Parliamentarians in the national governments have told me that the US, and I quote, ‘will not allow’ EU partners to offer political asylum to me…”

The news of Snowden’s testimony being published first broke last Friday morning. Yet remarkably the Guardian has not commented or even mentioned such important testimony despite the fact that the newspaper played the leading role in publishing Snowden’s revelations from June 2013. Snowden refers to six different stories (including supplying URLs) that were published by the Guardian on different aspects of mass spying operations.

The Guardian’s web site published three articles Friday mentioning Snowden and a further two on Saturday, but without making any reference to his EP testimony.

Is the Guardian suppressing the testimony and, if so, why?

The newspaper has recently published a number of articles and editorials supporting the US-sponsored fascist coup in Ukraine and denouncing the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Guardian denied that fascist forces were involved in the US-backed coup, stating that “the world’s media has [not] yet seen or heard from” such forces.

The Guardian has used the fact that Snowden is in forced exile in Russia to claim that this undermines his struggle to expose the abuses of democratic and human rights being carried out by the US and other powers. A Guardian editorial on July 2, 2013 sought to associate Snowden with human rights abuses carried out by Putin’s government. “As long as he remains in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, however, the real issue remains clouded. This damages Mr. Snowden’s cause,” it wrote.

“He should therefore leave Russia as soon as he practically can,” it added.

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at the Guardian’s sister newspaper, the Observer, followed up that Snowden was “providing a public relations coup for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin” and has “provided cover for a gross and serial human rights-violating state.”

Could it be that the Guardian’s fulsome support for the installation of an unelected regime in Ukraine, in which a far-right party holds key ministries, and the newspaper’s demands for a more belligerent stance against Russia means that it is no longer considered politic to allow Snowden a voice?

Enhanced by Zemanta

European Union threatens European vultures


This video says about itself:

Vanishing Vultures

31 May 2011

The Indian sub-continent had the highest density of vultures in the world – 85 million in total. However, over the past few years 99% have disappeared – mostly due to the use of the veterinary drug Diclofenac.

The loss of such an important scavenger has had devastating effects – putrefying decomposing carcasses are thought to be the cause of anthrax and rabies outbreaks. The extinction of this species would have global health consequences.

The films were premiered at the British Council in 2006, and have since been broadcast in 15 different languages on the national network – along with special screenings for the Prime Minister and other key politicians.

There has been an immediate reaction from the public and national press. The films also appeal to farmers – many, previously unaware of the problem, have now switched to a safer alternative to the drug.

Manufacture and sale of the drug Diclofenac has been banned with immediate effect nationwide – to give the remaining 1% of vultures a fighting chance for survival.

From BirdLife:

Vulture killing drug now available on EU market

By Rebecca Langer, Wed, 05/03/2014 – 10:09

Diclofenac is a powerful anti-inflammatory drug that has wiped out vulture populations in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Now, a repeat of this ecological disaster is threatening Europe. Despite the fact that safe alternative drugs are readily available, Diclofenac has been authorised for use on domestic animals in Italy, and in Spain where 80% of European vultures live, and is now becoming widely available on the EU market. According to experts in SEO/BirdLife (BirdLife in Spain), RSPB (BirdLife UK) and the Vulture Conservation Foundation, this may cause a European mass die off of endangered and ecologically valuable wildlife.

Vultures have long suffered from unfavourable public opinion in Europe, but as species that are built to do the dirty work of ecological recycling, they are essential to the health and well-being of ecosystems. In Europe, four rare vulture species exist and are continuing to face threats to their survival. Egyptian Vulture is listed as Endangered by BirdLife on behalf of the IUCN Red List of Species while Cinerous Vulture is listed as Near Threatened. Fortunately, thanks to decades of conservation efforts and millions of euros invested, vulture populations are recovering. The introduction of Diclofenac now puts these efforts and investments in jeopardy.

In India, Pakistan and Nepal, Diclofenac was regularly used in the 1990’s to treat cattle. When the animals died, Diclofenac remained in the body and was eaten by vultures, causing their almost immediate death. In about 10 years, the vulture populations in these countries has declined by 99%, bringing some of the most common and iconic large birds of the Indian subcontinent to the verge of extinction. This also led to serious human health consequences as the availability of unconsumed carrions led to an increase in stray dogs and spread of diseases such as rabies. Thanks to joint campaign efforts from the RSPB and its partner SAVE, Diclofenac has been banned in India and we are beginning to see signs of recovery for the Indian vulture population.

The EU and its Member States have a legal obligation to conserve vultures under the EU Birds Directive and EU Veterinary Drugs legislation that require avoiding ecological damage. An immediate ban on veterinary Diclofenac is needed to protect our vultures from the fate of their Asian cousins, and would also send a crucial signal encouraging African countries to stop the spread of Diclofenac, which is already affecting the highly endangered populations of African vultures.

Enhanced by Zemanta