Two Decades of Aggravating Russia - A Washington Pastime

A recent viewpoint by Branko Marcetic on the American Committee for US-Russia Accord entitled "Diplomatic Cables Show Russia Saw NATO Expansion as a Red Line" provides us with some important background on the current conflict in Ukraine that is rarely (if ever) discussed in the Western mainstream media.  Thanks to this article, we also gain an understanding regarding the importance of organizations like WikiLeaks whose mandate (in part) it was to shed light on the seedy and secretive underbelly of American politics.

  

Let's look at a selection of classified diplomatic cables from the United States Department of State that were released by WikiLeaks as part of its Cablegate program which began on November 28, 2011:

 

1.) In this April 2002 cable, U.S. Ambassador to Italy Melvin Sembler is relaying information from a meeting held with then Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi following the Prime Minister's meetings with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and Sochi.  In this cable, Sembler outlines Putin's belief in the importance of Russia being seen as part of the NATO family and that a new NATO-Russia agreement could be negotiated and signed in May 2002:

 

3.) This September 2005 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. officials and French officials in which they discussed NATO, Russia and Ukraine among other issues.  France's Presidential Diplomatic Advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne noted that France had developed a good working relationship with Russia which made it possible to discuss difficult subjects at a high level.  It notes that Moscow is sensitive to "an eventual Ukraine accession to NATO".  Interestingly, in a discussion about NATO, France's Director for Strategic Affairs Philippe Carre noted that "the U.S. has a tendency to seek military solutions to security problems, which could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.".  He also commented that France did not want to risk fallout in Ukraine by offering NATO membership:

 

Here is one additional interesting section in the cable which clearly shows Washington's agenda toward Russia:

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed.

 

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

4.) This September 2007 cable from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Ambassador William Burns outlines Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comments on the course of Russian foreign policy and how U.S.-led positions on key issues remain at odds with Russia, most importantly noting that the eastward expansion of NATO should be minimized.  It also notes that the Bush II Adminstration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the delay of Russia gaining entry into the WTO "dashed Putin's hope" for rapprochement with Washington.  It also notes that "resurgent Russia is...seeking international recognition, particularly from the U.S., for its recovery from political, economic and social disrepair" and that Putin had hoped that relations between the two nations would improve after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Lavrov also noted that all parties, even those that are considered to be "undesirable" should have a seat at negotiating tables.

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

 

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed which is important as it relates to NATO's expansion to the east.

 

There are other Department of State cables that clearly outline Russia's concerns about NATO expansionism that are available on WikiLeaks website which prove that Washington was well aware that Russia was concerned about its western flank, the same flank that proved to be extremely vulnerable during the Second World War as Nazi Germany expanded eastward in its move to destroy Russia's untermenschen.  So what has Washington done?  Here is a map showing NATO's expansion over the decades, particularly in the 1990s as former Soviet states acceded to NATO membership:

 

Other that Belarus and Ukraine, NATO member states now directly share common borders with Russia, making the nation feel vulnerable to an attack from the west.  Given this table which shows the estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War between the years of 1939 and 1945, Russia has valid historical reasons for being concerned about its security along its western frontier, an issue that only China can truly understand given its losses to Japan during the Second World War:

 

The Bin Laden Family Legacy Lives On

Do you recognize this face?

Well, if you do and you know where he is, you could "win" up to $1 million in U.S. Department of State cash!

Here is the background story from the Department of State's Rewards for Justice website which has the moniker "Stop a terrorist.  Save lives.":

Here is Hamza's wanted poster:

In case you happen to be a Twitter user, the Department of State also tweeted its announcement as you can see here:

Back in January 2017, the Department of State's Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism announced that Hamza bin Laden had been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist or SDGT under Executive Order 13224 which imposes sanctions on foreign persons that have either committed an act of terrorism or who the Department of State believes are likely to pose a serious risk of an act of terrorism that threatens the United States or its nationals as shown here:

Apparently, in 2015, in retribution for the death of his father at the hands of U.S. forces, Hamza bin Laden called for lone wolf terrorist attacks against the United States, French and Israeli interests in Washington, D.D., Paris and Tel Aviv.  In 2016, he also made he daring move of asking his Saudi-based tribal brothers to unite with al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen to fight against the U.S.-backed Saudi Arabia forces.  Interestingly, in 2018, a report released by the Associated Press found that Saudi Arabia and the United States coalition had cut deals with the al-Qaeda fighters, paying some of them to leave key cities in Yemen and letting others retreat with looted cash, equipment and weaponry.  This is allowing al-Qaeda to fight another day and further strengthens its terrorist network.

Here is a quote from the AP report:

"In one conflict, the U.S. is working with its Arab allies — particularly the United Arab Emirates — with the aim of eliminating the branch of extremists known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. But the larger mission is to win the civil war against the Houthis, Iranian-backed Shiite rebels. And in that fight, al-Qaida militants are effectively on the same side as the Saudi-led coalition — and, by extension, the United States."

Apparently, it's a good thing to affiliate oneself with al-Qaeda when you need help defeating someone even less palatable.

If you should happen to know Hamza's whereabouts, please call 1-800-USREWARDS and collect your well deserved slice of a million dollars.

How Washington Justified American Aid to Egypt

While the United States is distracted with Donald Trump, Russia and the Kavanagh hearings, it is business as usual (more or less) at the U.S. Department of State.  As you will see in this posting, when it comes to its allies in the Middle East, Washington is willing to bend its own rules to ensure that its partners retain their military capabilities and that the United States retains its strategic advantage in the region.

Let's start by looking at some background.  Back in August 2017, then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson cancelled $95.7 million in military and economic aid to Egypt and delayed an additional $195 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds because of Egypt's questionable track record on civil liberties and human rights in general.  Under American law, Egypt receives $1.3 billion in annual FMF funding of which $195 million is held back until the Egyptian government can prove that it is making progress on human rights and democracy issues.  One of the key issues that led to the cancellation and delay is the recent law that restricts NGO activity in Egypt to developmental and social work and introduces jail time for up to five years for non-compliant organizations.  Organizations must receive permission from the Egyptian government to carry out and publish the results of studies and will be subjected to fines of up to $55,000 for violations.

The United States has long backed Egypt.  Between 1946 and 2016, the United States provided Egypt with $78.3 billion in aid (not adjusted for inflation) with all aid being appropriated and authorized by Congress.  All U.S. military aid to Egypt is designated to finance the procurement of weapons systems and services from U.S.-based defense contractors, yet another way that tax dollars flow more-or-less directly from taxpayers' wallets to the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex.    Here is how the flow of military aid from the United States to Egypt works:

Here is a table showing the history of military and economic aid granted to Egypt:

For fiscal 2019, President Trump is requesting a total of $1.381 billion oil foreign assistance, the same amount as in previous years.

Despite the flow of aid, there have long been concerns about human rights in Egypt.  According to the Department of State's own report on Egypt's human rights record from 2017, we find the following:

"The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks; disappearances; torture; harsh or potentially life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression, including criminal “defamation of religion” laws; restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs. LGBTI persons faced arrests, imprisonment, and degrading treatment. The government did not effectively respond to violence against women, and there were reports of child labor.

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity...

The government, at times, used excessive force to disperse both peaceful and nonpeaceful demonstrations. On July 16, security forces killed one protester on Warraq Island, near Cairo, reportedly due to suffocation from tear gas. The Ministry of Interior and press reporting claimed protesters attacked security forces with rocks and birdshot. A local resident claimed police fired birdshot as well as tear gas at protesters....

At year’s end the government had not held accountable any individual or governmental body for state violence after 2013, including the deaths of hundreds of civilians during the 2013 dispersals of the sit-ins at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square in Cairo and Nahda Square in Giza."

With that background and keeping in mind that aid to Egypt must be certified before it is granted, let's look at the most recent developments.  On August 21, 2018, Secretary of State Pompeo signed national security waivers which allowed the spending of the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) designated for Egypt.  This includes $1 billion for the current 2018 budget year and the aforementioned $195 million that was appropriated for 2017 as well as the $195 million from fiscal 2016 that was held back by Rex Tillerson as I noted above.  Here is the signed determination/waiver:

Here is the memorandum of justification for the waiver noting that the memo clearly states that "the overall human rights climate in Egypt continues to deteriorate":

Here are the highlights:

1.) Egypt continues to restrict the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association

2.) Violence against women remains a serious problem

3.) Increased restrictions on freedom of expression

4.) a public meeting of more than ten people can only take place after notifying the Ministry of the Interior

5.) the Egyptian government restricts peaceful public assemblies by arresting activists in advance of planned protests

6.) there is increased harrassment and arrest of LGBTI individuals

7.) the laws restricting the activities of NGOs remains in place

8.) there are reports of large numbers of political prisoners and detainees

9.) Egypt remains deficient in providing guarantees of fair trials and there is excessive use of detention without bail as well as prolonged periods of detention prior to trial (in some cases exceeding five years)

That said, here's the justification for continuing to use taxpayers' dollars to fund a country that is obviously in breach of human rights:

"The Secretary of State has determined that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the certification requirement....with respect to 15 percent of foreign military financing assistance withheld...for Egypt.  The United States seeks a stable and prosperous Egypt that supports regional peace and efforts to combat terrorism.  As the most populous Arab state and guarantor of Suez Canal security, Egypt contributes to regional security."

It is blatantly obvious that Washington cares little about human rights issues among its allies.  With the most recent examples of military aid going to Saudi Arabia, it is clear that Washington is more concerned about its vision of American hegemony and global security than it is about the misery that the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia inflict on their citizens.  It is apparent that the current Secretary of State has blinders on when it comes to human rights issues.

Terrorism 2015 Part 1 - The Global Impact

Updated May 2017

The annual release of the most up-to-date U.S. Department of State's Report on Terrorism for 2015 provides us with an interesting statistical analysis of global terrorism during the year that was 2015.  This annual statistical report is part of State's mandate under Title 22, Section 2626f of the United States Code.  Since June 2012, data for State's annual statistical report has been collected by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and it is responsible  for maintaining the entire Global Terrorism Database (GTD) which you can find here.  In this two part posting, I will first look at the statistics for global terrorism as a whole followed by part two where I will examine the data for how many American private citizens were killed, injured and kidnapped during overseas terrorist activities in 2015.

The GTD includes data on more than 140,000 terrorist attacks that have taken place around world between 1970 and the present.  To be included in the GTD database, the terrorist attack must include at least two of the three following criteria:

1.) The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal.

2.) The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims.

3.) The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law insofar as it targeted non-combatants.

In the case of the U.S. Department of State statistical analysis, the attack must include all three criteria to meet the definition of a terrorist attack as defined by the U.S. Code.

Now that we have that background, let's look at the data for 2015.  In total, during 2015, there were 11,774 terrorist attacks around the world in which there were 28,328 deaths, 35,320 injuries and 12,189 kidnappings.  The number of terrorist attacks declined by 13 percent on a year-over-year basis (in 2014 there was 13,463) and the total number of deaths related to terrorist attacks declined by 14 percent on a year-over-year basis (in 2014 there was 32,727).  The number of attacks in which victims were kidnapped declined, however, the number of hostages taken rose by 29 percent, largely because several events resulted in the kidnapping of very large number of hostages.  Here is a table showing the number of attacks, deaths, injuries and kidnappings/hostages that took place on a monthly basis during 2015:

For your own illumination, here is a graphic showing the number of global terrorist-related deaths since 2006:

As you can see, 2015 was the second worst year for global terrorist-related deaths in the last ten years.

Terrorist attacks took place in 92 nations around the world with 55 percent of all attacks taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nigeria) and 74 percent of all deaths took place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria and Pakistan as shown on this table which compares the statistics for 2014 and 2015:

Unfortunately, given the difficulty in getting accurate reports from Syria, the estimates of terrorist activities for that nation are conservative estimates.

On average, on a monthly basis, there were 981 attacks that claimed the lives of 2,361 people and injured 2,943 people which works out to 2.5 deaths and 3.3 injuries per attack (including the perpetrator of the attack).  This is down slightly from 2.57 deaths and up from 2.87 injuries per attack during 2014.  Historically, during the years between 2012 and 2014, the number of attacks has peaked during the spring months of March, April and May during what is termed the "spring fighting season" in Afghanistan, however 2015 was different in that the peak number of attacks took place in January and generally declined throughout the remainder of the year. That said, Afghanistan itself still saw the number of attacks that took place increase from 88 in February to 200 in May and the number of attacks carried by ISIL in Iraq peaked in both April and July, 2015.

When you look through the data on global terrorism, it is interesting to see that out of the ten countries with the most terrorist attacks during 2015, three have been the recipients of U.S.-led nation rebuilding exercises/experiments.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya had a combined 4554 terrorist attacks during 2015, accounting for 38.7 percent of global terrorist attacks.  In total, 12,786 people died in terrorist-related activities in these three nations alone, representing 45.1 percent of all people killed in global terrorist attacks during 2015.  Unfortunately, unless the attacks take place on European or North American soil, they barely register in the Western public consciousness and mainstream media.

So much for that War on Terror.

In part two of this posting, I will look at how global terrorism has impacted American citizens.