Jeremy Corbyn: “A Better Way To Live Together On This Planet.”

By Jerry Alatalo

eople in the United Kingdom will vote on June 8 for either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn as their next Prime Minister. Labour Party leader Corbyn spoke recently on his vision of foreign policy for the nation, and international relations for the world, were he to become elected.

***

(Transcript and Video)

On Monday we commemorated Victory in Europe day, the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe. VE Day marked the defeat of fascism and the beginning of the end of a global war that had claimed 70 million lives. Just think of that figure… 70 million lives were lost in the Second World War.

General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in 1944, who was based right here in this square preparing the plan for that invasion of Operation Overlord. later went on to become Republican President of the United States, during some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War in the 1950s. His final televised address the American people as president was fascinating, and he gave a very stark warning of what he describes as the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex.

And he went on to say only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machine of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Sadly it’s more than 70 years since he made that speech. Sadly in more than half a century I think it’s clear that Eisenhower’s warning has not been heeded. Too much of our debate about defense and security is one-dimensional – you’re either for or against what is presented as strong defense, regardless of the actual record of what it has meant in practice.

Alert citizens or political leaders who advocate other routes to security are often dismissed or treated as unreliable.

My own political views were shaped by my parent’s description of the horrors of war and the threat of nuclear holocaust. Indeed my parents met whilst organizing solidarity with the elected government of Spain against Franco’s fascists during the Spanish Civil War, which were of course supported by Hitler and the Nazis. My generation grew up under the shadow of the Cold War – our black and white televisions throughout the 50s and 60s and into the 70s was dominated by Vietnam.

As a young person I was haunted by images of civilians fleeing chemical weapons used by the United States. I didn’t imagine that nearly fifty years later we would still see chemical weapons being used against innocent civilians. What an abject failure. Indeed, I met recently a Vietnam War veteran who had been involved in using Agent Orange, and is still traumatized by that experience. How does the history keep repeating itself?

At the end of the Cold War, when the Berlin Wall came down, we were told it was the end of history. Global leaders promised a more peaceful, stable world – it didn’t quite work out like that. Today the world is more unstable than even at the height of the Cold War. The approach to international security we’ve been using since the 1990s simply has not worked.

Regime change wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Western interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen haven’t always succeeded in their own terms. Sometimes they’ve made the world a more dangerous place. This is the fourth general election in a row to be held while Britain is at war, and our armed forces are acting in the Middle East and beyond.

The fact is that the war on terror has which has driven these interventions has not succeeded. It has not increased our security at home, in fact many would say just the opposite. It’s caused destabilization and devastation abroad. And last September the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report on the Libyan war which David Cameron as Prime Minister promoted to intervention.

They concluded the intervention led to political and economic collapse, humanitarian and migrant crises, and fueled the rise of ISIS in Africa and across the Middle East.

Is that really the way that builds the security for our people, the people in Britain? Who seriously believes that’s what real strength looks like? We need to step back and have, I think, some fresh thinking. The world faces huge problems. As well as the legacy of regime change wars, there is a dangerous cocktail of ethnic conflicts, food insecurity, water scarcity and fast-emerging effects of climate change.

And to that mix add a grotesque and growing level of inequality in which just eight billionaires – eight billionaires – owned the same wealth as 3.6 billion of the poorest people on our planet, and you end up with a refugee crisis of epic proportions affecting every continent in the world, with more displaced people in the world than since the Second World War. Indeed, there are some estimates that think there are more displaced people now than at any time in recorded history.

These problems are getting worse, and they are fueling threats and instability. The global situation is becoming more dangerous and the new United States president seems, sadly, determined to add to the dangers by recklessly escalating the confrontation with North Korea, unilaterally launching missile strikes on Syria, and opposing what was a great achievement as President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran.

And the suggestion is backing a new nuclear arms race.

A Labour government will want a strong and friendly relationship with the United States, but we will not be afraid to speak our mind. The United States is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way; it has a special responsibility to use its power with care, and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully.

Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isn’t strong leadership, and pandering to an erratic administration will not deliver stability. So when Theresa May addressed the Republican Party conference in Philadelphia in January she spoke in alarmist terms about the rise of China and India, and the danger of the West being eclipsed. She said America and Britain had to stand together and use their military might to protect their interests.

That’s the sort of language that led us into the calamities in Iraq and Libya and other disastrous wars that stole the post-cold war promise of a new and peaceful world order. I do not see India and China in those terms, nor do I think the vast majority of Americans or British people want the boots of their young men and women on the ground in Syria fighting a war that could escalate the suffering and slaughter even further.

Britain deserves better than simply outsourcing our country’s security and prosperity to the whims of the Trump White House.

So no more hand-holding for Donald Trump. A Labour government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy made in Britain. A Labour government would seek to work for peace and security with all the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, China, Russia and France – and with other countries to play a major role, such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Germany. We have to reach out and work with others.

The philosophy “bomb first, talk later” approach to security has failed. To persist with it as the conservative governors make clear its determined to do is a recipe for increasing, not reducing, threats and insecurity. I’m often asked if as Prime Minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons. It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it. Would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world?

If circumstances arose where there was a real option it would represent a complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind. Labour is committed to actively pursue disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and we’re committed to no first use of nuclear weapons. But let me make this absolutely clear.

If elected Prime Minister I would do everything to protect the security and safety of our people and  our country. That is our first duty. And to achieve it I know we would have to work with other countries to solve problems, defuse tensions and build collective security. The best defense, best defense for Britain, is a government actively engaged in seeking political solutions to the world’s problems. It doesn’t make me a pacifist. I accept that military action under international law as a genuine last resort is in some circumstances necessary.

That is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have become almost routine in recent times. I’ll not take lectures on security or humanitarian action from a Conservative Party that stood by in the 1980s, refusing even to impose sanctions while children in the streets of Soweto were being shot down – or which has backed every move of our armed forces put in harm’s way regardless of the impact on our people’s security.

Once again, in this election it’s become clear that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to escalate the war in Syria, risking military confrontation with Russia, adding to the suffering of the Syrian people, and increasing global insecurity. When you see children suffering in war it’s only natural to want to do something, but the last thing we need is more of the same failed recipe that served us so badly, and the people of the region so calamitously.

Labour will stand up for the people of Syria; we will press the war crimes to be properly investigated, and work tirelessly to make the Geneva talks work. Every action that is taken over Syria must be judged by whether it helps to bring an end to the tragedy, the appalling tragedy of the Syrian war – or does the opposite. Even if ISIS is defeated militarily, the conflict will not end until there is a negotiated settlement involving all the main parties, including the regional and international powers, and an inclusive government in Iraq.

All wars and conflicts eventually are brought to an end by political means. So Labour would adopt a new approach, we’ll not step back from our responsibilities, but our focus will be on strengthening international coöperation and supporting the efforts of the United Nations to resolve conflicts. A Labour government will respect international law and oppose lawlessness and unilateralism in international relations.

We believe passionately human rights and justice should drive our foreign policy. In the 1960s Harold Wilson’s Labour government worked for and signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As Prime Minister I hope to build on that achievement. Labour supports the renewal of the Trident system, but doesn’t preclude from working for meaningful multilateral steps to achieve reductions in nuclear arsenals.

A Labour government will pursue a triple commitment to the interlocking foreign policy instruments of defense, development and diplomacy. For all their bluster, the Tory record on defense and security has been one, frankly, of incompetence and failure. They balance the books on the backs of servicemen and women. Deep cuts have been made in the army, reduced to the smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars, stagnant pay, worsening conditions. poor housing… The morale of our service personnel and veterans is at rock-bottom.

It’s vital that as Britain leaves the European Union we will maintain a close relationship with our European partners alongside NATO, to keep spending at 2%, but that means working with our allies to ensure peace and security in Europe. We will work to halt the drift towards confrontation with Russia and the escalation of military deployments across the continent. There’s no need whatsoever to weaken our very strong opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad, but to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the Russia-NATO border, and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of international conflict.

We’ll back a new conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and seek to defuse the crisis in the Ukraine through implementation of the Minsk agreements. We’ll continue to work with the European Union on operational missions to promote and support global and regional security. This means our armed forces will have the necessary capabilities to fulfill the full range of obligations, ensuring they’re versatile and able to participate in rapid stabilization, disaster relief, UN peacekeeping, and conflict resolution activities.

Because security is not only about direct military defence. It’s about conflict resolution and prevention underpinned by strong diplomacy. So, the next day the government will invest in our diplomatic network and consular services. We will seek to rebuild some of the key capabilities and services lost as a result of conservative cuts in recent years, such as the loss of human rights advisors in so many of our embassies around the world.

And finally, while Theresa May seeks to build a coalition of risk and insecurity with Donald Trump, a Labour government will refocus Britain’s influence towards coöperation and peaceful settlements, and social justice. The life chances, security and prosperity of our citizens are dependent on a stable international environment.

We will strengthen our commitment to the United Nations, but are well aware of its shortcomings, particularly in the light of repeated abuses of the veto power in the UN Security Council. So we’ll work with allies and partners from around the world to build support for United Nations reform in order to make its institutions more effective and more responsive. And as a permanent member of the Security Council we’ll provide a lead by respecting the authority of international law.

To lead this work Labour has created a Minister for Peace who will work across the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We’ll reclaim Britain’s leading role in tackling climate change, working hard to preserve the Paris agreement and deliver on international commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

We’ll re-examine the arms export licensing regulations to ensure that all British arms exports are consistent with our legal and our moral obligations.

This means refusing to grant export licenses for arms where there’s a clear risk they’ll be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. Weapon supplies to Saudi Arabia, when the evidence of grave breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen is overwhelming, must be halted immediately – as Emily has made very clear many times in Parliament.

I see it as the next Labour government’s task, my task, to make the case for Britain to advance a security and foreign policy with integrity and human rights at its core.

So it is a clear choice in this election. Between continuing with a failed policy of continual and devastating interventions that have intensified conflicts and increased the terrorist threat, or being willing to step back, learn the lessons of the past, and find new ways to solve and prevent conflicts.

Dwight Eisenhower said on another occasion if people can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.

And in the words of another American, Martin Luther King, the chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars, must be broken – or we shall be plunged into the dark days of annihilation.

I believe we can find those solutions. We can walk the hard yards to a better way to live together on this planet.

A Labour government will give leadership in a new and constructive way. And that is the leadership we’re ready to provide both at home and abroad.

Thank you very much.

***

(Thank you to Labour Party at YouTube)

New Film By John Titus Exposes Bank for International Settlements.

By Jerry Alatalo

***

“And it occurs to no one that to admit a greatness not commensurate with the standard of right and wrong is merely to admit one’s own nothingness and immeasurable meanness.”

– LEO TOLSTOY (1828-1910) Russian writer

ohn Titus’ new documentary film “All the Plenary’s Men” exposes the criminal strategies and operations of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. The title was likely chosen by the filmmaker to rhyme with, and have the same impact on society as, the Watergate-focused book by investigative journalists Bob Woodward  and Carl Bernstein – “All the President’s Men”. Watergate – in the view of attorney Daniel Sheehan – occurred relative to Richard Nixon’s fears that the Democratic National Committee had information showing President John F. Kennedy was murdered in broad daylight by entities, specifically a hand-picked team of hired assassins, inside the U.S. “deep state”

Mr. Titus’ powerful new film focuses on crimes of a seemingly different quality than the coup d’état of the American government through murdering its democratically elected president. The film exposes how the most powerful and wealthy people on Earth exercise control of governments and populations while covering up massive crimes against humanity with impunity.

Mr. Titus has noted in interviews that “All the Plenary’s Men” is likely the second in a three-part trilogy of films, the first being “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime”. Given “All the Plenary’s Men” should become a worldwide phenomenon and ignite conversations and further in-depth research projects in all nations,  one can say with certainty those powerful private interests controlling the extremely secretive (until now) Bank for International Settlements – known as the “central bank of the world’s central banks” –  are fully aware they have just been hit with a monumental public relations “problem”.

It might be the case that it is almost impossible to overestimate how profoundly serious and important the facts revealed in Mr. Titus’ film “All the Plenary’s Men” are as they relate to the entire human race. The film is truly historic and evokes mental images from the Christian bible of the man called Jesus’ overturning the tables of the money changers, generated by righteous indignation.

While not wishing to categorize John Titus as somehow the “second coming of Christ”, from a spiritual perspective which perceives human evolution as an increasingly rapid revealing and resolving of crimes harming fellow members of the human family, Mr. Titus has provided an effective information tool for (if acted upon) positive societal uplift the world over.

There are times when men and women upon learning historical and persisting facts and realities about how “things” happen on Earth wish they hadn’t. Because of the disturbing nature of the gained awareness they regret coming to know in the first place, and that it would have been preferable and less stressful to remain “in the dark”.

The reality revealed by Mr. Titus is precisely the type of knowledge men and women often feel depressed and frustrated afterward for coming to understand, mainly because one feels impotent or powerless to act on that newly accumulated knowledge.

For those who wish to stay “in the dark” and avoid the stress related to knowing about how the world’s most powerful and wealthy operate, particularly their truly destructive criminality – do not watch “All the Plenary’s Men”.

However, for those who wish to know…

Who owns the so-called systemically important financial institutions?…

(Thank you to BestEvidence (John Titus’ channel) at YouTube)

From Vietnam To Syria: The Big Lie Has Killed Millions.

By Jerry Alatalo

United States President Lyndon Johnson lied through his teeth to the world on August 4, 1964. Johnson was not only criminally responsible for initiating the Vietnam War based on a “false flag” deception – the Gulf of Tonkin incident – but was a major force behind the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Estimates of Vietnamese deaths range from 2-4 million, and 59,000 Americans perished in the many years of horrific war after Johnson’s Big Lie.

Among Johnson’s other crimes related to “false flag” operations designed for instigating war, he colluded with Israeli officials in the U.S.S. Liberty attack (Summer 1967), where Israeli forces received orders to destroy the vessel and kill all U.S. personnel on board. It was the conspirators’ plan that Egypt would be falsely blamed, necessitating U.S. military involvement, and would have worked but for a Liberty naval officer’s ability to configure a crude communications setup (the Israeli attack knocked out all communications equipment) allowing transmission of a message for help, defeating the conspiracy.

(One of the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty attack of 1967 commented here on a past post dedicated to the historic scandal that “…Johnson wanted us all dead.”)

Johnson – had the U.S.-Israeli false flag operation been successful and all U.S. personnel been killed – had prepared plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Egypt’s largest city Cairo, making it the 3rd use of nuclear weapons on a population in world history after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These are just a few examples of Lyndon Johnson’s profoundly criminal, heinous actions, others of which may never see the light of day, and are important to remember when attempting to measure the level of danger humanity faces today.

(Thank you to TheLBJLibrary at YouTube)

***

ne could describe the United Nations Security Council as a form of world courtroom in the sense that members sitting around the table are effectively presenting their views in a lawyer-like fashion. Perhaps, like in a typical court setting, United Nations Security Council meetings need an international panel of respected, retired men and women judges to preside over proceedings.

Given that all members of the Security Council are certainly aware of history and horrendously consequential false flags like the Gulf of Tonkin, Colin Powell’s telling of the Big Lie in 2003, etc., the lack of any time devoted to members wishing to ask questions of other members is detrimental to any efforts at arriving at the truth about the most serious situations on Earth.

What is noticeable, and worrying, about the statements by U.N. representatives of U.S., U.K. and France in meetings after the Idlib chemical attack of April 4 is their total silence on the possibility that terrorists may have carried out the attack in a false flag operation, despite their knowledge of history. Their silence on that possibility goes as far as not even acknowledging such historically verified events have occurred in the past, while at the same time not responding specifically to those making the legitimate assertions.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was second-to-last to deliver a statement, followed by Syria’s Ambassador Bashar al Jaafari speaking to close the meeting. At the end of her statement, Ms. Haley directed her words to Mr. al Jaafari. Remember that in previous meetings convened to discuss the Idlib chemical attack, Ms. Haley warned the United States was willing, prepared and able to act alone, and that – after Donald Trump ordered the launch of Tomahawk missiles into Syrian territory – she again warned the U.S. was willing to do more.

In that light, people should consider the seriousness of the current state of world affairs. The greatest chance for preventing what could become a catastrophic military escalation in Syria lies in an international demand for Donald Trump to provide any and all evidence he says proves Syrian forces carried out the Idlib chemical weapon attack. Ms. Haley said:

“To Assad and the Syrian government – you have no friends in the world after your horrific actions. The United States is watching your actions very carefully. The days of your arrogance and disregard of humanity are over. Your excuses will no longer be heard. I suggest you look at this vote very carefully, and heed its warning.”

It is impossible to conclude otherwise but that Ms. Haley, in this April 2017 meeting of the United Nations Security Council, issued a direct, unambiguous, explicit threat of war against Syria.

***

The Syrian representative’s statement following being threatened with war, unfortunately, will most likely never be seen or discussed on any Western corporate media platform or inside governmental bodies. If that weren’t unfortunate enough, the important detailed relevant facts he presented will never become responded to by the U.N. representatives from America, the United Kingdom, and France. The question becomes: “If the truth cannot be sought and discussed at the United Nations Security Council, where on Earth can it be?”

The resolution authored by U.N. officials of the P-5 (Permanent Security Council states, holding veto power) U.S., U.K. and France contained language they knew would become vetoed by the P-5 Russian Federation (P-5 China abstained), because it would legitimize the attack by the U.S. of Syrian territory, violating the United Nations Charter and international law.

Either U.S. President Donald Trump responds to increasing demands from around the Earth to make public any and all of his evidence – or humanity is witnessing another massively destructive, criminal, and morally reprehensible Big Lie.

Time for humanity to act is of the essence.

(Thank you to The Syria Mission to the United Nations at YouTube)

Veteran Intelligence Professionals: “Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation”

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity group has published a message directed to U.S. President Donald Trump of maximum importance. For the sake of peace on Earth, please seriously consider disseminating their profoundly urgent message as widely as possible.

Intel Today

“We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.”

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern

Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

View original post 1,392 more words