Brazil - Has CIA Struck Again?

BRICS five major emerging national economies developing or newly industrialised countries large, fast-growing economies significant influence on regional and global affairs represent over 3 billion people, or 42% of the world population GDP of US$16.039 trillion, equivalent to abt 20% of the gross world product estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves [wikipedia] RT News source https://www.rt.com/news/339268-brazil-rousseff-impeachment-protests/ Rousseff supporters confront MPs after Brazil congressional committee ‘recommends’ impeachment Published time: 12 Apr, 2016 05:01 Edited time: 12 Apr, 2016 05:38 A Brazilian Special Parliamentary Committee has voted to recommend the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in a move that was slammed as an attempted coup by her supporters. They rejected accusations of alleged budget manipulation during her re-election campaign. The 65-member congressional committee voted 38 to 27 to recommend her impeachment, paving the way for the possible dismissal of the Brazilian president. The lower house of Brazil's Congress is now expected to vote April 17 on whether to impeach Rousseff. At least 342 of the 513 members of the body need to vote for impeachment for the measure to move to the Senate. If half the Senate votes for impeachment, Rousseff would be temporarily suspended from office pending a Senate trial. If the impeachment charges stand ground, the 69-year-old who took up the presidential seat in 2011, will be the first to be impeached since 1992. More than two decades ago Fernando Collor de Mello resigned right before a Senate conviction prompted by corruption charges. After receiving the news of the commission’s vote, Rousseff was “perplexed and saddened” by the result, presidential chief of staff Jaques Wagner announced. Rousseff is suspected of having broken fiscal laws by shifting government funds ahead of her re-election campaign in 2014, which allegedly allowed her to boost public spending to drive her votes. Rousseff denies the accusations, claiming that she didn’t do anything that was not common practice in all prior administrations. Furthermore, she argues that she has not been accused of a crime which could serve as basis for any impeachment. Monday’s vote took place amid ongoing protests from both supporters and opponents of President Rousseff. Supporters of the president were quick to confront congressional committee members after the vote. Shouting “putschists”, “fascists” and “no pasaran” (they shall not pass) at the congressmen, they prevented the MPs from leaving the building. Security forces even built an 80-meter-long metal barricade in front of the congressional building to keep supporters and opponents of the government apart. Brazilian security forces also deployed thousands of troops in the capital city of Brasilia. As Brazilian society remains split over idea of Rousseff’s impeachment, local newspaper Folha de S. Paulo leaked an audio recording of Vice President Michel Temer rehearsing and address to the Brazilian people if the impeachment process were to move forward. In the leaked speech, Temer speaking as the new president says that Brazil needs a “government of national salvation” to save the country from recession as he called for unity in the political system. Reacting to the recording, Temer said the 13-minute audio message was recorded for a friend, but was distributed through WhatsApp to other party members “by accident.” source https://www.rt.com/news/339268-brazil-rousseff-impeachment-protests/ EXTRACT The Empire President: Jeremy Scahill on Obama's "Neocon" Doctrine of Military Force in U.N. Speech September 25, 2013 In an address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama openly embraced an aggressive military doctrine backed by previous administrations on using armed force beyond the international norm of self-defense. Obama told the world that the United States is prepared to use its military to defend what he called "our core interests" in the Middle East: U.S. access to oil. "[Obama] basically came out and said the U.S. is an imperialist nation and we’re going to do whatever we need to do to conquer areas [and] take resources from people around the world," says independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. "It’s a really naked declaration of imperialism ... When we look back at Obama’s legacy, this is going to have been a very significant period in U.S. history where the ideals of very radical right-wing forces were solidified. President Obama has been a forceful, fierce defender of empire." TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn back to President Obama’s address at the U.N. General Assembly. During the speech, Obama told the world the U.S. is prepared to use its military to defend what he called, quote, "our core interests" in the Middle East—that is, U.S. access to oil. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was President Obama speaking yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly. Jeremy, your response to what Obama said in his speech? JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, during this section of the speech, my jaw sort of hit the floor. I mean, he just—he basically came out and said the United States is an imperialist nation, and we’re going to do whatever we need to to conquer areas to take resources from people around the world. I mean, it was a really naked sort of declaration of imperialism—and I don’t use that word lightly, but it really is. I mean, he pushed back against the Russians when he came out and said, "I believe America is an exceptional nation." He then, you know, defended the Gulf War and basically said that the motivation behind it was about oil, and said we’re going to continue to take such actions in pursuit of securing natural resources for ourselves and our allies. I mean, this was a pretty incredible and bold declaration that he was making, especially given what he—the way that he’s tried to portray himself around the world. On the other hand, you know, he—I mean, remember what happened right before Obama took the stage, is that the president of Brazil got up, and she herself was a former political prisoner who, you know, was abused and targeted in a different lifetime, and she gets up and just blasts the United States over the NSA spy program around the world. AMY GOODMAN: We have President Dilma Rousseff in her address to the U.N. General Assembly.     PRESIDENT DILMA ROUSSEFF: We are a democratic country, surrounded by democratic, peaceful countries that respect international law. We have been living in peace with our neighbors for more than 140 years. Like so many other Latin Americans, I myself fought on a firsthand basis against arbitrary behavior and censorship, and I could therefore not possibly fail to uncompromisingly defend individuals’ rights to privacy and my country’s sovereignty. AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff openly criticizing U.S. spying on her government, the news that just broke from the Ed Snowden releases that was released with Globo newspaper in Brazil by Glenn Greenwald, who is a U.S. journalist who lives in Brazil. And, Jeremy, you’re headed down there for the opening of your film, Dirty Wars, this week. JEREMY SCAHILL: Right, and, you know, I was there when this story was breaking. It is a major, major scandal in Brazil. I mean, it was such a major scandal that President—the president cancelled her state dinner with President Obama. This wasn’t just like sitting in the Oval Office or something. This is a thing where they create a huge menu, and they invite all these people, and it was meant to sort of secure this relationship of these two huge Western Hemisphere powers. I mean, Brazil is a rising power in the Western Hemisphere, and this was to be a very important moment in the history of relations between the U.S. and Brazil. And for the Brazilians to cancel it just shows you the severity of this scandal. I mean, all around the world right now, in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks cables being revealed, now you have the Edward Snowden documents, people around the world have access to documentation that in some cases is bolstering what people already thought was going on, but in other cases is revealing the extent of dirty tricks that the United States is playing on other nations around the world, and not to mention its own citizens." SOURCE http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/25/the_empire_president_jeremy_scahill_on Dilma Rousseff President, Brazil -- economist -- Workers' Party (Brazil) -- centre-left -- one of the largest left-wing movements in Latin America -- party identified as 'socialist' -- 1988: -- party advocated repudiation of Brazil's external debt -- party advocated nationalisation of banks & mineral wealth -- party advocated land reform     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_Party_%28Brazil%29 -------/\/\/ Dilma Rousseff -- socialist during youth -- after 1964 Brazilian coup d'état 1964 Brazilian coup d'état -- coup = US supported overthrow of democratically elected -- Prsident Joao Goulart ('Jango') by military -- Brazilian Labour Party --  Cabo Anselmo - agent provocateur (Sailors' Revolt / navy) -- Lincoln Gordon (Abraham Lincoln Gordon) -- US ambassador Brazil (1961-1966) -- academic and govt/diplomatic career -- Kennedy's leading expert on Latin American economics -- 1960:  helped develop 'Alliance for Progress' aid program -- to prevent Latin America turning to revolution & socialism for economic progress -- grants and credits provided by the USA to Brazil -- development loans and military aid   -- Lincoln Gordon (Abraham Lincoln Gordon) -- played major role for the support of opposition versus President João Goulart -- 1964 Lincoln Gordon cable:      -- urged support of:     -- Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco     -- with a “clandestine delivery of arms"     -- with shipments of gas and oil     -- with possibility of CIA ops     *Noam Chomsky has been critical of coup     -- US destroyed Brazilian democracy     -- by supporting military coup 1964     -- support for coup initiated by Kennedy but carried to conclusion by Johnson     -- US installed first really major national security state, Nazi-like state, in Latin America     -- with high-technology torture     -- Lincoln Gordon called it 'totally democratic'     -- there was an economic increase in GNP miracle     -- there was also INCREASED SUFFERING for much of population     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Gordon NOTE:     -- actual operational files of CIA remain classified     -- preventing historians from examining CIA's direct involvement in coup     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Exciting development in Latin America. Dilma Rousseff and her political party sound good to me.  But they also sound like a classic American capitalist 'enemy'.   Uh-oh.  Look out for the American oligarchy and its CIA machinery. Note that Brazil is one of the BRICS countries:  thus a challenger to the US-led trade-financial and power hegemony, threatening the capitalist US-led bloc's domination and plans of one world government (capitalist profits, control etc) expansion and imposition on the rest of the world. Bet the CIA has been up to dirty tricks again. Check out what they've already done to Brazil! I've only just quickly skimmed this, the 1964 Brazil coup is in keeping with what little I know of the standard American capitalist order pattern of subverting democracy in Latin America (and elsewhere) and installing oppressive US corporate friendly, US-backed, regimes.

US - Syria - Caution from Russia

A Plea for Caution From Russia What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN Published: September 11, 2013 MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all. From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement. A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues. My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0 Discovered an old NYT article via twitter. I'm not up-to-date. Just started watching this stuff, so it's some good info for me. Not big on the religious references. I see the UN as just another way for the US to exert influence and dominate, because their various defence and trade allies will always vote with the US. US has always interfered with internal conflicts in other countries, so it should hardly be a surprise if they want to interfere in Syria. So Syria fighting is about multiple extremist religious factions having a go at the government in a quest for religious (?) supremacy and, pretty much, that's all it is? US has designated al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda 'terrorist'. These religious groups (along with Arab mercenaries), aim to spread conflict to other regions, currently battle it out in Syria. Yet opposition groups in Syria have been supplied with foreign weapons. Who by?  I think the US were wanting to arm the opposition, but I'd need to look that up. Looks like these religious fighters also have an eye on Israel. So basically, if the US is going to make an 'exception' of itself and if the UN veto counts for nothing, the UN may meet the same fate as the League of Nations. Meanwhile, where there is a lack of confidence in the UN, arms proliferation takes place. So it looks like the US were planning on attacking Syria? Funny how they're now planning on attacking Russia.  .......................................................................... Well, there's already a precedent for ignoring the UN and for being the 'exception', so they may as well disband the UN because the UN is a farce. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the ... Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The operation was not authorised by the United Nations and was the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.   The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil, while in Yugoslavia the operation was named "Merciful Angel"... [wikipedia] Dig those code names. Not only did Clinton and NATO disregard the UN, Clinton disregarded the US congress as well: Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense.  In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction. [here] The precedent is set: International law, NATO, the UN, the UN Charter and the US Congress are meaningless shams.