US Ruling Oligarchy Imperialism: Panama & Panama Invasion 1989

Article SOURCE http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm US Ruling Oligarchy Imperialism:  Panama source - circa. 2003 http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm Iraq: a Lesson from Panama Imperialism and Struggle for Sovereignty By Coleen Acosta             If History is to be the signifier of lessons learned, then why do wars continue to happen? The United States has never really been considered an Imperialist nation, but as history proves, the US has had a long stake in international geopolitical control over various countries, as well as economic markets that have made these countries dependent on the United States for survival. In light of recent events in Iraq, one should take a step back and look at the US’ history of hostile invasions to “make the world safe for democracy.”  This mantra had devastating [edit: consequences] on the tiny country of Panama 14 years ago. Why did the US invade Panama? To free Panama from its oppressive dictator, Manuel Noriega. The result was the a death toll of three thousand, and the country’s further dependence on the US for economic survival. Who again was the US trying to save Panama from? In reviewing the story of Panama, one is able to draw uncanny connections to the current situation in Iraq. The administration even has many of the same people that decided to invade Panama under Bush senior. Now the same minds have decided to invade Iraq under George W. Bush, under the same pretext of “freeing the Iraqi people.” Based on history however, what will be the consequences for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi nation?             On December 20,1989 President Bush ordered US forces into Panama as he explained, “to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”[1]   In December of 1989, 26,000 US soldiers occupied Panama in search of Manuel Noriega to be seized and tried on trafficking and racketeering charges in a US Federal court. The invasion ended two weeks later when Noriega was captured and transported to Miami. Subsequently, a new colonial government under the leadership of Guillermo Endara was hand-picked by the United States which was followed by economic and political disaster. What lead to such a drastic action against Latin America’s least populated country, and what were the lasting traumatic effects on a people faced with an imperialist, nationalist struggle?             The situation in Panama in 1989 had been the result of a vacillating sense of national pride at odds with an eighty year old American imperialist presence. Panama had been the bearer of imperialist tensions since the turn of the century solely because of its strategic location and possible economic advantages that such a location would yield. Panama is a country that occupies the isthmus dividing North and South America. With its passage way saving sea-farers 5,000 miles of additional sailing around the tip of Tierra del Fuego, it is no wonder that Panama had been so highly sought out, and so strictly guarded.             In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt supported a Panamanian uprising that enabled the country to gain its independence from Colombia. Roosevelt promised that warships would be placed off the coast of Panama, allowing Panama to declare its independence on November 3rd. As a trade-off, Panama had conceded to the US sole rights to the isthmus. Following Panama’s declaration of independence, it entered into a treaty agreement with the United States allowing it to build the canal and gain sovereignty over a ‘canal zone’; a ten mile wide strip of territory along the canal that divided the nation in two. In effect, panama’s independence from one nation, marked its subjugation to another. This imperialist presence remained in place for the next eighty-five years with no significant changes until the Treaty of 1977.  On September 7th US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian President Torrijos signed a treaty in Washington promising that the US would concede control of the waterway over to Panama on December 31st 1999.             Midway between these years, World War II had a profound effect on Panama’s sense of nationalism. In spite of internal strife and class-conflicts that pervaded Latin America during this period, “the Panamanian people were bent on promoting development that would benefit everyone.”[2] This economic development was closely associated with the national recovery of the Canal and the closing down of US military bases. This “nationalist” feeling began to grow increasingly strong between World War II and the treaty of 1977 to the consternation of the United States. After 1977, this spirit of nationalism began to wane and the US government sought to retain control over one of its most strategic protectorates.[3]             Upon approval of the 1977 Canal treaties, Panama lost much of its national stability as the country began to be divided. When the treaties were signed, much of the population expected immediate results, economically and geo-politically. When these results were not realized, civil unrest began to imbed itself into the fabric of the Panamanian people. Economic recession only fueled this feeling of resentment at the government as well as imperialist powers still occupying the canal zone. When Torrijos Herrera came to power in 1968 as a result of a junta of National Guard officers in 1968, he embarked on an impressive public works program that in hindsight proved to be over-ambitious.[4] As a result, Panama declined into economic recession that only further instigated public dissatisfaction with the administration. In 1981, this instability came to a head when in 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. The result would be a power struggle leading up to the invasion of Panama in 1989.             After Torrijos’ death, his dictatorship was usurped by Colonel Manuel Noriega Moreno, an army successor to Torrijos as well as Chief of Panamanian Secret Police and CIA operative. With Noriega’s ascendancy to dictator, civil strife worsened in Panama. Noriega instituted new economic reforms that called for a more centralized policy controlled by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This meant shifting emphasis from productive industry investments and raw materials to service activities.[5]     The economic             consequences proved to be increased unemployment coupled with factional aggravation between business groups belonging to the ‘national’ alliance verses that of a free market.             Another change that Noriega instituted was the increased presence and strength of the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) to guarantee social order endangered by the new economic policy. Obviously this caused unrest at the notion of being watched and controlled by a military government. By 1988, the Panamanian government had turned into a military regime.             Also during 1988, Noriega had been indicted by a U.S. Federal court in Miami on drug trafficking and racketeering charges. A year later the opposition leader, Guillermo Endara won the presidential race by a large margin. In response to his ouster, Noriega nullified the election and proceeded to install one of his own constituents as president on September 1st 1989. On December 15th after surviving a violent coup, Noriega sought to gain increased dictatorial powers from the legislature whose members were placed there by him. The corruption ensuing in Panama under Noriega was palpable. On the same day, Noriega declared war on the United States. One day later his regime solicited the harsh response by US upon killing an unarmed American Marine Officer. On the December 19th the US decided to go to war.             The economic damage caused by the invasion and subsequent civil disobedience had been estimated to be between $1.5 and $2 billion balboas, which would be comparable to US dollars.[6]  Unemployment rose to record highs as the government infrastructure was left in chaos. According to the chamber of Commerce, 10,000 employees lost their jobs in the aftermath of the war.             Sanctions that had been placed on Panama since 1988 had created staggering financial ruin as well. North American sanctions included the freezing of  $120 million in funds at the National Bank of Panama operating in the United States.[7] In addition, 200 US firms suspended their fiscal obligations which included payment of Panamanian taxes valued at $400 million annually.[8] Panama’s sugar quota had been suspended which accounted for 30,000 tons of sugar exports along with the prohibition on US loans, donations and economic assistance. The US also announced sanctions on those merchant ships registered in Panama.[9]             Why however did the US respond with such a heavy hand to a country that posed no logical threat? When the US invaded Panama, it did so under the banner of restoring order, protecting its citizens and to defend democracy. Whose democracy was the US defending however? In the words of Xabier Gorostiaga, “The complexity of the Panamanian crisis is not only the product of a long history but of a dialectic struggle between the Panamanian people in search of sovereignty while living under the imperial eagle.”[10]  This crisis was not a simple event related to the removal of one corrupt leader or the US’ concern for democracy. Philip E. Wheaton would argue that, “the fundamental motivation was US military control over Panama after the year 2,000.”[11] Wheaton argues that the time-table for Panama to achieve complete sovereignty was reaching a critical moment, with the United States facing the danger of losing its century-long control over the Isthmus.             It is true that neither US defense of the canal or judicial prosecution of Noriega justified an invasion which has, “cost possibly a thousand lives or more, tremendous suffering and damage to the county, an action that has not resolved but complicated the emergence of democracy in Panama under a colonial government.”[12] US invasion into Panama served to remind the rest of the world that Washington retained hemispheric hegemony.             Long before the invasion of Panama in 1989, the US sensed the budding seeds of nationalism within Panamanian society that lead to the treaty of 1977. The US however was not prepared to disavow the economic and strategic gains that control over the canal would provide. Throughout the 1980’s therefore, the Reagan administration strove to contain a stronghold on control of the canal. Since the Carter-Torrijos treaties had been ratified by the US congress and approved by a Panamanian plebiscite, the US would never be able to renege a treaty returning a geographical wonder back to its owners. At the same time however, the treaty had to be created in 1977 or else the US would have run the risk of being condemned as an imperial colonizer. The US wanted to disentangle itself from the world perception of ‘Roosevelt and his 'big stick’ oppressing the people of Latin America. The US therefore had the task of circumventing popular perception by first creating the treaty of 1977 and then surreptitiously trying to weaken it so that it could legally retain control. As Luis Restrepo commented, “the Reagan Administration’s strategy was to weaken the treaties, to debilitate them through non-compliance, to condition their content and modify their implementation.”[13]             Two examples of such debunking tactics may be found in the passage of ‘International Law 96-70’ which fostered and justified a judicial position for the United States over the canal through, “jurisdictional, operative and administrative powers which violently disrupt the spirit and wording of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.”[14] The anti-juridical tactic of 96-70 denies the sovereignty of the Republic of Panama over the zone territory. In addition to subversive measures to retain power in the region, Reagan violated the Treaties on over 50 separate  occasions such as, “the establishment of a Panama Canal Commission linked to the executive branch, under direct authority of the US President.”[15] Another example of such a violation would be, the reduction of the oversight functions of the Joint Board of Directors, established by the Treaty, to a mere supervisory role.[16] The invasion of Panama therefore was merely an extension of the Reagan policy to circumvent the language of the Treaty in order to retain some degree of influence if not control.             The persons most harmed by the ensuing power struggle over control of the canal, were the Panamanian people. Ambushed from all angles, the Panamanian people existed at the whims of dictatorial regimes at the local echelon and imperialist forces at the international echelon. As a result, the Panamanian people were locked into subjugation in all possibilities. Where were they to go if the greatest superpower in the world was manipulating their own government? Noriega, the dictator that relegated Panama’s government to a military dictatorship had been a former employee of the US government and an army successor to Torrijos who had been supported by the US. Now that the superpower and the dictator were at odds, what would be the alternative be upon ousting that same leader? A higher power able to install yet a new leader while undertaking the forceful invasion of the country. Who was worse then? Noriega or the US?             The bitter feeling of entrapment in light of the 1989 invasion seems to have been the lasting sentiment among the Panamanian people. This is a sentiment stemming not only from the invasion of 1989 but also nearly a decade of control, influence and presence; the manipulation of their sovereign government so that the Panamanian people are left incapable of actually living under a democratic government; resentment towards the US for all of these maladies in addition to the arrogance with which such a policy is carried out. It seemed ludicrous to the Panamanian people that the US would pretext the invasion to “defending democracy” when democracy was non-existent due to US policy.             Exemplified in an interview with ‘Chuchu’ Martinez, one of Torrijos’ personal confidant and member of his ‘personal security team,’ bitterness towards the US seems unabashedly clear. When asked a question about when the United States began planning the invasion, Martinez responds, “The ‘gringos’ were absolutely firm about not losing their military presence in Panama after the year 2,000. The problem was how to accomplish this goal.”[17] He further makes a vehement remark about one of Bush’s comments; “‘If Endara doesn’t win, we invade.’ This is Washington’s so called democratic option: either vote for Endara or we invade. So, the Panamanians went to the polls thinking that if Noriega’s candidate wins, the Yankees will either kill Noriega or invade. . .”[18]  He later comments that, “There is only one progressive thing about Noriega’s government: his clash with the Empire. . .”             In another interview Wheaton speaks with a Panamanian writer and a Chilean woman from an upper middle-class neighborhood, February 1990. In the first interview, an anecdote was shared that reflect some of the contradictions about the invasion and point to the difficulties facing those committed to building a new Panama.[19] The first involves a unique robbery by the US occupation forces, reminiscent of WWII;             In Buenos Aires, Argentina word came to the intellectual circles here that the North American forces had stolen the entire library of Dr. Ernesto Castillero Pimental, along with the art collection of Noriega, valued in the millions of dollars, from the National Museum, thence taking it the United States . . . Incredible! The robbery in this anecdote is important because it represents a premeditated crime but more importantly, the fact that the US thinks it has the right to steal such treasures precisely because they consider it a US colony.                        More than lasting resentment against the United States, it is important to take note of the thousands of people that lost their lives in this conflict. That fact, more than any imperialist ploy serves as a stinging reminder of US imperialism; that these people died because the US was sending a “humanitarian mission” to make Panama safe for democracy. In one account from the Codehuca province, the fatalities from the bombings were described as somewhere between 700 and 800 people, both civilian and military.[20] Other accounts from the same province quote the US Army as carrying out ‘sanitation’ activities in which they use, “flamethrowers to burn hundreds of bodies. They also used common graves in which they buried hundreds of bodies.”[21] These activities can be linked to the rumors of disappearances of people reflecting the discrepancy between the numbers of missing persons and the lists of prisoners.             Other accounts of torture tell of one the US military acting against a ‘Macho del Monte’, a soldier from the Panamanian Defense Force. The soldier reported that a wound on his lower leg was caused by a projectile which had lodged in the sole of his foot. US soldiers took a metal cable that had been used to hang up laundry and introduced it into the hole until it touched the projectile producing intense pain. Another Macho del Monte soldier was hung up by one arm on which he already had an injury to his elbow, though that wound had not been stitched up.[22]             In another report from Coco Solo, Colon,[23] the headquarters of the of the Panamanian Defense Forces and the second largest city in the country, a reporter observes, “one can hardly see any remains from the battle. The headquarters are intact with only a few smoke stains around its main windows. There isn’t a single explosion hole in the facade, yet the three-hundred Panamanian soldiers who were inside died there without a single US soldier losing his life.”[24] It was speculated that the explanation for the unusual phenomenon is that a bomb landed inside the building with such force that it caused the building to implode instantly killing everyone.             In another town of El Chorrillo,[25] some 14,000 persons were left homeless as a result of the bombing visited upon El Chorrillo barrio from December 20th onwards. In this report, it was estimated that approximately 3, 983 homes located around the central headquarters were destroyed. Census data shows that 14,170 people lived in that part of the barrio that was destroyed. Of that population, 40% were minors aged 14 years and younger.             One of the few reports concerning attacks on places in the interior of the country came from the village of Pacora, near Panama City.[26] The village was bombed with chemical substances by helicopters and aircraft from Southern Command. Residents reported that this chemical substance, “burned their skin, producing intense stinging and diarrhea.”[27] Other people of Pacora reported that their town had been converted into a huge concentration camp surrounded by barbed wire, “as the Nazis used to do,”  so that its residents could not offer any assistance to Panamanian soldiers in the area.             Panama also served as a testing ground for new US weapons. On January 9, 1990, Reuters published an article that stated the US military as, “being proud of the demonstration of their new weapons and techniques used during the Panama invasion, ranging from 500-foot parachute jumps to high-tech apparatus for night vision.”[28] A ‘humanitarian mission’ seems like an inappropriate operation to show off military might. Given the level of opposition that US forces encountered, there was no need for much of the advance military fighters used to bomb Panama. For example, it was reporter in Reuters that, “the most exotic weapon in the invasion was the F-117A ‘Stealth bomber.’” Reuters reported that at least one of these attack aircraft flew to Panama from its desert base in Tonopah, Nevada to command an attack on the FDP base in Rio Hato where it fired two 2,000 pound bombs to stun and disorient Noriega’s troops.[29] A fighter of that magnitude was clearly not necessary for the defeat of Noriega’s army. In a war most often referred to as the “invasion,” one may deduce how much military force would have been necessary.             What then was the United States trying to demonstrate? Clearly it wanted to accomplish more than simply apprehending Noriega in order to save the people of Panama from its leader. Perhaps the US wanted to send a message to the Panamanian people that it is not to be intimidated, or much more importantly, denied continued control of the Panama Canal, specifically before the date which the Treaty had specified the US should turn over the canal.             The invasion of Panama left an irrevocable mark on the psyche of the Panamanian people. The sense of trauma, grief and tremendous sense of loss suffered at the hands of a dictator as well as an imperial power began to emerge in the culture of Panama during and shortly after the invasion. The sense of Trauma could be summed up in the words of Dr. Mauro Zuniga, a popular civic leader; “From December 20th on, we no longer have a nation. . . In an attack without precedent in military history, the United States has leveled the defenses of the Panamanian army and in less than four days, that institution lays in ruin.”[30]  He continued to say that, “During this new period, the struggle will be for us Panamanians to define what we intend this nation to be. . .”[31]  That redifinement was subsequently expressed in cultural mediums. One such medium was that of literature and poetry. Norah de Alba wrote a poem in the early days of the invasion entitled Mortal Cry. Alba is the earliest known poet to reflect on the suffering and protest of the Panamanian invasion.  In her poem she describes the outrage that the Panamanians felt in response to the US’ false banner of war and the hardships that incurred.             Alba’s first stanza;                                                 The arrived                                                 as do thieves in the shadows                                                 --imperceptibly—                                                 In complicity with our sleep. She describes the US military as “thieves,”  clearly expressing Panamanian sentiments towards the US as plunders that have been stealing from the people; stealing economic riches from the canal.  In a later stanza she remarks on the completely ludicrous claim that the US had come to help the Panamanian people;                                                 They arrived                                                 and said – casually –                                                 that they had come in the name                                                 of peace to make war;                                                 That they had come to “democratize”             It is clear that the Panamanians were no better off after the US show of ‘democratization’. The economy was in ruins, 3,000 people were dead, the country was divided, people were homeless and the US retained control over the canal.             In the aftermath of the invasion, the Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government. On December 27, 1989, Panama’s Electoral Tribunal invalidated the Noriega regime’s annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of the opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara. When President Endara took office, he pledged to foster Panama’s economic recovery, transform the Panamanian military into a police force under civilian control, and strengthen democratic institutions.[32] During the subsequent years, the Endara government struggled to meet the public’s high expectations for reform.             An important US congressional concern was the status of Panama's economic recovery during the aftermath. Before the military intervention, the economy had been severely damaged by two years of  U.S. economic sanctions and economic disruption caused by the political crisis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had declined some 25% between 1987 and the end of 1989. The intervention added further to the economic decline. Some sections of Panama City were heavily damaged, leaving thousands homeless, and subsequent looting left businesses with damages in the hundreds of millions.             The canal was indeed returned to Panama in just before midnight, December 31st 1999, ending nearly a century of American jurisdiction over one of the world’s most strategic waterways. There is still however  a large military presence in Panama. Today, Panamanians regard the US with mixed feelings. The invasion of 1989 remains a sore point in US-Panama relations however the relationship between the two countries is a mutually beneficial economic arrangement. Some observers maintain that Panama has to be concerned with other nations' views of its legitimacy and its independence from the United States. Others, however, would welcome the beginning of military base negotiations, and argue that many Panamanians favor a permanent U.S. presence because of jobs and income associated with the U.S. military facilities. Some 6,000 Panamanians work directly for the U.S. military, while thousands of others provide a variety of services to the U.S. military community.[33] The bases reportedly bring in about $360 million annually to the Panamanian economy, directly and indirectly.[34] Still other Panamanians oppose any kind of U.S. military presence. Some argue that only with the U.S. military out of the country will Panama be able to break the dependent relationship it has with the United States and recover its own national identity. Bibliography [ listed in original document ] source http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Hey, so much for 'humanitarian' intervention ... again. I'd say it's a war crime to bomb civilians, to use excessive force, to destroy civilian dwellings, to use chemical weapons & to use targets of aggression as guinea-pigs for weapons testing. The invasion was probably illegal as well, but the Three Amigos (USA, Britain & France) vetoed condemnation of invasion) and therefore OK'd it in the UN (probably after extorting a 'no' (to condemnation) vote from a bunch of poor countries?).  So much for the UN farce. US should have been sent the bill for the obscene, massive destruction of the country's infrastructure, which was probably done so US creditors and contractors could benefit reinstating what was destroyed, or so that the country is otherwise somehow dependent on the US oligarchy and friends. Iraqi assets were also looted.  So were Germany's:  the Americans and British helped themselves.  US stole most of the patents, I think. It's interesting that World Bank and IMF have a hand as money lenders to Noriega's govt. in advance of the destruction in 1989.  The impression I had was that they were the vultures that come in after a country or region has been destroyed, but maybe the lenders are a constant presence?

Assange Interview Pagina - Sept 2015 - US Unilateral Universal Jurisdiction | Various Subjects Discussed

Article SOURCE http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-281541-2015-09-13.html THE WORLD Interview with Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks "US It has created a unilateral universal jurisdiction" Under the Congress of Universal Justice Garzón Foundation, he talked about the immigration crisis and the absence of laws and institutions of human rights in the global legal architecture that emerged from 9-11. By Santiago O'Donnell Julian Assange has spent three years, two months, three weeks, one day, 21 hours and several minutes exile in a small apartment which occupies part of the Embassy of Ecuador in London, when it appears on the big screen this city Teatro Cervantes to answer questions via videoconference. He looks more tired, weaker, hit a year ago, when excited with the possibility of leaving his prison before the end of the Obama administration. But it remains active. His site, Wikileaks still leaking new documents. In so far this year has posted a military plan for the European Union to sink boats of refugees before they leave Africa, an instructional NSA for US spies on how to avoid detection in European airports, secret clauses two megatratados US trade talks with Europe and the Pacific Rim and the confessions of a crew engineer British nuclear submarines warning of impending catastrophe because the security protocols are not respected. Also, this week came out in Britain Assange's new book, The Wikileaks files on the impact that has had the leak site in different corners of the world. His lawyer Baltazar Garzon invited to participate in the Congress of Universal Justice this week was held in the Teatro Cervantes in this city, with Garzón listening intently from the stage, Assange spoke with Pagina / 12 double impact of the war on terror and the technological revolution have had on individual liberties in general and freedom of expression in particular. I'd like to ask about the child's photo Aylan Kurdi that shook the world. What does the immigration crisis, the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Europe and its counterpart in the United States with the candidacy of Donald Trump? How all this relates to your own situation of asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in Britain? There was a major change in migration flows to Europe in the last ten years. We have published some papers on it. In fact the document published on the European Union plan to destroy boats coming from Libya before leaving ports shows a very interesting militarization of the European Union. I know this is a lecture on Universal Justice, but I must say that the right to universal protection invoked by many human rights lawyers has been used as an excuse in recent years to bomb Serbia in Belgrade, bomb Tripoli and introduce weapons significant in Libya and more recently destabilize Syria to the point where we now see the emergence of the Islamic State, which is pushing these refugees causing a humanitarian catastrophe. This catastrophe is caused, in terms of intelligence and geopolitical level, the various factions and propagandists of the European intelligence services, who always need to justify their budgets and want to pursue their geopolitical knock out Syria ambitions, to make Israel to consolidate its position in the Golan Heights, to marginalize Hezbollah, and to get into the navel of Iran to influence key decisions about its energy program and its future. As for the legal aspects of my situation, there is something interesting and has to do with the right to asylum. In the debate in Europe on how to stem the flow of refugees, there are two perspectives. Is the conservative perspective, it is to eliminate the flow completely. And there is the humanitarian perspective, which is that we must reduce the number of drowning. The conservative approach has led to the emergence, particularly in Sweden and Finland, anti-immigrant far-right parties. In Sweden are divided but is growing much anti-immigrant party the Democrats and anti-immigrant party in Finland party is part of the government coalition. And from the perspective huamanitaria we say we do not want people drown as that famous Syrian child, then we will process asylum claims in our embassies in the southern Mediterranean, in Libya and elsewhere, to give people direct access asylum, without having to risk their lives so that their rights are recognized, and to facilitate their asylum within the European Union. But Sweden, which is me, that I have held for more than five years without presenting a single charge against me is now in an awkward situation. Because even though there are no records that have done that (process orders asylum in foreign embassies) now knows that this process exists, which is an accepted international practice and that Ecuador has the right to do so (me). Moreover other humanitarian items within Sweden are saying that to meet the quota of refugees proposed by the European Union, should process asylum claims in northern Africa. The UK faces the same dilemma. If processed for asylum in embassies, legitimizes the argument Ecuador is legal practice to decide on asylum for a person, not just when it comes to a territory but when you are in a jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction includes the embassies and ships of war. To British justice I am neither arrested nor asylum, does not accept a pass so you can get to Ecuador. 'And about Trump? 'I looked at him from the following perspective. I followed Hillary Clinton for years, you know that I have a personal issue with Hillary because she was Secretary of State when we published the diplomatic cables and more recently emails refused to disclose. And she is much more warlike than Obama. What happened in Libya, the destruction of that country and the collapse of its state, was above all a war of Hillary. Hillary was behind everything. Pentagon generals opposed Hillary intervene but was pushed to bomb. So now comes in Donald Trump's even more warrior than Hillary. So whoever wins will be even more aggressive than Obama. The Trump phenomenon is interesting. Right now there is not a massive flood of Latin Americans wanting to enter the United States. So it is interesting to see where does this phenomenon. Trump is appealing at the same grotesque nationalism it can be seen in discussions on refugees in Australia and Europe. The issue of migrants was not really on the agenda significantly until Donald Trump started lifting. The rest of the Republican Party has more decency and more willing to like the voters of Hispanic roots. By going to the theme of this conference, the doctrine of universal justice, the case seems to be the opposite of what is being discussed here. Because while Dr. Garzon and other proponents of the doctrine seeking to create a legal architecture which is above the legal systems of each country, if a country, the United States, seek to impose their own legal architecture over the international system. And seeking to judge you, who is granted asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in Britain, through an order from the Swedish justice for questioning in Sweden so we can extradite him to the US from Sweden, so you can be tried for terrorism. At the same time, you and WikiLeaks have complained that the United States seeks to expand its legal jurisdiction over much of the rest of the world through trade agreements with whole regions such as Europe and the Pacific Rim and global reach through its Internet servers. As a result of having more than 400 military bases in over 120 countries around the world the United States is the world's largest military empire. Therefore it has great influence in many countries. But as we speak formal universal jurisdiction in this Congress, the US has been doing something else, it has created a unilateral universal jurisdiction, which only applies from the United States to other countries, and that's my case. In the past five years the United States has subjected me to a very aggressive investigation of Grand Jury investigation remains open, which I am accused of espionage, computer hacking, destruction of public documents and conspiracy. But I'm not American. WikiLeaks is not registered in the United States. We do not publish in the United States and have not published in the United States during the period covered by our judicial investigation. The US government claims for itself universal jurisdiction in any subject having to do with the US government. Then they claim that if someone publishes information related to national defense, they have jurisdiction, even if the documents are not government reached with the government referring or relating to US defense apparatus. Then US demands full universal jurisdiction and therefore was able to follow this case against me and my organization so long, to the point that research is the longest in American history against a publication. It is also the largest legal case that led the Pentagon, which has been admitted a few months ago by the prosecutor who conducts an aspect of the case that has to do with Chelsea Manning, my alleged co-conspirator who was sentenced 35 years in a military prison. But it's not just about me or WikiLeaks. The United States has done the same with many other publications it considers a threat, when it considers that the political cost of pursuing them is less than the benefits. Then the Islamists who have published articles in favor of the Taliban, although they were not directly linked to terrorism, were charged to give ideological support for the right to resist US troops invaded Afghanistan. The center of the US attempt to impose its jurisdiction on other countries is in Alexandria, Virginia, an elegant suburb of Washington DC There the grand jury meets once a month to advance the case against Wikileaks. They've been five years doing that. Alexandria has the highest density of government employees across the country, then the jurors are chosen from among employees of the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, Air Force, National Security Agency and other state agencies, all based near the town. So how do they justify their jurisdiction over my case? Well, turn to a number of legal rinses to ensure that a grand jury national security take the case. One example is the recent case of CIA mole (Jeffrey) Sterling, the man who allegedly leaked information to a journalist from the New York Times (James Risen) on a program of the agency (Operation Merlin). The did not live in Virginia, lived in another state. Then the US government commissioned a book Amazon shipping the reporter from the New York Times had written, which contained information about the CIA Sterling, to be sent to an address in Alexandria. When the book came to Alexandria the government claimed that the shipment was a mail fraud because Sterling had signed a contract saying he would not reveal any information from the CIA. Then they use all kinds of tricks to bring cases there. So we have people of 67 different nationalities being tried in Alexandria. It is the explicit policy of tax of Alexandria jurisdiction try to win one way or another, with respect to the greatest possible number of countries and to publicly boast of being able to get to 67 countries within its jurisdiction. There is the case of Kim Dotcom, Megaupload manager, who did not want the record because people up to music to your site. Who's up? Kim Dotcom was not, but that hardly mattered to the authorities and did the same with many other cases of alleged piracy in different countries. And Kim Dotcom is in New Zealand. Yes, he is in New Zealand, fighting to avoid being extradited. Lives and works in New Zealand, the site is registered in Hong Kong. has nothing to do with the United States and less with Virginia except that the owners of the copyright, as Universal, are based in the United States. Here it has been argued that the new generation of offenses punishable by universal justice should include environmental crimes that produce disasters and economic offenses linked to crimes against humanity. Do you think that this list should be added cybercrimes committed by countries, corporations or individuals? -The Topic interests me because WikiLeaks has been attacked by state actors, has been hacking, but I wonder whether it is a war crime because we have a strong infrastructure that is damaged and sometimes destroyed by these actors. It is an interesting question but a legal question, it seems to me that is a political question. If you're all for all the people you end up being nothing to anyone. Diluís the concept to the point where it ceases to be effective. With this idea you can get to a point in the United Nations and countries. The concept of universal justice can collapse if you use it as a defense for all human rights violations. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions related to freedom of expression. Through diplomatic documents on Argentina that you gave me from the place of his house arrest in London four years ago I learned how thin is the line between diplomacy and espionage. Following the event also I learned how thin is the line between journalism and terrorism. My first question is this: the so-called war against terrorism, the war against supranational organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State already has fourteen. What has been its impact on freedom of expression? My second question is how it has affected freedom of expression technological revolution we are living. Something very serious has happened here in the UK in recent days because Britain was first launched drone attacks in Syria. And these attacks are targeted assassinations. They have been used against its own citizens as a result of these attacks two or three British citizens have been killed. There is now a blacklist of five British citizens to be killed. It is argued that these murders are justified under the law because these citizens participate in a variety of plots against Britain. But the reality is more interesting. You may participate in the Islamic state with the idea of ​​carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK, but not in the UK. They are in Syria and anyone who wants to project force on a country to reach that country to do so. Now if you encourage people through the internet, or if involved in a conspiracy against the United Kingdom over the Internet, do it with people in the UK, or people who could go to the UK. People who are not in the UK can be stopped at the border and the people inside can be arrested as long as he gets to intercept your communications. But if you kill the communication is interrupted, as the agents of the Islamic State in the UK remain undetected. Then the justification for police level is quite weak to kill people in Syria who might be willing to conspire to do something in the UK. If there is a plot want to identify and arrest the people involved. Like to allow the coordinator to continue communicating to identify who are the ones who commit terrorism act. The British intelligence service GCHQ, is very advanced, the most advanced in the world, and control all communications, with few exceptions, communications coming out of the UK and should be able to use that to thwart the plots. Either way using a secret list of murders, no trial, no way to know if one is listed. It is an example how the policy of targeted killings of Barack Obama has expanded to the UK, which is worrying because soon will wishlist New Zealand, Australia yours. Another disturbing revelation this week is that Sweden has a representative on the committee of targeted killings in the United States, along with Germany. Germany says US pressured him to join the committee to cover geopolitically, but at the same time is very concerned about the legality of what is being done. Instead Sweden so far seems to be happy with their participation. I should also note that the International Criminal Court in theory is a very important instrument, but to the universal jurisdiction for something that resembles it. In my last book I came out yesterday (The WikiLeaks files) have a whole chapter on how the United States has sought to marginalize and undermine the International Criminal Court. Basically what happened is that Bill Clinton had accepted with reservations form part of the ICC, to have some control over the court, tried to sell the idea to his security council but failed, and when he arrived W. Bush United States ICC was. At that time the United States began a strong campaign against the CPI, trying to close deal with a variety of countries, so-called agreements of Chapter 97, that every country could convince the United States, signed an agreement guaranteeing that never send yet US citizens to the ICC. Through incentives and sanctions the United States managed a number of countries sign these secret agreements Article 97. When Barack Obama came, the policy was more subtle but continued in the same direction. The result is what we see today: only citizens of African countries have been tried by the ICC. Now we see that Palestine has joined the ICC despite a strong campaign that does not happen. The interesting thing is that the campaign was so strong, demonstrating a real fear of ICC. That means that even the remote threat of prosecution at the ICC brings an extraordinary effort to eliminate that possibility. The threat of being judged even if it is remote, change behavior and it is important to learn to value universal jurisdiction. 'And with regard to freedom of expression? Some of our research has had legal consequences. we have shown war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in relation to torture, the killing of civilians but the United States government did not investigate any of these cases, investigated the source of information and that source was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Similarly, with the former agent John Kiriakou leaked information that waterboarding in interrogations of the CIA, was tried and spent two years in prison. Now he is free again, but the only person who was tried, nobody was judged by what he denounced. Wikileaks, in recent months has been reporting and publishing information on two treaties being negotiated secretly almost worldwide: the TTP (Strategic Agreement Trans-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and the TPIP (Association of the Transatlantic Trade and couple Investment. -United States has decided to leave the World Trade Organization as an effective tool to regulate international financial exchanges. So it is getting out, creating different mechanisms and you are doing it at high speed to encircle China geopolitically and legally with a new trade bloc, a new legal block. That is building block is the most significant since the creation of the European Union geopolitical event. Fifty-two countries representing two-thirds of global GDP, 2.6 billion people and a new legal system that does not eliminate the existing systems but that is very intense and aggressive covering the main topics of the economy, property, internet , corporate structures, intrusive covering topics of property rights for corporations, transportation. But something is not covered and is the idea of ​​human rights. Follow economic criteria such as the European Union, but without its Enlightenment values. No envisages Court of Human Rights and the European Union. It is no secret that we have obtained and published some chapters. At the geopolitical level it is the most important thing that is happening now is the broadest more ambitious and more comprehensive legal relations and economic restructuring that has ever been attempted. This is an interesting event, which may offer some opportunities, if you can gather enough political strength to derail some of these agreements unless the system incorporating the appropriate human rights instruments. Any message for Argentina? More than anything I order. I would much rather be in Argentina. I've heard good things about your country. The ambassador in London, Alicia Castro, expressed strong support and I want to thank Argentina for that support. Argentines already know how difficult and misleading they can be and are the British in a negotiation, and what they do with the law. Argentina acts from the legal standpoint, geopolitical and development in Latin America is very important, integration and independence are important not only for Argentina, also for many people living in Europe, also for WikiLeaks and me. My basic policy philosophy is that when a group of people or a nation has no bargaining power, then there is no freedom of choice, which leads to unfair situations. What more honest world is not electoral politics. What makes the world more honest, which makes people more honest, it is that you can go the other way, that you can choose another. In terms of electoral politics, able to choose between one or the other party. At the national level is the ability to say, "if the United States is misbehaving in some aspect, I have the possibility of negotiating with China, or Europe or any other country." This is very important. There has been an explosion of freedom of expression and there have been many different writings on what the world is and what it can be in globalization, where publications need not be tied to a single public, why be subjected to a only the police department that touched their jurisdiction, they can compare and choose. They can choose which they prefer state education. This interactive dance between states, jurisdictions and power groups is allowing people who have been harmed can choose another place to stay. So it works the law of supply and demand and that freedom is what makes the world more honest, beyond what the political system or the legal system you have to deal with. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-281541-2015-09-13.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ Summary Universal Protection 'right' to 'universal protection' = invoked by many human rights lawyers = used as an excuse to bomb:     -- Serbia in Belgrade     -- bomb Tripoli (Libya)     -- introduce arms in Libya     -- destabilize Syria - to emergence of the Islamic State     -- which is pushing these refugees -- causing a humanitarian catastrophe -- catastrophe is caused at intelligence & geopolitical level -- factions in European intel services need to justify their budgets -- as they pursue 'knock out Syria ambitions' -- to enable Israel to consolidate its position on Golan Heights &:     1.  -- marginalising Hezbollah     2.  -- & gaining advantage over Iran, by gaining position to         influence key decisions re Syria's (*?) future & energy program                 *That's how I read it, but I could be wrong. Refugees Europe two (2) perspectives: 1.  conservative:  eliminate immigration flow completely 2.  humanitarian perspective:  reduce drownings CONSERVATIVE *Conservative approach, according to Assange, has led to emergence (particularly in Sweden & Finland) of anti-immigrant far-right parties [comment:  I strongly disagree.   It is the liberal (humanitarian) approach -- or pretext -- leading to flooding those European countries with mass third world immigration in basically homogeneous European nations that has led to the strengthening of support for what is described as 'far-right' parties, owing to the SOCIAL COSTS of such mass immigration & the failure of mainstream political parties to consider such costs or the concerns, preferences etc. of the people that they represent, and failure to prevent what is:  invasion and displacement of native European populations, on a path to what is undoubtedly the genocide of native Europeans.] HUMANITARIAN from humanitarian perspective -- seeks to process asylum claims in embassies in:     -- southern Mediterranean     -- in Libya     -- elsewhere -- to give direct access asylum -- without risking their lives -- so their 'rights' are recognised -- to facilitate their asylum within the European Union Sweden -- have arrested Assange over 5 years without producing a single charge against him Processing asylum via embassies -- records do not exist of process -- but process exists -- accepted international practice -- Ecuador has right to grant asylum Meanwhile, Sweden's humanitarian elements have put forward -- processing asylum claims in north Africa -- to meet quotas of refugees proposed by the European Union [comment:  'quotas of refugees' would suggest that this is an orchestrated invasion inflicted on native European populations by their political masters] Britain -- same dilemma -- processing asylum requests in embassies -- legitimises Ecuador's granting of asylum -- not only when asylum is on national territory -- but also right to grant asylum from a jurisdiction -- which jurisdiction includes embassies & ships of war -- yet to British justice, Assange is neither detained nor asylee Hillary Clinton -- more war hawk than Obama Trump -- said to be appealing to "same grotesque nationalism" -- that can be seen in discussions on refugees in Australia & in Europe -- Latin American refugees in USA not seen as a 'massive flood' -- issue of immigrants was not on agenda significantly until Trump's rise -- remainder of Republican party seen as possessing more 'decency' in relation to Hispanics [comment:  issue may not have been significant on political stage because the media and politics is very much controlled in the West, and related issues are SUPPRESSED by media and political parties, who go so far as to agree NOT to use immigration as an issue against one another. American elections are a joke and Trump is clowning around, I guess. Maybe Trump's the controlled 'opposition' or something? Any real grass roots opposition to immigration stands absolutely no chance -- especially in the hijacked American political system --  in pursuing and maintaining European interests and integrity. Nationalism tends to only be seen as 'grotesque' when it is expressed by the European man.  In the non-European, it is acceptable 'pride' in one's identity, culture and heritage and something to be honoured, even by Europeans who are denied the same. So there's some double standards in operation. I believe preserving European territory, identity, culture, heritage, character, political, military and administrative representation etc and political strength (among much more), is of utmost importance to Europeans. The only 'grotesque' element is that this truth is obscured, denied, and suppressed while European people and the societies that they have developed over many thousands of years are being destroyed by capitalism and its companion, 'Enlightenment' ideology.] Doctrine of Universal Justice -- Garzon & other proponents of the doctrine -- seek to create legal architecture which is over the international system USA -- seeks to expand its legal jurisdiction over much of the rest of the world -- by trade agreements with whole regions, eg. Europe & Pacific Basin -- via global reach of its internet servers USA -- 400 military bases over 120 countries -- planet's largest military empire -- USA much influence, in many countries -- USA has created a unilateral universal jurisdiction -- universal jurisdiction only applies from USA -- to other countries, as in Assange case -- eg over 5 years aggressive Grand Jury investigation -- longest investigation against a publication in American history -- largest case led by Pentagon -- USA has taken an aggressive approach -- with many other publications it considers a threat -- Islamists who have published articles in favour of the Taliban, -- although they were not directly linked to terrorism -- were charged for providing ideological support for the right to resist the invasion of Afghanistan by US troops -- accusation of espionage, computer hacking, destruction of public documents & conspiracy -- Assange is not an American & WikiLeaks is not registered in USA -- nor do they publish in USA -- nor have they published in the USA during the period covered by US judicial investigation -- US government claims for itself universal jurisdiction in any subject having to do with the US government -- USA claims that if someone publishes information related to national defence, USA has jurisdiction [comment:  the Americans have a history of slippery behaviour when it comes to law.  Look at the WWII designation of German POWs as  'Disarmed Enemy Forces' or 'Surrendered Enemy Personnel', so that the Americans could deny the Germans (who observed the Geneva Convention) Geneva Convention rights, and so that the Americans could deliberately abuse, starve, and murder German POWs who were murdered en masse on the banks of the Rhine, in the heart of Europe, while survivors (including civilians) were enslaved and used as slave labour abroad for many years. This dodgy US attitude to law has applied to CIA torture, CIA kidnappings, US incarceration, US invasions, US orchestrated coups etc, the Illegal bombing of Serbia, illegal invasion of Iraq.  The list is endless. Redefining the legal arena to suit the American empire's agenda is nothing for the US oligarchy's government servants:  they are the masters of lawlessness, deceit and hypocrisy.   Law and honourable conduct means nothing to them.  So all this discussion about 'rights', 'Enlightenment' and other bullsh*t is a waste of breath.  We're all doomed and the destruction and enslavement of the European people has been in progress for hundreds of years. ] Alexandria, Virginia -- suburb of Washington DC -- at centre of US attempt to impose jurisdiction on other countries -- Alexandria =  highest density of government employees across the country -- Grand Jury meets there once a month to advance case against WikiLeaks -- jurors - chosen from employees of:     -- Dept Homeland Security     -- CIA     -- Air Force     -- National security Agency     -- + other agencies -- through legal manoeuvres ensure that grand jury national security take the case     -- likewise re CIA Jefferey Sterling, who allegedly leaked info to reporter from NY Times (James Risen)     -- re CIA program:  Operation Merlin     -- not residents of Virginia     -- so US govt ordered an Amazon shipment of the book that the NY Times reporter had written     -- containing info re CIA / Sterling     -- to be sent to Alexandria     -- on receipt of shipment, US govt claimed 'mail fraud' (re confidentiality contract signed by Sterling) -- through these legal manoeuvres, there is 67 nationalities being tried in Alexandria -- eg. Kim Dotcom, Megaupload, alleged piracy -- Kim Dotcom resides and works in New Zealand -- the site is registered in Hong Kong -- it has nothing to to with USA or Virginia, except that the owners of the copyright (Universal) are US-based Concept of Universal Justice -- New generation of capital offences re universal justice should include crimes that produce disasters -- & economic offences linked to crimes against humanity envisaged by some. -- Should cybercrimes committed by countries, corporations or individuals be included? -- concept of universal justice can collapse if you use it as a defence for all human rights violations Freedom of Expression -- thin is the line between diplomacy and espionage -- thin line between journalism and terrorism -- interviewer suggests -- what is impact of 'war on terror' / war against supranational orgs such as al-Qaeda & Islamic State -- on freedom of impression? -- how has it affected freedom of expression from tech aspect? Targeted Killings: -- Britain has launched first drone attacks in Syria -- these are targeted killings -- targeted killings against own citizens (2 or 3 British citizens killed) -- blacklist of x5 British citizens to be killed -- argument that killings justified under law b/c citizens participate in conspiracies against Britain -- however, the targets of killings are in Syria & must project force to UK to carry out terrorist attacks in UK -- by going to UK -- those at the border can be stopped -- those within the borders can be arrested -- as long as communications are intercepted -- but by killing targets, communication is interrupted -- agents of Islamic State remain in UK without being detected -- justification for killing in Syria is weak -- if there is a plot, arrests should be made -- continued communications enables identification of conspirators etc -- GCHQ very advanced & control all communications leaving UK -- GCHQ should be able to use that info to thwart plots -- it is instead using secret lists of murders with:     -- no trial     -- no way to know if one is listed -- Obama's policy of targeted killings has expanded to UK -- it will soon be on the intel wishlist of New Zealand, Australia & others -- also disturbing:  Sweden + Germany have representatives on the committee for targeted killings of USA -- Sweden is happy with their participation -- Germany claims USA pressure to join committee  concern re legalitiy Universal Jurisdiction -- International Criminal Court (in theory) very important instrument -- entire chapter in 'The WikiLeaks Files' re USA seeking to undermine & marginalise ICC -- Bill Clinton accepted (with many reservations) to be part of ICC -- tried to sell idea of security council to have control over court, but failed -- USA began strong campaign against ICC -- agreements of Chapter 97 deals with range of countries -- had other nations signing guarantee NEVER TO SEND US CITIZENS to ICC -- USA got several countries to sign these agreements through:  sanctions & incentives -- Obama was more subtle, but followed same path -- result:  only citizens of African countries tried by ICC -- Palestine has now joined ICC, despite strong campaign against this -- strength of campaign demonstrates fear of ICC -- therefore, even the remote threat of prosecution at ICC provokes extraordinary effort to eliminate possibility -- merit in universal jurisdiction = change of behaviour even if threat of being judged remote [comment:  I don't think so ... it's business as usual, combined with sanctions and threats + threat of military intervention if anyone stands in the way of the Western oligarchy's geopolitical aims and crimes. The only behaviour that alters is the defensive behaviour of the criminal state, to ensure that the American empire and that its off-sider, Israel, are not held to account -- however remote the possibility. Therefore, like all (false) universal doctrines, it is just another tool for the Western oligarchy to actually further their own political aims.] War Crimes Exposed: -- WikiLeaks has shown war crimes in Iraq & Afghanistan re:     -- torture     -- killings of civilians -- but US govt did not investigate any cases -- instead, USA investigated the source of information (Manning) & that source was sentenced to 35 years in prison -- John Kiriakou, former CIA agent who leaked waterboarding interrogations by CIA info -- tried & spent 2 years in prison -- Kiriakou the only person who was tried:   -- nobody was judged by what Kiriakou denounced US Trade Agreements: -- US to leave World Trade Org as effective tool to regulate international financial exchanges -- US creating different mechanisms at great speed -- to encircle China GEOGRAPHICALLY + LEGALLY with new trade bloc -- building block is most significant since creation of European Union geopolitical event -- 52 countries represent:     -- two-thirds of global GDP     -- 2.6 billion people     -- new legal system, aggressively covering main issues:         -- economy         -- property         -- internet         -- corporate structures         -- property rights for corporations         -- transportation             *but does not cover idea of human rights     *lacks Enlightenment values     *does not contemplate a Court of Human Rights & European Union         = broader and more ambitious,  more comprehensive legal relations + economic restructuring ever attempted     -- represents opportunity to incorporate human rights into instruments, given sufficient political strength Argentina -- ambassador London, Alicia Castro -- supportive of Assange Assange -- basic political philosophy -- when a group of people or a nation has no bargaining power -- it has no freedom to choose -- this leads to unfair situations -- ability to choose makes world more honest -- eg. choose b/w one political party or another / ability to negotiate with another nation etc. -- in terms of education, choice is available as result of explosion of freedom of expression -- re writings about what world is & what it may be in globalisation -- interactive dance between states, jurisdictions & power groups allows those who have been harmed to chose otherwise -- law of supply & demand & that freedom is what makes the world more honest, beyond political system or legal system [comment:  I'm not convinced.  All political parties serve the same master & pitch for votes from the same gullible and indoctrinated audience. The ability to chose is an illusion, especially given (a) power of corporations and (b) power of hidden interests at play behind the scenes, serving corporate & other elite interests (see PM Whitlam removal etc). Look at the Europeans who do not want their societies destroyed by mass immigration. THE ONLY GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM & THE ABILITY TO SAY 'NO' IS THE ABILITY TO SAY 'NO' MILITARILY eg.  Novorossiya guns & tanks + courage + willingness to die + willingness to kill to ensure + manifestation + defence of one's choice Western plebs don't have access to arms or access to meaningful choice.] ----------------------------------- COMMENT Must have had this article in my drafts for ages & I've somehow  accidentally published it when I was last on here, while cleaning up what had become a massive collection of draft posts. Getting into this article was a bit of a chore at first.  I couldn't remember what it was about or why I might have set it aside.  Also, I'm not that focused at the moment, so even skimming the material didn't help me quickly get to grips with it. Doing my little summary helped me understand (or I think it did ... lol). Anyway, the comments are my take.  I'm obviously no humanitarian and I'm not opposed to nationalism, so my outlook is entirely different to that of Assange. While I'm a supporter of freedom of information, I'm not a supporter of mass population movement or of anything that threatens the integrity of European identity or European soil. No other consideration comes before the preservation of Europe and what is European.  None whatsoever.  Nothing.  Zilch. No idealistic, universalist 'humanitarian' cause warrants the destruction of Europe.  And the destruction of Europe is the antithesis of 'humanitarianism', if you stop to think about it. The universalist ideology and agenda is detrimental to European nations and is an entirely illegitimate doctrine that is being imposed on Europeans, who are at risk. There is a vast difference between a nation choosing to grant political asylum to the occasional individual from another society, to opening its borders to mass population movement that is, in fact, invasion. Principle of UNIVERSAL CHAOS Debrecen, Hungary Third World Invasion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhZeHEOovLk