Tag: regime change

The Insanity of the Regime Changers

Garry Kasparov calls for more regime changes in The Wall Street Journal:

A war can’t be won by following the rules set in peacetime. The only way to win this long war is through regime change in Moscow and Tehran. Such change will be brought closer by isolating Russia and Iran politically and economically and by halting their foreign aggression.

Kasparov’s argument is deranged, but it is useful in reminding us how extreme and dangerous this worldview is. If hardliners like Kasparov had their way, they would unleash chaos and instability unlike anything most of us have seen in our lifetimes. The same people that want to set the world on fire are constantly warning us that if we don’t do what they want that we face “a global catastrophe the likes of which we have never seen,” but it is clear that they are the ones demanding that the U.S. initiate such a catastrophe with overly aggressive policies.

If the only way to “win” is regime change in two countries, that tells us that winning is not a realistic goal. Kasparov seems to think that setting a goal, no matter how unhinged or far-fetched, is all that matters. Is the goal achievable at a reasonable cost? He doesn’t care about that. He writes, “Supporting Ukraine until it is whole and free is a goal. Promoting long-term peace in Europe and the Middle East by doing everything possible to accelerate the downfall of hostile regimes in Russia and Iran is a goal.” It’s true that these are goals in the same way that saying you want to fly to the moon is a goal.

The surest way to destroy international support for Ukraine is to adopt an insane, maximalist goal of regime change in Russia. Many governments are willing to back a policy aimed at defending against an aggressor, but they are not going to support one that threatens to destabilize a large part of Eurasia and potentially risk significant escalation from Moscow. Seeking to topple both governments is also a good way to encourage the Russian government to increase its threats of using nuclear weapons and to push the Iranian government into pursuing their own nuclear arsenal. The worst thing that the U.S. could do is convince these governments that they are in a fight for their survival.

Regime change is almost never the right answer. When it “works” and the targeted regime is toppled, it typically creates many more problem and dangers than it eliminates. When it fails and backfires, it leads to even greater hostility and it could lead to direct conflict. We know that setting regime change as an official goal can pave the way for war later when other means fail to bring down the government. The U.S. should not seek war with Russia or Iran, and so it should not adopt a policy that makes that war much more likely.

Keep reading

Geopolitics of human trafficking: How Western regime-change operations enable criminal activities

The slave trade in Ukraine has become one of the most serious problems of our time. Since the 2014 coup d’état, Kiev has been a key player in modern slavery, particularly for human trafficking and sexual exploitation networks. The political and social instability that has affected the country since the Western-led regime change operation is one of the main factors for the growth of such human rights violations.

A recent investigative report published by the Foundation to Battle Injustice showed in details the seriousness of the slave trade in Ukraine. According to the organization, Kiev has become one of the main global hubs in the human trafficking market, with free exploitation and circulation of irregular workers – in addition to the well-known trafficking of women and children in the predatory sex market.

The study points out that more than 300,000 Ukrainians were victims of the slave market between 1991 and 2021. This situation, however, has deteriorated even further since Vladimir Zelensky came to power. It is estimated that since the beginning of Zelensky’s government, more than 550,000 Ukrainians have been enslaved. These numbers are alarming and place Ukraine as one of the main agents of human trafficking in the entire world.

In its report, citing sources familiar with the topic and several insiders, the Foundation exposed how the slave trade in Ukraine is not limited to the exploitation of Ukrainian citizens. Since 2021, two reception centers for refugees from Africa have been operating in Ternopil. These facilities were used not only for receiving migrants but also for selling them on the European black market. An alleged member of the Ukrainian Presidential Cabinet, on condition of anonymity, reported to investigators that the organizer of the Ukrainian human trafficking network is Ruslan Stefanchuk, current chairman of the Verkhovna Rada.

Keep reading

Uncomfortable Truth: The US Is The World’s Most Prolific Sponsor Of Terrorism

Upon reading the title of this article many might reflexively click off, going straight to the comments section to voice their disapproval, to vitriolically chastise the perceived lack of patriotism and the insinuation that the United States of America is anything but the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty in the world. A beacon of light in the dark protecting democracy from the dregs of despotism.

It is a reaction that has been programmed into many of us, one that even among the “liberty community” many, including yours truly, espoused at one time or another. Since birth we are programmed via nationalistic propaganda to have such a worldview.

Every single day of our schooling for at least 12 years we are indoctrinated to place our hands over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to the nation, in other words our loyalty to the government, or more specifically — given the origins of the pledge itself — the ideologies of colonialism in honoring Christopher Columbus, Anglo-American ethno-nationalism, and later, a reinforcement of US political and religious moral superiority, that is itself inherent to the government and its systemic norms.

Denoting these sentiments under a negative connotation will as well likely spark the ire of many who still refuse to acknowledge the role of settler-colonialism in the American experiment, but we digress.

The point is, we as Americans have been institutionally inculcated our entire lives with sentiments of nationalism and American exceptionalism which have subsequently, with assistance in no small part from the heavily controlled corporate mainstream media and the centralized education system, blinded huge swaths of the population from the realities of the innumerable crimes committed by the American government. Both in the past, and the present day.

Chief among these misbehaviors would be the ways in which America would behave itself with regard to it’s foreign policy, both early in its existence as a burgeoning superpower and today as the leader of a globe spanning unipolar hegemon.

Beginning with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 wherein the US asserted itself as being the sole authority in the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, It would slowly go on to refine this doctrine as justification for intervention and expansionism, first in Latin America and expanding outward to the rest of the world.

As the US would continue to expand its power and influence over its global neighbors the destabilization of sovereign governments that Washington viewed as being at odds or potentially deleterious to its agendas of regional control became standard procedure.

We recently elaborated upon this briefly with regard to the century of US intervention in Haiti and the long history of US backed regime change.

Keep reading

60 years since coup, Brazilians call on US to declassify its role

Today marks a solemn anniversary in Brazil: 60 years ago, the Brazilian military seized power from the government of João Goulart, marking the start of over two decades of military rule.

Brazil’s 2014 Truth Commission report is the country’s only formal investigation into this period of dictatorial rule. The commission’s 2,000-page report revealed some grisly details of the dictatorship’s human rights abuses, identified over 400 individuals killed by the military, and shed light on Brazil’s role in destabilizing other Latin American countries.

To assist with the Truth Commission, then-Vice President Joe Biden hand-delivered declassified State Department records to former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff — who herself had been imprisoned and tortured by the military regime. The records offered details about the dictatorship and Washington’s enabling of abuses, including a cable from former Ambassador to Brazil William Rountree arguing that condemning the regime’s human rights “excesses” would be “counterproductive.”

Biden’s delivery of the declassified records was symbolic, since the U.S. had supported the coup. The U.S. solidified its support for the putschists the year prior, drew up plans for a U.S. invasion if deemed necessary, and sent a naval task force to Brazil to support the military plotters. In the end, direct U.S. involvement wasn’t needed — Goulart fled to Uruguay by April 4. The coup was carried out by Brazil’s generals, but Washington celebrated it as a victory for its interests nonetheless.

On the one hand, U.S. support for the coup laid bare the hypocrisy of America’s supposed commitment to sovereignty and democracy. Gone was the Kennedy administration’s promise to reject a “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” The Cold War logic of siding with anti-communist dictators for the purpose of defeating the Soviet Union prevailed. Washington may have lost China, but it won Brazil — or so the thinking went.

However, even the most cynical arguments for aligning with undemocratic regimes for a strategic purpose often failed to bear fruit, given that many of these regimes departed from U.S. policy on key issues. Many historians of the U.S.-Brazil relationship contend that during this period their ties at times more closely resembled rivals rather than close partners. Rubens Ricupero, a former diplomat and minister of finance of Brazil, writes that, “Little by little, doubts turn[ed] into disappointment, and this le[d] to gradual disengagement in relation to the regime they had helped to create.”

When it first took power, Brazil’s military dictatorship closely followed Washington’s lead. Goulart was out, as was his “Independent Foreign Policy,” a non-alignment stance that emphasized self-determination, decolonization, and non-intervention, devised by the ousted president’s predecessor, Janio Quadros. In line with Washington’s desires, the dictatorship, which rotated through five different military general-presidents between 1964 and 1985, broke off relations with Cuba and even assisted the U.S. in its occupation of the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Washington also saw Brazil as a key ideological partner in destabilizing leftist regimes across Latin America. As one Brazilian general put it, the United States wanted Brazil “to do the dirty work.” And it did. Most prominently, the Brazilian regime played a critical role in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile,. even secretly bringing members of the Chilean military to Brazil to discuss the potential coup. Brazil under the generals also participated in Operation Condor, the secret cooperation of right-wing military dictatorships in much of Latin America to assassinate, or “disappear” perceived leftists and other dissidents during the 1970s.

Keep reading

Secret cable: CIA orchestrated Haiti’s 2004 coup

A classified diplomatic cable obtained by The Grayzone reveals the role of a veteran CIA officer in violently overthrowing Haiti’s popular President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. 

A spectacular jailbreak in Gonaïves, Haiti in August 2002 saw a bulldozer smash through the local prison walls, allowing armed supporters of Amiot “Cubain” Métayer, a gang leader jailed weeks earlier for harassing Haitian political figures, to overrun the facility. Métayer escaped, as did 158 other prisoners. Among them were perpetrators of the April 1994 Raboteau massacre, which left dozens of Haitians dead and displaced. The victims were supporters of popular anti-imperial President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Documents released to The Grayzone under FOIA – no doubt unintentionally – reveal that the jailbreak was part of a complex US intelligence operation, aimed at undermining Aristide’s presidency. At the heart of this operation was Janice L. Elmore, a CIA operative working under cover as a Department of State “Political Officer” in the Port-au-Prince US Embassy at the time.

The breakout set in motion a violent regime change campaign, which ultimately ousted Aristide from office on February 29 2004. After being deposed and flown to South Africa, Aristide claimed to have been “kidnapped” by US forces and directly accused Washington of orchestrating the plot. His nation quickly transformed into a despotic failed state, as ruthless paramilitaries ran roughshod over the population. US Marines and later UN troops were deployed to “keep the peace,” which, in practice, meant violently cracking down on not only armed anti-coup militants but also outraged demonstrators and civilians.

In 2022, the former French ambassador to Haiti admitted that France and the US did, in fact, orchestrate the “coup,” which he acknowledged was “probably” due to Aristide’s repeated demands that Haitians be returned the $21 billion in reparations they’d forcibly paid their former slave masters in Paris since 1825. The former ambassador told the New York Times that with Aristide in exile, “it made our job easier” to undermine Haitians’ demands for a refund.

US officials have repeatedly denied any involvement in Aristide’s overthrow, claiming they only intervened afterwards to restore order. But the secret diplomatic cable obtained by The Grayzone tells a very different story.

Dispatched from the US embassy in Port-au-Prince in September 2002 by then-US Ambassador Brian Dean Curran, the file places Elmore, apparently a veteran CIA operative, in a meeting with disloyal local police officers and coup plotters in Gonaïves the night prior to the jailbreak.

The file reads as confirmation of high-level US government involvement in the 2004 coup in Haiti, and raises profound questions about American involvement in other recent regime change campaigns throughout the hemisphere.

Keep reading

How the CIA destabilises the world

There are three basic problems with the CIA: its objectives, methods, and unaccountability. Its operational objectives are whatever the CIA or the President of the United States defines to be in the U.S. interest at a given time, irrespective of international law or U.S. law. Its methods are secretive and duplicitous. Its unaccountability means that the CIA and president run foreign policy without any public scrutiny. Congress is a doormat, a sideshow.

As a recent CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, said of his time at the CIA: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

The CIA was established in 1947 as the successor to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). The OSS had performed two distinct roles in World War II, intelligence and subversion. The CIA took over both roles. On the one hand, the CIA was to provide intelligence to the US Government. On the other, the CIA was to subvert the “enemy,” that is, whomever the president or CIA defined as the enemy, using a wide range of measures: assassinations, coups, staged unrest, arming of insurgents, and other means.

It is the latter role that has proved devastating to global stability and the U.S. rule of law. It is a role that the CIA continues to pursue today. In effect, the CIA is a secret army of the U.S., capable of creating mayhem across the world with no accountability whatsoever.

When President Dwight Eisenhower decided that Africa’s rising political star, democratically elected Patrice Lumumba of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), was the “enemy,” the CIA conspired in his 1961 assassination, thus undermining the democratic hopes for Africa. He would hardly be the last African president brought down by the CIA.

In its 77-year history, the CIA has been held to serious public account just once, in 1975. In that year, Idaho Senator Frank Church led a Senate investigation that exposed the CIA’s shocking rampage of assassinations, coups, destabilisation, surveillance, and Mengele-style torture and medical “experiments.”

The expose by the Church Committee of the CIA’s shocking malfeasance has recently been chronicled in a superb book by the investigative reporter James Risen, The Last Honest Man: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys―and One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy.

That single episode of oversight occurred because of a rare confluence of events.

In the year before the Church Committee, the Watergate scandal had toppled Richard Nixon and weakened the White House. As successor to Nixon, Gerald Ford was unelected, a former Congressman, and reluctant to oppose the oversight prerogatives of the Congress. The Watergate scandal, investigated by the Senate Ervin Committee, had also empowered the Senate and demonstrated the value of Senate oversight of Executive Branch abuses of power. Crucially, the CIA was newly led by Director William Colby, who wanted to clean up the CIA operations. Also, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, author of pervasive illegalities also exposed by the Church committee, had died in 1972.

In December 1974, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, then as now a great reporter with sources inside the CIA, published an account of illegal CIA intelligence operations against the U.S. antiwar movement. The Senate Majority Leader at the time, Mike Mansfield, a leader of character, then appointed Church to investigate the CIA. Church himself was a brave, honest, intelligent, independent-minded, and intrepid Senator, characteristics chronically in short supply in U.S. politics.

If only the CIA’s rogue operations had been consigned to history as a result of the crimes exposed by the Church Committee, or at the least had brought the CIA under the rule of law and public accountability. But that was not to be. The CIA has had the last laugh —or better said, has brought the world to tears—by maintaining its preeminent role in U.S. foreign policy, including overseas subversion.

Keep reading

Putin Claims War In Ukraine Was Started By A CIA Coup

During the interview with Tucker Carlson, Russian leader Vladimir Putin stated that the war in Ukraine “did not start in 2022,” but rather was a result of a 2014 coup in the country, directly backed by the CIA.

Putin recalled the moment he decided he had to invade, noting “initially it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict.”

Putin claimed that a decade ago the United States proposed a joint effort to for a diplomatic settlement in Ukraine and the then President Yanukovich agreed not to deploy troops or police. However, an armed opposition, which Putin alleges was run by the CIA, orchestrated a coup in Kiev.

Putin further stated that “the representatives of three countries, Germany, Poland, and France, arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all of these countries pretended that they didn’t remember they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement.”

He continued, “President Yanukovich agreed to all conditions which included holding an early election he had no chance of winning”, Putin stated, adding “Why the coup? Why the victims? Why threaten Crimea? Why threaten the Donbas? That’s what I don’t understand.”

“The CIA did its job to complete the coup,” he continued, adding “The political mistake was colossal. All this could be done without victims.”

Keep reading

Silencing the Lambs: How Propaganda Works

In the 1970s, I met one of Hitler’s leading propagandists, Leni Riefenstahl, whose epic films glorified the Nazis. We happened to be staying at the same lodge in Kenya, where she was on a photography assignment, having escaped the fate of other friends of the Führer.
She told me that the “patriotic messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above” but on what she called the “submissive void” of the German public.

Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? I asked.  “Yes, especially them,” she said. 

I think of this as I look around at the propaganda now consuming Western societies. 

Of course, we are very different from Germany in the 1930s. We live in information societies. We are globalists. We have never been more aware, more in touch, better connected. 

Or do we in the West live in a Media Society where brainwashing is insidious and relentless, and perception is filtered according to the needs and lies of state and corporate power? 

The United States dominates the Western world’s media. All but one of the top 10 media companies are based in North America. The internet and social media – Google, Twitter, Facebook – are mostly American owned and controlled.

In my lifetime, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, mostly democracies. It has interfered in democratic elections in 30 countries. It has dropped bombs on the people of 30 countries, most of them poor and defenceless. It has attempted to murder the leaders of 50 countries.  It has fought to suppress liberation movements in 20 countries. 

The extent and scale of this carnage is largely unreported, unrecognised, and those responsible continue to dominate Anglo-American political life.

Keep reading

US Media Suppressed Their Government’s Role in Ousting Brazil’s Government

In a new peer-reviewed academic article in Latin American Perspectives (11/19/23), “Anticorruption and Imperialist Blind Spots: The Role of the United States in Brazil’s Long Coup,” Sean T. Mitchell, Rafael Ioris, Kathy Swart, Bryan Pitts and I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Justice was a key actor in what we call Brazil’s “long coup.” This was the period from 2014, beginning with the lead up to the illegitimate 2016 impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, to the November 2019 release of then-former, now-current President Lula da Silva from political imprisonment.

“For over half a century, intervening against democratically elected governments has been only half the story,” we wrote; “the second half involves justifying, minimizing or denying US involvement.” The article criticized US scholars on Latin America for ignoring a significant body of evidence of this involvement. It called on Latin Americanists to return to the anti-imperialist tradition that established their field as a leading source of informed criticism of US foreign policy.

In this article, I will make the same call to US journalists who lived in Brazil during this period who remained silent about their government’s role in removing Brazil’s front-running presidential candidate in the 2018 elections, opening the door for the right-wing extremist No. 2 candidate, Jair Bolsonaro.

Keep reading

Protests In Suweida Reminiscent Of 2011 — Who Is Behind Them?

Twelve years after the initiation of the Western-backed destabilization in Syria, it appears the Western intelligence and military apparatus is once again attempting to stir up a “popular” revolution against the government of Bashar al-Assad. This time, however, not only do they continue to use their proxy fighters in the form of terrorists and Kurdish fanatics, they are also attempting to use the domestic population to further fracture Syrian society.

Having suffered through over a dozen years of horrific warfare that saw their country largely destroyed and an almost unimaginable loss of life, Syrians were then saddled with American (and thus Western) sanctions that have brought the entire Syrian economy to a halt, causing as much suffering as the war itself at least in terms of living standards for the average Syrian.

With the frontlines largely quiet except for daily shelling and occasional airstrikes, Syrians are forced to reckon with the fact that, even with the guns silent, their lives will not return to normal or to any sense of normalcy. Basic necessities like electricity, fuel, medical care, and food are are scarce and have been scarce for some time. Certainly, they have been scarce long enough for the words of their government to “hold on just a little longer” to start feeling hollow. Indeed, starving Syrians have begun to look at Syrian government officials whose lives do continue on as normal with the resentful eyes of the hungry that only someone with an empty belly can truly understand.

This resentment is what Western powers are attempting to take advantage of.

Keep reading