What is News Media Terrorism?

News media terrorism can be defined easily by enumerating its synonyms:

• Fear mongering
• Brainwashing
• Propaganda
• The act of bashing
• Indulging in ridicule
• Inciting false or misleading information
• Potshot
• CNN
• BBC
• CBS News

Citing a recent example is also easy: try to Google search “Sochi Olympics 2014” and then turn to page result 2. You get results from the Huffington Post, ESPN, Global Post, BBC, CNN, and even an unruly “NoSochi2014” which states the obvious.

Figuring out what is common among them will bring you to learning how to terrorize by means of news media, or properly we call “news media terrorism.”

You see, depending on your news source, especially if it’s from a Western media outlet, there is almost ZERO good news coming from the Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia. This form of media terrorism has only intensified as the games approaches, which will be held starting February.

Here are some of the ready-made fear mongering headlines vis-à-vis the Olympics for your amusement:

ESPN: “US warns against political protest”

Bloomberg Businessweek: “Sochi Olympics Ticket Sales Are on a Downhill Slope”

Time Magazine: "Russian Suicide Bus Bombing Sparks Terrorism Fears for Sochi Olympics”

NPR: “The region surrounding host city Sochi is home to Europe’s deadliest insurgency”

Global Post: “Sochi 2014 Olympics: Triumph or nightmare?”

NoSochi2014: “Petition world leaders today! Have them say No Sochi 2014!”

Personality Café: “Attacks show Sochi Olympics under grave threat”

Reddit: “President Obama selects openly gay delegates to Sochi Olympics”

Twitter: GOP congressman: “Sochi Olympics could become “nightmare like Bengazi”

other notable headlines and excerpts:

“Controversy, not competition, dominates Olympics”

“Why Russia’s Sochi Olympics are now a battleground for gay rights”

“Russia anti-gay law casts shadow over Sochi’s 2014 Olympics”

“International Olympic Committee urged to investigate Russia anti-gay law before Sochi Olympics”

“Russia ‘not really concerned’ about Obama’s absence from Sochi”

“German president boycotts Sochi Winter Olympics”

So far, the list of those boycotting the games is dominated by Western leaders: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British PM David Cameron, US President Barrack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, while France’s President Francois Hollande is yet to join this essentially gayish movement.

To note that the Olympic Games “seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles," these headliners seem rather disrespectful of ethical principles, especially regarding the alleged ‘anti-gay’ media bombardment against the Russian Olympics.

Now let us tackle why these headlines are false.

Perhaps the most enduring controversy is the one relating to ‘anti-gay law’, a catch-all term invented by Western media. In actuality, the law is called ‘gay propaganda law,' which does not discriminate against or threatens gay athletes or spectators visiting the Olympics. Properly, it is a law protecting Russian children from the propaganda of “drug addiction, alcohol use and non-traditional sexual orientation." There is no statement in the law that ‘punishes people for being homosexual.'

This below the belt portrayal of the law has seen its own share of criticism outside Russia. The Italian International Olympic Committee official Mario Pescante was quoted as saying he found it “absurd” and criticized the US for including openly gay athletes in its official delegation to Sochi. Talk about sovereignty, observing, and respecting the laws and culture of other countries.

Western media bombs are more powerful, effective, and enduring.

Another more recent controversy is the one relating to the Volgograd bombings. Omnicom Press author William Dunkerley best explains the dumbing down by Western media on the proximity of Volgograd to Sochi: “Would a suicide bombing in the Italian Alps be a realistic worry for people at a large public gathering in Berlin, Germany? Or likewise an incident 100 miles north of Montreal to people in New York City?”

Apparently, Western news outlets are not only degrading the immense security measures put in place for Sochi (which happen to include other international security organizations like the FBI) but also downplaying the immense geographical stretch between the cities.

Here is an excerpt from his report “Sochi under Attack by U.S.”

A CBS News report read, "Suicide bomber attacks near Sochi." CNN's version said, "Russia bombings raise questions about Sochi Olympics security."

On the Pyatigorsk incident, ABC News proclaimed, "Mystery bodies, explosives discovered near Winter Olympics site." The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported, "Russia launches probe after six found dead near Sochi."

These were certainly tragic events. But the media should have paid a bit more attention to their geography. Those are examples of distances similar to the expanse between Volgograd and Sochi. That's what CBS news called "close."

The target of all this media bombardment is Vladimir Putin.

Alas, we may now properly ask why all the news media terrorism? Now more expensive than the last Vancouver Winter Olympics and surpassing the spending of the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the Sochi Olympics is described by the West as “a tale of Putin-era Russia…a story of ambition, hubris, and greed leading to fabulous extravagance on the shores of the Black Sea."

German news outlets touted the construction of the Olympic site as having had “disastrous consequences for the environment” while The Economist describes the quality of work as ‘patchy’ and Sochi 2014 as Putin’s “pet project:  a sign of his power over people and nature, and his international legitimacy.”

At best, these potshots against the Olympics are part of a greater low-intensity aggression towards Putin. Unfortunately, we can only expect more ‘bad news’ and propaganda as the games approaches.

So there you go, the usual brouhahas of hosting the Olympic Games can be dangerous for the reputation of your country especially if you are not an official ally of the West.

2014: What’s Ahead for the World

In a much-faster changing world, reaching a conclusion to events has become more elusive. As we tire ourselves with 24/7 information, instant gratification, shorter attention spans, and the more pervasive blurring of agenda-driven spread of information (whether it is about cherry-picking which part of an event needs more weigh or the spreading of subtle but dumbing social media gossips and biases), we can only expect the year ahead to be more complex and unpredictable. Nevertheless, much like inquiry into the sciences, collating observations and hypothesis of the previous year will help us anticipate things to come, and that is the key to making an informed prediction.

This year’s forecast format is different from last year’s style in that it focuses on  a per-country reportage and expectations: a good reassessment on geography, just in case you too feel the certain fuzziness of the inexorable globalization of events which continue to transcend borders, economies, culture, nationality and even alliances.

In the United States, the so-called economic recovery, a ghost phrase invented since the end of the Bush Jr. era, will continue to limit what the government can achieve for its people. On a broader scale, this will have an effect on its economic policies abroad as well, and we all know Washington's foreign policy stems from its economic policies. On that front, America will continue to confuse its allies, especially in light of the Snowden leaks and the surprise optimism brought about by Russia’s brokering of nuclear and chemical deals with Iran and Syria, respectively. Other major things to look forward to include the exit of New York city mayor Bloomberg, and the experimental legalization of marijuana in Colorado, which is a strong proof of America’s moral degradation.

On a lighter note, 2014 will bring major sporting (distraction) events, first with Russia’s hosting of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. As the games approaches (this coming February), Western media will continue to lambast Russia’s decision to ‘build a city from scratch’ and its release of political prisoners (publicized by the West as a way to ‘bring good news’ before the sporting events), which is a familiar story, much like how they portrayed the apparent waste and ‘scandals’ of the Beijing Olympics. Moscow will continue to matter more in global issues though as President Putin reaps the rewards of his diplomacy (and the award of the most powerful man in 2013 by Western media). The IMF predicts Russia to be among the biggest GDP gainers for 2014. Besides Sochi, Russia is also embarking on its own smart city in Tatarstan, a development that will soften Western energy-as-leverage pundits for a while.

Elsewhere in Europe, the UK will vote on a decision whether to keep (or let go) of Scotland as part of the entire United Kingdom; Germany will consolidate its soft power gains in the previous years by pursuing its goals through economic, diplomatic, and cultural means; events in Spain may finally see an independent Catalonia; Ukraine’s decision to be part of Europe or linked to Russia will be more and more influenced by major players outside the country; Romania’s and Bulgaria’s entry into the EU labor market; EU parliament elections this summer (an election with historically low turnout); and the exit of Catherine Ashton as EU foreign policy chief (hailed as the ‘unsung hero’ of European diplomacy).

In Asia, China’s foreign policy will be perceived as being more assertive as the US ensnares Japan into a trap that’s hard to extricate from: the establishment of a National Security Council and re-armament of the Japanese military. It also seems the Japanese leadership’s determination to be more independent of America’s stance toward China is well received by its people, especially with the sense of renewed possibility in Japan’s economy. Construction of a new Beijing international airport commences this year and is hailed to be among the biggest and busiest airports in the world once completed. In Australia, ambitious politicians will be playing the American card more keenly this time, where calls for ‘updating Australia’s diplomatic footprint’ are gaining traction among Australians. Afghanistan will by this year need to tackle and decide on whether to allow American soldiers to be on the ground for another ten years, and a new presidential election may or may not destabilize the country anew.

In Latin America, Brazil will be (hopefully) seeing a break from its riots, hosting the much anticipated World Cup this year. 2014 will also see the construction of the Nicaragua Canal, said to be about three times longer than the Panama Canal. Latin American artists will continue to experience an art boom around the world.

This year will also see the completion of the 5th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The last one, in 2007, saw a clearer and grimmer outlook for the Earth's climate, and for this new report (as per the September 2013 summary for policymakers document), it shows yet more evidence of human's impact on the climate, and hinting more about further uncertainties in climate modeling as well as adaptation measures to climate change.

Of course, the year 2014 will mark the 100^th anniversary of World War I and this will last until 2018. For the duration of the event, countries will be planning official commemorative ceremonies and themes. This momentous time in human history is, by now, replete with lessons that ought to be learned. Indeed, with this year’s events and approximate trajectories, we hope history does not repeat itself.

The Specter of US meddling in Asian Affairs

It’s only almost a year since America declared its policy of pivoting its messy militaristic adventure to Asia, and now we have news that it sent two B-52 strategic bombers over the disputed islands between China and Japan.

The flyovers, which is 'part of a regular military exercise' to the region, comes at a perfect time as China declares more control of the region, with a November 25 announcement that aircraft flying over the disputed territory must submit flight plans and communicate with Chinese aviation authorities via an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) policy.

Only in the course of a day the US expressed its dismay. In this most recent unarmed bomber aircraft patrol, Pentagon spokesman Steve Warren told Reuters “we have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus (Japan’s name for the disputed islands). We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies.”

The arrogant announcement comes after Kerry’s rhetoric that China’s new controls over the airspace “constitutes and attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was quoted as saying the Chinese announcement “will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Only America calls the shots anywhere in the world

Never minding the sovereignty of other countries, where the US comes in, trouble and tensions comes out. Regardless of where US troops are stationed in the area (South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia), clearly the US is over-extending its military to show Beijing who’s the ‘police of the world.’

Clearly this dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is a matter two sovereign nations must settle themselves, without the meddling of a third party. Such is the case with the Philippines, with the South China Sea, where the tiny island nation plays puppet to the US’s aggressive military policy in the area.

What these smaller nations fail to know is their role in playing the chess game for America’s larger pivot to Asia policy. It’s a win-win situation overall, let these countries fall prey to US manipulation against China while not committing too much military resources and increased arms sales.

It is almost foolish for these satellite countries to be slave to American policy by projecting a harder unilateral stance against Beijing in the form of ‘territorial disputes’, not knowing they themselves are in more trouble when the situation in the area escalates to open hostility.

US encourages Japanese remilitarization for the sake of containing China

The Chinese reaction and increased patrol in the area comes after recent Japanese provocation.

Ever since the arrests of Chinese fishermen in 2010 and last year’s purchase by the Japanese government of the islands (knowing well they are disputed territory) , China’s actions can be seen more as a reaction to these American-backed provocations.

The international media is replete with the usual suspect keywords of 'an aggressive China' for seeking to 'change the status quo' against 'aggrieved' neighboring countries. Many fail to see through the news. It can be remembered that just last year, the US increased its military forces in Australia and conducted ever-larger military exercises in the region to intimidate and contain China’s influence. The more recent announcement that US military troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond 2020 (despite Obama’s promise to remove them in 2014) is suspect enough since the country shares a border with China.

What the US fails to realize is the scale of its bullying in the region. Just last week, it concluded a mammoth military exercise with Japan which involved 34,000 troops and 350 warplanes, focusing on how to defeat Chinese anti-ship capabilities and a naval blockade to cripple China’s economy once a conflict breaks out. Sadly, we can only refer to the American reaction to Soviet troops stationed in Cuba half a century ago. Can anyone remind America what it feels like to have gargantuan military buildups and war exercise performed in their own backyard?

Europe an Ally, but an Enemy as well?

This week will see the European Summit discuss a quite unusual issue: that of America’s snooping on its allies. Barely a week has passed since the revelations that America’s NSA tapped on government phone calls from Spain and France, and now we have Germany’s top leader Angela Merkel to add to this sorry list of compromised allies.

The fresh NSA leaks showed that the NSA has been tapping on the Chancellor’s phone calls as far back as 2002.

This recent revelation by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden infuriated both Paris and Berlin, where Merkel was quoted saying “Spying between friends—that’s just not done.” “I said that to US President Barack Obama when he came to Berlin and again on the phone [Wednesday],” Merkel said.

As hard-hitting as these relationship snippets between the Western allies are, the mood and tone Britain is quite disconnected from its European friends.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was more worried about how these things are revealed in the first place, expressing concerns that the Snowden leak “is frankly signaling to people who mean to do us harm how to evade and avoid detection”, citing the recent Kenya mall massacre. He added that “it (revelation) is going to make our world more dangerous”.

Just a few days ago, a conservative British politician called for the prosecution of the paper Guardian for publishing NSA documents and “aiding terrorism and endangering national security.” The fear-mongering official diverted the issue of America spying on its allies and instead argued that “once an adversary knows if and how we can read their communications, they will change their behavior.”

Rewind just a couple of weeks ago and you end up opening your morning papers with the less-publicized furry of Brazil’s president Dilma Roueseff over similar NSA accusations. And if you go back a decade ago, you end up with a leaked NSA memo calling for increased “surveillance of and interception of phone calls and emails from United Nations delegations crucial to the (then) upcoming Security Council (Iraq invasion) vote.”

“Everyone spies on friends”

Surprisingly for a conflict-hungry leader, Obama pacified Merkel’s anger, saying he did not know about the spying. The same air brushing language was employed by the president earlier this year: "We should stipulate that every intelligence service —not just ours, but every European intelligence service, every Asian intelligence service, wherever there's an intelligence service — here's one thing that they're going to be doing: They're going to be trying to understand the world better, and what's going on in world capitals around the world…If that weren't the case, then there'd be no use for an intelligence service."

However, these days, not even his allies are impressed. French president Francois Hollande demanded the US to immediately stop any more eavesdropping, saying “we cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies.”

Snowden’s status in Russia

It was August 1 when the NSA whistleblower was granted his application to seek temporary political asylum in Russia. He has since left the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow and his whereabouts are not disclosed, although it is believed Edward Snowden might now intend to apply for full refugee status.

According to Veronika Krasheninnkova, Director General of Institute of Foreign Political Studies and Initiatives in Moscow, Russia has no choice but to grant Snowden asylum.

The Director said “this is the decision made by an independent sovereign state. Additionally, well, Russia has been left without much choice. Mr. Snowden’s passport was cancelled when he was on Russia’s territory. And furthermore when President Obama said on June 27 that he would not send fighter jets to intercept the plane transporting Mr. Snowden, and only a few days later indeed a plane was intercepted with the President of Bolivia Eva Morales on the suspicion that Mr. Snowden was on board. So in this situation it was very difficult to conduct negotiations with Washington. I think that was the only right thing to do and Russia did it.”

She also added that “what is appalling in this situation in the United States is that a young man who helped the government to fight against glaring violations of American constitutional law and International Laws instead of being helped by the government is being prosecuted. Well, that is, and President Obama who as a trained constitutional lawyer  definitely knows the Constitution, well, it is too bad that they have to face hundreds plus years of prison rather than indeed being helping those cases being investigated and the true perpetrators of these violations being punished.”

Social Upheaval of the Times: A New Perspective

The span of time since the unraveling of socialism a little over twenty years ago has given us, contemporary observers, the opportunity to look at this event with unprecedented depth and a bigger perspective. Indeed, that span has uncovered and brought back from obscurity the real factors that contributed to the collapse of this ideology, very much like how history is vindicated well after it has unfolded. What is obvious to us today surely was not clear for that age's participants and observers, thus, a better say on what truly happened, from the personalities who betrayed socialism to the unwelcome external elements that intervened, is aching to be told especially in this time of mass protests in Europe and privacy scandals plaguing America.

Almost exactly twenty years before the financial blunder of the West, Eastern Europe was undergoing a major political transformation; the masses are confronted with a choice that would dictate how their lives will be from then on: to keep under socialism or to succumb to the allure of the supposedly more democratic ways of their Western neighbors. The reverse is true today: Americans are increasingly becoming aware but less patient with how they should be governed, from how taxpayer money should be used in times of crisis to how their private lives are eroded by an increasingly paranoid government. Without realizing it, people are citing elements of socialism to serve as antidote (Occupy Movement) to the woes of contemporary life in 'the land of the free.' In Europe, calls for a loosening of the highly bureaucratic and elitist European Union is needless to say, gaining more ground as state after state succumb to strings-attached-ridden bailouts and the claws of austerity measures eating at people's welfare and ultimately, their existence.

How can you preach 'democracy' when you treat your citizens with distrust, as with the recent Manning-Assange-Snowden expose reveal? In fact, even America's allies can't escape this inexorable surveillance menace. How can you preach 'more integration' for the so-called European Union if you continue to keep out the assignment of management of the continent beyond the approval of citizens? Such trappings were the wedge of classic anti-socialist/communist rhetoric during the Cold War. Can we look at who's speaking now? Indeed we can, with the help of what others call "the ordeal of careful scrutiny."

With Age Comes Greater Understanding: The Truth behind Socialism's Collapse in the 1980s

The typical Western triumphalist thinking has all the success-over-socialism-the-enemy covered in the Cold War dialogue, where claims rest mostly in the belief that socialism is doomed from the beginning, as was the case with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the specific case of the dissolution of the USSR, there are six theories that try to 'explain' why socialism failed, including:

• flaws of socialism
• popular opposition
• external factors
• bureaucratic counter-revolution
• lack of democracy and over-centralization, and
• the Gorbachev factor

The first theory argues that socialism was doomed from the start because it had an inherent anti-human nature flaw. It is misguided thought because it requires a predisposition that socialism in the USSR should've failed before even more pressing challenges, such as collectivization or the Nazi invasion, had gripped the relatively young socialist state.

The second theory subscribes to the idea that popular opposition brought down socialism in the Soviet Union and even Eastern Europe. However, subscribers to this theory fail to explain the fact that a real opposition to Gorbachev did not turn out in the beginning of his reforms. To begin with, mass discontent did not appear during Gorbachev's early years as General Secretary. Moreover, surveys showed that people were actually satisfied with their lives and the system.

While others falsely believed that, some were comfortable with blaming external factors as behind the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory believe in the pressure that Reagan put on the reforming Soviet system, especially on military terms. On the contrary, despite rhetorical musings, there is no evidence of such triumphalism, especially on the buildup of arms that was supposed to 'bankrupt' the Soviets into spending. In fact, archives show that the American military buildup was not reciprocated by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory fail to cite the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the plan of Gorbachev to end conscription in the military as well as the eventual reduction of the armed forces.

The fourth theory promote the belief that as Gorbachev's reforms unleashed forces beyond the control of the state, slow-moving leaders were left with no choice but to ride the waves of a fast-emerging market economy by privatizing state assets for their own wealth. Although some in the elite saw an opportunity in the unraveling of the centralized economy, it was motivated by their interest in hanging on to power, rather than subscribing to the return of capitalism.

The fifth theory traces the root of the Soviet collapse to the inability of the state to "democraticize", at least in the Western sense of the word. However, over time, the meaning of democracy changes. In Roger Keeran's and Thomas Kenny's thesis, neither capitalism nor liberalism has an exclusive claim to democracy. To be sure, democracy came to the United States in gradual terms, and was constantly improved as rights became more pervasive and expanded. In fact, 'popular participation' was built-in in the Soviet political and decision-making system. Indeed, the spread of power was even more dispersed than in a Western democracy. As for over-centralization, scholars miss the fact that the USSR was the first socialist country to embark on such economic path; there is no guarantee the plan will work, but nevertheless it produced a system that will achieve the goals of socialism, including free education, housing, guaranteed jobs, zero-inflation and others.

The sixth theory also has the trappings of an incomplete thesis: that Gorbachev was the man to blame, especially because of his abandonment of traditional communism. There is no denying that Gorbachev's policies unleashed wanton forces beyond his control. However, few recall that his earlier policies where a mirror of Andropov's reforms. At best, this theory fails to fully convince, especially since Gorbachev, according to Keeran and Kenny, "was both a legatee of a certain tradition and the product of his times and not just a lone factor making history."

Rebuffing Western Though on the Collapse: Other Areas of Discussion

Even after the end of the First World War, it is undeniable that the Soviet people underwent a major upheaval, when the country retreated from the major war and succumbed to civil war. To think that the ‘crisis’ from 1985 onward was an insurmountable challenge would therefore be invalid, after all, the USSR had survived far greater calamities after the Second World War.

Although the economy of the USSR was slowing down in the 1980s, economists still saw the single digit GDP growth as manageable, one that did not threaten the stability of the country’s economy. Although the price of oil surely caused trouble to Soviet finances, adjusted for inflation, the price of oil was higher than in the previous decade.

The Soviet Union’s military and diplomatic standing is correctly judged as having accomplished or managed well it’s objectives in the 1970s through to the 1980s. Even with Reagan’s military buildup, especially with the threat of SDI, this did not receive serious attention by military and economic planners in the USSR; simply SDI was treated as unfeasible in the short to medium term. Years later, historian Adam Ulam would quip that in 1985, “no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power, and its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR.”

The real situation then was, as with the previous decade, the USSR of the 1980s was a stable one, with no unemployment, no inflation, no mass protests and strength in its foreign policy. There were problems, but there was clearly no real crisis that can threaten the country’s existence. Perhaps more importantly for a country that had many autonomous republics and regions; there were no observable conflicts among its nationalities and ethnicities.

Even with a one-party system, the Soviet bureaucratic machine had many decision makers from top to bottom. Millions participated in the collective soviets, which are institutions of power. More than 150 million workers were involved in unions, and contrary to bourgeoisie denunciations, these institution are not ‘fake’ and functioned with vitality and much room for policy. As for the people themselves, a referendum as late as 1991 showed that the majority of Soviet people (75 percent) where in favor of keeping the Union intact.

Indeed even during the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Soviet central planning in politics and economics was more complex than ever because of the expansion of the economy and the increased freedoms of its people. In fact, as Roger Keeran says “it was the erosion of planning and the flowering of the second (underground) economy that raised barriers to economic growth in the USSR.”

As for the Soviet leader himself, Thomas Kenny rightly observes that “we do not believe that Gorbachev ever acted consciously at the outset to betray socialism and restore capitalism. In contrast to Andropov, who was a deep and genuine Marxist-Leninist, Gorbachev was a brilliant actor…without great theoretical preparation” but that over time Gorbachev “took the conscious decision that he was no longer a communist, but a social democrat…he no longer believed any more in planning, social ownership of the means of production, the role of the working class, socialist democracy.”

America has the Exclusive Right to Bomb the World

US Secretary of State John Kerry meeting Syrian rebels

The past few months since the Syrian chemical weapon incident have seen a sensational back and forth action in international politics. On the one hand, Obama had played a very safe but misleading role in the resolution of the conflict.

Obama cautious on the outcome of British Commons vote

There is no denying the American president played his Democrat-cards well. As the representative of the party supposedly-opposed to wars abroad (unlike the Republicans), he halfheartedly  rallied for an intervention on the Syrian conflict by waiting for the outcome of the British House of Commons on their vote against an attack on Syria.

The epic August 30 disavowal against David Cameron’s support for another British-and-American misadventure reassured the international community that a decade is not too distant to forget the humiliation and outcome of the Iraq and Afghan carnage wrought by the United States. Despite the UK's backing out of the Syria strike, Obama says the US will "continue to consult" its British ally.

Obama ‘consults’ Congress on Syria intervention

In a ‘true’ Democrat move, Obama, the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, played again a safe but misleading path to a ‘resolution’ on the Syria conflict by presenting Congress intelligence reports that apparently proved Bashar al-Assad’s hands on the most recent chemical attack. Certainly, on the back of Obama’s head, he knows he will be denied the vote he needs for authorization of another ‘coalition of the willing’ on Syria.

Now who could deny Obama’s heroism after the Congress turn-down? Undeniably in his Oval Office, the president is whispering he did what he could but that Congress was to blame for a failure to authorize the bombing of another Muslim country. At a lecture at the University of Michigan, David North described the US Syria policy as possibly a “carefully planned diplomatic masterstroke.”

American media’s disgusting propaganda  against Syria

Below the official Washington statements, the media, headed by CNN, has been skillfully playing their deception, including:

• The dropping of the word ‘alleged’ chemical weapons use from news

• That if it weren't for America’s threat, the Syrian government will not be willing to negotiate (from the beginning, Bashar Al-Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and so the willingness-to-negotiate trophy should go to Russia, not the US)

• That Syria’s possession of chemical weapons violates international rules, forgetting that this is the ‘best’ Syrian deterrent against Israel’s far more destructive and illegal possession of nuclear weapons

• That the Syrian rebels are being likened to the ‘freedom fighters’ supported by the West and Saudi Arabia against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan back in the 80s

• In lieu of the threat to use force, there is no mention on how extensive the West supports the rebels in Syria. In fact, the decision to use force is in large part dictated by the desperate situation of the Syrian rebels

Russia’s role in conflict resolution

If there is any other international leader who should be eulogized for brokering a deal on the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, it should be Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin leader knows that a peace deal is the only path to Syria’s return to normalcy, and he knew this from the beginning. Record-wise, Putin was a staunch renouncer of Western interventionism in the past.

In a recent gathering with academics and research analysts in Russia, he felt comfortable in criticizing the West’s double standards (especially with Israel), hypocrisy, and moral decline. Vis-à-vis Israel, the Russian leader proposed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which happens to include Israel’s secret nukes and Syria’s chemical weapons.

Also at the recent Shanghai Security Organization (SCO) meeting held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin insisted that “military interference from outside the country without a UN Security Council sanction is admissible” and that the summit jointly opposed “Western intervention in Syria, as well as the loosening of the internal and regional stability in the Middle East.”

As in the past, China, for its part, mostly favors Russia’s foreign policy. At the SCO meeting, Chinese president Xi Jinping expressed his country's opposition to a Western-led strike against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran,  a major energy supplier to China.

The Iran Response

Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, perceived as a moderate statesman, attended the SCO meeting, where he agreed on keeping Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, adding that this has given “hope that we will be able to avoid a new war in the region.”

The Post-Chavez Venezuela

The charismatic Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has not only historically rattled his opponents abroad when he was living, but also today that the world missed one of the most progressive and populist leaders with his death on March 5. The four-term democratically-elected President may have passed away, but his revolution and legacy lives on especially in the hearts of the majority of his people and in Latin America.

Chavez was frequently portrayed by the United States as the 'crazy oddball' especially when he expressed his counter-Western views especially after the US invaded Afghanistan. Even a former American president called him an 'ass' on national television, while his son branded Chavez as among those supporting the 'axis of evil.' On his death, some in Congress openly celebrated his demise, with Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declaring “Good riddance to this dictator.”

Despite those mainstream comments  (at least in the West), Chavez is the champion of empowering the poor, by not only improving their social conditions (through oil revenues) but also by empowering them in the local political discourse. Chavez ended the duopoly of elitist corruption of the past when he got into power in 1999. The immensely charismatic leader offered his people a different kind of democracy, one that truly engaged and nurtured the pulse of his people. He brought reforms that favored the poor, which constitute more than half the population of Venezuela.

Although the US often demonizes Chavez' 'oil weapon', oil-financed programs benefit some eight percent of the country's population, especially in the education and housing sectors, helping millions. Indeed, it is hard to support a coup against a leader who has the backing of his people, and was democratically-elected four times in one of the most transparent elections anywhere. Regardless of his portrayal in the US, Chavez has not threatened to cut oil exports to the US.

Post-Chavez

President Chavez' death certainly has people from the Left and Right scrambling on how to continue or cut the leader's revolution. It is widely feared at home whether the concerns of the poor will be met in an event Chavez' health stops him from doing his duties properly. Although the opposition had a quite acceptable performance against the President in the December 2012 elections, the opposition's unity is still fragile. The patience and persistence of  Henrique Capriles will certainly be under more intense scrutiny this time. With backing from the US, will the opposition finally gain power? Or will Chavez' hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro continue the populist revolution? However, while many supported Chavez, it is not clear whether the support will trickle down to his protege and allies.

Indeed, the world can only hope to empathize with Venezuela during this uncertain times, and external powers with double standards should resist the temptation to exploit again and intervene.

recommended reading: Hugo Chavez and Socialism

The World in 2013

The changing of the calendar is always a euphoric moment for humanity. As exciting as it is though, world events will be more like just an evolution of the previous year, except perhaps for China, which will see a new leadership this summer.

For one, in Washington, Barack Obama will continue on with his second term, although with a new lineup of secretaries. The European Union will continue to be haunted by austerity issues and economic volatility, with recession not a remote possibility. Chinese manufacturing will slump, especially compounded by a looming housing bubble.

In the Middle East, the specter of the so-called Arab Spring will linger, especially in Egypt and Libya, where their supposedly new leaders are confronted by mass protests and calls for 'real' reforms. The increased Western pressure on Syria and Iran will continue to play a role in the price of energy as a new war looms in the Persian Gulf.  Diamond prices will continue to go down as gem stones take on new prominence and increase in their value.

Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization will put increasing pressure on the West to lower or eliminate government subsidies and protectionist policies. Emerging economics like India, Brazil and Indonesia will play more important global economic roles this year as well.

In the consumer electronics sector, Apple and Google will continue to battle each other through patent wars and the like, which will stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Samsung will be bringing the war to Apple on this front as well, rather than the reverse. The tired brands of Microsoft and Nokia will continue to push fresh ideas on their products and services to regain market share.

Indeed, this year will be a continuation of the events of last year. Nevertheless, it is an exciting year ahead.

UN Vote Upgrades Palestine to "non-member state" Status

The Big News

While alarmists warn that abrupt changes equate to instability and uncertainty, some developments just keep defying the status quo. Palestine last week has successfully been granted a "non-member" observer State status at the United Nations General Assembly. The 193-member assembly adopted a vote that saw 138 in favor and 9 against the resolution. Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said this is a significant step in achieving Palestine's independence as well as brings it closer to rectify "unprecedented historical injustice" inflicted on the Palestinian people since 1948.

Unsurprisingly, the upgrade has been met with condemnation in Israel. Just as the vote concluded, Israel announced it will go ahead with new settlements in occupied territory including a high-profile construction plan near Jerusalem. Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev said that this development will further withdraw constructive dialogue and that "its going to hurt peace."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will withhold badly-needed tax transfers to Palestinians and that his government "rejects the U.N General Assembly decision."

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice also openly denounced the resolution, echoing her Israeli allies saying that her government does not support a measure that undermines direct talks and that the November 22 decision did "not establish Palestine as a state." She also added that the decision will not advance peace in the Middle East.

With Washington's backing, Israel lobbied voting nations to oppose the measure, but failed miserably. Israel's position was so unpopular that even its traditional allies/sympathizers either abstained or voted for the Palestinians.

On the other hand, the Israeli and American statements were met with concern by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, expressing that such "would represent any almost fatal blow to remaining chances for securing a two-state solution." Catherine Ashton, the European Union's foreign policy chief was quoted as saying "the European Union has repeatedly stated that all settlement construction is illegal under international law and constitutes an obstacle to peace."

The Big Repercussions

Finally in its modern period, Palestine now has the capacity for self determination, especially before an international criminal court. It can now claim rights to independent development, free of Israel. This means that Palestine can now independently control its borders, or assert its own security and pursue its own trade with the world.

There can be no denying that the Palestinian upgrade to statehood can mean only good things for its people and its future. Abbas was jubilant and optimistic for his people, saying "we now have a state...the world has said loudly, ‘Yes to the state of Palestine."

But as these developments seal a better self-determination for Palestine, Israel is met with a new set of problems of its own. For one, with the upgrade to non-member observer state status, Palestine can now be a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to Switzerland's accession in 1946 when the General Assembly accepted it as a Permanent Observer to the United Nations. As such, Palestine now can file complaints against Israel in the world court. Palestine now also has the choice to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly even genocide.

Can the US (and Israel) block complaints by Palestine? Unfortunately for them, they cannot, since they are not signatories of the Rome treaty. Much like how they arrogantly behaved at the recent Assembly, the US  announced back in 2002 that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," and that, "[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature." On the other hand, Israel's indifference and naive behavior betrays not only international trust but also its very existence — it does not recognize the resolution that permitted the Palestinian upgrade to non-member observe state status and yet it forgets the fact that its very own existence was a result of 1948 UN resolution which permitted its right to self determination and independent existence.

Israel's Timing, not a Coincidence?

So Israel decides to attack an old target; indeed they've done a good effort in misleading the world into thinking it is close to attacking Iran or Syria after the American elections. It was supposed to be just a matter of when and not which. Indeed, it is a well-played deception that only means harm to Israel's and the West's enemies. There has been uneasy speculation whether Israel will attack before or after the US elections. Nevertheless, Israel was more expected to attack once a new US president assumes office.

As it went, the re-election of Barack Obama was a doubled-edged sword in its own right as the actual Israeli aggression came earlier than expected and surprised with its choice of target. What a surprise it has been indeed. On the one hand, an informed expert can find refuge in Israel's recent past, and future — that it was back in 2008 (US presidential elections) it last attacked the brutally repressed Palestinians, and that it will be holding elections come January 2013. Is Benjamin Netanyahu playing out the failed cards of his defeated presidential bet Mit Romney? He was open to favor Romney, but nevertheless admitted that he will continue a hard stance against its enemies regardless of who wins the US presidential elections, a fact vindicated by its fresh attacks on Palestine.

How can a nation pretend to be threatened when Israel itself brags about its precision missiles and air power while its enemy is not even allowed to have its own airport? Can Israel ever be threatened when it has nuclear weapons that it promises to use not as a last resort?

Is there any conscience among Israeli leaders when they continue to ban and isolate Gaza's interaction with the outside world? Indeed there is no conscience in indulging in efforts to ban fishermen to fish more than a mile from their borders, and when it pursues to block the entry of basic goods such as school books, fruits, paper, and even chocolates for concern of 'national security'. Sardonic as it seems, but how do you keep reminding the world of the Berlin Wall when you keep downplaying or even hiding the existence of the Israeli West bank barrier wall?

If the blocking of these most basic of human needs do not haunt their conscience, then it is no surprise that Israel continues to derail peace efforts from Gazan leaders, such as their recent assassination of military leader Ahmed Jaabari, who was already proposing a longer-term cease fire (assisted by Egypt) when he was killed by Israel defense forces. Despite that, however, Israel is insisting it is only responding to rocket fires from Hamaz. But with the polarization of the international landscape, this time Israel cannot escape fresh war crime charges by no less than the Arab League on the side of Palestine.

Although the fighting has stopped, we are but left to wonder when Israel will assert itself again. To which I pose a curiosity: does Israel have qualms against Washington's 'pivot' to Asia? Is it left vulnerable and wanting?

Why American Exceptionalism Leads to Oppression

It is fashionable among the conservative elite to overplay, commend, and acquiesce America’s greatness. Their political correctness insists that America is “embraced” by people around the world who share their will to defend “freedom.”

In his book, A Nation Like No Other,   Newt Gingrich points out that the perceived decline of American primacy has its roots in downright unsound policies and bureaucracies back home. To him, even to deny America’s “Exceptionalism” is to run against the very principles to which the “Founders of Independence” held on to in the past. He finds utter distaste in Obama’s belief that other nations, especially those who held power in the past, have the right to believe in their own exceptionalism. Indeed, Gingrich joins his fellow egotistical citizens who condemn Obama’s statement “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

His book presents the most insipid experience yet on American braggadocio; it offers a peak into how virtues are undermined by political agenda. Allow me to guide you to his unfortunate thoughts.

In the book, Gingrich expresses his derision of the concept of what he calls “Big Government.” Quoting Professor John Wallis at the University of Maryland, Gingrich points out that the creation of “groups within the government…to the power profit, or protection they acquire by the favour of these persons, (are) but enemies to the constitution.” He concludes that “the biggest threat to civil society today is the growth of Big Government.” Has he forgotten that the transfer of immense wealth to the “one percent” was actually the brainchild of Ronald Reagan himself by enacting wanton deregulation? Is he even aware that it was during those times when the elite started dismantling the industries and relocated them offshore? It seems Gingrich is not aware that the 2008 recession was the cause of unsound republican policies and military posturing around the world. He seemed to forget that the strict regulation of the private sector was what’s needed to solve this unprecedented economic apocalypse.

If he is truly concerned with “people’s liberties and security through hard work”, then how come did he and his fellow republicans allow labor and all that work be transferred overseas? To be responsible for the dismantling of factories and production ironically backfires against securing private property rights, which he hypocritically and deceivingly defended in his book.

He also maintains that “the Founders sought to diffuse governmental power so that no single person, group, or governing branch could accumulate enough to encroach on the people’s unalienable rights.” Then again, how come did he and his fellow republicans ignore the voices of its people who argued against waging an ostracized war against Iraq? Didn’t George W. Bush went ahead and snubbed them in their faces? Indeed this ignoring traces its justification in his belief that “the Founders were adamantly opposed to direct democracy” which ironically goes against the same’s assertion that it “would fail to protect true liberty and would allow for the “tyranny of the majority.”” He further quotes John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

And yet he has the nerve to share that “subsequent presidents heeded Washington’s caution to prepare for war while seeking to avoid it…America showed the world that, though it did not seek war, it would defend itself from foreign attack.” But the opposite is what Gingrich prescribes his country to do. He encourages maintaining peace and safety which “is best maintained through a robust military capacity”. And here again, he goes on a hypocritical assertion that “America leads the world in spending on the military and on national security precisely to ensure that our wars are as rare and as swift as possible.” Do we need to mention America’s yearning to destroy another country accused of aspiring for nuclear parity with Israel? As such, it is undeniable that he and his fellow republicans endorse, focus, and thrive on and heed to the economic juggernaut that is the military industrial complex run by their elites.

He also focuses on America’s flawed foreign policy in the 1970s when the US scaled down (at least the overt ones) on its military commitments and disengaged with its allies elsewhere, especially in Vietnam. He was deeply concerned with the policy of détente adopted during that time as well as with the signing of the second SALT II with the Soviet Union because “the treaty…erode(d) U.S. strategic advantages” and that Carter adopted “policies that accepted declining power in the interests of “peace.””

Gingrich eulogized Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” where America once again started building up its military might in the 1980s. Reagan added that “we’re not a warlike people…We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance.” He encouraged Americans to take sides and take action by warning to “label both sides equally at fault” and caution “to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

The former House Speaker also exaggerates what role, if any, the US has played in the dissolution of the other superpower. This is often overlooked by the West. It is often cited that Reagan, together with Thatcher and John Paul II where the tidal forces that pushed their rival to its demise and eventual collapse. Gingrich believed that “the disappearance of the Soviet Union was the end result of a comprehensive and morality-based strategy to promote freedom around the world.” Isn’t this aggrandizing and self-serving — credit grabber as they call it?

Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s assertions belong to the unpopular. He is among the American leaders who fall trap to dealing with everything through military might. He is opposed to “Big Government” at home while backing America’s “Big Government” treatment of the world. He is utterly opposed to Obama’s “reset with Russia” policy, with Obama’s engaging in “dialogue” with problematic states, and accuses his president of “elevating the tool of multilateralism into an end in itself…categorically rejects the very idea of American dominance.” He finds delight in fear mongering, where he accuses Obama of being a “socialist” and that America is headed in a more Europe direction.

Gingrich even rejects the promotion of sustainable energy in his homeland. He categorically opposes Obama’s moratorium on drilling, saying that it increases the United States dependence on foreign oil. Instead, he calls for “an all-out effort to increase domestic oil and gas drilling” and allow “producers to do what they do best: creating affordable and reliable energy.” He further adds that encouraging energy production, including domestic drilling, will create jobs and grow the economy.” It is thus tempting to deduce that Mr. Gingrich is not aware of the merits of pursuing renewable energy, not to mention the catastrophic effects of climate change.

In the end, it is he and his republican partners who are guilty of protecting and advancing the interests of the privileged few while also discounting the welfare and liberties of the majority.   And to think that like-minded people rule Washington all the more confirms the menace of America’s supposed exceptionalism.  Indeed, they are exceptional, but in a bad way.