All posts by Whitney Webb

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on ZeroHedge, the AntiMedia, Newsbud and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.
Featured, Foreign Policy, International, Opinion

US, UK and France Establishing New Military Bases In Northern Syria

Leave a comment

Despite the fact that President Trump recently considered withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria, the United States— along with its allies the United Kingdom and France— are doubling down and expanding their military presence in Northeastern Syria by establishing new military bases near the town of Manbij. Reports of the bases first broke last month, but were recently confirmed by Reuters. The bases are believed to be part of a wider effort by the U.S./U.K./France coalition to aid its military proxy force in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in its “resistance” to the Turkish government.

Turkey has long maintained that the SDF, which is largely composed of members of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), are terrorists. The U.S. announcement earlier this year that they would be using the SDF to build a “border force” subsequently led Turkey to invade parts of Northern Syria previously controlled by the SDF with help from its own proxy force in Syria, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

After Turkey took control of Afrin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he was considering removing YPG/SDF forces from Manbij as well, prompting the coalition forces to consolidate their positions. With the coalition now beefing up its military presence to prevent Turkey from encroaching further, Syria is set to become a new sore point in Turkey’s relationship with NATO and the West.

According to reports, the military bases are located throughout the Manbij region, with the U.S. having at least two bases while the French are constructing one. The U.K. does not have its own base, but its soldiers are known to be present in the area and to work with U.S. and French troops stationed in Manbij.

Helil Bozi, the commander of the Military Council of Manbij of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), told Sputnik that “the U.S. has deployed its Special Forces units near the Sajur River thereby setting a red line the crossing of which will be seen by the [U.S.-led] coalition forces as an attack and will prompt retaliatory actions,” noting that the increase in the coalition’s military presence was a direct result of Turkey’s prior statements regarding Manbij.

Though locals have claimed that the presence of the coalition members of the military are aimed at Turkey, they are also likely to prevent Syrian government forces from retaking the area. Now that the Syrian government has successfully removed terrorist groups from Damascus as well as other key parts of the country, there has been speculation that the Syrian military would turn its focus to areas of the country occupied by foreign powers.

Indeed, the Syrian government is very interested in recuperating the area currently occupied by the coalition and nominally controlled by the Kurds as it holds 95% of the entire country’s oil and gas potential. Under Kurdish leadership, an unknown U.S. company is already extracting and selling oil in the region, thus making it unlikely that the U.S. would willingly leave the area. The U.S. is also unlikely to leave its investment in the SDF behind, having recently allocated $550 million to arm and train the group over the next year.

In addition, the area also boasts the country’s largest fresh water reservoirs and over 60% of its agricultural land, making it an invaluable bargaining chip in determining the future of Syria, a future that coalition powers hope will remove the current Syrian government from power and replace it with a more Western-friendly government.

However, the aims of the coalition appear directed more toward partition than regime change. The U.S. has long sought to divide Syria in order to take control of the country’s resource rich Northeast and to isolate the Syrian government and, by extension, its regional allies such as Iran.

Though the U.S. has played on the hopes of Kurdish nationalists, it has long established plans for an authoritarian Wahhabist enclave in Northeastern Syria according to a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency document from 2012 and, more recently, courting the Saudis to “rebuild” the area. Furthermore, the fact that the SDF includes militias composed of “retrained” ISIS fighters also underscores that the coalition is more interested in controlling the region than aiding a Kurdish nationalism project.

Though advertised as an effort to “protect” the Kurds, the establishment of new American and French military bases in Northern Syria appear to serve as protection of the coalition’s regional ambitions and plans for the region.

Featured, Foreign Policy, Government Accountability, International, US

North And South Korea Pursue Continued Dialogue Despite “Libya Model” Remarks

Leave a comment

On May 24, the White House and President Trump announced that the U.S. would be calling off the long-anticipated peace summit with North Korean and South Korean leadership in Singapore. According to a letter sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un from President Trump, the U.S. decided to cancel the summit, which would have taken place next month, due to the “tremendous anger and open hostility” of a recent statement issued by North Korea. While Trump has since hinted that the summit may yet happen, his letter deserves examination as his take on North Korea’s “hostility” lacks important context.

Indeed, the “hostility” of North Korea may be viewed as a direct response to statements made by high-ranking members of the Trump administration, including Trump himself, that explicitly referenced the so-called “Libya model” of denuclearization. The remarks referenced by Trump’s letter were aimed directly at Vice President Mike Pence, who had discussed implementation of the “Libya model” in an interview with FOX News last Monday, leading North Korea to call Pence a “political dummy” and his comments “stupid” and “impudent.”

Pence was the latest U.S. official to make such comments. In recent weeks, Trump himself stated that the Libya model “was total decimation. That model would take place if we don’t make a deal.” In late April, National Security Adviser John Bolton had been the first administration official to reference the “Libya model” where he mentioned Libya as the administration’s road map for the denuclearization of North Korea on several different television programs.

The reference to Libya provoked North Korean leadership given that the U.S. government supported the overthrow of Libya’s government after its former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, had dismantled its early-stage nuclear program at the behest of the United States. The destruction of Libya turned the country, which once boasted the highest standard of living in all of Africa, into a failed state and saw Gaddafi brutally sodomized with a bayonet before being shot by U.S.-backed jihadists.

“It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers,” North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan said in a statement.

[Read more: Obama/Clinton to Blame for Slave Markets in Libya?]

At the time of the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya’s government, a North Korean official stated that “the Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” namely that U.S.-brokered attempts at nuclear disarmament are ultimately “an invasion tactic to disarm” countries. The so-called “Libya model” has since been cited by U.S. officials as the likely motivation behind North Korea’s decision to become a full-fledged nuclear power.

The comments regarding Libya have not been the only actions recently taken by the U.S. that North Koreans have cited as provocative and unproductive in light of the peace talks. Indeed, another major point of contention has been the large military exercise currently being held by the U.S. and South Korea, which North Korea has claimed is an imitation of an invasion of its country and a “deliberate military provocation.” The exercise reportedly had initially included nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and F-15K jets.

While the widespread mention of the “Libya model” and the recent military drill together suggest that the U.S. may have sabotaged the talks, Trump seemed to walk back from suggestions that the peace talks would be canceled for good. A few hours after the letter was sent, Trump stated that he “held up hope” that the summit could be rescheduled for another date, leading some to suggest that Trump’s letter was a tactic aimed at giving the U.S. an advantage in future negotiations.

However, the Trump administration’s decision to cancel the summit indicates that its top officials prefer a military solution to tensions on the Korean peninsula. Chief among those officials is Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton.

In recent years, Bolton has repeatedly argued that “regime change” was the only “diplomatic” solution left that could be used to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and he is well known for his role in sabotaging past agreements aimed at denuclearizing North Korea while serving in the Bush administration.

Beyond Bolton, obstructions of the Korea peace summit have come from elsewhere such as the U.S. military. Were peace achieved, there would be little reason to maintain the 15 U.S. military bases in South Korea, along with the approximately 28,000 American troops currently stationed there; the removal of those troops would drastically reduce U.S. presence in the region. It would also be a loss to U.S. weapons manufacturers who have long supplied South Korea with armaments, including missile defense systems.

Ultimately, peace on the Korean peninsula appears to be attainable. North and South Korea have successfully held two productive meetings this year: following the historic meeting in April between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in vowing to end war and denuclearize, the two held an unannounced meeting on Saturday to continue further dialogue. Moon subsequently confirmed that Kim supports denuclearization and a summit with Trump, stating that “Chairman Kim and I have agreed that the June 12 summit should be held successfully, and that our quest for the Korean Peninsula’s denuclearization and a perpetual peace regime should not be halted.”

Moon also said that Kim “once again has made clear his will for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and expressed his intent to settle the history of war and confrontation, and to cooperate for peace and prosperity through the success of the North Korea-US summit.”

Featured, Government Accountability, US

Security Troops At Wyoming Nuclear Missile Base Used and Distributed LSD

Leave a comment

Several Air Force members charged with guarding some of the most powerful nuclear weapons in the United State’s arsenal have been busted as part of a drug ring that bought, sold, distributed and regularly used LSD and other mind-altering drugs.

The airmen, serving at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming as part of the 90th Missile Wing, were caught by investigators following a slip-up by one of the servicemen on social media. Those involved were first caught in March 2016, but the details of their case have only recently been made public after records describing the incident were obtained by the Associated Press. Most of the servicemen entangled in the case were responsible for the security and defense of the nuclear weapons on-site as well as the base’s missile complex.

In total, fourteen airmen were disciplined, six of whom were convicted in courts martial for LSD use and distribution. Furthermore, the court documents detailing the incident made no mention of whether LSD’s secondary effects, such as flashbacks or serious, long-lasting problems that can develop after a negative hallucinogenic experience, had affected the soldiers’ behavior while on the job. Some of the soldiers admitted that, under the influence of hallucinogens, they would not have been able to respond if called to duty to respond to a nuclear security emergency.

While none of the airmen admitted to using LSD or other drugs while on duty, and were reportedly not accused of on-duty drug use, the AP’s report noted that “Air Force investigators found those implicated in the F.E. Warren drug ring used LSD on base and off, at least twice at outdoor gatherings. Some also snorted cocaine and used ecstasy. Civilians joined them in the LSD use, including some who had recently left Air Force service, according to two officials with knowledge of the investigation.”

The drug ring involving members of F.E. Warren Air Force Base is the latest scandal for the Air Force’s nuclear missile corps as reports of illicit drug use and widespread cheating on missileer’s proficiency tests at other nuclear-armed bases have been exposed in recent years. Drug use has been the thornier of the issues, as other bases have found the use of other drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines to be surprisingly common. Some analysts have cited low morale and the young age and lack of experience of the servicemen serving at these bases as underlying problems that have allowed these issues to take root. Others have pointed to a lack of investment in the nuclear missile corps by the federal government.

Despite those lingering problems, the missile force has been thrust back into the spotlight due to President Donald Trump’s calls to strengthen the country’s nuclear might following threats exchanged with North Korea last year and the recent cancellation of peace talks aimed at resolving tensions between the two nuclear powers. However, the recent revelation given the low morale and prolific drug use of servicemen charged with guarding the country’s nuclear weapons may give Americans pause as to whether more nuclear weapons are the solution to the U.S.’ foreign policy conflicts.

Featured, Foreign Policy, International, US

Pompeo’s “Unrealistic” Iran Demands Set Stage For Regime Change

Leave a comment

During a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a well-known conservative think tank in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out a laundry list of demands to Iran on Monday, just a few short weeks after the U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – better known as the Iran nuclear deal.

The demands, described by Pompeo as “basic requirements,” include Iran’s full withdrawal from Syria, the release of all U.S. citizens imprisoned in the country, the end of Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, ending the “enrichment” of uranium, allowing “the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country” and promising to never process plutonium.

Pompeo also noted that a Iran’s failure to comply with these demands would result in the “strongest sanctions in history” being imposed on Iran that would cause the country to struggle to “keep its economy alive.”

“The sting of sanctions will be painful if the regime does not change its course from the unacceptable and unproductive path it has chosen to one that rejoins the league of nations. These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete,” Pompeo said.

This strategy, the Trump administration’s “Plan B” for dealing with Iran following its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, has been regarded as unachievable and unrealistic as Iran is all but certain to reject the ultimatum.

Indeed, Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council asserted that Pompeo’s “requirements” are intentionally unrealistic as his speech was “clearly designed to ensure there cannot be any new negotiation.”

“If you maximize pressure and set unachievable demands, you solely pave the way for war. That is the objective of Trump, and that’s been the objective of his cheerleaders in Saudi and Israel,” Parsi added.

Parsi’s concerns appear warranted given one of Pompeo’s questionable demands that Iran end military support of Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Though long labeled an Iran “proxy” by the corporate media, the Houthis are a movement unique to Yemen that share a religious identity with Iran and little more.

Thomas Juneau, a former analyst for Canada’s Department of National Defence, wrote in the Washington Post that “Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.” He further stated that Iran’s assistance “remains limited and far from sufficient to make more than a marginal difference to the balance of forces in Yemen, a country awash with weapons.”

Even the U.S. State Department has acknowledged that the Houthis have not been not armed by Iran but are instead largely armed by purchases from the black market and the Yemeni military. Furthermore, the Saudi blockade of Yemen ensures that support from Iran, were it to be offered, would not even be able to make it into the Houthi-controlled portion of the country.

Given his “wildly unrealistic” list of policy demands, Pompeo’s speech has largely been regarded as further evidence that the Trump administration has adopted a “regime change” policy towards Iran. This has been expected for some time, as news broke last week that National Security Adviser John Bolton had been circulating a plan throughout the National Security Council that calls for making regime change an explicit part of the administration’s Iran policy.

Pompeo, as well as Bolton, have long been advocates for regime change in Iran, as have other powerful figures closely connected to the Trump administration such as former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani who now serves as one of Trump’s lawyers.

Earlier this month, Giuliani openly stated that Trump and his administration were “committed” to bringing regime change to Iran during a speech to the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), a “cult-like” group of Iranian exiles that was listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the U.S. until 2012 for its use of terror tactics that have resulted in the deaths of both Iranians and Americans. During his recent speech to the group, Giuliani led a chant of “regime change,” underscoring the desired result of the MEK and its contacts in Washington.

Bolton also recently spoke to the MEK during a gathering of the group in France last year. In that speech, Bolton told members and supporters of the group: “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. […] The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself. […] And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”

Pompeo’s recent speech seems to be an indication that Bolton, with help from other like-minded officials in the Trump administration, is seeking to fulfill his regime change promise sooner rather than later.

Civil Liberties, Edward Snowden, Featured, Politics, Privacy, States Rights, US

Five Years After Snowden, Michigan Set to Be First State to Impede NSA’s Warrantless Surveillance

Leave a comment

On the heels of the fifth anniversary of whistleblower Edward Snowden’s disclosure of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to journalists, one state legislature has recently taken steps to hold the government agency accountable for its warrantless surveillance programs by making it illegal for state and local governments, including law enforcement and public utilities, to support the NSA’s warrantless spying on American citizens.

According to Michigan’s Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act, also known as Public Act 71 of 2018, state and local governments can only assist or provide support to the federal government’s collection of data if there is a search warrant or the informed consent of the targeted party. The bill is set to take effect in just a few weeks on June 17th.

While the NSA has no publicly disclosed facility in the state, the bill’s proponents have asserted that it sends a clear message to the federal government regarding the lack of popularity for its warrantless wiretapping of millions of Americans in violation of the legal protections granted to them by the Constitution.

“It hangs up a sign on Michigan’s door saying, ‘No violation of the Fourth Amendment, look elsewhere’,” said Republican state Rep. Martin Howrylak, the bill’s author, according to the Washington Examiner. “Democrats as well as Republicans would certainly stand very strong in our position on what this law means.”

“This new law guarantees no state resources will be used to help the federal government execute mass warrantless surveillance programs that violate the Fourth Amendment protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” Howrylak said soon after the bill was first passed earlier this year in March.

“Michigan will not assist the federal government with any data collection unless it is consistent with the constitution,” he added.

The Michigan law seeking to condemn the NSA’s most controversial program is not the first of its kind. However, it is the first to have been passed successfully without having been  subsequently watered down. For instance, in 2014, state lawmakers in Maryland sought to shut off power and water to NSA headquarters but many of its sponsors dropped their support of the bill after a powerful political backlash. A similar bill was floated in Utah’s state legislature at the same time, but went nowhere after it was rejected by the state’s governor.

“It hangs up a sign on Michigan’s door saying, ‘No violation of the Fourth Amendment, look elsewhere.'”

The only state to have passed a bill similar to Michigan’s is California, which passed the Fourth Amendment Protection Act in 2014. However, that piece of legislation protects the Fourth Amendment in name only as it bans local assistance “in response to a request from a federal agency” and “if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection.”

Despite the efforts being made by state legislatures to restore the Fourth Amendment, such efforts have been largely absent at the national level in recent years. Earlier this year, in January, Congress voted to extend the government’s warrantless surveillance of American citizens for another six years. However, Congress’ reauthorization of the program was more than a mere extension of the program as it actually helped expand the NSA’s authority by codifying some of the more controversial aspects of the program, suggesting that interest in protecting and restoring the Constitution is largely found at the state and local levels of government.

Featured, Foreign Policy, International, US

Saudi FM: Qatar Must Send Troops to Syria or Face Regime Change

Leave a comment

According to the country’s foreign minister, Saudi Arabia is pushing its former ally Qatar to send its military into Syria or face dire consequences. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir issued the threat in response to U.S. government efforts to create an “Islamic coalition” of troops from neighboring countries that will act as a permanent military “stabilizing force” as a precondition to the U.S. removing its own forces from Syria’s occupied Northeast.

Jubeir stated on Wednesday that, were Qatar to decline to be part of the new coalition, the U.S. would cancel American protection of the country, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. Qatar, he said, must “send its military forces (to Syria), before the US president cancels US protection of Qatar, which consists of the presence of a US military base on its territory.”

Jubeir stated that the U.S. withdrawal of protection and military aid would lead the Qatari government “to fall there in less than a week,” insinuating that the country’s failure to send its military to Syria at the behest of the U.S. and Saudis in Syria could result in regime change.

According to a statement released by the Saudi Press Agency:

Based on the US President Donald Trump statement, during a joint press conference held with his visiting French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir announced that Qatar should pay the voucher of the price of US military forces’ presence in Syria, and to send its military forces there, before the US President lifts American protection of the State of Qatar, embodied in the presence of US military base, on its soils.

The Foreign Minister reasserted US President utterance that if the US is to withdraw its protection, represented in the military base located in Qatar, then that regime will fall, within less than a week.

It is unclear if the U.S. government supports the Saudi’s push for Qatari involvement and if they would shut down their military base in Qatar were the country not to send troops to Syria. Qatar is eager to preserve ties with the U.S. and has been reportedly pushing the U.S. to expand its base in the country by renovating its naval ports as well as pushing the Pentagon to make the base permanent.

Whether Qatar will send troops to Syria at behest of the Saudis is anyone’s guess. Indeed, the country was once a major player in the Syrian conflict and some have argued that it was Syria’s rejection of a Qatari gas pipeline in favor of an Iranian gas pipeline that helped to initiate the conflict. Qatar also covertly funded several rebel groups active in Syria, including terrorist groups, that have been fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The reported ultimatum is the just the latest example of deteriorating relations between Qatar and their former ally Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic row began in June of last year, when the Saudis, along with the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Yemen, cut ties with the country after claiming that it supports terrorism. Trump followed suit, calling Qatar a “high-level sponsor of terrorism,” and later took credit for the crisis. However, the issue was not Qatar’s support for terrorism as much as Qatar’s consideration of working with Iran to develop massive natural gas reserves that both countries share.

Ultimately, Qatar failed to acquiesce to past Saudi demands and ultimatums, an embarrassing failure for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman who was largely behind the dramatic falling out.

Given that the past threats leveled at Qatar by the Saudi and its allies failed to change their foreign policy, it seems unlikely that it will now bow to Saudi pressure. If Qatar does choose to join the Saudis in occupying northeastern Syria, it would likely be due to the country’s past of fomenting the conflict in Syria and its funding of rebel groups active in the conflict, rather than concern over Saudi-backed regime change.

Featured, Social Media, Technology, US

Facebook COO Sells $23M in Shares, Company Declines to Attend House Hearing on “Social Media Filtering Practices”

Leave a comment

Facebook’s chief operations officer, Sheryl Sandberg, recently sold $23 million in the company’s stock on Wednesday as governments in the EU move to quickly implement new online privacy laws that would significantly limit the social network’s advertising practices and thus its income.

Sandberg is arguably one of the most powerful and influential women in technology. As Mark Zuckerberg’s COO and the head of the company’s advertising operations, she has been recently blasted by experts for her role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. She has since profusely apologized once news of her involvement was made public. However, despite usually being comfortable in the spotlight, Sandberg has retreated from center stage amid the legal probes Facebook is currently facing, resulting in Mark Zuckerberg’s solo appearance before Congress last week.

In a string of appearances scheduled before the congressional hearings, Sandberg— the social media site’s 2nd in command— affirmed that Facebook’s main source of income comes from advertising. In other words, collecting data of its users is how and why the service remains free.

”The service [Facebook],” Sandberg reminded the public in an interview last Friday, “depends on your data.” Completely opting out of data-based targeted ads, she asserted, would have to be a paid option.

Experts have been quick to analyze and point out the aggressiveness of Facebook’s data collection practices, especially surrounding shadow profiles, which can collect data on users even if they don’t have an account with the social network. Before Congress, Mark Zuckerberg flatly denied any knowledge of the shadow profiles, even though the practice has been well-known since 2013 when the company’s data collection on non-users was revealed during a similar data-mishandling ordeal.

[Related: Facebook Dodges New EU Privacy Regulations]

Regarding the responsibility of the current misuse of data and future regulation regarding people’s privacy, Sandberg has been almost overly apologetic. However, it is still unclear what steps the company has taken since the story first broke in March.

“We know that we did not do enough to protect people’s data. I’m really sorry for that,” she’s said. In a separate instance she apologized yet again saying, “This was a huge breach of trust. People come to Facebook everyday and they depend on us to protect their data, and I am so sorry that we let so many people down.” She couldn’t promise that data was complete safe for now, adding that “We are going to find other things” and “there will always be bad actors.”

Sandberg would not comment about if anyone had lost their jobs at Facebook because of the scandal, saying that “We don’t talk about this publicly and we’re not going to; we don’t think it’s the right thing to do.” Hired in 2008, the former Google advertising chief joined the social network precisely to consolidate the company’s ad-based business model. Facebook’s then 20-something Mark Zuckerberg, who was reclusive and struggling with investors, brought Sandberg on to be the mature face of the company.

Analysts are still in disagreement over the immediate financial future of Facebook, whose stock price took a sharp dip after the harrowing news about personal data leaks. On Wednesday, Sandberg sold 163,500 shares of Facebook stock for a total value of just over $23,000,000. Over the course of 2017, Sandberg sold $316 million worth of shares, with over half that amount being sold in the first half of the year, according to CNBC. Sandberg has sold shares on a consistent basis over the past several years, yet the future of the company remains uncertain in light of dramatic changes and controversies.

A report from CNBC on April 10 highlighted a claim from Brian Wieser, a senior research analyst at Pivotal Research Group, that predicted a role shift for either Sandberg or Zuckerberg. “The company is not well managed,” said Wieser, also claiming that “one of Zuckerberg or Sandberg will not be in the same jobs in 12 months time.”

Most recently, Facebook has seen a modest uptick in active users, as it was reported April 25 that “Facebook’s daily active users in North America rose slightly last quarter to 185 million, a sign that the company’s News Feed algorithm tweaks and data privacy issues may not have deterred consumers.” This news may signal that the public is relenting to Facebook’s conduct; however, it may be worthy for these users to note that Facebook has declined an invitation to offer testimony at the upcoming “Examining Social Media Filtering Practices and their Effect on Free Speech” House of Representatives hearing that will discuss “what metrics social media platforms use to moderate content, how filtering decisions are made, and whether viewpoints have been silenced on some of the most popular and widely used platforms.”

International, Privacy, Social Media, Technology, US

Facebook Dodges New EU Privacy Regulations

Leave a comment

Amidst apologies over mishandling user data and the affirmation that the company is “offering everyone who uses Facebook the same privacy protections, controls and settings, no matter where they live,” the social network recently confirmed plans to shift all users outside the European Union (EU) to a Terms of Service agreement governed by US regulation. Currently, EU users agree to Terms of Service (ToS) under Irish law as the majority of Facebook’s EU user base is located in Ireland.

The move comes after EU announced plans to roll out a new, “game changing” policy aimed at protecting user privacy. The new regulations, dubbed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), would fine companies that breach user privacy up to 4% of their annual profits. For Facebook, that would mean about $1.6 billion dollars based on 2017 reports.

Earlier this month, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook would adhere “in spirit” to GDPR guidelines worldwide, but he did not confirm if this meant that US users would receive the same protection as those in the EU. The GDPR would affect up to 70% of Facebook’s user base, and moving users in Africa, Asia, Australia and Latin America from non-EU to US-governed terms and conditions would exempt Facebook from following GDPR guidelines. The social platform opened operations in Ireland in 2008, taking advantage of low corporate tax rates.

Under the new EU regulations— which will take effect next month— Facebook will have to ask users for permission to use their information for advertising purposes, but there will be no option to decline. This means that Facebook will continue to use their own data on user behavior in order to show targeted ads, and users will have to accept these terms via “permission screens” in order to view certain content.

According to a April 17th Facebook blog post, “People in the EU will start seeing these requests this week to ensure they have made their choices ahead of GDPR coming into effect on May 25. As part of our phased approach, people in the rest of the world will be asked to make their choices on a slightly later schedule, and we’ll present the information in ways that make the most sense for other regions.” However, Tuesday’s announcement about shifting users to ToS governed by US legislation raises questions about the motives behind the move as doing so means that Facebook will not be subject to GDPR sanctions.

In the US, a complaint filed on April 6 with the Federal Trade Commission accused Facebook of abusing user privacy through facial recognition practices after changes made this year to the site’s privacy policy allowed the company to scan photos for biometric data without consent.

Addressing reporters at Facebook corporate offices, Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman said that “Facebook users will be able to limit the kinds of data that advertisers use to target their pitches” but the option to opt-out completely will not be available. Sherman also added that “People can choose to not be on Facebook if they want.”

Last week, Ben Swann reported in a Reality Check episode about issues of privacy and data collection that were widely publicized following the news of personal data mishandling by Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTxQf3qtjpk

 

Civil Liberties, Featured, Foreign Policy, Government Accountability, US

US Army Developing Drones With AI Targeting

Leave a comment

The U.S. Army recently announced that it is working on developing unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones, that will be capable of identifying and subsequently firing upon targets they select using artificial intelligence (AI). Once complete, the drones— which are currently controlled by humans— would decide who to kill with little to no human involvement, opening the door to mass killings with minimal accountability and transparency.

The project, titled “Automatic Targeting Recognition of Personnel and Vehicles from an Unmanned Aerial System Using Learning Algorithms,” would form partnerships with both private and public research institutions which will help develop image-based AI targeting systems. The end result is expected to be drones that use neural networks combined with AI in order to create a deadly aerial weapon that is capable of acting as judge, jury and executioner without human input.

While the use of armed drones has been a fixture of both covert and overt U.S. military action abroad, the Army’s description of the project forebodes the use of the deadly and controversial technology within the United States. It states that “one of the desired characteristics of the system is to use the flexibility afforded by the learning algorithms to allow for the quick adjustment of the target set or the taxonomy of the target set DRCI categories or classes. This could allow for the expansion of the system into a Homeland Security environment.”

Another implication is that technology companies involved in maintaining or creating the AI systems for the drones could result in such companies, as well as engineers and scientists involved in creating aspects of these systems, to be labeled valid military targets for their role in helping to build the machines. As The Conversation notes:

Companies like Google, its employees or its systems, could become liable to attack from an enemy state. For example, if Google’s Project Maven image recognition AI software is incorporated into an American military autonomous drone, Google could find itself implicated in the drone “killing” business, as might every other civilian contributor to such lethal autonomous systems.

In addition, the Department of Defense has reportedly been working on developing an AI system for identifying targets automatically that is set to be populated by massive data sets that include blogs, websites, and public social media posts such as those found on sites like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. This AI system will employ such data in order to carry out predictive actions, such as the predictive-policing AI system already developed by major Pentagon contractor Palantir.

The reported system, which is planned to be used to control the Pentagon’s increasing investments in robotic soldiers and tanks will also seek to “predict human responses to our actions.” As journalist Nafeez Ahmed has noted, the ultimate idea – as revealed by the Department of Defense’s own documents — is to identify potential targets, i.e,. persons of interest and their social connections, in real-time by using social media as “intelligence.” The Army’s upcoming work on automated drones will be just a part of this larger system which has global and unprecedented implications for the future of the U.S. military and its actions both domestically and abroad.

Business, Health, International

BP Claims Oil Spills Are “Socially Acceptable” and “Boost” Local Economies

Leave a comment

British Petroleum, better known as BP, sought to convince the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) of Australia that a potential oil spill off the country’s coast would provide “a welcome boost to local economies.” BP made the claim in 2016 in an environmental plan written to convince NOPSEMA to approve the company’s bid to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight, a pristine region along Australia’s southern coast.

BP has a troublesome record when it comes to oil spills, having been responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the largest marine oil spill in history. The disaster, which leaked 3 million barrels of crude oil into the surrounding environment, created numerous “dead zones” – or marine areas devoid of oxygen and thus life – and also devastated local economies, some of which are still struggling to recover.

The documents, obtained by the London-based website Climate Home News through freedom of information laws, claim that the “increased activity” that results from oil spill cleanup operations would jump-start local economies. It further claimed that such environmental disasters were “socially acceptable” and did not present “unresolved stakeholder concerns.”

As an environmental regulator, NOPSEMA did not agree with BP’s rosy picture of the aftermath of a major oil spill, citing the impact that such a spill would have on the region’s ecosystems, which are home to many important species and are a key driver for regional tourism. It also raised concern that the sounds generated by drilling activity in the area could present a danger to whales and dolphins.

NOPSEMA also noted that BP failed to consider several likely ecological effects of its drilling plan and did not provide a realistic plan of how the company would respond to an oil spill in the area. NOPSEMA rejected the 2016 plan drafted by BP, and it was the second time NOPSEMA had rejected a previous environmental safety plan written by BP in 2015.

BP, when contacted for comment regarding its apparent lack of concern over oil spills, asserted that the correspondence does not “represent the final views of BP” and also noted that BP had abandoned its bid to drill in the area after citing “better options” for investment elsewhere.

However, Statoil – a Norway-based oil company – took over BP’s plans for oil exploration in the area. Statoil has yet to submit an environmental plan to NOPSEMA. Given the backlash BP has received over its environmental plan, Statoil’s version is unlikely to argue that oil spills improve local economies and are considered socially acceptable by the general public.

Featured, Foreign Policy, International

Russia Accuses UK of Masterminding Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Leave a comment

Hours before the United States, the UK, and France carried out “limited” strikes last Saturday morning, the Russian military presented what it claimed to be proof that the chemical weapons attack used as the pretext for those strikes was staged at the behest of the UK government.

During a Friday briefing, the Russian Defense Ministry showed interviews with medical professionals reported to work in the only functional hospital in Douma – the suburb of the Syrian capital Damascus where the attacks are said to have taken place. In their testimony, the two men asserted that the footage of the alleged chemical attack was taken after a Syrian air strike occurred and that the affected people shown in the video were suffering from smoke poisoning. They stated that a false claim of chemical weapons use was then circulated, leading concerned family members to douse those affected with water.

The Russian military then asserted that the White Helmets, the foreign-funded “humanitarian” group active in Syria, were pressured by the UK government to “speed up” a provocation that they had been preparing in order to push for Western intervention.

British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce called the allegations “grotesque,” “a blatant lie” and “the worst piece of fake news we’ve yet seen from the Russian propaganda machine.”

The main group that has provided footage and evidence purporting to show the chemical weapons attack in Douma are the White Helmets. Syria’s White Helmets, while they have largely been portrayed in Western media as a humanitarian first responder group, were actually founded in Turkey in 2013 by a British mercenary named James Le Mesurier. Le Mesurier is a former officer in the British military and also formerly worked for British intelligence. He eventually left his work with the British government to join with the Olive Group before it merged with Blackwater-Academi to become Constellis Holdings. He then worked in Abu Dhabi before moving to Turkey and founding the White Helmets.

To found the group, Le Mesurier raised $300,000 in seed funding provided by the UK, the U.S. and Japan, according to journalist Vanessa Beeley. Since its founding, the White Helmets have received over $123 million from 2013 to 2016 from the U.S. and UK governments, as well as Western NGOs and Gulf state monarchies. In addition, during the past five years, the White Helmets have been instrumental in blaming the Syrian government for any and all chemical weapons attacks in Syria, acting as both witnesses and responders to events that were later reported to be the work of the armed opposition in Syria or staged.

In Mid-March, the Syrian Arab Army intercepted a truck containing weapons and ammunition destined for the militant rebel groups in the area where the chemical weapons attack is said to have occurred. Among the items found were canisters apparently containing smoke grenades made in Salisbury, England – where the UK government has a chemical weapons laboratory.

Regardless of what information emerges from Douma regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack, the UK and its allies have already unilaterally attacked Syria even though they have admitted that they have no evidence that the attack even took place, beyond social media posts and YouTube videos created by controversial groups with ties to U.K. intelligence.

Government Accountability, International, US

Watchdog: US Govt. Wasted $60 Million on Power Lines in NE Afghanistan

Leave a comment

According to a recently released report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the U.S. military spent over $60 million building power lines in northeastern Afghanistan that are not only totally useless but also present a threat to residents.

The project, overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers, was the third phase of a project that cost a total of $116 million. The contract for the project was originally awarded to an Afghan company and was intended to result in a new power grid system in the country’s northeastern section.

However, the project was plagued with problems from the start. Initially, the Afghan government had agreed to help clear a path for the power lines by purchasing privately held land, a key step in the project’s initial stage. Even though the Afghan government never followed through, the contractors built the power lines anyway.

The poor wording of the contract also did not explicitly contain provisions for the company to connect the power lines to the nearest power substation and thus they are nonfunctional. Yet, not only are the power lines useless, but they also could present a danger to residents still living on the land where the lines were built, as the safety of the lines cannot be tested. SIGAR inspectors noted that many of the pylons of the power lines were built on unstable terrain and made with poor quality concrete that had already begun to crumble in several locations.

While the project serves as a striking example of wasted  taxpayer money and government mismanagement, it is by no means an isolated incident in terms of U.S. efforts to “rebuild” Afghanistan as part of the now 17-year-long U.S. occupation of the country.

SIGAR has identified numerous projects that were equally wasteful over the years, including a failed electronic payment system for tax collection in the country which cost American taxpayers $160 million. Another instance was the spending of $93 million on “forest” camouflage gear for Afghan troops despite the fact that there are few forests in Afghanistan, which cover around 2% of the country.

In addition, SIGAR has released several other reports so far this year that detail several other troubling incidents, including employees of the Army Corps of Engineers soliciting bribes, employees of U.S. government contractors accepting kickbacks, poorly built infrastructure and little to no maintenance of schools and hospitals built with U.S. taxpayer funds. The still ongoing U.S. occupation and “reconstruction” of Afghanistan is believed to have cost the U.S. over $1 trillion since 2001.

International

Tension Simmers Between Israel and Iran, Syria

Leave a comment

Last week, Israel attacked a Syrian government facility that it claimed was used in the production of chemical weapons. That claim was unusual considering that Syria’s chemical weapons and its ability to produce them were dismantled under UN supervision in 2013. This attack was just one of many attacks Israel has launched against government-held territory since Syria’s conflict began nearly seven years ago.

Though the Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, has declined to respond to these unilateral attacks or Israeli violations of Syrian airspace in the past, all that changed last Saturday when Syria’s Air Defense Force shot down an Israeli Air Force jet. The F-16 jet, which had reportedly illegitimately entered Syrian airspace near the Syrian capital of Damascus, later crashed in Israeli territory after its two pilots ejected.

As a result, Israel launched multiple retaliatory strikes against other Syrian military installations near Damascus. Multiple rounds of missile launches were confirmed and reports indicates Israel was pounding the Damascus countryside with artillery for much of the day. There were also reports of Israel launching missiles into central Syria that also targeted the Syrian military; NPR reported that “Israeli airstrikes in Syria killed at least six members of the Syrian military or allied militia members” during the Saturday incident.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) issued a statement during Saturday’s morning chaos:

“The IDF will act determinately against such severe violations of Israeli sovereignty by Iran and Syria and will continue to act as necessary. The IDF is ready for various scenarios and will continue to act according to situation assessments.” Meanwhile, the Syrian government accused Israel of unwarranted ‘aggression’.”

Though casual observers of the Syrian conflict may find Saturday’s events as having come out of nowhere, those who have closely followed the conflict are likely aware of longstanding discord related to the background between Israel and Syria.

Five years before the conflict in Syria, the government of Israel worked with other countries to overthrow the Assad government; Wikileaks cables indicate this strategy included creating sectarian strife in the country and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran. Israel has long sought to officially annex the Syrian land it seized in the Golan Heights – due to their sizable oil reserves. However, Assad is a major obstacle to that annexation as well as Israel’s other regional ambitions.

The plan sought the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt in fomenting the “breakdown” of the Assad regime as a way of weakening both Iran and Hezbollah— with the effect of empowering both Israel and the Gulf monarchies, two seemingly antagonistic forces in the region that are becoming increasingly allied.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on board with the plan, as revealed by emails published by WikiLeaks. One of those emails stated that “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

It also noted that “A successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States.” It added that “arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

However, that “low-cost high payoff approach” has not gone as planned. Instead, Assad has managed to consolidate large parts of Syrian territory once lost to the “rebels,” the vast majority of which are terrorist groups or their affiliates.

Israel has grown more focused on regime change in Syria, as evidenced by the “dozens and dozens” of attacks they have launched against Syria and last year’s threats to assassinate Assad by bombing his residence.

Following the weekend’s developments regarding Israel and Syria, Tillerson was quick to declare that he was “quite concerned” about the clash that unfolded between Israel and Syria and Iran.

“I think this again illustrates why Iran’s presence in Syria is only destabilizing to the region. We think Iran needs to withdraw its military, its militia from Syria and allow the hope for the peace process to take hold in Geneva,” Tillerson said.

Tensions have appeared to dissipate for the time being; Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was responsible for diffusing a “simmering conflict between Israel and Iran in Syria” that “could have erupted into another regional war” by making a “furious phone call” to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a report by Business Insider. However, given the recent escalation between Israel and Iran/Syria, a regime change war may not be out of the question, complete with U.S. involvement.

Indeed, the U.S. is the largest sponsor of the IDF, giving Israel $10 million in military aid per day. The U.S. is also committed to remaining involved in Syria as seen in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s announcement to retain U.S. troops and their recent attack this past Wednesday on Syrian military positions that included Russian soldiers – an attack which came soon after Israel’s. If such a war came to pass, it may not remain a regional war between just Israel and Syria for very long.

Government Accountability, Politics, US

New FOIA Release Shows Trump Administration Potentially Violating Constitution

Leave a comment

Upon Trump’s election to the presidency and his refusal to completely divest from his business interests— including innumerable real estate holdings— some warned that the president’s resulting conflict of interest could result in violations of the law, particularly the domestic emoluments clause of the article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally intended to prevent the President from putting his personal interests above those of the nation, the domestic emoluments clause bars the President from receiving any emolument, or compensation, from federal or state governments while in office other than the fixed Presidential salary. Trump has previously stated that he will reject the annual $400,000 salary while serving as President.

Though the Trump administration has essentially stonewalled many FOIA requests, a new FOIA release from an individual agency has shown that Trump-owned properties have been receiving substantial amounts of government funds in what appears to be a violation of the emoluments clause. The document, released by the General Services Administration (GSA) via a FOIA request reveals that the GSA spent $1,760.46 in just three days at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

This is by no means an isolated incident. Previous FOIA requests turned up several examples of federal staff using government charge cards (i.e. taxpayer funds) to stay at resorts owned by Trump. For instance, last year, a FOIA document revealed that the White House National Security Council (NSC) paid the full price of $1,000 for a two night stay of a single, unidentified guest at Trump’s luxury hotel Mar-a-Lago. According to financial disclosures filings, Trump holds a 99.99% stake in Mar-a-Lago and its profits are held in a revocable trust and Trump is able to withdraw funds from that trust without restriction.

Mar-a-Lago has often been cited as an example of Trump “monetizing” the Presidency, largely because Mar-a-Lago’s membership fee doubled after Trump was elected and each weekend Trump spends there has been alleged to cost taxpayers around $3 million— based on a government report of a trip to Chicago and Palm Beach taken by former President Barack Obama in 2013 reported by The Hill and The Washington Post— although Politifact notes that using cost estimates of Obama’s trip to compare to Trump’s excursions are not entirely accurate.

Other potential violations of the domestic emoluments clause that have come to light in the past year include payments of the U.S. Embassy to a Trump hotel in Panama, and federal employees using government charge cards to pay the full price for rooms at Trump’s Washington D.C. and Las Vegas hotels.

However, because of the difficulty in obtaining documents requested through FOIA from the Trump administration, it is unknown how many such violations exist. For instance, when asked to provide visitor logs from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, which the State Department has termed “the Winter White House,” the Trump administration only provided a list of the delegation that accompanied the Japanese Prime Minister during last year’s visit even though the President has received numerous visits from foreign and domestic government officials while at the Florida resort.

In addition, more than 80 high-ranking federal employees— based on social media activity alone— are known to have stayed at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. FOIA requests are currently being processed in order to determine if government funds were used during those visits.

While the lack of transparency has made it difficult to show if Trump is profiting from the presidency on a wide scale, these individual cases that have so far come to light raise cause for concern, particularly for those who had hoped to see a return to respecting the Constitution under Trump.

Foreign Policy, Opinion, Politics

Examining Trump’s Meetings on North Korea with “Long-Time Friend” Kissinger

Leave a comment

Last Friday, former U.S. Secretary of State and contentious public figure Henry Kissinger made headlines after asserting that North Korea poses the most immediate threat to “global security” and ominously stated that the “temptation to deal” with North Korea “with a pre-emptive attack is strong.” While some may dismiss Kissinger’s statements as merely the musings of a 94-year-old former statesman, others may argue that his influence over the presidential administration of his “long-time friend” Donald Trump could turn this “temptation” into reality.

After his rise to political prominence, Trump’s first meeting with Kissinger took place in May of 2016. Notably, that meeting occurred only a day after then-candidate Trump said he would open dialogue with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un if elected President. After that initial meeting, Kissinger and Trump met last November of that same year and, afterwards, Kissinger stated that Trump would likely not be keeping all his campaign promises, as he was undergoing “the transition from being a campaigner to being a national strategist.” This apparently included letting go of his promise to open dialogue with North Korea.

In addition to their meetings in 2016, Kissinger and Trump met an additional three times last year. The most recent of those took place last October, and the topic was none other than North Korea. That same day, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis instructed the U.S. Army to stand ready if North Korea diplomacy fails. The next day, Trump met with the nation’s top military commanders in the White House Situation Room, sometimes called “the War Room,” to discuss possible options for responding to North Korean “aggression.”

These options included the “tempting” plan for a pre-emptive “bloody nose” strike against North Korea. Experts, and even former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, have noted that tens of millions of innocent civilians could easily be killed in the first 30 minutes of a military conflict erupting on the Korean peninsula as well as the fact that such a conflict could quickly become global in scale. Experts have also asserted that the U.S. would be “unlikely” to win a conflict against North Korea.

Yet, of all the possibilities raised during that meeting, not one of them included a diplomatic approach despite the attempts of both North Korea’s and Trump’s own State Department to open dialogue. Those present at the meeting also did not consider North Korea’s repeated offer to terminate its nuclear weapon and missile program if the U.S. stops conducting annual war games with South Korea in proximity to North Korean territory – an offer refused by both Obama and Trump.

While some Trump supporters may argue that Trump is unlikely to follow the advice of someone as closely connected to the “deep state” as Henry Kissinger, Trump has expressed nothing but praise for the man who is credited with transforming U.S. foreign policy into one of perpetual, undeclared war.

Henry Kissinger and Nancy Kissinger, Donald Trump and wife Ivana Trump backstage at a Liza Minelli show in New York, June 11, 1987. (AP/ Ron Frehm)

After their most recent meeting last October, Trump praised Kissinger’s “immense talent.” “Henry Kissinger has been a friend of mine,” he added. “I’ve liked him. I’ve respected him. But we’ve been friends for a long time, long before my emergence into the world of politics, which has not been too long.” All this, despite the fact that Kissinger is also a long-time advisor and confidante of Trump’s former rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton.

Kissinger’s recent statements on North Korea come at an interesting time. Despite best efforts from the U.S. to inflame tensions on the Korean peninsula, North and South Korea have made major breakthroughs towards peace. The most noteworthy of these was the joint decision to have the teams of both nations march together during the upcoming Winter Olympics to be hosted on the Korean peninsula.

Yet, as Kissinger’s past clearly indicates, his version of “diplomacy” does not typically allow for peace. A 2016 article written by Greg Grandin chronicled Kissinger’s most noteworthy actions:

“Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level.”

Kissinger’s notable stance on North Korea and apparent sway over Trump, along with the Trump administration’s new Nuclear Posture Review, raises additional questions related to Trump’s foreign policy moving forward as well as the question of whether Trump may be later exemplified as a war criminal alongside his “long-time friend”.

International, Politics, US

Treasury Dept Releases Incongruous “Russian Oligarchs” List

Leave a comment

Amid the backdrop of intense anti-Russia sentiment that has become par for the course in mainstream political discourse, the Treasury Department published a list of “Russian oligarchs” late Monday night that had been mandated by previous legislation. The oligarchs list is intended for use in levying future sanctions against those with ties to the Russian government as punishment for Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election as well as disputes pertaining to its role in the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

The list includes 114 Russian politicians, including Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, and 96 oligarchs with an estimated net worth of $1 billion or more. Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the list as an “unfriendly act.”

The oligarch list has also drawn sharp criticism from U.S. lawmakers, charging that the list shows the Trump administration’s unwillingness to take a strong stance against Russia. However, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin emphatically asserted that, although no new sanctions had yet to be announced, new punitive actions based on the list would be forthcoming, possibly within the month.

However, a more reasonable criticism of the list could involve pointing out its contradictions. For instance, the list reportedly includes several “oligarchs” whose business ties are largely outside Russia, but are merely Russian-born citizens, as well as several others that have seen significant portions of their wealth adversely affected by the Putin-led government. Furthermore, much of the list on oligarchs seems to have been lifted from a Forbes list on the wealthiest Russians.

The list is also significant for the Russian political and oligarchical figures it chose to omit, namely those that have championed U.S. political and economic interests in the past. Most notable among these was Anatoly Chubais, current CEO of the government-owned Rusnano and an advisor to JPMorgan Chase. Chubais is most well-known for serving as deputy Prime Minister under Boris Yeltsin, who had the U.S. government to thank for his 1996 election win. As deputy PM, Chubais oversaw the corruption that defined Russia’s privatization effort. He enriched himself in the process as well as a handful of other oligarchs while many Russian citizens lost their entire life savings in a matter of weeks.

Other notable omissions include Alexei Kudrin, a neo-liberal Russian economist and former Finance minister who has criticized Putin as of late, as well as the governor of Russia’s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina who is a former colleague of Kudrin as was recently named Europe’s central banker of the year.

These incongruities are hardly surprising given the past and connections of the “Kremlin experts” who helped the U.S. Treasury put the list together. One of these “experts” is Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to Putin who resigned and became fiercely critical of the Russian government in 2005. He allegedly resigned after a report issued by the U.S.-government sponsored Freedom House and now serves as a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, formerly known as the Charles Koch Foundation. While working within the Russia government, Illarionov had compared the Kyoto protocol to a “global Auschwitz” and had praised Chile’s Pinochet, calling the dictator’s Milton Friedman-inspired economic policy his “ideal.”

Another “expert” consulted by the Treasury was Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist and a senior fellow at the hawkish neo-conservative think thank, the Atlantic Council. Aslund has been known to profit off of his connections to powerful Russians and is a known associate of Anatoly Chubais.

Ultimately, the “Russian oligarch” list is largely inconsistent. While some U.S. lawmakers have stated their view that the poorly constructed list is a sign of Trump’s alleged sympathy for Russia, it may be born out of a hesitation to clamp down on oligarchs – Russian or otherwise. After all, academics have defined the U.S. system of governance itself as an oligarchy and any attempt — whether misguided or righteous — to criticize the influence of oligarchs’ influence in another country raises uncomfortable truths about the U.S. itself. Perhaps this is why Google dictionary recently attempted to write off oligarchy as a purely Russian phenomenon.