May 22, 2013 “Information Clearing House” - Washington’s war. It was planned years ago. It began in early 2011. No end of conflict looks near. Escalating it appears likely.

Israel’s very much involved. It abhors peace and stability. Its history reflects belligerence. It’s a direct threat. It borders Syria. Both countries are longstanding imperial partners. The Israeli Lobby plays a key role. So do major media soundrels. More on Israel below.

Orwell once said “(w)ho controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Saving the future requires understanding both past and present. Preventing imperial annihilation depends on it.

So-called “rebel” forces are no match against Syria’s military superiority. Al-Qusayr is a strategic western Syrian city. It’s about 18 miles southwest of Homs.

It’s located on Lebanon’s border. It links Damascus with government controlled Mediterranean coastal areas.

It’s a key smuggling route. Insurgents, weapons, munitions and supplies pass cross-border into Syria. Stopping them is strategically important.

Fighting for control continues. On May 21, Press TV said Syrian forces control over 70% of the city. According to a Syrian source:

“We managed to enter the city from several directions. We encountered heavy resistance but we overpowered them and seized control of these places and we will pursue them and eliminate them wherever they go.”

According to Voice of Russia, Syria captured the city. Russia’s Rossia-24 TV reported it. Insurgents controlled the city throughout the conflict. No longer.

Capturing Al-Qusayr prevents supplying insurgents from key parts of Lebanon.

Voice of Russia and Rossia-24 reported “mopping-up operations” around Aleppo.

According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), “Army units restored stability and security to the full eastern area of (Al-Qusayr) in Homs Countryside after killing big numbers of terrorists and destroying their hideouts.”

“A military source added that army units dismantled a number of explosive devices, planted by terrorists in al-Souk area in the middle of the city.”

“The source added that army units are continuing hunting the remnants of terrorists in some hideouts in the northern and southern areas of the city.”

Insurgents suffered heavy losses. Leadership elements were killed or captured. “Tens of terrorist” surrendered. Others were arrested.
SANA said insurgents were routed in several provinces.

Local journalist Abdallah Mawazini told Russia Today that Syria’s army “managed to make a full circle around the city, fighting the opposition fighters. The main achievement is to stop the line of supply chain between Lebanon and Syria.”

“They started from the western side of the city, in the rural areas. They control this zone with some fighters from Lebanon.”

“Some extremist groups were preparing to go into Syria to fight with the rebels, they were going to go make a bigger front in order to fight and expand the fighting line between the government and the opposition.”

America’s war of words continues. Assad’s wrongfully blamed for US-backed insurgent crimes. They’re death squads. They’re US proxy foot soldiers. They’re foreign invaders. They’re recruited from many countries.

They’re funded, armed, trained and directed. Don’t expect US government sources to explain. Nor will media scoundrels.

On May 20, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said Washington “strongly condemns the Assad regime’s intense air and artillery strikes this weekend on the Syrian town of (Al-Qusayr), along the Lebanese border, where more than 90 people were reportedly killed.”

“The Assad regime deliberately provoked sectarian tensions through its assaults, which we saw recently in Sunni massacres in the towns of Bayada and Banias.”

“We reject the regime’s use of sectarian-driver war to divide the Syrian people. The Assad regime and its supporters who continue to commit crimes against the Syrian people should know that the world is watching and they will be identified and held accountable.”

Insurgents bear direct responsibility for numerous massacres wrongfully blamed on Assad. Hezbollah elements are aiding their Syrian ally. They’re doing so responsibly. They’re confronting US imperialism. Not according to Ventrell.

He “condemn(ed) Hezbollah’s direct intervention in the assault on (Al-Qusayr) where its fighters are playing a significant role in the regime’s offensive.”

“Hezbollah’s occupation of villages along the Lebanese-Syrian border and its support for the regime and pro-Assad militias exacerbate and inflame regional sectarian tensions and perpetuate the regime’s campaign of terror against the Syrian people.”

“We reject Hezbollah’s efforts to escalate violence inside Syria and incite instability in Lebanon.”

Hezbollah and Syrian forces are trying to end conflict. They want peace. They want stability restored. They want Washington’s imperial intentions defeated. Much rides on their success.

On May 20, Lebanon’s Daily Star headlined “Situation in Syria against US, Israel: Hezbollah.”

According to Hezbollah MP Nawaf Musawi, Syria’s conflict hasn’t gone according to US and Israeli plans. He warned both countries against toppling Assad, saying:

“If some were betting on weakening our ally in Syria and toppling him, he should keep in mind that two years into the (conflict) have passed while betting on delusions.”

“Those who were banking on US power and Israeli threats of war and victory of the US-Israeli attack on Syria are mistaken.”

He added that Hezbollah won’t hesitate to plunge “Israel into the abyss. If the enemy – through its aggression – is practicing brinkmanship with the resistance and its allies in this region, the resistance is not afraid to push the enemy itself into the abyss.”

“Hezbollah has enough potential to make any Israeli official aware that the threat of war applies to him, and that he will be the first to lose as a result of his behavior.”

Syria’s military displayed a captured Israeli army vehicle. It did so in Al-Qusayr. Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen television aired video proof.

Military uniforms, wiretapping and jamming equipment were found in the vehicle. Damascus called it evidence of Israel’s involvement.

Last June, insurgents were captured with Israeli weapons. Israel’s very much involved.

On May 21, SANA said

“the seizure of an Israeli military vehicle….refutes the allegations made by Israel to justify its aggression on Syria and proves the scale of Israel’s military and intelligence involvements in the events in Syria.”

“(T)he Israeli military support for the armed terrorist groups proves the involvement of Qatar, Turkey and Israel in the aggression on Syria which is waged through a single central operations room.”

“(T)he Israeli military support for terrorism in Syria proves once more that Israel was and still is adopting the policy of organized state terrorism, stressing that the world must act to confront this terrorism.”

“(T)he questions raised by the seizure of the Israeli military vehicle and the surveillance and jamming equipment….show that the armed terrorist groups with all their different names are merely headlines for a single structure led by Israel, Qatar and Turkey.”

Syria understands Washington’s key role. Partnered with Israel, other NATO countries, and rogue Arab states, they’re waging imperial war against a non-belligerent country. Doing so is lawless aggression. It’s the supreme crime against peace.

Israel escalated things further. In response to alleged cross-border gunfire, it “returned precise fire,” according to IDF officials.

Tammuz missiles were used. Twice before they targeted Syrian sites.

Incidents are easy to manufacture. Doing so provide pretexts to respond. On May 4 and 5, Israel bombed Syria. It did so preemptively. It was a joint US-Israeli provocation. It suggests further aggression ahead.

On May 21, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) claimed a “Syrian-Israeli confrontation loomed closer”

DF alleges Damascus admitted responsibility for Monday night’s cross-border gunfire. No source was cited. Syria’s gone out of its way to avoid challenging other countries.

It hasn’t retaliated against previous Israeli and Turkish provocations. It’s unlikely to change tactics now. Doing so would be self-defeating. Assad has no death wish. DF’s allegations don’t wash.

It cites unnamed Israeli military sources claiming his “readiness for a war of attrition on Israel from the Golan….”

It says Hezbollah will be involved. On Sunday, Netanyahu sent mixed messages. On the one hand, he said Israel won’t intervene in Syria’s conflict.

On the other, he stressed it will act if its own interests are affected. He said he’ll topple Assad if he responds to Israeli attacks. He suggested further bombings may follow. Allegedly they’ll target weapons transfers to Hezbollah.

Bombings and other belligerence are willful provocations. At issue is goading Syria to respond. Doing so would provide pretext for direct US/Israeli intervention.

Assad’s not about to give them reason to attack. He’s gone out of his way to avoid it. His ability to do so depends on US/NATO/Israeli plans. Direct intervention appears likely. How and when remains to be seen.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html - Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com . Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35043.htm

Two suspected terrorists were shot by armed police after attacking a pedestrian, believed to be a soldier, with a machete-style knife close to military barracks in an ‘Islamist attack’.

By Daily Telegraph reporters

May 22, 2013 “Information Clearing House” -”Daily Telegraph” – Local MP Nick Raynsford said he had been told the man attacked in the street was a soldier serving at the Royal Artillery Barracks near the attack.

Mr Raynsford said the soldier had been returning to the barracks after a day out when he was attacked.

London Ambulance Service said one man, believed to be the victim of the machete attack, had died in the incident and two others were injured, one seriously.

Several witnesses described seeing a “beheading” while another described seeing a man wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt being attacked with a machete-style knife and dumped.

Prime Minister David Cameron called a meeting of the Government’s Cobra crisis committee, describing the incident as “truly shocking”.

Cobra meetings are crisis response committees set up to coordinate the actions of different agencies, including the security services, police and local authorities.

The BBC reported sources had told them the men were shouting “Allahu Akbar” as they carried out the attack and had filmed carrying it out.

One witness, called James, told LBC radio: “We saw clearly two knives, meat cleavers, they were big kitchen knives like you would use in a butcher’s, they were hacking at this poor guy, we thought they were trying to remove organs from him”

“These two guys were crazed, they were not there, they were just animals. They then dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road.

“They took 20 minutes to arrive, the police – the armed response.”

He added: “There was only a few people at first then traffic began to build up because people were getting out of their cars to shout at them they were taking no notice, they were standing there, I think they were proud of what they were doing.

“When they dumped the body in the road, these two black guys had the opportunity to hurt other people if they wanted to because there were brave women with the dead guy on the floor, they were shielding and covering him. The attackers with the knives were standing over these women.

“The guy with the gun, the tall guy with the beanie cap on, even a bus had pulled up – he was going over to the bus and asking people to take his photo.”

Luke Huseyin, 32, who lives in a block of flats on John Wilson Street, Woolwich, close to where the incident happened.

He said: “I was at home and heard a big bang. I looked out of the window and saw a car had crashed.

“It was a blue Vauxhall.

“Then two black guys got out of the car dragging a white guy across the road towards the wall.

“One of the guys had a knife that looked about a foot long and a machete and the other bloke had a gun.

“They started slashing him up with the knife and hitting him in the stomach with the machete.

“I don’t think it took long before he was dead.

“There were people passing by who were screaming and running away. I’ve never seen anything like it.

“I’m still really shaken up.

“When he was dead, they dragged him out into the road and left him there.

 _{The scene near John Wilson Street. Photo: PA}

“It was strange, they didn’t run off, they just stood there as if they were waiting for the police.

“It must’ve taken about 20 minutes for the police to arrive, I think it must’ve been because they were waiting for armed police.

“The police officers got out of the car and the two black men ran towards them with the gun.

“The police shot them.

“They fell to the ground. Then a helicopter landed.

“Think it must’ve been an air ambulance.

“The paramedics got out and I think they were working on the two men to try and keep them alive.

“I don’t know if they died, they were taken away in the helicopter.

“A blanket was put over the white guy lying in the road.

“I just can’t believe what I saw.”

Eyewitness Michael Atley, 28, who works for a building maintenance firm nearby, said the two killers were in a blue BMW 3 series which mounted the pavement and knocked the victim over.

They then beheaded him with either a meat cleaver or a machete before both were shot by police officers who were on the scene within moments.

He told the Telegraph: “We heard the gunfire from the police shooting the two people. There were a few shots, then a pause, then some more shots, maybe eight shots in total.

“I spoke to an eyewitness who had seen the whole thing and he said they had run the guy over and then started decapitating him.

“When the police arrived the black guys were waving a pistol and a machete or a meat cleaver in the air and the police opened fire.

“When I got there the police were rushing to the bodies of the people they had shot.

“A helicopter landed in the middle of the road and took the victim away. There was a lot of blood. The paramedics wear blue gloves and they were covered in blood.”

He said children at a nearby school were locked in by their teachers.

Officers were called to John Wilson Street in Woolwich, south east London, at around 2.20pm and the immediate area was shut down.

On its Twitter account, the Metropolitan Police helicopter team called the incident “serious”.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Officers have responded to an incident in John Wilson Street at 2.20pm today.

“We believe at this stage officers were called to reports of an assault.”

A police cordon was set up around 100 meters around where the incident happened.

A white police tent had been put up in John Wilson Street close to the junction with Artillery Place and Wellington Street.

Two ambulances, two police cars could be seen in the road.

A picture posted on Twitter appeared to show three people lying in a street with concerned people around them.

Images also appeared to show knives and blood stains at the junction of John Wilson Street and Wellington Street.

Local residents said there was a heavy police presence in the area and most of John Wilson Street had been cordoned off.

David Dixon, the head teacher of the nearby Mulgrave Primary School & Early Years Centre, said he went into the street to find out what was going on after hearing of the incident.

“There were lots of police,” he told the BBC. “I saw a body lying in the road. I went immediately back to shut the gate and to lock all the gates.

“The children were inside so they were as safe as possible.”

All the traffic had been stopped and “there were gunshots after that,” he added.

A woman working in an office overlooking the incident said: “I can see three bodies lying in the road with red blankets over them.

“All the bodies are within about 30 to 40 metres of each other. It looks like the police have covered them over because they must be dead.

“I didn’t see the incident itself but I heard all the police and ambulance sirens, and then I saw an air ambulance landing nearby.

“I could see armed police all over the place. There was a lot of commotion, police running around in all different directions, as if they were looking for other people.

“I’ve been told that a man was attacked with a machete.”

London Air Ambulance confirmed a doctor and a paramedic were sent to the scene at 14.27pm and remained on site.

London Ambulance Service was also called to the scene.

A spokeswoman for London Ambulance Service said: “We were called a 2.20pm to reports of an incident at John Wilson Street.

“We sent two responders in cars, three ambulance crews, two duty officers and London Air Ambulance were called out.

“We still have staff at the scene.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35046.htm

May 22, 2013 “Information Clearing House” -”The Dissenter” -  It has become increasingly well-known that President Barack Obama considers whistleblowers or alleged leakers to be individuals who deserve no protections whatsoever. Recently, with the seizure of the Associated Press’ records and the affidavit showing the Justice Department cast Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation into State Department contractor Stephen Kim, it has become clear that the administration is willing to criminalize journalists in order to bolster their own investigations.

Kim is believed by the government to have disclosed classified information to Rosen about North Korea. The FBI claims to have evidence that Rosen “solicited” information from Kim.

Special Agent Reginald B. Reyes of the FBI declared in an affidavit, “I believe there is probable cause to conclude that the contents of the wire and electronic communications pertaining to SUBJECT ACCOUNT are evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of criminal violations of 18 USC 793(d) (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), and that there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate.” [italics added]

The argument that there was probable cause that Rosen violated 793(d)—a section of the Espionage Act—was used to obtain further access to records in Rosen’s email account from Google.

James Goodale, former general counsel of the New York Times, who argued the Pentagon Papers case, would likely find this conclusion to be incorrect. In his book, Fighting for the Press, he points out the government submitted a “memorandum of law” where they argued the Times had violated 793(d). This section is only supposed to apply to government employees.

However, there is another way to think about this legal interpretation: the FBI thinks Rosen made it possible for Kim to commit his crime and, without Rosen’s assistance, he would have never leaked classified information.

The affidavit contains a copy of a May 22, 2009, which Reyes cites as evidence Rosen was trying to “solicit” classified information, which he would have known would be improper to publish.

The email:

…What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors. I want to report authoritatively, and ahead of my competitors, on new initiatives or shifts in US policy, events on the ground in [the Foreign Country], what intelligence is picking up, etc. As possible examples: I’d love to report that the IC sees activity inside [the Foreign Country] suggesting [description of national defense information that is the subject of the intelligence disclosed in the June 2009 article]. I’d love to report on what the hell [a named US diplomat with responsibilities for the Foreign Country] is doing, maybe on the basis of internal memos detailing how the US plans to [take a certain action related to the Foreign Country] (if that is really our goal). I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses about the state of [a particular program within the Foreign Country that was the subject matter of the June 2009 article], about [the leader of the Foreign Country]….In short: Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to do this is to EXPOSE the policy, or what the [Foreign Country] is up to, and the only way to that authoritatively is with EVIDENCE… [italics not added]

Reyes concludes, “The Reporter asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country. Indeed, in the May 20, 2009 email, the Reporter solicits from Mr. Kim some of the national defense intelligence information that was later the subject matter of the June 2009 article.” (Yet, the affidavit contains no incontrovertible proof that Kim replied to the email affirmatively by providing intelligence Rosen suggested Kim disclose.)

“The Reporter,” Reyes, adds, “did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.” Also, “much like an intelligence officer would run an clandestine intelligence source, the Reporter instructed Mr. Kim on a covert communications plan.” They used aliases to communicate over email.

Rosen’s tactics seem like that of a spy to Reyes. They appear to add to the suspicion that Rosen was in on the alleged crime. But, is it possible Rosen is engaged in this conduct because the environment for national security reporting has become particularly chilly and he understands he must practice “tradecraft” that protects his sources? Is the government at all to blame for the fact that Rosen believes he must act covertly and not more openly?

Jack Shafer of Reuters published a column that seemed to blame Rosen for ending up in the crosshairs of a government leak investigation. He writes, “Reporters should never depend on the law alone to protect them and their sources from exposure. By observing sound tradecraft in the reporting of such delicate stories, they can keep themselves and their sources from getting buried when digging for a story.”

Journalistic techniques Rosen employed are scrutinized to point out that there are ways he could have avoided being caught. He then concludes by acknowledging the nature of the information obtained by sources that showed the role of the CIA in North Korea. And, he declares:

I have a hard time understanding what purpose Rosen’s scoop served. He appears to have uncovered no wrongdoing by the CIA in North Korea and no dramatic or scandalous change of U.S. policy that’s being concealed from the U.S. public. Boiled to its essence, the story says the U.S. has penetrated North Korean leadership. It’s a story, all right, but I can’t imagine any U.S. news outlet running it without more cause, and I’ll bet that Fox News would take it back today if it could. I doubt that Rosen has committed any crimes against the state, but offenses against common journalistic sense? I’m not so sure.

Indisputably, there is a wide surveillance state that the Justice Department has proven over recent years it will use to increase the likelihood that prosecutions of individuals will be successful. However, Shafer’s column is perversely inverted. It should be directed at power and reflecting on why the government did this to a journalist instead of blaming the victim and pointing out obvious details about how he could have avoided being criminalized.

The larger question should be: should members of the press, from establishment news organizations to independent media organizations to freelancers, have to conduct themselves as spies (or drug dealers) to do their work? Should there be push back against the government for using all manners of surveillance available to pursue reporters?

Journalists and reporters may choose to conduct themselves as spies regardless of what overtures government makes because they do not trust government and because they also believe their sources could be harmed if they do not act in this manner. But, to the extent that it becomes a requirement, there should be concern. The less open journalists are, the easier it may be for the government to justify targeting journalists as criminals.

What Rosen allegedly did is not a crime. Reporters often ask for copies of documents to supplement reporting. But, when reporters act in a clandestine manner, this case shows that the FBI will use that conduct to justify zealously pursuing a journalist to bolster a Justice Department case.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35038.htm

Posted May 22, 2013

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35041.htm

22 May 2013

Around 7,000 people marched on Saturday at the first London-wide protest against cuts to the National Health Service (NHS). This is less than a third of the number that marched in defence of Lewisham Hospital in south London in January, and around the same number as marched against the sell-off of parts of the Whittington Hospital, north London, in March.

Called by Save our Hospitals —a front for the Labour Party and trade unions—the organisers tried to talk up the demonstration as a spontaneous expression of popular anger at the assault on the NHS. It stands, rather, as an indictment of the political perspective advanced in various local protests.

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government has already forced through a devastating assault on NHS provisions. It has pursued aggressively the £20 billion “efficiency savings” package of cuts launched by the previous Labour government. The coalition has also pushed further the privatisation programme begun by Labour with its building of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) hospitals. The Health and Social Care Act, which took effect last month, abolished hundreds of Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities and handed them over to Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which will control some £60 billion of health spending. Under the government’s statutory regulation, it will be virtually compulsory for the CCGs to outsource to the private sector.

Health care in London has been particularly targeted. Eight of the capital’s 32 Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments are slated for closure and downgrading. Other services, including maternity units, have been targeted for downgrading. Hospitals are pushing to sell off land in order to make the transition to Foundation Trust status.

These moves are far advanced. The downgrading of Lewisham’s A&E and maternity unit was accompanied by the dissolution of neighbouring South London Health Trust (SLHT). The decision has been taken to close four A&Es in northwest London. The outcome will be death and suffering for thousands of people.

That the onslaught has got so far despite overwhelming popular opposition is down to the Labour Party and trade unions, and their loyal apologists in the pseudo-left parties like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and Socialist Party (SP).

In south London, Labour councillors and Labour MPs agreed with the government’s proposals for the SLHT. They disagreed only on dragging Lewisham Hospital into those proposals. By dividing the two attacks, their campaign enabled the government to impose all the planned cuts across both areas. In northwest London, opposition to the A&E closures was divided into separate campaigns for each hospital.

These campaigns promoted illusions in phony consultation procedures, after which they moved to appeals to the government to act against the predetermined outcome of the consultations. The latest stage is to promote alliances with local councils, of every political persuasion, to force a legal review of the decision. The outcome can be seen most clearly over plans to downgrade Charing Cross Hospital’s A&E. Tory Hammersmith Council, promoted as a potential ally by the Save Our Hospitals campaign, took the opportunity to do a secret deal with NHS northwest London to force through the changes.

Speaking on Saturday, the SWP’s Candy Udwin said the Lewisham campaign was the model for showing “us how to organise.” She did not mention that that campaign resulted in the destruction of the SLHT and the downgrading of Lewisham’s services.

A public meeting of the London Keep Our NHS Public campaign in February, chaired by Udwin, would not even demand that Labour repudiate PFI for risk of offending a bureaucrat or two. Udwin deferred a discussion of aims and moved instead to discussing printing leaflets with “broad slogans” that “everyone agreed on”—and to securing the funding for this from Labour and the unions!

The National Health Action Party has been founded by Dr. Clive Peedell, who told the rally that “Clinical excellence and democratic process mean nothing to this government.” The party, however, pledges only to “insist the most damaging parts of the Government’s NHS legislation are repealed.”

The result of all this was the small attendance at the demonstration. Udwin, who chaired, stressed the need for “united action,” insisting the rally was “a coalition of campaigns, of unions, of parties.” Shirley Franklin (Defend the Whittington Hospital Coalition) called it a “coalition of parties and all trade unions.”

In practice, this means opening the platform to parties that have shown their willingness to implement cuts as soon as they come into local power. Darren Johnson, Green Party member of the Greater London Authority, echoed Udwin’s description of the failed Lewisham campaign as “an inspiration.” In Bristol, Green councillors have entered a “rainbow cabinet” set to make £35 million in cuts for 2013-2014. In Brighton and Hove, where the Green Party heads a minority administration, the council has implemented nearly £20 million in cuts resulting in 120 job losses, services being slashed and rents for council housing raised.

Above all, Udwin’s coalition means pushing workers back behind unions that are sabotaging and betraying their struggles. It means allowing Labour MPs, councillors and members of the GLA to pose as defenders of the NHS regardless of their party’s record. Before the march began, Dr. Onkar Sahota pledged the support of the Labour group on the GLA. At the closing rally, Jeremy Corbyn MP said, “When we’ve defeated the Health and Social Care Act, let’s end PFI … they are the leeches on our service”—something Labour, which introduced PFI, has no intention of doing.

Norma Dudley, a Unite rep, called for protesters to lobby their MPs and join a union “that’s standing up” in defence of the NHS. Unite’s record proves it is in cahoots with the government. Yorkshire Ambulance Service Trust deputy chief executive Stephen Moir commented recently that Unite (which represents 10 percent of ambulance crews there and has since been derecognised) had “advised its members to accept the Trust’s proposals on changes to the A&E workforce.” This, he noted, “is inconsistent with their stated public position to reject the Trust’s plans.”

Saturday’s rally was intended by the pseudo-left groups to provide a cover for the unions’ systematic sabotaging of any real struggle against government austerity. Had Unite or any union any genuine intention of organising a fight, they could easily have brought tens of thousands of health workers onto the streets.

Those workers present expressed their anger at the cuts and a determination to defend the NHS. But this will not come from the unions or Labour. The defence of health care and every other basic social right can only be taken forward through a break from these bankrupt organisations. Action committees must be formed by patients, hospital staff and the workers and youth whose lives and health are being jeopardised. The Socialist Equality Party calls on working people to join its FightBack campaign atnhsfightback.org .

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/22/nhsl-m22.html

22 May 2013

As more and more people suffer the consequences of another harsh winter, the number of families suffering fuel poverty is rising. Four million households in England alone were classified as being in fuel poverty in 2009. This is three times the number in 2003. Today, over 6 million are in fuel poverty, a figure that is expected to rise to 9 million by 2016.

The human cost of fuel poverty is appalling. Previously the government had claimed that fuel poverty-related deaths stood at 2,700 a year. However, official figures released in November 2012 reveal that during the winter of 2011, 24,000 additional deaths were recorded in England and Wales. The previous winter, 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales were recorded. On the basis of World Health Organisation guidance that 30 percent of winter deaths in Europe can be attributable to people living in cold homes, around 7,200 (65 a day) of those who died in the winter of 2011 likely did so as a result of not living in warm homes.

A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10 percent of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. One of the biggest challenges for poor families is their being forced to have pre-paid meters installed. Pre-paid meters are the most expensive form of fuel supply. The poorest are usually put on this form of supply because they are already in fuel debt, and there is little or no opportunity to have meters removed. Once in debt, most households cannot pass credit checks that are carried out for other forms of fuel supply.

It is almost impossible to know how many households are without heat or power because of “self-disconnection” due to high costs and the inability of many to afford to feed meters. Before pre-paid meters were installed, records of disconnections were available and families with young children could not be disconnected. With pre-paid meters there are such no such records.

The Guardian reported April 20, “Millions of mostly poor UK households are paying up to £300 a year more than customers on the cheapest fuel tariffs, with thousands barred from switching to better deals.”

It adds, “Figures from uSwitch [a price comparison web site] show that more than five million households (20 percent) are in debt to their energy supplier, 6 percent more than last year. This is not surprising when you consider the average household energy bill is £1,353 a year, almost £100 more than a year ago and £831 more than at the start of 2004.”

Since 2010, 130,000 more children have been plunged into fuel poverty; a 9 percent increase in three years. There are now 1.6 million children living in fuel poverty in the UK, with 1.2 million in England alone.

A February article by the Energy Bill Revolution group explains that in a “Families and Fuel Poverty” study they carried out, it was estimated that since the “government came to power, funding to help fuel poor families with children has been cut by 27 percent. Fuel poverty can have a disastrous impact on the health and well being of children.”

A new film by the campaign Fuel poverty: Growing up cold shows a boy, Ryan, who is an asthma sufferer. Breathing problems such as asthma can be exacerbated by living in cold and damp rooms, with research proving that children living in cold homes are twice as likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory problems, compared to those whose families can afford to keep the house warm. The “Families and Fuel Poverty” report lists the differences between the more affluent South and London regions and the Midlands and the North. A substantially higher number of children live in fuel poverty in the North West (236,000—13.9 percent), compared, for example, to the South East (125,000—6.6 percent).

In this climate of rising fuel poverty and hardship, British energy suppliers continue to report massive annual profit margins, extracting as much money as possible out of working people. Since 2010, there have been four cases of British energy providers being investigated and heavily fined by the energy watchdog OFGEM for various counts of malpractice and mis-selling.

This year British Gas announced an 11 percent increase in profits for last year. The profits of its energy supply division rose to £606 million. Parent company Centrica said colder weather resulted in customers using more gas. But the company also raised prices for consumers. Centrica made a pre-tax profit of £2.7 billion.

In 2012, a report by Professor John Hills from the London School of Economics stated, “In February 2012, official statistics showed that carbon emissions rose for the first time in seven years, driven primarily by increased usage of gas for heating homes during especially cold winter months. It is not known how many of the people who turned up the heating did so because they could afford to or had to make sacrifices elsewhere. Nor is it known how many actually stayed cold.”

Hills stated, “Tackling fuel poverty offers multiple pay off…. Better living standards and conditions for people on low incomes, an improved and more efficient housing stock, fewer winter deaths and reduced costs for the NHS. This was no doubt the intended goal when in 2000, parliament agreed that fuel poverty should be eradicated as reasonably practical within 15 years.”

Some 13 years later, more people than ever are in fuel poverty. Millions already struggling to provide basic needs for their families are being devastated by continuous brutal austerity cuts. This state of affairs is an indictment of capitalism and all the parties of the ruling elite, including the Labour Party. The 1997-2000, Labour Party government, while pledging to end fuel poverty, fully endorsed the previous Conservative government’s privatisation of the electricity, gas and water industries, and continued to give these parasitic firms carte blanche to do as they please.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/22/fuel-m22.html

22 May 2013

A wave of violence is shaking the neo-colonial Iraqi regime that emerged from the US war and occupation of Iraq, as sectarian tensions between Iraq’s bourgeois factions are inflamed by the savage US-led proxy war in neighbouring Syria.

In this past week, more than 200 people have been killed in car bomb attacks in a number of Iraqi cities. The worst violence was in Baghdad, where car bombs hit markets and bus stops in Shia neighbourhoods during the Monday morning rush hour.

Attacks also hit the Shia-majority city of Basra in southern Iraq, where two car bombs killed at least 13 and wounded 40. A car bomb in Balad, 80 km north of Baghdad, exploded near a bus carrying Iranian pilgrims, killing six Iranians and one Iraqi, and wounding nine.

Numerous Shia mosques have also been targeted. While no one claimed responsibility for the attacks, they were assumed to be the work of Sunni terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Sunni areas were also hit, including Samarra north of Baghdad, where a car bomb went off near a gathering of Sunni armed security men working for the government, killing three and wounding 13. In the western province of Anbar, armed men killed eight police officers in Haditha. A further 13 dead bodies were found, including eight police officers kidnapped at gunpoint last Friday.

Violence has risen following the attack by Iraq’s security forces on a protest in the northern town of Hawija last month, following a raid on an army position, killing about 53 people and injuring 150 more.

According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, April was the bloodiest month in Iraq since June 2008. 712 people were killed and another 1,633 wounded in “acts of terrorism and violence.”

Most of those killed were civilians and non-military personnel, including 161 police officers, making a total of 595. Similarly, most of those wounded were civilians and non-military personnel, including 290 police officers. In addition, 290 members of the Iraqi security services were killed, and another 195 were wounded.

Baghdad, the capital bore the brunt of the violence: 211 were killed and another 486 wounded. Sunni-majority provinces of Diyala, Saladin, Kirkuk, Nineveh and Anbar also saw numerous attacks.

It is prompting people to flee their homes. Jordan has closed its border with Iraq, however, as it is struggling to cope with more than 550,000 Syrian refugees, so Iraqi refugees are becoming internally displaced inside their own country.

Some violence in Sunni areas is being carried out by Sunnis against Sunnis working with the Maliki government—24 policemen have been killed in Anbar alone—but some of it has also been carried out by Shia gangs in retaliation.

The US-led war in Syria and the related preparation by Washington and its European allies for war with Iran are tearing apart the various factions underlying the regime of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Washington and its allies are arming ultra-right Islamist fighters tied to Al Qaeda in Iraq, such as the Al Nusra Front, in a war broadly aimed at isolating the Shia regime in Iran and the Shia-led Syrian regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This policy of confrontation with Iran brings Washington into conflict, however, with the Shia-majority Maliki government that it helped to set up in Iraq.

The Maliki government has refused to back demands for Assad’s ouster and has forged close ties with Iran. Washington has accused Iraq of tolerating Iranian shipments of weapons to Syria through Iraqi airspace; some Iraqi Shia militias are reportedly fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The escalating tensions reflect the reactionary character of the regime US imperialism set up in Iraq, in a war that cost over a million lives and was fought based on US plans for a sectarian-based “partition” of Iraq. This allowed Washington and its allies to pursue a strategy of divide and rule inside Iraq, and oversee the looting of its oil.

The working masses, however, face rising unemployment, the lack of electricity, water and sanitation, and the failure to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by US war and sanctions. The deep tensions and social anger created by the legacy of US occupation are now being inflamed by reactionary sectarian conflicts that imperialism is again mobilizing to pursue its interests in the region.

Anbar and other mainly Sunni provinces of Diyala, Saladin, Kirkuk and Nineveh have seen weekly rallies against Maliki. Since last December, they have been protesting official discrimination, arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, and executions of Sunni oppositionists by Maliki’s Shia-led coalition. Hundreds of thousands have been locked up for years, many without charges.

Sunni forces are also denouncing a sweeping anti-terrorism law that targets members of Al Qaeda or the Ba’ath Party of former President Saddam Hussein. They have called for Maliki’s resignation.

Anbar leader Muhammed Khamis Abu Risha, a fugitive former member of the Sunni Awakening—fighters who were paid to switch sides and fight alongside the US during the US occupation of Iraq—have pledged further attacks on security forces.

He said that the government had not responded to their demands. He said, “We will not accept the army in Anbar. This is out of the question.” He added, “The protest is not peaceful anymore, and we are ready for them. The coming days will not pass peacefully. We don’t want democracy anymore.”

According to Al-Hayat, Sunni protest leaders have called for “armed confrontation or the declaration of an [autonomous] region.”

Prime Minister Maliki has responded by saying that while he would contemplate the establishment of an autonomous region in the Sunni-dominated western provinces, this had to come about “through the correct legal procedures.” He also said he would overhaul Iraq’s security strategy, without providing further details. He added, “I assure the Iraqi people that they [attackers] will not be able to return us to sectarian conflict” that killed tens of thousands in Iraq in past years.

Iraq’s Sunni parliamentary speaker Osama al-Nujaifi called for an emergency session to discuss the worsening security situation. He provocatively called for “a clear position from the international community on what is taking place in Iraq.”

Maliki, who urged politicians to stay away from the parliamentary session, hit back at al-Nujaifi, alleging that legislators were exploiting sectarian passions for their own political gain. He said, “The politicians bear the responsibility for the sectarian escalation because of their statements, calls for violence and sectarian positions. Ignorant people pick up on that and go out bearing weapons and calling for fighting.”

He accused some Sunni leaders of stoking unrest, saying: “The sectarian speeches at the demonstration sites are giving the insurgents a reason to kill.”

Maliki is also in dispute with the oil-rich autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). It has awarded oil contracts to international corporations, sold oil on the international markets, and shipped oil to Turkey via its pipeline, bypassing Baghdad. Kurdish ministers and legislators have refused to attend the central cabinet meetings and parliament in Baghdad over the state budget allocations.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/22/iraq-m22.html

22 May 2013

Israeli and Syrian forces exchanged fire across the cease-fire line in the Golan Heights yesterday, amid rising US and Israeli threats of intervention in the US-led sectarian proxy war in Syria, which is rapidly spreading throughout the region.

Fighting in the Golan Heights started overnight when Syrian forces fired at an Israeli vehicle that allegedly crossed into Syrian territory. Israeli forces fired rockets into Syrian territory and claimed to have destroyed the source of Syrian fire.

The border fighting came only two days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to act “with determination” to prevent the transfer of arms from Syria to the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah. Hezbollah has now intervened in the Syrian war to support the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against the US-backed Sunni Islamist opposition.

Netanyahu’s statement was widely interpreted as an Israeli threat to mount further unprovoked air strikes on Syria.

Since Obama’s reelection last November and twice this month, Israeli forces have bombed targets in Syria. This month’s bombings, hitting Syrian army targets in the capital, Damascus, were timed to coincide with an offensive by the Sunni opposition on the city. This offensive has been thrown back and forced into retreat, however, due, in part, to the intervention of Hezbollah forces in areas of southern Syria adjacent to Lebanon.

The reversals suffered by the opposition point to the minimal support it has in the Syrian population.

There are now intensifying threats of war coming from Israel as well as calls in Washington and in European capitals for stepping up the flow of arms to opposition forces or directly intervening with air strikes or a ground invasion. Speaking yesterday at the University of Haifa, Israel Defense Forces head Lt. General Benny Gantz said: “We will not allow the Golan to become a comfortable space for Assad to operate from. If he escalates the situation on the Golan Heights, he will have to bear the consequences.”

He implied that war could break out at any time, noting that “a day doesn’t go by” without the risk of a “sudden uncontrollable deterioration.”

In Washington, senators Robert Menendez (Democrat of New Jersey) and Bob Corker (Republican of Tennessee) have submitted a bill titled “Syrian Transition Support Act.” It would authorize the Obama administration to “provide defense articles, defense services, and military training” to Syrian opposition forces.

The bill bluntly spells out broader strategic calculations underlying the proxy war in Syria. It notes, “A change of government in Syria could be a significant blow to the Government of Iran and Hizballah [Hezbollah], which would lose a strong ally.”

That is, the Syrian war is in line with US imperialism’s strategic interests: isolating Hezbollah, the main threat to Israeli military hegemony in the Near East, and Iran, the main obstacle to US hegemony in the entire Middle East and to US control of the region’s oil.

In its presentation of the war, the bill advances lies and evasions similar to those with which pseudo-left forces such as the International Socialist Organization in the US, France’s New Anti-capitalist Party and Germany’s Left Party have promoted the US-backed opposition. It proposes to support opposition forces that are “protecting human rights” and “protecting the Syrian population against sectarian violence and reprisals.”

In fact, Sunni opposition militias armed under CIA supervision with funds from Washington’s Middle East allies are waging a bloody sectarian war with terror bombings and massacres. This was even recognized partially by Washington, which declared one of the main opposition forces, the Al Nusra Front, a terrorist organization responsible for nearly 600 terror bombings in the period up to December 2012.

On Monday, a spokesman for the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) threatened a sectarian genocide of Shia Muslims—including the Alawite minority from which Assad’s family is drawn—in territory still held by the opposition, as it retreats in southern Syria.

He threatened that Shia communities would be “wiped off the map,” adding: “It’s going to be an open, sectarian, bloody war to the end.”

This comes a week after an opposition commander of the so-called “moderate” Farouq Brigade filmed himself desecrating the corpse of a Syrian soldier, cutting out his organs and biting into one of them. He also called for the killing of Alawites.

Washington, its allies, and its Sunni Islamist proxies fear, in particular, the loss of the town of Qusayr. This would cut supply lines connecting opposition fighters around Homs from the majority-Sunni port of Tripoli, in Lebanon, from which they receive weapons supplies. It would also open direct land routes connecting the Assad regime in Damascus to the Alawite heartland on Syria’s Mediterranean coast.

According to AFP, Hezbollah sources confirmed that they had sent “new elite troops to Qusayr.” The Syrian state daily Al Watan reported yesterday that Syrian regime forces had retaken Qusayr’s official buildings and “raised the Syrian flag” over them.

Washington has denounced Hezbollah’s intervention, with US President Barack Obama calling Lebanese President Michel Sleiman to criticize Hezbollah’s “active and growing role” in Syria. The US State Department said Hezbollah’s actions “exacerbate and inflame regional sectarian tensions and perpetuate the [Syrian] regime’s campaign of terror.”

In fact, it is Washington and its allies that are backing forces advocating and carrying out sectarian massacres and terror attacks. By giving Turkey and the Persian Gulf monarchies carte blanche for an international campaign to arm rabid Sunni sectarian forces, overseen by the CIA, they are spreading sectarian bloodshed across the entire region.

Fighting continued in Iraq yesterday, with 19 people killed and one hundred wounded in bombings, as the sectarian tensions unleashed by US support for Sunni Islamist militias in Syria spilled over into Sunni fighting against the Shia-led Iraqi regime. Opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters also fired into Lebanon yesterday, targeting Hezbollah positions with Grad rockets from the Qusayr area in Syria. According to Iran’s Press TV, they targeted the villages of Hawsh al-Sayyed Ali and al-Qasr. The rockets targeting al-Qasr exploded close to the Zainul Abideen orphanage but caused no casualties, according to the orphanage’s director, Mohammad al-Saeed.

The author also recommends:

Hundreds killed in upsurge of terror bombings, sectarian killings in Iraq
[22 May 2013]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/22/syri-m22.html