August 26, 2016

United States Imperialism in East Africa–Military Interventions and Regional Destabilization

Global Research, August 23, 2016
Secretary of State visits Kenya with initiatives on South Sudan and Somalia
Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Nairobi, Kenya on August 22 for meetings with President Uhuru Kenyatta and foreign ministers from several regional countries in East Africa.

Washington’s top envoy focused attention on the fractious political situation in neighboring South Sudan and Somalia.

In the Republic of South Sudan a split between President Salva Kiir and former Vice-President Riek Machar in December 2013 was never fully resolved. The agreement brokered by the regional Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) sought to create a coalition aimed at the re-integration of military forces from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) headed by Kiir and the SPLM/A in Opposition (SPLM/A-IO) led by Machar.

John Kerry with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta

The former Vice-President Machar returned to the capital of Juba in April under the presumption that he would be placed back into his position held prior to the December 2013 fighting which took on the dimensions of an ethnic conflict between the Dinka and Nuer groups. The fighting over the last two-and-a-half years has worsened the humanitarian crisis inside South Sudan with reports of atrocities committed by the military forces of both factions and the displacement of two million people impacted by the conflict.
Despite the agreement for a coalition government, clashes erupted during mid-July after which Kiir appointed another Vice-President Taban Deng Gai prompting Machar to flee the capital and the country. Deng, a former negotiator for the SPLM/A-IO, has apparently broken ranks with Machar.
Deng had served as the minister of mines in the government prior to the fracturing of the SPLM. He is the previous governor of Unity state.

In recent weeks, the U.S. sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the deployment of an additional 4,000 troops as part of a so-called “protection force.” Kerry’s visit in part is designed to encourage acceptance of the plan and to create the appearance of concern from the White House which played a pivotal role in the partition of the Republic of Sudan in 2011, once Africa’s largest geographic nation-state.

The immediate response from the government in Juba was to reject the UN resolution. At present it appears as if President Kiir is prepared to accept the protection force on the condition that the government in Juba can negotiate the size and terms of the deployment. There are already 12,000 UN troops stationed in South Sudan under the UN Mission (UNMISS) to the oil-rich country.
Machar was reported to have been in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on August 17 in an area on the border with South Sudan under the care of the government of President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa. UN forces have been stationed in the DRC for many years in an attempt to maintain some semblance of stability particularly in the Eastern region of the vast Central African state which is the size of all of Western Europe.
Farhan Haq, a UN spokesman, said on August 18 that: “We were aware yesterday of the presence of Riek Machar in DRC. At that point the UN Mission contacted the authorities in the DRC who in turn requested MONUSCO [UN's mission in the DRC] to facilitate his extraction and his transfer to the care of the DRC. We have undergone an extraction operation and so he is currently in the care of the authorities in the DRC.”

Nonetheless, some media accounts have reported that the DRC government was not officially in charge of Machar’s security. “They said they are aware that he is in one of the border areas of DRC but they have no official information of Machar being under their care, which is contradictory to the statement of the UN,” according to Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan, reporting from Juba. (Aug. 18)
A spokesman for Machar reportedly said that he wants to travel to Ethiopia very soon. Additional reports from the SPLA-IO said that there had been an assassination attempt against Machar and he was in need of medical attention.

Abayomi Azikiwe on press TV on Kenya, April 5, 2015

Somalia: The Failure of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Horn of Africa

In addition to the crisis in South Sudan, Kerry was in Nairobi to discuss the ongoing war in Somalia where a U.S. and European Union (EU) supported regime in Mogadishu has not been able to subdue and eradicate the Al-Shabaab Islamic organization which has waged a struggle against the fragile government over the last several years.
At present there are 22,000 African troops from the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) occupying the Horn of Africa state. AMISOM was established in 2007 in the aftermath of the intervention of neighboring Ethiopia in a bid to oust the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU) which had drawn the ire of Washington under the previous administration of President George W. Bush, Jr.
Since 2007, the U.S. has launched numerous bombing operations in Somalia against the Islamists who now are largely represented by Al-Shabaab after an agreement with the leadership of the ICU to join the Somalian Federal government in early 2009. Al-Shabaab is demanding the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.
The war has spread into Kenya after Nairobi intervened in the South of Somalia in 2011 at the aegis of the U.S. There have been numerous incursions by Al-Shabaab into Kenya resulting in the deaths of military personnel and civilians.
In recent months several participating states in the AMISOM project have become weary of its viability. A drawing down of forces in Somalia by 2018 has created the potential for an even larger political vacuum in the region.

Abdiwahab Abdisamad Abdisamad, who is described in a Voice of America (VOA) report as a Horn of Africa security analyst, suggested that the restructuring of the Somali National Army is the only way to bring lasting security and stability in the country.
“So many people are asking themselves how 22,000 AMISOM troops, 10,000 Somali troops, the alpha group unit trained by the U.S. government, plus other Somali regional administrations’ troops which total over 100,000 troops,” Abdisamad said cannot bring peace and security. “All those forces are struggling to contain 5,000 militants. Therefore, this proves that this project is a failure and it is clear that a reformation of Somali military is better.”
Kerry said that the U.S. is allocating an additional “$117 million to support refugees, returnees and drought victims in Somalia. He said another $29 million will be donated to the U.N. refugee agency for the safe and voluntary return of Somali refugees in Kenya, primarily from the sprawling Dadaab camp.” (VOA, Aug. 22)
Washington to Maintain Imperialist Posture in the Region
Kerry weighed in on the electoral politics in Kenya commenting on recent dismissals from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. Washington did not support the election of President Kenyatta in 2013, backing his rival and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga who is perceived as being more pro-U.S.
“I am pleased to see that progress is being made in reforming the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and I urge in the most emphatic terms that disagreements about policy and process be resolved through peaceful means,” said Kerry. “Kenya has come a long way since the elections of 2007. It is up to leaders on all sides that the violence that took place in the aftermath of that election is never repeated.” (VOA, Aug. 22)

U.S. Secretary of State Kerry is also scheduled to visit the West African state of Nigeria as well as Saudi Arabia during his tour. The foreign policy of the Obama administration has fostered greater instability on the continent with the destruction of Libya, the partitioning of Sudan, the expansion of sanctions against Zimbabwe and threats to exclude the Republic of South Africa from the American-sponsored Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA).

The original source of this article is Global Research

Meritocracy is a massive lie - Inheritance and the the truth about the "self-made" super-rich

How to Stay Rich in Europe: Inherit Money for 700 Years
The richest Florentine families in 1427 still are: New research shows Europe leads the world in inherited wealth.
 Alessandro Speciale
 Chiara Vasarri for Bloomberg

August 23, 2016 

Lamberto Frescobaldi sets two wine glasses atop a wooden barrel in the spacious cellar of his company's winery in a 1,000-year-old castle not far from Florence. Uncorking a bottle of Nipozzano, he takes a sip and nods. The red that his family supplied to Michelangelo and Pope Leo X still tastes pretty darn good.
To Frescobaldi, 53, directing the family business is something of a trust. It’s a way to preserve a dynasty that began with wool traders in about the year 1000 and made its money financing the English crown almost 200 years later.
“You have to feel that what you have inherited, you actually do not own,” he said, seated on a wine cask. “You only have to run it properly, and to carry on to something else.”

Maintaining inherited wealth has worked for generations of Frescobaldis over 700 years, and it has let the descendants of Jakob Fugger in Germany continue to run the social-housing complex the Emperor’s banker founded almost half a millennium ago. It’s less of a blessing for Europe as a whole, where family fortunes are more prevalent than in the U.S. or Asia. Their relatively high level is a sign of the continent’s low social mobility, keeping education, income and social connections from evolving over generations.

The richest Florentine families today were already at the top of the socioeconomic ladder almost 600 years ago, according to a recent study by the Bank of Italy. And research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that in many European countries, not only wealth and income but even occupations tend to be “sticky,” passed on from generation to generation.
More than one-third of Italy’s richest people inherited their fortunes, compared with just 29 percent in the U.S. and 2 percent in China, according to a 2014 study of the world’s billionaires by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Germany has the highest share of inheritor-billionaires among developed economies, 65 percent. Overall, heirs and heiresses make up about half of Western Europe’s billionaires.
Europe’s income classes aren’t much more rigid than in the U.S. The lack of social mobility is more of a concern, though, because economic output and the number of available jobs are smaller. The U.S. has grown 9.9 percent in real terms since 2007; the comparable figure for the European Union over the same period, based on Eurostat data, is 2.8 percent. Gross domestic product per capita in the EU is almost one-third lower than in the U.S when adjusted for purchasing power; the unemployment rate is nearly twice that of the U.S.

Because America’s economy is expanding, “they need more engineers, more chemists, more economists, more analysts, more bankers than in Europe,” said Antonio Schizzerotto, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Trento and scientific director of the Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies in the same city. “The number of positions open is higher than the number of ‘sons and daughters of.”’

At a time when some European economies are stalling, wealth and social inheritance must be closely watched because if inequality reaches a certain limit, it can further constrain countries' ability to revive growth, Schizzerotto said.
Count A Fuggerei
For Frescobaldi, the family patrimony can be summed up in one word: wine. His first experience with red came at the age of six, when he got drunk and fainted at a summer party with vineyard workers.
“They couldn’t give me water, I was the son of the boss!” he said. Today, after getting a degree in viticulture at the University of California, Davis, he chairs a company, Marchesi Frescobaldi Group, that produces 11 million bottles a year, one of the biggest in Italy. He even named his dog Brunello, after the Brunello di Montalcino the company makes.

Nipozzano Castle, owned by the Frescobaldi family. Photographer: Alessia Pierdomenico/Bloomberg
Before entering winemaking in 1308, the Frescobaldis were wool traders and bankers, financing King Edward I’s wars in Wales and France. The family -- which also built Florence’s first-ever bridge, Santa Trinita -- also includes Girolamo Frescobaldi, one of the main composers of keyboard music in the late Renaissance and early Baroque periods, as well as poet Dino Frescobaldi. The latter collected and conserved the first seven Canti of the Divine Comedy for Dante Alighieri when he was sent to exile, allowing him to complete the work.
The Frescobaldis’ long lineage is hardly unique in Florence, Tuscany’s capital. Bank of Italy researchers Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti compared tax records of Florentine taxpayers in 1427 and 2011 to track inter-generational mobility, and found that there was meaningful persistence of socioeconomic status across the centuries.

“The huge political, demographic and economic upheavals that have occurred in the city across the centuries were not able to untie the Gordian knot of socioeconomic inheritance,” the authors wrote.
Germany may be prone to even more concentrations of inherited wealth, research shows.
“In hardly any other country does social origin influence one’s income as much as in Germany,” wrote Marcel Fratzscher, head of the Berlin-based German Institute for Economic Research, in a recent book. “The richest citizens are also those with the highest income. For to everyone who has, more shall be given.”

Germany’s high share of family wealth is in part a consequence of a tax system that until this year allowed family-owned businesses -- including a large proportion of the medium-sized companies that are the backbone of its economy -- to pass on their financial assets while paying almost no estate tax.
Count Alexander Fugger-Babenhausen, a descendant of arguably Europe’s richest man in the 16th century, says maintaining the fortune’s integrity is a responsibility. The 34-year old returned to Germany to manage the family’s wealth and charitable activities after working in investment banking and private equity in London.
“It’s not the fast-lived, dynamic sector that forces you to take high risks,” he said at the Fuggerei, the affordable-housing complex founded by Jakob Fugger in 1521. “In every decision we make for the Fuggerei, we try to consider that and be prudent. It would be disastrous if a mistake brought sustainability to an end after 19 generations.”
A bronze bust of Jakob Fugger

Jakob Fugger ordered the construction of the Fuggerei to give back to his city, and try to save his soul in the meantime. Those living in the complex of cozy, two-story terrace houses pay a yearly rent of 0.88 euros, as per Fugger's decree that the cost be one Rhenish florin,  and must make three daily prayers for the founder’s soul and family.

Similarly, the Frescobaldis, who since the Renaissance have commissioned works from artists such as Filippo Brunelleschi, have introduced a contemporary art award called “Artists for Frescobaldi.”  For this project, 999 special bottles are produced every year and some of the proceeds are reinvested to support contemporary art. 

A bronze bust of Jakob Fugger, founder of the Fuggerei social housing complex, stands in a communal garden area in Augsburg, Germany. Photographer: Martin Leissl/Bloomberg
The Fuggerei’s 140 apartments have survived innumerable wars and partial destruction during World War II. While they have been renovated, they still follow the original floor plans and feature some unique Renaissance decor, such as a lever-activated door-opening mechanism that in the past let tenants allow visitors in without leaving the apartment’s only heated room.
“I almost feel a little bit more like a trustee,''  said Fugger-Babenhausen, head of one the three surviving family branches that still run the housing complex through a foundation. As for the family business, “I become very frugal in what I take for myself.”

--With assistance from Flavia Rotondi and Giovanni Salzano in Rome

Stop With the Nonsense That Palestinians Are a Minority in Israel: Gideon Levy, Aug 25, 2016

Stop With the Nonsense That Palestinians Are a Minority in Israel: 
Gideon Levy,  Haaretz, Aug 25, 2016 

You can’t argue that the Palestinians aren’t an integral part of greater Israel; occupied and dispossessed, but integral.

Gideon Levy Aug 25, 2016 

Israel is already a binational state, and has been for a long time
The single-state solution is already here
Is this not apartheid?

A delusion under which most Israelis live lets them invent vacuous excuses based on the virtual reality they’ve built for themselves. According to this fallacy, the State of Israel only controls its own citizens, most of them Jewish of course, but nobody counts the millions of other subjects who fall under its control at least as much, maybe more. They’re invisible.

That’s the only way one can argue comfortably and learnedly about whether Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. The discussion is a fascinating intellectual one, with only one problem: It has long since lost relevance. A country where about half the subjects aren't Jewish can't be Jewish. If it insists on being Jewish by force, it isn’t democratic.

A state where half the subjects are denied rights can't be democratic. In a state that doesn't intend to change its borders or the nature of its rule, this discussion is merely part of the delusion of perpetually parading around naked but feeling fully clothed.

Two peoples equal in size live under Israeli rule: about 6.3 million Jews and 6.3 million Arabs. Half and half. That’s the outcome of 50 years of life in a binational state, not Jewish and not democratic. To the 1.8 million Arab citizens, you have to add the 2.7 million Palestinians living under direct Israeli rule in the West Bank, and about 1.8 million living under indirect Israeli rule in Gaza.

The fate of all these subjects, from registration at birth to the currency they use and most of their rights, is set in Israel. They are subject to its rule; they are part of the state.
Israel tries to shake off its Palestinian subjects when it finds it convenient. At night it invades their homes, and by day it claims they aren’t under its control. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that the Palestinians aren’t an integral part of greater Israel; occupied and dispossessed, but integral.

The fact that this reality was forced on them by the military and that they aren’t part of Israel’s partial democracy doesn’t mean they don’t belong. The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are part of Israel and their Palestinian neighbors aren’t? That can’t be, even if most of Israel’s Jews prefer it.
In a piece this month in Haaretz’s Hebrew edition, when Gadi Taub applauds Jewish democratic Israel, he bases his argument on the Arabs being a “minority” and the enlightened state treating them based on the EU treaty for protecting minorities. It sounds lovely, but it’s completely unreal.
Minorities? Finland’s 5.5 percent Swedish minority, Muslims in France and Australia’s 450,000 aborigines are minorities. But half the population isn’t a “minority.”

The Arabs are only a minority based on false presentations ignoring the existence of most of them. Just as Israeli TV viewing habits are only measured in Jewish households because that’s convenient for the Jews, Taub only counts a small part of the minority because it’s convenient for him. The Palestinians aren’t a minority, they’re half the population. They’re not migrants, they’re locals.

In Haaretz’s Hebrew edition earlier this month, Tzvia Greenfield counts them as Taub does and therefore can sing her praises of Jewish democracy. But Roni Schocken, in his piece, lifts the veneer that covers the state’s contents, which are not Jewish and not democratic.
As the era of the two-state solution draws to a close, and on the eve of the debate’s diversion to the real issue – rights in the binational state that has been in existence for quite some time – it’s time to stop talking about the Palestinians as a minority.

Anyone who wants them to be a minority should have withdrawn from the West Bank long ago. But anyone who wants to keep the West Bank should withdraw from talking about a Jewish majority. There’s no way around that, not even with the help of a thousand articles discussing the wonders of this delusion of Jewish democracy.

August 24, 2016

Why Russia has not invaded Ukraine: Russia NEEDS less war not more war, from The Duran

Here’s why Russia has NOT invaded Ukraine...

Russia's decision not to intervene in Donbass is consistent with its realistic foreign policy, which seeks to avoid wars. It is not because of any of the various reasons Western commentators claim. The result is that where the Western powers regularly start wars they cannot win, Russia has refrained from waging a war it would win easily.

Although some in the west still insist that ‘Russia has invaded eastern Ukraine’, for those with open eyes and ears, the interesting question is ‘Why HASN’T Russia intervened in Eastern Ukraine’?

The reasons are subtle and demonstrate a lot about Russia’s pragmatic reaction to world events.
As things stand, Donbass is governed by two republics, that of Donetsk and Lugansk. Both republics held independence referenda in May of 2014 in which the majority of people voted to separate from the regime in Kiev.
Whilst supporting human rights in Donbass, offering aid and repeatedly calling for an end to the violence rained down on the people of Donbass by Kiev and their auxiliary terrorist gangs, Russia has not formally recognised the statehood of the two republics.

Russia could easily recognise the two republics. Western sanctions on Russia have been ineffective and you cannot sanction someone you’ve already sanctioned.
Put another way, there could be few meaningful political or economic consequences for Russia if she did recognise the independence of the Donbass republics, republics which are comprised of Russian people who are loyal to Russia and would be happy to formally enter politically the Russian family of which they are culturally speaking, already a member. 

However, if Russia did recognise the republics, it would change the legal definition of the conflict from a civil war into a war between states. This would therefore make an easier case for two impaired republics to call on Russia to intervene in the war. And this leads one to the reason that Russia has not ‘invaded’.
Russia wants less war not more war, even though a war between the Russian army and Kiev’s fighters would be an easy victory for Russia.

Russia’s restraint in Donbass is a crucial case study of Russia’s role in international politics.
Russia seeks to be a mediator in conflicts, not a force which exacerbates such conflicts. Whilst NATO have given Kiev new weapons, Russia gives Donbass food, medicine, blankets and fuel.
Russia has tried and continues to try to force a sensible political settlement to the fighting and continues to do so even after thwarting a Kiev sponsored terrorist attack on Russian territory.
Various conspiracy theories have emerged as to why Russia does not militarily intervene in Donbass.

Some say that Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine so that the country can remain politically divided and consequently be permanently paralysed in respect of making a decision on cooperation with Russia versus cooperation with the EU.
The truth of the matter is that with or without Donbass, the country is deeply divided, the borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic being incompatible with an independent unitary state and furthermore whilst cooperation with Russia is mechanically, economically and technically possible, cooperation with the EU is not.

Ukrainian trains for example cannot run on European tracks but they can run on Russian tracks. Ukrainian heavy manufacturing is compatible with Russian standards but not with EU standards. Moreover, the EU has so many economic and political problems to grapple with that taking on the basket case of Kiev’s economic situation is more or less impossible.

Ukrainian politicians may boast that they are happy to replace Britain as an EU member but frankly, Serbia, Albania or Montenegro have a better chance of becoming EU member states than Ukraine does.
Another theory is that Russia does not want to spend the money on reconstructing a war ravaged Donbass.
This is simply untrue. Russia has been providing Donbass with aid throughout the war and will doubtless providing technical assistance in rebuilding when the final gun goes silent. Absorbing a small area with an infrastructure totally compatible to Russia’s into a mammoth Russian Federation would neither be difficult nor expensive.

The truth is that Russia knows that the current regime in Kiev cannot sustain itself. It won’t be around forever and most people in most parts of Ukraine will be all too happy to see the putsch regime fall on its own sword.
When this happens, it will then be possible to decide the future of the country based on a new political settlement which respects self- determination whilst rejecting war and terrorism.
Russia wants justice without violence and when this cannot be achieved, Russia calls for a de-escalation of  violence.

Crimea voted to join Russia without a shot, but in Donbass this was not possible because of geographical factors which made Kiev’s potential to rapidly ignite a conflict all too easy. Considering the blood lust of those in Kiev, war in Donbass went overnight from being unthinkable to being inevitable.
Russia therefore is waiting for the day when moderate leaders emerge in Kiev, who might be able to negotiate what should have been negotiated in the 1990s, a velvet divorce where eastern and southern parts of the country go one way and the western and northern regions go another.

Time will tell whether this means loose confederation or two new independent states, but one way or another something along these lines is destined to happen.

We live in a world where western powers engage in wars they cannot win whilst Russia refrains from entering a war which she could win easily and rapidly.

The issue for Russia is not about winning and losing, but rather it is about ending a conflict through a political rather than military solution.

It is a mature approach that will be studied by future generations throughout the world.

August 23, 2016

The United Nations Resolution on the “Glorification of Nazism” and the Horrors of Ravensbruck

Syria and Israel in Support, Ukraine and US against UN Anti-Nazi Resolution, EU en Block Abstained

On November 19, 2015, the United Nations Third Committee Human Rights Plenary adopted Resolution A/C.3/70/L.59/Rev.1 “Combating Glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and Other Practices That Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” 126 United Nations member states supported the resolution, including China, Russia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Argentina, India, Kenya, Mexico, Philippines, Serbia, South Aftica, Zimbabawe, and a majority of other United Nations member states. The transcendent unification of Syria and Israel in support of this resolution is striking and extraordinary evidence of the remembrance of the horror at the nazi atrocities, the historic scourge which led President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to found the United Nations. Four states opposed this Resolution, including the United States, Ukraine, Canada and Palau.

This year marks the 70th Anniversary of the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunal and adoption of its Charter, a founding document of the United Nations which condemns Nazism. It is therefore a violation of the very essence of the principles upon which the United Nations was founded to oppose this resolution. This is not a question of freedom of speech and expression, which the United States repeatedly alleges as its motive for opposing this resolution, year after year, for almost a decade.

Ukraine’s opposition to this resolution raises troubling questions about the capacity of its government to distinguish between its subjective need to demonize Russia, on behalf of Ukraine’s current sponsors, and its apparent inability to take principled action, which would have required Ukraine to support the anti-Nazi resolution. In its explanation of vote, Ukraine stated: “In this regard, we reiterate our consistent position that the above mentioned resolution has nothing in common with fight against Nazism, neo-nazism and other forms of intolerance. On the contrary we are witnessing how the penholder, Russia, manipulate with the history and twist the essence of the Nuremberg Tribunal in pursuance of one’s aggressive political interests.”

It appears that Ukraine has not read the Resolution which explicitly states:
stresses. In this regard, that it is important that States take measures, in accordance with international human rights law, to counteract any celebration of the Nazi SS organization and all its integral parts, including the Waffen SS.

On November 2, 2015, Mutuma Ruteere of Kenya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, under Item 71 of the General Assembly Third Committee stated: “I would now like to turn to my report on the implementation of resolution 69/160 on Combating Glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other Practices that Contribute to fueling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination Xenophobia and Related Intolerance….Any commemorative celebration of the Nazi regime and the crimes against humanity whether official or non-official should be denounced and prohibited by States. Such events do an injustice to the memory of the countless victims of the Holocaust and thecrimes against humanity committed by the Nazis in the Second World War.”
In view of the Special Rapporteur’s unequivocal denunciation of any and all commemorative celebrations of the nazism, whether official or unofficial, it is questionable whether Ukraine opposes the anti-Nazi resolution for the reason it cites (questioning the motive of the Resolution’s sponsor, The Russian Federation), or whether Ukraine opposes the resolution because its current government is, in fact, actively pro-Nazi. There is troubling evidence of the latter possibility – or probability, as Ukranian President Poroshenko recently cancelled the February 23rd Commemoration Day of the Victory of the Soviet Army over the Nazi invaders, and has replaced that sacred commemoration by proclaiming October 14 as the Ukranian National Day of Celebration, commemorating that very day in 1943 when Stepan Bandera’s Nazi army was established.
Certainly the United States should be alarmed by Ukraine’s recent glorification of Nazism, since it was Stepan Bandera’s OUN which during World War II planned assassination attempts against the fiercely anti-nazi United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Ukranian government has chosen to betray and to trash some of the noblest aspects of Ukraine’s history: the symbol of Ukraine’s past and currently betrayed heroism is in the famous World War II “Match of Death.” On August 9, 1942, Ukraine’s world-famous soccer team was held prisoner by the Nazis. They were promised that if they defeated the Nazi team in a soccer match, they would be given their freedom. The Ukrainian team, the “FC Start” local soccer team then played in a contest with the Nazi team, “FLAKELF” the Nazi air defense artillery team. The Ukranian soccer team won the match, defeating the Nazis 5 to 3. The Germans then hanged every member of the victorious Ukranian soccer team, as punishment for humiliating Germany in so great a defeat. Those Ukranian soccer players were not naïve. They knew that their Nazi opponents would not honor the promise to spare their lives. They fought to victory to prove that the Nazis were not invincible, even in soccer, the most popular sport in Europe. The Nazi humiliation was a symbol of the ultimate Nazi defeat by the Soviet army.

The consistent United States opposition to the anti-Nazi resolution is especially troubling in view of the US awareness of the most grotesque and systematic war crimes and atrocities committed by the Nazis. Not many years ago, Norman Cousins, the famous editor of the “Saturday Review of Literature” brought to the United States for medical treatment the few surviving victims of hideous Nazi “medical” experiments, the Ravensbruck “Lapins.”
These very young and originally healthy women prisoners were forced to undergo unthinkable torture by the Nazis, as their leg bones were broken with hammers, pieces of these bones were extracted, and muscles and nerves torn apart. The sadistic “doctors” then deliberately infected these mangled legs by forcing into the gaping wounds virulent strains of bacteria, sawdust, rusty nails and slivers of glass. Gangrenous infectious cultures were forced into the wounds of the shattered legs of the “Lapins,” and the wounds were then sewn up, causing excruciating pain; agonizing mutiliation was suffered by the “survivors.”

In cases of disabled prisoners, entire lower limbs were amputated, then upper limbs were amputated, and the victims were then murdered. In May, 1943 the German Orthopedic Society at Congress of Reich Physicians gave awards to the perpetrators of the horrific Ravensbruck mutiliating experiments.

The Ravensbruck horrors were only an infinitesimal part of the Nazi scourge which ravaged Europe. It is therefore particularly alarming that the European Union, voting as a block, abstained on this anti-Nazi resolution.

It is also revealing that many countries currently being demonized by US/NATO for human rights abuses, including DPRK and Zimbabwe, supported this anti-Nazi resolution. This is one more significant piece of evidence of the Orwellian distortion of truth that is deeply entrenched in the narrative of certain States at the United Nations. Indeed, this anti-Nazi Resolution has become a barometer of which countries actually respect human rights, and which countries hypocritically proclaim human rights which they, in fact, conspicuously and shamelessly hold in contempt.