therealnews--2020-02-24--NATO’s Arctic War Exercise Unites Climate Change and WWIII

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wolpert : It ’ s the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wolpert in Baltimore .
The US military is about to send 7,500 combat troops to Norway for exercise Cold Response 2020 where they will join thousands of allied NATO troops in the Finnmark district along the border to Russia to participate in war games that will take place in mid-March .
These maneuvers have been held every other year since 2006 , but their increased size and importance are raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States are preparing to use the Arctic as a battleground for a possible conflict with Russia .
Why have these NATO games in such a Northern latitude been gaining in importance ?
US Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo openly explained the rationale when he visited Finland in May of last year .
Mike Pompeo : The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance .
It houses 13 % of the world ’ s undiscovered oil , 30 % of its undiscovered gas , and an abundance of uranium , rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and millions of square miles of untapped resources , fisheries galore .
And its centerpiece , the Arctic Ocean , is rapidly taking on new strategic significance .
Offshore resources , which are helping the respective coastal states are the subject of renewed competition .
Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade .
This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days .
Arctic sea lanes could come before the… could come to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under President Trump , we ’ re fortifying America ’ s security and diplomatic presence in the area .
On the security side , partly in response to Russia ’ s destabilizing activities , we are hosting military exercises , strengthening our force presence , rebuilding our icebreaker fleet , expanding Coast Guard funding , and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs inside of our own military .
Greg Wolpert : Pompeo also explained that in addition to the threat that Russia represents , so does China .
Joining me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s exercise Cold Response are Michael Klare and [ Erik Vold 00:02:20 ] .
Michael is The Nation ’ s defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College .
His latest book is , All Hell Breaking Loose : The Pentagon ’ s Perspective on Climate Change .
Erik , who joins us from Oslo , is a Norwegian political analyst and author and is working as a foreign policy advisor to the parliamentary group of the leftist Red Party of Norway .
Thanks , Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So let ’ s start with the Arctic , why the Arctic has become of such great interest to the United States ?
We saw it earlier as Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo already explained it pretty well in that clip .
But January , once again , the month of January , beat all climate records as the warmest January in recorded history .
Michael , talk about how climate change is driving this scramble for the Arctic .
Michael Klare : Well , at one point you couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go near there because it was covered with ice .
The region was impenetrable .
But because of climate change and the rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic , the ice cap is receding and that ’ s making it possible to drill for oil and natural gas and other resources in the Arctic region .
This has led to a scramble to extract those resources by giant energy firms from around the world .
So this has made the region much more of importance from a geopolitical perspective .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends on the sale of oil and natural gas to prop up its economy .
Something like 25 % of its foreign income comes from the sale of oil and gas and at present most of that oil and natural gas that it sells to Europe and Asia comes from reserves below the Arctic Circle .
But those are running out .
So for Russia to continue to rely on oil and gas reserves to power its economy , it has to go above the Arctic Circle .
And so from Moscow ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources is absolutely crucial .
This is something that President Vladimir Putin has said over and over again and has invested vast resources , economic inputs into developing the new oil and gas fields developed , discovered above the Arctic Circle in Russia ’ s territory .
But as we ’ ll discuss , this creates problems for Russia because it ’ s very hard to deliver those new oil and gas reserves to the rest of the world because of the distance from markets .
This has put a new emphasis on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is where this exercise is being held .
Greg Wolpert : All right .
Talk to us also about the US interest that is in the resources because you make an interesting point in one of your articles for The Nation where you point out also that even if we aren ’ t right away running out of natural resources in the Middle East , there is an issue that climate change in the Middle East is actually driving also what ’ s happening in the Arctic .
Explain that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeed .
If you look at the latest scientific literature on what we could expect from climate change in the future , the Middle East region , especially the Persian Gulf , which is where most of oil drilling is occurring at present , Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , Iran and so on , those areas are going to become unbearably hot in summer months .
You can expect , in decades to come , that summertime temperatures during the day are likely to average above 110 degrees Fahrenheit and very possibly above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost impossible for humans to survive for very long in those temperatures .
A lot of equipment breaks down under those circumstances .
So it ’ s very possible that it ’ ll become impossible to produce oil and gas in that region .
That makes production in the Arctic much more attractive as those areas become impossible to operate in the Middle East .
So the oil companies , American and British oil companies are increasingly looking towards the Arctic as a future source of production to ensure that they have adequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want to turn to you now .
Now , what has Norway done to facilitate the scramble for Arctic resources ?
I mean , Norway is usually seen as a peace loving country , the home of the Nobel Peace Prize after all .
To what extent and why is Norway supporting US ambitions there via NATO ?
Erik Vold : Well , Norway joined the NATO in 1949 and that was a very controversial decision .
And because Norway is a country that is situated on the border with Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviet Union had just liberated a big chunk of Norwegian territory from Nazi occupation , so there was very little appetite in the Norwegian population to sort of antagonize the Russians by letting the US enter Norwegian territory with heavy military equipment .
So we had this self-imposed restrictions on US military presence .
For example , not permitting US military bases on Norwegian soil in peace time and not permitting the presence of US nukes on Norwegian territory .
Now , this policy , this very prudent policy that served us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been rolled back by this current government , which is more and more inclined to supporting the US and to supporting US militarization off the Arctic that is deemed to be threatening by the Russians .
Now I can give you a very illustrative example .
In 2018 , the Norwegian government introduced a proposal asking basically asking the parliament for a grant of about 1 billion kroners , about $ 1 million for satellite-based broadband connection in the Northern Norway .
Now this was presented as a proposal to improve internet connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maritime security , shipping and for the Norwegian defense .
This grant was voted favorably , unanimously , by the parliament .
Now a couple of days later , it turned out that this grant was going to be used on something completely different .
It turned out that these satellites were going to carry communication equipment for the US military directly connected to US nuclear armed submarines that were using the Arctic territories of Norwegian maritime territory getting close to Russia .
It also turned out that the reason why the Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of US military satellites was because the US military considered that any satellites carrying communication equipment for nuclear , US nuclear capabilities would become possible targets for attacks from those countries that feel threatened by the presence of US nukes close to their borders .
In this case , it would be Russia and China .
So what this goes to show is the way that the US is increasingly using Norwegian territory and Norwegian civilian infrastructure to move nuclear and conventional military , offensive military , capabilities closer and closer to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is being done is through , to a large extent , through secrecy and deceptions , sometimes even undermining important principles of the Norwegian democracy .
Greg Wolpert : Michael , I want to get to that point that Erik is raising about increasing US military presence in Norway .
We ’ re not just talking about the NATO maneuvers that are happening in early March .
So what has the US so far deployed there and what kinds of risks do these deployments represent ?
Michael Klare : So step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , over the past two years , has adopted a new military strategy .
For the past 20 years or so , since 2001 , since 9/11 , the guiding strategy of the United States has been the global War on Terror .
And that ’ s led , of course to a focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries where the US has been fighting the various ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on .
Two years ago , the Department of Defense adopted a new national security strategy , which emphasizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning the rivalry between the US , Russia and China .
And on this space is the US increasingly views Russia and China as its main adversary .
In this shift in strategy emphasizes that while the US was focusing on the wars , the what we call the Forever Wars , the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on , that Russia and China have built up their military capabilities and put NATO and the US at a disadvantage and that therefore , it ’ s essential that the US and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deflect and to contain and push back Russian and then Chinese advances .
So now looking at Norway and Scandinavia , the US sees a big Russian build up in the Kola Peninsula .
That ’ s the area that adjoins Norway in the far North , a huge buildup of Russian forces there .
This is seen as a new or an expanded threat to NATO and to US forces in general because those forces that the Russians have deployed in Kola Peninsula , especially in Murmansk the big naval base there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the US has undertaken a drive to beef up its forces in that region and that has included , as [ inaudible 00:13:28 ] said earlier , the positioning of a permanent deployment of American forces that is , in this case , Marine deployments of several hundred Marines in North Central Norway .
But more importantly , under agreement with the Norwegian government , this is not well known in the United States at all , I don ’ t even know if go regions know about it , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think in the area to the East of Trondheim in North Central Norway , which hold hundreds , thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers , ammunition , all the stocks you need to fight a major war .
So there is an anticipation on the US side that we may have to fight a major war with Russia in the far North in the area adjoining the Kola Peninsula .
The exercise that we ’ re about to see , Cold Response 2020 , US forces will fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caves and extract all of those tanks that have been pre-positioned in Norway , move to the Northern part of Norway and engage in a mock war with Russia .
So there is this , an assumption now in the Pentagon that Northern Norway will be a major battlefield in any war with Russia and in fact could be the starting place for World War III .
Greg Wolpert : Actually , Erik , this is exactly the next issue I want to touch on with you .
I mean , just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of such a confrontation , whether it ’ s a nuclear or conventional .
Now , what ’ s been the reaction within Norway to this militarization ?
Erik Vold : That ’ s true .
I mean , Norway used to be a kind of a buffer zone between Russia or the USSR and the US .
And through those Norwegian policies of limiting US presence in Northern Norway , that position was maintained until pretty recently because the current government has done a lot to tear down those limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a buffer , as a buffer zone .
So , while reactions are slow [ inaudible 00:15:55 ] .
I mean , defense policies , the whole security issue , big power competition , that issue has basically been marginalized since the end of the Cold War .
The Norwegian people is slowly realizing the risks that this implies for Norway .
I mean , we have enjoyed so many decades of peace and the risk of war has basically not been on the agenda .
But what we are seeing now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of maintaining a certain distance to the US even though being allies , by scrapping that policy , the risk of war is not being , is not reduced .
It ’ s increasing .
We ’ re seeing basically a security dilemma in which the increased military presence of the US in Norway makes Russia look at Norway with different eyes .
I mean , well , the Russians never feared Norway , a small country of five million inhabitants with whom they ’ ve maintained peace for almost a thousand years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Norwegian civilian infrastructure , and when Norwegian territory is used to build up US military presence , then Russian guns are slowly being to more of an extent being pointed towards Norway because what the Russians do fear is that Norwegian territory is being used for aggressive purposes by the US against Russia .
And so that increases the risk of Norway being drawn into this big power rivalry between Russia and the US .
It also increases the risks for the Russians .
So they ’ re increasing their military spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that might stimulate increase defense spending in the US because to the extent that the US engages in Norway , probably in the case and increasing the risk of a conflict .
Maybe the most probable scenario is a conflict arising from a misunderstanding when so much heavy military power is concentrated on such a small area .
That ’ s the way it can happen .
So in case of a misunderstanding in which the Russians fear a US attack , they go to , they take some kind of preliminary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kola Peninsula .
Then the U S will feel much more obliged to interfere , to intervene in order to maintain their credibility as a security guarantor towards other NATO States .
So it also increases the risk of the US being drawn into a conflict unnecessarily based on a misunderstanding .
So , what we ’ re going to see is three nations , everyone spending more on defense and getting less security in return from it .
Greg Wolpert : Michael , I was just wondering if you could add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of your points in your Nation article as well , that this could be the main area for World War III and why is that ?
I mean , what is it , why is Russia building up so much ?
After all , they ’ ve got access to the entire , more access to the Arctic than any other country in the world , so why is it such a hotspot ?
Michael Klare : Well , this partly is a matter of geography and I hope that you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlight this fact .
That is to say that although Russia has a number of ports , the port at Murmansk is the only one that offers Russian submarines open access to the Atlantic Ocean and to the other oceans of the world .
They can ’ t on the Atlantic side .
They also have ports on the Pacific .
One needs a minute to understand something about nuclear strategy .
Russia relies on its nuclear submarines , nuclear missile armed submarines , as its secure deterrent to a US first strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first and destroy all Russian missile silos , they count on their submarines submerged as a final deterrent to such a strike because they ’ re supposedly more secure from detection and attack , but they have to get out into the water .
Murmansk is therefore essential to them for that reason .
Hence , the United States , as it increasingly sees it , sees the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia sees that area where the submarines would exit from Murmansk to go out into the ocean as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the US has established with Norway a radar base at the very far North of Norway and Finnmark just 45 miles from the border with Russia and to track Russian submarines .
This means in the event of a clash that had a nuclear potential , Northern Norway would be an immediate nuclear target for Russia .
So you could see how this area is being caught up in the nuclear planning scenarios of both sides .
It ’ s important to understand in this discussion that as we are shifting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been discussing , the US and I think the other great powers are also moving away from the strategy of mutual assured destruction , MAD as it was called , M-A-D , which said that any nuclear war would be so catastrophic that we are not even going to think about a first strike .
We ’ re only going to retain a secure second strike and not even think about nuclear war , but that ’ s changing .
The US and Russia and China , it appears , are thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting and winning a nuclear war .
I think this is utterly insane and immoral , highly immoral , but that is the case .
And so nuclear battlefields are emerging places where nuclear strikes might occur .
This area of Northern Norway and Murmansk would be at the very top of the list of possible targets in the event of a nuclear war .
I could say more about this , but this is a matter of geography and you have to see Murmansk adjoining Northern Norway as a prime battlefield in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greg Wolpert : Well , I think it ’ s also important to reflect on how these two kind of apocalyptic scenarios , that is of climate change and of nuclear war , are coming together in this particular issue .
It ’ s really quite something .
But we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
We ’ ll certainly continue to follow this as we usually do .
I was speaking to Michael Klare , The Nation ’ s defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vold , foreign policy advisor for the parliamentary group of the Red Party of Norway .
Thanks again , Michael and Erik for having joined us today .
Greg Wolpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

NATO will hold war games in Norway’s Arctic Circle in March, where it will be supporting climate change-induced resource extraction and increasing the military tension with Russia.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wolpert: It’s the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Baltimore. The US military is about to send 7,500 combat troops to Norway for exercise Cold Response 2020 where they will join thousands of allied NATO troops in the Finnmark district along the border to Russia to participate in war games that will take place in mid-March.
These maneuvers have been held every other year since 2006, but their increased size and importance are raising credible fears that NATO and the United States are preparing to use the Arctic as a battleground for a possible conflict with Russia. Why have these NATO games in such a Northern latitude been gaining in importance? US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo openly explained the rationale when he visited Finland in May of last year.
Mike Pompeo: The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore. And its centerpiece, the Arctic Ocean, is rapidly taking on new strategic significance. Offshore resources, which are helping the respective coastal states are the subject of renewed competition.
Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade. This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could come before the… could come to the 21st century Suez and Panama canals.
Under President Trump, we’re fortifying America’s security and diplomatic presence in the area. On the security side, partly in response to Russia’s destabilizing activities, we are hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet, expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs inside of our own military.
Greg Wolpert: Pompeo also explained that in addition to the threat that Russia represents, so does China.
Joining me now to discuss the significance of NATO’s exercise Cold Response are Michael Klare and [Erik Vold 00:02:20]. Michael is The Nation’s defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. Erik, who joins us from Oslo, is a Norwegian political analyst and author and is working as a foreign policy advisor to the parliamentary group of the leftist Red Party of Norway.
Thanks, Michael and Erik for joining us today. So let’s start with the Arctic, why the Arctic has become of such great interest to the United States? We saw it earlier as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo already explained it pretty well in that clip. But January, once again, the month of January, beat all climate records as the warmest January in recorded history. Michael, talk about how climate change is driving this scramble for the Arctic.
Michael Klare: Well, at one point you couldn’t go there. You couldn’t go near there because it was covered with ice. The region was impenetrable. But because of climate change and the rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic, the ice cap is receding and that’s making it possible to drill for oil and natural gas and other resources in the Arctic region. This has led to a scramble to extract those resources by giant energy firms from around the world. So this has made the region much more of importance from a geopolitical perspective.
It’s especially true of Russia because Russia highly depends on the sale of oil and natural gas to prop up its economy. Something like 25% of its foreign income comes from the sale of oil and gas and at present most of that oil and natural gas that it sells to Europe and Asia comes from reserves below the Arctic Circle. But those are running out. So for Russia to continue to rely on oil and gas reserves to power its economy, it has to go above the Arctic Circle.
And so from Moscow’s perspective, the development of Arctic resources is absolutely crucial. This is something that President Vladimir Putin has said over and over again and has invested vast resources, economic inputs into developing the new oil and gas fields developed, discovered above the Arctic Circle in Russia’s territory.
But as we’ll discuss, this creates problems for Russia because it’s very hard to deliver those new oil and gas reserves to the rest of the world because of the distance from markets. This has put a new emphasis on trade routes that pass by Northern Norway, which is where this exercise is being held.
Greg Wolpert: All right. Talk to us also about the US interest that is in the resources because you make an interesting point in one of your articles for The Nation where you point out also that even if we aren’t right away running out of natural resources in the Middle East, there is an issue that climate change in the Middle East is actually driving also what’s happening in the Arctic. Explain that to us.
Michael Klare: Yes, indeed. If you look at the latest scientific literature on what we could expect from climate change in the future, the Middle East region, especially the Persian Gulf, which is where most of oil drilling is occurring at present, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and so on, those areas are going to become unbearably hot in summer months. You can expect, in decades to come, that summertime temperatures during the day are likely to average above 110 degrees Fahrenheit and very possibly above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s almost impossible for humans to survive for very long in those temperatures.
A lot of equipment breaks down under those circumstances. So it’s very possible that it’ll become impossible to produce oil and gas in that region. That makes production in the Arctic much more attractive as those areas become impossible to operate in the Middle East. So the oil companies, American and British oil companies are increasingly looking towards the Arctic as a future source of production to ensure that they have adequate supplies.
Greg Wolpert: Erik, I want to turn to you now. Now, what has Norway done to facilitate the scramble for Arctic resources? I mean, Norway is usually seen as a peace loving country, the home of the Nobel Peace Prize after all. To what extent and why is Norway supporting US ambitions there via NATO?
Erik Vold: Well, Norway joined the NATO in 1949 and that was a very controversial decision. And because Norway is a country that is situated on the border with Russia, at that time the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union had just liberated a big chunk of Norwegian territory from Nazi occupation, so there was very little appetite in the Norwegian population to sort of antagonize the Russians by letting the US enter Norwegian territory with heavy military equipment. So we had this self-imposed restrictions on US military presence. For example, not permitting US military bases on Norwegian soil in peace time and not permitting the presence of US nukes on Norwegian territory.
Now, this policy, this very prudent policy that served us very well for about 70 years has been rolled back by this current government, which is more and more inclined to supporting the US and to supporting US militarization off the Arctic that is deemed to be threatening by the Russians. Now I can give you a very illustrative example.
In 2018, the Norwegian government introduced a proposal asking basically asking the parliament for a grant of about 1 billion kroners, about $1 million for satellite-based broadband connection in the Northern Norway. Now this was presented as a proposal to improve internet connection for business, for fishery, for maritime security, shipping and for the Norwegian defense. This grant was voted favorably, unanimously, by the parliament.
Now a couple of days later, it turned out that this grant was going to be used on something completely different. It turned out that these satellites were going to carry communication equipment for the US military directly connected to US nuclear armed submarines that were using the Arctic territories of Norwegian maritime territory getting close to Russia.
It also turned out that the reason why the Americans wanted to use civilian Norwegian satellites instead of US military satellites was because the US military considered that any satellites carrying communication equipment for nuclear, US nuclear capabilities would become possible targets for attacks from those countries that feel threatened by the presence of US nukes close to their borders. In this case, it would be Russia and China.
So what this goes to show is the way that the US is increasingly using Norwegian territory and Norwegian civilian infrastructure to move nuclear and conventional military, offensive military, capabilities closer and closer to the Russian border. And that the way that this is being done is through, to a large extent, through secrecy and deceptions, sometimes even undermining important principles of the Norwegian democracy.
Greg Wolpert: Michael, I want to get to that point that Erik is raising about increasing US military presence in Norway. We’re not just talking about the NATO maneuvers that are happening in early March. So what has the US so far deployed there and what kinds of risks do these deployments represent?
Michael Klare: So step back for a minute. The US, over the past two years, has adopted a new military strategy. For the past 20 years or so, since 2001, since 9/11, the guiding strategy of the United States has been the global War on Terror. And that’s led, of course to a focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries where the US has been fighting the various ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on.
Two years ago, the Department of Defense adopted a new national security strategy, which emphasizes what they call great power competition, meaning the rivalry between the US, Russia and China. And on this space is the US increasingly views Russia and China as its main adversary. In this shift in strategy emphasizes that while the US was focusing on the wars, the what we call the Forever Wars, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on, that Russia and China have built up their military capabilities and put NATO and the US at a disadvantage and that therefore, it’s essential that the US and NATO build up their capabilities again to deflect and to contain and push back Russian and then Chinese advances.
So now looking at Norway and Scandinavia, the US sees a big Russian build up in the Kola Peninsula. That’s the area that adjoins Norway in the far North, a huge buildup of Russian forces there. This is seen as a new or an expanded threat to NATO and to US forces in general because those forces that the Russians have deployed in Kola Peninsula, especially in Murmansk the big naval base there include nuclear forces. So in response, the US has undertaken a drive to beef up its forces in that region and that has included, as [inaudible 00:13:28] said earlier, the positioning of a permanent deployment of American forces that is, in this case, Marine deployments of several hundred Marines in North Central Norway.
But more importantly, under agreement with the Norwegian government, this is not well known in the United States at all, I don’t even know if go regions know about it, the US has established large, large caves, I think in the area to the East of Trondheim in North Central Norway, which hold hundreds, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers, ammunition, all the stocks you need to fight a major war. So there is an anticipation on the US side that we may have to fight a major war with Russia in the far North in the area adjoining the Kola Peninsula.
The exercise that we’re about to see, Cold Response 2020, US forces will fly to Norway and then go to those caves and extract all of those tanks that have been pre-positioned in Norway, move to the Northern part of Norway and engage in a mock war with Russia. So there is this, an assumption now in the Pentagon that Northern Norway will be a major battlefield in any war with Russia and in fact could be the starting place for World War III.
Greg Wolpert: Actually, Erik, this is exactly the next issue I want to touch on with you. I mean, just as Michael says, Norway would be in the middle of such a confrontation, whether it’s a nuclear or conventional. Now, what’s been the reaction within Norway to this militarization?
Erik Vold: That’s true. I mean, Norway used to be a kind of a buffer zone between Russia or the USSR and the US. And through those Norwegian policies of limiting US presence in Northern Norway, that position was maintained until pretty recently because the current government has done a lot to tear down those limitations and basically scrap Norway’s role as a buffer, as a buffer zone.
So, while reactions are slow [inaudible 00:15:55]. I mean, defense policies, the whole security issue, big power competition, that issue has basically been marginalized since the end of the Cold War. The Norwegian people is slowly realizing the risks that this implies for Norway. I mean, we have enjoyed so many decades of peace and the risk of war has basically not been on the agenda.
But what we are seeing now is that by scrapping that prudent policy of maintaining a certain distance to the US even though being allies, by scrapping that policy, the risk of war is not being, is not reduced. It’s increasing. We’re seeing basically a security dilemma in which the increased military presence of the US in Norway makes Russia look at Norway with different eyes. I mean, well, the Russians never feared Norway, a small country of five million inhabitants with whom they’ve maintained peace for almost a thousand years.
When US nuclear capabilities are connected to Norwegian civilian infrastructure, and when Norwegian territory is used to build up US military presence, then Russian guns are slowly being to more of an extent being pointed towards Norway because what the Russians do fear is that Norwegian territory is being used for aggressive purposes by the US against Russia. And so that increases the risk of Norway being drawn into this big power rivalry between Russia and the US.
It also increases the risks for the Russians. So they’re increasing their military spending. And unfortunately, this is also something that might stimulate increase defense spending in the US because to the extent that the US engages in Norway, probably in the case and increasing the risk of a conflict. Maybe the most probable scenario is a conflict arising from a misunderstanding when so much heavy military power is concentrated on such a small area. That’s the way it can happen.
So in case of a misunderstanding in which the Russians fear a US attack, they go to, they take some kind of preliminary action to protect their military capabilities in the Kola Peninsula. Then the U S will feel much more obliged to interfere, to intervene in order to maintain their credibility as a security guarantor towards other NATO States. So it also increases the risk of the US being drawn into a conflict unnecessarily based on a misunderstanding. So, what we’re going to see is three nations, everyone spending more on defense and getting less security in return from it.
Greg Wolpert: Michael, I was just wondering if you could add to that? I mean this was one of your points in your Nation article as well, that this could be the main area for World War III and why is that? I mean, what is it, why is Russia building up so much? After all, they’ve got access to the entire, more access to the Arctic than any other country in the world, so why is it such a hotspot?
Michael Klare: Well, this partly is a matter of geography and I hope that you can put a map of this area to highlight this fact. That is to say that although Russia has a number of ports, the port at Murmansk is the only one that offers Russian submarines open access to the Atlantic Ocean and to the other oceans of the world. They can’t on the Atlantic side. They also have ports on the Pacific.
One needs a minute to understand something about nuclear strategy. Russia relies on its nuclear submarines, nuclear missile armed submarines, as its secure deterrent to a US first strike. If the US were to strike first and destroy all Russian missile silos, they count on their submarines submerged as a final deterrent to such a strike because they’re supposedly more secure from detection and attack, but they have to get out into the water. Murmansk is therefore essential to them for that reason.
Hence, the United States, as it increasingly sees it, sees the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia sees that area where the submarines would exit from Murmansk to go out into the ocean as a crucial future nuclear war zone. Hence, the US has established with Norway a radar base at the very far North of Norway and Finnmark just 45 miles from the border with Russia and to track Russian submarines. This means in the event of a clash that had a nuclear potential, Northern Norway would be an immediate nuclear target for Russia. So you could see how this area is being caught up in the nuclear planning scenarios of both sides.
It’s important to understand in this discussion that as we are shifting to this great power competition that we’ve been discussing, the US and I think the other great powers are also moving away from the strategy of mutual assured destruction, MAD as it was called, M-A-D, which said that any nuclear war would be so catastrophic that we are not even going to think about a first strike. We’re only going to retain a secure second strike and not even think about nuclear war, but that’s changing.
The US and Russia and China, it appears, are thinking more and more about the possibility of fighting and winning a nuclear war. I think this is utterly insane and immoral, highly immoral, but that is the case. And so nuclear battlefields are emerging places where nuclear strikes might occur. This area of Northern Norway and Murmansk would be at the very top of the list of possible targets in the event of a nuclear war. I could say more about this, but this is a matter of geography and you have to see Murmansk adjoining Northern Norway as a prime battlefield in any outset of a nuclear war.
Greg Wolpert: Well, I think it’s also important to reflect on how these two kind of apocalyptic scenarios, that is of climate change and of nuclear war, are coming together in this particular issue. It’s really quite something. But we’re going to leave it there for now. We’ll certainly continue to follow this as we usually do.
I was speaking to Michael Klare, The Nation’s defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and Erik Vold, foreign policy advisor for the parliamentary group of the Red Party of Norway. Thanks again, Michael and Erik for having joined us today.
Michael Klare: Thank you.
Erik Vold: Thank you.
Greg Wolpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-24--Glen Ford: Black Politics in America Right Now

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
We are fully certain that Russiagate actually started in the national security state , which became very nervous when Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign , for whatever reasons , expressed grave mixed misgivings about the US regime change policy , about US free trade policy , about US relations with NATO , about the entire global security , which is a code word for US imperialist framework in the world .
And that really upset the national security state .
What we saw for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past heads of the CIA and other intelligence agencies come out of the dark , so to speak , and actively engage in the 26 electoral contest .
They engaged as Democrats and they engaged in ways to isolate and discredit those statements that Donald Trump had made that they felt were weakening the US imperial framework .
And then Donald Trump wins and the stuff hits the fan .
The Democratic response to that win in the electoral college and the national security state response to it become the same and Russiagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that document that was authored by the CIA and co-signed , endorsed by two other intelligence agencies .
And then , of course immediately becomes part of the Democratic National Committee line and it ’ s not just against Trump .
We in the left are of course all opposed to Trump , but what is thrown into the pot of Russian collusion and meddling is basically all of the left and a black list is drawed up with Black Agenda Report on that list along with another of other left websites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critique the corporate consensus in foreign policy are now lumped together , not just with Russia , but with Trump , which means that Black politicians have now taken the side , become and allied with the CIA , which used to be anathema overall in general in the Black community .
We see the spectacle of Black congresswoman from Los Angeles , Maxine Waters , who used to denounce the CIA , rightfully , for taking and playing such a role in bringing crack cocaine into her city .
Now she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American flags and siding directly with that national security state .
2016 ’ s election creating Russiagate has actually really made this new Cold War , this internal McCarthyism a part central to the American political scene .
It ’ s become a war , a Cold War , against left dissent in this country .
It was anti any deviation from the corporate consensus and the national security state ’ s consensus on US foreign policy .
Trump deviated from that , which caused a panic in the national security state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Trump has since been tamed .
He has extended sanctions even farther than Obama .
He has sanctioned Russia with which he ’ s supposedly all cuddled up and colluding with in far greater sanctions , far more punishing sanctions against Russia than Obama , and he ’ s attacked Syria and dug his heels in , in Syria .
Something he said he wouldn ’ t do .
That ’ s the premier US armed regime change target in the world , and Trump is right there .
But Russiagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump , it ’ s about any dissidents from the imperial line .
This is a larger battle about what the narrative of history and of contemporary events is going to be .
That ’ s why the battle has shifted to Facebook and Google who have adjusted their algorithms to actually perform in the opposite matter from which they were invented .
The Google search mechanisms were supposed to bring before the reader those articles , that information , which they were searching for .
But instead , if the reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Black Agenda Report , they will , instead of finding a whole page of references as it would be usual , they ’ ll find maybe , if they ’ re lucky , one or two articles from Black Agenda Report .
The algorithms have been tampered with , rigged , by their inventors , so they do the opposite of their intended purpose .
This is a battle over the narrative .
This is a battle to impose on people a picture of the world only exists in the mind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats , there is no escaping Democrats in the Black community .
Democratic politics , Democratic organizations dominate the Black community .
Our civic organizations every four years become annexes of the Democratic Party .
Our sororities and fraternities become annexes of the Democratic Party during campaign years .
So there is no escaping the Democratic Party .
But Black Agenda Report , of course , carries on a nonstop analysis of what that party is doing and to who it is serving .
But we maintain at Black Agenda Report that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever be trapped in a corporate cage until there is a breakup of the Democratic Party .
That the duopoly system is an even worse cage for Black folks than anybody else in the country because in this system if there are two parties , one of them will be the white man ’ s party .
The Republican party now occupies that position , the Democratic Party used to .
But the white man ’ s party is one whose organizing principle is white supremacy .
And of course , the masses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the white man ’ s party .
You only find insane or mercenary Black people in the white man ’ s party .
And that forces them to participate in the Democratic Party .
But what it further does is since what , when Black folks go to the polls in primary elections , what their , what they believe is their main purpose in exercising their franchise is to stop , to defeat the white man ’ s party .
And so typically , and this year is no exception , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate they think is the strongest to defeat the white man ’ s party candidate , this year , Trump .
Almost invariably they perceive that the strongest candidate is the one with the most money , the one who has the most support in the corporate media and that of course , would be the right wing Democrat .
So even though Black folks are the most left-leaning constituency in the United States historically and still , they will in large numbers support the corporate candidate during the primary elections .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own aspirations .
They are not voting their own left-leaning ideology .
They are simply voting to defeat the white man ’ s candidate and are therefore neutralized politically in this country , and the left is weakened in this country by not having the active left-ish participation of the most left-leaning constituency .
This big Black support for Biden was based on the perception that he was the strongest candidate to beat Trump , to beat the white man ’ s party candidate .
It was based almost entirely on this aura @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created by the corporate press .
It was not an ideological identification .
Those same Black voters who were supporting Biden were also overwhelmingly and in fact , in bigger proportion than any other group , in favor of Medicare For All and that whole list of Bernie programs , which are in fact super majority issues in the Democratic Party certainly and absolutely among Black Americans .
But Black Americans , again , see the existential issue , the existential question as being defeating Trump .
It was very clear to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black support would deteriorate as soon as his aura of electability was punctured , which happened in the first two primaries .
It will further be eroded before this South Carolina primary .
It ’ s quite possible that Bernie might beat him , even in Black votes .
They ’ ve come much closer together .
Black folks are to the left of Bernie Sanders .
The Black political spectrum is a totally different spectrum from the white political spectrum .
Black people that call themselves moderate or conservatives bear no political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderates and conservatives .
This very , very different Black political spectrum should have its own independent means of expression , but it never will have it as long as it ’ s locked in this corporate Democratic cage .
Now , if there is going to be a switch by the electability Black folks , the ones for whom the strongest white candidate will still be the one whose buttons they ’ ll push , it would be to Bloomberg who is strong based on his billions .
It wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t appear to be the strongest white candidates and are very , very white .
That ’ s why they ’ re only in two or 3 % in terms of Black American support and that ’ s more than negligible .
It ’ s probably a statistical error .

A fiery takedown of mainstream Black politics!
Filmed at the United National Anti-War Coalition in NYC on Feb. 22.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
We are fully certain that Russiagate actually started in the national security state, which became very nervous when Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, for whatever reasons, expressed grave mixed misgivings about the US regime change policy, about US free trade policy, about US relations with NATO, about the entire global security, which is a code word for US imperialist framework in the world. And that really upset the national security state.
What we saw for the first time ever was current and past heads of the CIA and other intelligence agencies come out of the dark, so to speak, and actively engage in the 26 electoral contest. They engaged as Democrats and they engaged in ways to isolate and discredit those statements that Donald Trump had made that they felt were weakening the US imperial framework.
And then Donald Trump wins and the stuff hits the fan. The Democratic response to that win in the electoral college and the national security state response to it become the same and Russiagate is born. Russiagate comes straight out of that document that was authored by the CIA and co-signed, endorsed by two other intelligence agencies. And then, of course immediately becomes part of the Democratic National Committee line and it’s not just against Trump.
We in the left are of course all opposed to Trump, but what is thrown into the pot of Russian collusion and meddling is basically all of the left and a black list is drawed up with Black Agenda Report on that list along with another of other left websites, all dissidents. All those who critique the corporate consensus in foreign policy are now lumped together, not just with Russia, but with Trump, which means that Black politicians have now taken the side, become and allied with the CIA, which used to be anathema overall in general in the Black community.
We see the spectacle of Black congresswoman from Los Angeles, Maxine Waters, who used to denounce the CIA, rightfully, for taking and playing such a role in bringing crack cocaine into her city. Now she’s walking around, strutting around waving American flags and siding directly with that national security state.
2016’s election creating Russiagate has actually really made this new Cold War, this internal McCarthyism a part central to the American political scene. It’s become a war, a Cold War, against left dissent in this country. It was anti any deviation from the corporate consensus and the national security state’s consensus on US foreign policy. Trump deviated from that, which caused a panic in the national security state, but it’s not just against Trump.
Trump has since been tamed. He has extended sanctions even farther than Obama. He has sanctioned Russia with which he’s supposedly all cuddled up and colluding with in far greater sanctions, far more punishing sanctions against Russia than Obama, and he’s attacked Syria and dug his heels in, in Syria. Something he said he wouldn’t do. That’s the premier US armed regime change target in the world, and Trump is right there. But Russiagate continues because it’s not just about Trump, it’s about any dissidents from the imperial line.
This is a larger battle about what the narrative of history and of contemporary events is going to be. That’s why the battle has shifted to Facebook and Google who have adjusted their algorithms to actually perform in the opposite matter from which they were invented.
The Google search mechanisms were supposed to bring before the reader those articles, that information, which they were searching for. But instead, if the reader asks for information that should bring them to Black Agenda Report, they will, instead of finding a whole page of references as it would be usual, they’ll find maybe, if they’re lucky, one or two articles from Black Agenda Report. The algorithms have been tampered with, rigged, by their inventors, so they do the opposite of their intended purpose. This is a battle over the narrative. This is a battle to impose on people a picture of the world only exists in the mind of imperialists.
In terms of working with the Democrats, there is no escaping Democrats in the Black community. Democratic politics, Democratic organizations dominate the Black community. Our civic organizations every four years become annexes of the Democratic Party. Our sororities and fraternities become annexes of the Democratic Party during campaign years. So there is no escaping the Democratic Party. But Black Agenda Report, of course, carries on a nonstop analysis of what that party is doing and to who it is serving.
But we maintain at Black Agenda Report that the Black worldview, Black aspirations will forever be trapped in a corporate cage until there is a breakup of the Democratic Party. That the duopoly system is an even worse cage for Black folks than anybody else in the country because in this system if there are two parties, one of them will be the white man’s party. The Republican party now occupies that position, the Democratic Party used to. But the white man’s party is one whose organizing principle is white supremacy.
And of course, the masses of Black people cannot be part of the white man’s party. You only find insane or mercenary Black people in the white man’s party. And that forces them to participate in the Democratic Party. But what it further does is since what, when Black folks go to the polls in primary elections, what their, what they believe is their main purpose in exercising their franchise is to stop, to defeat the white man’s party.
And so typically, and this year is no exception, majorities of them will support whatever Democratic candidate they think is the strongest to defeat the white man’s party candidate, this year, Trump. Almost invariably they perceive that the strongest candidate is the one with the most money, the one who has the most support in the corporate media and that of course, would be the right wing Democrat. So even though Black folks are the most left-leaning constituency in the United States historically and still, they will in large numbers support the corporate candidate during the primary elections.
That means Black people are not voting their own aspirations. They are not voting their own left-leaning ideology. They are simply voting to defeat the white man’s candidate and are therefore neutralized politically in this country, and the left is weakened in this country by not having the active left-ish participation of the most left-leaning constituency.
This big Black support for Biden was based on the perception that he was the strongest candidate to beat Trump, to beat the white man’s party candidate. It was based almost entirely on this aura of electability, an aura that was created by the corporate press. It was not an ideological identification.
Those same Black voters who were supporting Biden were also overwhelmingly and in fact, in bigger proportion than any other group, in favor of Medicare For All and that whole list of Bernie programs, which are in fact super majority issues in the Democratic Party certainly and absolutely among Black Americans. But Black Americans, again, see the existential issue, the existential question as being defeating Trump.
It was very clear to us that Biden’s super majority of Black support would deteriorate as soon as his aura of electability was punctured, which happened in the first two primaries. It will further be eroded before this South Carolina primary. It’s quite possible that Bernie might beat him, even in Black votes. They’ve come much closer together.
Black folks are to the left of Bernie Sanders. The Black political spectrum is a totally different spectrum from the white political spectrum. Black people that call themselves moderate or conservatives bear no political resemblance to white people who call themselves moderates and conservatives. This very, very different Black political spectrum should have its own independent means of expression, but it never will have it as long as it’s locked in this corporate Democratic cage.
Now, if there is going to be a switch by the electability Black folks, the ones for whom the strongest white candidate will still be the one whose buttons they’ll push, it would be to Bloomberg who is strong based on his billions. It wouldn’t be to Buttigieg or to Klobuchar who don’t appear to be the strongest white candidates and are very, very white. That’s why they’re only in two or 3% in terms of Black American support and that’s more than negligible. It’s probably a statistical error.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-24--X: Malcolm’s Final Years

X: Malcolm’s Final Years

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-02-24--Anti-Defamation League Report on White Supremacy Ignores Trump’s Role in Racism

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner , good to have you with us .
A new report by the Anti-Defamation League , or the ADL , show there was an exponential leap in white supremacy incidents and propaganda in the year 2019 .
This ADL report recorded on a 120 % increase , more than doubling the number of incidents that were recorded in 2018 .
The ADL , which was once part of the civil rights struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly taken up the banner against racism at all .
One could argue that in recent years , it ’ s done very little to combat racism , but seems to be morphing into a lobby organization to promote the Israeli government and accuse critics of Israeli policy of being anti-Semites , many of whom are associated with the Black Lives Matter movement when they seek solidarity with , for example , let ’ s say , the struggles in the Gaza strip .
So , let ’ s unpack the most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ADL to be joining the fight against white supremacy , we all have to , but is it part of a strategy to legitimize their efforts to support the Netanyahu government and his policies among the left and recruit support for the Israeli occupation among African Americans and other groups in our country ?
Well , there ’ s that and there ’ s much more to talk about with our guests who joins us once again .
Phyllis Bennis , who ’ s a fellow and direct with the New Internationalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in D.C. and the author of numerous books , our latest is a revised edition of Understanding The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict .
And Phyllis , welcome , great to have you back with us .
Phyllis Bennis : Great to be with you Marc .
Marc Steiner : So , one of the things that struck me reading this report was that Trump ’ s name never came up at all in this report .
They never talked about his rallying of white supremacists and the way he did .
Let ’ s look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Mexico sends its people , they ’ re not sending their best .
They ’ re bringing drugs , they ’ re bringing crime , they ’ re rapists .
If I win , they ’ re going back .
It ’ s okay to know it ’ s Mussolini .
Look , Mussolini was Mussolini .
It ’ s okay to… it ’ s a very good quote on it .
Honestly , I don ’ t know David Duke .
I don ’ t believe I ’ ve ever met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t meet him .
Marc Steiner : And so , Trump has made a name for kind of aligning himself with these groups very , very quietly and sometimes not so overtly , but doing it .
The shooter in Pittsburgh that was inspired by Trump .
The report glosses over that completely , doesn ’ t talk about that at all .
But tries also [ inaudible 00:02:23 ] on the left .
So what ’ s at work here ?
Phyllis Bennis : Well , I think this is actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , which has always linked opposition to white supremacy and some good work and investigating episodes of white supremacy , indexing it , having a report every year on the rise in white supremacy attacks , while at the same time largely refusing to hold states and governments that it supports , namely the United States and Israel , accountable for having any role to play .
It as if all of white supremacy just emerges from civil society has nothing to do with governments , no one in power , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in encouraging it despite , as you say , the very clear links when Trump announced that the racists and fascists and Nazis who were marching in Charlottesville were pretty good people .
Or the way he talks about immigrants leading to the shooting up of a synagogue killing nine people in Pittsburgh , where the shooter said explicitly that it was because that synagogue , and by extension Jews in general , were supporting the rights of refugees as of course many Jews traditionally have .
So it ’ s this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and playing a role in fact with agencies of the state .
So the ADL has for years , for decades , been very wrapped up in work with the FBI , with Homeland Security .
And while they ’ ve done work , for example , in creating a very well known K through 12 curriculum guide called A World of Difference- Phyllis Bennis : Which deals with the issue of white supremacy in a number of ways .
It doesn ’ t only deal with antisemitism , although it starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on antisemitism .
They see no contradiction between on the one hand , publishing something like that curriculum and in many ways doing educational work against Islamophobia in general , while at the same time in the real world , calling for and supporting US government efforts at racial profiling , at surveillance of Muslims and Arabs supporting the worst kind of anti-Arab racism that has led among other things , for example , back in the mid 1980s in California , it was an ADL investigation of what they claimed were Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They prepared a report , turned it over to the FBI .
The FBI was glad to collaborate with them and the result was the what became known as the Los Angeles Eight case , the longest lasting deportation effort in US history .
Phyllis Bennis : Seven… I was .
I was part of the legal team for that case .
It went on for 21 years until we finally won in the Supreme Court and the case never involved any allegation against any of the eight , it was seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom had been involved in Palestine activism , mainly on campuses in a cultural group a dabke group passing out literature , raising money for clinics in the occupied territories or in refugee camps in Lebanon .
No one ever alleged that they were ever involved with or ever supported anything violent .
There were the efforts to find that kind of evidence went on and on , including posting a LA Sheriff ’ s department officer who moved into an apartment next door to where two of them lived where his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with listening devices was against their bedroom walls .
So even listening in on pillow talk among one of the married couple , among the eight , they never found any evidence there because there was none .
There was no involvement with anything violent with anything extremist and eventually the case won .
But that was after 21 years of people being unable to leave the country , unable to attend their parents ’ funerals , unable as they graduated and had terrible difficulty getting work .
All of these things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it all started with an ADL report turned over to the FBI .
So that kind of collaboration with the state has been a very consistent pattern and it ’ s what has given them the kind of credential that they have now .
So when there ’ s episodes , for example , when Starbucks was facing new allegations of racism by its employees and the Starbucks company decided they were going to close all the Starbucks for a day and have all their employees go through some kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first organizations they called on to help organize that .
To their credit , the other people who were on the team that had been pulled together said , “ Wait a minute , this is wrong .
This is not the organization that should be doing that.
” And they did not ultimately participate .
Marc Steiner : We talked about this just before we went on the air together here , that in the early 60s , mid 60s , the ADL marched with King .
The ADL put out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t put any political nuance about King ’ s life in this report they did on the King for kids , but they were part of that struggle .
Was it the occupation , from 67 on , that changed all of this ?
I mean , what more , what changed this political dynamic here ?
Phyllis Bennis : I think what changed for the ADL , I mean I wasn ’ t around at that time in a conscious way and I wasn ’ t a… I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those meetings , but I think what changed was not so much the ’ 67 war and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories of the Syrian Golan Heights of the Egyptian Sinai , but the fact that opposition to Israel , recognition that Israel was indeed a settler colonial state , that ’ s what began to rise .
And the result was that suddenly Israel was no longer the subject of adoration and support as a tough little outpost in this very tricky neighborhood .
The kind of propaganda that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel , certainly among the US Jewish population , but far beyond that , it was very much an American popular idea .
After ’ 67 that became much harder .
And so opposition to Israel began to rise .
And not surprisingly , it began to rise in the earliest iterations among people who were already identifying with the anti-colonial struggles around the world , who were seeing African liberation movements as tied to the movement for black liberation in the United States where those connections were being drawn and suddenly Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution , but as part of the problem , so opposition to Israeli occupation began to rise .
It wasn ’ t the occupation itself that bothered ADL , it was the fact that as a result of the occupation , people began to see Israel in a new light and the criticism of Israel among Jews , among the black community , in a whole range of US communities , began to rise .
And it was then that we see a more explicit engagement .
Now , it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports of ADLs involvement .
For example , during the HUAC hearings , again putting itself on the side of the US government among those who would criticize- Marc Steiner : That ’ s a piece of history I don ’ t know about .
Yeah .
Phyllis Bennis : Yeah .
So you know , this is the history has gone on for a long time .
There was a black list that was created by ADL in 1983 of critics of Israel and anti-semites , as they would define them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work of organizations that are part of the pro Israel lobbies , such as the Canary Mission , which targets particularly academic students and faculty , identifies them as troublemakers because they mobilize for Palestinian rights on campus and the goal of it is to have this massive website that would be available to all future employers so that automatically anybody thinking of hiring any young student coming out of college would think , “ Well , I better go check it out on the Canary Mission website and see if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism of Israel becomes equated maybe with being an anti-Semite , but certainly being a troublemaker .
And this kind of history goes right back to what the ideal has done for a very long time .
So Marc Steiner : So let ’ s talk a bit further , let ’ s close with this , there ’ s this piece here , so what ’ s the connection here ?
If there is a connection , ADL has become fairly vociferous in support of the Netanyahu government and kind of shifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was more of a liberal than neoliberal kind of group present , the shift is the right it seems , and this connection between this and the law enforcement training with the Israelis , the Israelis training the law enforcement here , I mean is there a link to all of this or are we making too much of a leap here ?
Phyllis Bennis : No , I think there is very definitely a link .
The training issue that you ’ re talking about is the target right now of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s designed to challenge what has become a massively popular process among US local and statewide law enforcement agencies who are given money by the ADL to go on trips sponsored and arranged by the ADL to go to Israel for “ training ” by Israeli soldiers , the Israeli military , and the Israeli national police in things like , how to control crowds , how to deal with violent uprisings .
And of course what you ’ re looking at is a military , the Israeli military , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of a militarily occupied population .
That ’ s who these local police forces are asking to train their officers , soldiers whose job it is to suppress an occupied population .
So this is a very dangerous proposition that we see that ADL is responsible for .
Jewish Voice for Peace has been leading the national campaign of Deadly Exchange in collaboration with groups like the Black Youth Project 100 in places like Durham , North Carolina , where the campaign had its first victory in a city council resolution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police will be sent to any country with a record of human rights violations for any kind of training.
” That ’ s the kind of position that every law enforcement agency in this country should have , but it ’ s emerging right now as a much bigger campaign because the capacity of the ideal to mobilize things , like that police training operation , is a much bigger component .
They ’ re raising millions and millions , tens of millions of dollars every year , for these kinds of processes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result is that the work that they do , the work they have done historically to at least monitor one aspect of white supremacy , which is the nongovernmental side of white supremacy , has been taking a back seat .
The focus is , as you say , Marc , much more on building support for Israel .
Marc Steiner : Well , Phyllis Bennis , it ’ s always a pleasure to talk with you and the clarity you bring to these situations and your analysis .
I appreciate it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and being with us today , thank you so much .
Phyllis Bennis : Thank you , Marc .
It ’ s been a pleasure .
Marc Steiner : Always good to talk to you .
And I ’ m Mark Steiner here for the Real News Network .
Thank you all for joining us .
Please let us know what you think .
Take care .

The new ADL report highlights a 120% increase in white supremacist incidents in 2019 over the last year, but ignores the roots of this rise and doesn’t tackle racism.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to Real News. I’m Marc Steiner, good to have you with us. A new report by the Anti-Defamation League, or the ADL, show there was an exponential leap in white supremacy incidents and propaganda in the year 2019. This ADL report recorded on a 120% increase, more than doubling the number of incidents that were recorded in 2018. The ADL, which was once part of the civil rights struggle in America, has in recent years hardly taken up the banner against racism at all. One could argue that in recent years, it’s done very little to combat racism, but seems to be morphing into a lobby organization to promote the Israeli government and accuse critics of Israeli policy of being anti-Semites, many of whom are associated with the Black Lives Matter movement when they seek solidarity with, for example, let’s say, the struggles in the Gaza strip. So, let’s unpack the most recent report.
It’s good for the ADL to be joining the fight against white supremacy, we all have to, but is it part of a strategy to legitimize their efforts to support the Netanyahu government and his policies among the left and recruit support for the Israeli occupation among African Americans and other groups in our country? Well, there’s that and there’s much more to talk about with our guests who joins us once again. Phyllis Bennis, who’s a fellow and direct with the New Internationalism Project at the Institute For Policy Studies in D.C. and the author of numerous books, our latest is a revised edition of Understanding The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. And Phyllis, welcome, great to have you back with us.
Phyllis Bennis: Great to be with you Marc.
Marc Steiner: So, one of the things that struck me reading this report was that Trump’s name never came up at all in this report. They never talked about his rallying of white supremacists and the way he did. Let’s look at this clip.
Donald Trump: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists. If I win, they’re going back. It’s okay to know it’s Mussolini. Look, Mussolini was Mussolini. It’s okay to… it’s a very good quote on it. Honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I’ve ever met him. I pretty sure I didn’t meet him.
Marc Steiner: And so, Trump has made a name for kind of aligning himself with these groups very, very quietly and sometimes not so overtly, but doing it. The shooter in Pittsburgh that was inspired by Trump. The report glosses over that completely, doesn’t talk about that at all. But tries also [inaudible 00:02:23] on the left. So what’s at work here?
Phyllis Bennis: Well, I think this is actually consistent with a long part of ADLs history, which has always linked opposition to white supremacy and some good work and investigating episodes of white supremacy, indexing it, having a report every year on the rise in white supremacy attacks, while at the same time largely refusing to hold states and governments that it supports, namely the United States and Israel, accountable for having any role to play. It as if all of white supremacy just emerges from civil society has nothing to do with governments, no one in power, for example, Donald Trump, plays any role in encouraging it despite, as you say, the very clear links when Trump announced that the racists and fascists and Nazis who were marching in Charlottesville were pretty good people. Or the way he talks about immigrants leading to the shooting up of a synagogue killing nine people in Pittsburgh, where the shooter said explicitly that it was because that synagogue, and by extension Jews in general, were supporting the rights of refugees as of course many Jews traditionally have.
So it’s this refusal to acknowledge the role of the state and playing a role in fact with agencies of the state. So the ADL has for years, for decades, been very wrapped up in work with the FBI, with Homeland Security. And while they’ve done work, for example, in creating a very well known K through 12 curriculum guide called A World of Difference-
Marc Steiner: Right.
Phyllis Bennis: Which deals with the issue of white supremacy in a number of ways. It doesn’t only deal with antisemitism, although it starts with and really focuses a great deal on antisemitism. They see no contradiction between on the one hand, publishing something like that curriculum and in many ways doing educational work against Islamophobia in general, while at the same time in the real world, calling for and supporting US government efforts at racial profiling, at surveillance of Muslims and Arabs supporting the worst kind of anti-Arab racism that has led among other things, for example, back in the mid 1980s in California, it was an ADL investigation of what they claimed were Palestinian extremists, Palestinian terrorists, et cetera.
They prepared a report, turned it over to the FBI. The FBI was glad to collaborate with them and the result was the what became known as the Los Angeles Eight case, the longest lasting deportation effort in US history.
Marc Steiner: You were involved-
Phyllis Bennis: Seven… I was. I was part of the legal team for that case. It went on for 21 years until we finally won in the Supreme Court and the case never involved any allegation against any of the eight, it was seven Palestinians and a Kenyan woman, all of whom had been involved in Palestine activism, mainly on campuses in a cultural group a dabke group passing out literature, raising money for clinics in the occupied territories or in refugee camps in Lebanon.
No one ever alleged that they were ever involved with or ever supported anything violent. There were the efforts to find that kind of evidence went on and on, including posting a LA Sheriff’s department officer who moved into an apartment next door to where two of them lived where his wall, which was then filled up with listening devices was against their bedroom walls. So even listening in on pillow talk among one of the married couple, among the eight, they never found any evidence there because there was none. There was no involvement with anything violent with anything extremist and eventually the case won. But that was after 21 years of people being unable to leave the country, unable to attend their parents’ funerals, unable as they graduated and had terrible difficulty getting work. All of these things, they paid an enormous price for that.
And it all started with an ADL report turned over to the FBI. So that kind of collaboration with the state has been a very consistent pattern and it’s what has given them the kind of credential that they have now. So when there’s episodes, for example, when Starbucks was facing new allegations of racism by its employees and the Starbucks company decided they were going to close all the Starbucks for a day and have all their employees go through some kind of anti-racism training, the ADL was among the first organizations they called on to help organize that. To their credit, the other people who were on the team that had been pulled together said, “Wait a minute, this is wrong. This is not the organization that should be doing that.” And they did not ultimately participate.
Marc Steiner: So.
Phyllis Bennis: Yeah, go ahead.
Marc Steiner: We talked about this just before we went on the air together here, that in the early 60s, mid 60s, the ADL marched with King. The ADL put out this book about King, though it didn’t put any political nuance about King’s life in this report they did on the King for kids, but they were part of that struggle. Was it the occupation, from 67 on, that changed all of this? I mean, what more, what changed this political dynamic here?
Phyllis Bennis: I think what changed for the ADL, I mean I wasn’t around at that time in a conscious way and I wasn’t a… I don’t have a fly on the wall of those meetings, but I think what changed was not so much the ’67 war and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories of the Syrian Golan Heights of the Egyptian Sinai, but the fact that opposition to Israel, recognition that Israel was indeed a settler colonial state, that’s what began to rise. And the result was that suddenly Israel was no longer the subject of adoration and support as a tough little outpost in this very tricky neighborhood. The kind of propaganda that had for so long accompanied US support for Israel, certainly among the US Jewish population, but far beyond that, it was very much an American popular idea. After ’67 that became much harder.
And so opposition to Israel began to rise. And not surprisingly, it began to rise in the earliest iterations among people who were already identifying with the anti-colonial struggles around the world, who were seeing African liberation movements as tied to the movement for black liberation in the United States where those connections were being drawn and suddenly Israel was not seen as part of the solution, but as part of the problem, so opposition to Israeli occupation began to rise. It wasn’t the occupation itself that bothered ADL, it was the fact that as a result of the occupation, people began to see Israel in a new light and the criticism of Israel among Jews, among the black community, in a whole range of US communities, began to rise. And it was then that we see a more explicit engagement. Now, it wasn’t the first time.
There are massive reports of ADLs involvement. For example, during the HUAC hearings, again putting itself on the side of the US government among those who would criticize-
Marc Steiner: During McCarthy’s hearings you’re talking about?
Phyllis Bennis: Exactly.
Marc Steiner: That’s a piece of history I don’t know about. Yeah.
Phyllis Bennis: Yeah. So you know, this is the history has gone on for a long time. There was a black list that was created by ADL in 1983 of critics of Israel and anti-semites, as they would define them, very much a parallel to the current work of organizations that are part of the pro Israel lobbies, such as the Canary Mission, which targets particularly academic students and faculty, identifies them as troublemakers because they mobilize for Palestinian rights on campus and the goal of it is to have this massive website that would be available to all future employers so that automatically anybody thinking of hiring any young student coming out of college would think, “Well, I better go check it out on the Canary Mission website and see if they’re a troublemaker or not.” So criticism of Israel becomes equated maybe with being an anti-Semite, but certainly being a troublemaker. And this kind of history goes right back to what the ideal has done for a very long time. So
Marc Steiner: So let’s talk a bit further, let’s close with this, there’s this piece here, so what’s the connection here? If there is a connection, ADL has become fairly vociferous in support of the Netanyahu government and kind of shifted to the right, I mean it was more of a liberal than neoliberal kind of group present, the shift is the right it seems, and this connection between this and the law enforcement training with the Israelis, the Israelis training the law enforcement here, I mean is there a link to all of this or are we making too much of a leap here?
Phyllis Bennis: No, I think there is very definitely a link. The training issue that you’re talking about is the target right now of a major campaign called the Deadly Exchange campaign that’s designed to challenge what has become a massively popular process among US local and statewide law enforcement agencies who are given money by the ADL to go on trips sponsored and arranged by the ADL to go to Israel for “training” by Israeli soldiers, the Israeli military, and the Israeli national police in things like, how to control crowds, how to deal with violent uprisings. And of course what you’re looking at is a military, the Israeli military, the IDF whose job it is to keep control of a militarily occupied population. That’s who these local police forces are asking to train their officers, soldiers whose job it is to suppress an occupied population.
So this is a very dangerous proposition that we see that ADL is responsible for. Jewish Voice for Peace has been leading the national campaign of Deadly Exchange in collaboration with groups like the Black Youth Project 100 in places like Durham, North Carolina, where the campaign had its first victory in a city council resolution that says that, “No, US police will be sent to any country with a record of human rights violations for any kind of training.” That’s the kind of position that every law enforcement agency in this country should have, but it’s emerging right now as a much bigger campaign because the capacity of the ideal to mobilize things, like that police training operation, is a much bigger component. They’re raising millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars every year, for these kinds of processes, these kinds of campaigns. And the result is that the work that they do, the work they have done historically to at least monitor one aspect of white supremacy, which is the nongovernmental side of white supremacy, has been taking a back seat. The focus is, as you say, Marc, much more on building support for Israel.
Marc Steiner: Well, Phyllis Bennis, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you and the clarity you bring to these situations and your analysis. I appreciate it so much. You’re work and being with us today, thank you so much.
Phyllis Bennis: Thank you, Marc. It’s been a pleasure.
Marc Steiner: Always good to talk to you. And I’m Mark Steiner here for the Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Please let us know what you think. Take care.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-28--‘They Know Who I Am’: Auditor Arrested Again—While Playing a Video Game

Disabled veteran and First Amendment activist Blind Justice returns to PAR , saying he and his wife were threatened with @ @ @ @ @ PokemonGo in a church parking lot in Rockingham , North Carolina .

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.