Summary of Reality Today

THE ABSURD TIMES

 Illustration: Why we are after Assad, also was true of Gaddafi and Saddam

Summary of Reality Today

            by

Czar Donic

            Far too many idiotic things have been going on lately that we were at a loss as to how to address them.  We have better things to do than communicate facts and truths to those morons (the bulk of the world, with the largest concentration in the U.S.) who simply will not understand.  There are simply too many things going on, and going on wrong, to even hope to scratch the surface.

            At this point, enter Noam Chomsky who is able to deal with many of them in one lecture or speech.  We simply reproduce it below.  Much of this material will sound very Orwellian to many and all is true and accurate as well.  We suspect that he wears his hair so strangely these days, in addition to keeping a soft monologue, simply not to appear as dangerous to those in power.

            Later, there is a question and answer session and that will be presented separately, in another edition.  One question that may not seem clear is why the republicans are no longer really a Party.  The answer can perhaps be understood by likening it to a swarm of termites.  Each particular member has a very limited intelligence and purpose, but just like a swarm of termites, or an ant colony, collectively, somehow working together, they adapt and focus merely on their own survival and growth until they threaten to overwhelm any opposition or kill their host and thereby die out.  In such cases they become less lethal until most host becomes available and then they become even more virulent. 

            Here, then, is his speech that covers the mideast and imperialism along with domestic oppression of the truth:

         TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

Noam Chomsky on George Orwell, the Suppression of Ideas and the Myth of American Exceptionalism

In a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, including his latest, "Because We Say So," a collection of his monthly columns. On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s John L. Tishman Auditorium in New York City. In a speech titled “On Power and Ideology,” he discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, in a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Noam Chomsky has penned more than a hundred books; his newest, Because We Say So, a collection of his columns.

On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s Auditorium here in New York City. Chomsky discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. Professor Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. His speech was titled "On Power and Ideology."

NOAM CHOMSKY: The role of concentrated power in shaping the ideological framework that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion, choice of action, all of that is too familiar to require much comment. Tonight I’d like to discuss a critically important example, but first a couple of words on one of the most perceptive analysts of this process, George Orwell.

Orwell is famous for his searching and sardonic critique of the way thought is controlled by force under totalitarian dystopia. But much less known is his discussion of how similar outcomes are achieved in free societies. He’s speaking, of course, of England. And he wrote that although the country is quite free, nevertheless unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. Gave a couple of examples, provided a few words of explanation, which were to the point. One particularly pertinent comment was his observation on a quality education in the best schools, where it is instilled into you that there are certain things that it simply wouldn’t do to say—or, we may add, even to think. One reason why not much attention is paid to this essay is that it wasn’t published. It was found decades later in his unpublished papers. It was intended as the introduction to his famous Animal Farm, bitter satire of Stalinist totalitarianism. Why it wasn’t published is apparently unknown, but I think perhaps you can speculate.

Orwell’s observations on thought control under freedom come to mind in considering the raging debate today about the Iran nuclear deal, which currently occupies center stage. I should say it’s a raging debate in the United States, virtually alone. In almost everywhere else, the deal has been greeted with relief and optimism and without even a parliamentary review. This is one of the many striking examples of the famous concept of American exceptionalism.

The fact that America is an exceptional nation is regularly intoned by virtually every political figure, and, I think more revealingly, the same is true of prominent academic and public intellectuals. Can select almost at random. Take, for example, the professor of the science of government at Harvard. He’s a distinguished liberal scholar, government adviser. He’s writing in Harvard’s prestigious journal,International Security, and there he explains that unlike other countries, the "national identity" of the United States is "defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets." So the U.S. has a solemn duty to maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the world. And since this is a matter of definition, we can dispense with the tedious work of empirical verification, so I won’t spend any time on that.

Or let’s turn to the leading left-liberal intellectual journal, The New York Review. There, a couple of months ago, we read from the former chair of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that "American contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others’ benefit that Americans have long believed that the [United States] amounts to a different kind of country." While others push their national interest, the United States "tries to advance universal principles." No evidence is given because it’s again a matter of definition. And it’s very easy to continue.

It’s only fair to add that there’s nothing at all exceptional about this. American exceptionalism was standard for every great power, very familiar from other imperial states in their days in the sun—Britain, France, others. And this is true, interestingly, even from very honorable figures from whom one might have expected better—so, John Stuart Mill, for example, in England, to mention a significant case—which raises interesting questions about intellectual life and intellectual standards.

Well, in some respects, American exceptionalism is not in doubt. I just mentioned one example: the current Iran nuclear deal. Now, here the exceptionalism of the United States, its isolation, is dramatic and stark. There are actually many other cases, but this is the one I’d like to think about this evening. And in fact, U.S. isolation might soon increase. The Republican organization—I hesitate to say "party"—is dedicated to undermining the deal, in interesting ways, with the kind of unanimity that one doesn’t find in political parties, though it’s familiar in such former organizations as the old Communist Party—democratic centralism, everyone has to say the same thing. That’s one of many indications that the Republicans are no longer a political party in the normal sense, despite pretensions, commentary and so on.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, speaking Saturday at The New School in New York. When we come back, he addresses Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. presidential elections, in a moment.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

Noam Chomsky: The United States, Not Iran, Poses Greatest Threat to World Peace

In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace. "[The United States] is a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. … Take, for example, the Clinton doctrine—namely, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources—let alone security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history." Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. "When we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour with MIT professor, author, activist, political dissident, Noam Chomsky. Over the weekend, he spoke to a packed audience at The New School here in New York City.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The former Republican Party has now become a "radical insurgency" that’s abandoned parliamentary politics. I’m quoting two highly respected, very conservative political commentators, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. And in fact, they may succeed in increasing sanctions, and even secondary sanctions on other countries, and carry out other actions that could lead Iran to opt out of the deal with the United States—with the United States, that is. That, however, need not mean that the agreement is nullified. Contrary to the way it’s sometimes presented here, it’s not a U.S.-Iran agreement. It’s an agreement between Iran and what’s called P5+1, the five veto-holding members of the Security Council plus Germany. And the other participants might agree to proceed—Iran, as well. They would then join China and India, which have already been finding ways to evade the U.S. constraints on interactions with Iran. And in fact, if they do, they’ll join the large majority of the world’s population, the Non-Aligned Movement, which all along has vigorously supported Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs as a member of the NPT. But remember that they are not part of the international community. So when we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it, so we can dismiss them. If others continue to honor the deal, which could happen, the United States will be isolated from the world, which is not an unfamiliar position.

That’s also the background for the other element of Obama’s—what’s called Obama’s legacy, his other main foreign policy achievement, the beginning of normalization of relations with Cuba. On Cuba, the United States has been almost totally isolated for decades. If you look, say, at the annual votes in the U.N. General Assembly on the U.S. embargo, they’re rarely reported, but the U.S. essentially votes alone. The last one Israel joined. But, of course, Israel violates the embargo; they just have to join, because have to join with the master. Occasionally, the Marshall Islands or Palau or someone else joins. And in the hemisphere, the United States has been totally isolated for years. The main hemispheric conferences have foundered because the United States will simply not join the rest of the hemisphere in the major issues that are discussed. Last one in Colombia, the two major issues were admitting Cuba into the hemisphere—U.S. and Canada refused, everyone else agreed—and the U.S. drug war, which is devastating Latin America, and they want to get out of it, but the U.S. and Canada don’t agree. Now that’s actually the background for Obama’s acceptance of steps towards normalization of relations with Cuba. Another hemispheric conference was coming up in Panama, and if the United States had not made that move, it probably would have been thrown out of the hemisphere, so therefore Obama made what’s called here a noble gesture, a courageous move to end Cuba’s isolation, although in reality it was U.S. isolation that was the motivating factor.

So if the United States ends up being almost universally isolated on Iran, that won’t be anything particularly new, and in fact there are quite a few other cases. Well, in the case of Iran, the reasons for U.S. concerns are very clearly and repeatedly articulated: Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. We hear that regularly from high places—government officials, commentators, others—in the United States. There also happens to be a world out there, and it has its own opinions. It’s quite easy to find these out from standard sources, like the main U.S. polling agency. Gallup polls takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed—it’s posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. That’s one of the things that it wouldn’t do to say, and in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. But it doesn’t go away for that reason.

Well, given the reigning doctrine about the gravity of the Iranian threat, we can understand the virtually unanimous stand that the United States is entitled to react with military force—unilaterally, of course—if it claims to detect some Iranian departure from the terms of the agreement. So, again, picking an example virtually at random from the national press, consider the lead editorial last Sunday in The Washington Post. It calls on Congress—I’ll quote—to "make clear that Mr. Obama or his successor will have support for immediate U.S. military action if an Iranian attempt to build a bomb is detected"—meaning by the United States. So the editors, again, make it clear that the United States is exceptional. It’s a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. But the editors can’t be faulted for that stand, because it’s almost universal among the political class in this exceptional nation, though what it means is, again, one of those things that it wouldn’t do to say.

Sometimes the doctrine takes quite a remarkable form, and not just on the right, by any means. So take, for example, the Clinton doctrine—namely, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources—let alone security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history.

Well, The Washington Post editors also make clear why the United States should be prepared to take such extreme steps in its role of international primacy. If the United States is not prepared to resort to military force, they explain, then Iran may—I’m quoting—Iran may "escalate its attempt to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force." That’s what the president, President Obama, calls Iran’s aggression, which we have to contain. For those who are unaware of how Iran has been attempting to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force—or might even dream of doing so—the editors do give examples, two examples: its support for the Assad regime and for Hezbollah. Well, I won’t insult your intelligence by discussing this demonstration that Iran has been seeking to establish hegemony over the region by force; however, on Iranian aggression, there is an example—I think one in the last several hundred years—namely, Iranian conquest of two Arab islands in the Gulf under the U.S.-backed regime of the Shah in the 1970s.

Well, these shocking Iranian efforts to establish regional hegemony by force can be contrasted with the actions of U.S. allies—for example,NATO ally Turkey, which is actively supporting the jihadi forces in Syria. The support is so strong that it appears that Turkey helped its allies in the al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, to kill and capture the few dozen fighters that were introduced into Syria by the Pentagon a few weeks ago. It’s the result of several years and who knows how many billions of dollars of training. They did enter and were immediately captured or killed, apparently with the aid of Turkish intelligence. Well, more important than that is the central role of the leading U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, for the jihadi rebels in Syria and Iraq, and, more generally, for Saudi Arabia having been—I’m quoting—"a major source of financing to rebel and terrorist organizations since the 1980s." That’s from a study, recent study, by the European Parliament, repeating what’s well known. And still more generally, the missionary zeal with which Saudi Arabia promulgates its radical, extremist, Wahhabi-Safafi doctrines by establishing Qur’anic schools, mosques, sending radical clerics throughout the Muslim world, with enormous impact. One of the closest observers of the region, Patrick Cockburn, writes that the "Wahhabisation" by Saudi Arabia—"The 'Wahhabisation' of mainstream Sunni Islam is one of the most dangerous developments of our era"—always with strong U.S. support. These are all things that wouldn’t do to mention, along with the fact that these pernicious developments are a direct outgrowth of the long-term tendency of the United States, picking up from Britain before it, to support radical Islam in opposition to secular nationalism. These are long-standing commitments.

There are others, like U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who condemn Iran’s destabilization of the region. Destabilization is an interesting concept of political discourse. So, for example, when Iran comes to the aid of the government of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan in defense against the assault of ISIS, that’s destabilization, and we have to prevent it, if not aggression, perhaps. In contrast, when the United States invades Iraq and kills a couple hundred thousand people, generates millions of refugees, destroys the country and sets off a sectarian conflict that’s tearing Iraq and, by now, the whole region to shreds, and, on the side, increases terrorism worldwide by a factor of seven, just in the first year, that’s stabilization, part of our mission that we must continue for the benefit of the world. Actually, the exceptionalism of U.S. doctrinal institutions is quite wondrous to behold.

Well, going on with The Washington Post editors, they join Obama’s negotiator, Obama’s Clinton negotiator, Dennis Ross, Thomas Friedman, other notables, in calling on Washington to provide Israel with B-52 bombers, and perhaps even the more advanced B-2 bombers, and also huge, what are called massive ordnance penetrators—bunker busters, informally. There’s a problem: They don’t have airstrips for huge planes like that. But they can use maybe Turkey’s airstrips. And none of this is for defense. These are not defensive weapons, remember. All of these weapons are offensive weapons for Israel to use to bomb Iran, if it chooses to do so. And, you know, since Israel is a U.S. client, it inherits from the master the freedom from international law, so nothing surprising about giving it vast supplies of offensive weapons to use when it chooses.

Well, the violation of international law goes well beyond threat; goes to action, including acts of war, which are proudly proclaimed, presumably, because that’s our right—as an exceptional nation again. One example is the successful sabotage of Iranian nuclear installations by cyberwar. The Pentagon has views about cyberwar. The Pentagon regards cyberwar as an act of war, which justifies a military response. And a year ago, NATO affirmed the same position, determined that aggression through cyber-attacks can trigger the collective defense obligations of the NATO alliance, meaning if any country is attacked by cyberwar, the whole alliance can respond by military attacks. That means cyberwar attacks against us, not by us against them. And the significance of these stands is, again, something that wouldn’t do to mention. And you can check to see that that condition is well observed.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, speaking Saturday at The New School in New York. When we come back, Professor Chomsky continues on the issue of the Middle East, U.S.-Israel relations, presidential politics and Donald Trump. More in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: In our Democracy Now! special, we continue our full-hour broadcast with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. He’s author of more than a hundred books. As we bring you the remainder of his speech, "On Power and Ideology," which he delivered this weekend at The New School here in New York.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Perhaps the United States and Israel are justified in cowering in terror before Iran because of its extraordinary military power. And it’s possible to evaluate that concern. For example, you can turn to the authoritative analysis, detailed analysis, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the main source for such information, last April, which conducted and published a long study of the regional military balance. And they find—I’ll quote—"a conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have ... an overwhelming advantage [over] Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms." That’s the Gulf Cooperation Council states; that’s Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. They outspend Iran on arms by a factor of eight. It’s an imbalance that goes back decades. And their report observes further that "the Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world [while] Iran has [been essentially] forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah," 40 years ago, which are essentially obsolete. And the imbalance is, of course, even greater with Israel, which, along with the most advanced U.S. weaponry and its role as a virtual offshore military base of the global superpower, has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.

There are, of course, other threats that justify serious concern and can’t be brushed aside. A nuclear weapon state might leak nuclear weapons to jihadis. No joke. In the case of Iran, the threat is minuscule. Not only are the Sunni jihadis the mortal [enemies] of Iran, but the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks of them, have shown no signs of clinical insanity, and they know that if there was even a hint that they were the source of a leaked weapon, they and all they possess would be instantly vaporized. That doesn’t mean that we can ignore the threat, however—not from Iran, where it doesn’t exist, but from U.S. ally Pakistan, where the threat is in fact very real. It’s discussed recently by two leading Pakistani nuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian. In Britain’s leading journal of International Affairs, they write that increasing fears of "militants seizing nuclear weapons or materials and unleashing nuclear terrorism [have led to] the creation of a dedicated force of over 20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities. There is no reason to assume, however, that this force would be immune to the problems associated with the units guarding regular military facilities," which have frequently suffered attacks with "insider help." In other words, the whole system is laced with jihadi elements, in large measure because of the—of what Patrick Cockburn described, the "Wahhabisation" of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia and with the strong support of the United States, ever since the Reagan administration. Well, in short, the problem is real enough, very real, in fact. It’s not being seriously addressed. It’s not even discussed. Rather, what we’re concerned about is fantasies, concocted for other reasons, about the current official enemy.

Opponents of the Iran nuclear deal maintain that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence can discern no evidence for this, but there is no doubt at all that in the past they have, in fact, intended to do so. And we know this because it was clearly stated by the highest authorities in Iran. The highest authority of the Iranian state informed foreign journalists that Iran would develop nuclear weapons "certainly, and sooner than one thinks." The father of Iran’s nuclear energy program, former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, expressed his confidence that the leadership’s plan is "to build a nuclear bomb." And a CIA report also had, in their words, "no doubt" that Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries do, as of course they have.

All of this was under the Shah, the "highest authority" just quoted. That is during the period when high U.S. officials—Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kissinger—were urging the Shah to proceed with nuclear programs, and they were also pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts. My own university was an example, MIT. Under government pressure, it made a deal with the Shah to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering department in return for grants from the Shah. This was done over the very strong objections of the student body, but with comparably strong faculty support. That’s a distinction that raises a number of interesting questions about academic institutions and how they function. The faculty or the students of a couple years ago would have a different institutional place. Opponents of the nuclear—in fact, some of these MIT students are now running the Iranian nuclear programs.

Opponents of the nuclear deal argue that it didn’t go far enough. You’ve heard a lot of that. And interestingly, some of the supporters of the deal agree, demanding that it go beyond what has been achieved and that the whole Middle East should rid itself of nuclear weapons and, in fact, weapons of mass destruction generally. Actually, I’m quoting Iran’s minister of foreign affairs, Javad Zarif. He is reiterating the call of the Non-Aligned Movement—most of the world—and the Arab states, for many years, to establish a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East. Now that would be a very straightforward way to address whatever threat Iran is alleged to pose. But a lot more than that is at stake. This was discussed recently in the leading U.S. world arms control journal, Arms Control Today, by two leading figures in the international anti-nuclear movement, two scientists who are veterans of Pugwash and U.N. agencies. They observe that "The successful adoption in 1995 of the resolution on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was the main element of a package that permitted the ... extension of the [Non-Proliferation Treaty]." That’s the most important arms control treaty there is, and its continuation is conditioned on acceptance of moves towards establishing a weapons of mass destruction-free zone, a nuclear-free zone, in the Middle East.

Repeatedly, implementation of this plan has been blocked by the United States at the annual five-year review meetings of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, most recently by Obama in 2010 and again in 2015, a couple of months ago. The same two anti-nuclear specialists comment that in 2015 this effort was again blocked by the United States "on behalf of a state that is not party to the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and is widely believed to be the only one in the region possessing nuclear weapons." That’s a polite and understated reference to Israel. Washington’s sabotage of the possibility, in defense of Israeli nuclear weapons, may well undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as maintaining dangerous instability in the Middle East—always, of course, in the name of stability. This is, incidentally, not the only case when opportunities to end the alleged Iranian threat have been undermined by Washington—some quite interesting cases; no time, and I won’t go into them. But all of this raises quite interesting questions, which we should be asking, about what actually is at stake.

So, turning to that, what actually is the threat posed by Iran? Plainly, it’s not a military threat. That’s obvious. We can put aside the fevered pronouncements about Iranian aggression, support for terror, seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the still more outlandish notion that even if Iran had a bomb, it might use it, therefore suffering instant obliteration. The real threat has been clearly explained by U.S. intelligence in its reports to Congress on the global security situation. Of course, they deal with Iran. And they point out—I’m quoting U.S. intelligence—"Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." Right? It’s part of Iran’s deterrent strategy—no offensive policies, but they are trying to construct a deterrent. And that Iran has a serious interest in a deterrent strategy is not in doubt among serious analysts. It’s recognized, for example, by U.S. intelligence. So the influential analyst, CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who’s by no means a dove, he writes that "If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons" as a deterrent. And the reasons are pretty obvious.

He also makes another crucial comment. He points out that Israel’s strategic room for maneuver in the region would be constrained by an Iranian nuclear deterrent. And it’s, of course, also true of the United States. "Room for maneuver" means resort to aggression and violence. And it’s—yes, it would be constrained by an Iranian deterrent. For the two rogue states that rampage freely in the region—the United States and Israel—any deterrent is, of course, unacceptable. And for those who are accustomed and take for granted their right to rule by force, that concern is easily escalated to what’s called an existential threat. The threat of deterrence is very severe, if you expect to resort to force unilaterally at will to achieve your goals, as the U.S. and, secondarily, Israel do commonly. And more recently, the second U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, has been trying to get into the club, pretty incompetently, with its invasion of Bahrain to prevent mild reformist measures, and more recently its extensive bombing of Yemen, which is causing a huge humanitarian crisis. So for them, a deterrent is a problem, maybe even an existential threat.

That, I think, is the heart of the matter, even if it wouldn’t do to say or to think. And except for those who hope to fend off possible disaster and to move towards a more peaceful and just world, it’s necessary to keep to these injunctions. These are things that wouldn’t do to say, wouldn’t do to think—you don’t read about them, you don’t hear about them—but they are, I think, the heart of the issue. Thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking at The New School this weekend.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Ukraine and the War Party

THE ABSURD TIMES

 

Ukraine and the War Party

            It is not clear whether we have a three party system here or if the two more traditionally named parties are morphing into one, but the War Party is becoming the most influential force in our country.  The illustration above clearly shows just how our priorities have shifted, as munitions manufacturers make a great deal of money and most citizens do not.   Anyone considering the fact above would easily see how ridiculous the idea is, yet would be helpless to do anything about it.

The American public is daily indoctrinated with jabber, (jibber-jabber as Shelley Berman used to say on Boston Legal,) about how Putin and Russia is oppressing the Ukraine, today simply called "Ukraine," is being attacked and invaded by Putin so he can maintain popularity. 

The facts are quite to the contrary: there was unrest in Ukraine.  there was a conference to hold free elections in Ukraine while the current president maintained office.  Then neo-nazi and fascists staged a bloody coup, the left-wing President sought asylum in Russia, we (especially Hillary Clinton) arranged for a replacement, and he began to terrorize the ethnic Russian citizens in the East.  The conflicts continued, Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation, and the rest of the Eastern Federation would like to follow.  

There would be a great deal of money to be made if we shipped weapons to Kiev and that is what we are trying to arrange right now.  Germany remains the only force right now capable of negotiating some sort of sane arrangement, but this will not be allowed so long as America's lap-dog, Great Britain, remains in the European Union.

Saner minds here would argue that the country is not prepared for another war and that the money can be better spent otherwise.  Stephen Cohen, below, argues that there should at least be a debate, but that would be futile.  When Bush II almost lost his bid to invade Iraq, steps were taken to avoid further debates.  The argument in favor of debates, of course, are in favor of democracy, but a viable democracy requires an informed public.  In anyone is to inform the public, the powers that be in the industry point out, they will handle that part of it through their corporate owned television networks and AM radio fatheads spewing out patriotic nonsense 24/7.

We are closer to a nuclear war than we have been for decades.  We would welcome a wide-spread thermonuclear war, providing all sides went all out, as it would end human life on this planet quickly and humanely rather than through slow poisoning of the air and water and disruption of the climate.  However, the use will be of "tactical" weapons, thus defeating the one bright spot in this whole movement.  Finally, we have a voice to provide rational analysis of the situation, one that predicted months ago what would happen and that has been proved correct.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015

Is Ukraine a Proxy Western-Russia War? U.S. Weighs Arming Kiev as Violence Soars

The United Nations has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to more than 5,300 people since last April following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. As fighting intensifies, the Obama administration is now considering directly arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed rebels. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but top officials are reportedly leaning toward sending arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. The role of the U.S. and European allies in Ukraine has prompted former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to accuse the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: The U.N. has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to over 5,300 people since last April, following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. According to Russian-backed rebels in Donetsk, shelling in eastern Ukraine has killed at least eight people and wounded 22 others in the past day. Ukraine says five more of its soldiers have died.

This comes as the White House now considers arming Ukraine in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but there is a growing push to send arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. On Monday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked about U.S. policy.

MATTHEW LEE: There are a whole plethora of reports out this morning that the administration is reconsidering providing lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government. Would you care to address those?

JEN PSAKI: Well, Matt, we are constantly assessing our policies on Ukraine to ensure they’re responsive, appropriated and calibrated to achieve our objectives. We are particularly concerned about recent escalating separatist violence and separatist attempts to expand the territory they currently control further, beyond the ceasefire line agreed to in Minsk, as well as the increasing toll of civilian and military casualties.

MATTHEW LEE: OK, so it sounds like you’re not saying, no, that these reports are wrong. Is it accurate then to say that this kind of assistance is now part of the conversation?

JEN PSAKI: Well, we haven’t taken options on or off the table, Matt. It’s an ongoing discussion. Obviously we have take into account events on the ground. But I don’t have anything to lay out for you in terms of internal deliberations.

REPORTER: Why would the president want to get into a proxy war with Russia?

JEN PSAKI: Well, I don’t think anybody wants to get into a proxy war with Russia. And that is not the objective. Our objective here is to change the behavior of Russia. That’s the reason that we’ve put the sanctions in place. We certainly want to help Ukraine, a sovereign government, thrive and go through this transition period. No decisions have been made. I’m talking about the fact that we of course preserve the right to consider a range of options.

AARON MATÉ: That’s State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Kiev to meet with Ukrainian leaders.

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. He said, quote, "If we call a spade a spade, America has pulled us into a new Cold War, trying to openly implement its general idea of triumphalism. Where will it take us all? The Cold War is already on. What’s next? Unfortunately, I cannot say firmly that the Cold War will not lead to the hot one. I’m afraid that they might take the risk," he said.

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the conflict cannot be solved militarily.

CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL: [translated] Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be solved militarily, and therefore we insist that, on the one hand, we will impose sanctions, if necessary—we have done that jointly in Europe—and, on the other hand, we will use all diplomatic means to resolve this conflict through talks, or at least alleviate it.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cohen.

STEPHEN COHEN: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s happening in Ukraine?

STEPHEN COHEN: What’s happening in Ukraine? Gorbachev had it right. We’re in a new Cold War with Russia. The epicenter of the new Cold War is not in Berlin, like the last one, but it’s right on Russia’s borders, so it’s much more dangerous. You and I have talked about this since February, I think. What I foresaw in February has played out, I regret to say: A political dispute in Ukraine became a Ukrainian civil war. Russia backed one side; the United States and NATO, the other. So it’s not only a new Cold War, it’s a proxy war. We’re arming Kiev. Russians are arming the eastern fighters. And I think, though I don’t want to spoil anybody’s day—I said to you in February this had the potential to become a new Cuban missile-style confrontation with the risk of war. That’s where we are now. And I think Gorbachev was right.

AARON MATÉ: There was a ceasefire reached in September. What’s happened since then?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it was never honored in full. And the primary problem was—I mean, there were many provisions of the ceasefire, which was supposed to stop the fighting in the east and lead to direct negotiations between the rebel government, or fighters—we call them "separatists." They weren’t separatists when all this began, but now they’re separatists: They don’t want to live with Kiev any longer. But it was supposed to lead to negotiations. The main thing that happened was, is it required both sides to pull back their artillery, primarily Kiev, because Kiev was bombarding the capital cities of eastern Ukraine—Luhansk and Donetsk. That artillery was never pulled back. It was supposed to be 30 kilometers. How far back they pulled them, I don’t know. But as you know, in the last week, those cities have been bombarded again. So the ceasefire was honored kind of marginally in the breach for a couple months, but about a week ago, 10 days ago, the fighting escalated.

Now, there is a dispute, because it eliminated the possibility of negotiations again: Who began the escalation? The State Department, you heard Psaki say it was Russia and Russian agents. Russia and the rebels say it was Kiev. But we’re in a fog of war. That expression comes from World War I, I think, when there was so much misinformation—we didn’t have email then, and it traveled more slowly—that the perception of what was going on was distorted, corrupted by news. And it led to war. The fog of war today derives from this, and it’s worse because it moves so fast, on social media news, is that you’ve got all this misinformation coming out of Kiev, out of Moscow, out of Washington. And for the three of us to sit here and say who threw the first punch 10 days ago is almost impossible.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, three prominent U.S. think tanks—the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—issued a joint report urging the United States to provide Ukraine $3 billion in military assistance over the next three years. Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott co-wrote the report. He’s now president of Brookings.

STROBE TALBOTT: In the context of what is happening in Ukraine today, the right way to characterize it is an act of war on the part of the Russian Federation. This means that there is going on in Ukraine today a literal invasion, not by—it’s not a proxy war. It’s a literal invasion by the Russian armed forces. It’s a literal occupation of large parts, well beyond Crimea, of eastern Ukraine. And it is a virtual annexation of a lot of territory other than just the Crimea. And in that respect, this is a major threat to the peace of Europe, to the peace of Eurasia, and therefore a threat to the interests of the United States and, I would say, a threat to the chances of a peaceful 21st century.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, now president of Brookings. Your response?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, he’s much more than that. People need to drop their masks and say what their personal stake in this is. Strobe Talbott, whom I’ve known for years, was the architect of the American policy that led to this crisis. He was "the Russia hand," as he called his memoir, under President Clinton, when the expansion of NATO toward Russia began.

Understand what he said—and the rollout of this report has been coming. And if you look at the signatures, these are the leaders of the American war party, the people who literally want a military showdown with Russia. Stop and think what that means. Stop and think what that means, as though Russia is going to back off. But the people who signed this report—and they’ve been bringing it out for days—are saying that the—he literally just said this—the future of the 21st century is at stake in Ukraine. Stop and think what that means. Then he went on to say things that are fundamentally untrue, that Russia has invaded and annexed eastern Ukraine. I mean, when the State Department was asked a few weeks ago, "Can you confirm the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine?" the State Department, which misleads about this story all the time, said, "No, we cannot." So what are—this is what I’m talking about the fog of war, where we’re being told Russia has annexed eastern Ukraine, the stake of the world is at—the future of the world is at stake here, and basically they’re calling for war with Russia.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to continue this discussion in a minute. We’re talking with Professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. We’ll be back with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, Stephen Cohen. His latest book,Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War. Aaron?

AARON MATÉ: Yes, so, on this issue of Russian involvement in Ukraine, and NATO’s expansion, I presume you acknowledge that Putin is destabilizing Ukraine—he sent in weapons, he sent in tanks, he sent in some troops in some form. Is the point then that he’s acting not to revive the Soviet empire, but to stop NATO encroachment? Is that your point?

STEPHEN COHEN: That’s my short point. But let me ask you a question. Five million people, approximately, live in this area of eastern Ukraine. They’ve lived there for centuries. Their grandfathers, their parents are buried there. Their children go to school there. That is their home. Do they have no humanity or agency? We’ve taken—not I, but the main press in this country is referring to them as "Putin’s thugs." Where is the humanity of these people who are dying, now nearly 6,000 of them? A million have been turned into refugees. These are people there.

Who’s doing the fighting? Primarily, the folks, the adults, of these people. Have they had Russian assistance? Absolutely. Has Kiev had Western assistance? Billions of dollars. General Hodges—I don’t know exactly what he does, but he’s an AmericanNATO officer—publicly announces he’s in Ukraine to train the National Guard. Both sides are involved militarily. But make no mistake: If there was not an indigenous rebellion in eastern Ukraine, there would not be a Ukrainian civil war. Is Putin abetting the east? Yes. Are we abetting the west and Kiev? Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Hodges for a minute. Last month, U.S. soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry traveled to the Soviet state of Latvia for a military exercise, dubbed Atlantic Resolve, to train soldiers from Latvia, other Baltic countries and Poland. In addition, the U.S. brought more than 50 units of military equipment, including 17 armored vehicles, Stryker, that will stay in Europe. Ben Hodges, who you’re referring to, is the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe.

GEN. BEN HODGES: The decision was made last year to leave the equipment to stay in Europe. So, more than 200 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the decision has not been made yet where they will stay. For sure, some will stay in Germany at an American base, but we are looking at options to put some of them in Latvia or Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ben Hodges, the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe. So, bringing in former Soviet state Latvia and the others, what does this mean?

STEPHEN COHEN: What? His presence in Latvia? Well, he’s in Ukraine now. What it means is we’re on the move militarily—"we," I mean NATO, but the United States runs NATO. You heard what Strobe Talbott said: We’ve got to do everything now to defend Ukraine. By the way, he doesn’t mention there are two Ukraines. What about the people in the east I just mentioned? Have they no humanity? But we are on the verge of war with Russia.

Now, you referred to me as emeritus. That means old. That means I remember things. And I remember that when we hit these kind of Cold War extremes back during the last Cold War, people spoke out in opposition in this country, not only folks like the three of us, ordinary folks, but I’m talking about senators, members of Congress—even the administration was divided—The New York Times, The Washington Post. We have the silence of the hawks now. The American war party is on the march. You can see how close we are to, literally, a military confrontation with Russia. And there is not one word of establishment, mainstream opposition in this country.

So, is this good or bad? Do we go to war? Did we have a debate before we invaded Iraq? We did. And those of us who opposed it lost the debate. But we had a debate. That "democracy now," not today, not in the United States. There is no debate whatsoever. So, the danger is great. There is no opposition. All these people you’re showing—Strobe Talbott, General Hodges, anybody else you put on the screen, because only they speak to the American people—they’re on the march.

AARON MATÉ: What is driving this policy on the part of the U.S.? Many people who took part in the Cold War are no longer in power. Are they seeking to revive that era? Is it a matter of expanding NATO, or confronting Putin because they don’t like him? What is the driving force here?

STEPHEN COHEN: All of the above, I think. I don’t know. I’m not smart enough to tell you. Historians will look back—assuming there are historians to look back, because both sides are now mobilizing their nuclear weapons, as well. Russia has already said that if it is faced with overwhelming force on its borders, it will use tactical nuclear weapons. They’re nuclear small, but they’re nuclear weapons. When is the last time you heard a great power say that? We say—Obama, our president, says, "We’re modernizing our nuclear weapons." What does that mean? We’re redeploying them, pointing them even more at Russia. Why is this happening in the United States? I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of factors mixed in, a kind of ideological hangover from the old Cold War. But the demonization of Putin has become so extreme in this country, I do not recall—and I entered this field back in the '60s—the United States ever demonizing a Soviet communist leader the way our leaders do—Obama, Mrs. Clinton referring to him as a Hitler. Look, if Putin is Hitler, clearly we have to go to war. That's the logic, is it not? Is it not? And where are the voices that say this is crazy? He may be a Russian nationalist. He may be threatening. But Hitler?

AMY GOODMAN: During an interview on CNN that aired Sunday, President Obama acknowledged the United States played a role in the ouster of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, last February.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s comments made headlines in Russia. This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

SERGEY LAVROV: [translated] I have two comments which are important. There has been confirmation that the United States was directly involved, from the very beginning, in this anti-government coup d’état. And President Obama literally called it "the transition of power." Secondly, I would like to note that Obama’s rhetoric shows Washington’s intention to continue doing everything possible to unconditionally support Ukraine’s authorities, who have apparently taken a course toward a military solution to the conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Russian foreign minister and, before that, President Obama.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, President Obama said something that undoubtably he was later told he shouldn’t have said, because he wasn’t clear what he was referring to. Many people have argued that the United States organized a coup in February to overthrow the president of Ukraine and bring to power of this new pro-American, pro-Western government. I do not know if that’s true. But what Obama said leads people to think that’s what he was acknowledging. He wasn’t.

Here’s what happened. And he’s right about Crimea. He just let the cat out of the bag here. An agreement was brokered in February. Everybody think back. It’s only one year ago. Foreign ministers of Europe, as violence raged in the streets of Kiev, rushed to Kiev and brokered a deal between the sitting president and the opposition leaders—Yanukovych—that he would form a coalition government and call new elections in December. And everybody thought, "Wow, violence averted. We’re back on a democratic track." And what happened? The next day, mobs took to the streets, stormed the presidential palace; Yanukovych, the president, fled to Russia.

But we now know that when that deal was struck by the European ministers, Putin and Obama spoke on the phone, and Putin said to Obama, "Are you behind this?" And Obama says, "I am. Let’s get back on peaceful track." And then he asks Putin, "Are you behind it?" And Putin said, "A hundred percent." And the next day, this happened. So, something happened overnight. Obama lost control of the situation. He didn’t know what was going on. But when he says that they negotiated a peaceful transition to power, he’s not referring to the overthrow of Yanukovych; he’s referring to the deal he signed onto to keep the Ukrainian president in office for another eight or nine months until national elections.

So, he has now confirmed the Russia dark suspicions that the CIA or somebody carried out a coup. I’m sure he regrets having said that. But it is completely unclear to me—I voted for him twice—whether President Obama understands what’s going on in Ukraine, because he said a number of things that are so divergent from the historical record that either he’s getting bad advice or he’s not paying attention. I don’t know which.

AARON MATÉ: Can you sketch out for us the fighting that has taken place since April? The U.N. now says the death toll is over 5,300. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., has praised Kiev’s response and said that they practiced "remarkable, almost unimaginable, restraint" in their attacks on the separatists.

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it makes me ashamed to be an American citizen. Let’s remember that when Ambassador Power was not Ambassador Power, she was the great architect and ideologue of the responsibility to protect civilians. Correct? Everybody is familiar with that.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain it briefly.

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, you explain it.

AMY GOODMAN: You explain it.

STEPHEN COHEN: You’ve done it on your show. Well, it means the United States is obliged to do everything it can to prevent a humanitarian disaster resulting either from natural or warlike measures. And that’s been American official policy since Clinton. Now, whether it’s a wise policy or not, I don’t know. But the architect of it now says what’s going on in eastern Ukraine—and there are a lot more than 5,000 dead; even the U.N. has said we really don’t know, but let’s say 5,300. There’s also a million and a half refugees, most of them to Russia, but some to other parts of Ukraine. And the United States is saying—and the State Department and the White House and in the U.N., with Samantha Power—Kiev has been restrained.

All right, back up. What has Kiev called since April its military operation in the east? An anti-terrorist operation. Literally, those are the words. If I declare that you are a terrorist—not a rebel, not a political opponent, but you are a terrorist—I don’t talk to you, I kill you. And that is what Kiev has been doing, with American support. It’s been destroying the civilian centers of eastern Ukraine. Have the rebels fought back? Have they killed Ukrainian army members? Absolutely. But what in the world are we doing supporting a government that’s bombing civilians? And, by the way, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, many other organizations have now said these are war crimes. And yet, the American government sees no evil.

AMY GOODMAN: So we just played Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, earlier. She said Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. She supports sanctions. She says there’s only a diplomatic answer. What is the solution? And what do you feel about sanctions, as the front page of The New York Times talks about the arming of—U.S. arming Ukraine?

STEPHEN COHEN: Amy, what are you doing to me? You’re trotting out every person who has behaved unwisely in a role of leadership and asked me what I think of them.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah. What I think of them, we need some leaders. Now, I thought, when I first visited you in February or January, that the solution was the chancellor of Germany, Merkel. Why? Because Germany is the powerhouse of Europe. Because Merkel speaks Russian and German, and Putin speaks Russian and German. They can talk, like you and I talk, and they understand nuances. Merkel has said, all along, this cannot be resolved by military means, there must be negotiations. And yet, politically, she supported every escalation of the crisis. Why has she done that? Because she was, and maybe she still could be, the key figure here.

AMY GOODMAN: And she’s coming to the White House Monday.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, but she’s been in Ukraine. She’s been everywhere. She moves. There’s distance between the White House and Berlin, no question. Merkel could end of this, or she could go a long way. She could put her foot down: no more sanctions, no more NATO involvement. Stop and think who she is. The only solvent country in Europe. And look what’s going on in Greece. I mean, they may leave the EU. By the way, if the U.K. leaves the EU in May, when there’s the referendum, who will run Europe? Germany. And Germany’s attitudes toward Russia and China are fundamentally different than Washington’s attitude. So we may be observing here, below the radar, not only the split of Europe, but the drift of Germany, and the part of Europe that follows Germany, away from the United States. Everything is at stake in this civil war.

How to get out of it? It’s the same solution we talked about here on this broadcast months ago: a ceasefire; withdrawal of artillery so the cities of Donetsk, where the rebels are, are not being bombarded; Kiev’s willingness to sit down, at a table about this size, under the auspices of the great powers, and talk to the rebels. What home rule will they be given? Some kind of federalism, some kind of devolution of authority. The governors of the regions of Ukraine are appointed in Kiev. Our governors aren’t appointed in Washington; we elect them. There’s no federalism there. Everybody says federalism means a Russian takeover. But Germany has a federal system, Canada has a federal system, we have a federal system. They are hard, but it can be done.

But you know how you get this? You get it through leadership. Where’s the leadership? Where’s President Obama? Where’s Chancellor Merkel? And the leadership in Ukraine—I mean, Poroshenko, he’s the president of the country. He has no power. He has no power. He’s not the leader. The power is with the people in Ukraine who control the fighting battalions and what’s left of the army. So, we don’t even know what kind of regime or leadership is possible in Kiev now.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Professor Stephen Cohen, we will continue to cover this. We thank you very much for being with us, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book,Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback. And we’ll link to your recent writings on Ukraine at TheNation.com.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->