Militarism Faces Resistance in Asia

The political opposition in Seychelles has blocked the ratification of the 2015 Seychelles-India base deal amidst intense rivalry between China and India for dominance over the Indian Ocean, a key international trade route through which millions of barrels of oil pass each day.

A similar movement has been building for years in the Japanese island of Okinawa. Home to 32 US bases, systemic rape by American GIs has catalyzed popular anti-base sentiment that has been brewing for years. Washington’s attempts to relocate one of the bases near to a reserve for endangered dolphins have met huge local resistance. Last February’s election saw the defeat of the anti-base mayor first elected in 2016, a blow to the movement.

WEBPAGE_20180425_144630
Anti-base protesters on Okinawa, Japan

Like Japan, India is seeking to project its power by enlisting in America’s ‘Pivot to Asia’: a broad diplomatic, economic and military offensive against China. Like India,Japan’s imperialist resurgence is being lead by the country’s most right-wing government since the 1940s. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his cabinet hail from the most reactionary bourgeois layer which, with its allies in revisionist academia, has long sought to whitewash the horrific history of the Imperial Order for which they are so nostalgic.

abe

2015: Japanese demonstrators protest Japan’s imperialist resurgence

India’s Prime Minister Narendi Modi, meanwhile, has accelerated tensions with neighbouring Pakistan, a fellow nuclear-armed power whose long-time sponsorship of terrorism against India almost sparked war following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while encouraging a racist frenzy endangering India’s Muslims. Complicit in the 2002 Babri Mosque massacre, Modi is an adherent of the Hindutvati ideology. One of its pamphlets praises Hitler and the Holocaust*.

Asians remember the horrors of WWII and the Korean War. During the former, millions were slaughtered by Japanese invaders. During the latter, the American air force wiped out “almost every city north and south” (Gen. Curtis LeMay), killing 2 million people.

As the spectre of conflict increases, anti-militarist fervour is bound to increase. This provides a glimmer of hope for humanity, whose very survival is endangered by the prospect of a US-China nuclear war. If these localised movements link together in a common struggle against militarism, they may have a voice with which to reach out to their fellow ordinary people in the West. A global fight to unseat the Pentagon’s war plans is essential.

*Arundhati Roy on Modi, YouTube

Donald Trump and the Crisis of Imperial Decline

Above all, the Trump presidency expresses an entire US political and economic system in decline.

Mainstream commentary on Donald Trump invariably reduces him to an individual phenomenon. Be it a twitter comment or a public outburst, everything is about him.

The truth, of course, is that Trump is not some other-worldly demon that crossed into this dimension out of nowhere. Above all, his presidency expresses an entire US political and economic system in crisis.

In the early 20th century, the major economic centres of the world were Germany, the US and Japan. Europe as a whole was secondary; Britain had been in decline since the Victorian era.

Except for the US, these economies were left in tatters by the Second World War. This transformed America from a traditional hemispheric power (e.g. Monroe Doctrine) into the global dominant superpower virtually overnight: after 1945, the US alone accounted for some 50% of world economic output.

By the early 1940s, US policy planners had seen this coming, as Hitler’s defeat on the Eastern Front – where, the West forgets, the Soviets inflicted 75% of all German WWII casualties – seemed only a matter of time. Accordingly, these planners developed what they called a ‘Grand Area’ in which US corporations could plunder the planet’s markets and resources to satisfy an unfettered drive for profits.

Everything seemed great for the American empire, until the late 60s. The economies smashed in WWII – esp. West Germany, Japan and the new Asian ‘tiger’ economies – had rebuilt themselves and became viable competitors in the international market.

This meant that world power became multipolar, notwithstanding the considerable clout US imperialism managed to retain. But to reverse this trend entirely, the Reagan Administration initiated its neoliberal offensive of financial deregulation, union busting and austerity: all designed to sustain the massive postwar profit rates of Corporate America.

The Empire Strikes Back
WEBPAGE_20180219_191316.jpg
The Bush I Administration saw the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 as an historic opportunity to reassert America’s political and strategic dominance in world affairs by brute military force, initiating a devastating air war against Iraq in order to tame a former ally, Saddam Hussein, after he disobeyed Washington’s diktats in the crucial oil-rich region.

Maintained by the Clinton and Bush II Administrations, the simultaneous economic embargo strengthened Saddam’s grip on the country rather than induce his overthrow. This strategic blunder was eventually recognised by the latter administration, whose solution became a war in 2003 with manufactured pretexts that proved even more futile: 1 million dead, 4 million displaced, and a Shia government friendly with Iran.

Then came the 2008 crash, sending the world capitalist economy into its biggest crisis since the Great Depression.

Since then, US decline has entered a heightened phase. China has now eclipsed America as the world’s biggest economy, prompting Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ military buildup. On the other side of the Atlantic, he subjected America’s other chief rival in Eurasia and the Middle East (Syria), Russia, with the biggest military buildup on its borders since the Nazi invasion.

“Make America Great Again”

Donald Trump expresses a psychology of denialism within the US elite. Unlike Reagan and Bush, he has come to power within the context of a much more existential phase of American decline. He personifies a ruling class with no solution for reversing the new reality: the US is no longer top dog.

Those who want rid of Trump need to go beyond the individual. Trump would never have emerged in the 1950s. He expresses the crises of American capitalism. The struggle against Trump is invariably bound up with the struggle for socialism.

The Colossal Hypocrisy of Liberal America

#MeToo vs state terrorism

Has anyone managed to avoid vomiting at the epic hypocrisy of Liberal America’s #MeToo campaign?

Self-proclaimed liberals have spearheaded a hysterical pitchfork hunt worthy of Witchfinder General. Their redefinition of sexual assault threatens to take on a legislative form that can only serve to strengthen the very trend of authoritarianism they purport to oppose.

Those who backed Hilary Clinton have no issue with the fact that she butchered thousands of innocent children and women in Libya. Liberal America, from the media pundits to the public at large, blissfully acquiesce to state terrorism. Such is the moral insanity engendered by generations of corporate media brainwashing and value manipulation.

Take Katy Perry, who actively campaigned for Hilary in the 2016 presidential election: appalled by Trump’s ban on Muslims, deafly silent on his (and Hilary’s) slaughter of same. Her feminist hero advocated the nuclear genocide of the entire population of Iran and knowingly voted for an imperialist war for oil based on verifiable lies that produced 700,000 widows. And defended a rapist in court.

Clintonian feminism is the kind that uses identity politics to distract from the issue of class/plutocracy. The constituents of such politics are the top 10%, whose political engagement can hardly be expected to prioritise the working class majority. With nothing to fight for, they resort to the nonsense that is identity.

What are the liberals’ vision for the American people? Obama resumed his predecessor’s bank bailouts and concurred with his opponent John McCain that “we need to start going after” social security, medicaid and pensions. His takeover of the auto industry meant a 50% wage cut for new autoworkers. 90% of jobs created under his presidency were part-time and casual. Yet Meryl Streep thanked him for bringing change.

The bankruptcy of American liberalism – a historical phenomena that, like its right-wing counterpart embodied in Trump, is a product of the debased stage of late American capitalism – is evident in the reactionary form that its ‘opposition’ to Trump is taking: half-crazed hysteria about a mythical Russian election theft, designed to shift public anger off the two-party capitalist system and onto a perceived foreign enemy attacking the great democracy. Soon all social ills will be blamed on those pesky Russians as the masses are rallied behind the flag rather than against the social order it cloaks.

With the NATO buildup on Russia’s borders, unprecedented since Hitler, the Democrats and Republicans alike are playing nuclear roulette with the entire human race: proof of the utter insanity not of ‘the world’, but of the capitalist-imperialist order and the need to overthrow it.

Two Occupations: Why Are We Silent on Kashmir?

Beneath our silence lies India’s enduring occupation

With its 700,000+ security forces, the Indian occupation of Kashmir is the densest and oldest in the world. With her population of 5.5 million, the ratio is one Indian soldier for eight Kashmiris.

Kashmir, says the Indian constitution, is “an integral part of India”. In reality, both India and Pakistan are “an integral part” of the common subcontinent, which was partitioned in 1947 into what were hence wholly artificial constructs at inception: Hindu-majority ‘India’ and Muslim-majority ‘Pakistan’. Such reactionary origins underscore the futility imbuing their disastrous petty-nationalist rivalry.

When the Kashmiris took up arms against Indian occupation in the 1990s, they were met with horrifying repression. Homes were set alight, women were raped and civilians were sadistically tortured and mutilated by Indian troops. In total, 50,000 innocent men, women and children are believed to have perished during this bloody period of the 90s.

This had some degree of coverage in the West, but beneath our silence lies an enduring occupation of which even the left has spoken little in comparison to Palestine.

History is replete with injustices that acquire an international symbolism. In this regard, Palestine has been rightly compared to Apartheid South Africa. Like the latter, Palestine is becoming a symbol for the world’s oppressed and their plight, whose endurance no longer remains a source for pessimism (apartheid was almost a century-old before it ended). Slowly but surely, the movement for international solidarity with Palestine is growing daily.

The sheer infamy of Apartheid as an historic injustice that was reversed by an international solidarity movement may well justify the standard comparison by the Free Palestine movement. Yet, on purely theoretical grounds, Kashmir is a far more apt comparison to Palestine. As such, we should strive for the liberation of both with equal tenacity and solidarity.

The anti-war left linked the struggle for the liberation of Palestine with that of Iraq and Afghanistan. So why are there no corresponding calls for the liberation of Kashmir among antiwar activists/commentators?

“We Were This Close to Nuclear War”

Excerpt from “Eurasian Tinderbox: The U.S. Buildup Against Russia and China”, Jimmy Colwill. To purchase the entire eBook for just $3.01, visit https://www.amazon.com/Eurasian-Tinderbox-Buildup-Against-Russia-ebook/dp/B076VVH3CR/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509133426&sr=8-1&keywords=eurasian+tinderbox

Kennedy’s strategy to ‘reverse’ the gap – in reality, aggressively expand America’s strategic advantage over the Soviets even further than it had already been – included what became, according to the preeminent international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz, “the largest strategic and conventional peacetime build-up the world has yet seen…even as Khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in the conventional forces and to follow a strategy of minimum deterrence, and…even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States”[4].

This included the stationing of more than a hundred Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey, the latter within striking range of the Russian capital of Moscow. In May 1962, faced with CIA terrorist campaign Operation Mongoose and the threat of imminent US invasion (following an initial US invasion attempt the previous year i.e. the infamous Bay of Pigs fiasco), Cuba’s Fidel Castro requested the stationing of Soviet missiles on the island – just 90 miles away from Florida – as a nuclear deterrent against American aggression.

Recognising this opportunity to strike a deal with Kennedy, who had earlier spurned his offer of a mutual weapons reduction treaty, and get the US missiles out of neighbouring Turkey[5], Khrushchev granted Cuba’s request the following July.

The following month, while on holiday, Kennedy read Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, a classic account of the build-up to World War One. Tuchman had argued that none of the key political figures welcomed war and that, given the chance, they would not have repeated their mistakes that led to conflict.

After the resumption of U2 reconnaissance flights over Cuba in October, pilot Major Richard Heyser took 928 photographs recording the recently station Soviet missiles on the island. The CIA identified the missiles thanks to intelligence provided by double agent Oleg Penkovsky[6], notifying the State Department on October 15 at 8:30pm.

Following an initial briefing he received from Bundy the following morning[7], President Kennedy convened his national security council and other key advisors at 6:30pm. Kennedy secretly tape recorded the meetings (the ‘Excomm meetings’), some of which have been subsequently transcribed by the Kennedy Library’s Sheldon Stern. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended a military strike on Cuba to take out the missiles. An invasion was already scheduled, hence (partially) the stationing of the missiles on the island to begin with. But McNamara countered that, seeing as the US already had 5000 strategic warheads compared with the Russians’ 300, the balance of military power was still overwhelmingly in Washington’s favour[8].

In any event, the JSC’s apocalyptic recommendation held consensus, despite the fact that a diplomatic solution was the elephant in the room during the first Excomm meeting: answering Kennedy’s query about Khrushchev’s possible motive for stationing the missiles in Cuba, Dean Rusk pointed out that it may have something to do with the US Jupiter missiles in neighbouring Turkey, within striking range of Moscow.

On October 18, Kennedy met with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in the Oval Office, the latter explaining the defensive nature of the missiles. Kennedy risked nuclear extinction by failing to offer US withdrawal of its Turkey missiles in exchange for a Soviet withdrawal of its Cuba missiles. The next day, Excomm agreed to a naval blockade of Cuba, to prevent any further Soviet missile shipments thereto.

In a televised address on the 22nd, Kennedy branded Soviet actions “a reckless and provocative threat to world peace”, stripping the crisis of its entire context: his missiles in Turkey, his brother Robert’s CIA terrorist campaign to raise “the terrors of the earth”[9] against the Castro regime, and (as it turns out, justified[10]) Soviet-Cuban fears of imminent US invasion of Cuba.

As Kennedy spoke, US forces were put on DEFCON 3. A quarter of a million US troops were on standby to invade Cuba. Nearly two hundred B47s, all armed with hydrogen bombs, dispersed to civilian airports across the United States. B52s on airborne alert increased more than fivefold, some 65 of them, each armed with thermonuclear warheads and 2-4 Hydrogen bombs, within striking range of the USSR[11]. On October 24, as the naval blockade began, Strategic Air Command was switched to DEFCON 2, the first time in its history.

On October 26, Kennedy received a letter from Khrushchev offering to withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for US assurances that neither America nor its proxies would attack Cuba. Excomm agreed to the deal, but would respond the next morning after some shuteye. By radio, a frantic Khrushchev offered to publicly withdraw the missiles if the US publicly withdrew its Turkey missiles.

Naturally, the granting of both proposals would have guaranteed a definitive resolution to the most dangerous crisis in world history, pulling humanity back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. Within Excomm, the confusion caused by the second letter only intensified calls for an airstrike, which intensified even further after an American U2 was shot down (without Khrushchev’s authorisation) later that day.

Nonetheless, Kennedy only accepted the first offer (US pledge not to attack Cuba, quickly broken as Operation Mongoose resumed, lasting well into the 1970s at the cost of thousands of Cuban lives), insisting instead that the US secretly withdraw the missiles from Turkey, while Russia publicly withdraw its missiles.

Kennedy made this move despite his own guess that nuclear war was 33-50% probable, and having already ordered the withdrawal of the obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey for replacement by far more lethal Polaris submarines[12]. In other words, he risked nuclear extinction of humanity for sheer imperial prestige.

“It is hard to think”, says Noam Chomsky, “of a more horrendous decision in history – and for this, he is still highly praised for his cool courage and statesmanship”[12]. As it happens, Khrushchev had already ordered the missiles’ withdrawal while awaiting a reply from Kennedy, delighted by the latter concession[13].

Graham Allison’s judgement is even more damning[14]:

Although he appreciated the dangers of his predicament, Kennedy repeatedly made choices he knew actually increased the risk of war, including nuclear war. He chose to confront Khrushchev publicly (rather than try to resolve the issue privately through diplomatic channels); to draw an unambiguous red line requiring the removal of Soviet missiles (rather than leave himself more wiggle room); to threaten air strikes to destroy the missiles (knowing this could trigger Soviet retaliation against Berlin); and finally, on the penultimate day of the crisis, to give Khrushchev a time-limited ultimatum (that, if rejected, would have required the US to fire the first shot). In each of these choices, Kennedy understood that he was raising the risk that further events and choices by others beyond his control could lead to nuclear bombs destroying American cities, including Washington DC (where his family stayed throughout the ordeal.

By far the most dangerous moment in the entire crisis (and, arguably, human history) was when, on the day of Kennedy’s gamble, one of the Soviet Foxtrot submarines approaching Cuba received US warning depth charges, which one of the submarines misinterpreted as an attack. Six hours later, the three commanders, authorised by Soviet protocol to launch a torpedo, made the decision to do so, except one: Visal Arkhipov, “the man who saved the world”.

Thus, Kennedy’s gamble was more like an unwitting 99%. Indeed, without his knowledge, and on the same day as the U2 shoot-down, an Atlas long-range missile test was carried out from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Soviets could have easily misinterpreted this as the first firing shot. Meanwhile, another U2 was tailed by Soviet pilots after straying into Siberian airspace before being safely escorted back to Alaska by atomic-armed US warplanes which, under DEFCON 3, were authorised to shoot down Soviet aircraft[13]. Even this barely scratches the surface of the additional dangers involved.

Investigative journalist Eric Schlosser observes[13]:

Although Khrushchev never planned to move against Berlin during the crisis, the Joint Chiefs had greatly underestimated the strength of the Soviet military force based in Cuba. In addition to strategic weapons, the Soviet Union had almost one hundred tactical nuclear weapons on the island that would have been used by local commanders to repel an American attack. Some were as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Had the likely targets of those weapons – the American fleet offshore the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo – been destroyed, an all-out nuclear war would have been hard to avoid.

At a Senate hearing following the merciful resolution of the crisis, McNamara adamantly denied that the Soviet missile withdrawal from Cuba was traded for the US missile withdrawal from Turkey: “Absolutely not…The Soviet government did raise the issue…[but the] President absolutely refused even to discuss it”. Off the record, officials even concocted that Kennedy had spurned a proposal by his UN ambassador to trade the Soviet missiles in Cuba for NATO missiles in Turkey, Italy and Britain[13].

Following the resolution of the crisis, a Moscow-Washington hotline was established, as well as the landmark Limited Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited nuclear detonations in the atmosphere, ocean and outer space. Nonetheless, over the next five years, US nukes would grow by more than 50% (as would tactical nukes deployed to Europe) from Eisenhower’s 19,000 to a total of 31,255[15]. And the progress in US-Soviet relations would be severely damaged by the reckless brinksmanship of the 1980s Reagan Administration, bringing us once again to the brink of catastrophe.

Our Children Need Revolution, Not Charity

Children in Need is obscene

The theme of the BBC’s Children In Need this year was disadvantaged children in the UK. The BBC presenters, as always, directed their appeals to the general public, not to Prime Minister Theresa May, who has continued her predecessor David Cameron’s vicious offensive against the working class poor.

More than a quarter of UK children now live in poverty. This appalling figure is expected to rise to a staggering 37% (5.2 million) by 2022[1]. If so, child poverty will have almost tripled since the 1960s. None of this was mentioned by Children In Need.

These millions of children’s families, forever the subject of bourgeois contempt (and fear), cannot be stereotyped as ‘scroungers’: 64% are working households[1].

If not the sole cause, the ruling elite’s austerity drive has certainly contributed to this appalling situation. Under David Cameron, tax/benefit changes caused the poorest tenth to suffer a 38% income drop[2], while the last two years alone saw half a million food bank users cite benefit changes and delays as causes of their predicament[3]. Again, unmentioned by Children In Need.

This year’s raised £860 million in generous donations from the viewing public. Tory cuts, however, have run into the billions. Last August, the UN issued a damning report decrying the yearly £2-3000 income drop imposed on half a million disabled persons by Tory cuts, many of them thrown under the poverty line as a result. The report also documented disabled persons’ reduced access to both healthcare and inclusive education[4].

Launched in the shadow of the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression, the ‘Age of Austerity’ possessed a peculiar logic: having bailed out the crooked banks to the tune of £1 trillion, British taxpayers must now have to further pay off the national debt incurred by same bailouts. This payoff would take the form of the nation’s biggest spending cuts since World War Two. As austerity drove down demand, the debt spiralled: the fruits of neoliberal economic logic.

This savage assault against Britain’s working class has been necessary, you see. The government is skint, as evidenced by the multi-trillion-pound tax haven headquartered in the City of London. Its details exposed by the ‘Panama/Paradise Papers’ (future post), Cameron, Hague and Osborne are all linked to this vast offshore network, whose combined value could wipe out world poverty for perhaps a century.

In the world’s sixth richest country, a quarter of children are in poverty while the combined wealth of the richest 1000 represents a full third of the national GDP[5]. The few thousand saved by plastic cladding, meanwhile, meant a tower block massacre in Britain’s most unequal borough (https://flashpointssite.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/grenhall-fire-an-act-of-corporate-terrorism/).

According to the Tax Justice Network, Britain’s super rich are dodging/evading £69.9 billion in tax[6]. The country’s entire welfare budget, meanwhile, is £400 million. Worse still, the latest EU immigrants pay more in tax than they receive in benefits[7]!

Britain’s children don’t need charity. They need revolution.

1. https://www.turn2us.org.uk/About-Us/News/Child-poverty-set-to-increase
2. http://www.radstats.org.uk/no103/HortonReed103.pdf
3. https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/
4. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-disabled-rights-uk-government-denounced-criticised-united-nations-austerity-policies-a7923006.html
5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27459621
6. https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/04/01/cost-tax-abuse-2011/
7. https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

Further reading: ‘The True Cost of Austerity and Inequality: A Case Study’, Oxfam 09/13

John F Kennedy and US Imperialism

Kennedy was the first US president to authorize chemical warfare and napalm

WEBPAGE_20171117_230312

Liberals have a nostalgia for John F Kennedy, many of whom believe he was assassinated by the CIA for defying their pressure to invade Cuba.

Even if this entirely plausible scenario were true (the question is academic since the CIA has committed many, many crimes, which the obsession with Kennedy’s assassination only serves to distract from), that Kennedy’s spat with the CIA was due to its warmongering is purely illusory. As Youssef El-Gingihy explains[1]:

“The Kennedys may have fallen out with the CIA over Cuba, but this was more a question of methodology than ideology. For both parties, the ultimate prize remained the overthrow of the Castro regime…JFK authorized multiple CIA ops against Cuba in 1963. True, Operation Mongoose had been disbanded and they ordered the FBI to clamp down on the more extreme groups such as Alpha 66. However, the Kennedys were merely transferring the Cuban project under their aegis”.

An honest appraisal of JFK shows him up to be a committed servant of the US empire. He didn’t want to directly invade Cuba only because that risked nuclear suicide with the Soviets, which would mean the mutual destruction of both superpowers.

As Noam Chomsky once remarked, if the Nuremberg Principles applied today, then every US president since 1945 would have been hanged. Kennedy, he says, “was one of the worst”.

Kennedy was the first American president to authorize chemical warfare and napalm, launching Operation Ranch Hand against South Vietnam in 1962. This Operation damaged or destroyed some 4 million acres of forest and 500,000 acres of food crops with Agent Orange and other chemical defoliants and herbicides[2], destroying/poisoning the food supply of countless civilian families. Millions were directly sprayed with Agent Orange, inflicting subsequent generations with horrific deformities[3].

This Operation was modeled on Britain’s ‘strategic hamlets’ in 1950s Kenya, when the Mau Mau revolt against British colonial rule was savagely suppressed. As revealed in 2011 with the release of declassified files from Britain’s Foreign Office, British troops stabbed/shot, tortured, raped and mutilated up to 1 million Kenyan detainees. Read Pulitzer Prize winner Caroline Elkins’ comprehensive account, ‘Britain’s Gulag’.

Like Britain’s Malay Emergency, Kennedy’s Ranch Hand was also a counter-insurgency operation: the Saigon regime, “a Latin American-style terror state” (Chomsky) installed by Washington in the 1950s, had killed 20,000 people. American money and guns, however, were proving insufficient in sustaining the despised regime. To keep its client regime propped up, Washington had to intervene. LBJ sent in the troops following the (fake) Gulf of Tonkin incident, but it was JFK who initiated the war’s most devastating dimension: air raids.

Then there’s Cuba. Kennedy implemented his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower’s plans to oust the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro, whose courageous guerillas had toppled the murderous junta of Gen. Batista, a CIA stooge who had ruthlessly guarded Wall Street’s interests in the de facto corporate colony.

The President’s brother, Robert Kennedy, masterminded the most vicious crimes against Cuba: Operation Mongoose, a CIA terrorist/sabotage campaign, was designed (in his words) to “raise the terrors of the earth” against Havana.

He almost succeeded: Mongoose, perhaps the biggest campaign of international terrorism until that of Al Qaeda, involved attempted bombings of oil/sugar refineries. For decades, the US allowed terrorists to launch tourist shootings and hotel bombings from their base in Miami. Cue Bush II: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them!”.

And of course there’s the gamble with nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (https://flashpointssite.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/we-were-this-close-how-the-cuban-missile-crisis-brought-the-world-to-the-nuclear-brink/).

Internal Security

“Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to their Latin counterparts”.

The following chapter, “Destabilization Policies,” focuses on Kennedy-era efforts to undermine Argentina’s Arturo Frondizi (who declined to support the U.S. anticommunist crusade against Cuba), Brazil’s João Goulart (who was considered a closet communist), and Guatemala’s Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes (whose only sin was to allow former president Arévalo to return from exile).

Next comes a chapter on the “Kennedy Doctrine”–JFK’s assertion of the right to intervene in cases involving the potential for communist expansion–a chapter designed around the case of Guyana, where the British were transferring power to the electorate which, in turn, seemed intent upon electing a prime minister that Washington perceived as a dangerous radical…the Kennedy administration strong-armed the British into rescheduling elections under a new form of proportional representation, and that ended Cheddi Jagan’s electoral hopes.

Turning the coin over, Rabe’s next chapter on “Constitutional Defenses” explains how…Kennedy’s highly selective embrace of constitutionalism also included covert funding to ensure that the Chilean Christian Democrats could triumph over their more radical democratic adversaries…

1. https://newint.org/blog/2014/11/21/jfk-assassination-anniversary
2. http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/111/quy060409.pdf.
3. http://www.nature.com/articles/nature01537