The ‘cease fire’ was a doomed to fail from the start.  Thierry Meyssan reviews 15+ years of on-again, off-again US aggression against Syria and untangles recent propaganda.  The United States is supporting terrorists as a policy tool.

reine_elizabeth_ii_referenceTND Guest Contributor:  Thierry Meyssan |

The United States remain uncertain of their capacity to convince the European Union to participate actively in NATO, and the will of the United Kingdom to pursue the military alliance that they have been building together since 1941 for the purpose of dominating the world. Because despite the allegations of the European leaders, the Brexit does not isolate the United Kingdom, but enables it to turn to the Commonwealth and to create links with China and Russia.

Press-ganging the Europeans into NATO

The United States and the United Kingdom had planned to push the members of the Union to announce the increase of their military budget to 2% of their GDP during the Alliance summit in Warsaw (8 and 9 July). Besides this, there were plans for the adoption of a strategy for deploying forces at the Russian border, including the creation of a joint NATO–EU logistical unit which would enable the collective use of helicopters, ships, drones and satellites.

Until now, the United Kingdom was the most important contributor of the Union in matters of Defence, providing close to 15% of the EU defence budget. Apart from this, it was in charge of Operation Atalanta for the protection of maritime transports off the coast of the Horn of Africa, and had made its ships available in the Mediterranean. And finally, it was planned that the UK would furnish troops for the constitution of EU combat groups. With the Brexit, all these engagements are now null and void.

For Washington, the question is now whether London will or will not accept to increase its direct investment in NATO, of which it is already the second most important contributor, to compensate for the part it played in the EU – but without gaining any particular advantage by doing so. Although Michael Fallon, the current British Minister of Defence, has promised not to weaken the common efforts of NATO and the EU, no-one can see why London would agree to place new troops under foreign command.

As a result, and above all, Washington is questioning the will of London to pursue the military alliance that it has been building with the Crown since 1941. Of course, we should not rule out the possibility that the Brexit may be a British trick enabling them to renegotiate their «special relation» with «the Americans» to their advantage. However, it is much more probable that London hopes to extend its relations to Beijing and Moscow without necessarily forgoing the advantages of its entente with Washington.

The Anglo-Saxon secret agencies

During the Second World War, and even before they joined the war, the United States concluded a pact with the United Kingdom which was clearly laid out in the specifics of the Atlantic Charter [1]. It called for the two countries to unite in order to guarantee freedom of maritime circulation and the extension of free trade.

This alliance was implemented by the «Five Eyes» agreement, which currently serves as the basis for the cooperation between 17 Intelligence agencies from 5 different states (the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as three other members of the Commonwealth – Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

The documents revealed by Edward Snowden attest that the Echelon network in its current form constitutes «a supranational Intelligence agency which is independent of the laws of its own member states». So the «Five Eyes» have been able to spy on personalities like the Secretary General of the UNO and the German Chancellor, and at the same time, carry out mass surveillance on their own citizens.

In identical fashion, in 1948, the United States and the United Kingdom founded a second supranational agency, the Office of Special Projects, which commanded the “stay-behind” networks of the UNO, known today by the name of Gladio.

Professor Daniele Ganser has shown that this Bureau has organised a number of coups d’etat and terrorist operations in Europe [2]. If at first we thought that the «strategy of tension» was aimed at preventing the accession to power of Communist governments in Europe by democratic means, it soon became clear that it was aimed mainly at feeding the phobia of Communism, and thus justifying Anglo-Saxon military protectionism. Newly-declassified documents have shown that this mechanism exists outside Europe and operates in the Arab world [3].

Finally, in 1982, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia created a third supranational agency, whose pseudo NGO’s – the National Endowment for Democracy and its four subsidiaries – ACILS, CIPE, NDI and IRI – form the visible part [4]. It specialises in the organisation of coups d’etat camouflaged as «revolutions».

Although there exists an impressive quantity of literature concerning these three programmes, we know absolutely nothing about the supranational agencies which control them.

The «special relationship»

The United States, who proclaimed their independence by separating from the Crown, only became reconciled with the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century (the Great Rapprochement). The two states allied for the Spanish war in Cuba, and then for the exploitation of their colonial trading posts in China – in other words, when Washington discovered its imperialist vocation. In 1902, a trans-Atlantic club was formed in order to affirm their refound friendship, The Pilgrims Society. It is traditionally presided by the English monarch.

The reconciliation was sealed in 1917 with the common project for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine [5], and the United States entered the war alongside the United Kingdom. Since then, the two states have shared various military means, including, later on, the atomic bomb. However, when the Commonwealth was created, Washington refused to be part of it, considering itself to be London’s equal.

Despite a few disagreements during the British attacks on Egypt (Suez Canal) or against Argentina (the «Falklands» war), or again during the US attacks on Grenada, the two powers have always offered each other strong support.

The Crown financed the beginning of Barack Obama’s electoral campaign in 2008, by pouring in generous contributions via the Iraqi-British arms dealer Nadhmi Auchi. During his first term, a large number of the new President’s direct collaborators were secretly members of the Pilgrims’ Society, of which the US section was then presided by Timothy Geithner. But President Obama progressively moved away from the group, giving the Crown the impression that it was not being paid in return. Things worsened with the sharp words published in The Atlantic against David Cameron [6] – and the visit of the Obama couple to Queen Elizabeth II for her birthday did little to heal any wounds.

The Commonwealth

By disengaging from the European Union, and moving away from the United States, the United Kingdom has not isolated itself by any means, but can once again play it’s master card – the Commonwealth.

It has been completely overlooked that in 1936, Winston Churchill launched the idea of incorporating the present states of the European Union into the Commonwealth. His proposition was hindered by the rise of danger and the World War. It was only after the allied Victory that this same Churchill launched the idea of the «United States of Europe» [7] and convened the Conference of the European Movement in The Hague [8].

The Commonwealth is an organisation of 53 member states whose only politics are founded on basic English values – racial equality, the rule of law, human rights in the face of «National Interest». However, it suggests that its members develop business and sports skills. Besides this, it shares its experts in all sectors.

Queen Elizabeth II, who is the sovereign of 16 of the member states, is the Head of the Commonwealth (an elective rather than a hereditary title).

What do the British want?

From London’s point of view, it is the United States who have violated the «special relation» by giving in to the immoderation (hubris) of a unipolar world, and conducting their own foreign and financial policies by themselves – and this, at a time when they are no longer the prime economic power in the world nor the prime conventional military power.

From this point on, it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to cease from placing «all its eggs in one basket» – to conserve the common instruments it shares with Washington while relying on the Commonwealth and weaving new relations with Beijing and Moscow, either directly, or else via the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

And specifically, on the day of the Brexit, the SCO accepted the adhesion of two members of the Commonwealth, India and Pakistan, while it had never included Commonwealth states before [9].

While we know nothing of the contacts that the United Kingdom must have already made with Russia, we may note its rapprochement with China.

Last March, the London Stock Exchange, which manages the exchanges of the City and Milan, revealed its project of fusion with the Deutsche Börse, which manages the Stock Exchange of Frankfort, the clearing house for Clearstream and Eurex. It was planned that the two companies should decide on the operation just after the Brexit referendum. This announcement is all the more astonishing in that European regulations formally prohibit such an operation, which is the equivalent of creating a «dominant position». The decision thus supposed that the two companies were anticipating the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Furthermore, the London Stock Exchange announced an agreement with the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS), and, in June, became the primary Stock Exchange in the world to rate Chinese treasury bonds. All the elements were in place to transform the City into a Chinese Trojan Horse in the European Union, to the detriment of US supremacy.


[1] “The Atlantic Charter”, by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 14 August 1941.

[2] Nato’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Daniele Ganser, Cass, London, 2004.

[3] America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Hugh Wilford, Basic Books, 2013.

[4] “The networks of “democratic” interference”, by Thierry Meyssan,Voltaire Network, 22 January 2004; « Национальный фонд демократии — игровая площадка ЦРУ] », Тьерри Мейсан, Однако (Российская Федерация) , Сеть Вольтер, 6 октября 2010.

[5] “Who is the Enemy?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé,Voltaire Network, 4 August 2014.

[6] “The Obama Doctrine”, by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic (USA) ,Voltaire Network, 10 March 2016.

[7] “Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich on the United States of Europe”, by Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 19 September 1946.

[8] « Histoire secrète de l’Union européenne », par Thierry Meyssan,Réseau Voltaire, 28 juin 2004.

[9] “Brexit coincides with India’s and Pakistan’s entry into the SCO”, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, La Jornada (Mexico) , Voltaire Network, 2 July 2016.

# # # #

About Thierry Meyssan:

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

This article was published on the Voltaire Network and is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND.


TND VideoCast Spotlight:  Ron Paul Liberty Report

Yesterday’s tragic bombing of the Kemal Ataturk Airport in Istanbul comes amid a busy week of Turkish diplomacy: Turkish President Erdogan has apologized to Russia for shooting down a Russian fighter jet and Turkey has taken major steps to restore good relations with Israel and Egypt. Who would want to shut down Turkey as it takes an apparent foreign policy shift…and why? We look into the possibilities in today’s Liberty Report:


# # # # #

rpilogo-final The above appeared at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website and is reprinted with permission.  To visit the website, click here. Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.  The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.  To support the institute’s important work, click here. TND full (1)

Follow All Of’s Exclusive Articles:


Subscribe To Receive All TND’s Exclusive Articles In Your RSS Feed:


The G7 meetings, which were originally little more than simple informal conversations between the Western leaders, flirted for a while with the idea of becoming a world governement before falling back to organising a sort of public relations training course. The Ise-Shima summit reviewed the world’s main problems, and defined, for each of them, the elements of language which should be employed.

TND Guest Contributor: Thierry Meyssan g7 - protest

The G7 has just met at Ise-Shima (Japan). But although we had been swamped with information about the preceding summits, this one was hardly mentioned by the international Press. The fact is that the objective of this meeting is profoundly different.

In the context of the first oil crisis of 1974, five Ministers of Finance (Western Germany, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, USA) met without an agenda in the library of the White House, simply to exchange their points of view. This was the «Library Group».

On this model, the only two survivors of this group, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who had become the President of the French Republic, and Helmut Schmidt, who had become the Chancellor of Western Germany, took the initiative of inviting the heads of State and government of the same countries, plus Italy, for the following year (1976), to Rambouillet castle, in order to exchange their points of view on the major subjects of the moment. At that time, international summits were rare and extremely formal. The G6 differentiated itself by its lack of protocol, its simple, relaxed and friendly nature, the atmosphere of a private club. The discussions were in English – directly, without translators. The meeting was announced at the last moment. There was no agenda, and no journalists were present.

In 1977, the Prime Minister of Canada was invited (G7), and as from 1978, the President of the European Commission. In 1994, the Russian President was also invited, and was officially integrated in 1997 (G8). The Western powers were convinced that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was about to join with them to create a unipolar world which they would dominate together. This was the era of the creation of an international ruling party whose ambition was boundless. It imagined that it could do away with international law and substitute itself for the UN Security Council, in order to govern the world without control.

In 2000, the G8 supported the proposition by Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank to cancel the debt of the poorest nations. There was however one small condition – these countries would have to completely liberalise their economy, leaving them open for unrestricted pillage by the multinationals. Of the 62 countries concerned, only 9 accepted this fools’ bargain. The G8’s stand on this issue raised a universal wave of anti-globalisation. During the following summit in Genoa (2001), repression of the demonstrations caused one death. It was decided that as from now, these summits would be held outside of major cities, under military and police protection. Anything could therefore be plotted out of the view of the public.

But in 2013, things took a turn for the worse – Vladimir Putin was back in the Kremlin, and the Western powers had just relaunched the war against Syria, despite the engagements negotiated by Kofi Annan and confirmed by the Geneva Communiqué. The summit at Lough Erne became a confrontation, 1 against 7. It should have been dealing with the struggle against tax havens, but the discussion was monopolised by the Western reversal against Syria. The following year (2014), after the coup d’état in Kiev, the division of Ukraine, and the adhesion of Crimea to the Russian Federation, Germany noted that trust between the participants had been destroyed, and that the meeting could not be held in its usual form. In panic, the Western powers decided to cancel their participation in the Sotchi summit, and met, without Russia, at The Hague (Holland). The G8, minus 1, became once again the G7.

42 years ago, the summit was concluded by a short declaration indicating the economic subjects which had been discussed, and stressed the cohesion of the Western block. Quickly, these Press releases were lengthened in order to reassure international investors that no important decisions were being taken within the confines of this secret meeting. As from the invitation of Russia, and the mass arrival of journalists, a political declaration was added, aimed at demonstrating that the world was united around Washington. Then came the publication of long dissertations on the state of the world and the holy desire of the powerful to improve it. But never, absolutely never, was any decision taken by the G8. At the very best, announcements were made and quickly forgotten (the eradication of world hunger, for example) or questions about the promulgation of Charters which would quickly be violated (concerning open sources, for example).

As from 2001, the G8, which presents itself as a world government parallel to the United Nations, has in fact become a meeting of consultation without risk. In this photograph, which was banned from publication in a number of countries, we see President Dmitri Medvedev drunk at the 21011 summit.

As from 2001, the G8, which presents itself as a world government parallel to the United Nations, has in fact become a meeting of consultation without risk. In this photograph, which was banned from publication in a number of countries, we see President Dmitri Medvedev drunk at the 2011 summit.

What has become of the G7 ?

Of the 9 official members of the G7, 2 have a double voice – the United States can count on the President of the European Commission, the Luxemburger Jean-Claude Juncker, who was obliged to resign from his functions as Prime Minister after it was revealed that he belonged to the Gladio network (NATO secret services). As for Germany, it counts on the President of the European Council, the Pole Donald Tusk, whose family has been linked to the Merkel family since the beginning of the Cold War.

From now on, the G7 is no more than a simple formatting class, where the United States and Germany indicate the language fomulae that their vassals are required to adopt. Thousands of journalists are present at this high mass. In the end, the Ise-Shima summit published a long economico-political declaration and six appended documents which reflect the language of the US elites. Everything is perfect, at least in appearence, because upon careful study – as we are about to see – the truth is revealed to be scandalous.

In the introduction to their declaration, the members of the G7 stress their common values, the four main subjects being:

  • Liberty
  • Democracy
  • the rule of Law
  • respect for Human Rights.

Next, they affirm their capacity to guarantee:

  • Peace
  • Security
  • and the Prosperity of the world

Finally, they reveal their priority:
* Global Economic Growth.

Even a small child can understand without difficulty that these «adults», by affirming that their priority is global economic growth, care little for the ideals and the objectives they display.

The final declaration of the G7

I will limit myself here to the study of the passages in the declaration relative to international politics as seen by these 9 people, who intend to become the most powerful people in the world [1]. It is a catalogue of the 18 most prevalent Western lies today. It provides the occasion for a review of the main subjects of conflict.

- The «war against terrorism and violent extremism» [2].

It is now unfortunately a commonly-held belief in international summits that terrorism, according to their declaration, is the fruit of violent extremism. It is nothing more than the maturation of certain personal psychological problems in non-resolved political contexts. Terrorism is therefore not a military strategy, no state organises it, and it is financed exclusively by private gifts and various forms of trafficking. Such is the theory defended since December 2015 by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon, who came to join the G7 to give the impression of world consensus [3] : the only enemy is «radicalisation». A formula which enables those who organise terrorism to fight any form of opposition on the pretext of fighting terrorism.

As we have been developing in our columns since 2001, at least 8 of the 9 members of the G7 are directly implicated in support for Al-Qaïda and Daesh in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Only Justin Trudeau’s Canada seems to have ceased participating in this secret war.

- «Migration and the refugee crisis» (and not «the refugee and migrant crisis»).

We should note the semantic distinction between the flow of migrations and the refugee crisis. Migrants choose to move elsewhere. They are considered as a tide, not as people. On the contrary, refugees are forced to move, and have the right to international protection.

However, in reality there are very few real refugees. The great majority of Syrians who have fled their country refused to defend it against the jihadists because they were convinced that the Republic was going to be overthrown by NATO. Others fled the combats hoping to come back after the victory of the jihadists and the construction of a true Islamic state. But international Law does not apply the status of refugees to insurgents who refuse to bear arms to defend their country when it is attacked from abroad, nor to those who hope for a victory for which they will not fight.

There is no doubt that the phenomenon of the flight of Syrians was encouraged by the states who were attacking them, who thereby hoped to win by emptying the country of its inhabitants. All members of the G7 participated in this plan.

- Syria

Le G7 categorically condemns the violations of the cessation of hostilites by the «Syrian régime». Fair enough, but it says not a word about the violations committed by the armed groups beforehand, nor – and this is what matters – about the violations that it first committed itself. I am speaking, for example, about the delivery of 2,000 tonnes of arms and munitions by the US Departement of Defense, attested to by Jane’s magazine – arms and munitions of which at least half were handed on to Al-Qaïda and Daesh, whom the G7 clamied to be fighting a few lines earlier [4].

The G7 also condemns «the régime» (a pejorative expression used to decribe a member-state of the United Nations Organisation, and aimed at pointing out that the goal of G7’s war is «régime change» on the grounds that the «régime» had blocked the access to international humanitarian aid. However, the cases quoted by the UN reveal a non-respect by the UN itself of the dates and routes previously agreed upon with the Syrian government. Apart from the fact that the G7 does not condemn the armed groups for having blocked the access to several locations, it announced that it will use the excuse of what it abusively attributes to the «régime» to authorise the World Food Programme to parachute aid into jihadist-controlled zones. Since the WFP does not have the means to carry out this sort of mission, it will sub-contract the job to the US Air Force, which not only parachutes food and medical supplies, but also weapons and ammunition. This type of operation has only the appearance of being humanitarian, since the food and medical supplies parachuted into the jihadist-controlled zones will immediately be confiscated by the armed groups, who will sell them at exorbitant prices to the populations under their control, or even export them to Turkey, as we have seen recently.

Finally, the the G7 evokes the question of chemical weapons, without poining the finger at anyone in particular – a sign that it can always use this accusation against any party at any time, including the armed groups and Turkey. It is a means of potential blackmail against the unpredictable Erdoğan government.

- Iraq

The G7 supports «the unity, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity» of the nation. It congratulates the Iraqi government for its struggle against Daesh, and announces that it will help Baghdad to come to the aid of the populations in the liberated zones. However, since it has not also congratulated the «Syrian régime» for its victories against Daesh, we may conclude – contrary to the Resolutions of the UN Security Council – that its main objective is not the war against terrorism.

The members of the G7 announce that they are currently spending more than 3.6 billion dollars to help the Iraqi authorities, including the Kurds. But by stating this, they contradict what they stated a few lines earlier – indeed, they pretend to support the unity of the country, but deliver arms directly to a province which they encourage to no longer obey central power.

- Iran

The G7 unhesitatingly congratulates itself for the 5+1 agreement concluded a year ago with Iran. This accord called for the lifting of US, European and international sanctions, which should have allowed Iran to gain access to the 150 billion dollars blocked all over the world. However, although certain small countries have indeed unblocked the funds which they had been obliged to freeze – Switzerland, for example, liberated 12 million dollars – Iran has still not seen a single centime of the money still blocked in the United States or the European Union. Worse, although Washington officially pretended to unblock 450 million dollars, they were immediately impounded by an «independent» US judge as compensation for the victims of the 11th September attacks, for which the United States have never once accused Iran over the last 15 years. The stand by the 9 members of the G7 comes in response to the complaint registered by Iran with the Security Council with the support of the Non-Aligned Movement [5].

The G7 continues by condemning Iranian research on missiles, which contravenes Resolution 2231. However, this Resolution has nothing to do with the missile question. During the Security Council debate, Ambassador Samatha Power pointed out that Iran was not only obliged to conform to the Resolution, but also to apply other international rules concerning ballistic missiles [6]. The United States know that they can not link the question of ballistic missiles and the question of nuclear energy, and in fact, since the 5+1 agreement, have registered no complaints against Iran.

- Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The G7 condemns nuclear research by what it calls «North Korea», suggesting by this title that the United States are still at war with it since 1950. Consequently they can base themselves on several Resolutions by the Security Council. But in the absence of a peace treaty, and considering the pressure brought to bear over the last 10 years on Iran, which had no military nuclear programme, it is understandable that Pyongyang has not conformed.

- «Ukraine/Russia»

The G7 reaffirms the obligation to respect «the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the independence» of Ukraine. Then it condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. This is one more example of Western hypocrisy. It was the members of the G7 who organised the coup d’etat in Kiev, which violated the sovereignty and the independence of Ukraine. The citizens who refused the putsch first of all attempted to enter into resistance. They quickly understood that the population was divided geographically between pro-Atlantists and pro-Russians. The pro-Russians – Crimea, Donbass and Louhansk – proclaimed their independence, but only Crimea reacted quickly enough to request its incorporation into the Federation of Russia.

We note one phrase criticising the corruption of the Ukrainian government – a sign that the members of the G7 are already embarrassed by their new ally.

- Libya

The G7 gives its support to the government presided by Fayez al-Sarraj – the only authority recognised today by the UNO – in order to pacify the country, to enable the exploitation of the oil resrves and the fight against Daesh.

Since the country no longer has a legitimate leader, it has divided into tribal factions. The al-Sarraj government was constituted by the UNO during the Skhirat Accords (April 2015). But it has never been invested by the Chamber of Representatives which was created by NATO after the murder of Mouamar el-Kadhafi. As a result, it is no more legitimate than the others, even though it is more obedient. In any case, the members of the G7 announce that they support the lifting of the embargo on weapons for the al-Sarraj government, which should enable it either to massacre its rivals or relaunch the civil war.

- Afghanistan

The members of the G7 support any «peace process animated by the Afghans», which is truly alarming, 15 years after the Anglo-US invasion and the Bonn agreemeents imposed by the winners. They applaud the participation of Afghanistan in the NATO summit, next July in Warsaw, which says a lot about this peace process «animated by the Afghans» and about the G7’s intention to continue the military encirclement of Russia.

- «The peace process in the Near East»

The G7 admits by this formula that the Israelo-Palestinian conflict is in fact an Israelo-Arab conflict. Given the poor state of relations with the present Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the G7 supports the French initiative for an international conference – without the Israelis or the Palestinians – the only way, according to them, to move ahead with the «two-state solution».

- Yemen

Advancing with precaution, the G7 affirms that peace in Yemen must be sought through a political transition. An indirect formulation to signify that it supports the transitional President, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who was ejected by popular opinion, and is maintained entirely by Saudi Arabi and Israël.

- Africa

While the G7 treated the preceding states in detail, it did not bother to bring the same attention to bear on Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mali, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Southern Sudan, as well as a few other states, not even mentioned, of the Chad Basin, Sahel and the Horn of Africa. They are all tossed off in a single paragraph which lists a quantity of problems and invites them to reinforce their inter-governmental organisations in order to resolve them. The Pentagon has still not swallowed the fact that AfriCom was not afforded a warm welcome by Africans when it was created.

This paragraph was drawn up in the presence of the President of Chad, Idriss Deby, who had been invited on the fringes of the summit. The sacrosanct US rule according to which no head of state should seek more than two consecutive mandates does not apply in this country. Mr. Deby, who has been in power for an uninterrupted period of more than 25 years, is accused of numerous crimes in his own country and in Darfur, but is the best ally for a military deployment on the African continent.

- Venezuela

The G7 calls for both a dialogue between the government and the citizens, and between the government and the parliament. This formula cleverly suggests that the government is an authoritarian régime, contested by both the population and the political parties.

In reality, since Washington failed to organise the riots (the «Guarimba») in 2014 [7], to manage a coup d’etat in February 2015 [8], and decreed that Venezuela was a «threat to its national security» [9], it then fabricated a dossier accusing one of the main Bolivian leaders, Diosdado Cabello, of being a drug trafficker [10]. Despite President Obama’s courtesy when he met with his Venezuelan opposite number, he renewed his decree in 2016. On the 25 February, SouthCom and the US Special Forces drew up a plan for the destabilisation of the country, which was unfortunately leaked [11]. Its objective, in the years to come, is to provoke chaos, as was done in the Levant.

- Maritime Security

The G7, which presents itself as a guarantor of maritme security, despite the fact that its members organised the pirates from the Horn of Africa in 2009-10 [12], criticises the claims by Beijing in the China Sea by basing its arguments on maritime law, which is absolutely not the problem.

Beijing’s claims are historically legitimate, and had never bothered anyone until the oil fields were discovered. The Spratley and Paracel islands were considered to be Chinese until the 18th century. But since they were mostly uninhabited, the Emperor never sent a representative. The islands were abandoned during the colonisation of China in the 19th century. Consequently they may be claimed by either Taipei or Beijing, depending on the interpretation of the word «decolonisation». And of course, the old colonial powers do not read the events in the same way as the Chinese people, who kicked them out of their country.

- Non-proliferation and disarmement

We expect the G7 to be favourable to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmement, since its discourse is always peaceful, although its practice is imperialist.

Western hypocrisy is incarnated here by Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for having announced his desire to see an end to nuclear weapons, but who, once in power, on the contrary modernised and extended the US nuclear arsenal. Just after the summit, he went to Hiroshima, where he gave a speech. Of course, he did not apologise – he is not responsible for the actions of his predecessor – but he did not answer the question of the legitimacy of atomic bombing, which leaves no doubt as to what he really thinks.

The G7 pretends not to know that last year, a certain family managed to procure the atomic bomb, and has already used at least two tactical bombs in Yemen [13]. Yet this is a tangible danger, far more serious than that represented by the North Korean tests. Besides, the fact that the Saud family acquired this technology as a private customer, and not in the name of their state, Saudi Arabia, opens another breach in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

- Reform of the United Nations and peace operations

Appropriately, the G7 is favourable to an evolution of the United Nations Organisation. It takes the opportunity to reaffirm its support for the summit on Peace Operations which was presided at the UN by President Obama.

The problem is that the very principle of operations for the maintenance of peace is contrary to the UN Charter. During its creation, the founders had planned for observation missions to verify the application of the peace agreements. These were only useful – and indeeed, possible – in the case of agreement between the belligerents. On the contrary, today, the Security Council imposes its solution on the parties involved, in other words, it takes one side or the other, and deploys an armed Force to force respect for its decision. This is simply colonial practice disguised as international law.

- Human Rights

This short paragraph perfectly illustrates my point – who is against Human Rights ? No-one. However, the text presents the respect for these Rights as a «partneship between states and civil societies». By saying so, it is re-adopting the British definition of Rights, and Emmanuel Kant’s definition of civil societies.

According to the G7, Human Rights are a protection for individuals faced with reasons of state. Everyone should be able to take legal action against the abuse by which they suffer. The «civil society», in other words, the political actors – in earlier times, the commoners – who did not participate in the life of political parties, should therefore be able to represent citizens against the state. This gibberish is the negation of the French, Russian, Cuban and Iranian Revolutions, for which the first Human Right is to question the legitimacy of Power, not to prtotect oneself from it. By doing so, the G7 affirms that the new international ruling class does not intend to allow itself to be overthrown.

- Nuclear Security

The G7 distinguishes here between technical safety and the political security of the installations. It calls on the shareholders of the multinational companies concerned to respect the International Convention which governs their activity. And it applauds the summit organised by the White House on the prevention of the theft of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups.

By distinguishing between the question of atomic weapons possibly held by terrorist groups and the question of non-proliferation, the G7 clearly demonstrates that it is making no serious effort to acheive either of these goals. Non-proliferation is simply the refusal by the nuclear powers to allow non-nuclear powers to enter their club. The White House summit was a pretext for the Pentagon to «help» every state, and thus better control them.

The future of the G7

The history of the G7 reflects the evolution of international relations. During the Cold War, it was a club for state leaders and the heads of goverment who met discretely in order to learn how to work together. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was transformed into a summit for the great and powerful who intended to rule apart from the United Nations. Paradoxically, its current collapse is not due to a political cause, the Russian revolt, but a sociological distinction – the Russian leaders are of the same calibre as those who were once in power in the West, they have nothing to do with the new ruling class which meets in Davos.


[1] “G7 Ise-Shima Leaders’ Declaration”, Voltaire Network, May 26th, 2016.

[2] “G7 Action Plan on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism”,Voltaire Network, May 27th, 2016.

[3] « Plan d’action pour la prévention de l’extrémisme violent », par Ban Ki Moon, Réseau Voltaire, 24 décembre 2015.

[4] « Les États-Unis violent le cessez-le-feu en Syrie et arment Al-Qaïda »,Réseau Voltaire, 25 avril 2016. « Qui arme les jihadistes durant le cessez-le-feu ? », par Thierry Meyssan, Télévision nationale syrienne , Réseau Voltaire, 30 avril 2016.

[5] “Complaint from Iran to the Security Council”, Voltaire Network, May 6th, 2016.

[6] “Resolution 2231 and debates (Iranian nuclear)”, Voltaire Network, July 20th, 2015.

[7] “US against Venezuela: Cold War Goes Hot”, by Nil Nikandrov,Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia) , Voltaire Network, March 8th, 2014. « Las “guarimbas” de Venezuela : derecha embozada », por Martín Esparza Flores, Contralínea (México), Red Voltaire , 28 de abril de 2014.

[8] “Obama failed his coup in Venezuela”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, February 24th, 2015.

[9] “Executive Order – Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela”, by Barack Obama,Voltaire Network, 9 March 2015.

[10] “Washington is picking out of air a dossier against Caracas”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 21 May 2015.

[11] «Operación Venezuela Freedom-2», Red Voltaire , 22 de mayo de 2016.

[12] « Pirates, corsaires et flibustiers du XXIe siècle », par Thierry Meyssan,Оdnako (Russie) , Réseau Voltaire, 25 juin 2010.

[13] “Nuclear Red Alert”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation Roger Lagassé, Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 28 February 2016. « L’Arabie saoudite a la bombe atomique », par Giulietto Chiesa, Traduction, Réseau Voltaire, 1er mars 2016. “The nuclear Near East!”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, March 7yth, 2016.

# # # #

About Thierry Meyssan:

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie andPentagate.

This article was published on the Voltaire Network and is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND.

syria peace talksTND Guest Contributor: Thierry Meyssan

US implication in Syria is as bewildering as ever. Despite the fact that John Kerry had negotiated a cessation of hostilites on the 22 February 2016, and that Russia had withdrawn its bombers, Turkey – a member of NATO – continued its support for Daesh.

On the 8 March, Russia registered a report with the Security Council accusing Ankara of controlling the traffic of antiques for the benefit of Daesh [1]. On the 18 March, it registered a further report accusing Turkey of delivering arms and munitions to Daesh [2]. In both cases, Turkey «totally refuted» these allegations and accused Russia of organising a diversionary manœuvre to «distract the attention of the international community from the civilian losses, the chaos and the considerable destruction caused by the Syrian régime and Russian military operations in Syria». The Russian Chief of Staff retaliated by revealing that Ankara had just allowed 9,000 new jihadists to enter Syria. However, it is possible to imagine that Turkey had acted alone, without referring to the United States.

On the 7 April, the US Department of Defense delivered 2,000 tonnes of weapons to the «moderate armed groups», of which 500 tonnes were immediately redistributed to Al-Nusra (Al-Qaïda), and 500 more to Daesh [3].

In any case, Turkey’s support for Daesh seems to have diminished rapidly over the last few days.

It would seem that Moscow had secretly but violently protested, to the extent that on the 9 May, John Kerry and Sergeï Lavrov published a joint declaration [4]. They called on «all states to implement Security Council Resolution 2253 (2015), which forbids all material or financial assistance to Daesh, the al-Nusra Front or any other group qualified as terrorist by the UN Security Council, and to prevent any of these groups from crossing the frontier into Syria».

Above all, it was agreed that Washington would set a deadline for its allies – the start of July – to arrive at a negotiated agreement in Geneva. Beyond that date, the US would withdraw all their armed forces, while Russia would redirect its aircraft-carrier Admiral Kutznesov to the Syrian coast in order to resume, on a reduced scale, its bombing campaign against the terrorist organisations (who have since been re-armed) [5].

However, the uncertainty has still not been definitively resolved. A heated dispute opposed Russia and the United States at the UN concerning the Army of Islam (Jaysh al-islam) and the Islamic Movement of the Free Men of the Levant (Ahrar al-Sham). Moscow intended to add them to the list of «terrorist organisations», while Washington still wants to consider them as a «moderate armed group».

The Army of Islam is a formation funded by Saudi Arabia and supervised by the British SAS. Originally commanded by Zahran Allouche, it spread terror throughout the suburbs of Damascus and threatened the capital for three years. Its leader, who worshipped Osama Bin Laden, was characterised by his cruelty, ordering the decapitation of a number of local inhabitants, and using others, locked in cages, as human shields. Finally, the ’bunker-buster’ bombs of the Russian Air Force destroyed the underground head-quarters specially built to house his Staff. After a period of confusion, one of Allouche’s assistants, Issam el-Bouaydani, temporarily assumed his succession. He was rapidly ousted in favour of a Wahabist cleric, Sheikh Abou Abdarrahman Kaake, who recommended the nomination of one of Zahran Allouche’s cousins, Mohamed Allouche, to direct the delegation of the Saudi opposition at the intra-Syrian peace negotiations in Geneva. Mohamed Allouche had become celebrated for having thrown Syrians accused of being gay from the rooftops – the Syrian Arab Republic is the only Arab state to respect the private life of its citizens, and does not penalise homosexuals.

The Islamic Movement of the Free Men of the Levant is also supervised by the British. Like the Army of Islam, its communications are handled by InCoStrat [6]. Its «Minister for Foreign Affairs», Labib al-Nahhas, circulates freely in the West. He is in fact also British, and a member of MI6. He published an op-ed in the Washington Post [7], and paid a secret visit to New York last December to present his report to Jeffrey Feltman.

On the 17 May, the International Syria Support Group met in Vienna. In its final declaration [8], it questions the Syrian Arab Army’s strategy of encircling the villages controlled by the jihadists of the «moderate opposition». But above all, it once more validates all of the Russo-US decisions of these last months, namely –

  • to form a common organisation for the transition between the Syrian government and the entire range of opposition parties when the moment for transition is reached;
  • to elaborate a new Constitution;
  • then to organise new Presidential and parliamentary elections on that basis.

However, even though Saudi Arabia is a member of the International Syria Support Group, the moderate opposition still refuses to accept these three points. It persists in demanding the departure of President el-Assad and most of the Christian, Chiite and Alawite senior civil servants before the formation of the transition organisation. Furthermore, it does not intend to run against the current leaders in a round of democratic elections.

It is not inconsequential that during the meeting in Vienna, a diplomat declared that his country was ready to fight Al-Qaïda, but that he was concerned as to who would then ocupy the terrain. Sergeï Lavrov noted what he considered to be a «lapsus» – this diplomat was admitting, de facto, that his country preferred the victory of Al-Qaïda to the victory of the Syrian Arab Republic. By doing so, he was distancing himself from the decision of the Security Council to make the fight against terrorism its primary objective.

On the same day, the 17 May, the special representative for the UN Secretary General, Terje Rød-Larsen, presented his final report on the application of Resolution 1559, and announced his resignation. The Resolution had been drawn up in 2004, on the initiative of the United States, France and Saudi Arabia, to demand the disarmement of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the non-renewal of President Emile Lahoud’s mandate, and the withdrawal of the Syrian peace force from Lebanon. The Resolution had never been applied, although Syria withdrew its soldiers of its own accord when asked to do so by the Lebanese public during the «Cedar Revolution». Mr. Ban immediately charged his assistant for Political Affaires, Jeffrey Feltman, with taking over Mr. Terje Rød-Larsen’s functions as well as his own until the end of the year. However, very many observers consider that Jeffrey Feltman, ex-US Ambassador in Beirut, is the real author of Resolution 1559, and that today, he secretly directs the military coalition against Syria from New York.

On the 19 May, Jeffrey Feltman took part in a ceremony in Paris alongside members of the foreign Syrian opposition, Burhan Ghalioun, Michel Kilo, Bassma Kodmani and Samar Yazbeck.

Still in France, General Benoît Puga announced his resignation as the French President’s personal Chief of Staff, in order to join the Chancellory of the Légion d’Honneur. An integrist Christian, nostalgic for the monarchy and colonisation, he was the only military man to occupy his post during the mandates of two successive Presidents, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande. He had personally directed France’s secret operations in Syria – sometimes in contradiction to the advice of the Army’s Chief of Staff – notably with the assistance of the officers of the French Foreign Legion who worked directly for the Presidency.

We are moving inexorably towards an interruption of the Geneva negotiations. Moreover, if an agreement should be found between the Syrian parties present, it would be invalidated in the light of earlier international decisions, taking into account the exclusion – demanded by Turkey – of the main Kurdish party. This is why the failure of the Geneva talks would probably be followed by the reumption of the intra-Syrian negotiations between those who wish to take part – in other words, without the pro-Saudis, but with the Kurds. Then the formation of a transitional system with new participants. On the military side, the Syrian Arab Army should take back the country’s main cities, but combats will probably persist at the Iraqi-Syrian frontier.


[1] “Russian Intelligence report on Daesh’s smuggling of antiquities”,Voltaire Network, March 8th, 2016.

[2] “Second Russian intelligence report on Turkey’s current assistance to Daesh”, Voltaire Network, March 18th, 2016.

[3] « Les États-Unis violent le cessez-le-feu en Syrie et arment Al-Qaïda », « Qui arme les jihadistes durant le cessez-le-feu ? », par Thierry Meyssan,Télévision nationale syrienne, Réseau Voltaire, 25 et 30 avril 2016.

[4] “Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the United States on Syria”, Voltaire Network, May 9th, 2016.

[5] “The imminent return of Russian planes to Syria”, by Valentin Vasilescu, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, May 16th, 2016.

[6] « Comment le Royaume-Uni met en scène les jihadistes », Réseau Voltaire, 13 mai 2016.

[7] “The deadly consequences of mislabeling Syria’s revolutionaries”, Labib Al Nahhas, Washington Post, July 10th, 2015.

[8] “Statement of the International Syria Support Group”, Voltaire Network, May 17th, 2016.

# # # #

About Thierry Meyssan:

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie andPentagate.

This article was published on the Voltaire Network and is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND.

MSM-propaganda-2015TND Guest Contributor:  Thierry Meyssan

Propaganda is a military technique which should be distinguished from strategic subterfuge. The former seeks to trick one’s own side, generally in order to garner support. The latter, whose antique archetype is the Trojan horse, aims to damage the adversary. As is often the case, this military technique has known many civil applications, in the commercial as well as the political sector.

While at first, the monarchic and oligarchic régimes were satisfied with making a display of their power, particularly through ceremonials and public architecture, the democratic régimes, as soon as they appeared, incited propaganda. Thus, the Athenian democracy favoured Sophism, in other words, a school of thought which attempted to present any presupposition as logical.

In the 16th century, a commercial family, the Medicis, imagined a way of re-writing its history and inventing a patrician origin for itself. To do so, it used «artistic patronage», soliciting the greatest artists of their country to materialise these lies through their works.

Later on, while religious wars were becoming generalised in Europe, Pope Gregory XV, facing the breakthrough of Protestantism, created a Ministry («dicastery») to defend and extend the Catholic faith. This was the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith («Congregatio de Propaganda Fide»), which is the origin of the word « propaganda ».

In January 2015, following the assassination of the cartoonists from Charlie-Hebdo, an administrator of Reporters Sans Frontières, Joachim Roncin, launched the slogan «Je suis Charlie». It was immediately adopted as a means for the individual to melt into the crowd, and then used at the occasion of every terrorist attack (for example, «Je suis Bruxelles» after the attacks of March 2016). Individuals who refused to adopt the slogan were accused of deviance and «conspiracism».

In January 2015, following the assassination of the cartoonists from Charlie-Hebdo, an administrator of Reporters Sans Frontières, Joachim Roncin, launched the slogan «Je suis Charlie». It was immediately adopted as a means for the individual to melt into the crowd, and then used at the occasion of every terrorist attack (for example, «Je suis Bruxelles» after the attacks of March 2016). Individuals who refused to adopt the slogan were accused of deviance and «conspiracism».

Propaganda in the industrial era

The industrial era provoked a massive rural exodus, the creation of vast urban groupings and the pooling of the working class. While the «masses» entered politics, the French sociologist Gustave Le Bon studied the psychology of «crowds», in other words, the infantilisation of the individual as part of a large group. By doing so, he identified the basic principle of modern propaganda – in order to be manipulable, the individual must first be submerged in the crowd.

At the beginning of the First World War, in September 1914, the British secretly created the Bureau of War Propaganda («Wellington House») as a branch of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Re-adopting the model of the Medicis, they recruited the great writers of the time – such as Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells or Rudyard Kipling – to publish texts attributing imaginary crimes to the German enemy, and also painters,who would render them in the form of images. They then also recruited the heads of the main daily newspapers – The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Chronicle – to ensure that these dailies would publicise their falsifications.

191773-3-5-3d1b2This model was then used by President Woodrow Wilson, who created, in April 1917, the Committee on Public Information. This organisation is famous for having employed thousands of local leaders to spread the government gospel (the «Four Minute Men»). It developed visual propaganda by forming a departement dedicated to the creation of posters, which produced in particular the famous «I want you !» image. Another group also attempted to produce films. Above all, instead of recruiting famous writers, it gathered a group of psychologists and journalists around Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s nephew) and Walter Lippmann – the group was charged with inventing extraordinary, terrible and edifying stories on a daily basis, which they would then publish with the collaboration of the Press moguls. In this way, the orientation given by Power to artists was replaced by «storytelling», fabricated systematically according to scientific rules.

Having directed US propaganda during the First World War, Walter Lippmann had convinced himself that people are largely manipulable. For him, democracy was thus impossible unless it was considered to be a deception aimed at fabricating public consent.

Having directed US propaganda during the First World War, Walter Lippmann had convinced himself that people are largely manipulable. For him, democracy was thus impossible unless it was considered to be a deception aimed at fabricating public consent.

While the Anglo-Saxons aimed only at striking the imagination and making adhesion to the war a popular trend, the Germans were experimenting with the means of forcing people to participate in the imaginary stories they were being told. They made a wide-spread use of uniforms, which enabled the individual to play a role, and organised grandiose spectacles – political and sporting events – which presented the opinion of the majority. This was without doubt the moment when «modern propaganda» was invented – in other words, the dissemination of beliefs which could not be criticised, and which could not be doubted. The individual who had participated in a black uniform marching in torch-light parades could no longer question his Nazi beliefs without questioning himself and having to rethink his past and his vision of the future. Joseph Goebbels instituted a daily briefing at the Ministry of Information during which he defined the «elements of language» that the journalists were ordered to use. It was not simply a question of convincing people, but modifying the crowds’ references. In addition, the Germans were the first to master the new means of communication, radio and the cinema. Thus they invited themselves into peoples’ homes by installing television.

Goebbels considered the art of propaganda as a combat against individuality. He underlined the importance of repetition and «brainwashing» to overcome intellectual resistance. This was even more important in that the use of television brought the crowd to the individual.

At the end of the Second World War, the UN General Assembly, under the insistence of the USSR and France, adopted a series of resolutions (n° 110 [1], 381 [2] and 819 [3]) which forbade propaganda, and guaranteed the access to contradictory information. Each member state wrote these principles into their own national law. But in general, legal proceedings against propaganda can only be initiated by the public Ministry, in other words, the state, while propaganda is first of all practiced by the state. So nothing changed.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviets were rivals in matters of propaganda. Contrary to a widely-accepted idea, the USSR made few innovations, except in matters of the re-writing of History. By retouching official photographs, they wiped out one current of thought or another and «disappeared» the leaders who represented them. As for the United States, they developed radio broadcasts aimed at the Soviets (Radio Free Europe), and others aimed at the Allies (Hollywood). At the same time, they innovated by creating pemanent organisations and «think-tanks» – allegedly private and scientific – charged with the a posteriori justification of public policy. As their name indicates, the purpose of these groups is not to study and offer propositions, as university teachers do, but to test the arguments in the Sophist sense of the term.

More interestingly, when faced with nationalist insurrections in the Third World, the US Army employed propaganda techniques to intimidate the Communist rebels and maintain the neo-colonial régimes. Until then, psychological warfare had worked to make the enemy believe that they could not trust their leaders, and should accept defeat as inevitable. For example, in the Philippines, General Edward Lansdale invented and staged a mythological monster which haunted the forest and devoured human beings. In this way, he discouraged the population from going to the help of resistants who were hiding in the forest.

Propaganda in the satellite and digital age

Three phenomena have been combined over the last twenty-five years – the entertainment industry, satellites, and the arrival of digital technology.

1- The entertainment industry

Since television is a spectacle, propaganda first of all supposes the organisation of spectacular events.

For example, in order to present the reunification of Kuwait and Iraq as a war of aggression (1990), the US Department of Defense employed a public-relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who produced the interview of an alleged nurse. She claimed that she had seen Iraqi soldiers steal the incubators from a Kuwaiti maternity hospital, leaving 312 babies to die.

In 1999, propaganda was pushed even further – NATO organised a gigantic event for the Press agencies to film and immediately impose their scripted interpretation. In three days, 290,000 Albanophones migrated to Macedonia. The resulting images made it possible to present the repression of UÇK terrorism as a plan for the extermination of Muslims («Operation Horshoe»), an invention by the German Minister for Defence, Rudolf Scharping, and thus to justify the war in Kosovo.

Even bigger – in 2001, two planes hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, which then collapsed. Other inexplicable events surround these events – a fire ravaged the offices of the Vice-President, two explosions occurred at the Pentagon, and a third building collapsed in New York. The incoherencies in the narration of these events was used to disarm all questioning, while the authorities hid behind the contradictions, which were attributable to live coverage. For several days, television channels broadcast over and over again the images of two planes hitting the two towers, and nothing else, until the critical capacities of their audience were exhausted. In shock, Congress voted the permanent state of emergency (Patriot Act) and a series of wars was then launched.

Manipulation achieves perfection when it hammers home its message, invites spectators to accept it, then reveals that they are being tricked and forces them to follow what they now know to be a lie.

So, in 2003, the world watched Iraqis destroy a statue of Saddam Hussein. President George W. Bush commented live that the sight of a demonstrator hitting the feet of the statue with a sledge-hammer reminded him of similar images during the fall of the Berlin Wall. The message was that the fall of President Saddam Hussein was a liberation. We then discovered a wider shot of the square, which was barricaded by the US Army, and saw that the demonstrators were in reality just a small group of actors. Then the commentators continued as if nothing had changed [4].

2- Satellites

In 1989, using new communication satellites, the US Army transformed a local TV channel in Atlanta into the first international «24-hour news network». The point was to use live coverage to guarantee the veracity of the images, since there there was no time to fake them. In reality, live coverage does not allow such images to be studied or checked [5].

CNN passed off the attempted coup d’état by ex-Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang in China as a popular revolt which was murderously repressed on Tienanmen Square [6]. It glorified the «Velvet Revolution» in the Czech Republic by pretending that the police had killed a demonstrator. It validated the discovery of the mass grave at Timisoara, in reality corpses which had been taken from a mortuary and presented as having been killed by the police during demonstrations, or else as victims of torture, in order to justify the coup d’état by Ion Iliescu against the Caucescus. Etc.

On the same principle, in 2005, the Emirate of Qatar took over the Arabo-Israeli dialogue channel Al-Jazeera and transformed it into a loud-speaker for the Muslim Brotherhood [7]. In 2011, it played a central rôle in the «Arab Spring» operations. But its audience followed the same curve as the audience of CNN – after having enjoyed a resounding success with its imaginary scoops, it lost most of its audience when its lies were discovered.

The principle of radios destined for foreign parts was improved by Radio Marti, which the CIA broadcast from airborne AWACS off the coast of Cuba. In 2012, a vast project was organised to disconnect Syrian TV channels from their satellite and replace them with fake programmes which were to announce the fall of the régime and the flight of its leaders. This was prepared by the use of synthetic images showing the flight of President Bachar el-Assad [8]. But seeing the reactions of Syria and Russia, the operation was cancelled, although a signal from an NSA base in Australia had already replaced that of Syrian TV on ArabSat.

3- Digital

During the same period, the progress of digital techniques, in particular the wide-spread use of computers and the Internet, caused a resurgence of the role of individuals, but without dispersing the crowd phenomenon.

In 2007, the CIA sent anonymous SMS messages to the areas inhabited by the Luos in Kenya, accusing the Kikuyus of having falsified the Presidential election. The Luos widely distributed the messages, and this led to riots. More than a thousand people were killed, and 300,000 displaced. Finally, the «ONG’s» offered to mediate, and then imposed Raila Odinga in power [9].

The same year, the CIA tested the credibility of anonymous videos filmed by portable telephones. These narrow angle sequences do not permit the visualisation of their context, and their uncertain origin makes it imossible to know where they were filmed. And yet the videos showing monks setting themselves on fire, or scenes of military repression during the «Saffron Revolution» in Myanmar were held to be authentic. They were broadcast by television channels and were seen around the world.

The coalition of lies

Propaganda techniques have not evolved over the last few years. But they have been reinforced by the creation of a coalition of lies. Until now, each state managed its own campaign, but during the war against Iraq, in 2002, coordination was set up between the Ministries for Defense of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israël, then extended to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. This coalition tried first of all to manipulate the UN inspectors in Iraq into believing in the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Then, since it failed, it set about intoxicating the international media [10].

In 2011, it was this coalition which filmed, in an open-air studio in Qatar, the images of the arrival of the rebels on Martyrs’ Square in Tripoli. Broadcast at first by the British channel Sky News, they were sufficient to make the Libyans believe that the battle was over, when in fact it was just beginning. As a result, NATO was able to take the city without notable losses (but 40,000 dead Libyans). Saïf al-Islam Kadhafi was obliged to go down to the Square and allow himself to be applauded by his followers in order to contradict the images which had been falsely filmed there the night before by Sky.

This coalition of lies got started during the war against Syria, which was started with the participation of 120 states and 16 international organisations – the greatest coalition in History.

In October 2011, NATO set up a show village, Jabal al-Zouia, in the North of the country. One after another, Western journalists were taken there by the public relations service of the Turkish Prime Minister. There they apparently witnessed the Free Syrian Army supported by the population. However, the operation ended when a Spanish journalist recognised the heads of this Free «Syrian» Army – the leaders of al-Qaïda in Libya, Abdelhakim Belhaj and Mahdi al-Harati [11]. But no matter, the image told the story that there really existed a vast army composed of defectors, ex-soldiers of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In 2012, for the space of a month, the world was shown Baba Amr’s revolutionaries, beseiged and bombarded by the army of the régime [12]. In reality, although the area was indeed beseiged, it had not been bombarded, because 72 Syrian soldiers were themselves surrounded in a supermarket. The jihadists blew up the houses of Christians in order to cause damage that they would blame on the Syrian Arab Republic. Tyres were burned on the rooftops so that witnesse would see the plumes of thick black smoke. France24 and Al-Jazeera paid «citizen journalists», as on-site correspondants, who witnessed a Revolutionary Tribunal. The bodies of 150 martyrs, whom the Tribunal had condemned to have their throats cut in public, were displayed on-screen as the victims of the alleged bombing [13]. On site, a celebrated Franco-Israeli-US writer, Jonathan Littell, declared that the «revolution» was a beautiful thing. At last there were images and a witness testimonial to the «cruelty of the régime».

In 2013, the United Kingdom created InCoStrat, a communications company in the service of the jihadist groups. It designed logos, made video clips by portable telephone, and printed brochures for a hundred of these groups, thus giving the impression of a popular uprising against the Republic. For example, together with the SAS, it made a spectacle of the most important group, Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam). Saudi Arabia supplied the tanks which were delivered from Jordan. Uniforms were made in Spain and distributed to the jihadists for an officer promotion ceremony. All this was choerographed and filmed by professionals in order to give the impression that the army was organised like regular forces and was capable of rivaling with the Syrian Arab Army [14]. The idea was planted that this really was a civil war, and yet the images only showed a few hundred extras, most of whom were foreigners.


[1] « Mesures à prendre contre la propagande en faveur d’une nouvelle guerre et contre ceux qui y incitent », Réseau Voltaire, 3 novembre 1947.

[2] « Condamnation de la propagande contre la paix », Réseau Voltaire, 17 novembre 1950.

[3] « Renforcement de la paix par la suppression des obstacles au libre échange des informations et des idées », Réseau Voltaire, 14 décembre 1954.

[4] « La chute de statue de Saddam Hussein », par Jean-Sébastien Farez,Réseau Voltaire, 15 avril 2003.

[5] « L’effet CNN », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 19 mai 2003.

[6] “Tienanmen 20 anni dopo”, Domenico Losurdo, Rete Voltaire, 9 giugno 2009.

[7] “Wadah Khanfar, Al-Jazeera and the triumph of televised propaganda”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 26th September 2011.

[8] “NATO preparing vast disinformation campaign”, by Thierry Meyssan,Komsomolskaïa Pravda (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 11 June 2012.

[9] “Behind the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 19th October 2009.

[10] « Un réseau militaire d’intoxication », Réseau Voltaire, 8 décembre 2003.

[11] «Islamistas libios se desplazan a Siria para “ayudar” a la revolución», por Daniel Iriarte, ABC (España), Red Voltaire , 19 de diciembre de 2011.

[12] “The journalist-combatants of Baba Amr”, by Thierry Meyssan,Voltaire Network, 4 March 2012.

[13] “The Burial Brigade of Homs: An Executioner for Syria’s Rebels Tells His Story”, Ulrike Putz, Der Spiegel, March 29th, 2012.

[14] « Comment le Royaume-Uni met en scène les jihadistes », Réseau Voltaire, 13 mai 2016.

# # # #

About Thierry Meyssan:

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie andPentagate.

This article was published on the Voltaire Network and is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND.

mattisTND Editor’s Note:  Meyssan postulates an interesting theory about establishment forces positioning General Mattis as a replacement for Trump.  He offers little by way of substantiating his theory.  Make of it what you will.  But Meyssan’s writing always makes for interesting reading. – Eric Dubin

# # # #

“Mattis versus Trump”

TND Guest Contributor: Thierry Meyssan 

The United States primaries, which are intended to be the preparation for a confrontation between the Republicans and the Democrats, have progressively deviated to become a contest for the control of the Republican Party.

While on the side of the Democrats, the duel between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may be resumed as experience in the service of the rich against idealism in the service of the greatest number, all attention is now focused on the combat opposing Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination.

Cruz is a pure product of a private military «psychological operations» agency. In terms of foreign relations policy, he has gathered a team composed of people who were trained during the Cold War around senator Henry Scoop Jackson, and who remain hysterically anti-Soviet. He has taken position against any form of legal limitation of US power, and thus against the very principle of international law.

Until last week, we did not know Donald Trump’s position on this matter. At best, we had noted his contradictory remarks on the question of Israël. He has strongly criticised the pro-Israëli prejudice of successive administrations, declared that he is neutral concerning the Israëli-Palestinian conflict, and then went and made an ultra-Zionist profession of faith before the AIPAC.

Finally, Trump was invited last week by the The National Interest to give his first speech on foreign policy. This magazine is published by the Nixon Center, a group of survivors from Henry Kissinger’s old team. To everyone’s surprise – but probably not that of the organisaters – «the Donald» did not have anything to say about his position on various subjects, aimed at satisfying one lobby or another, but instead delivered an analysis of US policy and describing its total overhaul.

According to Trump, it was fundamental error to have attempted to export by force the Western democratic model to people who had no interest in it. He delivered a criticism of neo-conservative ideology, which has held power since the coup d’etat of September 11th 2001. Now we understand why the event was organised by the friends of Henry Kissinger, partisans of political «realism » (realpolitik) and scape-goats of the neo-conservatives.

After having denounced the gigantic human and economic waste of the neo-conservative policy, for the countries concerned as well as for the United States themselves, he continued with an indirect attack on the «military-industrial complex», blaming the general excess of weapons in the world. There was no mistake – for the first time since the assassination of John Kennedy, a presidential candidate was denouncing the omnipotence of the arms manufacturers, who have eaten up almost all of US industry.

It may seem surprising to make such an attack before the friends of Henry Kissinger, who have contributed more than others to the development of this complex. However, recent US history can explain this turnaround. All those who have fought the military-industrial complex have been gagged or eliminated – John Kennedy was assassinated when he opposed the war against Cuba; Richard Nixon was eliminated by the Watergate affair when he made peace with Vietnam and led the détente with China; Bill Clinton was paralysed by the Lewinsky affair when he attempted to oppose rearmement and the war in Kosovo.

With a certain sense of provocation, Donald Trump placed his project for a new foreign policy under the slogan «America First», by reference to the association of the same name which existed before the Second World War. This group remains in peoples’ memories as a Nazi lobby which attempted to prevent the «Land of Freedom» from going to the help of the British, who were under attack by the perpetrators of the anti-Jewish genocide. In reality, «America First», which was indeed diverted from its mission by the US extreme right, was originally a huge association created by the Quakers, and denounced the World War as a confrontation between imperialist powers, and consequently refused to take part.

And so the adversaries of Donald Trump are presenting him in a false light. He is absolutely not an isolationist like Ron Paul, but a genuine realist.

Donald Trump was not a politician until now, but a real estate promoter, a businessman and a television presenter. This absence of a political past allows him to envisage the future from an entirely new angle, without being bound by any previous engagement. He is a dealmaker, the sort that Europe met in Bernard Tapie in France and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Two men not without fault, but who renovated the exercise of power in their own countries by shaking up the ruling classes.

To block Donald Trump, the Republican Party organised an alliance between Ted Cruz and the last candidate in the running, the ex-television presenter John Kasich. Both of them have agreed to give up the Presidency and to work together to prevent Trump from obtaining the abolute majority of the Convention delegates. In this way, the Party would be able to propose a new candidate, as yet unknown to the public, during their Convention.

Confidential opinion polls have already been organised, funds collected, and a campaign team has been built around General James Mattis, a man who swears – cross my heart – that he has no plans for a political career. However, quite clearly, the ex-Director of CentCom would be happy to assume the role of a new Einsehower. Indeed, in 1952, the winner of the Second World War did not take part in the primaries because he was still commander of the Forces in Europe. He slipped into the competition almost at the end, and was massively nominated by the Republican Party Convention as their representative.

General Mattis is reputed to be an intellectual. He has collected a vast and celebrated private library on military strategy, but seems to be interested in History only from this perspective. Today a researcher at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University), he came to Washington to consult, and gave a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This think-tank, traditionally close to the oil industry, is today mainly financed by Saudi Arabia.

After having predicted a «horrible» future for the Near East, the «warrior monk» (according to the nickname given to him by his subordinates) concentrated on denouncing the peril of the Iranian Revolution, and calling for war against Iran. By doing so, he took over the programme that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had been obliged to give up when faced with the objections of the other Generals.

De facto, the confrontation which is looming opposes the partisans of Henry Kissinger’s realpolitik – who are attached to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia, in other words an international order founded on the Nation-states – and the partisans of the neo-conservative ideal of global democratisation, in other words the destruction of national identities and the imposition of a régime of universal governance. In a word, it’s the vision of Richard Nixon against that of the putchists of the 11th September.

Keep in mind:

  • Donald Trump, candidate for the US Presidency, wants to limit the power of the military-industrial complex. He is taking up the colours of John Kennedy (assassinated), Richard Nixon (Watergate) and Bill Clinton (Lewinsky).
  • According to Trump, it is unhealthy for the United States and for foreigners to attempt to export by force the Western Democratic model, which does not correspond to their aspirations.
  • The military-industrial complex is preparing the candidacy of General James Mattis, and a war against the Iranian Revolution.

# # # #

About Thierry Meyssan:

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie andPentagate.

This article was published on the Voltaire Network and is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND.

Lebanon (1)

TND Guest Contributor: Ghassan Kadi

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has finally had it its way. A meeting held last month of GCC and other Arab Foreign Ministers has condemned Iran for the attack on the Saudi Embassy incident, and the Lebanese Foreign Minister Basil; from the 8th of March Coalition pro-Hezbollah camp, abstained from voting. As a result, Lebanon was punished by Saudi Arabia as the latter decided to renege on the $4bn aid promise to the Lebanese Army and Internal Security.

And then just a few weeks later, the Arab Interior Ministers convened in Tunis and declared Lebanon’s Hezbollah a terror organization (Notes: 1, 2). Lebanon’s Interior Minister Mashnouk, a 14th of March Hariri man, also abstained from voting.

The debauched Saudi royals, the same lazy criminals who die from obesity and self-inflicted diabetes whilst they are starving and bombing Yemen, the same people who poured billions upon billions of dollars to kill Syrians in an attempt to create an Islamic state in lieu of its secular government, that scourge of a family that rules with an iron fist wreaking havoc and creating wars between Arabs and Muslims and never once fired a single bullet at Israel, they actually had the audacity to call the shots and had Hezbollah declared as a terrorist organization. Strange days indeed.

What is of significance here is the almost utter silence about this development in Western media. Try to Google this milestone event using any key words, and you will not find any references in the well-established highly-read mainstream Western news agencies. Interesting indeed.

What is even more interesting here as an observer is that quite often Western media go abuzz with what they believe is taking the Arab World by storm, but in reality, no one in the Arab World would be talking about it or least concerned.

The issues of Saudi military land intervention in Syria and their alleged ownership of nuclear weapons for example, are hardly ever discussed in the Levant and the whole Middle East. They are seen as some kind of bad-taste jokes. Such topics seem to only make news headlines in the West.

Back to the Tunis decision. The Arab states that did not vote in favour of the motion are Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria and Iraq. I wonder if the readers are missing something here….Palestine, as represented by Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (PA), has in fact voted for declaring Hezbollah as a terror organization.

Whilst Hamas is not acknowledged as a representative of the Palestinian people, Ismail Haniyye, who is entirely in Qatar’s pocket, would probably also vote in favour had he been asked to vote. Mahmoud Zahhar, a prominent Hamas leader, has however condemned the decision. This is not surprising given that Zahar went against his rank when Hamas leaders went cahoots with Qatar against Syria. Zahhar had always been the voice of reason in Hamas. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and the PFLP General Command have also condemned the decision, but Mahmoud Abbas is quite silent. He is probably feeling too sheepish to make any comments. Even if his heart is with Hezbollah, he cannot go against the Saudi dictates.

The Palestinian position is not taking keen observers by surprise. After all, earlier on, Hezbollah pioneered the tunnel technology and passed on the information to Hamas leaders in order to help with their fight against the Israelis in Gaza. When the “War On Syria” started and Hamas decided to align itself with Qatar against Syria and her people, Hamas passed on this technology to the terrorists. All the tunnels around greater Damascus, and especially in the Jobar region, were built by technology and information that was passed on to the terrorists by Hamas. So for Hamas a would-be vote against Hezbollah is not impossible to imagine.

Hezbollah is receiving quite a bit of support from progressive Arab parties, especially, and whilst its officials made quite a few verbal responses to the Saudis, it seems that Hezbollah is not trying to escalate the situation with the PA. In an Arabic article published on Al-Manar of the 3rd of March 2016 (3) and titled: “The Palestinian Authority And The “Terrorist” Decision Against Hezbollah), the author (Islam Al-Rawashda) opens his article by saying that it is not surprising to see the Saudis go after Hezbollah. In his next paragraph however, he is questioning how did the PA allow itself to join the “gang” and endorsed the decision against Hezbollah. Isn’t Hezbollah engaged in fighting Israel? Did it not liberate Arab land from occupation? Does is not support Palestine? These are the kind of questions he asked. But the official Hezbollah spokespeople seem to unwilling to engage in making anti-PA statements. Clearly, they don’t want to give their adversaries more ammunition and do not want to be seen standing against Palestinians; not even their corrupt pro-Saudi authority.

The schism inside the Arab World is reaching unprecedented levels. The pro-Western camp represented by Saudi Arabia and its followers has stooped to levels previously seen as unimaginable.

Even as Saudi Arabia is down on its knees financially, bogged down in a war it cannot win in Yemen and losing all control over the “War On Syria”, it still has a few billions stashed here and there to draw from and use to continue to buy friends.

And whilst it continues to spend billions on its terror campaigns and on destabilizing the region, whilst it is supporting all the fundamentalist Madrasas all over the globe, it withheld its promised gift to the Lebanese Army under the pretext that the Lebanese Government and Lebanese Army have become tools in the hand of Hezbollah and Iran.

As the Arab Saudi camp is becoming more audacious, audacious enough for the PA to vote against Hezbollah; the only army that disturbs Israel’s security, the only Arab organization that has taken back land from Israel militarily, the only Arab army that has actually threatened the depth of Israel, then no one should expect any good from other Arab pro-Saudi states that are distant geographically from Palestine. If the Palestinians themselves do not know who their enemies and friends are in standing up against Israel, why should the Moroccans?

And if the Palestinian people did not like what their government has done, why did they not take to the streets in protest? There are some reports of minor dissent, but nothing serious.

There is one word to describe the Palestinian reaction, and the word is “disgusting”, but in this literary context, I shall stick to the word “appalling”.

If we wind the clock back a bit, just a few years earlier, we can clearly remember how both the PA and Hamas have sided against the Syrian government. Here we ought to remember that had it not been for the Syrian government and its support to the different Palestinian organizations in the 1970’s onwards, they would have vanished. After all, the official Hamas HQ was actually in Damascus for many years, and it was in Syria where Khaled Mashaal operated until he moved to the Five Star Hotels of Qatar and Istanbul.

Palestinians have a great cause, but for a major part, their leaders have been nothing but rascals, ungrateful rascals. And how can we forget what happened to Lebanon?

It was because virtually half of the Lebanese have supported the Palestinian cause that the already existing political/religious division in Lebanon expanded and took the country to Civil War in 1975. The Palestinians played a huge part in pouring oil over fire, and their only objectives were what they could get out of it, and did not give a damn about the destruction that was inflicted upon Lebanon as a result.

And the whole breakdown between Arafat and Assad father in 1976 onwards was based on Arafat’s insistence on the so-called “Palestinian Decision”. Assad tried in vain to convince him that the Arab-Israeli conflict is much bigger than what the Palestinians can handle. He tried to convince him that this matter is as important for Syria as it is for Palestine. He reminded him that Palestine is the southern region of Syria, but to no avail. Arafat wanted to be the master of his decisions even if this screwed up the entire Arab World around him.

Half a century or so later, Palestinian leaders are not so much as dogmatic and indoctrinated as Arafat was. They are simply up for sale. The PA leaders have grown to love Saudi and other oil money, and Hamas leaders are up for sale and rent by any Sunni Muslim money. There is no difference between the two.

But as the Arab Saudi camp continues to stoop lower and lower, the resistance camp is growing more organized, more powerful, more successful and closer to victory.

Which day in history has marked the biggest day of shame for the Arabs? Arguably, it has always been said that Arab states reached their lowest point in history on June the 5th 1967 during the Six-Days War. The 3rd of March 2016 decree of the Arab interior ministers in Tunis is by far a much lower point, and one wonders if they are poised to stoop even lower. Shame on them.



2. \


This work was published at and is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (