Skip to main content

Jo Cox, her assassination, the White Helmets, “humanitarianism,” and regime change

It is no coincidence that some of the world’s most ardent imperialists are behind the cynical exploitation of one heinous murder — of British MP Jo Cox — to enable global mass-murder as well as human trafficking under the pretext of “ethical” and “humanitarian” intervention.

by Vanessa Beeley and Whitney Webb

Part 2 - Who was Jo Cox?

Prior to her untimely and tragic death, Jo Cox was a “tireless advocate” for the Syrian opposition following the 2011 outbreak of the Syrian conflict, even going so far as to promote Western military intervention to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, Cox consistently called for the U.K. to unilaterally establish a “no fly zone” in Syria with U.S. support and argued that the U.K. military could achieve an “ethical solution” to the Syrian conflict by intervening in the war in order to “compel” the Syrian government to negotiate.

Cox was deeply connected to the Fabian Society, the claimed representative of “modern Labour” in the U.K. This society has certainly furthered U.K. imperialist politics, which included the “patriotic funding of war machines,” according to author Dr. P. Wilkinson, who analyzed the impact of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader in 2015 upon the Blairite factions within the party. While the Fabian Society can lay claim to some good work on child poverty, as an example, more recently it has been instrumental in the expansion of Global Britain’s economic and military interests.

In pursuit of U.K./NATO military intervention, Cox vocally denounced Assad and — throughout her short career in Parliament — had maintained that the Syrian president had “helped nurture ISIS [Daesh] and been its main recruiting sergeant.” She had also asserted that the Syrian government had killed seven times more civilians than the infamous terror group and the hundreds of other militant, extremist groups and foreign mercenaries in Syria at the behest of their backers among NATO member states and Gulf States with Israel as their hospital wing, treating armed militants, including Nusra Front in Israeli medical centres.

Cox’s precarious positioning of facts upon a mountain of misleading information has been discredited over time, as the Syrian Arab Army and its allies have waged a successful and authentic “war on terror” inside Syria and on its borders. All such wild accusations and Coxian theories have been eroded with each liberation of occupied Syrian territory and reintegration of armed militants into Syrian society via the Russian-brokered Amnesty and Reconciliation agreements.

Cox failed to pinpoint the U.K. Government’s involvement in the bankrolling of the various extremist and terrorist factions that invaded Syria from 2011 onwards. Armed militants, who have committed all manner of atrocities against the Syrian people, Cox claimed to defend. Cox, like so many regime-change promoters, had never been to Syria. She relied upon the narratives emerging from Syria produced by the U.K. FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)-manufactured and financed White Helmets and a number of other U.K. state-funded entities on the ground in Syria. The U.K. Government was engineering a shadow state inside the borders of a sovereign nation and Cox supported this blatant violation of international law either deliberately or unwittingly.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Cox claimed that Syria was not another Iraq. This is a familiar mantra often repeated by those who support the regime change war in Syria and one that is verifiably false. It appears that Cox had never perused the Bush/Blair communications revealed in the Chilcot report that demonstrated the progression from Iraq to Iran and Syria in the U.K./U.S. drive towards hegemony in the region. Syria was in Bush’s crosshairs, as described in a TIME article, as far back as 2006 but this was overlooked by Cox. Tony Blair must have been proud of the efforts made by Cox to expand “Global Britain’s” interests inside Syria:


Above is a presentation slide showing just one of the Bush/Blair communiques as revealed by the Chilcot report. Blair suggests offering Syria and Iran a “chance at a different relationship,” one that would be soured by President Assad’s refusal to comply with the conditions of that “different relationship” — conditions included favoring the Qatar/Turkey oil pipeline preferred by the U.S. coalition. Assad said “no,” and he said “no” to abandoning his allies in the region or reneging on his commitment to the Palestinian cause. In 2002, Blair had even included an honorary knighthood in his early sweeteners to persuade Assad to embrace the “different relationship.” Blair soon changed tack when it was recognized that Syria would not abandon its principles so easily. Plan B, which was regime change, was put into effect.

Cox voted against the proposed bombing of Syria in 2015, not because she thought it was a bad idea but because she wanted David Cameron’s government to go further and send British troops into Syria to save the “moderates.”

In October 2015, Cox co-wrote an article with Andrew Mitchell, former Conservative Secretary of State for International Development (2010-12) and Libya war-hawk. The article was published in The Guardian, whose record on manufacturing consent for U.K. state “humanitarian” intervention is legendary. The title said it all – “British Forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria”.

Cox and Mitchell argued that Syria was this generation’s moral test, its “responsibility.” With little regard for the reality on the ground in Syria, Cox and Mitchell merged the threat of international terrorism with the perceived threat from the Syrian government and Syrian Arab Army. The Labour and Tory MPs laser-focused on the refugee “crisis.” No context was provided, only emotional humanitarian flag-waving that ignored the fact that the refugee crisis was actually caused by a far greater percentage of non-Syrian refugees driven from Libya, Central Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq by previous NATO “ethical interventions.” Cox and Mitchell erased the U.K. government’s criminal record under international law with customary virtue-signalling.

[T]here is nothing ethical about standing to one side when civilians are being murdered and maimed. There was no excuse in Bosnia, nor Rwanda and there isn’t now.

Like so many neocons, Cox fundamentally argued that the only pathway to peace was the removal of Assad and victory for the “rebels.” They gave little or no consideration to the reality that this would inevitably lead to the rise of violent sectarianism under an alleged “moderate” Islamist governance, which would plunge Syria into the same terrorist vacuum that Libya has been dealing with since NATO’s “ethical solution” reduced that prosperous sovereign nation down to a failed state.

Even after Cox’s untimely death, her colleagues insisted that her “legacy” should be Britain going to war in Syria. Just prior to her death, Cox had been working on a paper entitled “The Cost of Doing Nothing.” Posthumously this paper was completed by Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, ex-military chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, and Alison McGovern, a Blairite MP who was elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group “Friends of Syria,” founded and previously chaired by Jo Cox.

According to a report by journalist and academic Paul Dixon, “the report was due to be published on the day of the Chilcot inquiry on 6 July 2016, to counter growing British scepticism about foreign military interventions.” Tugendhat, in particular, had argued (in a 2015 paper entitled “Clearing the Fog of Law”) against the human-rights laws that, in his opinion, curtailed and restricted British military action, he argued that “judicial imperialism should urgently be reversed.

In an article written for the Telegraph, Tugendhat stated that “his friend” Jo Cox would “never want Britain to withdraw from the world — we must be ready to intervene.” A jingoistic argument was deployed by Tugendhat to justify British imperialism: “We wanted to show that Britain’s history of intervention, military and otherwise, is common to both our political traditions and has been an integral part of our foreign and national security policy for over two hundred years.

During her life, Cox had been an advocate of war to bring peace in Syria. Furthermore, as this article series will show, her monstrous murder has been weaponized and politicized by the neocon war hawks in British politics in order to further the imperialist ambitions of the U.K. government in Syria and beyond. Significant media coverage, for instance, has been given to Cox’s “compassion,” but little coverage has been given to her pro-interventionist policies — which she often promoted in apparent ignorance of reality and historical context. The use of the “humanitarian” pretext to promote war is hardly a new concept, but the sudden and shocking death of Jo Cox has been exploited in order to elevate it and shield it from honest criticism. Indeed, one could argue that to criticize Jo Cox posthumously is akin to questioning a “Saint.” Who could find fault with her campaign against “genocide,” her pleas for safe havens for refugees, her apolitical stance on the world’s “inhumanity?”

Nevertheless, despite the possibility of being labeled insensitive and cynical, the question that should be asked is who determines the meaning of the terms so liberally used by Cox and her colleagues? What are the implications of this humanitarian hyperbole for U.K. government policy? Indeed, in the past, misplaced or even misleading “compassion” has been used to encourage us not only to betray the principles of international law but also to justify the escalation of armed conflict that has brought only greater inhumanity.

In the case of Syria, such pro-interventionist “humanitarians” have largely promoted policies that have only deepened the suffering for the vast majority of Syrian people. What diplomatic efforts have been deployed? What rational, Syria-centric, political resolution has been proposed for discussion? What respect has there been for the self-determination of the Syrian people?

As an example, both Cox and the White Helmets were committed advocates of a No-Fly Zone over Syria — the White Helmets still are, of course. Despite the very real risk of escalating tensions with Russia, which intervened at the request of the Syrian government in September 2015, Cox argued strongly, in 2015, for a No-Fly Zone, defying even possible UN vetoes: “This is not about escalating a conflict directly to take on Russia. This is about a deterrence effect to stop the Syrian regime targeting their own civilians.

A “No-Fly Zone” is recognized by many acclaimed journalists and analysts as nothing less than a “declaration of war.” Even Hillary Clinton, neocon warhawk extraordinaire, conceded the certainty that a No-Fly Zone would kill more Syrian civilians: “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.

The precedent of Libya stands as a horrifying example of the death and destruction that is a consequence of such a policy, yet Cox was willing to endorse such wholesale devastation, which would inevitably affect more innocent lives in Syria and further fragment an already destabilized nation. Notably, she did so by promoting “humanitarianism,” despite the clearly inhuman consequences of such a policy.

Furthermore, Cox campaigned tirelessly for refugee rights. However, she did not highlight the British Government’s role in creating the refugee crisis in Syria by financing, promoting and equipping the “moderate” opposition that drove civilians from their homes and into refugee status. Neither did she highlight the British government’s role in NATO-member-state interventions that further exacerbated the refugee crisis in countries like Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Africa.

Beyond the conflict itself, Syrians have endured almost eight years of crippling economic sanctions, sanctions that were imposed by the U.K. and its allies in the U.S. regime-change coalition. As history has shown time and again, sanctions never damage a target government but instead wind up punishing the innocent people who resist any kind of foreign meddling in their sovereign affairs. These particular sanctions have decimated the Syrian state medical sector, by destroying hospitals and reducing the nation’s ability to treat its population for all manner of chronic illness and to counter the trauma of an externally waged war. Why did Jo Cox never argue that these sanctions should be lifted, if she truly cared for the plight of the Syrian people? Indeed, why were the solutions she supported largely policies that — in practice — would deepen and prolong the conflict, and why did she invoke the well-being of the Syrian people to promote them?

Source, links:


[1] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WikiLeaks paper confirms biggest fear of the US empire and the Wall Street mafia

The WIKILEAKS Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD) holds the world's largest searchable collection of United States confidential, or formerly confidential, diplomatic communications. As of April 8, 2013 it holds 2 million records comprising approximately 1 billion words. The collection covers US involvements in, and diplomatic or intelligence reporting on, every country on earth. It is the single most significant body of geopolitical material ever published. The PlusD collection, built and curated by WikiLeaks, is updated from a variety of sources, including leaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and documents released by the US State Department systematic declassification review. 
globinfo freexchange
A cable from July, 2007, depicts the anxiety of US officials about the potential capability of North Korea to produce hardly detectable US counterfeit currency.

There are numerous references about the effort of the US government to stop the production…

While Trump cuts food stamps, USAID bankrolls Venezuela regime change with half a billion in tax dollars

The Trump administration has spent $654 million in “aid” to try to overthrow Venezuela’s government, including $435 million through USAID and $128 million directly to Juan Guaidó and his corrupt coup gang — all while imposing crippling austerity at home.
by Ben Norton
Part 5 - Falsely accusing Venezuela of the hemisphere’s worst migrant crisis

In addition to directly participating in regime-change efforts and bankrolling right-wing opposition groups, USAID has helped to popularize demonstrably false talking points demonizing Venezuela, which have been breathlessly echoed by corporate media stenographers.

In its press statements announcing tens of millions of tax dollars in support for Venezuela’s right-wing coup regime, USAID has accused Venezuela of creating “the largest external displacement in the history of the Western Hemisphere.

Mainstream media outlets have frequently repeated this claim, citing the US regime-change organization without investigating its veracity.
It is impossib…

Εξωτερική πολιτική για κλάματα: το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς βάζει τη χώρα σε νέες περιπέτειες

globinfo freexchange

Πιστεύαμε ότι η κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα 'το είχε τερματίσει' όταν αποφάσισε (προφανώς μετά από έντονες Αμερικανικές πιέσεις) να προβεί στην ανήκουστη και απαράδεκτη ενέργεια να απελάσει τους τέσσερις Ρώσους διπλωμάτες. Το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς όμως φαίνεται ότι έχει κάνει νέο ρεκόρ πλήρους υποταγής στους Αμερικανούς ιμπεριαλιστές, δίνοντας το τελειωτικό χτύπημα στην ευελιξία της εξωτερικής πολιτικής που θα έπρεπε να έχει, έτσι και αλλιώς, κάθε σοβαρή και ανεξάρτητη χώρα. 
Όμως η δήλωση Μητσοτάκη απλώς επιβεβαίωσε ότι η νεοφιλελεύθερη Μητσοτακική δεξιά, η χειρότερη που γνώρισε η χώρα μεταπολιτευτικά, είναι απόλυτα υπόδουλη στα Αμερικανικά συμφέροντα. Και τελικά, πως η ίδια η χώρα, είναι ένα Δυτικό προτεκτοράτο και μια κανονική αποικία (και όχι απλά αποικία χρέους).
Ο χειρότερος Μητσοτάκης όλων των εποχών αποφάσισε να επισκεφτεί τον Ντόναλντ Τραμπ για να κάνει το πιστό του 'ρομποτάκι', δηλώνοντας ουσιαστικά ότι επικροτεί την εγκληματική ενέργεια - πέρα από κ…

Το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς βυθίζει τη χώρα στο χάος

globinfo freexchange
Αμέσως μόλις η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη ανέλαβε τα ηνία της χώρας, είχαμε προειδοποιήσει ότι, είτε με την ψήφο του, είτε με την αποχή του, ο "σοφός λαός" έδωσε το ελεύθερο στη χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης να σαρώσει σαν 'οδοστρωτήρας' τα πάντα στο πέρασμά της. Μετά από τέσσερα χρόνια νεοφιλελεύθερης λαίλαπας, το τοπίο καταστροφής θα έχει κάνει τη χώρα κυριολεκτικά αγνώριστη.
Δεν μπορούσαμε όμως να φανταστούμε ότι η Μητσοτακική δεξιά θα παρήγαγε τέτοιο χάος σε τόσο μικρό διάστημα. Κι όμως, θα έπρεπε να το είχαμε προβλέψει.  
Διότι ένα τέτοιο καθεστώς, που ουσιαστικά επιβλήθηκε με τη βοήθεια της μιντιακής χούντας μέσα από μια εικονική πραγματικότητα αδιάκοπης επικοινωνιακής προπαγάνδας, ήταν θέμα χρόνου να τα βρει σκούρα όταν θα προσγειώνονταν απότομα στον πραγματικό κόσμο. 
Και το προσφυγικό ζήτημα ήταν αυτό που κυρίως επίσπευσε την αποκάλυψη της απόλυτης ένδειας του καθεστώτος και την πλήρη ανικανότητά του να χειριστεί σχεδόν οποιοδήποτε πρόβ…

As Houthis close in on Al-Qaeda in Yemen, US drone strikes target its leaders

An escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes in Yemen has sparked anger from residents and tribal leaders. The drone strikes, according to the victims’ relatives, not only killed suspected members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) but also killed and injured a number of civilians. The recent escalation comes after the commander of the U.S Central Forces, Joseph Votel, handed ousted former Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi a list of al-Qaeda military commanders and their supporters being targeted by the United States, according to local news outlets close to Hadi.
Last week, a suspected C.I.A. drone targeted a home alleged to contain al-Qaeda leader Qassim al-Rimi in Marib Province, allegedly killing not only al-Rimi but some innocent civilians as well. By Washington’s standards, residents told MintPress, just because they were near the house, those civilians deserved to die alongside al-Qaeda. 
The drone strike took place in the al-Hazmah region in the eastern province…

Capitalist factions continue tough bargain in the beginning of the post-Brexit era

globinfo freexchange
Johnson's victory in the recent UK national election marked the definite "divorce" between the UK and the EU. Yet, the real "show" starts now as we begin to realize the toughness of the Brexit negotiations and the war between the capitalist factions, which is expected to become wilder. 
As we already mentioned, the pro-Brexit faction sees a potential Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn, also as a major threat. This is one of the few common views it has with the globalist faction. Now that the Corbyn "threat" has been removed, capitalist factions are free to focus on the war between them.
Johnson's big victory gives an additional advantage to the Brexiteers who are now seeking to impose their terms in this very tough bargain. 
In this merciless war, first signs show that Boris Johnson seeks a decisive strike at the heart of the globalist faction. That is, the financial sector and the City financial capital. Another decisive v…

Although liberal brains are still in a state of total denial, they start to accept that Bernie will probably win - eventually, they will get used to it

globinfo freexchange
Right after Jeremy Corbyn's heavy defeat in the recent UK national election, we warned that the corporate Democrats and the Clintonian establishment will seek to invest on this defeat in order to crush Sanders' momentum. Indeed, the US liberal media and their corporate stooges didn't waste time. Almost simultaneously, they launched one more anti-Sanders campaign based on Corbyn's defeat. 
As the Clintonian machine is still alive and strong, freshly-constructed narratives related to Corbyn's defeat have been added to the typical anti-Bernie campaigns by the machine's operators.


Yet, we also witness some level of weariness from the establishment in its effort to suppress and dissolve the progressive movement. As has been already mentioned, the establishment apparatus has come now to the point where it hesitates to try any new tricks against Bernie because it knows that may backfire further. 
And it's impressive that many liberals now i…

Bolivia: as elections near, US-backed interim gov’t mobilizes military, arrests opposition leaders

Wednesday, January 22 marks the day that Jeanine Añez is set to stand down as “interim” President of Bolivia, beginning the process for fresh elections set for May 3. Añez came to power in November, following a U.S.-backed coup that deposed the Movement to Socialism’s (MAS) Evo Morales. However, she is certainly not acting as if she intends to relinquish her power, let alone move towards new elections. Instead, she has sent the military, replete with tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, into the capital cities of all nine departments of the country.
MintPress News’ Ollie Vargas was on the scene in the center of the capital La Paz, where he filmed hundreds of armed soldiers performing drills outside the Cathedral of St. Francis and dozens of military vehicles circling the city, sirens on and guns drawn.

The purpose of that is to intimidate people ahead of possible protests against the coup on the 22nd of January…This was a show of force saying you are not going to be able to mar…

The DNC establishment looks desperate and ready to accept defeat in the civil war with Bernie and his progressive army

globinfo freexchange
It is no secret anymore. Various anchors, pundits and opinion writers in the corporate media admit that Bernie Sanders has gained a great momentum. Super PAC donors and their DNC proxies are out there in plain sight and full force to stop Bernie, right before the first critical battle in Iowa. Yet, all signs show that dirty tricks won't work this time.
The establishment apparatus exhibits an elevated panic as realizes that whatever it tries against Bernie not only doesn't work, but instead, sometimes backfires badly.
The most recent and perhaps loudest example, is an attack that has been orchestrated by CNN in co-ordination with the pseudo-progressive candidate, Elizabeth Warren, using the identity-politics weapon. This whole 'political drama' was so poorly directed - by a medium that has already lost its reliability - that it backfired very badly. Independent progressive media immediately recognized the dirty trick, as well as, people in social me…

Brazil’s far-right government backed terror plot against Venezuela, top newspaper reveals

Brazil’s extreme Bolsonaro government backed an attack on Venezuela in a plot to overthrow its elected president. The shocking terror operation has received no coverage in mainstream US media.
by Ben Norton
Part 2 - Trilogy: 3 planned attacks on Venezuela, with help from foreign countries
With the support of neighboring right-wing countries, Venezuelan military defectors planned to launch three military uprisings against the Venezuelan government on or around Christmas Eve, according to O Globo.

The official name of the operation was Trilogia (Trilogy). One attack targeted Venezuela’s Bolívar state on the southeastern border with Brazil; a second attack was planned as an amphibious invasion; and a third was to take place near Colombia’s border.

Two of these three planned attacks failed, as only one of the groups carried out the orders as planned.

Brazil-backed insurgents crossed into Venezuelan territory and, on December 22, attacked the 513 Selva Mariano Montilla infantry battalion in …