Category Archives: Terror

Boehner in Israel During Successful Missile Test

Posted on by

JERUSALEM (AP) – Israeli officials announced Wednesday that a joint U.S.-Israeli missile-defense system has successfully passed a new test and is expected to be operational next year – a development that would provide an important tool in protecting the country against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

The Defense Ministry said the David’s Sling system had successfully intercepted targets in a series of tests conducted with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, calling it a “major milestone.”

“We believe that next year it’s going to be operational,” Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon told journalists at an appearance with visiting U.S. House Speaker John Boehner. With Boehner nodding in agreement, Yaalon said the project was an example of strong U.S.-Israeli relations.

David’s Sling is meant to counter medium-range missiles possessed by enemies throughout the region, most notably Hezbollah. The militant group, which battled Israel during a monthlong war in 2006, is believed to possess tens of thousands of rockets and missiles. The system also aims to protect against low-altitude cruise missiles fired from longer distances.

David’s Sling is part of what Israel calls a “multi-layer” missile defense system that includes the Arrow, which is being developed to intercept longer-range missiles from Iran, and the Iron Dome rocket-defense system, which is already operational.

The test was announced as world powers were trying to wrap up a nuclear agreement with Iran. Israel has objected to the emerging agreement, saying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would remain intact. It also has said Iran’s continued development of long-range missiles is a sign of Iran’s bad intentions.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

David’s Sling is being developed by Israeli defense company Rafael with American defense giant Raytheon as sub-contractor. Israel Aerospace Industries’ Elta subsidiary and Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems are also involved in the project.

*** Meanwhile, it is important to understand what Saudi Arabia is doing

CAIRO — As America talks to Iran, Saudi Arabia is lashing out against it.
The kingdom, Iran’s chief regional rival, is leading airstrikes against an Iranian-backed faction in Yemen; backing a blitz in Idlib, Syria, by jihadists fighting the Iranian-backed Assad regime; and warning Washington not to allow the Iranian-backed militia to capture too much of Iraq during the fight to roll back the Islamic State, according to Arab diplomats familiar with the talks.
Through Egypt, a major beneficiary of Saudi aid, the kingdom is backing plans for a combined Arab military force to combat Iranian influence around the region. With another major aid recipient, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is also expected to step up its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, potentially setting off an arms race in the region.

All this comes just a few weeks after the death of King Abdullah and the passing of the throne to a new ruler, King Salman, who then installed his 34-year-old son Mohamed in the powerful dual roles of defense minister and chief of the royal court.
“Taking matters into our own hands is the name of the game today,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a veteran Saudi journalist and former adviser to the government. “A deal will open up the Saudi appetite and the Turkish appetite for more nuclear programs. But for the time being Saudi Arabia is moving ahead with its operations to pull the carpet out from underneath the Iranians in our region.”

With the approach of a self-imposed Tuesday night deadline for the framework of a nuclear deal between Iran and the Western powers, the talks themselves are already changing the dynamics of regional politics.

The proposed deal would trade relief from economic sanctions on Iran for insurance against the risk that Iran might rapidly develop a nuclear bomb. But many Arab analysts and diplomats say that security against the nuclear risk may come at the cost of worsening ongoing conflicts around the Middle East as Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Muslim allies push back against what they see as efforts by Shiite-led Iran to impose its influence — often on sectarian battle lines.

Unless Iran pulls back, “you will see more direct Arab responses and you will see a higher level of geopolitical tension in the whole region,” argued Nabil Fahmy, a veteran Egyptian diplomat and former foreign minister.

In Yemen, where a bombing campaign by a Saudi-led coalition killed dozens of civilians in an errant strike on a camp for displaced families, the Saudis accuse Iran of supporting the Houthi movement, which follows a form of Shiite Islam and recently came close to taking control of the country’s four largest cities. (Western diplomats say Iran has provided money to the group but does not control it.) In Bahrain, across a short causeway from Saudi Arabia, the kingdom and its allies accuse Iran of backing opposition from the Shiite majority against the Sunni monarchy.

And Iran has also cultivated clients in government in the great Arab capitals of Damascus, Baghdad and Beirut, the last through its proxy, Hezbollah.
Even if the proposed deal constrains Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Saudis and their allies note, the pact would do nothing to stop Iran from projecting its influence through such local proxies and conventional arms. Sanctions relief from the deal could even revive the Iranian economy with a flood of new oil revenues.

“The Americans seem nonchalant about this, like, ‘This is your sectarian problem, you deal with it,’ ” Mr. Khashoggi said. “So the Saudis went ahead with this Yemen operation.”

Watching Secretary of State John Kerry pursue a deal in Lausanne, Switzerland, many in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states say their ultimate fear is that the talks could lead to a broader détente or even alliance between Washington and Tehran.
Washington is already tacitly coordinating with Iran in its fight against ISIS in Iraq. As a result, the American-led military campaign is effectively strengthening the Iranian-backed government in Syria by weakening its most dangerous foe, Arab diplomats and analysts say.
So they wonder what else Mr. Kerry is talking about with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, “on those long walks together” in Lausanne, said Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center, in Qatar. “Is there something going on underneath the table?”
Easing the hostility between the United States and Iran would tear up what has been a bedrock principle of regional politics since the Iranian revolution and the storming of the American embassy in 1979. “But let’s not forget that we are still dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Mr. Shaikh said, reflecting the skeptical views of many in the Saudi Arabian camp.

“There is a disbelief in the Arab world that these negotiations are only about the nuclear file, and a frequent complaint here is that we are kept in the dark, we are not consulted,” said Gamal Abdel Gawad Soltan, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo. “The U.S. is much less trusted as an ally, as an insurance policy towards the security threats facing the governments in the region, and so those governments decide to act on their own.”
President Obama has argued that a verifiable deal is the best way to secure the Arab states because it is the most effective way to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear bomb. Even military action to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Obama administration argues, would set it back only temporarily.

To read the full summary from the NYT’s, go here.

 

Obama Used Bergdahl as a Pawn

Posted on by

Consider this timeline:

January 2009: Obama signs executive order calling for Gitmo to be shuttered within a year, while his national security team considers if the five Taliban leaders are safe for release.

2011: White House and State Department officials open secret talks with the Taliban in Germany and the Persian Gulf to discuss their release from Gitmo as part of “peace talks.”

Jan. 3, 2012: The Taliban announce they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations in exchange for the release of the Taliban commanders. (“The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday’s announcement,” according to “The Guardian.”)

April 2012: Working with the White House, Karzai sends delegation of Afghan government officials to Gitmo to interview the Taliban prisoners and secure their oath to cut ties with al-Qaida.

Many more details here.

The matter of Qatar, the Taliban and bin Ladin has a long history that continues to be exploited by the U.S. government. It is no wonder that the Taliban created a satellite office in Doha.

April, 7, 2011 Ambassador Elizabeth McKune sent a classified cable:

S E C R E T DOHA 001093

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/11
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations], PTER [Terrorists and Terrorism], AF [Afghanistan], PA [Paraguay], QA [Qatar]
SUBJECT: TALIBAN PROPOSAL FOR BIN LADEN ISLAMIC
TRIBUNAL

REF: A) STATE 61624  B) DOHA 888  C) DOHA 1036

CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR ELIZABETH MCKUNE FOR
REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D)

¶1.  (S) AMBASSADOR PRESENTED REF A DEMARCHE TO
FOREIGN MINISTER HAMAD BIN JASIM AL THANI (HBJ) ON
APRIL 7. SHORTLY AFTER AMBASSADOR BEGAN TALKING
POINTS, HBJ INTERRUPTED AND SAID “WE DON’T WANT A
TRIAL HERE OF BIN LADEN.  THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL
HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, UNLESS ALL COUNTRIES ARE IN
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE U.S.”  HE ADDED THAT WERE
THE TALIBAN TO APPROACH THE GOQ WITH SUCH A
PROPOSAL, THE GOQ WOULD AGREE TO STUDY IT BUT
PROMISE NOTHING.

¶2.  (C) HBJ CONFIRMED THAT A TALIBAN DELEGATION
WAS ARRIVING IN QATAR TODAY (APRIL 7).  THE
AMBASSADOR REMINDED HIM THAT THE US IS THE SINGLE
LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF HUMANITARIAN AID TO
AFGHANISTAN. SHE ASKED WHETHER MINISTER OF STATE
AL MAHMOUD HAD BRIEFED HIM ON HER PREVIOUS
DEMARCHES ON THE TALIBAN (REFS B AND D).  HBJ
RESPONDED, “YES.”

¶3.  (C) COMMENT: HBJ GRANTED THE MEETING WITH THE
AMBASSADOR WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE REQUEST.  HE WAS
CLEARLY PLEASED THAT A/S WALKER HAD CALLED.  WE
WILL GET A READ OUT ON THE TALIBAN’S VISIT WHEN IT
IS CONCLUDED.

The Taliban chose the 5 commanders they wanted back from Gitmo, Barack Obama did not choose them but did approve the request. Congress would never have approved, then it got twisted to throw in Bergdahl for the win by the White House.

The Taliban’s conditions:

Demands

The Taliban will enter discussions with an eye on winning a few confidence-building concessions, including the release of Taliban detainees held in prisons under the control of the Afghan government. The release of the “Taliban five” held by the United States at its Guantanamo facility will also come up.

The Taliban is also expected to ask for sanctions against its members to be eased. The United Nations’ Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions committee has blacklisted more than 100 people linked to the Taliban, subjecting them to travel bans and asset freezes. At the request of the Afghan government, the UN Security Council has delisted several dozen names as part of a move to encourage the group to hold peace talks with Kabul.

The Taliban will seek to get formal recognition from Washington as a legitimate political entity.

The Taliban is also expected to float more contentious and ambitious demands, such as changes to the Afghan Constitution and other concessions that would give them considerable influence over the country’s social and judicial affairs.

“The Taliban are likely to want significant influence in justice, anticorruption, education, and social affairs,” says Matt Waldman, an Afghanistan analyst based in London. “These are the most notable areas where the Taliban will seek influence, in particular justice [and rule of law.] Taliban leaders feel they are best equipped to deliver justice and administer justice in Afghanistan.”

 

Obama Advisor Pro Iran Lobby, Not Valerie

Posted on by

Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

The White House released a list of its high-ranking officials who took part in a video conference with President Obama late Tuesday. Among them appears Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who has formerly worked for the National Iranian-American Council.

The White House brief, which was disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National Iranian-American Council).

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 8.48.17 PM.png

Breitbart News has found that a person with the same name has previously written several publications on behalf of NIAC. According to what appears to be her LinkedIn account, Nowrouzzadeh became an analyst for the Department of Defense in 2005 before moving her way up to the National Security Council in 2014.
A NIAC profile from 2007 reveals that Sahar Nowrouzzadeh appears to be the same person as the one who is currently the NSC Director for Iran. The profiles indicate that she had the same double major and attended the same university (George Washington).

Critics have alleged that NIAC is a lobby for the current Iranian dictatorship under Ayatollah Khamenei. A dissident journalist revealed recently that NIAC’s president and founder, Trita Parsi, has maintained a years-long relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.

NIAC was established in 1999, when founder Trita Parsi attended a conference in Cyprus that was held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi reportedly laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to allegedly counteract the influence of America’s pro-Israel and anti-Tehran regime advocacy groups.

NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s brother.

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 2.22.52 PM.png

The possible revelations about the NSC Director’s apparent past with the alleged pro-regime group come as the U.S. has reportedly struck an agreement with Iran and the rest of the P5+1 world powers on Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.
***
So what else is not being addressed in the negotiations?
Experts: Iran Housing Nuke Materials in North Korea, Syria

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — A top State Department official on Monday dismissed reports that Iran may be hiding key nuclear-related assets in North Korea and implied that she was unaware of the possibility, despite the publication this weekend of several articles by top analysts expressing alarm at the extent of nuclear cooperation between Tehran and Pyongyang.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the State Department, dismissed as “bizarre” the reports, which described the transfer of enriched uranium and ballistic missile technology back and forth between the two rogue regimes.

The existence of an illicit Iranian nuclear infrastructure outside of the Islamic Republic’s borders would gut a nuclear deal that the administration has vowed to advance by Tuesday, according to these experts and others.

If Iran is not forced to disclose the full extent and nature of its outside nuclear work to the United States, there is virtually no avenue to guarantee that it is living up to its promises made in the negotiating room, according to multiple experts and sources in Europe apprised of the ongoing talks.

Gordon Chang, a North Korea expert who has written in recent days about Iran’s possible “secret program” there, described the State Department’s dismissal of these reports as naïve.

“Let me see if I get this straight: The country with the world’s most highly developed technical intelligence capabilities does not know what has been in open sources for years?” Chang said. “No wonder North Korea transfers nuclear weapons technology to Iran and others with impunity.”

“The North Koreans could go on CNN and say, ‘Hey, Secretary Kerry, we’re selling the bomb to Iran,’ and the State Department would still say they know nothing about it,” Chang said. “No wonder we’re in such trouble.”

Other Iranian experts specializing in the country’s military workings also have raised recent questions about Tehran’s collaboration with North Korea.

Ali Alfoneh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, both senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have revealed that a nuclear reactor destroyed in Syria in 2007 by Israel was likely a North Korean-backed Iranian project.

Gerecht told the Free Beacon in a follow-up interview that key issues regarding Iran’s past military work and outside collaboration are being ignored in the negotiating room as diplomats rush to secure a tentative deal by Tuesday night.

“It certainly appears that the administration has backed away from [previous military dimensions] questions,” Gerecht said. “The plan appears to be to let the [International Atomic Energy Agency] continue its so far fruitless effort to gain access to sensitive sites, personnel, and paperwork, but to keep these questions out of the talks.”

“The administration is doing this because it fears the Iranians would walk out,” he added. “Any military work revealed by the Iranians would prove the Supreme Leader and [President] Rouhani liars.

Despite concerns from countries such a France over the issue, the United States has attempted to accommodate Iran, Gerecht said.

“The White House wants to believe that monitoring of known sites will be sufficient. It’s a bit mystifying given the Iranian track record and the CIA’s longstanding inability to penetrate the nuclear-weapons program (it’s just too hard of a target to do this reliably),” he explained. “But since they fear a breakdown, they bend their credulity in Iran’s favor. This has been the story of the negotiations from the beginning.”

Alfoneh also told the Free Beacon that Iran should be pressed by the United States to disclose the full extent of its nuclear relationship with North Korea.

“I certainly think the Islamic Republic should come clean concerning its past record of nuclear activities: Did the Islamic Republic ever try to build a nuclear weapon? If not, how are we to understand the opaque references to Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation in the 1990s?” Alfoneh said.

“As long as the Islamic Republic does not provide a clear record of its nuclear activities in the 1980s and 1990s, and as long as we do not know the full scope of Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation, there is always the risk of the two states renewing that cooperation, which in turn would jeopardize any agreement the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 Group may reach,” he said.

Another potential complication includes the ability of international inspectors to discern the extent of Iran’s nuclear work in Syria.

“Syria’s current chaos makes it virtually impossible for inspectors to do their job even if the Syrians were compliant,” according to Emanuele Ottolenghi, a onetime advisor to foreign ministries in Europe.

There is no way to determine whether Syria is housing any other nuclear sites on behalf of the Iranian, according to Ottolenghi, another senior fellow at FDD.

“Syria has covered up its nuclear activities after the 2007 [Israeli Air Force] raid on Deir al-Azour,” he said. “After four years of inconclusive efforts, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] ended up deferring the issue to the [United Nations Security Council] after declaring Syria in non-compliance.”

On Iran, Reagan Delivered an Aggressive Response

Posted on by

Known as Operation Praying Mantis, President Reagan ordered an aggressive response to the Iranians. Given the capitulation today be the Obama administration, we have a reason to miss a real leader in the White House.

A Look Back at How U.S. Naval Forces Responded to Hostile Forces in the Arabian Gulf.

An engagement 25 years ago on April 14, 1988 sparked a determined and quick response four days later from the U.S., known as Operation Praying Mantis, which demonstrated the same priorities the Navy maintains today.

In early 1988, as part of Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. Navy was engaged in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf as Iraq and Iran continued in a bloody war. The USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was operating in the region.

Little did anyone know that what would happen that day would draw naval forces into action and alter the course of history.

Watchstanders aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58), Northeast of Qatar, sighted three mines floating approximately one-half mile from the ship. Twenty minutes after the first sighting, as Samuel B. Roberts was backing clear of the minefield, it struck a submerged mine. The blast injured 10 Sailors and tore a 21-foot hole in the hull, nearly ripping the warship in half. Quick and determined actions by the crew, who worked for seven hours to stabilize the ship, kept the vessel from sinking.

“We heard about it right away and very shortly thereafter I was told I was going to fly off to Bahrain to help put a plan together and command one of the Surface Action Groups (SAG),” said Vice Adm. (Ret.) James B Perkins, III, who was a Surface Action Group (SAG) commander during Operation Praying Mantis. “We spent the 17th of April flying from one side of the gulf to the other, briefing the SAG commanders as to what the plan was.”

Four days after the mine blast, forces, of the now-Joint Task Force Middle East, executed a response — Operation Praying Mantis. The operation called for the destruction of two oil platforms used by Iran to coordinate attacks on merchant shipping.

“The gas-oil platforms were huge structures,” said Perkins. “What I had in mind were the oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbra. But These were floating cities with berthing quarters and all that sort of stuff,” Perkins recalled.

“On the morning [of April 18] we called them up and told them, in Farsi and English, that we were getting ready to destroy them and to get off the platforms,” said Perkins. “There was a lot of running around looking for boats to leave the decks.”

By the end of that day the coalition air and surface units not only destroyed the two oil rigs but also Iranian units attempting to counter-attack U.S. forces.

Naval aircraft and the destroyer USS Joseph Strauss (DDG 16) sank the Iranian frigate Sahand (F 74) with harpoon missiles and laser-guided bombs. A laser-guided bomb, dropped from a Navy A-6 Intruder, disabled frigate Sabalan (F 73), and Standard missiles launched from the cruiser USS Wainwright (CG 28) and frigates USS Bagley (FF 1069) and USS Simpson (FFG 56) destroyed the 147-foot missile patrol boat Joshan (P 225). In further combat, A-6s sank one Bodghammer high-speed patrol boats and neutralized four more of the speedboats.

“The air wing from Enterprise did a superb job taking on the Bodghammers,” said Perkins.

By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran’s operational fleet.

“This particular exercise, in my view, finished the Iranian Navy in the Arabian Gulf,” said Perkins. “They were still around – but after that operation, they didn’t have as active a stance.”

Operation Praying Mantis proved a milestone in naval history. For the first time since World War II, U.S. naval forces and supporting aircraft fought a major surface action against a determined enemy. The success of Praying Mantis and the broad-based allied naval cooperation during Operation Earnest Will proved the value of joint and combined operations in the Gulf and led the way for the massive joint coalition effort that occurred during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

The operation also demonstrated the importance of being ready to fight and win today, of providing offshore options to deter, influence and win in an era of uncertainty; and showcased the teamwork, talent and imagination of the Navy’s diverse, capable force.

It also proved the value of all the training the Navy had done.

“You have to be ready on a moment’s notice,” Perkins said. “You may not always have sufficient time to get prepared, so train hard and often. (In this case) it worked out very well.”

Timeline:

First light: The Roberts’ SH-60 helicopter, now flying from the USS Trenton (LPD 14), lifts from the deck of the amphibious transport dock. The aircraft, call sign Magnum 447, heads off to give the targets a final visual check, and to stand by to evacuate wounded troops.

8:00 a.m.: A few minutes after delivering a radio warning, the destroyers of Surface Action Group Bravo open fire on the Sassan oil platform, which was being used by Iranian forces as a command-and-control center for attacks on Gulf shipping.

8:05 a.m.: The ships of Surface Action Group Charlie open fire on the Sirri oil platform, which is being used to control Iranian maritime attacks.

9:25 a.m.: Twin-rotor CH-46 helicopters deliver U.S. Marines to the Sassan platform, where they collect intelligence and set demolition charges. Plans are scratched to send Navy SEALs to the Sirri platform, which was set afire by the bombardment.

11:30 a.m.: The Iranian patrol boat Joshan ignores radio warnings and approaches SAG Charlie. About 45 minutes later, Joshan fires a U.S.-made Harpoon missile — the remnant of a pre-Revolutionary arms purchase by the Iranian shah. Some 13 miles away, the U.S. ships fire chaff and dodge the incoming weapon. They return fire with Harpoons and Standard missiles, sinking Joshan in the world’s first missile duel between warships.

12:50 p.m.: A pair of Iranian F-4 fighters approach the cruiser Wainwright, which chases them off with a pair of Standard missiles.

1:30 p.m.: Iranian Boghammar speedboats attack the Scan Bay, a Panamanian jack-up barge with 15 American workers in the Mubarak oil field off the United Arab Emirates. Through a lengthy commo hookup, President Reagan himself authorizes a strike against the boats — the first time U.S. forces had intervened to stop an attack on a non-U.S. flagged vessel in the Gulf, and a harbinger of a formal policy to come. Two A-6E Intruders and an F-14 Tomcat are dispatched to attack; SAG Bravo provides a vector.

2:25 p.m.: The A-6s sink the lead Boghammar with Rockeye cluster bombs. Four other boats flee to the Iranian-controlled Abu Musa island and beach themselves.

3:30 p.m.: U.S. A-6s and warships attack the Iranian frigate Sahand with coordinated bombs and missiles. The frigate will sink several hours later.

5:15 p.m.: The Iranian frigate Sabalan fires at an A-6, which dodges the missile and returns to drop a 500-pound bomb down the ship’s exhaust stack, leaving it dead in the water. Top U.S. defense officials in Washington, who are monitoring the fight, decide not to sink a third Iranian warship. They tell U.S. ships and aircraft to lay off Sabalan, and Iranian tugs eventually tow the damaged frigate back to the Bandar Abbas naval base.

Teaching Immigrants to Unionize, Chicago

Posted on by

The National Labor Relations Board is signing agreements with Mexico, Ecuador and other countries. Of note: Lafe Soloman being investigated for violating ethics. Richard Griffin is devoted to big labor.

August 26, 2013 the Chicago Office of the NLRB and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago will sign a local agreement to strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the NLRB and the Consulate and improve access to information and education regarding rights and responsibilities for Mexican workers, their employers, and Mexican business owners in the United States.

On July 23, 2013 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States signed a national letter of agreement in Washington D.C.  The NLRB is the independent government agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing relations between employers and employees in the private sector. The Act guarantees workers the right to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions, or to refrain from such activities. Employers and employees alike are protected from unfair labor practices.

Under the framework, the NLRB and the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., as well as NLRB Regional Offices and Mexican Consulates nationwide, will cooperate to provide outreach, education, and training, and to develop best practices. The Agreement is an outgrowth of initial negotiations between the NLRB’s Chicago office and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago. The framework has been used by other federal labor agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which have similar agreements with the Mexican Embassy and its consulates.

“With coordination from the consulates, we expect to meet with Mexican workers around the country to help forge innovative solutions to issues specific to their needs,” Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon said. He noted the letter of agreement will also increase the NLRB’s ability to provide employers, including Mexican business owners in the United States, with resources directly available to them, including access to education and training resources regarding rights and responsibilities under the Act.

*** There is more:

U.S. signed agreement with Mexico to teach immigrants to unionize

The federal government has signed agreements with three foreign countries — Mexico, Ecuador and the Philippines — to establish outreach programs to teach immigrants their rights to engage in labor organizing in the U.S.

The agreements do not distinguish between those who entered legally or illegally. They are part of a broader effort by the National Labor Relations Board to get immigrants involved in union activism.

The five-member board is the agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act, the main federal law covering unions. In 2013, Lafe Solomon, the board’s then-acting general counsel, signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Mexico’s U.S. ambassador. The current general counsel, Richard Griffin, signed additional agreements with the ambassadors of Ecuador and the Philippines last year.

“Those are the only countries that the NLRB has MOUs with,” said spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek.

The agreements are substantially similar, with several sections repeated verbatim in each one. All three documents state that the No. 1 outreach goal is “to educate those who may not be aware of the Act, including those employees just entering the work force, by providing information designed to clearly inform [that nation’s] workers in the United States of America their rights under the Act and to develop ways of communicating such information (e.g., via print and electronic media, electronic assistance tools, mobile device applications, and links to the NLRB’s web site from the [country’s] web sites) to the … workers residing in the United States of America and their employers.”

The board has said the law’s protections for workers engaged in union organizing extend even to people who are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. An employer who fires an illegal immigrant worker — which is required under federal immigration law — can be sanctioned by the board if it decides the worker’s union activism was the real reason for the dismissal.

In the documents, the countries’ foreign consulates agree to help locate foreign nationals living in the U.S. “who might aid the NLRB in investigations, trials or compliance matters” involving businesses and to develop a system for the consulates to refer complaints from foreign workers to the board’s regional offices.

The documents also call for systems to inform foreign businesses operating in the U.S. of their responsibilities to their employees under federal labor law. In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on March 24, Griffin characterized that as the principal focus of the agreements.

“We have executed letters of agreement with foreign ministries designed to strengthen collaborative efforts to provide foreign business owners doing business in the United States, as well as workers from those countries, with education, guidance and access to information regarding their rights and responsibilities under our statute,” he told lawmakers.

Griffin, formerly a top lawyer for the International Union of Operating Engineers, testified that the agreements save taxpayer money because they would “pay dividends as employers will be able to avoid unintentionally violating our statute and workers will be educated about their statutory rights to engage with one another to improve their conditions of employment, both of which benefits taxpayers, and the country as a whole, through increased economic growth.”

If the main intention is to provide legal information to foreign employers, it is not clear why the board pursued agreements with those countries, which represent a relatively small portion of businesses operating the in the U.S.

A November study by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that Mexican businesses operating in the U.S. employ slightly less than 69,000 people total. The numbers employed by Ecuadorian and Philippine businesses operating in the U.S. are so small, the bureau doesn’t publish a measurement for either one.

By comparison, Canadian businesses employ well over a half-million people in the U.S. British businesses employ nearly a million, Japanese nearly 720,000 and German 620,000.

Mexico and the Philippines, one the other hand, represent two of the countries providing the most immigrants to the U.S. Mexico accounts for 11.6 million immigrants living in the U.S., the most from any single country, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The Philippines is fourth overall, accounting for 1.8 million.

A 2013 board press release stated the Mexican agreement was “an outgrowth of initial negotiations between the NLRB’s Chicago office and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago. The framework has been used by other federal labor agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which have similar agreements with the Mexican Embassy and its consulates.”

The release quoted Solomon saying, “With coordination from the consulates, we expect to meet with Mexican workers around the country to help forge innovative solutions to issues specific to their needs.”

Last month, Griffin instituted a new policy in which the board will “facilitate” obtaining visas for illegal immigrants if their status impedes it from pursuing a labor violation case against a business. The policy gives illegal immigrants living in the U.S. a strong incentive to engage in labor activism, because doing so will make employers reluctant to fire them and potentially get them a visa, and therefore legal status, if they are fired.