Trump v. Biden: The Evil of Two Lessers

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Readers who’ve followed my writing for years know I began in retirement at age-70 by accident.

It happened despite no intention to begin what I didn’t imagine during my formal working life — first as a marketing analyst, then in small family business.

I never had a home computer until convinced to get one by my daughter after retiring.

She showed me the basics and it changed my life. Each day I look forward to doing more pro bono. No one pays or directs what I do.

My mission is truth-telling on major domestic and geopolitical issues — polar opposite how establishment media operate as press agents for wealth and power interests.

In one of my early articles, I discussed the shame of the nation, a bipartisan conspiracy against peace, equity, justice and the rule of law.

I noted Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the nation’s founders on the uncertainty of whether the newly created republic would last into “remote futurity.”

Asked if a republic or monarchy was formed, he responded: “A republic if you can keep it.”

A modern-day Diogenes would search in vain for the likes of him, I said in my article, a figure with the wisdom of the ages, an observer in Philadelphia, not a delegate.

The notion espoused long ago and now that “all men (and women) are created equal” is a meaningless figure of speech, belying how things are in a nation governed of, by, and for the privileged few at the expense of most others — how it’s been from inception in America.

I noted at the time that the republic was flawed from birth, that today we’d call the founders a Wall Street crowd.

African-Americans were considered property, not people until the 14th Amendment (1868) granted citizenship to everyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” including former slaves  — everyone granted “equal protection under the laws” in name only.

The 15th Amendment granted all citizens of voting age the right to exercise their franchise — with no exception “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Women were excluded until the 19th Amendment in 1920. So have been countless numbers of disenfranchised citizens from the nation’s inception to now — for invented reasons, not legitimate ones.

The right to vote is at the discretion of individuals who run the country — overriding the law of the land.

Throughout US history, there were brief moments of fairness during the progressive movement of late 19th/early 20th century, the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society.

Trilateralism countered what dark forces running things called a “crisis of democracy” — meaning too much of it they wanted replaced with dirty business as usual that’s been de facto reality for most of the last half century, notably since the neoliberal 90s, especially in the new millennium.

America is more police state than democracy, its inner-city streets battlegrounds, Blacks, other people of color, and the poor of all races, creeds and colors treated like fifth column threats.

The federal income tax was all about having the public pay interest to bankers on America’s debt. 

As long as private interests control the nation’s money, debt entrapment will continue – along with booms, busts, inflation, deflation, instability and crises.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act empowering bankers to control the nation’s money was the most destructive legislation in US history — an issue I discussed in my book titled: “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War.”

The road to hell especially from the Clintons to Bush/Cheney, to Obama, and now Trump seeking a second time around has been paved with pure evil intentions.

Separately I wrote about the denouement of freedom in police state America post-9/11, the mother of all state-sponsored false flags.

It was exceeded this year by manufactured pandemic and economic collapse that’s been all about transferring unprecedented amounts of wealth from ordinary people to privileged interests, letting corporate favorites gain greater power by eliminating competition, and convincing most Americans to sacrifice their civil liberties by accepting voluntary house arrest, falsely promoting it as a way to protect public health.

Both right wings of the one-party state are responsible for growing tyranny in the nation’s fantasy democracy — conditions today more dismal and disturbing than ever before.

Plutocrats, oligarchs, and kleptocrats never had things better.

Protracted main street depression conditions affect most others at a time when the remnants of social justice are on the chopping block for elimination altogether no matter which wing of one-party state rule runs things.

For young people, it’s the wrong time to be growing up in America.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal said “MBAs are usually swimming in job offers by now. Not this year.”

Likely not next or the year after. The small family business I was part of for most of my formal working life was highly cyclical.

Had we experienced what’s now ongoing, we’d have been out of business, never to reopen, years of market development washed away permanently.

When I received my MBA in February, 1960, completing a two-year curriculum in three semesters plus summer school, jobs for graduates were plentiful at a time when the economy wasn’t robust.

I recall taking one day off post-graduation, then showing up for work at the firm that hired me as a marketing analyst.

Today I’d be out of school, out of luck, and wondering how I’d begin a career and earn a living.

he Journal noted that “(t)raditional recruiters of business school graduates are nowhere to be found this fall.”

The job market for new grads looks to be no better next year or perhaps for some time thereafter.

On Monday, the South China Morning Post asked if Beijing favors Trump or Biden in November.

Will one “make a difference” over the other? Is one candidate the “lesser of two evils” or is it “too late to reset relations?”

The notion believed by some that a Biden presidency offers a “return to normalcy” after four tumultuous years of Sino/US relations under Trump is unrealistic wishful thinking.

On major domestic and geopolitical issues, both figures are flip sides of each other.

They’ll continue policies written in stone by dark forces running things, the nation’s power elites that assure continuity following all elections.

There may or may not be what geopolitical analyst Pang Zhongying called “a fleeting window of opportunity for both sides to climb down from the cold war-like confrontation, whoever wins the White House.”

Trump once hailed what he called  “tremendous progress in (US) relation(s)” with China — shifting from “my good friend” Xi Jinping to a reinvented “yellow peril.”

Both wings of the US one-party state consider China public enemy number one.

Whether Trump or Biden wins in November, US policy toward China and all other nations free from its control is highly likely to remain at least largely unchanged.

Hegemons don’t change spots when batons are passed from one leader to another.

All sovereign independent nations are on Washington’s target list for regime change whether Republicans or Dems are in charge — China and Russia most of all because of their ability to challenge America’s hegemonic agenda.

The last taboo: A postscript and way forward

The last taboo: A postscript and way forward

September 17, 2020

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

Dear reader, this time I shall not test your patience by producing another behemoth. Rather, I would like briefly to summarise and extend the lessons of my previous article as well as discuss some of the reaction to it.

First, let me thank Saker again for giving me a platform and Vladimir, Epithet, Djole, Marko, Katerina and many other comrades who were not cowed by the din of disapproving voices. But thank you also to the disapproving voices!

The first thing I noticed was the offended-disappointed tenor of some comments. It goes something like this: Yes, this is an interesting article, but why did you have to poke the hornet’s nest? It is not doing anybody any favours and will only bring harm to your tribe. This is the tone of a slightly annoyed Southern town Sheriff (let’s call him J. W. Pepper) circa 1962 when he realises that those uppity (SELF-CENSORED) have decided to protest the burning of their churches and lynching of their young. “I’m a reasonable God-fearing man and I am keeping my cool, but if you… persist in causing trouble, I’ma call Billy Bob and his boys…”. Unlike J. W. who is uneducated and a bit clumsy, the defenders of the Holy Empire are often sophisticated and subtle. Like J. W., they can rely on assassination squads made up of primitive and bloodthirsty Slav rednecks to enforce their dictate and fight the schizmatics.

But it’s that tone… It was in the 1990s that the notorious hangout for the British intelligence, Dominic Lawson, wrote in the Telegraph riled by threats by some anonymous Serb who in turn had been aggrieved by Lawson’s open support for the Croatian and Moslem Nazis (despite the fact that he was Jewish). One phrase: “but we know where you live” stayed with me. It is a kind of mental “we know where you live” that permeates this thread. Instead of embracing the idea and discussing it openly, the sleepers of the Empire react with fear and anger. As I said elsewhere, this topic is like ultraviolet light—it rouses vampires from their holes and fills them with ire. At this stage, the ire is still controllable. Unable to offer a coherent response, they indulge in whataboutery (although I hate having to use that excuse for drowning out justified criticism), petty insults, appeals to one’s “humanity”, shooting the messenger and other techniques of stifling dissent and promoting a racist, supremacist agenda of their masters.

Look, you are full of passion when discussing the plight of the Palestinians or Yemenis or Iraqis. And I support you 100%. But you are completely and shamefully silent when discussing a much larger and more pernicious holocide which happened in the middle of Europe more than a thousand years ago and is ongoing as we speak. There can be no excuse for that, full stop. Your silence is even more surprising given that the victims are completely white and represent the “flower” of Aryanism. But here, I am exposing your irredeemable fascist and racist leanings and you like that even less. For the Slavs are white and clearly Aryan yet are the greatest enemy of Catholic fascism and Nazi racism (at least most are).[1] This causes cognitive dissonance and you withdraw sulking to a debate about whether Trump is good for Russia and other nonsense. For you, it is not about the truth but about comfort, cosiness (Gemütlichkeit) and cheap self-validation—the sense that your ego is fed and massaged by others like yourself without having to do any hard work or take any risks.

If you are one of the fake leftists infecting the cyberspace these days, ponder the only group of people today that is allowed to be thought of as subhuman, oppressed and discriminated against, openly in front of your cold merciless eyes. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and similar numbers expelled from their homes by the Vatican’s Nazi legions in the last 30 years—this time with the full support of the American Jews and their useful idiots. You are no more of the left than I am Kenny G (thank God).

You like to think of yourself as standing on the vanguard of the anti-imperial struggle but are struggling with your own sense of guilt—and this mutates into raging hatred as soon as your amour propre (sigh) is challenged. You are not righteous just because you’re Irish or Moslem or Slav—there is much more to it. Learn from true freedom fighters or exceptional scholars and spiritual leaders such as Sheikh Imran Hosein.

I’ve noticed something else. The ultimate hypocrisy as always lies with the Catholics. They are the ones playing fervent nationalists (the Poles, Croats and Irish for example) ready to die for their fatherland and religion. And yet, they are slaves to the most openly globalist, internationalist imperialist dogma of all time—Roman Catholicism. Vatican’s political Catholicism is the ultimate source of fifth-columnism and it needs to be rendered harmless if not completely impotent before the Slavs can prosper. This doesn’t mean that we unconditionally support Jewish grievances against the Catholics. All we are asking is: “But is it good for the Slavs?”

Attacks on me are understandable and even welcome—for if everyone agreed (as they often do in many other articles), I wouldn’t be saying much, would I? At first, attacks are unpleasant and can deter a less than sturdy soul. But after a while, they become a sort of a compass—the louder they are, the closer one is to some uncomfortable truth. Of course, this is only a rough guide.

The paradox lies in the juxtaposition of the hundreds of semi-nonsensical conspiracies (e.g. COVID) which are debated passionately by millions of people and a simple and painful truth that causes even the staunchest “anti-imperialist” to go shtum in a nanosecond and run away. Their silence (or anger) tells me better than any words that I am on the right track.

I was also surprised by a lack of response from people who I would expect to be interested. But then, I understand—many are fed up and disgusted by another possible “false spring”—it could simply be the British preparing another “Slav federation of the unwilling”. For those who abhor the idea as the main threat to their Weltanschauung (here I go again)—various Catholicised and Germanised Slavs—again, I understand. The conditioning will not disappear overnight. Until it does, let me briefly sketch out a few start-up suggestions.

First, any attempts at a revival of the Slav idea will be immediately attacked and threatened by the sophisticated information and intelligence warfare capabilities of the West.[2] This is why the movement if any must grow slowly from a few seeds. People think that successful movements must be lavishly funded. Perhaps, but I don’t think so. What really needs to happen is for a few people of pure heart and sound mind to get in touch and form small, local cells involved in research and discussion of political, historical and cultural ties between Slavs and how these ties could be restored and strengthened. If there is true interest, eventually those cells will connect with each other to form larger bodies capable of attracting funds. There can be no brotherhood by ukase—bottom up all the way or not at all.

Regarding the topics for discussion, I suggest several to start with:

  • Analysis of the geopolitical situation with a focus on the Slav civilisation, its history and interests
  • Developing the idea of common interests and ways of furthering them
  • Learning about, making contact with and supporting endangered branches of the Slav tree—the Sorbs, the people of Donbass, expelled Serbs of Srpska Krajina, Ruthenians, Baltic Russians, Slavs in Albania, Serbs in Montenegro and others[3]
  • Replacing the false Austro-German account of Slav history with a genuine one
  • Discussing the project of repatriation of the Slavs to their native lands in Northern Germany and the Baltics. Making contact with Die Linke in Germany and starting a dialogue about the holocide of the Slavs and how this might be remedied.
  • Roman Catholic Church in the Slav lands needs to be replaced by national Catholic churches which retain the western rite and symbolism while being independent of Rome and focussed on the pastoral needs of their flocks. This was attempted unsuccessfully in the 1930 in some places but this time it mustn’t fail. It is both necessary and sufficient condition for the renaissance of the Slav nations.

If it is to live, the movement must transcend national boundaries but NOT I repeat NOT the boundaries of Slavdom. That means that there can be no talk of forming links if these are sponsored by Western intelligence agencies or involve the Vatican. People with true intentions will recognise each other.

More to come soon if there is interest.

Yours,

Ken Sharp… sorry, Leslie

  1. I repeat that I do not consider the Slavs in any way superior to any other group. In any case, true superiority manifests itself as charity and helping the fellow human being to regain their freedom and honour—like the Soviet Union which helped liberate countless third-world countries from Western colonialism. Despite their despicable political present, most Poles and Ukrainians fought against the Nazis. 
  2. Unless there is a sudden rupture between the Anglo-Saxons and German Europe, it is sensible to think in terms of a united West. 
  3. Of course, Slavs in any Western countries are welcome to participate and reflect on their situation. 

Why Today’s India is on the Wrong Side of History

Why Today’s India is on the Wrong Side of History

September 13, 2020

by Allen Yu for the Saker Blog

Recently, I wrote a short comment in the piece India’s border policies line with Thalassa noting that “India is on the wrong side of history.” It was too “conclusory” a comment deserves to be better explained. So I’d like to take a brief time why I think India is on the wrong side of history in siding with America against China today.

I’d first like to take a larger view of history.

Historical Context

Human history has for the most part gotten better over the last few tens of thousands of years. Our technology has advanced. Our life expectancies have increased. The last 200 or so years have seen the most explosive advances. The pace of scientific and technological advances has created a world beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors.

And if we believe that the human spirit of ingenuity will continue, as there is no reason not to, then the best is still yet to come. 90% of all scientists that have ever lived are alive today. If we can have peace and the world allowed to be free from hegemonic oppression, I’d say the future is bright for the human species.

Unfortunately, ominous dark clouds have hung over the world despite all the positive momentum of history. We live in a time of great paradoxes. Though the world is currently in a “time of peace,” with technologies and economies fast advancing, in relative overall prosperity, sponsored Color Revolutions and civil wars have been unleashed upon many nations, devastating regions from Iraq to Afghanistan to Ukraine to Egypt to Syria to Hong Kong. Economic sanctions have ravaged whole generations of peoples in regions from N. Korea to Turkey to Iran to Venezuela.

WWII by most accounts represents a righteous high point in history. It represents the defeat of the axes of fascism and colonialism. Yet, fascism and colonialism never left us. It got transformed and embedded into our new world.

The more things changed, the more we realize that many things haven’t changed. The poor and disposed of the colonial era are for the most part still poor and dispossessed. Russia is still the target of Western aggression after hundreds of years of antagonism. Even China – the presumed challenger to the West – has not escaped the trajectory of this history. Western powers – with their allies – are now actively scheming and working hard to suffocate China economically and technologically in an attempt to shove it back to a place of perpetual subservience to Western interests.

Some may argue say that Russia and China’s problems are that both had overplayed their hands. Russia had overextended itself in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and crossed the West’s “red line” in Ukraine. China has crossed the “red line” in the S. China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc.

The truth is that it is the West that has crossed the line in Europe, the Middle East and in Ukraine … and in S. China SeaHong Kong, and Xinjiang.

India’s Strategic Blunder

It is at this critical juncture that India has decided to pivot toward the West. India is making a gigantic strategic mistake. Here are some reasons why.

  • It does not make sense to make an enemy of 1.4 billion people. It’s is one thing to fight a border war, but it is quite another to actually join a group of others to contain the development and growth of 1.4 billion people. The wrath and actions coming out of the U.S. against China has been truly surprising and depressing. It is against the basic rights and dignity expressed in the UN charter. Why should India join that chorus? Chinese have no animosity toward the Indian people. However, the Indian populace – fanned by an irresponsible media with much rumors and fake news – has allowed itself to be whipped into a giant anti-China frenzy.
  • America – and the broader West – will not help India to develop. Many Indians fancy that India – after America decouples from China – will take the place of China and that the West is going to help pull India out of poverty the way it has helped to pull China out of poverty. That is just not going to happen. There are a few reasons for this.
    • First, America has squandered much of its capital since becoming the sole superpower with its endless wars since the fall of the Soviet Union. America today thinks the world as set up after WWII is set against it, with much of the world leaching off America’s largess. America will have no more of it. Enough has been enough! Never again will America work for another country!!! America now wants the world to serve it, not the other way around. If Indians think America had pulled China out of poverty (Chinese mince at that notion since they believe it is they themselves who pulled themselves out of poverty), they can rest assured America will not be able to do the same for India.
    • Second, the West has come to see the world not in win-win terms, but in zero sum terms. For a brief while, the West did experiment with some version of win-win globalism. While it infused globalism with its own suffocating ideologies and rules to benefit itself, it did for a while work on a flatter world. In this “flat world,” people the world over get to exchange ideas and goods and services with each other, for each other’s own benefits, all in a win-win fashion. But that period soon ended. It’s not just Trump. It’s the whole establishment and populace. The jealousy by which the West has come to guard their knowhow, markets, and manufacturing resources for Covid-19 vaccines represents just the tip of the ice berg. The West used to think of itself as a shining beacon for the world. It had first rate technology and science that attract the world over to learn and disseminate back to the world. Now, it considers people coming to learn and bring back knowledge as “stealing.” It considers manufacturing abroad as stealing. It considers R&D abroad as “stealing.” Whatever India hopes to get from America and the West, it is not going to be good jobs or know-how. America wants its manufacturing back. It has drawn from China’s rise the (incorrect) lesson that it should never help or allow another power rise. It doesn’t want to depend on China – or anyone else – to make anything but the lowest value items. It becomes suspicious when others make its masks, medical equipment, pharmaceutical products, software, cars, computers, etc. It will think twice, thrice, about ever helping to create a new peer competitor again.
    • America – and the broader West – is in decline. The West is in decline. There is no doubt about it. The writing is on America’s economic wall – or more accurately, in its Fed balance sheet. An economy cannot go on printing money. An economy cannot stay productive with prolonged low interest rates and paper printing, where the most productive and valuable thing it produces are military weapons. Many people talk about America’s “soft power.” I say B.S. If you take away America’s military, do you think America’s “soft power” will stand on its own? No. America’s “software power” will vaporize. American soft power stands on its military power. And America’s military power stands on the might of its economic power. Recently, that economic power is buttressed in part by China (through trade). But now America no longer wants to rely on faraway lands for anything. Once it starts decoupling from China, it will soon realize how weak it economically is. An economic reckoning will come. Such a inflection point would not necessarily bad for the American people. Stripped of its imperial duties and obligations, Americans can focus on the important things that had made America “America” again. But it means the days of the American Empire are ending. The days of America helping to lift another nation from poverty has long gone.
  • America – and the broader West – is not capable of negotiation. The West cannot keep any agreement that goes against their interests. When even the slightest of circumstances change, they find a reason to tear up the agreements, with the Iran nuclear deal but one example. Whatever deal India think it is going to get, it is not going to get what it thinks it will get. The relationship will only work song as so India gives up much more than it receives. This is the Western way. Forget about getting a fair deal. Forget about even getting a good deal. India is thinking about forging a long-term deal … I say be realistic. There is nothing special about India that will make the West change. Beggars can’t demand change. The West is not going to change its fundamental ways for you.
  • India will miss the boat in the rising Asian Century. The engine of the new global growth for the foreseeable future will be China and its surrounding neighbors. No one doubts that. Many ASEAN nations – despite having intractable territorial disputes with China in the S. China Sea – have decided to join China in building a shared future. India too has been invited but it has decided time and time against joining China because of its territorial disputes with China. This is short-sighted. China and India are old sister civilizations that have long interacted with each other. The notion of a straight line fixed territory is a Western concept. When we fixate on boundaries to the exclusion of everything else, we get led down a zero-sum intractable dispute.

China’s “community with shared future for mankind”

China is pushing forward a framework of “community with shared future for mankind” for foreign relations. This is a rejection of both traditional ideological based framework of international relations as well as the cold “realist” approach.

It is a rejection of traditional ideology in the sense it is truly agnostic about what forms of government or other ideologies other nations follow. As Deng Xiao Ping has been quoted to say, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” It doesn’t matter if you have a left leaning or right leaning, or capitalistic or socialist, or “democratic” or “authoritarian” government, what matters is if you deliver good governance for the people.

It is a rejection of traditional realistic approach because it doesn’t really view might as the end and be all. While China acknowledges cold realism, it also aspires for a new world order that promotes global justice – which can be summarized as true sovereignty of each nation to develop as it chooses for its people.

The way to a stable world then – according to China – is to create an environment where we can raise the water for each other, shelving all conflicts as much as possible. Once everyone is better off enough – hopefully much better off than today – many issues – including territorial disputes – will become much easier to resolve.

Why Shelf Territorial Dispute?

So if we go back to the India and China territorial dispute: sure, the two neighbors can always fight to the death over a piece of territory, but that is missing the forest for the trees. What they need – above all else – is to develop each other’s society, to pull its peoples from poverty, to provide a better future for its people. What they need then is to meet each other somewhere in the middle and to enable each other to cooperate with each other. China’s faith – which should be India’s as well – is that the benefits of cooperation will in the future outweigh – far outweigh – any territorial concession each can make. It will outweigh territorial concessions because the sky is the limit to where each nation can develop.

If you think lifting 800 million out of poverty over 4 decades is amazing, think lifting 1 .4 billion between India and China over the next 4 decades! That’s the kind of vision and possibility we are looking at!!!

The way out of today’s intractable territorial dispute is to shelf it and to focus on things both sides can cooperate on, leaving the problem for a much more prosperous generation to settle on. The important thing is to build a bigger pie for our future generations instead of bickering over today’s limited pie.

Unfortunately India has decided to not only reject that vision, but to ally with U.S. to suppress China’s win-win shared common future from arising.

From China’s view, the world has been held hostage by the West for too long. Too many nations either cannot or do not want to stand up for their right to develop. The cost of standing up to the hegemon just seems too high. Many actually want to work with the hegemony, hoping to for fleeting crumbs of good will and vague rewards, even if it means enabling the hegemon to continue its pillaging and oppression over them.

The human psyche is a strange thing. While human beings have been known to rise to the highest of braveries in defense of justice, righteousness, honor, and faith, they can also be exceedingly weak and feeble. There are too many stories of a man or woman being beaten to death by a criminal, with passive crowds and strangers watching and passing by, doing nothing.

“Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime.” The world must go beyond taking short-term benefits from the West and learn to fish by themselves. It cannot always beg for a fish scrap here and there. It cannot keep fighting against or sabotaging each other for favors from the rich.

Too many of the areas of the world with territorial conflicts have arisen from their colonial legacy. The China-Indian territorial disputes arose from British colonial legacy (others that come to mind include the Palestinian issue, Cyprus, Kashmir, Pakistan-India animosity, etc.). The world must be able to through this trap to free themselves collectively from their colonial legacy.

The West – despite all its follies – continue to be strong. It has the most wealth, technologies, and strongest military. It can buy allies anywhere around the world. It can bribe and corrupt most governments around the world. But in the long term, it cannot last. The rest of the world must learn to stand up by itself.

Freedom and Development with Strings Attached

As the world currently stand, if nothing major is done, much of the fruits of science and technology will continue to accrue only to a few nations. The U.S. and the “West” has been the undisputed leader across a wide swath of science and technology in the 20th and 21th century. By their actions throughout history and today, we know Western dominance rests exclusively on their scientific and technological prowess. If their ideological prowess, not their technological prowess, is the source of their power, why are they so quick to demand others adopt their ideologies while remaining so protective of their technologies?

I mean … have you wondered why the West would want to shove down the rest of the world’s throat their version of “democracy” and “rule of law” … but get so worked up when others learn from them knowledge about science and technology?

Today, China is the only power capable of challenging all dimensions of the Western grip on of scientific and technological dominance – at least in the foreseeable future. But just as China begins to appear to be a credible competitor or alternative, the West is mounting an all spectrum attack on China to suppress its ability to access technology and markets around the world.

Thus we see that the West’s preaching of “free markets” and “rule-based economy” has always been a mirage. The British demanded “freedom” because they wanted the “freedom” to pillage on their own terms. They know that since they had the best technology and companies, the world is there for their picking if the barriers are broken down. Hence they worked to knock those barriers down!

The U.S. took on their mantle … and demanded “freedom” … too, also for the U.S. to pillage the world on their own terms. But when their dominance is threatened, the veil of “free markets” and “rule-based” trade systems has come down too.

From the Chinese view, the U.S.’s lack of confidence about China’s rise shows how insincere and hypocritical the West has always been about the world. Many Chinese have long seen through the façade of “ideologies,” and “norms” and “rules” masquerading hegemony real politik.

China’s dreams for win-win shared future are not false ideals. After all, it is not completely devoid of precedence. After U.S. helped to rebuild Europe and/or Japan, has the U.S. not received benefits from those regions? Of course! Not only have they contributed to advances in science and technology, they also provided a market for the U.S.

But there is a critical limit about American good will. Europe and Japan were allowed to succeed – but only up to a certain level. The main value of allowing Europe and Japan some prosperity is not in making those regions better off per se. The main value was in using those regions to contain Soviet Union / Russia and China. Europe and Japan understand their roles as subservient powers – and their roles as first lines of containment against Russia and China.

A Disgruntled West

Today, with U.S.’s political system and social fabric deteriorating, the U.S. is going through a fundamental rethink. The U.S. now openly thinks allies like Japan and Europe have been “taking advantage” of the U.S. The U.S. now wants payback. From its allies, it seeks better trade deals and more “protection money.”

And against China, it is on a crusade to stop its development. In China’s view, this is a red line and truly tragic. China believes the fundamental right of every people is the right to develop. It is the right of the U.S. to want to decouple from China. But to try to form an alliance to constrain the growth of 1.4 billion, as it had already with lesser powers such as N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is to cross China’s fundamental red line.

India is on the wrong side of history because it is siding with a West that is going to such levels to extend its grip on dominating the world. Some time ago, I remember seeing Trump tweet out an edited version of Time’s cover of Trumpism outlasting Trump … lasting “4EVER”! There is an important kernel of truth to that video!

The West has changed. It is now open about wanting to dominate the world through suppression instead of being the light that draws the world.

Painting Itself into a Corner

In wanting to join the Western crusade against China, India too has crossed to the wrong side of history. In the coming multipolar world, India is positioning itself in a place where it will be difficult for it to develop. The capital and knowhow that can flow from a renewed China will no longer flow to India. By rejecting the Belts and Road Initiates and the RCEP, India is decoupling from Asia’s coming century.

Losing all that, but what does India have to gain? India will not be able to tease more territory out of China by playing tough. If India believes it can hang on the disputed territories against China, so too can China hang on to its disputed territories against India. Whatever India thinks it can do against China, China can do the same to India. This should be beyond any doubts!

So no new territories will be gained (or lost) through India’s current posture. What is lost however is the space for cooperation and mutual growth. India’s rejection of strategic cooperation perceived tactical gain is India’s tragic mistake today.

China is strong enough to go along without India if necessary. It is moving full steam ahead with its Belts and Road Initiative, RCEP, CJK, etc. It has formed a formidable relationship with Russia not based on ideology, alliance, political preferences, etc. – but based on building up and emphasizing common interests between two previous competitors. China and Russia will be friends not necessarily because the people “like” each other – although Chinese generally do have overwhelming positive feels toward the Russian people – but because their leaders have worked hard to ensure that they have develop and enhance many overlapping common interests.

A Relationship of Mutual Respect and Shared Common Future

Russia and China represents the sort of respectful, cooperative give and take relationship that China believes will represent the future of man-kind. They will succeed because such thinking not because you either join China or get kicked out on the high way. No, it will succeed because it will create far more than the West’s zero sum approach.

Now, don’t think everything is jolly good between Russia and China. I am sure the leaders have had many “frank” discussions about their differences … often. Historically China and Russia has had many issues. But rather than just hyping up (or burying, which is just as bad) their past, they have chosen to work on cooperating with each – to each other’s mutual benefits.

There is still time for India to join China. For eons China and India have coexisted with each other without a clearly demarcated border. Yes, in our modern world, we all long for clearly defined boundaries. But if that’s not possible, it should not be the end all and be all! Through cooperation, India and China can build a bright, shared future together, notwithstanding the territorial disputes. Now is the time for India’s leaders to decide if petty adventures on the border and allying with a dying hegemon are truly in India’s interest. Will India go down defiant, proud, and loud – but weak, petty, and trapped in the history of time?


Allen Yu is an IP attorney in Silicon Valley, a founding blogger at blog.hiddenharmonies.org, as well as an adjunct fellow at the Chunqiu Institute for Development and Strategic Studies. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a D. Engr., M.S., and B.S. from UCLA Samueli School of Engineering.

9/11 ended the American dream, says Lebanon’s Talal Atrissi

By Mohammad Mazhari

September 12, 2020 – 18:21

TEHRAN- Head of the Center for Political Studies at the University of Lebanon says the American dream promoted by its cinema has come to an end and “we are facing a country that hires soldiers to fight, occupy and kill.” 

 In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Dr. Talal Atrissi says that the American dream has become an “ugly image” for the nations around the globe.
“There is no longer what we call the American dream,” adds Atrissi.
Following is the text of the interview: 

 Q: Who are the main beneficiaries of the September 11 attacks?

A: The September 11 attacks helped neoconservatives in the U.S. advance their project of changing the Middle East (West Asia) under the pretext of “war against terror.” 

After 9/11, Washington was involved in regional wars, and its policy turned into a direct military offensive policy.

 It occupied Afghanistan and then occupied Iraq, and demanded Syria close Palestinian organizations’ offices, and encouraged Israel to launch the 2006 war on Lebanon. 

So, after the September 11 attacks, American foreign policy turned into a direct occupation policy in order to implement the vision and project of the neoconservatives in the world.

Q: What are the repercussions of the wars that the U.S. launched against Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11?

A: The wars launched by the United States on Afghanistan and Iraq showed the fact that the United States has become a direct occupying power in the region.

 In Afghanistan, the U.S. becomes a neighbor to Iran and Russia, and other countries in Asia.

 In Iraq, it became close to Iran and Syria, with a large military force that could threaten the countries that disagreed with its policies or oppose American hegemony.

As a result, the United States faced violent resistance, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, as far as U.S. presidents from Obama to Trump have admitted that the country has paid thousands of billions of dollars and human losses due to these wars.

That is why Obama decided to withdraw from Iraq, and Trump came to say that he does not want to wage new wars in the region. As a result of these wars, the United States of America is declining and losing its influence in the region.

The resistance has become stronger and more experienced, and the idea of resistance has been welcomed and has spread, whether in Iraq, Lebanon, or even Afghanistan.

So, the occupation brought complete havoc for the United States besides failure for neoconservatives in their projects.

Q: Why have the Americans embraced negotiations with the Taliban, whom they called terrorist, after two decades of war?

A: The U.S. negotiations with the Taliban reveal that Washington does not make a deal according to principles, but rather uses slogans and then outweighs its interests.

 During the war against the Soviet army in Afghanistan, America and its media used to call the fighting groups, including the Taliban, “Mujahideen,” and not terrorists.

After the Soviet army left Afghanistan, and these groups started to fight the U.S., these groups were classified as “terrorists.”

So, the United States of America is negotiating today with the Taliban because it really failed in Afghanistan. This means the admission of failure in Afghanistan after paying huge losses. 

 For this reason, the U.S. wants to withdraw the largest number of its forces from there and negotiate with the Taliban about its participation in the government of Afghanistan.

But Al-Qaeda organization is originally an American-backed entity that was exploited in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, and when its date expired, Trump accuses Clinton and Obama of being involved in the manufacturing of al-Qaeda.

This is why all America’s claims about terrorism are uncovered and unacceptable, and it has become known that the United States allied with al-Qaeda in more than one place in West Asia. 

“All evidence indicates that Saudi authorities indirectly were involved in the 9/11 attacks.”

Q: What happened to the American dream after 9/11?

A: The American dream is over, and the United States no longer can present itself as a globally attractive destination.

After September 11, using force, oppression, occupation, torture, and prisoning of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has become the United States’ predominant face.

The mutual accusations between the American presidents showed the true face of America. 

Even the American lifestyle is no longer the one that anyone in the world dreams of having, and therefore there is no longer what we call the American dream. 

The American dream was ruined, in a cracked structure, which was no longer coherent. The American dream created by cinema has ended, and we are facing a country that hires soldiers to fight, occupy, and kill, and does not respect human rights.

 From that time until now, we can say that the American dream has become an ugly image for the world’s nations.

Q: Why doesn’t the U.S. sue Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks? 

A: The U.S. doesn’t want to sever its relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while it has become clear that most of those who carried out the September 11 attacks were Saudis.

 Although there were discussions and calls to cut ties with Saudi Arabia or impose sanctions on it, the matter met American silence because the relationship with Saudi Arabia is profitable for Washington.

The Saudi Kingdom is the largest buyer of weapons, and it is an ally of the United States in the face of Iran; and therefore, the United States is silent about such an operation and does not directly accuse the Saudis.

 All evidence indicates that Saudi authorities indirectly were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but the Trump administration tries not to ruin the ties.

 So, the issue of terrorism is an optional issue to Washington.  The U.S. president is who chooses when to fight terrorism or fight the countries accused of being behind terrorism. 

That’s why the United States of America was silent and did not talk about accusing Saudi Arabia directly, although some information indicates that some figures in the Saudi ruling family provided funding to the attackers. 

Q: What have been the consequences of 9/11 for U.S. internal security, especially when the freedoms were restricted under the pretext of fighting terrorism?

A: On the American domestic level, what happened was the U.S. policy reversed into a militant policy, a policy of suppressing freedoms and spying on citizens.

Suppressing freedoms under the pretext of fighting terrorism and concerns about individuals’ relations with terrorists has become a prevailing issue in the U.S. A big debate heated in the United States on the importance of freedoms, but the government continues to restrict citizens. The Americans lost a large part of their freedoms under the motto of “fighting terrorism.”

Q: How could the September 11 attacks spread Islamophobia in the West? 

A: Islamophobia is a complex topic that has historical roots and cultural reasons and causes related to terrorist operations. The American and Western media, in general, shed light on the September 11 attacks and emphasized that Muslims were the main actors who carried out this operation.

Of course, this approach contributed to creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere in the United States of America for a long time.

But at the same time, Islamophobia is also widely widespread in Europe, and this is partly because of terrorist operations that were carried out on European territories.

Still, Islamophobia has been misused inside the United States and Europe in the struggle between political forces and accusing Muslims of economic, social, and cultural problems.

In fact, some Muslims cannot integrate into Western culture. Thus they face the isolation process and tend to engage in terrorist groups.

In addition to that, Muslims in Europe, for example, live in the suburbs and lack adequate services, which encourages young generations to join extremist organizations.

The United States of America, because of its anti-Muslim policies, has created an atmosphere of extremism among some Muslims. That’s why it can be said that the September 11 attacks contributed to the spread of Islamophobia.

Moreover, the American media has a pivotal role in creating this Islamophobia wave by inciting Muslims and covering up the Saudi Kingdom’s crimes.

RELATED NEWS

توسّع أردوغان في شرق المتوسّط مسمار نعش النهاية..

سماهر الخطيب

وجّهت الولايات المتحدة بالأمس دعوة إلى الحليف الناتوي تركيا لسحب قواتها من شرق المتوسط.

وجاءت الدعوة على لسان وزير الخارجية الأميركية مايك بومبيو عشية زيارته إلى قبرص بهدف التوصل إلى حل سلميّ يُنهي التوتر في المنطقة.

وبحسب بومبيو فإن «زيارته لقبرص تأتي استكمالاً لاتصالات أجراها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب مع نظيره التركي رجب طيب أردوغان ورئيس الوزراء اليوناني»، مشدداً على «ضرورة حل النزاع بطريقة دبلوماسية وسلمية». كما أشار إلى «دور ألمانيا في السعي إلى خفض التوتر».

فيما أكدت الدول الأوروبية السبع المطلة على المتوسط في ختام قمتها بشأن الأوضاع في شرق المتوسط استعدادها لـ»فرض عقوبات على تركيا ما لم تتراجع عما وصفته بتحركاتها الأحادية الجانب في المنطقة».

كما أكدت الدول الأوروبية السبع “دعمها الكامل وتضامنها مع قبرص واليونان في وجه التعديات المتكررة على سيادتهما وحقوقهما السيادية والأعمال التصعيدية من جانب تركيا”، وفق ما جاء في البيان.

وندّد الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون أول أمس، بـ”لعبة الهيمنة لقوى تاريخية” في البحر الأبيض المتوسط وليبيا وسورية، مسمياً تركيا. وقال ماكرون إن «دول المتوسط السبع تريد حواراً بنية حسنة مع تركيا التي تقود سياسة توسعية في البحر الأبيض المتوسط».

وفي المشهد التركي يبدو أنّ أردوغان ماضٍ إلى نهاية حقبته «الأردوغانية»، بعد أن أصبحت نزعته «السلطانية» المتحكمة والمسيطرة على أفعاله وأقواله. وهو يعلم جليّاً بأنّ تلك النزعة التوسعية فاقدة أي شرعية أو مشروعية وخالية من أي سند قانوني يدعمها أو حق تاريخي يؤصّلها، ليس في مياه البحر الأبيض المتوسط، فحسب، إنما في معظم الأراضي السورية التي سلخها أجداده عن أمها السورية بلا حق وها هو اليوم يفتح عليه أبواب مواجهات قاسية وقاصمة، قد تصل إلى حد الحرب.

ومنذ أن وقعت تركيا اتفاقية ترسيم الحدود مع الوفاق الليبية ولم تكل ولم تهدأ بتوجيه تهديداتها لجيرانها في منطقة شرق البحر الأبيض المتوسط، وبخاصة قبرص واليونان، وذلك من خلال إعلانها الخاص بتوسيع نطاق عملياتها لاستكشاف حقول الغاز في المنطقة المتنازع عليها شرقي المتوسط، وتأكيدها على مواصلة سفينة التنقيب التركية “ياووز” أعمالها، خلال الفترة الممتدة من 18 آب، وحتى نهاية أيلول الحالي.

وصرّح أردوغان مراراً أن بلاده ستستأنف عمليات التنقيب وستبحث عن مصادر الطاقة قبالة جزر يونانية، متوعّداً بعدم التراجع عن توغل بلاده في شرق المتوسط، زاعماً أن لبلاده «الحق تماماً» في المنطقة المتنازع عليها مع اليونان.. وإذا ما فتحنا دفتر الحساب حول الحق المزعوم فسنجد أنّ هذه «الحقوق العثمانية» ما هي إلا الأوهام مجرّدة من المصداقية بنت إمبراطوريتها السابقة على المجازر التي ارتكبتها كالمجازر الأرمنية والسريانية واقتطعت الأراضي بلا أدنى حق متذرعة بقوة السيف من جهة وباتفاق مع حلفاء الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية من جهة أخرى..

إنما هروب أردوغان من الجهة الغربية نحو جهة المتوسطية سيكون مسماراً في نعش النهاية الحتمية لجنون الحقبة «الأردوغانية» التي عاشتها بلاده ودفعت وستدفع أكلافها عالية وغالية..

إذ أضحى أردوغان عدواً مشتركاً للغرب وللشرق بتصرّفاته الرعناء ولم تقتصر تلك العداوة على الخارج بل ظهرت وتغلغلت داخل بلاده وبين مواطنيه..

ودخل في دوامة الخلافات مع محيطه الشرقي والغربي وبات العمق الاستراتيجي أضغاث أحلام ولم يعد يساوي الحبر الذي كتب فيه أحمد داوود أوغلو كتابه موجهاً دعواته لحزبه السابق حزب العدالة والتنمية بالتوجه نحو الشرق والداخل المشرقي وباتت رؤية “صفر مشاكل” صفراً على شمال طموحات أردوغان الرعناء.. فأصبح الإقليم برمته ضدّه، فبينما تلوّح أوروبا بورقة العقوبات، تحرّك فرنسا قطعها الحربية إلى المتوسط، وواشنطن تفتر علاقتها به وتطلب منه بصريح العبارة سحب قواته من المتوسط وتدين “الجامعة العربية” تصرفاته وتطالبه بسحب قواته من سورية وليبيا وغيرها من البلاد التي عاث فيها فساداً ليبدو وكأنّ الجميع اتفق عليه ويتجه نحو تشكيل حلف جديد في رحم المنطقة لملاقاته، والذي يبدو في الزمن القريب قدراً مقدوراً..

في المحصلة تبدو نهاية «الأردوغانيّة» أمراً محتوماً وحقيقة مؤكدة، وفي التاريخ الكثير من أمثولات أطماع أردوغان وأوهامه التي تسببت بانهيار إمبراطوريات كبيرة واندثرت حضارات عظيمة، إذا ما افترضنا أنّ تركيا «حضارة» وإن كانت، فإنما حضارة مسروقة مبنية على مجازر..

وفي العودة إلى التاريخ، فإن كثيراً من الإمبراطوريات انهارت وفسدت واضمحلت من داخلها، بسبب تصرفات حكامها وما محاولة أردوغان لبناء دولة خلافة تركية من جديد، إلا أوهام مضادة لحركة التاريخ وتزييف لتطور البشرية..

وإذا ما استمرّ في تجاوزاته لكل الخطوط الحمر فإن نهايته حتماً ستأتي على يد تحالف دولي إقليمي، قد يتحول إلى حلف عسكري في القريب العاجل، للقضاء على أوهام السلطان الذي لم يعد له صاحب أو صديق..

المجمع العسكري ـ الصناعي الأميركي ورسائل ترامب تجاه البنتاغون

معن بشور

في معرض الردّ على تصريحات منسوبة إليه يهاجم فيها الجنود الأميركيين فتح الرئيس الأميركي النار على قادة البنتاغون قائلاً: ربما يكون كبار المسؤولين في البنتاغون لا يحبونني لأنهم لا يريدون فعل شيء سوى خوض الحروب، ولذا فإنّ كلّ تلك الشركات الرائعة التي تصنع القنابل والطائرات وكلّ شيء آخر ستكون سعيدة.”

وجاءت هذه الإشارة السلبية من ترامب تجاه البنتاغون في سياق عملية تجاذب منذ ان هدّد ترامب باستخدام قانون التمرّد للاستعانة بقوات إنفاذ القانون خلال الاحتجاجات التي أعقبت وفاة المواطن من أصول أفريقية جورج فلويد على يد أحد ضباط الشرطة في جريمة وحشية ما زالت تداعياتها مستمرة حتى اليوم.

يومها أعرب الجنرال مايك بيلي رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة عن أسفه لانه سار مع ترامب في ساحة لافييت.

ويعتبر هذا السجال المتصاعد بين الرئيس الأميركي وكبار جنرالاته الذين عيّنهم بنفسه، كما عيّن أيضاً وزير الدفاع مارك اسبر (الذي كان مسؤولاً تنفيذياً ومقاول دفاع في شركة “رايثيون” التي تعدّ من أكبر الشركات المتخصصة في أنظمة الدفاع) تعبيراً جديداً عن عمق الأزمة البنيوية التي يعيشها النظام الأميركي، كما كان يردّد دائماً أخي وصديقي الدكتور زياد حافظ منذ عشرين عاماً، والتي يبدو أنها على ملامح انفجار كبير مع الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية في اوائل نوفمبر/ تشرين الثاني المقبل حيث يعلن الطرفان الجمهوري والديمقراطي رفضهما منذ الآن لنتائج الانتخابات اذا لم تأت لصالحه الى درجة انّ أحد كبار المسورلين في الحزب الديمقراطي قد أشار الى دعوة القوات المسلحة الأميركية الى إخراج ترامب من البيت الأبيض في حال رفضه الاعتراف بهزيمته.

لكن هذا السجال المستجدّ بين البيت الابيض والبنتاغون، المضاف الى سلسلة سجالات تملأ الساحة السياسية والشعبية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية الأميركية، يذكر بمقولة ردّدها الجنرال دوايت ايزنهاور رئيس الولايات المتحدة بين عام 1952 -1960، عشية مغادرته البيت الابيض محذراَ من مخاطر “المجمع العسكري الصناعي على الدولة الأميركية وسعيه لانتهاج سياسات حربية تؤمّن لشركات السلاح موارد لا تنضب، فيما تؤمّن هذه الشركات وظائف مجزية لكبار الجنرالات بعد مغادرتهم الخدمة العسكرية.

اليوم يأتي ترامب، وهو رئيس “جمهوري” أيضاً، كما ايزنهاور، ليشير الى هذه العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين في تعبير عن غضبه من عدم تجاوب البنتاغون مع خططه بإعاد انتشار القوات العسكرية الأميركية خارج الولايات المتحدة (وهو مطلب يرتاح اليه المواطن الأميركي)، كما لعدم تجاوبه مع رغبته بتطبيق قانون التمرّد الذي يضع بنظر أميركيين كثر، أكثريتهم من البيض، حداً للفوضى الأمنية التي تعيشها المدن والبلدات الأميركية منذ أشهر.

لا شك انّ هذه التحوّلات تستحقّ دراسة معمّقة على أكثر من صعيد، ولكن لا بدّ من دراستها على مستوى تداعياتها على حجم النفوذ الأميركي خارج الولايات المتحدة، وخصوصاً في بلادنا، حيث ما زال الكثير من الحكام والمحللين أسرى تحليل قديم يرى بأنّ “واشنطن قدر”، وأنّ سياستها تمتلك من القوة ما لا يسمح لأحد بمواجهتها.

انّ اشارة ترامب الى العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين، مجدّداً تحذيرات سلفه في الرئاسة والحزب الجمهوري، دوايت ايزنهاور، من تغوّل “المجمع’ الصناعي العسكري، الذي لا يستبعد بعض المحللين دوره في جريمة اغتيال الرئيس الديمقراطي جون فيتزجرالد كنيدي عام ١٩٦٣، وشقيقه روبرت عام ١٩٦٦، ليصبح الأمر تماماً بقبضة “المجمع” الذي لم يتوقف عن شنّ الحروب على شعوب العالم، وبشكل خاص على الشعوب العربية والإسلامية…

انها قراءة من خارج السياق، ولكنها ضرورية لكي نفهم أكثر السياسة الأميركية في منطقتنا او بالأحرى اللاسياسة الأميركية التي لا تحركها إلا مصالح الكيان الصهيوني وأمنه…

انها قراءة ضرورية لكلّ من يضع كلّ أوراقه بالسلة الأميركية وهو التحليل الذي أدخل الأمة كلها منذ عام 1977(زيارة السادات للكنيست) في اتفاقات متعدّدة باسم “السلام” الذي لم ينجب سوى الحروب لهذه المنطقة…

الأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

من القوقاز إلى المحيط الهنديّ ثلاثيّة ما بعد الدولار…!

محمد صادق الحسينيّ

يواصل المفكرون والباحثون والسياسيون والديبلوماسيون والإعلاميون نقاشاتهم وتحليلاتهم، حول طبيعة العلاقات القائمة بين كل من جمهورية الصين الشعبية من جهة وروسيا من جهة أخرى وحول طبيعة العلاقات بين كل من الصين وروسيا وإيران، الى جانب التركيز الإعلامي والاستخباري المتزايد، حول طبيعة العلاقات الروسية الإيرانية والعلاقات السورية الإيرانية.

وبغضّ النظر عن وجهات النظر المختلفة، الصادرة عن العديد من أصحاب الرأي، فإنّ هنالك أسباباً موضوعية، تحكم تلك العلاقات المذكورة أعلاه، تفرضها طبيعة الصراع بين القوى العظمى في العالم، وليست محكومة بمزاجات او نزوات شخصية او ما شابة ذلك.

إذ إنّ الناظم الموضوعي الثابت لهذه العلاقات، يتمثل في المصالح القوميّة العليا لكلّ من البلدان، التي تدور حول علاقاتها كل هذه النقاشات. وهي مصالح محكومة بطبيعة العلاقات السائدة، بين كلّ من هذه الدول والولايات المتحدة والدول الأوروبية، في إطار الصراع الدولي الشامل وسعي كلّ طرف من الاطراف ان تكون له اليد العليا في العالم ليتصدر قيادته، بناءً على موازين القوى التي يفرزها هذا الصراع.

وبما ان جوهر هذا الصراع يتمحور حول انهاء السيطرة الأميركية الاحادية القطبية على العالم فإن كل القوى التي تعارض هذه الهيمنة الأميركية لا بد ان تلتقي مصالحها عند نقطة مشتركة، تجعل التعاون بينها اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً، أمراً حتمياً لا غنى عنه.

إن نظرة مجردة، وغير خاضعة للأهواء الشخصية، للعلاقات التي تربط الدول التي تعمل على التصدي للهيمنة الأميركية، وهي بشكل اساسي وقوي كلٌّ من الصين الشعبية وروسيا وإيران، يضاف اليها العديد من الدول الإقليمية المهمة في آسيا، وكذلك الأمر بالنسبة للجزائر وجنوب افريقيا، في القارة الأفريقية، كما المكسيك وفنزويلا وقريباً البرازيل، بعد سقوط حكم بولسونارو، نقول إن نظرة الى هذه العلاقات تجعلنا نصل بالضرورة الى النتائج التالية:

أولاً: إن الاستراتيجية التي تنطلق منها هذه الدول، في مواجهتها لهيمنة الولايات المتحدة، هي استراتيجية موحدة او مشتركة او حتى يمكن القول إنها واحدةً، رغم التمايز في سياساتها، والذي يلاحظ في معالجتها لبعض قضايا العالم، أي لقضايا دولية، خارج إطار علاقة كل واحدة من هذه الدول مع الدولة او الأخرى.

ثانياً: وهذا يعني أن الدول الثلاث أعلاه هي دول متحالفة حول الاهداف، اي حول برنامج عمل محدّد ومتفق عليه، على الرغم من عدم وجود حلف يجمعها، وعدم ارتقاء المعاهدات الدولية، التي تجمع هذه الدول مع دول أخرى في العالم، كمعاهدة شنغهاي وغيرها، وهو الامر الذي يضفي مرونة كبيرة، على علاقات هذه الدول البينية وعلاقاتها مع دول أخرى. وهنا يحضرنا ذكر العلاقات، التي تربط روسيا بسورية وروسيا بـ”إسرائيل”، وكذلك علاقات الصين مع كل من سورية و”إسرائيل”، على الرغم من أن الآفاق الأوسع، لتطوير علاقات الصين وروسيا في “الشرق الاوسط “، توجد في البلدان العربية وليس في “إسرائيل”، وعليه فإن هذه العلاقات المتميّزة، بين القوتين العظميين والكيان الصهيوني، ليست الا علاقات مؤقتة سوف تتلاشى تزامناً مع تلاشي كيان الاحتلال.

ثالثاً: من هنا فانّ هذه الدول، ومنذ بداية تطوير العلاقات الروسية الصينية بشكل حيوي، بعد انتهاء الحرب الباردة، وبداية الحروب العسكرية الأميركية، في الفضاء الاستراتيجيّ للدول الثلاث، والتي بدأت بالحرب الأميركية على العراق سنة 1991، ثم احتلال افغانستان سنة 2001 واحتلال الجيوش الأميركية والبريطانية للعراق سنة 2003، وما تبعها من حرب أميركية اسرائيلية، ضد الحليف الموضوعي لتلك الدول، أي حزب الله، سنة 2006، وما تلاه من محاولة أميركية إسرائيلية لزعزعة الوضع على حدود روسيا الجنوبية، سنة 2008 في جورجيا، نقول إن الدول الثلاث وبالنظر الى ما اوردناه، وغير ذلك من الأسباب، فقد قررت اتباع استراتيجية تجميع وتوحيد القوى، المعادية للهيمنة الأميركية كأولوية دولية، وزجها موحدة في ميدان الصراع الدولي، بهدف الحدّ من السيطرة الأميركية شيئاً فشيئاً وإرغامها على تقليص انتشارها العسكري في العالم.

رابعاً: أن هذه السياسة، التي تجلت في التعاون الاقتصادي الواسع النطاق، بين روسيا والصين، خاصة في مجال الطاقة، وكذلك التعاون العسكري التقني بين الدولتين، الذي يساعد في مراكمة القوة الاقتصادية والعسكرية الضرورية، لخلق توازن دولي جديد، وكذلك الأمر في ما يخص العلاقات الروسية الإيرانية، التي تشمل العديد من القطاعات الهامة، والتي ستشهد تطورات متلاحقة وتعميقاً عاماً لها، بعد رفع حظر بيع وشراء السلاح المفروض على إيران وفشل الولايات المتحدة في تمديده. وكذلك الأمر بالنسبة للعلاقات الصينية الإيرانية التي شهدت تحسنًا ونمواً مضطرداً، رغم الحصار المفروض على إيران أميركياً، وهو تعاون سيفضي قريباً جداً الى توقيع اتفاقيات تعاون استراتيجي، سيكون له ما بعده (التعاون).

خامساً: كما لا بد من التأكيد على أن أحد أهم مجالات تطبيق هذه الثلاثية الأبعاد، الصينية الروسية الإيرانية، هو مجال الادوار التي لعبتها الدول الثلاث، سياسياً وعسكرياً، ليس فقط في حماية الدولة السورية، وبالتالي المنطقة العربية كلها، من التمزيق الشامل، وإنما أسّست لحضور عسكري استراتيجي روسي في شرق المتوسط يشكل خط دفاع أول عن بكين وموسكو ولا يستبعد أن يكون له دور عام في حماية مصالح الدول الثلاث في المنطقة والعالم، خاصة بالنظر الى مشروع طريق واحد حزام واحد الصيني العملاق، الذي لن تستطيع الولايات المتحدة منع تنفيذه مهما قامت بأعمال تفجير هنا وهناك، سواءً في البر او في البحر.

كما لا بدّ ايضاً من الاضاءة على أهمية التعاون السوري العراقي، مع كلّ من روسيا والصين وإيران، لما لذلك من أهمية على مشاريع إعادة الإعمار في العراق وسورية، وكذلك الأمر في قطاع خطوط نقل الغاز، التي لا بدّ أن تكون السواحل والموانئ السورية واللبنانية، رغم تفجير ميناء بيروت مرتين خلال شهر واحد تقريباً، هي محطات ضخ الغاز إلى اوروبا وليس ميناء حيفا المحتلّ، على الرغم من انّ شركة صينية هي التي تدير الميناء. اذ انّ كلّ مشاريع الغاز التي تتحدّث عنها الإدارة الأميركية والاحتلال الإسرائيلي هي مشاريع هدامة، تهدف قبل كل شيء الى إلحاق أضرار استراتيجية بصادرات الغاز الروسية، وبالتالي بالمداخيل المالية للدولة الروسية، خدمة لمشاريع واشنطن، الهادفة لإخضاع روسيا والصين لهيمنتها، سواءً من خلال الضغط العسكريّ أو الضغوط المالية والاقتصادية، عبر العقوبات والادوات الأخرى.

سادساً: وبالاضافة الى ذلك فانّ من الجدير بالذكر انّ تعاون هذه الدول الثلاث، الصين وروسيا وإيران، في كلّ المجالات، وعلى رأسها المجال العسكري، يواصل التنامي ومراكمة القوة اللازمة لمواجهة مؤامرات وتحرّشات الولايات المتحدة وحلف الناتو، سواء ضدّ الصين، في المحيطين الهندي والهادئ وبحار الصين واليابان والفلبين المختلفة، او ضدّ إيران، في بحر العرب ومنطقة الخليج وغرب المحيط الهندي، او ضدّ روسيا، في المحيط الهادئ والبحر الأسود وبحر البلطيق.

حيث قامت الدول الثلاث أعلاه بالردّ على تلك التحرّشات والاستفزازات الأميركية بإجراء تدريبات عسكرية بحرية مشتركة، في بحر العرب وغرب المحيط الهندي، استمرت لمدة ثلاثة ايام، من 27/12 وحتى 30/12/2019. وهي مناورات حملت العديد من الرسائل الهامة، لمن يعنيه الأمر، واظهرت ان إيران أصبحت قادرة على تنفيذ مهمات بحرية خارج محيطها الجغرافي، اذ انّ منطقة المناورات شملت شمال المحيط الهندي ايضاً، البعيد جغرافياً عن إيران، الأمر الذي يؤكد (القدرة الإيرانية) في تحدي للولايات المتحدة وإرسال ناقلات النفط الإيرانية الى فنزويلا، التي تبعد آلاف الكيلومترات عن السواحل الإيرانية مثال صارخ على ذلك.

علماً أنّ نجاح هذه الخطوة يُعتبر نجاحاً للدول الثلاث، خاصة اذا ما نظرنا الية كعملية مكملة للجسرين الجوي الصيني والروسي، اللذين أقيما لتقديم المساعدات لفنزويلا بداية العام الحالي، الى جانب التحليق القتالي الذي نفذته القاذفات الروسية العملاقة، من طراز توبوليڤ 160، في أجواء البحر الكاريبي والعديد من دول هذا البحر، أواسط شهر 12/2019، وما حملته تلك التحليقات الاستراتيجية من رسائل واضحة لواشنطن.

سابعاً: بالنظر الى استمرار التآمر والعبث الأميركي الغربي بأمن الصين، في بحار الصين والمحيط الهادئ وشرق المحيط الهندي (منطقة مضيق مالَقا) وكذلك العبث بالأمن الإيراني وامن منطقة الخليج بأكملها، من خلال مواصلة الحرب على اليمن ومحاولات إقامة حلف امني عسكري خليجي إسرائيلي، موجّه ضدّ إيران، حسب ما اعلن وزير الخارجية الأميركي، وما تقوم به أسلحة الجو للولايات المتحدة وجميع دول حلف الناتو، من محاولات انتهاك الأجواء الروسية، سواء على الجبهة الجنوبية، اي في منطقة البحر الأسود، او في بحر البلطيق وبحر بارينتس وشمال المحيط الهادئ، عند الحدود الروسية الجنوبية مع الصين واليابان، نقول إنه وبالنظر الى كلّ هذه الاستفزازات، مضاف اليها استمرار واشنطن وبروكسل في تعزيز حشود الناتو على حدود روسيا الشمالية الغربية، منطقة لينينغراد التي أصبحت في مرمى مدفعية قوات الناتو، وكذلك المحاولات اليائسة، التي تقوم بها واشنطن وبروكسل، لإسقاط الدولة في روسيا البيضاء والسيطرة على أراضيها رفعاً لمستوى التهديد الغربي للدولة الروسية، فإن كلاً من: روسيا والصين وإيران، الى جانب روسيا البيضاء وباكستان ودول أخرى عديدة، قرّرت اجراء تدريبات عسكرية مشتركة (تحت عنوان القوقاز 2020)، في جنوب غرب روسيا، تستمرّ من 21 وحتى 26 من شهر ايلول الحالي، وذلك في إطار الاستعدادات المشتركة لمواجهة أية اخطار عدوانية تواجه الدول المشاركة في التدريب.

ثامناً: وفي الختام لا بدّ من الإشارة الى انّ مراكمة القدرات، الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية، لمواجهة العدوان الأميركي، قد جاءت نتيجة لثلاثين لقاء، بين الرئيسين الصيني والروسي، والعديد من اللقاءات بين الرئيسين الروسي والإيراني، كما أنها تشكل جزءاً من الردّ على الاستفزازات الجوية الأميركية الأوروبية، في أجواء البحر الاسود بشكل خاص، حيث اضطرت المقاتلات الروسية للتصدي لطائرات استطلاع وقاذفات استراتيجية أميركية أكثر من ثلاثين مرة، خلال شهر آب الماضي.

وهو الأمر الذي جعل إيران ايضاً تنفذ تمريناً عسكرياً بحرياً اطلقت علية اسم: ذو الفقار، بمساندة سلاح الجو والدفاع الجوي وقوات الانزال البحري وسلاح الصواريخ، في منطقة تمتد من بحر العرب وخليج هرمز وحتى غرب المحيط الهندي وتبلغ مساحتها مليوني كيلومتر مربع مستمرة حتى يومنا هذا، حيث تصدّت خلالها الدفاعات الجوية الإيرانية لثلاث طائرات استطلاع أميركية، الأولى من طراز P – 8، أما الثانية فهي مسيّرة من طراز غلوبال هوك MQ – 9، بينما الثالثة مسيّرة ايضاً ومن طراز RQ – 4، حيث كانت هذه الطائرات قد دخلت منطقة الاستطلاع الدفاعي الإيراني، مما اضطر طائرة إيرانية من طراز كرار أن تطلق طلقات تحذيرية باتجاه الطائرات الأميركية التي اضطرت الى مغادرة المنطقة.

وغنيّ عن القول طبعاً انّ في ذلك رسالة واضحة من إيران مفادها، انّ امن المنطقة الإقليمي، الممتدّ من سواحل إيران الجنوبية وبحر العرب وصولاً الى خط بحر قزوين/ البحر الأسود، هي من مسؤوليات دول المنطقة، ولا علاقة لا للولايات المتحدة ولا لدول الناتو بهذا الموضوع، على الرغم من انتشار قواعدها العسكرية على السواحل الغربية للبحر الاسود، في كل من بلغاريا ورومانيا وبعض الوجود العسكري في اوكرانيا.

اذن فهو تعاون ميداني مشترك، ذلك القائم بين الصين وروسيا وإيران، على الرغم من عدم وجود قاعدة عقائدية مشتركة، وهو ما يجعله تعاوناً يرتقي الى مستوى الحلف من دون ان يكون حلفاً ملزماً لكلّ اعضائه بكلّ السياسات والتفاصيل بالضرورة، كما هو حال حلف الناتو حالياً وحلف وارسو سابقاً، وهو الأمر الذي يمكن اعتباره تجديداً في العلاقات الدبلوماسية الدولية، ولكنه يتطابق تماماً مع احكام القانون الدولي، الذي ينظم العلاقات بين الدول.

وهذا ما جعل الكاتب الأميركي، دووغ باندو ينشر مقالاً، في مجلة ذي ناشيونال انتريست الأميركية، يوم 9/9/2020، تحت عنوان: لماذا يجب على أميركا الخوف من هذا الحلف؟

صحيح أن للخوف الأميركي هذا ما يبرره حالياً، لكن الصحيح ايضاً أن لا مبرر له، اذا ما اقتنعت الولايات المتحدة بان التطور الاقتصادي الصيني لن يوقفه لا الخوف الأميركي ولا المخططات العسكرية العدوانية للبنتاغون، وان الطريقة الوحيدة لقتل الخوف الأميركي، هي الرضوخ لمبدأ التعاون البناء مع الصين وروسيا وإيران إذا ما ارادت اثبات حسن نيتها في العلاقات الدولية، والاقتداء بنموذج هذه الدول في التطوير العلمي والتكنولوجي، اذ ان الصين هي الدولة الاولى في ألعالم من ناحية الاستثمار في البحث العلمي والتطوير التكنولوجي، وهي ايضاً الدولة التي يتخرج من جامعاتها سبعة ملايين مهندس، في مختلف الاختصاصات الهندسيّة بما فيها هندسة الكمبيوتر، وما يعنيه ذلك من اثراء لقدرات الدولة، على مختلف الصعد. وهذا ما ينطبق على كل من روسيا وإيران تماماً، ما يجعل المواجهة الاستراتيجية الدولية محسومة النتائج، لصالح التجمع المعادي للهيمنة الأميركيه، ولا مجال لإعادة عقارب الساعة الى الوراء، ولن تنفع اوهام ترامب، التي اعلن عنها يوم أمس، قائلاً ان لديه صواريخ لا يمتلك أحد مثلها…!

فليست بالصواريخ وحدها تعيش الأمم.

فهذا القرن هو قرن الحروب البيولوجيّة وعليك مواجهة الكورونا والقادم من الأوبئة وتنقذ الشعب الأميركي من صواريخك العبثية، قبل أن تتباهى بصواريخ لا وجود لها.

عالم جيوش اليانكي والكاوبوي يتقهقر، عالم ما بعد الدولار يتقدّم وينهض.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Evidence the U.S. Is a Dictatorship, Not a Democracy

Evidence the U.S. Is a Dictatorship, Not a Democracy

September 10, 2020

by Eric Zuesse for the Saker Blog

On September 2nd, Pew Research — one of America’s most respected polling organizations — issued findings from their survey of 11,001 U.S. adults between July 27 and Aug. 2, 2020, regarding three important questions that are indicative of whether or not Americans believe the U.S. Government to be a democracy, or instead a dictatorship. These are those three findings:

“Elected officials face serious consequences for misconduct.” 27% Yes. (73% No.)

“Government is open and transparent.” 30% Yes. (70% No.)

“Campaign contributions do not lead to greater political influence.” 26% Yes. (74% No.)

The last-listed of those three indicates that three-quarters of the American public believe exactly the same as the existing political-science empirical studies clearly have documented to be actually the case: that America is ruled by only its wealthiest and best-connected people — that it’s an aristocracy, a one-dollar-one vote nation, instead of a one-person-one-vote nation — it’s not a democracy at all. So: that is now established as a fact in political science; it’s not merely an opinion by three quarters of the U.S. public.

However, another relevant question produced an extreme disparity between the opinions of Republicans (America’s conservatives) versus Democrats (America’s liberals) regarding whether America is a democracy, and here is that fourth question and its answers:

“Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.” Republicans 76% Yes. Democrats 28% Yes.

Those are diametrically opposite opinions, by the adherents to the two political Parties.

So, on that one question, America’s conservatives do consider America to be a democracy, regarding at least the factor of whether or not all Americans have equal opportunity. This question is relevant to democracy because if everyone has equal opportunity, then there is equality on at least that single matter of equality — equality of opportunity — which cannot even possibly exist in a dictatorship, because a dictatorship has dictators, who, obviously (by definition), possess enormously more opportunity than do the rest of the population. So, whereas Republicans think that America is a democracy on at least that factor (equal opportunity), Democrats equally strongly believe that it’s not.

There was also one other question on which a strong contrast existed between Republicans and Democrats, though not diametrically opposite views, and here is that fifth question, and its answers:

“The fundamental design and structure of American government need significant changes.” Republicans 50% Yes. Democrats 79% Yes.

How should these opinion-differences by Party (ideology) be interpreted?

Whereas Democrats overwhelmingly believe that America is a dictatorship, Republicans overwhelmingly believe that it is an equal-opportunity dictatorship; and half of Republicans believe (perhaps because they believe America provides equal opportunity) that (regardless of whether or not America is a dictatorship) “The fundamental design and structure of American government don’t need significant changes.” How can one make sense of that viewpoint? Perhaps Republicans believe that poor people deserve to be poor because they’re lazy and/or incompetent, and that the rich deserve to be rich because they’re hard-working and brilliant, and perhaps Democrats are more inclined to attribute the unequal outcomes (rich versus poor) to “the fundamental design and structure of the American government.” The views of Democrats on these matters are entirely consistent with the view that America is a dictatorship, but the views of Republicans are not.

Republicans overwhelmingly believe that America is an equal-opportunity society, and half of Republicans believe that the fundamental design and structure of the American government don’t need any significant changes. Both of those viewpoints are accepting America as it is, which means that they are blaming the poor — instead of blaming “the fundamental design and structure of American government” (such as that America is being ruled by the rich) — for the poverty of the poor. Consequently, at least half of Republicans (the ones who don’t believe that America needs structural changes) believe in the rightfulness of an aristocracy — they believe that the wealthiest should rule, the public should not. Those Republicans want to be ruled by the rich, instead of ruled by the majority of the public. They are, at the very least, ambivalent about (if not outright hostile toward) democracy.

One of the ways that Republicans might get around this problem in their viewpoint is by assuming that there is no Deep State, no unelected and totally unaccountable power behind the elected rulers, other than some amorphous governmental bureaucracy, career civil-service professionals, nothing which is outside and above that, such as the aristocracy of billionaires who select which politicians’ careers to fund, and which ones not to fund. According to this conservative viewpoint, all the deficiencies in the government come from the career bureaucracy, none come from the corruption that allows the richest to buy the winning politicians and the major newsmedia, and the think tanks, etcetera. In those people’s imaginings, the controlling power is inside the government, not outside, and above, it.

There is a good ten-minute Republican-Party propaganda video which displays that viewpoint, by mocking the hypocrisy of a leading congressional Democrat, regarding democracy. This video excludes any raising of the crucial question: “Whose interests (other than the politician’s own) is that politician actually serving?” By not asking that question, the ignoring of logical inconsistencies within one’s own political opinions is not only easy to do, but it is quite natural to do. Apparently, conservatives, far more than liberals, think this way: they don’t examine to find out whom the beneficiaries of the politician’s decisions are. It’s a way that accepts corruption. It doesn’t even wonder how corruption works. It doesn’t seek to understand.

That’s the problem with the conservative side. The problem with the liberal side is its hypocrisy, which that video is mocking. Maybe the reason for the hypocrisy of liberals is that they sort-of are opposed to corruption, whereas conservatives are entirely devoted to the free market, which allows corruption, since to do otherwise is to support policies against corruption, which policies would prohibit certain types of mutually voluntary agreements, and would specifically penalize agreements that are corrupt. Thus, Republicans oppose government regulations, whereas Democrats support government regulations.

By accepting corruption (as conservatives do, since they are devoted to the free market), a person accepts one-dollar-one-vote government, and rejects one-person-one-vote government — one accepts a dictatorship by wealth, and rejects a democracy by the people: by the nation’s residents. So: this difference in support for the aristocracy — the holders of the vast majority of the nation’s wealth — might explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Here are previous studies that have been done on whether America is a democracy or instead a dictatorship. First is an international comparison that enables these recent findings by Pew to be viewed in an international comparative context:

On June 15th, a NATO-backed study was published, “Democracy Perception Index – 2020”. As I summarized it on July 3rd under the headline “Countries Ranked on ‘Democracy’ in 2020”:

Here are the findings, and the rankings:

% saying yes to ‘My country is democratic’

(ranks shown are out of the 53 countries that were surveyed):

78% Taiwan #1

77% Denmark #2

75% Switzerland #3

75% S. Korea #4

73% China #5

73% Austria #6

71% Vietnam #7

71% India #8

71% Norway #9

69% Argentina #10

69% Sweden #11

67% Germany #12

66% Netherlands #13

65% Philippines #14

65% Portugal #15

64% Canada #16

63% Singapore #17

61% Malaysia #18

61% Greece #19

60% Ireland #20

59% Israel #21

57% Indonesia #22

56% Spain #23

56% Australia #24

56% UK #25

56% Turkey #26

55% Belgium #27

55% Peru #28

54% South Africa #29

54% Romania #30

54% Italy #31

53% Saudi Arabia #32

53% Pakistan #33

52% France #34

52% Mexico #35

51% Brazil #36

49% Kenya #37

48% U.S. #38

46% Japan #39

46% Colombia #40

45% Thailand #41

45% Algeria #42

43% Nigeria #43

42% Chile #44

41% Egypt #45

40% Morocco #46

40% Ukraine #47

39% Russia #48

38% Poland #49

37% Hong Kong #50

36% Hungary #51

28% Iran #52

24% Venezuela #53

(NATO did not publicize those rankings, nor even the scores.)

Perhaps the two most reliable statistical scores which tend to indicate the extent to which a given country is a dictatorship is its imprisonment-rate: the percentage of its residents who are in prison. Right now, the U.S. has the world’s highest percentage of its residents who are imprisoned. This indicates either that it has the worst people or that it has the worst laws, or both, but it also provides overwhelming solid empirical evidence that “The fundamental design and structure of American government need significant changes.” Consequently, the 79% of Democrats, and the 50% of Republicans, who agree with that proposition are certainly correct, because the world-record-high imprisonment-rate proves it. It’s not consistent with the opinion that “The fundamental design and structure of American government don’t need significant changes.”

Furthermore: since America’s prisoners are overwhelmingly the nation’s least wealthy, and since America’s wealthiest are virtually (if not totally) impossible to imprison regardless of how many people they might have defrauded — or else even murdered by promoting and selling toxic and dangerous products, sometimes even more toxic than toxic collateralized mortgage obligations — these facts are further evidence that “The fundamental design and structure of American government need significant changes” is true, and that “Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed” is false. So, a consistent picture is emerging, which is consistent with the political-science findings that the U.S. is, in fact, a dictatorship (by its wealthiest).

However, this does not necessarily mean that any single one of those indicators is reliable, on its own, as an indicator of whether or not the given nation is a dictatorship. Everything should be viewed within its broader context.

One question that deepens this context is whether or not there has been some stability in America’s being at the top of the imprisonment heap. The earliest web-archived version of comparative international imprisonment-rates was this one on 20 March 2009, and the nation which, at that time, was shown to have the highest imprisonment-rate was the United States. So, from at least that time to this time, America has had the world’s highest imprisonment-rate. If that’s not a dictatorship, then what is? But, of course, the political-science empirical studies already show that the U.S. is a dictatorship. So, can can there even be a debate about it?

This means that any ‘news’ report that refers to America as being a “democracy” is demonstrably and clearly false.

Yet another indicator that the U.S. is a dictatorship is that it now is spending approximately half of the entire world’s military expenditures. It’s not only the most police-state, it is the most militarized nation — not necessarily in terms of having the world’s highest numbers of soldiers, but definitely in terms of having the world’s highest military expenditures (especially on weapons). So: it’s an international dictatorship.

On 17 June 2014, I headlined “Why Does NATO Still Exist?” and was (so far as I have been able to find) the first person publicly to refer to the “U.S. Regime” (other than as being part of an adjective in the many online references to “U.S. regime change” operations). In that article, I used the phrase “U.S. regime”, for the first time, directly as a noun, in the phrase, “The U.S. regime can say …”. More than five years later, on 10 November 2019, I headlined “Why does no other writer refer to ‘the U.S. regime’?” Instead, ‘news’ reports still are referring to such fantasies as “American democracy” and “the U.S. and other democracies.” However, recent evidence indicates that a majority of the American public have figured this hoax out for themselves, no thanks to America’s (or the rest of the world’s) ‘news’ media. People are learning, perhaps from their own personal experiences. Anyway, that’s what it is: it is the U.S. regime (or “the American regime”). That is today’s reality.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

American dream, global nightmare

By Keith Harmon Snow

September 10, 2020 – 20:35

For many years I have mistakenly believed that police shootings and killings of blacks and Native Americans in the United States occurred because police officers had made some kind of mistake.

The cops were poorly trained, my conscience argued, they made a mistake, but they can be reformed, they can be better trained. I saw it as a lack of training, a phenomenon that occurred due to some accident of circumstances or a moment of confusion. Now I more clearly see that police in the United States—especially white but not only white police—shoot and kill people of color out of hate.  

It has always been this way.  The modern era of black lives doesn’t matter is no aberration.  How can we speak of the ‘Death of the American Dream’ when for millions of people their reality in the land of the free and home of the brave has revolved around the imperatives of struggling to survive in the shadows of predatory capitalism? The violence grew alongside the great European enlightenment, and then the Conquistadors brought conquest and annihilation to the shores of Turtle Island—what the white man calls ‘America’—and to the Spice Islands and the Kingdoms of Kongo and everywhere they went, and then came the galleons packed with once free African men and women sold into the brutality of plantation slavery.  Life for far too many Americans—north, south, central—has always been more nightmare than a dream. 

Our own citizens marginalized by our own U.S. government are not special in this regard. If we the conscious and caring people of the world open our hearts, minds, and eyes, we bear witness to the most horrible suffering, rampant injustice, unspeakable atrocities, war, and plunder being committed against innocent people everywhere.  One might have to dig tooth and nail to get beyond the unprecedented censorship, somehow defeat the exclusive algorithms of social media and reject the false fact-checkers, but the evidence is irrefutable: The power brokers of the United States of America and its closest corporatized allies—Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, Japan—constitute a supreme and immediate threat to all life on planet Earth.  Of course, to admit this ugly fact one must confront the demons of disbelief and most people will never do that. The fact-checkers would reject it as false in any case.

I have met people all over the world whose consciousness was falsely informed by the idea of the ‘American Dream’, a pure fantasy that has spread and, like a true virus, infected the minds of people free and unfree all over the world. Take the young Congolese soldier who aspires to serve in the U.S. military.  What is the source of this Dream? How does it proliferate in far-off places and everywhere infect so many minds and, it appears, hearts?

The cognitive dissonance that everywhere prevails is due to the power, reach, and success of the western propaganda system. Hollywood and Netflix films travel the world faster than the speed of light and deepen the shadows that everywhere dim the consciousness of humanity.  Life is becoming more machine than man, more man than woman, more disconnected from itself every day. Transhumanism is the new eugenics. Western consciousness is falsified by powerful elite individuals and their institutions of state power, propaganda, and perception management, including the traditional mass media mainstays (e.g. the New York Times, National Public Radio, Observer, Agence France Press, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Newsweek, etc.) but also the antisocial media of the Facebook, Twitter and Google kind.  What else could explain the cognitive dissonance whereby so many of the world’s people act against their own interests in support of a very real contemporary fascism?  

Language has been so utterly perverted to serve the forces that divide and conquer that it is nearly impossible to convey the truth as I see it: people have been deeply conditioned to believe that which is unbelievable and disbelieve the truth even when it hits them right between the eyes.  You don’t have to be a western news consumer to be sick from eating the corporate propaganda of one flavor or another, and so we have entire populations clamoring to have what we in North America have, but not at all prepared to accept the sacrifices that come with having it, and who—not incidentally —are forced to suffer the indignities that come with not having it so that we can.

Fascism, for example, is not about jackboots and swastikas, though there is plenty of that variety in the world, and particularly in today’s Trumpian dystopia, but rather a matter of the health or illness of the character structure of the individual. Otherwise reasonable and thinking human beings are so quickly lost to a cycle of self-fulfilling hysteria (read: fascism) inculcated in their inner being by the many sociological and psychological operations being conducted against them (read: us) by elite interests, predatory corporations, phantasmagorical ‘entertainment’ industries, think tanks, the mass media, and even the charity complex.  The great American Empire does not limit psychological warfare only to the targeting of its enemies, and torture is a useful tool that the Trumps, Bidens, Trudeaus, Clintons, and Netanyahu’s (sic) will quickly and quietly deploy against anyone who has something important truth to tell or anyone who gets in the way of those who don’t want it told.   

The example of toxic pharmaceutical injections (so-called ‘vaccines’) being served on unwitting dark-skinned populations quickly comes to mind, followed immediately by the clamoring for telecom microchip implants that will fundamentally dehumanize humanity.  It’s astonishing that more people don’t see how easily we have been fooled; that they don’t —for example—stand up and tell the elite powers-that-be to stick their toxic injections up their assets. Even if they did, the response is obvious: beat the people up, imprison them, torture them into submission, and stick it to them.

The stellar contemporary example of selling oneself out for the dictates of predatory capitalism is the COVID-19 conspiracy.  The world is overcome by a systematically manufactured fear and it has left people everywhere jumping at shadows, even their own.  One more example would be the conspiracy of 9-11 that for so many years now has informed and driven the great American hatred of all things Islam and all people Islamic and has provided a convenient cover story to justify the permanent warfare economies of the Zionist Anglo-American Empire, and the wars that they feed on. Alas, Islam has no corner on the market of American hate: with the COVID-19(84) scare the North American public has descended into a hysterical xenophobic fear and hatred of all things Chinese.  It doesn’t matter that Bill Gates and his satanic conspirators orchestrated their premeditated profiteering by first moving their pharmaceutical interests offshore to some far-off place called Wuhan.  Fear is the most valuable currency wielded by the people that pretend to be our ‘leaders’.

The disconnect between what is real and what is virtual is nowhere so starkly obvious, and sometimes horrible, and universally beautiful, as it is when you exit technological ‘civilization’—the matrix of indoctrination and conditioning that revolves around the bombardment of the senses with constant advertising and infotainment and subliminal seduction—and enter what westerners have been conditioned to see as the ‘uncivilized’ world comprised of rural Africa, Asia, Latin America or West Asia.

Indeed, the entire juggernaut of capitalism and its ‘achievements’—if global dominance, pollution, disease, trafficking in women and children, war crimes and genocide count as achievements, which for the psychopaths in power, they do—and the global onslaught of the multinational corporation is based on the expropriation of raw materials from all over the earth and the perpetual re-supply and re-stimulation of the ‘global’ economy for the production of unnecessary and unwanted products peddled by unnecessary and unwanted corporations to justify unnecessary and unwanted ecological destruction.

The pace of our modern world makes it impossible for people to navigate the facts or fictions about events and policies that define our reality. Global surveillance, data collection, and social engineering are no longer the exclusive haunts of the spooks at the CIA, MI-6, or MOSSAD. Now everyone is at risk of becoming the unwitting pushers of propaganda that would be nauseating to a truly awakened consciousness.  It seems people are so hopelessly lost that they will without question choose to sacrifice their children to save their own bodies.  And so, what do we have? We have an Empire of otherwise good people blindly doing everything wrong and convinced they are the greatest saints in the universe.  They follow the pied pipers of propaganda condoning the most egregious crimes committed in the name of the great state’s red white and blue, atrocities the likes of which they cannot even imagine and committed by the dirtiest spymasters and covert operatives. 

We may indeed be at the end of an era, but this has nothing to do with the monumental fraud of the upcoming U.S. national elections. True, these may cause the great Satanical Empire to pause, but only so much as one white supremacist war-mongering philanderer might be substituted for another.  And there is the great hope for so many people of the world, it seems: they believe that all that needs to be done is swap one delusional white savior for another, and truth and justice will be restored to the world. Nothing can be further from the truth. There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils.  The American dream is not so much dead as it is adrift on a dark and stormy sea. 

This does not mean that the end is near, although in global environmental terms I personally believe it is.  The corpse may yet be revealed.  Who can say for sure?  The evidence suggests that positive feedback loops have been set in motion and the climate is spiraling out of control.  Thus, it is only a matter of time for all of us. There is a bigger picture, but North Americans and Brits and Israelis are wholly incapable of seeing it.  

I often say: “If you are reading the New York Times you are contributing to your own mental illness.”  This is no joke: I am completely serious. (Substitute any other mainstay of the western corporate-prostituted media and the statement still applies.)  My sincerity comes after foolishly dedicating years of my life to researching world events, investigating the corruption of the Empire, juxtaposing these with the realities I have seen and experienced, and comparing them to the propaganda produced by our so-called democratic society.  These are advertising delivery mechanisms meant to manipulate public opinion and manufacture consent while simultaneously making someone a lot of money.  The reaction by consumers of western propaganda to my thesis is generally hysterical.  The smarter ones are certain that they are immune to the dirty tricks of the propaganda pundits, and so they reject the thesis outright, and with great disdain, if not laughter, but only after lecturing me about their clairvoyance (and my ignorance).  The more intellectual the consumer of this propaganda, the more arrogant the certainty of their immunity to it.  

These intellectuals couldn’t be more wrong.  Miseducated by the best colleges, they are like academics living in their own little worlds, debating amongst themselves, or like the politicians that inhabit the wasteland of private profit and perfidious power we call the U.S. ‘Congress’.  Do you think they have ever read such great works as the Upanishads? The Abbasids?  The Conceptions of Nature and Methods Used for Its Study by the Ikhwan al Safa, al-Biruni, and Ibn Sina?  The Koran?

The American dream lives on in many good people, and that is because we hold out a flicker of hope that someday of reckoning might be near, that a deeper consciousness will take hold, that enough people will stand up to the evil—in all its ugly cowardly petty manifestations—and together with good people of all nations and colors and faiths the world over we will usher in a new paradigm that is grounded in wisdom and love.   


Keith Harmon Snow is the 2009 Regent’s Lecturer in Law & Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara, recognized for over a decade of work on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.  A photojournalist and war correspondent, he is a three-time Project Censored award-winner.

RELATED NEWS

Trump Says Pentagon Chiefs ‘Fight Wars to Keep Arms Dealers Healthy’

Trump Says Pentagon Chiefs ‘Fight Wars to Keep Arms Dealers Healthy’

By Staff, Agencies

US President Donald Trump accused the Pentagon’s top brass of starting wars in order to hand billions to arms makers, drawing shocked reactions from his liberal critics and foreign policy hawks – some playing both roles at once.

“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me – the soldiers are,” Trump said at a White House press conference on Monday.

“The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy”, he added.

Trump went on to say there was “one cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another”, championing the withdrawal of American troops from “endless wars” and condemning NATO allies for “ripping us off”. 

His comments come as his latest response to a September 3 story in the Atlantic, which said that Trump had denigrated fallen American soldiers throughout his time in office, reportedly dubbing them “losers” and “suckers.”

Trump denied the allegations, which were based on the claims of anonymous officials and aides, reiterating on Monday: “Who would say a thing like that? Only an animal would say a thing like that.”

His scathing critique of the Pentagon’s top leadership prompted a new wave of controversy, however, as a number of media pundits, Democratic lawmakers and bellicose foreign policy commentators lined up to voice horror at the “unprecedented public attack” on the military.

Despite his withering attack on the Pentagon’s revolving door, Trump has frequently boasted of “rebuilding” the US armed forces with vast military expenditures, which continue to outspend the world’s next 11 largest military budgets combined. He has also repeatedly touted multi-billion dollar weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other allies, insisting they support American jobs and bring money into the country.

Bipartisan effort to oust the outsider Trump makes 2nd US stimulus unlikely

September 07, 2020

Bipartisan effort to oust the outsider Trump makes 2nd US stimulus unlikely

By Ramin Mazaheri and by author permission crossposted with Sputniknews.

We are currently experiencing the biggest era of American division in 50 years, but one thing Americans are united in is that they want additional coronavirus stimulus: a poll last week showed 70% of respondents demand a re-routing of taxes back their way.

The reasons for that are too numerous to list here, but it’s not hyperbole to summarise that national economic indicators suggest either “Great Depression II” or “Great Recession-er.”

Yet for months Congress has remained deadlocked on concluding a relief plan which would get scores of millions of Americans to back away from the ledge, the bottle, the prescription pill and the daily conversations they are having with each other about their very serious economic desperation and hopelessness.

The coronavirus seems likely to deal a death blow to the neoliberal form of capitalism, which has always been a faith-based ideology with a terrible track record, anyway: in a major crisis a central government simply must provide services and aid, and simply cannot continue to slash itself into neoliberal-ordered nothingness.

While rational American conservatives are slowly coming around on this, the nation’s top Republican lawmakers are not.

A comparison of the $3.4 trillion Democrat and the $1.1 trillion Republican stimulus plans shows that the biggest disagreement comes on the core neoliberal and libertarian tenet of eliminating government as much as possible: Democrats want $1.1 trillion earmarked for state and local governments, while Republicans propose just $100 billion. More than a few fiscally-reactionary Republicans think the original $2.2 trillion CARES Act overstepped the absurd limits they set on government, but the vast majority of conservatives in Congress are simply not going to allow the coronavirus to roll back their four decades of efforts to reduce government at all levels.

It should be remembered that in the American federal system local government plays – or used to – a much larger role than in most other countries. The coronavirus also seems likely to deal another death blow – to those who insist on a weak central government: the fragmented and chaotic US response to the pandemic is a direct result of their insistence on “states’ rights” over national well-being, which makes a unified response to any type of crisis fundamentally impossible.

So when truly half of the disputed difference between the two plans is over this radical and unusually-American neoliberal issue, we should not expect Republicans to capitulate anytime soon. Yet as the grassroots support for more stimulus reminds us – the Republican elite in Washington are obviously totally out of touch with the economic fears of the average Republican elsewhere.

On the other side of the aisle, one should not assume that Democrats are totally genuine in their desire to extend greater help to American citizens.

After all, if they wanted to re-inflate local and state governments so badly, why didn’t they include greater redistribution in the CARES Act? Every political operator knew that their chances were better at the start of the coronavirus hysteria, and also that the chances for bipartisan agreement (obviously necessary in a Republican-controlled Senate) would decrease closer to election day.

The $1.1 trillion for state and local government looks more like a phony “poison pill” designed to inflame Republican ideological morals when combined with the fact that the Democrat plan contains exactly zero additional aid for small businesses, who have always provided the backbone of the Republican Party. Small-business aid is the second-largest component of the Republican’s second stimulus plan, at $200 billion. Zero for small businesses – which provide over 40% of national economic output – is not only idiotic and guaranteed to perpetuate economic misery, but can easily be perceived by Republicans as an ideological slap in the face.

Many wonder if the plan of the Democratic elite all along was to drag their feet on what they wanted at the start of the coronavirus panic in order to put themselves in a position to accuse Republicans of dragging their feet on a deal closer to November. Allowing an already-festering country to rot for months in order to win an election sounds like bad governance bordering on treason, but the anti-Trump faction among the US 1% is surely willing to do anything to get the rogue politician out of office.

Last month Trump smartly circumvented Congress to extend desperately-needed jobless benefits to tens of millions of Americans – what’s perplexing is why Trump isn’t already talking about doing that again? Aiding suffering constituents shouldn’t be denigrated as corrupt “patronage” or “vote-buying” – it’s good governance. Unfortunately, elite Republicans ideologically insist that “good governance” is an oxymoron.

Trump was elected in 2016 precisely because he defied Republican leadership and ideology – the best way for him to get re-elected would be to revert to that form, and to send another round of direct stimulus to voters.

That may require bypassing Congress again, which seems unlikely to agree on a significant compromise. This allows both sides to blame each other for economic woes all the way up until November 3, but it crucially allows “the swamp” to do something which they emphatically agree on: blaming Trump for every problem in order to get the unprecedented outsider out of office.


Ramin Mazaheri is currently in the US covering their elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of Socialisms Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as Ill Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

The Quiet Imperialism

The Quiet Imperialism

September 05, 2020

By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

Many if not most Americans have always been in denial about the imperial ambitions and practices of US foreign policy. There are honourable exceptions – Noam Chomsky, Tulsi Gabbard come immediately to mind. But on the whole the direction of US geopolitical strategy has been guided and implemented by a small cabal of geopolitical fanatics; these are ensconced in various state and non-state organizations such as the media and various think-tanks and have had a wholly negative effect on US foreign policy, both in practise and theory. The US’s global adventurism has been regarded by the US public, insofar that it concerns itself with such matters, as being conceived in good faith and benign in intent. Unfortunately, the facts don’t conform to the popular trust that American citizens put in their government, particularly the Deep State, National Security Agencies, the political elites, and the Military Industrial Complex, not to mention the mainstream media.

This popular narrative of America qua global good-guy was very beautifully illustrated in a novel by the British author Graham Greene. The novel The Quiet American was set against the background of the first Indo-China war, with one of the central characters, Alden Pyle, an ostensibly idealistic young American Aid worker, who presented himself as a proto third-way reformist opposed both to the excesses of French colonialism on the one hand, and Chinese Communism on the other. But in fact he was nothing of the sort, and his baleful motives are soon uncovered by the cynical, world-weary British journalist, Thomas Fowler. As it turned out Pyle had been working for the CIA all along. The novel itself has been made into two motion pictures. Both are well worth watching and instructive. The novel was of course an allegory on what was happening and what has always been happening in geopolitical national rivalries and machtpolitik.

Thus US imperialism is the theory and practise which dare not speak its name. In the third world, however, and increasingly in the developed world, the facts are plain to see for all but the ideologically purblind. The US, particularly since the neo-conservative ascendancy, is a rampaging imperial juggernaut, with a blatant empire-building agenda. The US imperial project was from 1945 onwards held in check by social democratic obstacles in western Europe, the existence of the Soviet and East Asian Communist bloc and national anti-colonialist movements in the south. But with the collapse of communism, the ongoing enervation and retreat of social democracy, and the stalling of the anti-colonial struggle in the south, the rapacious beast of American imperialism was off the leash.

Moreover, the US has made it perfectly clear that it will not tolerate the reconstitution of any economic or military power capable of challenging its global domination. (see The Wolfowitz Doctrine.) To this end it has arrogated to itself the right to wage ‘preventive wars’ against those who may sometime in the future threaten its global ambitions. The global system has been unipolar but now its dominance is being challenged by new adversaries, particularly Russia, China, and perhaps Iran and the Americans are determined to contain what they regard as a strategic challenge.

This project is assuredly not lacking in ambition. It aims at extending the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ to the whole planet; the establishment of a sort of US global suzerainty. This would be difficult for the US to accomplish alone – it therefore has to form alliances and spheres of influence with other (subaltern) partners in the developed world. Roughly speaking the geopolitical configuration for America’s global project is as follows.

The phase of the (present) global development of capitalism is characterised by the emergence of a collective imperialism. The entirety of the Americas, Europe west of the Polish frontier and Japan, to which we should add Australia and New Zealand, defines the area of this collective imperialism. It ‘’manages’’ the economic dimension of capitalist globalization and the political military dimension through NATO, whose responsibilities have been redefined so that in effect it can substitute itself for the United Nations.

This requires some skilful diplomatic balancing between the US and its junior partners – particularly within the EU, where conflict between certain European states and the US is always a possibility. This is clearly evident in the spat between Germany and the US with the contretemps over Nordstream-2 and the stationing of US troops in Germany. To this end the mobilization of various euro-quisling elites – the UK, Poland, and according to Donald Rumsfeld the ‘new’ (Eastern) Europe – are vital for America’s policy of divide and rule in this area. Moreover the globalization agenda (the economic prong in the US global offensive) has become the received wisdom in the EU. As for the Euro it has become a satellite currency of the dollar, although it is in fact a stronger currency since it is based upon a euro economy which runs persistent trade surpluses with the United States (as does most everybody else).

Thus the EU – with the possible exception of France – has tended to meekly follow in the wake of the US hegemon ensnared in an Atlanticist doctrine for which the raison d’etre – if there ever was one – definitively ended with the cold war. And the world pays a heavy price for this.

According to Samir Amin:

‘‘The US economy lives as a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no national savings of its own. The world produces while North America consumes … The fact is that the bulk of the American deficit (on Federal and Current Account) is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South, rich oil-producing and comprador classes from all regions in the Third World – to which should be added the debt service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The American superpower depends day to day on the flow of capital that sustains the parasitism of its economy and society.’’ (1)

This was written by Amin back in 2006, but the US’s drive has not really altered that much in the interim. If anything it has become even more bellicose in pursuit of its quest for world hegemony. However, today, we not only have a clash of interests with the Germans and the US over the above issues. And despite the nominally peaceful intentions between the US and its allies (vassals) eventually the rising nations find that pursuing their own interests hits the barriers of the prevailing international order. And the further the old powers try to sustain their outdated settlement, the more the ascending powers – both within Europe and without – are frustrated. The entire post-war system itself becomes a source of international tension.

NATO exemplifies this. Established as we saw in a different era to coordinate western military power since the Cold War 1, after the end of that war NATO has turned into a disruptive force. Pursuing an ‘open-ended and ill-conceived eastern expansion’ the EU has rekindled inter-state tensions instead of assuaging them. (2) This illustrates a broader trend; that conflicting attitudes to the entrenched institutional structures generate dissension triggered by outdated economic and strategic pressures. National differences are expressed and often inflamed through opposing or supporting the existing and outdated systems and rules.

It could be said that NATO is a locus classicus of a dysfunctional bureaucracy. It exists ‘in order to solve the problems which it created.’ Or as Schumpeter first noticed, that ‘’ … in Egypt a class of professional soldiers formed during the war against the Hyskos persisted even when those wars were over along with its warlike instincts and interests … ‘‘ He noted with a pithy summary of his viewpoint that ‘’Created by wars that required it, the machine now created the wars which were required.’’ NATO anyone!?

With regard to International Political Economy, It is not generally understood that the US with its chronic federal and trade deficits is actually on the brink of technical bankruptcy, particularly when long term commitments on Medicaid, Medicare and Pensions, and Social Security payments are factored into the calculations. According to research carried out by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve, Fed liabilities come to a staggering $70 trillion – this is roughly 5 times the size of the US GDP. However these figures are now out of date. Given the fact that sovereign (or government) debt currently stands at $24 trillion which in terms of DEBT-to-GDP ratio of 107% is bad enough. Then comes private DEBT-to-GDP which stands at 220% minus unfunded future liabilities. (See below).

Figure 1. Sovereign debt to GDP 107%

Figure 2. Private debt to GDP 220%

The TOTAL DEBT i.e. municipal, household, financial, corporate, cars and student fees/debts AND, unfunded future liabilities, social security, Medicare, and pensions, are pushing on to a figure of total debt of 2000% in the not too distant future. This according to a CNBC report by Jeff Cox, September 09, 2019. This whole process has more or less been on track since the demise of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. The date was significant since this was when the US defaulted on its gold IOUs handing its trading partners paper dollars, or near dollars such as US Treasuries (Bonds) which it insisted were as good as gold. As a result the holders of this US government paper have been subsidizing the US and its economy ever since. The ability to palm off its trading partners with green paper meant that the US has been able to buy stuff from the western world without actually paying for any of it. It gets better. The US has been able to buy foreign made goods with monies loaned to them by foreign governments! The ultimate free lunch! See below. Only one way up apparently! Bear in mind also that the figures shown only go up to 2014. It’s odds on that the debt has grown further in the ensuing time span.

Against this backdrop the foreign policy of the US becomes clear. Its purpose is loot pure and simple. The south must continue to be plundered for cheap inputs and raw materials and in order to do this comprador elites must be promoted who are friendly to US interests. Economic development of course cannot take place in this context as there will be an outflow of capital from South to North. Markets must be opened up to the rapacious incursions of US and other western capitals. Possible rivals – Russia, China – must be regarded as long-term enemies and will be divided and marginalised or possibly in 1970s geopolitical jargon ‘Finlandised’. And uppity allies in Europe – like France – must be slapped down and brought to heel.

Whether the Americans can pull this off is a moot point. It rather depends on whether and how the rest of the world will continue to take the green paper from the Fed/US-Treasury (they are now conjoint BTW similar to a pantomime horse).

When other countries and other private lenders borrow, in this instance from the US, they must consider the economic and financial strength and resilience of that economy. Let’s put ourselves into the position of a creditor. As follows.

  • US sovereign debt is greater than national GDP and is only going to get worse. That puts the US economy in what historically has been the danger zone for ruinous trouble of one kind or another: economic stagnation, default, or runaway inflation. As we have seen however it’s the TOTAL DEBT. Which makes the situation dramatically worse.
  • Manufacturing industry has been hollowed out by a strong dollar policy which makes US export costs rise leading to deindustrialisation.
  • The Economy has been left with little capacity for recovering from shocks – both internal and external. Despite the unprecedented money printing and deficit spending evoked by past – 2008 – and presently – 2020 – even greater and further shocks will arise which will only be comparable to the 1930s.
  • Zero or negative interest rates, courtesy of the Fed, which have resulted in a bonanza for corporations to juice up their stock-market capitalisation. Essentially by stealing money off of savers.
  • Investment markets can’t go anywhere without creating bubbles that eventually burst. 1. Dot.com bubble, 2000, 2. Property bubble, 2008, 3. Everything bubble 2020.

This seems to be the story of the 20/21 centuries with each crisis being bigger and deeper as the one before. Does this look like the picture of a healthy super-power? Or is it the picture of a vulnerable giant close to its historical inflexion point? I know where I would put my money.

But given the tsunami of dollar bills flooding the markets an engineered inflation or a Volcker style 20% hike in interest rates seems likely; my own view is that there will be an engineered inflation; in fact, it’s happening already. This means any persons, corporations or states holding US$s or dollar denominated assets, e.g. Treasury Bills is going to take a big hit.

Of course this US offensive, both political and economic, has and will continue to be met with stiff resistance. Most of this has been spontaneous and centered around the crisis in the Middle East, South East Asia, with the growing opposition to the reputedly Promethean gifts of globalisation.

Samir Amin identifies 4 aspects of a political programme which would give organizational coherence to this opposition. ‘’(i) A campaign against all American ‘preventive’ wars and for the closure of all foreign US bases, (ii) A campaign of right to access to the land, which is of crucial importance to the world’s 3 billion peasants, (iii) A campaign for the regulation of industrial outsourcing, and (iv) A cancellation of third world external debts.(v)’’ (3)

One could of course add more to this – capital controls, global minimum wage and labour standards … and so forth. This would only be a beginning, however. Amin himself looks forward to the reconstitution of the UN as a forum where the third world and smaller countries could find legitimate voice, as opposed to the dominant – i.e., US controlled – institutions of the present – the IMF, WTO, WORLD BANK, and NATO which are frankly little more than instruments of US/EU/NATO Triad collective imperialism.

Get ready for a long period of Sturm Und Drang.

(1) Beyond US Hegemony – Samir Amin – 2006

(2) Stephen Walt – 2018

(3) Amin Op.cit. 2006

To Capture and Subdue: America’s Theft of Syrian Oil Has Very Little To Do With Money

By Steven Chovanec

Source

WAR FOR EMPIRE

Years of US support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS and efforts to effect regime change in the country have culminated in the theft of Syria’s oil, but is that really America’s coup de gras in Syria?

Near the end of July, one of the most important recent developments in U.S. foreign policy was quietly disclosed during a U.S. Senate hearing. Not surprisingly, hardly anybody talked about it and most are still completely unaware that it happened.

Answering questions from Senator Lindsey Graham, Secretary of State Pompeo confirmed that the State Department had awarded an American company, Delta Crescent Energy, with a contract to begin extracting oil in northeast Syria. The area is nominally controlled by the Kurds, yet their military force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), was formed under U.S. auspices and relies on an American military presence to secure its territory. That military presence will now be charged with protecting an American firm from the government of the country that it is operating within.

Pompeo confirmed that the plans for implanting the firm into the U.S.-held territory are “now in implementation” and that they could potentially be “very powerful.” This is quite a momentous event given its nature as a blatant example of neocolonial extraction, or, as Stephen Kinzer puts it writing for the Boston Globe, “This is a vivid throwback to earlier imperial eras, when conquerors felt free to loot the resources of any territory they could capture and subdue.”

Indeed, the history of how the U.S. came to be in a position to “capture and subdue” these resources is a sordid, yet informative tale that by itself arguably even rivals other such colonial adventures.

To capture and subdue

When a legitimate protest movement developed organically in Syria in early 2011, the U.S. saw an opportunity to destabilize, and potentially overthrow, the government of a country that had long pushed back against its efforts for greater control in the region.

Syria had maintained itself outside of the orbit of U.S. influence and had frustratingly prevented American corporations from penetrating its economy to access its markets and resources.

As the foremost academic expert on Middle East affairs, Christopher Davidson, wrote in his seminal work, “Shadow Wars, The Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” discussing both Syria and Libya’s strategic importance, “the fact remained that these two regimes, sitting astride vast natural resources and in command of key ports, rivers, and borders, were still significant obstacles that had long frustrated the ambitions of Western governments and their constituent corporations to gain greater access.”

With Syria,” Davidson wrote, “having long proven antagonistic to Western interests… a golden opportunity had presented itself in 2011 to oust [this] administration once and for all under the pretext of humanitarian and even democratic causes.”

US Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman meet with Syrians at the Yayladagi camp on the Turkish-Syrian border. April 10, 2012. Umit Bektas | Reuters.

The U.S., therefore, began organizing and overseeing a militarization of the uprising early on, and soon co-opted the movement along with allied states Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Writing at the end of 2011, Columbia University’s Joseph Massad explained how there was no longer any doubt that “the Syrian popular struggle for democracy [has] already been hijacked,” given that “the Arab League and imperial powers have taken over and assumed the leadership of their struggle.”

Soon, through the sponsoring of extremist elements, the insurgency was dominated by Salafists of the al-Qaeda variety.

According to the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by 2013 “there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad” and “the U.S. was arming extremists.” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that “although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists,” still “the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming.”

When ISIS split off from al-Qaeda and formed its own Caliphate, the U.S. continued pumping money and weapons into the insurgency, even though it was known that this aid was going into the hands of ISIS and other jihadists. U.S. allies directly supported ISIS.

U.S. officials admitted that they saw the rise of ISIS as a beneficial development that could help pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give in to America’s demands.

Leaked audio of then-Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “we were watching… and we know that this [ISIS] was growing… We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage — that Assad would then negotiate.” As ISIS was bearing down on the capital city of Damascus, the U.S. was pressing Assad to step down to a U.S.-approved government.

Then, however, Russia intervened with its air force to prevent an ISIS takeover of the country and shifted the balance of forces against the jihadist group. ISIS’ viability as a tool to pressure the government was spent.

The arsonist and the firefighter

So, a new strategy was implemented: instead of allowing Russia and Syria to take back the territories that ISIS captured throughout the war, the U.S. would use the ISIS threat as an excuse to take those territories before they were able to. Like an arsonist who comes to put out the fire, the U.S. would now charge itself with the task of stamping out the Islamist scourge and thereby legitimize its own seizure of Syrian land. The U.S. partnered with the Kurdish militias who acted as their “boots on the ground” in this endeavor and supported them with airstrikes.

The strategy of how these areas were taken was very specific. It was designed primarily to allow ISIS to escape and redirect itself back into the fight against Syria and Russia. This was done through leaving “an escape route for militants” or through deals that were made where ISIS voluntarily agreed to cede its territory. The militants were then able to escape and go wreak havoc against America’s enemies in Syria.

Interestingly, in terms of the oil fields now being handed off to an American corporation, the U.S. barely even fought ISIS to gain control over them; ISIS simply handed them over.

FILE – In this April 6, 2018 file photo, shows a former farmer working at a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel and other products, in a village controlled by a U.S-backed Kurdish group, in Rmeilan, Hassakeh province, Syria. Syrians living in government-controlled areas have survived eight years of war now face a new scourge in the form of widespread fuel shortages. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)

Syria and Russia were quickly closing in on the then-ISIS controlled oilfields, so the U.S. oversaw a deal between the Kurds and ISIS to give up control of the city. According to veteran Middle East war correspondent Elijah Magnier, “U.S.-backed forces advanced in north-eastern areas under ISIS control, with little or no military engagement: ISIS pulled out from more than 28 villages and oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River, surrendering these to the Kurdish-U.S. forces following an understanding these reached with the terrorist group.”

A man works a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel in a U.S-backed Kurdish village in Rmeilan, Syria, April 6, 2018. Hussein Malla | AP

Sources quoted by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that ISIS preferred seeing the fields in the hands of the U.S. and the Kurds rather than the Syrian government.

The rationale behind this occupation was best described by Syria expert Joshua Landis, who wrote that the areas of northern Syria under control of the Kurds are the U.S.’ “main instrument in gaining leverage” over the government. By “denying Damascus access to North Syria” and “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources” “the U.S. will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resources.” So, by “promoting Kurdish nationalism in Syria” the U.S. “hopes to deny Iran and Russia the fruits of their victory,” while “keeping Damascus weak and divided,” this serving “no purpose other than to stop trade” and to “beggar Assad and keep Syria divided, weak and poor.”

Or, in the words of Jim Jeffrey, the Trump administrations special representative for Syria who is charged with overseeing U.S. policy, the intent is to “make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it.”

Anchoring American troops in Syria

This is the history by which an American firm was able to secure a contract to extract oil in Syria. And while the actual resources gained will not be of much value (Syria has only 0.1% of the world’s oil reserves), the presence of an American company will likely serve as a justification to maintain a U.S. military presence in the region. “It is a fiendishly clever maneuver aimed at anchoring American troops in Syria for a long time,” Stephen Kinzer explains, one that will aid the policymakers who hold “the view that the United States must remain militarily dominant in the Middle East.”

This analysis corroborates the extensive scholarship of people like Mason Gaffney, professor of economics emeritus at the University of California, who, writing in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, sums up his thesis that throughout its history “U.S. military spending has been largely devoted to protecting the overseas assets of multinational corporations that are based in the United States… The U.S. military provides its services by supporting compliant political leaders in developing countries and by punishing or deposing regimes that threaten the interests of U.S.-based corporations.”

In essence, by protecting this “global ‘sprawl’ of extractive companies” the U.S. Department of Defense “provides a giant subsidy to companies operating overseas,” one that is paid for by the taxpayer, not the corporate beneficiaries. It is hard to estimate the exact amount of money the U.S. has invested into the Syria effort, though it likely is near the trillion dollar figure. The U.S. taxpayer doesn’t get anything out of that, but companies that are awarded oil contracts do.

What is perhaps most important about this lesson however is that this is just a singular example of a common occurrence that happens all over the world. A primary function of U.S. foreign policy is to “make the world safe for American businesses,” and the upwards of a thousand military bases the U.S. has stationed across the globe are set up to help protect those corporate investments. While this history is unique to Syria, similar kinds of histories are responsible for U.S. corporation’s extractive activities in other global arenas.

So, next time you see headlines about Exxon being in some kind of legal dispute with, say, Venezuela, ask yourself how was it that those companies became involved with the resources of that part of the world? More often than not, the answer will be similar to how this U.S. company got involved in Syria.

Given all of this, it perhaps might seem to be too mild of a critique to simply say that this Syria enterprise harkens back to older imperial eras where conquerors simply took what they wished: the sophistication of colonialism has indeed improved by leaps and bounds since then.

The Collaborator’s Reward: the UAE, from Syria to Israel

By Tim Anderson

Source

Mohamad Bin Zayed Bashar Assad 9062b

What do Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the UAE’s Mohamad Bin Zayed (MBZ) all have in common? They dreamed that their collaboration with the imperial power would allow them the freedom to pursue their own ambitions.

Very wrong. Once Noriega was employed by the CIA to betray compatriot nationalists and to be used as a tool against independent Cuba and Nicaragua, imperialism owned him. Once Saddam was armed (including with poison gas) by NATO countries to attack Revolutionary Iran and slaughter dissident Iraqis, imperialism owned him. And once MBZ collaborated with Mossad against the Palestinian resistance and armed terrorist groups against Syria, imperialism owned him.

After Noriega sought to play a more independent role in Central America the US, under Bush the First, invaded Panama killing thousands (see ‘The Panama Deception’), just to kidnap Noriega and jail him on drug trafficking charges. Saddam was not allowed to pursue his own interests in Kuwait. Instead his ambitions were used as a pretext to starve and then destroy Iraq. Saddam himself was eventually lynched, under US military occupation. MBZ, for his supposed crime of resuming relations with Syria in 2018, was forced to recognise Israel, thus becoming the new disgrace of the Arab and Muslim world. Once a collaborator is owned he is owned.

The UAE gained nothing by openly recognising the zionist regime. There was no political or economic benefit. The UAE was already collaborating deeply with Israel, as evidenced by the open access enjoyed by the Mossad team which murdered Palestinian militant Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in February 2010 (Lewis, Borger and McCarthy 2010), and later kidnapped Australian-Israeli whistle-blower Ben Zygier, after he had provided Dubai authorities with “names and pictures and accurate details” of the team, supposedly in exchange for UAE protection. However Israel kidnapped Zygier in the UAE and he later died from ‘suicide’ in an Israeli jail (Rudoran 2013).

There was no independent motive behind the disgraceful UAE move, other than fear and obedience. The Trump regime pressured and threatened MBZ into recognising Israel, just to help with its 2020 election campaign.

How do we know this? Two months before the UAE officially recognised Israel, Trump envoy James Jeffrey threatened the UAE regime for its renewed relations with Syria, which went against Trump’s subsequent ‘Caesar Act’ (MEMO 2020), a piece of legislation primarily aimed at imposing discipline on third party ‘allies’ which sought to normalise relations with Damascus.

Washington’s ‘Caesar’ law (part of an omnibus NDAA Act) pretends to authorise the US President to impose fines and confiscate the assets of those, anywhere in the world, who “support or engage in a significant transaction” with the Syrian government (SJAC 2020). It aimed at Persian Gulf allies, principally the UAE, and perhaps some Europeans who were considering renewed relations with Damascus (Anderson 2020)

As it happened, in late December 2018, the UAE resumed relations with the Syrian Government and resumed investment in the besieged country. This was despite the anti-Syrian role of the UAE in the early days of the conflict and, in particular, their backing of ISIS terrorism. That role was acknowledged by senior US officials in late 2014.

Head of the US Army General Martin Dempsey in September 2014 admitted that “major Arab allies” of the US funded ISIS (Rothman 2014). The following month US Vice President Joe Biden specified that US allies “Turkey, Qatar and the UAE had extended “billions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” to all manner of fanatical Islamist fighters, including ISIS, in efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad (Maskanian 2014). Biden later offered a hollow apology to the UAE for his remarks (Al Jazeera 2014). A sanitised Atlantic Council version of this history was that the UAE had backed “armed opposition groups – such as the Free Syrian Army” (Santucci 2020).

In any case, with Washington’s regime change war lost – certainly after the expanded role of Russia in Syria from September 2015 onwards – the UAE began to change tack. In November 2015 UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Anwar Gargash expressed cautious support for Russia’s role and in April 2018 he characterised the conflict as one between the Syrian Government and Islamic extremism. On 27 December the UAE reopened its embassy in Damascus (Ramani 2020). Bahrain followed suit the next day. The MBZ regime claims to have provided over $530 million “to alleviate the suffering” of Syria since 2012 (Santucci 2020), though how much of this went into armed Islamist groups is unclear.

But there certainly have been some UAE-funded construction projects in Syria in recent times. No doubt wealthy UAE investors saw some opportunities in post-war reconstruction. The Emirates hosted a Syrian trade delegation in January 2019 and in August 2019 some private Emirati companies participated in the Damascus International Trade Fair (Cafiero 2020).

But in early 2020 the Trump regime passed its Caesar law, aimed at reining in its wandering ‘allies’. In June envoy James Jeffrey pointed his finger at the UAE, saying: “the UAE knows that we absolutely refuse that countries take such steps [in Syria] … we have clearly stressed that we consider this a bad idea … anyone who engages in economic activities … may be targeted by these sanctions” (MEMO 2020).

That could mean big trouble for the UAE. The Obama regime (through the US Treasury’s ‘Office of Foreign Assets Control’) had already ‘fined’ European banks more than 12 billion dollars for their business with Iran and Cuba, in breach of Washington’s unilateral coercive measures (Anderson 2019: 42).

Two months later in August the UAE’s open recognition of Israel presented the semblance of some sort of change in the region. An Atlantic Council paper hoped that might be to derail the UAE’s ‘normalization policy with Syria’ (Santucci 2020). That indeed was one part of the project: tighten the siege on the independent region: from Palestine through Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to Iran. In the process 80% of the besieged Syrian population was living in poverty, and on the brink of starvation (Cafiero 2020). This was a determined if failing strategy, set in place by Bush the Second and carried through faithfully by Obama and Trump, despite the latter’s pragmatic misgivings.

The other part of the project was to strong-arm the little petro-monarchy into boosting the Trump election campaign. The UAE’s recognition of Israel did nothing to help MBZ, but was well received in Tel Aviv (though it did not change the constellation of Resistance forces) and was skilfully presented in the USA as some sort of concession to Palestine. Yet Trump’s flimsy pretext (a ‘freeze’ on further annexations) was quickly discredited. Israeli Finance Minister Yisrael Katz said that a ‘freeze’ was in place before the UAE deal (Khalil 2020). Netanyahu maintained that further annexations were still ‘on the table’ (Al Jazeera 2020). Indeed he had announced such ‘freezes’ before (Ravid 2009).

In any case, Trump was clearly no advocate for Palestinian or Arab rights. He had broken with previous US regimes by giving his blessing to Tel Aviv’s annexation of both East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, disregarding international law (BBC 2019). Disgraced in the region, the UAE was simply acting as Washington’s puppet. That is the collaborator’s reward.

———

References

Al Jazeera (2014) ‘Biden ‘apologises’ to UAE for ISIL remarks’, 6 October, online: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/uae-says-amazed-joe-biden-syria-remarks-20141058153239733.html

Al Jazeera (2020) ‘Netanyahu says West Bank annexation plans still ‘on the table’’, 13 August, online: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/netanyahu-west-bank-annexation-plans-table-200813183431066.html

Anderson, Tim (2019) Axis of Resistance: towards an independent Middle East, Clarity Press, Atlanta GA

Anderson, Tim (2020) ‘Trump’s ‘Caesar’ Style Siege on Syria, A Sign of Impending Regional Failure’, American Herald Tribune, 12 June, online: https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/4218-trump-caesar-style-siege.html

BBC (2019) ‘Golan Heights: Trump signs order recognising occupied area as Israeli’, 25 March, online: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47697717

Cafiero, Giorgio (2020) ‘The Caesar Act and the United Arab Emirates’, TRT World, 29 June, online: https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-caesar-act-and-the-united-arab-emirates-37702

Khalil, Zein (2020) ‘Annexation frozen before UAE deal: Israeli minister’, 16 August, online: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/annexation-frozen-before-uae-deal-israeli-minister/1943528

Lewis, Paul; Julian Borger and Rory McCarthy (2010) ‘Dubai murder: fake identities, disguised faces and a clinical assassination’, The Guardian, 16 February, online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/16/dubai-murder-fake-identities-hamas

Maskanian, Bahram (2014) ‘Vice President Joe Biden stated that US key allies in the Middle East were behind nurturing ISIS’, YouTube, 2 December, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25aDP7io30U

MEMO (2020) ‘US threatens UAE with Caesar Act, due to support for Assad regime’, 19 June, online: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200619-us-threatens-uae-with-caesar-act-due-to-support-for-assad-regime/

Ramani, Samuel (2020) ‘Foreign policy and commercial interests drive closer UAE-Syria ties’, Middle East Institute, 21 January online: https://www.mei.edu/publications/foreign-policy-and-commercial-interests-drive-closer-uae-syria-ties

Ravid, Barak (2009) ‘Netanyahu Declares 10-month Settlement Freeze ‘To Restart Peace Talks’’, Haaretz, 25 November, online: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5122924

Rothman, Noah (2014) ‘Dempsey: I know of Arab allies who fund ISIS’, YouTube, 16 September, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

Rudoran, Jodi (2013) ‘Israel’s Prisoner X Is Linked to Dubai Assassination in a New Report’, New York Times, 14 February, online: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/world/middleeast/israels-prisoner-x-linked-to-dubai-assassination-in-new-report.html

Santucci, Emily (2020) ‘The Caesar Act might alter the UAE’s normalization policy with Syria’ Atlantic Council, online: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-caesar-act-might-alter-the-uaes-normalization-policy-with-syria/

SJAC (2020) ‘The Caesar Act: Impacts and Implementation’, Syria Justice and Accountability Centre’, 20 February, online: https://syriaaccountability.org/updates/2020/02/20/the-caesar-act-impacts-and-implementation/

Wolf, Albert B. (2020) ‘The UAE-Israel Agreement Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be’, Foreign Policy, 15 August, online: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/the-uae-israel-agreement-isnt-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/

Ritual Public Shaming

Kenosha Wisconsin Footage The Media Doesn’t Want You To See (Compilation)

Battleground South China Sea?

By Stephen Lendman

Source

US hostility toward China’s growing political, economic, technological, and military prominence risks possible direct confrontation between both nations.

China seeks peace and cooperative relations with other countries in stark contrast to Washington’s aim for unchallenged dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its aims. 

Last week, Trump regime envoy for arms control Marshall Billingslea said (nuclear-capable) intermediate-range missiles may be deployed in the Indo-Pacific close to China’s territory.

Its Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denounced what’s likely coming, saying the following:

“China decisively condemns the US’s plans to deploy intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific Region, and expresses its sharp displeasure with constant pressure on China and the neighboring countries, as well as with constant provocations at China’s borders.”

Noting that deployment of these missiles will affect Russia’s security, its Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed concern, saying:

“We must also take into account that such armaments will also create additional risks for our territory as well, including objects of strategic importance, which would naturally require taking necessary response measures – which I would call compensatory.”

On August 2, 2019, Trump formally abandoned the landmark 1987 INF Treaty — based on phony accusations of Russian violations, invented ones because no real ones exist.

Responding to the unacceptable Trump regime action, Sergey Lavrov said the US began violating the INF Treaty “in 1999 when it began trials of combat unmanned flying vehicles with specifications similar to those of ground-launched cruise missiles banned by the treaty,” adding:

“Later it started using target missiles, ballistic target missiles, for testing its missile defense system, whereas starting in 2014 it began deploying in Europe launching pads for its positioning areas of missile defense – Mk 41 launching pads, which may absolutely be used without any changes and to launch Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.”

“That is a direct violation of the treaty. Such systems have already been deployed in Romania, are being prepared for deployment in Poland, as well as in Japan.”

The US under Republicans and Dems is a serial violator of treaties, conventions, bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as the rule of law overall domestically and geopolitically.

Its provocative actions threaten world peace and stability.

In response to the likely deployment of US intermediate-range missiles close to the borders of China and Russia in the Indo-Pacific, Vladimir Putin said this action will result in a symmetrical response and create new threats.

On Friday in response to repeated US anti-China provocations, PLA spokesman Senior Col. Li Huamin said the following:

“Ignoring the rules of international law, the US side has repeatedly provoked troubles in the South China Sea, exercising navigational hegemony under the pretext of ‘freedom of navigation,” adding:  

“We urge the US to stop such provocative behavior and restrict its maritime actions to avoid possible military accidents.”

What the Pentagon calls “routine freedom of navigation” is highly provocative in the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf, and other international waters close to the territory of nations it wants transformed into US vassal states.

On August 26, the PLA launched two missiles into the South China Sea, including an “aircraft carrier killer,” in response to unacceptable Pentagon aerial spying in no-fly-zone airspace during live-fire Chinese military exercises.

China’s Foreign Ministry called the US action a “naked provocation” that risked a possible “accident,” adding:

The PLA “will not dance to the US’ tune,” stressing that it should “pull itself out of the swamp of anxiety and paranoia.”

Time and again, provocative US intrusions occur in parts of the world not its own that heighten tensions and risk direct confrontation with nations it doesn’t control.

On Friday, the PLA said it expelled the USS Mustin guided missile destroyer from Chinese territorial waters near its Xisha Islands.

The PLA accused the Pentagon of breaching international law by its South China Sea provocations on the phony pretext of freedom of navigation — adding that its actions threaten China’s sovereignty and security.

According to China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet on Friday, the Pentagon unacceptably “sent military aircraft to the region more than 2,000 times  in the first half of this year alone,” adding:

“The US tries to drive wedges between China and related Southeast Asian nations, push those countries to the front, and enlist them as pawns in its anti-China agenda.”

“Washington’s malign scheme to make the South China Sea another anti-China battleground will certainly fail.”

The US is a warmaker, not a peacekeeper in the Indo-Pacific or anywhere else.

The South China Sea and Persian Gulf are the world’s top hot spots.

If global war occurs by accident or design, it’ll likely be launched by the US in one or both of these areas.

What’s unthinkable is possible because of US rage for global dominance — pursued by endless wars by hot and other means that risk destruction of planet earth and all its life forms if things are pushed too far.

US War Secretary’s Imperial Vision

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Mark Esper is to the Trump region’s war department what Pompeo is at State.

Both figures are right-wing extremists supporting endless US wars of aggression on nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

On August 24 in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Esper said “(t)he Pentagon is prepared for China,” adding:

Xi Jinping intends “transforming the PLA into a world-class military, one that can further the party’s agenda far beyond China’s shores (sic).” 

“His remarks serve as a stark reminder that we have entered a new era of global competition between the free and open international order (sic) and an authoritarian system fostered by Beijing (sic).”

Unsaid by Esper is that China prioritizes fostering cooperative relations with other countries, hostility toward none — polar opposite US hegemonic aims, waging war on humanity at home and abroad.

Since Nixon began the process of normalizing Sino/US relations in February 1972, followed later by the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations agreed to by Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping that formally established bilateral relations on January 1, 1979, China never attacked another country.

Its geopolitical agenda is in stark contrast to endless US wars on invented enemies.

If all countries fostered relations with others as Beijing does, world peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among the world community of nations would break out all over.

China threatens no other countries. The US threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations it doesn’t control.

Trump, Pompeo, Esper, and vast majority of congressional members support endless US war on humanity.

Its hostile to peace agenda risks global war with nukes if its hardliners push things too far.

Esper falsely accused Beijing of pursuing “an economic and foreign policy agenda that is often inimical to the interests of the US and our allies” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Xi’s plan for modernizing China’s military is with self-defense in mind — not naked aggression against invented enemies the way the US operates.

The rest of Esper’s op-ed included a further litany of Big Lies while concealing Washington’s hostile agenda.

Part of his aim is wanting trillions more dollars spent on US militarism and belligerence, including for a space force to wage future wars from the heavens.

Separately on a visit to Hawaii, Palau and Guam, Esper stressed the Indo-Pacific’s importance as “the main focus of America’s national strategy” for unchallenged global dominance.

Instead of cooperative outreach to regional countries for the mutual benefit of all, he called for Indo-Pacific leaders to ally with the US against China — falsely calling the country a regional threat, what applies to Washington, not Beijing.

Unacceptably hostile remarks by him, Pompeo, Trump, and likeminded congressional hardliners reflect how greatly Sino/US relations deteriorated with no prospect for improving things no matter which wing of the US war party runs things in Washington.

If Republicans or Dems push things too far, a Sino/US political and economic clash of civilizations could turn hot.

George Santanyana warned “(t)hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Two global wars taught America’s ruling class nothing — neither Kellogg-Briand’s renunciation of aggressive wars after WW I ended or the UN Charter’s preamble, saying:

“We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

Is another global war inevitable, the next one with super-weapons able to destroy planet earth and all its life forms if detonated in enough numbers?

What’s madness is possible by accident of design because of US rage to dominate other countries by whatever it takes to achieve its hegemonic aims.

Turkey in Western Calculations… Intelligence, Ideology and Military

August 25, 2020 Arabi Souri

Trump: 'Erdogan in the Smallest Pocket' - Syria News Archive - Turkey USA Syria Libya
Trump: ‘Erdogan in the Smallest Pocket’ – Syria News Archive

The following is the English translation from Arabic of the latest article by Turkish career journalist Husni Mahali he published in the Lebanese Al-Mayadeen news site Al-Mayadeen Net:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized, during the inauguration of the new building of the National Intelligence Service (MİT) in Istanbul, on July 26, “the important role that the agency played in the military and political successes achieved by Ankara in recent years, thus becoming a regional and international power to be reckoned with in all forums and areas.”

President Erdogan’s words came as an affirmation of the “militarization of Turkish foreign policy,” whereby the Turkish army is present in Syria, Libya, Qatar, Somalia, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and Bosnia, in coordination and effective cooperation with the intelligence that directly reports to Erdogan, as is the case of the military establishment after the failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016.

Erdogan took advantage of this coup and used it to serve his larger project, which is to amend the constitution and change the political system from parliamentary to presidential in April 2017, and he became the absolute ruler of the country since that date. Ankara’s regional policies have witnessed very important changes after that date, the most important of which is more intervention in Syria, especially in the Idlib file, and the sending of the Turkish army to Qatar in June 2017, and then to Libya, with more military operations in northern Iraq, and the building of military bases in Somalia.

And Turkish intelligence, according to President Erdogan’s words, had an important and main role in all of these activities, in addition to a supportive role in other countries and places in the region and Africa, and some European countries as well, which is what French President Macron and German officials talked about in particular.

These data were sufficient for America, France and Britain to place Turkey at the top of its intelligence interests, with the increasing Turkish military and intelligence role regionally and internationally. All this thanks to the wide network of relations established by the various Turkish agencies with large numbers of followers, supporters and loyalists of President Erdogan around the world.

The first initiative was from President Trump, who appointed Gina Haspel as head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CİA) in May 2018. It is known that she speaks Russian, she is an expert on Russian affairs, and she is an expert on Turkish affairs, which means that Washington wanted to You kill two birds with one stone, especially since the appointment came after Astana and before Sochi, as Haspel worked in Azerbaijan, and then held the position of assistant chief of the CIA in Ankara, and at a very important time, where she learned the Turkish language well.

And press information talked about her role in the kidnapping of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan from the Kenyan capital Nairobi on February 14, 1999, after she played a key role in the arrest of two al-Qaeda operatives in Azerbaijan, accused in the bombings of the US embassy in Kenya and Tanzania. On August 7, 1998, Osama bin Laden also participated in it.

Haspal’s “successes” were not limited to her contributions to these two stories, but rather it was said that they also played an important role in transporting the preacher Fethullah Golan to America a month after the handover of Ocalan to Ankara, as then Prime Minister Bulent Aguet said: “Why did the Americans hand us Ocalan with this? The shape? ”, To prove in subsequent years that Ocalan and Golan were, and still are, the two main issues that occupy the Turkish state’s mind. And it looks like they will keep that way with the AKP in power.

Haspal’s sudden visit to Ankara on October 23, 2018, for several hours, and her meeting with President Erdogan, confirms its continued interest in the Turkish file, as the visit was days after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate building in Istanbul. This crime, and after information obtained by Haspal in Ankara, was an important paper in President Donald Trump’s bargaining with Mohammed bin Salman, as a start on the path to the so-called “Deal of the Century”, and the Saudi surrender to Washington’s slavery after the Turkish-Qatar alliance in June 2017. And under the American umbrella, namely the “Al Sailiya” and “Al Udeid” bases.

Washington was not the only one in this regard, that is, its interest in Turkey, as France and Britain joined it, the two parties to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and what was attached to it from the Balfour Declaration, and also the establishment of the Hebrew state, with the support of America, the master of the capitalist world, after World War II. President Macron was ahead of Washington when at the beginning of 2017 appointed Bernard Amy as head of the French Foreign Intelligence Service (DGSE), after he served as his country’s ambassador in Ankara for the period 2007-2010, then he moved to Algeria, then London, Beirut and Amman, where he became director of the North Africa Administration in French Foreign Ministry.

Amy speaks Turkish fluently, and he is highly experienced in all of Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies, and Turkish history in general, which may explain the words and positions of President Macron against Turkey and his personal positions against President Erdogan, whether in Libya or Cyprus, Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, and his support for Islamists in Europe and the world, which is what Ambassador Amy knows very well.

As for the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and his grandfather of Ottoman origins, he was not late in his role in this field, as he appointed Richard Moore on July 30 as the head of his country’s intelligence (Mİ6), amid great Turkish media and political interest in this choice. Moore, who was born in Tripoli (Libya), worked as his country’s ambassador to Malaysia and Pakistan, which has a distinctive relationship with Turkey, before he was appointed his country’s ambassador to Ankara for the period between 2014 and 2017, where he established wide relations with Turkish officials after he mastered the Turkish language. Press information predicted for the Turkish-British relations, which is always distinctive, unlike the relations with all the countries of the European Union, to witness a significant development on the basis of coordination and military and intelligence cooperation during the reign of Richard Moore.

The choice of those who speak the Turkish language, and are fully aware of the Turkish issue, reflects the great interest that Washington, London and Paris attach to the current and future policies of Turkey, which has become clear that it relies on two basic elements that complement each other, namely the intelligence and the army, which work within the framework of President Erdogan’s ideological directives, as the head of National Intelligence Hakan Fidan accompanies President Erdogan on most of his foreign visits.

In turn, Moscow is closely watching these Erdogan policies, given its relationship with all the arenas in which it meets or contradicts Ankara, the most important of which are in Syria and Libya, and through it in the rest of the region, with Erdogan challenging President Putin in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and even self-governed republics within the borders of the Russian Federation, where there are about 25 million Muslims, most of them of Turkish origin.

This interest may be a reason for the importance that President Putin attaches to his advisor and spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, who graduated from the Turkish Language Department in Moscow and then worked for a long time at the Russian Embassy in Ankara, where he became familiar with all the developments of this neighboring country now and in the Soviet era, Turkey was a front trench for NATO and America against communism, and the Russian Empire was the greatest enemy of the Ottoman Empire, at least until Lenin’s Communist revolution in 1917.

And everyone knows that had it not been for the support of this revolution, Ataturk would not have been able to achieve his victory over the colonial countries, namely France and Britain, and with them Greece and Italy, which ended with the Lausanne Agreement of 1923, with the establishment of the Turkish Republic on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, as if history always repeats itself, even if in different forms and models in which the intelligence services played and performed important roles that decided, is deciding, and will decide the fate of the countries and the peoples, as is the case now in the Arab geography which was drawn by a young man named Lawrence, who bought the allegiances of the sheikhs of the Gulf tribes who were promoted from loyalty to the old colonial to serve the new master “Israel”, and its intelligence is the most knowledgeable of all their secrets! And as “Israel” was aware of all Turkey’s secrets, and through the followers of Fethullah Golan in the Turkish security and intelligence services, who were spying until the end of 2013 on the communications of all Turkish officials, both military and politicians, and at the forefront Erdogan, who said that they were spying even on his bedroom, while the pro-Erdogan media accused Golan and his followers, at one time with being agents for America, at other times for Germany, and in the end, ‘Israel’, which has become fully aware of all the secrets and hidden acts of the Turkish state.

End of the article

Erdogan, the Tool in the Hands of the Zionists

https://www.syrianews.cc/erdogan-tool-hands-zionists/embed/#?secret=fNbENEhzpv

Erdogan Recycles Terrorists from Syria to Libya and Idlib Front Update

https://www.syrianews.cc/erdogan-recycles-terrorists-from-syria-to-libya-and-idlib-front-update/embed/#?secret=l2jcYFwCMA

Censorship: Dictator Erdogan Continues to Block Syria News in Turkey

تركيا في الحسابات الغربيّة.. مخابرات وعقيدة وعسكر

تركيا في الحسابات الغربيّة.. مخابرات وعقيدة وعسكر

حسني محلي 

المصدر: الميادين نت

24 اب 14:41

يعكس اختيار سفراء يتكلمون اللغة التركية، ويعتبرون ملمّين بشكل تام بالشأن التركي، الاهتمام الكبير الذي توليه واشنطن ولندن وباريس بالسياسات الحالية والمستقبلية لتركيا.

أكّد الرئيس التركي رجب طيب إردوغان خلال افتتاحه المبنى الجديد لجهاز المخابرات الوطنيةفي إسطنبول، في 26 تموز/يوليو الماضي، “الدور المهم الذي أداه الجهاز في النجاحات العسكرية والسياسية التي حققتها أنقرة خلال السنوات الأخيرة، فأصبحت قوة إقليمية ودولية لا يستهان بها في كل المحافل والمجالات”.

جاء كلام الرئيس إردوغان تأكيداً على “عسكرة السياسة الخارجية التركية”، حيث يتواجد الجيش التركي في سوريا وليبيا وقطر والصومال والعراق وأذربيجان وأفغانستان والبوسنة، وذلك بالتنسيق والتعاون الفعال مع الاستخبارات التي تتبع مباشرة لإردوغان، حالها حال المؤسَّسة العسكريَّة بعد محاولة الانقلاب الفاشلة في 15 تموز/يوليو 2016.

وقد استغلّ إردوغان هذا الانقلاب وسخَّره خدمة لمشروعه الأكبر، ألا وهو تعديل الدستور، وتغيير النظام السياسي من برلماني إلى رئاسي في نيسان/أبريل 2017، فأصبح الحاكم المطلق للبلاد منذ ذلك التاريخ. وشهدت سياسات أنقرة الإقليمية بعد ذلك التاريخ تحولات مهمة جداً، أهمها المزيد من التدخل في سوريا، وبشكل خاصّ في ملف إدلب، وإرسال الجيش التركي إلى قطر في حزيران/يونيو 2017، وبعدها إلى ليبيا، مع المزيد من العمليات العسكرية في الشمال العراقي، وبناء القواعد العسكرية في الصومال.

وكان للمخابرات التركية، بحسب كلام الرئيس إردوغان، دور مهم ورئيسي في مجمل هذه الفعاليات، يضاف إليها دور داعم في دول وأماكن أخرى في المنطقة وأفريقيا، وبعض الدول الأوروبية أيضاً، وهو ما تحدث عنه الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون، والمسؤولون الألمان بشكل خاصّ.

وكانت هذه المعطيات كافية بالنسبة إلى أميركا وفرنسا وبريطانيا، حتى تضع تركيا في أولويات اهتماماتها الاستخباراتية، مع تزايد الدور التركي العسكري والاستخباراتي إقليمياً ودولياً. كل ذلك بفضل شبكة العلاقات الواسعة التي أقامتها الأجهزة التركية المختلفة مع أعداد كبيرة من أتباع الرئيس إردوغان وأنصاره والموالين له في جميع أنحاء العالم.

وكانت المبادرة الأولى من الرئيس ترامب، الَّذي قام بتعيين جينا هاسبل رئيسة للمخابرات الأميركية المركزية في أيار/مايو 2018. ومن المعروف عنها أنها تتكلم الروسية، وهي خبيرة بالشأن الروسي، كما أنها خبيرة بالشأن التركي، وهو ما يعني أن واشنطن أرادت أن تضرب عصفورين بحجر واحد، وخصوصاً أنَّ التعيين جاء بعد أستانا وقبل سوتشي، فقد عملت هاسبل في أذربيجان، ومن ثم شغلت منصب مساعد رئيس مكتب المخابرات الأميركية في أنقرة، وفي توقيت مهم جداً، حيث تعلَّمت اللغة التركية بشكل جيد.

وتحدثت المعلومات الصحافية عن دورها في عملية اختطاف زعيم حزب العمال الكردستاني، عبد الله أوجلان، من العاصمة الكينية نيروبي في 14 شباط/فبراير 1999، بعد أن أدت دوراً أساسياً في عملية اعتقال عنصرين من القاعدة في أذربيجان، متهمين في تفجيرات السفارة الأميركية في كينيا وتنزانيا في 7 آب/أغسطس 1998، والتي شارك فيها أسامة بن لادن أيضاً.

ولم تقتصر “نجاحات” هاسبال على مساهماتها في هاتين القصتين، بل قيل إنها أدت دوراً مهماً أيضاً في نقل الداعية فتح الله جولان إلى أميركا بعد شهر من تسليم أوجلان إلى أنقرة، إذ قال رئيس الوزراء آنذاك بولنت أجويت: “لماذا قام الأميركيون بتسليمنا أوجلان بهذا الشكل؟”، لتثبت السنوات اللاحقة بأن أوجلان وجولان كانا، وما زالا، القضيتين الأساسيتين اللتين تشغلان بال الدولة التركية. ويبدو أنهما سيبقيان على هذا الحال ببقاء حزب العدالة والتنمية في السلطة.
وجاءت زيارة هاسبال المفاجئة إلى أنقرة في 23 تشرين الأول/أكتوبر 2018 لعدة ساعات، ولقاؤها الرئيس إردوغان، ليثبت استمرار اهتمامها بالملف التركي، إذ كانت الزيارة بعد أيام من مقتل الصحافي جمال خاشقجي في مبنى القنصلية السعودية في إسطنبول. وكانت هذه الجريمة، وبعد المعلومات التي حصلت عليها هاسبال في أنقرة، ورقة مهمة في مساومات الرئيس دونالد ترامب مع محمد بن سلمان، كبداية على طريق ما يسمى بـ”صفقة القرن”، والاستسلام السعودي لعبودية واشنطن بعد التحالف التركي-القطري في حزيران/يونيو 2017، وتحت المظلة الأميركية، أي قاعدتي “السيلية” و”العديد”.

لم تكن واشنطن الوحيدة في هذا المضمار، أي اهتمامها بتركيا، فقد لحقت بها فرنسا وبريطانيا، طرفا اتفاقية سايكس بيكو، وما لحق بها من وعد بلفور، وحتى قيام الدولة العبرية، بدعم من أميركا، سيدة العالم الرأسمالي، بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، فقد سبق الرئيس ماكرون واشنطن عندما قام في بداية العام 2017 بتعيين برنارد إيمي رئيساً لجهاز الاستخبارات الفرنسية الخارجية ، بعد أن خدم كسفير لبلاده في أنقرة للفترة 2007-2010، لينتقل منها إلى الجزائر، ثم لندن وبيروت وعمان، حيث أصبح مديراً لإدارة شمال أفريقيا في الخارجية الفرنسية. 

ويتكلَّم إيمي التركية بطلاقة، وهو ذو خبرة عالية بمجمل سياسات تركيا الداخلية والخارجية، والتاريخ التركي عموماً، وهو ما قد يفسّر أقوال ومواقف الرئيس ماكرون ضد تركيا ومواقفه الشخصية ضد الرئيس إردوغان، إن كان في ليبيا أو قبرص واليونان وشرق الأبيض المتوسط، ودعمه للإسلاميين في أوروبا والعالم، وهو ما يعرفه السفير إيمي جيداً.

أما رئيس الوزراء البريطاني بوريس جونسون، وجَدّه من أصول عثمانية، فلم يتأخّر بدوره في هذا المجال، إذ قام في 30 تموز/يوليو الماضي بتعيين ريتشارد مور رئيساً لاستخبارات بلاده ، وسط اهتمام إعلامي وسياسي تركي كبير بهذا الاختيار، فقد عمل مور، وهو من مواليد طرابلس الغرب، سفيراً لبلاده في ماليزيا وباكستان ذات العلاقة المميزة مع تركيا، قبل أن يتم تعيينه سفيراً لبلاده في أنقرة للفترة الممتدة بين العام 2014 و2017، إذ أقام علاقات واسعة مع المسؤولين الأتراك بعد أن أتقن اللغة التركية. وتوقعت المعلومات الصحافية للعلاقات التركية – البريطانية، وهي مميزة دائماً، خلافاً للعلاقات مع جميع دول الاتحاد الأوروبي، أن تشهد تطوراً مهماً على قاعدة التنسيق والتعاون العسكري والاستخباراتي في عهد ريتشارد مور.

ويعكس اختيار هؤلاء الذين يتكلمون اللغة التركية، ويعتبرون ملمّين بشكل تام بالشأن التركي، الاهتمام الكبير الذي توليه واشنطن ولندن وباريس بالسياسات الحالية والمستقبلية لتركيا، والتي بات واضحاً أنها تعتمد على عنصرين أساسيين مكملين لبعضهما للبعض، وهما المخابرات والجيش، اللذان يعملان في إطار توجيهات الرئيس إردوغان العقائدية، إذ يرافق رئيس المخابرات الوطنية هاكان فيدان الرئيس إردوغان في معظم زياراته الخارجية.

بدورها، تراقب موسكو، وعن كثب، هذه السياسات الإردوغانية، نظراً إلى علاقتها بمجمل الساحات التي تلتقي أو تتعارض فيها مع أنقرة، وأهمها في سوريا وليبيا، ومن خلالها في باقي دول المنطقة، مع تحدي إردوغان للرئيس بوتين في أوكرانيا والقوقاز وآسيا الوسطى، وحتى جمهوريات الحكم الذاتي داخل حدود روسيا الفيدرالية، ويعيش فيها حوالى 25 مليون مسلم، ومعظمهم من أصول تركية.

وقد يكون هذا الاهتمام سبباً للأهمية التي يوليها الرئيس بوتين لمستشاره والمتحدث الرسمي باسمه، ديمتري بيسكوف، الذي تخرَّج من قسم اللغة التركية في موسكو، ثم عمل لفترة طويلة في السفارة الروسية في أنقرة، حيث أصبح ملماً بمجمل تطورات هذا البلد الجار الآن وفي العهد السوفياتي، فقد كانت تركيا خندقاً أمامياً للحلف الأطلسي وأميركا ضد الشيوعية، كما كانت الإمبراطورية الروسية العدو الأكبر للدولة العثمانية، وعلى الأقل حتى ثورة لينين الشيوعية في العام 1917. 

ويعرف الجميع أنه لولا دعم هذه الثورة، لما استطاع أتاتورك أن يحقّق انتصاره على الدول الاستعمارية، وهي فرنسا وبريطانيا، ومعها اليونان وإيطاليا، وهو ما انتهى باتفاقية لوزان للعام 1923، بقيام الجمهورية التركية على أنقاض الإمبراطورية العثمانية، وكأنَّ التاريخ يكرر نفسه دائماً، ولو بأشكال ونماذج أخرى أدت وتؤدي فيها أجهزة المخابرات أدواراً مهمّة قررت وتقرر وستقرر مصير الدول والشعوب، كما هو الحال الآن في الجغرافيا العربية التي رسم خارطتها شاب صغير اسمه لورنس، اشترى ذمم شيوخ القبائل الخليجية الذين ترفَّعوا من الولاء للمستعمر القديم إلى خدمة السيد الجديد “إسرائيل”، ومخابراتها هي الأدرى بكل أسرارهم!

وكما كانت “إسرائيل” على علم بكل أسرار تركيا، ومن خلال أتباع فتح الله جولان في الأمن والمخابرات التركية، والذين كان يتجسَّسون حتى نهاية العام 2013 على اتصالات جميع المسؤولين الأتراك، العسكريون منهم والسياسيون، وفي مقدمتهم إردوغان، الذي قال إنهم كانوا يتجسّسون حتى على غرفة نومه، فيما اتهم الإعلام الموالي لإردوغان جولان وأتباعه، تارة بالعمالة لأميركا، وتارة أخرى لألمانيا، وفي نهاية المطاف، “إسرائيل”، التي باتت على معرفة تامة بكل أسرار الدولة التركية وخفاياها

من روسيا البيضاء إلى لبنان عالم ما بعد الأميركان

محمد صادق الحسيني

مرة أخرى ورغم افتضاح أمرها، تحاول الامبريالية الأميركية ذات الهيمنة الغاشمة محاولاتها البائسة لإطلاق «ثورات» ملونة مدفوعة الأجر وتعمل بالقطعة من البلطيق والبحر الاسود الى شواطئ المتوسط…!

والعين اليوم تشخص في كلّ مسارح عمليات الحرب الناعمة بقوة وتركيز على روسيا البيضاء…!

على الرغم من الجهود الإعلامية التضليليّة، التي تقوم بها آلة الإعلام الاميركية الاوروبية / الناتو /، والتي تحاول تصوير ما يجري في جمهورية روسيا البيضاء السوفياتيه السابقة، على انه صراع بين الرئيس الشرعي اليكساندر لوكاشينكو وربة المنزل سڤيتلانا تيخانوفسكايا، التي يسميها الغرب «زعيمة المعارضة» والتي هربت الى جمهورية لاتفيا، العضو في حلف الناتو، قبل أيام إثر هزيمتها في الانتخابات الرئاسية، التي جرت في روسيا البيضاء وفاز فيها الرئيس لوكاشينكو. نقول إنه وعلى الرغم من كل هذا الجهد الاعلامي والضغوط السياسية، التي تمارس على روسيا البيضاء وروسيا الاتحادية، الحليفة للرئيس لوكاشينكو، وهما عضوان في معاهدة الأمن الجماعي، التي تضم دولاً سوفياتية سابقة اخرى، رغم كل ذلك فإن الأهداف التي تعمل الولايات المتحدة وأذنابها الأوروبيون على تحقيقها في هذا البلد، ذي الأهمية الاستراتيجية الكبرى، للأمن الاستراتيجي الروسي، لا علاقة لها بالديموقراطية طبعاً ولا بأي هدف إنساني نبيل آخر على الإطلاق.

الهدف الحقيقي لكل ما يجري هو بالضبط ما صرّحت به ربة المنزل المذكورة أعلاه يوم أمس، عندما دعت الى اغلاق القواعد العسكرية الروسية، الموجودة على أراضي جمهورية روسيا البيضاء، وانسحاب الأخيرة من منظمة الأمن الجماعي، التي تضم جمهوريات سوفياتيه سابقة عدة..

من هنا تنبع ضرورة توضيح طبيعة هذه القواعد والأسس القانونية، التي تنظم وجودها على أراضي روسيا البيضاء، وتفضح الأهداف العدوانية للولايات المتحدت واذنابها في حلف الناتو، وتعرّي نفاقهم ورياءهم وكذبهم واستغلالهم لعناصر عميلة في هذه الدولة، تماماً كما هو الوضع في كل بلد يقررون محاصرته وخنقه كما في لبنان مثلاً، وذلك بهدف نشر الفوضى والخراب وتهديد السلم الأهلي فيها.

اما تلك القواعد، التي يدور الحديث حولها، فهي قاعدتان:

الأولى: هي قاعدة هانتاسافيتشي التي تبعد 48 كم عن مدينة بارانافيتشي في جنوب غرب البلاد. وهي قاعدة رادارات من طراز 70 . وهي قاعدة رادار للإنذار المبكر، تابعة للقوات الجوفضائية الروسية ومخصصة لرصد إطلاق الصواريخ الباليستية الثقيلة، التي تطلق من اوروبا الغربية، كما أنها مخصصة لرصد الأقمار الصناعية ايضاً. وهي تقوم بالمهمات التي كانت تقوم بها قاعدة سكروندا في لاتفيا المجاورة والتي تم تفكيكها منذ سنوات، في إطار إجراءات إدخال لاتفيا الى حلف الناتو.

الثانية: هي قاعدة ڤولغا للرادار وتقع على بعد 8 كم شمال شرق بلدة هانتافيتشي في مقاطعة بريست. ويطلق عليها في اللغة العسكرية الروسية اسم: كليتيك 2 . وهي مخصصة للإنذار المبكر وتحديد مواقع إطلاق الصواريخ الباليستية الاستراتيجية. ويبلغ مدى عمل هذه الرادارات ستة آلاف كيلومتر.

ولكن السؤال الذي يطرح نفسه بقوة، في هذا المجال، هو: ما هي الأسباب الكامنة وراء التركيز على محطات الرادار هذه، من قبل الولايات المتحدة وحلف الناتو، واستمرار محاولاتهما التخلص منها، عبر إسقاط روسيا البيضاء والسيطرة عليها، ودمجها في نسيج الحلف الغربي العدواني والمعادي لروسيا؟

لأن هذه المحطات تعتبر من عناصر الإنذار المبكر الروسية، ضد الهجمات المعادية بالصواريخ الاستراتيجية، وبالتالي فإن استراتيجيي البنتاغون وأذنابهم في بروكسل (قيادة حلف الناتو) يعتقدون انهم بذلك سوف يوجهون ضربةً لقدرات الإنذار المبكر الروسي ولسلاح الدفاع الجوي فضائي

بالنتيجة هذه الخطط، أي إغلاق القواعد الروسية وإسقاط الدولة في روسيا البيضاء والسيطرة عليها وتنصيب ربة المنزل، سڤيتلانا تيخانوفسكايا، رئيسة لروسيا البيضاء، تأتي في إطار تنفيذ مسلسل خطوات الحشد الاستراتيجي ضد روسيا الاتحادية وجمهورية الصين الشعبية والجمهورية الاسلامية في ايران، على الرغم من البعد الجغرافي بين هذه القواعد وكل من الصين وإيران، حيث إن إضعاف قاطع من قواطع المواجهة العسكرية، مع الولايات المتحدة والناتو، كقاطع الجبهة الغربية الروسية، الممتدة من اقصى شمال الدول الاسكندنافية شمالاً، مروراً ببولندا واوكرانيا ورومانيا وبلغاريا وتركيا، على البحر الأسود جنوباً، انما هو إضعاف للوضع الجيواستراتيجي لكل من الصين وروسيا ومعهما إيران، خاصة بعد دخولها في تفاهمات تعاون متعددة الجوانب وبعيدة المدى، مع هاتين الدولتين.

الإمعان في محاولات واشنطن وبروكسل (قيادة الناتو) الاقتراب من الحدود الروسية، وتكرار محاولات الاعتداء على السيادة الجوية الروسية، باستخدام طائرات الاستطلاع الأميركية والغربية، بشكل يومي، ونجاح انظمة الدفاع الجوفضائي والمقاتلات الروسية الاعتراضية، في التصدي لهذه المحاولات وإفشالها، قد جعلهم يسيرون خلف السراب والاوهام المتبخره برفع مستوى الضغط على روسيا، واهمين انهم بذلك سيستطيعون إجبارها على تقديم التنازلات، في الكثير من الملفات الدولية، بدءاً بملفات الحد من انتشار الاسلحة النووية واتفاقيات تنظيم الاسلحة الصاروخية، وصولاً الى الكثير من الملفات الدولية، والتي يتصدرها الملف الفلسطيني والسوري والإيراني والفنزويلي. وهذه كلها ملفات ترتبط بشكل وثيق بميزان القوى الجيواستراتيجيي بين الدول العظمى، وبالتالي فإنها ملفات شديدة التأثير، في مسار إلغاء او دحر الهيمنة الأميركية الأحادية على العالم، وتشكيل هرم قيادي جديد، يقود العالم لا تكون الولايات المتحدة هي من يجلس على كرسي القيادة فيه.

وهو الأمر الذي يقودنا الى الاعتقاد الراسخ بأن معركة الصراع على جمهورية روسيا البيضاء لن ينتهي الى نصر أميركي غربي وذلك للأسباب التالية:

أ) شجاعة الرئيس لوكاشينكو، وتعامله وتفاعله الديناميكي، في التصدي للمؤامرة الاميركية التي تحاول إسقاط الدولة، وفهمه العميق لطبيعة هذه المؤامرة والدول التي تقف وراءها وتمولها.

ب) الموقف الحازم الذي اتخذه الرئيس لوكاشينكو، منذ بداية التحركات المعادية، ليس فقط بالوقوف في وجه المؤامرة داخل البلاد، وإنما بإصداره الأوامر الفورية للقطعات العسكرية لروسيا البيضاء، المرابطة على الحدود الشمالية الغربية، مع كل من دولتي الناتو، ليتوانيا وبولندا، وضرورة اتخاذ كافة الإجراءات العسكرية الضرورية لحماية حدود البلاد. خاصة بعد تكرار محاولات جهات استخبارية اميركية، وتابعة لحلف الناتو، لإرسال أموال واسلحة ومعدات مختلفة الى داخل روسيا البيضاء لتزود بها مثيري الشغب داخل البلاد. علاوة على تكثيف واشنطن وبروكسل لمحاولات التجسس الجوي في المناطق الحدودية وذلك باستخدام الطائرات المسيرة والمناطيد وطائرات الحرب الالكترونية العسكرية.

ج) الزيارات التفقدية، لخطوط المواجهة مع بولندا ولتوانيا، التي يقوم بها الرئيس لوكاشينكو، مرتدياً الزِّي العسكري وممتشقاً سلاحه الرشاش وجاهزاً للدفاع عن سيادة واستقلال بلاده ومنع سقوطها في أيدي الغرب والحاق الضرر الاستراتيجي بجمهورية روسيا الاتحادية من جراء ذلك.

د) اما العامل الذي يزيد التأكيد على أن مخططات واشنطن وبروكسل، في حرمان قوات الدفاع الجوفضائي الروسية، من قواعدها للإنذار المبكر المنتشره في روسيا البيضاء حسب اتفاقيات بين الدولتين مطابقة تماماً للقوانين الدولية، فهو أن لدى روسيا القواعد البديلة، التي تقوم بعمليات تغطية أوسع بكثير من العمليات التي تنفذه القواعد الموجودة في روسيا البيضاء.

هـ) فعلى سبيل المثال لا الحصر، هناك قاعدة رادارات الإنذار المبكر، من طراز فورونيش ، التابعة لقوات الدفاع الجوفضائية الروسية والموجودة في قرية بيونيرسكي على بعد 27 كم شمال مدينة / ميناء كاليننغراد. علماً أن مدى عمل هذه الرادارات يزيد على ستة آلاف كيلومتر وهي مخصّصة للإنذار المبكر ورصد الصواريخ الباليستية الثقيلة والبعيدة المدى.

و) تُضاف اليها قاعدة الإنذار المبكر المقامة في قرية ليختوسي، على بعد 40 كم شمال لينينغراد، وتحمل اسم القرية نفسها. وهي تابعة لقوات الدفاع الجوفضائية الروسية وتعمل بنوع من رادارات فورونيش من الجيل الثالث، ويصل مدى عمل رادارات هذه المحطة الى اربعة آلاف وخمسمئة كيلومتر، وتغطي كامل منطقة عمليات شمال غرب روسيا، وهي موجودة في الخدمة القتالية منذ شهر شباط 2012.

وهذا يعني أن الإجراءات الاحترازية المسبقة، التي اتخذتها قوات الدفاع الجوفضائية الروسية، قد أفشلت كل مشاريع واشنطن وبروكسل حتى قبل ان يفكروا في وضع خططها.

وانطلاقاً من هذه القراءة الموضوعية، لحالة الشغب المُوَجَّهْ من الدول الغربية في روسيا البيضاء، ولما شهده لبنان والعراق في الأشهر الماضية، ولما كان «مستوراً» وأصبح مفضوحاً من تآمر وتعاون أمني عسكري، بين مشيخة أبو ظبي و»اسرائيل»، منذ عقدين من الزمن، ليس ضد إيران فقط وانما ضد كل جهة تنتمي الى المقاومة وتقاتل الاحتلال الإسرائيلي والهيمنة الأميركية، فإن بامكاننا ان نؤكد ان الاستعدادات التي اتخذتها أطراف حلف المقاومة لاسقاط مؤامرات اعراب الخليج وسيدهم في البيت الابيض وصِنْوهُمْ الصهيوني قد حققت الكثير من النجاحات، سواءٌ في إسقاط مخطط تدمير الدولة السوريه وتفتيتها او في لبنان وفلسطين او في اليمن الصامد، الذي سيستكمل هزيمة قوى العدوان ويعلن انتصاره الناجز، على قوى العدوان الاميركي البريطاني الفرنسي الاسرائيلي السعودي الاماراتي وبعض السماسرة والمرتزقة الآخرين، ويلحق بهم الهزيمة النكراء قبل نهاية هذا العام، بإذن الله.

نصر يعتقد المراقبون بأنه سيترافق مع سقوط متزعم الحرب الظالمة على اليمن، محمد بن سلمان، وتوقع قيام دولة في نجد والحجاز، تختلف جذرياً عن المملكة الوهابية الحالية التي باتت مثالاً ونموذجاً للقمع والاستبداد والتبعية والعبودية للأجنبي القادم من وراء البحار ونهوض عالم جديد لا مكان فيه لضعفاء النفوس المتسولين على موائد الدول التي كانت يوماً كبرى وهي في طريقها للأفول وإن بعد حين…!

عالم ينهار

عالم ينهض

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله.

%d bloggers like this: