Only a Fool Would Trust Rogue State USA

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) talks with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse on March 18, 2017 in Beijing, China

Only a Fool Would Trust Rogue State USA

By Finian Cunningham

Sputnik” – The United States suffers from a chronic trust deficit, to put it mildly. Anything that its leaders say must be weighed against years of deception and relentless criminal conduct by US governments.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Chinese President Xi Jinping at the weekend, vowing greater cooperation to reduce tensions boiling up on the Korean Peninsula. Only a day before, however, Tillerson was threatening that the US would use pre-emptive military strikes against China’s ally North Korea if “we believe” it presented a threat “to us”.

So what’s it to be then? Cooperation or pre-emptive war?

At the same time that Tillerson was seemingly conveying a cordial tone to Beijing, President Trump was mouthing off at home that “North Korea was behaving badly” and that China had not done enough to contain it.

Trump’s comments angered China, with the latter responding it had in fact gone to great lengths over recent years to calm tensions on the Korean Peninsula between North Korea and the American ally in the South, by continually calling for dialogue, which the US has continually rebuffed, preferring to play hardball instead.

The weekend exchange is but one brief insight into why Washington cannot be trusted. The president and his top diplomat can’t even articulate a consistent policy for even a few hours. How could one possibly take them seriously?

But Trump and Tillerson’s mixed signals are a mere trifling matter. Why the US cannot be trusted has got much more to with decades of systematic misbehavior by Washington. North Korea “behaving badly,” says Trump. Typical American arrogance and ignorance do not admit the reality of the US behaving atrociously.

The whole specter of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula was created in the first place by the United States. Its decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was motivated by the Soviet Union’s imminent entry into the Pacific War. Washington did not want to see the Soviet Union taking Japanese or Korean territory.

Korean communist rebels were about to over-run the peninsula in 1945 and reclaim it from imperialist Japanese control. By dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, the Americans thwarted the advance of communists in Asia-Pacific. Korea was de facto divided between a communist northern state and a US-installed southern state, which also saw the reinstatement of quislings who had collaborated with Japanese fascism.

The subsequent Korean War (1950-53) was a US-led orchestration to defeat the communist North. Over three million Koreans were killed in a war which brought the peninsula to the brink of nuclear conflagration, if American generals had their way at the time. Still, more conventional bombs and napalm were dropped on North Korea by the US than on the whole of Japan during the Pacific War, according to international war crimes lawyer Christopher Black.

Pyongyang, the northern capital, was obliterated by US carpet bombings. American troops committed countless massacres against civilians, such as in Sinchon when hundreds of women and children were incinerated in ditches and air raid shelters.

Koreans were forced to live in caves to escape the brutal American bombing of their country. One special terror technique was the flying of nuclear-capable bombers over the northern territory. The people below did not know if a fate like that of Hiroshima was about to descend on them.

When the bombs stopped in 1953, the US never declared a full armistice or signed a non-aggression treaty, as is normal following conflicts. From the North Korean standpoint, the Americans still retain the “right” to attack their country.

When the US today conducts annual war maneuvers with its South Korean ally, we can perhaps understand why North Korea is alarmed by what it sees as a rehearsal for resumed hostilities.

Over the weekend, US Secretary of State Tillerson said that his nation does not want conflict with North Korea. But Washington ruled out the reasonable proposal from China for the US to cancel its war maneuvers in exchange for North Korea curbing its weapons program.

The US is moving ahead with installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea. That move defies warnings from both China and Russia that it is destabilizing the entire region and provoking a new arms race.

Washington’s words of “not wanting war” are accompanied by the ultimatum that North Korea unilaterally disarm its nuclear weapons program and testing of ballistic missiles.

 

But history has shown that any country which is not sufficiently defended is liable to be destroyed by Washington. We saw this with regard to former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Somalia. Anywhere where the Americans can make easy prey, they will do so with the utmost barbarity, and then add insult to injury by calling it “nation building”.

Despite Western media demonization of North Korea as some kind of crazy rogue state, the people there are not fools. They know from family histories the atrocious cost of American war. And they know that any nation perceived as weak by Washington will be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Nevertheless, there is ample opportunity for a positive way forward. The Korean people, North and South, have always been willing to engage in dialogue for the peaceful reunification of their country, which was only artificially partitioned by American hegemonic meddling.

This spirit of dialogue and cooperation is also shared by the majority of citizens in the wider region. Chinese and Japanese people quite reasonably want a general demilitarization of the region. That primarily means Washington removing up to 100,000 of its troops from Japan and South Korea, along with its bases and all the other trappings of war.

The biggest hindrance to democratic, peaceful self-determination in Korea and the region is Washington’s insistence on remaining there to “protect” its allies. Washington forced its way into the region by using nuclear terrorism, and it remains there through the same ploy of nuclear menace — under the guise of blaming North Korea.

Ironically, the US State Department described Tillerson’s tour of the Asia-Pacific this weekend as a “listening tour”.

Well if Tillerson and his government were truly listening, they would hear the following: stop destabilizing whole countries and inciting wars; leave ordinary citizens in neighboring nations to get on with their lives and mutual relations; and American militarism should pack up and go home to redirect its monstrous resources to improve the lives of millions of impoverished American families.

There is a direct analogy here with how Washington and its NATO agenda of hostility towards Russia are destabilizing Europe against the wishes and interests of most European citizens.

No wonder so few trust American power. It is the most destructive force in the world since the Second World War. American criminal wars and subterfuges have destroyed dozens of countries.

So when an American envoy talks about wanting peace, while at the same time threatening pre-emptive attacks and demanding that others unilaterally disarm — the only appropriate response is contempt.

Only a fool would trust Washington because it is the biggest warmongering rogue state on Earth.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England,

USA “democracy”. The people choose President & then the DeepState moves in to dictate policy. Same thing happened with Obama

The War Hawks Rolled Donald Trump

SEE ALSO Behind the Headlines: Illusion of democracy: Trump powerless against the Deep State?

President Trump’s first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn got kicked out of office for talking with Russian officials. Such talks were completely inline with Trump’s declared policies of détente with Russia. (I agree that Flynn should have never gotten the NSA job. But the reasons for that have nothing to do with his Russian connections.)

Allegedly Flynn did not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason. The talks were rather informal, they were not transcribed. The first call is said to have reached Flynn on vacation in the Dominican Republic. Why would a Vice-President need to know each and every word of it?

With Flynn out, the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the “serious people” in Washington DC, had the second most important person out of the way that would probably hinder their plans.

They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk:

In a 2016 speech to the Virginia Military Institute, McMaster stressed the need for the US to have “strategic vision” in its fight against “hostile revisionist powers” — such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran — that “annex territory, intimidate our allies, develop nuclear weapons, and use proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.”

General McMaster, the new National Security Advisor, gets sold as a somewhat rebellious, scholar-warrior wunderkind. When the now disgraced former General Petraeus came into sight he was sold with the same marketing profile.

Petraeus was McMaster’s boss. McMaster is partially his creature:

He was passed over for brigadier general twice, until then-Gen. David Petraeus personally flew back to Washington, D.C., from Iraq to chair the Army’s promotion board in 2008.

When Petraeus took over in the war on Afghanistan he selected McMaster as his staff leader for strategy,

McMaster was peddled to the White House by Senator Tom Cotton, one of the most outlandish Republican neocon war hawks.

McMaster’s best known book is “Dereliction of Duty” about the way the U.S. involved itself into the Vietnam War. McMaster criticizes the Generals of that time for not having resisted then President Johnson’s policies.

He is the main author of an Army study on how to militarily counter Russia. McMaster is likely to “resist” when President Trump orders him to pursue better relations with Moscow.

Trump has now been boxed in by hawkish, anti-Russian military in his cabinet and by a hawkish Vice-President. The only ally he still may have in the White House is his consigliere Steve Bannon. The next onslaught of the “serious people” is against Bennon and especially against his role in the NSC. It will only recede when he is fired.

It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic development and have a strategy against it.

 

Here we go again, Rex Tillerson Already Talking Regime Change in Venezuela

Rex Tillerson Already Talking Regime Change in Venezuela

Rex Tillerson testifies during a confirmation hearing.

Rex Tillerson testifies during a confirmation hearing. | Photo: Reuters

The secretary of state nominee attacked both Venezuela and Cuba.

The new U.S. administration of Donald Trump has made it public that it will seek a regime change policy in Venezuela disguised in “transition to democracy” rhetoric, the country’s potential new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview this week.

OPINION:
Rex Tillerson Has a Long, Troubled History in Venezuela

“If confirmed, I would urge close cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly Venezuela’s neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral bodies such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela,” the former executive in ExxonMobil told Latin America Goes Global.

He further claimed that the economic crisis in the oil-rich South American country was “largely a product of its incompetent and dysfunctional government, first under Hugo Chavez, and now under his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro.”

The government of President Maduro has, however, blamed the recent crisis on an economic war by right-wing politicians as well as corporations who are hoarding products and halting production to put pressure on the socialist administration.

Meanwhile, Tillerson struck a less aggressive tone when pressed about how he would deal with the standoff between the government and the opposition-led national assembly in Venezuela.

“The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that now controls the National Assembly.”

But then he called for sanctions against what he called “human rights violators” when asked about political prisoners while also slamming Maduro’s government for “undemocratic practices.”

The right-wing website also asked the nominee for U.S. top diplomat post “about the controversial and misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba” to which he did not suggest a full rollback from Barack Obama’s steps on Cuba.

“I will engage with Cuba but continue to press for reform of its oppressive regime. I will support human rights defenders and democracy activists in Cuba, empower civil society, defend freedom of expression, and promote improved internet access and I will ask our allies to do the same,” he said.

He added that he would engage in bilateral and multilateral talks with Havana in order to “press Cuba to meet its pledge to become more democratic and consider placing conditions on trade or travel policies to motivate the release of political prisoners.”

However, when the interviewer pressed further Tillerson said he would stand by statements made by Vice President Mike Pence stating that the Trump administration would reverse Obama’s Cuba rapprochement policy.

RELATED:
War Criminal Kissinger Dotes Praise on Trump Secretary Pick

“Yes. There will be a comprehensive review of current policies and executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic changes.”

Tillerson and Venezuela, in fact, have a bitter history and some say he might pursue personal revenge against the socialist government as he takes the international diplomatic stage in Washington.

In 2007, late President Hugo Chavez ordered the nationalization of 22 major multinational corporations operating in the country including ExxonMobil, then headed by Tillerson.

He rejected the compensation deal offered by the government of US$1 billion and took Venezuela to the international arbitration court demanding instead US$10 billion. But the rarely defeated CEO lost and his company settled for US$1.6 billion.

“(Tillerson) took it very personal with Chavez,” said Ghassan Dagher, a Venezuelan oil industry consultant to the New York Times in December.

Tags

%d bloggers like this: