ما هو سبب القمة الهزيلة والباهتة؟

يناير 18, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– يتقاذف الجميع كرة الاتهامات بالتسبّب بجعل القمة الاقتصادية باهتة وهزيلة، ويغلب على التحليل والتفسير التهرّب من المسؤولية أو من الاعتراف بالحقيقة. فالقضية ليست بغياب ليبيا ولا القضية بقلق الحكام العرب على أمنهم، ولا القضية بصورة لبنان التي «قرف منها بعض المدعوّين»، كما قالت بعض مقدمات نشرات الأخبار التلفزيونية أمس، وليس عند العرب أنظمة حكم يحق لها التباهي بالديمقراطية والحرية، كي تقرف، ولا القرار العربي «عربياً» كي يتخذه العرب، ونحن مشكلتنا في لبنان أننا نصدق بسهولة أنّ بلدنا مجرد وجهة سياحية، أو أنه فعل لعبة سياسية، وننسى أنه بلد المقاومة التي تتسبّب بالقلق لـ«إسرائيل» التي تشكل بوصلة السياسات الأميركية، التي تحكم قرار العرب، وكلّ حدث يخصّ لبنان سيُقاس بهذا المقياس، إلا عندما يخرج لبنان قوياً فيفرض معادلاته، ولبنان القوي ليس الذي يستقوي بعضه على بعض، وأول شروط القوة حكومة وحدة وطنية، وثاني شروط القوة، علاقة لبنانية سورية متميّزة، كما قال اتفاق الطائف، الذي أكلناه وابتلعناه، وبقي منه ما يمسك به كلّ طرف ليرضي حساباته، المناصفة في جهة، وصلاحيات رئيس الحكومة في جهة مقابلة، والباقي إلى النسيان، لا مكان لتعهد بالسير نحو إلغاء الطائفية يظلل حكومة وحدة وطنية حقيقية، ولا مكان لعلاقة مميّزة مع سورية تشكل ركيزة هوية لبنان العربية، ومَن يعتقد بأسباب أخرى للقوة فليغير الطائف أو يرينا قمة ناجحة بدون هذه المصادر للقوة، التي وحدها تسببت بنجاح قمة سابقة وفي لبنان.

– زيارة وزير الخارجية الأميركية مايك بومبيو للمنطقة تناولت قمة بيروت في محادثاتها كما تناولت عودة العلاقات مع سورية، ولم تخف واشنطن «النصح» بعدم مكافأة لبنان بقمة ناجحة قبل رؤية سياسة لبنانية رسمية معادية للمقاومة ومطمئنة لـ«إسرائيل»، كما لم تخف «النصح» بفرملة الهرولة نحو دمشق لمنع ظهورها كمنتصر، و«النصح» بالانتباه لئلا يكون لبنان والعراق شريكين لسورية في محور ممتد في الجغرافيا من البحر المتوسط حتى إيران. وجاء معاون نائب وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد هيل إلى بيروت يتلو الشروط العربية التي قال أصحابها لصاحب النصائح الأميركية، نصائحكم أوامر، والشروط في كلام هيل، حكومة لا يكون لحزب الله فيها دور فاعل، وحدود لا يكون فيها قلق لـ«إسرائيل»، وترسيم للحدود البرية يريح «إسرائيل» ويعفيها من الترسيم البحري لتتصرف بالثروات اللبنانية في النفط والغاز على هواها. وقد شكل من سمعوا النصائح لها منتدى إقليمي لشرعنة السطو على الغاز اللبناني، والقمة الناجحة بحضور المستمعين للنصائح الأميركية، مكافأة على حسن الالتزام اللبناني، وقد قال هيل حكومتكم هي لكن نوعها يعنينا، وإن عجزتم فحكومة تصريف الأعمال أفضل.

– في موقع لبنان الحساس ليس من مكان وسط لإرضاء أميركا وإغضابها، فأمن «إسرائيل» المذعورة يتقرّر في لبنان. هكذا يقول تقرير المستقبل الاستراتيجي الذي رسمته أجهزة الأمن الإسرائيلية للعام 2019، وإن كان قرار لبنان حفظ حدوده البرية من انتهاكات الجدران الإسمنتية، وحدوده المائية من نهب الثروات النفطية، وأجوائه من انتهاكات الغارات العدوانية، فعليه توقع الغضب الأميركي ومعه من يتبعون نصائح واشنطن، وأن يدرك أن فرض جدول أعماله عليهم وإجبارهم على الاعتراف لا يتحقق بدون لبنان قوي، قوي بحكومة وحدة وطنية، قوي بعلاقة مميزة مع سورية، قوي بالتزام شامل بمقررات اتفاق الطائف وفي مقدمتها السير السريع نحو المغفل من بنوده، وفي مقدمتها إلغاء الطائفية، وقد جرّب لبنان تفادي الغضب الأميركي ومقاطعة الأتباع عن طريق المجاملة ونظريات النأي بالنفس، ومنح عرب أميركا الأولوية على حساب سورية، وها هي النتيجة، فلم لا يجرّب الطريق الآخر؟

– عبرة القمة ليست بتقاذف المسؤوليات بل بالعودة للثوابت والمسلمات.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

EU Snubs Pompeo’s Warsaw Anti-Iran Summit

Local Editor

EU foreign policy Chief Federica Mogherini will not take part in an anti-Iran conference to be held by the US in the Polish capital of Warsaw in mid-February, according to media reports.

An EU official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Iran’s official news agency IRNA that Mogherini will not attend the conference due to her tight schedule.

Mogherini will be “traveling in those days, hence her attendance is not foreseen,” the official told IRNA’s correspondent in London.

A senior EU official also confirmed IRNA’s report on Thursday, saying Mogherini will not attend the gathering because of a prior engagement, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The meeting is to be held in Poland on February 13-14 as part of US efforts to increase global pressure on the Islamic Republic.

However, ministers from several European Union countries will likely skip the summit, a report by the Wall Street Journal quoted officials as saying.

There is “a lot of uncertainty about participation of many other EU member states at ministerial level,” one official told the paper.

In further details, European diplomats said in recent days that France is unlikely to send its foreign minister. The UK and Germany haven’t decided who will represent them. Luxembourg’s foreign minister said he would miss the event because of a prior arrangement.

One European diplomat said the bloc will not be “joining an anti-Iran coalition.”

Meanwhile, a group of activists in the United States and other countries recently signed a petition, calling on European countries to boycott an anti-Iran summit.

The activists started the petition on the website of the anti-war group Code Pink to ask European countries not to attend the summit.

More than 3,400 people have so far signed the online petition, which urges EU countries to skip US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “belligerent conference” and “instead host an alternative one with all nations of the region, including Iran.”

The EU is a strong supporter of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and is seeking to help retain economic ties with Tehran despite renewed US sanctions on Iran following US President Donald Trump’s decision in May to withdraw from the accord.

The summit, which will be co-hosted by Poland and the US and take place in Warsaw, was announced during Pompeo’s tour of the Middle East last week.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Rouhani Announces Iran-Made Rockets to Carry Satellites into Orbit

Local Editor

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country will soon send two new satellites into orbit using Iran-made rockets.

In further details, Rouhani hinted on Thursday the launch will happen “soon, in the coming weeks.”

Iran typically displays achievements in its space program in February, during the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The Islamic Republic has sent several short-lived satellites into orbit over the past decade, and in 2013 launched a monkey into space.

Meanwhile, the US and its allies claim that they are worried the same satellite-launching technology could be used to develop long-range missiles.

The US claims Iran’s plans for sending satellites into orbit demonstrate its defiance of a UN Security Council resolution calling on Iran to undertake no activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Iran, for its part, insists the launches do not violate the resolution.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related Videos

Related Articles

Iran Turns to Traditional Partners As EU Tarries On Bypassing US Sanctions

 

Local Editor

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran is working with its traditional partners such as China, Russia and India to circumvent the US sanctions.

Zarif told reporters in New Delhi Tuesday that the European Union is moving more slowly than expected to facilitate non-dollar trade with Tehran through a mechanism called the special purpose vehicle (SPV).

“We continue to work with the Europeans for the special purpose vehicle but we will not wait for them [to act],” said Zarif who arrived in the Indian capital late Monday for a three-day visit.

“We are working with our traditional partners like India, China and Russia so that we continue to serve the interests of our people,” he added.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said last Wednesday that efforts to implement the special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran would continue well into 2019.

So far, the Europeans have defaulted on two deadlines which they had announced for bringing the SPV into operation. The vehicle purportedly aims to ensure economic benefits for Iran from staying in a 2015 nuclear deal after President Donald Trump recanted it in May.

On Saturday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Iran “holds Europe definitely responsible for failing to implement the financial mechanism,” warning that the bloc should account for the “consequences” of the delay.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said last Wednesday that efforts to implement the special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran would continue well into 2019.

So far, the Europeans have defaulted on two deadlines which they had announced for bringing the SPV into operation. The vehicle purportedly aims to ensure economic benefits for Iran from staying in a 2015 nuclear deal after President Donald Trump recanted it in May.

On Saturday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Iran “holds Europe definitely responsible for failing to implement the financial mechanism,” warning that the bloc should account for the “consequences” of the delay.

Indian refiners to resume Iran oil imports

On Monday, Indian industry sources said state-run Bharat Petroleum Corp and Hindustan Petroleum Corp will each import 1 million barrels of Iranian oil in February after a gap of three months, taking the nation’s overall purchases from Tehran to 9 million barrels.

Top refiner Indian Oil Corp will lift 5 million barrels, while Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd will buy 2 million barrels, Reuters quoted the sources as saying.

Earlier this month, New Delhi exempted rupee payments by Indian Oil Corp to Iran for crude oil imports from steep taxes.

“Iran has been and will be a reliable source of oil supply to India,” Zarif said on Monday as he arrived in New Delhi to take part in an annual research forum attended by economists and entrepreneurs.

Zarif said he had used the opportunity to bring along “a big economic delegation” comprising of representatives from the private and state sectors for talks with their Indian counterparts.

Iran and India, the minister said, have maintained their good relations in the wake of the resumed US sanctions.

He cited “a good banking agreement with India which was signed following the sanctions, through which imports and exports as well as other financial needs will be handled.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related Videos

Related News

Bill on New Sanctions Against Syria Over Shutdown

10:13 09.01.2019

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Democrats in the US Senate have prevented consideration of a bill on new sanctions against the Syrian government in protest against the ongoing government shutdown.

The bill called Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act seeks to target Syria and its allies – Russia and Iran – with new sanctions as well as to boost US security cooperation with Israel and Jordan. The bill was supported only by 56 out of 100 senators, while 60 votes were needed for further consideration of the bill.

The Democratic Party’s decision to block the bill came amid the government shutdown caused by the bipartisan budget disagreements. On Saturday, Chris Van Hollen, Democratic Senator for the state of Maryland, wrote on his Twitter page that the Senate Democrats should block consideration of any bill unrelated to opening the government.

The government shutdown is in its 18th day and came as a result of the refusal by Democratic leaders to provide more than $5 billion US President Donald Trump sought to construct a wall on the US border with Mexico. Democrats offered $1.9 billion for the border wall.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Related News

 

 

Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

January 03, 2019

by David Penner for The Saker Blog

Ask any American liberal aged sixty-five and older what they think about Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler and they will vehemently denounce these men as tyrants, murderers, and despots. Ask them what they think about the Vietnam War and they will say it was a tragedy, not only for the Vietnamese, but for the poor American soldiers who were drafted and used as cannon fodder. Liberals also once defended the civil rights movement and the New Deal while vigorously opposing McCarthyism. That these same people would go on to support deunionization, resegregation, and Russophobia while enthusiastically backing barbarous wars and interventions in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine constitutes not only a betrayal of leftist principles, but is indicative of a rejection of reason and the reality-based world.

Like the proverbial general always fighting the last war, liberals remain trapped in the past, unable to adapt to rapidly unfolding kinetic developments. The problem is that not only is this general fighting the last war, this is a general that can no longer distinguish between right and left and has lost any semblance of a moral compass.

There’s a Hitler on The Danube

One could argue that the new Cold War began with Bill Clinton bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. For Russians that were not yet alarmed by this perfidy, their red lines were irrefutably crossed with the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia, regarded by Russians as a brotherly nation. This constituted an illegal war of aggression, and was carried out without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia initiated an unraveling of international law and marked an erosion in the equilibrium between the great powers.

As Noam Chomsky has noted, Yugoslavia was marked for destruction, because unlike the other formerly communist European countries they did not embrace privatization. The destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a violation of the UN Charter, but was also the first “humanitarian intervention” following the collapse of the USSR that liberals were duped into embracing. In an article on the RT website titled “15 years on: Looking back at NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Yugoslavia,” the author writes, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or ‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.”

While Milošević and the Serbs were marked for demonization due to their lack of enthusiasm for neoliberal “reforms,” Croatian secessionists (many of whom subscribed to a neo-Nazi and neo-Ustasha ideology), Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia, and the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were supported by the West. Brigadier-General Pierre Marie Gallois of the French Army has condemned the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia, and has gone on record stating that the endless stories of Serb atrocities, such as mass rapes and the siege of Sarajevo were fabricated. Gallois also argues that the German elite sought revenge for the fierce Serb resistance during the two world wars, especially with regard to the Serb partisans that held up German divisions that were headed towards Leningrad and Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. While relentlessly demonized, the Serbs were in many ways the greatest victims of the NATO-orchestrated Balkan wars, as hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forcibly expelled from both Croatia and Kosovo while Serbia was turned into a free-fire zone by NATO for over seventy days. Washington took advantage of the conflict to solidify control over its European vassals.

During the aerial campaign, between ten and fifteen tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Serbia resulting in extremely high rates of cancer. The Independent coyly informed its readers that the forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia, which they refer to as an “exodus” – is a great mystery – a “riddle.” The only “riddle” is how liberals can denounce genocide and speak ad nauseam about human rights while supporting neo-Nazi regimes, such as the Poroshenko government in Kiev and the Tudjman government in Croatia, which have perpetrated genocidal war crimes in broad daylight. The forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia was eventually reported by The New York Times, but four years too late. Liberal-backed jihadists in Libya and Syria have likewise carried out one ethnic cleansing after another.

Endless calls by the mainstream press to stop the evil Serbs from establishing a “greater Serbia” were blatant propaganda, as there was no way that the hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo could have “invaded” these territories, as they had already been living there for centuries. Indeed, this very scenario holds true for the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Moreover, as the mass media was busy vilifying the Serbs, behind the scenes American diplomats had no illusions about who they were dealing with, referring to the Croatian nationalists as “our junkyard dogs.”

In an article titled “The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia,” Michael Parenti writes:

Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions. This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles. Needless to say, U.S. leaders did nothing to stop and much to assist these atrocities, while the U.S. media looked the other way.

Kosovo was also prized by the Western elites because of its rich deposits of coal, lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver valued in the billions of dollars. The tragic balkanization of Yugoslavia, where brother was pitted against brother, brought about the destruction of a non-aligned country with a nationalized economy thereby bolstering the power of Western finance capital.  Of the NATO bombings, Parenti posits that, “To destroy publicly-run Yugoslav factories that produced auto parts, appliances, or fertilizer…is to enhance the investment value of western producers. And every television or radio station closed down by NATO troops or blown up by NATO bombs extends the monopolizing dominance of the western media cartels. The aerial destruction of Yugoslavia’s social capital served that purpose.”

Lamentably, all of this was drowned out by the mass media’s vilification of the Serbs. An article in The Guardian titled “Serbs enslaved Muslim women at rape camps” encapsulates perfectly how Western liberals were duped into embracing a war which was waged for no other reason than to fortify the power of US and NATO hegemony. This propaganda is particularly galling in light of the fact that women’s rights have been thrown back into the Stone Age precisely in the very countries which have come under attack by Washington and her proxies, such as Libya, jihadist-occupied Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

“Save Benghazi” and More Humanitarian Psychosis

Repeated calls by the presstitutes to “save Benghazi” sufficed to obtain liberal support for a war of aggression that has left Libya in such a state of anarchy and chaos, that Libyans who have been unable to flee the country are now trapped in a failed state where warring militias vie for power. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Obama’s Libya Debacle,” Alan J. Kuperman writes, “With Moscow’s acquiescence, the United Nations Security Council had approved the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya and other measures to protect civilians. But NATO exceeded that mandate to pursue regime change.”

Under Gaddafi Libyans enjoyed a high standard of living, and health care and education were free. Gaddafi’s desire to set up a gold-backed dinar put him in the crosshairs of the Western elites, as this would have liberated Africans from domination by the World Bank and the IMF through establishing a common gold-backed currency. Alas, this was lost on the human rights crusaders of the holier-than-thou faux left.

Libya, which formerly had the highest standard of living in Africa, has been annihilated as a nation state. Slave markets are a legacy of this great “humanitarian intervention,” as are pogroms carried out against black Africans, formerly given refuge by the Gaddafi regime. An article in The Telegraph, which appeared in March of 2011, titled “Libya crisis: Benghazi fights for its life as Gaddafi attacks,” was one of countless articles in the mainstream press that incited messianic liberals into supporting a war of aggression against a people that had become too independent.

Once a country is marked for destruction by the Western elites no story is too outrageous, as evidenced by Susan Rice’s claim that Gaddafi supplied his troops with Viagra so that they could more effectively carry out mass rapes. This barbaric destruction of a sovereign state was summed up by liberal icon Hillary Clinton, who when asked about the brutal murder of Gaddafi, happily blurted out “We came! We saw! He died!

In what constituted the most genocidal invasion of a country following the end of the Vietnam War, Iraq was marked for annihilation after Saddam Hussein made the decision to sell oil in euros. In a rare moment of candor from a high priest of liberalism, Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half a million children that died due to the Clinton-backed sanctions, replied “We think the price is worth it.” This chilling remark underscores the fact that, contrary to liberal theology, the destruction of Iraq was perpetrated with equal fervor by both parties. Incredibly, even after spending trillions of dollars systematically destroying Iraqi social and political institutions, Washington failed to install a puppet government in Baghdad which has forged alliances with Tehran, Damascus, and Moscow.

Liberal saint Obama, in comparing the reunification of Crimea and Russia with the Iraq War, informs us that the “annexation of Crimea” – which was enthusiastically backed by the overwhelming majority of Crimeans – was worse than the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a million deaths, destroyed a civilization and fueled the rise of ISIS.

As if her abysmal record makes her a Marxist scholar, Albright now warns Americans of the dangers of fascism, her implication of course being that the rise of Trump represents a threat to our democracy. Perhaps the Donald’s desire to pursue detente with Russia, and the fact that he has yet to start any new wars are what liberals are really upset about.

The Obama administration’s support for the Saudi war on Yemen is yet another impressive achievement for the liberal class, and has yielded such an earthly paradise that Yemenis have resorted to eating leaves to survive. For this extravaganza of mass murder the presstitutes didn’t even bother coming up with a fictitious narrative, allowing the salt of the earth to set aside their pom-poms for a while and take a nap.

Syria: Mass Murder in Paradise

Unsurprisingly, the mass media had no trouble duping imaginary leftists into believing that Syrians were being indiscriminately slaughtered by the Syrian Arab Army and the evil Russians. Unbeknownst to The Guardian and The New York Times, the US military presence in Syria is illegal, while Russian and Iranian military personnel are there at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration and its vassals are clearly responsible for the carnage in Syria, as they poured billions of dollars into backing the many jihadist groups. The mass media also hoodwinked liberals into thinking that the US military has been fighting ISIS, when they have used ISIS along with Al-Nusra Front and other illegal armed formations, as proxies with which to wage war on Syrian society. If Washington were battling the jihadists in Syria, why would they simultaneously be antagonists with the Syrian government and the Russians, who together saved Syria from being overrun by these very barbarians? Indeed, such questions have become a form of unmitigated heresy.

Articles such as “The Effects of Suspending American Aid to Moderate Syrian Opposition Groups,” by Hosam al-Jablawi, which appeared on The Atlantic Council’s website, seek to further the fallacy that the militants have been mostly democratic and secular. Washington and her vassals have poured enormous amounts of weaponry into the conflict zone, and Israeli weapons have been discovered in Syrian territories liberated from Daesh. That German machine guns from the Second World War have been discovered in some of these hideouts is symbolic of the true intentions of these murderous and sociopathic gangs.

The New York Post has referred to the jihadists in Syria as “freedom fighters.” While this may not be regarded as a “liberal” publication, an even more inane sentiment was expressed on Democracy Now, where Amy Goodman discussed the fighting in Eastern Ghouta with Rawya Rageh, Alia Malek, and Wendy Pearlman. Throughout the entire discussion of what can only be called an imaginary war, the fact that a large swath of Syria was taken over by jihadists, many of whom were not even Syrians but foreigners, is not even mentioned. In this cloud-cuckoo-land that passes for journalism the militants do not even exist. Assad and Putin are simply killing as many Syrians as possible, and doing so in an orgy of gratuitous savagery.

An article in The Guardian titled “You’re on your own, US tells Syrian rebels, as Assad goes on offensive” is deliberately written with the intention of stirring up liberal outrage over “indifference in the face of genocide,” and seeks to evoke memories of the Holocaust, the appeasement of Hitler, and the defeat of the Republicans by the forces of Franco. Meanwhile, independent media is shunned by liberals, who dismiss efforts at real journalism and political analysis as “conspiracy theory.” Thankfully for the insane, there is no shortage of good reading material.

Moscow has repeatedly maintained that the Syrian Arab Army is no longer in possession of chemical weapons, and there is ample evidence that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flag operations carried out by the jihadists to justify NATO aerial attacks on the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian infrastructure. Clearly, these incidents make for great Hollywood and have been extremely effective in stirring up gullible liberals who proceed to bray, as if on cue, for another regime change.

Tied to the mass media’s obsession with accusing Assad of “gassing his own people” are the White Helmets, who have been funded by the West, and who are clearly allied with the jihadists. The White Helmets played a critical role in duping liberal fundamentalists into thinking that there was a democratic uprising in Syria, and that the West must intervene “to put an end to the suffering.” Time will tell if Washington truly ceases all military operations in this war-ravaged country.

Forgotten Killing Fields: Afghanistan and Ukraine

The invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan was sold as a war to free oppressed women. An article in The Independent by Jane Dalton titled “Afghanistan’s first female military pilot granted asylum in US after fleeing Taliban death threats,” is crude propaganda, yet very effective nevertheless. This is a great way to distract insouciant liberals from what Americans are more likely to do in their dealings with Afghans, which is to murder them, and then urinate over their dead bodies. What the mass media doesn’t like to talk about is how the rise of the Taliban is a direct result of Washington’s support for the mujahideen in their insurgency against the secular Afghan communist government in the 1980s. Washington is furious with the International Criminal Court over considering prosecution of American officials for war crimes in Afghanistan, and has even threatened to arrest ICC judges in retaliation. Unbeknownst to these judges, Americans are God’s chosen people. Consequently, they are incapable of war crimes.

Samantha Power is a particularly pious priest in the Church of Humanitarian Interventionism. Power was a staunch advocate of military intervention in Libya, and used her influence to cover up the crimes of the US-Saudi genocidal assault on Yemen. She defended Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and yet was extremely critical of the “annexation of Crimea.” That the reunification of Crimea and Russia was in fact a legitimate humanitarian intervention is an irony that was undoubtedly lost on her. In a 2016 showdown with Vitaly Churkin at the UN Power accused Russia, Syria, and Iran of slaughtering civilians in Aleppo, when they were liberating the city from jihadists backed by Washington and her vassals. Power also spoke of the liberation of Aleppo as if the jihadists were Jews bravely defending themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Syrian and Russian troops were fascists perpetrating brutal acts of collective punishment. Following this deranged rant, Churkin said, “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country.”

The NATO-backed putsch in Kiev, supported wholeheartedly by the Obama administration, resulted in an unconstitutional seizure of power by the heirs of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as well as a genocidal war waged against the ethnic Russians of the Donbass who have steadfastly refused to recognize the Banderite regime. In pitting neo-Nazis against neo-partisans, the restoration of Ukrainian nationalism has resurrected the demons of the past, as the bodies of slain Novorossiyan fighters are mingled with the bones of their heroic grandfathers.

Despite blathering on about the Nazis for decades, liberals were fully complicit in bringing this odious regime to power, as they were easily hoodwinked into thinking that the coup was a grassroots democratic uprising, and that the armed formations battling the Ukrainian military in the Donbass were divisions from the Russian Armed Forces, when they are overwhelmingly comprised of locals from Donetsk and Lugansk.

Moreover, as the Western elites impose multiculturalism and identity politics at home, they are simultaneously fomenting the rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe. This underscores the moral bankruptcy, duplicity, and schizophrenia of the liberal class and has trapped Europeans in an intellectual paralysis where they are being offered a choice between neo-Nazism or multiculturalism, both of which benefit the oligarchy. The Maidan coup, executed by pogromists, neo-Nazis, and Banderites has legitimized unconstitutional seizures of power and inspired those who would like to carry out a putsch of their own in Germany.

A Hitler on The Moskva River?

As Putin has noted, following the collapse of the USSR Washington and NATO have pursued a policy of unilateralism. These wars have not only been carried out in flagrant violation of the UN Charter that condemns wars of aggression, but have also contributed to the degradation of the rule of law within the West itself. Western stenographers like to complain about terrorism, but terrorists filled the vacuum following the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a large swath of jihadist-occupied Syria – “humanitarian interventions” – where liberal complicity is undeniable and irrefutable.

The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism is rooted in the myth that the invasion of Normandy brought about the defeat of fascism. While this is not to denigrate the contributions made by resistance groups in Western Europe or those who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the fact is that the defeat of fascism was achieved by the Red Army and allied partisans who bore the brunt of the best German troops, together with the courage of the Russian people who suffered the loss of twenty-seven million of their countrymen. This much vaunted invasion was launched on June 6, 1944, and only after it was clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war.

The descent of liberals into a morass of madness and bestiality is intertwined with a gross naivete regarding the true intentions of publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Guardian which are leading their readers around like so many poodles. Sadly, most of these creatures will go to their graves never understanding the treachery of these periodicals that they have given their very souls to. Liberals have also decided that it is better to spend trillions of dollars on illegal wars of aggression while their sons and daughters have inadequate health insurance and wallow in dead-end jobs working for the minimum wage.

In a spectacular display of Russophobia and Apocalypticism, Nikki Haley, who could easily work for either party and not know the difference, recently wrote on her Twitter page that “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.” Washington’s decision to make Putin their favorite new bogeyman undoubtedly helps justify the obscene budget of the military industrial complex. Let’s pray that the bells of humanitarian intervention don’t ring out in strident cacophony over the Kremlin, which would assuredly take us to a place from which there is no dawning, and the evanescing of the sun of mankind forever.
——-
David Penner’s articles on politics and health care have appeared in Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Russia Insider and KevinMD. Also a photographer and native New Yorker, he is the author of three books: Faces of The New Economy, Faces of Manhattan Island, and Manhattan Pairs. He can be reached at 321davidadam@gmail.com.

Iraq Rejects Iran Sanctions and US Troop Presence

In another blow to US control on Iraq, the country’s foreign minister warned that Baghdad would ignore US sanctions on Iran.

Global Research, January 05, 2019
Geopolitics Alert 2 January 2019

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Ali al-Hakim laid out the latest step on the path to independence for Baghdad from the US concerning sanctions on Iran by Washington. Although Iraq currently has a 90-day waiver to trade with Iran issued on December 20th, Hakim let reporters know Iraq would be pursuing their own policy on Iran should the waiver not be renewed.

Hakim explained to reporters that

“These sanctions, the siege, or what is called the embargo,” imposed by the US is “unilateral, not international,” and Iraq is “not obliged [to follow] them.”

This is a big step for Baghdad to take in the face of pressure from Washington for Iraq to become “energy independent” with the help of US corporations exploiting their oil and gas resources. Instead, as explained by Hakim, Iraq would rather choose their own options for energy, even if that includes continuing the annual $12 billion in trade between Iraq and Iran flowing over US objections.

There are also discussions ongoing concerning increasing the amount of trade between Baghdad and Tehran despite US pressure. Iraqi President Barham Salih and his Iranian President Hassan Rouhani even doubled down on this during a recent meeting where Rouhani said that Tehran was willing to increase trade with Baghdad from the $12 billion a year mark to $20 billion.

Hakim assured reporters Iraq is already thinking of “solutions” to counteract any US threats to increased trade with Iran. According to Hakim, there are multiple options open to Baghdad “including dealing in Iraqi dinars in bilateral trade” as opposed to US dollars.

Iraqi Sovereignty: From Sanctions to Bases

This defiance to US sanctions is only the latest step in Iraq declaring independence from Washington. Another sign that the US is losing their grip on Baghdad was also made apparent last week when, after Trump made a surprise visit to US troops in Iraq, fueling outrage among Iraqi politicians.

Many Iraqi leaders called Trump’s surprise visit to their country a violation of their nation’s sovereignty. This has ended up leading to a wider backlash and resulted in multiple Iraqi politicians demanding a complete end to the US military presence in the country.

This all comes as the Trump regime is attempting to cement new positions in the Middle East by way of new bases on the Iraq-Syria border. According to some Iraqi MPs such as Badr al-Zaidi who has said that the new bases violate “agreements between Iraq and the US were on the pullout of foreign forces from Iraq after 2013.”

Even US-ally and supporter of the NATO occupation, former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi rejected the “method of Trump’s visit,” saying “it was not appropriate to diplomatic mores and to relations with sovereign states.”

These insults to Iraq have led to a wave of Iraqi lawmakers demanding more than an apology and saying the Iraqi government would move to make a “parliamentary decision to expel (Trump’s) military forces” in the words of Qais Khazali, an Iraqi politician. Much like with the rejection of the Iran sanctions, Khazali also promised his faction of the government (backed by Shia militias) also had creative “solutions” to dealing with US pressure on Iraq including “experience and ability to get them out in another way that is well known to your forces, which were forced to withdraw in humiliation in 2011.”

All of these events paint a picture of a growing movement in Iraq to reject US control of the government there that has been in place since the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003. All the parties that opposed both Saddam and the US occupation are moving closer to the levers of power in Iraq and Baghdad is no longer under Washington’s thumb. The question now for Donald Trump is, will he leave Iraq like he is Syria or will this case take more convincing by the forces of resistance in Iraq?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Geopolitics Alert

%d bloggers like this: