بويتن وترامب: عندما ينضج التفاوض

مايو 11, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– الأكيد من النص المعلن في البيت الأبيض حول المحادثة الهاتفية المطوّلة بين الرئيسين الأميركي دونالد ترامب والروسي فلاديمير بوتين حول نتائج تحقيقات المدعي العام الأميركي في الاتهامات الموجّهة للرئيس ترامب بالإفادة من تدخل روسي استخباري في الانتخابات، أن الرئيس ترامب كان يريد للتحقيقات أن تنتهي بتبرئته لتطلق يديه في الذهاب لأي تفاوض ممكن أو لازم مع موسكو، وأن بعض المواقف التصعيدية السابقة بوجه روسيا كان إثباتاً لهذه البراءة أكثر مما هو تعبير عن مقتضيات المصلحة السياسية الأميركية، وأنه وقد تخفف من أثقال الاتهامات فقد صار بمستطاعه استعادة الموضوعية التي يجب أن يتصرف من خلالها الرئيس الأميركي مع الرئيس الروسي.

– هذا التوقيت ليس أحادي الحضور في الحديث عن نضج التفاوض بين موسكو وواشنطن، فيما تتزاحم محطات التلاقي بين أركان إدارتي موسكو وواشنطن. فالمحادثة الهاتفية الاستثنائية في مدتها التي بلغت ساعة ونصفاً واتسمت بالتفاهم الكبير، كما قال الرئيس ترامب مغرداً، تلاها لقاء بين وزيري الخارجية الأميركي مايك بومبيو والروسي سيرغي لافروف على هامش اجتماعات مجلس القطب الشمالي امتد ساعة خرج بعدها الوزيران يتحدثان عن إيجابيات كثيرة وفرصاً كبيرة للتفاهم، تمهيداً للقاء سيجمعهما في سوتشي بعد أيام، وقد استبقه بومبيو بالإعلان عن وصوله إلى موسكو قبل يومين من موعد سوتشي للقاءات تمهيدية سيتوّجها ويتوّج زيارته بلقاء الرئيس بوتين، ليتم اللقاء التاريخي بين بوتين وترامب في اليابان على هامش قمة العشرين الشهر المقبل.

– في الطريق إلى لقاء الرئيسين بوتين وترامب، إعلان أميركي للمرة الأولى عن «تفهم العملية المحدودة لروسيا في إدلب»، وحديث علني لبومبيو عن ملفات للحوار تمتد من سورية إلى أوكرانيا وإيران وفنزويلا وكوريا الشمالية. وبالتدقيق سيتبين أنه في كل منها حاولت واشنطن لسنوات التفرّد ووصلت لطريق مسدود، بدءاً من أوكرانيا التي فقدت رأس الرهان على استخدامها منصة تصعيد بوجه روسيا مع الفشل الانتخابي للرئيس السابق المدعوم من واشنطن كرأس حربة بوجه روسيا، وروسيا تدعو لتطبيق تفاهمات مينسك. وفي فنزويلا فشل مزدوج للانقلاب النيابي فالانقلاب العسكري، وروسيا حاضرة للتعاون التفاوضي. وفي سورية تحتاج واشنطن لتغطية قرار انسحابها بتسليم روسيا إدارة الملف وضمان مستقبل الأكراد من ضمن تفاهمها مع الدولة السورية وتركيا بعدما صار نصر الدولة السورية الشامل تحصيل حاصل ومسألة وقت. وفي كوريا الشمالية انتهى الرهان الأميركي على مفاوضات ثنائية من وراء ظهر روسيا إلى مهزلة، وتساقطت الوعود الأميركية بقرب التوصل لتفاهم الواحد تلو الآخر، بينما أنتج لقاء الرئيس بوتين مع زعيم كوريا الشمالية كيم جونغ أون ما يمنح روسيا صفة الوسيط القادر.

– يشكل الملف الإيراني العقدة الأهم، خصوصاً بعدما سقطت النظرية الأميركية بالقدرة على الحصول على تطمينات التفاهم النووي وحرمان إيران من مكتسباته، فالردّ الإيراني عملياً يقول إن إيران حصلت من التفاهم على سقوط لا رجعة فيه لعقوبات أممية، ولم تعد بحاجة للتفاهم وهي تستطيع تحميل أميركا وأوروبا مسؤولية إفشاله، وقادرة على التعايش مع عقوباتهم وقد فعلت من قبل لسنوات ما قبل العام 2015 موّلت خلالها اقتصادها وقوى المقاومة ومستلزمات صمود سورية بوجه الحرب الأميركية، وجاءت الحشود العسكرية الأميركية تحرشاً بديلاً بإيران يعترف ضمناً بفشل العقوبات في جلبها للتفاوض، وتشكل إشارات ترامب لتمايزه عن مستشاره للأمن القومي جون بولتون وإعلان رغبته بحوار مباشر بلا شروط مع إيران، كما الدعوات الأوروبية لتفاوض مباشر أميركي إيراني، مقدّمات لا يمكن لغير روسيا تحويلها إلى مناسبة لتفاوض تقبل به إيران من موقع يحفظ صورتها ومصالحها، وترامب أكثر مَن يدرك أن حديثه عن صفقة القرن حول القضية الفلسطينية بلا أفق، وأنه يفيد في ابتزاز أموال الخليج، لكنه لا ينفع في زرع الخوف في إيران وقوى المقاومة.

– ترامب المهتم بالتمهيد لترشحه لولاية ثانية من موقع النجاح، لا يملك ذلك بالتصعيد الذي يذهب إلى المجهول ولا يجلب له إلا صورة المتهوّر العاجز، بينما صورة القوي والقادر على صناعة التفاهمات هي ما يحتاجه في العام الذي يسبق بدء الموسم الانتخابي، ويعنيه كثيراً أن يذهب للانتخابات وهو يقول إنه نجح في التأسيس لمفاوضات جادة حول ملفات كوريا وفنزويلا وأوكرانيا والسلاح النووي وسورية وإيران بمقدار نجاحه في رسم صورة القوة الأميركية، وشرط هذا هو التشارك مع موسكو الذي رفضت واشنطن الإقرار به كحاجة وضرورة لعقود طويلة منذ سقوط جدار برلين، وشكلت الدعوة له أحد عناوين الحملة الانتخابية للرئيس الذي يُقال أنه يفي بوعوده الانتخابية ولو عطلته رياح الداخل الأميركي والرهانات الخاطئة وأوهام القوة إلى حين.

Advertisements

بوتين – ترامب: تراضٍ وتغاضٍ… وربط نزاع

 

مايو 6, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– لا يمكن لعاقل ومتابع أن يتقبّل فكرة أن الحوار الهاتفي المعلن عنه بصيغة لافتة للأنظار، من موسكو وواشنطن وببيانات رسمية للبيت البيض والكرملين، والذي تمّ بين الرئيسين الأميركي دونالد ترامب والروسي فلاديمير بوتين، واستمر لساعة ونصف كان بلا معنى، وأن لا نتائج ترتبت عليه، رغم قول الرئيس ترامب إنه كان جيداً جداً وإن «هناك إمكانيات ضخمة لعلاقات جيدة ممتازة مع روسيا، رغم ما تقرأونه وترونه في إعلام الأخبار الكاذبة»، ولا يمكن تجاهل أهمية هذه المحادثة بعدما لحق بها من بيانات توضيحية عن الكرملين والبيت الأبيض تضمنت ما تناولته، وتخللتها إشارة أميركية لتحقيقات الاتهامات الموجهة لروسيا بالتدخل في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، وصولاً لتوبيخ ترامب لإحدى الصحافيات في البيت البيض لدى سؤالها عن إمكانية تدخل روسي في الانتخابات المقبلة.

– ما توحي به توضيحات الأبيت الأبيض هو أن بروداً أصاب العلاقة بين موسكو وواشنطن، وبين الرئيسين ترامب وبوتين بقرار أميركي، خلال مرحلة تحقيقات المدعي العام روبرت مولر منعاً لأي استغلال وأن نهاية التحقيق حررت ترامب من القيود، وأعادت الفرص لفعل ما يجب فعله وفقاً لسياسات المصالح ومقتضيات الأوضاع الدولية، والحديث عن فنزويلا وكوريا الشمالية، حيث روسيا شريك لا غنى عنه، بعد الفشل الأميركي في محاولات الاستفراد، والحضور الروسي القوي في الملفين، صار مصلحة أميركية، والحديث عن أوكرانيا صار كذلك بعد فشل المرشح المدعوم من الغرب في الانتخابات الرئاسية، والحاجة للتعاون الدولي في إحاطة الرئيس المنتخب الذي قد يؤدي ضعف الخبرة لديه إلى مفاجآت لا يرغب بها أحد.

– الواضح هنا أن الرهان الأميركي على قدرة مواصلة سياسات التفرد والانفراد يسقط لصالح حتمية الشراكات، وأن العقوبات على إيران كما الانقلاب في فنزويلا كما التهديد لكوريا، تواجه محدودية القدرة على صناعة التغيير المنشود في التوازنات على الساحة الدولية، والواضح أيضاً أن الضغط على روسيا لجلبها للتعاون بشروط أميركية من خلال البوابة الأوكرانية يفقد أوراقه، ومثله من البوابة السورية، خصوصاً مع التشابك في العلاقات التركية بكل من روسيا وإيران، وحسم تركيا لتمردها على العقوبات الأميركية في ملفي النفط والغاز مع إيران وملف السلاح مع روسيا. وبالمقابل يظهر التموضع الأميركي في الملف الليبي بصورة تُرضي روسيا، بعد سنوات نظرت خلالها موسكو لما تسمّيه بالخديعة الأميركية كمصدر لانفراط عقد التعاون الدولي.

– ما نحن أمامه يؤكد وجود حالات تراضٍ وتفاهمات، ربما تكون ليبيا أبرزها، وحالات تغاضٍ يرتضي بها الأميركي التقدم الروسي دون أن يمنحه صك الشرعنة، ربما تكون سورية أبرزها، وبالتوازي حالات ربط نزاع تطال تمهيداً للطريق نحو التسويات على البارد في فنزويلا وكوريا الشمالية وأوكرانيا، وفي السياق يبدو لافتاً نمط العقوبات على إيران بين سقفين، حد أعلى يمنع بلوغه حيث تقدم إيران على إغلاق مضيق هرمز والعودة للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم، وحد أدنى يمنع بلوغه، حيث تتمكّن إيران من تحقيق فوائض مالية تغذي بها قوى المقاومة وتعزّز ترسانتها العسكرية فتمتلك زمام المبادرة في صراعات المنطقة. فحماية أنظمة الخليج تستدعي عدم التصعيد الأميركي للعقوبات، وحماية أمن «إسرائيل» تستدعي عدم التهاون في العقوبات.

– صفقة القرن التي يعد صهر الرئيس ترامب ومستشاره جارد كوشنر بإطلاقها بعد شهر رمضان لها ساحة اختبار أخرى، وما يجري في غزة يتكفل بكشف فرصها واحتمالات الفشل في ترويض المعادلة الفلسطينية لتقبلها، وبالتالي الذهاب إلى ضم الملف الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي، وربما العربي الإسرائيلي، إلى حزمة تفاهمات أميركية روسية جديدة في اتصال لاحق!

Related Videos

Related News

What Monroe Doctrine?

What Monroe Doctrine?

What Monroe Doctrine?

Because there is a presidential election coming up next year, the Donald Trump Administration appears to be looking for a country that it can attack and destroy in order to prove its toughness and willingness to go all the way in support of alleged American interests. It is a version of the old neocon doctrine attributed to Michael Ledeen, the belief that every once in a while, it is necessary to pick out some crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to demonstrate that the United States means business.

“Meaning business” is a tactic whereby the adversary surrenders immediately in fear of the possible consequences, but there are a couple of problems with that thinking. The first is that an opponent who can resist will sometimes balk and create a continuing problem for the United States, which has a demonstrated inability to start and end wars in any coherent fashion.

This tendency to get caught in a quagmire in a situation that might have been resolved through diplomacy has been exacerbated by the current White House’s negotiating style, which is to both demand and expect submission on all points even before discussions begin. That was clearly the perception with North Korea, where National Security Advisor John Bolton insisted that Pyongyang had agreed to American demands over its nuclear program even though it hadn’t and would have been foolish to do so for fear of being treated down the road like Libya, which denuclearized but then was attacked and destroyed seven years later. The Bolton mis-perception, which was apparently bought into by Trump, led to a complete unraveling of what might actually have been accomplished if the negotiations had been serious and open to reasonable compromise right from the beginning.

Trump’s written demand that Kim Jong Un immediately hand over his nuclear weapons and all bomb making material was a non-starter based on White House misunderstandings rooted in its disdain for compromise. The summit meeting with Trump, held in Hanoi at the end of February, was abruptly canceled by Kim and Pyongyang subsequently accused Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of making “gangster-like” demands.

The second problem is that there are only a few actual casus belli situations under international law that permit a country to attack another preemptively, and they are usually limited to actual imminent threats. The current situation with Venezuela is similar to that with North Korea in that Washington is operating on the presumption that it has a right to intervene and bring about regime change, using military force if necessary, because of its presumed leadership role in global security, not because Caracas or even Pyongyang necessarily is threatening anyone. That presumption that American “exceptionalism” provides authorization to intervene in other countries using economic weapons backed up by a military option that is “on the table” is a viewpoint that is not accepted by the rest of the world.

In the case of Venezuela, where Trump has dangerously demanded that Russia withdraw the hundred or so advisors that it sent to help stabilize the country, the supposition that the United States has exclusive extra-territorial rights is largely based on nineteenth and early twentieth century unilaterally declared “doctrines.” The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 de facto established the United States as the hegemon-presumptive for the entire Western Hemisphere, stretching from the Arctic Circle in the north to Patagonia in the south.

John Bolton has been the leader in promoting the Monroe Doctrine as justification for Washington’s interference in Venezuela’s politics, apparently only dimly aware that the Doctrine, which opposed any attempts by European powers to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, was only in effect for twenty-two years when the United States itself annexed Texas and then went to war with Mexico in the following year. The Mexican war led to the annexation of territory that subsequently became the states of California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Colorado. In the same year, the United States threatened war with Britain over the Oregon Territory, eventually accepting a border settlement running along the 49th parallel.

Meanwhile the march westward across the plains continued, forcing the Indian tribes back into ever smaller spaces of open land. The US government in the nineteenth century recognized some Indian tribes as “nations” but it apparently did not believe that they enjoyed any explicit “Monroe Doctrine” rights to continue to exist outside reservations when confronted by the “manifest destiny” proponents who were hell bent on creating a United States that would run from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 amended the Monroe Doctrine, making it clear that the United States believed it had a right to interfere in any country in the western Hemisphere to maintain good order, which inevitably led to exploitation of Latin American nations by US business conglomerates that could count on a little help from US Marines if their trade agreements were threatened. In 1898, Washington became explicitly imperialist when it defeated Spain and acquired effective control over Cuba, a number of Caribbean Islands and the Philippines. This led to a series of more than thirty interventions by the US military in the Caribbean and Central America between 1898 and 1934. Other states in the region that were not directly controlled by Washington were frequently managed through arrangements with local autocrats, who were often themselves generals.

Make no mistake, citing the Monroe Doctrine is little more than a plausible excuse to get rid of the Venezuelan government, which is legitimate, like it or not. The recent electrical blackouts in the country are only the visible signs of an aggressive campaign to destroy the Venezuelan economy. The United States is engaging in economic warfare against Caracas, just as it is doing against Tehran, and it is past time that it should be challenged by the international community over its behavior. Guns may not be firing but covert cyberwarfare is total warfare nevertheless, intended to starve people and increase their suffering in order to bring about economic collapse and take down a government to change it into something more amenable to American interests.

Netanyahu, Trump, and the inevitable failure: A strength that changed the face of the history نتنياهو وترامب والفشل المحتوم: قوة فعلت فغيّرت وجه التاريخ

Netanyahu, Trump, and the inevitable failure: A strength that changed the face of the history

مارس 20, 2019

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The current American and Israeli situation may summarize the new balances experienced by the world in the light of the consequences of eight-year war on Syria. Within a month from the beginning of the American war on Venezuela, the leader of the opposition appointed by Washington as a president and its allies have chosen him as a legitimate president has fled from justice moving among the capitals involved in the coup. Moscow and Beijing vetoed for the first time against the American attempts to legitimatize the coup. Before a month of the American elections imposed by the balances of powers after a war of test on Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu faces judicial charges of corruption after he returned from a failed visit to Moscow where he did not get a green light to continue the raids on Syria.

Those who are obsessed by the American power can talk whatever they want about the American-Israeli retreat as a smart plan, or by retreating one step to go forward two steps or by the policy of fortifying. But the fact is the same in all the battlefields. The negotiations run by the American President Donald Trump with the leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un and which were described by him as the victory of the century, and which he explained in details and  their results in advance, and considered as the most important achievements in his first term are collapsing all at once, and what has been predicted by Trump about tempting Korea with financial incentives has been failed due to the presence of the professional Korean  negotiator who presented tempting suggestions, but when the matters reached seriously he showed his commitment to his principles “ the coincidence between lifting the sanctions and dismantling the nuclear issue” so Trump returned disappointed.

The magical solutions of Trump for the Palestinians regarding the Palestinian cause are the same magical solutions for the Koreans; Your national dignity versus financial incentives, he will not gain but the same result, even if the Arab rulers gathered, along with  the funds of Gulf, the effect of Egypt and Jordan and the Israeli brutality, the Palestinians decided that they will not sign the contract of humiliation even if they are not able to end the occupation now, since the coming generations will be able to end it soon. Trump betted on a quick fall of Iran under the pressure of sanctions and siege, but Iran became stronger and now it is preparing for future rounds along with the increasing power, presence, and spread of the resistance axis, the apparent victory of Syria, the rootedness in the equations of Iraq and Yemen, and a legendary steadfastness in Palestine. Russia which America betted on its adapting by temptations, sanctions, and threats is continuing its progress steadily as a keeper of the international law and the concept of the independent country and the national sovereignty of the countries depending on its achievement in Syria to support the steadfastness of Venezuela, the stability of Korea, and more coherence with Iran.

Washington’s allies which were a strong alliance a decade ago, now they become weak, Warsaw’s conference in comparison with the Syrian Friends’ Conference is enough to describe the scene. The contradictions are spreading over the allies’ campaign. Europe and Turkey have their own options, while Washington is followed only by those who are defeated and who need the support. Neither the maneuvers in postponing the withdrawal from Syria nor the talk about the remaining in Iraq can change the equations and the balances, because the equations will impose themselves on America and will oblige it to withdraw.

The essential thing unrecognized by America and Israel is that the spirit of the resistance which won in 2000 in the south of Lebanon as an outcome of the Syrian-Iranian convergence depending on the concept of the national sovereignty and the right of resisting the occupation has become a global spirit that moves victorious from one front to another, Therefore, it is prosecuted from  Lebanon, to Yemen, to Iraq,  to Venezuela under the name of  cells of Hezbollah, repeating the scene of the squares of Nabatieh when the demonstrators were shouting for Ashura “Haidar Haidar” recalling the Imam Ali while they were confronting the occupation’s artilleries,  then the Israeli commander asked his soldiers to bring Haidar the organizer of the demonstrations. Just as Haidar of Nabatieh was an intangible spirit, Hezbollah in Venezuela and Korea was like that, it reflects the spirit, the resistance, and the will of peoples which cannot be suppressed.

This is illustrated by Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah in his equation “the time of defeats is over, now it is the time of victories” and this has been described by the late leader Hugo Chavez “Poor and naïve can draw their own fate by themselves” commenting on the winning of the resistance in the war of July 2006, and this has been told by the founder of The Syrian Social Nationalist Party Antoine Saadeh “ There is a strength in you, if you use it you can change the face of history” .

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

نتنياهو وترامب والفشل المحتوم: قوة فعلت فغيّرت وجه التاريخ

مارس 1, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– قد تشكّل الصورة التي تظهر فيها الحالة الأميركية والحالة الإسرائيلية في يوم واحد، تلخيصاً للتوازنات الجديدة التي يعيشها العالم في ضوء نتائج حرب الثماني سنوات على سورية، فخلال شهر من بدء الحرب الأميركية على فنزويلا، يصبح زعيم المعارضة الذي نصبته واشنطن رئيساً وبايعه حلفاؤها رئيساً شرعياً، فاراً من وجه العدالة يتنقل بين عواصم الدول المتورّطة في الانقلاب، بينما تسجّل موسكو وبكين أول فيتو بوجه المحاولات الأميركية لشرعنة الانقلاب، وقبيل شهر من الانتخابات المفبركة التي فرضتها موازين القوى بعد حرب اختبارية مع غزة، يواجه بنيامين نتنياهو اتهامات قضائية بالفساد، وهو عائد من زيارة فاشلة إلى موسكو لم يحصل فيها على ما أسمته أوساط حكومته، بالضوء الأخضر الروسي لمواصلة الغارات على سورية.

– يستطيع المأخوذون بانبهار بالقوة الأميركية أن يفلسفوا كما يشاؤون توصيف التقهقر الأميركي الإسرائيلي بالخطة الذكية، أو بالتراجع خطوة للتقدّم خطوتين، أو بالتمسكن للتمكّن، لكن الحقيقة نفسها تفرض ذاتها في كل ساحات المواجهة. فالمفاوضات التي أدارها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب مع زعيم كوريا الشمالية، كيم جونغ أون، ووصفها بانتصار القرن، وأسهب في شرح ميزاتها ونتائجها مسبقاً ورفع سقوف التوقعات فيها إلى حد اعتبارها أهم الإنجازات التي ستتحقق في ولايته الأولى، تنهار دفعة واحدة، وما توقعه ترامب من سهولة ابتلاع اللقمة الكورية السائغة بمحفزات مالية مغرية، انقلب إلى شوك يصعب ابتلاعه بظهور المفاوض الكوري المحترف، الذي قدّم الإيحاءات المغرية، وعندما وصلت الأمور للحدّ الفاصل أشهر ثوابته، التوازي والتزامن بين فك العقوبات وتفكيك الملف النووي، فعاد ترامب يجرّ أذيال الخيبة.

– ما يبشّر به ترامب من حلول سحرية للقضية الفلسطينية يقوم جوهرها على عرض مشابه للفلسطينيين عن العرض الأميركي للكوريين، كرامتكم الوطنية مقابل حوافز مالية، فلن يلقى سوى النتيجة ذاتها، ولو احتشد كل حكام العرب، ومعهم مال الخليج، وتأثير مصر والأردن، وبالمقابل الوحشية الإسرائيلية، فقد قرر الفلسطينيون أنهم قادرون على عدم توقيع صك الذل، وإن كانوا غير قادرين على إنهاء الاحتلال اليوم، فإن الأجيال القادمة ستتكفّل بذلك، وما راهن عليه ترامب من سقوط سريع لإيران تحت ضغط العقوبات والحصار، يتبدّد وإيران تزداد قوة وتستعدّ لجولات مقبلة، ومعها محور المقاومة الذي ازداد قوة وحضوراً وانتشاراً، وأمامه نصر بائن في سورية وتجذّر في معادلات العراق واليمن، وصمود أسطوري في فلسطين، وروسيا التي راهن الأميركي على تطويعها بالإغراءات والعقوبات والتهديدات تواصل تقدّمها بثبات كحارس للقانون الدولي ومفهوم الدولة المستقلة والسيادة الوطنية للدول، مستقوية بقوة الإنجاز في سورية لتتجه نحو دعم صمود فنزويلا، وثبات كوريا، والمزيد من التماسك مع إيران.

– حلفاء واشنطن الذين كانوا حلفاً صلباً يتقدّم قبل عقد من الزمن، يتقلص ويبهت ويذبل، ومشهد مؤتمر وارسو مقارنة بمؤتمر أصدقاء سورية يكفي لرسم الصورة، والتناقضات تفتك بمعسكر الحلفاء، فترسم أوروبا وتركيا خياراتهما الخاصة، ولا يصطفّ وراء واشنطن إلا الصغار الذين لا يقدمون ولا يؤخرون، أو المهزومون الذين يحتاجون مَن ينصرهم، ولا تنفع مناورات تأجيل الانسحاب من سورية والحديث عن البقاء في العراق في تغيير المعادلات والتوازنات، فاليوم أو بعد حين ستفرض هذه المعادلات نفسها على الأميركي وتجبره على الانسحاب، وما لم تفعله الآلاف لن تنجح بفعله المئات.

– الشيء الجوهري الذي لم يستطع الأميركي والإسرائيلي ومَن معهما إدراكه، هو أن روح المقاومة التي انتصرت عام 2000 في جنوب لبنان، كثمرة للتلاقي السوري الإيراني بالاستثمار على مفهوم السيادة الوطنية للدول وحق مقاومة الاحتلال للشعوب، صارت منذ ذلك التاريخ روحاً عالمية تنتقل من جبهة إلى جبهة وتنتصر، فيلاحقونها تحت شعار خلايا حزب الله، من لبنان إلى اليمن إلى العراق إلى فنزويلا، معيدين الصورة التي رسمت في ساحات النبطية عندما كان المتظاهرون يهتفون في عاشوراء «حيدر حيدر» مستذكرين الإمام علي وهم يهاجمون آليات جيش الاحتلال، فيكون ردّ قائد القوة الإسرائيلية بأن يطلب من جنوده أن يجلبوا إليه حيدر هذا، باعتباره منظم التظاهرات، ومثلما كان حيدر النبطية روحاً لا يُمسَك بها، حزب الله في فنزويلا وكوريا، ليس وجوداً لخلايا، بل هو الروح المقاومة والإرادة الحية للشعوب، التي خرجت من القمقم ولا تستطيع قوة في العالم إعادتها إليه.

– هو هذا الذي سمّاه السيد حسن نصرالله، في معادلة «ولى زمن الهزائم وجاء زمن الانتصارات، «ووصفه الزعيم الراحل هوغو شافيز، بـ«أن بمستطاع الفقراء والبسطاء أن يكتبوا مصيرهم بأيديهم»، معلقاً على انتصار المقاومة في حرب تموز 2006، وهو ما قاله ذات يوم مؤسس الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي أنطون سعاده، الذي يحتفل القوميون اليوم بعيد ميلاده، «إن فيكم قوة لو فعلت لغيّرت وجه التاريخ»، وها هو التاريخ يتغيّر أيّها العظيم من أمتي.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 14, 2019

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

The reprint of this title is currently in production, pre-order your copy now! Orders will ship out in early April 2019:

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

$15.00, Save 40% on list price – Pre-order, shipping April 2019

The following text is the Preface of  Michel Chossudovsky’s New Book entitled: The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity

The Book can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers.  

Scroll down for more details

PREFACE

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.1

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations, which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.2

https://youtu.be/im_HEX5ba6M

The Globalization of War by Global Research

click image to pre-order – shipping April 2019

Worldwide Militarization

 From the outset of the post World War II period to the present, America’s s global military design has been one of world conquest. War and globalization are intricately related. Militarization supports powerful economic interests. America’s “Long War” is geared towards worldwide corporate expansion and the conquest of new economic frontiers.

The concept of the “Long War” is an integral part of U.S. military doctrine. Its ideological underpinnings are intended to camouflage the hegemonic project of World conquest. Its implementation relies on a global alliance of 28 NATO member states. In turn, the U.S. as well as NATO have established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network of bilateral military alliances with “partner” countries directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. What we are dealing with is a formidable military force, deployed in all major regions of the World.

The “Long War” is based on the concept of “Self-Defense”. The United States and the Western World are threatened. “The Long War” constitutes “an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant western dominance”. Underlying the “Long War”, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, the Western World must address “three potential threats”:

  • those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict,
  • those related to the use of terrorism • those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). … in order to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to make a concerted effort across all three domains.3

Our objective in this book is to focus on various dimensions of America’s hegemonic wars, by providing both a historical overview as well as an understanding of America’s contemporary wars all of which, from a strategic viewpoint, are integrated.

Our analysis will focus on the dangers of nuclear war and the evolution of military doctrine in the post-9/11 era.

The central role of media propaganda as well as the failures of the anti-war movement will also be addressed. While the first chapter provides an overview, the subsequent chapters provide an insight into different dimensions of America’s long war.

Chapter I, Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity provides a post World War II historical overview of America’s wars from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There is a continuum in U.S. Foreign Policy from the Truman Doctrine of the late 1940s to the neocons and neoliberals of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Part II focuses on the dangers of nuclear war and global nuclear radiation.

Chapter II, The Dangers of Nuclear War Conversations with Fidel Castro consists of Conversations with Fidel Castro and the author pertaining to the future of humanity and the post-Cold War process of militarization. This exchange took place in Havana in October 2010.

Chapter III focuses on the doctrine of Pre-emptive Nuclear and the Role of Israel in triggering a first strike use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Chapter IV, The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States? focuses on the persistent U.S. threat (since 1953) of using nuclear weapons against North Korea while labeling North Korea a threat to global security.

Chapter V, Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War. The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation examines the dangers of nuclear energy and its unspoken relationship to nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap.

Part III illustrates at a country level, the modus operandi of U.S. military and intelligence interventions, including regime change and the covert support of terrorist organizations. The country case studies (Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine) illustrate how individual nation states are destabilized as a result of U.S.-NATO covert operations and “humanitarian wars.” While the nature and circumstances of these countries are by no means similar, there is a common thread. The purpose is to provide a comparative understanding of country-level impacts of America’s long war against humanity. In all the countries analyzed, the intent has been to destroy, destabilize and impoverish sovereign countries.

Chapter VI, NATO’s War on Yugoslavia: Kosovo “Freedom Fighters” Financed by Organized Crime examines the role of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as an instrument of political destabilization. In Yugoslavia, the endgame of NATO’s intervention was to carve up a prosperous and successful “socialist market economy” into seven proxy states. The political and economic breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s served as a “role model” for subsequent “humanitarian military endeavors.”

Chapter VII, The U.S. led Coup d’Etat in Haiti against the government of Jean Bertrand Aristide was carried out in February 2004 with the support of Canada and France. In a bitter irony, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti James Foley, had previously played a central role as U.S. special envoy to Yugoslavia, channeling covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In Haiti, his responsibilities included U.S. aid to the Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) (National Liberation and Reconstruction Front) largely integrated by former Tonton Macoute death squads. Closely coordinated with the process of regime change and military intervention, the IMF-World Bank macroeconomic reforms played a crucial role in destroying the national and impoverishing the Haitian population.

Chapter VIII, “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa reveals the hidden agenda behind NATO’s 2011 humanitarian war on Libya, which consisted in acquiring control and ownership of Libya’s extensive oil reserves, that is, almost twice those of the United States of America. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) played a key role in the war on Libya in coordination with NATO.

Libya is the gateway to the Sahel and Central Africa. More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa at the expense of France’s historical spheres of influence in West and Central Africa, namely a process of neocolonial re-division.

Chapter IX, The War on Iraq and Syria. Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads examines U.S.-NATO’s covert war on Syria, which consists in creating Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist entities. The U.S.-led covert war consists in recruiting, training and financing Islamist death squads which are used as the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The ultimate military objective is the destruction of both Iraq and Syria.

Chapter X, War and Natural Gas. The Israel Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields focuses on Israel’s attack directed against Gaza with a view to confiscating Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

In Chapter XI, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, the structure of the U.S.-EU sponsored proxy regime in Kiev is examined. Key positions in government and the Armed Forces are in the hands of the two neo-Nazi parties. The Ukraine National Guard financed and trained by the West is largely integrated by Neo-Nazis Brown Shirts.

Part IV is entitled Breaking the American Inquisition. Reversing the Tide of War focuses on some of the contradictions of the antiwar movement.

Chapter XII, The “American Inquisition” and the “Global War on Terrorism” analyzes the central role of America’s “war on terrorism” doctrine in harnessing public support for a global war of conquest. The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the multi-billion dollar U.S. intelligence community.

Today’s “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a modern form of inquisition. It has all the essential ingredients of the French and Spanish Inquisitions. Going after “Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “protect the Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

In turn, “The Global War on Terrorism” is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

Chapter XII, “Manufactured Dissent”, Colored Revolutions and the Antiwar Movement in Crisisexamines the role of corporate foundations in funding dissent and the inability of “progressive” civil society organizations and antiwar collectives to effectively confront the tide of media disinformation and war propaganda.

COMMENDATIONS

The Globalization of War is an extraordinarily important book. It tags the origin of a long series of wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the present, as being direct products of U.S. Foreign Policy. Nothing happens by accident. U.S. provocateurs, usually agents of the CIA, incite one conflict after another in what Michael Chossudovsky labels America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

It comprises a war on two fronts. Those countries that can either be “bought,” or destabilized by a corrupt international financial system, are easy targets for effective conquest. In other cases insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit American military intervention to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. The “End Game” is a New World Order embracing a dual economic and military dictatorship prepared to use atomic weapons and risk the future of the entire human species to achieve its ends.

Michel Chossudovsky is one of the few individuals I know who has analyzed the anatomy of the New World Order and recognized the threat to the entire human species that it is. The Globalization of War is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair. Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He does not lie for money and position, and he does not sell his soul for influence. His book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that hegemonic and demonic American neoconservatism poses to life on earth. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Treasury, former Wall Street Journal editor,  former Wm. E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. 

At these moments when  the threat  of humanity’s  extinction  by the forces  unleashed by the  empire  and its vassals,  it is imperative that we  grasp  the nature of the beast  that threatens us with  its endless wars perpetrated in the name of the  highest levels of freedom.

This  vital work by an outstanding teacher  will remain an enduring testimony  of the author’s  all-embracing  humanism and scholarship that has always been inseparable  from his political activism  that spans  several decades.    It should be mandatory reading  for those seeking to understand , and thus  to contain and repel,   the  compulsive  onslaughts   of the hegemon’s  endless wars with its boundless bestialities and crimes against humanity..Dr Frederic F. Clairmonte, award winning author and political economist, distinguished (former) economic analyst at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. It comes from the pen of one of the most insightful and incisive writers on global politics and the global economy alive today.

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world. This Machiavellian, indeed, diabolical agenda not only centres around wars of conquest and subjugation but also seeks to dismember and destroy sovereign states. Russia, China and Iran are the primary targets of this drive for dominance and control. The underlying economic motives behind this drive are camouflaged in the guise of a civilized West fighting “barbaric Islamic terrorism” which as Chossudovsky exposes is sometimes sponsored and sustained by intelligent networks in the West.

Chossudovsky has aptly described this US helmed agenda for hegemony as a “long war against humanity.” It is an assertion that is backed by solid facts and detailed analysis in a brilliant work that should be read by all those who are concerned about the prevailing human condition. And that should include each and every citizen of planet earth. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and former Professor of Global Studies at the Science University of Malaysia.

The media, political leaders, academics and the public at large often forget to put into historical perspective the spiral of daily news: we tend to concentrate on the latest events and crisis.

This may explain why the latest report of the US Senate on CIA’s rendition flights, detention places in black wholes and use of torture following 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq has been received as a surprise and shocking news. Such practices have been well known by the international community and depicted, among others, in a number of United Nations documents as well as in Dick Marty’s reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

This CIA’s behavior has a long history including assassination plots of political leaders, coups d’Etat, terrorist attacks and other subversive actions that merge into a recurrent pattern.

The Pax Americana like the Pax Romana has been built through wars and domination. General Smedley D. Butler, a hero and the most decorated soldier of the United States had already denounced the US policy in his book “War is a racket”, written over 70 years ago.

Michel Chossudovsky’s book “The Globalization of Warfare” has the great merit of putting into historical perspective the hegemonic project that has been carried out by the United States through various centuries for the control and exploitation of natural resources. Jose L. Gomez del PradoUN Independent Human Rights Expert, Former Member UN Group on the use of mercenaries

Michel Chossudovsky leads the world in communicating critical information that few or none know. He is a perfect guide for the East European to Russia war now in the making. John McMurty, professor emeritus, Guelph University, Fellow of the Royal Society of  Canada

Michel Chossudovsky ranks as the world’s leading expert on globalization – a hegemonic weapon that empowers financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population. The Globalization of War exposes covert operations waging economic warfare designed to destabilize national economies deemed to be inimical to the USA and her NATO allies. The military dimension of western hegemonic strategies threatens to trigger a permanent global war. Chossudovsky’s book is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly. Michael Carmichael, President of the Planetary Movement 

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $24.95

Special Price: $15.00 – Pre-order: shipping April 2019


Special: Dirty War on Syria + Globalization of War (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) – Pre-order: shipping April 2019

original

Special: Globalization of War + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) – Pre-order: shipping April 2019

 

Special: Globalization of War + Towards a World War III Scenario (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) – Pre-order: shipping April 2019

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only) – Pre-order: shipping April 2019

Click here to order in PDF format

FULL PRICE PLUS 50% OR MORE: TRUMP SEEKS FINANCIAL COMPENSATIONS FROM FROM NATIONS HOSTING U.S. TROOPS

South Front

09.03.2019

Full Price Plus 50% Or More: Trump Seeks Financial Compensations From From Nations Hosting U.S. Troops

The Trump administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other nation hosting US troops pay the full price of US soldiers deployed on their soil – plus 50% or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to multiple reports in US media citin various anonymous officials and ‘informed sources’.

According to repots, in some cases, nations hosting US troops could be asked to pay 5 to 6 times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, just stated that because of me NATO has been able to raise far more money than ever before from its members after many years of decline. It’s called burden sharing. Also, more united. Dems & Fake News like to portray the opposite!

41.5K people are talking about this

“Trump has championed the idea for months. His insistence on it almost derailed recent talks with South Korea over the status of 28,000 US troops in the country when he overruled his negotiators with a note to National Security Advisor John Bolton saying, “We want cost plus 50.”

The president’s team sees the move as one way to prod Nato partners into accelerating increases in defence spending – an issue Trump has hammered allies about since taking office. While Trump claims his pressure has led to billions of dollars more in allied defence spending, he’s chafed at what he sees as the slow pace of increases.

“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” Trump said in a speech at the Pentagon on Jan 17. “We cannot be the fools for others.”

Officials caution that the idea is one of many under consideration as the US presses allies to pay more, and it may be toned down. Yet even at this early stage, it has sent shock waves through the departments of Defence and State, where officials fear it will be an especially large affront to stalwart US allies in Asia and Europe already questioning the depth of Trump’s commitment to them,” The Straits Times reported on the issue.

So far, Trump’s idea to raise funds from US allies have faced a large wave of criticism in the mainstream media. The common argument is that this move would demonstrate a lack of “commitment” to US allies in Europe and Asia. On the other hand, this move seems logical in the framework of the Trump-delcared strategy to strengthen the US national industry, including the military industrial complex. The Trump administration is not going to abandon US military infrastructure around the world, but it does not want to pay for it as much as it does.

From the European perspective, all EU nations, which have been for a long time exploiting the US military presence as a political tool to justiy a low-scale military spending, this could be seen as an “unfriendly” move. They get used to the fact that the US takes a military spending burden off their back thus buying their loyality.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

“Killer Diplomacy”: The Kim-Trump Summit in Hanoi, Sabotaged by Mike Pompeo?

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it”… Given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,” (Pompeo, October 2017). And you expect the DPRK to Trust Washington’s Chief Negotiator

Global Research, March 01, 2019

Polite diplomacy over the dinner table. Smiles on both sides. A nice private dinner. “Everybody is having a good time. Hope so”, says Trump.

Trump and Kim met before the formal dinner party for about half an hour. Kim smiled and said:

“We have exchanged in a very interesting dialogue with each other for about 30 minutes”.

Trump responds with a smile “yes it was good”.

“So we’re going to have a very busy day tomorrow, says Trump.

“And a lot of things are going to be solved. I hope. and I Think it will lead to a really wonderful situation long term… And our relationship is a very special relationship”.

Ultimately, however, there was no official statement or joint communique. What happened. What went wrong?

.Prior to the Hanoi encounter, Trump intimated that if a moratorium on nuclear missile testing by the DPRK was reached, he would be satisfied.  And that this commitment would then lead to subsequent negotiations.

But this stance was not shared by his top advisers:

“Senior Trump aides have privately expressed skepticism … Some fear that Trump could feel pressure to make a major concession to Kim during face-to-face talks, including a one-on-one session, in hopes of securing a reciprocal commitment he can herald as a political victory. (WPo, February 24, 2018, emphasis added)

Who are these “Senior Trump aides”? The WPo fails to mention the central role of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was put in charge of the negotiations from the very outset in 2017 when he was head of the CIA.

While we are not privy to what was discussed behind closed doors (with the two leaders and their senior advisors), or what was discussed by Pompeo and Kim Yong-chol in meetings prior to the Hanoi venue, there is evidence that Pompeo was instrumental in the sabotage of peace negotiations both in Singapore and Hanoi.

Back in October 2017, a few months following the beginning of negotations with the DPRK, Pompeo while he was head of the CIA, had hinted in a public statement that Kim Jong-un was on the CIA assassination list:

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it”, says CIA chief

“With respect, if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,”

“We are going to become a much more vicious agency …

… “The president’s made it very clear. He’s prepared to ensure that Kim Jong-un doesn’t have the capacity to hold America at risk. By military force if necessary.”

SCMP October 2017

SCMP, July 20, 2018

This was a deliberate act of provocation,

“Killer Diplomacy”

From the outset the DPRK does not trust Washington’s Peace Negotiator.

Pompeo should be removed from the peace negotiation process which eventually requires the repeal of the 1953 armistice agreement and the signing of a peace agreement with the DPRK and China.

In a bitter irony, the same Mike Pompeo who casually refers to the “CIA history” of political assassinations, had come to play a central role in “peace” negotiations together with his North Korea envoy, Stephen Biegun.

Pyongyang was fully aware of the assassination list. But Pompeo deliberately chose to make it public prior to the conduct of negotiations with a political leader who is on the CIA hit list. This is tantamount to saying to Kim: “Lets negotiate but I want to kill you”. 

Not surprisingly, in the followup US-DPRK negotiations with Pompeo held in Pyongyang in the wake of the Singapore Summit (June 12-14, 2018), the DPRK accused the Trump administration of pushing a “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization.”  The statement was directed against Pompeo who was in charge of the negotiations on behalf of president Trump.

“We still cherish our good faith in President Trump … But, the U.S. side [Pompeo] came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization…The U.S. side [Pompeo] never mentioned the issue of establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula which is essential for defusing tension and preventing a war.” (DPRK Statement, July 8, 2018, emphasis added)

Second Day of the Hanoi Summit

Flash Forward to Hanoi, February 27, 2019: Both leaders expressed their optimism “for continuing the great dialogue”.

“I am in no rush,” Trump said alongside Kim. “What is important is that we do the right deal.”

Acknowledged by Trump, the DPRK has not fired a single nuclear ballistic test missile since late 2017.

“To me, I very much appreciate no testing of nuclear rockets and missiles,” Trump added.

Both leaders were committed to achieving a positive outcome:

The decision to “permanently shut down” Yongbyon nuclear complex, one of the DPRK’s main nuclear research centers located in the west of the country, and Tongchang-ri missile engine test site, was made last September. Pyongyang also stated that the DPRK is willing to invite international experts to watch the dismantling or even take additional denuclearization steps if there are corresponding actions from the U.S. (CGTN, February 27, 2019)

Prior to the final wrap-up session, the two leaders had a fruitful “one-on-one meeting” of about 45 minutes. (“Senior political aides” feared the one-on-one session which provided leverage to Trump to strike a deal with Kim, as reported by the WaPo, see above).

About-Turn

And then there was an about-turn at the final session attended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and DPRK’ vice chairman of the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) Central Committee Kim Yong-chol.  

On the US side, this outcome had been planned well ahead of the Hanoi venue in Washington in consultations with the CIA, State Department and Pentagon including National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Screenshot, scroll down for video

Nothing concrete emerged. Why did things go wrong?  The meeting behind closed doors with senior advisors (and translators) led to an impasse.

The US failed to provide anything in exchange for the DPRK’s commitment to denuclearization. Did Pompeo play a central role in deliberately sabotaging the peace process at the wrap up session behind closed doors?

No final communique. The US refused to lift the sanctions regime.

See Video below

Final wrap-up meeting at 1’38”

See press conference statement by Trump at 2′.15″

“Basically they wanted the sanctions removed in their entirety and we could not do that. They are willing to denuke a large part of the areas we wanted. But we could not give up all of the sanctions”, said Trump.

 “Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”

Trump’s statement regarding the removal of the sanctions is a lie.

The DPRK had requested the partial removal of sanctions and that request was turned down. See Foreign Minister’s statement below at DPRK press conference.

2’50” DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Yon-ho

“If the US removes the sanctions that hamper the civilian economy and the livelihood of our people in particular, we will permanently and completely dismantle the nuclear production facilities in the Yogbyon area, including plutonium and uranium in the presence of US experts by the joint force of technicians in bothe countries.”

….

“What we have asked for was partial lifting of sanctions, not entirely.

In detail, we asked to lift five sanctions that were imposed within 2016 and 2017, out of a total of 11 sanctions, which would affect ordinary people’s economy and life,”( Statement of the DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Yon-ho).

 

Final Press Conference and Statements (WaPo video)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/c8720ca1-5ace-4bc1-b910-aecdc5cdeb81

 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d774d3263544f32457a6333566d54/index.html

%d bloggers like this: