US Loses Myanmar to China

Source

June 29, 2020 (Joseph Thomas – NEO) – For the Southeast Asian state of Myanmar, the decision to expand ties with China despite Western pressure was a no-brainer. Significant economic ties have been expanded and the prospect for several large-scale infrastructure projects have been firmed up.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Myanmar could be considered a victory lap of sorts; the cementing of long-standing and ever-expanding ties between Myanmar and China and the final displacement of significant US and British influence in the former British colony. 

An op-ed on China’s CGTN website titled, “Xi’s New Year visit to Myanmar: A milestone in bilateral relations,” would help frame the significance of President Xi’s visit while comparing and contrasting Myanmar’s ties with China and the US.

The op-ed would note that President Xi’s trip to Myanmar was his first major trip abroad made during 2020. It is also the first major visit by a Chinese leader to Myanmar in nearly 20 years.

Even US Proxies Can’t Deny America’s Decline 

The op-ed also noted that Myanmar’s State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, picked China for her first major visit abroad after her National League for Democracy party came to power in 2016.

To understand the significance of this it is important to understand that Suu Kyi and her rise to power was primarily driven by support from Washington.

She and her political party along with a large army of US government-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and US-funded media networks were selected and groomed for decades by Washington to seize power and serve as a vector for US special interests both in Myanmar itself and as a point of leverage versus Beijing.

However, despite America’s expertise in political meddling, what it lacks is, as the op-ed calls it, any concrete economic pillars; something China does have on offer.

No matter how much covert or overt financial and political support any client regime in Myanmar may receive from Washington it does not address the genuine need for real development within Myanmar itself. Without such development and the financial and economic incentives it brings with it, enemies and allies of the client regime alike will turn towards those who can offer such incentives.

Xi’s Visit Focused on Pragmatism, Not Politics 

The CGTN op-ed noted the focus of President Xi’s visit which centred around major political issues plaguing Myanmar including the ongoing Rohingya crisis and border conflicts with neighbouring Bangladesh resulting from the crisis.

The focus was not on feigned concerns for human rights however, but rather on establishing stability since Myanmar and Bangladesh are both partners with Beijing and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The visit also focused on pushing forward stalled infrastructure projects that have been held up by US-funded fronts hiding behind human rights and environmental concerns.

The op-ed would conclude by noting:

China is reaching out to Myanmar proactively at the start of 2020. Hopefully, Myanmar will return the favor by cooperating more closely with China and pushing forward financially bankable and locally empowering BRI projects in Myanmar more resolutely. 

Only time will tell whether or not Myanmar will follow through and reciprocate to Beijing’s overtures, but owing to the lack of alternatives offered by Washington, a US client regime or not, Myanmar’s government seems to have a very simple choice to make.

US Denial and Revisionism Ensures Continued US Decline in Asia 

A Western-centric rebuttal over the impact of President Xi’s visit to Myanmar was offered up by The Diplomat in its article, “Has the US Lost Myanmar to China? Xi’s visit bolstered China-Myanmar ties, but the West can still compete.”

The Diplomat’s piece claims (my emphasis):

Chinese leader Xi Jinping just wrapped up a two-day visit to Myanmar from January 17-18, the first trip by a Chinese head of state since Jiang Zemin traveled to Burma in 2001. Xi’s visit notably occurred in the 70th anniversary year of China-Myanmar diplomatic relations and further cemented bilateral relations, which have been in general extremely positive since the West turned away from the embattled country in light of the Rohingya migrant crisis that erupted in 2017.

The Diplomat here ignores an important reality. The Rohingya crisis was precipitated deliberately by the US and its British partners. It was meant to destabilise the very region China was building logistical hubs for the BRI.

The crisis was also meant to serve as leverage against the US client regime, ensuring it remained in line with Washington’s interests or suffered at the hands of the West’s massive industrial-scale human rights complex; a network of fronts used to manipulate, coerce and defame targeted nations and governments under the pretext of defending human rights.

The US didn’t turn away from Myanmar because of the Rohingya crisis. It attempted to leverage it after deliberately engineering it, and upon failing to materialise any tangible gains, saw its influence in Myanmar fade.

The Diplomat article also blames Myanmar’s “mixed political system” claiming that pressure has been put on an otherwise promising democratic government to pivot toward Beijing at Washington’s expense. In reality, the pivot is jointly beneficial both to Washington’s enemies in Myanmar and its allies.

The Diplomat fully acknowledges the importance of Myanmar to China’s regional and global rise, stating:

Myanmar is of special significance to Beijing’s geostrategic plans. The country provides China with access to the Indian Ocean and offers a vital hub for containing its rival rising power India, with whom it has clashed on their shared border. The Indian Ocean provides major shipping lanes for China’s imports of crude oil from the Middle East. Overland routes now in use (oil and gas pipelines in Kyaukphyu began pumping oil in 2017 and gas in 2013) across Myanmar and all the way to Kunming in southern China’s Yunnan province allow Beijing to circumvent the South China Sea and strategically vulnerable Malacca Strait, which is susceptible to maritime frictions with other major powers including Japan and the United States.

If Myanmar’s cooperation with China is this important to Beijing’s regional and global plans, then it is easy to understand why ruining Myanmar’s capacity to cooperate has taken priority amid Washington’s policy toward Myanmar.

The article openly admits that Washington’s means of regaining influence in Myanmar depends on “soft power” or what would be considered by anyone else as coercion, manipulation and political interference.

The article itself admits:

…the United States still has important policy tools and untapped reserves of soft power that it can utilize if wielded skillfully. As I’ve written before, American companies and investors still enjoy major reputational advantage over Chinese counterparts. Young Burmese people still flock to the American Center in Yangon, the cultural and educational hub sponsored by the U.S. Department of State next to the American Embassy. In fact, Washington opened a gleaming new American Center in 2018 at a busy intersection just down the street from Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence. There, Burmese can come to learn English, use computers, and access the library to study democracy and tools of civic engagement.

What’s absent from Washington’s “solution” is any tangible economic or financial incentive for the population of Myanmar to get behind US interests. America’s inability to offer genuine economic benefits to Myanmar or build essential infrastructure like the pipelines, highways, railways and ports China is currently working on across the country means that America’s decline will only continue.

Doubling down on a losing strategy should be interpreted by Myanmar’s elite as American capitulation and a detriment to Myanmar’s future. The Diplomat concludes by more or less admitting that Washington will continue to focus on a divide and conquer strategy to disrupt stability in Myanmar in order to render concessions from Myanmar’s government rather than simply and constructively outcompeting Chinese investments and infrastructure projects.

If anything, Washington’s current strategy should serve as impetus for Myanmar and other nations along China’s peripheries to fully uproot US “soft power” from within their territory and conditionally do business with US firms only if they are ready to really do business rather than substitute meddling and interference where genuine and mutually beneficial cooperation should be; a space China has consistently proven it can fill, and a space America has shown no interest in competing in.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Lebanon economic crisis: Sovereignty and solidarity are the keys to prevent collapse

Source

9 July 2020 11:14 UTC | 

By Hicham Safieddine, He is a lecturer in the History of the Modern Middle East at King’s College London. He is author of Banking on the State: The Financial Foundations of Lebanon (Stanford University Press, 2019).

As the US ramps up financial pressure, a political struggle is underway over whether Lebanon should turn eastwards to China, Russia and Iran for relief

Lebanese protesters take part in a symbolic funeral for the country in Beirut on 13 June (AFP)

Lebanon has joined the club of sanctioned nations by proxy. Limited sanctions were already in place, but the US Caesar Act targeting Syria has cast its net over Lebanon’s entire economy. 

The country’s crumbling financial system had been gasping for fresh foreign funds. It is now stuck between the anvil of morbidly corrupt Lebanese elites obstructing reform, and the hammer of financial coercion by western powers.

On top of accelerating inflation that has rippled into Syria, the spectre of sanctions in the wake of failed International Monetary Fund talks has triggered a political tussle inside Lebanon over turning eastwards to China, Russia and Iran for relief.

Wedded to the West

This is not the first time that Lebanon has been unhinged by shifts in the global and regional balances of power. But it is one of the most dangerous crises. Sanctions on top of financial bankruptcy, oligarchic manipulation, regional instability, coronavirus and a global slump, are a recipe for total collapse.

There is no denial of the impending calamity. But the undignified media spectacle of apocalyptic suffering, divorced from a serious discussion of the tough choices Lebanon faces, borders on sanctions-mongering and accentuates this very suffering.

Aside from being a historic fiction, Lebanese neutrality today is wishful thinking

The first choice is clinging to the West and forgetting the rest through negative neutrality. In real terms, this means passive normalisation with Israel and active distancing from Syria, both of which meet western expectations. Aside from being a historic fiction, Lebanese neutrality today is wishful thinking. 

Firstly, calls for neutrality underestimate the nature and extent of the ongoing geo-economic war, of which the Caesar Act is the latest salvo. Having lost the proxy war militarily, Washington is flexing its powerful financial muscle – powered by dollar supremacy in global markets – to spoil reconstruction efforts in Syria by its lesser rivals, Russia, China and Iran. 

More broadly, financial sanctions are now a fixture of US foreign policy, with the majority of affected states in the Middle East. These sanctions are part of a multi-front war that involves tertiary actors such as Turkey, Egypt and the Gulf states and are tied to reconstruction in Iraq and Syria, geo-military rivalries in Yemen and Libya, settler-colonial expansion in Palestine, and control over gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon is engulfed by these conflicts from all four cardinal directions.

Political suicide

Secondly, neutrality vis-a-vis Syria in particular is economic euthanasia and political suicide given the two countries’ shared borders, common history, interdependent economies, joint threat of Israeli aggression, oligarchic and authoritarian governing elites, and – as these sanctions have shown – converging financial crises. 

Neutrality would cut Lebanon off from its only land lifeline to Syria and the wider region at a time when air and sea travel are grounded thanks to Covid-19. It would also revive animosity between the two peoples while doing little to alleviate the crisis or topple ruling elites. 

Lebanon protests: We should not let the ruling class reproduce itself again Read More »

In addition, western powers continue to play the game of double standards, feigning concern while tightening the noose. While Washington slapped criminal sanctions on the entire population of Lebanon, its ambassador in Beirut singled out the usual suspect, Hezbollah, for destabilising the country. The accusation was parroted by her British counterpart, while a sniffer dog at London’s Heathrow Airport – as this author witnessed firsthand – frisked Lebanese expatriates carrying much-needed cash back home. Travellers caught “red-handed” were interrogated without cause. 

To top it off, Gulf states within the western orbit are also withholding aid while awash with trillions of dollars in sovereign funds.

Finally, US allies themselves, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are anticipating a decline in the global role of the US. More to the point, European states, as well as the US, have multibillion-dollar trade and financial ties with China and the rest of the east – but they have no qualms about denying Lebanon and the region their sovereign share of ties.

Going East

Despite these realities, resistance to seeking eastern alternatives persists. Dependency on western and Gulf capital runs deep within Lebanese society, beyond the banking and business sectors. 

The private education and NGO sectors, home to large segments of highly visible pro-uprising activists, are heavily reliant on western funding. These material ties are augmented by an internalised cultural affinity to all things western and prejudice against all things eastern. Some resistance is also driven by a blind rejection and immature ridicule of any proposals uttered by status-quo forces.

A man walks past a money exchange company in Beirut on 1 October (AFP)
A man walks past a money exchange company in Beirut on 1 October (AFP)

In theory, turning eastwards increases bargaining power vis-a-vis the West, diversifies sources of foreign investment, and could offer practical and quick solutions to pressing problems such as power generation, waste management and transportation infrastructure. But in reality, it is not the easy way out it is being portrayed to be.

Firstly, its current proponents reduce the turn eastwards to a tool against western intervention that would strengthen ties with the Syrian regime without holding the latter accountable for its role in the killing, displacement and destruction in Syria, or curbing the stranglehold of Syrian oligarchs associated with the regime on the country’s economic future. 

Nor is the turn eastwards preconditioned by cleaning house in Lebanon itself. The oligarchs who looted public wealth for so long will not bear the costs of financial loss, let alone face justice for their crimes. Without these corrective measures, Chinese or other foreign investments are likely to turn into dividing up the spoils of sanctions. It will reinforce existing structures of oppression, clientelism and inequality.

Secondly, Chinese capital is not manna from heaven or a communist free lunch. Reports of plans for nine development projects worth more than $12bn sound promising and may offer some respite, but these come with strings attached.

They include possible privatisation of state assets, government guarantees to compensate potential losses that will ultimately come out of citizens’ pockets, continued – even if partial – reliance on dollar-based banking systems, and access to energy resources, which in the case of Lebanon are confined to potential energy reserves in a hotly contested sea zone. 

Sovereignty deficit

Formal state-to-state protocols are preconditions for all of the above, the same way they are for requesting legal assistance to return stolen assets deposited in Switzerland or other offshore financial havens. 

Whether turning west, east or inwards, fixing Lebanon’s political regime is crucial to restoring external and internal sovereignty

Government decrees are also needed internally to to implement the basic demands of the uprising and resolve the crisis in a fair and expedited manner. These include legislating capital controls, forcing the oligarchs and their banking agents to bear the costs of collapse, implementing universal healthcare, redistributing wealth through progressive taxation, clearing up violations of coastal beaches to revive tourism in a competitive neighbourhood, reforming unjust labour and personal status laws, and subsidising productive economic activity. 

In other words, whether turning west, east or elsewhere, fixing Lebanon’s political regime is crucial to restoring external and internal sovereignty, without which major change is unlikely to happen.

Since its founding, Lebanon has had a sovereignty deficit in relation to foreign powers and its ruling oligarchy. It is now facing the twin challenge of restoring both amid unfavourable conditions. 

The path to sovereignty does not place all foreign actors in the same basket. Aware of its own economic limitations and position as part of the Global South, and in the face of US threats, Lebanon should adopt a strategy of positive neutrality that plays on the contradictions of the ongoing geo-economic war to maximise the gains of its people – not its usurping elites or neocolonial masters, old or prospective. 

Dignity and social justice

Fighting for sovereignty on both fronts, external and internal, in the face of global powers, requires the mustering of tremendous political strength. This is not possible without a well-organised mass movement that is still missing in Lebanon, let alone the absence of regional solidarity stretching from Iraq to Palestine, which incorporates geopolitics into revolutionary struggle. 

In Lebanon, the starting point is necessarily Syria. Whatever the sensitivities, prejudices and complications associated with Syrian-Lebanese relations, they need to be reconfigured in a manner that serves rather than sidelines the fundamental demands of both uprisings for political dignity and social justice. 

Lebanon protests: The people want the downfall of the banks Read More »

This includes, first and foremost, confronting the contradictions of fighting against the two major historical forces impacting them today: oppressive regimes on the one hand and Zionist colonisation and occupation on the other.

All proclamations to the contrary, this is not a straightforward matter given the alignments on the ground. 

Another would be redrawing the terms of struggle across class, rather than nationalist, lines. This means finding common cause with Syrian and Palestinian workers in Lebanon, beyond the liberal paradigm of refugee rights, as well as uniting efforts to dislodge the ruling elite in both countries without further foreign intervention.

A third would be a united vision of managing the global shift from West to East in coordination with fellow Global South nations.

Devising solutions to these and other thorny issues that are both morally defensible and politically viable is not an obvious or easily achievable task. But with street mobilisation on the wane and community solidarity in the face of hardship taking a front seat, they may be the necessary rites of passage for both struggles beyond the current stalemate.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Selected Articles: The Pentagon’s “Anti-China Weapons” and “The New Silk Roads”

By Global Research News

Global Research, July 13, 2020

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact

By Makia Freeman, July 13, 2020

COVID assumptions – the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Congress Wants More Unnecessary Anti-China Weapons Programs in Annual Defense Bill

By Michael T. Klare, July 13, 2020

Cotton’s proposal, stuffed with lucrative giveaways to the defense industry — $1.6 billion for “logistics and security enablers,” $775 million for “building national resilience to space weather,” among others — bears little apparent relevance to the military equation in Asia and is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of Senators. However, many of his proposed budgetary add-ons have been incorporated into other measures aimed at boosting U.S. military might in the Asia-Pacific region.

75 Years Ago: When Szilard Tried to Halt Dropping Atomic Bombs Over Japan

By Greg Mitchell, July 13, 2020

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

As the Arctic Burns, Trump Bailouts Fossil Fuel Industry with Billions

By Andy Rowell, July 13, 2020

The Arctic is once again on fire. And the extremely warm temperatures in the region — and concurrent wildfires — are another urgent reminder that we need to divest from fossil fuels as soon as possible.

They are a pressing reminder that any post COVID-19 bailout should be focused on an immediate just recovery toward industry workers, renewables, and clean energy.

The UK Reading Stabbings: Al Qaeda LIFG Terrorists Supported by UK. Product of British Foreign Policy

By Tony Cartalucci, July 12, 2020

It should surprise no one paying attention that the suspect in the recent stabbing spree in Reading, UK was not only known to British security agencies as an extremist and security threat, but that he comes from the pool of extremists the British aided Washington in funding, arming, training, and providing air support for during the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government and have harbored before and ever since.

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

By Mike Whitney, July 12, 2020

Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

Iran and China Turbo-charge the New Silk Roads

By Pepe Escobar, July 12, 2020

Two of the US’s top “strategic threats” are getting closer and closer within the scope of the New Silk Roads – the leading 21st century project of economic integration across Eurasia. The Deep State will not be amused.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi blasted as “lies”  a series of rumors about the “transparent roadmap” inbuilt in the evolving Iran-China strategic partnership.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Global Research News, Global Research, 2020

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The decision of OPCW on Syria represents clear politicization and is a result of Western pressures and threats

Source

 Monday, 13 July 2020 19:44

The Syrian Arab Republic expressed its deep concern over the policies of blackmail, threats and pressure adopted by a group of Western countries, especially the United States, Britain and France, to pass a Western decision during the ninety-fourth session of the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The OPCW’s policies constitute a dangerous precedent and play a pivotal role in politicizing its work and turning it into a hostage to many well-known countries that impose their narrow and malicious political agendas through it.

“Russia, China and Iran voted against the decision,while  nine countries abstained from voting ,  as it was unlawfully targeting Syria – the member state of the organization and party in the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Convention,” according to a statement by the Ministry of Foreign affairs and Expatriates, adding that decisions of the councils and conferences of OPCW are not usual protocol and the majority of its important decisions were adopted by consensus.

“The Western decision was based on misleading conclusions prepared by the so called illegal team “investigation and identification” regarding three alleged incidents on the use of chemical weapons in the town of Latamna in Hama Governorate in March 2017 in a report issued on the eighth of April 2020.  These incidents were fabricated by”Jabhat al-Nusra” terrorists, with the help of its allies, the “White Helmets Group”, which is supported, funded and directed by the United States, Britain, France and Germany,” the statement reiterated. 

The Ministry pointed out that the decision included aspects that go beyond the mandate established by the agreement for the technical work of this organization.  It will only create more complications in the organization’s work and will make it lose its purpose – thus negatively affecting  the constructive cooperation  between Syria and the organization.

The Ministry affirmed that taking this decision represents clear politicization of the organization’s work and will reinforce the division between its member states, which in turn will lead to more manipulation of the provisions of the agreement in accordance with the plans of these well-known countries. 

The Ministry stated that this decision will allow the United States and some Western countries to use the organization as a tool for carrying out more fabrications against the Syrian Arab Republic and others under the pretext of using chemical weapons to achieve political purposes and known agendas. At the same time, this decision sends a wrong message encouraging terrorist groups to fabricate  more  chemical plays to accuse the Syrian state rather than seeking to mobilize international efforts to confront and eliminate these terrorist groups. 

In its statement, the Ministry stated that the Syrian Arab Republic renews its strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances. It also rejects the campaign of lies and fabrications led by the United States, France, the United Kingdom and other Western countries in which the Syrian state is accused of using Chemical weapons, while it is known to all that terrorist organizations, including the so-called “White Helmets” terrorist organization, fabricated incidents of the use of chemical weapons with every heroic achievement and victory realized by the Syrian Arab army against terrorism along the Syrian territories.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates expressed Syria’s thanks and appreciation to the countries that chose to take the right position of not supporting this decision and rejecting the pressures being but on them, as its rejection of this decision aimed at protecting the organization’s work unit and the proper application of the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Convention.

Inas Abdulkareem

More Articles…

  1. A comprehensive strategy is being prepared to confront U.S. sanctions on Syria, says diplomat
  2. The US occupation-backed Qasad groups kidnapped again a number of the people of Al-Shaddadi city in Hasaka countryside
  3. SDF militias seize the communications center of Safia village, north of Hasaka
  4. The Syrian Union of Journalists condemns the Israeli campaign against the Chairman of the Palestinian Journalists Union

نفط العراق للبنان عبر سورية يعني بدء التوجّه شرقاً رغم أميركا وقانون قيصرها…

د. عصام نعمان

كل ما جرى ويجري في شوارع مدن لبنان من عنف وتخريب منذ أسبوعين كان بفعل الولايات المتحدة ووكلائها المحليين. الغرض؟ محاولة تعطيل توجّه أهل السلطة شرقاً، نتيجةَ ضغطٍ شعبي جارف، للانفتاح والتعاون اقتصادياً مع الصين وروسيا وإيران مروراً بسورية والعراق.

كان محكوماً على أميركا ووكلائها أن تتراجع وتختار بين ما تعتبره «أهون الشرّين»: نفط العراق للبنان بدلاً من نفط إيران. حلفاء أميركا الإقليميّون امتنعوا عن تقديم أيّ عون مالي أو اقتصادي لبلدٍ كان لهم دائماً ساحة نفوذٍ ومربط خيل ومرتع متعة قبل أن ينتهي قياده، في زعمهم، إلى حزب الله وأنصار إيران.

الصديق وقت الضيق. لكن لبنان في ضائقته الشديدة لم يحظَ بعونٍ محسوس من صديقه التقليدي (أميركا) الحريص على أن يبدو دائماً الدولة المقتدرة والقادرة على فعل كل شيء في كل الأزمنة والأمكنة. بعضٌ من أصدقاء الغرب في سدّة السلطة حاروا وداروا وحاوروا وانتظروا طويلاً أن تمدّ أميركا وفرنسا يد المساعدة لكن دونما جدوى.

ما مردّ الإحجام؟

مردّه أسباب عدّة. قيل إن «اسرائيل» المتوجّسة من تنامي قدرات المقاومة (حزب الله) هي مَن دفع ادارة ترامب الى اتخاذ هذا الموقف بغية إضعاف لبنان وإنهاكه اقتصادياً واجتماعياً ما يمكّن اصدقاء الغرب ووكلاءه المحليين من إلقاء المسؤولية والملامة على حزب الله وحلفائه فيسهل أمر إخراجهم من السلطة.

قيل إن فريقاً من حكام الخليج ساءه أن يرتضي سعد الحريري مشاركة خصومهم في السلطة وأن يرعاهم ويُراعيهم حتى باتوا الشريك الأقوى في شركة الحكم.

قيل إن معارضين من أهل السنّة كما من المسيحيين المتعطّشين الى السلطة ساءهم وأساء الى رغائبهم ومصالحهم تحالفٌ وتشارك بين الرئيس العماد ميشال عون ومحازبيه من جهة ومحازبي «الثنائية الشيعية» (تحالف حركة امل وحزب الله) من جهة اخرى ما أبعد هؤلاء المعارضين عن جنّة السلطة ومنافعها ومباهجها ودفعهم الى الضغط على أصدقائهم ومتعهّديهم من المسؤولين في أميركا وأوروبا والخليج للإحجام عن مدّ يد المساعدة الى مَن صنفوهم أعداءً محليين عتاة للغرب عموماً وحكام الخليج خصوصاً.

الحقيقة أن كل هذه الأسباب والدوافع أسهمت بقليل او كثير في إيصال البلاد الى الوضع المأساوي الراهن الذي وصفته المفوّضة السامية للأمم المتحدة لحقوق الإنسان ميشيل باشيله بقولها «إن لبنان يواجه أسواء ازمة اقتصادية في تاريخه، وأن وضعه يخرج بسرعة عن السيطرة».

غير أن السبب الرئيس للتردّي وخروج الوضع عن السيطرة هو تراجع قدرات الولايات المتحدة ونفوذها ودورها في منطقة غرب آسيا الممتدة من شواطئ البحر الأبيض المتوسط غرباً الى شواطئ بحر قزوين شرقاً.

لتراجع قدرات أميركا وتأثيرها اسباب عدّة، محلية وإقليمية ودولية. محلياً، تراجع اقتصادها منذ ازمة صيف 2008 نتيجةَ هجرة الكثير من شركاتها الكبرى الى الخارج، ولا سيما الى جنوب شرق آسيا والشرق الأقصى حيث اليد العاملة الرخيصة والأسواق الواسعة، ما أدى الى تزايد نسبة البطالة وانحسار نسبة التثمير في مختلف ميادين اقتصادها.

إقليمياً، أصبح للولايات المتحدة منافسون مقتدرون سياسياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً، ابرزهم ثلاثة: إيران، تركيا و«اسرائيل». فإزاء الكثير من القضايا والتحديات والأزمات أصبح لهؤلاء سياسات ومواقف وتدخّلات تتعارض في أحيانٍ كثيرة مع سياسات أميركا وسلوكيتها على الأرض ما أدّى الى إضعاف تأثيرها في الدول والمجتمعات المعتبرة تاريخياً مرتبطة بها او محسوبة عليها.

دولياً، فقدت الولايات المتحدة رتبتها السابقة كأول واكبر وأقوى أقطاب العالم، لا سيما بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في مطلع تسعينيات القرن الماضي. اليوم، تنافسها الصين على الوحدانية القطبية وعلى النفوذ الاقتصادي في القارات الخمس، وثمة من يعتقد ان اقتصاد الصين اليوم أصبح الاول والاكبر في العالم. الى ذلك، استعادت روسيا الكثير من قدراتها ونفوها باجتذابها اوروبا اليها بعدما أصبحت المورِّد الاول للغاز الى مختلف دولها. كذلك اليابان والهند وكوريا الجنوبية وماليزيا التي استطاعت الارتقاء الى مراتب عليا في التصنيع والتبادل التجاري مع شتى الاسواق العالمية.

نتيجة هذه العوامل والتطورات عدّلت الولايات المتحدة مقاربتها للشؤون الدولية وذلك بالتخلي عن مفهوم الحرب الخشنة ومتطلباتها ووسائلها وذلك باعتماد مفهوم الحرب الناعمة Soft Power التي تمارسها بنشاط ومثابرة في شتى أنحاء العالم ولا سيما في غرب آسيا. خلافاً للحرب الخشنة التي تهدف الى كسر إرادة العدو بالعمل على احتلال ارضه وتدمير مرافقه الحيوية، تهدف الحرب الناعمة الى تعطيل ارادة العدو وإنهاكه باستخدام وسائل الحرب الأهلية، والحصار والعقوبات الاقتصادية، والعصبيات المذهبية المفرّقة، والحرب التجارية، والحملات الإعلامية، والخروق السيبرانية، كل ذلك بقصد إنهاك العدو في الداخل وشل حركته في الخارج والضغط عليه لتقبّل مفاوضة أميركا وفق شروطها وشروط حلفائها الأقربين، وفي مقدمهم «اسرائيل».

الى ذلك، ثمة مفاعيل نفسية، مادية ومدمّرة لجائحة كورونا (كوفيد-19) في شتى أنحاء العالم، ولا سيما في الدولتين الأكثر عداء للعرب. ففي الولايات المتحدة أُعلن عن ارتفاع قياسي في عدد المصابين بالفيروس القاتل اذ سُجلت اكثر من 63 الف إصابة يوم السبت الماضي، وانه استناداً الى ارقام جامعة جون هوبكنز ذهب ضحيته أكثر من 133 الف شخص، وان الولايات المتحدة تتصدر قائمة الدول الأكثر تضرراً من تفشي كورونا.

في «إسرائيل» تحدثت السلطات الصحية عن تسجيل قرابة 1,5 الف اصابة بفيروس كورونا يوم الجمعة الماضي. كما تحدثت وسائل الإعلام عن وضع أكثر من عشرة الآف جندي في الحجر الصحي واستدعاء آلاف من جنود الاحتياط للحلول محلهم.

تداعيات كورونا النفسية والاقتصادية في كِلتا الدولتين المناهضتين للعرب من شأنها الحدّ من هامش الحركة والعمل لديهما كما من اعتداءاتهما على دول الجوار الجغرافي، ولا سيما لبنان وسورية والعراق.

اخيراً وليس آخراً، تزويدُ لبنان بالنفط العراقي عبر سورية يعني بدء التوجّه العملي شرقاً رغم حصار أميركا و«قانون قيصر» وعقوباته القاسية، كما يعني ان سورية والعراق سيكرّسان فتح الحدود والمعابر بينهما لما فيه خير البلدين وتنشيط عمليات النقل البري بين موانئ البحر المتوسط وبلدان الخليج.

*نائب ووزير سابق.

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation

By Peter Koenig

Global Research, July 11, 2020

First published by GR on April 18, 2020

**

For over twenty years Bill Gates and his Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have been vaccinating foremost children by the millions in remote areas of poor countries, mostly Africa and Asia. Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines). Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the WHO and – yes – the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF. 

Most of these vaccination campaigns were implemented without the informed-consent of the children, parents, guardians or teachers, nor with the informed-consent, or with forged consent, of the respective government authorities. In the aftermath, The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.

Bill Gates has a strange image of himself. He sees himself as The Messiah who saves the world through vaccination – and through population reduction.

Around the time, when the 2010 Rockefeller Report was issued, with its even more infamous “Lock Step” Scenario, precisely the scenario of which we are living the beginning right now, Bill Gates talked on a TED show in California, “Innovating to Zero” about the use of energy.

He used this TED presentation to promote his vaccination programs, literally saying, “If we are doing a real good job vaccinating childen, we can reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I) .

This sounds very much like eugenics.

The video, the first 6’45”, “The Truth about Bill Gates and his Disastrous Vaccination Program”, will tell you all about it.

Read also Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: a Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination by Robert F Kennedy Jr

Robert F Kennedy Jr, an avid Defender of Children’s Rights and anti-vaccination activist, has launched a petition sent to the White House, calling for “Investigations into the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ for Medical Malpractice & Crimes Against Humanity


READ MORE: Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It

Screenshot 

“At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his interest in “reducing population growth” by 10-15%, by means of vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines”. (Excerpt from text of Petition)

Link to the Petition.

If you wish to Sign the Petition click Here  

(At the time of writing, the petition had over 265,000. It requires 100,000 for an answer from the White House)

Video: Robert F. Kennedy Junior

See also brief video featuring Author Bill Still ( 6 min) entitled The Truth about Bill Gates and his disastrous Vaccination Programs around the World

Robert. F. Kennedy Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccination Agenda

Now Mr. Gates and his allies, including Big-Pharma, WHO, UNICEF, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID / NIH, a close ally of Mr. Gates  – and of course, Agenda ID2020, are proposing to (force) vaccinate 7 billion people around the globe, with their concoction of a (so far) untested coronavirus vaccine. This is a multi-billion dollar bonanza for  Big Pharma and for all those who support the vaccine. Nobody will really know what the vaccine cocktail will contain. They intend to start with the Global South (Developing Countries) and then gradually move North (Developed Countries).

Mind you, there is no need for a vaccine to cure the corona virus. There are many cures:

French Professor Didier Raoult, who is one of the world’s top 5 scientists on communicable diseases, suggested the use of hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine or Plaquenil), a well-known, simple, and inexpensive drug, also used to fight Malaria, and that has shown efficacy with previous coronaviruses such as SARS.  By mid-February 2020, clinical trials at his institute and in China already confirmed that the drug could reduce the viral load and bring spectacular improvement. Chinese scientists published their first trials on more than 100 patients and announced that the Chinese National Health Commission would recommend Chloroquine in their new guidelines to treat Covid-19. (Peter Koenig, April 1, 2020)

Be aware, awake, alert and warned.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2020

Iran-China pact turbocharges the New Silk Roads

Source

July 11, 2020

Iran-China pact turbocharges the New Silk Roads

China will invest $400 billion in Iran energy and infrastructure but nothing in strategic pact allows for a Chinese troop presence or island handover

By Pepe Escobar republished from Asia Times by permission of author

Two of the US’s top “strategic threats” are getting closer and closer within the scope of the New Silk Roads – the leading 21st century project of economic integration across Eurasia. The Deep State will not be amused.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi blasted as “lies” a series of rumors about the “transparent roadmap” inbuilt in the evolving Iran-China strategic partnership.

That was complemented by President Rouhani’s chief of staff, Mahmoud Vezi, who said that “a destructive line of propaganda has been initiated and directed from outside Iran against the expansion of Iran’s relations with neighbors and especially (with) China and Russia.”

Vezi added, “this roadmap in which a path is defined for expansion of relations between governments and the private sectors is signed and will continue to be signed between many countries.”

To a great extent, both Mousavi and Vezi were referring to a sensationalist report which did not add anything that was not already known about the strategic partnership, but predictably dog-whistled a major red alert about the military alliance.

The Iran-China strategic partnership was officially established in 2016, when President Xi visited Tehran. These are the guidelines.

Two articles among the 20 listed in the agreement are particularly relevant.

Item 7 defines the scope of the partnership within the New Silk Roads vision of Eurasia integration: “The Iranian side welcomes ‘the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ initiative introduced by China. Relying on their respective strengths and advantages as well as the opportunities provided through the signing of documents such as the “MOU on Jointly Promoting the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ and ‘MOU on Reinforcement of Industrial and Mineral Capacities and Investment’, both sides shall expand cooperation and mutual investments in various areas including transportation, railway, ports, energy, industry, commerce and services.”

And item 10 praises Iran’s membership of the AIIB: “The Chinese side appreciates Iran’s participation as a ‘Founding Member’ of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Both sides are willing to strengthen their cooperation in the relevant areas and join their efforts towards the progress and prosperity of Asia.”

So what’s the deal?

The core of the Iran-China strategic partnership – no secret whatsoever since at least last year – revolves around a $400 billion Chinese investment in Iran’s energy and infrastructure for the next 25 years. It’s all about securing a matter of supreme Chinese national interest: a steady supply of oil and gas, bypassing the dangerous bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca, secured with a median 18% discount, and paid in yuan or in a basket of currencies bypassing the US dollar.

Beijing will also invest roughly $228 billion in Iranian infrastructure – that’s where the AIIB comes in – over 25 years, but especially up to 2025. That ranges from building factories to badly needed energy industry renovation, all the way to the already in progress construction of the 900 km-long electric rail from Tehran to Mashhad.

Tehran, Qom and Isfahan will also be linked by high-speed rail – and there will be an extension to Tabriz, an important oil, gas and petrochemical node and the starting point of the Tabriz-Ankara gas pipeline.

All of the above makes total sense in New Silk Road terms, as Iran is a key Eurasian crossroads. High-speed rail traversing Iran will connect Urumqi in Xinjiang to Tehran, via four of the Central Asian “stans” (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) all the way to West Asia, across Iraq and Turkey, and further on to Europe: a techno revival of the Ancient Silk Roads, where the main language of trade between East and West across the heartland was Persian.

The terms of aerial and naval military cooperation between Iran and China and also Russia are still not finalized – as Iranian sources told me. And no one has had access to the details. What Mousavi said, in a tweet, was that “there is nothing [in the agreement] about delivering Iranian islands to China, nothing about the presence of military forces, and other falsehoods.”

The same applies to – totally unsubstantiated – speculation that the PLA would be granted bases in Iran and be allowed to station troops in Iranian territory.

Last Sunday, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stressed Iran and China had been negotiating “with confidence and conviction” and there was “nothing secret” about the agreement.

Iranian, Chinese and Russian negotiators will meet next month to discuss terms of the military cooperation among the top three nodes of Eurasia integration. Closer collaboration is scheduled to start by November.

Geopolitically and geoeconomically, the key take away is that the US relentless blockade of the Iranian economy, featuring hardcore weaponized sanctions, is impotent to do anything about the wide-ranging Iran-China deal. Here is a decent expose of some of the factors in play.

The Iran-China strategic partnership is yet another graphic demonstration of what could be deconstructed as the Chinese brand of exceptionalism: a collective mentality and enough organized planning capable of establishing a wide-ranging, win-win, economic, political and military partnership.

It’s quite instructive to place the whole process within the context of what State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed at a recent China-US Think Tanks meeting, attended, among others, by Henry Kissinger:

“One particular view has been floating around in recent years, alleging that the success of China’s path will be a blow and threat to the Western system and path. This claim is inconsistent with facts, and we do not agree with it. Aggression and expansion are never in the genes of the Chinese nation throughout its 5,000 years of history. China does not replicate any model of other countries, nor does it export its own to others. We never ask other countries to copy what we do. More than 2,500 years ago, our forefathers advocated that ‘All living things can grow in harmony without hurting one another, and different ways can run in parallel without interfering with one another’”.

JCPOA: The Deal That Wasn’t

Source

July 11, 2020 Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

JCPOA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Iran USA EU China Russia Germany France UK
July 14th, 2020, marks the fifth anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement, often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal (or simply the Deal) – the Deal that wasn’t.   It was yet another attempt at regime change. 
Of all the plans to control Iran beginning from Operation Ajax to Operation JCPOA and everything in between, the Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the most devious attempt at undermining the sovereignty of Iran – one way or another.   The Greek’s Trojan Horse pales compared to this dastardly scheme.  Years in the making, the crafty plan even prompted Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) to nominate John Kerry and Javad Zarif to recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.  
As such, it is high time that the Deal’s planners, their motivations and their associations were discussed in order to grasp the depth of the deception.

Iran, due to its geopolitical position, has always been considered a jewel in the crown of the colonial powers.   Attempts to conquer Iran through a proxy which started with Operation Ajax in August 1953, at the behest of the British and carried out by the CIA were not abandoned even with the ousting of America’s man, the Shah.    Although the Islamic Revolution reclaimed Iran’s sovereignty,  America was not ready to abandon its plans of domination over Iran, and by extension, the Persian Gulf.

The Persian Gulf has been the lynchpin of US foreign policy. “To all intents and purposes,” a former senior Defense Department official observed, “‘Gulf waters’ now extend from the Straits of Malacca to the South Atlantic.” Nevertheless, bases nearer the [Persian] Gulf had a special importance, and Pentagon planners urged “as substantial a land presence in the as can be managed.” (Anthony H. Cordesman, “The Gulf and the Search for Strategic Stability”, Boulder: Westview, 1984).



https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1FGmy1KGMlllXpX4-jmpuJa259fyPdBUs

Having failed in numerous attempts including the Nojeh coup at the nascent stages of the IR Iran’s newly formed government, war, sanctions, terrorism,  and a failed color revolution,  the United States needed other alternatives to reach its goal.  Unlike the illegal war against Iraq, war with Iran was not a feasible option.  The United States was aware of its inability to wage a successful war against Iran without serious damage to itself and its allies.  

When George W. Bush took office, he commissioned a war exercise to gage the feasibility of an attack against Iran. The  2002 Millennium Challenge,  was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million,  proved that the US would not defeat Iran.   The US  even restarted the war games changing rules to ensure an American victory, in reality, cheating itself.  This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in a U.S. victory to promote a false narrative of US invincibility. 

For this reason, the United States continued its attempts at undermining Iran’s sovereignty by means of sanctions, terror, and creating divisions among the Iranians.   The JCPOA would be its master plan.

A simple observation of Iran clearly suggests simple ideological divisions among the Iranian people (pro-West, anti-West, minorities, religious, secular) which have all been amply exploited by the United States and allies.   None of the exploits delivered the prize the US was seeking.  And so it was that it was decided to exploit the one factor which united Iranians of ALL persuasion.  Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

In an interview with National Public Radio (25 November 2004), Ray Takyeh (Council on Foreign Relations CFR and husband to Iran expert Suzanne Maloney  of Brookings) stated that according to polls 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program, including the full fuel cycle.   In other words, the overwhelming uniting factor among the Iranians for the Islamic Republic was the nuclear program.  (USIA poll conducted in 2007 found that 64% of those questioned said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle).    The next phase was to cause disunity on an issue that united Iranians of all stripes:  negotiate away the nuclear program.

The first round of nuclear negotiations 2003-2005 dubbed the Paris Agreement between Iran and the EU3 proved to be futile, and as  one European diplomat put it: “We gave them a beautiful box of chocolate that was, however, empty.”  As West’s fortune would have it, the same Iranian officials who had participated in the 2003-2005 negotiations would negotiate the JCPOA.

Around the time of the end of the first round of negotiations, another Brookings Fellow, Flynt Leverett , senior advisor for National Security Center, published a book “Inheriting Syria, Bashar’s Trial by Fire” (Brookings book publication, April 2005).  In his book, Leverett argued that instead of conflict, George W. Bush should seek to cooperate with Syria as Assad was popular, but instead seek to weaken Assad’s position among his people by targeting the Golan (induce him to give it up) so that he would lose popularity among the Syrians.   The JCPOA was designed in part along the same line of thinking.   And more.  His wife Hillary Leverett had a prominent role in ‘selling’ the Deal.

Secret negotiations between the Americans and ‘reform-minded’ Iranians never ceased, bypassing both Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and the President at the time – Mahmood Ahmadinejad.  In a 2012 meeting at the University of Southern California, present members of the Iran Project team had no reservations about suggesting that it was more beneficial to engage Iran rather than attack.  They went as far as stating in the Q&A session to this writer that “they had been engaged with the “Green” (the opposition movement in the failed 2009 color revolution) for years, but Ahmadinejad won” (referring to the 2009 elections).  But Ahmadinejad would soon leave office and be replaced by Rohani – a more amenable player.

Why Negotiate?

Fully appreciating the challenge of attacking Iran, in 2004, the pro-Israel  Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), presented its policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” authored by Michael Eisenstadt.   It was opined that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant ‘regime’ in Tehran.   Eisenstadt was of the opinion that unlike the Osiraq nuclear power plant which was bombed and destroyed, Israel/US would not be able to bomb Iran’s Bushehr reactor with the same ease.  In particular, Eisenstadt claimed that Israel may have benefited from French aid in destroying Osiraq. French intelligence reportedly emplaced a homing beacon at Osiraq to help Israeli pilots locate the facility or target a critical underground structure there.

In this light, it was recommended that the principal goal of U.S. action should be to delay Iran’s nuclear program long enough to allow for the possible emergence of new leadership in Tehran.  Failing that, war would have been facilitated.

It was thought the Paris Agreement talks would fail (as the JCPOA was designed to fail) and as such, the following were some of the suggestions made:

  • harassment or murder of key Iranian scientists or technicians;
  • introduction of fatal design flaws into critical reactor, centrifuge, or weapons components during their production, to ensure catastrophic failure during use;
  • disruption or interdiction of key technology or material transfers through sabotage or covert military actions on land, in the air, or at sea;
  • sabotage of critical facilities by U.S. intelligence assets, including third country nationals or Iranian agents with access to key facilities;
  • introduction of destructive viruses into Iranian computer systems controlling the production of components or the operation of facilities;
  • damage or destruction of critical facilities through sabotage or direct action by U.S. special forces.

As with the murder and terror of the nuclear scientists, and the Stuxnet virus into the reactor, the JCPOA enabled personnel on the ground in Iran to carry out extensive sabotage as has been recently observed in recent days and weeks.  Rohani’s visa free travel opened the flood gates to spies and saboteurs – dual citizens,  who easily traveled with passports other than American, British, and Australian.  Iran even managed to prevent an IAEA inspector who triggered an alarm at Iran’s nuclear facility.  But it would seem, Iran has not been able to stop other intruders and terrorists – not yet. 

Other Motivational Factors for Negotiating

According to studies, as of 2008 Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor had 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese reports.  This amount was significantly higher pre and during negotiations.  History has not witnessed the bombing of a nuclear power plant with an operational nuclear enrichment facility.  Deliberate bombing of such facilities would result breach containment and radioactive elements released.  The death toll horrifying.  The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

The JCPOA significantly reduced the amount of enriched uranium reducing the potential casualty deaths in the event that a strike is carried out.

The Deal buys time –  Iran’s strength has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. Enter Nigeria (West Africa) and Yemen.

In 1998, Clinton’s national security agenda made it clear that unhampered access to Nigerian oil and other vital resources was a key US policy. In the early 2000s, Chatham House was one of the publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed a strategy paper for US to move toward African oil. Push for African oil was on Dick Cheney’s desk on May 31, 2000. In 2002, the Israeli based IASPS suggested America push toward African oil. In the same year Boko Haram was ‘founded’.

In 2007, AFRICOM helped consolidate this push into the region. The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’. This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternative to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.  (See HERE for full article).

JCPOA as a starting point

It has now been made abundantly clear that the Deal was simply JCPOA1.  Other Deals were to follow to disarm Iran even further, to stop Iran’s defensive missile program, and to stop Iran helping its allies in the region.   This would have been relatively easy to achieve had Hillary Clinton been elected – as had been the hope.  The plan was to allow trade and neoliberal polices which the Rohani administration readily embraced, a sharp increase in imports (harming domestic production and self-reliance) while building hope – or as Maloney called it ‘crisis of expectation’.   It was thought that with a semblance of ‘normalcy’ in international relations and free of sanctions, Iranians would want to continue abandoning their sovereignty, their defenses, and rally around the pro-West/America politicians at the expense of the core ideology of the Islamic Revolution, the conservatives and the IRGC.   In other words, regime change.  (several meetings speak to this; see for example, and here). 

The players

The most prominent, one could argue, was President Obama.  Obama was not about peace.   The biggest threat to an empire is peace.  Obama had chosen feigned diplomacy as his weapon.   But before picking up the mantle of diplomacy, he had proposed terrorism – sanctioned terrorism.  Obama, while a junior senator introduced S. 1430 in 2007  and had “crippling sanctions” in mind for the Iranian people.   As president, his executive orders assured this. 

Addressing AIPAC as a candidate, he said: “Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation and that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf States to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose Kuds forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”

No wonder he was dubbed ‘the first Jewish president’!

Not to be left unmentioned was the darling of the theatrics of this Deal – Federica Mogherini.  So enamored were some of the Iranian parliamentarians with her that to the embarrassment of Iran, the internet was abuzz with these MPs taking pictures with her.   Perhaps they looked at her and not her years as a German Marshall Fund Fellow.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) sounds harmless enough, but perhaps Russia may not view it that way.  And Iran shouldn’t.  The GMF pushed for bringing Ukraine into NATO’s fold.  Furthermore, the GMF gives funding to American Abroad Media.    AMA boasts of some of the most dangerous anti-Iran neoconservatives who have shaped America’s policies such as Dennis Ross, James Woolsey, Martin Indyk (responsible for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act later to become ISA and still in place after the JCPOA), Tom Pickering (one of the main proponents of the Iran Deal and member of the Iran Project).  Supporters are not limited to the GMF.   Others include Rockerfeller, Ford Foundation, and NED.

And the most active proponent of the JCPOA was none other than NED recipient, Trita Parsi/NIAC.    Trita Parsi was personally thanked for his role in pushing the JCPOA through.  Job well done for a 3-time recipient of NED funds.  No wonder the George Soros – Koch foundation Quincy Institute selected him as their Executive Vice President.

And last but not least, Hillary Mann Leverett (wife of aforementioned Flynn Leverett) who persuaded her audiences that the JCPOA was akin to “Nixon going to China”.   While some in Iran naively believed this to be the case, and even defended her, they failed to realize that when Nixon went to China it was to bring China on board against Russia.   And Israel was not a player.   It was not an opening to befriend Iran any more than Nixon’s trip had altruist motivations.

Russia and China’s role

The Russians and the Chinese were so eager to embrace a long-awaited peace after all the calamity caused by the United States that they fully embraced this Deal, even though it was detrimental to their interests in so doing.

America’s animosity and never-ending schemes encouraged cooperation between Russia, China, and Iran.  Although the lifting of sanctions post JCPOA would have facilitated trade and enhanced diplomacy between Iran and the West, at a cost to China and Russia, they  stood steadfast by the Deal.  Peace was more valuable.  But far more importantly, the two powerful nations allowed the United States to be the arbitrator of an international treaty – the NPT. 

During the Shah’s reign, President Ford had signed onto a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 292, 1975) allowing and encouraging Iran to not only enrich uranium, but sell it to neighboring countries to profit America.  The United States then decided that since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not serve the interests of the United States, the United States would determine how the NPT should apply to Iran.    

But their efforts at peace and the West’s efforts at regime change all came to naught.  What is important to bear in mind is that America’s efforts at war, sabotage, and terrorism have not ended.  Imposing unilateral sanctions – terrorism against the Iranian people, has not ceased.  Although the Iranian people and their selected representative in the new Iranian parliament are far more aware of, and have an aversion to America’s ploys and the Deal, China and Russia must do their part not only as guarantors of peace, but also to maintain their integrity in a world where both aspire to live in multilateralism.   The world already has a super power without morals and integrity; it does not need other great powers that act similarly.

Iran has fended off another assault on its sovereignty.  However,  saboteurs and terrorists are soliciting war with their recent string of terrorism in Iran.  As the fifth anniversary of this trap approaches, the world needs to understand and step up in order to defend peace, international law and social justice.   The future of all depends on it. 

And to American compatriots:  Make sure Trump understands war will not get him re-elected.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. 

Intercontinental Wars – Part 2: The Counterattack

https://www.syrianews.cc/intercontinental-wars-part-2-the-counterattack/embed/#?secret=bnZ0gj7yPs

Intercontinental Wars – Part 3 The Open Confrontation

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions

Source

July 11, 2020

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following political consultations between the foreign ministers of Russia and three African Union countries (South Africa, Egypt and the Congo) via videoconference, Moscow, July 8, 2020

Colleagues,

Today, we held the first political consultation meeting at the foreign minister level between Russia and three members of the African Union. This mechanism was established after the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi last October. These countries are the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They are the former, current and next presidents of the African Union.

Russia and Africa are linked by traditional friendly relations, strong political dialogue and extensive trade, economic and investment ties. We have even more ambitious plans in all of these areas. Today, Russia and these African countries expressed their reciprocal interest in further building up cooperation in all areas, including the economy, humanitarian ties and political consultations.

We discussed the priorities of developing cooperation through the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum established by the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was set up for daily contact with the foreign ministries of various African countries and the mechanisms of the African Union and other integration associations in Africa. The Secretariat will oversee the organisational and practical preparations of new initiatives for the next Russia-Africa Summit scheduled for 2022 in accordance with the Sochi agreements.

Having met in Sochi, the heads of state decided that it was expedient to hold these summit meetings once every three years.

We also discussed the energy requirements of the African states. They are growing fast given the African countries’ development rates. We reviewed opportunities for enhancing the energy security of African countries, in particular, by supplying them with hydrocarbon resources and especially by developing the nuclear power industry. Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev gave a relevant presentation. Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Alexey Gruzdev spoke about industrial cooperation at our videoconference.

The issues formulated by our African partners today and initiatives on the best ways to develop investment, trade and economic ties will be discussed at the Association of Trade and Economic Cooperation with African Countries. This was established last month by the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. Large Russian companies are members of this association. They are interested in developing cooperation with African states. In addition to Rosatom, it brings together ALROSA, Gazprombank, Transmashholding, and the Innopraktika development institute, to name a few. As I mentioned, the association will be used as a platform for helping Russian companies that want to work in individual African countries or with the integration associations on the African continent.

We also discussed humanitarian issues focusing, for obvious reasons, on the spread of the coronavirus. The pandemic has made a tangible impact on many aspects of interstate relations and has done harm to the economy. This is also being felt in Africa. Our African colleagues expect this damage to be heavier than it is now.

They expressed gratitude to the Russian Federation for the assistance that our departments have rendered to African states. We continue receiving requests for additional aid. Over 30 countries have sent requests. We are reviewing them as quickly as possible. Deputy Head of Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare) Alexander Simanovsky talked about this in detail today.

We agreed to continue our assistance in countering the coronavirus infection, in part, via African and global multilateral associations. We will support the adoption of decisions that favour the African nations at the UN, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

We emphasised our mutual interest in further cooperation in developing vaccines against such pandemic threats, in particular, by using the very helpful and effective experience of our cooperation (several years ago) in combatting the Ebola virus.

As part of our political dialogue, we focused on the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This anniversary is marked this year. It is a historically meaningful document that played a critical role in breaking down the world colonialist system. It was the Soviet Union which played the lead role in adopting that declaration. We stressed the need for preserving the historical truth about colonial times. Now, many of our Western colleagues, who have a colonial past on the African continent, prefer to forget where the problems of contemporary Africa largely come from. We believe it is unacceptable to forget about that period or turn a blind eye to the neocolonial practices that continue in Africa, the harmful effects of which were mentioned by our interlocutors today.

We agreed that the establishment of the UN played a decisive role in the upcoming process of decolonization, and the UN itself appeared as a result of defeating Nazism and the Victory in WWII. There is an interesting connection: the countries that try to rewrite the history of World War II try, at the same time, to forget the consequences of the colonial past on the African continent.

We shared the opinion, and Russia made it a point, that decolonisation cannot be declared completed. UN General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice demand the completion of this process, specifically, with respect to the Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius’ sovereignty over it should be restored. The sovereignty of Madagascar should be restored over the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean and Comoros’ sovereignty over the island of Mayotte. This French territory preserves its status despite numerous UN General Assembly resolutions.

We think it is important to continue these discussions at the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation. Together with our African and other partners we will promote implementation of the existing decisions made by the world community.

In general, the talks were very useful. We agreed to draft relevant proposals that would let us start working on the agenda for the next summit, which, as I have said, is scheduled for 2022 pursuant to the understandings reached in Sochi last October. I mean that the next summit will be held in Africa.

We have adopted a joint statement following our discussions which will be distributed to the media. You are welcome to read the document.

Question: I would like to ask you about the situation in Libya. This is a source of constant concern for the international community because of the differences between the confronting parties and the discord among their supporters. Moscow keeps talking about the need to conduct a direct dialogue based on the Berlin Сonference. Russia has also backed Cairo’s initiative – recently the Foreign Ministry has started talking about the need to enhance the UN role in a Libyan settlement. How can this be done in practice when nothing really changes?

Sergey Lavrov: In practice this can be done in only one way – both sides must immediately stop the hostilities and their attempts to move armed units westward and eastward, respectively, or in any direction. Regrettably, the statement of obvious fact by our partners, notably, that the Libyan conflict has no military solution, is not leading to practical actions. At some point, last January before the Berlin conference, we invited the main parties to Moscow: Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Khalifa Haftar, Head of the Presidential Council and the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj, and Speaker of Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. At that time, the LNA believed in its superiority on the ground and did not want to sign a document that suited al-Sarraj. In our estimate, the LNA is now willing to sign a document on an immediate ceasefire but the government in Tripoli is now reluctant to do so in the hope of a military solution once again. This is the main reason for what is happening there.

In the framework of a dialogue as sanctioned by our presidents, we and our Turkish colleagues are coordinating approaches that would make it possible to immediately announce a ceasefire and embark on resolving the other issues, including those mentioned at the Berlin Conference and reaffirmed at the meeting in Cairo in the so-called Cairo Declaration. This is the main problem now.

Recently, we spoke in Moscow with Speaker of the Libyan Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. We stay in touch with Fayez al-Sarraj who heads the Government of National Accord in Tripoli and, of course, with Marshal Khalifa Haftar, the LNA commander. We express to them that an announcement of the complete cessation of hostilities must be the first, indispensable step and that this has no alternative. Our Turkish colleagues are working with the National Transitional Council towards the same end. I hope they will manage to achieve the only correct solution under the circumstances.

As for the UN’s role and the need to increase it, we do want the UN to be more active here. Unfortunately, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya Ghassan Salame resigned soon after the Berlin Conference, almost half a year ago. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been unable to appoint a successor so far. His first proposal to appoint Foreign Minister of Algeria Ramtane Lamamra was supported by most countries except our American colleagues. They refused to support his nomination. Almost two months ago a proposal was put forward to appoint former Foreign Minister of Ghana Hanna Tetteh but for some reason Mr Guterres has failed to have her nomination approved. We tend to think that the US representatives are trying to “hobble” him.

Now the situation is like this. After Salame resigned, the UN mission was headed by the acting special representative. By circumstance, this position is now occupied by an American citizen. We don’t want the US to hold the UN Secretariat by the hand and prevent the appointment of a full special representative in the hope that their compatriot will resolve some objective that we fail to understand.

I say this in the open because it is no secret. I am hoping that commitment to multilateral principles will still prevail in this case, and that the UN Secretary-General will fully display his responsibility for the functioning of this mechanism. I am convinced that this position must be occupied by a representative of the African Union.

Question: Can you comment on the UN commission report that says Russian and Syrian aircraft strikes against civilian infrastructure in Idlib are equated with military crimes?

Sergey Lavrov: You, probably mean the commission that calls itself an international independent commission of inquiry on Syria. This commission was not set up by consensus decision, and its mandate raises many questions as does its methodology. The decision to establish this commission was pushed through primarily by the Western countries, which wanted to change the Syrian regime. They didn’t hide this. Using a vote at the UN Human Rights Council, they provided a mechanism with the established purpose of searching for evidence against and discrediting Damascus and those whom they call its allies.

The commission never went to Idlib like many other entities employed by the West in the non-government sector to gather information compromising the activities of the legitimate Syrian authorities. This so-called independent commission uses facts taken from social networks, from some sources they ask to remain anonymous referring to security considerations. These are the same methods as are currently used by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Our Western colleagues are trying to jam through a resolution based on the report prepared in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention based on information taken from social networks, civil society partners, whose names and addresses they refuse to give saying that it would subject their security to risk and threat. This is why we proceed from the exclusive need to resolve and consider any issue concerning the Syrian or any other conflict based on hard facts alone, and on information for which the relevant entity is ready to be responsible. This independent commission just cannot be responsible for its statements, as has been proven on many occasions.

Question:  Mark Esper has said that in the year since he became head of the Pentagon the US Department of Defence successfully restrained Washington’s main strategic rivals – Russia and China. How would you comment on this statement?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not see that there is anything to comment on here. If he thinks the Pentagon’s main objective is to “restrain” Russia and China, then this is the philosophy of the current US administration. It is really burning with a desire to “restrain” everyone except for themselves, and is seeking to get rid of everything that could restrain its freedom to act with impunity on the international stage, such as the INF Treaty, the TOS, the CTBT, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and the WHO. If this is the case, this is rather regrettable. We believed that the military act much more carefully than politicians in situations that can erupt into a conflict, especially a hot conflict.

This mood and this philosophy of the Pentagon chief are really regrettable, because we are interested in developing a normal dialogue with all countries, including the United States. Telephone contacts between Mark Esper and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu were highly professional and based on mutual respect.  We would like the foreign policies of all countries not to be aimed at “restraint” but at strategic stability based on a balance of interests of all states, including the world’s leading powers. The phrase “strategic stability” is being replaced with “strategic rivalry” in our dialogue with the Americans. In other words, this philosophy shows that the Americans are preparing for conflicts with any country that will attempt to defend its interests.

This is bad for the United States itself. Maybe Washington is using the alleged threats coming from Russia and China to distract the Americans from the incredible problems we see unfolding in that country. Maybe this is part of the election campaign, for the contenders need to gain points. It would be regrettable if they did this by removing all checks and balances on the international stage and by taking the freedom to venture into risky projects in the hope of getting more votes. We stand for dialogue and strategic stability, as President Putin has noted, including when he proposed a summit meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Question: It has been reported today that Ukraine plans to withdraw from the 2012 memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation with Russia. The interpretative note reads that “this decision will allow for the creation of additional legal and political grounds for protecting the national interests of Ukraine in conditions of Russia’s armed aggression and enhancing Ukraine’s prestige.” Will you comment on this, please?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not aware of our Ukrainian neighbours’ decision to withdraw from the memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation. They are withdrawing from many documents now, which they have a right to do. They also have a right to present their decisions to terminate cooperation in any way. If they think this will help them to protect their national interests more effectively, be that as it may. But it is obvious to us that counterterrorism must not be a victim and hostage of geopolitical games. Any more or less well-read person can see that the Ukrainian authorities are playing geopolitical games. Just look at the statement made by President Vladimir Zelensky, who has said that the Minsk Agreements are only needed to ensure Western sanctions against Russia. This statement is self-explanatory. I leave this on the conscience of the Ukrainian leadership.

We continue our contacts in the Normandy format. The advisers and political aides of the Normandy format leaders have recently had a meeting. It has reaffirmed that the Ukrainian side categorically refuses to honour the Minsk Agreements, which have been approved by the UN Security Council. It has refused to answer the direct questions of our representatives to this effect. We hope that Germany and France as the parties of the Normandy format will take their share of responsibility for Kiev’s position regarding the vital document titled the Minsk Package of Measures.

Question: Is there any chance of a ceasefire in Libya and that the forces of the Government of National Accord will not cross the Sirte – Al Jufra red line, given yesterday’s reports of attacks in Al Jufra, which neither side in the conflict has confirmed?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot say if the ceasefire has a chance or not. There is always a chance, but it is difficult to say if it will be used. There was such a chance half a year ago, as well as two, three and four years ago when conferences on Libya were held in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi. A conference was also held in Berlin half a year ago, and before that there was a meeting held in Moscow. A document was adopted, an open and simple document that was only a page and a half long, which stipulated a ceasefire in the first place. One of the sides invited to Moscow and Berlin did not use that chance. Now the other side does not want to use this chance, which still exists. As I have mentioned, it is not simply a chance but a demand which has no alternatives and which must be implemented if we want to start settling the situation in Libya.

As for the military situation on the ground and which side’s forces are preparing to cross any lines, this is of secondary importance. If we agree – and it appears that all sides agree that there is no military solution in Libya – the only thing to do is to stop fighting now. Next we can use the tried and tested mechanisms such as the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission and the proposals sealed in the Cairo Declaration, including the proposal recently advanced by the head of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Aguila Saleh, who has recently visited Moscow. I am referring to the establishment of truly collective and equal bodies of power where all the three historical regions of Libya will be represented based on a balance of interests. I regard this as an absolutely reasonable proposal.

Question: Is Russia ready to act as a mediator in the conflict around the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam?

Sergey Lavrov: We have offered our assistance, including in the form of technical support, to the conflicting parties. We can do useful things. They know this. The United States has offered its assistance as well. Several meetings have been held in the United States. We welcome the progress achieved so far.

It is encouraging that the sides have recently agreed to stimulate contacts between the concerned ministries. This topic has been discussed at the UN Security Council upon Egypt’s initiative. During the discussion held there, we proposed accelerating the coordination of mutually acceptable approaches based on the existing norms of international law and the interests of the parties involved in this dispute.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Source

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Sayyed Nasrallah Announces New Front: Reviving Agricultural, Industrial Sectors in Lebanon

July 8, 2020

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah
Click the photo to watch the Video

Marwa Haidar

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced a new front on Tuesday by saying that the Resistance party has decided to be in the heart of agricultural and industrial battle.

In a televised speech via Al-Manar, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that reviving the agricultural and industrial sectors in Lebanon is considered as the new battle, since the country must be productive one.

“Save the date: 7/7 is the day when Jihad and uprising on the agriculture and industrial fields was announced,” Sayyed Nasrallah stated.

The Hezbollah S.G., meanwhile, lashed out at the US Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea over meddling in Lebanon internal affairs, calling on her to ‘respect herself’ and refrain from “giving lectures on human rights.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also advised Washington to abandon its policy to besiege Lebanon, warning that such behavior won’t weaken Hezbollah, but will strengthen him.

On the other hand, Sayyed Nasrallah dismissed accusations that Hezbollah wants to “turn Lebanon into Iranian model.”

In this context, his eminence stressed that the Islamic Republic is a self-sufficient country, wondering: “Why are you afraid of this model?”

Recalling 2006 July War, Other Occasions

Starting his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled the Divine Victory following the 2006 July war and the Second Liberation in 2017 when the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah fighters liberated Lebanon’s eastern Juroud from Takfiri terrorists.

“We are before several occasions that Lebanon recalls proudly,” Sayyed Nasrallah said via Al-Manar.

His eminence also recalled the firm stances of Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah on the tenth anniversary of his demise.

“He was firm defender of the Resistance. He was our merciful and tenderhearted father,” Sayyed Nasrallah said referring to Sayyed Fadlallah.

The Lebanese Resistance Leader, meanwhile, offered condolences over the departure of Sheikh Mohammad Jaafar Shamseddine.

“Turning Lebanon into Iranian Model?”

Sayyed Nasrallah said that the hard livelihood conditions and the economic crisis Lebanon has been witnessing require national approach and exerting united efforts by all the Lebanese powers.

His eminence referred to his latest speech when he called on the Lebanese government to head east, stressing that such call didn’t mean to relinquish the West.

“In my latest speech I called for heading east, I didn’t mention that Lebanon will abandon the west. We have nothing to do with accusations that Hezbollah wants to ‘turn Lebanon into an Iranian model’.”

As he stressed that “no one wants to turn Lebanon into another Iran,” he noted that the Islamic Republic is a self-sufficient country which confronted all kinds of blockades, wondering: “Why are you afraid of the Iranian model?”

Changing Threats against Lebanon into Chance

Sayyed Nasrallah then said that the current goal which the Lebanese people have to focus on is how to prevent Lebanon’s collapse and starvation.

In this context, his eminence noted that Lebanon must not just rely on the outcome of the talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), stressing the importance of looking for other choices.

“We are able to turn the threat into a chance,” Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed.

He called on the Lebanese government to take the initiative to contact the Chinese government to look into ways of cooperation with the two countries and not to wait for Beijing to do such step.

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah voiced Iran’s readiness to sell Lebanon oil with the Lebanese pound.

“In this regard I prefer that official talks between Lebanon and Iran take place away from media, and I can guarantee such offer.”

“Heading east is one of choices to confront starvation. This choice sends a message to the US that whoever wants to besiege Lebanon will fail in this policy,” his eminence said further.

New Battle: Agricultural, Industrial Sectors

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that one of Lebanon’s major problems is that it is non-productive country.

“The agriculture and industry is like the oxygen for people. We have large areas of arable lands, the weather in Lebanon is proper and the rains are suitable. We can plant these lands but we need a decision and determination to do so.”

His eminence called for uniting efforts in reviving the agricultural and industrial sectors.

“As Lebanese people, we have to unite efforts in agriculture and in finding markets for our crops. And the same thing applies to the industry.”

“We in Hezbollah, we call on the Lebanese to revive the agricultural and industrial sectors as one of the major factors of steadfastness.

Stressing that Hezbollah has repeatedly raised the slogan of ‘where should we be we’ll be’, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that this is the party’s new battle.

“We will be at the heart of this battle, our hand is extended to all our people. We will plant even the roofs of the buildings.”

“When we eat what we plant and wear what we fabricate then we are worth of freedom, independence and dignity,” his eminence affirmed.

“US Pressure on Lebanon to Strengthen Hezbollah”

Touching upon the behavior of US Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea, Sayyed Nasrallah said that she is acting “like the military governor of our country,” lashing out at Washington’s meddling in Lebanese internal affairs.

“The US ambassador to Lebanon has been openly interfering in our internal affairs. US’ meddling in Lebanon is rejected and the Lebanese state must move in this regard.”

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah praised courage of Urgent Matters Judge Mohammad Mazeh who banned local and foreign media from featuring statements of US Ambassador Dorothy Shea earlier last month.

Hezbollah S.G. then addressed Shea as saying: “I advise the US ambassador not to give lectures on freedom, sovereignty and human rights, for she doesn’t have the right to do so. Your country has been funding and supporting the Israeli and Takfiri terror. So respect yourself and keep within limits.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah advised Washington to abandon its policy of besieging Lebanon and exerting pressure on it, saying: “Your policy is futile; it won’t weaken Hezbollah but rather will strengthen him and weaken your allies.”

Sayyed Nasrallah then concluded his speech by stressing that Lebanon’s current crisis must not divert from supporting the Palestinian cause “especially now as the Zionist regime is planning to annex areas of the West Bank and Jordan Valley.”

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Video

Related Articles

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Source

July 06, 2020

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Submitted by Pepe Escobar – source Asia Times

The no holds barred US-China strategic competition may be leading us to the complete fragmentation of the current “world-system” – as Wallerstein defined it.

Yet compared to the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits, India-China’s Himalayan border, and selected latitudes of the Greater Middle East, Central Asia shines as a portrait of stability.

That’s quite intriguing, when we consider that the chessboard reveals the interests of top global players intersecting right in the heart of Eurasia.

And that brings us to a key question: How could Kazakhstan, the 9th largest country in the world, manage to remain neutral in the current, incandescent geopolitical juncture? What are the lineaments of what could be described as the Kazakh paradox?

These questions were somewhat answered by the office of First President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I had discussed some of them with analysts when I was in Kazakhstan late last year. Nazarbayev could not answer them directly because he has just recently recovered from Covid-19 and is currently in self-isolation.

It all harks back to what was Kazakhstan really like when the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Kazakhs inherited a quite complex ethno-demographic structure, with the Russian-speaking population concentrated in the north; unresolved territorial issues with China; and geographical proximity to extremely unstable Afghanistan, then in a lull before the all-out warlord conflagration of the early 1990s which created the conditions for the emergence of the Taliban.

To make it even harder, Kazakhstan was landlocked.

All of the above might have led to Kazakhstan either dispatched to political limbo or mired in a perpetual Balkan scenario.

Have soft power, will travel

Enter Nazarbayev as a fine political strategist. From the beginning, he saw Kazakhstan as a key player, not a pawn, in the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia.

A good example was setting up the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building measures in Asia (CICA) in 1992, based on the principle of “indivisibility of Asian security”, later proposed to the whole of Eurasia.

Nazarbayev also made the crucial decision to abandon what was at the time the fourth nuclear missile potential on the planet – and a major trump card in international relations. Every major player in the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia knew that selected Islamic nations were extremely interested in Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal.

Nazarbayev bet on soft power instead of nuclear power. Unlike the DPRK, for instance, he privileged Kazakhstan’s integration in the global economy in favorable terms instead of relying on nuclear power to establish national security. He was certainly paving the way for Kazakhstan to be regarded as a trustworthy, get down to business neutral player and a mediator in international relations.

The trust and goodwill towards Kazakhstan is something I have seen for myself in my pan-Eurasia travels and in conversations with analysts from Turkey and Lebanon to Russia and India.

The best current example is Astana, currently Nur-sultan, becoming the HQ of that complex work in progress: the Syrian peace process, coordinated by Iran, Turkey and Russia – following the crucial, successful Kazakh mediation to solve the Moscow-Ankara standoff after the downing of a Sukhoi Su-24M near the Syria-Turkish border in November 2015.

And on the turbulent matter of Ukraine post-Maidan in 2014, Kazakhstan simultaneously kept good relations with Kiev and the West and its strategic partnership with Russia.

As I discussed late last year, Nur-sultan is now actively taking the role of the new Geneva: the capital of diplomacy for the 21st century.

The secret of this Kazakh paradox is the capacity of delicately balancing relations with the three main players – Russia, China and the US – as well as leading regional powers. Nazarbayev’s office boldly argues that can be even translated to Nur-sultan placed as the ideal venue for US-China negotiations: “We are tightly embedded in the US-China-Russia triangle and have built trusting relationships with each of them.”

In the heart of Eurasia

And that brings us to why Kazakhstan – and Nazarbayev personally – are so much involved in promoting their special concept of Greater Eurasia – which overlaps with the Russian vision, discussed in extensive detail at the Valdai Club.

Nazarbayev managed to set a paradigm in which none of the big players feel compelled to exercize a monopoly on Kazak maneuvering. That inevitably led Kazakhstan to expand its foreign policy reach.

Strategically, Kazakhstan is smack in the geographical heart of Eurasia, with huge borders with Russia and China, as well as Iran in the Caspian Sea. Its territory is no less than a top strategic bridge uniting the whole of Eurasia.

The Kazakh approach goes way beyond connectivity (trade and transport), two key planks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get closer to the converging vision of BRI and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU): a single, integrated Eurasian space.

Nazarbayev sees the integration of the Central Asian “stans” with Russia and with Turkic-speaking countries, including of course Turkey, as the foundation for his concept of Greater Eurasia.

The inevitable corollary is that the Atlanticist order – as well as the Anglo-American predominance in international relations – is waning, and certainly does not suit Asia and Eurasia. A consensus is forming across many key latitudes that the driving force for the reboot of the global economy post-Covid-19 – and even a new paradigm – will come from Asia.

In parallel, Nazarbayev’s office make a crucial point: “A purely Asian or Eastern answer is unlikely to suit the collective West, which is also in search of optimal models of the world’s structure. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative clearly showed that Western countries are not psychologically ready to see China as a leader.”

Nur-sultan nonetheless remains convinced that the only possible solution would be exactly a new paradigm in international relations. Nazarbayev argues that the keys to solve the current turmoil are not located in Moscow, Beijing or Washington, but in a strategic transit node, like Kazakhstan, where the interests of all global players intersect.

Thus the push for Kazakhstan – one of the key crossroads between Europe and Asia, alongside Turkey and Iran – to become the optimal mediator allowing Greater Eurasia to flourish in practice. That is the uplifting option: otherwise, we seem condemned to live through another Cold War.

Central Downtown Nur-Sultan: in center Bayterek tower

Panic and the Pandemic ‘Down Under’: The Ultimate Unseen Enemy

By Jeremy Salt

Source

virus 5311575 1280 d3689

In the southeastern corner of Australia a State of Emergency has replaced what was known until recently only as the State of Victoria. The unseen enemy has been a fact of modern life since the 1950s but at least the red under the bed could be seen if found. COVID-19 is the ultimate unseen enemy, because it literally cannot be seen except through a microscope and noone knows where it is and when it will strike.

The panic generated by the spread of the virus is completely disproportionate to the risk of dying from it. Between late January and July 1, 2020, 2,505, 923 people were tested for COVID-19 in Australia. As updated by Worldometer on July 3, of the 8255 cases that tested positive, 7319 had recovered.  A further 832 cases were still active (99 percent in mild condition; of the 7423 ‘closed’ cases 99 percent of those infected had recovered and one percent (104) had died.

Figures issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that of the deaths associated with COVID-19, no-one below the age of 39 had died.  In the 40-49 age bracket, there had been one death; 50-59, two; 60-69, 13; 70-79, 31; 80-89, 35; over 90, 20. Thus, well over 80 of the 104 deaths were in the 70s-90s age bracket.

By comparison 3334 Australians died from influenza/pneumonia in 2016 (median age 88.8). In 2017 the figure was 4269 (median age 88.3): in 2018, 3102 (median age 89.3). In the same year, 2952 Australians died from accidental falls, their median age 87.3. A further 3046 Australians died from “intentional self-harm” and hundreds of others from traffic accidents or drowning.  This is not to underplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 virus but only to put it into perspective and the context of deaths from other causes.

The figures for influenza deaths in 2019 have not yet been published.  According to a report published on August 18, 2019, however, even before the influenza season (June-September) was over 430 people had already died (some deaths were attributed to other causes despite showing “flu-like symptoms).” Hospitals were said to be “overrun,” with nearly 217,000 people diagnosed with the illness and “experts” believing the final death toll could could be much higher. [1] The Queensland government’s Ministry of Health confirmed that 264 people in Queensland alone had died.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one billion people around the world get the flu every year, with a loose estimate of 290,000-650,000 deaths, compared to the number of people misleadingly listed by the WHO as dying ‘of’ the COVID-19 virus: 472, 541 by June 23, 2020, and more than half a million by the end of the month. Despite the comparatively high global death toll from influenza, only five pandemics have been declared in more than a century, the worst of them in 1918 and the most recent after the ‘swine flu’ outbreak of 2009.

While COVID-19 may be ‘a’ cause of the 104 deaths it is not generally ‘the’ cause.  Those who die are listed as having been infected with the virus and its significance in their deaths remains unknown. Most of those infected have other serious and possibly terminal diseases likely to end their lives anyway (only about four percent of those said to have been infected with the virus when they died had no preconditions) and statements that people have died ‘from’ the virus or ‘of’ the virus, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) on its website, are misleading.

Doctors in the UK are authorized to list the virus as a cause of death on the clinical “balance of probabilities.” In Australia doctors are instructed that COVID-19 should be recorded on the death certificate when the disease caused “or is assumed to have caused or contributed” to the death. The doctors might be right but probabilities and assumptions are hardly scientific as a means of assessing the causes of death. Bearing this in mind, the veracity of the statistics has to be regarded with some caution.

A further issue in COVID-19 control is the reliability of the basic WHO-approved test for the virus, which two investigators have concluded after detailed research is “scientifically meaningless.”[2]  Many deaths associated with COVID-19 have occurred in nursing or aged care homes, where the Swiss Policy Research Institute estimates that up to 30 percent may ultimately have been caused not by the virus but by the consequences of the lockdown, including isolation, panic and fear.[3]

Australian politicians will insist that without the lockdown the figures would have been much higher. This will forever remain a moot point but other countries have come through well without adopting such restrictive measures as Australian governments, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan among them.

Sweden, on the other hand, the bad boy of the pandemic, took minimal measures and suffered a comparatively high death toll of 5280, 51.85 deaths per 100,000 or a 8.1 fatality rate per 100,000. Of the deaths, 1151 were in the 70-79 age bracket and 2191 in their 80s to 90s, a total of 3342 deaths, more than two-thirds of the total, suggesting that while Sweden was correct in thinking that no more than minimal restrictions were necessary for the general population, it failed to provide sufficient protection for the most vulnerable, the aged and seriously ill.

In the state of Victoria 20 people infected with COVID-19 had died by the end of June, 2020 (compared to 68 deaths from influenza in 2016 and 297 in 2017).  The battle to contain the virus is being led by the Premier, Daniel Andrews, an aspiring or professional politician since he left university, and his Health Minister, Jenny Mikakos, a tax lawyer before she went into politics.  They have closed down schools and businesses.  Tens of thousands of people have been thrown out of work and the center of Melbourne turned into a dead zone.  In a city that is a magnet for young people, with hundreds of bars and other music ‘venues, the ‘hospitality’ sector has been severely affected.

While staff can claim unemployment benefits, restaurant and bar owners have been hung out to dry, with the government that closed their businesses offering nothing beyond small dollops of financial support and the suggestion that they take out bank loans. Many will go under (some already have) and others will be saddled with debt if/when they are able to reopen.  The easing of restrictions can mean little in practice, when owners of a ‘music venue’ have to apply a ‘density quotient’ of one person per four square meters.  This obviously rules out the numerous small bars where people like to meet because they ARE small and therefore cozy.

The politicians, the police, the health ‘experts’ and the media are all speaking with one voice.  There is no two-way conversation between the state and the people but a monologue, with the government and its ancillary forces telling the people what they have to do, what they have to understand, as the media frequently puts it.  In the name of suppressing the pandemic the dividing line between the authoritarian state and the liberal democracy is gradually being erased.

Expanded police powers include random home door-knocks to check that people are ‘self-isolating,’ with the police searching for anyone not at home.   A recent video showed police harassing a woman walking in the center of the city with a child in a pusher.  While one policeman wrestled her to the ground when she objected, another wheeled the child away. Groups of police are arriving unnannounced at restaurants to make sure social distancing guidelines are being observed and the names and contact phone numbers of all customers recorded on the official government form.  Police ‘enforcement patrols’ have been set up in viral ‘hot spots’, with traffic stopped across the city to check whether drivers have moved out of these suburbs.

Both the Federal (national) and state police have an arm called Protective Service Officers. In Victoria, they were created for the express purpose of providing security at suburban railway stations but are now being redeployed at shopping centers and in residential areas.   In the words of Police Minister Lisa Neville, “What we hadn’t predicted was that we would be given the opportunity to test how using them in shopping centers and other areas would go and we’ve had that opportunity.”   Assistant Police Commissioner Shane Patton concurs, as it had been a “real advantage” for the Victoria Police to be able to use the PSOs elsewhere during the pandemic.

Hundreds of people have been calling the “police assistance line,” set up for reports of “non-urgent” crime, to report breaches of the pandemic regulations: 61,000 in February, before the pandemic was declared; 71,000 in March and 102,000 in April, an average of  3500-11,500 day, mostly about the virus.  ‘Dobbing in’ – snitching – has always been regarded with the greatest contempt in Australia, along with contempt for the ‘scab,’ the worker who breaks the union picket line, but now the police see the snitch as a virtue, as doing “the right thing and holding others to account,” says Assistant Police Commisssioner Patton. “It’s about saving lives.”

Fines of up to $1652 are being imposed for people not doing the right thing, by failing to wear a face mask or not observing the correct social distance.   Apart from police surveillance and intervention, the phone app millions of Australians have been persuaded into downloading enables the government to track them down wherever they happen to be, in the name of ‘tracing’ contacts of those who might have been infected.   The fact that anyone with a smartphone can be tracked down anyway, can even be heard and photographed without their knowledge is no argument for taking the surveillance possibilities of the virus app lightly when there is no verifiable protection against its use for other purposes.

With the number of new cases on the rise, Andrews called in the army to give logistical support. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, talking as though this was Afghanistan, said the army was already “on the ground” in Victoria.  Discussions were continuing with Mr Andrews and the Minister of Defence.   The army had already been summoned “to assist with compliance” at the hotels where nationals returning from overseas are being quarantined in their rooms for 14 days (at least at the government’s expense: in Queensland overseas arrivals have to pay $2800 per person).

The quarantine hotels have been placed under the overall control of Corrections Victoria, which runs the state’s prisons.  Media images show up to a dozen police and soldiers in uniform with slouch hats surrounding travelers bussed in from the airport as they wheel their luggage into a hotel foyer.  In South Australia police armed with assault rifles have been patrolling “at risk” areas.

As the number of infections continued to rise in Victoria, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian called on anyone offering accommodation – hotels, hostels and Airbnb –  to turn away people from Victoria.  The NSW government then took a further step, closing its borders to Victorians from ‘hot spots’ and threatening those who ‘slip across’ with an $11,000 fine and six months in jail.  Queensland has closed its borders to all visitors from Victoria.  Cars crossing from Victoria into South Australia have been vandalized and the drivers abused, such is the hysteria that has been generated.

While travelers arriving in Melbourne are quarantined in hotels for 14 days at the government’s expense, those arriving in Brisbane on a flight from overseas have to pay $2800 per person.   No arrangement seems to have been made for travelers who need to be in Queensland and don’t have $2800 to spare.

With dire reports of death, new ‘hot spots’ and ‘spikes’ filling the papers every day, people have been wondering when and how it will all end, “when will I be able to hug my grandchildren again?” as the headline over one article read but “do the right thing”,  “do the decent thing”, “play it safe and stay at home” are the messages repeatedly being hammered home by politicians, police, bureaucrats,  health experts and the media, in and out of uniform, but all speaking with the same voice of authority.

Around the world ‘lockdowns’ have had profound economic and social consequences, including mass unemployment (about half the British workforce is now unemployed or underemployed), depression, domestic violence, eviction from homes, impoverishment, the denial of regular medical service even to people with serious and possibly terminal illnesses and ‘distance education,’ with parents expected to hold down jobs and simultaneously supervise the education of their children at home.

Health practitioners writing for the British medical journal the Lancet say the closure of schools in 107 countries around the world has been based on evidence and “assumptions” from influenza outbreaks.  About 862 million children and young people – “roughly half of the global student population” [4] – have been affected, apart from the impact on the lives of parents and other relatives.

The other consequences include the loss to society of parental productivity, the possibility of vulnerable grandparents called on to provide child care transmitting the virus to children (or children transmitting it to them), the loss of education, harm to the welfare of the child especially among the most vulnerable childen and nutritional problems caused to children for whom free school meals are “an important source of nutrition.”  Social isolation is listed as another negative byproduct.

The Lancet study notes the “remarkable dearth of policy-relevant data” on school distancing, including closures.  The authors question whether the closures were necessary and draw attention to the adverse effects, which include the economic harm to working parents, health-care workers and other workers “forced” from work to provide child-care.

İt finds that “the evidence to support national closure of schools to combat COVID-19 is very weak and that data from influenza outbreaks suggest that school closures could have relatively small effects on a virus with COVID-19’s high transmissibility and apparent low clinical effect on school children.”

Writing in the New York Times, David Katz, President of the True Health Initiative and founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Centre, proposed more targeted ways of dealing with the pandemic, based on preferential protection for the medical and those over 60 years of age while allowing ‘herd immunity’ to develop among the population at large.  Infection would spread but only in a mild form for the vast bulk of the population, with adequate medical resources then available to treat those who become seriously ill. [5]

Although contact-tracing phone apps have been introduced in many countries, including Australia, the WHO has recommended against their use in any circumstance, whether epidemic or pandemic.   Issues of privacy, increased government surveillance at a time when it has already reached an all-time high and the possible ‘repurposing’ of the apps are immediately raised.

These questions only add to a long list that need answers, including where the virus first surfaced.  The media fed the first assumption that it was transferred to humans from a ‘wet market’ in China but numerous other countries, including the US, have since been identified as an earlier possible source (according to a Spanish report, the COVID-19 virus was discovered in waste water in Barcelona in March 2019).

The supposedly ‘natural’ origin of the virus has been challenged by some eminent epidemiologists who say it can only have been developed in a laboratory.  If so, was its release accidental or deliberate? Given the intense security measures observed in biological research laboratories, especially when a virus can threaten human life, how could such a release have been accidental?

On October 18, 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation sponsored a pandemic exercise called ‘Event 201.’  According to the scenario as laid down, it would only be a matter of time before an epidemic turned into a pandemic with catastrophic global consequences, arising from the transmission of a virus to humans through bats and pigs.  The ‘matter of time’ turned out to be only two months later, when the first outbreak of COVID-19 was identified in China (subsequent reports had it appearing much earlier elsewhere).

Fortuitously, the virus surfaced at the precise point when US banks, trading houses and other financial institutions were about to plunge off the cliff, more disastrously than in 2007-09.  While the world was looking the other way, the Federal Reserve bailed Wall Sreet out to the tune of trillions of dollars: $6.6 trillion from September, 2019 – March, 2020, a total of $29 trillion since 2007.  When the root of the problem is systemic, however,  these trillions might end up as good money thrown away after bad.  Writing in the current issue of the Atlantic, Frank Partnoy warns that the US financial system could be on the cusp of calamity and “this time we might not be able to save it.” [6]

The enormity of this second bailout would surely have caused public fury if exposed to the light of day but the bigger story was what it represented, not just the collapse of financial houses but an epochal collapse of the global ‘free market’ capitalist order as it had operated since 1945.  Based on over-production and artificially-stimulated consumerism in a world of shrinking resources, the system had not been sustainable for a long time.  Astute observers had seen the end coming for years. Already in 2015 the UN Agenda 2030 had as its central theme “a sustainable world with income equality, gender equality and vaccines for all.”  But how was the changeover to be managed, how was the new world going to be built on the ruins of the old and how could the global capitalist order be preserved in these new circumstances?

At this point COVID-19 appeared like a genie out of the bottle. In the short term it provided cover for the trillions of dollars paid out in the US to faltering corporations and financial institutions.  Banks and corporations in the UK, Australia and other countries were also the prime beneficiaries of multiple billion dollar ‘stimulus’ packages.   Media-generated pandemic panic then enabled governments to lock down entire populations and prepare them for the post-COVID-19 world.

On June 3, 2020, the WEF announced ‘The Great Reset,’ the theme of its next global forum, in January 2021.  This ‘reset’ would be based on economic restructuring built around sustainable development. The ‘market’ would be steered towards new outcomes; investments would advance equality and sustainability; and a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ would be launched to address health and social issues.

The ‘reset’ has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the corporate world.  Goldman Sachs has developed “a framework for investing after Covid-19,’ which it regards as a “rule-changing” and an “existential event where capital needs to find new homes.”  Retooling, winners and losers, new learning, and filling empty spaces created by failed businesses are some of the key phrases in a research paper on how Goldman Sachs (which would have collapsed in 2007-9 but for the $12.9 billion it received in the ‘bailout’ of that time) plans to be part of ‘The Great Reset.’[7]

The ‘reset’ is top-down management by the same institutions and corporations that created and kept alive a failing economic order for as long as they could and only accepted change when the system was on the point of collapse. The First Industrial Revolution did not lead to social equity and balance but to children working in coal mines for ten hours a day or losing their fingers in the spinning jenny at the textile factory.

The notion now, that those who have exploited humanity in every age are about to become its benefactors, is amusing but not to be taken seriously. The promises of great health, social and environmental benefits made by the architects of the ‘great reset’ and the Fourth Industrial Revolution are no more than the sales pitch for the restructuring of the old economic order.

Just like the old order, the new one is destined to serve the money and power interests of governments, institutions and corporations stratospherically above the interests of the people. The economic and social debris of the old world, the collapsed businesses, the millions of jobs lost (almost half the working age population of the US is presently unemployed) and the countless lives destroyed will be cleared away, leaving the corporations, protected, refinanced, and coming through unscathed, to fill Goldman Sachs’ empty spaces.

There could not be a ‘great reset’ without the pandemic. With the consent of the people, fear bordering on hysteria has been used to turn ‘liberal democracies’ into working models of authoritarian states.  The world has been subjected to a training exercise for the balance between state and society once the world has been reset.  State intervention and micro- surveillance will be generally accepted as part of the ‘new normal.’ Consensual authoritarianism will prevail.  Rights and responsibilities will be reversed: even more than previously, it will be the right of the state to intervene and the responsibility of the individual to obey.

The leaders 

Finally, the background and personalities of the politicians who have locked down Australia raise questions of their own. Internationally, Scott Morrison, the prime minister, was last seen on holiday in Hawaii, a big smile on his face and frangipani wreathing his head, Nero-like, as large parts of Australia burnt down.  The folly of his behavior might have finished him off had not the virus given him the opportunity to renew himself as a national leader.

Politically, Morrison is an arch-conservative; religiously, he is a Christian fundamentalist, a Pentacostalist who regularly attends Sydney’s Horizon Church.  The Pentecostalists believe in the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible and ‘prosperity theology,’ acording to which the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich.  They also believe in miracles, faith healing through the laying on of hands and the vocal gifts of ‘glossolalic’ utterances, otherwise known as speaking in tongues, and xenoglossia, which is speaking or writing in a language noone else can (yet) understand.

In Morrison’s political life there is little of the mercy, compassion and humility usually associated with Christianity.  As Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in 2014, he did his best to stop asylum seekers from reaching Australia and was accused by the Australian Human Rights Commission of falling down on his responsibilities under international law to protect children being kept in detention. He has denied that there was ever slavery in Australia, in complete ignorance of the 19th century ‘blackbirding’ of tens of thousands of Pacfic islanders, tricked into coming to Queensland to work on plantations as indentured laborers or the indigenous people exploited by church missions. He opposes gay marriage and has upheld the ‘right’ of religious schools under the Sex Discrimination Act to expel gay or lesbian students.

In foreign affairs he has further cemented Australia’s place as a camp follower of the US, whatever it decides to do. On Palestine, his government has recognized West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has tried to block the prosecution of Israelis for war crimes at the International Criminal Court.  In late June only the Marshall Islands and Australia voted against resolutions tabled by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) opposing Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.

Morrison has signaled that if the US decides to go to war against Iran he will “seriously consider” Australia joining it.  Australia hosts a number of US military/communications bases, is fully inside the current US military-economic ‘pivot’ against China and Morrison has just announced a $270 billion ‘defense’ program for a “dangerous and disorderly post-COVID19 world” policy fashioned around the ‘threat’ from China.  Here the virus is again used as cover, this time to justify massive (in Australian terms”) ‘defence’ spending.

Both Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne have made numerous public statements that could only antagonize China.  In late June the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Security Organization (ASIO) raided the home and office of an NSW Labor Party MP, Shaoquette Mosolmane, on the basis of an allegation that the office had been infiltrated by a Chinese government agent. Although no evidence was presented and no charges laid, Mosolmane was immediately suspended from the Labor Party.  The raid would have had to have been authorized by Morrison. These developments plus the accusation that Wuhan was the source of the COVID-19 virus have directly fed public and media anti-Chinese sentiments.

In the private sector, Morrison was hired as the director of New Zealand’s Office of Tourism and Sport in 1998 but ‘let go’ in 2000 with a year of his contract still to run, after criticism of the board’s conduct and performance by the Auditor-General. In 2004 he was taken on as managing director of Tourism Australia by the Howard government and, again, ‘let go’ in 2006   a year before his contract ended, after complaints of $184 million being awarded in contracts without proper assessment that the organization was getting value for money. The fact that a federal Liberal Party government let Morrison go is a fair enough indication that what he did wrong was serious. In 2007 he entered federal parliament after a dirty election campaign which saw him collaborating with a Labor Party figure, Sam Dastyari, to do in a rival within his own party.

While Morrison presents himself as a man of the people, as an open, good-hearted suburban dad, he has a tainted background in business, has engaged in underhand behavior in politics, has shown no empathy with the wretched of the earth in line with the tenets of the Christian faith he professes and has played on public biases and fears to advance his own political interests.

Daniel Andrews, the Victorian Premier, comes across as a far cleaner figure, if increasingly out of his depth in the handling of the pandemic.  He also has a religious background, as a Catholic, but a progressive one. He supports abortion on demand, has opened safe injection rooms for drug addicts and has legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill.   Nevertheless, his close daily control of the messages coming out of the government and increasingly authoritarian management style have earned him the nickname of “Chairman Dan.’

The consequences

So far the federal Australian government has spent $138 billion to support workers and businesses, but many – especially in the hospitality sector – have received little or no financial support and will either not be able to reopen their businesses or will reopen them saddled with years of debt.  In May unemployment had jumped in one month from 5.2 percent to 6.2 percent of the work force, with 600,000 people losing their jobs in April and a further 230,000 in May.   At 13.8 percent, youth unemployment was especially high.   The ABS statistics show that about 2.7 million workers – one in five of the work force – ‘left’ their employment in March-April or had their hours reduced.   According to current predictions, unemployment will reach 10 percent.

The financial costs incurred in the name of suppressing the virus are likely to set Australian economic development back for decades.  The social costs and medical costs are yet to come in.  These would cover the number of people whose medical needs have been disrupted by the single-minded focus on COVID-19, and those whose health has been worsened by isolation, loneliness and the inability to maintain businesses and provide for their families, leading in some cases, without any doubt, to suicide.

Victorians, and Australians more generally, need to do the right thing, the decent thing, and ask questions instead of docilely accepting what they are being told, much of it misleading and lacking context.  Overall, the question eventually to be asked may not be whether the cure was worse than the disease, but how much worse it was.

وليد جنبلاط والصمود بوجه «الشموليّة الشرقيّة» ‏

Image result for ‫وليد جنبلاط كرتون‬‎

ناصر قنديل

أشار رئيس ​الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي​ النائب السابق ​وليد جنبلاط​ في تصريح له عبر ​وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي​، إلى أننا «سنصمد بهدوء لكن بحزم، سنصمد في مواجهة ​التصحّر​ والتدمير وتغيير الهوية، سنصمد في مواجهة الشموليّة الشرقيّة دفاعاً عن حرية الفكر والمعتقد والمبادرة الفردية، سنصمد أمام تسخير ​القضاء​ وتطويعه، سنصمد في مواجهة الاستيلاء على القرار الوطني اللبناني المستقل، سنصمد أياً كانت الصعاب ولن نستسلم». ومناقشة جنبلاط هنا هي مناقشة لمن يحاول منح البعد الفكري والثقافي لمعارك يشترك معه بخوضها آخرون، لا يجيدون فعل ذلك، فيأتي كلامهم دون مستوى السياسة، فيكون سوقياً مرات وطفولياً مرات، ومراهقاً أو غرائزياً أو فاضحاً للنيات أغلب المرات، ويبقى جنبلاط أثقفهم وأحذقهم فيستحقّ النقاش.

كلام جنبلاط يربط بلغة اللعب على العقل اللاواعي بين الشرق كوجهة جغرافيّة، وبين أنظمة الحكم الاستبداديّة في الذاكرة الإنسانية التي حكمته، فيستنبط معادلة الشمولية الشرقية، ويربط من جهة موازية الدعوة للتوجه شرقاً بمحاولة تغيير الهوية، ويعلن حرباً هادئة لكن حازمة، لحماية حرية الفكر والمعتقد من جهة والقرار الوطني المستقل من جهة مقابلة، فهل يستقيم الربط الأول والربط الثاني كي يستقيم الإعلان الوارد ثالثاً، واللعبة بين الظلال والضوء والمفردات والذاكرة، فالمنادى به عملياً هو التوجّه الاقتصادي نحو الصين، وبالتوازي التوجه للتعاون التجاري مع سورية والعراق، وليس مطروحاً على الإطلاق أن يكون ذلك على طريقة الانقلاب على العلاقات مع سائر الأسواق العربية والدولية، فما هي صلته بالشمولية وبتغيير الهوية وحرية المعتقد والفكر والقرار الوطني المستقل؟

الهوية التي يتحدّث عنها جنبلاط هي ضمناً العادات الاستهلاكيّة للفرد اللبناني التي تطبّعت على الأحادية الغربية، وربما تبقى كذلك. فالعالم كله مستغرق في هذه العادات، بغض النظر عن صحتها أم لا، الصين مستغرقة فيها، ولم تتغير هويتها كي تغيِّرنا، وفي أميركا بالتأكيد فإن كل الأميركيين يعيشون صرعاتها وصرخاتها، لكنها لم تشكل لهم هم هوية لتشكل لنا هوية نخشى عليها، وإلا علام ينفجر المجتمع الأميركي وتنتصب الحواجز بين مكوّناته وتسقط مشاريع الاندماج على جدار العنصرية، إن لم يكن على صراع هويات لم يحسم أمرها، ماكدونالد ولا هوليوود ولا البوب والجاز والجينز، فأي هوية ستغير فينا المتاجرة مع الصين أو التوجّه لاستقطاب شركاتها نحو إقامة مشاريع سكك حديديّة وتطوير مرافئ وإقامة مدينة لصناعة المعرفة والتكنولوجيا الحديثة، وهل غيّر اعتماد مرفأ بوسطن ومثله مرفأ أمستردام على الشركات الصينية هوية الدول الغربية؟ وهل غيّرت تفاهمات الجيل الخامس لتكنولوجيا الاتصالات بين شركة هواوي الصينية والدول والشركات الغربيّة هوية أحد؟

السؤال عن حرية الفكر والمعتقد والمبادرة الفردية، إيحاء بنظام اقتصادي سياسي ثمة من يسعى لاستيراده إلى لبنان، ومعه الإيحاء بمخاطر على الاستقلال الوطني والقرار الوطني المستقل، والاشتغال هنا يتم على ربط رموز إيحائية ببعضها، فصاحب الدعوة هو حزب الله، الملتزم بولاية الفقيه، التي تشكل قاعدة الحكم في إيران، والقضاء الذي يجري التأشير نحوه، هو القاضي محمد مازح بعد قراره الخاص بتصريحات السفيرة الأميركيّة، ولكن لعبة الترميز هذه تسقط بمجرد نقلها من العتمة إلى الضوء، ومفتاحها تفكيك قضية القاضي مازح و”مشروع حزب الله” لمصادرة حرية المعتقد، وحكاية القرار الوطني المستقلّ المهدّد من تجارة مع الصين، وليس من تحكم استبدادي لا يسري على دول حلف الأطلسي، تفرضه واشنطن ويطيعها سياسيون لبنانيون ويرفعون التبعية الذليلة للفيتو الأميركي إلى مرتبة نظرية الشرف الوطني.

السؤال البسيط في قضية القاضي مازح هو، إذا كان حزب الله وراء موقف القاضي مازح في مسعى تهديد الحرية وتسخير القضاء، فقد أسقط بيد القاضي مازح من قلب مؤسسة الدولة، فهذا يعني أن حزب الله أضعف من أن يمثل قوة قائدة للدولة، وهذا يتكرّر معه بمثل ما جرى في قضية تهريب العميل عامر فاخوري، وإذا كان حزب الله قوياً وقادراً لكنه لم يفعل شيئاً لترجمة توجهات مخالفة لما انتهت عليه الصورة، فهذا يسقط مبرر الخوف المزعوم من وجود مشروع لتسخير القضاء ومصادرة حرية الرأي والفكر والمعتقد، حتى عندما يكون الرأي والفكر هما العمالة والإجرام بعينهما، كما هو الحال في قضية الفاخوري. أما حكاية القرار الوطني المستقل، فهي بالضبط ما تنشده الدعوة للتوجّه شرقاً، لأن الخضوع للحملة التي تنظمها الدبلوماسية الأميركية ضد تطوير العلاقات مع الصين، والعقوبات التي تفرضها على العلاقات مع سورية، هي بعينها مصادرة القرار الوطني المستقل، أليس لافتاً أن دولاً في حلف الأطلسي كتركيا تتجرأ على تنويع مصادر سلاحها، خلافاً لمقاصد التهديدات الأميركية، وتشتري من روسيا منظومة دفاع جويّ، قالت لها الدراسات العسكرية انها الأفضل، وهو وضع يشبه حال لبنان المنتهك عسكرياً كل يوم بجولات طيران جيش الاحتلال، لكن الفارق أن في تركيا يتفوق القرار الوطني المستقل، وفي لبنان يتفوّق الخضوع، وقد سمعنا سياسيين كباراً يحذرون من تنويع سلاح الجيش اللبناني، ومنهم جنبلاط نفسه، دفاعاً عن القرار الوطني المستقل!

يبقى موضع التوجّه نحو سورية، وهو أمر يدرك جنبلاط القارئ الجيد لتاريخ لبنان، أنه جزء مكوّن ملازم وتأسيسيّ في كل نقاش سياسي بعيد عن النرجسية والعقد والحسابات الضيقة والأحقاد، فالجغرافيا مستبدّة كما يقول بسمارك وصانعة للتاريخ كما يقول نابليون بونابرت، ولبنان في الجغرافيا غارق في حضن سورية، وتاريخ لبنان يقول في السياسة سلماً وحرباً بحثاً عن حليف يحمي أو عن وسيط يصالح ويرعى، وفي الاقتصاد هرباً من الجوع أو طلباً للازدهار، وفي الاجتماع الإنساني بحثاً عن الملجأ أو تشبيكاً في العائلات، كانت سورية دائماً هي الوجهة الحتمية للبنانيين، ففي السبعينيات قصدتها القيادات المسيحية عندما شعرت بخطر داهم، وفي الثمانينيات قصدها جنبلاط عندما استشعر الخطر، وفي المرتين قصدها الجميع اقتصادياً واجتماعياً كملجأ من الحرب والحصار الناجم عن تداعياتها. وهذه الحقيقة الجغرافية تاريخية، كانت وهي قائمة وستبقى.

الأمر ببساطة أن هناك من حيث يدري أو لا يدري، يواكب نغمة يريد لها الأميركيون أن تسود بين اللبنانيين، نموت في الظل الأميركي ولا نمد يدنا طلباً لشربة ماء، والأميركي لا يرحم ولا يترك رحمة الله تنزل علينا، ويخاطبنا بلغة “رماه في اليم مكتوفاً وقال له إياك ثم إياك أن تبتل بالماء”، أو “صحيح لا تقسم ومقسوم لا تاكل وكول وشباع”، بينما المطلوب ببساطة الانفتاح بلغة مشتركة بين اللبنانيين على صمود من نوع مختلف عن الذي تحدّث عنه جنبلاط، صمود بوجه الجائحة الاقتصادية، بمبادرات ومشاريع ورؤى، لا تنتمي لمشاريع تهدد القرار الوطني المستقل وتمسّ السيادة فعلاً، وكل إقفال لمنافذ التنفس على اللبنانيين يهدف لخنقهم على طريقة جورج فلويد، الذي صرخ لا أستطيع التنفس، والتوجه شرقاً مشروع تنفس لأجل الصمود. هو بالمناسبة بعض بسيط من دعوات تاريخيّة للمفكر الكبير الراحل كمال جنبلاط، الذي وجد في سحر ثقافة الشرق شيئاً آخر غير الشمولية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مواضيع متعلقة

Does the next Presidential election even matter?

Source

President Barack Obama and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden head toward the Capitol Platform during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. More than 5,000 military members from across all branches of the armed forces of the United States, including reserve and National Guard components, provided ceremonial support and Defense Support of Civil Authorities during the inaugural period. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)

THE SAKER • JULY 2, 2020

Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let’s begin here.

The 2016 election of Donald Trump

The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power. I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever. My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling “elites” did both before and after Trump’s election: before, they ridiculed the very idea of “President Trump” as both utterly impossible and utterly evil.

As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to. Then, as soon as he was elected, the US neo-liberals (who are not liberals at all!) declared that Trump was “not their President”, that Trump was put into power by Putin and that he was a “Russian asset” (using pseudo-professional jargon is what journos typically do to conceal their abject ignorance of a complex topic) and, finally, that he was a White racist and misogynist who will deeply divide the country (thereby dividing the country themselves by making such claims).

The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump and it would be absolutely unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide. For the US Dems and neo-liberals, Trump is the personification of evil, literally, and that means that “resistance” to him and everything he represents must be total. And if he is re-elected, then there is only one possible explanation: the Russians stole the election, or the Chinese did. But the notion that Trump has the support of a majority of people is literally unthinkable for these folks.

Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he even worse than Obama? Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system. In my personal opinion, and for all his very real sins and failings, Trump, at least, did not start a major war, which Obama did, and which Hillary would have done (can’t prove this, but that is my personal belief). That by itself, and totally irrespective of anything else, makes me believe that Trump has been a “lesser evil” (even if far more ridiculous) President than Obama has been or Hillary would have been. This is what I believed four years ago and this is what I still believe: considering how dangerous for the entire planet “President Hillary” would have been, voting for Trump was not only the only logical thing to do, it was the only moral one too because giving your voice to a warmongering narcissistic hyena like Hillary is a profoundly immoral act (yes, I know, Trump is also a narcissist – most politicians are! – but at least his warmongering has been all hot air and empty threats, at least so far). However, I don’t think that this (not having started a major war) will be enough to get Trump re-elected.

Why?

Because most Americans still like wars. In fact, they absolutely love them. Unless, of course, they lose. What Americans really want is a President who can win wars, not a President who does not initiate them in the first place. This is also the most likely reason why Trump did not start any major wars: the US has not won a real war in decades and, instead, it got whipped in every conflict it started. Americans hate losing wars, and that is why Trump did not launch any wars: it would have been political suicide to start a real war against, say, the DPRK or Iran. So while I am grateful that Trump did not start any wars, I am not naive to the point of believing that he did so for pure and noble motives. Give Trump an easy victory and he will do exactly what all US Presidents have done in the past: attack, beat up the little guy, and then be considered like a “wartime President hero” by most Americans. The problem is that there are no more “little guys” left out there: only countries who can, and will, defend themselves if attacked.

The ideology of messianic imperialism which permeates the US political culture is still extremely powerful and deep seated and it will take years, probably decades, to truly flush it down to where it belongs: to the proverbial trash-heaps of history. Besides, in 2020 Americans have much bigger concerns than war vs. peace – at least that is what most of them believe. Between the Covid19 pandemic and the catastrophic collapse of the economy (of course, while the former certainly has contributed to the latter, it did not single-handedly cause it) and now the BLM insurgency, most Americans now feel personally threatened – something which no wars of the past ever did (a war against Russia very much would, but most Americans don’t realize that, since nobody explains this to them; they also tend to believe that nonsense about the US military being the best and most capable in history).

Following four years of uninterrupted flagwaving and MAGA-chanting there is, of course, a hardcore of true believers who believe that Trump is nothing short of brilliant and that he will “kick ass” everything and everybody: from the spying Russians, to the rioting Blacks, from the pandemic, to the lying media, etc. The fact that in reality Trump pitifully failed to get anything truly important done is completely lost on these folks who live in a reality they created for themselves and in which any and all facts contradicting their certitudes are simply explained away by silly stuff like “Q-anon” or “5d chess”. Others, of course, will realize that Trump “deflated” before those whom he called “the swamp” almost as soon as he got into the White House.

As for the almighty Israel Lobby, it seems to me that it squeezed all it could from Trump who, from the point of view of the Zionists, was always a “disposable President” anyway. And now that Trump has done everything Israel wanted him to do, he becomes almost useless. If anything, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them will try to outdo Trump’s love for everything Israeli anyway.

So how much support is there behind Trump today? I really don’t know (don’t trust the polls, which have always been deeply wrong about Trump anyway), but I think that there is definitely a constituency of truly frightened Americans who are freaking out (as they should, considering the rapid collapse of the country) and who might vote Trump just because they will feel that for all his faults, he is the only one who can save the country. Conversely, they will see Biden as a pro-BLM geriatric puppet who will hand the keys of the White House to a toxic coalition of minorities.

So what if Trump does get re-elected?

In truth, the situation is so complex and there are so many variables (including many “unknown unknowns”!) that make predictions impossible. Still, we can try to make some educated guesses, especially if based on some kind of logic such as the one which says that “past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior”. In other words, if Trump gets elected, we will get more of the same. Personally, I would characterize this “same” as a further destruction of the US from within by the Democrats and their “coalition of minorities” combined with a further destruction of the US Empire abroad by delusional Republicans.

I very much doubt that it makes any sense at all to vote for that, really. Better stay at home and do something worthwhile with your time, no?

Now what about a Biden election?

Remember that Biden is now the de-facto leader of what I would loosely call the “anti-US coalition”, that is the “coalition of minorities” which really have nothing in common except their hatred of the established order (well, and, of course, their hatred of Trump and of those who voted for him).

These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don’t count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions – it ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, but even more important is the fact that these folks all have a hyper-narrow agenda and, simply put, they don’t care about “constructing” anything. These folks are all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.

This also begs the question of why the Dems decided to go with Biden in spite of the fact that he is clearly an extremely weak candidate. In spite? I am not so sure at all. I think that they chose him because he is so weak: the real power behind him will be in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.

Unlike Trump who prostituted himself only after making it to the White House, the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US homo-lobby. Don’t expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country and most of its people and they are not shy about it.

What would happen to the US if the likes of Bloomberg or Harris took control? First, there would be the comprehensive surrender to the various minorities which put these folks in power followed by a very strong blowback from all the “deplorables” ranging from protests and civil disobedience, to local authorities refusing to take orders from the feds. Like it or not, but most Americans still love their country and loathe the kind of pseudo-liberal ideology which has been imposed upon them by the joint actions of the US deep state and the corporate world. There is even a strong probability that if Biden gets elected the USA’s disintegration would only accelerate.

On the international front, a Biden Presidency would not solve any of the problems created by Obama and Trump: by now it is way too late and the damage done to the international reputation of the United States is irreparable. If anything, the Dems will only make it worse by engaging in even more threats, sanctions and wars. Specifically, the Demolicans hate Russia, China and Iran probably even more than the Republicrats. Besides, these countries have already concluded a long time ago that the US was “not agreement capable” anyway (just look at the long list of international treaties and organization from which the US under Trump has withdrawn: what is the point of negotiating anything with a power which systematically reneges on its promises and obligations?)

The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably even faster than under a re-elected Trump.

Which brings me to my main conclusion:

Why do we even bother having elections?

First, I don’t think that the main role of a democracy is to protect minorities from majorities. A true democracy protects the majority against the many minorities which typically have a one-issue agenda and which are typically hostile to the values of the majority. Oh sure, minority rights should be protected, the question is how exactly?

For one thing, most states have some kind of constitution/basic law which sets a number of standards which cannot be violated as long as this constitution/basic law is in force. Furthermore, in most states which call themselves democratic all citizens have the same rights and obligations, and a minority status does not give anybody any special rights or privileges. Typically, there are also fundamental international standards for human rights and fundamental national standards for civil rights. Minority rights (individual or collective), however, are not typically considered a separate category which somehow trumps or supplements adopted norms for human and civil rights (if only because it creates a special “minority” category, whereas in true “people power” all citizens are considered as one entity).

It is quite obvious that neither the Republicrats nor the Demolicans represent the interests of “we the people” and that both factions of the US plutocracy are under the total control of behind-the-scenes real powers. What happened four years ago was a colossal miscalculation of these behind-the-scenes real powers who failed to realize how hated they were and how even a guy like Trump would seem preferable to a nightmare like Hillary (as we know, had the Dems chosen Sanders or even some other halfway lame candidate, Trump would probably not have prevailed).

This is why I submit that the next election will make absolutely no difference:

  1. The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people
  2. The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all
  3. The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

Simply put, and unlike the case of 2016, the outcome of the 2020 election will make no difference at all. Caring about who the next puppet in the White House will be is tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. The major difference is that the Titanic sank in very deep water whereas the “ship USA” will sink in the shallows, meaning that the US will not completely disappear: in some form or another, it will survive either as a unitary state or as a number of successor states. The Empire, however, has no chance of survival at all. Thus, anything which contributes to make the US a “normal” country and which weakens the Empire is in the interests of the people of the USA. Voting for either one of the candidates this fall will only prolong the agony of the current political regime in the USA.

التوجّه شرقاً بدءاً بالعراق والصين…‏ بين إيجابياته وصدمة التابعين لأميركا

حسن حردان

في لحظة بلوغ الأزمة الاقتصاديّة والمعيشيّة والخدماتيّة والنقديّة الذروة مع ارتفاع سعر صرف الدولار إلى نحو عشرة آلاف ليرة، إلى جانب التقنين القاسي في التيار الكهربائي… وسيادة شعور عام لدى اللبنانيين باليأس والإحباط من إمكانيّة وضع حدّ لهذا المسار الكارثي بالنسبة لهم.. لغياب أيّ خطوات عملية تفتح أفقاً للخروج من نفق الأزمة.. في هذه اللحظة ظهر بصيص أمل حقيقي تجلّى في تجرّؤ الحكومة اللبنانيّة على كسر ما اعتبرته قوى وجماعات متأمركة أنه من المحرمات، وراحت تهوّل من خطر الإقدام عليه… وهو اتخاذ الحكومة خطوات عمليّة بالتوجّه نحو الشرق، بدءاً بالعراق والصين، وهو ما تجسّد…

أولاً، لقاءات صينيّة لبنانيّة مكثّفة، سبقها رسائل من الشركات الصينيّة للحكومة تبدي الاستعداد للاستثمار في تنفيذ مشاريع البنّية التحتيّة وفق نظام BOT وقد تناولت اللقاءات بين رئيس الحكومة حسان دياب والوزراء المعنيين مع الوفد الصيني المرافق للسفير الصيني وانغ كيجيان تعزيز الشراكة بين لبنان والصين في سياق مشروع الحزام والطريق… وتنفيذ مشاريع معامل الكهرباء والنفايات وسكة الحديد…

ثانياً، لقاءات عراقيّة لبنانيّة، بين وفد وزاري عراقي ونظرائه اللبنانيين ركزت على سبل التعاون المشترك، لا سيما لناحية مقايضة المنتجات اللبنانية بالنفط والفيول من العراق، حيث أبدى الوفد العراقي استعداداً لذلك…

هذا التطوّر الهامّ في توجّه الحكومة العملي لمعالجة الأزمة يأتي بعد أن سُدّت كلّ المنافذ أمامها لمعالجة الأزمة وباتت تواجه اشتداداً في الحصار الأميركي المصحوب بضغط من المسؤولين الأميركيين لإجبار لبنان على تقديم تنازلات يتخلى بموجبها عن جزء من ثروته النفطية في مياهه الإقليمية لكيان العدو الصهيوني. ويقبل الإصلاحات التي يطالب بها صندوق النقد كشرط لمنح لبنان قرضاً مالياً، وتنفيذ القرار 1559، واستطراداً القبول بعزل ومحاصرة المقاومة وصولاً إلى نزع سلاحها… أيّ باختصار وضع لبنان بين خيارين: البقاء يختنق بالحصار، أو الاستسلام الكامل للهيمنة الأميركية، بالتخلي عن عوامل قوّته المجسّدة بمقاومته، وجزء من ثرواته…

في موازاة ذلك لجأ الأميركي والفريق التابع له في لبنان إلى شنّ حرب الدولار المصحوبة بترهيب وإخافة الحكومة من الإقدام على التوجّه شرقاً، للخروج من قيود الحصار وإيجاد منافذ جديدة لحلّ أزمات لبنان بعيداً عن أيّ شروط تمسّ بسيادة واستقلال لبنان، وتنتهك كرامته الوطنية…

لكن ما أن سلكت الحكومة طريق التوجّه شرقاً وبدأ اللبنانيون يلمسون فعلياً أنّ هناك إمكانية لتحقيق تطلعاتهم بحلّ أزماتهم المزّمنة بما يحفظ لهم كرامتهم ويحرّرهم من لعبة الدولار، ويضع حداً للتلاعب بلقمة عيشهم… حتى أصيبت القوى والجماعات المتأمركة بالصدمة والذهول… فراحت تقلّل من أهمية هذه الخطوات العمليّة لإخراج الاقتصاد من أزمته ومعه إخراج اللبنانيين من أزماتهم الخدماتيّة والإحباط واليأس الذي خيّم عليهم… ولم يجد اتباع أميركا غير ادّعاء أنّ الحكومة «تسير بسيناريو جديد ومتكرّر، من النفط مقابل الغذاء، مختلف لكن النتيجة واحدة، ففي بلد لا نفط فيه ولا صناعة لا أسواق ولا تجارة… فقط قليل من الزراعة، تصبح المعادلة، انصياع مقابل النفط، وانتقال إلى ضفة الشرق مقابل المنتجات الأساسية، أما المشاريع الاستثماريّة في الطاقة والسكك الحديد وغيرها فلا وقت لها… الظروف لا تسمح بها، فالكرامة أولاً، والعزة ثانياً، والأكل ثالثاً».

غير أنّ أيّ إنسان بسيط يدرك أنّ هذا الكلام لا يعكس الواقع، للأسباب التالية…

السبب الأول، أنّ معادلة النفط مقابل الغذاء، التي طبّقت خلال حصار العراق، لا تنطبق على ما جرى من اتفاق مبدئي مع الوفد العراقي، يقضي بحصول لبنان على احتياجاته من النفط والفيول، مقابل أن يحصّل العراق ثمن ذلك منتجات لبنانية زراعية وصناعية ومنح تعليمية وخدمات صحية إلخ… وهو ما يؤدي إلى تحقيق نتيجتين إيجابيتين بالنسبة للبنان.

النتيجة الأولى، الحدّ من استنزاف ما تبقى من دولارات في مصرف لبنان، وتقليص فاتورة الاستيراد…

والنتيجة الثانية، تصريف الإنتاج اللبناني الذي يعاني من صعوبة تصدير منتجاته… وهو ما ينعكس تنشيطاً للزراعة والصناعة، وتحسين الوضع الاقتصادي وتوفير فرص عمل للعاطلين، واستطراداً تحسين الوضع المعيشي للبنانيين العاملين في القطاعات المنتجة، وهم يشكّلون شريحة كبيرة من الشعب…

السبب الثاني، وضع لبنان للمرة الأولى منذ أربعين عاماً على سكة إعادة تأهيل وبناء بناه التحتية المهترئة ولا تلبّي التطّور العمّراني والسكّاني ولا حاجات لبنان المطلوبة للنهوض الاقتصادي وتطوير قطاعه السياحي، الذي يعتمد على خدمات متطوّرة ومريحة… فعندما تقوم الشركات الصينية بتنفيذ مشاريع بناء معامل حديثة للكهرباء والنفايات، وإنشاء شبكة سكك حديد تصل المناطق اللبنانية بعضها ببعض وبالجوار العربي، فهذا سيكون له بكلّ تأكيد نتائج هامة على عدة مستويات…

مستوى أول، وضع وحدّ لأزمة اللبنانيين المزمنة مع تقنين الكهرباء وبالتالي التخفيف من الأعباء الضريبية عليهم بمجرد انتفاء الحاجة إلى دفع فاتورتين واحدة للمولد وأخرى للدولة…

مستوى ثان، إنّ تأمين الكهرباء 24/24 ينعكس إيجاباً على القطاع الصناعي والشركات بتقليص كلفة الإنتاج…

مستوى ثالث، إنّ حلّ مشكلة النفايات عبر إنشاء معامل حديثة، يُخلّص اللبنانيون من التلوث والأمراض الناتجة عنه، ويؤدي إلى تحويل النفايات إلى سماد وغاز وكهرباء…

مستوى رابع، إنّ إنشاء سكك الحديد ونفق بيروت ـ البقاع سوف يحدّ من هدر الوقت على الطرقات نتيجة زحمة السير الحالية، ويسهّل سرعة وحركة انتقال المنتوجات الزراعية والناس بين العاصمة والمناطق مما يخفض من كلفة الإنتاج، ويقود إلى الحدّ من استخدام السيارات، وإعادة انعاش الريف والحدّ من الهجرة إلى المدن الرئيسية وتمركز السكان فيها، لا سيما إذا تمّ النهوض بالزراعة وبناء معامل لتعليب المنتوجات الزراعية وصناعة السكر إلخ…

إنّ هذه النتائج المتوقع أنّ تتمخض عن التعاون الاقتصادي بين العراق ولبنان، وعن المشاريع التي ستنفذها الشركات الصينية، هو ما يجعل أميركا والقوى التابعة لها في حالة من الصدمة والارتباك والتخبّط، لأنّ الاتجاه شرقاً سيكسر الحصار الأميركي وينهي ورقة حرب الدولار ومحاولة استغلال الأزمة المعيشية والخدماتية التي تستخدم الآن لإخضاع اللبنانيين وحكومتهم، وتحرّر لبنان من الابتزاز الأميركي…

ولهذا فإنّ بدء الخطوات العملية في مسار التوجّه شرقاً أدّى سريعاً إلى انعكاسات إيجابية تجسّدت بتراجع سعر صرف الدولار من حوالى عشرة آلاف إلى ما دون الثمانية آلاف.. الأمر الذي يؤكد أنّ ارتفاع سعر الدولار ناتج عن حرب سياسية، وليس له علاقة بسعره الاقتصادي الحقيقي…

ولهذا من المتوقع مع وصول السلة الغذائية المدعومة من الدولة إلي الأسواق أن يتراجع تأثير سعر الدولار على الوضع المعيشي.. فكيف الوضع سيكون عندما يبدأ لبنان استيراد النفط والفيول من العراق، ويوقّع الاتفاقات مع الشركات الصينيّة، من المؤكد سوف يؤدّي ذلك إلى تراجع الطلب على الدولار…

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

لبنان التوجه شرقاً

رسائل رسميّة من الصين إلى لبنان: جاهزون للاستثمار في الكهرباء وسكّة الحديد

فراس الشوفي

 الجمعة 3 تموز 2020

رسائل رسميّة من الصين إلى لبنان: جاهزون للاستثمار في الكهرباء وسكّة الحديد
سرّع «فائض القوّة» الأميركي ضد بيروت وتيرة الانفتاح الصيني ــ اللبناني (هيثم الموسوي)

كسر الاجتماع الحكومي مع السفير الصيني في بيروت رتابة المشهد وانعدام الأفق، مع إعلان الرئيس حسان دياب استعداد لبنان لتلقّف رسائل صينية، وتحويلها إلى التنفيذ. «الأخبار»، تنشر فحوى رسالتين وصلتا إلى الحكومة قبل 10 أيام، تؤكد فيهما عشر شركات صينية ضخمة استعدادها للاستثمار في مشاريع بنى تحتية في لبنان، رغم الأزمة المالية التي يمر بهابعد أسبوع على وصول رسائل حاسمة من كبريات الشركات الصينية إلى الحكومة اللبنانية، مبديةً استعدادها للاستثمار في مشاريع البنية التحتيّة اللبنانية على نطاق واسع، عقد رئيس الحكومة حسّان دياب، أمس، اجتماعاً ضمّ وزراء البيئة والصناعة والأشغال والنقل والسياحة والطاقة، مع السفير الصيني في بيروت وانغ كيجيان، ناقشوا خلالها المشاريع التي يمكن لبكّين أن تساعد لبنان عبرها لتطوير بناه التحتيّة.

ويشكّل اجتماع أمس، ودعوة السفير الصيني إلى اجتماع واسع من هذا النوع، علامة فارقة في مسيرة الحكومة، بعد أشهرٍ من التعثّر، وانعطافة رسمية لبنانية لم تحصل منذ زمنٍ طويل، نحو الانفتاح على طروحات بعيدة عن «التعليب» الموجّه إلى الخيارات الغربية.

خطوة الحكومة، وإن كانت أوليّة، إلّا أنها ستفاقم نقمة واشنطن، التي أساساً لا تنوي تقديم أي مساعدة حقيقيّة، ويسود فيها رأي الفريق الرئاسي بحصار لبنان حتى «الذوبان الكلّي» أو «total meltdown»، كما يسميه مسؤول الملفّ السوري وضابط الاستخبارات العسكرية الأميركية جويل ريبورن.

ومنذ رفع الأمين العام لحزب الله السّيد حسن نصر الله صوت «التوجّه شرقاً»، كخيار موازٍ بديل من العبودية للصندوق، تحوّل لبنان إلى ساحة للنّزال الإعلامي بين الدبلوماسية الأميركية والسفارة الصينية في بيروت.
بدأ استنفار واشنطن مع مقابلة مساعد وزير الخارجية لشؤون الشرق الأدنى ديفيد شينكر، ثم تبعته السفيرة دوروثي شيا بتحريض ضد الصين ينبثق من الدعاية التي يروّجها فريق الرئيس دونالد ترامب في حملة التهويل من الخطر الصيني على العالم، مع تعاظم الصراع الاقتصادي والسياسي بين القوّتين. بالتوازي، نشأت في لبنان حملة تسخيف وشيطنة للدور الصيني. ولعلّ ردود الفعل هذه تعبّر تماماً عن مدى القلق الأميركي من انفتاح أي أفق جديد في البلد، يُفقد الحصار فعاليته وشروط صندوق النقد حصريتها، وهي دليلٌ إضافي على جديّة الطرح الصيني، إلى ما هو أبعد من تفاصيل الأزمة اللبنانية.

فبدل أن يساهم الضغط الأميركي على لبنان والمنطقة عموماً، في عرقلة مبادرة «حزام وطريق» (إلى حين)، كما حصل في فلسطين المحتلّة بعد زيارة وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو ولقائه رئيس وزراء العدو بنيامين نتنياهو وإبلاغه إياه تحذيراً من ترامب حول التعاون مع الصين، سرّع «فائض القوّة» الأميركي ضد بيروت وتيرة الانفتاح الصيني ــــ اللبناني المتبادل.
وفي تفاصيل الاجتماع، علمت «الأخبار» أن كيجيان قدّم شرحاً حول آلية عمل الشركات الحكومية والخاصة الصينية، وآليات منح قروض الاستثمار، وجرى النقاش مع كلّ وزير حول المشاريع التي تعني وزارته، من سكك الحديد ومعالجة المياه والكهرباء إلى معالجة النفايات والمشاريع الصناعية، فيما كلّف دياب وزير الصناعة عماد حب الله بمتابعة ملفّ التعاون مع الشركات الصينية. وبحسب مصادر في رئاسة الحكومة، فإن «الاجتماع كان إيجابياً للغاية، والرئيس دياب أكّد أننا لا نريد أن نتوجّه نحو الشرق أو الغرب، لكنّنا منفتحون على كلّ ما يساعد بلدنا وكل من يريد أن يستثمر فيه».

رسالتان وموافقة من «سينوشور»

وحصلت «الأخبار» على نسختين عن رسالتين تلقتهما الحكومة اللبنانية الثلاثاء الماضي، تؤكّد فيهما عشر شركات صينية ضخمة، بقيادة الشركة العملاقة «ساينو هيدرو» (SINOHYDRO)، استعدادها الفوري للاستثمار في لبنان، وتحديداً في محطتي كهرباء وسكّة الحديد الشاملة.

غير أن الموقف الأبرز في الرسالتين هو تأكيد الشركات اندفاعها نحو الاستثمار في لبنان، على رغم الأوضاع المالية للبلاد، وإعلان لبنان تعثّره عن دفع سنداته الدولية، وفي عزّ المفاوضات مع صندوق النقد الدولي. وتتضمّن الرسالتان تأكيداً على نيّة الصين مساعدة لبنان في تجاوز الأزمة، والمساهمة في الاستقرار المطلوب مع تطوير البنية التحتية. فالشركات العالميّة اليوم، مع إعلان لبنان تعثّره عن دفع السندات، وحالة العملة المحلية، لن تجرؤ على التفكير في الاستثمار في لبنان، من دون ضمانة البنك الدولي، الذي بدوره لن يتجاوز المفاوضات اللبنانية مع صندوق النقد. وبالتالي، فإن ما أعلنته وزيرة الدفاع زينة عكر صحيح من حيث المضمون، بأن أياً من الشركات لن تستثمر في قطاع الكهرباء في لبنان قبل التأكد من موافقة الصندوق. وهذا الأمر ينطبق إجمالاً على مجمل الشركات الكبرى، والصينية منها أيضاً. لكنّه لا ينطبق على المجموعة التي تقودها «ساينو هيدرو»، وهي شركات حكومية صينية، لديها رأسمال ضخم، والعقوبات الأميركية عليها محدودة التأثير. وهنا، تحديداً، تتكشّف الغاية خلف إشارة شينكر إلى الحزب الشيوعي الصيني الذي تستهدفه التصريحات الأميركية بحملات مركّزة هذه الأيام، بعدما نجح الصينيون في خلق بدائل من الشركات الخاصة والحكومية، لتنفيذ المشاريع، رغم العقوبات الأميركية التي تُستخدم كأبرز سلاح في الحروب الاقتصادية ضد الدول، الحليفة منها والمناوئة للولايات المتحدة.

كلّف دياب وزير الصناعة متابعة ملفّ التعاون مع الشركات الصينية


في الرسالة الأولى حول الاهتمام بالكهرباء، يُذكّر تجمّع الشركات بالزيارة التي قام بها ممثّلوه للبنان عام 2019، حيث اطّلعوا على المعطيات المحيطة بأزمة الكهرباء والحاجة إلى المعامل، «لذلك نحن مهتمّون بالاستثمار في هذه المشاريع المهمّة، وتحديداً محطتَي الزهراني ودير عمار». وتذكّر الرسالة الثانية بمذكرة التفاهم الموقّعة مع وزارة الأشغال اللبنانية، حول أعمال سكّة الحديد وقطاع النقل، معلنةً استعدادها لتنفيذ المشاريع التي تتضمّن «تنفيذ خط سكّة حديد من الشمال إلى الجنوب، ونظام النقل العام الضخم في بيروت، ونفق بيروت (ضهر البيدر نحو الحدود السورية) لسكّة الحديد أو للأوتوستراد الدولي، أو كليهما معاً».
وفي الرسالتين، أيضاً، تأكيد من الشركات على الاستعداد للقيام بالمشاريع الآتية:

ــــ محطات للطاقة كهرومائية أو على الغاز والوقود، بالإضافة إلى خطوط نقل الكهرباء.
ــــ محطات للطاقة البديلة (الشمسية أو بقوّة الريح).
ــــ معالجة وتكرير المياه (الشرب، الصرف الصحي والمياه الملوّثة، بما في ذلك نهر الليطاني).
ــــ الطرقات، الطرقات الدولية، سكك الحديد، تطوير المرافئ والمطارات وأنظمة المياه.
ــــ استثمارات في القطاع المالي وأعمال التجارة الدولية.

وفي شرحٍ حول هوية الشركة، تؤكّد الرسالة الثانية أن «سينوهيدرو» التي تأسست في عام 1954، هي الشركة الرقم 11 على مستوى العالم، من بين 225 شركة إنشاءات كبرى، وأكبر شركة طاقة كهرومائية في العالم. إذ تتجاوز حصتّها 50% من مجمل سوق الطاقة الكهرومائية. وسبق للشركة أن نفّذت سكة القطار السريع بكين ــــ شنغهاي، الذي يسير بسرعة 350 كلم/ ساعة، وقطار غويانغ ــــ غونزو بسرعة 300 كلم/ ساعة، ومجموعة واسعة من السكك الحديد ومحطات مترو الأنفاق في الصين، علماً، بأن شركة «سينوماك» (SINOMACH) التي تضمّها المجموعة، لا تقلّ شأناً عن الشركة الأولى، إذ تعدّ واحدة من كبريات الشركات العالمية في مجال تنفيذ الإنشاءات والصناعات المتوسّطة والثقيلة.

ولعلّ أبرز التطوّرات هو سلوك مشروع التعاون مع لبنان طريقه الرسمي والبيروقراطي داخل الصين بشكل متسارع. إذ علمت «الأخبار» أن «سينوهيدرو» حصلت على موافقة على ضمان مشروع سكة الحديد، بناءً على مذكّرة التفاهم الموقّعة مع وزارة الأشغال، من «سينوشور»، وهي هيئة رسمية لـ«ضمان القروض في الصين»، ودورها هو إعطاء الموافقات للشركات الصينية للعمل في الخارج وضمان مشاريعها وتقدّم القروض للدول من الدولة الصينية عبر الشركات الحكومية. وبحسب المعلومات، فإن ممثّلي الشركة يستعدّون لزيارة لبنان، حال سماح الحكومة الصينية لرعاياها بالسفر، وأن ممثّليها جاهزون لإجراء المناقشات مع دياب وأعضاء الحكومة بتقنيات «المؤتمرات بالفيديو»، لتسريع العمل.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

رئيس الحكومة اللبناني يجتمع مع السفير الصيني

البناء

لقاء سابق بين دياب وكيجيان

قال وزير الأشغال اللبناني ميشال نجار اليوم الخميس إن “الصين مستعدة للتعاون وللاستثمار في الكهرباء وسكك الحديد والانفاق والمحارق والنفايات”.

وأكد نجار أن “الحكومة اللبنانية منفتحة على أي مساعدة من أي جهة تأتي”.

كلام نجار جاء بعد اجتماع وزاري ترأسه رئيس الحكومة اللبنانية حسان دياب بحضور السفير الصيني في لبنان وانغ كيجيان.

وأشار مراسل الميادين إلى أن الاجتماع حضره وزراء الصناعة، الاقتصاد، الطاقة، السياحة، البيئة، الأشغال، والنقل اللبنانيين، وقال إن هذا الاجتماع سيستكمل غداً مع وزير الطاقة للبحث في كيفية مساعدة الصين في بناء معامل كهرباء في لبنان، وأن “تكون العلاقة من دولة لدولة بمعنى أن لا يكون هناك مجال لا للهدر ولا للصفقات”، وفق تعبيره.

وقبيل الاجتماع في السراي الحكومي، قال مراسلنا إن “هذا الاجتماع هو الأول من نوعه الذي يعقد بحضور وزراء مختصين، وبالتالي يبدو أن هناك عرضاً جديّاً صينياً للحكومة اللبنانية ويأتي في سياق ما يعرف في لبنان بالتوجه شرقاً”.

وأضاف مراسلنا أنه “لا استثمارات صينية في لبنان حتى الآن، ولكن هذا الاجتماع قد يفتح الأبواب لها”، مشيراً إلى أن “وزير النفط العراقي يصل لبنان أيضاً مساء اليوم”.

وتعرض الصين على لبنان مشاريع إنمائيّة في قطاعات عديدة؛ فتصل قيمة العروضات لاستثمارات الشركات الصينية المهتمة بلبنان إلى أكثر من 12 مليار دولار أميركي، ما يعني أنها تتجاوز مجموع ما يمكن أن يؤمنه مؤتمر سيدر.

وكان الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله أوضح أن الشركات الصينية جاهزة للاستثمار في لبنان، وبناء سكة حديد من طرابلس إلى الناقورة، وإنشاء معامل كهرباء، وهو ما سيخلق فرص عمل للبنانيين.

كما وأشار إلى أن الانفتاح على دول أخرى لتأمين احتياجات لبنان، من دون الحاجة إلى العملة الصعبة، ينقل البلد من مكان إلى آخر.

وأعلنت سفارة الصين في لبنان في 17 حزيران/يونيو الماضي، استعدادها التعاون العملي مع الجانب اللبناني، على أساس المساواة والمنفعة المتبادلة، والعمل المشترك في إطار مبادرة “الحزام والطريق”.

وجاء في بيان السفارة وقتها، أن “الشركات الصينية تتابع باهتمام فرص التعاون في البنية التحتية، والمجالات الأخرى في لبنان، وتبقى على التواصل مع الجانب اللبناني في هذا الصدد”

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

Source

July 01, 2020

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

This will be presented in 3 parts and in 3 different blog posts

Part 1

Part 2


PART – 3

2008 ONWARDS – PREPARATION FOR FINAL ACT

The financial crisis that started in USA in 2007 became global by 2008 which impacted countries and societies across the world. The year 2008 has already been identified as watershed moment for world economy. However, I would like to put forward a hypothesis stretching the arguments further on why 2008 will be remembered as historic moment that started new preparations:

a) Since 1990s, the latest version of capitalism – Financial capitalism – has been developing strong operations in Anglo countries USA-UK-Canada-Australia and west Europe on the back of Financial services-Insurance-Real estate (termed by economists as FIRE) sectors. That was in line with the political economy of ‘capitalism’ – capital, by definition, needs continuous expansion, the capitalists were/are always in search of new horizons which would provide them more profit that would continue the ‘endless accumulation of capital’.

Before the chapter on financial capitalism got initiated, the businessmen in USA and other Anglo countries carried out two rounds of well-planned outsourcing (by definition, outsourcing brings down the product cost on one hand, and on the other hand outsourcing relieves company management from mundane tasks to devote more time on core competences) of non-MIC non-Energy manufacturing activities: (i) in stage 1 during 1950s and 1960s, they outsourced such economic activities to Japan-South Korea-Taiwan in order to create an economic vassalage through which the living standards of the so-called east Asian tiger economies will be pulled upwards to show ‘miracles’ (happened due to western liberal capitalist democracy), (ii) in stage 2 during 1980s and 190s, they outsourced even larger part of such economic activities to China that in turn would provide massive employment opportunity in China (happened due to western liberal capitalism and technological superiority), which would entice the Chinese government to join the Zionist Capitalist camp.

During 2007 and 2008, all the financial engineering that designed and implemented the FIRE sectors came crashing down. Apparently, ‘financial capitalism’ wasn’t that fault-proof in the face of infinite greed of capitalists. The situation was salvaged through ‘socialising the losses’ suffered by the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks and financial services companies in USA, and other Anglo countries – the government released trillions of USD to support the crisis-creators. But a much more significant incident was that, the Zionist Capitalist Deep State clique started introspection on how long they can depend on ‘financial capitalism’ to continue accumulation of capital, and as a natural corollary, it appeared to them that ‘industrial capitalism’ was a more secure version of capitalism that was sent abroad with much fanfare. Both the beneficiaries of outsourcing i.e. China and Japan-South Korea-Taiwan block were very well established in the nuances of complete business cycle of ‘industrial capitalism’. The Deep State headquarters (in USA) also remembered that most of the Zionist Capitalist elites of non-Anglo west Europeans were never very serious about outsourcing – as a result, even in late 2000s, Germany-France-Italy-Netherlands-Sweden could maintain a base of ‘industrial capitalism’ (though not a vibrant one under the competitive stress generated by east Asian industrialists)!

The fact that, the Chinese government steadfastly refused to carry out political reforms and to privatize state-owned enterprises came as addition of salt to injury for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State. There was unanimous consent – Chinese manufacturing ‘juggernaut’ would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the unfinished WW II task of destroying CPC would have to be completed.

b) If the Deep State elites were trying in vain, to create environment for Chinese top leadership to switch over to liberal capitalism, the same Deep State elites were dreaming about Russia being colonised by the London-based Zionist Capitalist businessmen and bankers. By the time when they woke up in 2008, Russia developed on all fronts including exports (USD 468 billion primarily from petroleum and natural gas) and Russian government was working all-out to improve the living conditions of the society. After 1991, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were in self-congratulatory mode about how they grabbed the resource extracting sector like petroleum, natural gas, aluminium etc. – with huge mineral and hydrocarbon reserves, using the Anglo-American technologies, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were confident to generate huge revenue and profit year after year. However, post-1991 ‘reformed political environment’ brought such a top leadership who would slowly but surely entrust the custody of most of the natural resources to the state-owned enterprises. Even more interesting event was that, Russian scientists and technologists were again engaged on research and development of military equipment. The military-industrial-complex of Soviet Union was decimated after 1991 mainly because no single successor country of Soviet Union had the entire production chain (it was distributed among different provinces like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus etc.). Russian leadership intuitively developed the entire supply and production chain in their territory – as a result, very soon Russia became a potent force in arms export. It is not the total amount of export that mattered – the advancements in technology was far ahead in complexity and quality of armaments compared to the armaments owned by military forces of USA-5 Eyes-NATO, particularly in electronic warfare, missiles, and fifth generation military aircraft.

The writing on the wall was clear for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State – the resurgent Russia would utilise the energy export revenue to restructure its own military forces with such magnificent military machines, and Russia will curve-out a share of world-wide military arms export market. This entire cycle would create unwanted competition from technically strong Russia in energy sector and MIC sector, the only sectors of ‘industrial capitalism’ for which the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy still maintained their business portfolio. Again, there was unanimous consent – Russian energy export would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the Russian Federation would have to be dealt a decapitating blow to eliminate current leadership.

c) While all partners of the Deep State cabal were in agreement on the above mentioned points (a) and (b), there was complete lack of convergence on the long-term strategy and plan of action to achieve these objectives.

Such lack of strategic planning and coordination was evident after 2008. For the first time in five centuries the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal thought that, they need to include more ethnic groups – Barack Husain Obama (representing Afro-Americans) was selected as the President of USA for two terms from 2009 to 2016. It is doubtful, if that action really increased the strength of the cabal. The Zionist Capitalist cabal made a half-hearted initiative to create political-economic supranational blocks (through signing of TPP, TTIP, and TISA) that will impair all-round security of China-Russia and few other countries where governments were being run by anti-imperialist political parties. Such exclusive trade blocks, if materialised, would have (i) impinged on ‘state’ sovereignty of all member states where MNC business entities took priority over state, (ii) created ‘captive market’ for goods and services produced by MNC business entities owned by Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarchy plus Japanese and Korean oligarchy, and (iii) maintained US fiat Dollar as global exchange currency.

[ Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-would-abolish-europes-sovereignty-the-eu-would-become-a-us-colony/5417382 ]

If such trade blocks would have been superimposed with EU and NATO, the world would have seen the birth of largest directly controlled empire in history spanning across east and south-east Asia, Europe, North America, most of South America. It is doubtful, if the Deep State elites ever pondered over the absurdity of such planning.

Donal Trump burst into the centre-stage in 2016 end without getting selected by the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal. But he was quick to get accustomed with the Deep State objectives and strategy – after all, the role of President of USA have been the façade of the Deep State since 1945 (replacing Prime Minister of UK who used to shoulder that ‘responsibility’ for previous couple of centuries). At the first place, Trump’s election as the President of USA itself showed the lack of coordination among the factions of Zionist Capitalist cabal. After Trump settled in, the policy appeared as ‘bring back the manufacturing industry from China any how’ without any arrangement for upstream and downstream supply chain. Any planning of this type of infantile disorder is bound to fail. On the other hand, Trump thinks that Russia would be immature enough to get mollycoddled by his words on how Russia is important in current world economy while maintaining the economic sanctions (which have been hitting Russian economy hard for past 6 years). Again, Trump alienated most of the west European partners through his repeated calls for increasing military budgets by west European NATO partners. Needless to say that, none of Trump’s action plans are backed by thorough study. Similar to immature strategic plans vis-à-vis China, the Deep State have been showing lack of ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia.

Across the world, the serious fact-based researchers and reporters are divided in their opinion – the larger group is of the opinion that the Deep State cabal is in deep crisis that have been brewing for decades (due to factors like ‘intrinsic crisis’ of capitalism, and ‘limitations’ of fiat US Dollar printing or QE, ‘limitations’ of imperial outreach etc.), while relatively smaller group feels that irrespective of such limitations, Deep State will continue to maintain its hegemonic hold over the world order through new tricks. I tend to side with the logic of the smaller group. Notwithstanding the obvious weaknesses of the Deep State cabal, they have wealth cumulatively built up for past five centuries and they have corrupted the educated group of people in all countries since the end of WW I – hence they would look to perpetuate their hegemonic world order in the foreseeable future.

d) Nevertheless the Zionist Capitalist cabal has made an impressive array of arrangements, even if that won’t be coherent enough to defeat either China or Russia:

i. USA Military forces through its regional commands across the world, along with the 5-Eyes military forces maintain high degree of military alertness and preparedness aimed at fighting at least two wars simultaneously at two different ‘theatres’. They have developed and deployed a ubiquitous comprehensive C4ISTAR system and standard operating procedure that will support ‘first strike’ to decapitate the adversary (with Hypersonic strike vehicles, Russia and China are the only countries that defy this). Among significant military assets, very strong naval force with 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSG), largest fleet of nuclear submarines, largest fleet of ‘stealth’ multi-role military aircrafts, outdated Ballistic Missile Defence system (BMD) to strike down incoming (up to supersonic) projectiles through launching or midcourse or terminal stage, second largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads that can be delivered from land, air, and sea.

ii.  Apart from above mentioned weaponry (common across the world), USA possess highly sophisticated space based weapons like kinetic kill vehicle, and directed energy weapon which, apparently, can be launched by robotic orbital vehicle (X 37B); monitoring and surveillance of satellites sent by other countries to the high earth orbit (HEO) and low earth orbit (LEO) using four satellites of Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP); special armaments researched by DARPA like robotic combat force, microsatellite-cum-drone, microbiological weapons, weather control techniques (HAARP etc.)

iii. USA (along with forces from Rest of 5Eyes, NATO, Israel, Japan) Deep State has been meticulously carrying out military encirclement of Russia and China around their geographical boundary for past two decades. Nuclear warheads in NATO bases in Turkey, Italy and other European countries, BMD system installation in at Poland, Romania, Japan, and South Korea, CSG in all the oceans, more than 700 military bases in Europe-Asia-Africa-Pacific Ocean-Indian Ocean-Atlantic Ocean, and agreements with dozens of non-NATO but pro-Deep State countries for sharing military facilities and logistics facility

e) The Zionist Capitalist oligarchy has been looking beyond the ‘industrial capitalism’ and ‘financial capitalism’. A set of new possibilities have appeared on the horizon – these are not completely ‘new’ because during past two centuries all of these formed a small segment of all-encompassing ‘industrial capitalism’. In the new century, however, any of these or a combination of these can grow into ‘opportunity’ of a new ‘version’ of capitalism:

  1. Exotic materials like Cobalt, Lithium, and Uranium etc.
  2. Genetic engineering and artificial life
  3. Climate engineering
  4. Artificial intelligence
  5. Surveillance and mind control
  6. Healthcare and medicine
  7. Space travel and settlement

Current geopolitical control-points of Deep State:

1. In East Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia, Pacific Ocean zone, Indian Ocean zone the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with India’ and ‘Creation of Indo-Pacific NATO’ through the programmes like:

  1. Installing Deep State followers as the ruling elites of Taiwan island who could declare formal independence from Chinese mainland
  2. Fomenting secessionist movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), Xizang (Tibet) regions of China. The Deep State would utilize fault-lines of multi-ethnic and multi-religion society of China to tear apart the country into multiple vassal states
  3. Provoking trouble in South China Sea, East China Sea through mobilising the governments of littoral states like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan and nudging them towards confrontational behaviour with China
  4. Keeping the ‘Korean problem’ alive by manipulating successive South Korean governments to take aggressive stance towards North Korean government so that peace agreement (as logical settlement of Korean War armistice) never happens
  5. Keeping the ‘Kuril Islands problem’ alive by co-opting successive Japanese governments towards taking an illogical stand towards proposals of Russian government so that peace agreement (as logical end of WW II) never happens
  6. Keeping the land boundary dispute between India and China alive through co-opting the Indian ruling party leadership and nudging them towards confrontation
  7. Provoking Salafist Islamic terrorism in India, and then cozying up to the Indian government with offer for ‘generous support’, if India joins the USA-led multi-country military block mainly targeted against China
  8. Manipulating Indian leaders and bureaucrats to play a hegemonic role in the south Asian neighbourhood, which would seek to get elite followers of the Deep State camp elected as top leaders of countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives
  9. Forming an ‘informal’ naval alliance among India-Japan-Australia-South Korea which would keep navy of China and Russia under check, and if push comes to shove the ‘quad’ navy would block the Malacca strait to cripple Chinese trade
  10. Corrupting the political parties in Asia’s south-east and south region (countries like Vietnam, South Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc.) which had glorious anti-imperialist struggle for many decades to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  11. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

2. In West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa zone, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘Reorganize State boundaries’, ‘Turn the Region into Domain of Israel’, ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’ through the programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing states through opposition political party (controlled by Deep State) who would manipulate the popular despair and anger against the autocratic rulers in North Africa, West Asia, North-East Africa;
  2. Creating multiple groups of Salafist terrorists by recruitment among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Arab youth from Sunni Islam communities living in the vast desert corridor stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan
  3. Portraying the army of Arab Salafist terrorists as army of ‘pan-Islamic Caliph’ through recruitment of non-Arab mercenary forces from Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia to create a ‘legitimacy’ among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Asian and African Muslim population who have been brainwashed by religious preachers for generations about glorious ‘Islamic Caliphate’
  4. Mobilising multiple Salafist terrorist groups to bring down existing rulers and simultaneously creating as many fiefdoms by dividing the existing state boundary – thus existing ‘state’ would be converted into ‘statelet’ managed by the terrorist groups
  5. Positioning Israel as the de-facto politico-military leader for all governments in West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa regions; Israel would act as coordinator entity for providing economic and military assistance to the series of satellite statelet
  6. Manipulating the Kurdish liberation forces spread over Turkey, Syria, and Iraq to break away from their parent countries and create new state of ‘Kurdistan’ that would be a NATO asset in west Asia
  7. Creating multiple power-centres within the Sunni Arab sheikhdoms which would be crucial to control the ambitious Saudi clan

Keeping Iran as a ‘pariah’ state in global affairs through sanctions and limited military strikes until the internal political situation would be ripe enough to be manipulated to overthrow the government of Shia Iranian revolutionaries

  1. Maintaining a high level of USA naval readiness in Persian Gulf through which would keep navy of Iran and Russia under check
  2. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Russian ruling party’s internal policies as corruption of ‘Putin faction’ to create negative image of Russian energy and defence industry

3) In Western Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa zones, the key strategic control themes have been ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with Nigeria’ and ‘Transform Military Foothold into Large Bases’ driven through programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing state apparatus by arming various tribal warlords who are divided among religious lines (Christian, Sunni Islam) in central and western regions of Africa; state like Rwanda and Burundi would remain hotbeds for ever
  2. Deploying military detachments by USA, France, Israel citing old Zionist Capitalist rhetoric of ‘maintaining human rights, democracy and governance’
  3. Corrupting the political parties in Africa’s southern region (countries like South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania etc.) where anti-imperialist struggle were in the global headlines for three decades (1950 to 1970) to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  4. Building ‘client state’ in all regions of Africa where the entire spectrum of political leadership would follow the ideology and policies pushed by the deep State – countries like Malawi, Liberia, South Sudan etc.
  5. Keeping the ‘Katanga problem’ alive by manipulating the internal political parties, armed groups, neighbouring countries – either DR Congo would become satellite of the Deep State or Katanga would be curved out as ‘independent’ country
  6. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Chinese ruling party’s internal debates as ‘factional fight’ to create factionalism within the ruling party, and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

4. In West Europe, and East Europe zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia’, ‘Every state under supranational EU’, ‘Create African-Germanic-Slavic Hybrid Society’, ‘Ruin the Slavic Civilization’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘EU’ banner either as a direct member or as associate thereby diminishing the sovereignty of European states through shifting all governance and policy matters to EU – it ensures single point of contact for hegemonic empire run by Deep State
  2. Expanding NATO to the borders of current Russia through creating Deep State loyalist governments in ex-Soviet bloc countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and creating USA army bases with nuclear missile installations
  3. Manipulating Turkey, Saudi, Libya political and bureaucratic leadership to mobilize millions of Arab Sunni Muslim low-skilled people into different countries of Europe
  4. Manipulating EU member states to take those ‘forced refugee’ and settle them in Europe to create a multi-ethnic multi-religion hybrid society in Europe – they will form the ‘working class’ people as well as form the backbone of a future European army
  5. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  6. Staging false flag terrorist attacks in countries like France, Germany, Italy whenever the ruling leadership in those countries appear to deviate from policies of Deep State, particularly if these leaders try to develop economic relationship with China and Russia
  7. Spreading false propaganda in European media and academic institutions identifying fascist Germany’s territorial expansion and genocides as equivalent to communist Soviet Union’s defensive manoeuvres and administrative overbearingness, and vilifying present Russian government as authoritarian
  8. Provoking secessionist movements (using any fault-line – religion, language, ethnicity) in all geographical regions that come under erstwhile Yugoslavia and Soviet Union so that both these regions are destroyed beyond repair – thus, if ex-Yugoslavia now comprises of (say) 5 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 10 splinters, similarly if ex-Soviet Union now comprises of (say) 15 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 30 splinters
  9. Manipulating the political leadership and bureaucracy in all ex-USSR states towards taking government policy decisions/actions which will actively hurt Russian interests
  10. Creating hindrances for Russian access to deep sea ports in Baltic Sea and black Sea to not only restrict their economic activities but also to check the naval forces

5. In South America, and Central America zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’, ‘Creation of Latin American NATO’, ‘Keep Latin America as USA Playground’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘OAS’ banner through which the Deep State will directly interfere in the governance and policy matters – in fact, this organisation coordinates the appointments to legislature, executive, and judiciary in all South American and Central American countries so that only Zionist Capitalist elites get into the top positions of political parties and bureaucracy
  2. Expanding NATO in South America so that the main anti-zionist anti-capitalist government of Venezuela can be directly invaded – to that effect, the Deep State has enrolled Colombia, Peru and Brazil governments to become host of the USA military bases
  3. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  4. In case, political parties with Marxist ideology comes to state power through democratic elections, the Deep State will organise trouble within common people and Defence establishment and instigate them to seize power by overthrowing the elected government (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia etc.)
  5. Keeping Cuba under most severe economic sanction and blockade for over six decades – key objectives have been to wreck the Cuban economy and break the Marxist ruling party
  6. Creating a second ‘homeland’ for the Jewish elites and aristocrats, by acquiring very large tract of land and building townships in Patagonia region of Argentina – considering Israel, the first ‘homeland’ has been facing quite difficulty in accomplishing the target of direct control of the stretch of ‘Nile-to-Euphrates’ land, this move will ensure long-term control of Latin America
  7. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

All dressed up, but nowhere to go!

As noted above, the Deep State has been making quite assiduous preparations for teaching China and Russia the final lessons on the consequences of violating the rules of “end of history” – the principles of capitalist market economy and electoral democracy. But nobody among the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy knows how such lessons will be taught – China and Russia together control the largest land area, together they house the largest population, together they store the largest reserve of natural resources, together they have most educated and most disciplined work force, together they process/ manufacture largest share of energy and manufactured goods, and together they deploy the largest and most sophisticated military forces. Considering only China, it has third largest land area, largest population, most educated and most disciplined work force, largest share of manufactured goods, and fourth largest military force.

The Deep State, within a span of 100 years forgot that, not only they became more sophisticated, but their biggest adversaries in ‘Eurasian Heartland’: Russia and China, also became more astute. This is not to conclude that Deep State would put to rest their final assault. They will, because ideology and political economy of the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy would compel them to do so. It is imperative that China (and Russia) plan and implement their strategy in the most opportune time.

8. ROAD AHEAD

Let me recall the first paragraph of the first section (INTRODUCTION) of this document. A question was put forward as “what would be the action plan of the global oligarchy who collectively own banking and industrial sectors and who maintain current unipolar world order through chosen members of the so-called Deep State”; most probable answer was “state policy and implementation of the same would be geared towards accumulation of capital in every country except the six countries”. If the global oligarchy remain busy in wealth accumulation, what would be the strategy and action plan of the local oligarchy (consists of industrialists, bankers, large landlords, leaders of main political parties, bureaucracy)? Answer to this question is complex – local oligarchy being directly integrated with the local society, they can’t act in a complete self-seeking manner like their global counterpart. Local oligarchy is bound to look after the arrangements for minimum subsistence of the citizens, and thereafter carry out wealth accumulation. Hence, there is a necessity of minimum economy and governance in every state in the world. With IMF, WBG, ADB banking institutions retreating into conservative procedures as well as USA, 5-Eyes, EU, Japan applying partial break on aids, at least 150 out of 194 UNO member countries would require loan, aid, other techno-economic help. China with largest GDP PPP, largest forex reserve, gigantic domestic market, and largest STEM pool of students would be in a position to fulfil this historic role, even if the leadership may not find it enviable.

Moreover, as noted in previous sections (CHINA IN DENG ERA, POST-DENG CHINA) China has been moving on a continuous journey initiated by Deng’s reforms and managed by successive leaders through tweaking some policy matters and effective coordination. Key statistical indicators during this entire period is given below:

[ Link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980 ]

Chinese government would have to reach a ‘logical destination’ in near future – CPC leaders have set their targets on what figure of common socio-economic indicators would be construed as ‘successes. Hence, China will stay on current course till 2028/ 2030 CE impacting global capitalist economy in fundamental way:

  1. Chinese companies will design and develop wide range of consumer products using Chinese patented technology and receive wide acceptance across the world;
  2. China will cease from being ‘factory of the world’ and develop relationship with Asian/African/ South American countries to spread the manufacturing activities there. A mix economy driven by domestic consumption plus exports in China will be healthy for the entire world
  3. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will develop an ecosystem across Europe and Asia in which Banking-Finance and Industry-Economy are intertwined
  4. The system of ‘capitalist market economy through state-owned and private-owned enterprises’ developed in China will evolve as a ‘model’ for many African and Asian countries
  5. Chinese government will continue with the BRI programme as a framework for investments in railways, roads, ports, electricity generation, communication network, mining, manufacturing factory projects in Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America
  6. While making investments in China or in any other country Chinese government will give due importance to environment and take necessary actions so that ecosystem is well-preserved
  7. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will establish an international monetary system to ensure that interests of the non-European and non-5 Eyes countries are maintained This should also include replacement of US Dollar as world’s reserve currency by a basket of currencies of world’s top ten economies (GDP in PPP terms) backed by gold/valuables

The quest for world-wide Zionist capitalist democratic empire (as noted in section GEOPOLITICS 1930 ONWARDS) will never end unless the oligarchy and aristocracy take such decision against their five century old collective psyche. So, it can be safely presumed that the Deep State will continue to look for destroying all sorts of resistance to their hegemony – it is simply immaterial whether the antagonist country profess liberal capitalist (Russia) or socialist (Cuba, China) or Shia Islamic (Iran) or nationalist (Venezuela) philosophy. For the Deep State, complete subjugation is the only way forward. Let’s go back to the first section (INTRODUCTION) again where I mentioned that, China (because of its large landmass and huge population) would be in ideal position to resist the unipolar world order and roll back the onward march of global capitalism in order to build a more equitable society (with crucial support from Russia). Current world order (even when Russia-China-Iran are putting up a brave resistance to the hegemonic Deep State) is anything but equitable. It is one thing to struggle against Zionist Capitalist world order to establish an order with cosmetic change, and it is entirely different thing to struggle to establish an ideal order that brings fundamental transformation. Whichever path Chinese leadership follow, there has to be a detail planning for the same. Let me play the role of a candid analyst.

Looking forward – Option 1:

Option 1 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership maintains their current road – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will crawl upwards and share of output by private enterprises will rise faster in GDP. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will implement new policies to control the capitalist class, and will provide welfare schemes to commoners in order to maintain legitimacy of CPC within the society.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy exit – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea, which will end with effective departure of USA military from Asia region, and Chinese unification with Taiwan.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as Europe continent, North America continent, Australia-New Zealand-Japan (islands), and India-Israel (countries living with island mentality) – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique.
  4. In Asia, Africa, South America continents, China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority part of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions.
  5. Fundamentals of capitalistic economy will remain intact in the China-Russia dominated regions with both state-owned and private-owned enterprises ruling the roost – the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital will continue, but under supervision of the state; also, general welfare and social security for all classes of citizens will be ensured by the state.
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between two ‘worlds’ will be reflected very badly in the realm of space and planetary exploration as well as environment of our planet – the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek domination of space through advanced technology in the field of aerospace and defence, which may not become a priority for Chin-Russ civilizational combination.
  7. the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek final revenge on the other ‘world’ by climate engineering during which weather manipulation in the form of substantial temperature rise, extreme cyclonic storm, long duration of drought, out of season rainfall etc. will be effected to destroy agriculture and urban society within a decade or so. Though the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon the other world will continue to struggle independently as a block.

Looking forward – Option 2:

Option 2 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there will be unpredicted change in ruling party in China during which CPC will be replaced by a liberal capitalist political party supported by Deep State-led ‘democracy movement’ – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will increase substantially and share of output by private enterprises will rise exponentially in GDP. Government will not be effective to control corruption-inflation-unemployment. The capitalist class will create political party with so-called nationalist ideology supported by local academia and media. CPC will move in the direction of legitimising such political party, which will seize power after election (it will be immaterial whether CPC really win or lose election – either way, the opposition will seize power).
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will diminish after new political party form the government which will be completely under control of the Deep State. Without any ‘hot’ war mainland China and Taiwan will be unified – for USA Deep State this will be a revenge after a century. After all, Kuo Mintang was the favourite of Zionist Capitalist oligarchy from 1927 onwards when Chiang Kai-shek proved that he can fight against CPC ruthlessly. It has been USA’s economic and military support that kept Taiwan as viable ‘entity’ till now.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal will find the entire world (except Russia) as their ‘territory’– the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs, essentially everything under the Sun would be under sway of MNCs owned by the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy clique.
  4. Entire world (except Russia) will accept USA (along with Israel and 5-Eyes) as the leader in military, economic and socio-cultural spheres – everywhere, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will be directly appointed by the Deep State; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade relationship with Russia for energy import.
  5. Across the world capitalistic economy will remain intact through the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital – however, due to mismanagement of resources and brutal exploitation of common people, there will be wide-spread hunger. Population in Africa and Asia will decline. This will conform to the Zionist ideology which portrays earth as a settlement for the ‘golden billion’ – one billion of Jewish and Anglo population and their flunkies. Automated robots will be utilised for industrial and agricultural production – they neither require food, shelter and healthcare nor do they demand justice and equality!
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between the ‘one world’ owned by the Deep State and Russia will turn into a serious ‘hot’ war. The Deep State will seek final revenge on Russia by complete obliteration using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth – thus the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon and will succeed, albeit with major losses.

Looking forward – Option 3:

Option 3 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel but new world order based on basic Marxist philosophy around 2035 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership changes their current track – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ with restrictions on further evolution of the private capitalist class – share of capital asset owned by state enterprises will increase substantially and share of GDP output by state enterprises will surpass the private enterprises by a multiplier of two. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will chalk out policies on transformation of economy into a Marxist economy in which private-owned and state-owned enterprises will be transferred to community ownership by 2035. However, both private capitalists (local, foreigner) and state capitalists (central, provincial, local) will have marginal share in the enterprises earlier owned by them – such benefits will construe as long-term compensation against the asset transfer, apart from an immediate compensation paid to the erstwhile owners.
    1. By 2030, the technology-based modernisation of the forces of production in China will be complete which can be interpreted as ‘creation of material basis is done’. CPC can plan with earnestness for achieving their original objective of achieving a Marxism-based society through a SINGLE-STAGE TRANSFORMATION. As Stalin and Mao faced socio-economic reality, two stage transformation has immanent difficulties – with completion of stage 1 (during which Capitalist society with bourgeoisie democracy transforms into Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat), increasingly detrimental geopolitical and economic factors imposed by the opposing forces of monopoly capitalism will not provide opportunity or time for further progress into stage 2 (Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat transforms into classless Communist society). CPC may make a thorough plan of action for a single-stage transformation with as minimum shock as possible – a point to remember: people never plan to fail, they fail to plan.
    2. While the planning for a single-stage transformation is undertaken by CPC, they need to make the fundamental action – replacement of ‘private ownership’ by COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP. Neither any citizen nor State will own any means of production (land, natural resources, machinery, real estate and other infrastructure, financial capital etc.) apart from their living houses/flats/bungalows/vehicles. Military Industry will be required for production of military machinery which should be owned and managed by the state. Rest everything will be owned by community. Only when the entire world has decisively transformed into an ocean of humanity without any presence of ‘private ownership’ anywhere, the ‘State’ will relinquish its ownership of MIC, and ideally, there should not be any necessity of the same. The cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital need to stop for the sake of humanity.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy escape – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea. With major losses on both sides, China will reap the benefit of being ‘son of the soil’ while USA will bite the dust by acting as an invader to east and south-east Asia. At the end of such conflict, two of the WW II ‘problems’ will get resolved in favour of socialist and workers parties of China and Korea. This will also initiate the complete retreat of the USA military from Asia continent, North Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean regions leaving Japan and India to reconcile itself with a new China.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as North America continent, west European region, Australia-New Zealand-Greenland (islands), and Brazil-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay. By then, Patagonia in Argentina would have become the second homeland of Jewish oligarchy and aristocracy – it will secede from Argentina to become an independent corporation (i.e. democratic capitalist country). Most interesting change will be in Europe – Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia et. al will be left in the lurch by the Deep State. That action of the Deep State will be intelligent indeed – such ethnic groups who could be easily lured into any geopolitical activities that will finally result in their downfall, can’t be true ally! Since past three centuries the leaders of these countries proved time and again that, they will wreck their own economy and society (by unnecessarily fighting with Russian Slavic land) in lieu of hundreds of millions of Dollars credited into their offshore bank accounts. Within the ‘Anglo and Jewish enlightened world’ the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique. A significant number of south Asians, Koreans, east Europeans will be given permanent citizenship because of their extraordinary greed, and socio-cultural servitude to the Zionist Capitalist ideology and Anglo/Jewish ethnicity.
  4. Across the world (excluding the zones of ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’) China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – in these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions. In the long run, most of the countries will follow the Chinese system of community-ownership of means of production within their country.
  5. 2040 CE onwards, the world will be the most safe and peaceful compared to the past five millenniums (during which conflicts used to be the rule rather exception). China and Russia will lead the way for research and development related to sustainable economy and environment. There will be significant use of technology in making the individual life and social life better and comfortable than before. New frontiers of space research and planetary exploration will open up. Human civilisation would proceed further in understanding the ‘reality’ of ‘universe’ – we will know how ‘life’ got created and what the ‘mystery’ of creation is!
  6. the Deep State-controlled ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’ will seek final revenge on the ‘other world’ by complete destruction using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth. However, as history repeats itself, such research and development by the Deep State would be known to the leaders of ‘other world’ much before fruition – left with a choice between complete surrender and complete destruction, the Deep State will chose the former ‘to live and let others live’.

Conclusion:

China and CPC are fortunate to get Xi Jinping as the paramount leader. I’m not saying this because of his achievements and successes in governance or economy or defence or any other sphere. My point is – a top leader who remembers the origin and mission of his party and his ideology, can do wonders. In 2017, while visiting Shanghai and Jiaxing building/site where 1st National Congress of CPC was held in 1921, Xi stated “only by remaining true to our original aspiration, keeping our mission firmly in mind, and keeping on striving, could the Party stay young and live”. Such ideological plain-speaking is a sign of very rare honesty and sincerity. Hope, CPC leaders and core group of members will provide required strength and support to Xi.

I wonder, if top CPSU leaders in post-Stalin era ever remembered original aspiration and goal of CPSU. The ideological decomposition initiated by Khrushchev was so effective, that it wiped out all lofty ideals steered by none other than Lenin. Shouldn’t the true patriots in the land of Lenin start their journey once again and join forces with their Chinese comrades in the final stage of the long march?

China Communist Party tells members to celebrate 'political ...

Short profile:

By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

واشنطن تخسر الجولة الحاسمة حول الاتفاق النوويّ

ناصر قنديل

خلال لقاء جمعني خلال زيارتي لطهران، بوزير الخارجية الإيرانية الدكتور محمد جواد ظريف في مطلع شهر شباط الماضي، وفي لحظة تأزم حول الملف النووي، والتهديدات الأوروبية بنقل الأمر إلى مجلس الأمن الدولي، وفقاً لبنود الاتفاق بمنح الأطراف الموقعة على الاتفاق هذا الحق إذا وقعت مخالفات متمادية في تطبيقه من جانب أحد الموقعين. وكان مفوّض السياسة الخارجية الجديد الأوروبية جوزيب بوريل يغادر طهران بعد جولة محادثات، قال ظريف، إيران لن تخرج من الاتفاق مهما كانت الضغوط والاستفزازات، فسوف نجد ردوداً من ضمن الاتفاق لأن أحد أكبر المكاسب القانونية والسياسية لإيران من الاتفاق يستحق في شهر تشرين الأول، وهو رفع الحظر عن استيراد وتصدير السلاح منها وإليها، وهو أمر تلقائيّ وفقاً لنصوص الاتفاق ولا يحتاج إلى قرار من مجلس الأمن الدولي الذي صادق على الاتفاق، بل إن تجديد الحظر هو الذي يحتاج إلى قرار، تثق إيران ويعلم الأميركيون والأوروبيون أنه مستحيل في ظل فيتو روسي صيني، بالتمسك بمندرجات الاتفاق كنموذج لحل الخلافات الدولية بالطرق الدبلوماسية، وهو ما يعرفه الأوروبيون، ويعترفون به، لكنهم يجسّون نبض إيران، ويبحثون عن مخارج لا تضعهم في مواجهة مع أميركا من دون التفريط بالاتفاق النووي كمدخل لفرص اقتصادية واعدة، ولاستقرار سياسي وأمني موعود، ولذلك يسعى الأميركيون عبر الاستفزازات لإيصالنا إلى لحظة ضيق نخرج فيها من الاتفاق فنخسر هذا المكسب الكبير، لكننا لن نفعل مهما قلنا في سياق التصعيد إن خيار الخروج من الاتفاق وارد، والكلام يومها لم يكن للنشر طبعاً، لكنه اليوم بات من المفيد وضعه في التداول، فكل شيء قد بلغ النهايات.

بالأمس كان الموعد في مناقشات مجلس الأمن الدولي حول الطلب الأميركي بتجديد حظر السلاح على إيران، وكانت المواقف واضحة بتحميل واشنطن مسؤولية زعزعة مسار تطبيق الاتفاق عبر الانسحاب الأحادي. ولم يكن الأمر محصوراً بما قاله مندوبا روسيا والصين، بل أظهرت مواقف غالبية الأعضاء تقديراً للالتزام الإيراني بالاتفاق وموجباته، رغم الانسحاب الأميركي وتشديد العقوبات على إيران، وبدت المواقف الأوروبية الرافضة لتجديد الحظر بصفته إعلان سقوط للاتفاق، أقرب لموقف كل من روسيا والصين ولو بلهجة أخرى. والحصيلة خسارة أميركية مدوّية، وانتصار دبلوماسي نوعي لصالح إيران، التي سيكون بمستطاعها عقد صفقات شراء وبيع الأسلحة من دون تعقيدات قانونية أممية، والكلام الأميركي كان واضحاً لجهة وجود تفاهمات إيرانية مع كل من روسيا والصين على صفقات سلاح كبيرة، في ظل امتلاك إيران لبرامج تطوير صاروخي يحظى بدعم دبلوماسي صيني وروسي، وسيحظى وفق الاتهامات الأميركية بالمزيد من الدعم التقني واللوجستي بعد رفع حظر السلاح، وتحوّل الحركة الأميركية إلى طلقة طائشة في الهواء، رغم الحشد الإعلامي الذي قامت به حكومات الخليج وحكومة كيان الاحتلال لصالح تظهير خطورة رفع الحظر عن إيران.

بعد تشرين الأول إيران ستمضي سريعاً في تنمية مقدراتها العسكرية، وستصبح أشد منعة، وأكثر قدرة على توجيه التهديدات، وستفرض حضوراً عسكرياً كقوة أولى في المنطقة، لا يمكن تحدّيها، وما هي إلا شهور قليلة وتمضي، فكيف ستتصرّف إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب مع دروس هذه الجولة، في ظل انسداد الخيارات العسكرية، وانعدام فرص تحقيق أي تراجع لإيران وقوى المقاومة مهما بلغ الحصار وتمادت سياسات التجويع عبر تشديد العقوبات، وفي ظل تراجع فرص الرئيس دونالد ترامب في الفوز بولاية رئاسية ثانية بعد تقدّم منافسه جو بايدن عليه بـ 14% من أصوات الناخبين وفقاً لاستطلاعات الرأي؟

المنطقة وفي قلبها لبنان على موعد مع الكثير من المفاجآت، خلال المئة يوم المقبلة، وكل حدث قابل للتحوّل إلى باب للتصعيد أو إلى باب للتفاوض، وإمكانيات الانزلاق للمواجهة شديدة السيولة بلا ضوابط، وإمكانيات فتح الأبواب لتفاهمات قائمة، وصمود محور المقاومة وقواه ومجتمعات الدول التي يتحرّك على ساحاتها ستزداد مؤشراته في الاقتصاد كما استعداداته في الميدان، رغم الضجيج والتهويل والحديث عن الانهيار، وربما يحمل شهر أيلول الإشارات الأهم في الدلالة على وجهة الأحداث في اللعب على حافة الهاوية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: