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:

USA – Most Aggressive Military Power in the World. Those Who Have Friends Like That Don’t Need Enemies (Sahra Wagenknecht)

Source

July 05, 2020

USA – Most Aggressive Military Power in the World. Those Who Have Friends Like That Don’t Need Enemies (Sahra Wagenknecht)

Original German description in English: Trump had “threatened” for a long time and now actually wants to withdraw 10,000 US soldiers from Germany. German armaments spending is too low, the US president rumbles, the United States is no longer willing to “provide our security”. The German defense minister, Kramp-Karrenbauer, pleads guilty that it would be a lot of effort to upgrade. Unfortunately, that’s really true: it increased the military budget in 2019 by a whopping ten percent to just under 50 billion euros compared to the previous year. And despite Corona, not a single project was canceled, on the contrary: even in the current economic stimulus package, hardly noticed by the public, an additional 10 billion euros were hidden for armament. No other country in the top 15 in the world has seen such a sharp increase in arms spending. To be dictated by Trump, to waste more and more money on tanks and war equipment, what a fatal mistake! A sovereign German government would respond to Trump: Hey, Mr. President, great idea of ​​this deduction, but please don’t just bring 10,000 soldiers home, but the whole contingent right away. And above all: take the US nuclear weapons with you, we don’t need them here at all! However, the deduction should really be a deduction, and not a move to Poland and thus even closer to the Russian border, as Trump apparently plans to do. So instead of letting the US and NATO drive expensive armaments projects such as the procurement of nuclear weapons-capable US fighters, the German federal government should have the backbone to defend our sovereignty and stand up to Trump. Why it is absurd to expect our security from a country that is the most aggressive military power in the world and demonstrates every day that it does not care about European and German interests? I will talk about this in the video.

Germany SITREP: Former German Chancellor Says U.S.-EU Alliance Could Now End

Source

Germany SITREP: Former German Chancellor Says U.S.-EU Alliance Could Now End

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

A German equivalent to UK’s Financial Times and America’s Wall Street Journal is the Dusseldorf Handelsblatt or “Commerce Sheet,” which headlined on June 30th, “Former Chancellor Schröder: USA Ending Transatlantic Partnership”.

They reported:

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has condemned possible new US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline as “deliberate termination of the transatlantic partnership.” A draft law currently under discussion in the US Congress is “a widespread, unjustified attack on the European economy and an unacceptable interference with EU sovereignty and the energy security of Western Europe,” Schröder writes in his statement for a public hearing of the Economic Committee scheduled for Wednesday in the Bundestag.

The article closes:

Schröder sees the relations with the USA as “heavily burdened” by “escalating tariffs and going it alone” policy by the Americans. Schröder writes: “Economic fines against a NATO ally during the current economic recession are nothing other than a deliberate termination of the transatlantic partnership.”

This is as if Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama were to say that EU policymakers had a trade policy toward the U.S. that is so hostile and uncooperative that in order to comply with it, the U.S. would have to subordinate itself to the EU and lose some of its own sovereignty, and as if he were to tell the U.S. Congress that for them to okay the EU’s demands in this matter would be “nothing other than a termination of the transatlantic partnership.”

Congress has not yet passed this legislation (new economic sanctions legislation that is co-sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen) but it (“S.1441 – Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019”) enjoys strong bipartisan support and has been considered almost certain to be passed in both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump. It is not a partisan issue in the United States.

Neither is it partisan in Germany. Both of Germany’s main political Parties (Schröder being SPD) support strongly the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which will be considerably more economical for supplying natural gas to the EU than would be the U.S. Government’s demand that American shipped fracked liquified natural gas be used, instead of Russian pipelined natural gas, in Europe. Though this U.S. legislative initiative is called “Protecting Europe’s Energy Security,” its overwhelming support in the U.S. Congress is instead actually for protecting U.S. fracking corporations. The bill’s title is only for ‘patriotic’ propaganda purposes (which is the typical way that legislation is named in the United States — as a sales-device, so as to sound acceptable not only to the billionaires who fund the Parties but also to the voters on election day).

Both of America’s political Parties are significantly funded by America’s domestic producers of fracked gas. One of the few proud achievements of U.S. President Obama that has been proudly continued by President Trump has been their boosting U.S. energy production, largely fracked gas, so as to reduce America’s foreign-trade deficit. However, if this control over the U.S. Government by frackers continues, then there now exists a strong possibility, or even a likelihood, that the transatlantic alliance will end, as a result.

—————

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

ترامب يخوض حرب شوارع في أوروبا والهدف ميركل وبوتين…!‏

محمد صادق الحسيني

منذ أن اتخذ بروكسيل مقراً له وهو يغامر بشنّ حروب خفيّة لا يمكن الإمساك بكافة خيوطها بسهولة، فمَن هو هذا الرجل وماذا يمثّل..!؟

من جهة أخرى فقد شهدت مدينة شتوتغارت الألمانية الجنوبية ليلة أمس الاول حرب شوارع عنيفة حتى الصباح، فيما يشبه الحروب الأهلية في بلاد العرب والمسلمين، فمن يقف وراء هذه الاحداث حقاً..!؟

على الرغم من أن المستشارة الألمانية، انجيلا ميركل، ليست القائدة الشيوعية روزا لوكسمبورغ، التي اغتالها النازيون سنة 1919 من القرن الماضي، ولا هي حتى اشتراكية ديموقراطية، كي نقول إن ترامب يتهمها بأنها يسارية، الا انه يواصل شن حربه عليها وعلى بلادها، منذ أن تسلم الحكم في واشنطن. حيث عاملها بفظاظة وقلة احترام، في كل اللقاءات التي أجراها، او اضطر لإجرائها معها.

فلماذا يا ترى؟ وما هي الأسباب الحقيقية وراء هذا الموقف؟ وما هي الأدوات التي يستخدمها ترامب في حربه هذه؟ وهل تمكن من لَيِ ذراع المستشارة ميركل وذراع بلادها، العملاق الاقتصادي الأوروبي، الذي يطمع ويطمح الرئيس الأميركي في إخضاعه بشكل شامل وكامل لمتطلبات واحتياجات السوق الأميركية، وبالتالي إخضاعه (العملاق الاقتصادي) لمصالح رؤوس الأموال التي تحكم الولايات المتحدة، من خلال القوى العميقة والخفية، التي ترسم سياسة ترامب.

إذن، فالقضية ليست عدم وفاء ألمانيا بالتزاماتها تجاه حلف شمال الاطلسي، وهي بالطبع تهمة غير صحيحة، وإنما هناك قطبة مخفيةً في هذه القضية.

فما هي هذه القطبة يا ترى؟

إنها قطبةٌ مزدوجة تتكوّن من شقين:

الأول: اقتصادي محض، سببه إصرار المستشارة الالمانية وحكومتها على تنفيذ مشروع خط أنابيب الغاز الروسي، المسمّى: السيل الشمالي / رقم 2 / وهو قيد الإنشاء وينطلق من الأراضي الروسية الشمالية الغربية، بالقرب من لينينغراد، ويسير تحت بحر البلطيق، بطول 1222 كم مباشرةً الى الأراضي الالمانية، ومن هناك الى فرنسا وغيرها من الدول الأوروبية الغربية.

وهو المشروع الذي يعارضه ترامب والقوى العميقة، التي تقف وراءه ويمثل مصالحها، بشدة وذلك لأنهم يريدون او يخططون لما يلي:

أ) لإرغام الدول الاوروبية على شراء الغاز الأميركي المسال، والذي قام محمد بن سلمان بتمويل إنشاء إحدى عشرة محطة شحن له، في الولايات المتحدة قبل سنتين. ولكن هذه الدول لا ترغب في ذلك لأسباب عديدة منها المالي ومنها البيئي ومنها السياسي ايضاً.

ب) لإلحاق الضرر بالاقتصاد الروسي بدايةً، عبر تقليص واردات الدول الاوروبية من واردات الغاز الطبيعي الروسي، غير المسال ، وذلك تمهيداً لإخراج روسيا من سوق الطاقة الاوروبي وما يعنيه ذلك من ضربة للصادرات الروسية من ناحية وإحكام السيطرة والهيمنة الأميركية على الاقتصادات الأوروبية، من خلال سيطرتها على قطاع الطاقة والتحكم بالتالي بمستويات النمو والتطور في اقتصادات جميع الدول الأوروبية.

الثاني: هو سبب سياسي محض، يتعلق بموقف ألمانيا من الاتفاق النووي الإيراني، حيث ترفض ألمانيا سياسات ترامب المتعلقة بالموضوع، وهي بذلك تشكل رافعة لبقية الدول الأوروبية، التي وقعت الاتفاق، أن تبقى على موقفها الهادف الى منع انهيار هذا الاتفاق (وان كانت تصب في النهاية لجانب الموقف الأميركي بسبب كونها دولة محتلة من أميركا لم تستطع ومعها الدول الأوروبية الأخرى من الخروج على القرار الأميركي).

كما أن الموقف الفعلي، الذي اتخذته المانيا، تجاه موضوع العقوبات الدولية، المفروضة على بيع السلاح لإيران، والتي سينتهي العمل بها في بداية شهر 10/2020، يثير غضب القوى العميقة (الدوائر الإنجيلية المتطرفة في الولايات المتحدة) التي تدعم ترامب وتستخدمه رأس حربة لها، في مواجهة الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية. اذ ان هذا الموقف بالذات هو الذي جعل الرئيس الأميركي يتخذ قراره بتخفيض عديد الجنود الأميركيين الموجودين في القواعد العسكرية الأميركية في المانيا.

ولكن حسابات ترامب وداعميه كانت خاطئةً كالعادة، حيث أفاد مصدر دبلوماسي أوروبي، انه وعلى العكس من كل ما يتردد في الإعلام، حول تداعيات هذه الخطوة الترامبية على أمن المانيا، فإن الحكومة الألمانية والمستشارة انجيلا ميركل لا تكترثان لهذا التخفيض، خاصة أن المانيا لا تتعرّض لأي تهديد، أمني او عسكري، من اي جهةٍ كانت، سوى التهديدات المستمرة، التي تشكلها محاولات زيادة السيطرة الأميركية على كل شيء في أوروبا، وتلك النشاطات التي تنفذها ادوات اليمين الأميركي الإنجيلي المتطرف في اوروبا.

فإلى جانب الضغوط المباشرة، التي يمارسها الرئيس الأميركي وإدارته، على العديد من الدول الأوروبية وفي مقدمتها المانيا، هناك ضغوط هائلة غير مباشرةٍ، لكنها مرئيةً وملموسةً، تمارس على المستشارة الالمانية وحزبها، الحزب الديموقراطي المسيحي الالماني، والذي يمثل رأس الحربة فيها كبير مستشاري ترامب الاستراتيجيين في البيت الابيض سنة 2017، ستيف بانون ، الذي يدير مدرسة تدريب القيادات اليمينية في أوروبا (من مقرّه في بروكسل) وحقنها بما يطلق عليه تسمية القيم اليهودية المسيحية الغربية. هذه المدرسة التي يدير نشاطاتها اليومية ويقرّر توجّهاتها الفكرية، النائب البريطاني الجنسية والسيرلانكي الأصل، نيرج ديڤا، بالاعتماد على معهد أبحاث متطرف ومرتبط بحزب المحافظين البريطاني، اسمه:

اذ كان للنشاط، المتعدد الأشكال والأنواع، الذي قام به ستيف بانون قبيل الانتخابات التشريعية الالمانية، في ايلول 2017، الأثر البالغ في حصول الحزب الألماني النازي الجديد، حزب البديل لألمانيا على 94 مقعداً في البرلمان الألماني، من اصل 709، حيث احتل المرتبة الثالثة بين الأحزاب، بعد حزب المستشارة الديموقراطي المسيحي والحزب الاشتراكي الديموقراطي، الأمر الذي يشكل خطراً على النظام السياسي ليس فقط في ألمانيا، كما يعلمنا التاريخ.

اما آخر المحاولات، التي قام بها «تلامذة» ستيف بانون لمعاقبة المستشارة الالمانية وهز الاستقرار في بلادها فكانت أحداث الشغب الواسعة النطاق، التي قامت بها أعداد كبيرة من المشاغبين، مقسمة على مجموعات صغيرة، في مدينة شتوتغارت الصناعية الهامة (مركز شركة مرسيدس) ليلة السبت الأحد 20/21-6-2020 والتي استمرت من منتصف ليلة الاحد حتى الصباح، وفشلت خلالها قوات الشرطة في السيطرة على الوضع، رغم استدعاء تعزيزات شرطية من كل أنحاء المقاطعة. وهو ما خلف دماراً وتخريباً كبيراً في الأملاك الخاصة والعامة، تخللتها عمليات نهب واسعة النطاق، في المدينة.

ومن أهم القضايا اللافتة للنظر في أحداث الليلة الماضية، في مدينة شتوتغارت الألمانية، ما يلي:

*التنظيم العالي المستوى، الذي تمتعت به هذه المجموعات المشاغبة، خلال الاشتباكات مع الشرطة.

*مرونة وسرعة حركة هذه المجموعات والتنسيق العالي بينها، ما يدل على وجود مركز قيادة وسيطرة موحّد، يدير هذا التحرك.

*العنف الشديد الذي مارسته هذه المجموعات، سواءً في تخريب الأملاك العامة والخاصة ونهبها، او تجاه وحدات وآليات الشرطة، حتى تلك الآليات المتوقفة في أنحاء المدينة ولا تشارك في المواجهات. وذلك على الرغم من ان الشرطة لم تطلق اي غازات مسيلة للدموع او القنابل الدخانية او غير ذلك من وسائل مكافحة الشغب طوال فترة المواجهات والتزمت بضبط نفس شديد.

اذن، كان هذا النشاط عنفياً بامتياز قامت به مجموعات ذات ارتباطات سياسة واضحة، مع جهات تريد إرسال رسالة جليةً للمستشارة الالمانية، مؤداها أننا قادرون على ضرب الاقتصاد الالماني، بوسائل أخرى / القوة الناعمة / اذا ما واصلت المانيا عنادها في موضوع السيل الشمالي وموضوع الاتفاق النووي الإيراني ورفع حظر بيع الأسلحة لإيران. وهذا بالطبع نوع من انواع الحرب الاقتصادية، ولو أنها لا تتخذ شكل العقوبات المباشرة، تماماً كالحرب الاقتصادية التي يمارسها ترامب ضد 39 دولة في العالم، على رأسها إيران وروسيا وسورية والصين وكوريا الشمالية، اضافة الى حزب الله اللبناني.

عبثاً يحاول ترامب أن يخرج سالماً من هذه الحروب العبثية..!

لأن سهامه كلها سترتدّ الى نحره إن عاجلاً او آجلاً.

هكذا هي السنن الكونية.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

What kind of “popular revolution” is this?!

Source

THE SAKER • JUNE 16, 2020



Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan Chase


I have to say that I am amazed that so many folks on the Left seem to think that the current riots in the US are a spontaneous rebellion against police violence, systemic racism, and history of persecution and exploitation of Blacks and Indians, etc. As for the violence, looting and riots – they are either excused as a result of some kind of righteous wrath or blamed on “infiltrators”. In my previous article I tried to show how the Democrats and the US media tried to instrumentalize these riots and to use them against Trump’s bid for reelection. I accompanied the article with a carefully staged photo-op of US Democrats “taking a knee” in solidarity (as if the leaders of the Democratic Party gave a hoot about Blacks or poor US Americans!).
What I did not mention was how the US (and even trans-national) corporate world backed these riots to the hilt. Here are just a few examples of this:
YouTube:

Amazon, Bank of America & Sephora:

And it is not only in the USA. Check out what Adidas in Germany has been up to:

and finally, my personal super-favorite:
Jamie Dimon and the JP Morgan Chase Bank:

All those of us who thought that the corporate world was all about money, that the corporate “culture” had all the signs of severe psychopathy and that billionaires did not give a damn about the poor and the oppressed, but now we know better: we thought of them as evil 1%ers, and it turns out that there are kind, highly principled people, who care about injustice and freedom and who truly feel bad, very very bad, for all the injustices done to Blacks!
Do you really buy this?
I sure don’t!
These are not small mom-and-pop stores where ethics and kindness still exist. These are the very corporations who benefited most from all the inequalities, injustice, violence and imperial wars of aggression and it would be truly pollyannish to think that these corporations and their CEOs suddenly grew a conscience (the exact same applies to the leadership of the Democratic Party, of course!).
So let’s go back to the basics: corporations are about money, that is a truism. Yes, sometimes corporations try to present a “human face”, but this is nothing more than a marketing trick destined to create consumer loyalty. Now I don’t believe for one second that the mega-corporations listed above expect to make much money from supporting the riots, at least not in a direct way. Nor do I believe that these corporations are trying to impersonate a conscience because they fear a Black consumer boycott (what was true in Tuskegee in the late 1950s is not true today, if only because of the completely different scale of the protests).
So if not money – what is at stake here?
Power.
Specifically, the US deep state – at a major faction within that deep state – is clearly desperate to get rid of Trump (and not for the right reasons, of which there are plenty).

Another victory of the “coalition of minorities” and another defeat for Trump
Another victory of the “coalition of minorities” and another defeat for Trump
There are plenty of signs that illustrate that Trump is even losing control of the Executive, including Secretary Esper contradicting Trump on what is a key issue – restoring law and order – or the US Ambassador to South Korea voicing support for BLM (I consider that these actions by top officials against their own Commander in Chief border on treason). Needless to say, the pro-Dems neo-libs at Slate immediately began dreaming about, and calling for, a military revolt against Trump.
Last but not least, we now have a “free zone” in Seattle, the notorious Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, “CHAZ” aka “CHOP” where, among other “curiosities”, Whites are told to give 10 bucks to a Black person. This means that until law and order are restored to what is now the CHAZ, the United States has lost its sovereignty over a part of one of its cities. That is a “black eye” for any US President who, after all, is the leader of the Executive branch of government and the Commander in Chief of a military supposed (in theory only, of course) to defend the United States against all enemies.
What do all of these developments have in common?
They are designed to show that Trump has lost control of the country and that all good and decent people now stand united against him.
There are several major problems with this plan.
For one thing, this is all completely illegal. What began as a typical race riot is now openly turning into sedition.
The second major problem of this plan is that it relies on what I call a “coalition of minorities” to achieve its goal, it is therefore ignoring the will of the majority of the people. This can backfire, especially if the chaos and violence continue to spread.

Will he take orders from Pelosi?
Will he take orders from Pelosi?
Next, there is the “Golem/Frankenstein” issue: it is much easier to launch a wildfire than to contain or suppress it. Nancy Pelosi might be dumb enough to think that she and her gang can control the likes of Raz Simone, but history shows that when the state abdicates its monopoly on violence, anarchy ensues.
By the way, it is important to note here that Trump, at least so far, has not taken the bait and has not used federal forces to reimpose law and order in Seattle, Atlanta or elsewhere.
He must realize that liberating the so-called CHAZ might result in a bloodbath (there appear to be plenty of weapons inside the CHAZ) and that the Democrats are dreaming about blaming him for a bloodbath. Trump’s strategy, at least so far, appears to let the lawlessness continue and blame the Democrats for it.
While Trump’s strategy makes sense, it also is inherently very dangerous because if the state cannot reimpose law and order, then all sorts of “volunteers” might decide to give it a shot (literally). Check out this headline “Bikers For Trump Organizing to Retake Seattle On July 4th“. Whether these bikers will actually try to take over the CHAZ or not, even the fact that they are preparing to do so shows, yet again, that the state has lost its monopoly on violence.
Finally, this strategy to oust Trump by means of lawlessness and anarchy could greatly contribute to the breakup of the United States, if not de jure, then at least de facto. How?
For one thing, the United States is a big country, not only in terms of geographical size, but also in socio-economic and even cultural terms. Some US states have a large Black population, others much less. But they all mostly watch the same news media. Which means that when there are race riots in, say, Los Angeles or Baltimore, the people who live in states like Montana or the Dakotas feel that it is their country which is threatened. Coincidentally (or not?), these mostly White states happen to have a large part of their population as, Hillary’s famous “deplorables”. Some liberals call these states “flyover states”. It also happens that civilians in these states own a large number of firearms and know how to use them.
The same applies to different locations within any one state. Take California for example, which many view as being very liberal, progressive. Well, that might be true for many cities in California, but as soon as you enter rural California, the prevailing culture changes rather dramatically. The same urban vs rural dichotomy also exists in many other states, including Florida.
The risk here is the following one: some parts of the United States can collapse and become zones of total lawlessness while others will “circle the wagons” and take whatever measures are needed to protect themselves and their way of life.
This does not mean that the US, as a country, will break-up into several successor states. That could only happen much further down the road, but it does mean that different areas of the country could start facing the crisis autonomously and even possibly in direct violation of US laws. When that happens, poverty and violence typically sharply rise. There are already reports of vigilantism in New Mexico(interestingly, in this case the authorities did send in the cops).
In his seminal article “Race and Crime in America” (an absolute MUST READfor any person wanting to understand what is taking place today!) Ron Unz makes a very interesting observation:
“The empirical fact is that presence or absence of large numbers of Hispanics or Asians in a given state seems to have virtually no impact upon white voting patterns. Meanwhile, there exists a strong relationship between the size of a state’s black population and the likelihood that local whites will favor the Republicans”.
In other words, the larger the Black minority, the more likely Whites will vote Republican. Of course, one can dismiss this by saying that these Whites are all racists, but that does not help either because it begs the question of why Whites do not become racists when living next to Hispanics and Asians, but do so when they live near Blacks. The explanation is in Ron’s article: “local urban crime rates in America seem to be almost entirely explained by the local racial distribution” (please see the charts in Ron’s article for the data supporting this conclusion).

This makes for a potentially very explosive mix, especially in a time when police officers now risk a reprimand, a demotion. being fired or even criminal charges for using “excessive force” against any Black suspect (yes, US cops often do use excessive force, but the solution here is not to paralyze the police forces, lest the civilians feel like they need to defend themselves.
As I have said it many times, I don’t believe that the term “race” has a scientific basis, nor do concepts such as “Black” or “White”. This does not mean that they don’t have a political meaning, especially in a country which is obsessed by race issues (yes, one can obsess about non-existing things). In the US most people self-identify with a color, thus to them this is something very real. For example, the figures used in Ron Unz’ article are based upon these concepts understood sociologically, not biologically, and this is the only reason why I use them too, though somewhat reluctantly, I will admit.
Conclusion: this is no popular revolution at all
It is undeniable that a major chuck of the US ruling classes have decided to support the BLM movement and the riots it instigates. Furthermore, these US ruling classes have instrumentalized these riots in a transparent attempt to prevent a Trump reelection in November. And just like the Republicans have been destroying the AngloZionist empire on the international scene, the Democrats have been destroying the United States from within. Far from being a real popular protest movement, the BLM movement is a tool in the hands of one faction of the US deep state against another faction. A lot of Trump nominees/appointees are now seeing the writing on the wall and are betraying their boss in order to switch sides and abandon what they see as a sinking ship.
My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his political enemies (if he had any spine, it would have shown at the time when Trump betrayed Flynn only a month into his presidency). History, however, shows that a political vacuum cannot last very long. In Russia the chaos lasted from February to November 1917, at which point the Bolsheviks (who were a relatively small party) easily seized power and, following a bloody civil war, restored their version of law and order. I still don’t see a civil war taking place in the USA, but some kind of coup is, I think, a very real possibility. This is especially true considering that most Democrats will never accept a Trump reelection while most Republicans will never accept a Biden presidency. This is a case of “not my president” powerfully backfiring on its creators.
Those of us who live in the US better prepare for a very dangerous and difficult year!

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas

Global Research, May 28, 2020

Popular Resistance and Global Research 27 November 2015

First published in November 2015

GR Editor’s Note

Let us put this in historical perspective: the commemoration of the War to End All Wars  acknowledges that 15 million lives were lost in the course of World War I (1914-18).

The loss of life in the second World War (1939-1945) was on a much large scale, when compared to World War I: 60 million lives both military and civilian were lost during World War II. (Four times those killed during World War I).

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20,000,000 deaths. Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now categorized as enemies of America, which are threatening the Western World.  A so-called preemptive war against China and Russia is currently contemplated. 

Germany and Austria lost approximately 8 million people during WWII, Japan lost more than 2.5 million people. The US and Britain respectively lost more than 400,000 lives. 

This carefully researched article by James A. Lucas  documents the more than 20 million lives lost resulting from US led wars, military coups and intelligence ops carried out in the wake of what is euphemistically called the “post-war era” (1945- ). The extensive loss of life in Lebanon,  Syria, Yemen and Libya is not included in this study.

Continuous US led warfare (1945- ): there was no “post-war era“.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 20 2019, November 2019, December 31, 2019

***

After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers

Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts” and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of six million Jews killed during WWII, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

The author can be contacted at jlucas511@woh.rr.com

37 VICTIM NATIONS

Afghanistan

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)

Angola

An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan

Bolivia

Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: See South America: Operation Condor

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam

Chad

An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.

Chile

The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.

What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War.

For more information, See: Korea.

Colombia

One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.

Cuba

In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)

East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)
During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)

Grenada

The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.

Guatemala

In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)
One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)

Haiti

From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.

Honduras

In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)

Hungary

In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)

Indonesia

In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)
From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)

Iran

Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)

Iraq

A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded

Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)

Laos

From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.

Also See Vietnam

Nepal

Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)

Nicaragua

In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.

Pakistan

In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)

Panama

In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Fernando Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)

Sudan

Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)

NOTES

Afghanistan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_
terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Soviet War in Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5.U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in Afghanistan)

6.The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

7.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8.Unknown News, http://www.unknownnews.net/casualtiesw.html

Angola

1.Howard W. French “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War” New York Times 3/31/02

2.Angolan Update, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3.Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4.Lance Selfa, U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter, International Socialist Review Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears in Third world Traveler www. thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Century_Imperialism.html)

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina : See South America: Operation Condor

Bolivia

1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive /article/0,4273,41-07884,00.html

2.Jerry Meldon, Return of Bolilvia’s Drug – Stained Dictator, Consortium,www.consortiumnews.com/archives/story40.html.

Brazil See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/ .

2.David Model, President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005, paperhttp://thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Nixon_Cambodia_LFE.html.

3.Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.,http//zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm.

Chad

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2.Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in Chad, Znet/Activism 12/4/06http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11560&sectionID=1).

Chile

1.Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3.Moreorless: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

4.Associated Press,Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regimes’s Abuses, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5.Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.

China: See Korea

Colombia

1.Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html).

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3.Millions Killed by Imperialism Washington Post May 6, 2002)http://www.etext.org./Politics/MIM/rail/impkills.html

4.Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in Colombia Times Newspapers Limited, Dec. 5, 1996,www.edu/CommunicationsStudies/ben/news/cia/961205.death.html).

5.Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: Colombia’s Killer Networks–The Military-Paramilitary Partnership).

Cuba

1.St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasionhttp://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion.

2.Wikipedia http://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Casualties.

Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1.F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003)http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp)

3.Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in Congo, U. S. News and World Reporthttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/patrice.htm

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5.Ibid.,p. 260

6.Ibid.,p. 259

7.Ibid.,p.262

8.David Pickering, “World War in Africa, 6/26/02,
www.9-11peace.org/bulletin.php3

9.William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, January , 2000www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

Dominican Republic

1.Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0426spincycle.htm
Intervention Spin Cycle

2.Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Power_Pack

3.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1.Virtual Truth Commission, http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/date4.htm

2.Matthew Jardine, Unraveling Indonesia, Nonviolent Activist, 1997)

3.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5.US trained butchers of Timor, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999. http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/indon.htm

El Salvador

1.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3.El Salvador, Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador#The_20th_century_and_beyond)

4.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

Grenada

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2.Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada,http://wwwfpif.org/papers/grenada2003.html .

Guatemala

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

2.Ibid.

3.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5.Douglas Farah, Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 11, 1999, A 26

Haiti

1.Francois Duvalier,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier#Reign_of_terror).

2.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3.William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest,http://www.doublestandards.org/blum8.html

Honduras

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2.Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commissionhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/honduras.htm

3.James A. Lucas, Torture Gets The Silence Treatment, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4.Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, Unearthed: Fatal Secrets, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001.

5.Michael Dobbs, Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue, Washington Post, March 21, 2005

Hungary

1.Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in Documents November 4, 2002http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

2.Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-revolution-of-1956

Indonesia

1.Virtual Truth Commission http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Editorial, Indonesia’s Killers, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3.Matthew Jardine, Indonesia Unraveling, Non Violent Activist Sept–Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4.Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.http://qc.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=5602;

5.Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4,http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/Pohlman-A-ASAA.pdf

6.Peter Dale Scott, The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.http://www.namebase.org/scott.

7.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.

Iran

1.Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

3.BBC 1988: US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airlinerhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/default.stm )

Iraq

Iran-Iraq War

1.Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post December 30, 2002, p A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

2.Global Security.Org , Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm.

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1.Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2.Ibid., p. 52-54

3.Ibid., p. 43

4.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5.Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, The Children are Dying, 1995 World View Forum, Internationa Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7.David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1.Jonathan Bor 654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War Baltimore Sun , October 11,2006

2.News http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Israeli-Palestinian War

1.Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence May 16, 2006 http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2006/05/post-1967-palestinian-israeli-deaths.html)

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Korea

1.James I. Matray Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001http://www.truman/library.org/Korea/matray1.htm

2.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3.Kanako Tokuno, Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/chosin.htm.

4.John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported in Answers.comhttp://www.answers.com/topic/Korean-war

6.Exploring the Environment: Korean Enigmawww.cet.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html)

7.S. Brian Wilson, Who are the Real Terrorists? Virtual Truth Commissonhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

8.Korean War Casualty Statistics www.century china.com/history/krwarcost.html)

9.S. Brian Wilson, Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002) http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

Laos

1.William Blum Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul

www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/08/00_branfman_us-warcrimes-indochina.htm).

Nepal

1.Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402nepal.html.

2.Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/28/nepal13078.htm.

3.Wayne Madsen, Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/2190.shtml.

Nicaragua

1.Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Timeline Nicaragua
www.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/timeline/).

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism,
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

4.William Blum, Nicaragua 1981-1990 Destabilization in Slow Motion

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Nicaragua_KH.html.

5.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair.

Pakistan

1.John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2.Asad Ismi, A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives http://www.policyaltematives.ca)www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/pakistan.html

3.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4.Arjum Niaz ,When America Look the Other Way by,

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2821&sectionID=1

5.Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6.Bangladesh Liberation War , Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#USA_and_USSR)

Panama

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3.U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder, The Winds 9/96,www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/war/a102896b.html

4.Mark Zepezauer, CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

1.Romeo T. Capulong, A Century of Crimes Against the Filipino People, Presentation, Public Interest Law Center, World Tribunal for Iraq Trial in New York City on August 25,2004.
http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/files/RomeoCapulong.pdf).

2.Roland B. Simbulan The CIA in Manila – Covert Operations and the CIA’s Hidden Hisotry in the Philippines Equipo Nizkor Information – Derechos, derechos.org/nizkor/filipinas/doc/cia.

South America: Operation Condor

1.John Dinges, Pulling Back the Veil on Condor, The Nation, July 24, 2000.

2.Virtual Truth Commission, Telling the Truth for a Better Americawww.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/condor.htm)

3.Operation Condorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#US_involvement).

Sudan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 30, 32,34,36.

2.The Black Commentator, Africa Action The Tale of Two Genocides: The Failed US Response to Rwanda and Darfur, 11 August 2006http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091706X.shtml.

Uruguay See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press,1994), p 24

2.Casualties – US vs NVA/VC,
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html.

3.Brian Wilson, Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

4.Fred Branfman, U.S. War Crimes in Indochiona and our Duty to Truth August 26, 2004

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6105&sectionID=1

5.David K Shipler, Robert McNamara and the Ghosts of Vietnamnytimes.com/library/world/asia/081097vietnam-mcnamara.html

Yugoslavia

1.Sara Flounders, Bosnia Tragedy:The Unknown Role of the Pentagon in NATO in the Balkans (New York: International Action Center) p. 47-75

2.James A. Lucas, Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited, Global Research, September 7, 2005 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=LUC20050907&articleId=899

3.Yugoslav Wars in 1990s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars.

4.George Kenney, The Bosnia Calculation: How Many Have Died? Not nearly as many as some would have you think., NY Times Magazine, April 23, 1995

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/war_crimes/srebrenica/bosnia_numbers.html)

5.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

6.Croatian War of Independence, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence

7.Human Rights Watch, New Figures on Civilian Deaths in Kosovo War, (February 7, 2000) http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm.

 

The original source of this article is Popular Resistance and Global ResearchCopyright © James A. LucasPopular Resistance and Global Research, 2020

حزب الله والمعادلة الكبرى…

نايف أحمد القانص

عاماً بعد عام يزداد محور المقاومة مناعة وقوة امتداداً من بيروت إلى دمشق وبغداد والقدس وصنعاء وصولاً إلى طهران، وقد راكم هذا المحور خبرات قتالية خلال السنوات الأخيرة، لا سيما من خلال مشاركته في مواجهة الحرب الكونية على سورية.

لعقود طويلة، ظلّت معادلة الصراع مع العدو الصهيوني غير متوازنة حتى أيار عام 2000 تاريخ تحرير جنوب لبنان من الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي» الذي خرج جيشه يجرّ أذيال الخيبة والانكسار بعد أن قيل عنه يوماً إنه «لا يقهر».

منذ ذلك التاريخ، لم تهدأ محاولات استهداف حزب الله الذي تمكّن من تغيير موازين القوى وإجبار الصهاينة على الانسحاب كما تمكّن من تحرير عدد كبير من الأسرى اللبنانيين والعرب في مفاوضات غير مباشرة، ولم يوفّر التحالف الصهيوني الأميركي، بمساعدة بعض العرب، وسيلة إلا واستخدمها من أجل التضييق عليه وتأليب اللبنانيين ضدّه.

عام 2005، وتحديداً بعد اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني الأسبق رفيق الحريري بدأ التحضير لمؤامرة جديدة بتوجيه أصابع الاتهام إلى سورية وتحميلها مسؤولية عملية الاغتيال لتستمرّ الضغوط حتى خروج الجيش السوري من لبنان صيف 2005.

في العام 2006 شنّت «إسرائيل» عدواناً على لبنان لتأتي النتائج عكس ما تمنّاه العدو الصهيوني والقوى التي تقف خلفه فانتصرت المقاومة ومن جديد هزم الجيش «الذي لا يُقهر» في عدوان الثلاثة وثلاثين يوماً ولا تزال المؤامرات تستهدف حزب الله حتى يومنا هذا.

بعد ذلك، اندلعت أحداث ما سمّي «الربيع العربي» وهي استكمال للمؤامرة الصهيوأميركية على دول المنطقة العربية، خاصة سورية قلب المقاومة، وبما أنّ استهداف القلب مقدّمة لإنهاء الجسد، شُنَّت الحرب الكونية على سورية واستجلب إليها الإرهابيون والمرتزقة من كلّ أصقاع العالم، عندها استدرك حزب الله حجم المؤامرة فوقف إلى جانب سورية وتحقّق النصر وسقطت المؤامرة، لتبدأ اللعبة من جديد باستهداف لبنان وإيران في وقت واحد بحراك شعبي ظاهره مطالب معيشية وباطنه تدمير ممنهج.

سقطت المؤامرة في إيران ونجحت المقاومة في لبنان في امتصاص الغضب وضبط النفس ووضع مصلحة لبنان فوق كلّ مصلحة، وفي خضمّ الوضع الاقتصادي الصعب تمكنت القوى الوطنية، وعلى رأسها حزب الله من تشكيل حكومة أقرّت خطة اقتصادية إصلاحية وبدأت بملاحقة كلّ من تلاعبوا بأوجاع اللبنانيين ولقمة عيشهم.

إلا أنّ محاولات محاصرة حزب الله لم تنتهِ، لتكون ألمانيا هذه المرّة مركز اللعبة الجديدة بحظرها نشاطات «حزب الله» على أراضيها وتصنيفه كمنظمة إرهابية، وبطبيعة الحال فإنّ هذا الإجراء يتلاقى مع أهداف «إسرائيل» وأميركا، وقد أكد ذلك أمين عام حزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله في أحد خطاباته قائلاً إنّ «حزب الله ليس له أيّ تنظيمات في أيّ بلد أوروبي أو في أيّ من دول العالم»، مشيراً إلى أنّ «اللبنانيين في ألمانيا أو في أيّ بلد هم من المؤيدين لمقاومة الاحتلال وهؤلاء ليس لهم أيّ علاقة تنظيمية مع حزب الله». وهذا يجعلنا نتساءل: أليست مقاومة المحتلّ ومقارعته حقّاً مشروعاً لجميع الشعوب دون استثناء تكفله القوانين والشرائع الدولية؟ ألا يخدم الامتناع عن تحديد مفهوم للإرهاب الإدارة الأميركية راعية الإرهاب في العالم والعدو الصهيوني؟ إلا يشرعن المعنى الفضفاض للإرهاب التدخلات في شؤون الدول واحتلالها ونهب ثرواتها؟ وهل يتساوى المقاوم المدافع عن أرضه وبيته مع الإرهابي المحتلّ؟ وهل يتساوى الجلاد مع الضحية؟

لطالما كان حزب الله ولا يزال إلى جانب الشعب الفلسطيني والمقاومة في فلسطين بكلّ فصائلها وحركاتها من دون تمييز أو استثناء، وكلّ محاولات حصاره والتضييق عليه هي بسبب مواقفه التي تعيق تنفيذ «صفقة القرن» المزعومة التي تهدف إلى نسف قضية فلسطين وحقوق أبنائها وإبقائهم في الشتات إلى ما لا نهاية.

في أجواء ذكرى نكبة فلسطين وعلى بعد أيام من اليوم العالمي للقدس الذي أعلنه الإمام الخميني ليكون في آخر يوم جمعة من شهر رمضان المبارك، نؤكد أنّ قضية فلسطين ستبقى حية في وجدان الأمة، ما دامت هناك مقاومة في لبنان وسورية والعراق وفلسطين واليمن وإيران، وما دامت هناك أيدٍ مضرجة تقرع باب الحرية سننتصر بإذن الله.

*السفير اليمني في دمشق

SECRET FILES REVEAL TURKISH INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS IN GERMANY, DENMARK, THE NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN

South Front

18.05.2020 

Secret Files Reveal Turkish Intelligence Operations In Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands And Sweden
The headquarters of Turkey’s national intelligence organization

Several documents marked “secret” which were obtained by Nordic Monitor have revealed details of illegal surveillance activities of critics based in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden carried out by Turkey’s intelligence services.

The documents, dated 19 March 2019, show that Turks resident in the countries have been closely monitored due to their critical views of the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The intelligence was used by Turkish authorities to initiate criminal prosecutions against critics, prepare extradition requests and file Interpol notices.

Turkey has been accused of abusing Interpol’s law enforcement mechanisms to silence Erdoğan critics from all segments of Turkish society. According to related reports, Turkey had sought Red Notices for around 60,000 individuals in 2016. Turkish police have also been accused of manipulating Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (STLD) database for political purposes, filing fraudulent missing, lost or revoked passports and travel documents to invalidate the papers of critics and opponents of the Turkish government.

Consequently, Interpol prohibited the use of its communications channels to interact on any issue that concerned the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey because it contravened the provisions of Article 3 of Interpol’s constitution. Article 3 “strictly forbids the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”

Critics of the Erdoğan government, especially members of the Gülen movement, have been facing surveillance, harassment, threats of death and abduction since at least 2014, when then-Prime Minister and now President Erdoğan began to suspect the group of being involved in plots to overthrow the government. In turn, Erdoğan’s critics accuse him and State officials of inventing false plots and filing fraudulent charges against opponents to cover up or distract media attention from their own errors and troubles, ranging from claims of widespread corruption (including among the president’s family and closest political and business associates) to Turkey’s dangerous and disastrous decision to support of at least some of the terrorist groups that have been ravaging the northern parts of Syria.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

The Americans are Weaponizing the Coronavirus Through Sanctions

The Americans are Weaponizing the Coronavirus Through Sanctions

By Darko Lazar

Hollywood actor and filmmaker Mel Gibson was once asked why he likes having Brits as the villains in his movies. He replied: “I wanted to give the Germans a break.”

Although amusing, that sort of sentiment is unlikely to translate into policy when it comes to Washington’s modern-day foes. The Americans don’t give breaks to nations they haven’t conquered.

The onslaught of the coronavirus offered a unique opportunity for the US to test out new approaches towards countries that have been treated as enemies for generations. But Washington chose to double down on cruel and self-defeating strategies.

Unable to stave off mass suffering at home, the dysfunctional American government went to great lengths to weaponize the virus, fueling the incendiary spread of the disease in ‘rogue states’.

And while the mainstream media is eager to magnify Donald Trump’s profoundly stupid comments about injecting disinfectants, they haven’t covered the consequences of his foreign policy decisions with nearly as much fervor.

Blocking recourses needed to combat the pandemic

At the height of the pandemic in late March, the White House quietly cut tens of millions in dollars in funding for health care programs in Yemen.

The move left considerable funding gaps for dozens of UN programs in the war-torn country that were focused on supplying Yemenis with hand soap, medication and staffing clinics.

American officials justified the move by obliterating logic and claiming that it was a response to ‘interference’ from Yemen’s Ansarullah movement. 

Already characterized as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the war in Yemen has killed tens of thousands since 2015. Many of those that perished have succumbed to curable diseases.

That’s because the US-backed Saudi war effort in Yemen consists of a blockade, sanctions, and the frequent bombing of health facilities. These punishing tactics also spawned the deadliest cholera epidemic in modern history, serving as a tragic precursor to the potential impact of the coronavirus.

Washington’s ambition to use the coronavirus in order to cripple defiant nations is equally evident when it comes to Iran.

Even before the start of the pandemic, the Islamic Republic was already the most heavily sanctioned country in history. Several weeks into the coronavirus crisis, Iran was recording one death from COVID-19 every ten minutes.

The Trump administration responded to the suffering of the Iranian people by imposing a new set of sanctions, which targeted companies that build and maintain Shia holy sites. In the days that followed, Washington blocked an Iranian request for a USD 5 billion emergency loan from the IMF, which was earmarked for combating the pandemic.

Similarly, in Venezuela, where years of American sanctions have crippled the public health care system, the White House offered to ease the embargo if President Nicolas Maduro steps down.

Washington also felt that a raging pandemic was the right time to indict Maduro on a bizarre set of drug trafficking charges and offer USD 15 million to anyone who delivers him to the US.

The Americans dished out another million dollars to pay for surgical masks for “Israeli” troops patrolling occupied Palestinian territories.

In this corner of the Middle East, another US-backed campaign to blockade the Gaza Strip left Palestinian health officials pleading for more ventilators and beds for intensive care units.

The “Israeli”-enforced blockade on the Palestinian enclave, which dates back to 2007, continues to severely limit the entry of medical supplies, food, and even drinking water.

Although the coronavirus pandemic brought these unconscionably dangerous and cruel practices to the forefront, the devastating impact of American sanctions and economic blockades unfolds largely out of sight. Ignored by the mainstream media, these measures go both unnoticed and unchallenged.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, only a small percentage of the public actually realizes that the sanctions regimes are Washington’s most pervasive and brutal form of modern warfare. The effects are far more deadly than bombs.

Destroying nations

By cutting off the possibility of a productive life and stunting the growth of millions of young people, sanctions wreck societies one household at a time.

There is never any real expiry date, and the gradual torment that slowly destroys entire generations doesn’t cost nearly as much as an actual military campaign.

Meanwhile, it rolls back decades of progress in industrial development, essential infrastructure, and, of course, healthcare services.

The coronavirus pandemic is only the latest reminder that American sanctions are effectively designed to target the elderly, the sick, and the most vulnerable segments of society.

These are not peaceful instruments that act as a substitute for diplomacy. They are tools of war used to punish all nations that refuse to submit to America’s will.

In 2000, the then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children due to sanctions was a price worth paying. Albright replied: “We think the price is worth it.”

Between the coronavirus pandemic and one-liners from ghoulish creatures like Albright, you may be forgiven for thinking that you are living in a Hollywood blockbuster. But if you were hoping to catch a break like the Germans in Mel Gibson’s movies, your rosy optimism will inevitably collide with a reality stage-managed by the US government that is a lot less compassionate.

Metropolis and the Battle for Herd Unity

 BY GILAD ATZMON

metropolis and Herd Unity.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

The 1927 cinematic epicMetropolis is often described as a ‘German expressionist’ (anti realist) and a ‘science-fiction’ film. Today, as we watch the evaporation of the Covid19 phantasmal saga of viral apocalypse, we will examine whether Metropolis’ plot was truly anti-realist. 

 Watching the film almost a century after its creation brings up some existential and perplexing thoughts. Is not Metropolis the most timely expression of our current fatigue with corporate culture, our dismay with ‘science’ and ‘technology,’ and our fatigue of our deeply rotten and uniquely ungifted political class?  I suggest that back in 1927, the creators of Metropolis understood the current dystopia and its ontological roots better than some of our most venerated contemporary ‘intellectuals.’ Accordingly, I believe that rather than as ‘science fiction,’ ‘an astute prophetic message’ is the best description of this ambitious moment in German cinema.

Watch Metropolis: https://youtu.be/AvtWDIZtrAE

The film was directed by Fritz Lang and  written by his wife,Thea von Harbou, in collaboration with Lang. It is important to note that Lang escaped from Germany in 1933. Lang, it seems, didn’t approve of the Nazi regime: his wife, however, stayed behind. After the war, Thea von Harbou was imprisoned for collaboration with the Nazis. I don’t intend to examine whether Von Harbou was a ‘Nazi’ or not, but I will support the argument that Metropolis was probably the definitive and most prophetic ‘Nationalist Socialist’ (as opposed to National Socialist) masterpiece. 

Metropolis was created in Germany during the era of the Weimar Republic. It is set in a futuristic metropolitan ultra capitalist dystopia that isn’t so removed from the reality of some of our present day Western metropolises. It tells the story of Freder, the son of the oligarch city master  (Joh Fredersen), and Maria, an inspirational working class, Christian and saintly character. Together Freder and Maria defeat social injustice and the class divide by means of Herd-Unity. For this unity to occur, a mediator has to come forward to transform the history of social conflicts into a harmonious future.  We are exposed to two and a half hours of horror, oppression, slavery, capitalist malevolence and class divide that resolves in the end  into reconciliation of an Hegelian ‘end of history’ nature. The cinematic epic exhausts itself when the workers’ leader and Joh Fredersen are shaking hands and accepting their mutual fate and co-dependence. “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart,” is the inter title of the scene, emphasising the ideological and metaphysical motto of the film.  

Post WWI Germany was evidently in need of a unifying character who could resolve the class struggle and bond the workers and the capitalists into  an integrated organismus sharing an harmonious, unified  reality. It would be naïve not to believe that Hitler and his National Socialist party were driven by such a vision. And they weren’t alone. Roosevelt might have been committed to a similar search for such a bond, as was Henry Ford as well as many others.

The film was made in 1925-6 and saw the screen in 1927, during a significant period in terms of German politics and intellectual evolution. In 1927 Martin Heidegger published his monumental Being and Time (Sein und Zeit). Heidegger posited that the history of Western Philosophy is a tale of the forgetting of Being. Heidegger, more than any other philosopher before him, identified the growing detachment that has become intrinsic to modern existence and post enlightenment human landscape.  

Another text that was published at that time in Germany that had a far more immediate influence than Heideggers’ philosophical musings was Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925). Though the text is largely described as an ‘anti-Semitic diatribe,’ Mein Kampf wasn’t really a book ‘about Jews,’ though Jews were mentioned occasionally in the text. It was the means by which Hitler, at the time, a veteran corporal and a prisoner, outlined his political ideology and future plan for Germany under his leadership. In that regard, it is interesting to read George Orwell’s 1940 review of the book. Orwell, a voice from the Left, despised Hitler. His review provides an astute critique, yet, he tried to understand the success of Nazism in the light of the total failure of the German working class movement.  Not once does Orwell mention Jews or anti-Semitism.  In this regard, it is interesting to read George Steiner’s  view of Mein Kampf as one of “half a dozen books” published between 1918-27 that resulted from the crisis in German society and culture following its humiliating defeat in WWI.  In the introduction to his book about Martin Heidegger, Steiner correctly locates the work of Mein Kampf within the context of its contemporaries such as  Ernst Bloch’s The Spirit of Utopia (1918),  Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1918),  Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption (1921),  Karl Barth’s The Epistle to the Romans (1922), and, of course, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) mentioned above.

While at the time some film critics saw Metropolis as a ‘banal’ communist statement, it was actually an invaluable Nationalist Socialist cinematic revelation as it was critical of both capitalism and communism. By so doing, it expressed the true political spirit and the wishes of many Germans at the time. Like Heidegger and many other German intellectuals who were critical of the enlightenment, the meaning of modern technology and the crude exploitive instrumentalisation of science, Metropolis identified the growing detachment from the Christian and Athenian Western ethos. In a way, the film forecast the nuclear bomb, offered  a phantasy of a manmade viral apocalypse, it depicted the reality of concentration camps and even predicted robots dictating the  ‘party line’ long before Mark Zuckerberg  was born.

Twenty years before Orwell created Emmanuel Goldstein and many decades before George Soros reduced the so-called ‘Left’ into his controlled opposition toy, Lang, together with von Harbou realised that in the eyes of Capitalists and Oligarchs, the fantasy of a ‘proletarian revolution’ is a useful political tool. There is no better means towards total hegemony and oppression than the disasters the masses bring on themselves willingly and even enthusiastically.

While this is obviously the most cynical interpretation of democracy and the prospect of a revolution, it is hard not to admit that this sardonic reading is the reality in which we live.

In 2020 it isn’t Trump or the Tory government that oppresses the masses. It isn’t the White House that deletes Youtube videos of doctors and renowned scientists and it isn’t the British police that close the social media accounts of truth seekers. Instead, it is the private technology companies that dictate a tyranny of correctness in the name of so-called ‘community standards.’

And they are not alone. Corbyn was initially seen by some, including myself, as a refreshing development in British politics. However, it took just a few weeks before many of us were devastated to realize that the British Labour Party under his leadership had quickly morphed into one of the most oppressive authoritarian political bodies around.

In Metropolis Lang ridicules the idea of ‘the revolution.’ He points at the banality and the hopelessness of the masses. In the film, the workers follow Maria’s humane Christian message, waiting for a mediating savior that would redeem the entire class, but when Maria returns in the shape of a robot and delivers the complete opposite message, literally calling  for war, the masses follow her and rise up against the machine in what seems to be a suicidal act.  

In this, Metropolis managed to capture the menace attached to the Left’s empty and impulsive rhetoric as well as the sinister wickedness inherent in capitalism and its insane abuse of the weak.  

The Nationalist Socialism that evolved in the early 1900s promoted social equality however, it flatly rejected the idea of world revolution and cosmopolitanism. In his book, Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg produces an interesting account of the evolution of European Fascist thinking. Italian Fascism, in Goldberg’s eyes, advocated equality of the Italian people. Not such an outrageous concept in itself. German National Socialism could be defined, according to Goldberg, as Socialism of German Speaking people. Again, maybe not the ideal Marxist vision of the world, but not necessarily a racist concept as many people of different origins and ethnicities may speak German. Hitlerism, however, pushed for Socialism of one race. This was an extremely problematic concept as it discriminated against peoples based on the accident of birth.

It is common to look at the distinction between Marxism (or the Left) and Nationalist Socialism from the perspective of their attitudes toward cosmopolitanism versus equality or justice within a given geographical or national context. However, my study of Jewish Identity politics and Zionism has led me to a deeper understanding of the crucial distinction between Marxism and Nationalist Socialism.

In his spectacular book, The Founding Myths of Israel, the Jewish history scholar Zeev Sterhell, reveals that the ideology of Nationalist Socialism, deeply suffocated with blood and soil (Blut und Boden) was also at the core of the early Zionist revolution well before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and certainly before Fritz Lang and his wife were looking for a mediator to bond the ‘head’ and the ‘hands.’

 Sternhell notes that the early Zionist movement saw it as a necessity to bond the ‘workers’ and the ‘owners’ into a unified revolutionary force; the nation or the folk. “Nationalist socialism,” Sternhell writes, “taught that all kinds of workers represented national interests; they were the heart of the nation, and their welfare was also the welfare of the nation. Thus, workers standing beside the production line and the owners of the industrial enterprise were equally ‘producers.’” 

 “Similarly,” Sternhell continues,  “nationalist socialism distinguished between the positive’ bourgeois, the producer, and the ‘parasitic’ bourgeois, between ‘productive’ capital and ‘parasitic’ capital, between capital that creates employment and adds to the economic strength of society and speculative  capital, capital that enriches only its owners without producing collective wealth.” 

The early Zionist project was very successful in recruiting Jewish wealth and the productive bourgeois into the emerging Jewish nationalist project.  Zionism, in its early form, thought of the nation as a cultural, historical, and biological unit, or, figuratively, an extended family. Sternhell points out that in Zionism’s early days the individual was regarded as an organic part of the whole, and the whole took precedence over the individual. “To ensure the future of the nation and to protect it against the forces threatening to undermine it, it was necessary to manifest its inner unity and to mobilize all classes against the two great dangers with which the nation is faced in the modern world: liberalism and Marxism in its various forms.” 

In a lucid manner Sternhell relates that Zionism in its early form rejected the spirit of enlightenment –  the European bourgeoisie philosophy. “In place of bourgeois individualism, nationalist socialism presented the alternative of team spirit and the spirit of comradeship: instead of the artificiality and the degeneracy of the large city, it promoted the naturalness and simplicity of the village. It encouraged a love of one’s native land and its scenery. All these were also the basic values of the labor movement. Socialist Zionism, however, went further than any other national movement when it rejected the life of the Jews in exile. No one attacked Eastern European Jewry more vehemently than the young men from the Polish shtetl who settled in Palestine, and no one depicted traditional Jewish society in darker hues than the pioneers of the first immigration waves.”

In his reading of the early Zionist movement Sternhell comes to the realisation that the Jewish nationalist movement was Nationalist Socialist to its core.  Under this concept, Zion, or more accurately, historic Palestine,  the so-called ‘promised land’ was the  ‘heart’ that unified the revolutionary Jewish  ‘minds’ and ‘hands.’

Two years after Metropolis, Germany faced a horrendous financial crisis that  eventually led to the rise of Nazism. It was the disbelief in the Socialist offering and the reality of hard, merciless capitalism that made Germans believe that Hitler was the Heart, the man who brings herd unity and emancipates the Germans from the sons of the enlightenment namely,  ‘Capitalism’ and ‘Marxism.’ Hitler lasted in power for about 12 years. His nationalist devotion was complete, his socialism was pretty selective. His reign of power ended in total global havoc.   Zionist nationalist socialism, prevailed for eight decades. It started in the late 19th century and came to an end in 1977 with the electoral defeat of the Israeli Labour Party. The party that dominated the Zionist revolution for most of a century literally vanished last month but it achieved a lot before that happened. It won wars while displaying spectacular Blitzkrieg victories e.g.1967, it founded a Jews- only State as it vowed to do, it ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous people, it enacted the most problematic racist, expansionist and nationalist  philosophies and tactics and it easily got away with it.

There is a lesson to learn from Metropolis and also from Labour Zionism: if global capitalism is a total disaster then maybe Herd Unity is the way forward; a repeated search for a human bond that transcends race, gender, class, left, right or any other divisive ideology. The push for equality and compassion is precious and the search for that heart that unites us all into one man is a humane endeavour.  Labour Zionism eventually crashed because it wasn’t genuine, it pretended to be humane and universal but was tribal and racist to the bone. Labour Zionism vanished because it was a crude Identitarian precept. It was self-centred, it imploded into its own contradictions. It wasn’t ‘patriotism’ that dismantled Labour Zionism, it was the fact that Zionist patriotism was celebrated at someone else’s expense. This is precisely the danger in ethnic nationalism. I want to believe that this type of manifestation of crude chauvinism can be avoided. To be in the world is to live amongst others, to be and let be.   

For the heart to bond the ‘heads’ and the ‘minds’ a universal ethos is needed: a humble acceptance of the human condition is crucial. Maybe this very realisation explains the centrality of Christian symbolism and the church throughout the entire Metropolis movie. 

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

Donate

مشاورات التمديد لـ«يونيفيل»: مندوبة لبنان «تخالف» أم «تتآمر»؟

مشاورات التمديد لـ«يونيفيل»: مندوبة لبنان «تخالف» أم «تتآمر»؟
(أ ف ب )

وفيق قانصوه

الأربعاء 6 أيار 2020

«نعم. أمل مدللي تتبنّى تماماً الموقف الأميركي في شأن العمل على تغيير تفويض «اليونيفيل» وقواعد عملها في لبنان». هذا ما أكّدته مصادر دبلوماسية لبنانية رفيعة المستوى في بيروت لـ«الأخبار» حول ما أثير عن الموقف الملتبس لمندوبة لبنان لدى الأمم المتحدة في المداولات الجارية في المنظمة الدولية عشية التجديد للقوات الدولية العاملة في لبنان نهاية الشهر الجاري. المصادر أوضحت أن التعديلات التي يعمل عليها الأميركيون «تطال خفض موازنة اليونيفيل وتقليص عديدها وإعادة النظر بالتفويض الممنوح لها عبر توسيع مهماتها بما يسمح لها بالدخول الى الملكيات الخاصة… أي باختصار كشف ظهر المقاومة».

وبحسب مصادر دبلوماسية في نيويورك، فإن مدللي «شاركت في مشاورات أميركية – سعودية – ألمانية من أجل اقتراح قرار بإدراج حزب الله على قائمة الأمم المتحدة للارهاب»، مشيرة الى أن اقتراحاً كهذا «من الصعب جداً أن يمرّ في وجود الفيتو الروسي والصيني، وهو ما يدركه من يعدّون له. لذلك، فإن التوجّه الآن ينصبّ على محاولة إدخال تعديل على ولاية اليونيفيل وقواعد عملها، في ظل شبه الغيبوبة التي تعاني منها الحكومة اللبنانية تحت ضغط الازمة الاقتصادية وجائحة كورونا، ما يعطي المندوبة هامشاً كبيراً من الحركة في تعديل فقرات من قرار التجديد لليونيفيل».

وبعد جلسة مغلقة عقدها مجلس الأمن بواسطة الفيديو، أول من أمس، لمناقشة أحدث تقرير للأمين العام للأمم المتحدة أنطونيو غوتيريش حول تنفيذ القرار 1701، واستمع خلالها إلى إحاطة من المنسق الخاص للأمم المتحدة في لبنان يان كوبيتش، حضّت واشنطن أعضاء المجلس على إعادة النظر في التفويض الممنوح لـ «اليونيفيل» بغية السماح لها بتنفيذ المهمات الموكلة إليها. وكتبت المندوبة الأميركية لدى الأمم المتحدة كيلي كرافت، على «تويتر»، أن «على مجلس الأمن أن يعمل لضمان أن تكون («اليونيفيل») قادرة على العمل كقوة فاعلة ومؤثرة»، إذ «لا يزال ممنوعاً على هذه القوة أن تنفذ تفويضها»، كما أن «حزب الله تمكن من تسليح نفسه وتوسيع عملياته ما يعرض الشعب اللبناني للخطر». ورأت أن «على مجلس الأمن إما أن يسعى إلى تغيير جاد لتمكين اليونيفيل، أو أن يعيد تنظيم العاملين لديها ومواردها بمهمات يمكنها تحقيقها».

وأشار غوتيريش في تقريره الى أن «امتلاك أسلحة خارج نطاق سيطرة الدولة يشكّل انتهاكاً مستمراً للقرار 1701». ودعا الحكومة اللبنانية إلى «اتخاذ كل الإجراءات الضرورية لضمان التنفيذ الكامل للأحكام ذات الصلة من اتفاق الطائف والقرارين 1559 و1680 التي تطالب بنزع سلاح كل الجماعات المسلحة في لبنان». كما طالبها بـ«التزام سياسة النأي بالنفس، بما يتفق مع إعلان بعبدا»، ودعا «جميع الأطراف اللبنانية إلى الكفّ عن المشاركة في النزاع السوري وغيره من النزاعات في المنطقة». وشدّد على أن «حرية تنقل اليونيفيل في جميع أنحاء منطقة عملياتها في غاية الأهمية». فيما لفت كوبيتش، أكثر من مرة، وبوضوح، الى «التذمر الاسرائيلي من موضوع الأنفاق والأحداث التي تجري على الخط الأزرق».

ومعلوم أن تعديل ولاية اليونيفيل يحتاج إلى قرار جديد يتبناه مجلس الأمن الدولي. وتطالب الولايات المتحدة، منذ عهد باراك أوباما، استجابة لمطالب اسرائيل، بتطوير عمل هذه القوات وتوسيع صلاحياتها لتشمل تفتيش المنازل في الجنوب والدخول إلى أي مكان بشكل مفاجئ. إلا أنها اصطدمت دائماً برفض الدول الأخرى الأعضاء لا سيما روسيا والصين، وفي كثير من الحالات بمعارضة فرنسا صاحبة المشاركة الأكبر في القوة الدولية، وكذلك دول تشارك في اليونيفيل، لخشيتها من أن يغضب أي تعديل حزب الله مع ما لذلك من إنعكاسات محتملة على العلاقة بين القوة الدولية والأهالي على الأرض.

مصادر دبلوماسية لبنانية: مدللي تتبنّى الموقف الأميركي في تغيير تفويض «اليونيفيل»

الأخبار: مدللي تتبنّى الموقف الأميركي في تغيير تفويض اليونيفيل


المصادر الدبلوماسية اللبنانية أكّدت أن مندوبة لبنان لم تنسّق خطواتها الأخيرة مع وزير الخارجية اللبناني أو مع أي موظف في الخارجية، مشيرة الى ضرورة «القيام بأمر ما»، موضحة أن على الحكومة استدعاء مدللي فوراً ومساءلتها بشأن مواقفها الأخيرة، مستغربة عدم إصدار الخارجية أي توضيح لما تقوم به السفيرة في نيويورك. ولفتت المصادر الى أن مندوبة لبنان «على ما يبدو تتصرف وفق أجندة خاصة، إذ أن أي طرف سياسي في لبنان، بما فيها الطرف الذي تحسب مدللي عليه، لم يعبّر يوماً عن موافقته على تعديل تفويض عمل اليونيفيل». واستغربت عدم إبلاغ مدللي وزارة الخارجية بطلب فرنسا، اثناء المداولات الأخيرة، من مجلس الامن الاستعداد لمساعدة لبنان على الخروج من الأزمة الاقتصادية، «وهي عندما سُئلت عن الأمر أجابت بأنها اعتبرت الأمر غير مهم»!

في المقابل، ينقل دبلوماسيون عن مدللي نفيها أن تكون قد اتخذت أي مبادرة أو أعلنت أي موقف خارج الموقف الرسمي اللبناني، فيما قال دبلوماسيون آخرون لـ«الأخبار» إن مخالفة مدللي تكمن في كونها دخلت في المشاورات، من دون إبلاغ الخارجية بذلك، إلا انها لم تتبنّ أي موقف بشأن ما يُقترح. ويستدل هؤلاء على كلامهم بالقول إن اقتراح تعديل مهمة اليونيفيل لا يزال يحتاج إلى وقت قبل وضعه على طاولة المفاوضات الجدية.

سعد الحريري يخفق في تحويل لقاء بعبدا الى كباش صلاحيات لبنانية ...

مدللي عُينت في منصبها قبل عامين خلفاً للسفير نواف سلام، وهي عملت سابقاً «مستشارة إعلامية» للرئيس سعد الحريري، وممثلة له في واشنطن، فضلاً عن كونها قدّمت خدمات للديوان الملكي السعودي في العاصمة الأميركية، لجهة تسويق سياسة الرياض وتأمين تواصل مع شخصيات أميركية. ويؤخذ عليها قلة التنسيق مع الخارجية باستثناء «أجنحة قريبة منها سياسياً».

ويُنقل عن موظفي بعثة لبنان في مجلس الأمن أنها «كفّت أيدي جميع أعضاء البعثة عن متابعة أي ملف وحصرت كل الأمور السياسية والمالية وغيرها بها وحدها». كما يؤخذ عليها قلة انتاجيتها، «ففي عهد السفير سلام كانت البعثة تراسل الخارجية مرة شهرياً على الأقل، ليتراجع عدد المراسلات في عهد مدللي الى نحو ست سنوياً، علماً أن لبنان موجود على جدول أعمال مجلس الأمن في أكثر من قرار، وهو يندرج ضمن المجموعة العربية وكتلة عدم الإنحياز، وتصدر قرارات سنوية في الجمعية العامة تعني لبنان واللبنانيين مباشرة وغير مباشرة».

مقالات متعلقة

German Government Bails Out Owners of German Corporations

German Government Bails Out Owners of German Corporations

May 06, 2020

by Eric Zeusse for the Saker Blog

Just as the corrupt U.S. Government is bailing out owners of U.S. corporations while the American public experiences a recession that is heading into a depression, the corrupt German Government likewise is bailing out investors. It’s not illegal for the Government to do that — not even when the corporation that they might bail out next is the nation’s flag-carrying airline, which already receives unfair advantages in competing against other airlines in that country.

The German Government has offered to bail out even the wealthy investors who control the already governmentally favored but privately investor-owned airline Lufthansa, but those super-rich investors demand that it be an unconditional bailout, and negotiations are continuing. On May 5th, the “Flight Global” site bannered “Lufthansa reluctant to accept state aid with conditions attached”, and reported that “Lufthansa Group is holding ‘intensive talks’ with governments in Germany, Austria and Belgium about the provision of state aid.”

The very idea that the general public, the nation’s taxpayers, should ever absorb any losses of any private stock-investors, constitutes the very essence of “socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everybody else.” That is the essential core of fascism, or as Benito Mussolini sometimes called his economic and political system, “corporationism” (control of the government by the owners of corporations), but it is antithetical to any democracy, which is ruled only by its public, not by only the richest of them, who, in any country, own almost all of the corporate stock.

Any corporation that (like Lufthansa is now doing) threatens the government with going out of business or otherwise laying off employees en-masse during what has become a general financial collapse, should instead be promptly and automatically nationalized — taken over completely, at its then-prevailing stock-value — and the stock in it subsequently become sold by the government after the crisis is over, but, at first, then, made available only to its employees (and with low-interest loans being made available to them by the government, in order to enable any and all of them to participate in owning the corporation that employs them), and only subsequently made available to the general public, as a mere investment-gamble.

The only justification for anyone’s owning corporate stock, ever, is that the stockholders agree to take on all of the financial risk that the corporation’s bondholders have not taken on. (Bondholders get paid interest before stockholders get paid dividends.) If, instead, the general public, including all of the taxpayers, are taking on this financial risk, then it is only fair that the public (as represented by the government) will also be appointing, during the economic crisis, all of the corporation’s directors: the corporation will be promptly nationalized. After the economic emergency is over, the corporation will then be re-privatized, first to its employees, and then to the public. No corporation ever should be bailed-out by the government, on any other terms than to nationalize it, on this temporary basis. Either a corporation’s stockholders will fulfill the function that stockholders are supposed to fulfill (as being a sump for the corporation’s financial losses), or else their corporation will be promptly but temporarily nationalized, on this basis. Then, the stockholders will get paid fair market value for their stock, which is far more than they will receive if the corporation simply goes bankrupt — declares itself unable to fulfill its contractual obligations to its bondholders.

That is the way things would function in any democracy.

On April 9th, the Zero Hedge financial site explained in detail why even bailing out the airlines would hurt the economy more than help the economy. It quoted an extraordinarily honest investor, Chalmath Palihaptiya,

“This is a lie that’s been propagated by Wall Street. When a company fails, it does not fire its employees…it goes through a packaged bankruptcy…if anything, what happens is the employees end up owning more of the company. The people who get wiped out are the people who own the unsecured debt and the equity…but the employees don’t get wiped out and the pensions don’t get wiped out.”

[…]

“And if a bunch of hedge funds get wiped out — what’s the big deal? Let them fail. So they don’t get the summer in the Hamptons — who cares.”

But do we have a democracy?

Bailing out the public (workers and consumers) so that they can afford to continue living — and buying, and working — is the right thing to do in an economic crash, but not bailing out investors. What do investors get their incomes from? It’s not from their work, it’s only from the investment risks that they take on, the financial risks that they have agreed to accept. If the government transfers any of those risks onto the public, then the government must nationalize the corporation, because the ONLY value that investors provide in the economy is as a sump for financial risks. That’s it, and that’s all.

Any nation which transfers any of those risks onto the public is criminal — it is taking from the poor and middle class in order to keep the rich rich. It is retroactively dictating to the public: Here is now the deal: heads the investors win, tails you the public lose. That wasn’t supposed to have been the deal. If it retroactively becomes the deal when investors overall are losing money instead of making money, then the government is simply crooked; it is just a bunch of con-artists.

Apparently, the German Government (like many others) is corrupt — it’s transferring risks off of investors and onto consumers and workers. That’s Robin Hood in reverse — exactly the type of situation that governments are supposed to outlaw, and to label as being “theft.” Is it not “theft” when the richest do it? It is transferring onto workers and consumers the ONLY value-added, the only real service, that investors are supposed to be supplying, which is their serving as a sump for risks. If any of that risk-burden is removed from investors and transferred onto the public, then all of their property should automatically become property of the state. No decent government bails out investors — ever. Only criminal ones do, such as the U.S. Government.

If a government legalizes what is authentically (one might even say “in natural law”) criminal to do — such as to take from workers and consumers and give that to investors (and this is what is now commonly but deceptively called ‘democracy’) — then the ultimate criminal has become the state itself, and a revolution is needed. That’s practically the definition of what a revolution is for. Things are that bad in the United States, but in how many other countries is it likewise the case?

Perhaps we are about to find out.

—————

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

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Brings Dollars into Lebanon, Doesn’t Send Them Abroad

Source

Capture

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah denounced the German raids on some mosques and houses of some Lebanese under the pretext of supporting the Resistance party, adding that those brutal acts come in context of satisfying the United States and ‘Israel’.

Sayyed Nasrallah said that Germany decision to ban Hezbollah was expected as it has come in submission to the US pressures, adding that failed to submit any proof of terrorist acts allegedly attributed to Hezbollah.

In a televised speech, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Hezbollah does not have any organized existence in any European country, pointing out that the party has selected this track in order to avoid exposing the Lebanese supporters to any danger.

The Lebanese in Germany just endorse and support Hezbollah and may have certain religious activities, but they do not have a direct relation with the party, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who urged the Lebanese government to protect them because they have not violated the laws there.

Economic Situation in Lebanon

Hezbollah Secretary General considered that the government’s economic plan is a first step on the way of reaching a major achievement amid the coronavirus outbreak, calling on all the Lebanese to deal with it in a positive manner.

Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed Hezbollah participation in Baabda meeting held to tackle the government’s economic plan, calling on all parties to respond positively to President Michel Aoun’s invitation away from the political ambushes.

His eminence reiterated Hezbollah does not categorically reject that Lebanon requests IMF financial assistance, warning against surrendering to its will and calling on the government to determine its conditions.

“We are not against Lebanon requesting assistance from any side in the world, except for Lebanon’s enemies, who are well-known.”

Sayyed Nasrallah denied all the rumors about Hezbollah intention to destroy, control, topple or take revenge on the banking sector, describing them as attempts to distort the party’s stance on banks.

Defending the numerous depositors aggrieved by the banks is not an attack on the banking sector, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who added that they were humiliated by the banks upon seizing their funds.

The banking sector exaggerated in responding to the US pressures on Hezbollah to the extent of launching an aggression on the party, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who added that the banks did not help the government in facing the economic and financial crisis.

Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated call on the Lebanese banks to release the depositors’ funds and avoid blindly yielding to US pressures, denting that Hezbollah is planning to control the central bank’s governorship.

Sayyed Nasrallah cited a number of proposals on how to deal with the banking sector if it rejects to cooperate with the government, noting the banks most benefited from the financial and monetary policies during the past period.

Sayyed Nasrallah refuted the claims about Hezbollah currency exchange business, stressing that the party has never tasked any individual or firm to run this activity, calling on the money changers to avoid contributing to the increase of US dollar exchange rate against the Lebanese lira.

“Hezbollah does not smuggle dollars into Iran and Syria, but gets dollars into Lebanon.”

Hezbollah leader called on the economy ministry to control the prices hike and cope with the monopolization of commodities, noting that some merchants are greedily hiding certain products and prevent the clients from purchasing them.

If the ministry suffers from lack of inspectors, Hezbollah is ready to provide as many volunteers as needed, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who added that the problem of prices hike, unperceived by the rich, is no longer bearable.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed the head of Hezbollah anti-corruption file MP Hasan Fadlallah will soon hold a press conference to update the Lebanese on the its findings throughout two years, adding that they have the right to get acquainted with all the related details.

Sayyed Nasrallah called on all the Lebanese to give a longer chance for the government to cope with the ongoing crisis, adding that 100 days is not enough in this concern.

Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the firmness of the relation between Hezbollah and Amal Movement, calling on the two sides’ followers to help sustain this positive environment via the social media and avoid circulating rumors in this regard.

Sayyed Nasrallah added that the supporters must accept the fact that the two sides may have different attitudes towards certain issues and that differences can be peacefully settled,warning them against the sedition schemes.

Sayyed Nasrallah adopted literally the statement of Speaker Nabih Berri who confirmed Hezbollah-Amal relation serves the partisan and national interests.

Had Hezbollah lawmakers approved the draft law which allows planting the cannabis for medical purposes, local and foreign media outlets would have accused the party of legalizing planting Hashish in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah said.

Sayyed Nasrallah finally voiced readiness to help easing tensions among the Lebanese political parties, underscoring the effect of the positive atmosphere on reaching major achievements in the country.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

Lebanon summons German ambassador after classifying Hezbollah as terrorist organization

By News Desk -2020-05-05

BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:20 P.M.) – The Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, Nassif Hitti, summoned the German ambassador to Lebanon, George Bergeln, and asked him about the decision taken recently by the German parliament, in which they classified Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.”

The ambassador stated that the decision was taken some time ago, and has recently entered into force, stressing that the decision does not classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but rather prohibits its activities on German soil.

For his part, the Minister even stressed Lebanon’s principled position that Hezbollah is a major political component in Lebanon, and represents a wide segment of the Lebanese people and part of the Lebanese Parliament.

It is noteworthy that the German Interior Ministry announced in late April that government banned Hezbollah, including both political and military wings, on its soil and described it as a “terrorist organization”.

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, addressed the ban, saying that Germany was carrying out the will of the U.S.

He added that he expects more countries in the European Union to follow suit in the coming months.

Related

ألمانيا فعلتها: فمَن بعدَها!

د. عدنان منصور

لم يكن القرار الألمانيّ المنحاز، يوم 30 نيسان 2020، القاضي بوضع الجناح السياسي لحزب الله على لائحة الإرهاب، بعد أن اقتصر التصنيف في السابق على الجناح العسكري للحزب، مفاجئاً لمن يتتبع تطوّرات وملابسات هذا القرار الظالم، بحق حزب مقاوم للاحتلال والإرهاب. إلا انّ القرار الألماني يثير ويطرح بشكل مباشر وغير مباشر أموراً عدة، لا بدّ من تسليط الضوء عليها وأبرزها:

1

ـ مما لا شكّ فيه، أنّ الضغوط المتواصلة، الأميركية والإسرائيلية، واللوبيات الصهيونية العاملة بكلّ قوة داخل ألمانيا، ودول الاتحاد الأوروبي، لم تتوقف يوماً، ومنذ سنوات، من أجل حمل ألمانيا على اتخاذ إجراء صارم ضدّ حزب الله. فاليمين المتطرف المتمثل بنواب، وأحزاب، وسياسيين، وإعلاميين، كان يدفع باتجاه قرار كهذا. كانت الأجواء في الداخل الألماني، مهيّأة لتصبّ في هذا الإطار، خاصة أنه سبقت القرار مناقشة البوندستاغ ـ البرلمان الألمانيّ ـ للمرة الأولى، يوم 6 حزيران 2019، لمقترح تقدّم به حزب «البديل لأجل ألمانيا»، يطلب فيه فرض حظر على حزب الله اللبناني. أحال الحزب الطلب، الى لجنة الشؤون الداخلية والوطنية في البرلمان، لمزيد من النقاش وإبداء الرأي. وقد استند الحزب في طلبه، الى «أنّ حزب الله حزب شيعي إسلامي لبناني، يرفض حق إسرائيل في الوجود»، وأنه «ينشط في قتال مسلح إرهابي ضدّ إسرائيل»، وأنه «يشكل تهديداً للنظام الدستوري لألمانيا»، طالباً من الحكومة الاتحادية، إصدار الحظر وتنفيذه فوراً.

تجدر الإشارة، الى انّ وزير الدولة الألماني فيلز اينان، أعلن في شهر آذار عام 2019، لمجلة «دير شبيغل»، انّ حزب الله لا يزال مكوناً أساسياً في المجتمع اللبناني، وعبّر عن رفض ألمانيا إدراج الحزب في قائمة المنظمات المحظورة، ولو انّ الاتحاد الأوروبي وضع الجناح العسكري للحزب عام 2013 على لائحة المنظمات المحظورة.

2

ـ سبق لبريطانيا التي صنّفت الجناح العسكري لحزب الله، عام 2001 و2008 على لائحة المنظمات الإرهابية. ونتيجة لضغوط الولايات المتحدة و«إسرائيل» واللوبي الصهيوني عليها، اعتبر وزير الداخلية البريطانية، ساجيد جافيد، النائب عن حزب المحافظين الحاكم، وهو من أبرز وأشدّ داعمي وناشطي اللوبي اليهودي المعروف بـ «أصدقاء إسرائيل» (CFI)، ويكنّ عداء مكشوفاً ومطلقاً تجاه إيران وسورية وحزب الله، حيث كال في بيان صحافي له، اتهامات لحزب الله، بأنه يزعزع استقرار الوضع الهشّ في الشرق الأوسط، وأنه يصعب التفريق بين الجناح العسكري والجناح السياسي للحزب، لذلك اتخذ قراراً بحظر المجموعة كلها.

القرار البريطاني هذا، دفع بوزير الخارجية الأميركي مايك بومبيو في شهر أيار، ليحثّ ألمانيا كي تحذو حذو بريطانيا في هذا المجال.

3

ـ تعوّل الولايات المتحدة، ومعها «إسرائيل» واللوبيات اليهودية في دول أوروبا، على تفكيك القرار الأوروبي الموحّد، الذي أدرج فقط الجناح العسكري لحزب الله على لائحة الإرهاب، مستثنياً الجناح السياسي للحزب. فالضغوط ستمارس بشدة، بعد القرارين البريطاني والألماني، على دول فاعلة ومؤثرة داخل الاتحاد الأوروبي، كفرنسا وإسبانيا وإيطاليا وبلجيكا وبولونيا، بحيث إنّ لحاق هذه الدول، بركب أميركا وكندا وهولندا، وأستراليا ونيوزيلاندا، وبريطانيا وألمانيا، في إدراج الحزب كله على لائحة الإرهاب، سيتيح الفرصة في نهاية الأمر للدول الأعضاء في الاتحاد الأوروبي، كي تتبع السلوك البريطاني والألماني حيال الحزب، مما سيتيح المجال مستقبلاً للاتحاد الأوروبي، بأن يتخذ قراراً موحّداً وحاسماً في إدراج حزب الله كله بجناحيه العسكري والسياسي على لائحة الإرهاب. بذلك تكون الولايات المتحدة ومعها «إسرائيل»، قد حققت ما سعت إليه منذ سنوات.

4

ـ هناك موجة سياسية أوروبية عارمة، دأبت على إظهار تعاطفها مع «إسرائيل»، وعدائها المكشوف، حيال دول مشرقيّة مقاومة ورافضة لقوى الهيمنة، مركزة هجومها الدائم على إيران وسورية وحزب الله، وهي تهدف من وراء ذلك، إلى انتزاع قرارات حاسمة ضدّ هذا المحور، تحت غطاء ما يمكن للاتحاد الأوروبي ان يقوم به، من أجل تخفيض التصعيد والتوتر في الشرق الأوسط، وما يستطيع أن يفعله لتحقيق هذا الهدف.

في هذا الإطار، نظم مركز بروكسل الدولي، يوم 11 كانون الأول عام 2019، مع كتلة حزب الشعب الأوروبي، الداعم والمؤيد للكيان الصهيوني، ندوة سياسية في البرلمان الأوروبي، تطرّقت الى أبرز أزمات الشرق الأوسط، وتدخلات الدول الأجنبية فيها. علماً انّ مراكز الأبحاث والدراسات والمنظمات غير الحكومية، داخل البرلمان الأوروبي، لا تقتصر على تبادل المعلومات فقط، وإنما لتكون هذه المعلومات، أساساً لسياسات ومواقف يبلورها مستقبلاً البرلمان الأوروبي بقرارات يتخذها على المستويين الرسمي والسياسي.

كان من بين الحضور في الندوة، Marc Otte، رئيس مركز بروكسل الدولي للدراسات، والسفير الخاص لبلجيكا حول سورية، ودانيال كراندلر من مركز الدراسات في باريس، وغيرهم من الباحثين المختصّين في الشؤون الإيرانية والشرق الأوسط، وشمال أفريقيا، وشؤون شبه الجزيرة العربية والعراق ومنطقة الخليج. وكانت هناك مداخلة للنائبة اللبنانية بولا يعقوبيان، عبر السكايب، بصفتها نائبة في البرلمان اللبناني، وصحافية، وعضواً ضمن الفريق الاستشاري الخارجي للبنك الدولي حول التنوّع والإدماج. ترأس الندوة النمساوي Lukas Mandl، الذي بدأ كلمته مطالباً الاتحاد الأوروبي بحماية وتعزيز أمن «إسرائيل»، معتبراً أنها الدولة الديمقراطية الوحيدة في الشرق الأوسط، وأنّ أمنها امتداد لأمن الاتحاد الأوروبي!

رأت النائبة يعقوبيان أنّ لبنان كان مسرحاً للقوى الإقليمية، وهناك أفرقاء يتصرّفون بالإنابة عن هذه القوى. ومنذ فترة وجيزة، شهدنا كيف انطفأ الدور السعودي في لبنان، وكيف أصبح لإيران تأثير أكبر في السياسة اللبنانية، وكيف أصبح لحزب الله سلطة أكبر في السياسة الداخلية. في السابق كانت سورية تتولى الشؤون السياسية الداخلية في لبنان، أما إيران فكانت تتطلع للقضايا الأكبر كالحرب مع «إسرائيل». أما اليوم، فـ إيران تتدخّل في الشؤون السياسية اليومية عبر حزب الله، الحزب الأكثر قوة على الساحة… ورداً على سؤال حول إمكانية تغيير النظام الطائفي، أجابت يعقوبيان: من الضروري كخطوة أولى، وقف النزاعات الطائفية في المنطقة التي تغذيها بعض الدول التي تتدخل في شؤون الدول العربية، ونذكر هنا إيران وتركيا. وأضافت، انّ «إسرائيل» تلعب اللعبة ذاتها. واعتبرت أنّ سياسات هذه الدول تنافي المصالح الوطنية الأوروبية والقيم الإنسانية، وتؤدّي الى تدمير العالم!

دانيال كراندلر، بدأ كلمته بتوجيه تحية الى النائبة يعقوبيان، على جرأتها في أن تكون موجودة في بيروت، وتتكلم علناً عن حزب الله، معتبراً أنّ مداخلتها سهّلت عليهم، وهم داخل الاتحاد الأوروبي، في قلب أوروبا، والحال ليس كما هو عندما تتحدث من بيروت.

من جهته، اتهم كراندلر إيران بإعادة تسليح حزب الله، في خرق واضح للقرار 1701، واعتبر أنه يستحيل إيجاد السلام، طالما إيران تلعب دور المفسِد من خلال دعمها لحزب الله وحماس والجهاد الإسلامي. واذا أردنا احتواء الحرب، فيجب احتواء إيران. لأنّ سياسة الاتحاد الأوروبي، الذي يتعاطى بليونة حيال الاتفاق النووي مع إيران غير مقبولة. كما دعا الاتحاد الى احتواء سياسة إيران وأذرعها، خاصة حزب الله الذي يهدّد بصواريخه المسيّرة «إسرائيل»، واعتماد ضربة استباقية تفضي لإدانة حزب الله على انتهاكاته الدائمة لحقوق الإنسان، وتدخله في الحرب في سورية، وتكديسه السلاح، تحضيراً لاستخدامه في ايّ حرب مقبلة مع «إسرائيل».

5

ـ انّ العمل على اتخاذ قرار موحد من قبل الاتحاد الأوروبي، تجاه حزب الله، سيوسّع مستقبلاً مروحة الدول المتربّصة بمحور المقاومة في المنطقة، وبالذات حزب الله. إذ سينضمّ الاتحاد الأوروبي، بعد ان تتهافت دوله على وضع الحزب كله على لائحة الإرهاب، الى مجموعة الدول التي سبق ذكرها، والتي سبقت بريطانيا وألمانيا في تصنيف الحزب، مما سيقوّي النزعة العدوانية للكيان الإسرائيلي، ويعطيه الضوء الأخضر للقيام بعدوان عسكري على لبنان، للاقتصاص من المقاومة، في ظلّ غطاء أميركي أوروبي واسع، مدعوم من دول حليفة وصديقة، بعد أن يستند فيها الجميع الى «شرعية القرار» الذي سبق للمجموعة الدولية ان اعتمدته، والذي يعتبر حزب الله إرهابياً، ويجب القضاء عليه، وإنهاء وجوده.

6

ـ ألمانيا التي كانت وسيطاً فاعلاً وموثوقاً في ملفات مهمة ومعقدة، وأبرزها ملف تبادل الأسرى مع العدو الصهيوني، نجدها اليوم بعد تصنيفها لحزب الله بالإرهاب، تزيل عنها صفة الحيادية والصدقية، وستربك العلاقات الثنائية اللبنانية الألمانية. إذ كيف ستتعاطى ألمانيا مع الدولة اللبنانية، بعد القرار المنحاز، وفي داخل حكومتها وزراء يمثلون الحزب الذي تعتبره إرهابياً؟! وهل ستكون الحكومة مطعّمة بالإرهاب وفقاً للمنظور الألماني؟! وهل سينظر إليها على أنها داعمة «للإرهاب» وراضية بوجوده ومنسِّقة معه؟! إنّ القرار الألماني الذي يصنف حزباً يحارب قوى الإرهاب في الداخل وفي المنطقة، ووضعه على لائحة الإرهاب، انما يخدم بصورة مباشرة وغير مباشرة، قوى الإرهاب الحقيقية ورعاتها وداعميها، والتي لقيت وتلقى الدعم المتواصل من دول غربية، تريد تفتيت دول المنطقة المقاومة للاحتلال الإسرائيلي، والمتصدّية لنفوذ قوى الهيمنة والتسلط.

7

ـ إزاء القرارات المتتابعة ضدّ حزب الله، لا يمكن للدولة اللبنانية بعد اليوم أن تظلّ مكتوفة الأيدي، وتكتفي بتصريح من هنا، أو بأسف من هناك. لأنّ الحزب ركن أساسي، ومكوّن هام من مكوّنات الحياة السياسية اللبنانية، وهو إحدى الركائز الضامنة لاستقرار لبنان وسيادته. لذلك انّ القرار الألماني الأخير، له تداعيات سلبية على لبنان ودول في المنطقة، وتأثيره المباشر على الداخل اللبناني، وعلى العلاقات الثنائية بين البلدين، وأيضاً، على العلاقات الألمانية ـ العربية في المنطقة المشرقية، نظراً لما يمثله حزب الله من انتشار ومكانة كبيرة في المنطقة. ولدى شريحة واسعة من الشعب اللبناني، ودوره الرئيس في محاربته ومقاومته لقوى الإرهاب في الداخل والمحيط، ووقوفه بجانب الجيش في الدفاع عن لبنان وسيادته. لذلك، إنّ القرار الألماني لا يمسّ الحزب وحده، إنما يمسّ بالصميم الشعب اللبناني والدولة كلها، حيث حزب الله جزء لا يتجزأ منها، وكرامته من كرامتها، ولا يمكن فصله عنها في الأوقات الحرجة.

8

ـ لبنان، الذي هو أمام قرارات تطاله من خلال مكوّن أساسي من مكونات الدولة، لا بدّ له أن يقف وقفته الشجاعة. فإما أن يرضخ ويقبل بالقرارات الغربية المنحازة ومفاعيلها، وإما أن يبحث عما يحفظ ماء وجهه وكرامته وسيادته. فإذا كان يتوجّس خيفة من التداعيات والخسائر، فإنه لم يبق لديه ما يخسره. فالأبواب كثيرة، والأصدقاء كثر، إذ بإمكانه إقامة نوع من التوازنات والمعادلات في تعاطيه في علاقاته مع دول العالم الصديقة، بدلاً من اعتماده ورهانه على جهة واحدة، تريد ابتزازه، وممارسة الضغوط عليه، للسير في مشاريع سياسية ومالية واقتصادية وقانونية، تصبّ في نهاية المطاف، في صالح العدو «الإسرائيلي»، وصالح رعاته وداعميه.

فهل باستطاعة لبنان، اتخاذ قرار شجاع يحصّن من خلاله وحدة شعبه، ويجنّبه المزيد من الابتزاز والضغوط والتسلّط، أم اننا بانتظار قرارات أخرى مماثلة، تصدر لاحقاً عن دول تمرّ على اللبنانيين ودولتهم مرور الكرام!

*وزير الخارجيّة الأسبق.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

«القرار الألماني بحق حزب الله جزء من الحرب الأميركية الإسرائيلية على المقاومة» نصرالله: لا نقبل تسليم رقابنا لصندوق النقد الدولي والخطة الحكومية بحاجة إلى تحصين وطني لتحقيق إنجاز

الحكومة اللبنانية مسؤولة عن اللبنانيين وما يتعرضون له في ألمانيا سنشارك في لقاء بعبدا وندعو إلى أوسع مشاركة فيه لا ننقل الدولار إلى إيران وسورية بل نجلبه إلى لبنان

اعتبر الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله أن القرار الألماني بحق الحزب «هو جزء من الحرب الأميركية الإسرائيلية على المقاومة في المنطقة، لأنها ضد الإحتلال الصهيوني»، مؤكداً أن «حزب الله ليس له أي تنظيمات في أي بلد أوروبي أو في أي من دول العالم»، ورأى أن «الخطة الاقتصادية والمالية للحكومة بحاجة إلى تحصين وطني لتحقيق إنجاز قريباً». وأوضح «أننا لسنا ضد مبدأ طلب لبنان مساعدة من أي جهة في العالم لكن لا نقبل تسليم رقابنا لصندوق النقد الدولي».

جاء ذلك في كلمة متلفزة للسيد نصرالله أمس، اعتبر فيها أن القرار الألماني بحق حزب الله كان متوقعاً وهو عبارة عن خضوع للإدارة الأميركية، بل هو جزء من الحرب الأميركية «الإسرائيلية» على المقاومة في المنطقة، لأنها ضد الإحتلال الصهيوني.

وأشار إلى أن «الالمان لم يقدموا أي دليل على وجود أنشطة في المانيا»، مؤكداً أن «القرار هو خضوع لأميركا وارضاء لاسرائيل، إضافة إلى ما يقال عن أن له خلفيات تنافس سياسي في الانتخابات الألمانية». ودان «إقدام الالمان على مداهمة بعض المساجد، والتضييق على بعض الأفراد»، واصفاً إياها بـ»المتوحشة».

وقال «لم يكن هناك أي داع لهذه الممارسات المتوحشة سوى تقديم أوراق الاعتماد للأميركيين»، ولفت إلى أنّ «حزب الله ليس له أي تنظيمات في أي بلد أوروبي أو في أي من دول العالم»، مضيفاً «اللبنانيون في ألمانيا أو في أي بلد هم من المؤيدين لمقاومة الإحتلال وهؤلاء ليس لهم أي علاقة تنظيمية مع حزب الله، وقد يكون لهم نشاطات دينية أو غيرها ضمن ما يقره القانون وهذا أمر آخر»، ولفت إلى أنه «منذ سنوات طويلة أدركنا أنه يجب ألاّ نضع أي لبناني في الخارج بعلاقة معنا كي لا نعرضه للخطر».

وقال «لا داعي للبنانيين في ألمانيا أن يقلقوا لأنهم لم يخالفوا القانون ويجب مواجهة هذه الإجراءات بالسبل القانونية»، معتبراً أن «الحكومة اللبنانية وفي مقدمها وزارة الخارجية، مسؤولة عن اللبنانيين وما يتعرضون له».

الخطة الإصلاحية نقطة للحكومة

من جهة ثانية، رأى السيد نصر الله أن «الخطة الإصلاحية للحكومة ورغم الإنشغالات الحالية تشكل نقطة تُحسب لصالحها»، مشيراً إلى أن «الخطة الاقتصادية والمالية للحكومة خطوة أولى على الطريق»، وأضاف «الخطة بحاجة إلى تحصين وطني وهذا يمكّن الحكومة ومؤسسات الدولة من تحقيق إنجاز قريباّ».

وقال «سنشارك في اللقاء الذي دعا اليه رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون وندعو إلى أوسع مشاركة فيه»، لافتاً إلى أن «لا مانع من نقاش الخطة بعد إقرارها والحكومة منفتحة على ذلك»، ودعا إلى «الابتعاد عن الكمائن السياسية من أجل مصلحة البلد».

وأوضح السيد نصر الله «أننا لسنا ضد مبدأ طلب لبنان مساعدة من أي جهة في العالم لكن لا نقبل تسليم رقابنا لصندوق النقد الدولي». وأضاف «لم يتم إعطاء تفويض لأحد بطلب المساعدة من صندوق النقد الدولي ويجب مراجعة الشروط والخطوات المطلوبة»، مؤكداً أن «الحكومة لا تسلم البلد إلى صندوق النقد الدولي وهناك نقاش حول الخطوات والشروط».

لا نريد السيطرة على المصارف

وشدد على «رفض الاتهامات التي وجهت إلى حزب الله بالنسبة للقطاع المصرفي»، مؤكداً أنها «تهدف إلى التعمية». وقال «نحن لا نريد لا تدمير ولا إسقاط ولا السيطرة ولا الإنتقام من القطاع المصرفي ولم نقترب منه أبداً»، ورأى أن «القطاع المصرفي بالغ في الإجراءات بحقنا بالنسبة للمطالب الأميركية ووصل إلى حد العدوان علينا».

وقال السيد نصر الله إن «تصرف البنوك المذل مع المودعين هو من أسباب رفضنا لسياسة هذا القطاع»، لافتاً إلى أنه «في ظل الأزمة المالية والنقدية الحادة التي نواجهها فإن القطاع المصرفي لم يساعد الحكومة في مواجهتها».

وأشار إلى أن «القطاع المصرفي هو من أكبر المستفيدين من السياسات النقدية المتبعة في لبنان منذ سنوات» موضحاً أن «هناك أفكاراً أخرى مطروحة إذا لم يبادر القطاع المصرفي إلى مساعدة الحكومة في مواجهة الأزمة الحالية»، وأكد أن «الكلام عن أن حزب الله يريد السيطرة على حاكمية مصرف لبنان، مسخرة».

لا نغطي أحداً

وعن سعر صرف الدولار مقابل الليرة اللبنانية، قال السيد نصر الله «ليس لدى حزب الله أي نشاط صيرفة ولم نكلف أي مؤسسة أو فرد في الحزب ممارسة هذا النشاط»، ودعا الصرافين «إلى الالتزام بالقانون وإلى أن لا يكونوا جزءاً من لعبة لرفع سعر الدولار على حساب مجتمعهم ولا نغطي أحداً»، وأضاف «لا نقوم بجمع الدولار ولا نقوم بنقله لا إلى إيران ولا إلى سورية، ونحن نجلب الدولار إلى البلد ولا نسحبه».

وشدّد السيد نصر الله على أن «غلاء الأسعار والاحتكار مسؤولية الحكومة ووزارة الاقصاد وحدها غير قادرة على تحمل هذا العبء»، موضحاً أن «هناك تجاراً يمارسون الاحتكار والجشع ما يؤدي إلى غلاء الأسعار بالاضافة إلى فقد المواد وعدم ضبط الأسعار»، وأكد أنه «يجب أن تضع الحكومة خطة طوارئ لمواجهة غلاء الأسعار»، لافتاً إلى أنه «يمكن استدعاء موظفين لمساعدة وزارة الاقتصاد في ضبط الأسعار والاستعانة بالبلديات والتطوع ونحن جاهزون، ولا حجة لدى الحكومة ألاّ تكون جدية بضبط الأسعار».

وشدد على أن «موضوع الأسعار بات لا يطاق ولا يحتمل، والمترفون قد لا يحسون بأزمة غلاء الأسعار لكن كل البلد يصرخ منها ويجب أن يكون لها الأولوية المطلقة في عمل الحكومة والوزراء والمسؤولين»، وأضاف «حق الناس علينا أن يعرفوا ماذا فعلنا بملف الفساد وهذا سيُعرض بمؤتمر صحفي قريب»، وتمنى على «الكتل النيباية والقوى السياسية والناس إعطاء الوقت للحكومة ومهلة الـ100 يوم لا تكفي».

وأكد أن «العلاقة بين حزب الله وحركة أمل متينة وممتازة ونحن على تواصل دائم»، وقال «هناك أطراف داخلية وخارجية تسعى إلى ايجاد وسائل للشقاق بين حركة أمل وحزب الله وهذا الأمر لن يحصل»، معتبراً أن «على جمهور حركة أمل وحزب الله تقبّل أن الإختلاف في بعض القضايا وارد وعليه الحذر من أيادي الفتنة».

وقال «لو وافقنا على قانون زراعة القنب الهندي لكانت الصحف قالت حزب الله يشرّع الحشيشة في لبنان»، مشيراً إلى أن البلد يحتاج الى الهدوء والتعاون، وأضاف «نحن حريصون ألاّ يكون هناك توتر في البلد وندعو للهدوء في العلاقات الثنائية وإذا من كان من الممكن أن نساعد في أي موضوع فنحن جاهزون. لدينا الكثير لانجازه في الداخل وذلك يحتاج إلى أيادي ممدودة وعقول مفتوحة».

Sayyed Nasrallah: German Decision to Blacklist Hezbollah Clear Submission to US, Cooperation Needed to Save Lebanon

Sayyed Nasrallah: German Decision to Blacklist Hezbollah Clear Submission to US, Cooperation Needed to Save Lebanon

Zeinab Essa

Beirut- Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Monday a televised speech in which he addressed the latest developments.

Denouncing Germany’s decision to blacklist Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that “this step was expected. It’s a submission to the US administration.”

“The German decision targets the resistance in the region and it is part of the US- “Israeli” war on the resistance,” he stressed, pointing out that “Germany provided no evidence of Hezbollah activities.”

 According to His Eminence, “This confirms that blacklisting Hezbollah is a political decision to please “Israel” and the US.”

“We in Hezbollah are honest when we say that we have no organization in Germany, France, or any other country,” the Resistance Leader added, condemning “The German raids on some mosques and Islamic associations.”

To the Lebanese people living in Germany, Sayyed Nasrallah said: “Don’t feel worried because you are abiding by the law and the Lebanese government is concerned with protecting its citizens.”

He further urged the German government to clarify its position because the citizens were attacked without any evidence.

“All these brutal German practices are unjustified,” His Eminence confirmed, underscoring that “Hezbollah has stopped establishing networks in foreign countries since years ago.”

Moreover, he urged The Lebanese government to protect its citizens in Germany and other countries. “It must take measures and have a stance in this aspect,” he emphasized.

Hezbollah Secretary General declared that “What happened does not affect our will. Rather, it increases it to continue our resistance to the occupation.”

On the internal front, Sayyed Nasrallah announced Hezbollah’s participation in Baabda meeting called to by Lebanese President Michel Aoun.

Regardless of Hezbollah’s evaluation, His Eminence hailed “The approval of the economic plan amid the coronavirus crisis as a positive move.”

In parallel, he revealed that “Major discussions had taken place prior to the approval of the plan.”

“The government’s plan needs national immunization,” he stated, calling for further discussion of the conditions and the program with the International Monetary Fund [IMF]. “The issue must be dealt with great responsibility and caution. So far, there is nothing settled.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah declared that “Hezbollah isn’t against requesting assistance from any side in the world, except for Lebanon’s enemies, who are known. We’re not against asking help from the IMF but surrendering to it is rejected and the government must hold talks to know the conditions.”

On another financial issue, Hezbollah Secretary General unveiled that the party told the banks that its understands their commitment to the American regulations, but not to be American more than the Americans. “The banking sector has exaggerated in its procedures against Hezbollah. Some have been Americans more than the Americans themselves.”

Denying media allegations, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “We don’t want to destroy, control, topple or take revenge on the banking sector and there are attempts to distort Hezbollah’s stance on banks.”

“Defending people aggrieved by the banking sector is not an attack on the banking sector,” His Eminence added, noting that “The banking sector has not made any step to help the country during this period.”

As he described “The Lebanese banking sector” as “one of the biggest beneficiaries of monetary policies since 1993,” Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “The humiliating behavior of banks with depositors is one of the reasons we announced our rejection to the banking policy.”

“Hezbollah does not want to control the central bank’s governorship,” he reiterated, hinting that “There are other ideas if the banking sector does not take the initiative to assist the Lebanese government in facing the current crisis.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “Hezbollah has nothing to do with the money exchange sector. We’re clients in this sector.”

He called upon “all money-changers to adhere to the law, not to violate it in any way, and to abide by Sharia controls.”

However, His Eminence said that “There might be money changers who are supporters of Hezbollah.”

“We do not take a dollar from the country and export it abroad, and whoever accuses us with this must double check his claims,” Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned, stating that “We are bringing dollar to Lebanon and our positive role is preventing the dollar from going crazy.”

Meanwhile, he confirmed that “The burden is bigger than the Lebanese Economy Ministry as to the hike in prices. The entire government must intervene and devise an emergency plan.”

Urging the Lebanese government to confront monopolization and raid warehouses, His Eminence slammed traders who are practicing monopoly and greed, which leads to expensive prices in addition to the loss of materials and lack of price controls

“The high prices should be a priority in the work of the Lebanese government,” he added, noting that “Hezbollah is ready to provide thousands of volunteers to the Lebanese Economy Ministry to help in monitoring the prices of commodities.”

Moreover, Sayyed Nasrallah unveiled that “Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah will hold a press conference in the coming days to tackle the corruption file.

On another level, His Eminence highlighted that “There are internal and external parties seeking to find rift between Amal movement and Hezbollah, and this will not happen.”

“Our relation with Amal Movement is excellent. The public of both Hezbollah and the Amal movement shouldn’t be dragged into strife, especially on social media. The public of Hezbollah and Amal movement must accept that differences in some issues and they must beware of the hands seeking discord,” he confirmed.

Sayyed Nasrallah also urged “The Lebanese political sides to give the Lebanese government time and one cannot ask it for miracles in light of the difficulties and circumstances.”

“Hezbollah is keen on the interest of Lebanon and is ready to help and bridge the points of view between Lebanese regions or sides experiencing any tension,” he said, noting that “Lebanon needs calm and cooperation to get out of the economic and financial crisis.”

Related Videos

Related Articles

‘Israeli’ Mossad behind Germany’s Hezbollah Blacklisting

‘Israeli’ Mossad behind Germany’s Hezbollah Blacklisting

By Staff, Agencies

The Zionist entity’s Mossad spy agency is reportedly behind Germany’s recent decision to blacklist Lebanon’s resistance movement Hezbollah.

Berlin on Thursday designated Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization,” banned all its activities in the European country and ordered raids on sites police claimed were linked to the movement.

Citing unnamed Zionist officials, ‘Israeli’ Channel 12 news reported Saturday that the Mossad had provided Germans with information on Hezbollah’s activities on its soil.

The spy agency, the television said, had carried out a months-long delicate operation to assess the movement’s operations in Germany and presented its findings to German intelligence and law agencies.

“The move is the result of many months of work with all parties in Germany. The heads of services were required to present explicit evidence and legal proof… linking the organization to significant ‘terrorist’ activity, and that is what we did,” one official claimed.

According to the official, head of the German intelligence organization BND Bruno Kahl is a close friend of Mossad.

Berlin has been a longtime backer of the Zionist entity, providing billions of dollars in aid enabling the occupation of Palestine in the name of reparations for Jewish persecution by the Nazi Germany.

On Thursday, the Tel Aviv regime was effusive in its praise of Germany, with its foreign minister Yisrael Katz hailing the blacklisting as a “very important decision”.

Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also welcomed the decision, calling on “all peace-loving countries” to follow Germany’s lead.

Related News

Mossad provided Germany intel about Hezbollah that led to terrorist designation: Israeli media

By News Desk -2020-05-02

BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:45 P.M.) – An Israel-based channel reported on Saturday that the Israeli Mossad provided its German counterpart with new information about Hezbollah’s operations.

According to the Hebrew-language Channel 12 News, reported, the Mossad provided Germany with new information about what it claimed were “terrorist operations on German soil,” which prompted the latter to declare the party a “terrorist organization.”

Channel 12 confirmed that this important information related to figures in Hezbollah working in the field of trade and who are laundering money for the party, and transferring hundreds of millions of Euros to Hezbollah bank accounts.

The news channel said on its official website that the recognition of Germany’s characterization of the party as a terrorist organization came after receiving important and accurate information.

It reported that the Mossad transferred information to German officials regarding warehouses and stores in southern Germany, with the aim of using them in terrorist acts.

The German Ministry of the Interior announced last Thursday that it had taken a decision to ban Hezbollah on its soil and designate it as a terrorist organization, while the German police carried out raids that same morning to arrest people belonging to the party.

ALSO READ  US Air Force showcases strength as naval carriers bogged down by coronavirus

Germany’s Decision against Hezbollah Is Support for the Criminal Terrorist Zionist Regime

Germany’s Decision against Hezbollah Is Support for the Criminal Terrorist Zionist Regime

Mukhtar Haddad

Iran – A spokesman for the Iranian Guardian Council of the Constitution said that the German government’s action against the Lebanese people is definitely against international laws and is against the right to determine one’s fate, which is a legal right.

In an exclusive statement for al-Ahed news, Dr. Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei said that the Lebanese people and popular groups like Hezbollah have defended their rights and lands against Zionist crimes and its government’s terrorism.

Therefore, “the presence of the Resistance forces is legitimate on the basis of principles and rules in accordance with international law,” the spokesman added.

The Guardian Council member went on to say that the German government, which claims to defend human rights, should stand with the popular Resistance forces instead of backing the Zionist entity.

Kadkhodaei said that Germany’s most recent measure has proven that its government’s motto of defending human rights is not real, but is used as a pretext for eliminating the rights of people in different regions of the world.

The spokesman further pointed out that “the terrorist Zionist regime’s welcoming of the German government’s action confirms the illegality of this decision”.

“It comes within the framework of supporting and achieving the interests of the illegal Zionist entity and it is opposed to the principles of defending human rights and combating terrorism,” he said.

Kadkhodaei reiterated the of role of the Islamic Resistance in combating terrorism in the region and said that “the role of the Resistance in the war against terrorism and the elimination of Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and the blood it shed in this field has prevented the arrival of this terrorist scourge supported by the Zionists to European capitals. Accordingly, they have achieved security and stability in the world”.

%d bloggers like this: