US Fueling Terrorism in China

October 24, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The West’s human rights racket has once again mobilized – this time supposedly in support of China’s Uyghur minority centered primarily in the nation’s northwestern region of Xinjiang, China.
Headlines and reports have been published claiming that up to a million mostly Uyghurs have been detained in what the West is claiming are “internment camps.” As others have pointed out, it is impossible to independently verify these claims as no evidence is provided and organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Uyghur-specific organizations like the World Uyghur Congress lack all credibility and have been repeatedly exposed leveraging rights advocacy to advance the agenda of Western special interests.

Articles like the BBC’s, “China Uighurs: One million held in political camps, UN told,” claim (emphasis added):

Human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have submitted reports to the UN committee documenting claims of mass imprisonment, in camps where inmates are forced to swear loyalty to China’s President Xi Jinping. 

The World Uyghur Congress said in its report that detainees are held indefinitely without charge, and forced to shout Communist Party slogans.

Nowhere in the BBC’s article is evidence presented to verify these claims. The BBC also fails to mention that groups like the World Uyghur Congress are funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and has an office in Washington D.C. The NED is a US front dedicated specifically to political meddling worldwide and has played a role in US-backed regime change everywhere from South America and Eastern Europe to Africa and all across Asia.
What China Admits 

According to the South China Morning Post in an article titled, “China changes law to recognise ‘re-education camps’ in Xinjiang,” China does indeed maintain educational and vocational training centers. The article claims:

China’s far-western Xinjiang region has revised its legislation to allow local governments to “educate and transform” people influenced by extremism at “vocational training centres” – a term used by the government to describe a network of internment facilities known as “re-education camps”.

The article also claims, echoing the BBC and other Western media fronts:

The change to the law, which took effect on Tuesday, comes amid an international outcry about the secretive camps in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region.

But observers said writing the facilities into law did not address global criticism of China’s systematic detention and enforced political education of up to 1 million ethnic Uygurs and other Muslims in the area.

Again, the “1 million” number is never verified with evidence, nor does the article, or others like it spreading across the Western media address the fact that China’s Uyghur population is a target of foreign efforts to radicalize and recruit militants to fight proxy wars both across the globe, and within China itself.

Also omitted is any mention of systematic terrorism both inside China and abroad carried out by radicalized Uyghur militants. With this information intentionally and repeatedly omitted, Chinese efforts to confront and contain rampant extremism are easily depicted as “repressive.”


Uyghur Terrorism is Real, So Says the Western Media Itself  

Within China, Uyghur militants have carried out serial terrorist attacks. This includes a wave of attacks in 2014 which left nearly 100 dead and hundreds more injured. The Guardian in a 2014 article titled, “Xinjiang attack leaves at least 15 dead,” would admit:

An attack in China’s western region of Xinjiang left 15 people dead and 14 injured. 

The official Xinhua news agency said the attack took place on Friday on a “food street” in Shache county, where state media said a series of attacks in July left 96 people dead, including 59 assailants.

Abroad, Uyghur-linked terrorists are believed to be responsible for the 2015 Bangkok bombing which targeted mainly Chinese tourists and left 20 dead. The bombing followed Bangkok’s decision to send Uyghur terror suspects back to China to face justice – defying US demands that the suspects be allowed to travel onward to Turkey.

In Turkey, they were to cross the border into Syria where they would train, be armed, and join terrorists including Al Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) in the West’s proxy war against Damascus and its allies.

AP in its article, “AP Exclusive: Uighurs fighting in Syria take aim at China,” would admit:

Since 2013, thousands of Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim minority from western China, have traveled to Syria to train with the Uighur militant group Turkistan Islamic Party and fight alongside al-Qaida, playing key roles in several battles. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s troops are now clashing with Uighur fighters as the six-year conflict nears its endgame. 

But the end of Syria’s war may be the beginning of China’s worst fears.

The article implicates the Turkish government’s involvement in facilitating the movement of Uyghurs through its territory and into Syria. Another AP article claims that up to 5,000 Uyghur terrorists are currently in Syria, mainly in the north near the Turkish border.

The Western media – not Beijing – admits that China’s Xinjiang province has a problem with extremism and terrorism. The Western media – not Beijing – admits that Uyghur militants are being recruited, moved into Syria, funded, and armed to fight the West’s proxy war in Syria. And the Western media – not Beijing – admits that battle-hardened Uyghur terrorists seek to return to China to carry out violence there.

Thus it is clear that Beijing – as a matter of national security – must confront extremism in Xinjiang. It is undeniable that extremism is taking root there, and it is undeniable that China has both the right and a duty to confront, contain, and overcome it. It is also clear that the West and its allies have played a central role in creating Uyghur militancy – and through feigned human rights concerns – is attempting to undermine Beijing’s efforts to confront that militancy.

US Supports Uyghur Separatism, Militancy  

The US National Endowment for Democracy’s own website admits to meddling all across China and does so so extensively that it felt the necessity to break down its targeting of China into several regions including mainlandHong KongTibet, and Xinjiang/East Turkistan.

It is important to understand that “East Turkistan” is what Uyghur militants and separatists refer to Xinjiang as. Beijing does not recognize this name. NED – by recognizing the term “East Turkistan” – is implicitly admitting that it supports separatism in western China, even as the US decries separatists and alleged annexations in places like Donbass, Ukraine and Russian Crimea.

And more than just implicitly admitting so, US NED money is admittedly provided to the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) which exclusively refers to China’s Xinjiang province as “East Turkistan” and refers to China’s administration of Xinjiang as the “Chinese occupation of East Turkistan.” On WUC’s website, articles like, “Op-ed: A Profile of Rebiya Kadeer, Fearless Uyghur Independence Activist,” admits that WUC leader Rebiya Kadeer seeks “Uyghur independence” from China.

It is the WUC and other Washington-based Uyghur fronts who are repeatedly cited by the Western media and faux human rights advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International regarding allegations of “1 million” Uyghurs being placed into “internment camps,” as illustrated in the above mentioned BBC article.

By omitting the very real terrorist problem facing China in Xinjiang as well as elsewhere around the world where state-sponsored Uyghur terrorists are deployed and fighting, and by depicting China’s campaign to confront extremism as “repression,” the West aims at further inflaming violent conflict in Xinjiang and jeopardizing human life – not protecting it.

Where Uyghur terrorists are being trafficked through on their way to foreign battlefields, Beijing-friendly governments like Bangkok are sending suspects back to face justice in China. In nations like Malaysia where US-backed opposition has recently come to power, Uyghur terror suspects are being allowed to proceed onward to Turkey.

Al Jazeera’s recent article, “Malaysia ignores China’s request; frees 11 ethnic Uighurs,” would report:

Malaysia has freed 11 ethnic Uighurs detained last year after they broke out of prison in Thailand and crossed the border, despite a request from Beijing for the men to be returned to China. 

Prosecutors dropped immigration charges against the group on humanitarian grounds and they flew out of Kuala Lumpur to Turkey on Tuesday, according to their lawyer Fahmi Moin.

Al Jazeera would also make sure to mention:

The decision may further strain ties with China, which has been accused of cracking down on the minority Uighurs in the western region of Xinjiang. Since returning as prime minister following a stunning election victory in May, Mahathir Mohamad has already cancelled projects worth more than US$20bn that had been awarded to Chinese companies.

This point makes it abundantly clear that Uyghur extremism has become a central component in Washington’s struggle with Beijing over influence in Asia and in a much wider sense, globally. Geopolitical expert F. William Engdahl in his recent article, “China’s Uyghur Problem – The Unmentioned Part” concluded that:

The escalating trade war against China, threats of sanctions over allegations of Uyghur detention camps in Xinjiang, threats of sanctions if China buys Russian defense equipment, all is aimed at disruption of the sole emerging threat to a Washington global order, one that is not based on freedom or justice but rather on fear and tyranny. How China’s authorities are trying to deal with this full assault is another issue. The context of events in Xinjiang however needs to be made clear. The West and especially Washington is engaged in full-scale irregular war against the stability of China. 

It is difficult to argue with this conclusion – as the US has already openly wielded terrorism as a geopolitical tool everywhere from Libya where the nation was divided and destroyed by NATO-led military operations in the air and terrorist-led troops on the ground, to Syria where the US is all but openly aiding and abetting Al Qaeda and its affiliates cornered in the northern governorate of Idlib, and even in Yemen where another AP investigation revealed the US and its allies were cutting deals with Al Qaeda militantsto augment Western and Persian Gulf ground-fighting capacity.

It is important to understand the full context of the West’s accusations against China and to note the media and supposed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others involved in propaganda aimed at protecting terrorists and promoting militancy inside of China.

These same media groups and faux-NGOs will turn up elsewhere along not only China’s peripheries across Southeast, South, and Central Asia, but also within and along the borders of nations like Russia and Iran.

Exposing and confronting these appendages of Western geopolitics, and the Western corporate-financier interests themselves directing their collective agenda is key to diminishing the dangerous influence they have and all the violence, conflict, division, and destruction they seek to employ as they have already done in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

 

Advertisements

The US Cyber Command has launched an offensive against Russia by Ruslan Ostashko

Via The Saker

What mainstream media tells you about Iraq is lie

Thu Oct 18, 2018 04:01PM
Iraqi martyrs (Photo by Robert Carter)
Iraqi martyrs (Photo by Robert Carter)

By Robert Carter

When reading about Iraq in the mainstream media, we are often told how Iraq is a sectarian Islamist society, how religion has damaged the country, and that the Iraq war against the terrorist group Daesh was a Sunni vs Shia sectarian civil war. After visiting the country this month, I discovered for myself just how much of what the mainstream media tells us about Iraq is a lie!

The scars of the conflict are highly noticeable. Many of the wounds of war have yet to heal. The most noticeable evidence of this, which I saw throughout my journey, was the nameless faces of Iraq’s martyrs who died fighting in the horrific war against the Daesh.

While driving between the cities of Najaf, Karbala and Baghdad, I could see never-ending roadside columns of long-lost loved ones looking back at me; and for all the miles of road that we drove down, there were equally miles of martyr’s posters.

I learned how Iraqis of all sects and faiths have been fighting on the front line against Daesh since 2014, yet what the Western mainstream media would have us believe is that this war was a sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Most of the martyrs I saw were members of a volunteer army, known as the Hashd al-Sha’abi, which is routinely (and falsely) referred to in the West as a sectarian “Shia militia.” These narratives, concocted in the West, are damaging to Iraq and fail to truly display what is felt on the ground in Iraq. Here I will attempt to explain.

The real Hashd al-Sha’abi

The Popular Mobilization Forces, also known in Arabic as the Hashd Al-Sha’abi is a pro-government umbrella organization composed of some 40 militias. The Hashd came into existence following a call to arms by Iraq’s top Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2014 who urged the people of Iraq to “defend the country, the honor of its citizens, and its sacred places” from the advancing Daesh.

Thousands of men signed up to the voluntary army and, according to officials at the time, up to two million Iraqis signed up to join the Hashd.

This volunteer army is made up of mainly Shia Muslim groups, but the Hashd is by no means a Shia-only group and boasts a large membership of Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Yazidi Iraqis too – a point often ignored by the Western mainstream.

The Hashd was meant to be an all-inclusive non-sectarian group from its inception. A point made clear by Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s representative, Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Karbalai, who said: “It is the responsibility of all Iraqis to fight and stop these terrorists. This call does not apply to one sect or one side only.”

The Hashd went on to fight in almost every battle against Daesh in Iraq and played a decisive role in liberating the captured areas and eventually defeating the terror group.

During my tour, I met with two influential Shia clerics, Shiekh Karbalai and Shiekh Riyahd al-Hakim, the son of another Grand Ayatollah, Muhammad Saeed al-Hakim. Both keenly emphasized the role that the Iraqi religious leaders played in monitoring the behavior of the Hashd. Routine checks by representatives to the frontlines were made, and regular religious edicts were made promoting unity, restraint and humane treatment of the enemy.

Sheikh Karbalai said that the Ali Akbar Brigade, one of the volunteer fighter groups belonging to the Hashd, contained Sunni scholars in its ranks. One of those Sunni scholars was Sheikh Mohammad al-Nuri. He took part in the battle to reclaim his home city, the Sunni-majority city of Fallujah.

Speak to an audience of listeners; Sheikh al-Nuri said in a passionate and angry speech: “The sectarian narrative (peddled in the West) is a lie, and whoever said Iraqis are sectarian is a liar!

“We (Sunnis from Fallujah) gave 300 martyrs in the fight to liberate my city,” he continued: “We (Sunni and Shia) stand together in peace and in war.”

The Sheikh’s anger for the cost of this war no exaggeration. Virtually all Iraqi families have paid for their country’s liberation with the blood of their nearest and dearest. Women and children were also not spared from the violence, many being killed by indiscriminate car bombings or being caught up in the devastating violence which Daesh unleashes on every area it touches.

This was not a war between the Shia and the Sunni. This was a war against extremism, a battle between savages and civilized people.

Who cares?

Sadly the dehumanization of the Iraqis, and to a broader extent the Arab and Muslim world as a whole, has reached a stage in which most people really don’t care.

I can quite honestly say that if a car bomb goes off and kills 10, 20 or over 100 Iraqi civilians tomorrow, it will get far less attention than if an A-list celebrity in the West gets a new wacky tattoo or hairdo.

The life of Iraqis has become so cheap that it’s now worth less than their own piffling dinar currency, as of today, worth only a fraction of a US cent. It’s a mainstream industry practice to peddle the cliché narrative of demonization, of dehumanization, which creates a superiority complex that ‘we’ in the West are always right and we can never be wrong.

Perhaps one of the saddest aspects of the Iraq war against Daesh is not just the unimaginable loss of life but the fact that nobody in the West could care less about the Iraqi people’s sacrifice or continued suffering in the aftermath of the war.

Today, if Iraqis are lucky, they may get a brief mention on the Western mainstream channels that somewhere in Iraq a bomb went off killing some random Arab people. Even then, those reports are either met with at best a short-lived vague curiosity or at worst a yawn; for death in Middle Eastern countries has become entirely normalized and in some ways justified in the West.

The mainstream media has taught its audience that dead Arabs are no more unusual than cats catching mice, and this is a crime which “we,” the West, are collectively guilty of; allowing the horror and outrage initially felt by the suffering of innocent Iraqis or any other unmentioned oppressed Middle Eastern peoples to become the new norm.

Iraqis have sacrificed and continue to do so. It’s this offering which makes the world a safer place, free from the threat of Takfiri terrorism. Isn’t it time we, at the very least, made an effort to recognize this selfless sacrifice of the heroic people of Iraq and the region?

I didn’t know these men in life, nor all of their names in death, there were just too many to ask about, but none the less the sight of these fallen Iraqi fighters troubled me more than the thirty plus degree heat I had to endure.

I myself am not an Iraqi, but there is something that connects me to these martyrs, something that relates all of us to them. These nameless men died fighting in a war to defeat a great evil which, if left unopposed, would have spread its deadly grip to every continent, every country and every community.

We have dedicated days in the West to remember those who died in battles which occurred in Europe over 100 years ago – can we not even spare an hour of the year for those who died fighting for such a just cause? If they were white, Western and Christian then probably yes but, alas, Iraqis are too brown, too Arab and just too Muslim for most to care.

I’ll end with this fact: the Muslim community are the greatest victims of terrorism and are also the ones fighting every day to defeat it.

Robert Carter is a Press TV staff writer based in London.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

LOSING CONTROL – ABOUT 50% OF CITIZENS IN THE WEST DON’T BELIEVE MEDIA CLAIMS ABOUT RUSSIA

Image result for ABOUT 50% OF CITIZENS IN THE WEST DON’T BELIEVE MEDIA CLAIMS ABOUT RUSSIA

LOSING CONTROL – ABOUT 50% OF CITIZENS IN THE WEST DON’T BELIEVE MEDIA CLAIMS ABOUT RUSSIA

 

Lately, Russia has been countless times the news focus in the western media. We must recall the so-called Skripal affair when Moscow was blamed for poisoning the former Russian spy and his daughter, Russia’s alleged involvement in chemical attacks in Syria, and interference in the American presidential election.

However, as research shows, the population of Western countries tends not to believe everything the media tells them.

Almost half of respondents in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States do not believe in their media coverage of Russia.

Thus, 53% of the French who participated in the survey responded that they do not believe what the media writes about Russia. They are followed by Germany, where the percentage corresponded to 50%. The same opinion is shared by 47% of respondents in the UK. In the USA, this number corresponds to 43%.

The number of respondents – from the countries cited above – who rely on their media reports on Russia is considerably smaller: only a quarter of the French and a third of Britons. In Germany and the USA the percentage is slightly higher – 39%.

It is noteworthy that in France and Germany it is young people (less than 35 years old) who believe least in fair coverage. While in the US and UK the situation is the opposite: Respondents over the age of 35 tend to have less confidence in the news about Russia offered by the local media.

The survey was conducted by France’s oldest public opinion firm, IFop, between August 9 and 20, 2018. A total of 4,033 respondents over 18 years of age from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States participated in the poll. The sample is representative of the population by sex, age and geographical location. The margin of error of the sample is approximately 3.1%, with a confidence level of 95%, making this a highly regarded poll.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Euronews

Via The Saker

October 18, 2018

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Euronews

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Euronews, Moscow, October 16, 2018

Question: The issue of Russia’s financial contribution to the Council of Europe has long been on the agenda after Russia’s voting right was suspended. How important is the Council of Europe to Russia? What, in your view, is the likely solution to this impasse?

Sergey Lavrov: The Council of Europe is going through a serious crisis and not because Russia suspended its contribution more than a year ago but due to the reasons you mentioned: because Russia was denied the right to vote. This happened in 2014 as punishment for the free expression of will by Crimea residents, who voted in favour of reintegration with Russia at a referendum. This punishment was imposed on the members of parliament that were elected by the population of Russia and sent as a delegation to the Council of Europe.

The sanctions imposed in 2014 became tougher in 2015. As a result, the Russian members of parliament were stripped of all rights whatsoever and were only allowed to be present at the meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and listen to anti-Russia statements without having an opportunity to answer, which is, strictly speaking, regular practice in any normal parliament where, even if tensions are running high, it is always possible to answer and compare different positions. Our members of parliament were denied this right for three years even though from 2014 until 2017 we made the required contributions. In so doing, we warned that this could not go on forever because without due representation at the assembly and without the opportunity to state its position it would be unwise for Russia to pay for Russophobic activities; the same goes for any other country that might end up in a similar situation for that matter. So we warned everyone that we would be forced to suspend our contributions at some point. We did this in the summer of 2017, making it clear that as soon as the rights of our members of parliament at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe were unconditionally and fully reinstated, we would immediately pay our debts.

I want to stress that our decision on this point has worked. Many sensible MPs and functionaries in the Council of Europe have become aware of the seriousness of the situation. Michele Nicoletti, the then President of the Parliamentary Assembly, and Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland were struggling to find a way out of this absolutely abnormal situation.

As a result of that work, the attention of all members of the Parliamentary Assembly was drawn to the fact that there is a basic document that all bodies of the Council of Europe, including the Parliamentary Assembly, must be guided by in their work. This is the Statute of the Council of Europe – a fundamental document, an imperative, so to say. It says that all Council of Europe member states enjoy equal rights in any Council of Europe format, whether the Parliamentary Assembly, or the Committee of Ministers, or any other organ.

We pointed this out and asked our colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly to comply with the document they signed when they endorsed the decision to establish the Council of Europe and to honour the terms on which Russia joined the organisation. Once again, I will point out that the term written in the Statute is the complete equality of the delegations of all Council of Europe member states, including in the Parliamentary Assembly.

Instead, a small, but very loud and aggressive group of delegations from countries that are well known to everyone (I won’t bother mentioning the names; they have been pushing an anti-Russia stance in the European Union, as well as NATO, the United Nations and the OSCE) set forth the premise that besides the Statute of the Council of Europe there are also the Rules of Procedure for the Parliamentary Assembly. These Rules of Procedure stipulate that decisions be adopted through a vote and by a very narrow majority. The most they were willing to do was to consider whether these rules should be changed to make it harder to restrict the rights of one delegation or another.

Our response was simple and tough. No regulations, rules or procedures can compare in significance with the fundamental document – the Statute of the Council of Europe, which, let me point out once again, proclaims the mandatory equality of all delegations in all structures of the Council of Europe.

Therefore, we will propose that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe pass a resolution confirming the indisputability of this statutory provision – this is its function. If that decision is blocked, it will be a deliberate step by those, who, in their anti-Russia fervour, simply want to “bury” Europe.

Please note that since our MPs were stripped of the right to vote, the Parliamentary Assembly has already elected, if I am not mistaken, 24 judges to the European Court of Human Rights. And the total number is 47. So, the majority of judges in the European Court are judges elected in the absence of the Russian votes.

Similarly, a new High Commissioner for Human Rights was elected without the Russian MPs. Next June, a new secretary general of the Council of Europe will be elected. So, due to the suspension of our right, which is granted to us by the Statute of the Council of Europe, to participate in these votes, the above functionaries of the Council of Europe (the judges, the commissioner for human rights and soon, if this issue persists, the secretary general) will, in fact, not be legitimate for us. Therefore, I do hope that all our partners, including and in the first place those who made this mess, who decided to punish the deputies chosen freely by the will of the people who are residents of Crimea – that they have become aware of the seriousness of the situation and the responsibility that they are taking upon themselves.

Question: Thorbjorn Jagland said they would make the budget without Russia’s funds. Our Russian MPs say that one of the options is leaving the Council of Europe. Is Russia considering this possibility?

Sergey Lavrov: Thorbjorn Jagland has no other option than to create the budget using the current funding under circumstances where we are not paying our share. We, again, recently stated that as soon as our rights are restored we will pay our dues to the Council of Europe in full. The European Court of Human Rights has been largely formed without our participation, so its legitimacy for Russia is rather dubious, just like the legitimacy of the Commissioner for Human Rights. I have heard the Russian parliamentarians’ statements to the effect that if this outrage continues, the Council of Europe will be signing its own death warrant. I do not think that Russia’s participation in Council of Europe is more important for Russia than for the European countries. This is my firm conviction. We joined the Council of Europe on the principle that it provides for a pan-European, universal legal and humanitarian space. I am sure that those who have dealt a blow to this space through illegitimate actions that violate the Statute and seek to deprive the Russian delegation of their equal rights, they know what they are signing up for. If they want to push Russia out of the Council of Europe, we won’t give them the pleasure; we will leave the organisation ourselves. Let those in the majority, who are aware of the provocative nature of this plan initiated by a small but loud group of countries, work within this group. It is unacceptable to ruin a pan-European organisation to satisfy the ambitions of certain politicians in some European capitals. Everyone is aware of this. I hope that most sensible people will be brave enough to prevent this from happening.

Question: Is Russia doing anything to prove to the West that we are reliable and can be trusted after what has happened to the Skripals and all those hacking attack charges?

Sergey Lavrov: Our Western colleagues are priding themselves on having built a rule-of-law state in their countries; rule of law and the rules-based order are allegedly what the historical West has created as well as what all others should accept and reproduce, including the judicial system. There is English law and there is Roman law, but in both cases for someone to start proving his innocence he should hear the concrete charges. We have not been presented with such charges. We are baselessly being convinced that we have “highly likely” done something unlawful in Salisbury, then in Amesbury, and later we did something unlawful in Catalonia. Allegedly, we have meddled in all these matters. They are also accusing us of having played our sad role in Brexit and of many other sins. But not one single concrete charge has been presented.

Unlike our partners, we did build a rule-of-law state, because we hold sacred our international legal commitments and hope that all others will do the same. We have advised the British Government dozens of times, in keeping with conventions existing in our bilateral relations (the Council of Europe conventions, incidentally), of the need to utilise the mechanism for mutual assistance in criminal cases. After numerous reminders on our part, they replied officially that the British Government could not do that out of national security considerations. As is clear to everyone, this reply lacks substance and is disrespectful of the British legal system, among others. Therefore, as soon as we are presented with concrete facts, we will be ready to sit down and talk. The same goes for allegations that we have meddled in the US elections. Moreover, in both cases, we have long been suggesting – even before Donald Trump was elected president and before the Salisbury incident – that we should start concrete work on cybersecurity, where professionals, first of all, will exchange their concerns and respond to these mutual concerns, and, secondly, devise certain universal rules that will make it possible to rule out or dramatically reduce the abuse of cyberspace, which is used by terrorists, criminals, drug addicts, pedophiles, and many other people, who must be restrained in every possible way. In response, we hear only that Russia should mend its ways, if it wants to be talked to. This is neither serious nor the way adults behave.

Unlike our accusers, we ask some very concrete questions: there is a convention on legal assistance, let us use it; there is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which says that if a state party has questions to ask another state party, the country that has conceived a question must put this question directly in a bilateral format to the country, to which this question is addressed. Nothing of the kind has been done.

Yet another utterly concrete question, which we have been asking for too long now and which is shameful to ignore for much longer, is: where are Yulia and Sergey Skripal? If the evidence we have been presented with includes just the corpses of a cat, a hamster, and a poor, unstably housed woman, as well as a scent-bottle, it all looks grotesque. I don’t want to belittle the seriousness of cases involving the use of chemical substances, but if someone wants to gamble on this and put up a show to amuse the public and rally the European community against the Russian Federation, then this is shameful. If someone is seriously concerned about these problems, there is no need to tell the untruth. You should prove your accusations with facts, including by presenting to the public Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia. While Sergey has British nationality apart from Russian citizenship, Yulia is just a citizen of Russia. She appeared on television just once, uttered a clearly filmed monologue, and added that she wanted to return back to Russia. No one has seen her since then. Her relative, Viktoria, has failed to obtain a visa. She was harassed at the British Embassy in Moscow, where they repeatedly urged her to change the documents, rewrite the questionnaires or bring new photographs. In the end she was left without a visa. There are many other factors preventing relatives of these people from contacting them. So, we are in favour of legal solutions to any problems. The rabid accusation in the spirit of “highly likely” or “we don’t see any other plausible explanation” are just not serious.

Question: What about Bellingcat? All these investigations…

Sergey Lavrov: That’s part of the same story, really. White Helmets, or Bellingcat – it’s all the same. It’s not a secret for anyone, and Western journalists openly write about this, that Bellingcat is closely connected with the special services that use it to channel information intended to influence public opinion. No matter how many times we were told that the White Helmets are truth lovers, human rights champions and humanitarian workers who save people in the most difficult situations. More and more facts are popping up confirming their close connection with ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra. This is more like they are not at all benefactors working “answering the call of the heart,” but rather for getting payment. As for the staged videos, the locals are not allowed to leave the site until these people arrive with their cameras. There are a lot of facts like this that have become public.

Moreover, quite recently, three months ago maybe, our Western colleagues decided, as they said, to “save” the units of the White Helmets in southern Syria after non-Syrian forces left the de-escalation zones established there by Russia, the United States and Jordan. Their positions were taken over by the Syrian army, which has now restored the order on the Golan Heights established by the UN Security Council resolution of 1974, which Israel also supported. Representatives of the White Helmets, 400 people with their families, urged to take them to Jordan for a period of three or four weeks, and then, as was announced, Britain, Canada, Germany and Holland would take them. Three months have passed. They are still there. According to our data, Western countries, which promised Jordan to take these people and move them to Europe and Canada, have browsed through some of their dossiers and became horrified. Their past suggests that European countries would be scared of accepting such people with prominent criminal tendencies.

Question: Do you believe that diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom and Western countries can improve?

Sergey Lavrov: All relations do not boil down to just diplomatic relations. There are other relations, including cultural relations that have not disappeared anywhere and which continue to evoke tremendous interest among Russian, British and American citizens and those of the EU countries. There are also economic relations that, incidentally, concern Russian citizens and the relevant business circles to a considerable extent, and these relations are the subject matter of ongoing contacts.

Diplomatic relations depend on the extent to which various partners are ready to respect diplomatic proprieties. Our British colleagues who, to be honest, started wrecking our relations, are not seriously committed to diplomatic proprieties today. I have already said that we have failed to receive any reply after sending dozens of diplomatic notes. Many requests to the Foreign Office also went unanswered. One gets a strong feeling that the United Kingdom’s current authorities have decided to vent their domestic frustrations, including Brexit, on Russia and to explain their domestic problems by Russian scheming. It appears that the Democratic Party of the United States has set this example by justifying its election campaign defeat by the fact that Donald Trump waged an unfair struggle, with Russia allegedly assisting him during this process. It is sad when domestic political squabbles start affecting relations between leading states. They continue to face a problem linked with Brexit. A struggle is now underway for the post of the leader of the Conservative Party, for holding new elections and so on.

For some reason, the “Russian card” has become quite popular among politicians. Possibly, they don’t have enough creativity for doing something else. They simply blame Russia for everything, without trying to take into consideration their  electorate and believing that their voters will accept any concoction.

It is amusing to see British representatives rushing all over Europe after the Salisbury incident and demanding that the EU countries take part in sanctions. They have persuaded many countries, but not all of them, to expel Russian diplomats after the Salisbury incident. Today, they are also inventing some new systematic sanctions that the whole of the EU would have to impose on any violators of the chemical weapons ban and lots more. It appears that a country, now leaving the EU, is frantically trying to influence the EU’s Russian policies. I believe that the UK wants to rein in the EU with regard to Russia and other matters concerning international affairs. It is not up to me to decide to what extent this meets the EU’s interests as well as their dignity.

Question: Is Russia worried about the political and even economic fallout in connection with the Jamal Khashoggi case.

Sergey Lavrov: You are so metaphorical! I support the current calls for a speedy investigation as soon as possible. We praise the agreements between Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the various steps being taken to make it possible to conduct this investigation. I do hope that the international community will get to know the results.

Question: The media has reported today that President of Syria Bashar al-Assad is set to visit Crimea. Does Russia plan to involve Syria in Crimean matters? There are plans for economic activities there.

Sergey Lavrov: President of Syria Bashar al-Assad is our partner. We regularly exchange visits with our Syrian colleagues at the level of presidents, ministers of foreign affairs, trade and economic development. Our military personnel and secret services also maintain contacts. This is very important for combating terrorism. The Russian regions are interested in various opportunities being provided by Syria for expanding economic, cultural, humanitarian and educational ties. Quite recently, Head of the Republic of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov visited Damascus at the invitation of President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. As is customary in normal diplomatic practices, he handed over an invitation from Russian leaders for Bashar al-Assad to visit the Russian Federation, including Crimea. Well, that’s about it.

Please come to Crimea. They are telling us that human rights are being violated in Crimea. But all those who are concerned with this matter have repeatedly been able to see what life is really like there. Those trying to make a politically motivated story out of this insist that they will only go to Crimea via Ukrainian territory. This is out of the question because Crimea is part of the Russian Federation under the results of the March 2014 referendum that involved the people of Crimea. But for some reason, not all Western journalists want to go there and see everything with their very own eyes. They have every opportunity to see how the people of Crimea live. If they are interested in a political game, they strike an attitude and say that they will only visit Crimea via Ukrainian territory. This is unprofessional.

Speaking of professionalism, I would like to mention another aspect, namely, Donbass. In effect, Ukraine is divided by the frontline. Provocations continue despite the Minsk Agreements and all attempts by members of the Normandy format and the Contact Group to fulfil all the agreements. Thank God, there are no large-scale hostilities like back in 2014 and early 2015, but regular firefights occur, despite regular “school,” “harvest” and “Christmas” ceasefire agreements. We have been asking officials from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine not to issue sterile reports listing attacks on communities, the number of killed and wounded civilians. Instead, we are expecting them to provide specific updates on the developments in various sections of the demarcation line and to focus on attacks against civilian facilities and casualties and fatalities among the civilians. In September 2017, the OSCE issued the first such report listing the location of attacks and the damage incurred. This was a difficult job because the Ukrainian authorities tried hard to forbid the OSCE from publishing this report. According to this report, five times more civilian facilities were damaged in the areas controlled by the self-defence fighters. The responsibility for this rests with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Civilians living in such places also sustained six-seven times more casualties and fatalities. Any military expert would use this data to note that such a correlation between damage and civilian casualties and fatalities means that, by all appearances, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attack civilian facilities in communities, including kindergartens, hospitals and schools. For their part, self-defence fighters retaliate by hitting positions from which they are being attacked. I have mentioned journalism and professionalism. Representatives of the Russian media work non-stop, seven days a week and 24 hours a day in areas controlled by self-defence fighters. They show the extent of damage and the real results of the operations involving the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If our Western partners are saying that Russia and the separatists are to blame for everything, and that the Minsk Agreements would be immediately fulfilled as soon as Russia wants this to happen, and that Ukraine has allegedly fulfilled them almost completely (this is what some of our European colleagues and US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker are saying), then it would probably be no problem to send BBC, CNN and Euronews correspondents to areas controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and to show everyone how people live there and  the extent of damaged civilian facilities, if any. I have repeatedly spoken with journalists I know about this but failed to get any reply. They are simply looking at me, nodding but doing nothing. If Donetsk and Lugansk are accused of everything, including aggressive behaviour, then it would be appropriate to send journalists there, so that they would work honestly in areas allegedly severely attacked by self-defence fighters. Over all these years, BBC and someone else sent their groups there only once or twice, and that was all about it.

Question: Speaking of President of Syria Bashar al-Assad once again, does Syria plan to conduct economic operations in Crimea or not?

Sergey Lavrov: This depends on the extent to which this region and a certain region in Syria, be it Damascus, Latakia or any other, are interested in specific projects. This was the first meeting between the Head of Crimea and representatives of the Syrian leadership. Quite possibly, they will be able to discuss mutually beneficial projects after assessing the local situation.

West is Losing and so It’s Bashing China and Russia ‘Left and Right’ Literally

CHIEC774342.jpg

By Andre Vitchek
Source

The insanity and vileness of Western anti-Chinese propaganda used to make some of my Chinese friends cry late at night. But things are changing. The lunacy of what is said and written about China (and Russia, of course), in the US and Europe, is now clearly reflecting frustration and the bad manners of sore losers. One could almost be inclined to pity the Western empire, if only it wasn’t so violently murderous.

The Empire’s propagandists are pitying nobody – they are now shooting like maniacs, but without any coherent plan.

Various Western ‘experts’ and journalists cannot really agree on the basics: ‘what is really wrong with China’. But they are paid extremely well to find new and newer skeletons in the huge Chinese closets, and so they are constantly competing with each other, looking for the juiciest and the most scandalous stories. Often it appears that it pays to assume that absolutely everything is flawed with the most populous, and on top of it, Communist (with the ‘Chinese characteristics, of course) country on earth!

China will end extreme poverty by 2020, but do not look for cheers and applause from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington. China is far ahead of all the large countries on earth in building a so-called ‘ecological civilization’, but who is willing to notice? China is constructing public parks, boardwalks and playgrounds, the biggest on earth, but who cares? The Chinese government is introducing sweeping educational reforms, while flooding the entire nation with concert halls, museums and theatres. But that’s not worth mentioning, obviously!

Western propaganda tries to discredit China literally from both ‘left and right’, sometimes accusing it for being too Communist, but when it is suitable, even for ‘not being Communist enough’.

The New York Times ran a cover-page story on October 5, 2018, “Unlikely foe for China’s leaders: Marxists”. For this highly sarcastic piece, a reporter visited the Chinese city of Huizhou, from where he wrote about a group of over-zealous young Marxists who are demanding things to be as they were in Mao’s days:

“But the Huizhou activists represent a threat the authorities did not expect.”

Seriously? A threat? China is moving towards Communism, again, under the current leadership. We are talking about democratic, socially-oriented Communism. But let us not argue with the official U.S. newspaper. It is definitely not a pro-Communist publication, but they had to show some sympathy (by running a cover story!) to a small bunch of over-zealous ‘opposition’ Marxists, just to spread doubts among the readers, suggesting that the Chinese government is not that Red, anymore.

The next day (Saturday-Sunday edition, October 6-7, 2018), the same New York Times published two cover stories on China. One was along its usual anti- Chinese and anti-Russian conspiracy lines “Will China hack U.S. mid-terms?”, but the other basically contradicted the story from the previous day, accusing Beijing this time of cutting the wings of private companies: “Beijing is pushing back into business”, with a sub-title:

“Government flexes muscle as private companies that built economy lose ground.”

‘Wherever it can hurt China, just write it’, could be the credo of thousands of European and North American journos: ‘as long as the news about or from China is bad, really dark and negative, anything goes!’

Too much Communism, or too little… As far as the West is concerned – China can never get it right! Because… simply because it is China, because it is Asia, and because it waves the red flags.

And so, The New York Times ran two totally contradictory stories. An editorial blunder, or a pre-meditated attempt to inflict maximum damage, by kicking ‘left and right’?

It is, of course, fun, to follow this propaganda trend, ‘from a safe distance’ (meaning: ‘not believing a word of what it says’). But what is happening is not a joke; what is being done can actually be deadly. It can trigger, unexpectedly, a chain of events that could truly hurt China.

‘An explosion’ could originate in Taiwan, in Southeast Asia, or from the PRC territory itself.

Look at Brazil, look at Venezuela! Look at all those Color Revolutions, Umbrella Revolutions, ‘Springs’ from Europe to Arab countries. And look at China itself: who triggered; who sponsored the so-called Tiananmen Square events? There is clearly enough evidence, by now, that it was not some spontaneous student rebellion.

The West has convinced several countries such as the Philippines, that they should confront China, through various territorial claims in which, honestly, almost no serious Filipino historian or political scientist is ready to believe (unless he or she paid royally from abroad). I talked directly to several top historians and political scientists in Manila, and I got a clear picture of whom and what is behind those territorial claims. I wrote about it in the past, and soon will again.

China is too big to tolerate dangerous subversions from abroad. Its leadership knows well: when the country is in disarray, hundreds of millions of human beings suffer. To preserve the nation’s territorial integrity is essential.

So, what is China really; in a summary?

It is a Communist (or you may call it a socialist) country with thousands of years of a great and comparatively egalitarian history. It has a mixed economy but with central planning (government tells the companies what to do, not vice-versa). It is clearly the most successful nation on earth when it comes to working on behalf of, and for the benefit of its citizens. It is also the most peaceful large nation on earth. And here are two more essential points: China is at the forefront of saving the world from the looming ecological disaster. And it has no colonies, or ‘neo’-colonies, being essentially an ‘internationalist’ state.

Its political system, economy, culture: all are diametrically different from those in the West.

China has millions of things to say about how this planet should be governed, how it should be marching forward, and what is true democracy (rule of the people).

Now honestly:

does Western mainstream, which manufactures ‘public opinion’ all over the world, allows many Chinese (PRC) patriots, Communists, thinkers, to appear on television screens, or to write op-eds?

We know the answer. Almost exclusively, it is the Westerners who are, (by the Western rulers), entrusted with the tremendous task of ‘defining what China is or isn’t’. And what the entire world is or isn’t.

If China says that it is ‘socialist with Chinese characteristics’, they say ‘No!’ with their perfect Oxford accents. And their arrogance from telling the greatest civilization on earth what it actually is or isn’t, gets accepted because of the fact that most of them are white, and they speak perfect English (paradoxically, still a seal of trustworthiness, at least in certain circles).

The West never hears what the Chinese or Russians think about the world. While the Chinese and Russians are literally bombarded by what the West thinks about them.

Even Chinese people used to listen to such ‘false prophets’ from the ‘civilized West’. Now they know better. Same as the Russians know better. Same as many in Latin America know better.

The spread of Western propaganda and dogmas used to appear as a battle, an ideological combat, for Chinese and Russian brains (if not for hearts). Or at least it appeared as such, to many naïve, trusting people.

Now it is all much simpler and ‘in the open’: the battle continues, but the frontlines and goals have shifted. How?

What is taking place these days, is simply an enormous clash between Western imperialism plus its propaganda, versus the determination of the Chinese and Russian people to live their own lives the way they choose. Or to put it into even simpler terms: the battle is raging between Western imperialism on one side, and democracy with ‘Chinese and Russian characteristics’ on the other.

West is bashing China and Russia ‘left and right’, literally. But it is definitely not winning!

 

 

متى يتحرّر الإعلام العربي؟

أكتوبر 11, 2018

د. وفيق إبراهيم

Image result for ‫د. وفيق إبراهيم‬‎

اختفاء الإعلامي جمال خاشقجي في قنصلية بلاده السعودية في تركيا، يفتح سؤالاً كبيراً عن الأسباب التي تمنع تطوّر إعلام عربي ينتقل من الاستسلام الكامل للرواية الرسمية الحتمية، إلى مستوى التعبير الصادق وربما النسبي عن التفاعلات السياسية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية.

فالتستر الإعلامي على الاختطاف السعودي للخاشقجي ليس الأول من نوعه ولن يكون الأخير.

إنَّ الميزة الأولى للإعلام العربي أنه خطابي يتصرف بالخبر حاملاً «أبوية السلطة على المجتمع»، ولا يعكس إلا وجهة نظرها متجاهلاًً كلّ ما يسيء اليها ومخترعاً قصصاً جديدة للتفسير، تستند الى مفهوم مصلحة الدولة بتنوّعاتها الملكية والأميركية أو الجمهورية، وفقاً لمفهوم السمع والطاعة وتزوير الحقائق وتجاهل الأحداث، وذلك لعدم وجود منافسات حقيقية على كسب الجمهور المنَوَّم.

في المقابل هناك إعلام غربي، متعدّد ومتصادم يقدم الأحداث وفق الخلفيات السياسية والاقتصادية التي يعمل لها، إنما بمهنية محترفة توحي وكأنه «حُرّ». أيّ أنه يترك مساحة مفتوحة لها وظيفة جذب «الزبون» من القراء والمشاهدين والمستمعين.. وبعد التمكّن منه، بهذه الوسيلة، يكون قد احتواه وأسره ضمن تسعين في المئة من مواده الإعلامية المليئة بالروايات الموالية لأصحاب التمويل السياسي والاقتصادي.

إنّ خصائص الإعلام الغربي التي تجعله ناجحاً تقوم على ثلاثة أسباب، السرعة في نقل الخبر وهذا مردّه إلى شبكات مراسلين ضخمة أو وجود أنظمة تعاون مدفوعة مع شبكات محلية، ضمن «دول الأحداث». أما الثاني فقدرته على تخصيص «مساحة حرية صغيرة» يقدّم فيها الرأي الآخر»، لكنه يتفنّن في عرض آراء مواكبة بوسعها زعزعته.

أما الميزة الثالثة فسببها أنّ الإعلام الغربي ينتمي إلى أنظمة سياسية واحدة، خصوصاً بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي 1989، تحتوي على أحزاب موالية وأخرى معارضة.. إنما من ضمن النسق السياسي الواحد.

والطرفان يمتلكان أو يهيمنان على وسائل إعلام ضخمة لها القدرة على تمويلها، وتجسِّد وجهتي نظرهما في داخل بلدانها أو إقليمها الغربي ـ الأوروبي ـ الأطلسي، وهناك وسائل متخصّصة للتأثير على الصين وروسيا واليابان والشرق الأوسط بشقيه الإسلامي والعربي.

وهكذا نجد أنواعاً من إعلام كوني غربي يتنافس على كسب أسواق السياسة والاقتصاد ويمثل موالاة أو معارضة، غربية تنتميان إلى الأنظمة السياسية نفسها ولا تخرجان عنها… أين الخلاف إذاً؟؟

يرتكز الخلاف بينهما على صراع مفتوح للسيطرة على أنظمة بلادهما وفقاً لصراعات حزبية داخلية هي مثلاً بين حزبي المحافظين والعمال في بريطانيا والجمهوريين والمحافظين في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية وبين التيارات المتأمركة في فرنسا وبقايا الديغولية وبين أحزاب اليمين والوسط واليسار في المانيا وهكذا دواليك.

هذه الآليات الحزبية تهيمن على إعلام معظمه كوني، يجسَّد وجود موالاة ومعارضة ضمن النسق السياسي الغربي الواحد. هذا إلى جانب وجود إعلام محلي أكثر تخصّصاً بالأوضاع الداخلية لهذه البلدان.

لقد أنتج هذا الوضع المرتكز على أسس محمية بالقوانين الغربية، أنتج مساحتين اثنتين للتعبير بحرية، إنما من ضمن «المصلحة البعيدة للمموِّل».

الأولى هي «المساحة التقنية» التي تستعملها وسائل الإعلام لجذب «الزبون» عبر تقنية الإكثار من «الرأي الآخر».

هناك مساحات حرية أكبر أيضاً، يستمدّها الإعلام من الصراع المفتوح بين الموالاة والمعارضة في أنظمة الغرب، وهي حريات تستند إلى حماية قانونية لا لِبسَ فيها، ما يسمح لهذا الإعلام بعرض قدراته الواسعة على عرض ما يريد، إنما يرتكز دائماً على احترافية عالية في نسف الرأي المضادّ بمهارة ومهنية، يرقى عمرها إلى ثلاثة قرون على الأقلّ.

هذه هي الأسباب التي تجعل «زبون الإعلام» منجذباً إليه في كلّ وقت، يصغي إلى نشرات أخباره وبرامجه باهتمام، وهو لا يعرف أنه تأثر بهذا المضمون من دون أن يدري.. وبما أنّ هذا الجذب الإعلامي متكرّر فإنه يعتمد على الإكثار من التكرار بلغة تسامحية وعقل علمي ضمن ما يشبه أسلوب السرد القصصي الموجز والجاذب.

ماذا عن الإعلام العربي؟ باستثناء لبنان حيث الحريات الإعلامية فيه تتموضع على الصراعات بين مذاهبه وطوائفه لتحسين أدوارها في السلطة وذلك عبر مسألتين: التحشيد الداخلي، وإنتاج رسالة إعلامية موالية للداعم الاقليمي والدولي.

باستثناء لبنان هذا، تسيطر على الإعلام العربي حالة من الهزال والضعف ونقص في الاحتراف على المستوى المهني، أما سياسياً، فنتيجة لعدم وجود معارضة ضمن النظام نفسه أو من خارجه، يعرض هذا الإعلام صورة خطابية نمطية تعيد فبركة الأحداث وبشكل بديهي على أساس مصلحة السلطة الداخلية السياسية، وتحالفاتها الدولية.

وبغياب المنافسة بين قوى سياسية داخلية، لا يعود الإعلام بحاجة إلى محترفين يتقنون فنون الخبر، ولا يهمّهم السرعة في عرضه.. فما هي إلا رسالة إعلامية عارضة لا تترك أثراً في متلقيها ولا يجد صانعها نفسه في وضع المضطر لإحداث معالجات عميقة لها.. وهكذا نجد إعلاماً عربياً منافقاً بعيداً عن مميّزات السرعة في إعلام العصر، وأساليب جذب الزبون، والصناعة الإعلامية البراقة.. هناك آليات بليدة ترسل أخباراً أشبه بخطابات عن أدوار بطولية لملوك وقادة ورؤساء يجري تقديهم على أساس انهم متمسكون بكلّ التفاعلات الداخلية والخارجية والحياة والموت.

إنّ غياب المعارضة حتى تلك المنتمية إلى الأنظمة السياسية نفسها، هي السبب في أزمة الإعلام العربي.. لأنها تلغي مساحات للحرية، فيصبح بموجبها خاشقجي رجلاً «مختلاً» انتحر واختطف نفسه او قتلته جهة معادية لآل سعود، كما تحوَّل حق قيادة المرأة للسيارة في السعودية أهمّ من الثورة الصناعية..

هناك مئات الأمثلة التي تثبت أنّ الإعلام العربي يشبه البلاغات التي كانت تعلقها الممالك القديمة في الساحات العامة.

لكن ما يؤسف له أنّ هذا الغرب الأميركي والأوروبي، يقف بتأييده وراء هذا التخلف الإعلامي العربي بشكل غير مباشر، لأنه يدعم الدكتاتوريات مُسهّلاً لها أمر القضاء على المعارضات. فهل يتطوّر الإعلام العربي؟ هذا الأمر مرتبط بتطوّر الأنظمة الاوتوقراطية ـ الديكتاتورية.

إنَّ مثيلاتها الغربية سقطت بثورات شعبية، فمتى تصل إلينا؟

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: