Venezuela wants to repatriate its gold from Britain, reduce reliance on the dollar, @bankofengland REFUSES request

Venezuela wants to repatriate its gold from Britain, reduce reliance on the dollar

Venezuela wants to repatriate its gold from Britain, reduce reliance on the dollar – UPDATE: Bank of England REFUSES request

gold bars

© Jochen Tack/Global Look Press
    Save

The Venezuelan government is looking to repatriate around $550 million in gold bars from the Bank of England due to increasing concerns about looming US sanctions.

Caracas is planning to bring 14 tons of gold, held in Britain, back to Venezuela, according to unnamed public officials, as quoted by Reuters. The UK regulator has reportedly sought to clarify what Venezuela plans to do with the gold.

The plan on repatriating the gold bars, kept in London, has been reportedly discussed for nearly two months amid increased difficulties in getting insurance for the shipment needed to move a large gold cargo.

“They are still trying to find insurance coverage, because the costs are high,” the source told the agency.

Venezuela’s foreign exchange holdings have significantly declined since the already-imposed US penalties banned the country’s government from borrowing cash on international markets.

A new round of anti-Venezuelan sanctions was introduced by the White House last week. They ban US citizens from dealing with entities and people involved with gold sales in Venezuela, which the US calls “corrupt and deceptive.”

The South American country is currently dealing with one of the worst economic crises in history, going through a fifth year of recession and an annual inflation of more than 400,000 percent. The crisis has reportedly forced nearly a million citizens to flee to neighboring countries.

Caracas has been holding its gold reserves in foreign bank vaults, which is a common practice for developing countries. In 2011, Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez repatriated nearly 160 tons of gold from the US and some European countries.

Since 2014, Venezuela has been using its gold as collateral to get billions in loans from international lenders. As a result, the country’s gold reserves have been significantly depleted. According to the latest data from the country’s central bank, gold holdings have dropped to 160 tons in June from 364 tons in 2014.

Swap agreements became difficult for Venezuela in 2017 after Washington banned US financial institutions from financing operations there.

Advertisements

إيران في مواجهة الحرب الاقتصادية الأميركية

نوفمبر 6, 2018

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

منذ نجاح ثورتها الإسلامية في العام 1979، وإيران عرضة لعدوان أميركي متواصل تتغيّر أشكاله ويستمرّ في جوهره وطبيعته مركزاً على هدف واحد هو إسقاط نظام سياسي تحرّري استقلالي قام على فكرة كسر التبعية والوصاية التي تمارسها القوى الاستعمارية بقيادة وتخطيط أميركي.

بيد أنّ إيران رغم تلك السلسلة من المواقف والاستهدافات العدوانية ضدّها، ورغم ما حشدته أميركا من قوى إقليمية ودولية في مواجهتها تمكّنت في العقود الأربعة الماضية من النجاح في بلوغ أربعة أهداف استراتيجية كبرى لم يكن المعتدي يتصوّر إمكانية تحقيق أيّ منها، فقد تمكّنت إيران من تثبيت ثورتها وحماية النظام الإسلامي الذي جاءت به هذه الثورة، كما تمكّنت من حماية الوحدة الوطنية والأمن الداخلي والسلام العام، كما حققت درجة متقدّمة من الاكتفاء الذاتي في المجالين العسكري والاقتصادي، ولكن الأهمّ والأخطر على سياسة الهيمنة الأميركية هوالنجاح الإيراني في إقامة الفضاء الحيوي الاستراتيجي الإقليمي ذي البعد الدولي العام والمصان بمنظومة مركبة معقدة من عناصر سياسية وعسكرية وتحالفات استراتيجية، ما يعني انّ العدوان الأميركي المتمادي فشل في ليّ ذراع إيران وعجز عن تحقيق أهدافه الاستراتيجية خلال 40 عاماً.

اليوم وفي الذكرى 39 لقيام الطلاب الإيرانيين باحتلال السفارة الأميركية في طهران باعتبارها وكر تجسّس على الثورة تعمل على إسقاطها، في هذه الذكرى يعلن الرئيس الأميركي ترامب، وبعد طول تهديد وتوعّد، يعلن عن حزمة من التدابير الكيدية العدوانية ضدّ إيران، تدابير يهدف منها «خنق إيران» اقتصادياً الى درجة تؤدّي الى عزلها دولياً وقطع ايّ تعامل مالي او تجاري او اقتصادي معها خاصة في مجال النفط والتحويلات المالية، تدابير يقصد منها الأميركي دفع الشعب الإيراني للخروج إلى «الثورة» ضدّ النظام الإسلامي وتحقيق الهدف الاستراتيجي الأكبر لكلّ من أميركا و»إسرائيل» التي لا تجد لها عدواً يتقدّم على عدائها لإيران وحزب الله الذي تعتبره هي وأميركا ذراع إيران في كامل الإقليم.

ومع هذه التدابير الكيدية التي تسمّيها أميركا «عقوبات»، في حين انّ التسمية الموضوعية لها هي حرب اقتصادية عدوانية تشنّ على دولة مستقلة ذات سيادة، حرب تشنّ على أساس ذرائع واهية كاذبة لا تمتّ للحقيقة بصلة، حرب ترافقت انطلاقتها المشدّدة اليوم مع لائحة من الشروط تطلب أميركا من إيران تلبيتها إذا ارادت إعادة البحث والمراجعة لتلك المسماة «عقوبات»، شروط إذا تمّ تحليلها وتصنيفها والوقوف على القصد منها لأمكن القول بانّ أميركا تريد وبكلّ بساطة ان تقدم إيران على الانتحار وشطب نفسها عن الخريطة الاستراتيجية الإقليمية والدولية وتسليم قيادها الى أميركا، شروط تعدّد حتى بلغت الاثني عشر شرطاً يمكن ان تختصر بعناوين أربعة هي:

1 ـ تخلي إيران عن أيّ حق في المجال النووي مهما كانت طبيعته مدنية او عسكرية، بحثية او استثمارية.

2 ـ تخلي إيران عن أيّ حق بامتلاك القوة المناسبة للدفاع عن النفس وفقاً للأخطار القائمة وإسقاط معادلة الردع الاستراتيجي التي حمت إيران ومصالحها خلال السنوات الماضية وفتح الباب للوصاية الدولية الدائمة عليها.

3 ـ التخلي عن الثورة الإسلامية والتنكّر لمبادئها والتخلي عن قضية فلسطين وعن هدفها الاستدراجي بإقامة شرق أوسط لأهله.

4 ـ تخلي إيران عن فضائها الاستراتيجي الحيوي وشطب نفسها عن الخريطة الاستراتيجية الإقليمية، لتتمكّن أميركا من استباحة المنطقة دون أيّ تهديد او خطر يمنعها من السير قدُماً في «صفقة القرن».

ونظراً لخطورة الشروط الأميركية تلك على واقع إيران ومستقبلها وحق شعبها في السيادة والاستقلال، فإننا لا نرى مطلقاً أيّ فرصة للقبول بهذه الشروط او حتى مجرد مناقشتها، وأعتقد انّ من وضعها يعرف ذلك ويدرك بأنها مستحيلة التطبيق لأنه يعرف الطبيعة الإيرانية التي ترفض الذلّ والاستسلام وانْ كان يجهل او يتجاهل ذلك فعليه ان يتذكّر الأداء الإيراني خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية وكيف انّ إيران خرجت منتصرة من حروب بالحديد والنار او حروب اقتصادية بالتضييق والعزل والحصار.

ويبدو جلياً انّ إيران التي لا تسعى لعداء او مواجهة مع أحد لم يعتد عليها وتتمنّى أطيب العلاقات مع دول العالم باستثناء من يغتصب الحقوق ويعتدي على الآخرين كما هي حالها مع «إسرائيل». انّ إيران هذه لا تتهرّب من المواجهة إذا فرضت عليها كما هي الحال الآن مع أميركا التي تشنّ الحرب الاقتصادية القاسية واللئيمة عليها. ما يعني انّ إيران على عتبة مواجهة جديدة قد لا تكون سهلة، ولكن انطلاقاً من الأوراق التي قد تلعبها إيران في ميدان المواجهة الاقتصادية يطرح السؤال عن مصير المواجهة؟

وللإضاءة على ما يتوقع من نتائج المواجهة تلك يكون مفيداً ان نتوقف عند ما لدى إيران من مصادر القوة المؤثرة في المواجهة وهنا يمكن التوقف عند ما يلي:

أ ـ قوة النظام الإسلامي في إيران وشجاعة المسؤولين فيه، وقد كان مؤثراً جداً ان يتصدّى مرشد الثورة الإسلامية السيد علي خامنئي بنفسه معلناً انّ إيران ستنتصر اليوم في الموقعة الجديدة كما انتصرت في المواقع السابقة خلال الأعوام الأربعين الماضية، وعد يسنده على طاقات تملكها إيران في الداخل وعلاقات دولية متينة مع الخارج، ثم تأتي رسالة التحدي الأخرى من رئيس الجمهورية حسن روحاني بقوله: «سنبيع النفط ونخرق العقوبات».

ب ـ الإرادة والقوة التي يبديها الشعب الإيراني المتماسك خلف قيادته حيث أثبت هذا الشعب قدرة فائقة على التحمّل والمواجهة والتمسك بنظامه الإسلامي وهو يعرف انّ الثبات هنا يشكل وجهاً من وجوه الدفاع عن الثورة والاستقلال والسيادة، وطبعاً يريد الشعب ان يحفظ النعمة التي يعيشها في الأمن والسيادة والاستقلال، ولهذا جاءت التظاهرات العارمة التي عمّت المدن الإيرانية يوم بدء العقوبات الأميركية لتؤكد على هذه القوة الشعبية في المواجهة.

ج ـ قوة الاقتصاد الإيراني المبني على فلسفة «الاقتصاد المقاوم» وهو الذي تمكّن من رفع درجة الكفاية الذاتية الى مستويات عليا، وقد ساعدت سنوات الحصار والتضييق السابقة على رفع مستوى القوة والصلابة في هذا الاقتصاد الى حدّ جعله يلامس الاكتفاء الذاتي بنسبة تصل الى 85 .

د ـ العلاقات الإيرانية مع الخارج وهي علاقات تبادلية متوازنة في كتير من الوجوه، وبالتالي انّ المحافظة على هذه العلاقات لن يكون في مصلحة إيران فقط بل هي مصلحة لكلّ أطرافها، ولهذا شاهدنا كيف انّ كثيراً من الدول أعلنت مسبقاً رفضها للانصياع لـ «الأوامر» الأميركية بمقاطعة إيران، ما اجبر أميركا على إعفاء 8 دول من تدابيرها، الأمر الذي أدّى الى فشل أميركا في تنفيذ مقولة «صفر صادرات نفطية إيرانية».

ه ـ اجتراح البدائل المالية والاقتصادية وفتح الأبواب أمام العملات الأجنبية لتكون النقد البديل المعتمد. وهنا نشهد توسع التجارة الدولية بالمقايضة او بالعملة الوطنية للدول، وفي هذا إلحاق الضرر بالدولار وبأميركا وفتح الطريق أمام نظام مالي عالمي جديد لا يعتمد الدولار عموداً فقرياً فيه.

و ـ التدابير الاحتياطية الاستباقية المعلنة او المستترة التي اتخذتها إيران وحلفاؤها للالتفاف على العقوبات الأميركية وللخروج من النظام المالي والاقتصادي الأميركي والتي ستشكل صدمة لأميركا عندما تشهر او يكشف عنها.

ز ـ موقف الدول ذات المصلحة بعدم نجاح أميركا في حربها الاقتصادية ضدّ إيران مثل روسيا والهند والصين والاتحاد الأوروبي، لانّ هذه الدول والكيانات السياسية تعلم جيداً انّ نجاح أميركا في قراراتها الكيدية القسرية الأحادية سيشكل لها حافزاً لتطبيق هذه التدابير على أيّ كان في العالم وتعيد الى الأذهان مفهوم النظام العالمي الأحادي القطبية الذي تتربّع فيه أميركا على عرش العالم وحيدة دون منازع. وبالتالي يجد العقلاء انّ فشل الحرب الاقتصادية الأميركية على إيران اليوم يشكل مصلحة دولية وخدمة للقانون الدولي العالم.

وعلى هذا الأساس، ورغم كلّ التهويل الأميركي فإننا نرى انّ حظوظ نجاح أميركا في تدابيرها الاجرامية القسرية الكيدية ضدّ إيران، انّ حظوظ نجاحها منخفضة جداً في ظلّ شبه استعداد دولي تبديه إيران ودول قوية أخرى للمواجهة وكسر القرار الأميركي، وإذا كانت أميركا العاجزة عن تكرار التجربة العسكرية في أفغانستان او العراق او ليبيا في إيران، اذا كانت تظنّ انّ حربها الاقتصادية هذه ستعوّض لها خسارتها الاستراتيجية في سورية والمنطقة، فانّ ظنها في غير محله في مواجهة قوى صاعدة ومتغيّرات دولية لن تستطيع أميركا وقفها او احتواءها او حجب مفاعيلها والتصدّي لها، وسيكون فشل أميركا في الحرب الاقتصادية ضدّ إيران مدوياً وسالباً منها ورقة طالما هدّدت بها فرجف من تهدّده وأذعن لها. ولهذا نرى انّ العالم كله سيكون مشدود الأنظار الى ميدان هذه الحرب ينتظر نتائجها التي لن تتأخر أكثر من ثلاثة أشهر على ما نعتقد، فتجاح إيران في هذه المواجهة هو نجاح للعالم في وجهة الغطرسة الاستعمارية الأميركية.

أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

Iran will break US sanctions: President Rouhani

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani gestures during a meeting with the directors and deputies of Iran's Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, in Tehran, the Iranian capital, on November 5, 2018. (Photo by IRNA)

Iran will break US sanctions: President Rouhani

Mon Nov 5, 2018 08:19AM

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will break the sanctions imposed by the United States on Tehran as well as on countries that do business with it, shortly after a round of anti-Iran sanctions by America took effect.

Speaking at a meeting with the directors and deputies of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance on Monday, President Rouhani said, “We should break the sanctions very well, and we will do that.”

“With the help of the people, and the unity that exists in our society, we have to make the Americans understand that they must not use the language of force, pressure, and threats to speak to the great Iranian nation. They must be punished once and for all,” the Iranian president said.

The meeting and remarks came shortly after a new round of US sanctions took effect. The new bans target, among other things, Iran’s oil sales and Central Bank. More Iranian individuals have also been targeted by the US Department of the Treasury.

The US measures also include so-called secondary sanctions — punitive measures against third countries doing business with Iran.

Iranians trample on huge prints of US 100-dollar banknote images during a demonstration outside the former US embassy in the capital, Tehran, on November 4, 2018, to mark the anniversary of its takeover in 1979. (Photo by AFP)

US President Donald Trump introduced a first round of “primary” and “secondary” sanctions against Iran and its trade partners in August.

In May, he unilaterally pulled the US out of a multilateral deal with Iran. Two months later, footage reportedly came out in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he had personally convinced Trump to withdraw from the Iran deal.

Iran struck the deal with originally six world powers and the European Union (EU) back in 2015, agreeing to curb its nuclear program in return for the lifting of restrictions mainly on its oil sales.

Despite the US withdrawal, Iran has stayed in the deal but has stressed that the other parties to the agreement have to work to offset the negative impacts of the US pullout. Europe has been taking a range of measures to meet the Iranian demand for practical guarantees.

President Rouhani said Europe, too, was angry at US policies.

“Today, what the Americans are doing is merely pressure [ordinary] people, and no one else. It’s pressure [that is being put] on [the Iranian] people, other nations, other [foreign] businesses, and other governments,” he said. “Today, we are not the only ones who are angry at US policies; even European businesses and governments are angered by US policies, too.”

The US had since the May 8 withdrawal designated November 4 as the date when it aimed to bring Iran’s oil sales down to “zero.” However, three days ahead of that much-advertised deadline, the US granted waivers to eight major state buyers of Iranian crude.

President Rouhani said US officials had in fact conceded defeat.

“They (the Americans) saw that they couldn’t replace [Iranian oil on the market]; and even assuming they did not concede defeat and did not grant waivers to countries, we would still be able to sell our oil [because] we have adequate capabilities to do that,” the Iranian president said.

‘Europeans want Trump gone’

In his Monday remarks, President Rouhani also said he believed that America had never before seen as lawless an administration as that of Trump’s.

He said all US administrations had violated international law, but “these (current officials) score on top on the lawlessness rankings.”

“I don’t recall a group assuming power at the White House that was racist as these,” the Iranian president said.

“This is not [just] us who wish for the life of this incumbent administration in the US to become shorter and shorter; their (the Americans’) own European allies have told me in [private] meetings that that is one of their wishes,” President Rouhani said.

‘Dialog needs no intermediary, but US must honor promises’

President Rouhani said that when he was in New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in September, “the leaders of four major countries” sought to broker a meeting between him and the US president. He did not name those leaders.

The Iranian chief executive said, however, that there was no need for mediation.

“Honor your obligations first! We will speak then,” Rouhani said, addressing American officials. “We have no problem with talking. If our interlocutor honors its word and promises, what will be wrong with talking?”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani meets with United Nations (UN) Secretary General Antonio Guterres in New York, the US, on September 26, 2018, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. (Photo by AFP)

He noted that the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal has isolated the US.

“Just look at how many countries support the US move and how many don’t,” he said. “The fact America insists on something and the entire European Union resists that same thing is nothing simple. That means victory for [our] diplomacy and foreign policy.”

Earlier, President Rouhani’s chief of staff announced that Trump had eight times requested a meeting with the Iranian president while he was in New York but had been rejected all eight times.

‘Iran in economic war with US’ & ‘Iran’s economic problems will end’

President Rouhani also said that the Islamic Republic was engaged in “an economic war” with the US.

“We have to stand and fight, and win,” he said. “God will make us win.”

The Iranian president also said the current economic problems faced by Iran will not continue.

“We will re-launch economic growth. No one should think the trend we have been seeing in the past several months will continue like that. This trend will be stopped.”

Iran’s national currency has lost some of its value against the US dollar over the past months. While the Iranian rial has partially rebounded, it continues to be at a low exchange rate against the US dollar.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

Trump’s Trade War And Escalation Of US-China Standoff

South Front

Tensions between the US and China are rising in the economic, diplomatic and military spheres. The economic policy of the administration of US President Donald Trump as well as the US strategy aimed at deterring growing Chinese military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region and Chinese influence around the world in general have led to an open economic and diplomatic conflict between the two states.

Since the start of 2018, the US has imposed a series of tariffs on a wide range of Chinese goods and, according to President Trump, is ready to make further steps in order to defend US national interests.

On January 22, 2018, the US officially announced their decision to impose duties of as much as 30% on solar equipment made abroad, mostly in China. On July 6, the Trump administration kicked off 25% tariffs targeting $34 billion worth of Chinese goods. These tariffs affected water boilers, X-ray machine components, airplane tires and various other industrial parts. China immediately implemented retaliatory tariffs on its $34 billion list of US goods including soybeans, pork and electric vehicles. At that time, Beijing called the situation the “biggest trade war in economic history.” However, the situation continued to develop.

On August 23, the US imposed additional 25% tariffs on $16 billion worth of Chinese imports targeting such goods as electronic parts, plastics, chemicals, batteries, and railway cars. Beijing retaliated with its own fresh tariffs on $16 billion worth of additional imports from the US including fuel, steel products, cars and medical equipment.

On September 24, Washington imposed 10% tariffs on about $200 billion worth of imports from China, and threatened duties on about $257 billion more if China retaliated against the action. The Chinese Commerce Ministry answered that it had no choice but to retaliate against new US trade tariffs. Beijing hit back announcing 10% tariffs on $60 billion of US imports.

According to the Trump administration the tariffs are needed to protect US businesses, especially industry and intellectual property, and to reduce the trade deficit with China. Since the start of the “trade war”, US and Chinese top officials have held a series of meetings but have found no options to resolve the existing differences.

Furthermore, on September 20, the US sanctioned a Chinese defence agency and its director for purchasing Russian combat aircraft and S-400 surface-to-air missiles. On the same day, sanctions were imposed on 33 Russian individuals and entities. The State Department claimed that its actions weren’t intended to undermine the military capabilities or combat readiness of any country, but rather to punish Russia in response to its alleged interference in the US election process. In response, China’s Foreign Ministry said the action was unjustifiable and demanded the US withdraw the penalties or “bear the consequences.”

Thus, the conflict expanded into the military and political field. Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting on September 26, President Trump accused China of “attempting to interfere” in the upcoming 2018 election in the US against his administration. Nonetheless, the US president provided no evidence for his claims. Additionally, the Trump administration approved the sale of $330 million of military equipment to Taiwan. This move caused another round of tensions with China.

“We urge the US side … to immediately cancel this deal and cut off military ties with Taiwan to avoid doing serious damage to China-US relations, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and cooperation between the US and China in important areas,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated, commenting on the issue.

The Taiwan issue has been a focal point of US-Chinese tensions since the very start of the Trump presidency. For example, on December 2, 2016, shortly after his election win, Trump spoke with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen by phone discussing politics, economy, and security in the Asia-Pacific region. This was the first time since 1979 that a US President or President-elect had directly spoken to his Taiwanese counterpart. Trump openly declared that his administration would use the Taiwan issue as a bargaining chip to get a better trade deal with Beijing. The idea that China and Taiwan are part of the same country also known as The One-China policy has been the basis of US-China dialogue concerning the island since the 1970s.

The balance of power in Asia Pacific in general and particularly in the South China Sea and East China Sea are also a hot point in US-China relations. The US is actively working to deter the growing Chinese influence on military and diplomatic levels. The US Armed Forces send warships and jets close to Chinese military facilities built on artificial islands, and hold drills near the contested area. The Chinese side is not going to abandon its South China Strategy and responds in a similar manner.

In late September the US sent its nuclear capable B-52 bombers to the South China Sea as well as to the East China Sea.

On September 26, the US consulate in Hong Kong stated that China had denied a request for a port call from the U.S. Navy’s amphibious assault ship the USS Wasp.

On September 30, the Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer USS Decatur had an encounter with a Chinese warship, with the two vessels being as close as 45 yards to each other, according to US Navy officials. The US warship was conducting freedom of navigation operations in the vicinity of Gaven Reef in the South China Sea when the incident occurred.

In early October, the New York Times reported, citing a US official that China had canceled an annual meeting with US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis planned for mid-October in Beijing.

The relations between the US and China appear to be tense and preconditions exist which may cause them to worsen in the near future. Currently, there are two main directions in which the current situation might develop: an escalation scenario and a deconfliction scenario.

In case of the escalation scenario, US-Chinese relations would deteriorate rapidly with the Trump administration taking further steps in the framework of its “trade war” against Beijing. If China were able to resist this pressure more or less successfully, the diplomatic and economic pressure imposed would give a boost to the further regionalization of the world. China, Russia and other powers affected would have to contribute additional effort to develop an economic model, which would allow them to counter pressure from the US. This system would actively rely on regional economic ties and trade in national currencies. China, Russia, the EU, Iran, Turkey are already actively working to develop such mechanisms. On September 24, the EU, Russia and China agreed with Iran on a new payment system to trade despite the US sanctions. The joint statement said that they were determined “to protect the freedom of their economic operators to pursue legitimate business with Iran.”

At the same time, Turkey, China, Russia and India have openly moved to make payments on key contracts, especially in the military industrial cooperation field, in their national currencies as well as boosting their regional cooperation. Thus, the US sanctions policy became a factor undermining the current global economic model guaranteeing its dominance.

If the increase of the US pressure on China were to succeed and Beijing and its key partner Moscow were isolated, this would deepen significantly the economic crisis in China, which is expected by some analysts in the upcoming years. Chinese economic development would be stopped or even thrown back. In turn, the US thanks to its industry and postindustrial sector of the economy would make a leap forward maintaining its economic hegemony.

Nevertheless, this scenario would be possible only if the Chinese-Russian economic, military and diplomatic cooperation were to be undermined as a result of the smart policy pursued by Washington or for some other reason. Symptoms of this US soft power policy designed to undermine Russia-China cooperation can be observed in the Russian and Chinese media sphere. Multiple Russian experts more or less affiliated with the US ideologically or economically, through grants and funding, promote the idea that Russia should limit its allegedly “unprofitable” cooperation with China and even put effort into deterring Chinese economic and diplomatic policy in the region. On the other hand, some Chinese experts promote an idea that Russia is a weak state and should not be seen as an equal partner.

It should be noted that China employing its foreign diplomatic and economic policies does not show any kind of altruism. In fact, it pursues its economic and political goals in the most profitable way. However, this approach is common for any world power defending its national interests. And currently, it’s in Chinese national interests to maintain a mutually beneficial co-operation with Russia and other independent powers.

The de-escalation scenario in US-Chinese relations is possible if the Trump administration were to reshape its policy towards Beijing and strike a new political economic deal with the Chinese leadership. So, Washington would have to lift a part, if not all, of the imposed restrictions and maybe soften its policy on China in some points. China would accept such a deal, but would not abandon its goal to dominate in the Asia-Pacific region and then become a superpower. Thus, Beijing would be using this deal to strengthen its economic and political positions in Eurasia and around the world.

In turn, the Washington establishment would seek to employ a divide and rule approach to undermine ties between Moscow and Beijing. If this approach were to succeed, the US would be able to deal with its key competitors one at a time.

In any of these scenarios, military, diplomatic and economic tensions would grow around the world. The main reason for this is the approach of the Washington establishment, which is steadily undermining the global order established after World War 2. On the other hand, the actions of the Trump administration have their own logic. It seeks to stop the economic development and to limit the influence of their key global and regional competitors, like China, Russia and Iran. In light of the existing mid and long term threats to US dominance, Washington seems to be determined to use the current complicated situation around the world to strengthen the US national economy, in particular its industry, to solve the social and economic problems caused by previous US administrations and to deal with its geopolitical opponents using all existing means and measures.

Related Videos

Related News

UNO : birth of the post-Western world

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry MeyssanPolitical consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

DAMASCUS (SYRIA)
The administration of the UNO had been hoping for a clash between the pro- and anti-Trump factions during the General Assembly. What actually happened was very different. While several States, including France, denounced the methods of the resident of the White House, Russia undertook an analysis of the Western alliance. According to Moscow, most of our current problems are due to the desire of the old colonial powers to conserve their domination of the rest of the world – at whatever the cost. In order to overtake them, a formidable coalition has been born.
JPEG - 77.2 kb

The hearing of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Despite appearances, the procession of the heads of State and government, or Ministers for Foreign Affairs, at the General Assembly of the United Nation was not without purpose. It’s true that most of them, having little to say, addressed their interior public opinions by blaming UNO incompetence and calling for a respect for the law. But many of their interventions went straight to the heart of the matter – how to resolve the disputes between States and guarantee peace?

The first three days were marked by the speech by Donald Trump (United States) and the responses by Emmanuel Macron (France) and Hassan Rohani (Iran). But all these complications were shattered on the fourth day with the intervention by Sergueï Lavrov (Russia), when he presented the map of the post-Western world.

World collapse according to Donald Trump

President Trump, whose speeches are usually extremely disorganised, had on this occasion prepared a finely structured text [1]. Distinguishing himself from his predecessors, he affirmed that he gave privilege to « independence and cooperation », rather than « governance, control and international domination » (in other words, his national interests rather than those of the « American Empire »). He followed by enumerating the readjustments of the system he had set in motion.

- The USA has not declared commercial war on China, but is in the process of re-establishing its balance of payments. Simultaneously, the US is trying to restore an international market founded on free market competition, as demonstrated by their position in the energy sector. The US has become a major exporters of hydrocarbons, and would therefore benefit from high prices, but it opposes the existence of an intergovernmental cartel, the OPEC, and is calling for lower prices.
- It is opposed to the structures and treaties of globalisation (that is to say, from the point of view of the White House, transnational financial imperialism), notably the UN Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and UNRWA. Of course, this is not a claim for torture (which was legitimised by George Bush Jr. in his day) nor crime, nor starving the Palestinians, but the destruction of the organisations which instrumentalise their object in order to achieve other goals.
- Concerning the migrations from Latin America to the United States, and also within the interior of the South American continent itself, the US intends to end them by treating the problem at its roots. For the White House, the problem results from the rules imposed by globalist Treaties, notably NAFTA. President Trump has therefore negotiated a new agreement with Mexico which links exports to respect for the social rights of Mexican workers. He intends to return to the original Monroe doctrine – meaning that the multinationals will no longer be able to interfere in the governing of the continent.

The reference to the Monroe doctrine merits an explanation, since the expression suggests US colonialism at the beginning of the 20th century. Donald Trump is an admirer of the foreign policies of two very controversial personalities, Presidents Andew Jackson (1829-1837) and Richard Nixon (1969-74). The Monroe doctrine (1823) was elaborated during the intervention of a man who at that time was no more than General Jackson in the Spanish colony of Florida. At that time, James Monroe wanted to protect the American continent from European imperialism. It was the « era of good feelings ». He therefore pledged that the United States would not intervene in Europe if Europe stopped intervening in the Americas. It was only three quarters of a century later, notably with Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), that the Monroe doctrine would be used as a screen to hide US imperialism in Latin America.

The defence of the old world by Emmanuel Macron and Hassan Rohani

In a strange inversion of roles, French President Emmanuel Macron presented himself as the European Barack Obama facing up to the US Charles De Gaulle, as played by Donald Trump. Macron symbolically declared war, stating: « Let us sign no more commercial agreements with powers which do not respect the Paris Agreement » (which means no more agreements with the United States) – an odd way to defend multilateralism!

The French President began with Donald Trump’s implicit assessment – the crisis of the current « liberal Westphalian order » [2]. This means the crisis of nation-States who are badly shaken by economic globalisation. But this strategy was only intended to more efficiently oppose the solution proposed by the White House, which he qualified as the « law of the strongest ». He therefore described the French solution, « based around three principles – the first is the respect for sovereignty, the very foundation of our charter; the second is the reinforcement of our regional cooperation; and the third is the implementation of more robust international guarantees ».

But then his speech zoomed off into the stratosphere to end in a lyrical exaltation, during which Emmanuel Macron allowed himself a moment of juvenile hypocrisy reaching to the limits of schizophrenia.

- As an example of « the respect for sovereignty », he called for a refusal to « substitute oneself for the Syrian people » when we decide who will become their leader… while at the same time forbidding President el-Assad to present himself for election by his compatriots.

- Concerning the « reinforcement of regional cooperation », he mentioned the support offered by the African Union to the French anti-terrorist operation in the Sahel. But this operation was in reality only the land-based wing of a larger plan directed by AfriCom, for which the US army supplied the airborne wing. The African Union itself has no real army as such, and acts only to legalise a colonial operation. Similarly, the sums invested for the development of the Sahel – which the French President quoted not in Euros, but in dollars – mixes true African projects with foreign aid for development. The impotence of this endeavour has long been clear to all.

- Concerning « the implementation of more robust international guarantees », he announced the struggle against inequalities which should be addressed by the G7 summit in Biarritz. This was simply a way of affirming, once again, Western leadership over the rest of the world, Russia and China included. He claimed that « the time when a club of rich countries could alone define the balance of the world is long over », and promised to … present a report of the decisions taken by the major Western powers before the next General Assembly. Again, he proclaimed that the « G7 should be the motor » of the struggle against inequality undertaken by the UNO.

Speaking in his turn, Iranian President Cheikh Hassan Rohani described in detail the way in which the White House is destroying, one by one, the principles of international Law [3].

He reminded us that the 5+1 agreement (JCPoA) had been validated by the Security Council, which had called upon numerous institutions for their support (resolution 2231), and that Donald Trump’s USA had withdrawn from the agreement, negating the signature of his predecessor and the principle of the continuity of state. He emphasised that, as attested by twelve consecutive AIEA reports, Iran has conformed and is still conforming to its obligations. He expressed his indignation at President Trump’s call to disobey the UNO resolution and the threat he has addressed against those who respect it.

He finished by recalling a few facts – Iran fought Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Daesh before the United States (which was at that time supporting them) – one way of emphasising the fact that for a long time, the about-faces by the USA do not correspond to the logic of Law, but to the logic of its own hidden interests.

Sergueï Lavrov presents the post-Western world

This debate, not for or against the United States, but for or against Donald Trump, was organised around two main arguments:
- The White House is destroying the system which has so well benefited the international financial elites (Macron).
- The White House is no longer even pretending to respect international Law (Rohani).

For the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, this debate hides a problem which goes even deeper. « On one hand, we see the reinforcement of the polycentric principles of the world order , (…) the aspiration of the people to preserve their sovereignty and work with models of development which are compatible with their national, cultural and religious identities. On the other, we see the desire of several Western states to preserve their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to hinder the objective and irreversible process of the establishment of multipolarity », he stated [4].

From that point, it is no longer pertinent for Moscow to argue with President Trump, nor even the United States, but with the Westerners in general. Sergueï Lavrov went as far as drawing a parallel with the Munich Agreements of 1938. At that time, France and the United Kingdom signed an alliance with Germany and Italy. It’s true that this event is remembered today in Western Europe as an act of cowardice on the part of France and Britain faced with the demands of the Nazis, but it remains engraved in Russian memory as the decisive step which triggered the Second World War. While Western historians seek to decide who took this decision and who followed the movement, Russian historians note only one thing – that none of the Western Europeans assumed their responsibilities.

Extending his study, Sergueï Lavrov no longer denounced the infringements to the Law, but to international structures. He observed that the Westerners attempt to force the people to enter into military alliances against their will, and threaten certain States who wish to chose their partners themselves. Alluding to the Jeffrey Feltman affair [5], he denounced the attempts to control the administration of the UNO, and force it to assume the role which should be played by the member-States, and finally, to use the General Secretariat to manipulate them.

He noted the desperate nature of these attempts, observing, for example, the inefficiency of fifty years of the US blockade of Cuba. He stigmatised the British desire to judge and condemn without trial by using their rhetoric of « highly probable ».

Sergueï Lavrov concluded by emphasising that all this Western disorder did not prevent the rest of the world from cooperating and developing. He recalled the « Greater Eurasian Partnership », mentioned at the Valdaï Forum in 2016 by President Putin to complete President Xi’s « Belt and Road Initiative ». This vast initiative, which was at first given a chilly reception by China, is now supported by the Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Counter-propositions by Australia, Japan and the European Union were still-born.

While Western representatives have the habit of announcing their projects in advance, and discussing them, Russian diplomats only speak of them when they are already under way and are sure to succeed.

To sum up, the strategy of the containment of Russia and China, dreamed up by British deputy Halford J. Mackinder [6] and clarified by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński [7], has failed. The world’s centre of gravity is being displaced to the East, not against the Westerners, but by their fault [8].

Drawing the first practical conclusions from these analyses, Syrian Vice-Prime Minister, Walid al-Moallem, demanded on the following day at the tribune of the General Assembly the immediate withdrawal of the occupying troops of the United States, France and Turkey [9].

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] “Remarks by Donald Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[2] « Discours d’Emmanuel Macron devant la 73e séance de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies », par Emmanuel Macron, Réseau Voltaire, 25 septembre 2018.

[3] “Remarks by Hassan Rohani to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Hassan Rohani, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[4] “Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Sergey Lavrov, Voltaire Network, 28 September 2018.

[5] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, “How the administration of the UNO is organising the war”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016 and 5 September 2018.

[6] “The geographical pivot of history”, Halford J. Mackinder, The Geographical Journal, 1904, 23, pp. 421–37.

[7The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Basic Books. 1997.

[8] “The Geopolitics of American Global Decline”, by Alfred McCoy, Tom Dispatch (USA) , Voltaire Network, 22 June 2015.

[9] “Remarks by Walid Al-Moualem to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Walid Al-Moualem, Voltaire Network, 29 September 2018.

Iran will slap US in face by defeating sanctions: Ayatollah Khamenei

Thu Oct 4, 2018 05:53AM

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says American sanctions are “more fragile than” Iran’s economy, emphasizing that the Iranian nation will “slap the US in the face” by defeating those bans​​​​, once again.

Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks during a speech to a large gathering of Iran’s Basij volunteer forces and senior military officials at the Azadi Stadium in the capital, Tehran, which has a capacity of 100,000 people.

“Following vast explorations, the enemy has arrived at sanctions [as a solution] to counter the Islamic Republic. It has no other solution but economic sanctions. Other paths in front of it are blocked,” said Ayatollah Khamenei, stressing, however, that “economic sanctions are more fragile than our national economy.”

“Our national economy can defeat sanctions,” said the Leader. “The defeat of sanctions will be America’s defeat, and the US, with this defeat, should once again be slapped in the face by the Iranian nation, God willing.”

“The enemy wants to bring the Iranian nation to the conclusion that there is a dead end, and that there is no solution except kneeling and giving in to the US,” The Leader said, adding that those promoting such a viewpoint at home are traitors to the country.

Ayatollah Khamenei, however, assured that he “will not allow that to happen in the country” with the help of the nation.

The Leader further said the Iranian nation has been blessed with “invincibility,” which is rooted in its 1979 Islamic Revolution, its eight-year Holy Defense of the country against the ex-Iraqi regime’s war in the following years, and in general, its steadfast resistance over the past 40 years in the face of all enemy plots.

“The grandeur and authority of the Islamic Republic and its invincibility are not empty talk or mere slogans. It is a fact that the enemies seek to keep us ignorant of,” stressed the Leader.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei delivers a speech to a large crowd of Iranian Basij volunteer forces at Azadi Stadium, Tehran, Iran, October 4, 2018. (Photo by khamenei.ir)

Ayatollah Khamenei said US President Donald Trump had recently told some European leaders that Iran’s Islamic establishment would be toppled in 2-3 months, adding that such comments are nothing new.

However, almost 40 years into the Revolution, the Islamic Republic has only grown more powerful, the Leader said. “The enemy of the Iranian nation has failed to gain an understanding of the Revolution and the revolutionary spirit; this wrong analysis has misled it [the enemy] in the course of these years.”

The US’s enmity towards the Iranian nation is not merely due to “Death to America” chants, Ayatollah Khamenei said. “They [the Americans] are afraid of Islamic power and the Revolution’s might.”

Ayatollah Khamenei further advised that “both youths and authorities should convey a message of power to the enemy not a message of weakness.”

The enemy, the Leader said, will retreat if it faces national unity, strength and firm determination, and if domestic rifts are set aside.

Source: Press Tv

Related Videos

Related Videos

المسرحية الإسرائيلية ضد لبنان: الخلفية والقصد والنتيجة؟

أكتوبر 2, 2018

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

في عمل مسرحي سيّئ الإخراج والتمثيل قدّم نتنياهورئيس وزراء العدو الإسرائيلي صوراً ادّعى أنها لمواقع في لبنان يخزّن فيها حزب الله صواريخ عالية الدقة، وتقع في الضاحية الجنوبية لبيروت، وعلى بعد عدة مئات من الأمتار من مطار بيروت الدولي، وحتى يستنفد الوقت المحدّد له على منبر الجمعية العامة للمتحدة أضاف إلى الفصل الأول من المسرحية الهزلية صوراً زعم أنها لمواقع تخزّن فيها إيران عناصر خطيرة من ملفها النووي قرب طهران.

طبعاً المسرحية كما قلت لا تستحق بذاتها النقاش لإظهار زيفها ووهنها وإسقاط أيّ عنصر من العناصر التي قد يتكئ عليها لتقريبها من المشهد المعقول القابل للنقاش، فالصور كما أظهرت بدا أنها التقطت لمكان عام يرتاده الناس بشكل عادي وعلى مدار الساعة ولا يمكن ان يكون له صلة بعملية تخزين صواريخ او شيء سري ذي صلة بعمق أو بعد أو طيف استراتيجي، ولذلك لن نهدر الوقت للرد ّعلى العدو وإظهار كذبه الفضائحي، لكن السؤال الذي لا بدّ من طرحه والاهتمام بمتعلقاته هو لماذا قام العدو بمسرحيته وهو يعرف أنها مثار السخرية والضحك وعصية على التصديق. فخلفية وسبب العرض المسرحي هو المهمّ في هذا النطاق فلماذا؟

قد يسارع البعض للقول بأنّ العدو في عرضه استكمل سياسة الاتهام بتحويل المناطق الآهلة المدنية الى مستودعات عسكرية، وهو اعتمد هذا الأمر في الأمم المتحدة ليبرّر لاحقاً العودة الى تطبيق نظرية الضاحية والاستراتيجية التدميرية التي تستهدف المدنيين وكامل البنى التحتية اللبنانية، خاصة أنه أكد في إعلانه أكثر من مرة انه لن يميّز بين جيش لبناني ومقاومة وشعب لبناني ومؤسسات رسمية وأهلية لبنانية فالكلّ في الحرب المقبلة أهداف لعدوانه، وبالتالي يختصر الموقف هنا بالقول بأنّ العرض هو تمهيد لعدوان لا يقيم وزناً او تمييزاً بين مرفق مدني ومنطقة آهلة وموقع عسكري.

لكننا هنا لن نتأخر في الردّ على هذا الرأي رغم وجاهته ونقول إنّ «إسرائيل» ليست عدواً كباقي البشر الذين لديهم شيء من حسّ إنساني، فـ «إسرائيل» أصلاً لا تنذر ولا تهدّد بل تذهب للقتل والتدمير مباشرة ولنذكر من يريد مثلاً مصداقاً لهذا القول، انّ «إسرائيل» دمّرت الأسطول الجوي المدني اللبناني في العام 1968 دون ان توجه كلمة إنذار او اتهام واحدة للبنان، وانّ «إسرائيل» اجتاحت لبنان في العام 1982 ووصلت الى بيروت دون ان تهدّد بشيء ودون ان تأبه لشيء، بل انها اخترعت مسرحية محاولة قتل سفيرها في لندن وقامت بالعدوان على لبنان. فالقاعدة لدى «إسرائيل» عندما تكون قادرة هي أن تفعل وتترك الآخرين يتحدثون عنها وعن أعمالها، اما إذا هدّدت فإنّ في الأمر كلاماً آخر فما هو.

قبل ان نفصّل في الأمر، لا بدّ من التأكيد هنا على أمر أساسي بأنّ «إسرائيل» وبسبب واقع القوة الدفاعية اللبنانية المشكلة من شعب وجيش ومقاومة، المعادلة التي فرضت معادلة ردع استراتيجي عليها، انّ «إسرائيل» هذه باتت مردوعة في مواجهة لبنان، وغير قادرة على الذهاب ضدّه إلى حرب، فللحرب شروطها الثلاثة وهي غير متحققة في الواقع «الإسرائيلي» الآن، فلا هي تملك القوة القادرة على تحقيق الإنجاز العسكري في ظلّ فقدان الحافزية العسكرية لدى جيشها وفي ظلّ قوة المقاومة بوجهها، ولا هي قادرة على استيعاب ردة فعل العدو على جبهتها الداخلية الواهنة، ولا هي قادرة على التحكم بالبيئة الاستراتيجية والسياسية الدولية لصرف الإنجاز فيها إذا تحقق، وهذه البيئة اليوم عرضة لتوازنات ليست في مصلحة «إسرائيل». لكلّ ذلك فإننا لا نربط مسرحية العدو الهزلية بالاستعداد للعدوان على لبنان وانْ كانت «إسرائيل» تشتهي العدوان على الدوام وتعمل للتحضير له على مدار فرضت عليها واقعاً حرمتها من الاستقلالية والحرية في اتخاذ قرار الحرب وجعلتها مردوعة عنها كما يصف حالها خبراؤها. وبعد هذا نسأل لما المسرحية «الإسرائيلية» اذن؟

انّ «إسرائيل» شاءت وفي ظلّ ظروف محدّدة ومستجدّة وضاغطة تتمثل في إغلاق الأجواء السورية بوجه طيرانها وصواريخها وقنابلها الذكية ما تسبّب بنكبة استراتيجية لها في وقت تتحضر فيه أميركا لاعتماد سياسة لـ «خنق إيران» في 4 تشرين الثاني المقبل مع الخشية «الإسرائيلية» من نجاح أحزمة النجاة التي تحضرها أوروبا وروسيا والصين والهند لإيران، ورداً على الموقف العلمي الاستراتيجي الكبير للعماد عون في الأمم المتحدة وقبلها في مقابلة مع جريدة «لو فيغارو» الفرنسية، شاءت «إسرائيل» ان تذهب الى حروب أخرى بديلة وتعويضية.

ولهذا كانت هذه المسرحية بمثابة التمهيد والانطلاق الى تلك الحروب التي نعتقد انّ «إسرائيل» تقترحها او تشارك فيها ضدّ لبنان وهي ثلاثة حروب غير الحرب النارية القتالية التي فرض عليها العجز عنها، فقد شاءت حرباً نفسية ترهق لبنان مستفيدة من واقع انقسام اللبنانيين حول المقاومة وهي تريد ان تغذي هذا الانقسام وتثير دخاناً في وجه المقاومة ويعيد الجدل حول وجودها واستمراريتها الى الواجهة، جدل يحجب انتصاراتها ويمنعها من الاستثمار في الداخل والإقليم. وهنا وللأسف وجدنا في لبنان من يواكبها لا بل من يتقدّم عليها لخدمتها في مواجهة المقاومة والإساءة اليها والى قوة لبنان الدفاعية.

اما الحرب الثانية التي شاءت «إسرائيل» تسعيرها بمسرحيتها فهي الحرب السياسية التي يعتبر تشكيل الحكومة المتعثر بعض وجوهها كما يشكل استهداف رئيس الجمهورية بشخصه ومواقفه جزءاً آخر منها. فالرئيس كما بات معلوماً اتخذ في رحلته الأخيرة الى الأمم المتحدة من المواقف الاستراتيجية والسياسية والعسكرية العلمية ما أكد على حق لبنان بالمقاومة وأوضح بشكل علمي انّ المقاومة وسلاحها هي نتيجة لسبب متمثل بالاحتلال التي تمارسه «إسرائيل»، وانّ هذا الاحتلال سبب مآسي للبنان والمنطقة، ومنها مسألة اللجوء والنزوح، وانّ معالجة هذه المسائل تبدأ بمعالجة الأصل. ومنطق الرئيس الذي يجسّد المنطق السليم لا يرضي «إسرائيل» المجافية لكلّ منطق والتي لا تؤمن إلا بمنطق القوة العدواني واغتصاب الحقوق، لذلك شاءت ان تساهم في حرب سياسية ضدّ لبنان ورئيسه يرفده ويواكبه أيضاً وللأسف لبنانيون يدّعون زوراً العمل لمصلحة لبنان.

أما الحرب الثالثة فهي الحرب الاقتصادية وهي الأخطر والأدهى، لأنّ لبنان في ظلّ هذه الحرب يعتبر أقلّ مناعة منه في الحروب الأخرى التي ذكرت، ولذلك كان التصويب على مطار بيروت من أجل حصار لبنان وخنقه بالقبض على رئته التي تصله بالعالم، وأيضاً وأيضاً ومن شديد الأسف نجد ان لبنانيين ومنهم مسؤولون رسميون يساهمون ويشاركون «إسرائيل» في حربها وما الذي شهده مطار بيروت مؤخراً من تصرفات لا يبرّرها منطق ولا قانون إلا تأكيد على هذه الشراكة عن قصد أو غير قصد.

إذن هي حروب نفسية وسياسية واقتصادية تريدها «إسرائيل» بدائل عن الحرب النارية القتالية العسكرية ضدّ لبنان، حروب تحوّلت اليها «إسرائيل» بعد ان أدركت عجزها عن الأخرى، وهنا يطرح التحدّي الكبير على اللبنانيين وبالأخصّ منهم المسؤولون فهل يحصّنون لبنان في وجه العدوان «الإسرائيلي» المثلث هذا والذي جاءت المسرحية الهزلية في الأمم المتحدة تمهيداً له، أم ينتفض كلّ لبنان بوجه العدوان البديل ويحمي لبنان؟

في الإجابة السريعة على السؤال نقول إننا نتمنى أن يدافع كلّ اللبنانيين عن وطنهم، ولكننا وللأسف لا نثق بتحقق هذا التمني إلا انّ ثقتنا قائمة في مكان آخر، نثق بأنّ من حرّر لبنان وكانت له المواقف الثابتة خدمة للحق اللبناني سيكون أيضاً هنا وبالمرصاد… وأنه اليوم وفي ظلّ المعادلات الدولية والإقليمية الجديدة سيكون أكثر قدرة على المواجهة وأكثر طمأنينة للانتصار.

أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: