VIDEO: Nicaragua takes on Germany over Gaza genocide- an interview with Carlos Argüello Gómez

APRIL 15, 2024

Source

Max Blumenthal

Nicaraguan lawyer and diplomat Carlos Argüello Gómez speaks to The Grayzone about his case against the German government for its facilitation of Israel’s genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip, its potentially historic implications, and its similarities to the successful case he argued for the ICJ in 1986 which brought massive penalties against the United States for its illegal dirty war on Nicaragua at the time.

A full transcript follows.

VIDEO: Nicaragua takes on Germany over Gaza genocide- an interview with Carlos Argüello Gómez

Max Blumenthal: Why did Nicaragua feel compelled to bring this case against Germany? And perhaps you can fill us in on the latest development?

Dr. Arguello: Yes, thank you. Well, naturally, the main state committing the crime is Israel. The main abettor of what is happening is the United States. But the next one is Germany.

In the first case, Israel, South Africa has brought a case against Israel, of genocide, and that case is pending. Israel has been ignoring so far the orders of the court. In the case of the main abettor, the United States, we don’t have any jurisdiction to bring the United States to the court.

The United States not only does it accept the jurisdiction, but even when it became part of the Genocide Convention, which was 40 years after the convention from 1948 — it wan’t until 1988, that they became a party, with a lot of reservations, saying that they couldn’t be taken to the court, and that it [was] only genocide according to a decision by a court in the United States — with a lot of reservations that make it impossible to go against the United States.

But Germany doesn’t have that type of reservation, and Germany is the second [largest] supplier of weapons to Israel. So our position was a question of principle, beginning with: that it was very important to sit down and to make countries clear that there is an international obligation to prevent these types of situations.

The Genocide Convention specifically says in its first article that all countries have the obligation to prevent and punish genocide. We have the obligation to prevent — that doesn’t mean that the genocide has to have been completed already, that it has to have been determined by a court that there has been genocide. You have the obligation to prevent [it].

So what we have stated in the court, and have proven, is that Germany has had all notice, beginning from the Secretary General of the United Nations from the ninth of October, saying that genocide was possibly being committed. Even the International Court said that genocide was being committed.

Now, you have to understand also that if genocide is being committed, obviously, international humanitarian law is being [violated]. If you are massacring a population, the difference is, if you aren’t massacring with the intention of destroying it completely, which is genocide, you are still violating international humanitarian law.

Now the problem — to divide the situation — is Israel only accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the Genocide Convention. So you can’t claim against Israel violations of international humanitarian law, only genocide. And so that was another of the points that I’ll get to.

But first, going back, the principle involved here is all states have responsibility to prevent these type of crimes, international crimes. The court had already given indication of this 20 years ago, in an opinion that the International Court had given on the construction of a wall in Israel. The Court itself had felt that all states had the obligation to prevent what was happening. All states had the obligation to enforce the humanitarian law conventions, but nobody paid attention.

Germany never paid any attention to what was happening. The court even said that the Palestinians had the right to self-determination in that case. Nobody paid attention. So now we come to when the most crucial genocide is being evidenced — because genocide has been committed for many years. It’s not a question of just the past few months. But it is absolutely in evidence, and the countries continue as if it wasn’t. As if the Genocide Convention and all the international laws had nothing to do with them.

So we thought that as a matter of principle, we had to bring before the court this question. Now, I wish to clarify, because I have been asked: ‘why Nicaragua?’ Well, with Nicaragua, we have a lot of experience in the court. We came to the court forty years ago against the United States, on a question of principle also. It was the principle of non intervention… of the state. In that we made a very important contribution to international law.

And since then we have been in the court many times. We have been in the court more than twice as many times as Germany. So it’s not that we are discovering the court in this situation. We have experience and that’s why, this experience, we wanted to put it to the benefit of the Palestinian people that are being massacred, at the very least, if not committing genocide against them.

Now, another situation, and this is on a personal level: after South Africa brought the case against Israel — and that was at the end of December last year — then in January, I was just listening to interviews, by very important commentators, very important lawyers. Everybody was saying, ‘Well, no, genocide is possible… it’s very difficult to prove that,’ and whatever.

So I think the whole understanding of people who were watching what was happening was: well, obviously, then nothing is happening. It’s very difficult to prove. I mean, that wasn’t the issue. Israel was massacring everybody. It was violating all international humanitarian law. The only thing was that only genocide could be brought against them directly.

So the fact of bringing this case against Germany, which includes not only genocide, but also its obligations, German obligations, to also help prevent the violation of international humanitarian law. All that is on the table with Germany. Against Israel, only the genocide. Against Germany, we have all international law, humanitarian law also on the table. So I mean, that aspect is also very important.

Part of the reason, right, but obviously, Germany will try to avoid [it] and say that, as they said in the court, that we can continue in this case without the presence of Israel. But independently of what is happening, each country in the world, all countries in the world, have the obligation to prevent [genocide]. It’s an independent obligation.

So, I mean, this is more or less where we are. And hopefully, the court will order. There are no third states, I’m sorry, there are no other parties, but Germany and Nicaragua involved in this. There is no reason why the court can not simply order that Germany cease supplying weapons to Israel, which is what we hope will happen.

Wyatt Reed: So the Germans are offering kind of a novel legal defense here. The legal director for the German Foreign Office, Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, said recently that, “Our history is the reason why Israel security has been at the core of German foreign policy.” So the point here seems to be that given that Germany carried out the Holocaust, it’s now compelled to do whatever it takes to defend the so-called ‘Jewish state,’ and apparently, including even facilitating the mass extermination of Palestinians. Is that an accurate reading of the German position here? And if it is, how do you expect that to hold up in court? Are you optimistic about the outcome here?

Dr. Arguello: Well, frankly, in court… Let me make two comments on that. Even before the Germans spoke — when we presented our case on Monday, the Germans responded on Tuesday — we’d already made the distinction. We told them, because I think Germany has always been saying that it is their raison d’etre that they have: the defense of Israel.

So one of the things we told them on Monday is that we understand and that it is a praisable situation, a very laudable situation, that they feel responsible for the Holocaust, and the barbarities that were committed in the Second World War against the Jewish people. But a distinction should be made, Israel is not the Jewish people. What they’re helping is a state that is committing genocide.

That’s one point and a very important distinction. But in the long run, what they are doing is, they are going against the Jewish people, because Israel is causing enormous prejudice to the Jewish [court], the world around. It’s incredible. Frankly, I don’t know how we can understand that position of Germany. If they’re really worried about what they did, or what happened, of their ancestors or the Nazis, or whatever we want to call them. Well, I think the first thing should be, their heart should tell them that they should be helping the Palestinians in this situation. I mean, those are the guys that are suffering. I mean, Israel is not suffering. If they want to really have compassion, or they feel compassion to those that are suffering, Israel is not suffering. Israel is a superpower.

Max: Ambassador Arguello, you mentioned earlier the case that you brought at the International Court of Justice or that the Nicaraguan government brought back in 1984. In 1986, you received a favorable ruling from the ICJ. And this was a case against the United States for its violation of international law, through the CIA’s backing of the Contra death squads, as well as its mining of Nicaragua’s Harbor. The US did not abide by the decision. It simply sat on its hands and waited until its preferred candidate, Violeta Chamorro, won in 1990, and proceeded to withdraw the case. Do you see any similarities between that case and the case you’re bringing now against Germany for its participation in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people? And how do you expect the ICJ or the international community to enforce a decision in the current case, given the brazen attitude of Israel in the United States towards international law?

Dr. Arguello: Well, that’s a very important consideration, and thank you for the comment on the historical background. Yes, I mean, the case we brought against the United States has certain similarities. Some we pointed out during our intervention — the most obvious is that one of the main things we’re requesting [from] the court right at the beginning, was that the United States should cease its supply of weapons in support to the Contra forces that were fighting the government of Nicaragua. And they were, in this case, they were created and supplied entirely by the United States.

Obviously, the State of Israel wasn’t created and doesn’t depend entirely on Germany, but Germany is also supplying weapons and maintaining politically, diplomatically, giving all the efforts in helping possible to Israel. So what we are asking the court, in a certain sense, and we repeated that, was exactly what we were asking against [the] United States forty years ago: to cease this assistance to Israel, in the same way that you will cease the assistance to the illegal forces fighting Nicaragua.

Now, of course, the United States didn’t comply. The United States, in my experience, even before we came before the court — and I don’t want to go lengthy discussion on that, [but] in my opinion, the United States has never respected international law. Any treaty with the United States, any third country that thinks that they are ‘armor’ against anything because they have a treaty, that treaty will only be respected as long as it’s in the interest of the United States. The United States does not respect international law, unless it’s in its benefit.

They want to go: ‘The United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.’ But when it became against them, that was it. They didn’t comply, said goodbye to the court. Israel, obviously, is following the example of the United States. Not the example — it’s covered by the same forces of the United States. Israel is the local bully in that area, but it has the big brother bully behind it. So they feel completely armored against anything. But we have the feeling — and… perhaps we’re wrong, I don’t know — But I don’t think that Germany will have the same attitude with a judgment of the court.

I think the United States, obviously, any order of the court, they simply ignore it. And not only the government, but probably even the media, all the traditional media in the United States would probably also ignore it. But I think in Germany, it would be different. I think a judgment by the court order in Germany to stop is going to have a lot of effect. And apart from that, world opinion at this moment, I think, has been mobilized. In that respect, perhaps even these cases before the court are also helping this mobilization. But people, even in German, there’s a lot, currently, of people that are also very, very worried and very ashamed of what’s happening. So I think, I think it will be very difficult. And that’s why I’m hopeful that if the court orders it, it will be an effective order. It’s not going to be ignored completely.

Wyatt: So in recent months after South Africa brought its case against Israel, we saw some attempts in the United States government, specifically the Congress, to pursue some kind of bilateral relations review, effectively implying the threat of sanctions or decreased economic trade activity with South Africa — kind of an implicit threat. So I’m wondering whether Israel has tried to interfere with this case, or whether the US itself has attempted to retaliate beyond the sanctions that it’s already imposing and plans to impose on Nicaragua?

Dr. Arguello: Well, I am not aware at this moment of any particular additional sanctions, or additional positions against Nicaragua. I mean, the United States has been already doing — with different governments — has been doing everything possible to destroy the government of Nicaragua. So it’s nothing, it’s nothing new. They attempted a coup d’etat when Mr. Bolton was in charge of these operations in 2018. We have been sanctioned constantly. So I mean, if that happens, it’s going to happen. I mean, I don’t know what more they can do against us.

We have our moral obligation we feel. As I said at the beginning, I mean, what can we contribute to the Palestinian people? Among the few things we can do — we can’t give them money because we’re not a rich country, we can’t give them weapons. How can we help them? And one of the few things that we have is experience, and we have something, which is the International Court. So when this case began, we said let’s go wholeheartedly here. And I received instructions from my bosses that we should go immediately, and do everything possible. That’s what we’re trying, that’s what we try to do.

Max: And then just on the theme of your moral obligation: the Sandinista municipality in Managua has renamed a street ‘Pista Gaza,’ a major thoroughfare in Managua. The Sandinista party has a traditional affiliation or solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization, how does this case fit into the ethos of the Sandinista front and its support for oppressed people and working people around the world?

Dr. Arguello: We had, I mean, right from the beginning, from the birth of the Sandinista party or movement, even before the triumph of the revolution, there’s always been enormous sympathy from both ways — from the Palestinians toward  our cause, and from, obviously, our cause to them. And what is happening to Palestine is something that has hurt us enormously, and we have been feeling it for a very long time. When, some years ago, there was this convoy of help that was going from Turkey to Israel, which was intervened, and there was an attack from Israel to stop it, we broke relations with Israel completely. We initiated relations with Israel just a few years ago again, in the hope that things would try to be normal.

But the reality is that Israel has been acting this way. This is among the more blatant – obviously, it’s something that now is indisputable, it’s being watched by even children all over the world. Everybody in the world knows what’s happening. And everybody now sympathizes.

Perhaps 50, 60 years ago, there was less common knowledge of everything that was happening. The media was more controlled by certain groups of states. But now, I think that the sympathy that we originally felt with the Palestinian people, since way back, is now something that is shared with a lot of humanity. So that’s also a hope, a hope we have.

Max: And I guess my last question would be a more general question about international law. It’s clear that the rules based order that the Biden administration in Washington preaches has suffered an enormous blow to its credibility, through the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza and all the violations that we’ve seen. But we’ve also seen institutions, multilateral institutions, like the United Nations Security Council, or the World Court, the ICJ be unable to enforce decisions like the acceptance of the South African case or calls for a ceasefire. So what are your thoughts on the future of international law and these institutions born out of the kind of post World War Two order and their ability to enforce it in the face of these brazen, unilateral — and still very powerful — forces like Israel in the United States? Is there really a future for international law?

Dr. Arguello: If you permit me, I mean, I remember, I have made this comment many times in my career. 40 years ago, when we began, or 38 years ago, with the judgment of the court, the case against the United States — when the United States had already said goodbye to the court and that it wasn’t going to pay any attention to what was happening. That question was always coming up. I mean, what can you do? And what can the court do? I mean, ‘you’ve been wasting your time, coming to the court, the court doesn’t have nuclear weapons to force the United States to obey.’

There was an expression that I took from a French tourist that was, many years ago, wondering: what can you do if a big power doesn’t compile? The only thing left is the mobilization of shame. And if we break that down, this mobilization of shame, even in the United States, the amount of people now informed of what’s happening is increasing. And, Mr. Biden, politicians like him, have no real principles or no real belief in international law. But they believe in their posts. And if people in the United States are changing their opinion, they’re being informed and this shame is mobilizing them, then eventually they will have to mobilize the immovable objects like Mr. Biden. So that’s, that’s the hope with this. Perhaps being too idealistic, but it’s the only weapon we have.

Max: Okay, well, Ambassador, is there anything you wanted to add or touch on? Before we go?

Dr. Arguello: Well, just to thank both of you, your program. I think we’ve more or less covered [everything]. Obviously, we could talk for hours and hours about different things but I think we basically touched base on the main points.

Max: I guess I do have one more question. I guess I have one more question, something I’ve been thinking about, and we’ve been covering a lot at The Grayzone. But when you first brought your case against the United States, at the ICJ, the world was in a different place. The Cold War was still taking place. But now we see the emergence of the Global South and a kind of multipolar order. We see the rise of BRICS, China and Russia are beginning to ally themselves. And Nicaragua is forming new alliances as well. To what extent does this case and the South African case represent the Global South asserting its power in a new way against a declining global hegemony?

Dr. Arguello: Well, I think there must be, there’s an element of that, obviously. In the case of Nicaragua, since we began 40 years ago, as you said, during the height of the Cold War, that wasn’t the main reason for our doing it. Although, I don’t want to be very presumptuous on this, but perhaps that case, at least in the International Court, was the beginning of, let’s say, a movement, that has been followed up and that we are in 40 years later, still continuing. In that respect, that’s what I have told some people in Nicaragua that I feel, even forty years later, that again, we are simply continuing. And, unfortunately, to cite a Nicaraguan poet, he was supposedly a Nicaraguan Patriot in the 1850s against an American, North American invader, taking over the country. He killed one of the soldiers, throwing a rock. So this Nicaraguan poet, 100 years later in the 1930s, wrote a poem that ended something like saying, you know: ‘Andrés, 100 years later, throw the rock. The enemy is still the same.’ Now, forty years later, I feel that I still have the rock in my hand, and the enemy is still the same. Anyway, we still have the rock and we still have the energy, and we have to go on.

Wyatt: David continues the fight against Goliath.

Max: Ambassador Carlos Arguello Gomez, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. And thank you for your contribution to humanity.

Dr. Arguello: Oh, thank you. Thank you for having me on your program and your contribution to humanity. I told you, I have enjoyed many of your programs and will continue to do so. Ok, thank you very much.

Max: Thank you, and we’ll be following up after the decision.

Two Years After the Start of the SMO, the West is Totally Paralyzed

February 24, 2024

Pepe Escobar

February 24, 2022 was the day that changed 21^st century geopolitics forever, Pepe Escobar writes.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Exactly two years ago this Saturday, on February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin announced the launching – and described the objectives – of a Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine. That was the inevitable follow-up to what happened three days before, on February 21 – exactly 8 years after Maidan 2014 in Kiev – when Putin officially recognized the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

During this – pregnant with meaning – short space of only three days, everyone expected that the Russian Armed Forces would intervene, militarily, to end the massive bombing and shelling that had been going on for three weeks across the frontline – which even forced the Kremlin to evacuate populations at risk to Russia. Russian intel had conclusive proof that the NATO-backed Kiev forces were ready to execute an ethnic cleansing of Russophone Donbass.

February 24, 2022 was the day that changed 21^st century geopolitics forever, in several complex ways. Above all, it marked the beginning of a vicious, all-out confrontation, “military-technical” as the Russians call it, between the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder, its easily pliable NATOstan vassals, and Russia – with Ukraine as the battleground.

There is hardly any question Putin had calculated, before and during these three fateful days, that his decisions would unleash the unbounded fury of the collective West – complete with a tsunami of sanctions.

Ay, there’s the rub; it’s all about Sovereignty. And a true sovereign power simply cannot live under permanent threats. It’s even feasible that Putin had wanted (italics mine) Russia to get sanctioned to death. After all, Russia is so naturally wealthy that without a serious challenge from abroad, the temptation is enormous to live off its rents while importing what it could easily produce.

Exceptionalists always gloated that Russia is “a gas station with nuclear weapons”. That’s ridiculous. Oil and gas, in Russia, account for roughly 15% of GDP, 30% of the government budget, and 45% of exports. Oil and gas add power to the Russian economy – not a drag. Putin shaking Russia’s complacency generated a gas station producing everything it needs, complete with unrivalled nuclear and hypersonic weapons. Beat that.

Ukraine has “never been less than a nation”

Xavier Moreau is a French politico-strategic analyst based in Russia for 24 years now. Graduated from the prestigious Saint-Cyr military academy and with a Sorbonne diploma, he hosts two shows on RT France.

His latest book, Ukraine: Pourquoi La Russie a Gagné (“Ukraine: Why Russia has Won”), just out, is an essential manual for European audiences on the realities of the war, not those childish fantasies concocted across the NATOstan sphere by instant “experts” with less than zero combined arms military experience.

Moreau makes it very clear what every impartial, realist analyst was aware of from the beginning: the devastating Russian military superiority, which would condition the endgame. The problem, still, is how this endgame – “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, as established by Moscow – will be achieved.

What is already clear is that “demilitarization”, of Ukraine and NATO, is a howling success that no new wunderwaffen – like F-16s – will be able to change.

Moreau perfectly understands how Ukraine, nearly 10 years after Maidan, is not a nation; “and has never been less than a nation”. It’s a territory where populations that everything separates are jumbled up. Moreover, it has been a – “grotesque” – failed state ever since its independence. Moreau spends several highly entertaining pages going through the corruption grotesquerie in Ukraine, under a regime that “gets its ideological references simultaneously via admirers of Stepan Bandera and Lady Gaga.”

None of the above, of course, is reported by oligarch-controlled European mainstream media.

Watch out for Deng Xiao Putin

The book offers an extremely helpful analysis of those deranged Polish elites who bear “a heavy responsibility in the strategic catastrophe that awaits Washington and Brussels in Ukraine”. The Poles actually believed that Russia would crumble from the inside, complete with a color revolution against Putin. That barely qualifies as Brzezinski on crack.

Moreau shows how 2022 was the year when NATOstan, especially the Anglo-Saxons – historically racist Russophobes –   were self-convinced thar Russia would fold because it is a “poor power”. Obviously, none of these luminaries understood how Putin strengthened the Russian economy very much like Deng Xiaoping on the Chinese economy. This “self-intoxication”, as Moreau qualifies it, did wonders for the Kremlin.

By now it’s clear even for the deaf, dumb, and blind that the destruction of the European economy has been a massive tactic, historic victory for the Hegemon – as much as the blitzkrieg against the Russian economy has been an abysmal failure.

All of the above brings us to the meeting of G20 Foreign Ministers this week in Rio. That was not exactly a breakthrough. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it very clear that the collective West at the G20 tried by all means to “Ukrainize” the agenda – with less than zero success. They were outnumbered and counterpunched by BRICS and Global South members.

At his press conference, Lavrov could not be more stark on the prospects of the war of the collective West against Russia. These are the highlights:

• Western countries categorically do not want serious dialogue on Ukraine.
• There were no serious proposals from the United States to begin contacts with the Russian Federation on strategic stability; trust cannot be restored now while Russia is declared an enemy.
• There were no contacts on the sidelines of the G20 with either Blinken or the British Foreign Secretary.
• The Russian Federation will respond to new Western sanctions with practical actions that relate to the self-sufficient development of the Russian economy.
• If Europe tries to restore ties with the Russian Federation, making it dependent on their whims, then such contacts are not needed.

In a nutshell – diplomatically: you are irrelevant, and we don’t care.

That was complementing Lavrov’s intervention during the summit, which defined once again a clear, auspicious path towards multipolarity. Here are the highlights:

• The forming of a fair multipolar world order without a definite center and periphery has become much more intensive in the past few years. Asian, African and Latin American countries are becoming important parts of the global economy. Not infrequently, they are setting the tone and the dynamics.
• Many Western economies, especially in Europe, are actually stagnating against this background. These statistics are from Western-supervised institutions – the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD.
• These institutions are becoming relics from the past. Western domination is already affecting their ability to meet the requirements of the times. Meanwhile, it is perfectly obvious today that the current problems of humanity can only be resolved through a concerted effort and with due consideration for the interests of the Global South and, generally, all global economic realities.
• Institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD, and the EIB are prioritizing Kiev’s military and other needs. The West allocated over $250 billion to tide over its underling thus creating funding shortages in other parts of the world. Ukraine is taking up the bulk of the funds, relegating Africa and other regions of the Global South to rationing.
• Countries that have discredited themselves by using unlawful acts ranging from unilateral sanctions and the seizure of sovereign assets and private property to blockades, embargoes, and discrimination against economic operators based on nationality to settle scores with their geopolitical opponents cannot be considered guarantors of financial stability.
• Without a doubt, new institutions that focus on consensus and mutual benefit are needed to democratize the global economic governance system. Today, we are seeing positive dynamics for strengthening various alliances, including BRICS, the SCO, ASEAN, the African Union, LAS, CELAC, and the EAEU.
• This year, Russia chairs BRICS, which saw several new members join it. We will do our best to reinforce the potential of this association and its ties with the G20.
• Considering that 6 out of 15 UN Security Council members represent the Western bloc, we will support the expansion of this body solely through the accession of countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Call it the real state of things, geopolitically, two years after the start of the SMO.

The Axis of Asymmetry takes on the ‘rules-based order’

FEB 23, 2024

Photo Credit: The Cradle

World War III is here, playing out asymmetrically in military, financial, and institutional battlefields, and the fight is an existential one. The western Hegemon, in truth, is at war against international law, and only ‘kinetic military action’ can bring it to heel.

Pepe Escobar

The Axis of Asymmetry is in full swing. These are the state and non-state actors employing asymmetrical moves on the global chessboard to sideline the US-led western rules-based order. And its vanguard is the Yemeni resistance movement Ansarallah. 

Ansarallah is absolutely relentless. They have downeda $30 million MQ-9 Reaper drone with just a $10k indigenous missile.

They are the first in the Global South ever to use anti-ship ballistic missiles against Israel-bound and/or -protecting commercial and US Navy ships. 

For all practical purposes, Ansarallah is at war with no less than the US Navy.

Ansarallah has captured one of the US Navy’s ultra-sophisticated autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), the $1.3 million Remus 600, a torpedo-shaped underwater drone able to carry a massive payload of sensors. 

Next stop: reverse engineering in Iran? The Global South eagerly awaits, ready to pay in currencies bypassing the US dollar. 

All of the above – a maritime 21st-century remix of the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War – spells out that the Hegemon may not even qualify as a paper tiger, but rather as a paper leech.

Lula tells it as the Global South sees it 

Into the Big Picture – linked to the relentless ongoing genocide perpetrated by Israel in Gaza – steps a true leader of the Global South, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. 

Lula spoke in the name of Brazil, Latin America, Africa, BRICS 10, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South when he cut to the chase and defined the Gaza tragedy for what it is: a genocide. No wonder the Zionist tentacles across the Global North – plus its Global South vassals – went bonkers. 

The genocidals in Tel Aviv declared Lula as persona non grata in Israel. Yet Lula did not assassinate 29,000+ Palestinians – the overwhelming majority of whom were women and children.

History will be unforgiving: it’s the genocidals that will eventually be judged as personae non grata to all of humanity.

What Lula said represented BRICS 10 in action: this was obviously cleared before with Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and, of course, the African Union. Lula spoke in Addis Ababa, and Ethiopia is now a BRICS 10 member.

The Brazilian president was extremely smart in timing his Gaza fact-check to be on the table during the G20 meeting of Foreign Ministers in Rio. Way beyond BRICS 10, what’s happening in Gaza is a consensus among the non-Western G20 partners – who are actually a majority. No one, though, should expect any serious follow-up inside a divided G20. The heart of the matter remains in the facts on the ground. 

Yemen’s fight for “our people” in Gaza is a matter of humanistic, moral, and religious solidarity – these are foundational tenets of the rising eastern “civilizational” powers, both domestically and in international affairs. This convergence of principles has now created a direct link – extrapolating to the moral and spiritual spheres – between the Axis of Resistance in West Asia and the Slavic Axis of Resistance in Donbass. 

Extreme attention should be paid to the timescale. The Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) forces and Russia have spent two hard-fought years in Novorossiya just to arrive at the stage where it becomes clear – based on the battlefield and cumulative facts on the ground – that “negotiations” mean only the terms of Kiev’s surrender.

In contrast, the job of the Axis of Resistance in West Asia has not even started. It’s fair to argue that its strength and full sovereign involvement have not been deployed yet (think Hezbollah and Iran). 

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, with his proverbial subtlety, has hinted there’s, in fact, nothing to negotiate on Palestine. And if there would be a return to any borders, these would be the 1948 borders. The Axis of Resistance understands that the whole Zionist Project is unlawful and immoral. But the question remains how to throw it, in practice, into the dustbin of History?

Possible – avowedly optimistic – scenarios ahead would include Hezbollah taking possession of the Galilee as a step toward the eventual retaking of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Yet the fact remains that even a united Palestine does not have the military capability to reconquer stolen Palestinian lands. 

So the questions posed by the overwhelming majority of the Global South that stands with Lula may be: Who else, apart from Ansarallah, Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi, will join the Axis of Asymmetry in the fight for Palestine? Who would be willing to come to the Holy Land and die? (After all, in Donbass, it’s only Russians and Russophones who are dying for historically Russian lands)

And that brings us to the way towards the endgame: only a West Asian Special Military Operation (SMO), to the bitter end, will settle the Palestinian tragedy. A translation of what happens across the Slavic Axis of Resistance: “Those who refuse to negotiate with Lavrov, deal with Shoigu.”

The menu, the table, and the guests

That out-of-his-depth closet neocon, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, let the cat out of the bag when he actually defined his much cherished “rules-based international order”: “If you’re not on the table, you are on the menu.”

Following his own hegemonic logic, it’s clear that Russia and the US/NATO are on the table while Ukraine is on the menu. What about the Red Sea? The Houthis defending Palestine against US–UK–Israel are clearly on the table, while Western vassals supporting Israel in a maritime way are clearly on the menu. 

And that’s the problem: the Hegemon – or, in Chinese scholarly terminology, “the crusaders” – have lost the power to place the name cards on the table. The main reason for this authority collapse is the build-up of serious international meetings sponsored by the Russia–China strategic partnership during the past two years since the start of the SMO. It’s all about sequential planning, with long-term targets clearly outlined. 

Only civilizational states can do that – not plutocratic neoliberal casinos.   

Negotiating with the Hegemon is impossible because the Hegemon itself prevents negotiations (see the serial blocking of ceasefire resolutions at the UN). Additionally, the Hegemon excels in instrumentalizing its client elites across the Global South via threats or kompromat: see the hysterical reaction of Brazilian mainstream media to Lula’s verdict on Gaza. 

What Russia is showing the Global South, two years after the start of the SMO, is that the only path to teach a lesson to the Hegemon has to be kinetic, or “military-technical.”

The problem is no nation-state can compare to nuclear/hypersonic/military superpower Russia, in which 7.5 percent of the government’s budget is dedicated to military production. Russia is and will remain on a permanent war footing until Hegemon’s elites come to their senses – and that may never happen.

Meanwhile, West Asia’s Axis of Resistance is watching and learning, day after day. It’s always crucial to keep in mind that for all the resistance movements across the Global South – and that also includes, for instance, West Africans against French neo-colonialism – the geopolitical fault lines could not be starker.

It’s a matter of the collective West versus Islam; the collective West versus Russia; and sooner rather than later, a substantial part of the West, even reluctantly, versus China.

The fact is we are already immersed in a World War that is both existential and civilizational. As we stand at the crossroads, there is a bifurcation: either escalation towards overt “kinetic military action,” or a multiplication of Hybrid Wars across several latitudes. 

So it’s up to the Axis of Asymmetry, cool, calm, and collected, to forge the underground corridors, passages, and trails capable of undermining and subverting the US-led, unipolar, rules-based international order. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

MOST POPULAR

• Question in Beirut: Will the Syrians, Saudis, Iranians strike a new Lebanon deal?
• China backs Palestinians’ right to ‘armed struggle’ against Israeli occupation
• IMF vows to support Egypt as nation braces for mass displacement of Gazans
• Somalia grants Turkiye defense rights in ‘historic’ maritime deal
• Red lines: Will Iran enter the regional war?

What’s the True Potential of The India-Middle East-Europe Corridor?

September 15, 2023

By Darko Lazar

One of the biggest announcements to come out of the G20 summit in New Delhi was the launch of an ambitious plan to build an economic corridor linking Europe with the Middle East and India via rail and sea. 

A 325-word Memorandum of Understanding inked by India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, France, Italy, the European Union and the United States, outlines how this newly envisaged network would help boost trade, deliver energy resources and improve digital connectivity.

The so-called India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, or IMEC, comprises two separate routes – an east corridor linking India to the Gulf monarchies and a northern corridor connecting the Arab states to Europe.

“Israel” is not a signatory but is mentioned in the MoU as one of the transit points for goods and services moving through the ship-to-rail network.

For “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been desperately trying to normalize ties with Saudi Arabia, it didn’t matter whether Tel Aviv is a signatory or not. He jumped on the news coming out of New Delhi and declared that “Israel” was “a central junction in this economic corridor”, which would “change the face of the Middle East.”

Netanyahu isn’t the only one hyping up the project. Some in the mainstream media have already dubbed it a “game-changer”, and the White House claims the corridor is ushering in a “new era of connectivity.” But is the planned trade route any of those things?

There is no alternative to the alternative 

The unveiling of IMEC was almost immediately characterized as a challenge to China’s Belt and Road Initiative [BRI].

The latter is the world’s largest infrastructure project that seeks to connect Asia with Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks with the aim of advancing integration, increasing trade and stimulating economic growth.

Naturally, this massive Chinese foreign policy undertaking is perceived as a major threat to US hegemony. Washington responded by peddling the narrative that the BRI is a debt trap as it leaned on ‘allies’ to abandon the Chinese program while trying to improve its own competitiveness on the global stage.

IMEC is supposed to be part of the Biden administration’s alternative to the BRI. It’s true that both initiatives share many of the same objectives and methods of implementation. In theory, at least, both are designed to connect manufacturers in Asia with consumers in the West, while implementing infrastructure projects along the corridors.

But the BRI has already lived up to the hype and will make for tough competition. The Chinese have invested around $1 trillion into the scheme that now extends across 150 countries, including IMEC signatories, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And unlike “Israel”, these two countries are the actual “central junction” in the new economic corridor.

Here, it’s important to note that China is already Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner and the biggest investor in the Kingdom’s economy.

Speculation about the Americans trying to rip India out of BRICS, while working to help New Delhi replace the Chinese as Riyadh’s key trading partner may very well be accurate. But these are unrealistic objectives.

The Chinese are investing billions into the Saudi economy while New Delhi is looking for cash injections from Riyadh. According to modest projections, the Saudis will cough up around $100 billion for India’s economy in the coming years while the current turnover of more than $50 billion is also the result of Riyadh’s investments in this partnership.

Furthermore, the West’s failure to ‘Ukrainize’ the G20 summit in New Delhi is just another reminder that India has no interest in abandoning its role in the expanding BRICS bloc. Instead, both India and Saudi Arabia, along with the rest of the Global South, have embraced multipolarity and are exploring numerous multilateral frameworks for advancing their national interests.

As such, China’s BRI and the billions it pumps into the Saudi economy will undoubtedly remain a priority for Riyadh. As the Saudis and Emiratis forge ahead with the diversification of their economic relations, including the expansion of ties with Iran, they are likely to seek the integration of the BRI and IMEC into a single global artery of logistics. This integration with existing networks is perhaps the only logical step for realizing IMEC’s true potential. 

The main speedbump is the US, which wants to use the initiative as a political tool against China and Russia and grow its influence in the countries along the corridor rather than focus on mutual economic development.

Still No Framework for Normalization

With numerous transportation and logistics projects springing up across the Eurasia region, Gulf states haven’t failed to realize their infrastructure potential. The member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council are mapping out their own sea and land freight routes, which led to the revival of the massive Gulf Railway project.

The railway system, which is expected to be completed by 2025 and cost around $250 billion, will link all six GCC members. Presumably, this is the same railway system that “Israel” wants to plug in to guarantee its place in IMEC and normalize ties with Saudi Arabia.

In July, Netanyahu announced plans for the construction of a $27 billion rail expansion that could provide overland links to Saudi Arabia in the future. But the Saudis still haven’t responded to that announcement.

That same month, Biden himself said that “Israel” and Saudi Arabia were a long way from a normalization agreement. Meanwhile, his national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, admitted on the way to the G20 summit in India that there is still no actual framework for normalization.

When asked whether IMEC was part of normalization efforts between Riyadh and Tel Aviv, the State Department’s Matthew Miller said, “No, it is separate.”  

It probably doesn’t help that the Biden administration has a tumultuous relationship with both the Netanyahu government and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.

Some of the elements for normalization are undoubtedly on the table. However, nothing has been finalized.

Of course, it makes far more sense for the Gulf Railway project to be directed towards Syria and Lebanon, which are perfectly positioned for the role of a bridge in any future India-Europe economic corridor.  

Related Video

Episode 38 of 60 Minutes – September 10, 2023 – A maneuver against China after the failure of Russia’s siege in New Delhi…and what is Qatar doing?

Iran’s entry into BRICS: The end of economic and political isolation?

AUG 31, 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Tehran’s diplomatic persistence has yielded a second major breakthrough this year: Securing full BRICS membership to dismantle isolation, navigate sanctions, and bolster political and economic influence with Eurasian power centers.

Zafar Mehdi

In his address at the 15^th BRICS summit in Johannesburg on 24 August, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi highlighted his country’s unwavering commitment to the ongoing de-dollarization drive and the establishment of a more balanced international order. 

Raisi underscored the “historic” advantages that Iran’s inclusion in the economic bloc brings, noting that it marks “a new step towards establishing justice, ethics, and sustainable peace in the world,” and called the 11-member BRICS a “symbol of change.” 

His address followed the bloc’s invitations to Iran and five other countries — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia, and the UAE — to join as permanent members. The expansion of the group into BRICS+ has irked western hawks, as it threatens to counterbalance their global influence.

On the sidelines of the three-day summit, Raisi also held separate meetings with his counterparts from founding members China, Brazil, India, and South Africa. The leitmotif was common — a new world order.  

“The expansion of BRICS shows unilateralism is going downhill,” Raisi was quoted as saying in a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in which he vowed to strengthen Tehran’s comprehensive strategic partnership with Beijing and promote the latter’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In his meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva, Raisi explained that the US’ “maximum pressure” policy — the brainchild of former President Donald Trump – has inadvertently propelled Iran’s progress. 

With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Raisi focused on transit matters and urged expedited progress on the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) project, a transformative multi-modal transportation route linking India with the Caspian Sea, Russia, and northern Europe through Iran.

‘Strategic victory’ for Iran

Mohammad Jamshidi, the Iranian president’s deputy chief of staff for political affairs and a key aide, first announced Iran’s BRICS induction on Twitter. 

“In a historic move, Islamic Republic of Iran becomes permanent member of BRICS,” Jamshidi tweeted in both English and Persian, describing it as a “strategic victory for Iran’s foreign policy.”

On Friday, the Iranian delegation made a triumphant return to Tehran, having clinched the BRICS membership barely a month after full accession to the prestigious 9-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Speaking to reporters and his cabinet colleagues at Mehrabad International Airport, Raisi said Iran’s inclusion in the BRICS alliance will enhance the country’s “political and economic power.”

Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian took to Instagram to celebrate the diplomatic feat, saying the BRICS expansion and Iran’s admission would “strengthen multilateralism” and help the Raisi government pursue its “look east” foreign policy goals.

Morteza Habibolahi, a Tehran-based economic affairs analyst, describes Iran’s full memberships in both the SCO and BRICS in a span of one year as nothing short of a “diplomatic masterstroke.” He tells The Cradle: 

“The SCO primarily focuses on political and security issues while BRICS is a bloc of emerging market economies with almost 30 percent share of global GDP. For Iran, battered by sanctions and economic isolation, it presents tremendous opportunities to open up again.”

Iran submitted its application for full membership in BRICS in June last year, days after Raisi virtually addressed the BRICS summit and expressed Tehran’s readiness to share its “vast capabilities and potentials” to help the bloc accomplish its goals.

A week later, at the end of the 23rd summit of the SCO Council of Heads of States, the New Delhi Declaration admitted Iran as the 9th full member state.

‘Turning east’ has been a winning strategy 

Former Iranian diplomat Mohsen Pakaeen explains to The Cradle that BRICS membership is the outcome of Iran’s assertive ‘look-east’ policy.

He contends that Iran can “reap many benefits” through its membership in the bloc that “aims to promote a new world order based on multilateralism and focuses on an alternative financial system.”

“Iran lies at the heart of BRICS as it is situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. It  owns vast oil and gas resources and numerous mines. It also has a robust defense system, seeks to protect regional security, and is against foreign interference in the region’s affairs. All of these can help the BRICS alliance thrive.”

According to Pakaeen, Iran’s membership in BRICS and the SCO will “eliminate the need for the country to wait for the [western] sanctions-removal talks to bear fruit,” referring to the stalled negotiations aimed at reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

While those negotiations in Vienna, mediated by the EU, have been at a standstill since last August due to disputes between Iran and the US, Iran’s involvement in influential Global South economic blocs has provided an alternative path to economic progress. 

The stalled negotiations are compounded by Iran’s conflicts with the UN nuclear watchdog, tensions in the Persian Gulf, and allegations that Iran is supplying drones to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Earlier this month, the two adversaries reached a prisoner swap deal, which also included unfreezing of Iranian assets blocked in Iraq and South Korea, but the deal has been de-linked from nuclear talks, which Tehran insists is contingent on Washington’s political will. 

An Iranian foreign ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, informs The Cradle:

“Raisi’s administration’s ‘look-east’ policy is essentially designed to tell the US and its allies that we can not only survive but also thrive by focusing on our strengths and relying on friends. This administration understands that trusting Americans never works but the door of meaningful and pragmatic diplomacy also remains open.”

Tensions in the Persian Gulf 

Ali Ahmadi, an executive fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, believes that Iran joining BRICS right after joining the SCO shows that US efforts to isolate Iran have “significant limits.”

Ahmadi tells The Cradle that sanctions are “still harming the Iranian economy” and that de-dollarization is a “long-term project that isn’t going to break the impact of American financial sanctions in the immediate term.”

“This certainly shouldn’t be seen as any kind of replacement for nuclear diplomacy. I do not believe officials in Tehran see it that way. It’s much more about managing Iran’s position in a multipolar emerging global order.” 

Significantly, Iran’s entrance into BRICS comes against the backdrop of escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington due to recent incidents in the Persian Gulf and the deployment of US warships in the geostrategic waterway. 

Reports have emerged about the US Navy offloading a seized Iranian oil tanker off the coast of Texas, despite repeated warnings from Iranian officials. Following this incident, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kanaani boldly declared that the “era of hit and run is over,” echoing the stern warning issued in July by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) Navy commander Alireza Tangsiri – and a clear message to Washington.

Iran’s economic potential in BRICS

Abolfazl Amoee, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, believes Iran’s accession to the BRICS benefits all parties, boosting both Iran and the multilateral organization’s influence in the international arena. As he tells The Cradle:

“Before the latest expansion, BRICS economies accounted for around 26 percent of global GDP. With the inclusion of six new members, they will now account for 37 percent of the world’s GDP.” 

Amoee argues that Iran is a “largely untapped market” for global economic powers such as China, Russia, and India, which means there will be great room for closer trade between Iran and BRICS countries: 

“Iran is a big 85-million market with a massive educated human capital. Despite the illegal US sanctions, last year the volume of our non-oil trade reached $112 billion. We can be a good partner in the value chain for other BRICS members.” 

Non-oil trade between Iran and the five original BRICS members grew by 14 percent to $38.43 billion in 2022-23, as per data from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Customs Administration.

China was Iran’s biggest trade partner with $30.32 billion, followed by India with $4.99 billion, Russia with $2.32 billion, Brazil with $466.55 million, and South Africa with $322.04 million.

As the second largest oil and gas producer in West Asia, a major emerging hub for transit transportation, and arguably the most experienced country in circumventing western sanctions, Iran can add tremendous value to the bloc and its members. 

Banking on BRICS 

At a conference attended by BRICS representatives in Tehran earlier in August, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made that point clearly, by emphasizing his country’s potential as a “reliable and influential” partner of the bloc.

He highlighted Iran’s strategic location, oil and gas reserves, well-developed transportation and transit networks, and advancements in modern technology as key strengths that can benefit all BRICS members. 

The Islamic Republic also stands to gain from joining the nascent BRICS financial system. Mehdi Safari, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for economic affairs, last week announced that Dilma Rousseff, president of the New Development Bank (NDB), is slated to visit Tehran soon. 

Safari held talks with Rousseff on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, during which the two sides discussed Iran’s application to join the bank, widely lauded as a credible replacement for the Belgium-based SWIFT. 

Amoee tells The Cradle that the BRICS policy of pursuing non-dollar trade and its plan to create a joint investment bank creates opportunities for countries to engage in economic cooperation, independent of the US: 

“Iran is one of the countries that can greatly benefit from this policy, as the US spares no chance to curb Iran’s dollar-based trade.” 

Ahmadi, for his part, stresses that Iran is naturally more aligned with China and Russia, who share “negative views” on western policies: 

“BRICS is trying to build a diverse set of economies and seems to particularly like commodity-exporting nations that can facilitate a strong inter-BRICS trade network focused on de-dollarization.”

In short, Iran’s dual memberships in BRICS and the SCO have a ‘multiplier’ effect on Iran’s strategic goals of promoting de-dollarization, strengthening ties with like-minded rising powers, and advancing its longstanding national commitment to self-reliance and diversification. 

These partnerships not only challenge western attempts to isolate Iran and its economy, but also position Tehran as a key player in shaping emerging geopolitical and economic dynamics. The BRICS knows full well that Iran has unparalleled experience in forging new paradigms outside the west’s ecosystems, and those lessons and tactics will come in handy as they advance a multipolar world order. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, UAE, S. Arabia to join BRICS

August 24, 2023

Source: Agencies

The admission of new members into BRICS is the first stage of the group’s expansion process.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa listens, during a plenary session of the 2023 BRICS Summit, in Johannesburg, South Africa, Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023 (Alet Pretorius/Pool Photo via AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

“We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS. The membership will take effect from January 1, 2024,” Ramaphosa said at the BRICS summit in South Africa.  

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Thursday that the BRICS leadership has decided to invite Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia to join the organization.

He further said that the BRICS leadership established consensus on the guiding principles, standards, criteria, and procedures of the process for the group’s expansion. 

Read more: BRICS attracting nations aiming for a non-Western dominated system

The admission of new members into BRICS is the first stage of the group’s expansion process, he added. 

“We have consensus on the first phase of this expansion process, and other phases will follow,” the president added.  

On another note, the South African President said that the time has come to use local currencies and alternative payment systems in international transactions.

“There is global momentum to use of local currencies, alternative financial arrangements, and alternative payment systems. As BRICS we are ready to explore opportunities for improving the stability, reliability, and fairness of the global financial architecture,” Ramaphosa said.

Leaders from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa are in attendance at the summit, while Russia’s representation comes from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin is participating in the summit through a videoconference.

Read more: Xi refused Macron’s attendance at BRICS summit: Intelligence Online

Related Stories

Points on the Letters 8-21-2023 – The End of the American Century… BRICS Tomorrow English subtitles

The scene BRICS Summit… The Attraction of Independence | 2023-08-24

Related Stories

• Western Policies Are ‘Colonialism in New Package’: Putin 
• BRICS Welcomes 6 New Members including Iran, Saudi Arabia 
• BRICS welcomes new members, including Iran and KSA: Report
• BRICS agreed on expansion mechanism to be announced after summit end
• The BRICS, countering Western centuries-long hegemony

Regional Talks to Secure Interests of Gulf Nations: Iran FM Spox

August 21, 2023

Nasser Kanaani, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has hailed the “positive atmosphere” created in the region, saying dialogue between regional countries will secure the common interests of all Persian Gulf nations.

“With the positive atmosphere we are witnessing in the region, we are on the path of dialogue and exchange of views, and the next steps can provide the basis for the formation of such dialogues, which can lead to securing the common interests of all parties in the north and south of the Persian Gulf,” Nasser Kanaani said at a press conference in Tehran on Monday.

Pointing to a recent visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian to Saudi Arabia, Kanaani said trade issues and the resumption of agreements between the two sides were discussed during the trip.

“It was agreed that the meeting of the joint commission for economic cooperation between the two sides will be activated as soon as possible,” he said, expressing hopes that both sides make progress in this regard.

He also said the Saudi side reiterated Saudi King Salman’s invitation to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to visit the kingdom, noting that there is a mutual understanding that the trip will be made at the right time.

‘Iran at forefront of fighting terrorism’

Elsewhere in his remarks, Kanaani pointed out that Monday marks the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism, saying, “The Iranian nation is also regarded as a major victim of the sinister phenomenon of terrorism.”

“Iran is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism in the region and the world, and the IRGC is, according to the Supreme Leader of the [Islamic] Revolution, the largest counter-terrorism organization in the world,” he added.

Iran’s blocked assets in South Korean banks

Regarding Iran’s blocked assets in South Korean banks, he said that the necessary agreements and negotiations have been made with the South Korean side, and the implementation process has begun, adding that the Iranian government is doing its best to defend the rights of Iranians and is pursuing this matter seriously.

The release of Iran’s assets in South Korea is taking place despite attempts by the United States to block Iranian properties and assets in other countries through unilateral sanctions; however, through diplomatic and legal efforts by the Iranian government, the United States has had no choice but to comply with Iran’s rights, Kannani said.

World Mosque Day

Kanaani also referred to World Mosque Day, August 21, saying that the Al-Aqsa Mosque – in occupied Al-Quds – as the first Qibla of Muslims is of great importance among Muslims.

He also mentioned World Mosque Day, which falls on August 21, and highlighted the significance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Al-Quds.

Iran reacts to Quran desecration

The chargés d’affaires of Sweden and Denmark were summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iran due to repeated insults to the holy Quran in their countries, Kanaani said, adding that Iran has announced that it will not accept a new ambassador from Sweden in protest of the desecration and the lack of serious action by the Swedish government.

The spokesman stated that these countries cannot claim to be peace-seekers while challenging the peace-seeking attitude of religions, noting that they have told Iranian authorities that they are following up on the issue, but Iran will not consider their words as a real determination until it is assured that deterrent measures have been taken by the governments.

The diplomat warned that burning the Quran under the slogan of freedom of expression is not justifiable at all and that the Quran is the deepest and most beautiful expression, so desecrating it under the pretext of freedom of speech is not acceptable by any means.

Iran believes that if there is determination, such insults can be prevented even within the framework of existing laws and these countries are pitching themselves against Muslim countries, he said.

On the basis of resolutions ratified in an extraordinary session of foreign ministers and the missions assigned to the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Hissein Brahim Taha, the issue of desecration of the holy Quran will be pursued in a serious manner, Kanaani said, adding that Iran also raised the issue in a conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell.

Necessity of frequent visits of Iranian technical delegation to Helmand River

The Foreign Ministry spokesman commented on Iran’s Technical Delegation’s recent visit to the Dehrawud Hydrometric Station in Afghanistan’s Helmand River, saying that the visit demonstrates Afghanistan’s commitment and is part of the agreement on Helmand water.

Kanaani stated that Iran sees this as a first step in good faith and added that to accurately assess the amount of water behind the dam, such visits should be made monthly, as per the agreement between the two countries. This will help determine the average water input.

He also said that negotiations will continue, and it is expected that Iran’s water rights in this region will be measured and granted.

President Raisi’s visit to South Africa for BRICS summit

The spokesman also commented on President Ebrahim Raisi’s upcoming visit to South Africa to attend the BRICS summit, saying that Iran’s cooperation with BRICS and its membership in the organization is important to Tehran, and President Raisi’s attendance at the summit is in line with this goal.

Kanaani also stated that Iran has submitted its request for membership in the BRICS organization and also mentioned that Iran is one of the few countries that has dialogue and cooperation with all BRICS members.

Iran reacts to oil theft by the US

The Foreign Ministry spokesman commented on news stories about Iran’s oil being offloaded near Texas, saying that he has seen such news in the media, but he has not received any confirmed information on the matter.

The official stated that there is a general principle that Iran will not remain passive in the face of any attack on Iranians’ rights and will cut off the hands of the invaders.

Kanaani warned those who plan such plots to remember Iran’s response to similar cases in the past, adding that invading tankers carrying Iranian oil is a clear instance of piracy.

Source: Agencies

From pariah to peacemaker? Jeddah summit reimagines Saudi diplomacy

AUG 11, 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Riyadh is redefining its role as a trusted mediator and diplomatic force in the international arena, using its strategic relationships with both east and west to achieve those ambitions.

Mohammed Alloush

Last weekend’s gathering in Jeddah of over forty nations marked a significant milestone in Saudi Arabia’s political landscape. The event, ostensibly to advance Ukraine ‘peace talks,’ provided a platform for the kingdom to unveil its diplomatic vision on the global stage and redefine its role in shaping the multipolar world.

For Riyadh, hosting this summit over the contentious issue of the war in Ukraine held profound symbolism. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, has long faced international isolation following the state-sanctioned assassination of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

However, this chapter has now closed: With open arms, the collective west has embarked on a journey of re-establishing political and economic ties with Riyadh.

A New York Times report last week highlighted how the Ukraine discussions in Jeddah have not only placed Saudi Arabia at the big table on a critical global issue, but have also offered MbS “another chance to try to position himself as a world leader with influence far beyond his region and as a mediator who can bring powerful nations to the table, even as he struggles to end his own country’s involvement in a devastating war in Yemen.”

Saudi diplomatic triumphs

This is not the first instance of Saudi Arabia assuming a key role in resolving regional disputes. While the international conference in Jeddah may be the latest in a series of diplomatic feats, Riyadh, in conjunction with Turkiye, had previously undertaken the task of facilitating the exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine. In a display of remarkable diplomacy, Saudi officials played a pivotal role in securing the release of ten prisoners of war held by Russia, marking a significant step towards de-escalation.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, a guest at the summit in Jeddah, passionately implored West Asia’s leaders to stand united against Russia. In a show of solidarity, Saudi Arabia pledged substantial financial assistance to support Kiev’s cause. This echoes the Kingdom’s history of stepping up as a mediator in various regional crises, be it the Lebanese civil war, the Israeli-Arab conflict, or the more recent turmoil in Sudan.

One standout achievement was the 1989 meeting in Taif, organized by Saudi Arabia, which catalyzed an end to the 15-year Lebanese conflict. In 2002, the Kingdom introduced the Arab Peace Initiative, offering Israel a pathway to normalization with Arab states in exchange for a viable Palestinian state, coupled with Israel’s withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.

Saudi Arabia’s role in normalizing relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2018 is yet another notch in its diplomatic achievements, fostering harmony between states that had been at odds.

MbS’s vision in redefining diplomacy

The concept of the “inevitability of the renaissance of the Global South” seems to have attracted the attention of MbS. This visionary and fervent young leader, driven by a steadfast belief in the potential for transformative change, has embarked on a path distinct from his predecessors within the House of Saud.

He has taken a bold stance on direct involvement in regional issues, from Yemen to Libya, Lebanon, and Egypt.  In turn, he has moved towards a new diplomatic strategy akin to a revolutionary paradigm shift in dealing with foreign affairs.

MbS comprehends the drawbacks of regional conflicts, exemplified by the Yemen war, and the limitations of traditional diplomatic maneuvers when dealing with key regional players such as Iran. This has prompted his dramatic shift away from confrontational tactics or military interventions, and toward a diplomatic strategy characterized by tact and finesse.

A pivotal moment in this trajectory was the Al-Ula summit of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders in January 2021, which marked the resumption of fully normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar—a testament to the power of soft diplomacy.

As the global stage undergoes profound transformation, with the ascent of China and India, Russia’s resolute stance vis-à-vis NATO’s European expansion, the faltering of US influence in the region, and the ascendancy of regional powers such as Turkiye and Iran, the contours of world politics are still evolving.

Saudi Arabia is part of multipolarity

Saudi Arabia has embraced the concept of “emerging multipolarity,” a perspective that envisions a new world order free from western hegemony. This paradigm shift was noticeable when Saudi Arabia hosted the historic China-Arab summit in December 2022, attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

More recently, in June during the Arab-China Business Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Investment Minister Khalid al-Falih told CNBC TV:

“We like to believe, and I think it’s been proven, that the kingdom is a significant part of this multipolar world that has emerged. And we’re going to play our part, not only in developing our own economy, but also developing our region, and spreading what we have in terms of development opportunities, also to Africa, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent.”

Undoubtedly, a pivotal facet of the Jeddah summit on Ukraine lies in the participation of states that have maintained a neutral stance, treating the conflict as a showdown between Russia and the west.

While the Ukrainian narrative resonates in western spaces, Moscow’s perspective on the conflict’s origins and dimensions has managed to permeate the Global South.

The Saudi-led initiative has masterfully rallied other countries – those that have hesitated to align with western endeavors – to bolster support for Ukraine. Notably, China and India, conspicuous by their absence from a previous Ukraine summit in Copenhagen, have now made their presence felt in Jeddah.

Their decision to participate is anchored not only in their desire to nurture positive relations with Saudi Arabia but also in their pragmatic approach to engagement. By “attending and discussing,” these states perceive minimal risk, abstaining from any commitment to President Zelensky’s plan that could antagonize Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi synergy with Russia and China

Recalling the instrumental role Beijing played in facilitating Iranian-Saudi reconciliation, it is apparent that there are multiple arenas in which Chinese and Saudi interests align. Foremost among these is their shared apprehension over the potential economic upheaval that unchecked hostilities could create on the fringes of one of their largest markets, Europe.

Riyadh’s strategic vision aligns with other BRICS nations such as India and Brazil, who recognize that their combined influence, as a collective of middle powers, can today leave an indelible mark on the global stage.

The Jeddah summit showcased Riyadh’s ability to mobilize international participation, particularly within the influential G20 framework. This marked shift in approach illustrates Saudi Arabia’s pivot from passively outsourcing its regional security concerns to proactively assuming direct management of its strategic interests.

In some respects, the war in Ukraine was a welcome gift to the Saudis, effectively compelling a visit from US President Joe Biden to mend bilateral ties. Throughout the course of the crisis, MbS deftly maneuvered around Washington’s entreaties to ramp up oil production, resolutely aligning with Russia to maintain oil prices at levels conducive to sustaining Riyadh’s budget and ambitious infrastructure undertakings.

With the dispatch of US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to Jeddah, the Biden administration unmistakably conveyed its desire to patch up its differences with the kingdom and act more deferentially toward the Saudis.

While previous peace discussions in Copenhagen yielded modest outcomes, Saudi Arabia is well-placed to sustain the diplomatic momentum necessary for engineering a peaceful resolution to the conflict, while adeptly sidestepping any perception of undue alignment with Russia.

Geopolitical pragmatism

MbS’s strategy is marked by a nuanced approach to US directives, signifying an inclination to stand by them selectively while simultaneously forging robust and strategic collaborations with rival powers. This growing sentiment in Saudi Arabia underscores a perceptible shift away from viewing the west as the sole determinant of global affairs.

In this vein, Saudi Arabia, under the de-facto leadership of MbS, endeavors to enhance ties with both eastern and western powers. The motivation behind this multifaceted diplomacy is rooted in the kingdom’s desire to position itself as an impartial intermediary capable of facilitating constructive dialogues between conflicting sides. Such a role stands to augment Riyadh’s stature on the global stage.

The Saudi leadership adeptly recognizes that the west is inclined towards a pronounced and overt bias in favor of Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. In response, the Saudis are promoting their potential to play the pivotal role of a trustworthy mediator, particularly with Russia.

Riyadh’s shared interests with Moscow – especially in the realm of oil production as OPEC+ members – have catalyzed the cultivation of bilateral relations over recent years. This pragmatic approach reflects the kingdom’s acknowledgment that over-reliance on Washington, particularly in security matters, might not be the wisest course of action.

While the Ukraine war and its many negative repercussions have taken a toll on the psyche of western – especially European – populations, the dialogue around its resolution has expanded to encompass a global perspective.

By offering itself as an impartial intermediary that can bridge east and west, Saudi Arabia is now positioning itself to impact conflict resolution outside of West Asia, prioritizing dialogue, stability, and cooperation – the driving themes of multipolarity. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Algeria rejects military intervention in Niger, says President

August 6, 2023

Source: Agencies

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, July 19, 2023 (AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune underlines that the crisis in Niger needs rationality rather than power.

The ongoing crisis in Niger poses a direct threat to Algeria, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune said Saturday, stressing Algiers’ absolute rejection of any military intervention in Niamey.

The situation in Niger is to be solved through rational means rather than through power, and Algeria is prepared to intervene and help with reconciliation efforts in the neighboring state, the Algerian President underlined.

“Where are all the countries that had military interventions?” Tebboune asked before answering his own question and saying they all still had numerous problems and crises. 

“Niger must not slip into chaos,” the head of state added. “Algeria rejects any intervention in any war, and it rejects blood spillage in any brotherly or friendly nation.”

The Algerian president stressed his country’s close ties with all neighboring countries, arguing that due to these good relations, no solution could be reached without Algiers.

“Algeria will not intervene militarily, nor will it use force with its neighbors who will remain brothers and sisters. It is with constitutional legitimacy and against the use of force,” he added, stressing his country’s readiness to confront any threats at its border. 

On July 26, the Nigerien presidential guard overthrew Bazoum. The guard’s commander, Abdourahmane Tchiani, proclaimed himself the country’s new leader.

The military chiefs of the Economic Community of West African States met to discuss options for military intervention in Niger. The goal of the meeting reportedly is to outline a plan for the intervention, its strategy, logistical aspects, and timetable.

Correspondingly, military leaders in Niger have warned against any armed intervention in their country, stressing that they will “resolutely defend their homeland.”

The interim governments of Mali and Burkina Faso warned that any military intervention against Niger would be considered a declaration of war against them.

ECOWAS has resorted to implementing a full pressure campaign on the country, which included the closure of land and air borders between the bloc’s countries and Niger, the suspension of all commercial and financial transactions with it, and the freezing of the country’s assets in ECOWAS Central Banks. 

The bloc also suspended all financial aid to Niger, froze the assets of the coup leaders, their families, and supporters, and imposed a ban on commercial flights to and from the country.

China, Algeria reached agreement

Tebboune discussed his recent visit to China, stating that Algeria and China have reached a comprehensive understanding in development projects.

“We are entering a new phase with China that goes beyond housing construction, as we aspire to engage in joint manufacturing in both civilian and military industries, and we have expressed our full readiness to work with Algeria,” he added.

Responding to a question about joining BRICS, Tebboune answered that “the members of this group unanimously agree on the importance of Algeria’s accession, and we will leave the decision to them.”

He further mentioned that there is a preliminary agreement for Algeria to become an observer member of the BRICS organization, noting that his country “participates in the shares of the bank, which has become more important than the World Bank.”

Tebboune’s visit to Beijing followed an official visit to Russia last month, during which Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Algeria’s support to become a member of BRICS, a group comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

Algeria officially submitted an application to join the BRICS organization and presented a request to become a shareholder in the group’s bank with an initial $1.5 billion buy-in, Ennahar TV reported in late July.

BRICS founding countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, account for over 40 percent of the world’s population and over a quarter of global GDP. The group is currently the fastest-growing bloc with more than 40 governments across world regions expressing accession desires.

Tebboune made his public bid to become a BRICS member during an interview with Chinese Central Television (CCTV). The leader of the resource-rich country explained that the group has the potential to provide alternative solutions to those offered by international bodies like the IMF and World Bank.

France visit awaiting plan from Paris

Touching on his upcoming visit to France, Tebboune clarified that the visit is on the agenda but has not been scheduled yet, and they are “awaiting the program from the French presidency.”

He emphasized that any state visit has requirements and should yield results; thus, a state visit cannot be merely a tourist visit. “When Algeria and Paris agree on a program that embodies a genuine international visit, we will proceed without any obstacles to the visit,” he said, stressing that there is no animosity between his country and France.

Regarding the Israeli occupation’s recognition of Western Sahara, the Algerian president stated that, for him, it is not a significant event since “those who lack something cannot grant it,” explaining that “Israel clearly occupies Palestinian territories, while Morocco acknowledges it.”

There is an ongoing issue at the United Nations and the Security Council concerning Palestine and Western Sahara, he stressed.

Read next: Algeria: the two occupiers are in liaison

On July 10, the Moroccan Royal Office announced that the Israeli occupation recognized the sovereignty of Morocco over Western Sahara, state-run Moroccan news agency MAP reported.

According to the news agency, Moroccan King Mohammed VI received a letter from Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which the latter announced “Israel’s” decision to “recognize the sovereignty of Morocco over the territory of Western Sahara.”

In his letter, Netanyahu indicated that the decision would be “transmitted to the United Nations, to regional and international organizations of which Israel is a member, and to all countries with which Israel maintains diplomatic relations.”

Morocco is the fourth Arab state to formally normalize relations with “Israel” after Egypt, the UAE, and Bahrain.

Related Stories

• Nigeria’s largest opposition bloc slams military plans against Niger
• Niger braces for ECOWAS deadline; no signs of giving in to threats
• ECOWAS defense chiefs prepare possible intervention plan in Niger
• A spooked White House rushes its Saudi fences: ‘Saving the dollar’!
• How the Niger coup can shake up the balance of power in and around Africa 

BRICS problems, BRI solutions

JUL 24, 2023

While the five original BRICS states have their geopolitical differences, they are finding enormous common ground on the geoeconomic front as trade volumes surge and trade routes multiply.

Pepe Escobar

As the BRICS approach the most important summit in their history on August 22-24 in Johannesburg, South Africa, some fundamentals need to be observed.  

The top three BRICS cooperation platforms are politics and security, finance and the economy, and culture. So the notion that a new BRICS gold-backed reserve currency will be announced at the South Africa summit is spurious. 

What is in progress, as confirmed by BRICS sherpas, is the R5: a new common payment system. The sherpas are only in the preliminary stages of discussing a new reserve currency which could be gold or commodities-based. The discussions within the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), led by Sergey Glazyev, by comparison, are way more advanced. 

The order of priorities is to get R5 rolling. All current BRICS currencies start with an “R”: renminbi (yuan), ruble, real, rupee, and rand. R5 will allow current members to increase mutual trade by bypassing the US dollar and reducing their US dollar reserves. This is only the first of many practical steps in the long and winding road of de-dollarization.  
An expanded role for the New Development Bank (NDB) – the BRICS bank – is still being discussed. The NDB may, for instance, grant loans denominated in BRICS gold – making it a global unit of account in trade and financial transactions. BRICS exporters will then have to sell their goods against BRICS gold, instead of US dollars, as much as importers from the collective west would have to be willing to pay in BRICS gold. 

That’s a long way away, to put it mildly.  

Frequent discussions with sherpas from Russia and also independent financial operators in the EU and the Persian Gulf always touch on the key problem: imbalances and weak nodes inside the BRICS, which will tend to serially proliferate with the imminent BRICS+ expansion.

Within BRICS, there’s a wealth of serious unsolved dossiers between China-India, while Brazil is squeezed between a list of imperial dictates and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s natural drive to fortify the Global South. Argentina has been all but forced by the usual suspects to “postpone” its admission request to join BRICS+. 
And then there’s the weak link by definition: South Africa. Squeezed between a rock and a hard place, the organizer of the most important summit in BRICS history opted for a humiliating compromise not exactly worthy of an independent Global South middle-ranked power.   

South Africa decided not to receive Russian President Vladimir Putin and opted instead for the presence of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – as Pretoria first suggested to Moscow. The other BRICS members validated the decision.  

The compromise means that Russia will be physically represented by Lavrov while Putin will participate in the whole process – and subsequent decisions – via videoconference.

Translation: Putin tested Pretoria and exposed it to the whole Global South as a fragile node of the “jungle” – actually the Global Majority – easily threatened by the western “garden” gang and not a real independent foreign policy practitioner. 

St. Petersburg-Shanghai via the Arctic 

This South African decision by itself raises serious questions about whether BRICS-led geopolitics is just an illusion. 

Geoeconomically though, the group has entered a whole different ball game, illustrated by the multiple BRICS interconnections with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). 

Chinese trade with BRI nations increased 9.8 percent in the first half of 2023 – compared to the same period last year. That contrasts sharply with the 4.7 percent overall contraction of trade between China and the collective west: Down with the EU by 4.9 percent, and down with the US by 14.5 percent. 

Chinese trade with Russia, meanwhile, alongside exports to South Africa and Singapore, raised exponentially by 78
percent. As an example, late last week, a Chinese cargo set sail from St. Petersburg loaded with fertilizers, chemicals, and paper products. It will cross the Arctic and arrive in Shanghai in early August. 

Zhou Liqun, chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Russia, went straight to the point – this is just the start of the “routine operation of the Arctic freight shipping route between China and Russia.” It’s all about “the security of logistical channels” inbuilt in the Russia-China strategic partnership. 

The Arctic Silk Road, from now on, will be increasingly strategic. The Chinese can keep it open at least from July to October every year. And as a bonus, a warming Arctic allows better access to oil/gas resources. A trademark “win-win” – no wonder since 2017 the development of the Arctic Silk Road is part of BRI. 

All of the above shows a sharp shift in the Chinese commercial drive towards the Global South. Trade with China’s BRI partners now amounts to 34.3 percent of China’s total global trade in terms of value – and that number is rising.  

From the UAP railway to the Greater Bay Area 

On the Russian front, all eyes are on the 7,200 km-long, multimodal International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) – which alarms the collective west as a de facto replacement of the Suez Canal. The INSTC cuts shipping costs by about 50 percent and saves up to 20 days of travel compared to the Suez route.

INSTC trade – via ship, rail, and roads linking Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, India, and Central Asia – should triple over the next seven years, as Russian Transport Minister Vitaly Saveliev noted at the recent St. Petersburg forum. Russia will invest over $3 billion in the INSTC up to 2030. 

Increasing trade between Russia, Iran, and India via the INSTC connects to something that until recently would be regarded as a UFO: the Trans-Afghan Railway. 

The Trans-Afghan will emerge as a follow-up to something very important that happened last week, when Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan signed a joint protocol to connect the Uzbek and Pakistani networks via Mazar-i-Sharif and Logar in Afghanistan. 

Welcome to the UAP railway – which could be hailed not only as a BRI but also as a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) project – where Tashkent and Islamabad are full members, and Kabul is an observer. Call it a much-needed trade corridor doubling up as a classic Chinese “people-to-people exchange” platform.

The Uzbeks estimate that the 760 km-long railway will reduce travel time by five days and costs by at least 40 percent. The project could be finished by 2027. 

The subsequent 573 km-long Trans-Afghan Railway has already got its road map: it’s bound to connect the intersection of Central and South Asia to ports on the Arabian Sea.  

All of the above expands Chinese trade in several directions. Which brings us to a fascinating symbiosis in progress between south China and West Asia – symbolized by the Greater Bay Area. 

As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman turbo-charges his immensely ambitious Vision 2030 modernization project, the Greater Bay Area is being hailed by Saudis as no less than “the future of Asia.” 

Every investor from Jeddah to Hong Kong knows that Beijing is aiming to turn the Greater Bay Area into a prime global tech center, centered in Shenzhen, with Hong Kong playing the role of privileged global finance hub and Macau as the cultural hub. 

The Greater Bay Area, not by accident, is a key BRI plank. As a whole, the nine cities in Guangdong, plus Hong Kong and Macau (more than 80 million people, 10 percent of Chinese GDP), will be configured as an astonishing first-class economic powerhouse by 2035, largely overtaking Tokyo Bay, the New York Metro Area, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

With Saudi Arabia aiming to become a full member of both BRI and SCO, Beijing and Riyadh will turbo-charge their tech cooperation on top of energy and infrastructure.

All eyes on South Africa next month are on how BRICS will work to solve its internal issues while organizing the expansion to BRICS+. Who will get to join the club? Saudi Arabia? UAE? Iran? Kazakhstan? Algeria? The top two BRICS countries, China and Russia keep investing in a geoeconomic roll that has dozens of countries lining up to join. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

How US sanctions backfire, erode the Western order imposing them: FP

24 Jul 2023

Source: Foreign Policy

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi shakes hands with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, on Monday, June 12, 2023. (AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

By 2021, according to US Treasury Department’s report, the United States had sanctions on more than 9,000 individuals, companies, and sectors of targeted economies.

According to a Foreign Policy article, sanctions have become a go-to-foreign policy tool of the West, particularly the US.

Numerous nations, including Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, all for a plethora of reasons are stacked together in what the authors call a “family photo” of those “named and shamed” by the US.

Databases by Colombia University and Princeton University indicate that the US has more than 20 countries sanctioned, implying that financial and commercial interactions with certain firms, persons, and, in many cases, the governments, are prohibited by US law.

By 2021, according to U.S. Treasury Department’s report, the United States had sanctions on more than 9,000 individuals, companies, and sectors of targeted country economies. In Joe Biden’s first year in office, the administration sanctioned 765 new designations globally, including 173 related to alleged human rights. The countries subject to some form of US sanctions collectively account for a little more than one-fifth of global GDP. China represents 80 percent of that group.

According to the article, a rising alliance of nations is attempting to change the rules of the global financial system, owing primarily to the pervasiveness of US sanctions, citing that it’s past time to evaluate how these punitive measures are undermining the very Western system they’re supposed to protect.

China, in particular, has the economic weight, growing diplomatic power, currency stability, and liquidity to press for further worldwide adoption of the renminbi and Chinese financial systems, such as the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System.

Political scientist Daniel W. Drezner and columnist Agathe Demarais recently published arguments in the Foreign Policy regarding how governments sanctioned by the US have utilized loopholes to undermine measures, such as de-dollarization.

China also offers a substantial and profitable market for sanctioned nations’ exports, such as Venezuelan, Russian, or Iranian oil and gas. Despite the fact that many of the rerouted business marketplaces are costly and inefficient, they offer enough rent to maintain the targeted governments.

The authors argue that these financial arrangements driven by China pose enormous systemic threats to the United States and its allies.

One example is the growing number of non-sanctioned nations in the Global South adopting a parallel anti-sanction international economy. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reiterated his support for a BRICS trade currency (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), emphasizing how a dollar-dominated global economy means that the US uses its supremacy to pursue punishing foreign policy. 

Only two nations are sanctioned inside the BRICS group, which at least a half-dozen other growing economies are vying to join: China and Russia.

At the third annual forum, Strong Ideas For A New Time, organized by the Russian Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI), Russian President Vladimir Putin underscored that the exit of foreign companies from Russia due to sanctions has not only failed to weaken the nation but on the contrary it strengthened it.

The other three, in particular India, are countries the United States has growing partnerships with and are thus unlikely to come under US sanctions anytime soon. In other words, even US partners are hedging their bets against Washington’s extraterritorial sanctions policies.

Lula’s intentions signify an increasing desire in the Global South to break free from the US dollar, and according to the authors, the time has come for Washington to “recognize that its love of sanctions may be undermining its own economic and diplomatic power worldwide.”

When governments default on their debts or appear to be on the verge of default, significant institutional lenders will seek to transfer that debt to other investors in secondary debt markets for a fraction of the price. 

A foolish gamble

Venezuela’s example is a clear one. Caracas defaulted on $60 billion in foreign debt in 2017 after failing to make $200 million in payments to creditors. Venezuela’s debt has escalated since then as interest has accumulated. Venezuela’s GDP fell by three-quarters between 2014 and 2021, with inflation reaching an estimated annualized rate of more than one million percent at one stage.

Three months before the default, President Donald Trump placed fresh sanctions on Venezuela, preventing President Nicolas Maduro’s return to US capital markets to obtain new funds to roll over its debt. 

As Venezuela’s default and the economic crisis carried on, many of the initial institutional holders of Venezuelan bonds in the United States—including pension funds and trusts—moved to dump the dangerous debt at low, distorted prices, the article argues. 

According to one source at Mangart Capital, a Swiss hedge fund, 75 percent of Venezuela’s original debt in 2017 was owned by US interests; that figure is now thought to be about 35 percent to 40 percent.

Due to US investors being unable to purchase the debt, it defaulted to other buyers from China, Iran, and Russia.

Therefore, the US can bid farewell to any hopes of removing the Venezuelan government and installing a pro-Western one with the new bondholders.

Many of Caracas’ debts have been securitized using assets from the country’s vast oil and gas reserves. By purchasing such funds, new investors are investing not just in Venezuela’s bankruptcy and recovery, but also in its energy assets, and hence in global energy security.

The authors note that all this taken into consideration, US officials still may not reconsider their position toward sanctions.

Sanctions have become a vital instrument of the US, regardless of whether they benefit or harm long-term US interests. They are a form of virtue signaling that allows politicians to demonstrate that they are doing something when confronted with a particular issue.

Worryingly for the US, previous sanctions have simply resulted in a strengthened coalition among targeted governments, as seen in Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. 

Much of this will need a sober willingness on the part of officials from both parties to accept a simple fact: Sanctions do not always work. In many situations, they intentionally undermine US interests.

Finance, power, integration: The SCO welcomes a new ‘Global Globe’

JUL 06, 2023

Discussions at the recent SCO Summit in New Delhi now point to the inevitable: The merging of new multipolar organizations and their collective reorganization of global finance.

Pepe Escobar

The 23rd summit of the heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held virtually in New Delhi, represented History in the making: three BRICS (Russia, India, China), plus Pakistan and four Central Asian “stans” (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan), finally and formally, welcomed the Islamic Republic of Iran as a permanent member.

And next year will be Belarus’ turn, as confirmed by India’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Vinay Kvatra. Belarus and Mongolia took part in the 2023 summit as observers, and fiercely independent Turkmenistan, as a guest.

After years of US “maximum pressure,” Tehran may now finally get rid of the sanctions dementia and solidify its leading role in the ongoing process of Eurasia integration.

Arguably, the star of the show in New Delhi was Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who has led his country since 1994.

Old Man Luka, unbeatable in the headline-stealing department, especially after his mediator role in the Prighozin saga, may have coined the definitive slogan of multipolarity.  Forget the western-termed “golden billion” which in fact barely reaches 100 million; embrace now the “Global Globe” – with a firm focus on the Global South.

As the clincher, Lukashenko proposed total integration of the SCO and BRICS – which in their upcoming summit in South Africa will be heading the BRICS+ way. And it goes without saying, this integration also applies to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

The next step for the “Global Globe” – what the collective west dismissively qualifies as “the rest” – is to work on the complex coordination of several development banks and then the process to issue bonds linked to a new trading currency.

The main ideas and the basic template already exist. The new bonds will be a real safe heaven compared to the US dollar and US Treasuries, and will imply accelerated de-dollarization. Capital used to purchase those bonds should be used to finance trade and sustainable development, in what will be a certified, Chinese-style “win-win.”

A converging geoeconomic focus

The SCO declaration made it clear that the expanding multilateral body is “not directed against other states and international organizations.” On the contrary, it is “open to broad cooperation with them in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, the SCO Charter and international law, based on consideration of mutual interests.”

The heart of the matter is of course the drive towards a fair multipolar world order – the polar opposite of the Hegemon-imposed “rules-based international order.” And the three key nodes are mutual security; trade in local currencies, and eventually, de-dollarization.

It’s quite enlightening to outline the converging focus, expressed by most leaders, during the New Delhi summit.

India’s Prime Minister Modi stated in his keynote address that the SCO will be as important as the UN. Translation: a toothless UN controlled by the Hegemon may end up being sidelined by a real “Global Globe” organization.

In parallel to Modi praising the key role of Iran in the development of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi firmly supported SCO trade in national currencies to decisively break the US dollar’s hegemony.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, for his part, was adamant: China is all in favor to sideline the US dollar, stand firm against all forms of color revolutions, and fight against unilateral economic sanctions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin once again stressed how “external forces have put Russia’s security at threat by unleashing hybrid war against Russia and Russians in Ukraine.”

Pragmatically, Putin expects trade within the SCO, using national currencies, to grow – 80 percent of Russia’s trade is now in rubles and yuan – plus a renewed cooperation drive in banking, digitalization, high-tech, and agriculture.

Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov also stressed mutual settlements in national currencies, plus a crucial move: the setting up of a SCO development bank and development fund, quite similar to the BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB).

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan, which will exercise the SCO presidency in 2024, also supported a common investment fund, plus the configuration of a network of partners of major strategic ports connected to China’s BRI as well as the Astana-based Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, linking Southeast Asia, China, Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Europe.

Of course all SCO members agreed that no Eurasia integration is possible without stabilizing Afghanistan – in fact linking Kabul geoeconomically with both BRI and the INSTC. But that’s another long, twisting story entirely.

Strategic connectivity rules

Now compare all that action in New Delhi with what happened in Tianjin a few days before, in late June: the World Economic Forum (WEF) event known as the “summer Davos”, held for the first time after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s critique of the new US/EU “de-risking” slogan may have been predictably sharp. What was way more intriguing was a BRI panel discussion titled “The Future of the Belt and Road Initiative.”

In a nutshell, that was some sort of “green” apotheosis. Liang Linchong, from the National Development and Reform Commission’s (NDRC) Department of Regional Opening-Up, which is essential to promote BRI, detailed several clean energy projects, for instance, in key BRI nodes Kazakhstan and Pakistan.

Africa was also prominently featured. Sekai Nzenza, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Industry and Commerce, is very much in favor of BRI projects increasing trade “and bringing the latest technology” within Africa and globally.

Beijing will revive the Belt and Road Forum later this year. There are huge expectations across the “Global Globe.”

Liang Linchong did go for a breakdown of what lies ahead: “Hard connectivity” (that means infrastructure building), “soft connectivity” (emphasis on skills, technologies and standards), and “connection of hearts,” which translates into the notorious Chinese concept of “people to people exchanges.”

So what the “Global Globe” should expect, according to Liang, is a surge of “small is beautiful” projects, very pragmatic. That ties up with the new focus by both Chinese banks and companies: Very large infrastructure projects around the world may be problematic for the time being, as China concentrates on the internal market and regimenting every front to fight the Hegemon’s multiple Hybrid Wars.

Strategic connectivity though won’t be affected.

Here is a prime example. Two crucial China industrial nodes – the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area, and the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei cluster – launched their first China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan (CKU) international multimodal freight trains on the same day of the SCO summit in New Delhi.

This is classic BRI: Top connectivity, using the containerized “railway-road” multimodal system. The INSTC will be using the same system for trade between Russia, the Caspian, Iran and then by sea to India.

On the CKU, cargo reaches Xinjiang by railway, then goes on the road via the Irkeshtam border, passes through Kyrgyzstan and arrives in Uzbekistan. The whole journey saves nearly five days in transit time. The next step is to build the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway: construction starts in late 2023.

BRI is making proverbial inroads in Africa. For instance, last month the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) handed over a prototype satellite co-developed with Egypt to Cairo’s Space City. Egypt is now the first African nation capable of satellite assembling, integration, and testing. Cairo hails it as a prime example of sustainable development.

That’s also the first time Beijing assembles and tests a satellite overseas. Once again, classic BRI: “Consultation, Cooperation and Shared Benefits,” as defined by CASC.

And don’t forget the new Egyptian capital: An ultra-modern satellite of Cairo built literally from scratch in the desert for $50 billion, financed by bonds and – what else – Chinese capital.

The long and winding de-dollarization road

All this frantic activity correlates with the key dossier to be treated by BRICS+: De-dollarization.

India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar has confirmed there will be no new BRICS currency – for now. The emphasis is on increasing trade in national currencies.

When it comes to BRICS heavyweight Russia, the emphasis for now is to drive commodity prices higher for the benefit of the Russian ruble.

Diplomatic sources confirm that the unspoken agreement among BRICS sherpas – who this week are preparing the guidelines for BRICS+ to be discussed at the South Africa summit next month – is to hasten the fiat dollar’s meltdown: The Financing of US trade and budget deficits would become impossible at current interest rates.

The question is how to hasten it imperceptibly.

Putin’s trademark strategy is to always let the collective west embark in all sorts of strategic mistakes without direct Russian intervention. So what happens next in the battlefield in Donbass – NATO’s larger than life humiliation – will be a crucial factor in the de-dollarization front. The Chinese, for their part, worry about a collapsed dollar rebound on China’s manufacturing base.

The road map ahead suggests a new trade settlement currency first designed at the EAEU, supervised by the Eurasia Economic Commission’s head of macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev. That would lead to a wider BRICS and SCO deployment. But first the EAEU needs to get China on board. That was one of the key issues recently discussed by Glazyev, in person, in Beijing.

So the Holy Grail is a new supranational trade currency for BRICS, SCO, and EAEU. And it’s essential that its reserve status does not allow overriding power to one nation, as it happens with the US dollar.

The only practical means of tying the new trade currency to a basket of multiple commodities – not to mention a basket of national interests – would be through gold.

Imagine all that being discussed in depth by that interminable queue for BRICS membership. As it stands, at least 31 nations have entered formal applications or expressed interest in joining an upgraded BRICS+.

The interconnections are fascinating. Apart from Iran and Pakistan, the only full SCO members that are not BRICS members are four Central Asian “stans,” which already happen to be EAEU members. Iran is bound to become a member of BRICS+. No less than nine nations among SCO’s observers or dialogue partners are among BRICS applicants.

Lukashenko called it: The merging of BRICS and SCO seems virtually inevitable.

For the top twin drivers of both organizations – the Russia-China strategic partnership – this merger will represent the ultimate multilateral institution, based on real free and fair trade, capable of dwarfing both the US and the EU and extending well beyond Eurasia to the “Global Globe.”

German industry/business circles already seem to have seen the writing on the wall, as well as some of their French counterparts, which notably include France’s President Emmanuel Macron. The trend is towards an EU schism – and even more Eurasian power.

A BRICS-SCO trade bloc will make western sanctions absolutely meaningless. It will affirm total independence from the US dollar, offer an array of financial alternatives to SWIFT, and encourage close military and intel cooperation against serial black ops by the Five Eyes, part of the ongoing Hybrid Wars.

In terms of peaceful development, West Asia has shown the way. The minute Saudi Arabia sided with China and Russia – and is now a candidate to both BRICS and SCO membership – there was a new game in town.

Golden Ruble 3.0?

As it stands, there’s huge potential for a gold-backed ruble. If and when it hits the road, that will be a revival of the gold-backing in the USSR between 1944 and 1961.

Glazyev has crucially observed that Russia’s trade surplus with SCO members has allowed Russian companies to pay off external debts and replace them with borrowing in rubles.

In parallel, Russia is increasingly using the yuan for international settlements. Further on down the road, key “Global Globe” players – China, Iran, Turkey, UAE – will be interested in payment in non-sanctioned gold instead of local currencies. That will pave the way for a BRICS-SCO trade settlement currency tied to gold.

After all, nothing beats gold when it comes to fighting collective western sanctions, pricing oil, gas, food, fertilizers, metals, minerals. Glazyev already laid down the law: Russia’s got to go for Golden Ruble 3.0.

The time is fast approaching for Russia to create the perfect storm to deliver a massive blow to the US dollar. This is what’s being discussed behind the scenes at the SCO, EAEU, and some BRICS sessions, and this is what’s driving the Atlanticist elites livid.

The “imperceptible” way for Russia to make it happen is to let markets drive up the prices of nearly all Russian commodity exports. Neutrals all across the “Global Globe” will interpret it as a natural “market response” to the collective west’s cognitive dissonant geopolitical imperatives. Soaring energy and commodity prices will end up provoking a steep decline in the purchasing power of the US dollar.

So it’s no wonder that several leaders at the SCO summit were in favor to what amounts, in practice, to an expanded BRICS-SCO Central Bank. When the new BRICS-SCO-EAEU currency is finally adopted – of course it’s a long way away, perhaps in the early 2030s – it will be traded for physical gold by participating banks from SCO, BRICS, and EAU member-nations.

All of the above should be interpreted as the sketch of a possible, realistic path to real multipolarity. It has nothing to do with the yuan as reserve currency, reproducing the existing rent-extracting racket to the profit of a minuscule plutocracy – complete with a massive military apparatus specialized in bullying the “Global Globe.”

A BRICS-SCO-EAEU union will be focused on building – and expanding – the physical, non-speculative economy based on infrastructure development, industrial capability, and tech sharing. Another world-system, now more than ever, is possible.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Pax Americana industry, nuclear ‘madmen’, and the umbrella illusion

June 30, 2023

Source: Al Mayadeen English

By Hussein Assaf

After NATO was formed and after deploying part of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the US became the guarantor of the security of its NATO allies, and the “US nuclear umbrella” was born.

In 1945, Pax Americana emerged as the dominant global power, with Washington aiming to assert its authority on the world stage.

To showcase its strength and deter potential challengers, the United States made a bold statement by choosing Hiroshima, Japan, as a symbolic demonstration of its military might.

The devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6 marked the beginning of an era where defying American would come with severe consequences. It was a defining moment that illustrated the immense power and resolve of the United States in shaping the post-war world order.

It was the day when the first and, thus far, the only nuclear bomb was deployed, causing unimaginable devastation and resulting in the loss of nearly 70,000 innocent Japanese lives.

On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki, Japan, became the second target of a devastating nuclear attack. The United States, seeking to assert its power and send a clear message to the world, unleashed another destructive force, resulting in widespread destruction and the loss of approximately 40,000 lives.

The massive mushroom cloud that enveloped Nagasaki served as a chilling symbol of the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons and the immense human suffering they cause.

On May 19, 2023, 78 years later, Japan hosted a meeting for the G7 leaders and chose Hiroshima as the summit location. US President Joe Biden arrived at the meeting destination, becoming the first American to land his feet on the radiated city.

During the G7 summit in Hiroshima, the Japanese Prime Minister aimed to initiate discussions on nuclear arms and encourage leaders to commit to a framework regarding the use of nuclear weapons. However, the final statement issued by the group primarily focused on condemning China’s nuclear weapons, which was no surprise to observers.

The Western world applauded the resolute declaration, perceiving it as a deterrence against Beijing’s nuclear “threat to humanity,” despite the fact that China has not been involved in any military conflicts beyond its own borders, while the countries endorsing the statement have themselves waged numerous wars in the past decades.

From left, President of the European Council Charles Michel, Italy’s Premier Giorgia Meloni, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, U.S. President Joe Biden, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visit the Itsukushima Shrine on Miyajima Island in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima prefecture, western Japan, Friday, May 19, 2023 (Kenny Holston/Pool Photo via AP)

It indeed appears as a tragicomedy or a surreal theatrical production. The image of the American nuclear bomber alongside the Japanese victims, accompanied by former colonizers and the colonized, serves as a warning to the world about the perceived “global threats” posed by China and Russia’s military capabilities. The irony and contradictions within this scenario are hard to overlook. 

The observation of this theatrical display paves the way to the realization that the statements made by the leaders hold some truth, despite the ironic and contradictory nature of the situation. While it may be unsettling, there are elements of reality within their assertions.

In the intricate web of global affairs, a world dominated by Washington and its proxy nations finds itself facing a profound threat.

The very foundations of this order, woven through institutions tainted by notions of genocide, such as the IMF and the World Bank, and bolstered by the military might of NATO and its war coalition, stand on shaky ground.

Emerging on the horizon are the pillars of multipolarity, heralding an alternative world order.

The collective uprising of the Global South and the rise of BRICS, the SCO, and the Eurasian Economic Forum (among others), as well as Beijing’s dissemination of a new economic and political paradigm, present a formidable challenge to the established norms.

The tides of change are shifting, and the winds of multipolarity are blowing, ushering in a new era where power is shared and a different vision of global governance takes shape.

Pax Americana: Sole owner of war and peace

Since the advent of the nuclear era in 1945, the nature of the conflict between the United States and its perceived adversaries has undergone significant transformations.

In the realm of Pax Americana, a grand tapestry of power, profits, and resources was woven through a blood-soaked ideology and unabashed hubris.

This hegemonic force, fueled by military might, gave birth to a multidimensional industry that reaped fortunes for the colossal corporations of the era. Within the fabric of this empire, social structures were shaped and molded, with the United States and its satellites standing as both beneficiaries and captives of this all-encompassing enterprise.

The prosperous post-World War II economy in the United States, fueled in part by the government’s sales of arms to the fighting parties, spurred the emergence of a new way of life in the country. This economic success became a driving force behind the nation’s quest for hegemonic expansion, aiming to secure vital resources and trade routes essential for any superpower seeking unipolar dominance.

Indeed, the belief during that time was that a wealthier society could attain military superiority over adversaries with lesser industrial wealth. This assumption, however, underwent a significant shift with the introduction of atomic weapons into the equation of warfare.

The destructive power and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons rendered the traditional metrics of military superiority based on economic wealth and industrial capabilities less relevant. The presence of atomic weapons introduced a new level of danger and mutually assured destruction, altering the dynamics of military strategy and emphasizing the importance of nuclear deterrence.

Globalization within this context was promoted by the United States – just like the notion of democracy – for decades as the highest form of the growing interconnections of world nations.

Of course, globalization is indeed a natural outcome of the progress and scientific breakthroughs that took place, with regard to communications, transportation means, and the advancement of industrialization systems.

However, while the United States pushed for adopting the concept on a global scale under the pretext of connecting countries economically and culturally, it aimed to establish market and trade integration only as a means to further extend its hegemony and economic control. (Take as an example Washington’sn real intentions from inviting China to join the WTO for long years.)

Indeed, following World War II, there were policymakers in Washington who advocated for the growth of the US nuclear arsenal. Figures like Henry Kissinger and Walt Rostow believed that a robust nuclear arsenal would be essential in maintaining American dominance and furthering its expansion in a world still reeling from the war’s aftermath.

The proponents of this approach argued that possessing large and advanced nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent factor against potential adversaries and solidify American superiority. They believed that the possession of such weapons would not only ensure national security but also provide leverage in shaping global affairs according to US interests.

This perspective was rooted in the belief that nuclear weapons represented a significant shift in the balance of power, offering a unique form of military might that could secure dominance in international relations. As a result, the United States pursued the development and deployment of nuclear weapons as a key component of its defense strategy during this period.

A Polaris missile was fired from the nuclear submarine, USS George Washington, at Cape Canaveral, Fla. on July 20, 1960, in the first test firing of a missile from underwater (AP)

As such, the United States’ nuclear doctrine was born: it is not only about deterring potential rivals but also a means to establish and enforce total hegemony over global countries, economies, and markets. This transformation positioned the US as the sole decider of war and peace.

The nuclear race that ensued can be attributed mostly to the example set by the United States. As the first country to develop and use atomic weapons, the US demonstrated the immense destructive power and geopolitical leverage that these weapons could provide. Pax Americana here prompted other nations to acquire their own nuclear arsenals as a means of deterrence and self-defense.

The pursuit of nuclear weapons or hosting them from allied countries has then become a means for certain anti-hegemonic states to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity against perceived threats from US-led Western campaigns.

The history of military interventions and regime changes carried out by Western powers, often in pursuit of strategic interests or access to resources, has created a sense of vulnerability and the need for self-defense among these states.

The development and proliferation of nuclear weapons created a new paradigm in warfare, where the destructive power of these weapons exceeded the capacity of any state to withstand their impact. This realization led to a mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario, in which engaging in a full-scale nuclear war would result in catastrophic consequences for all parties involved, including Americans themselves.

Nuclear ‘madman’

The post-World War II era witnessed the emergence of a new paradigm in which the manufacturing of public anxiety and the creation of existential enemies played a significant role in shaping nuclear power dynamics. This approach was fueled by the desire to justify and perpetuate a massive war machine, primarily controlled by a few powerful military-industrial complexes.

By crafting and amplifying fear, political leaders and those with vested interests in the military-industrial complex sought to maintain public support for substantial defense expenditures and the expansion of military capabilities. Portraying external threats as existential enemies helped in justifying the continued development and deployment of advanced weaponry, including nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, the United States government engaged in extensive psychological operations (psyops) aimed at influencing public opinion and shaping perceptions, both domestically and internationally. These psyops were part of a broader strategy to counter the influence of the Soviet Union and its allies.

A famous example of such psyops was the Committee on Present Danger. The committee, formed in the 1950s and comprising prominent figures from the government, military, and academia, was tasked with spreading terror among the masses of communism and Soviet expansionism.

The propaganda group employed various strategies, including media campaigns and public speeches, to generate fear and rally support for US policies and military spending.

By creating a horrified public, in which the government appears as the sole protector, the state was in full control. 

But add nuclear weapons to the equation, the matters become more serious.

Throughout history, there have been instances where American decision-makers and policy planners employed psychological tactics to enhance nuclear intimidation.

One notable example is the concept of “nuclear brinkmanship”, which involves deliberately escalating tensions and pushing the limits of nuclear confrontation to gain leverage in negotiations or intimidate opponents. This approach was famously employed during the Cold War, particularly by presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

In October 1969, during the Vietnam War, Washington devised a secret plan, dubbed Operation Duck Hook, during which the US would appear to threaten Hanoi with an imminent nuclear attack.

The cover page to the Navy’s Duck Hook plan for mining Haiphong Harbor, developed in July 1969 at the request of President Nixon and national security adviser Kissinger (US National Security Archive, The George Washington University)

According to Harry Robbins “Bob” Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff in Nixon’s administration, the basis of the tactic was to make the US leader appear “psychologically unstable,” unpredictable, and with no limits to the measures he would take.

Haldeman revealed, quoting Nixon as telling him, “They’ll believe any threat of force that Nixon makes because it’s Nixon. I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.”

And while this was not the first time, nor the last time, that a country resorted to the “madman” approach to deter its opponents, the line separating genuine threats from bluffs remained very thin.

In 1959, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) introduced a war plan titled Atomic Weapons Requirements Study. The document was later updated in 1961 following the Berlin Crisis.

However, one significant aspect was that one of the potential targets was China, although it would not test its first nuclear weapon until 1964 nor it was in direct conflict with the US. According to the plan, 49 to 78 Chinese cities would be hit with US atomic bombs, with prospected fatalities of around 67 million and 107 million.

But plans and proposals to launch a “preventive” or “preemptive” nuclear strike against the USSR were rapidly toned down when the Soviets developed a serious retaliatory capability, including the most powerful atomic bomb produced and tested: “Tsar Bomba”.

Russia’s nuclear parity with the US made Nixon believe that the nuclear umbrella was no longer sustainable.

The concept of “massive retaliation” adopted by the United States to justify its nuclear buildup became afterward an outdated strategy and was replaced by the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD); a necessary doctrine to protect countries from America’s war machines.

The intensification of hostilities between Russia and the United States set the stage for a high-stakes, zero-sum game in any potential armed conflict, compelling the United States to reevaluate its approach and adopt a more cautious stance. This pivotal shift in strategy ultimately laid the foundation for the Cold War.

Two-way annihilation

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, its nuclear infrastructure was dissolved, while its nuclear warheads were removed from the country and deployed in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. 

One of the American nuclear scientists that participated in joint Soviet-US efforts to end Moscow’s nuclear power was Professor Siegfried Hecker, who then served as a director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

According to Hecker, when the USSR collapsed, the nature of the nuclear threat to the US changed: it was not one of mutual annihilation anymore.

The United States later made Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine sign the Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement, committing the newly independent states to transfer the former Soviet nuclear arsenals to Russia and to join the NPT as nonnuclear-weapons states.

Meanwhile, the US funded the denuclearization process in the three countries bordering Russia with billions of dollars and ended the nuclear programs, destroying over 6,800 nuclear warheads along the way.

But the American PR campaign to turn the world into a “safer place” was later exposed.

In the subsequent years, disregarding numerous warnings from influential global figures and Moscow, the US-led NATO persisted in its expansion toward the Russian borders, violating a previous agreement between the former Soviet Union and Washington that stipulated no further countries would join the military coalition.

Last March, just over a year following the start of the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow will be deploying some of its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Putin then explained that the measure will be similar to the United States’ deployment of some of its nuclear arsenal in Europe (and Asia), further noting that Russia’s action does not violate the nuclear nonproliferation agreements NPT.

The Russian leader thus revived the “mutually assured destruction” policy and placed it back on the table for the world to see.

His announcement triggered a fervent response in Western countries, issuing warnings about the potential escalation. Nonetheless, the strategic move has thus far achieved its intended objectives.

Since then, the inclusion of the possibility of a Russian tactical nuclear attack in the plans of European leaders and American officials when engaging with Moscow has become a prevalent factor.

Putin stressed that the deployment of atomic in Belarus is of a deterrent nature for those oblivious in the West who assume they can inflict on Russia a strategic defeat.

While NATO’s agenda remained centered around its eastern expansion, the changing circumstances led to a moderation of fervent rhetoric in the West after a year of advocating to “end Russia”.

From Europe’s perspective, the haunting memories of both world wars have made them acutely aware that the continent would inevitably become the epicenter of any conflict between Russia and the West. And even if it declared a neutral stance, Europe understands that it would likely become the battleground in any confrontation between Moscow and the United States.

Washington, in light of Russia’s advancements in nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles and long-range naval vessels capable of launching nuclear warheads, has become increasingly cautious when considering any direct escalation with Moscow. The realization that these technologies pose a significant challenge to interception systems has compelled Washington to exercise greater restraint in its approach toward Russia.

In this image taken from a video released by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on May 28, 2022, a new Zircon hypersonic cruise missile is launched by the frigate named “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” of the Russian Navy from the Barents Sea (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

“Nuclear weapons have been made to ensure our security in the broadest sense of the word and the existence of the Russian state, but we…have no such need [to use them],” Putin said.

“Just talking about this (the potential use of nuclear weapons) lowers the nuclear threshold. We have more than NATO countries and they want to reduce our numbers. Screw them,” he added said.

As did DPRK’s leader Kim Jong Un, the Russian President also was promising imperialist powers “mutual annihilation”.

The nuclear umbrella of illusion

The US, through its proxy war in Ukraine, sought to amplify the bloc mentality on a larger scale, utilizing its influence and resources to hinder a potential Eurasian uprising and redirect Europe’s foreign policy toward disengaging from China and Russia. This strategic maneuver aimed to consolidate American power and disrupt the growing connections between countries in Eurasia.

As part of Washington’s neo-bloc strategy, political integration is closely intertwined with hyper-militarization.

This approach not only entails the presence of direct, yet limited US forces but also compels allies to substantially increase their defense spending to unprecedented levels. The objective is to create a framework where political and military cooperation aligns, solidifying American influence and promoting a sense of collective security among allies.

Following the establishment of NATO and the deployment of a portion of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the United States assumed the role of security guarantor for its transatlantic allies, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as the “US nuclear umbrella.”

The deployment of American nuclear weapons in Europe during the 1950s served multiple purposes, one of which was maintaining control over allied nations.

While the primary goal was to counter the perceived Soviet threat during the Cold War, the presence of nuclear arms also played a role in exerting influence and control over its transatlantic allies. 

The concept of the US nuclear umbrella created a perception of safety and protection for its allies. By positioning itself as the guarantor of their security, Washington fostered a sense of dependence and reliance on its nuclear capabilities.

This allowed the United States to justify its own retention and modernization of nuclear weapons, citing the need to maintain a credible deterrent to protect its allies. In doing so, it effectively used the nuclear umbrella as a justification to evade or delay its disarmament commitments, arguing that the security of its allies depended on its nuclear arsenal.

This approach allowed Washington to maintain a significant nuclear presence and influence on the global stage, while also preserving its strategic interests and exerting control over the disarmament agenda.

The US-led NATO’s increasing control over Europe’s security, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict, has resulted in an unprecedented level of influence and dominance. Through years of fearmongering and portraying Moscow as a threat, NATO has successfully consolidated its grip on the region.

The concept of “extended deterrence” has played a crucial role in this process, as the deployment of US nuclear weapons in allied countries acts as a symbolic and tangible demonstration of American power and commitment to their defense.

By positioning itself as the ultimate authority, Washington effectively solidifies its influence to the extent that its directives are regarded as virtually constitutional. This further reinforces the hegemonic control of the United States and its ability to shape the security policies and decision-making of its allies.

This blind faith in the postulations of Deterrence Theory has established what anti-nuclear advocate and international security expert, Professor Nick Ritchie, called the “regime of nuclear truth” and denominated “nuclear absolutism”.

In January 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol raised the possibility of developing independent nuclear weapons as a response to the DPRK’s growing power. However, this proposal was met with disapproval from the White House, which expressed its opposition and implied potential consequences if South Korea were to pursue such a policy.

Despite publicly acknowledging the nuclear threat posed by DPRK to South Korea, the United States maintained its opposition to Seoul’s proposal of developing its own nuclear weapons.

Paradoxically, in April, the United States agreed to deploy nuclear-armed submarines to South Korea for the first time in decades and involve Seoul in its nuclear planning operations. This contradictory stance by Washington raised questions about its true intentions and strategic objectives in the region.

Mainly, this means that South Korea is officially under US “extended deterrence” program, and therefore, the Americans are forced as per the agreement to come to its aid in the event of an attack.

The deal between Washington and Seoul was met with skepticism by the South Korean public, as reflected in polls.

There were concerns about whether the United States would truly uphold its commitments, given its history of uncertainties and wavering policies in international relations.

This skepticism highlighted the importance of trust and transparency in such agreements, as the South Korean public sought reassurances regarding the reliability and consistency of the United States as a strategic partner.

Here, an age-long question reemerged: “Would Washington risk San Francisco for Seoul in the event of nuclear war?” Of course, the question here is completed by another one: “What are the odds of completely losing what’s left of the country’s sovereignty and marginal decision-making ability by hosting US nuclear arms, and eventually being sold out by Washington?”

But the fear of fully entrusting in the United States is not a new phenomenon and has been a recurring theme for decades.

In the 1960s, French General Charles de Gaulle was highly skeptical of America’s nuclear security guarantees, particularly after the Soviet Union developed ICBMs that can reach the US mainland.

De Gaulle’s skepticism led him to ask then-US President John F. Kennedy if he would be willing to risk New York for Paris.

Eventually, the lack of confidence in American assurances was the reason behind establishing the “French nuclear deterrent force,” which allowed Paris to ensure its own safety and avoid overdependence on NATO.

History says no

A South Korean demonstrator holds a placard at a rally against South Korea and US policy on DPRK in front of the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 (AP/Ahn Young-joon)

The 2022 US Nuclear Posture Review notes that “extended nuclear deterrence contributes to U.S. nonproliferation goals by giving Allies and partners confidence that they can resist strategic threats and remain secure without acquiring nuclear weapons of their own.”

The debate among US allies about the level of trust they can place in their American partners reached a new level of intensity with the assumption of former US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy.

This was further amplified when Trump openly questioned Washington’s commitments to its NATO obligations and even suggested the possibility of withdrawing US troops from Europe. The fears and concerns of European nations were heightened as they witnessed a more self-preserving and protectionist stance taken by Washington, raising doubts about the extent to which the United States would defend the continent despite its grand promises.

A recent CSIS study explored four potential future scenarios in which the United States would have to navigate a world where adversaries possess substantial nuclear arsenals. The study’s findings revealed a consistent credibility challenge for the US in assuring its allies about their protection and the safeguarding of their interests.

Commenting on the Nuclear Posture Review of 2022, the Washington-based think tank said fundamental trust in the United States’ ability to secure collective defense [bloc alliances] “is far from guaranteed.”

“A cohesive and confident alliance network backed by credible extended deterrence [nuclear umbrella] guarantees U.S. strategic interests,” the study added, stressing “that the United States will need to continue to rely on nuclear weapons for extended deterrence purposes.”

One of the core suggestions of the study is that the United States, while adopting a bloc-alliance policy, should seriously consider further nuclear deployment in allied countries, especially those in close proximity to states considered by Washington as “strategic national security threats”: China and Russia.

But American “extended deterrence” that extends over a set of allied countries also generates concerns regarding the rationality behind trusting a bloc’s security under Washington’s nuclear umbrella.

If US adversaries feel an existential threat, will decision-makers in said countries consider states hosting American nuclear weapons a factor of deterrence or military targets? Will the nuclear bloc mentality subject its members to collective punishment, regardless of the actual interests of each country separately? 

This perspective sheds light on an important observation: while the United States presents itself as a guardian of allies and a promoter of global stability, its actions often involve consolidating the military capabilities of its partners and prioritizing American interests above all else.

This approach reflects one of the many forms of unipolarity, where Washington’s influence and dominance shape international dynamics to a large extent.

Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be perceived as sources of insecurity rather than genuine protection and deterrence for their host countries.

Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be realized as the foundations of insecurity for their hosts rather than protection and deterrence, and their costs outweigh their benefits under a unipolar world order governed by the White House and America’s industrial complex.

Historically, military alliances based on shared assistance and mutual defense have proven to be only circumstantial empty promises.

So, in short, history says that no, the United States will not risk San Francisco for Seoul, nor New York for Paris, and the US nuclear umbrella remains an illusion designed by unipolarity and employed for imperialistic drives that will be extremely marginalized in the rising multipolar world, but this is a discussion for another article.

Related Stories

• Putin on West attempts to lower Russia’s nuclear arsenal: ‘S**** them’
• US takes ‘Russian nuclear threats very seriously’: WH
• Number of nuclear weapons on the rise, warns think tank

What happens in Russia after The Longest Day?

June 27 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

By Pepe Escobar

Following Wagner’s ‘rebellion’ – which was nothing more than a blatant coup attempt, and a PR stunt demonstrated by Prighozin’s top-notch theatrics – NATO and the Collective West’s excitement over the possibility of Russia descending into chaos and civil war were quickly turned into utter disappointment.

The first draft of the extraordinary events that took place in Russia on The Longest Day – Saturday, June 24 – leads us to a whole new can of worms.    

The Global Majority badly wants to know what happens next. Let’s examine the key pieces in the chessboard.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is cutting to the chase: he has reminded everyone that the Hegemon’s modus operandi is to back coup attempts whenever it can benefit. This dovetails with the fact that the FSB is actively investigating whether and how Western intel was involved in The Longest Day.

President Putin could not have been more unequivocal: 

“They [the West and Ukraine] wanted Russian soldiers to kill each other, so that soldiers and civilians would die, so that in the end Russia would lose, and our society would break apart and choke on bloody civil strife (…) They rubbed their hands, dreaming of getting revenge for their failures at the front and during the so-called counter-offensive, but they miscalculated.” 

Cue to the collective West – from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on down – frantically trying to distance itself even as the CIA leaked, via its trademark mouthpiece, the Washington Post, that they knew about “the rebellion.” 

The agenda was painfully obvious: Kiev losing on all fronts would be ritually buried by wall-to-wall coverage of the fake Russian “civil war.”

There’s no smoking gun – yet. But the FSB is following several leads to demonstrate how the “the rebellion” was set up by CIA/NATO. The spectacular failure makes the upcoming NATO July 11 summit in Vilnius even more incandescent. 

The Chinese, much like Lavrov, also cut to the chase: the Global Times asserted that the idea of “Wagner’s revolt weakening Putin’s authority is wishful thinking of the West,” with the Kremlin’s “strong capacity of deterrence” further increasing its authority. That’s exactly the reading of the Russian street.  

The Chinese reached their conclusion after a crucial visit by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Rudenko, who promptly flew to Beijing on Sunday, June 25. This is how the iron-clad strategic partnership works in practice.  

“The rebellion” as a P.R. stunt

Arguably the best explanation so far of the nuts and bolts of The Longest Day has been offered by Rostislav Ischenko.

The Global Majority will rejoice that Prighozin’s theatrics, in the end, left the collective West dazed, confused, and shattered: wasn’t the whole thing supposed to unleash total chaos inside Russian society and the army? 

Even as the fake, lightning-quick “mutiny” was in progress, Russia continued to pound Kiev’s forces – which, by the way, were spinning that the main phase of the “counter-offensive” was being launched exactly on June 24 at night. That was, predictably, yet another bluff.    

Back to the Russian street. “The rebellion” – inbuilt in a very convoluted plot – in the end was widely interpreted as just another military demonstration (by master of ceremonies Prighozin, not by the overwhelming majority of Wagner soldiers). “The rebellion” turned out to be a Western P.R. stunt, a series of (ultimately faded) pictures for global consumption.  

But now things are bound to get way more serious. 

Lavrov, once again, pointed to the role being played by the ever-self-aggrandized Le Petit Roi, Emmanuel Macron, right up there with the United States: “Macron clearly saw in the developments an opportunity to realize the threat of Ukraine dealing Russia a strategic blow, a mantra NATO leaders have been holding onto.”

So just like Kiev and the collective Western media, Lavrov added, Macron remains part of a single “machine” working against Moscow. That ties up with Putin, who stated of Macron’s Sunday intervention that “the entire Western military, economic and information machine has been set in motion against us.” 

And that’s a fact. 

Betting on a “long-term economic blockade”

Another fact adds to the more ominous clouds on the horizon.  

While no one was paying attention, a mini-Congress of national security officials took place in Copenhagen exactly on the fateful 24 and 25 of June.

They were arguably discussing “peace in Ukraine.” The chairman was none other than US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.  

Present at the meeting were Brazil, Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, Denmark, India, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Africa, Japan, Ukraine – and the proverbial Eurocrat of the non-sovereign EU. 

Note the G7 majority, side by side with three BRICS and two aspiring BRICS+ members.

“Peace in Ukraine” means, in this context, the so-called 10-point “Zelensky peace plan,” which implies a total Russian strategic defeat – complete with the restoration of Ukraine within the borders of 1991 and payment of colossal “reparations” by Moscow.

No wonder China was not part of it. Yet three BRICS – call them the weakest nodes – were there. BRICS and BRICS+ prospective members compose the six “swing states” which will be relentlessly courted and/or submitted to hardcore Hybrid Wars by the Hegemon to “behave” when it comes to Ukraine: Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.  

Then there’s the 11^th EU sanctions package, which is taking the economic war against Russia to a whole new level, as attested by Acting Permanent Representative to the EU, Kirill Logvinov.

Logvinov explained how “Brussels intends to drag as many countries as possible into this war (…) There is a clear shift from a failed blitzkrieg, which was said to be aimed at causing irreparable damage to Russia, to a multi-move game with the goal of establishing a kind of long-term economic blockade against our country.”

That’s undiluted Hybrid War territory – and the key targets are the six “swing states.” 

Logvinov remarked how “the EU always prefers to use blackmail and coercion. Since the EU remains the biggest economic partner for many countries, as well as a source of investment and a financial donor, Brussels clearly has enough leverage to exert pressure. So, the EU’s fight against the bypassing of sanctions is expected to be lengthy and uncompromising.”

So welcome to extraterritorial sanctions, EU-style, blacklisting companies from third countries “suspected” of re-exporting banned goods to Russia or engaged in oil trade without taking the so-called Russian oil price cap into account.

Fun in the Belarussian sun 

Among so many cheap thrills, what will be the next role of the main actor in The Longest Day (and even before)? And does it matter? 

Chinese scholars are fond of reminding us that during China’s periods of turmoil – for instance, at the end of the Han and Tang dynasties – the reason was always warlords not following orders from the Emperor.  

The Ottoman Empire’s Janissaries – their Wagner at the time – were meant to protect the Sultan and fight his wars. They ended up deciding who could be Sultan – as much as Roman Empire legionaries ended up deciding who would be Emperor. 

Chinese advice is always prescient: Beware of how you use your soldiers. Make sure they believe in what they’re fighting for. Otherwise, they’ll turn around to bite you.

And that leads us to Prighozin once again changing his story (he’s a specialist on the matter).  

He’s now saying that June 23-24 was just a mere “demonstration” to express his discontent. The main objective was to prove the superiority of Wagner over the Russian Army. 

Well, everybody knew about that: Wagner soldiers have been in combat day in, day out for over 10 years now in Libya, Syria, the Central African Republic, and Ukraine.

And that’s why he could boast that “Wagner advanced for 700 km without meeting any resistance. If Russia had asked them to be in charge of the war from the beginning, that would have been over by the night of February 24, 2022.”

Prighozin is also alluding to a deal with Belarus – laying extra fog of war around a possible transfer of Wagner under Belarus jurisdiction. NATO is already terrified in advance. Expect more ballooning military budgets – to be imposed at the Vilnius summit next month. 

Camps to accommodate at least 8,000 Wagner fighters are already being built in Belarus, in the Mogilev region – according to “Vyorstka” (“Layout”). 

The real story behind it is that Belarus, for quite a while, has been expecting a possible attack from rabid Poland. In parallel, as much as sending NATO into extra freakout mode, Moscow could be contemplating the opening of a new front between Lviv and Kiev.  

Wagner in Belarus makes total sense. The Belarussian Army is not exactly strong. Wagner secures Russia’s western front. That will raise major hell on NATO – even figuratively, and force them to spend even more astronomical sums. And Wagner can merrily use airports in Belarus to pursue its – rebranded – activities in West Asia and Africa.  

Everything that happened since The Longest Day is part of a new dramatic plot twist in a running series – way more gripping than whatever Netflix could offer. 

Yet what the majority of Russian public opinion really seems to expect is not another farcical Ride of the Valkyrie. They expect a serious draining of the Soviet-style bureaucratic swamp, and a real commitment to get this “almost war” to its logical conclusion as quickly as possible.     

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

The Greater Eurasia project: Building bridges and breaking barriers

June 22 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

If you’re counting on Asia’s many new power centers to compete and clash – don’t. The Greater Eurasia Partnership is set to integrate them all – from the SCO, EAEU, and BRICS, to emerging new currencies – in order to replace the ‘rules-based order.’

By Pepe Escobar

On July 4, at a New Delhi summit, Iran will finally become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

That will be one of the key decisions of the summit, held via video-conference, along with the signing of a memorandum on the path by Belarus to also become a member state.

In parallel, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk has confirmed that Iran and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) should sign a free trade agreement (FTA) by the end of 2023.

The FTA will expand an interim deal that already lowers customs duties on hundreds of categories of goods.

Russia and Iran – two key poles of Eurasia integration – have been getting closer and closer geoeconomically since the west’s sanctions tsunami that followed Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine.

The EAEU – as much as the SCO and BRICS – is on a roll: FTAs are expected to be clinched, from middle to long term, with Egypt, India, Indonesia, and the UAE.

Overchuck admits negotiations may be “very difficult” and “take years,” considering “the interests of all five EAEU member states, their businesses, and their consumers.” Yet despite the obvious complexities, this high-speed rail geoeconomic train has already left the station.

This way for a SWIFT exit

In a parallel track, the members of the Asian Clearing Union (ACU), during a recent summit in Iran, decided to launch a new cross-border financial messaging system this month as a rival to the western-centric SWIFT.

The ACU comprises the Central Banks of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Iran: a healthy mix of West Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.

It was the Central Bank of Iran – still under harsh sanctions – that developed the new bank messaging system, so new it’s not yet known by its own acronym.

Crucially, the Governor of Russia’s Central Bank took part in the ACU summit as an observer, along with officials from Belarus, which applied for ACU membership two weeks ago.

Iranian Central Bank Governor Mohammad Reza Farzin confirmed not only the interest of potential members to join the ACU, but also the drive to set up a basket of currencies for payment of bilateral trade deals. Call it a de-dollarization fast track.

As Iran’s first Vice President, Mohammad Mokhber summed it up: “De-dollarization is not a voluntary choice by countries anymore; it is an inevitable response to the weaponization of the dollar.”

Iran is now at the heart of all things multipolar. The recent discovery of a massive lithium field holding roughly 10 percent of the world’s reserves, coupled with the quite possible admission of Iran into the expanded BRICS – or BRICS+ – as early as this year, has bolstered scenarios of an upcoming BRICS currency backed by commodities: gold, oil, gas and – inevitably – lithium.

All this frantic Global South-led activity stands in sharp contrast to the sputtering deceleration of the Empire of Sanctions.

The Global South has had enough of the US sanctioning and banning whoever, whatever, and whenever they like, in defense of a hazy, arbitrary “rules-based international order.”

Yet exceptions are always made when the US itself badly needs to buy, for instance, Chinese rare earth and EV batteries. And while China continues to be harassed and threatened non-stop, Washington quietly urges it to continue to buy American corn and low-end chips from Micron.

This is what’s called “free and fair” trade in the US today.

The BRICS have other ideas to escape this vicious circle. Much will rely on an enhanced role for its New Development Bank (NDB), which comprises the five BRICS members as well as Bangladesh, the UAE, and Egypt. Uruguay will be joining soon, and the membership requests of Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe have also been approved.

According to Brazil’s former head of state and current NDB President Dilma Rousseff, decisions on new members will officially be announced at the upcoming August BRICS summit in South Africa.

Meanwhile, in Astana, Kazakhstan, the 20^th round of the interminable Syrian peace process took place, congregating the foreign vice-ministers of Russia, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.

That should be the defining step in a “normalization road map” proposed by Moscow last month to finally regulate the role of the Turkish Army operating inside Syrian territory. Russian Foreign Vice-Minister Mikhail Bogdanov once again confirmed that the US is going all out to prevent a normalization between Damascus and Ankara – by supporting oil-stealing Kurdish militias in northern Syria.

A “broad integrative configuration”

All interlinked developments concerning SCO, BRICS, EAEU, and other multilateral mechanisms – now happening at breakneck speed – are converging in practice into a concept formulated in Russia back in 2018: the Greater Eurasia Partnership.

And who better to define it than Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “Our flagship foreign political project is to [build] support for the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. What we’re talking about is facilitating the objective process of forming a broad integrative configuration that is open for all countries and associations across our vast continent.”

As Lavrov routinely explains now in all of his important meetings, this includes “interlinking the complementary development plans” of the EAEU and China’s BRI; expanding interaction “within the framework of the SCO with the involvement of SCO observer states and dialogue partners;” “strengthening the strategic partnership” between Russia and ASEAN; and “establishing working contacts” among the executive bodies of the EAEU, SCO, and ASEAN.

Add to it the crucial interaction between the upcoming BRICS+ and all of the above; literally, everybody and their neighbor all across the Global South is queuing up to enter Club BRICS.

Lavrov envisions a “mutually beneficial, interlinking infrastructure” and a “continent-wide architecture of peace, development, and cooperation throughout Greater Eurasia.” And that ought to be expanded to the whole Global South.

It will help to have other brand new institutions jumping in. That’s the case of a new Russian think tank, the Geopolitical Observatory for Russia’s Key Issues (GORKI), to be led by Former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl, and set as a division of St. Petersburg State University focusing on West Asia studies and energy issues.

All of these interpolations were discussed in detail during the St. Petersburg forum last week.

One of the key themes in that spectacularly successful Global South-oriented forum was, of course, the reindustrialization and reorientation of Russia’s export-import channels away from Europe and toward Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The UAE had a strong presence in St. Petersburg, pointing to a West Asia emphasis, where Russia’s geoeconomic future is increasingly developing. The scope and breadth of Global South-led discussions only underlined how the self-marginalized collective west has alienated the Global Majority, perhaps irretrievably.

On Vladimir Solovyov’s immensely popular political talk show, Russian film director Karen Shakhnazarov may have found the best way to succinctly formulate such a complex process as the Greater Eurasia Partnership.

He said that Russia is now reassuming the role of global champion of a new world order that the Soviet Union held at the start of the 1920s. In such context, the rage and uncontrolled Russophobia by the collective west is just plain impotence: howling the frustration of having “lost” Russia, when it would have been a no-brainer to keep it on its side.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Sudan: The new geopolitical battlefield between east and west?

May 02 2023

Source

Photo Credit: The Cradle

The potential outbreak of a civil war sparked by a factional fight within Sudan’s military government poses a destabilization threat beyond the nation’s borders – into Africa, West Asia, and the emerging multipolar order. This suits the west just fine.

By Matthew Ehret

he story of Sudan is one of contrasts and contradictions. It is a country with tremendous potential and resources, yet it is plagued by poverty, conflict, and exploitation. The forces currently pulling Sudan apart are complex and multifaceted, but one thing is certain: the future of this nation is inextricably linked to the broader geopolitical landscape.

In order to fully comprehend the dynamics of this growing conflict, it is essential to look beyond Sudan’s borders. Attention must be paid to the broader geopolitical chemistry at play in the Horn of Africa, the Persian Gulf, the wider West Asian region, and even Ukraine.

Once the largest African nation with a population of 46 million and the third largest landmass, Sudan underwent a seismic shift in 2011 with a western-championed Balkanization, which divided the country into a “Muslim north” and a “Christian/Animist south.”

Extremes of wealth and poverty  

The country is blessed with one of the most water-rich zones of the earth. The White and Blue Niles combine to form the Nile River, which flows northward into Egypt. Sudan’s water abundance is complemented by fertile soil and immense deposits of gold and oil.

The majority of these resources are located in the south, creating a convenient geological divide that western strategists have exploited for over a century to promote secession.

Despite its abundance of resources, Sudan is also one of the poorest nations in the world. Thirty-five percent of its population lives in extreme poverty, and a staggering 20 million people – or 50 percent of the population – suffer from food insecurity.

Although Sudan achieved political independence in 1956, like many other former colonies, it was never truly economically independent. The British utilized a strategy they had previously employed before leaving India in 1946 – divide and conquer – carving out “northern” and “southern” tribes, which led to civil wars that began months before Sudan’s independence in 1956.

General against General

After achieving independence in 2011, South Sudan was plunged into a brutal civil war that lasted for seven years. In the meantime, the north was hit by two coups; the first in 2019, which ousted President Omar al-Bashir, and the second in 2021, resulting in the current power-sharing military-led transitional government led by the president of the Sovereign Council, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and his deputy, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

It is these two former allies-turned-rivals who now find themselves at the center of the conflict pulling Sudan in two opposing directions against the backdrop of the rapidly developing multipolar order.

Following the 2021 coup in Sudan, the two rival generals, Dagalo and Burhan, continued the momentum toward building large-scale projects. China funded a program to rehabilitate 4725 km of defunct colonial-era railways connecting the port of Sudan to Darfur and Chad.

A recent report by The Cradle suggests that if peace is maintained in the Horn of Africa and the new Iran-Saudi Arabia entente results in a durable peace process in Yemen, then the revival of the Bridge of the Horn of Africa project, which was last proposed in 2010, could become a reality.

Global South benefits from China-Russia co-op

In the past decade, the strategic partnership between China and Russia has been rapidly gaining favor among countries in the Global South. With the five BRICS member states accounting for over 3.2 billion people and 31.5 percent of global GDP, China and Russia have been providing financial support for major infrastructure, water, and energy projects while also backing the military needs of nations facing destabilization.

This has set the stage for a new era of geo-economics based on mutually beneficial cooperation. The Horn of Africa, which includes North and South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, and Kenya, has been drawn into this positive dynamic of peace and development.

Ethiopia was able to end its 20-year conflict with neighboring Eritrea in 2018 and put down a potential civil war in November 2022. Furthermore, China’s diplomatic efforts facilitated a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, while even Syria has seen a new hope emerge with the Arab League’s consensus that the US-led regime change doctrine against President Bashar al-Assad is over.

Sudan’s multipolar prospects

While the cause of the recent violence in Sudan remains uncertain, there are some things that are known. Prior to the recent outbreak of violence that claimed nearly 500 lives, Sudan was making significant strides toward consolidating its participation in the emerging multipolar alliance.

This included Sudan’s submission of a request to join the BRICS+ alliance along with 19 other nations, including resource-rich African states such as Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Sudan’s decision to grant Russia full use of the Port of Sudan and engage in large-scale economic development with China, Russia, Egypt, and Kuwait was viewed as a positive development by many but drew threats of “consequences” from the US Ambassador John Godfrey.

In April 2021, agreements were signed to build a 900 km Egypt-Sudan railway connecting Aswan to Sudan’s Wadi Halfa and Khartoum. In June 2022, a Joint Ethiopia-Sudan government commissioned feasibility study was finished outlining a 1522 km standard gauge railway connecting Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa to Khartoum and the Port of Sudan.

In January 2022, China pledged financial and technical support to extend Kenya’s 578 km Mombasa-Nairobi railway to Uganda, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Ethiopia, where the Chinese-built Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway was completed in 2017. In this comprehensive project, extensions into Eritrea were included.

Railway lines in the African continent

The revival of the Jonglei Canal

Water and oil are both abundant resources in South Sudan, making the region’s security a top priority for Beijing’s African interests. Despite this abundance, the country’s infrastructure is poor, leaving it with no means to move these resources to market or use them for industrial purposes.

Water is just as geopolitically important as oil, if not more so. Thus, nearly forty years ago, the Jonglei Canal project was launched, which aimed to connect the White and Blue Nile in South Sudan, creating a 360 km canal that would divert water runoff from the Upper White Nile.

The canal would result in 25 million cubic meters of water per day being directed north into Egypt, while 17,000 square kilometers of swamp land would be transformed into agricultural land. The project would make the desert land bloom in Egypt and northern Sudan, turning the Sahel into the breadbasket of Africa. However, the project was stopped after 250 km had been dug by a German-made Bucketwheel 2300-ton, laser-guided digging machine.

The secessionist southern Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA), led by western-educated John Garang De Mabior, launched a civil war in 1983 and kidnapped the machine’s operators, effectively halting the project. Notably, De Mabior’s 1981 doctoral dissertation in the US focused on the environmental damage that the Jonglei Canal would cause if not managed correctly.

Muddying the waters

Despite former President Omar al-Bashir’s attempts to restart this project since 1989 – until the 2011 partition of Sudan – constant destabilizations never permitted this project’s revival.

Things began turning around when, on February 28, 2022, South Sudan’s Vice President for Infrastructure, General Taban Deng Gai, called for the resumption of the Jonglei Canal, saying:

“We, the people in Bentiu and Fangak, have no place to stay. We may migrate to Eastern Nuer [eastern bank of the White Nile] because we have lost our land to flooding … People are asking who opened this huge volume of water because we never experienced this for decades. Of course, Uganda and Kenya opened the water, because Kampala was almost submerged because of the rising level of water from Lake Victoria. The digging of the Jonglei Canal that was stopped needs to be revised … For our land not to be submerged by flood, let’s allow this water to flow to those who need it in Egypt.”

General Taban referenced a UN Report detailing the 380,000 civilians displaced due to recent Sudd Wetland flooding and stated: “The solution lies in opening the waterways and resuming the drilling of the Jonglei Canal, based on the conditions and interest of South Sudan in the first place.”

General Taban had worked closely with South Sudan’s Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Manawa Gatkouth, who had been the first to revive this project since the 2011 partition, submitting a proposal to the South Sudan Transitional Council in December 2021.

This proposal grew directly out of agreements to build cooperative water projects that Gatkouth reached with the Egyptian government in September 2020.

At the time, the Egyptian minister of water resources stated that “Egypt would increase the number of development projects for collecting and storing rainwater, with the aim of serving the South Sudanese people.”

Boots on the ground: The west returns

Expectedly, the Sudanese crisis has drawn attention due to the involvement of Anglo-American military forces. On 23 April, US President Joe Biden announced a War Powers Resolution to deploy troops in Sudan, Djibouti, and Ethiopia.

Where all other nations quickly moved to remove their citizens and diplomatic staff out of harm’s way, 16,000 US civilians have been left without support, providing a convenient excuse to insert US military forces into the picture to “restore order.”

US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland’s surprise appearance in the region on 9 March is also worth noting. One of the key architects of Ukraine’s transformation into a confrontational state against Russia, Nuland bragged during her visit that she discussed a “democratic transition in Sudan,” along with her humanitarian concerns for Somalia and Ethiopia.

Sudan, incidentally, is dependent on wheat imports, 85 percent of which originate from Ukraine and Russia.

To date, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds over 300 separate civil society organizations in Africa, and at least 13 in Sudan – all of which use the tried and tested tactic of weaponizing pro-west local liberals to destroy their own nations under the cover of “democracy building,” human rights, and “anti-corruption” actions.

Conversely, the Global South increasingly views the rising multipolar powers China, Russia, and their growing coterie of allies, as advancing a non-hypocritical approach to supporting vital infrastructure projects and genuine national interests.

These new actors on the international stage prioritize the completion of large-scale water, food, energy, and transportation networks, which not only benefit all the involved parties, but also positively impact regions beyond national borders.

These transformative projects, such as Beijing’s ambitious, multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), promote unity and progress by overcoming the tribalism, bigotry, poverty, and scarcity that the west has historically relied on to sow conflict. By increasing education levels and providing quality jobs across tribal and national boundaries, economic development ignites dignity and innovation that poses a threat to oligarchs with imperialistic tendencies.

While the causes of the Sudan crisis are not fully understood, it is clear that there are powerful forces at work seeking to shape the outcome for their own benefit. However, the answer to Sudan’s problems lies in a different approach – one that prioritizes infrastructure development and nation-building rather than narrow geopolitical interests and regime change.

Saudi security versus petrodollar

ِApril 12, 2023

Source: Janna Kadri

By Al Mayadeen English 

Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time.

Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time

On March 10, China brokered a peace agreement between rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia, a move which left the West baffled. Some suggested that the world had witnessed the slow and gradual collapse of the old world order. Although the deal may not necessarily achieve full normalization, still points of contact were restored. Such had vexed policymakers while at the same ushering in an era of Chinese diplomatic victory in the area most crucial to US global dominance. The implications of such an agreement are multiple, but the potential loss of Saudi to the US, and the gradual dissolution of their institutional ties, especially the long-standing agreement by which Saudi sells its oil for dollars, may yet prove to be a world significant event.  

This detente is a breakthrough in terms of heralding peace and development in the region. It comes at a time when relations between China and the US have reached all-time lows. After several months of provocations aimed at disrupting Beijing through provocations around Taipei, it appears that China had turned the tables on the US’ most sensitive point, which is its hegemony over the gulf. The ramifications are too broad, but here I address the implications of the petrodollar system.

The petrodollar system was born of an agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia to peg the sales of oil in exchange for security guarantees and Saudi assistance with US foreign policy missions. Aside from petrodollar recycling, the benefit of pricing oil in dollars has all to do with increasing US indebtedness in the dollar, which in turn increases its wealth, since the US prints the ‘paper dollars’ as the equivalent of world wealth. This also means that the US must lay control not only over current world assets, but must also own the future work and assets of humanity to underwrite its massive wealth. For this, The US must be in control of the world’s strategic resources, choke points, and foremost the ideological production that cripples anti-systemic thought. On a more concrete level, since OPEC entities get paid in none other than the dollar, the profits earned from oil revenues are re-invested in US treasuries and other instruments so as to avoid the loss of value in times of economic downturns. The constant flow of dollars channeled into bonds, allows the US to finance its deficits and to be in a position to trade debts against their future values.

The depth of the US financial market, and the ability of the dollar to be a world medium of savings in addition to world means of exchange, are tied to the global demand for dollars. If the dollarization of oil lessens, then demand for dollars lessens, and the dollar as a safe refuge from financial turmoil abroad also lessens. As can be seen, the US must reconstitute its powers in the military and ideological fields to reinstall the dollar and siphon world wealth through it. Incidentally, the China-sponsored deal represents an image or ideological blow to the US because it has shown China as a peace-maker and the US as war monger. The implications of slow de-dollarisation are that the US may no longer be able to build its wealth by borrowing against a world it controls. 

Read – De-dollarization, Slowly but surely

Pricing oil to the US dollar has proved efficient to underwrite the wealth of the US-allied financial class. The equation more control equals more wealth meant that the US’s engagement in imperialist politics has always been about power first, especially ideological power wrought by beating and sanctioning people abroad. The US hegemony is first a hegemony over the global mind of defeated people. As the Arab proverb goes, one makes a friend out of beating him first.

The Saudis were pivotal in the ascent of the US. In addition to the many examples, like aiding the contras to fight Abdel-Nasser in Yemen, and the list goes on, they essentially helped the US win the Cold War because the dollarization of oil permitted them to financially contain Eastern European countries as they overburdened them with dollar debts. Lending to cripple an economy is just as good a weapon as any.  Not to forget, the Saudis also allowed the price of oil to be listed on the commodity market by weakening OPEC at the behest of the US. Direct producers of oil lost control of oil prices. Saudi pumped oil earned fewer profits than it should have as a part of the power game with the Soviet Union then. This was owed to a meeting held in 1985 between King Fahd and William Casey, the former CIA director, in which both agreed to increase oil production from 2 billion bpd to 10 billion bpd, leading oil prices to fall from $30 to $10 and eventually resulting in the fallout of the Soviet economy.

In the region, the Saudis assisted US aspirations through the numerous wars against more autonomous states across the region. The proliferation of Salafism and the financing of disruptive militias instigated wars that were a win-win situation for the US. It weakened opposing regimes and made money off military spending. 

Yet with war waged on Yemen, tensions with Iran, and a balance of forces tilting in favor of the axis of resistance, it is only rational for the Saudis to forfeit the US and seek longer-term stability through negotiated dialogue. The deal that the US provides Saudi with security as Saudi prices its oil in the dollar seems to be no longer valid.  The US is retreating around the globe, and while it cannot afford Saudi security, the Saudis will rethink their pricing oil only in dollars. Add to that the personal vilification of MBS and the openly anti-Arab racism practiced daily in Western media and other channels. 

On a more detailed level, Saudi security demands are threefold: first, to grant a major non-NATO ally status; second, to receive additional sales of advanced US weapons; and third, to receive US support for a civilian nuclear energy program. With the first condition fulfilled and the second being contested, the third would evoke the possibility for Saudi authorities to develop their own fissile material, hence enabling the capacity of building a nuclear weapon. The US is less concerned with nuclear proliferation than the military autonomization of Saudi Arabia as this would jeopardize the agreement that safeguards the petrodollar system. US reluctance to respond to Saudi Arabia’s security needs was made obvious when Democrat lawmakers urged US President Joe Biden to discourage Saudis from enhancing their own ballistic missiles and drone capabilities in 2022. A letter was issued just a few days prior to Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia in June 2022, and highlighted concerns from the Pentagon that the Gulf state was planning to manufacture solid fuel missiles with assistance from China.

Another relevant factor to consider is threats issued by the US that it would pull away military support following the announcement of the OPEC cut in October 2022, as well as the introduction of the NOPEC bill which would enable lawsuits to be filed against Saudi Arabia and OPEC entities for controlling oil prices. If such a bill would come to pass, it would highlight the possibility of Saudi Arabia being slapped with sanctions. With the Iran-Saudi deal announced, it appears that China has rocked the foundations on which the petrodollar system rests. This was further evidenced by the introduction of a Privileged Resolution by Senators Murphy and Lee calling for a complete halt of US military assistance to Saudi Arabia, noting that “US weapons do not belong in the hands of human rights abusers.”

Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time. Both Russia and China have been buying immense amounts of gold to rid their foreign reserves in US dollars and back their own currencies on the gold standard. With their BRICS allies, they are contemplating a common currency that would shift away from transactions carried out in US dollars. Although many signs seem to be pointing out the gradual decline of the petrodollar system, it is unlikely that it may happen in the short run.

The petrodollar will remain the dominant currency as long as the dollar is recognized as the world reserve currency. As we speak, the global share of foreign reserves denominated in US dollars currently fell to slightly below 60%. States and companies across the world are still required to own dollars in order to purchase oil – the most strategic commodity on the global market. After all that is said and done, the decline of the dollar is tied to the decline of the US’s control of the planet, which until now was de-facto ownership of the planet.

Related Stories

• Sanaa Supreme Political Council head meets with Saudi, Omani delegates
• Saudi delegation arrives in Tehran to discuss embassy reopening
• Iran, Saudi relations major blow to ‘Israel’ hopes of anti-Iran axis

China, Brazil announce de-dollarization of mutual trade

30 Mar 2023

Source: Agencies

By Al Mayadeen English 

The two BRICS partners strike a deal to ditch USD with the aim of easing financial transactions between the two countries and reducing trade costs.

Industry representatives from China and Brazil in a panel discussion at the Brazil-China Business Seminar (CCIIP)

China and Brazil struck a deal to ditch the US dollar in their bilateral transactions, which is expected to reduce investment costs and develop economic ties between the two countries, the Brazilian government stated on Wednesday.

The agreement between the Asian superpower and Latin America’s largest economy – the mutual top trading partners –  is a new financial and political strike against the green banknotes as more countries, with the growing geopolitical and economical influence of the East, are paving the way to distance themselves from the US politically-oriented currency.

Read more: De-dollarization: Slowly but surely

Earlier in January, both nations reached a preliminary deal on the matter that was finalized in a Brazil-China Business Seminar in China on Wednesday, which Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was scheduled to take part in but failed to attend due to emergency health issues.

Read more: Future of global economy belongs to SCO, BRICS: Iran Econ Minister

“The expectation is that this will reduce costs… promote even greater bilateral trade and facilitate investment,” Brazil’s Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (ApexBrasil) said.

In 2022, trade volume between the economic giants hit a historic record of over $150.5 billion in bilateral trade.

China’s Bank of Communications BBM (one of the country’s top five banks) and industrial and Commercial Bank of China will oversee the execution of the deal, officials stated.

Earlier this month, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said if the US defaults on its debt, this would result in a massive loss of confidence in the US dollar, eventually leading to the loss of its status as the world’s global reserve currency – striking major market fears over the future of the world’s safe haven currency.

Ditching USD roadmap

China and Brazil are two of the five founders of the BRICS bloc, which accounts for around 30% of the global gross output.

Last January, South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor announced that the BRICS club of emerging economies seeks to discover a way of bypassing the dollar to create a fairer payment system that would not be skewed toward wealthy countries.

“We have always been concerned at the fact that there is a dominance of the dollar and that we do need to look at an alternative,” he said then.

Recently, a handful of medium-sized economies aimed to join the bloc: Argentina, Algeria, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. 

The gigantic bloc announced a few days ago that it will establish a “geological platform” that aims to allow the BRICS member states to coordinate in regard to their mineral reserves and extraction methods in light of the increasing demand for natural resources. 

Related

• New BRICS currency underway: State Duma Deputy Chairman
• UAE, KSA, India, South Korea secretly supplying missiles to Ukraine
• Iran wins ICJ motion against US over illegal seizure of assets
• China, Brazil announce de-dollarization of mutual trade
• Putin urges the BRICS to face exceptional sanctions imposed by West

Raisi in Beijing: Iran-China strategic plans go full throttle

February 17 2023

Raisi’s visit to Beijing, the first for an Iranian president in 20 years, represents Tehran’s wholesale ‘Pivot to the East’ and China’s recognition of Iran’s centrality to its BRI plans.

Photo credit: The Cradle

By Pepe Escobar

The visit of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to Beijing and his face-to- face meeting with counterpart Xi Jinping is a groundbreaking affair in more ways than one.

Raisi, the first Iranian president to officially visit China in 20 years, led an ultra high-level political and economic delegation, which included the new Central Bank governor and the Ministers of Economy, Oil, Foreign Affairs, and Trade.

The fact that Raisi and Xi jointly supervised the signing of 20 bilateral cooperation agreements ranging from agriculture, trade, tourism and environmental protection to health, disaster relief, culture and sports, is not even the major take away.

This week’s ceremonial sealing of the Iran-China comprehensive strategic partnership marks a key evolution in the multipolarity sphere: two Sovereigns – both also linked by strategic partnerships with Russia – imprinting to their domestic audiences and also to the Global South their vision of a more equitable, fair and sustainable 21^st century which completely bypasses western dictates.

Beijing and Tehran first established their comprehensive strategic partnership when Xi visited Iran in 2016 – only one year after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iranian nuclear deal.

In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a 25-year cooperation deal which translated the comprehensive partnership into practical economic and cultural developments in several fields, especially energy, trade and infrastructure. By then, not only Iran (for decades) but also China were being targeted by unilateral US sanctions.

Here is a relatively independent analysis of the challenges and prospects of the 25-year deal. And here is an enlightening perspective from neighboring Pakistan, also a strategic partner of China.

Iran: gotta modernize everything

Beijing and Tehran are already actively cooperating in the construction of selected lines of Tehran’s subway, the Tehran-Isfahan high-speed railway, and of course joint energy projects. Chinese tech giant Huawei is set to help Tehran to build a framework for a 5G telecom network.

Raisi and Xi, predictably, stressed increased joint coordination at the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Iran is the newest member, as well as a new drive along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While there was no explicit mention of it, underlying all these initiatives is the de-dollarization of trade – in the framework of the SCO but also the multipolar BRICS group of states. Iran is set to become one of the new members of BRICS+, a giant step to be decided in their upcoming summit in South Africa next August.

There are estimates in Tehran that Iran-China annual trade may reach over $70 billion in the mid-term, which will amount to triple the current figures.

When it comes to infrastructure building, Iran is a key BRI partner. The geostrategy of course is hard to match: a 2,250 km coastline encompassing the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Sea of Oman and the Caspian Sea – and huge land borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every think tank in China sees how Iran is irreplaceable, not only in terms of BRI land corridors, but also the Maritime Silk Road.

Chabahar Port may be a prime Iran-India affair, as part of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) – thus directly linked to the Indian vision of a Silk Road, extending to Central Asia.

But Chinese port developers do have other ideas, focused on alternative ports along the Persian Gulf and in the Caspian Sea. That will boost shipping connections to Central Asia (Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan), Russia and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan).

And that makes perfect sense when one combines port terminal development with the modernization of Iran’s railways – all the way to high-speed rail.

An even more revolutionary development would be China coordinating the BRI connection of an Iranian corridor with the already in progress 3,200 km-long China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar port in the Indian Ocean.

That seemed perfectly plausible when Pakistani Prime Minister  Imran Khan was still in power, before being ousted by a lawfare coup. The key of the whole enterprise is to build badly needed infrastructure in Balochistan, on both sides of the border. On the Pakistani side, that would go a long way to smash CIA-fed “insurgents” of the Balochistan Liberation Army kind, get rid of unemployment, and put trade in charge of economic development.

Afghanistan of course enters the equation – in the form of a China-Afghan-Iran corridor linked to CPEC. Since September 2021, Beijing has explained to the Taliban, in detail, how they may profit from an infrastructure corridor – complete with railway, highway and pipeline – from Xinjiang, across the Wakhan corridor in eastern Afghanistan, through the Hindu Kush, all the way to Iran.

The core of multipolarity

Iran is perfectly positioned for a Chinese-propelled boom in high-speed cargo rail, connecting Iran to most of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan).

That means, in practice, cool connectivity with a major logistics cluster: the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) of Khorgos, only 330 km from Almaty on the Kazakh-China border, and only four hours from Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital.

If China pulls that off, it would be a sort of BRI Holy Grail, interconnecting China and Iran via Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Nothing less than several corridors in one.

All that is about to happen as the Islamic Revolution in Iran celebrates its 44^th year.

What is already happening now, geopolitically, and fully recognized by China, might be defined as the full rejection of an absurdity: the collective west treating Iran as a pariah or at best a subjugated neo-colony.

With the diverse strands of the Resistance embedded in the Islamic Revolution finally consolidated, it looks like history is finally propelling Iran as one of the key poles of the most complex process at work in the 21st century: Eurasia integration.

So 44 years after the Islamic Revolution, Iran enjoys strategic partnerships with the three top BRICS: China, Russia and India.

Likely to become one of the first new members of BRICS+, Iran is the first West Asian state to become a full member of the SCO, and is clinching a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Iran is a major strategic partner of both BRI, led by China, and the INSTC, alongside Russia and India.

With the JCPOA all but dead, and all western “promises” lying in the dust, Tehran is consolidating its pivot back to the East at breakneck speed.

What Raisi and Xi sealed in Beijing heralds Chinese pre-eminence all across West Asia – keenly perceived in Beijing as a natural consequence of recognizing and honoring Iran’s regional centrality.

Iran’s “Look East” strategy could not be more compatible with BRI – as an array of BRI projects will accelerate Iran’s economic development and consolidate its inescapable role when it comes to trade corridors and as an energy provider.

During the 1980s Tehran was ruled by a “Neither East nor West” strategy – faithful to the tenets of the Islamic Revolution. That has now evolved, pragmatically, into “Look East.” Tehran did try to “Look West” in good faith, but what the US government did with the JCPOA – from its murder to “maximum pressure” to its aborted resuscitation – was quite a historical lesson.

What Raisi and Xi have just demonstrated in Beijing is the Sovereign way forward. The three leaders of Eurasia integration – China, Russia and Iran – are fast on their way to consolidate the core of multipolarity.    

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

The War of Terror of a Rogue Superpower: Cui Bono?

February 11, 2023

by Pepe Escobar, widely distributed on the Internet, posted with the author’s permission

When it comes to the Global South, what the Hersh report imprints is Rogue Superpower, in giant blood red letters, as state sponsor of terrorism.

Everyone with a brain already knew the Empire did it. Now Seymour Hersh’s bombshell report  not only details how Nord Stream 1 and 2 were attacked, but also names names: from the toxic Straussian neoliberal-con trio Sullivan, Blinken and Nuland all the way to the Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief.

Arguably the most incandescent nugget in Hersh’s narrative is to point ultimate responsibility directly at the White House. The CIA, for its part, gets away with it. The whole report may be read as the framing of a scapegoat. A very fragile, shoddy scapegoat – what with those classified documents in the garage, the endless stares into the void, the cornucopia of incomprehensible mumbling, and of course the whole, ghastly, years-long family corruption carousel in and around Ukraine, still to be completely unveiled.

Hersh’s report happened to pop up immediately after the deadly earthquakes in Turkey/Syria. This is an investigative journalism earthquake in itself, straddling over fault lines and revealing countless open air fissures, nuggets of truth gasping for air amidst the rubble.

But is that all there is? Does the narrative hold from start to finish? Yes and no. First of all, why now? This is a leak – essentially from one Deep State insider, Hersh’s key source. This 21^st century “Deep Throat” remix may be appalled at the toxicity of the system, but at the same time he knows that whatever he says, there will be no consequences.

Cowardly Berlin – ignoring the nuts and bolts of the scheme all along – will not even squeak. After all the Green gang has been ecstatic, because the terror attack has thoroughly advanced their medieval de-industrialization agenda. In parallel, as an extra bonus, all the other European vassals receive further confirmation this is the fate that awaits them if they don’t follow His Master’s Voice.

Hersh’s narrative frames the Norwegians as the essential accessory to terror. Hardly surprising: NATO’s Jens “Peace is War” Stoltenberg has been a CIA asset for perhaps half a century. And Oslo of course had its own motives to be part of the deal; to collect loads of extra cash selling whatever spare energy it had for desperate European customers.

A little narrative problem is that Norway, unlike the U.S. Navy, still does not have any operational P-8 Poseidon. What was clear at the time is that an American P-8 was commuting back and forth – with mid-air refueling – from the U.S. to Bornholm island.

A positive screamer is that Hersh – rather, his key source – had the MI6 completely vanish from the narrative. SVR, Russian intel, had focused like a laser on MI6 at the time, as well as the Poles. What still cements the narrative is that the combo behind “Biden” provided the planning, the intel and coordinated the logistics, while the final act – in this case a sonar buoy detonating the C4 explosives – may have been perpetrated by the Norwegian vassals.

The problem is the buoy may have been dropped by an American P-8. And there’s no explanation of why one of the sections of Nord Stream 2 escaped intact.

Hersh’s modus operandi is legendary. From the perspective of a foreign correspondent on the ground since the mid-1990s, from the U.S. and NATOstan to all corners of Eurasia, it’s easy for someone like me to understand how he uses anonymous sources and how he accesses – and protects – his extensive list of contacts: trust works both ways. His track record is absolutely unrivalled.

But of course the possibility remains: what if he is being played? Is this no more than a limited hangout? After all, the narrative oscillates wildly between minute detail and quite a few dead ends, constantly featuring a huge paper trail and too many people in the loop – which implies exaggerated risk. The CIA hesitating too much to go for the kill is a certified red alert throughout the narrative – especially when we know that the ideal underwater actors for such an op would have come from the CIA Special Activities Division, and not the U.S. Navy.

What will Russia do?

Arguably the whole planet is thinking what will be the Russian response.

Surveying the chessboard, what the Kremlin and the Security Council see is Merkel confessing Minsk 2 was merely a ruse; the imperial attack on the Nord Streams (they got the picture, but might not have all the insider details provided by Hersh’s source); former Israeli PM Bennett on the record detailing how the Anglo-Americans killed the Ukraine peace process which was on track in Istanbul last year.

So it’s no wonder that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made it clear that when it comes to nuclear negotiations with the Americans, any proposed gestures of goodwill are “unjustified, untimely and uncalled for.”

The Ministry, on purpose, and somewhat ominously, was very vague on a key issue: “strategic nuclear forces objects” that have been attacked by Kiev – helped by the Americans. These attacks may have involved “military-technical and information-intelligence” aspects.

When it comes to the Global South, what the Hersh report imprints is Rogue Superpower, in giant blood red letters, as state sponsor of terrorism: the ritual burial – at the bottom of the Baltic Sea – of international law, and even the Empire’s tawdry ersatz, the “rules-based international order”.

It will take some time to fully identify which Deep State faction may have used Hersh to promote its agenda. Of course he’s aware of it – but that would never have been enough to keep him away from researching a bombshell (three months of hard work). The U.S. mainstream media will do everything to suppress, censor, demean and ignore his report; but what matters is that across the Global South it is already spreading like wildfire.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Lavrov has gone totally unplugged, much like Medvedev, denouncing how the U.S. has “unleashed a total hybrid war” against Russia, with both nuclear powers now on a path of direct confrontation. And as Washington has declared the “strategic defeat” of Russia as its goal and turned bilateral relations into a ball of fire, there can be no “business as usual” anymore.

The Russian “response” – even before Hersh’s report – has been on another level entirely; advanced de-dollarization across the spectrum, from the EAEU to BRICS and beyond; and total reorientation of trade towards Eurasia and other parts of the Global South. Russia is establishing firm conditions for further stability, already foreseeing the inevitable: the time to frontally deal with NATO.

As kinetic responses go, facts on the battleground show Russia further crushing the American/NATO proxy army in full Strategic Ambiguity mode. The terror attack on the Nord Streams of course will always be lurking in the background. There will be blowback. But that will be at a time, manner and place of Russia’s choosing.

• Important news about the Saker blog archive (please read!)
• The Big Stiff: Russia-Iran dump the dollar and bust US sanctions