Another One Bites the Dust… Geopolitical Fallout from U.S.-Afghan Failure

August 26, 2021

OPINION

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

The American empire and its lackeys are going down, as we have mentioned many times before. Afghanistan is another nail in the coffin.

Every day can be said to be history-making. But this week saw a watershed event with huge historical ramifications: the final collapse of the United States’ and NATO’s military occupation of Afghanistan.

America’s longest war has come to a close after 20 years of futile fighting, destruction and suffering. The Taliban militants whom the U.S. ousted in an invasion back in October 2001 are now back as the governing power in Afghanistan. And a regime that Washington propped up with billions of dollars folded like a house of cards as the Taliban took control of the capital, Kabul, on August 15.

This week the new rulers declared the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. America’s avowed starry-eyed project of “nation-building” and “Western-style democracy” lies in ruins. Fittingly, this week also marks the centennial anniversary of the liberation of Afghanistan from British colonial rule in 1919. Another one bites the dust.

The desperate, chaotic scenes of the U.S. and its NATO allies evacuating from Afghanistan speak volumes. The pretensions of Washington and its Western partners have fallen to Earth with a crash – like the bodies of poor Afghans who clung to U.S. military cargo planes as they took off from Kabul airport. What the world witnessed was the shameful, diabolical end to a two-decade criminal occupation of Afghanistan that has wrought nothing but destruction and grief. And the Afghan people have been abandoned to their fate.

This was never about the alleged 9/11 terror attacks in 2001 or the so-called “global war on terror”. Just weeks before the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the Biden administration is pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan in what can only be described as an ignominious retreat. It is grotesque to “justify” the two-decade-old war in the Central Asian country as somehow a kind of retribution for the murky events of 9/11 which involved no Afghans.

America’s war in Afghanistan was just one chapter in a period of presumed unipolar dominance. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington moved quickly to demonstrate geopolitical power with a litany of illegal wars and military interventions. It became known in Neoconservative parlance as “full-spectrum dominance”. We also saw Neoliberal narratives for imperial power under the rubric of “humanitarian wars”. But basically, the underlying rationale was the same: unilateral military force to assert U.S. global hegemony.

The first Gulf War against Iraq came in 1991 followed by the U.S. invasion of Somalia – Operation Restore Hope with its Orwellian rhetoric that set the pattern for many subsequent military escapades. The U.S.-NATO blitzkrieg against former Yugoslavia in 1999, and then other wars for natural resources and regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and ongoing in Syria, among other places.

This is the proper context for the U.S. and NATO occupation of Afghanistan. It is more accurately explained in terms of Washington trying to impose imperial might aided and abetted by Western lackeys. The 20-year war in Afghanistan fits into a 30-year period of presumed American hegemony in the absence of perceived geopolitical rivalry. But the lawlessness of that period has left the world shattered and more insecure than ever. However, the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, along with a multipolar vision of international relations, has served to check the roguery of Washington and its NATO satraps.

There are indications that is why U.S. policymakers realized the need to finally get out of the Afghan quagmire. As President Joe Biden hinted in an interview, the calculation to get out was driven by the U.S. being more able to confront “true competitors” China and Russia, as well as to free up American power for other imperialist challenges in the Middle East and Africa. U.S. prestige has been ravaged by the Afghan debacle but there is no sign that Washington is going to curb its foreign interventions. Things could get a lot hotter in “big power” stakes. American corporate capitalism is an economy based on militarism which, in turn, is dependent on aggression, confrontation and war. Unfortunately, the Afghanistan debacle – no matter how shameful – doesn’t change that fundamental dynamic.

The fallout between the U.S. and its NATO accomplices has been bitter and intense. European leaders denounced the way in which the Biden administration left them in the lurch without any consultation over the sudden pullout from Afghanistan. European embassies have quickly emptied of diplomats rushing for airlifts. There have been sharp recriminations over citizens and Afghan aides left behind in unknown circumstances amid reports of Taliban groups taking revenge on collaborators.

Uncharacteristically, British and other European politicians and media have been vociferous in condemnation of the United States. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, said it was a “catastrophe”. A German party leader said it was the worst event in the history of NATO since it was formed in 1949 – 72 years ago. A British lawmaker claimed it was the most shameful episode for Britain since the 1956 Suez Crisis and for America since the Fall of Saigon in 1975.

One thing seems clear. Western powers and their “rules-based order” of imperialist intervention have nothing to offer Afghanistan – or any other nation for that matter.

It will be up to the Afghan nation to resolve their internal differences and salvage the failed state bequeathed to them by the U.S. and its NATO accomplices. China, Russia and other neighboring nations are best placed to help the Afghan people chart a new direction of independence. Both Beijing and Moscow have established good communications with the Taliban and other Afghan parties over the past several years. The non-interference policy of China and Russia gives them credibility as regional partners.

Amusingly, the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell remarked that NATO’s failure in Afghanistan must not become an opportunity for China or Russia. Is that all he cares about amid the disaster?

Eurasian co-development and partnership as promulgated by China and Russia make sense for Afghanistan’s future. The Taliban’s Islamist form of government is not unfeasible. If it can be inclusive and uphold a national consensus, not based on repression, and excluding extremism while maintaining regional stability, then there are grounds for a better future.

The ultimate losers are not the Afghan people. The ultimate losers are the charlatans and war criminals of the U.S. and NATO who stand exposed more than ever in the eyes of the world as a threat to international security and peace.

The American empire and its lackeys are going down, as we have mentioned many times before. Afghanistan is another nail in the coffin.


ماذا بعد أن فشلت أميركا في فرض هيمنتها على العالم؟

 حسن حردان
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-238.png

طالما كان مستشار الأمن القومي الأميركي السابق زبيغينيو بريجنسكي، يؤكد أنّ من يسيطر على أوراسيا، أيّ آسيا الوسطى يسيطر على العالم… لكنه كان يقول ويشدّد في الوقت نفسه، انّ الولايات المتحدة لا تستطيع أن تفرض هيمنتها على العالم حتى وإنْ سيطرت على أوراسيا، لأنّ الهيمنة سوف تستفز الدول الكبرى، مثل روسيا والصين، التي تعارض هذه الهيمنة، وتدفعها الى التكتل ضدّ الولايات المتحدة، لإسقاط هيمنتها.. لهذا نصح بريجنسكي قادة بلاده بالعمل على انتهاج سياسة تضمن لأميركا قيادة العالم من خلال مراعاة مصالح الدول الكبرى.. لكن الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة لم تأخذ بنصيحة بريجنسكي، وعمدت بدءاً من إدارة جورج بوش الابن إلى شن الحروب تحت عنوان محاربة الإرهاب، لأجل السيطرة على المناطق الهامة والحساسة في العالم، التي تحتوي على أكبر احتياطات النفط والغاز، إنْ كان في دول آسيا الوسطى وبحر قزوين، من خلال احتلال أفغانستان التي تتوسط هذه المنطقة، أو كان عبر السيطرة على العراق الذي يعوم على كميات هائلة من النفط…

لكن خطة أميركا باستخدام القوة العسكرية للسيطرة على موارد الطاقة والتحكم بإمدادات النفط والغاز شريان الاقتصاد العالمي… لم تنجح، حيث تحوّل الغزو الأميركي لكل من أفغانستان والعراق إلى نقمة بدلاً من أن يكون نعمة للولايات المتحدة، التي غرقت قواتها في وحول أفغانستان والعراق، مما استنزف موارد الإمبراطورية الأميركية وأرهق اقتصادها وأغرقها بالمزيد من المديونية الأكبر في العالم وجعلها غير قادرة على مواصلة تحمّلها، فكان أن اضطرت إلى البحث عن سبل الخروج من أتون هذا الاستنزاف، وبالتالي الانسحاب والتسليم بالفشل والهزيمة…

لكن بقدر ما كانت أحلام وتطلعات وطموحات واشنطن من وراء غزو أفغانستان والعراق كبيرة وتستهدف تربّع أميركا على عرش العالم وحسم هيمنتها الأحادية دون أيّ منازع لها، بقدر ما ان الفشل والإخفاق في تحقيق ذلك سيكون له تداعيات سلبية معاكسة، تسرع في إسدال الستار على مرحلة الهيمنة الأميركية الأحادية لمصلحة بدء دخول العالم زمن التعددية القطبية الدولية والإقليمية، وتدشين مرحلة أفول زمن الإمبراطورية الأميركية، التي غامر حكامها في رهانهم على إخضاع العالم، بدلا من قيادته على نحو يراعي مصالح الدول الكبرى، فإذا بهم يخسرون الاثنين معا.. فلا حافظت أميركا على دورها القيادي، ولا هي نجحت في فرض سيطرتها وهيمنتها… ومن الطبيعي والحال هذه ان يؤدي الفشل الأميركي والهروب المذل من أفغانستان إلى تسريع الرحيل الأميركي عن العراق سورية لأنّ البديل عن الرحيل غرق القوات الأميركية في حرب استنزاف تشنّها ضدّها المقاومة الوطنية في كل من البلدين، وعندها سيكون قرار الرحيل تحت ضربات المقاومة، من دون حتى حفظ ماء الوجه.

على أنّ رحيل القوات الأميركية عن أفغانستان ومن ثم العراق وسورية ستكون له تداعيات سلبية كبيرة على النفوذ الأميركي في المنطقة والعالم، وعلى الأنظمة التابعة لها، يمكن إجمالها على النحو التالي:

اولا، إضعاف الدور الأميركي في التأثير على مجرى السياسات في المنطقة والعالم.. حيث أن قدرة أميركا على فرض مشيئتها وسلطانها سوف تنخفض، بنسبة تراجع حضورها العسكري في مقابل تزايد قوة وتأثير وحضور  الدول والقوى التي ترفض سياساتها الاستعمارية.. وسيؤدي ذلك بالضرورة إلى تعزيز موقف دول وقوى التحرر في المنطقة والعالم، إنْ كانت تكافح لتحصين استقلالها الوطني، أو تناضل للتحرّر من الاحتلال والاستعمار.. أو تعمل لأجل إعادة صياغة النظام العالمي على أسس التعددية والتشاركية.

ثانياً، اختلال توازن القوى في المنطقة لمصلحة دول وقوى المقاومة، على حساب الدول والقوى التي تستمدّ قوّتها من قوة وحضور الولايات المتحدة.

ثالثاً، تراجع قوة الكيان الصهيوني الذي استند في تصعيد عدوانه وإرهابه في العقود الأخيرة إلى ازدياد الحضور العسكري الأميركي في المنطقة بعد احتلال العراق وافغانستان وأجزاء من شمال وشرق سورية.. لا سيما أنّ الانسحاب الأميركي المحتوم، من سورية والعراق، سوف يعطي دفعاً قوياً للمقاومة ضد الاحتلال الصهيوني، ويؤدي إلى نشوء بيئة جديدة لمصلحة قوى المقاومة تحاصر كيان الاحتلال لأول مرة منذ اغتصاب فلسطين عام 1948..

رابعاً، ستكون الولايات المتحدة مجبرة على البحث عن تسويات للصراعات في المنطقة للحد من آثار وتداعيات تراجع نفوذها على الكيان الصهيوني والأنظمة والقوى التابعة لها، إنْ في اليمن أو لبنان.. أو على صعيد الصراع العربي الصهيوني من خلال إحياء حلّ الدولتين إلخ… بما يضمن حماية أمن ووجود الكيان وهذه الأنظمة والقوى واستطراداً ضمان استمرار ما تبقى من النفوذ الأميركي من خلال الكيان الصهيوني والأنظمة والقوى التابعة للولايات المتحدة.. ولهذا من الطبيعي ان يسود الإحساس بالقلق في دوائر صنع القرار في تل أبيب وبعض العواصم العربية الموالية لواشنطن، بعد مشاهدتهم الانسحاب الأميركي المذلّ من أفغانستان…

Russian Return to the Middle East

Visual search query image

21 Jul 21 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Alexander Dugin

Today it is common wisdom to claim that Russia is returning to the Middle East. Some regard it with hate, the others with suspicion, the third with hope.

But before any evaluation according to interests and positions of different players and observers, we need first to clarify how Russia returns? What represents contemporary Russia on the new map of balance of world powers – especially regarding the Middle East?

Visual search query image

In the last 50 years, Russia has thrice changed radically its geopolitical and ideological status. During the Soviet period in the context of a bipolar world, Russia was undoubtfully a geopolitical superpower, the stronghold of Land Power, and the center of universal communist ideology, seeking to gain the mortal fight with the capitalist system, for the global control on the human societies on a planetary scale. The opposite camp – NATO States – represented geopolitically Sea Power and liberal ideology. Geopolitics and ideology, interests and values were densely intertwined forming two totalities – two blocks, two projects for humanity claiming to evict sooner or later the opponent. 

During this period the Soviet Union effectively was present in the Middle East – both as the power geopolitically opposing the capitalist West in most of regional conflicts, but at the same time supporting movements and parties that had in their programs and doctrines something that resonated roughly with the Left – secularism, progressivism, anti-capitalism, and anti-colonialism. The concrete politic of USSR in the region with a mostly religious population varied from the direct support of communist and socialists parties (not too influential and powerful) to pragmatic alliances with nationalist and anticolonial movement when they were not too religious.

So the function of the USSR in the Middle East was based on this two side scheme: geopolitical interests of USSR as great continental power (realist approach) combined with orientation to reach the goal of promoting communist World Revolution (idealist approach). We should consider this paradigm carefully because it shows two distinct cornerstones in the Soviet strategy. They were merged and intertwined in the whole complex but they were nevertheless different by nature and structure.

For example, this paradigm explains why USSR avoided dealing with anti-Western and anti-capitalist movements in the Middle East that were deeply affected by Islam and has religious values at their core. Salafism, Ikhwans, or Shiits were regarded by Soviets by mistrust. For the same reason, USSR itself provoked the disbelief inside these currents.

The Western pole had during the bipolar period a symmetric structure. The pure geopolitical interests (Sea Power) with its inherent scenarios repeating more or less literally force lines of old British imperialism were coupled with liberal ideology, always choosing in regional issues, the opposite side to socialist, leftists or anticolonial forces presumably naturally supported by Soviets.

The crucial moment comes with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was the fall of the geopolitics of Land Power. The zone of influence of the core Heartland of Eurasia has shrunk radically on three circles. 

·       The large domain of influence including Latin America, Africa, and South Asia

·       The Warsaw Treaty Organization

·       The Soviet Union itself split into 15 parts.

In the realm of ideology, the change was yet more profound because Moscow has totally abandoned Marxism and embraced liberal capitalist ideology.

It was the end of bipolarism – in geopolitics and ideology. Russia has refused to continue to represent the second pole as an alternative, and accepted with Eltsine the role of periphery of the Same.

We need to remember that collapse of USSR as an ideological system was not accompanied by the symmetric abandoning by the USA and Europe of their liberal-capitalist ideology. The end of the cold war happened by the voluntary self-annihilation of only one of the players – the Soviet East has rejected its ideology but the capitalist West did not. That’s how liberal globalism has shaped its form. The globalization in the unipolar world was necessary to the expansion of liberal ideology, accepted by all as some universal norm – hence human rights, parliamentarian democracy, civil society, free market, and other purely ideological dogmas have become necessary global standards, ideological standards secured and promoted by the globalization itself.

There was a unipolar moment (as Ch. Krauthammer called it) that started in 1991. 

In this period Russia has completely withdrawn from the Middle East. It was entirely engaged in inner problems balancing in the 90th on the edge of further collapse of Russia itself. But by pure inertia, some connections established during bipolarity were somehow conserved, as well as the image of Russia as a geopolitical alternative to the West; this image was still living in the societies of the Middle East. The unipolarity left the Arabic population one to one with the Atlanticist liberal West, which was finally free to affirm itself as a unique global player and the highest instance of the decision making. That is unipolarity and it affected the Middle East during the last 30 years culminating in a chain of color revolutions sponsored by the West in order to drown democracy, human rights, and liberalism in “retarded societies”.

The final purge of secular nationalist and somehow socialist regimes (as Baath parties in all its versions – in Iraq, Libya and Syria) has become inevitable – in the unipolar paradigm, there was no global symmetric power that would be capable to contend such processes and support anti-Western political systems and leaders.  

Talking about the second pole – USSR from now on was the hole.

During the last 20 years of Putin’s rule in Russia, the country has restored partly its power. In the clear contrast to Eltsine’s contemporary first term in office, Russia didn’t follow unconditionally any order of the West and led its own sovereign politics. But this time, Russia restores its force only as great geopolitical power – as Land Power, hence the concept of Eurasia, the Eurasianism in general.

But in the field of ideology in Russia, there is a kind of vacuum. The gap left by rejected communism is filled with pragmatic and syncretic conservatism with no hard line. That makes Putin’s Russia much more flexible. Russia represents today’s only geopolitical entity – more and more clearly opposed to the West (Sea Power) but without any clearly defined ideology. 

At the same time, modern Russia cannot any more pretend to be the second pole in the bipolar structure. To play this role Russia is too weak compared with the aggregated potential of the USA and NATO countries. But there is new China whose economic growth has made it comparable with the American economy and threats to overcome it. 

Hence Russia reaffirms itself not as the second pole in the new bipolar system, but as one of the few poles (more than 2!) in the context of multipolarity. Today Russia (militarily and on the level of geography and natural resources) and China (economically) already are two poles of something like a tripolar system. But India, the Islamic world, Latin America, and Africa can one day form other self-sufficient poles. So, the Russian geopolitics of the Great State evolves now in the totally new context of multipolarity. As usual, Russia is still the Land Power opposing Sea Power, but China is also the Land Power having exactly the same global opponent – the liberal West.

So, Russia returns to the Middle East in totally new conditions and with different functions. It is not a second pole opposing the West, but one of the few poles struggling against unipolarity in favor of multipolarity.

By the way, I explained these changes in my book “The Theory of Multipolar World” which was recently published in the USA by Arktos Publishers. 

Final remark: The Western pole today, as before, is keeping its ideological content intact. More than that – during unipolar moment – when it yet looked like as something sustainable – liberal ideology seemed so powerful and indisputable, that globalists themselves – having no more formal ideological enemies – started to purge the liberal ideology itself, trying to make it yet more liberal. Hence, the disproportional volume of the gender problem raised in the last two decades. (I dedicated my book “Fourth Political Theory” to the discussion of this argument)

So now, I suggest the Middle East readers to compare the function of two global players in the contemporary regional balance of powers. The return of Russia in the Middle East is the coming of Land Power trying to resist the pressure of unipolar West, but this time without any ideological replacement of one secular materialist ideology by the other, of one form of capitalist totalitarianism with the other – communist. Modern Russia has nothing to impose on Middle East peoples on the ideological level. It is enough to regard Russia as an ally and to resist the pressure of the unipolar globalist West. No matter what is the reason for the rejection of the West by the Muslim population – religious, economic, national, or others. Russia is essentially in the Middle East to secure multipolarity not insisting on what should come in exchange for liberalism. This realism and this flexibility open totally new historical opportunities to Russian-Arab friendship.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselev Moscow, April 28, 2021

April 28, 2021

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselev Moscow, April 28, 2021

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

We have available video in Russian and transcript in English.

Transcript:

Dmitry Kiselev: Our relations with the United States are really “hell”. Personally, I don’t recall them being at such a low ebb ever before. This is even worse than the Cold War times, in my opinion. Ambassadors have returned back to their home countries. What’s going to happen next? What is the possible scenario?

Sergey Lavrov: If it depended on us alone, we would gladly resume normal relations. The first possible step towards this, which I regard as obvious, is to zero out the measures restricting the work of Russian diplomats in the United States. It was as a response measure that we restricted the operations of American diplomats in Russia.

We proposed this to the Biden administration as soon as it had taken the oath and assumed office. I have mentioned the idea to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. I did not try to press it; I just said that an obvious way to normalise our relations would be to zero out the measures initiated by Barack Obama. Several weeks before leaving office, he was so annoyed he virtually slammed the door by seizing Russian property in violation of all the Vienna conventions and throwing Russian diplomats out. This has caused a chain reaction.

We patiently sat back for a long time, until the summer of 2017, before taking any response measures. The Trump administration asked us to disregard the excessive measures taken by the outgoing Obama administration. However, Donald Trump’s team failed to normalise the situation, and so we had to take reciprocal measures. But the Americans have not stopped there.

We can see that the Biden administration continues to go downhill, although US President Biden said during his conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin soon after his inauguration, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me that they are thoroughly reviewing their relations with Russia, hoping that this would clarify many things. However, instead they adopted new sanctions, which triggered not simply a mirror response on our part. Our response was asymmetrical, just as we had warned them on numerous occasions. It has to do, in part, with a considerable disparity in the number of diplomats and other personnel of the US diplomatic missions in Russia, which is way above the number of Russian diplomats in the United States.

As for the strategic picture of our relations, I hope that Washington is aware, just as Moscow is, of our responsibility for global stability. There are not only the problems of Russia and the United States, which are complicating our citizens’ lives and their contacts, communications, businesses and humanitarian projects, but also differences that are posing a serious risk to international security in the broadest possible meaning of the word.

You remember how we responded to the outrage that took place during Joe Biden’s interview with ABC. You are also aware of how President Putin reacted to President Biden’s proposal of a meeting. We have taken a positive view of this, but we would like to understand all aspects of this initiative, which we are currently analysing.

Nothing good will come out of this, unless the United States stops acting as a sovereign, as President Putin said during his Address to the Federal Assembly, accepts the futility of any attempts to revive the unipolar world or to create an architecture where all Western countries would be subordinate to the United States and the Western camp would work together to “rally” other countries across the world against China and Russia, admits that it was for a purpose that the UN Charter sealed such principles as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and sovereign equality of states, and simply honours its commitments and starts talking with us, just as with any other country, on the basis of respect for each other and for a balance of interests, which must be established. President Putin said this clearly in his Address, pointing out that Russia is always open to broad international agreements if they suit our interests. But we will harshly respond to any attempts to cross the red line, which we ourselves will determine.

Dmitry Kiselev: Would it be realistic to expect them to become aware of this and stop acting as a sovereign? Hope is fine, but the reality is completely different.

Sergey Lavrov: I have not expressed any hope. I just mentioned the conditions on the basis of which we will be ready to talk.

Dmitry Kiselev: And what if they refuse?

Sergey Lavrov: It will be their choice. This means that we will be living in conditions of a Cold War, or even worse, as you have already mentioned. In my opinion, tension did run high during the Cold War and there were numerous high-risk conflict situations, but there was also mutual respect. I believe that this is lacking now.

There have been some schizophrenic notes in the statements made by some of the Washington officials. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said just a while ago that sanctions against Russia would be continued, that they are producing, by and large, a desired effect, and that their objective is not to “escalate” with Russia. Even I am at a loss about how to comment on this. I hope anyone can see that such statements are doing no credit to those who are upholding and promoting this policy.

Dmitry Kiselev: I had a chance to hear an opinion – perhaps even a commonplace opinion, to some extent, in certain circles – to the effect that diplomats are doing a poor job, that we are constantly digging in our heels, that our position is inflexible and non-elastic, and this is the reason why our relations are poor.

Sergey Lavrov: Are you alluding to circles inside this country?

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, inside this country.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, I also read these things. Thankfully, this country protects freedom of speech much better than many Western countries, including the United States. I read the opposition’s online resources and newspapers, and I think that perhaps these people have a right to express their point of view that consists in the following: “If we refrained from disputing with the West, we’d have Parmesan cheese and lots more things that we are sincerely missing; but for some reason, they have cut short food purchases in the West [they do not even explain that this was done in response], they have stopped buying food and gone into import substitution, thus increasing the price of food.”

You know, this is a narrow, lopsided view taken entirely from the standpoint of creature comforts, a choice between a television set and a fridge. If they think it essential to accept US values, I would like to remind them about what US President John Kennedy, the greatest US President to my mind, once said: “Don’t think what your country can do for you. Think what you can do for your country.” This is a radical distinction from today’s liberal views, where personal wellbeing and personal feelings alone are the things that matter.

The promoters of these philosophical approaches, as I see it, are not just unaware of what our genetic code is all about, but are trying in every way to undermine it. For, apart from the desire to live well, to be well-fed, to be confident that one’s children, friends and relatives are well too, a feeling of national pride always played an equally important role in what we did throughout our one thousand years’ history. If someone thinks that these values are of no importance for him or her, as it is [politically] correct to say now, it is their choice, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority of our people have a different opinion.

Dmitry Kiselev: Are you counting on a meeting with Antony Blinken? When can this meeting be held, and will it take place at all in the foreseeable future?

Sergey Lavrov: When we were talking over the phone, I congratulated him in keeping with the diplomatic etiquette. We exchanged a few appraisals of the [current] situation. The talk was, I feel, well-meaning, calm and pragmatic. When our US colleagues have completed staffing their Department of State, we will be prepared to resume contacts – naturally, on the understanding that we will engage in a search for mutually acceptable arrangements on many problems, starting from the functioning of the diplomatic missions and ending with strategic stability and many other things. US and Russian business communities are concerned with expanding their cooperation, something that the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce has recently told us. We have concluded by stating that there will be some joint multilateral events, on whose sidelines we will be able, as chance offers, to talk. But no signals have come from the US so far. Speaking about the schedule of events, Russia will be taking over the Arctic Council chairmanship from Iceland three weeks from now. An Arctic Council ministerial meeting is scheduled to take place in Reykjavík on May 20-21. If Secretary Blinken leads the US delegation, I will, of course, be prepared to talk with him, if he is interested.  Given that we will chair the Arctic Council for the next two years, I have informed our Iceland colleagues that I will attend this ministerial meeting.

Dmitry Kiselev: Is there any certainty as to who will definitely join the list of unfriendly states?

Sergey Lavrov: The Government of Russia is attending to this on instructions from President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We are participating in this work, as are other respective agencies.  I would not like to jump the gun right now.  We are reluctant to be indiscriminate and put on that list just any country that will say somewhere “something wrong” about Russia. Our decision will be based, of course, on a deep-going analysis of the situation and on whether we see opportunities to have a dialogue with that country in a different way. If we come to the conclusion that there is no chance of this, then, I think, the list will, of course, be periodically extended. But this is not a “dead” paper. As is only natural, it will be revised in tune with how our relations develop with this or that state.

Dmitry Kiselev: When will the public be able to read this list?

Sergey Lavrov: Soon, I think. The Russian Government has concrete assignments. We understand the criteria that are guiding us in this work. So, I think, the wait will not be very long now.

Dmitry Kiselev: Will the unfriendly states be banned from hiring local workforce?

Sergey Lavrov: There will be a ban on hiring any physical persons whether Russian or foreign.

Dmitry Kiselev: Is this the only measure with regard to unfriendly states or some others are in the offing?

Sergey Lavrov: At this stage, this is the concrete aim set in the executive order signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

Dmitry Kiselev: Donbass is another subject. Tensions have continued to escalate there since early 2021, and it appears that they have subsided a little since US President Joe Biden called President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. In my show News of the Week, I noted that US military guarantees to Ukraine had turned out to be a bluff. Nevertheless, shootouts continue, and they are using banned large-calibre weapons. It seems like this peace is not very different from war, and that the balance is highly unstable. Over 500,000 Russian citizens now live in Donbass. Will there be a war?

Sergey Lavrov: War can and should be avoided, if this depends on us and on the self-defence fighters, as far as we understand their principled approaches. I cannot speak and make guesses on behalf of the Ukrainian party and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky because, by all indications, his main goal is to stay in power. He is ready to pay any price, such as pandering to neo-Nazis and ultra-radicals who continue to brand the Donbass self-defence fighters as terrorists. Our Western colleagues should reassess the developments that have taken place since February 2014.  None of these districts attacked the rest of Ukraine. They were branded as terrorists, and an anti-terrorist operation was launched against them and then another operation involving “joint forces.”. But we do know for sure that they have no desire to make war on representatives of the Kiev regime.

I have repeatedly told our Western colleagues, who are totally biased in their assessment of current developments, and who unconditionally defend Kiev’s actions, that Russian journalists and war correspondents working on the other side of the demarcation line show an objective picture. They work in trenches there almost without respite, and they provide daily news reports. These reports show the feelings of the people living in these territories that are cut off from the rest of Ukraine by an economic blockade, where children and civilians are being regularly killed, and where the civilian infrastructure, schools and kindergartens are being destroyed. I asked our Western colleagues why they don’t encourage their media outlets to organise the same work on the left side of the demarcation line, so that the scale of damage there can be assessed and to see which facilities have been the hardest hit.

As for the recent developments, when we openly announced the military exercises in the Southern and Western military districts – we made no secret of that, you remember the shouts about the alleged Russian build-up on the border with Ukraine. Just take a look at the terms used: we speak about drills in the Southern and Western military districts, while they say that Russia is amassing troops on the Ukrainian border. And when the drills ended and we made the relevant announcement, the West claimed maliciously that Russia had to back off, to withdraw. This is an example of wishful thinking.

This is reminiscent of the situation with the G7: every time they meet they announce that Russia will not be invited to the group. We have stated on numerous occasions that we will never re-join it, that there will not be any G8, and that this is a thing of the past. However, continued references to this subject, as well as claims that Russia has “rolled back” and has ordered its troops to “return to their barracks” shows, of course, that in this instance the West wants above all to take advantage of this situation to prove that it has the last word and the dominant place in modern international relations. This is regrettable.

The subject of a settlement in Ukraine has been discussed by President Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The other day President Putin spoke about it with President of France Emmanuel Macron. The issue was also raised during a recent conversation with US President Joe Biden. The situation is clear, as I see it. The patrons of President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team refuse to make him honour the Minsk Agreements, even though they are aware of the futility of trying to use military force; they have heard the signals sent from Donetsk and Lugansk about their readiness to defend their land, their homes and their people who refuse to live by the laws being enforced by neo-Nazis.

President Putin has said clearly that we will never abandon the people of Donbass, who are standing up to the openly radical neo-Nazi regime. President Zelensky keeps saying in his interviews that there are no problems with the Russian language or the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and that he is willing to discuss all these subjects with President Putin. It is a shame perhaps that a person I have always regarded as clever says that the Russian language and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have no problems in Ukraine. I have no doubt that he is very well aware of the situation. Maybe nothing at all is being reported to him, but in that case he is living in a dream world. But the West has definitely sent its signals to Zelensky.

As you have mentioned, it would be senseless to pin hopes on US military assistance. This has always been clear to everyone. If anyone entertained such illusions, such advisers are good for nothing in any government, including the government of Mr Zelensky. Regrettably, the West continues to try to convince us that the Minsk Agreements should be mitigated and the sequence of the actions set out in them changed. Zelensky says he likes the agreements, but only if it is all the other way round, that they first take full control of these territories, including the border with Russia, and only then deal with the elections, amnesty and a special status for these territories. It is clear that if they did this, if they were allowed to do this, there would be a massacre. The West is unable or unwilling to force Zelensky to comply with the Minsk Agreements strictly in accordance with the sequence set out in them, which does not permit any double interpretation and has been formulated unambiguously from the first to the last step. Control of the border is the very last step to be taken after these territories receive a special status, which must be sealed in the Constitution of Ukraine, after free elections are held there and their results are recognised as such by the OSCE.

Of course, there must also be total amnesty. Not in the way envisaged by the Poroshenko government or the current regime, which only want to approve an  amnesty on an individual basis for those who are proved to have committed no crime. This is yet another misinterpretation. The Minsk Agreements stipulate an amnesty for those who took part in fighting on both sides, without any transitional justice process, which our Western colleagues are now beginning to discuss.

I believe that the brunt of responsibility lies with the West, because only the West can make President Zelensky honour the commitments which his predecessor signed and he himself signed in Paris in December 2019 when he, the presidents of Russia and France and the Chancellor of Germany reaffirmed the absence of any alternative to the strict observance of the Minsk Agreements, and he pledged to amend the legislation and the Ukrainian Constitution to formalise the special status of Donbass on a permanent basis.

Dmitry Kiselev: Many people are wondering why Russia fails to recognise Donbass. It did recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is an inner “lobby” in Russia, even among my fellow journalists, who are demanding that we recognise Donbass – the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic. Why are we failing in this?

Sergey Lavrov: You are right that there is an analogy with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But there is just one exception: no agreements similar to the Minsk Package of Measures were signed in those countries, when Saakashvili’s aggression against Tskhinval and the positions of peacekeepers, including Russian peacekeepers, occurred. The Medvedev-Sarkozy document was discussed there, and it implied a number of steps. But it was not signed by Georgia. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, after reaching an agreement with us in Moscow, took a plane to Tbilisi to ensure Saakashvili’s support for the document. Saakashvili signed it, but he deleted all the key provisions.  Mr Sarkozy attempted to represent this as a compromise, but everyone understood everything. It had a preamble saying that the Russian Federation and the French Republic, desirous of normalising the situation in South Caucasus, propose to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia the following:  a ceasefire. Saakashvili crossed out the heading, leaving just the first and subsequent items. Since then, the West has been demanding that we comply with these agreements. This is just an example.

In the case of Donbass, the situation was different. The 17-hour long negotiations in Minsk involving the Normandy format leaders (President Franсois  Hollande of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Petr Poroshenko of Ukraine, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin) produced a result, which was endorsed, two days later, by the UN Security Council without any amendments or doubts that it should be implemented.

Today, the moral and international legal truth is on our side and on the side of the Donbass militias.  I think that we must not let Mr Zelensky and his entire team “off the hook,” writhing as they might. Mr Zelensky’s statement is a fine specimen (made when he had all but given up hope of turning the Minsk Agreements upside down) to the effect that they are no good, albeit necessary, because the saving of the Minsk Agreements guarantees that the sanctions against Moscow will be preserved as well. We asked the West, what they think about this. They just look aside shamefacedly and say nothing.  I think it is a shame and a disgrace, when an international legal document is held up to mockery in this manner.  The West, which has co-authored this document and supported it at the UN Security Council, is demonstrating absolute helplessness.

Dmitry Kiselev: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky cannot get a call through to President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who is not picking up the receiver. Your Ukrainian counterpart, Dmitry Kuleba, cannot get a call through to you. What does this mean? Why is this?

Sergey Lavrov: This means that they are seeking to revise the Minsk Agreements and represent Russia as a party to the conflict even in this area of their activities.

Requests that came in until recently both from my counterpart Kuleba and President Zelensky dealt with the topic of settlement in Donbass. We replied that this [topic] should be discussed not with us, but with Donetsk and Lugansk, as you agreed under the Minsk Agreements.   The agreements say in black and white that the key stages of settlement should be the subject of consultations and coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. When they say that a “nasty situation is looming large” at the line of contact and want to talk to Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, they are barking up the wrong tree. Meeting with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko in the Kremlin the other day, President Putin made it amply clear that if they wanted to talk about this, the address should be different.  If our colleagues, including President Zelensky, want to discuss how to normalise bilateral relations, they are welcome. We are always ready to talk about this.

Dmitry Kiselev: There is no reply or acceptance so far, is there?

Sergey Lavrov: I heard that Mr Zelensky instructed the chief of his office, Andrey Yermak, to come to terms on the timeframes. The location is of no importance, because each day of delay means new deaths.

Incidentally, let us take the fact that people are dying and what is happening at the line of contact. Over the last couple of weeks, Kiev has been insisting quite aggressively on the need to reaffirm the ceasefire. All of its Western patrons have also been urging us to influence Donbass so that the ceasefire takes hold in earnest. Speaking on the phone with President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel last week, President Putin reminded them of the facts. And the facts are as follows: In July 2020, the Contact Group reached what was perhaps the most serious and effective ceasefire agreement, because it contained a verification mechanism.  It implied a sequence of actions, primarily each side’s commitment not to return fire immediately on the spot but report the violation to the top command and wait for its order on how to act, to wit, whether to respond in kind or to negotiate an arrangement under the mechanisms created for commander-to-commander liaison on the ground.   This agreement, as it was implied, was translated into military orders issued by the DPR and the LPR. These orders were published. Kiev pledged to do the same, but did nothing. Instead it started fiddling with words again. Instead of performing the obligation to report each shelling attack to the top command and get orders from them, they began replacing this clear-cut arrangement with confused formulas, although they were blamed for this by Donetsk and Lugansk at all subsequent meetings, and Russian representatives in the Contact Group, too, repeatedly said as much. The same happened in the Normandy Format.  This is what Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak has been doing all these months in contacts with his French and German colleagues. The head of President Zelensky’s Office, Andrey Yermak, was representing Ukraine. I read transcripts of their talks. It was like talking to a brick wall. They were at cross purposes: the Ukrainian leaders had obviously decided that it was necessary to revive the ceasefire story. It was shameful and unseemly.

It was a great pleasure to watch the Servant of the People series, when no one suspected that its main character would follow this path in real life. But he took the wrong path. If Mr Zelensky watched the series again today and tried to fathom the convictions of the person he had impersonated so well on screen, and later compared those convictions with what he is doing now, he would, perhaps, have achieved one of the most effective transformations.  I do not know when he was himself and when he underwent a transformation. But the contrast is striking.

Dmitry Kiselev: Another subject is the Czech Republic. What was it? How are we to understand it?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot speculate on this because I do not understand intellectually what they wanted. One can watch it like a not too elegant television series.

This story is full of schizophrenic components. Czech president Milos Zeman says it should be sorted out, not denying the possibility of a subversive act by foreign agents, but suggesting taking into account the story told by the Czech leadership, including the incumbent Prime Minister Andrej Babis (the then Minister of Finance, in 2014), that it was the result of negligence by the depot owners. President Zeman only suggested that consideration should be given to the case that has never been disproven over the seven years. He is accused of high treason now. President of the Senate Milos Vystrcil said that by stating the need to investigate all the leads President Zeman had disclosed a state secret. Is this not schizophrenia? A pure case, I think.

There needs to be an investigation into what was stored in the depot. The German media said that they kept antipersonnel mines prohibited by the convention signed, inter alia, by the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. A lot of questions remain.

Dmitry Kiselev: Indeed, how could it happen that a certain Bulgarian citizen supplying antipersonnel mines (by all appearances they were found there), controlled a depot in the Czech Republic which was not then under the control of the government?

Sergey Lavrov: It so happens.

Dmitry Kiselev: Maybe the Czechs would be better to start with themselves?

Sergey Lavrov: Probably. Or follow the example of Ukraine where too a vast number of armed people, weapons and ammunition are controlled not by the Ukrainian armed forces, but by “volunteer battalions.” It is a trend where the state proves its inability to ensure, if you like, its monopoly over the use of force.

Dmitry Kiselev: Ukraine is one thing but the Czech Republic is a member of the EU. It is bound by other international commitments than those of Ukraine and presents itself differently.

Sergey Lavrov: Above all, in addition to the aforementioned conventions (Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, they are all parties to it), the EU has its own quite strict rules that do not encourage but rather prohibit any actions like supplies and sending forces to regions where there are conflicts.

Dmitry Kiselev: What do you think about the so-called British files? This looks like an orchestrated information campaign against Russia.

Sergey Lavrov: As before, the British continue to play a very active, serious and subversive role in relations between Russia and Europe. Britain has withdrawn from the EU but it has not slackened its activities there. On the contrary, it has been trying to exert maximum influence on the EU countries’ positions towards Moscow. This is not surprising at all.

You don’t even need to go very far back in history. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium. The inquest began in one way, and then the process was classified because it was necessary to analyse the materials of intelligence services. And then they announced the verdict, but the materials involved in the case have never been made public. As Arnold Schwarzenegger used to say, “Trust me.” I would rather side with Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify.” But they don’t allow us to verify; they only demand that we trust them.

In 2014, the Malaysian Boeing was downed. They formed a team comprising a narrow group of four countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine. They did not even invite Malaysia, the country that lost the plane. These four countries have agreed, as it has since transpired, that any information would only be revealed on the basis of consensus. Ukraine, where the disaster took place, was given the right of veto, while Malaysia was invited to join the group only six months later. The black boxes, which the self-defence forces provided to Malaysia, were analysed in London. I don’t recall them making the information public.

In 2018, there were the Skripals and the “highly likely.” Nobody knows to this day how the Skripals survived the alleged poisoning, why the police officer who worked with them did not display any symptoms of poisoning, and why the woman involved died while her partner did not get sick. There are very many questions.

In 2020, we had the case of Alexey Navalny. He was flying from Tomsk to Moscow, but the plane landed in Omsk. Nobody on board the plane or in the Omsk hospital got sick. A bottle of water [from his hotel room] was taken by Maria Pevchikh to Germany on the plane that transported Navalny – nobody knows anything. Doctors at the Charité hospital did not find any traces of poison, but they were found at the Bundeswehr. German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer demanded transparency in connection with our recent military drills in the southern and western regions of Russia. But we announced the drills beforehand, whereas the Bundeswehr, whose experts allegedly found traces of Navalny’s poisoning, is keeping information from us. Our request for the results of tests and biomaterials has been denied.

After that there was a long story involving the OPCW. It allegedly took part in collecting samples from Navalny. According to the remarkable information from Berlin, German experts were present during the collection of the samples, but OPCW experts are not mentioned at all. We are trying to sort this information out. Nobody wants to explain anything. Germany is directing us to the OPCW, which says that the request came from Germany and so we should ask them. It is a conspiracy of silence. We have seen this happen in crime movies about bandit groups operating all over the country after the war. This is regrettable.

Getting back to Britain, we can see that London is continuing its anti-Russia policy. Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Richard Moore said a few days ago that Russia is “a declining power” whose allegedly “reckless behaviour” needs to be dealt with. This is inherent arrogance and a belief that they continue to rule the world. They are sending “signals” to us and propose establishing ties. In other words, they are not against communicating with us, but they are trying to discourage others from doing the same. This could be an aspiration for a monopoly of contacts and a desire to prove that they are superior to others.

Dmitry Kiselev: Speaking about decline, Britain is a perfect example of a declining empire “on which the sun never sets,” a small island in the North Sea with clouded prospects. To return to the Czech Republic, opinions within the country on the latest developments are totally inconsistent. There is no consensus, and nothing has yet been proven, but diplomats have been expelled. There has already been a result.

Sergey Lavrov: They claim that this is not the reason why our diplomats were expelled.  Two statements were made on the same day. They appeared to be interconnected. Prague is now trying to prove that there is no connection between them. They have announced that the explosions were organised by Petrov and Boshirov, the ubiquitous Russian suspects. It’s like blaming them for the sinking of the Titanic. The same day it was announced that 18 diplomats would have to leave the country. The majority of people accepted this as “punishment” for the 2014 explosions. After that, the Czech authorities said they would track down Petrov and Boshirov and issue an arrest warrant for them. As for the 18 diplomats, they identified them as spies. They expelled them because they turned out to be intelligence agents. No proof that any of these 18 diplomats are guilty of illegal activities has been provided. It is not surprising that former Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that the country’s authorities were like a tiny pooch barking at a huge dog, hoping that the big boys (the United States and Britain) would throw their weight behind them. Do you remember a time from your childhood when local bullies waited until dusk to demand 15 kopeks from a smaller kid, and if he refused they summoned the “big boys.” The logic is very similar. This is regrettable.

We never schemed against our Czech colleagues. Why would we need to blow up that warehouse? Some people say that the Russians were angry that the Bulgarian planned to send munitions to Ukraine. This is a completely schizophrenic view of the situation. This is impossible to imagine. But the machinery has been set in motion. I hope our Czech colleagues will come to their senses after all and will take a look at what they have done. If reason prevails, we will be ready to gradually rebuild the conditions for our diplomatic missions to function normally.  If not, we will make do. We know how we will be working. We don’t have to ingratiate ourselves with anyone.

Dmitry Kiselev: Working on what?

Sergey Lavrov: We know how we will be working in the Czech Republic and other countries. Pinpoint attacks are being made against Russia in the Baltics, Poland and, recently, Romania. Bucharest has added, though, that its decision was in no way connected to the EU’s position. This came as a surprise. They just decided to send that Russian diplomat back home. Why? They have not explained.

Dmitry Kiselev: It is notable that Germany has not supported the Czech Republic.

Sergey Lavrov: I have read the relevant statement by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. He spoke like a responsible politician. It is not always that the German Foreign Ministry takes such a balanced and astute position. Many of its other statements have indiscriminately supported injustice, for example when Ukraine adopted sanctions against the Opposition Platform – For Life political party, its leader Viktor Medvedchuk and several of his associates, all of them Ukrainian citizens.  The German Foreign Ministry expressed its approval, saying that this was fully in keeping with OSCE principles. This is absurd.

Therefore, what Heiko Maas said the other day is a responsible political statement. It has not smoothed over differences but pointed out the importance of maintaining dialogue and looking for agreements, since we live side by side.

Dmitry Kiselev: Recently in China, you said we needed to look for alternatives to the SWIFT international payment system, and Russia was preparing for this. Is there a specific timeframe, and what stage of the preparations are we at?

Sergey Lavrov: Many have already spoken about this. This is happening because in recent years, the West has been looking for more ways of infringing on Russia’s legitimate interests. Now they are openly mentioning the possibility of disconnecting our country from SWIFT. Responsible politicians just have to think of ways to play it safe.

In addition to these statements, the United States is increasingly abusing the role of the dollar in the international monetary system, using certain countries’ dependence on dollar settlements to limit their competitive opportunities – China and other states they dislike. China, Russia, and Turkey are now looking for opportunities to reduce their dependence on the dollar by switching to alternative currencies, or even better – by making settlements in their national currencies. The responsible agencies, including in our country, are thinking about how to prevent damage to the economy and the financial system if some hotheads actually disconnect us from SWIFT. Russia launched a national payment card system a few years ago; MIR cards have been in use in Russia since then. The system is already developing ties with its foreign counterparts, as similar cards are being issued in China and Japan. It is also building ties with the internationally accepted payment card Maestro.

As regards the SWIFT system, specifically, the Central Bank of Russia recently introduced and continued to develop a system for the transfer of financial messages. It is quite popular. I think we need to support and strengthen this in every possible way to ensure we do not depend on anyone. Let me emphasise that we are not trying to self-isolate. We want to be part of the international community. Part of a community where justice and democracy work. We have discussed the problems of democracy with the West. But once they are asked to come to an agreement, to declare that democracy should triumph in international relations, too, they lose their enthusiasm. They are full of lectures on internal democratic processes, but when it comes to the international arena, we get raised eyebrows. Here, allegedly, there are established ‘practices’ that ‘Russia and China are trying to implement’ (it’s about this). But in reality, Moscow and Beijing only want to preserve the principles of the UN Charter, according to which everyone is equal and must seek agreement.

One needs to have a safety net in terms of payment systems and transfer of financial messages. We have one. I hope it will grow stronger and be able to provide a guarantee if suddenly, contrary to our desire to cooperate with everyone, the West discriminates against Russia, abusing its current position in the international economic and monetary systems, in this situation, we really cannot afford to depend on anyone.

Dmitry Kiselev: So the Central Bank’s system for transfer of financial messages is the budding alternative to SWIFT?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not an expert. I don’t know how reliably and effectively it provides a full warranty. But the groundwork is already there. I am confident that the Government and the Central Bank must do everything to make it reliable and guarantee us complete independence and protection from more damage that might be inflicted on us.

Dmitry Kiselev: In a conversation with your Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, you proposed an initiative to create a coalition of countries affected by illegal sanctions. To what extent has this project progressed? What countries could join it?

Sergey Lavrov: I would not put it like that. We have been working at the UN for a long time to end the practice of unilateral illegitimate sanctions such as embargoes, blockades and other restrictions. We have been working for a number of decades to lift the embargo the United States declared on Cuba. The respective resolution is supported by more than 190 votes annually, with only the United States and one small island nation voting against it.

However, since this practice of unilateral restrictions began to be widely used (started by Barack Obama, expanded by Donald Trump, and applied to this day), a large group of countries voted in the UN to establish the position of Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and their impact on the civilian population and the socioeconomic situation in a particular country. Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan is a citizen of Belarus. This institution, created by the UN General Assembly, is working and circulating reports. I think it is a very useful step.

Another specific course of action is now being developed in New York to the same end, as you mentioned, to counter illegal unilateral measures. It is a group in support of the UN Charter. Nothing revolutionary – just in response to our Western colleagues forming flagrantly non-universal groups.

US President Joe Biden has put forth the idea of ​​holding a Summit for Democracy. Naturally, the Americans will recruit the participants and will judge who is worthy to be called a democracy and who is not.

Also, in recent years, our French and German colleagues have being making calls to ensure freedom of the media through the Alliance for Multilateralism, a group they announced outside the framework of universal institutions. They rallied more than thirty states under its banners even though there is UNESCO, where the same topic is discussed by everyone.

Or, there was an appeal in support of international humanitarian law. Law is universal. It is the responsibility of the UN bodies. But again, they recruited about 50 states.

Such appeals have nothing to do with universal bodies, but they cover the agenda that is discussed at a universal level. They place that agenda into a framework where they are more comfortable negotiating with those who obey, and then they present it as the ultimate truth.

This movement against illegitimate unilateral actions is much broader than just sanctions.

Dmitry Kiselev: Can this movement be formalised by membership?

Sergey Lavrov: The membership is in the UN. This is the difference: we are not creating anything against anyone. In the Asia-Pacific region, we would like to leave everything as it is. ASEAN has its partners, while anyone else can join security discussions. The logic of the West acts against this. They are implementing the Indo-Pacific Strategy with its declared goal of containing China and isolating Russia.

The same is happening at the UN. They create various partnerships on topics that need to be discussed as part of the UN agenda. We insist that everyone must fulfil their obligations under the UN Charter, not scatter the global agenda across their compartments, only to present it later as the international community’s opinion.

Dmitry Kiselev: A recent update: the Americans confirmed they had made efforts to prevent Brazil from buying the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. Brazil indeed refused, even though the coronavirus situation in that country is simply awful. What is your assessment?

Sergey Lavrov: This does not surprise me. The Americans are not even embarrassed to do things like that; they are not hiding it.

When former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travelled to Africa, he openly and publicly called on his colleagues at a press conference to cut off trade with Russia and China because these countries pursue selfish goals. Right, the United States trades with African states for the sole benefit of their peoples, of course.

As for the vaccine issue, a protest movement kicked off in Brazil against that decision. If the Americans have admitted they were behind it, that means they are true to their logic and believe everything is possible and permitted, and they can now openly dictate their will.

Not so long ago, French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a new type of world war, and that Russia and China were using vaccines as a weapon and means of propaganda. That rhetoric is now receding. Germany, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, is already seriously talking about the possibility of using the Russian vaccine.

We are not going to force anyone. I think life itself will set things straight. Vladimir Vysotsky said: “I always try to find the good in people. They will show the bad themselves.”

Dmitry Kiselev: A year ago, in an interview with our agency in the midst of the pandemic, you said you missed football. Are you back to sport yet?

Sergey Lavrov: In fact, I am. I did miss playing for a couple of weeks. We took a break and kept it low-key. But later, when we realised what precautions we could take, the games resumed. We play every Sunday.

The Brazilian fracture between the Expanding Universe and the new imperialist competition in South America

The Brazilian fracture between the Expanding Universe and the new imperialist competition in South America
Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.

April 05, 2021

By Fabio Reis Vianna for The Saker Blog

In an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine – one of the most prominent mouthpieces of US imperialism – , and signed by, among others, Marcus Hicks, former commander of the US Special Operations Command in Africa during the period 2017-2019, defends the idea that the increased competition between the great powers ignites a red alert that the United States should turn its attention to the African continent.

The main motivator of this concern would be the urgent need to limit the “malign influence” of the hegemon’s two major strategic rivals: Russia and China.

Citing the increased Sino-Russian presence on the African continent, in which Russia alone would have already established military agreements with at least 19 countries, and China, installed in 2017 its first international military base in Djibout.

It is worth noting, that although the Foreign Affairs article mentions that there was an ebb in the American presence during Donald Trump’s administration, in reality, and in a long-term look, since 2001 American foreign policy has turned more aggressively to Africa, and this posture has even been an incentive for a greater presence of other actors of the interstate system in that continent.

The American presence in Africa, justified by the excuse of fighting transnational terrorism, was therefore the trigger for an increase in the presence of other interstate actors, and consequently, of the imperialist competition that in this pandemic 2021 gains even more dramatic contours.

Although this article is specifically a defense of the American presence in Africa, it serves as a warning of how the American establishment is positioning itself in face of a phenomenon that has deepened considerably in recent years: the new imperialist race.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance to understand the role of South America in this complex power game.

Taking into consideration that the increase in competitive pressure in the world system has been accelerating considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has gained imperial contours after September 11, and has unveiled itself as, in fact, in a scenario of almost war with the advent of the pandemic, it is possible to deduce that the recent events in certain parts of South America definitely place it as a battleground of the current powers’ wider dispute for global hegemony.

Symptoms of this competitive phenomenon could be seen recently in insinuations that the Chinese are carrying out naval maneuvers in Argentinean waters (when in fact it was the Americans who in fact carried out exercises near the Brazilian coast), as well as in the intensification of the diplomatic crisis between Venezuela and Guyana.

There are many fracture points in South America, and perhaps the most visible and dangerous one lies over the Esequibo zone, a Guyanese territory of 159,000 square kilometers never recognized by Caracas.

In early March, Guyana accused Venezuela of having violated its airspace with the use of two Sukhoi SU 30 drones, of Russian origin. Caracas promptly refuted the accusations as false.

Repudiated by the Secretary of State for Falklands, Antarctica and the South Atlantic, Daniel Filmus, more recently, the publication of the new British defense plan – ratifying the decision to maintain a permanent military presence in the Falkland Islands – brought concerns to Buenos Aires.

The presence of foreign powers in South American territory is clear, and in light of the significant increase of competitive pressure in the world system – which has been gradually taking place since the disproportionate display of American military power against a defenseless Iraq in 1991 – the theory of the Expanding Universe is confirmed year after year, and in an increasingly dramatic way.

Contradicting the idea that a unipolar system, and therefore led and conducted by a single hegemon, would lead to Kant’s “perpetual peace,” the theory of the Expanding Universe supports the thesis that the global power game tends to reproduce itself ad infinitum as a continuously expanding, anarchic, and directionless universe.

Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the dispute is bipolar or multipolar: whoever is at the top of the system tends to expand his power even further – even if he is not necessarily being challenged at the moment, as is the case in the period right after the Soviet collapse, when the United States reigned absolute over the rest of the world.

The factual (and cruel) reality that comes to confirm the theory of the Expanding Universe could not fit into a more appropriate outfit than that of the present moment.

Just as 9/11 served as the perfect excuse for the expansion of the United States’ global power (in this specific case against an imaginary enemy – since the usual enemy, Russia, was temporarily out of the game), the Covid-19 pandemic serves today as a ladder for an unprecedented increase in competitive pressure in the interstate system.

Following this reasoning, and contrary to what Atlanticist analysts are saying, the pandemic crisis would be favoring only one country: the United States of America.

Not only because Silicon Valley technology companies have never profited as much as they do now, but the awakening of sovereigntist and militarist instincts brought about by the pandemic chaos has made possible the realization of the only fundamental and untouchable consensus of the currently divided US elites: the permanent and continuous reproduction and expansion of their military industrial complex. This expansion would be nothing more than the viability of the so-called Full Spectrum Dominance contained in the DOD Joint Vision 2020, published in the year 2000.

In this context, South America comes to play a new role in the global geopolitical chessboard, a role that the long period as a zone of peace under Anglo-Saxon influence would have softened.

With the increased competitive pressure caused by the pandemic event, which in other terms could be seen as the hegemon’s reaction to the entrance of new competitors in the system, came an increase or shock in the demand for energy resources.

In this scenario, we could exemplify the perspective of an expressive growth in the global demand for oil for the next 30 years, with China and India alone representing approximately 50% of all demand.

Considering that South America today can be considered the region with the largest oil (Venezuela) and Lithium (Bolivia) reserves on the planet – not to mention the Amazon forest and fresh water reserves (Brazil) – and in light of this global energy order in formation and dispute, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the new imperialist race between the great powers in the beginning of this century would be gradually turning to the region.

This situation is a wake-up call for a country in the region that is currently experiencing the greatest identity crisis in its entire history: Brazil.

Fractured internally since before the pandemic, the South American giant has never found itself so pressured and isolated internationally.

The systemic chaos that began with the Color Revolution of June 2013, and which has been deepening year after year until culminating in the election of Jair Bolsonaro (puppet president emerging from the white coup orchestrated by the consortium between the Armed Forces High Command and the U.S. government), finally goes into full short circuit after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic.

Since then the growing discontent of sectors of the local economic elites with the disastrous management of the health crisis by the current government ruled by the military junta is visible.

Threatened by external sanctions from all sides, the country that has surpassed the mark of 300,000 deaths, is experiencing an internal fracture unprecedented in its history.

Something little remembered, but already in October 2019, Portuguese-speaking writers Mia Couto and José Eduardo Agualusa, on a visit to Brazil, said they were impressed by the climate of local political animosity, comparing the South American giant to African countries like Mozambique and Angola during the pre-civil war period.

At the same time that military police officers in Rio de Janeiro organize marches dressed in suggestive black shirts in defense of President Jair Bolsonaro, military police officers in the state of Bahia are threatening to cause chaos with a riot against the local governor (Rui Costa, from the Workers’ Party, an opponent of Bolsonaro).

Amid escalating tensions, the arm-wrestling between government and parliament is intensifying, and in particular with regard to two issues of geopolitical relevance: 5G and the Sputnik V vaccine.

Even if it is not clear from the stories reported by the hegemonic Brazilian press, it is visible that the Bolsonaro government deliberately acts as a representative of US interests in Brazil.

The difficulties created for the approval of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, and the constant threat of exclusion of the Chinese technology giant Huawei from the great 5G auction in the country, reflect the current role of Brazil as a battleground of the great expansionist dispute of the world system in this beginning of the century.

The social fracture, and the deepening divide within the local elites expose the serious risk of a country that could spiral out of control at any moment.

The news that the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) has sent a letter to Mr. Joe Biden, and to his Special Climate Secretary John Kerry, requesting a direct channel of communication – and away from the Brazilian government – to deal with issues related to the Amazon, opens a very serious alert about something that, for those who know history, would not be new.

Bearing in mind that geopolitical competition between the great powers is usually concentrated in fracture zones of the world system, history teaches us that fractured societies – and weakened states – tend to become the object of divisive games in the hands of the great powers.

With all due respect to the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil – so mistreated and threatened by the current government – but the moment calls for a deep reflection on this.

Sino-US Dialogue in Alaska: Outcomes.

Sino-US Dialogue in Alaska: Outcomes.

March 23, 2021

by Zamir Awan for the Saker Blog

The first direct, high-level dialogue, under Joe Biden Administration, was held on 18-189 March 2021 in Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Chinese Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the dialogue.

After welcoming the Chinese guests, Secretary of state Mr. Blinken accused China of many issues, including Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyberattacks on the United States, and economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threatens the rules-based order that maintains global stability.

Director Yang responded that “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called rules-based international order. And the United States has its style — United States-style democracy –and China has the Chinese-style democracy. It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the World, to evaluate how the United States has advanced its own democracy. After decades of reform and opening up in China’s case, we have come a long way in various fields. In particular, we have engaged in tireless efforts to contribute to the peace and development of the World and to upholding the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter.”

“The wars in this World are launched by some other countries, which have resulted in massive casualties. But for China, what we have asked for, for other countries, is to follow a path of peaceful development, which is the purpose of our foreign policy. We do not believe in invading through the use of force, in toppling other regimes through various means, or massacring other countries’ people because all of those would only cause turmoil and instability in this World. And at the end of the day, all of those would not serve the United States well. So we believe that it is important for the United States to change its own image and stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the World. Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States, and they have various views regarding the government of the United States. In China, according to opinion polls, China’s leaders have the wide support of the Chinese people. So no attempt to — the opinion polls conducted in the United States show that China’s leaders have the support of the Chinese people. No attempt to smear China’s social system would get anywhere. Facts have shown that such practices would only lead the Chinese people to rally more closely around the Communist Party of China and work steadily towards the goals that we have set for ourselves.”

“Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan are an inalienable part of China’s territory. China is firmly opposed to U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs. We have expressed our staunch opposition to such interference, and we will take firm actions in response. On human rights, we hope that the United States will do better on human rights. China has made steady progress in human rights, and the fact is that there are many problems within the United States regarding human rights, which is admitted by the U.S. itself as well. The United States has also said that countries can’t rely on force in today’s World to resolve the challenges we face. And it is a failure to use various means to topple the so-called authoritarian states. And the challenges facing the United States in human rights are deep-seated. They did not just emerge over the past four years, such as Black Lives Matter. It did not come up only recently. So we do hope that for our two countries, it’s important that we manage our respective affairs well instead of deflecting the blame on somebody else in this World. We’ve had a confrontation in the past, and the result did not serve the United States well. China will pull through and has pulled through such confrontation.”

Outcomes:

China availing this opportunity has conveyed that China will not accept U.S. supremacy and will not accept dictation. China will not allow any country to interfere in its domestic issues. Generally speaking, the Chinese are well-mannered, polite, submissive, and friendly people. It seems that the U.S. has crossed all the limits where China have to take a firm and blunt stand and express their point of view so clearly. It is up to the U.S. administration to analyze the Chinese response and do their homework before meeting them again.

The World has conceived well that the U.S. can not sustain its hegemony anymore. It is no longer a unipolar world, and the U.S. is no longer a unique superpower. The U.S. needs to understand the emerging geopolitics and have to accept realities. It might need to share power with other rising nations and respect them. The U.S. must keep in mind the existence of other emerging nations’ potential while making any decision.

It is an established fact that the U.S., after enjoying the global leadership role for seven decades, may not sustain this status anymore. The U.S. is on the decline and, with every passing day, may decline further. Whereas China is a rising power and, with the passage of each day, may grow further. The time is on the Chinese side. If Americans are wise, they might give up confronting China and extend cooperation to be the beneficiary of Chinse rise. There exists enormous goodwill about America among the general public in China.

The American claim of promoting democracy and the law-based rule is no more trusted as the Americans are a supporter of all dictators in the oil-rich Gulf countries in the Middle-East. The U.S. was behind the toppling of the democratically elected legitimate Government of Mr. Adil Morsey in Egypt. Again, it was the U.S. who was among the first nations to support the dictator General Sissi in Egypt. American history is full of supporting dictators around the globe. Regarding law-based rule, it is just a joke. It was the U.S. that destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

Under the Trump Administration, America was deteriorated in respect of human rights violations, hate among various ethnicities in America. And official discriminatory laws were introduced against Muslims; immigration laws were biased. The pandemic was mismanaged, the economy was collapsed. President Trump harmed America so severely that it might take several decades to recover such losses. President Trump has offended some of his close allies too.

President Joe Biden’s remarks about President Putin were misconceived and may spoil the geopolitics further. More tensions between Russia and the U.S. are predictable visibly. It may cement China-Russia relations further.

Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).

Sitrep: The Unipolar moment is over; the Multipolar moment is here.

March 22, 2021

By Chris Faure for the Saker Blog

Shortly after Mr.Biden characterising Mr.Putin as a killer and more, Mr.Putin invited Biden for a public and live online  discussion, saying that it would be beneficial for both the N.American as well as the Russian people.

This morning we find this bluntly devastating shot across the bows from the Russian Foreign Affairs ministry.

The final sentence, not included in the image, reads as follows:  “Responsibility for this lies entirely with the United States.

Setting this in context, the contrast between Mr.Lavov’s ongoing visit to China, and the so-called ‘strategic’ meeting between the United States and China at the end of last week, cannot be more stark.

 #PhotoOfTheDay –  Sergey #Lavrov on his way to greet FM #WangYi in  China 
 #Lavrov: #China  is a truly strategic partner and a like-minded country for #Russia  Our cooperation on the international stage is having a stabilising effect on the global and regional situation.
#Lavrov: #Russia believes that our dialogue with #China based on trust and mutual respect should provide an example for other nations, including those that are trying to develop ties on different principles not based on equality.

At the very same time, Mr.Putin and Mr Shoigu are taking the air on the Taiga in Siberia.  I wonder if the western governments have figured out why now?

“ Vladimir #Putin is spending the weekend in #Siberia.  The President together with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu enjoys walking in the #taiga forest and riding an all-terrain vehicle.  Also, Sergei Shoigu showed the President his workshop.”

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/65178

In the next few hours we will receive Mr.Lavrov’s translated speeches from his China visit.  Some of it is already published.  Take a look at what Mr.Lavrov described as ‘dynamic cooperation“:

“We regard the new era of Russian-Chinese relations, which you have mentioned, primarily in the context of the broader situation on the international stage. It is undergoing a very deep transformation and the strengthening of the new centres of economic growth, financial might and political influence. Regrettably, the objective trend for a rise of a truly multipolar democratic world is being hindered by some Western countries led by the United States, which would like to preserve their domination of the global economy and international politics at all costs and to force their will and their demands on each and all. In response to this, Russia and China are promoting a constructive unification agenda. We want the architecture of international relations to be fair, democratic, capable of ensuring stability and based on broad interaction of states and their integration associations, just as we are doing together with our Chinese friends by promoting integration in Eurasia.

China is a truly strategic partner and a like-minded country for us. Our cooperation on the international stage is having a stabilising effect on the global and regional situation. Russia believes that our dialogue with China based on trust and mutual respect should provide an example for other countries, including those that are trying to develop ties with Russia and China on different principles that are not based on equality. This is not acceptable to us or our Chinese friends. We will continue developing our foreign policy constructively and flexibly, showing readiness for compromise but exclusively on the basis of mutual respect and a balance of interests.”

There is however a twist in this lovely tale and it is the one of economic influence and we know now which direction both Russia and China (and a host of other countries) will take in the short term.  They will remove the sanctions weapon from the hands of the United States including Europe.  Let’s take a look at a few more of Mr.Lavrov’s comments.

“The US sanctions risks need to be alleviated by switching to alternative currencies and moving away from using the dollar, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.”

“The minister said the US is aiming to limit the technological development of Russia and China, so the two countries need to strengthen their independence.”

“According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the US and other western countries are no longer capable of using classical diplomacy and only resort to one tool on the international arena: sanctions.”

“We must form the widest possible coalition of countries that will fundamentally oppose this illegal practice,” the Russian Foreign Minister concluded.”

As geopolitical watchers and analysts, we’re always looking for the signals that frequently just go up in smoke.   This time however the signals from Russia and China are not going up in smoke but being presented in pictures in photo essays, and in clear language.  From the last few days we can learn a few things:

  • China and Russia are friends and will remain friends and will work together where their interests coalesce.  Their interests coalesce right here in Lavrov’s words:  “….. architecture of international relations to be fair, democratic, capable of ensuring stability and based on broad interaction of states.”  If that statement confuses you, in short, it means right across our world.
  • Sanctions will be removed as a weapon.
  • The petrodollar is on its last legs.
  • The clock for the final battle is ringing.  The only weapons remaining that will be allowed to the failing hegemon will be NATO (which, according to many of our serious analysts, is a paper tiger) and the ability to use nuclear and conventional weapons.  I will not comment on that as I am not qualified in the field.   The ability of the current and failing hegemon to do damage economically, is being curtailed.   We can look forward to a different economic reset, with countries taking their power back using their own currencies and other alternatives.   (This is not the reset from the WEF).  Then we will see what happens to the sphere of weapons because they may become a last resort.

(On a humorous note, it looks like the Russian Foreign Affairs ministry has resorted to photos with captions, hoping they can reach the failing hegemon with pictures, because there is such a great problem to reach them with diplomatic words.  The growth of the adult coloring book industry in the West may have been the deciding factor lol. )

U.S. Targets Russia, Iran with Eyes on China الأميركيّون يستهدفون روسيا وإيران وعيونهم على الصين

**English Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original version **

U.S. Targets Russia, Iran with Eyes on China

Dr.. Wafiq Ibrahim

The Americans have finally chosen the international party they must compete with because it is the main party that causes them economic declines. . What matters to them is to maintain the world’s first economic rank and Russia and others do not seem to be able to compete, as Russia is militarily empowered but economically weak. . Also, some countries in Europe, such as Germany, have an economic power, but without military power, it is enough that American forces are still stationed in Germany since its defeat in World War II, while the rest of Europe, especially France and England, are middle countries with arms and economy and are going after the Americans waiting for opportunities in Iran and the Gulf. .

China is the real competitor to the Americans, especially since it is able to overtake the Americans in the middle of the next decade..

For further clarification, the Yellow Dragon lacks a little weapon to become a global star in the U.S. competition..

It should first be noted that the new U.S. measures in Saudi Arabia have a relationship with China, because any Sino-Saudi rapprochement immediately means a decline in U.S. hegemony in the world because it immediately entails the transfer of Relations of Bahrain and the UAE from the Americans to China, in addition to the possibility of change in many countries of the Muslim world linked to the Saudi leadership..

These are the deep reasons that imposed on the Americans to work diligently to hold Saudi Arabia and since Mohammed bin Salman was the pillar who was working to build a Saudi Arabia that has regional and perhaps international weight, so he was dramatically overthrown. This does not mean that he is a murderer, though he may have killed dozens in order to to pave the way for an easy rule. This is always the case in Gulf-style countries.

It is noticeable then that the United States wants to overcome all the obstacles to avoid the loss of the Gulf and Europe in the battle with China, as well as for Southeast Asia, major consumers in Australia, Canada and the underdeveloped part of the European continent. That’s why they’ve been ahead of China for decades, away from Europe for generations, and they don’t see Russia as a serious competitor for at least a few centuries. .

What is important for Americans is to maintain their unipolarity to have true control over Europe and the Gulf, and it seems that these two matters are close to the logic of the need for these two regions. The Gulf always feels an Iraqi-Yemeni threat, in addition to the Syrian situation and Iran, which causes the Gulf many problems not only in their common maritime borders, but also in Iranian spheres of influence in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and other areas..

It seems, then, that what the Americans need in their war of unipolarity is the Gulf and Europe, and Southeast Asia, Canada, Australia. This confirms unipolarity stability for a long time. Is this possible?

On the other hand, China works silently and moves from one city to another to promote cheap goods in an era of extreme poverty. It is enough that the countries of the earth tend to poverty, which means that they need cheap goods that are no longer present except in China.

Therefore, there is an sharp US-Chinese conflict amid Russian-European observation awaiting results to determine its roles. The problem here is related to production capacity, which only exists in China, America, and Europe, where quality and minimum wages exceed wages in the entire world.

The conflict continues to develop as China focuses on penetrating vulnerable countries, third world countries, the poor part of Europe and most of South-East Asia.. This may take a long time, but it won’t be out of reach because the world is heading for more poverty, and need Chinese cheap commodity..

Thus, the economic conflict in the world is concentrated between America, China and Europe, so Russia is absent, and with it most other countries, but it maintains its military superiority that may exceed the US military advantage.

Thus, the world’s economic conflict between America, China and Europe is concentrated, with Russia and most other countries absent, and Russia maintaining its military superiority that may exceed U.S. military superiority..

Here it is important to note, that Russia, just like the Americans, will not allow China to possess quality weapons, and this is not surprising because Russia is interested in the Sino-American economic conflict, but it does not accept the transformation of China into a military economic power that can jump over the Americans, and and therefore the Russian..

The world, then, is facing a great continuation of the Chinese-American conflict, China without a qualitative destructive weapon, so should it go towards making a qualitative weapon?

It’s hard to go this way, because sinking into the arms industry means a complete blow to the acceptable economic levels and may smash the middle classes struggling with the levels of the European classes, and why they go towards the arms industry and the difference between them and the Americans in this area is very large and needs a great Chinese effort to realize.

The conclusion is that Russia is not the U.S. main target. China, being the actual competitor in the next two decades. is the actual Americans target.

الأميركيّون يستهدفون روسيا وإيران وعيونهم على الصين

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-67.png

د. وفيق إبراهيم

اختار الأميركيّون أخيراً الطرف الدولي الذي يجب عليهم أن ينافسوه لأنه الجهة الأساسية التي تتسبب لهم بتراجعات اقتصادية. فما يهمّهم هو المحافظة على المرتبة الاقتصادية الأولى في العالم ولا يبدو ان روسيا وغيرها بوسعها المنافسة، فروسيا متمكّنة عسكرياً لكنها ضعيفة اقتصادياً. كذلك فإن بعض بلدان أوروبا كألمانيا تمتلك قوة اقتصادية انما من دون قوة عسكرية، يكفي أن قوات أميركيّة لا تزال ترابط في المانيا منذ هزيمتها في الحرب العالمية الثانية، أما ما تبقى من اوروبا وخصوصاً فرنسا وانجلترا فهي من الدول المتوسطة بامتلاك السلاح والاقتصاد وتسير خلف الأميركيّين انتظاراً لفرص في إيران والخليج.

يتبين بذلك أن الصين هي المنافس الفعلي للأميركيّين لا سيما أنها قادرة على تجاوز الأميركيّين في منتصف العقد المقبل.

لمزيد من الإيضاح فإن التنين الأصفر ينقصه القليل من السلاح ليصبح نجماً عالمياً على مستوى منافسة الولايات المتحدة.

لا بدّ أولاً من الإشارة الى ان التدابير الأميركيّة الجديدة في السعودية على علاقة بالصين، لأن اي تقارب صيني – سعودي يعني فوراً تراجع الهيمنة الأميركيّة في العالم لأنه يستتبع فوراً انتقال علاقات البحرين والإمارات من الأميركيّين الى الصين، هذا بالإضافة الى إمكان حدوث تغيير في الكثير من بلدان العالم الإسلامي ربطاً بزعامة السعودية له.

هذه هي الأسباب العميقة التي فرضت على الأميركيّين العمل الدؤوب على الإمساك بالسعودية وبما أن محمد بن سلمان هو الركن الذي كان يعمل على بناء سعودية لها وزن إقليميّ وربما دولي، لذلك أطيح به بشكل دراماتيكيّ. وهذا لا يعني أنه قاتل ولربما قتل العشرات في مسيرته في الحكم لتمهيد حكم سهل له. وهذا ما يحدث دائماً في بلدان على النمط الخليجيّ.

الملاحظ إذاً أن الولايات المتحدة تريد ضرب كل العقبات التي تؤدي الى خسارة الخليج وأوروبا في المعركة مع الصين، كذلك بالنسبة لجنوب شرق آسيا وكبار المستهلكين في استراليا وكندا والجزء غير المتطور من القارة الأوروبية. وهذا ما يجعلهم متفوقين على الصين لعقود عدة ومبتعدين عن أوروبا لأجيال ولا يرون في روسيا منافساً جدياً لقرون عدة على الاقل.

المهم بالنسبة للأميركيّين أن يحتفظوا بأحاديتهم القطبية. هذا لا يستقيم إلا بسيطرتهم على أوروبا والخليج ويبدو أن هذين الأمرين قريبان من المنطق لحاجة هاتين المنطقتين اليهما. فالخليج يستشعر دائماً بخطر عراقي – يمني ويحاذر الوضع السوريّ متعاملاً مع إيران كخوافة تتسبب لها بالكثير من الإشكالات ليس فقط في حدودهما البحرية المشتركة بل في مناطق النفوذ الإيراني في لبنان والعراق وسورية ومناطق أخرى.

يبدو اذاً أن ما يحتاج اليه الأميركيّون في حربهم للأحادية القطبية هو الخليج واوروبا. مع مدى اقتصادي لتصريف البضائع موجود في جنوب شرق آسيا وكندا وأستراليا والخليج واوروبا. وهذا يؤكد ان الاحادية القطبية مستقرة الى زمن طويل، فهل هذا ممكن؟

تعمل الصين بصمت، وتنتقل من مدينة الى اخرى لتروج لسلع رخيصة الثمن في عصر يسوده فقر شديد، يكفي أن دول الأرض تنحو الى الفقر، ما يعني حاجتها الى سلع رخيصة لم تعد موجودة إلا في الصين.

هناك اذاً صراع حاد أميركيّ صيني وسط مراقبة روسية أوروبية تنتظر النتائج لتحديد أدوارها، لكن المشكلة أن هذا الأمر مرتبط بالقدرة على الإنتاج، غير الموجود إلا في أميركا والصين وأوروبا انما من ذوي الجودة العالمية باعتبار أن الحد الأدنى للأجور فيها يفوق الأجور في العالم بأسره.

هناك صراع إذاً حاد أميركيّ – صيني لا ينفك يتطور وقد يبلغ أشده مع تركيز الصين على اختراق البلدان الضعيفة.

فهل بإمكانها تحقيق هذا الإنجاز؟ نعم بإمكان الصين اختراق بلدان العالم الثالث والقسم الفقير من أوروبا ومعظم بلدان جنوب شرق آسيا. وهذا امر قد يحتاج الى مدة طويلة من الزمن لكنه لن يكون بعيد المنال لأن العالم يتّجه الى مزيد من الفقر فيما السلعة الصينيّة جديرة بالاختراق والسيطرة.

بذلك يتركز الصراع الاقتصادي في العالم بين أميركا والصين وأوروبا فتغيب روسيا ومعها معظم البلدان الأخرى، لكنها تحافظ على تفوّقها العسكري الذي قد يزيد عن التفوّق العسكريّ الأميركيّ.

هناك ملاحظة هامة وهي أن روسيا تماماً كالأميركيّين لا تسمح للصين بامتلاك أسلحة نوعيّة، وهذه ليست مفاجأة لأن روسيا مهتمة بالصراع الاقتصادي الصيني الأميركيّ لكنها لا تقبل بتحول الصين قوة اقتصادية عسكرية يصبح بوسعها القفز فوق الأميركيّ، وبالتالي الروسي.

العالم اذاً أمام استمرار كبير للصراع الصيني الأميركيّ وميزته أنه من دون سلاح نوعي تدميري، فالصين تمتلك سلاحاً معتدلاً فهل تذهب نحو صناعة سلاح نوعيّ؟

من الصعوبة أن تذهب نحو هذه الطريقة، لأن غرقها في صناعة السلاح يعني ضرباً كاملاً للمستويات الاقتصادية التي أصبحت مقبولة لديها وتحطيماً للطبقات المتوسطة التي أصبحت تصارع مستويات الطبقات الأوروبية، ولماذا تذهب نحو صناعة السلاح والفارق بينها وبين الأميركيّين في هذا المجال كبير جداً ويحتاج الى بذل جهود صينيّة جبارة لإدراك التعادل.

يتبين بالاستنتاج ان روسيا ليست هدفاً أميركيّاً كاملاً، وان الصين هي الهدف الفعلي الذي يريد الأميركيّون قصّ رأسه لما يسببه لهم من منافسات فعلية في العقدين المقبلين.

Unipolar vs Multipolar: The Death of McKinley and the Loss of America’s Soul

Unipolar vs Multipolar: The Death of McKinley and the Loss of America’s Soul

December 23, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

On December 17, 2020 A new US Maritime strategy was unveiled putting into practice the regressive concepts first outlined in the early National Defense Strategy 2020 doctrine which target China and Russia as the primary enemies of the USA and demanding that the USA be capable to “defeat our adversaries while we accelerate development of a modernized integrated all-domain naval force of the future”.

The Pentagon’s Advantages at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power continued by saying “China’s and Russia’s revisionist approaches in the maritime environment threaten US interests, undermine alliances and partnerships and degrade the free and open international order… moreover, China’s and Russia’s aggressive naval growth and modernization are eroding US institutional advantages.”

The document continued to describe that “we must operate more assertively to prevail in day-to-day competition as we uphold the rules-based order and deter our competitors from pursuing armed aggression… ready, forward-deployed naval forces will adopt a more assertive posture in day to day operations”

For anyone who has been paying attention to the vast growth of the Pentagon’s Full Spectrum containment policy around China’s perimeter begun with Obama’s Asia Pivot, it may appear as though these words are not new, but just a continuation of American unipolar agenda, Pacific war games, and psychological projection onto perceived enemies, that have been underway for years. While this is certainly true, it must be noted that they are occurring at a time that NATO 2030 has enshrined an anti-China military posture into the Trans Atlantic security doctrine which had formerly channeled most of its hate purely onto Russia.

The fact is those unipolar zombies programmed to think in no other terms but global post-nation state dominance are deathly afraid of the Russia-China bond of survival which has created a uniquely viable foundation for an alternative economic/security architecture for the world. This model is based on a system of finance that defines money not in speculative but rather long-term development of the real economic foundations of life. It also features a strong emphasis on win-win cooperation as opposed to Hobbesian zero-sum logic dominant among western powers, and it also finds itself driven by OPEN system economic practices shaped by unbounded scientific and technological progress that once upon a time guided America’s better traditions.

With the obvious threat of nuclear war breaking out between a collapsing unipolar order in the west and an emergent Multipolar alliance, it is important to review what possible latent policy traditions may yet be revived within America’s history which certain forces have worked very hard to scrub out of the historical record and memory. This study will take us to the incredible fights that arose over America’s identity at the turn of the 20th century during the period of President William McKinley and the treasonous anglophile President of vice, Theodore Roosevelt.

Munroe Doctrine or Empire?

As Martin Sieff eloquently laid out in his recent article, President McKinley himself was an peacemaker, anti-imperialist of a higher order than most people realize. McKinley was also a strong supporter of two complementary policies: 1) Internally, he was a defender of Lincoln’s “American system” of protectionism, internal improvements and black suffrage and 2) Externally, he was a defender of the Munroe Doctrine that defined America’s anti-imperial foreign policy since 1823.

The Munroe Doctrine’s architect John Quincy Adams laid out this principle eloquently on July 4, 1821:

“After fifty years the United States has, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own.

That the United States does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

That by involving itself in the internal affairs of other nations, the United States would destroy its own reason of existence; the fundamental maxims of her policy would become, then, no different than the empire America’s revolution defeated. It would be, then, no longer the ruler of itself, but the dictator of the world.”

America’s march is the march of mind, not of conquest.

Colonial establishments are engines of wrong, and that in the progress of social improvement it will be the duty of the human family to abolish them”.

It was an aging John Quincy Adams whom a young Abraham Lincoln collaborated with in ending the imperial Mexican-American war under Wall Street stooge James Polk in 1846. When Adams died in 1848, Lincoln picked up the torch he left behind as the London-directed “proto deep state” of the 19th century worked to dissolve the republic from within. The foreign policy conception laid out by Adams ensured that America’s only concern was “staying out of foreign imperial entanglements” as Washington had earlier warned and keeping foreign imperial interests out of the Americas. The idea of projecting power onto the weak or subduing other cultures was anathema to this genuinely American principle.

A major battle which has been intentionally obscured from history books took place in the wake of Lincoln’s murder and the re-ascension of the City of London-backed slave power during the decades after the Union victory of 1865. On the one hand America’s role in the emerging global family of nations was being shaped by followers of Lincoln who wished to usher in an age of win-win cooperation. Such an anti-Darwinian system which Adams called “a community of principle” asserted that each nation had the right to sovereign banking controls over private finance, productive credit emissions tied to internal improvements with a focus on continental (rail/road) development, industrial progress and full spectrum economies. Adherents of this program included Russia’s Sergei Witte and Alexander II, Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, France’s Sadi Carnot, and leading figures within Japan’s Meiji Restoration.https://www.youtube.com/embed/gYeVDjFKpOU?feature=oembed

On the other hand, “eastern establishment families” of the USA more loyal to the gods of money, hereditary institutions and the vast international empire of Britain saw America’s destiny tied to an imperial global partnership with the Mother country. These two opposing paradigms within America have defined two opposing views of “progress”, “value”, “self-interest” and “law” which have continued to shape the world over 150 years later.

William Gilpin vs Alfred Mahan: Two Paradigms Clash

A champion of the former traditionally American outlook who rose to the international scene was William Gilpin (1813-1894). Gilpin hailed from a patriotic family of nation builders whose patriarch Thomas Gilpin was a close ally of Benjamin Franklin and leading member of Franklin’s Philosophical Society. William Gilpin was famous for his advocacy of America’s trans continental railway whose construction he proselytized as early as 1845 (it was finally begun by Lincoln during the Civil War and completed in 1869 as I outlined in my previous paper How to Save a Dying Republic).

In his thousands of speeches and writings, Gilpin made it known that he understood America’s destiny to be inextricably tied to the ancient civilization of China- not to impose opium as the British and their American lackies were want to do, but to learn from and even emulate!

In 1852, Gilpin stated:

“Salvation must come to America from China, and this consists in the introduction of the “Chinese constitution” viz. the “patriarchal democracy of the Celestial Empire”. The political life of the United States is through European influences, in a state of complete demoralization, and the Chinese Constitution alone contains elements of regeneration. For this reason, a railroad to the Pacific is of such vast importance, since by its means the Chinese trade will be conducted straight across the North American continent. This trade must bring in its train Chinese civilization. All that is usually alleged against China is mere calumny spread purposefully, just like those calumnies which are circulated in Europe about the United States”.

With Lincoln’s 1861 presidential victory, Gilpin became Lincoln’s bodyguard and ensured the president survived his first assassination attempt en route to Washington from Illinois. During the Civil War, Gilpin was made Colorado’s first Governor where he successfully stopped the southern power from opening up a western front during the war of secession (applying Lincoln’s greenback system to finance his army on a state level) and winning the “Battle of Glorieta Pass”, thus saving the union.

After the war Gilpin became a leading advocate of the internationalization of the “American system of political economy” which Lincoln applied vigorously during his short-lived presidency. Citing the success of Lincoln’s system, Gilpin said: “No amount of argument will make America adopt old world theories… To rely upon herself, to develop her own resources, to manufacture everything that can possibly be manufactured within her territory- this is and has been the policy of the USA from the time of Alexander Hamilton to that of Henry Clay and thence to our own days”.

Throughout his speeches Gilpin emphasizes the role of a U.S.-Russia alliance: “It is a simple and plain proposition that Russia and the United States, each having broad, uninhabited areas and limitless undeveloped resources, would by the expenditure of 2 or 3 hundred millions apiece for a highway of the nations threw their now waste places, add a hundredfold to their wealth and power and influence”

And seeing in China’s potential the means to re-enliven the world- including the decadent and corrupt culture of Europe: “In Asia a civilization resting on a basis of remote antiquity has had, indeed, a long pause, but a certain civilization- although hitherto hermetically sealed up has continued to exist. The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new life and European culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms.”

In opposition to the outdated British controls of “chock points” on the seas which kept the world under the clutches of the might of London, Gilpin advocated loudly for a system of internal improvements, rail development, and growth of the innate goodness of all cultures and people through scientific and technological progress. Once a global system of mutual development of rail were established, Gilpin stated “in the shipment of many kinds of raw and manufactured goods, it will largely supersede the ocean traffic of Great Britain, in whose hands is now carrying the trade of the world.”

Gilpin’s vision was most clearly laid out in his 1890 magnum opus “The Cosmopolitan Railway” which featured designs for development corridors across all continents united by a “community of principle”.

Echoing the win-win philosophy of Xi Jinping’s New Silk Road today, Gilpin stated:

“The cosmopolitan railway will make the whole world one community. It will reduce the separate nations to families of our great nation… From extended intercommunication will arise a wider intercourse of human ideas and as the result, logical and philosophical reciprocities, which will become the germs for innumerable new developments; for in the track of intercommunication, enterprise and invention invariably follow and whatever facilitates one stimulates every other agency of progress.”

Mahan Derails America’s Anti-Imperial Identity

Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) represented an opposing paradigm which true American statesmen like Lincoln, Secretary of State James Blaine, William Seward, President Grant, William Garfield, and McKinley detested. Sadly, with McKinley’s murder (run by an anarchist ring with ties to British Intelligence) and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, it was not Gilpin’s but rather Mahan’s worldview which became the dominant foreign policy doctrine for the next 120 years (despite a few brief respites under FDR and JFK).

Mahan is commonly credited for being a co-founder of modern geopolitics and an inspiration for Halford Mackinder. Having graduated from West Point’s naval academy in 1859, Mahan soon became renowned as a total failure in actual combat having crashed warships repeatedly into moving and stationary objects during the Civil War. Since reality was not his forte, Mahan focused his post-war career on Ivory tower theorizing gushing over maps of the world and fawning over Britain’s power as a force of world history.

His “Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783 published in the same year that Gilpin published his Cosmopolitan Railway (1890) was a total break from the spirit of win-win cooperation that defined America’s foreign policy. According to the Diplomat, this book soon “became the bible for many navies around the world” with the Kaiser of Germany (now released from the influence of the great rail-loving statesman Otto von Bismarck whom he fired in 1890) demanding all of his offers read. Later Teddy Roosevelt ordered copies for every member of Congress. In Mahan’s book, the geopolitician continuously asserts his belief that it is America’s destiny to succeed the British Empire.

Taking the British imperial definition of “commerce” which uses free trade as a cover for the military dominance of weak nations (open borders and turning off protectionism simply makes a people easier to rob), Mahan attempts to argue that America need not continue to adhere to “outdated” habits like the Munroe doctrine since the new order of world empires demands America stay relevant in a world of sea power and empire. Mahan writes: “The advance of Russia in Asia, in the division of Africa, in the colonial ambitions of France and in the British idea of Imperial Federation, now fast assuming concrete shape in practical combined action in South Africa” demands that the USA act accordingly.

Attempting to refute the “outdated habits” of rail development which consume so many foolish statesmen around the globe, Mahan states: “a railway competes in vain with a river… because more facile and copious, water traffic is for equal distances much cheaper and because cheaper, more useful”. Like those attacking today’s Belt and Road Initiative, the power of railways is that their returns are not measurable by simple monetary terms, but are rather QUALITATIVE. The long-term construction of rail systems not only unite divided people, increase manufacturing and industrial corridors but also induce closer powers of association and interchange between agriculture and urban producers. These processes uplift national productive powers building full spectrum economies and also a culture’s capacity for creative thought.

The attempt made to justify sea traffic merely because “larger amounts of goods can be shipped” is purely quantitative and monetaristic sophistry devoid of any science of real value.

While Gilpin celebrates the successful awakening of China and other great nations of the world, in the Problem of Asia (1901) Mahan says: “It is scarcely desirable that so vast a proportion of mankind as the Chinese constitute should be animated by but one spirit”. Should China “burst her barriers eastward, it would be impossible to exaggerate the momentous issues dependant upon a firm hold of the Hawaiian islands by a great civilized maritime power.”

Mahan’s adherence to social Darwinism is present throughout his works as he defines the political differences of the 3 primary branches of humanity (Teutonic, Slavic and Asiatic) as purely rooted in the intrinsic inferiority or superiority of their race saying: “There are well recognized racial divergencies which find concrete expression in differences equally marked of political institution, of social progress and of individual development. These differences are… deep seated in the racial constitution and partly the result of the environment”. Mahan goes onto restate his belief that unlike the superior Teutonics “the Oriental, whether national or individual does not change” and “the East does not progress”.

Calling China a carcass to be devoured by an American eagle, Mahan writes: “If life departs, a carcass can be utilized only by dissection or for food; the gathering to it of the eagles is a natural law, of which it is bootless to complain… the onward movement of the world has to be accepted as a fact.”

Championing an Anglo American alliance needed to subdue and “civilize” China as part of the post-Boxer Rebellion, Mahan says “of all the nations we shall meet in the East, Great Britain is the one with which we have by far the most in common in the nature of our interests there and in our standards of law and justice”.

In case there was any doubt in the minds of Mahan’s readers as to the MEANS which America should assert its dominance onto China, Mahan makes clear his belief that progress is caused by 1) force and 2) war: “That such a process should be underlain by force… on the part of outside influences, force of opposition among the latter themselves [speaking of the colonial European monarchies racing to carve up China in 1901 -ed] may be regrettable, but it is only a repetition of all history… Every step forward in the march that has opened in China to trade has been gained by pressure; the most important have been the result of actual war.”

A Last Anti-Imperial Push

The chaos induced by the anti-foreigner Boxer Rebellion of 1899 which spread quickly across China resulted a heated battle between imperial and anti-imperial forces in both Russia and the USA. Where Transport Minister Sergei Witte who spearheaded the development of the Trans Siberian rail line (1890-1905) tried to avoid military entanglement, McKinley was busy doing the same.

The boxers soon attacked the Manchurian rail connecting Russia to China by land and Witte succumbed to pressure to finally send in troops. The reformers of China who attempted to modernize with American and Russian assistance under Emperor Kuang Hsu and Li Hung Chang fell from power as total anarchy reigned. The outcome of the Boxer chaos involved the imperial powers of France, Germany and England demanding immense financial reparations, ownership of Chinese territory and mass executions of the Boxers.

While McKinley is often blamed for America’s imperial turn, the reality is just the opposite.

The Spanish-American war begun in 1898 was actually launched unilaterally by Anglophilic racist Theodore Roosevelt who used the 4 hour window he had while Undersecretary of the Navy (while the actual Secretary was out of Washington) to send orders to Captain Dewey of the Pacific fleet to engage in a fight with the Spanish over their Philippine territories. McKinley had resisted the war hawks until that point but found himself finally bending to the momentum. In China, McKinley, like Witte worked desperately to reject taking territory resulting in great fears from the British oligarchy that a U.S.-Russia alliance led by McKinley and Witte was immanent.

The assassination of McKinley on September 18, 1901 catapulted Mahan-loving Vice President Teddy Roosevelt into high office, who enmeshed America into a new epoch of Anglo-American imperialism abroad, a growth of eugenics and segregation at home and the creation of an independent police state agency called the FBI.

As Sieff writes“Roosevelt devoted his next eight years in the presidency and the rest of his life to integrating the United States and the British Empire into a seamless web of racial imperialist oppression that dominated Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and that destroyed the cultural history and heritage of the Native North American nations.”

In Russia, the 1902 Anglo-Japan Treaty led to the disastrous Japan-Russo war of 1905 which devastated the Russian navy, ended the political career of Sergei Witte and threw Russia into chaos leading to the fall of the Romanovs (Czar Nicholas II was the last statesman occupying high office that this author is aware of to have actively promoted the Bering Strait Tunnel rail connection in 1906. It wasn’t until FDR’s Vice President Henry Wallace met with Foreign Minister Molotov in 1942 that the idea resurfaced once more).

In his Two Peoples One Friendship, Wallace described his discussions with Foreign Minister Molotov in 1942 saying:

“Of all nations, Russia has the most powerful combination of a rapidly increasing population, great natural resources and immediate expansion in technological skills. Siberia and China will furnish the greatest frontier of tomorrow… When Molotov [Russia’s Foreign Minister] was in Washington in the spring of 1942 I spoke to him about the combined highway and airway which I hope someday will link Chicago and Moscow via Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Molotov, after observing that no one nation could do this job by itself, said that he and I would live to see the day of its accomplishment. It would mean much to the peace of the future if there could be some tangible link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East.”

While the “open door” rape of the China was attempted by the Anglo-Americans, a fortunate rear guard maneuver orchestrated by another follower of Abraham Lincoln named Sun Yat-sen resulted in a surprise overthrow of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 and the institution of the Republic of China with Sun Yat-sen as the acting President. While Sun Yat-sen sided with Gilpin and Lincoln in opposition to the Mahanists on the issue of rail and industrial development (illustrated in his extraordinary 1920 International Development of China program which called for 160 000 km of rail, water diversion projects, ports and 1.5 million km of paved roads- illustrated below), the intrigues that sank the world into World War I made any hopes of this early development of China impossible in Sun Yat-sen’s lifetime.

Expressing his own deep understanding of these top down tactics of world history (and the recognition that the same British imperial forces that orchestrated the US Civil War were planning to do the same to China), Sun Yat-sen wrote in 1912:

“We understand too well that there are certain men of power—not to include for the present, certain nations—who would view with a greater or lesser satisfaction an internal rupture in the new Republic [of China]. They would welcome, as a move toward the accomplishment of their own ends and designs, a civil war between the provinces of the North and the South; just as, 50 years ago, there was applause in secret (in certain quarters) over the terrible civil strife in the United States.

Americans of today who were alive in those dark days of the great republic will remember the feelings in the hearts of the people—the bitter and painful thoughts that arose from the knowledge that foreigners were hoping and praying for the destruction of the American Union.

Had the war been successful from the South’s standpoint, and had two separate republics been established, is it not likely that perhaps half a dozen or more weak nations would have eventually been established? I believe that such would have been the result; and I further believe that with the one great nation divided politically and commercially, outsiders would have stepped in sooner or later and made of America their own. I do not believe that I am stating this too forcibly. If so, I have not read history nor studied men and nations intelligently.

And I feel that we have such enemies abroad as the American republic had; and that at certain capitals the most welcome announcement that would be made would be that of a rebellion in China against the constituted authorities.

This is a hard statement to make; but I believe in speaking the truth so that all the world may know and recognize it.”

Today’s Belt and Road Initiative, and strategic friendship established between Russia and China has re-awoken the forgotten vision of William Gilpin for a world of cooperating sovereign nation states. Does the USA have the moral ability to avoid disintegration by accepting a Russia-U.S.-China alliance needed to revive McKinley’s American System or will we slip into a new Great Reset and World War?

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Biden won? 2016-2020 showed what the US does to even mild reformers

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)

Friday, 18 December 2020 11:21 AM  [ Last Update: Friday, 18 December 2020 12:07 PM ]

Biden won? 2016-2020 showed what the US does to even mild reformers
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

by Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with PressTV

What the four-year epoch of Donald Trump has made staggeringly clear to non-Americans is that no one – not even a democratically-elected American – will be able to even moderately alter the US capitalist-imperialist foreign policy trajectory without undergoing a no-holds barred attack aimed at bringing that person down.

What the election of Joe Biden (although “installation” is clearly more accurate) shows is that the current American elite is wrongly yet firmly guided by the the self-serving and evangelical ideas which have dominated US foreign policy since the implosion of the USSR in 1991: “the end of history”, unipolar dominance and “humanitarian interventionism”.

Trump’s defeat is still an assumption, but – given that the Supreme Court will likely continue to sidestep the issue of state executive orders for mail-in ballots that bypassed a democratic check and balance by the legislative branch – the staggering burden of proof on those who claim a criminal conspiracy of electoral fraud have a lot of proving to do, and in a very short period of time.

What’s certain is that Trump was undoubtedly the one person who put fear into the all-smothering US establishment in my lifetime, and probably yours. He dared to cast mainstream doubt on the elites’ versions of free trade (neoliberal capitalism) and foreign policy (imperialism), and he progressed the American conversation from Eisenhower’s seemingly technocratic “military-industrial complex” to the far more nefarious yet accurate “Deep State”.

Yes, Trump has weakened America domestically via his policies of deregulation and liberal (not neoliberal) capitalism, but this column talks about the new post-Trump realisations now breaking over the non-American world:

Trump has irrevocably changed foreign perceptions of America – in it’s cultural, social, political and economic totality – because the world witnessed the shocking extremism the US establishment/1%/Deep State/military-industrial-media complex/etc. was willing to use day after day just to take him down.

Trump showed the world who they are really dealing with: forces much stronger than even the US executive

Few Americans wanted to openly admit that what Trump initially suggested to the world was actually a new type of global competition, instead of one predicated on the usual American, “You’re either with us and for goodness and progress, or against us and for the terrorists”. But that was a major change, and it was predicated on Trump’s non-mainstream politician admission that America had fallen so far that people had to actually do some work to “Make America Great Again” – he essentially admitted it was no longer a unipolar world.

Trump openly promised death to Iran, Palestine and Cuba, but in 2016 part of his shock was that he clearly had accepted a multipolar world as he shockingly talked about extending an olive branch to Russia and a purchase order to China.

Trump saw that because of the financial crimes and corruption of the US elite, as well as their failed neoliberal response to the Great Recession, it was undeniable that America (and it’s European allies) had degraded and been equalled, or in some areas surpassed by, China and Russia. Trump admitted this, and thus the businessman wanted to “do business” with America’s two recalcitrant peers while still crushing revolutionary, sovereignty-demanding or just smaller nations with the competitive might the US still had held on to.

Trump – of course – was not just unhindered but applauded by the US Deep State in expanding upon the existing policy of crushing revolutionary countries, but he was clearly forced into antagonising those two American equals when initially he obviously did not want to.

So what does Trump’s ousting now mean for those two major countries? It means normal, peaceful relations with the US are now impossible for at least four years. How can they possibly conclude otherwise?

Why would China, Russia, or the other undoubted enemies of Washington possibly expect any detente with the US from 2021 onwards when the Trump era has unequivocally proven to them that such detente will never be permitted by the US elite at any cost?

It is now crystal clear that the US president does not shape foreign policy – he only implements it. If he doesn’t we see what happens: the US establishment was aghast at his calls to prosecute “crooked Hillary”, but Trump looks like he will be the first ex-president to ever face prosecution.

Who is actually giving the foreign policy orders? Feel free to guess my opinion, but we know it is certainly not public opinion. Trump obviously tried to please public opinion and pull out of Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere and we all saw what happened – he was absolutely vilified for it in all the US power circles.

There are countless articles in American mainstream media which prove this analysis right; which confirm that Biden will be even more belligerent to China and Russia; which confirm he will use the same drones and sanctions on all “un-invadable” nations as Trump did. It’s clear from Biden’s statements and cabinet choices that – in policies towards non-Americans – he is going to deploy the worst of Trump’s tools but, crucially, combine them with the worst of phony Clintonian “humanitarian interventionism”.

So why would China or Russia kowtow to Biden when the 2016-2020 era shows that total belligerence is the only possibility Washington permits? Why would China or Russia expect Biden to extend mutually-beneficial cooperation? It’s not going to arrive, and part of Trump’s downfall was that he even tried.

One must look at it from the perspective of non-Americans: 2016-2020 has been incredibly shocking in the way that a political newcomer who seemed to want peace in some places was pulled down by a myriad of rabid and hysterical monkeys. Biden and the US establishment wants the non-American to act as if 2016-2020 never happened, but who could possibly forget what shockingly terrible actions were on display in the US over the past four years to prevent any new policies, especially in foreign relations?

Obama was a successful ‘brand change’, but Biden will not be

In 2016 the US was already so weakened by its Great Recession-inducing financial crimes that Trump came to the fore. In 2020 the US is even more gutted, due to this spectacularly awful year. So why would Russia and China not meet the confrontations which Washington is clearly still intent on posing to them?

Biden has none of Obama’s charisma, youth, acting ability, etc. He behaves like an old grandfather who will do anything to earn the attention and admiration of his grandchildren, not someone who can credibly back up claims of being the competent leader of the self-appointed “leader of the free world”.

That is why China is now showing a shocked Australia who really needs who economically via unprecedented tariffs. It’s why Russia is sending the S-400 defense system to Turkey and is having their ambassador to Israel stick up for Iran no matter who it offends. It’s not a question of America being too “weak” nor realpolitik but common sense – the fall of Trump emphatically proves detente with the US is simply not going to be permitted.

More of these challenges to the US will occur in the next four years because that is all Washington wants. Of course the American people don’t want that: half the American people voted for Trump, after all, and we know that they meant nothing to the American elite for four years; the half-leftist Bernie Sanders supporters were similarly shut out once their vote has been used to push out Trump.

When we consider that 2016-2020 was more an American cultural era of “Trump, the ousting” rather than “Trump, the democratically-elected leader” it’s clear that for non-Americans Trump truly heralded the end of global cultural domination by the US, which started after World War II. Didn’t everybody say that would happen in 2016, after all? They were right, but usually for the wrong reasons. It’s no coincidence that the Iranian term gharbzadegi – or “Westoxification” – goes back to the 1940s.

Yet despite their increased division and overall weakness Washington still expects non-American nations to accept the exact same amount of smothering domination as in 1991, 2001, 2007 and even 2015.

But why?

The US is trending in the right direction economically and culturally? The election of Biden has restored US prestige? The manner in which he won inspires confidence? Biden has a foreign policy agenda which is going to be less belligerent than Trump’s unprecedented call to end America’s endless foreign wars? The US has a Belt and Road Initiative which I don’t know about?

Let’s take this moment to realise that an unprecedented, four-year confusion has come to an end: It’s clear that US reformism lost.

It wasn’t a great reformism, but it was something different and positive in some ways. To stop it the US elite gutted their own nation’s psyche, culture, integrity, friendships, families and communities.

On a visceral level, which is not yet registered intellectually, the world saw that proposing changes away from US unipolar domination inspired shocking, debasing cultural war every day for the last four years – is that a system to have faith in, or a system to give in to?

The weakest nations of the world will be pushed into line with post-Trump US leadership, but the strong nations wouldn’t be strong if they had faith in the restoration of the Washington establishment, which Biden represents. Biden is certain to keep challenging strong nations, no matter how unjust or foolish that is.

However, it’s obviously incredibly unfortunate that the moderate reforms suggested by Trump – especially the peaceful ones in foreign policy – could not even be attempted. Maybe some other American will try, but they should now be prepared to undergo the Trump treatment.

*************************************************************

Dispatches from the United States after the presidential election

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2) – November 5, 2020

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (2/2) – November 6, 2020

4 years of anti-Trumpism shaping MSM vote coverage, but expect long fight – November 7, 2020

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized – November 9, 2020

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’? – November 10, 2020

CNN’s Jake Tapper: The overseer keeping all journalists in line (1/2) – November 13, 2020

‘Bidenism’ domestically: no free press, no lawyer, one-party state? (2/2) – November 15, 2020

Where’s Donald? When 40% of voters cry ‘fraud’ you’ve got a big problem – November 17, 2020

The 4-year (neoliberal) radicalisation of US media & Bidenites’ ‘unradical radicalism’ – November 22, 2020

80% of US partisan losers think the last 2 elections were stolen – December 3, 2020

Trump declares civil war for voter integrity in breaking (or broken) USA – December 5, 2020

Mess with Texas via mail-in ballot? States secede from presidential vote – December 8, 2020

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

The risk that haunts the great powers: the ghost of rebellions

The risk that haunts the great powers: the ghost of rebellions

December 15, 2020

By Fabio Reis Vianna for the Saker Blog

In a recent article published in the American magazine Foreign Affairs, Christorpher Layne, professor of international relations at the University of Texas, defends the thesis that a hegemonic war between the United States and China, if tensions escalate at the current pace, is not unlikely.

In his article The Return of Great-Power War, the author argues that the intensification of geopolitical competition between the two powers, despite the prevailing view in academic circles, would have explosive potential if we analyze the scenario in the light of history.

In this sense, the majority view argues that the economic interdependence between the two countries would be a factor in reducing the risk of an eventual conflict. As Professor Layne reminds us, if we return to history we would see similarities between the current situation and that which preceded the first great world war.

According to the professor, the current sour relations between the United States and China would remind us, in geopolitical terms, of the troubled relationship between the United Kingdom and Germany in the years before that war.

It is even worth emphasizing that in economic terms, as well as the United States and China, the United Kingdom and Germany maintained very close ties, and there was, therefore, also an interdependence between the two powers at the time.

Something, however, that the author may be mistaken is the idea that the so-called liberal international order led by the United States would be a factor in curbing Chinese pretensions and the so-called “revisionist powers” to destabilize the preservation of peace, maintained through the multilateral institutions created in the postwar period.

This would make sense in the idealized world of Atlanticist analysis, where the rise of new actors had never occurred, and American unipolar hegemony was undeniable.

The so-called liberal international order has been systematically dismantled by its own creators: the United States of America.

Long before Donald Trump was elected – after the September 11, 2001 attacks – the United States, in instituting the war on terror, practically tore apart the fantasy of liberal cosmopolitanism and assumed itself as an imperial power, arrogating itself with the right to intervene in any scenario and against anyone who posed a supposed, generic terrorist threat.

Little is said about this in Atlanticist circles, but the global instability that this irresponsible attitude generated was most likely one of the reasons why such revisionist actors took themselves seriously to project themselves autonomously into the interstate system.

In particular, Russia, which – being harassed by NATO’s enlargement towards its borders – since 2008, in the war in Georgia, has given a demonstration of warlike power that has not been seen for some time.

In fact, the concrete rise of emerging powers is the reason why – and contrary to what Professor Layne maintains – the United States would be undermining the multilateral institutions it once supported.

This attitude has led them to act in a truculent and imperial manner, even against their traditional and historical European allies, which denotes the dysfunctional character of the Trump administration for the United States’ own internal system, that is, the figure of Trump would have driven a radicalization of this new American strategy.

But paradoxically, while in rhetorical terms Donald Trump made this new strategy clearer, in practice his erratic figure became a serious factor in the internal destabilization of the American system, and thus his permanence became seen as a threat to the establishment of the United States.

Thus the election of Joe Biden would serve as a factor in the recomposition of the establishment in the face of a weakened hegemon who loses more and more global influence.

The moment is grave, and the lack of a concrete response to a vaccine, combined with the surprising resurgence of the virus in Europe, shed light on the depth of the crisis and the risk that silently haunts the minds of world leaders: the ghost of rebellions.

According to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, “Those who have spoken with Premier Giuseppe Conte describe him impressed by the images of street protests.

As the virus advances again over Italy, the government’s popularity drops sharply.

For historical and geographical reasons Europe is still considered the sounding board of the world, and social dissatisfaction on the continent with the new measures to contain the virus is visible among workers and small businesses, desperate with the ghost of unemployment and bankruptcy.

According to unsuspected IMF researchers Tahsin Saadi Sedik and Rui Xu, “in the years following the pandemics, the countries most affected saw an increase in social unrest. Based on this historical trend, the Covid-19 pandemic may pose a threat to the social fabric in many countries. When inequality is high, the pandemic can fuel social unrest”.

Such a situation could lead to another risk already witnessed along the so-called first wave: the increase of military escalation.

In recent times, one of Brazil’s greatest thinkers, UFRJ professor José Luís Fiori, has been defending the thesis that the current hegemonic power, the United States, when threatened by emerging powers, would have chosen to destroy the Bretton Woods system and go for an all-militaristic valley against its rivals.

What at first could be interpreted as a demonstration of weakness, or a proof that the hegemon would be in decline, in fact, according to Fiori, reinforces the hypothesis that every hegemonic power tends to expand uninterruptedly in order to remain in the leadership of the system, but when threatened, if necessary, it is capable of destroying the system it itself created in order to stay ahead.

Against this backdrop, and as has been happening in Europe, the internal pressure that the pandemic has generated in American society could most likely trigger a reaction from the new democratic government to the outside; that instead of being mere aggressive rhetoric – as has been happening with Trump – could result in some new theater of war, both in the Middle East and next door in Venezuela.

One thing is certain: the industrial-military complex is thirsting for a new war to call its own, and with the democrats back in power, everything gets easier.

The longer a solution to contain the virus takes, the more social dissatisfaction will spread due to the economic collapse generated by the delay.

As in other times when systemic impasses have occurred, it is not difficult to remember the escalation of interstate conflict at the beginning of the 20th century – with antagonistic protagonists the United Kingdom and Germany – which soon deepened into widespread systemic chaos; then descended into popular rebellions.

Hegemonic dispute, abrupt technological changes, precarious work; general and diffuse dissatisfaction: the pandemic is phosphorus.

Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.

The Clash of Empires in Xi Jinping’s Speech and Joe Biden’s Essay صراع الإمبراطوريات في كلمة شي ومقال جو بايدن

The Clash of Empires in Xi Jinping’s Speech and Joe Biden’s Essay

First appeared In Arabic on Al-Akhbar Friday, December 4, 2020

Amro Allan

عربى 21-الرئيسية
Writer and political researcher

**Machine translation**

The Clash of Empires in Xi Jinping’s Speech and Joe Biden’s Essay

It is worthy to compare Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech at the recent 20th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit with the recently republished article by President-elect Joe Biden in Foreign Affairs Mmagazine, in which Joe Biden outlined the most important features of his policies if elected as the 46th president of the United States.

In his speech, President Xi Jinping outlined the aspects of China’s foreign policies, the most important of which was the emphasis on the idea of multipolarity in the management of world affairs under the umbrella of the international law in the face of unipolarity. The speech emphasized the importance of supporting countries in their efforts to implement their local agendas which will insure their political and social stability. He also highlighted the importance of preventing any foreign interference in the local affairs of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation members under any pretext. The Chinese President stressed in his speech that all human civilizations are equal and unique, and encouraged interrelation between nations and good neighbourly relations between countries. President Xi Jinping added that China cannot achieve development in isolation from the world, and that the world needs China to achieve prosperity, calling on all nations to build on and benefit from china’s economic growth, perhaps based on its call to benefit from the China Belt and Road Initiative and the extent to which china’s economy has reached and its growth rates have reached. Compared to the economies of other countries of the world. 

These determinants presented by the Chinese President are not fundamentally different from those presented in the final statement of the summit, which represents the policies of the Shanghai Organization countries in general.

While the most prominent idea in Joe Biden’s essay “Why America Must Lead Again” is his determination during the first year of his administration to hold an international summit, and invite to it the leaders of those countries, which are considered by America as democraciesand “free world”, these classifications, as it has become known, means in the Western dictionary the colonial powers, and American allies. Civil society organizations will also be invitedto that summit, these organizations are the preferred tool of western and American intelligence agencies to tamper with the internal affairs of sovereign states and create political instability, and this summit aims, according to the article, to confront the (autocratic regimes), promote democracy and the liberal ideology that are threatened, according to Biden. The article adds that the United States of America will take its natural seat at the head of the table to organize the affairs of the world, because otherwise the world could plunge into chaos As Biden claimed, President-elect Joe Biden vowed in the article ” As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States’ economic future, and once more have America lead the world”. 

The colonial tone in the language of Biden’s article towards the world and the cultures and civilizations of other nations can easily be observed. This language is consistent with the history of successive American administrations and the colonial West in general. The difference between the Shanghai Organization Group’s rhetoric calling on human civilizations to get to learn from each other, and a Western-American discourse seeking to impose its own ideology on the rest of the earth, while striking, is not new. But what was remarkable  was the Chinese president’s call in his speech to invest in Chinese economic opportunities, which It will help those countries achieve prosperity, he said, while Biden wanton to talk about the importance of liberal ideology and the need to confront countries that don’t embrace the liberal approachlike China  or those that he considers a threat to the liberals like Putin’s Russia, without talking about the economic temptations for those countries that will adopt the ideology of the Western concept and the democratic formula in the management of their social and economic systems, or for those countries that will join the United States in what sounds like an ideological war to spread the liberal ideology. Biden said that the United States of America, along with its democratic allies, make up half of the world’s economy, and that this is a number that China cannot ignore, alluding to economic sanctions. Biden’s article did not include mention of any economic incentives to those countries that will follow its leadership in its planned campaign against its opponents in China and Russia and those other countries that are opposing American hegemony, while American rhetoric has made such promises alongside ideological discourse in the past decades during the period of confrontation with the socialist camp and the Cold War. And this perhaps reflects the decline in the American economy in this era.

This brief comparison between the Chinese president’s speech and Joe Biden’s article could shine a light on some of the differences between the current phase and the Cold War era, and this comparison may help toconceptualize the possibilities of the confrontation outcome between America and China at the moment. However, the liberal ideology of The United States of America is still likely to be shaken by the shake-up of the American throne in the world, and as a result of the emergence of strong global movements opposing this ideology and the Western dictatorial ways to impose it on the rest of the peoples of the earth regardless of their cultural heritage and moral values. As well as a result of the emergence of the destructive effects of liberal ideology on societies and the concept of the family, dismantling the moral system of society in exchange for the freedom of the individual without any constraints. Not to mention the depletion of the natural resources of the planet because of the economic policies associated with the liberal ideology that threatens the very existence of human beings.

صراع الإمبراطوريات في كلمة شي ومقال جو بايدن

عربى 21-الرئيسية

عمرو علان  

جريدة الأخبار

الجمعة 4 كانون الأول 2020

تجدر المقارنة بين ما جاء في كلمة الرئيس الصيني شي جين بينغ التي ألقاها في قمة منظمة شانغهاي العشرين الأخيرة وبين ما جاء في مقال الرئيس الأمريكي المنتخب جو بايدن الذي أعادت نشره مؤخرا مجلة (فورن أفيرز)، والذي حدد فيه جو بايدن أهم ملامح سياساته إذا ما اُنتخب رئيسا سادسا وأربعين للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية. 

رسم الرئيس شي جين بينغ في كلمته صورة عن طبيعة السياسات الخارجية الصينية ومحدداتها، وكان أهمها التشديد على فكرة التعددية القطبية في إدارة شؤون العالم تحت مظلة المنظومة الدولية في مواجهة الأحادية القطبية، وركزت الكلمة على وجوب دعم جهود الدول لتحقيق أجنداتها المحلية بما يؤمن استقرارها السياسي والاجتماعي الداخلي، مع التشديد على رفض تدخلات القوى الخارجية في الشؤون الداخلية لدول منظمة شانغهاي تحت أي ذرائع كانت، وأكد الرئيس الصيني في كلمته على أن الحضارات الإنسانية متكافئة لا أفضلية لإحداها على الأُخرى، وأن لكل منها ما يميزها، وأكد كذلك على ضرورة تشجيع التعارف فيما بين الحضارات الإنسانية، بالإضافة إلى تدعيم علاقات حسن الجوار والصداقات فيما بين الدول، وأضاف الرئيس شي جين بينغ أن الصين لا يمكنها تحقيق التطور بمعزل عن العالم، وبأن العالم يحتاج الصين لتحقيق الرخاء داعيا الجميع إلى البناء على حركة النمو الصينية والإفادة منها، ولعله استند في دعوته تلك إلى مبادرة الحزام والطريق الصينية وإلى ما وصل إليه حجم الاقتصاد الصيني ومعدلات نموّه مقارنة باقتصادات دول العالم الأخرى، ولا تختلف هذه المحددات التي عرضها الرئيس الصيني في جوهرها عما جاء عليه البيان الختامي للقمة المنعقدة الذي يمثل سياسات دول منظمة شانغهاي عموماً.

بينما نجد أن الفكرة الأبرز التي وردت في مقال جو بايدن المُشار إليه، الذي جاء تحت عنوان “لماذا يجب على أمريكا أن تقود مجدداً”، هي عزمه خلال السنة الأولى من حكمه على عقد قمة دولية، يدعو إليها زعماء تلك الدول التي تعدها أمريكا ديموقراطيات ودول “العالم الحر”، وهذه التصنيفات حسب ما بات معروفاً تعني في القاموس الغربي الدول الاستعمارية في الأصل، وبعض الدول الأخرى التي ترتضي الدوران في الفلك الأمريكي، وسيتم أيضاً دعوة منظمات المجتمع المدني إلى تلك القمة، وهذه المنظمات تعد الأداة المفضلة لدى أجهزة الاستخبارات الغربية والأمريكية للعبث في الشؤون الداخلية للدول ذات السيادة وإثارة حالة عدم الاستقرار السياسي، وتهدف هذه القمة حسب المقال إلى مواجهة النظم “الأوتوقراطية”، وتدعيم الديموقراطية وترسيخ نشر الأفكار الليبرالية التي باتت مهددة على حد قول بايدن، ويضيف المقال بأن الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية ستأخذ مقعدها الطبيعي على رأس الطاولة لتنظيم شؤون العالم، لأن ما دون ذلك يمكن أن يغرق العالم في الفوضى على حد زعم بايدن، ويتعهد الرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن في المقال بالآتي: “كرئيس، سآخذ خطوات فورية لتجديد ديموقراطية الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وتحالفاتها، وأحمي مستقبل الاقتصاد الأمريكي، وأعيد أمريكا لقيادة العالم مجدداً”.

يمكن بسهولة ملاحظة النبرة الاستعمارية في لغة مقال بايدن اتجاه دول العالم واتجاه ثقافات وحضارات الأمم الأخرى، وتنسجم هذه اللغة مع تاريخ تعامل الإدارات الأمريكية المتعاقبة والغرب الاستعماري عموماً مع الآخر، والفرق جلي بين خطاب مجموعة منظمة شانغهاي الذي يدعو الحضارات البشرية إلى التعارف فيما بينها، وبين خطاب أمريكي غربي يسعى إلى فرض أيدولوجيته الليبرالية على سائر شعوب الأرض، ولا جديد في هذا، لكن اللافت كان في دعوة الرئيس الصيني في كلمته الدول الأخرى إلى الاستثمار في الفرص الاقتصادية الصينية، مما سيساعد تلك الدول على تحقيق الرخاء كما قال، بينما انصرف بايدن في مقاله إلى الحديث عن أهمية الأيدولوجيا الليبرالية وضرورة مواجهة الدول التي لا تعتنق الليبرالية منهجاً كالصين أو تلك التي عدها تشكل تهديداً للبرالية كروسيا بوتين،دون أن يتحدث عن مغريات اقتصادية لتلك الدول التي ستتبنى الفكر الليبرالي والصيغة الديموقراطية بالمفهوم الغربي في إدارة نُظُمِها الاجتماعية والاقتصادية، أو تلك الدول التي ستنضم للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية في ما يشبه الحرب العقدية لنشر الفكر الليبرالي حول العالم، وقال بايدن أن الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية مع حلفائها الديموقراطيين يشكلون نصف اقتصاد العالم، وأن هذا رقم لا يمكن للصين تجاهله فيما يعد تلميحاً إلى العقوبات الاقتصادية، واللافت في هذا خلو الخطاب الأمريكي من الوعود بالرفاه الاقتصادي والرخاء للدول التي تسعى إلى قيادتها في حملتها المزمعة على خصومها في الصين وروسيا وعلى تلك الدول الأخرى التي تشق عصا الطاعة على الهيمنة الأمريكية، بينما كان يقدم الخطاب الأمريكي مثل هكذا وعود إلى جانب الخطاب الأيديولوجي في العقود الماضية خلال فترة مواجهة المعسكر الاشتراكي والحرب الباردة سابقاً، ولعل هذا يعكس حقيقة التراجع في الاقتصاد الأمريكي في هذه الحقبة. 

يمكن أن تضيء هذه المقارنة المقتضبة بين خطاب الرئيس الصيني وبين مقال جو بايدن على بعض أوجه الاختلاف بين المرحلة الحالية وبين مرحلة الحرب الباردة إبان حقبة الاتحاد السوفيتي، ولعل هذه المقارنة تساعد على رسم تصور لاحتماليات مآلات المواجهة الحاصلة بين أمريكا والصين حالياً، ولكن يظل المرجح أن يهتز النهج الليبرالي مع اهتزاز عرش الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية في العالم، ونتيجة لظهور تيارات عالمية قوية تعارض هذا النهج وتعارض دكتاتورية الغرب التي تحاول فرضه على باقي شعوب الأرض بغض النظر عن الموروث الثقافي والحضاري لتلك الشعوب، وكذلك نتيجة لظهور الآثار الهدامة لهذا النهج على المجتمَعات في ضرب مفهوم الأسرة، وتفكيك المنظومة الأخلاقية للمجتمع في مقابل حرية الفرد المنفلتة من كل الضوابط، ناهيك عن استنزاف الموارد الطبيعية لكوكب الأرض بسبب السياسات الاقتصادية المرتبطة بالنهج الليبرالي مما بات يهدد الوجود البشري ذاته.

Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem Was A Multipolar Visionary

Andrew Korybko (@AKorybko) | Twitter

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

18 NOVEMBER 2020

Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem Was A Multipolar Visionary
In order to appreciate his legacy, the reader must understand the complex circumstances in which he worked.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem passed away earlier this week, but his multipolar vision will be remembered forever. The Arab Republic’s top diplomat previously served as his country’s Ambassador to the US from 1990-1999 prior to becoming Assistant Foreign Minister in 2000, Deputy Foreign Minister in 2005, Foreign Minister in 2006, and even Deputy Prime Minister in 2012. He was also Syria’s Minister of Expatriates too. In order to appreciate his legacy, the reader must understand the complex circumstances in which he worked.

The US became the world’s unipolar superpower after the end of the Cold War right when Mr. Muallem became the Syrian Ambassador to that country. He was charged with managing Damascus’ changing relations with the world during that very difficult time. It was during that period that both countries attempted to normalize their formerly hostile Cold War-era relations. Although extremely challenging, Mr. Muallem succeeded as best as he could with his very important task.

Just before becoming Foreign Minister, Syria militarily withdrew from neighboring Lebanon in response to the domestic political changes that took place there during its Cedar Revolution after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Damascus was blamed for that crime but vehemently denied it, and Mr. Muallem provided plenty of evidence in defense of his country to the United Nations. That was his first real challenge in his new post. The year after, in 2007, Israel bombed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria, which caused a brief crisis.

Mr. Muallem also had to contend with the increasingly aggressive US military presence in neighboring Iraq. Washington had accused Damascus of supporting anti-American militias, and some voices were even urging the Pentagon to go to war against the Arab Republic. Thankfully nothing ever came out of those hawkish cries, but that’s largely the result of Syria’s diplomatic success in standing strong against this bullying. Syrian-American relations then thawed for a short period of time after Secretary of State Kerry visited Damascus in 2010.

It was after the onset of the regional regime change operation popular described as the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011 that Mr. Muallem became a globally recognized diplomatic figure even though he arguably deserved this distinction earlier for the aforementioned reasons. Syria was victimized by an externally waged hybrid war of terror which included foreign sponsorship of terrorist groups, crippling Western sanctions, and several false accusations that Damascus used chemical weapons against its own people.

The most dramatic of the latter occurred in late 2013 and almost led to the US launching a conventional all-out war against Syria like it had against Libya just two years prior. Mr. Muallem played a leading role in resolving this global crisis, which resulted in Syria surrendering its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community. Two years later, Russia launched a game-changing anti-terrorist military intervention in Damascus’ support to help defeat ISIS, which Mr. Muallem also played an integral role in organizing behind the scenes.

All the while, he simultaneously helped Syria react to several Turkish military interventions without escalating them to the point of a larger war, the same as he did whenever Israel launched literally hundreds of strikes against his country in the proceeding years as well, to say nothing of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition’s attacks too. It took exceptional patience and restraint to avoid overreacting to those provocations like others in his position elsewhere might have done, but he kept his cool and thus helped manage those destabilizing developments.

It should also be mentioned that Syria retained its historic alliance with Iran that preceded Mr. Muallem’s tenure as Foreign Minister by several decades. He masterfully balanced between that Mideast country and Syria’s other Russian ally without playing either off against the other unlike other smaller- and medium-sized states in similarly difficult positions had historically attempted in the past with different partners. Importantly, Mr. Muallem also oversaw the improvement of Syrian-Chinese relations during this time as well.

China, Russia, and Iran are completely different countries but are all united in spirit because of their belief in a multipolar world order, which Syria also supports. Mr. Muallem proved that countries such as his can successfully bring all three of them together to synergize their efforts in pursuit of this vision. The example that he set in this respect, among the many others that were mentioned in this analysis, will ensure that he’s remembered the world over as one of the greatest diplomats of the 21st century.

“Teacher d’assumption’s statement – Reframing the racism debate”

November 11, 2020

“Teacher d’assumption’s statement – Reframing the racism debate”

By Leo Abina – A concerned World Citizen – for the Saker Blog

Going back as far as I can remember, the story of what my dad’s 1930s primary school teacher would say at the start of every school day has been ingrained in my family’s narrative for half a century. “Whites build locomotives. Negroes can’t produce a needle. Whites are civilized. Negroes are savages.” As he would recount this story, my dad would always add, with a mischievous chuckle, “my few other African classmates in that class would be outraged by this statement; but not me. For me, d’Assumption’s ‘greeting to the class’ became a source of motivation to excel, especially in mathematics and science, just to prove him wrong.” Over the years, teacher d’Assumption’s[1] statement would never fail to ignite passionate debates, emotions, and reactions among family members; me included.

During my childhood, in the 60s and 70s, I lived the life of a privileged West-African boy from a well-to-do family, growing up in multi-racial social networks, attending private schools in Africa and Europe, oblivious to the vicissitudes of both subtle and raw racism. During these early years, teacher d’Assumption’s statement felt like a distant, no longer relevant, piece of nasty colonial history that I did not fully understand but felt needed to just be forgotten.

As a youngster coming of age and completing tertiary education in the 80s and 90s, I lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union, the uninhibited advent of market-driven globalization, and the shift towards finance, rather than ‘goods and services’ -dominated economies. My thoughts about teacher d’Assumption’s statement during those years were that “aspiring to build African locomotives out of pride was wasteful and misguided development strategy.” What would be smarter, I argued, was “investing African capital to own shares in railway manufacturing companies, so as to better facilitate the deployment of railway infrastructure in Africa; while at the same time, striving to build competence in railway technology.’

Then came the beginning of my expat years. My first forays into the ‘real world’ of business, outside the manicured lawns and precious wood paneled walls of US Ivy League campuses. Those years brought my first encounters with the realities of ‘subtle,’ though at times not so ‘subtle,’ corporate double standards. I had up to then bought into the neo-liberal ethos about free and fair markets; only to discover that in reality, most markets, even within the western sphere of influence, were neither free nor fair. Corporate battles within the western world are testimony that strategic technologies are protected; Boeing vs Airbus, Apple vs Microsoft, Siemens vs GE, are but a few legendary examples of this reality. These examples helped me realize that my earlier thoughts about how Africans should use capital in order to play the economic game to their advantage might have been overly naive – state interventions do play a major role in today’s so called ‘free markets’, and the bigger the state, the stronger the interventions. Even in the apparently ‘leveled playing field’ of our modern world, teacher d’Assumption’s worldview seemed as entrenched and relevant as it ever was.

As I look back through the eyes and battle scars of a 50-something, I get an uneasy sense that humanity has remained stuck on this all-important racism issue. On one side of the issue, white folks are conditioned to inherently hold a sense of superiority, backed by centuries of modern western world dominance. While on the other side of the issue, brown folks, no matter where they live in the world, their place in society, or their achievements, feel a sense of injustice, inadequacy, and alienation, in a historical period dominated by the modern western construct; a construct in which they can at best live as ‘acceptable strangers,’ or at worst as victims or rebels.

Taking a closer look at these perspectives on racism might provide a better premise to bring the two main conflicting parties – the white, western European dominant side, and the non-white (brown) global-south side, nearer each other.

Let us begin with the white perspective. Looking at the advent of modern western civilization over the past 300 years, as well as today’s global power dynamics, one can easily understand why a 21st-Century white person might have an innate sense of superiority. Why in our times, even an unaccomplished, hopeless, inept white person of European descent would still feel superior to an accomplished, gifted, and successful brown person.

In a nutshell, this frame of mind stems from the observation that for the past few centuries, the modern western civilization managed to subjugate much of the rest of our world. Through naval supremacy and superior weaponry resulting in tremendous military might, small European nations with tiny territories and lesser populations were able to project power globally and overwhelm much larger, usually brown, peoples. These past conquests still resonate in the psyche of many modern Europeans, and in the view of many, bear witness to the greater ingenuity of the white race. Once the lands of the brown people were subdued and a colonial order was established to channel vast amounts of natural resources from the colonies to the colonial capitals, in the eyes of many Europeans, this exploitative world order was, and is to this day, justified.

For in their narrative, it is Europeans, in the first place, who knew and understood the value of these natural resources. Whereas the brown natives, who might have been sitting on these natural resources for centuries, a. did not have an industrial base to know the value of what was under their feet b. did not have the technology and means to access and exploit these natural resources, and c. did not have the capacity and strength to protect them. Therefore, it is only natural that those who have the knowledge, technology, and power to access natural resources should also have the nature-given right to exploit them.

Then comes the moral aspect, especially as it relates to one of the most gruesome episodes in the long racism saga: the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In public and in the name of political correctness, most white people who only have a passing acquaintance with slavery do feel a sense of guilt about it. However, upon greater scrutiny through which they come to understand the historical context of slavery, and in view of recent south-to-north emigration dynamics, in private, many other white people do not share that sense of guilt.

The rationale here is twofold. First, there is the very controversial observation that during the slave trade, Africa was not occupied; therefore and by-enlarge, it was mostly African chieftains who sold other Africans into slavery. If brown people were ready to sell their own kind into slavery while Europeans needed labor to build ‘the new world in the Americas,’ why should only one of the two parties lose the moral high ground? Second, decades after slavery and colonization, we live in a time of massive south-north migration where millions of brown people are ready to leave their own independent countries and risk their lives across deserts and seas in search of a better life in the white man’s ‘land of milk and honey.’ Isn’t that further testimony of the white man’s more aspirational, and therefore superior, way of life?

This old, profound inter-racial legacy explains why an unaccomplished white person would still feel superior to a gifted brown person. The white indigent person sees brown people parading in fancy clothes, fancy cars, fancy homes, and thinks, “this high life these brown people aspire to and are so fond of, was brought about by us.”

Let us now turn to the brown perspective. The brown person’s experience in today’s modern western civilization is an experience filled with contradictions. On one hand there is an attraction to the outward semblance of freedom, equality and fraternity professed by the West. On the other hand there is a rejection of the inward reality of coercion, double standards, and racism perpetrated by that very same West. In this context, the brown person’s best option often consists in navigating these contradictions as deftly and quietly as possible, with no overt defiance to the established order. I once attended an event where the condition of black Brazilians came up in the discussion; a white Brazilian businessman who was present casually responded; “we do not have a racial problem in Brazil because in Brazil, brown people know their place!”

Besides the cruelty, hurtful meaning, and Brazilian frame of reference of this remark, it basically captured the essence of brown peoples’ lives everywhere in the modern world. No matter where they live, what their personal circumstances are, whether they are conscious of it or not, racism is an integral part of brown peoples’ day-to-day reality. Of course, in the modern era the crude state-sanctioned form of racism that prevailed up to the 1960s has rescinded, but nonetheless racism is still alive and well in today’s world context, albeit in different forms according to different environments.

The western-dominated world order dates back to at least three centuries. Its latest, modern iteration was established at the end of World War II by the victorious powers. On the economic front, western dominance happened de facto through the establishment of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1944 – the World Bank and the IMF. On the political front, the United Nations was founded with the noble mandate to prevent future wars, and a 5-nations Security Council made up of the most powerful nations was formed to protect this mandate, as well as approve or veto United Nations resolutions. In reality, this system and the highly biased, misrepresentative nature of its governing body, the Security Council, has been used outwardly for the benefit of the ‘international community,’ but inwardly for the interests of a tiny, West-led, part of the world. On the cultural front, dominance pretty much occurred by default through the ubiquitous reach of western media, western movies, and western broadcasting power.

In a second phase spanning through the 70s, 80s and 90s, the post-war world order was further reshaped with the formation of a new, dollar-based monetary system (no longer backed by gold), a massive shift in geo-politics with the fall of the USSR, a series of international trade agreements, and the advent of satellite-based communications and information technologies. Last but not least, the West’s military dominance was further strengthened by the eastern expansion of NATO, and the broad deployment of military bases around the world – nearly a thousand for the US alone, with a $900b yearly military budget that is larger than all European countries’ military budgets put together, and 10x Russia’s.

In recent years this unipolar, US-dominated world order is being challenged by a re-emerging modern Russia, and by regional powers such as China, India and Brazil. Nonetheless, western power remains formidable and remains overwhelmingly white. As a result of this reality, for most brown people around the world the real question has not so much been about whether the modern western ethos harbors racism or not. It has been about the extent to which racism affects them directly and experientially, and the extent to which racism limits their opportunity to strive.

Some people in the West find it difficult to conceive of this, but the reality is that even brown people who live in their own countries, under their own government, are affected by racism. Such assertions, as is now the case for any dissenting assertions even backed by forensic evidence, are often dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories.’ Nonetheless, in order to understand how this is possible, it is important to understand that in today’s world order, years after colonization, most brown countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia, are still not free. Sure, these countries are recognized as independent administrative entities, with their own flags, national anthems, and emblems, but in reality, western powers still exercise a tremendous amount of hegemonic political, economic, and cultural power on them.

Recent history around the world has shown that brown leaders who try to defy the status quo and defend the interest of their own people at the expense of western hegemony, do not last long. In order to survive in their positions, most brown leaders have to make political and economic choices that are not favorable to their nation. Although most of the time, leaders in brown countries are quite happy to become stooges of the West, pledge allegiance to their western overlords, and enjoy the monetary benefits that come with that allegiance – often at the expense of their own nation, just like the African chieftains who used to sell fellow Africans into slavery.

In such subservient brown countries, discord often grows between the state and the citizens, repression intensifies, and the leaders find themselves increasingly isolated and paranoid of their own people. The leaders then start trusting and favoring only people from their closest circle, as well as foreigners, more than all other locals. Soon in this process, all significant opportunities in business, in government, and especially the security and intelligence branches of government, become the preserve of a small, predatory clique with foreign and carefully selected local elements. Of course, the various aspects of this scenario play out differently from brown country to brown country, but the general outcome is usually the same; frustration, limited opportunities, and second-class citizenship for the local brown people, in their own country.

For brown people living in the West, the situation is also not ideal, albeit for different reasons. The list of day-to-day racism related life challenges brown people face in western countries is just too long to enumerate here. The worst such challenges such as police brutality, discrimination in the workplace, and the ghettoization of brown communities have been rampant in the West, and have once again become prominent through the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. In the same vein as the civil rights movement of the 1960s, these recent developments have the merit of exposing the pain and hardships brown people in the West have been experiencing for decades. Huge protests are erupting to demand the downing of statues depicting historical ‘white racist’ figures, to demand that people kneel as a sign of outrage to the George Floyd killing, to demand reparations for the ill treatment brown peoples have endured in the past. Brown peoples’ tempers and frustrations are once again reaching boiling point in front of western oppression and injustice. However, to many well-intended observers, the types of demands brown people in the West are making to correct the situation and hopefully crush the scourge of racism seem superficial, ineffective, and perhaps even naive.

In order to defeat something as entrenched and deep as racism, a different premise might be needed. Perhaps each side of the racism issue, the western, white dominant side, and the global south, brown subjugated side, needs to re-examine its own frame of reference?

Today, as in teacher d’Assumption’s time in the 1930s, modern western civilization remains dominant and continues to exercise disproportionate power on the world; with each of the leading western countries exercising strong influence on specific ‘brown’ regions – the US in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and parts of the Middle East, the UK in Africa, Asia, and other parts of the Middle East, France mainly in its former African territories. That power is still derived from the West’s advances in technology, applied in various, more sophisticated fields of control; be it in surveillance and intelligence (via military satellites and cyber-tracking technology), subversive regime change methods (via color revolutions, co-opted local protests, or mainstream media ‘manufactured consent’ and leader-demonization campaigns), or good old, albeit more targeted, military operations (via drones, bombing campaigns, inter-ballistic missiles, or special ops interventions). On the economic front, the enactment of sanctions on brown countries that do not ‘toe the line’ has been a widely-used tool in recent years; with a flip side to this approach being the granting of western currency-denominated loans, with monies ‘created-out-of-thin-air’ and lent by western Treasury Ministries (or DFIs) to brown countries to ensure debt-driven ‘loyalty.’ On the political side, in a context of outward democracy since the 1980s, the use of data analytics and social media has been used to foster favorable, or at least non western-interest-threatening, electoral outcomes.

In light of all this, a modern-day teacher d’Assumption would say, “whites send satellites into space, blacks can’t make a bicycle. Whites are civilized. Blacks are savages.” The ‘satellites’ versus ‘bicycle’ part of that statement may be partly true, but it also infers important presumptions and omissions that should be brought to light and honored. As for the ‘civilized’ versus ‘savages’ part, it is a plain fallacy that should be exposed as such.

The presumption many westerners have about their technological superiority is that it came about exclusively from the brilliance and higher intellectual order of the white race. In reality, technological advancements truly surfaced in the 1500s in the European West, a period many would consider quite late in the historical process.

Ancient Greece, from which the modern western European civilization is thought to have emerged, learned extensively from ancient Egypt. Ancient Greece scholars in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, and medicine, learned from the ancient Egyptians. In other words, the way today’s scientists and technologists travel to Europe and the US to gain knowledge, is the same way ancient Greeks would travel to Egypt to gain knowledge. The great ’embarrassment’ western tradition has tried to keep under wraps for centuries, has tried to ‘deflate’ through Hollywood misrepresentation, has fought in bad faith in the academic arena, is that the ancient Egyptians were black, and were the real ancestors of modern day Africans, from across the continent and in the diaspora. Today’s core Egyptian population comes from a mix between different successions of historically newcomers to Egypt; notably Turks and Arabs. In the ancient world, black people from Egypt, who became ‘browner’ during the later Pharaonic dynasties after centuries of conquests and ‘métissage/mixing’ with lighter conquered people (we’re seeing the reverse today), dominated the world. This question should be finally settled and taught. Not out of pride to claim some ancient glory, but for humanity to learn and reflect on the lessons of the past, without falsifying the past.

‘Western’ mathematics and in particular algebra, without which modern technology would not have come about, were initiated by the Persians and later developed by the Arabs. To understand the importance of just this contribution, one should just try and write, never mind calculate, 10,354 x 726 in Roman numbers! This fact although it is more widely known and better accepted than the ‘ancient Egypt was black’ cover up, has also been largely ignored and set aside by the modern West. Once again, perpetuating the idea that white western ingenuity solely deserves the credit for the technical advances humanity now enjoys in the modern world, is a criminal cover-up that impairs progress in the racism discussion.

In any case, and perhaps from a more philosophical perspective, scientific and technological advancement should not be boasted over for as long as it hasn’t resolved the ultimate human aspiration, which is the avoidance of death. In our modern times, the dominant West should reflect upon the true extent of its power. As a spiritual leader once declared in the course of an argument with a western materialist, during which the latter was marveling at the supremacy of rationale epistemology, technology and science, “if you’re so smart, don’t die!” It might thus be helpful for today’s dominant group who prides itself for the preeminence of its technology, and thus for the preeminence of its power, to reflect on the reality that despite these advances, despite a particular group living in better material conditions than others, the finality of all humans on this earth has remained the same. It is also perhaps the reason why the ancient Egyptians were so obsessed with immortality; the ultimate frontier of their power. To this day, that frontier has not been reached.

When it comes to the notion that having greater mastery of technology makes a particular group more ‘civilized’ than another, despite the many lessons we have from History on this assertion, most of today’s dominant West appears to not have taken heed. Just looking at recent history, one could reflect on how in the first few months of WW2, the Wehrmacht conquered Europe through its ‘blitzkrieg/lightning war’ and superior military technology. Did those accomplishments make the Third Reich more ‘civilized’ than the rest of Europe? Why then carry this contention that dominance over brown people all over the world by means of higher technology, and thus power, makes one more ‘civilized?’ On the moral and civilizational spectrum, justice administered with crude weaponry will forever remain higher than injustice committed with ballistic missiles and drones.

After all, power, then and now, whatever its source and whatever its form, when it is exercised unjustly for the sake of a few, rather than justly for the sake of many, has a name: it is called tyranny.

On the brown side of the discussion, the re-framing might begin with a sharper sense of reality.

Despite proclamations to the contrary and an urge to lecture the world about freedom, democracy, equality for all, modern western civilization does not practice what it preaches. It likes to act as the victim when it is the aggressor. It co-opts a mainstream press compromised by special corporate and ideological interests. It supports brutal regimes that do its bidding and decries legitimate other regimes that defy the current order. It establishes states through genocide of indigenous populations, tolerates discrimination against second-class minority groups, talks about liberty but expects everyone to conform to western cultural norms. Yet, many brown people the world over, perhaps as a coping mechanism, pretend not to see the huge gap between the outward western assertions on freedom, liberty, and justice, and the inward reality of western power.

Once brown people realize that the modern western world order does function on the basis of quasi- imperial power dynamics with a dominant group and a subjugated group, they might also realize that progress will not happen on the racism question for as long as the technological gap between the parties does not subside. The reason for that comes from the other reality that the opposite of racism is mutual respect. If the West sees itself better than others because of its technological advances and the power that derives from it, while others seem incapable of matching western technology but aspire to the same living standards that this technology provides, there can be no mutual respect. The process of acquiring one’s own technology is essential not just to earn respect, but also to earn one’s real freedom. It is also an endeavor that is hard, complicated, onerous, and at times extremely dangerous. Brown people, just like other non-western Europeans have done, should consider this reality in their re-framing of the racism issue.

Between 1941 and 1945, the Allies, despite adhering to different political ideologies, worked together in order to defeat Nazism and had to catch up with German military technology as a matter of survival; it was an extremely arduous process. In the post-war era, being prevented from political and military autonomy, a humiliated and damaged Japan decided to catch up with western consumer technologies; it was also an extremely arduous process. Today, China is following and perhaps surpassing Japan’s footsteps on not just consumer, but on all commercial technologies. While post-Soviet/post-1990s Russia is doing the same on the military front. None of these countries were given a free pass to ‘catch up’! Nor did they waste time adding insult to injury by turning to others in plea for help and apologies. Brown people then, must learn those lessons and take heed.

A journalist once asked an African father-of-independence leader “what was,” in his view “the worst thing that can happen to a human being?” The old man paused for a short while, and then replied, “losing one’s dignity!”

Being poor and over-powered is not a degrading state to be in and of itself; most peoples at some point in their history have experienced that. However, looking for sympathy and apologies for one’s misfortune, expecting others to relinquish power and provide for one, being unwilling to make sacrifices in order to uplift oneself, is degrading and makes one the laughing stock of the world. In order to regain some respect that will help close the gap in the racism discussion, brown people and leaders in brown countries must make all necessary efforts to ‘catch up’ and regain some dignity. Brown people who pretend not to care for the benefits of modern life tend not to be very genuine and thus not deserving of respect. Brown people who are not prepared to make the efforts and sacrifices needed to ‘catch up,’ but are so keen to flock in and emulate institutions built by others instead of building their own, are also not deserving of respect. Then brown people who do manage to regain some level of power, and who in turn, for the sake of correcting past injustices, themselves become unjust, perpetrate the downward cycle of racism.

Perhaps, through this reframing of the racism issue, primary schoolteachers the world over will one day begin the day with a different statement?

“Satellites, locomotives and bicycles are the result of human ingenuity over the ages. They make our daily lives better and they can be a source of great power. However, these technological and material achievements, however great they maybe, should not make us arrogant or make us think ourselves better than those who have not reached them. They should become a means to bring justice and peace to the entire world.”

  1. Note: my father’s primary school teacher at the Lycée Faidherbe in 1930s St Louis, Senegal. 

Will Biden be the head of restoration and review of major Middle Eastern files? هل يكون بايدن رئيس الترميم ومراجعة الملفات الشرق أوسطية الكبرى؟

Will Biden be the head of restoration and review of major Middle Eastern files?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-383.png

Brigadier General Dr. Amin Mohammed Hatit

The world has not known a president who has created in international relations and corrupted the major core files in it, as witnessed with Donald Trump, the current U.S. president, who failed to renew his mandate, and now has to come out of the White House with a praise that regrets his luck and blames those who failed him or betrayed him.

Trump is coming out of power, leaving behind him, as well as from the major international files that have corrupted his tracks, and who are waiting for the parties concerned to intervene in the United States, contrary to the arrogance and insanity of the Trumpi in its circulation, and to put an end to the corruption that caused a terrible imbalance in international relations and caused serious damage to it on more than one level, but the Middle East region has been harmed by Trump’s aggressiveness, greed and madness, a lot of harm that he has inflicted on him in exchange for cash or in kind payments to him. He’s connected to those files on Trump’s back in order to fix what’s been corrupted.

Here… Apart from the issues of armaments, climate, alliances, international relations and the economic, security and political wars that America is waging on more than one level, the files that America is affecting in our region are not the small size of the Syrian and Iraqi situation to the Iranian nuclear file to the deal of the century to the Turkish and Gulf ogres, all of which are hot citizens affected by the decision and the American behavior, which makes us ask the question about the course of the new American policy in those citizens and how will the performance of the new democratic president Joe Biden and the second Catholic reach to Rule in America after John F. Kennedy, and will it be a dramatic coup on Trump’s decisions in these files? Or does the deep American state have other decisions and paths that do not deny the above?

First of all, it should be noted that despite all that has been said and said of the situations or coups that America is witnessing with the change of head of state, it is not to be taken for granted, since the truth seems otherwise. Although the president’s personality is essential in the state, there are standards and controls in the U.S. system that prevent the formation of extreme coup slings and prevent interruptions with the past, so the new president, whoever comes to the White House, finds himself obliged to deal with the legacy of the former departing whatever this legacy is on the basis that the rule “that governing continues” taking into account cases of exceptional anomalies as happened with Trump and his coup decisions. The next president inherits the legacy of the former and treats it as a fait accompli that means America and then works on restoration and correction for development and rarely we see radical coups as Trump did in specificfiles.

Trump has left major files on the Middle East that require decisions from new President Joe Biden to address, reform, or change, raising the question of the new u.S. policy paths to those files with the change in the head of state after the presidential election that prevented Trump from remaining in the White House for four more years. Here, taking into account the principle of continuity of state function, a change may govern the U.S. performance on these files unevenly, a change imposed by the new balance of power, trump’s failure to reach the finals of the file, and Biden’s tendency to restore and correct from the degree to which those files have reached:

1 The war on Syria and the U.S. presence there and in Iraq: Through the stated positions and realities on the ground, we do not expect the Biden administration to take a decision to withdraw from the two countries, and U.S. policy under the new president will be destined for a situation that does not constitute the declaration of defeat of the Arab Spring in them, which is the “spring” he launched The Democrats under Obama’s term, so the two countries will have to deal with a U.S. administration that will try to get the whole country to try to activate the division and fragmentation files, especially since Biden is the owner of the partition project and that his land is slowly forming in the northeastern Euphrates Syria and in the north of Iraq in the Kurdistan region. It is true that the partition decision is not easy to achieve in light of the existing changes on the ground, but it has become a danger that has increased its intensity from what existed, which means that the two countries will not see soon breakthroughs under the Biden administration that will bring them back to normal except by exceptional political and military action with the support of allies, which is urgent and not excluded..

2 «Deal of the century» will be the most likely destination with Biden in power with what will constitute a freeze of negative frequencies on the personal status of both Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman where we see that biden’s project to solve the Palestinian issue is based on two-state basis in the form of the “deal of the century”, and this project will return to the forefront taking into account the steps achieved under the deal that has not been implemented what makes it final and not revisitable, as the size ofthe The obstacles to the completion of implementation are now much larger than the size of the pressure to pass it, and therefore we see that the Palestinian issue will enter into a new stage of fanship in which there is no ability to follow up in the deal of the Century Trump and there are not enough opportunities for a radical solution that satisfies the Palestinians, but will register in any case the opponents of the “deal of the century” that they succeeded in first and freeze it later and still hindered them to work in order to abort what has been implemented and prevent the resumption of work.

3. Iran’s nuclear dossier will see an important move toward a re-examination of the U.S. position in it after Trump withdrew America’s signature on the 5+1 solution with Iran and was enshrined in a Security Council resolution. We believe that Iran will enter with the U.S. and other parties in restrictive negotiations in order to develop this agreement after America backs away from Trump’s malicious actions against it..

I think that Biden will return Turkey in general and Erdogan in particular to the seat set by the West for him and will not let him follow his authoritarian and mongol march on the region from Libya to Azerbaijan, passing through Syria, Iraq, Cyprus and Greece, and Erdogan will find himself controlled by Biden’s leadership bringing him back to work, for his advantage, without special Turkish expansionist independent project.

5 Saudi and Gulf illusion and the War of Yemen, Yemen may be at the forefront of america’s review of its policy in the region by Biden, where we do not expect the latter to give additional time to Saudi Arabia to resolve the war of Yemen, a solution that is now in the rule of the impossible, so we believe that the war of Yemen may see its dramatically end in the coming year.

Therefore, we can say that the possible breakthroughs will be witnessed by the Yemeni and Iranian situation, and complications in the Syrian, Iraqi and Palestinian affairs if there is no internal shock supported by external support and control even the restriction of the Gulf and Turkish movement in the region from the American side, but the response remains subject to the decisions of regional and international stakeholders, who will act without a doubt on the basis of the developments drawn by the confrontations internationally and regionally, which dropped the saying that “America is the destiny” doing what it wants and imposes what it wants, America is finished, with the rise of multipolarity.

هل يكون بايدن رئيس الترميم ومراجعة الملفات الشرق أوسطية الكبرى؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

لم يعرف العالم رئيساً أميركياً أحدث في العلاقات الدولية وأفسد في الملفات الأساسية الكبرى فيها كما شهده مع دونالد ترامب الرئيس الأميركي الحالي، الذي فشل في تجديد ولايته، وبات عليه ان يخرج من البيت الأبيض مذموماً مدحوراً يندب حظه ويلوم من خذله أو خانه.

يخرج ترامب من الحكم مخلفاً وراءه كمّاً من الملفات الدولية الكبرى التي أفسد مساراتها والتي ينتظر الأطراف المعنيون بها تدخلاً أميركياً مغايراً للغطرسة والجنون الترامبي في تداولها، ولوضع حدّ للإفساد الذي أحدث خللاً فظيعاً في العلاقات الدولية وتسبّب بأضرار بالغة فيها على أكثر من صعيد، اما منطقة الشرق الأوسط فقد نالها من عدوانية ترامب وجشعه وجنونه الكثير الكثير من الأذى الذي أنزله فيها مقابل أموال نقدية أو عينية دفعها له من كان مستفيداً من أفعاله السيئة تلك، ولهذا يعوّل من هو على صلة بتلك الملفات على خلف ترامب من أجل أن يصلح ما أفسد فهل يفعل خاصة على صعيد الملفات التي تعنينا مباشرة في المنطقة؟

وهنا… وبعيداً عن قضايا التسلح والمناخ والتحالفات والعلاقات الدولية والحروب الاقتصادية والأمنية والسياسية التي تشنّها أميركا على أكثر من صعيد، فإنّ الملفات التي تؤثر فيها أميركا في منطقتنا ليست بالحجم الصغير من الوضع السوري والعراقي الى الملف النووي الإيراني الى صفقة القرن الى التغوّل التركي والجموح الخليجي وكلها مواطن حامية تتأثر بالقرار والأداء والسلوك الأميركي ما يجعلنا نطرح السؤال حول مسار السياسة الأميركية الجديدة في تلك المواطن وكيف سيكون فيها أداء الرئيس الجديد جو بايدن الديمقراطي المسنّ وثاني كاثوليكي يصل الى الحكم في أميركا بعد جون كنيدي، وهل ستكون انقلابات دراماتيكية على قرارات ترامب في هذه الملفات؟ أم أن للدولة الأميركية العميقة قرارات ومسارات أخرى لا تتنكر لما سبق؟

بداية لا بدّ من التنويه انه رغم كلّ ما قيل ويقال من أوضاع أو حالات انقلابية تشهدها أميركا مع تغيير رأس الدولة هو أمر لا يمكن الاخذ به على إطلاقه، حيث انّ الحقيقة تبدو خلاف ذلك. اذ رغم انّ شخصية الرئيس أساسية في الدولة فإنّ هناك معايير وضوابط في النظام الأميركي تمنع تشكل الحالات الانقلابية الجذرية الحادة وتحول دون إحداث انقطاع مع الماضي، وبالتالي فإنّ الرئيس الجديد أيّاً كان هذا القادم الى البيت الأبيض يجد نفسه ملزماً بالتعامل مع إرث السابق المغادر كيفما كان هذا الإرث على قاعدة «انّ الحكم استمرار» مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار حالات من الشذوذ الاستثنائي كما حصل مع ترامب وقراراته الانقلابية. فالرئيس القادم يرث تركة السابق ويتعامل معها على أساس أنها أمر واقع يعني أميركا ثم يعمل على الترميم والتصحيح من أجل التطوير وقلما نشهد حالات انقلابية جذرية كما كان يفعل ترامب في ملفات محدّدة.

لقد خلف ترامب ملفات كبرى تعني منطقة الشرق الأوسط وتتطلب قرارات من الرئيس الجديد جو بايدن لمعالجتها تصحيحاً أو ترميماً أو تغييراً، ما يطرح السؤال عن مسارات السياسة الأميركية الجديدة حيال تلك الملفات مع التغيير الحاصل في رأس الدولة بعد الانتخابات الرئاسية التي منعت ترامب من البقاء في البيت الأبيض لأربع سنوات جديدة. وهنا، ومع الاخذ الحتمي بمبدأ استمرارية عمل الدولة فإنّ تغييراً قد يحكم الأداء الأميركي حيال تلك الملفات بشكل متفاوت تغييراً فرضته موازين القوى الجديدة وتعثر ترامب وفشله في الوصول الى نهائيات الملف ونزعة بايدن للترميم والتصحيح انطلاقاً من الدرجة التي وصلت اليها تلك الملفات وفقاً لما يلي:

1

ـ الحرب على سورية والوجود الأميركي فيها وفي العراق: من خلال المواقف المعلنة والوقائع القائمة على الأرض لا نتوقع ان تتخذ إدارة بايدن قراراً بالانسحاب من البلدين، وستكون السياسة الأميركية في ظلّ الرئيس الجديد متجهة لوضع لا يشكل إعلان هزيمة «الربيع العربي» فيهما وهو «الربيع» الذي أطلقه الديمقراطيون في ظلّ ولاية أوباما ولذلك سيكون على البلدين التعامل مع إدارة أميركية ستحاول بعد الفشل في وضع اليد على كامل البلاد ستحاول تفعيل ملفات التقسيم والتجزئة التامة خاصة أنّ بايدن صاحب مشروع التقسيم أصلاً وانّ أرضيته تتشكل رويداً في شمالي شرقي الفرات سورياً وفي الشمال العراقي في إقليم كردستان. وصحيح انّ قرار التقسيم ليس أمراً سهلاً تحقيقه في ظلّ المتغيّرات الميدانية القائمة إلا أنه بات خطراً ارتفعت نسبة شدّته عما كان قائماً ما يعني انّ البلدين لن يشهدا في ظلّ إدارة بايدن انفراجات قريبة تعيدهما الى الوضع الطبيعي إلا بعمل استثنائي سياسي وعسكري يحصل بدعم من الحلفاء وهو أمر بات ملحاً كما انه غير مستبعد.

2

ـ «صفقة القرن» سيكون التجميد فيها هو الوجهة المرجحة مع وجود بايدن في السلطة مع ما سيشكل تجميدها من ترددات سلبية على الوضع الشخصي لكلّ من نتنياهو ومحمد بن سلمان حيث نرى انّ مشروع بايدن لحلّ القضية الفلسطينية قائم على أساس الدولتين في غير صيغة «صفقة القرن»، وسيعود هذا المشروع الى الواجهة أخذاً بعين الاعتبار الخطوات التي تحققت في إطار الصفقة التي لم ينفذ منها ما يجعلها نهائية غير قابلة لإعادة النظر، حيث انّ حجم العوائق لاكتمال التنفيذ بات الآن أكبر بكثير من حجم الضغوط من أجل تمريرها ولهذا نرى انّ القضية الفلسطينية ستدخل في مرحلة مراوحة جديدة لا يكون فيها قدرة على المتابعة في صفقة القرن الترامبية ولا يوجد فرص كافية لحلّ جذري يرضي الفلسطينيين ولكن سيسجل على أيّ حال لمعارضي «صفقة القرن» انهم نجحوا في عرقلتها أولاً وتجميدها لاحقاً ويبقى عليهم العمل من أجل إجهاض ما نفذ منها ومنع استئناف العمل بها.

3

ـ الملف النووي الإيراني. سيشهد هذا الملف تحريكاً مهماً باتجاه إعادة النظر بموقع الولايات المتحدة فيه بعد ان سحب ترامب توقيع أميركا عن الحلّ الذي توصلت اليه مجموعة 5+1 مع إيران وكرّس بقرار من مجلس الأمن. ونعتقد انّ إيران ستدخل مع الأميركي والأطراف الأخرى في مفاوضات مقيّدة من أجل تطوير هذا الاتفاق بعد ان تتراجع أميركا عن إجراءات ترامب الكيدية بحقها. ولا نتصوّر بأنّ أميركا ستعود الى الاتفاق وكان القرار الترامبي لم يقع بل نرى حلاً وسطاً سيحكم الملف تستفيد منه إيران ما سيؤكد مرة أخرى انّ صمود إيران حفظ حقوقها ويثبت انّ سياسة العقوبات الأميركية فشلت في تحقيق الأهداف منها.

4

ـ التغوّل التركي الواسع، سيواجَه بقرارات أميركية جدية تمنع استمراره، واعتقد انّ بايدن سيعيد تركيا عامة وأردوغان بخاصة الى المقعد الذي حدّده الغرب له ولن يدعه يتابع مسيرته التسلطية والتغوّل على المنطقة امتداداً من لبيبا الى أذربيجان مروراً بكلّ من سورية والعراق وقبرص واليونان، وسيجد أردوغان نفسه مع بايدن أنه أمام قيادة تضبطه وتعيده الى العمل لمصلحتها وعنصراً في معسكرها دون أن تترك له المجال لممارسة مشروع تركي توسعي خاص مستقلّ عن الغرب. وهذا سينعكس حتماً على الميدان في كلّ من ليبيا وسورية والعراق وأذربيجان.

5

ـ الوهم السعودي والخليجي وحرب اليمن، قد يكون اليمن في طليعة المستفيدين من مراجعة أميركا لسياستها في المنطقة على يد بايدن، حيث لا نتوقع أن يعطي الأخير وقتاً إضافياً للسعودية لحسم حرب اليمن، وهو حسم بات في حكم المستحيل، لذلك نعتقد انّ حرب اليمن قد تشهد نهاية لها خلال العام المقبل وبشكل دراماتيكي من الوجهة السعودية،

وعليه نستطيع ان نقول انّ انفراجات مرجحة سيشهدها الوضع اليمني والإيراني، وتعقيدات أو مراوحة في الشأن السوري والعراقي والفلسطيني انْ لم تحدث صدمة داخلية مسندة بدعم خارجي وضبط حتى التقييد للحركة الخليجية والتركية في المنطقة هذا من الجانب الأميركي، أما الردّ فيبقى رهن قرارات المعنيين الإقليميين والدوليين، الذين سيتصرفون بدون شك على أساس المستجدات التي رسمتها المواجهات دولياً وإقليمياً، والتي أسقطت القول بانّ «أميركا هي القدر الذي لا يُردّ» والتي تفعل ما تشاء وتفرض ما تشاء، فأميركا هذه انتهت وانّ عالم القطب الواحد الذي رغبت به غير قائم الآن، في ظلّ وضع باتت ملامح نظامه مؤكدة قائمة على التعددية في المجموعات الاستراتيجية.

فيديوات مرتبطة

America has fallen … and the East Trio is collecting the harvest أميركا سقطت… وثلاثيّ الشرق يراكم الحصاد

America has fallen … and the East Trio is collecting the harvest

Mohammed Sadiq Al-Husseini

Franklin Roosevelt says:

«Nothing happens in politics by chance, make sure that everything that happens was planned tohappen.

We don’t believe in coincidence at all, but we wanted to rely on one of their elders as we were going to explainit.

What happened and continues in the U.S. elections and in the course of crystallizing the new structure of government when the White Oligarchy in Washington is a vivid example that everything that happens in politics is carefully planned in the backcorridors.

The deep american hidden forces that brought Donald Trump to achieve their goals and after four years of confusion and setbacks, i realized that those who put him in the forefront failed miserably, and it became her duty to change her blond horse with a colored horse that might fix what his losing predecessor had corrupted…

The loss of U.S. President Donald Trump is no longer the issue, just as Joe Biden’s victory is no longer important, but more importantly, the unprecedented direction this election has taken, from the beginning of the campaign to thismoment.

America has shown what it is, as it has never been built before… Deep political and moral decline, total chaos and concern for all American citizens, conservatives andliberals…

Their terror has intensified from coming to their country, and some of them are now afraid of the origin of a unitedAmerica.

What has brought the United States to this level of uncertainty, divisions and differences, which are spreading among the categories and classes of the American people and their political elites,

And even the military, which was manifested in the preparation of the current U.S. Secretary of War, General Mark Esper, for his letter of resignation?

The reasons for this grim fate of American prestige, and indeed the state itself as a political entity, as we know it, are not only related to the character of President Trump, but to the failure of the deep American forces that brought him to the White House four years ago. Those forces that mistakenly believed that he was a successful businessman and media, and that he might be able to achieve the objectives of these hidden powers, namely the world’s major capitalist powers, namely (the objectives) of trying to regain U.S. unipolar control over the world, and to stop the rise of other international powers to take the lead of theworld.

But President Trump, who inherited a defeated administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then confirmed the defeats of this administration in Iraq, defeating ISIS in Mosul in 2017, and by regaining control of most of its territory, we say that this president has proved that he is unable to repair what the previous administrations have corrupted, even if he really intends to doso.

And so Trump’s failure to achieve any U.S. victory, which has a strategic nature, and not just a demagogic media nature that does not change the balance of power on theground.

Here are the most important aspects of his failure:

It has failed miserably to subject Iran as an emerging power, despite all the extreme sanctions and constant threats, of military aggression against it. Indeed, it has been a reason for them to redouble their efforts, many times, to build their own forces, economically and militarily, and to rely more and more on themselves, thus turning them not too long into a regional superpower that can address any regional issue or crisis in isolation.
It also failed to prevent the Iraqi armed forces from destroying the basic strengths of ISIS gangs in Mosul and other Iraqi provinces at the end of 2018, while he and his army were providing them with multi-form support in Iraq as well as in Syria.

Moreover, although it has bombed Syrian positions and installations more than once, and has joined forces with the efforts of its military base on the Palestinian territory (The Zionist entity), as well asthe efforts of nato claw in the region, Turkish President Erdogan, has failed to stop the advance of the Syrian army and liberate more Syrian territory.
.

Of course, the resounding American failure to overthrow Yemen and control it and the strategic sea entrances, despite tens of thousands of Saudi-Israeli air strikes and the participation of the United States, Britain and France in supporting the forces of aggression intelligence, as the steadfast National Yemen is approaching victory more than ever, while the son of Salman and ibn Zayed and their masters are blamed by the defeatdenied. The greatest failure, in the march of the undersecretary of american forces Donald Trump, is his failure to subjugate the Palestinian people and force them to accept what he called the Deal of the Century, and his failure to even bring the leadership of the Palestinian Authority into the Fold of the White House to declare the Palestinian people’s surrender to projects to liquidate their cause and end their demand for the liberation of their occupied homeland, Palestine. This surrender, which would have given American imperialism and its local descendants, from Zionists, new Ottomans and Arabs in the Gulf, full control over the capabilities of the entire Arab world and opened the way to a massive financial investment process, such as the one carried out by the United States in Europe after World War II and whose influence (the control of American capital over the economy and politics) continued almost absolutely to this day..

It must also be confirmed that Trump’s resounding failure, in the face of the Corona epidemic, despite his false and repeated accusations of the people’s China to spread the epidemic, that besides his failure to manage the epidemic crisis in his country, he has failed miserably in the face of China’s economic, political and military rise, and has failed to create a rift in the Alliance or Cooperation of Russia and China, in terms of joint action to endthe unilateral American hegemony over the world’s capabilities. This means that the hidden powers of america, which chose Trump to save the United States from the inevitability of losing its dominance over the world, have been omitted, because of their arrogance, racism and ignorance of policy philosophy and objective economic development laws, that the American crisis is far too deep to be saved by a tv presenter and a failed and bankrupt businessman, likeTrump…!

The roots of the grinding crisis, domestically and internationally, facing the United States, are not a crisis of ideologies, political programs or even distinct American strategies, between this party or that party, but a structural crisis, encompassing the entire international capitalist system, and can only be fixed through radical actions, which Washington has no room to implement for a variety of reasons that cannot be explainedhere.

The United States has wasted 30 years in waging wars of aggression, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others, while Russia, China and Iran have focused all their efforts and financial capabilities, on scientific research and deepening knowledge, and creating a base for tremendous scientific and technological superiority, which has enabled it to outperform Washington in many military fields as well as to develop the domestic infrastructure of these countries, ensuring the continued implementation of long-term development projects, whether within those countries or in other countries and continents with which they have built or cooperated strongly, at alllevels.

It only needs to look at the recent Iranian move, coordinated with Beijing and Moscow, in Latin America, which was manifested in the recent visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister to Caracas, Havana and La Paz, and the joint cooperation projects discussed between the Iranian minister and officials of those countries. Long-term, including military-technical cooperation, i.e. the export of Iranian weapons and their manufacture in those countries after america’s fiasco not only to surround Iran, but also to stop its violence, which is expanding and is settling in its strategic space with all prestige and support.

The first rescue steps, which the next U.S. president must take if he is to reserve a significant seat in the new post-Trump international order, are to move away from policies of aggression and war, and to invest the bulk of the U.S. Department of War’s budget ($750 billion this year) in developing U.S. infrastructure and scientific research so that the U.S. economy is immune to collapse and competitive rather than superior. This is because the era of American superiority is gone forever and those who dream of the return of the world economy’s dominance to the throne of the world, as was the case from the end of World War II until the mid-1980s, it is delusional and dreamed of something that has become a thing of thepast.

Free trade competition, with growing international economies, is the only way to banish the spectre of collapse and disintegration of the state, the rest of the United States of America, not the arrogance, arrogance and racism of hidden American forces, both internally andexternally.

In conclusion, we come back and confirm that we are here, but we are reviewing America as it is in fact, and we never weave a picture of our imagination… This is her history.

Check it out with documents, numbers, documents, evidence and evidence…

They said the day they entered the land of Canaan and established the state of Israel on the day they built the first 13 settlements in the east of the so-called United States of Americatoday…

They were expanding and marching in all directions until they killed 112 million Latinos, i.e. indigenouspeople…

I think today they have lost all the momentum left to them and their reverse count ing began to disappear…

The main reason they lose all their morals… “But the nations of morality are not left, so they aregone.

أميركا سقطت… وثلاثيّ الشرق يراكم الحصاد

محمد صادق الحسيني

يقول فرانكلين روزفلت:

«لا شيء يحصل في السياسة بالصدفة، تأكدوا بأنّ كلّ ما يقع كان مخططاً له أن يقع».

ونحن إذ لا نؤمن بمقولة الصدفة أصلاً، لكننا أردنا ان نستند الى أحد كبارهم فيما نحن ذاهبون لشرحه.

ما حصل ولا يزال في الانتخابات الأميركية وفي مسار تبلور التركيبة الجديدة للحكم عند حكم الاوليغارشية البيضاء في واشنطن، مثال حيّ على انّ كلّ ما يحصل في السياسة إنما هو مخطط له بعناية في الأروقة الخلفية.

فالقوى الخفية الأميركية العميقة التي أتت بدونالد ترامب ليحقق لها أهدافها وبعد مضي أربع سنوات من التخبّط والانكسارات، أيقنت أن من وضعته في الواجهة فشل فشلاً ذريعاً في ذلك، وصار واجباً عليها تغيير حصانها الأشقر بحصان ملوّن لعله يصلح ما أفسده سلفه الخاسر…!

لم تعُد خسارة الرئيس الأميركي، دونالد ترامب، من عدمها هو الموضوع، تماماً كما لم يعد فوز جو بايدن هو المهم، وإنما الأهمّ هو المنحى غير المسبوق الذي اتخذته هذه الانتخابات، منذ بدء الحملة الانتخابية حتى هذه اللحظة.

فقد بانت أميركا على حقيقتها كما لم تبَنْ من قبل… انحطاط سياسي وأخلاقي عميق وفوضى عارمة وقلق يساور كل المواطنين الأميركيين من محافظين وليبراليين…

لقد اشتدّ رهابهم من الآتي لبلادهم حتى صار البعض منهم يخاف على أصل بقاء أميركا موحّدة..!

فما الذي أوصل الولايات المتحدة الى هذا المستوى من عدم اليقين والانقسامات والخلافات، التي تنتشر بين فئات وطبقات الشعب الأميركيّ ونخبه السياسية،

وحتى العسكرية، والتي تجلت في إعداد وزير الحرب الأميركي الحالي، الجنرال مارك إسبر، لرسالة استقالته؟

إنّ أسباب هذا المآل القاتم للهيبة الأميركية، لا بل للدولة نفسها ككيان سياسيّ، كما عرفناه، ليست مرتبطة فقط بشخصية الرئيس الأميركي ترامب، بقدر ما هي مرتبطة بفشل القوى الأميركية العميقة، التي أوصلته الى البيت الأبيض، قبل أربع سنوات. تلك القوى التي اعتقدت، خطأً، أنه رجل أعمال وإعلام ناجح، وأنه قد يكون قادراً على تحقيق أهداف هذه القوى الخفية، أي القوى الرأسمالية الكبرى في العالم، والمتمثلة (الأهداف) في محاولة استعادة السيطرة الأميركية الأحادية القطبية على العالم، ووقف صعود قوى دولية أخرى لتبؤّ قيادة العالم.

لكن الرئيس ترامب، الذي ورث إدارة مهزومة في العراق وأفغانستان، ثم تأكدت هزائم هذه الإدارة في العراق، بهزيمة داعش في الموصل سنة 2017، وباستعادة الدولة السورية السيطرة على معظم أراضيها، نقول إنّ هذا الرئيس قد أثبت انه غير قادر على إصلاح ما أفسدته الإدارات السابقة، حتى لو كان فعلاً ينوي القيام بذلك.

وهكذا فشل ترامب في تحقيق أيّ انتصار أميركي، له طبيعة استراتيجية، وليس فقط له طبيعة إعلامية ديماغوجية لا تغيّر في موازين القوى الميدانية شيئاً.

وإليكم أهمّ مناحي فشله:

فهو فشل فشلاً ذريعاً في إخضاع إيران كقوة صاعدة، رغم كلّ العقوبات القصوى والتهديدات المتواصلة، بالعدوان العسكري عليها. بل إنه صار سبباً في جعلها تضاعف جهودها، مرات عدة، لبناء قواها الذاتية، اقتصادياً وعسكرياً، والاعتماد على نفسها أكثر فأكثر، مما حولها في وقت ليس بالطويل إلى قوة إقليمية عظمى لا يمكن معالجة أيّ موضوع أو أزمة إقليمية بمعزل عنها.

كما أنه فشل في منع القوات المسلحة العراقية من تدمير القوام الأساسي لعصابات داعش، في الموصل وغيرها من المحافظات العراقية نهاية عام 2018، في الوقت الذي كان هو وجيشه يقدّم لتلك العصابات الدعم المتعدّد الأشكال في العراق كما في سورية. وهو ما يعني فشل السياسة الأميركية في تثبيت سيطرة داعش على سورية والعراق وتدمير الدولتين وتقسيمهما وإخراجهما من جميع معادلات الصراع في المنطقة.

يضاف الى ذلك أنه، ورغم قيامه بقصف مواقع ومنشآت سورية أكثر من مرة، وتضافر جهوده مع جهود قاعدته العسكرية على اليابسة الفلسطينية (الكيان الصهيوني)، وكذلك جهود مخلب الناتوفي المنطقة، الرئيس التركي أردوغان، قد فشل في وقف تقدّم الجيش السوري وتحرير المزيد من الأراضي السورية. وهو ما يعني فشل مخطط إسقاط الدولة السورية وتفتيتها وإنهاء استقلالها ووحدة أراضيها تمهيداً لنهب ثرواتها الطبيعية.

ولا بدّ طبعاً من إضافة الفشل الأميركي المدوّي في إسقاط اليمن والسيطرة عليه وعلى المداخل البحرية الاستراتيجية، رغم عشرات آلاف الغارات الجوية السعودية الإسرائيلية الإماراتية ومشاركة الولايات المتحده وبريطانيا وفرنسا في دعم قوى العدوان استخبارياً، حيث إنّ اليمن الوطني الصامد يقترب من النصر أكثر من أي وقت مضى، فيما يلملم إبن سلمان وابن زايد وأسيادهما أذيال الهزيمة المنكرة.

ويبقى الفشل الأعظم، في مسيرة وكيل القوى الأميركية الخفية دونالد ترامب، هو فشله في إخضاع الشعب الفلسطيني وإجباره على قبول ما أسماه بصفقة القرن، وفشله حتى في جلب قيادة السلطة الفلسطينية الى حظيرة البيت الأبيض لإعلان استسلام الشعب الفلسطيني لمشاريع تصفية قضيته وإنهاء مطالبته بتحرير وطنه المحتل، فلسطين كاملةً. هذا الاستسلام الذي كان سيمنح الإمبريالية الأميركية وأذنابها المحليين، من صهاينة وعثمانيين جدد وأعراب في الخليج، سيطرة كاملة على مقدرات العالم العربي بأسره وفتح الطريق الى عملية استثمارات مالية هائلة، كتلك التي نفذتها الولايات المتحده في اوروبا بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية والتي استمر تأثيرها (سيطرة رأس المال الأميركي على الاقتصاد والسياسة) بشكل مطلق تقريباً حتى وقتنا الحاضر.

كما يجب تأكيد فشل ترامب المدوي، في مواجهة وباء كورونا، رغم اتهاماته الباطلة والمتكررة للصين الشعبية بنشر هذا الوباء، اذ انه والى جانب فشله في ادارة الأزمة الوبائية في بلاده فقد فشل فشلاً ذريعاً في مواجهة صعود الصين الاقتصادي والسياسي والعسكري، كما فشل في خلق شرخ في التحالف او التعاون الروسي الصيني، على صعيد العمل المشترك لإنهاء الهيمنة الأميركية الأحادية على مقدرات العالم.

وهذا يعني أن القوى الخفية الأميركية، التي اختارت ترامب لإنقاذ الولايات المتحدة من حتمية فقدان هيمنتها على العالم، قد أغفلت، بسبب عنجهيتها وعنصريتها وجهلها بفلسفة السياسة وبقوانين التطور الاقتصادي الموضوعية، أن الازمة الأميركية اكثر عمقاً بكثير من ان ينقذها مُقدِّم برامج تهريج تلفزيونية ورجل أعمال فاشل ومفلس، مثل ترامب…!

إذ انّ جذور الأزمة الطاحنة، داخلياً ودولياً، التي تواجه الولايات المتحدة، ليست أزمة ايديولوجيات او برامج سياسية او حتى استراتيجيات أميركية متمايزة، بين هذا الحزب او ذاك، وإنما هي ازمة بنيوية، تشمل كل النظام الرأسمالي الدولي، ولا يمكن إصلاحها الا من خلال إجراءات جذرية، ليس لدى واشنطن مجال لتطبيقها لأسباب متعددة لا مجال لشرحها هنا.

لقد أضاعت الولايات المتحده ثلاثين عاماً في شنّ الحروب العدوانية، في أفغانستان والعراق وسورية وليبيا واليمن والصومال وغيرها، بينما ركزت روسيا والصين وإيران كل جهودها وقدراتها المالية،على البحث العلمي وتعميق المعرفة، وخلق قاعدة للتفوّق العلمي والتكنولوجي الهائل، الذي مكّنها من تحقيق تفوق على واشنطن في العديد من المجالات العسكرية وكذلك في تطوير البنى التحتية المحلية لهذه الدول، بما يضمن استمرار تنفيذ مشاريع التنمية الطويلة الامد، سواءً في داخل تلك الدول أو في دول وقارات أخرى بنت معها اواصر تعاون متين، على الصعد كلها.

ولا يحتاج الامر إلا الى إلقاء نظرة على التحرك الإيراني الاخير، المنسق مع بكين وموسكو، في أميركا اللاتينية، والذي تجلى في زيارة وزير الخارجيه الإيراني الاخيرة الى كل من كاراكاس وهاڤانا ولاباز، وما تمّ بحثه بين الوزير الإيراني وبين مسؤولي تلك البلدان من مشاريع تعاون مشتركة طويلة الأمد، بما في ذلك التعاون العسكري التقني، أي تصدير السلاح الإيراني وصناعته في تلك الدول بعد الفشل الذريع الذي مُنيت به أميركا ليس فقط في محاصرة إيران بل وفي وقف عنفوانها الذي تمدد وها هو يستقر في فضائها الاستراتيجي بكل هيبة وسؤدد.

وعليه فإنّ أولى خطوات الإنقاذ، التي يجب ان يتخذها الرئيس الأميركي القادم اذا ما اراد ان يحجز لبلده المتهاوي مقعداً يُعتد به في النظام الدولي الجديد ما بعد ترامب، انما تتمثل في الابتعاد عن سياسات العدوان وشنّ الحروب، واستثمار النسبة الأكبر من موازنة وزارة الحرب الأميركية (750 مليار دولار لهذا العام) في تطوير البنى التحتية الأميركية والبحث العلمي كي يصبح الاقتصاد الأميركي محصناً ضد الانهيار وقادراً على المنافسة وليس على التفوق. وذلك لأن عصر التفوق الأميركي قد ولى الى غير رجعة ومن يحلم بعودة سيطرة الاقتصاد العالمي على عرش العالم، كما كان الوضع منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية وحتى أواسط الثمانينيات من القرن الماضي، فإنه واهم وحالم بشيء اصبح من الماضي.

التنافس التجاري الحر، مع الاقتصاديات الدولية المتزايدة النمو، هو الطريق الوحيد، لإبعاد شبح الانهيار وتفكك الدولة، ما تبقى من الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وليس المكابرة والعنجهية والعنصرية التي تمارسها القوى الأميركية الخفية، داخلياً وخارجياً.

في الختام نعود ونؤكد اننا هنا إنما نستعرض أميركا كما هي في الواقع، ولا ننسج عنها صورة من مخيلتنا ابداً… هذا هو تاريخها.

راجعوه بالوثائق والأرقام والمستندات والقرائن والبراهين…

هم قالوا عن أنفسهم يوم دخلوا مستوطنين قادمين من انجلترا إنهم دخلوا أرض كنعان واقاموا دولة «إسرائيل» يوم بنوا أول 13 مستوطنة في شرق ما يسمّى الولايات المتحدة الأميركية اليوم…

وأخذوا يتوسّعون ويزحفون بكلّ الاتجاهات حتى قضوا على 112 مليون من اللاتينيين أي السكان الأصليين…

وأظنهم اليوم فقدوا كلّ ما تبقى لهم من قوة اندفاع وبدأ عدهم العكسي للاختفاء…

والسبب الأساسي فقدانهم كلّ أخلاقهم… و»إنما الأمم الأخلاق ما بقيت فإنْ همُ ذهبت أخلاقهم ذهبوا».

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

الفائز بِكُرة من لهب

أميركا 2020: الإمبراطورية كما لم تُرَ من قبل!

الأخبار

 وليد شرارة 

الثلاثاء 3 تشرين الثاني 2020

الفائز بِكُرة من لهب

المرشّح الفائز في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، أكان جو بايدن أم دونالد ترامب، سيواجه تحدّيات وصعوبات داخلية وخارجية، نُدِر أن واجه مثلها رئيس أميركي منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية. فالذي سيتربّع على مقعد رئاسة الإمبراطورية الأميركية المنحدرة سيجد نفسه أمام شرخ داخلي لا سابق له بين «أميركتين» يخشى الكثيرون أن يفضي إلى نزاعات أهلية دامية ومديدة، وأمام مشهد دولي تتسارع فيه ديناميات صعود المنافسين، مع ما تحمله من تهديدات بالانزلاق الى صدامات مباشرة معهم يصعب التنبّؤ بنتائجها، بالتوازي مع مسار تفكّك التحالفات الموروثة من حقبات سابقة، وتصاعد الصراعات بين أفرقاء إقليميين ودوليين تتراجع قدرة الولايات المتحدة على التحكّم فيها. الفوز في الانتخابات الرئاسية، في مثل هذا السياق العام، قد لا يكون أكثر من «هدية مسمومة»، تمثّل مقدمة لسلسلة من الانتكاسات والإخفاقات سيتحمّل مسؤوليتها رئيسٌ سيجد نفسه مضطراً إلى الأخذ بخيارات أحلاها شديد المرارة.


نُذُر النزاعات الداخلية
معدّلات المشاركة المرتفعة والمفاجئة في الانتخابات الرئاسية مفاجأة غير سارّة بالنسبة إلى دونالد ترامب. سبق لهذا الأخير أن حذر، خلال مهرجان انتخابي يوم السبت الماضي، من وقوع «أحداث شديدة السوء» في حال إعلان هوية الفائز يوم 3 تشرين الثاني، متوقعاً أن تَعمّ الفوضى بلاده. لَمّح ترامب، في أكثر من مناسبة في الأسابيع الماضية، إلى احتمال وقوع عمليات تزوير بسبب التصويت عن بعد، وهو احتمالٌ نفاه مدير «أف.بي.آي» المُعيّن من قِبَله، كريس وراي. هو يعلم أن نقطة ضعفه الأبرز، التي استغلّها منافسه الديمقراطي بقوة، هي إدارته الكارثية لجائحة كورونا وتداعياتها المُروّعة إنسانياً واقتصادياً واجتماعياً في الولايات المتحدة، والتي أدت إلى تعبئة قطاع وازن من الرأي العام ضدّه. «مجموعة الأزمات الدولية»، التي تُعنى عادة بتحليل خلفيات النزاعات في البلدان «النامية» واقتراح آليات لحلّها سلمياً، أصدرت، في خطوة وُصفت بـ»الاستثنائية» من قِبَل رئيسها روبرت مالي، تقريراً يشير إلى احتمال وقوع «اضطرابات وأعمال عنف واسعة» في الولايات المتحدة على خلفية الانتخابات والتشكيك في نتائجها من قِبَل كتل وازنة من الأميركيين. التقرير، الذي نشرت «الأخبار» يوم الإثنين أهمّ ما ورد فيه، يُركّز على أن رفض ترامب لنتائج الانتخابات واحتمال إقدامه على الطعن في نتائجها أمام القضاء، إضافة إلى عوامل أخرى: «غرق الولايات المتحدة بالأسلحة وسجلها السوداوي السابق في الحروب الأهلية، والقتل العشوائي، إضافة إلى الصراع الطبقي الحادّ والعبودية وغيرها، وتنامي الحركات المنادية بتفوّق العرق الأبيض في عهد ترامب، وتزايد الظلم العنصري ضدّ السود ووحشية الشرطة، جميعها أسباب تُرجّح إمكانية حدوث أعمال عنف».

ستدخل الولايات المتحدة في فترة طويلة من غياب الاستقرار السياسي


وحتى إذا نجح الفريق المنتصر في الانتخابات في تجاوز مرحلة من الصراع الداخلي المحموم، فإنه سيجابَه خلال سنوات حكمه بمعارضة داخلية عنيدة من قِبَل قطاع وازن من المجتمع والنخبة السياسية الأميركيَّين. يصحّ هذا الكلام على ترامب وبايدن على حدّ سواء. المنتصر بينهما سيُتّهم بعدم تمثيل الإرادة الشعبية «الحقيقية»، وبـ»التضحية» بالمصالح الوطنية على مذبح مصالحه الخاصة ومصالح القوى السياسية والاجتماعية الداعمة له. ستترتّب على هذا الاستقطاب الداخلي العميق مساعٍ من الفريق المعارض لإفشال السياسات التي يعتمدها ذلك المنتصر بغية إضعافه وإلحاق الهزيمة به في المستقبل. بكلام آخر، ستدخل الولايات المتحدة في فترة طويلة من غياب الاستقرار السياسي، «الضروري لحسن سير النظام الديمقراطي» بحسب تعبير مُنظّريه، وتزايد للتناقضات الداخلية ستكون له انعكاسات سلبية على موقعها الدولي.

خطر الانزلاق إلى حرب مع الصين
العداء المستشري والمتزايد للصين في النخبة السياسية الأميركية، بجناحَيها الديمقراطي والجمهوري، وارتفاع مستوى التوتر معها في جوارها المباشر، في بحر الصين وحول تايوان، والإصرار على تشديد الضغوط والعقوبات التجارية والاقتصادية عليها بحجة انتهاكها لحقوق الإنسان في هونغ كونغ والسين كيانغ، جميعها عوامل تجعل من إمكانية الانزلاق نحو صدام مفتوح معها فرضية واقعية. قبل تناول المعطيات التي قد تدفع في هذا الاتجاه، لا بدّ من إدراك أبرز سمة في الوضع الدولي الراهن، وهي الانتقال من هيمنة أحادية إلى انتشار وتوزّع القوة على الصعيد الدولي، مع صعود دور أطراف جدد، وفي مقدّمتهم الصين، وتحوّلها إلى منافس من المستوى نفسه، ورفض القطب المهيمن سابقاً، وهذا هو الأهمّ، التسليم بالانتقال المذكور. مثل هذا السياق هو الذي يؤسِّس تقليدياً للنزاعات والحروب.
يرى كريستوفير لاين، أستاذ العلاقات الدولية في جامعة تكساس، في مقال لافت في العدد الأخير من «فورين أفيرز» بعنوان «العواصف القادمة»، أن فرضية استحالة الصدام المباشر بين القوى العظمى، والتي سادت بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، أساساً بسبب خطر الإفناء المتبادل الناتج عن امتلاك كلّ منها للسلاح النووي، باتت غير مطابقة للوقائع الراهنة، وأوّلها التطور الهائل الذي تمّ في مجال الأسلحة النووية التكتيكية، والذي يتيح المجال لاستخدامها بشكل محدود، ومن دون الذهاب إلى درجة الإفناء المتبادل. الحُجّة الثانية التي تورَد أيضاً من أنصار استحالة الصدام المباشر هي تداخل المصالح الاقتصادية بين الأطراف الدوليين، وفي حالتنا هذه بين الولايات المتحدة والصين. يؤكد لاين ما سبق أن أشار اليه العديد من الباحثين، من أن مسار فسخ للشراكة بين البلدين قد بدأ في السنوات الماضية، وأن تفكيك شبكة المصالح الضخمة المشتركة يتسارع في الآونة الأخيرة، وبقرار من قيادتَيهما. علاوة على ذلك، فإن وجود مصالح مشتركة وروابط اقتصادية وثقافية عميقة لم يمنع الحرب بين بريطانيا وألمانيا في 1914، على رغم غياب أيّ أسباب مباشرة لها، كالنزاع الحدودي أو التنافس للسيطرة على بلد ما، بينهما. يردّ الأكاديمي الأميركي الدافع الرئيس للحرب إلى تعاظم القدرات العسكرية، خاصة البحرية، لألمانيا، وكذلك الاقتصادية والصناعية، وما مَثّله من تحدٍّ لقوة مهيمنة كبريطانيا، بدأت تشعر في تلك الحقبة بتراجع قدراتها. وهو يعتبر أن «هذه المسارات الانتقالية من النادر أن تتمّ بشكل سلمي. القوة المسيطرة عادة ما تكون متغطرسة، وتعطي دروساً لبقية دول العالم حول كيفية إدارة شؤونها، وتتجاهل مخاوفها وتطلّعاتها. مثل هذه القوة، بريطانيا في الماضي، أميركا اليوم، تقاوم بعناد انحدارها، والقوة الصاعدة متلهّفة للحصول على ما تعتبره حصتها العادلة من المغانم، أكانت في ميادين التجارة أم الموارد أم مناطق النفوذ». الرئيس الأميركي المقبل سيكون أمام تحدّي إدارة الصراع مع الصين، مع ضبط سقفه للحؤول دون الانزلاق نحو الحرب معها.

مسار تفكّك التحالفات
يُلام ترامب باعتباره مسؤولاً عن إضعاف تحالف الولايات المتحدة مع بقية الديمقراطيات الغربية بسبب تعريفه الضيّق للمصالح الأميركية ورؤيته «المركنتيلية». في الحقيقة، فإن الخلافات الاقتصادية والتجارية بين واشنطن وشركائها الأوروبيين، والتباينات المتزايدة في المصالح، ظهرت بوضوح للعيان منذ رئاسة أوباما، وتفاقمت بطبيعة الحال مع ترامب. في حال بقاء الأخير في السلطة، فإنها مرشّحة للمزيد من التفاقم، مع ما يستتبع ذلك من تداعيات على التحالف. في حال انتصار بايدن، وعلى رغم إعلانه نيّته «ترميم» العلاقات مع هؤلاء الشركاء، فإن طموحه إلى اتباع «سياسة خارجية لصالح الطبقة الوسطى» يعني التشدّد في مفاوضاته التجارية والاقتصادية معهم، والسعي إلى منع نموّ علاقاتهم مع منافسيه الدوليين كروسيا والصين. وتأتي النزاعات بين الدول الأعضاء في «الناتو»، كتلك الدائرة في ليبيا أو شرق المتوسط، لتُضاعف من صعوبة الحفاظ على تماسك الحلف في ظلّ التناقضات المتنامية في مصالح بعض أعضائه.
حقيقة الشرخ الداخلي في الولايات المتحدة، ومخاطر التدحرج نحو نزاع مدمّر مع الصين والاتجاه إلى تزايد الصراعات والنزاعات بين العديد من اللاعبين الدوليين، وحتى غير الدوليين، في أنحاء مختلفة من العالم، ستجعل من الفائز في الانتخابات الأميركية كَمَن فاز بِكُرة من لهب.

 اشترك في «الأخبار» على يوتيوب هنا
من ملف : أميركا 2020: الإمبراطورية كما لم تُرَ من قبل!

Win-Win vs Lose-Lose: The Time Has Come for the World to Choose

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ehret_1-175x230.jpg

Matthew Ehret October 21, 2020

It is a tragedy of our age that society has been locked in a zero-sum operating system for so long that many people living in the west cannot even imagine a world order designed in any other way… even if that zero sum system can ultimately do nothing but kill everyone holding onto it.

Is this statement too cynical?

It is a provable fact that if one chooses to organize their society around the concept that all players of a “great game” must exist in a finite world of tension as all zero-sum systems presume, then we find ourselves in a relatively deterministic trajectory to hell.

You see, this world of tension which game masters require in today’s world are generated by increasing rates of scarcity (food, fuel, resources, space, etc). As this scarcity increases due to population increases tied to heavy doses of arson, it naturally follows that war, famine, and other conflict will rise across all categories of divisions (ethnic, religious, linguistic, gender, racial etc). Showcasing this ugly misanthropic philosophy during a December 21, 1981 People Magazine Interview, Prince Philip described the necessity of reducing the world population stating:

“We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed-not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war.”

When such a system is imposed upon a world possessing atomic weapons, as occurred in the wake of FDR’s death and the sabotage of the great president’s anti-colonial vision, the predictably increased rates of conflict, starvation and ignorance can only spill over into a global war if nuclear superpowers chose to disobey the limits and “norms” of this game at any time.

Perhaps some utopian theoreticians sitting in their ivory towers at Oxford, Cambridge or the many Randian think tanks peppering foreign policy landscape believed that this game could be won if only all nation states relinquished their sovereignty to a global government… but that hasn’t really happened, has it?

Instead of the relinquishing of sovereignty, the past decade has seen a vast rise of nationalism across all corners of the earth which have been given new life by the rise of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and broader multipolar alliance. While these impulses have taken on many shapes and forms, they are united in the common belief that nation states must not become a thing of the past but rather must become determining forces of the world’s economic and political destinies.

The Case of the Bi-Polar USA

Unfortunately, within the USA itself where nationalism has seen an explosive rise in popularity under President Trump, the old uni-polar geopolitical paradigm has continued to hold tight under such neocon carryovers as Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Esper, CIA director Gina Haspel and the large caste of Deep State characters still operating among the highest positions of influence on both sides of the aisle.

While I genuinely believe that Trump would much rather work with both Russia, China and other nations of the multipolar alliance in lieu of blowing up the world, these aforementioned neocons think otherwise evidenced by Pompeo’s October 6 speech in Japan. In this speech, Pompeo attempted to rally other Pacific nations to an anti-Chinese security complex known as the Quad (USA, Australia, Japan and India). With his typically self-righteous tone, Pompeo stated that “this is not a rivalry between the United States and China. This is for the soul of the world”. Earlier Pompeo stated “If the free world doesn’t change Communist China, Communist China will change us.”

Pompeo’s efforts to break China’s neighbours away from the Belt and Road Initiative have accelerated relentlessly in recent months, with territorial tensions between China and Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei being used by the USA to enflame conflict whenever possible. It is no secret that the USA has many financial and military tentacles stretching deep into all of those Pacific nations listed.

Where resistance to this anti-China tension is found, CIA-funded “democracy movements” have been used as in the current case of Thailand, or outright threats and sanctions as in the case of Cambodia where over 24 Chinese companies have been sanctioned for the crime of building infrastructure in a nation which the USA wishes to control.

Pompeo’s delusional efforts to consolidate a Pacific Military bloc among the QUAD states floundered fairly quickly as no joint military agreement was generated creating no foundation upon which a larger alliance could be built.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi accurately called out this regressive agenda on October 13 saying:

“In essence [the Indo-Pacific Strategy] aims to build a so-called Indo-Pacific NATO underpinned by the quadrilateral mechanism involving the United States, Japan, India and Australia. What it pursues is to trumpet the Cold War mentality and to stir up confrontation among different groups and blocs and to stoke geopolitical competition. What it maintains is the dominance and hegemonic system of the United States. In this sense, this strategy is itself an underlying security risk. If it is forced forward it will wind back the clock of history.”

China Responds with Class

China’s response to this pompous threat to peace was classy to say the least with Wang Yi teaming up with Yang Jiechi (Director of China’s Central Foreign Affairs Commission) who jointly embarked on simultaneous foreign tours that demonstrated the superior world view of “right-makes-might” diplomacy. Where Wang Yi focused his efforts on Southeast Asia with visits to the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos, Thailand and Singapore, Yang Jiechi embarked on a four-legged tour of Sri Lanka, the UAE, Algeria and Serbia.

While COVID assistance was a unifying theme throughout all meetings, concrete economic development driven by the Belt and Road Initiative was relentlessly advanced by both diplomats. In all bilateral agreements reached over this past week, opportunities for cooperation and development were created with a focus on diminishing the points of tension which geopolticians require in order for their perverse “game” to function.

In Malaysia, the $10 billion, 640 Km East Coast Rail link was advanced that will be completed with China’s financial and technical help by 2026 providing a key gateway in the BRI, as well as two major industrial parks that will service high tech products to China and beyond over the coming decades.

After meeting with Wang Yi on October 9, Indonesia’s Special Presidential Envoy announced that “Indonesia is willing to sign cooperation documents on the Belt and Road Initiative and Global Maritime Fulcrum at an early date, enlarge its cooperation with China on trade and investment, actively put in place currency swap arrangements and settlements in local currency, step up the joint efforts in human resources and disaster mitigation, and learn from China’s fight against poverty.”

In Cambodia, a major Free Trade Agreement was begun which will end tariffs on hundreds of products and create new markets for both nations. On the BRI, the New International Land-Sea Trade corridor and Lancang-Mekong Cooperation plans were advanced.

In the Philippines, Wang Yi and Foreign Minister Locsin discussed Duterte’s synergistic Build Build Build program which reflects the sort of long term infrastructure orientation characteristic of the BRI which are both complete breaks with the decades-long practices of usurious IMF loans which have created development bottlenecks across the entire developing sector.

In Thailand Wang Yi met with the Thai Prime Minister where the two accelerated the building of the 252 km Bangkok-Korat high speed rail line which will then connect to Laos and thence to China’s Kunmin Province providing a vital artery for the New Silk Road.

In the past few years, the USA has been able to do little to counter China’s lucrative offers while at best offering cash under the rubric of the Lower Mekong Initiative established under the Hillary-Obama administration in preparation for the Asia Pivot encirclement of China that was unleashed in 2012. This was done as part of a desperate effort to keep China’s neighbors loyal to the USA and was meant to re-enforce Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership which Trump thankfully destroyed during his first minutes in office.

Yang Jiechi’s Four-Legged Tour

In Sri Lanka, a $90 million grant was offered by China which will be devoted to medical resources, water supplies and education and which the Chinese embassy website stated “will contribute to the well being of Sri Lankans in a post-COVID era”. Another $989 million loan was delivered for the completion of a massive expressway stretching from Central Sri Lanka’s tea growing district to the Port of Hambanota. While this port is repeatedly used by detractors of the BRI like Pompeo as proof of the “Chinese debt trap”, recent studies have proven otherwise.

In the UAE, the Chinese delegation released a press release after meeting with Prince Zayed al-Nahyan stating: “Under the strategic guidance of President Xi and the Abu Dhabi crown prince, China will enrich the connotation of its comprehensive strategic partnership with UAE, cement the political trust and support, promote alignment of development strategies, and advance high-quality joint construction of the Belt and Road.”

In Algeria, Yang offered China’s full support for the New Economic Revival Plan which parallels the Philippines’ Build Build Build strategy by focusing on long term industrial growth rather than IMF-demands for privatization and austerity that have kept North Africa and other nations backward for years.

Finally in Serbia which is a vital component of the BRI, the Chinese delegation gave its full support to the Belgrade-Budapest railway, and other long term investments centered on transport, energy and soft infrastructure, including the expansion of the Chinese-owned Smederevo Steel Plant which employs over 12 000 Serbians and which was saved from bankruptcy by China in 2016. By the end of the trip, Prime Minister Brnabic announced: “Serbia strongly supports China both bilaterally and multilaterally, including President Xi Jinping’s Access and Roads Initiative and the 17+1 Cooperation Mechanism, in the context of which most of Serbia’s infrastructure and strategy projects will be realized”

The Spirit of Win-Win Must Not Be Sabotaged

Overall, the spirit of the growing New Silk Road is fast moving from a simple east-south trade route towards a global program stretching across all of Africa, to the Middle East, to the High Arctic and Latin America. While this program is driven by a longer view of the past and future than most westerners realize, it is quickly becoming evident that it is the only game in town with a future worth living in.

While China has committed to the enlightened idea that human society is more than a “sum of parts”, the Cold Warriors of the west have chosen to hold onto obsolete notions of human nature that suppose we live in a world of “each vs. all”. These obsolete notions are premised on the bestial idea that our species is destined to do little more than fight for diminishing returns of scraps in a closed -system struggle for survival where only a small technocratic elite of game masters calling themselves “alphas” control the levers of production and consumption from above.

Thus far, President Trump has distinguished himself from other dark age war hawks in his administration by promoting a foreign policy outlook centered on economic development. This has been seen in his recent victories in achieving economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, and endorsing the Alaska-Canada railway last month. With the elections just around the corner and the war hawks flying in full force, it is clear that these piecemeal projects, though sane and welcomed are still not nearly enough to break the USA away from its course of war with China and towards a new age of win-win cooperation required for the ultimate survival of our species.

«قسد التركيّة» تُحيي الإرهاب وتدعم الأتراك بأمر أميركي

د.وفيق إبراهيم

ليس غريباً على الإطلاق أن تعمل «قوات سورية الديموقراطية» الكردية المعروفة باسم «قسد» بأوامر أميركية صرفة، لأن نشأتها ونموّها وسيطرتها على معظم شرقي سورية، هو وليد قرار أميركي وفّر لها التغطية العسكرية والسياسية والاقتصادية، مستغلاً الدور الخليجي لجذب عشائر سورية للتحالف معها، كما حماها من الغضب التركي الذي يخشى من تمدد أي مشروع كردي نحو الأكراد الاتراك الذين يزيد عديدهم عن 15 مليوناً فينتشرون على مساحات كبيرة في شرق تركيا ومدينة اسطنبول.

هي إذاً المرة الاولى منذ المجازر التي أباد فيها الاتراك مئات آلاف الاكراد في تركيا في 1920 ودفعهم الى النزوح الى سورية، هي المرة الاولى التي يظهر تعاون بين أكراد يعملون على الانفصال عن سورية التي استضافتهم قبل قرن تقريباً مع الاتراك الذين طردوهم من اراضيهم. وهذا سببه بالطبع المعلم الأميركي للطرفين بمشروعيهما التركي الاقليمي والكردي المتمركز في شرقي الفرات.

لكل هذه الاطراف الثلاثة الأميركي والتركي والكردي مبرراته لهذا الالتقاء، اولاً وقبل أي كلام تركي وكردي، فإن ما يجري هو استشعار أميركي بتراجع دور الأحادية القطبية الأميركية في العالم بالتوازي مع ضمور نفوذهم في الشرق الاوسط وجمودهم في العراق وتقهقرهم في سورية، وتقدم دور حزب الله في لبنان، ونجاح الدولة اليمنية في صنعاء بإلحاق هزائم بحلفاء أميركا الخليجيين، هذا الى جانب ان الأميركيين باتوا مقتنعين ان تحرير الدولة السورية مع تحالفاتها لمنطقة إدلب التي يسيطر عليها الاتراك ومنظماتهم الارهابية الاخوانية، يؤدي تلقائياً الى انطلاق الجيش العربي السوري لتحرير شرقي الفرات وقاعدة التنف الأميركية، أي إعادة بناء سيادة سورية على كامل أراضيها فابتكرت العدوانية الأميركية فكرة تحشيد التناقضين الكبيرين وهما أكراد قسد ودولة اردوغان التركية، على الرغم من التناقض العمودي، البنيوي بينهما، الذي يعرض بالعادة ضرورة وجود قتال مفتوح حتى هزيمة طرف وفوز آخر.

لكن الأميركيين وبمفردهم هم القادرون على الجمع بين الاعداد، وهذا ما فعلوه عندما افهموا الاتراك ان هزيمتهم في ادلب تعني خسارتهم مشروعهم، وبالتالي شرقي المتوسط، وأقنعوا آليتهم الكردية «قسد» ان تحرير الدولة لإدلب يعني ايضاً سقوط مشروعها الانفصالي في الشرق السوري، مقترحين التعاون الأميركي الكردي التركي المشترك لعرقلة تقدم الدولة السورية نحو ادلب.

بدا هنا أن رأس المهام لتنفيذ هذه الخطة ملقى على عاتق قسد او عبر أدائها أدواراً ترتدي اشكالاً انسانية لكنها تحمل في مضمونها مشروعاً لعرقلة الجيش السوري.

بأي حال، يجب إضفاء تبرير لحركات قسد، فزعمت ان لديها 19 عشر الف إرهابي داعشي في سجونها وتريد اطلاق سراحهم لأن معظمهم كان مغرراً به، والقسم الآخر تخلى عن الفكر الإرهابي وبات مقتنعاً بالتعايش مع الآخر.

ما يفرض اولاً سؤال «قسد» عن مواقع مئات السجون التي تحتوي على هذا القدر الكبير من الأسرى الداعشيين؟ وهل لدى قسد آلاف المدرسين الذين كانوا يلقنون اسرى داعش الهداية والرشد؟ والى أين تريد إرسالهم من طريق تركيا ام العراق وربما الأردن.

هذه اسئلة يمكن ان تتطور بسؤال داعش عن الطريقة التي أمنت فيها مئات ملايين الدولارات لرعاية 19000 الف أسير داعشي بالسجن والطعام والحراسة، مع الملاحظة ان «قسد» تخوض حروباً مع الأتراك تارة والإرهاب تارة اخرى والعشائر السورية مرة ثالثة… هذا استناداً لتصريحاتها، فينكشف بذلك ان إعادة إحياء الارهاب الداعشي هو مشروع اكبر من طاقات قسد ويتعلق بالأميركيين والاتراك وقسد. الأمر الذي يظهر ان هذه القوى تعيد دفع الارهاب الى الحيادية وبعض نواحي دير الزور وادلب، مع دفع بؤر منها الى الداخل السوري المحرر، فالمطلوب هو على قدر طموح الثلاثي المخطط وبالتناسب مع امكانات داعش على احداث تخريب وعرقلة، وليس إلحاق هزيمة كما كان المشروع الارهابي في نموذج 2015.

لذلك يعتقد اصحاب التعاون الكردي ـ التركي ان الدولة السورية هي أكثر خطر عليهما، من أي موضع آخر لأنه يستهدف كليهما ولا يتواطأ مع أي طرف ضد الطرف الآخر.

هذا ما يسمح بالجمع بين الكردي ـ التركي لإنقاذ دوريهما التفكيكي في سورية، الى التقاتل بعد وقف تقدم الدولة السورية نحو ادلب، اما الدور التركي في هذا المشروع فهو الاستمرار في مراوغة الروس في ادلب وتنظيم الارهاب في مناطقها، وارسال وحدات عسكرية نوعية اليها، لذلك تشهد ادلب حالياً معارك كبيرة بين الفصائل الارهابية التي تحتلها وذلك للإبقاء على التنظيمات الداعشية الموالية فقط للمشروع الأميركي الجديد وليس لإعادة بناء دولة خلافة مزعومة اصبحت بعد انتصارات الجيش السوري، سراباً له طابع الخرافة والاساطير.

هذه إذا «قسد» المتوجهة لأن تكون ضحية الاستخدام الأميركي في سورية، ولم تتعلم حتى الآن ان الدول الكبرى تستخدم بعض أحلام القوى التقسيمية لتحقيق مصالحها فقط.

كما ان تركيا لم تعرف حتى الآن ان سورية العثمانية انتهت الى الأبد، وليس عليها الا الانسحاب وتسليم المناطق التي تحتلها الى الدولة السورية لأنها لن تتمكن من حمايتها من سورية المصرّة على تحرير آخر حبة تراب من مساحاتها.

From 9/11 to the Great Reset

From 9/11 to the Great Reset

September 11, 2020

by Pepe Escobar with permission from the author and first posted at Asia Times

9/11 was the foundation stone of the new millennium – ever as much indecipherable as the Mysteries of Eleusis. A year ago, on Asia Times, once again I raised a number of questions that still find no answer.

A lightning speed breakdown of the slings and arrows of outrageous (mis)fortune trespassing these two decades will certainly include the following. The end of history. The short unipolar moment. The Pentagon’s Long War. Homeland Security. The Patriot Act. Shock and Awe. The tragedy/debacle in Iraq. The 2008 financial crisis. The Arab Spring. Color revolutions. “Leading from behind”. Humanitarian imperialism. Syria as the ultimate proxy war. The ISIS/Daesh farce. The JCPOA. Maidan. The Age of Psyops. The Age of the Algorithm. The Age of the 0.0001%.

Once again, we’re deep in Yeats territory: “the best lack all conviction/ while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

All along, the “War on Terror” – the actual decantation of the Long War – proceeded unabated, killing Muslim multitudes and displacing at least 37 million people.

WWII-derived geopolitics is over. Cold War 2.0 is in effect. It started as US against Russia, morphed into US against China and now, fully spelled out in the US National Security Strategy, and with bipartisan support, it’s the US against both. The ultimate Mackinder-Brzezinski nightmare is at hand: the much dread “peer competitor” in Eurasia slouched towards the Beltway to be born in the form of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Something’s gotta give. And then, out of the blue, it did.

A drive by design towards ironclad concentration of power and geoconomic diktats was first conceptualized – under the deceptive cover of “sustainable development” – already in 2015 at the UN (here it is, in detail).

Now, this new operating system – or technocratic digital dystopia – is finally being codified, packaged and “sold” since mid summer via a lavish, concerted propaganda campaign.

Watch your mindspace

The whole Planet Lockdown hysteria that elevated Covid-19 to post-modern Black Plague proportions has been consistently debunked, for instance here and here, drawing from the highly respected, original Cambridge source.

The de facto controlled demolition of large swathes of the global economy allowed corporate and vulture capitalism, world wide, to rake untold profits out of the destruction of collapsed businesses.

And all that proceeded with widespread public acceptance – an astonishing process of voluntary servitude.

None of it is accidental. As an example, over then years ago, even before setting up a – privatized – Behavioral Insights Team, the British government was very much interested in “influencing” behavior, in collaboration with the London School of Economics and Imperial College.

The end result was the MINDSPACE report. That was all about behavioral science influencing policymaking and most of all, imposing neo-Orwellian population control.

MINDSPACE, crucially, featured close collaboration between Imperial College and the Santa Monica-based RAND corporation. Translation:

the authors of the absurdly flawed computer models that fed the Planet Lockdown paranoia working in conjunction with the top Pentagon-linked think tank.

In MINDSPACE, we find that, “behavioral approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behavior is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’”.

So the key question is who decides what is the “choice environment’. As it stands, our whole environment is conditioned by Covid-19. Let’s call it “the disease”. And that is more than enough to beautifully set up “the cure”: The Great Reset.

The beating heart

The Great Reset was officially launched in early June by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the natural habitat of Davos Man. Its conceptual base is something the WEF describes as Strategic Intelligence Platform: “a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making”.

It’s this platform that promotes the complex crossover and interpenetration of Covid-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution – conceptualized back in December 2015 and the WEF’s choice futuristic scenario. One cannot exist without the other. That is meant to imprint in the collective unconscious – at least in the West – that only the WEF-sanctioned “stakeholder” approach is capable of solving the Covid-19 challenge.

The Great Reset is immensely ambitiousspanning over 50 fields of knowledge and practice. It interconnects everything from economy recovery recommendations to “sustainable business models”, from restoration of the environment to the redesign of social contracts.

The beating heart of this matrix is – what else – the Strategic Intelligence Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: “sustainable development”, “global governance”, capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity, LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly – future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity, blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI).

In the end, only an all-in-one Plan A applies for making these systems interact seamlessly: the Great Reset – shorthand for a New World Order that has always been glowingly evoked, but never implemented. There is no Plan B.

The Covid-19 “legacy”

The two main actors behind the Great Reset are Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder and executive chairman, and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva. Georgieva is adamant that “the digital economy is the big winner of this crisis”. She believes the Great Reset must imperatively start in 2021.

The House of Windsor and the UN are prime executive co-producers. Top sponsors include BP, Mastercard and Microsoft. It goes without saying that everyone who knows how complex geopolitical and geoeconomic decisions are taken is aware that these two main actors are just reciting a script. Call the authors “the globalist elite”. Or, in praise of Tom Wolfe, the Masters of the Universe.

Schwab, predictably, wrote the Great Reset’s mini-manifesto. Over a month later, he expanded on the absolutely key connection: the “legacy” of Covid-19.

All this has been fully fleshed in a book, co-written with Thierry Malleret, who directs the WEF’s Global Risk Network. Covid-19 is described as having “created a great disruptive reset of our global, social, economic and political systems”. Schwab spins Covid-19 not only as a fabulous “opportunity”, but actually as the creator (italics mine) of the – now inevitable – Reset.

All that happens to dovetail beautifully with Schwab’s own baby: Covid-19 “accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution”. The revolution has been extensively discussed at Davos since 2016.

The book’s central thesis is that our most pressing challenges concern the environment – considered only in terms of climate change – and technological developments, which will allow the expansion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In a nutshell, the WEF is stating that corporate globalization, the hegemonic modus operandi since the 1990s, is dead. Now it’s time for “sustainable development” – with “sustainable” defined by a select group of “stakeholders”, ideally integrated into a “community of common interest, purpose and action.”

Sharp Global South observers will not fail to compare the WEF’s rhetoric of “community of common interest” with the Chinese “community of shared interests” as applied to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a de facto continental trade/development project.

The Great Reset presupposes that all stakeholders – as in the whole planet – must toe the line. Otherwise, as Schwab stresses, we will have “more polarization, nationalism, racism, increased social unrest and conflicts”.

So this is – once again – a “you’re with us or against us” ultimatum, eerily reminiscent of our old 9/11 world. Either the Great Reset is peacefully established, with whole nations dutifully obeying the new guidelines designed by a bunch of self-appointed neo-Platonic Republic sages, or it’s chaos.

Whether Covid-19’s ultimate “window of opportunity” presented itself as a mere coincidence or by design, will always remain a very juicy question.

Digital Neo-Feudalism

The actual, face-to-face Davos meeting next year has been postponed to the summer of 2021. But virtual Davos will proceed in January, focused on the Great Reset.

Already three months ago, Schwab’s book hinted that the more everyone is mired in the global paralysis, the more it’s clear that things will never be allowed (italics mine) to return to what we considered normal.

Five years ago, the UN’s Agenda 2030 – the Godfather of the Great Reset – was already insisting on vaccines for all, under the patronage of the WHO and CEPI – co-founded in 2016 by India, Norway and the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation.

Timing could not be more convenient for the notorious Event 201 “pandemic exercise” in October last year in New York, with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security partnering with – who else – the WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No in-depth criticism of Gates’s motives is allowed by media gatekeepers because, after all, he finances them.

What has been imposed as an ironclad consensus is that without a Covid-19 vaccine there’s no possibility of anything resembling normality.

And yet a recent, astonishing paper published in Virology Journal – which also publishes Dr. Fauci’s musings – unmistakably demonstrates that “chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. This is a “relatively safe, effective and cheap drug” whose “significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.”

Even Schwab’s book admits that Covid-19 is “one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years” and its consequences “will be mild compared to previous pandemics”.

It doesn’t matter. What matters above all is the “window of opportunity” offered by Covid-19, boosting, among other issues, the expansion of what I previously described as Digital Neo-Feudalism – or Algorithm gobbling up Politics. No wonder politico-economic institutions from the WTO to the EU as well as the Trilateral Commission are already investing in “rejuvenation” processes, code for even more concentration of power.

Survey the imponderables

Very few thinkers, such as German philosopher Hartmut Rosa, see our current plight as a rare opportunity to “decelerate” life under turbo-capitalism.

As it stands, the point is not that we’re facing an “attack of the civilization-state” . The point is assertive civilization-states – such as China, Russia, Iran – not submitted to the Hegemon, are bent on charting a quite different course.

The Great Reset, for all its universalist ambitions, remains an insular, Western-centric model benefitting the proverbial 1%. Ancient Greece did not see itself as “Western”. The Great Reset is essentially an Enlightenment-derived project.

Surveying the road ahead, it will certainly be crammed with imponderables. From the Fed wiring digital money directly into smartphone financial apps in the US to China advancing an Eurasia-wide trade/economic system side-by side with the implementation of the digital yuan.

The Global South will be paying a lot of attention to the sharp contrast between the proposed wholesale deconstruction of the industrial economic order and the BRI project – which focuses on a new financing system outside of Western monopoly and emphasizes agro-industrial growth and long-term sustainable development.

The Great Reset would point to losers, in terms of nations, aggregating all the ones that benefit from production and processing of energy and agriculture, from Russia, China and Canada to Brazil, Indonesia and large swathes of Africa.

As it stands, there’s only one thing we do know: the establishment at the core of the Hegemon and the drooling orcs of Empire will only adopt a Great Reset if that helps to postpone a decline accelerated on a fateful morning 19 years ago.

%d bloggers like this: