Fake News London Guardian Kremlin Papers Report

 July 18, 2021

By Stephen Lendman

Source

US/Western dark forces never quit proving that they’re hostile to what just societies hold dear.

Time and again, their press agent media show they long ago abandoned what journalism is supposed to be — banning it on issues mattering most.

On domestic issues, they support privileged interests at the expense of most others — notably by pushing health destroying flu/covid jabs, instead of warning about their hazards.

On all things geopolitical mattering most, they stick to state-approved talking points — notably US/Western rage for control of planet earth, its resources and populations.

Days earlier, a fake news London Guardian report turned truth on its head as follows, saying:

“Vladimir Putin personally authorized (sic) a secret spy agency operation to support a ‘mentally unstable’ Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council (sic), according to…leaked Kremlin documents (sic)” — that don’t exist.

No responsible editors would permit publication of the above claim no evidence suggests, made up rubbish alone with no credibility — part of longstanding US/UK Russia bashing.

Yet in true fake news Guardian tradition, it defied reality by claiming a Trump White House “would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them ‘social turmoil’ in the US (sic) and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position (sic).”

Not a shred of evidence was presented by the Guardian to support what it falsely called “genuine…documents.”

More bald-faced Big Lies followed, including by saying:

A so-called Kremlin “expert department recommended…’all possible force’ to ensure a Trump victory (sic).”

Time and again, phony claims like the above about Russia and other foreign nations are debunked as Big Lies that won’t die.

Throughout US history from inception to the present day, no credible evidence ever suggested foreign inference in its electoral process — what dark forces in Washington do repeatedly against other nations worldwide. 

Political scientist Dov Levin earlier documented over 80 times that US dark forces interfered in the electoral process of other nations from end of WW II to year-2000.

Since then, the US illegally tried to influence the outcome of elections or overall political process in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere. 

What could a foreign nation hope to achieve by meddling in so-called US elections?

Farcical when held, both right wings of the one-party state take turns running things — serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people at home and abroad.

US diabolical actions also include attempted color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, political assassinations — most recently against Haiti’s president — and wars by hot and/or other means against nations free from imperial control.

In response to the Guardian’s fake news, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “pulp fiction,” adding:

The report “is complete nonsense.”

It’s “the hallmark of an absolutely low-quality publication.” 

“Either (it’s) trying to increase its popularity or is sticking to a rabidly Russophobic line.”

Ill-conceived trash best describes what no evidence supports because none exists — just baseless accusations with nothing supporting them.

Time and again, Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and other nations free from US imperial control are falsely accused of all sorts of things they had nothing to do with.

Indisputable evidence reveals US high crimes of war, against humanity, and other dirty tricks against one nation after another, targeting ones named above and many others.

In his books and Anti-Empire reports, the late William Blum documented US high crimes.

Calling them “worse than you imagine,” he once explained the following:

“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out: invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and endless wars on humanity.”

That’s what the scourge of US hegemonic rage is all about.

Stressing it’s not a pretty picture, Blum said it’s “enough to give imperialism a bad name.” 

Millions of corpses attest to US ruthlessness, a rogue state exceeding history’s worst over a longer duration, operating globally, willing to risk destroying planet earth to own it, the human cost of its wars and other barbarism of no consequence.

Blum called democracy “America’s deadliest export,” the way it should be is abhorrent to the US and its imperial partners.

Directly and through its press agent media like the Guardian, Russia and other sovereign independent countries are bashed for not bending to higher powers in Washington, London and other Western capitals.

As for dubious Guardian claims about covert Russian support for Trump over Hillary in 2016, they’re not worth the (toilet) paper they’re written on.

A Final Comment

The Russiagate hoax throughout Trump’s tenure was all about delegitimizing his triumph over media darling Hillary — a Big Lie still refusing to die despite no evidence supporting it.

It remains one of the most shameful political chapters in US history, exceeding the worst of McCarthyism.

Ignored was House testimony by former US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010 – 2017), saying:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting (or) conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” adding:

“I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of” alleged Trump team-Russia collusion.

Congressional and Mueller probes were exercises in mass deception.

They found no evidence suggesting Russian meddling in the US political process because there was none.

The Mueller probe notably laid an egg, ending with a whimper, not a bang.

His 19-lawyer team, 40 FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff spent around $25 million.

They issued 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, over 230 orders for communication records, interviewed about 500 individuals, and made 34 politicized indictments on dubious charges unconnected to his mandate.

Despite all of the above from May 2017 – March 2019, it struck out, finding no evidence of Russian US election interference — because there was nothing to find.

Yet phony claims otherwise remain like a bad aftertaste — the fake news Guardian report the latest example of yellow journalism instead of the real thing.

Were Hezbollah Really Ruling Lebanon, Woes Would Never Plague It: Sayyed Safieddine

 July 16, 2021

manar-00520290016264485515

Head of Hezbollah’s executive council Sayyed Hashem Safieddine stressed that the US policies are ruining Lebanon, adding that Washington intervenes in all the Lebanese domestic affairs.

Addressing Quranic ceremony, Sayyed Safieddine rejected all the claims that Hezbollah dominates over the Lebanese politics, saying: “Were Hezbollah really ruling Lebanon, woes Would never plague it”.

Sayyed Safieddine noted that the US tyranny targets Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, adding that the Umma has started following the path of victory since “Al-Quds Sword” battle.

Source: Al-Manar Eglish Website

Related Video

Moscow: Casting Doubts on Legitimacy of Presidential Elections in Syria Is a New Attempt to Interfere in Its Affairs”

April 30, 2021

Russian_Foreign_Ministry
Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian Foreign Ministry affirmed that statements of some countries about illegitimacy of upcoming presidential elections in Syria are a new attempt to interfere in its affairs, stressing that holding these elections fully complies with its constitution and resolutions of international legitimacy.

The ministry said in a statement on Friday that Moscow is closely following up preparations for upcoming Syrian presidential elections due to be held on May 26th.

It added that organization of these elections is a domestic affair of Syria and fully complies with the requirements of the Constitution which was adopted in 2012 and the local laws. These measures don’t contradict with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and other international resolutions based on respecting Syria’s sovereignty.

The statement noted that in this regard, we evaluate the recent statements by capitals of several foreign countries, which claim the illegitimacy of upcoming elections as part of a campaign of blatant political pressure on the Syrian state and a new attempt to interfere in its domestic affairs.

“No one has the right to dictate on the Syrian people timing and conditions that must be prepared for selecting a president for their state,” the statement stressed.

Holding elections comes in the light of the continued illegal foreign occupation to parts of the Syrian territory, the statement said, adding that in response to the demands of Syrian side, Moscow is ready to send Russian observers for these elections.

Source: SANA

Related Pictures 2014 Elections

This is what the Syrian election looks like in Lebanon

This is what the Syrian election looks like in Lebanon - The Washington Post
Thousands of Syrain nationals living in Lebanon arrive outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28 before voting in the upcoming presidential elections in Syria. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)
Syrian nationals living in Lebanon gesture as they arrive outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28 before voting in the upcoming presidential elections. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)
A fireman sprays water on Syrian expatriates living in Lebanon to keep them cool, as they arrive to cast their ballots in their country’s presidential elections, outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarze east of Beirut on May 28. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)
A fireman sprays water on Syrian expatriates living in Lebanon to keep them cool as they arrive to cast their ballots outside the Syrian Embassy in Yarzeh.(Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)
Lebanese Red Cross workers help Syrians who fainted while on their way to the Syrian Embassy to vote in the presidential election in Yarze, east of Beirut, Lebanon, on May 28. (Bilal Hussein/AP)
Syrian men cast their ballots in the Syrian presidential elections at a polling station set up in the Syrian embassy in the town of Yarzeh, east Beirut, Lebanon. (Nabil Mounzer/EPA)
Syrians who live in Lebanon chant slogans and carry portraits of President Bashar Assad and their national flags as they drive towards to the Syrian Embassy to vote in the presidential election in Yarze, east of Beirut. (Bilal Hussein/AP)
A Syrian man shows the photo of Syrian President al-Bashar Assad on the ballot paper as he prepares to vote in the Syrian presidential elections at a polling station set up in the Syrian Embassy in   Yarzeh. (Nabil  Mounzer/EPA)
Syrians waving flags drive to the Syrian Embassy in Yarzeh to cast their vote. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

Maria Zakharova : weekly briefing with a US history

April 01, 2021

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).

US Interfered in 81 Foreign Elections

No Neocon bastard or pinhead is running around with pitchfork saying that the United States needs to be attacked for interfering in at least 81 countries.

By Jonas E. Alexis -March 23, 2021

…introduction by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor

Whenever you hear a Neocon or some political whore start talking about bombing or attacking another country because that country supposedly “hacked” the United States, then it is an infallible sign that you are in the presence of an ethnic cleansing, an ideologue, a political gangster, or liar who wants to drink the blood of other people.

Why? Well, it has been pointed out that the United States has interfered in at least 81 foreign elections. No Neocon bastard or pinhead is running around with pitchfork saying that the United States needs to be attacked for doing so. The eminent journalist and writer Stephen Kinzer has documented that the United States has been overthrowing one government after another for the last one hundred years.[1] Who’s going to tell them enough is enough?

Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered In 81 Foreign Elections

—by Claire Bernish

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed for the first time publicly that the bureau is officially investigating hotly contentious allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. election — but, even if proven true, such geopolitical escapades better characterize the routine behavior of accuser than of accused.

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president election,” the director announced, adding the bureau would conduct a probe to discern whether Trump’s associates had contact with Russian officials.

Despite that the U.S. has hypocritically exerted influence over foreign elections in all corners of the globe — in fact, it has arrogantly done so a whopping 81 times between 1946 and 2000, alone — with just one-third of those operations undertaken overtly.

For months, mainstream media parroted murky accusations hurled by politicians — keen to point a finger of blame for the apparently stultifying victory of a former reality television host on someone — that The Russians had somehow surreptitiously undermined the election-centric foundation of American Democracy.

While that has yet to prove true, this new Red Scare constitutes a duplicitous attempt by the pot to call the kettle … an election meddler.

Researcher Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy — an expert on the topic at hand — discussed the lengthy but incomplete list of times the U.S. government has interfered in other nations’ elections with NPR’s Ari Shapiro.

Listen to the NPR segment below:

Asked for examples where this tampering tangibly altered results, Levin stated,

One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn’t want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupt the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.

Levin reiterated the more blatant methods with which the U.S. asserts dominance — through the overt coups or all-out regime changes branding the nation a notorious interventionist — are not among the list of the 80-plus attempts to manipulate the electoral outcome.

As for the issue of pot versus kettle, Levin explained that — although Russia and other powerful nations indisputably employ similar tactics — the United States has been quite prodigious in its effort.

Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

As sanctimoniously as U.S. politicians cry foul about The Russians, it would behoove the new McCarthyites to reflect on the nation’s sticky imperialist fingerprints around the globe — like that time in 1996, when the United States undertook an extensive, secret operation to ensure the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

That is, of course, former President Boris Yeltsin — of the Russian Federation.

[1] Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Times Books, 2006).

BIOGRAPHYJonas E. Alexis

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

Logoswars1@gmail.com

Syria, Venezuela sanctions | The Communiqué with Richard Medhurst

Venezuela and Syria are both under siege warfare by the United States and its allies. Richard Medhurst speaks with Alena Douhan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on sanctions, about her preliminary report after recently returning from Venezuela.

The idea of ‘exceptionalism’ is deeply ingrained in our national DNA: American author

By Mohammad Mazhari

January 18, 2021 – 11:34

 TEHRAN – An American author says toppling governments around the world is one of Washington’s “specialties”. 

“Overthrowing governments is one of our specialties,” Stephen Kinzer tells the Tehran Times.   

Kinzer also criticizes U.S. exceptionalism. 

“The idea of ‘exceptionalism’ is deeply ingrained in our national DNA,” Kinzer tells the Tehran Times. 

“Last week gave us a glimpse, on a greatly reduced scale, of the havoc we have wreaked elsewhere.”

Kinzer, a former New York Times journalist, says no nation like the U.S. intervenes in others’ domestic issues. 

The following is the text of the interview: 

 Q: How do you assess the recent mob attack on the Capitol building by pro-Trump protesters? What is the message of this incident for the U.S and the world?

“In the U.S. as in most countries, politics often is more powerful than the law.”A: Over the last century, no nation has intervened as often as the United States in so many countries so far away from its own borders.  Overthrowing governments is one of our specialties.  Last week (January 7th) gave us a glimpse, on a greatly reduced scale, of the havoc we have wreaked elsewhere.

Q: U.S. administrations and institutes mostly back protests against governments all around the world but when it comes to the U.S., they rally around national integrity. Isn’t it a kind of double-standard?

A: The idea of “exceptionalism” is deeply ingrained in our national DNA.  Americans grow up presuming that, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously asserted, “We are the indispensable nation, we stand taller and we see further than other countries.”  Our leaders believe they know what is good for the world better than the world itself knows.  This has led the United States to incite rebellion and subversive violence in dozens of countries.  To replace the governments we overthrow, we often promote corrupt demagogues.  Now we face the same combination at home: insurrection and demagoguery.

Q: Why did you publish a tweet saying: “My friends abroad keep reassuring me:  There can never be a coup in the United States because there is no American embassy there?”

“Now the U.S. faces the same combination of ‘insurrection and demagoguery’ at home.” A: The joke is that coups in most countries happen not for domestic reasons, but because of intervention by covert agents who work from the U.S. embassy.  This is not completely true, but true enough so that everyone gets the joke.

Q: Is there any mechanism in the American constitution to prosecute a president who violates the law?

 A: We do have an impeachment procedure but it is political in nature, not legal.  In the U.S. as in most countries, politics often is more powerful than the law.

Q: The Democratic Party of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden succeeded to take control of the Senate. Do you expect the victory would lead to a change in U.S policies, especially in foreign policy areas?

A: Biden will make substantial changes to government policies relating to education, transportation, labor, energy, immigration, and other domestic issues.  There will be no major change in foreign policy.  The U.S. will continue seeing Russia and China as enemies and working more often to confront them than to compromise.  There will, however, be some change in policy toward Iran.  How substantial the change will remain unclear?  It is the subject of intense debate behind the scenes in Washington and the incoming Biden administration.

Q: How do you assess American police’s behavior after pro-Trump fans stormed the Capitol Hill in comparison with its reaction to the summer protests? Was the Insurrection Act applicable?

A: President Biden himself said it: “No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol.  We all know that’s true. And it is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view.”

 

Democracies Don’t Start Wars. But Democrats Do

By Philip Giraldi, Ph.D.
Source: Strategic Culture

It may have been President Bill Clinton who once justified his wrecking of the Balkans by observing that liberal interventionism to bring about regime change is a good thing because “Democracies don’t start wars with other democracies.” Or it might have been George W. Bush talking about Iraq or even Barack Obama justifying his destruction of Libya or his interventions relating to Syria and Ukraine. The principle is the same when the world’s only superpower decides to throw its weight around.

The idea that pluralistic democracies are somehow less inclined to go to war has in fact been around for a couple of hundred years and was first elaborated by Immanuel Kant in an essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” that was published in 1795. Kant may have been engaging in some tongue in cheek as the French relatively liberal republic, the “Directory,” was at that time preparing to invade Italy to spread the revolution. The presumption that “democracies” are somehow more pacific than other forms of government is based on the principle that it is in theory more difficult to convince an entire nation of the desirability of initiating armed conflict compared to what happens in a monarchy where only one man or woman has to be persuaded.

The American Revolution, which preceded Kant, was clearly not fought on the principle that kings are prone to start wars while republics are not, and, indeed, the “republican” United States has nearly always been engaged in what most observers would consider to be wars throughout its history. And a review of the history of the European wars of the past two hundred years suggests that it is also overly simple to suggest that democracies eschew fighting each other. There are, after all, many different kinds of governments, most with constitutions, many of which are quite politically liberal even if they are headed by a monarch or oligarchy. They have found themselves on different sides in the conflicts that have troubled Europe since the time of Napoleon.

And wars are often popular, witness the lines of enthusiastic young men lining up to enlist when the Triple Entente took on the Germans and Austrians to begin the First World War. So, war might be less likely among established democracies, but it should be conceded that the same national interests that drive a dictatorship can equally impact on a more pluralistic form of government, particularly if the media “the territory of lies” is in on the game. One recalls how the Hearst newspaper chain created the false narrative that resulted in the U.S.’s first great overseas imperial venture, the Spanish-American War. More recently, the mainstream media in the United States has supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the regime change in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya.

So now we Americans have the ultimate liberal democratic regime about to resume power, possibly with a majority in both houses of Congress to back up the presidency. But something is missing in that the campaigning Democrats never talked about a peace dividend, and now that they are returning the airwaves are notable for Senators like Mark Warner asking if the alleged Russian hacking of U.S. computers is an “act of war?” Senator Dick Durbin has no doubts on the issue, having declared it “virtually a declaration of war.” And Joe Biden appears to be on board, considering punishment for Moscow. Are we about to experience Russiagate all over? In fact, belligerency is not unique to Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo.  War is in the air, and large majority of the Democratic Party recently voted for the pork-bloated National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), endorsing a policy of U.S. global military dominance for the foreseeable future. If you are an American who would like to see national health insurance, a large majority among Democrats, forget about it!

But more to the point, the Democrats have a worse track record than do the Republicans when it comes to starting unnecessary wars. Donald Trump made the point of denouncing “stupid wars” when he was running for office and has returned to that theme also in the past several weeks, though he did little enough to practice what he preached until it was too late and too little. Clinton notoriously intervened in the Balkans and bombed a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan and a cluster of tents in Afghanistan to draw attention away from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. His secretary of State Madeleine Albright thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions was “worth it.” Barack Obama tried to destroy Syria, interfered in Ukraine and succeeded in turning Libya into an ungovernable mess while compiling a “kill list” and assassinating U.S. citizens overseas using drones.

If you want to go back farther, Woodrow Wilson involved the U.S. in World War One while Franklin D. Roosevelt connived at America’s entry into the Second World War. FDR’s successor Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan, killing as many as 200,000. Japan was preparing to surrender, which was known to the White House and Pentagon, making the first use of nuclear weapons completely unnecessary and one might call it a “war crime.” Truman also got involved in Korea and John F. Kennedy started the intervention in Vietnam, though there are indications that he was planning to withdraw from it when he was killed. The only Democratic president who failed to start one or more wars was the much-denigrated Jimmy Carter.

So, it is Joe Biden’s turn at the wheel. One has to question the philosophy of government that he brings with him as he has never found a war that he didn’t support and several of his cabinet choices are undeniably hardliners on what they refer to as national security. The lobbies are also putting pressure on Biden to do the “right thing,” which for them is to continue an interventionist foreign policy. The Israeli connected Foundation for the Defense Democracies (FDD) has not surprisingly issued a collection of essays that carries the title “Defending Forward: Securing America by Projecting Military Power Abroad.” If one had to bet at this point “defending forward” will be what the Biden Administration is all about. And oh, by the way, as democracies don’t go to war with democracies, it will only be the designated bad guys who will be on the receiving end of America’s military might.Or at least that is how the tale will be told.

2021 is the year of politics par excellence 2021 عام السياسة بامتياز

2021 is the year of politics par excellence 2021

Nasser Qandil

There is no longer any doubt that U.S. President-elect Joe Biden will take office on January 20, and that the questions that accompanied the election phase and some of them are still present, will not find an opportunity for President Donald Trump to remain in the White House and refuse to recognize the results of the election to refrain from handing over power, and there is no doubt that President  Biden borrows the slogan that President Barack Obama and then President Donald Trump began as president, namely America First,  meaning To get out of the role of the global policeman and get involved in international and regional conflicts, which proved unresolved as proven to affect the decline of American prestige and damage to American interests, and retreat towards attention within the borders where the devastation is widening and the decline is magnified, and the need for restoration and maintenance politically, socially and economically, but they left it during practice to calculate the involvement in conflicts under the pressure of the interests of economic blocs, political blocs,  allies and financiers..

America was sinking more into ruin and getting more involved in failure, the more america’s slogan (America First) was left to become a valid slogan for a rival election campaign, on which Obama would win against Joe McCain, the legacy of George Bush  Jr.,and Trump’s victory against  Biden, carrying the legacy of Obama, and Biden’s victory over  Trump, carrying his own legacy, and america has reached a place where it has not been betrayed. As Biden’s article published in Foreign Affairs last spring, which decisively calls for the reconsideration of diplomacy, from the revitalisation of the United Nations, to the restoration of international conventions, to the revival of partnerships with Europe and with adversaries in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere, suggests that it is free to rebuild America and re-establish a new position capable of competing for world leadership, after the attempt to rule the world by force failed.

Observers inside and outside America agree that the Iranian nuclear file is the key to the transition from the policies of involvement to america’s first policies, a file that formed an agreement on it, was the first qualitative translation of the Obama era to the concept of returning to the American interior and withdrawing from involvement in the policy of interventions, and acknowledging the realities of the new balances that govern the world, by returning to the understanding on the nuclear file with Iran is restored America’s unity with Europe, which was shattered by the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement before any other reasons, and through return opens the door to the revival of NATO rift between The United States, European and Turkish wings, and through the return to understanding the level of tension with Russia and China, and most importantly, through this return Washington eases the burden of escalation in the Middle East, which is the biggest source of moral and material depletion of status and potential for Washington.

The positions of the Biden administration, particularly what he personally said and reaffirmed by his national security adviser, seem to be toward the priority of a return to nuclear understanding, under one condition is Iran’s commitment to its terms,and Iran seems clear in its declaration of readiness to abide by the terms of the agreement on one condition is the return of the Biden  administration to the understanding, which means that the first months of 2021 will be a date for the return. This means opening the wide door to a series of repercussions on the region’s files, from Syria to Yemen to Iraq and Lebanon except the conflict on Palestine, as well as opening the door to the return of international understandings from which Trump came out and  Biden will return to it, and open the door to negotiate from the site of the search for solutions to the outstanding problems with both Russia and China..

– 2021 is a year of politics with distinction

2021 عام السياسة بامتياز

ناصر قنديل

لم يعُد ثمّة شك بأن الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب جو بايدن سيتسلّم مقاليد الحكم في 20 كانون الثاني المقبل، وأن التساؤلات التي رافقت المرحلة الانتخابية ولا تزال ذيول بعضها حاضرة، لن تجد طريقها لخلق فرصة لتشبث الرئيس دونالد ترامب بالبقاء في البيت الأبيض ورفض الاعتراف بنتائج الانتخابات وصولاً للامتناع عن تسليم السلطة، كذلك لم يعُد هناك شك بأن الرئيس بايدن يستعير الشعار الذي بدأ به الرئيس باراك أوباما ومن بعده الرئيس دونالد ترامب رئاستيهما، وهو أميركا أولاً، يمعنى الخروج من دور الشرطي العالمي والتورط في النزاعات الدولية والإقليمية، التي ثبت العجز عن حسمها كما ثبت تأثيرها على تراجع الهيبة الأميركيّة وتضرّر المصالح الأميركيّة، والانكفاء نحو الاهتمام بداخل الحدود حيث الخراب يتّسع والتراجع يتضخّم، والحاجة للترميم والصيانة سياسياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً تتحوّل الى أولوية، لكنهما لم يلبثا خلال الممارسة أن تركاه لحساب التورط في الصراعات تحت ضغط مصالح تكتلات اقتصادية ولوبيات سياسيّة وحلفاء ومموّلين.

كانت أميركا تغرق أكثر في الخراب وتتورّط أكثر في الفشل، كلما تمّت مغادرة شعار أميركا أولاً لدرجة يعود ليصير شعاراً صالحاً لحملة انتخابية منافسة، فيفوز على أساسه أوباما بمواجهة جو ماكين حامل تركة جورج بوش الإبن، ويفوز على أساسه ترامب في مواجهة بايدن حاملاً تركة أوباما، ويفوز على أساسه مجدداً بايدن على ترامب حاملاً تركة نفسه، وقد بلغت أميركا مع الإمعان في خيانة هذا الشعار الى مكان لم يعُد يحتمل التلاعب به مجدداً، كما تقول مقالة بايدن المنشورة في مجلة الفورين أفيرز في الربيع الماضي، والتي تدعو بحسم لإعادة الاعتبار للدبلوماسية، من تنشيط الأمم المتحدة، الى العودة للاتفاقيات الدوليّة، إلى إحياء الشراكات مع أوروبا ومع الخصوم في روسيا والصين وإيران وسواها، للتفرغ لإعادة بناء أميركا وإعادة إنتاج موقع جديد لها قادر على المنافسة على زعامة العالم، بعدما فشلت محاولة حكم العالم بالقوة.

يُجمع المراقبون والمتابعون داخل أميركا وخارجها على أن الملف النوويّ الإيرانيّ يشكل مفتاح الانتقال من سياسات التورّط الى سياسات أميركا أولاً، وهو الملف الذي شكّل التوصّل الى اتفاق حوله، كان أول ترجمة نوعيّة في عهد أوباما لمفهوم العودة الى الداخل الأميركي والانسحاب من التورط في سياسة التدخلات، والإقرار بحقائق الموازين الجديدة التي تحكم العالم، فعبر العودة للتفاهم حول الملف النووي مع إيران تُستعاد وحدة أميركا مع أوروبا التي تصدّعت بفعل الانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق قبل اي أسباب أخرى، وعبر العودة يُفتح باب إحياء حلف الناتو المتصدّع بين أجنحة أميركية وأوروبية وتركية، وعبر العودة للتفاهم ينخفض سقف التوتر مع روسيا والصين، والأهم أنه عبر هذه العودة تتخفف واشنطن من أعباء التصعيد في الشرق الأوسط الذي يشكل أكبر مصدر للاستنزاف المعنوي والمادي للمكانة والإمكانات بالنسبة لواشنطن.

تبدو المواقف الصادرة عن إدارة بايدن، خصوصاً ما قاله هو شخصياً وأعاد تأكيده مستشاره للأمن القومي، باتجاه اولوية العودة للتفاهم النووي، ضمن شرط واحد هو التزام إيران بموجباتها، وتبدو إيران واضحة في إعلانها عن الاستعداد للالتزام بموجبات الإتفاق بشرط واحد هو عودة إدارة بايدن للتفاهم، ما يعني ان الشهور الأولى من العام 2021 ستكون موعداً للعودة للتفاهم، وهذا يعني فتح الباب الواسع لسلسلة من التداعيات على ملفات المنطقة، من سورية إلى اليمن إلى العراق ولبنان وصولاً لربط النزاع حول المواقف المتعارضة حول فلسطين، كما يعني فتح الباب واسعاً لعودة تفاهمات دولية خرج منها ترامب وسيعود إليها بايدن، وفتح الباب لتفاوض من موقع البحث عن حلول حول المشاكل العالقة مع كل من روسيا والصين.

عام 2021 هو عام للسياسة بامتياز

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei

November 27, 2020

Source

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei

While this press conference contains a shorter Belarus update, it has a wider context and is posted to illustrate Foreign Minister Lavrov’s clear expression of irritation with the west, which he now covers in each of his routine press conferences.  In this one, he handles among other topics, protests across the world, Heiko Maas, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE), International agencies, including the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner being silent and not doing their jobs, as well as strategic stability.

Joint session of the collegiums of the Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries, November 26, 2020

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held a joint session of the collegiums of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry. By tradition, it took place in a confidential and truly friendly atmosphere.

Using this opportunity, I would like to thank again our Belarusian friends for their traditional hospitality and excellent organisation of work. We highly value these annual meetings in the format of members of the collegiums and other representatives of the two ministries’ top management. They allow us to discuss in detail the most urgent international issues that involve the interests of our countries and need to be addressed.

Despite the complicated epidemiological situation, we managed to meet offline and talk face to face. We had four items on our agenda: relations of our countries with the European Union, participation in UN peacekeeping missions (in part, in the context of the prospects of the CSTO’s involvement in the UN peacekeeping activities), cooperation in the EAEU on forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership and ways of ensuring international information security.

We achieved specific agreements on all of these issues. They are reflected in a resolution that we signed in addition to the plan of consultations between our foreign ministries in 2021. We also spoke about broader cooperation in international organisations, including the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, UN and OSCE.

We and our Belarusian colleagues had to state that unfortunately our US-led Western partners continue persistently promoting their narrow selfish interests in a bid to preserve their hegemony in the world arena. They are using the concept of the “rules-based” world order, setting it directly against universal, commonly recognised standards of international law, including the UN Charter.

We are concerned about the attempts by the Western countries to establish control over international organisations, up to and including privatisation of their secretariats. When this fails, they try to replace collective work in universal formats with private get-togethers where all those who agree with the Western policy make decisions that are later presented as multilateral and binding. It is hardly possible to make us follow these rules. The overwhelming majority of countries are firmly committed to the old, tried-and-tested principle – respect for international law, primarily the UN Charter.

We noted numerous facts of crude interference by the US and those who follow in its wake (I am referring to some European capitals) in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The dirty methods of colour revolutions continue to be used. These include manipulation of public opinion, instigation and support of overtly anti-government forces and contribution to their radicalisation. We are seeing how these methods are being applied to the Republic of Belarus. We spoke about this in detail today both with Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, who received us before this meeting.

We were informed in great detail about the current developments in Belarus. We are not indifferent to them. The Republic of Belarus is our ally and strategic partner and also a fraternal nation. We are interested in a calm and stable situation in that country. This will be facilitated by the Constitutional reform that was launched by the Belarusian leadership as a major transformation of the political, economic and legal systems.

We believe the Belarusian people are wise and always act in a balanced manner. They are capable of resolving their problems without any outside prompting or obtrusive proposals on unwanted mediation. It is obvious that attempts to jeopardise normalisation are being made. There are many examples of this: a desire to radicalise the protesters, encouraging people to engage in subversion and high treason, which are made, in part, from abroad.

Today we again reviewed in detail the entire range of our ties and ways of protecting the interests of each of our countries, as well as the interests of the Union State of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation.

I would like to emphasise again that we are content with our joint discussion. We will carry out everything we have agreed on today.

Question (addressed to both ministers): On November 18, 2020, your German counterpart Heiko Maas accused the authorities of Belarus of violently suppressing peaceful protests. Having said this, he urged the Council of Europe to use its instruments for monitoring the situation even in those European countries that do not want to join the organisation. Could you comment on this, please?

Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Vladimir Makei):  We took note of how Germany took over the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE). German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas first made a speech at a closed CMCE meeting and then held a news conference. His speech was unconventional for the presidency of this pan-European body because the main goal of the Council of Europe, which is recorded in its statute, is to promote greater unity of all European countries. By definition, the President, all the more so in the Council of Europe, must focus on enhancing unity in his future work rather than stir up confrontation.

It is no secret that at the CMCE meeting prior to that news conference, Heiko Maas presented his programme for the next sixth months in a politicised vein and unacceptable tone, in a crude, undiplomatic manner. He made a number of Russophobic statements. He had grievances not only as regards the Republic of Belarus but also made groundless Russophobic accusations in respect of Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and southeastern Ukraine. His opinion on the Nagorno-Karabakh agreement also sounded rather strange.

At the news conference Mr Maas urged everyone “to respect the rules-based order.” Our Western colleagues are not going to respect international law as a matter of principle. He did say that the principles of the Council of Europe must be imposed by using relevant instruments, including on those countries that are not members of the Council of Europe. I consider this absolutely unacceptable.

It is indeed strange that of all countries it is Germany that has recently decided to act as a driver of aggressive approaches to the countries that are not NATO or EU members.

Those who are objective and pay attention to double standards will note that neither Mr Maas, nor other Western representatives or UN human rights agencies have said a word about rather serious incidents in France and Germany. There were protests by yellow vests in France, demonstrations against COVID restrictions in Germany and some other countries, and protests against a ban on abortions in Poland. They were dispersed in a very tough manner.

International agencies, including the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner, stayed silent. Human rights champions in France covered the yellow vests protests in a completely different manner than they cover events in Russia and Belarus. Only in the beginning did they cautiously urge the sides to overcome their differences. But later the yellow vests began to encounter a tough police response. In the estimate of French human rights activists, almost 15,000 rubber bullets were shot at the protesters; 2,500 people were wounded and 12,000 detained, including 2,000 who were sentenced, in part, to real prison terms. But nobody speaks about this. This is considered normal because these are their compatriots. It is necessary to get rid of this attitude, especially for those who head the Council of Europe.

About a month ago, Council of Europe Secretary General Marija Pejcinovic Buric asked us in Moscow about our assessments of the events in the Republic of Belarus. She received our answers and inquired whether the Council of Europe can contribute to normalisation there in some way. We promised do convey her wish to those concerned. She emphasised that this will be possible only if the Republic of Belarus makes this request itself. But as you can see, the German Presidency has different plans in this respect. This is regrettable.

We will try to compel the Council of Europe, all the more so under the German Presidency, not to forget about the issues that the West is trying to hush up in many different ways. This applies to discrimination against Russian speakers in the Baltic states, the disgraceful lack of citizenship, and the so-called reforms in the field of education and language in Ukraine that are aimed only against the Russian language, as distinct from the languages of other national minorities because they are EU languages. We will not accept the efforts of the Council of Europe (or some of its members) to hush up the facts of the purposeful harassment of the Russian media, not to mention the glorification of Nazism. The German Presidency must remember all this and must not divert the Council of Europe to the discussion of issues that are more comfortable for the West and justify its positions, while ignoring the problems that have become chronic for our Western colleagues.

Question: What are the prospects for concluding new strategic stability treaties with the United States once the new administration is in office? Last year, President Trump mentioned a new trilateral document involving Russia, the United States and China. What will happen now?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a long-standing matter. True, the Trump administration was consumed (I can’t come up with any other word) by a desire to involve the People’s Republic of China in disarmament talks. Initially, they talked about the need to include the PRC in the START Treaty which is still in force, although this is impossible by definition. Then, they proposed creating a new treaty and not renewing the current one, because it’s outdated and bilateral, whereas they would like to take a step towards multilateral disarmament and arms control. Their position was erratic. As a result, they came up with a proposal to extend the treaty for another year, but on the condition that we recount each other’s warheads and put in overseers at the defence plants’ checkpoints. Counting warheads and ignoring carriers and innovative technologies that directly affect strategic stability is a frivolous and unprofessional approach.

Earlier this year, we made proposals to our US colleagues about structuring our future dialogue on arms control and non-proliferation. They stood their ground and insisted on warheads alone. They have long been interested in Russian tactical nuclear weapons, hence their interest in warheads at the expense of everything else. We say we will be ready to discuss non-strategic nuclear weapons, including warheads, when the Americans withdraw their tactical weapons from other countries. In Europe, these weapons are deployed in five NATO countries. Also, NATO structures conduct training in handling nuclear weapons for military personnel from non-nuclear countries in flagrant violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

With regard to the People’s Republic of China, President Putin has repeatedly stated that we have nothing against it, but the decision is up to the PRC. China has officially and publicly stated on several occasions that it is not going to join the talks with Russia and the United States, since its nuclear arsenal is an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding arsenals of Moscow and Washington. We respect this position. If and when the Americans persuade China to join multilateral talks, we will have no objection to that. We will be willing to participate in them if the PRC agrees to this of its own accord. But we are not going to persuade Beijing to do so just at the whim of the Americans. But if and when a multilateral format in disarmament and arms control talks is created, we will push for France and the United Kingdom to join it as well.

When we told the Americans about this, they told us that these counties are their allies and they vouch for them. Precisely because they are allies of the United States, we would like to see them at the negotiating table, if the talks become multilateral. Washington’s absolutely hostile doctrine towards Russia cannot but raise questions about the motives of the US allies, whether in Europe or Asia. When they enter into a military alliance with a country that declares us a hostile state, we must draw our own conclusions regarding these allies.

I don’t see how we can seriously discuss anything related to the continuation of the arms control process with the Trump administration. We do not know yet what kind of administration will move into the White House or what kind of policy it will conduct. The voting results have not yet been announced officially, but there’s already an understanding that the change-of-command process is underway. Let’s wait and see what kind of assessments will eventually form in the minds of those who will shape the US strategic stability policy after January 21, 2021.

Question (addressed to both ministers): Popular protests have been growing around the world for various reasons, including political ones. The law enforcement reaction is the same everywhere, going as far as the use of force and special equipment. At the same time, such events in Belarus are receiving heightened attention from foreign politicians. What do you think is the reason?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already cited examples of protests being suppressed in France. Those drastic figures are rarely revealed to the general public. Human rights agencies in the UN system, as well as numerous human rights rapporteurs are trying their best to avoid any topics that are uncomfortable for Western representatives.

Speaking of the protests in Paris, there is a huge wave of protest against the global security bill, which includes a ban on photographing, filming or otherwise identifying law enforcement officers. I can imagine the kind of racket a bill like that would have sparked if it were proposed in Russia or Belarus. The French public and human rights groups are concerned, yet we can see no reaction from international bodies. The police used water cannons and noise grenades during rallies against the bill. The protesters, too, provoked the police, using stones and sticks. One police officer was injured. And yet, I repeat, this does not prevent the West from lecturing anyone who is not their ally.

Voting processes in Russia and Belarus have been scrutinised through a magnifying glass. When a similar story happens in the United States, it is declared “normal, it’s democracy, and everything is just fine.” Though, even respected and influential think tanks in the United States openly write about “the problems with the US electoral system.” To put it mildly, that system does not fully comply with the principles of democracy or the rule of law. They write these things themselves, but our international partners prefer to ignore them and concentrate on the countries whose “regimes” they find undesirable.

When UN rapporteurs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, describe violent clashes in Western capitals, they urge everyone to find a solution through dialogue. When they criticise us or Belarus, they demand a change of the system. This difference is visible to the naked eye. We have long lost any illusions about what kind of standards the West is promoting and how they use double standards. We will fight, and will defend our position at the UN bodies, where these issues should be considered. We will not allow the vices that the Western community is demonstrating to be forgotten.

Question (addressed to both ministers): How can you comment on Pavel Latushko’s last interview, where he spoke about the possibility of unofficial contacts with Moscow?

Sergey Lavrov: Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has just shown me part of that interview. Not only did he mention the possibility of unofficial contacts with Moscow – he said such contacts were underway and were coordinated. He shamelessly declared he could not cite any names, but mentioned “contacts at a sufficiently high level.” He speculated whether I will be allowed to tell my Belarusian friends about it. I will answer briefly: this is a blatant lie, and it once again says something about those trying to make some kind of career with foreign handouts.

China’s Reaction to a US Unannounced visit to Taiwan – PressTV Interview

By Peter Koenig

Global Research, November 24, 2020

Background

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is US_Taiwan-400x267.jpg

China has reacted strongly to a senior US official’s unannounced visit to Taiwan, warning that it will take legitimate and necessary action according to circumstances.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman reiterated Beijing’s firm opposition to any official ties between Taiwan and the US. The reaction came after the media cited sources, including a Taiwanese official, as saying that US Navy’s Rear-Admiral Michael Studeman was on a trip to the self-ruled island. He’s the director of an agency which oversees intelligence at the US military’s Indo-Pacific Command. The administration of US President Donald Trump has recently ramped up support for Taiwan, including with the approval of new arms sales and high-level visits. Beijing has long warned against such moves. China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and maintains its sovereignty over the region under the One-China policy.

Interview of Peter Koenig with Press TV

***

PK

China has of course every right to protest against any visit and any US intervention in Taiwan, be it weapons sales, or provoking conflict over Taiwan self-declared “sovereignty” which it clearly has not, as it is but a breakaway part of Mainland China.

By and large this looks to me like one of Trump’s last Lame Duck movements to do whatever he can to ruin relations between the US and China.

In reality, it will have no impact of significance.
In fact, China’s approach to Taiwan over the past 70 years, has been one of non-aggression. With various attempts of rapprochement – which most of the times were actually disrupted by US interference – as Taiwan is used by the US, not because Washington has an interest in Taiwan’s “democracy’ – not at all – but Taiwan is a tool for Washington to seek destabilizing China – not dissimilar to what is going on in Hong Kong, or Xinjiang, the Uyghur Autonomous Region, or Tibet.

But China’s objectives are long-term and with patience – and not with force.

Just look at China’s recently signed Trade Agreement with 14 countries – the so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This agreement alone is the largest in significance and volume of its kind ever signed in recent history. It covers countries with some 2.2. billion people and controlling about one third of world GDP.

And the US is not part of it.
Worse, the US-dollar is not even a trading currency.
This must upset the US particularly – especially since the 2-year trade war Trump was waging against China resulted in absolutely zilch – nothing – for the US. To the contrary, it pushed China towards more independence and away from the US.

The same applied to Chinese partners, happy to have honest trading partners, not of the western, especially the Washington-type, that dish out sanctions when they please and when they don’t like sovereign countries’ behavior.

So – no worries for China, but geopolitically, of course, they must react to such acts against international rules of diplomacy.

——
PressTV:
What will change under President Biden?

PK

Most likely nothing. To the contrary, Biden’s likely Secretary of Defense, Michèle Flournoy, played an important behind the scene role in the Obama Administration. She has not changed the aggressive position of Obama’s “pivot to Asia” which essentially consisted in surrounding China with weapons systems and in particular stationing about 60% of the US navy fleet in the South China Sea.

Though at this point, it looks like China is but the target of an off-scale aggression by President Trump, in reality, China is part of a long-term policy of the US, not only to contain China, but to dominate China.

As we see, though, to no avail.

Interestingly, China does not respond with counter-aggression, instead she moves steadily forward with new creations, towards an objective that does not seek domination, but a multi-polar, multi-connected world, via, for example, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – not the type of globalization that especially the Biden camp – along with the corporatocracy behind the World Economic Forum (WEF) is seeking.

The US empire is on the decline and China, of course, is aware of it. Washington may be lashing around in its deteriorating times, to create as much damage as possible and to bring down as many nations as they can. Case in point is the constant aggression, sanctions and punishment against Iran and Venezuela – but here too, these two countries are moving gradually away from the west and into the peaceful orbit of China – pursuing after all a shared bright future for mankind.


Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Peter is also co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Who’s World Order??

Who’s World Order??
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 Foundation. He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

November 16, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

In his Foreign Policy article of April 2020, Biden states that he will reverse Trump’s embarrassing foreign policy record by standing up to both China, Russia and other totalitarian nations which represent the three-fold plague of “authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism” and “once more have America lead the world”.

Biden went further promising to undo the harm Trump has done to NATO by re-enforcing the military body, extending its influence to the Pacific (which sounds a lot like the Esper/Pompeo doctrine for the Pacific), and even demanded that NATO go harder on Russia stating that “the Kremlin fears a strong NATO, the most effective political military alliance in modern history.”

Considering Biden’s nearly 45 year political record supporting every military intervention in American history, opposing de-segregation, eulogizing pro-KKK Senator Strom Thurmond, passing bills that incarcerated petty drug dealers for life on behalf of the cheap labor prison industrial complex and supported the rampant growth of both Wall Street, Big Pharma and the Big Tech run surveillance state, we should think twice before celebrating this man’s possible entry into the halls of the highest office in the USA.

Biden’s call for renewing the NATO alliance in opposition to Russia and China, his support for reversing Trump’s calls for military reduction in the Middle East and his support for extending NATO in the Pacific mixed with his lifelong track record, forces us to ask if Glen Greenwald was right when he quit the Intercept on November 1 saying:

“If Biden wins, that’s going to be the power structure: A democratic party fully united with neocons, Bush/Cheney operatives, CIA/FBI/NSA Wall Street and Silicon Valley: presenting itself as the only protection against fascism. And much of the left will continue marching behind it.”

As it turns out, Greenwald’s warning was absolutely on point, as the entire intelligence apparatus, Big Tech and mainstream media complex which worked desperately to oust President Trump for 4 years and is currently running a vast voting fraud operation as this is written has given its full backing to the narrative of “an inevitable of a Biden presidency”.

In a Nov. 11 article from Antiwar.com entitled Biden’s Pentagon Transition Team Members Funded by the Arms Industry, journalist Dave DeCamp demonstrates that of the 23 members of Biden’s Pentagon Transition Team, over one third are directly tied to NATO and the Military Industrial Complex.

As facts continue to emerge of the corrupt deep state structure which totally dominates the geriatric hologram known as Joe Biden, it has become obvious that even the few positive remarks Biden made in support of renewing the START treaty with Russia carry little weight.

Ignoring the very real danger of a new civil war due to the fact that either result will be denied its legitimacy by half of the nation, the question must be asked: If Trump is replaced by a Biden Presidency on January 20th, then what will be the effects both on world stability and US-Russia-China relations?

It is good that Biden supports START’s renewal, but an increasing majority of the nations are opting for a multipolar alliance premised on the defense of national sovereignty, the right to use protectionism, and the construction of large scale megaprojects such as the New Silk Road, Polar Silk Road, advanced space exploration and North South Transportation Corridor.

The very protectionist measures which allowed the USA (and every nation of the world for that matter) to build up their industrial base and economic sovereignty are attacked directly by Biden who demands the “taking down of trade barriers and resisting dangerous global slide toward protectionism” (which he goes so far as to assert without evidence “caused the great depression” and “lead to World War II”).

Attacking Trump for being soft on China’s imperial Belt and Road Initiative which Biden states is only an “outsourcer of pollution to other countries by financing billions of dollars worth of dirty fossil fuel energy projects”, Biden then asks: “who writes the rules that govern trade?” and answers: “the United States, not China, should be leading that effort.”

Beyond carbon reduction plans, and information technology investments (AI, 5G, Quantum Computing), there is very little in Biden’s “development outlook” that brings the USA into harmony with this multipolar consensus. His program to support cutting America’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 as outlined by the Green New Deal and Great Reset crowd at Davos might appear on the surface to be pro-infrastructure, professing to “create 10 million good new jobs”, but the reality on further inspection is very different.

The sorts of large scale BRI-oriented development projects now transforming more than half of the world which is increasingly operating under a completely different non-US dominated banking paradigm, are based on capital intensive heavy industry, the use of fossil fuels and also nuclear power.

Without these energy sources, then the New Silk Road and its’ sister projects could never work (much like Modi’s anti-BRI OSOWOG doppelganger has proven a total failure both scientifically and economically).

The sort of “green energy revolution” which the Davos technocrats running Biden want to impose onto the world might create short term jobs, but once the solar panels and windmills are built, the quality of energy available to nations stupid enough to walk into this cage will forever suffocate their capacity to sustain their populations and growth potential. In short, it is a green mirage obscuring a very ugly design.

In opposition to this depopulation agenda, Trump’s tendency support for space exploration, reviving protectionism to rebuild America’s lost manufacturing and his supporting large scale infrastructure programs in resolving conflict abroad (including his support for building rail in the Arctic, rail in Serbia and Kosovo, nuclear power in South Africa and Poland etc) is certainly synergistic with the multipolar system led by Russia and China and undeniably brings the USA into harmony with its own better traditions.

Additionally, Trump’s defunding of color revolutionary “civil society” groups in Hong Kong and Belarus won him many enemies from both sides of the pro-Soros isle while supporting the concept of national sovereignty which were major steps towards stability and trust-building with nations of the world who demand their sovereignty be respected as outlined in the UN Charter itself.

Compare this with Biden’s statement that we must “stand with Russian civil society which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic authoritarian system” and Biden’s call to host “a global summit for democracy” featuring “civil society organizations from around the world that stand on the frontlines of democracy” including “the private sector, technology companies and social media giants.”

These are the same “Big tech, and media giants” that have given their full backing to the imposition of Biden into the Presidency which have also been used to overthrow nationally elected governments in color revolutionary regime change operations for decades. These the same networks that have suppressed all evidence of systemic vote fraud in the American elections of 2020 and are stoking the fires of a potential new civil war and regime change inside the republic itself.

Whatever the case may be, the coming weeks and months will feature fierce battles that will shape the outcome of world history.

أزمة النظام السياسي الأميركي: هشاشة الديموقراطيّة؟ – أسعد أبو خليل

 الصفصاف

لو كانت هناك عدالة على هذه الأرض (أو في السماء)، لكان يحقّ لكل سكّان الأرض الإدلاء بأصواتهم في مسألة تقرير الرئاسة الأميركيّة، لأن أميركا تقحم نفسها في كلّ شؤون الدول، إلى درجة أنّها أرادت أن تحثّ نقولا فتّوش على أن يقطع روابطه مع 8 آذار، وهي كانت ترغب لو أنّ بيار فتّوش حنَّ على حليفها وليد جنبلاط بحصّة في معمله الشهير. يُقرّر الرئيس الأميركي في الشأن اللبناني، مثلاً، أكثر ممّا يقرّر الرئيس اللبناني نفسه (بعد نزع صلاحيّاته في «الطائف»). كذلك الخلافة في سلالات الطغاة الحاكمة في الخليج، لا تُقَرّ من دون ترجيح أميركي. ولا يزال محمد بن سلمان يتمنّع عن الاستيلاء على العرش بانتظار ترخيص أميركي صريح. لكن ليس لنا، شعوب العالم، أن نقرّر في مسألة اختيار إمبراطور الأرض. هذا الأمر متروك لفئة من الشعب الأميركي التي تختار أن يقترع، ومجموعها يكون أحياناً أقلّ من نصف هذا الشعب.

لم تكن نتائج الانتخابات الأميركيّة متوقّعة؛ استطلاعات الرأي كانت (في معدّلاتها على موقع «ريل كلير بوليتكس») تعطي لجو بايدن أرجحيّة بنسبة عشرة في المئة على، صعيد البلاد بأجمعها (أي الانتخاب الشعبي الذي يحتسب أصوات الاقتراع في كلّ البلاد)، كما كانت تُعطي بايدن أرجحيّة واضحة في «الولايات المتأرجحة» (أي تلك التي باتت تذهب في هذا الاتجاه أو ذاك، يوم الانتخاب، وتصبح هي العرضة لتنافس المرشّحَين). المؤشرات كانت لا تفيد دونالد ترامب (أو «طرمب»، حسب لفظ ألبير كوستانيان) على مدى أشهر. لكنّ النتائج (بصرف النظر عن شخصيّة الفائز التي لا تزال عرضة للتكهّن وتعداد الأصوات باليد، تماماً كما كانوا يفعلون في بداية عصر الانتخاب)، تُعمّق من الشرخ الذي يفصل بين وطنَيْن في أمّة واحدة. الحزب الجمهوري يصبح بازدياد حزب الذكور البيض (هو ينال أكثر من ثلثَيْ أصوات الذكور البيض، وتزداد النسبة عند هؤلاء الأقلّ تعليماً بينهم)، والنساء البيض اللواتي يخترن الحزب الجمهوري (بنسبة 58٪ لترامب، مقابل 43٪ لبايدن، فيما صوّتت النساء ككل بنسبة 56٪ لبايدن مقابل 43٪ لترامب). والتغيير الديموغرافي لصالح المهاجرين والملوّنين، يُنقص من حظوظ الحزب الجمهوري على المدى الطويل، ولهذا يعتمد الحزب على وسائل عديدة للحفاظ على أرجحيّته: 1) هو يعمد في الولايات إلى تصعيب عمليّة الاقتراع وتعقيدها (تماماً، كما كان الحزب الديموقراطي يستنبط في الولايات الجنوبيّة حتى الستينيّات، وسائل عديدة وامتحانات لتخفيض حجم الاقتراع للسود) عبر وسائل عديدة، لعلمه أنّ الملوّنين والفقراء – وهم الأقل اقتراعاً بين الطبقات الاجتماعيّة والأعراق – يقترعون غالباً لصالح الحزب الديموقراطي (زاد ترامب من نسبة تأييده بين السود الذكور، وإن قليلاً). كذلك، فإنّ زيادة إجراءات التسجيل قبل الاقتراع، هي حيلة استنبطها الحزبان الممثّلان لمصالح النخب الطبقيّة، تماماً كما أراد المؤسّسون الأوائل الذين اعتبروا أنّ اختيار الرئيس مسألة بأهميّة تفوق القدرة العقلانيّة للعامّة (من البيض الذكور طبعاً، لأنّ الآخرين كانوا مستثنين من العمليّة الانتخابيّة). 2) ينجح الحزب الجمهوري، خصوصاً في عهد ترامب، برصّ الصفوف العنصرية بطريقة لم تألفها البلاد من قبل.

كان هناك دائماً تساؤل في أوروبا، كيف لم تشهد أميركا ظاهرة «اليمين الجديد» (وهو اسم ملطَّف لظاهرة اليمين العنصري الإسلاموفوبي المتطرِّف). لكن سبب عدم ظهور حزب «يمين جديد»، لا يعود إلى غياب أفكار اليمين الجديد عن أذهان المقترعين، بل لأنّ النظام الاقتراعي القائم على الدائرة الانتخابية الواحدة (التي تعطي الفائز الربح المطلق، وهذا صحيح في احتساب الفائز عن كلّ ولاية في الانتخابات الرئاسيّة، حيث ينجح الفائز بأكثريّة الأصوات في ولاية كاليفورنيا، مثلاً، في الحصول على 55 صوتاً اقتراعيّاً ولا يحصل الفائز على الملايين من الأصوات الأخرى على أي من الأصوات الاقتراعيّة) تمنع تشكّل أحزاب ثالثة. يصعب جداً في ظلّ النظام الانتخابي الحالي تشكيل حالة اختراق من قبل حزب جديد، إن على مستوى مجلس النواب أو الشيوخ أو الرئاسة. لكنّ الحزب الجمهوري تكيّف مع تصلّب الفكر العنصري الأبيض عند الناخبين البيض، فبات يمثّل ظاهرة اليمين الجديد من دون إعلان تشكيل حزب جديد منشق عنه. تغيّر الحزب الجمهوري كثيراً عمّا كان عليه في عام 1980 مثلاً، وحتى قاعدته الانتخابيّة تغيّرت. كان الجنوب الأميركي معقلاً للحزب الديموقراطي، لكن مناصرة الأخير للحقوق المدنيّة في قانون 1965 بطلب من الرئيس لندن جونسون (وهو كان عنصريّاً على الصعيد الشخصي، مثله مثل معظم رؤساء أميركا، وفكرة أنّ ترامب هو أوّل رئيس عنصري، كما قال بايدن، هي فكرة مهينة للسود لعلمهم أنّ معظم رؤساء أميركا كانوا من المؤمنين جهاراً بنظريّة تفوّق العنصر الأبيض) دفعت بالبيض إلى الهجرة الكبيرة من الحزب الديموقراطي نحو الجمهوري الذي أصبح الحزب النافذ في الجنوب، وتخلّى عن إرثه كالحزب الذي يرتبط برمزيّة إعتاق العبيد من قبل الرئيس الجمهوري، إبراهام لينكولن.

يعمد الحزب الجمهوري إلى مخاطبة البيض، وتأجيج تعصّبهم (تماماً كما برع حزب «الكتائب» في مخاطبة التعصّب الطائفي لجمهوره وتخويفه من المسلمين على مرّ السنوات التي سبقت الحرب الأهليّة)، مستعيناً بلغة مرمّزة والتشديد على «النظام والقانون» الذي، منذ حملة ريتشارد نيكسون الانتخابيّة في عام 1968، بات مصطلح تخويف البيض من السود – وقد حوّل ترامب شعار «النظام والقانون» إلى لازمة في حملته الانتخابيّة الأخيرة. كما أن ريتشارد نيكسون خاطب الغرائز العنصريّة للبيض، باستعمال مصطلح «الأكثريّة الصامتة». وقد استعار ترامب في هذه الحملة الانتخابيّة من حملة نيكسون، وهو كان شديد الإعجاب به (وقد تسرّب إلى الإعلام أخيراً مراسلات بين ترامب ونيكسون، واللغة فيها لغة مُعجب برئيس سابق). والبيض يتبرّمون من المستقبل، ويحاولون إيقاف تقدّمه: وهذه الغضبة من المهاجرين التي عبَّر عنها ترامب لم تكن إلا حركة من «اليمين الجديد» العنصري الذي يعمّ دول أوروبا – لكن ربط العنصريّة في المجتمعات الغربيّة باليمين فقط، يغمط العنصريّة في وسط الوسط والليبراليّين وحتى اليسار المعادي للمهاجرين. إنّ العنصريّة الفرنسية والإسلاموفوبيّة، باتت تتجلّى في كلّ المروحة السياسيّة، ربما باستثناء الحزب الشيوعي الفرنسي.

واختيار بايدن مرشحاً للحزب الديموقراطي من بين دزّينة متنوّعة (في الجندر وفي العرق) كان عملاً مقصوداً. أراد الحزب الديموقراطي ترجيح كفّته عبر جذب العمّال الصناعيّين البيض في الولايات التي خسرتها هيلاري كلينتون في آخر انتخابات، مثل ميشيغن وبنسلفانيا وويسكنسون، وهي كانت تاريخيّاً ولايات العمّال الصناعيّين البيض الكاثوليك، وكانوا عماداً ثابتاً للحزب الديموقراطي. ونجح رونالد ريغان في جذب هؤلاء في انتخابات عام 1980، لأسباب متعدّدة بعضها عنصري: النقمة ضد سياسات البرامج الاجتماعيّة لم تكن إلا ثورة ضد ما يراه البيض من امتيازات للأقليّات والنساء (مع أنّ النساء البيض كنّ المستفيدات الأكبر من هذه السياسات). الحزب الجمهوري يؤجّل الخسارة الكبيرة التي ستلحقه عندما يصبح البيض أقليّة في البلاد، وهو يعاند ضد ذلك من خلال إجراءات كثيرة، منها إعادة رسم الدوائر الانتخابيّة بطريقة تحفظ للجمهوريّة الحفاظ على أغلبيّاتهم في الولايات، أو من خلال حضّ البيض على الاقتراع بنسب كبيرة، ومنها التحريض ضد المهاجرين والحدّ من التجنيس الذي يفيد الحزب الديموقراطي. وعمليّة إعادة رسم الدوائر الانتخابيّة وتشتيت أصوات الأقليّات تجري من سنوات وليس هناك من رادع لها، لأنّها حق من حقوق المجالس الاشتراعيّة المحليّة الخاصّة بكل ولاية. وهذه لعبة لعبها الحزب الديموقراطي وتمرّس بها، إلّا أنّه بات يعترض عليها متأخّراً لأنها تضرّه.

كانت نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسيّة مفاجئة، فقط لأنّ خللاً حلّ بوسائل الإعلام وباستطلاعات الرأي. استطلاعات الرأي ليست علماً، وهي لا تتفوّق إلا بدرجة قليلة عن خزعبلات وبلاهات ميشال حايك وليلى عبد اللطيف. ونسبة تأييد ترامب في عام 2016، كانت أقلّ في استطلاعات الرأي ممّا هي عليه يوم الاقتراع، وهذا الأمر تكرّر هذا الأسبوع بالرغم من وعود وتعهّدات من شركات الاستطلاع بأنّها أصلحت أخطاء منهجيّة وتقنيّة في الاستطلاعات الماضية (كانت الاستطلاعات مثلاً تقلّل من نسبة سكّان الريف والمزارعين في الولايات، وهذه المجموعة السكّانية تميل للحزب الجمهوري، والاستطلاعات تقلِّل من نسب الاقتراع للقاعدة الحزبيّة الجمهوريّة، أي الذكور البيض). لكنّ الأخطاء كانت فظيعة هذه المرّة: توقّعت الاستطلاعات تفوّقاً بنسبة 15% لصالح بايدن في ولاية ويسكنسون (بحسب استطلاع «ذي واشنطن بوست» وشبكة «إي.بي.سي») فيما نجح بايدن هناك بنسبة ضئيلة جداً. وحصل شيء مشابه أيضاً في ولاية مين، حيث فازت سوزان كولنز بمقعدها في مجلس الشيوخ بنسبة مريحة، فيما توقّعت الاستطلاعات خسارتها بنسبة كبيرة. استطلاعات الرأي لم تكن يوماً علماً، ولن تكون مهما تحسّنت تقنيّاتها، وهي أقلّ فائدة في دولة تنقسم بنسبة النصف بين فريقَيْن متصارعَيْن. ولقد ساهمت وسائل الإعلام في الإساءة إلى استطلاعات الرأي، لأنّها خلقت ثقافة شيطنة ضد ترامب، ما دفع بالعديد من أنصاره إلى إخفاء أهوائهم عن المستطلعين خشية وصفهم بالعنصريّين (ولهذا تاريخ معروف في الاستطلاعات الأميركيّة، ويرتبط بظاهرة «وايلدر»، وهو كان مرشحاً لمركز المحافظ في ولاية فرجينيا في عام 1990 وفضحت الانتخابات يومها أنّ نسبة البيض الذين اقترعوا له كانت أقل بكثير من النسبة التي أبلغت شركات الاستطلاع بنيّتها الاقتراع له). أي أنّ تأييد ترامب مكتومٌ في تبيانات الاستطلاع، وهذا شبيه بنسبة التأييد المكتوم لمارغرت تاتشر في بريطانيا في الثمانينيات، إذ أنّ الشباب كانوا لا يفصحون عن نيّتهم الاقتراع لها، لأنّ ذلك لم يكن محبّذاً في الجو الشبابي البريطاني يومها. هذه مشاكل لن تُحل في استطلاعات الرأي هنا، مهما تعقّدت وتشعّبت النماذج الحسابيّة التي تعتمدها وسائل الإعلام، وشركات الاستطلاع، في توقُّع نتائج الانتخابات. لم تخطئ حنة أرندت عندما قالت إنّ السياسة لا تكون في التوقّع، وليس هذا شأنها. وفي لبنان، هناك لـ8 آذار شركات استطلاع معتمدة، وهناك أخرى معتمدة لـ١٤ آذار، وهي قادرة على توقّع نتائج انتخابات ملائمة لكلّ طرف، كما أن شركة «زغبي» باتت متخصّصة في إنتاج نتائج استطلاعات رأي في العالم العربي، تتّفق مع مصالح وتوجّهات محمد بن زايد.

أراد الحزب الديموقراطي ترجيح كفّة بايدن عبر جذب العمّال الصناعيّين البيض في الولايات التي خسرتها هيلاري كلينتون في آخر انتخابات

لم يكن سقوط ترامب – لو تأكد – عفويّاً أو نتيجة تقلّبات هائلة وجذريّة في أهواء الرأي العام. النتائج كانت متقاربة، لو حسبتها من خلال الكليّة الاقتراعيّة أو من خلال النسب على مستوى البلاد. ولقد نجح ترامب في زيادة تحالفه الانتخابي: فهو وإن خسر نسبة ضئيلة من الرجال البيض (من62% في عام 2016 إلى 58% في هذه الانتخابات) فإن عوّض عن ذلك بتحقيق نسب إضافيّة طفيفة من تأييد اللاتين (نحو الثلث) ومن السود (الذكور بصورة خاصّة). لكنّ نسبته من تأييد القوات المسلّحة انخفض إلى 52٪ فقط، وهذا غير مألوف للمرشح الجمهوري. وهذا التقلّص يكشف حقيقة أسباب خسارة ترامب. لقد شنّت البنية العسكرتاريّة – الاستخباريّة حملة لا سابق لها ضده، وهو استهان بعدائها له لأنّه غير متمرّس في الحكم والعمل السياسي. لم يكن ترامب يعلم أنّ هناك أثماناً باهظة يتكبّدها من رصيده السياسي كلّ رئيس يحاول أن يشنّ حرباً ضدّ أجهزة الاستخبارات، هي تعمل في الخفاء ولديها من مخزون المعلومات ما يجعلها خصماً لا يُستهان به. لم يكن ترامب يعلم أنّ شنَّ حرب علنيّة وسريّة ضد 17 وكالة استخبارات ذات ميزانيّة سرّية بعشرات المليارات لها أكلافها السياسيّة والشخصيّة. من سرَّبَ وثائق ضرائب ترامب، بعد سنوات من إصراره على عدم الإفصاح عنها؟ هل هناك غير وكالات الاستخبارات هذه، التي لديها القدرة على النفاذ إلى أماكن حفظ هذه الوثائق؟ ثمّ من الذي سرّبَ هذه الوثائق قبل أسابيع فقط من الانتخابات الرئاسيّة؟ ما يُسمّى في مصر بـ«الدولة العميقة» (وهي أعمق هنا من أيّ دولة أخرى في العالم، لأنّها دولة الإمبراطوريّة المترامية الأطراف) لم تكن راضية عن ترامب، وتركيبة السياسة الخارجيّة التقليديّة (من الديموقراطيّين والجمهوريّين) خشيَت من أن يقود ترامب الإمبراطوريّة إلى حتفِها. لم يسبق في السنوات الماضية، أن حظي مرشّح بهذا الإجماع من قبل نخبة الحزبَيْن في السياسة الخارجيّة كما حظي بايدن، وهذا مؤشِّر إلى الانحراف الذي قاده ترامب في نظر هؤلاء.

ستعود قيادة إمبراطوريّة الحرب الأميركيّة إلى أيدٍ أمينة موثوق بها، وستحسِّن من مسار الإمبراطوريّة لضمان استمراريّتها. قادة القطاع الاستخباري – العسكري عبّروا عن الكثير من القلق في ظلّ إدارة ترامب. إنهاء حالة العداء مع كوريا الشمالية، مثلاً، كان مثاراً للقلق الذي تسبّبت به سياسات ترامب. إنّ حالات العداء التقليديّة ضرورة من ضرورات سياسة الإمبراطوريّة – وفي أي حال لم يُسمح لترامب بالمضي في سياساته المهادِنة لكوريا الشمالية، كما أنّه لم يُسمح له بسحب القوات الأميركيّة من أماكن مختلفة في العالم. نشر القوات ضرورة من ضرورات الإمبراطوريّة الحربيّة، والتهريب ضرورة للحدّ من التهديدات لمصالح قوة الحرب الأميركيّة. وقد خشي خصوم ترامب من خبراء الإمبراطوريّة من تفكيك «حلف شمال الأطلسي»، وذلك بحجّة التخفيف من نفقات الالتزام الأميركي. وكان ترامب على حق بأنّ اهتمامه بأولويّة تحسين الاقتصاد وتخفيض الأعباء الماليّة للسياسة الخارجيّة (باستثناء ميزانيّة الدفاع والاستخبارات) ستعود بالنفع المالي على أميركا.

فضحت الأزمات السياسيّة الأميركيّة في السنوات الماضية هشاشة الديموقراطيّة الأميركيّة. فقَد النظام السياسي الكثير من خواصه التي كانت أميركا تزهو بها بين الأمم، عن عراقة ديموقراطيّتها. التهديد الأكبر للنظام السياسي، برز في انتخابات عام 2000، عندما تقرّرت الانتخابات الأميركيّة في المحاكم وليس في صناديق الاقتراع. النظام السياسي يفقد شرعيّته، أو تصبح الشرعيّة مرتبطة فقط بتطابق الحزب الحاكم مع أهواء الناخب: الديموقراطي لا يرى شرعيّة خارج حكم حزبه، والعكس صحيح في حالة الجمهوريّين – أو هي أعمق في حالة هؤلاء. أنصار الحزب الجمهوري أكثر تعصّباً لفريقهم وأكثر استعداداً للجوء إلى الحيَل والخدع والطرق الملتوية للبقاء في السلطة. لم يكن أنصار ترامب يمزحون عندما كانوا يهتفون لولاية ثالثة له (التعديل الدستوري الثاني والعشرون يحدّد ولاية الرئيس بولايتَيْن فقط). وظاهرة ترامب ليست، كما يحاول الإعلام الليبرالي تصويرها، ظاهرة شخص واحد يمرّ مروراً عابراً في السياسة السياسيّة الأميركيّة. هي نتاج عوامل تحتدم في النظام السياسي، منذ التسعينيّات على الأقل. يكفي أن تعرف أنّ البيض الذكور لم يختاروا رئيساً من خارج الحزب الجمهوري منذ عام 1977، وهم بذلك يثورون على تحالف النساء والملوّنين في الحزب الديموقراطي (زيادة ترامب في الانتخابات الأخيرة من نسبة تأييد الذكور السود، لم تظهر في التغطية الليبراليّة له، لأنّها تريد جعله ظاهرة محصورة بالمتطرّفين لأنّها لا تريد أن تعترف بعمق الأزمة السياسيّة الأميركيّة). قد لا يختفي ترامب عن الساحة السياسيّة بعد سقوطه، لكن سيأتي مثله – الكثير مثله – في السنوات المقبلة. كانت معادلة ترامب ناجحة: هذه شعبيّة الرئيس بين أعضاء حزبه لم يسبق لها مثيل، حتى أنه فاق شعبيّة ريغان في عزّه. وهذا العامل يمنع حتى خصوم ترامب في داخل حزبه من المجاهرة بانتقاده.

هناك سيناريوات حقيقيّة لتقويض النظام السياسي الأميركي من الداخل. تتخيّل ترامب، مثلاً، أو غيره في المستقبل، وهو يحضّ أنصاره على اقتحام مراكز الاقتراع لتعطيل عميلة عدّ الأصوات (القانون المحلّي في أريزونا يسمح للمتظاهرين بمحاصرة مراكز عدّ الأصوات، وهم مدجّجون بالسلاح الظاهر). وقد غرّد ترامب، قبل يومين، مطالِباً بـ«وقف العد». هذه الجملة لو صدرت عن زعيم دولة في العالم النامي، لكانت أدّت إلى تقريع فوري من وزير الخارجيّة الأميركي، إلّا إذا كان هذا الزعيم من أدوات أميركا الكُثُر في العالم الثالث. هناك بوادر على حالة تمرُّد في النظام الحاكم. تسرّب أنّ وزير الدفاع الأميركي السابق، جيمس ماتس، اتّفق مع البعض في هيئة الأركان على معارضة ترامب، في حال أصدر أوامر اعتبروها مناقضة للمصلحة الأميركيّة العليا، وقادة في مكتب التحقيقات الفدرالي تباحثوا في انتخابات عام 2016 في إمكان تعطيل انتخاب ترامب. كان النظام الأميركي مستقرّاً عندما كانت الشرعيّة محلّ إجماع بين الناس، وعندما كان الحزبان متقاربَيْن في الموقع نحو الوسط الأميركي المحافظ. لكنّ الحزب الجمهوري سافرَ كثيراً نحو اليمين ممّا كان عليه من قبل، والتحالف الجديد للحزب الديموقراطي يدفعه نحو الليبراليّة، فيما قيادة الحزب لا تزال في حالة رفض الواقع والإصرار على البقاء في موقع الوسط المحافظ. هي معركة أجيال في داخل الحزب الديموقراطي، وينعكس ذلك على سياسات الحزب نحو الاحتلال “الإسرائيلي”.

سخِرت أميركا كثيراً من أنظمة في العالم النامي، وهي باتت تحمل سمات بعض تلك الأنظمة. هل يرفض ترامب مغادرة البيت الأبيض؟ هل سيحرّض أنصاره على التمرُّد المسلّح؟ هذه الأسئلة لم تعد سيناريوات أفلام هوليوود. وإمكانيّة طرد ترامب من البيت الأبيض بالقوّة ليست مستعبدة. يمكن لنا اليوم الاستعانة بأمثلة من أنظمة في العالم الذي لا يعتبره الغرب متحضِّراً لتوقُّع مجرياتٍ سياسيّة أميركيّة. لعلّ مشاغلهم الداخليّة تصرفهم عن دول العالم النامي، وتقلِّل من حوافز شنّ حروبهم التي تبدأ ولا تنتهي.

* كاتب عربي
(حسابه على «تويتر» asadabukhalil@)

الأخبار

US Sanctions: Shooting Blanks Against the Resiliency of Targeted Nations

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, October 27, 2020

As explained many times before, Security Council members alone may legally impose sanctions on nations, entities and individuals.

When used by countries against others, they breach the UN Charter, how the US, NATO and Israel operate time and again.

The Charter’s Article II mandates all member states to “settle…disputes” according to the rule of law.

US/Western sanctions are weapons of war by other means — used to pressure, bully and terrorize targeted nations into submission.

Though widely used, most often they fail to achieve intended objectives.

US sanctions war and other hostile actions against Cuba for 60 years, Iran for 40 years, Venezuela for 20 years, and against countless other nations largely shot blanks.

Most often, they’re counterproductive.

Hardships imposed on people in targeted nations fuel anti-US sentiment — blaming Washington, not their governments, for what they endure.

Under international law, nations are prohibited from intervening in the internal affairs of others.

Military action against an adversary is only legal in self-defense if attacked — never preemptively for any reasons.

Hardcore US bipartisan policy targets all independent nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to its interests.

That’s what US hostility toward China, Russia, Iran, and other targeted countries is all about.

Since WW II, no nations threatened the US militarily or politically.

Like all other empires in world history now gone, a similar fate awaits the US — because of its counterproductive geopolitical policies, over time making more enemies than allies, weakening, not strengthening, the state.

Last week in response to US sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the following:

“(T)his unfriendly and destructive policy of constant introduction of various restrictions in relation to us, our economic operators, our economy, unfortunately, this has already become an integral part of unfair competition, undisguised hostile takeover competition on the part of Washington.”

Last month, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed the US, saying:

“We condemn (US) calls for forging a certain coalition against the pipeline, wherein German and other companies have already made multi-billion dollar investments.”

In response to EU sanctions on Russia over the Navalny novichok poisoning hoax, its Foreign Ministry demanded to know “who is behind the anti-Russian provocation,” adding:

“In response, we get aggressive rhetoric and outright manipulation of the facts” — by the EU in cahoots with the US.

Sergey Lavrov slammed Berlin for being in breach of its international obligations for failing to provide Moscow with information it claims to have about the Navalny incident — because none exists.

In mid-October, protesters outside the US embassy in London accused Washington of attempting to “strangle” Cuba’s economy by a virtual blockade on the island state.

The so-called Rock Around The Blockade solidarity campaign called for breaking the illegal action, chanting “Cuba si! Yankee no! Abajo el bloqueo/Down with the blockade!”

Despite annual UN General Assembly measures against US blockade of the island state, it’s been in place for decades without success because of Cuban resiliency.

Trump regime Office of Foreign Assets Control threatened to sue “anyone who trades with Cuba” or has property in the country.

Despite decades of US war on Cuba by other means, aiming to regain imperial control over the island state, policies of Republicans and Dems consistently failed.

US war on China by sanctions and other means widens the breach between both countries.US Sanctions: Weapons of War by Other Means on Targeted Nations

On October 21 in a Foreign Affairs article titled “How China Threatens American Democracy” (sic), Trump regime national security advisor Robert  O’Brien invented nonexistent threats.

Instead of fostering productive bilateral relations with all nations, policies of both right wings of the US one-party state go the other way against nations Washington doesn’t control — how the scourge of imperialism operates.

China fosters cooperative relations with other nations, threatening none — polar opposite longstanding US policy, seeking dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Undeclared US initiated Cold War against China, Russia, and other targeted nations threatens to turn hot by accident or design — especially in East Asia, the Middle East, and near Russia’s borders.

On Sunday, O’Brien expressed frustration, saying:

“One of the problems that we have faced with both Iran and Russia is that we now have so many sanctions against these countries that we have very little (opportunity) to do anything about it,” adding:

“But we are looking at all possible deterrent measures that we can apply to these countries, as well as others…”

Last Thursday, the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on Iran’s IRGC, its Quds Force, and Bayan Rasaneh Gostar Institute “for having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference” in US November 3 elections.

Fact: Throughout US history, no evidence showed that any foreign nations ever interfered in its electoral process — a US specialty against scores of nations throughout the post-WW II period.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh slammed the hostile action, saying:

Its government “strong(ly) reject(s) baseless and false claims” by the US, adding:

“(I)t makes no difference for Iran who wins the US election.”

On core domestic and foreign policy issues, both right wings of the US one-party state operate largely the same way.

Rare exceptions prove the rule.

On Monday, Pompeo announced more illegal sanctions on Iran — part of longstanding US war on the country by other means.

Tehran’s “Ministry of Petroleum and Minister of Petroleum, the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and 21 other individuals, entities, and vessels” were targeted for unjustifiable reasons.

Iran, its ruling authorities, and entities foster cooperative relations with other countries — hostile actions toward none, except in self-defense if attacked, the legal right of all nations.

US imperial policy targets all countries, entities and individuals not subservient to its rage to rule the world unchallenged.

US maximum pressure on Iran and other nations is all about wanting them transformed into vassal states.

Separately on Monday, convicted felon/US envoy for regime change in Iran and Venezuela Elliott Abrams said the following:

“The transfer of long-range missiles from Iran to Venezuela is not acceptable to the United States and will not be tolerated or permitted,” adding:

“We will make every effort to stop shipments of long-range missiles, and if somehow they get to Venezuela they will be eliminated there.”

Was the above threat a possible US declaration of hot war on Venezuela, on Iran as well?

Last week, Pompeo announced new US sanctions on “the State Research Center of the Russian Federation FGUP Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (TsNIIKhM).”

He falsely claimed the research institute conducts “malware attacks (that threaten) cybersecurity and critical infrastructure (sic).”

No evidence was cited because none exists, including alleged Russian malware against “a petrochemical plant in the Middle East,” along with “scann(ing) and prob(ing) US facilities.”

Pompeo falsely accused Russia of “engag(ing) in dangerous and malicious activities that threaten the security of the United States and our allies (sic).”

The above is what the US and its imperial partners do time and again — falsely blaming others for their own high crimes.

The Trump regime also imposed unlawful sanctions on Iran for supplying Venezuela with gasoline — the legal right of both nations to conduct bilateral trade relations.

Last month, former Trump regime acting DNI Richard Grenell met secretly with Venezuelan Vice President for Communications Jorge Rodriguez in Mexico, according to Bloomberg News.

It was a futile attempt to get President Maduro to step down ahead of US November 3 elections, Trump seeking a foreign policy success to tout that failed.

US war on Venezuela by other means, notably by Trump, imposed great hardships on its people alone — failing to achieve regime change.

US-designated puppet-in-waiting Guaido’s involvement in the scheme made him widely despised by the vast majority of Venezuelans.

Separately, Russia’s US embassy responded to unacceptable tightening of visas for its journalists by the Trump regime, creating “artificial barriers (that impede) their normal work,” adding:

“In particular, the limitation of the period of stay for foreign media employees to 240 days (with the possibility of extension up to 480 days) will not allow them to consistently cover local events.”

Journalists “will have to leave the United States for a considerable time to obtain a new visa.”

This new policy flies in the face of what “freedom of speech and equal access to information” is supposed to be all about.

On Monday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed US accusations of alleged Moscow cybersecurity threats, calling them “unfounded,” adding:

“(T)his time (the US outdid itself) in anti-Russia rhetoric with extremely harsh statements occasionally bordering on bizarre rudeness.”

“Such an approach will not benefit the State Department and is indicative of the fact that they treat the culture and norms of state-to-state communication with disdain.”

Businessman Trump sought improved relations with Russia — the aim thwarted by surrounding himself with Russophobic hardliners.

The same holds for US hostility toward China, Iran, and other countries on its target list for regime change.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from podur.orgThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2020

American Militarism Marches On: No Discussion or Media Coverage of Washington’s War Against the World

Philip Giraldi October 22, 2020

Nearly everyone has heard the comment attributed for former Clinton consigliere Rahm Emanuel that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. The implication of the comment is that if there is a major crisis going on the cover it provides permits one to do all sorts of things under the radar that would otherwise be unacceptable. That aphorism is particularly true in the current context as there are multiple crises taking place simultaneously, all of which are being exploited to various degrees by interested parties.

One of the more interesting stories carefully hidden by the smoke being generate by civil unrest, plague and personal scandals is the continued march of American militarism. The story is particularly compelling as neither main party candidate is bothering to talk about it and there is no discussion of foreign policy even planned for the final presidential debate. Last week eccentric multi billionaire Elon Musk announced that he and the Pentagon are developing a new 7,500 m.p.h. missile capable of delivering 80 tons of military cargo nearly anywhere in the world in under an hour. It would undoubtedly be a major advanced capability catering to those military planners who envision continued U.S. intervention worldwide for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, agreement on a new START treaty that would limit the proliferation of some hypersonic weapon systems is stalled because the White House wants to include China in any deal. Beijing is not interested, particularly as Donald Trump is also claiming that Beijing will pay for the multi-trillion dollar stimulus packages that the United States will ultimately require to combat the coronavirus “… because this was not caused by our workers and our people, this was caused by China and China will pay us back in one form or another. We’re gonna take it from China. I tell you now, it’s coming out of China. They’re the ones that caused this problem.”

Indeed, China and Russia continue to be the boogeymen trotted out regularly to scare Americans. Last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s State Department issued a statement warning that “some foreign governments, such as those of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation, seek to exert influence over U.S. foreign policy through lobbyists, external experts, and think tanks.” Why the statement was issued at this time, so close to elections is unclear, though it is possibly an attempt to line up possible scapegoats if the electoral process does not produce results acceptable to whomever loses. In fact, Russia and China hardly find a place on the list of those who fund lobbyists and think tanks.

Also of interest is another story about how Washington has chosen to interact with the world, one involving both enemy du jour Iran and Venezuela. Readers will undoubtedly recall how the United States seized in international waters four Greek owned but Liberian flagged tankers loaded with gasoline that were bound for Venezuela. The tankers were transporting more than a million gallons of fuel to economic basket case Venezuela, a country which is in its sad condition due to sanctions and other “maximum pressure” imposed by Washington, which has also sanctioned Venezuela’s own oil industry. The fuel was seized based on unilaterally imposed U.S. sanctions on Iranian sale or export of its own petroleum products, a move intended to strangle the Iranian economy and bring about an uprising of the Iranian people. As the sanctions imposed by Washington are not supported by the United Nations or by any other legal authority, the seizure is little more than exercise of a bit of force majeure that used to be called piracy.

Even though foreign and national security policy has not really been discussed in either the Biden or Trump campaign, there is general agreement in both parties that Venezuela is a rogue regime that must be replaced while Iran is an actual, tangible threat due to its alleged misbehavior in the Middle East. It has been dubbed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo the “number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Saner voices have observed that neither Venezuela nor Iran threaten the United States in any way and that the U.S. and Israel continue to kill many more civilians than Iran ever has, but they have been drowned out by the media talking heads who constantly spout the established narrative.

Well, the alleged Iranian fuel has arrived in New Jersey and a legal battle for custody of it has begun.  The fuel had been removed from the Greek tankers and transferred to other tankers for removal to the United States but the complication is that the Trump administration must now prove its case for forfeiture before the oil can be sold. The U.S. justification for seizing the cargoes is the claim that the fuel was an asset of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Treasury, Justice and State Departments have conveniently designated a foreign terrorist organization. But that contention is disputed by the cargoes’ owners, who claim to have nothing to do with the IRGC. They include other energy exporters and shippers in the Middle East, namely Mobin International Limited, Oman Fuel Trading Ltd and Sohar Fuel Trading LLC FZ. They have filed a motion for dismissal and are seeking return of the fuel plus additional compensation for the losses they have suffered. One has to hope they win as it is the United States that is in the wrong in this case.

The entire saga of the tankers and the fuel is symptomatic of the undeclared economic warfare that the United States now prefers to use when dealing with adversaries. And there is considerable evidence to suggest that Washington is trying to goad Iran into responding with force, providing the U.S. government with a plausible rationale for responding in kind. President Trump has directly threatened Iran in an October 9th public statement in which he promised the Iranians that “If you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are gonna do things to you that have never been done before.”

So, Washington’s aggression directed against much of the world continues with a national election less than two weeks away but no one is talking about it. That would seem odd in and of itself, but the sad part is that it is deliberate collusion on the part of government and media to make sure the voting public remains unaware the extent to which the United States has in reality become a pariah, a full-time bully in its foreign relations.

The 2020 Election: Nothing Will Change

By Robert Fantina

Global Research, October 25, 2020

With the first of three scheduled presidential debates (aka brawl) between President Donald Trump and his opponent, former vice-president Joe Biden, now history, the pundits will fall all over themselves to determine what it all means. Who won? Did either candidate deliver a fatal blow to the election chances of the other? Did Biden disprove the Trump-encouraged rumors about his senility? Did Trump manage to sway any undecided voters?

We will not dwell here on the fact that many other, highly-qualified candidates are running for president (this writer, a U.S. citizen who moved to Canada fifteen years ago, will vote for Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation for president).

No, with all the discussion about Trump and Biden, it is beneficial, this writer thinks, to consider what continues to happen in the world, that has lost the attention of the press, and therefore, the public. We will present a short, albeit incomplete, list.

Internationally:

  • Millions of people in Yemen, many of them children, risk starvation due to the U.S.-supported Saudi Arabian assault on that nation.
  • Palestinians still live under the harshest and most brutal conditions in the world, all financed and supported by the United States.
  • The U.S. war against the people of Afghanistan continues in it’s nineteenth year. A large segment of the Afghan population now has never known anything but war.
  • The people of Iran continue to struggle in many ways – economically and medically – against U.S. sanctions, imposed when the U.S., against the wishes of the other participants of the agreement and most of the world community, violated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
  • The people of Venezuela struggle against sanctions, also imposed by the United States, because they had the temerity to re-elect a president displeasing to the U.S. Trump and his cohorts say that Nicholas Maduro is not the legitimate president, forgetting or ignoring the fact that Trump himself did not win the majority vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. His odious opponent in that election, Hillary Clinton, did.
  • Migrant children continue to be caged at theS. – Mexico border.
  • The U.S. continues to maintain the most cordial relations with some of the world’s major violators of human rights, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. This should not be surprising, since the U.S. itself made the list of ’10 Global Hotspots for Major Human Rights Violations in 2017’, and things have only worsened since then.
  • As India heads towards genocide in Kashmir, the U.S. government, not wanting to annoy the Indian government, ignores it, as it ignores the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians.

Domestically Trump vs Biden: Lose/Lose for Palestine

It is, perhaps, whimsical for this writer to hope that the public will concern itself with these issues, and ponder carefully the upcoming election. Yes, another Supreme Court appointment by Trump could turn back the U.S. clock to a time of very limited consumer protections, a further reduction of environmental regulations, and greater racial inequality (even worse than it is today), and a host of other hard-won victories. Black lives will not matter; international law will continue to be held in contempt (although that is business-as-usual for the U.S.), and U.S. warmongering and war-making will continue, with all the destruction and slaughter of innocent men, women and children that that always brings.

There are some people who believe a Biden presidency will usher in change. Has hell frozen over? He has a long record in government of ‘business as usual’, so looking for change from him and the Democratic Party is an exercise in futility.

Others praise Trump as an effective leader, one who has done much to help the people of the nation.  This narrative deserves a prominent place with ‘Goldilocks and the Three Bears’, ‘Cinderella’, ‘Jack and the Bean Stalk’ and other fairy tales. It, like them, has no basis in reality and is simply a figment of the collective right-wing imagination.

The United States, from its earliest years, has a been a force for violence, destruction and death on the global stage. As its wealth and power have increased, so have its violent tendencies. It overthrows foreign governments, invades sovereign nations, issues crippling sanctions against governments and individuals that displease it, and threaten its allies if they don’t follow along.

The 2020 election will change none of this.

It is said that a sign of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Unless and until the public stops looking to the Democratic and Republican Parties for solutions to problems, leadership in troubled times and assistance in creating and maintaining a peaceful world, no election will alter the tragic and violent trajectory of the United States. The longer that recognition is delayed, the more people will suffer, in the U.S. and around the globe.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoWarsThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Robert Fantina, Global Research, 2020

Secret Documents Reveal the Size of Blatant American Intervention in Yemen

Source

September 26, 2020 Ibrahim Mohammad

Yemen Leaks

Yemen: Al Masirah Net has published a number of documents tagged with “Top Secret”, some of them issued by the American embassy in Sana’a and others issued by the Yemeni National Security Agency during the period before the revolution of 21th of September 2014.

The level of the US intervention in Yemen through its embassy in Sana’a and meddling and violating the country’s sovereignty is beyond imaginable, such intervention that led to the revolution that ousted of former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh leading to his killing and the ensuing relentless bombardment of the country by a Saudi-led coalition.

The documents issued by the US embassy included directives from the former ambassador Gerald M. Feierstein to the presidency to transfer the so-called “Anti Terrorism Units” from the Ministry of Interior Affairs to the Ministry of Defense, and to turn these units into security forces for the Yemeni land and sea borders.

The documents have also directed the rapid issuance of presidential decisions to appoint a number of military commanders to various positions, including a new commander of the Special Operations Forces, his deputy, and the deputy chief of the General Staff. (Document below)

Yemen Leaks
Yemen Leaks

Leaked documents issued by the Yemeni National Security Agency revealed the deliberate destruction of the air defense systems, mainly the Strela and SAM missiles, and the emptying of the Yemeni army units of SAM systems under the pretext of being reached the local markets, noting that this was carried out with full American coordination and supervision, and with the approval of the Minister of Defense.

Minister of Defense approves on withdrawing all SAM air defense systems form the military units

Other documents issued by the National Security Agency showed that the US side directed its activities in specific ways that only served the interests of the US national security, without any regard for Yemen’s interests, such as financing military operations and projects under direct US supervision.

Documents shows the directing of financing projects that serves the USA’s interests

The documents also revealed the direct interfering in the work of Yemen’s National Security Agency and the suspicious relationship between CIA officers and Yemeni National Security Agency officers.

A document shows the direct intervention of the CIA in the Yemeni National Security Agency’s work

The ‘Democrats’ in the USA spent years and millions of dollars in investigations about an alleged Russian intervention in their political affairs based on some Facebook ads worth a few thousand dollars, can they, who the war on Yemen started during their rule, explain this?

Trump came to drain the swamp, what happened after he reached office? He became swamp-drunk.

The Yemen Armed Forces response to the US interventions is by destroying its proxies of the Saudi-led coalition:

Yemen Armed Forces Deliver Massive Blow to Saudi Coalition – Video

https://www.syrianews.cc/yemen-armed-forces-deliver-massive-blow-to-saudi-coalition/embed/#?secret=576lTX5R1x

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

Related Videos

Related ِArticles

%d bloggers like this: