Fighting for Russia against the New World Order.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query garrie. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query garrie. Sort by date Show all posts

Palestine wakes the sleeping giant that is the UN General Assembly - By Adam Garrie

A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie.

Palestine wakes the sleeping giant that is the UN General Assembly

By Adam Garrie - 19th December 2017



For decades, discussions about reforming the United Nations have often been more amplified than debates about world peace, poverty alleviation and disease control, which ought to be the primary topics of debate at such a body. 

That being said, it is not difficult to see why so many countries are exasperated with the UN. The UN continues to be dominated by the United States and its allies who sit as permanent members on the Security Council. 

Until 1971, the Security Council was little more than a consummately deadlocked chamber where four countries typically lined up against the lone Soviet Union among the five permeant members who wield veto power. 

This was due to the farcical situation of Chinese Taipei (aka the Republic of China/Taiwan) holding the Chinese seat at the UN, even after the People’s Republic of China became the authentic Chinese state in 1949. 

Today’s typically 3 against 1 deadlocked Security Council is at least slightly more representative than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, when the PRC had no seat at the UN, but as yesterday’s Security Council vote on Al-Quds demonstrates, all it takes is one US veto to effectively shatter the democratic legitimacy of the UNSC. 

Yesterday, the entire Security Council voted to affirm the lack of legitimacy behind Washington’s move to recognise Al-Quds as the Israeli capital. The only problem is that the US invoked its veto power, thus negating the democratic will of the rest of the Security Council.
Subsequent to the US vote, Palestinian Presidential advisor Nabil Abu Rdeneh, slammed the US veto a “provocation”. 

 Palestine has called for an emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly to vote on the same matter. There, the motion rendering Trump’s decision illegitimate will likely pass in a landslide vote.

The events of the past few days make a strong case for Libyan Revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi’s argument for total UN reform which would see the General Assembly becoming the highest constituent element of the UN, thus incorporating the current functions of the Security Council, while the UNSC would simply exist as an executive body which would automatically ratify decisions made by a democratic vote in the General Assembly.

Gaddafi spoke before the General Assembly in 2009 and proposed the following reform measure,

“This Assembly is our democratic forum and the Security Council should be responsible before it; we should not accept the current situation. These are the legislators of the Members of the United Nations, and their resolutions should be binding. It is said that the General Assembly should do whatever the Security Council recommends. On the contrary, the Security Council should do whatever the General Assembly decides. This is the United Nations, the Assembly that includes 192 countries. It is not the Security Council, which includes only 15 of the Member States. How can we be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled by only five countries?
We are 192 nations and countries, and we are like Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. We just speak and nobody implements our decisions. We are mere decoration, without any real substance. We are Speakers’ Corner, no more, no less. We just make speeches and then disappear. This is who you are right now. Once the Security Council becomes only an executive body for resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, there will be no competition for membership of the Council. Once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement General Assembly resolutions, there will be no need for any competition. The Security Council should, quite simply, represent all nations. In accordance with the proposal submitted to the General Assembly, there would be permanent seats on the Security Council for all unions and groups of countries. The 27 countries of the European Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council. The countries of the African Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.

The Latin American and ASEAN countries should have permanent seats. The Russian Federation and the United States of America are already permanent members of the Security Council. The Southern African Development Community (SADC), once it is fully established, should have a permanent seat. The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a permanent seat. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a permanent seat. The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat. Then there is the G-100; perhaps the small countries should also have a permanent seat. Countries not included in the unions that I have mentioned could perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied by them in rotation every six or twelve months”.

If Gaddafi’s plan was implemented, there is no doubt that yesterday’s Security Council motion would have been passed overwhelmingly. Even among traditional US allies, it received votes of support. 

The reason that the UN is in the stronghold of the United States, is because the structure of the Security Council allows certain nations to hold all others at ransom. The fact that the UN is on US soil, is another reason for this unfair advantage. Gaddafi likewise proposed moving the UN to a more globally central and political neutral location. 

Ultimately, the current structure of the Security Council has rendered the UN undemocratic while Gaddafi’s proposals would instantly made the UN a fully democratic body. 

One of the biggest worries in such a situation, is that Russia and China, who typically vote against the US and its allies, would lose their veto power. While fears about surrendering an important privilege which is typically used to prevent aggressive and provocative US drafted resolutions from gaining ascension, is a real fear, it negates something far more important. 

The majority of the world is more sympathetic to the Russian and Chinese positions than that of the United States and its increasingly few allies. Africa, almost all of Asia, southern and parts of Eastern Europe as well as most of Latin America have only suffered due to the neo-imperial tactics of aggressive war profiteering that the US attempts to legitimise with a UN rubber stamp. 

In this sense Palestine has awoken the world to the real potential of the UN which is enshrined in the preamble of the UN Charter but which is systematically absent in the mechanics and procedural rules of the UN’s day-to-day operation. 

While many deride the UN for not being able to back up its pronouncements with actions, this is a view that tends to underestimate the power of a truly global-democratic quorum of nations speaking in a singular voice. 

On the issue of Palestine, the United States has drawn a line between Washington and Tel Aviv on one side and virtually the entire world on the other. 

It was for just such moments that an unbound General Assembly could demonstrate that no matter how wealthy, violent or powerful any nation is, one can still be isolated, rejected and condemned. 

When the General Assembly inevitably votes in favour of justice for Palestine, it will be wise to remember the sage proposals of Gaddafi who understood the power of actual democracy, far more than the imperialists who so frequently preach it in order to cover the trail of blood and tears they have created throughout Asia, Africa, the Middle East  and Latin America.


Share:

Steve Bannon Has Become America’s Fethullah Gulen and Trump Has Become America’s Erdogan

Steve Bannon Has Become America’s Fethullah Gulen and Trump Has Become America’s Erdogan

By Adam Garrie

For the first decade of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s career as Turkish Prime Minister, Fethullah Gulen and his so-called Gulen Movement, were key allies of Erdogan’s centre-right/populist/neo-Islamist AK Party.

Gulen’s powerful network of neo-Islamist supporters played an implicit (however, contemporarily ignored and denied) role in helping Erdogan and his AK Party surge to power in 2003, which in turn led to a period of unbroken AK Party rule which continues to this day under Erdogan’s powerful Presidential position.

Gulen’s association with Erdogan and the AK Party continued through a period dominated by the Ergenekon investigation. Ergenekon was allegedly a group of ultra-secular conspirators within the Turkish deep state and army—both of which are home to historically hard-line Kemalists. The Gulen movement was deeply involved in circulation the rumours that members of Turkey’s judicial system, intellectual elite, civil service and Army were plotting to topple the AK government led by Erdogan.

In the end, most of the individuals investigated as part of Ergenekon turned out be innocent of all charges and furthermore, the “evidence” against them turned out to be largely forged—many say by Gulenists who wanted to fan the flames of an anti-Islamist conspiracy.
The failure of Ergenekon to produce anything tangible, subsequently led to the Gulen Movement joining with opposition parties (notably the secular CHP) in alleging that high levels of corruption were rampant in the AK Party.

This led to the formal split between Erodgan and Gulen in 2013. The former allies are now sworn enemies.

Gulen’s group is now cited by Turkey as the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (FETO) and is proscribed by every sector of the Turkish state. Gulen himself is currently in exile in the US--which has led to numerous allegations from Ankara that Washington is openly colluding with the now hated movement.

Today, alleged Gulenists continue to be purged from public life and jailed for their stated crime of “terrorism”. Others are prosecuted under the infamous law of “insulting Turkishness”.  In many cases, the Turkish government will accuse anyone it doesn’t like of being a member of the FETO, even when they are not.
If any of this sounds oddly familiar for those who follow US politics more closely than the politics of Turkey, this is because there is indeed a striking parallel.

Long before Donald Trump formally entered the political arena, Steve Bannon was the leader of what is generally described as a right wing or far-right movement centred around groups like The Tea Party and Bannon’s media outlet Breitbart.

Bannon’s narrative that the US has fallen from grace and from greatness were themes picked up by the Trump campaign and immortalised in the slogan “Make America Great Again”.

When Bannon formally joined the Trump campaign team, the de-facto alliance was solidified. This became even more apparent when Bannon was appointed as a special advisor to President Trump.

Bannon’s period in the White House was dominated by allegations from political opponents who claim his team had colluded with Russia. There is a striking parallel here to the period in which Erdogan’s party and Gulen’s movement cooperated in alleging that the Turkish Army and deep state were colluding with conspirators ready to overthrow the Islamist government and replace it with a traditional Kemalist government.

In both cases, no evidence was found to substantiate the conspiratorial claims. Likewise, the revelation that Ergenekon was a non-issue coincided with Gulen’s public falling out with Erdogan and the AK Party.

In the US, as the Russiagate scandal is revealed to be a non-issue, Bannon’s August 2017 exit from the White House has been revealed to be far more acrimonious than first believed, with Trump publically stating that Bannon “cried” and begged for his job back at the time. Trump now calls his former ally “Sloppy Steve” and claims that he has little public support.

This stems from the fact that Bannon is quoted in a “tell-all” book by Michael Wolff, saying that Trump and his team are incompetent, corrupt and essentially worthless. According to the book, Bannon has even raised the issue of “treasonous” dealings on the part of Trump’s family. Bannon has come down hard on both Trump’s son Don Jr. as well as his powerful son-in-law Jared Kushner. This indeed parallels frequent allegations of corruption and even treason, relating to Turkish President Erdogan’s son Ahmet Burak.

While Bannon is under attack by Trump and his allies, he continues to lead a political movement that he has alluded to as a kind of ‘shadow government’, in the same way that Gulen’s movement has a similar covert function in Turkey.

As the ongoing “Russia probe” is becoming more of an internal corruption scandal rather than anything related to Russia—it is widely thought that Bannon might take his newly refined anti-Trump rhetoric straight to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If Bannon’s quotes from Wolff’s book are any indication, Bannon will not paint a positive picture of Trump to Mueller, just as Gulen joined the ideologically antithetical CHP (the main Kemalist opposition) in alleging corruption in Erdogan’s government beginning in 2013.

With Trump already complaining that he should have legal options to quash the publication of Wolff’s book and with many in the Democratic opposition alleging that Bannon’s movement and the ideology proffered by Breitbart are dangerous movements peddling “hate speech” (the US equivalent of “insulting Turkishness”)—all bets are now off when it comes to Trump’s former sympathies to the free speech of opposition journalists.

While Gulen and Erdogan once stood shoulder to shoulder as campaigners for a more religious Turkish Republic—now Gulen’s followers are treated as terrorists.
Could it be that Bannon’s followers might now be targeted by Trump and his administration with the same vigour that Democrats have wanted to employ for years? The possibility is now very real, especially since Trump has in the past stated that he prefers a liberal interpretation of libel laws rather than a liberal interpretation of free speech laws. This in turn plays into the hands of Trump’s Democratic opposition who have been working with their corporate allies to censor opposition opinions online under the guise that they are “fake news”.

The US now has its own Fethullah Gulen, complete with a shadow government, in the form of Steve Bannon and his media outlet. The US also has its own Erdogan in the form of Donald Trump--a politician who seeks to radically change the social dynamic of the US, is frequently accused of nepotism and corruption and whose foreign policy statements often change drastically from month to month. 
Someone pass the Raki.


Share:

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

By Adam Garrie

With Pakistan refusing to bend or break under US pressure, even as Washington is set to cut hundreds of millions in “aid” to Pakistan, many Pakistanis are asking themselves, “why didn’t we do this sooner”?

The answer is—in a word: CHINA.
When the US took the abrasive move to formally censure Pakistan under the guise that it harbours and abets terrorism and cut hundreds of millions in what the US calls “aid” but what in reality is US military investment, Pakistan said, “so be it” and said so boldly.

After losing over 100,000 Pakistanis in America’s ill-advised regional military operation in Afghanistan, a conflict which the US intentionally allowed to spill over Pakistan’s border, Pakistani elites and ordinary people have collectively had enough. Many have had enough for decades, not least PTI leader Imran Khan whose anti-American positions have been largely vindicated by recent events.

But while the uneven “alliance” between Washington and Islamabad has alienated Pakistanis for decades, even prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, what has changed is that there is a new superpower with a colossal presence in the region--one that is willing to forge a thorough partnership with Pakistan and in doing so,  rendering any perceived advantages incurred from a US “alliance” more or less dispensable.

For years, China’s investment in Pakistan along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has breathed new life into Pakistan’s economy. From the mountainous border in the north to the Panamax Gwadar Port on the Indian Ocean, China’s positive influence can be felt throughout Pakistan’s vast terrain.

The influx of Chinese experts, workers and high level diplomats in the country has proved that a revitalised Cold War era friendship is by the standards of 2017, one based on pragmatism, mutual respect and a win-win mentality that contrasts sharply with a US attitude of disdain towards Pakistan. This attitude is magnified even more deeply by Pakistan’s Saudi “ally” that has used and abused Pakistan for decades, in a cold exploitation of the country’s financial needs.

Pakistan’s refusal to follow Saudi and the UAE into Yemen and likewise, Pakistan’s refusal to take Saudi Arabia’s side in the ongoing dispute with Qatar, is as much a reflection of the confidence and renewed independence that a Chinese partnership has given Pakistan as it is a reflection of the increased professionalization of Pakistan’s “deep state” which is largely immune to the fluxuations of Parliamentary politics, while wise enough not to inhibit the peaceful exercise of Pakistan’s multi-party democracy.

Pakistan’s refusing to blindly follow Washington’s increasingly anti-Pakistan Afghan policies is a further result of the geo-political armour that China has allowed Pakistan to wear with pride, as it is symptomatic of a Pakistani “deep state” that is far more pragmatic and intelligent than it was 20 years ago.

But the most important development thus far, in Pakistan’s 21st century partnership with China is the agreement to conduct bilateral trade in the Yuan rather than the Dollar. This agreement was inevitable, but the fact that it was agreed just after Donald Trump’s insulting statements about Pakistan followed by the withdrawal of “aid”, sends both a pragmatic and symbolic message to the world. Pakistan is not for sale and nor will Pakistan refrain from taking action to build new partnerships out of fear that the US will be permanently lost as an “ally”.  Just as the US closed one door, Pakistan and China quietly and rapidly opened another much larger door.

The treat of US financial blackmail becomes limited in its scope when one realises that Pakistan’s most important long-term trading partner is a country that is not only powerful enough to resist the Dollar’s fading hegemonic grip on global trade, but that moreover, it is a country that owns the lion’s share of US debt. This country is of course, China.

The Dollar might still control much of the world, but with China controlling the Dollar, all the while readying the Yuan for its inevitable transition to a floating currency, it is China that now has the last word when it comes to the effectiveness of US financial blackmail as well as US sanctions.

In this sense, Pakistan’s agreement to trade with China exclusively in Yuan is like a second declaration of independence for Pakistan. Furthermore, the move will certainly inspire other nations to rethink their dependence on Dollar based institutions.

With the US also cutting Pakistan out of security/intelligence sharing agreements, it is high time for Pakistani leaders to admit a long standing reality. The US has never been Pakistan’s ally, it has merely been a two-faced benefactor whose investments in the country were never designed to increase Pakistan’s sovereignty, prestige or safety. In reality, they were designed to bring about the opposite.

By contrast, the Chinese model does not make demands on one’s foreign policy, security policy, wider partnerships or style of government. China demands only honesty and respect and rewards this with the same.

When promoting One Belt—One Road throughout the world, President Xi Jinping is always eager to point out that China’s global trading network is all about enhancing mutual strengths while supplementing areas of economic or production relation weakness. There are no strings attached in One Belt—One Road—the obvious implication being that in the US model of global trading mechanisms there are many strings attached.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte stated that one of the reasons he prefers modernising the armed forces of Philippines using Russia and Chinese weapons, is because Russia and China do not make such sales conditional upon political demands. The same is true with wider trading partnerships with the great superpowers of the global “east”.

The US will surely amplify its anti-Pakistan rhetoric in the coming months and one shouldn’t be surprised if ultimately this leads to sanctions against a former “ally”.

But China has made Pakistan largely immune to Washington’s bullying techniques and thus serves as a model for the world that if one wants to make one’s own country “great again”—one must ditch the US as an indelible partner and embrace sovereignty with Chinese trading characteristics.

Share:

Macron Does The Right Thing For Selfish Reasons

Macron Does The Right Thing For Selfish Reasons

By Adam Garrie 

French President Emmanuel Macron has offered a strong statement condemning American, Saudi and Zionist meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. In a statement which is surprisingly robust given Macron’s foreign policy record, the French President stated, 

“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war (with Iran)”.

Macron’s modus operandi is clear enough. French businesses, unlike their American counterparts, have taken advantage of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), to conduct incredibly high stakes and potentially, massively profitable deals with Iran.

In July of last year, for example, the French energy corporation Total signed a $4.8 Billion deal with Iran relating to gas exploration and extraction along the vast South Pars gas field.

This is just one of many large deals inked between French companies and Iran. As Macron’s biggest support base remains France’s urbane financial and corporate elite, he is certainly not going to risk incurring their wrath. Because of this, he is standing up to the geo-political adventurism of the regimes in Riyadh, Tel Aviv and even Washington, whose goals of regional domination are not shared by France who in this instance, is collectively happy enough to make money from Iran without ruling Iran.

The scenario is not dissimilar to that which France faced in 2003 when President Jacques Chirac became an unlikely anti-war hero due to his vocal opposition to George W. Bush and Anthony Blair’s illegal war upon Iraq.
Unlike the US and UK who largely turned their back on Iraq beginning in 1990, French businesses continued to conduct high level deals  with Saddam Hussein’s country throughout the turbulent 1990s and early 2000s.

It is true that Chirac, like most of the world, realised the madness of a war on Iraq and likewise, he seemed to have a large degree of personal animosity towards Bush and Blair as they embodied the “ugly Anglo-Saxon” mentality that Chirac defined himself as the antithesis of. However, Chirac also knew that French businesses stood to lose billions of Euros from the destruction of Iraq.

Ultimately, he stood up for French business interests, which at that time, coincided with the interests of peace.

Today, Macron is doing largely the same, as the interests of the French corporate class which has ballooned since the more austere Chirac days, are temporarily aligned with the advocacy of peace in Iran. The fact that Washington and Tel Aviv are far more afraid of attacking Iran directly than they were in respect of Iraq in 2003, makes Macron’s intervention all the more important.

Of course there is another factor at play. In trying to diplomatically isolate Iran, Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh are attempting to coerce European parties to the JCPOA, including France, into adopting Washington’s position of opposition to the JCPOA.

Macron’s statement is a clear indication that this strategy has backfired, because for major European powers like France, the JCPOA remains popular.

The other US goal of trying to force Iran to cease its aid to the anti-terrorist struggle of Iraq and Syria also looks like a failure.

Iran’s role in Iraq is now that of a long-term political ally, as Iraq’s war has largely shifted from a military conflict to a security and political rehabilitation programme.  In this sense Iran’s role in Iraq is that of a long term partner which is something most Iranians and most Iraqis few favourably. Iranians who grew up hating Saddam’s Iraq, are now, not only at peace with, but are generally supportive of the Shi’a dominated Iraqi government’s pro-Iranian stance. In this sense, Iran’s position vis-à-vis Iraq is not likely to change.

In respect of Syria, Iran’s main role has evolved from a military advisor, to that of  being the torch bearer of Syrian interests at the Astana Peace Talks. While Russia’s role is that of a supreme balancer and Turkey’s role is one which seeks to legitimise extremist Sunni factions (however contradictory a task this is) while also restraining the influence of Kurdish extremists in Syria, Iran has aligned itself with the majority of anti-Takfiri Syrians. As a Shi’a power in the region, Iran’s pedigree offers a great deal of reassurance for the Syrians who have been most viciously targeted by Takfiri terrorists.

Fellow Astana members Russia and Turkey have offered robust statements in favour of Iran’s sovereignty with both Moscow and Ankara warning against any illegal foreign meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. Turkey has blamed “Israel” and the US for meddling in Iraq, while Russia has gone on the offensive against American hypocrisy.

In this sense, when a fellow Astana member came under attack from “Israel”, the US and Saudi Arabia, Russia and Turkey supported their besieged partner and in so doing, will have encouraged Iran’s further participation in Astana and by extrapolation in the Syria crisis.

Unless the US, “Israel” and Saudi Arabia are willing to flood Iran with terrorists and send new loads of arms to existing terrorist groups inside Iran (including Baloch aligned Takfiris, Kurdish terrorists, MEK sleeper cells and Royalist hooligans), their mission will likely fail.
Even if the aforementioned aggressive powers did send arms and/or cash to terrorists, Iran’s security services are very prepared for such an incident.

In this sense, the two immediate goals of the aggressive powers have failed—Europe has not rejected the JCPOA and Iran is not decreasing its legal influence in Syria and Iraq (nor Lebanon).

Because the aggressors will likely not give up this easily, Iran must remain on guard and ready to crush any hint of western/Zionist/Wahhabi backed sedition at any time.

Share:

Russia Was Right: The US Spits Upon Peace in Korea

Russia Was Right: The US Spits Upon Peace in Korea


A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie 

Late last year, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned whether America’s goal for the Korean peninsula is peace or whether it is simply to consummately provoke? He further lambasted US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley for delivering “a really blood-soaked tirade” against North Korea at the UN Security Council. 

Today, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the US bluff has been called by Pyongyang and consequently the only reaction the US can muster is one of continued hostility, insults and childish brinksmanship. 

North and South Korean officials have reopened their direct phone line in preparation for further talks. It is not beyond the realm of possible that Kim Jong-un may hold a phone conversation with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, sometime in the near future.

While the two Korean states have developed along entirely different political paths, many foreign observers forget that as a single Korean people, there is no animosity between individuals on opposite sides of the border. 

North Korean songs about unification are neither violent nor boastful, they are generally melancholic pieces about the absence of one’s fellow man and the hope for a more fraternal future.



Likewise, South Korea’s population is overwhelmingly in favour of peace and reconciliation. Demonstrations against the US militarisation of the Korean peninsula are becoming ever more common in the South as ordinary people make impassioned stands in the name of peace and comradeship. 

The latest developments include a possible olive branch from Pyongyang to the South in what seems to be the early stages of a renewed Sunshine policy, in the form of a DPRK offer to participate in the forthcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea. 

One of the major differences between the possible Sunshine Policy of 2018 and the one which began in 1998, is that this time, the first overture was initiated by North Korea’s leader, whilst 20 years ago, South Korea’s Kim Dae-jung made the first move towards political openness with Pyongyang.
This is significant because it proves that for all the talk of how “mysterious” North Korea is, in reality the North Korean government has done everything it said it would. 

North Korea’s position can be summarised in the following way: 

Once North Korea has developed a fully functional nuclear deterrent capable of striking the US mainland, in order to counter US nuclear weapons which can strike anywhere in the world—subsequently, Pyongyang will engage in peace talks with any party that approaches it with respect and does not demand an end to its nuclear deterrent. 

North Korea has also stated that it will only begin to entertain Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposals for a tripartite economic initiative encompassing Russia and the two Korean states, once Pyongyang is satisfied that Seoul does not seek to undermine the DPRK’s security. Such statements were initially offered by the North Korean delegation to the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, in September of 2017. 

It would appear that North Korea’s overtures of South Korea in January of 2018 are an indication that sufficient trust has been secured and Pyongyang will now take the early steps which are necessary in order to begin participation in Putin’s tripartite economic initiative—an initiative which South Korea’s President has also received positively.  

For a region described as “unstable” and in spite of constant threats from the US to “destroy” North Korea, things are progressing in a surprisingly orderly fashion. It could be said that “everything is going according to plan” and certainly from the perspective of North Korea, Pyongyang’s officials are doing everything they said they would do while South Korea under Moon Jae-in has proved itself to be genuinely interested in cooperation and peace rather than confrontation and provocation. 

Russia and China meanwhile have encouraged cross-border cooperation and dialogue as both nations have developed positive relations with South Korea. In China’s case, it could be argued that at this point in time, relations between Beijing and Seoul are smoother than those between Beijing and Pyongyang. That notwithstanding, both Russia and China are certain to welcome the re-commencement of dialogue between the two Koreas. 

Indeed, any nation interested in genuine peace would welcome the latest moves, but one large nation stands alone in protesting the latest positive developments on the Korean peninsula. Predictably, this nation is the United States. 

In taking a pessimistic and indeed threatening attitude to North Korea, as expressed in outrageous Tweets from Donald Trump and statements from Nikki Haley made after Kim Jong-un committed himself to dialogue and reconciliation with South Korea, the US has revealed a truth that many, including Russia’s Foreign Minister, have long acknowledged: peace is not the American goal for the Korean peninsula. 

Instead, the US wants a perpetually frozen conflict which occasionally bushes up against disaster in order to maintain a powerful military presence in South Korea. The reason for this is because the US is intent on disrupting economic connectivity between the two Koreas who in turn would link up with both Russia and China as part of the One Belt—One Road initiative. 

This is the main goal of the US in the region. It is one that seeks to perpetuate conflict in order to retard China’s economic progress with its neighbours and all with the benefit of increasing the sale of overpriced weapons to countries like Japan. 

The two Koreas, China and Russia must not be deterred by the United Sates. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders in Seoul, Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow to forge a successful and pragmatic peace plan which ultimately could only be destroyed if the US became mad enough to start a new war in the region—something it seems even Trump’s regime is not willing to risk.

In spite of talk of “de-nuclearisation”, at this point in time, such a goal is unrealistic. The most important aim ought to be the creation of an economically integrated environment where the 
importance of such weapons becomes minimised based on an atmosphere of trust. 

North Korea is now ready to trust South Korea, in spite of its distrust of the US. US officials only have themselves to blame for alienating North Korea as much as they have. 
Share:

Iran’s “Protests” Have Exposed Much of Alt-media As a Fraudulent Western Sham



Iran’s “Protests” Have Exposed Much of Alt-media As a Fraudulent Western Sham


A Russia Truth exclsuive article by Adam Garrie

The Iran “protests” have revealed the full extent of the myopic selfishness which is endemic in so-called “alt-media”. While predictably, western mainstream media have adopted the anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Zionist regime and of the Trump White House, what may come as a shock to some, is that so too have many in the so-called “alt-media”. 

 “Alt-media” has become a victim of its own success—a success built more on opportunism than on principle. For many, the western and Wahhabi terrorist proxy war on The Syrian Arab Republic was a watershed moment among those who were aghast at the fact that many of the so-called liberals of the west who protested the war in Iraq because George W. Bush couldn’t string a sentence together, ended up supporting (directly or tacitly) Barack Obama’s wars of aggression on Libya and Syria—simply because Obama was a smooth talker. 

Because of the protracted nature of the conflict in Syria, many naive western liberals and some erstwhile neo-cons, began to realise that in Syria, a secular, tolerant, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, progressive and modern government was facing a visibly barbaric and an undeniably reprehensible onslaught at the hands of Takfiri terrorists who were armed, aided and funded by western governments and their allies in places like Saudi Arabia and “Israel”. 

Because of this and because of the naturally self-interested fear of the global threat from groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, many westerners superficially rallied to the Syrian side without having the faintest idea of what they were supporting, nor a willingness to educate themselves about the history of the Syrian Arab Republic, Ba’athism or the legacy of President Hafez al-Assad, let alone his son, President Bashar al-Assad. 

Many in the west conspicuously failed to comprehend that Syria’s battle, while one which benefits global civilisation, is one being fought in the specific context of a long history of Arab nationalism. Syria does not exist for the benefit of foreigners, but for the benefit of her people and the wider Arab community. Syria is of course, a partner to all sincerely friendly nations ranging from Russia and China, to Iran and the DPRK. However, a great deal of non-Arabic analysis on Syria tends to view the conflict in selfish terms which represent an unconscious colonial mentality. A lot of this is a sad reflection on the background of those authoring such narrow minded “analysis”.  One cannot wish Syria well, without understanding the nature of her political system and consequently, why any external alteration to this system will have made Syria’s military victories, ultimately useless.

The future of the Syrian Arab Republic will not depend on the support of groups and individuals merely cheering on the Syrian Arab Army for selfish reasons, without care for the future of the Arab Republic. Syria’s future depends on those who see Arabism as an inseparable element vis-a-vis Syria’s society, laws and national character.

And now the penny has dropped even deeper.

 Unlike Syria, Iran has not faced an internal military onslaught from Takfiri terrorists, although last year, a large scale ISIS staged a brutal attack on important sites in Tehran. The result was 18 Iranians martyred at the hands of Takfiri terrorists in an assault which Iran’s security services said was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia—America’s primary Arab ally. 

However, because Iran’s struggle against Takfiri terrorism is one fought outside of Iran’s borders, the Takfiri atrocity of 2017 in Tehran did not register among many western observers. Indeed, because of decades of anti-Iranian propaganda, Iran’s steadfast and fully legal aid to Syria and Iraq in their fight against terrorism, has gone largely unnoticed. 

But now, the vile prejudices of many in the west are on full display. Iran’s government, like that of Syria’s Ba’athist government is a revolutionary government, it is a progressive government, it is a government which puts sovereignty above submission to western financial imperialism and one which puts the struggle of Palestine above capitulation to aggressive bullies. This is not to say that Syrians and Iranians don’t have complains against their governments. They do and voice them openly and peacefully in the normal way that is done in much of the world (outside of places like Saudi Arabia, occupied Palestine, Bahrain, the post-NATO Libya). This is not the issue, the issue is that of western/Zionist backed reactionaries and their thugs attempting to reinstall a puppet Shah in Tehran, all the while Al-Qaeda, ISIS,  Kurdish terrorists, Baloch terrorists and the terrorist group MEK salivate at their opportunity to destroy Iran. 

Unlike Syria’s secular revolutionary Ba’athist government, Iran’s Revolution is an Islamic Revolution. This of course has never prohibited Iran from having good ties to Christian Armenia, secular/Orthodox Russia, secular multi-confessional Syria or the secular Juche Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Likewise, recent efforts to improve relations between majority Sunni Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been largely successful even in their initial stages. Turkey and Iran have also greatly expanded their relations in the last year, in spite of historic, political and spiritual differences. 

It is only in the west, where the ideology of liberalism sets itself in opposition to the Islamic Revolution. Other secular or non-Shi’a countries have no trouble forming partnerships and alliances with Iran.  In this sense, western liberalism and Wahhabism share a uniquely bigoted loathing of The Islamic Republic of Iran--one that other countries without Iranian style governments do not.  

So while many liberals and partially reconstructed neo-cons in the west temporarily aligned themselves with the Ba’athist Syrian Arab Republic due to a combination of opportunism and self-preservation, when Iran faces threats from the same sources (the US, “Israel”, Saudi Arabia), there is little genuine sympathy from many in western so-called “alt-media”. 

Instead they have reverted to form. Now, they either ignore calls for solidarity with the Islamic Republic, or they openly call for its demise because the Islamic Revolution is incompatible with their liberal/neo-con bigotry. 

It seems that Iran is a red line for many in “alt-media” which shows that the groundswell of support for alternative views on Syria was both formed by and is limited to acts of selfishness. 

Such individuals do not give a damn about Palestine, because they do not live in fear of an Israeli jet bombing their homes. Such individuals also do not give a damn about Iran, because they have been programmed by Zionist propaganda to hate The Islamic Revolution, in spite of its peaceful and progressive character. What they don’t realise is that Syria sees its war against groups like ISIS as part of the larger struggle to liberate the Arab world from Zionist/western imperialism. Furthermore, Iranians see their battle to preserve the Islamic Revolution as part of the wider battle against Wahhabi obscurantism. With friends as two-faced as this, Syria should be glad to be rid of them when they no longer find the Syrian cause “useful” to their own selfish agenda. 

If politically compromised individuals in the west actually cared about the principles of national sovereignty, opposition to western, Zionist and Wahhabi imperialism, an equality among nations and peace among peoples, they would all be rallying to support Iran. Instead they sardonically insult Iran’s Revolution, Iran’s culture, Iran’s government, Iran’s customs and Iran’s people. 

Of course, there are many in “alt-media” who are genuine and always were. These were the same people who were ignored before the horrors of ISIS woke many from their slumber. Now that they think ISIS has been destroyed, they are ready to go back to sleep. 

This is to the eternal shame of the “alt-media” frauds and will be to the eternal glory of those who support The Islamic Revolution, including those in Syria who stand shoulder to shoulder with their Iranian brothers and sisters, in spite of having different forms of revolutionary governments.
Share:

The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%



The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%

 
A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie

The recent events in Iran, among other things, fully vindicate the security and defence policies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in every sense. 

Already, recent history has vindicated North Korea’s policy. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and to an extent Syria were destroyed by western militaries and their terrorist proxies because they did not have the full means to defend themselves, yet North Korea has not been destroyed because it does have the means to defend itself and deter attacks with its nuclear weapons. 

Far from an exotic theory, this is a very obvious matter of fact, one articulated by few world leaders, with the interesting exception of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. 

To further understand why North Korea has been vindicated, one must examine what happens when sovereign minded countries do deals with the west? 

In 2003, Libya agreed to disarm in return for extended business and security ties to the west. The result was the total destruction of Libya less than ten years later and the barbaric murder of its Revolutionary leader Brother Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had often spoken with disappointment, regarding the fact that western business deals never came through in the way he had expected when he agreed to disarm. Still, he remained cooperative and as a reward the US sent savages in to murder him. 

Syria too had softened its traditional policies of scepticism regarding the west in the years immediately preceding the western led proxy war on Syria. The result has been a seven year on Syria by those same western powers and their Takfiri terrorist proxies, most notably ISIS.

In 2015, Iran agreed to the JCPOA, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in which Iran forfeited its goal of developing a nuclear security deterrent in exchange for business deals with the west.

In 2018, western backed proxies and local traitors now set fire to the streets of Iran, all the while little significant progress has been made in terms Iranian business deals with the west. 

The US continues to sanction Iran, threaten Iran and lie about Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, even though Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain, the EU as a whole and the United Nations, all agree that the JCPOA is being completely upheld by the Iranian government. 

Contrasting with Libya, Syria and Iran, North Korea has stated that no deals will be considered until its nuclear deterrent is fully functional in respect of being able to do to the US what the US can and often threatens to do to it.

 When Donald Trump stands before the UN threatening to “destroy” the DPRK, it is only natural that Pyongyang will want a stronger rather than a weaker means of defending itself. This is something a child in the schoolyard could understand with ease, yet many so-called intellectuals deceive themselves and in doing so, detach themselves from simple logic.

They are either stupid or cowards, not to publicly admit that the DPRK has been proved right and just about everyone else has been proved wrong.

Furthermore, North Korea has stated that even when it is willing to negotiate on other matters, that its nuclear deterrent is not up for negotiation. 

The precedent set by previous US “business” deals in exchange for disarmament totally vindicates the DPRK’s position. Far from good faith agreements, such deals are nothing more than a chance for the US to buy itself time while a stated enemy weakens itself and then, when sufficiently vulnerable, the US, its dependants and its proxies go to war and topple the state it had done a deal with.

The pattern has been repeated over and over again, but only North Korea seems to understand the nature of this clear pattern. 

Even in respect of a superpower like Russia, the US refuses to engage in arms reduction treaties—all the while amassing forces on Russia’s borders, before turning around and criticising Russia for maintaining the strength of its own armed forces. 

Sometimes one wonders if Washington really thinks the rest of the world is completely stupid? 

That being said, much of the world is matter-of-factly naive. The events in Iran speak for themselves. 

The following are the general developments that arise after a nation does a deal with the US and its partners:

--No tangible economic improvement 

--Continued sanctions and military threats 

--Some genuinely frustrated citizens who blame their own government for America’s broken promises 

--US armed forces and proxy militants/terrorist  trying to start a war in your borders 

North Korea is indeed a more closed society than Iran and this too has been vindicated by recent events. The US and its proxies do not reward countries for openness, but destroy them because of openness. The US sees an open door not as a sign of friendship but as a sign of vulnerability. 

If the US were to truly change (something that seems impossible until declining economic conditions wreak havoc upon the west in earnest), then perhaps North Korea would be more open to the rest of the world, but until then, it must protect itself as it continues to do.

North Korea, having suffered so greatly at the hands of the US and its partners in the 1950s, is more aware than most, of the full extent of barbarity that the US is happy to rain upon countries that it views unfavourably. 

But unlike others, the DPRK has never forgotten those important lessons of the relatively recent past, nor has the Supreme Leadership in Pyongyang neglected to study the pattern that begins with rapprochement with the US and is shortly followed by the total destruction of the smaller party to that initial rapprochement. 

One will never see proxy wars, “colour revolutions” and open sedition on the streets of the DPRK. This is because the DPRK knows how the US plays its game. If one thinks that North Korea is playing a hard game itself—one must remember that this game is only as hard as that which is necessary to hold off a US attack. 

North Korea stands vindicated—others are guilty of being naive and the US, as always, is guilty of being a dishonest broker and perennial aggressor.
Share: