Vladimir Putin recently made comments on the seriousness of global conflicts that can lead to nuclear conflict. Patriots worldwide should pay close attention as the globalists build their dangerous nuclear arsenal.
In stark contrast to attempts in numerous western countries to stifle free speech online, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Internet freedom during a conference...
A prominent Swedish lawmaker asserts that Hungarian billionaire George Soros's influence on European politics and policies make him "one of the most dangerous men,"
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence
officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the
INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from
1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
Satellite imagery on Al Asad air base from @PlanetLabs shows five impact points after being hit by Iranian missiles last night.#Iran deliberately avoided hitting populated areas.
Iran also fired five additional missiles at the US consulate in
Erbil; US commanders on the ground said that it appeared Iran
deliberately avoided striking the consulate, but in doing so sent a
clear signal that had it wanted, the consulate would have been
destroyed. Trump had to back down
This was
the reality that President Trump had to wrestle with when addressing the
American people regarding the state of hostilities between the US and
Iran.
Trump had previously promised a massive retaliation should
Iran attack any US personnel or facilities. Surrounded by his national
security team, Trump had to back down from that threat, knowing full
well that if he were to attack Iran, the Iranian response would be
devastating for both the US and its regional allies, including Israel,
Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The US might be able to inflict unimaginable
devastation on Iran, but the cost paid would be unacceptably high.
Trump’s rhetoric was aggressive, however, and his message made it
clear that the US still considered Iran to be a rogue state whose
pursuit of nuclear technology, ballistic missiles, and regional
dominance would be opposed by the US, with force if necessary. But the
Iranian missile attack drove home the new reality that, when it came to
Iran’s actions in the Persian Gulf, American Presidential rhetoric no
longer held sway as it once did.
Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, drove this point home in a series of tweets claiming to have “slapped”
the US in the face for its assassination of Soleimani, emphasizing that
the policies pursued by Soleimani seeking the withdrawal of the US from
the Persian Gulf region were becoming a reality, citing the recent vote
by the Iraqi parliament to evict all foreign troops, including those of
the US, from its soil.
President Trump, in his address to the
American people, certainly talked the talk when it came to articulating a
strong anti-Iranian policy. The real question is whether Trump and the
American people are prepared to walk the walk, especially in a world
where Iranian missiles are capable of dealing death and destruction on a
scope and scale previously unimaginable.
Both right wings of the US war party are hostile toward sovereign independent states that are free from its imperial control.
It’s notably true for nations with enormous hydrocarbon resources
like Iran and Venezuela — what the US seeks control over for added
ability to dominate other countries.
Most of all, it’s true for powerful nations like China and Russia, able to challenge US hegemonic aims effectively.
Russia’s super-weapons, exceeding the best in the West, made it the world’s dominant military power.
China’s growing economic, industrial, technological, and political
power most concerns US policymakers because of the country’s increasing
preeminence on the world stage at the expense of America in decline.
In their eyes, China is public enemy No. 1. Are both countries on a collision course for confrontation?
A rupture in political relations could follow the Trump regime’s trade war.
It’s exacerbated by unacceptable Pentagon incursions close to and in
Chinese waters, and now falsely blaming Beijing for spreading COVID-19
outbreaks to shift responsibility from US failures to deal with the
public health crisis effectively.
Intense China bashing affects US public opinion. A February Gallup
poll showed two-thirds of Americans view Beijing mostly or very
unfavorably — a 20 point decline from 2018.
A March poll by the organization showed nearly half of US respondents view China as a “critical threat.”
A new Pew Research poll showed two-thirds of Americans view China unfavorably. When Trump took office, it was 47%.
According to Asia Society’s director Orville Shell, “(i)t’s hardly surprising.”
“It’s now just about the only thing in Washington that Republicans
and (Dems) agree on…(They) have a much more skeptical view of China’s
intentions” — ignoring their own.
Negative US public opinion toward China shows propaganda works as intended.
According to former US National Security Council member Douglas Paal,
proposed congressional legislation calls for greater get tough on China
policies.
It’s an election issue. Congressional members and aspirants believe that publicly bashing China is a way to gain voter support.
Bilateral relations are likely to worsen ahead, including in the
aftermath of US November elections — heightening the risk of
confrontation by accident or design.
The outlook ahead is unsettling at best, a matter of great concern if bilateral relations continue deteriorating.
A rupture will be harmful to both countries. The US is China’s largest export market. It’s a major market for US exports.
According to the St. Louis Fed, agricultural products, aircraft, motor vehicles, and microchips are the top US exports to China.
The country is the world’s leading source of low-cost goods for the
US and many other nations. It’s a major buyer of US Treasuries.
In response to growing contentious relations with the US, China began
developing internal consumer-led growth years ago, including for
services — to be less dependent on exports for future growth, especially
to the West.
Has Russiagate shifted to Chinagate? US anti-China Cold War poses the risk of turning hot.
Is mutual trust beyond repair short-or-longer-term?
The issue goes way beyond Trump and GOP hardliners. If Biden succeeds
DJT as president in January, Sino/US relations are unlikely to improve.
Given the current trend, they’re more likely to further deteriorate.
Obama’s 2013 Asia pivot aimed to reassert America’s East Pacific
presence by advancing its military footprint in a part of the world
where it doesn’t belong.
It aims to challenge and counter China growing preeminence on the
world stage, while checking Russia in its far east at the same time.
Containment has been US policy throughout the post-WW II period, targeting nations able to challenge its hegemonic aims.
Cold War politics rages on multiple fronts, mainly against China and
Russia — in the Middle East against Iran, in Latin America against
Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
It’s what the scourge of Washington’s imperial agenda is all about, risking endless wars by hot and other means.
US imperial overreach threatens everyone everywhere.
What’s unthinkable is possible, the risk of military confrontation
with China and/or Russia that could go nuclear if pushed too far.
*
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 [email protected]. 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.”
The
September 11 terror incidents in 2001 are said to be the biggest-ever
deadly attack on US soil. Shamefully, exactly 17 years later, the US
president and Pentagon military chiefs are threatening to go to war in
Syria – to defend the same ilk of terrorists.
“Shamefully” is perhaps not the most fitting word here. “Consistently” would be more appropriate.
Officially,
the spectacular plane-crashing mayhem 17 years ago in New York City was
due to 19 Arab hijackers affiliated with the Al Qaeda terror network.
That
account of the world-changing event has been hotly disputed, with many
respected authors and organizations claiming that evidence shows the US
intelligence agencies are implicated in an inside job. The death of some
3,000 American citizens was hence exploited as a pretext for launching a
series of US overseas wars, whose hidden agenda was for promoting
imperialist objectives.
In
any case, the official story is that Al Qaeda operatives hijacked four
airliners on the morning of September 11, 2001, and flew them into the
twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, as well as into the
Pentagon building near Washington. The fourth plane crashed in a rural
area in Pennsylvania, allegedly after passengers challenged
the terrorist pilots.
The
Al Qaeda terror network, with its ideological links to Saudi-sponsored
Wahhabism, was declared “enemy number one” by then President George W
Bush, who proceeded to launch wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly
to avenge the 911 atrocity perpetrated against
American civilians.
The
so-called “war on terror” has since become a much-overused blank check
for successive US governments and their NATO allies to launch wars
anywhere in the world to “defeat terrorists”. It has been used to
justify increasing Western state surveillance powers against its own
citizens in the name of counter-terrorism.
To
be sure, the official story on 911 and subsequent US and NATO military
rampaging around the globe has been challenged by skeptics and critics.
One
of the key lines of contesting the official narrative is the documented
evolution of the Al Qaeda terror franchise, which grew out of US
sponsorship of motley radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan during the
1980s. That covert ploy was to give then occupying Soviet troops “their
Vietnam”. American and British military intelligence along with lavish
Saudi funding created the Frankenstein Monster of Islamic terrorism that
mutated and spread across the Middle East and beyond.
So,
the very notion that, post-911, the American creators of the terrorist
monster would serve to protect the civilized world from their own
creation was always a deeply suspect proposition.
The
truth is that the US never stopped colluding with these terror groups
since the days of the putative Afghan Vietnam for the Soviet Union.
The 911 incidents may have been some form of “blowback” or, plausibly,
it was American intelligence handlers contriving a plot which would give
imperialist planners their much-desired “new Pearl Harbor” – a blank
check to declare war on the planet for the benefit of advancing US
strategic interests.
Granted,
the success of that nefarious covert scheme is questionable given the
unforeseen huge financial and social costs to American society, as well
as from general bedlam undermining global security.
For
observers willing to see, it seems indisputable that there is something
of a symbiotic relationship between Islamist terror proxies and the US
imperialist state. The official “enemy” is a boon for justifying
oppressive state powers against citizens; it serves as a pump for
bloated budgets to the military-industrial complex at the heart of the
American capitalist economy; and this enemy can also serve as target
practice for illegal military intervention in foreign countries – US
interventions that would otherwise be seen for what they are, as
“criminal aggression”.
Further,
the terror proxies continue to serve as a cat’s paws for US
imperialism, as in the earlier formation in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union. Rather than direct large-scale American military
involvement, the Al Qaeda brigades are deployed to do Washington’s dirty
work. Syria is emerging as the new Afghanistan.
Officially,
the Pentagon and US corporate news media scoff at these claims of
collusion with terrorists. “We are bombing Syria to defeat terrorists,”
so goes the mantra. Substitute any number of countries for “Syria”, as
required.
Well,
if that’s the case why have senior US military people like Michael
Flynn admitted that the former Obama administration deliberately
cultivated the terror brigades in Syria? Why have hundreds of millions
of dollars gone into forming a non-existent “moderate rebel army” in
Syria only for the American weaponry to end up in the hands of terror
groups like Nusra Front?
What
about credible reports of US military helicopters airlifting Nusra
commanders out of harm’s way to other, safer parts of Syria? Similar
reports of airlifting, or airdropping weapons, have come out of
Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is still “fighting terrorists” – 17
years after 911.
It
has taken a painfully long time over the eight years of war in Syria to
uncover the full and real extent of criminality by the US and its
British and French allies, along with the Saudis, Turks and Israelis.
But
now we are coming full circle. President Donald Trump and his officials
are warning that they will launch military strikes on Syria if the
Syrian army and its Russian and Iranian allies proceed with the
offensive to retake Idlib province. The northwest province is the
last-remaining stronghold of anti-government militants. These militants
are not the illusory “moderate rebels” the Western media have long
bamboozled the public with. The militants comprise Nusra Front, Ahrar al
Sham, Islamic State, and other self-professed Wahhabi jihadists of the
Al Qaeda franchise. The myriad, mercurial names are merely part of the
US cynical cover.
Trump
– the supposed non-interventionist president – has even discarded the
earlier ruse of invoking “chemical weapons” as a pretext for a US
military attack on Syria. He and his officials are simply saying that
any offensive by the Syrian army to retake all of its territory is an
“unacceptable escalation” that will be met with a US military response.
There
is no other credible rationale for such military deployment by
Washington in Syria. The Western media are as usual riding shotgun with
the mendacity, claiming that the Syrian army offensive will trigger a
“humanitarian crisis”, rather than reporting the salient fact that the
offensive is aimed at eradicating the most vile terror groups from that
country.
In
Syria, today, 17 years after 911, the real relationship between US
authorities and terrorism is on display. The United States of Anarchy.
The "worst case" trade war scenario was avoided in Osaka on Saturday when Trump agreed to restart trade talks with Xi, holding off new tariffs on Chinese exports, and signaling a pause in the trade hostilities between the world’s two largest economies; Trump added that while existing tariffs would remain in place the
US president eased restrictions on Huawei as part of what is now the
second ceasefire between the two superpowers in two months, removing an
immediate threat looming over the global economy even as a lasting peace
remains elusive.
"We had a very good meeting with President Xi of China, excellent, I
would say excellent, as good as it was going to be," he said. "We
discussed a lot of things and we're right back on track and we'll see
what happens", Trump told reporters after an 80-minute meeting with
Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a summit of leaders of
the G-20 major economies in Osaka, western Japan.
“We’re holding back on tariffs and they’re going to buy farm products,” he said vaguely at a news conference, without giving any details of China’s future agricultural product purchases. “If
we make a deal, it will be a very historic event.” He gave no timeline
for what he called a complex deal but said he was not in a rush. “I want
to get it right.”
Whereas Trump and top admin officials alleged that Beijing had
reneged on provisions of a tentative trade deal, it was not immediately
clear if Xi agreed to return to previous agreements as part of the new
truce.
Trump, however, did relent on one of the major sticking points, saying U.S. firms would be allowed to sell components to Huawei, the
world’s biggest telecom network gear maker, where there was no national
security problem. The president said the U.S. commerce department would
meet in the next few days on whether to take it off a list of firms
banned from buying components and technology from U.S. companies without
government approval.
"I like our companies selling things to other people, so I allowed
that to happen," Trump said. “We’re talking about equipment where
there’s no great national security problem with it.” In recent months,
the Trump administration has been lobbying allies around the world not
to buy Huawei equipment, which the U.S. says could be used for Chinese
espionage.
Huawei was delighted by the news on its verified Twitter account:
“U-turn? Donald Trump suggests he would allow #Huawei to once again
purchase U.S. technology!”
Predictably, China also welcomed the step. “If the U.S. does what it
says, then of course, we welcome it,” said Wang Xiaolong, the Chinese
foreign ministry’s envoy for G20 affairs.
Trump said he had not yet decided how to allow U.S. companies to
continue selling to Huawei or whether to remove the tech giant from the
Commerce Department’s entity list. He said he would meet with advisors
next week to determine how to proceed.
U.S. microchip makers also applauded the move. “We are encouraged the
talks are restarting and additional tariffs are on hold and we look
forward to getting more detail on the president’s remarks on Huawei,”
John Neuffer, president of the U.S. Semiconductor Association, said in a
statement. Recently, Broadcom warned of a broad slowdown in demand as a
result of Huawei sanctions and slashed its revenue forecast.
And yet, it was not clear how long the exemption would last. Trump
said he had agreed with Xi to wait until the very end of trade talks to
resolve broader issues around Huawei, including Washington’s lobbying
campaign against allies buying its 5G equipment.
“Huawei is a complicated situation,” Trump said. “We’re leaving Huawei toward the end. We’ll see where we go with a trade agreement.”
The concession will likely draw criticism in Washington where
national security hawks have urged Trump not to ease any pressure
against Huawei. The company has long been the target of concern at the
Pentagon and intelligence agencies in part over what the U.S. claims are
its close ties to the Chinese military.
Huawei is one of few potent levers we have to make China play fair on trade.
If President @realDonaldTrump backs off, as it appears he is doing, it will dramatically undercut our ability to change China’s unfair trades practices.https://t.co/rja8CDs2T4
By agreeing to weaken restrictions on #Huawei, Trump not only undermined his own government, he undermined the entire argument #Huawei is a real national security threat. #facepalmhttps://t.co/BzuM8QA0Na
In exchange for his Huawei concession, Trump said Xi Jinping had promised to buy “tremendous” amounts of U.S. agricultural products. “We’re
going to give them a list of things we’d like them to buy,” Trump said
at a news conference following the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan.
However, as Bloomberg notes, the first indications the second fragile
truce will collapse soon is that the Chinese official media reports said
only that the U.S. president hopes China will import more American goods as part of the truce, without an actual confirmation it will do so.
For now, however, the second truce, after a similar ceasefire was
announced on December 1 at the Buenos Aires G-20 summit, has been
achieved, offering relief from a nearly year-long trade standoff in
which the countries have slapped tariffs on billions of dollars of each
other’s imports, disrupting global supply lines, roiling markets and
dragging on global economic growth.
In a lengthy statement on the two-way talks, China’s foreign ministry
quoted Xi as telling Trump he hoped the United States could treat
Chinese companies fairly. On the issues of sovereignty and respect, Xi
said that "China must safeguard its core interests."
“China is sincere about continuing negotiations with the
United States ... but negotiations should be equal and show mutual
respect,” the foreign ministry quoted Xi as saying.
Trump had threatened to extend existing tariffs to almost all Chinese
imports into the United States if the meeting brought no progress on
wide-ranging U.S. demands for reforms.
The return to the negotiating table ends a six-week stalemate that has unnerved companies and investors, and
at least temporarily reduces fears that the world’s two largest
economies are headed into a new cold war, which they still are but only
after the current stalemate ends allowing the S&P to rise above
3,000 in the the meantime. Because, as Bloomberg notes, it’s
unclear how they can overcome differences that led to the collapse of a
previous truce reached at the G-20 in November.
* * *
While Trump and Xi were all smiles at their press briefing, the bad
blood between the two leaders behind the scenes is clearly still there.
Xi spent much of the summit’s first day Friday promising to open up the
Chinese economy, and attacking the U.S. (without naming it) for its
attack on the global trading system. As Bloomberg reported, Xi took a
"not-so-subtle swipe" at Trump’s “America first” trade policy in remarks
to African leaders on Friday, warning against “bullying practices” and
adding that “any attempt to put one’s own interests first and undermine
others’ will not win any popularity.” Xi also called out the U.S. over
Huawei and said the G-20 should uphold the “completeness and vitality of
global supply chains.”
For now, however, there is optimism.
“Returning to negotiations is good news for the business community
and breathes some much needed certainty into a slowly deteriorating
relationship,” said Jacob Parker, a vice-president of China operations
at the U.S.-China Business Council. But "now comes the hard work
of finding consensus on the most difficult issues in the relationship,
but with a commitment from the top we’re hopeful this will put the two
sides on a sustained path to resolution,” he said.
Others were more skeptical, and warned the pause - just like the first ceasefire - will not last.
“Even if a truce happens this weekend, a subsequent breakdown of
talks followed by further escalation still seems likely,” Capital
Economics said in a commentary on Friday, quoted by Reuters.
The United States says China has been stealing American intellectual
property for years, forces U.S. firms to share trade secrets as a
condition for doing business in China, and subsidizes state-owned firms
to dominate industries. Meanwhile, China has said the United States is
making unreasonable demands and must also make concessions.
The talks collapsed in May after Washington accused Beijing of
reneging on reform pledges. Trump raised tariffs to 25% from 10% on $200
billion of Chinese goods, and China retaliated with levies on U.S.
imports.
The U.S.-China feud had cast a pall over the two-day G20 gathering,
with leaders pointing to the threat to global growth. In their
communique, the leaders warned of growing risks to the world economy but
stopped short of denouncing protectionism, calling instead for a free,
fair trade environment after talks some members described as difficult.
* * *
Finally, global markets will breathe a sigh of relief on news of the
resumption in U.S.-China trade talks, even as an official deal remains
elusive, and there is no indication of how the two countries will bridge
the most difficult aspect of a feud that has emerged beyond simple
trade and now affects most aspects of US and Chinese life.
The flip-side is that with trade talks back on, the Fed will feel far
less pressure to ease in July, and since in June stocks exploded higher
on hopes that the Fed will cut rates as much as 50bps next month, such a
reversal in US-China relations could potentially prevent Powell from
capitulating, and leave the Fed on hold, an outcome which would lead to a
sharp drop in US capital markets. Indeed, in recent weeks, the S&P
has returned to record highs, treasury yields have tumbled to their
lowest level in years. The Japanese yen, a traditional beneficiary of
flight to quality, has gained, while the U.S. dollar has slipped across
the board, including against China’s yuan.
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.
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.
Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security
Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the
Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem
hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria,
it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy
increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in
pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.
Does
the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course
not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined
that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is
for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in
the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.
Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.
First,
Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to
fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al
Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including
President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to
re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing
us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken
by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of
“regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.
Second,
one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf
US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for
the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians
warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an
assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending
in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a
warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced
that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is
considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to
stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the
neighborhood.
Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi
coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream
media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in
Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is
considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in
the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because
we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does
that make sense?
We all remember the old saying,
attributed to Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack, that “if you
lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us
to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide
a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the
“experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when
“winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing
something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the
rest of the world alone!
A suicide bombing in Manbij, Syria has reportedly killed 19 people including four Americans, two of whom were US soldiers and two of whom worked with the US military. ISIS, which has an extensive history of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, has claimed responsibility for the attack. Despite the fact that ISIS would claim responsibility for a housewife stepping on a Lego block, and despite the complete absence of evidence that it had anything to do with the deadly explosion, all the usual cheerleaders of endless war are pointing to the Manbij suicide bombing and shrieking “See?? Trump said ISIS is defeated and it’s not!”
“ISIS is still a very real threat here,” CNN international corespondent Clarissa Ward told Jake Tapper from northern Syria. “And the real concern that we are hearing over and over again on the ground, Jake, is that when US troops withdraw, a power vacuum is created, and that only gives them more strength.”
Virulent Syria war pundit Charles Lister, who is notorious for praising Al Qaeda and is a senior fellowat the Gulf state-funded neoconservative think tank Middle East Institute, told AFP that this attack invalidates Donald Trump’s order last month to withdraw troops from Syria.
“Trump’s order was reckless and driven far more by domestic political concerns than it was by facts on the ground,” Lister said, adding, “To suggest ISIS is ‘defeated’ because it no longer controls territory is to fundamentally misunderstand how ISIS and similar organizations seek to operate.”
Former John McCain ventriloquism dummy Lindsey Graham pounced like a rat on a cheese doodle on the opportunity to call for continued US troop presence within hours of the attack, interrupting the confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee William Barr with an ejaculation about Trump’s Syria withdrawal.
“I would hope the President would look long and hard at where he’s headed in Syria,” Graham said after repeating the baseless claim that the attack was perpetrated by ISIS. “I know people are frustrated, but we’re never going to be safe here unless we’re willing to help people over there who will stand up against this radical ideology.”
Not to be left out when there are moronic war agendas to be sold, Fox News leapt into the fray with a quote from an anonymous foreign diplomat saying “This attack today is a direct result of the announcement made by President Trump that U.S. forces are pulling out. These troops had a bullseye on them when the president telegraphed that he was ordering a pullout.”
“ISIS has already claimed responsibility for today’s suicide attack, a reminder that the group is not defeated,” added Fox’s Jennifer Griffin.
MSNBC’s deranged intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance topped everyone as usual with a babbling nonsensical post about how US troops were killed in Manbij because there were no US troops in Manbij, proving that Assad and Putin may have allowed the attack to happen, which proves Trump is a Russian asset.
“The moment Russia and Assad took over patrolling Manbij on Trumps go ahead we get hit with suicide bombers for the first time. It’s possible Russia/Assad let the attack happen. Trump’s treachery on this matter now kills our special operators. #RussianAsset,” Nance tweeted between huffs of paint thinner.
The moment Russia and Assad took over patrolling Manbij on Trumps go ahead we get hit with suicide bombers for the first time. It’s possible Russia/Assad let the attack happen. Trump’s treachery on this matter now kills our special operators. #RussianAsset. https://t.co/Sa0tGrM12g
Other voices are treating the reports about the bombing with a little more skepticism.
“If ISIS were smart it would hold its fire especially against Americans,” tweeted professor and author Max Abrahms. “The main justification for leaving Syria is the (contested) assessment ISIS is defeated. ISIS attacks convey the opposite, weakening the strategic rationale of withdrawal while making it politically harder.”
“Ok, so Trump announces that the U.S. will begin a phased withdrawal from Syria, which according to his critics, would only benefit ISIS who they say is still operational and would welcome a U.S. pull out. But not waiting for pull out ISIS then targets U.S. troops! Yeah right,” tweeted former Green Party vice presidential nominee Ajamu Baraka.
These are interesting points. If ISIS is indeed responsible for the bombing, as war pundits are unquestioningly asserting is the case, then they’re either really, really stupid or they really want US troops to remain in Syria. Or perhaps the attack was engineered by someone else who has a vested interest in keeping a US military presence in Syria, either using ISIS as a patsy or completely separate from ISIS. Wouldn’t be the first time a suspicious attack took place in Syria while the Trump administration was working to withdraw troops.
Of course, this whole debate ignores the most obvious point of all: that if there was no US military presence in Syria, there would be no US military personnel being killed in Syria. The fight against the terrorist forces who nearly overtook the nation with the help of the western power alliance’s imperialist support have been beaten to the brink of total defeat not by the US, but by the Syrian government and its allies. If US troops were removed Damascus would quickly restore stability to the region and continue rebuilding the war-ravaged nation. But this is precisely what these war whores do not want.
Syria is a strategically crucial geopolitical nation for reasons having to do with natural resources and the power dynamics of Israel, Iran, and the empire-aligned Gulf states. It is not a coincidence that so much energy gets poured into this small stretch of land and its surrounding nations by the western military alliance and its propaganda machine, and it’s unlikely that the global dominators will lose interest in Syria any time soon. Stay skeptical.
Liberteon