Saturday 9 March 2019

It Is Israel, Not Russia, That Interferes in US Political Life

Who Does Congress Represent?

Ilhan Omar is a brave woman.  She has embarrassed the corrupt Democratic Party that, together with the Republicans and many evangelical Christians, have sold out America to Israel.
More and more people have come out in her defense, refusing to be silenced by the criminal state of Israel.  Dr. Paul Kindlon explains what is at stake.
He accuses Congress of Treason if Congress legislates at the Israel Lobby’s insistence the death of the First Amendment.  Enough members of the House and Senate have been purchased by the Israel Lobby that the traitors will sell out the US Constitution for Israel’s interests if they can get away with it.

I Accuse Congress of Treason

Dr. Paul Kindlon

Let us be clear…the U.S. Congressional vote condemning criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism – if it passes – will be an act of treachery of historical proportions. Do not be fooled – this is a move by politicians in the pocket of a foreign power to make censorship legal, ending two-hundred plus years of freedom of speech in our country.
I accuse the Congressional representatives who will vote for this resolution of being un-American and of spitting in the face of the founding fathers. It will truly be a dark day in our nation’s history and those responsible will be condemned and held in utter contempt by posterity.
I accuse the Congressional members who vote for this resolution to be traitors to their country and heritage. Men and women who knowingly, willingly and perversely trample upon our sacred first amendment – that uniquely democratic principle that has inspired so many countries to emulate us in order to enjoy the freedom to speak openly and freely.
I accuse the mainstream, corporate, media of aiding and abetting this crime against American democracy. Of turning its back on professional standards and practice. Presenting straight-forward news and balanced reporting have been abandoned because it makes far less money than providing PR and low-level entertainment. It’s all about the Benjamins and humiliating subservience to a foreign government.
I accuse the mainstream media of going tabloid, desecrating the cherished values of past journalists who stood for honesty and objectivity. Journalists who questioned authority and who did not kow-tow to power the way modern day fake journalists do. Like those perfidious members of Congress with fingers poised over the Yea button, these so – called journalists are traitors, as well.
I also accuse the Israeli government of undermining American democracy and weakening our civic society. For it is Israel – not Russia – that has meddled in our political process through AIPAC for many years. By doing so, Israel has acted in a duplicitous manner violating the trust of Americans who have so generously aided Israel for decades. Millions have fretted over the possibility that one powerful member of our government may be working in the interests of a foreign power, not realizing that literally hundreds of key government officials have been putting the interests of Israel over and above the interests of America and its citizens and are preparing to do so again.
And finally…I accuse the American public of being too passive in the face of such treacherous behavior from politicians and journalists who are bringing America straight down into the muck and mire of lies, greed and hypocrisy. The situation is dire. We know who the guilty parties are among us. The question is: what shall be done to punish those who are venal mercenaries –those politicians and journalists who will sell out their own country for thirty pieces of silver?
See also:

Congress Criticizes Ihlan Omar but Remains Silent About Israel’s Violence Against Palestinians

The obsession with US Congresswoman Ihlan Omar’s criticism of Israeli influence over American politics really is unique. And what makes this debate genuinely immoral is that it focuses on Omar’s words but ignores the killing and oppression of Palestinian civilians by Israel.
The Minnesota Congresswoman has been pilloried over the past few weeks for criticising members of Congress who take money from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) in exchange for political support for Israeli policies. Omar has also highlighted the ugly tendency for many pro-Israel activists and politicians to have an apparently greater loyalty to Israel, a foreign country, than they do to the United States.
As a journalist for nearly half century, I know it is a reality that PACs donate millions to congressmen and women specifically to influence their votes. So why is Omar’s legitimate criticism of donations by supporters of a foreign country, Israel, denounced viciously by Republicans and Democrats alike as an “an anti-Semitic trope”? This is the quid-pro-quo: literally, “something for something”. Translated from Latin into US politics it comes up as, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.
As I have written before, pro-Israel activists and the Congressmen and women they “buy” with their PAC donations have weaponised anti-Semitism, turning it into a political bludgeon rather than trying to suppress the racist hatred of Jews, although Arabs are Semites, too, by the way.
And this:

American Jews, including prominent figures like Naomi Klein, have signed an open letter in support of Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

The letter states that she has been “falsely accused of antisemitism” and that there was nothing anti-Semitic about calling out the “noxious” role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in American politics.
It went on to say that “The pro-Israel lobby has played an outsized role in producing nearly unanimous congressional support for Israel.”
The letter finished by saying “We thank Ilhan Omar for having the bravery to shake up the congressional taboo against criticizing Israel. As Jews with a long tradition of social justice and anti-racism, AIPAC does not represent us.” and called on other Jews to sign the letter.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

FULL PRICE PLUS 50% OR MORE: TRUMP SEEKS FINANCIAL COMPENSATIONS FROM FROM NATIONS HOSTING U.S. TROOPS

09.03.2019
Full Price Plus 50% Or More: Trump Seeks Financial Compensations From From Nations Hosting U.S. Troops
The Trump administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other nation hosting US troops pay the full price of US soldiers deployed on their soil – plus 50% or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to multiple reports in US media citin various anonymous officials and ‘informed sources’.
According to repots, in some cases, nations hosting US troops could be asked to pay 5 to 6 times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, just stated that because of me NATO has been able to raise far more money than ever before from its members after many years of decline. It’s called burden sharing. Also, more united. Dems & Fake News like to portray the opposite!
41.5K people are talking about this
“Trump has championed the idea for months. His insistence on it almost derailed recent talks with South Korea over the status of 28,000 US troops in the country when he overruled his negotiators with a note to National Security Advisor John Bolton saying, “We want cost plus 50.”
The president’s team sees the move as one way to prod Nato partners into accelerating increases in defence spending – an issue Trump has hammered allies about since taking office. While Trump claims his pressure has led to billions of dollars more in allied defence spending, he’s chafed at what he sees as the slow pace of increases.
“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” Trump said in a speech at the Pentagon on Jan 17. “We cannot be the fools for others.”
Officials caution that the idea is one of many under consideration as the US presses allies to pay more, and it may be toned down. Yet even at this early stage, it has sent shock waves through the departments of Defence and State, where officials fear it will be an especially large affront to stalwart US allies in Asia and Europe already questioning the depth of Trump’s commitment to them,” The Straits Times reported on the issue.
So far, Trump’s idea to raise funds from US allies have faced a large wave of criticism in the mainstream media. The common argument is that this move would demonstrate a lack of “commitment” to US allies in Europe and Asia. On the other hand, this move seems logical in the framework of the Trump-delcared strategy to strengthen the US national industry, including the military industrial complex. The Trump administration is not going to abandon US military infrastructure around the world, but it does not want to pay for it as much as it does.
From the European perspective, all EU nations, which have been for a long time exploiting the US military presence as a political tool to justiy a low-scale military spending, this could be seen as an “unfriendly” move. They get used to the fact that the US takes a military spending burden off their back thus buying their loyality.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

UNDER SIEGE BUT UNDETERRED, YEMEN’S ANSARULLAH RALLIES FOR VENEZUELA AND CONDEMNS US-ZIONIST AGGRESSION

As usual, leave it to Yemen’s Mighty, Mighty Ansarullah to show the entire planet–especially the increasingly apathetic Arab-Muslim part of it–what principled Anti-Imperialism, unrelenting Anti-Zionism and true Striking Star Solidarity with another oppressed nation look like. Last week, Yemen’s defenders held a massive rally for Venezuela, condemning US-Zionist aggression against the Bolivarian Revolution in the harshest possible terms and letting Nicolas Maduro know that he, as well as the Venezuelan people, have friends, comrades and family on Yemeni soil. The Ansarullahis mocked the Tangerine Terrorist Donald Trump. They trampled upon the American and ‘Israeli’ flags. They displayed portraits of Nicolas Maduro and El Comandante Hugo Chavez (rip). Nasserists and socialists of various types joined in–an example of the Houthiyeen putting politics aside for the sake of fighting the Imperium. Pictures of Fidel Castro (rip) could be seen too. The Yemeni and Venezuela flags were rocked together in a sea of Sarkhas. Beauty doesn’t even come close to describing it.


The Yemeni Islamic Resistance’s stance isn’t groundbreaking obviously, as its opposition to all forms of US-‘Israeli’ malevolence is visceral–just look at the second and third lines of its aforementioned Sarkha. Still, it is simply inspiring beyond inspiring because the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen, executed on behalf of Washington and “Tel Aviv”, still rages. The bombing and besieging continue. The suffering of tens of millions of starving Yemenis has not ended or even been alleviated a bit. But in the midst of this Zionist-imposed carnage, they take time out to express their unwavering backing of other Moustazafeen under attack a few continents away. Every single time one thinks that they’ve seen the pinnacle of the Yemeni people’s humbleness, grace, steadfastness and resistance, they find a way to show us that we need to adjust our vision, because another pinnacle can and has been reached.


With Ansarullah weighing in for Venezuela, it now joins its brother in arms, the Lebanese Islamic Resistance of Hizbullah. Also the Syrian Arab Republic. The Islamic Republic of Iran, certainly. We shan’t forget Iraqi Islamic group Harakat Hizbullah al-Nujaba. Orthodox Christian Russia too. Among others. Compare this lineup to those backing Guaido the Gusano and his barely-alive, completely-fraudulent puppet regime–we’re talking every Zio-Imperialist capital and collaborationist stooge on Earth. Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi’s men speaking for Venezuela only solidifies that the Bolivarians’ struggle is a righteous one–’cause ain’t nobody more righteous and Mouqawamistic than Yemen’s guardians. Viva Ansarullah. Viva Venezuela. May they both prevail over their oppressors quicker than we can scream, “Allahu Akbar. Death to America. Death to ‘Israel’. Curse be on the Jews. Victory to Islam.” Ameen.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Trump Bans Disclosure of Civilian Deaths by Drone Strikes

By Stephen Lendman
Source
The US, NATO, and Israel indiscriminately massacre civilians when attacking targeted nations or Palestinians.
For Israel, it’s official policy under its Dahiya doctrine, unlawfully calling civilians legitimate targets, including women, children, infants, the elderly and infirm.
Former IDF Northern commander Gadi Eisenkot explained it as follows, saying:
From dozens of command centers worldwide, Pentagon and CIA personnel operate predator drones, sanitizing mass slaughter on the cheap compared to manned warplanes and ground troops.
Teams of remote warriors work far from or close to battlefields. Drone pilots operate computer keyboards and multiple monitors, sensor staff working with them, handling TV and infrared cameras, as well as other high-tech drone sensors. 
Faceless enemies nearby or half a world away are attacked. Virtual war kills like sport, drone warriors never witnessing deadly bloodshed, dismembered bodies, and human suffering close up – guiding weapons with joysticks and monitors like video games.
According to an earlier Congressional Research Service report, around one-third of US warplanes are drones (unmanned aerial vehicles – UAVs) – up from 5% early in the new millennium.
UAVs were first used in Vietnam as reconnaissance platforms. In the 1980s, Harpy air defense suppression system radar killer drones were employed. In the Gulf War, unmanned combat air systems (UCAS) and X-45 air vehicles were used.
Others were deployed in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. They’re now commonly used in all US wars. Under unofficial rules of engagement, anything goes, international and US statute laws of war long ago abandoned. 
“We will apply disproportionate force at the heart of the enemy’s weak spot (civilians) and cause great damage and destruction,” adding: 
“From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages (towns or cities). They are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved” – notably against Gaza.
The US and NATO operate the same way without publicly affirming it as official policy. Drone wars are a notorious example. 
An earlier report prepared jointly by Stanford University’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic (NYU-SU) titled “Living Under Drones” explained their harm to civilians.
Official claims about precise, effective “targeted killings (with) minimal downsides or collateral impacts,” making the US safer, is utter rubbish. Polar opposite is true, confirmed by first-hand evidence.
Drone strikes eliminate few so-called “high-value targets,” at most around 2% of individuals killed, SU/NYU saying:
“US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.”
“Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.”
“Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior.”
Targeted areas are struck multiple times in quick succession – the practice called “double tap,” dissuading bystanders and professionals from helping.
Drone wars are lawless and largely secret, transparency and accountability absent, SU/NYU saying a “significant rethinking (of policy is) long overdue…(noncombatants) suffering real harm.”
An earlier report prepared jointly by Stanford University’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic (NYU-SU) titled “Living Under Drones” explained their harm to civilians.
Official claims about precise, effective “targeted killings (with) minimal downsides or collateral impacts,” making the US safer, is utter rubbish. Polar opposite is true, confirmed by first-hand evidence.
Drone strikes eliminate few so-called “high-value targets,” at most around 2% of individuals killed, SU/NYU saying:
“US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.”
“Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.”
“Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior.”
Targeted areas are struck multiple times in quick succession – the practice called “double tap,” dissuading bystanders and professionals from helping.
Drone wars are lawless and largely secret, transparency and accountability absent, SU/NYU saying a “significant rethinking (of policy is) long overdue…(noncombatants) suffering real harm.”
According to UK-based Reprieve, drone strikes greatly increased under Trump in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, adding:
“…America’s illegal drone war has expanded (greatly) across the globe, (Trump) increas(ing) and widen(ing) drone strikes…systematically weaken(ing) safeguards.”
“(E)ven individuals not considered to pose a ‘continuing and imminent threat’ can be targeted for death without trial” under a secret assassination program – murder by drones, conventional warplanes, and/or special forces operations.
Mindless of the devastating human toll, Trump continues Obama’s so-called “disposition matrix,” his “kill list,” orchestrated by then-CIA director John Brennan.
According to Reprieve, “(t)he CIA’s own leaked documents concede that the US often does not know who it is killing, and that militant leaders’ account for just 2% of drone-related deaths.”
All US wars violate fundamental international and domestic rule of law principles. Millions of post-9/11 casualties were and continue to be civilians – the toll largely suppressed in the mainstream.
Trump’s EO compounds longstanding US suppression of the human toll and devastation from US wars of aggression.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Mujtahid: Saudi’s King Salman Mentally Dead, MBS Fooling Media


King Salman MBS
Saudi activist Mujtahid revealed on Thursday that King Salman is mentally dead and knows nothing about the latest decisions taken by Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS).
Mujtahid said in several tweets on Thursday that King Salman has no idea that Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan was appointed as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, and that Prince Khaled bin Salman was announced as the Kingdom’s deputy defense minister.
“King Salman cannot contribute to decision-making since he is mentally dead and cannot remember anything,” Mujtahid said on his Twitter account.
Meanwhile, the Saudi activists, who is believed to be a member of or have a well-connected source in the royal family, noted that MBS wants to show that the king is conscious, pointing to the report published by The Gurdian British daily earlier this week.
“The report by The Gurdian on disagreements between King Salman and MBS is not but a trick by MBS to show that the King is mentally sound in a bid to defend himself from his local rivals.”
Source: Websites

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Dual Loyalty as Racism



ilhan3.jpg
GA: How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black muslim and an immigrant…
By Eve Mykytyn
The US House of Representatives just passed a resolution that declared, “whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse.”  The key words in this resolution are “dual loyalty” which make clear that this otherwise banal condemnation of racism was made in direct response to Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial statement:
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
Apparently, the House resolution was a disappointment to some. The New York Times reports that this ‘all-inclusive’ approach was criticized for not “solely condemn[ing]  anti-Semitism.” Representative Ted Deutch asked  “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”
It is bizarre that Mr. Deutch seemingly objects to condemning racism per se. Would Mr. Deutch prefer that the House pass separate resolutions condemning prejudice against each of the ever growing list of identity groups?  The House would be so busy debating these resolutions that they would  accomplish nothing else, although admittedly, that might be a positive outcome.
Omar has not retracted her statements. In response to criticism from representative Nita Lowy, Omar tweeted,
“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”
Omar’s point has been substantiated by the reaction it has provoked. Omar claimed that accusations of anti-Semitism tend to be used to silence critics of Israel. In response, she was called a “Jew hater.”
Representative Juan Vargas tweeted, “It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”
Omar is condemned for criticizing dual loyalty by those who insist upon loyalty to Israel. As journalist Jordan Weisman noted,
“If Israel’s most devoted U.S. backers are really so concerned over dual loyalty smears, maybe they should think more carefully about how they’re encouraging them. “


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine




‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine
FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 07.03.2019 | WORLD / AMERICAS

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine


The previous articles (firstsecond) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.
South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).
We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.
Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.
Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.
Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.
As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.
Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.
Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.
In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.
Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.
Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.
Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.
China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.
Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.
The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.
As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.
The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).
Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.
It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.
Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.
In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.
South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.
But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.
Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.
Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.
Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.
The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.
The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.
Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah to Overcome Sanctions, Fighting Corruption Equals Fighting “Israel”



Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah delivered on Friday a speech in which he tackled various files.
Addressing a crowd of supporters commemorating the 30 years on the establishment of the “Support to the Resistance Organization”, Sayyed Nasrallah called for remembering “all those who took the initiative to gather money, support and carry out this blessed and great work especially when the resistance was in its beginning, thirty years ago.”
“Some people think that this resistance depends on the support of some friends or allies, but there is a large area that depends on the support of the people,” he said, pointing out that “in the battles to defeat the terrorists, we witnessed how people in the different villages who insisted on supporting the Mujahideen by money,”
Expressing pride on all who support the resistance financially, His Eminence stressed the importance “of another area for Jihad that is with money, which is one of the elements of natural force and resistance’s  need.”
Commenting on the recent decision by Britain to proscribe Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “there are countries that have started to develop lists of ‘terrorism’.”
“It is expected that other countries adopt a similar resolution to the British decision classifying the resistance as “terrorist”,” he predicted.
However, the Resistance Leader assured that “Hezbollah remains strong  despite being under attack.”
Back to 2011, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled how the enemies “started to target Syria and then Iraq as well as the entire resistance axis.”
“They continue to pressure Lebanon and Palestine, while there is an open war on the Yemeni people,” he elaborated, pointing out that “the axis of the resistance stood in face of this scheme and was decisive in the battles in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.”
Meanwhile, he reiterated that “the resistance axis is triumphing across the region. It is further standing in face of [US President Donald] Trump and his son-in-law [Jared] Kushner’s “deal of the century” schemes.”
On the British and US moves against Hezbollah, His Eminence viewed that “they took punitive measures against us because we defeated them and toppled their schemes, because we are strong and capable.”
“The “Israeli” is afraid and scared from waging  any war,” he said, noting that “the current sanctions are part of the economic, psychological and financial war that has been waged against us.”
In parallel, Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the Resistance community by saying: “Those who can’t defeat you with war imagine that they will succeed by financial siege. They are imposing sanctions on us because we have defeated their scheme.”
Once again, Hezbollah Secretary General assured that “despite all that is happening, they have not been able to impoverish or siege us. Those who support us, continues to do so whether nations or peoples.”
According to him, “we may face some difficulties, but with good management we can overcome this war.”
He further highlighted: “We emerged victorious in July War as well as in Syria while our enemies were waiting for us to be defeated. When we went to Syria, some people stood in the world and Lebanon at the edge of the river waiting for our defeat and bodies. However, we won. And now, they will not manage to break our resolve.”
“The Resistance will increase in strength, presence and influence,” Sayyed Nasrallah vowed, thanking the Resistance community that despite the financial crisis managed “to collect and donate two million dollars to the Yemeni people.”
On the internal Lebanese, His Eminence announced that Hezbollah has “started the fight against corruption in Lebanon by opening two files and there are other files coming.”
Undermining recent political [March 14] attacks against his party, he emphasized that “claims that we want to take the state’s money are baseless.”
“Lebanon is precious to us and we are among the Lebanese who have offered great sacrifices and blood for the sake of the country,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed , pointing out that “in the battle against corruption, we can’t stand idly by in order not to irritate some parties.”
He went on to say: “In the battle against corruption, we consider ourselves to be in a righteous, important and sacred battle i.e. not less important than resisting the occupation.”
As Hezbollah Secretary General  warned that “any financial collapse represents an existential threat,” he underscored that “it is totally baseless that we seek political vengeance from fighting corruption.”
“We are not after increasing or diminishing popularity, but rather our goal is facing financial waste, ending theft of public funds and confronting financial and administrative corruption,” he declared, noting that Hezbollah isn’t “in competition with anyone in this battle and we do not agree to enter into a bidding war with anyone.”
Moreover, Sayyed Nasrallah clearly announced: “We support anyone who makes a move in this battle. We are with anyone who has evidences in the files of corruption and financial waste and submits them to the state we .We don’t want to be alone in this battle but we aren’t afraid to be alone.”
“The corrupts in Lebanon and the thieves will stand in face of this battle and will try to defend themselves by any way,” he said, predicting that “the corrupts and the thieves will be punished and the counter-attack is normal.”
Expressing caution that “there are attempts to turn the battle over corruption into another sectarian path to protect the supposed corrupted people,” Sayyed Nasrallah sent a sounding message to the rivals: “Do not bet that we’ll be tired. Do not bet that we will despair. We haven’t been tired in the battle of the resistance since 1982 and we are today in 2019 and now the resistance in face of corruption started.”
“Their claims that we are seeking political vengeance against certain politicians and parties is untrue,” His Eminence said, urging “anyone who has evidence against us can resort to the judiciary.
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned: “We are only keen on the ultimate goal and we seek no political gains. We want to recover the state’s funds. We know that the battle is difficult and we do not expect results within months. We do not care about insults and accusations and we’re used to them. The language of insults increases our resolve, strength and determination.”
“Do not bet on our fear of a civil war to silence us or make us retreat,” he said, telling “those doubting this battle, ‘we won’t stop, we’re going to the end’. You can think about everything and expect from Hezbollah everything in this battle.”
According to His Eminence, “A suspicious financial situation has persisted between the years 1993 and 2017.”
“A number of finance ministers have been into this ministry since 1993 to 2017 but one person went out and set himself as suspect,” he explained, unveiling that : “The second file is the useless debt and the large part of this money that goes to the pockets.”
Viewing that “the remarks by the Finance Ministry’s director general are serious,” he urged “the Lebanese judiciary to inspect them.”
“Anyone who has evidence against us can resort to the judiciary,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing out that “Hezbollah would be a hypocrite party if it ignores the financial accounts file and anyone who seeks to sideline this file would be a hypocrite.”
Moreover, he rejected the claims that Hezbollah was setting its sights on Lebanon’s corruption problem only because “it is coming back from Syria” and has nothing better to do.
“Trust me, no one has as much work to do as us,” he said, hailing the fact that Lebanese President “General Michel Aoun was the first to tackle this file prior to being elected president.”
RELATED VIDEOS


RELATED Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!