Ambassadors “Persona Non-Grata”: Turkey’s National Interests, Foreign Policy or Political Considerations?

Source: Al Mayadeen

26 OCTOBER 2021

Ruqiya Anwar

Turkish businessman Kavala has been in prison for four years for his suspected role in the Gezi Park protests and his involvement in a failed coup attempt in 2016.

Osman Kavala

This research note discusses that the Turkish businessman Kavala has been in prison for four years for his suspected role in the Gezi Park protests and his involvement in a failed coup attempt in 2016. Kavala is one of Turkey’s most well-known civil society figures. Since the early 1980s, the billionaire has helped to establish multiple publishing enterprises in Turkey, and a decade later, he has supported numerous civil society organizations. 

Osman Kavala was one of Turkey’s most prominent activists. He has been held in pre-trial imprisonment in Silivri Prison since October 2017. Authorities in Turkey accuse him of initiating the Gezi Park demonstrations in 2013.

Significantly, President Erdogan has accused him of being the Turkish leg of billionaire US philanthropist George Soros, whom he claims is behind insurgencies in several nations. He has been held in detention pending the outcome of his latest trial, and he has rejected the charges. 

Whereas, the indictment of September 2020, according to Kavala’s lawyers, was nothing more than a presumed fantasy based on no real evidence. Human rights organizations around the world have slammed Kavala’s arrest, claiming the charges are politically motivated. Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Kavala’s arrest was politically motivated and it was carried out with the goal of “bringing other human rights defenders, to the political prisoners.” (DW, 2021).

Following a similar line, the Council of Europe has given a warning to Turkey to comply with a European Court of Human Rights ruling to free Kavala pending trial, which was issued in 2019. Otherwise, it will file an infringement complaint against Turkey.

The ambassadors of the ten nations issued a unified statement urging Turkey to abide by the Council of Europe’s judgments. Germany, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United States all requested a “fair and swift” settlement to Kavala’s case (DW, 2021).

They further stressed, “The ongoing delays in Kaval’s trial, which include the merging of many cases and the establishment of new ones following a prior acquittal, throw a pall over Turkish court respect for democracy, the rule of law, and transparency. In light of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment, they requested Turkey to release it as soon as possible. These ambassadors  demanded a fair and expeditious settlement to his case under Turkey’s international responsibilities and domestic legislation.”

Most importantly, Kavala who has been imprisoned since 2017, has been frequently demanded their release by international observers and human rights organizations. They claim that the detention is due to political concerns. While the officials deny the allegations and maintain that Turkish courts are independent.

While the Turkish government views the ambassadors’ declaration as direct involvement in domestic politics. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the diplomats’ behavior and threatened to expel them from the country. In an intensifying disagreement with the countries, who intervened in the case of a detained businessman by demanding his release.

After their statement demanding the release of Osman Kavala, President Erdogan authorized the Turkish foreign minister to proclaim the ambassadors of ten nations to Turkey “persona non grata”. Notably, when a diplomat is declared persona non grata, they are banned in their host country and they are now just one step away from expulsion.

In a speech, Erdogan remarked, “I have directed our foreign minister to expedite the declaration of these ten ambassadors,” These ten ambassadors must be declared persona non grata. They will be familiar with and understand Turkey”. He went on to say that these ambassadors would not release “terrorists” in their nations if they did not know and understand them (Arab News, 2021).

For this reason, tensions between Ankara and the United States, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and New Zealand soared over  Turkey’s president proclaimed the envoys “persona non grata.”

Moreover, the ambassadors had been instructed to “keep within the responsibilities of their duties after an insincere and double-standard approach and It was highlighted in our constitution that Turkey is a democratic state of law that protects human rights, and it was reminded that such reckless utterances would not affect the Turkish court”.

The government further noted that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments are frequently disregarded and not followed, claiming that focusing solely on Turkish cases to keep the Kavala case on the table at all times is ineffective (DW, 2021).

Whereas, former Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, Alper Coskun, tweeted, “Expelling ambassadors is not a good strategy to protect national interests. Turkey’s isolation has been exacerbated by its rash foreign policy aimed at domestic politics” (Arab News, 2021).The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Turkey’s Planned Expulsion Of 10 Western Ambassadors Is A Huge Diplomatic Move

25 OCTOBER 2021

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Simply denouncing them but declining to take any tangible action would have made President Erdogan look weak in everyone’s eyes unless they recanted their joint statement and apologized. He couldn’t afford to do that even though he must also have expected that Western pressure against him personally and his country more broadly will soon intensify as a result.

Turkish President Erdogan announced over the weekend that he instructed his Foreign Minister to declare 10 Western ambassadors persona non grata after they meddled in his country’s foreign affairs by releasing a joint statement demanding the release of a jailed businessman who they consider to be a “political prisoner”. This is a huge diplomatic move that will reverberate for some time to come. It shows that Turkey has zero tolerance for such high-profile foreign meddling and is ready to accept the potential political consequences for expelling the Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Finish, French, German, New Zealander, Norwegian, Swedish, and US Ambassadors.

Those diplomats must have predicted that the Turkish President would react in a similar way to how he ultimately did. This implies that they planned their joint statement as a political provocation intended to catalyze a self-sustaining cycle of escalations between their countries and Turkey. The purpose of doing so is to prompt the pretext for intensifying their information warfare against him and potentially threatening sanctions, whether on that basis or a different one.

Those diplomats’ countries probably also wanted to manipulate their people’s perceptions about Turkey by making it seem like it’s “anti-Western” and “despotic”. The planned expulsion of so many ambassadors of such influential countries will certainly provoke a diplomatic crisis. It’ll likely generate incredibly hostile coverage by the Western Mainstream Media too. In other words, all of this is part of the US-led Hybrid War on Turkey which aims to punish the country for its increasingly independent foreign policy in recent years.

From the Turkish perspective, it’s unacceptable to let those diplomats meddle in such a blatant way, especially regarding a jailed figure who they consider to be a “political prisoner”. Simply denouncing them but declining to take any tangible action would have made President Erdogan look weak in everyone’s eyes unless they recanted their joint statement and apologized. He couldn’t afford to do that even though he must also have expected that Western pressure against him personally and his country more broadly will soon intensify as a result.

From a larger viewpoint, Turkey is setting an example for other non-Western nations to follow. Not all of them are as confident as that country is nor might they have the “Democratic Security” capabilities to adequately defend themselves from the predicted intensification of US-led Hybrid Wars against them under such pretexts, but they might still be inspired by this huge diplomatic move. After all, a pivotal pillar of Turkish foreign policy is to present itself as a model for others to emulate, especially in the Global South and most recently in Africa.

Looking forward, Turkish-Western relations will likely continue to deteriorate. There’s a chance that the ambassadors who Turkey plans to expel might eventually return or be replaced after some time, but that probably won’t happen in the near future if the country does indeed go through with what its leader just threatened. The overall impact of this trend will be to accelerate Turkey’s proactive engagement with its new non-Western partners, with a priority given to Russia and China.

That development could be manipulated through information warfare means to reinforce the false narrative that Turkey is “anti-Western” even though it would just be pragmatically reacting to Western political provocations. Nevertheless, closer Turkish ties with Russia and China could fuel the intensification of the US-led Hybrid War against it through geopolitical fearmongering about that country’s grand strategic intentions. For this reason, Ankara must brace itself for myriad destabilization attempts ahead of the summer 2023 elections.

It’s impossible to predict the exact forms that they could take at this moment, but they’ll likely be comprehensive and thus involve economic, information, political, and perhaps even security plots. President Erdogan is increasingly portrayed by the Western Mainstream Media as a so-called “rogue” leader, the misleading perception of which will be exploited to intensify the US-led Hybrid War. He’s unlikely to capitulate to their political demands related to his foreign policy but he’s likely still interested in bargaining with them.

Related Videos

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!

SECRET FILES REVEAL TURKISH INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS IN GERMANY, DENMARK, THE NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN

South Front

18.05.2020 

The headquarters of Turkey’s national intelligence organization

Several documents marked “secret” which were obtained by Nordic Monitor have revealed details of illegal surveillance activities of critics based in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden carried out by Turkey’s intelligence services.

The documents, dated 19 March 2019, show that Turks resident in the countries have been closely monitored due to their critical views of the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The intelligence was used by Turkish authorities to initiate criminal prosecutions against critics, prepare extradition requests and file Interpol notices.

Turkey has been accused of abusing Interpol’s law enforcement mechanisms to silence Erdoğan critics from all segments of Turkish society. According to related reports, Turkey had sought Red Notices for around 60,000 individuals in 2016. Turkish police have also been accused of manipulating Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (STLD) database for political purposes, filing fraudulent missing, lost or revoked passports and travel documents to invalidate the papers of critics and opponents of the Turkish government.

Consequently, Interpol prohibited the use of its communications channels to interact on any issue that concerned the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey because it contravened the provisions of Article 3 of Interpol’s constitution. Article 3 “strictly forbids the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”

Critics of the Erdoğan government, especially members of the Gülen movement, have been facing surveillance, harassment, threats of death and abduction since at least 2014, when then-Prime Minister and now President Erdoğan began to suspect the group of being involved in plots to overthrow the government. In turn, Erdoğan’s critics accuse him and State officials of inventing false plots and filing fraudulent charges against opponents to cover up or distract media attention from their own errors and troubles, ranging from claims of widespread corruption (including among the president’s family and closest political and business associates) to Turkey’s dangerous and disastrous decision to support of at least some of the terrorist groups that have been ravaging the northern parts of Syria.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• ISIS Terrorists Attack Syrian Army Near Al-Sukhna
• Ukraine Delivers Air Defense Systems To Turkey, Through Shady Deal

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!

The Saker interviews Max van der Werff about the MH-17 conspiracy

August 28, 2019

Introduction: MH17 is to Novorussia, what the Markale (also see here) has been to Bosnia and Racak (also see here) has been to Kosovo: a typical false flag operation which pursued two goals: first, of course, to justify a military aggression and, second, to force everybody to chose one of two options: first, either pretend to believe the official narrative or, second, be vilified and discredited. From this perspective, the MH17 false flag has been a tremendous success, mostly due to the extremely successful lobotomy inflicted by the legacy Ziomedia on the western public opinion (I would argue that the Skripal fairy tale is even more self-evidently ridiculous than the MH17 fairy tale, and yet that was also swallowed hook line and sinker by most western “experts”). But then, we live in a post-9/11 world, in which neither facts nor logic matter much anymore, except for a rather small amount of people, including Max van der Werff who has proven to be one of the most tenacious and courageous investigative journalists. I am most grateful for his time and answers!

The Saker

——-

The Saker: First, a question about yourself: why and how did you get involved in this topic of MH17? What did were you doing before you got involved in this topic?

Max van der Werff : The very moment the news of the shoot down of the Malaysian Boeing broke on July 17^th 2014, I immediately realized this tragedy would have long term geopolitical implications. What further struck me was the fact most passengers were citizens of my country, The Netherlands.

Since childhood I have an interest in geopolitics and history. The fact my father was an immigrant from Indonesia surely contributed and as a teenager I read a lot about Dutch colonial history.

After Japan surrendered and World War II ended 150,000 Dutch troops were sent to restore Pax Hollandia in the old colony and the main motive was to restore the exploitation of the ‘wingewest’ (area for profit) as soon as possible. The Dutch elite had the opinion that the Japanese rule over the Dutch Indies was merely a short interruption and that Dutch colonial rule would be reinstated for generations to come. This fatally wrong perception of reality led to the Indonesian war of independence lasting from 1945 to end 1949 causing hundreds of thousands casualties.

Prior to my MH17 investigations I spent a lot of time in archives and on the ground in Indonesia searching for evidence of Dutch war crimes. There’s a documentary about my work: https://vimeo.com/288088492

The Saker: Now, let’s immediately jump into the core question: after having researched and analyzed the topic of MH17, what personal conclusion did you come to?

What do you believe really happened that day?

Max van der Werff : Having spent thousands of hours researching the case and being interviewed by the official Joint Investigation Team more than once my answer to your core question might be disappointing for some: I don’t know what happened.

Let me elaborate. Depending on political preferences all kinds of ‘experts’ claim to know for sure what happened exactly. One camp is sure it was a false flag, executed by Ukraine. The opposing camp is sure Russia is responsible. There are many variants as to who is an accomplice. On social media you see claims Ukraine was just a proxy for the CIA or Mossad. On the other side Russia just supplied the weapon and rebels shot down the airliner.

Then there are more exotic claims flight MH17 was shot down by a drone, a modernized Georgian SU-25 or by Israeli Python-5 missile(s) fired from the air or from the ground.

I have not encountered any credible evidence supporting any of the theories. This specifically includes the official version. Too many things simply do not add up. I’ve written a lot about the questionable evidence the official investigators have presented to the public so far and was one of the producers of a documentary that already has more than 200,000 views on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDWwYk4-Ho

The Saker: I outlined my personal guesstimate here where I wrote that in my opinion the Ukronazis used the radar of a Buk battery to guide a Su-25 withing 8 clicks of the MH-17 at which point the Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile which hit one of the engines which caused the Boeing to go into a sharp turn and lose altitude – the Su-25 easily caught up and finished the Boeing with its 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 autocannon (I explain my reasons in details here: https://thesaker.is/mh-17-one-year-later/). Do you have any elements of proof which would undermine/negate my guesstimate? Specifically, do you consider it as admitted by all sides now that a Buk missile did strike MH-17?

Max van der Werff : President Putin recently said: “We have our own version, we presented it, unfortunately, no one wants to listen to us. And until there is a real dialogue, we will not find the right answer to those questions that are still open”

Link: https://sputniknews.com/world/201906201075985579-russia-has-its-own-version-on-mh17-crash/

For five years I am asking: What exactly is the Russian official version of events?

To my knowlegde the Russian Federation has never claimed the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a buk missile. You have to be very precise here. Over the years Russian media have presented all kinds of versions about what happened. One version even more exotic than the other.

As most of your readers will know Almaz Antey, the company producing the missile system, gave a press conference and conducted a life experiment detonating a buk missile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r63cskl08o

During the press conference the Almaz Antey spokesman explained that the observed damage patterns in the hull of the Boeing could not have been caused by a buk missile fired from the location near Snizhne as claimed by the MH17 Joint Investigation Team. If a buk missile caused the damage, it must have been fired from an area southeast of the village Zaroshenskoye. Notice the little word “IF” in the sentence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs

Concerning your assessment a Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile. You do get some support for your theory from Zahar Omarov, chief researcher at the Central Research Institute of the Air Force of the Russian Ministry of Defense:

“I can say that our results disprove the conclusion that the plane was shot down by a missile from a Buk-type anti-aircraft missile system. Most likely, it was an air-to-air missile with a mass of high-explosive fragmentation warheads not exceeding 33 kg (the mass of the warhead of the Buk missile is 70 kg).”

Link https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2720372

Omarov repeatedly attended meetings of Russian delegations with members of the Dutch Safety Board. Here’s a very interesting segment of what he experienced during one of those meetings:

–QUOTE–

During the first meeting, in which I had to take part, and this was in February 2015, the Dutch reported that the plane, in their opinion, was shot down by a Buk anti-aircraft missile. Moreover, a definite modification of this missile was indicated, and, moreover, even the area from where it was launched was indicated.

I will not hide, we were very surprised. After all, before this, fragments of the aircraft with holes were examined, and there was not a single fragment with cut out sections that would indicate the conduct of any laboratory research.

I want to draw attention to such a dialogue that I had with a speaking expert.

–I asked a question: “Excuse me, did you investigate combat damage on fragments of an airplane?”

–Answer: “No. We are only planning to do this.”

–Question: “But how did you establish that the plane was shot down by Buk missile launcher?”

–Answer: “We found out from the Internet that the aircraft could have been hit either by a GSh-23 type air gun, or a R-60 type air missile, or a Buk anti-aircraft missile. One of the steel pieces found in the wreckage of the aircraft, in our opinion, is somewhat reminiscent of the shape of a “butterfly”. And we know that the warhead of one of the modifications of the Buk missile has damaging elements in the form of a “butterfly”. Therefore, of the three versions, the last was chosen.”

Logic, as they say, is iron. Something reminds me of our school exam. Dutch experts, apparently, have a good university education. However, for such work, education alone is not enough. Of course, experience is necessary, but even this is not the main thing. It is necessary to know, or, in extreme cases, at least conceptually understand the methodology for investigating such aviation events.

–UNQUOTE–

Now back to the type of air-to-air missile allegedly used. Omarov claims:

“The warhead was equipped with compact striking elements in an amount of not more than 4000 pieces. The missile most likely had a matrix-type thermal imaging homing head or passive radar. I note that missiles with similar characteristics are not in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces and never have been.”

Source http://www.aviapanorama.ru/2016/02/rejs-mn-17-v-cnii-vvs-minoborony-rossii-oprovergnuty-vyvody-gollandskoj-komissii/

The Saker: Russia and Malaysia were denied the right to participate to the investigation. Can you outline what the legalities are to decide which countries do or do not get the chance to participate? Do Russia and Malaysia not have any legal instruments to invoke to challenge the absolutely ridiculous way the official inquiry was formed and, even more so, the way this commission of inquiry operated (such as using social media sites, but not official Russian data)? Russia is an IATA member, so is Malaysia. Can they not sue?

Max van der Werff : This is a question for legal experts, but I’m quite certain Malaysia would have a strong case. ICAO Annex 13 describes in detail how the composition of an air disaster investigation must be. For sure the country of the operator (in this case Malaysia Airlines) has to be part of the investigation from the very beginning, which we all know was not the case. Malaysia only was a llowed to become MH17 JIT member four months after the shoot down.

Russia could argue that Ukraine as a potential suspect of the crime is a member of the official investigation and to compensate this obvious anomaly the Russian Federation should be part of the investigative team too.

Connected to this issue Lawyer and expert international criminal law Geert-Jan Knoops argues:

“In my view, the OM made a wrong choice by first setting up a trial model with the JIT team, with the Netherlands and The Hague District Court as the place of trial, then presenting the report with the suspects and then expecting Russia to cooperates. ”

and

“I think Russia might have been more cooperative if there had been trial in a neutral country, a non-JIT country.“

Source https://nos.nl/artikel/2289762-knoops-nederland-maakte-strategische-fout-bij-juridische-aanpak-mh17.html

The Saker: What is going on in Russia? First, they strongly hinted that some Ukie aircraft had shot MH17, then they declared that it was a Buk owned by the Ukronazis. So did they actually change their working hypothesis and ditched the Su-25 hypothesis to the (much less credible, at least in my opinion) Buk missile scenario?

Max van der Werff : Information management of the Russian Federation is of very low quality, to put it mildly. It took Russia four days to present its version of events and claimed a (most probably) Su-25 appeared on radar as it broke the 5,000 meter altitude. Russia also claimed it had deleted its radar data only to find a copy a few days before the official JIT press conference. And on those radar data a Russian expert explained there was no fighter jet visible. How credible is all this and how could it fail to explain why on one set of radar data a fighter jet is visible and on the other there is not?

Another criticism is Russia reacts when new accusations are disseminated by the official investigators, but fails to take the initiative and to communicate its own version of events in a simple, complete and credible narrative. More about this in two radio interviews with patrick Henningsen of 21^st Century Wire en Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio.

https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/07/17/interview-max-van-der-werff-discusses-new-mh17-documentary-film/

http://www.gorilla-radio.com/2019/07/26/gorilla-radio-chris-cook-max-van-der-werff-july-25th-2019/

The Saker: If the quasi official hypothesis now is that a Buk was shot (by somebody, nevermind for the time being how did it)? In spite of the fact that a HUGE plume should have been seen and in spite of the fact that any such Buk launch was absolutely certain to be tracked and recorded by all sides? Does it not strike you that the Buk hypothesis is just not credible at all? To ask the question a little differently: do you think that challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy or should I (and a few others) give up on our Su-25 hypothesis and accept the Buk theory as established beyond reasonable doubt (or even by a preponderance of evidence)?

Max van der Werff: The narrative of a buk missile fired from rebel held territory was the first narrative that circulated in western media and after five years it is unchanged and still the dominant narrative. It is now also the official version of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team.

To your question if challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy the answer depends very much on who is questioning this hypothesis. For sure the Russian Federation knows a lot more than what it is sharing with the public.

The tragedy happened merely thirty kilometers from the Russian border. For me it is unthinkable Russia does not know exactly what happened on July 17^th 2014. What facts and information does it hide after even five years and for what reasons? If a buk missile was not the murder weapon, why not explain this to the world with irrefutable evidence?

The Saker: Finally, do you believe that the full truth about MH17 will eventually come out and, if yes, roughly how and when?

Max van der Werff : For sure at some point in time the truth will come out. However, I am not sure we will be living long enough to witness this event.

The Saker: thank you so much for your time and replies!
——-
Afterword by The Saker:

During my years as an strategic intel analyst I had the chance to personally witness how the airspace over Europe is controlled in peacetime: not a single aircraft can take off without immediately being detected by numerous and redundant reconnaissance capabilities of many different actors including NATO, but also the various member states and even some neutral countries. I can only begin to image the degree, the concentration, of intelligence/reconnaissance means deployed by ALL SIDES of the conflict in the Donbass. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that both the Russians and the Empire have very detailed radar tracks, signal logs and God knows what else which gives them a 20/20 vision of everything which took place on that day (and before and after too, of course). This brings me to three different questions:

1. Why are the Russians not releasing to the world the full and irrefutable evidence of what took place that day? I could understand why the Russians remained silent about 9/11, but in this case I really don’t get it!
2. How are the various NATO states justifying that they are not simply showing the general public the full picture of what took place that day? Has nobody asked them point blank?
3. How is it that journalists with a lot of contacts (say a Seymour Hersh or a Robert Fisk) not get at least ONE (even anonymous) source to give them the full picture? There must be HUNDREDS of people between all the US and EU intel agencies who know exactly what has taken place and most of those probably do not sympathize with the Ukronazi regime in Kiev). Why this deafening silence?

I think that MH-17 will go the way of the Kennedy assassination or the way of 9/11: everybody will know that the official version is a load of bull, everybody will have his/her version of what really might have taken place, and we will probably never know for sure.

Unless one of the hundreds of people of actually do know know the truth steps forward.

The Saker

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!

Imperial Sentiments: Donald Trump, Greenland and Colonial Real Estate

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Global Research, August 23, 2019

Haven’t the critics worked it out yet?  US President Donald Trump chugs to the coal of nonsense that may come in the wrapping of some sense. Initial mad-cat comments, when cobbled together, might reveal some pattern in time.   

Take, for instance, the recent offer to purchase Greenland.  Considered laughable, purchasing territories has notable, historical precedent in US foreign policy.  Territorial aggrandizement through such means has been something of a US specialty, complementing the usual technique of brutal military conquest. 

The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 was a steal by President Thomas Jefferson, almost doubling the territory of the United States.  Alaska also went the way of purchase, being transferred by Russia to the US in 1867 for $7.2 million.  It was something the Russians would come to rue: within a half-century, that amount had been earned back a hundred times over.

That same decade saw US State Department officials turn their attention to Greenland.  An 1868 publication for the department compiled by Benjamin Mills Peirce casts more than a fleeting eye on the resources of both Iceland and Greenland, acknowledging the treaty with Denmark which was ostensibly meant to cede control of the islands of St. Thomas and St. John to the US.  (The US State Department describes this attempt on the part of Secretary of State William Henry Seward to acquire the Danish West Indies rather laconically as “peaceful territorial expansion”.)   

This observation in the report comes with its inaccuracies, largely based on premature optimism: the US Senate spitefully rejected the treaty, despite being ratified by the Danish parliament and its approval by the very limited suffrage plebiscite.  Anger was expressed at Seward’s persistent support for the troubled President Andrew Jackson during impeachment proceedings.  US interest persisted, though it was the turn of the Danish upper house to return the serve of repudiation in 1902 in refusing to ratify the agreement.  It took the winds of the First World War to encourage a formal transfer of the Danish West Indies on April 1, 1917.

The 1868 report uses rather familiar language to Trump’s, both in political and economic terms.  The Danish authorities are held to task for their great neglect of invaluable development opportunities.  Iceland is praised for “pasture and arable lands, its valuable mines, its splendid fisheries, and its unsurpassed hydraulic power”.  Fully developed (read, by US efforts), a population of one million might be sustained.  The population of Greenland is similarly “neglected by Denmark”, despite the island having vast quantities of fauna varieties for the kill, among them “whale, walrus, seal, and shark, cod, ivory-cod, salmon, salmon-trout, and herring”.  Obtaining it for the US would make good political and commercial sense: it would flank “British America on the Arctic and Pacific” and force her away from Britain “to become a part of the American Union.”

Enough seriousness was given to Trump’s offer to warrant copy across the media spectrum.  The Brookings Institution’s Scott R. Anderson was not hopeful that discussions would go anywhere. “Unfortunately for the president, buying and selling Greenland is, in all likelihood, a legal and political impossibility.” 

Colonialism Lives on in the Mind of Donald Trump

Anderson acknowledges a traditional acquisitiveness towards Greenland, being a gem of mineral and natural resource wealth. Furthermore, its proximity to Russia and the Arctic, in Anderson’s words,

“makes it a major strategic asset for staging various military and intelligence facilities.” 

This point is already noted by a US presence at the Thule Air Base, something maintained since the Second World War with Danish consent.  Admittedly, that presence was encouraged by Nazi Germany’s occupation of the kingdom in 1940, leaving Greenland to slide into the American orbit. Six years later, President Harry Truman wanted to formalise the move by suggesting a sum of $100 million for the island.

Given that the Danish government already permits a degree of US influence, it might have been more prudent of Trump to simply exercise it via traditional forms of seemingly benign encroachment.  That approach can be seen in Australia, where an increased US military presence is being felt by way of US marines on rotation in the Northern Territory.  But such a technique seems all too quiet for the Trump boardroom of hiring and firing.  On Wednesday, he cancelled a planned visit to Denmark, deeming the comments made by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen “nasty”.   

Frederiksen’s degree of nastiness was simply one of puzzlement.  Talking about purchasing Greenland was “an absurd discussion”, even though the US did acquire the Danish West Indies through purchase and has kept a roaming eye, wallet at the ready, to expansion in the Atlantic.  On Sunday, she told a television reporter that, “Thankfully, the time when you buy and sell other countries and populations is over. Let’s leave it there.”  She did make one gentle concession.  “Jokes aside, we would naturally love to have an even closer strategic relationship with the US.”  Deeper cooperation “on Arctic affairs” is still on the table.   

Despite Frederiksen’s occasional asides at the United States, Danish foreign policy has been closely aligned with the United States since the attacks of September 11, 2001, bucking a long history of non-interventionism.  The Danish Parliament gave its unqualified approval to US actions in retaliation and committed troops to the warring enterprises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.  Danish military casualties per capita are the highest of any of the coalition partners in those haphazard efforts.  This shedding of blood has led to such emetic observations as those of former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, describing the kingdom as “America’s largest and smallest ally”. (An exhibition at the Museum of Danish America in 2017 proclaimed without reserve that the US and Denmark “have the longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in the world, beginning in 1801.”) 

There is also Denmark’s strained and blighted relationship with Greenland, making it susceptible to foreign influence.  The largely self-governing entity has capitalised on Danish indifference, attempting to lure Chinese investment to develop three airports to secure better connections to the US and Europe.  (Denmark reluctantly caved in last year in an effort to keep the PRC at bay.)  Greenland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, however, drawn the line over a proposed sale.

“We’re open for business,” went an official tweet, “not for sale”. 

Greenland MFA @GreenlandMFA

#Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism. We’re open for business, not for sale learn more about Greenland on: http://Greenland.com 

Greenland – The Official Tourism Site. Find your adventure here! – [Visit Greenland!]

All about Greenland. Find travel offers and ideas for your next adventure. Get inspired and plan your trip to Greenland here.

visitgreenland.com

31.3K

3:49 PM – Aug 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

9,717 people are talking about this

The Greenland spat has revealed the obstinate ahistorical context of Trump’s world.  Allies, for one, are to be hectored, their efforts dismissed as paltry.  Despite Danish contributions to the foolhardy efforts of the US imperium, Denmark could still be scolded for spending a mere 1.35% of GDP on NATO.

“They are a wealthy country,” tweeted Trump, “and should be at 2%”. 

The president had been insulted, his ego put down by the prime minister of a small state.  “You don’t talk to the United States in that way, at least under me,” he told reporters in Washington.  “I thought it was not a nice statement, the way she blew me off.”  The US was never blown off and remains the oversized fly in the ointment of Denmark’s foreign policy.  As for Greenland, Trump might have asked its own prime minister, Kim Kielsen.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2019

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!

SYRIA FIGHTS COLONIALISM: AUSTRALIA, UK, DEMARK CONFIRM ROLES IN BRUTAL DEIR EZZOR MASSACRE

Syria In The Sun

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 MADDCOLDSONOFKUFA

by Jonathan Azaziah

Weekend massacre executed against Syrian troops atop Deir Ezzor’s Thardeh Mountain now looks like some kind of a murderous colonialist get-together as Australia, the UK and Denmark have all admitted their role in the unspeakable atrocity. Their statements on the crime read just about identically, with each respective Imperialist stain on humanity claiming that they, like the American regime, didn’t “intend” to hit the SAA, that they “regret” what took place and that they offer their “sincere condolences” to the families of the innocent souls whom they had butchered. The reason why this, also like Washington’s bullshit, does not hold even the weight of a termite, is because these are some of the bloodiest regimes to ever grace the stage of geopolitics.

The Australian settler regime wiped out hundreds of thousands of Aboriginal people and played a key role in the overthrow of Indonesian revolutionary Sukarno as well as the Suharto coup regime’s aggression against Eastern Timor. Canberra is also in thick with theusurping Zionist entity and its intelligence services and foreign affairs institutions have literally been outsourced to the Mossad, making it complicit in every criminal act ‘Israel’ carries out. Not to mention, Australia has allowed large numbers of Takfiris to flock to Syria in service of the Oded Yinon balaknization agenda. Denmark, for its part, once ran a hideous colonialist empire, with colonies of theft and mass murder in Africa, India and notably, the Caribbean, where the Jewish-dominated Danish West India Trading Company ran cruel schemes of slave-trading and sugar-thieving. And Britain? Does one really need to enumerate how many countries that the London ZOG colonized, raped and ruined at the height of its colonialist dominance? How much suffering that the London ZOG has inflicted–and continues to inflict–on the entire Global South? As Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei once remarked, the British regime is the “most evil” of all the Western powers. Thus, such regimes cannot feel “regrets”. Such regimes cannot offer “condolences”. Because such regimes are inhuman.

Mark it down and adjust the narrative ladies and gentlemen: Syria and its Hizbullahi, Iranian, Iraqi, Palestinian and Russian allies are not just fighting a foreign mercenary invasion, with terrorists descending upon Bilad al-Sham from 100 different countries. They aren’t merely battling the Najdi-Dönmeh-originated, Khaleeji-financed backwardness of Wahhabi-Takfirism. They are in fact standing their ground and defending the Syrian Arab Republic against a unified colonialist alliance, the likes of which has never been seen before at any other point in history, as this Old Joint Colonialist Conglomerate is attempting to manifest its supremacist bloodlust into a New Zio-Imperialist World Order spearheaded by ‘Israel’ and its main ZOG, i.e. Washington.

Makes the sacrifices of the Syrian Arab Army soldiers on Thardeh Mountain that much more heroic; that much more significant; and that much more inspiring, doesn’t it? These men didn’t die to “prop up a regime”. They didn’t give their lives to simply fight “Islamists”. They didn’t depart this world to “serve a dictator”. And they sure as hell didn’t fall whilst “repressing a revolution”. They were martyred, the highest, most dignified honor any individual can attain, struggling on behalf of every decolonized people on Earth, against the filthiest, most all-encompassing hegemony that has ever come into being, and in the name of what none of these genocidal Zionist puppet states will ever be able to understand: Justice, love of country and liberation from oppression. The choicest blessings of ALLAH (SWT) and the most blissful peace be upon the martyrs of the SAA. And death to the Australian, Danish and British regimes who murdered them in cold blood. Death to all these poisonous colonialist constructs and their Takfiri zombie proxies too.

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!

President Assad: Terrorism Has No Borders, Will “Bite” its Backers

Al-Assad: Wahhabism Foundation for Every Terrorism

Local Editor

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad described in an interview with the Swedish Expressen Newspaper the outcomes of Moscow talks as a breakthrough. He further stated that the UN envoy’s Aleppo plan, which is supported by the government, was spoiled by external intervention, renewing his warning that the terrorism imported to Syria will “bite” its backers whenever it has the chance.

He also called on Sweden to influence the EU to lift the economic sanctions imposed on the Syrian people.

“Terrorism is serious and dangerous because it doesn’t have borders, it doesn’t have limits. It could hit anywhere, it’s not a domestic issue. It’s not even regional; it’s global, that’s why it’s always dangerous.”

Al-Assad further mentioned that

“in our case, it’s more dangerous, let’s say, the situation is worse because this time it was having a political umbrella by many countries, many leaders, many officials, but mainly in the West.”

“Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and that depends on many criteria, some of them related to domestic, internal and military criteria, or factors, let’s say, which is more precise.”

On this level, the head of the Syrian state said:

“Al-Nusra Front which is part of al-Qaeda, and the Turkish government or institutions or intelligence, were like one army in that battle, so it doesn’t depend on the weakening of our army. It depended more on how much support the terrorists have from Turkey.”

On Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, he added:

“They’re not independent countries, so they won’t have their own agenda. Sometimes they have their own narrow-minded behavior or vengeful behavior or hateful behavior that’s been used by others’ agenda, let’s be frank here, sometimes the United States. So, we cannot say that they have their own agenda, but they haven’t changed. They still support the same terrorists, because this behavior is not related to the crisis in Syria. They supported the terrorists in Afghanistan, they supported the Wahhabi ideology, the extremism that led to terrorism recently in Europe, for decades, and now they are supporting the same ideology and the same factions under different labels and names in Syria. So, there’s nothing to change because this is their natural behavior.”

“The Wahhabi ideology, which forms the foundation for every terrorism in the world. No terrorist acts for the last decades in the Middle East and in the world happened without this ideology. Every terrorist bases his doctrine on the Wahhabi ideology.”

According to al-Assad:

“The United States in the 1980s called the same groups of al-Qaeda and Taliban, in Afghanistan, they called them holy fighters, and that’s what president Bush described them as, holy fighters. And then, after the 11th of September 2001, they called them terrorists. The problem with the United States and of course some Western officials is that they think you can use terrorism as a card in your pocket, as a political card. Actually, terrorism is like a scorpion; whenever it has the chance, it will bite. So, they know, but they didn’t estimate how dangerous terrorism is to be used as a political card.”

On the results of Moscow talks, al-Assad said:

“This meeting was the first time to reach – because you know we had many dialogues before – this is the first time to reach an agreement upon some of the principles that could make the foundation for the next dialogue between the Syrians. We haven’t finalized it yet, because the schedule of that meeting was very comprehensive, so four days wasn’t enough. Because when you have a breakthrough, even if it’s a partial breakthrough, it means that the next meeting will be promising in reaching a full agreement about what are the principles of Syrian dialogue that will bring a Syrian, let’s say, solution to the conflict.”

Al-Assad has blamed Norway and other Scandinavian countries for producing “the most dangerous leaders of Isis in our region”, in a video interview with Sweden’s Expressen newspaper.

He said countries like Norway had only themselves to blame for their homegrown “ISIL” fighters, as “European officials” had for years been “selling their values and allowing the Wahhabi dark ideology to infiltrate and be instilled in some communities”, in exchange for money from “countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar”.

“The most dangerous leaders of “ISIL” in our region are Scandinavian…that’s what we have as information,” he added.

Al-Assad said that he had warned at the start of Syria’s civil war that it would ultimately lead to terror attacks in Europe and beyond. 

“They didn’t listen, so what happened was warned of before, and what we saw in France, in Charlie Hebdo, the suicide attempts in Copenhagen, in London, in Spain, ten years ago, this is only the tip of the iceberg.” 

“You have ups and down, you have wins you have losses and that depends on many criteria,” al-Assad said. “We are still running the country.” 

Regarding Hizbullah’s presence in Syria, al-Assad clarified:

“For example, we had cooperation between the Syrians and the Iraqis even before the rise of “ISIL” recently during the summer of last year in Mosul. Before that we had good cooperation, intelligence and even military, for one reason; because the Iraqis were aware that the terrorism in Syria could spill over to Iraq, and that’s what happened in Mosul. The same is with the Lebanese. So, Hizbullah is aware that terrorism in Syria means terrorism in Lebanon. Chaos here means chaos there, so this kind of regional cooperation is very important for all of us.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team 

Local Editor

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that terrorism has no borders, stressing that it will hit back at its backers.

In an interview with the Swedish Expressen Newspaper, President Assad Terrorism is serious and dangerous because it doesn’t have borders and limits.

“It could hit anywhere; it’s not a domestic issue. It’s not even regional; it’s global.”

The Syrian leader noted that the seriousness of terrorism is because it has “political umbrella by many countries, many leaders, many officials, but mainly in the West.”

“It’s more dangerous this time because we don’t have international law, and you don’t have the effective international organization that would protect a country from another country that uses the terrorists as a proxy to destroy another country. That’s what’s happening in Syria.”

Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Are Not Independent Countries

While talking about the terrorism’s backers, President Assad stressed that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not independent countries, “so they won’t have their own agenda.”

“Sometimes they have their own narrow-minded behavior or vengeful behavior or hateful behavior that’s been used by others’ agenda, let’s be frank here, sometimes the United States,” Assad told the Swedish newspaper, SANA news agency reported.

“We cannot say that they have their own agenda, but they haven’t changed. They still support the same terrorists, because this behavior is not related to the crisis in Syria. They supported the terrorists in Afghanistan, they supported the Wahhabi ideology, the extremism that led to terrorism recently in Europe, for decades, and now they are supporting the same ideology and the same factions under different labels and names in Syria. So, there’s nothing to change because this is their natural behavior.”

When asked whether there were effective results of the meeting which took place recently between the Syrian government and opposition on Moscow, President Assad said “yes.”

“It was first time to reach an agreement upon some of the principles that could make the foundation for the next dialogue between the Syrians.”

“The schedule of that meeting was very comprehensive. It wasn’t enough to finalize the agreement, but because when you have a breakthrough, even if it’s a partial breakthrough, it means that the next meeting will be promising in reaching a full agreement about what are the principles of Syrian dialogue that will bring a Syrian, let’s say, solution to the conflict.”

Source: Agencies	17-04-2015 – 14:50 Last updated 17-04-2015 – 14:50

Related Articles

• Syrian Army Kills More Militants in Various Areas
• Syrian Army Strikes Terrorists in Homs, Aleppo
• ISIL Terrorists Withdraw from Yarmouk Camp, Southern Damascus
• Syrian Army Controls Towns in Idleb, Targets Takfiris in Aleppo, Homs
• Syria: Army Kills More ISIL & Nusra Terrorists in Various Areas
• Syrian Army Continues Military Operations against Terrorists across Country
• Kurdish Fighters Gain Ground from ISIL in Raqa

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!