Will Putin’s Policy of Concession Succeed?

May 29, 2018, | 

 https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/29/will-putins-policy-concession-succeed/

Will Putin’s Policy of Concession Succeed?

Paul Craig Roberts

Russian president Vladimir Putin’s speech at the St. Petersburg International Economic Conference last weekend shows the Russian government’s ensnarement by neoliberal economic policy. Putin defended globalism and free trade, and he warned that crisis will result from the breakup of the global system.

In fact, the crisis is the result of globalism and neoliberal economics. For Russia, neoliberal economics means both economic and political crisis.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/25/americas-fifth-column-will-destroy-russia/

Neoliberal economics produces a domestic economic crisis because it diverts employment in high-productivity, high-value-added activities, such as manufacturing and tradeable professional skills such as software engineering, from developed economies, such as the US, UK, and Europe, to economies where wages are much lower. Neoliberal economics is also the basis for financialization, which diverts the economic surplus from real investment into debt service. Together these devastating impacts of neoliberal economics kill economic growth. Just look at the no-growth experience of the Western world in the 21st century, where growth has been limited to the prices of financial assets while well-paid employment disappears.

The problem is not only that neoliberal economics is a device for financialization and the ruination of populations for the benefit of oligarchs and global corporations. The larger problem is that The Russian government’s belief in neoliberal economics makes Russia impotent to withstand pressure from Washington. Russia cannot stand up to Washington or even to Israel, because the government believes that Russia’s economic success depends upon being integrated into the Western economic system. To keep the door open, Russia continually accepts provocations which encourage more provocations.

There are situations in which this is statesmanlike and commendable, but not this situation because the crisis goes beyond economics. Putin’s prudent diplomacy is perceived in Washington as weakness. The neoconservatives who control the US government are committed to US hegemony. They are already over-filled with hubris. Each time they witness Putin back away, they become more confident that they can with more pressure force Russia into submission.

For example, the neoconservatives read Putin’s standdown in the face of Trump’s missile attack on Syria, an attack based on an obvious fake news event, as a lack of nerve. Putin’s acceptance of Washington’s attack was very damaging to Russia’s credibility with Washington’s neoconservatives. What they saw was Putin accepting an attack on an ally to whose defense Russia had committed armed forces. What is the point of clearing Syria of American supported jihadists and then allowing Washington and Israel to attack Syria?

I have explained Putin’s standdown as his gamble that Washington’s aggression could break apart Washington’s European empire as long as Russia does not exercise force in a way that would scare the Europeans. In other words, Putin is behaving carefully, not rashly. This is admirable, especially as Putin has superweapons against which the West has no defense.

My concern is what happens if Putin’s bet doesn’t pay off, and the effect of Putin’s restraint is to convince the neoconservatives that Russia can be bullied into submission. I do not think Russia can be bullied into submission, but the neoconservatives will have Russia in a corner where Russia has to fight or surrender. Russia will fight, and it will be the end of us all.

In other words, if Putin’s admirable strategy fails, the neoconservatives, who are already more full of hubris that was Hitler when he sent the Wehrmacht marching off into Russia, will push Russia to the point of the war.

Therefore, I have suggested a different strategy: that Putin put his foot down. For example, he could stop accommodating the US and Israeli attacks on Syria. These attacks are illegal under international law. They are the actions of war criminals under the Nuremberg Standard established by the US itself. Putin could supply Syria with the S-300 missile defense system, but at the request of Washington and Israel Putin has not fulfilled the contract, another example to the neoconservatives of Putin’s lack of nerve, a misreading that encourages Washington in its provocations.

A foot-down strategy carries the risk of scaring the Europeans about Russian aggressiveness, which is the way the presstitute Western media would report it. However, this strategy does not carry the risk of convincing hubristic neoconservatives that Putin is a pussy. The effect on Washington could be positive and push Washington back to the time when the US was respectful of the Soviet Union. The effect on Europe could be to make Europe aware that the conflict that Washington is initiating is what threatens Europe, not a threat from Russia.

The evidence is clear that the neoconservatives are discounting Russia as nothing more than a short-term obstacle to US world hegemony. Let’s attempt to weigh some of the evidence in behalf of Putin’s diplomatic strategy. French President Macron, Washington’s puppet, who has French troops in the US-occupied part of Syria, is toasted by RT for going to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum with the mission of “keeping Russia in the European family.”

https://www.rt.com/news/427820-putin-macron-russia-europe/

Is Macron, who has French troops in Washington-occupied Syria, breaking with Washington, or is Macron playing Putin along by encouraging Putin in his belief that Europe will break from Washington and welcome Russia into the “common European home,” thus encouraging more concessions from Putin.

Is the Russian government being deluded into making more concessions and accepting more requests that serve the agenda of Washington and Israel instead of Russia and her allies? Washington’s latest request is that Putin encourages Iran to withdraw its military contingents from Syria. Putin did as requested, but Iran refused on the grounds that, unlike the US, France, and Washington’s mercenary jihadists, Iran is in Syria at Syria’s requests. The result is that Washington and Israel, both of which continue to attack Syria, have succeeded in creating tensions between Russia and Iran. http://tass.com/pressreview/1005664

To avoid a rift with a necessary ally, Putin might instead have told Washington that Russia and Iran would withdraw after Washington removes the forces it has placed in Syria. Washington was quick to take advantage of the rift and has informed Putin that Washington does not approve of Russia fulfilling the contract to deliver jet fighters and the S-300 air defense system to Iran. If Putin accommodates this Washington request as well, it will make it much easier for the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Washington has won again. The dispute between Russia and Iran leaves Iran more vulnerable to a US military attack, an attack that a number of commentators see in the works. If Iran is destabilized, the easier to destabilize Russia.

What did Putin get out of again acquiescing to Washington? More threats to Syria from Washington and Israel. On May 28 Washington informed the Syrian government that if it attempts to clear Daraa of foreign invaders who are occupying, with Washington’s support, Syrian territory, Syria will receive a “firm response” from 

Washington.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201805261064839163-syria-leaflets-reaction-daraa-ceasefire/

Israel informed Syria that Syria is not permitted to use its air defenses to protect its territory against Israeli aircraft operating within Syrian territory.

https://sptnkne.ws/hAhP

In other words, Washington and Israel have rewarded Putin’s concession by forbidding Syria to defend itself.

The neoconservative Washington regime is confident that it has Putin locked into the backdown mode and will even be able to negotiate Russia’s withdrawal from Syria. If that occurs, Washington will restart the war to overthrow the Syrian government.

With Russia on the run, Putin can expect a Washington-ordered Ukrainian attack on the breakaway Russian republics that Russia has left hanging and also Washington-organized ISIS attacks on Russia through the former Soviet central Asian republics.https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/24/putins-peace-efforts-coming-naught/

The Ukrainian attack could occur during the World Cup when the Russian government will be focused on the prestige of hosting the World Cup and not on its foreign policy.

When Russia is incorporated into the Western economy, it will be as a vassal state.

But for now, Russia is celebrating, pointing to the large attendance at the St Petersburg Forum, including that of the French president, as evidence that Russia is not isolated and is hoping for another prestige gain from the World Cup.

Perhaps someone in the Russian government will remember that it was its focus on the Sochi Olympics that delivered Ukraine into Washington’s hands.

America’s Incredible Shrinking Influence

by Ron Paul Posted on May 29, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2018/05/28/americas-incredible-shrinking-influence/

Just two weeks after President Trump pulled the US from the Iran nuclear agreement, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued 12 demands to Iran that could never be satisfied. Pompeo knew his demands would be impossible to meet. They were designed that way. Just like Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in July 1914, that led to the beginning of World War I. And just like the impossible demands made of Milosevic in 1999 and of Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and so many other times when Washington wanted war. These impossible demands are tools of war rather than steps toward peace.

Secretary Pompeo raged at Iran. The mainstream news media raged at Iran. Trump raged in Iran. But then a strange thing happened: nothing. The Iranians announced that they remained committed to diplomacy and would continue to uphold their end of the nuclear agreement if the Europeans and other partners were willing to do the same. Iranian and European officials then sought out contacts in defiance of Washington in hopes of preserving mutually-beneficial emerging commercial relations.

Washington responded to the European snub by threatening secondary sanctions on European companies that continued doing business with an Iran that had repeatedly been found in compliance with its end of the bargain. Any independent European relationship with Iran would be punished, Washington threatened. But then, again, very little happened.

Rather than jump on Washington’s bandwagon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made two trips to Russia in May seeking closer ties and a way forward on Iran.

Russia and China were named as our prime enemies in the latest National Security Strategy for the United States, but both countries stand to benefit from the unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran deal. When the French oil company Total got spooked by Washington threats and pulled out of Iran, a Chinese firm eagerly took its place.

It seems the world has grown tired of neocon threats from Washington. Ironically the “communist” Chinese seem to understand better than the US that in capitalism you do not threaten your customers. While the US is threatening and sanctioning and forbidding economic relations, its adversaries overseas are busy reaping the benefits of America’s real isolationism.

If President Trump’s canceled meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un remains canceled, North and South Korea have shown that they will continue with their peacemaking efforts. As if Washington was no longer relevant.

I’ve often spoken of the unintended consequences of our aggressive foreign policy. For example, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq only helped Iran – our “enemy” – become more dominant in the Middle East. But it seems new consequences are emerging, and for the neocons they must be very unintended: for all of its bellicosity, threats, demands, sanctions, and even bombs, the rest of the world is increasingly simply ignoring the demands of Washington and getting on with its own business.

While I am slightly surprised at this development, as a libertarian and a non-interventionist I welcome the growing irrelevance of Washington’s interventionists. We have a far better philosophy and we must work hard to promote it so that it can finally be tried after neocon failure becomes obvious to everyone. This is our big opportunity!

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

¿RECONFIGURACIÓN DEL SISTEMA POLÍTICO MEXICANO O PURO GATOPARDISMO?

Se acercan cada vez más las elecciones del próximo 1º de Julio, y los analistas y comentócratas señalan que se viene una reconfiguración importante en el sistema político mexicano[1].

El crecimiento del Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (MORENA), creado por Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) hace apenas 4 años, ha sido impresionante, especialmente en los pasados dos años, lo que se explica por varias razones: los niveles de inseguridad y violencia que ha enfrentado la población mexicana en los últimos 12 años ha llegado a niveles intolerables; la corrupción de gobernantes del PRI, PAN, PRD y PVEM, partidos que han sido los que han gobernado las últimas tres décadas, ha llegado a niveles de tal cinismo, que ni siquiera la muy tolerante sociedad mexicana en este delicado tema, ha podido soportar el descaro de estos políticos y funcionarios públicos corruptos; la impunidad con la que políticos, criminales y empresarios coludidos con ambos, se mueven arrogantemente en todos los medios sociales, a pesar de los múltiples y reiterados crímenes que cometen, ya hartaron a la mayoría de la sociedad; el estancamiento del crecimiento económico por tres décadas, aunado a una política deliberada de contención salarial, para los de abajo, pero de acumulación brutal de ingresos para una minoría de arriba, ya exasperó a una buena parte de la sociedad; y, un sistema económico consumista, que promueve el individualismo, la satisfacción de los deseos y los placeres de manera inmediata, la vanidad, el lujo, etc., no se corresponde con una mayoría social que apenas tiene para vivir y una clase media que va perdiendo aceleradamente su nivel de vida (“gasolinazos”, estancamiento salarial, impuestos para los de abajo, devoluciones y “diferimientos” fiscales para los de arriba, etc.).

Este enorme enojo e insatisfacción social tiene que dirigirse hacia algún lado, y si bien los últimos años ha habido protestas y movilizaciones sociales, estas han resultado infructuosas para liberar la presión existente.

De ahí que sólo quedan dos caminos, la rebelión armada o intentar una vez más (fracasos en 1988, 1994, 2000, 2006 y 2012) un cambio pacífico, reformista, a través del sistema político-electoral.

La mayor parte de la población ya vive una “guerra” cotidiana contra narcotraficantes, secuestradores, chantajistas, extorsionadores, ladrones, políticos corruptos, policías coludidas con el crimen organizado, etc. De ahí que lo que menos quiere ahora es aventurarse a una lucha armada, que muy probablemente no terminaría en un triunfo ni rápido, ni indoloro; y que como sucedió en Colombia o Centroamérica, sólo provocaría destrucción, el advenimiento de regímenes dictatoriales y una permanente desestabilización, que podría extenderse por décadas.

Por ello, la única opción que le ha quedado a la mayoría de la sociedad para intentar cambiar su realidad, es el imperfecto y muy criticado sistema político-electoral.

El problema es que dicho sistema ha sido conformado por el mismo grupo de partidos y políticos que se han beneficiado a través de la corrupción, la colusión con el crimen organizado y la subordinación a los grandes empresarios y a la potencia hegemónica (Estados Unidos).

Además, ya gobernaron a nivel federal (PRI y PAN; PVEM aliado con ambos) desde la alternancia del año 2000, y en el caso del PRD, a nivel local en distintas entidades (principalmente la Ciudad de México), con los resultados mencionados.

Por lo tanto, podríamos decir que casi la mitad de los potenciales electores se ha quedado con una sola opción de cambio real, y que se identifica con el único político del sistema que lo ha criticado, que lo ha combatido (desde dentro) y que tercamente ha intentado reformar un sistema político-económico que se pudre cada vez más, sin que ninguno de sus beneficiarios haga algo por evitarlo.

Ese político, durante los últimos 18 años, ha sido AMLO, por lo que los altos niveles de aceptación con los que cuenta a estas alturas de la contienda electoral (entre 41.5 y 46.7% de las preferencias electorales; contra 26.7 y 31.4% de Ricardo Anaya; y, 18.4 y 22% de José Antonio Meade)[2] reflejan, más que un abrumador convencimiento acerca de sus propuestas por parte de diferentes segmentos sociales, o una firme confianza en él; es la absoluta falta de representantes políticos surgidos de la ciudadanía y ajenos a un sistema político-económico estructurado para privilegiar a unos pocos y explotar y/o ignorar a los más.

Se espera que después del 1º de Julio el actual partido en el poder, el PRI, quede en un lejano tercer lugar con entre 15 y 20% de las preferencias electorales; que el PRD, no consiga más de 5 ó 7% de la votación y aún no se sabe qué sucederá con el tradicional representante de la derecha, el PAN, que podría obtener entre 23 y en el mejor de los casos 27% de los votos.

Por su parte Morena, que aún no es un partido estructurado y que se basa en gran medida en el liderazgo de AMLO, podría llegar a tener entre 35 y 40% de los votos, lo que lo convertiría en la primera minoría entre los distintos partidos, aunque algunos encuestadores estiman que podría lograr la mayoría al menos en una de las dos Cámaras (Mitofsky).

En principio, un resultado que hundiera de tal forma al PRI, apenas mantuviera en sus rangos históricos al PAN; que casi condenara a la extinción al PRD, y que colocara a una nueva formación política como Morena como el partido dominante, sería sin duda una reconfiguración mayor en el sistema político mexicano.

El problema con ello no es que los votos que antes dominaban los partidos tradicionales migren hacia la que en este momento representa la única opción de cambio real para la mayoría de la población, es decir Morena.

Si no que la mayoría de los políticos de esos partidos, están migrando también hacia Morena y esta agrupación, con tal de vaciar a sus contendientes de apoyo, los está aceptando, con lo que el pretendido “cambio” no parece estarse verificando; ya que no está formándose un sistema político con gente nueva, joven y/o adulta que se esté incorporando de la sociedad civil, con objeto de cambiar los objetivos y las prácticas corruptas, incompetentes y patrimonialistas de la clase política tradicional.

Lo que realmente está sucediendo es que los mismos políticos logreros, oportunistas y corruptos del sistema vigente, ante el repudio social hacia ellos, están cambiando de “camiseta” solamente; pasándose a Morena, con todo y sus grupos clientelares, prácticas corporativas e intereses creados; y están siendo recibidos “con los brazos abiertos” por el pequeñísimo grupo que maneja al partido de AMLO, pues de lo que se trata en este momento es de ganar la elección; y por lo tanto, el interés es “sumar” apoyos.

¿Pero qué pasará una vez terminada la elección? ¿Estos grupos corruptos, clientelares, corporativistas, no exigirán su “pago”, su retribución por el apoyo dado? Si efectivamente se les compensa con cargos públicos y posiciones políticas, entonces el “gatopardismo” se habrá hecho presente y el tan deseado cambio se habrá ido a la basura.

¿Y si AMLO decide no retribuirles su apoyo? Bueno pues entonces estos grupos se lo van a cobrar con sabotajes, boicots, oposición permanente a su proyecto, colusión con los grandes empresarios y la potencia hegemónica para obstaculizar e intentar hacer fracasar al gobierno de AMLO, tal como lo hicieron los grupos políticos corruptos y los oligarcas contrarios a los gobiernos de Rousseff en Brasil, Cristina Fernández en Argentina, Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela y Rafael Correa en Ecuador.

Así que hay que preguntarnos si estamos frente a una reconfiguración real del sistema político, o tan solo es el ya conocido “gatopardismo” de la política mexicana. “que todo cambie, para que todo siga igual”.

---

[1] http://www.milenio.com/opinion/hector-aguilar-camin/dia-con-dia/morena-que-es-morena

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columna/ricardo-raphael/nacion/el-fin-del-pri

[2] https://oraculus.mx/

Rob Malley and Chris Hayes can’t talk about Adelson’s influence in scrapping Iran deal

US Politics

Philip Weiss on May 22, 2018

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/05/adelsons-influence-scrapping/

Two leading figures on the American left, Rob Malley and Chris Hayes, cannot honestly discuss the role of Israel in foreign policy-making, specifically Sheldon Adelson’s influence over Donald Trump’s historic and tragic decision to scrap the Iran deal, a landmark of international diplomacy.

Malley, a former Obama security aide, gave a one-hour interview on Trump’s destructionof the Iran deal and cited three reasons for Trump’s decision: He wants to demolish Obama’s legacy (“That’s an obsession”), Trump wants to fulfill promises he made to his “base,” the “electorate;” and he has advisers who counsel “regime change” in Iran.

No one would question that Trump wants to destroy Obama’s achievements. But the base? When Trump campaigned in March in rural Pennsylvania for a Republican congressional candidate (who lost), he didn’t once mention Iran or the Jerusalem embassy. Trump’s base doesn’t care about those things. And to the extent they do, they don’t want Middle East wars. Rob Malley writes for the New York Review of Books, and ought to be more responsible.

Malley failed to mention the elephant in the room: Sheldon Adelson, Trump’s largest donor. As Eli Clifton has reported, Trump scrapped the deal because of three billionaire donors, Adelson, Bernard Marcus and Paul Singer, whose “investment [is] total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel.” The three men are all rightwing Jewish Zionists (though Adelson and Singer are liberal on social issues), and their influence is significant: Trump trashed his original foreign policy braintrust of Tillerson/McMaster that supported the Iran deal, and replaced it with two hacks Pompeo/Bolton, whom Adelson surely adores.

Adelson has incredible access. Peter Stone of McClatchy reported that the day after the Iran decision,

Adelson quietly slipped into the White House for a private meeting with Trump and three top administration officials: Vice President Mike Pence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and an Adelson favorite, National Security Adviser John Bolton

Lately Adelson gave $30 million to the Republican Congressional Leadership Fund to try and thwart a Democratic takeover of the House in the midterms. That’s hugely meaningful to our transactional president. His neck could be on the line in these elections.

The McClatchy story on Adelson’s influence states that both the Jerusalem and Iran decisions stemmed from Adelson’s power. “The White House actions partially are testament to Adelson’s clout and that of like-minded pro-Israel conservatives, many observers believe.”

McClatchy named a source who ought to know. Mel Sembler, a former fundraising chair of the Republican National Committee, “thinks Adelson’s influence was palpable. ‘I’d say he was an important factor in all these decisions,’ said Sembler.”

At The Nation, Amy Wilentz is also honest about Adelson’s role:

To my mind, he is single-handedly responsible for this grotesque change in US policy. He’s a giant contributor to the super PACs that funded Trump’s election. He supports conservative super PACs, both for the House and the Senate to the tune of $20 and $25 million for each. You could even say that there was a quid pro quo for this embassy: I give you $25 million, you move the embassy.

Again, this is influence that Rob Malley (for whom we have considerable respect) cannot report. Why not? Because to do so smacks of assertions of outsize Jewish influence that were a hallmark of murderous, anti-Semitic campaigns in Europe. I understand the apprehension; but journalists have to go where the facts are, and follow the money.

Chris Hayes, the progressive host at MSNBC, is almost as bad as Malley. On May 10, he did a segment on the fact that the Republican Party was getting that $30 million from Adelson and ascribed it to Adelson’s being a “satisfied customer” on his foreign policy priorities: scuttling the Iran deal and moving the embassy.

But Hayes made it a point not to dwell on Adelson’s agenda in any depth. The segment was devoted to smoke-screen speculation that Adelson’s game was trying to get estate-tax changes from Republicans that would personally profit him $670 million. That’s absurd. Adelson once urged Obama to nuke Iran and has said that he wished he had served in the Israeli army not the American one. Hayes’s panel said it was all about voter suppression, or the “endless corruption” of Republican-backed campaign financing provisions. Jason Kander, a former secretary of state in Missouri, said the Democratic side “thinks… we should change these [campaign finance] rules.”

Kander is an opponent of the Iran deal himself, and all but congratulated Trump on breaking the deal. That’s what Hayes is up against, the Democratic Party leadership also loves Israel and has never stood up firmly for the Iran deal.

Hayes covered his behind toward the end of the segment, the only time Israel was mentioned.

There’s also a foreign policy component here. The rich donors might have different foreign policy priorities. Sheldon Adelson has very intense foreign policy priorities as relate to Israel. You can imagine people having intense foreign policy priorities as to Brexit or NATO or Ukraine… You get a US foreign policy where you have to wonder what is guiding it.

That’s far too little too late, and deceptive. Could Hayes’s mystification have anything to do with the fact that Comcast executive David Cohen held fundraisers for the Israeli Defense Forces and pro-Israel American Jewish groups? I think so.

The New Yorker Radio Hour also mystified Trump’s motivation, implying in that segment last weekend that Trump was trying to satisfy his electorate.

But Adelson can take credit for turning Trump away from his initial isolationist statements during the campaign. Back in January 2016, Trump said that the Iran deal was bad for American business, and that was the problem.

That was before Sheldon Adelson signed on to the Trump campaign, when he was still giving money to Ted Cruz.

But as usual, the Democrats and progressive media are more worried about the Koch brothers.

Lack of EU unity behind plunging US ties

By George N. Tzogopoulos Source:Global Times Published: 2018/5/23 

The EU and the US have entered a period of serious crisis in relations. Although transatlantic ties have seen the worse in the past, the current problem seems different. Both sides are not disagreeing on a specific issue - like over the 2003 Iraq war - but on several, if not on all fronts. The administration of US President Donald Trump is challenging the fundamental aspects of American foreign and economic policy vis-à-vis Europe as they were played out during the Barack Obama years. 

It all stems from Trump's general approach toward the European integration project. The US president does not believe in its importance and repudiates its role in the world. His support for Brexit and the way he expressed his admiration for the decision of British citizens outlines his stance. Trump prefers to negotiate with specific European countries instead of the EU as a body. As a matter of principle, this policy is rather similar to his opposition to multilateral free trade agreements such as NAFTA, TPP and TTIP. 

Looking at specific cases, Trump finds it unacceptable for European member states to count on American support within NATO without allocating at least 2 percent of their GDP to defense. So, he is putting pressure on European allies to increase their contributions to the military alliance. Although most have agreed to gradually achieve the 2 percent target, they are certainly not happy in being forced to do so by Washington. 

Notwithstanding the EU's complaints on the American stance, the bloc is unable to take solid steps to bolster its defense against external threats irrespective of the US military presence. The Permanent Structured Cooperation constitutes an interesting initiative but its scope will be limited. 

Moreover, US withdrawal from the Paris climate accord is another hurdle in the transatlantic partnership. Washington wants to chart its own path even in environmental affairs. French President Emmanuel Macron has emphasized the European multilateral position on this subject. He has failed to make his US counterpart relent, although the latter has said "something could happen" in their Paris meeting last year. The EU and the US will hardly be on the same page under Trump administration. 

In the economic sphere, Trump finds it unacceptable that the EU has enjoyed a trade surplus for years and is threatening it with tariffs following his initial March announcement. European Commission data shows that this surplus was €122.0 billion ($143.5 billion) in 2015, €113.2 billion in 2016 and €119.7 in 2017 and Trump is trying to upset the apple cart. Washington has informed Brussels that its provisional exemption from tariffs will not be permanent. The decision on the waiver is expected by the end of the month and could lead to more acrimony. 

And now it is the Iran nuclear deal which is making the EU and the US face off. Trump believes the agreement is not working and withdrew while the EU considers it successful and seeks to keep it alive in collaboration with China and Russia. 

Subsequently, the US could sanction European companies doing business in Iran. So, the bloc has either to take measures in order to protect its own companies or accept the American policy and lose important contracts in the Iranian market. Most scholars believe the second option is most likely as Washington generally has the upper hand. 

Under these circumstances, President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has commented on transatlantic relations by tweeting that "with friends like that who needs enemies." 

This is an exaggerated tweet, especially taking into account the strategic nature and historical roots of the transatlantic partnership. 

Of course, the only problem of the EU is not Trump. It is Brussels' incapacity to make it on its own. In the Obama years, it could get almost what it wanted from Washington. Now this is not the case. That is politics and Europe needs to accept the reality and emerge stronger.

Ironically, lack of unity within the EU is sometimes more painful than its differences with the US. No much optimism is therefore generated.  

The author is a lecturer at the European Institute in Nice, France. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

UNA CANCILLERÍA QUE DA LÁSTIMA

Como buen lacayo de Estados Unidos, Luis Videgaray formó a México con los subordinados países del Grupo de Lima para desconocer los resultados de las elecciones presidenciales en Venezuela y llamar a consultas a su embajadora en ese país.

Es el descaro completo que un país como México, en donde los fraudes electorales son cosa de todos los días; en donde tan sólo el año pasado el actual gobierno de Peña Nieto realizó sendas elecciones de Estado, en Coahuila y el Estado de México, utilizando ilegalmente una enorme cantidad de recursos públicos para apoyar a los candidatos oficiales; comprando el voto, realizando descarados fraudes en casillas rurales, en donde la oposición no pudo tener representantes; y de plano aceptando la autoridad electoral el rebase del límite en los gastos de campaña en el caso del candidato oficialista en Coahuila, y aún así dándole la victoria.

Ya para que hablar de los fraudes descarados en las elecciones presidenciales de 1988, 2006 y 2012 que por supuesto los muy pudorosos estadounidenses no vieron, ni se atrevieron a criticar.

El gobierno mexicano actual y los dos últimos (panistas), han provocado una de las crisis de derechos humanos más graves en la historia reciente del mundo, con 33 mil desparecidos, más de 300 mil desplazados por la violencia; más de 25 mil asesinatos por año; creciente cifra de feminicidios, homicidios de defensores de derechos humanos, periodistas y candidatos a puestos de elección popular.

Si tan indignados están esos farsantes del Grupo de Lima y sus patrones de Estados Unidos y Canadá, entonces México debería ser sancionado con la misma o más severidad que el gobierno de Maduro, pues no cumple con prácticamente ninguno de los estándares internacionales exigidos por los organismos internacionales en materia de democracia y derechos humanos.

Pero qué va, si Videgaray, con tal de salvar lo que pueda del fracasado neoliberalismo mexicano; a su jefe Peña, a su amigo Meade y a él mismo, está dispuesto a desechar la soberanía nacional y los principios rectores de la política exterior mexicana. Esos principios que según los jilgueros de Televisa, como Leo Zuckerman, ya no sirven para nada.

Cada vez resulta más lamentable ver al grado de lacayismo y subordinación en el que ha caído la tecnocracia “mexicana”, convertida desde hace décadas, en la dirigente de la diplomacia mexicana, que ahora es sólo una patética sombra de lo que fue hace más de 6 ó 7 décadas.

El embajador Jorge Palacios Treviño recuerda en un escrito la validez de la Doctrina Estrada (enunciada el 27 de septiembre de 1930, por el entonces Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México, Genaro Estrada): http://archivo.diplomaticosescritores.org/obras/DOCTRINAESTRADA.pdf

“La Doctrina Estrada es una de las aportaciones más valiosas de México al Derecho Internacional, y quizá la más famosa, pero es poco conocida y, por ello, se le interpreta de diversas maneras; de ahí que unos la alaben y otros la denigren; que algunos digan que México la aplica y otros que no. En consecuencia, estimo que puede ser útil referirse aquí a lo que considero que es la Doctrina Estrada, así como a las opiniones que sobre ésta han externado destacados internacionalistas mexicanos. En la Doctrina Estrada se pueden distinguir dos partes: la primera, que es la principal, es un rechazo de la práctica de reconocer o no los gobiernos que llegan al poder por un medio que no es el previsto en la Constitución respectiva pues de esa práctica se han aprovechado algunos gobiernos poderosos para obtener ventajas de los países débiles. México, al igual que otros países de este continente, la sufrió –entre otras ocasiones-, como secuela de la Revolución de 1910 y eso fue lo que indujo al Gobierno Mexicano a tomar la posición contenida en el comunicado de la Secretaría de Relaciones, del 27 de septiembre de 1930, al que se le dio posteriormente el nombre de Doctrina Estrada en homenaje a su autor, don Genaro Estrada, entonces Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores. Esa primera parte de la Doctrina, tiene como fundamento el principio de la libre determinación, es decir, el derecho que tienen los pueblos para “aceptar, mantener o sustituir a sus gobiernos o autoridades”, -como lo señala la propia Doctrina-, derecho que no depende de que uno o más gobiernos lo reconozcan; por ello -continúa diciendo la propia Doctrina-: “México no se pronuncia en el sentido de otorgar reconocimientos, porque considera que ésta es una práctica denigrante que, sobre herir la soberanía de otras naciones, coloca a éstas en el caso de que sus asuntos interiores puedan ser calificados en cualquier sentido por otros Gobiernos, quienes, de hecho, asumen una actitud de crítica al decidir, favorable o desfavorablemente, sobre la capacidad legal de regímenes extranjeros”. Este último elemento de la Doctrina es un corolario del primero y se funda en el principio de la no intervención, es decir, constituye un rechazo también de las actitudes intervencionistas de algunos países. ¿Cuál es, entonces, la actitud que asume el Gobierno Mexicano ante un cambio violento de un régimen de gobierno? La respuesta a esta interrogante constituye la otra parte de la Doctrina Estrada: "... el Gobierno de México se limita a mantener o retirar, cuando lo crea procedente, a sus agentes diplomáticos, y a continuar aceptando, cuando también lo considere procedente, a los similares agentes diplomáticos que las naciones respectivas tengan acreditados en México, sin calificar, ni precipitadamente ni a posteriori, el derecho que tengan las naciones extranjeras” para ello. Desafortunadamente, el párrafo anterior se ha interpretado en el sentido de que la Doctrina Estrada obliga al Gobierno de México a tomar una decisión sobre el mantenimiento o el retiro de sus agentes diplomáticos después de la accesión al poder de un Gobierno por medios irregulares, y que el mantenimiento del agente diplomático significa aprobación del nuevo Gobierno y su retiro lo contrario; es decir, que implícitamente, lo reconoce o no aunque en ningún caso se emplee la palabra reconocimiento. A este respecto, en la ceremonia para conmemorar el quincuagésimo aniversario de la Doctrina, el Lic. Alfonso de Rosenzweig-Díaz, entonces Subsecretario de Relaciones Exteriores expresó: ”Nada más falso y contrario a la letra misma de la Doctrina Estrada que expresamente rechaza la posibilidad de que los asuntos interiores de los Estados puedan ser calificados en cualquier sentido por otros Gobiernos. La confusión quizás provenga del hecho de que Estrada, después de anunciar una nueva política –‘México no se pronuncia en el sentido de otorgar reconocimientos’- estimó prudente aclarar que esta nueva política no disminuía el derecho de legación, es decir el derecho discrecional que tiene México como Estado soberano de enviar y recibir agentes diplomáticos, de mantener o suspender relaciones diplomáticas según convenga a sus intereses y a las causas internacionales con las cuales nuestro país se considera solidario. Así debe entenderse el ’cuando lo crea procedente’ que usa la Doctrina Estrada -el adverbio ’cuando’ entendido aquí en las dos acepciones ‘en el caso de que’ y ‘en el tiempo en que’-. Ese tiempo es indeterminado y no guarda necesariamente relación con el momento en que se produjo el cambio de Gobierno”.

Contre la saison France-Israël

4 MAI 2018 

PAR LES INVITÉS DE MEDIAPART 

BLOG : LE BLOG DE LES INVITÉS DE MEDIAPART

Dénonçant une opération où la Culture sert de «vitrine» à l'État d'Israël et à sa politique chaque jour plus dure envers les Palestiniens, 80 personnalités issues du monde des arts affirment leur refus de participer à la «Saison France-Israël» et expliquent les raisons de leur choix. Parmi eux : Alain Damasio, Annie Ernaux, Tardi, Nathalie Quintane ou Jean-Luc Godard.

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/les-invites-de-mediapart/blog/040518/contre-la-saison-france-israel

A l’occasion du 70^e anniversaire de la fondation de l’Etat d’Israël, une Saison Franco-Israélienne va s’ouvrir au mois de juin prochain en France. Elle est organisée d’un côté par l’Institut français, émanation des ministères des Affaires étrangères et de la Culture, et de l’autre par le bureau du Premier ministre israélien, par les ministères des Affaires étrangères, de la Culture, de l’Economie, des Sciences, des Affaires stratégiques, des Affaires de Jérusalem, par la Chambre de commerce franco-israélienne et par l’ambassade d’Israël à Paris. Cette Saison archi officielle comportera un grand nombre d’événements dans le domaine de la culture, expositions, représentations théâtrales, lectures, projection de films, etc.
Pour nous, musiciennes, écrivains, cinéastes, metteures en scène, comédiens, techniciennes, plasticiennes, photographes, dessinateurs, danseurs et danseuses, cette initiative, sous couvert de promouvoir le dialogue et l'échange, est en réalité l'un des moyens mis en œuvre par le gouvernement israélien pour redorer le blason de l’Etat d’Israël, passablement terni par sa politique chaque jour plus dure à l’encontre des Palestiniens et son statut de start-up nation du sécuritaire.
Comme l’a dit Reuven Rivlin, président de l’Etat d’Israël, « les institutions culturelles forment une vitrine dans laquelle Israël présente d’elle-même une image démocratique, libérale et critique ». Par solidarité avec les Palestiniens, nous refusons de figurer dans cette vitrine, nous ne participerons pas à la Saison France-Israël et nous appelons à ne pas y participer sous quelque forme que ce soit. 

Les signataires :

Pierre Alferi, écrivain

Guy Alloucherie, metteur en scène

Valérie Belin, photographe

Stéphane Bérard, plasticien

Christian Benedetti, metteur en scène

Arno Bertina, écrivain

Julien Blaine, écrivain

Simone Bitton, cinéaste

Irène Bonnaud, metteure en scène et traductrice

Catherine Boskowitz, metteure en scène

Nicolas Bouchaud, comédien

Alain Bublex, plasticien

Robert Cantarella, metteur en scène

Laurent Cauwet, écrivain

Laurence Chable, comédienne

Fanny de Chaillé, chorégraphe

Patrick Condé, comédien

Enzo Cormann, écrivain

Stéphane Couturier, photographe

Sylvain Creuzevault, auteur/metteur en scène

Alain Damasio, écrivain

Luc Delahaye, photographe

Philippe Delaigue, metteur en scène

Eva Doumbia, metteure en scène, auteure

Valérie Dréville, comédienne

Dominique Eddé, écrivaine

Annie Ernaux, écrivaine

Fantazio, musicien     

Sylvain George, cinéaste

Liliane Giraudon, auteure

Sylvie Glissant, Institut du tout monde

Jean-Luc Godard, cinéaste

Dominique Grange, chanteuse

Harry Gruyaert, photographe

Alain Guiraudie, cinéaste

Eric Hazan, écrivain-éditeur

Laurent Huon, comédien

Imhotep, compositeur, groupe IAM

Valérie Jouve, photographe

Nicolas Klotz, cinéaste

Leslie Kaplan, auteure

Kadour (HK), chanteur

La Parisienne Libérée, chanteuse

Pierre-Yves Macé, compositeur

Pierre Maillet, comédien et metteur en scène

Jean-Paul Manganaro, écrivain et traducteur

André Markowicz, écrivain, traducteur

Myriam Marzouki, metteure en scène

Maguy Marin, chorégraphe

Jean-Charles Massera, artiste, écrivain

Valérie Massadian, cinéaste

Daniel Mermet, réalisateur

Natacha Miche, auteure

Alexandre Mouawad, éditeur-graphiste

Nicolas Milhé, plasticien

Jean-Pierre Moulin, comédien

Gérard Mordillat, écrivain

Bernard Noël, écrivain

Vincent Ozanon, comédien

Elisabeth Perceval, cinéaste

Mathieu Pernot, photographe

Ernest Pignon-Ernest, plasticien

Christian Prigent, écrivain

Amandine Pudlo, comédienne

Nathalie Quintane, auteure

Adelibe Rosenstein, metteuse en scène

Mala Sandoz, metteuse en scène

Eyal Sivan, cinéaste

Samuel Steiner, écrivain

Philippe Tancelin, poète

François Tanguy, metteur en scène

Tardi, dessinateur

Serge Teyssot-Gay, musicien

Mathilde Villeneuve, lab. Aubervilliers

Martine Vandeville, comédienne

Jean-Jacques Viton, écrivain

Martin Winckler, écrivain (et médecin)

Dominique Ziegler,  auteur-metteur en scène

Venezuela on the Eve of Presidential Elections: The US Empire Isn’t Sitting by Idly

by ROGER HARRIS

MAY 18, 2018

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/18/venezuela-on-the-eve-of-presidential-elections-the-us-empire-isnt-sitting-by-idly/

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

— US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, 1970

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is the frontrunner in the presidential elections scheduled for May 20. If past pronouncements and practice by the US empire are any indication, every effort will be made to oust an avowed socialist from what is considered the US’ “backyard.”

With a week to go to the election, the leftist president of Bolivia Evo Morales tweeted: “Before the elections they (US and allies) will carry out violent actions supported by the media and after the elections they will try a military invasion with Armed Forces from neighboring countries.” All signals from the Trump White House and the Pentagon are that Evo is on target.

US antipathy towards the Venezuelan government started with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, followed by a brief and unsuccessful US-backed coup in 2002. Chávez made the magnanimous, but politically imprudent, gesture of pardoning the golpistas (coup perpetrators), who are still trying to achieve by extra-parliamentary means what they have been unable to realize democratically. After Chávez died in 2013, the Venezuelans elected Maduro to carry on what has become known as the Bolivarian Revolution.

The Phantom Menace

In 2015 then US President Obama declared “a national emergency” posed to the security of the US by Venezuela. Understand that the US has military bases to the west of Venezuela in Colombia and to the east in the Dutch colonial islands. The US Fourth Fleet patrols Venezuela’s Caribbean coast. Yet somehow in the twisted logic of imperialism, the phantom of Venezuela posed a menacing “extraordinary threat” to the US.

Each year Obama renewed and deepened sanctions against Venezuela under the National Emergencies Act. Taking no chances that his successor might not be sufficiently hostile to Venezuela, Obama prematurely renewed the sanctions his last year in office even though the sanctions would not have expired until two months into Trump’s tenure.

The fear was that presumptive US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson might try to normalize US-Venezuelan relations to negotiate an oil deal between Venezuela and his former employer Exxon. As it turns out, the Democrats need not have feared Trump going soft on regime change.

Last August, the new US President Trump openly raised the “military option” to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected government. To which David Smilde of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) counseled for regime change, not by military means, but by “deepening the current sanctions” to “save Venezuela.” The liberal-ish inside-the-beltway NGO argued against a direct military invasion because the Venezuelan military would resist, not because such an act is the gravest violation of international law.

Meanwhile the sanctions have taken a punishing toll on the Venezuelan people, even causing death. Sanctions are designed, in Henry Kissinger’s blood-curdling words, to “make the economy scream” so that the people will abandon their democratically elected government for one vetted by the US.

In January, Trump’s first State of the Union address called for regime change of leftist governments in Latin America, boasting “My government has imposed harsh sanctions on the communist and socialist dictatorships of Cuba and Venezuela.” Hearing these stirring words, both Democrats and Republicans burst out in thunderous applause.

“Dictatorships,” as the term is wielded by the US government and mainstream media, should be understood as countries that try to govern in the interests of their own peoples rather than privileging the dictates of the US State Department and the prerogatives of international capital.

Attack of the Clones

In addition to summoning Venezuela’s sycophantic domestic opposition, who support sanctions against their own people, the US has gone on the offensive using the regional Lima Group to destabilize Venezuela. The group was established last August in Lima, the capital of Peru, as a block to oppose Venezuela.

The eighth Summit of the Americas was held in Lima in April under the lofty slogan of “democratic governance against corruption.” Unfortunately for the imperialists, the president of the host country was unable to greet the other US clones. A few days earlier he had been forced to resign because of corruption. Venezuelan President Maduro was barred from attending.

Along with Peru and the US’ ever faithful junior partner Canada, other members of the Lima Group are:

+ Mexico, a prime participant of the US-sponsored War on Drugs, is plagued with drug cartel violence. The frontrunner for the July presidential election is left-of-center Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), who is widely believed to have won the last two elections only to have them stolen from him.

+ Panama’s government is a direct descendent of the one installed on a US warship when the US invaded Panama in 1989. Recall the triggering incidentwhich unleashed the US bombs and 26,000 troopsinto Panama against a defense force of 3,000: a GI in civilian clothes was fatally shot running a military checkpoint and another GI and his wife were assaulted. What similarly grave affront to the global hegemon might precipitate a comparable military response for Venezuela? Panama imposed sanctions against Venezuela in a spat in April, accusing Venezuela of money laundering. Panama is a regional money laundering center for the illicit drug trade (some alleged through a Trump-owned hotel).

+ Argentina elected Mauricio Macri president in 2015. He immediately sold the country out to the vulture funds and the IMF while imposing severe austerity measures on working people. The economy has tanked, reversing the gains of the previous left-leaning presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández. Military and diplomatic deference to the US has become the order of the day. Macri has negotiated installation of two US military bases in Argentina, first with Obama and now with Trump.

+ Brazil deposed its left-leaning, democratically elected President Dilma Rouseff in a 2016 parliamentary coup. Her successor, the unelected Michel Temer, has imposed austerity measures and cooperated with the US in joint military exercises along the Brazilian border with Venezuela. Temer suffers from single digit popularity ratings and is barred from running for public office due to a corruption conviction. Former left-leaning president “Lula” da Silva is the frontrunner in the upcoming 2018 Brazilian presidential election but was imprisoned in April by the current government.

+ Chile was the victim of the US-backed coup, which overthrew the elected left-leaning government of Salvador Allende in 1973. A reign of terror followed with the rightwing Pinochet government killing thousands. An economic and diplomatic destabilization campaign coordinated by Washington set the stage for the coup. The Chilean regime-change scenario is the imperialist’s model for Venezuela. Only the rightwing opposition in Venezuela is even less kind, having already torched a maternity hospital with mothers and babies inside and even poured gasoline on suspected chavistas, burning them alive.

+ Colombia is the US’ closest ally in the region, the recipient of the most US military aid, and the source of the greatest amount of illicit drugs afflicting the US. The Colombian government has flaunted its recent peace accords with the FARC and continues to be a world leader in internally displaced persons and political assassinations of trade union leaders, human rights workers, and journalists. In cooperation with the US, Colombia has been provocatively massing troops along its border with Venezuela.

+ Costa Rica is a neo-liberal state that has been a staunch silent partner of US imperialism ever since it served as a base for the Contra war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

+ Guatemala is a major source of undocumented immigrants fleeing violence into the relative safety of the US. Femicide is rampant as is criminal impunity, all legacies of the US-backed dirty war of genocide from the 1960s through the ‘80s, which claimed some 200,000 Mayan lives.

+ Honduras’ left-leaning President Zelaya was deposed in a US-backed coup in 2009. In the aftermath of rightwing repression and domestic violence, Honduras earned the title of murder capital of the world. The current rightwing president was reelected last November in an election so blatantly fraudulent that even the Organization of American States (OAS) failed to endorse the results.

+ Paraguay is the site of the first of the rightwing parliamentary coups in the region when left-leaning President Fernando Lugo was deposed in 2012.

Such is the nature of the rightwing states allied against Venezuela in contemporary Latin America. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this right tide in Latin America is the willingness of Brazil and Argentina to allow US military installations in their border areas as well as conducting joint US-led military exercises with contingents from Panama, Colombia and other countries.

Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua are Venezuela’s few remaining regional allies, all of which have been subject to US-backed regime-change schemes.  Most recently, the Nicaraguan government undertook modest measures to shore up its social security system and was faced with a wave of violence, which even sources hostileto the Ortega government labelled as “made in the USA.”

The Empire Strikes Back

In early April, the US Southern Command conducted a series of military exercises, dubbed “Fused Response,” just 10 miles off the Venezuelan coast simulating an invasion.

Later that month, Juan Cruz, Special Assistant to President Trump and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, was asked whether the US government supports a military coupin Venezuela. Speaking for the White House and dripping with imperial arrogance, he responded affirmatively:

“If you look at the history of Venezuela, there’s never been a seminal movement in Venezuela’s history, politics, that did not involve the military. And so it would be naïve for us to think that a solution in Venezuela wouldn’t in some fashion include a very strong nod – at a minimum – strong nod from the military, a whisper in the ear, a coaxing or a nudging, or something a lot stronger than that.”

Across the Atlantic on May 3, the European Parliament demanded Venezuela suspend presidential elections. Four days later, US Vice President Pence called on the OAS to expel Venezuela. Adding injury to insult, the US announced yet another round of sanctions. Then the next day, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley joined the chorus calling on President Maduro to cancel the presidential election and resign.

Far more blatant and frightening is the Plan to Overthrow the Venezuelan Dictatorship – Masterstroke, dated February 23, 2018. Masterstroke was leaked on the website Voltairenet.organd picked up by Stella Calloni in the reliable and respected Resumen Latinoamericano. Although Masterstroke is unverified, the contents as reported by Calloni are entirely consistent with US policy and pronouncements:

“The document signed by the head of the US Southern Command demands making the Maduro government unsustainable by forcing him to give up, negotiate or escape. This Plan to end in very short terms the so-called “dictatorship” of Venezuela calls for, ‘Increase internal instability to critical levels, intensifying the decapitalization of the country, the escape of foreign capital and the deterioration of the national currency, through the application of new inflationary measures that increase this deterioration.’”

That is, blame the Venezuelan government for the conditions imposed upon it by its enemies.

Masterstroke calls for “Continuing to harden the condition within the (Venezuelan) Armed Forces to carry out a coup d’état, before the end of 2018, if this crisis does not cause the dictatorship to collapse or if the dictator (Maduro) does not decide to step aside.”

Failing an internal coup, Masterstroke plans an international military invasion: “Uniting Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Panama to contribute a good number of troops, make use of their geographic proximity…”

A New Hope

With the urging of the Pope and under the auspices of the government of the Dominican Republic, the Maduro government and elements of the opposition agreed to sit down to negotiate last January in the hopes of ending the cycle of violence and the deterioration of living conditions in Venezuela.

By early February they had come to a tentative agreement to hold elections. The Maduro government initially opposed a UN election observation team as a violation of national sovereignty, but then accepted it as a concession to the opposition. The opposition in turn would work to end the unilateral sanctions by the US, Canada, and the EU, which are so severely crippling the daily life of ordinary Venezuelans. Two years of adroit diplomacy by the Maduro government with the less extreme elements of the opposition were bearing fruit.

The agreement had been crafted and a meeting was called for the government and the opposition to sign on. The government came to the final meeting, but not the opposition. The opposition as good clones of Washington had gotten a call from their handlers to bail.

In a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t scenario, the US first accused Venezuela of not scheduling presidential elections. Then elections were scheduled, but too early for the US. Then the date of the elections was moved to April and then extended to May. No matter what, the US would not abide by any elections in Venezuela. Ipso factoelections are considered fraudulent by US if the people might vote for the wrong candidate.

MUD, the coalition of Venezuelan opposition groups allied with and partially funded by the US, are accordingly boycotting the May 30 election and are putting pressure on Henri Falcón to withdraw his candidacy. Falcón is Maduro’s main competition in the election. MUD has already concluded that the election is fraudulent and are doing all they can to discourage voting.

CNBC, reflecting the Washington consensus, expects the US to directly target the Venezuelan oil industry immediately after the election in what they describe as “a huge sucker punchto Maduro’s socialist administration, which is depending almost entirely on crude sales to try and decelerate a deepening economic crisis.”

Ever hopeful and always militant, Maduro launched the new Petro cryptocurrency and revaluated the country’s traditional currency, the Bolivar, in March. The Petro is collateralized on Venezuela’s vast mineral resources: the largest petroleum reserves in the world and large reserves of gold and other precious metals. The US immediately accused Venezuela of sinisterly trying to circumvent the sanctions…which is precisely the intent of the Petro and other economic reforms, some of which are promised for after the presidential election.

The Force Awakens

Latin America has been considered the US empire’s proprietary backyard since the proclamation of the Monroe Document in 1823, reaffirmed by John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress in 1961, and asserted by today’s open military posturing by President Trump.

The so-called Pink Tide of left-leaning governments spearheaded by Venezuela in the early part of this century served as a counter-hegemonic force. By any objective estimation that force has been ebbing but can awaken.

Before Chávez, all of Latin America suffered under neo-liberal regimes except Cuba. If Maduro is overthrown, a major obstacle to re-establishing this hemispheric wide neoliberalism would be gone.

The future of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution is pivotal to the future of the counter-hegemonic project, which is why it is the empire’s prime target in the Western Hemisphere. If the Venezuelan government falls, all Latin American progressive movements could suffer immensely: AMLO’s campaign in Mexico, the resistance in Honduras and Argentina, maybe the complete end of the peace accords in Colombia, a left alternative to Moreno in Ecuador, the Sandinista social programs in Nicaragua, the struggle for Lula’s presidency in Brazil, and even Evo Morales and the indigenous movements in Bolivia.

Roger Harris will be observing the Venezuela presidential election on a delegation with Venezuela Analysis and the Intrepid News Fund.