Racing to Multipolarity

The myopic focus on weakening Russia has had the unintended consequence of strengthening China.

Ted Snider

Mar 27, 2023

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/racing-to-multipolarity/

In a quest to maintain its hegemony in a unipolar world, American foreign policy strategy has sought to weaken a Russia that it sees as an “acute threat” and to confront and contain a China that it sees as “the most comprehensive and serious challenge to U.S. national security.”

The immediate challenge is Russia, the theory goes, but the long-term challenge is China. It is not strategically optimal to fight both superpowers at once. Russia has to be weakened so China can be confronted in its challenge to the U.S.-led unipolar world.

The attempt to weaken Russia in the war in Ukraine, though, may be having the ironic effect of strengthening China’s role in an emerging multipolar world.

An unprecedented sanctions regime was intended to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and to prevent it from executing that invasion. It has not only failed to accomplish that goal; it also has had the unintended consequence of pushing Russia closer to China. Sealing Russia off from western markets forced Russia to look east to China, India, the Eurasian community, and a global community of sanctioned nations. So the sanctions regime has in fact hastened the advent of multipolarity, as well as strengthened China’s position abroad.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin are “in constant communication.” And on March 20, Xi arrived in Russia for talks that are aimed, in part, to “reaffirm the special nature of the Russia-China partnership.”

On December 13, Xi promised that China "will work with Russia to extend strong mutual support on issues concerning each other’s core interests, and deepen practical cooperation in trade, agriculture, connectivity and other areas.” A week later, Xi said that China is "ready to build up strategic cooperation with Russia, providing each other with development opportunities and remaining global partners for the benefit of our countries..." The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that “Any attempt to stop China and Russia from marching forward is doomed to fail" and that "China and Russia will deepen exchanges at all levels, and promote China-Russia relations and cooperation in all areas to a higher level..."

Russian-Chinese trade has increased dramatically. In his recent address to the Federal Assembly, Putin said that “the Russian economy has embarked on a new growth cycle. Experts believe that it will rely on a fundamentally new model and structure. New, promising global markets, including the Asia-Pacific, are taking precedence...” He promised that Russia “will expand promising foreign economic ties and build new logistics corridors. ... This will, in part, allow us to considerably expand our ties with Southeast Asian markets.”

The sanctions on Russia have had the unintended consequence of more firmly coupling Russia and China, a geopolitical shift away from unipolarity.

The American insistence on a world of blocs in which countries must choose sides—and face consequences if they do not align with the U.S. and sanction Russia—has not resonated well in most of the world. Large countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa have refused to sanction Russia, preferring to align with China and its multipolar vision. India has maintained its regional concerns against China but has refused to join the American global rivalry with China; it has been a U.S. partner but has maintained its very close partnership with Russia. India has insisted on abstaining in U.N. votes and refused to sanction Russia; in fact, it has increased its trade with Russia.

While large countries like India maintain preferences for China’s multipolar world over America’s unipolar world, smaller countries have also reasserted their right to neutrality and rejected the U.S. unipolar vision. They have refused to join sanctions or to take sides, asserting a right to choose their own national interests. Like India, Saudi Arabia has said that “we do not believe in polarization or in choosing between sides.”

It is hard for Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa to hear the Manichean message of good and evil and democracy versus autocracy. They have memories, and the U.S. criticism of Russia’s violation of state sovereignty and of territorial borders smells of hypocrisy. They remember their democracies being replaced by autocracies in U.S.-backed coups. They too tend more toward China’s message of multipolarity. They want to benefit from the Belt and Road Initiative and from China’s economic growth without having to pick a side or face consequences. They too listen with greater interest to China’s investment proposals that do not require ideological alignment or economic or political structural adjustments.

American attempts to coerce countries into opposing and sanctioning Russia have moved them instead into a position of reasserting nonalignment and shaping a world that resonates with China’s multipolar worldview and strengthens China’s economic and diplomatic role in that multipolar world.

While the world has been focused on the U.S. as the power that will decide whether they will block or encourage negotiations to end the war, an unforeseen alternative has emerged. What if China played the role of superpower broker, and Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement, bypassing U.S. involvement?

On February 24, China published its “Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.” It is not yet a fully developed settlement proposal, but rather a declaration of China’s position and a pledge that China is willing to assume “a constructive role in this regard.”

The emergence of China on the diplomatic front is a hint at the potential of a multipolarity. It could be China, not the U.S., that rises to the role of broker of a diplomatic settlement, sidelining the U.S. and allowing China to shape the postwar world.

This potential was demonstrated on March 10 when China brokered a transformative agreement between rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia without American involvement.

China’s published position explicitly stipulates multipolarity. After insisting on the strict observance of international law and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, point one of the position paper declares that “all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community.” That is the negation of a unipolar world and the very definition of a multipolar world.

The second point is “abandoning the Cold War mentality.” This point reflects Russia’s long demand for an “effective and sustainable European security architecture” that transcends “bloc confrontation” and treats Russia as an equal power in a transatlantic security architecture in which it is not a subordinate nation but an equal in a multipolar world.

This second point challenges America’s unipolar right to expand NATO and enforce U.S. hegemony: “The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs." It insists that “the security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others” and that “all parties should oppose the pursuit of one's own security at the cost of others' security....”

Russia has long countered the U.S. citation of the international principle that states have the free and sovereign right to choose their own security alignments with the citation of the equally binding principle of the indivisibility of security. This principle says that the security of one state should not be purchased at the expense of the security of another, as Richard Sakwa, professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, has pointed out.

The U.S. has insisted on the first as a defense of NATO’s open door policy for Ukraine and the eastward expansion of its hegemony. Russia has insisted that NATO expansion to its very borders threatens its core security interests. In a conversation with Biden on December 7, 2021, Putin said that "every country is entitled to choose the most acceptable way to ensure its security, but this should be done so as not to encroach on the interests of other parties and not undermine the security of other countries.... We believe that ensuring security must be global and cover everyone equally." Russia has even pointed out that NATO’s own principles resolve not to “threaten the legitimate interests” of other states.

China’s position challenges the U.S. expanding its hegemony by increasing the scope of its bloc and tipping the balance in further favor of a U.S.-led unipolar world.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has strengthened the transatlantic community. The U.S. and the European members of NATO have been united in their sanctions of Russia and their supply of weapons to Ukraine.

But there have been schisms and challenges. Biden promised that “if Russia invades... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”; Victoria Nuland’s assured that “if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”; and Antony Blinken celebrated the sabotage as a “tremendous opportunity.” These statements combine with admissions from American officials that the deed was carried out by a “pro-Ukrainian group” to suggest that it took a historic act of sabotage, an act of war, to keep Germany fully on board in America’s sanction regime. It took cutting Germany and Europe off from their crucial Russian fuel supply by blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline.

If China becomes more involved in the war in Ukraine, either by asserting itself as a diplomatic power or by aiding Russia with nonlethal aid or, for that matter, weapons, the U.S., which is already insisting on shrinking economic cooperation with China, could demand more from its European partners.

The difficulty of persuading Germany to uncouple from China, especially when it has already been cut off from Russia, was illustrated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s November trip to Beijing. Scholz defied the U.S. and NATO by becoming the first G7 leader to go to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping, who has supported Putin throughout the war. Scholz was accompanied on his trip by top German business leaders, including the CEOs of Volkswagen, BMW, BASF, Bayer and Deutsche Bank.

China is Germany’s most important trading partner. Since the Russian invasion of China, Germany’s has increased its investments in and economic dependence on China. It will be more difficult to pressure Germany to cut its Chinese economic ties than its Russian ones. It is asking a lot of Germany to tell it to cut ties with both.

A growing role for China in the current conflict could force a scenario in which the unipolar world is challenged by asking Germany and Europe to side with the U.S. and banish China. There is the hazardous potential of a decision that could divide the U.S.-led unipolar world and strengthen a new multipolar reality.

The attempt to weaken Russia in the war in Ukraine may have had the unintended consequence of strengthening China in a multipolar world that weakening Russia was intended to prevent.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ted Snider

Ted Snider is a columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft as well as other outlets.

Protect the Israeli Judiciary — but Don’t Let It Launder War Crimes Against Palestinians

Protesters are hailing Israeli courts as the last bulwark of democracy, but democracy for whom?

https://theintercept.com/2023/03/29/israel-judiciary-war-crimes-palestine/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

Hagar Kotef, Merav Amir

March 29, 2023,

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right government’s attempt to radically overhaul the Israeli legal and judicial system has sparked widespread protests in Israel. Hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into the streets under the banner of defending Israeli democracy.

Very early on in the protests, billboard signs began popping up across Israel that said, “The High Court of Justice is our soldiers’ body armor.” The notion persisted as protests spread. And, likely driven by the fear of losing the court’s protections, a wave of reserve soldiers are declaring their refusal to serve, arguably the protests’ most significant element.

The “body armor” sentiment is largely correct. The perceived independence of the Israeli judiciary is a key factor in preventing international accountability for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians — in the occupation and beyond. Most international court systems will only take up foreign cases if it can be shown that a country’s own system was unable to impartially adjudicate allegations of war crimes.

The situation, however, raises a question that few in Israel have dared to ask: Even without Netanyahu’s reforms, has the judiciary done enough to deal with violations of intranational law? Beyond its work upholding civil rights, have the courts’ rulings on international law merely given Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians a patina of legitimacy, as some progressive Israelis and many Palestinians contend?

A former attorney general, Avichai Mendelblit, was quite blunt in explaining why the country needs its courts to be independent: “The moment that the justice system in Israel isn’t perceived as such,” he warned, “Israel will lose international legitimacy for its military operations and will no longer be shielded from accusations of war crimes.”

Mendelblit’s prediction could soon be put to the test, with Palestinian appeals to the International Criminal Court in The Hague already pending. Losing the appearance of independence may expose Israeli soldiers, military commanders, leaders of the security forces, and even Israeli ministers, past and present, to prosecutions in foreign countries.

Such cases could rise to the level of holding Israel accountable for grave crimes such as torture: Last June, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, in collaboration with the International Federation for Human Rights, requested the ICC’s prosecutors to include the crime of torture in their investigation into the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The question of torture in Israel is just one of several potential grounds for international juridical intervention relating to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Israel’s prolonged occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, its sustaining of an apartheid regime, and the war crimes it has been committing in Gaza would also come to the fore.

Israeli courts’ treatment of torture and other crimes offer some answers as to how impartial the judiciary has really been on crimes against Palestinians — and the Israeli claims of democracy on display in the recent protests.

The Case of Torture

Taking a closer look at how the Israeli judiciary has been addressing allegations of torture reveals what is — and what is not — at stake in the recent legislation in Israel.

In 1999, Israel’s High Court of Justice rendered a ruling which was hailed as putting an end to the use of torture in Israel. Yet, according to data collected by Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and other human rights organizations, Israel still regularly subjects Palestinian detainees to interrogation methods that constitute torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, in clear violation of international law.

Complaints submitted by Palestinians who were interrogated by the Shabak, Israel’s general security service, to the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel since 2000 show the persistence of methods that were explicitly forbidden by the High Court in 1999.

An analysis we have conducted of more than 1,500 of these complains, which was funded by the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council, shows that physical violence — such as beating, violent shaking, and strangling — is still regularly used in interrogations. Other frequently used interrogation techniques include forcing people into painful stress positions, tight handcuffing, severe sleep deprivation, incommunicado detention, use of family members, threats, humiliations, and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures.

This is not merely a de facto breach of the ruling: As several recent decisions by the justices make clear, the High Court itself is willing to tolerate and even explicitly approve the use of torture in violation of Israel’s obligations under international law — and, some would argue, the court’s own decision.

Israel has further put in place several judicial mechanisms to address complaints of torture in recent decades. Yet these, too, constantly fail to offer legal remedy to torture victims.

More than 1,300 complaints of torture have been submitted on behalf of Palestinians to the Ministry of Justice between 2001 and June 2021. Only three criminal investigations have been launched. None have resulted in an indictment.

Yet as long as Israel can claim it has robust mechanisms for investigating complaints and independent judicial oversight over its security forces, it can fend against calls for international intervention.

War Crimes Launderer

On Monday night, as Netanyahu was deliberating in his chamber whether to stop the new legislation following the protests and a general strike, right-wing demonstrators assembled in Jerusalem for the first rally in favor of the legislation.

Many of the slogans shouted in this rally were not directly supporting the government, but instead targeting Palestinians. Some were explicit — and, unfortunately, too familiar — calls demanding “death to all Arabs.” Several Palestinian passersby (as well as journalists and other Israelis perceived as “leftist”) were attacked by demonstrators.

It is clear that at least as far as the nationalistic right is concerned, enshrining Jewish supremacy is the goal of this constitutional revolution. This is not an unfounded supposition; it is the professed plan of some of the most senior members in the government, including the national security minister and the minister of finance, who recently openly called for the complete erasure of a Palestinian town.

This legislation must not be passed. Resisting it, though, cannot also be about the freedom of Israeli soldiers and security apparatuses to continue operating — and even killing — with impunity.

When calling to “protect democracy,” we must bear in mind that the High Court of Justice has indeed served as the body armor not just for soldiers, but also for Israel’s anti-democratic practices. For years, the court has condoned Israeli human rights abuses, including settlement expansion, extrajudicial killings, and torture of Palestinian detainees.

Whatever the results of the current constitutional upheaval may be, the world must no longer ignore what is now irrefutable: Israel’s judiciary has served as a war crimes launderer. The international community must intervene to hold Israel accountable for its continued violations of Palestinian rights — an accountability Israel evidently fails to uphold itself.

At the same time, those in Israel protesting in the streets should realize that there is no such thing as a democracy for Jews alone. A true democracy will only be achieved when Israel ends its long-lasting occupation, recognizes the national rights of the Palestinians, and offers protections and equality under the law for all its citizens.

ONG: responsabilidad de la desgracia es de EU y México

El drama migratorio

Washington ofrece asistencia a sobrevivientes

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/03/29/politica/003n1pol

David Brooks y Jim Cason

Corresponsales

Periódico La Jornada
Miércoles 29 de marzo de 2023, p. 3

Nueva York y Washington. El gobierno de Estados Unidos expresó sus condolencias a los familiares de las víctimas del incendio del centro de detención de migrantes en Ciudad Juárez, ofreció asistencia para investigar la tragedia y declaró que admitirá a los heridos para que reciban tratamiento en ese país.

El vocero del Departamento de Estado, Vedant Patel, transmitió las condolencias y mencionó que esta tragedia es un recordatorio desolador de los riesgos que enfrentan migrantes y refugiados alrededor del mundo.

Señaló que las autoridades mexicanas investigan las causas del desastre y que el gobierno estadunidense está preparado para ofrecer cualquier asistencia que (México) podría solicitar.

Por su parte, la agencia federal de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) anunció que está preparada para recibir y procesar a los heridos en el incendio y enviarlos por ambulancia a instalaciones médicas estadunidenses para su atención.

Agregó que otorgará a esos migrantes un permiso de permanencia temporal por razones humanitarias urgentes (parole) para que puedan ingresar legal y rápidamente a Estados Unidos.

Protestan organizaciones

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, director de políticas de la organización civil Consejo de Inmigración Estadunidense, respondió al mensaje del gobierno: “Los comentarios del Departamento de Estado sobre estos hechos de que son ‘un recordatorio del peligro que enfrentan los migrantes y refugiados’ parecen un tanto huecos, a la luz del hecho de que esa instancia probablemente ayudó a negociar los acuerdos que llevaron a que las víctimas estuvieran encarceladas en México”.

Organizaciones de inmigrantes y defensores de derechos humanos también reaccionaron ante la noticia. Alianza Americas, red nacional de organizaciones de inmigrantes, expuso en un comunicado que estos hechos son responsabilidad de México.

El director ejecutivo, Óscar Chacon, subrayó que la tragedia es el resultado de las políticas migratorias obsesivamente enfocadas en detener los flujos de personas que buscan desesperadamente apoyo y protección para sus vidas. Ninguna persona debiera estar privada de libertad por razones migratorias. Desdichadamente, las políticas estadunidenses son adoptadas e implementadas por México.

La organización recordó que no es el primer incendio en un centro de detención de migrantes en México y que para evitar una repetición exigió que el país ponga fin a la detención de indocumentados.

Amy Fischer, directora de Abogacía para las Américas de Amnistía Internacional Estados Unidos, culpó a las autoridades de ambos países: Es inadmisible que en México esta gente que está buscando seguridad sea puesta en centros de detención en condiciones crueles y se les niegue el acceso al asilo en Estados Unidos. Una montaña de países está fracasando en la protección a gente que tiene el derecho de ser protegida, comentó, en entrevista con Al Jazeera.

La organización latina Mijente también deploró los hechos. La subdirectora Isa Noyola comentó que desafortunadamente continuaremos viendo cada vez más tragedias de ambos lados de la frontera, mientras los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y México siguen jugando con políticas basadas en el temor que nutren la idea de que los migrantes son desechables.

Viajes sin retorno

La tragedia en Ciudad Juárez es un recordatorio de un sistema migratorio quebrado y de los riesgos de la migración irregular, afirmó el embajador de Estados Unidos en México, Ken Salazar, al tiempo que representantes de gobiernos extranjeros acreditados en la capital mexicana expresaron su pesar por el suceso, y autoridades de Guatemala –país de origen de 28 de las víctimas– advirtieron de viajes sin retorno ni destino final.

Salazar escribió en redes sociales y en una declaración difundida por la embajada de Estados Unidos que “desafortunadamente este incendio está lejos de ser la única tragedia reciente, ya que también resaltan las 53 personas migrantes que murieron abandonadas en Texas y las otras 56 que murieron al volcarse un camión en Chiapas. Estos casos son un recordatorio de los riesgos de la migración irregular y de los peligros que corren ante la avaricia de los traficantes de personas. 

El Instituto Guatemalteco de Migración confirmó en un comunicado que 28 de las víctimas son de ese país y agregó que brindará apoyo y acompañamiento a las familias de las víctimas, al tiempo que alertó que la migración irregular lleva consigo una serie de riesgos que nuevamente han quedado en evidencia y llamó a sus ciudadanos a que analicen y tomen decisiones acertadas antes de emprender el viaje, que muchas veces no tiene retorno, ni destino final.

En tanto, Gautier Mignot, embajador de la Unión Europea en México, comentó que los terribles hechos de Ciudad Juárez hacen eco a tragedias similares sucedidas en Europa.

(Con información de Arturo Sánchez Jiménez)

Plan C

Pascal Beltrán del Río

https://www.excelsior.com.mx/opinion/pascal-beltran-del-rio/plan-c/1578352

El 5 de septiembre de 2017, al hablar ante el Centro Internacional para Académicos Woodrow Wilson, en la ciudad de Washington, el hoy presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador llamó a retirar el pase automático que beneficiaría al procurador Raúl Cervantes Andrade para convertirse en titular de la naciente Fiscalía General de la República, por no tener consenso, y sugirió reemplazarlo por alguien autónomo, “un ciudadano ejemplar, recto y honesto”.

Por esos días, Cervantes era blanco de críticas por su cercanía con el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto y por la presunción de que el objetivo de ungirlo de forma automática era para que le cuidara las espaldas a éste una vez que dejara el poder. La oposición alegaba que Peña Nieto quería heredar al país un “fiscal carnal”. El 16 de octubre de 2017, Cervantes renunció de forma irrevocable a la PGR.

Cinco años y medio después de aquella conferencia en la capital estadunidense, López Obrador parece haberse olvidado de demandas de autonomía y búsquedas de consenso. Ahora ve muy normal que la quinteta de aspirantes a la presidencia del Instituto Nacional Electoral esté integrada por personas que están en la órbita de su movimiento político.

Para el mandatario, la justificación es sencilla: “Más de la mitad de los ciudadanos, para no exagerar, simpatizan con nuestro movimiento”, dijo ayer en su conferencia mañanera. Y agregó: “Si pertenecen, si simpatizan con nuestro movimiento, pues no están impedidos si no lo prohíbe la ley. Es decir, si en los requisitos no está prohibido”.

El mismo hombre que ha declarado que no le salgan con que “la ley es la ley” y que siempre hay que optar por la justicia antes que por la norma, ahora se dice legalista a ultranza y abjura de criticar la cercanía de los titulares de los organismos autónomos con el gobierno, como sí hacía en 2017. Para él, no hay problema si en el INE hay una consejera presidenta carnal. 

Por si fuera poco, ayer afirmó que, ante el freno que puso el Poder Judicial a su plan B de contrarreforma electoral, ya tiene en mente un plan C, que consiste en llamar a que “no se vote por el bloque conservador, para que siga la transformación”.

Quien eso dijo es el mismo hombre que exclamó “¡cállate, chachalaca!” al entonces presidente Vicente Fox cuando, en marzo de 2006, éste dijo que los mexicanos no debían “cambiar de caballo a la mitad del río”, y que logró, mediante su inconformidad con los comicios de ese año, que en la Constitución quedara inscrita una orden a los servidores públicos para conducirse de forma imparcial en materia electoral.

 

BUSCAPIÉS

* Al criticar nuevamente ayer a Lorenzo Córdova y su gira de despedida como presidente consejero del INE, López Obrador arremetió contra el Centro Wilson, que la semana pasada recibió al funcionario mexicano. “Un grupo de simuladores que no se pronuncian cuando se trata de daños que causa la oligarquía en el mundo”, calificó a la institución. Se ve que no pensaba lo mismo –o no lo expresó– cuando fue recibido allí el 5 de septiembre de 2017, como digo arriba, y también el 11 de octubre de 2011.

* El hastío de Washington con el gobierno mexicano dio la impresión de subir una rayita con la aparente intención de la Oficina de la Representación Comercial de la Casa Blanca de emplazar a aquél para que atienda los diferendos que tienen ambos países en materia energética y que la llevaron a pedir consultas formales el 20 de julio pasado. De acuerdo con la agencia Reuters, una falta de respuesta daría lugar a la convocatoria a un panel de resolución de controversias, en el que México tiene más que perder que ganar.

* Hace unos días, pasé frente a una librería del Fondo de Cultura Económica. En el escaparate se exhibían diez obras del mismo autor y dos más de alguien de su mismo apellido. Eso sería raro en cualquier librería seria. El problema es que el autor es Paco Ignacio Taibo II, director de la institución, y el otro es su hermano, Benito. A principios del gobierno de Fox, un director de Notimex fue despedido porque la agencia cubrió la presentación de un libro suyo. ¿En este caso no se va a investigar el evidente conflicto de interés?

ARM WRESTLING GAME BETWEEN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES

Xi Jinping's latest visit to Putin (they have met 40 times during their respective terms) [1] and Chinese mediation for Saudi Arabia and Iran to re-establish diplomatic relations after breaking them 7 years ago, have reaffirmed Beijing's position as the superpower that it is not willing to submit to the hegemony of the United States, and that it can dispute that position.

Washington has tried to corner China through military alliances such as the one established with United Kingdom and Australia (AUKUS), strategic ones such as the Indo-Pacific with Japan, India and again Australia; and with the European Union and NATO to increase the presence of both organizations in the Pacific.

Likewise, Washington has launched an offensive to try to stop Chinese technological progress, by banning Chinese companies in the West (Huawei and Tik Tok) and blocking the technological and commercial exchange of semiconductors with Chinese companies.

It is clear that the strategic competition of the United States with China has to do with world hegemony, with its intention to maintain its dominance over the rules that prevail in international relations and with its decision that no country or group of countries, be it China, Russia or the European Union, must try to dispute that privileged position that it obtained after the Second World War and after the end of the First Cold War (we are already in the second).

Until now, the West and the countries allied with the United States in the East have accepted their subordination to Washington, even at the cost of great sacrifices, such as those that the European Union and NATO members have had to make, to continue the war in Ukraine, with the aim of dealing a “strategic defeat” to Putin; and maintain economic sanctions that have affected both Europe and Russia, with the aim of destroying the Russian economy, something that they have not even remotely achieved.

The population of European countries view, with uncertainty and growing fear, that the war in Ukraine against Russia is stalled, without either country being able to declare victory; but meanwhile, the Europeans continue to pay the highest costs of energy, food, as well as more spending on weapons, both to transfer it to Ukraine (without any payment), and to feed the armed forces of their countries; and also, having to accept in them millions of Ukrainians who have fled their devastated country.

In the United States, the stratospheric amount of money that Washington has given to Ukraine (more than 100 billion dollars), practically without any control mechanism, which raises doubts about its good use in one of the most corrupt countries in the world; and the budget for the United States armed forces, which is already close to a trillion dollars, is increasingly questioned by the population, since such an amount of money is not easily allocated internally to improve health, education, basic infrastructure, public safety, etc.

However, the lobbies of the military-industrial-security complex: the lobby for Israel, the "hawks" of the Pentagon; the neoconservatives and the interventionist liberals, as well as the media aligned with these interests (the main television networks and the most important newspapers in the country); and, the "think tanks" that live from these wars, they are not willing to let the "will of the people" get in the way of their goal of defeating Putin in Ukraine, and if possible, bringing about regime change in Moscow. .

As well as to contain China, until the United States manages to recover the lost ground in economic, technological and even military matters (Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles are more advanced than American ones), for which the world cannot wait in the next years a "truce" in this second Cold War, but quite the opposite; an intensification by the United States of the arms race, of the provocations to China, Russia and Iran, and of the determination to keep the West and the rest of the vassal countries of Washington, aligned with these priorities, regardless of the political, economic, social and environmental costs that cause the planet.

[1] https://portal.ieu-monitoring.com/editorial/a-new-chapter-of-friendship-op-ed-by-xi-jinping-prior-to-his-visit-to-russia/403231?utm_source=ieu-portal

Andanada de demandas de mineras contra México

Manuel Pérez Rocha L.*

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/03/27/opinion/016a2pol

Animadas por bufetes de abogados que actúan como aves de carroña, empresas trasnacionales, principalmente mineras, tratan de sacarle el último jugo al viejo TLCAN. Como expliqué aquí (1/8/22), los mecanismos de solución de controversias inversionista-Estado (ISDS, por sus siglas en inglés) del capítulo 11 del TLCAN permanecen en el T-MEC hasta el 31 de junio de este año. Pero, como advierten abogados a sus clientes, la verdadera fecha límite es este 31 de marzo dado que el artículo 1119 del TLCAN requiere que inversionistas interpongan una notificación de intención de demandar 90 días antes de interponer una demanda (https://bit.ly/40bIw6E).

Veremos esta semana cuántas notificaciones de intención de demandas a México se podrían dar. Por lo pronto, durante este marzo se ha presentado una notificación de intención y se ha interpuesto una demanda de dos empresas mineras.

El 2 de marzo la minera canadiense Silver Bull, presentó su aviso de demandar a México con el fin de recuperar los daños económicos resultantes del bloqueo ilegal de su proyecto de Sierra Mojada (https://bit.ly/42EyvQZ). La empresa busca no menos de 178 millones de dólares en perjuicios por la supuesta violación del TLCAN por parte de México. Silver Bull alega tener derechos sobre 20 concesiones mineras de plata, plomo y zinc en Coahuila. Según Silver Bull, en septiembre de 2019 miembros de la Sociedad Cooperativa de Exploración Minera Minero Norteños SCL bloquearon los yacimientos mineros y las autoridades mexicanas han permitido que continúe el bloqueo, incumpliendo, supuestamente, las cláusulas del TLCAN (seguramente se refieren a la cláusula que obliga al Estado a otorgar plena protección y seguridad a las empresas https://bit.ly/40c1Roc). Sin embargo, como dice la Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA), la situación de la cooperativa en la Sierra Mojada es parte de “una larga lista de comunidades que son agraviadas, aun cuando las mismas comunidades aceptaron el progreso y desarrollo minero… [se] encuentran con el incumplimiento por parte de la empresa que viola derechos de comunidades y trabajadores, lo que cuestiona la famosa responsabilidad social de la que tanto pregonan” (https://bit.ly/40bJYG8).

También este 2 de marzo, la minera de oro canadiense Goldgroup, interpuso ante el Centro Internacional de Arreglos de Diferencias de Inversiones (Ciadi) del Banco Mundial una demanda contra México. En un comunicado, la empresa dice que “el trato y la inacción de los tribunales mexicanos han dado lugar a una expropiación judicial de la inversión de su filial en DynaResource de México SA de CV y a una denegación de justicia e incumplimiento de las obligaciones de México en virtud del TLCAN (https://bit.ly/3FLasX2). En otras palabras, se hace responsable a México de pagar el erario litigios irresueltos entre empresas privadas.

Las demandas de Silver Bull y de Goldgroup se suman a las muchas más pendientes contra México, como la polémica demanda de la estadunidense Vulcan Materials, la filial de Calica en Playa del Carmen, por 500 millones de dólares, por la cual hasta el Departamento de Estado de EU se ha sumado al apoyo de la trasnacional en respuesta a la incautación del gobierno mexicano del puerto de carga de la empresa (https://bit.ly/3LQJe50). Además, se suman a las demandas de las también estadunidenses Odyssey Marine por la escandalosa cantidad de más de 3 mil millones de dólares y de Coeur Mining por 55 millones de dólares y a la de la canadiense First Majestic Silver por 500 millones de dólares (https://bit.ly/40y2fx7).

Hablo hasta aquí de demandas contra México sólo del sector minero. Sin embargo, bajo tratados de libre comercio (TLC) y tratados bilaterales de inversión (TBI), México tiene demandas pendientes por más de 6 mil millones de dólares, cifra que puede ser mucho mayor ya que hay información que no es pública (ver listado de demandas en: https://isds-americalatina.org/perfiles-de-paises/mexico/).

Es lamentable que ante la andanada de demandas contra México, por regular en favor del ambiente o hasta por negarse a reprimir resistencias pacíficas, el escrutinio de los tratados de protección de inversiones siga inexistente. México es el tercer país más demandado de América Latina y en su gran mayoría por empresas estadunidenses, canadienses o europeas, confirmando el carácter neocolonial de los regímenes internacionales de protección de inversiones (bajo TLC o TBI). Esta inacción contrasta con los muchos países que se enfrentan para desmontar el sistema. Los más recientes, este mes, han sido India, que ha anunciado la terminación de 68 tratados bilaterales de inversión (https://bit.ly/3lMVCZ1) y Noruega, que anuncia emular la tendencia de los países de la Unión Europea (de la cual no es parte) de derogar tratados bilaterales de inversión entre sí (https://bit.ly/42CCGwG).

Terminada la cláusula de legado del TLCAN en el T-MEC este junio, México seguirá sujeto a demandas de empresas energéticas de Estados Unidos. Pero además seguirá expuesto a demandas de empresas mineras de Canadá bajo el Tratado Transpacífico, y no sólo eso, también de Estados Unidos, pues como abogados recomiendan, sus empresas siempre pueden abrir filiales en otros países con tratados con México y demandarle con ellos. Lo que se llama ir de compras de tratados.

Para salir del neoliberalismo y del saqueo extractivista es urgente revisar los 31 TBI y 11 TLC que tiene México.

*Investigador del Institute for Policy Studies www.ips-dc.org

In Moscow, Xi and Putin Bury Pax Americana

PEPE ESCOBAR • MARCH 22, 2023

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/in-moscow-xi-and-putin-bury-pax-americana/

What has just taken place in Moscow is nothing less than a new Yalta, which, incidentally, is in Crimea. But unlike the momentous meeting of US President Franklin Roosevelt, Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in USSR-run Crimea in 1945, this is the first time in arguably five centuries that no political leader from the west is setting the global agenda.

It’s Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin that are now running the multilateral, multipolar show. Western exceptionalists may deploy their crybaby routines as much as they want: nothing will change the spectacular optics, and the underlying substance of this developing world order, especially for the Global South.

What Xi and Putin are setting out to do was explained in detail before their summit, in two Op-Eds penned by the presidents themselves. Like a highly-synchronized Russian ballet, Putin’s vision was laid out in the People’s Daily in China, focusing on a “future-bound partnership,” while Xi’s was published in the Russian Gazette and the RIA Novosti website, focusing on a new chapter in cooperation and common development.

Right from the start of the summit, the speeches by both Xi and Putin drove the NATO crowd into a hysterical frenzy of anger and envy: Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova perfectly captured the mood when she remarked that the west was “foaming at the mouth.”

The front page of the Russian Gazette on Monday was iconic: Putin touring Nazi-free Mariupol, chatting with residents, side by side with Xi’s Op-Ed. That was, in a nutshell, Moscow’s terse response to Washington’s MQ-9 Reaper stunt and the International Criminal Court (ICC) kangaroo court shenanigans. “Foam at the mouth” as much as you like; NATO is in the process of being thoroughly humiliated in Ukraine.

During their first “informal” meeting, Xi and Putin talked for no less than four and a half hours. At the end, Putin personally escorted Xi to his limo. This conversation was the real deal: mapping out the lineaments of multipolarity – which starts with a solution for Ukraine.

Predictably, there were very few leaks from the sherpas, but there was quite a significant one on their “in-depth exchange” on Ukraine. Putin politely stressed he respects China’s position – expressed in Beijing’s 12-point conflict resolution plan, which has been completely rejected by Washington. But the Russian position remains ironclad: demilitarization, Ukrainian neutrality, and enshrining the new facts on the ground.

In parallel, the Russian Foreign Ministry completely ruled out a role for the US, UK, France, and Germany in future Ukraine negotiations: they are not considered neutral mediators.

A multipolar patchwork quilt

The next day was all about business: everything from energy and “military-technical” cooperation to improving the efficacy of trade and economic corridors running through Eurasia.

Russia already ranks first as a natural gas supplier to China – surpassing Turkmenistan and Qatar – most of it via the 3,000 km Power of Siberia pipeline that runs from Siberia to China’s northeastern Heilongjiang province, launched in December 2019. Negotiations on the Power of Siberia II pipeline via Mongolia are advancing fast.

Sino-Russian cooperation in high-tech will go through the roof: 79 projects at over $165 billion. Everything from liquified natural gas (LNG) to aircraft construction, machine tool construction, space research, agro-industry, and upgraded economic corridors.

The Chinese president explicitly said he wants to link the New Silk Road projects to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). This BRI-EAEU interpolation is a natural evolution. China has already signed an economic cooperation deal with the EAEU. Russian macroeconomic uber-strategist Sergey Glazyev’s ideas are finally bearing fruit.

And last but not least, there will be a new drive towards mutual settlements in national currencies – and between Asia and Africa, and Latin America. For all practical purposes, Putin endorsed the role of the Chinese yuan as the new trade currency of choice while the complex discussions on a new reserve currency backed by gold and/or commodities proceed.

This joint economic/business offensive ties in with the concerted Russia-China diplomatic offensive to remake vast swathes of West Asia and Africa.

Chinese diplomacy works like the matryoshka (Russian stacking dolls) in terms of delivering subtle messages. It’s far from coincidental that Xi’s trip to Moscow exactly coincides with the 20^th anniversary of American ‘Shock and Awe’ and the illegal invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq.

In parallel, over 40 delegations from Africa arrived in Moscow a day before Xi to take part in a “Russia-Africa in the Multipolar World” parliamentary conference – a run-up to the second Russia-Africa summit next July.

The area surrounding the Duma looked just like the old Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) days when most of Africa kept very close anti-imperialist relations with the USSR.

Putin chose this exact moment to write off more than $20 billion in African debt.

In West Asia, Russia-China are acting totally in synch. West Asia. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement was actually jump-started by Russia in Baghdad and Oman: it was these negotiations that led to the signing of the deal in Beijing. Moscow is also coordinating the Syria-Turkiye rapprochement discussions. Russian diplomacy with Iran – now under strategic partnership status – is kept on a separate track.

Diplomatic sources confirm that Chinese intelligence, via its own investigations, is now fully assured of Putin’s vast popularity across Russia, and even within the country’s political elites. That means conspiracies of the regime-change variety are out of the question. This was fundamental for Xi and the Zhongnanhai’s (China’s central HQ for party and state officials) decision to “bet” on Putin as a trusted partner in the coming years, considering he may run and win the next presidential elections. China is always about continuity.

So the Xi-Putin summit definitively sealed China-Russia as comprehensive strategic partners for the long haul, committed to developing serious geopolitical and geoeconomic competition with declining western hegemons.

This is the new world born in Moscow this week. Putin previously defined it as a new anti-colonial policy. It’s now laid out as a multipolar patchwork quilt. There’s no turning back on the demolition of the remnants of Pax Americana.

‘Changes that haven’t happened in 100 years’

In Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350, Janet Abu-Lughod built a carefully constructed narrative showing the prevailing multipolar order when the West “lagged behind the ‘Orient.’” Later, the West only “pulled ahead because the ‘Orient’ was temporarily in disarray.”

We may be witnessing a similarly historic shift in the making, trespassed by a revival of Confucianism (respect for authority, emphasis on social harmony), the equilibrium inherent to the Tao, and the spiritual power of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is, indeed, a civilizational fight.

Moscow, finally welcoming the first sunny days of Spring, provided this week a larger-than-life illustration of “weeks where decades happen” compared to “decades where nothing happens.”

The two presidents bid farewell in a poignant manner.

Xi: “Now, there are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes.”

Putin: “I agree.”

Xi: “Take care, dear friend.”

Putin: “Have a safe trip.”

Here’s to a new day dawning, from the lands of the Rising Sun to the Eurasian steppes.

(Republished from The Cradle by permission of author or representative)

Seymour Hersh: CIA Planted Nord Stream Cover-Up Story in the Media

Sources told Hersh the CIA was instructed to concoct a cover story after President Biden met with Chancellor Scholz

by Dave DeCamp Posted on March 22, 2023

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/03/22/seymour-hersh-cia-planted-nord-stream-cover-up-story-in-the-media/

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on Substack on Wednesday that said the CIA was instructed to come up with a cover story for the Nord Stream bombings that was fed to The New York Times and the German newspaper Die Zeit.

The cover-up story was created to shift blame from the US after Hersh’s bombshell report published on February 8 that said President Biden ordered the attack on the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, which connect Russia to Germany. “It was a total fabrication by American intelligence that was passed along to the Germans, and aimed at discrediting your story,” Hersh was told by a source within the American intelligence community.

Hersh said that the CIA was ordered to come up with a cover story after President Biden met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Washington on March 3. Scholz’s visit was very brief and did not include the routine joint press briefing that usually follows a meeting between the president and another world leader. Hersh was told that his report detailing how the US took out Nord Stream was discussed by Biden and Scholz.

Hersh writes: “I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2.”

The result of the CIA’s work was published in The New York Times and Die Zeit on March 7. The New York Times report was very vague and said US officials are now claiming the Nord Stream bombings might have been carried out by a “pro-Ukrainian group.” The Die Zeit report claimed German investigators believe it was carried out by six people using a yacht rented in Poland that was owned by two Ukrainians. Other Western media outlets published similar articles reinforcing the cover story in the following days.

Hersh said the information The New York Times received “originated with a group of CIA experts in deception and propaganda whose mission was to feed the newspaper a cover story—and to protect a president who made an unwise decision and is now lying about it.”

The cover story offers a radically different narrative than what Hersh’s February 8 report alleges. Using anonymous sourcing, Hersh reported that the Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed by explosives planted by US Navy divers in June 2022 under the cover of NATO drills in the Baltic Sea. The operation was done in coordination with Norway, and a Norwegian spy plane detonated the explosives by dropping a sonar buoy on September 26, 2022.

The last time Scholz visited Washington was on February 7, 2022. Biden vowed during a press conference that day that if Russia invaded Ukraine, he would “bring an end” to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. According to Hersh, the plot to destroy the pipelines was already underway at that time, and the plotters took Biden’s comment as a blatant threat.

On Scholz’s possible complicity in the operation, Hersh said in his new article: “At this point, it must be noted that Chancellor Scholz, whether or not he was alerted of the destruction of the pipeline in advance—still an open question—has clearly been complicit since last fall in support of the Biden Administration’s cover-up of its operation in the Baltic Sea.”

Report: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Establish Ties With Syria

The US is opposed to regional countries normalizing with Syria

by Dave DeCamp Posted on March 23, 2023

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/03/23/report-saudi-arabia-agrees-to-establish-ties-with-syria/

Saudi Arabia and Syria have agreed to establish ties and reopen their embassies after over a decade of not having formal diplomatic relations, Reuters reported on Thursday.

Unnamed sources told Reuters that contacts between Riyadh and Damascus gained momentum following the surprise Saudi-Iran normalization deal that was brokered by China. Tehran is a major ally of the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic relations with Syria in 2011 and threw its support behind the failed US-backed regime change effort. As it’s become clear that Assad isn’t going anywhere, more regional countries have been normalizing with his government, an effort led by the UAE, which reopened its embassy in Syria in 2018.

One source told Reuters that Syria and Saudi Arabia are “preparing to reopen embassies after Eid al-Fitr,” a Muslim holiday that will be celebrated on April 21 and April 22.

The US is against any normalization steps between Syria and regional countries as it occupies about one-third of Syrian territory and maintains crippling economic sanctions on the country. The Biden administration has even come out against countries upgrading ties with Assad as part of an effort to help Syria recover from a devastating earthquake that hit on February 6 and killed thousands of Syrians.