Iconos
jueves, 25 de abril de 2024
EL PODER DEL SIONISMO SE HACE PRESENTE EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
Desde el fin de la Segunda
Guerra Mundial, pero especialmente, después de la Guerra de los 6 días en 1967,
cuando Israel derrotó a Egipto, en Estados Unidos y Europa Occidental se
estableció una subordinación completa de las élites políticas, económicas y
militares de Occidente con respecto a Israel.
Ha sido un apoyo total a los
gobiernos israelíes, sin importar si son de derecha o izquierda, para alcanzar los siguientes objetivos:
- Ocupar y desposeer de sus territorios en la
Franja de Gaza, este de Jerusalén y Cisjordania a los palestinos.
- En la medida de lo posible, expulsar de esos
territorios y de los de Israel a la población palestina (disfrazada limpieza
étnica).
- Afirmar la hegemonía militar, tanto en armas convencionales
como nucleares (ser la única potencia que las posee en Medio Oriente) sobre sus
vecinos árabes, turcos y persas.
- Asegurar para Israel el aprovechamiento de los
principales recursos naturales como agua, petróleo y gas, en los territorios
conquistados y ocupados.
- Lograr que Occidente y en general la comunidad
internacional abandonen la causa palestina y se afirme en el mundo la
islamofobia, al presentar a los países árabes e Irán, como “terroristas”.
- Afirmar en la narrativa y en el imaginario de
las poblaciones de Occidente y del Sur Global que Israel y los judíos siempre
son las víctimas y siempre son los agredidos.
Todos estos objetivos los han
conseguido las élites sionistas de Israel en mayor o menor medida, gracias a
que los lobbies pro-Israel de las principales potencias de Occidente
(especialmente los de Estados Unidos), han logrado dominar a los
establecimientos político, económico-financiero, de medios de comunicación y a
los aparatos de seguridad e inteligencia de las potencias occidentales.
Por supuesto, cualquier
académico, intelectual, periodista, político o ciudadano común que se atreviera
o que se atreva a decir públicamente esto, era y es inmediatamente
descalificado por gobiernos, partidos políticos, empresas y medios de comunicación
como “antisemita”; además de que es separado de su trabajo, estigmatizado de
por vida, apartado de la sociedad y en muchas ocasiones (en distintos países
que tienen legislaciones al respecto), hasta enviado a la cárcel.
Tal nivel de intimidación para
las personas que se atreven a decir lo obvio, más la constante propaganda en
medios de comunicación y a través de los sistemas escolares de los países
vasallos de Israel, supuestamente habrían logrado, para esta época, el que la
gran mayoría de la población mundial se creyera las versiones de Israel, de
Estados Unidos y en general de Occidente, de que Israel y los judíos son
víctimas del odio de árabes, de los iraníes, turcos y los que se acumulen, sólo
porque sí, sólo porque son “antisemitas” y sólo porque odian a los judíos y a
Occidente, porque les tienen envidia.
Sin duda, este discurso
permanente, que sobre todo los poderosos medios de comunicación occidentales
(encabezados por Hollywood), han difundido por al menos 60 años, ha permeado en
gran parte de la población mundial y ello ha dado la confianza a las élites pro-sionistas
de Occidente para descararse abiertamente en favor de Israel; sobre todo a
partir de los ataques de “falsa bandera” del 11 de septiembre de 2001.
Por ello, después de que
Hamas, en un último intento por evitar que los países árabes abandonaran por
completo la causa palestina, llevaron a cabo un ataque contra Israel el 7 de
octubre, todo Occidente y muchos países vasallos de América Latina y Asia fueron
a postrarse ante el Primer Ministro israelí, Benjamín Netanyahu, para brindarle su apoyo económico, político y militar.
Ante esto, Netanyahu y su
gobierno etno-nacionalista, xenófobo y ultraderechista aprovechó la oportunidad
no sólo de destruir a Hamas, sino de acelerar la limpieza étnica de Gaza,
Cisjordania y el este de Jerusalén, para lo cual inició otra Nakba (catástrofe)
como la de 1948, para devastar Gaza, llevar a cabo un genocidio y así obligar a
la población palestina a buscar refugio en Egipto; mientras en Cisjordania se
llevaba a cabo una represión brutal y un aumento exponencial de los
asentamientos de colonos sionistas, también para lograr la limpieza étnica en
esa zona; al tiempo que se realizaban constantes provocaciones (bombardeos y
asesinatos) contra la organización Hezbollah en el sur de Líbano y contra Siria
y los grupos pro iraníes en Siria e Irak; hasta llegar al bombardeo del
consulado iraní en Damasco, Siria; todo ello con el fin de provocar una guerra
regional, mediante la cual Israel obligara a Occidente a participar en su favor
para destruir a Hezbollah, Líbano, Siria, Irán y de paso a los houtíes en Yemen
que han apoyado a la causa palestina con el hostigamiento a la navegación
comercial que se dirige por el paso de Bab el Mandeb hacia Israel.
Pero resultó que toda la
propaganda que durante 60 años se ha difundido en el mundo; todo el dominio
sobre medios de comunicación, gobiernos, sistemas escolares, legislación, etc.
para convencer de que Israel es la víctima, no acabó por permear a toda la
población del mundo; vamos, ni siquiera a la de Occidente.
Las escenas de horror de la
matanza indiscriminada de mujeres, niños, ancianos; de civiles desarmados en Gaza.
El corte del agua, los alimentos y el combustible de manera deliberada; la
destrucción de casas, edificios, escuelas, hospitales, iglesias, mezquitas e
infraestructura civil de los palestinos, a la vista de todos; y peor aún, las
declaraciones de odio, de burla, de arrogancia, así como videos infames de
soldados israelíes robándose propiedad de los habitantes de Gaza,
insultándolos, degradándolos y presumiéndolo en redes sociales, acabó por
escandalizar y llevar al repudio de estas acciones a millones de personas en el
mundo.
Pero los sionistas de Israel y
de Estados Unidos y Europa pensaron que su dominio sobre el mundo es tal, que
podían burlarse de sus víctimas palestinas y presumir su poderío sin que nadie
en el mundo se atreviera a criticarlos, cuestionarlos o repudiarlos.
Se equivocaron, en casi todo
el mundo, incluso en Occidente, las protestas, las marchas multitudinarias, las
condenas en redes sociales contra el genocidio y la limpieza étnicas de Israel
contra los palestinos, se ha hecho presente desde octubre del año pasado hasta
la fecha; y ello ha obligado, a regañadientes, a los vasallos gobiernos
occidentales a tomar algunas tibias medidas para llamar la atención de sus amos
sionistas de Israel, para que no exageren tanto las barbaridades que están
cometiendo; aunque con muy pocos resultados, puesto que los sionistas de Israel
se consideran los dueños del mundo, y por lo tanto no aceptan “recomendaciones”
y mucho menos “sanciones” (por tibias que sean), de sus subordinados
occidentales.
Ahora incluso estudiantes no
judíos (y algunos judíos) de las principales universidades de Estados Unidos (la
mayoría de ellas dependientes de las “donaciones” de multimillonarios sionistas),
han establecido campamentos en sus campus universitarios y marchas de protesta
contra su gobierno y contra Israel, por el genocidio que realizan contra los
palestinos en Gaza.
Esto sí enloqueció a las
élites sionistas de Estados Unidos e Israel, que no pueden permitir que
universidades de “prestigio” que ellos llevan controlando desde hace décadas,
se conviertan en plataformas de condena de los abusos israelíes en Gaza y en el
mundo.
Por ello, tanto el vasallo
gobierno sionista de Biden (él mismo se ha autodenominado como un convencido
sionista), como los medios de comunicación, políticos y grandes empresas se han
manifestado en contra de los estudiantes, señalándolos como “antisemitas”, y
han lanzado a las policías y hasta a la Guardia Nacional a reprimirlos,
arrestarlos y dispersarlos.
Esta es una de las mayores
muestras del poder del sionismo en Estados Unidos, cuando a los hijos de las
élites privilegiadas de ese país, que se atreven a protestar contra el
genocidio israelí en Gaza, se les trata peor que a trabajadores tercermundistas;
se hace evidente así que los anglos no son en Estados Unidos más que unos
lacayos de los sionistas (ni qué decir de hispanos, negros o asiáticos); y esto
ha demostrado el poder que tienen la élites sionistas, aún contra estudiantes y
profesores de las universidades más caras y conocidas del país.
El mensaje es claro, los
sionistas dominan Estados Unidos; dominan Europa y por lo tanto el mundo
(aunque Rusia, China, Irán y Corea del Norte tienen otra opinión); y quien
quiera retar de cualquier manera ese poder recibirá su castigo, así sean jóvenes
de universidades privilegiadas del país más poderoso del mundo.
Veremos hasta dónde son
capaces de llegar estos psicópatas, que han llevado al mundo al abismo de
guerras, genocidios, destrucción del medio ambiente, odio permanente entre los
pueblos, discriminación, desigualdad y destrucción de valores morales en el
mundo.
miércoles, 24 de abril de 2024
Fight against UK arms sales to Israel persists
A case to halt UK arms sales was dismissed in February
but has since been granted a judicial review
APR 23, 2024
https://thecradle.co/articles/fight-against-uk-arms-sales-to-israel-persists
A legal obstacle to British weapons exports was reignited at the UK High Court on 23 April.
The case, brought by Palestinian rights group Al-Haq and the
UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), was dismissed in February.
On Tuesday, 23 April, the case was granted an
expedited judicial review of the UK government’s export license process,
scheduled for the coming October.
According to Al-Haq, there is a serious risk that
weapons exported by the UK to Israel will be used in violation of international
law, making their continued export illegal.
In the court filings for Tuesday’s preliminary hearing
on the matter, Al-Haq’s lawyers said the government processes for evaluating
violations are “robust and detailed.”
A lawyer for the Department for Business and Trade,
James Eadie, said the processes have been “honed and refined” following cases
previously brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade over arms exports to the
Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
“The world has watched as 34,000 people have been
killed, and more are being killed every day. Over the weekend, a single strike
in Rafah killed 17 children. The case for urgency has never been clearer,” said
GLAN’s lawyer Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe.
The UN has repeatedly warned in recent months that
states exporting arms or military goods to Israel are at high risk of
complicity in war crimes. Last month, Canada announced its intention to impose a ban on arms
sales to Israel. Several countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Japan,
and Belgium, have taken similar steps.
At the start of March, over 200 MPs from 12 states signed a letter urging their
governments to impose a ban on weapons sales to Israel. In the letter,
organized by Progressive International and signed on 1 March, the MPs said they
refused to be complicit in “Israel’s grave violation of international law” in
Gaza.
martes, 23 de abril de 2024
What Can We Learn from Our Forever War in Ukraine?
Posted on April 23, 2024
It has been a while since the United States won a
war. It looks as though we are about to lose yet another one – the war in
Ukraine. This is a proxy war justified as an effort to “weaken and
isolate” Russia. Our strategic defeat in this effort now leaves us with
three unpalatable alternatives. We can continue to support Ukraine as
Russia grinds it to bits and reduces it further in size and population.
We can escalate the war, as French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated,
despite the Russian threat to answer us with counter-escalation, possibly to
the nuclear level. Or we can face up to failure and save what we can of
Ukraine by negotiating with Russia. I know which of these choices I would
prefer, and I suspect you do too. And, however this unwise and
unnecessary war ends, we need to ensure that there are no more like it in
future.
They say that a mistake is only a mistake if you don’t
learn from it. Our country has recently made a lot of mistakes in its
foreign policies. Sadly, we don’t seem to be learning much of anything
from this experience. We have instead invented something uniquely
American called a “forever war.” Such wars routinely fail. Still,
we keep launching them.
I want to speak to you this evening about why we do
this, why we shouldn’t, and how we can stop doing it. My focus will be
the forever war with Russia in Ukraine.
Forever wars can take many forms. They can be
economic or technological, like the one the Trump administration kicked off
against China and that the Biden administration has enthusiastically doubled
down on. They can be military, like our twenty-three year “global war on
terrorism.” That has taken us into combat in over eighty countries,
killed over 900,000 people, and cost us an estimated $8 trillion. Forever
wars need not be direct, as our proxy war in Ukraine illustrates. They
can even be covert, as our multiple barely concealed interventions in Syria
demonstrate.
What America’s forever wars have in common is that
they involve:
- muddled, open-ended objectives,
- movable goal posts,
- an
intensely propagandized narrative to mobilize support for them,
- no
quarter for those who challenge that narrative,
- no
benchmarks for judging success or failure,
- no
limits on the level of resources we must feed into them,
- no
defined end state that would justify ending them,
- no
strategy for their termination, and
- no
vision of a feasible order if and when they end.
Sunzi argued that wars should implement strategies
that achieve specific national objectives with the least destruction.
Carl von Clausewitz described war as the expedient continuation of politics by
other means. William Tecumseh Sherman said that the purpose of war was to
produce a better peace. Fred Iklé said every war must end.
But what if domestic political dysfunction prevents
the definition of specific national objectives? What if a country’s
political culture dictates that the only effective way to impose its druthers
on other countries is coercively, through warfare – economic or
military? What if such a country measures the success of punitive
measures not by the extent to which they achieve desirable changes in foreign
behavior but by the pain they inflict on foreigners? What if such a
country believes it can resort to the use of force with impunity whenever it
judges that less violent methods of bending foreigners to its will are
less likely to do so? What if that country’s wars routinely lead not to
peace but to turmoil or anarchy?
Our “forever wars” are the product of applying hubris
to two related national ambitions vis-à-vis the world beyond our borders: (1)
the consolidation of a global American sphere of influence and (2) the foreign
regime changes needed to realize this. The Ukraine war exemplifies both
elements of this hegemonic behavior. It has been accompanied by
wall-to-wall propaganda that confuses self-righteousness with truth, demonizes
our adversary, and replaces analysis with wishful thinking and denial, leaving
nothing certain and everything plausible. As always, the most destructive
lies are those we tell ourselves.
The Ukraine war is not – as is claimed – about
democracy vs. authoritarianism. It is about delineating the post-Cold War
U.S. sphere of influence in Europe.
Our country invented the modern sphere of
influence. In the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary to it, we
asserted a right to limit the freedom of maneuver of the countries of the
Western Hemisphere and to demand their deference to our political and economic
interests. After World War II, Americans expanded our sphere of influence
to include Western Europe and Northeast Asia. In the post-Cold War
period, Washington adapted the hegemonic principles of the Monroe Doctrine to
the unipolar moment and extended our sphere of influence to the entire world
beyond the borders of Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. In the end,
the only countries bordering Russia other than those of Central Asia not in our
sphere of influence were Georgia and Ukraine. American neoconservatives
saw these neighbors of Russia as vacuums to be filled by U.S. military power.
During the Cold War, NATO was a purely defensive
alliance that effectively protected Western Europe from a predatory Soviet
Union and its restive satellites. But twenty-five years ago, at the end
of the 20th century, after the USSR had disappeared, NATO began
to launch offensive operations – first against Serbia, then in Afghanistan,
later in Libya. And as NATO expanded toward Russia’s borders, American
troops and weapons aimed at Russia routinely established a presence on the
territory of its new members.
At the 2007 Munich security conference, Russian
President Vladimir Putin bluntly warned the United States and its European
allies that his country would feel obliged to act if NATO – the instrument by
which the U.S. has long exercised dominant politico-military influence in
Europe – were further expanded. His warning echoed that of his
predecessor, Boris Yeltsin as early as 1994.
In 2008 as in 1994, Washington ignored these warnings
and persuaded NATO to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine, both of which
border the Russian Federation. As the Russians habitually say, it was no
accident that shortly thereafter, war broke out between Georgia and
Russia. This was in part due to Georgia’s exuberant reaction to apparent
open-ended American support for its nationalist ambitions. More to the
point, it was a calculated Russian signal of resolve to resist encirclement by
the United States and NATO. We dismissed the signal and portrayed
Moscow’s defeat of Georgian adventurism as wanton Russian aggression that
vindicated our determination to bring Russia’s neighbors into NATO.
Someone summed this up by declaring that the reason NATO still exists is to
handle the problems that NATO’s continuing existence creates.
Coincident with the war in Georgia, the United States
and NATO escalated the effort to re-equip, restructure, and retrain the
Ukrainian armed forces to be ready for combat with Russia. In 2014,
Washington helped engineer a coup in Kyiv that overthrew the elected government
and installed handpicked pro-American, anti-Russian successors in its
place. The new ultranationalist Ukrainian government then banned the use
of Russian and other minority languages in education or for official business.
But almost thirty percent of Ukrainians are native speakers of Russian.
Russian-speaking secessionists in the Donbas region resisted forced
assimilation and began a civil war with Ukrainian ultranationalists. This
soon became a proxy war between Russia and the West.
The United States reaffirmed its intention to bring
Ukraine into NATO and stepped up our aid to the Ukrainian armed forces.
But if Ukraine entered NATO while Crimea was still part of it, the 250-year-old
Russian naval base at Sevastopol would fall under the control of the U.S. and
NATO. In large measure to preempt this, Russia annexed Crimea. It
was able to do so without violence because Crimeans had made it clear on
several previous occasions that they did not want to be part of Ukraine.
In 2014, a Russian-organized referendum revealed that the views of most
Crimeans had not changed. If they could not be independent, they
preferred to be part of Russia. It is utterly unrealistic to expect them
ever to agree to place themselves again under Ukrainian sovereignty.
By 2021, with our help, Ukraine had acquired a
NATO-trained and equipped army larger than the armed forces of Britain, France,
and Germany combined. Not surprisingly, Moscow viewed this huge hostile
force on its western borders as a serious national security threat.
Recent attacks deep into Russia by Ukrainian forces have inadvertently
validated Russia’s concerns about the consequences of Ukraine joining an
alliance hostile to it. Just as Soviet forces stationed in Cuba in 1962
menaced Washington, U.S. forces stationed in Ukraine could reduce the warning
time of a strike on Moscow to about five minutes.
So, in December 2021, Moscow massed troops on the
Russian border with Ukraine and demanded negotiations to resolve its security
concerns. It insisted on Ukrainian neutrality, respect for the rights of
Russian speakers in Ukraine, and a discussion of a new European security
architecture that would threaten neither Russia nor the members of NATO.
The U.S. and NATO responded by rejecting negotiations while warning – in an
instance of self-fulfilling paranoia – that Russia planned to invade Ukraine.
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general, put it
this way: “President Putin … sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign,
to promise no more NATO enlargement. That … was a pre-condition for
[Russia] not invad[ing] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.” In
fact, the U.S. and NATO refused to discuss it at all, leaving Russia with the
choice of either accepting NATO membership for Ukraine and the eventual
deployment of U.S. forces there or using force to prevent this. This
unwelcome choice was the proximate cause of Moscow’s fateful decision to invade
Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was clearly
illegal under international law, but to say that it was “unprovoked” defies
credibility.
Could a negotiation with Russia have prevented
war? We have at least two solid pieces of evidence to suggest that it
might have. Despite Moscow’s sympathy and support for the
Russian-speaking secessionists in the Donbas, it agreed in the Minsk accords of
2014 and ’15 that their region should remain part of Ukraine, provided their
linguistic autonomy was guaranteed. (The Minsk accords were subsequently
repudiated, not by Russia but by Ukraine, France, and Germany.)
Then, too, six weeks after it invaded Ukraine, Moscow
agreed to a draft treaty with Kyiv by which it would withdraw from Ukraine in
return for Ukraine renouncing NATO membership and proclaiming neutrality.
This treaty was to have been signed on April 15, 2022, but the U.S., U.K, and
NATO objected to it. In early April Ukraine repudiated its earlier
agreement to the terms of the treaty.
As the war has ground on, Russia has repeatedly
reiterated its willingness to talk, and the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine have
consistently rejected doing so. The refusal to discuss a formula for
peaceful coexistence between Ukraine and Russia, between NATO and Russia, and
between Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians has had grave consequences,
most of all for Ukraine.
The war has not only imposed huge costs on Ukraine but
also greatly weakened its bargaining power in any future negotiation with
Russia. If there is an agreed end to this war, it will be on largely
Russian terms and vastly less favorable to Ukraine than the peace the U.S. and
NATO persuaded Kyiv to reject in April 2022. Ukraine, the U.S., and NATO
are now in the final stages of a humiliating strategic defeat.
In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the population
of Ukraine was about 32 million. Since then, it has fallen to about 20
million.
One-third of Ukraine’s people have been
dislocated. Over 2 million have fled to Russia and 6 to 8 million to the
West and elsewhere. The number of Ukrainian casualties is a closely
guarded secret, but indications are that it may be around half a million.
Ukraine’s industrial base and infrastructure have been devastated. As the
war began, Ukraine was the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe.
Now it is even poorer and more corrupt.
The Biden administration has regularly described the
proxy war with Russia as designed to “isolate and weaken Russia” and pledged to
support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” Prominent American politicians
have extolled the benefits of having Ukrainians rather than Americans fight
Russians. Ukrainians have done so with remarkable bravery. But so
many have died that Ukraine can no longer mount an adequate defense, let alone
go on the offensive.
The war has devastated Ukraine without either
isolating or weakening Russia. It has cut Europe off from Russian energy
supplies and reoriented Russia toward China, India, Iran, the West Asian Arab
countries, and Africa. Russia’s economy has grown, not contracted.
Moscow’s defense budget has doubled, and its armaments production is now three
times that of the US and NATO combined. Like Ukrainian casualties, those
of Russia are hard to estimate. But with a population four to five times
larger than Ukraine’s, Russia can sustain many more casualties than Ukraine
can.
The U.S. and NATO expected an easy victory over
Russia. But both now face a humiliating military defeat. The war
has greatly weakened Ukraine’s bargaining position in any future negotiation
with Russia. Germany now feels sufficiently threatened for it have begun
a debate on whether to acquire nuclear weapons.
As a result of U.S. sanctions and the sabotage of
Russia’s undersea gas pipeline to Germany, Europe has lost its access to cheap
Russian energy supplies. These have been replaced by imports from the
United States that are as much as four times as expensive. European
energy-intensive industries are no longer internationally competitive.
Germany, Europe’s core economy, is being deindustrialized. Current trends
are raising disturbing questions about the future of the EU.
The Ukraine war, combined with other bellicose
actions, has cost the United States and the West the moral argument
internationally. We cannot have it both ways – condemning Russia’s
illegal actions in Ukraine while actively supporting Israel’s even more lawless
and lethal actions in Palestine. The West has inadvertently put its
hypocrisy and double standards on dramatic display.
We are told by our leaders and their political
straphangers that Ukraine and other current and potential “forever wars” are
about defending democratic values. But as we build a domestic national
security state to support our wars, we are sacrificing ever more of the civil
liberties and respect for due process and the rule of law that are central to
constitutional democracy. As Benjamin Franklin wisely pointed out, a
nation prepared to trade its freedoms for its security puts both in jeopardy.
And, in this case, it is not even our security that is at
stake but that of others. The “domino theory” was nonsense in Southeast
Asia. It is equally fallacious in Eastern Europe. Our wars are wars
of choice, not necessity, and have little or no direct connection to Americans’
security and wellbeing.
It is said that U.S. credibility with allies and
adversaries is at stake in Ukraine. But our policies and actions there
have not bolstered confidence in American steadfastness so much as shaken
confidence in our judgment and cast doubt on the efficacy of our military
doctrines and weaponry. The West now suffers from “forever war”
fatigue. American and European taxpayers are becoming reluctant to keep
sending money to a cause that they increasingly perceive as both futile and
corrupt. And we are being reminded that, as the 20th century
demonstrated, there can be no peace in Europe based on ostracizing Russia or
any other European great power.
As the war proceeds, Russia’s bargaining position
continues to strengthen. If there is ever an end to this war, it will be
on terms far less favorable to Ukraine than the peace the U.S. and NATO
persuaded it to reject in April 2022. Meanwhile, inept American diplomacy
continues to push Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea together in a loose
anti-American entente and to increase the danger of one or more nuclear wars.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty stipulates that
“an armed attack against one or more [NATO member states] in Europe or North
America shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is an
unequivocal commitment to defend any and all NATO members against attack.
But the United States and other NATO members have already demonstrated that we
are not in fact prepared to respond directly to an armed
attack on Ukraine by Russia. In response to just such an attack, we have
resorted to evasions and a proxy war pitting Ukrainians – but not us – against
the aggressor.
If Ukraine were a member of NATO, Article 5 would
require the president to ask Congress to declare war on the world’s most
formidable nuclear power. Vladimir Putin has threatened to conduct such a
war at the nuclear level. He may not be the demonic figure our propaganda
makes him out to be. But bravado aside, calling his bluff is an insane
risk for us to take for ourselves, our allies, and the world at large.
As in other “forever wars,” we have inhaled our own
propaganda about Ukraine. Our quixotic attempt to exploit Ukrainian
nationalism to “weaken and isolate” Russia or engineer regime change in Moscow
has been a catastrophe for Ukrainians and a strategic defeat for the
West. It has brought the U.S. and NATO to the point at which we must
either enter the fray directly, watch Russia grind Ukraine to bits, or accept a
negotiated outcome that addresses Russian interests and objectives.
Moscow has described those interests and stated those
objectives clearly and consistently. They do not include invading NATO
territory. Claiming that they do is threat mongering designed to mobilize
popular support in the West for our proxy war in Ukraine, to boost U.S. and
NATO defense budgets, and to fatten the profits of the military-industrial
complex. Moscow has conducted a limited war – a so-called “special
military operation” – in Ukraine. It has not marshalled the forces necessary
to subdue, occupy, or annex all of Ukraine. Russia’s battlefield
performance has not demonstrated any capacity to invade the West, and Moscow
has expressed no ambition to do so.
It is time to stop attributing objectives to Russia
that it has not stated and does not have. Moscow’s professed aims have
been and remain: (1) to restore the neutrality of Ukraine and prevent the
deployment of U.S. and other NATO forces and installations to Ukraine; (2) to
restore and ensure the linguistic and other rights of Ukraine’s large
Russian-speaking minority; and (3) to negotiate a new European security
architecture that can alleviate the threat Russia and other European states
pose to each other by crafting a durable peace between them.
In the absence of diplomacy, the use of force has once
again failed. Far from weakening Russia, the Ukraine war has strengthened
it. Far from isolating Russia, the Ukraine war has forced it into the
embrace of China and Iran and boosted its ties with India, the Arab world, and
Africa. Ukraine’s economy has been eviscerated, its population reduced,
its military capacity gutted, and its territory diminished. If the war is
allowed to continue, this will only wreak more havoc in Ukraine, kill more
Ukrainians as well as Russians, and further shrink Ukraine’s territory,
possibly leaving it landlocked.
The proponents of our militarized foreign policy asked
us once again to give war a chance. We foolishly did. This has now
left us with no alternative to trying diplomacy. We cannot hope to regain
at the negotiating table what we have lost on the battlefield, but we must now
strive to compose a peace with Russia that enables Ukraine to be both a buffer
and a bridge between Russia and the rest of Europe. That – not NATO
membership – is the prerequisite for the emergence of a prosperous and
democratic Ukraine, untainted by corruption. And that – not NATO
membership for Ukraine – is the prerequisite for peace and stability in Europe.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. chairs Projects
International, Inc. He is a retired US defense official, diplomat, and
interpreter, the recipient of numerous high honors and awards, a popular public
speaker, and the author of five books. He was a former US Assistant Secretary
of Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and
Chargé d’affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in
India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American
interpreter during President Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972.) Reprinted
with permission from his
blog.
lunes, 22 de abril de 2024
Global military spending soars to new record highs
The global defense budget saw its largest yearly
increase in 14 years in 2023, according to the think tank SIPRI. Russia's war
in Ukraine, the China-Taiwan crisis and other global conflicts played a
significant role.
https://www.dw.com/en/global-military-spending-soars-to-new-record-highs/a-68876104
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPRI) has updated its Military Expenditure Database for 2023, with top spenders such as the
United States, China and Russia ratcheting up their military budgets.
Military spending is up in Africa, the Middle East,
Europe, Asia, Oceania and North and South America. It's the first
time since 2009 that annual spending has increased in all geographical
regions examined by SIPRI at once.
With a budget increase of 105%, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stood out as the country with the single largest
increase in military spending in 2023 by percentage. Researchers attributed
this boost to the protracted conflict between the government and non-state armed
groups.
How surprising is military expenditure rise?
Xiao Liang, a researcher in SIPRI's military
expenditure and arms production program, told DW that "what might be
surprising is how large the increases are in the rest of the world, especially
in Latin America and Africa."
Liang said the governments of Mexico and El Salvador
were using the military for internal affairs such as combating organized crime and gang violence. Ecuador and Brazil are showing similarly concerning
trends, he added.
"The increase itself is not too surprising, but
it's the scale and scope of the increase," Liang said. "For the
global trend, if the current conflicts and tensions continue, we will probably
see more increase in the coming years."
Ukraine-Russia war spending imbalanced
Ukraine has remained a conflict hot spot since Russia launched its full-scale
invasion in early 2022.
At 5.9% in 2023, Liang said, Russia's military
spending in relation to its gross domestic product (GDP) reached its highest
point since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
By comparison, Ukraine's military spending was 37% of
its GDP. "So the war is burdening Ukraine much more than Russia,"
Liang said. The bare numbers highlight that the fight between Russia and
Ukraine is imbalanced, but Western support has helped Ukraine level the playing field,
preliminary SIPRI reports indicated.
"From the spending trend last year, all but three
countries in NATO increased their spending," Liang said.
"And also we've seen the most number of countries, in 11 out of 31 members
in NATO, that met or exceeded the 2% GDP target, which is the highest since the
end of the Cold War. We expect to see more countries reaching their targets in
the next few years. Now also, with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, I think the spending by NATO countries as a whole
will keep rising."
What's behind China's military spending increase?
The conflict between China and Taiwan also drove up military spending in 2023. China
increased military expenditures by 6% from the previous year, allocating about
$296 billion (€277.5 billion) to the military in 2023. That's about half of the
overall military expenditure across the Asia and Oceania regions.
Liang said China was directing most of its growing
military budget toward increasing the combat readiness of its People's
Liberation Army.
"We are clearly seeing that trend because, if you
look at spending, it has been rising for 29 consecutive years," Liang
said. "That's the longest streak recorded by a single country. It's mostly
actually increasing set alongside the pace of its economic growth, regardless
of fluctuations in geopolitical tensions or global crisis such as the war in
Ukraine or COVID."
Liang said China's military modernization had also
prompted countries such as Japan, Taiwan and India to increase their military
spending. Japan and Taiwan both raised their military spending by 11%, to $50.2
billion and $16.6 billion, respectively.
How regional conflicts are fueling military spending
increases
Another noteworthy development in SIPRI's database is
the increased military spending in South Sudan. Marked by internal violence and spillover effects
from the civil war in neighboring Sudan, the world's youngest nation increased
military spending by 78% compared with 2022.
Countries across Europe spent another year fearing
security threats from Russia. Poland increased its military spending the most
of all European countries, by 75% from 2022, to $31.6 billion in total.
In the Middle East, Iran recorded a
military budget of $10.3 billion, making it the region's
fourth-largest spender.
'Military security has became a priority again'
"We live in an age when military security has
became a priority again and security is defined in a militaristic
framework," said Niklas Schörnig, a political scientist at the Peace
Research Institute Frankfurt. "In this sense, these numbers are just a
reflection of that mindset."
Pointing to Ukraine and the recent exchange of blows
between Iran and Israel, Schörnig also noted that defense was far most costly
than an offensive. "Take the drones that Iran is delivering to Russia, for
example, and that Iran recently deployed," he told DW. "Organizing that kind of
defense is hugely cost-intensive."
Schörnig, the institute's senior researcher in
international security, said conflicts such as the war in Ukraine were proof
that the logic of disarmament has reached its limits. Instead, he said,
the world has entered a new era in which armament is spiraling out of
control as most arms control agreements are outdated or no longer in use.
To counter this trend, Schörnig proposed a new
international goal. "States need to return to controlled armament,"
he said. "They need to agree not to arm themselves above a certain level.
This could de-escalate things a bit. Arms controls could be an interim goal, a
way to limit and stabilize armament, and avoid everyone wildly arming
themselves however they like."
It's likely SIPRI's report on military expenditures in
2024 will once again find an increase in spending. In 2023, Israel's large-scale offensive in Gaza and tensions in the wider region led to the
highest annual growth in military spending the Middle East had seen in 10
years.
Total military expenditure in the region grew by 9%
and amounted to $200 billion. Israel's military spending alone spiked by 24% to
$27.5 billion, second only to Saudi Arabia.
Schörnig said he had a pessimistic outlook. "If
the general political climate doesn't change, I don't believe the current
upward trend in armament will come to an end," he said. "This
would only be possible if Ukraine achieved a peace agreement that didn't divide
the country."
He said he also hoped the United States
and China could negotiate to keep the regional conflict with
Taiwan under control.
Even if they could, he said, "this current
geopolitical situation is like a powder keg, and SIPRI's numbers reflect just
that."
domingo, 21 de abril de 2024
Grief in Gaza: Image of mourning Palestinian wins World Press Photo award
As families searched
for relatives in the Nasser Hospital morgue, a woman held onto the body of her
five-year-old niece.
18 Apr 2024
A haunting image of a
grieving Palestinian woman embracing the body of her little niece, who was
killed in an Israeli strike in the Gaza Strip, won the 2024 World Press Photo
of the Year Award on Thursday.
The photograph taken by
the Reuters news agency’s Mohammed Salem shows Inas Abu Maamar cradling the
body of five-year-old Saly, who was killed with her mother and sister when a
missile hit their home in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, in October.
Salem was in Khan
Younis’s Nasser Hospital on October 17 when he saw Abu Maamar, 36, sobbing and
tightly holding the shrouded body of her niece in the morgue.
The picture was taken
10 days after the start of the current conflict, following the attack by the
Palestinian group Hamas in southern Israel.
“It was a powerful and
a sad moment and I felt the picture sums up the broader sense of what was
happening in the Gaza Strip,” World Press Photo quoted Salem as saying.
“It is a really
profoundly affecting image,” said Fiona Shields, jury chairwoman.
“Once you’ve seen it,
it’s kind of seared in your mind,” she said. “It works as a kind of literal and
metaphorical message really about the horror and futility of conflict.”
“It’s an incredibly
powerful argument for peace,” Shields added.
South Africa’s Lee-Ann
Olwage, shooting for GEO, won the Story of the Year Award with an intimate
portrayal of a Malagasy family caring for an elderly relative suffering from
dementia.
“This story tackles a
universal health issue through the lens of family and care,” the judges said.
“The selection of
images is composed with warmth and tenderness reminding viewers of the love and
closeness necessary in a time of war and aggression worldwide,” they added.
Venezuelan Alejandro
Cegarra won the Long-Term Project Award with his vivid monochrome images of
migrants and asylum seekers trying to cross Mexico’s southern border.
Shooting for The New
York Times/Bloomberg, Cegarra’s own experience as a migrant “afforded a
sensitive human-centred perspective that centres on the agency and resilience
of migrants”.
In the Open Format,
Ukraine’s Julia Kochetova won with her website that “brings together
photojournalism with the personal documentary style of a diary to show the
world what it is like to live with war as an everyday reality”.
The 2024 award-winning
pictures were selected from 61,062 entries by 3,851 photographers from 130
countries.
The photos are on
exhibit at De Nieuwe Kerk, a 15th-century church in the centre of Amsterdam,
until July 14.
sábado, 20 de abril de 2024
The Zionized North Is on a Suicide Mission
By Gilad Atzmon, posted yesterday.
https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/gilad-atzmon-the-zionized-north-is-on-a-suicide-mission/
There is a world war around us, but no one out there
is brave enough to outline or articulate what this war is all about – and what
exactly is the dividing line that splits the world into two. Iran unveiled this
line in the clearest fashion last Saturday.
The Zionized North that failed to condemn the Israeli
attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus – or any other past Israeli
aggression against Iran, Syria or any other Muslims – has put itself on the
line to defend Israel against Iran’s missiles.
One wonders if America, Britain and France are so good
in stopping cruise missiles and drones, why don’t they impose a No Fly Zone
over Gaza and put an end to the Israeli broad-daylight genocide on the ground?
If the Zionized North is so good in stopping Iranian drones, why has it failed
to help Ukraine repel the Russians drones?
The answer is simple. The Zionized North subscribes to
the Zionist reckless unethical philosophy. It is driven by greed and cares
solely for the interests of the very few.
We tend to refer to Hezbollah and Houthis as Iran’s
proxies. In the Zionized North, the USA, Britain, France and Germany operate as
Israel’s proxies. But there is one big difference. The Hezbollah and the
Houthis belief is to serve their people. There is a liberation at the end of
the road for them. The Zionist North on the other hand is on a suicide mission.
In fact, there is no prospect of survival for the West on its current path.
We are dealing with a Zionized North that is spiraling
down in an embarrassing fashion. It is a universe that belongs to the past. It
doesn’t even have a vision of a future. It is a universe that removed itself
voluntarily from manufacturing following the promise of a service economy. It
sacrificed its working class, and made them into a workless underclass just to
make the rich richer.
It is now removing itself from agriculture, just to
make Monsanto & Co wealthier. It is removing itself from the notion of
health because our elected politicians are invested in Pfizer and the like. It
is invested in identitarian politics that is designed to split us into monads
of resistance that can, at best, fight each other, but leave the bad guys
untouched.
The Global South is the complete opposite. It is the
future. It is self-sustained. It supports the weak, whether this is Gaza or
Africa.
Iran has managed to bring this clear division to the
surface. You may not be able to physically relocate to the Global South, but
the only hope for personal recovery is to aspire to the Global South’s spirit. This
is where, I believe, contemporary Athens resides.
viernes, 19 de abril de 2024
Why has China's manufacturing industry become a 'scapegoat' for the US? Global Times editorial
By Global Times
Published: Apr 18, 2024
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202404/1310883.shtml
On April 17, the Office
of the US Trade Representative once again wielded the "Section 301"
stick, this time targeting China's maritime, logistics and shipbuilding
sectors. On the same day, the Biden administration also called for a
significant increase in import tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products.
These moves are another dangerous step by Washington dragging the US and China
into an escalating trade war vortex, not only a misinterpretation or even
distortion of China's manufacturing competitiveness but also a deviation from
the fundamental principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
This is the latest Section 301 investigation launched by the US against China.
Although the current scope of the investigation is somewhat different from the
past, the fundamental purpose remains the same: to misinterpret normal trade
and investment activities as threats to US national security and corporate
interests, and to blame China for its own industrial issues. Recently, US Trade
Representative Katherine Tai claimed in a hearing that China's alleged unfair
policies and practices "have devastated many working communities and
industries" across the US, citing industries such as steel, aluminum, and
electric vehicles as examples. However, according to the White House, imports
of steel from China only account for 0.6 percent of total US steel demand, far
less than countries like Canada and Mexico. Not to mention, due to high
tariffs, Chinese electric vehicles have hardly entered the US market, so where
does the claim of "devastating" come from?
In the face of the numerous groundless accusations in the US application
document, China, with frankness and integrity, naturally fears no trouble and
will staunchly defend its own rights and interests. The development journey of
China's manufacturing industry is evident to the world, and it can be boldly
stated that the development of China's industries is the result of enterprises'
technological innovation and active participation in market competition. Right
and wrong have their own clear distinctions; regardless of how Washington tries
to label China with various new and old accusations, it will not change the
fact that the US is engaging in protectionism and unilateralism. The previous
US administration's initiation of the Section 301 investigation against China
and imposition of tariffs on China have been ruled by the WTO to have violated
WTO rules and have faced opposition from numerous WTO members. This time will
be no exception.
At this juncture, Washington's sudden concentrated attacks on China's
manufacturing industry are, to some extent, influenced by the factors of the US
elections. The Biden administration probably hopes to win the votes of
blue-collar workers in swing states by doing so. But looking beyond the
surface, behind China's manufacturing industry becoming the
"scapegoat" for Washington, there is a fundamental issue - the US has
yet to truly face up to the development of China's manufacturing industry and
economy. If Washington cannot have a clearer understanding of "Made in
China," then the future of China-US economic and trade relations will inevitably
encounter obstacles and challenges.
The rise of China's manufacturing industry, especially in heavy industries such
as steel, shipbuilding, and railway equipment, is a natural result of resource
optimization in the process of global economic integration. The journey of
China's manufacturing industry to its current state, with strong
competitiveness and vitality, has not been easy. It has been achieved through
overcoming obstacles, backed by a large market size, efficient infrastructure,
a well-developed supply chain system, and continuously improving technological
innovation capabilities. Relying on unfair means to "force growth"
will not lead to the full blossoming of "Made in China." Washington
should be aware of this, as the traditional manufacturing industry in the US,
represented by the shipbuilding industry, lost its competitive advantage due to
excessive protectionism many years ago.
The crisis currently facing the traditional manufacturing industry in the US
should serve as a wake-up call for Washington. It should be a moment for deep
reflection, rather than being used as a tool for elections or as an excuse for
cracking down on China. How to revitalize the declining traditional
manufacturing industry in the US, and how to move economic development from
virtual to real, are crucial matters concerning the national interests of the
US. Choosing to blame others will only worsen the situation. Compared to
unilateral investigations, the more optimal solution for Washington should be
to follow the trend of globalization, adhere to the principle of comparative
advantage and market economic laws, and develop industries that align with
their own factor endowments, rather than attempting to help disadvantaged industries
with trade protection. Doing so will ultimately be futile.
China has achieved economic leaps through continuous opening-up, and it will
continue to move forward firmly on this path in the future. As the two largest
economies in the world, China and the US should also work together to maintain
the stability of the global industrial chain and promote global economic growth
on the basis of mutual respect and equal benefits. We urge the US government to
recognize the achievements of China's manufacturing industry, respect the rules
and direction of globalization, and stop wielding the "Section 301"
stick recklessly. This could be the first step toward a more constructive
relationship.
jueves, 18 de abril de 2024
Why I was banned from Germany
In the name of protecting Israel’s security, the
German government has sunk to farcical new authoritarian lows.
17 April 2024
https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany-yanis-varoufakis-israel-palestine
As I write these lines, I am banned not only from
stepping on German soil but, remarkably, also from connecting via video link to
any event in Germany. Why?
The solace of solidarity
On 8 October, a day after Hamas attacked Israel, I was
in Berlin and found out about the previous day’s events during a TV interview.
To the question “Do you condemn Hamas?” I replied:
“I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the
perpetrator or the victim. What I do not condemn is armed resistance to an
apartheid system designed as part of a slow-burning, but inexorable, ethnic
cleansing programme. As a European, it is important to refrain from condemning
either the Israelis or the Palestinians when it is us, Europeans,
who have caused this never-ending tragedy: after practising rabid anti-Semitism
for centuries, leading up to the uniquely vile Holocaust, we have been
complicit for decades with the slow genocide of Palestinians, as if two wrongs
make one right.”
Days later I was disinvited by Vienna’s Academy of
Fine Arts from delivering the prestigious Otto Wagner Lecture. Then, on 16
February, at Berlin’s Babylon theatre, it was the premier for In the
Eye of the Storm: The Political Odyssey of Yanis Varoufakis, a six-part
documentary by the British film-maker and philosopher Raoul Martinez. The
police leaned heavily on the Babylon’s proprietor to cancel the event. Asked
for their reasons, the authorities simply replied: “Varoufakis.” Defiantly,
Babylon’s Jewish proprietor told the police that he wouldn’t budge. It was
truly touching to see him, along with Jewish, Palestinian and German supporters, stand together in solidarity and
prevent the police from raiding the event.
The age of Staatsräson
A month ago, I received an email from my German
publisher, Verlag Antje Kunstmann. It warned me that my participation in the
Palestine Congress, an event scheduled to take place on the weekend of 13-14
April, and which had been organised by my political party in Germany (MeRA25)
along with Germany’s Jewish Voice for Peace, would “overshadow” my next book’s
reception in Germany. My association with a publisher that had issued six of my
books in Germany over a dozen years came to a sad end.
As the body count in Gaza mounted and hearings at the
International Court of Justice challenged Germany’s official policy of Staatsräson (Israel’s
security is Germany’s raison d’être), the authorities began to lash
out. The case of my colleague Iris Hefets is exemplary. Iris, an Israeli
psychoanalyst in Berlin, was arrested on charges of anti-Semitism for walking
alone on the street with a placard reading: “As an Israeli and as a Jew, stop
the genocide in Gaza.”
Behind police lines
On 12 April, Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the
British-Palestinian rector of the University of Glasgow, was prevented from
entering Germany to join us at the Palestine Congress. He was deported to the
UK after hours of interrogation at the airport. Meanwhile, 2,500 police
mobilised outside the event and harassed attendees. A young Jewish activist
holding a placard with the words “Jews against genocide” was arrested. As he
was led away, only half-jokingly, he asked the policemen: “Would it have been
OK if it read ‘Jews support genocide?’”
Our congress started with only the fraction of
attendees who managed to get through police lines. Shortly before I was due to
address the audience via video link, the police invaded the auditorium, grabbed
the microphones and tore out the wires of the live-streaming equipment. I
recorded the speech I was unable to deliver and posted it on my personal blog.
The authorities were not pleased.
On Saturday 13 April, I was issued a Betätigungsverbot –
a ban on any political activity that has been used only a few times against
Islamic State operatives. Our lawyers reminded the authorities that, besides
being an EU citizen, in 2019 I was a candidate in Germany for the European
Parliament, winning a respectable 135,000 votes. After a long, embarrassed
silence, the Betätigungsverbot was replaced with an Einreiseverbot –
a “softer” entry ban. To this day, the German authorities have refused my
requests for a written statement on their rationale.
Draconian Deutschland
It is clear that Germany’s Staatsräson is
not about protecting Jews. It is about protecting the right of Israel to commit
any war crime of its choice. It is also a sad reflection on a waning economic
power that is embracing an increasingly farcical authoritarianism.