Iran Races to Clinch Oil Deals Before Donald Trump Takes Office

By THOMAS ERDBRINK and CLIFFORD KRAUSSDEC. 8, 2016 nytimes.com

TEHRAN — President Hassan Rouhani of Iran is racing to sign as many oildeals with Western companies as he can before hard-liners at home and President-elect Donald J. Trump have a chance to return the Mideast country to cultural and economic isolation.

At the same time, Iran is in a battle with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers to reclaim its position as one of the world’s leading oil exporters, a spot it lost during the years of international sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s oil industry, the lifeblood of its economy, was devastated by the cumulative impact of the nuclear sanctions, which halved petroleum exports and left the country ostracized economically.

The international nuclear agreement that lifted those sanctions nearly a year ago, one of the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiatives, has enabled Iran to partly recover. But Mr. Trump has warned that he may dismantle the deal, a threat that has injected new urgency into Iran’s push to build up its oil industry before Mr. Trump takes power next month.

A provisional agreement this week with Royal Dutch Shell to develop two of the country’s largest oil fields is the latest sign of interest in Iran from international energy companies. Over the last four weeks, Tehran has negotiated similar agreements with the oil field services giant Schlumberger and companies from China, Norway, Thailand and Poland.

The deals, if completed, would bring much-needed expertise and foreign investment. Just as important, though, the agreements could provide a lifeline to the rest of the world, experts say, cementing relations with a number of European and Asian countries. That, they say, could provide an insurance policy of sorts against any punitive actions taken next year by the Trump administration and the Republican-dominated Congress.

Few Iranian officials like to acknowledge their country’s vulnerability, insisting it is immune to outside pressures. But the election of Mr. Trump and his selection of a national security team that views Iran as a major threat in the Middle East seems at the least certain to usher in a new period of tensions, and could ultimately threaten Iran’s efforts to rejoin the global economy.

“Our officials are in a rush to sign contracts with big oil companies in order to have leverage when Trump enters the White House,” said Saeed Laylaz, an economist with close ties to the government of Mr. Rouhani. The Iranian president came to power promising to end Iran’s isolation and revive its economy, so the advent of a Trump presidency poses a dire threat to his political future.

Mr. Laylaz pointed out that most European energy giants had been present in Iran for decades and had left only after sanctions, now lifted, were imposed during the Obama administration. “Just as in the past, we need them back here, also to make sure we are not isolated,” he said of the Europeans.

Analysts noted that the deals were only memorandums of understanding, not hard contracts. But they stressed that the agreements also indicated a strong desire by Western and Asian energy companies to send a message to Washington as they return to Iran, once the world’s second-largest exporter of oil.

“It seems the big oil and gas companies in Europe are determined to show Mr. Trump that they are going to make deals with Iran anyway,” said Reza Zandi, an Iranian journalist and analyst who specializes in the oil and gas industries. “These are important signals to America,” he added.

Mr. Zandi said it was not hard to see why the oil companies were so eager to return to Iran. “We need $40 billion in investment in the oil and gas sector each year,” he said, “and we don’t have such resources inside the country.”

Mr. Rouhani and his government of technocrats are fighting their oil battle on two fronts. Domestically, they face pressure from hard-liners who have been closely scrutinizing the oil contracts, seeking anything that could undermine Iran’s independence and trying to steer them to companies under their control.

But Iran’s oil minister, Bijan Namdar Zangeneh, told the semiofficial news agency Fars in November that only foreign companies had the ability and capital to modernize Iran’s crumbling oil and gas sector. “We need technology, including the management technology that allows a project to come into operation in four years rather than in 12 years,” he said. “And above all, we need the money.”

Iran also faces a struggle to rebuild its oil exports. Growing production has allowed Iran in recent months to recover many of the Asian and European markets that it lost to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers during the years when sanctions were in effect. And as Iran effectively flexes its muscles in OPEC for the first time since the sanctions were lifted in January, its goal is not only to protect its newfound gains but also to expand its markets, pitting it directly against its bitter sectarian rival, Saudi Arabia.

Further production and export expansion, however, will require more foreign investment.

The new wave of agreements with Iran, most of which remain provisional, began on Nov. 8, the day of Mr. Trump’s victory, when Total, a French company, became the first Western energy company to negotiate a deal to develop and produce natural gas from a section of a giant Persian Gulf gas field. Total leads a consortium that includes the China National Petroleum Corporation and Petropars, a subsidiary of the Iranian state-run oil company, in the $4.8 billion project. The provisional agreement is expected to be completed early next year.

“They are signing before Trump does something,” said Dragan Vuckovic, president of Mediterranean International, a Texas-based oil services company that works in North Africa and the Middle East. “The Iranians will give the Europeans favorable terms because of Trump. They want to send a message to Trump that if you try to cancel this agreement, we will just go to the Europeans.”

Iran needs foreign capital and technical expertise to reach its immediate goal of returning to its 2011 oil production level of 4.3 million barrels a day, reversing a drop that began even before sanctions were imposed. Many Iranian fields are old and in decline, requiring sophisticated and expensive redrilling of wells and injections of water and carbon dioxide to coax more oil from the ground.

Since oil export sanctions were lifted, Iran’s production has risen almost a third, to about 3.7 million barrels a day, with minimal foreign help. By reaching agreements with Total and Shell, Tehran now has the ambitious goal of reaching production levels of 4.8 million barrels a day by 2021, which would give it added clout in OPEC and the ability to go head-to-head with Saudi Arabia in competing for growing Asian markets, particularly in India.

In past decades, Iran has been aggressive in urging other OPEC members to use their position to manipulate the market for higher prices, while Saudi Arabia has often argued for caution. Saudi Arabia has held the upper hand in recent years, but Iran was a major player at the latest OPEC meeting, as the cartel decided to cut production for the first time in eight years.

Iran wants to ramp up production at the very moment that Saudi Arabia wants to cut output to lift prices. Using its recovered production leverage, Iran agreed to go along with the decision to collectively cut 1.2 million barrels a day of production only when the other members conceded to its demands that it be allowed to increase production by about 90,000 barrels a day next year.

It remains to be seen whether the agreement to scale back production, not slated to take effect until January, will hold up. Similar agreements among OPEC members in the past have crumbled in the face of widespread cheating and a lack of an enforcement mechanism. The agreement is also contingent on cooperation from a handful of non-OPEC producers, particularly Russia, which is notoriously unreliable in such matters, said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an energy economist who served in the Ford and Carter administrations.

“There is no one who will concede market share, and so there is no way to come to an enforceable agreement,” Mr. Verleger said.

But just the fact that Iran was able to play a leading role at the OPEC meeting is a sign that its leaders are determined to return to world markets — as long as they are not stymied once again by geopolitical developments.

Thomas Erdbrink reported from Tehran, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.

Donald Trump Pentagon Pick Mattis Made Nearly $1,000,000 On Board Of Defense Contractor

BY AVI ASHER-SCHAPIRO AND DAVID SIROTA

ON 12/02/16 Ibtimes.com

In his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned that for security and liberty to prosper together, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Fifty-five years later, a new president is planning to have his Pentagon run by a top official at one of the world’s largest defense contractors. President-elect Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will appoint retired General James Mattis as the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Not only would Mattis be the first general to hold the traditionally civilian position, he would move into the job directly from his position helping to run General Dynamics — a $30-billion colossus that heavily relies on Pentagon contracts overseen by the Defense Secretary.

Mattis is currently listed as one of 13 independent directors of the company. Financial filings reviewed by International Business Times show that since taking the position in 2013, Mattis has been paid $594,369 by General Dynamics, and has amassed more than $900,000 worth of company stock. While on the General Dynamics board, Mattis testified before Congress, where he called caps on defense spending — known as the sequestration— a national security threat. “No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving,” he said during the 2015 hearing.

Some legislators have already questioned the legality of a military official being appointed to a traditionally civilian position. Meanwhile, ethics experts interviewed by IBT say Mattis’ link to General Dynamics poses major conflict-of-interest questions for a Defense Department that annually directs more than $250 billion worth of spending to private military contractors. “General Dynamics could try to use this relationships to get access into the Pentagon,” Richard W. Painter, the former chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, told IBT. “I am very worried about this.”

General Dynamics and the Trump transition team declined to comment.

Over the last few years, lawmakers and watchdog groups have raised alarms about what they say is a corrupting revolving-door culture between the Pentagon and private industry. In 2008, a survey conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 2,435 former generals, senior executives and acquisition officers later went to work for 52 different major defense contractors. More than 400 of those military figures, the GAO found, took private sector jobs where they competed for specific Pentagon contracts that they previously oversaw.

In the case of Mattis and General Dynamics, the potential conflicts could reach a level “never seen before in the modern era,” said William Hartung, the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. .“You’d have to go back to Eisenhower, who appointed the head of General Electric — then a major defense contractor — to be secretary of defense.”

General Dynamics is not just any run-of-the-mill weapons manufacturer that a defense secretary might easily avoid in the job. It routinely ranks among the top five Pentagon contractors and reliably receives over $10 billion a year in deals. The company offers a full spectrum of services to the Pentagon, from information technology support to retrofitting armored combat vehicles. It is also the main exporter of tanks abroad to U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt — deals that will rely upon approvals from the incoming Trump administration.

As secretary of defense, Mattis could oversee lucrative new General Dynamics deals: The company has won a number of contracts to build the $100 billion replacement fleet for the Ohio class nuclear submarines. Disagreement over how many submarines will be built and how much each unit should cost has already generated major friction among lawmakers, the Pentagon and watchdogs.

General Dynamics’ business model relies on a significant investment in lobbying. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the company has spent over $100 million pushing its interests in Washington over the last decade. And filing reports show that it is consistently among the top three contractors directly lobbying the Department of Defense.

With Mattis at the head of the Pentagon, his former employer’s business interests could be a priority, said Hartung, who is now the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

“It's got to be reassuring to them that a former board member will be running the Pentagon,” he told IBT. “The possibility of Mattis intervening on their behalf if one of their programs gets into trouble is always there.”  

There are some provisions in place to guard against unethical behavior. Painter, the former Bush administration ethics official, says conflicts laws will require Matthis to sell his holdings in the company.  With Mattis on the board, General Dynamic’s stock price has nearly tripled, and he will be able to take advantage of a tax loophole that allows appointees to postpone capital gains tax when selling stocks to comply with conflict of interest rules.

Painter expects Mattis will be required to recuse himself from any decisions involving General Dynamics for one year. But those working directly below Mattis in the Pentagon hierarchy would have no such prohibition. And there’s nothing to stop Mattis from staying in close contact with his former employer — even as it seeks contracts from a Mattis-run Pentagon. “I’d like him to promise to cease contact as well,” Painter said. “But the law doesn’t extend that far.”

Concerned about corporate-military crossover, Congress in 2008 tasked the Pentagon with keeping a database to track the revolving door. Six years later, though, an Inspector General report found that the Pentagon failed to update its database.

“We really think it’s become corrosive how many senior military officers go to work for defense contractors,” Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, told IBT.

The revolving door, Smithberger said, isn’t just a question of optics: It promotes bad policy decisions. She highlighted a number of examples, including the infamous case of Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, who fought for a flawed missile defense system furnished by Raytheon — and then joined the Raytheon board.

Mattis has also mixed business interests with his military career. Emails disclosed by the Washington Post Friday show that in 2012, a year before Mattis left the military, he personally intervened to help the controversial blood-testing company Theranos secure approval for military field tests. After he left the Pentagon, Mattis joined the Theranos board.

“So he has not only had potential conflicts, he has acted on behalf of a firm that he later received compensation from — a clear conflict, in my opinion,” Hartung said. “This does not bode well for his treatment of weapons contractors as secretary of defense.”

Trump campaigned on a pledge to tighten federal ethics rules and slow down the revolving door between government and lobbying firms. As an executive branch employee in a Trump administration, Mattis will be obligated to sign an ethics agreement that the federal Office of Government Ethics approves.

Painter, though, said those safeguards shouldn’t reassure Americans concerned about undue corporate influence on government:  “Can someone in the White House tell him with a straight face to recuse himself, with Trump sitting on top of his own business organization?”

ENTREVISTA A LÓPEZ OBRADOR

Hoy Televisa le abrió un espacio al dirigente de MORENA[1], Andrés Manuel López Obrador, en el noticiero matutino de Carlos Loret de Mola.

Habiendo sido Televisa durante más de 10 años uno de los principales vehículos de las élites depredadoras y de la subclase política corrupta para atacar y demonizar a López Obrador, llama la atención que ahora le haya dedicado casi una hora al principal dirigente opositor y crítico del actual y los anteriores gobiernos neoliberales.

Esto indica que dichas élites están seriamente preocupadas por lo que está aconteciendo en el mundo, y especialmente en los Estados Unidos, con el ascenso de movimientos y partidos principalmente de derecha y ultraderecha, que cuestionan la globalización y buena parte de la política económica neoliberal que durante más de 35 años ha devastado a la mayor parte de los países del mundo.

Si bien López Obrador viene a ser una vertiente crítica de ese modelo desde la izquierda del espectro político-ideológico (vertiente que ha venido retrocediendo en los últimos tres años en América Latina, ante el embate de las élites depredadoras de la región y de los Estados Unidos), que irónicamente viene en ascenso en México, que ha sido el bastión principal del neoliberalismo en el subcontinente, en las últimas tres décadas.

El triunfo de Trump en Estados Unidos y el peligro que implica para el modelo de sumisión de México a las élites globalizantes de Washington y Nueva York, ha puesto a las élites depredadoras en México ante la posibilidad de que su principal apoyo en el mantenimiento de ese modelo en nuestro país, esto es el gobierno y los capitalistas estadounidenses, se convierta ahora en la principal amenaza.

En este sentido, con toda la debilidad del gobierno peñista y su probada ineficacia, es posible que la supuesta “renegociación” del Tratado de Libre Comercio resulte en elevados costos para las élites depredadoras mexicanas; y al mismo tiempo, se presente una situación caótica con la deportación de millones de mexicanos (y de personas de otras nacionalidades) a nuestro país, agudizando el desempleo, la inseguridad, la pobreza y las protestas sociales.

Así, prefieren comenzar a tender puentes (o en su caso “trampas”) con quien consideran el principal contendiente (y en muchas encuestas, el puntero), para las próximas elecciones presidenciales del 2018.

Quisieran “amarrar” en diferentes compromisos a López Obrador, como por ejemplo: se le preguntó si estaría de acuerdo en defender el Tratado de Libre Comercio ante Trump, y señaló que sí; si apoyaría a Peña Nieto para defender a México y a los mexicanos ante Trump, y también señaló que sí; y también indicó que si bien habrá castigos para los corruptos de gobiernos anteriores, su objetivo principal es evitar la corrupción, acabarla por completo, más que ponerse a perseguir a los corruptos de los gobiernos neoliberales.

Si bien López Obrador manifestó reiteradamente que existe la mafia del poder, dirigida por Carlos Salinas, que ha evitado su llegada a la presidencia mediante fraudes electorales; y que el principal objetivo de esta mafia es enriquecerse mediante la corrupción, ya no subrayó las injusticias propias del modelo económico neoliberal, ni tampoco atacó directamente a los oligarcas depredadores. Se concentró más en reiterar que la corrupción (que calcula en alrededor de 500 mil millones de pesos al año), es el principal problema del país; y erradicándola (no disminuyéndola, sino eliminándola de plano), logrará impulsar el crecimiento económico y la justicia social en México.

Asimismo, si bien no defendió abiertamente a Peña Nieto, sí señaló que la mafia del poder, después de haberlo “inflado” e impulsado a la presidencia, una vez que ya les dejó de ser útil, lo ha convertido en el “chivo expiatorio” de todos los males del país.

Lo que se puede advertir es que las élites depredadoras están explorando la posibilidad de establecer algún tipo de acuerdo con López Obrador, en el sentido de que, en caso de que llegue a la presidencia (algo que de todas formas van a tratar de evitar a como dé lugar), mantenga en su esencia el modelo económico neoliberal; no castigue a la mayoría de los corruptos de la subclase política; y no cambie la esencia del sistema político (por ejemplo, convertirlo en un sistema parlamentario; o establecer la reelección presidencial); a cambio de lo cual esas élites ya no obstaculizarían su llegada a la presidencia y no se opondrían a un programa de combate a la corrupción, siempre y cuando no los toque a ellos.

La realidad es que López Obrador está muy consciente de que tiene que aparentar que ha moderado su oposición al neoliberalismo, y que incluso se podría convertir en su vocero ante Trump, con tal de que por tercera vez, no le roben las elecciones presidenciales.

Es un juego de espejos entre las élites depredadoras (y sus “minions” de la subclase política corrupta), con López Obrador. Cada uno está tratando de convencer-engañar al otro, sin que en esencia ninguno abandone su posición real respecto al país (las élites seguir depredándolo; López Obrador intentar salvarlo).

En lo que López Obrador se vio realmente ingenuo fue en su comentario sobre Trump, afirmando que negociaría con él para “convencerlo” de que lo mejor para ambos países es la cooperación para el desarrollo, y que a Estados Unidos le conviene que México se desarrolle, pues así habrá trabajo para los mexicanos y ya no tendrán que emigrar. Con Trump los “convencimientos” no valen, y si no lo creen, al tiempo.

Más relevante fue su afirmación de que México debe desligarse en materia militar y de seguridad de los Estados Unidos, pues eso sólo desvía recursos del desarrollo y no aporta nada al país.

Así también, su reiteración de que fue un grave error inmiscuirse en las elecciones de Estados Unidos, reafirmando el valor de los principios de no intervención y autodeterminación de los pueblos, implicaría que su eventual gobierno recuperará los principios tradicionales de la política exterior mexicana.

Por supuesto, Loret de Mola intentó entramparlo con el asunto de la muerte de Fidel Castro y de Cuba, haciéndolo pasar como un admirador de la “dictadura cubana”, mientras que López Obrador destacó la dignidad y el carácter de Castro para mantener la soberanía de la isla, ante los embates de los Estados Unidos.

López Obrador tendrá que desarrollar una muy fina estrategia de ahora hasta las elecciones del 2018, pues la élite depredadora está cambiando de estrategia, y en vez de intentar acorralarlo y demonizarlo (que ya vieron que les puede resultar contraproducente, como les pasó a las élites en Estados Unidos con Trump), van a intentar comprometer a López Obrador con sus prioridades; y si no pueden hacerlo, entonces tenderle trampas y sobre exponerlo en los medios de comunicación, para saturar al público con su imagen y su no muy articulada forma de hablar, para de esa forma desgastarlo.

Ojalá López Obrador tenga los asesores y el equipo adecuados para contrarrestar estas estrategias, de unas élites depredadoras cada vez más apanicadas y temerosas de que su poder omnímodo pueda resultar resquebrajado en las elecciones del 2018.

---

[1] Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional. http://morena.si/

México es el tercer país más peligroso del mundo

La violencia desatada por el crimen organizado en México supera ya a países como Siria e Iraq, dejando pérdidas cercanas a los 134 mil millones de dólares.

 05/12/2016huingtonpost.com.mx
Manuel Hernández Borbolla 

México es hoy el tercer país más peligroso del mundo, superando a países en guerra como Iraq y Siria, debido a la violencia generada por el crimen organizado.

Según el Índice Global de Criminalidad 2016, desarrollado por la consultora británica Verisk Maplecroft, Afganistán encabeza la lista de los países más peligroso del mundo, seguido de Guatemala, México, Iraq y Siria. Más abajo siguen Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Somalia y Paquistán.

El informe señala que la violencia generada por los cárteles de la droga en México ha generado una ola delictiva en que el secuestro, el robo, la extorsión y el asesinato, sumado a un débil Estado de derecho, genera pérdidas multimillonarias.

De este modo, la investigación desarrollada en 198 países sugiere que México es incluso más peligroso que países devastados por conflictos bélicos de gran tamaño como la guerra civil en Siria o la lucha entre el gobierno de Iraq y el Estado Islámico por el control del territorio.

"En México y Centroamérica, Verisk Maplecroft identifica la prevalencia de las organizaciones de narcotraficantes como el principal motor de la delincuencia, que se estima que costará a estos países hasta 200 mil millones de dólares al año. La presencia generalizada de cárteles de la droga ha estimulado algunos de los niveles más altos del mundo de delitos violentos, ya que los grupos compiten por el territorio y el control de las rutas de transporte de drogas a los consumidores de las economías desarrolladas", señala el informe.

En ninguna parte esto es más visible que en la segunda mayor economía de América Latina, México, donde el costo de la violencia se estimó en 134 mil millones de dólares en 2015. La tasa de homicidios del país de 17 por cada 100 mil habitantes en 2015 lo ubica entre los 25 primeros lugares, mientras que ha habido más de 26 mil desapariciones forzadas desde 2007", añade el documento.

La consultora también señala que los niveles de violencia que padece México no pueden entenderse sin una crisis institucional derivada de un Estado de derecho débil y el sometimiento del gobierno a los intereses de los grupos criminales.

"La proporción abrumadora de la delincuencia en México se centra en el altamente lucrativo tráfico de drogas, que también ha tenido serias consecuencias para el Estado de derecho, debido a la coerción del gobierno, el poder judicial y las fuerzas de policía locales por las poderosas organizaciones de narcotraficantes", añade la consultora.

Aún cuando en su cuarto informe de gobierno, el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto presumió una baja delictiva durante 2015, el estudio internacional destaca el repunte de asesinatos registrado en el último año, situación que podría recrudecerse aún más debido a los recortes presupuestales previstos en materia de seguridad pública para 2017.

"Los tempranos avances de seguridad del presidente Peña Nieto se han desenvuelto y las tasas de homicidios han comenzado a subir una vez más", afirma Grant Sunderland, analista de Verisk Maplecroft en México.

"Con las fuerzas de seguridad que enfrentan recortes presupuestales, es probable que se produzca un deterioro del entorno general de seguridad, dejando a los inversores expuestos a riesgos como la extorsión, el robo y potencialmente el secuestro de personal", añade el experto.

Además de México y Guatemala, otros países latinoamericanos como El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela y Honduras figuran entre los 13 países clasificados como 'riesgo extremo', convirtiendo a América Latina en la región más peligrosa del mundo a la hora de sufrir un delito con violencia.

TRUMP ENTRARÁ EN CONFLICTO CON GRAN PARTE DEL MUNDO

Donald Trump y su gabinete conformado por representantes de grandes negocios, de Wall Street y del complejo militar industrial, han demostrado que su arrogancia y desconocimiento de la política internacional, van a provocar conflictos con aliados y enemigos por igual, una vez que el empresario de bienes raíces tome posesión el próximo 20 de enero.

En materia comercial está claro que Trump va a tratar de imponer a México condiciones tan humillantes para “renegociar” el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (NAFTA), incluyendo el pago del muro fronterizo (como ya lo dijo el vicepresidente electo Mike Pence), que lo más probable es que dicho tratado no sobreviva ni los primeros seis meses del próximo año; a menos que el servil, débil y vasallo gobierno de Peña acepte todo lo que se le exija (lo que muy bien puede suceder, considerando que Guajardo en Economía es un empleado de las trasnacionales; Ruiz Massieu es la más inexperta e ineficaz canciller que ha tenido México en décadas; y a Meade y al consejero “áulico” Videgaray, sólo les interesa quedar bien con sus amos de Wall Street, la Reserva Federal y el Tesoro de Estados Unidos).

Con China está claro que Trump desea iniciar una guerra comercial, aduciendo que el gigante asiático “manipula” el valor de su moneda, para obtener un gigantesco superávit comercial con Estados Unidos; sin tomar en cuenta que la revaluación del dólar ante el resto de monedas del mundo, ha sido impulsada por su propia elección el pasado 8 de noviembre, y en ello nada ha tenido que ver, en los últimos meses al menos, el banco central chino.

Igualmente, su rechazo a que se ratifique el Acuerdo Transpacífico va a llevar a desencuentros con las otras economías asiáticas importantes, como Japón, Corea del Sur, Singapur, etc.

Todavía no ha dicho nada la entrante administración estadounidense sobre el enorme déficit comercial que tiene Estados Unidos con la Unión Europea, ni sobre el futuro que tendrán las negociaciones sobre el Acuerdo de Inversión y Comercio con los países que conforman dicha organización.

En lo que respecta a temas de seguridad y militares, la exigencia de que tanto los miembros de la OTAN, como Japón y Corea del Sur contribuyan con más recursos económicos para su defensa y para cumplir con sus responsabilidades militares[1], tendrá que aterrizar en cifras y acciones concretas, que bien puede llevar a desencuentros entre Washington y sus aliados, si estos últimos no alcanzan las expectativas que la administración Trump tenga en ese aspecto.

Es casi seguro que el aumento de gasto militar que ha prometido Trump vaya dirigido en buena medida a seguir fortaleciendo la presencia estadounidense en el Mar del Sur de China, pues los generales y asesores de seguridad que ha nombrado Trump, están más que comprometidos con la política de evitar que China amplíe su zona de influencia.

Cómo se complementará esto con la exigencia a los aliados asiáticos para que asuman una mayor responsabilidad en esta tarea, aún no parece claro; y bien podría generar contradicciones dentro del propio equipo de Trump.

En este sentido, cobra especial relevancia el que Trump esté abriendo canales de comunicación con Taiwán, rompiendo con ello la política oficial de Washington, que desde 1979 sólo reconoce al gobierno de Beijing como el representante del pueblo chino.

Si como lo han afirmado algunos miembros del equipo de transición de Trump, esto tiene como objetivo “presionar” a China para que ceda en materia comercial, en sus ambiciones en el Mar del Sur de China y para que se comprometa a presionar a Corea del Norte en el tema de su armamento nuclear, todo parece indicar que lo que van a lograr va  a ser reiniciar una “guerra fría” con Beijing, cuando supuestamente desean bajarle el tono a su confrontación con Moscú.

Y la realidad es que el establecimiento político-militar estadounidense no tiene ningún interés en ponerse de acuerdo con Putin respecto a Siria y Ucrania; muy por el contrario, desean mantener la presión sobre Moscú[2], y para el efecto seguramente van a boicotear las iniciativas de Trump en ese sentido, especialmente si logran colocar a uno de los suyos como secretario de Estado (especialmente Bolton, pero también Romney, Petraeus y Giuliani,  que se consideran “anti Rusia” y anti Putin).

En el caso del Medio Oriente ya es un hecho que se va a reiniciar la guerra no declarada contra Irán; al menos Estados Unidos se va a retirar del acuerdo P5+1, y es posible que puedan convencer a Gran Bretaña, Francia y Alemania; y con todo ello, aumenta la posibilidad de que Israel, Arabia Saudita, las petromonarquías del Golfo y los neoconservadores logren su objetivo de iniciar acciones militares contra Teherán, con lo que el sueño trumpiano de retirarse del Medio Oriente quedará sólo como una ilusión[3].

Así también, en Siria e Irak, si bien Trump desea coordinarse con Rusia para acabar al Estado Islámico, y en principio ha dicho que ya no desea seguir apoyando a los “rebeldes” que combaten al régimen de Bashar el Assad, la realidad es que está rodeado de “halcones” que desean justamente seguir con dicha política, como Flynn (asesor Seguridad Nacional), Pompeo (CIA) y Mattis (Pentágono), por lo que la realidad es que no va a poder salir de ese pantano, y los gastos y las muertes de estadounidenses seguirán acumulándose.

Y qué decir sobre Cuba, pues Trump ya anunció que si el gobierno de Raúl Castro no hace los cambios políticos que le demanda Washington (prácticamente que le entregue el poder a los cubanos de Miami), cancelará todas las medidas de distensión impulsadas por Obama.

Aún no ha dicho nada sobre Venezuela, pero dada la influencia que los cubano-americanos (Cruz, Rubio, Ros-Lehtinen) tienen en el Partido Republicano y su alianza con los sectores golpistas de Venezuela, es muy factible que la presión sobre el gobierno de Maduro se intensifique.

En suma, la presidencia Trump va a generar más problemas internacionales de los que ya existen, y las previsiones de que no sería tan intervencionista, ni deseosa de convertirse en el “policía del mundo” bien pueden venirse abajo muy pronto, dados los indicios que ha mostrado Trump y los próximos miembros de su gabinete.

---

[1] Lo mismo ha dicho respecto de Arabia Saudita y las petromonarquías del Golfo; pero ni por equivocación ha hecho referencia a que Israel asuma mayores costos en su defensa. Por el contrario, ahora se le van a dar 3800 millones de dólares al año; más otros cientos de millones más, cuando así lo requiera Tel Aviv.

[2] Despite then-candidate Trump’s dismissal of U.S. intelligence agencies assessment of Russian hacking of the Democratic party’s email, and his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Pentagon still sees Russia as Washington’s biggest military rival, and the only true existential threat facing the country.

That was on full display over the weekend at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Reagan library in California, where Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford said that Russia’s goal to undermine NATO is a dangerous game, and Russian forces “are operating with a frequency and in places that we haven't seen for decades," in places like Syria, Ukraine, Crimea, and elsewhere, and have stepped up air attacks on eastern Aleppo.

"Russia is the No. 1 threat to the United States,” Air Force Secretary Deborah James told Reuters in an interview. The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, also said that Russian activities have changed how the Pentagon has constructed it budgets in 2017 and beyond, as "their behavior has caused us...to rethink the balance of capabilities that we're going to need.” www.foreignpolicy.com

[3] A lo que hay que añadir la política de prohibir la entrada de musulmanes de los países “con presencia de terrorismo”, lo que va a provocar serias tensiones con los “aliados” musulmanes del Mefio Oriente.

Public backs Putin to get through the worst

Source:Global Times Published: 2016/12/2 0:03:39

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual state of the nation address on Thursday. He mostly focused on Russia's internal affairs with abundant confidence, and talked about international relations in a level-headed and composed manner. He hailed Russia's relationship with China as a role model for international relations in general. He said Moscow wanted to get on with the new US administration and was looking to make friends rather than enemies.

While many doubt that Russia is compelled to get along with China under Western pressure, Putin said Russia's active Eastern policy is motivated by "long-term national interests and trends of global development."

Despite sanctions imposed by the West, Russia seems to have gone through the hardest times. The Russian economy still sees a negative growth in 2016, but smaller in scale. It has become the biggest exporter of wheat this year and most importantly, oil prices have stabilized around $40-50 a barrel.

Western suppression and economic hardships didn't break Russia's solidarity, and Putin's approval rating has stayed high. In September's legislative elections, his United Russia party won a record number of seats. Most Russians attribute the plight of Russia to Western hostility, not Putin.  

Russia enjoys more social solidarity than Western countries, which enables Putin to make a confident performance on the international stage. He deserves plaudits for dealing with the Syrian crisis this year and bettering Russia-Turkey ties. Moscow is accumulating its initiatives in coping with the West. As Donald Trump is set to take office, it is widely considered that US-Russia relations will ease somewhat.

Russia has performed excellently in handling the enormous pressure on it in the past three years, and showed how a big power can maintain social cohesion when undergoing huge pressure that often translates into domestic difficulties.

In 2014, Russia's relations with the West dropped to the lowest ebb due to the Ukraine crisis and it was confronted with a gruesome economy due to the oil price plunge. Many predicted that Putin would lose his high support rate and protests would arise, destabilizing his governance foundation. But the reality was the opposite. What Russia underwent in the wake of the Soviet Union collapse didn't recur. The country that has been opened up and diversified has never stopped supporting Putin. This defeated the Western attempt to crush Russia through sanctions and isolation.

This again shows the character of the Russian nation and Putin's correct judgment about the situation and Russia's path. In the times of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union had a better foundation than today's Russia, but it eventually fell into chaos due to the wrong path the country took.

It's no easy task for Russia to rise again and realize full-fledged modernization. The past decade's development may have mapped out the trajectory of Russia's future. But more importantly, Russia has grown stronger and can secure a good livelihood for its people. Having gone through the crisis, Russia has gained a firm foothold that enables it to thrive in the future. 

Fake News and War Party Lies

by Patrick J. Buchanan, December 02, 2016

Antiwar.com

"I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler’s government – by the planners of the New World Order," FDR told the nation in his Navy Day radio address of Oct. 27, 1941.

"It is a map of South America as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. The geographical experts of Berlin, however, have ruthlessly obliterated all the existing boundary lines … bringing the whole continent under their domination," said Roosevelt. "This map makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States as well."

Our leader had another terrifying secret document, "made in Germany by Hitler’s government. …

"It is a plan to abolish all existing religions – Protestant, Catholic, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish alike. … In the place of the churches of our civilization, there is to be set up an international Nazi Church…

"In the place of the Bible, the words of ‘Mein Kampf’ will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols – the swastika and the naked sword. … A god of blood and iron will take the place of the God of love and mercy."

The source of these astounding secret Nazi plans?

They were forgeries by British agents in New York operating under William Stephenson, Churchill’s "Man Called Intrepid," whose assignment was to do whatever necessary to bring the U.S. into Britain’s war.

FDR began his address by describing two German submarine attacks on U.S. destroyers Greer and Kearny, the later of which had been torpedoed with a loss of 11 American lives.

Said FDR: "We have wished to avoid shooting. But the shooting has started. And history has recorded who fired the first shot."

The truth: Greer and Kearny had been tracking German subs for British planes dropping depth charges.

It was FDR who desperately wanted war with Germany, while, for all his crimes, Hitler desperately wanted to avoid war with the United States.

Said Cong. Clare Boothe Luce, FDR "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it."

By late 1941, most Americans still wanted to stay out of the war. They believed "lying British propaganda" about Belgian babies being tossed around on German bayonets had sucked us into World War I, from which the British Empire had benefited mightily.

What brings these episodes to mind is the wave of indignation sweeping this capital over "fake news" allegedly created by Vladimir Putin’s old KGB comrades, and regurgitated by U.S. individuals, websites and magazines that are anti-interventionist and anti-war.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman says the "propaganda and disinformation threat" against America is real, and we must "counter and combat it." Congress is working up a $160 million State Department program.

Now, Americans should be on guard against "fake news" and foreign meddling in U.S. elections.

Yet it is often our own allies, like the Brits, and our own leaders who mislead and lie us into unnecessary wars. And is not meddling in the internal affairs, including the elections, of regimes we do not like, pretty much the job description of the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy?

History suggests it is our own War Party that bears watching.

Consider Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Who misled, deceived, and lied about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the "fake news" that sucked us into one of our country’s greatest strategic blunders?

Who lied for years about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, which almost dragged us into a war, before all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies debunked that propaganda in 2007 and 2011?

Yet, there are those, here and abroad, who insist that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Their goal: war with Iran.

Were we told the whole truth about the August 1964 incident involving North Vietnamese gunboats and U.S. destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, which stampeded Congress into voting a near-unanimous resolution that led us into an eight-year war in Southeast Asia?

One can go back deeper into American history.

Cong. Abe Lincoln disbelieved in President Polk’s claim that the Mexican army had crossed the Rio Grande and "shed American blood upon American soil." In his "spot" resolution, Lincoln demanded to know the exact spot where the atrocity had occurred that resulted in a U.S. army marching to Mexico City and relieving Mexico of half of her country.

Was Assistant Navy Secretary Theodore Roosevelt telling us the truth when he said of our blasted battleship in Havana harbor, "The Maine was sunk by an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards"?

No one ever proved that the Spanish caused the explosion.

Yet America got out of his war what T.R. wanted – Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, an empire of our own.

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

So said Winston Churchill, the grandmaster of fake news.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.