It’s Aggression When ‘They’ Do It, but Defense When ‘We’ Do Worse

ALAN MACLEOD

APRIL 30, 2021

https://fair.org/home/its-aggression-when-they-do-it-but-defense-when-we-do-worse/

 

Aggression, in international politics is commonly defined as the use of armed force against another sovereign state, not justified by self-defense or international authority. Any state being described as aggressive in foreign or international reporting, therefore, is almost by definition in the wrong.

It’s a word that seems easy to apply to the United States, which launched 81 foreign interventions between 1946 and 2000 alone. In the 21st century, the United States has attacked, invaded, or occupied the sovereign states of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Despite the US record, Western corporate media overwhelmingly reserve the word “aggression” for official enemy nations—whether or not it’s warranted. In contrast, US behavior is almost never categorized as aggressive, thereby giving readers a misleading picture of the world.

Perhaps the most notable internationally aggressive act in recent memory was the Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian general and political leader Qassem Soleimani last year. Yet in its long and detailed report on the event, the Washington Post (1/4/20) managed to present Iran as the aggressor. The US was merely “choos[ing] this moment to explore an operation against the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, after tolerating Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf for months,” in the Post’s words.

It also gave space to senior US officials to falsely claim Soleimani was aiming to carry out an “imminent” attack on hundreds of Americans. In fact, he was in Iraq for peace talks designed to bring an end to the war between states in the region. The Iraqi prime minister revealed that he had invited Soleimani personally, and had asked for and received Washington’s blessing to host him. Trump instead used that information to kill him.

For months, media had been awash with stories, based on US officials’ proclamations, that Iranian aggression was just around the corner (e.g., Yahoo! News,  1/2/20; Reuters, 4/12/19; New York Times, 11/23/19; Washington Post, 6/22/19). The Hill (10/3/19) gave a retired general space to demand that we must “defend ourselves” by carrying out a “serious response” against Iran, who is “test[ing] our resolve with aggressive actions.”

Russia is another country constantly portrayed as aggressive. The New York Times (11/12/20) described a US fishing boat’s mix up with the Russian navy off the coast of Kamchatka as typical Russian aggression, complete with the headline, “Are We Getting Invaded?” The Military Times (6/26/20) worried that any reduction in US troops in Germany could “embolden Russian aggression.” And a headline from the Hill (11/14/19) claimed that “Putin’s Aggression Exposes Russia’s Decline.” In the same sentence that publicized a report advocating that NATO expand to take on China directly, the Wall Street Journal (12/1/20) warned of “Russian aggression.” Suffice to say, tooling up for an intercontinental war against another nuclear power was not framed as Western warmongering.

Another enemy states, such as China (New York Times, 10/6/20; CNBC, 8/3/20; Forbes, 3/26/21), North Korea (Atlantic, 11/23/10; CNN, 8/9/17; Associated Press, 3/8/21) and Venezuela (Wall Street Journal, 11/18/05; Fox News, 3/10/14; Daily Express, 9/30/19) are also routinely accused of or denounced for “aggression.”

Corporate media even present the Taliban’s actions in their own country against Western occupation troops as “aggression” (Guardian 7/26/06; CBS News, 11/27/13; Reuters, 3/26/21). The New York Times (11/24/20) recently worried about the Taliban’s “aggression on the battlefield,” while presenting the US—a country that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and still has not left—as supposedly committed to the “peace process.”

Even as the US has been flying squadrons of nuclear bombers from North Dakota to Iran and back, each time in effect simulating dropping atomic bombs on the country, media have framed this as a “defensive move” (Politico, 12/30/20) meant to stop “Iranian aggression” (Defense One, 1/27/20) by “deter[ring] Iran from attacking American troops in the region” (New York Times, 12/30/20).

In February, President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike on a Syrian village against what the White House claimed were Iran-backed forces. The Department of Defense absurdly insisted that the attack was meant to “deescalate” the situation, a claim that was lamentably uncritically repeated in corporate media, with Politico (2/25/21) writing that “the strike was defensive in nature” and response to previous attacks on US troops in Iraq. Needless to say, it did not question the legitimacy of American troops being stationed across the Middle East.

That the US by definition is always acting defensively and never aggressively is close to an iron law of journalism. The US attack on Southeast Asia is arguably the worst international crime since the end of World War II, causing some 3.8 million Vietnamese deaths alone. Yet in their seminal study of the media, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (Extra!, 12/87) was unable to find a single mention of a US “attack” on Vietnam. Instead, the war was commonly framed as the “defense” of South Vietnam from the Communist North.

Even decades later, US actions in Vietnam are still often described as a “defense” (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 4/29/05; Christian Science Monitor, 1/22/07; Politico, 10/10/15; Foreign Policy, 9/27/17). In a 2018 autopsy of the conflict headlined “What Went Wrong in Vietnam,” New Yorker staff writer Louis Menand (2/26/18) wrote that “our policy was to enable South Vietnam to defend itself” as the US “tried to prevent Vietnam from becoming a Communist state.” “Millions died in that struggle,” he adds as if the perpetrators of the violence were unknown.

It was a similar story with the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, which was presented as a defense against “Soviet and Cuban aggression in the Western hemisphere” (San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/26/83).

here have only been three uses of the phrases “American aggression” or “US aggression” in the New York Times over the past year. All came in the mouths of Chinese officials, and in stories focusing on supposedly aggressive Chinese actions. For example, at the end of a long article warning about how China is “pressing its territorial claims aggressively” from the Himalayas to the South China Sea, in paragraph 28 the Times (6/26/20) noted that Beijing’s priority is “confronting what it considers American aggression in China’s neighborhood.” Meanwhile, two articles (10/5/20, 10/23/20) mention that Chinese disinformation calls the Korean War the “war to resist American aggression and aid Korea”. But these were written off as “visceral” and “pugnacious” “propaganda” by the Times.

Likewise, when the phrase “American aggression” appears at all in other leading publications, it is largely only in scare quotes or in the mouths of groups long demonized in corporate media, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen (Washington Post, 2/5/21), the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad (Associated Press, 2/26/21) or Saddam Hussein’s generals (CNN, 3/3/03).

The concept of US belligerence is simply not being discussed seriously in the corporate press, leading to the conclusion that the word “aggression” in newspeak means little more than “actions we don’t like carried out by enemy states.”

Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, was published by Routledge in May 2019.

 

DERRUMBE EN LA LÍNEA 12 DEL METRO

Hoy a las 22:20 p.m. se derrumbó un tramo de la Línea 12 del Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metropolitano (Metro) de la Ciudad de México, a la altura de la estación Olivos en la Alcaldía Tláhuac.

Se habla de decenas de heridos y aún no se sabe si hay muertos; pero por el tamaño del desastre es posible que haya varios fallecidos.

Esta Línea 12 del Metro fue construida durante el gobierno del Jefe de Gobierno Marcelo Ebrard (2006-2012), hoy Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores en el gabinete del presidente López Obrador.

Durante el gobierno del sucesor de Ebrard (ambos pertenecientes entonces al Partido de la Revolución Democrática), Miguel Angel Mancera (hoy senador por dicho partido) entre 2012 y 2018, se detectaron numerosas deficiencias en la Línea 12[1], en el año 2014, lo que obligó a la suspensión del servicio para que se corrigieran esas fallas.

Las constructoras de la línea fueron las empresas ICA, Carso y Alstom, y se señaló que las deficiencias de la Línea tenían que ver con que los trenes no eran compatibles con las vías, provocando un desgaste prematuro de los rieles y las ruedas.[2]

El consorcio alemán TUV había certificado la seguridad de la Línea, cobrando para ello 119 millones de pesos.

Hubo incluso una denuncia penal contra Marcelo Ebrard por las deficiencias en la Línea y la necesidad de suspender el servicio por un año y ocho meses (marzo de 2014 a noviembre de 2015).

Y por su parte, la Auditoría Superior de la Federación detectó en 2015, irregularidades en la construcción y certificación de la Línea 12 del Metro durante la administración de Marcelo Ebrard; así como en el proceso de entrega-recepción y en el mantenimiento de la Línea durante el gobierno de Miguel Angel Mancera.[3]

Durante todos estos años el mantenimiento de la Línea ha sido deficiente durante las administraciones de los directores del Metro, Joel Ortega (2012-2015); Jorge Gaviño (2015-2018); Jorge Jiménez (2018) y la actual directora, Florencia Serranía.

Tiene que haber una investigación a fondo, que difícilmente podrá ser imparcial si la realiza la actual jefa de Gobierno Claudia Sheinbaum, pues tanto ella, como Mancera y Ebrard tienen que responder por su responsabilidad en la falla estructural que ha provocado este terrible accidente y las consecuencias jurídicas, económicas y políticas que se deriven de ello.

Durante años la Auditoría Superior de la Federación ha dado a conocer los malos manejos financieros en el Metro, lo que ha impactado en el mal mantenimiento y supervisión del sistema, que por ejemplo provocó el incendio en los paneles centrales del sistema a principios de enero de este año; y el cierre de seis estaciones. Y ahora, esta nueva tragedia, con la caída de una de las llamadas “ballenas” que conforman la estructura por la que corren los trenes del Metro.

La “izquierda” que ha manejado los destinos de la ciudad desde 1997, comenzará a lavarse las manos y a “echarse la bolita” unos a otros, para “escurrir el bulto” y tratar de que otros paguen por la irresponsabilidad y corrupción de los que se han hecho cargo del Metro, y que ahora van a pretender deslindarse de lo sucedido. Jefes de Gobierno y Directores del Sistema Metro que han estado al frente en los últimos 3 periodos de gobierno, deberán ser llamados a comparecer ante un fiscal independiente, que no responda al actual gobierno de la ciudad, ni tampoco a los partidos de oposición, para esclarecer los hechos y a los responsables de esta tragedia.

 

---

[1] La cual tuvo un costo de 26 mil millones de pesos y duró cuatro años su construcción.

[2] https://aristeguinoticias.com/1403/mexico/8-protagonistas-responsables-de-la-linea-12-del-metro/

 

[3] https://www.proceso.com.mx/nacional/2015/2/18/confirma-asf-irregularidades-en-gobiernos-de-ebrard-mancera-por-linea-12-143568.html

 

 

Polarizaciones

Gustavo Esteva

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2021/05/03/opinion/015a2pol

Es hora de concertarnos, de actuar conjuntamente. Pero es al revés: estamos separándonos cada vez más.

Hay interesados en que así sea. Divide y vencerás ha sido siempre lema para quienes quieren dominar y controlar. Nos dividen cotidianamente personas y grupos bien conocidos e identificados, que nos quieren separados y débiles a la vez que obedientes y sumisos.

La coyuntura actual, uno de los momentos más delicados de la historia humana, impone inmensos padecimientos y trastornos a casi todo mundo. Hace falta, ante todo, enterarnos bien de lo que enfrentamos para adoptar los comportamientos apropiados y movilizarnos en acciones urgentes y concertadas. Pero no lo estamos haciendo.

Una de las razones de que así sea es la espectacular desinformación que padecemos. Los dos casos más notables son el clima y la pandemia. Pleno acceso a información adecuada sobre la profundidad y alcances del colapso climático haría posible respuestas colectivas apropiadas ante los desastres que están cundiendo; la sequía que ya asola al país no es el síntoma más grave de lo que tenemos encima. En cuanto a la pandemia, es urgente abrir al debate público las informaciones amañadas que propala el gobierno, en su campaña para inspirar miedo. Necesitamos mostrar que la mayor parte de las medidas impuestas son remedios peores que la enfermedad que pretenden combatir.

Debemos tomar en cuenta el grado de inmoralidad al que han llegado las élites dominantes. Los tres poderes gubernamentales están al servicio de una élite económica cuyo cinismo e inmoralidad no conoce límites. No es novedad. Es algo inseparable del capitalismo. No se llevan la lógica de la ganancia y la decencia. En la era actual de despojo, sin embargo, esa inmoralidad fundamental del régimen, que caracteriza por igual a políticos, funcionarios y empresarios, ha llegado a extremos verdaderamente insoportables. Detenerlos se vuelve cuestión de supervivencia.

El caso del glifosato ilustra la dimensión del predicamento. Una ley débil facilitó la tarea del juez que amparó a Monsanto. La corporación conoce como nadie los daños al suelo y a la salud que así se causan, pero nada detiene su compulsión destructiva, que se lleva bien con la estrategia gubernamental para destruir al campo mexicano. Desde hace 40 años busca crear la peor de las dependencias, la del estómago, que se agrava todos los días. En el primer trimestre de este año aumentó 63 por ciento la importación de maíz.

Está a la vista la destrucción del sureste. El inmenso daño ambiental tendrá consecuencias que afectarán a toda la República. El genocidio, como lo calificó correctamente el director del Plan Maya, pondrá en peligro de extinción a numerosas culturas. No hay aquí exageración alguna. Es un desastre anunciado, que se defiende con la afirmación escandalosa de que todos esos pueblos aspiran a vivir como los vecinos del norte. El gobierno no haría sino satisfacerlos con planes públicos y privados que les traerán los empleos, mercancías y servicios que desean.

Diversos hechos y comportamientos parecen darles la razón: la gente no querría otra cosa que vivir como los desarrollados. Oaxaca despierta interés mundial como paraíso gastronómico. Pero su capital está hoy plagada de pizza y sushi. Durante la pandemia aumentó en el Estado, como en todo el país, el consumo de chatarra, agravando la obesidad infantil y la diabetes. Contribuyó a eso la complicidad de los diversos agentes. Cada niño o niña ve 20 anuncios de esas porquerías tóxicas mientras recibe sus clases en las plataformas digitales de la SEP. Tanto quienes las producen como las autoridades conocen el daño que causan.

La contaminación cultural afecta a casi toda la gente. Pero hay también intensa resistencia. En el Istmo, los pueblos se afirman en sus propias culturas para mantener e impulsar modos propios de vivir aún llenos de sensatez ambiental y sentido humano. Son los que están abiertamente amenazados. No hay aquí elemento alguno de teorías de la conspiración. La amenaza está inscrita en documentos oficiales. Quedó en manos del capital trasnacional el viejo sueño de Cortés y Porfirio Díaz.

No estamos siendo capaces de reaccionar. Nos falta clara conciencia de lo que se nos vino encima, pero pesa aún más nuestra división. La resistencia abierta que se ha estado organizando y se manifiesta todos los días enfrenta no sólo represión y presiones de los gobiernos, sino también el rechazo vigoroso y hasta violento de grupos que mantienen plena lealtad al actual gobierno y confían ciegamente en su retórica. Hasta quienes reconocen los daños ambientales, sociales y culturales que causa piden paciencia, confiados en que el gobierno sabrá remediarlos.

No se trata de unirnos en la homogeneidad, disimulando en masas uniformes nuestras múltiples diferencias. Se trata de concertarnos, armonizando nuestras diversas percepciones y compromisos para impedir juntos la tragedia ambiental y cultural que ya está en curso y para avanzar en la regeneración que puede interesar a todas y todos. Apenas queda tiempo.

gustavoesteva@gmail.com

 

 

Counting the costs of America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan

By ISABEL DEBRE April 30, 2021

https://apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-afghanistan-middle-east-business-5e850e5149ea0a3907cac2f282878dd5

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — America’s longest war, the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan that started in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, killed tens of thousands of people dogged four U.S. presidents, and ultimately proved unwinnable despite its staggering cost in blood and treasure.

This final chapter, with President Joe Biden’s decision to pull all American troops from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks has prompted a reckoning over the war’s lost lives and colossal expenditure.

Here’s a look at the spiraling cost of America’s campaign — the bloodshed wasted funds and future consequences for the war-battered nation teetering on the brink of chaos.

THE COST IN LIVES

Afghans have paid the highest price. Since 2001, at least 47,245 civilians have been killed in the war as of mid-April, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University, which documents the hidden costs of the post-9/11 wars.

Gun and bomb attacks targeting civilians surged to previously unseen heights since the intra-Afghan peace negotiations opened in Qatar last fall, according to the U.N. Watchdogs say the conflict has killed a total of 72 journalists and 444 aid workers.

The Afghan government keeps the toll among its soldiers secret to avoid undermining morale, but Costs of War estimates the war has killed 66,000 to 69,000 Afghan troops.

The war has forced 2.7 million Afghans to flee abroad, mostly to Iran, Pakistan, and Europe, the U.N. said. Another 4 million are displaced within the country, which has a total population of 36 million.

Meanwhile, 2,442 U.S. troops have been killed and 20,666 wounded in the war since 2001, according to the Defense Department. It’s estimated that over 3,800 U.S. private security contractors have been killed. The Pentagon does not track their deaths.

The conflict also has killed 1,144 personnel from the 40-nation NATO coalition that trained Afghan forces over the years, according to a tally kept by the website iCasualties. The remaining 7,000 allied troops also will withdraw by Biden’s 9/11 deadline.

THE COST IN DOLLARS

The U.S. has spent a stunning total of $2.26 trillion on a dizzying array of expenses, according to the Costs of War project.

The Defense Department’s latest 2020 report said war-fighting costs totaled $815.7 billion over the years. That covers the operating costs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, everything from fuel and food to Humvees, weapons, and ammunition, from tanks and armored vehicles to aircraft carriers and airstrikes.

Although America first invaded to retaliate against al-Qaida and rout its hosts, the Taliban, the U.S., and NATO soon pivoted to a more open-ended mission: nation-building on a massive scale.

Washington has poured over $143 billion into that goal since 2002, according to the latest figures from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

Of that, $88 billion went to training, equipping, and funding Afghan military and police forces. Another $36 billion was spent on reconstruction projects, education, and infrastructures like dams and highways, the SIGAR report said. Another $4.1 billion has gone to humanitarian aid for refugees and disasters. The campaign to deter Afghans from selling heroin around the world cost over $9 billion.

Unlike with other conflicts in American history, the U.S. borrowed heavily to fund the war in Afghanistan and has paid some $530 billion in interest. It has also paid $296 billion in medical and other care for veterans, according to Costs of War. It will continue to pay both those expenses for years to come.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY

Much of the billions lavished on huge infrastructure projects went to waste, the U.S. inspector general discovered. Canals, dams, and highways fell into disrepair, as Afghanistan failed to absorb the flood of aid. Newly built hospitals and schools stood empty. Without proper oversight, the U.S. money bred corruption that undermined government legitimacy.

Despite the costly counternarcotics campaign, opium exports reached record heights. Despite the billions in weapons and training to Afghan security forces, the Taliban increased the amount of territory they control. Despite vast spending on job creation and welfare, unemployment hovers around 25%. The poverty rate has fluctuated over the years, reaching 47% through 2020, according to the World Bank, compared to 36% when the fund first began calculating in 2007.

“We invested too much with too little to show for it,” said Michael Wahid Hanna, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Century Foundation.

THE COST OF LEAVING

Although few want to prolong the war interminably, many fear its final end may jeopardize Afghanistan’s modest gains in health, education, and women’s rights, made in the early years as the U.S. expanded the economy and toppled the Taliban, which had imposed tough strictures on women.

Since 2001, life expectancy has increased to 64 years from 56, the World Bank says. Maternal mortality has more than halved. Opportunities for education have grown, with the literacy rate rising 8% to roughly 43%. Life in cities has improved, with 89% of residents having access to clean water, compared to 16% before the war.

Child marriage has declined by 17%, according to U.N. data. Girls’ enrollment in primary school has nearly doubled, and more women have entered college and served in Parliament. These figures still pale compared with global standards.

But more broadly, the failure of America’s ambitions to build a stable, democratic Afghanistan has left the country mired in uncertainty as U.S. forces leave. The nation’s history tells of civil war that follows foreign invasions and withdrawals.

“For better or worse, the U.S. has a serious stabilizing presence right now, and once that’s gone there’s going to be a power vacuum,” said Michael Callen, an Afghanistan economy expert at the London School of Economics. “In the 20 years’ war, there’s going to be a whole lot of scores that need to be settled.”

 

 

China is shaping new world order with inner development

By Global Times Published: Apr 28, 2021 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222331.shtml

  

The world order is an invisible deep structure shaped by the behavior model of dominant countries. Before 1945, the fundamental structure of the world order was imperialism. During the Cold War, the world order was veneered with ideological covers, which have made many people believe liberal democracy is the world order. 

However, foreign policies of the Trump administration have revealed the nature of the world order, which has always been the liberal imperialist order in essence that leads to hegemony and inequality. But such order is changing as China is changing the world with its own development. Nevertheless, many Chinese people still seem to hold an outdated view of the world order that features Western-centralism.

China was once poor and weak in history and was marginalized in the global system. The main targets of our reform and opening-up were to catch up with Western countries. We used to be overwhelmed by the West and were less confident, hence naturally regarding them as the central beacon. To make it worse, social science in China has been under the Western influence since the 1980s.

For example, the Chinese worldview is indeed universal but is regarded by many as peculiar. As a matter of fact, Chinese culture has combined Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, and has opened to the West. Our culture is secular, and thus the most inclusive.

The exclusive culture of the Western world is recognized as advanced. Due to such a biased filter, China could never do anything right. Our Foreign Ministry spokespersons' active remarks are labeled "wolf warrior diplomacy." People turn a blind eye to the hegemonic actions of the West, blaming China for the decline of China-US relations. Such behaviors vividly demonstrate Western-centralized world views and value systems.

However, what the Trump administration did has demonstrated again the imperialist logic of traditional dominant countries. We should learn from this lesson that it's time to see the world in a new way, that the real US is way more complicated than being pure justice and friendly.

China has gone through suppression in past years. Yet it has shown the world that it is not as weak as some people imagined and that the US is not as strong as many believed.

The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought change to the order of East Asia. In 1979, the US established diplomatic ties with China partly in a bid to counter the Soviet Union. Even though materially poor, China evidently has managed to affect the world order with its own inner changes. China's rapid development after adopting reform and opening-up is a force to be reckoned with on the world stage.

In the first two decades after the Cold War, the US was the unquestionable hegemonic force in the world. But after that, Washington began to talk with China about global governance. The history of China-US relations can give us quite some implications.

First, China was a builder of the order in East Asia long before globalization. Second, China united is capable of affecting the world order. Third, becoming prosperous has enabled China to stand tall at the center of the world stage.

China is the first major power in the world's modern history to thrive by its own development instead of by loots and wars. This has provided an alternative to the Western countries' patterns which made them strong by looting others across centuries of history.

Being capable of proposing the Belt and Road Initiative, founding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and promoting the community of shared future for mankind, China has offered to rectify the unequal world order. Both history and current events have shown that Chinese people have no reason to not have the confidence to play a key role in the world affairs.

Therefore, Chinese people really don't need to be so sensitive, or even nervous, about what the US has said or done. Nor care so much what it is up to. Most large countries in history collapsed due to internal chaos. As long as we do our business well and stay sharp, the external factors will hardly affect China. 

The article is an abstract of Yang Guangbin's arguments at the "national rejuvenation and Communist Party of China" think-tank forum hosted by Tsinghua University and China.org.cn on April 25. Yang Guangbin is a distinguished professor at the Renmin University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn