A US War on Mexico Wouldn’t Win the US War on Drugs

by Thomas Knapp Posted on July 07, 2023

https://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2023/07/06/a-us-war-on-mexico-wouldnt-win-the-us-war-on-drugs/

“A violent drug cartel is suspected of leaving a severed human leg found hanging from a pedestrian bridge Wednesday in Toluca, just west of Mexico City,” CBS News reports. “[T]he trunk of the body was left on the street below, near the city’s center, along with handwritten signs signed by the Familia Michoacana cartel.”

Familia Michoacana, which apparently specializes in the production and distribution of methamphetamine, “has become known for carrying out ruthless, bloody ambushes of police in Mexico State and local residents in Guerrero” to protect its lucrative business.

Meanwhile, over the last several months, opportunistic US politicians have used increasing US drug overdose numbers linked to increasing use of fentanyl as an excuse to get an “invade Mexico to fight the cartels” bandwagon rolling.

Given the history of stupid US foreign policy ideas, it seems like it should be incredibly hard to come up with one that out-stupids the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined, but with not so much as a “hold my beer” warning, these idiots seem to have managed it.

If any of those past fiascoes could be said to have had any saving graces at all, the main one was that they were conducted far, far away, versus enemies who lacked much ability to bring the war home to America.

Mexico, as you’re no doubt aware, shares a 2,000-mile border with the US. Millions of people cross that border every year, with or without permission from or even detection by the US government. And the major cartels, as part of their drug distribution operations, already maintain a permanent presence in the US.

Any “war on the cartels” would be fought at least partly on US soil, and it would be fought by the kind of people who don’t quail from things like leaving severed human legs hanging from bridges to send their messages. Do we really want more of that kind of thing here? I have to ask, because sending US troops barging into Mexico is how we get things like that here.

The US government has been fighting – and losing – a “war on drugs” for most of a century now.

That war created the cartels.

That war empowers the cartels.

Expanding that war would unleash the cartels’ most vicious behaviors on US soil, while reducing unsafe drug consumption little if at all.

Legalizing drugs, on the other hand, would devastate the cartels’ profit and loss statements, put production and distribution of substances Americans obviously want into the hands of reputable/peaceable businesses, and reduce overdose deaths and other negative side effects of drug use by bringing standardized dosage and quality to American consumers.

Whose side are the “invade Mexico” demagogues on? Not yours.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, publisher of Rational Review News Digest, and moderator of Antiwar.com’s commenting/discussion community.

Is China's export control a precise counterattack against US, Japan and the Netherlands?: Global Times editorial

By Global Times Published: Jul 06, 2023

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202307/1293811.shtml

The measures taken by China in recent years to safeguard national security and interests have often been subjected to excessive interpretation and reaction from the US and Western countries. The recent decision by China to implement export controls on gallium and germanium-related items is no exception. Although Chinese authorities have said this is a common international practice and not targeted at any specific country, certain countries have felt "targeted," leading to a series of doubts, questions, and even accusations.

There are mainly two points that these people are criticizing about. First, they believe that China is indeed targeting specific countries by precisely counterattacking the semiconductor equipment export controls imposed by the US, Japan and the Netherlands. Does this contradict China's consistent opposition to the abuse of export controls? Second, they claim China's actions may violate regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are detrimental to the stability of the semiconductor supply chain. Both of these points are baseless.

Whether it is a precise counterattack against the discriminatory policies of the US, Japan, and the Netherlands toward China can be left for them to ponder. It is nothing wrong to make those who have done bad things to China feel uneasy and unsettled. Gallium and germanium are key raw materials used in the production of semiconductors, missile systems, solar cells, and other high-tech products. If China exports them to these countries, but they prohibit the export of high-tech products made from these materials to China, this is clearly unfair in terms of trade. If the US uses them to produce high-end military equipment, it may even pose a threat to China's national security. China's export control is justifiable in terms of reason and law. It needs to be emphasized that this is entirely different from the US' abuse of export controls.

China's export control measures have always adhered to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, and are committed to maintaining the security and stability of the global production and supply chains. As for whether these measures violate WTO regulations this time, it is more of a technical issue. China is recognized as an exemplary member of the WTO, in sharp contrast with the US, who has trampled on WTO rules and principles. Despite having larger reserves of germanium than China, the US has protected germanium as a defense reserve resource since 1984 and has hardly conducted any mining activities. In a sense, China's implementation of export controls on gallium and germanium may have come a bit late. China has no reason to excessively deplete its strategic resources to meet the demands of unfriendly countries.

Currently, there is an abnormal phenomenon in the international community. The US has engaged in too many acts of undermining international rules and seems to be unconcerned about the accumulating "debts." It is a bit taken for granted. On the other hand, China's legitimate actions are often magnified and exaggerated by external forces. What's even more despicable is that the US often takes the lead in pointing fingers at China, without any sense of guilt or shame. The US, which seriously lacks a moral bottom line in the international arena, enjoys morally blackmailing China, which is truly absurd. Dealing with such a US, China also needs to adapt.

To contain and suppress China, the US has imposed various export restrictions on China to an unprecedented extent, and these restrictions are escalating and expanding. There are currently no signs of any easing or cessation. It is reported that the Biden administration is considering a new round of high-tech investment bans on China. When the US treats China in this way, it should not expect China to remain silent and not fight back; that is impossible. However, China will not be as unscrupulous and rule-breaking as the US. Nevertheless, we do have a considerable toolbox to retaliate and make countries that harm China's interests pay a price.

The US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is about to visit China. Is China announcing the export control measures at this time to give Yellen a warning? This is overthinking. China doesn't need to do this, but it will not postpone or cancel planned measures just because a senior US official is coming to create a favorable atmosphere. That's how things stand. The people who are most dramatic about China's every move are often the ones with the strongest malicious intent toward China. Their interpretations are bound to be distorted, so it is necessary to make them feel uncomfortable.

'No red lines': US response to West Bank assault underlines Israel's free hand

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a victory lap praising US support amid bombing of Jenin and rumours of frayed ties

By Sean Mathews and Umar A Farooq

Published date: 4 July 2023

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/no-red-line-us-response-israels-use-heavy-weaponry-underlines-israels-free-hand

Israel's increasing use of sophisticated military hardware in the occupied West Bank, including drones and Apache attack helicopters, has been met with a muted response from the Biden administration, underlining Washington's lack of red lines as violence against the Palestinians escalates.

On Monday, Israel launched a deadly raid on the Jenin refugee camp in what the government said was a campaign to eliminate Palestinian fighters.

As the raid entered its second day, more than 3,000 Palestinians had been displaced from their homes. The Palestinian death toll also climbed to 12 killed, according to Palestinian health officials.

Palestinian armed groups have so far claimed five of the dead as members, but Palestinian authorities have not specified whether those who died were fighters or civilians.

The raid on Jenin is a culmination of weeks of military strikes that have seen Israel deploy ever more heavy weaponry in the occupied West Bank.

"The US clearly has no red lines when it comes to Israel's use of force," Marwa Maziad, an expert on US-Arab-Israeli relations at the University of Maryland, told Middle East Eye.

In June, helicopter gunships were dispatched to the occupied West Bank for the first time in nearly 20 years after an Israeli troop carrier was hit by what the military called a "pretty advanced" improvised explosive device (IED). Just two days later, Israel killed two members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement's military branch and a Fatah military leader in a drone strike near Jenin.

Some experts have said the US is concerned that Israel's introduction of armed drones into the occupied West Bank has the potential to loosen rules of engagement and inflame tensions further, but analysts tell MEE that Israel's deadly raid on Jenin where about 1,100 troops are supported by armed drones shows its a muted issue for the Biden administration.

'Going with Israel's flow'

On Monday, a National Security Council spokesperson expressed US support for "Israel's security and right to defend its people against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups".

"The US is completely going with Israel's flow of events," Maziad said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted no time trumpeting US support as a counter to domestic opponents who say his far-right government has imperiled relations with Israel's closest ally.

"America has provided Israel with moral and political backing," Netanyahu said. "Security cooperation [with the US] has never been better, intelligence sharing has never been deeper."

Netanyahu has been under pressure from hardline members of his government to take a harsher stance against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right member of Netanyahu's government who holds a ministerial position within the defence ministry, had called on the government to "replace tweezer activity with a broad operation" in the occupied West Bank.

After four Israeli settlers were killed in a shooting by a Palestinian in the occupied West Bank last month, national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir said: "We need a return to targeted killings from the air, bringing down buildings, setting up roadblocks, expelling terrorists."

Both men have been snubbed by the Biden administration, and Netanyahu himself has yet to secure a White House visit.

But those tensions are largely due to the optics of Netanyahu's far-right government, whose members are unpopular within the US Democratic party, and his contentious plans to overhaul the country's judicial system.

"If Netanyahu said tomorrow the judicial overhaul is dead, the Biden administration would schedule a visit for him," Aaron David Miller, a former State Department Middle East adviser, told MEE. "The reason he isn't coming isn't attached specifically to the Palestinians."

The Biden administration has backed Israel, when some hoped it would call for stronger support for Palestinians.

"The US knows well that the Israeli operation in the Jenin refugee camp should be seen in the context of Israel's future plans to take over more Palestinian land and squeeze Palestinians out," Nadim Rouhana, from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, told MEE.

Those thoughts have been echoed by progressive members of Biden's party. 

On Monday, Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted footage from Jenin saying: "Israeli forces are now blocking ambulances from reaching the dozens of wounded Palestinians… Congress must stop funding this violent Israeli apartheid regime."

But other Democratic lawmakers, who have previously urged the Biden administration to take a tougher stance against Israel, have been quiet during the Jenin raid. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who once criticised the administration's "tepid statement" in support of Palestinians during Israel's May 2021 war on Gaza, hasn't issued a comment on Jenin. 

Miller says the Biden administration is unlikely to ever consider withholding American military systems from Israel, even with the new deployments of heavy weaponry.

'Elections and the Crown Prince'

The Biden administration's response to the rising tensions is also complicated by the 2024 presidential elections. "The administration is not interested in giving the Republicans any edge in creating the impression that it is pursuing an adversarial policy towards Israel. A lot of it has to do with fundraising," according to Miller.

Compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and heightened tensions with China, tensions in the occupied West Bank are a back-burner issue for the White House. Washington's main concern is how tensions impact efforts to broker a normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

"We told our friends and allies in Israel that if there's a fire burning in their backyard, it's going to be a lot tougher, if not impossible, to actually both deepen the existing agreements, as well as to expand them, to include potentially Saudi Arabia," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week.

Even analysts are divided over how much the spiralling violence in the occupied West Bank impacts Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's calculus. In exchange for normalising ties, Saudi Arabia wants security guarantees from the US, help in developing a civilian nuclear programme and fewer restrictions on arms sales.  

Miller says the crown prince's "threshold" on developments in the occupied West Bank would be low if all his needs are met.

But Maziad said that Riyadh would have no interest in owning normalisation with these tensions brewing, particularly as it already benefits from quiet security cooperation with Israel. She noted statements from Turkey, the UAE, Jordan and Egypt condemning the Jenin raid.

"The US would be foolish to think it can brush aside the conflict."

Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that "Palestinian resistance to Israeli oppression is almost assured to go on" regardless of the success of the Jenin raid.

She believes the muted US response will lead to "the continued hemorrhaging of [US] credibility when speaking about human rights and respect for international norms".

 

The Armed Revolt: Why Israel Cannot Crush the Resistance in Palestine

by Ramzy Baroud Posted on July 04, 2023

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2023/07/03/the-armed-revolt-why-israel-cannot-crush-the-resistance-in-palestine/

Numbers can be dehumanizing. However, when placed in their proper context, they help to illuminate wider issues and answer urgent questions, such as why is Occupied Palestine at the threshold of a major revolt. And why Israel cannot crush Palestinian resistance no matter how hard, or violently, it tries.

That’s when numbers become relevant. Since the start of this year, nearly 200 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza. Among them are 27 children.

If one is to imagine a heat map correlating the towns, villages and refugee camps of the Palestinian victims to the ongoing armed rebellion, one will immediately spot direct connections. Gaza, Jenin, and Nablus, for example, paid the heaviest price for Israeli violence, making them the regions that resist most.

Unsurprisingly, Palestinian refugees have historically been at the forefront of the Palestinian liberation movement, turning refugee camps such as Jenin, Balata, Aqabat Jabr, Jabaliya, Nuseirat, and others, into hot spots of popular and armed resistance. The harder Israel attempts to crush Palestinian resistance, the greater the Palestinian reaction is.

Take Jenin as an example. The rebellious refugee camp has never ceased its resistance to the Israeli occupation since the famous battle and subsequent Israeli massacre of April 2002. The resistance continued there in all of its forms, despite the fact that many of the fighters who defended the camp against the Israeli invasion of the Second Palestinian Uprising, or Intifada were killed or imprisoned.

Now that a new generation has taken over, Israel is at it again. Military incursions of Jenin by Israel have become a routine, resulting in a mounting number of casualties, though at a price for Israel itself.

The most notable and violent of these incursions was on January 26, when the Israeli army invaded the camp, killed ten Palestinians and wounded over twenty others.

More Palestinians continue to be killed as Israeli raids become more frequent. And the more recurrent the raids, the tougher the resistance, which has swelled beyond the confines of Jenin itself to nearby illegal Jewish settlements, military checkpoints and so on. It is common knowledge that many of the Palestinians who Israel accuses of carrying out operations against its soldiers and settlers come from Jenin.

Israelis may want to think of their violence in Palestine as self-defense. But that is simply inaccurate. A military occupier, whether in Palestine – or anywhere else, for that matter – cannot, by strict legal definition, be in a state of self-defense. The latter concept only applies to sovereign nations that attempt to defend against threats at or within their internationally recognized borders.

Not only is Israel defined by the international community and law as an "Occupying Power," but it is also legally obligated to “ensure that the civilian population is protected against all acts of violence,” as a statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations stated on June 20.

The statement was a reference to the killing of eight Palestinians in Jenin, a day earlier. The victims included two children, Sadil Ghassan Turkman, 14, and Ahmed Saqr, 15. Needless to say, Israel is not invested in the "protection" of these and other Palestinian children. It is the entity that is doing the harm.

But since the UN and others within the international community are content with the issuing of statements – "reminding Israel" of its responsibility, expressing "deep concerns" about the situation or, in the case of Washington, even blaming Palestinians – what other options do Palestinians have, but to resist?

The rise of the Lions’ Den, the Jenin Brigades, the Nablus Brigades, and many other such groups and brigades, made mostly of poor and poorly armed Palestinian refugees, is hardly a mystery. One fights when one is oppressed, humiliated, and routinely violated. This role has governed human relations and conflicts since the very beginning.

But the rise of the Palestinians must be distressing for those who want to maintain the status quo. One is the Palestinian Authority.

The PA stands to lose much if the Palestinian revolt spreads beyond the boundaries of the northern West Bank. PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who enjoys little legitimacy, will have no political role to play. Without such a role, however artificial, foreign funds will quickly dry, and the party will be over.

For Israel, the stakes are also high.

The Israeli military under the leadership of Netanyahu’s enemy, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, wants to escalate the fight against Palestinians without repeating the full-scale cities invasion of 2002. But the internal intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, is becoming keener on a full-scale crackdown.

Far-right Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich wants to exploit the violence as a pretense to expand illegal settlements. Another far-right politician, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, is searching for a civil war, led by the most violent of Jewish settlers, the very core of his political constituency.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is struggling with his own political and legal woes, is trying to give everyone a little of what they want, but all at once. The paradoxes are a recipe for chaos.

This has resulted in Gallant’s reactivation of aerial assassinations of Palestinian activists, for the first time since the Second Intifada. The first such strikes took place in the Jalameh region near Jenin on June 21.

Meanwhile, the Shin Bet is expanding its list of targets. More assassinations are surely to follow.

Concurrently, Smotrich is already planning a massive expansion of illegal settlements. And Ben Gvir is dispatching hordes of settlers to carry out pogroms in peaceful Palestinian villages. The inferno of Huwwara on February 26 was repeated in Turmus’ayya on June 21.

Though the US and its Western partners may continue to refrain from intervening in supposed "internal Israeli affairs," they should carefully consider what is taking place in Palestine. This is not business as usual.

The next Intifada in Palestine will be armed, non-factional, and popular, with consequences that are too difficult to gauge.

Though for Palestinians an uprising is a cry against injustice in all its forms, for the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, violence is a strategy towards settlement expansion, ethnic cleansing, and civil war. Considering the pogroms of Huwwara and Turmus’ayya, the civil war has already begun.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out. His other books include My Father was a Freedom Fighter and The Last Earth. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

We have battalions in West Bank: PIJ chief

The Palestinian Authority is under pressure from the US and Israel to crack down on the growing West Bank resistance groups

By News Desk- July 02 2023

https://thecradle.co/article-view/26592/we-have-battalions-in-west-bank-pij-chief

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) chief Ziad al-Nakhala said in an interview released on 1 July that the Iran-sponsored movement was working to establish cells of fighters and strengthen the resistance throughout the occupied-West Bank.

The Times of Israel reported that in an interview with the Arabic-language Iranian newspaper Al-Vefagh, Nakhala said Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was supportive of “moving from a state of calm to one of resistance” in the West Bank.

“The most important thing is that we strengthen the resistance,” Nakhala said.

“During our visit to Iran, during the meeting with His Eminence, the Leader, His Eminence reaffirmed [his desire] to advance arming the West Bank and resistance action in the West Bank.”

According to Nakhala, the PIJ has set up “fighting battalions” in Palestinian cities across the West Bank and is working on manufacturing explosives and distributing arms.

Last week, an unnamed Palestinian official told The Jerusalem Post that “Iran is already here, in the West Bank.”

Last month, the PIJ claimed responsibility for a large roadside bomb that wounded eight Israeli soldiers who were raiding the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. Six Palestinians were killed during the raid and 100 injured.

In response, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned that “all options are on the table,” in an apparent reference to carrying out a future operation to defeat the resistance in Jenin and Nablus.

The growth of new armed resistance groups has led Israeli and US officials to criticize the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by President Mahmoud Abbas, and its security forces for allegedly losing control of the West Bank.

A Palestinian official who spoke to the Jerusalem Post denied this, claiming “We worked very hard to convince scores of gunmen to hand themselves over to the Palestinian security forces,” he said. “In Nablus, more than 36 gunmen have turned themselves into the security forces. Others agreed to hand over their rifles.”

“The Americans and other parties are fully aware of the efforts our security forces are making to enforce law and order in the areas under our control in the West Bank,” the official said. “In the past five months, we arrested several gunmen and confiscated 13 rifles.”

This in turn has led to accusations that the PA leadership collaborates with the Israeli army and helps perpetuate the occupation, colonization, and displacement Palestinians are suffering from.

The Post reported that in June, PA security officers arrested Falah Sawalmeh, a commander in an armed group in the Far’a refugee camp northwest of Nablus. The PA security forces have refused to release him until he hands over his M-16 rifle.

According to the official, the PA had convinced several members of the Lions’ Den armed group, which operates in Nablus, to hand over their weapons and remain inside PA security headquarters.

Musab Shtayyeh, one of the founders and leaders of the Lions’ Den, was arrested by the PA in September last year, triggering violent clashes between the group’s fighters and PA security forces in Nablus.

 MÉXICO ES CASI EL PARAÍSO, SEGÚN LÓPEZ OBRADOR

Ayer el presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) festejó ante 250 mil personas en el Zócalo de la Ciudad de México, su triunfo hace 5 años, en las elecciones presidenciales del 2018.

Como es su costumbre, convocó a todos sus subordinados en el gobierno federal y a los 23 gobernadores (de un total de 32), que forman parte de su coalición gobernante; así como a los aspirantes a la candidatura presidencial de su partido, el Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena).

Dio un largo discurso en el que se auto elogió hasta el paroxismo, presentando cifras en todos los rubros del quehacer nacional, para afirmar que su denominada Cuarta Transformación ya cambió al país de fondo, y para atacar con todo a sus opositores, a los que él califica de conservadores, defensores de regímenes oligárquicos y corruptos.

La base de todo su discurso[1] fue que su compromiso con el pueblo y el apoyo del pueblo hacia él y su gobierno es lo que ha logrado la transformación. Su principal critica a los gobiernos neoliberales del PRI y del PAN de los últimos 36 años (1982-2018), es que nunca tomaron en cuenta al pueblo en sus políticas públicas.

En vista de que desde 2021 el propio presidente abrió la competencia por la sucesión presidencial en su coalición gobernante, y una vez que él mismo definió las reglas para conseguir esa candidatura (el pasado 5 de junio), se ha entrado en una fase de abierta competencia electoral, por lo que es lógico que el presidente quiera presentar a su gobierno como exitoso, y como un punto de inflexión en la historia de México, con objeto de que sus bases de apoyo se mantengan fieles a su proyecto y eventualmente a la candidata presidencial de su coalición (que todo indica será la ex jefa de gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Claudia Sheinbaum); y mantener acorralada y descalificada a la coalición opositora que está por iniciar su proceso de selección de su candidato o candidata presidencial (PAN-PRI-PRD).

Por ello no hubo auto critica, ni aceptación alguna de que existan pendientes, errores, omisiones o incluso retrocesos durante su administración.

La economía, la política, la seguridad, la sociedad, todo va viento en popa; México, dados los datos, cifras y aseveraciones del presidente ayer 1º de julio del 2023, es por lo menos tan desarrollado (y AMLO diría que más), que Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda, Europa Occidental, Japón, Corea del Sur y Singapur, juntos.

Decir que México es casi el paraíso[2], es quedarse corto ante el “maná” de beneficios que este país ha recibido gracias a la llegada de AMLO al poder.

Cero equilibrio en su discurso, cero auto critica, cero contención; sin López Obrador seguiríamos en la oscuridad de los gobiernos oligárquicos, de la corrupción, del dominio del crimen organizado, de la pobreza, de la desigualdad, de la violencia, etc.

Pero da la casualidad de que muchas cifras y hechos desmienten esa visión idílica de AMLO sobre el país y sobre lo realizado por su gobierno.

En el tema de la corrupción, principal rubro en el cual AMLO basó su campaña para llegar a la presidencia de la República, un índice aceptado internacionalmente para medir ese fenómeno es el que año tras año realiza Transparencia Internacional.[3]

En el índice de 2022, México aparece en el lugar 126 de 180 países con sólo 31 puntos de 100 posibles; en el mismo nivel de Bolivia, Laos y Uzbekistán. Por tercer año consecutivo (2020, 2021 y 2022), México obtuvo esos magros 31 puntos.

Dentro de los países que integran la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), México ocupó el último lugar en materia de corrupción de los 36 países que la integran; y del llamado G20, ocupa el último lugar junto con Rusia.

Es decir, para la comunidad internacional, México no ha avanzado nada en materia de combate o erradicación de la corrupción durante el gobierno de AMLO.

Pero para AMLO esos indicadores no cuentan, pues los realizan gobiernos “contrarios” a su administración, que además favorecen a los oligarcas y a los gobiernos neoliberales del pasado.

Sin embargo, internamente ya hay numerosas pruebas de que su administración ha sido un cochinero de corrupción, tal como la anterior de Peña Nieto (2012-2018).

Un panegirista del gobierno de AMLO, Hernán Gómez Bruera, de quien no se puede decir que haya sido crítico del actual gobierno, acaba de publicar un libro llamado Traición en Palacio. El negocio de la justicia en la 4t.[4] en el que detalla la serie de negocios y abusos que desde la Consejería Jurídica de la Presidencia de la República llevó a cabo durante 3 años Julio Scherer Ibarra, quien ha sido colaborador de AMLO por más de 20 años.

Parece increíble como Gómez Bruera intenta hacernos creer, que durante 3 años López Obrador no se enteró de tal cantidad de actos de corrupción y abusos de poder de su subordinado, quien tiene su oficina a un lado de la del presidente en Palacio Nacional. Simplemente no es creíble.

Así, igual que los miembros del partido del presidente repiten una y otra vez que no es creíble que el ex presidente Felipe Calderón (2006-2012), no se enterara de que su secretario de Seguridad Pública, Genaro García Luna estuviera coludido con cárteles del narcotráfico; igual se puede decir que no es creíble que AMLO no tuviera ningún conocimiento de la corrupción descarada de su consejero jurídico, al cual finalmente despidió después de su tercer informe de gobierno, porque las evidencias de su actuar ilegal eran ya demasiadas, y AMLO no tuvo más remedio que despedirlo.

Pero AMLO suele ser muy “leal”, para aquellos que le son leales a él o que le han proporcionado recursos económicos y protección política durante su larga carrera.

Scherer fue uno de los principales cabilderos para él, que conseguían dinero en efectivo de empresarios para las campañas electorales de AMLO (págs. 65-72 de Traición en Palacio), como lo atestiguó por años la que fuera esposa de uno de los principales colaboradores de AMLO, César Yáñez (hoy subsecretario de Gobernación), la periodista Elena Chávez, quien en su libro El Rey del Cash[5] detalla como políticos y empresarios diversos entregaban sumas en efectivo a López Obrador para que este pudiera continuar con su “lucha a favor del pueblo”, primero en el Partido de la Revolución Democrática y después en el Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional.

El escándalo de Seguridad Alimentaria Mexicana (Segalmex), en donde la Auditoría Superior de la Federación identificó desvíos por casi 18 mil millones de pesos, pero ahora según el gobierno de AMLO no son más de 4500 millones de pesos, pinta de cuerpo entero a AMLO.

Primero, porque por casi dos años se negó a aceptar que había un pozo de corrupción en esa entidad, encargada de asegurar el apoyo a campesinos y el abasto de alimentos a precios de descuento para la población más necesitada.

Cuando AMLO ya no pudo ocultar lo obvio, él mismo salió a defender y a cubrir los latrocinios del director de esa empresa, Ignacio Ovalle Fernández, quien en los inicios de la carrera de AMLO le dio empleo y lo protegió políticamente.

Ahora AMLO ha devuelto el favor, pero con una de las explicaciones más estúpidas que se hayan escuchado en la historia de la corrupción en México.

Según AMLO los subordinados de Ovalle “lo engañaron” y el viejito no se dio cuenta de que estuvieron saqueando por tres años la empresa paraestatal que supuestamente él dirigía.

Por lo tanto AMLO ha “exonerado” a Ovalle, y lo ha colocado en un puesto menor en la Secretaría de Gobernación. En vez de que la Fiscalía General de la República lo investigue y abra una carpeta para judicializar el caso en contra de Ovalle, diligentemente no ha hecho nada contra el funcionario, porque así lo quiere el presidente. Así se demuestra que no hay justicia en México; que los poderosos, en este caso AMLO, pueden evitar que investiguen y juzguen a corruptos como Ovalle, porque según AMLO “es buena persona”; y así se demuestra que la Fiscalía General de la República de autónoma no tiene nada, es una oficialía de partes de la Presidencia.

Si vamos a que los “pobres son primero”, es otra falacia, pues como lo acaba de documentar el Centro de Investigación Económica y Presupuestaria[6] la población sin seguridad social en México casi se duplicó entre 2020 y 2023 al pasar de 15 al 28%; mientras que el presupuesto para atender a la población en ese rubro bajó 7% en el mismo lapso.

Y entre 2020 y 2023 el dinero que las familias tuvieron que gastar en médicos particulares y medicinas subió 40%.

Mucho por la atención a los pobres en materia de salud y seguridad social.

El supuesto cambio en materia de pobreza y desigualdad es otra falacia, pues según la CEPAL y el INEGI[7] de 2019 a 2022 la desigualdad se ha mantenido sin cambios en el país, pues las remuneraciones de los asalariados solo representan el 28.7% del PIB, lo que representa un avance de sólo 0.2% entre 2020 y 2021.

Pero los que sí han logrado un éxito rotundo en este gobierno son los banqueros, quienes el año pasado consiguieron sus utilidades más altas en la historia con 250 mil millones de pesos; y este año prevén que las superarán por mucho.

Otra falacia ha sido la supuesta separación del poder político y el económico, cuando el presidente ha establecido un “capitalismo de cuates”, como el que existió en los gobiernos del llamado “nacionalismo revolucionario”, en donde aquellos empresarios que se inclinan ante el presidente obtienen concesiones y contratos, como ha sido el caso con los empresarios amigos de los hijos de AMLO; o aquellos empresarios amigos y/o compadres del presidente (Carlos Slim, Jesús Chávez Morán del Grupo Vidanta, José María Riobóo, Miguel Rincón Arredondo de Bio Pappel, entre otros). Vaya con la separación del poder político y el económico.

Y que decir de la inseguridad, cuando este año ya se llegó a 156 mil muertes, más que en todo el anterior sexenio de Peña Nieto, y las ejecuciones, enfrentamientos entre grupos del crimen organizado, extorsiones, asaltos a transporte público y de carga siguen al alza en todo el país.

Pero no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver, y AMLO sólo se ve a sí mismo como un personaje histórico del tamaño de Benito Juárez y Lázaro Cárdenas, y los fanáticos de su movimiento no están dispuestos tampoco a que esa visión se “empañe” con cifras, datos y realidades que contradigan la narrativa exitosa y victoriosa de su gran líder.

Malas noticias para México, pues en la medida en que el presidente, su gobierno y su movimiento sólo quieran ver “lo bueno” de su gestión y no estén dispuestos a corregir lo malo (que es muchísimo), el país seguirá hundido en la mediocridad, la corrupción, la violencia, la inseguridad, la pobreza, la desigualdad, la demagogia y la realidad alternativa que llevará al país al borde del precipicio.

---

[1] https://www.gob.mx/presidencia/articulos/version-estenografica-mensaje-del-presidente-5-aniversario-del-triunfo-del-pueblo?idiom=es

 

[2] Como el nombre de la famosa novela de Luis Spota.

[3] https://www.tm.org.mx/ipc2022/

 

[4] De Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, publicado en la Ciudad de México en junio del 2023.

[5] Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, publicado en octubre de 2022 en la Ciudad de México.

[6] https://www.reforma.com/aplicacioneslibre/preacceso/articulo/default.aspx?__rval=1&urlredirect=/se-duplica-poblacion-sin-seguridad-social/

 

[7]  https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/06/05/economia/020n3eco

 

End Washington’s Buildup for War with China, Pursue Peace and Economic Cooperation

written by connor freeman

thursday june 29, 2023

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/june/29/end-washington-s-buildup-for-war-with-china-pursue-peace-and-economic-cooperation/

As Washington is mired in brinkmanship with Russia in Ukraine, the last thing the US should do is decouple with China. For years, the Pentagon has been eyeing a future war with Beijing, yet another unnecessary war which – in our lifetimes - could lead to this planet’s nuclear incineration.

America’s new Cold War with China is a bi-partisan imperial project led by the Democrats. In 2011, former President Barack Obama began it in earnest, dubbing it the “pivot to Asia.” The “pivot” entails the largest military buildup since the Second World War, shifting hundreds of bases as well as two-thirds of all US Air and Naval forces to the Asia-Pacific region. Washington is encircling China for a future war with Beijing.

In 2020, while Americans were distracted by the Covid-19 crisis, Donald Trump’s war cabinet seized the opportunity to drastically expand the US military footprint in Beijing’s near abroad by sending more warships and spy planes, conducting aerial surveillance flights, to the region and especially the South China Sea. These provocations have been vastly escalated by the Biden administration.

Americans must soon put the shoe on the other foot and ask how Washington would react if instead China was surrounding the US with weapons of war and military bases.

Ten months after Biden entered the oval office, US reconnaissance aircraft had flown over 2,000 sorties in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Yellow Sea, including near China’s coast. That same year, Biden nearly doubled the deployments of aircraft carrier strike groups in the South China Sea.

In 2022, US spy planes flew 1,000 sorties in the South China Sea including, in some instances, flying just over a dozen miles from the baseline of China’s mainland territorial waters. US aircraft carrier strike groups and amphibious alert groups made eight deployments to the region. Last year, Biden sent nuclear-powered attack submarines to the South China Sea 12 times.

Concurrently, the US is attempting to wrangle its allies in the confrontation with China, bringing the north Atlantic alliance to the Indo-Pacific targeting Beijing, and building various alliances such as AUKUS and the Quad with Australia, Japan, and India, eyeing an east Asian version of NATO.

The Trump administration formally rejected almost all of China’s claims to the waters in the South China Sea. Washington has been challenging China, using the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, inserting itself into disputes between regional actors there whom all have overlapping claims on the waters including over various, sometimes unmanned, rocks, reefs, islands, islets, and archipelagos. Under Biden, the policy has been reaffirmed. 

Even if it means war with China, Biden’s administration has pledged that the US will defend Japan‘s claims to the uninhabited Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. Similarly, Washington has promised the US military will come to the Philippines’ defense in the event of a violent conflict with China, including in the South China Sea, potentially over the disputed Whitson Reef, which is claimed not only by Beijing and Manila but by Hanoi as well.

The Navy routinely conducts so-called Freedom Of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), in the waters surrounding China, sailing warships through the waters, particularly in the South China Sea, usually provocatively close to Chinese controlled or claimed islands.

Additionally, Biden’s administration has overturned almost 50 years of US-Taiwan policy, which has largely kept the cross-strait peace. Per the former approach, the US would never commit to defending or not defending the island, which the US views as part of One-China, against a potential attack on the breakaway province. Critically, “strategic ambiguity” has aimed to deter Beijing from attempting to retake the island by force and, at the same time, to discourage Taiwan’s radical factions seeking to declare independence. 

Biden himself has frequently made what were thought to be “gaffes” contradicting long-standing US policy on Taiwan. The president has repeatedly insisted that America’s sons and daughters would be sent to the island to fight this war with China that his administration is actively provoking. Although, this year both the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines have confirmed “strategic ambiguity” is dead and gone.

China has made clear that Taiwan is a “red line.” While the American side promises they only want to “deter” war with these actions, Beijing has repeatedly said that they seek a “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan but they have not ruled out using force. Washington’s actions make war more likely.

The US is now committing billions of dollars in military aid to Taiwan, expanding US National Guard training programs with the Taiwanese military, continually sending more Congressional delegations to the island, deploying higher numbers of US troops to the island, training hundreds of Taiwanese soldiers for war on US soil, converting Taiwan into a “giant weapons depot,” and sailing American warships through the sensitive Taiwan strait almost every month.

Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has explained that a war with China over the island of Taiwan could see American cities obliterated with nuclear weapons over an issue which does not affect our national security unless we unnecessarily involve ourselves. Davis details the dire risks of this extreme bipartisan bellicosity,

It is crucial to understand that for China, the Taiwan issue is not merely a core interest, but an emotionally charged one. They are far more willing to pay extraordinary costs, sacrifice many men, and could risk it all to eventually compel unification with Taiwan. The issue does not directly affect our national security unless we get involved.

If we eventually choose war with China over Taiwan, we will at best suffer egregious losses in ships, aircraft, and troops; in a worst-case, the war could deteriorate into a nuclear exchange in which American cities are turned into nuclear wastelands, killing millions.

America should never take such risks unless our security and freedom are directly threatened. Fighting China for any reason short of that would be a foolish gamble of the highest order.

China is more often becoming the favorite excuse for our mammoth Pentagon budget, which is already closing in on $900 billion, depleting our resources and capital. As it is, we actually spend nearly $1.5 trillion on the national security state every year.

This policy which threatens all of us dearly, is implemented by entrenched bureaucrats ideologically committed to the neoconservative agenda of global domination and the military-industrial complex giants currently ensnared in a huge “price gouging” scandal are the beneficiaries. 

These firms are ripping off American taxpayers so blatantly– reaping obscene profits ranging from 40% to as high as 4,000% - that last month some prominent senators sent a letter demanding an investigation to our Raytheon board member turned Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.

During a recent 60 Minutes report, Shay Assad, who worked as a Pentagon contract negotiator for 40 years, cited numerous examples to the outlet explaining that these arms industry behemoths overcharge the DoD for everything from “radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.”

Such “astronomical price increases” have sharply spiked amid Washington’s exponentially rising demand for weapons systems to both bolster Taiwan and Kiev, the report said.

Decoupling is the absolute worst policy to enact even in peacetime. But as we are nearing brinkmanship with China, it should be most unthinkable. As Otto T. Mallery, the late 19th century liberal, wrote “if soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

Americans are not supposed to be living and dying in service of an Empire seeking global hegemony. As the former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul once said:

…[H]ow much longer can we afford this unnecessary and counterproductive extravagance? While our government engages in deficit spending to fund its military exploits overseas, detracting from our own productivity, countries like China are filling the void by expanding their trade opportunities. I have never understood this talk of our military presence as a “strategic reserve of Western civilization.” Instead, the best indication of our civilization has been our prestige in international trade. We should let the best measure of our American greatness come from free and peaceful trade with other nations, not from displays of our military might.

This is also the view of current Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who in a major break with the hawks in his own party, the Democrats, offers the best option for Americans when it comes to relations with China.

During his recent Twitter space event, former Congresswoman and currently serving Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard asked Kennedy whether war with Beijing was necessary. His answer was clear,

Let’s recognize the reality that China is a very ambitious nation and it does want to compete. But the reality is it doesn’t want to compete with us militarily. [China is] still relatively poor compared to [the United States]. I think we [should] be competing with them. On an economic platform, not a military one. I’m not frightened by China. That kind of competition would be good for the whole world. It would be a collaborative competition, if you will. China does not want a war with us. We were told after the Cold War period that we’d get a peace dividend. We never got that peace dividend. We now spend more on our military than the next ten countries in the world. It’s [kind of] a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should be deescalating. We should be talking with China, for god’s sake. We haven’t talked with them in five years. Any talks with China should not be about military swaggering. The Chinese have been doing a lot better than us because they’ve been projecting economic power abroad. Why are [we] trying to create a war with China? Why are [we] making Taiwan a military issue? Let Taiwan and China figure it out. They don’t want war. They want prosperity. Let’s deescalate. Let’s figure out how to have a financial relationship with them that rebuilds the American industrial base.

This is not just Kennedy’s words, even DNI Haines admitted to the House Intelligence Committee that the US does not assess that China wants war.

Our nation is broke and more than $30 trillion in debt, we cannot afford decoupling or war with China. Nor can we morally afford another war, which decoupling, particularly under the current circumstances, would make exponentially more likely.

In May, new research published in a study by Brown University’s ‘Costs of War’ project found that “a reasonable and conservative estimate suggests that at least 4.5 million people have died in the major post-9/11 war zones.” 

The same Republicans and Democrats responsible for those wars are now leading us down the path of violent confrontation with China. We can just say no and enact a policy of free trade, diplomacy, and peace. It does not have to be this way.

Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest podcast with Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com, where he is a news writer, as well as Counterpunch and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Vital Dissent, Around the Empire, Crashing the War Party, and The Scott Horton Show. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.