Connect with us


The Domino Effect at the South of the Border — A Geopolitical Scenario




It is December 2017. In six months, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is about to leave office. After the Marihuana regularization revolution, started successfully by President Jose Mujica of Uruguay in 2013 and, out of public pressure in Montevideo, later implemented by Uruguayan President Tabaré Vazquez at the end of 2015.

The marihuana legalization revolution was followed by Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua throughout 2016 and 2017. The aforementioned countries gained an unexpected high amount of fiscal revenue out medical and non-medical marihuana. Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico, who were pressured by the American government, because of border proximity, decided not to implement the regularization of Marihuana.

Nicolas Maduro’s regime collapsed in early 2016, giving birth to what political analysts called ‘the new year’s eve coup of state’, which was influenced by the 2015 economic meltdown, and taken over by the American-accused drug lord, Lieutenant. (Ret.) Diosdado Cabello. But out of fear of been invaded, as was the case of Noriega’s Panama, Diosdado Cabello became an American ally. President Cabello imprisoned his ex-Chavistas comrades, exiled Maduro and Cilia Flores to Habana, and brought Caracas into Washington’s sphere of influence.

Nevertheless, in Mexico, after Calderon’s six-year term, the death toll was 120,000, while during the Peña Nieto six-year term administration, the death toll doubled to 240,000. The crime rates skyrocketed stemming from drug-related crimes alongside political kidnappings, making the Iguala case the first one of its kind; for it was followed by an unprecedented wave of massive kidnappings and killings of left-wing oriented political student movement in southern Mexico. These events gave birth to southern Mexico’s guerrilla, a.k.a. PLNM (Partido por la Liberacion Nacional de Mexico—Party for the National Liberation of Mexico), which was based in the mountainous regions of Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca and Michoacán states. Their policy was bold: the PLNM was anti-Mexican private sector elite and anti-American.

After an imprisoned Julian Assange leaked governmental official documents, protests across Mexico erupted. The United States Government was secretly giving heavy weapons to both the cartels and the newly left-wing guerrilla forces, as part of a DEA-CIA coordinated cover task operation. The American intelligence wanted to uncover a human contraband structure of potential ISIS militants, hiding in Michoacán, Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero, and who potentially be smuggled onto American soil by the PLNM armed forces, using the selling of heavy weaponry as a covert operation. The DEA-CIA led operation was a catastrophe. It was leaked. And now the increasingly frustrated Mexican population turned their anger not only against the Mexican government, for its complacency with the American government, but against all of the American consulates and tourists in Mexico, including the American embassy. Washington had never seen such massive and violent protests in Mexico against American interests. As an effect, in March 2018, everything was pointing toward the fact that the Mexican voters would choose an anti-American, PLNM candidate.

Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras continue to have the highest combined criminal rates per capita in the world. Because of high political corruption and lack of political commitment, Washington, has not implemented its 2015 North Triangle $ 1 billion plan at the frustration of Central American leaders; a dysfunctional Republican-controlled congress continues to have the plan blocked, until Guatemala city, San Salvador and Tegucigalpa, implement tougher strategies against illegal immigration, corruption and organized crime. Central American Presidents were increasingly resentful of Washington policies.

Colombia, despite a tumultuous year-long negotiation, at the end of 2015, President Juan Manuel Santos successfully signed the long-sought peace plan with the FARC and ELN left-wing guerrilla forces; however, a new cartel, funded by unhappy FARC and ELN guerilla commanders, alongside criminal gangs, such as the Rastrojos gang and unemployed ex-guerrilla fighters, gave birth to what would be Colombia’s newest cartel: The Magdalena Valley Cartel, which operates out of the Colombian Cordillera Occidental, ramping up the Magdalena river valley as their main corridor of narcotics and guns, while controlling the ports from Buenaventura to Barranquilla and everything standing west of the Cordillera Occidental. Because of its guerrilla command structure and training, the Magdalena Valley Cartel is powerful enough to combine both guerrilla and cartel textbook style of attacks on the Colombian armed forces.

Colombia, is regaining worldwide attention as it once had during Pablo Escobar and the Rodriguez Orejuela reign of fear. The European Union imposed entry visas in conjunction with many Latin American countries. Additionally, Colombian intelligence suspects there is a drug and weapons contraband structure between the Magdalena Valley Cartel and Mexico’s PLMN guerrilla forces. However, what has President Juan Manuel Santos worried, is that the Central American Northern Triangle governments, through their proxies—MS 13, MS18 and the Zacapa cartel—have facilitated both the Magdalena Valley Cartel and the PLNM their criminal business structure. In spite of this, President Santos, was tired to fight another war against another cartel.

To Washington’s surprise, President Santos, during June 2018, a month before the Mexican presidential elections scheduled on Sunday, July 1st, the Colombian President decided to travel to Mexico to meet the PLNM candidate Rodrigo Juarez Viloria. Surprisingly, Juarez Viloria had lessened his anti-private sector rhetoric, influenced by his Chinese advisors. President Santos learned how Juarez Viloria wanted a politically controlled Mexico, yet with Chinese-like capitalistic policies. But whose main difference from his counterparts was his fierce anti-American sentiment.

Candidate Juarez Viloria had a history of personal tragedy: he lost many of his family members, on the war against drugs, fueling his grief and blaming America, meanwhile, his politically left-oriented eldest son was kidnapped by the Nuevo Jalisco Cartel, bolstering his hatred against the Mexican private sector, who he suspected were behind the massive killing of socialist and communist-inclined students. Juarez Viloria, emboldened by the image and spirit of Pancho Villa, bowed revenge against the cartels, Mexican oligarchs and the United States for its stubbornness of not changing anything related to the war against drugs. Mexico had already surpassed Spain and Brazil as the economic leader of the Hispanic and Latin American world. And Juarez Viloria is keen to fill the leadership power vacuum left in the region with a massive popular support in Mexico and throughout Latin America.

Three weeks before the presidential election, American intelligence services, intercepted a conversation between Rodrigo Juarez Viloria and President Juan Manuel Santos: Should Colombia support him as a presidential candidate, and if elected, the Mexican PLMN candidate would dismantle the PLMN-Magdalena Valley Cartel narco-structure by legalizing not just Marihuana, but the whole drug trade, allowing free mobility of drugs across Mexican territory, and by imprisoning the leaders of the structure—even if it means to imprison members of his own party. Juarez Viloria wanted the Mexican Presidency badly; and Santos was voicing out his support. Washington was now extremely concern of a possible domino effect south of the border.

On the eve of Sunday, July 1st, post-presidential elections, the unthinkable for Washington has happened: Juarez Viloria is proclaimed winner of one of the most contested presidential elections in Mexican history. United States would have to share the border with an anti-American, and potential de-facto leader of Latin America.

It was December, 2018, Juarez Viloria, during his inaugural address, proclaimed a massive fervent, inspiring speech:

“It is on this day that I will bring the sovereign right of Mexico, and sign an executive order, by allowing and legalizing drugs within our territory,officially ending Mexico’s war against drugs. And because I know how Washington will react to this announcement, I hereby declare the DEA A-Sack and the American Ambassador persona non grata. And because, I know Washington will expulse our Ambassador, I recall him right now, telling our Ambassador, that Mexico, as in the times of our great heroes, Benito Juarez and Pancho Villa, will not leave a Mexican son to succumb and be humiliated, as the American Empire always had humiliated the Mexican people. And to this, I only have to say to my countrymen on the other side of the border: No! This time Latin America, and the new global leader, China, stands with Mexico. Come back to Mexico, because I will provide a better future for all of Mexico and for all Mexicans! And will not be humiliated, nor allow Mexico to be humiliated by the Empire, north of our border. Today, I declare our full independence!

The people erupted in joy. It was the first time Mexico stood up against its northern neighbor. And Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Colombia, inspired by his speech, followed the Mexican policy and legalized the free flow and regularization of drugs with presidential executive orders.

American intelligence failed to predict the outcome of Mexico, the Republicans were outraged and the Democrats were shocked: They knew Juarez Viloria was a radical, but for Mexico to go against the geographical and global realities was something Washington did not expected.

Weeks later, following the congressional-approved law, Juarez Viloria’s signed the regularization agreement. The American President held an emergency meeting with its top cabinet members, military Joint Chief of Staff, congress majority leaders, national security advisors, and South Com. General. Kelly.

The White House, with streamlined congressional approval, decides to take emergency prerogatives by signing the domino-effect détente act, implementing the immediate precautionary and preemptive security and economic actions:


  1. Reinforcement of the Mexican-American border, with options to militarily intervene Mexican border cities;
  1. The siege and check of the ports of Buenaventura, Barranquilla and Cartagena ports in Colombia;
  1. The securization of the Mexican-Guatemalan border;
  1. Blocking immigrant remittance exports to Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras;
  1. Sanctioning Mexican and Colombian banking, manufacturing and petroleum industries;


The American Intervention

With the analogy of the Afghan, Iraqi and Vietnamese foreign interventions, the American Federal Government decides to deploy 150,000 members of the National Guard to the American side of the border—from California to Texas—limiting a full blown invasion of Mexico. Also, the U.S. Navy dispatched three amphibian assault ships (USS America, USS Bataan, USS Boxer), one amphibious transport dock (USS Anchorage), and two destroyers (USS Bainbridge and USS Barry), with the purpose of showing force to the President Juarez Viloria to change his drug policy.

When the Norfolk-based destroyers and the San Diego-outbound amphibian assaults ships were stationed in the outskirts of the ports of Veracruz and Acapulco—nearest entryways into Mexico City—the American President decides to call President Juarez Viloria.

“President Juarez Viloria, good afternoon, this is the President of the United States of America. I congratulate you for a clean, democratic electoral victory. Unfortunately, the impulsive decision you have taken, can have dire consequences for the health of the American people. I had to take preemptive measures, Mr. President. This said, I encourage you to have a thorough and candid talk with our Secretary of State, and who is ready to board a plane towards Mexico City, to find a solution for your new policy. For the moment, our National Guard members have been deployed in our side of the border, enforcing maximum restraint, by not incurring into Mexican border cities, however, if we must incur, we will incur. The sake of the American people’s health is something I will not negotiate. Also, a small maritime force is stationed near Veracruz and Acapulco, holding their position as well. This can be called off, if you decide to repel this law that could affect America as a whole. The decision is on you, Mr. President.” The American President point out.

A furious Juarez Viloria responds:

Mr. President, rather than holding an honest dialogue amongst neighbors, and respecting our sovereignty to enforce the free mobility and legalization of drugs, you indirectly threaten me with the use of military force, so let me tell you this, because I will only say It once: Mexico and Latin America are tired of putting the death. For you it is a matter of healthcare but for us it has been a matter of life and death. However, I can assure you that as long drugs are illegal in your country, I will hem the entry of such into your countr. And concerning our armed forces, should you incur on our side of the border, I can also assure you that our armed forces will have maximum restraint. I will not risk Mexican blood; yet, I can not assure the same from some members of my party who are part of the PLMN defense forces, and have their own ideas of business and governance; and needless to mention the cartels operating on our side of the which I lack control. At this moment, I think it would be counterproductive to engage in a dialogue with your Secretary of State, until you back off from your bullying.”

The American President, unwilling to drop his guard, makes a last remark to President Juarez Viloria.

“I Understand Mr. President. But, as a precautionary measure, I wanted to let you know that today, along members of congress, I have signed the domino-effect détente act, which will compel your government and policymakers, to drop such regulation which can hold an unprecedented healthcare crisis for our American citizens in our soil, and American citizens living in Mexico. 150,000 members of our National Guard, stand combat ready, should they intervene the principal border cities of Mexico in conjunction with army rangers and marine rapid deployment forces. Mr. President, I look forward to work with you and the Mexican people. Good evening, Adios…

Weeks later, following this brief yet striking conversation between the American and Mexican presidents, United States sends a combination of ground military forces to Tijuana, Mexicali, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Ciudad Acuña, Piedras Negras, Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Miguel Aleman, Reynosa and Matamoros, with the excuse of containing a potentially massive influx of drugs on American soil. Additionally, vigilante militias organized by Sheriff Arpaio and John McCain, stand prepared to defend American soil from California to Texas. And shoot-to-kill any illegal immigrant, further severing ties between Mexico and United States.

Likewise, 10 C-130J Super Hercules land on Tapachula airport containing the drug flow from the Mexican-Guatemalan border, particularly Tapachula and La Mesilla borderlands. Nevertheless, La Mesilla border city was hard to secure since it was located in the heart of the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes Mountains, and whose mountains sheltered the PLNM armed forces. As a result, a contingent of US Navy Seals, Army Rangers and Green Berets were dispatched to this particular border city.

Furthermore, the Pentagon decides to send four amphibious cargo ships to the Colombian ports of Cartagena, Barranquilla and Buenaventura, inspecting Colombian shipping vessels.

And to finalize their securization operation, United States, with congressional approval, imposed sanctions on the manufacture, banking and petroleum industries of Mexico and Colombia as well as the flow of remittances to Colombia, Mexico and the Central American North Triangle.

South American governments, except for Caracas and Habana, were furious with United States that, as a sign of protests, recalled their ambassadors, as a protest, to empathize with Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Colombia.

Mexico Strikes Back

President Juarez Viloria was an avid reader of American military history, so thus he knew that one of the least comfortable military scenarios for the Americans was to fight against both urban and mountain guerrillas. Moreover, Rodrigo Juarez Viloria knew that a Pakistan-like scenario would irritate the American military forces, and if successful, he would push for negotiations with the American president. His strategy was clear: a complacent Mexican government with the American forces, but fierce guerrilla warfare, with whom the Mexican government had nothing to do with; Juarez Viloria would play a scenario similar to the one the Pakistani Pashtun tribes and Haqqani network fought the Americans in Afghanistan from Pakistan.

President Santos, in turn, complied with American military forces, up to the point that, the controversial regularization of drugs, was repelled, and the ports of Cartagena, Buenaventura and Barranquilla were liberated, followed by the lifting of sanctions. President Santos felt humiliated by the Americans, and protests through all of Colombia erupted against Santos.

The protests of remittance-dependent peasants was becoming so agonizing for Guatemala City, San Salvador and Tegucigalpa that a decision was made to drop the mobility and regularization of drugs within their territory. Washington lifted the blockage of remittances. However, though economically poor, Guatemala and El Salvador militarily had an average of 30 years of experience combined, in mountainous and jungle terrain. Politically and economically, Guatemala and El Salvador could not stand up to the Americans, not even within Guatemalan territory, but the Guatemalan Kaibil Special Forces and the renewed Atlacatl Salvadorian battalion, were how the Guatemalan and Salvadoran presidents would aide their Mexican counterpart. Honduras decided not to participate.

President Juarez Viloria, with the aide of top Guatemalan Kaibiles and the Salvadoran Atlacatl battalion, decided to give the order through his guerrilla proxies, to conduct small operations of attack on the American station post of La Mesilla and Tapachula, by making hit-and-run type of military operations, with the purpose to drag and fight American ground forces in La Sierra de los Cuchumatanes Mountains of Chiapas and Huehuetenango in Guatemala. A terrain that, in Vietnam and Afghanistan, resulted uncomfortable for American ground forces.

At 3:00 a.m., La Mesilla border post along with the Tapachula airport, which hosted American forces, were attacked by the PMLN death squads, resulting in a low-level casualty attack. American forces stationed in Tapachula and La Mesia would be forced to retaliate in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountains. With a force of three Black Hawk helicopters and ten Humvees, decided to track down the PNLM forces. Because of landmines and IED, Army Rangers, Navy Seals and Green Berets were forced to fled their Humvees, consequently, engaging in a full-flown combat in the mountains; the Black Hawk helicopters, in spite of their shoot and destroy tactics, drastically failed to destroy important targets, finishing their ammo, forcing them back to Tapachula airport to reload, and living the thirty-men special forces squad to their luck in the Sierra. The result was fatal: 25 killed in combat and 5 captured and beheaded. President Juarez Viloria denied involvement, blaming a local drug cartel.

United States, furiously responded by bombing important infrastructure, in cities such as Monterrey, Guadalajara and Mexico City. Moreover, Chiapas villages in the mountains, where guerrilla forces were hiding, were unmercifully bombed. Also, after knowing the involvement of both Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments, United States sanctioned the Guatemalan and Salvadoran military chain of command, political elite, important private sector oligarchs, by removing their American tourist visas, freezing their assets and bank accounts on American soil. Sanctions would be lifted until Guatemala and El Salvador stopped supporting the Mexican PNLM guerrilla force.

After the bombings, President Juarez Viloria furiously summoned the American charge d’affaire to stop bombing Mexico and to remind him how the 1916 American incursion of Mexico ended badly for American military forces.

As a notable schemer, President Juarez Viloria, unwilling to repel his controversial drug law, organized massive protests held by Mexican immigrants, working in the construction and restaurant industries, and from the cash harvest to the vehicle maintenance industries, Rodrigo Juarez Viloria vigorously appealed to the patriotic sentiment of Mexico. In turn, the Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments addressed their own diasporas living in United States: If they were to stop working for a three months, then, as a result, they would show their true, patriotic character in the defense of their invaded and humiliated countries.

Out of surprise, massive protests took place in the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, New York City, Miami, New Orleans, Houston and so forth. The protests by the Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Mexican diasporas, costed billions of dollars to the American economy.

A resentful Santos, convinced the members of UNASUR, to impose an unorthodox sanction, named, similar to the one OPEC had pressed United States during the 1970s, however, this time, using their own resources as economic weapons: A mineral, agricultural and livestock commodity, six month embargo by the members of UNASUR, Central American Isthmus and Mexico. Venezuela decided not participate, since it was still recovering from the 2015 economic meltdown. The goal was clear: To send Washington a clear message: We are all America and we are all intertwined.

This outcome had a dire affect for the American economy. Wal-Mart, Publix, Whole foods, Chipotle and especially Starbuck’s, , were amongst some of the most important corporations suffering greatly. The American economy suffered billions in losses and thousands of direct and indirect jobs as a result of the Latin American-led embargo. Oil prices were staggering and increasingly dependent upon the Middle East and Canada; Africa and South East Asia could not keep up in replacing both soft and hard commodities; Automobiles and clothing produced in Latin America, increased the prices for American retailers; and the American Chamber of Commerce, in addition with the support of 40 states—especially Colorado and Washington, were marihuana was legal and were looking forward to commerce with Latin America—were starting to feel the economic pressure and local protests of increasing prices. The Mexican economy was on its knees alongside most of the South American economies. Beijing had provided enormous bailouts to most of the Latin American economies.

Mexicans living in the borderlands were started to violently resist and push the American forces back, while the American ground forces started the use of force more violently. Washington was risking sending more troops to Mexico and, more importantly, could risk a full-blown war in northern and southern Mexico, between government, cartel and PNLM forces. A nightmare neither Mexico City nor Washington would of wanted.

Washington and Mexico City had to reach a deal to overcome this cold war.

The Mexican-American Deal

After a year and a half of the known Mexican-American cold war, UNASUR members were poise to end the war on drugs: They were ready to legalize the rest of the drug trade. Following Brazil’s lead, an emboldened Colombia and Central America, in the 2020, CELAC summit, officially legalized drugs.

Washington was completely overwhelmed that it would have to politically and economically declare war on the rest of Latin America. However, policymakers and the IRS chief decided that, perhaps, it was time for Washington legalize and regularize Marihuana.  

In the summer of 2020, Habana and Caracas acted as mediators between Mexico City and Washington. As a result, in August of 2020, the Mexican minister of foreign affairs in coordination with the Secretary of State happily informed the press on the agreement both parties have reached.

The deal followed as:

  1. Mexico could only legally trade with American states that had legalized medical and non-medical Marihuana, if caught in the act of selling illegal drugs, sanctions would be imposed to the Mexican government and private corporations who sold it;
  1. The PLNM guerrilla forces commanders would face American extradition and justice and would be dismantled by the Mexican, Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments, while supervised by the U.N. Chiapas Mission;
  1. Mexico would comply to dismantle and/or fight the remaining drug cartels under the supervision and help of the DEA;
  1. United States would pay war reparations to the villagers that died during the drone strikes of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Michoacán and Guerrero;
  1. United States would provide aid to repair civilian infrastructure that was bombed during the short-lived conflict between Mexico and United States;
  1. Mexico and the rest of Latin America would pay economic damages to American corporations for violating in forced free trade agreements;

After this tumultuous epoch, Latin America and United States became closer than ever before. And now, President Juarez Viloria and the American President, were drinking tequila celebrating the new deal…

Continue Reading


Why America’s major news-media must change their thinking

Eric Zuesse



America’s ‘news’-media possess the mentality that characterizes a dictatorship, not a democracy. This will be documented in the linked-to empirical data which will be subsequently discussed. But, first, here is what will be documented by those data, and which will make sense of these data:

In a democracy, the public perceive their country to be improving, in accord with that nation’s values and priorities. Consequently, they trust their government, and especially they approve of the job-performance of their nation’s leader. In a dictatorship, they don’t. In a dictatorship, the government doesn’t really represent them, at all. It represents the rulers, typically a national oligarchy, an aristocracy of the richest 0.1% or even of only the richest 0.01%. No matter how much the government ‘represents’ the public in law (or “on paper”), it’s not representing them in reality; and, so, the public don’t trust their government, and the public’s job-rating of their national leader, the head-of-state, is poor, perhaps even more disapproval than approval. So, whereas in a democracy, the public widely approve of both the government and the head-of-state; in a dictatorship, they don’t.

In a dictatorship, the ‘news’-media hide reality from the public, in order to serve the government — not the public. But the quality of government that the regime delivers to its public cannot be hidden as the lies continually pile up, and as the promises remain unfulfilled, and as the public find that despite all of the rosy promises, things are no better than before, or are even becoming worse. Trust in such a government falls, no matter how much the government lies and its media hide the fact that it has been lying. Though a ‘democratic’ election might not retain in power the same leaders, it retains in power the same regime (be it the richest 0.1%, or the richest 0.01%, or The Party, or whatever the dictatorship happens to be). That’s because it’s a dictatorship: it represents the same elite of power-holding insiders, no matter what. It does not represent the public. That elite — whatever it is — is referred to as the “Deep State,” and the same Deep State can control more than one country, in which case there is an empire, which nominally is headed by the head-of-state of its leading country (this used to be called an “Emperor”), but which actually consists of an alliance between the aristocracies within all these countries; and, sometimes, the nominal leading country is actually being led, in its foreign policies, by wealthier aristocrats in the supposedly vassal nations. But no empire can be a democracy, because the residents in no country want to be governed by any foreign power: the public, in every land, want their nation to be free — they want democracy, no dictatorship at all, especially no dictatorship from abroad.

In order for the elite to change, a revolution is required, even if it’s only to a different elite, instead of to a democracy. So, if there is no revolution, then certainly it’s the same dictatorship as before. The elite has changed (and this happens at least as often as generations change), but the dictatorship has not. And in order to change from a dictatorship to a democracy, a revolution also is required, but it will have to be a revolution that totally removes from power the elite (and all their agents) who had been ruling. If this elite had been the nation’s billionaires and its centi-millionaires who had also been billionaire-class donors to political campaigns (such as has been proven to be the case in the United States), then those people, who until the revolution had been behind the scenes producing the bad government, need to be dispossessed of their assets, because their assets were being used as their weapons against the public, and those weapons need (if there is to be a democracy) to be transferred to the public as represented by the new and authentically democratic government. If instead the elite had been a party, then all of those individuals need to be banned from every sort of political activity in the future. But, in either case, there will need to be a new constitution, and a consequent new body of laws, because the old order (the dictatorship) no longer reigns — it’s no longer in force after a revolution. That’s what “revolution” means. It doesn’t necessarily mean “democratic,” but sometimes it does produce a democracy where there wasn’t one before.

The idea that every revolution is democratic is ridiculous, though it’s often assumed in ‘news’-reports. In fact, coups (which the U.S. Government specializes in like no other) often are a revolution that replaces a democracy by a dictatorship (such as the U.S. Government did to Ukraine in 2014, for example, and most famously before that, did to Iran in 1953). (Any country that perpetrates a coup anywhere is a dictatorship over the residents there, just the same as is the case when any invasion and occupation of a country are perpetrated upon a country. The imposed stooges are stooges, just the same. No country that imposes coups and/or invasions/occupations upon any government that has not posed an existential threat against the residents of that perpetrating country, supports democracy; to the exact contrary, that country unjustifiably imposes dictatorships; it spreads its own dictatorship, which is of the imperialistic type, and any government that spreads its dictatorship is evil and needs to be replaced — revolution is certainly justified there.)

This is how to identify which countries are democracies, and which ones are not: In a democracy, the public are served by the government, and thus are experiencing improvement in their lives and consequently approve of the job-performance of their head-of-state, and they trust the government. But in a dictatorship, none of these things is true.

In 2014, a Japanese international marketing-research firm polled citizens in each of ten countries asking whether they approve or disapprove of the job-performance of their nation’s head-of-state, and Harvard then provided an English-translated version online for a few years, then eliminated that translation from its website; but, fortunately, the translation had been web-archived and so is permanent here (with no information however regarding methodology or sampling); and it shows the following percentages who approved of the job-performance of their President or other head-of-state in each of the given countries, at that time:

  • China (Xi) 90%
  • Russia (Putin) 87%
  • India (Modi) 86%
  • South Africa (Zuma) 70%
  • Germany (Merkel) 67%
  • Brazil (Roussef) 63%
  • U.S. (Obama) 62%
  • Japan (Abe) 60%
  • UK (Cameron) 55%
  • France (Hollande) 48%

In January 2018, the global PR firm Edelman came out with the latest in their annual series of scientifically polled surveys in more than two dozen countries throughout the world, tapping into, actually, some of the major criteria within each nation indicating whether or not the given nation is more toward the dictatorship model, or more toward the democracy model. The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer survey showed that “Trust in Government” (scored and ranked on page 39) is 44% in Russia, and is only 33% in the United States. Trust in Government is the highest in China: 84%. The U.S. and Russia are the nuclear super-powers; and the U.S. and China are the two economic super-powers; so, these are the world’s three leading powers; and, on that single measure of whether or not a country is democratic, China is the global leader (#1 of 28), Russia is in the middle (#13 of 28), and U.S. ranks at the bottom of the three, and near the bottom of the entire lot (#21 of 28). (#28 of 28 is South Africa, which, thus — clearly in retrospect — had a failed revolution when it transitioned out of its apartheid dictatorship. That’s just a fact, which cannot reasonably be denied, given this extreme finding. Though the nation’s leader, Zuma, was, according to the 2014 Japanese study, widely approved by South Africans, his Government was overwhelmingly distrusted. This distrust indicates that the public don’t believe that the head-of-state actually represents the Government. If the head-of-state doesn’t represent the Government, the country cannot possibly be a democracy: the leader might represent the people, but the Government doesn’t.)

When the government is trusted but the head-of-state is not, or vice-versa, there cannot be a functioning democracy. In other words: if either the head-of-state, or the Government, is widely distrusted, there’s a dictatorship at that time, and the only real question regarding it, is: What type of dictatorship is this?

These figures — the numbers reported here — contradict the ordinary propaganda; and, so, Edelman’s trust-barometer on each nation’s ‘news’-media (which are scored and ranked on page 40) might also be considered, because the natural question now is whether unreliable news-media might have caused this counter-intuitive (in Western countries) rank-order. However, a major reason why this media-trust-question is actually of only dubious relevance to whether or not the given nation is a democracy, is that to assume that it is, presumes that trust in the government can be that easily manipulated — it actually can’t. Media and PR can’t do that; they can’t achieve it. Here is a widespread misconception: Trust in government results not from the media but from a government’s having fulfilled its promises, and from the public’s experiencing and seeing all around themselves that they clearly have been fulfilled; and lying ‘news’-media can’t cover-up that reality, which is constantly and directly being experienced by the public.

However, even if trust in the ‘news’-media isn’t really such a thing as might be commonly hypothesized regarding trust in the government, here are those Edelman findings regarding the media, for whatever they’re worth regarding the question of democracy-versus-dictatorship: Trust in Media is the highest, #1, in China, 71%; and is 42% in #15 U.S.; and is 35% in #20 Russia. (A July 2017 Marist poll however found that only 30% of Americans trust the media. That’s a stunning 12% lower than the Edelman survey found.) In other words: Chinese people experience that what they encounter in their news-media becomes borne-out in retrospect as having been true, but only half of that percentage of Russians experience this; and U.S. scores nearer to Russia than to China on this matter. (Interestingly, Turkey, which scores #7 on trust-in-government, scores #28 on trust-in-media. Evidently, Turks find that their government delivers well on its promises, but that their ‘news’-media often deceive them. A contrast this extreme within the Edelman findings is unique. Turkey is a special case, regarding this.)

I have elsewhere reported regarding other key findings in that 2018 Edelman study.

According to all of these empirical findings, the United States is clearly not more of a democracy than it is a dictatorship. This particular finding from these studies has already been overwhelmingly (and even more so) confirmed in the world’s only in-depth empirical scientific study of whether or not a given country is or is not a “democracy”: This study (the classic Gilens and Page study) found, incontrovertibly, that the U.S. is a dictatorship — specifically an aristocracy, otherwise commonly called an “oligarchy,” and that it’s specifically a dictatorship by the richest, against the public.

Consequently, whenever the U.S. Government argues that it intends to “spread democracy” (such as it claims in regards to Syria, and to Ukraine), it is most-flagrantly lying — and any ‘news’-medium that reports such a claim without documenting (such as by linking to this article) its clear and already-proven falsehood (which is more fully documented here than has yet been done anywhere, since the Gilens and Page study is here being further proven by these international data), is no real ‘news’-medium at all, but is, instead, a propaganda-vehicle for the U.S. Government, a propaganda-arm of a dictatorship — a nation that has been overwhelmingly proven to be a dictatorship, not a democracy.

The American public seem to know this (though the ‘news’-media routinely deny it by using phrases such as ‘America’s democracy’ in the current tense, not merely as referrng to some past time): A scientifically designed Monmouth University poll of 803 American adults found — and reported on March 19th — that 74% believed either probably or definitely that “a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy” (commonly called the “Deep State”) actually exists in America.

The question as asked was: “The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist?” 27% said “Definitely”; 47% said “Probably”; only 16% said “Probably not”; and only 5% said “Definitely not.”

In effect, then: 74% think America is a dictatorship; only 21% think it’s not. So: this isn’t only fact; it’s also widespread belief. How, then, can the American Government claim that when it invades a country like Iraq (2003), or like Libya (2011), or like Syria (2012-), or like Ukraine (by coup in 2014), it’s hoping to ‘bring democracy’ there? Only by lying. Even the vast majority of the American public now know this.

So: America’s major ‘news’-media will have to change their thinking, to become at least as realistic as the American public already are. The con on that, has evidently run its course. It simply discredits those ‘news’-media.

first published at

Continue Reading


Movement of the White House towards radicalism



The removal of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from power and the replacement of CIA chief Mike Pompeo will create new crises at the White House. In the domestic circles of the United States, Tillerson was considered one of the few symbols of political rationality in the Trump cabinet. However, Pompeo has always been a symbol of extremism in the political and security structures of the United States.

Consequently, the domestic circles of America believe that Tramps has thrown Tillerson out of power, radicalism and extremism in his government. Accordingly, Tramp will henceforth be more costly in the international system and foreign policy of his country.

The U.S. president has ousted the Foreign Minister while Washington and Pyongyang have not yet begun talks on the disagreements. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is scheduled to make a final decision on a nuclear deal with Iran in about two months. In such a situation, the U.S. Secretary of State is about to create new crises in the White House.

Although the American political structure (especially in the field of foreign policy) has little connection with the presence of people in power, the presence of Pompeo as a symbol of extremism at the top of U.S. foreign policy equations represents a more serious confrontation between Trump’s government and the international community.

Pompeo’s presence at the head of the U.S. foreign policy equation has raised a lot of concerns among Washington’s allies, especially the European ones. One of the issues in which Pompeo and Trump are shared is to confront the existence and nature of the European Union.

Pompeo, as the head of the CIA, has played a significant role in supporting extremist right-wing and nationalist groups in Europe over the last year. In some of his positions, Donald Trump has explicitly supported phenomena such as election and called for the modeling of other European countries. Europe’s return to nationalism is a major policy that Tramp and Pompeo have followed and are pursuing in the last year (especially in 2017). Obviously, this process will intensify during Pompeo’s presence at the U.S. Department of State.

As Guardian reported, Rex Tillerson will go down as one of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history. And yet, with his departure and replacement by CIA director Mike Pompeo, things could get a whole lot worse for U.S. national security.

Donald Trump made clear his disdain for diplomacy from day one of his presidency, and that he views foreign policy as an endeavor for the military, not the state department. He proposed enormous increases in the military budget while attempting to slash the state department budget by roughly a third. Trump appointed generals to be secretary of defense, national security advisor (twice) and White House chief of staff, while appointing as secretary of state someone with no diplomatic experience.

If Trump’s contempt for diplomacy somehow wasn’t clear, he did his best to actively undermine his secretary of state, criticizing him in public on a number of occassions. In the fall of 2017, as Tillerson attempted to open a diplomatic process with North Korea, Trump tweeted to the world, “I told Rex Tillerson … he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man.” When a Middle East dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar broke out in 2017, as Tillerson scrambled to calm the situation and mediate, Trump undercut him by publicly siding with Saudi Arabia.

So it should come as no surprise that Tillerson would find out he was fired when his boss tweeted the news to the world.Despite this poor treatment, it is hard to shed a tear for Tillerson. He has been a good soldier in enabling a military-first foreign policy, in which the state department is relegated to an afterthought.

He has worked aggressively to gut the state department, not filling key positions, and implementing freezes on hiring, all of which have contributed to a hostile environment and low morale. The nation’s most senior diplomats have resigned over the last year, leading to a wave of exits of career diplomats at all levels that has depleted the ranks of the nation’s diplomatic corps. It will take years to rebuild the state department in the wake of the damage inflicted by Trump and Tillerson.
Guardian continues that On leading America’s diplomacy with the world and running the state department, Tillerson has been an utter disaster – but his policy views were about as moderate as they come inside the Trump administration. He has been one of the administration’s strongest voices for diplomacy with North Korea.
He was reportedly an advocate of remaining in the Paris climate change agreement. And he supposedly tried to keep the U.S. in the Iran nuclear deal.If and when Pompeo replaces him, we should be deeply concerned – both because of Pompeo’s more hawkish views, and where they might take America on the critical foreign policy decisions coming down the pike.

The fate of the Iran deal is once again hanging in the balance, and with it potentially more conflict in the Middle East. Trump has set a 12 May deadline for getting European allies on board with changes to the Iran deal, and has reportedly said that he will exit the deal if those changes aren’t made.While Tillerson advocated remaining in the deal, Pompeo has been a vocal critic of the 2015 agreement.

If the U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the deal, there’s no telling where tensions with Iran – which is already fighting proxy wars in Syria and Yemen – could go.This development doesn’t bode well for diplomacy with North Korea, either. As Trump prepares for a possible summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Tillerson’s exit could signal a much harder line on talks.

Whereas Tillerson has been a proponent of diplomacy with North Korea, Pompeo’s public language on North Korea has been more aggressive, and he has openly hinted at regime change. A negotiation with North Korea is one of the most difficult diplomatic endeavors one can imagine – and Pompeo, like Tillerson, has no diplomatic experience.

And then there’s Russia. Tillerson has hardly been tough on Russia, prioritizing attempts at cooperation over pushing back against clearly destabilizing actions by Russia, including its interference in the 2016 election. While Pompeo held critical views of Russia during his time in Congress and has admitted that Russia interfered in the election, it’s unclear for which policies Pompeo will advocate.

To those ends, there are reasons for concern: at Trump’s request, Pompeo met with a conspiracy theorist peddling the falsehood that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails in 2016 was an inside job, not Russian hacking. He also falsely claimed that the CIA concluded that Russian meddling did not affect the election’s outcome. As war rages in Syria and Ukraine, and Russia continues interfering in U.S. politics, Pompeo will be a key player in leading U.S. policy on all.

At the end of the day, the president directs foreign policy, and no change in personnel will alter the unique chaos of Trump’s foreign policy. But if past is prologue, Pompeo appears much more willing than Tillerson to toe Trump’s line – a very dangerous prospect.This development may prove that no matter how bad things look, in Donald Trump’s administration, they can always get worse.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading


A Deceitful Trump Has Difficulty Filling Administration Jobs

Dr. Arshad M. Khan



A politician on center stage calls Mexican immigrants rapists and killers for those people send their bad guys here; says Syrian refugees are snakes and they and other Muslims could harbor ISIS among them; says African countries are sh*tholes and Haitian immigrants carry aids … .  Then without a hint of irony or embarrassment — except a permanently red face — he proclaims, “I am the least racist person anybody is going to meet.”  What would a rational individual call him?

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Bella De Paulo on Donald Trump’s lies and lying, drawing on her research work and the Post’s Fact Checker.  It turns out he is an inveterate liar and, worse, a cruel one for his lies are often malicious.  The op-ed was also taken up by the right-leaning Chicago Tribune, the leading such organ in Chicago.

Bella De Paulo is a social scientist who earlier on in her career as a professor at the University of Virginia studied lies and liars jointly with some colleagues there.  Since October 2017, President Trump, she notes, “told a remarkable nine lies a day outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.”  It gets worse.

Most of the lies (about half) in their study of college students and general community members in the area were self-serving intended to advantage the liars.  Less often they told kind lies, like the woman telling her mother she did not mind taking her shopping.  These constituted about a quarter.

One category was so small as to warrant just a footnote in their study.  This was the cruel lie intended to hurt or disparage someone.  Only 0.8 percent of student participants’ lies and 2.4 percent of community members’ lies fell in this category.

President Trump is different, shockingly different.  To use his favorite adjective, an amazing 50 percent of his lies were in the cruel category, the content hurtful or disparaging.  His kind lies were few, outnumbered 6.6 times by self-serving ones.  It is not surprising then that 58 percent of voters questioned in a Quinnipiac University poll last November thought he was not honest.  As most people tend to believe others, there has to be a good reason to label someone dishonest.  The old adage, one can’t fool all of the people all of the time appears to be working — the people have caught on.

The departures from the Trump administration took in the most prestigious cabinet post.  Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired; Mr. Trump apparently furious at his enthusiastic support for the British in their reaction to the poisoning in Salisbury of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.  The pair remain in critical condition.  The nerve agent used, Novichok, was developed in Russia.  Mr. Skripal acted as a double agent for the UK in the 1990s and early 2000s betraying many agents.  Would that assemble enemies?

President Trump, therefore, had a point.  However, within a few days he had flip-flopped.  He is now projecting a united front with the British, the Germans and the French on the issue.  Clearly, there were also other reasons for his unhappiness with Mr. Tillerson, including the latter’s reported pithy description of him as ‘a f***ing moron’.  Disagreements on political appointees was another issue.  Moreover, Tillerson’s radical reorganization efforts were not popular with career officials in his department.

Trump’s chief economic adviser resigned last week.  His successor Larry Kudlow is a long-time media personality.  He is not what one would call a professional economist.  In fact, he does not even have an economics degree.  He is a journalist.  He is also an ardent supply-sider and trickle-downer though — no doubt to Trump’s liking — and he played a role alongside the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore on Trump’s tax plan during his campaign.

So the arrivals and departures at Trump Junction continue, a busier place than almost any previous administration and with numerous government vacancies.  But then, are there many who want to risk a job with the mercurial Trump when it is also difficult to believe much of what he says?

Continue Reading


Newsdesk18 mins ago

Ethiopian airlines pledges to plant 9 million trees: “one for every passenger”

Exploring innovative ways in which the airline industry can be combined with a sustainable business outlook, UN Environment and Ethiopian...

Tech2 hours ago

Coding with impact: Training female tech talent from Latin America

“We want to train young women to make them talented and globally competitive software developers.” Meet Mariana Costa Checa, a...

Newsdesk4 hours ago

World Bank Signals Strong Support for Nepal’s Transition to Federalism

The World Bank today signaled strong support for Nepal’s ambitious transition to federalism when its Board of Executive Directors approved...

Green Planet6 hours ago

Category 5 storms: A norm or exception?

Compared to their larger counterparts, small states are at a higher risk of extreme weather events, which threaten to wipe...

Newsdesk9 hours ago

Somalia: Poor rains forecast put food security, livelihoods at risk

Below-average rains forecast for Somalia could lead to devastating cattle losses and intensify malnutrition in the Horn of Africa nation,...

Energy12 hours ago

Boosting Energy Access through Parliamentary Action

Belgian Parliamentarian, Andries Gryffroy, shares his views on enabling energy access through pro-renewables policy making Parliamentarians from around the world...

Americas13 hours ago

Why America’s major news-media must change their thinking

America’s ‘news’-media possess the mentality that characterizes a dictatorship, not a democracy. This will be documented in the linked-to empirical...



Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy