Connect with us

Americas

Donald Trump questions Hillary Clinton’s moral credibility for presidency

Published

on

The Donald Trump campaign on June 24 Friday released a 35-page booklet attacking Hillary Clinton of impropriety over donations received by the Clinton Foundation over the years.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee alleged that the Clinton Foundation received funds in 2008 from Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and Confederation of India Industry seeking support for the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.

The booklet titled “Top 50 Facts about Hillary Clinton from Trump ‘Stakes of the Election’ Address” is available for download on the donaldjtrump.com. It heavily cites a New York Times report on the list of donors who contributed to the family foundation managed by former President Bill Clinton.

It is a known fact that American politicians thrive on bribery money being received from abroad for their “services” to those who request, rather beg, for help on Senate and Congress. In fact, US economy depends too much on finances from abroad.

Like in India, American politicians run Foundations and charity organizations in the country to get huge sum from abroad for “special services” they have to render in US government, Congress and Senate in their favor.

Foreigners, including governments, seek the help of top US politicians, Senate and Congress members, apart from the White House bosses, to get the passage of bills that benefit them. Bill Clinton and his party’s Senate and Congress members made huge money by supporting the “foreign cases” in the Senate and Congress. Later he founded Clinton foundation to channelize the foreign money flow successfully. .

Not only the USA but entire world is being controlled by the corrupt leaders. In 2008, newly-elected President Barack Obama invited, on prior mutual understanding that ended Hillary’s presidential campaigning in favor of Obama as the Democratic candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton to join his cabinet as foreign minister in his cabinet or, as the post is known in USA, as secretary of state. Since Hillary would be involved in drafting America’s foreign policy, her husband Bill, also in an agreement reached between Obama and him, released a list of more than 200,000 donors who gave significant amounts of donations to his family foundation.

While the Pentagon-CIA duo is engaged looting the Arab resources, US politicians loot the national resources as well as foreign money.

Entire world pays huge sum to USA to get their “things” done. Not only colonist nations like India and Israel with occupied nations under their belt pumps in a lot of money to make USA happy, even European and Mideast eastern Arab nations also regular make payment sot USA for a series of services they require from USA.

In fact, Arab governments and rulers plus top leaders pay extra money to USA for “taking care” of their wealth and bank money safely. UK premier Tony Blaire lost this job because of a corruption case involving officals in Riyadh. Arab cannot now antagonize America for fear of losing their wealth and bank amounts in USA and UK. .

Obviously, the domestic donors who granted dollars sumptuously for the parties are entitled to get all favors from the new government. In fact these rich donors are treated as special guests by the US president and government. Foreign donors get their “cases” done through the powerful lobbyists. Israel and India maintain strong lobbyist groups in Washington to get what they want from the White House.

It is not a big story that Indian politicians are frauds who betray the people by making money illegally by corrupt ways and even intelligence cannot do anything to block the corruption practices unless the government asks it to probe some body for creating problems of the government. Generally the government does not bother about corrupt politicians so long as they don’t become a problem for the government. Also, sometimes, government uses the available corruption information to coerce the politicians to fall in line.

The list revealed that the Clinton Foundation received between $1 million and $5 million from Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, then a close of party Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was in Washington to lobby Congress for the safe passage of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Samajwadi party was back then as a coalition partner in the United Progressive Alliance led by the Indian National Congress party led by Manmohan Singh who led a corrupt and insensitive government. Obviously the Congress party, apart from contacting the US lobbyists directly through bribery tactics, it also used Mulayam to bribe the US lobbyists.

Bill reportedly assured Singh that the Democrats would not block the deal in the Congress. In December 2008, Hillary voted in favour of the nuclear agreement between India and USA and the Congress party and government got a shot in its arm by the deal with USA which always opposed India. . .

The booklet also cites a 2011 Indian Express report on Singh receiving a thank you note from the former US president bill for the big money offered by Indian sources. Without directly mentioning the cash payments, Bill wrote to Singh, thanking for his “gift” of a charcoal stove and briquettes to a family in Haiti, which is facing a severe cholera epidemic after last year’s massive earthquake.”This year, in your name, the Clinton Foundation gave an efficient charcoal stove and briquettes manufactured from 100 per cent recycled waste to a family in Haiti,” Clinton wrote to Singh in the second half of December. “Your gift will touch the lives of people who have been struggling to survive the earthquake and cholera epidemic, and the hurricanes of 2008.”

Another article cited by the Trump campaign was an USA Today piece on the Confederation of Indian Industry who gave $500,000 to $1 million.

The Foundation has also accepted funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, which was the largest donor with a contribution between $10 million and $25 million, and Norway (between $5 million and $10 million). Kuwait, Qatar, the Dubai Foundation, Brunei Darussalam, and Oman donated between $1 million and $5 million each, reported New York Times. Irish Aid, China Overseas Real Estate Development Corporation donated several hundred thousand dollars each. Italy and Jamaica each donated between $50,000 and $100,000.

Interestingly, Americans talk about democracy and freedom exclusively for promoting corruption and imperialist wars. Corruption seems to define democracy of all kleptocracies like USA, India, Israel, etc.

US politicians behave like knotty boys. USA used Pakistan to advance its anti-Islamic agenda in South Asia by attacking and crippling n Islamizing Afghanistan. Now as India pumps in huge money to Washington with a request to contain Pakistan and let Jammu Kashmir stay with Indian occupational forces, Washington insults its ally Pakistan. Americans want money and money no matter from where. .

Clinton Foundation is just one of the American democratic shames!

Clinton’s corrupt practices go hand in hand with her aggressive anti-Palestine and pro-fascist Israeli rhetoric. A hawkish like any Israeli leader, She has no sympathy for Palestine women and children whom Israeli military keeps killing for fun.

Clinton paints herself as the best candidate for Israel and arms manufactures of USA and Israel.

Literally, Hillary equates US imperialism with Zionism and fascism. Clinton addressed Jewish AIPAC’s annual policy conference in Washington DC, attacking Republican front runner Donald Trump for saying that he would be “neutral” on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. America can never be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival,” she stated. “Anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president.” She called on the US to bolster Israel’s missile defense and work together to create tunnel-detecting technology.

Since legal framework of USA is not strong enough to track all corruption drives, there is no way Americans can elect a genuinely democratic present to govern the USA, guide the world properly but only makes sure the president can control the world resources, routes and bases.

Republicans Donald Trump’s attack on democratic Hillary Clinton’s moral credibility for presidency is quite valid but so what? American system allows al these frauds to survive and thrive!

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Carlos Fyfe

It is the success or failure of remaking America, not Afghanistan, that will determine not just the legacy of the Biden administration, but the future of the United States itself.

The newly unveiled Biden doctrine, which renounces the United States’ post-9/11 policies of remaking other societies and building nations abroad, is a foreign policy landmark. Coming on the heels of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, it exudes credibility. Indeed, President Biden’s moves essentially formalize and finalize processes that have been under way for over a decade. It was Barack Obama who first pledged to end America’s twin wars—in Iraq and Afghanistan—started under George W. Bush. It was Donald Trump who reached an agreement with the Taliban on a full U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Both Obama and Trump also sought, albeit in strikingly different ways, to redirect Washington’s attention to shoring up the home base.

It is important for the rest of the world to treat the change in U.S. foreign policy correctly. Leaving Afghanistan was the correct strategic decision, if grossly overdue and bungled in the final phases of its implementation. Afghanistan certainly does not mean the end of the United States as a global superpower; it simply continues to be in relative and slow decline. Nor does it spell the demise of American alliances and partnerships. Events in Afghanistan are unlikely to produce a political earthquake within the United States that would topple President Biden. No soul searching of the kind that Americans experienced during the Vietnam War is likely to emerge. Rather, Washington is busy recalibrating its global involvement. It is focusing even more on strengthening the home base. Overseas, the United States is moving from a global crusade in the name of democracy to an active defense of liberal values at home and Western positions abroad.

Afghanistan has been the most vivid in a long series of arguments that persuaded Biden’s White House that a global triumph of liberal democracy is not achievable in the foreseeable future. Thus, remaking problematic countries—“draining the swamp” that breeds terrorism, in the language of the Bush administration—is futile. U.S. military force is a potent weapon, but no longer the means of first resort. The war on terror as an effort to keep the United States safe has been won: in the last twenty years, no major terrorist attacks occurred on U.S. soil. Meantime, the geopolitical, geoeconomic, ideological, and strategic focus of U.S. foreign policy has shifted. China is the main—some say, existential—challenger, and Russia the principal disrupter. Iran, North Korea, and an assortment of radical or extremist groups complete the list of adversaries. Climate change and the pandemic have risen to the top of U.S. security concerns. Hence, the most important foreign policy task is to strengthen the collective West under strong U.S. leadership.

The global economic recession that originated in the United States in 2007 dealt a blow to the U.S.-created economic and financial model; the severe domestic political crisis of 2016–2021 undermined confidence in the U.S. political system and its underlying values; and the COVID-19 disaster that hit the United States particularly hard have all exposed serious political, economic, and cultural issues and fissures within American society and polity. Neglecting the home base while engaging in costly nation-building exercises abroad came at a price. Now the Biden administration has set out to correct that with huge infrastructure development projects and support for the American middle class.

America’s domestic crises, some of the similar problems in European countries, and the growing gap between the United States and its allies during the Trump presidency have produced widespread fears that China and Russia could exploit those issues to finally end U.S. dominance and even undermine the United States and other Western societies from within. This perception is behind the strategy reversal from spreading democracy as far and wide as Russia and China to defending the U.S.-led global system and the political regimes around the West, including in the United States, from Beijing and Moscow.

That said, what are the implications of the Biden doctrine? The United States remains a superpower with enormous resources which is now trying to use those resources to make itself stronger. America has reinvented itself before and may well be able to do so again. In foreign policy, Washington has stepped back from styling itself as the world’s benign hegemon to assume the combat posture of the leader of the West under attack.

Within the collective West, U.S. dominance is not in danger. None of the Western countries are capable of going it alone or forming a bloc with others to present an alternative to U.S. leadership. Western and associated elites remain fully beholden to the United States. What they desire is firm U.S. leadership; what they fear is the United States withdrawing into itself. As for Washington’s partners in the regions that are not deemed vital to U.S. interests, they should know that American support is conditional on those interests and various circumstances. Nothing new there, really: just ask some leaders in the Middle East. For now, however, Washington vows to support and assist exposed partners like Ukraine and Taiwan.

Embracing isolationism is not on the cards in the United States. For all the focus on domestic issues, global dominance or at least primacy has firmly become an integral part of U.S. national identity. Nor will liberal and democratic ideology be retired as a major driver of U.S. foreign policy. The United States will not become a “normal” country that only follows the rules of realpolitik. Rather, Washington will use values as a glue to further consolidate its allies and as a weapon to attack its adversaries. It helps the White House that China and Russia are viewed as malign both across the U.S. political spectrum and among U.S. allies and partners, most of whom have fears or grudges against either Moscow or Beijing.

In sum, the Biden doctrine does away with engagements that are no longer considered promising or even sustainable by Washington; funnels more resources to address pressing domestic issues; seeks to consolidate the collective West around the United States; and sharpens the focus on China and Russia as America’s main adversaries. Of all these, the most important element is domestic. It is the success or failure of remaking America, not Afghanistan, that will determine not just the legacy of the Biden administration, but the future of the United States itself.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

AUKUS aims to perpetuate the Anglo-Saxon supremacy

Published

on

Image credit: ussc.edu.au

On September 15, U.S. President Joe Biden worked with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison together to unveil a trilateral alliance among Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS), which are the major three among the Anglo-Saxon nations (also including Canada and New Zealand). Literally, each sovereign state has full right to pursue individual or collective security and common interests. Yet, the deal has prompted intense criticism across the world including the furious words and firm acts from the Atlantic allies in Europe, such as France that is supposed to lose out on an $40-billion submarine deal with Australia to its Anglo-Saxon siblings—the U.K. and the U.S.

               Some observers opine that AUKUS is another clear attempt by the U.S. and its allies aggressively to provoke China in the Asia-Pacific, where Washington had forged an alliance along with Japan, India and Australia in the name of the Quad. AUKUS is the latest showcase that three Anglo-Saxon powers have pretended to perpetuate their supremacy in all the key areas such as geopolitics, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. In short, the triple deal is a move designed to discourage or thwart any future Chinese bid for regional hegemony. But diplomatically its impacts go beyond that. As French media argued that the United States, though an ally of France, just backstabs it by negotiating AUKUS in secret without revealing the plan. Given this, the deal among AUKUS actually reflects the mentality of the Anglo-Saxon nations’ superiority over others even if they are not outrageously practicing an imperialist policy in the traditional way.

               Historically, there are only two qualified global powers which the Europeans still sometimes refer to as “Anglo-Saxon” powers: Great Britain and the United States. As Walter Mead once put it that the British Empire was, and the United States is, concerned not just with the balance of power in one particular corner of the world, but with the evolution of what it is today called “world order”. Now with the rise of China which has aimed to become a global power with its different culture and political views from the current ruling powers, the Anglo-Saxon powers have made all efforts to align with the values-shared allies or partners to create the strong bulwarks against any rising power, like China and Russia as well. Physically, either the British Empire or the United States did or does establish a worldwide system of trade and finance which have enabled the two Anglo-Saxon powers to get rich and advanced in high-technologies. As a result, those riches and high-tech means eventually made them execute the power to project their military force that ensure the stability of their-dominated international systems. Indeed the Anglo-Saxon powers have had the legacies to think of their global goals which must be bolstered by money and foreign trade that in turn produces more wealth. Institutionally, the Anglo-Saxon nations in the world—the U.S., the U.K, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have formed the notorious “Five eyes alliance” to collect all sorts of information and data serving their common core interests and security concerns.

This is not just rhetoric but an objective reflection of the mentality as Australian Foreign Minister Payne candidly revealed at the press conference where she said that the contemporary state of their alliance “is well suited to cooperate on countering economic coercion.” The remarks imply that AUKUS is a military response to the rising economic competition from China because politics and economics are intertwined with each other in power politics, in which military means acts in order to advance self-interested economic ends. In both geopolitical and geoeconomic terms, the rise of China, no matter how peaceful it is, has been perceived as the “systematic” challenges to the West’s domination of international relations and global economy, in which the Anglo-Saxon superiority must remain. Another case is the U.S. efforts to have continuously harassed the Nord Stream 2 project between Russia and Germany.

Yet, in the global community of today, any superpower aspiring for pursuing “inner clique” like AUKUS will be doomed to fail. First, we all are living in the world “where the affairs of each country are decided by its own people, and international affairs are run by all nations through consultation,” as President Xi put it. Due to this, many countries in Asia warn that AUKUS risks provoking a nuclear arms race in the Asian-Pacific region. The nuclear factor means that the U.S. efforts to economically contain China through AUKUS on nationalist pretexts are much more dangerous than the run-up to World War I. Yet, neither the United States nor China likes to be perceived as “disturbing the peace” that Asian countries are eager to preserve. In reality, Asian countries have also made it clear not to take either side between the power politics.

Second, AUKUS’s deal jeopardizes the norms of international trade and treaties. The reactions of third parties is one key issue, such as the French government is furious about the deal since it torpedoes a prior Australian agreement to purchase one dozen of conventional subs from France. Be aware that France is a strong advocate for a more robust European Union in the world politics. Now the EU is rallying behind Paris as in Brussels EU ambassadors agreed to postpone preparations for an inaugural trade and technology council on September 29 with the U.S. in Pittsburgh. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared in a strong manner that “since one of our member states has been treated in a way that is not acceptable, so we need to know what happened and why.” Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for European affairs, went even further as he put it, “It is once again a wake-up call for all of us in the European Union to ask ourselves how we can strengthen our sovereignty, how we can present a united front even on issues relevant to foreign and security policy.” It is the time for the EU to talk with one voice and for the need to work together to rebuild mutual trust among the allies.

Third, the deal by AUKUS involves the nuclear dimension. It is true that the three leaders have reiterated that the deal would be limited to the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology (such as reactors to power the new subs) but not nuclear weapons technology. Accordingly, Australia remains a non-nuclear country not armed with such weapons. But from a proliferation standpoint, that is a step in the direction of more extensive nuclear infrastructure. It indicates the United States and the U.K. are willing to transfer highly sensitive technologies to close allies. But the issue of deterrence in Asia-and especially extended deterrence-is extremely complicated since it will become ore so as China’s nuclear arsenal expands. If the security environment deteriorates in the years ahead, U.S. might consider allowing its core allies to gain nuclear capabilities and Australia is able to gain access to this technology as its fleet expands. Yet, it also means that Australia is not a non-nuclear country any more.

In brief, the deal itself and the triple alliance among AUKUS will take some years to become a real threat to China or the ruling authorities of the country. But the deal announced on Sept. 15 will complicate Chinese efforts to maintain a peaceful rise and act a responsible power. Furthermore, the deal and the rationales behind it is sure to impede China’s good-will to the members of AUKUS and the Quad, not mention of their irresponsible effects on peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

Continue Reading

Americas

Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?

Published

on

Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively, the US sold its soul to the Saudis again after the US intelligence services confirmed months ago that the Saudi Prince is responsible for the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Biden administration is already much more inhumane and much worse than Trump. Biden doesn’t care about the thousands of American citizens that he left behind at the mercy of the Taliban, the Biden administration kills innocent civilians in drone strikes, they are in bed with the worst of the worsts human right violators calling them friendly nations. 

Biden dropped and humiliated France managing to do what no US President has ever accomplished —  make France pull out its Ambassador to the US, and all this only to go bother China actively seeking the next big war. Trump’s blunders were never this big. And this is just the beginning. There is nothing good in store for America and the world with Biden. All the hope is quickly evaporating, as the world sees the actions behind the fake smile and what’s behind the seemingly right and restrained rhetoric on the surface. It’s the actions that matter. Trump talked tough talk for which he got a lot of criticism and rarely resorted to military action. Biden is the opposite: he says all the right things but the actions behind are inhumane and destructive. It makes you wonder if Trump wasn’t actually better for the world.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Finance26 mins ago

Clean Skies for Tomorrow Leaders: 10% Sustainable Aviation Fuel by 2030

Today, 60 companies in the World Economic Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition – whose mission is to accelerate the...

Southeast Asia2 hours ago

The Indo-Pacific Conundrum: Why U.S. Plans Are Destined to Fail

That U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris paid an official visit to Singapore and Vietnam in late August 2021 signifies clear...

Middle East4 hours ago

The Battle for the Soul of Islam: Will the real reformer of the faith stand up?

Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is...

Reports6 hours ago

Financing Options Key to Africa’s Transition to Sustainable Energy

A new whitepaper outlining the key considerations in setting the course for Africa’s energy future was released today at the...

Defense8 hours ago

Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way

In March 2021 the People’s Republic of China emerged as the world’s largest naval fleet, surpassing the US Navy. An...

Southeast Asia10 hours ago

AUKUS: A Sequela of World War II and US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Deemed as a historic security pact, AUKUS was unveiled by the leaders of the US, the UK and Australia –...

Americas14 hours ago

Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow

It is the success or failure of remaking America, not Afghanistan, that will determine not just the legacy of the...

Trending