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

Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East

Published

on

In terms of foreign policy, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden,is likely to face numerous challenges, especially when it comes to the Middle East because of the disastrous policies of the former President, Donald Trump, in the region. Even in his inauguration speech, Biden made it clear that it was going to be testing time. Some of the challenges that the new administration would be facing includethe nuclear deal with Iran, the ongoing war in Yemen, issues of human rights issues and the current deadlock between Israel and Palestine. There is some possibility that Biden’s foreign policy towards the Middle East would either be a revival of Barack Obama’s former policies or new strategies would be formulated based on the nature of the challenges faced. However, it is certain that Biden will address or undo Trump’s terrible policies in the region. 

The Biden administration’s top foreign policy agenda is the policy towards Iran. The Iran nuclear deal (2015) or JCOPA was considered to be a milestone in multilateral diplomacy that was irresponsibly abandoned by Trump in 2018. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” of sanctions against Iran aimed to please the traditional allies as they faced a common enemy in Iran. Biden has promised to return to the 2015 JCPOA agreement, and he would also discuss Iran’s nuclear program and exchange for sanctions relief. In this process, it is expected that Washington might pressure Iran to withdraw its support for regional proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Moreover, the US would also seek to curb Iran’s export of precision guided missiles to her regional allies. Iran though, has already made it clear that these issues would not be discussed in the event of a renegotiated JCPOA. Furthermore, this plan may be complicated by the recent assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, which was not condemned by the White House that Iran blames on Israel. Public outrage had not even subdued at the point due to the assassination of Qasim Sulemani. Currently, the architecture of the Middle Eastern region is even more complex and challenging than it was four years ago butthe fact is that Iran cannot afford military conflict at this point when its economy is already crippling amidst the COVID-19 pandemic along with the sanctions imposed by the US.

Trump administration’s “Israel-first” approach in the region brought severe criticism at the global level. The Abraham Accord, signed in September of last year,which normalized Israel’s relations with UAE & Bahrain, is widely seen as Donald Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievement. This Accord altered the decades long regional perception that Arab-Israel peace could not be achieved without first addressing the issue of statehood for Palestinians. Biden has said that he supports more countries recognizing Israel but at the same time Israel needs to work towards genuine solutions between the two states. Moreover, the new administration at the White House will not show the same tolerance for Israel’s settler expansionism as its predecessor. However, there are certain foreign policies by the Trump administration that the new US leadership does not want to renew. The normalization of Arab-Israel relations is something that enjoys bipartisan support. And also, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem seems unlikely to be undone.

The US policy inthe Middle East under the new leadership will be less ideological and would be more based on fundamental principles.  These principles will greatly focus on human rights as some analysts view human rights as the core foreign policy agenda of the Biden administration. Thus, it does not seem not to be good news for the traditional allies of the US including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. There are a variety of issues in addition to the human rights issues: the KSA intervention in Yemen, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the lingering mistrust, the jailing of activists and Jamall Khashoggi’s murder case, which are creating uncertainties between the Washington and Riyadh. Hence, KSA is going to have a very difficult time with the Biden administration. Similarly, the new administration can also be expected to take a less tolerant view towards Moscow and Ankara because of the extraterritorial activities in the Middle Eastern region.

Certainly, returning to the Iran nuclear dealofficially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action-will take a longer time to review because of the complexity of the issue and the domestic problems that the US is currently facing. There is also a possibility of a dangerous escalation without a nuclear deal due to Iran’s aims of buildingmilitary scenarios. Therefore, multilateral diplomacy is the best option for regional peace and security, which has been tried in the previous years.Even the JCPOA was a result of such diplomacy. The US ending its support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen might turn away the traditional allies for some time but not permanently due to the common interests in the region. Biden is also likely to alter Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from the region as it would decrease US influence in the region. The top priority of the US administration in the Middle East would be to try and manage Iran’s problems and to maintain reasonable relations with Israel. Traditional allies of the US in the Middle East were content and supportive of Trump’s policies in the region but they view Biden, not as a President, but Vice President of the Obama Administration. Trump’s bilateral relations were often based on personal ties with the foreign leaders while Biden is expected to adopt a more multilateral approach in engaging with the allies. Still, scholars believe that there would be no fundamental change in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East, especially when it comes to protecting its vested interests in the region.

Continue Reading

Americas

Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake

Published

on

As over the last days US Vice President Harris swore in Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the new US Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of State Blinken announced in parallel that the US is now seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council, in an attempt to rejoin the UN system. But that’s not the right first move back at the UN that the US should be making. And that’s not what the progressive left had in mind when the real left groups put in office the new Biden Administration.

My perspective comes from having worked in the UN human rights system and as a finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech last year – but also as a progressive left voice.

The days when UN engagement defined Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans are over.

Shunning the UN has always been a Republican hallmark but backing and pouring so much funding into an old style, corrupt bureaucracy that has little to do with “diplomacy” is not what the new, awaken progressive left wants either.

Several weeks ago, I made the estimate that the 10bln dollars which the US government pours into the black hole called the UN equals the Covid relief that 16mln struggling American people could be getting now. The Biden Administration’s State Department diplomats have to remember who put them in office.

Democrat centrist diplomats have more in common with the UN in terms of ways, goals, style and world view than they do with the progressive left. Backing the UN means backing the old, corrupt ways, which the real progressive left voted to break last year.

The decision to announce the US’s goal to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council comes in the same week when President Biden finally announced his real stance on the Black Lives Matter ‘defund the police’ goals. Biden, it turns out, unsurprisingly does not support that. That’s not what the progressive left signed up for, either.

The UN institutional funding inertia by the US government does not define the Democratic Party anymore. That’s not what the left voters want. 

The left’s reasons for not embracing the UN and the UN Human Rights Council have little to do with the usual Republican ‘go it alone’ at the international stage.

Yes to diplomacy and multilateralism. No to the corrupt, faceless UN. “International diplomacy” is no longer the same thing as the UN system.

The wave that rose across American political life last year, with so many young black activists and so many people voting for the first time, signaled a big resounding No to old ways and old institutions, which have little concern for the actual needs of the people.

The new US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas-Greenfield, will have the tough job of reforming the UN, and in my opinion, even defunding the UN.

The days when love for the UN defined Democrats are certainly over. It’s time for the Biden Administration to do what it was elected for, which is to not simply go back to the same old, same old corrupt, faceless bureaucratic institutions swimming in money. This is not what we want. The progressive left voted for change and now that also includes the UN.

Continue Reading

Americas

U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia

Published

on

Photo: Fiona Paton/ flickr

“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity” — Albert Einstein

Within the climate crisis lies strategic opportunity for the United States. Climate change offers the chance to earn back the good will of allies, to prepare American cities for an urgently needed increase in immigration, and to reinvent U.S.-led institutions that have gone stale. Perhaps most of all, foreign policymakers should remain cognizant of how climate action can help the U.S. navigate relations with the other great powers.

As a recent report from the Center for a New American Security details, synergy between China and Russia is more problematic for U.S. interests than the sum of the challenges that each nation poses individually. Similarly, a recent Atlantic Council publication observed that “allowing Russia to drift fully into China’s strategic embrace over the last decade will go down as the single greatest geostrategic error.” Chinese and Russian interests do currently align on defense, economics, and the degradation of the U.S.-designed world order, but the nature of their alignment does not constitute an alliance.

In characterizing the relationship, this distinction is paramount. For as long as China and Russia remain merely convenient partners, rather than ideologically kindred allies, it is possible to keep these neighbors at arm’s length. To this end, the U.S. must reorient its approach to Russia. It is the Russian perception that world politics are rigged to benefit the U.S. at Russia’s expense that has prompted its support for China.

Russia’s national interests are rooted in the desire for respect. With this in mind, Russia could pull back from synergy with China if a better opportunity to advance these interests presented itself. Ultimately, the ability of the U.S. to offer a mutually acceptable alternative will hinge on two related factors: the Arctic and NATO. Critically, the issue of climate change is central to both of these factors.

In the Arctic, rapid warming removes barriers to resource exploitation, shipping activity, and great power competition. This has drawn many non-Arctic states to the region. Yet, even with China inserting itself as a “Near-Arctic State,” Russia has expressed the need for a hierarchy of regional influence in which the interests of Arctic states are prioritized over non-Arctic states. On this, American and Russian interests align.

Russian distrust of the U.S. complicates matters, however. Arctic military assertiveness from Russia is evidence of its sensitivity to the NATO alliance. In response, U.S. military branches have been releasing strategies for Arctic-specific forward defense. Such militarism is not conducive to improving relations, securing sovereign influence, or addressing climate change. 

In order to limit undue Chinese influence in the region and stabilize its relations with Russia by securing a multilateral agreement that formalizes an Arctic hierarchy, the U.S. will need to alter its foreign policy so that Russia perceives it to be a viable partner. The alteration should be sufficient for reducing friction with Russia’s core interests, but not so extreme that liberal values or American security are put in jeopardy. Such transactional considerations should include fashioning a new climate-positive role for the U.S. in NATO. After all, the permanent physical presence of roughly 76,000 U.S. troops on the European continent not only irks Russia, but this posture is also expensive, carbon-intensive, and perhaps not even the most effective approach to conflict deterrence. 

Indeed, research has shown that rapid deployment of new forces is significantly more likely to stymie aggression. This suggests that the U.S. should reduce its troop levels in Europe by at least 75 percent while bolstering rapid deployment readiness. This would allow the U.S. to simultaneously reduce its military’s fuel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, earn the good will necessary for stronger diplomacy with Russia, and still honor its security commitment to NATO in the event of a crisis. Moreover, the U.S. could then reinvest the potential savings into both Arctic sustainability and NATO’s capacity to manage climate insecurity.

Through the establishment of a bounded Arctic order and the greening of American leadership in NATO, the U.S. can dispel Sino-Russian synergy in the region and help maintain balance between the great powers. Specifically, these actions would both politically distance China from Russia and give the Kremlin substantial reason to begin feeling more optimistic about its relations with the West. To be sure, similar measures will be necessary in other regions to fully assure balance. However, the Arctic is a natural place for the U.S. to begin this endeavor. Usefully, the themes of climate mitigation and adaptation provide a blueprint for what countering Sino-Russian synergy elsewhere ought to generally entail.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending