Connect with us

Americas

Why can Hillary Clinton not be US president?

Published

on

Like in Israel, US ruling elites plan for the future strategies and choose presidents to suit the needs. After using a Black President Obama to attack North Africans and Arab nations for their energy resources in order to ensure energy security of the superpower, now the US leaders seem to think of using a female President in the name of Hillary to advance US interests globally.

Former US state secretary Hillary Clinton and associates are being pampered by those who are scared of any possible change in US foreign policy towards a possible thaw and neutrality in world affairs, notwithstanding what trump talks now.

So-called progressive bits like Sanders, the dummy candidate of President Obama the so-called lefty, was only promoting prospects of Hillary as the first ever “woman” president all Americans should be proud of.

Media publish very charming pictures and of Hillary Clinton while deliberately placing a terrorist cum drunkard looking Trump in order to promote the cause of democratic band of capitalist imperialism.

It seems, cutting across the bipolar political spectrum, there is some understanding to make Hillary to enter the White House to continue with the disastrous policies of Obama who has dutifully accelerated Bushdom war for resources and Muslims’ blood and flesh blood in Islamic world. Both bush and his ally Obama could reduce the Islamic population with backing from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations.

Only recently Turkey, the only Muslim nation in Europe with an Islamist ideology but promoting the joint interests of USA and Israel in Europe and Mideast, has realized its mistake of colluding with USA in killing Muslims under the banner of NATO terrorist organization.

Media not only in the West but also in third world as well try to see in Hillary Clinton all virtues of freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., as the so-called first ever woman president of the super power without comprehending the truth about this devastating woman candidate who as Secretary of State willingly dispatched Pentagon led NATO military into Arab world and is more than keen to control entire world, including the other America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to serve Israel – America’s illegally born, spoiled terror child.

Being in the company of extremist Neocons camp, not only Hillary is bent upon promoting the Zionist criminal regime in Mideast but also equip Israeli military with newer terror technologies to kill all Palestinians once for all.

Hillary Clinton must already have promised all colonialist, fascist and imperialist nations/forces the continued US support under her presidency as well and Israel would be chief beneficiary of Hillary’s reign. As such Hillary could be best candidate for the criminal Israeli regime, the Jews and Mossad agency to advance its fascist goals in Mideast.

On the contrast, the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, despite all his sick rhetoric to impress the fanatic sections of US society, appears to suggest several positive things for USA and world at large. Trump said when he assumes presidency, he would revise the US policy for Mideast and neutralize its existing Palestine-Israel policy to promote peace in the region and he’d also recognize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory in 2014.

Future Russia policy

Annexation of Crimea long appears to be on the agenda of Putin’s regime as it had earlier been a part of Russian empire and made a part of Ukraine Republic during the time of Khrushchev who belonged to Ukraine. Russia maintained close links to Crimea even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the region mostly has Russians and Russian speaking nationalities. More than half of Crimea’s 2 million people were Russian; Russia maintained a naval base in the region; and Russians retired in Crimea in large numbers. Also, Ukraine maintained the most pro-Moscow positions until 2014. But when Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted, the tensions over Crimea became apparent. USA claimed victory. In a referendum in May of that year in which an overwhelming majority of voters said they wanted to rejoin Russia. The West reacted with anger and imposed a string of sanctions on Russia—sanctions that even Putin acknowledged adversely affected Russia’s economy, which was already hurt by falling oil prices.

Last year, on the anniversary of Russia’s annexation, the U.S. State Department said: “We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.” However, Washington refuses to see Israeli occupation of Palestine territories or Indian occupation of neighboring Kashmir – both committing genocides of Muslims by regular aggressions and fake encounters. American democrats and republicans do not see any violation of human rights both by India and Israel against Kashmiris and Palestinians.

USA maintains doublespeak on occupation and double standards

As president, Trump may reverse that policy, and if he does Ukraine won’t be the only country that worries. Another is likely to be Georgia, the former Soviet Republic. A brief war with Russia—brief in that Georgia was crushed—in 2008 resulted in Russia extending support to two breakaway Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and wielding its influence with the rebels there. Russia’s recent military exercises over Ukraine have worried US backed Eastern European states such as Poland and the Baltic nations that share a border with it.

However, it is premature to conclude that Trump would lead USA towards a normal course of diplomacy and his presidency would help herald a peaceful world in real sense of w the word. By nature USA, ever seeking to dominate the world and showcase it military prowess to the world, especially to those that refuse to budge and fall in line, cannot prefer peaceful course of diplomacy.

Now, with his comments on Crimea, Trump has given the foreign-policy establishment in the USA and Europe even more to consider before November.

Donald Trump’s recent call on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails resulted in widespread criticism. But his comments on Crimea, coupled with ones he made last week on NATO, are likely to have greater significance if he is elected president in November. As President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and even might lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. He would thus give a chance for peace to thrive globally. Under trump USA could develop new relations with Russians and pave way for consolidation of globalized relations.

Interestingly, Trump the man who could become the next American president has not only questioned the utility of NATO, though the critics say he only trying to repudiate the post-World War II security consensus, he also has seemingly removed whatever fig leaf of artificial protection from Russia the USA offered the post-Soviet republics and Moscow’s former allies in the Eastern bloc.

Trump policy would allow EU and European nations to chart their own independent foreign policies for the future regional discourses and security architectures. This would allow every nation to reduce expenditures on terror goods and military equipments and spend the money for the welfare of the common masses who have suffered a great deal over decades and centuries.

Having came to power after the death of Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, belonging to Ukraine, gifted Crimea, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries, to Ukraine in 1954—though, to be fair, Khrushchev thought the Soviet system is permanent and probably didn’t foresee that the mighty USSR would be the stuff of history books less than four decades later.

Democratic disaster

The foreign policy legacy of Bill Clinton is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts. Bill Clinton embarked upon a series of military interventions, often in the absence of UN sanction, in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999). Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350. No one knows why.

In foreign policy, it was a period in which liberal hawks like Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott and Samuel Berger took the reins of the foreign policy apparatus and abandoned the mostly nuanced realism, if any, of the government of George H.W. Bush, former CIA boss. It launched a crusade to spread “democracy” to achieve regime change in West Asia and Africa, and “open markets” abroad which, in practice, amounted to isolating plus targeting Russia, relegating America’s European allies into vassals and immiserating the developing world.

Under neoconservative pressure – including from Robert Kagan’s and William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century – Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) which helped set the stage for the Bush regime’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Meanwhile, Clinton embarked on a series of policies in the former Soviet Union which have had dire consequences. The decision to expand NATO by the alliance at its 1994 summit in Brussels came only 12 months into the Clinton presidency and only 24 months after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and peacefully disbanded its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

The NATO alliance’s expansion to include its own former allies and protectorates remains a mystery. Indeed, by expanding NATO, Clinton and his team not only went against the advice offered by scores of distinguished Russian experts, savvy politicians and foreign policy thinkers, Clinton also sought to tie the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus to the USA. All this took place while Clinton studiously ignored the grotesque abuses of power by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “Good old Boris,” as Clinton liked to call him, bombed the democratically elected Russian parliament in 1993, stole the 1996 election with the help of American political advisers and pseudo-academics, and launched a barbaric war in Chechnya, while simultaneously raiding the state treasury and enriching the circle of thieves around him.

Yeltsin was looking for a hawk to take over reign from him to finish off the Chechen war in Russia’s favor and former KGB man Vladimir Putin with enormous experience working in Germany suited for the occasion. It was Yeltsin who subverted Russia’s burgeoning democracy, not his successor, Vladimir Putin. And he did it all with Clinton’s help.

USA successfully worked for the dismantling of the mighty USSR and turned to Arab world. Now it is killing Muslims in Arab world with Russian backing. Joint operations!

Surrounded by Hawks

A Hillary Clinton presidency will more likely than not to be a faithful replication of her husband’s tenure. Her record as Secretary of State speaks to the kind of foreign policy she will pursue. She continually sought to embroil the U.S. in the Syrian civil war (2011-present), and pushed President Obama to unleash NATO forces in helping to overturn the Libyan government (2011) which cleared the path for ISIS to build dangerous footholds in both countries. Whenever the option was between military action and serious diplomacy, the nation’s chief diplomat would invariably opt for the former, as when she forcefully lobbied the President to send more troops to Afghanistan (2009).

As a candidate she has surrounded herself with regime change hawks, like former State Department Policy Planning chief Jake Sullivan and former the Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. She has also smothered the neoconservative establishment in a warm embrace. Leading members of the Neocon tribe like Eliot A. Cohen and Max Boot have signaled that “they’re with her” and on July 21 in Washington, D.C.’s tony Logan Circle neighborhood, leading Neocon Robert Kagan and former Biden adviser Julianne Smith spoke on Clinton’s behalf at a fundraiser.

A source who attended the Logan Circle soiree told me that Smith cited an outgoing memo to President Obama from Secretary Clinton which warned him of the danger of unchecked “Russian aggression.” Smith claimed that as someone who saw “Hillary in action,” that “it was the Secretary who pushed President Obama the hardest on checking Russian aggression.” Smith, according to my source, credited Clinton with pushing Obama “to turn up the heat on Putin.”

This effort by then-Secretary of State Clinton to “turn up the heat” on Putin, it should be noted predates the 2014 crisis in Ukraine by well over a year and predates. Russia’s annexation of Crimea (which occurred after a referendum in which Crimea’s voters, by a 96 percent margin, called for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia). In other words, if what Smith says is true, Clinton was actively working to subvert the “re-set policy” of which she was ostensibly in charge!

Hillary Clinton Is a known Neocon cum Zionist.

Donald Trump did something extraordinary even for him: He called on a foreign power to launch an espionage operation against his chief political opponent, hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server to find 30,000 emails she allegedly deleted.

Trump has repeatedly expressed wild admiration for Putin personally; his campaign staff and businesses have extensive ties to Russian interests.

Trump’s policy instincts are objectively pro-Kremlin and the sources of information that shape his policy ideas (his advisers and business interests) serve to reinforce rather than challenge these instincts. If the Kremlin is helping Trump win the election, it would be a perfectly rational thing for them to do.

Hillary‘s hilarious task

Money plays its “democratic” role in presidential poll of USA as well.

In the Democratic National Convention, Mrs. Clinton may have made history by becoming the first woman nominee for president of the United States. Her husband and former US president Bill Clinton’s task at the Convention may have seemed deceptively simple: to add “new dimensions” to his wife’s public image – elements of her life story with which US public is well aware of. As Hillary Clinton’s husband for the past 40 years, the popular ex-president was her ultimate character witness, portraying her as hard-working, persistent, and caring. Bill Clinton was charming and steely-eyed, and owned the arena as he told his wife’s story in personal terms, from their courtship through to her time as secretary of State.

Thus far, husband Clinton, who has become “explainer in chief” for his own record, played a more low-key role in his wife’s campaign, appearing at smaller events and fundraisers, and weighing in privately with advice. Eight years ago, when Mrs. Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination against Obama, Bill Clinton stumbled at times and hurt her cause by saying that Obama had won South Carolina only because he’s black.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was a time of relative peace and prosperity, including a balanced budget and he would be an asset to her while she’s in the White House. She cannot say Bill Clinton was a “total non-factor” in one delegate’s decision to support her as a candidate.

Hillary Clinton’s nominating convention has focused on domestic issues, but her foreign policy has even many anti-war Democrats worried, as she surrounds herself with Neocons with their favorite regime change proposals, and liberal hawks The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

The mood among some of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy cognoscenti here is one of an unadulterated smugness bred of certainty mixed with a sense of global entitlement. One Democratic US senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts that the US had “lost” Ukraine.Lost? Does Crimea belong to America? But the Democratic Party’s foreign policy elites are certain that that is so. Funny! They are certain NATO is the “cornerstone” of American national security and therefore any criticism of the alliance is “dangerous”; and many are certain that the Republican nominee is the Kremlin’s very own Manchurian candidate. They are also certain Donald Trump is dead wrong about everything.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office since Republican hawk George H.W. Bush, but there the comparisons end. Clinton is not running to extend the Obama terror legacy (whatever that may be) but to extend the Clinton terror legacy, and this should worry the world deeply.

Observations: permanent war agenda of USA for resources

Divisions in Islamic world in West Asia allowed the hawkish foreign policy makers behind the doors like Neocons of USA to launch a permanent war program to control the energy resources of the region and promote the fascist interests of Israel by stretching the war tentacles across the region, killing millions of Muslims. Now the USA has enlisted almost every country, including Saudi Arabia led GCC, Russia and China to fortify its imperialist misadventures.

As per its secret plan,   the USA has been at war continuously for a quarter century, beginning with the first Persian Gulf conflict of 1990–91. While using propaganda catchphrases, such as “democracy”, “defense of human rights” “war on Terror,” to conceal the real aims of its interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, as well as its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been engaged in a struggle for global hegemony.

Today, energy and energy routes globally have been brought under US control with as many military bases of U across the globe.

However, the contradictions of American and world imperialism can be discerned by the rift between USA and Europe on the one hand, and between Arab/Islamic world and USA, on the other. The progression of military interventions and geopolitical crises as they have developed over the past quarter century as per US schedule, is not a sequence of isolated episodes, as US media want the world to know but the moments in the unfolding of an interconnected historical process to make the USA the top most military power with which every nation world be forced to make “adjustments”.

Having got nukes for retaining the annexed parts of Jammu Kashmir and killed thousands of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistan and India, for instance, fall at the US feet just to gain support for their illegal Kashmir agenda. By using the weakness of Pakistani leadership, USA has, as part of its anti-Islamic tirade, destabilized Pakistan which is supposed to be an ally of NATO. India pumps a lot of money into US economy even as China stabilizes US finances by heavy lending, even while Pentagon .keeps pumping oil into USA., thereby ensuring its energy security on permanent basis. . This has been possible for US leaders only through a permanent war agenda.

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary represent the hawkish US imperialist agenda and carry forward the US war agenda

Hillary Clinton is wife of former President Bill Clinton and now both want to promote dynastic rule in USA. Daughter Chelsea, who will introduce her mother before her big acceptance speech, says she too may run for office someday. However, the failure of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries signaled, in part, a rejection of dynastic politics in America. The idea of American politics as a family business is not endorsed by true democracy.

In fact, Hillary is a monster in woman format and as US foreign minister she has proven fascist instinct without any iota of doubt. She is just waiting for the poll results to accelerate, if she wins presidency, her and those of the “regime change” oriented Neocons terror brains. Wanting a woman president is one thing but promoting a known terror mind for presidency is totally different as Americans and world at large would have to face the terror consequences of Hillary’s term.

Hillary Clinton as the proven state terrorist minister in the Obama government is unfit to be the president of USA but her daughter Chelsea who hands are free from blood stains from genocides of Palestinians and killing of their children at Gaza strip can contest for presidency nest time and even win.

However, if Bill and Hillary feel as their daughter Chelsea also shares the shame of what they did in Gaza Strip of Palestine and Arab world, then, Chelsea should also leave the field of politics for honest and sinecure people without any imperialist and fascist ideas.

An arrogant Zionist in USA, Madam Hillary violated all rules and norms with a sense of impunity because no one can punish her or Obama, for, republicans and democratic now collaborate against Islam and Muslims. Obama could get ‘resources” to Washington on the pretext of “security threats”.

As US President Hillary Clinton can fail both America and world and cause unbearable pains to humanity, including mothers, children and women.

If by chance Hillary makes her entry into the august White House as its custodian, obviously, Israel would officially decide both the domestic and foreign policy of USA. That would make it clear as to how the US decision making apparatus operates

Americans are really fed up with war agenda of US leaders of both democratic and republican party. Though Trump has expressed his ideas and agenda, Hillary pretends to a good looking nice lady but she is a ruthless US leader who can destroy entire world for the sake of Israel.

Like other nations, US people also are eager to see a credible peace agenda of the government to defend the humanity from evil intentions of hawkish leaders who are indeed merchants of death. .

Certainly, if elected, Hillary, notwithstanding her oratory skills to fool the Americans, would prove to be a hell for USA and disaster for the world at large.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

The U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Back Down, to Avoid WW III

Published

on

Recently, tensions have been rising between, on the one hand, America, and on the other, both Russia and China. A nuclear war that includes the United States would destroy the entire world, because it would be not only nuclear, but major-power nuclear, which would entail so many nuclear explosions (perhaps all within less than an hour), so that nuclear winter would extend over not only all of the northern hemisphere, but probably also over all of the southern hemisphere (though more slowly there). Unfortunately, no scientific study has been published analyzing what the result would be of such a war, but studies have been published of likely outcomes from minor-power nuclear wars, and the results have indicated nearly as catastrophic outcomes as I’ve summarily indicated here for a major-power nuclear war.

The culminating public event displaying that a U.S. backdown has occurred would be Biden’s granting Putin’s bottom-line red line (which, if not granted but instead crossed, would precipitate a Russian attack against the U.S.), committing the U.S. to never crossing that line, and this back-down would consist of a mutually accepted and implemented agreement regarding Ukraine and its two break-away regions (the currently independent Donbas, and Russian Crimea). In the case of China, Biden would also need to grant Xi’s bottom-line red line, which would be for Biden publicly to accept the 28 February 1972 U.S.-China agreement called the “Shanghai Communique”, in which the U.S. Government agreed with China to the promise and commitment that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” However, there would also need to be an addendum made to the Shanghai Communique, to the effect that if the Government of Taiwan refuses to publicly and officially acknowledge that it is part of China — no longer a colony of Japan, such as it had been during 1895-1945 (and it had been a province of China during 1683-1895), and also not a separate (i.e., independent) nation — then the United States will not oppose a militarily imposed restoration of Taiwan as being a Chinese province.

The Shanghai Communique goes considerably further than that, however, to commit the U.S. Government to never doing some other things that, during the past decade, the U.S. Government has increasingly blatantly violated (done); and, so, the three most crucial Shanghai Communique commitments regarding Taiwan will be specifically quoted here (and one of them has just been quoted but will be quoted again, in the context of the other two, so that readers may more clearly recognize the blatancy with which the U.S. Government has recently been violating the Shanghai Communique):

“the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, nonaggression against other states, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.”

“Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest.”

“The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.”

For the United States to accept either of those two red lines — Russia’s and/or China’s — (i.e., to agree that the U.S. accepts it, and will not oppose it), would be for the U.S. to back down in order to avoid a WW III. In other words: it would display the U.S. Government’s current decision that its #1 national-security goal isn’t to expand its current empire, but to avoid any WW III (avoid any U.S. war against either Russia or China).

This now seems likely to happen regarding Russia’s red line, as was indicated by Russia’s RT News on October 13th, under the headline “Kremlin says US & Russia agree Ukraine must give Donbass special autonomous status”. That would be Biden’s granting compliance with Putin’s bottom-line red line regarding Donbass. The next day, RT headlined “Strained relations between US & Russia could soon be on mend, Moscow says”. It stated that, after meeting with Kremlin officials in Moscow, “Victoria [Nuland] took with her to Washington a rather long list of those issues that were identified by the Russian side for the need to resolve them as soon as possible.” Nuland is the queen of the neoconservatives (or U.S. imperialists, or “super-hawks,” or “MIC darlings”), and had been sent to Moscow in order to push as hard as possible to get concessions from Russia. She was previously instrumental in the 2014 U.S. coup against Ukraine that captured Ukraine for military training and aid, and potential inclusion in the EU and in NATO — which coup (that she principally organized) actually sparked the current active restoration of the U.S.-Russia Cold War. This is probably why Biden chose her for that assignment. (It’s like sending a victim’s torturerer to find out what what the victim needs.) Whether Biden will decide in accord with her recommendations is unknown. If he does, then he will be continuing with President Obama’s plan (that she had designed) to ultimately place U.S. missiles on Ukraine’s border with Russia, so as to achieve “Nuclear Primacy”: the ability for the U.S. to destroy Moscow within less than ten minutes — too short a time for Russia to launch any retaliation. This would also indicate that China likewise is in severe jeopardy; it would warn China that it needs to presume the worst about the U.S. Government’s intentions.

If the United States will not comply, then one possible result would be that Russia and China will, then, jointly, and publicly, announce that any invasion against either, will be dealt with as constituting an invasion against both.

On the other hand, if Biden caves regarding Russia, then China, too, would likewise be much safer. For him to cave would be for him to accept not only that Ukraine must comply with the Minsk accords regarding Donbass, and that Crimea (which the Soviet Union’s dictator had arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954) is a province of Russia, but also that Taiwan is a province of China. (If Biden were to comply with Russia’s demand but not with China’s, then his subsequently invading China would almost certainly be met by Russian forces, and not only by Chinese ones, and thus America will likely experience yet another defeat — or else the entire world will, by means of a nuclear war between superpowers.) If he won’t agree with at least those three requirements (red lines), then avoiding WW III will be unlikely, if not impossible. That refusal would indicate the U.S. Government’s placing higher priority upon expanding yet further its empire, than upon avoiding a global nuclear war. 

Neither Russia nor China will accept being a part of the U.S. empire. The question now is whether or not the U.S. Government will finally accept that fact. For it to do so would violate all U.S. international policy since FDR died on 12 April 1945. This would be a turning-point in world history — the apogee of the American empire, which was first imposed by Truman and Eisenhower (mainly via coups). But, so, too, would Biden’s continuing forward with the Nuland-led Obama policy on Ukraine produce the apogee, which then would mean WW III (effectively, the end of human history). The American empire might end by the U.S. Government’s accepting that it’s downhill from here on, and the empire’s gradually fading away. Or else, it will end with WW III. This is the choice that now faces Biden. That decision will probably come under this President — and maybe very soon.

On October 15th, the highly informed and extraordinarily honest analyst of geostrategic diplomatic affairs, Alexander Mercouris, headlined “Nuland’s Moscow Trip Ends with Disagreement on All issues, Russia Considers Freezing Relations with US”, and he provided an extensive description of the results from Nuland’s negotiations this past week in Moscow with the Kremlin (and of the U.S. news-media’s virtual blacking-out of even the fact that she was there — and the little U.S. coverage that there was, was mocking Russia, and presented nothing of what the Russian negotiators had said, but only what Russia’s enemies were saying, such as “Apparently, Moscow’s misogynists would rather not deal with a woman at all”). Mercouris’s take on the matter was that Biden will likely continue doing what Nuland and other extreme neoconservatives against Russia want to be done. If Mercouris is correct, then we’re now at the brink of WW III. But whether that war would start against Russia, or against China, one can only guess.

If this sounds crazy, WW I also started as being crazy, and the publics in the respective combatting countries were kept in the dark about everything except the propaganda. The publics overwhelmingly believe the propaganda, no matter how consistently it has subsequently become documented to have been based on lies. For example: this news-report is being simultaneously submitted to virtually all news-media in the U.S. and allied countries. Let’s see how many of them publish it. After all: it’s definitely not propaganda. Everything in it is documented via the links, all of which are to extraordinarily relevant and reliable sources. Propaganda does not do that. But few people even notice this. That’s how imperialists routinely get away with mass-murders, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.

Continue Reading

Americas

How The West Subdue Us: An Approach of Colonial and Development Discourse

Published

on

Talking about development and colonial discourse, I am reminded the story of John Perkins in his book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. This book was written in 1982 when the tension between the west and east blocks is heating up. Two blocks are vigorously fighting to get influence over third world countries. The book contains a dramatic confession. He told how the financial donors institutions together with America conspired, regulated, and designed in order to control the resource in third world countries. John Perkins himself worked at one of these institutions. He was tasked with seducing leaders to accept debt loans through the World Bank, USAID, and other foreign aid organizations. This mission was carried out with a group called as the Economic Hit Man.

Further, the Economic Hit Man (EHM) have to ensure the targeted countries fall into the debt trap. After they owed were no longer able to pay the debts, it were obliged to surrender the concession of their natural resources. The trap which EHM uses to capture prey include: by making misleading financial reports through economic calculations and predictions, manipulating fraudulent elections by supporting candidates Pro-American interests, bribery, extortion, sex, and even murder. The last case happened to Jaime Roldos, the former President of Ecuador who was nicknamed “Castro” in his country. He was killed in a helicopter accident that he was riding. The helicopter crashed and caught fire on May 24, 1981. Many media at that time accused the CIA behind the murder.

Besides Ecuador, other countries that finally entered America’s debt trap were Indonesia. After the crisis hit Indonesia’s finances between 1997-1998, inevitably it signed a new IMF debt pact with various provisions and conditions were detrimental to the country. The pact which reflected on the Washington Consensus is an American strategy to subjugate troubled economic countries.

Ecuador and Indonesia case is only a small example of how the world condition after colonialism ended. It does not mean they reached independence as a whole since the occupation is no longer focused on exploitation and physical violence rather through structural hegemony and various infiltration. To understand how hegemony works comprehensively, there are two discourses framing the history of subjection namely colonial and development discourse.

Understanding Discourse

Discourse is a term created by Foucault. Foucault defines it as a way and means to uncover what is not visible with the naked eye. In the discourse, there are knowledge and strength which form a shared power. The hidden power in it was unconscious to hegemony the subject for how they act as expected. Discourse itself does not come from a vacuum, it exists and is produced, organized, deliberately controlled by the authorities and disseminated as an instrument of subjugation (Arturo Escobar, 1984). It was spread by the west to the third world countries through forced civilization. Western try to place the third world as a slave over their prevails values and knowledge imposed since the colonialism period. So that many countries in the third world fall into the western grip. Then its image becomes an elegant illustration in the mind people of the third world. From here, discourse appears as a tool for hegemony and it was intensively launched along with the colonial and post-colonial period.

How Do Colonial and Developmet Discourse Run

Gradually, discourse topic was inspired many scholars to examine and uncover the hidden interests of such submission processes. One of them is Edwar Said. Edwar Said wrote about what he called in the colonial discourse as Orientalism. For him, Orientalism is a study about eastern world carried out by western people (Europe) with a focus not only on their history and culture but also to a phenomenon political epistemology that contains broader historical consequences ( Eiman Osman, Postcoloniality and Development: Development as a Colonial Discourse). In short, colonial discourse is an extension of the narrow meaning of oppression. Colonial is not just physical exploitation rather attacks and deprivation of the cultural, political, economic and institutional values towards the colonized countries where local values are replaced by the new one brought and instilled by western. They lose their identity. Then they were born with a new “western” identity. It was considered as a strategy to perpetuate the power relations of western state over third world countries. This is clearly illustrated for example in the process of institutionalizing English language education in India and South Africa and it was a part of colonial government politics, as examined by Gauri Viswanathan (1990) and David Johnson (1996).

While colonial discourse emphasizes aspects of attack on culture, ideas, value systems in society – which go hand and become an inseparable part of physical violence, development discourse is a prolongation of new style of occupation beyond physical coercion. It was a new form of conquest. The expansion of this kind of discourse is rife after the cold war in which the West turned to focus on providing economic stimulus to third world countries, as well as a counter to communism.

Explicitly, development discourse is a western manipulation strategy that frames their good intentions by pretending to participate and help the third world in post-colonialism. The debt bondage which occurred in Ecuador and Indonesia that described above is a simple model of how development discourse works. It is a new imperialism under development guise.

Therefore, to understand a whole about development discourse is the best way to realize how western perceives the third world or vice versa. In fact, the perception as most civilized country had encouraged western to be a patron to control economic, political, social, and cultural systems within these countries. Its aim is not only to degrade the progress of development but also to shape the reality and self-image of the third world according to western will. Escobar neatly defines development discourse as follows: In this way, development will be seen, not as a matter of scientific knowledge, a body of theories and programs concerned with the achievement of true progress, but rather as a series of political technologies intended to manage and give shape to the reality of the Third World (Arturo Escobar, 1984).

Dismantling Development Discourse

According to Escobar, there are three important factors to analyze and dismantle development discourse in third world countries. First, through historical conditions, second, restructure of discourse, and third, the deployment of development.

Historical conditions lead us to the portrait of the world at the end of the cold war where capitalism holds control of the course of the global economy. The third countries which are now adopting the same political system (imposed by the west) were initially given the hope that they would be assisted by international institutions that would deal with development issues in their country. Economic studies in newly independent countries are actively carried out. This is the initial phase of transition control in a more subtle direction. In this stage, many of them volunteered to receive program and debt assistance offered by international financial institutions before finally entering the trap of their power.

While restructure of discourse is operated not only to change the old structure that applies in third world countries as well as to focus on the economic structure but to touch all aspects, including social and politics so that these aspects will become institutionalized which perpetuate and sustain western domination over the lives of third world. This happens at all levels, from rural to urban, local-regional, national-international.

In the deployment of development, there are several main strategies. First, through a variety of labeling. Initially by perceiving that the third world is backward, uneducated, abnormal, and embedding other negative terms. Second,  through the formation of professional fields. Here various types of specialization are formed which are directed at their respective fields. Specialization in the field of science, including economics, politics, is intended to make science look neutral so the course of development which is much assisted by elements of science is not deemed politically. The third is through the institutionalization of development. As Escobar calls it “This process took place at various levels, ranging from the international organizations and national planning bodies to local level development agencies. These institutions became the agents of the deployment of development, the network of new sites of power which, taken as a whole, constituted the apparatus of development “(Arturo Escobar, 1984).

In short, everything that we believe so far is the fruit of our past and the cultivation of western values. So do not be surprised if some of us still consider the west as the center of civilization orientation.

Continue Reading

Americas

How Trump can beat Kamala Harris in 2024

Published

on

The hopes for Vice President Kamala Harris were big, but as the months of her first year in office progressed, they evaporated quickly.

As Vice President, Mike Pence negotiated ceasefire agreements with Turkey in Syria and did a lot of diplomatic work. So the VP’s role is not exactly about sitting on the sidelines, waiting to be President. But this seems to be Kamala’s game at the moment. She does videos with girls who should dream big but when it comes to her actual responsibilities she is nowhere to be seen. It’s not enough to be the first black woman VP. That doesn’t guarantee your “historic legacy”. It’s what you do that counts.

Biden tasked Kamala with the southern border, that horny issue that Trump wanted to take up and which Democrats are not interested in.

The truth here is a geographical one: simply in geographic terms, the US southern border is so vast that it can’t be secured unless something changes in US policy. Not everyone that wants to enter a country should be able to do that. The same goes for Americans who would be stopped at the border if they tried to enter illegally Bulgaria, just to name an example. The rules of legal entry still apply across the world, and for people escaping dire circumstances such as refugees we have a separate set of rules where they can apply for asylum. That doesn’t include anyone from any country that wants to enter any country, but surely a guiding principle should be humane treatment even for those that are not allowed to enter or that have to leave. The situation on the southern border were children were separated from their parents and were kept in cages was absolutely horrific, so one hoped that with her legal experience, child of immigrants-origin, and black, Indian, female leadership, Kamala would be better suited at finding humane solutions than Trump.

But Kamala did not even wish to visit the border, and nothing changed when the Haitian immigrants’ crisis hit either. She is just not interested; she just wants to be President. Kamala was expected to deliver a more sensitive approach because this is why she was elected – for issues such as these. Leaders of diversity are not elected just to be there, because it’s great to look at all kinds of people, but because the political system and decision-making supposedly becomes more representative and better.

People elect leaders on platforms to help workers, such as veteran Senator Sherrod Brown, exactly for that – to help workers. That’s why he is on the right committees such as agriculture, forestry, nutrition. You won’t see him all of a sudden interested in big tech and the finance industry, not willing to touch his original issues. That would be strange, right?

Women leaders whose platform is being a woman and breaking glass ceilings to lead the way, are expected to deliver on that. Not all women leaders have that line and this line should not be expected from all women, but the ones that do run on being black women leaders for the community should deliver on that. That’s their thing, that’s what they ran on.

Black Lives Matter congressmen who run on that platform are expected to be like that once they get elected, too. Similarly, if a politician runs on being rich, successful and someone who understand big corporate America and will drive big business forward, you expect them to be exactly that way.

If you run for office as the migrants’ Congresswoman you better be doing that. I remember Congressman Grijalva of Arizona whom I met previously. His had was a Mexican immigrant and the Congressman was someone feeling and supporting Mexican immigrants; that was his thing, his selling point and his driving issue. You wouldn’t see him go: “Oh yeah, the migrants. No thanks!” The Congressman was well-aware that he was elected in that identity out of all the identities he could have decided to bring to the fore.

My point is that if you’re selected for specific views and characteristic and you are putting that as your headline motto which defines you, that means that people will be expecting that from you because that’s why you got elected to begin with. So there are very clear and reasonable expectations that Kamala has to be better towards refugees if she ran on being a child of immigrants.  She has to be more sensitive towards the pains of what she was elected to represent. If you are running for office as a mother, wife and a child of immigrants, then family issues and gentle, humane treatment towards immigrant children should be a priority.  It’s only fair in the political contract of being an elected official.

Politicians choose very carefully what identities they flash and show to the whole world to see. That’s a very conscious choice. The story would be different if Kamala ran on being a top legal mind that will fix many issues in the justice system, while not wanting to bring her origin, female-ness and race as selling points. That would have been an equally valid political approach. Then people would have expected that identity to come to the fore, once she stepped in office. My hopes and prescriptions for Kamala, for example, was that she could reform the FBI and the way the FBI treats progressive protests. I wrote about it right at the start of the Biden-Harris administration all over the left media in Salon, Raw Story and AlterNet, urging VP Harris to take a look at the FBI. This would have included indiscriminate surveillance, for example, and the legal standards and thresholds to open investigations for serious crimes like terrorism. What we are witnessing now is that the same way the FBI and the repressive apparatus treated reasonable voices on the left clumping them together with violent groups on the far left, is happening to the right, where Trump supporters and regular people on the right are spied on and put in the same group as armed, violent men. This is what the FBI generally does to the new big enemy. Who that is changes with the fashion trends. My hope was that Kamala could stop the FBI from running wild, using her extensive legal experience. That was a long shot. She is not interested even in top-of-the-line emergency issues such as the border that Biden assigned to her.

This is why I think that Trump can beat Kamala in 2024, if she becomes the Democratic nominee. I won’t be surprised if she runs on a platform of becoming the first woman president and first woman black president. But for that you need to have demonstrated that you are for women and have supported women, and you are for black people and have supported the black issues.

I think it’s only fair. I am asking people to actually start holding politicians accountable to the identities that politicians themselves have chosen to flash out. If you’re neither for women, nor for people of color’s problems, then the identity presented is fake and we are better off with someone whose identity matches their actions.

It’s not enough to stage videos with little girls who should “dream big” because “everything is possible” in a world where “women can be anything they want to be”. The role of the chief political executive is not to be an “inspirational” celebrity, someone that people look up to for philosophical and motivational inspiration like the Dalai Lama. The role of a President or VP is to solve problems. I know it doesn’t sound very glamorous because it’s not.

I think Trump can win 2024 if he drops the far-right movements. The rights to protest and free speech are no longer protected, as soon as there is violence involved. Trump can also drop some of the offensive language and still be Trump. If he keeps what was good from his policies, such as the economy pre-Covid, he can convince a lot of Americans who are already chanting against Joe Biden. America already hates Biden and Kamala – if I can hear it all the way here in Bulgaria.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Middle East29 mins ago

Shaping US Middle East policy amidst failing states, failed democratization and increased activism

The future of US engagement in the Middle East hangs in the balance. Two decades of forever war in Afghanistan...

Energy2 hours ago

Gas doom hanging over Ukraine

The long history of gas transit across independent Ukraine began with Kiev’s initial failure to pay anything for Russian natural...

erdogan erdogan
Middle East6 hours ago

Safar Barlek of the 21st Century: Erdogan the New Caliph

Since the American’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, it became clear that everyone is holding his breath. That is exactly what Recep...

Africa10 hours ago

Analyzing The American Hybrid War on Ethiopia

Ethiopia has come under unprecedented pressure from the U.S. ever since it commenced a military operation in its northern Tigray...

Intelligence12 hours ago

Women Maoists (Naxalbari)

Every now and then, Indian newspapers flash news about Maoist insurgents, including women being killed. They usually avoid mentioning how...

forest forest
Environment14 hours ago

Greenpeace Africa reacts to DRC President’s decision to suspend illegal logging concessions

The President of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Félix Tshisekedi, ordered on Friday, October 15th, the suspension of all...

Reports16 hours ago

Are we on track to meet the SDG9 industry-related targets by 2030?

A new report published by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Statistical Indicators of Inclusive and Sustainable Industrialization, looks...

Trending