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

Trump’s coming trade war “deal” is a dud

Published

on

In typically bullish style, Donald Trump has told the world he expects a resolution to his trade war with China within four weeks. The U.S. President claims the deal “has a very good chance of happening,” and, when it does, it will be “the Grand Daddy of them all.” But key concerns linger:  China has made several concessions to the U.S. over the endless rounds of talks, but there is little sign of Beijing reining in its support for industries such as steel and aluminium – one of the key reasons for the stand-off in the first place. If the Chinese delegation refuses to give way, and to stop dumping cheap products on global markets, even Trump’s staunchest supporters might wonder whether the whole dispute has been worth it.

While the trade war cost the U.S. economy an estimated $7.8 billion in lost GDP last year, the toll has been far greater on China, whose economic growth among other reasons was drastically hit by the steep American tariff walls. Growth has already slowed to its lowest level since 1990, and industrial production has hit a 10-year nadir. Despite Beijing’s best efforts,  latest employment figures show a spike in the number of people out of work, pressuring Xi’s government to arrest the slide.

The IMF did at least provide some good news, revising up its 2019 growth forecast for the Chinese economy. However it also warned that, if the trade war escalates and both sides impose 25% tariffs on all each other’s goods, China’s losses will be bigger. U.S. GDP would fall by up to 0.6% in such a scenario, while China’s could plunge by more than double that figure. Around 1% of the U.S. workforce in sectors such as agriculture and transportation could lose their jobs – a major blow to those rural communities Trump has pledged to revive. In China’s manufacturing sectors, around 5% of people could find themselves suddenly out of work.

Signs of progress

This stark reality explains the raft of climbdowns brokered by Xi’s negotiators, which have gone some way to repairing the damage in some of the worst-hit U.S. sectors. China has proposed buying an extra $30 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products a year, including soybeans, as a concession to U.S. farmers facing soaring stockpiles. On top of that, Beijing has cut tariffs on U.S. cars, news which will have been welcomed by the beleaguered American automobile industry.

But what about China’s trade policies, which have long been central to the U.S. grievance, particularly unfair industrial subsidies? On that it’s hard to see what China has really offered. Xi’s team has made a general commitment to stop subsidizing domestic industries and drowning global markets, but it’s been making these promises for the last 10 years without much action on it, so analysts would be forgiven for being cynical. Observers describe the latest pledges as light on detail, particularly as China offers little information about how it would go about implementing subsidy cuts.

All the indications suggest that China will continue pumping out aluminium and steel, two of America’s – and the EU’s – keenest focus areas. Even after Trump slapped huge tariffs on the two metals last year, Chinese manufacturers continued to ramp up production. For example, in the first two months of 2019 unwrought aluminium and aluminium product exports reached multi-year highs as producers responded to slack domestic demand by dumping their product overseas.

The effect this will have on the international market will continue to be serious, particularly in the aluminium sector already decimated by years of Chinese over-production. The resultant price slump has effectively wiped out entire industries in countries such as the U.K. and the Netherlands. Worse, the tide shows little sign of turning, with aluminium prices on the London Metal Exchange hovering near multi-year lows. With experts suggesting that around 40% of the world’s smelters are now losing money, the ripple effect from China’s subsidies extends far beyond the U.S deep into Europe’s industrial heartland.

Long-term interest

Of course, this doesn’t mean Trump will necessarily force China to stop dumping in the global, or even national, interest. Considering his desire for simple, easy-to-sell results, he will likely accept a deal if China simply agrees to buy more U.S. goods. In that case, he would likely skirt round the fundamental issues about market distortion – a serious risk that is becoming ever more acute as Trump’s image as a cunning dealmaker is showing cracks in the wake of the failed nuclear summit with North Korea, increasing his desperation to prove himself.

As most recent reports suggest, Washington’s will to hold out for the sake of a “great” trade deal is indeed weakening. Although the thorniest issue, insider sources say U.S. negotiators are backpedalling on the demand that China cut subsidies in a move to push a trade agreement in the next month. This is in line with former White House advisor Gary Cohn’s claim that Trump is mostly interested in closing a deal to boost stock markets and give himself the ideal fillip for his re-election campaign.

Yet, for the long-term health of the global community, Trump must press China on this issue. A quick-fix deal will doubtless cheer the global economy subjected to serious collateral damage from the trans-Pacific spat. But it risks stoking further conflict in the future, and ultimately a renewal of the stand-off. China may have been hurting to secure an agreement, but now it may about to be handed one with terms more beneficial than Beijing had imagined from the outset.

Rather than giving in with the end in sight, Trump needs to go all out for total victory, one that justifies the turmoil his trade war has caused. If he doesn’t, his deal may only be a ceasefire.

Continue Reading

Americas

By 3-to-1, Americans Want Assange Prosecuted

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

A YouGov poll of 2,455 Americans taken on April 11th found that by a margin of 53% to 17%, or by slightly over 3 to 1, Americans want Julian Assange to be prosecuted. 

The question was: “Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London. Do you think he should or should not be extradited to the US?”

This was a remarkably bipartisan hostility toward Assange. As the YouGov news-report on that finding indicated:

“That majority increases among both Republicans (59% supporting extradition) and Democrats (62% supporting extradition), but decreases to a plurality (46%) among Independents. Independents were more likely to respond with uncertainty (32% saying they don’t know) than Republicans and Democrats, and a little more than one in five Independents (22%) are opposed to extradition.”

During 18-20 November 2018, YouGov had polled Americans on “Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion” on Assange, and separately the same on Wikileaks. On each, Americans were predominantly unfavorable toward Assange by 38% to 20%, and toward Wikileaks by 44% to 29%. Another question in that poll was “Do you support or oppose the prosecution of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks?” “Support” was 29%. “Oppose” was 19%. 

In March 2011, Reuters’s Ipsos polling firm asked 18,829 people in 23 countries, “As you may know, the mission of the Wikileaks internet site is to publish copies of confidential government or corporate files and information to the public. Do you support or oppose this type of site that would post such materials?” Globally, there was 74% “Support” and 26% “Oppose.” The lowest support was in U.S.: 29% support versus 61% opposition. (The second-lowest support of Wikileaks was in UK or “Great Britain,” where the opposition to Wikileaks was 38% instead of America’s 61%.) That poll also asked “Would you consider the publishers of the materials” from such a site to be “public service” or “mischief makers” or “criminals” or “heroes” or “other”; and the predominant one of those choices worldwide was “public service,” which was selected by the same percentage of people as the total percentage who had chosen either “mischief makers” or else “criminals” (the second and third preferred options) and it was eight times as many as those who had chosen “heroes.” (NOTE: These latter opinions pertained to the news-media that published information from Wikileaks — not to Wikileaks itself.) However, yet again, in this poll, Americans stood alone for the extremity of their hostility towards a national press that’s not being controlled by the Government (which is what Wikileaks is all about): only one third as large a percentage of Americans as the global percentage chose “public service,” whereas the percentage of Americans who chose “criminals” (42%) was more than three times the global percentage (13%) who chose that. The second-highest to that degree of extreme hostility against a press that’s authentically independent of the government was likewise “Great Britain”: 20%. Canada was the third-highest, at 19%. In other words: the #1 most-hostile nation against democracy was 42% in America, and the next-most-hostile to democracy was 20% in “Great Britain” — less than half as high a percentage of hostility against democracy, as compared to the U.S. percentage; and Canada was only slightly less hostile toward democracy than was the UK.

That same poll also asked: “Wikileaks recently posted thousands of confidential US government diplomatic notes. … Julian Assange, who is responsible for leaking the documents should be viewed as a” — and  49% of Americans said “criminal,” whereas only 17% globally did. (Great Britain was, yet again, on this, the second-highest hostility against democracy, at 26%.) Globally, 29% of all respondents said that Assange had provided a “public service,” but only 11% of Americans said that.

By overwhelming margins, Americans thought that their Government should have an unqualified right to hide from the public, basically, anything it wants to hide. The U.S. Government actually does possess unlimited authority to categorize whatever it wants, as being “Classified.” Overwhelming majorities of the U.S. public approve of this root-principle of dictatorship. Assange is being condemned, fundamentally, because he violates that intrinsic principle (government-secrecy, regardless of how arbitrarily it is imposed), of dictatorship, anywhere.

Clearly, then, the American people were far more favorable toward dictatorship than the public was, in any of the 22 other nations that were sampled.

(NOTE: For the purposes of this article, effective control by the government over the nation’s press is defined as dictatorship, and effective freedom of the press to report any truth — regardless of what the government wants — is defined as democracy. So: the U.S. belongs in the category of a 100% dictatorship, since the Government can classify anything it wishes to.) 

An interesting sidelight to these findings, of an extremely pro-dictatorship U.S. public — and with Great Britain being right behind (though not nearly as pro-dictatorship as Americans are) — is that, in 2002 and 2003, the national press in each of those two countries was so strongly controlled by the government as to deceive (via their stenographic ‘news’-media) their respective public into invading Iraq, on the basis of that stenographic reporting by the nation’s press of the government’s lies against Iraq. This is the result of both countries being dictatorships. This is true irrespective of whether Iraq also was.

Further confirmations of the extreme degree of dictatorship in the United States are that it’s the nation which has the world’s highest percentage of its people in prison, and that in the periodic polling by the Gallup organization, the one “institution” that always scores at the very top as being the most highly respected of all institutions in America is “the military.” That is the finding which would reasonably be expected in a total dictatorship.

So: if Assange gets extradited by Great Britain to the United States for prosecution, he will face here not only the most hostile government but the most hostile public. Presumably, this would please the leaderships (even if not the publics) in all U.S.-allied nations, including especially NATO — America’s anti-Russia military alliance, which after 1991 absorbed the entirety of the no-longer-existing Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact mirror organization which had countered America’s NATO alliance. NATO itself is strongly supported not only by the governments but by the people within the respective member-nations, and polling in June 2014 found that “A little more than half of EU respondents (56%) said it was desirable that the United States exert strong leadership in world affairs.” So, the publics in those nations (at least back in 2014) wanted their own government to continue to be led by the U.S. Government. That was more than a decade after the U.S. Government (and Great Britain) had invaded and destroyed Iraq, on the basis of lies. So: perhaps the public, not only in America but in other countries, learns nothing from experience, and they are perennially suckers of their respective national leaderships. But, in any case, the American public are international standouts for supporting dictatorship — not merely accepting it, but actually endorsing it. Obviously, if Assange is not freed from Great Britain and especially from the U.S., his prospects are exceptionally dismal. His only actual ‘crime’ is having stood up internationally for democracy. If that’s not a “hero,” who is? But perhaps, now, democracy has become a hopeless cause. Perhaps, in the final analysis, Assange’s fate will turn out to have been the fate of democracy, too — the canary in this coal mine.

Continue Reading

Americas

Americans fear punishment for Afghan war crimes

Published

on

Lo and behold! Looks like the “great and terrible” United States can be scared to the point of hysteria. Another myth about American omnipotence is being debunked before our very eyes now that the big shots in Washington are dreading the prospect of being held accountable for the crimes their soldiers have committed in Afghanistan.

Well, it’s been a long time since the Yankees have last been scared of anyone anywhere, save, perhaps, for Soviet missiles. Still, the challenge they now have thrown out to the International Criminal Court (ICC) has laid bare their cowardice for the whole world to see. And all this under the guise of threats and warlike rhetoric, of course.

Washington saw red when, in November 2016, Foreign Policy journal wrote that “the prosecutor’s office of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is ready to initiate a full investigation of a range of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, including some by US personnel.” Washington was incensed even more after the very same publication wrote that “the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, will seek to initiate an investigation,” and that “the prosecutor’s office repeatedly called attention to alleged abuses of detainees by US personnel between 2003 and 2005 that it believes have not been adequately addressed by the United States.”

The ICC report noted that “crimes were allegedly committed with particular cruelty and in a manner that debased the basic human dignity of the victims.” 

Shortly afterwards, US officials visited The Hague where the ICC was meeting to discuss the potential investigation and to express concerns about its scope in what was seen as their first attempt to intimidate the court.

A report by the UN mission in Afghanistan added fuel to the flames of the ICC probe. According to the report, in 2016 alone, 11,418 civilians died there at the hands of all the warring sides, including the Taliban (banned in Russia). Still, the main culprits are US invaders and their NATO allies.

Despite the mounting pressure, the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia persisted with the investigation. Washington then ramped up the pressure by simply revoking her entry visa to the United States. Simple as that.

Bensouda’s office said she had an “independent and impartial mandate” under the Rome statute governing the ICC, and described Washington’s move as an attempted attack on the ICC by the US Administration bringing a sigh of relief from “law-abiding” Americans. And no one in the “free and independent” US media raised his voice against this arbitrary practice.

Such voices of disagreement came from the European Union and the United Nations though, with the UN Secretary General’s official spokesperson Stephane Dujarric expressing the hope that “the United States government will continue to comply with its obligations… and that the prosecutor, when she needs to come to the United Nations, will be afforded a visa for work done at the United Nations,” where Fatou Bensouda was to present a report to the Security Council on the progress of ongoing investigations into the events in Libya.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini likewise backed the ICC: “We will continue to fully and strongly support the ICC and its work,” she said.

It has also been said that Washington’s disregard for the ICC, which comprises 123 countries (excluding Russia and the US), is fraught with an international scandal. However, President Trump will hardly bother to worry about trifles like this. Responding to the start of the investigation into the crimes committed by the Americans in Afghanistan, the US State Department vowed to revoke or deny visas to ICC staff “seeking to investigate alleged war crimes and other abuses committed by US forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened “to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”

Washington reserves the same treatment also for the ICC staff investigating alleged crimes by the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and President Trump has confirmed this. Paraphrasing George Orwell, all people are equal before the ICC, but some people are more equal than others.

However, here the Americans’ strength turns into weakness and uncertainty. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton threatened prosecutions and financial sanctions against ICC staff, as well as against countries and companies assisting in ICC investigations of US nationals. If this is not a sign of panic, then what is?

However, the mere fact that an official investigation has been launched against the United States is unprecedented in modern-day politics. When even a Gambian national can see that a global superpower is losing strength and is vulnerable, one can only imagine what will happen if everyone else in the world realizes this too.

Fully aware of this prospect, the Americans have applied all levers of political and economic pressure available to them and showed everyone that they are still a power to be reckoned with. On April 12, the ICC  unanimously (sic!) rejected prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s request to investigate criminal offenses allegedly committed by NATO coalition forces against civilians in Afghanistan on the very dubious grounds that such an investigation at the present time “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The ruling states that the prosecutor’s request “establishes a reasonable basis to consider that crimes within the ICC jurisdiction have been committed in Afghanistan and that potential cases would be admissible before the Court.” However, the Chamber noted “the time elapsed since the opening of the preliminary examination in 2006 and the political changing scene in Afghanistan since then, the lack of cooperation that the Prosecutor has received and which is likely to go scarcer should an investigation be authorized hampering the chances of successful investigation and prosecution, as well as the need for the Court to use its resources prioritizing activities that would have better chances to succeed.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is happy: “I am very pleased that the ICC made this decision today. It is the right one. When Americans misbehave, whether it’s our military, intelligence officers, we have a robust democratic process that holds them accountable. You’ve seen us do that for those that misbehaved. There is in no way or any need for the ICC to intervene,” he said.

This is a striking example of national legislation taking precedence over international law – especially in critical situations.

President Trump was equally pleased hailing the ICC’s refusal to consider the actions of the US military in Afghanistan as “a major international victory not only for these patriots, but for the rule of law (?)”. He reiterated US reservations about the Hague-based ICC, saying that its “broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers” present a threat to US sovereignty. Which means that Yankees are immune from prosecution – something we should all keep very much in mind.

The whole situation turned out to be pretty ambiguous: the Americans got scared, but the ICC ended up bending under Washington’s pressure. It still looks like the days of America’s complete domination are over, just as the current scandal proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy