Novel thinkers and those with original ideas, coupled with gifts of clairvoyance, are always initially challenged and ostracized by the masses, who are then used by corrupt political leadership to justify horrific actions of exclusion, persecution, and damnation of their enemies.
For more than 50 years, Lyndon LaRouche has been writing, lecturing, teaching, and warning Americans and the rest of the people of the world, about the exact same issues pertaining to economics, global governance, and the agenda of the Oligarch/ Plutocrat/ Deep State lunatic fringe who Donald Trump and the majority of America (and the world) are now fighting against.
To be sure, at the time Lyndon LaRouche was railing against these enemies of humanity in the 1970s and 80s, both before and during the Ronald Reagan administration, his enemies were so strong that they were able to character assassinate and marginalize him from political power, and they were also able to set him up for what he alleges was a false and contrived criminal case, sentencing this wise learned gentleman to prison for many years, where inside he was apparently attacked and attempts were made to murder him.
But Lyndon LaRouche, who is not only one of the world’s greatest thinkers/writers, is also one of its most resilient, and he survived this slow assassination plot hatched by his enemies, and is now living in Germany.
His enemies and betrayers were allegedly people like George H W Bush and the rest of the New World Order globalist/skull and bones secret societies, which were beholden to the City of London within the United Kingdom and its crown, rather than to the United States of America and its People.
To that end Lyndon LaRouche’s enemies have now been revealed, over the past few years especially, to be the enemies of the American People.
One recalls at a media press conference in the late 1990s, wherein James Woolsey, formerly head of the CIA, who is an open and avowed NWO globalist, openly castigated, humiliated, and verbally assaulted a member of the press corp asking a question that was both intelligent and insightful, as soon as Woolsey learned that this media representative was from the Executive Intelligence Review (“EIR”), funded, led and spearheaded by Lyndon LaRouche. James Woolsey has now been banished from the halls of power by the Donald Trump administration and the rest of America, for his political background/motivations have been revealed to the American public and the rest of the world, as have the rest of the rabid Neo-Cons, Neo-Liberals, and other Trotsky-ite communists and Stasi-like proponents of a technocratic global New World Order where the masses are considered cattle, and their ruling Oligarchs/Plutocrats are designed to be their sheep-herders.
Oscar Wilde wrote that “You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies” – well if that is the case then Lyndon LaLarouche may be the second coming of Christ.
Lyndon LaRouche has stated that the people who wanted him dead and gone were entities such as the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Justice Department, and the Mossad.
He further fingered the CIA and British intelligence, as well as Communists, extreme/militant Zionists, Narcotics Gangsters, the Rockefellers, powerful bankers, globalists, Henry Kissinger, Averell Harriman, international socialists and Nazis, and International Terrorists.
Whatever Lyndon LaRouche’s history and evolution throughout his life, much of which has been controversial and difficult to understand, one must admit that this list of enemies is truly impressive, and have now been established to be enemies of the American people and the rest of the world.
The problem is that 40-50 years ago, no one knew who these people were, or why they were motivated against him, as they had a complete and total stranglehold on the media and the power structure within the USA and the world, and so truly no one in the American masses knew about it.
Some of the issues and political agendas of Lyndon LaRouche that he has supported and espoused over the last 40-50 years resulted in his powerful enemies removing him from political power, forcing him away from his American podium, exiling him from the United States of America, and confining him to a prison for a dubious crime like Jean Valjean in Les Misérables:
(1) he is against rabid environmental protectionism, and instead opts for bolstering and growing the American and world economies through manufacturing, industry and great jobs;
(2) he has called out our corrupt political leadership who often engage in behavior/actions against the interests of the American people (and the world) because he has uncovered their allegiance to the City of London in the United Kingdom and British Crown, rather than the interests of the American people;
(3) he is a supporter of the international balance of power approach, against stupid foreign wars of intervention, as he discovered long ago that this was only in the interest of the international Oligarch/Plutocrat elite, while undermining and disenfranchising the American people (and the rest of the world);
(4) he is a supporter of better relations with all nations and countries of the world, trading honestly with all, entangling alliances with none, as was typified and instructed by Thomas Jefferson;
(5) he is a supporter of the BRICS banking paradigm, which seeks to challenge the bankster hegemony being foisted and perpetrated against the third and second world and its people, while simultaneously devaluing American currency and oppressing the citizens of the USA;
(6) he is 100% in favor of bringing high paying quality jobs in manufacturing, industry, and other hard employment with higher salaries and better longevity and working conditions back to the United States, after the awful carnage that was inflicted on the American people by the pro-NAFTA corporate/government fascist crowd, which sent tens of millions of American jobs and its corporations overseas (President Donald Trump has made this a cornerstone of his entire Presidential Administration, if not all of the above issues as well);
(7) he is for abolishing (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve, which he views as the ultimate harbinger and source of evil, for which countless intellectual luminaries of the modern age have profoundly supported and espoused, but Lyndon LaRouche was talking about this 50 years ago;
(8) he is against wholesale and systematic corruption within all 3 branches of the US government, having traced its economic and financial fount to the City of London and its UK proponents;
(9) he is against a biased and corrupted media, speaking out against its rapid consolidation so that it could better brainwash and mind-control the American people and the rest of the world into accepting the long-term enslavement visions of the global Oligarchs and Plutocratic feudal masters who lurk in the shadows;
(10) He is completely against the doctrines of Neo-Conservatism in our foreign policy, against useless stupid foreign wars, and routinely calls out people like US State Department Chief Victoria Nuland for destroying and sabotaging other sovereign foreign nations in their bloodlust and thirst for global hegemony at the expense of the world’s people, and only beneficial to its Oligarch masters;
(11) A return to the Bretton Woods system, including a gold-based national and world monetary system, fixed exchange rates, and ending the IMF;
(12) Replacement of the central bank system, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, with a national bank;
(13) A war on drug trafficking and prosecution of banks involved in money laundering;
(14) Building of nuclear power plants;
(15) Opposition to excessive environmentalism, deregulation, outcome-based education, and abortion;
(16) Immediate reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated private mom and pop checking/savings accounts from the risky “casino-like” investment habits/tactics of the major banks, the repeal of which in 1998 by then President Bill Clinton under pressure from Goldman Sachs/Treasury Secretaries/Economic Advisors Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling and others within the Central Banker cabal led directly to the financial cataclysm of 2008 wherein the American People were forced to bail out these reckless banks with their taxpayer dollars;
These are only a few of Lyndon LaRouche’s original and greatest original contributions to humanity for the past 50 years.
In December 1980, LaRouche and his followers started what came to be known as the “October Surprise” allegation, namely that in October 1980 Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff conspired with the Iranian government during the Iran hostage crisis to delay the release of 52 American hostages held in Iran, with the aim of helping Reagan win the 1980 presidential election against Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had agreed to this, according to the theory, in exchange for future weapons sales from the Reagan administration. The first publication of the story was in LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review on December 2, 1980, followed by his New Solidarity on September 2, 1983, alleging that Henry Kissinger, one of LaRouche’s regular targets, had met Iran’s Ayatollah Beheshti in Paris, according to Iranian sources in Paris. The theory was later echoed by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr and former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick. This of course all led to the famous “Iran Contra Affair,” which resulted in several prosecutions and congressional inquiry into the “hidden hands” of backroom black market clandestine operations at the expense of the American people.
In 2002 LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review argued that the September 11, 2001, attacks had been an “inside job” and “attempted coup d’etat,” and that Iran was the first country to question it. The article received wide coverage in Iran, and was cited by senior Iranian government officials, including Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani. Mahmoud Alinejad writes that, in a subsequent telephone interview with the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, LaRouche said the attacks had been organized by rogue elements inside the U.S., aiming to use the incident to promote a war against Islam, and that Israel was a dictatorial regime prepared to commit Nazi-style crimes against the Palestinians.
There are countless thousands of anecdotes and pieces of essential and important trivia regarding this great man’s life, and it would be impossible to list them all here.
According to George Johnson, LaRouche sees history as a battle between Platonists (eg Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz) who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians (eg Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) who rely on empirical data.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, industry, technology, and classical music should be used to enlighten the world, whereas psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory simply bring about a new dark age in which the world will be ruled by the oligarchs.
LaRouche and his ideas have been called anti-semitic since at least the mid-1970s by dozens of individuals and organizations in countries across Europe and North America. LaRouche and his followers have responded to these allegations by claiming that LaRouche has countless Jewish supporters in his inner circle, and has vociferously denied these allegations.
In 1977 LaRouche married his current wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is German and 27 years younger than him. Her 1984 book, “The Hitler Book” argues that “We need a movement that can finally free Germany from the control of the Versailles and Yalta treaties, thanks to which we have staggered from one catastrophe to another for an entire century.” Helga founded the Schiller Institute, which has been accused of antisemitism by the Berliner Zeitung and Political Research Associates, a non-profit research group that studies right wing, white supremacist, and militia groups.
LaRouche maintains that he is anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. When the Anti-Defamation League accused LaRouche of anti-semitism in 1979, he filed a $26-million libel suit.
Lyndon LaRouche said in 2006 wrote that “religious and racial hatred, such as antisemitism, or hatred against Islam, or, hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today.”
Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, perhaps Lyndon LaRouche will be allowed to emerge from forced exile, as his enemies have now been outed and routed, and he should take his rightful place amongst one of America’s greatest heroes, thinkers, philosophers, writers, lovers of humanity and the United States of America.
Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?
Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively, the US sold its soul to the Saudis again after the US intelligence services confirmed months ago that the Saudi Prince is responsible for the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Biden administration is already much more inhumane and much worse than Trump. Biden doesn’t care about the thousands of American citizens that he left behind at the mercy of the Taliban, the Biden administration kills innocent civilians in drone strikes, they are in bed with the worst of the worsts human right violators calling them friendly nations.
Biden dropped and humiliated France managing to do what no US President has ever accomplished — make France pull out its Ambassador to the US, and all this only to go bother China actively seeking the next big war. Trump’s blunders were never this big. And this is just the beginning. There is nothing good in store for America and the world with Biden. All the hope is quickly evaporating, as the world sees the actions behind the fake smile and what’s behind the seemingly right and restrained rhetoric on the surface. It’s the actions that matter. Trump talked tough talk for which he got a lot of criticism and rarely resorted to military action. Biden is the opposite: he says all the right things but the actions behind are inhumane and destructive. It makes you wonder if Trump wasn’t actually better for the world.
Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term
US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster seen by all, placing an unusually high number of weapons and armaments in the hands of the Taliban and leaving everyone behind, to the point that one wonders if it was intentional. The US military has been able to accomplish far more impressive and bigger logistics tasks in the past, so when they want to they can do it.
More worrisome, however – and because it is also oriented towards future impacts – is Biden’s construct of vital concepts such as security, international peace and self-defense which has already displayed a consistent pattern during the first year of his term. The signs are already there, so let me bring them out to the surface for you.
Treating a counter-attack in self-defense as an original, first-move strike
This is a pattern that can be noticed already in Biden’s reading of what constitutes defense. It first struck me in a place where you might not think of looking. It originated from the criticism of the previous Trump administration’s support for the destructive Saudi Arabia campaign on Yemen, leaving Yemen as the biggest famine and disaster on the planet. To avoid the same criticism, the Biden administration decided to do what it always does – play technocratic and legalistic, and hope that people won’t notice. On the face of it, it looked like Biden ended US participation by ending the “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia. Then in the months after the February decision, reports started surfacing that the US actually continues doing the same, and now most recently, some troops from Afghanistan were redirected towards Yemen. Biden didn’t end Yemen; he set up a task force to examine and limit US military action only to defensive capabilities, which sounds good to a general observer. It reminds me of that famous Einstein saying that all the big decisions were to be taken by him and all the small decisions were to be taken by his wife, but there hasn’t been one big decision so far. So see, it just turns out that everything falls under defense, ask the lawyers. Usually no one would object to the well-established right to defend yourself. The problem with that is that the US is actually in Yemen. Treating any counter-strike and any response to your presence as an original, first-move attack is not only problematic but it also simply doesn’t work in legal terms. It goes along the lines of “well, I am already here anyways, so your counter-response in self-defense is actually an attack and I get to defend myself”. If the issue was only with terrorist or rebel organizations (because let’s face it, who cares about the Houthies in Yemen?) I don’t think we would be discussing this. But as you guessed it, this approach can already be traced as a pattern in Biden’s thinking and the way he forges alliances, draws red lines and allows things to happen, and it stretches to areas that most people definitely care about such as a possible military conflict between the US and China.
Let’s take the newest development from today. The US just announced that it has entered into a trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, which is encirclement of China par excellence. Where it gets interesting is that the trilateral partnership is purported to be only for “advanced defense capabilities”. The equivalent of this is someone from another city squatting at the door step in your apartment, inviting two others to join, and then when in the morning you push them and step on them to go to work, the squatters claiming that you attacked them and calling the police on you in your own apartment. This is Biden’s concept of self-defense: since I am already here in your space, you are attacking me.
The US is trying to start something with China but it doesn’t know how to, and China seems completely unconcerned with the US. Chinese leader Jinping doesn’t even want to meet Biden, as became clear this week. China doesn’t care about the US and just wants to be left alone. They already said that in clear terms by reading it out loud to Wendy Sherman last month. Biden didn’t have to ask for a meeting in that phone call this week because he already knew the answer. Wendy Sherman got a clear signal on her China visit that the US president won’t be getting that coveted red carpet roll-out any time soon.
So the story says that the US is going all the way to the other side of the world and staging military presence there but only to defend itself. The US has no choice but to move in to defend all the US citizens at risk in the Indian Ocean — that’s the stand-up comedy line of the week. It is staging military presence right at China’s doorstep — if not in Chinese waters, and the idea is “yes, that’s your turf but now that I’m here, if you push me to leave, you are attacking me”. This is the strategy of narcissists and those that are looking to point the finger to their opponent when they just don’t have anything, so they stage something. China is in the long-term game, playing against itself. The US is that number 2 that’s trying to create provocation. In the Indo-Pacific, the US is biting more than it can chew. China is not a big mouth or one to throw around military threats. That’s the US style: “be very careful, we might bomb you if you don’t do what we say”. A dog that barks doesn’t bite. On the other hand, China is more like a Ferrari — it will go from 0 to 200 in seconds and then it will go back to its business. The US and Biden will be left whimpering but no one will jump to save the US from its own folly because self-defense in the US packaging is not even bought by the US government itself. Even they don’t buy their own packaging. So why should anyone else?
Treating embarrassing discoveries and things that don’t go my way as a threat to international peace
This one is a big one. With this one, Biden is playing with the queen, namely action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the name of international peace and security. A threat to international peace and security is grounds for action under Chapter 7 which includes military action, and it’s never to be spoken lightly. Words have consequences. The UN Security Council rarely specifies grounds for action under chapter 7 for threats to international peace and security but it’s enough to take a look at the practice: resolutions were passed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, in response to 9/11, against Kaddafi who was marching toward Benghazi to wipe out the people in 2011, in relation to genocide, etc. Grounds for a threat to international peace can’t be “because I don’t like the way things are turning out for me”.
Peace and security are not like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. There has to be an actual or imminent attack and actual military action or violence. Loose interpretations of threats to peace and security are a sign of weak leadership.
Leaders who construct dissent and criticism as terrorism in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement, as I have argued about the FBI previously in the left media, are weak leaders. In smearing Martin Luther King, the FBI argued national security. As director Oliver Stone said in Cannes this summer, when he was investigating the JFK assassination, every time he was getting close, he heard “national security”.
You can see a lot about the character of a nation by the way it constructs security, and notice traits such as narcissism, weakness, cheating. The Biden Administration has to know that a threat to international peace and security can’t be “things that make my government look bad”. In 2001, the world followed the US in Afghanistan because there was an actual military attack. The world won’t follow the Biden administration on a bogus threat to international peace that can best be summed up as a major embarrassment for the US government. Suggesting a link is a threat to the fabric of international society. Not only is it a sign of national narcissism but also a sign of arbitrariness and authoritarianism. Treating criticism and the exposure of US government crimes as if it were a military attack is what horror movies are made of. What’s next? Droning journalists?
Treating issues which are a subject to treaties, rules and negotiations as a threat to international peace
The Biden security construct stretches to various regions, including my own. This first struck me with Biden’s executive order regarding the Western Balkans when he tied blocking these countries from EU accession to a threat to international peace, which carries significant consequences. If a country, let’s say Bulgaria, is exercising its lawful right to veto EU processes, hypothetically, based on Biden’s understanding, the US could table a resolution for Chapter 7 action to punish an EU member-state for blocking the accession of an EU candidate because that’s a threat to international peace. That could hypothetically lead to military action against an EU country making use of its veto. Biden doesn’t have a veto in the EU. Do you know who does? Bulgaria. So until Biden becomes an EU country he doesn’t have a say.
Biden was visibly irritated that the process of EU accession has been stalling for quite some time, especially with N. Macedonia and Albania at the EU’s doorstep, so he decided to give it a go. Let’s not forget that the Balkans are a favorite Biden region and this goes back to the 1990s. I have written about it before: Biden is stuck in the 2000s when if you mentioned the Western Balkans the words international peace were a guaranteed association. Not anymore. Negotiations, rules and voting are the peaceful and reasonable way to resolve issues, agree or even not agree in some situations, and are the opposite of war and aggression. Treating these ways as a threat to peace is just the rhetoric of those who can’t get their way. But it’s also indicative of a worrisome trend with Biden that anything that the US government doesn’t like can be dressed as a threat to international peace, which carries the most significant of all consequences in the international arena.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a threat to national security
Perhaps the best and most fascinating example of lawful counter-measures I ever heard was brought by Andrew Clapham at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Here is the story. The UK issued unlawful sanctions on a country. In response, lawful counter-measures by that country targeted jam exports because a jam factory in Scotland was the key to turning the elections. The targeted counter-measures worked, hit jam exports, discontent people in the region voted the other way and the government that put in place the sanctions to begin with was ousted. This was a brilliant example that you hit where it hurts and you do it lawfully. Counter-measures don’t have to be identical. The US likes to put tariffs on Louis Vuitton bags in retaliation when it deals with France, for example. In the Trump trade wars, Europe would hit bourbon and jeans exports as a counter-measure. You hit their signature product. Not all counter-measures are illegal and count as an attack. International law is full of examples.
Similarly, lawsuits against a government are a lawful counter-measure. This area reveals another part of Biden’s worrisome construct of national security. A threat to sue the US government cannot in and of itself be a threat to national security. Tortured reading of what is national security is a sign of weak leaders, narcissists, those on the losing end, or straight up losers – or all of the above.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a cause for self-defense is not only a sign of a wrong understanding of self-defense, but is the ultimate sign of narcissism. Usually those who attack know better and brace for impact in anticipation of the counter-measures. Narcissists, on the other hand, cry that they are being attacked when they receive a counter-strike in response. Strategists know better.
Mistreatment of whistleblowers, critics and opponents as spies and as a threat to national security
This one is an easy one. Only losers treat whistleblowers and critics as spies and as an automatic threat to national security. Take the treatment that Gary Stahl has received at the hands of the Biden Administration and the FBI, for example. Again, the US government doesn’t get to construe a huge embarrassment (in what will soon be revealed to shows the true criminal nature of the US government) as a threat to international peace. This is a problem for America. Not only doesn’t China plan to attack militarily the US any time soon over what’s to come, but China is largely unconcerned with the US and would like to be left alone. Any talk about a risk of military conflict could only mean that it is the US that plans to attack because they are embarrassed they got caught red-handed and the world will see the US government’s true nature. Talk of threat to international peace has a very high threshold. No one cares about how America would feel – that’s your problem, not an issue of international peace.
The Biden concept of security is that of an ugly, pretentious, old woman who is told she can’t enter because her ticket is not valid. She then throws a feat screaming she was attacked, beaten and insulted, expecting everyone to be on her side. But the world simply doesn’t care about the problems of this pain-in-the-ass anymore. The US government will have to try much harder if they want to present the issue as anything close to security and self-defense, let alone a threat to international peace. That tune is old and there are no buyers.
The US surely thinks very highly of itself if they think that a scandal like that is worthy of a military conflict but literally no one else sees the US as this important anymore. This scandal will matter only to America in what it reveals about all the layers of the US government across rank, institutions and administrations. That’s it. It ends there. Any talk of Chapter 7 threshold is war mongering and no one will care.
People talk about the Biden doctrine on Afghanistan but the Biden doctrine that will be sealed in history will be something along the lines of “Anytime I get caught, it’s a threat to international peace and security.” This is how Biden will be remembered in history: for creative writing endeavors in the security field and no substantial foreign policy achievements.
Biden’s credibility restoration plan
Although damages of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan cannot be easily undone, by taking a series of wise steps, Biden can send a strong signal that America is coming back.
Joe Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has shattered his reputation as a safe haven for allies. This is while, he pledged to restore U.S. leadership after Trump by confronting China’s and Russia’s growing totalitarian ambitions, restoring historic alliances with European allies, and ending the never-ending conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
But he is not the only President whose decision has eventually damaged the United States’ global reputation. Donald Trump’s capitulation deal with the Taliban, Barack Obama’s indolence in Syria, and George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq have all tarnished the United States’ credibility around the world. The question now; however, is no longer whether Biden and his predecessors should have acted differently. It’s how the United States can minimize the damage.
Biden should begin by speaking the truth. So far, the President has failed to admit the failure of his withdrawal plan. Biden ought to be straightforward with himself, the American people, and the whole world.
Biden’s policy should, of course, vary depending on the area and global conditions. To promote its interests in the Indo-Pacific area, the United States should station a few ambassadors, including a Navy or Coast Guard attaché, in the Pacific Island countries of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. In addition, a considerable number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan should be redeployed to the Pacific. Finally, Biden’s administration should engage with U.S. defense contractors to speed up the transfer of military equipment to Taiwan. Getting Taiwan its armaments swiftly would be a powerful show of support as a steadfast ally, as well as provide modern platforms to prevent a Chinese amphibious invasion.
The Biden administration should also do all in its power to rebuild relations with European partners. For the very first time, NATO invoked Article 5, which identifies an assault on one member as an assault on all. Since then, soldiers from a variety of countries have fought and died alongside US troops. Nonetheless, Biden decided to leave Afghanistan without consulting the governments of these countries, leaving them to plan emergency rescue efforts for their populations. Close allies of the United States are understandably enraged. America’s behavior is being chastised in Paris, Berlin, and the British House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.
Last month, at a meeting of regional leaders in Baghdad, Macron made it clear that, unlike the Americans, he was dedicated to remaining in the Middle East. “Whatever the American choice is,” he stated in public remarks in Baghdad, “we will maintain our presence in Iraq to fight terrorism as long as terrorist groups function and the Iraqi government requests our assistance.” It was a clear example of Macron’s idea of “strategic autonomy,” which implies European independence from U.S. security policy, and an attempt to use the United States’ humiliation to underline that Europe and Washington were not always on the same page. At an emergency G7 summit, Mr. Biden is said to have turned down allied requests to extend the August 31 deadline for exit.
The Biden administration’s recent decision not to penalize Nord Stream 2 pipeline participants has enraged Europeans as well. Poland and Ukraine underlined their worries in a joint statement about the ramifications of choices taken on the pipeline without the participation of nations directly impacted, claiming that Nord Stream 2 poses both geological and ecological risks to Europe.
As a result, whether it’s diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime, humanitarian aid for the Afghan people, or any other major issue, the US should not take any more action without engaging partners. Mr. Biden should also dispatch senior members of his national security team to Europe and other regions of the world to reinforce America’s commitment to their security.
As to the Middle East, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, in a Foreign Affairs article described “America’s opportunity in the Middle East,” suggesting that diplomacy may work where previous military interventions have failed. The United States’ involvement in the area is frequently portrayed in military or counter-terrorism terms, and as a binary option between going all-in or going all-out. Instead, Sullivan advocated for a strategy that relied more on “aggressive diplomacy to generate more long-term benefits.”
Accordingly, the President and his team in Vienna should get the new Iranian administration back to the negotiating tables and rejoin the JCPOA and ease the tensions in the Middle East. Also, the United States should do all possible in Afghanistan to secure the safe transit of Afghans who qualify for U.S. visas to the Kabul airport – and to keep flights flying until they are able to leave. This should apply to both Afghans who dealt closely with the United States’ military, and to those who engage with U.S. media and humanitarian organizations and must get visas from a third country. In addition to ensuring that the United Nations and humanitarian groups have the resources they need, the United States should cooperate with its Security Council allies to guarantee that the Taliban does not hinder the free flow of help.
Moreover, to follow any influx of jihadists to Afghanistan, intelligence agencies will have to rededicate resources and increase surveillance. They must be pushed to coordinate their efforts on the Taliban in order to keep the most threatening groups under control. The United States could set an example by agreeing to accept a fair share of any displaced Afghans. Neighboring countries like Iran and Pakistan, which already have millions of Afghan refugees, are closing their borders.
Biden may not be able to prevent all of the disastrous repercussions of the Afghan catastrophe, but he must act now before the harm to U.S. interests and moral stature becomes irreversible. By taking these steps, he can send a strong statement to the world that he has learned his lessons and that America is coming back.
Dubai Chamber Continues Bolstering Economic Ties Between UAE And Africa
United Arab Emirates has launched its 6th edition of Global Business Forum Africa (GBF Africa) that aims at scaling-up and...
The rise & rise of populist demagogues in democratic nations
The term dictators & demagogues are used interchangeably in various contexts but there’s a difference, the former rules over a...
A Glimpse at China’s Nuclear Build-Up
The People’s Republic of China is now the second largest military spender after the United States, and the country has...
Better Targeting of Social Protection Programs can Significantly Reduce Poverty in Bangladesh
Social Protection Programs remain central to Bangladesh’s sustainable development policy and are progressively benefitting the poorer households. By improving targeting...
Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?
Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively,...
Eritrea: Release journalists and politicians arrested 20 years ago
The Eritrean authorities must immediately and unconditionally release 21 journalists and politicians who were arrested in a sweeping crackdown on...
Torture, killings, lawlessness, still blight Burundi’s rights record
The people of Burundi continue to endure serious human rights violations including possible crimes against humanity, the majority committed by...
South Asia4 days ago
Afghanistan: Hazaras in danger of extinction
Economy3 days ago
The Economic Conundrum of Pakistan
Americas3 days ago
China And U.S. Are On the Brink of War
Finance4 days ago
2021 China-ASEAN Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum
Africa4 days ago
African Union’s Inaction on Ethiopia Deplorable – Open Letter
Americas3 days ago
20 years after 9/11: American decline in the Islamic world and China- Russian emergence
Central Asia4 days ago
The Effectiveness of Confucius Institutes in Promoting Chinese Soft Power in Kazakhstan
Reports4 days ago
Global economy projected to show fastest growth in 50 years