Connect with us

Americas

Modern diplomacy, Info-warfare and Venezuela

Published

on

End of August 2019 the United States was in the epicenter of a large scale international scandal. The cause of the scandal was failure of a covert operation of the American intelligence service which aimed to ensure penetration of its secret agents in the inner circle of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro (with the purpose of his subsequent ousting from the presidential post).

As a result of the unexpected panic which Bogota CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) station contracted, which had been followed by Langley, the inner circle of the President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro exposed the biggest CIA influence agent in Venezuela – Diosdado Cabello, former Vice President of Venezuela, Chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly of the country, who became a secret agent of CIA operatives supposedly in June of this year.  

As a result of the operative combination conducted in relation to Cabello (17-21/08/2019) the following results had been achieved:

1) Talks between Diosdado Cabello and CIA behind the ‘back’ of Maduro were wrecked;

2) Channel of CIA’s agency penetration into Venezuela President’s inner circle was identified (exposed);

3) High ranking American career intelligence officer-secret agent was identified. He attempted to recruit Diosdado Cabello and, possibly, established agency relations with the same;

4) Forms and methods of agency network of Diosdado Cabello with his curators from the US intelligence service were exposed, including connection with the Bogota embassy station;  

5) Key items of talks between Cabello with CIA were identified, as well as the conditions (guarantees) on which he had been prepared to take over control of the country during pre-term presidential elections (which Maduro had to announce in accordance with the arrangements with the US during the talks in Oslo and Barbados).

All of the above has been done by the very career operatives of CIA and the US National Security Council, with their own hands, at their own will, with no coercion, as a result of panicking after the exposure on August 17, 2019 in the article by Manoylo of details of their Cabello recruitment covert operation, CIA operatives themselves exposed all their secrets, gave away their agent network, the communications channels, forms and methods of their intelligence and subversive activities against Venezuela.  

We slightly pushed them to do all these things, a tiny little bit, by provoking their activities by our guesswork published in the article dated August 17th, obviously without asserting anything. Everything else which led to failure of the largest CIA operation in Venezuela (CIA operatives got very close to the second man in command in the country and they found common language – and not only that – with him), the Americans had done themselves.

The Course of Events

On August 17, 2019 one of the famous Venezuelan mass media outlets published the article Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones rusas en Venezuela son tan importantes como las de Ucrania» (Andrey Manoylo, Konstantin Strigunov, Vicente Quintero, “Investments in Venezuela are as important as investments in Ukraine”)[1], which contained a thorough analysis of the current standoff between Venezuelan chavists and the United States and their allies.  

Thus, it was noted that the situation in Venezuela is moving in the direction of the country transitioning towards external management by the US, although chavists headed by Nicolas Maduro and their political allies (Russia and Cuba) are making certain efforts to slow down this process. The document emphasizes the new technologies of plotting ‘color revolutions’ (which spawned the so-called ‘Venezuela precedence’) and the talks in Oslo and Barbados (which were held between representatives of Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaido without Russia’s meddling), the purpose of which was to gradually ‘turn in’ Bolivarian regime by Venezuela’s ruling establishment in exchange for guarantees. The article noted that these talks featured high risk of dismantling the chavist regime by way of organizing pre-term presidential elections in Venezuela under pressure of the United States (if Nicolas Maduro went for it).  

The role in these processes of the Chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly Diosdado Cabello, the second man (after Maduro) in Venezuela, was specifically disclosed, as he is connected with Los Soles cartel – a chavist who had not been allowed to take part in the talks with Guaido in Oslo and Barbados, but who at the same time had built his relations with senior management and special services of Cuba (meaning the secret meeting of Diosdado Cabello with the Cuban leadership on June 8, 2019 in Habana) and – at the same time – complying with all the rules of secrecy, secretly from Maduro he had contacted the intelligence service of the United States of America (CIA). The article exposed the operational game played by Diosdado Cabello with the United States in hopes to guarantee safekeeping of its positions and political influence after Maduro’s ousting by way of setting up pre-term presidential elections. It was noted that Diosdado Cabello had been actively looking for or had already established contact with high ranking US officials, and hence with the US intelligence service (CIA).

For the US, Cabello was a toxic figure, often compared with Pablo Escobar (as chief of Los Soles, Cabello has even surpassed this Columbian drug lord by the scale of his magnitude), yet the country accounts for the fact that Cabello actually controls most part of the army and special services, and that many political and military officials in the US were interesting in keeping Cabello’s shady business, possibly having interests in the same.  

The article created a stir in political and scientific circles of Venezuela. Blogs by Venezuelan politicians and experts featured some feedback of the following sort: “the report published managed to surprise many in Venezuela thanks to accuracy and credibility of its facts,” “many people were surprised by the accuracy; it is not common to read such accurate reports on the situation in Venezuela,” “just two days after publication Western mass media talk about differences of opinion in the chavist government and about personal negotiations of Diosdado Cabello.”

The last feedback is the most notable one. Indeed, the first time information about Diosdado Cabello’s contacts with the Americans (representatives of the State Department and the intelligence) leaked was in the news by Associated Press on August 19th (“AP Exclusive: US talks secretly to Venezuela socialist boss,” authored by Joshua Goodman[2]; here’s his Twitter post[3]); before August 19th there was no information about Cabello’s contacts with the Americans in Western (and obviously Venezuelan) press whatsoever – this can be easily proven.  

According to the claims by Joshua Goodman, they will give in to Washington’s growing insistence to oust him. As per Goodman, a high ranking US government official advised this information to him. The re bluntly refused to disclose his name and details of Cabello’s meeting with the Americans. He only mentioned that the meeting took place in July in Caracas. Also, he refused to disclose the middleman’s name and details of the contacts so as not to expose them to danger. According to the US official, ‘under no circumstances would the United States want to support Cabello or help him on his way to replace Maduro,’ and that their goal was to assist the fight among chavists and thereby put pressure on them. Besides, according to the source, Venezuela’s Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino and the Minister of Interior Nestor Reverol were among those who had been indirectly in contact with the Americans.

After AP’s announcement of Cabello’s talks with certain high ranking US officials, Western mass media began to rampantly talk about this: Cabello was in talks with the US, without Maduro knowing and despite his will, acting as an independent political force ready to take over control from chavists on certain conditions (including by force). An example of such first-wave publications is the news published by Reuters: thus, on August 19, 2019 Reuters officially announced that according to the information received from its confidential sources in Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro was prepared to consent to the requirement of the United States to hold pre-term presidential elections, while Diosdado Cabello was prepared to ensure the process of ‘transit’[4]. It turns out that the wave of ‘confessions’ about contacts of the chavist leader with the US (and especially Cabello’s contacts with the US intelligence – information which is thoroughly protected by CIA from disclosure) began right after these publications on August 17th in the article “Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones rusas en Venezuela son tan importantes como las de Ucrania,” i.e. two days after its publication in the Venezuelan “Medium.”

It could be that thanks to publication of this article one of the best kept American secrets accidently surfaced – a leak of secret operative information about CIA’s recruitment activity with people from Maduro’s inner circle; part of the operative combination of the US intelligence service in the Venezuelan direction was exposed, the purpose of which was to divide chavists and have them fight with each other, conspiring with certain chavists, such as Diosdado Cabello, who in case of ‘color revolution’ in Venezuela would indeed have a lot to fear.

The CIA operatives who were sitting in Bogota station, having read the article by Andrey Manoylo: Las inversiones …, had decided that:

– This was a major operation by Russian intelligence service, which knows everything, including where, how and who recruited Diosdado Cabello;

– In Manoylo’s article the Russian only hinted that they knew everything, and now Cabello and the American career intelligence official Mauricio Cleve-Corone (Cabello’s contact person on the part of CIA) were ‘on the hook’ of the Russians;

– As soon as CIA makes moves, the Russian would show documents validating the fact of Cabello’s recruitment – all the way up to the cooperation agreement.

The United States – via the AP leak (which ‘exposed’ Cabello along with a number of other stakeholders) – deployed a cover up operation relating to its influence agents. Obviously, US intelligence agents could not have known that the authors of “Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones …” article simply guessed the real scheme of the CIA operation in that region, without knowing the relevant secret data: Apparently, they decided that this was a proactive, preemptive strike.”

At the same time, the time for CIA’s reaction to the story was around 36 hours (give or take): It took two days of slice since they realized what had happened, made the decision, leaked the information to AP, after which the latter began to move and uploaded the information on the Internet.  

Indeed, they had something to be afraid of: Manoylo’s article – completely by chance, as it later turned out – published 3-4 days prior to the third secret meeting of Cabello with Clave-Corone, and that meeting was supposed to take place in Caracas (most likely, in CIA station in Columbia’s embassy in Venezuela) and CIA operatives decided that External Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation had been preparing for seizing Diosdado Cabello and his curator Mauricio Clave-Corone ‘red handed’ during a secret agent session in Caracas. So CIA began to panic.

5-6 hours into the AP publication of the article by Joshua Goodman, Latin American mass media outlets joined the cover-up secret operation: the large news agency Axios[5], independently from АР, also published information stating that Cabello had contacts with the Americans, on August 19, 2019.

Interestingly, Axios reported judging on their own official sources, validated Cabello’s personal participation in contacts with a US intelligence envoy in Caracas in July of this year. And they disclosed the name of this ‘envoy’: According to Axios the meetings were coordinated by Mauricio Clave-Corone, Director of Western hemisphere affairs of the US National Security Council, a US citizen of Cuban origin, a career intelligence officer. Thus, the name of Cabello’s CIA contact was given away, and that person had established secret agent relations with him.  

Axios, referring to representatives of the administration and other sources, reported on contacts of Cabello, via his emissaries, with Mauricio Clave-Corone, Head of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the US National Security Council. The article mentioned that it was not known which messages exactly, if any, Clave-Corone had dispatched in return to Cabello via those intermediaries.  

Thus, taking into account the information of Goodman, there were two controlled leaks using two independent channels. Notably, the information from Axios enjoyed less resonance than the article published in Associated Press, yet it had no less significance. Clave-Corone is of Cuban origin, and he is famous for his anti-Castro and anti-socialist views. He has close connections with the US Senator Marco Rubio (whose parents are immigrants from Cuba) who headed the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere at the International Relations Committee. He works under the command of the national security advisor John Bolton.  

Considering that the information in AP and Axios was uploaded approximately 36 hours after the publication of our article, it may be assumed that Joshua Goodman (the author of AP article) received the information from either the US intelligence (Bogota station, where the AP article was written) or from the Department of State. The website Axios received its portion of information from the US. News agencies from around the world – from the USA and Great Britain to Russia and France – reprinted Goodman’s exclusive material, which it had received from the American intelligence or diplomates using his article as the primary source.  

Apparently, Maduro was not aware of the meetings of Cabello with Americans. Moreover, the very fact of the nervous reaction in the form of information leak via Associated Press and Axios indicates that Maduro was not aware; otherwise, there would be no point in the cover-up operation in the form of two controllable leaks using two independent channels. Trump and Maduro could have simply confirmed the fact of the channels as a backup channel of communication which was parallel to the contacts via opposition, with which Maduro’s supporters had negotiated in Norway and Barbados.  

But that was not the end of it: On August 21, 2019 the US President Donald Trump joined the cover up of operative contacts of CIA with Cabello – he said that Washington was in talks with Venezuela representatives at a very high level: “We are talking with representatives of [senior leadership of Venezuela] on various levels”; however, Trump bluntly refused to disclose the names of those the US was holding talks with. Although, he emphasized that the people were representatives at ‘a very high level’[6]. It turns out that the news injected by the article “Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones …”, spoiled CIA’s game and wrecked Trump’s game, too, forcing him to personally engage in the operative game to cover up his Venezuelan influence agents and those contacted by the US intelligence service.

That same day, a major Spanish news agency EFE published a lengthy interview with Clave-Corone’s predecessor as Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the US National Security Council Fernando Katz (Spanish reporters for clear reasons could not reach Clave-Corone by phone). Katz, who by that time had a chance to read Goodman’s article in АР and understand that a secret agent cover-up operation was in progress and that justificative line in Goodman’s article had to be adhere to, told reporters in an interview to EFE reporters that in accordance with his sources in the Department of State, the US had actually contacted Cabello, at least twice over the past several months: The first time being in Caracas in July. And the second meeting took place in Washington, DC (the exact time is not specified; however, supposedly it was the first half of August). Cabello’s emissary took part in the second meeting, while the third meeting was planned for ‘this week’ (August 19th – 25th) in Caracas, yet Katz had told reporters that once the fact of contact was exposed he was no longer sure the third meeting had actually taken place.   

It is not difficult to guess what week (when the meeting of Cabello with the American emissaries was scheduled) he talked about. The EFE article was published on August 21st, and hence he had meant the week beginning on August 19th and ending on August 25, 2019. It was in that time interval that Cabello was supposed to meet with the Americans in Caracas. And the article “Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones …” was published on August 17th, i.e. literally several days prior to the third meeting. Hence with high degree of probability we can assume that it was the publication of that article which caused failure of the talks between Cabello and Washington, since the Americans, having read this article dated August 17th, reckoned that since the Russians were interested in Cabello, they had to urgently rescue him. Hence the secret channel of CIA’s agency penetration in Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle was exposed and an attempt to recruit one of his closest compadres had been thwarted.

And the finishing touch in the case of exposure of CIA’s influence agent Diosdado Cabello was the dismissal of John Bolton, US President’s national security advisor: On September 10th the US President dismissed him. The next day, the United States President commented on the most important reason for his decision. “John Bolton and I diverged on Venezuela. I thing he went out of all the borders,” Trump said. It is noteworthy that such a bold statement (retirement of Bolton – a scandalous political extremist – was undoubtedly a bold statement) happened two and a half weeks after the date when Trump had to personally cover participation of Americans in the talks with high ranking Venezuelan government officials. Trump’s announcement was related with exposing the fact of talks between his administration and Head of Venezuela’s National Constitutional Assembly Diosdado Cabello, and it had been triggered by the article by Manoylo and Strigunov dated August 17th. Since it was Mauricio Clave-Corone who coordinated the talks (Director for Western hemisphere affairs in the US National Security Council) and who was the subordinate of John Bolton in the Council, his superior who was personally in charge of Cabello’s recruitment had to be responsible for all his mistakes.

Hence the main reason behind Bolton’s resignation being Venezuela may be explained as follows. With North Korea he was only a nuisance to Trump’s dialog with Kim Jong-un, reminding of North Korea’s ballistic missile launches, which was forbidden by the Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. In relation to Iran Bolton was pushing Trump to take touch action, which the latter had been trying to avoid, despite the menacing anti-Iran rhetoric. However, Bolton’s obvious fiasco in Venezuela was the worst one. It was important for Trump to push Maduro to the limit, forcing him to agree to pre-term presidential elections, and in this case the Cabello factor had to play a crucial role, Yet, exposing his contacts with the Americans ruined the latter’s game, and created uncertainly in the question of when it would be possible to finally crack down Maduro’s resistance.  

The behavior of Diosdado Cabello is quite understandable: As the power changes hands in Venezuela, he attempts to clear himself behind the back of his formal boss, however, in return for guarantees from the Americans for himself and his inner circle he would have to give away something valuable. For example, he would have to guarantee pre-term Venezuela presidential elections under Washington’s control, even if Maduro refuses to do the same. The Americans insist that Maduro resigns and, even if he were to partake in the elections, then not in the capacity of President, i.e. without his administrative resource to influence the outcome of elections in his favor. This scenario provides for Cabello’s show of infidelity towards Maduro. For instance, Cabello – via the military he controls – would forcefully ensure the format of elections the Americans need, despite Maduro’s disagreement. Considering the level of Cabello’s influence, this is a possible scenario, especially, if he is guaranteed immunity after these elections. Nicolas Maduro cannot arrest him, as Chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly has substantial influence over the military, and his cousin Rodrigues Cabello was appointed in July by Maduro as chief commander of Venezuela’s most powerful branch of the armed forces – land forces. Generally, it is clear that the Americans keep pushing Cabello. According to last year’s information published by Miami Herald[7]), the US government froze assets worth US$800 million which were owned by Diosdado Cabello. This amount includes 12 property items including an apartment in New York City. Notably, shortly before that the US Department of Treasury had added Cabello to its black list, which allows for freezing his bank accounts. The US Treasury accused Cabello of corruption, illicit drug turnover, and illicit minerals trafficking[8]. Finally, Cabello’s risky game became all too visible, and it seems like he has less and less room for maneuver.  

In turn, under the current situation CIA indeed has no problem contacting and recruiting any chavist from Maduro’s inner circle. The thing is that Maduro found himself in a trap: After the United States arrested all his overseas bank accounts (he does have such bank accounts), all bank accounts held by his family members (worth tens of billions of US dollars), as well as all bank accounts and assets of his inner circle, Maduro’s position has become quite volatile and risky: Anyone in his inner circle could at any moment of time try and turn in Maduro to Americans in exchange for their guarantees of returning his/her cash funds and assets (real property) abroad. The size of such funds owned by each chavist leader is quite significant: Once Guaido self-proclaimed himself president Cabello had immediately lost US$800 million (The US took cash funds in his bank accounts, several homes, his luxury Manhattan apartment, etc.). To get their money back, anyone from Maduro’s close circle can risk many things. And Maduro understands that if he fails to find the money and return at least part of the lost money to his cohorts, the very people from his inner circle may turn him in to the much hated gringos, just as some time ago Bolivians handed Ernesto “Che” Guevara to the ‘green berets.’ So it won’t be long now. Partially thanks to our actions which exposed the CIA operation of Cabello’s recruitment, and partially thanks to Maduro’s Moscow visit, this threat has been postponed for some time. Yet, this is only for a time, no illusions there. In the game that CIA is now playing with people like Cabello, Maduro is a commodity, for which the Americans are offering a good price. If it is not possible to fundamentally reverse the situation this ‘auction’ would end up the way any other auction ends: A ‘commodity’ is handed over to its buyer for acceptable remuneration.


[1] Andrey Manoilo: Las inversiones rusas en Venezuela son tan importantes como las de Ucrania (исп.). [Electronic document] // Medium (A Medium Corp., USA). August 21, 2019. URL:  https://medium.com/@vicentequintero/andrey-manoilo-las-inversiones-rusas-en-venezuela-son-tan-importantes-como-las-de-ucrania-15f010a8f159 (Reference date: August 22, 2019). Authors: Andrey Manoylo and Konstantin Strigunov.

[2] Goodman J. AP Exclusive: US talks secretly to Venezuela socialist boss. [Electronic document] // AP. 2019, 19 aug. URL: https://www.apnews.com/8cb2d1999b95464c85a5a206a78495c0 (Reference date: August 22, 2019)

[3] SCOOP: Diosdado Cabello, the most-powerful man in Venezuela after Maduro, met last month in Caracas with someone who is in close contact with the Trump administration. The topic: guarantees in the event insiders betray Maduro, a senior US official told @AP // Twitter, 2019, 18 aug. URL: https://twitter.com/APjoshgoodman/status/1163230770959454208 (Reference date: August 22, 2019); the difference between the tweet publication date (August 18th) and the date of Goodman’s article (August 19th) was due to the time zone difference between the Russian language Twitter and the English language AP website.

[4] In Venezuela talks, Maduro allies said they would consider fresh elections: sources. [Electronic document] // Reuters, Official website. 2019, 21 aug. URL:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/in-venezuela-talks-maduro-allies-said-they-would-consider-fresh-elections-sources-idUSKCN1V91SF?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29 (Reference date: August 22, 2019)

[5] https://www.axios.com/scoop-inside-trumps-naval-blockade-obsession-555166b0-06f9-494c-b9fb-9577a589e2ac.html

[6] Trump claimed that the US was in talks with Venezuela representatives. [Electronic document] // Russian language RT, official website. August 21, 2019. URL:  https://russian.rt.com/world/news/660666-peregovory-tramp-venesuela?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop (Reference date: August 22, 2019)

[7] https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article213032354.html

[8] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0389

Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Political Science Department, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University (Leninskie Gory 1, 119991 Moscow, Russia), email address: 9315891[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Carlos Fyfe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

AUKUS aims to perpetuate the Anglo-Saxon supremacy

Published

on

Image credit: ussc.edu.au

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Americas

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

Published

on

Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

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

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

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Middle East1 hour ago

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

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

Reports3 hours ago

Financing Options Key to Africa’s Transition to Sustainable Energy

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

Defense5 hours ago

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

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

Southeast Asia7 hours ago

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

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

Americas11 hours ago

Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow

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

Urban Development15 hours ago

WEF Launches Toolbox of Solutions to Accelerate Decarbonization in Cities

With the percentage of people living in cities projected to rise to 68% by 2050, resulting in high energy consumption,...

Development17 hours ago

Demand for Circular Economy Solutions Prompts Business and Government Changes

To truly tackle climate goals, the world must transform how it makes and consumes. To support this effort, circular economy...

Trending