Connect with us

Americas

The Slippery Slope of Isolationism: The Need for Allies in Military Operations

Published

on

America has had allies since before the country was a legitimate, legally recognized nation. In nearly every major conflict the United States has undertaken, they have been joined alongside fellow nations and governments, holding similar views and desiring similar goals. Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, the U.S. has taken on a more internationalist role than ever before and become the prominent world power. With the 2016 Presidential election of Donald Trump, America’s internationalist stance has increased, becoming far more isolationist and seemingly abandoning our allies abroad, much to the worry of his own staff. America, especially now with threats from foreign terrorists, cybercriminals, and human security matters, is in dire need of allies and needs to have a strong coalition of countries that are each masters within their own domains and are capable of supporting the United States when it is necessary to the safety of the globe. Increased relationships with those who have only tangentially been our allies too, built upon making deals that are mutually beneficial and negotiating so that both nations get something in return, is immensely important to the conduct of an effective foreign policy and to becoming a strong nation.

To better illuminate my point, I will be exploring two conflicts in which a coalition force comprised of, in some cases delicately, assembled alliances significantly changed the outcome of a given situation, the American Revolutionary War against the British Empire from 1775 to 1783 and the Bosnian War from 1992 to 1995.

The American Revolution

The American Revolutionary War is a well-researched event in American history, arguably being the most significant military conflict in the history of the nation and one that the average American is most familiar with. While revolutionary sentiments within America were well-founded since the first English settlers arrived, the actual war began in response to, “colonial opposition to British attempts to impose greater control over the colonies and to make them repay the crown for its defense of them primarily during the French and Indian War”. This more overt control (coming in the form of tax acts, physical troop emplacements, etc.) by the British Empire eventually led to skirmishes with civilians and failed diplomatic efforts before escalating into full-scale war in April of 1775 at Lexington and Concord. Because the American rebels would be going up against the largest and, at the time, most advanced military force in the globe, they needed allies to support their overall combat and combat support units. In enemies of the British Empire, they found allies in the French and Spanish powers, longtime adversaries of the British.

In 1778, “the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce” resulted in a partnership between the United States and the French Republic and provided, “provisions the U.S. commissioners had originally requested [a full alliance], but also included a clause forbidding either country to make a separate peace with Britain, as well as a secret clause allowing for Spain, or other European powers, to enter into the alliance. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce promoted trade between the United States and France and recognized the United States as an independent nation,” along with, “provid[ing] supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army”. These treaties, “greatly facilitated U.S. independence…The French fleet proceeded to challenge British control of North American waters and, together with troops and arms, proved an indispensable asset in the revolutionaries’ victory at the Siege of Yorktown, which ended the war”. By the war’s end in 1783, the French had provided the United States with over 1 billion livres (roughly $ 240 billion USD in 2020) in direct financial aid along with fighting on land and sea.

The French were not the only ones to provide aid and support to the United States in their time of need. The Spanish Empire provided aid to the U.S. in a very similar format to their French counterparts, doing so in conjunction with the French at certain points. In 1776, prior to a formal declaration of war against Great Britain in 1779, Spain sent, “one million livres tournois [through a] Franco-Spanish dummy corporation”. From 1776 to 1778, Spain again sent, “7,944,806 reales” to the United States as a form of financial aid. Spain’s Governor of Louisiana, Bernardo de Galvez, assisted in the fighting from a military standpoint, allowing, “shipments of weapons, medicine and fabric for military uniforms to be sent to the Continental Army via the Mississippi…[and attacking] British West Florida, winning it back for his king and indirectly benefiting the Americans by forcing the British to fight on two fronts”. Throughout the war, both in a covert and overt capacity, prior to a formal Spanish declaration of war against the British Empire, Galvez aided the Americans by providing arms, cloth, medicine, financial aid, and manpower to assist in gaining territories and assisting American forts and bases.

Having allies in this instance allowed the United States the support it needed (militarily, economically, politically) to overcome the British. Had the French not utilized their own navies to fight against the British, then the United States would never have truly been able to attack the British in a naval capacity. Had the Spanish not engaged the British in the Caribbean with their naval power or assisted in rooting the British out of Florida, then America would have had to deal with another front which would have extended supply lines and forced the Americans to overcome the treacherous swamps of Florida. As well, the financial aid the French and Spanish provided to the U.S. was undeniably beneficial in that America could utilize weaponry on par with British armaments and engage the British on more familiar fronts and leave more difficult campaigns (that of Florida and naval campaigns) to their allies. America’s allies of British and Spain greatly assisted in the gaining of American independence and, without their assistance, it is debatable if America would have been able to attain their independence from the Empire.

The Bosnian War

Examining a more recent conflict, the Bosnian War of 1992 to 1995 is a prime example of how allied power can change the outcome of a conflict and is an essential part of a successful military campaign.

The Bosnian War began over decades old animosities dating back to the First World War, animosities built upon ethnocentrism and Islamophobia (for the most part, these were ideas promulgated by domestic leaders with Yugoslav countries). These were exacerbated in the 1940s by Soviet style economic, social, and political developments (which included the initial abolition of Muslim traditions before the government became more accepting of these traditions and ethnicity as a whole in the 1960s) and these tensions continued with “escalating political and economic crises,” which in turn powered nationalistic tendencies which divided themselves along ethnic lines, the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. Due to the aforementioned developments and tensions, domestic political leaders who desired to become more influential in their respective districts, states, and countries and hold more overall power, “endorsed a Serbian nationalist agenda…[exploiting] a growing wave of Serbian nationalism in order to strengthen centralized rule in the SFRY [Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]”. The end result of this tension resulted in the Serbs breaking away from the Croats and Muslims within Bosnia-Herzegovina who desired to split away from Yugoslavia and form their own country; atrocities became commonplace and war crimes were committed by both regular army units under control of the government and paramilitary, militia-type forces. It was obvious that something needed to be done to halt these abhorrent criminal actions.

Despite the fact that U.S. and the UN took an obscenely long time to react to such atrocities, “NATO [under U.S. command] intervened in August and September 1995 with air strikes against Bosnian Serb targets, while allied Bosniak and Croat forces launched a simultaneous offensive in western Bosnia”. This aerial bombardment effectively brought the bloodshed to an end and, while Bosnia is still a country with sharp divides and is not the most stable politically, the loss of more Muslim and Bosnian Croat life was prevented.

The usage of an alliance in this instance, a coalition via NATO of countries like the U.S., Germany, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, France and various other countries from Europe and Asia, did force the genocide, atrocities, and the war itself to a halt. Without a robust force comprised of like-minded nations, had the force calling for such a bombardment been a single lone country (say the United States), then it would have been easy to ignore. However, due to the United States’ persistence in gathering a coalition force and in response to massacres like Srebrenica which could not be ignored, the war was brought to an end solely due to the fact that a coalition force had been created under the banner of an international organization. Having allies can change the outcome of a situation and, in this instance, the United States was right to intervene with a coalition force and prevent bloodshed, instead of doing so purely with their own land and air forces as it would raise questions about the intentions of the operation.

Conclusion

The United States of America, quite simply, does still need allies, especially in this current era. Allies are a beneficial tool in fostering domestic support as the public at large can view the inclusion of nations (like Germany, the United Kingdom, France, etc.) in a task force or military endeavor as a sign that other countries agree with the consensus that the goal of an operation is an essential one that will bring about conditions in line with America’s stated goals.

In an article for The National Interest, the Latvian Ambassador to the United States voices his opinion on the War in Afghanistan, citing that alliances are essential to succeeding in the nation. He writes, “it is smart to invest in NATO members participating in the Afghan War. All NATO member states, including Latvia, are real contributors to the Afghan effort…It goes without saying that NATO is the most trusted, well-tested instrument of the transatlantic partnership. Today there is a broad consensus in Washington that the United States needs allies and partners abroad…I am confident that mutual support is the only credible political option for defence of our homelands, values and vital interests”.

The Ambassador’s mentioning of a “broad consensus in Washington” is also correct.

DefenseOne reported in the fall of last year that, “69 percent of Americans support an active role for the United States. It is among the largest percentages recorded since polling began in 1974. Close to two thirds of Americans — including Republicans and Democrats — disagree with the direction of U.S. foreign policy… Three-quarters of all Americans, or 74 percent, believe that preserving U.S. military alliances with other countries helps make the U.S. safer… all-time-high percentages of Democrats (86%) and Republicans (62%) say NATO remains essential to U.S. security. Nearly eight in ten Americans (78%) believe that Washington should maintain or increase its commitment to the transatlantic alliance”.

The article continues to note that most in the American public believe that the strategic alliances the U.S. has made with countries like South Korea, Germany, and Japan are important to protecting U.S. national security interests. Most Americans understand that alliances are beneficial to protecting our own national security, improving our defenses, allowing the ability for more intelligence to be gathered, for more diplomatic avenues to be opened, for interventions in foreign countries to be made easier, and for less home troops on the ground to be involved in combat activities.

Some of this was covered and expanded upon in an article from The Hill written by Joseph Collins, a former U.S. Army Colonel and the Director of the Center for Complex Operations of the National Defense University. He writes, “First, allies add to U.S. power…our NATO allies and partners provided 44 percent of the coalition troops in Afghanistan… Second, allies add to the legitimacy of U.S. policy. When the United States is backed by over 50 nations, it creates a critical mass for security decisions and coalitions in international organizations… Third, allies and coalition partners contribute a rarely noted asset to U.S. operations: geography. In any conflict in the world, the United States normally has open access to the territory, harbors, airfields, bases and material assistance of more than 50 countries… Fourth, the global nature of U.S. alliances and partnerships presents our major adversaries with a problem…Our committed allies number in the many dozens and theirs are as rare as hen’s teeth… This basic fact enhances deterrence, especially when day-to-day defense and diplomatic relations enhance the credibility of the implicit threat from existing forces. Finally, alliances accelerate information and intelligence sharing… Alliances help to tear down firewalls between nations as well as between the bureaucracies inside of them”.

America having allies has worked well for the country in the past. During our own revolution, military, financial, and physical aid from France and Spain both allowed the revolution to succeed and for the nation itself to be created. American support in the Bosnian War allowed more atrocities to be averted and for the U.S. to stand on solid ground in an unequivocal stance by having the backing of multiple allied countries. There is an abundance of other examples in which allies with America have played a role in changing the outcome of a conflict or outright resolving conflicts; another example of this was the almost global backing of the United States in their decision to invade Iraq during the First Gulf War was an extreme show of force and a clear sign that this aggression would not be tolerated (though actual, physical combat was not dissuaded due to Saddam’s intentions). America’s alliances allow the U.S. to have a much stronger position to negotiate and maneuver from, to gain access to more information, the ability to negotiate from a larger diplomatic standing, and have broad support to pressure countries into diplomatic methods without physical violence.

To quote former Marine Corps General and Secretary of Defense James Mattis from an article in DefenseOne, “Nations with allies thrive, and nations without them die”.

Alan Cunningham is a graduate of Norwich University's Master of Arts in International Relations program. He is currently working as an AP U.S. History Teacher in San Antonio, but intends to join the U.S. Navy as an Officer in the Summer of 2022. He has been accepted to a PhD in History program with the University of Birmingham in the UK. He has been published in the Jurist, the U.S. Army War College's War Room, Security Magazine, and the Asia-Pacific Security Magazine, in addition to many others.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

20 years after 9/11: American decline in the Islamic world and China- Russian emergence

Published

on

The main headlines and axes

  1. The first axis: American strategy in the Islamic world, to draw a new political and economic map for establishing the (New Middle Eastern order)
  • The second axis: The developments of American strategy in the Islamic world after the events of September 11
  • The third axis: The internal and external overall results of American policies after September 11
  • The fourth axis: The implications of American withdrawal from Afghanistan on the image of the USA in the Islamic world
  • The fifth axis: The “ideological and religious clash” between the Islamic world and the USA after the American accusations to theSaudi Arabia’s responsibility” on the September 11 events
  • The sixth axis: The impact of “Chinese automatic control and Russian disobedience theories” on the theory of “American hegemony” in the Islamic world after September 11events

   The American strategy towards the Islamic world was not the result of the events of September 11, 2001. Rather, the United States of America has a tight strategy towards the region that has crystallized clearly since the beginning of the Cold War era and to this day, but the events of September 11 formed a sign, on the world arena and in the field of international relations in particular. It prompted the United States of America to announce a new strategy based on the so-called (War on Terror).

  Although the American strategy in the Islamic world is based on a set of constants represented in “controlling oil, maintaining Israel’s security and protecting other American interests”, the post-9/11 world has produced new American goals in the region, such as what led to changing the means of achieving the strategy’s goals. The American approach in the Islamic world towards the direct use of military force to protect and preserve these goals or to achieve new goals has become the core of this strategy in the region.

  Based on the mentioned facts, the American strategy towards the Islamic world after the events of September 11th came to briefly address this strategy through a number of axes:

The first axis: American strategy in the Islamic world, to draw a new political and economic map for establishing the (New Middle Eastern order)

  The end of the Cold War constituted a major international variable in its impact on the American strategy in the world in general and in the Middle East and Islamic world in particular. We mean the Islamic world as a wide region, which enjoys its specifications, structures, complexities and paths that link the East to the West and are composed of a group of diverse regions. It is located in southwest Asia, which is in the middle of the world, and there are several seas extending into it. It has an international strategy. The “Islamic world” in particular is one of the richest regions in the world with its oil wealth, and it is in the middle of the near and Far East.

  The Islamic world is considered a strategic region from a political and economic point of view because it contains the most important sea straits in the world. In addition, this region contains the most important American interests in the world, represented by the presence of Israel in it, and the richness of the Middle East region in oil, as it possesses the largest production and oil reserves in the world, and the schemes show the political and economic importance of this region.

  The end of the Islamic world and the accompanying international and regional changes contributed to the achievement of most of the goals of the American strategy in the Islamic world, because the change that took place at the level of the regional regions, particularly the Middle East, through what the transformations of the international system made possible for the United States of America and the advanced industrial countries from New mechanisms are used to possess a growing power to control the internal and external interactions of the region and the events of strategic change in it, since the Islamic world is one of the regions most affected by the strategic shifts in the structure of the international system. The events of 1990 and the end of the Cold War between the American and Soviet poles had a prominent impact on The emergence of the new American strategy in the region, especially after the success of the American administration in the events of the comprehensive and massive mobilization of the coalition forces against Iraq in the second Gulf War in 1991, which showed that American power was built on the fact that the United States of America is the only country that possesses very huge capabilities in diverse fields militarily politically, economically and diplomatically.

  If these events open the way for “drawing a new political and economic map” for the Islamic world and establishing (the new Middle Eastern order), through the basis of settlements between the Arabs and Israel and in the light of the Madrid Conference in 1991, accompanied by American efforts to keep Israel stronger than the Arab countries in order to achieve its goals in the Islamic world, after the “destruction of Iraq’s power”, which, from the American point of view, was the greatest danger to Israel’s security and existence in the region.

  The United States of America, at the beginning of the nineties, and after the collapse of the Soviet system, put forward a set of ideas and the foundations of its systems on the basis that it is the new world order based on what they call “democracy and human rights, and openness to the free world under intellectual and ideological justifications of totalitarianism, and the imposition of American hegemony on vital areas”, such as: the Islamic world and the Arab Gulf region, after the Madrid Conference, a dangerous methodology was followed with the aim of weakening the Arabs’ political, economic and cultural power and their defensive ability, and preaching the “Islamic world and the Middle East new system as a regional system in which Israel would have a central role”, it was an actual attempt to “marginalize the regional Arab and Islamic role and squander the sources of its true power”. It also sought the American administration, as the leader of that regime, prevented the dismantling of some Arab countries and regions in accordance with the so-called Israeli peace desire and the development of special policies for some countries, such as the “policy of double containment towards Iraq and Iran”.

  After the second Gulf War, the United States of America began to consolidate its direct military presence in the Islamic world as an application of the principle of the “new international order”. On this basis, the American strategy in the Islamic world after the Cold War was based on several concepts, the most important of which, are:

  1. Deterring and repelling any external or internal aggression or aggression that harms the interests of the United States of America and its allies and friends inside and outside the Islamic world and Arab Gulf region, according to the American perception.
  • Preventing the Iranian military adventure in the region.
  • Containing Iraq and Iran by following the policy of “dual containment and preventing the emergence of new regional powers capable of threatening American interests in the region”.
  • As well as setting new security arrangements for the Islamic world and maintaining a continuous and permanent US military presence, and relying on local allies such as Israel and Turkey, in preparation for “linking the Middle East with a security-economic-military alliance led by the USA”.
  • Maintaining American hegemony over the oil, financial and investment markets and encouraging “American political, economic and cultural penetration”.
  • Seeking to “change the political discourse towards democracy and human rights”, rejecting all forms of individualism, terrorism, arbitrariness and injustice, and working to create a “new social system for progression and development”.
  • Facilitating of the “cultural and economic normalization with Israel for the sake of peace” between the Arabs, Islamic world and Israel.
  • There are many American several measures that could lead to the path to lasting peace in the Islamic world, including the following:
  1. Ending the Arabs once and for all, what he called the “illegal boycott of Israel”, this constitutes an “economic war”.
  • Establishing economic and commercial relations between Israel and its neighbors.
  • Forming “multilateral agreements to protect the environment in the Islamic world and Middle East region”, with an emphasis on ensuring that each country has adequate supplies of water resources.

The American strategy towards the Islamic world continued on the above-mentioned foundations, some of which it inherited from the Cold War phase, where it has not changed significantly except the “issue of containing the communist influence in the region, which ended after the collapse of the Soviet Union”, but the issue that affected the change in the American strategy is represented by the means and tools used by the United States of America to achieve its main goals, so that the “American direct use of military force has been activated in achieving American goals and consolidating American influence in the Islamic world and Middle East region”.

The second axis: The developments of American strategy in the Islamic world after the events of September 11

The events of September 11, 2001 are a “decisive point in re-formulating the American strategy in the Islamic world in particular”, as the events of “September 11 were considered a “transit point between two different international systems, crossing the post-Cold War order to the new order, which so-called “war on terror”.

On this basis, the “events of September 11, 2001, were an influential change on the American global strategy in general and the American strategy towards the Islamic world in particular”, as these events produced the reality of military power as a force that controls the situation and sets it on the American tone.

As a result of the so-called “war on terror”, the United States of America began to market daily the new political geography that it intends to impose on the world by military force to achieve its goals and hegemony. On the so-called “war on terror”, as it was the “starting point of the American strategy to redraw the map of the Islamic world, Middle East and Central Asia to expand the area of ​​American hegemony”.

The Islamic world is not only the field in which the United States of America demonstrates its strength and tests its weapons, but it is also the site from which the United States of America circulates a “new formula for the new world order, under the pretext of what so-called “war on terror” as a justification used by the United States of America to resort to military force in Islamic world”. In this regard, “Daniel Babis” said that:

“Islamic fundamentalists are challenging the West with greater force and depth than the Communists, and they are violating our policies”

Referring to the statement led by “Edward Dejerejian”, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs says:

“The United States, as the only remaining superpower that is looking for an ideology to fight it, should move towards leading a crusade against Islam”

Here, we can as well notice the same expression used by the American administration at the beginning of the new American campaign against the Islamic world, which began in “Afghanistan and Iraq”.

This vision was “prepared even before the events of September 11”, which confirms that the “developments were prepared and the ideas were ready and was waiting for the moment of their theatrical release into existence”.

The events of September came to be the “opportunity for the emergence of this American scheme”. As is clear, the “ideological dimension” is clear in the American vision that was clearly expressed by politicians and thinkers in an important book which entitled: (America and political Islam, a clash of cultures or a clash of interests).

The third axis: The internal and external overall results of American policies after September 11

The events of September 11, 2001 constituted a “major turning point in the history of the United States”, whether in terms of its domestic or foreign policy, or in terms of international relations, especially “what links the West with the Arab and Islamic world”.The war on terror became the primary focus of international relations under the pressure of the United States after the events of September 11th. The latter organized a “military campaign in Afghanistan and then invaded Iraq under the pretext of fighting terrorism”. The war on terrorism has changed the situation of many countries in the world, such as Pakistan, which has transformed from a pariah state subject to economic sanctions to a preferred partner in the fight against terrorism and the “Al-Qaeda” organization it represents, so, we can identify the whole results of the American strategy after September 11, on the American internal and external policies, as follow:

The defense budget is constantly increasing

In its infancy, this war provided the administration of US President “George W. Bush” with a cover to do whatever it wanted. This administration got all the money it asked for from the US Congress for a national missile defense program, the “Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty” was abolished without internal or external fanfare, and it got big increases in the Pentagon’s budget.

The economic effects of the September 11 attacks on the United States

Except for the loss of life, the two towers and the four planes hijacked by the terrorists, there are no direct and negative economic effects that led to a crisis. The effects did not exceed what was mentioned, with other immediate losses, including the closure of the American Stock Exchange for some days, and the effects on airlines and tourism for a period of one or two years. As for the only direct impact, it was in the American and global insurance sector, which rose after the events by 400 percent as a result of the compensation paid by the insurance companies. There was also an increase in the amount of risks in air and sea transport and life insurance.

Reducing the freedoms of the American citizen

The war on terrorism during and after the Bush era led to a “curtailment of freedoms for American citizens and foreign residents alike”, as there were numerous of “harassments of public liberties and the American citizen became subject to extensive searches”, especially at airports, and electronic wiretaps and other modern means that enable the American authorities to follow anyone in a way minutes, whether by e-mail or mobile phone.

Cultural and intellectual monuments

The cultural and intellectual effects of the post-9/11 events have not stopped yet, and they are still multiplying and continuing. The phenomenon of terrorism after 9/11 revealed to the United States that it had another “enemy” that it had been searching for since the fall of the Soviet Union, and by that we mean Islam, especially “radical Islam”. These events showed great transformations at the “cultural and intellectual level among Americans and the West in general”, and led to the emergence of what is known as the “clash of civilizations” where “Islam, through this theory, became the enemy of civilization and peace”, because it represents, according to the proponents of this theory from among the hard-line conservatives, the “real problem” behind the emergence of terrorism In the world, which is reflected intellectually and culturally on the “image of Muslims and Arabs and their societies in the United States and the rest of the world”.

An imbalance of power in the world

One of the important effects of the attacks of September 11, 2001 was those that led to an imbalance in the balance of power in the world, as no country had ever controlled the world in this way, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the defense budget constantly rising, the United States has tightened its economic, technical, and cultural grip on the nations of the world. The United States has maintained its position as a superpower through nuclear weapons and the extent of their spread according to its defense strategy, and this is evident in dealing with the Iranian nuclear file, as a prominent example.

Emerging the new concept of “Preventive war” after the September 11 attacks

Prior to the September 11 attacks, political crises depended on solving these problems through international or diplomatic bodies. But after the events, the military sides became dependent on a new principle, which is “preventive war”, which relied on surprise strikes without waiting for confirmed evidence of the hostility of the target party.

Here, US Defense Secretary “Ronald Rumsfeld” said at an important “NATO meeting in Brussels” in 2002 that:

“The alliance cannot wait for irrefutable evidence to act against terrorist groups or countries that possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”

This statement was a prelude to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and a “preemptive strike according to the new concept of the US military strategy”.

The fourth axis: The implications of American withdrawal from Afghanistan on the image of the USA in the Islamic world

The withdrawal from Afghanistan represents a “major blow to the prestige and confidence of the United States and its allies around the world, but especially in the Islamic world and Middle East”, as follow:

It is expected that after the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan, the “Islamic world will witness more daring jihadist movements after the collapse of Afghanistan”.

The caveat here is that Afghanistan will serve as a “center of cooperation between terrorist groups, which will encourage various attacks in the Islamic world”.

The Taliban’s control of the Afghan arena is also linked to the “increased frequency of attacks launched by ISIS in the Islamic world after the withdrawal from Afghanistan in Iraq and Syria and the attack on Kabul Airport”.

It is expected that with the Taliban movement taking control of Afghanistan that the “extremist movements will continue to politically and militarily flourish in the Islamic world”.

America’s allies in the Islamic world have taken notice and benefited from the Afghan lesson, and “Washington’s allies in the Islamic world have increased fears that the United States will abandon its friends in the region when it becomes politically appropriate”, for example, while the corrupt Afghan government and army bear some responsibility for the Taliban seized power, but the Americans weren’t supposed to turn their backs on their allies just because they had a failed state.

As examples of the United States abandoning its allies in the Islamic world, the “Kurds in Syria who prepared Washington and played a pivotal role in defeating ISIS” can now be seen, as the United States continues to “abandon its responsibilities as a leader in the Islamic world in favor of China and Russia”.

The American failure at Afghanistan has also created a “regional vacuum in the Islamic world” that countries such as (Iran and Turkey) are trying to fill.

Here, we find that the right-wing establishment in the United States is the last political faction in Washington that understands long-term security goals. The reality is that “US allies in the Islamic world and Middle East cannot now count on a democratic administration or even within a conservative populist president”.

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan is due to a “long-decade bipartisan failure to achieve Washington’s goals and the loss of US support for the war”, but the way in which the Biden administration withdrew is inefficient, and US leaders have repeatedly exaggerated and claimed the ability of the Afghan army, and it is also clear That Washington had no plan to evacuate the Americans or the Afghans who helped the international coalition.

The United States is struggling now to take steps to “ensure that its allies have the ability and willingness to defend themselves, and work to build regional alliances that can defend each other against any threat”, particularly from Iran.

The “Joe Biden’s administration” is trying to ensure that major “U.S. deployments in the Islamic world are unlikely to change”, and that U.S. adversaries, whether “Iran, China, or Russia”, are expected to discredit the allies of the United States in the usefulness of their friendship in Washington.

We find here that tens of thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to work for freedom and a modern state in Afghanistan, their efforts went in vain, a situation similar when the United States withdrew from Iraq in 2011, where “USA has failed as well to protect some of the Iraqis who worked with it during the first years of that the war”.

The current priority in Washington is to “overcome the negative effects of the unorganized withdrawal, and work to prevent the emergence of security threats inside Afghanistan, which could spread regionally and globally, especially in the Islamic world”, as we witnessed in (Iraq and neighboring Syria with the rise of ISIS) in 2012-2014, with some fears and expectations that the “security dynamics can change dramatically with the influence of “extremist Islamic factions in the Islamic world”.

Here, We can conclude that “Afghanistan is not just a war that went wrong, as the many mistakes in the American war in Afghanistan are shared by 4 American presidents”, and President “Joe Biden” bears responsibility for his decisions, as his administration failed in an orderly withdrawal, and is striving to ensure the safety of diplomats and other Americans in the country.

The fifth axis: The “ideological and religious clash” between the Islamic world and the USA after the American accusations to the Saudi Arabia’s responsibility on the September 11 events

The disclosure of the secret documents of the September 11 attacks, if (it is proven that Saudi officials were involved in them), may restore relations between Riyadh and Washington to their worst condition, especially if the US courts decide to impose huge compensation payments to the families of the victims against the Saudi government.

And this American crisis in the face of Saudi Arabia comes due to the pressures that US President “Biden” is subjected to respond to the continuous pressures from the American families of the victims, which sent a clear message to President “Biden” with “not aligned with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on this issue”, referring to the bias what was clear to his predecessor “Trump”, towards Saudi Crown Prince “Mohammed bin Salman” during the case of the assassination of opposition journalist “Gamal Khashoggi” in Turkey, and the events that followed.

  Here, the US Department of Justice announced its decision to review confidential documents related to the September 11, 2001 attacks, which the US government had imposed (a cover of secrecy) on them for more than 20 years, following the warnings of the families of the victims of those attacks of the need to hold the Biden administration accountable. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is implicated in this matter, which has exacerbated the crisis between Riyadh and Washington in the recent period.

  Here, the Biden administration is facing pressures to declassify US government documents, which they claim to show that “Saudi Arabia’s leaders were supportive of attacks against American targets”, with the US officials declaring that “a lot of investigative evidence has been revealed that proves the involvement of Saudi government officials in supporting the attacks against Washington”.

   We find here that a “number of American agencies and various administrations sought to prove Saudi Arabia’s responsibility for the events of September 11”, which is what both (the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) actively sought, while claiming that they maintained the confidentiality of this information and prevented the American people from knowing the full truth about 9/11 attacks.

   President “Biden” and the White House staff welcomed the US Department of Justice’s decision to review the documents and reveal the facts to the American public, with President Biden’s affirmation that:

“As I promised during my campaign, my administration is committed to ensuring the maximum degree of transparency by law, and to adhere to the strict guidelines issued during the Obama and Biden administrations on invoking the privilege of state secrets”

 With the Biden’ stress that: “In this context, I welcome the filing of the Department of Justice, which is committed to conducting a new review of the documents, as the government has previously confirmed the privileges, and to do so as quickly as possible”

   We find that at a time when the families of the victims of the September 11 events are calling for Saudi Arabia to be held accountable, the latter has denied its involvement in those terrorist attacks against Washington. For several years, family members of 9/11 victims have sought “US government documents relating to whether Saudi Arabia aided or financed any of the 19 individuals associated with Al-Qaeda who carried out the devastating attack against those US targets”

   Because of this “ideological and religious conflict between Washington and Saudi Arabia”, US-Saudi relations have been greatly affected, especially after the case of the killing of the Saudi dissident journalist “Jamal Khashoggi” in Istanbul in 2018.

 In February 2021, the Biden administration issued a report that found that Saudi Crown Prince “Mohammed bin Salman” was directly responsible for approving the killing of “Khashoggi”, while Washington imposed sanctions on dozens of Saudis linked to human rights violations, and decided to “end American support for the Saudi war in Yemen”.

  At that time, Biden and other officials confirmed that they would end the warmth that characterized the (Trump administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia), noting their desire to end America’s blindness to human rights violations inside Saudi Arabia, but they also made it clear that the United States would continue to support, protect and work with the Kingdom because of their common interests.

  Hence, we find that the “current negative relations between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” have reached their lowest levels during the administration of “Joe Biden” and Saudi Arabia, as one of the most complex and problematic issues during the era of the Democratic US President “Joe Biden”, unlike his Republican predecessor “Donald Trump”, which takes the form or character of an “ideological or religious conflict” between American liberal values, especially that of the American Democratic Party followed by “Joe Biden”, and those American accusations of Saudi Arabia of adopting the “Wahhabi Salafi ideology”, and of its involvement in terrorist attacks against Washington.

 Accordingly, all of these mentioned factors will definitely negatively effect on the “American- Islamic world relationships”, given that “Saudi Arabia is the leader and locomotive of the Sunni Muslim sectarian in the Islamic world”, and may lead to “ideological clash between American values in the face of Saudi religious ideology”, which Washington accuses of supporting terrorism and causing its victims, which in turn will lead to the “collapse of American influence in the entire Middle East and Islamic word, given Saudi Arabia’s regional position in it”.

The sixth axis: The impact of “Chinese automatic control and Russian disobedience theories” on the theory of “American hegemony” in the Islamic world after September 11events

The Chinese and Russian ideologies are similar in their view toward the (events of September 11th), a real change in the course and directions of international relations since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and Russia and China agree that the scene of “unilateral American hegemony” is what brought the world to September 11, 2001. And that the direction of international relations for China and Russia represents the direction of (American hegemony) over the world, according to the “two theories” that are fundamentally important for Russia and China, namely:

The Russian theory of “contradiction” in the face of the policies of American hegemony, especially after the events of September 11:

This trend in international relations is based on (imposing the Russian method) in the international arena in the face of the (theory of unilateral American hegemony), especially in the Islamic world, in addition to this was clearly demonstrated by the “Russian rejection position to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003”, and the “Russian tendency towards rejecting Washington’s policies), Russia is trying to implement its violation of the United States of America through a “long-term strategy”, such as “containing American unilateralism and its failed policies in the Islamic world”, which caused the “emergence of terrorism and ISIS in Iraq and then Syria”, participating in efforts to combat terrorism in the Arab region, and to ensure the flow of oil and the stability of its prices, with the beliefs of the peoples of the Middle East and the Islamic world in the possibility of (Russia and China leading the world together), but they play a role Pivotal in confronting and violating the unilateral American tendencies, to contain the dangers of the American power of domination and hegemony.

Chinese automatic control theory in confronting the ideology of unilateralism and spreading the trend of one American liberal values:

This is a Chinese theory formulated by the Chinese researcher “Li Hong Xing”, and known as “automatic control theory”, in his book “China will lead the world”, and he believes that China’s “automatic control” of international relations and the world is carried out through the following points of control, which are media control, China’s tough diplomatic confrontation with the United States of America, maintaining China’s energy and oil security against Washington, securing waterways, and others.

By integrating the two theories of “Russian Contradiction theory to the UA and automatic Chinese control theory in the face of American hegemonic policies in the Islamic world” after the events of September 11, we find that it has been able to undermine and control the unilateral, hegemonic American power, through:

The global Sino-Russian diplomatic and media blockade on the United States: in the sense of showing all of its negatives to the international community, and causing many crises in global international relations to carry out that task.

The expansion of Russian-Chinese blocs in the Asia-Pacific and Pacific region: by trying to control the oil of Asian regions, expanding economic activities through the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and Russian partnerships for energy security, natural gas and oil across the axis of Siberian territories, in addition to working to establish political blocs It revolves around the Sino-Russian axis, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and for collective security, and others.

China and Russia’s control over important strategic waterways: Here comes the work to create a reality of Chinese-Russian control over some important passages around the world, especially in the Middle East, to protect the interests of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and Russian partnerships, and the Russian-Chinese military presence, especially in Syrian territory.

Chinese and Russian direct confrontation with American policies in the Islamic world and Middle East: in order to maintain the flows of “international energy security” to Russia and China, and to oppose the policies of American hegemony in international organizations, such as: the United Nations, by using the “veto” to confront any American political or military moves In the Middle East, and calling “the countries allied to Russia and China” to the Middle Eastern countries that cooperate with them, and working together to confront the American expansion in the Middle East, on several political and economic axes, to weaken the American hegemony to control the region.

Strengthening the Chinese presence in the Islamic world through the “Belt and Road Initiative” and Russian partnerships and increasing influence: It is an organized and long-term strategy based on Chinese and Russian projects, development partnerships, and China’s assistance to the Belt and Road countries in the Islamic world by modernizing infrastructure and working joint projects, in addition to provide grant support and training.

Attempting to restore Chinese and Russian power internationally in contrast of the decline of the USA: in an attempt to move towards force in international relations, as this has become an imposed reality in the world today due to the policies of American hegemony, and this trend uses (Asian depth) mainly, and (European depth) in a secondary, and that guarantees Russia and China the restoration of their strategic and political prestige in international affairs.

Sino-Russian energy strategy in the Middle East, Asia and the world: by following the “international energy security” approach, in which Russia and China are trying to strengthen their direct control over oil and gas transmission lines from (Central Asia, Caspian Sea, Iran and the Islamic world), and to establish future energy projects on their lands, “International energy security” depends on economic and political control by securing transit routes for the interests of Russia and China, subjecting them to Chinese-Russian control, and deploying missile shields, submarines and barges to secure these routes, in addition to security cooperation with Asian, Arab and Islamic countries, and encouraging the establishment of unions and economic development partnerships with all institutions and countries, and support the political positions of Arab, Islamic and Asian countries.

Through the overall previous analysis of the case before and after September 11 events, we conclude that what is known as “religious coups and the emergence of radical terrorism” is one of the most prominent transformations in the global scene after Al-Qaeda’s attack on the heart of modern Western capitalist civilization in the United States of America. After the return of the “Taliban movement” to power in Afghanistan, many questions are raised about the lessons learned from the post-9/11 years on the world.

Accordingly, we can conclude and reach out here that “all the wars led by the United States in the name of spreading Western values, democracy, modernity, human rights, the aid of allies and friends of Washington around the world)….etc., all of which are American strategies and tools that have proven to be unsuccessful, especially in the developing world. Therefore, many theories have appeared today, rejecting and emphasizing the futility of the theory of the “clash of civilizations”.

Noting that after two decades of the events of September 11, and the failure of the United States to achieve its goals in Afghanistan, the control of the “Taliban movement” and the strengthening of the Islamic State organization “ISIS” in the Islamic world, which led to the “collapse and decline of the power of the United States of America in exchange for the rise of the Russian Federation and the Chinese in the Arab Gulf and the Muslim world”, which has “lost confidence in the American machinery”.

In my concluded opinion, this is the general attitude towards Washington in the Islamic world and the Middle East region, especially after the “American escalation of its dispute with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its accusation, after two decades, of being involved in the events of September 11”, which led to the “religious, moral and ideological collision between the Muslim world and the Arab Gulf states in the face of USA”, due to the “failed American mechanisms” in the region in favor of the emerging of both “Russia and China” power.

Continue Reading

Americas

China And U.S. Are On the Brink of War

Published

on

Right now, the neocons that Biden has surrounded himself with are threatening to accuse him of having ‘lost Taiwan’ if Biden backs down from his many threats to China, threats that the U.S. Government will reverse America’s “One China” policy, which has been in place ever since the 28 February 1972 “Shanghai Communique”, when the U.S. Government signed with China to the promise and commitment that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” If Biden sticks with that, and fails to follow through on his threats that America will invade China if war breaks out between Taiwan and China, then the neocons will say that the U.S., under Biden, has failed to ‘stand up for our allies’, and that therefore China will have effectively beaten America to become the #1 power, on his watch — merely because he had refused to change U.S. policy in the way that the neocons (America’s “Military-Industrial Complex” or “MIC” or weapons-manufacturers — and their many lobbyists and supporters in Congress, the press, and elsewhere) have recently been demanding. 

The Truman-created CIA edits, and even writes, Wikipedia; and, so, Wikipedia’s article on “Taiwan” opens by saying “Taiwan,[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][h] is a country in East Asia.[21][22]” But that assertion of Taiwan’s being “a country,” instead of a province of China, is a lie, not only because Taiwan (despite its propaganda urging the U.N. to accept it to become a member-nation of the U.N.) has not been accepted by the U.N. as a member-nation, but also because the U.S. Government itself promised, in 1972, that both in fact and in principle, the U.S. opposes any demand that might be made by any government of Taiwan to become a separate nation — no longer a part of China. Ever since 1972, any such demand by a government in Taiwan violates official U.S. Government policy since 1972, and is merely another part of the MIC’s wishful thinking, that America will invade China. So: the demand by the neocons, for America’s Government to support a public declaration by Taiwan’s government that it is no longer a part of China, is part of the pressure upon Biden, to yield to the Pentagon lobby (which largely made him the President). Biden’s threats might be made in order to satisfy his financial backers, but, if he fulfills on any of those threats, there will then be a war between America and China.

China is insisting that the anti-communist Chinese who in 1945 escaped to China’s island of Formosa or Taiwan — which Japan had conquered and militarily occupied between 1895 and 1945 — illegitimately controlled that land just as the Japanese had illegitimately controlled it between 1895 and 1945, and so China claims that Taiwan remains and has remained a province of China, as it has been ever since at least 1683, when China’s Qing Dynasty formally declared it to be a part of China. Taiwan was ruled that way until 1895, when Japan conquered China and one provision of the peace-treaty was that Taiwan would henceforth be part of Japan’s territory, no longer Chinese. 

After WW II, when FDR’s America was allied with China against Japan, Truman’s America (the source of neoconservatism, or overt U.S. imperialism) supported the anti-communist Chinese, not mainland China, and therefore generally backed Taiwan’s independence from the mainland. However, that intense Trumanesque U.S. neoconservatism ended formally with the 1972 Shanghai Communique. And Biden is now considering whether America will go to war in order not only to restore, but now to further intensify, Truman’s neoconservative, imperialistic, U.S. thrust — going beyond even Truman.

Here is how that is currently playing out:

On September 10th, the Financial Times headlined “Washington risks Beijing ire over proposal to rename Taiwan’s US office” and reported that the neocons were pressing for Biden to change the diplomatic status of Taiwan’s “representative office in Washington” so as to become, in effect, a national Embassy. “A final decision has not been made and would require President Joe Biden to sign an executive order.” This executive order would, in its implications, terminate the Shanghai Communique, and go back to the hard ‘anti-communist’ (but actually pro-imperialistic) policy in which the U.S. Government will be bringing its weapons (and maybe also its soldiers) close enough to China so as to be able to obliterate China within ten minutes by a surprise nuclear attack which would eliminate China’s retaliatory capabilities. It would be even worse than the 1963 Cuban Missile crisis endangered America. So, of course, China’s Government wouldn’t tolerate that. And they don’t.

On September 12th, the Chinese Government newspaper Global Times issued “Teach the US, Taiwan island a real lesson if they call for it: Global Times editorial”, which stated that:

If the US and the Taiwan island change the names, they are suspected of touching the red line of China’s Anti-Secession Law, and the Chinese mainland will have to take severe economic and military measures to combat the arrogance of the US and the island of Taiwan. At that time, the mainland should impose severe economic sanctions on the island and even carry out an economic blockade on the island, depending on the circumstances. 

Militarily, Chinese mainland’s fighter jets should fly over the island of Taiwan and place the island’s airspace into the patrol area of the PLA. This is a step that the mainland must take sooner or later. The name change provides the Chinese mainland with sufficient reason to strengthen our sovereign claim over the island of Taiwan. It is anticipated that the Taiwan army will not dare to stop the PLA fighter jets from flying over the island. If the Taiwan side dares open fire, the Chinese mainland will not hesitate to give “Taiwan independence” forces a decisive and destructive blow.

More importantly, if the Chinese mainland turns a blind eye to the US and the Taiwan island this time, they will definitely go further in the next step. According to reports, Joseph Wu, leader of the external affairs of the Taiwan island, participated in the talks between senior security officials from the US and the island in Annapolis on Friday. Next time, they may publicly hold the meeting even in the US State Department in Washington DC. As the US will hold the “Summit for Democracy” by the end of this year, if we do not contain the insolence of the US and the Taiwan island, Washington might even really invite Tsai Ing-wen to participate in the summit. It will be much worse in nature than former Taiwan regional leader Lee Teng-hui’s visit to the US as an “alumnus” in 1995.

Will peace come if the Chinese mainland puts up with all this and swallows its anger for the sake of peace? If the mainland doesn’t strike back decisively, US warships will dock at the island of Taiwan, its fighter aircraft will land on the island and its troops may be stationed in the island again. At that time, where will be China’s prestige as a great power? How can the country maintain its system of defending its interests on the international stage?

So: either the U.S., or else China, must back down — or else, there will be war between China and the U.S.

Of course, each side has its allies. Perhaps UK will put its neck on the line to conquer China, and perhaps Russia will put its neck on the line to conquer America, but in any case, the result if Biden yields to the neocons, will be World War III.

They press him hard. For example, the British neocon, Niall Ferguson, wrote in the Economist, on August 20th:

There is nothing inexorable about China’s rise, much less Russia’s, while all the lesser countries aligned with them are economic basket cases, from North Korea to Venezuela. China’s population is ageing even faster than anticipated; its workforce is shrinking. Sky-high private-sector debt is weighing on growth. Its mishandling of the initial outbreak of covid-19 has greatly harmed its international standing. It also risks becoming the villain of the climate crisis, as it cannot easily kick the habit of burning coal to power its industry.

And yet it is all too easy to see a sequence of events unfolding that could lead to another unnecessary war, most probably over Taiwan, which Mr Xi covets and which America is (ambiguously) committed to defend against invasion. …

The ambitions of China’s leader, Xi Jinping, are also well known — along with his renewal of the Chinese Communist Party’s ideological hostility to individual freedom, the rule of law and democracy. … If Beijing invades Taiwan, most Americans will probably echo the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously described the German bid to carve up Czechoslovakia in 1938 as “a quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing”. …

That brings us to the crux of the matter. Churchill’s great preoccupation in the 1930s was that the government was procrastinating — the underlying rationale of its policy of appeasement — rather than energetically rearming in response to the increasingly aggressive behaviour of Hitler, Mussolini and the militarist government of imperial Japan. A key argument of the appeasers was that fiscal and economic constraints — not least the high cost of running an empire that extended from Fiji to Gambia to Guiana to Vancouver — made more rapid rearmament impossible.

It may seem fanciful to suggest that America faces comparable threats today — not only from China, but also from Russia, Iran and North Korea. Yet the mere fact that it seems fanciful illustrates the point. The majority of Americans, like the majority of Britons between the wars, simply do not want to contemplate the possibility of a major war against one or more authoritarian regimes, coming on top of the country’s already extensive military commitments.

Scholars get well paid to write such propaganda for the MIC (companies such as Lockheed Martin). Comparing China’s Government with that of Nazi Germany, and proposing that Biden become, for present-day America, what (the equally imperialistic) Churchill was for Britain’s in the late 1930s, might be stupid enough, in just the right way, to inspire someone like Biden, in precisely the wrong way, as it’s intended to do. If so, there will be WW III.

On September 14th, the Editor-in-Chief of Global Times wrote that “China has absolutely no way to retreat. The one-China principle is the fundamental principle that we must insist on.” Similarly, in the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis — when the Soviet Union was about to place its missiles on an island near America’s coast — America was willing to go to WW III if necessary in order to prevent that from happening. America established its “red line,” and the Soviet Union did not cross it. We’ll see what Biden does. And, if he makes the wrong decision, we’ll then see what Russia does.

Continue Reading

Americas

Biden Overstates by 700% Effectiveness of Covid Vaccines

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith

The White House said on September 9th that “recent data indicates there is only 1 confirmed positive [covid-19 disease] case per 5,000 fully vaccinated Americans per week.”

Its announcement fails to link to any source on that allegation. However, if Biden got that estimate from the New York Times, then he was definitely overstating it by 700%. And America’s ‘news’-media, at press conferences, don’t ask politicians, “Where do you get those data? What assurance do you have that they are trustworthy?” Instead, mere allegations by public officials are reported as if they should be accepted as being facts.

All of America’s recent Presidents have been similarly casual and untrustworthy about the truthfulness of their allegations, such as they were about “Saddam’s WMD.” The whole world therefore has good reasons to distrust what America’s Presidents say. It’s certainly the case with this President. Why do people trust them any longer? Either the U.S. official builds policies on the basis of his/her falsehoods, or aims to deceive people; and, in either case, what that person says won’t be trusted by any intelligent person.

In this particular instance, another dubious news-source (besides Biden), the New York Times, had headlined, two days earlier, on September 7th, “One in 5,000: The real chances of a breakthrough infection.” However, that allegation (“One in 5,000”) likewise failed to link through to its source and to describe the methodology behind that estimate, though it did allege that the estimate was somehow based upon “statistics from three places that have reported detailed data on Covid infections by vaccination status: Utah; Virginia; and King County, which includes Seattle, in Washington state. All three are consistent with the idea that about one in 5,000 vaccinated Americans have tested positive for Covid each day in recent weeks.”

Perhaps President Biden had read that headline (from two days before), and didn’t read the Times’s news-report itself, which said not “1 confirmed positive case per 5,000 fully vaccinated Americans per week” but instead “that about one in 5,000 vaccinated Americans have tested positive for Covid each day in recent weeks.” In other words: Biden’s estimate, of a one-in-5,000 chance per week, is overstating by 700% the Times’s news-report’s estimate, which said per daynot per week.

The Times’s news-report then upped its own ante to only a one-in-10,000-per-day chance in America’s largest cities, which are more-leftist, less rightist, than most of America, and which therefore believe more in government-regulation (such as to control covid) and so have a higher percentage of vaccinated population: “Here’s one way to think about a one-in-10,000 daily chance: It would take more than three months for the combined risk to reach just 1 percent.”

Consequently, if that’s correct, then for a person in the more-rural America (assuming that the Times’s data and calculations are sound), the likelihood, at one-in-5,000, would have an average resident there facing a 2% chance of becoming sick with covid-19 during a 3-month period, if “fully vaccinated.” Furthermore, the Times alleges that “The infection rates in the least vaccinated states are about four times as high as in the most vaccinated states.” If that is true, then a reasonable assumption would be that vaccination is effective, and that therefore the Republican Party position on this matter — that the government shouldn’t impose penalties against unvaccinated individuals as part of a program to protect the public’s health (the health of the entire public) — is false, and the Democratic Party’s position on this matter is true.

The Morning Consult poll of residents in 15 countries recently headlined and reported:

“The U.S. Has a Higher Rate of Vaccine Opposition Than Any Country Tracked Besides Russia”

2 September 2021

#1: Russia: 27% unwilling, 16% uncertain.

#2: U.S.: 17% unwilling, 10% uncertain.

#15(last): China: 1% unwilling, 1% uncertain.

Previously, these had been the figures:

“The U.S. Has a Higher Rate of Vaccine Opposition Than Any Country Tracked Besides Russia”

10 June 2021

#1: Russia: 32% unwilling, 24% uncertain.

#2: U.S.: 20% unwilling, 12% uncertain.

#15(last): China: 2% unwilling, 4% uncertain.

Ever since those polls started on 13 May 2021, Russia has been #1 and China has been #15. However, U.S. hasn’t consistently been #2.

How, then, do those countries rank on performance regarding covid-19?

That’s shown by going to worldometers and clicking there twice onto the column that’s headed “Tot cases/1m pop”. Of the 223 ranked countries: 

China is #9, the ninth-best country, at 66 cases per 1 million population. 

Russia is #132, at 48,645 cases per million.

U.S. is #209 at 124,729 cases per million. It is the only non-small country that performs this poorly. Every one of the yet-worse countries has below 5 million population except Czechia, which has a population of 10,732,613.

As regards current covid trends: 

China has extremely few new cases.

Russia’s new cases have been declining since July 16th.

America’s new cases have been declining since August 27th.

As regards Czechia, all of its bad performance ended in June. On 1 March 2021, Czechia introduced a draconian lockdown; and, after March 3rd, the raging epidemic began its decline. On 15 March 2021, Al Jazeera headlined “Czech Republic: What’s behind world’s worst COVID infection rate?” and reported: 

Leading expert in viral sequencing, Jan Pačes from the Academy of Sciences, talks to Al Jazeera about the severity of the pandemic and calls on the government to take stricter precautions.

Al Jazeera: How did the country go from having some of the lowest infection rates in Europe to the highest in the world?

Jan Pačes: The Czech Republic is currently in its fourth wave of the pandemic and the healthcare system is reaching its limits.

The Czech government has consistently showed incompetent leadership, failing to protect public health, governing through populism rather than taking on expert advice.

As regards China (which arguably has the world’s best performance at controlling covid-19): the New York Times indicates vaccination-rates throughout the world, which shows, for China 78% of its residents as having received one shot, and 69% two.

U.S. is 63% and 53%.

Russia is 31% and 27%.

Czechia is 56% and 55%.

Vietnam is 21% and 3.9%. 

Vietnam had been, for a long time, the country that had the world’s lowest covid-19 infection-rate, but they were left flat-footed and drastically unprepared for the Delta variant, with virtually no access to vaccines, and Vietnam’s covid-19 infection-rate started soaring in May 2021 and peaked on August 26th. During that time, Vietnam’s performance fell from #1 to #67 on infection-rate (“Tot cases/1M pop”). Vietnam’s Government, which previously had been so proud of its performance, is now intensively struggling with the pandemic.

Within the United States itself, the worst-performing states, in order, as-of September 10th, are Tennessee (163,936), Florida (160,016), North Dakota (159,064), Rhode Island (156,183), Arkansas (155,735), Mississippi (154,667), South Dakota (153,909), Louisiana (152,814), South Carolina (151,474), and Alabama (150,212). (Nine of those ten states had voted for Donald Trump.)

For comparison, see these nations: U.S. (124,729), China (66), Czechia (156,763), Russia (48,645), Vietnam (5,991).

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas6 mins ago

20 years after 9/11: American decline in the Islamic world and China- Russian emergence

The main headlines and axes The first axis: American strategy in the Islamic world, to draw a new political and...

Human Rights2 hours ago

COVID crises highlight strengths of democratic systems

The UN Secretary-General, on Wednesday, urged the world to “learn from the lessons of the past 18 months, to strengthen democratic resilience in the face of future...

Economy4 hours ago

The Economic Conundrum of Pakistan

The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) is due to convene on 20th September 2021. The Monetary policy Committee (MPC) will...

Americas6 hours ago

China And U.S. Are On the Brink of War

Right now, the neocons that Biden has surrounded himself with are threatening to accuse him of having ‘lost Taiwan’ if...

Human Rights9 hours ago

Gender equality ‘champion’ Sima Sami Bahous to lead UN Women

Secretary-General António Guterres described Sima Sami Bahous of Jordan, as “a champion for women and girls”, announcing on Monday her appointment to lead the UN’s gender equality and empowerment entity, UN Women.  The UN...

Environment12 hours ago

Most agricultural funding distorts prices, harms environment

Around 87% of the $540 billion in total annual government support given worldwide to agricultural producers includes measures that are price distorting and that can be harmful to...

Development15 hours ago

Spain’s PM Speaks with Global CEOs on Strategic Priorities in Post-Pandemic Era

The World Economic Forum today hosted a “Country Strategy Dialogue on Spain with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez” for its partners,...

Trending