Connect with us

Americas

U.S. Department of Justice’s Anterior Motives Getting Clearer with Every Delay

Published

on

In ‘The United States v. Alex Nain Saab Moran,’ the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed for a 30 day extension to submit its brief on the merits in the matter of Alex Saab’s appeal which is in front of the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, challenging the indictment and the jurisdiction of the US on the basis of immunity arising from his status as a lawfully appointed diplomat.

In reality, the DOJ is aware that it has no valid arguments to put forward in opposition to Saab’s claim of diplomatic status and resulting inviolability. Accordingly, it seeks to delay the 11th proceedings, hoping to secure extradition from Cabo Verde to avoid dealing with the merits of his claim to diplomatic immunity.

In parallel, all signs point towards the fact that the DOJ is putting tremendous pressure on the Constitutional Court in Cabo Verde to waive its own rules, risk regional relations, and damage its reputation as free and fair. The motives for using Cabo Verde, Africa, as a staging ground for detaining Venezuelan Ambassador Alex Saab and then trying to extradite him to the United States have become more apparent with each delay.

Background

Alex Saab was acting in the capacity of an official envoy for the Venezuelan government while traveling between Iran and Venezuela to negotiate the sale of medicines. While his aircraft stopped to refuel in Cabo Verde, an archipelago of islands in West Africa, he was detained. 

Local authorities arrested Saab and took him to a jail, later transferring him to ‘house arrest’ for tighter security and perceived compromise. The arrest was a well-planned takedown of the man the U.S. government deemed responsible for helping the Maduro government move around U.S. sanctions. 

The arrest was carried out without a warrant and before the US-requested Interpol notice was written and sent. The notice informed local officials that Saab was wanted in connection to an alleged money laundering case in the United States. Months later, the U.S. requested Saabs extradition based on the money laundering inditement. 

Justice is important, but if countries start playing by their own rules, we become lawless and paranoid. That’s not the world most want. 

Even after Saab presented the Cabo Verde government official documents proving his status as a diplomat, it was brushed off and ignored. What will this say to other foreign diplomats making stops on the Island? It will tell them that if a significant agenda-setting power wants to grab you for a price, Cabo Verde will assist them. 

Since Saab has been locked up on the island, under heavily armed guards 24-hours a day, many truths have surfaced about the relationship between the United States and Cabo Verde, along with some reasonable assumptions for premeditated motivations. 

The United States Influence over Cabo Verde 

The U.S. has a vested interest in making sure its sanctions mean something. It knew that arresting Saab would have a significant collateral effect, blocking his mission to move around U.S. sanctions for the survival of Venezuela’s people. Most countries wouldn’t have agreed to participate in such a politically motivated takedown but Cabo Verde was vulnerable. It was crippled by its national debt, and tourism, the sole industry besides minimal salt mining, was almost non-existent.

The U.S. sweetened the deal with Cabo Verde, rewarding the country with a $400 million (USD) embassy project, $100 million of which will go directly into the local economy. And this week, a former Cabo Verde Ambassador to the U.S., Carlos Veiga, announced his candidacy for president of the island nation. 

Those are just a few of many examples, but when you look at the events, just since the detainment of the Venezuelan diplomat, you have to ask yourself, why now? Where were U.S. investments and political support before Saabs detainment, and why was Cabo Verde largely ignored until now? 

It seems the U.S. took advantage of this small debt-ridden island, and the island will be the one to pay the price for many years to come, having reshaped its reputation across the Continent. The ECOWAS court ruling is a prime example.

The Economic Community of West African States is a regional political and economic union of fifteen countries located in West Africa, including the Republic of Cabo Verde. In its judgment, delivered in March 2021, the ECOWAS Court of Justice declared the arrest and detention of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab illegal, ordering his release from further custody. 

ECOWAS quashed the US extradition proceedings against him, and awarded a $200,000 (USD) reparation for the violations of his human rights by Cape Verde. The island responded with defiance saying the court had no jurisdiction and refused to follow any of those findings. 

Cabo Verde put the U.S. mission ahead of its regional relationships and sent a message to ECOWAS members that they have no power, and its time and expertise is meaningless. What will happen when a Cabo Verde representative returns to the court system and its peers refuse to take their advice or rulings on another regional matter? 

Political Smoke and Mirrors

The arrest and detainment of Alex Saab open many questions about true motives. How valuable is this one man, or really, how badly does the U.S. want to win at the game of politics, and what is the cost to the American taxpayer? 

The USS San Jacinto’s deployment was approved by Christopher Miller, the acting defense secretary, to guard Cabo Verde and prevent Alex Saab from leaving. His predecessor, Mark Esper, argued that it was unnecessary to send the warship at the cost of $52,000 a day, and he sent a Coast Guard cutter instead. But after Donald Trump fired Esper, his replacement quickly approved the San Jacinto’s new task.

January 2021, a signal was sent via the media about a possible prisoner exchange. The Director of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Jorge Rodriguez, told the Associated Press, “All points and all issues are on the table,” he said, including the future of six Venezuelan-American oil executives arrested on corruption charges and two former Green Berets caught in a failed attempt to overthrow Maduro.”

This month, Venezuela’s Maduro and the democratic opposition’s Guaido officially commenced meetings in Mexico City.The talks are designed to set the stage for negotiations between the two parties to move forward in the South American country.

The negotiations have allowed for diplomatic support and facilitators. A Russian Facilitator will stand with Maduros team and the opposition’s obvious pick was the U.S. However, the United States said no to the democratic opposition party they have been championing, pushing, and instructing, leaving them to select a second choice, the Netherlands.

Why would the U.S. not want to be at the table to negotiate for human rights and diplomacy? No U.S. official has commented either way to explain the motives for standing down, but nonetheless it’s strange given Venezuela has American political hostages and U.S. sanctions programs have come under fire. 

This week, the Biden administration announced it will review the United States’ broader sanctions policy due to international pressure. President Biden practically admitted to the Wall Street Journal that sanctions are used to tell the world who is in trouble rather than to push people or countries to change. He knows sanctions don’t work and he knows how much collateral damage they cause. 

The case of the US versus Alex Saab is still not over but I’d expect that Cabo Verde will move forward with Saab’s extradition to the US. I also believe it’s very possible Saab will be traded back to Venezuela as part of a deal, used as leverage. 

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

Southeast Asia2 mins 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 –...

Americas4 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 Development8 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,...

Development10 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...

Africa12 hours ago

Money seized from Equatorial Guinea VP Goes into Vaccine

As a classic precedence, the Justice Department of the United States has decided that $26.6m (£20m) seized from Equatorial Guinea’s...

forest forest
Environment14 hours ago

More Than 2.5 Billion Trees to be Conserved, Restored, and Grown by 2030

Companies from across sectors are working to support healthy and resilient forests through the World Economic Forum’s 1t.org trillion tree...

Americas16 hours ago

AUKUS aims to perpetuate the Anglo-Saxon supremacy

On September 15, U.S. President Joe Biden worked with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison...

Trending