Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Biden Regime Argues Texas and Florida Anti-Censorship Laws are a First Amendment Violation

The Biden regime suddenly cares about the First Amendment

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 15, 2023

Presented as an effort to safeguard speech rights, the Biden administration has called on the Supreme Court to dismantle controversial segments of the anti-censorship social media laws ratified in Florida and Texas.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

(President Biden is also using the argument that banning his administration from asking platforms to remove speech is a First Amendment violation.)

The laws in question restrict the autonomy of leading social media platforms by preventing them from censoring citizens speech and discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint.

Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott staunchly support these laws as a means of protecting voices from being suppressed. Governor DeSantis, at the law signing in May 2021, criticized Big Tech’s bias for Silicon Valley ideology and emphasized the need for accountability.

The Texas law, featuring a provision prohibiting discrimination based on viewpoints, incorporates several exceptions, permitting platforms to ban content promoting violence, criminal behavior, child exploitation, and harassment of sexual-abuse survivors and more. The law presses social media platforms to adopt user complaint procedures, disclose content and data management practices, and publish a comprehensive biannual transparency report.

The legislation only applies to platforms attracting over 50 million monthly users.

The Florida law has a similar scope and, in addition, mandates a detailed justification for each content moderation. The legislation also forbids the banning of political contenders or “journalistic enterprises.”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar perceives this as an encroachment on First Amendment rights. She contended in a recent court filing that such laws infringe the liberty of tech giants in selecting, editing, and arranging user-generated content. Essentially, she claimed these actions are all protected under the First Amendment.

Endorsing two industry trade groups that have formally contested the laws, she implored the Supreme Court to scrutinize both measures.

Federal appeals courts, however, are divided over the issue. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has primarily blocked Florida’s legislation, deeming it potentially unconstitutional. Conversely, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit backed the Texas law but held it back to permit an appeal to reach the Supreme Court.

Certainly, both states, as well as the trade groups, are petitioning the Supreme Court to adjudicate on a range of issues concerning the two cases. An announcement of the court’s decision is expected as early as September.

While Prelogar largely aligns with the social media companies, she refrained from endorsing their protest against the “general-disclosure provisions” that require the publishing of content-management policies and production of transparency reports. These issues, she argued, are not the main subject of the lawsuits and high court review would be premature.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Rutgers Set to Disenroll Students on August 15th if Not Compliant with COVID Vaccine Mandates

By Lucia Sinatra | Brownstone Institute | August 14, 2023

On March 25, 2021, Rutgers University became the first university in the nation to announce it would require students to take COVID vaccines for fall 2021 enrollment, retracting its January 8, 2021 announcement that “… with our stance of human liberties and our history of protecting that, the vaccine is not mandatory.” What happened within a few short months that made Rutgers ultimately decide to hell with student civil liberties?

Rutgers claimed and still does to this day that it has a “commitment to health and safety for all members of its community” even though on July 30, 2021, Rochelle Walensky issued a press release claiming that COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. As if that press release is some figment of our imagination, in January 2022, Rutgers announced a booster mandate with a compliance date set for January 31st, leaving students with few options but to comply to stay enrolled.

As of today, Rutgers remains one of less than 100 universities out of 2,679 four-year colleges and universities that refuse to let go of COVID vaccine mandates, and according to anonymous sources, Rutgers is planning to disenroll non-compliant students beginning on August 15, 2023.

Perhaps this dogmatic adherence to COVID vaccine mandates has been a long time coming. In 2020 and 2021, Rutgers had some of the strictest pandemic lockdown restrictions, even when other colleges were finding ways to resume normalcy. Students quickly fell in line and anyone who questioned the lockdown or mask mandates was denounced as an anti-science MAGA supporter and a grandma killer. A former Rutgers student described her experience as being stuck in a maelstrom of fear, divisive partisanship, and social pressure leading her to self-censor rather than jeopardize relationships or lose standing in her beloved community.

When the vaccine distribution began in early 2021, pandemic fears quickly morphed into anger against anyone who dared to question the vaccine’s necessity, safety, and long-term effects. Dozens of classroom conversations were fueled by vaccine talk. Support for the vaccine mandate was seen as virtuous and altruistic, and anyone who had questions quickly learned to keep their mouths shut or else they were given the dreaded anti-vaxxer label, which begs the question that if it was okay for the CDC to announce that the vaccines were not protecting us from contracting the virus and MSM was reporting on it, why wasn’t Rutgers supporting its students so they could feel safe to talk about it?

Meanwhile, Rutgers insisted to its community members that nobody was forced to get vaccinated since they could request an exemption. What they were not advertising was that exemptions were hard to come by. Religious exemptions were mostly denied. Medical exemptions often took months and multiple appeals to be approved, if ever. While the University did give a 90-day extension on booster compliance based on a recent COVID infection, this extension could only be requested once, and any medical exemption requests based on positive antibody titers from prior COVID infections were denied.

One former Rutgers student described his experience requesting a booster exemption after developing significant cardiac issues. He was told explicitly that antibody titers made no difference. His medical exemption request written by his cardiologist was eventually denied after multiple rounds of back-and-forth.  Apparently, the Rutgers Immunization Group, an opaque group of people in charge of handling exemptions, determined this young man’s cardiac issues were not a good enough reason to exempt him from a booster despite emerging data showing COVID vaccines could cause cardiac side effects, especially in young males.

Faculty and staff members at Rutgers arguably had it worse than students as federal Executive Order 14042, signed on September 9, 2021, required that employees of federally contracted entities, including research universities such as Rutgers, be vaccinated against COVID.

On January 4, 2022, Rutgers announced a booster mandate for all community members including employees, even though a booster requirement was not part of the federal mandate. Some employees—all of whom completed primary vaccinations, and most were COVID-recovered—reported that they received threatening notices to comply with the booster mandate stating that “…if you fail to comply with the Executive Order and the University’s requirements, you will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination of employment, but namely termination.”

While the Executive Order provided exemptions for medical or religious reasons, they were also very difficult to attain. As a result, many employees reluctantly complied, and some were forced to resign. The oppressiveness of the employee vaccine mandate also kept many prospective employees from accepting career-changing job offers at Rutgers, despite the administration lamenting about the ongoing labor shortage at the university.

On May 12, 2023, President Biden signed an Executive Order revoking 14042 thereby eliminating Rutgers’ reason for implementing an employee COVID vaccine mandate.  Four days later, Rutgers dropped the booster mandate, yet the employee COVID vaccine mandate remains.

Now, in August 2023, months after the federal government announced the end of the public health emergency, Rutgers is one of a small minority of universities steadfastly holding onto COVID vaccine mandates. The pandemic is nowhere near over at Rutgers, not by a long shot.

Lucia Sinatra is a recovering corporate securities attorney. After becoming a mother, Lucia turned her attention to fighting inequities in public schools in California for students with learning disabilities. She co-founded NoCollegeMandates.com to help fight college vaccine mandates.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Russia’s asymmetric response

Russia’s asymmetric response to latest announced plans of U.S. and NATO for sending more devastating military hardware to Ukraine

By Gilbert Doctorow | August 15, 2023

Each time over the past 18 months that it appeared the Ukraine war was approaching a finale amounting to Kiev’s defeat and capitulation we have been surprised by yet another U.S. initiated escalation that changes the nature of the conflict and promises a new and drawn-out stage of fighting.

Did the Ukrainian counter-offensive which began on 4 June fail?  An increasing number of Western mainstream media including CNN have published reports acknowledging it is a failure. In Washington, the finger pointing game over who ‘lost Ukraine’ has begun among the country’s most determined backers.

Europe is a backwater in more than one dimension. Not everyone here has gotten the word about Ukraine’s losses in two months of desperate attacks on Russian defensive positions across the entire 1,000 km front. Last night I watched a round-table discussion of the war on French television in which not a single panelist had been told that the game is up in Ukraine. These smirky amateurs, mostly garden variety journalists, were discussing the fighting around one or another Ukrainian town on the front line whose name they could barely pronounce, all convinced that the Ukrainian forces had the upper hand and were on their way to breaching the Russian defenses, about to reach the less awesome second line of defense, and were surely to make it through to the Sea of Azov, thereby achieving the basic objective of the entire operation – cutting the Russian supply lines and breaking the back of Russian resistance. The whole time these commentators smiled broadly as if the war were just a video game.

But to hell with the French propagandists. In the German media, mainstream journalists have been seeding the discussion of the war with news about Ukraine’s setbacks and the improbability of their accomplishing anything other than self-destruction as the fighting continues. Simultaneously with the announcement that Germany is about to supply long range reconnaissance drones to Kiev, Chancellor Olaf Scholz called for “continuation” of peace negotiations. It is curious that no one told him there are no peace negotiations going on today. But the main point is that victory on the battlefield seems to have vanished from the Berlin discourse.

Nonetheless, the United States and Britain announce day after day new appropriations for delivery of military hardware of the most devastating sort to Ukraine. Abrams tanks are on the way. Longer range strike missiles with a range up to 500 km may soon be shipped. Biden in the past week inserted authorization for another 14 billion dollars in military supplies into a bill for provision of aid to victims of natural disasters, meaning the present disaster in Hawaii and elsewhere in the States. The tactic was meant to overcome rising Republican opposition to giving Ukraine one more cent of aid should the aid have been in a separate bill dedicated to the war effort. The drumbeats for provision of F16s to Ukraine continue and there is talk of preparing new Ukrainian troops for a renewed counter-offensive in 2024.

So what are the Russians doing about the new arms on the way to Ukraine?

An article posted in Russian social media and carried by the number one news portal, Dzen, formerly a subsidiary of Yandex, gives us a good insight into Russian countermeasures that otherwise are buried in general daily Western reporting on the war. We hear about air raid alerts across Ukraine which took place a day ago but there is no explanation. We hear about a Russian missile strike that killed a young Ukrainian family but are told it is just part of the Russian attacks on civilians.

The article posted on “Интересная жизнь с Vera Star” makes sense of it all.

First, those air raid sirens across the whole of Ukraine were related to the systematic Russian bombardment of all still functional Ukrainian airports from which their air force’s SU-24 and SU-27 can operate. These are the aircraft that are capable of carrying and firing the Storm Shadow and other long range missiles that have been supplied by Britain and France, and which may carry German missiles, if Berlin decides to proceed with its previous offer of such materiel.

Second, we are told that the Russians have just used Kinzhal hypersonic missiles to destroy the railway tunnels passing under the Carpathians which have been the main supply route of Western military hardware arriving from Poland and Romania. For a long time, there was discussion in the Russian senior military command over whether it was permissible to attack this ostensibly civilian infrastructure. However, the decision was taken to do so in light of the latest U.S. and NATO plans to raise the bar in what attack equipment they are providing to Ukraine. As the Russians argue, civilian infrastructure that is being used to serve military objectives automatically becomes a legal target for them.

By Russian calculations, they have now nullified the latest Western plans to prolong the war.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 2 Comments

Western military dominance ‘has ended’ – Moscow

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu © Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation; RIA Novosti
RT | August 15, 2023

Asian, African and Latin American states have seen their role in the global arena increase as Western military dominance has started to wane, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said.

Speaking at the 21st International Security Conference in Moscow on Tuesday, the minister argued that Russia’s military operation in Ukraine has “put an end to the dominance of the collective West in the military sphere.”

“Just as the defeat of fascism by the Red Army in Europe in the last century gave a powerful impetus to anti-colonial movements throughout the world, so will the defeat of the Ukrainian neo-fascists supported by the West serve as a factor in counteracting modern neo-colonialism,” Shoigu said.

The minister noted that Russia is currently fighting “not just the armed forces of Ukraine, but the entire collective West,” which, he added, has recently been joined by several states from the Asia-Pacific region.

In its confrontations with Kiev’s forces, which have been provided with foreign weaponry worth billions of dollars, Russia has dispelled many myths about the superiority of Western military standards, Shoigu said. It has become clear that the use of Western weapons and supposedly advanced NATO tactics and training “cannot ensure superiority on the battlefield,” he added.

The minister also claimed that Kiev’s foreign advisers are essentially using the Ukraine conflict as a testing ground for various military strategies involving Western weapons, while President Vladimir Zelensky supplies the manpower for these experiments. Shoigu said the losses among Ukrainian military personnel are being disregarded by Ukraine’s Western backers.

The Russian minister also claimed that Ukraine’s military resources are almost completely exhausted, according to preliminary estimates. Russia’s Defense Ministry had previously reported that since launching their counteroffensive operation in early June, Ukraine’s forces had lost some 43,000 soldiers as well as nearly 5,000 pieces of heavy equipment, including dozens of Western tanks and combat vehicles.

Shoigu suggested that the US is using the Ukraine conflict to line the pockets of its defense industry by forcing its partners in Europe to procure new products to replace those they have sent to Kiev.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Summer of Fraying Threads

By William Schryver – imetatronink – August 14, 2023

On April 23, 2021, I wrote the following:

“Ukraine has two options: accept its role as a buffer state, or be dismembered. If the US goads them into an attempt to subjugate the Donbass, Russia will slice away eastern Ukraine and assimilate it — and there is *nothing* the US can do to prevent it.”

Of course, we all know what has happened since then. And now, as the summer of 2023 slips away here on our increasingly vexed planet, I note the following salient developments:

1) The empire’s proxy war in Ukraine is a lost cause, and Russia will emerge from it exceedingly stronger than when it began.

Matters have reached the point where the imperial masters will be forced to choose between a humiliating disengagement and abandonment of Ukraine to its fate — or otherwise blunder into a calamitous direct military intervention.

In recent months, many of the most influential voices in Russia have reiterated the demands made of the NATO bloc in December 2021: it must withdraw its military forces to their pre-1997 posture.

NATO presence in and military support for Ukraine must cease forthwith; Ukraine must be entirely demilitarized, and a neutral regime must be installed in whatever Ukrainian rump state the Russians choose to leave unrestored to mother Russia.

Additionally — and this demand has been explicitly stated — American missiles must immediately be removed from Poland and Romania, and NATO military presence in all the Russia-adjacent nations must be withdrawn.

Many geopolitical analysts have commented to a limited degree on Putin’s address to the world delivered even as Russian forces had commenced their “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, but few, if any, have focused their attention on the equally portentous address Putin delivered three days earlier.

In his February 21, 2022 speech, Putin meticulously recounted the relevant history of the region dating back multiple centuries, and focused specifically on the events that followed in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In addition to Putin’s history lesson, he makes particular reference to a detailed proposal Russia delivered to the United States and its NATO allies in mid-December 2021 — a proposal that effectively amounted to a “final warning”; a last-ditch effort to avoid war in Ukraine.

Consider his words carefully, and especially in light of how Russia has unswervingly adhered to the three primary war objectives Putin articulated in his February 24th speech.

Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states.

The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray.

We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc’s military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.

Vladimir Putin, Address by the President of the Russian Federation, February 21, 2022 (emphasis added)

Clearly, the Russians are emboldened by both their burgeoning military strength as well as NATO’s manifest military debility.

This war has achieved precisely the opposite effect envisioned by its imperious authors: it has served to strengthen Russia, and also forged an unbeatable alliance between Russia, China, and Iran.

That said, I cannot shake the haunting worry that the Empire At All Costs cult may yet succeed in persuading the powers-that-be in the Pentagon to test the myth of American military supremacy against what was so long imagined to be Russian military ineptitude.

I believe we will see the answer to that question between now and the vernal equinox in March 2024.

2) Like its new allies in Russia and Iran, China has now declared in unmistakable terms that it will no longer abide by the arbitrary “rules-based international order”.

They will no longer tolerate US meddling in Taiwan, nor permit the US to dictate the geopolitical relationships of the nations in east Asia and the western Pacific.

The days of a patient and grudgingly submissive China have come to an end.

To punctuate this reality, we have recently seen the unprecedented development of joint Russia/China naval patrols in the Pacific — including off the coast of Alaska.

In other words, we have well and truly arrived at a hinge point in time.

The first global empire in human history has long-since receded from its high-water mark and is now in rapid and increasingly chaotic decline.

“I have touched the highest point of all my greatness; And, from that full meridian of my glory, I haste now to my setting …”

Great dangers and momentous changes lie ahead — some in the relatively near future; some not far over the horizon.

Prepare accordingly …

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

What Is Happening In Syria?

Washington’s interventionism and its disregard for its own highly promoted “rules based international order” is outrageous

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • AUGUST 15, 2023

Which are the governments generally regarded as “rogue” by an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations? If you answered either Russia or China you would be wrong, even though many countries have condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine on grounds that no government has an intrinsic right to invade another unless there is an imminent serious threat that would excuse such an intervention. I would however expect that most readers of this review would have made the right choice, which is that the United States is probably number one based on its ability to destabilize whole regions with a military reach that spans the globe. And indeed, it is important to note that the Russian “special military operation” directed against Ukraine would not have happened at all if the Joe Biden Administration had simply indicated clearly and non-ambiguously to the Russian government that there was no intention of allowing Ukraine to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance. Ironically, the White House knew very well that inviting Kiev to enter into the alliance was a legitimate red-line, existential issue for the Kremlin, but opted to push hard on the issue instead. Instead of opting for a negotiated peaceful settlement, Biden and his clown show foreign and national security policy team opted to kill possibly hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to somehow “weaken” Russia, an intention that has borne no fruit even after more than a year and a half of fighting.

So yes, by the world’s reckoning the United States of American is both “exceptional” and “number one,” which a series of White House inhabitants have aspired to, though perhaps not in the same way as buffoons like Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz refer to it. Most non-Americans see the US as the greatest threat to world peace. And then there is America’s “closest ally and best friend in the whole world” Israel in second place, a government which commits crimes against humanity and even war crimes on a nearly daily basis with absolute impunity as it is protected and defended by the very same United States, where the Jewish state runs the foremost and most powerful foreign policy lobby. It is a lobby that has inserted itself in all levels of government and which has corrupted huge majorities of politicians and both major political parties while also controlling the “message” on the Middle East promoted by the media.

Even as I write this, 41 Democratic Party politicians are spending their recess on a Lobby sponsored trip to Israel. Their leaders include the inimitable traitor 80 year old Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who is on his twenty-third trip to the country that he loves and admires beyond all others, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Jeffries is on his second trip to Israel this year. He should be ashamed but, of course, isn’t. It is the largest-ever delegation of Democratic lawmakers on a tour of Israel, sponsored in this case by the American Israel Education Foundation, an affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Not to be outdone House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is leading 31 Republican Congressmen on the same mission though the groups will not mingle and the speaker will be careful to render his own obeisance separately to the Israeli leadership.

The Democrats and Republicans, will as always be unable to enunciate any good reasons for American bondage to Israel beyond bromides like “Israel has a right to defend itself,” which will be repeated over and over before the Solons head back to Washington to send billions more of US taxpayer dollars to the Jewish state. While in Israel they will be fed a special diet of “all Arabs are terrorists” and good old Steny will be nodding his head in time with the song. That is before he and his colleagues engage in crawling on their bellies before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a sign of their total submission to his will.

If one is seeking a single example of the failure of the United States and its ally Israel to abide by the clearly mythical “rules based international order” one might well examine what is going on in Syria, where both the US and the Jewish state have been punishing the country through lethal sanctions and direct military intervention for many years with no sign that the interaction will be ending any time soon. The activity is rarely reported in the US and European media, which somehow has decided that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is some kind of tyrant who deserves whatever he gets, even if it is dished out by “apartheid” Israel and the clueless US, which has been illegally militarily occupying roughly one third of Syria since 2015, including the areas that have producing oil facilities and good agricultural land, both of which are being exploited or stolen. Israel meanwhile has annexed the Syrian Golan Heights, which it occupied in 1967. Donald Trump gave his blessing to the illegal annexation and also gave his consent to whatever the Jewish state decides to do both with the Syrians and the Palestinians while also conniving at the nearly daily air attacks carried out by Israel against targets in both Palestine-Gaza and Syria, killing scores of local soldiers and civilians.

The US military occupation has been supplemented by an increasingly harsh series of sanctions that have effectively cut off food, medicines and other basic commodities to the Syrian people while also denying access to international banking services. Russia, which is assisting Syria at the invitation of the country’s government, has made up for some of the shortages but there is considerable suffering among the ordinary people, not the country’s leaders. The claim by Washington is that Syria has to be protected from its own “totalitarian” government and the US is there to fight terrorists, most particularly ISIS. Ironically perhaps, but Tel Aviv and Washington actually support some of the groups that many would consider to be themselves terrorists, including providing direct US aid to al-Qaeda clone Hayat Tahrir al Sham and Israeli support for ISIS to include treating wounded terrorists in Israel’s hospitals. The US air base at Al-Tanf, near the border with Iraq and Jordan, has, in fact, become a support hub for terrorist groups opposing the al-Assad government.

Sanctions on energy imports were temporarily lifted by the US and EU after the disastrous earthquakes the shook the region in February, but in June, US lawmakers introduced the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act of 2023 which would use secondary sanctions to penalize those countries that might be tempted to help restore services to the areas of Syria affected by both war and the impact of the quakes. Israel reportedly has exploited the opportunity provided by the natural disaster to increase its air attacks on Syrian infrastructure.

Indeed, recent history tells us that both Israel and the United States are particularly fond of occupying someone else’s land and are capable of coming up with excuses for doing so at the drop of a hat. The reasons generally sound like saying “Hey! We are the good guys who support democracy!” Repeat as necessary until the audience either goes to sleep or wanders off. The western media reporting on what is taking place in Syria can be regarded as being in the “wanders off” category.

I certainly am not the only one who has noted that the United States tends to do everything ass-backwards in its conduct of foreign policy since the time of the Clintons. That has certainly been the case in dealing with nations like Syria and Russia, where ambassadors Robert Ford and Michael McFaul were openly hostile to the respective local governments and openly sought to empower declared opponents of the countries’ leaders. Syria presumably was demonized to please Israel, beginning with the seeking to destabilize Syria through the passage of the Syria Accountability Act in 2003, even though Damascus posed no threat whatsoever to American interests. The current sanctions come at a time when Syria is continuing to struggle to rebuild after a still active twelve year civil war that destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure. US sanctions are making more difficult ongoing reconstruction efforts and are de facto largely punishing the Syrian people, with only minor impact on its government.

And sanctioning to punish Syria is bipartisan, perhaps reflecting a desire to satisfy Israeli demands. Donald Trump, who ran for president pledging to end America’s pointless wars overseas, on June 17th 2020 nevertheless initiated new sanctions against Syria and its government. US Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft informed the Security Council that the Trump Administration would implement the measures to “prevent the Assad regime from securing a military victory. Our aim is to deprive the Assad regime of the revenue and the support it has used to commit the large-scale atrocities and human rights violations that prevent a political resolution and severely diminish the prospects for peace.”

Subsequently, the most recent block of sanctions was imposed through the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, signed by President Trump in December 2020 after he was due to leave office, with the objective of stopping “bad actors who continue to aid and finance the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people while simply enriching themselves.” At that time, the existing US sanctions on Syria had already frozen all government assets and had also targeted companies and even individuals. The new sanctions gave the White House and Treasury the power to apply so-called “secondary sanctions” to freeze the assets of any entity or even individual, regardless of nationality, for doing any business in Syria. The threat of secondary sanctions have in fact had a major negative impact on Damascus’s remaining trading partners, to include Lebanon and Iran. Russia might also be impacted as it is involved in Syrian reconstruction.

The United States and Israel clearly hope that punitive sanctions will eventually force the starving Syrian people to rise up against the government, as some sought to do during the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. That means that a sanctions routine, much favored by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, never succeeds in compelling rogue governments to behave better because the way it works it is always really about regime change no matter how it is packaged. In the case of Syria, and contrary to the claims made by Ambassador Craft at the United Nations, the Bashar al-Assad government has already won the war in spite of US and Turkish intervention on behalf of the largely terrorist group supported insurgency. And the evidence for Syria’s having carried out “large scale atrocities and human rights violations” has mostly been manufactured by enemies of the government, to include the Hollywood and Washington think tank favorite, the White Helmets, a terrorist front group funded at least in part by western intelligence agencies, which was featured in a self-generated documentary that won a Hollywood Motion Pictures Academy Award in 2017. The film was effusively praised by the usual celebrity brain-deads including Hillary Clinton and George Clooney. It is indeed overall a very impressive piece of propaganda. The National Holocaust Museum even gave the coveted 2019 Elie Wiesel Award to the group. The White Helmets are still active in Syria in areas that are still held by the so-called rebels and they featured in a film clip just last week. They are still being funded by western governments and Israel to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad.

One might well ask what the US objective in continuing to promote the carnage and suffering in a Syria that poses no threat to Americans or to any vital security interests. It is similar to a question that might well be raised regarding Ukraine, which is confronting an unneeded escalation of 3,000 US military reservists to reinforce the 20,000 American soldiers that have arrived in theater since February 2022. And then there is Iran, which responded to its oil tankers being hijacked in international waters under the unilaterally imposed authority granted by US sanctions. Iran has sought to respond in kind and now the US will dispatch Marines to the Persian Gulf to ride shotgun on foreign tankers and other commercial vessels traversing the Straits of Hormuz. If Iranian vessels come too close, they will shoot to kill. It is another escalation that is asking for trouble. Why can’t the United States leave the rest of the world alone? That is perhaps the fundamental question for our times.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Why’s US Media Talking About Nigerien General Moussa Barmou All Of A Sudden?

From Bazoum To Barmou

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 15, 2023

American media’s narrative about last month’s regime change in Niger has conspicuously shifted since Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s trip to Niamey last week. Prior to then, most information products aggressively supported Nigerian-led ECOWAS’ threatened invasion aimed at reinstalled ousted leader Mohamed Bazoum. Ever since she revealed that the US is “pushing for a negotiated solution”, however, attention has turned towards General Moussa Barmou.

NBC News’ Report

The Wall Street Journal began the trend two days after her visit in a paywalled article here, but it wasn’t until NBC News’ piece on Monday headlined “Blindsided: Hours before the coup in Niger, U.S. diplomats said the country was stable” that the public at large was introduced to him. Its subtitle about how “An American-trained general whom U.S. military officials considered a close ally backed the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected president” was a reference to Barmou. Here’s what they reported:

“U.S. military officials believed that the head of the Nigerien Special Forces, Gen. Moussa Salaou Barmou, their close ally, was going along with the other military leaders to keep the peace. They noted that in a video showing the coup leaders on the first day, Barmou was in the back of the group with his head down and his face mostly hidden.

Less than two weeks later, Barmou met with a U.S. delegation in Niamey, led by acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and expressed support for the coup and delivered a sobering message: If any outside military force tried to interfere in Niger, the coup leaders would kill President Bazoum. ‘That was crushing,’ said a U.S. military official who has worked with Barmou in recent years. ‘We were holding out hope with him.’

Not only had Barmou worked with top U.S. military leaders for years, but he was also trained by the U.S. military and attended the prestigious National Defense University in Washington, D.C.  Last week, sitting across from U.S. officials who had come to trust him, Barmou refused to release Bazoum, calling him illegitimate and insisting that the coup leaders had the popular support of the Nigerien people. Nuland later said the conversations were ‘quite difficult.’”

The unnamed US military source who said that “We were holding out hope with him” spilled the beans about the way in which their country intended to control Niger by proxy. The Pentagon thought that cultivating the chief of that country’s special forces would be sufficient for preventing a coup, but Barmou decided to go along with it because he knew better than they did how genuinely popular it was. His “defection” from American proxy to patriot ensured this surprise regime change’s success.

Politico’s Report

The next US media report of relevance was published the day later by Politico and was about how “The U.S. spent years training Nigerien soldiers. Then they overthrew their government.” It builds upon Barmou’s biography that was introduced by NBC News and can therefore be conceptualized as the second step of an ongoing information campaign intended to inform Americans more about him. Here’s what they had to say about this top Nigerien military official:

“Brig. Gen Moussa Barmou, the American-trained commander of the Nigerien special operations forces, beamed as he embraced a senior U.S. general visiting the country’s $100 million, Washington-funded drone base in June. Six weeks later, Barmou helped oust Niger’s democratically elected president.

…

Retired Maj. Gen. J. Marcus Hicks, who served as the commander of U.S. Special Operations Forces Africa from 2017 to 2019, says he was instantly impressed by Barmou. The Nigerien general speaks perfect English, and attended multiple English language and military training courses at bases in the United States over nearly two decades, including at Fort Benning, Georgia, and the National Defense University.

Hicks and Barmou developed a friendship. They had many long conversations over dinner about the influx of extremists into Niger, and how difficult it was for Barmou to see his country deteriorate in recent years, said Hicks. ‘He’s the kind of guy that gives you hope for the future of the country, so that makes this doubly disappointing,’ said Hicks. It was ‘disheartening and disturbing’ to learn that Barmou was involved in the coup.

As its neighbors fell like dominos to military coups over the last two years, Niger — and Barmou himself — remained the last bastion of hope for the U.S. military partnership in the region. He ‘was a good partner, a trusted partner,’ said a U.S. official familiar with the U.S.-Niger military relationship. ‘But local dynamics, local politics, just trump whatever the international community may or may not want.’

It’s not clear whether Barmou was initially involved in plotting the coup, which is believed to have been spearheaded by Gen. Abdourahamane Tchiani, the head of Bazoum’s presidential guard. Tchiani and his men reportedly took the president captive because Tchiani believed he was going to be pushed out of his job. But soon after, Nigerien military leaders including Barmou endorsed the putsch.”

Politico’s piece serves to raise maximum awareness of just how much the Pentagon trusted Barmou, which humanizes him in the eyes of their targeted audience, who likely hitherto thought that he was either a greedy wannabe despot or a pro-Russian anti-Western ideologue. Upon learning that he was America’s closest ally in Niger, they’ll be more inclined to support Nuland’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis via some sort of compromise than back the use of force at the risk of sparking a regional war.

Le Figaro’s Report

NBC News and Politico’s back-to-back pieces about Barmou were published a week after Nuland returned from Niger, which gave the US’ permanent policymaking bureaucracies enough time to decide their next move. During that time, an unnamed diplomatic source told Le Figaro in an article published on Sunday the day before NBC News’ that they feared the US might backstab France. According to them, the US could tacitly recognize the interim military-led government if they get to retain their bases.

The next day on Monday, which coincided with the release of NBC News’ report about Barmou that was conceptualized in this analysis as the first step of an ongoing information campaign intended to inform Americans more about him, the US publicly balked at the ECOWAS invasion scenario. State Department principal deputy spokesman Vedant Patel said that “military intervention should be a last resort”, thus extending credence to Le Figaro’s report after its diplomatic source correctly foresaw the US’ new stance.

From “Francafrique” To “Amerafrique”

This sequence of events suggests that the US might offer Niger’s interim military-led government a deal whereby they’d tacitly recognize these new authorities and order ECOWAS to call off its invasion in exchange for that country retaining its bases and declining to embrace Russia/Wagner as explained here. In this scenario, the US’ backtracking on its prior demands to reinstall Bazoum could be attributed to its trust of Barmou’s assessment that the coup truly channeled the will of the Nigerien people.

NBC News and Politico’s pieces also included information about Niger’s importance for the US’ African strategy, which preconditions the public to expect that the White House could resort to the national security exception for not cutting off military aid to that post-coup state per its domestic legal obligation. In that event, the US would seamlessly replace France’s traditional security role there while preventing the emergence of a void that could have otherwise been filled by Russia/Wagner.

If post-coup Niger successfully transitions from France’s “sphere of influence” in Africa (“Francafrique”) to America’s (“Amerafrique”), then the US might weaponize the model that it opportunistically improvised after the latest surprising turn of events to export it to other former French colonies. Those that experience a grassroots surge of anti-French sentiment might also undergo coups by former US-trained military leaders, who’d then negotiate similar deals as the previously mentioned one.

The US could offer to replace France’s scandalous security role in their countries together with preventing an ECOWAS invasion in exchange for their new interim military-led governments offering it a share of the previously French-dominated market and declining to embrace Russia/Wagner. In this way, the US could manage revolutionary trends in the region and actually benefit from them if it replicates the model that it’s presently experimenting with in Niger via Barmou’s envisaged bridge role.

This insight answers the question of why US media is talking about him all of a sudden in the week after Nuland’s trip to Niamey. They’re warming average Americans up to the scenario of Barmou functioning as a bridge between their countries after the coup. Since he chose to go along with the regime change instead of stop it, the US’ new hope is that he’ll convince his superiors to accept the deal that was described, which could then form the basis for a model that might later be exported across the region.

The Latin American Precedent

The US would prefer for France to manage Africa on the West’s behalf per the “Lead From Behind” stratagem of “burden-sharing” in the New Cold War, but if its military-strategic withdrawal is inevitable due to rising anti-imperialist trends, then it’s better for America to replace its role than Russia/Wagner. To that end, it might soon support anti-French coups by US-trained military leaders in order to corral populist sentiment in a geostrategically safe direction that avoids creating space for its rivals.

This is similar to what it’s recently begun doing in Latin America after the Democrats started supporting leftist-liberal movements like those in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia, which led to Lula’s PT becoming the posterchild of this so-called “compatible left” project, in order to not lose control of regional processes. It’s precisely this precedent that’s arguably influencing the formulation of America’s new “bait-and-switch” approach towards seemingly inevitable socio-political changes in “Franceafrique” as well.

Concluding Thoughts

Circling back to the lede, Americans are suddenly learning more about Barmou because the US is likely exploring the possibility of employing this trusted pre-coup partner as a bridge with Niger in the hope that he convinces his superiors to agree to a “negotiated solution”. If the Latin American model for corralling populist sentiment is replicated by the US in Niger, albeit accounting for “Francafrique’s” coup-prone conditions, then this modified method might eventually be weaponized across the entire region.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Dissent Channel, Afghanistan and Confidentiality

By Peter Van Buren | We Meant Well | August 7, 2023

Something quite significant in U.S. diplomatic history is going to take place — a State Department Dissent Channel message, concerning the evacuation and withdrawal from Afghanistan, is going to be shared with Members of Congress.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul announced his panel investigating the final days of American presence in Afghanistan will view the Dissent Channel cable. McCaul threatened to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt if he did not provide him access to the diplomatic cable, which came from a confidential “dissent channel” that allowed State Department officials to discuss views which may be different from  administration policy.

It is believed the July 2021 cable discussed concerns from the rank-and-file diplomatic staff not fully shared by senior embassy executives and management about the upcoming American pullout from the country, warning the U.S.-backed Afghan government could fall. The cable specifically advised an earlier withdrawal date than that ultimately chosen by the Biden Administration, and may have addressed the decision to conduct the entire evacuation from a single civilian airport in Kabul.

So what is the Dissent Channel and why is this particular cable so important?

The Dissent Channel was set up in 1971 during the Vietnam War era as a way for foreign service officers and civil servants at State (as well as United States Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the former United States Information Agency) to raise concerns with senior management about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, without fear of retribution. The cables (formal, official State internal communications are still referred to as “cables” harking back to early diplomatic days when telegrams were used to communicate between Washington and embassies abroad) are sent to the State Department’s policy planning director, who distributes them to the secretary of state and other top officials, who must respond within 30 to 60 days. There are typically about five to ten each year. “Discouragement of, or penalties for use of, the Dissent Channel are impermissible,” according to the State Department internal regulations.

Use of the Channel covers the scope of diplomatic mission. Historical messages include a dissent over the executive branch’s decision to “initiate no steps to discipline a military unit that took action at My Lai” in Vietnam and the “systematic use of electrical torture, beatings, and in some cases, murder, of men, women, and children by military units in Vietnam.” These actions by U.S. soldiers were “atrocities too similar to those of Nazis.” Another dissent was over the “hypocritical” U.S. support of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, bemoaning that the U.S. missed a “unique opportunity to intervene for once on the right repeat right side” of history. One older atypical dissent cable complained about having to arrange female companionship in Honduras for a visiting U.S. congressman. In the words of one now-declassified cable, “The Dissent Channel can be a mechanism for unclogging the Department’s constipated paper flow” related to employee dissent against current foreign policy actions.

What the Channel does is one thing; who gets to see it is another. Until now, dissent messages have generally been regarded as something sacrosanct not to be shown to outsiders and not to be leaked. “Release and public circulation of Dissent Channel messages,” State wrote to one inquirer,” would inhibit the willingness of Department personnel to avail themselves of the Dissent Channel to express their views freely.” The messages were first withheld from the rest of government (and the public) by State under the rules which created the system, and later under the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) “predecisional” Exemption 5, until the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act amendments made it illegal for agencies to use this exemption after 25 years. So sharing the Afghan dissent cable with Members of Congress, especially so soon after the administration’s evacuation policy failed in Afghanistan, is a very big deal at the State Department.

One publicized exception to how closely held dissent messages are took place in 2017 when nearly a thousand State Department Foreign Service Officers signed a five page dissent message opposing President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which prohibited seven additional Muslim nationalities from entering the U.S., aka “The Muslim Ban.” As a result of an anti-Trump contingent inside generally liberal and mostly Democratic-leaning State, the message was leaked in its entirety. Even more against precedent, Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer issued an extraordinary public rebuke to the diplomats: “These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? They should either get with the program or they can go.”

An almost-leak (a State Department official provided a draft, though the final version was not published, to The New York Times) took place in 2016 during the Trump-Clinton presidential election, after 51 Foreign Service Officers criticized the Obama administration via the Dissent Channel for failing to do enough to protect civilians in Syria in what was widely seen as an endorsement of Candidate Hillary’s pseudo-promise to put U.S. boots on the ground in Syria. Other Trump-era dissent cables not shared outside the Department called for consultations on Trump’s removal from office, and rebuked the secretary of state for not forcefully condemning the president over January 6.

To fully understand what the Dissent Channel is requires a better understanding of the State Department culture, academic in nature but frighteningly risk adverse. The academic side reflects the Department’s modern origins as being made up of those who were “male, pale, and Yale” where the tradition of loyal opposition holds sway. But it is the risk adverse side of State that tells how important and internally revealing the Afghan cable is. Dissent messages are signed, no anonymous ones allowed, and while Secretary Blinken has promised to not show the names of those who signed the Afghan cable to Congress, State senior management will know exactly who wrote what.

In addition, Dissent Channel messages must still be cleared for transmission to the secretary of state in Washington at post, though there is no requirement everyone agree with the contents per se (authorization does not imply concurrence.) So one’s colleagues know who wrote what, potential dynamite in an organization where dissent is otherwise not encouraged and corridor reputation plays a deciding role in promotions and future assignments. It is a significant step to write or sign a dissent cable and despite the regulations’ admonishment that use of the Dissent Channel not be discouraged by supervisors, it is discouraged.

Nobody in Embassy Kabul who signed that dissent message, basically telling their boss the ambassador and the Biden Administration they were wrong, expected to have their opinions shown to Congress; quite the opposite. Blinken, by sharing the cable with Congress, is breaking faith with his institution and with his front line workers in a uncollegial way only imagined by them during the Trump administration. Once upon a time something like that would have called for dissent.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Pakistan’s Reported Suspension Of Russian Crude Oil Imports Was The Regime’s “Parting Gift”

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 15, 2023

The News International cited unnamed sources on Sunday to report that Pakistan suspended its import of Russian crude oil on the pretext that it’s not affordable to refine despite its lower price due to the lesser amount of petroleum that’s produced when compared to competitors’ crude. The problem with this explanation is that these refining differences were known ahead of time but the whole point in importing Russian crude was to get it at a lower price and reduce dependence on the Gulf Kingdoms.

Former Petroleum Minister Musadik Malik, who the abovementioned report claimed had insisted in vain on his country’s companies importing more Russian crude, earlier envisaged Moscow providing over one-third of his country’s needs. Nevertheless, it also deserves mentioning that he was reported to have told the National Assembly last week that Pakistan planned to officially pull out of its decade-old gas pipeline deal with Iran under pressure from US sanctions in spite of this project’s promising potential.

The precedent is therefore established for suspecting that US sanctions might also have played a role in Pakistan’s reported decision shortly thereafter to suspend its Russian crude oil imports too. Taken together, the impression is that the fascist post-modern coup regime that was installed after former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s (IK) scandalous ouster in April 2022 decided to destroy any hopes of energy security and the sovereignty it entails as their “parting gift” around the time of parliament’s dissolution.

This development is supposed to precede the next elections by 90 days, but there might be a delay since the latest census results require redrawing constituencies, which might not be completed within the next three months. In any case, the point is that IK’s replacements left a legacy of energy insecurity and lost sovereignty, not to mention economic collapse and the de facto imposition of martial law. The first two consequences are the most relevant to this analysis and will therefore be elaborated further.

The Intercept published a leaked copy of the Pakistani cable from March 2022 sent by its former Ambassador to the US warning about American pressure over Russia. His interlocutor, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Donald Lu, made no secret of the fact that the US considered IK’s energy-driven ties with Russia to be a threat to its national security. For that reason, Washington signaled that it wanted him gone otherwise there’d be severe consequences for Pakistan.

IK’s subsequent removal a little over one month later predictably led to his replacements dillydallying on the strategic energy deal that he sought to advance during his trip to Moscow in late February 2022. Although they eventually imported a test shipment of Russian oil earlier this summer, the over year-long delay between his meeting with President Putin and their purchase was suspicious. It now appears in hindsight that the only purpose of going through with this was to push a domestic political agenda.

The regime probably never intended to implement Musadik’s ambitious plans but instead sought American permission for the previously mentioned purchase solely to claim that it supposedly proves that they weren’t installed by the US as punishment for IK’s Russia policy. Following this first-ever import and the superficial fulfilment of their soft power objective, they then spent the rest of the summer sending false signals to Russia that they were on the brink of finally reaching that strategic energy deal.

It can only be speculated whether the former Petroleum Minister was in on this plot or if he sincerely came along to realizing the wisdom of IK’s plans in this respect and truly wanted them to succeed, but that doesn’t change the ultimate outcome either way. At the end of the day, Pakistan strung Russian experts and negotiators along for over a year despite nothing coming of the latter’s efforts, which they continued in good faith with the intent of strengthening their partner’s energy security and sovereignty.

Pakistan’s reported suspension of Russian crude oil imports probably also dooms their plans for the Pakistan Stream gas pipeline, which was supposed to become the flagship Russian project in Pakistan and an anchor for more future investments. The Kremlin might not want to waste any more time negotiating with Islamabad after feeling like it was just fooled for over a full year, and the bad blood between them over these two failed deals could prevent their ties from ever becoming strategic.

Private businessmen will still try to scale real-sector trade between their countries, and ties will remain cordial at the official level, including at multilateral fora on Afghanistan and other issues of shared interests. What’s expected to change, however, is that Russia will no longer continue to treat Pakistan like a potential strategic partner after this debacle. In practice, it won’t consider that country worth the opportunity cost of investing its time in at the expense of expanding ties with more serious partners.

Its finite human resources are better invested in Africa nowadays, whose countries are sincere in their desire for strategic relations with Russia, unlike Pakistan which just wasted over a year dillydallying on a strategic energy deal only to ignominiously abandon it on a misleading pretext. The fascist post-modern coup regime’s “parting gift” to the Pakistani people around the time of parliament’s dissolution ahead of likely rigged elections was that they killed the chance for strategic relations with Russia once and for all.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. Admits Existence of US Biolabs in Ukraine

Sputnik – 15.08.2023

WASHINGTON – The United States has established bio-laboratories in Ukraine as part of programs involving biological weapons, said Robert Kennedy Jr, a Democratic Party presidential candidate.

“We have bio-labs in Ukraine because we are developing bioweapons, and these weapons involve all sorts of cutting-edge synthetic biology technologies like CRISPR and genetic engineering methods that were not available to the previous generation,” the politician said.

He noted that in 2001, the US began investing heavily in bioweapons again, but had concerns because “violating the Geneva Convention is a crime,” so it transferred management of biological security to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Kennedy added that the development of any biological weapon requires a vaccine, since there is a “100 percent chance” of blowback when bioweapons are used.

In a stunning revelation from February 2022, the Russian Defense Ministry unveiled the presence of 30 military biological labs in Ukraine, allegedly funded by the US with a staggering $200 million. Moscow claimed that these were only a fraction of a global network of 300 similar facilities. The US denied the allegations, escalating tensions between the two nations.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

US leaked cable on Pakistan fits a pattern

By Uriel Araujo | August 15, 2023

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, has been found guilty of corruption, sentenced to three years in prison, and arrested. In 2022, amid a constitutional crisis, he was removed from office after the April 10 no-confidence motion. In August the same year, after accusing the judiciary and the police of detaining and torturing his close aide, Imran Khan was charged with anti-terror laws for allegedly making threats against state officials in Islamabad. This year, on May 9 he was arrested by paramilitary forces – and this sparked nation-wide protests.

Khan has always accused the Pakistani military of having played a role in his 2022 removal from office, and his followers, once again enraged, claim his recent sentencing is far from unbiased. To add fuel to the fire, it has come to light that a month before the no-confidence motion, the US State Department encouraged Islamabad on March 7, 2022, to remove Khan as Prime Minister over his neutral stance on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This stance was indeed reversed after his removal.

A secret Pakistani diplomatic cable (a “cipher”, as it is called) which was obtained by the Intercept discusses the meeting between Asad Majeed Khan, the Pakistani ambassador to the US at the time, and American State Department authorities, including Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. The meeting between the US officials and the Pakistani ambassador had long been the subject of speculation and controversy, in the context of Pakistan’s power struggle between the former Prime Minister supporters and the country’s military.

According to the leaked cable, during the meeting Lu said: “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine).” He added: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister.” “Otherwise,” he went on: “I think it will be tough going ahead”, adding that Pakistan could face “isolation” by the US and by European powers.

The day before the meeting, Khan basically called for a non-aligned stance and sovereign pragmatism. He said: “we are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.” On the same occasion, rhetorically addressing Western powers, he asked: “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?”

The document basically shows that, amid a heated Pakistani crisis, Washington pressured Islamabad to go ahead specifically with a no-confidence motion (which it did), threatening the country with isolation. So far one can only speculate on how much weight such pressure carried in the eyes of Pakistani political elites. It is not too far-fetched to assume it carried some.

Donald Lu’s incredibly arrogant tone (“all will be forgiven in Washington”) is reminiscent of US diplomat Victoria Nuland’s infamous 2014 leaked phone conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. During the exchange she uses the F-word to disdainfully refer to the European Union. If that 2014 leak exposed a certain Washington attitude towards its transatlantic European allies (and such an  attitude does not seem to have changed much at all), one can only imagine how the US sees Pakistan – and the rest of the world, for that matter. Washington has of course a well-known record of betraying its most devoted allies.

Even if one condemns the Russian military campaign in Ukraine, which started in February 2022, one should at least acknowledge the fact that far from being an “unprovoked” aggression, it was the result of an escalation of frictions, involving border tensions – a tale in which the US played a major role. Ukraine itself had been in a civil war since 2014, and Kiev has, for nine years now, been bombing the Donbass region and committing a series of human rights infringements largely related to far-right Ukrainian nationalism.

When the US crossed the sea to invade far-away Iraq in 2003, there was no immediate danger or a near border. No Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the American main claim to legitimize the occupation, were ever found. For 8 years, Washington carried on a neocolonial policy, including a so-called Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) which, from the very start, was created and funded as a US Department of Defense division, in a failed American attempt to “democratize” and to “reconstruct” the Middle-Eastern nation.

Under the tremendously corrupt CPA rule, over $8 billion destined for the country’s reconstruction disappeared and remain unaccounted for to this very day. Up to 1 million deaths, according to ORB International, an independent polling agency located in London, are estimated as a result of the war and American invasion. And yet no international movement arose to sanction or isolate Washington – nor American companies, for that matter (which greatly profited from the war). To this day, former US President George W. Bush is a popular speaker in the US. All of this, once again, whether one condemns the Russian military campaign in neighboring Ukraine or not, goes to show an immense degree of Western hypocrisy, to say the least. And many non-Western leaders see it this way.

To sum it up, the recently leaked document is yet another blatant instance of American “alignmentism” and its cold war mentality – an approach that can only further alienate potential partners and allies, especially in the Global South.

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment