Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US ‘ceasefire plan’ meant to prolong Yemen’s descent into turmoil: Ansarullah

Press TV – March 13, 2021

The spokesman for Yemen’s popular Houthi Ansarullah movement has dismissed the US proposal for a nationwide ceasefire in the war-torn country, saying the plan would plunge Yemen further into turmoil.

“The US plan doesn’t include breaking the siege or ceasing fire. It is actually a detour which would lead to a resumption of a (Saudi) blockade diplomatically,” Mohammed Abdul-Salam said in an interview with Yemen’s al-Masirah television Friday evening.

“One of the conditions presented in the initiative is to determine the destinations of flights departing Sana’a airport, and for the coalition of aggression to issue flight permits. This means they are not licensed here in Sana’a,” he said.

“If they were serious to stop the aggression and siege, they would have declared a complete end to hostilities and blockade. We would then welcome the measure. Aggression and siege against Yemen have not stopped even for a single day over the past six years, so what is the US concept of ceasing fire or breaking the siege?” Abdul-Salam added.

The Ansarullah spokesman said the US presentation of Saudi conditions as a so-called peace plan once again proved that Washington explicitly supports the Saudi war and blockade against Yemen.

He further noted that what the US special envoy on Yemen, Tim Lenderking, presented was a plot to plunge the Arab state further into turmoil.

“It is unacceptable for an American envoy to present a plan which is inferior to that of the United Nations special envoy for Yemen (Martin Griffiths),” Abdul-Salam said.

He said there is no real change towards ending the Saudi war and lifting the siege, stressing that such matters lie in the hands of the other side.

“They want us to respond through dialogue to what they have not achieved by means of war and siege. Everyone must realize such a fact,” the senior Ansarullah official added.

Abdul-Salam also rejected as “a big lie” the US envoy’s allegations that humanitarian aid deliveries have not been distributed among the needy Yemenis, stating that the coalition of aggression illegally impounds Yemen-bound oil vessels irrespective of the fact they all have acquired international permits beforehand.

“We have accepted all conditions proposed by other parties to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Having found no excuse to continue the blockade, they are alleging aid deliveries have not reached those in need,” the Ansarullah spokesman said.

Houthi: Trust in US comes from actions, not words

A member of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council said Ansarullah is ready to return to the negotiating table with a serious goal of ending the conflict, but it must first see concrete steps from the administration of US President Joe Biden.

“Trust is built by actions, not words,” Mohammed Ali al-Houthi told CNN on Friday.

“Trust must be achieved through decision-making. So far, we have not seen any concrete decisions being made,” he added.

He noted that President Biden was a member of former US president Barack Obama’s administration, which declared at the time that Washington was joining the Saudi-led coalition against Yemen.

“They also gave the green light to the coalition to continue massacre in our country and agreed to it,” Houthi added.

‘Washington must drop Saudi conditions’

Abdul-Malik al-Ajri, a member of Ansarullah’s political bureau, said on Friday that his movement views the US ceasefire proposal in favor of Saudi Arabia, and would not accept it.

“The US special envoy on Yemen [Tim] Lenderking has presented proposals to end the war and has called on Ansarullah to respond,” Ajri wrote in a post published on his Twitter page.

“The truth is what he has offered is the same as Saudi Arabia’s conditions for a ceasefire. Linderking should know in case such suggestions were acceptable, we would have directly received them from Saudi Arabia. There was then no need for the US envoy to repeat Saudis’ narrative.”

Lenderking: Ansarullah’s ability is undeniable fact

The top US diplomat for Yemen on Friday touched on the role of Ansarullah and said its ability is a straightforward fact.

Lenderking said during a webinar with the Atlantic Council think tank that the movement is a “significant player” in Yemen and it needs to be acknowledged.

“I don’t think you can operate by denying that reality,” he said, claiming that the US “never said the Houthis have no role in Yemen.”

Lenderking, who recently returned from a three-week trip to the region, added that Washington is looking for the Ansarullah’s response to its peace plan.

“I will return immediately when the Houthis are prepared to talk,” Lenderking noted.

March 13, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

US Marines in the Sandino War 1926-1933

Tales of the American Empire | March 4, 2021

During the 19th century, American leaders kept an eye on Nicaragua as a potential site for a transoceanic canal. US navy warships periodically arrived at Nicaraguan ports to protect American interests and fostered U.S. business investments under the strong-man rule of President José Santos Zelaya. When Zelaya began courting Europeans for the building of a canal and welcomed European business investments, American leaders called Zelaya a tyrannical, self-serving, brutal, and a greedy disturber of Central American peace. In December 1926, President Calvin Coolidge ordered warships and more US Marines to Nicaragua. He told Congress that “disturbances and conditions in Nicaragua seriously threaten American lives and property, [and] endanger the stability of all Central America.” This resulted in the Sandino War that cost the lives of an estimated 3000 Nicaraguans and 136 US Marines.

______________________

“Yankee Imperialism 1901-1934”; United States Foreign Policy; http://peacehistory-usfp.org/yankee-i…​

“The Sandino Rebellion 1927-1934”; photos from the US National Archives; http://www.sandinorebellion.com/Photo…​

“Life and Death of an Activist: ‘Wild’ Bill Grandall”; Stephan Braun; Los Angeles Times; April 13, 1991; https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-x…​

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

War Drums Beating Louder Under Biden Hardliners

By Stephen Lendman | March 9, 2021

On all things war related, Trump mainly focused on waging it all-out by other means on Iran, China, and other nations free from US control.

Early in his tenure, the rape and destruction of Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq were major exceptions.

For the most part, he was relatively quiet on the hot war front, notably launching no new ones during his time in office.

Biden and warmongers surrounding him are cut from a different cloth.

As US senator and vice president, Biden supported one preemptive US war after another on invented enemies — nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

Will the pattern repeat with him in the White House?

Is it just a matter of time before hardliners running his geopolitical agenda invent pretexts to escalate ongoing US wars and/or launch one or more new ones?

If past is prologue, greater US warmaking is highly likely.

In the Middle East, plans to escalate war in Syria may exist or are being prepared.

The same goes for neighboring Iraq. Its parliamentarians and ordinary people want their country back, US occupation ended once and for all.

Not if undemocratic Dems have their way. US forces came to Iraq to stay.

As in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, permanent US occupation is planned — enforced through the barrel of a gun.

According to US war secretary Lloyd Austin on Sunday:

“We’ll strike, if that’s what we think we need to do, at a time and place of our own choosing. We demand the right to protect our troops (sic).”

In late February, hardliners in charge of Biden’s geopolitical agenda OK’d aggression against targets along the Iraqi/Syria border.

Is more of the same planned against both countries?

Is direct US confrontation with Iran coming ahead?

Are conflicts planned in Central Asia, North Africa and/or the Indo/Pacific?

According to Tom Dispatch in late January:

“Biden inherit(ed) (US) global war—and burgeoning new Cold War —spanning four continents and a military mired in active operations in dozens of countries, combat in some 14 of them, and bombing in at least seven.”

“That sort of scope has been standard fare for American presidents for almost two decades.”

What’s likely since Biden replaced Trump?

Will he escalate US wars of terror, not on it?

As senator and vice president, Biden cheerled US preemptive wars.

He’ll “surely escalate American adventurism abroad,” Tom Dispatch (TD) believes.

He’s been interventionist throughout his public life. He’ll likely at least maintain status quo belligerence.

TD: “Whether the issues are war, race, crime, or economics, Uncle Joe has made a career of bending with the prevailing political winds and it’s unlikely this old dog can truly learn any new tricks.”

He “filled his foreign policy squad with Obama-Clinton retreads, a number of whom were architects of—if not the initial Iraq and Afghan debacles.”

They followed with “disasters in Libya, Syria, West Africa, Yemen, and the Afghan surge of 2009.”

“Biden (put) former arsonists in charge of the forever-war fire brigade.”

At the same time, press agent media will likely “help (him)… make war more invisible… to Americans.”

History one day won’t likely “judge Biden the war president kindly.”

Since the run-up to WW I, Dems have been more belligerent than Republicans — Bush I, II, and Dick Cheney major exceptions.

So was Jack Kennedy going the other way, transforming himself from a warrior to peacemaker, one among other reasons why he was assassinated.

Jimmy Carter earlier said: During his time in office, “(w)e never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet.”

Dem presidents after his tenure were warriors, not peacemakers — notably Biden as senator, vice president, and now figurehead president, a disturbing record since the early 1970s.

Is escalated warmaking on his watch coming? His history of supporting wars on invented enemies and interventionist geopolitical team suggest more of the same ahead.

Terror-bombing targets along the Iraqi/Syrian border in late February perhaps was prelude for follow-up aggression.

Since taking office, increased numbers of Pentagon forces, heavy weapons, munitions and equipment were sent to Kurdish-controlled eastern Syria where most of the country’s oil is located.

Iran accused the Biden regime of reviving ISIS in Iran and Syria, Iranian Supreme National Security Council secretary Ali Shamkhani saying:

Recent US belligerence “strengthens and expands the activities of the terrorist Daesh (ISIS) in the region,” adding:

“The (late Feb.) attack on anti-terrorist resistance forces is the beginning of a new round of (US) organized terrorism.”

He vowed firm resistance to “confront the US plan to revive terrorism in the region.”

US aggression time and again signals more of the same coming — unjustifiably justified by invented pretexts. No legitimate ones exist.

The Pentagon reportedly deployed six long-range B-52 bombers to Diego Garcia.

It’s a location from which US airstrikes can hit targets in the Middle East and Indo/Pacific.

According to military.com, the US is “add(ing) roughly 10,000 personnel to… the Middle East.”

Southfront reported that Syrian forces are “prepar(ing) a decisive push on the Turkish-occupied areas” in the country’s north, adding:

“(S)oon-to-be-rebranded Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) terrorists are attempting to merge with the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation (NFL).”

“This proposed military council is clearly meant to provide a legitimate cover for the rebranded terrorist activities of HTS and other al-Qaeda factions in Greater Idlib.”

According to Deputy Head of the Russian Coordination Center in Syria, Adm. Alexander Karpov:

“There has been information on that Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists are getting ready to stage a new provocation in the de-escalation zone in Idleb which includes staging a false flag chemical attack.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry reported that labs in Idlib run by European trained experts are preparing CWs for use by jihadists to stage false flag attacks to be blamed on Damascus.

If one or more incidents occur, Syria will surely be wrongfully blamed for what it had nothing to do with — like many times before.

Will Biden hardliners use false flag CW incident(s) as a pretext for escalated aggression?

Separately, Southfront said (US armed and trained) Ukrainian forces escalated artillery strikes on Donbass.

“(C)lashes between pro-Kiev forces and (freedom-fighting) DPR/LPR self-defense units” followed, adding:

“(L)ocal sources report that the scale of violations by pro-Kiev forces are unprecedented for the recent months…”

Kiev “is deploying additional units of heavy weapons and military equipment to the contact line… confirmed by OSCE reports.”

All of the above are worrisome signs of what Biden hardliners may be planning — escalated aggression by US forces, their jihadist proxies and US installed regime in Kiev.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | 4 Comments

Biden, Afghanistan and Forever Wars

By Binoy Kampmark | OffGuardian | March 9, 2021

The papers are full of suggestions on what US President Joe Biden should do about his country’s seemingly perennial involvement in Afghanistan.

None are particularly useful, in that they ignore the central premise that a nation state long mauled, molested and savaged should finally be left alone. Nonsense, say the media and political cognoscenti.

The Guardian claims that he is “trapped and has no good choices”. The Wall Street Journal opines that he is being “tested in Afghanistan” with his opposition to “forever wars”. The Washington Post more sensibly suggests that Biden take the loss and “add it to George W. Bush’s record.”

The Afghanistan imbroglio for US planners raises the usual problems. Liberals and Conservatives find themselves pillow fighting over similar issues, neither wishing to entirely leave the field. The imperium demands the same song sheet from choristers, whether they deliver it from the right side of the choir or the left.

The imperial feeling is that the tribes of a country most can barely name should be somehow kept within an orbit of security. To not do so would imperil allies, the US, and encourage a storm of danger that might cyclonically move towards other pockets of the globe.

It never occurs to the many dullard commentators that invading countries such as Afghanistan to begin with (throw Iraq into the mix) was itself an upending issue worthy of criminal prosecution, encouraged counter-insurgencies, theocratic aspirants and, for want of a better term, terrorist opportunists.

The long threaded argument made by the limpet committers has been consistent despite the disasters. Drum up the chaos scenario. Treat it as rebarbative. One example is to strain, drain and draw from reports such as that supplied by the World Bank.

Conflict is ongoing, and 2019 was the sixth year in a row when civilian casualties in Afghanistan exceeded 10,000. The displacement crisis persists, driven by intensified government and Taliban operations in the context of political negotiations.”

The report in question goes on to note the increase in IDPs (369,700 in 2018 to 462,803 in 2019) with “505,000 [additional] refugees returned to Afghanistan, mainly from Iran, during 2019.”

Then come remarks such as those from David von Drehle in the Washington Post. His commentary sits well with Austrian observations about Bosnia-Herzegovina during the latter part of the 19th century.

Nearly 20 years into the US effort to modernize and liberalize that notoriously difficult land, Taliban forces once more control the countryside, and they appear to be poised for a final spring offensive against the parts of the Afghan cities that remain under government control.”

The savages, in short, refuse to heel.

Von Drehle, to his credit, at least suggests that the US take leave of the place, admitting that Washington was unreservedly ignorant about the country. He quotes the words of retired L. General Douglas Lute: “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan.” Tellingly, the general admitted that, “We didn’t know what we were doing.”

Fears exist as to how the May 2021 deadline for withdrawing all US military forces looms. Anthony H. Cordesman is very much teasing his imperial masters in Washington as to what is best. “Writing off the Afghan government will probably mean some form of Taliban victory.”

This is hardly shocking, but Cordesman prepares the terrain for the hawks.

This will create increased risks in terms of extremism and terrorism, but it is far from clear that these risks will not be higher than the risks of supporting a failed Afghan government indefinitely into the future and failing to use the same resources in other countries to support partners that are more effective.”

This is the usual gilded rubbish that justifies the gold from a US taxpayer. But will it continue to stick?

A few clues can be gathered on future directions, though they remain floated suggestions rather than positions of merit. The Biden administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance waffles and speaks mightily about democracy (how refreshing it would be for him to refer to republicanism) which, in a document on national security, always suggests overstretch and overreach.

“They are those who argue that, given all the challenges we face, autocracy is the best way forward.” But he also inserts Trumpian lingo. “The United States should not, and will not, engage in ‘forever wars’ that have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.”

Afghanistan comes in for special mention, and again, the language of the Trump administration is dragged out for repetition.

We will work to responsibly end America’s longest war in Afghanistan while ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists.”

Not much else besides, and certainly no express mention of grasping the nettle and cutting losses. And there is that troubling use of the word “responsibly”.

The default position remains the use of force, which the US “will never hesitate to” resort to “when required to defend our vital national interests. We will ensure our armed forces are equipped to deter our adversaries, defend our people, interests, and allies, and defeat the threats that emerge.” Again, the stretch is vast and imprecise.

Given that position, the withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 US troops in the country is bound to become a matter of delay, prevarication and consternation. Quiet American imperialism, at least a dusted down version of it, will stubbornly continue in its sheer, embarrassing futility. The imperial footprint will be merely recast, if in a smaller form.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | 1 Comment

An Unpleasant Reminder of the US Defeat

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 07.03.2021

On February 25, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered North Korea to pay 2.3 billion USD in compensation for damages to the crew of the USS Pueblo, which was hijacked in 1968. The American side claims that a marine research vessel was seized that was in international waters at the time of the incident. One of the 83 crew members was killed, and the rest were released after 11 months while “incessantly subjected to mental and physical abuse during their captivity”.

This process became possible after the US Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016, which allows lawsuits in these kinds of high-profile cases to be heard in federal courts. For the lawsuit to be accepted, the country must be on the appropriate list, and the DPRK wound up there after Pyongyang was accused of murdering Kim Jong-nam, and the story with Otto Warmbier occurred.

Back in 2018, 49 crew members that are currently alive, and the families of the rest, demanded compensation for damages related to how they were held hostage. According to the opinion delivered by the court, “this case arises from the kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture of United States servicemen aboard the USS Pueblo by agents of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. “In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on liability, the Court concluded that North Korea was liable to the plaintiffs under this provision and its incorporated theories of assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, solatium, and wrongful death”.

Each of the living crew members was awarded compensation in an amount ranging from 22 to 48 million dollars, and the family members of the crew member that was killed, and those that were deceased, received compensation in smaller amounts. In total, the court ruling obliges North Korea to pay out about 2.3 billion dollars: 1.15 billion dollars is the amount of compensation, and about that same amount represents a “fine”.

The South Korean media compared this decision to a 2019 verdict, when that same district court ordered North Korea to pay 500 million USD in damages to the parents of American student Otto Warmbier. It is worth reiterating that he died in 2017, six days after he returned home from being released from captivity in North Korea. In both cases there was allegedly unlawful imprisonment involved, effectively meaning hostage taking, torture, etc., although the author is once again forced reiterate that American doctors and coroners could not find any traces of torture or ill treatment on the student’s body.

Mark Bravin, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told USNI News today that the damages awarded are among the largest ever awarded in a state-sponsored terrorism case.

Chief Cryptologic Technician Don Peppard, a surviving crew member and president of the USS Pueblo Veterans’ Association, said in a press release, “even though we didn’t expect anything, it is a relief to be recognized for what we went through. Maybe now it is finally settled, and we can move forward.”

The ruling, however, will remain symbolic, since Pyongyang does not respond to verdicts delivered by foreign courts. Therefore, compensation will be paid out, but in 2022, and from a special U.S. Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund created by the US Congress. The money for the fund comes from the fines and penalties imposed on individuals and corporations in these countries.

In this light, the American sailors look like unfortunate victims – almost like deceased students, only in uniform. But just like in the Warmbier case, there is the official version put forth by the United States, and then there is reality.

The USS Pueblo “was converted into an environmental research ship”, and in late 1967 set out on its maiden voyage to gather intelligence in Asian waters. As photographs show, it was chock full of the most cutting-edge intelligence-gathering equipment for that time, with both encryption and data collection devices.

The story of the capture of the USS Pueblo on January 23, 1968, and the subsequent crisis, is described well in the article by V.P. Tkachenko (Lessons from the Korean Crisis of 1968. // Problems of the Far East – 2008. – No 1. – pp. 82-102.), And, if you believe the North Korean version, the USS Pueblo invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK 17 times, and that one time it plunged deeper that 7.5 miles in them. The vessel tried to escape into neutral waters and shoot back, but North Korean patrol boats caught up and surrounded it. The battle could have lasted for a very long time (later on, dozens of small arms, anti-aircraft machine guns, tens of thousands of cartridges and grenades, etc. were seized on the vessel), but one of the first hits by a North Korean heavy machine gun struck the ammunition depot, and killed one of the crew members. A chain of explosions began. The Americans decided that the ship was seriously damaged, and Captain Lloyd Bucher decided to surrender.

On January 26, 1968, at a press conference in Pyongyang, the captain of the USS Pueblo admitted that the ship’s crew was engaged in espionage in North Korean waters, although American propaganda asserts that the ship’s captain made the confession under torture – and threats to execute the entire crew in front of him. However, the outcome of an investigation revealed that the ship belonged to the US Pacific Fleet, and its crew was doing work according to plans from the Central Intelligence Agency, conducting reconnaissance on the military facilities and coastal waters along the Soviet Union’s Far East, the coastline of North Korea, and China.  As can be seen from published maps, extracts from the ship’s log, and secret documents that they did not manage to destroy after the vessel was detained, the USS Pueblo repeatedly violated the territorial waters around not only the DPRK, but also the USSR.

The incident resulted in one dead and nine injured American crew members and, in response to such a “direct attack on the United States”, on January 24, 1968, the American representative to the Military Armistice Commission in Korea demanded the immediate return of the ship and its crew, as well as an apology for interning them in neutral waters. In response, the North Korean side demanded an apology from the United States, and it turned out that none of the conflicting parties considered their actions to be unlawful. The Americans insisted that the seizure of the ship took place outside the accepted 12-mile border demarcating territorial waters, and therefore it was an arbitrary act. The North Korean side justified its actions by the fact that this case had nothing to do with the issue of the width taken up by territorial waters, since the vessel entered the country’s bay, which is considered domestic waters according to international law. In addition, it cited its own government decree dated March 5, 1955, in which (along with establishing the width of its territorial waters) a significant part of the East Korea Bay, where the USS Pueblo was detained, was declared to be DPRK domestic waters. On top of that, at the time the vessel was seized the North did not think to accurately fix the point where the process ended for detaining a vessel that was heading out to open sea – leaving the issue open-ended – unlike the fact established that the ship was captured on its way out of the North’s territorial waters, and the fact that an incursion had taken place.

On January 25, 1968, President L. Johnson announced the urgent mobilization of a total of 14,600 personnel in the US air force and naval reserves. American and South Korean troops were put on extreme alert.  Responding to this, the DPRK declared that they were ready for war, and the situation began to rapidly escalate.

On January 30, 1968, the DPRK officially petitioned Moscow with a proposal to immediately provide the DPRK with military and other assistance, using all the means at the disposal of the USSR, if Korea were to go to war. And although Soviet diplomats found the opportunity to explain that the USSR would not automatically be included in the conflict, tensions remained high throughout the crisis.

Actually, because of this, the seizure of the Pueblo is sometimes interpreted as a cunning plan on the part of North Korea to enter into direct negotiations with the Americans, bringing them up to the government level – and this would have meant de facto recognition of the DPRK. According to proponents of this version, the threat to destroy prisoners in the event of an armed invasion was supposed to further push the United States to negotiations. However, there is no direct evidence that such a plan existed.

And the fate of the ship and its crew was decided during negotiations within the framework of the Military Armistice Commission in Korea. On February 15, 1968, the Americans promised to think about making an apology if the returning sailors corroborated the fact that the ship had been detained in the North’s territorial waters, and a day later the United States would order its ships to adhere to a 12-mile zone off the coast of the DPRK. In response, on February 20 the Korean side announced its intention to put the American sailors on trial, but did not do this, taking into account their active repentance.

On May 8, 1968, a DPRK representative proposed his own version of the final document, which read: “The government of the United States of America, confirming the validity of the confessions made by the crew of the American vessel USS Pueblo, and of the documentary evidence presented by a representative of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regarding the fact that the ship, which was hijacked in self-defense measures taken by the warships of the Korean People’s Army in territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on January 23, 1968, repeatedly invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and was engaged in reconnaissance work on important DPRK military and state secrets, takes full responsibility for this, and formally apologizes for the fact that the American ship invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and committed significant intelligence-gathering activities against the DPRK, and gives an unwavering guarantee that American ships will no longer invade the territorial waters of the DPRK. However, the US government, taking into account the fact that the members of the former crew for the American ship USS Pueblo, detained by the DPRK side, openly confessed to their crimes, and made appeals to the DPRK government, urges the DPRK government to show leniency towards the crew members”.

An American representative had to sign the specified document on behalf of the US government, which was done on December 23, 1968, exactly eleven months after the crew was interred. After this formality, the American general gave a spoken statement that the United States did not recognize this document, but the 82 crew members, and the body of the one killed sailor, were returned home. North Korea added that there was information in the American media that either the entire crew, or all the officers, had been executed. After that, on the one hand, the crew itself decided that they were being sold out, and on the other hand the North Koreans published an open letter on behalf of the crew, and began to threaten a public trial at which evidence of their espionage activities would be presented to the whole world. As a result, the incident with the USS Pueblo is positioned as the only case when the United States not only admitted to spying, but also officially apologized.

They do not report how after the ship was released Captain Bucher went on trial – he and some of the officers were accused of a) surrendering the most valuable ship with little or no resistance, and b) giving up information that forced Washington to apologize after it was divulged. It was also asserted that one of the prosecution’s arguments was the absence of any obvious signs of torture.

The ship itself was docked for a long time in the port of Wŏnsan, and attracted tourists, and in 2002 North Korea was even going to give it to the US government as a gesture of goodwill, but right then the second round of the nuclear crisis happened. After that, the ship was transported to Pyongyang and made into the main exhibit at the North Korean Museum of Victory in the “Patriotic War”. There is a legend that, since it was impossible to ship it by railway transport, it was sent in a roundabout way by water, disguised as a fishing trawler, and the person who organized this received the title of Hero of the Republic.  Some also say that the Americans wanted to intercept this ship, but could not.

So the verdict delivered by the American court is actually not a triumph of justice, but a very unpleasant memory – at least for anyone who bothers to study the issue in a little more depth.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

March 7, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Iraqi resistance groups announce confrontation with US occupiers until liberation

Press TV – March 5, 2021

Iraqi resistance groups have announced a new phase of resistance against US forces in the country, vowing “confrontation with occupiers until the liberation of Iraq.”

“The resistance sees confrontation as the only option that guarantees the freedom, dignity of this country after exhausting all the means that others have bet on with the occupation,” the coordinating body for the Iraqi resistance factions said in a statement on Thursday, according to the Iraqi media.

“We are facing a new page from the pages of the resistance, in which the weapons of the resistance will reach all the occupation forces and its bases in any part of the homeland,” they said.

Hailing the recent attacks against the “occupation forces”, the statement added that “the resistance has the legal and national right and popular support for all of that, but will not target diplomatic missions.”

“The Iraqi resistance is an Iraqi decision, and its choice is the choice of the Iraqi people, and it will continue circumstances and sacrifices until Iraq is liberated from the filth of the occupation,” it said.

The statement came a day after 10 Grad rockets struck the Ain al-Assad air base hosting American forces in the western Iraqi province of Anbar. The incident led to the death of two American contractors and injured as many as six people. It also resulted in material damage to both parts of the outpost.

An informed security source told Press TV that eight of the projectiles struck the “American part” of the base, while two hit the section that is assigned to the US-led coalition.

The raid was conducted days after the US military targeted the positions of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), known as Hashd al-Sha’abi, on the Iraqi-Syrian border, where they were engaged in fighting the remnants of the Daesh terrorist group.

Elsewhere in the Thursday statement, the Iraqi resistance termed as “traitorous” any party that stands as an obstacle against the path of resistance and its constant choice in confronting and expelling the occupier.

“It is the right of the resistance, rather its duty, not to pay attention to such bodies, but rather to prevent it by all means from hindering its strikes against the occupation,” they said.

Forbes magazine reported on Wednesday that the United States will likely deploy the Avenger air defense system in Syria and Iraq to support US forces in the face of the growing drone threat.

US military bases and diplomatic missions in Iraq have been repeatedly targeted in recent months as anti-US sentiments run high in the Arab country since the US assassination of Iran’s legendary anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani and his Iraqi trenchmate Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the PMU, last year.

The two anti-terror commanders were targeted along with their companions in a drone strike authorized by former US president Donald Trump near Baghdad International Airport on January 3, 2020.

The Wednesday attack against the US-led occupation forces targeted the same air base that Iran openly attacked on January 8, 2020 as part of its retaliation for the Soleimani assassination, which also prompted the Iraqi lawmakers to push for the expulsion of the US-led foreign forces from their country.

March 5, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | 1 Comment

Biden becomes the sixth successive President to bomb Iraqis: how far could this latest round of escalation go?

By Aram Mirzaei for The Saker | March 4, 2021 

Another president, another act of aggression. For the past few decades, it’s almost like a mandatory rite of passage for US presidents to bomb Muslim countries. I don’t think many of us are surprised to see that current US President Joe Biden turned out to be no different to his predecessors, when Washington once more bombed Iraqis last week.

Continuing the same policy of terrorism and humiliation from the Trump era, Washington felt the need to show strength against the Resistance forces on the Syrian-Iraqi border area. What angers me most, is not just the terrorist act of killing people who are fighting US occupation and US backed terrorism, but the fact that Washington cannot and will not recognize that there is a growing local resistance to Zionist hegemony, instead resorting to degrading and humiliating legitimate resistance groups such as Hashd al-Sha’abi of Iraq (PMU) or the Houthis of Yemen by labelling them “Iranian backed proxies”.

Everything and everyone that oppose Washington and Zionist hegemony in West Asia are “Iranian backed”. Whether it is a Houthi attack on a Saudi airport, a Taliban attack on a NATO convoy or a suspiciously random rocket attack on a US base in Iraq, it is always Iran’s fault and somehow the Islamic Republic must be held responsible for these attacks. Both Washington and the Zionist entity keep attacking Resistance forces in the very area where ISIS remnants have been re-emergent for the past months, claiming their right to self defense. Self defense?! America is more than 10,000 kilometres away. US troops are occupying Syrian and Iraqi territory and Washington claims the right to self defense? This narrative has been drilled into the minds of so many people in the West that nobody even reacts when one of the Obama gang’s old crude liars, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby was telling the press that Washington acted to “de-escalate” the situation when it bombed Resistance forces on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

What Kirby really meant by “de-escalation” was that he believes that Washington sent Iran and its allies a “clear message”, that messing with Washington is unwise. The sad part is that he and the other psychopaths in Washington actually believe that the so called “message” will in any way deter the Resistance forces in West Asia. It is pretty clear what the US is doing with these random attacks on the Resistance forces. Washington knows the realities on the ground and acts in response to them. In Syria, it has become clear for Washington that Damascus won’t fall, that dream came down crashing when Russia entered the war in 2015. So, Washington is acting to deny Syria and her allies their well deserved victory through the occupation and looting of eastern Syria. Washington will act for as long as it takes to starve the Syrian people into submission.

In Iraq, Washington, being well aware that the Iraqi parliament has voted to expel US forces from Iraq, is desperately seeking new reasons to prolong their occupation. Be it through the magical re-emergence of Daesh terrorists in Western Iraq or through suspicious Katyusha rocket attacks on US interests in Baghdad’s green zone, which are then blamed on the Iraqi Resistance forces without any kind of evidence presented, Washington is seeking to undermine the Iraqi parliament’s decision.

In Iraq, Washington has a foothold in Baghdad not seen in Syria’s Damascus. It is through this foothold that Washington wields influence over many Iraqi politicians and thus has the ability to cause great internal disunity and animosity among Iraqis themselves.

Washington has both great influence over the Kurds in northern Iraq and over the Prime Minister’s office. PM Al-Kadhimi is known to be a close associate of Washington’s and is suspected to be cooperating with the US to prolong their stay in Iraq. During his tenure, tensions between Baghdad and the PMU have run high as government forces have made random raids on the PMU headquarters, arresting some members even. Yet even more dangerous is the escalating tension between Washington and the PMU. On Wednesday March 3rd, a new rocket attack on the Ain Al-Assad military base was reported. This is the same military base that was struck by the IRGC last year in retaliation for Washington’s murder of martyrs Soleimani and Al-Muhandis. Previously the PMU had vowed revenge for Washington’s attack last week, which makes it rather obvious that Washington will blame the PMU for this recent strike.

With this latest round of escalation, one wonders what will happen next? Of course I’m just speculating but I see some real dangers with tensions running this high. I believe that Washington could very well seek to push Iraq into a new civil war in a bid to eradicate the Hashd al-Sha’abi. Many of the groups within the PMU have threatened to wage war on US forces if Washington refuses to withdraw. Unfortunately, this threat by the PMU can easily be exploited by the US, giving Washington a casus belli, as they intensify their “defensive” airstrikes while claiming to support Baghdad’s campaign to bring “stability” to Iraq. Such an endeavour could risk dragging several regional countries into the conflict as the Islamic Republic could be forced to intervene on behalf of the Iraqi Resistance forces. It is clear that Washington cannot and will not attack Iran directly, such an adventure would be too risky for the crazies in the White House and Pentagon. However, fighting “Iranian backed” forces and rolling back Iranian influence could serve to both solidify the continued US occupation of Iraq in the short term, and prevent the Resistance forces from achieving complete victory, in the mid-to-long term. In order to manufacture consent, Washington must portray their actions as both “defensive” and in service of “stability and peace”. Having others fight Washington’s wars for them is a speciality for the Empire. This is why I believe the most likely scenario to be one where Washington attempts to pit Baghdad against the PMU, then sweep in to “help” Baghdad “preserve stability”. This strategy has been used in different ways before by the Obama regime when it unleashed the Daesh terrorist group in Iraq, then claimed to fight the same terrorists it had armed and trained, in a bid to continue their occupation of Iraq and pressure pro-Iran PM Nouri Al-Maliki to resign. Obama then did the same thing in Syria with the support of Kurdish militants in a bid to pressure Damascus into concessions. Trump continued on the same path but went even further when his administration began using phony attacks on “US interests” in Iraq as a pretext for direct confrontation with the PMU, a path that ultimately led to the murder of Martyrs Soleimani and Al-Muhandis. The then-secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that Washington had acted to “stabilize” Iraq with the murder of these “terrorists” who were “hated among Iraqis”.

Iraq is key to the Resistance Axis and cannot fall into enemy hands. It is however also the most vulnerable of the countries where the Resistance forces are active, as not only does Washington have great influence over Baghdad, but also over the Kurdish autonomous region in the north.

Supporting Kurdish independence is another way that Washington could seek to attack the Resistance Axis. This can be seen in Syria as well where the Kurdish militants are acting as excellent proxy troops for Washington, occupying about a third of the country and helping US forces in the looting of Syrian oil. Kurdish parties also have excellent ties to the Zionist entity in Tel Aviv, as Zionist chieftain Netanyahu has on several occasions been a vocal supporter of Kurdish independence, often likening the Kurdish people’s cause with the Zionist one. The reactionary Kurdish parties, who are too ignorant and too greedy to understand and realize that they are being used as cannon fodder to further US imperial ambitions, will be more than happy to wage war on Syria and Iraq with US support behind them.

It’s been almost 10 years since the war in Syria began, and 18 years since the war in Iraq began, and still there seems to be no peace in sight for any of the Arab countries. Biden has been in office in less than two months, but in my opinion, the next four years seem to be rather clear in terms of Washington’s policies towards the West Asia region- the long wars will continue and more blood is to be expected. Bush bombed Iraq, [Clinton bombed Iraq, Bush Jr bombed Iraq,] Obama bombed Iraq, Trump bombed Iraq, and now Biden bombs Iraq. For our people, it never matters who or what occupies the White House, the bombings and wars will continue. Iraq has a rather young population, more than 60 percent of the population is under 25 years of age. This means that most Iraqis have known nothing else except the US imposed wars on their homeland. It is a tragedy and a shameful moment in human history where most people in the totally “advanced, civilized, democratic, morally superior” West don’t care about what their despicable governments are doing in Iraq or Syria, because they are stupid Muslim terrorists anyway. This is why Iraq cannot and should not rely on Western public opinion. Resistance is the only way, and the US Empire must be kicked out with force in order for Iraqis to finally have some peace.

March 4, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Territorial dispute growing between Guyana and Venezuela

By Lucas Leiroz | March 4, 2021

An old territorial dispute in South America is reaching its most tense point in decades. The territory known as Essequibo has been mutually claimed by Guyana and Venezuela since the 19th century when Guyana still belonged to the United Kingdom. In 1897, the Venezuelan and British authorities agreed to submit their dispute to an arbitrary international court in Paris, which ruled that the land belonged to the UK. For decades, the arbitration decision was accepted by Caracas, but in 1948 Venezuelan authorities revealed some irregularities in the trial, which were documented in old government files. As a result, the decision was considered null, and years later, in 1963, Venezuela formally submitted its territorial claim to the United Nations, and the dispute remains unresolved till today, when the interests of foreign oil companies threaten to increase the tensions.

As a region rich in oil, Essequibo has recently entered the map of the large multinationals in this sector, especially the American Exxon Mobil. More than that, the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela and the political alignment of Guyana with Washington contribute to create an even more controversial scenario. Guyana has the support of the large private oil sector and the American government, while Venezuela remains alone. Last year, the case was filed with the International Court of Justice, but Venezuela did not accept it and remained out of the trial.

However, in a sentence on December 18, 2020, the Court proclaimed its competence to intervene in the dispute, despite Venezuela’s position. It is necessary to highlight that, regardless of any decision taken by the Court over who really has sovereignty in Essequibo, this sentence must be considered null, since the absence of Venezuelan consent prevents the execution of the sentence. The need for consent is one of the most elementary principles of international law and the very fact that the Court declares itself competent already leads us to question whether its judges are really impartial – clearly, the norms of international law are being violated in favor of Guyana.

Guyana has publicly admitted that its expenses for the court case in The Hague were paid by Exxon Mobil. Although the American oil company has been operating in Guyana for decades, its interest has been greatly increased with the recent discoveries of oil reserves and investors are willing to do anything to ensure the exploration of local natural resources. Currently, Exxon Mobil is interested in expanding its facilities over an area of more than 26,000 square kilometers, which not only crosses the disputed territory in Essequibo, but also violates Venezuelan undisputed national territory.

With this scenario of clear attack on Venezuelan national sovereignty and possible collaboration of the International Court with one of the parties, Venezuela is at a disadvantage mainly due to its diplomatic weakness. Venezuela, at this point, lacks sufficient influence to cause the Court to review its decision or judge the case in a really partial way. For that, only strong international alliances can help Caracas. The large nations that are not aligned with Washington and have so far cooperated strongly with Venezuela, Russia and China, might be provoked by the Venezuelan government to incite international pressure in this regard. Only these two countries can mediate a parallel agreement that may be established between Caracas and The Hague in order to choose between two paths: either Venezuela agrees to submit to trial on the condition that there is a partial judgment and without the influence of private companies, or the Court declines jurisdiction. As the first scenario is unlikely and difficult to monitor, the most viable route would be for The Hague to abdicate any form of judgment.

It is important to mention that, in the absence of international judgment, what is in force in Essequibo is the Geneva Agreement of 1966, which did not decide on sovereignty in the region, but, in search of a peaceful solution, defined what activities would be allowed or prohibited in Essequibo. Oil exploration by foreign companies is not allowed, so, in principle, Guyana is violating the agreement and its activities could only become lawful if there was a decision by the International Court on the matter, allowing exploration. As Venezuela does not submit to the Court, the trial is impossible and, therefore, exploration remains prohibited and Guyana is committing an international offense.

However, more worrying than that is the fact that the American military is working in Essequibo, carrying out tests with the aim of intimidating Venezuela and pressuring Caracas to renounce its demands. There are American military ships in Essequibo “protecting” Exxon Mobil facilities and provoking Caracas. In addition, considering that the American company wants to publicly explore areas within Venezuelan territory, what will become of the American presence? If Caracas does not allow the activities of Exxon Mobil, it is the Venezuelan right to control or even destroy the facilities in its territory. And what would be the American reaction to that – considering Biden’s aggressive interventionist policy?

It is for these reasons that, more than ever, countries of greater international relevance must mediate the issue in order to maintain the status of illegality to the Exxon Mobil’s activities. With international pressure, it is possible that the American company will retreat or that at least the American military in the region will leave and with that we would have a reduction in tensions.

Still, it is possible that with international mediation a mutual exploration agreement will be reached that allows both countries to enjoy the local wealth, without, however, allowing companies that violate the Geneva Agreement to operate.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

March 4, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

US Foreign Policy: War Is Peace

By Stephen Lendman | March 1, 2021

A permanent state of war on invented enemies is longstanding US policy.

It’s been this way throughout most of the post-WW II period.

Terror-bombing Syria last Thursday was one of many examples — escalating US aggression against the nation and people by Biden.

The Syrian Arab Republic threatens no one. President Assad is supported by most Syrians.

Yet Obama/Biden launched preemptive war on the country in March 2011.

US forces illegally occupy northern and southern areas.

The Pentagon and CIA use ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxy forces to advance US imperial aims in Syria and elsewhere.

Washington under both right wings of its war party intends permanent occupation of the country.

Sergey Lavrov noted the diabolical scheme, saying:

Washington is “making the decision to never leave Syria, even to the point of destroying this country” — more than already he should have added.

Lavrov also stressed the US forces occupy “Syrian territory illegally, in violation of all norms of international law, including Security Council Resolutions on reconciliation in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

“They continue to play the separatism card.”

“They continue to block, using their levers of pressure on other states, any supply even of humanitarian aid, not to mention equipment and materials necessary to restoring the economy in the territories controlled by the government, and in every way possible force their allies to invest in territories outside Damascus’s control.”

“At the same time, they illegally exploit Syria’s hydrocarbon resources” by stealing them.

Longstanding US plans call for partitioning Syria and other regional countries for easier control.

According to former Global Policy Forum director James Paul, partitioning Syria “is the Israeli solution,” adding:

The Jewish state’s “overarching goal is to weaken every Arab state by bringing religion and ethnicity into the equation.”

The plan for Syria is partitioning it into Kurdish, Alawite and Sunni states.

Balkanization of Middle East countries is also longstanding US policy.

Regional expert Mahdi Nazemroaya earlier explained that “(r)egime change and balkanization in Syria is very closely tied to the objective of dismantling the ‘resistance bloc’ formed by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, and various Iraqi groups opposed to the US and Israel.”

US/NATO/Israeli regional aggression aims to achieve this objective — what failed so far and won’t likely fare better ahead, but continues anyway.

In cahoots with Israeli interests, Obama/Biden launched preemptive war on Syria in 2011.

For hardliners in both countries, the road to Tehran runs through Damascus.

Control over the Syrian Arab Republic is seen as a way to weaken and isolate Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

According to Algerian academic Abdelkrim Dekhakhena, Bush/Cheney’s 2003 aggression against Iraq “metamorphosed into an apocalypse that swept the core nations of the region.”

“Chaos and destruction” followed with no end of it in prospect.

Washington’s notion of democracy building is suppressing its emergence everywhere and eliminating it wherever it exists.

Endless US Middle East wars created instability and human misery.

US regional aggression is aided by ISIS and other terrorist groups — created by the CIA to advance Washington’s control over regional countries, their resources and populations.

According to Biden’s doublespeak through his press secretary Psaki — paid to lie for her boss — he OK’d escalated US aggression in Syria to “protect Americans (sic),” adding:

Further aggression will aim to “deescalate tensions.”

The above doublespeak mumbo jumbo defines Washington’s war is peace policy.

Endless US wars by hot and/or other means have nothing to do with democracy building, pursuing peace, or protecting Americans.

They have everything to do with advancing Washington’s diabolical imperial agenda that prioritizes unchallenged global dominance.

Psaki also defied reality by claiming that preemptive terror-bombing of Syria on Thursday underwent a “thorough legal process (sic).”

There’s nothing remotely legal about naked aggression in Syria or anywhere else.

A decade of US war against the Syrian Arab Republic and its long-suffering people perhaps will continue in perpetuity.

The same diabolical agenda continues in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya, along with war by other means against numerous invented US enemies — notably China, Russia and Iran.

Washington’s rage to dominate other countries by brute force defines what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

There’s no end of it in prospect.

Biden’s longstanding support for wars on invented enemies suggests further escalation of hostilities on his watch.

Confrontation by belligerence and other means will likely be prioritized over pursuing peace and cooperative relations with other countries.

It’s the diabolical American way — addicted to warmaking, abhorring peace and stability.

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 6 Comments

US seizes UN aid allocated for Rukban refugees, distributes it among terrorists: Russia, Syria

Press TV – March 1, 2021

Syrian and Russian officials have warned that the United States is exploiting the deteriorating humanitarian situation at the Rukban refugee camp to seize UN aid consignments and distribute it among allied Takfiri militants after it turned the camp, located close to Syria’s border with Jordan, into a center for training terrorists.

“As usual, the United States hopes to acquire the aid in order to support terrorist groups operating under its command in the vicinity of al-Rukban camp. The camp has indeed become a seedbed for training extremist terrorists,” the Russian and Syrian Joint Coordination Committees on Repatriation of Syrian Refugees said in a joint statement.

The statement further noted that the US continues to impede all efforts aimed at the closure of the camp, prevents return of its residents to areas liberated from the grips of Takfiri terrorists and does not allow the life there to return to normal.

The joint committees then reiterated the Damascus government’s readiness to receive all Rukban camp residents, who are taken hostage by the US and its terrorist mercenaries, ensure their security, and provide them with decent living conditions.

This is not the first time that aid cargos delivered by the UN and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to al-Rukban are seized by Us forces or US-backed militants.

Russia and Syria have on numerous occasions also criticized the US for blocking aid deliveries to the refugee camp.

The Rukban camp, described by Russian and Syrian authorities as the “death camp,” is reportedly home to some 25,000 internally-displaced Syrians, mostly women and children.

Just a handful of humanitarian aid convoys have reached the camp in recent years.

In a joint statement on March 28 last year, the interagency coordination headquarters of Russia and Syria, attributed the humanitarian crisis in Rukban refugee camp to the illegal occupation of the area by American forces.

“We believe that the American side’s reluctance to exert influence on their [allied] militants in order to ensure unhindered departure of people from the camp and safe activities of humanitarian representatives in the At-Tanf zone is a clear evidence of its intention,” the statement noted at the time.

The camp lies within a 55-kilometer zone occupied by the US around its military base in the Syrian town of At-Tanf.

The headquarters stated that the US military is using Rukban as an “assembly line for training extremists.”

US military forces smuggle wheat crops from Syria’s Hasakah into Iraq

Meanwhile, a convoy of dozens of US trucks has left Syria’s northeastern province of Hasakah for the neighboring Iraq carrying tens of tons of grain.

Syria’s official news agency SANA, citing local sources in Rmelan town, reported that a convoy of 45 military vehicles loaded with wheat and barley crops departed Kharab al-Jir military base in the countryside of al-Malikiya town, and headed towards Iraqi territories after having passed through al-Walid border crossing.

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

‘Agenda Item 7’ highlights UN inaction over Israeli colonisation

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | February 25, 2021

The US has asked to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council in another move that, superficially at least, spells a departure from the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the institution. However, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, the reasons for the earlier departure from the Council still stand: alleged excessive focus on Israel, as well as the inclusion of nations which the US considers hostile, remain prominent issues for Washington and its rhetoric about “human rights”.

“We need to eliminate Agenda Item 7 and treat the human rights situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories the same way as this body handles any other country,” declared Blinken.

Agenda Item 7 has long antagonised Israel and the US. It makes discussion of Israel a permanent agenda item at the UNHRC and has elicited calls of anti-Israel bias which divert attention from other human rights violations around the world.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has endorsed Blinken’s criticism of human rights abuses by countries – mentioning China and Russia – that “seem to have joined the council only to undermine its work and to deflect criticism of themselves.” However, doesn’t the UN promote a safe space where various dynamics protect human rights abusers under various schemes, while allowing powers such as the US to determine which countries should be defined as violators of such rights? It is precisely the special status awarded to the US and Israel that needs to be challenged, in order to start altering the narrative on human rights and to make the UN and its institutions truly answerable and accomplished in holding rights abusers to account.

Israel has maintained its self-declared exceptionalism to prolong its military occupation of Palestine, a derivative of the colonial process that accelerated during the Trump era and which will most probably also benefit under US President Joe Biden. It is the exceptionalism which Israel created for its own purpose that has set it apart in the international arena. As far as criticism goes, Israel also benefits from the duplicity that comes with the settler-colonial state being a permanent item at the UNHRC, as well as receiving close to unanimous endorsement for its security and “self-defence” narrative. There is, in fact, no anti-Israel bias, but there is intentional ambiguity, in much the same way that Israel is considered as a normal country rather than a settler-colonial enterprise with its origins rooted deep within the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population.

HRW’s recommendations for the US to alter the scrutiny on Israel has more to do with the dynamics of voting on resolutions than encouraging the Biden administration to take a tough stance on Israel’s colonial expansion. The US and Israel know full well that resolutions are non-binding, hold no political value, and are just a veneer for the international community’s contempt when it comes to the Palestinian people’s political and human rights. A far more pressing discussion would centre on how the UN is ignoring its own principles and priorities. Had it acted against Israel’s colonisation of Palestine and its accompanying brutality and cruelty, as it is bound to do in order not to be in violation of international law, there would be no need for “Agenda Item 7” at the UNHRC or anywhere else.

February 27, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

This is who they are: Biden’s Syria strike is a stark reminder it’s American Empire that’s back

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 27, 2021

Only someone who hasn’t been paying attention could have been surprised by the US airstrike on Syria, now that an establishment committed to a globalist Empire rather than a constitutional republic is back in charge in Washington.

Democrats love proclaiming one can’t “turn back the clock,” usually to argue against even attempting to undo whatever domestic policies they’ve rammed through when in power. Yet everything about the Joe Biden administration has been about just that: erasing the past four years of Donald Trump and picking up where Barack Obama left off.

Trump also bombed Syria, mind you – launching cruise missiles on two occasions, spurred by spurious reports of “chemical attacks” – as well as the “Iranian-backed militias” in Iraq. Just over a year ago, he ordered the drone assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani outside the Baghdad airport.

However, he was denounced at the time by congressional Democrats, Biden himself, and his now-spokeswoman Jen Psaki, as well as nearly all US media outlets – the same ones now praising Biden’s bombardment. It’s literally different when they do it, the narrative goes.

That may seem baffling. After all, the American Empire isn’t a partisan thing. The Obamas, Bidens and Clintons have eagerly been on board as much as the Bushes and the Cheneys. That is, until Trump came along and mocked the “endless wars,” spoke of “America first” and rejected the pompous platitudes used to sell overseas imperialism to the rapidly declining American heartland.

For that ‘crime’ he was denounced and rejected by the US establishment, which has repeatedly demonstrated it doesn’t give a damn for the little guy in “flyover country” but prefers the globalist agendas of coastal elites and the military-industrial complex.

One can’t blame Americans for not remembering that the only time Congress overrode Trump’s veto was to keep troops overseas forever, when the media they rely on for their opinions, feelings and values hardly bothered to mention that bit. Make no mistake, though, endless foreign wars is what Biden meant when he said last week that “America is back” and promised a crusade on behalf of “democracy,” whatever that may be.

Also back is the manufacturing of consent. When Trump bombed someone, he just tweeted about it. The “new” administration acts just like the ones of yore, first leaking the talking points to the media. Instead of Trump’s “cowboy” language, Biden’s people use carefully selected propaganda terms, such as “defensive precision strike” and “proportionate military response” that “aims to de-escalate” the situation. The media dutifully follow along, stenographers all.

This kind of smoke-and-mirrors perception management is how war has become normalized for Americans. Trump’s rejection of it – whatever his motivation – is one of the reasons he was so hated by the establishment. Biden was sold to the American people as a return to normal – and for the establishment, this is precisely what “normal” looks like.

This normalization of behavior that ought to be illegal, immoral and unacceptable is, frankly, quietly horrifying. Almost no one seems to care that the US has no legal right to be in Syria, or bomb Syria, or even keep troops in Iraq anymore.

Legal concerns? How quaint. The US bombing whomever, whenever and wherever has become the “dog bites man” of the old journalism joke – that’s not news, editors would say, come to me when “man bites dog.”

Instead, we have otherwise serious people dispassionately describing the strike as “solid persuasion” and noting – correctly – that it “probably doesn’t matter” who gets attacked.

There is another disturbing dimension to the “Obama restoration” the US establishment is so bent on effecting. It was the Obama-Biden administration that backed “moderate rebels” – many of whom turned out to be Al-Qaeda affiliates – in Syria in hopes of regime change in Damascus, kicking off a war there almost ten years ago.

Trump focused instead on defeating Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorists, letting the same people who lied to him about troop numbers deceive him about abandoning (but not really) the regime change agenda.

If someone with a solid predictive record who claims to have sources within the Biden-Harris administration is to be believed, they want Syrian President Bashar Assad “gone by any means necessary and have no concern for the consequences.”

After all, those consequences are almost always borne by the foreigners that get bombed and the ‘flyover’ Americans who end up in the military – including the very same “underprivileged communities” the Democrats claim to be so concerned about – and not the powerful.

This obviously leaves those Americans who hoped for $2,000 stimulus checks, universal healthcare or higher minimum wage – those who believed the “that’s not who we are” Obama-era hype about empathy and decency – holding the empty bag and scratching their heads.

Which is why perception managers will no doubt feed them another manufactured outrage as a distraction, any moment now. Because that is who they are. Always have been.

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator 

February 27, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, War Crimes | , | 5 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »