Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How Taiwan Became an Issue

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | August 22, 2024

Given that official Washington seems increasingly determined to fight Beijing over Taiwan, concerned Americans are right to wonder: how did the question of Taiwan come to be of such purported importance to these global powers?

While several closer islands, such as the Penghu (or the Pescadores as they are now known), were incorporated into the Chinese polity during the period of Ming blue water exploration in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Formosa (or Taiwan as it came to be known) never was.

After shuttering its large scale naval activities in the mid-fifteenth century, the Ming were thereafter largely content to let the rival trading companies of the Portuguese and Dutch quarrel for influence on Formosa, where trade revolved around tea and camphor.

In an odd bit of history repeating itself, the island first became a central focus of a ruling mainland Chinese regime as a result of a civil war that needed concluding: displaced by the invading Manchurian forces (the eventual Qing), in 1661 what remained of the Han, Ming ruling clique retreated to Formosa. It was following their ultimate defeat in 1683 that Formosa started to become ethically and administratively integrated into China (a process completed around a century later).

Despite its import as a trading hub in the centuries thereafter, when the Japanese took possession of Formosa at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), per the terms of the Treaty Shimonoseki (1885), the island’s new rulers found a society, economy, and polity virtually untouched by modernity.

And while initially brutal, putting down an anti-Japanese insurgency of emigre Han Chinese and native Taiwanese, the Japanese colonial administration of the island, which lasted until the end of World War II, would see the island transformed into an educated, urbanized, and rationalized society with living standards far higher than on the mainland.

Despite the increasing gap, most Taiwanese, whose cultural links with the mainland were still strong, were open to rejoining mainland China when the war finally ended—although it is worth noting that this willingness proved short-lived, the Kuomintang (KMT) regime needing to viciously suppress a mass uprising against its terrible misrule in 1947.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at whose feet a great deal of blame for a whole host of problems may be laid, also laid the foundation stone for misadventure in dealing with China, including Taiwan.

Indeed, while there was a reasonable possibility that Taiwan could have been its own independent country at the end of the Second World War, it was FDR and his successor, Harry Truman, who ensured this would not happen.

Ignoring the wisdom of multiple of his predecessors, who had refused to get involved either in internal Chinese squabbles or its feuds with neighboring Japan, FDR began supporting the KMT regime of Chiang Kai-Shek.

Mao had, at least on one occasion, expressed ambivalence, stating for the record in 1936 that he did not consider Taiwan to be a “lost territory.”

However, at a meeting in Cairo (1943) FDR acquiesced to Chiang Kai-Shek’s insistence that Taiwan be returned to China. Once that had happened, and once Harry Truman safeguarded his retreat in Taiwan, the calculation from Beijing’s perspective changed.

As in the seventeenth century case of the Ming and Qing, no government claiming to be the legitimate government of China could brook the continued existence of a rival claimant to the title occupying a large island fortress less than one hundred miles from the mainland shore.

Virtually all the primary and secondary sources are in agreement: the outbreak of mass war in Korea led to the fate of Taiwan being drawn into the Cold War paradigm. From official histories to revisionist and post revisionist accounts, whatever the particular nuances of the account in question, including libertarian realists who point to the domestic political incentive structures that principally drove foreign policy decision-making, the decision to fight the Cold War made certain Taiwan would be an American protectorate following Chiang and the KMT’s flight to the island following their loss of the Chinese Civil War to Mao and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

To be sure, there were many voices in the State Department who had championed abandoning the incompetent, corrupt, and brutal Chiang and simply making the best of things with the communist government they saw as inevitably on their way to winning the resumed Chinese Civil War—these would mostly be purged or resign during the (second) red scare, however, and the constraining Cold War atmosphere that followed meant that possible openings to China were unable to be grasped.

That this logical move, to exploit the growing divisions between Moscow and Beijing, was unable to be grasped by eager Cold Warriors was largely due to the efforts of the “China Lobby,” the supporters of “free China,” or the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Some, like New York businessman Alfred Kohlberg, had financial interests at stake; others, like the former U.S. Ambassador to China Patrick J. Hurley, had personal and ideological commitments; still others, like Senators Barry Goldwater and William Knowland, combined these factors; while media magnate Henry Luce, owner of Time and Life, ensured high profile oppositional platforms. They combined to resist moves to normalize relations with Beijing and abandon Taiwan, despite the desire of several White House administrations to do precisely that.

As authoritative, mainstream historians, such as Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, readily admit, it was these forces that made the clean break with the authoritarian and provocative Taipei regime, desired by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, impossible.

When Ronald Reagan, a rabid Taiwan champion, won the White House it cemented the unhealthy status quo.

Taiwan continues to enjoy a strong lobbying presence on Capital Hill, abetted now by the complex of think tanks aligned with military industrial and foreign governmental interests. None of them are ever going to say something so obvious as the truth: the fate of Taiwan has literally nothing to do with the well-being of the American people or even the American state in general.

It is about power—Washington’s power, specifically.

As Dave DeCamp reported back in 2021, a fundamental change came over official Washington during the Donald Trump years: no longer was Taiwan viewed as a “problem” in Sino-American relations. Rather, it was viewed as an “opportunity” to advance Washington’s anti-Beijing, containment agenda.

Americans should be made aware of this fact; the only thing China “threatens” is Washington’s attempted domination of the region through its network of clients.

Taiwan is increasingly front and center in this battle.

For its part, Taiwan has remained since the 1950s a primary objective of Beijing and this is unlikely to ever change.

August 23, 2024 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Beijing has ‘no intention’ of nuclear arms race with US – foreign ministry

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning speaks to reporters in Beijing on February 22, 2024. © Johannes Neudecker / picture alliance / Getty Images
RT | August 22, 2024

Washington’s fear-mongering over China’s nuclear arsenal is completely unfounded, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning has said. Her comment came after the New York Times reported on Tuesday that US President Joe Biden had quietly updated the Nuclear Employment Guidance, refocusing its aim against China.

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Mao said that Beijing was “gravely concerned” with the report. “The US has called China a ‘nuclear threat’ and used it as a convenient pretext for the US to shirk its obligation of nuclear disarmament,” she said.

Mao added that the size of China’s nuclear arsenal was “by no means on the same level with the US,” stressing that Beijing “follows a policy of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons and always keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required by national security.” China has “no intention to engage in any form of arms race” with other states, she stated.

“It is the US who is the primary source of nuclear threats and strategic risks in the world,” the spokeswoman argued.

In 2023, the Pentagon estimated that China will double its stockpile of operational nuclear warheads to over 1,000 by 2030. The US currently has 5,550 warheads, while Russia has 6,255, according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The White House has downplayed China’s concerns, with spokesman Sean Savett describing the change in nuclear strategy as a routine update that was “not a response to any single entity, country, nor threat.” US officials, however, have repeatedly described Beijing as “a challenge” to world peace and accused it of economic and military coercion in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing, in turn, blamed the US for the ongoing tensions, urging Washington to abandon the “Cold-War mentality.”

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

U.S. military base in Bangladesh at the heart of a revolution

By Steven Sahiounie | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 21, 2024

Former Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has a shocking accusation against the U.S. On August 12, while in exile in India, she told the Economic Times, “I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin Island and allowed America to hold sway over the Bay of Bengal. I beseech to the people of my land, ‘Please do not be manipulated by radicals’.”

Hasina resigned on August 5 after weeks of violent street protests by students angry at a law which awards government civil service jobs. The protests began in June 2024 after the Supreme Court reinstated a 30% quota for descendants of the freedom fighters who won the independence for the country in 1971 after fighting against Pakistan with the help of an Indian military intervention. The students felt they were facing an unfair system and would have limited opportunity for a job based on their educational qualifications, instead of ancestry.

On July 15, Dhaka University students were protesting and calling for quota reforms, when suddenly they were attacked by individuals with sticks and clubs. Similar attacks began elsewhere and rumors circulated that it was a group affiliated with the ruling Awami League.

Some believe the group who began the violence was paid mercenaries employed by a foreign country. Street protesters who were met by a brutal crackdown were the western media description of the March 2011 uprising in Syria. However, the media failed to report that the protesters were armed and even on the first day of violence 60 Syrian police were killed. The question is in cases like Bangladesh: was this a grass-roots uprising, or a carefully staged event by outside interests?

By July 18, 32 deaths were reported, and on July 19, there were 75 deaths. The internet was shut down, and more than 300 were killed in less than 10 days, with thousands injured.

Some call the Bangladeshi uprising the ‘Gen Z revolution’, while others dub it the ‘Monsoon revolution’. But, experts are not yet united in a source of the initial violent attack on student protesters.

Hasina had won her fourth consecutive term in the January 7 elections, which the U.S. State Department called ‘not free or fair’. Regional powerhouses, India and China, rushed to congratulate the 76-year-old incumbent.

Hasina had held the peace in a country since 2009 while facing Radical Islamic threats. Targeting Bangladeshi Hindus was never the message or the intent of the student movement, according to some student activists.

The Jamaat-e-Islami has never won a parliamentary majority in Bangladesh’s 53-year history, but it has periodically allied with the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Jamaat, as the party is widely known, was banned on August 1, when Hasina blamed the two opposition parties for the deaths during the anti-quota protests.

Muhammad Yunus, a respected economist and Nobel Laureate, accepted the post of chief adviser in a transitional government until elections are held. He said he will seek to restore order as his first concern.

The Saint Martin Island is a stretch of land spreading across merely three square kilometers in the northeastern part of the Bay of Bengal, and is the focus of the U.S. military who seek to increase their presence in Southeast Asia as a balance against China.

On May 28, China praised Hasina for her decision to deny permission for a foreign military base, commending it as a reflection of the Bangladeshi people’s strong national spirit and commitment to independence.

Without naming any country, Hasina had said that she was offered a hassle-free re-election in the January 7 polls if she allowed a foreign country to build an airbase inside Bangladeshi territory.

“If I allowed a certain country to build an airbase in Bangladesh, then I would have had no problem,” Hasina told The Daily Star newspaper.

Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan, becoming a part of Pakistan in 1947, when British India was divided into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Bangladesh was founded in 1971 after winning a war of independence. On August 15, 1975, a military coup took over, and Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, was assassinated along with most of his family members.

The U.S. State Department, aided by the CIA, have a long history of political meddling in foreign countries. Examples are the 2003 ‘regime change’ invasion of Iraq, and in the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ we saw the U.S. attack Libya to overthrow the government, the U.S. support of the ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria who were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the U.S. manipulated election in Egypt which installed a Muslim Brotherhood member as President. The American Lila Jaafar received a 5 year prison sentence for her manipulation of the Egyptian election, but Hillary Clinton evacuated her from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo before she could serve her prison sentence, and she is now the Director of the Peace Corps with a White House office.

The U.S. often uses sectarian issues and strife to accomplish their goals abroad. After the Islamists in Bangladesh drove out Hasina, reports of attacks on Hindu temples and businesses circulated on mainstream Indian TV channels.

Hindus, Muslim-majority Bangladesh’s largest religious minority, comprise around 8% of the country’s nearly 170 million population. They have traditionally supported Hasina’s party, the Awami League, which put them at odds with the student rioters.

In the week after Hasina’s ouster, there were at least 200 attacks against Hindus and other religious minorities across the country, according to the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council, a minority rights group.

The police have also sustained casualties in their ranks, proving the protesters were armed as well, and went on a weeklong strike after Hasina fled to India.

Dhaka-based Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies said they believe inclusivity and plurality are important principles as Bangladesh navigates a post-Hasina era. Those exact words: inclusivity and plurality are current ‘buzz-words’ used in Washington, DC. based political and security groups.

Hasina is credited with doing a good job balancing Bangladesh’s relations with regional powers. She had a special relationship with India, but she also increased economic and defense ties with China.

In March 2023, Hasina inaugurated a $1.21 billion China-built submarine based at Bangladesh’s Cox Bazaar off the Bay of Bengal coast.

On May 28, China praised Hasina for refusing to permit a foreign air base. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, “China has noted Prime Minister Hasina’s speech, which reflects the national spirit of the Bangladeshi people to be independent and not afraid of external pressure.”

Mao said some countries seek their own selfish interests, openly trade other countries’ elections, brutally interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, undermine regional security and stability, and fully expose their hegemonic, bullying nature.

China has invested over U.S.D 25 billion in various projects in Bangladesh, next highest after Pakistan in the South Asian region, who also steadily enhanced defense ties with Bangladesh supplying a host of military equipment, including battle tanks, naval frigates, missile boats besides fighter jets.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Hasina had long ignored the democratic backsliding in each other’s countries to forge close ties, and bilateral trade increased with Indian corporations striking major deals

“I also congratulate the people of Bangladesh for the successful conduct of elections. We are committed to further strengthen our enduring and people-centric partnership with Bangladesh,” Modi said in a post on X in January.

Mainstream Indian news outlets, which often serve as mouthpieces for Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, have been focused on a Bangladeshi Islamist party. “What is Jamaat-e-Islami? The Pakistan-backed political party that brought down Sheikh Hasina’s govt,” read one headline. “Jamaat may take control in Bangladesh,” read another, quoting a senior member of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Some critics claimed India “covertly” helped Hasina win the election, while others said New Delhi used its influence to tone down U.S. and European criticisms of the Bangladeshi vote.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP party came to power in 2014, and Modi’s commitment to a Hindu rashtra, or Hindu nation, while turning its back on secularism has undermined a core Indian foreign policy principle.

In 2019, the Modi government passed controversial citizenship laws that were criticized as anti-Muslim. The BJP’s strident anti-migrant rhetoric sees hardline party members often railing against Muslim “infiltrators” with Indian Home Minister Amit Shah infamously calling Bangladeshi migrants “termites” during an election rally in West Bengal.

The revolution to oust a long-serving leader, who kept the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority in a peaceful coexistence, has opened a new chapter for Bangladesh society. Will this prove to be a destabilizing period in which the Islamic party, Jamaat, holds sway over the society? Will the secular history of Bangladesh be forgotten? The final question will be, when will the new U.S. military base be opened on Saint Martin Island?

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese Scientists Propose Magnetic Launcher on Moon to Send Resources to Earth – Reports

Sputnik – 18.08.2024

BEIJING – Chinese scientists proposed building a magnetic launcher on the Moon, which could become an cost-effective way to deliver resources mined on the lunar surface to Earth, and, in addition, part of the Russian-Chinese lunar station project, Chinese media reported on Sunday.

According to the publication, scientists from the Shanghai Institute of Satellite Engineering suggest that the magnetic levitation installation will work on the same principle as the hammer throw in athletics, but the rotation at increasing speed will be carried out before a cargo capsule is sent to Earth.

Scientists are convinced that, due to the unique environmental conditions on the Moon, such as high vacuum and low gravity, payloads can be sent twice a day, and the cost of such transportation will be about 10% of the cost of existing methods.

“The system’s technical readiness is relatively high. Since it consumes only electricity and does not require any propellant, it will be relatively small in scale and straightforward to implement,” the scientists said in their paper.

They also noted that the main task will be the extraction of helium-3 to help solve the problem of the energy crisis on Earth. The project, in their opinion, will also contribute to the development of space mining technologies, heavy launch vehicles and artificial intelligence.

The proposed launch system will use a 50-meter-long rotating arm and a high-temperature superconducting engine to launch capsules with mined resources. Ten minutes after launch, the rotation speed of the arm will reach the second cosmic velocity of the Moon of 2.4 kilometers per second and about one-sixth of the second cosmic velocity of Earth — and put it on the correct trajectory for returning to Earth.

The system is designed to last at least 20 years, but it will weigh about 80 tonnes, so before it can be delivered to the Moon, it will be necessary to wait for the start of operation of the Chinese super-heavy launch vehicle, the publication said.

The team working on the project suggested that it could be part of a proposed joint Russian-Chinese project to build a research station at the south pole of the Moon by 2035.

The intergovernmental Russian-Chinese agreement on the joint creation of the International Scientific Lunar Station (ISLS) was signed on November 25, 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law ratifying the agreement on June 12, 2024, and it entered into force on July 18. The document was published on July 25. It indicates that the station will be created in three phases and will receive modules both on the surface of the Earth’s natural satellite and in its orbit. During the third phase, it is planned not only to study and develop the Moon, but also to assist other countries in landing on the Moon. The implementation dates for each of the phases are not yet mentioned.

August 18, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Hate influencer VOA ‘aims to sow discord between China, India amid improving ties’

By Liu Xuanzun | Global Times | August 13, 2024

Chinese experts on Tuesday slammed a recent report by the Chinese language version of the Voice of America (VOA) on India’s newly debuted light tank, saying that the US media is seeking to sow discord between China and India amid a recent recovery in relations by hyping the threat of military confrontation which has been subsiding for years.

VOA reported on Monday that India’s Zorawar light tank, designed for high altitude operations, will be deployed along the China-India borders “amid continued tensions.”

Calling it a game changer, the report hyped India’s new tank and its capabilities, and how it can rival its Chinese counterpart, the Type 15.

The first reports on the debut of the Zorawar light tank were published by Indian media in early July, which, although mentioning China as well, noted that the new Indian tank will not be ready before 2027, a key detail that was ignored by VOA.

Recently, relations between China and India have been recovering, with the two sides having held the 30th Meeting of Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs in late July.

It has been more than four years since the Galwan Valley clash of 2020, and since then the two countries have held multiple rounds of border talks on different levels in both military and diplomatic channels, having seen de-escalation and disengagement in multiple points of contact, a Beijing-based military expert who requested not to be named told the Global Times on Tuesday.

The US media’s hype on military confrontation along the China-India border is unprofessional, and it exposes the US’ mentality of wanting to sow discord amid improving China-India ties, the expert added.

From a military point of view, China has commissioned and actually deployed the Type 15 light tank since 2019, while India’s new tank will have to wait until at least 2027, the expert said, noting that India’s defense industry has a history of issues such as delays, cost rises and technical problems.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Subliminal Message from Beijing to Washington amidst the War Drums

By Lama El Horr – New Eastern Outlook – 12.08.2024 

Anger is a pyromaniac. Under its influence, we tend to provoke a reaction from our adversary, which serves as fuel to fan the flames, thus increasing the legitimacy of the angry inferno. The method is convenient for practicing accusatory inversion and making the one reacting to aggression the instigator of hell.

Today, Washington is angry. The object of this anger is China’s spectacular rise to power, which is increasingly shaking the foundations and legitimacy of US domination of the world. This American anger desperately needs pretexts to both justify and intensify hostilities against Beijing. The United States is therefore seeking to provoke a violent reaction from its main geopolitical rival: China.

So far, this American strategy of one-upmanship has had the opposite effect to that intended. Whether in Beijing’s immediate vicinity, in the Middle East, Africa or Europe, American pressure against China and its partners has reinforced Beijing’s pacifist vocation, to the point of making it a key diplomatic player in the resolution of the world’s most acute crises. Much to the chagrin of Washington’s thirst for fire.

An escalation of tensions meticulously organized by Washington and its allies

Washington’s strategy of escalating tensions aims to target the fulcrums that make the multipolarity advocated by Beijing and Russia a geopolitical reality. Fomenting conflicts involving Beijing’s strategic partners is the path the United States seems to have chosen to curb China’s rise to power and harm its strategic investments.

When Washington allowed Israel to assassinate the Hamas political leader in charge of negotiations, on Iranian soil and in the wake of the Beijing Declaration, the efforts of Chinese diplomacy to unify the Palestinian factions were also targeted. When Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus in defiance of the Vienna Convention, China, which has a strategic partnership with Iran and Syria, was also targeted. When Washington and its allies bomb Yemen to remove any obstacle to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories, China, which worked for the rapprochement between Riyadh and Teheran, then between Riyadh and Sanaa, is also targeted. When the members of the UN Security Council adopt a resolution on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, and the United States declares that this resolution is non-binding, China, which urges respect for international law and whose strategic interests are threatened by regional insecurity, is also targeted.

The latest developments concerning the Western Sahara bear striking similarities to those in West Asia. As with the Palestinian question, the Western bloc is flouting international law, which enshrines the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination – except that here, it’s the China-Algeria economic partnership, and the Russia-Algeria security partnership, that seem to be in Washington’s sights. And let’s not forget that Algerian gas is supposed to relieve Europeans of anti-Russian sanctions, and that Algeria continues to speak out on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Likely to inflame tensions on North Africa’s western flank, the Western Sahara is a godsend for Washington at a time when Algeria and its southern neighbors (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso) have embarked on a process of decolonizing their development and security model – a process that is about to extend to other countries that have also lived under Western tutelage since independence, such as Chad and Nigeria.

Like Israel against Iran, Ukraine against Moscow or Seoul against Pyongyang, France has been assigned the role of executor of the US strategy to contain China, through the demonization of Algeria. Paris is aided in its mission by the Abraham Accords, concluded between Morocco and Israel under the aegis of the Trump administration, which contribute to reinforcing NATO’s presence in North Africa – in a less brutal manner, for the time being, than in the former Yugoslavia.

This strategy of Atlanticist escalation borders on the grotesque when it comes to Venezuela, a BRICS candidate country and one of the world’s leading oil and gas reserves. After decades of outrages suffered by Caracas – attempted coups d’état, media killing of legitimate leaders, suffocation of the economy by apartheid-style sanctions – the United States has still not achieved its goal: to take control of the country’s strategic resources and install its military bases there. As in the case of Iran, the assistance of Beijing and Moscow was crucial in preventing Venezuela’s collapse.

The Western bloc’s decision to resume the affront of not recognizing the elected president has just been severely thwarted by Beijing and Moscow. Invited to the BRICS Summit to be held in Russia in October, Nicolas Maduro announced that he could entrust the exploitation of his country’s strategic resources to members of this structure. Caracas seems to be warning Washington: if you don’t curb your greed, you run the risk of losing everything.

On China’s doorstep, the outbreak of violence that forced the resignation of Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh – another BRICS candidate country – raises questions about Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The former head of government’s statements concerning the intentions of “a certain country” to build a military base on the island of Saint Martin in the Bay of Bengal, and also to create a Christian state that would include parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar and even India, offer a reading of events quite distinct from what is being said by the Western media and Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi Nobel Prize winner who has just been entrusted with the head of the interim government.

One power struggle, two world views

Through its leaders, its satellite countries and its megaphone, the mainstream media, the United States strives to portray East-West tensions as a conflict of hierarchy between two models of governance: liberal democracies, synonymous with the West, and autocracies, synonymous with emerging powers. China, on the other hand, offers a different interpretation: the reason for global geopolitical tensions is the questioning of the hierarchy of power in a world where the overwhelming majority of people are challenging American hegemony.

Despite the risk of confrontation it raises, the exacerbation of tensions between Beijing and Washington certainly has one merit: it shows that the two powers have two diametrically opposed conceptions of the world, of their place in it, and of the rules that are supposed to govern relations between states.

Just as it cannot conceive of its own sovereignty without respecting the sovereignty of other states – which implies the primacy of the principle of non-interference and the rejection of any hegemonic power – China also considers that there is an interdependence between its development and that of other nations. This is the founding idea of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, complemented by the vision of a Community of Destiny for Mankind.

This is the bedrock of Chinese political philosophy, in which the notions of development, security and peace are inextricably linked. The BRI and China’s Security, Development and Civilization initiatives are the best illustrations of this concept of civilizational interdependence. In Beijing’s view, we’re all piloting the same ship: it’s up to each and every one of us to be a good pilot, a good teammate and a good visionary, because we’ll have to work collectively to achieve prosperity, and collectively to avoid the pitfalls. The success of such a project depends on keeping the peace on board.

On the contrary, the United States believes that its sovereignty depends on the subordination of other states to its power, and that its continued development depends on obstructing the economic, technological and military independence of other global players. This denial of peoples’ right to self-determination betrays a supremacist conception of power – not inconsistent with imperialist ideology – and logically raises objections throughout the world.

Despite these objections, judging by its militaristic headlong rush, the American administration continues to endorse the statement attributed to Caligula: ‘Let them hate me, so long as they fear me!’ Yet today, with the exception of EU members and a handful of other satellite states, the United States no longer commands the fearful respect it once did in the golden age of its omnipotence – despite the increasingly exorbitant budget allocated to its arms industry.

Behind Beijing’s placid posture, a message to Washington

In this explosive geopolitical context, Washington is seeking to drive Beijing up against the wall, by limiting the Asian giant’s choice to two options. Either China persists in avoiding confrontation – in which case Washington will inevitably gain ground – or China sinks into the spiral of American pyromania – in which case Beijing will turn away from its own geopolitical priorities, in favor of those of its rival. In other words, Washington is offering Beijing the choice between capitulation and surrender.

China doesn’t see it that way, and has its sights set on a third way: pacifism without capitulation. Whether it’s Taiwan, the Korean peninsula, tensions in the South China Sea, conflicts between NATO and Russia, or between the US and Iran, China persists in advocating the peaceful resolution of disputes. In support of this position, Beijing has woven a network of inclusive partnerships, as opposed to exclusive military alliances.

Clearly, this pacifist plea reflects the Chinese authorities’ strategic decision to refrain from knee-jerk reactions to Washington’s military provocations. China’s challenge is to break the United States’ militaristic logic, without indulging its strategy of conflagration.

For the time being, Beijing has decided to meet this challenge with silence. A good illustration of this is the conflict in the Middle East and Gaza. China’s silence has prompted the Western bloc to reveal its cards and discredit itself. ‘Freedom’, ‘Human Rights’, ‘Democracy’ and ‘International Law’ are suffering the same carnage as the Palestinian people.

Beijing’s silence also keeps Washington in the dark about the military capabilities of Beijing’s and Moscow’s partners. The extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian, Lebanese and Iranian leaders, marked by the seal of international illegality, are the very demonstration of the United States’ frustration at the military calm of its geopolitical adversaries.

Added to this are the uninterrupted requests for membership of the BRICS and the SCO, the hallmarks of the multipolar world. This simple fact means that the tornado of hostilities towards Beijing has not succeeded in diverting the world majority from its aspiration to emancipate itself from the American hegemonic order. Now, if living under the American yoke is intolerable for Iran, Algeria or Venezuela, it’s easy to imagine the degree of irritation the world’s second-largest economy must feel.

But ultimately, as the NATO-Russia conflict has shown, the United States cannot conceive that the deterrent power of its rivals can be applied to itself. It was only by confronting NATO militarily, through Ukraine, that Russia’s deterrent power could be restored. The provocations against Moscow revealed that Washington did not possess all the details of Russia’s military architecture. Today’s outcome of this conflict, revealing the overwhelming superiority of the Russian army, suggests that Moscow, like Beijing and Teheran, had shown unlimited strategic patience before resorting to the military option. Unfortunately, the USA and its NATO allies discovered this at the same time as they discovered Moscow’s firepower.

Today, when Washington seems to be saying: We run the world, and China is part of the world, China seems to be replying, in the manner of Aimé Césaire: Strength is not within us, but above us.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

China supports Iran in defending its security, sovereignty: Foreign minister

Press TV – August 11, 2024

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says Beijing supports Iran in defending its “sovereignty, security and national dignity” amid Tehran’s promise to harshly punish Israel over the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the political bureau of the Hamas resistance movement.

In a phone call with Iran’s Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani on Sunday, Wang repeated Beijing’s denunciation of the Hamas chief’s assassination in Tehran late last month, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

He said the strike against Haniyeh had violated Iran’s sovereignty and posed a threat to regional stability.

He added that the killing of Haniyeh had “directly undermined the Gaza ceasefire negotiation process and undermined regional peace and stability.”

Haniyeh was assassinated on July 31, while he was in Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said Haniyeh’s assassination was designed and executed by Israel, with support from the US administration.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has warned the Israeli regime of a “harsh response” for Haniyeh’s assassination, saying it was the Islamic Republic’s duty to avenge the Palestinian resistance leader’s blood.

August 11, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Thailand aborts the colour revolution

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR  | Indian Punchline | August 9, 2024 

The curtain has come down on the abortive colour revolution in Thailand with the country’s Constitutional Court ordering the dissolution on Wednesday of the anti-establishment opposition party Move Forward, widely regarded as a US proxy. 

It coincides with the stunning success of the hastily staged colour revolution in Bangladesh and the fall of the key military base of the Myanmar army’s Northeast Command in Lashio in the Shan state over the weekend to the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, the rebel groups armed, financed and trained by the Western intelligence.

The Shan people who belong to the Tai ethnic group of Southeast Asia are the biggest minority of Myanmar (10% of the population) and they have cultural affinity with the Northern Thai peoples and also have a significant presence in the adjacent regions of Assam and Meghalaya in India. 

The capture of Lashio by the alliance of militias of ethnic minority groups supported by the western intelligence is seen as a serious blow to the regime in Myanmar, which enjoys the backing of the military leadership in Thailand and is a strong ally of Russia. 

Lashio is situated on an important trade route and is about 100 kms only from the Chinese border. Newsweek magazine in a report titled China Faces Growing War on Its Border cited an expert opinion of the Washington-based United States Institute of Peace think tank (which is wired into the US intelligence establishment) that:

“From China’s vantage point, the escalation of the conflict is a major setback in terms of its interest in… getting the belligerent parties to establish further deals to reset trade between the China border and Mandalay.

“China seems very concerned, as it will be very difficult for the Myanmar military to bounce back from this setback, yet the Myanmar military is not signalling a desire to return to the table or an interest in making significant concessions to the northern EAOs (alliance of tribal groups), which is what China has been pressuring it to do.” 

According to latest reports, American and British “volunteers” have been lately joining the ranks of the rebels fighting the Myanmar military — although, these are early days and Myanmar has not experienced yet the same wave of international volunteers seen in conflicts such as Ukraine or Syria, and there are no coordinated efforts apparent to enlist foreign recruits.  

The Myanmar military supremo General Min Aung Hlaing has alleged that the rebel alliance is receiving weapons, including drones and short-range missiles, from “foreign” sources.  “It is necessary to analyse the sources of monetary and technological power,” he said. Myanmar’s military has 14 regional commands across the country, and the Northeast Command is the first to fall to armed rebel groups. 

Meanwhile, the Arakan Army (AA) — a powerful ethnic armed group which is fighting to establish an independent Rakhine polity in western Myanmar — has been on the move committing atrocities against the Rohingya minority population taking advantage of the military’s current overstretch. 

AA has made significant gains in Rakhine State in the recent months and reportedly exercises control over more than half of the state’s 17 townships. By the way, the Arakanese people also exist in Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts and in India’s Tripura state. (Interestingly, Arakan Division was originally a part of British India.) 

Coming back to Bangkok, the Thai generals are evidently circling the wagons sensing the Time of Troubles ahead as the Five Eyes is creating a cauldron in Myanmar that can ensnare the neighbouring regions. Bangkok, a western ally previously, is traditionally a hotbed of western intelligence — Five Eyes — and the authorities are well aware of the resentment in the US that their ties with Beijing have expanded and deepened and assumed a strategic character in the recent years. 

The unkindest cut of all is that Thailand (along with Malaysia) has formally applied for membership of the BRICS, which carries huge resonance in the geopolitics of  southeast Asia and the ASEAN and impacts the regional balance at a juncture when the US is striving to create an anti-China bloc. 

Thailand is a keen participant in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. From a long term perspective, the 873-km high-speed rail project connecting Bangkok with Kunming, capital of China’s Yunnan province, via Laos is expected to be operational latest by 2028. 

The railway project, estimated to cost anywhere up to $10 billion will not only enhance regional connectivity but profoundly reset the economic geography of Asia, given its massive potential for accelerating the increased integration between China and the ASEAN countries. People would be able to travel between Kunming and Bangkok by train for about $100, which is half to a third of the cost of an airline ticket. According to Xinhua, the railway is expected to bring two million more Chinese tourists to Thailand every year.

Washington is livid that its proxy, Move Forward led by a young man educated in the US and groomed to spearhead a colour revolution, has been banned. The Thai authorities understand that the western intention is to break up the ancient crust of their country’s polity, which is the only way to make inroads into what is otherwise a deeply Buddhist culture — specifically, to demolish the so-called lèse-majesté law protecting the institution of monarchy, an institution that dates back more than 700 years and is a pillar of stability in the country symbolising the unity of the Thai communities. By the way, Christian missionary work is active in both Thailand and Myanmar — as in next-door north-eastern region of India. And the evangelicals are an influential pressure group in the US politics. 

The Thai authorities have shied away from confronting the US. Thai culture values serenity and avoids conflict and displays of anger. Even disagreements are to be handled with a smile, without assigning blame. Hence the circuitous route to squash Move Forward on legal grounds. 

Move Forward won 151 seats in the 500 member parliament in the elections in May last year where sixty-seven parties contested, but was unable to form a coalition government after being functionally blocked by allies of the monarchy and military. Move Forward made the electoral pledge to abolish lèse-majesté law (which is tantamount to a crime.) 

The US and its allies are furious but cannot do anything about the development. All the good work to stage a colour revolution in phases has come to naught. The exasperation shows in the statements from Washington and Canberra. (here and here) 

However, all is not lost. The regime change in Bangladesh may open a new pathway for the western intervention in Myanmar. India and Thailand refused to back the western-backed rebels fighting the Myanmar military. Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also stayed away from the power struggle in Myanmar. But that may change. 

The Rohingya issue provides an alibi. The ascendance of Pakistani intelligence and the larger-than life role of the Jamaat-i-Islami will trigger an assertion of Bangladesh’s Muslim identity. The Pakistani army chief lost no time to underscore that the developments in Bangladesh underscore the raison d’être of the two-nation theory!

So, the regime change in Bangladesh may turn out to be a game changer for the West’s regime change agenda in Myanmar. On the other hand, at the secondary and tertiary level, any strengthening of the western-backed rebel alliance in Myanmar cannot but cast shadows on India’s northeast, which has a large Christian population with tribal affinities across the border. 

An awareness is lacking that any weakening of Thailand’s state structure or the dissipation of Thai culture rooted in Buddhist traditions will isolate India in the region’s civilisational tapestry. Indians tend to take an episodic view of current events in their immediate neighbourhood.

Prior to the rise of Theravada Buddhism, both Indian Brahminical religion and Mahayana Buddhism were present in Thailand, and influences from both these traditions can still be seen in present-day Thai folklore. A colour revolution in Thailand leading to western dominance and the eclipse of the Thai monarchy and Buddhist cosmology would have profound implications for South Asia. 

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese FM calls for international community to unite behind cease-fire in Gaza

By Liu Xin | Global Times | August 8, 2024

Top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi has held phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan, condemning the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, calling for efforts by different parties to prevent further escalation of conflicts and urging countries to form a joint force to help achieve a cease-fire in Gaza.

Hamas named Yahya Sinwar, who is seen as representing Hamas’ hard-liners, as successor to Haniyeh. Arab countries, in a dilemma and feeling more anxious, hope that China can play a positive role in deescalating the situation as they recognize China’s efforts and capacity in regional reconciliation, analysts said.

But the complexity of the situation requires joint efforts from all parties to address the current crisis, especially the US and Israel, to avoid escalation, they said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Wednesday released information on Wang’s phone conversations with Badr Abdelatty, Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Egyptian Expatriates and with Jordan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi, which took place on Tuesday. During both conversations, Wang said that China resolutely opposes and strongly condemns the assassination of Haniyeh.

While talking with Abdelatty, Wang said that retaliatory action leads to a vicious cycle, and violence begets more violence, exacerbating conflict. China will strengthen solidarity with Arab countries, and work with all parties to avoid further escalation and deterioration of the situation.

In talking with Safadi, Wang said that the key to avoiding the deterioration and escalation of the situation is to achieve a full and permanent cease-fire in Gaza as soon as possible and the international community should make a more consistent voice on this issue and form a joint force.

Liu Zhongmin, a professor from the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, told the Global Times on Wednesday that Egypt and Jordan are neighbors of the parties in conflict. Both countries established diplomatic relations with Israel early and have upheld a cautious approach to the situation involving Iran.

At this complex and critical juncture, they seek to engage with China given China’s previous role in brokering reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia and among various Palestinian factions, Liu said.

Fourteen Palestinian factions signed the Beijing Declaration on July 23, seen as a positive move toward ending division and strengthening Palestinian national unity.

The conflicts in the Middle East not only relate to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, but also result from the US’ long-term partial policies toward Israel and Iran’s diplomatic inclinations, Liu said, therefore joint efforts from all involved parties are needed to address the crisis.

Simmering escalation of tension

With Iran’s retaliation against Israel looming after Haniyeh’s assassination, regional countries and major players have been actively engaged in diplomacy to avoid an all-out regional war. Jordan’s Foreign Minister Safadi made a rare visit to Iran on Sunday and Russian media reported that Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu also visited Iran on Monday.

US President Joe Biden called Jordan’s King Abdullah II on Monday and spoke with the leaders of Qatar and Egypt on Tuesday to discuss efforts to deescalate regional tensions, the White House said.

The US is indeed the instigator of the situation which has been spiraling out of control in the Middle East, Sun Degang, director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times.

“If the US had managed to restrain Israel and allow a cease-fire in Gaza earlier, the situation would not have escalated to this extent. Also it is the US’ repeated obstruction at the UN Security Council on cease-fire proposals that has led to the current situation,” said Sun.

Unlike Haniyeh, Sinwar represents hard-liners in Hamas, Sun said, adding that Hamas’ past approach of “fighting while seeking negotiations at the same time” may likely shift to “survival through combat.”

Sun said that Hamas would also seek to form an alliance with Iran, the Houthis and Hezbollah, while trying to gain international support.

Iran did not immediately retaliate after the assassination but tried to tell the world that it is Israel that has infringed international norms and violated Iran’s sovereignty, which has forced Iran to respond. The appointment of Sinwar could be a critical moment when Iran might take action, Sun said.

Liu said Iran is likely to continue missile attacks on Israel and mobilize other militia groups in skirmishes with Israel. However, given Iran’s current domestic and international situation, it is unlikely to engage in a large-scale conflict with Israel at the expense of the nation’s interests.

No matter how the crisis unfolds, the hatred between Iran and Israel will accumulate, and the escalating cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation between them will worsen regional diplomatic relations, said Liu.

In past decades, the vicious cycle in the Middle East has repeated with no country emerging as a true winner, and if the cycle continues, none of the regional countries can have substantial security, analysts said, adding that as China and many other countries have advocated, negotiation and political settlement is the only way out.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

US weaponizing Australia for geopolitical interests requires Canberra’s vigilance

Global Times | August 7, 2024

In geopolitics, it appears that countries that frequently mention “coercion” are often the ones most skilled at using it. This has been proven again during the recent Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

The US and Australia convened for AUSMIN on Tuesday. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin highlighted that the bilateral discussions covered several contentious topics, including China’s “coercive behavior.” Additionally, he announced the US’ plan to enhance “the presence of rotational US Forces in Australia” and increase “more frequent rotational bomber deployments” to the country.

These moves, under the banner of “security cooperation,” are aimed at positioning Canberra at the forefront of Washington’s geopolitical strategy and constitute a provocation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The term “concern” appeared approximately 14 times in the joint statement after the US-Australia meeting, intending to portray a tense and volatile atmosphere in the region. While the US blatantly alleged China’s “coercive behavior,” this narrative serves to advance its ultimate goal of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. By portraying China as a threat, the US aims to justify its provocative actions in the region. Such tactics, reminiscent of the crying wolf, are characteristic of hegemonic nation manipulating its allied states.

Using the label of China’s “coercive behavior” to prompt Australia into the forefront of the US overseas military deployments is a typical illustration of US Indo-Pacific strategy. In addition to the hype of the “China threat” during the AUSMIN, it was reported by Reuters that the Cocos Islands of Australia, a remote island close to an Indian Ocean chokepoint for Chinese oil shipments, is on a list of possible locations for US military construction aimed at deterring China.

“The US’ military deployment in the Cocos Islands serves two primary purposes,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, told the Global Times. “It aims to monitor the Chinese navy, particularly submarines, and intends to present a deterrence against China,” the expert said. The role of these islands already illustrates the US’ hidden agenda in militarizing Australia, positioning it as a frontline against China, whether for surveillance or in preparation for potential conflicts.

The US military build-up in Australia is undeniable evidence of its use of the country as a geopolitical pawn. These deployments are not motivated by concern for Australia’s security needs but by US’ pursuit of global strategic interests. This approach places Canberra in a precarious position of competing blindly for Washington’s interests, potentially compromising its neutrality and independence in international affairs.

“Following increased US military deployment in Australia, its role has shifted from being a ‘southern anchor’ to a ‘southern spear,'” said Chen. The first pillar of AUKUS, the construction of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, aims to enhance the country’s military capability for long-range strikes, which means US bases in Australia are no longer confined to defensive purposes.

The US harbors sinister intentions in militarizing Australia, luring allies like Australia to spearhead its hegemonic interests, which poses grave financial and security risks for the country, Chen added.

US instigation will only heighten Australia’s security risks, fostering excessive reliance on external military power. By leveraging supposed “regional threats” to coerce Australia into accepting military deployments, the US’ true objective is to manipulate Australia as a tool against China. This deserves Australia’s vigilance.

Australia’s natural geographic advantages could enable it to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability through an independent foreign policy. With significant geographical distance from China and no historical or territorial disputes, Australia faces no inherent threat from China.

Notably, Austin’s direct accusation of “Chinese coercion” did not feature prominently in the US-Australia joint statement. This suggests Australia acknowledges the importance of not fully aligning with US’ confrontational approach toward China at the expense of cooperation and friendship with China.

The recent thaw in China-Australia relations is a positive development. The Australian government should maintain rationality and composure, resisting the pressure to forsake its independent strategy and diplomacy.

Only by doing so can Australia effectively protect its national interests and sovereignty, preventing it from becoming a pawn in US geopolitical strategies and ensuring that its relationship with China is not sacrificed to US hegemonic ambitions.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia Ranks Among G20’s Lowest in National Debt Per Capita

Sputnik – August 3, 2024

This year, Russia has entered the top three largest economies in the world with the lowest level of national debt per capita, according to an analysis by Sputnik of the latest data from G20 countries. On average, government debt among those countries is $23,600 per citizen. Only six countries exceed that mark.

New data shows Russia has one of the lowest per-capita debt levels of the G20 group of nations.

India has the most modest sovereign debt, with the latest data from the G20 showing $1,316 per person. Indonesia follows with $1,747 and Russia is third with $2,076 per capita at the end of the first half of this year.

Other countries with national debts less than $5,000 per person include Turkiye ($2,800), China ($3,000) and South Africa ($4,500).

Countries with debts ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 include Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Argentina.

South Korea’s national debt is almost twice that of Argentina, at $16,000 per capita, Germany’s is $20,900 and Australia’s is $21,200 per capita.

The six countries with above-average national debts are all members of the Group of Seven (G7).

Of those, Canada has the lowest debt at $25,300 per capita. France’s debt stands at $40,300 per citizen, while the UK and Italy have accumulated debts twice as large as Canada’s at $51,600 and $51,900 per person. Japan has the second-largest national debt at $70,400 per capita.

The United States continues to have the highest sovereign debt, at $104,500 per capita — 80 times higher than India’s and 50 times higher than Russia’s. Among all countries in the world, only Singapore has a higher debt figure at $149,300 per person.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s allies block Security Council statement condemning Tehran attack

The Cradle | August 1, 2024

The US, UK, and France blocked a Russian-proposed statement at the UN Security Council (UNSC) condemning the assassination of Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran’s envoy to the UN Amir Saeid Iravani said on 1 August.

“Russia’s proposed statement condemning Israel’s heinous act was blocked by the US, UK, and France,” Iravani told Russian media following an emergency UNSC meeting on Wednesday night.

“It is now absolutely necessary to hold the occupying [Israeli] regime accountable for the atrocities it committed,” the Iranian diplomat added. “This regime cannot be allowed to escape accountability and consequences for the violations it has committed.”

During the session, Iravani stressed that Tehran “reserves its inherent right to self-defense in accordance with international law” and said that “the responsibility of the United States as a strategic ally and main supporter of the Israeli regime in the region cannot be overlooked in this horrific crime. This act could not [have] occurred without the authorization and intelligence support of the US.”

Permanent UNSC members Russia and China strongly condemned Israel’s attacks on the Iranian and Lebanese capitals, blasting Tel Aviv for once more sabotaging Gaza ceasefire talks and pushing the region to the brink of all-out war.

“China is deeply concerned about the potential for this incident to further destabilize the region,” Fu Cong, China’s permanent representative to the UN, emphasized during the meeting. “China strongly opposes and condemns recent irresponsible actions, including Israel’s attacks on southern Beirut,” he added.

Fu also called on Tel Aviv to cease all military actions in Gaza and appealed to “influential countries” to “put more pressure and work more vigorously … to put out the flames of war in Gaza.”

Russia’s first deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, also condemned Haniyeh’s killing, calling it an “attempt” to drag Iran into war.

“This provocative attack was carried out while the Hamas leader was in Iran on an official invitation to attend the inauguration ceremony of the President-elect of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian. Those behind this political assassination had to realize how dangerous the consequences could have been for the entire region,” Polyansky said.

“The misguided practice of targeted liquidations of prominent political and military figures is bringing the Middle East to the brink of a region-wide war,” the Russian diplomat added.

Feda Abdelhady Nasser, the deputy permanent observer of the State of Palestine to the UN, told the gathered diplomats that the global community “has a choice to make” between “peace and security” or letting “Israel drag us all to the abyss.”

“Israel has been the oppressor, tormentor, and murderer of Palestinians for decades, and it is the longstanding destabilizer of our region,” Nasser highlighted.

Lebanon’s Acting Permanent Representative to the UN, Hadi Hashem, contested Israel’s claims that the attack on the Beirut suburb of Dahye this week was an act of “self-defense.”

“Israel’s claim that it seeks to protect the population it occupies is a display of hypocrisy,” Hachem said, adding, “The real goal of Israel is to prolong and escalate the hostilities. And it is ironic that the killer of tens of thousands of children in Gaza sheds tears for the children of the occupied Syrian Golan.”

Similarly, Syria’s UN ambassador, Qusai al-Dahhak, stressed that “Israel is responsible for the crime in Majdal Shams” and noted that the territory is Syrian, accusing Israel of “weaponizing” the attack on the Druze community “to continue its aggression on the states of the region.”

Robert Wood, deputy US ambassador to the UN, called on UNSC members with influence over Iran “to increase pressure on it to stop escalating its proxy conflict against Israel and other actors.”

France and the UK took a similar line, reiterating a call for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza and condemning what they said was Iranian support for “destabilizing actors in the region.”

August 1, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »