Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran given roadmap for joining Russia and China in major bloc

Samizdat | September 15, 2022

Iran has signed a memorandum paving the way to transition from its current observer status to full membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The Middle-Eastern nation, which the US has long sought to undermine with diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, made a formal step on Thursday to become the ninth member of the organization. Among the SCO’s heavyweights are Russia and China, two major powers that are on Washington’s list of geopolitical opponents.

The SCO was created in 2001 as an intragovernmental forum aimed at fostering trust and developing economic and humanitarian ties in Asia.

It currently has eight permanent members: China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The last is currently hosting the annual summit of the leaders of the member states in the city of Samarkand.

Iran has been an SCO observer since 2005. Its delegation to the summit is headed by President Ebrahim Raisi, who met with senior Uzbek officials on Wednesday.

The memorandum, which spells the commitments that Tehran will undertake to become an SCO member, was signed by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming, the host country’s foreign ministry reported.

Yury Ushakov, a foreign affairs advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said earlier this week that Iran could qualify for being upgraded to full membership before next year’s SCO summit in India.

Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev touted this year’s event as a turning point for the organization. He cited the rapidly growing interest of nations in closer involvement with the SCO and said that it served as an example of how a “deep crisis of trust at the global level” can be overcome by parties willing to do so. He also stressed the scale of the group, which accounts for roughly half of the world’s population and a quarter of global GDP.

Belarus, also an SCO observer, is set to start the formal process for full membership this year. Egypt and Qatar formally joined the organization as dialogue partners on Wednesday. Saudi Arabia is scheduled to do the same, while Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Myanmar, and the Maldives are expected to begin their respective paths to receiving the same status.

September 15, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Big picture of disengagement in Ladakh

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | SEPTEMBER 10, 2022 

The Ministry of External Affairs has done the right thing by explaining its taciturn press release on Thursday in a single sentence regarding the disengagement of troops in the area of Gogra-Hotsprings along the LAC in the Western Sector of India-China border areas. 

The Official Spokesman Arindam Bagchi shared on Friday more details. Broadly, a consensus reached at the 16th round of India China Corps Commander Level Meeting on 17 July has since been fleshed out by the two sides, and the actual disengagement commenced on Thursday which will be completed on coming Monday. The following key elements draw attention: 

  • Both sides will “cease forward deployments in this area in a phased, coordinated and verified manner, resulting in the return of the troops of both sides to their respective areas.” 
  • All temporary structures and other allied infrastructure created in the area by both sides “will be dismantled and mutually verified.” 
  • “The landforms in the area will be restored to pre-stand-off period by both sides.”  
  • “The agreement ensures that the LAC in this area will be strictly observed and respected by both sides, and that there will be no unilateral change in status quo.” 
  • Going forward, the sides will “take the talks forward and resolve the remaining issues along LAC and restore peace and tranquility in India-China border areas.” 

The last two elements — prohibiting “unilateral change in status quo”  and the commitment to resolve the remaining issues — are inter-related. 

Simply put, there will be no attempts by either side to indulge in any “Mission Creep” to seize unilateral advantage of territory. This is hugely important, given the two vastly divergent narratives on what precipitated the standoff two years ago. How the “status quo” is to be understood is not yet in the public domain but presumably, it is to mutual satisfaction.

A judicious mix of firmness and realism made this agreement possible. Some Indian commentators have rushed to belittle its importance by linking it to a possible meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping next week at Samarkand.

That said, if there is going to be a meeting at Samarkand, this disengagement provides a setting for constructive discussion. Both governments have high stakes in maintaining peace and tranquility along the LAC in the present hugely transformative period in the world order. For China, issues of war and peace in the Taiwan Straits are a top priority. 

As for India, a crucial period of adjustment to new geopolitical conditions lies ahead which presents daunting challenges to its strategic autonomy and independent foreign policies, stemming from the West’s attempts to polarise the world community against Russia and China. 

Both India and China sense the high importance of pursuing their respective trajectories of economic growth and development optimally in a difficult and unfavourable climate internationally. Speaking of India, our analysts prefer — either due to ignorance or with deliberation — to sidestep the co-relation between a peaceful and tranquil border and the country’s overall economic situation. 

The Ukraine conflict is adding to global inflation by raising the cost of energy and other raw commodities while an increasingly hawkish US Fed is tightening its policies, and significantly reducing its balance sheet. There could be looming currency and foreign exchange worries. Time may have come to build up a clearing system among BRICS countries. India’s current foreign exchange reserves are at their lowest since October 2020. Persistent foreign outflows from India’s equity and debt markets have also weighed on the rupee.  

There is continuing Western interference in India-China relations and the fact that the government has sequestered the bilateral track with China is not going to be to the liking of the West. Fundamentally, the contradiction is that without India, there is no “Indo-Pacific Strategy” against China. 

In a recent interview with an Indian newspaper, the former Prime Minister of Australia and an acclaimed hawk on China, Kevin Rudd, posed the question that troubles the Western mind most: “What does India do ultimately, if China does unilaterally resolve the border, as Gorbachev did, with the Russian Federation within the Soviet Union in 1989?” 

Rudd repeated, “what would India then do in terms of China’s rise if the border was resolved, and India and China and Russia folded into one enormous market of mutual opportunity?” In such a scenario, Rudd could see only a binary choice for India: it should either “bandwagon” with China or “balance” China. 

Rudd must be a terribly disappointed man to see that there could be a Third Way. China is not really  expecting anyone to “bandwagon” with it. Its DNA is similar to India’s — pursuit of national interests while retaining strategic autonomy (even with regard to its partner Russia.) 

China takes satisfaction that India treasures its strategic autonomy. Its expectation is only that India should not align with the US to pursue  hostile policies. That is perfectly understandable, too. 

A consensus with China that neither party will try to gain territorial advantage is the maximum that can be expected today and the irreducible minimum required until such time as the Indian opinion  can accept a fair and just settlement of the boundary question in a spirit of compromise. 

Notably, Chinese commentators have appreciated EAM Jaishankar’s forceful remarks through March-April enunciating India’s oil purchases from Russia giving primacy to national interests. Conceivably, such assertion of India’s strategic autonomy created a favourable ambience in the ongoing talks at various levels with China, leading to the disengagement in Gogra-Hotsprings. 

China and India have many common interests in the emergent world order. Only two days ago, PM’s remarks at the Eastern Economic Forum plenary at Vladivostok signalled India’s interest to work with Russia in the Arctic (where China is also a participant) as also in the Northern Sea Route (where China too is a stakeholder).

By the way, the Russia-China Joint Statement on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development (February 4, 2022)speaks about the two countries “consistently intensifying practical cooperation for the sustainable development of the Arctic” as well as the “development and use of Arctic routes.”

There is no empirical evidence to show that China has blocked India’s pathway in the Arctic or the Russian Far East, Southeast Asia, Central Asia or West Asia. The disengagement in Ladakh gives hope that the bilateral relations can be restored, especially in the economic sphere. There is no question that India should be vigilant about its defence and national security. But to be paranoid about it or getting  entrapped in xenophobic attitudes will be wasteful and ultimately debilitating. 

September 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

India, China Break Border Deadlock as They Begin Withdrawing Troops From Contested Ladakh

Samizdat – 08.09.2022

The last disengagement of troops on the loosely demarcated Line of Actual Control (LAC) took place a year ago. Delhi and Beijing have held more than half a dozen military and diplomatic talks following clashes on the border in 2020 that resulted in 20 Indian soldiers and four PLA troops being killed.

Indian and Chinese troops deployed at Gogra-Hotsprings (PP-15) in the eastern sector of the LAC have begun to disengage in a “coordinated and planned way,” the armies announced in a joint statement on Thursday afternoon.

The disengagement, halted for more than a year, began per the “consensus reached in the 16th round of India China Corps Commander Level Meeting” held on July 17.

The development is conducive to peace and tranquility in the border areas, the Indian Army added.

The news comes days ahead of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Samarkand, which will be attended by world leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and China’s President Xi Jinping.

The border stand-off between India and China broke out in April 2020 over infrastructure development works in the Pangong Tso region, escalating into violent clashes on June 15-16, in which 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers were killed.

Each side deployed tanks, fighter jets, and 60,000 troops in the areas behind the LAC.

Even as the two countries withdrew troops and tanks from Lake Pangong in February 2021, the process to separate their forces from other “friction areas” such as the Depsang Plains, Gogra, and Hotspring were stalled over a range of issues.

September 8, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US assesses China threat

Samizdat | September 8, 2022

There is a “distinct threat” that China could attempt to seize Taiwan by military means, a top US official has warned.

Appearing on ‘The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations’ on Bloomberg TV, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said: “I think it remains a distinct threat that there could be a military contingency around Taiwan.” He added the leadership in Beijing has “actually stated as official policy that it is not taking the invasion of Taiwan off the table.”

Sullivan also revealed that he would meet congressional leaders on Wednesday to advocate a bill that, if passed, would see US policy toward the self-governing island change. Among other things, he proposes designating Taiwan as one of America’s major non-NATO allies. The bill also calls for the allocation of $4.5 billion in security aid for Taipei.

When asked to clarify Washington’s position on the issue, Sullivan replied by saying that the Biden administration continues to “push back against any effort to change the status quo by force.”

While the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond when Bloomberg reached out for comment, Beijing’s envoy stateside, Qin Gang, warned last month that the US had gone “too far” in the region. The diplomat stressed at the time that should the Biden administration further escalate the situation, China would be forced to respond. The ambassador also denied as “baseless” allegations that Beijing is planning a military offensive against Taiwan in the near future.

Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949, after the losing side in the Chinese Civil War fled to the island and set up its own administration there. While only a handful of nations have since recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country, Taipei has long enjoyed close, unofficial ties with the US, with the latter supplying weapons to the island.

Meanwhile, on paper, Washington still adheres to the One-China principle.

Beijing considers Taiwan to be part of its sovereign territory which was temporarily seized by separatists.

September 8, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Liz Truss to contain China and Russia amid massive internal problems

Britain’s new prime minister will continue Boris Johnson’s foreign policy

By Ahmed Adel | September 8, 2022

Liz Truss as British Prime Minister does not bode well for peace in the Asia-Pacific region as her stance on foreign policy is quite predictable. During her tenure as Foreign Secretary in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, Liz Truss obviously spoke many times on foreign policy issues, but often in a manner that seemingly appeared she wanted a revival of the British Empire. In fact, the British press called her the most hawkish politician in the Conservative government. 

Her so-called toughness is especially evident in her stance towards Russia and China. For Liz Truss, both Russia and China are threats to humanity. Despite having this belief, it is evident that she in fact knows very little about these countries, especially when we consider that she had earlier this year confused Russian regions with Ukrainian territory and even more recently said Ukraine had survived a lot of invasions – “from the Mongols to the Tatars”, without realising Mongols and Tatars are one and the same.

And in this light, it is remembered that a year ago an official British document described China as a “systemic competitor”. With such a view, it is not surprising that London has created a lot of problems in its China policy. The British government condemned Beijing for its human rights violations in its western Xinjiang Autonomous Region, expressed dissatisfaction with Beijing’s “Security Law” for Hong Kong, and even welcomed the visit of American politicians to Taiwan. All of these provocations naturally aggravate Beijing.

This conservative approach could interfere with normal economic and trade relations between the two countries, which are contradictorily important to Britain as China is its third largest trading partner. Rather, by inflating anti-China sentiment, the British government wants to distract people from the country’s massive internal problems: high inflation, rising fuel prices and increasing poverty. 

It is clear that Liz Truss will continue the anti-China line of her predecessors. Her newly appointed foreign secretary, James Cleverly, has vowed to take a tough stance on Russia and China. 

According to Jonathan Sullivan, director of China programmes at Nottingham University’s Asia Research Institute, Britain’s so-called “pragmatic diplomacy” has lost its reputation.

“In ordinary circumstances, I’d say the new PM would ultimately pursue a more realistic and balanced approach to foreign affairs once in office, but the UK’s reputation for pragmatic diplomacy has taken a battering in recent years,” he said. “Labelling a major trade partner a threat would be a remarkable development, but the fact that it is not totally inconceivable speaks to the uncertainties that exist around Truss and the negative momentum that has built up around UK-China relations.”

None-the-less, it is ridiculous to hear the British talk about a so-called Chinese threat considering the country has not been at war since 1974. Meanwhile, during that period, Britain has battled in the Falklands War, Gulf War, Operation Desert Fox, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Libyan and Syrian wars, among others. 

After Brexit, the UK wanted to prove that it was still a great and relevant power without the EU and participate in global processes. One of these points is the South China Sea, where the UK plans to gain a foothold. Under previous Conservative prime ministers, it was expressed that the British Navy needed a regular presence in the South China Sea. They also plan to build UK naval bases in the region, like in Brunei.

So far, there are no permanent bases, but last year the British Navy’s newest and most powerful aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth II, sailed through the South China Sea. Certainly, under the Truss government, British warships will patrol these waters only for the sake of provoking China. There is an external reason for this – like the Americans, the British would claim that they are sending their fleet to distant lands to ensure “freedom of navigation” off China.

In addition, the desire to play an important role in the Indo-Pacific region is demonstrated by the UK’s participation in the new military bloc AUKUS, established in September 2021. There is no doubt that the Liz Truss government will continue to commit to its obligations under this alliance with the US and Australia.

All this goes against the vital interests of China and the wider East Asia region. But it is likely that the British prime minister will go in this direction. The question is whether she will be able to achieve her objectives in containing the Rise of China, something that is seemingly unlikely.

It is recalled that only days ago the Indian economy surpassed that of Britain, meaning that the former colonial master has slipped to sixth place in the global GDP ranking, with India rising to fifth place. This also comes as research has found that two-thirds of UK families could be in fuel poverty by January. With compounding economic and societal issues, it appears that Truss will continue in the same mould of Boris Johnson in not dealing with this and instead prioritise the attempt to maintain Britain’s relevancy in the world.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

September 8, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

All attempts to rule the world are doomed to fail – Russia

Samizdat | September 8, 2022

Western governments, most notably the US, are trying to impose their neo-colonial order on the world, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service chief Sergey Naryshkin claimed on Thursday during a Russian-Chinese roundtable meeting to discuss historical processes and the structure of the modern world.

In his opening statement, Naryshkin, who also heads up the Russian Historical Society, stated that the international sphere is currently going through a transformation as many countries are embarking on the path of sovereign development and are relying on their own cultural heritage and traditions.

“However, a small group of Western countries is standing in the way. Western liberal-totalitarian regimes which have essentially usurped the right to decide the vector of humanity’s development and have imposed their own neo-colonial world order,” Naryshkin said.

He pointed out that the US, which was “blinded by its quasi-victory in the Cold War,” has been trying to impose its so-called ‘rules-based order’ on the world, noting Washington’s repeated interference in the internal affairs of sovereign governments, ignoring Russia’s concerns about the expansion of NATO towards its borders, and the “blatantly tactless” visits of US politicians to Taiwan.

“What is this if not a manifestation of imperial swagger?” Naryshkin asked, noting that the US has been provoking conflicts all over the world in order to uphold its hegemony, which is being threatened by a global crisis caused by the greed and shortsightedness of the West.

Naryshkin went on to accuse the US of taking advantage of the inherent flaws of Ukrainian statehood and using the country as a springboard for an offensive against Russia by bringing outright neo-Nazis to power in Kiev and launching a full-blown civil war.

“The events of recent weeks indicate that the US will continue to drag out the conflict in Ukraine with all its might, regardless of the huge losses of Ukrainian armed forces, or the prospect of impoverishment of its European satellites,” he added.

“The Anglo-Saxon desire for world domination spreads to continental Europe as well,” the official stated, noting that nearly all European states today are essentially under the direct rule of Washington. “Unfortunately, most European politicians today are not guided by the needs of their constituents,” the intelligence chief asserted.

He concluded his address by pointing out that this is not the first time that a specific country or political bloc has attempted to rule the world, but stated that human history shows that all such attempts are inevitably doomed to fail.

Naryshkin’s comments were backed by the head of the Chinese Academy of History, Gao Xiang, who noted a “shortage of trust and peace” in the world and accused Western countries of returning to a Cold War mentality and causing major disruptions and turmoil around the globe.

“Every civilization has its charm. But no civilization is better than any other,” stated Gao, adding that a “sense of superiority” is not conducive to establishing relations between nations.

The Chinese official concluded by saying that Russia and China are good neighbors and that is something that will never change, while Naryshkin noted that Moscow and Beijing’s relations and mutual understanding of global tendencies have led many people around the world to reject the aggressive and cynical policies of the totalitarian West.

September 8, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

China rejects West’s call for Russian oil price cap

Samizdat | September 5, 2022

Beijing opposes the decision made by the G7 nations to introduce a price cap on Russian oil, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning said on Monday.

“Oil is crucial for ensuring global energy security,” she told a briefing, adding: “we hope that the countries concerned… will make constructive efforts, and not the other way around.”

The spokesperson urged the G7 states to instead “fortify dialogue and advance negotiations.”

On Friday, the finance ministers of the G7 (the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) agreed to impose a price ceiling on Russian oil, to limit the country’s revenues. The plan includes banning services such as insurance and financing to ships transporting Russian crude above an agreed price threshold.

On Saturday, the European Union urged China and India to join the G7’s price cap initiative. The EU claimed it’s unfair for countries to pay excess revenues to Moscow. China and India have ramped up their purchases of Russian oil lately, benefiting from discounted rates.

Moscow has warned it will suspend supplies of oil and petroleum products to states that decide to enforce a price cap.

September 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

The American Colony of Thailand

Tales of the American Empire | September 1, 2022

President Harry S. Truman helped transform the wartime OSS into a permanent government department known as the CIA in 1947. Without massive American wartime budgets, the newly established CIA wanted other sources of funding, and the opium trade could help. As a result, the CIA quickly organized its first coup by overthrowing the government of Thailand. It used profits from the opium trade to bribe Thai generals to transform Thailand into an American colony whose army was expanded and equipped to provide troops for American military adventures.

_____________________________________

Related Tale: “American Marines Reclaimed Northern China in 1945”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDBUT…

Related Tale: “Protecting the American Opium Trade”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMtl…

“Thailand – The Big Picture”; US Army; US National Archives; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRe20…

Related Tale: “Yamashita’s Gold and the CIA”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umJHv…

Related Tale: “The Destruction of Laos”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfe8F…

Related Tale: “The Strange Tale of the SS Mayaguez”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyHU…

“Operation Paper: The United States and Drugs in Thailand and Burma”; Peter Dale Scott; The Asia-Pacific Journal; November 1, 2010; https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Dale-Scott/3…

September 3, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe Has No Real Alternatives To Russian Gas: Ex-Aramco EVP

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 1, 2022

Echoing what Zoltan Pozsar said in his latest must read note, the former executive vice president at Saudi Aramco, Sadad Al-Husseini, told CNBC on Monday that there’s not enough capacity in the world to replace Russia’s gas supply to the European Union, while Moscow has plenty of markets to sell its energy to.

“The US doesn’t have the LNG capacity to replace Russia’s exports to Europe,” he said, noting that power bills across the EU are set to soar this winter. He did not comment on China reselling Russian LNG to Europe although we expects others will soon.

According to Al-Husseini, the lack of freely available supply could lead to serious problems on the global energy market. “This situation is a new world, and it’s not a very good one for energy,” he warned.

“In any case, there isn’t enough LNG capacity in the world to make up for the Russian exports to Europe,” the former executive said, adding that, “It will take years for the EU to find resources to replace Russian supply.”

He also said that while Russia may lose Europe as an end-market, there are “plenty of alternative markets” for Russian energy, including China, Japan, or India, that eagerly flount Western sanction, realizing that the Biden admin is increasingly toothless in punishing sanctions violators.

Meanwhile, Europe does not have alternative energy sources, he said, “while the US is maxed out already, North Africa has got problems,” and OPEC is also running out of spare capacity.

“So, it’s a global problem,” he said.

The official suggested that, while the Russian economy may suffer under Western sanctions, the rest of the world will be suffering with them.

However, he stressed that “Russia may recover a lot sooner than Europe.”

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

The Great Lab Leak Cover-Up By the U.S. Government

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 30, 2022

Thomas Fazi, who has a book on The Covid Consensus coming out shortly with Toby Green, has written an excellent summary in UnHerd of the evidence of a cover-up of the possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by those behind the kind of research that would have produced it.

Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative U.S.-China scientific research programme funded by the U.S. Government – primarily through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), directed by Anthony Fauci, which is part of the NIH – and coordinated by the U.S.-based non-governmental organisation EcoHealth Alliance (EHA). The group’s research work went beyond the simple analysis of existing coronaviruses, and actually involved the engineering of ‘chimeric’ bat coronaviruses, some of which proved to be potentially more infectious to humans – a highly risky technique known as gain-of-function.

In 2018, EcoHealth and the WIV (in collaboration with other institutions) sent a grant proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which included a plan to insert furin cleavage sites into existing bat coronaviruses – spots in the surface protein of a virus that can boost its entry into human cells. The DARPA proposal was rejected – and yet the presence of a furin cleavage site is precisely what sets SARS-CoV-2 apart from all known SARS-like coronaviruses. Did the researchers carry out the research anyway, possibly using other sources of funding? Nobel Prize-winning virologist David Baltimore stated that he considered this to be “the smoking gun for the origin of the virus”.

In light of all this, it’s hardly surprising that in the early days of the pandemic, at the highest levels of the U.S. establishment, the question of whether the virus might have been engineered at the WIV, possibly through research part-funded by the U.S. Government, was taken very seriously. As a result of an FoIA request, we know that on February 1st 2020, Anthony Fauci convened a “totally confidential” conference call with at least a dozen high-level experts from around the world, many of whom privately admitted that there was a very high probability that the virus had been artificially engineered and had then “escaped” from the Wuhan lab.

Yet not only did the NIH fail to disclose this to the public or to Congress, but the emails released under the FoIA suggest that it took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. Indeed, within days of the February 1st call, a group of virologists, including some who were on it and had endorsed the ‘artificial origin’ theory, prepared the first draft of a hugely influential paper on The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 – subsequently published in Nature – that argued for the exact opposite.

Moreover, the NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FoIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent release. Even more incredibly, at some point after March 2020 a number of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences were deleted from the NIH’s own archive at the request of researchers in Wuhan.

The strangeness doesn’t end here. In February 2020, an influential letter signed by 27 global experts was published in the Lancet, strongly condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin”. The letter proved crucial, alongside the aforementioned Nature paper, in nipping in the bud the lab-leak hypothesis and giving the illusion of scientific consensus. In late 2020, however, emails released following a FoIA request showed that the Lancet statement had been orchestrated by one of the 27 co-authors – none other than Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance. It was also revealed that all but one of the other 26 scientists were linked to the Wuhan lab, their colleagues or funders.

Daszak was first appointed in late 2020 as Chair of the task force created by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission with the aim of establishing none other than “the origins of COVID-19”; and shortly thereafter as the only U.S. representative to a WHO fact-finding mission to China tasked with the same goal. Unsurprisingly, both task forces found that the virus was most likely zoonotic (i.e., natural) in origin, and that transmission through a laboratory incident was extremely unlikely.

The WHO report, in particular, came under heavy criticism, leading to the establishment of a specific work group tasked with ascertaining the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the Scientific Advisory Group on the Origins of Novel Pathogens, which published its first preliminary report in June 2022. The results were inconclusive, largely because “key pieces of data” from China were missing, leading the WHO to recommend in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe was required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. As we have seen, however, it’s not only the Chinese government that is covering up its tracks about its possible involvement in the engineering of SARS-CoV-2 – but the American one as well.

Thomas notes that a new campaign is now underway to try to finally discredit the lab-leak theory, with two new studies that purport to provide more evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from the Huanan Seafood Market leading several outlets to claim that “the Covid lab leak theory is dead” – a claim to which the Daily Sceptic‘s Dr. Noah Carl has responded here.

The question is, with those involved having closed ranks and refusing to speak or cooperate, who can force them to reveal their secrets, or must we accept that their cover-up has succeeded?

August 30, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Europeans Paying for Brussels’ ‘Irrational and Absurd’ Energy Policy While US Profits: Kremlin

By Ilya Tsukanov – Samizdat– 30.08.2022

The European Union and individual bloc members have taken a series of measures in recent months to reduce reliance on Russian oil, gas and coal. These efforts sent energy prices skyrocketing, and are threatening to plunge the bloc into a cold winter. Russian President Vladimir Putin has characterized European policymakers’ actions as “suicidal.”

Ordinary Europeans are being made to pay for their leaders’ “irrational” policies in relation to Russia, while Brussels’ American allies get rich from an energy bonanza, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

“Step by step, unfortunately, both Brussels and individual European countries are demonstrating their absolute lack of reason,” Peskov told reporters on Tuesday.

“This is demonstrated in such anti-Russian impulses, outbursts of hatred for our country, through absolutely irrational and even absurd actions in the the energy field, for which the publics of European countries – the EU, Britain and so on, have to pay, but which make it possible for American companies to turn a profit, for example,” Peskov said.

Asked to comment on Brussels’ potential discussions of banning tourist visas for Russians, the Kremlin spokesman suggested that the possibility of even discussing such ideas at the EU level demonstrates the “set of irrational bordering on insanity” prevalent among the bloc’s political elites.

The United States and the European Union dramatically reduced purchases of Russian coal, oil and gas in the spring after Moscow launched a special operation to “demilitarize” Ukraine amid fears of an imminent push by Kiev to crush the fledgling Donbass republics. The measures have since been complemented by additional restrictions, including sanctions targeting equipment used by the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, and the closing down of overland pipelines running through Poland and Ukraine delivering energy to Europe. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was completed late last year and prepared for operation, remains dormant.

The deficit in Russian energy has resulted in a dramatic spike in prices, with European consumers forced to pay through the nose for utilities, while countries scramble to find alternative sources to fill up underground gas reserves to prepare for winter.

President Putin has characterized Brussels’ policies as “suicidal,” saying the self-imposed energy crisis will undermine the EU’s competitiveness vis-a-vis the United States and China.

August 30, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Washington Is Gaslighting Us About Taiwan

By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2022

Since Nancy Pelosi’s purposeless diplomatic visit to Taipei on August 2, cross-strait tensions have soared between China and Taiwan. Pelosi’s envoy has effectively reduced U.S.-China relations to its lowest point since at least 1995—when diplomatic efforts between Washington and Taipei instigated a tit-for-tat military standoff between Washington and Beijing.

In response to Pelosi’s visit, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) launched an unprecedented series of military drills in six marine sectors around Taiwan. The drills included anti-submarine and sea assault operations and a simulated blockade of the island. Chinese fighters and warships crossed the Taiwan Strait’s median line every day that the drills took place.

The high point of Beijing’s response occurred immediately after Pelosi’s departure from Taiwan when it launched a rocket barrage over the island.

After the trip, U.S. officials and pundits redoubled their attempts to cast Beijing’s response as an unprovoked overreaction as they had done in the days preceding it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s August 1 pre-visit statement is emblematic of the war party’s post-trip spin:

What I can say is this: this is very much precedent in the sense that a previous speaker has visited Taiwan, many members of congress go to Taiwan, including this year and so if the Speaker does decide to visit and China decides to create some kind of crisis or otherwise escalate tensions, that would be entirely on Beijing. We are looking for them, in the event she decides to visit, to act responsibly and not to engage in any escalation going forward.

Blinken’s statement, and the cacophony of hawkishness that echoes it, are classic examples of gaslighting.

In modern parlance the term “gaslighting” broadly denotes a pattern of manipulation that victims experience in abusive relationships.

Psychology Today defines it thusly:

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

The phenomenon was professionally documented, perhaps for the first time, in a 1969 article published in The Lancet. Entitled “The Gas-Light Phenomenon,” the article examines three case studies in which families attempt to rid themselves of an unwanted member by convincing said member, and the target institution, that the member qualifies for admittance due to a mental condition the family manufactured.

The 1969 article named the phenomenon after the 1938 play “Gas Light,” in which a husband attempts to rid himself of his wife by “driving her into a mental asylum.” The story was later popularized by the 1944 film of the same name staring Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotten.

The specific gaslit arguments that the hawks employ against China are as follows:

1. Beijing is overreacting.

On August 4, the National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator John Kirby told reporters:

China has chosen to overreact and use the Speaker’s visit as a pretext to increase provocative military activity in and around the Taiwan Strait. We anticipated that China might take steps like this. (Emphasis Added)

Kirby’s statement itself betrays his desired narrative. He implies that Pelosi’s visit was a convenient pretext for Beijing to justify an increase in its military activity in the strait. This framing does not comport with reality. On the contrary, Beijing repeatedly warned against the visit. Even if Beijing was insincere in its warnings and was looking for such a pretext, Pelosi provided it.

Furthermore, Kirby himself admits that Washington anticipated Beijing’s reaction. Despite this, the White House took no action—formal or otherwise—to prevent Pelosi from going.

2. Pelosi’s visit has precedent.

The war party line, that Pelosi’s trip has precedent, is true—but only to the extent that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did indeed fly to Taiwan in 1997 to meet with the then-president of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui. That is where the similarity ends.

In truth, the 1997 trip occurred under very different circumstances.

For one, Gingrich visited Beijing and Shanghai before flying to Taiwan. Second, Beijing also opposed Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan. Chinese officials begrudgingly approved of the Taiwan stop only after Gingrich threatened to cancel the Chinese leg of his tour. Third, Gringrich’s visit occurred shortly after the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis–an event that began when President Clinton issued a visa to Lee Teng-hui to speak at Cornell University. After having just deescalated from the brink of war, it is likely that Beijing desired normal relations with the United States. Fourth, in 1997, the United States did not have the regular military presence in the Indo-Pacific that it now has. Fifth, Pelosi’s 2022 trip expressly considered “mutual security,” which in the Indo-Pacific can only mean confronting China. Finally, in 1997 the Chinese military only possessed a fraction of the strength it now does.

In his August 1 statement, Blinken stated “many members of Congress go to Taiwan.” This is also true, however, China always objects to these delegations and normally responds to them with military exercises.

3. Beijing’s military drills are a reckless and unprovoked provocation

The undeniable truth is that before learning of Pelosi’s visit, Beijing was not planning military exercises anywhere near the size and scope of those performed after her visit. Beijing repeatedly warned Washington of the dire consequences of the visit. Pelosi went anyway. Washington did nothing to stop her. Beijing directly cited the drills as a consequence for the visit.

This observation is not to say that Beijing is a completely innocent victim. It should not be conducting the drills, but there is no evidence to suggest that the drills would have happened absent Pelosi’s visit. Actions have reactions.

4. Pelosi’s visit does not contradict longstanding U.S. policy.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 expressly “terminate[s] governmental relations between the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan.” The United States does not and should not have formal or informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

What is it called when the sitting Speaker of the House, the third in line to the presidency, has a meeting with the sitting president of Taiwan?

5. Pelosi’s visit is not a danger to China.

According to the One-China policy, Taiwan is China. This is official United States policy—at least on paper.

Through the decades, especially since the beginning of the Trump administration, the United States has been moving away from the One-China policy and its “strategic ambiguity” regarding the actions it will take to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Pelosi’s visit is a late stage step toward a formal American repudiation of the One-China policy. Indeed, her delegation has likely ushered in a new era of militarization in the region, all of it likely foreseen—and perhaps desired—by the U.S.

Since Pelosi’s visit, two additional congressional delegations have visited the island. The first delegation arrived August 14 and was composed of Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and four other members. The delegation reportedly asked Taiwanese lawmakers how they felt about “strategic ambiguity” and if they would like the policy changed to “strategic clarity.” The delegation discussed regional security and increasing economic ties between Washington and Taipei.

The second delegation arrived in Taiwan on August 21 and met with Taiwanese officials about formalizing economic ties, mainly the production of superconductors. The delegation came in after the White House announced formal trade talks to occur this fall.

Increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwan will further economic decoupling between both the U.S. and China and Taiwan and China. Economic ties between each are a major impediment to war. Furthermore, close military ties between the U.S. and Taiwan could give the U.S. a permanent military presence within China, as was the case before 1979. China will not allow this to happen.

American China hawks have used the above arguments to manufacture consent for increasing confrontation over Taiwan, including forthcoming “‘air and maritime transits’ in the Taiwan Strait” that could lead to war. Much like the Lancet’s case study, these hawks must convince the American public to distrust their own perceptions of reality to do so.

How else could anyone believe that Beijing’s actions came out of the clear blue sky?

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at http://www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »