Iran condemns ‘biased’ IAEA, announces enrichment countermeasures
Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2025
Iran has sharply rejected a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, accusing it of being “politically driven” and “biased”. In a joint statement released Thursday by the Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Iranian officials condemned the resolution and unveiled a series of countermeasures aimed at accelerating the country’s nuclear program.
This comes shortly after the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution against Iran on Thursday, claiming Iran was in breach of non-proliferation obligations. The vote passed with 19 countries voting in favor, 3 opposing, and 11 abstaining, according to diplomats cited by Reuters. Two countries were absent and thus did not vote.
The resolution, marking the first formal accusation in nearly two decades that Iran has violated its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, was passed during a closed-door session of the 35-member board. The move, described as “politically motivated” by Iranian officials, was initiated by the United States along with the E3, Britain, France, and Germany.
IAEA resolution lacks ‘neutrality’
The joint statement asserted that Iran remains committed to its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, adding that no IAEA report to date has ever confirmed any deviation or non-compliance. Iranian authorities described the IAEA’s latest move as lacking “neutrality” and being manipulated by Western powers, particularly the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, to pursue geopolitical goals.
In a direct response, Iran announced the activation of a new uranium enrichment facility at a secure site and plans to upgrade the Fordow nuclear plant by replacing older centrifuges with sixth-generation advanced models.
Iran blasts Western double standards on nuclear disarmament
Iranian officials criticized the IAEA and its Western backers for what they described as selective enforcement of nuclear obligations. The joint statement accused the US and its European allies of reviving “25-year-old allegations” that had already been settled under the 2015 nuclear deal, while turning a blind eye to “Israel’s” undeclared nuclear arsenal and refusal to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“The United States, Britain, and France have failed to comply with Article VI of the NPT regarding nuclear disarmament,” the statement read, adding that Germany remains in possession of “inhumane weapons of mass destruction.”
Iran further warned that continued political maneuvering within the IAEA would render any future engagement futile. “This political approach toward Iran, which has always honored its obligations and cooperated extensively with the Agency, forces us to conclude that the path of engagement and cooperation is futile,” the statement asserted.
Iran thanks allies opposing the resolution
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, strongly condemned the resolution passed Thursday by the IAEA Board of Governors, calling it a politically motivated effort by Western powers to undermine the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
Baghaei specifically denounced the role of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, accusing them of exploiting the IAEA to “cast doubt on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
He firmly rejected the allegations outlined in the resolution, which he said were based on “baseless and unfounded claims” and stemmed from a political report by the IAEA Director General. The resolution, jointly submitted by the four Western states, was described as “an unjustified, groundless, and cruel move,” aimed at exerting “maximum pressure on Iran to deviate from the legitimate rights and interests of the Iranian people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
Baghaei warned that those behind the resolution will be held accountable for its repercussions. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will take proportionate measures in response to this move to secure and protect the interests and inalienable rights of the Iranian nation in benefiting from peaceful nuclear energy,” he said.
He also expressed deep concern over the conduct of the IAEA Director General, criticizing his public statements and what he described as provocative interviews on Iran’s nuclear activities. Baghaei accused the agency chief of undermining the organization’s neutrality, stating that he “must adhere to his missions and duties in accordance with the Agency’s statute.”
Furthermore, the Iranian diplomat extended gratitude to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Belarus for issuing a joint statement rejecting the resolution. He praised their “responsible and legal positions” and reaffirmed the Iranian nation’s determination to defend its rights and interests as outlined in the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran’s IAEA representative Najafi slams politicized resolution
Iran’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Reza Najafi, strongly criticized the agency’s recent resolution against Iran, denouncing it as politically motivated and based on unreliable sources. Speaking on Thursday, Najafi warned that such moves undermine the IAEA’s credibility and threaten the rights of member states under its founding charter.
Najafi emphasized that any draft resolution brought forward by the Board of Governors should rely strictly on unbiased, verifiable evidence, not intelligence supplied by specific states with vested interests. “Basing reports on questionable or politicized information undermines the agency’s objectivity,” he stated, in clear reference to data provided by Western governments and the Israeli occupation.
US current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent
He warned that the United States’ current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent, one that could erode trust and cooperation between the agency and its member states. Najafi asserted that such behavior contradicts the IAEA’s stated commitment to impartiality and transparency.
Reaffirming Iran’s position, Najafi made it clear that the Islamic Republic would not tolerate any attempt to erode its sovereignty through international pressure.
“Iran categorically rejects any pressure or mediation that seeks to undermine its sovereignty. We will defend our national interests, independence, and dignity,” he declared.
Politicized resolution in disguise
Najafi also expressed Iran’s outright rejection of what he described as a politicized resolution disguised as a technical safeguard concern, echoing Tehran’s longstanding understanding that the IAEA is being used as a tool for Western geopolitical agendas.
In a pointed warning to the E3, Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, Najafi made it clear that Iran’s response would be firm. “These measures will not pass without consequences. They must take full responsibility for the repercussions and Iran’s strong reaction,” he said.
Kamalvandi: Political pressure will escalate Iran’s nuclear program
Behrouz Kamalvandi, Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization, reinforced the government’s defiant tone, declaring that political pressure would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“It is a strategic mistake to think that political pressure will push Iran to abandon its legitimate positions,” Kamalvandi said, warning that the current approach would “backfire”.
He confirmed that Iran would soon launch a third uranium enrichment facility, in addition to boosting enrichment capacity at existing sites. “We will develop sixth-generation centrifuges and increase uranium enrichment significantly,” he stated.
More Western pressure, more Iranian countermeasures
Iran’s latest response underscores its growing rejection of Western pressure and marks a new phase in the country’s nuclear trajectory, one increasingly independent of multilateral negotiations and oversight mechanisms perceived by Tehran as compromised.
This development comes just days ahead of the sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, set to take place this Sunday in Muscat, Oman. The announcement was confirmed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who wrote in a post on X: “I am pleased to confirm the 6th round of Iran-US talks will be held in Muscat this Sunday, the 15th.”
Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to carve a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018.
USAID and the Venezuelan opposition: Corruption and intervention in the name of ‘humanitarian aid’
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2025
In recent years, Venezuela has been the stage for an intense political battle, marked by polarization and foreign intervention. In this context, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has played a controversial role, repeatedly accused of diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid and being involved in corruption schemes that include prominent figures from the Venezuelan opposition. Recently, following controversies surrounding the American agency, these accusations have taken on new dimensions, with allegations that opposition leaders misappropriated 116 million dollars provided by USAID, exposing a scandal that calls into question not only the integrity of the opposition but also the true intentions behind international “aid.”
During the period of the self-proclaimed “interim government” of Juan Guaidó, large sums of money were directed into Venezuela under the guise of humanitarian assistance. However, investigations revealed that these resources were diverted through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) linked to opposition politicians and their relatives, many of whom live abroad without any real connection to the country. Leaked documents from the U.S. embassy in Venezuela indicate that Carlos Vecchio, an opposition figure wanted by Venezuelan authorities, allegedly received 116 million dollars from USAID. Additionally, the FBI is investigating Juan Guaidó himself for corruption and embezzlement, further raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the Venezuelan opposition.
This diversion of resources is not only a betrayal of the trust of Venezuelans who genuinely need help but also raises serious questions about the transparency and accountability of the opposition. While millions of Venezuelans face social hardships (largely due to American economic coercion), opposition leaders appear more interested in enriching themselves at the expense of the population and foreign funds.
The situation becomes even more complex when considering the revelations made by Jordan Goudreau, a mercenary who orchestrated a failed armed incursion into Venezuela in May 2020. Goudreau claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, protected figures like Leopoldo López and Juan Guaidó, even while aware of their involvement in fraud schemes against USAID. These allegations suggest a deep complicity between the Venezuelan opposition and U.S. agencies, revealing that the Venezuelan crisis is not merely an internal conflict but rather a geopolitical game in which U.S. interests play a central role.
In light of these allegations, the Venezuelan government has launched investigations against opposition figures involved in corruption schemes. These actions are seen as an attempt to dismantle the networks that undermine the opposition’s credibility and expose the hypocrisy behind the “humanitarian aid” promoted by the U.S. However, USAID, which in theory should be an instrument of development and assistance, sees its reputation seriously compromised. The accusations of corruption and embezzlement not only tarnish its image but also make clear how the institution has become a tool of imperialist aggression in Latin America and other continents.
The truth is that USAID was never truly a development agency but rather a weapon of political intervention — which is why Donald Trump’s recent decision to dismantle it should be celebrated among Global South countries. Under the guise of “promoting democracy” and “helping the needy,” the agency has been used to destabilize governments considered adversaries of U.S. interests. In Venezuela, as in other Latin American countries, USAID acted as a soft power tool, conducting resources to groups and individuals aligned with U.S. geopolitical objectives.
This strategy, however, comes at a high cost. By financing and supporting opposition groups that are often corrupt and disconnected from the real needs of the population, USAID has contributed to political and social instability, exacerbating the problems it supposedly seeks to solve. In the case of Venezuela, the result has been the perpetuation of a crisis that benefits only a reactionary elite minority and their foreign allies, attempting to create dissent in the local political situation.
In an increasingly multipolar world, it is essential to question the role of agencies like USAID and their influence in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Venezuela is just one example of how “humanitarian aid” can be used as a geopolitical weapon, serving the interests of foreign powers at the expense of the local population. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition, far from representing popular interests, increasingly reveals itself as a corrupt group dependent on external support, incapable of offering real solutions to the country’s challenges.
The so-called “Venezuelan crisis” is, ultimately, a reflection of the complex power dynamics that define international politics, particularly concerning American interventionism in Latin America. And in this game, USAID and its local allies demonstrate that, for them, “the ends justify the means” — even if it means sacrificing the sovereignty and well-being of an entire nation.
Russia’s Amended Nuclear Doctrine Signals Willingness to Take On ‘Global Power Obligations’ – Expert
Sputnik – 19.11.2024
The latest changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine were likely made for two main reasons, Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish military officer and ex-chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats, tells Sputnik.
“One is to make it even clearer that even attacks from Ukraine with conventional weapons with the active support of Western powers will be seen as a combined attack on Russia,” he says. “This will give Russia the opportunity to claim Casus belli [an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war], and legitimate defensive military action according to international law and the UN Charter.”
This move, Valtersson argues, is essentially an attempt by Russia to “strengthen deterrence towards the West and reduce the risk of Western escalation in Ukraine.”
“The second and very interesting aspect is the inclusion of allies in the nuclear deterrence,” he continues. “This must be seen in the light of the recent ratification of the new defense cooperation agreement with the DPRK (North Korea) that includes a paragraph akin to the NATO article 5. This stipulates mutual military aid to defend each other in case of aggression from other countries.”
“With the changes of Russian nuclear strategy, Russia says that aggression towards it’s allies will be seen as aggression towards Russia and might include a nuclear response,” Valtersson notes. “The Russian nuclear doctrine now reflects the fact that Russia has formal allies again.”
As Russia’s actions resulted in NATO ceasing to be the only military bloc in the post-Cold War world whose members “have been included in a common nuclear umbrella,” Valtersson suggests that this development has both pros and cons for Moscow.
“This makes Russia a more attractive ally, but also puts Russia into a more precarious situation, since it now has stronger obligations to live up to. A failure to live up to these obligations would result in a huge loss of confidence in Russian willingness to support allies, and the Kremlin of course knows this,” he elaborates. “That means that this decision to change the nuclear doctrine must be seen as a real willingness of Russia to extend its nuclear deterrence to other allies.”
Valtersson also remarks that it would be interesting to see what new defense agreements Russia might sign with nations such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Algeria “and a multitude of Sub-Saharan states,” which could both “greatly increase the security of these states and Russian standing in the world” and, “increase the risk of Russian involvement in new conflicts.”
“To summarise, this is a clear signal that Russia now is willing to take on the obligations that are needed to be a real global power,” he adds.
Venezuela, Russia sign new energy, defense agreements
Press TV – November 8, 2024
Venezuela and Russia have signed 17 new agreements, in what was described as further consolidation of the “pressure-free” bilateral relationship between them.
During a visit by a senior Kremlin official to Caracas on Thursday, the two sides signed the new agreements in energy cooperation and petroleum exploration as well as in the security area on “intelligence, counterintelligence and counterespionage issues.”
Visiting Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko, who heads the Russian part of the Intergovernmental Russian-Venezuelan High-Level Commission (CIAN), told his Venezuelan counterpart Delcy Rodriguez that his country stood ready to support Venezuela’s armed forces with “the most sophisticated weapons and military equipment.”
The Russian delegation also met with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, before inking several documents, including the outline of key cooperation areas until 2030.
During the ceremony at the Miraflores Palace, Maduro expressed his satisfaction with the work carried out by both the Venezuelan and Russian teams at CIAN. He said the new agreements would “seal and strengthen the path of union and cooperation” between Venezuela and Russia, “from now until 2030 and beyond.”
“This meeting, 20 years after the High Level Commission between both nations was founded, is one of satisfaction for the work, the spirit of friendship and brotherhood that increasingly unites Russia and Venezuela,” he said.
The Latin American leader added that Caracas and Moscow are building an “impregnable” “win-win” relationship that is “free of pressure, blackmail and sanctions”.
The 17 new agreements are added to the more than 300 bilateral cooperation instruments which were signed before in the fields of finance, energy, industry, commerce, customs, transportation and tourism, agriculture, fishing and food, science and technology, education, health, culture, sports and youth, among others areas of bilateral cooperation.
Venezuela has one of the world’s largest natural gas reserves and the world’s largest proven reserves of oil. Russia is a Eurasia energy giant. However, both countries’ energy sectors face sanctions by the United States.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly censured American leaders over Washington’s foreign policy which aims “to preserve their domination, hegemony and diktat” by targeting other countries with “blackmail, ultimatums, threats.”
Bolivia denies Israel accusations of hosting Iran, Hezbollah bases
MEMO | October 23, 2024
Bolivia has denied accusations that it is hosting Iranian and Hezbollah bases within its borders, urging South American nations not to fall for such allegations and become divided.
In a virtual press conference on Monday, Israel’s Ambassador to Costa Rica, Mijal Gur Aryeh, stated that there are “other countries in the region that have Iranian and Hezbollah bases, particularly Venezuela and Bolivia”, without providing evidence or specific details on such an allegation.
Bolivia’s Foreign Ministry yesterday denied those accusations, however, saying in a statement that “Bolivia is a pacifist state that promotes the culture of peace, which is why it has constitutionally assumed the prohibition of installing foreign military bases in its territory.”
Calling Aryeh’s words “irresponsible, unfounded, and self-serving”, the Ministry called on other South American countries “not to fall into these provocations that seek to affect the relations of brotherhood between states and peoples of the region.”
It asserted that the Ambassador’s comments ”seek to generate confrontation between Latin American states, governments and peoples, against the objective outlined in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) of consolidating Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace”.
Now it’s oil: China, BRICS and OPEC+ build new trading system, locking out US suppliers and banks
Inside China Business | September 27, 2024
China and Iran developed a comprehensive energy market, involving shadow fleets of tankers and a system of rebranding oil for domestic use, or for further export to other Asian countries. Russia has since joined, after sanctions were placed on oil producers and banks there. The result is a parallel economy that now totals millions of barrels per day in shipments to China by OPEC+ countries, and a sharp decline in global demand from Western suppliers. The implications for US and European oil suppliers are very negative, as global crude prices are now far below profit breakeven levels. Already, US oil majors are shelving oilfield development projects, and reducing active rig count. Resources and links: Barrons, BP Says Oil Demand Is Falling, While OPEC Says It’s Rising.
What Gives? https://www.barrons.com/articles/bp-s…
Rigzone, JP Morgan Talks Global Oil Demand https://www.rigzone.com/news/jp_morga…
S&P, Barclays lowers 2024 Brent oil price forecast to $93/b on demand concerns https://www.spglobal.com/commodityins…
Oil Prices Poised To Climb in 2024 Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty https://www.investopedia.com/oil-pric…
CNBC, OPEC is highly bullish on long-term oil demand growth. Not everyone agrees https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/opec-…
NPR, Oil prices plunge as demand from China falls https://www.npr.org/2024/09/14/nx-s1-…
Zerohedge, What Sanctions? China Imports Record Amount Of Iranian Oil https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/what…
The axis of evasion: Behind China’s oil trade with Iran and Russia https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs…
Oil price charts from finviz.com/futures and Bloomberg https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ash…
US drillers cut oil and gas rigs for fifth week in six, Baker Hughes says https://www.xm.com/se/research/market…
Average WTI price needed for U.S. oil and gas producers to stay profitable by well status in selected U.S. oilfields as of 2024 https://www.statista.com/statistics/7…
Capital Expenditure (CapEx) Definition, Formula, and Examples https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/…
US Seizes Venezuelan Jet Plane Confirming who is the Rogue Nation
By Rick Sterling | Dissident Voice | September 7, 2024
The Biden/Harris administration is renewing its attacks on Venezuela. On Monday, September 2, US officials seized a jet plane belonging to the Venezuelan government when it was in the Dominican Republic for servicing, then flew it to Florida.
Contrary to a false report in the NY Times, the plane was not “owned by Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro”. It is owned by the Venezuelan government and used for travel by various Venezuelan officials in addition to the president.
The NYT article claims, “The Biden administration is trying to put more pressure on Mr. Maduro because of his attempts to undermine the results of the recent presidential election.” This is another inversion of reality. The US government is trying to undermine the results determined by the Venezuelan National Election Council (CNE) and ratified by their Supreme Court.
Contrary to Western claims, the Supreme Court and Election Council are not synonymous with the government. They are approved by Venezuela’s elected national assembly. While one opposition member of the Election Council criticized the results, he did not attend the count or meetings. He does not ordinarily live in Venezuela and has returned to his home in the USA. Meanwhile, another opposition member of the Election Council, Aime Nogal, participated and approved the council’s decision.
Before the election, polls showed vastly different predictions. The US-funded polling company, Edison Research, showed the Gonzalez/ Machado opposition winning. Other polls showed the opposite. Polls are notoriously unreliable, especially when the poll is funded by an interested party. A better indication was the street demonstrations where the crowd in support of the coalition led by Maduro was near one million people. In contrast, the crowd for Gonzalez was a small fraction of that.
Increasingly, countries throughout the Global South are rejecting and criticizing Washington’s intervention in other nations’ internal affairs. On August 28, the president of Honduras, Xiomara Castro Zelaya, terminated the long standing extradition treaty with the United States and denounced US meddling after the US Ambassador commented negatively on Honduran – Venezuelan discussions. Along with many other Latin American countries but to the dismay of the US, Honduras recognized the results of the Venezuelan election.
For over twenty years, the US has been trying to overturn the Bolivarian revolution. In 2002, the US government and elite media supported a coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez. To their chagrin, the attempt collapsed due to popular outrage. Since then, there have been repeated efforts with the US supporting street violence, assassination attempts, and invasions. Under Obama, Venezuela was absurdly declared to be a “threat to US national security”. This was the bogus rationale for the economic warfare which the US has waged ever since. Multiple reports confirm that tens of thousands of Venezuelans have died as a result of hunger and sickness due to US strangulation of the economy. Again, the truth is the opposite of what Washington claims: the US is a threat to Venezuela’s national security.
Unknown to most U.S. residents, in December 2020 the U.N. General Assembly declared US unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) are “contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States.”
Illegal U.S. measures were used to justify the kidnapping and imprisonment of Venezuelan diplomat, Alex Saab. They have now been used to justify the theft of a jet plane needed by Venezuelan officials.
Previously, sanctions were used to justify the seizure of Venezuela’s CITGO gas stations and freezing gold reserves in London. It comes after the U.S. and allies pretended for several years that an almost unknown politician, Juan Guaido, was the president of Venezuela.
The reasons for Washington’s repeated efforts to overturn the Bolivarian revolution are clear: Venezuela has huge oil reserves and insists on its sovereignty. Under Chavez and Maduro, the Bolivarian revolution has sought to benefit the vast majority of Venezuela’s people instead of a small elite of Venezuelans and foreigners. Washington cannot tolerate the idea that those resources are used to benefit the Venezuelan people instead of billionaires like the Rockefeller clan, which made much of its wealth from Venezuela.
Under the Bolivarian revolution, Venezuela insists on having its own foreign policy. In 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced the U.S. invasion of Iraq and compared U.S. President Bush to the devil. In May this year, Venezuelan President Maduro denounced Israel’s genocide in Gaza and accused the West of being “accomplices.”
The cost of seizing Venezuela’s plane on foreign soil was probably greater than the $13 million value of the plane. So why did the Biden administration do this now? Perhaps it is to garner the votes of right-wing Cubans and Venezuelans in Florida. Perhaps it is to distract from their foreign policy failures in Gaza and Ukraine.
Whatever the reason, the theft of the Venezuelan jet plane is an example of U.S. foreign policy based on self-serving “rules” in violation of international law. It shows who is the rogue state.
President Xiomara Castro of Honduras is representative of the wave of disgust with US interference, crimes, and arrogance. In the past, Honduras was called a “banana republic” and known as “USS Honduras”. Now its president says, “The interference and interventionism of the United States … is intolerable. They attack, disregard and violate with impunity the principles and practices of international law, which promote respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples, non-intervention and universal peace. Enough.”
EU Rejects Legitimacy of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – Foreign Policy Chief Borrell
Sputnik – 30.08.2024
The European Union rejects the legitimacy of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said.
“We cannot accept the legitimacy of Maduro as the elected president. He will remain president de facto, but we deny democratic legitimacy based on results that cannot be verified,” Euronews quoted Borrell as saying after an informal foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels.
Presidential elections in Venezuela were held on July 28. The next day the National Electoral Council declared Nicolas Maduro president-elect for 2025-2031. On July 29, protests started in Venezuela, protesters clashing with the police. Over 2,000 people were detained. Violent unrest in Venezuela lasted one day after the elections, after which the government restored control over the situation on the streets.
US and European lawmakers in charge of foreign affairs matters issued a joint statement claiming opposition leader Edmundo Gonzalez won Venezuela’s presidential election and vowing to hold Maduro accountable if he refuses to relinquish power. Moscow said the Venezuelan opposition must admit defeat in the elections. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned third countries against supporting attempts to destabilize the situation inside Venezuela.
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.
US Sees South America as Testing Ground for Political Spin Techniques – Russia
Sputnik – 05.08.2024
CARACAS -The position of recognizing or not recognizing elections in a sovereign country is a manifestation of colonial policy, and Washington continues to view Latin America as its own backyard and testing ground for political spin techniques, Russian Ambassador to Venezuela Sergey Melik-Bagdasarov told Sputnik.
After the announcement of the official election results in Venezuela, Moscow said the Venezuelan opposition should concede defeat. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned third countries against supporting attempts to destabilize the situation inside Venezuela.
“Even before the election in Venezuela, the US hinted that they would not tolerate the reelection of Nicolas Maduro. The very position of recognizing or not recognizing elections in a particular sovereign country is a clear manifestation of colonial policy. The people of Venezuela have made their choice. It must be respected. But it seems that such an approach is alien to Washington,” Melik-Bagdasarov said.
He explained that United States believes Latin America to be a testing grounds for election interference methods.
“The United States continues to view the Latin America region as its backyard and a testing ground for political technologies [political spin techniques]. According to President Nicolas Maduro, today we are seeing attempts to repeat the ‘Juan Guaido’ project with some changes,” the Russian diplomat added.
Venezuela’s presidential election was held on July 28, and the National Electoral Council declared Nicolas Maduro the winner.
Washington, without waiting for the results of the vote count and subsequent audit, called on the international community to recognize opposition leader Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of the presidential election in Venezuela. US and EU lawmakers overseeing international relations on Friday threatened Maduro with “responsibility” if he does not voluntarily give up his powers as legitimate head of state.
Major Latin American Powers, Hungary Block US-EU Push to Isolate Venezuela’s Maduro
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 04.08.2024
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was reelected to a third term in office in a showdown with united opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez last Sunday, taking 52% of the vote to Gonzalez’ 43%. The US and its allies decried the results, recognized the opposition leader and demanded negotiations for a “peaceful transition of power.”
Efforts by Washington and Brussels to diplomatically isolate President Nicolas Maduro have failed spectacularly after important members of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the European Union rejected efforts to condemn the Venezuelan election results.
In the OAS, major Latin American countries Brazil, Mexico and Colombia abstained from a resolution tabled Wednesday demanding that Caracas release detailed vote tallies and take other steps, including measures to ensure the security of the opposition. The three nations were joined in abstaining from the resolution or being absent from the vote by Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Grenada, Honduras, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. With 11 OAS members abstaining and five members absent, the resolution failed to attain the required majority to pass.
Permanent Council chairman Ronald Sanders said a consensus could not be reached over a “controversial phrase,” without elaborating.
Across the Atlantic, Hungary blocked a similar proposed joint statement on behalf of the EU’s 27 member countries on purported “numerous flaws and irregularities” in Venezuela’s elections, forcing EU foreign policy czar Josep Borrell to independently issue a statement in the EU’s name.
Hungary’s intransigence is expected to complicate efforts by Brussels to use unanimity among the bloc to justify the leveling of potential new sanctions against Venezuela. Budapest did not explain its motivation for vetoing the EU resolution.
US Secretary of State congratulated Gonzalez for “winning” last Sunday’s vote, with Russia, China, Belarus, Serbia, Iran, Turkiye, Syria, Azerbaijan, North Korea, Vietnam, Madagascar, Namibia, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and others recognizing the results and congratulating President Maduro for his victory.
