Eric Zuesse | OPEDS

Obama at West Point (9/2014): Telling young, already heavily indoctrinated minds, more dangerous lies.

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n July 1st, the White House, Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued “The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015” (officially dated June 2015), and at its top is:

“U.S. ENDURING NATIONAL INTERESTS: The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.”

In other words: protection of Americans is neither more nor less important to the U.S. Government than is protection of “U.S. allies and partners.” All of them are at the very top, as “U.S. ENDURING NATIONAL INTERESTS.”

America’s Founders didn’t agree with the Obama Administration’s view on this. George Washington’s famous Farewell Address asserted that, ”It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”; and the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Instead, of that view, Obama now wants “entangling alliances” with anti-BRICS nations in Europe via his proposed TTIP treaty, and with anti-BRICS nations in Asia via his proposed TPP treaty, plus anti-BRICS nations worlDwide via his proposed TISA treaty for service-industries. So, he told graduating cadets at West Point, on 28 May 2014, that they will be fighting not only against America’s enemies, but also against America’s economic competitors — that these future U.S. military officers will be serving as muscle abroad, for U.S.-headquartered international corporations:

“Russia’s [actually non-existent] aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.” 

However, the U.S. military has even grander objectives than to serve as policemen for protecting “the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.” In addition to that, under the core heading of “NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES,” the “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015” lists six things, and one of them is “The security of the global economic system.” (That’s very important to Wall Street, but America’s many invasions for the benefit of Wall Street haven’t been proud moments in American history — and didn’t do the American public any good at all.) Another is: “The security, confidence, and reliability of our allies.” And yet another objective is: “The preservation and extension of universal values.”

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n other words: There will always be one cliché or another, which can be cited so as to ‘justify’ any invasion by the U.S. 

Furthermore, the resort there to undefined “universal values” can actually ‘justify’ anything. Islamic jihadists say that the establishment of the kingdom of God on Earth is a universal value. However, the Christian Crusaders, who slaughtered Muslims nearly a thousand years ago, likewise held this same objective, to be a universal value. Other than such fantasists as those people, there are no universal values — such ‘universality’ of values exists only in propaganda, not in reality.

Even Adolf Hitler endorsed things “which were justified from the universal human point of view.” He’s not the type of company that Americans have generally wanted to be associated with.

If U.S. President Barack Obama, who is America’s Commander-in-Chief, and whose document this therefore is, is no mere propagandist for perpetual war for perpetual ‘peace,’ but is instead carrying out his actual duties under the U.S. Constitution, which are duties to the American people, then he will not allow such propagandistic terminology to stand as representing “The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015.”

Furthermore, how is the U.S. military — whose document this “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015” is — even going to be able to enforce: “The security, confidence, and reliability of our allies”? If “our allies” might happen to decide not to continue being such, or else to lose confidence in the U.S. Government, then will the U.S. bomb them? After all: this document speaks only for the U.S. military, and they have only military means at their disposal. Bombs, and such, are their business; soldiers aren’t supposed to be in the diplomacy business. That’s the State Department’s domain. But Obama was addressing future military officers, not the U.S. foreign service. This fact raises the question of what U.S. President Obama’s broader, more comprehensive, view of U.S. national security is. Even though the U.S. military (at its top command, anyway — like at West Point) is ready and obviously willing to invade any country for America’s “universal values,” they can do it only via the command from the Commander-in-Chief.

At the start of February, President Obama himself issued that very document, the broader-focused view. It’s his National Security Strategy 2015, and as I had mentioned at the time, in my news-report’s headline: “Obama’s New National Security Strategy Is Rabidly Anti-Russian.” 

So: President Obama is actually even more determined to defeat Russia than he is to defeat ISIS. Whatever “universal values” stand at the top of his “national security” concerns, he has already made clear that a nuclear war against Russia might be the result — and this is how America’s Commander-in-Chief is aiming to protect “the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.” That euphemistic phrase, from his Joint Chiefs of Staff, sounds better (at least to a naive public) than simply saying, “the financial interests of America’s billionaires.” Power isn’t only a high for the billionaire class; it can also be very profitable for them, even in crassly obvious ways. 

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]bama is their President; he’s not really the public’s. The billionaires have done very well under his rule, but the general American public have not. In fact, whereas the bottom 50% of Americans owned only 2.5% of America’s total wealth at the economy’s peak in 2007, they owned only 1.1% of the total wealth in 2010, after Obama had been continuing Bush’s Wall Street bailout for a year. That bailout went to the top 1%, and it was paid for by they bottom 50%. (For example, by contrast, the top 1% owned 33.8% of America’s total wealth in 2007 and 34.5% of it in 2010. So: the bottom half — the people who had been suckered by those mortgage-scam operations, which were pumped by Wall Street — were stuck with all the losses, while Wall Street boomed from the federal bailouts when those megabanks at the end were saddled with junk they could no longer sell.) Moreover, yet another study shows that whereas when Obama entered office in 2009, the top 0.1% of wealth-holders held the then all-time record high of 7% of all U.S. wealth, that figure had risen to an even higher 8% by just 2012. Obama serves those people — virtually no one else. Certainly not the people who voted for him. And America’s billionaires want what Russia has: the largest land-mass, and supply of natural resources, on this planet. Obama is going after it, for them. That’s why he overthrew Ukraine’s neutralist President in February 2014, and replaced him with a rabidly anti-Russia government, eager to base NATO missiles, right on Russia’s doorstep — the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.

It takes a lot to satisfy America’s aristocrats. Obama has performed brilliantly for them. And so we now have what is essentially the Obama doctrine: America has the right to invade (and/or otherwise overthrow) any government that is not an ‘ally.’ There was Honduras (a coup), there was Venezuela (several attempted coups), there was Ecuador (more attempted coups), there was Libya (“We came, we saw, he died!”), there was Syria, and there was Ukraine (“the most blatant coup in history”). But Russia — not yet.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

MIKE WHITNEY

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here’s been a virtual blackout of news from this year’s seventh annual BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia.  None of the mainstream media organizations are covering the meetings or making any attempt to explain what’s going on.  As a result, the American people remain largely in the dark about a powerful coalition of nations that are putting in place an alternate system that will greatly reduce US influence in the world and end the current era of superpower rule.

Let’s cut to the chase: Leaders of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) realize that global security cannot be entrusted to a country that sees war as a acceptable means for achieving its geopolitical objectives.  They also realize that they won’t be able to achieve financial stability as long as Washington dictates the rules, issues the de facto “international” currency, and controls the main levers of global financial power. This is why the BRICS have decided to chart a different course, to gradually break free from the existing Bretton Woods system, and to create parallel system that better serves their own interests. Logically, they have focused on the foundation blocks which support the current US-led system, that is, the institutions from which the United States derives its extraordinary power; the dollar, the US Treasury market, and the IMF. Replace these, the thinking goes, and the indispensable nation becomes just another country struggling to get by.  This is from the Asia Times:

“Leaders of the BRICS… launched the  New Development Bank, which has taken three years of negotiations to bring to fruition. With about $50 billion in starting capital, the bank is expected to start issuing debt to fund infrastructure projects next year. They also launched a foreign-exchange currency fund of $100 billion.

Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping: the empire’s unceasing hostile maneuvers have consolidated their friendship. 

The two new endeavors are statements that the five largest emerging markets are both looking out for each other and, simultaneously, moving away from the western financing institutions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

“The BRICS states intend to actively use their own resources and internal resources for development,” Putin said, according to Reuters. “The New (Development) Bank will help finance joint, large-scale projects in transport and energy infrastructure, industrial development.”…..Birthing the two initiatives in Russia had been Putin’s top priorities.”

(“Russia’s Putin scores points at Ufa BRICS summit“, Asia Times)

Can you see what’s going on? Putin has figured out the empire’s vulnerabilities and he’s going straight for the jugular.  He’s saying: ‘We’re going to issue our own debt, we’re going to run our own system, we’re going to fund our own projects, and we’re going to do it all in our own currency. Kaboom. The only thing you’re going to be doing, is managing your own accelerating economic decline. Have a good day.’ Isn’t that the gist of what he’s saying?

So can you see, dear reader, why none of this is appearing on the pages of US newspapers or on US television.   Washington would rather you didn’t know how they’ve bungled everything by alienating the fastest growing countries in the world.

President Xi jinping being welcomed to the Summit. 

The Ufa conference is a watershed moment. While the Pentagon is rapidly moving troops and military hardware to Russia’s borders, and one bigwig after another is bloviating about the “Russian threat”; the BRICS have moved out of Washington’s orbit altogether.  They are following the leadership of men who, frankly speaking, are acting exactly like US leaders acted when the US was on the upswing. These are guys who “think big”; who want to connect continents with high-speed rail, lift living standards across the board, and transform themselves into manufacturing dynamos. What do America’s leaders dream about: Drone warfare? Balancing the budget? Banning the Confederate flag?

People are sick of us.  And who can blame them? 

It’s a joke. No one in Washington has a plan for the future. It’s all just political opportunism and posturing.  Check this out from The Hindu:

“China and Russia have described BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as the core of a new international order…

Russian President Vladimir Putin said… “There is no doubt — we have all necessary premises to expand the horizons of mutually beneficial cooperation, to join together our raw material resources, human capital and huge consumer markets for a powerful economic spurt.”

Russia’s Tass news agency also quoted Mr. Putin as saying that the Eurasian continent had vast transit potential. He pointed to “the construction of new efficient transport and logistics chains, in particular, the implementation of the initiative of the Silk Road economic belt and the development of transportation in the eastern part of Russia and Siberia. This may link the rapidly growing markets in Asia and Europe’s economies, mature, rich in industrial and technological achievements. At the same time, this will allow our countries to become more commercially viable in the competition for investors, for creating new jobs, for advanced enterprises,” he observed.”….

The summit also acknowledged “the potential for expanding the use of our national currencies in transactions between the BRICS countries.”   (“BRICS, SCO, EAEU can define new world order: China, Russia“, The Hindu)

The dollar is toast. The IMF is toast. The US debt market (US Treasuries) is toast.  The institutions that support US power are crumbling before our very eyes. The BRICS have had enough; enough war, enough Wall Street, enough meddling and hypocrisy and austerity and lecturing. This is farewell. Sure, it will take time, but Ufa marks a fundamental change in thinking, a fundamental change in approach, and a fundamental change in strategic orientation.

The BRICS are not coming back,  they’re gone for good, just as Washington’s “pivot to Asia” is gone for good. There’s just too much resistance. Washington has simply overplayed its hand, worn out its welcome. People are sick of us.

Can you blame them?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Joaquin Flores | SIMULPOST WITH  FORT RUSS (a fraternal site)
SPECIAL COMMENTARY

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t was bound to happen eventually, with both US presidential candidates locked in a contest to prove who can be ‘tougher’ on Russia.  Remember it was quite recently that Hillary Clinton referred to Putin as an “adversary” and referred to Russia as a “threat”.  We already know that Jeb Bush will bring John ‘Bomb Iran’ McCain in to … do exactly as he’s done under Obama.
…

From the July 3rd public publication of the notes of Putin’s Russian Security Council meeting, it is clear in the transcript – reprinted below – that Putin has changed the use of language.
.

But at any rate, for a long time after it was clear that the US was going to want to destroy Russia whatever its incarnation – socialist, monarchist, capitalist, or whatever – but Russia kept on referring to the US as its ”partner”.  The problem is as much geostrategic as it was ideological; one can reasonably say that the two are intrinsically linked.
.

In the context of this war in Ukraine, many sympathetic to both Russia’s aim of building a multi-polar world with BRICS nations, and to the revolution in Novorossiya, have at the very least been scratching their heads whenever Putin would continue to refer to these obvious opponents as “partners”.
.

But it happened, Putin now calls the west ‘geopolitical opponents’.  It will remain to be seen if the term ‘partners’ will still be used, as in ‘trade partners’ – certainly one can be a trade partner and a geopolitical opponent at the same time.  The history of international relations informs us of as much.
.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]e have to keep in mind a few things.  The first is that the Russians use their words very carefully.  They never engage in saber rattling, and they do not make threats.  They have policies, and they make promises.  Russia, strangely – at least for those of us in the west – makes use of its double-speak in a highly consistent way.  They aren’t all over the place with it, and they are almost never reactive.
.

The other is that the words match their policy.  Again, that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of double-speak – referring to clear “opponents” as “partners” is one giant and obvious example. But so long as they consistently referred to these powers in the west as “partners” it was clear what kind of relationship they wanted to build, or maintain.

---

“Confusing the world for national interests is the US’s neurosis, not Russia’s…”

---

This “taking the high road” and keeping to their commitments, and within the context of international law, precedent, and established norms, has earned them a high level of respect and trust all around the world.
.

Yes, Russia isn’t trying to save the world, and they have their own national interests.  Confusing the world for national interests is the US’s neurosis, not Russia’s.  It just so happens that Russia realizes a few things.  Sometimes friends of Russia who are overly critical of a perceived ‘lack’ of Russian engagement, forget this point.
.

The first is that in this historical epoch, given the distribution of resources, the present technologies as well as the foreseeable ones, there isn’t going to be a single global hegemon.  The ‘auto-destruct’ mode of the US in its attempts to build and maintain unipolar domination is a very good piece of corroborating evidence to that point.

.

The second is that it needs to maintain and rebuild its historic sphere of influence.  This works against the way the US understands the world in the way they’ve come to define and understand it.  Folks like Mackinder were big in shaping this view.  He said that Eurasia was the heartland that had to be contained and kept weak.  Whole bureaucracies were built around this, including the military industrial complex.

.

Bureaucracies and their policies seem to have their own inertia and survival instinct.  They take on a life of their own. They will shape the world so that they can continue to exist in it.

.

Against this, the other corners of the world will build, rebuild, and maintain their own respective spheres. This multipolar balancing act is going to be critical moving forward.  An east Asian bloc, a Eurasian bloc, a sub-Saharan African bloc, an Oceania bloc, a North American bloc, and a Latin-American bloc are all reasonable.  Not only that, they are emerging. What’s missing here is a Middle-Eastern bloc, because the US has succeeded most here in keeping that from cohering.  Pan-Arabism as a coherent movement was probably dying in slow motion ever since the Arab-Israel war in 1967.

---

“Bureaucracies like the military-industrial complex have their own inertia and survival instinct.  They take on a life of their own. They will shape the world so that they can continue to exist in it….”

---

Still, that defeat is not the trend everywhere.  In fact, the trend is the opposite.  It’s important to be able to recognize trends and position oneself within that scheme.

.

What we’ve described here also happens to be the operating paradigm of the Russian Security Council.

.

All of that said, this change in the discourse – from partners to opponents – tells us a lot.

.

Russia doesn’t shift its words around on a daily basis like the US, and they do not suffer from a bi-polar condition in expressing their foreign policy.

.

Russia wants the West to know that its days of working towards collaboration in general terms, have officially come to an end.

 ‘

***

---

Transcript of Putin’s address, from Kremlin.ru, to the Russian Security Council

 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

“Good afternoon, colleagues.

 

Our agenda today includes a range of issues concerning protection of our national interests in the face of the restrictive measures that some countries have imposed on Russia.

 

We know the reasons for the pressure being put on Russia. We follow an independent domestic and foreign policy and our sovereignty is not up for sale. This does not go down well in some quarters, but this is inevitable.

 

It is clear today that attempts to split and divide our society, play on our problems, and seek out our vulnerable spots and weak links have not produced the results hoped for by those who imposed these restrictive measures on our country and continue to support them.

 

 

Our people, our key political forces, and our business community understand what is happening and know what to do. The timely measures we took have stabilised the economic and financial situation and the labour market and ensured the stable functioning of all strategically important economic sectors. We continue implementing our most important state programmes, including in the social sector.

 

Furthermore, our companies, Russia’s producers, have proven that they are capable of developing in tough conditions, finding new partners, and entering new markets at home and abroad. This can be seen in the rapid growth of our agriculture sector.

 

Colleagues, recent events show that we cannot hope that some of our geopolitical opponents will change their hostile course anytime in the foreseeable future. The EU countries recently extended the sanctions they have imposed on us, and discussions continue in the United States on toughening sanctions against us.

 

Amidst all of this, no one is even trying to analyse the reasons for what is now happening in southeast Ukraine, which was what started all of this fuss in the first place. What I mean here is that those who are imposing these restrictive measures and so-called sanctions on Russia are in fact responsible for the events that we are now witnessing in southeast Ukraine.

 

We must respond accordingly to this situation, of course, and take additional systemic measures in all key areas.

 

Firstly, we must make a rapid analysis of all the potential challenges and risks we face – political, economic, information risks and others. Based on this analysis, we then need to make adjustments to our National Security Strategy.

 

Once the National Security Strategy is updated, we will also need to update strategic planning documents currently in force or in the process of drafting. Furthermore, if needed, we will need to make clarifications to the Foreign Policy Concept and the Foundations of Russia’s Comprehensive Policy in the CIS Area.

 

At the same time, our strategic course in the foreign policy area remains unchanged. We are open for equal cooperation and collective work on key issues on the international agenda. We will continue to build relations with our partners based on the principles of respect and mutual consideration of each other’s interests, so long as this does not harm our own sovereignty and national security of course.

 

As before, we support active development of economic integration in the CIS area. We support expanding political, business and humanitarian ties with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the BRICS group.

 

Economic security issues are a crucial matter. Our strategic planning documents must define the main threats in each area in clearer and more detailed fashion. These documents must define the criteria and set the threshold indicators for the economic situation at which national security risks would start to emerge. They must also put into concrete terms the measures and mechanisms that would enable us to reduce our economy’s dependence on negative external factors.

 

At the practical level, the Government and the Central Bank must pay particular attention to ensuring the financial system’s stable operation. They must also put in place measures to achieve more balanced budgets and reduce the debt burden on regional budgets.

 

Overall, we must ensure very close coordination between everyone taking part in this work.

 

We must develop and present new proposals for the conceptual basis of strategic planning and forecasting of our country’s sustainable socioeconomic development and for risk management. We need to analyse the socioeconomic situation in the regions and conduct on-going monitoring using the regional situation centres. This is especially important for the border regions.

 

As I said, the restrictive measures we will discuss today have created problems for our economy, but they have also opened new opportunities. Above all, our producers have been able to significantly bolster their positions on the domestic market.

 

We continue our support for import replacement projects, especially in the agriculture sector, defence sector, engineering, pharmaceuticals, and the chemicals industry. If need be, our companies will receive additional support in these areas.

 

But let me draw one very important matter to your attention. The Prosecutor General’s Office, Rospotrebnadzor (national consumer protection service), the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service and other agencies must protect our people and companies from fake and poor quality goods. No matter whether goods are produced in Russia or abroad, they must meet modern requirements and standards and their origin and price setting must be transparent and clear.

 

In conclusion, our direct responsibility is to ensure reliable protection of Russia’s security in all areas and preserve our country’s social, political and economic stability.

 

Much here will depend on consolidating the efforts of our state institutions and civil society and on concentrating our resources on the priority areas. I am sure that you all understand this well and will do everything possible to resolve the tasks before us effectively.

 

Thank you very much for your attention.”

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

---

[box] Joaquin Flores is a Mexican-American expat based in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst and director at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank and consultancy firm, as well as the co-editor of Fort Russ news service. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing ideology and the role of mass psychology, as well as the methods of the information war in the context of 4GW and New Media. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. In the US, he worked for a number of years as a labor union organizer, chief negotiator, and strategist for a major trade union federation. [/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

OPEDS |  ANDRE VLTCHEK

President Rafael Correa: Standing firm in the face of enormous intimidation and threats by Washington and its “in-country” accomplices.

[dropcap]G[/dropcap]reece is white, it is European, and therefore eyes of entire Western “progressive” world are now directed towards Athens: will its government dare to default, would Greece leave euro-zone and eventually the European Union? As if the answer to this question could change the world; as if Athens is where the fate of humanity will be decided.

Some 10 thousand kilometers away, Ecuador is predominantly indigenous, and therefore, inhabited by ‘un-people’, to borrow from George Orwell’s colorful terminology. Battered by its own, mainly Euro-centric and pale-skinned ‘elites’ who are enjoying extremely close links with both EU and the United States, Ecuador and its determinedly left-wing government can count very little on international solidarity, especially on the camaraderie from ‘so-called progressive’ movements in the West.

After all, non-white, non-Western people are expected to suffer. Even the left in the West is ‘accustomed to’ their agony.

Frankly, almost nobody in Europe or in the United States wants those left wing governments in Latin America, in Asia or in Africa, to succeed. That is ‘well hidden secret’, or at least ‘an uncomfortable truth’!

China, South Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador and other countries all over the world have been addressed and treated in the most despicable, patronizing, and even racist way by so-called left wing individuals and groups in the West.

The Left got thoroughly defunct in both Europe and in North America. But it continues to be distressingly self-righteous, self-indulged, bossy and arrogant. It does not govern and does not inspire almost anybody, anymore. It became shamefully cowardly and lazy. But it behaves as if it would be holding some God-given right to judge and advice others: those who do fight, those who do inspire and those who do govern! It is evident that it wants non-Western socialist and communist governments and movements, those that are proudly governing all over the world, to go straight to hell!

“If we collapsed, let others collapse as well!” Is the unpronounced motto.

This is because even the Left in Europe and the US is constructed on Christian and Euro-centric mind frames, with exceptionalism and supremacist sentiments at its core.

Of course such things are never pronounced in Paris, London, Rome, or New York, but there is a perfect consensus there, that only the Western thinkers and leaders are qualified and should be trusted with ‘saving the world’. And only they ought to be allowed to decide, which country qualifies to be called socialist or communist, democratic or tyrannical, progressive or regressive.

Tsipras: Not exactly an orphan in terms of international support.

Unable to lead, and most likely unwilling to govern, too lethargic and intellectually spent, most of Western ‘progressive’ thinkers are constantly regurgitating lunatic economic and political theories that no one in other parts of the world, especially the poor world, would ever take seriously, let alone want to implement. Those Western ‘progressive leaders’ are also demanding grotesque levels of purity from the Latin American and Asian left-wing leaders. Simultaneously, they demand great sacrifice from non-Western people: “Let us consume and live the high-life, as poor us, we cannot help it. But let them care about the environment and live in austerity.”

“I was recently invited to speak on an important television channel based in Iran, to talk about Palestine and Greece. I refused. My argument was clear: both Palestine and Greece already received enough solidarity from ‘us’, in Latin America…”

***

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]nd so, while Greece votes on its financial future, Ecuador is facing one of the most vicious subversions in its history. It is facing it alone. It appears that everyone from the non-Latin American left who matters is now in Athens. As far as I know, there are no solidarity ‘delegates’ descending on Quito!

Ecuador has now been abandoned, not unlike Venezuela was, for already quite some time.

I was recently invited to speak on an important television channel based in Iran, to talk about Palestine and Greece. I refused. My argument was clear: both Palestine and Greece already received enough solidarity from ‘us’, in Latin America. Now our revolutions are facing great threats. They are being attacked. We are human, too! We also need help; we need solidarity.

To give credit where credit is due, the Iranian editor put me on hold, after expressing her concern about the situation in Latin America. A few minutes later she came back to me, via Skype: “I talked to our director and he told me to interview you on Ecuador. He said: they are our brothers. We fall together, or we will survive together!”

Naturally, such statements and gestures are remembered for the rest of one’s life!

But that’s Teheran, not London or Paris or Chicago!

***

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]y priority now is Ecuador. My priority is Latin America. This is where I see the great battle for the future of humanity taking place. Here and in Asia. Definitely not in Europe!

Latin American governments here are not perfect. The Chinese government is not perfect either. But they are doing all they can, after decades and centuries of plunder, after Europe, the United States, in unison with local elites and multinational companies, were pillaging and raping everything “south of the border”.

Corruption could not be eradicated in one year, or in one decade. Imported religious and moral corruptions shaped the whole of “Latin America” (which is, thankfully, becoming less and less ‘Latin’ these days) by murderous and greedy Westerners, for generations. Things can improve, greatly, in one decade or even in one year, but horror structures built during long centuries can not be fully reversed. ‘The Process’ has to be in place for many years, uninterrupted.

Yes, we are not perfect, but we are trying to get better as we go. We are moving forward! We are trying to, going and falling, passing through fire, filth, conspiracies and intrigues. We are moving forward, damn it!

***

Ecuadorian elites are protesting and they are sabotaging everything great that has been done by Correa and his administration. Many think that a coup is in the air.

Not one word about progress; new highways and airports, modern hospitals and schools, medical posts, countless playgrounds for children, free culture, libraries… The Right in Ecuador—as just about everywhere not expressly socialist or progressive— owns most of the media. Not much positive is written about Ecuador by Western ‘progressive’ media outlets, either. We at The Greanville Post and fraternal sites like Counterpunch being a great exception!

Not much good is written about China, Vietnam, Eritrea, South Africa, Zimbabwe or Iran. To Western purists, all these countries are not good enough, not socialist enough, not as they define socialism or communism, not as they define democracy! Six or seven thousand years of Chinese culture mean nothing. Everything has to be measured and defined only by Western standards.

Russia is different: it is not socialist at all (although it adopted a great internationalist Soviet foreign policy), but it is predominantly white, and so it gets plenty of emotional support, fiery speeches and declarations of love and support.

Many Chinese comrades I spoke to in Beijing fully gave up on the Western left; they see it, mainly, as the most reactionary force (ideologically), when it comes to non-white left wing countries and governments. And I couldn’t agree more!

***

Greece should default. That fortress, the fascist European Union, should not bully it.

But Greece should fight for internationalist, global ideals.

While we all know, that what it is fighting for is just its own gain… or for survival of its high standards of living.

When things were going well, when money was flowing in, when Greek farmers began driving the latest models of German cars on smooth motorways, the Greek people were not protesting. And they were not asking where the money came from. It mainly came from plundering of the non-Western world, of ‘non-people’. That was fine, wasn’t it?

I was in Greece, recently. I spoke to many people, including those from their left, mainly from the left. Almost nobody had any clue about what is going on in Latin America. No one cared. Even in Turkey they are monitoring what goes on in Caracas or La Paz.

But not in Athens – in Athens nobody gives a flying f…!

Many were still complaining bitterly about illegal immigration from Africa! Don’t those writers who are now writing flattering essays, glorifying Greek people, know that? Or they pretend not to see and hear?

Greece is fighting for its own goals. Its incomes dropped, from 1.400 to 800 euros a month, per capita, in many cases. Terrible, but in many African nations where money to support Greek farmers often came from (by EU finishing African agriculture), incomes are sitting at around 30 euros per month. I tried to address these issues in Athens, but encountered stone faces and total bewilderment, even hostility. I was told: “But we are used to different standards!”

And therefore I repeat: what is happening in Greece is not some left wing, internationalist revolution.

Greeks are fighting for Greece.

Latin America is fighting for humanity! It never exploited anybody. It sent doctors, teachers, all over the world. It sent oil to the poor, even in the United States. It supplied unfortunate countries like East Timor with trainers. It offered solidarity to Palestine, Iran, so many others!

***

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]f Ecuador will get under direct fire, I will go back, and I will stand by it, doing all I could to support it. And if the Western Left will do nothing to help, I will break, fully and categorically, all my ties with it!

As many wrote: Greece will survive. “It is, after all, in Europe”. Even when it is down, it is, somehow, up.

We, “down here”, will not have another chance. And if we fall, the entire non-Western world will fall with us!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”.Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Paul Craig Roberts | PCR Site

Martin Edward “Marty” Dempsey is a United States Army general and the 18th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We wonder what this unimaginative, utterly corporatized  individual would tell the Pope about his role in the world as an enthusiastic instrument for US warmongering imperial policy. Being a Catholic, he should be held accountable.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Pentagon has released its “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015,” June 2015. http://news.usni.org/2015/07/02/document-2015-u-s-national-military-strategy ^[1]
The document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to “state actors” that “are challenging international norms.” It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington’s policies. These “revisionist states” are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington.

Be sure to grasp the point: The threat is the existence of sovereign states, whose independence of action makes them “revisionist states.” In other words, their independence is out of step with the neoconservative Uni-power doctrine that declares independence to be the right of Washington alone. Washington’s History-given hegemony precludes any other country being independent in its actions.

The Pentagon’s report defines the foremost “revisionist states” as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The focus is primarily on Russia. Washington hopes to co-opt China, despite the “tension to the Asia-Pacific region” that China’s defense of its sphere of influence, a defense “inconsistent with international law” (this from Washington, the great violator of international law), by turning over what remains of the American consumer market to China. It is not yet certain that Iran has escaped the fate that Washington imposed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine, and by complicity Palestine.

---

 The Pentagon document is a bullshit report written by neocons in order to foment war with Russia.

---

 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Pentagon report is sufficiently audacious in its hypocrisy, as all statements from Washington are, to declare that Washington and its vassals “support the established institutions and processes dedicated to preventing conflict, respecting sovereignty, and furthering human rights.” This from the military of a government that has invaded, bombed, and overthrown 11 governments since the Clinton regime and is currently working to overthrow governments in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina.

---

 

Dempsey at the lectern spouting the usual scripted nonsense, with his handlers behind.

In the Pentagon document, Russia is under fire for not acting “in accordance with international norms,” which means Russia is not following Washington’s leadership.

In other words, this is a bullshit report written by neocons in order to foment war with Russia.

Nothing else can be said about the Pentagon report, which justifies war and more war. Without war and conquests, Americans are not safe.

Washington’s view toward Russia is the same as Cato the Elder’s view toward Carthage. Cato the Elder finished his every speech on any subject in the Roman Senate with the statement “Carthage must be destroyed.”

This report tells us that war with Russia is our future unless Russia agrees to become a vassal state like every country in Europe, and Canada, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan. Otherwise, the neoconservatives have decided that it is impossible for Americans to tolerate living with a country that makes decisions independently of Washington. If America cannot be The Uni-Power dictating to the world, better that we are all dead. At least that will show the Russians.

 

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

[box type=”bio”] Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist and blogger. He served as an assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in the Reagan administration. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. [/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?