Pope Francis and Beijing: The Geopolitics of the Vatican

Source link

journal-neo.org

Author: Caleb Maupin

18.09.2018

The Roman Catholic Church and the Peoples Republic of China are set to sign an agreement, which would formally end the hostilities between these two entities. The Chinese government will formally acknowledge the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church in China. In exchange, the Pope will reinstate ex-communicated Bishops selected by the Communist Party to lead Catholics on the Chinese mainland. In this context, it is worth reviewing the shifts and evolutions of Catholicism in global politics.

Opposing Capitalism and Marxism

Surprising as it may be to many Republicans in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church officially opposes capitalism. In fact, clerical anti-capitalism predates Marxism by centuries. As the merchant class was emerging in Europe, Catholic theology tended to uphold the “natural order” represented in the feudal hierarchy. The church saw the marketplace as a sinful mess of greed and anarchy.  Gutenberg’s printing press, which led to the translation and widespread publication of the Bible, and eventually the Protestant Reformation, is seen as the opening shot act in the struggle resulting in the eventual rise of liberal democratic nation-states and the market. Papal proclamations that shifted regulations on money-lending laid the foundations for modern finance. For example, the roots of the titanic institution known as Bank of America can be traced back to early Italian bankers, who emerged as the church loosened its restrictions on Usury.

While Catholic anti-capitalism, which emphasizes morality and obedience over “economic freedom,” has been longstanding, the ideology of Marxism is something Rome has always opposed. Catholicism views Marxism as godlessly fomenting revolts against legitimate “God given” authority. Furthermore, Marxist economic determinism is perceived as undermining the moral responsibility of individuals for their actions.

As Marxism proliferated throughout Europe, most especially after the Russian Revolution, it was not uncommon for Roman Catholic Anti-Communists to invoke a supposed “Jewish origin” of Marxism while condemning it. Many Catholics also espoused the belief that Marxism was linked to the Bavarian illuminati, which the Church had suppressed in the 1780s. Rome never formally endorsed any conspiracy theory about the origins of Marxism, but among politicized Catholics, such beliefs were certainly widespread.

In the 1920s and 30s as the political current known as Fascism emerged, the Roman Catholic community was a primary recruiting ground. The Vatican’s status as an independent state was arranged by the originator of the word “fascism” himself, Benito Mussolini. Prior to the Second World War, the Soviet Union was condemned by the Catholic Church as an atheistic autocracy, and the duty of all Roman Catholics was to work against the global communist movement. Catholics were rallied to support General Francisco Franco in his Civil War against the Spanish Republic.

“Kill A Commie for Christ”

In the United States, rural and southern communities were the primary base of rightwing politics, and bigotry against Catholics was prevalent among conservatives. The Ku Klux Klan hated Roman Catholics, going as far as to stage a national rally in opposition to “Columbus Day.” Prohibition on alcohol was passed as conservative protestants perceived the Catholic tolerance for social drinking as a threat to American values. Hostility from conservatives resulted in most Catholics, many of whom were recent immigrants living in urban centers, occupying the liberal end of the political spectrum. Anti-Catholic sentiments against Democrat Al Smith were key in securing the victory Herbert Hoover’s in the 1928 Presidential election.

However, a Catholic oriented brand of far-right politics in the United States eventually emerged in the 1930s. Father Charles Coughlin of Michigan, the infamous “Radio Priest” known for his Pro-Hitler and Anti-Semitic Sermons became a national political figure. Unlike the Ku Klux Klan and other far-rightists of the time, Coughlin’s fascist rhetoric spoke against “international bankers” and condemned capitalism, while at the same time opposing the labor movement and the Roosevelt administration as an example of “Godless Communism.” When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the Vatican ordered Coughlin to cease his radio broadcasts.

As the Cold War began, the Soviet Union considered the Roman Catholic Church to be one of its primary enemies and vice-versa. Communist publications frequently referred to the Catholic Church as “fascist” and accused it of complicity in the Holocaust. Urban Catholic Democrats such as the Kennedy family were supporters of the House Un-American Activities Committee as McCarthyism set in. The Catholic Trade Union associations worked to ban Communists from working in Auto-plants and Steel mills. Catholic high school students, bearing placards that said “Kill a Commie for Christ” were mobilized to violently attack the May 1st parade in New York City in 1948.

As the USA and Europe marched in lockstep against the Soviet Union during the 1950s, the Catholic Church was in an anti-communist frenzy. Across post-war Europe, Church attendance significantly declined, but those who remained practicing Catholics were not only opposed to Communists, but also to Social-Democracy. The Vatican’s flock generally embraced “Christian Democratic” political parties, perceiving even the anti-Soviet Social-Democratic parties as being tainted by Marxist materialism.

Vietnam, Central America & Nuclear Weapons

The geopolitics of Catholicism began to shift in the 1960s. The Second Vatican Pastoral Council convened in October of 1962. The event is seen as pivotal in the modern history of the Catholic Church. The council published a document proclaiming “any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities… is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.” This was widely interpreted as a condemnation of the bombing campaigns conducted by the US military during the Second World War and the Korean War.

A minority of Catholic clergy in the United States protested the Vietnam War from the beginning. Father Daniel Berrigan, a Catholic Priest, was even briefly placed on the FBI’s most wanted list for his role in destroying draft records as an act of protest. By the early 1970s, it seemed that the Church was no longer espousing the fanatical anti-Sovietism that had previously defined it and many Catholics were vocally opposing the Vietnam War. As Evangelical Christians emerged as a significant axis within US politics following the upheavals of the Vietnam-era, the Catholic Church did not echo their hysterical fears of the Soviet Union.

In the 1980s, divisions between the Vatican and Washington seemed the most stark in Central America. The Sandinista government that took power in 1979 in Nicaragua embraced the Catholic Church, and priests openly held governmental offices. “Liberation Theology” that put forward a socialist interpretation of the Bible became very popular in Central and South America, and many Catholic clergy openly declared support for it.

As Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries were swept up in Civil War, the United States aligned itself with armed anti-communist fanatics dubbed “Contras.” The Contras and the right-wing of Latin America embraced evangelical protestant teachings from the United States, and saw free market capitalism as biblically mandated. Reverend Jerry Falwell, a key political figure in the United States who formed the “Moral Majority,” spent a large amount of time south of the US border, rallying Spanish speaking crowds against Marxism. As Civil Wars raged across Central and South America in the 1980s, Catholic clergy were slaughtered in a number of different massacres and assassinations.

During the 1980s, West Germany, Italy, and France were becoming more friendly to the Soviet Union, and distancing themselves from Ronald Reagan and his escalation of the arm’s race. The Catholic Church was well represented among the crowds that condemned both nuclear weapons and nuclear power in a widespread protest movement across the western world. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland led anti-Nuclear protests in Ohio, citing his Catholic faith as motivation, and was eventually elected to the US Congress.While opposing the arms race and being critical of US foreign policy, Pope John Paul II generally embraced anti-Soviet protests and “color revolutions” across eastern Europe. The most famous example was the “Solidarity” movement of Catholic dock workers in Poland. As the Eastern bloc and eventually the Soviet Union itself fell, the Catholic Church was very vocally aligned with the overthrow of Marxist-Leninist governments, which resulted in economic catastrophe as the state run economies were dismantled.In 1998, Pope John Paul II visited Cuba. Anti-Communists and right-wingers in the United States were furious, accusing the Vatican of granting legitimacy to Fidel Castro. However, the move was widely praised in Europe, where the US economic blockade of Cuba was perceived as irrational.The Left Turn of Pope Francis

In 2016, Pope Francis made headlines around the world when he began emphasizing opposition to capitalism. Pope Francis was clear that he did not support Marxism, or any Marxist interpretation of Liberation Theology, but he continued to emphasize opposition to income inequality with rhetoric similar to US Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Pope Francis has maintained the Catholic opposition to abortion and gay marriage, but has gone as far as meeting with groups of gay activists and repeatedly declaring that homosexuals are welcome in the Church.

This apparent left turn from Pope Francis paralleled a similar shift among anti-Communists in Latin America. While those who opposed the governments of Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, Evo Morales, and other Marxists in Latin America had generally defended capitalism and free markets, the right wing of South and Central America shifted its rhetoric at approximately the same time. Henrique Caprilles of Venezuela and other anti-Communists began saying they were also advocates of “socialism” but favored friendly relations with the United States, and opposed the “extremism” of the Bolivarian governments. While Pope Francis puts forward criticism of capitalism, he has loudly condemned the government of Venezuela.

Pope Francis has also made harsh criticisms of the “new right” in Europe and Trump administration in the United States. The Vatican officially condemned the US policy of separating of immigrant families and calls for refugees to be welcomed in Europe.The new friendliness between the Vatican and Beijing, and Pope Francis’ criticism of Trump, fits in with increasing division between the USA and Western Europe. The Obama administration seemed to work hard for unity within NATO. The Trump administration seems to be far less accommodating to the western European countries. As Trump puts tariffs on China, countries throughout western Europe seem to be embracing the Belt and Road Initiative and having increasingly friendly ties to Beijing. Following a pattern of contemporary Catholicism, the Vatican seems to follow Western Europe in embracing or opposing US foreign policy.

The NATO countries in Europe seem to focus on opposing Russia, while continuing to do business with China. This seems to be the opposite of Trump’s policy of escalating a trade war with China while deflecting accusations that he “colluded” with Russia in the 2016 elections. As distance between the United States and Europe expands, it can be expected that the Vatican will be more critical of US foreign policy. However, as Britain exits the European Union, and Germany and other EU countries assert their right to import Russian natural gas, new shifts are certainly possible.

It is worth noting that while the Vatican appears to be on the verge of pivotal agreement with the Chinese Communist-led government, the Church in Vietnam continues to be viewed as a source of opposition. As Vietnam continues to be critical of China, it has been positioning itself closer to the United States, even hosting US naval vessels. Meanwhile, the Vatican continues to condemn Vietnam and accuse the Communist Party of repressing the Catholic minority, which represents only 7% of the population.

What is clear is that the geopolitical positions of the Vatican are not stagnant, and tend to evolve and shift based on circumstances. At the same time, the role of the Catholic Church in societies around the world seems to also be shifting, creating room for even more dramatic adjustments and surprises. Yet, sexual abuse scandals continue to plague the Vatican, regardless of its geopolitical turns.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Advertisements

‘Europe Belongs to Europeans’: Dalai Lama Stuns Swedish Public

© AP Photo / Tsering Topgyal

 

Source link

sputniknews.com

Sept 14, 2018

 

The Tibetan leader, himself almost a lifetime refugee, shocked the country that during the 2015 migrant crisis took in the most refugees per capita by saying that refugees coming to Europe will have to return home someday.

“Europe belongs to Europeans,” the Dalai Lama said at a conference in Malmö during his trip to Sweden, provoking strong reactions in some of Europe’s most migrant-friendly countries.

The 83-year-old spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists said that while Europe was “morally responsible” for helping refugees “facing mortal danger,” refugees who come to Europe must be able to return to their respective homelands and rebuild them.

“Receive them, help them, educate them… but ultimately they should develop their own country,” the Dalai Lama, who fled his own country during the Tibetan uprising in 1959 and has lived in India as a refugee ever since, said in Sweden’s third-largest city of Malmö, where over half of the population is of non-Swedish descent. “They will not remain in Germany or Sweden permanently. Eventually, they will return to their homelands,” he said.

READ MORE: Norway’s Right-Wing Party Blames Sweden’s ‘Disintegrating Unity’ on Immigration

This caused strong reactions in the Nordic country, which prides itself on its humanitarian efforts. Rakel Chukri, the cultural editor of the daily newspaper Sydsvenskan, called the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner a “happy pensioner with rock stardom,” blaming his “square view of identity” on the fact that he himself has been a refugee for almost 60 years.

Katrin Goldstein-Kyaga, Tibet researcher and professor emerita at Stockholm University, ventured in an opinion piece published by national broadcaster SVT that the Dalai Lama’s statement is likely to be misinterpreted by the “far-right.” She also suggested that his entire worldview as an almost lifelong refugee revolves around the idea of return. Lastly, she stressed that while the Dalai Lama is often expected to have an opinion on everything from the Swedish election to homosexuality and gender equality, this often after a ten-hour flight from India, he is but a “simple Buddhist monk,” reminding of the fact that himself often admitted that he is knowledgeable only in Buddhist philosophy.

READ MORE: ‘Victory or Death’: Top Sweden Democrat Stirs Nation With ‘Warlike’ ‘Pep Talk’

However, the Dalai Lama has repeated the same message on several occasions. In 2016, he said that Germany should “remain Germany” and not “become an Arab country,” adding that the refugees in Europe were “too many.”

Similarly, he often pointed out the mass immigration of the Chinese to Tibet as the biggest threat to his nation’s identity, potentially reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority.

In the past several years alone, Sweden, a nation of 10 million, took in over 200,000 immigrants. As of 2017, around 25 percent of Sweden’s population had immigrant background, while 18.5 percent were born abroad.

A Few Words About the Europe Migrant Catastrophe

Source link

journal-neo.org

Author: Phil Butler

Sept 2, 2018

Europe has had enough. Critical mass over the refugee crisis has been reached. Any sane person could have predicted what the influx of millions of asylum seekers and economic migrants would do to a cohesive European Union. And today, European citizens are astonished at how their trust in leadership has led to a growing catastrophe. It’s time for Europe to reassess the EU and the course for the future.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was at the head of a cadre of European leaders that rammed ultra-liberalism down the throats of European Union citizens when the migrant crisis began. She was the poster girl for the liberal world order back in 2014 when the continent started being overrun with refugees. Today, Europe’s most popular leader looks like the sacrificial lamb the globalists will offer up to serve their destructive needs. The madness of importing millions of refugees from Africa and the Middle East will end up being all about Merkel and German idealism. But, her folly is only a bit part in the greater drama enacted by her colleagues in Brussels. Still, Merkel’s Bavarian CSU allies have given her until the end of the EU summit to reduce the burden of immigration on Germany. If she does not soften the impact of taking in 1.6 million migrants since 2014, she will certainly lose her job and reputation.

For those people who are astonished at the current situation, the logical question to EU leaders has risen; “What were they thinking?” And this is the right question for people of every country in the world. In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has taken a stand. The Italians don’t want another boat from Libya to land ferrying African migrants. In Malta, the government has taken legal action against the German NGO Mission Lifeline responsible for delivering 234 migrants from Libya to its shores. The boat is at the center of a growing concern over human trafficking from those who say these German NGO efforts are not “rescue missions,” but virtual slavery endeavors instead. Where once Angela Merkel’s rare form of liberalism impressed average Germans, today there’s savage dissent.

The political crisis for the EU is most fittingly illustrated in statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, who said Mission Lifeline defied “all the rules and the Libyan coast guard” and “played into the hands of smugglers” when it picked up these migrants off Libya. From Warsaw and Budapest to London and Madrid the migrant disaster has sunk into the extent that world order media in Europe reports the citizen ire. Meanwhile, in New York and Washington, the press stands up for the Soros doctrine – destroy and conquer by any means. The New York Times leads in chanting “Malta Cracks Down on a Humanitarian Ship That Carried Migrants.” This stands in sharp contrast to Deutsche Welle’s “Germany and Austria vow to close immigration route.” For those who recall, these media outlets stood in stoic homogeneousness the day Russia’s Vladimir Putin asked, “Do you even realize what you have done?” Now it’s clear that the globalists weaponized desperate human beings. But to what end? Were the Hungarians right in defying the EU to create a package of bills that criminalized some help given to illegal immigrants, the laws also known as the “Stop Soros Package?” Before the migrant issue is decided, we may see even stricter regulations.

Look at Spain, Italy, and Greece, the hardest hit EU countries since the economic crisis. These three countries are the main entry ports for refugees from wars, famine, and economic disadvantage – and the fact the trio are hammered the hardest by the central Europeans. When Angela Merkel opened the door to Germany for these people, she drove a stake through the heart of EU member states already staggered by World Bank, IMF, and European Commission austerity and economic demands. The whole affair looks like a manual deconstruct. If a Soros-like crash of civilization was the goal, the meltdown occurring in European cities is a big win for the elites who dream up such things. And the western leadership points the finger at Putin and Russia as the dastardly enemy. What Merkel did to Germany, and Europe rivals Hitler’s Third Reich in her macabre stupidity – or her willing salute to the new order. The migrant crisis is either the result of a merciless act of warped hegemony or the most blatantly stupid policy goof in history. All we can do is hope that more sane or intelligent minds will eventually prevail.

What a disaster.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Up yours USA? US can’t force trade rules on others, Germany must invest more in Iran – economy minister

Source link

RT.com

12 Aug, 2018

FILE PHOTO © Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany’s economy minister said, adding that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly by investing more in Iran.

“We don’t let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries,” German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America’s neglect of its partners are clearly shown.

Therefore, Germany and other European countries should feel free to pursue improved relations with Tehran. “German businesses can continue to invest as much as they want in Iran,” Altmaier said, adding, however, that “many companies depend on loans from banks, most of which refinance themselves in the US – and it creates problems.”

Altmaier’s words come after the Trump administration imposed a second round of sanctions targeting Iran’s purchase of US dollars, despite pleas from some world powers. Earlier this year, Washington slapped Tehran with sanctions aimed at curtailing trade as well as the energy and shipbuilding industries.

These restrictions have damaged EU ties with Iran, which flourished after the milestone 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by the US. Last week, the EU responded to the latest Iran sanctions by calling on companies to disregard threats from the US. Apart from the issue of Iran, the US and Europe are locked in a dispute over tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles.

With that in mind, the German minister said, the world now risks sliding into an all-out economic conflict, adding that “we are just a few yards from the edge,” and “a global trade war would not know winners, only losers.” Politicians have no right to jeopardize hundreds of thousands of European jobs that depend on US-EU trade, he stated.

“We have learnt from the past that mostly customers are suffering from trade wars as goods and services are getting more expensive,” Altmaier said. “This trade war hampers economic growth and brings new uncertainties.”

Do Western Warmongers Want Us All Dead, or What?

Source link

journal-neo.org

Author: Phil Butler

July 20, 2018

For those of you who understand our world has gone nutty here’s a headline to cement your understanding. POLITICO Magazine exclaims – “The Will Die in Tallinn: Estonia Girds for War With Russia.” No, you are not dreaming, a so-called expert wrote a piece outlining the tiny Baltic nation’s plan to thwart a coming Russian invasion. Read on and cross your fingers in the hopes Putin does not have designs on Iowa.

Author Molly K. McKew decided to preview the coming Donald Trump meetup with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki with a nonsensical tale of an Estonian Special Forces chap to crystallize a blatant fearmongering lie. McKew and her colleagues at Robert Allbritton’s elitist/globalist magazine want the world to believe Russia has designs on Europe. Resuscitating the same old narrative from the Georgia War the west fueled in 2008 the first place, the lobbyist turned information warfare expert transforms herself into a NATO troll. Trolling Trump and Putin, tossing in some fancy military strategy terms, and digs up one Colonel Riho Uhtegi, who’s commander of the Estonian Special Operations Force, in order to strike fear into Putin and Russia! Yes, Estonia is fully prepared to go it alone against the Russian bear. Oh boy. Maybe you’ll want to read Dustin Giebel’s critique of the expert McKew here.

Her quizzing of the good colonel ends as an assessment of “new” capabilities powered by fantastical military rationalization. Colonel Uhtegi, in his posturing for POLITICO, compares Estonia’s situation in relation to the limited warfare Russia carried out in Georgia. These two geniuses leave out the fact that the Georgia War was a result of ill-advised actions by then-President George W. Bush. The NATO membership MAP Plan suggested by Bush forced Vladimir Putin’s hand. Anyway, the conversation in between the would-be cyberwarfare guru McKew and the unconventional (or crazy as hell) Estonian colonel reminds me of the disastrous (for Germany) Operation Bagration (1944) when Soviet forces sliced through Hitler’s main army group to take Poland in two weeks. These nincompoop analysts and military misfits assume Vladimir Putin will invade a NATO country with some kind of token asymmetrical warfare force. The pair go on to discuss a “hybrid conflict” arising out of an act of ultimate war in between Russia and the western alliance! These people are idiots, but let’s move on to bigger logic.Quasi-experts spitting out the globalist narrative always seem to ignore the biggest deterrents to a Putin invasion of Europe proper. Not to worry though, I shall explain briefly.

Russia has absolutely no interest in Europe other than tourism and natural gas sales. Of course, a preemptive invasion to create a “kill zone” should NATO advance is a real strategic probability. But in general, all Europe has to offer Putin and Russia are more mouths to feed. Let’s be clear on this. Russia holds all the natural resource cards. Russia has all the free land left. Russia has been on the defensive since FOREVER. Point two. Besides and Eiffel Tower and some ancient ruins to visit here or there, the Russians pretty much have everything Europeans do. Let’s move on to point two.

NATO experts and Washington think tanks continually mull over geo-strategic mumbo jumbo. Like attorneys create laws to ensure their own usefulness and longevity, war academics invent scenario after scenario in order to get their paychecks. You cannot find an assessment of the Georgia War, for instance, that tells you the real reason Russia did not take over in days. Yes, I know the reason, now get ready for it. Putin and Medvedev did not take over Georgia in days because they wanted to avoid collateral civilian deaths. The “hybrid conflict” in Georgia had two distinct limiting characteristics. First and foremost, Russians are Georgians and vice versa. Killing off their own people was not something Putin or Dmitry Medvedev wanted. Add to this limitation the fact the Russian military was still rebuilding after being decimated during the Yeltsin era and preventing collateral damage was nearly impossible if the Russians practiced the Georgia War in any way other than they did. End of story. Russia’s forces are now 100 times more effective, and the entirety of NATO has zero chance of containing them. Forget about Estonia being invaded though. Putin can visit the Christmas market in Tallinn whenever he feels like it. That is unless Estonian Nazis in the military are not put in power. In that case, Russia may have to spank a few Baltic butts.

To conclude, there’s really no danger of Russian bodies lining the blood-soaked streets of Tallinn. But the main reason this will not happen is not that Putin’s military could crush Estonian forces in a day or two. The biggest deterrent against Baltics-Russia crisis is the fact citizens in these countries harbor no hate for one another. The hate rhetoric you read about is manufactured by the NATO trolls and the western elitist media. How can I know this? Well, my good friends in Pskov, Russia drive to Riga or Tallinn unimpeded, and on a regular basis. Singing stars like Brussels’ own Laura Fabian and Russia’s now deceased legendary baritone Dmitri Hvorostovsky gave yearly concerts there. Normal human beings in these and other nations do not come and go each day envisioning global war and senseless bloodshed. Normal human beings have the job of living.

So, is it fair to claim that POLITICO analysts and Estonian warfighters are abnormal? Should we condemn the Washington think tanks for dreaming up our destruction? You’re damn right, they are abnormal, and they do want us all to die.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

America Bombs, Europe Gets Refugees

“Iran and Russia should be Europe’s allies — they didn’t cause any of Europe’s problems. America did. America’s intelligence agencies tapped (and probably still tap) the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and practically everybody else, and yet the US regime has the gall to blame Russia for interfering in the political affairs of European countries. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle ‘black’, then what is?”

Top Photo | An employee of Doctors Without Borders stands inside the charred remains of their hospital after it was hit by a U.S. airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

The US Government (with France and a few other US allies) bombs Libya, Syria, etc.; and the US regime refuses to accept any of the resulting refugees — the burdens from which are now breaking the EU, and the EU is sinking in economic competition against America’s international corporations.

Source link

http://www.mintpressnews.com

by Eric Zuesse

July 12, 2018

America’s corporations remain blithely unscathed by not only the refugees that are breaking up the EU, but also by the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia, Iran, and other allies of governments that the US regime is trying to overthrow in its constant invasions and coups.

The US Government makes proclamations such as “Assad must go!” — but by what right is the US Government involved, at all, in determining whom the leaders in Syria will be? Syria never invaded the US In fact, Syria never invaded anywhere (except, maybe, Israel, in order to respond against Israel’s invasions). Furthermore, all polling, even by Western pollsters, shows that Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair election in Syria.

The US Government claims to support democracy, but it does the exact opposite whenever they want to get rid of a Government that is determined to protect that nation’s sovereignty over its own national territory, instead of to yield it to the US regime, or to any other foreigners. The US regime has virtually destroyed the United Nations.

The US regime even refuses to provide restitution to Syria for its bombings, and for its arming and training of the jihadists — the fundamentalist Sunni mercenaries recruited from around the world — who are the US regime’s “boots on the ground” trying to overthrow Syria’s Government. Al Qaeda has led the dozens of jihadist groups that have served as the US regime’s “boots on the ground” to overthrow Assad, but Al Qaeda is good enough to serve the purpose, in the US regime’s view of things.

The US regime says that there will be no restitution to Syria unless Syria accepts being ruled by ‘rebels’ whose leadership is actually being chosen by the US regime’s chief ally, the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family, who already own Saudi Arabia, and who (along with the CIA) have been unsuccessfully trying, ever since 1949, to take over the secular, non-sectarian, nation of Syria. In fact, the CIA perpetrated two of the three Syrian coups that were carried out in 1949.

The US regime, and its allies, have used the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to recruit into Syria the 100,000+ jihadists from around the world to fight to overthrow Syria’s secular Government. Even the BBC’s 13 December 2013 detailed report, “Guide to the Syrian rebels”, made clear that the “Syrian Rebels” were, in fact, overwhelmingly jihadist and largely recruited from abroad. These were hardly democrats.

Even a Tony-Blair-founded anti-Assad NGO’s study concluded that “Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists” (not just “Islamists” but “Islamist extremists”) and yet the Blair outfit still supported the overthrow of the committed secularist Assad (just as Blair had earlier participated himself in the US regime’s destruction of Iraq).

The fundamentalist-Sunni royal Thani family own Qatar and have been the top international funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, just as the fundamentalist-Sunni royal Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, have been the top funders of Al Qaeda. The main difference between the Sauds and the Thanis has been that whereas the Sauds hate Shia (and that means especially Iran), the Thanis don’t. Thus, for the Sauds, this is a war against the Shia center, Iran, and not only against Syria.

This war against Syria was a coordinated US-Saud-Thani operation, in which the fundamentalist-Sunni group, Al Qaeda, provided the leadership but the (pan-Islamic) fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood provided the largest recruiting website. This entire hyper-aggressive operation was internationally coordinated. The Obama Administration started planning this operation, under Hillary Clinton, in 2010. As even the neoconservative (i.e., US-empire advocating) Washington Post reported, on 17 April 2011, from Wikileaks, “It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside [by the Obama Administration] at least through September 2010.” That article mentioned only “former members of the Muslim Brotherhood,” not the Muslim Brotherhood itself; and no mention was made in it to Al Qaeda, in any form.

Then, in 2013, the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine headlined “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution” and was oblivious regarding the neoconservative Obama Administration’s having planned that “hijacking,” starting in 2010 (but going back even as far as Obama’s inauguration; this operation was a key part of his secret anti-Russia agenda, which preceded even his coming into office). But if Obama wasn’t neocon-enough to suit that magazine’s editors, then Trump certainly should be, because Trump continues Obama’s foreign policies but with an even more hostile thrust against the Sauds’ chief target, which is Iran. Above all, the US alliance’s goal has been for the Saud family’s selected (rabidly anti-Shiite) people to take over and run the Syrian Government. As Global Security has phrased this matter, “The High Negotiations Committee [which is the group who are negotiating against Assad’s government at the US-sponsored ‘peace’ talks] is a Saudi-backed coalition of Syrian opposition groups. The High Negotiations Committee (HNC) was created in Saudi Arabia in December 2015.”

So, this war in Syria has actually been the Sauds’ war to take over Syria. And it actually started in 1949, but the US-backed Muslim-Brotherhood-led “Arab Spring” in 2011 gave the US and its allies the opportunity to culminate it, finally.

And Europe receives the fall-out from it. This fall-out has been hurting European corporations, in international competition against US corporations. It’s not only political.

The US regime has continued this thrust, under Obama’s successor. US President Donald Trump demands European corporations to end their business with Shiite Iran (which the Saud family is determined to take over), and to end their business with Russia, which America’s own billionaires themselves are determined to take over, just like the Sauds are determined to take over both Syria and Iran.

And Europe receives refugees not only from places where the US and some of its NATO allies have recently been bombing, but even from Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places where NATO has bombed in the past, and even from Ukraine, where the US regime perpetrated a bloody coup in February 2014, followed there by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to kill the residents in areas which had voted the heaviest for the overthrown President.

America is no actual ally of Europe. The Marshall Plan is long-since finished, and America has been taken over by psychopaths who are Europe’s main enemies, not Europe’s friends, at all. (They’re friends of some European aristocracies, but not of any European public, not of even merely one public.)

Iran and Russia should be Europe’s allies — they didn’t cause any of Europe’s problems. America did. America’s intelligence agencies tapped (and probably still tap) the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and practically everybody else, and yet the US regime has the gall to blame Russia for interfering in the political affairs of European countries. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle ‘black’, then what is? If anything, the EU’s sanctions should be against doing business with American firms — not against doing business with Russian firms, or with Iranian firms. European politicians who support the US support Europe’s top enemy.

Russia is, itself, a European country, which additionally traverses much of Asia, but America is no European country, at all, and yet now is so brazen as to demand that Europe must do America’s bidding — not only against Russia, but also against the Sauds’ main target, which is Iran (the same main target as Israel’s).

Why are Europeans not asking themselves: Who is Europe’s enemy in all of this — what causes this refugee-crisis? The refugees certainly didn’t.

It’s not Russia, and it’s not Iran, and it’s not China; it is America — which is the true enemy of them all, and of us all — including even of the American people ourselves, because the US Government no longer actually represents the American people. These invasions, and military occupations, and coups, do not serve America’s public; they serve America’s aristocracy. The US is no longer (if it ever was) a democracy. The US Government now is the US aristocracy — not the US public. It’s a dictatorship. And, it has the type of ‘news’media that any dictatorship has.

On June 30th, the US aristocracy’s New York Times headlined “Bavaria: Affluent, Picturesque — and Angry”, and reported “the new angry center of Europe, the latest battleground for populists eager to bring down both Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and the idea of a liberal Europe itself.” Their elitist (pro-US-aristocracy) ‘reporter’ (actually propagandist) interviewed ‘experts’ who condemn Europe’s politicians that are trying to assuage their own public’s anger against the EU’s open-door policy regarding this flood of refugees from what is actually, for the most part, the US regime’s (and its allies’) bombings — air-support of the boots-on-the-ground jihadist mercenaries. The combination of this air-support, and of the jihadists, has been the backbone of the US-Saudi-Israeli effort to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government.

Libya was a similar case, but was only friendly toward Russia, not allied with Russia, as both Syria and Iran are.

The US aristocracy funds an enormous international PR campaign for all this. These are ‘humanitarian’ bombings in order to replace a ‘barbaric’ Government — but replace it with what? With one that would be chosen by the Sauds. And this propaganda-campaign is also funded by the US-allied aristocracies. All of the major ‘news’media, in US and allies, receive their ‘expert’ ‘information’ from these privately-funded and government-funded propagandists, who are treated by ‘journalists’ as being objective and experts (which they’re not).

The NYT article says — and I add here key explanatory links:

“This is not about economics,” said Gerald Knaus, the director of the European Stability Initiative, [and though unmentioned by the Times, “The Open Society Institute was a major core funder” of the ESI, which is] a Berlin-based think tank. “It is about identity and a very successful populist P.R. machine that is rewriting recent history.”

So: the Times was secretly (and they didn’t include any links to help online readers know who was actually funding their ‘experts’, at all) pumping NATO propaganda, as if it were authentic and neutral news-reporting, instead of craven service to the US aristocracy that controls the US Government and its NATO military alliance. This is the New York Times, itself, that is “rewriting recent history.” That’s how they do it — constantly (as ‘news’).

And here is some of that “recent history” the Times is “rewriting” (by simply omitting to so much as even just suggest, but which is essential background in order to understand the real history behind this important matter):

——

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP01-50/RP01-50.pdf

House of Commons, Research Paper 01/50, 2 May 2001

“European Security and Defence Policy: Nice and Beyond”

pp. 47-48:

On 7 February 2001 the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, emphasised the ESDP’s [European Security and Defence Policy’s] tie to NATO during a press interview, following his meeting in Washington with US National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. He said:

I have stressed that the European Security Initiative will strengthen the capacity of Europe to contribute to crisis management and therefore is welcome to a Washington that is interested in fairer burden sharing, and that Washington can be confident that Britain will insist that the European Security Initiative is firmly anchored on NATO. We are both determined to see that happen, we are both determined to make sure that the European Security Initiative carries out its promise to strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance.119

——

Though the Sauds, and also Israel’s aristocracy, are mainly anti-Iran, the US aristocracy are obsessed with their goal of conquering Russia. Since Iran, and Syria, are both allied with Russia, the US regime is trying to overthrow those Russia-allied Governments, before going in for the kill, against Russia itself. That’s what all of these economic sanctions, and the bombings and the backing of Al Qaeda for overthrowing Syria’s Government, are really all about.

Is this what today’s Europeans want their Governments to be doing — and doing it for that reason, the US aristocracy’s reason? Despite the huge harms it is certainly causing to Europeans?

Here, then, is a debate between, on the one hand a retired CIA official who thinks “Our relationship with Israel causes us war with Muslims,” versus Representatives in the US Congress who are actually representatives of Israel’s Government and definitely not representatives of the American people. Both sides in that debate are acceptable to the aristocrats who control the US Government, because neither side argues that the apartheid theocratic Government of Israel is an enemy of the American people (as is documented actually to be the case, here and here), nor that the entire problem of Islamic terrorism is fundamentalist-Sunni, and that only Israel gets hit by terrorism that’s from both Sunnis and Shiites — that Shiites (the US alliance’s targets) are no terrorist threat, at all, to Europeans (nor to Americans) — the “Islamist” threat is actually only from fundamentalist Sunnis, which are the very same groups that are secretly allied with America’s aristocracy and the Sauds. Neither side of the ‘debate’ acknowledges that both the Sauds and Israel (and Israel’s lobbyists represent internationally also the Sauds’ interests) are enemies both of the American people, and of the peoples of Europe.

As the world’s greatest blogger, the former UK Ambassador (but too honest to stay in that business) Craig Murray, recently said under the headline, “No Trump, No Clinton, No NATO”: “The destruction of Libya’s government and infrastructure directly caused the Mediterranean boat migrant crisis, which has poisoned the politics of much of the European Union.” But, of course, the US regime and its allies have also destroyed other countries than that — and thus caused refugees to Europe from many nations. And, finally, even the US Government (though as quietly as possible) acknowledges that it has destroyed Afghanistan. Ironically, that’s the very nation where America and the Sauds, in 1979, had started their war against all Governments that won’t buckle to them.

Furthermore, the US regime intends to keep it up. In case a reader might happen to think that, surely, the US regime and its allies are going to quit this rousing of hornets’ nests; Sharmine Narwani, who is one of the very few non-“embedded” journalists who reports in The West about — and (which the mainstream ones don’t) from — the war in Syria, headlined, on June 25th, “Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside US Rebels in Syria’s South?” and she found that the answer to this question is a resounding yes:

Despite its US and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra [Al Qaeda’s main name in Syria] has been openly fighting alongside the “Southern Front,” a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded by a US-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC). …

Sources inside Syria — both opposition fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) — suggest the command center consists of the US, UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states. … In practice, the US doesn’t appear to mind the Nusra affiliation — regardless of the fact that the group is a terror organization — as long as the job gets done.

These wars, which pour Middle Eastern (and also Ukrainian) refugees into the EU, are inter-aristocratic conflicts reflecting inter-aristocratic competitions; and the publics everywhere suffer enormously from them. The gainers from it are very few but very rich (and they hire very powerful agents in Europe and elsewhere). Those billionaire gainers, and their agents, should be Europe’s targets — not Russia and Iran. NATO must end now. Europe needs to be freed, at last, from America’s permanent-war-for permanent-‘peace’ grip. For Europeans, who are the indirect victims, to be blaming the refugees, who are the direct victims, won’t solve anything, but will simply please the victimizers, as is the public’s ancient habit (to please the powerful). A break must be made, away from that ugly past. European publics must lead the way, or no one will.

PS: Since this article asserts such a large number of things that contradict what the US Government and its agents assert, I have sought out and here linked to the highest-quality, least-contested and most highly authenticated, sources and also to sources that link to such sources; all of which, taken together, constitute a book-length proof of the title-case here, that “America Bombs, Europe Gets the Refugees. That’s Evil.” Furthermore, this online virtual “book” is tracking back to the most unimpeachable documents, all of them available merely by means of clicking, and thus without the reader’s needing to visit a huge scholarly library (which might be quite distant); so, the reader can here easily branch out to this entire, and otherwise largely hidden, world of reliable sources, which the US regime wants the public not to know, and certainly not to understand. It’s no longer necessary to be an intelligence-professional in order to come to understand what the regime wants the public not to understand.

European Powers Prepare to Scrap Dollar in Iran Trade as Disgust With “America First” Policies Mount

As Western capitals brace themselves for Wednesday’s two-day NATO summit, Iranians and Europeans alike are hoping EU leaders can finally put their money where their mouth is and unshackle themselves from U.S.-imposed hegemonic bondage.

Source link

mintpressnews.com

by Elliott Gabriel

July 11, 2018

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — While the White House’s frenzied anti-Iran campaign has entailed unprecedented attempts to twist the arms of the United States’ traditional European allies, the pressure may be backfiring – a reality made all the more clear by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claims that Europe’s three major powers plan to continue trade ties with Iran without the use of the U.S. dollar.

The move would be a clear sign that the foremost European hegemons – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – plan to protect the interests of companies hoping to do business with Iran, a significant regional power with a market of around 80 million people.

Lavrov’s statement came as Trump insisted that European companies would “absolutely” face sanctions in the aftermath of Washington’s widely-derided sabotage of the six-party Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  On May 8, the former host of NBC’s “The Apprentice” blasted the agreement and said that the U.S. would reinstate nuclear sanctions on Iran and “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.

Speaking in Vienna at the ministerial meeting of the JCPOA, Lavrov blasted the U.S. move as “a major violation of the agreed-upon terms which actually made it possible to significantly alleviate tensions from the point of view of the military and political situation in the region and upholding the non-proliferation regime.”  He added that “Iran was meticulously fulfilling its obligations” at the time that Trump destroyed the U.S.’ end of the agreement.

Continuing, Lavrov explained:

The Joint Commission … will be constantly reviewing options which will make it possible, regardless of the US decision, to continue to adhere to all commitments undertaken within the JCPOA framework and provide methods for conducting trade and economic relations with Iran which will not depend on Washington’s whims.

What they can do is to elaborate collectively and individually such forms of trade and settlements with Iran that will not depend on the dollar and will be accepted by those companies that see trade with Iran more profitable than with the US. Such companies certainly exist – small, medium and large.”

Lavrov noted that the move wasn’t so much meant to “stand up for Iran” but to ensure the economic interests and political credibility of the European signatories to the accord. The Russian top diplomat added that large firms such as Total, Peugeot and Renault have already departed the country, having analyzed the situation and decided that the U.S. market is of far more vital importance.

France, Germany and the U.K. have pleaded with the “America First” president to exempt EU companies, writing a letter to U.S. Secretary-Treasurer Steve Mnuchin and right-wing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the nuclear accord remains the “best means” to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear deterrent given the lack of any credible alternative. Given the hard-line stances of Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, the pleas were likely greeted with bemusement.

The opening salvo or “snap-back” of sanctions hitting Iran’s automotive sector, gold trade, and other industries will hit the country on August 4, while further sanctions will hit the country’s oil industry and central bank on November 6.

Signaling the likelihood of major clashes to come, Lavrov noted:

Everyone agrees that [stepped-up U.S. sanctions on Iran] is an absolutely illegitimate practice. It cannot be accepted as appropriate, but it is a policy that can hardly be changed. Severe clashes are expected in the trade, economic and political spheres.”

 

Patience reaches its limits on all sides

A blistering recent speech by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas signaled the European exasperation with Trump’s go-it-alone policies, which have largely seen the U.S. break from its transatlantic partners while pursuing what he called an “egoistic policy of ‘America First’” in relation to the Paris Climate Agreements, Iran nuclear deal, and introduction of tariffs and other protectionist measures.

The May 12, 2018 cover of the German weekly, Der Spiegel.

Maas further questioned the continued viability of the transatlantic partnership:

Old pillars of reliability are crumbling under the weight of new crises and alliances dating back decades are being challenged in the time it takes to write a tweet … the Atlantic has become wider under President Trump and his policy of isolationism has left a giant vacuum around the world.”

He added:

The urgency with which we must pool Europe’s strength in the world is greater than ever before … our common response to ‘America First’ today must be ‘Europe United!’”

Highlighting how “the Trump administration’s conduct is posing completely new challenges to Europe,” the German foreign minister noted that the White House now “overtly calls [European] values and interests into question,” requiring a more robust and assertive stance – and “the first test of this approach will be the nuclear agreement with Iran.”

While such talk surely signals major tensions between the allies, Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization director Ali Akbar Salehi offered caustic words stressing Iran’s doubt in Europe’s ability to follow through with its independent foreign policy, stating:

Iran understands that Europe and the United States are strategic partners, but they are not lovers who share the same bed … European independence vis-a-vis the US is under threat. In the eyes of the whole world, Europe has become the U.S.’ lackey.

We are faced with an American administration whose decisions have left the world in shock.

Mr. Trump is punishing foreign companies that do business with us and threatening countries that buy our petrol. He’s after fast results. But the EU, Russia and China didn’t expect to be put under so much pressure.

The EU is still under shock. The bloc is like a boxer that has been hit with an uppercut. It needs time to pull itself together.”

As Western capitals brace themselves for Wednesday’s two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Iranians and Europeans alike are hoping that EU leaders can finally put their money where their mouth is and unshackle themselves from the U.S.-imposed hegemonic bondage constraining them since the end of the Second World War.

Elliott Gabriel is a former staff writer for teleSUR English and a MintPress News contributor based in Quito, Ecuador. He has taken extensive part in advocacy and organizing in the pro-labor, migrant justice and police accountability movements of Southern California and the state’s Central Coast.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.