Omar: US must reconsider billions of dollars of aid to Israel

Source

http://www.presstv.com

Tue Aug 20, 2019

US Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar

Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar has said that billions of dollars of US aid to Israel should be tied to its treatment of Palestinians, urging Washington to reconsider the funds to the Tel Aviv regime which is engaged in the oppression of the Palestinian people.  

Omar on Monday said that Congress should reconsider the annual US aid allocated to Israel after the regime banned Muslim Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from traveling to Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank.

“We give Israel more than $3 [billion] in aid every year. This is predicated on them being an important ally in the region and the only democracy in the Middle East. But denying a visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally, and denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self-determination is not consistent with being a democracy,” Omar said at the press conference in St. Paul, Minn.

Omar, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also stated that US aid should be contingent upon Israel’s activity in Palestine.

“We must be asking, as Israel’s ally, that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s government stop the expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands and ensure full rights for Palestinians if we are to give them aid,” Omar said.

US military aid to Israel has skyrocketed over the past several years while the regime’s forces are engaged in blatant human rights violations against Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere.

The United States and Israel signed an agreement in September 2016 to give Israel $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade, the largest such aid package in US history.

Israel announced on Thursday that it would prevent a visit by Tlaib and Omar, both Democratic members of the US House of Representatives, over their criticism of Israel.

The decision by Israel appears to be an unprecedented move against American members of Congress. Even AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, criticized Israel for barring the pair from traveling there.

PressTV-US should stop funding Israel: Republican Senator

US Sen. Rand Paul blocks bipartisan aid bill for Israel, saying the US financial aid to Tel Aviv should not be “forever”.

Omar on Monday expressed gratitude for the “solidarity” from other Democrats who have expressed outrage at Israel’s decision to ban her and Tlaib. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) have called for refraining from visiting Israel until all members of Congress can go.

But Omar urged fellow lawmakers to visit Israel to conduct congressional oversight to see what happens with “millions of dollars” the US sends to Israel in aid.

“It is my belief that, as legislators, we have an obligation to see the reality there for ourselves. We have a responsibility to conduct oversight over our government’s foreign policy and what happens with the millions of dollars we send in aid. So I would encourage my colleagues to visit,” Omar said.

Pepe Escobar: The Dragon lays out its road map, denies seeking hegemony

Source

http://www.asiatimes.com

ByPEPE ESCOBAR

JULY 26, 2019

Chinese soldiers in the PLA Hong Kong Garrison take part in a drill during an open day on June 30 to mark the 22nd anniversary of the return of the city from Britain to China. Photo: AFP

China’s ‘National Defense in the New Era’ white paper shows where the country aims to be by 2049

The key merit of China’s National Defense in the New Era, a white paper released by the State Council in Beijing, is to clear any remaining doubts about where the Middle Kingdom is coming from, and where it’s going to by 2049, the mythical date to, theoretically, be restored as the foremost global power.

Although not ultra-heavy on specifics, the white paper certainly should be read as the Chinese counterpoint to the US National Security Strategy, as well as the National Defense Strategy.

It goes without saying that every sentence is being carefully scrutinized by the Pentagon, which regards China as a “malign actor” and “a threat” – the terminology associated with its “Chinese aggression” mantra.

To cut to the chase, and to the perpetuating delight of China’s supporters and critics, here are the white paper’s essentials.

What global stability?

The Beijing leadership openly asserts that as “the US has adjusted its national security and defense strategies, and adopted unilateral policies” that essentially “undermined global strategic stability.” Vast sectors of the Global South would concur.

The counterpart is the evolution of “the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era,” now playing “a significant role in maintaining global strategic stability.”

In parallel, Beijing is very careful to praise the “military relationship with the US in accordance with the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation.” The “military-to-military relationship” should work as “a stabilizer for the relations between the two countries and hence contribute to the China-US relationship based on coordination, cooperation and stability.”

Another key counterpart to the US – and NATO – is the increasingly crucial role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is “forging a constructive partnership of non-alliance and non-confrontation that targets no third party, expanding security and defense cooperation and creating a new model for regional security cooperation.”

The white paper stresses that “the SCO has now grown into a new type of comprehensive regional cooperation organization covering the largest area and population in the world”, something that is factually correct. The latest SCO summit in Bishkek did wonders in featuring some of the group’s much-vaunted qualities, especially “mutual trust,” “consultation,” “respect for diverse civilizations” and “pursuit of common development.”

On hot spots, contrary to Western skepticism, the white paper asserts that, “the situation of the South China Sea is generally stable,” and that a “balanced, stable, open and inclusive Asian security architecture continues to develop.”

There should be no illusion regarding Beijing’s position on “Taiwan independence” – which will never deviate from what was set by Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s: “Separatist forces and their actions remain the gravest immediate threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the biggest barrier hindering the peaceful reunification of the country.”

And the same applies to “external separatist forces for ‘Tibet independence’ and the creation of ‘East Turkestan’.” How Beijing dealt with – and economically developed – Tibet will continue to be the blueprint to deal with, and economically develop, Xinjiang, irrespective of the Western outcry over China’s subjugation of more than a million Uighurs.

In regard to the turmoil Hong Kong and the degree it reflects interference by “external forces,” the white paper shapes Hong Kong as the model to be followed on the way to Taiwan. “China adheres to the principles of ‘peaceful reunification,’ and ‘one country, two systems,’ promotes peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, and advances peaceful reunification of the country.”

On the South China Sea, the white paper notes that “countries from outside the region conduct frequent close-in reconnaissance on China by air and sea, and illegally enter China’s territorial waters and the waters and airspace near China’s islands and reefs, undermining China’s national security.”

So there won’t be any misunderstanding, it says: “The South China Sea islands and Diaoyu Islands are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory.” ASEAN and Japan will have to deal with what Beijing says are facts.

No hegemony, ever

While noting that “great progress has been made in the Revolution in Military Affairs with Chinese characteristics” – the Sino-version of the Pentagon’s – the white paper admits that “the PLA still lags far behind the world’s leading militaries. The commitment is unmistakable to “fully transform the people’s armed forces into world-class forces by the mid-21st century.”

Special emphasis is placed on China’s relatively quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. “China has played a constructive role in the political settlement of regional hotspots such as the Korean Peninsula issue, the Iranian nuclear issue and Syrian issue.” The corollary could not be more clear-cut. “China opposes hegemony, unilateralism and double standards.”

Arguably the most important point made by the white paper – in stark contrast with the “Chinese aggression” narrative – is that “Never Seeking Hegemony, Expansion or Spheres of Influence” is qualified as “the distinctive feature of China’s national defense in the new era.”

This is backed up by what could be defined as the distinctive Chinese approach to international relations – to respect “the rights of all peoples to independently choose their own development path,” and “the settlement of international disputes through equal dialogue, negotiation and consultation. China is opposed to interference in the internal affairs of others, abuse of the weak by the strong, and any attempt to impose one’s will on others.”

So the road map is on the table for all to see. It will be fascinating to watch reactions from myriad latitudes across the Global South. Let’s see how the “Chinese aggression” system responds.

Canada’s misguided Venezuela policy and the inhumanity of sanctions

Source

theconversation.com

Author Ruby Dagher

Part-time Professor at the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa and the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University, Carleton University

July 24, 2019 

 

No matter what you believe in or who you believe, there is no denying that what Venezuelans are currently facing is horrific and morally unacceptable.

Mainstream media reports and analyses suggest that the path to stability in Venezuela should be based on a strong moral approach. They believe that Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro’s policies have caused significant economic mismanagement and poor governance.

They often suggest these polices are the source of the current economic and humanitarian crises. Therefore, they urge the international community to promote a change in political leadership in Venezuela or a transformation in the country’s political system.

In this April 2019 photo, Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro raises his fist to supporters rallying at the presidential palace in Caracas.(AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

But those economic, humanitarian and geopolitical analyses are either incomplete or wrong. Such reports typically ignore the devastating costs of external sanctions. The analysis also focuses solely on the actions of the Chávez and Maduro regimes, and misinterpret the legal basis for international intervention.

We need greater balance when discussing the causes of Venezuela’s economic crisis and should question the legitimacy of external interventions.

Economic costs caused by outsiders

The link between the current crisis and Venezuela’s national economic and governance policies and mechanisms is misplaced. The economic costs associated with international economic crises since 2004, along with economic sanctions levied against Venezuela, have been significantly more dramatic.

In the last six years, the Venezuelan economy has experienced significant losses estimated at more than US$114 billion. That’s only $15 billion less than the country’s entire economic production in 2015. Of this amount, $21.45 billion is due to the actions of the United States, and $92.85 billion is due to the secondary effect on the economy of those actions.

Even the United Nations Special Rapporteurs noted that U.S. economic sanctions against Venezuela in 2017 and 2019 are having a serious, harmful impact on the life and health of Venezuelans, causing widespread hunger and other hardships for Venezuelans. They described the impact of these sanctions as a “collective punishment of the civilian population.”

The Special Rapporteur’s August 2018 report links the ongoing health crisis to the actions of the United States, Canada and the European Union. It notes that these actions have “directly and indirectly aggravated the shortages in medicines such as insulin and anti-viral drugs.”

Unauthorized sanctions

These economic measures haven’t been authorized by the UN Security Council. Without the cover of the Charter of the United Nations, the legal basis of these actions is questionable, and they likely constitute an “international wrongful act.”

As well, because these actions obstruct food and medicine imports, they violate international humanitarian and human rights laws.

Venezuela’s self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guaidó speaks during a recent protest in Caracas, Venezuela. A few thousand joined him, far fewer than the number who turned out at demonstrations earlier this year. (AP Photos/Leonardo Fernandez)

Applying sanctions on Venezuela is also an infringement upon the country’s sovereignty. This is especially the case since there is no internal legitimate and legal request to do so.

Juan Guaidó has not been recognized as the legitimate leader of the country by the majority of Venezuelans, despite his recognition as interim president by the United States, Canada, several Latin American countries and a number of European nations. Nor does Guaidó hold the national legal political authority as required by the country’s constitution.

Responsibility to protect

The international community’s supposed desire to protect Venezuelans is at the heart of most arguments in favour of international intervention. However, any such intervention is illegal unless it’s supported by or grounded in international law.

Even the Responsibility to Protect, a UN global political commitment to avoid failures in responses to massacres and genocides, cannot override the requirements in the UN Charter related to the use of force. Therefore, any coercive actions under its guise, including those related to sanctions and military actions, require authorization by the UN Security Council.

Serious concerns about human rights abuses or our moral outrage at their occurrence might compel the international community to act. However, how the international community chooses to act must still be legal under international law.

In short, the Responsibility to Protect cannot justify forced political change, regardless of the merits of the leader in question. In fact, it was never intended to do so.

Flawed Canadian policy

Canada has articulated its support for political change and the establishment of democracy in Venezuela. While fighting for democracy is a noble cause, Canada’s attempt to determine the fate of the Venezuelan people is not. And, if history is any guide, the impact of such external meddling is often negative, sometimes catastrophically so.

We need to encourage dialogue among Venezuelans that is aimed at developing an internal solution, even when we disagree with decisions made by the majority of Venezuelans. We also need to abide by the principles of international law in a non-selective manner.

Doing anything less undermines these principles and establishes a less than moral relationship with Venezuela. It also allows Canada to illegally meddle in the country’s internal affairs.

---

Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, and Roy Culpeper, chair of the Group of 78, co-authored this piece. They are co-signatories to a Civil Society Statement of Concern on the Crisis in Venezuela.

The Johnson Doctrine: The World According to Britain’s New Prime Minister

© AP Photo / Virginia Mayo

Source

sputniknews.com

July 23, 2019

As a former Foreign Secretary and vocal commentator on global affairs, the new British Prime Minister brings to Number 10 Downing Street a set of staunch positions on a number of the most pressing issues in contemporary international relations, from war and peace in the Middle East to climate change.

On the watch of now former-Prime Minister, Theresa May, the UK has largely been absent from international affairs, outside of its perpetual mud-wrestling with the European Union over the fate of Brexit. However, the new guy in Downing Street, Boris Johnson, has pledged to change that.

Although it’s not yet certain whether Mr Johnson is as well-versed in the methods of African dance as Miss May, his unwavering position on Brexit is widely known: that the UK will be leaving the EU by the deadline of October 31st, with or without a deal. It is that dogged determination and certainty that has, in part, accumulated him so much popularity among Brexit supporters.

Yet, beyond the realms of Brussels, what are Boris Johnson’s positions on today’s major international issues?

Iran

Prime Minister Johnson must commandeer the UK foreign policy ship at a time when London faces something of an international crisis in the Gulf. On Friday, July 19, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps captured a British-flagged oil tanker for “security reasons” after Britain recently impounded an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar for purportedly violating EU sanctions on Syria.

Reportedly, doubts exist in the UK foreign policy establishment as to whether Johnson and his team have the mettle to manage the crisis effectively. Some point to what was widely perceived as a major diplomatic gaffe made during his tenure as foreign secretary in which he said that a British-Iranian woman detained in Iran, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, had been teaching people journalism in the country, a statement that Miss Ratcliffe’s family have said was false and worsened her plight. While in 2017 Johnson did travel to Iran to lobby his Iranian counterpart for Miss Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release, he returned home empty-handed.

The new PM also said in a recent interview with Jewish News that he is ready and prepared to restart sanctions against Iran over its recent uranium enrichment breaches of the 2015 nuclear deal. Yet, he has also come out in favour of the deal, saying in 2018 that, “of all the options we have for ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, this pact offers the fewest disadvantages.”

Somewhat echoing the Trump administration, during his time as Foreign Secretary, Johnson also criticised Iran for, in his words, its policy of perusing “proxy warfare” in the Middle East.

Israel-Palestine

Friends of Israel are likely to cheer at the spectacle of Boris Johnson’s ascendance to Number 10.

During his time at Oxford University, the new Prime Minister spent a summer working on an Israeli Kibbutz, where, by his own admission, he spent a great deal of time “Washing dishes.”

Although he once reportedly described the 1917 Balfour Declaration as “bizarre” and “tragicomically incoherent,” he has pursued a line of almost unwavering support for the state of Israel, saying that its establishment in 1948 was a “historic event, which led to a giant political fact.”

Along with his Muslim heritage, Johnson also has Jewish ancestry too – his maternal great-grandfather was a rabbi from Lithuania.

In terms of forging peace, Mr Johnson has, at least publicly, endorsed the two-state solution by writing that, “for Israel, the birth of a Palestinian state is the only way to secure its demographic future as a Jewish and democratic state. For Palestinians, a state of their own would allow them to realise their aspirations for self-determination and government.”

Climate Change

Back in April of this year, Boris branded Extinction Rebellion protestors as “smug, irritating and disruptive” and added that he is “utterly fed up” with suggestions that their opinions “are more important than my own.”

Speaking during the midst of climate change protests that brought the British capital to a standstill, Johnson said that, “I don’t want some double-barrelled activist telling me that air travel is only to be used in emergencies – when his own Instagram account contains pictures of his recent skiing holiday.”

In terms of policy, Mr Johnson has voted against measures to prevent climate change, including a carbon reduction target for the UK that was presented to parliament in 2016.

Yet, despite those seemingly hostile positions, Mr Johnson has also said that he is sympathetic to the climate change cause, but has told activists to go and “lecture” to China about it instead.

Transatlantic Relations

Prime Minister Johnson, a staunch Atlanticist who has consistently heaped praise upon President Trump, has pledged to repair US-UK relations following the recent publication of a leaked cable in which London’s now former ambassador to Washington, Kim Darroch, described Trump’s White House as “inept” and “dysfunctional.” Mr Darroch resigned soon after.

Johnson has also already made it a hallmark of his tenure to strike up a tantalising post-Brexit trade deal with the US, despite the fact that reports suggest talks on such an agreement have hit a rough patch.

Although he has grand designs for the future of transatlantic relations, Mr Johnson’s opinions haven’t always been welcomed in Washington with open arms. Back in 2016, he suggested that then-President Barack Obama’s lukewarm attitude toward Britain was based on his “part-Kenyan” heritage and thus an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.” Needless to say, this comment didn’t earn him too many friends within and among the Obama administration.

Freeland Responds to Putin: Liberalism Will Prevail! (Nazis Will Help)

The bottom line is that Canada is effectively collaborating with Ukranian Nazis. 

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

Matthew Ehret

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is also the co-founder of the Rising Tide Foundation.

July 10, 2019

© Photo: Wikimedia

The elite attempting to control the world under an “end of history” neo-liberal doctrine have created a mountain of unresolvable paradoxes for themselves in Ukraine since unleashing the anti-Russian Euromaidan color revolution in late 2013 that unseated a pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych government, and replaced it with a Nazi-infested technocratic regime which has played out like a disastrous circus for the past five years.

The paradox created is fairly straight forward: The Euromaidan was always wired to promote the integration of Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic neoliberal order. When Yanukovych announced his plans to reject that euro integration in favour of joining the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, some thought there could be no other way but violent regime change. Sounds simple and the plan worked. Within months, Yanukovych was out and a pro-NATO/EU regime was in power.

Here’s the rub: The only way to activate a violent overthrow required the unleashing of vast networks of third generation neo-Nazis to carry out the sort of dirty work which no one else had the stomachs to handle.

While anti-Russian sentiment wasn’t difficult to come by in western Ukraine, finding people with the shameless bloodlust to kill and be killed could only be rallied from among such networks that had been led to believe that the real villain of WWII was Stalin and not Hitler. Today these networks have come to dominate the military, police, and bureaucracy of Kiev under such names as the Azov Battalion, Svoboda (Socialists/Nationalist Party), Right Sector, and National Corps. With the rise in influence of such fascist networks, laws were passed resulting in Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera becoming a national hero, nazi-styled book banning of authors who don’t acquiesce to the state’s official narrative of history, and state support for fascist training camps for children.

Hence the uncomfortable paradox: fascist droves of neo-Nazis have gained international notoriety with the World Jewish Congress, US Holocaust Memorial Museum and human rights organizations writing letters of condemnation of the countless violent attacks on the LGBT community, feminists, and Jews which have multiplied since 2014– often with the complicity of the state police and military.

But of course that cannot be admitted or else the entire game is up, and so by maintaining the lie, ever greater mountains of uncomfortable fallacies build upon each other creating a castle on sand whose collapse is now beginning to be felt.

Calling out this castle on the sand in the clearest terms, President Vladimir Putin gave an interview prior to the G20 in Osaka exclaiming that the problems and paradoxes facing today’s world are traceable to a singular root cause: the breakdown of the paradigm of liberalism.

A Clash Between Paradigms

Speaking to the Financial Times in the Kremlin, Putin said:

“The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population… I am not trying to insult anyone, because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”

Defending the principle of morality against the collapsing liberal order which denies truthfulness in favor of mass opinion, Putin said: “Deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and moral values. In this sense, traditional values are more stable and more important for millions of people than this liberal idea, which, in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist.”

As much as some took these words as a breath of fresh air, certain political figures treated those words as poison.

Canada’s Ukrainian-Nationalist Rhodes Scholar Chrystia Freeland was among those who took the most visceral offense to Putin’s message when she spoke to a crowd of confused technocrats during the third Ukraine Reform Congress in Toronto Canada (July 2-4^th) stating: “Putin is not hiding what he’s up to. He thinks that the liberal idea, the whole way that we live, the whole notion of how we built our society- THAT’S what he’s opposed to! The reason why Canada takes the positions we do is because we do not agree that the liberal idea is dead.”

Freeland’s Global Affairs website stated the purpose of the conference and Canada’s relationship to Ukraine in the following terms: “Following the Revolution of Dignity in early 2014, Ukraine’s government committed to implementing democratic and economic reforms in line with its European aspirations. Russian aggression, which started in 2014 with the illegal invasion and occupation of Crimea, has drawn Ukraine into a bloody conflict in the east of the country. This conflict has placed significant pressure on the Ukrainian government’s ability to carry out its reforms.”

During the conference, agreements were made to provide money for gender reforms, anti-corruption legislation, integration of the private sector in the government and Canada’s refusal to recognize Russian-issued passports to Eastern Ukrainians. Forty-five million dollars in aid was added to the $785 million already spent on Ukraine’s plastic surgery with a focus on “stopping Russian aggression” and “ensuring the irreversibility of reforms” (whatever that means).

Canada also announced that its programs to train Ukrainian police and military would be extended until 2021 and 2022 respectively. This once again puts Canadian armed forces directly into a situation where they are collaborating with neo-nazi forces such as Vadym Troyan, Serhiy Knyazev, Andry Biletsky, and Dmytro Yarosh.

Nazis and Banderites Exposed

Vadym Troyan acted as Chief of Police of Kiev region from November 16, 2016- February 8, 2017 where he was responsible for the purge of all forces loyal to former President Yanukovych. Troyan was replaced with current Chief of Police Knyazev who is collaborating closely with the Canadian officials in the creation of Ukraine’s national police academy. After being replaced by Knyazev in 2017, Troyan became the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Kiev where he currently oversees the Azov-affiliated National Corps who define themselves as the reserves of the Ukrainian armed forces, yet whose stylized swastikas embedded in their logos betray their true allegiances. It should be noted that Troyan is an unrepentant Banderite who made his name as a leader of Azov and the Patriot of Ukraine (founded in 2005 to create a national socialist state of Ukraine which was incorporated into Azov in 2014.) For those who believed Knyazev was any better, those beliefs were put to rest when he exclaimed on television “I apologize. I am a Banderite too! Glory to Ukraine!”

Dmytro Yarosh (former Right Sektor leader) is now a leader of the National Corps Party, and is the current commander of the Ukraine Volunteer Army being trained by Canadian military personnel.

Andriy Biletsky is the leader of National Corps (the political party created by Azov in 2016), former commander of Azov and co-founder of Svoboda. Azov has introduced over 10 000 members to the “national militia” which is tightly integrated with the Ukrainian army. Biletsky has stated that his mission is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against the semite-led untermenschen.”

One of the key Nazis leading this process is Andriy Parubiy, Chairman of the Rada (parliament) who has interfaced closely with Freeland for years. Parubiy is a co-founder of the National Socialist Party (Svoboda) and a leading figure behind the deployment and protection of right-wing storm troopers around the nation.

Although Canadian officials have made efforts to play dumb around these inconvenient facts, Colonel Brian Irwin (Canada’s military attaché in Kiev) was caught meeting with officers from the Azov Battalion.

So when Canada proudly announces that it will extend operation UNIFIER to train Ukraine “security forces” until March 31 2022, or announces that Freeland successfully changed Canada’s laws to permit providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine in 2017, we should really think about who is actually benefiting. What should come as a particularly disturbing shock is that the “lethal aid” provided to Ukraine by private Canadian arms manufacturers has never been made public with Global Affairs responding with the evasive answer “for reasons of commercial confidentiality , the department does not comment on any application of permits [to sell weapons to Ukraine].” The closest thing to an answer from a government official has been Trudeau’s statement at the Toronto conference “we already see the investments from Canadian companies in the production of ammunition in Ukraine”.

Zelinsky and Trudeau: Two Actors in Over their Heads

Both Justin Trudeau and Volodymyr Zelensky presented a spectacle at the Toronto event, as both statesmen have gained well-earned reputations for having compensated for their lack of political credentials by having been actors. In the case of Zelensky, he played a president on television before getting elected, while Trudeau served as a 2^nd rate high school acting teacher before Liberal Party controllers decided to use him as their plaything to sweep into power in 2015.

As Trudeau pledged continued support for the NATO Contact Point Embassy of Kiev which it co-controls with Britain, Zelensky stated: “I hope that Canada will continue to be a conductor of Ukraine on the way to full membership in the alliance”. Proving his comedic reputation well earned, Zelensky ended his Toronto speech saying “it is a great honour for Ukraine that such a powerful state like Canada supports Ukraine with such devotion.”

Canada as Posterchild of Liberalism

Even though an ugly picture has been presented, one question was not addressed which should be on your mind: Why Canada?

Why has Canada played such a prominent role in Ukraine’s post-Soviet existence and especially since the launching of the Nazi-led Euromaidan? Why is this relatively unpopulated monarchy so actively making enemies with nations like China, Russia, and even America?

To answer that question, it is useful to revisit the statement on liberalism eloquently given by Putin. “Liberalism”, by its very essence denies truthfulness in favor of “popular opinion”. Under a “liberal” geopolitical order, whoever controls “popular opinion” controls the forces defining humanity’s existence. What liberals cannot admit is that mankind is the only species whose existence is not merely bounded by genetic instincts or environmental conditions alone.

Of course, technocrats, behaviorists and oligarchs wish to believe that is all we are, but the reality as Putin so clearly stated, is something more. We are a species defined by qualities that transcend matter and are tied to principles of conscience, reason, and aesthetics.

As a nation founded upon British Aristocratic principles of hereditary power (Canada is a monarchy after all), the role selected for this northern nation in the wake of WWII, was to become a “Middle Power” who would act as counterweight to the shifting centers of gravity during the Cold War as it slid from communist Russia, Cuba or China towards Capitalist America or Europe, at one time befriending Nixon or Carter and another time befriending Castro or Mao.

Trudeau’s total lack of principle made him the perfect puppet in a time when keeping British Canada close to all sides of the Great Game was most useful for the British. Above, Pierre Trudeau gets chummy with Castro, Chairman Mao, Thatcher, and Reagan

In the years since Freeland and Justin Trudeau’s ascendancy to the throne, Canada’s use in a geopolitical “great game” has been one of corralling flocks of sheep towards emotionally-driven policies such as de-industrializing to fight global warming, promoting self-enslaving free trade acts, “democratic” regime change and in some cases, risking outright nuclear war.

This has taken the form of Canada’s guiding role in the Lima Group of Latin American nations against Venezuela, the “Alliance for Multilateralism”, the defense of WTO-run order or rallying the nations to fight man-made climate change. The common denominator amongst all of these Canadian-led initiatives is a total lack of substance and religious belief that nations can be bent by the “force” of popular opinion. Liberalism.

The Father of Modern Liberalism Revisited

I’d like to end this report with a bone-chilling quote from a leading architect of the currently collapsing liberal world order named Lord Bertrand Russell. This celebrated “logician, and architect of the Cold War wrote a very ugly yet influential book called The Impact of Science on Society in 1952 where he stated:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship…The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Although it took some decades for Russell’s blueprint to “make its great strides”, the very fact that its success has led to society’s self-destruction should be a sufficient proof that this philosophy (merely a repackaged paganism for the modern age) is not only obsolete as Putin says, but constructed in defiance of the true nature of mankind as a species of reason, morality and free will destined for something much greater than liberals can ever imagine.

The Sorry State of Canadian Democracy

“The Liberals and Conservatives are essentially opposite sides of the same coin, both supporters of the global status quo as envisioned by the corporate powers.”

Source

In spite of the “writ” not having been “dropped” Canada is already in full election mode.  Of course, politicians are always electioneering as their main purpose once in power is to stay in power in order to reap its rewards and benefits.  Otherwise, instead of politicians running the country we could simply let the bureaucrats do their uncelebrated mundane work of the daily running of the country.  Unfortunately, it is not that simple as the rules and policies the bureaucracy follows are put out by various political parties – massaged and manipulated over time – and not  put out on the basis of “universal values” or “constitutional values” whatever they may be.  In the meantime, electioneering has started with the many policies, plans, promises, platitudes, and homilies being announced for consumption by the incumbents and wannabes.

Within domestic affairs and identity politics are many topics used to shape and steer discussions in attempts to sway the popular will.  What is seldom discussed – and very little understood, are the actions and belief systems that really underlie our society.  In a broad perspective Canada’s position as a neoliberal, austerity imposing, capitalist member of the western elite, the western U.S. sponsored empire, is seldom if ever questioned.

It is seldom discussed because the true powers that be – the elite powers of those within the Washington consensus group of institutions – the bankers, financial officers, and corporate managers of the large private and public businesses and institutions – do not want it discussed.  They do not want ‘democracy’ to be more than a superficial status.  Their control of monetary policy, their centralized control of the media steers the world the way they want it to operate and be perceived, making our democratic institutions essentially a rubber stamp for their economic dominance.

Our institutions operate within the parameters acceptable to the corporate greed towards ever-increasing profits at the expense of the global environment, and at the expense of the global citizenry.  While science has long warned about climate change and environmental pollution of all kinds – a very real occurrence – even those who pay attention to it are so entwined within societies’ structures that very little is done about these scientific concerns.  Along with that, part of the same underlying paradigm are increasingly vast disparities in income and wealth levels both domestically and in other countries.  A small group of super elites control vast amounts of wealth and thus power, generally working together to secure their realm.

If this broad if somewhat short generalized view is used as the lens through which to view Canada’s political parties, there are rather few underlying differences between the parties as seldom if ever are the underlying factors questioned..

Essentially it all comes down to maintaining the status quo of western financial dominance of the world, its resources, and people.  The Liberals and Conservatives both actively support the military industrial complex that is the not so hidden fist keeping – or trying to – control of the world’s governments.  Perhaps they present it differently, the Conservatives wanting to put the military out to “punch above its weight” while the Liberals soften the blow with “rule of law” and “peacekeeping forces,” both serving the empire well.  Few question it – from Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria to Ukraine, Canada willingly supports the empire.  Venezuela reveals the ultimate ugliness of it all as Canada has for decades – with notables such as Ben Rowswell and Allan Culham (former ambassadors), and Chrystia Freeland (current Foreign Minister) – openly advocating the overthrow of a duly elected government.  How democratic!

Israel serves as another example of an empire under non-democratic control.  A government that denies twenty percent of its population the same civic status as the ethnic religious majority, that guards 1.8 million people in an open air prison on survival rations only, and that has created a series of militarily ruled or controlled bantustans is not democratic.  Yet there is no Canadian political party that decries this situation, all fearful of the domestic religious vote (Christian and Jewish) and the repercussions of not supporting the empire’s outpost in the Middle East.  For the latter, it is truly not so much fear of what might happen but an overwhelming blind willingness to support the dominant power of the west.

All major parties – Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, and Greens – support the fully outdated position of wanting a two-state position, while Israel continues to ignore all those dead positions and continues building illegal settlements on occupied territory while the rest of the world turns away.  Israel is not the only place where Canadians uphold the status of the West’s military control of wealth and resources.

Throughout Africa, through much of the Middle East, Canada’s military-business connections help maintain the extraction of wealth through current supra-national corporate models of governance.  So-called “free trade” agreements, onerous World Bank predatory lending, and IMF “structural adjustment programs” (debt and more debt) maintains control of many governments and many supposedly sovereign economies.  In essence, globalization is about controlling the world’s wealth while guarding the people – the workers, labourers – behind sovereign borders.  Canada is in full partnership with all this.

Canada’s Adventures in Neoliberal Imperialism Continue

Blowback – refugees, poverty, and the environment

Obviously, all is not well with globalization as millions of people attempt to escape the worst of its violent dangers and impositions.  The large displacement of people in the Middle East and Africa  is placing pressure on Europe as refugees continue to arrive en masse when escaping domestic mayhem.  The same holds true in the Americas as thousands of Hispanic/indigenous people attempt to travel to the U.S. in order to escape the violence and corruption and despotism at home.  Most of that violence is caused by the economic impositions of globalization combined with the history of U.S. interventions to control governments that objected to U.S.corporate dominance.

Blowback from globalization also has an impact on the Canadian domestic scene.  Hyped up fears of terrorism have increased the powers of the security state (with much learned from Israel’s control of its Palestinian population) and increased the unjustified glorification of the Canadian military both through the media and with a larger budget.  Canada is a member of the “five eyes”, the family members inheriting the British empire and who now share information and security methodologies.  Another form of blowback are the heightened fear of terrorism ad “other” – mainly focussed on refugees with a Muslim background but extending out to the created fears generated by identity politics.  These fears and prejudices are used in different ways to control the domestic electorate, a diversion from the reality of the overall non-democratic governance of the military-financial- corporate powers.

Two other perspectives can view this same phenomenon – income disparity/poverty and global environmental change.

Most everyone pays lip service to poverty.  Many offer solutions on a small scale through NGOs acting on small targeted goals in specific areas – actions that certainly aid a small number of people but in no way address the source of poverty.  Musicians sing about it, politicians talk about it, the media keeps us focused on these feel-good/do-good attempts without addressing the underlying causes (and note, poverty does not equate to terrorism).  Until the base structures of western globalization are deconstructed or contained (or collapse) poverty will continue its destructive pathways – malnutrition, starvation, poor health, serfdom, wage slave labour, exploitation et al.  Poverty, other than small domestic pockets, many of indigenous people, does not register on Canada’s domestic political scene.  However, climate change and global warming do have an impact.

At this point, it is mainly different parties and different jurisdictions arguing about how to control carbon output using some form of establishment acceptable monetary initiatives (cap and trade, carbon tax).  Extrapolating from current trends all that money manoeuvering will have little impact due to the nature of our profit-oriented consumer culture.  As one small but important factor consider Canada’s export of garbage, plastic waste, and e-waste to poorer less developed countries in Southeast Asia.  Those outlets now are closed and very little of our waste/garbage is actually recycled or reused.  Most is incinerated at 1400 degrees Celsius with the subsequent volatile gases dispersing through the atmosphere.

Canadian consumer culture continues its money habits of purchasing stuff, and “planned obsolescence stuff” continuing the degradation of the environment both from chemical pollution and carbon-induced warming.  Global warming, while obviously important and becoming more and more a political and media talking point hides the dangers of thousands of chemical products behind a smokescreen (quite literally).

Canadians who think they are “green” and want to eliminate poverty, need to consider the following. Are you really willing to accept the huge changes necessary in order to achieve a clean sustainable world –  i.e., far less consumption, less travel, less stuff, no more debt purchases?  The latter is very difficult because while the wealth of the top elites has risen dramatically, wages have stagnated over the past several decades.  Simply using the “3 Rs” will not do it unless the reduce aspect is taken to its necessary full extension.

Consider also Canada’s military.  Can you recognize our actions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and maybe soon Venezuela and Iran as being part of U.S. corporate elites striving for full control?  Do you support Canada’s role within the globalization paradigm of controlling other countries economies through predatory financial practices, up to and including the use of mercenaries to protect corporations against indigenous protests?

Do you support the U.S. military actions – overt and covert – used to maintain the economic dominance of the super elites and their global corporations?  Do you support the many western interventions in the Middle East considering the terrorists we are supposedly fighting have been used, supplied, and trained in part by the western military and political establishments?  More broadly, ask what role the 800+ military bases, the dozen or so carrier groups, play in attempting to subordinate the rest of the world to our non-sustainable demands.  The U.S. military is the largest institutional user of oil in the world.  In 2007 it ranked as the 35th largest sovereign user, and ranks 3rd globally on a per capita basis.  Canada is a large part of the U.S. empire and plays a large role in creating poverty, terror, and environmental disasters around the world through our support of their military adventurism.

In other words, if you support the military as it is currently used, you achieve nothing against poverty and your green colour is a veneer over the actual economic lifestyle choices you make.

The veneer is readily maintained by mainstream media, the vast majority of which is owned and financially controlled by the military-financial-corporate elites. It combines a willful ignorance of our predations with massive amounts of diversions.  One of the main diversions includes all the propaganda associated with the various wars of control and the manipulation of the terrorist “threat”.  The diversions extend well beyond through all aspects of consumerism – the entertainment of movies, film, television, the internet in all its aspects through to major sports activities, and on to leisure and holiday consumption.  As corporate profits rise and wages stagnate, consumers rely heavily on debt to achieve the advertised/propagandized ideals of the good life.  All the debt, trillions of dollars, simply feeds more money and power to the controllers of a corporate financialized economy.

Back to Canadian political parties

In Canada, these issues present a serious problem as to which party or candidate to support.  The Liberals and Conservatives are essentially opposite sides of the same coin, both supporters of the global status quo as envisioned by the corporate powers.  The supposedly “left” New Democrats similarly follow this status quo, are not very green, and tend to move to the right once the political dollars become a more central interest.  That leaves the actual Greens, although they are not as green as they would like to be perceived – support for U.S. actions, support for Israeli actions, with no real action plan regarding environmental changes addressing our military supported consumer society lowers their credentials as a truly ‘green‘ party.

The Liberals quashed their election reform agenda after realizing it could negatively affect their majority control in parliament.  In opposing moves they announce a climate “emergency” then a day later approve a 12-14 billion dollar pipeline project to move tar sands – diluted bitumen or dilbit, but not oil – to an ecologically sensitive coastline.  Given Canada’s current economic-political fight with China, it is a bit ridiculous to think China will buy more of our dirty oil.  Economic health as determined by a high energy consumer economy does not go together with a good environment.

The Conservatives acquiesced on the lack of electoral reform for the same reason.  They are pro big oil, frequent climate change deniers although a recent policy statement recognized that, yes, after all these years of working against the idea, global warming is happening.  They offer no real solutions other than a variant on the inefficient cap and trade idea, but with no stated costs or implementation factors.

The two smaller parties offer little.  The NDP has failed to truly distinguish themselves from the two larger parties, creating policy positions frequently accepted and adopted (if not implemented) by the Liberals and for which the Conservatives cry “socialism” over.  The Greens have some initiatives in the right direction but with their support of the military and of government attempts to change foreign governments, they have yet to create a policy that will change the momentum/inertia of a debt-ridden, consumer-based, media biased, military/corporate society.

Other than perhaps voting for the lesser evil of the group, a spoiled ballot or no vote at all are the better options.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Jim Miles, Global Research, 2019

China Removes Its Ambassador From Canada, Decides Canucks Are Too Nuts Under Technocrat Trudeau Regime

“the reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopting double standards is due to Western egotism and white supremacy – in such a context, the rule of law is nothing but a tool for their political ends and a fig leaf for their practicing hegemony in the international arena” Ambassador Lu

Matthew EHRET

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

June 21, 2019

China Removes Its Ambassador From Canada, Decides Canucks Are Too Nuts Under Technocrat Trudeau Regime

As the international financial system is becoming increasingly shaped by the spirit of cooperation and long term development shaped by China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the greater Russia-China alliance, Canada’s adherence to the “old liberal order” has caused the Asian giant to make a tough decision: Remove its Ambassador Extraordinary Plenipotentiary Lu Shaye from the Northern Monarchy until saner heads become a factor in Canadian politics.

This has left the already beleaguered government of Justin Trudeau (and Chrystia Freeland… let’s not kid ourselves here) in an embarrassing situation as Trudeau’s requests to meet with Xi Jinping at the upcoming G20 have gone ignored for the past several days. Freeland has announced that her many requests to speak with China’s Foreign Minister have similarly gone unheeded.

Since attaining power in 2015, the Liberal Government has demonstrated nothing but constant belligerence to China. Many then watching the Canadian political scene had hoped that Trudeau would continue the pro-China traditions which his father initiated in 1970 and which paved the way to China’s opening up under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping a few years later.

This did not occur.

Rather than adapt to the shifting current of the times which calls for nations to reject “each against all” geopolitics and instead join a new win-win framework driven by the Belt and Road Initiative model of development, Canada has only dug its heels ever deeper into the ground in defense of the sinking Titanic of Globalization. This was seen by Canada’s unrelenting support for the COP21 depopulation agenda, the anti-China Trans-Pacific Partnership, the anti-Russia/China NATO missile shield, and anti-everybody WTO system.

Once the Chinese government made their disapproval of Canada’s behavior known with the December 2017 rejection of the Canada-China special relationship, Trudeau and Freeland were assigned to take on a more aggressive tone against China, first by blocking the sale of Canada’s Aecon to China due to “security risks” in May 2018, arresting Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou in December 2018, firing a pro-Chinese ambassador in January 2019 and mobilizing international support against China’s human rights abuses due to China’s arrest of two Canadians on espionage charges and the death penalty given to a Canadian drug smuggler.

How a low level “middle power” like Canada ever gained the hubris to believe that it could intimidate a country like China is a mystery, but it happened.

Now Xi Jinping has sent a clear message that it will no longer tolerate a mosquito who thinks it is a dragon trying to bully China any longer. China’s ambassador Lu Shaye has done everything for 3 years to offer Canada the opportunity to join the Belt and Road Initiative and open up to a new system of cooperation with China’s investment into decayed North American infrastructure. In a recent Ottawa event Ambassador Lu said:

“China and Canada could engage in third-party market cooperation, create a kind of synergy and achieve triple-win by combining the needs of developing countries, China’s production capacity, and Canada’s advantages in capital and technology. Canada is one of the members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provides favourable conditions for the country to participate in the Belt and Road facility connection.”

With the total rejection of these peace offerings, Lu Shaye has induced Canada to demonstrate where its true allegiance lay. Once Canada’s true colors were exposed, Ambassador Lu himself, breaking with the typical protocols of subtle and polite diplomatic conduct for which the Chinese are well known, called out the “racist, Five Eyes Intelligence network” which is really trying to run the world. In January 2019 Ambassador Lu described the hypocrisy of the western technocratic elite who attack China saying:

“the reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopting double standards is due to Western egotism and white supremacy – in such a context, the rule of law is nothing but a tool for their political ends and a fig leaf for their practising hegemony in the international arena”

Now with Canadian elections fast approaching and finding only anti-Chinese vitriol even among the Conservative Party of Andrew Sheer (the only contender against Trudeau), China has decided that Ambassador Lu can be more productive if re-deployed to France where greater opportunities for BRI-cooperation can be found. Of course, China’s wish that Canada take part in the BRI and its new Arctic extension remains firmly on the table awaiting only a sane political leadership to arise and accept this ticket to the future.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.