Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a particular group. When it is your country, your troops, your government and its officials committing genocide, many people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge such a fact. Such is the propagandic effect of patriotism that it erodes critical thought processes and even causes people to overlook extreme evil.

On 28 July 2025, NPR wrote, “Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war.”

The genocide is undeniable as Afkār noted, “Since October 7, 2023, Israeli cabinet ministers, political figures, military officers and media pundits have openly and endlessly incited for the destruction of Gaza and its Palestinian inhabitants.”

Moreover, Israel is trying to spin this genocide as a necessary transfer of the Gazan population: “In recent months, Israel has shifted its messaging on Gaza, acknowledging that it has rendered the territory unlivable and is pushing for the removal of its surviving population. ”

What explains the thinking that leads to the carrying out of such a hideous crime?

Psychopathy is a personality disorder rooted in a lack of empathy and remorse, manipulation, and antisocial behavior. That clearly describes people committing genocide and people aiding and abetting genocide.

Thus, people perpetuating or enabling the commission of a genocide fit the definition of psychopaths.

It is undeniable that Israeli Jews are committing genocide in Palestine. Their prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is therefore a genocidaire and a psychopath, as well as the many supportive establishment types in Israel. (For more on this read Hamid Dabashi’s After Savagery) The genocide of Gazans has much support among Jewish Israelis. This begs the question of whether psychopathology is widespread among Israeli Jews?

And, when a state or agency knowingly aids and abets Israeli Jews in committing genocide against the Palestinians, then such complicit governments and responsible authorities ought also to be considered genocidaires and psychopaths. Legally, as well:

… one can be held liable for aiding and abetting genocide, even if one does not share the specific genocidal intent of the principal perpetrator.

The Rome Statute contains a provision about criminal responsibility that is not found in either of the U.N. ad hoc tribunal statutes or the Genocide Convention but which further illuminates the mens rea of genocide. Under Article 30 of the Rome Statute, “knowledge” and “intent” are the two components of mens rea. A person has “intent” when the person “means to engage in the conduct” and “means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.” (Grant Dawson and Rachel Boynton, “Reconciling Complicity in Genocide and Aiding and Abetting Genocide in the Jurisprudence of the United Nations Ad Hoc Tribunals,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 21, 2008: 250.)

Consequently, Israel is not alone in executing its genocide of Palestinians. Countries are called upon to “Stop Arming Israel and Abetting Its Crimes.” Among those governments supplying armaments to Israel are the US and Europeans (“How top arms exporters have responded to the war in Gaza,” and that “European countries use 3rd-party countries to keep arming Israel: British journalist,” “Australia,” “Report suggests arms still flow from Canada to Israel despite denials,” “Infrastructure of genocide: the case confronting Dutch support for Israel’s war machine,” etc) giving political cover, the companies seeking profit from the genocide. Hence, their actions reveal them to be genocidaires.

Many of the common people in many of these countries are opposing the genocide-supporting stance of their governments; for example, Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, even in the US, and worldwide. The leaders are out of touch with masses of their citizens.

Therefore, Canada’s Mark Carney, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, and others are joining avowed Zionists Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Are Netanyahu and Trump really the people other country’s “leaders” should follow in making common cause to wipe Palestinians off the map?

Why is this psychopathy exhibited as a common trait among many Western government heads?

Worse, it seems to point to there being something inherently malevolent in the so-called democratic systems of these countries, such that it promotes psychopaths into leadership positions.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

— James Baldwin, “Open Letter to the Born Again” (September 29, 1979). Quoted in Hamid Dabashi, After Savagery: Gaza, Genocide, and the Illusion of Western Civilization (Haymarket Books, 2025): 159.

Baldwin’s assessment is shared by many others, such as Noam Chomsky, who discussed in his book (The Fateful Triangle, 1999 edition) Israel’s role as a “strategic asset.” (p. 69, 70, 103, 137) However, others, such as Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone countered that assessment in a 2024 article, “The Myth of Israel as ‘US Aircraft Carrier’ in Middle East.” They write:

But the crucial evidence, totally missing from their analysis, is the slightest example of Israel actually serving American interests in the region.

If no examples are given, it’s simply because there are none. Israel has never fired a shot on behalf of the United States or brought a drop of oil under U.S. control.

We can start with a common sense argument: If the U.S. is interested in Middle East oil, why would it support a country that is hated (for whatever reasons) by all the populations of the oil producing countries?

Bricmont and Johnstone attribute the unstinting US support of Israel as being influenced by money injected into the US political arena by the Jewish lobby, in particular AIPAC.

The question of which side leads in determining US support for Israel is debatable. What is indisputable is that the US and Israel are in lockstep despite all the violations of international law by Israel (US is a serial violator of international law, as well), despite several massacres carried out by Israel, and despite the mightily ramped up genocide being perpetrated by Israeli Jews against Palestinians currently.

Genocide and the understanding of what unleashes the bloodshirtiest of human actions is the subject of Hamid Dabashi’s After Savagery, scheduled for release by Haymarket Books on 30 September — while the savagery is ongoing. The urgency for a worldwide response calls for informing those unaware or those insouciant to the Jewish Israeli genocide that is being perpetrated on Palestine (It is not just a genocide in Gaza, as a 1 July 2025 Al Jazeera headline makes clear: “Israel has killed 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, 2023.”). After Savagery, however, is not just about the genocide in Gaza, it is about why some humans commit genocide. So After Savagery is also about “before savagery.” What are the conditions that lead to savagery today. And most importantly, how genocide can be prevented from happening.

Dabashi quotes many sources to attest to the genocide that is happening now in Palestine.

“What we are seeing in Gaza is a repeat of Auschwitz,” says the Burmese genocide expert and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Maung Zarni. “This is a collective white imperialist man’s genocide,” he further explains. (154-155)

Asked to describe what he witnessed in Gaza, Dr. Perlmutter replied, “All of the disasters I’ve seen, combined—forty mission trips, thirty years, Ground Zero, earthquakes, all of that combined—doesn’t equal the level of carnage that I saw against civilians in just my first week in Gaza.” And the civilian casualties, he said, are almost exclusively children. “I’ve never seen that before,” he said. “I’ve seen more incinerated children than I’ve ever seen in my entire life, combined. I’ve seen more shredded children in just the first week … missing body parts, being crushed by buildings, the greatest majority, or bomb explosions, the next greatest majority. We’ve taken shrapnel as big as my thumb out of eight-year-olds. And then there’s sniper bullets. I have children that were shot twice.” (103-104)

“Yes, it is genocide,” has affirmed Amos Goldberg, a professor of Holocaust history at the department of Jewish history and contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “It is so difficult and painful to admit it, but despite all that, and despite all our efforts to think otherwise, after six months of brutal war we can no longer avoid this conclusion.” (142)

Dabashi traces the roots of Zionism to a longstanding settler-European colonialism. And the author lays bare the insidiousness of Zionism and how this racism impacted Palestinians:

Today, the birth of Palestine as a “question” rather than a nation-state marks precisely the birth of Palestine as a constellation of refugee camps. The land was stolen from Palestinians, the state stealing the land was a European settler colony garrison state that rules over Palestinians with cruelty, the rules for the inscription of life were dictated to Palestinians in draconian terms, and the camps as the fourth inseparable element are precisely where generations of Palestinians are born and raised, before being killed by the Israeli military. (127-128)

Part of this racism towards Muslims, of which the majority of Palestinians are, is the use of term “Muselmann.” Writes Dabashi, “This is perhaps a mini encyclopedia of European ignorance, Islamophobia and antisemitism all wrapped up in an attempt to unpack the word ‘Muselmann,’ but in fact loading it with more racist dimensions.” (120) And the new Muselmann, is the Palestinian, “the Untestifiable, the human animal, as Israeli warlords have said.” (xxvi)

Zionist Israel and its racism and discrimination is compellingly described. My colleague B.J. Sabri and I needed no convincing of Israeli racism.¹

And this racism, not exclusive to Israeli Jews, points to “what ultimately matters for the world at large is the categorical inability to fathom a Palestinian as a human being.” (96) Thus, “Witnessing this savagery in Gaza, we can clearly link the Jewish Holocaust to the Palestinian genocide, and see genocidal Zionism  as the logical colonial extension of European fascism.” (xv)

Before Savagery

Many personages appear in After Savagery, such as, to name a few, Sven Lindqvist, Frantz Fanon, Joseph Conrad, and James Baldwin who opposed racism; Edward Said, Giorgio Agamben, Ghassan Kanafani and his Danish wife Anni Kanafani (née Høver), Mario Rizzi, Mahmoud Darwish who spoke to the beauty of Orientalism and Arab culture; others such as Ilan Pappe and UN special rappateur Francesca Albanese who denounce unflinchingly the depredations of Israeli Jews against Palestinians. Dabashi delves deeply into the Eurocentric perspective on colonialism, borne of Western philosophy and figures like Immanuel Kant, Hegel Heidegger, and others who thinking was impoverished by being shackled by their own racism.

Dabashi writes:

“According to Hegel, Africans, or any other people, can only become civilized to the degree and so far as they abandoned their own cultures and convert to Christianity, founding a state according to Christian principles.” (91)

How are “we” to escape the indoctrination of feted philosophers and the inculcation of Western thought? How do “we” humanize Palestinians? The mere fact that the humanity of Palestinians requires affirmation for so many people points to the pervasiveness of racist Eurocentric narratives.

After the unbridled savagery in Gaza, it is not only European philosophy that reaches its ignoble ends. We need equally to think of the modes of knowledge production about Gaza itself, about Palestine, as the simulacrum of the world outside the purview of the discredited Eurocentric imagination. We no longer need to worry about the critique of Orientalism. We need to think of how to produce knowledge about Gaza and Palestine and the rest of the world. We need to reverse the anthropological gaze, to produce an anthropology of Zionism and Western Philosophy. (105)

The book covers a lot of ground. It delves deeply into ontology, epistemology, semantics, literature, art, filmmaking, poetry, politics, religion, exilism, and — especially — philosophy. After Savagery is not focused solely on the here and now of what is transpiring in historical Palestine. The book goes into the history, background, and philosophy that enables genocide. The book is scholarly and is well footnoted. If that is what the reader is looking for, then Hamid Dabashi’s After Savagery is well worth the read.

NOTE:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Second, Trump kept saying no more wars. He would be the man who’d end the special military operation by Russia in Ukraine in 24 hours. He’d stop sending weapons to Ukraine. That supplying of weapons adduces US involvement in a proxy war, as it was under Joe Biden, and continues to be under Trump. Then Trump allied with Israel against Palestinians, exposing his hypocrisy. Trump would often whine about how grief-stricken he is about the killing of people in the fighting between Russia and Ukraine. Yet, he takes a decidedly different stance on the killing of Palestinians by Israeli Jews. The Palestinians need to be expunged from the territory to erect a riviera on the beaches of Gaza. And then the “peace president” launched an aggression against Iraq. And let’s not forget that Ansar Allah sent the ill-fated US navy away from the waters near Yemen.

To put absurdity over the top, the genocidaire Benjamin Netanyahu has nominated the warmaking Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, a prize he has long pined for. Forthrightly or not, Trump downplays his chances of winning the Nobel recognition he covets: “It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.”

Third, Trump has promised repeatedly to release all the JFK documents, the RFK documents, and the Epstein documents. Trump only made a partial release of the JFK files, many heavily redacted, during Trump 1. He promised the rest would be forthcoming. No release has occurred at the time of this writing during Trump 2. In the latest bit of gaslighting, the public is expected to believe that there are no Epstein files. Apparently, the associates of Epstein can now relax and breathe much easier. As to what became of Epstein videos, files, notes, it leads to a suspicion. There is a high likelihood that this escaping the gun also applies to Trump who had a relationship with the deceased financier Epstein. Equally oleaginous is the poor quality video of Epstein’s cell that has a missing one-minute. In other words, much of the documentation to imprison Epstein is missing, and the same goes for his imprisoned partner in recruiting underage females, Ghislaine Maxwell. Much of the evidence to put her behind bars is now deemed non-existent.

Trump is relying on his bluster (i.e., lies) to confuse Americans — in particular, his MAGA base. The media is on notice that it will be ridiculed for asking questions about Epstein. Said Trump who interjected himself to a question posed by a reporter to attorney general Pam Bondi:

Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Been talked about for years. You’re asking, we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things, and are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.

However, the gaslighting surrounding the Epstein sex trafficking ring has caused rumblings among some of the MAGA people.

*****

Such is the power of gaslighting that if some people are told something often enough, even when there is powerful evidence to the contrary, that the gaslighter can confuse the gaslit people. The media and fact checkers have been playing a big role in this.

In a 16 August 2024 essay, professor T.P. Wilkinson wrote: “George Soros, who by his own public admission already enriched himself at the age of 14 with the help of Nazi occupiers of his native Hungary.”

He had not provided substantiation for this claim, so I asked. He said that he had cited his source in a previous article. Indeed, he had done this in his essay “The Health which I See is Disease (… if the Hierarchical Church so Defines)” on 5 March 2021.

This led me to a 1998 60 Minutes interview, where Georg Soros openly admits that as a 14-year-old boy he helped Nazis dispossess Jews of their property. It is crystal clear in the video and undeniable. But the mass media has seemingly built up a huge wall of gaslighting around Soros ever having worked for the Nazis against fellow Jews.

Wilkinson does not mince words, George Soros is a serial murderer.

Yet, there are a plethora of refutations of Soros having worked for the Nazis. These charges against Soros can be fought through gaslighting or orchestrated whitewashing. Yet, despite the concrete evidence of the video interview, it is the videotaped words of Soros versus the words that gaslighters use to frame the admission of Soros.

For example, Reuters sets up a strawman. It does not deal with the criticism that Soros helped dispossess Jews of their property for the Nazis. It deflects by stating that Soros was not a Nazi. So Soros wasn’t a card-carrying member of the National Socialist Party of Deutschland. But there is a well known refrain about ducks. If Soros quacks like a Nazi and behaves like a Nazi, ergo he must be a Nazi.

Newsweek even denies in its fact check that Soros assisted the dispossession of Jewish property for the Nazis. Perplexing. In other words, either Newsweek is lying or it is calling Soros a liar.

The Independent writes:

Of all the conspiracy theories spun around the 87-year-old [soon to be 95-year-old] Jewish billionaire George Soros – that he is the “puppet master” of all liberals, that he owns Black Lives Matter, that he is secretly building a new world order – the most demonstrably insane may be the claim that he was a Nazi.

That is: That the 14-year-old boy who had to hide from his own government during the German occupation of Hungary was a war criminal who sent his own people to gas chambers.

*****

Nowadays, given the proliferation of the internet and the reposting and archiving of e-information, it is nigh impossible to remove regrettable words from the information universe.

If Soros regrets his admission, how then should he elude his own words? When you are a billionaire, you can build your own media empire and gaslight. The Soros Economic Development Fund says:

We invest in critical media companies to foster their growth and safeguard their editorial independence. This work helps to promote freedom of expression and dissent, the fight against disinformation, and the imperative to develop new business models as cornerstones of democracy.

Sounds impressive. However, Xinhua reports on a study conducted by Media Research Center Business:

Soros spent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in bribes to build his own “network of media ties” so as to manipulate public opinion, U.S. media said.

Is this how Soros manages to use his deep pockets to influence all these media (including, apparently, the Reuters fact check) to deny what he said during his 60 Minutes interview?

I lived in Hungary for two years, so of course, I had heard of Soros and his financial corruption. Reuters did not hide Soros’s shady business practices, headlining “Hungary court confirms $2.5 mln fine on Soros fund,” and reporting, “New York-based Soros Fund Management LLC will have to pay a fine of 489 million forints ($2.5 million) for unlawful trades in shares of OTP Bank.”

Before I had ever ventured to Hungary, I had worked as a dive instructor in the Maldives. At the resort restaurant, I once engaged in conversation with a businessman who worked for a company buying bad debt from companies going under. During our conversation, I brought up Georg Soros. He expressed surprise that a random dive instructor knew who Soros was and asked how I knew this?

My terse reply: “I read.”

However, reading, per se, is insufficient. It may even be harmful. Gaining knowledge is not simply comprehending what one reads. The source of the information, what questions are raised about what is written, analyzing the evidence, and the ability to rationally consider the information is vital to coming to a reasoned conclusion. This is especially important given the widespread gaslighting and disinformation. It is imperative that readers and viewers regard information with open-minded skepticism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

He advised Gabbard to “resign if Trump joins the war and should make plain that she intends to run for president.” She hasn’t.

Given the public rebukes of her by Donald Trump, speculation had emerged of her doing just that: resigning. However, Gabbard has instead attempted to win her way back into Trump’s good book.

Two years ago, George Galloway, who served five-terms as a UK MP, and now hosts the popular Mother of all Talk Shows came across as a Gabbard fanboy,

I have come to the view that the best possible president for the United States in 2024 is Tulsi Gabbard. I think she’s got the looks. I think she’s got style. I think she’s got the eloquence. And most of her politics, but by no means all, are as good as you’re going to get from anyone with a chance of winning the presidency of the United states. So there’s quite a few hedges and qualifications in there, but I have come to the view that Tulsi Gabbard for president is our best bet.

Horrors that looks, sartorial, and eloquence should be enounced as foremost considerations — or even being considerations at all — for a political leader. A consideration not mentioned by Galloway was intelligence.

When one scrutinizes Gabbard on her record, support for her would again be an appeal to lesser evilism. She may, however, be one of the best among so many regressivist politicians.

Gabbard, in particular, comes to the fore on militarism and foreign affairs. What is part of her record here?

Gabbard is regressivist on Palestine and Israel

Gabbard seems not to realize that Palestine is state, unrecognized as such by the United States, that is under siege, occupation, theft of resources, and an ongoing genocide (sped up greatly since 7 October 2023). Moreover, Gabbard does not call what Israel has been carrying out since 7 October as a genocide.

She focuses her ire on Hamas’s “evil” actions. In a 10 October 2023 interview on Fox News Tonight (hosted by Brian Kilmeade filling in for Tucker Carlson), Gabbard stated: “Israel has not only the right but the responsibility to defend itself against these terrorists who slaughtered innocent civilians.”

On 10 October 2023, Gabbard posted on X: “Hamas is responsible for this war. They could end it now by surrendering, releasing hostages, and laying down their arms.” In other words, Gabbard denies Palestinians the inalienable right to resist occupation, an occupation that is rooted in killing, racism, humiliation, and brutality.

Gabbard also rejected calls for a ceasefire, implying that she backs the continued Israeli military operations in Gaza. (The Tulsi Gabbard Show, Ep. 45)

While Gabbard has never referred to Israel’s genocidal actions, she does make this accusation of Hamas. In an X post on 10 October 2023, she stated: “Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. They must be defeated.”

Gabbard took aim at those Democrats who are

accusing Israel of committing a genocide. It it is the height of hypocrisy because they’re apologists and supporters of these Islamist Hamas terrorists who are calling for a genocide the extermination of all Jews not just in Israel but around the world and we’re seeing this being carried out by these violent mobs and threats and other things that are happening against Jewish people literally uh around the world.

By Gabbard’s logic, she could be criticized as an apologist and supporter of these Israeli Zionist terrorists.

Gabbard also opines, “This is not a ‘resistance’ movement. Hamas is a jihadist terrorist group funded by Iran, whose goal is the destruction of Israel.” (The Tulsi Gabbard Show, Ep. 45)

She accuses Hamas of using human shields, but she does not criticize Israel using Palestinian children as human shields. Even the Zionist friendly BBC reports this.(“Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, knowing Israel will retaliate. They provoke war, then exploit the suffering for propaganda.” Cited by Deepseek as “Tulsi Gabbard on Israel-Palestine Conflict,” CNN, 7 May 2019.)

Gabbard criticizes the ICERD Genocide Case (2024): “South Africa’s case at the ICJ is a propaganda stunt. Hamas is the real war criminal here.” (Twitter/X)

Gabbard is regressivist on Iran

Gabbard has called for regime change in Iran: “The Iranian people deserve freedom from this oppressive, theocratic dictatorship.” (Fox News, 2023)

She was also against Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal: “The JCPOA gave Iran billions while allowing them to keep terror networks intact.” (CNN, 2019)

Of course, all the talk about Iran and its purported nuclear weapons program has now had a wrench thrown into the works as the US launched an illegal and unannounced war on Iran. Gabbard fell into line behind Trump on this illegal attack (contrary to the UN Charter and without Congressional approval). The repercussions from that US attack will become clearer as time passes.

Galloway’s Lesser Evilism

Back to Galloway. Is this really, as Galloway claims about a future Tulsi Gabbard presidential candidacy: “As good as it is going to get”? Have pity on the world, if that is true.

Can Gabbard represent the conscience of a nation? Surely there are better progressivist choices.

Right away a courageous woman of integrity such as Medea Benjamin comes to mind.

• Read Part 1.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Trump brusquely responded, “I don’t care what she said. I think they are very close to having one.”

This is just another instance of the rudeness, arrogance, and imbecility of Trump. First, Trump chose Gabbard to be his director of national intelligence.

Second, the assessment of Iran having a nuclear weapon program or not is not Gabbard’s assessment. It is, as she testified, on the “Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community”: “the collective assessment of the 18 U.S. intelligence elements making up the U.S. Intelligence Community and draws on intelligence collection, information available to the IC from open-source and the private sector, and the expertise of our analysts.”

During the 25 March threat assessment, Gabbard testified:

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.

Third, since Gabbard, the messenger, was belittled by Trump as “wrong,” then the U.S. Intelligence Community must likewise be held by Trump to be wrong. People are then left with Trump’s uncertainty, revealed by his “I think…,” as to Iran working on developing nuclear weapons. That begs the question of whether Americans want to see their sons and daughters go to war based on what Trump thinks over the assessment of 18 intelligence agencies?

Nonetheless, Gabbard has tried to regain Trump’s good graces by, like Trump, discrediting the media. She posted on X.com:

However, if one watches the linked source above, it corroborates that the media, in this case, accurately reflected the intelligence community’s assessment as related by Gabbard. Thus, Gabbard’s X post makes her come across as sycophantic. Not a good look for a politician or non-politician.

If the ins and outs of politics is Gabbard’s bag — and it certainly seems to be — then she is in a tough spot. She already was forced, more-or-less, to leave the Democratic Party. And besides the Republican Party, there is no other major party to join in the United States,

Part 2: Nonetheless, Tulsi Gabbard still has her supporters in some independent media circles.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

This is a case of awakening Iran to really the full deceit and the full evil that is represented by Israel and the United States and Europe in my view this uh you know the history of the last 60 years for my country I’m ashamed of it. You know my country was supposed to be a place of freedom and liberty and promoting freedom, instead we become agents of murder and mayhem, and we kill foreigners with no regard whatsoever and then wonder why people don’t like us.

— Larry Johnson, “IRAN STRIKES ISRAEL: Rockets Rain Down on Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat & More!” Dialogue Works, 16 June 2025

Because of nuclear weapons, and because a lot of countries have a lot of them, we [the United States] can’t defeat those countries. So the world is intrinsically multipolar in the sense: don’t mess with another nuclear superpower [it] can really wreck your day.

— Jeffrey Sachs, “Washington has the delusion it still runs the show,” Al Jazeera.

Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs restates an often heard and obvious maxim that speaks to nuclear deterrence. Military analyst Scott Ritter seems to dissent from the maxim of nuclear deterrence. In a video dated 15 July 2025, Ritter says, “Developing A Nuclear Weapon Will Be THE END Of Iran!”

“I’ll tell you, the quickest way to get America to drop nuclear bombs on Iran is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program. Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That will not happen. No matter how much people think it’s justified, and all this. it won’t happen uh the United States has made it clear that, it’s uh, it’s red line for it using nuclear weapons against Iran is an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

“I turn to the Iranians and say: why then do you want to posture as a nuclear threshold state knowing that if you ever cross that line you bring about your inevitable destruction as a nation [by the US] …”

Yet, in a subsequent video, on 16 July 2025, Ritter seems to contradict himself, saying: “The Iranians are ready for what the United States can bring to bear.”

Ritter also admits, “The Israelis know that the Iranians don’t have a nuclear weapons program. They know it.”

Ritter complains, “Iran is being grossly irresponsible for going beyond that which is necessary for um doing its legitimate peaceful [nuclear] program.”

Providing one’s nation, a nation which is constantly threatened, with an effective military deterrence is irresponsible? Ritter ignores that Israel has been biting at the bit for several decades to attack Iran on the pretense that it is acquiring nuclear weapon capability… a similar trajectory that Israel undertook to acquire its nuclear weapons capability.

Ritter is flummoxed as to why Iran would pursue enrichment beyond 20% calling it “waving the red flag in front of the Israeli bull.” Well, that Israeli bull did not need a red flag to launch an illegal war, a cowardly war, and that is what a war is when you just sneak up to attack without the courage to first declare war.

Ritter’s argument is regressivist unless he applies the nuclear standard to all countries.

A US nuclear attack on a nuclear armed Iran would also threaten the end of the US as a self-preening beacon on the hill — if it isn’t already in the eyes of people around the world.

Why doesn’t an intelligent analyst like Ritter argue for every nuclear-armed nation to accede to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty instead of focusing his ire solely on a perpetually targeted Iran. If not, it comes across as prejudiced and discriminatory.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

[A] lot of people across the global majority are asking the extremely serious question: why the BRICS, and especially why Russia and China, are not doing more than what they’re doing on behalf of Palestine and to defend Palestine. This is an extremely serious question and it’s not being addressed by Russia and China. We have to be straightforward about that, right? The only ones who are actually doing something, once again, are the Houthis in Yemen. Heroes of the whole planet.

— Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar in a Youtube interview with Danny Haiphong, streamed live on 17 July 2024 (approximately 18:16 to 18:54)

The sentiments expressed by Escobar were expressed to me at an earlier date by author Randy Shields:

… if all Russia and China are going to do is talk they could start talking about a one state solution. They could put some urgency into the situation. They could let Abbas and the Gulf family dictatorships know that the status quo is unacceptable. They could start telling the truth to the world that the “two state solution” is impossible and was only ever a delaying tactic by Israel. They could even announce that Palestine is under consideration for BRICS membership…. They could cut off whatever trade they have and cut off diplomatic relations with Israel, recall ambassadors, etc…

Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World gave his take on China and Palestine in his 1 May 2025, “Xi the Merciful?: The fate of China’s worst enemy lies in Xi Jinping’s hands”:

Beijing is hunting much bigger game than tariffs: the liberation of Palestine. China, Palestine’s oldest and most loyal friend, has endured America’s genocidal mania for generations and now has the tools to end their shared misery….

This year, we will witness the most momentous events since WWII. Global leadership will return to Asia, America will enters [sic] its post-imperial twilight, and Palestine will become free and independent, and the Zionists return to Ukraine whence they came.

Shields is skeptical:

There’s no evidence to back up what [Roberts] says. Russia and China continue to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with a genocidal apartheid state committing 24/7 live-streamed genocide.

China plays a long game. There is plenty of evidence of Chinese advancements in science, technology, supply chains, manufacturing, arts, etc. The question is whether China (and Russia) will come through with morally based support befitting a leading world economy?

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has made great strides for its people, having achieved a xiaokang (moderately prosperous) society in 2021. Moving forward, China aims for gongtong fuyu (common prosperity) — a society based on social equality and economic equity.

On the road to gongtong fuyu, the CPC’s next five-year plan targets “the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization, with a view to building a great country and advancing national rejuvenation” in the period 2026 to 2030. China’s rise is also meant to benefit the world as it seeks peaceful win-win relationships. Chairman Xi Jinping said, “Long ago China made a solemn declaration to the world that it is committed to pursuing peaceful development.”¹

This commitment to pursuing peaceful development has recently been thrown into question by China’s business arrangements connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which can hardly be construed as peaceful development from the Palestinian side (or any morally based side).

China’s Support for Palestine

China’s support for the human and territorial rights of Palestinians dates back to the time of chairman Mao Zedong. Mao’s China supported anti-imperialist and national liberation movements worldwide; this included support for the Palestinian cause. In May 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was ensconced in a Beijing office and accorded diplomatic privileges and immunity. During a meeting with a visiting PLO delegation in 1965, Mao said: “Imperialism is afraid of China and of the Arabs. Israel and Formosa are bases of imperialism in Asia. You are the front gate of the great continent, and we are the rear.”²

Post-Mao, on 20 November 1988, China officially recognized the State of Palestine and established official diplomatic relations between the two countries. On 31 December of the same year, the PLO’s office in Beijing was upgraded to the Embassy of the State of Palestine in China, and its head was appointed as the ambassador of the State of Palestine to China.

However, China has a uneven history of supporting the Palestinian cause and opposing Zionism.³

More recently, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 February 2024, Ma Xinmin, director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry “unequivocally stated”:

“The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights.”⁴

Moreover,

Citing numerous articles of international laws, Ma claims that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts” and that “armed struggle in this context is distinguished from acts of terrorism. It is grounded in international law. This distinction is acknowledged by several international conventions.” He further declares, “in pursuit of the right to self-determination, Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right, well-founded in international law.”⁵

Regarding the deliberations by the ICJ on the charge of genocide being carried out by the state of Israel, China supports the ICJ’s role in upholding justice and international law, and calls for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine, humanitarian assistance, and a two-state solution to achieve lasting peace in the region.

On 14 April 2025, Times of India reported that Russia and China criticized Israel for turning humanitarian assistance to Gaza into “a tool of war.” Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya alleged that Israel was attempting to make the UN an accomplice to its warring in Gaza. This sentiment was echoed by China’s envoy Fu Cong.

As Shields, and many others, would point out this is just more words.

What is China doing in Israeli Occupied Palestine?

But the situation vis-à-vis Palestine appears decidedly more sinister.

Razan Shawamreh is a Palestinian researcher interested in Chinese foreign policy in the Middle East. She has thrown a wrench into Chinese good intentions supporting Palestinian resistance and self-determination in its territories. Shawamreh wrote an article, “How China is quietly aiding Israel’s settlement enterprise,” for the Middle East Eye in which she charges, “Away from Beijing’s lofty rhetoric about defending Palestinians, Chinese firms are helping to sustain illegal settlements.” Despite China having supported the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 that defined Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975, Shawamreh provides numerous examples of Chinese support for Zionism.

• Adama Agricultural Solutions, a former Israeli company now fully owned by the Chinese state-run firm China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) is directly “linked to the militarised destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.”
• This is not an exception. Shawamreh writes, “In recent years, several state-owned Chinese companies, along with other private Chinese firms, have invested directly or indirectly in Israeli settlements or companies operating within them. Take the case of Tnuva, a major Israeli food producer that operates in illegal settlements. Despite international calls to boycott the company, China’s state-owned conglomerate Bright Food acquired a 56 percent stake in Tnuva in 2014. In 2021, Tnuva won a tender to operate 22 public transportation lines that serve 16 settlements in Mateh Yehuda – all built on occupied land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. These aren’t just buses; they’re infrastructure supporting colonial entrenchment, making settler life easier and more permanent.”

An earlier article by Shawamreh concluded, “China’s alleged impartiality serves to undermine Palestinian rights.”⁶

I have seen no official Chinese response to the reports of abetting the Israeli Jews’ dispossession of Palestinians. What did appear on 17 May 2025 was a Youtube video by global impulse, titled “The SHOCKING Truth Behind China’s Gaza Aid | 60,000 Families Saved,” which claimed, “But one thing is clear, China is no longer content to be a passive observer in Middle Eastern Affairs.” Two months earlier, The Indian Express showed a video that China had sent its first batch of 60,000 packages of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza via Jordan.

Can the guilt of colluding in the genocide and dispossession of indigenous Palestinians bring comfort to the Chinese soul through providing aid parcels?

Xi Jinping on Israel and Palestine

In a speech on 5 June 2014 chairman Xi Jinping spoke of “hundreds of years [of] peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, and mutual benefit” between the Chinese and Arab peoples. “We will not forget the promise to support the cause of the Palestinian people that China made to the Arab states … at the Bandung Conference 60 years ago.”⁷ [Emphasis added]

Mao laid the foundation for the PRC in dealing with Palestinians. As part of a symposium to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth, Xi channelled Mao in a speech titled “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought”:

We stand for peaceful resolutions to international disputes, oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and never seek hegemonism nor engage in expansion.⁸

The Conscience of China

China is important. Its dedication to peaceful development and diplomacy is laudatory and in stark contrast to the bombastic hectoring and warring of the US-NATO block. China cares for the well-being of all its citizens; it seeks win-win relationships with other countries — not the win-lose entanglements of the capitalist West. As such China gives substance and believability to reifying that elusive, illusory, transient, teasing, wishful abstraction called hope — hope that all too often leads to bitter disappointment.

I have been disappointed before upon hearing of Chinese involvement in an unsavoury circumstance. A few years back, I came across an article that was scathing of a big Chinese tuna-fishing company, Dalian Ocean Fishing, for alleged maltreatment of foreign workers, workers who fell sick, died, suffered abuses, substandard food, excessive working hours, and withholding of pay.

I inquired about the situation and discovered it was a rogue private company that was selling its catch to a Japanese company, Mitsubishi. Nonetheless, that does not let China off the hook. Perfection is not expected, but how Chinese-licensed private companies do business at home and abroad does reflect back on the home country.

While beyond the scope of the present article, deeper consideration of the role of the Chinese State vs. Private Capital in China’s external relationships demands elucidation. What exactly does win-win mean?
While state-owned firms are clearly extensions of Chinese policy, how China manages — or fails to manage — the conduct of private or semi-state firms abroad, especially in contested or ethically sensitive zones speaks to the conscience of a nation.

Especially concerning, is the case of Chinese state-owned companies doing business for an occupier in occupied territory. This is morally magnified when the occupier, Israel, is under scrutiny by the World Court for committing genocide. Genocide is an act that morally upstanding countries will emphatically denounce as reprehensible; in addition, morally upstanding countries will take measures to publicly distance their state from such an evil-doer until such time as it sincerely atones for its crime against humanity. Highly moral countries — for example, Yemen — will make sacrifices to bring an end to such horrific crimes.

Professor and author T.P. Wilkinson, a keen China observer, remarked, “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.”

China does not interfere in the culture and politics of other nations. That is understood. Nonetheless, morally centered people do not wish to see their country or any other country engage in violence against other nations in the world. And morally centered people do not wish to see their country abetting violence, not borne of self-defense, by another country. For allying with unrepentant rogue actors such as the United States and Israel, vassal states in Canada, Oceania, and Europe deserve to be regarded scornfully.

As an emerging superpower, China has increasingly garnered respect for pledging and delivering peaceful, win-win relations with other countries. That needs to be across the board. China is now faced with serious allegations, and it needs to come clean on what its companies are doing in occupied Palestine. One cannot expect that a country’s political leader is up-to-date and aware of all the ongoing functions of a country, domestically and externally, especially in a rapidly rising colossus of 1.4 billion people. However, when sordid facts come to the fore, a leader must lead. It is morally incumbent that chairman Xi deal forthrightly and promptly with any Chinese involvement in ignoble business affairs or crimes against humanity.

What Would Meaningful Action Look Like?

If Chinese firms are confirmed to be operating illegally in the occupied territories of Palestine, then I submit that an official Chinese public apology is demanded, also an immediate cessation of Chinese operations in what was once known as Mandate Palestine, and a turning over of Chinese assets in Mandate Palestine to Palestinian authorities. But it is for the Palestinians to determine what would be the proper rectification by China.

Why, one may ask, is such atonement not demanded of Canadians, American, and European interests in Mandate Palestine? It is and should be, but western governments have been unabashed in supporting colonialism, imperialism, and racism abroad. This speaks to the nature and conscience of Western governments that were so quick to fallaciously accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, and yet they are loathe to acknowledge the factually undeniable genocide in Palestine. China, on the other hand, is viewed by much of the world’s people as a cut above the western governments.

Geopolitical Realism vs. Moral Idealism

While the present article acknowledges the current realpolitik constraints that China faces in balancing ties with Israel, the US, Arab countries, and the rest of the world, it posits the primacy of moral responsibility. Morality is what separates capitalism’s dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle from socialism, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is what is practiced by China.

As such an unflinching moral audit of China’s actions in occupied Palestine is called for. Therefore, to maintain its high regard, China must earn and hold onto the people’s trust through morally centered economic activities at home and abroad, as is implied by win-win relationships. In a truly multipolar world not only must power be redistributed more equitably but shared moral standards must also be elevated.

It is decidedly not a win-win relationship when Palestinians are subjected to starvation, humiliation, murder, bombardment, theft of territory, and the indignity of the World Court taking what must seem like an eternity to put a halt to a crime that demands immediate action: genocide. That China companies would profit from a genocide would cast a pall over China that would be hard to shake.

If China aspires to genuine global leadership, then it must lead not just in development and diplomacy — but in conscience.

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

From Samori Touré to Thomas Sankara [left], our ancestors chose resistance. Now, we must choose: either we fight for sovereignty, or we remain slaves to neo-colonialism.

— captain Ibrahim Traoré [right], Interview with Radio Omega FM, November 2023

A young, by political standards, military captain, now an acting president has captured widespread admiration in Burkina Faso and across Africa. The legend of Ibrahim Traoré appears to be growing by leaps and bounds.

But to understand from whence captain Traoré comes, one should be cognizant of the young revolutionary Marxist leader captain Thomas Sankara who served the people of Burkina Faso (Land of Upright People) before Traoré. Tragically, Sankara was assassinated in a hail of gunfire, betrayed by his close friend Blaise Compaore.

African Hub calls Thomas Sankara the best president in Africa’s history. During Sanakara’s four years as leader he:

Empowered women.

Increased literacy from 13-73% refused aids and made his country self reliant.

Renamed his country to Burkina Faso (meaning Land of the Upright People)

Vaccinated 2M kids.

Reduced all public servants salaries including his.

Built 350 schools, roads, railways without foreign aid

Increased literacy rate by 60%

Banned forced marriages

Gave poor people land

Planted 10 million trees

Appointed females to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave

Sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.

He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.

As President, he lowered his salary to $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer.

He opposed foreign aid, saying that “he who feeds you, controls you.”

Drove out French imperialism & withdrew Burkina Faso from the IMF.

He was later killed in a French backed coup in 1987.

Thomas Sankara, the man, was killed, but his ideals live on. Into the fore another revolutionary has stepped. Ibrahim Traoré is serving the Burkinabé. African Hub calls Traoré, “The youngest and most loved President in the world.”

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin seems to have recognized this appeal and invited Traoré to Moscow. Nigeria’s Igbere Television reported on the dignified transportation accorded to Burkina Faso’s acting president for the 80th Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on 9 May:

Russia didn’t just invite President Ibrahim Traoré to Moscow — they sent a state aircraft to personally pick him up from Burkina Faso. That’s not diplomacy. That’s respect.

That’s symbolism. In a world where African leaders are often summoned like subordinates, this moment flips the script. It tells a new story: of African sovereignty being recognized, of alliances built on mutual interest — not colonial residue.

The security provided for the distinguished guest reportedly included two accompanying Su27 fighter jets.

Given the history of what happened to Sankara and the threats posed by imperialist operatives, the high level of security is understandable, especially given that Traoré is said to have survived 19 assassination attempts.

Traoré himself came to power through a coup against another coup leader Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba who fled to Togo. Traoré was disillusioned by Damiba’s failure at handling the “jihadist” insurgency in his country. Armed jihadist groups, purportedly linked to Al Qaeda, are fighting Burkinabè government forces.

*****

Since coming to power in 2022, Traoré has quickly burnished his anti-imperialist and socialist convictions. Burkina Faso is a resource-rich but economically impoverished country. Traoré seeks to overturn that economic contradiction by removing the colonialists who exploited Burkina Faso. Traoré is quoted as saying: “We have been receiving French aid for 63 years, yet our country has not developed, so cutting it off from us now will not kill us, rather it will motivate us to work and rely on ourselves.” (Quoted by Qiraat Africa, published by the South Sahara Research Center, UK)

Yet the West still has strings to pull on. Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali were suspended from the western-backed Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Subsequently, the three countries formed their own anti-imperialist grouping as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

It won’t be easy going, as the former French colonies use the CFA franc, an international currency set at a fixed rate against the euro. This renders the African states economically dependent on France which holds a veto over the monetary policies of the CFA franc.

Aware of this currency bind, Africa Reloaded quotes Traoré saying, “Perhaps everything we’ve done has surprised you, hasn’t it? Don’t worry more changes are coming that might still surprise you. We will break every tie that has kept us in slavery.”

In 2023, French troops were ordered to leave Burkina Faso. The French embassy in the capital Ouagadougou is closed and French diplomats have been expelled. Some French passport holders have been detained on suspicion of espionage.

Russian troops have since arrived to help Burkina Faso bolster its security. Nigeria’s Afro Page also reports the “arrival of 1700 Russian commandos, armed, coordinated, and highly trained” in Burkina Faso “not in secret … but boldly in broad daylight…. This is a message from the Kremlin to Washington.” In addition, 700 North Korean troops are said to have arrived in Burkina Faso.

Gaining control over the resources of Burkina Faso is also underway. Burkina Faso has started to nationalize resources, particularly its gold mining sector. Burkina Faso’s prime minister Jean Emmanuel Ouédraogo realizes, “Our gold represents our greatest opportunity for economic resilience during these challenging times.”

Africa Hub quotes Traoré: “We will mine our gold ourselves not for France, but for our people!”

To achieve this, Traoré’s proposal is: “Targeting foreign exploitation, particularly by France, Traore has pushed to nationalize gold mines, like Boungou and Wahgnion, and approved a state-owned gold refinery in 2023 to process 400 kg daily, aiming to retain profits for local development.”

The national transformation planned by Traoré government includes:

1. sweeping reforms redirecting government funds from inflated salaries to crucial development projects
2. launching ambitious industrialization projects
3. unprecedented mechanization of the agricultural sector, including introduction of modern farming techniques and equipment that have significantly increased crop yields and farmer incomes
4. implementing rapid response protocols to counter security threats and dismantle terrorist networks
5. bringing about unprecedented levels of national unity and mobilizing citizens behind a shared vision of progress
6. demonstrating that African nations can chart their own paths to development
7. a deep commitment to public service and national development that focuses on tangible results rather than procedural democracy

Back in 2023, Traoré spoke of the aims of the AES partnership: “We really want to look at other horizons, because we want win-win partnerships.” Security was addressed as a need: “If we can’t afford to buy military equipment in one country, we’ll go to other countries to buy it.”

*****

Meanwhile, the United States stirs the imperialist pot against Burkina Faso. On 3 April, US general Michael Langley, commander of US Africa Command (AFRICOM), accused Traoré of misusing the country’s substantial gold reserves for the military instead of benefiting the nation’s 23 million citizens. If Langley (whose basic pay is estimated by Deepseek at $203,700 per year) had done his homework, instead of making unsubstantiated accusations, he would know that Traoré revealed his net worth at $128,566. He might also know that Traoré refused a presidential salary, continuing instead to receive the same salary he earned as a soldier. Malawi24 was impressed: “Traore’s decision is a stark contrast to the actions of his predecessors, signaling a new era of leadership focused on public service rather than personal enrichment.”

Langley’s comments brought Burkinabé into the streets in support of Traoré and his government.

It is abundantly evident that Traoré has the support of the people, as did Sankara. Despite Traoré having reportedly booted out French and American media from Burkina Faso, even the BCC, a media organ of empire, admits that Traoré “has captured hearts and minds around the world.”

Traoré represents a tangible hope, a hope that is more than an abstraction, it is a hope that, given time and momentum, could ignite a revolution to topple an empire.

Until defeated, empire will not rest. As long as revolutionary men and women are committed, above all, to serving the people, they will pose a threat to empire.

The lives of humans are finite, but the ideals of good people can outlive them and continue to represent a threat to empires until they fall.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The latest tremor of narcissistic display on the Duke’s part involved an interview with the BBC which could be billed as confession and advertisement: “I confess; I advertise”, with an afterthought of “Please Forgive Me Daddy” while funding my security detail on visits to the United Kingdom.

The man, self-proclaimed victim, had been consistently sinned against. He felt that the courts had wronged him in not accepting the proposition that he needed as much security as other working Royals and public figures, despite seeking a pampered life in California and exiting the British orbit in 2020. The lack of a risk assessment post-2019 of his family was “not only a deviation from standard practice [but] a dereliction of duty.” His court failure was also a “good old fashioned establishment stitchup”.

The legal proceedings so irking Harry centred on an appeal against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the UK Home Office. The interior ministry had accepted the decision of the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures (RAVEC) that he should receive a different, less hefty measure of protection when in the UK. The Court of Appeal was unconvinced by the Duke of Sussex’s claim that his “sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to RAVEC’s decision.” Judge Geoffrey Vos appreciated that, from Harry’s view, “something may indeed have gone wrong” in that stepping back from Royal duties and spending most of his time abroad would lead to the provision of “more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK. But that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.”

In a terse statement, Buckingham Palace reiterated the point: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

Harry felt his family had not given him his due, certainly on the “sticking point” of security, but wished for “reconciliation”. As a plea, it was lamentable; as an effort, it could hardly have softened well hardened hearts.

A bit of blackmail was also proffered. Not giving him the security assurances would mean depriving his children and wife of any chance of visiting Britain. It was the fault of Britain, its courts, and Buckingham Palace that the state had not provided the subsidised level of security he sought. Pompously, he was certain “there are some people out there, probably most likely wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

Cringeworthy justifications flow, not least the shameless use of his dead mother, who died in a Paris tunnel with her lover because of the drunken actions of an intoxicated chauffeur. Blaming the insatiable paparazzi for what was otherwise an appalling lack of judgment on the part of Diana and her bit of fluff, Dodi Fayed, is all too convenient. Responsibility is found elsewhere. The levers of destiny lie in another realm. The best thing to do, as the duke demonstrates, is sentimentalise and exploit the situation.

Unfortunately for him, sympathy for his arguments in the Sceptred Isle is not in abundant supply. Marina Hyde of The Guardian preferred to call him “His Rich Highness” who had changed his life but failed to appreciate the examples of others in the well heeled category. Beyoncé, for instance, was not complaining about splashing out on security knowing that such matters went “with the territory, and that you have to pay for it out of your riches.”

In The Spectator, Alexander Larman made the pertinent observation that Harry, despite seeing himself as a “maverick” on the hunt for justice, sounded all too much like President Donald Trump. “Both men have talked passionately, if not always persuasively, about the shadowy forces that have frustrated their popular crusade for truth and justice”. One difference proved incontestable: Trump won.

This hereditary figure of aristocracy cannot help his instincts on entitlement. He was “born” into the role, and for that birthright, he demands a degree of security protection exceptional, whatever his personal decisions and choices about career, location and Royal duties. Here is a figure who insists on not so much damaging the monarchy as an institution – as if more could be done to it – but by airing his public life as a new, celluloid royal, a figure happy to condemn the media and its violations of privacy on the one hand, yet reveal the rather disturbed contents of a private life he has cashed in on. The public arena has become the site of his ongoing, distinctly unattractive effort at raking in the cash and seeking therapy.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

There are many claims made in the article by Tony Zhao who seemingly looks at China, a 5000-year old Asian civilization, through a western lens (similar to the western-centric analysis made by John Mearsheimer).

Zhao asserts that Beijing views itself vis-à-vis the United States as in a “strategic stalemate.”

Comment: What exactly is meant by stalemate? And what statement emerging from Beijing attests to it viewing itself as in a stalemate? The chess metaphor applied to China is a cultural faux pas, as the popular strategizing board game the Chinese play is weiqi (go in English). Draws/stalemates are not a weiqi strategy and are rare.

Zhao: “Trump’s early second-term actions have strengthened Beijing’s conviction that the United States is accelerating its own decline, bringing a new era of parity ever closer.”

Comment: It is not just Beijing’s conviction. There are plenty of reputable economics/financial experts warning of a US economic decline (see Michael Hudson, Richard Wolff, Yanis Varoufakis, Peter Schiff, Ellen Brown, Sean Foo, Jeffrey Sachs, etc) as well as military experts speaking to a drop off in US military superiority (see Andrei Martyanov, colonel Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter, etc).

Economic data reveal that the US has been overtaken by China on real GDP/PPP, and economic indicators point to the US potentially heading into recession with a -0.3% growth in Q1 2025, while China’s growth in Q1 2025 was 5.4%.

Zhao warns that the current stalemate may not last and that over the next four years the “risk of a military crisis will likely rise as the two countries increasingly test each other’s resolve.”

Comment: It is obvious how the US is testing China’s resolve. But how exactly is it that China is testing the US’ resolve — other than as a defensive response to US machinations? Zhao does not give any examples of this. Vague, unsubstantiated statements should be greeted with extreme skepticism, and such statements speak to a writer’s professionalism and credibility.

Zhao: “The risk of a U.S.-Chinese military crisis could sharply escalate if Beijing further closes the capability gap with Washington and perceives international indifference to Taiwan’s status, grows frustrated with nonmilitary efforts to unite Taiwan with China, and foresees more pro-Taiwan leadership in Washington and Taipei.”

Comment: The logic behind this sentence is perplexing. Is Zhao suggesting that China should maintain a capability gap so that it is inferior to the US? Furthermore, there is no international indifference to Taiwan’s status. As of June 2024, 183 countries have established diplomatic relations with China under the One China Principle, which acknowledges Taiwan as an inalienable part of China. Depicting China as “frustrated” is contrary to the longstanding stoic image that China usually projects. Xi Jinping is definitively not a fulminating, blustering politician as is commonly found in Washington. As for military efforts to “unite Taiwan with China,” the famous Chinese military strategist Sunzi (Sun Tzu) wrote in The Art of War (Chapter III- “Attack by Stratagem”): “In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”

Zhao does admit, “Beijing has shown similarly little inclination to initiate near-term military conflict, even over issues of core national interest such as Taiwan.” He obviates this by following up with: “This restraint, however, has been underwritten by a military buildup, spanning conventional and nuclear forces, that Chinese officials see as critical to shifting the balance of power with the United States.”

Comment: The Chinese military build-up is, arguably, a necessity given the belligerence of the US toward whichever nation does not adhere to its demands. That Taiwan has a form of de facto independence is attributable to the US inserting its 7th Fleet into a Chinese civil war to protect the losing KMT side from the Communist forces (see William Blum, “1. China 1945 to 1960s” in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II). Moreover, the US has been unfaithful in its adherence to the One China Policy that it effectively ratified in the 1972 Shanghai Communique.

Zhao: “[China’s] seemingly contradictory surges in economic and diplomatic outreach and its military muscle flexing, evident in high-profile drills near Australia and Japan in February, are, in China’s view, actions characteristic of the great power it believes it has become.”

Comment: There have been no official reports of China conducting military drills near Australia in February 2025. The live-fire drills were held in international waters, 150 nautical miles far beyond Australia’s territorial waters. The Global Times noted the Chinese drills were “fully in accordance with international law and customary practices” and they were “completely different with the Australian military aircraft’s intrusion into China’s airspace” — a serious violation of international law. As for the “high profile drills … near Japan in February,” a web search only revealed China carrying out drills in the Gulf of Tonkin and off Taiwan’s southwest coast. Japanese media noted the drills off Taiwan, none near Japan.

Zhao: “For its part, the Trump administration is beefing up the United States’ military deterrent against China amid growing concerns about Beijing’s aggressive actions in Asia.”

Comment: This is farcical. How is it that China whose military spending is effectively 52% of US military spending would cause the US to increase its deterrence? (see table below) What are China’s “aggressive actions”? Backwards logic and unsubstantiated allegations.

Chinese and US military spending compared Source: CEPR, 17 Dec 2024

Zhao: “Senior Defense Department officials aren’t fully aligned on the importance of Taiwan to U.S. strategy. Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, for example, has said that ‘Americans could survive without it’ and is pushing instead to thwart China’s broader regional dominance.”

Comment: What is the importance of Taiwan to the US besides as part of a military containment zone? Does the US’ military encirclement of China convey peaceful intent? Also, what evidence is there that China wants to dominate outside its borders? China rejects hegemony and seeks win-win relationships.

Zhao writes of “the ratcheting up of tensions sparked by the trade war …”

Comment: Which actor is primarily responsible for ratcheting up tensions? Which actor started the tariffing? This information is important and relevant and needs to be identified and conveyed to the reader

*****

It is clear who is the aggressor. China is not ringing the US with military bases. China is not stoking Hawaiian separatist sentiment from the continental US. Are Chinese warships plying US waters?

Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — a think tank and publisher described as an “influential ruling class organization” whose members come predominantly from the corporate business community which finances the CFR.

Zhao is listed as a senior fellow at the CEIP, which was ranked as the world’s number one think tank in 2019. Imagine that: such ill-thought-out journalism from a high-ranking think-tank fellow.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The Independent considers The Settlers to be a “masterpiece.”

The Middle East Eye hails the documentary as “an unflinching look at the Israelis [sic] intent on stealing the West Bank.”

The Islam Channel praises Theroux for “highlight[ing] the horrifying influence of the illegal Israeli settler movement.”

The title of the Spectator’s review was rather enigmatic: “How come the only Palestinians Louis Theroux met were non-violent sweeties?” The Spectator granted, “In a program called The Settlers, it’s perhaps fair enough that the focus should be so squarely on these people and their intransigence.”

And what about the documentary’s title?

Dictionary.com defines settler innocuously as “a person who settles in a new region or colony.” Is this the proper appellation? Others would argue that the term settler-colonialist is more accurate. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School states, “Settler colonialism can be defined as a system of oppression based on genocide and colonialism, that aims to displace a population of a nation (oftentimes indigenous people) and replace it with a new settler population.”

The documentary begins with the lanky, bespectacled Theroux asking a settler whether they are “deep inside the Palestinian territories”? The settler-colonialist Ari Abramowitz objected, calling it “the heart of Judea.” He further objected to a “jihadist Palestinian state” being located in the heart of Israel.

Abramowitz is forthright in saying he aspires to win territory from Palestinians.

The settler-colonialists are described as “religionist nationalists.” A young Jewish woman Ovi says, “I believe Gaza is ours … The Bible says this place was given to the Jews. This place is ours.”

Throughout the documentary, the Zionist goal is clear: to remove Palestinians and repopulate the land with Jews.

Theroux spends much time interviewing Daniella Weiss, the “godmother of the settler movement,” an unabashed Zionist, who claimed: “We do for governments what they cannot do for themselves… Netanyahu is very happy at what we do but he cannot say it.”

Gaza fits what Netanyahu cannot say, Weiss states the goal of “the practical idea of establishing Jewish settlements in the entire Gaza Strip. We very much encourage and enable the population in Gaza to go to other countries. You will witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs disappear from Gaza. They lost their right to stay in this holy place.”

But Jews are not a pure monolith. Theroux interviews a protesting Israeli man who says, “The question is: what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a colonizing country or do we want to be a country that at least offers peace and wants to live in peace with Palestinians?”

What can Gazans expect if settler-colonialists create outposts in Gaza? The documentary examines the situation in the West Bank where outposts are set up to expand and become communities with the aim of becoming recognized as settlements by the Israeli government. These outposts and settlements are under the protection of the Israeli military.

The Texan-raised Abramowitz denies Palestinians exist. When pressed by Theroux on this, Abramowitz replies, “They are Arabs.”

The illegality of settlements is disregarded by Abramowitz. This is echoed by Weiss who shrugs off the commission of war crimes as a “lighter felony.”

Such Zionist views point to the impunity of settler colonialists in dealing with the indigenous Palestinians. One common war crime is preventing Palestinian farmers from harvesting their produce, particularly olives. Israeli soldiers will arrive, demand identification, and send the farmers away from their land. And if a farmer is lucky, he will still be alive after the encounter.

The filmmaker spoke of an “ideology of superiority of one group over another.” This even has rabbinical support.

Rabbi Dove Leor said, “To my mind, there was never peace with these [Palestinian] savages. There is no peace and never will be…. This land belongs only to the people of Israel. All of Gaza, all of Lebanon should be cleansed of these ‘camel riders.’”

To accomplish the disappearance of Palestinians, Weiss advocates using “the magic system of Zionism” to take over the land and repopulate it with Jews. “This will bring light instead of darkness,” says Weiss.

Issa Amrou, a Palestinian activist, guides Theroux around occupied Hebron and explains the life of Palestinians under occupation. The system of encouraging Palestinians to leave is through fear of the Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, closing Palestinian businesses, making life intolerable, and fragmentation of Palestinian towns, leading to Jews taking more land.

Near the end of the documentary, Theroux speaks again with the Texan-cum-settler-colonialist Abramowitz who makes known his feelings for Palestinians: “I don’t have tremendous compassion for a society that has an unquenchable genocidal, theological, bloodlust. It’s like a death cult.”

Says Abramowitz, “I reject the real premise that these people [Palestinians] are actually a real nation for a lot of reasons.”

“We know the righteousness of our cause. That’s what it means to be a Hebrew, what it means to be a Jew…”

The Israeli government’s recognition of the Evyatar settlement in the lands of the Palestinian town of Beita spurred a celebration, and Weiss arrived to speak to a jubilating crowd.

Theroux catches up with the settler-colonial godmother after her speech to the festive gathering. He asks what is wrong with a two-state solution?

Says Weiss, “We want to have a Jewish state based on Jewish rules, on Jewish values. It is not a relationship of neighbors.”

“Why not?” asks Theroux.

“Because we are two nations.” At least Weiss admits to there being a Palestinian nation.

Weiss makes clear that her overarching aim is Aliyah, bringing more settler-colonialists to the land. She does not think about the Palestinians because she is a Jew.

Theroux says, “That seems sociopathic.”

Weiss rejects this, saying, “It is normal.”

In the settler-colonialist Zionist mindset, othering is normal.

*****

People who care about humans elsewhere and are unfamiliar or uninformed about the plight of Palestinians ought to watch The Settlers and become familiar and informed. Theroux probably presents the situation as close to the line as one could hope to have broadcast. Through the narrative, the viewer will hear that there is anti-Palestinian racism and violence against them, but the discussion will not be graphic, and visually the violence is downplayed.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Back in August 2014, the New Democratic Party (NDP) was led by Tom Mulcair whose Zionism was so extreme that a sitting MP, Sana Hassainia, of the Montreal-area riding of Vercheres-Les Patriotes, could not accept Mulcair’s position and chose to sit as an independent.

The current NDP leader Jagmeet Singh forthrightly denounced the genocide in Gaza and questioned current Canadian prime minister Mark Carney (Liberal Party) about his position on Gaza.

“Mr. Carney, why don’t you call it what it is? It’s a genocide,” said Singh.

Carney replied, “This question is in front of the International Court of Justice. The situation is a horrible situation. I will not, and I will never politicize that word or this situation.”

The Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is a Trump-style politician in Canada. Poilievre promises to deport critics, move Canada’s embassy in Israel, and cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other international bodies assisting Palestinians.

Poilievre accused UNRWA employees of being involved in the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.

Singh demurred, “What you said about UNRWA was disgusting.… Calling it a terrorist organization is unacceptable. It’s hateful and it’s entirely inappropriate.”

There was a choice in the United States election to vote against genocide, but people overwhelmingly voted for one of the two pro-Zionist presidential candidates in the 2024 election, despite there being presidential candidates who were opposed to the Zionist genocide.

The leaders of the two major parties in Canada present as Zionist appeasers, as demonstrated by their own words. The difference from the 2024 US election is that in Canada there is a prominent political party, the NDP, whose leader calls genocide by what it is.

Canadians have a choice to vote No to genocide on Monday, 28 April.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

US president Donald Trump is not beholden to that epithet and neither is his vice-president JD “I don’t like China” Vance.

Previously, in January 2018, Trump was criticized for referring to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries.”

On 8 April 2025, Trump took pleasure in describing countries purportedly cowering at the prospect of US tariffs being levied on them:

These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are, they are dying to make a deal. Please, please sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything sir.

The same lack of respectful discourse is followed by Vance. At a meeting in the White House on 28 February 2025, Volodomyr Zelenskyy found himself attacked on two sides. However unsavoury a character Zelenskyy is, and however improper his remarks might have been when he was at the White House, he was a guest. And the attack, in particular by Vance, on a guest was unbecoming.

In March, Vance complained about Chinese oligarchs. Now it is Chinese peasants:

We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.

Decidedly, it was a boorish comment from the vice-president. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was not impressed:

It is surprising and sad to hear such ignorant and impolite words from this vice president.

Is Vance merely revealing his ignorance as well as rudeness? Is there any truth to the depiction Vance proffers on China?

Today’s Chinese “peasants”

China has eliminated extreme poverty. The US Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and official poverty data report 5.3% of Americans (around 17.5 million people) as living in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty line) (source: Census.gov – Poverty Tables [Table B-1, B-2]).

An end to extreme poverty posits an end to homelessness. In the US, homelessness is rising in recent years. Ecofact.org reports:

There were 771,480 people recorded as homeless in 2024 — or about 23 per 10,000 people. This represented an increase of over 18% relative to the numbers recorded in 2023. The data show that  36 percent of the homeless were unsheltered — that is, they lived in places not considered fit for human habitation …

Chinese peasants live in the world’s largest economy expressed as GDP (PPP). Chinese peasants put up a space station on their own. Cars produced by Chinese peasants are dominating the world market. And Chinese peasants have developed (Chinese tech is stolen according to Vance) flying cars for the markets, when the markets are ready. These peasants are great at innovating and manufacturing: Comac C919 narrow-body airliner, Long March rockets, 30-satellite Beidou positioning system, molten salt thorium reactors, HarmonyOS, 5.5G, 3nm chips, robotics, AI, hypersonic weapons, etc, etc.

And pertinently for peasants, China’s agricultural sector is undergoing significant transformation through technological innovation, while in the US, farmers are worried about China’s retaliatory tariffs.

Many Americans, if presented the choice, might well opt for Chinese peasant status.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

US president Donald Trump is not beholden to that epithet and neither is his vice-president JD “I don’t like China” Vance.

Previously, in January 2018, Trump was criticized for referring to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries.”

On 8 April 2025, Trump took pleasure in describing countries purportedly cowering at the prospect of US tariffs being levied on them:

These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are, they are dying to make a deal. Please, please sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything sir.

The same lack of respectful discourse is followed by Vance. At a meeting in the White House on 28 February 2025, Volodomyr Zelenskyy found himself attacked on two sides. However unsavoury a character Zelenskyy is, and however improper his remarks might have been when he was at the White House, he was a guest. And the attack, in particular by Vance, on a guest was unbecoming.

In March, Vance complained about Chinese oligarchs. Now it is Chinese peasants:

We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.

Decidedly, it was a boorish comment from the vice-president. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was not impressed:

It is surprising and sad to hear such ignorant and impolite words from this vice president.

Is Vance merely revealing his ignorance as well as rudeness? Is there any truth to the depiction Vance proffers on China?

Today’s Chinese “peasants”

China has eliminated extreme poverty. The US Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and official poverty data report 5.3% of Americans (around 17.5 million people) as living in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty line) (source: Census.gov – Poverty Tables [Table B-1, B-2]).

An end to extreme poverty posits an end to homelessness. In the US, homelessness is rising in recent years. Ecofact.org reports:

There were 771,480 people recorded as homeless in 2024 — or about 23 per 10,000 people. This represented an increase of over 18% relative to the numbers recorded in 2023. The data show that  36 percent of the homeless were unsheltered — that is, they lived in places not considered fit for human habitation …

Chinese peasants live in the world’s largest economy expressed as GDP (PPP). Chinese peasants put up a space station on their own. Cars produced by Chinese peasants are dominating the world market. And Chinese peasants have developed (Chinese tech is stolen according to Vance) flying cars for the markets, when the markets are ready. These peasants are great at innovating and manufacturing: Comac C919 narrow-body airliner, Long March rockets, 30-satellite Beidou positioning system, molten salt thorium reactors, HarmonyOS, 5.5G, 3nm chips, robotics, AI, hypersonic weapons, etc, etc.

And pertinently for peasants, China’s agricultural sector is undergoing significant transformation through technological innovation, while in the US, farmers are worried about China’s retaliatory tariffs.

Many Americans, if presented the choice, might well opt for Chinese peasant status.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

US president Donald Trump is not beholden to that epithet and neither is his vice-president JD “I don’t like China” Vance.

Previously, in January 2018, Trump was criticized for referring to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries.”

On 8 April 2025, Trump took pleasure in describing countries purportedly cowering at the prospect of US tariffs being levied on them:

These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are, they are dying to make a deal. Please, please sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything sir.

The same lack of respectful discourse is followed by Vance. At a meeting in the White House on 28 February 2025, Volodomyr Zelenskyy found himself attacked on two sides. However unsavoury a character Zelenskyy is, and however improper his remarks might have been when he was at the White House, he was a guest. And the attack, in particular by Vance, on a guest was unbecoming.

In March, Vance complained about Chinese oligarchs. Now it is Chinese peasants:

We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.

Decidedly, it was a boorish comment from the vice-president. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was not impressed:

It is surprising and sad to hear such ignorant and impolite words from this vice president.

Is Vance merely revealing his ignorance as well as rudeness? Is there any truth to the depiction Vance proffers on China?

Today’s Chinese “peasants”

China has eliminated extreme poverty. The US Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and official poverty data report 5.3% of Americans (around 17.5 million people) as living in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty line) (source: Census.gov – Poverty Tables [Table B-1, B-2]).

An end to extreme poverty posits an end to homelessness. In the US, homelessness is rising in recent years. Ecofact.org reports:

There were 771,480 people recorded as homeless in 2024 — or about 23 per 10,000 people. This represented an increase of over 18% relative to the numbers recorded in 2023. The data show that  36 percent of the homeless were unsheltered — that is, they lived in places not considered fit for human habitation …

Chinese peasants live in the world’s largest economy expressed as GDP (PPP). Chinese peasants put up a space station on their own. Cars produced by Chinese peasants are dominating the world market. And Chinese peasants have developed (Chinese tech is stolen according to Vance) flying cars for the markets, when the markets are ready. These peasants are great at innovating and manufacturing: Comac C919 narrow-body airliner, Long March rockets, 30-satellite Beidou positioning system, molten salt thorium reactors, HarmonyOS, 5.5G, 3nm chips, robotics, AI, hypersonic weapons, etc, etc.

And pertinently for peasants, China’s agricultural sector is undergoing significant transformation through technological innovation, while in the US, farmers are worried about China’s retaliatory tariffs.

Many Americans, if presented the choice, might well opt for Chinese peasant status.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Ritter opened, “I have assiduously detailed the nature of the threat perceived by the US that, if unresolved, would necessitate military action, as exclusively revolving around Iran’s nuclear program and, more specifically, that capacity that is excess to its declared peaceful program and, as such, conducive to a nuclear weapons program Iran has admitted is on the threshold of being actualized.”

Threats perceived by the US. These threats range from North Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, China, and Russia. Question: Which of the aforementioned countries is about to — or ever was about to — attack the US? None. (Al Qaeda is not a country) So why does Ritter imply that military action would be necessitated? Is it a vestige of military indoctrination left over from his time as a marine? In this case, why is Ritter not focused on his own backyard and telling the US to butt out of the Middle East? The US, since it is situated on a continent far removed from Iran, should no more dictate to Iran what its defense posture should be in the region than Iran should dictate what the US’s defense posture should be in the northwestern hemisphere.

Ritter: “In short, I have argued, the most realistic path forward regarding conflict avoidance would be for Iran to negotiate in good faith regarding the verifiable disposition of its excess nuclear enrichment capability.”

Ritter places the onus for conflict avoidance on Iran. Why? Is Iran seeking conflict with the US? Is Iran making demands of the US? Is Iran sanctioning the US? Moreover, who gets to decide what is realistic or not? Is what is realistic for the US also realistic for Iran? When determining the path forward, one should be aware of who and what is stirring up conflict. Ritter addresses this when he writes, “Even when Trump alienated Iran with his ‘maximum pressure’ tactics, including an insulting letter to the Supreme Leader that all but eliminated the possibility of direct negotiations between the US and Iran…” But this did not alter Ritter’s stance. Iran must negotiate — again. According to Ritter negotiations are how to solve the crisis, a crisis of the US’s (and Israel’s) making.

Iran had agreed to a deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Germany — collectively known as the P5+1 — with the participation of the European Union. The JCPOA came into effect in 2016. During the course of the JCPOA, Iran was in compliance with the deal. Nonetheless, Trump pulled the US out of the deal in 2018.

Backing out of agreements/deals is nothing new for Trump (or for that matter, the US). For example, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate, the Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade, the United Nations cultural organization UNESCO, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was subsequently renegotiated under Trump to morph into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which is now imperilled by the Trump administration’s tariff threats, as is the World Trade Organization that regulates international trade.

Should Iran, therefore, expect adherence to any future agreement signed with the US?

Ritter insists that he is promoting a reality-based process providing the only viable path toward peace. Many of those who disagree with Ritter’s assertion are lampooned by him as “the digital mob, comprised of new age philosophers, self-styled ‘peace activists’, and a troll class that opposes anything and everything it doesn’t understand (which is most factually-grounded argument), as well as people I had viewed as fellow travelers on a larger journey of conflict avoidance—podcasters, experts and pundits who did more than simply disagree with me (which is, of course, their right and duty as independent thinkers), traversing into the realm of insults and attacks against my intelligence, integrity and character.”

Ritter continued, “The US-Iran crisis is grounded in the complexities, niceties and formalities of international law as set forth in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapons state. The NPT will be at the center of any negotiated settlement.”

Is it accurate to characterize the crisis as a “US-Iran crisis”? It elides the fact that it is the US imposing a crisis on Iran. More accurately it should be stated as a “US crisis foisted on Iran.”

Ritter argues, “… the fact remains that this crisis has been triggered by the very capabilities Iran admits to having—stocks of 60% enriched uranium with no link to Iran’s declared peaceful program, and excessive advanced centrifuge-based enrichment capability which leaves Iran days away from possessing sufficient weapons grade high enriched uranium to produce 3-5 nuclear weapons.”

So, Ritter blames Iran for the crisis. This plays off Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has long accused Iran of seeking nukes. But it ignores the situation in India and Pakistan. Although the relations between the two countries are tense, logic dictates that open warring must be avoided lest it lead to mutual nuclear conflagration. And if Iran dismantles its nuclear program? What happened when Libya dismantled its nuclear program? Destruction by the US-led NATO. As A.B. Abrams wrote, Libya paid the price for

… having ignored direct warnings from both Tehran and Pyongyang not to pursue such a course [of unilaterally disarming], Libya’s leadership would later admit that disarmament, neglected military modernisation, and trust in Western good will proved to be their greatest mistake–leaving their country near defenceless when Western powers launched their offensive in 2011. (Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power, Clarity Press, 2020: p 296)

And North Korea has existed with a credible deterrence against any attack on it since it acquired nuclear weapons.

Relevant background to the current crisis imposed on Iran

1. The year 1953 is a suitable starting point. It was in this year that the US-UK (CIA and MI6) combined to engineer a coup against the democratically elected Iranian government under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had committed the unpardonable sin of nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

1. What to replace the Iranian democracy with? A monarchy. In other words, a dictatorship because monarchs are not elected, they are usually born into power. Thus, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would rule as the shah of Iran for 26 years protected by his secret police, the SAVAK. Eventually, the shah would be overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

1. In an attempt to force Iran to bend knee to US dictate, the US has imposed sanctions, issued threats, and fomented violence.

1. Starting sometime after 2010, it is generally agreed among cybersecurity experts and intelligence leaks that the Iranian nuclear program was a target of cyberwarfare by the US and Israel — this in contravention of the United Nations Charter Article 2 (1-4):

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

1. The Stuxnet virus caused significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program, particularly at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

1. Israel and the United States are also accused of being behind the assassinations of several Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade.

1. On 3 January 2020, Trump ordered a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq that assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani as well as Soleimani ally Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a top Iraqi militia leader.

1. On 7 October 7 2023, Hamas launched a resistance attack against Israel’s occupation. Since then, Israel has reportedly conducted several covert and overt strikes targeting Iran and its proxies across the region.

1. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Iran of seeking nukes for nearly 30 years, long before Iran reached 60% enrichment in 2021. In Netanyahu’s book Fighting Terrorism (1995) he described Iran as a “rogue state” pursuing nukes to destroy Israel. Given that a fanatical, expansionist Zionist map for Israel, the Oded-Yinon plan, draws a Jewish territory that touches on the Iranian frontier, a debilitated Iran is sought by Israel.

Oded Yinon Plan

Says Ritter, “This crisis isn’t about Israel or Israel’s own undeclared nuclear weapons capability. It is about Iran’s self-declared status as a threshold nuclear weapons state, something prohibited by the NPT. This is what the negotiations will focus on. And hopefully these negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of its nuclear program the US (and Israel) find to present an existential threat.”

Why isn’t it about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability? Why does the US and Ritter get to decide which crisis is preeminent?

It is important to note that US intelligence has long said that no active Iranian nuclear weapon project exists.

It is also important to note that Arab states have long supported a Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDFZ), particularly nuclear weapons, but Israel and the US oppose it.

It is also important to note that, in 2021, the U.S. opposed a resolution demanding Israel join the NPT and that the US, in 2018, blocked an Arab-backed IAEA resolution on Israeli nukes. (UN Digital Library. Search: “Middle East WMDFZ”)

As far as the NPT goes, it must be applied equally to all signatory states. The US as a nuclear-armed nation is bound by Article VI which demands:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Thus, hopefully negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of the Iranian, US, and Israeli nuclear programs (as well as the nuclear programs of other nuclear-armed nations) that are found to present an existential threat.

Ritter warns, “Peace is not guaranteed. But war is unless common sense and fact-based logic wins out over the self-important ignorance of the digital mob and their facilitators.”

A peaceful solution is not achieved by assertions (i.e., not fact-based logic) or by ad hominem. That critics of Ritter’s stance resort to name-calling demeans them, but to respond likewise to one’s critics also taints the respondent.

Logic dictates that peace is more-or-less guaranteed if UN member states adhere to the United Nations Charter. The US, Iran, and Israel are UN member states. A balanced and peaceful solution is found in the Purposes and Principles as stipulated in Article 1 (1-4) of the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

It seems that only by refusing to abide by one’s obligations laid out the UN Charter and NPT that war looms larger.

In Ritter’s reality, the US rules the roost against smaller countries. Is such a reality acceptable?

It stirs up patriotism, but acquiescence is an affront to national dignity. Ritter will likely respond by asking what god is dignity when you are dead. Fair enough. But in the present crisis, if the US were to attack Iran, then whatever last shred of dignity (is there any last shred of dignity left when a country is supporting the genocide of human beings in Palestine?) that American patriots can cling to will have vanished.

By placing the blame on Iran for a crisis triggered by destabilizing actions of the US and Israel, Ritter asks for Iran to pay for the violent events set in motion by US Israel. If Iran were to cave to Trump’s threats, they would be sacrificing sovereignty, dignity, and self-defense.

North Korea continues on. Libya is still reeling from the NATO offensive against it. Iran is faced with a choice.

The Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata knew his choice well: “I’d rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

United States president Donald Trump had met with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss “Gaza, tariffs, and the alleged nuclear threat of Iran.” As for the latter, Trump said that the US is having direct talks with Iran on nuclear weapons and announced that there would be a “very big meeting” with important officials on April 12.

Said Trump: “I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious.”

What is the obvious? If one abhors war and wants to avoid it, then it seems the obvious thing to do is to stop bullying Iran, stop provoking it, and stop issuing threats and engaging in belligerent rhetoric.

Trump continued: “And the obvious is not something that … we’re going to see if we can avoid it. But it’s getting to be very dangerous territory.”

Dangerous? How so? Just on Trump’s say-so? One would presume that Iran having nuclear arms is what Trump considers dangerous. If so, then what is the nuclear-armed Israel that Trump openly courts, funds, and fetes compared to Iran whose supreme leader Ali Khamenei issued a never-rescinded fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons decades ago? How dangerous is Iran, which has avoided war for several decades, in comparison to Israel which is perennially provoking and at war with its neighbors, and is in the midst of a scaled-up genocide? Professor Gideon Polya writes of the “the US-backed, Zionist Israeli mass murder of about 0.6 million Indigenous Palestinian[s]” — a number elided by legacy media. Why has Trump not described Israel as “dangerous”? And why isn’t the US dangerous since it has been constantly at war since its inception, and it is the only country that has used nukes against another nation?

Trump: “If the talks aren’t successful with Iran …”

But US nuclear talks with Iran already were successful. The Obama administration already achieved what constitutes a successful nuclear deal with Iran — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — since the deal was agreed to by both sides. It was the Trump administration which scuttled the deal, i.e., reversed a success. So the current situation exists because Trump undermined a previous deal, and the very fact that a deal was reached should be considered a success.

“… I think Iran is going to be in great danger,” Trump continued. “And I hate to say it, great danger, because they can’t have a nuclear weapon. You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That’s all there is.”

That is hardly a compelling argument. Because Trump says so. He may point to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but the US is also non-compliant with article 6 of the NPT.

Which nation is dangerous?

It is Israel and the US that are committing genocide in Gaza; Iran is not committing a genocide. Moreover, if you try to stop the genocide, then Trump will bomb you, civilian housing or not, as is the case in Yemen.

It is Israel murdering paramedics, covering up its crime, and lying about it.

It is Trump and Netanyahu’s aggressive moves toward Iran that are dangerous.

Indeed, an Israeli official said that Netanyahu wants “the Libya model” in Iran, which would require a complete tearing down of Iran’s nuclear program.

What was the outcome of the Libya model? Libya was disarmed, and the US and its Nato followers destroyed Africa’s wealthiest country, turning it into a dysfunctional state. That is likeliest the result that Israel wants for Iran.

Is the world to be based on inequality among its nations? If not, then a progressivist principle holds that each nation has an inalienable right to self-defense. One way to avert war is to balance the power. North Korea knows what happened to Libya. It is now nuclear armed and this serves as a deterrent to aggressive nations who might otherwise attack it. Iran knows this as well. Ask yourself: if Iran was nuclear armed would Israel and the US be foolish enough to attack Iran?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

I’m going to visit some of our guardians in the Space Force on the northwest coast of Greenland and also just check out what is going on with the security there of Greenland. As you know, it is really important: a lot of other countries have threatened Greenland and threatened to use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States, to threaten Canada and of course to threaten the people of Greenland, so we’re going to check out how things are going there. So speaking for President Trump, we want to reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland because we think it is important to protecting the security of the entire world. Unfortunately, leaders in both America and in Denmark I think ignored Greenland for far too long. That has been bad for Greenland. That has also been bad for the security of the entire world. We think we can take things in a different direction, so I am going to go check it out.

Vance says a lot of other countries have threatened Greenland (and Canada and the US). Trump points to Russia and China as threats to Greenland, without any evidence to back it up. It comes across clearly as blatant fearmongering, conjuring up a boogeyman and presenting the US as coming to the rescue.

Do Greenlanders feel afraid? If Canadians are afraid, it is about the threats the US made against Canadian sovereignty. A poll reveals that Canadians feel angry (57%), betrayed (37%), and anxious (29%) toward the Trump administration.

However, it is just silly to think Russia and China would risk world opprobrium to take over the world’s largest island, and for what? Resources and commodities that they can get by trading?

But there is a country that threatens Greenland.

Trump said to Greenland,

We strongly support your right to determine your own future. And if you choose, to welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. We’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security. And I think we are going to get it; one way or the other we are going to get it. [people can be heard laughing and booing] We will keep you safe. We will make you rich …

Trump is clearly speaking out both sides of his mouth, saying he respects Greenlanders right to self-determination and then making threatening comments that the US “one way or the other we are going to get it.”

Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen complained that the US is putting “unacceptable pressure” on Greenland and Denmark. During a DR broadcast, she stated, “It is pressure that we will resist.”

Former Greenland prime minister Múte Egede realizes that the US dream to annex, own, and control Greenland is serious and calls upon allied countries to declare their support for Greenland.

Jens-Frederik Nielsen who was sworn in as the prime minister of Greenland on Friday, 28 March responded to Trump: “President Trump says that the United States is getting Greenland. Let me be clear: the United States won’t get that. We do not belong to anyone else. We determine our own future.”

On Saturday, 29 March, Trump responded about the potential use of force to take over Greenland: “I never take military force off the table. But I think there is a good chance that we could do it without military force.”

Vance and Trump Criticize Denmark

Vance criticized Denmark: “Denmark has not kept pace and devoted the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and other nations.” Trump echoes that sentiment, saying that the waters around Greenland have “Chinese and Russian ships all over the place” and that the US will handle the situation.

Has anyone heard of any “very aggressive incursions” by Russia, China and other nations (presumably US-designated enemies, such as Iran and North Korea) into Greenland?

Trump doubles down: “We need Greenland, very importantly, for international security. We have to have Greenland. It’s not a question of, ‘Do you think we can do without it?’ We can’t.”

What Does US Investment and Security Look Like for Its Colonies?

“Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” Vance said. “You have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful land mass filled with incredible people.”

Does the US do right by its overseas territories? What about US investment in overseas territories it has previously annexed? About Puerto Rico, Ben Norton wrote, “Poverty is rising in one of the world’s oldest colonies: In Puerto Rico, 41.7% of people, including 57.6% of children, live in poverty. This is nearly four times the US rate. And Puerto Rican workers are getting poorer even while unemployment falls.” The US 2020 Census revealed that Guam has a poverty rate (20.2%) twice that of the US mainland. The same 2020 census indicated, “The percentage of families in poverty for the U.S. Virgin Islands showed a slight increase from 18.3% in 2009 to 18.6% in 2019. The same census reported a decrease for families in poverty in American Samoa; poverty declined to 50.7% in 2019 from 54.4% in 2009. Is this what Greenlanders can look forward to? In comparison, in 2023, the poverty rate in Greenland was 17.4%, as calculated at below 60% of the median equivalized income,¹ which is slightly above the EU average of 16.2%. However, the poverty rate in recent years has been on the rise in Greenland.

And what has US security meant for Puerto Ricans? From 1941 until 2001 the US Navy and US Marine Corps carried out bombing drills on nearby Vieques Island. Starting in 1999, protests drew attention to US militarism in its colonies. The departure of the US Navy “left the island peppered with remnants of undetonated bombs, PFAS chemicals, uranium, mercury, napalm and more. All of which are toxic materials known to have serious effects on human health along with generational impacts on the health of island youth.”

For Hawaiians? After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the island of Kaho’olawe (known as the Pacific’s Battered Bullseye) became a bombing range for the US until president George HW Bush ordered it shut down in 1990. The bombing was massive, designed to simulate the effects of a nuclear detonation. Huge 500-ton TNT charges created shock waves, vapor clouds, and sent rock and soil high into the sky, and destroyed the island’s only fresh-water aquifer.

For Micronesians? There is the ignominy of the 67 nuclear tests by the the United States in the Marshall Islands carried out between 1946 and 1958 with its concomitant fallout of radiation and the forced migration of tens of thousands of Marshall Islanders.

Even Greenland has been affected by the use of nuclear weapons by the US. In 1968, a B-52 bomber carrying four 1.1-megaton bombs crashed on the ice 19 kilometers (12 miles) from Thule, killing one crew member and leaking radioactive plutonium into Greenland’s waters. Reports of cancer and other illnesses surfaced among Danish and Kalaallit Thule Air Base workers.²

The Pentagon made a risible attempt at concealing the nuclear blunder at that time, even to the extent of one official stating: “I don’t know of any missing bomb, but we have not positively identified what I think you are looking for.”

Many people, including former Thule Air Base workers and Danish parliamentarians, state that an unexploded American hydrogen bomb also disappeared — serial number 78252. Niels-Jørgen Nehring, head of the state-sponsored DUPI [Danish Institute of International Affairs now called the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)], gave credence to the claim that a lost bomb remained off Thule.

The US Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) led to the forced relocation of the Inughuit. Obedient to US dictate, colonial Danish authorities illegally exiled 650 Inuit in May 1953 from Uummannaq, Pituffik, and neighboring locales to a tent community about 100 kilometers (62 miles) north in Qaanaaq, away from their ancestral lands. “They were given four days to abandon a home that had been theirs for almost 4,000 years. They have never been allowed back,” wrote Jørgen Dragsdahl.³ The ethnic cleansing from Thule Air Base was a precursor to the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Ilois from the erstwhile pristine coral atoll, Diego Garcia, in the Chagos archipelago by British and American governments to construct one of the largest US military bases outside the US.⁴

Insultingly, Greenlanders are also required to clean up the mess left by US military installations. Then US secretary of state Colin Powell rejected US responsibility, saying it had been transferred to Greenland where it would stay.

What do Greenlanders Want?

Polling results from 29 January 2025 indicate that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to exchange their present status to become a part of the US. Six percent wish to join the US and 9% are unsure. However, on the question of Greenland independence, if a referendum were held, 56%  would vote in favor, 28% would vote no, and 7% didn’t know how they would vote.

The US Track Record

The US has a track record. Trump and his chosen team are operating straight out of the CIA playbook. They will lie and cheat in order to steal the homeland of the Kalaallit. The US has done this many times already. The Chagossians were shipped to Mauritius. The Chamorro continue to strive for self-determination. Palauans finally achieved it, at least partially, by agreeing to a Compact of Free Association with the US which allows the US to operate military bases in Palau and make decisions concerning external security. The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in a US corporate coup. Indeed, the continental US is established through the genocide of the Indigenous nations that had inhabited the landmass for millennia before Europeans reached its shores.

As well, the US has a track record in Greenland. And as the current tariff war adduces, no ally (except, it seems, Israel) can feel secure in its relationship with the US.

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

How are Canadians supposed to feel about being threatened? How are Canadians to feel about the indignity of being brought economically to their knees? It calls to mind the invocation of Mexican revolutionary Emilio Zapatista who stated: “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”

The article opens:

The fresh attacks President Donald Trump aimed at Canada on Tuesday extended beyond imposing more tariffs on America’s neighbor and NATO ally, and laid out in the clearest terms yet his vision for annexing Canada and making it part of the United States.

Trump is a selfish, narcissistic, vain person (e.g., here and here), and that plays well to a certain audience. It is obvious from his pandering to the public, his name calling of others (e.g., referring to Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau as a governor of the 51st state), his preening with bold sharpie-signed documents held up for cameras, his declarations affecting others without first speaking to the others.

It is about Trump’s vision for Canada. It’s an all stick and no carrot approach. That is what annexation is: “possession taken of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission: The country’s annexation of its neighbor caused an outcry.”

Past and present Canadian governments (and the Canadians who elect so-called representatives to the parliament) are responsible for Canada’s exports being so reliant on the US market rather than diversifying its trade into other world markets.

It doesn’t have to stay that way. In fact, it is a rude wake-up call that Canada must not rely on the US to be a faithful and steadfast partner. Canada’s dignity and sovereignty¹ demand a change in the status quo.

Unlike China, Canada is unprepared for round two of a Trump administration.

The US economy is forecast by many commentators to be heading for a recession, something that Trump does not deny. China, on the other hand, has set its 2025 GDP growth target at around 5%. It seems futile to tie one’s ship-of-state to another sinking ship.

Canada says it will fight fire with fire, that it will reciprocate the US tariffs. This is a lose-lose proposition. Canada needs to get off its knees and seek a win-win, respectful relationship — something that China always promotes. No need to completely disengage with the US, but apply to BRICS and the BRI and develop relations with the Global South. Pursue a path that is best for Canadians.

ENDNOTE:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

White House etiquette is something else. I was quite taken aback by viewing how Donald Trump and JD Vance ganged up on their Ukrainian guest Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This is not to side with Zelenskyy who is a disagreeable personage to me; by refusing a security agreement, he set the stage for an unwinnable war against Russia which has condemned hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men to death.

Zelenskyy made some bizarre and distorted utterances during the videoed meeting. Nonetheless, there is a proper way for Trump and Vance to express disagreement. But diplomacy, etiquette, and niceties are often rare in the bullyverse of Trump.

Moreover, an often heard complaint from Trump is that things are not fair. Was it fair to have two native English speakers against one non-native English speaker?

Fairness

A common saying tells us that bees are more attracted to honey than vinegar. Maybe the Trump-led administration doesn’t give credence to this saying, or it believes it can bully others into submission — probably the latter. Trump believes he can use tariffs as a big stick to gain an upper hand in trade. Given the size of the US economy and its willingness to resort to violence to back its demands, smaller countries find themselves in a precarious situation. Without another big country’s backing, smaller countries are susceptible to regime change operations. Witness was happened to the Syrian government in late 2024.

Fortunately, China is willing to engage in win-win trade with other nations. The Chinese honey appears to be preferable for much of the Global South to the American vinegar. China is also a military power, and it can readily defend itself against any US military provocations. China is unlikely to let the US physically interfere in its trade arrangements with willing partners. Neither is Russia about to do this. This has led to a global realignment, one feature of which is the deepening relationships of China and Russia with African countries.

But the record shows that Donald Trump does not limit himself to smaller countries. During his first administration, Trump began a trade war with China, and he does not look to be letting up this time. Trump, however, considers the world as his oyster, to deal with as he pleases. Even the US’s erstwhile allies are targeted, including its northern neighbor, Canada.

Will Canada Supplicate Trump?

United States President Donald Trump sounded off during the first cabinet meeting of his second term, among other topics was that of Canadian sovereignty:

I say Canada should be our 51st state. There’s no tariffs, no nothing. And I say that we give them military protection. They have a very small military; they spend very little money on military. On NATO they are just about last in terms of payment because it’s not fair. It’s not fair that they’re not paying their way. And if they had to pay their way, they couldn’t exist.

Upon what basis does Trump claim that the US is protecting Canada? Because Canada is a member of NATO and NORAD? The latter allows the US military access into Canada, the junior partner in the relationship. And just who are these enemies that the US is purportedly protecting Canada from? Is there any country posing a credible military threat to Canada? If so, it seems that the US would come first to mind. If Canada is a willing and uncoerced member of certain military organizations, then Canada should abide by its agreed upon commitments. Canada does come up short of the 2% minimum of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending in NATO, but that 2% minimum is a guideline and not a hard-and-fast obligation. Trump speaks about fairness, but how fair is it that one NATO member gripes about what it determines another member’s contribution should be?

And why is Trump demanding 5% of each NATO member’s GDP as a contribution? This is alluded to by NATO:

To carry out its missions and tasks, NATO needs Allies to invest in interoperable, cutting-edge and cost-effective equipment. To that end, NATO plays an important role in helping countries decide how and where to invest in their defence.

Which country is best situated to reap the financial benefits of demanding interoperability among NATO members? According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the world’s leading seller of arms, the US, increased its arms sales from 34% in the period of 2014 to 2018 to 42% in the period of 2019 t0 2023. Adhering to the Trumpian definition of economic fairness, is it fair that the US with 4% of the world’s population should dominate arms sales, especially considering that interoperability is expected among NATO members?

The National Post listed Trump’s fickle justifications for engulfing Canada:

The rationale, at various points, have included: building up domestic American industry, preventing the illegal importation of fentanyl, stopping illegal border crossings, and reducing the United States’ modest trade deficit with Canada. Trump has also complained about the access of U.S. banks to Canadian markets and the amount of money the U.S. spends on continental defence.

The National Post questioned Trump’s facts: “he often says the United States subsidizes Canada between $100 billion and $200 billion. The trade deficit, in fact, is more like $32 billion, while America’s global trade deficit [is] around $1 trillion.”

Trump is unrestrained vis-à-vis the US’s biggest trade partner: “We don’t need them for the cars, we don’t need them for lumber. We don’t need them for anything. We don’t need them for energy, we have more energy than they do.”

Although Trump has claimed the US doesn’t need Canadian oil, economics analyst Sean Foo makes the case that the threat of tariffs is about getting more Canadian cheap oil.

A Snowball’s Chance in Hell

Among the many reasons, there is one area of deep importance that suffices to emphatically underline why Canadians will never allow themselves to become Americans under present conditions. Canadians are very fond of their medical-care-for-all system. The system is not perfect, and Canadians will complain about when the governments (health is a provincial jurisdiction) curtail funding; long waiting times; and the shortages of doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers. However, many Canadians have heard about the financial horrors that can be visited upon susceptible Americans who are without medical coverage. That is something the vast majority of Canadians would never countenance in their country.

Given the desire of most Americans for medical care for all (62% according to a Gallup poll conducted 6-20 November 2024) maybe they ought to clamor to become Canada’s 11th province.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

[A] coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

— Raphael Lemkin describes genocide¹

Protesters in Australia urge the government to back South Africa’s court case against Israel. (AAP Photo)

The US is Israel’s preeminent supplier of weapons. Since 7 October, the US has supplied Israel with F-15 jets, tank cartridges, explosive mortar cartridges, army vehicles, more than 10,000 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles. Obviously, the US is not a neutral party to the fighting between Israel and Palestine. In fact, the US’s involvement makes it a participant in a proxy war against the lightly armed Palestinian resistance, who have no fighter planes, no tanks, no Iron Dome.

Seeing an opportunity, US president Donald Trump declared that the US would take over the Gaza Strip. So said Trump in a White House press conference with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Of note is that Trump’s guest has an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes dating back to 8 October 2023.

Trump boasted, “We’ll own it … We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal … the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump stated that the Gaza Strip has been “a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades” and “an unlucky place for a long time.” Trump called on “countries of interest with humanitarian hearts” to build “various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza.”

Though the US will own it, according to Trump, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that there was no plan to put American boots on the ground in Gaza and that the US would not pay for Gaza reconstruction. Ownership without investment.

One imagines that Trump’s Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner, an investor who remarked in March 2024 that “Gaza’s waterfront property it could be very valuable,” must be rubbing his hands together with glee.

Of course, there was widespread consternation and condemnation of Trump’s plan to take over Gaza. It is blatantly illegal. There are several UN Security Council resolutions on the borders of Palestine, and UN Security Council resolutions are binding upon UN member states. Moreover, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory.”

Curiously, writer Pepe Escobar in an interview described Trump’s taking over Gaza as “transforming a genocide into an ethnic cleansing operation.” (around 15:30)

It seems that Escobar saw ethnic cleansing as diminishing the genocidal onslaught.

The UN Genocide Convention states in Article II that

genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Obviously, (b) and (c) would factor in when it comes to determination of a genocide versus ethnic cleansing.

Citing Trump’s figure of 1.8 million Palestinians to be transferred, whereas the Gaza population was given as 2.3 million prior to 7 October 2024, Escobar is among the analysts who have noted that the uncounted Palestinian population of 500 000 might portend a much higher fatality count that what is reported in the mass media.

Linguistic Accuracy

Previously, I wrote an article about an academic paper by public health researchers Rony Blum, Gregory H. Stanton, Shira Sagi and Elihu D. Richter. Blum et al. called for the expunging of the term “ethnic cleansing” from official use, declaring that it “bleaches the atrocities of genocide and its continuing use undermines the prevention of genocide.” The researchers noted, “The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is used as a euphemism for genocide despite it having no legal status.”

The researchers considered that mislabeling a genocide as ethnic cleansing might well provide cover for further killing. Consequently, they advocated

The researchers considered that mislabeling a genocide as ethnic cleansing might well provide cover for further killing. Consequently, they advocated linguistic accuracy so that agents of flagrant criminal actions will bear full culpability and responsibility. Blum et al. made a compelling case for ditching the term “ethnic cleansing” and calling genocide what it is. Given the abhorrence evoked by genocide, linguistic cleansing is required.

Arguably, of greater importance than linguistic accuracy though is the recognition and identification of the genocidaires. Blum et al. focused on countries outside their backyards and overlooked genocides perpetrated by their own countries. This is not only intellectually dishonest, but it detracts from the morality that implicitly underlies their position.

Ilan Pappe, author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, at first drew a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Did Pappe fudge on the question of genocide?

Pappe writes, “Massacres accompany the operations [of ethnic cleansing], but where they occur they are not part of a genocidal plan: they are a key tactic to accelerate the flight of the population earmarked for expulsion. (p. 2) [italics added]

“Ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but it does carry with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchery.” (p. 197) [emphasis added] Pappe is generous with the definition of “ethnic cleansing” (e.g., “part of the essence of ethnic cleansing is the eradication, by all means available, of a region’s history”) but parsimonious with the definition of “genocide.”²

My colleague Gary Zatzman wrote, in a personal communication (March 2007):

Here’s the thing about ethnic cleansing: it’s not the same as genocide. The latter [genocide] is consciously aimed at destroying the people-hood of a people by attacking how, as well as where, they live, their ideas, their outlook, their culture etc etc. The former [ethnic cleansing] displaces people, but the question of whether there is a genocidal intention, or merely a desire to take over the land and property of others, is left moot.

Ilan Pappe is one of those who fudges this question. He says what the Zionists do today in Gaza is genocide, but what they did in Mandate Palestine since 1947 and in the West Bank since 1967 was ethnic cleansing. DISINFORMATION ALERT! …

It is ALL genocide. The intention of the Haganah was to genocide the Palestinians. It’s very convenient to say, à la Golda Meir, that the Zionists didn’t think of the Palestinians as a people or nationality, just an inconvenient obstacle. The FACT is they prepared and executed genocide. It doesn’t matter, either, that the Zionists didn’t get all the Palestinians in one fell swoop, but have dragged it out over the last 58 years. It is still genocide. To suggest the survivors of the Judeocide were incapable of such a thing, which seems to be the only substance at the heart of the liberal Zionists’ argument, is utter nonsense. Were these survivors not psychically damaged by what they experienced before they were “liberated”? Such people were the ideal human material to set upon the Palestinians like wild beasts.

Perhaps the excellent analyst Escobar might reconsider his usage of the term “ethnic cleansing” — especially if referring to it as a lesser form of genocide.

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

An exemplar is Canada. Has Canada put too many of its eggs in its basket of trade with the United States?

Of course, Canada’s trade is not completely reliant on the United States, but it has cast its lot so much into the American camp that it has cut off or damaged opportunities to diversify its trade. As the junior partner, population-wise, in the trade partnership, Canada’s sovereignty and national dignity are being impugned in full view of Canadians and the rest of the world. US president Donald Trump, on the other hand comes off as a bully and a buffoon to the rest of the world, as well as critically thinking Americans.

Trump demeans Canada’s current prime minister (which isn’t hard to do), and by extension Canadians, by referring to Justin Trudeau as a governor of the 51st US state. He says he is going to impose a 25% tariff starting on 1 February because he claims that Canada is an unfair trader.

The accusation is absurd. Is the US forced to buy from Canada? Should Canada be required to buy items that it doesn’t need or want?

Trump says that the US doesn’t need Canada’s oil, lumber, etc. If so, then that is fine. Then just don’t buy. But by imposing tariffs, it comes across as an admission that US producers can’t compete on price and quality. Is America being made great again by not competing in an open market? If Canada is unfairly subsidizing or skirting the stipulations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA, a “free” trade agreement proposed by Trump and reached during his first term as president that eliminated most tariffs) or the World Trade Organization (WTO) then grieve the purported unfair trade practices according to the agreed-to mechanism in the trade agreements.

Canadian Relations with China

Outside of trade disputes, just how sovereign is Canada. Justin’s father, former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, likened the Canada-America relationship as a mouse sleeping next to an elephant. Pierre, however, had an independent streak. He went to establish relations with the People’s Republic of China in 1970 — before Richard Nixon in 1979.

Justin, though, has been reticent to stray from the American line.

·       Consequently, during the first Trump administration when Canada was asked/demanded to turn overMeng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei. Canada complied and held her under house arrest until the US agreed to drop the extradition request, with no charges forthcoming.

·       Canada even declined to engage with the world’s leading 5G provider Huawei, again at the behest of the US.

·       Even diplomatic niceties went by the wayside. Justin found himself confronted by People’s Republic of China chairman Xi Jinping about his divulging privileged discussion between the two of them. Trudeau didn’t have the decency at that time or afterwards to publicly apologize.

·       When the US pushed the narrative of a Chinese genocide being perpetrated by Han Chinese against Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, Canada joined in. The accusations were patently false and without evidence, rejected by the world’s Muslim-majority countries. Canada’s hypocrisy was revealed when Israel amplified its own genocide against Palestinians (as pointed to by the case brought to the World Court and the International Criminal Court). Canada continued to tout Israel’s right defend itself; i.e., in essence, supporting the right for an occupier to oppress and murderously deal with any resistance to occupation and oppression.

·       China is many thousands of kilometers across the Pacific Ocean from Canada. Yet, Canadian warships are engaged in provocative actions – what Canadian media calls “a high stakes global chess game” — in the Taiwan Strait.

·       After the US imposed 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, Canada followed suit with the same tariffs.

Trade Diversification

Fortunately, Chinese is not so pathetic as to hold a grudge. Besides, holding a grudge would be antithetical to developing good trading relations. Witness Argentina under Javier Milei leaving BRICS, and Milei’s undiplomatic remarks about communism. Nonetheless, China says it is ready to work with China despite Milei criticism such as likening China to an “assassin.” Eventually, Milei realized the economic necessity of deeper ties with China and Xi Jinpeng met with Milei. Milei’s about-face was described as “pragmatic collaboration.”

Will Canada realize the same need for pragmatic collaboration? The door is open as “China says it is ready to work with Canada despite Trudeau criticism.”

Although China is reducing its dependence on fossil fuels, China still desires energy, certain minerals, and other commodities that Canada can supply. Canada might best orient its economy to be accepting of opportunities that China (and other countries) might offer. It would be a seismic shift in orientation, but Canada might be best served by joining BRICS and considering what the Belt and Road Initiative has to offer.

While Trump browbeats and disparages its trading partners to gain the US an upper hand in trade relations, China professes that it is about win-win relations. Such win-win relations are logical and conducive to continued business and greater profit to all sides. Win-win is more likely to preserve continued trade relations and build a good reputation for prospective trade relations elsewhere, whereas taking advantage of a trade partner might well endanger continued trade relations and not promote a positive image among other potential trade partners.

Moreover, Chairman Xi will not demean Trudeau, or his successor, as a governor of China’s 24th province (China has 23 provinces sheng — which includes, of course, the island province of Taiwan — and the governor is a shengzhang. There are also five autonomous regions, 4 municipalities, and two special administrative regions). Chinese are skilled diplomats.

China is assuredly interested in trade with Canada. China may well be a partner for Canadian commodities (which Trump ridicules): oil, gas, lumber, minerals, wheat, other agricultural products, Canadian technology, an end to Chinese tariffs on Canadian canola oil (enacted in response to Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs), etc. China might even set up automobile plants to produce EVs for the Canadian market, preserving Canadian automobile jobs, and contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The Chinese economy is ascendant while the US is getting bogged down by exploding debt. Much of the US economic fortunes are dependent on the dollar as a fiat currency. Yet, the pace of dedollarization is increasing. Many European economies are sputtering. Asia and the Global South are rising. Canada has a choice.

Tit-for-tat is a common response to the erection of tariffs, but it harms consumers in all countries. Trade diversification is a superior strategy, and it is something that Canada trumpets and needs to act on. Much of the rest of the world is poised to diversify its trade away from US tariffs against them.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The conventional U.S. media treated the ominous events as a tale of the daily lives of two individuals — Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and Bashar al-Assad — Jesse James vs the evil banks. Amidst their entertaining stories are misinterpretations, lack of depth in analysis, and inattention to details. More valid discussion of a momentous event and where the United States is centered in the crisis are helpful.

Bashar Assad had already fallen.
With half the population displaced or out of the country, with sanctions depriving the people of energy, and with foreign forces wandering at will throughout the countryside, Syria navigated on fumes. Its government hardly breathed. Assad had already fallen. Considering the coming winter chill, he decided to change residences.

The U.S. had no fingers in the cookie jar.
What a whopper.

• Is it a coincidence that the U.S. supported Syrian Democratic Forces launched an attack on villages in the northern countryside of Deir Al Zor province on Tuesday, December 3?
• Is it a coincidence that, on Nov 12, U.S. Central Command in Eastern Syria said, “it had carried out attacks against ‘Iranian backed groups’ in Syria, hitting nine targets at two separate locations in the country over the previous 24-hour period.”
• Didn’t the U.S. air force bomb, strafe, and repulse militias from the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces, who tried to enter Iraq and assist the Syrian military?
• Why did the “US A-10s, B-52s, target dozens of ISIS sites in Syria? Air Force planes dropped roughly 140 munitions on a ‘very broad’ gathering of ISIS fighters early Sunday morning (December 8).” Why weren’t the attacks done before the walkover? Obvious answer ─ previously the U.S. encouraged ISIS’ needling the Syrians. Now, Uncle Sam did not favor ISIS needling the new favorites in the neocon world.

Another U.S. counterproductive and foreign policy failure.
U.S. foreign policy initiatives have one common thread ─ counterproductive and homicidal.

• Calculated to prevent North Vietnam from obtaining control of all of Vietnam, 10 years of war resulted in 1-2 million Vietnamese casualties and North Vietnam obtaining control of Vietnam.
• Fifty years of a Cold War struggle, in which the United States inflicted casualties on millions around the world, designed to prevent the Soviet Union from extending its hammer and sickle and challenge U.S. hegemony, resulted in a Russia that extends its territory and vigorously challenges U.S. hegemony.
• U.S. troops, sent on a mission to feed and stabilize Somalia, shot up the place, paved the road for al-Shabaab, a Salafi terrorist organization, and scurried out of an anarchic Somalia.
• The U.S. fought twenty years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with…..the Taliban.
• The U.S. invasion of a moribund Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, alleged as an opportunity to remove an international threat, triggered the emergence of a parade of international threats, which terrorized the Fertile Crescent, and solidified the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces that challenge the U.S. in Iraq. These forces ally with Iran, which the U.S. State Department considers an international threat. The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901 – 210,296 violent civilian deaths during the Iraq war. In 2007, due to sectarian violence that emerged from the U.S. invasion, Iraq had about 4 million displaced persons. Between January 2014 and August 2015, 2.9 million persons fled their homes in three new mass waves of displacement following offensives by ISIL.
• Together with NATO, the U.S. replaced Muammar Gaddafi, who suppressed al-Qaeda terrorists, with the same terrorists, and engineered the creation and arming of several terrorists groups in North Africa.
• After sending its military into Syria’s civil war, a war that estimated deaths at about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, with defined purpose of preventing ISSIS from seizing control of Syria, the U.S. enabled Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the successor to al-Qaeda’s previous partner, Al-Nusra Front, to seize control of Syria.

The release of dissidents from prisons was an incomplete story.
Media attention to Saydnaya prison, “which had become synonymous with arbitrary detention, torture and murder,” would have been genuine if the same attention had been given to similar prisons in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The horrific incarcerations of dissidents in the three mentioned countries cannot be adequately described in less than a 1000 page book. Here are some details.

Israel has, by magnitudes, exceeded Syria in the number of detainees of Palestinian dissidents.

On 11 December 2012, the office of then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stated that since 1967, 800,000 Palestinians, or roughly 20% of the total population and 40% of the male population, had been imprisoned by Israel at one point in time. According to Palestinian estimates, 70% of Palestinian families have had one or more family members sentenced to jail terms in Israeli prisons as a result of activities against the occupation.

From the New Yorker magazine, March 21, 2024, “The Brutal Conditions Facing Palestinian Prisoners”:

Israel has also detained thousands of Palestinians from Gaza; prisoners who have described extensive physical abuse from Israeli forces, and, already, at least twenty-seven detainees from Gaza have died in military custody. At the same time, Israeli forces have arrested thousands more Palestinians, mostly from the West Bank, at least ten of whom have reportedly died in Israel prisons.

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (P.C.A.T.I.), a non-governmental organization, established in 1990, represents Palestinians and Israelis who claim to have been tortured by Israeli authorities. In the New Yorker article, they claim,

We’re currently looking at almost ten thousand Palestinian detainees from the West Bank and Gaza…We know that the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) has been banned from visiting all Israeli prisons since October 7th. We also know—through evidence that P.C.A.T.I. and other N.G.O.s have collected—of what we view as systemic abuse and violence by prison guards toward Palestinian detainees since October 7th. We’ve documented nineteen different incidents of torture and abuse in seven different Israel Prison Service (I.P.S.) facilities by different I.P.S. units, all of which have led us to believe that we’re looking at a policy rather than just isolated incidents.

Although the number of arbitrary executions in Saydnaya prison is not known, much mention is made of the executions. Passing mention is made of the hundreds of arbitrary executions of Palestinians in the West Bank, shot while escaping Israeli military, and the tens of thousands murdered in Gaza.

Where are investigations into the number of dissidents held in Saudi and Egypt jails. We read of constant executions in Saudi Arabia and pay no attention to the reports. No execution has matched the grisly slicing and dicing of Saudi journalist, Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, “who was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018 by agents of the Saudi government.”

We now have good terrorists.
Questioned, in a CNN interview, as to why the U.S. accepts HTS, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and with a $10m bounty on its leader, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan replied, “The group at the vanguard of this rebel advance, HTS, is actually a terrorist organization designated by the United States. So we have real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization. At the same time, of course, we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure. So it’s a complicated situation.”

Placed in words often described to the hypocritical U.S. government, “Yes, they are bad guys and they are a terrorist organization, but they are our bad guys and they are our terrorist organization.”

We know where Assad is; where is the United States?
Uncle Sam’s voices to the world give their usual empty and meaningless words to a packed and meaningful event — closely monitoring, historic opportunity, a moment of risk and uncertainty, work together with allies and partners to urge de-escalation and protect U.S. personnel and military positions, and strongly support a peaceful transition of power.

The U.S. should be forced to answer why it did not use its power to prevent a Civil War that caused an estimated deaths of about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, and why it has not used its power to insist that the more democratically inclined opposition in Syria be immediately given leading roles in the new Syrian government. Isn’t it dangerous to have Mohammed al-Bashir, a deputy in Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s National Salvation Front, serve as “acting” prime minister for Syria’s transitional government. Will Mohammed al-Bashir “act” for one month, one year, or one decade?

It’s becoming shameful to be a U.S. citizen.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Prior to the election, I asked whether Americans would vote for genocide? Clearly, if a voter was paying attention, which is, arguably, a sine qua non for a person about to responsibly cast a vote, then a voter would have been aware that a genocide was (and still is) being perpetrated by the Jewish State against Palestinians, and that this genocide was (and still is) being abetted by the US government. The Democratic administration headed by proud Zionist Joe Biden (aka Genocide Joe) and his partner in genocide, Kamala Harris, have been integral to the carrying out of the genocide. The main opponent, or the only opponent as the US monopoly media portrays it, was another arch Zionist, Donald Trump of the Republican Party who pledged to support Israeli war aims.

Was it damned if you do and damned if you don’t?

No. As pointed out previously, a voter could have selected a candidate opposed to horrific Israeli war crimes against Palestinians; for example, Cornel West, Libertarian Chase Oliver, and candidate Jill Stein.

So, Americans did not have to cast a vote for a candidate who backs genocide.

Given the overwhelming casting of votes for the genocide-abetting Harris and Trump, one possible conclusion is that Americans were ignorant of the consequences of what their vote would support. More sinister is that Americans knew that their vote would further the Jewish Israeli genocide of Palestinians. If so, this would, arguably, signify that Americans voters have a lack of compassion for other humans, insouciance for the Other, or a hatred of the Other. It might be argued that Americans merely voted for the candidate who they considered would be best for the economy and a better life at home in the US. However, were that so, it would still be damning, as it would indicate their personal economic fortunes take precedence over their country destroying the lives and economy of other human beings.

The US election produced a damning result. And with Trump loading his incoming cabinet with Zionists this augurs poorly for a peaceful and loving world.

Given the composition of many western governments which are indifferent to the plight of Palestinians, it can be surmised that the voting class of such countries display likewise, a lamentable ignorance or insouciance.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

“Joe Biden and the neo-cons in his administration have been constantly escalating war… What they’re trying to do is start a war that Donald Trump can’t stop,” warns Dore about a potential WWIII.

“The only hope we have is that Putin shows restraint, that he is the only adult in the room and that he can hold off somehow until Donald Trump becomes president,” Dore opined in an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

Is that the only hope? One can certainly come up with many other hopes. For example, a mass mobilization by US citizenry in Washington, DC. A general strike carried out by Americans, Canadians, and Europeans repulsed by their neocon-affiliated politicians. Or that Pentagon generals speak out vociferously and publicly against such dangerous provocations against Russia. Or that people charged with inputting the coordinates for missiles targeting Russia refuse to do so.

Far-fetched? Maybe so, but isn’t that what a hope is — something far outside of the realm of a certainty?

Or is Trump the only feasible hope? And can Trump be trusted? How many promises did he fail to come through on during his first term as president?

Dore asserts that “Trump is not a warmonger” and that he “got elected on ending our foreign regime-change interventionist wars.”

Trump may very well have been elected on the basis of ending foreign interventions by the US. However, that does not excuse him from being a warmonger.

Early in the first Trump presidency, he sent in US fighters who killed dozens of Yemeni civilians, including children. Trump was now a war criminal.

Did Trump end the US war on Afghanistan? No, he sent more American troops to Afghanistan.

Did Trump end the US war on Syria? No. In fact, Trump said the troops would remain because “We’re keeping the [Syrian] oil.”

Did Trump seek peaceful relations with Iran? No. In fact, Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA which was designed to halt Iran’s potential for becoming a nuclear-armed state. Trump’s strategy has set the stage for further nuclear proliferation. And if that was not enough, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

However woeful the Biden presidency has been, one ought not to forget the first Trump presidency. Trump has a track record. It seems prudent to remove the rose-colored glasses and take into consideration that track record.

But Trump was pressured by those around him. Trump had mistakenly saddled himself with warmongering neocons in his previous administration like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, etc. But is he different now?

Trump’s new for Director of national security policy in the White House, Sebastian Gorka, exhibited his diplomatic decorum by referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin as a “murderous former KGB colonel, that thug.” According to Gorka, Trump is going to threaten Putin by telling him: “You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.” Which serious-minded observers believe that Putin is now shaking in his pants?

Does this inspire hope in Trump?

Finally, does anyone have an iota of hope that Trump will do right in the Middle East when it comes to Israel?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

So, how can Americans signal their abhorrence for genocide?

Americans have been locked in a pattern of voting for the political duopoly: either wing of the business party. It is widely held that on most major matters there is little to separate the Democrats and Republicans. And this has led to many Americans voting based on whichever party is perceived to be the lesser evil.

Despite this lesser evilest-inspired voting, the election results have resulted in the presidency and congressional majority rotating between the Democrats and Republicans with little change in the US trajectory. As far as the US economy is concerned, the country has continued to increase its debt burden. As far as US foreign policy is concerned, the US has continued to wage wars abroad. As far as support for democracy is concerned, the US has continued to initiate coups against governments it does not approve of. As far as Israel is concerned, it continues to enjoy steadfast support from the duopoly.

One commonly heard refrain posits that continually resorting to the same action with expectation of a different result meets the definition of insanity. The expectation of lesser-evilist voting producing a significantly different outcome on the political scene given that such action has never brought about a change before speaks disparagingly to the strategy of lesser-evilist voting.

Being considered insane, however, is less disparaging than being considered immoral. That would be shameful.

Given the nugatory outcomes of lesser-evilist voting, another proposition comes to mind:

Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me.

There are two candidates seen as frontrunners for the presidency of the United States. However, the Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, and the Republican Party candidate, Donald Trump. Both stand solidly behind the Zionist entity dba as the state of Israel, and neither of these candidates will exert pressure on Israel to cease and desist in its commission of war crimes. In fact, the US funds Israel, arms Israel, and has situated its military and armaments in the region in support of Israel. This is despite Israeli officials openly calling for the eradication of Palestinians, causing a case to be brought against Israel charging it with genocide in the International Court of Justice.

The upshot of this is that a vote for either Harris or Trump must be considered as a vote for genocide. The only out for a voter to escape criticism for supporting genocide is, pathetic as it may be, ignorance.

What can Americans do to avoid supporting genocide? One can always abstain from voting. That, however, would not be fighting against genocide. Moreover, abstaining would still allow the supporters of genocide to vote for a genocidaire as president.

Strangely enough, many Americans seem oblivious to the existence of other presidential candidates that one can vote for. One can even cast a vote for a candidate opposed to Israeli crimes against Palestinians. To wit, there is candidate Cornel West who calls 7 October a “counter-terrorism response“; Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver has pledged to end the genocide; candidate Jill Stein has a platform Pledge to Stop Genocide.

Unfortunately, in a winner-take-all voting system, one must consider how the strong individual desire to attain political office plays against a tactical and selfless decision to coalesce around one anti-genocide candidate to increase the chances of shutting down a genocide in progress.

Voting in the US elections on 5 November 2024 is an opportunity to indicate one’s abhorrence to genocide. Elementary morality demands a vote for an opponent of genocide.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The Ukrainian president has succeeded most brazenly in getting himself, and the war effort, into the innards of the US presidential election.  In doing so, he has become an unabashed campaigner for the Democrats and the Kamala Harris ticket while offering uncharitable views about the Republicans.  (Electoral interference, anyone?)  The Republican contender, Donald Trump, had good reason to make the following observation about Zelenskyy: “Every time he comes into the country he walks away with $60 billion … he wants them [the Democrats] to win this election so badly.”

Even as a lame duck president, Joe Biden could still be wooed to advance another aid package.  This seemed to be done, as the White House records, on threadbare details about Zelenskyy’s “plan to achieve victory over Russia.”  According to the readout, diplomatic, economic and military aspects of the plan were discussed.  “President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win.”

Detail was also scarce in a briefing given by White House national security spokesperson John Kirby.  Zelenskyy’s plan to end the war “contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that [he] believes will be important”.

In a statement, Biden announced that he had directed the Department of Defense to allocate the rest of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds by the end of the year along with US$5.5 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority.  The US$2.4 billion from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is intended to supply Ukraine “with additional air defense, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and air-to-ground ammunitions, as well as strengthen Ukraine’s defense industrial base and support its maintenance and sustainment requirements.”

In terms of materiel, an additional Patriot air defence battery is to be furnished to Ukraine’s air defences, along with additional Patriot missiles. Training for Ukrainian F-16 pilots is to be expanded.  The air-to-ground Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), colloquially known as glide bombs, will also be supplied.

Ukraine’s fate is being annexed to the US election campaign, with the Ukrainian president keen to make his own boisterous intervention in the election.  On September 22, Zelenskyy paid a visit to a military facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  It was calculated for maximum effect.  The facility is not only responsible for manufacturing some of the equipment being used in the war against Russia, notably 155-millimeter howitzer rounds, but is a crucial state for the presidential contenders.  On hand to join him was a full coterie of Democrats: Gov. Josh Shapiro, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Representative Matt Cartwright (D-8^th District)

Harris is clear that any administration she leads will see no deviation from current policy.  Peace proposals were to be scoffed at, while prospects for a Ukrainian victory had to be seriously entertained.  Stopping shy of playing the treason card in remarks made on September 26, Harris claimed that there were those “in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations.”  And such types had endorsed “proposals” identical to “those of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

That message of sanctimonious chest beating was also embraced by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who could only see Zelenskyy as a fighter “for freedom and the rule of law on behalf of democracies around the world” while “Trump and his craven MAGA followers side time and again with Vladimir Putin,” one responsible for a “filthy imperialist and irredentist invasion.”  Clearly, the Zelenskyy promotions tour has exercised some wizardry.

The full soldering of Ukrainian matters to US electoral politics has received a frosty response from various Republicans.  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) demanded nothing less than Zelenskyy’s dismissal of the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.  “Ambassador Markarova organised an event in which you toured an American manufacturing site.”  The tour took place “in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited.”

Those on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, seething at Zelenskyy’s electoral caper, have launched an investigation into the possibility that taxpayer funds had been misused to the benefit of the Harris presidential campaign.  Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), in a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, noted that, as the Department of Justice was “highly focused on combatting electoral interference, the Committee requests DOJ review the Biden-Harris Administration’s coordination with the Ukrainian government regarding President Zelensky’s itinerary while in America.”

Comer could not resist a pertinent reminder that the Democrats had made much the same charge against Trump while in office in 2019. That occasion also featured Zelenskyy, only that time, the accusation was that Trump had used him “to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump.”

GOP dissatisfaction is far from unreasonable.  Zelenskyy’s sojourn is nothing less than a sustained effort at electoral meddling, the sort of thing that normally turns US exceptionalists into rabid hyenas complaining of virtue despoiled.  Only this time, there are politicians and officials in freedom’s land happy to tolerate and even endorse it.  At stake is a war to prolong.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Doctorow accused Ritter (starting about 21:30) of stomping across redlines that any person familiar with Russia should have been aware of. Doctorow didn’t specifically state what any of these redlines might be.

He also accused Ritter of violating FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), albeit he conceded that was not for him to judge.

Says Doctorow,

My concern is [that] two generations of Americans have not understood the Cold War and how you behave in circumstances when you are backing the cause or at least sympathetic to the cause or even understanding the cause of an [US] adversary. How do you avoid becoming Tokyo Rose [as English-speaking female radio propagandists for Japan were called]?

In other words, Doctorow is accusing Ritter of being a (perhaps unwitting) propagandist for Russia as well as not knowing how to behave in certain circumstances. In other words, Doctorow (who has his academic credentials highlighted as “Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.”) comes across as questioning the intellectual rigor of Ritter.

An additional redline, according to Doctorow,

And, you do not accept payments of any kind, or of favors, like travel. That is air travel, hotels, and the rest of it. You do not touch that. If it is being offered to you by a country, by a foreign country, particularly a foreign country that is in such hostile relations with the United States. (23:50)

… Ritter has “exposed himself to [violating FARA] charges by admitting he received money from RT and so forth.” (29:45)

Such an argument is problematic for many reasons. According to Doctorow, any journalistic work with a hostile country must be unpaid. Journalism, for many, is a paying job. It is a means to be reimbursed for one’s time, effort, training, and skill. Yet Doctorow proffers that in certain circumstances a journalist should forgo payment.

If US authorities do not explicitly decree that journalism relaying the situation or views of a certain foreign country is prohibited, then how is one to know?

Besides, do Americans not have an inalienable right to know? Or is knowledge/information/data to be solely the prerogative of the US government to determine what citizens can be exposed to? Is gaining insight to what the other side is saying to be prohibited? Americans will just have to trust that their government knows best; for instance, that Viet Nam had fired missiles at US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, that Iraq had weapons-of-mass-destruction, that Syrian government forces had carried out chemical weapon attacks, that there is no genocide in Palestine.

Does the First Amendment in the US not protect freedom of speech and the press? Because if one has to pay to fly to Russia, pay for hotels, transportation, and meals in Russia, then only those with the means to self-finance such an endeavor are likely to provide information — with potential for bias from the well-to-do perspective. If reporting on Russia has to be done out of the pocket of a journalist, this sounds like a good way to censor journalism. It is censorship that limits the rights of those who want to work as a journalist and also denies the rights of readers/viewers of such journalism.

If it wasn’t largely for Ritter then how many people would have known about Iraq having been “fundamentally disarmed”? More recently, if not for Ritter, how many people would have heard that the Bucha massacre of scores of civilians blamed on Russia and reported as such by the stenographers in western monopoly media was a fabrication for killings carried out by Ukrainians?

People and the interests behind them seek to control information. They want to prevent certain information from reaching an audience and they’d like a certain narrative, even disinformation, to reach that audience.

If knowledge is power (not a corrupting power, it is hoped), then it should not be controlled by the already powerful, it should be a liberatory force to empower the masses.

Don’t Be a Yes Man

There are different types of contrarians depending on whether those who we are talking to are in agreement or disagreement.

We are encouraged to be critical thinkers. We are taught to value leadership. However, there is a type of person called a Yes Man (or Yes Woman). This is a weak person who always supports whoever is in a position of power, rightly or wrongly. Yes Men are dangerous.

There are plenty of bad laws on the books. One aphorism holds that laws are meant to be broken. This is too simplistic. But some bad laws should be broken and taken off the books.

Don’t follow bad leaders or bad laws. Ritter is a contrarian to the fetid state. He has the courage to oppose censorship, bad thinking, and following bad laws.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Ritter’s anti-imperialist stand is nothing new. He first came to wider attention with his opposition to US plans to attack Iraq for having weapons-of-mass-destruction. Ritter, the then United Nations weapons inspector, said that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed.” History has proven Ritter correct. The US government was wrong.

Nonetheless, many patriots often trot out the canard “my country, right or wrong.”

Scott Ritter, a former US marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector, is a fierce critic of US militarism. Yet, he does not equivocate when it comes to his patriotism: “I’m an American Patriot who puts my country and its security first.”

This fidelity called patriotism is universal. For example, it is one of the 12 goals of socialism in China. Generally, it is understood to mean “love of country.” Thus, the Chinese characters for love and country.

Patriotism: “devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country.”

To vigorously support one’s country? Right or wrong? And what exactly is a country? Is it specific to a geographically defined dimension?

Country: “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.”

This definition of country does not clarify precisely the orbit of patriotism. Is it government? It couldn’t be that because people, who consider themselves to be patriots, in countries with elections are often voting governments out. And one can often hear citizens venting displeasure with their government. Does this mean they are not patriots? Ritter, undeniably, does not hide his displeasure with government.

Nation: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

Well, the United States often describes itself as a melting pot: “a term that was used to describe Americanization in which immigrants adopt American culture and abandon culture from their home country.”

So, US culture is the result of abandoned cultures?

Previously, I asked why people like Scott Ritter and colonel Douglas Macgregor keep professing their love of the US while pointing out its dishonesty, bullying, war crimes, warmaking, corruption, etc. Why love such a country?

Ritter points out the multitudinous crimes of US empire, the racism, the crimes against whistleblowers and publishers (e.g., Julian Assange), the crimes of US allies (e.g., Israel; it took him a while to realize the evil of Zionism, but credit to him that he rejected a previously held position that he later found to be intellectually and morally untenable), the unfair “trade” practices (e.g., sanctions, theft of another country’s assets), the deterioration of US infrastructure (e.g., water in Flint, MI), the destruction of the environment, the inequality, homelessness, poverty, etc. Yet, he always says he is an American patriot and that he loves his country.

The logical disconnect seems huge, but it is also understandable. Why? If Ritter didn’t praise his American citizenship to the heavens, then he would likely be dismissed as anti-American, and people who swallow the patriotism Kool-aid would tune him out. A sad state of affairs.

If Ritter, Macgregor, and other American voices that speak in opposition to the imperialist agenda did not profess their love of the US of America, an entity that came into existence because of a massive genocide, then they all know that they would be silenced.

The world needs contrarian voices to be free to speak, and not just contrarian voices, all voices. People must have the opportunity to consider what the voices say. Are their facts verifiable, is their logic sound, and is their message morally based?

Ritter educates many of us about US militarism, what the fighting in Ukraine is about, who the actors are and why they are involved.

Back to Maupin

I do not always agree with Ritter, and I have expressed some of my reservations and my reasons for them. Likeliest, Ritter would like to revisit and amend some of his formulations, as most of us would. But Ritter is a cut above; he is experienced; he does his homework; he talks straight and extemporaneously.

A friend who started checking out Ritter’s geopolitical views on my recommendation, came across disturbing news about Ritter and asked me about it. The news of the FBI raid on Ritter’s domicile, has provided the monopoly media the opportunity to dredge up his past indiscretions and criminal activities. However, these should not just be brushed aside or dismissed. And neither should Ritter’s views be brushed aside. Whatever the facts are of the unsavory matter, Ritter had been punished. Now the state is piling on. Because past actions are past, we cannot undo them; the best we can do is atone.

Some might question whether a person with certain criminal deficiencies could be trusted about their reporting on geopolitics and militarism? The answer seems obvious. The focus ought to be on whatever information, from whoever. By all means, take into account the source; regarding the information, take what is good and factual and relegate what is bad and dubious to a lesser file.

Ritter is an important voice. The assumption is that the FBI raid was only about Ritter’s expressing his first amendment rights. Regardless, I have no problem to standing in solidarity with Ritter against imperialism, warring, and Zionism.

The common refrain “I love my country…” is almost mandatory in the US if uttering any criticism of the state. As ex-military and a declared patriot, Ritter had created a space to function as a critic of the international crimes of America. That space appears to have severely narrowed. To express non-allegiance with America – despite it being a moral abomination – would invite the wrath of the state. For one, these critics would be slandered and have their communication platforms targeted, as Maupin knows well since his book Kamala Harris & the Future of America was banned by Amazon. This is another example of the government and its allies undermining free speech.

As Maupin said in the video, an injustice to one is an injustice to all. It is a call for the free speech rights of Ritter, and it emphasizes the same rights for all of us.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

In this era of internet and instant communication, information on the monstrous crimes of Zionism is available for people who make an effort to be aware. Take that information and apply open-minded skepticism. Ask whether the evidence substantiates the information and its narrative.

Israeli Jews are carrying out genocide against Palestinians (something that has been ongoing for decades). Eliminating a grouping of people from existence is heinous enough, but there is also the horrific matter of what happens to the victims of Zionists before they are killed.

Redacted interviewed Dan Cohen of Uncaptured Media to report a bloodlust where Israelis are torturing and raping Palestinian prisoners, and that Israeli protestors are in the streets claiming Israelis have a right to rape these prisoners.

Cohen is in Israel telling of “the shock and trauma and hate and racism pulsing through the veins of Israeli society ….” This is exemplified by the fact that the Israeli military-run prison with its Palestinian captives:

…is not about gaining intelligence, at all. It is not about finding Israeli captives in Gaza, at all. What happens there [in the prisons] is about the most cruel punishment. It is torture with electric shock, beating, severe beatings, where if you talk to someone you are beaten until your teeth break, until your bones break, if you fall asleep, these kinds of things. People are, as we know, anally raped. Prisoners are killed. There are many who are murdered. They just never come out…. These are just [Palestinian] civilians, cause all their fighters are underground. So they take civilians from the neighborhoods, and just take them there and torture them and kill them, even top doctors. I think it is 39 medical professionals from Gaza have ah, I believe, been killed in there… (5:30 to 7:15)

Non-Zionist Jews, Jews opposed to the crimes of Zionists, must speak out against the evil, otherwise their silence may be criticised as complicity. The non-Zionist Jews are faced with the challenge of how to get their humanist message widely disseminated in opposition to Zionism.

One grouping of Jews that opposes Zionism and supports Palestinian rights is Jewish Voices for Peace. Rebecca Vilkomerson and Rabbi Alissa Wise, two leaders and former staff of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) have written Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from Jewish Anti-Zionist Organizing (Haymarket Books, 14 May 2024), which covers the period from 2010-2020.

Omar Barghouti, Palestinian human rights defender and cofounder of the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for Palestinian rights, wrote the foreword to the book. Barghouti notes the difference of JVP from other progressivist Jewish organizations:

Instead of the typical Jewish American PEP (progressive except on Palestine) culture, JVP has helped a PIP culture—progressive including on Palestine …

In the face of overwhelming Jewish American support for Zionism and Israeli apartheid, JVP has insisted on growing the anti-Zionist movement to dismantle the myth of Israel’s representation of all Jews and, along with it, the complicity of the Jewish Zionist establishment in securing mainstream support in the US for funding, arming, and enabling Israel’s regime of oppression.

As Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love relates, JVP has grown and morphed over time from the “first mass Jewish civil disobedience in the Rotunda of the US Congress” to later “large-scale protests at a level none of us can remember.” (p 2) “JVP grew larger as it shifted to the left and altered the public narrative about Palestinian liberation while creating a space for Judaism beyond Zionism.” (p 2-3) JVP did not declare itself anti-Zionist until early in 2019; however, it was noted that the proportion of anti-Zionist members and staff has grown over time. (p 13)

When Haymarket Books shared the e-galley, I was informed that the authors are available for interviews. With that in mind, seven days ago I sent some questions.

The first question was based on Vilkomerson and Wise’s definition of solidarity: “as when people outside a specific community dedicate themselves to supporting the rights and aspirations of that community, taking direction on what actions to take from the community itself.” (9) Since solidarity is the leitmotif for the book, why is it that JVP identifies as Jewish voices rather than, for example, Human Voices for Peace? The name seems to set limits on solidarizing with non-Jews within its organization?

However, there is something of a work around in the book: “What did it mean to be a member if you weren’t Jewish? … So, we relied on people self-identifying as members and didn’t spend time gatekeeping peoples’ Jewishness.” (p 55) “We believe movement building is the only way to realize the world all people deserve.” (p 80)

I also asked about the propriety of donating to JVP as opposed to donating to Palestinian movements.

The Zionist NGO Monitor complains that “JVP’s funding sources are not transparent.” NGO Monitor further criticizes JVP, saying that the JVP “regards the organized Jewish community as its ‘enemy’ and ‘opponent,’ …. The strategy, as stated by JVP’s executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson, is to create ‘a wedge’ within the American Jewish community to generate the impression of polarization over Israel.” For those who are opposed to Zionist oppression of Palestinians such criticism ought to be considered as a badge of honor by the JVP.

Moreover, JVP criticizes

Israel’s ongoing apartheid policies of administrative detention—holding Palestinians without charge or trial—left Palestinians stranded in prison indefinitely. At the same time, home demolitions are a daily occurrence, with more than nine thousand structures destroyed since 2009.1 In addition to the daily indignities faced by Palestinians at checkpoints, Jewish-only settlements proliferated in the West Bank, siphoning water, developing a network of Jewish-only roads connecting the settlements to Israel, and bringing into Palestinian communities thousands of armed settler vigilantes, who regularly harassed and violently attacked Palestinians, vandalizing their property with the blessing of the Israeli army, felling ancient olive trees, and shooting at Palestinians that need to cross Jewish-only roads to reach their farms or graze their flocks. In Gaza, the situation became even more dire for Palestinians after Jewish settlers were removed in 2005, when Israel turned Gaza into an open-air prison, maintaining an illegal siege by controlling what goes in and out by air, land, and sea. (p 6)

Sounds good, sounds progressivist.

I wondered about the JVP stance on two-state vs one-state. The authors wrote, “… as a group of people in the US it was not JVP’s place to determine the number of states at all, but instead to do what we could to support a liberatory future.” (p 14)

That’s fine. But what about whether Palestine should be recognized as a state, something Israel is vehemently opposed to? An online search reveals that JVP often refers to the “state of Palestine.” This earned JVP further scorn from the NGO Monitor.

JVP takes many progressivist positions.

JVP acknowledges overwhelming Jewish communal support for Israel but sees its role as “just one prong in a multifaceted movement, led by Palestinians in the US and Palestine.” (p 16)

JVP questions its own Jewish composition: “Ashkenazi Jews colluded with and assimilated into whiteness, Jewish voices (whether Ashkenazi or not) were routinely privileged above Palestinian voices” (p 40) and its hierarchical structure. (p 61)

JVP recognizes “the weaponization of antisemitism, specifically in connection with anti-Zionism,” (p 99) and sees solidarity as the key to overcoming the Zionism that Palestinians endure drives them into isolation from violent domination. (p 102) “JVP, from the very start, has been guided by the exact opposite principle, that writ large we live in an interdependent world, that we all deserve safety, and that the way to gain safety is through solidarity.” (p 103)

Paradoxically, solidarity in a worthy cause might require splittism. Vilkomerson and Wise write, “Decoupling Jews from Israel and Jewishness from Zionism are therefore essential to the struggle against real antisemitism, toward realizing Jewish safety, and, of course, for Palestinian liberation.” (p 108)

The authors see solidarity as an expression of love:

Whatever your version of solidarity, may you practice it as an expression of love. A love that manifests as raging at the world as it is, and at the same time developing smart, intentional plans to realize the world as it should be. (p 215)

The ways in which Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza exceeds the horror of nearly all wars in recent memory are too long to list: more children killed, more journalists killed, more bombs dropped, more homes destroyed, more internally displaced people, more targeting of hospitals, schools, mosques, churches and refugee camps. That’s because it’s simply not a war – it’s a genocide. (p 218)

The genocide of 186,000 Palestinians (likeliest a depressingly higher number in the three-and-a-half weeks since the Lancet article was published), requires an utmost expression of love through solidarity with the entirety of humanity. This comes through clearly and forthrightly in Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love.

There are few (or none) sizeable groupings of people who form a monolith. JVP is one Jewish grouping that deviates from Zionist Jews by upholding morality in solidarity with a shared humanity.

Israel is not alone in its evil. It is backed by governments in the West. The US is a staunch supporter of Zionism, funding it, arming it, and providing media and diplomatic cover for Israel. It points to the sine qua non of a monolith of humans united by love for fellow humans. This guiding principle would elevate humanity to the stratosphere.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

A man who goes by the online moniker of @Travelingisraelinfo headlines his short video very curiously: Why do you care about Palestinians?

Even before listening to the video, the answer is so obvious. The Palestinians are humans aren’t they? Shouldn’t humans care for each other? Palestinians are being genocided. Genocide is a monstrous war crime. Caring humans should want to stop genocide.

Why would this dude ask such a question? I’ll call him dude because his name is not revealed, and being a dude is “cool.” His About page at his Youtube Traveling Israel Channel tells that he has a website that “is all about helping travelers to travel in Israel. You can find here info about planning your trip, sights in Israel and the Israeli society.” It seems he is an Israeli and that he has a business tied to encouraging travelers to Israel (i.e., historical Palestine). If people don’t want to travel to Israel anymore, then his business will presumably suffer.

He relates that there are so many demonstrations going on around the world in support of Palestinians, which leads him to pose a question: “Nobody is marching for the people of Yemen and Syria, and I’m asking you why?”

I want to ask this dude why he is deflecting attention away from genocide committed by Israelis?

He goes on to claim, “There are 800,000 dead in Syria and Yemen, and you are silent. Do you expect more from Israel than you expect from the Arabs? If so, that makes you a racist…. Another option is that you are a hypocrite. It is ‘cool’ to be pro-Palestinian, so although you know there are far greater atrocities happening in Muslim countries, you choose to ignore them. By the way, you don’t have to limit yourself, you can be both a hypocrite and a racist.”

If this dude wants to draw attention away from Israeli slaughtering Palestinians, then is he not a racist — or even worse, an accomplice to genocide?

Dude is so sure of himself that he invites viewers: “Have a better answer? Comment below and I will respond.”

A rebuttal hardly seems challenging.

Imagine that white people (I assume the dude’s remarks are primarily directed at westerners, who are preponderently white folk) who take the time and effort to oppose the genocide of brown people in Palestine are called racists! Why does he not vent his rage at Israelis who are genociding the Palestinians? This is going on in his backyard. He has, thereby, engaged in misdirection, otherwise known as the logical fallacy commonly referred to as a red herring.

The next logical fallacy that the dude is guilty of committing is the false dilemma. He says people people who do not oppose all grave crimes (notice that the dude does not deny the Israeli genocide or Israeli racism against Palestinians) must then be racists, hypocrites, or both. There are plenty of reasons that might well explain why there aren’t as many demos for Syrians and Yemenis as for Palestinians. For one, not everybody knows what is going on in the world. This is especially true if people are only relying on legacy media. Some people may only have found out about the genocide of Palestinians because they walked past a demo at the local university, became informed, and protested.

Presumably, the people who are protesting all the war crimes around the world are not racist or hypocrites; therefore, their criticism of Israeli war crimes is justified. However, is everybody protesting all wars and violence around the world? Is it possible? Ergo, by the dude’s illogic, no one should be protesting war and war crimes.

It is patently preposterous that one would be branded a racist/hypocrite for not being in attendance at demos against every cruelty meted out everywhere in the world.

Racism is defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

The demonstrations against the killing of Palestinians are not based on the race of either the killers or those who are being killed, so this is a false premise; i.e., another red herring. Another logical fallacy is that he is attempting to shift the meaning of “racism”; in this case, he is guilty of the logical fallacy known as moving the goalposts.

Another false premise is that war crimes and genocide are based on the numbers killed. War crimes are based on the commission of outrages against humans; and in the case of genocide, the intention to disappear all members of a group.

Furthermore, the dude has set up a false comparison. Palestinians have been subjected to Zionist genocidaires for many decades as well as having their land usurped, whereas the war crimes against Syrians and Yemenis is more recent. The Palestinians are rendered stateless, whereas, the Syrians and Yemenis are not stateless. So the comparison is false. Nonetheless, Syrians and Yemenis have been victims of warring, and humans everywhere should care about humans in Syria and Yemen. It is also important to note that Israel is involved in the violence against Syria and Yemen, which the dude is unaware of or neglects to mention.

The dude also commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem, and in doing so he comes across as a supporter of Zionism and the grotesque crimes carried out by Zionists. He is, in fact, in the process of clearing a path for genocide.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument. The dude may have sounded convincing, but since the premise is incorrect nothing can be deduced about the validity of the argument.

Be open-minded and skeptical. Analyze what is being claimed, and question everything. This will stand one in good stead to see through false arguments.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Nonetheless, aside from the otherwise splendid investigative reporting by Swann, the interview raised a question: Why is a legitimate Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation (the borders are sealed to Gaza and the seas are closed to Palestinian fishermen) and oppression described by Swann as an “horrible and evil thing”?

Is not the Israeli slow-motion genocide (since 7 October it has been accelerated), occupation, racism, discrimination, and oppression not the “horrible and evil thing”? Is the horrible and evil theft of historical Palestine by European Jews not the cause of Palestinian resistance? Is it not, per se, horrible and evil to deride a legitimate resistance against the evil of Zionism?

Back in 2008 when Israel was on an earlier mass murder binge against Palestinians and Hamas resisted, I wrote about “The Inalienable Right to Resist Occupation”:

Complicitly, the Whitehouse blamed Hamas, as did Canada’s government. Government officials in the US, Canada, and Europe spoke the same lame phrase, “Israel has a right to defend itself,” as if the slaughter being carried out by a world military power against a starving population could be construed as some kind of defense. Israel, the world’s most frequently cited violator of international law, a racist state, an occupation state built through violence and slow-motion genocide is being acknowledged as having the right to defend its criminality. This is preposterous; there is no right of an occupation regime to defend its occupation. Palestine, however, has a right to resist occupation!

Frequent guest of the Dore Show, comedian Kurt Metzger realizes the situation that Israel forces the Palestinians to live under: a “concentration camp.” The Palestinians in Gaza are presented with a choice to either live on bended knee or to resist.

However, Swann would double down on his vitriol against the Hamas resistance saying: “The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal.” The language is leading and unnecessary. Attacks by their very nature are usually violent and brutal. But why are these adjectives not applied to the violent and brutal Israeli occupation by Swann?

If there wer no occupation of historical Palestine, if there were not millions of Palestinians living outside their homeland as refugees, if Palestinians were not being systematically humiliated by Israelis, if Palestinians were not being weeded out of existence by Israelis, if Palestinians were thrown the crumb of the decency to live peacefully alongside their racist usurpers in their historical homeland, would not the rise of a resistance have been obviated?

A progressivist principle should hold that: The oppressor bears responsibility for all casualties because without the oppression, there would be no need for resistance. Ergo, criticism of the resistance of Hamas is unprincipled.

As the show’s cast rummaged over whether Israel was now carrying out a genocide, Jimmy Dore felt it necessary to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hello! There are likeliest over a 100,000 Palestinians slaughtered resulting from this bogus intelligence failure, so who are the terrorists?

Ed Herman, the first author of the acclaimed media analysis, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, noted:

For decades it has been the standard practice of the U.S. mainstream media to designate Palestinian attacks on Israelis as acts of “terrorism,” whereas acts of Israeli violence against Palestinians are described as “retaliation” and “counter-terror.” This linguistic asymmetry has been based entirely on political bias. Virtually all definitions of terrorism, if applied on a nonpolitical basis, would find a wide array of Israeli operations and acts of violence straightforward terrorism. (p 119)

The commonly bandied about death toll of 30 something thousand Palestinians is atrocious, but serious voices point to a serious undercount.

On 5 July 2024, the Lancet ran its numbers: “Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.”

Ralph Nader had written months earlier: “From accounts of people on the ground, videos and photographs of deadly episode after episode, plus the resultant mortalities from blocking or smashing the crucial necessities of life, a more likely estimate, in my appraisal, is that at least 200,000 Palestinians must have perished by now and the toll is accelerating by the hour.” [emphasis added]

This time, it appears that Zionist connivance has blown up in the connivers faces and the faces of the supporters of Zionism in western governments.

There has been a catastrophic blowback against the genocidaires. Houthis in Yemen have caused disruptions to Zionist-aligned shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Even US and UK aircraft carriers fear Houthi attacks.

Former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter sourced inactive Israeli generals: “Israel can’t win this war. Not only Israel can’t win this war, Israel is losing this war.”

Would an outcome where Zionist occupation, oppression, racism, genocide is defeated be a horrible and evil thing?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Mearsheimer: “I don’t think that the United States is trying to be provocative. I think what the United States is interested to do, doing is improving its deterrence capability in East Asia. The fact is that if you put the United States up against China in East Asia, and if you include the United States’ allies with the United States, right, you are up against a very formidable adversary. China is effectively a giant aircraft carrier. It has thousands and thousands of missiles, and the United States feels that it is at something of a disadvantage, and for that reason it is increasing its missile capability and other capabilities in Asia as well.”

If China were to put missiles in Cuba and Mexico, then that is not provocative? The US should have no problem because China is only improving its deterrence, yes? What is good for the goose is also good for the gander, no?

And why does Mearsheimer resort to using US government propaganda by referring to China as an “adversary”? Does China call the US an adversary? Is China looking for confrontation with the US?

If China is “effectively a giant aircraft carrier,” then is not the US also effectively a giant aircraft carrier? It is obvious that Mearsheimer is taking a page from the US propaganda booklet on the threat of China, in this case a militaristic threat. Mearsheimer, however, avoids referring to China as a “threat.”

From the FBI website: “Chinese Government Poses ‘Broad and Unrelenting’ Threat to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, FBI Director Says.” The drumbeat is effective. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, half of Americans name China as the US’s greatest threat.

The question raised by Mearsheimer and left unanswered is whether China is a militaristic adversary? China, for its part, publicly eschews militarism and seeks peaceful relations.

Mearsheimer: “We pushed the Russians and the Chinese closer together which makes no sense at all.”

Even if there were no United States, it is extremely rational for Russia and China to form a friendly and close relationship. They are neighbors. They are well suited to be trade partners. It is a win-win relationship that China and Russia seek from trading partners. No push was needed from the US, although US belligerence assuredly was another point in favor of a deepening Russia-China rapprochement.

Mearsheimer: I am one of a number of people who would defend Taiwan if China attacked it because I think Taiwan is of great strategic importance.

Isn’t the US aircraft carrier known as Israel considered of great strategic importance because of its location amid the Middle Eastern oil patch? Yet Mearsheimer says there is no geopolitical benefit from US support of Israel. In fact, the professor says Israel is an albatross around the US neck. What, then, is the great strategic importance Mearsheimer sees in Taiwan? It hardly seems sufficient to just state that his view is realist. In Mearsheimer’s mind moralism does not factor in.

The US has signed on to the One China Policy. Ergo, realistically, Taiwan is de jure a province of one China.

*****

When coming across analysis expressed by personalities, whether they be professors, news anchors, or lay persons consider how these persons support their views.

Ipse Dixit refers to the logical fallacy of making unsubstantiated assertions. It is arguably more difficult to substantiate one’s arguments in an interview, but to merely state that something is realist is hardly compelling, especially when that realism seems rooted in opinion. Question everything.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Lifesize bronze sculpture featuring (L-R) former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former US soldier Chelsea Manning convicted of violations of the Espionage Act, on May 1, 2015 at Alexanderplatz square in Berlin. (AFP Photo / Tobias Schwarz) © AFP

There are some important takeaways from this gross dereliction of justice.

One: The rape allegations, that continue to appear in lazy media, were false, and this was attested to by the two women in the case. The allegations were a political construction between Sweden acting on behalf of the US. The United Kingdom abetted the US’s scheming against Assange. No western nations stepped forward to criticize the treatment. Graciously, president  Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador offered asylum for Assange in Mexico.

Why was Assange being targetted? Because WikiLeaks has released scads of classified US military documents on the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,  diplomatic cables, and the devastating video Collateral Murder. When US citizen Daniel Ellsberg released the “Pentagon Papers” for publication, he was charged with theft on top of espionage, but government chicanery caused it to end up in a mistrial. Whereas president Richard Nixon failed miserably against Ellsberg, Donald Trump and Joe Biden persevered and kept Assange under some form of lock-and-key.

Two: Assange is not guilty. He is guilty of journalism, which is not a crime. He did not commit treason against the US. He is an Australian citizen and not a US citizen. He did not commit espionage. Assange is not a spy and neither was he a thief. He is a publisher, and when WikiLeaks published the leaks, Assange was doing what the New York Times did when they published the “Pentagon Papers.”

Nonetheless, Assange is human. He has parents, a wife, and kids. Assange realizes that he was up against the state machinery of the US, UK, Sweden, and the collusion of Ecuador under president Lenin Moreno. Crucial was the unwillingness of pre-Albanese Australian administrations to fight for one of its citizens.

If the Deep State in the US can have its own president assassinated without consequences, then it can easily have a single person put in some form of incarceration for as long as it intends.

After years and years of incarceration — especially in the notorious Belmarsh prison, his health diminishing, missing his family — that Assange would have accepted the release terms of a rogue empire is completely understandable.

Three: Justice is all too often not just. Justice delayed is justice denied goes the legal maxim. Unfortunately, Assange is not an isolated example. Edward Snowden cannot return stateside. Seeing what has happened to Assange reinforces that the US government will mete out injustice to him.

Four: Monopoly media continues to evince that it is an organ of government and corporations. Why so? First, because they are instruments of power. Second, they found themselves all too often scooped by WikiLeaks on major stories.

Five: The bad: this is a blow to freedom of speech and the right of the public to know what their government is doing.

Six: More bad: it is too easy to demonize a hero, to torture a hero, and to do this even though there is a significant (although arguably not numerous enough) global movement in support of a hero.

Seven: Even more bad: people must keep in mind the other heroes out there who brought corruption, war crimes, crimes against peace and humanity to the public consciousness and as a consequence face persecution, imprisonment, assassination, and whatever sordid punishments the machinery of rogue states can cook up. People like Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, George Galloway, conscientious objectors, truth tellers, resistance fighters, among others.

Eight: Assange is a hero. Heroes tend to be too loosely defined. Scoring a boatload of goals does not one a hero make, neither does crooning a hit song make one a hero, nor does attaining ultra wealth. Heroes are embued with a highly developed sense of morality and transcend themselves by working for the greater good of humanity and the world.

Nine: It is a Pyrrhic victory for Empire. Yes, Assange was brought to the point of having to confess guilt, but who knows what Assange and WikiLeaks will do for exposing crimes of state from here on.

Ten: Whatever Assange decides to do in the future, his decision is earned. He has already done so much for the people who want transparency and who want their governments held to account.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Since its inception, Israel, the self-declared Jewish State, has been staunchly backed by the US with the tacit support of other western nations. Israel, indeed, has a powerful lobby.

Israel has managed to chip away at the original 1947 UN partition plan map, that set borders for Jews and Arabs in Historical Palestine, until Palestinians were left with a fractional land base. Yet, when many so-called pundits speak of a two-state solution, they invariably speak of the 1967 borders and not the 1947 borders. Meanwhile, Israel, which acknowledges no borders for itself, has become ensconced in Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Shebaa farms, and chunks of the West Bank.

Many Palestinians have been forced to live their entire lives outside their homeland. Ilan Pappe wrote a book called The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine which relates the plight of 800,000 Palestinians pushed outside Historical Palestine.  In my review of Pappe’s book in 2007, I credited him with putting words to the Zionist crimes against Palestinians, but I (and my colleague Gary Zatzman) took issue with Pappe’s reluctance to call the “Israel-Palestine conflict” (Pappe’s wording) genocide.

I concluded,

Why is it an “Israel-Palestine conflict”? It implies an equivalency between the two sides. There is no equivalency. It is a Zionist genocide perpetrated against Palestinians, abetted by much of the bystanding world. This is what it has always been and continues to be.

Finally, in 2009, Pappe demurred and called ethnic cleansing a “genocide in slow motion.”

Israeli academics had already argued that ethnic cleansing is genocide, although they eluded mention of the Nakba.

Following 7 October, Israel amped up its destruction of hospitals, schools, mosques, homes, etc; committed several massacres and war crimes; to which Israeli officials uttered openly racist epithets dehumanizing Palestinians which is just more of the same from Israeli officials, as racism and apartheid are Israeli policy. (See “Israeli Zionist Racism Unmasked”  and the series: “Defining Israeli Zionist Racism” Parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.).

Now, with the amping up of the destruction, massacres, and openly racist epithets by Israeli officials against Palestinians and Palestinian society, much of the fence-sitting world has recognized what this has always been: a genocide perpetrated by Israeli Jews (with polls indicating support by a majority of Israeli Jews, a stable sentiment over the years). Nonetheless, many western governments continue to provide cover for Israeli war crimes; for instance, sending in the gendarmes to crack down on the free speech rights of morally centered students opposed to the genocide against Palestinians. Or, in the US case, sending arms to Israel.

It took South Africa to have the fortitude to haul Israel before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

And it seems the ICJ directives for Israel to halt further aggressions against Palestinians gave the International Criminal Court (ICC) the gumption to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant. For good measure, three Palestinians — Yahya Sinwar (Hamas leader), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (commander-in-chief of the military wing of Hamas), and Ismail Haniyeh — were also indicted, for alleged involvement in the October 7 attacks, even though  Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist occupation and oppression.

They say justice delayed is justice denied; only time will tell if the international legal deliberations to protect Palestinians from Israeli war crimes will be successful.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, April 26, 2024. Photo: Xinhua

A foreboding article was published on April 24. It was pointed out that China had provided a berth to a Russian ship Angara that is purportedly “tied to North Korea-Russia arms transfers.”

Reuters cited Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) – that boasts of itself to be “the world’s oldest and the UK’s leading defence and security think tank” – which claims Angara, since August 2023, has transported “thousands of containers believed to contain North Korean munitions,” [italics added] to Russian ports.

Container ships transport containers, and along the way they dock in certain harbors. Until satellite photos have X-ray capability any speculation about what is inside a container will be just that: speculation. Discerning readers will readily pick up on this.

Despite China repeatedly coming out in favor of peace, Reuters, nonetheless, plays up US concerns over perceived support by Beijing for “Moscow’s war” (what Moscow calls a “special military operation”) in Ukraine.

And right on cue, US secretary-of-state Antony Blinken shows up in Beijing echoing a list of US concerns vis-à-vis China.

Blinken had public words for China: “In my meetings with NATO Allies earlier this month and with our G7 partners just last week, I heard that same message: fueling Russia’s defense industrial base not only threatens Ukrainian security; it threatens European security. Beijing cannot achieve better relations with Europe while supporting the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War. As we’ve told China for some time, ensuring transatlantic security is a core US interest. In our discussions today, I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will.”

It would seem clear that the Taiwan Straits is a core China interest, no? Or is it only US core interests that matter?

Blinken: “I also expressed our concern about the PRC’s unfair trade practices and the potential consequences of industrial overcapacity to global and US markets, especially in a number of key industries that will drive the 21st century economy, like solar panels, electric vehicles, and the batteries that power them. China alone is producing more than 100 percent of global demand for these products, flooding markets, undermining competition, putting at risk livelihoods and businesses around the world.”

It sounds like sour grapes from the US that China’s R&D and manufacturing is out-competing the US. Take, for example, that the US sanctions Huawei while China allows Apple to sell its products unhindered in China. China has hit back at the rhetoric of “overcapacity.”

Blinken complained of “PRC’s dangerous actions in the South China Sea, including against routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations near the Second Thomas Shoal. Freedom of navigation and commerce in these waterways is not only critical to the Philippines, but to the US and to every other nation in the Indo-Pacific and indeed around the world.”

Mentioning freedom of navigation implies that China is preventing such. Why is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea critical to the US? Second Thomas Shoal is a colonial designation otherwise known as Renai Jiao in China. The “routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations” that Blinken speaks of are for a navy landing craft that was intentionally grounded by the Philippines in 1999. Since then, the Philippines has been intermittently resupplying its soldiers stationed there.

Blinken: “I reaffirmed the US’s ‘one China’ policy and stressed the critical importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

How does the US stationing US soldiers on the Chinese territory of Taiwan without approval from Beijing reaffirm the US’s commitment to a one-China policy? The Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 states “the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.”

Blinken: “I also raised concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and democratic institutions as well as transnational repression, ongoing human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, and a number of individual human rights cases.”

Evidence of human rights abuses in Xinjiang? This is a definitive downplay from the previous allegations of a genocide against Uyghurs. It would be embarrassing to continue to accuse China of a genocide in Xinjiang due to a paucity of bodies which is a sine qua non for such a serious allegation as a genocide; meanwhile the US-armed Israel is blowing up hospitals and schools with ten-of-thousands of confirmed Palestinian civilian bodies. Even if there are human rights abuses in Xinjiang (which should be deplored were there condemnatory evidence), the US would still be morally assailable for its selective outrage.

Blinken: “I encouraged China to use its influence to discourage Iran and its proxies from expanding the conflict in the Middle East, and to press Pyongyang to end its dangerous behavior and engage in dialogue.”

Is the US militarily backing a genocide of Palestinians a “conflict.” Are US military maneuvers in the waters near North Korea “safe behavior”?

Blinken responded to a question: “But now it is absolutely critical that the support that [China’s] providing – not in terms of weapons but components for the defense industrial base – again, things like machine tools, microelectronics, where it is overwhelmingly the number-one supplier to Russia. That’s having a material effect in Ukraine and against Ukraine, but it’s also having a material effect in creating a growing [sic] that Russia poses to countries in Europe and something that has captured their attention in a very intense way.”

Are the ATACMS, Javelins, HIMARS, Leopard tanks, drones, artillery, Patriot missile defense, etc supposed to be absolutely uncritical and have no material effect on the fighting in Ukraine? And who is posing a threat to who? European countries are funding and arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia not vice versa? It sounds perversely Orwellian.

*****

From Biden to Harris to Yellen to Raimondo to Sullivan to Blinken, US officials again and again try to browbeat and put down their Chinese colleagues.

At the opening meeting on 18 March 2021 of the US-China talks in Anchorage, Alaska, the arrogance of Blinken and the US was put on notice by the rebuke of Chinese foreign affairs official Yang Jiechi: “[T]he US does not have the qualification to say it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” It doesn’t seem to have sunk in for the American side.

The Russia-China relationship is solid. China’s economy is growing strongly. Scores of countries are clamoring to join BRICS+ and dedollarization is well underway. Yet, the US continues to try to bully the world’s largest – and still rapidly growing – economy. This strategy appears to affirm the commonly referred to aphorism about the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The professor answered, “There is no question that the Chinese want Taiwan back. They want to make Taiwan part of China…. There is also no question that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of China. They want to be a sovereign state. These are two irreconcilable goals.”

First, it must be stated that much of what Mearsheimer says about geopolitical issues (particularly, with respect to the United States’ agenda in the world) comes across as arrived at by honest, factual, realistic appraisal.

It is axiomatic that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would like the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) fully back in the fold. As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is de jure a part of China, and the United Nations and 181 countries concur that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. This includes the United States. Mearsheimer’s words elide this reality. His words also appear in contradiction since he admits that Taiwan is not sovereign. Taiwan is not a country. Mearsheimer’s wording aligns with the oleaginous US position toward the PRC and Taiwan.

In US diplomacy, words too often do not match facts or deeds. The US signed on to the One China policy. However, because of the increasing alarm that the economic, technological, military advancement of the PRC is eclipsing the US’s arrogant claim to full spectrum dominance, the US has precipitated, what looks on its face to be, an abject desperation to maintain its place in at the top of the world order, as it defines this order.

As for Mearsheimer’s evidence-free claim of there being “no question that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of China.” That is disputable. Legacy media will point to the recent presidential victory of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)’s Lai Ching-te to buttress this claim of Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty.

While Lai led with 40.05% of the vote, the opposition Guomindang (KMT) presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih received 33.49% of the votes, and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) candidate Ko Wen-je received 26.45%. So roughly 60% of the electorate’s votes did not go to the DPP. Earlier Ko had proposed a failed KMT-TPP alliance, which suggests something other than a sovereignist agenda for 60% of Taiwanese voters.

Looking at the voting results might, therefore, lead one to refute the “no question” Taiwan wants to be separate from the PRC claim to be itself questionable.

Mearsheimer continued, “The interesting question, at this point in time, is whether or not the Chinese are going to try to conquer Taiwan by military force.”

To most of the world Taiwan is a part of One China. It is obvious that the PRC is not bent on militarily conquering Taiwan. It need not unless Taiwan crosses its red lines. Approaching these red lines is usually done in collusion with the US. This points to a historical fact that the reason Taiwan is in a sovereignty limbo to this day is because the US used its naval might to back the KMT and Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) at the time of a militarily exhausted China. One ought to consider that Taiwan has been a part of China much, much longer (since 230 CE) than the geopolitical entity called the United States of America has existed based on its dispossession and genocide of the Original Peoples. Therefore, American proclamations about the PRC and Taiwan must be skeptically scrutinized since they are based in hypocrisy and desperation, with crucial facts confined to the memory hole, to anchor in place the US conception of a world order. Mearsheimer does not dwell on the relevancy of this reality when discussing the PRC and Taiwan.

Mearsheimer reveals his patriotic realism: “We [the US] are not only concerned about maintaining Taiwan as an independent state because it is a democracy and we have long had good relations with it, but we also think keeping Taiwan on our side of the ledger is very important for strategic reasons…”

Mearsheimer needs to define democracy and support his contention that the US is supportive of democracy, let alone whether the US is a legitimate democracy. Genuine democracy represents the will of the people.

Taiwan was for decades a KMT military dictatorship which resorted to mass murder to consolidate its power. Finally, in 1996, the electoral vote came to Taiwan. Yet, does a vote every few years mean a country is a democracy? Is that all it takes?

Does Mearsheimer really believe that the US supports democracy? Is supporting so-called color revolutions indicative of an adherence to democracy? Did the US backing of the Maidan coup to overthrow the elected president Viktor Yanukovych indicate a support of democracy? The examples are myriad.

Is blocking a presidential contender from receiving votes in certain states (from Ralph Nader to Donald Trump) indicative of a fidelity to democracy? Or when a government ignores the will of a majority to follow a policy rejected by the masses, such as the US government’s vindictive agenda against publisher Julian Assange? So what does Mearsheimer mean when he posits an American support for Taiwan predicated on it being a democracy?

Does the PRC not have a claim to being a democracy? Does China not pursue policies for the good of the masses of Chinese? In his compellingly argued book, Democracy: What the West Can Learn from China, Wei Ling Chua makes the case for China as a democracy based on its devotion to the well-being of all its citizens. Harvard University’s Ash Center found in its last survey in 2016 that 95.5% of those surveyed reported being either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the Communist Party of China government.

Even if China attempted to take Taiwan back now, Mearsheimer opined, “I think Xi Jinping has lots of domestic problems that are more important to deal with at this juncture, and furthermore, I don’t think the Taiwanese [he meant Chinese] have the military capability to take Taiwan back at the this point in time.” (Read “How Does Technology Factor in for US Militarism Toward China?”)

Mearsheimer is opining through most of the interview. This is adduced by framing many opinions with “I think.” Even non-nuclear war simulations that predict a US victory point out that it would come at a staggering price. Would the US citizenry be willing to pay the price?

Mearsheimer is convinced that regardless of the cost of a military confrontation between China and the US that “… the United States is definitely committed to containing China and keeping Taiwan out of China’s hands, then the United States would axiomatically fight war with China over Taiwan.”

He predicates this commitment on the comments of, with all due respect, a brain addled president.

Napolitano asks, “Is China a threat to the United States of America?”

Mearsheimer sidesteps the “threat” and states “the Chinese are a serious competitor.”

“Furthermore, the Chinese are interested not only in taking back Taiwan, they are interested in dominating the South China Sea and the East China Sea; and the South China Sea is of immense importance to the United States and to the world economy. And the United States does not want China to take the South China Sea back or take control of it, or take control of the East China Sea. We’re opposed to that. More generally, we do not want China to be the dominant power in Asia.”

“Taking back,” says Mearsheimer. In so stating, Mearsheimer is acknowledging Taiwan was removed from China. It was removed by Japanese imperialism. And that removal was enforced after World War II by the US against its WWII ally, China.

And what does the professor mean by “dominate”? How is China dominating these waters? Is that not what the US attempts by sending war ships into the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and the East China Sea? (Read “Who has Sovereignty in the South China Sea?”) Does China prevent innocent passage of shipping through these waters?
Does China prevent innocent passage of shipping through these waters? Noteworthy is a legal position that holds that military transit requires China’s approval.

Mearsheimer: “But China naturally wants to be the dominant power in Asia just like we want to be the dominant power in our backyard…”

Naturally, as if this is ineluctable. And again, this word dominate? The US dominates by having other countries adhere to its coercive demands, especially commercial demands, (read John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by for elaboration), by situating its preferred people in charge in targeted countries (e.g., splitting Korea and transplanting the dictator Syngman Rhee from the US to South Korea, supporting Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam before later abandoning him, and the installment of the unpopular Ayad Allawi as prime minister in Iraq).

The US is ensconced on ethnically cleansed Indigenous territory. It supported a corporate coup against the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and apologized for this in 1993, but still the US continues to occupy Hawai’i. There are also the cases of Puerto Rico, Guam, Saipan, Palau, the Chagos archipelago, the Marshall Islands, and others.

According to the reasoning proffered by Mearsheimer, the US was predetermined to pursue building an empire. And in his reasoning the US is unexceptional in this regard because China’s eventual imperialist path is also likewise predetermined.

Mearsheimer acknowledges that “China is ambitious for good reasons on their part, and the United States is committed to limiting China’s ambitions for good strategic reasons on its part.”

Usually to be ambitious is considered in a positive vein: learn all you can, develop, become independent, become a leader. However, in Mearsheimer’s wording one assumes ambition to be negative, as in dominating others and halting the ambitions of others, as the US wants to do to China. Limiting China’s ambitions — so much for win-win, as China is committed to. And why is limiting China good strategic reasoning by the US? Doesn’t the US trumpet so-called free markets?

Napolitano picks up on this and asks: “What are the reasons for limiting China’s ambitions if the ambitions are commercial in nature?”

Mearsheimer points to determinism,

And you know how the United States behaves. The United States is a highly aggressive state that runs around the world using its power quite liberally. Why do you think that if China had a powerful military that it wouldn’t do the same thing? The United States just doesn’t want any other power on the planet to be more powerful than it is. I think that any other country on the planet, if it had its druthers, would want to be the most powerful state in the system. And the reason is that the international system [Which system is Mearsheimer referring to: that overseen by the United Nations or the so-called rules based order? — KP] is a really dangerous place. It is in many ways a brutal jungle. All you have to do is look at what is happening to the Palestinians. If you were the Palestinians, wouldn’t you want your own state, and wouldn’t you want that your state to be really powerful, so that nobody, in effect, could mess around with you? I think the Chinese are driven by this mentality? [italics added]

Mearsheimer rejects that China’s reasons are just commercial. He posits instead a geopolitical determinism. Freedom for a country to choose its direction in the world apparently does not exist. Nation states are bound to follow a determined trajectory.

Mearsheimer assumes China will follow the US trajectory. He asks, “Why do you think that if China had a powerful military that it wouldn’t do the same thing?” [italics added]

Why did the Soviet Union dissolve? A commonly heard answer is that the military power that the Soviet Union once was was brought to its economic knees due to military overspending. Why is the US’s economic preeminence challenged by a serious competitor now? Does China have 700 to 900 foreign military bases (numbers vary according to source, but a lot)? This must cause a serious outpouring of money. Maybe that is why China wouldn’t pursue the same folly as the US? Moreover, China is steadfastly promoting peaceful win-win relations between and among countries. China’s economic success is based on these win-win relationships. By engaging in win-win relations, China wins and the other country wins. There is no need to dominate. China is able to receive the commodities, materials, and services that it desires (except when a competitor decides to limit “free trade”), and it continues to prosper as does its partner country.

Of course the Chinese don’t want to suffer another century of humiliation (but does that mean the Chinese want to oppress others as the West have been doing?) Besides, wasn’t Vietnam syndrome humiliating? Wasn’t the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan humiliating?

Relationships of domination and humiliation are not win-win. One side will be aggrieved in such a relationship and will seek another relationship, and more likely elsewhere with a trustworthy partner. It seems that China is aware of this dynamic.

Mearsheimer posits how the US should deal with China:

“I think the United States should go to great lengths to contain China.” Contain, meaning “to prevent China from dominating the South China Sea, to prevent China from taking Taiwan, and to prevent China from dominating the East China Sea,” and to make good relations with China’s neighbors in furtherance of this US objective; and avoid provoking a war with China.

Said the professor, “We should try to roll back Chinese military power; the United States should manage China-US relations to avoid war.” In other words, the US should dominate China, as is natural, according to the professor.

Given the multitude of wars carried out by the US abroad, it is surely self-evident that if a nation state wants to avoid wars and does not have a powerful ally, then a certain level of a defensive capability is a sine qua non. For the aggressive US, by far the highest spending military-industrial complex on the planet, to call out the strengthening of another country’s military, especially a country frequently excoriated and threatened by US government officials, must be viewed as blatant hypocrisy.

Hence, it is quite a conundrum Mearsheimer lays out: avoiding war by rolling back another country’s military power by virtue of it having greater military power. Supposedly, in this scenario, China will accede to the US curtailment (“rolling back”) of Chinese military might and not be provoked to war; it will give up its national aspiration to bring Taiwan fully back into the Chinese nation; it will allow itself to be humiliated once again by a foreign nation. Paradoxically, this scenario also calls on China to reject geopolitical determinism? It sounds a lot like Mearsheimer has constructed a pretzel of contradictions. How sensible, how probable is what the professor proffers?

Mearsheimer asserts that China seeks power that is self-serving – that is, power that is not shared as in a win-win scenario: “… We have a vested interest in not letting China shift the balance of power in its favor, and, therefore against us, in a major way.”

This raises many questions and requires elucidation. Who is the “we” here? One assumes Mearsheimer means the US. Is it in the “vested interest” of the masses in the US? It must be because to be vested otherwise would be undemocratic. While in the US millions sleep in their cars or under bridges each night, scrape through garbage receptacles for sustenance during the day, and beg for handouts, China has eliminated such extreme poverty. Shouldn’t that be a signal for the impoverished strata in other societies?

China is not the enemy. China is not perfect, and it doesn’t profess to be. It does not profess to be an indispensable nation. It does not proclaim to be a beacon on the hill. It does not list as a goal full spectrum dominance. Mearsheimer apparently thinks that the evolution of the capitalist US must also apply to socialist China. Nonetheless, it would seem more accurate to portray China, which in the earliest stage of socialism, as an alternative model to US capitalism, militarism, imperialism, and dominance.

Other nations state should seriously consider how socialism matched with their country’s characteristics might function for them.

• See also Kim Petersen, “Obstacles to the Peaceful Reintegration of Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China: Interview with author Wei Ling Chua.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The professor answered, “There is no question that the Chinese want Taiwan back. They want to make Taiwan part of China…. There is also no question that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of China. They want to be a sovereign state. These are two irreconcilable goals.”

First, it must be stated that much of what Mearsheimer says about geopolitical issues (particularly, with respect to the United States’ agenda in the world) comes across as arrived at by honest, factual, realistic appraisal.

It is axiomatic that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would like the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) fully back in the fold. As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is de jure a part of China, and the United Nations and 181 countries concur that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. This includes the United States. Mearsheimer’s words elide this reality. His words also appear in contradiction since he admits that Taiwan is not sovereign. Taiwan is not a country. Mearsheimer’s wording aligns with the oleaginous US position toward the PRC and Taiwan.

In US diplomacy, words too often do not match facts or deeds. The US signed on to the One China policy. However, because of the increasing alarm that the economic, technological, military advancement of the PRC is eclipsing the US’s arrogant claim to full spectrum dominance, the US has precipitated, what looks on its face to be, an abject desperation to maintain its place in at the top of the world order, as it defines this order.

As for Mearsheimer’s evidence-free claim of there being “no question that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of China.” That is disputable. Legacy media will point to the recent presidential victory of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)’s Lai Ching-te to buttress this claim of Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty.

While Lai led with 40.05% of the vote, the opposition Guomindang (KMT) presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih received 33.49% of the votes, and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) candidate Ko Wen-je received 26.45%. So roughly 60% of the electorate’s votes did not go to the DPP. Earlier Ko had proposed a failed KMT-TPP alliance, which suggests something other than a sovereignist agenda for 60% of Taiwanese voters.

Looking at the voting results might, therefore, lead one to refute the “no question” Taiwan wants to be separate from the PRC claim to be itself questionable.

Mearsheimer continued, “The interesting question, at this point in time, is whether or not the Chinese are going to try to conquer Taiwan by military force.”

To most of the world Taiwan is a part of One China. It is obvious that the PRC is not bent on militarily conquering Taiwan. It need not unless Taiwan crosses its red lines. Approaching these red lines is usually done in collusion with the US. This points to a historical fact that the reason Taiwan is in a sovereignty limbo to this day is because the US used its naval might to back the KMT and Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) at the time of a militarily exhausted China. One ought to consider that Taiwan has been a part of China much, much longer (since 230 CE) than the geopolitical entity called the United States of America has existed based on its dispossession and genocide of the Original Peoples. Therefore, American proclamations about the PRC and Taiwan must be skeptically scrutinized since they are based in hypocrisy and desperation, with crucial facts confined to the memory hole, to anchor in place the US conception of a world order. Mearsheimer does not dwell on the relevancy of this reality when discussing the PRC and Taiwan.

Mearsheimer reveals his patriotic realism: “We [the US] are not only concerned about maintaining Taiwan as an independent state because it is a democracy and we have long had good relations with it, but we also think keeping Taiwan on our side of the ledger is very important for strategic reasons…”

Mearsheimer needs to define democracy and support his contention that the US is supportive of democracy, let alone whether the US is a legitimate democracy. Genuine democracy represents the will of the people.

Taiwan was for decades a KMT military dictatorship which resorted to mass murder to consolidate its power. Finally, in 1996, the electoral vote came to Taiwan. Yet, does a vote every few years mean a country is a democracy? Is that all it takes?

Does Mearsheimer really believe that the US supports democracy? Is supporting so-called color revolutions indicative of an adherence to democracy? Did the US backing of the Maidan coup to overthrow the elected president Viktor Yanukovych indicate a support of democracy? The examples are myriad.

Is blocking a presidential contender from receiving votes in certain states (from Ralph Nader to Donald Trump) indicative of a fidelity to democracy? Or when a government ignores the will of a majority to follow a policy rejected by the masses, such as the US government’s vindictive agenda against publisher Julian Assange? So what does Mearsheimer mean when he posits an American support for Taiwan predicated on it being a democracy?

Does the PRC not have a claim to being a democracy? Does China not pursue policies for the good of the masses of Chinese? In his compellingly argued book, Democracy: What the West Can Learn from China, Wei Ling Chua makes the case for China as a democracy based on its devotion to the well-being of all its citizens. Harvard University’s Ash Center found in its last survey in 2016 that 95.5% of those surveyed reported being either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the Communist Party of China government.

Even if China attempted to take Taiwan back now, Mearsheimer opined, “I think Xi Jinping has lots of domestic problems that are more important to deal with at this juncture, and furthermore, I don’t think the Taiwanese [he meant Chinese] have the military capability to take Taiwan back at the this point in time.” (Read “How Does Technology Factor in for US Militarism Toward China?”)

Mearsheimer is opining through most of the interview. This is adduced by framing many opinions with “I think.” Even non-nuclear war simulations that predict a US victory point out that it would come at a staggering price. Would the US citizenry be willing to pay the price?

Mearsheimer is convinced that regardless of the cost of a military confrontation between China and the US that “… the United States is definitely committed to containing China and keeping Taiwan out of China’s hands, then the United States would axiomatically fight war with China over Taiwan.”

He predicates this commitment on the comments of, with all due respect, a brain addled president.

Napolitano asks, “Is China a threat to the United States of America?”

Mearsheimer sidesteps the “threat” and states “the Chinese are a serious competitor.”

“Furthermore, the Chinese are interested not only in taking back Taiwan, they are interested in dominating the South China Sea and the East China Sea; and the South China Sea is of immense importance to the United States and to the world economy. And the United States does not want China to take the South China Sea back or take control of it, or take control of the East China Sea. We’re opposed to that. More generally, we do not want China to be the dominant power in Asia.”

“Taking back,” says Mearsheimer. In so stating, Mearsheimer is acknowledging Taiwan was removed from China. It was removed by Japanese imperialism. And that removal was enforced after World War II by the US against its WWII ally, China.

And what does the professor mean by “dominate”? How is China dominating these waters? Is that not what the US attempts by sending war ships into the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and the East China Sea? (Read “Who has Sovereignty in the South China Sea?”) Does China prevent innocent passage of shipping through these waters?
Does China prevent innocent passage of shipping through these waters? Noteworthy is a legal position that holds that military transit requires China’s approval.

Mearsheimer: “But China naturally wants to be the dominant power in Asia just like we want to be the dominant power in our backyard…”

Naturally, as if this is ineluctable. And again, this word dominate? The US dominates by having other countries adhere to its coercive demands, especially commercial demands, (read John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by for elaboration), by situating its preferred people in charge in targeted countries (e.g., splitting Korea and transplanting the dictator Syngman Rhee from the US to South Korea, supporting Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam before later abandoning him, and the installment of the unpopular Ayad Allawi as prime minister in Iraq).

The US is ensconced on ethnically cleansed Indigenous territory. It supported a corporate coup against the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and apologized for this in 1993, but still the US continues to occupy Hawai’i. There are also the cases of Puerto Rico, Guam, Saipan, Palau, the Chagos archipelago, the Marshall Islands, and others.

According to the reasoning proffered by Mearsheimer, the US was predetermined to pursue building an empire. And in his reasoning the US is unexceptional in this regard because China’s eventual imperialist path is also likewise predetermined.

Mearsheimer acknowledges that “China is ambitious for good reasons on their part, and the United States is committed to limiting China’s ambitions for good strategic reasons on its part.”

Usually to be ambitious is considered in a positive vein: learn all you can, develop, become independent, become a leader. However, in Mearsheimer’s wording one assumes ambition to be negative, as in dominating others and halting the ambitions of others, as the US wants to do to China. Limiting China’s ambitions — so much for win-win, as China is committed to. And why is limiting China good strategic reasoning by the US? Doesn’t the US trumpet so-called free markets?

Napolitano picks up on this and asks: “What are the reasons for limiting China’s ambitions if the ambitions are commercial in nature?”

Mearsheimer points to determinism,

And you know how the United States behaves. The United States is a highly aggressive state that runs around the world using its power quite liberally. Why do you think that if China had a powerful military that it wouldn’t do the same thing? The United States just doesn’t want any other power on the planet to be more powerful than it is. I think that any other country on the planet, if it had its druthers, would want to be the most powerful state in the system. And the reason is that the international system [Which system is Mearsheimer referring to: that overseen by the United Nations or the so-called rules based order? — KP] is a really dangerous place. It is in many ways a brutal jungle. All you have to do is look at what is happening to the Palestinians. If you were the Palestinians, wouldn’t you want your own state, and wouldn’t you want that your state to be really powerful, so that nobody, in effect, could mess around with you? I think the Chinese are driven by this mentality? [italics added]

Mearsheimer rejects that China’s reasons are just commercial. He posits instead a geopolitical determinism. Freedom for a country to choose its direction in the world apparently does not exist. Nation states are bound to follow a determined trajectory.

Mearsheimer assumes China will follow the US trajectory. He asks, “Why do you think that if China had a powerful military that it wouldn’t do the same thing?” [italics added]

Why did the Soviet Union dissolve? A commonly heard answer is that the military power that the Soviet Union once was was brought to its economic knees due to military overspending. Why is the US’s economic preeminence challenged by a serious competitor now? Does China have 700 to 900 foreign military bases (numbers vary according to source, but a lot)? This must cause a serious outpouring of money. Maybe that is why China wouldn’t pursue the same folly as the US? Moreover, China is steadfastly promoting peaceful win-win relations between and among countries. China’s economic success is based on these win-win relationships. By engaging in win-win relations, China wins and the other country wins. There is no need to dominate. China is able to receive the commodities, materials, and services that it desires (except when a competitor decides to limit “free trade”), and it continues to prosper as does its partner country.

Of course the Chinese don’t want to suffer another century of humiliation (but does that mean the Chinese want to oppress others as the West have been doing?) Besides, wasn’t Vietnam syndrome humiliating? Wasn’t the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan humiliating?

Relationships of domination and humiliation are not win-win. One side will be aggrieved in such a relationship and will seek another relationship, and more likely elsewhere with a trustworthy partner. It seems that China is aware of this dynamic.

Mearsheimer posits how the US should deal with China:

“I think the United States should go to great lengths to contain China.” Contain, meaning “to prevent China from dominating the South China Sea, to prevent China from taking Taiwan, and to prevent China from dominating the East China Sea,” and to make good relations with China’s neighbors in furtherance of this US objective; and avoid provoking a war with China.

Said the professor, “We should try to roll back Chinese military power; the United States should manage China-US relations to avoid war.” In other words, the US should dominate China, as is natural, according to the professor.

Given the multitude of wars carried out by the US abroad, it is surely self-evident that if a nation state wants to avoid wars and does not have a powerful ally, then a certain level of a defensive capability is a sine qua non. For the aggressive US, by far the highest spending military-industrial complex on the planet, to call out the strengthening of another country’s military, especially a country frequently excoriated and threatened by US government officials, must be viewed as blatant hypocrisy.

Hence, it is quite a conundrum Mearsheimer lays out: avoiding war by rolling back another country’s military power by virtue of it having greater military power. Supposedly, in this scenario, China will accede to the US curtailment (“rolling back”) of Chinese military might and not be provoked to war; it will give up its national aspiration to bring Taiwan fully back into the Chinese nation; it will allow itself to be humiliated once again by a foreign nation. Paradoxically, this scenario also calls on China to reject geopolitical determinism? It sounds a lot like Mearsheimer has constructed a pretzel of contradictions. How sensible, how probable is what the professor proffers?

Mearsheimer asserts that China seeks power that is self-serving – that is, power that is not shared as in a win-win scenario: “… We have a vested interest in not letting China shift the balance of power in its favor, and, therefore against us, in a major way.”

This raises many questions and requires elucidation. Who is the “we” here? One assumes Mearsheimer means the US. Is it in the “vested interest” of the masses in the US? It must be because to be vested otherwise would be undemocratic. While in the US millions sleep in their cars or under bridges each night, scrape through garbage receptacles for sustenance during the day, and beg for handouts, China has eliminated such extreme poverty. Shouldn’t that be a signal for the impoverished strata in other societies?

China is not the enemy. China is not perfect, and it doesn’t profess to be. It does not profess to be an indispensable nation. It does not proclaim to be a beacon on the hill. It does not list as a goal full spectrum dominance. Mearsheimer apparently thinks that the evolution of the capitalist US must also apply to socialist China. Nonetheless, it would seem more accurate to portray China, which in the earliest stage of socialism, as an alternative model to US capitalism, militarism, imperialism, and dominance.

Other nations state should seriously consider how socialism matched with their country’s characteristics might function for them.

• See also Kim Petersen, “Obstacles to the Peaceful Reintegration of Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China: Interview with author Wei Ling Chua.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Take, for instance, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant who besmirched Palestinians as “human animals.” Jerusalem deputy mayor Arieh King upped the ante, stating that Palestinians are not “human animals”; they are not “human beings”; they are “subhuman.”

Such quotations by Israeli officials are serial and nothing new.¹

Following the rescindment of the British Mandate, the United Nations forced partition upon the Indigenous people of historical Palestine. The outcome birthed the Jewish State of Israel. The land allotted to the Palestinians has had its sovereignty in limbo. Palestine was, as evidenced by decades without formal statehood recognition by the United Nations, a de jure non-state. It was, however, conferred “observer entity” by the UN General Assembly in 1974. That status was upped to a “non-member observer state” in 2012 by a 138-9 UN General Assembly vote, and that is the situation today.

The sovereignty question, however, pales in significance to the genocide that Israel has magnified in Palestine.

“Thanks to the shameful indifference of the West and the international community, the Nakba of 1948 has become a permanent Nakba,” lamented Bichara Khader, a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven. (p 14)

It seems permanent in the mind of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said in Hebrew: “They [the Israeli troops] are committed to completely eliminating this evil from the world.” He then added: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”

The god of the Bible had commanded the Hebrews to carry out a genocide: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Shmuel/Samuel 15:3)

According to Mother Jones: “The lesson, when read literally, is clear: Saul’s failure to kill every Amalekite posed an existential threat to the Jewish people.”

Khader termed the Nakba a sociocide. This was made clear by the Zionist movement’s stated intention

 … to establish a Jewish state in Palestine—which clearly and emphatically meant the “de-Arabization” of Palestine or, in other words, the “invisibilization” of its people to facilitate the Judaization of the country.

The early twentieth century propaganda slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land” represents the hard nucleus of Zionist ideology. (p 8)

The malevolence of the Nakba has been laid bare during the current Israeli onslaught where 20,000 Palestinians (70% percent women and children) have been murdered by Zionist Jews. It must be noted that it is not a minuscule sect of Israeli Jewry. It is a military incursion into Gaza supported by more than 90 percent of Israeli Jews. It is abetted by the United States with the acquiescence of many western countries, and it is being carried out before the eyes of much of the world.

Back in 2014 when Israel was bombing Gaza, Israeli Jews in the nearby town of Sderot would bring out their sofas and chairs to sit and cheer the destruction, rather gleefully as the Buzzfeed News headline made clear: “Israelis Seen Clapping And Eating Popcorn While Watching Bombs Drop On Gaza.”

Photos posted on Twitter (now X) by Danish Middle East correspondent Allan Sørensen prompted  outrage at Israeli inhumanity by many commenters.

Aliya Nazki: “I’m sorry but people, any people, celebrating death anywhere is abominable.”

Syed-Makki Shah: “morality of a people so skewed that murder is a public spectle [sic].  an astonishing thing to see in this day/age?”

It would seem obvious that the inhumanity is an attribute embraced by a plurality of a people who seemingly internalized a perverse lesson from World War II.

Nonetheless, the historical collection of photos of Palestinians and the portrayal of their lives is an irrefutable testimony to the humanity of these people. While there is a national commonality shared among Palestinians, there is also diversity among them, such as the Bedouins, Druze, Muslims, Christians, and also Jews.

The Palestinians are mothers, fathers, children; they have families. They jubilate at weddings and mourn at funerals. The farmers grow olives, oranges, and melons. They are fishermen, police, seamstresses, musicians, teachers, postal workers, crafts people, engineers, boatmen, stevedores, doctors, nurses, shopkeepers, and politicians. The existence of organized political institutions attests to indigenous administration despite Ottoman, British, and Israeli attempts to quash Palestinian self-government and sovereignty.

Gaze at the photos and see Palestinians at the bazaar, at work, in school, in boy-scout troops. They play basketball, soccer, and swim. The Palestinian transportation network allowed them to travel by car, train, plane, and boat. They attended churches and mosques. For leisure they’d go on picnics, watch open-air cinema, listen to Palestinian orchestras, eat in restaurants, and go to the beach.

Palestinians have all the trappings of what constitutes humanity. The photos in Against Erasure bring forth that Palestinians are humans like us. The humanity of Palestinians ought to have been unquestionable for everyone, and for those who doubted this, give your head a hard shake. But as they say: better late than never. If you are curious about what Palestinians were like before the Nakba, before the 2014 Gaza massacres, and before the current Israeli genocide or, more importantly, if for some peculiar reason, you need further affirmation of Palestinian humanity get Against Erasure and humanize yourself.

ENDNOTE:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Contempt for the Arab population is deeply rooted in Zionist thought.

— Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, 1983, 2015.

This is the holiday season for various groups of people. Some people will celebrate Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc during the winter season. Others will celebrate just because celebrating is fun.

Noting that it is Hanukkah, Sportsnet published an article titled “Oilers’ Zach Hyman: We must ‘eradicate antisemitism’.”

The article is extremely one-sided and insensitive because the Jewish State is in the midst of trying to eradicate Palestinians.

Obviously, anti-semitism must be eradicated from any moral universe. But what does Hyman’s statement imply? It is not “We must ‘eradicate every form of bigotry’.” It is explicit to one group: Jews. Do Jews face bigotry targeted at them? Undoubtedly they do. But is the biotry faced by Jews the worst form of bigotry, so heinous that subordinating other forms of bigotry is acceptable? And is it the case that Jews do not engage in bigotry against Gentiles?

Hyman is a prideful, skillful forward for the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League.

Mark Spector of Sportsnet writes of Hyman:

“I’m very proud of who I am. I’m proud of being Jewish. I’m proud of growing up in the Jewish community … and I’m proud of where we come from,” began Hyman, a 31-year-old product of Toronto’s Jewish community. The Oilers forward is the grandson of Holocaust survivors, schooled in Judaism from kindergarten all the way through Grade 12.

Why has he chosen to speak out during the eight days of Hanukkah?

To shed light on what he is seeing at home. To shine a candle on a growing sense of antisemitism right here….

“It’s very clear that antisemitism as a result of what’s going on has been on the rise. Jewish people … don’t feel safe. There are attacks on synagogues. My high school [in Toronto] has had two bomb threats. This is just for being Jewish. It’s just because you’re Jewish. There’s no other reason.

“There’s no other reason”? Apparently, Spector and Hyman are seemingly unaware that people in their self-declared Jewish State are engaged in a genocide against Palestinians and that the genocide has been in progress since 1948.

Jewish anti-Arabism has been on prominent display over the decades unabated to the present day. Recently, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant denigrated the Palestinians as “human animals.” Jerusalem deputy mayor Arieh King protested that Palestinians are not “human animals”; they are not “human beings”; they are “subhuman.”

The genocidal language of the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem – Calling Palestinians animals and subhumans, and asking them to be buried alive. pic.twitter.com/siYWqCZiJ9

— Ashok Swain (@ashoswai) December 8, 2023

It is a commonly held tenet that one should clean up one’s own backyard before complaining about the backyard of others.

At its most basic level, backyard tenets would include mutual respect between neighbors and non-violence (definitely no spilling of blood; especially of civilians, whether they be elderly, children, women, or men). What does mutual respect require? Observing the golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

To prioritize concern about anti-semitism at a time when Israeli Jews, supported by Jews in the diaspora, are committing genocide against Palestinians speaks absurdly to a person’s moral basis. In essence, what Spector, Hyman, and Sporstnet are promoting is Jewish people first even when Jews are knocking down hospitals, blowing up schools, and destroying another people.

As Chomsky wrote in his book The Fateful Triangle: “Anti-Arab racism is, however, so widespread as to be unnoticeable; it is perhaps the only remaining form of racism to be regarded as legitimate.”

Bigotry must be opposed in all its forms. To stand on morally sound ground, one must especially denounce the odious acts committed in the name of one’s group and criticize the bigotry held by members of one’s own group.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

NEW on Smithsonian Voices: Everyone's history matters. The #Thanksgiving story deeply rooted in America’s curriculum reduces the Wampanoag Indians to supporting roles. The true history of Thanksgiving begins with the Indians. @SmithsonianMag https://t.co/nQkI2CnLk4 pic.twitter.com/UhuksA9RGf

— National Museum of the American Indian (@SmithsonianNMAI) November 23, 2017

No one will dispute that the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island from Umingmak Nuna (Ellesmere Island) to Tierra del Fuego were here long, long before the White Man arrived. So, if land is to be “owned,” it seems only right that the people who first settled it would become the owners. However, the Europeans who chanced upon Turtle Island claimed it in the name of their God and their rulers. Now, if Martians were to land here and claim the land, would any of the inhabitants of the western hemisphere accept that? No, because the Martians were latecomers, and they have their own planet. So by what morality do European Johnny-come-latelies lay claim to Turtle Island? And by Johnny-come-latelies, that is many millennia after the First Peoples arrived.

The First People were originally believed to have crossed the Bering Ice Bridge some 12,000 YA. That time frame has now been superseded, as even in Canada, the evidence is that Indigenous peoples were in the Bluefish Caves in Yukon 24,000 YA. And now some researchers are positing that the first humans might have been here as long as 130,000 YA. At any rate, that is many millennia longer than the first White Men, the Norsemen, who stayed for a while in Ktaqmkuk (Mi’kmaw designation for Newfoundland) back in 1000 CE.

Nonetheless, the Europeans arrived, claimed and took (stole would be an accurate verb) the continents north and south.

Today is Thanksgiving Day in Canada. Thanksgiving traces back to 1621 in the United States. In Canada, it originates with the English explorer Martin Frobisher’s third voyage in 1578. Frobisher arrived in Ktaqmkuk/Newfoundland while seeking the Northwest Passage. It was in Ktaqmkuk/Newfoundland that Frobisher had a meal of salt beef, biscuits and mushy peas to celebrate and give thanks for their safe landing.

But the arrival of the White Man was not about giving; it was about taking that has continued to this day.

What has been taken (Canadian context, but applicable in the US)?

1. First of all, colonialists took the land. It has been divvied up into provinces and territories, black-topped, and renamed (quite often to the names of colonialist).
2. Their children. The state had the RCMP remove children from their families and be placed in Indian Residential Schools.
3. Their spirituality. Indigenous peoples were forcibly proselytized in the church-run schools.
4. The rich culture. Canada outlawed the Potlatch, an important ceremony of the Pacific Northwest First Nations.¹
5. The vibrant languages. Children were forbidden to speak their language in the residential schools. Linguicide was the result.
6. Law and governance. Indigenous peoples were now subject to White Man’s laws. Even their ways of governing themselves were rejected by the White Man.
7. The resources. White Man practiced capitalism, an economic system antithetical to Indigenous peoples. “Those Indians who go over to the white man can be nothing but beggars, for he respects only riches, and how can an Indian be a rich man? He cannot without ceasing to be an Indian,” said the revered leader of the Oglala Lakota, Red Cloud (Maȟpíya Lúta)² Professor John Lutz wrote of the historical “dialogue” and the subordination of Indigenous economies in the Pacific Northwest. Prior to the establishment of white settlement, the Indigenous peoples of present day British Columbia were among the richest and best-fed societies in the world.³ Thus, the trees were felled, the land was mined, the oil and gas were drilled, the earth and water was polluted.
8. The fish and game were exploited and became scarce or extinct. The bison no longer roamed the prairies in huge herds. The salmon no longer return to the rivers in previous abundance. The great auk and the passenger pigeon are extinct, as is the Atlantic walrus and blue walleye of the Great Lakes.
9. Sovereignty. The Indigenous peoples find themselves deprived of nationhood and hindered in their freedom of movement by colonially created borders. Even within the unceded territory of their ancestors, the colonial government acts as the owner and ruler. Thus, the Wet’suwet’en find themselves in a battle against the forces of the Canadian state. The hereditary chiefs are ignored and subject to arrest. And Canada is held to account by Amnesty International.

ENDNOTES

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

A question: Is it the case that an individual member of an organization who rejects participation in the wider group’s malefaction is to be held equally culpable in the wider group’s evildoing just by virtue of affiliation?

If so, this panders to the quilt by association fallacy.

In Canada, the Justin Trudeau government has further sullied its reputation and the reputation of Parliament by having invited and feted the 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero” who had fought against the Russians.

Yet, fighting against the Russians obviously meant that Hunka had to be fighting on the side of Nazi Germany. That fact seemed to elude the Canadian parliamentarians.

This incident ripped the mask off Trudeau’s protecting “Canadian values,” causing the government to try and have the embarrassing episode struck from Hansard.

“The fact that a motion from the government benches to suppress any official (Hansard) record of the incident being tabled does nothing but underscore its culpability in Canadian-Ukraine fascism,” said the ever insightful writer T.P. Wilkinson in an email.

Canadian officials are concerned that the proper vetting of invitees to the Parliament was not carried out. A spokesperson for the speaker of the House of Commons, Anthony Rota, indicated that Rota had not shared his list of invitees with the Prime Minister’s Office or any opposition parties before the event. Rota had to take the fall, resigning as speaker.

Was it political cowardice that caused Trudeau to duck the subsequent Question Period and evade fellow parliamentarians?

Are there “good Nazis”?

Hunka was a volunteer member of the 14th SS Division Galicia. The SS were notorious for committing war crimes.

But does being a Nazi mean one is ipso facto a war criminal, a scumbag, or some other nefarious descriptor?

Wernher von Braun was a Nazi who was also a rocket engineer. The Americans brought him stateside where he later became a director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Von Braun designed the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would send Americans to the moon. The Americans, apparently, thought von Braun was a good enough Nazi to bring to US soil.

What about Oskar Schindler, the German industrialist who was the main protagonist in Stephen Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List? Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party, but he is depicted as a humanitarian for helping Jews escape Nazi persecution.

What about Dr. Hans Münch? Or Karl Plagge, former commander of a Nazi forced labor camp? Or John Rabe, an ardent Hitler supporter? Or Nazi party official Helmut Kleinicke who Israel designated as Righteous Among the Nations in January 2020. These men have been described as “good Nazis.”

Nazis are not alone in their monstrosity. To access the research findings of the notorious Japanese scientists of Unit 731 who carried out exceedingly cruel criminal experimentation on humans, the US government had them snatched from the docket of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and brought to America.

Nazism and Chrystia Freeland

Canada, which had denied safe haven for over 900 Jewish refugees aboard the MS St Louis in 1939 (an unsavoury incident for which Trudeau issued a formal apology in 2018), had for some reason seen fit to open its borders to allow several Nazis in.

Nazism is strident in Canada.

Currently, Ukrainian-Canadian Chrystia Freeland serves as number two in Canada’s government, deputy prime minister. This is despite critics branding her as sympathetic to Nazism.

Russian officials are also critical of Freeland. Kirill Kalinin, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Ottawa, charged that Freeland evaded revealing her grandfather’s complicity with Nazis during World War II.

Freeland has brushed aside questions regarding her grandfather’s Nazi involvement as Russian disinformation designed to undermine Canadian democracy. Yet, on 7 March 2017, the Globe and Mail reported that “Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper.”

The sins of the grandfather do not fall upon the granddaughter, but Freeland must have felt the pressure to publicly denounce Nazism. On 28 March 2019, the CBC quoted Freeland  as saying: “Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, ‘incels,’ nativists and radical anti-globalists who resort to violent acts are a threat to the stability of my country and countries around the world.”

However, on 4 March 2022 Canadian Dimension headlined an article: “Chrystia Freeland’s ties to Ukrainian nationalists reveal a double standard The deputy prime minister was photographed with a scarf associated with the Ukrainian far-right at a demonstration in Toronto.”

Freeland deleted a tweet she had posted and relied again on the ad hominem fallacy of Russian disinformation.

Canada’s Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland has now deleted her earlier post where she’s holding a banner with the colours of a far-right group and replaced it with one where she isn’t. pic.twitter.com/UdxtmaCgJi

— Paris Marx (@parismarx) February 28, 2022

It seems more like the claim of disinformation applies to Freeland as evidence indicates that she had contributed to an encyclopedia downplaying the ties of Ukrainian SS units to Nazism.

Trudeau’s double standards on Nazism

When the Trucker Convoy gathered in Ottawa to oppose the government’s COVID mandates, prime minister Trudeau smeared the protestors as homophobic, racist, and Nazis. Hypocritically, it is Trudeau’s government that has had to deny accusations of aiding Ukrainian Nazi fighters. On 4 May 2022, the Department of National Defence dismissed any allegations that the Canadian Armed Forces had trained Ukrainian Nazis. Yet CTV wrote that there is plenty of evidence that Canada helped train Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion and called for the government to be held to account. Unfortunately, support for Ukraine spans the spectrum of Canada’s major political parties, and it is abetted by Canada’s mass media.

So, the hullabaloo — deserved as it is — is puzzling surrounding the former Waffen SS volunteer, Yaroslav Hunka, given a longstanding lax attitude toward Nazism by Canada.

Hunka does have support in at least one corner. The president of the Ukrainian National Federation of Canada, Jurij Klufas, complained about the unfair treatment Hunka is receiving. He makes the point that Hunka was fighting for Ukraine — not Germany — and that Canada, along with other countries had cleared his division of war crimes.

“If you’re a soldier doesn’t mean you’re a member of a certain party from the country,” Klufas said.

How were Nazis accepted into Canada?

A Canadian commission headed by Jules Deschênes issued a report with findings and recommendations concerning the Galicia division in which it stated that “it is worthwhile to pause and examine the blanket accusation brought against the members of the Galicia Division” (p 249) who were held in Britain as POWs.

On 31 May 1950, it was decided by the Canadian cabinet “that Ukrainians, presently residing in the United Kingdom, be admitted to Canada notwithstanding their service in the German army provided they are otherwise admissible. These Ukrainians should be subject to special security screening, but should not be rejected on the grounds of their service in the German army.” (p 250)

An excerpt from the Screening Commission reported: “The general impression which we have formed of all the men in the camp is favourable, as they strike us all as being decent, simple minded sort of people.” (253)

“The Commission is only interested in individuals, of whatever ethnic origin,
who may be seriously suspected of war crimes.” (254)

“Membership alone in the Waffen SS does not, in itself, amount to a crime under international law; it must be membership as qualified by the Tribunal in Nürnberg. It implies either knowledge or participation.” (257)

“… no presumption of individual guilt derives from the declaration of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and that consequently, the prosecution is called to prove not only that the accused was a member of the organization declared criminal, but also that he knew the relevant facts or (if an involuntary member) that he was personally implicated in the commission of crimes….

In the event the courts have in many cases explicitly ruled that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution.” (259)

Remarks by Scott Ritter

Former US Marine  intelligence officer Scott Ritter is a superbly insightful analyst of the special military operation that Russia is carrying out in Ukraine. He is deeply versed in the history of the former Soviet Union, Russia, and militarism, and he is forthright in presenting his analysis and views. However, there is cause for one to demur from Ritter’s opinions expressed in a recent interview — opinions that are contrary to some of the findings in the Deschênes Commission.

Ritter opined about Hunka that: “He was a rifleman, so he probably shot a few Jewish women himself. He probably enjoyed it, too, because that is how those Ukrainians are that join the Waffen SS. They’re not innocent. These are ideologically motivated thugs.”

In 2011, Hunka waxed poetic in a blog about what motivated him and other Ukrainians to join the Galicia SS: “faith in God and love for Ukraine.”

He lamented that day in 1940 when two enkavedists (special groups of the NKVD, the state security apparatus of the Soviet Union) came and took their beloved Russian language lecturer, an “old, tall, noble in character” Pole, and brought him forthwith to the railway station, where other families had been brought at night, including Hunka’s aunt and uncle Kobrin and his cousins Stefa and Volodymyr. He notes that Stefa, 15 years old like him, died that winter near Irkutsk in Siberia.

He wrote, “The terror of Moscow Communism raged over the Berezhansk land. The NKVD had eyes and ears everywhere.”

Hunka relates that when the German army occupied Berezhany (a city in western Ukraine) in July 1941, the German soldiers were joyfully greeted. No more would the citizens have to live in fear of a middle-of-the-night knock on the door, and Führer Hitler became regarded as the new “liberator” of the Ukrainian people.

This would seem to explain his anti-Russian, anti-Communist disposition — “those beasts turned into human form with a red star on the forehead” — a disposition that would drive him, at age 16, to join the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Is it an honest accounting of his time during WWII? He does not mention the Waffen SS in his blog posting.

Hunka’s professed motivation for joining the OUN/Galicia Waffen SS is understandable, even if the reasoning was flawed. But what do most 16-year-olds know of the world and war? The adult Hunka, who was 85 when he wrote the blog, is another story. Obviously, the truthfulness of the blog relies upon the veracity of its writer.

His joining the nationalist OUN

Ritter was also scathing about Freeland: “Chrystia Freeland, herself, is just a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi…. She is scum personified, and so is almost everyone of Ukrainian descent in Canada…. but I’m not saying that just because you are Ukrainian you are scum, but I’m saying that if your ancestors were Nazis and if you continue to glorify their history, and you continue to try and whitewash it, then you are scum, too.”

For Ritter, Hunka  is a “murderous Nazi war criminal.” This is based purely on Hunka’s affiliation in the Waffen SS.

There is no denying that the SS is an utterly despicable outfit. And if Hunka did commit the war crimes that Ritter alleges, then he is indeed a monster. But merely joining a despicable outfit such as the Waffen SS does not mean that a person participated in any horrendous acts against other humans. However, there is a matter of the incriminating cognizance of egregious crimes. At best, Hunka can be accused of being naive or foolhardy in joining the SS for whatever reason. And, to iterate, if Hunka did commit war crimes, then he should be held accountable.

Good for the goose, good for the gander

If everyone who allied with Nazis can be denounced as scum, then the same principle should apply to other despicable outfits that are known to have committed war crimes. That would definitely include the US military as it (with the collusion of Britain and France) is held to have deliberately starved German POWs after Germany’s surrender in WWII, perhaps killing as many as 1.7 million POWs (see Other Losses by James Bacque); the scorched earth destruction and wanton commission of war crimes in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (See A.B. Abrams’s Immovable Object North Korea’s 70 Years At War with American Power. Review. US atrocities were not limited to the DPRK but occurred even in South Korea; e.g., the No Gun Ri massacre); the several massacres perpetrated in Viet Nam (e.g., the rape and killing of women and slaughter of elders during the My Lai massacre); the disgusting abuse of military superiority in Iraq from the Highway of Death, which likened the slaughter of retreating Iraqi soldiers to shooting fish in a barrel, and to the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib; bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan; and the cowardly sacrificing of Ukrainian lives to fight the US-Nato war against Russia. The US military is steeped in war crimes. (See A.B. Abrams’s Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences. Review.)

Scott Ritter was in the US military. Does that make him scum and a rapist of little girls? No. So why does it make every Nazi a war criminal and rapist?

Where does Ritter get off saying things like: “This 98-year-old guy was a young guy at the time, …. He was chasing down the Jewish girls and killing them and raping them because that is what they [the Galicia SS] did.”

There are far too many documented accounts of American soldiers raping and killing. Can one therefore say Ritter was chasing down Iraqi girls and killing them? Of course not.

Ritter, who was an opponent of a war on Iraq, also acknowledges that at one time he was sharing intelligence about Iraq with Israel. But Israel is a war crimes monstrosity itself that is engaged in massive human rights abuses and killings of the indigenous Palestinians.

Thus, it was surprising to hear Ritter say, “[W]hen Jewish people say ‘never again,’ I have to respect that. They mean ‘never again.'”

Ritter doubled down on those two words, never again: “It means it ain’t never again gonna happen.”

Again I will demur with Ritter on this point. The oft heard maxim is that actions speak louder than words. Words are easy. Words in isolation don’t deserve respect; it is the rightful actions that deserve respect. It is the actions that give force to the truthfulness behind words.

Returning to Israel, an informed observer would ask what does the slow motion genocide of Palestinians by Jewish Israelis, supported by much of the Jews diaspora, signify for fidelity to the refrain “never again”?

Conclusion

Dr Wilkinson:

I spent much of my youth around the military and naval forces. I know the sources of the attraction. Ritter is sincere in his loyalties and criticisms. However the reality was for many in the thirties and forties that the SS was just as proud as the USMC. The Corps is the most heavily indoctrinated branch of the regular US military- even the Navy keep them at arm’s length.

So Ritter should not throw stones at nonagenarians.

No peoples are a monolith.

People, especially those imbued with the folly of youth, can make foolish mistakes in choosing which friends to hang with, gangs to join, and organizations to participate in. Then there are those persons addicted to lethal violence some of who primarily enlist in the military for a chance to shoot and kill a purported enemy and not to serve firstly as a defender of their country.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that some people felt or were trapped by their foolish choices but refrained from taking part in dastardly acts of their group. To be clear, people are culpable for their choice of who they associate with. But does this make them equally culpable for the misdeeds of the wicked group members?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

But wait a minute! Your group works a 5-hour shift while the other group works a 3-hour shift for the same pay. Your group would be working 40% more for the same pay as the other group.

Is this equal pay?

I doubt few people would consider that they were being paid equally if this were the case they found themselves in.

In an interview on TSN, after her straight set victory over Czech player Markéta Vondroušová, the American player Madison Keys said, “Luckily for us [women], I don’t play 5 sets.” This she said noting the longer duration that male players currently endure in hot, humid, energy-sapping conditions on court compared to the women.

Novak Djokovic cools down with ice bag around neck between games. Image: Express.

The current edition of the US Open Tennis Championships being held in New York is proudly celebrating what it proclaims is “50 years equal pay.”

It is big money, especially if you are the male or female singles champion with a take-home prize of $3 million.

However, while the women play a best of 3 sets, the men play a best of 5 sets. If all matches are played for the full number of sets, then the men play 40% more sets than the women — for the same pay.

Is this equal pay?

It seems clear that if the tennis grand slams, 4 premiere tennis tournaments that claim pay equity for female and male competitors, honestly want to claim pay equity, then there are two simple options that would bring about honest pay equity: 1) have both men and women play best of five sets or 2) have both men and women play best of three sets.

Doesn’t equity mean equal pay for equal work?

Anarchist economists would posit that genuine equity would be equal remuneration for equal effort and sacrifice. This would be regardless of gender or group affiliation.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

— Sunzi, “Chapter 3: Attack by Stratagem,” The Art of War

Chinese wisdom from 6th century BCE explains why China, barring the crossing of a redline by separatists in Taiwan, has no inclination to attack. Why would China want to destroy a part of itself? Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the country has navigated bumps in the road while pursuing a path of supreme excellence.

In the late 1940s, in the latter stages of the Chinese civil war, after the Communists had defeated the Guomindang (KMT) on the mainland, the KMT escaped across the Taiwan Strait. Because the US 7th fleet was patrolling the waters and protecting the KMT, and because the Communists lacked a formidable navy, an aquatic pursuit was ruled out for the Communists.

The US interjecting itself into a far flung conflict was not unusual. Author William Blum wrote about this, remarking about American untrustworthiness toward erstwhile allies in his book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (pdf available online).

The communists in China had worked closely with the American military during the war, providing important intelligence about the Japanese occupiers, rescuing and caring for downed US airmen.¹ But no matter. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek [of the KMT] would be Washington’s man. (p 20)

Fervent anti-communism in Washington and Langley, saw the CIA aiding the KMT against the mainland. But the US would have to address One China:

The Generalissimo, his cohorts and soldiers fled to the offshore island of Taiwan (Formosa). They had prepared their entry two years earlier by terrorizing the islanders into submission—a massacre which took the lives of as many as 28,000 people.¹⁵ Prior to the Nationalists’ escape to the island, the US government entertained no doubts that Taiwan was a part of China. Afterward, uncertainty began to creep into the minds of Washington officials. The crisis was resolved in a remarkably simple manner: the US agreed with Chiang that the proper way to view the situation was not that Taiwan belonged to China, but that Taiwan was China. And so it was called. (p 22)

Thus it was that the anti-Communist US had a dog in this fight, and that dog was (and still is) Taiwan. The US backed Jiang Jieshi (aka Chiang Kai-shek), and the CIA trained, organized, and conducted military incursions across the Taiwan Strait against the mainland. (p 23)

Manifestly, the big fish for the imperialist hegemon to try and fry is the One-China policy, to which the US is a signatory, which acknowledges there being only one China and that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Such is the fervor of the diminishing imperial US that it unabashedly is in violation of an agreement it signed by de facto treating Taiwan as a separate country by selling arms to it and sending political representatives and military personnel without seeking the approval of the government in Beijing. How would the US feel if China sent political representatives to meet with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement? If China sold or gave arms to this movement? After all, the Apology Resolution — passed in 1993 by a Joint Resolution of the US Congress 100 years after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy — “acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands.”

Canadian and American media reported on 4 June “that a Chinese warship came within 150 yards of colliding with an American destroyer in the Taiwan Strait during a joint U.S.-Canada exercise.” Of note: the US media report mentions that the US-Canadian warships were “allegedly in international waters.” If not allegedly in international waters, then presumably they were in Chinese waters.

Of concern to US militarists is the realization that China’s navy is larger than the US navy and the gap is widening. More foreboding for any potential attacker are China’s hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

Even if the warships were enforcing freedom of navigation (FON), an analysis, published on 15 May by the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI) at Peking University, questions what exactly FON means for the Taiwan Strait.

SCSPI argues that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea “ultimately aims to maintain a balance between the interests of maritime powers and coastal states. There has never been an unrestricted right of navigation in the Convention or in general international law.”

Although foreign ships enjoy the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea, Article 25 of the Convention provides that the coastal state may take the necessary steps to prevent passage which is not innocent. That is, the coastal States have the right to decide whether the passage of a foreign ship is consistent with the “right of innocent passage” under Article 19. The Convention also provides that the coastal State may adopt domestic law on innocent passage and may require a foreign warship that disregards any request for compliance with domestic law to leave the territorial sea immediately…. U.S. warships may exercise the right of innocent passage, but at the same time must respect the coastal state’s determination of whether the passage is innocent and comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea.

If China was a militaristic country, then people ought to consider when would be the most opportunistic time for China to militarily reincorporate Taiwan back into the motherland. How about when the US is on the verge of an embarrassing defeat in Ukraine, having sunk almost $115 billion into losing a proxy war and having depleted much of its weapons stores, having its missile defense batteries destroyed, HIMARS defended against, anti-tank Javelins brushed aside, Bradley tanks rendered nugatory, etc?

What conclusion then can one draw from the fact that militarily powerful China has not launched any attack against Taiwan during this period of time?

The US seeks to keep Taiwan separate from the mainland, as a reincorporated Taiwan would open strategic access to the Pacific for the PRC. Thus, president Joe Biden has doubled down on his pledge to intervene in any fighting between China and its province Taiwan. Two problems with Biden’s tough-guy posturing: 1) words are cheap; and 2) aside from making clear its redlines, the talk of China attacking its province of Taiwan is all from the US side. It is clearly not in the mainland’s interest to kill its own citizens or cause damage to the island. China has pledged itself to peace.

I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of Democracy: What the West can learn from China and Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, his analysis of what US interventions hold for the One-China policy.

*****

Kim Petersen: Taiwan became part of the Chinese Qing dynasty in 1683. That is almost a century before European natives destroyed several Indigenous nations and dispossessed them of their land, resources, culture, language — i.e., genocide — and established the ill-begotten United States of America in 1776.

Yet the US encourages the separatist movement in Taiwan led by the Democratic Progressive Party. Importantly, the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) also claims that there is one China and that the mainland, Tibet, and, until 2002, even outer Mongolia constituted the ROC.

Why is Taiwan outside the direct control of the PRC? This is because despite being aided by the US, Jiang Jieshi and the Guomindang (KMT) were defeated by the Communist forces led by Mao Zedong. The US 7th Fleet, however, protected the escape of the KMT to Taiwan, as China at that time had a minuscule navy. If not for that, the Communists might well have brought Taiwan fully back into the motherland’s fold long ago.

The US and western-aligned media serially warn that the PRC is poised to invade Taiwan. The US says it stands poised to blow up Taiwan’s critical chip producer TSMC in case of a Chinese attack. Why would the PRC militarily attack a valuable part of the motherland, especially given that the vast majority of the planet’s 190 or so countries recognize the one-China policy whereby Taiwan is a province of the PRC?

Wei Ling Chua: To explain clearly a series of essential facts (including not widely noticed facts) about the relations between Taiwan Province, China, and the USA, I need to breakdown the information as follows:

Ignorance of Taiwan Youth about their own Constitution

Recently, a number of street interviews were conducted in Taiwan province asking young Taiwanese “Do you know the relationship between the Republic of China and Taiwan?”, the reply shocked the interviewer as the majority of the youth in Taiwan didn’t even know their political entity’s official name is the Republic of China (ROC), and that the ROC’s constitution regards the mainland of China and Taiwan being parts of the ROC sovereign territory. For example:

• A street interview in June 2023 asked: “What is the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC?” The reply: “…Enemy…”;  The interviewer then asked: “Have you heard of ROC? Do you know where is ROC?” The reply: “The other side of the Taiwan Straits? … I don’t know, I don’t know…” During the interview, almost all interviewees didn’t know the ROC, some later replied: “Taiwan” (with a guessing element after observing the interviewer’s tone);
• A street interview in May 2023 asked: “What is the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC?” The reply: “… looks like the relationship is not too good…”; The interviewer then asked: “According to the ROC constitution, Taiwan sovereignty includes the mainland of China, do you know that?” The reply: “No”.

The above interviews demonstrated the success of the ongoing brainwashing tactics used by the current ruling party (the DPP) in Taiwan province by modifying historical facts in school textbooks in the past 2 decades. One needs just to search under “DDP modify Taiwan history textbook” to learn about the issues. If one uses simplified Chinese or traditional Chinese to search the subject, one will get even more examples and news on the topic of young Taiwanese being heavily brainwashed into believing that they are not a part of the Chinese civilization despite their shared history, culture, tradition, values, food habits, ethnicity, religions, and languages (spoken and written). This reflects the scary effect of what fake news and propaganda could do to divide society and create conflict across the world.

The one-China wording in the ROC Constitution

It is important to note that the content of the ROC Constitution is still the same today as before the Nationalist government lost the internal war to the Communist Party and escaped to Taiwan Province in 1949. It is also important to note that all the incoming Taiwan Presidents and MPs have to be sworn in under the Constitution of The ROC before taking office. So, what does the ROC Constitution say about the relation between the mainland of China and Taiwan island? The full text of the ROC’s Constitution is on the current Taiwan (Province) government’s official website. The following points shown that the ROC Constitution includes the entire mainland of China as it sovereign territory:

• Point 4 of the Constitution: The territory of ROC based on its inherent boundaries, cannot be changed without a resolution of the National Assembly;
• Point 6 refers to the design of the ROC flag used since 1928 (which is still in use today across Taiwan Province by whoever is in power);
• Point 26: Outline the number of Representatives based on the population in an area/region for the National Assembly (with special mention of the Mongolia and Tibet regional representatives);
• Point 64: About the makeup of representatives for law-making: this point also mentioned the minority population representative with special mention of Mongolia and Tibet regions.
• Point 91: About the makeup of representatives in the Government Supervisory Body: again Mongolia and Tibet regions are mentioned.

If we search for a map of the ROC, one will notice that the ROC territory in the map includes the entire People’s Republic of China (PRC) territory. That means the territory outlined in the Constitution of both the PRC and ROC includes Taiwan province and the Mainland of China. Both documents are the legal foundation of one-China. So:

• Any Western media wording that suggests Taiwan province is not a part of China is without any legal foundation under both the ROC and the PRC Constitutions.
• The Western media and politicians’ ongoing warning that “China is going to invade Taiwan” is preposterous because what they are warning is that China is about to invade itself.
• America named the war between the South and the North (12 April 1861 to 26 May 1865) as the American Civil War revealing the double standard regarding the use of the term “invasion” to describe a possible future China reunification process through military action.

Therefore, the dispute between the PRC and ROC is a yet-to-settled historical event. It is purely a domestic issue between the 2 governments. Former Singapore Foreign Minister George Yao is right to point out in a recent interview that “China sees the Taiwan issue as a matter of historical justice”; he warns the Western powers about the danger of interfering in the reunification process.

The territory still under ROC control includes islands only 2 km away from the PRC-governed Mainland

Many people did not notice that the territory under the control of today’s ROC includes not only Taiwan Island itself but a number of islands right next to the mainland of the PRC. See the following screenshot map of the ROC (the purple territory in the bottom right-hand corner below is still under the control of the ROC):

One should note from the above map of the ROC-controlled (purple) territory that there are islands located right next to the mainland of China:

• • Kinmen Islands: The nearest part of the Kinmen group of Islands is just 1.8 km from the PRC (mainland China); it is 210 km from Taiwan Island. Former Chinese World Bank Chief Economist Justin YiFu Lin was a ROC army official stationed in Kinmen Islands. He is the man who in 1979, swam 2130 meters to mainland China to call the PRC home;
  • Matsu Islands: The nearest part of this group of islands is 18.5 km away from the Mainland of China and 203 km away from Taiwan Island;

• As for Taiwan Island itself, the nearest part to the mainland is 126 km away.

The above distance information between the ROC-controlled territory and the PRC-controlled mainland tells us a lot about the intention of the PRC government working towards a peaceful reunification:

• If China (PRC) wanted to take those islands right next to the mainland by force, they would have done it a long time ago. There is no reason to doubt the PRC military capability to do so given their ability to force the US-led military coalition back more than 500 km from the China-DPRK border to the 38th parallel and stop the US-led military coalition’s further aggression in the 1950-1953 Korean War;
• Even Taiwan Island (province) itself is so close to the mainland that a modern short-range missile and artillery are good enough to do the job of crippling the island’s economy and forcing a surrender; some contend that the current military technological capability of the PLA may be more advanced than the USA.
• Therefore, the ongoing Western media articles and news with headings that suggest China’s pending aggression and possible invasion of Taiwan to justify US/Japan/NATO/Australia/Canada militarism on the Chinese doorstep is nothing more than a smear campaign against China.

The History of Taiwan Island’s relation with the Chinese dynasties dates back to 230AD 

The history of Taiwan being a part of China was far earlier than 1683. This site (English) and this site (Chinese) provide a detailed Timeline of Taiwan’s relations with the Chinese dynasties beginning as early as the year 230AD: During the 3 kingdoms era, a written record of （沈莹） Shen Ying under the title 《临海水土志》 (direct transaction word by word: “surrounding seas water lands record”) already mentioned the Island of Taiwan. And that is almost 1800 years ago.

The trouble for many people who haven’t researched much about Chinese history is that they may be susceptible to Western media propaganda that portrays China as historically backward compared to the West, hence the ongoing smear campaign that China steals Western technology. So, it may be hard for some people to believe that in 230 AD, the Chinese already had the shipping technology to explore islands hundreds of km away in the rough sea. So, it is important for one to note the following facts about the Chinese being far more advanced than the West in shipping technology for thousands of year:

• One should note that the compass used by Columbus to “discover” America in 1492 AD was a Chinese-invented compass (invented during the Han Dynasty between 202 BC – 220 AD);
• 2500 years ago, China not only had a great military strategist Sun Zi (The Art of War) for land battles but also had a navy war strategist (伍子胥) Wu Zi Xu for water battles 《水战兵法》 (direct word by word translation “Water war military strategy”).

One should also take note that before Columbus “discovered” America in 1492 (as if the Indigenous peoples on the continent at that time were not regarded as “human beings” and so, the land has to be “discovered” by a “higher being” from Europe), the Ming Dynasty Navy General Zheng He had already led 7 ocean expeditions traveling the world (1405 to 1433), with “hundreds of huge ships and tens of thousands of sailors and other passengers. More than 60 of the 317 ships on the first voyage were enormous Treasure Ships, sailing vessels over 400 hundred feet long, 160 feet wide, with several decks, 9 masts, 12 sails, and luxurious staterooms complete with balconies.”

It is important to note that, despite such a scale of world voyages, China did not do what Columbus and Captain Cook’s voyages did to the Indigenous population in what would become America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Ming Dynasty Imperial Voyages led by General Zheng He (a Chinese Muslim) were peaceful in nature.

There is also a well-researched book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World (including America) by Gavin Menzies (a former British Royal Navy Submarine Commanding Officer) who spent 15 years tracing the astonishing voyages of the Ming Dynasty’s fleet, visited over 900 museums across the world, engaged in conversations and correspondence with Universities professors specialized in Asia Study, and reading hundreds of titles in European country’s libraries that mentioned the Chinese voyages. Despite the fact that Gavin’s compelling narrative pulls together ancient maps, precise navigational knowledge, astronomy, and the surviving accounts of Chinese explorers and the later European navigators, and that Gavin’s research also brings to light the artifacts and inscribed stones left behind by the emperor’s fleet, the evidence of the Ming Dynasty’s sunken junks along its route, and ornate votive offerings left by the Chinese sailors wherever they landed, Gavin’s book still discredited by the Western propaganda machine as “fiction” and “controversy”. As a reader of Kevin’s book to the last word, I am convinced by the incontrovertible evidence presented in regard to the Ming Dynasty Imperial Voyages, however, other readers’ opinions are also important. Please read the thousands of reader comments here, here, and here.

So, for those who are interested to know in detail about the 1800 years of history of Taiwan Island’s relation with the Chinese dynasties, please click here (English) and here (Chinese).

One should note that, in July 1894, Japan launched a war of aggression against China. In April 1895, the defeated Qing Dynasty government was forced to cede Taiwan, etc, to Japan in an unequal treaty  (Treaty of Shimonoseki in Japanese, also known as Treaty of Maguan in Chinese).

International Treaties by US, UK, China, and Japan recognized Taiwan as China’s territory 

1943 Cairo Declaration (Image of the original document): Signed by President Roosevelt (USA), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek (ROC President), and Prime Minister Churchill (UK) as military allies against the Japanese military aggression. The objective of the Cairo Declaration is to “procure unconditional surrender of Japan,” and that “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (known as “Taiwan” in Chinese), and … shall be restored to the Republic of China” (The Chinese government at that time).

(Note: It seems that the US government history document website (https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments) has removed the Cairo Declaration document)

1945 INT Potsdam Declaration (image of the original document) Point 8 stated: “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine.” And again, this international treaty was entered into by the US, China, and UK governments, and agreed upon by the Japanese government after the US dropped the 2 atomic bombs on Japan.

Note: the US government history document website shows the full content of this 13-point document including point 8.

So, the above two international documents entered into by the US, China, UK, and Japan recognized Taiwan as a part of China, and Japan’s territory is limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” 

UN Resolution replaced ROC with PRC as the only legitimate government of China

UN Resolution 2758: passed on 25 October 1971: “Recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and removed “the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” (referring to the ROC)  from the United Nations.

Since then, as of June 2023, out of the 193 UN member nations, only 12 smaller nations recognize the ROC government, and 181 recognize the PRC government. (Including the US and all other Western governments. This is the condition for establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC.)

As a result, the ROC (in Taiwan) needs the PRC’s approval to get access to any international organizations or institutions such as the Olympics, WHO, etc. The PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan is officially recognized by the UN document and 181 UN member states.

Blood is Thicker than Water: The Policy of Peaceful Reunification Since Mao’s Era

If one searches on the Internet for “台湾 血比水浓” (Taiwanese Blood is Thicker than Water), one will notice that there are millions of articles and news headlines over the decades describing the feeling of the Chinese people in the PRC towards the Chinese people in the ROC (Taiwan Province). They regard people in Taiwan as their brothers and sisters and hope for peaceful reunification.

Since the founding of the PRC, the Chinese leadership (from Mao to Xi) has been working hard toward a peaceful reunification with Taiwan Province. Just to name a few examples as follows:

Example 1:

During the Chinese Revolution, the then Nationalist Party government led by ROC President Chiang Kai-shek killed 6 of Chairman Mao’s relatives including Mao’s beloved wife (Yang Kaihui). In 1957, Chairman Mao wrote a touching poem in remembrance of his late wife with a description of his grief when he heard the news of her murder by the Nationalist government: “bursting into tears like rainwater” (泪飞顿作倾盆雨). Despite such personal grief in losing his loved one, Chairman Mao put the interest of the people and the Chinese nation first: For example:

After China and DPRK won the Korean War against the US-led 16-nation military coalition, there was a perception of Western nations trying to break Taiwan away from the motherland to create two Chinas, like the two Koreas (North and South Korea), and the two Germanys (East and West Germany). To prevent that, in 1956, Mao wrote a personal letter to Chiang Kai-shek, telling him the importance of Taiwan’s geographical position in accessing the Pacific Ocean for the Chinese nation, and urged him to safeguard the interest of the Chinese civilization to maintain the principle of a one-China policy. That is Taiwan province and the Mainland as integrated parts of one China. He then raised the idea of negotiation toward a peaceful reunification under the following principles:

• Foreign Power should be out of Taiwan;
• Taiwan must recognize the Central People’s Government as the only legitimate government of the PRC.
• Both the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party have to uphold the principle of a one-China policy;
• Chiang Kai-Shek will enjoy a special privileged status once Taiwan is unified with the mainland;
• Once unified, besides Foreign Affairs and Defence, Chiang Kai-Shek will retain the power of administering Taiwan in all other aspects such as the power for the appointment of officials and their removal in Taiwan, the treasury in Taiwan, and Chiang is allowed to keep his arm forces, and the central government will fund the development of Taiwan.
• Once unified, both sides will stop covert operations and propaganda against each other, and will not do anything to damage the relationship of both political parties.
• In the letter, Mao also enclosed a photo of Chiang’s ancestor’s grave in China, telling him that they are well maintained. (Photo below):

Unfortunately, for Chiang, it was a hard decision.

Chiang died in 1975; to this day, his coffin is still not buried. According to his son Chiang Jing-guo’s Diary: Chiang wished to be buried on the mainland: at Nanjing, Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Zijin Mountain, Zhengqi Pavilion. Therefore, they are waiting for the day when the political climate is such that Chiang can be so interred.

Example 2:

In 1981, the PRC spelled out a 9 points policy toward peaceful reunification under a One-China policy (below is a translation from the Chinese text):

• The Communist Party and the Nationalist Party can negotiate on an equal footing;
• The two parties reached an agreement on postal, commercial, air, family visits, tourism, and academic, culture, and sports exchanges;
• After reunification, Taiwan can retain the military and enjoy special autonomy as a special administrative region;
• Taiwan’s society, economic system, way of life, and economic and cultural relations with other foreign countries remain unchanged; private property, houses, land, business ownership, legal inheritance rights, and foreign investment are inviolable;
• Political leaders in Taiwan can serve as leaders of the national political institutions and participate in national management;
• When Taiwan’s local finances are in difficulty, the central government can subsidize them at its discretion;

1. 1. Taiwanese who wish to return to the mainland to live are guaranteed to make proper arrangements, come and go freely, and not be discriminated against;

• Welcome Taiwanese businesses’ investment in the mainland, their legal rights and profits are guaranteed;
• People and organizations from all walks of life in Taiwan are welcome to provide unified suggestions and discuss state affairs together.

One should acknowledge that no other nation in world history ever went to such length, patience, inclusiveness, and generosity in pursuing a nation’s peaceful reunification with an offer like this. The PRC government always believes that given time, they will be able to develop China into a better and better society, and will eventually unify every heart and mind in Taiwan.

Has any other nation in world history ever gone to such lengths, patience, inclusiveness, and generosity in pursuing peaceful reunification with an offer like this? The PRC government has always believed that given time, it would be able to develop China into a better and better society, and would eventually unify with the hearts and minds in Taiwan.

Of course, the Western mass media will never tell the world the above generous 9 points offered to Taiwan for peaceful reunification. They will only tell the world China is bullying Taiwan.

Example 3:

After years of negotiations, in 1992, the PRC Communist Party and the ROC Nationalist Party reached an agreement in Singapore to deepen the exchange of people between both sides. Both Parties agree to the principles of One China, and any other issues can be negotiated with flexibility. The term used for such a historic agreement is “1992 Consensus.”

Example 4:

In order to win the hearts and minds of the brothers and sisters in Taiwan province, the PRC has been very generous to Taiwan’s farmers and businesses and allowed Taiwan to enjoy an enormous trade surplus of up to $104.68 billion a year. About 44% of Taiwan’s exports go to mainland China. Without the PRC’s economic support, Taiwan’s economy would likely have fallen into a negative GDP like most parts of the Western world.

Again, the Western mass media is uninterested in reporting the above trade statistics.

Example 5:

The ROC-controlled Kinmen (Jinmen) Islands with a rising population and water shortage problem. Between 2006 and 2022, the population of the Jinmen Islands increased from 76,000 to 141,500.  To help the brothers and sisters in Jinmen solve their water problem, the PRC government invested heavily over a period of 22 years in infrastructure to lay an underground and undersea pipeline to deliver water from the mainland to the islands. And sell the water to the islands at a subsidized price of 9.89 Taiwan dollars per unit of water, which is cheaper than the charges per unit of water supplied by the local authority on the islands.

Again, the Western media won’t report news like this. They will only keep spreading the message to the world: “China bullies Taiwan” and “China is going to invade Taiwan”.

Example 6:

Like the US, after decades of political infighting, corruption, and incompetency in managing the economy and infrastructure upgrade, Taiwan suffered a series of issues including an electricity shortage that requires rationing from area to area. So, power Rationing Information is made available for residents to check when their area power will be cut off and for how long. Such a situation has been the new normal for a number of years already. It has badly affected business activities and damaged foreign investment. As a result, Taiwan’s youth unemployment rate has been consistently above 10%. And nearly 60% of the Taiwanese working overseas went to China. A report in 2017 by TVBS Taiwan showed that: over a period of 35 years, Taiwan startup wages remained almost the same, 70% of Taiwan youth refused to be trapped by low wages and wished to start their own business in order to make more money. Forbes Magazine reported the issue: “Workers in Taiwan are struggling. They took home an average of $1,510 per month in 2016, according to Taiwan’s National Development Council, which is low for an industrialized Asian economy that has developed a lot like Singapore and South Korea over the decades.”

In response to such low wages and employment problems faced by Taiwanese youth, Chairman Xi canceled the work permit requirement for Taiwanese people to seek employment on the mainland.

In fact, as early as 2016, the China People’s Congress had already set up an RMB40 billion fund, to help facilitate Taiwan Youth intent on setting up their own business in China.

Again, the Western mass media is uninterested in this kind of news. They will keep telling the world that China is bullying Taiwan.

Example 7:

There are too many stories of the PRC government (from Chairman Mao to Chairman Xi) extending goodwill to the Taiwanese people and awaiting eventual peaceful reunification. It is impossible to list them all. So, just to provide a couple more examples below:

• Whenever an overseas emergency happens, such as an outbreak of war, the Chinese embassies and military will immediately evacuate all Chinese citizens, including any Taiwanese who apply to the PRC with a Taiwan Compatriot ID document. Click here for a few dozen short news and videos.
• Any Taiwanese who run into trouble while overseas can easily seek help from any of the Chinese embassies in the respective country. A number of Taiwanese friends I met, while I was working in Eastern Europe based in Hungary in the 1990s, told me that the PRC embassy staff are more helpful than the ROC commercial office representative.

In 2022, China released a White Paper titled “The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era” (Here is the full text in English and Chinese).  It is a bit lengthy but worth reading. The policy document outlines the intention to reintegrate Taiwan by all possible peaceful means, and the many benefits  Taiwan people will enjoy in the process, including all the tax revenue collected in Taiwan will be used solely for the social well-being of the Taiwanese people and the economic development of Taiwan.

China: There is no Taiwan problem, only an American-caused problem.

China is a country with a very long history of peace culture. Examples:

• Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir said: “We always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2000 years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, and in two years, they conquered Malaysia.”
• East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta defended China’s role as a growing strategic and economic power in Asia-Pacific in the National Press Club of Australia (2022), arguing: “China has hardly ever invaded other countries and was unlikely to do so in the future.”
• Indonesia’s Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto said in Singapore (2022) during an interview with Aljazeera: “But China has also helped us. China has also defended us and China is now a very close partner with Indonesia. And actually, China has always been the leading civilization in Asia. Many of our sultans, kings, our princes in those days would marry princesses from China. We have hundreds of years of relationship.”

The above 3 positive comments about China are from leaders of three of China’s neighboring countries in Asia. Their country’s experience with China since ancient times tells a lot about the peaceful nature of China. The question here is: will Latin American countries, African countries, other Asian countries, and Middle Eastern countries say the same about their country’s experience with the US and Europe? Or perhaps, will European countries say the same about their own neighboring countries in Europe?

The reality is that: Western imperialism is not dead after the 2 World Wars; in particular, the USA has always been a troublemaker for the rest of the world. The following examples should provide us with a good picture of how the US is threatening peace in Asia, and its main target since 2008 is China:

• US: Chinese are not allowed to be wealthy

During the 2008 GFC, US Secretary of Finance Henry Paulson visited China almost every month to seek help to stabilize the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. As a result, China bought almost an extra $600b in US Treasury debts in 2008, which accounted for over half the total issued by the US government to bail out the too-big-to-fail banks and the US economy that year.

Once the US economy stabilized, the world stopped dumping the dollar due to China having injected ($600b) confidence in US treasury debts, the only positive thing China received from America in return for its support of the US economy is open praise from Henry Paulson in the New York Times on 22 Oct 2008 “Thanking China’s cooperation in easing the Financial Crisis“.

Since then, in 2010, Obama said in Australia: “If over 1 billion Chinese citizens have the same living patterns as Australians and Americans do right now, then all of us are in for a very miserable time. The planet just can’t sustain it.”

In 2011, an opinion piece in the New York Times suggested that Obama “should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United State-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015.” Years later, a Wikileaks leaked email revealed the then Secretary of States Hillary Clinton wanted to discuss ditching Taiwan in exchange for China to erase US debts.

In 2013, a Jimmy Kimmel Live show on ABC asked some kids what to do about the $1.3 trillion of debts the US owes to China, a very young boy suggested that “The US kill everyone in China instead of repaying its debts.”

In 2021, Joe Biden said in a press conference: “China wants to become the most wealthy, powerful country but it’s ‘not gonna happen on my watch’.”

In 2023, under the excuse of an imaginary “China threat” and to “Protect Taiwan from China invasion”, US politicians proposed a series of bipartisan bills aiming to restrict how China can use its money, restricting China’s rights in International Financial Institutions, and a plan to confiscate China’s sovereign fund and Chinese citizens’ overseas bank accounts and assets like the way the US and Europe did to the Russians in 2022.

Please click the following links for details of their proposed “looting” bills:

• H.R.554, the “Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2023”, sponsored by Rep. French Hill;
• H.R.510, the “Chinese Currency Accountability Act of 2023,” sponsored by Rep. Warren David;
• H.R.839, the “China Exchange Rate Transparency Act of 2023,” sponsored by Rep. Dan Meuser;
• H.R.803, the “Protect Taiwan Act,” sponsored by Rep Frank Lucas;

From the above series of behavior and statements made by two US Presidents, a Secretary of State, a very young boy, the US media, and 4 politicians who sponsored anti-China bills, it is hard not to come to the conclusion about the ungrateful nature of Americans. It would appear to me that the robber DNA is deep in the blood and bone of many people in the US society (I hate to generalize my comment unless someone can convince me that the above-named series of behaviors within the US society are merely coincident!).

• US military threat to China at China’s doorstep

Let’s put aside the various issues from a reported 2012 US plan to deploy 60% of the US Navy fleet to the Asia Pacific by 2020, and the 2011 Obama Pacific Pivot with a secret plan to start a war against China by 2030 with a coalition of nations to militarily control commercial shipment to and from China via the South China seas to limit China freedom to trade with the rest of the world, and should China resist, the US-led military coalition would begin to attack China.

John Pilger is an award-winning journalist who produced a 2 hours documentary with details of US military bases around China and how the US may plan to start a war with China.

In 2017, US Admiral Scott Swift assured everyone he was ready to follow President Trump’s orders to launch a nuclear missile against China.

In 2022, former US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien suggested destroying Taiwan’s semiconductor factories rather than letting them fall into China’s hands.

In 2023, US talk show host Garland Nixon wrote on Twitter that White House insiders said that US President Joe Biden had warned about a plan for “the destruction of Taiwan” when asked if there could be any greater disaster than the Ukraine crisis.

There are endless US military activities and arrangements targeting China in recent years. Just to list a few more examples below:

• While the Western media and politicians keep telling the world that the PLA is increasingly aggressive against Western countries’ (military) freedom of navigation in the South and East China Seas, a recent report by the US Department of Defence revealed that “the US has conducted around 120 military exercises a year with allies and partners in the region.” Ironically, such statistics of US military aggression on China’s doorstep failed to attract the interest of the Western Media.

• In 2017, the US deployed the THAAD missile system in South Korea with total disregard for China’s protest.

• In 2021, Australia reached a deal with the US and UK on a $386b nuclear submarine deal with China as their target.

• In 2022, US Defense Secretary Austin announced that: “The US is at a pivotal point with China and needs military strength to ensure that American values, not Beijing’s, set global norms in the 21st century.” He then talked about the need to align the US budget as never before to the China Challenge. He then mentioned a $1.2 trillion estimated cost as part of a major nuclear triad overhaul underway by the Congressional Budget Office.

One should note that such an additional budget for military expenses is on top of the fact that the US military already spent more than the next 10 countries combined.

• In July 2023, USS Kentucky, a US nuclear submarine (capable of firing nuclear ballistic missiles) suddenly arrived in Busan, South Korea.
• Again, in July 2023, Nato head Jens Stoltenberg pushed to increase ties with Asia with the intention to form an Asia NATO alliance. Former Australia PM Paul Keating labeledStoltenberg a ‘supreme fool’ and ‘an accident on its way to happen’.

To justify NATO’s intention to set up its military presence in Asia, NATO engaged in a series of smear campaigns against  imaginary Chinese threats based on NATO’s own past behavior across the world. The latest smear campaign was in the NATO Vilnius Summit Communique. As a result, China’s Permanent Representative to the UN refuted NATO’s false accusations against China, and challenged NATO if it can make the same claims as China on the following 6 points:

1. China has never invaded other countries;
2. China has never engaged in proxy wars;
3. China has never carried out military operations around the world;
4. China did not threaten other countries with force;
5. China did not export ideology
6. China did not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs

The reality is that the US initiated an all-out hostility against China after China helped the US out of the 2008 GFC [Global Financial Crisis]. Examples:

1. Obama’s Pacific Pivot;
2. Obama’s TPP to Exclude China from International Trade;
3. Trump and Biden all-out trade Wars;
4. Trump and Biden all-out technological wars;
5. US military deployments, and military activities surrounding China. Despite the US already having 313 of its 750 worldwide military bases surrounding China, the US continued to expand by another 4 recently via the Philippines with 3 of them close to Taiwan.

The Ukrainization of Taiwan

Despite the past US administrations (1972, 1979, 1982) entering into 3 Joint Communiques with China over the Taiwan question (The One-China agreements), the US politicians have over the years, through their own acts, brutally violated all the written agreements with China re the One-China Policy. The latest developments are the worst:

In July 2023, US House of Congress passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to ban Pentagon maps from depicting Taiwan and its major outlying islands, Kinmen, Penghu, Mazudao, Wuchudao, and Ludao (etc) as part of China. (Here is the content of the original amendment bill).

Below is just a quick list of examples of US violating all its signed One-China documents with China to provoke a war over Taiwan:

• In 2021, Taiwan English News reported the news of “Pentagon doubled the number of US troops in Taiwan”,

• In 2022, VOA (Chinese news) reported that the US has again increased the number of its military personnel in Taiwan. The intention is to help coordinate both militaries in a possible future war with China.

• In April 2023, US lawmaker, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul pledged to help provide training for Taiwan’s armed forces and to speed up the delivery of weapons.

• In June 2023, Taiwan (ROC) Foreign Affair website issued a press release titled “US government officially notifies Taiwan of latest arms sales.”

• In July 2023, it was widely reported in Taiwan that the U.S. wants Taiwan to set up a P4 Biological Laboratory. Yahoo Chinese News pointed out that Taiwan Chinese newspaper (联合报) is the first to break the detail of the Biological Weapons Lab story. Taiwan CTI TV news reported in detail that the Lab is to test biological weapons using Chinese DNA as “the DNA of the Taiwan population can represent Chinese DNA.” Not surprisingly: the Western media is very much silent on this kind of news despite the fact that the US State Department later denied the Taiwanese report that the US asked Taiwan to develop weaponized biological agents.

• Perhaps to justify a possible preemptive war against China under the Bush Doctrine in the foreseeable future, the US Congress passed a $500m anti-China propaganda bill in February 2022. How much of this $500m goes to brainwashing Taiwanese?

In a recent interview, Jeffrey Sachs describes a series of US actions against China as a “Path to War With China.”

DPP politicians prepare for war and an escape route while Taiwanese people reject war

The trouble with Western forms of so-called democracy is that to win an election, one needs to build an election war chest. That is to seek political donations in return for favors when one is in a position of power. It usually involves an under-the-table deal between politicians and their donors. As a result, corporate donors, billionaires, foreign cash, and foreign powers could easily penetrate domestic politics.

Since the beginning of Taiwan having a Western form of election, dark money, corruption, bribery, and scandals news become a part of the social norm within the Taiwanese political circle. If we search for the name of any DPP senior politicians (especially Ministers and Prime Ministers) with the term “Dark-Money”, “corruption”, or “scandals”, one should notice almost no innocent people in the system. As Western media usually self-censored negative news linked to the Pro-independent party, so, the best way to search for such news is to search in the Chinese language. For examples,

• Search in Chinese for corruption of the Current Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen;
• Search her deputy (the coming DPP presidential candidate) Lai Ching-te;

Corruption and democracy often go hand in hand. Here are some hyperlinks to examples of how the US interferes in foreign elections:

• Foreign electoral intervention
• The US is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries
• “Stop US interference”: Interview with the Labour Party of Taiwan

Those who follow the Taiwan issue via the Taiwan media should notice that, while those Taiwan politicians ally with the US foreign policy and campaign for independence, most of their family members (including themselves) already have US or other Western countries’ citizenship, bank accounts, and assets. For examples,

• A report in Taiwan media in 2015 revealed half of current Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen family members have foreign citizenship;
• As for the Vice President (the coming DPP presidential candidate) 赖清德 (Lai Ching-te), his son and grandson are American citizens;

The irony is that, while these pro-independence politicians eagerly ally with the US to provoke war with the PRC by promoting Taiwan independence, their family members have on the other hand migrated overseas during this time. This is a bit like President Zelensky acting in the interest of the USA, and allowing the entire Ukraine to be bombed and destroyed, because, according to OCCRP (Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project): “Zelensky and his inner circle have unexplained $ billions overseas.”

In fact, during Taiwan’s military exercises, one of their programs is on how the president could safely escape if a war breaks out. (Of course, whenever the Taiwan media reports such escape details, the Ministry of Defense will deny it.)

The tragedy for the average Taiwanese person is that the island economy is already damaged before such a war would begin. According to a recent Financial Times report: “‘People are nervous’: Taiwan’s wealthy shelter money overseas in fear of China conflict.” The same thing happened to foreign companies in Taiwan with “half of the foreign companies in Taiwan making contingency plans due to evacuations and supply chain disruptions concerns.”  The latest Taiwan GDP is down 3.02%.

The reality in Taiwan is that many young people refuse to join the army, and the DPP government is having a problem recruiting new soldiers. As a result:

• The DPP government decided to extend serving time of the existing soldiers by an additional year;
• In June 2023, Taiwan amend the military recruitment regulation to include recruits from Hong Kong and Macao people working and living in Taiwan;
• Again, in June, the DPP government reportedly worked with the Ministry of Education to impose a 3 + 1 university program. That is 3 years of study plus a year of military training.

In February 2023, Jinmen Island local lawmakers voted to declare Jinmen a non-military zone, and Jinmen governor Li Zhufeng (李炷烽) suggests using Jinmen Island as a pilot program for the One Country Two Systems and expanding gradually thereafter.

Professor John V. Wash in a recent article titled “Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation” cited a hyperlink to a 2022 polling that showed that an overwhelming majority (82.1%) of Taiwanese now would like to preserve the status quo with only 5.3% wanting immediate independence.”

How much longer will China tolerate the US’s endless escalating military provocations?

In July 2023, Hungary Prime Minister Orban observed that “Beijing managed to develop as much in 30 years as other countries in 200 years. Therefore, they can claim their “place under the sun”. However, Washington does not accept that quick development, the fact that China preceded them in many sectors… As a result, a clash between the two world powers is inevitable…. War is not inevitable, but the USA does not accept that it has become the world’s second most powerful nation, Orbán added.”

An article on Education Monitor News rightly pointed out that “The Greatest Threat to the USA is not China, but Peace.”

In 2014, the New York Times put up an article titled ‘The Lack of Major Wars may be Hurting Economic Growth.’

One should bear in mind that the USA was created on the foundation of invasion, massacre, looting, and enslavement of others. Not a single thing the US possesses today is through peaceful means including every inch of its current territory.

Since 2008, China has already realized that its kindness towards the US will only be perceived as a weakness. That will only encourage more aggression and greed from the US imperialist rulers. So, the first thing Chairman Xi did after taking office in 2012 is to visit a PLA military base. He openly called upon the PLA to prepare for war and to win the war.

In February 2023, China released a report titled “US Hegemony and Its Perils,” and in May “America’s Coercive Diplomacy and its Harm” outlining the many crimes committed by the US against the world and that China is no longer interested in accommodating the US crimes and behaviors.

In March 2023, a Chinese government website reported that Chairman Xi Jinping told a group of more than 300 high-ranking government officials that: “History has repeatedly proven that if we seek security through resolve, security will prevail; If we seek security through concessions, security will perish; If we seek development through resolve, development will prosper; If we seek development through compromises, our development will suffer.”

In June 2023, China released The Law on Foreign Relations of the People’s Republic of China outlining the country’s attitude toward foreign relations, UN Charters, International Laws, and possible counter-action against any hostile foreign policy and behavior that harms Chinese interest and security.

In July, China called NATO “a trouble-maker”, and issued a warning to NATO: “Beijing doesn’t cause trouble, but is not afraid of trouble”. Days later, the Chinese ambassador to the US issued a direct warning to Washington: “If people violate me, I will hit back.”

So, how long will China continue to tolerate US provocation? How long will China allow the US military to continue to violate its sovereignty in Taiwan? Will China allow the US more time to arm Taiwan like what they did in Ukraine before Putin would no longer tolerate the threats and was forced to take military action?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Dispossession of a people is a thoroughly nasty business, and it blatantly violates one of the biblical ten commandments, one that is encoded in law around the world, namely, “Thou shalt not steal.” Those who have gained property and wealth, and their progeny who continue to profit from the dispossession of Others, would like to paint a prettier picture of colonialism.

Sam Sullivan, a former mayor of Vancouver and former cabinet minister in the BC legislature, is the easy-to-listen-to narrator of Kumtuks, a series of historical videos which are usually interesting and informative. However, Kumtuks often presents a gussied-up narrative around the history of colonialism. Usually omitted from the discussion is that the land that settler-colonialists came into possession of was stolen from Original Peoples who had their own laws, beliefs, economies, and culture.

The Kumtuks video “1862 Smallpox Epidemic: British Columbia’s First Major Contagious Outbreak” claims to be based in the oral history of the Haida. The source given is the book Raven’s Cry (1966, 1992) by American author Christie Harris. Both versions of the book are interesting and informative for the historical perspective they shine on the Haida and the interactions they had with the Iron Men (as the Haida called the White men). The versions differ little, but the 1992 version is preferable because of the respect shown for the names and designations used by the Haida. Bill Reid, whose mother was Haida, is a renowned artist who illustrated Raven’s Cry and was a mentor to Harris. Harris also spent time with the family of Haida artist Charles Edenshaw. Harris, Reid, and Edenshaw are all deceased. So I will refer to Harris’s book to ascertain the verisimilitude of what Sullivan says in his narration.

What does Raven’s Cry indicate about Haida feelings toward the presence and behavior of the Iron Men?

Haida hostility, as well as the stormy moat around the Haida islands, discouraged American miners. Nevertheless, James Douglas, Chief Factor for the Hudson’s Bay Company’s western district and Governor of the little colony of Vancouver Island, advised Her Majesty Queen Victoria that it would be well to maintain a gunboat on the northwest coast to protect British rights. (p 102) [Italics added.]

Harris indicates the priority of Douglas. Douglas is not said to be protecting Haida rights. This was about colonialism: protecting rights claimed by the British, rights that presumably included sailing a gunboat in Haida waters.

The Haida did not acknowledge British rights. When the Company sent its schooner Recovery in with a group of Company miners in 1852, it was thwarted. The Haida simply waited for the white men to blast. Then they rushed in and grabbed the treasure. It was their gold. Let anyone else try to take it! (p 102)

Clearly, Douglas’s  priority was objectionable to the Haida.

The “native chiefs” objected to colonialism:

“What we don’t like about the [White man’s] government is their saying this, ‘We will give you this much land,’ ” they protested. “How can they give it when it is our own? We cannot understand it. They have never bought it from us or our forefathers. They have never fought and conquered our people and taken the land that way, and yet they say now they will give us so much land — our own land!” (p 134)

Sdast’a·aas Saang gaahl Eagle chief chief 7indansuu felt likewise:

“By what right do the King George men claim this land?” 7indansuu demanded of Governor Douglas. “There are no treaties with the tribes. There was no conquest by warriors.” (p 115)

The Raven and the First Men by Bill Reid

In a lighter vein, Harris wrote,

Unfortunately, Governor Douglas retired that year, though not before making a strong case for generous treatment of Indians, or before setting aside many reservations. The Queen had honored him with a knighthood. (p 132)

Harris generally comes across as respectful and sympathetic to the Haida, but she still seems mired in a colonialist mindset. Why is taking the land of a people and setting aside some reservations for them considered “generous”? If a thief steals my library and returns a few of the books, is the thief generous?

Because the narrative in “1862 Smallpox Epidemic: British Columbia’s First Major Contagious Outbreak” is starkly at odds with the narrative in The Smallpox War against the Haida, I turned to Swanky to discuss the different narratives. I also reached out to Sam Sullivan through the Global Civic Policy Society which produces the Kumtuks videos, but have yet to hear back.

Tom Swanky: The Police Commissioner advised a journalist that Helmcken personally had administered a procedure to 500 natives on April 26, 1862, in a context where multiple observers reported that the disease – as of that date – remained confined to just one of the People represented at Victoria and these observers believed the disease still could be contained among that one People.

However, within a few days after the disclosure of Helmcken’s program, witnesses then began reporting that some noticeable number of the natives who he supposedly had “vaccinated” were seen to have the disease. Also, within ten days of Helmcken’s vaccination program being disclosed, that is, within the time usually required for an infection to become visible, the disease suddenly exploded so that it was now no longer visible among only one People, it was everywhere. This evidence is consistent with Helmcken’s program having been all or in part, not “vaccinations” but inoculation with actual smallpox. And thereby creating the opportunity for the disease to become rooted among new Peoples and spread widely as a result of inoculation epidemics. It was because of the risk of inoculation creating epidemics that Parliament had outlawed inoculation in 1840. To administer inoculations in 1862 was a violation of British law, and so any use of the procedure would have to be concealed.

There is substantial other evidence of inoculation being used to spread the disease in the North Pacific during 1862. The Oweekeno said in 1862 that the medicine the colonists sold them started the disease. Numerous other cases can be documented where doctors administered what was advertised as a “vaccination” program, but after which the disease exploded among the targeted population. In fact, there is little to no evidence that “Douglas had Helmcken send vaccines” around the colonies. At Kamloops, the HBC post manger reported administering a procedure to the surrounding natives all summer – however, by late fall, independent observers were reporting that the indigenous residents in the Kamloops area had been virtually exterminated.

Once can draw two lessons from Helmcken’s advertised “500 vaccinations.” The first lesson is that each stage of the disease undergoing an advance – beginning with its original importation in 1862 – was accompanied by some sort of public relations campaign that subsequent events would show was misdirection by those advancing the disease. The second lesson is that historians who come to this material unaware of their own colonial predispositions, or of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, seize on the first thing they read without doing the painstaking work of then seeing how events actually unfolded.

KP: The Kumtuks video mentions numerous conflicts among the Northern First Nations and the Southern First Nations, but he omits mention of any conflicts between First Nations and settler-colonialists. Instead the colonial administration of Vancouver Island is portrayed as a peacemaker in having the Northerners towed up island past Nanaimo. In Raven’s Cry, Harris wrote:

More than ever before, futile rage against the overpowering white man turned on fellow Indians. Understandably, it turned most fiercely on the Haida, the lords of the coast. Centuries of resentment burst out, especially among the northern neighbors.

The native people raged with resentment at these white men; but the rage turned on their ancient rivals. On June 12th, a thousand Haida reinforcements arrived at Victoria. (p 117-118)

The Kumtuks video seems not in concordance with Raven’s Cry or what you have written of the oral history presented to you by knowledge keepers of The People?

TS: If a researcher is unaware of the issues concerning the means through which the Crown asserted control among many of the indigenous Peoples – which diverse knowledge keepers allege was through a smallpox assisted genocide – then the researcher is unlikely to be attuned to the challenges presented by the sources.

On the one hand, among the colonial sources are the multiple efforts at misdirection – which were an integral part of the smallpox program executed by the colonial authorities – and, after 1862, there followed the usual post-genocide or post-criminal activity of denying the shameful or wrongful thing done.

On the other hand, among the indigenous sources there is the necessity of coping with having been purposefully targeted for destruction by the colonial authorities and the incoming colonial community. For the indigenous Peoples, the post-1862 task became walking a fine line so as not to offend a community that has shown a propensity to destroy you and yet wanting to work on the political task of undoing the loss of control brought about by what is understood to have been a smallpox genocide. So, for example, one will see praise offered for Douglas – politely overlooking his smallpox policies to focus on the time before April/June of 1860 when he had set a precedent of colonial respect for indigenous customs in inter-community relations and before he had begun the process of displacing indigenous authority. In addition, in things published primarily for the benefit of a colonial audience, one will see a desire not to be offensive but to cater to the colonial mythology concerning indigenous relations.

Very early in my work, I was advised by more than one elder that if I truly wanted to learn about the teaching in indigenous communities, I would learn by listening to what elders and knowledge keepers told each other or their communities and not by asking questions for someone to tell me something – for members of the colonial community often are told what they want to hear or a version satisfying some political need.

KP: The video depicts Douglas lamenting that some Indigenous peoples did not accept the preventative measures against smallpox. However, in your book, you noted how Douglas had tried to scare Haida by warning of a fake outbreak of measles. (Swanky, p 84-86) Harris in Raven’s Cry wrote:

Alarmed at the thought of what might happen next, Governor Douglas tried to banish all the natives with a measles scare, which had often worked before. But the native people weren’t frightened by it now. (p 118)

TS: This is all just fiction by someone who is not very familiar with the actual record. Nowhere does Douglas do any such lamenting. In fact, Bishop George Hills reported that the indigenous Peoples where the smallpox first broke out at Victoria were ready to do anything asked of them. Nowhere were natives reported to resist vaccinations – at least until the problems associated with inoculation began to emerge – but there are several accounts of natives going out of their way to become vaccinated.

Douglas used the false threat of an imminent outbreak of measles in June of 1860, in conjunction with his first attempt to assert control over the autonomous indigenous Peoples operating around Victoria. Dr. Helmcken proposed this plan and the hope was that all the autonomous communities would flee and then, when they returned, they would be assigned to spaces and come under the Police Commissioner’s control. Helmcken made this proposal in the Assembly and it was reported in the newspapers. Since Capt. John, the Haida leader who led the resistance to Douglas’s policies – and some other natives – were fluent in English, they would have learned from the newspapers that the threat was part of a dishonest plan to assert control over them. There was every reason not to be frightened and to be resentful of this dishonest trick.

KP: Douglas is portrayed as a defender of First Nations. The video gives Douglas a pass for having been away on the mainland when police towed Northerners into the ocean to return home. But the Kumtuks video states that the oral history of elders tells of Douglas trying to save lives by having the Haida towed home.

TS: This is not true. In another case of what turned out to be misdirection, the Police Commissioner advised the newspapers that he and a colonial gunboat would accompany north the Haida expelled on June 11 so that they would have safe passage past their enemies in Georgia Strait. British law in 1862 was that those with the custody of smallpox carriers had a legal duty to keep a safe distance between the infected people and any nearby healthy people. On this trip north, the Cowichan fired on this convoy to keep it from leaving infected people among them, the convoy did leave infected Haida at Nanaimo, and, rather than safe passage, the Police Commission delivered the Haida to the doorstep of some enemies at Cape Mudge who could be expected to kill them. This plan failed only because the enemies of the Haida at Cape Mudge already had attacked a previous Haida convoy, became infected and were dying.

The actual oral tradition is of Douglas executing a smallpox genocide “holding hands with the HBC.” This tradition is conveyed in “The Story of Bones Bay” and the next generation of knowledge keepers was instructed in the oral tradition during a formal ceremony and pole raising in 2008. The “Story” can be found in the March 2009 edition of Haida Laas, an official publication of the Council of the Haida Nation.

KP: This brings up many questions. Why did the video mention that the police removed the Haida when Douglas was away in the lower mainland? How could he attempt to save lives from the other side of the Salish Sea? Was it an eviction or a life-saving attempt? Also, I could find no mention of the oral history of Haida elders (in either the 1966 or 1992 edition of Raven’s Cry) that testifies that Douglas was trying to save Haida lives by having them removed. After all, this is illogical at best, or at worst genocidally racist, given that 1) the video relates a Victoria newspaper editorial that settler lives were at risk from the camps, in which case gathering all Haida together without discerning who was ill or not would put some Haida potentially at risk from each other, and 2) the question of why the Northerners should be removed all the way up the long water highway, especially since the video stated that it takes 12 days for signs of smallpox to manifest and become infectious. Why send them 800 km to Haida Gwaii and not to a nearby uninhabited island of which there are many around Vancouver Island?

TS: Most serious people recognize that Douglas’ 1862 smallpox policies in the ordinary course would have been considered as criminal offences under British law. That is, everyone recognizes that it was easily foreseeable that his policies would increase dramatically the native death toll. Douglas’ apologists are left to contend that his policies – and these additional deaths – were justified because the presence of smallpox among even one of the autonomous Peoples operating in the Victoria area constituted an emergency threatening the colonial population. On examination, this turns out to be another case of misdirection. The Police Commissioner planted the theory of an emergency in the newspapers at Victoria and Douglas planted the theory at New Westminster. Douglas already had used the concept of an emergency in 1860 to justify his first attempt to assert control over the autonomous Peoples operating in the Victoria area, rather than to deal through the existing native leadership as British policy usually required. The theory of an emergency would be advanced again in a bizarre way when colonists advanced the disease to the Nuxalk and Tsilhqot’in territories.

However, there was never any emergency that constituted an existential threat to the colonial community – vaccine was readily available from San Francisco or the Catholic missions in Oregon, and most of the colonial population already had been vaccinated before the theory of an emergency had been raised. The threat to the colonial community was economic. The fear in the colonial community was that prospective miners or settlers would stay away because ordinary human beings prefer not to witness suffering on a grand scale.

If the Douglas administration had wanted to decrease the death toll from smallpox in 1862, it would have carried out the three control measures that it advertised in the newspapers: vaccinations, a pest house for isolating carriers and sanctuaries to quarantine the disease among infected communities. Instead, the administration perverted each control so that it became another means by which the disease would spread.

KP: The character of James Douglas is wrapped up very much in the colonial history of Vancouver Island and British Columbia and the attempts to extinguish Indigenous title. There are plenty of quotations that attest to Douglas being a morally centered person, but they are several quotations that point to a racist streak. Few humans are white or black. In To Share, Not Surrender: Indigenous and Settler Visions of Treaty Making in the Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (UBC Press, 2022), the contributors have varying viewpoints on Douglas. Keith Thor Carlson, Canadian research chair in Indigenous and Community-Engaged History at the University of Fraser Valley captures the lack of consensus in his piece, “‘The Last Potlatch’ and James Douglas’s Vision of an Alternative Settler Colonialism,” pointing out that Douglas is less racist than others. This is neither laudatory or condemnatory. Nonetheless, relying on quotations seems to contravene the admonition that actions speak louder than words. Overall, Douglas appears lauded by contemporary academia, cultural depictions, and wider society. With the emerging acceptance of First Nations oral history, will a purported genocidaire such as Douglas continue to elude an honest rendering of history?

TS: In his correspondence with the colonial office in London, Douglas freely refers to the Haida as barbarians and savages. He seems an average representative of the British colonial culture in the North Pacific, which culture imagines anglo-saxons as a superior race – to use Dr. Helmcken’s words. However, it is a distraction to use “race” as a point of departure when seeking to understand the transition of sovereign authority that accompanied colonialism in the North Pacific. The problem facing Douglas and the colonists was to dispossess the indigenous Peoples of their communal or “national” resources through the most cost-effective means. Douglas and others make frequent references to the “great number” of natives occupying strategic locations, pointing to the projection of overwhelming political power that is inherent in great numbers. The implicit motive for this genocide, then, is not reducing another race per se, but reducing the native voice and the capacity of native authority to defend the integrity of its sovereign control.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

John V. Walsh (@JohnWal97469920) is an antiwar writer who is well versed on China. Recently, he wrote an article titled “Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation.” Insane, yes, but it is also a blazing sign of desperation. A plethora of American words and actions touching on mainland China reveal a jittery seat of empire — nervous because the empire seems to be tottering. Meanwhile, China’s prominence continues to rise. But China doesn’t want an empire; it doesn’t aspire to a number one ranking as a powerful nation because it doesn’t deal with nation states according to some ranking. What matters for China is building a relationship based on all sides coming out winners. Nations are flocking toward the self-effacing China which does not foist its ideology on others or mess around in their domestic affairs. Thus, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, and BRICS have several potential members knocking on the door, and many of these door-knockers have already started de-dollarizing.

So what does a faltering hegemon that is desperate to hang on to its self-described status as a full-spectrum dominant, above-the-law, exceptional, indispensable beacon-on-the-hill do? Flex its military muscle by surrounding a perceived challenger with military bases and finding nearby allies to arm against up-and-comers. Sanction the perceived challenger, demonize it and its leader in media, accuse the challenger of the crimes that it commits (e.g., genocide, human rights abuses, interference in other countries’ elections, espionage, cyber crimes, predatory lending).

A potent card in the imperial hegemon’s pocket is to get the foot soldiers of vassal states to fight the hegemon’s wars.

Walsh considers whether the US can recruit the Republic of China (Taiwan) to fight a proxy war, an internecine war, against the People’s Republic of China (mainland China). Note: both the ROC and PRC claim to encompass the other. I agree with Walsh that willingly resorting to or courting war is insane. Below is an interview, conducted by email, exploring Walsh’s consideration of a US push for a proxy war fought through Taiwan against its brethren across the Taiwan Strait.

John Walsh: Thank you, Kim, for opening up a discussion. This is certainly a very important topic.

Let me preface my answers to your questions with a remark on what motivated me to write the article that prompted this discussion. The purpose of my piece was, first, simply to provide a primer on the importance of Taiwan island in the First Island Chain strategy of the US. Second, and more importantly, the purpose was to raise the danger of arming Taiwan for those in the US anti-interventionist movement who have paid insufficient attention to it. Up to now there has been little challenge to the idea that the US is simply helping out a beleaguered country with armaments whereas the arms in fact are a provocation to China. Arming Taiwan is something that peace activists in the US should raise and seek to end. Arms are pavement on the road to war.

Your first question is excellent.

I don’t know how effective the Chinese response has been. A major question is whether it is effective in deterring the separatist forces on Taiwan Island. So far, the polling shows that the overwhelming sentiment in Taiwan is for sticking with the status quo. And it makes sense for the Taiwanese to feel that way. I am sure that they have heard some version of the African aphorism, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” And although the circumstances are different, the Taiwanese must know that Ukraine is being destroyed because it has become a battleground for the conflict between the US and Russia with the US cynically and cruelly employing Ukrainians as cannon fodder. That is the key similarity between Ukraine and Taiwan.

And then there is the question of whether there is sufficient democracy in Taiwan to allow the people to choose their path. Here again Ukraine is instructive. In the 2014 coup there, the US and neo-Nazi elements installed a regime which was prowar, overthrowing a duly elected president who wished to get along with Russia. And after that, in 2019, the Ukrainians elected Zelensky who ran as a peace candidate; but once in office he turned into a hawk. Was he a fake all along? Or was he “turned” by US forces which included Neo-Nazi elements?

Could martial law be established in Taiwan if the people there proved resistant to fighting as proxies for the US? What control does the US have over the Taiwanese military after all the years of interaction? When I read reports about the buildup of “civil defense forces” on Taiwan and polls claiming 75% of Taiwanese are willing to fight Mainland forces, I wonder how intense and hawkish the anti-Mainland propaganda on Taiwan Island has become. And how suicidal? These are all questions for which I have no answer; but I fear the worst.

KP: You use the US response to a rumored Chinese listening post in Cuba, because of its proximity to the US mainland, as a useful analogy to the situation between Taiwan and mainland China. I submit another apt analogy would be if the PRC started funding and arming Hawaiian separatists or Puerto Rican separatists. This would be especially revelatory since these territories were annexed through US militarism against the Indigenous populations (as was the entirety of the mainland US landmass) while in the PRC-ROC case there is no annexation and Han Chinese are the predominant population on both sides, each claiming to belong to the entirety of China. Besides, how would the US respond if Chinese ships entered Hawaiian or Puerto Rican harbors without US-government approval, unloaded their weapons and military equipment, and then stationed Chinese soldiers there? Would the US respond only with heated condemnations? Would the Chinese ships even be able to dock? Never mind the US permitting the Chinese military to be stationed there. My suspicion is that there would be an emphatic difference in the Chinese and American responses.

JW: I agree with you. I think that Hawaii and Puerto Rico are very useful analogies for the reasons you give. Cuba came to my mind when I wrote about this, because it has been in the news recently on just this question.

I shudder to think what the US response to China’s putting troops in Hawaii or Puerto Rico would be. China can afford to be restrained because it is a rising power and time is on its side.  Its history and culture also offer a striking contrast with the colonizing, aggressive West. For many reasons, I believe that China’s statements that it wishes to settle the Taiwan question peacefully is sincere.

With China’s peaceful rise, the US sees its colossal ambition of total global hegemony, an aspiration since 1940, slipping away. As a result, the US may well be tempted to do something desperate or rash. Stephen Wertheim’s book, Tomorrow the World, gives an account of the birth of US aspiration for global hegemony which goes way beyond any previous ambitions of Empire, save perhaps for the Thousand Year Reich. Its most recent expression in US foreign policy is the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

I would say this is an entirely new stage of imperialism. The Chinese Foreign Ministry properly labels it Hegemony. This US goal explains its gargantuan military expenditures, larger than those of the next 10 most powerful militaries combined.

KP: As for the polling from 2022, it is carried out by a body called Election Study Center at National Chengchi University. One can surmise that because this body is collecting data on democracy (however that is defined) that it tends to align with the separatist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and against reintegration with the PRC. Furthermore, the Election Study Center was formalized in 1989 during the tenure of Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui who, albeit a Guomindang (KMT) member, is considered the “Godfather of Taiwan secessionism” on the mainland. The polling results may be accurate, but the polling takes place under a ROC government, one backed by the US that is at ideological loggerheads with the PRC to which it is losing ground for economic supremacy. The polling results indicate that substantial upticks occurred from 12.8% for “maintain status quo, move toward independence” in 2018 to 25.2% in June 2022. A look at the polling date from 1996 to June 2022 indicates that while there has been an overall uptick that the largest uptick occurs during the terms of US presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both of who engaged in anti-China rhetoric and began militarizing Taiwan. Do you consider that such polls have validity given that they take place in a Chinese province that has long been separated from the mainland by Japanese and US imperialism?

JW: You raise excellent points about polling which is always affected by the mainstream media and the other institutions for manufacturing consent.  These institutions are certainly highly influenced by the US. For example, Karl Gershman, until recently head of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), tells us that the NED has been active in Taiwan for 29 years now. And we can be confident that the NED is only the tip of the US iceberg.

Although the category of “maintain status quo, move toward independence” has shown an uptick in polls, as you point out, the category calling for immediate independence remains small at ~5%. Maintaining the status quo, no matter the qualification about what comes later, is all that the Mainland appears to be asking for.

Conversely, a declaration of independence or secession right now, immediately, is the red line that it is dangerous to cross. If the people of Taiwan retain sufficient agency, then it seems this red line will not be crossed. But many things could happen to deprive the Taiwanese of agency, for example a false flag operation designed to make the Taiwanese feel that war was inevitable and that they must do as the US asks and offer themselves up as cannon fodder. Let’s hope that does not happen. Better, let us in the US act to get our government to back off from its provocations that move us closer to that war.

KP: You wrote that “a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the ‘Century of Humiliation’ at the hands of the colonial West.” I understand that China is patient, strategically astute, and seeks peace as the way forward, but how does it appear when China does not control which country’s ships dock in its territory? Rather than a “return to the ‘Century of Humiliation’ at the hands of the colonial West,” might it not be more accurate to call it a continuance of a Century-plus of Humiliation at the hands of the colonial West and Japan? Assuredly, China wants Taiwan back unscathed, so is China playing it smart by biding its time?

JW: I certainly feel that China is playing it smart by biding its time and sticking to peaceful reunification. That approach preserves peace; so everyone should welcome it. The problem, as I am sure the Chinese recognize, is that Chinese restraint might lead some other countries to perceive China as a “paper tiger” and lead them to take a more belligerent attitude toward China. That in turn could lead to more strife and perhaps war.

But I would hope instead that other countries would respect China for its peaceful restraint even though it possesses enormous power. That restraint should make other countries feel that they can live in peace with China and that they do not need the help of outside forces to side with them in whatever disagreements with China may arise.

KP: Agreed. You write, “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea.” Except, it seems that this would not be a proxy war as is being waged by the US-NATO via Ukraine. China is much better situated to regulate shipping (as Russia seems now to be doing in the Black Sea) and aircraft that may enter Taiwan. Thus, the PRC is able to intercept weaponry destined for the island province. I submit, therefore, that using Taiwan in a proxy war would be extremely difficult. Also, depending on the timetable, since the US (and its European vassals) admit to being out of artillery to supply to Ukraine at present, how is it supposed to carry out proxy wars on two fronts?

JW: I agree with you that using Taiwan as a proxy in a conflict with China presents the US with great difficulties if victory is the goal of the US. But even if the US “loses” such a war, it will engulf East Asia in conflict which will set back the region’s development considerably and leave it at the mercy of the West.

Here again we can take the Ukraine crisis as an example. Both Russia and the EU, with Germany at its heart, are competitors of the US. So far, the West’s sanctions have damaged both the EU, especially Germany, and Russia although Russia has proven unexpectedly resilient. As Alexander Mercouris observes, even the Russians were a bit surprised at how well they have done. Of course, that has been possible because Russia has decisively “turned to the East,” that is toward China. China offers an economic alternative to those who are bullied by the US. Similarly, the dynamic economies of East Asia, not simply China, are competitors with the US. A conflict between China and her neighbors would damage both – and the US would profit.

Now, can this imperial divide and conquer strategy work? This scenario is essentially a replay of WWII, WWII redux; and WWII was a great boon for the US. But the ability to forestall WWII redux depends on China, its neighbors and on us here in the US. The countries of the EU have succumbed to this self-destructive approach and bought into the US proxy war on Russia – at least for the moment. The countries of East Asia seem less inclined to do the same and treat China as an enemy. But what they do in the end remains to be seen.

As I see it, the bottom line is that the US has set out to pursue this strategy. Whether it is able to do so successfully is quite another matter as you correctly point out. But if the US does go ahead, great damage will be done. For that reason we in the US must win the people to opposing it.

KP: You proffer, “So, we in the U.S. must stop our government from arming Taiwan. And we need to get our military out of East Asia. It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S.” No argument with this. I appreciate how you dispel the falsity of the threat of China. The genuine threat is adduced by the ring of US military bases around China. Why is it so difficult to realize what should be readily apparent from looking at a map of China surrounded by several US military bases while China has none in the western hemisphere? Is it the propagandizing of the western mass media or is it simply an appeal to patriotism?

JW: A good question. Part of the reason is that such a map of US bases is rarely seen in the mainstream media. In fact, recently the political comedian Jimmy Dore has shown such a map on his YouTube channel in a way that suggests it is news to his audience which is by and large anti-interventionist. That level of ignorance even with an audience like Jimmy Dore’s is a tribute to the power of the msm.

I am not sure that patriotism has much to do with it. It is due to fear of China that is relentlessly stoked in the body politic. Certainly, the relentless demonization of China and the repeated characterization of it as an aggressive, threatening power with evil leaders takes an enormous toll on the American psyche. Countering the lies about China will not be easy. But we have to work at it – otherwise the human race may not survive.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

[S]ettlers in thrall to colonial ideology saw every unfenced meadow as waste land free for the taking, especially the most fertile land supporting native self-sufficiency.

— Tom Swanky, The Smallpox War against the Haida (p 67).

July 1, was recently celebrated in “Canada” as Canada Day by “Canadians.” The Dominion of Canada was formed by the joining of three British North American colonies in 1867. It would serve as an Anglo bulwark against the French presence, and a bulwark against the American presence to the south. Over subsequent years, settler-colonialists spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Arctic coasts in what was deemed Canada. When the first European natives, the Norsemen, appeared in 1000 CE, Indigenous peoples had already inhabited the land for millennia, or as they often phrase it, since time immemorial.¹

The Original Peoples in Canada were dispossessed, largely decultured, proselytized, assimilated, disappeared. The founding peoples of Canada, as depicted on Canada’s colonialist coat-of-arms, are the English and French. Not the Indigenous peoples. The official languages of Canada are English and French. Indigenous languages are not recognized federally as official; moreover, linguicide of Indigenous languages was an outcome of the Residential School programs. This all amounts, unquestioningly, to cultural genocide.

But the genocide is more than just the annihilation of a group’s culture and language.

In The Smallpox War Against the Haida, author Tom Swanky (with contributions from Shawn Swanky) amplifies the oral history of the knowledge keepers among The Peoples that hold the administration of James Douglas, first governor of “British Columbia” (1858–1864) and second governor of “Vancouver Island” (1851–1864) culpable for a genocide via the spreading of the smallpox virus in 1862-63. The Original Peoples would suffer a horrific number of fatalities and would be rendered unable to withstand seizure of their land nor the implementation of colonial government and the meting out of colonial law.

Swanky humbly presents himself as conduit for the history of the knowledge keepers. He writes, “My only contribution is a search of the documentary record for evidence that may reflect on the native narrative, one way or another. I am not writing history. I am reporting how knowledge keepers tell of the history of BC’s founding and considering to what extent that teaching is justified.”

Why mention this? Because while discussing the smallpox genocide with a learned gentleman, he asked who the source of the information was. I replied, Tom Swanky. I was informed that some academics consider Swanky’s thesis as disputed. This was nothing new, and it is to be expected that there would be a pushback.² However, while the book’s authorship is by Tom Swanky, the narrative is the oral history of the Original Peoples. The oral history of First Nations was recognized in 1997 as admissible in court by Delgamuukw v British Columbia. However, Alexandra Potamianos, while a third-year JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School concluded that the Supreme Court of Canada’s Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue (2001) “has made it more difficult for Indigenous claimants to use oral history to counter dominant understandings of Indigenous presence and relationships to land.”³

Granting further credence to Swanky was his reporting of the Tsilhqot’in’s oral history about a grievous wrong in which chiefs were abducted by provincial officials in violation of the sacred peace pipe ceremony. Six chiefs were subsequently hanged in Quesnel, BC. This is detailed in his book The Great Darkening: The True Story of Canada’s “War” of Extermination on the Pacific plus The Tsilhqot’in and other First Nations Resistance (2012).⁴ In 2014, then BC premier Christy Clark stated, “[We] confirm without reservation that these six Tsilhqot’in chiefs are fully exonerated for any crime or wrongdoing.”

Nonetheless, while the source of information is somewhat pertinent, what is unequivocally primary is the factuality of the information and the evidence and logic brought to bear on that information. Swanky listened to the oral history, assessed it and the historical record for verisimilitude, and applied logic to make sense of a narrative. Swanky, who holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree (among other academic credentials) connects the dots and builds a compelling case.

The Opening Scene of the Crime

It was common during that time period for First Nation peoples, the Tlingit, Haida, Ts’msyen (Tsimshian), Nuxalk, Tahltan, Heiltsuk, and others, to canoe down the water highway from the north to Fort Victoria and set up camps.

Fort Victoria was established by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1843 as a trading post at the location the Lekwungen People called Camosack meaning “rush of water.” It is not always easy to nail down the proper Indigenous designation as another moniker has it that the Lekwungen people called it Kuo-Sing-el-as, which means “place of strong fibre,” specifically the Pacific Willow. The WSÁNEĆ, Coast Salish neighbors of the Lekwungen, called Victoria METULIYE. The Haida called it Micdolly. (p ix)

The colonialist designation eponymous for an imperialist queen still persists, but probably one day moral sentiment and a semblance of honest intent toward reconciliation will result in a re-designation of the city that would honor First Nations.

The Genocidaires

Swanky has named the perpetrators of the genocide, many of who have their names applied to various geographic or manmade structures. James Douglas, who allegedly used his position of governor to plan the smallpox epidemic, had his name applied to a mountain (actually a tall hill, since renamed by the WSÁNEĆ as PKOLS while the park around the “mountain” still honors an alleged genocidaire), schools, main street, etc. Francis Poole, a bizarre prevaricator, played a major role in his peregrinations throughout the province, often connected to where smallpox outbreaks had occurred. In Haida Gwaii, his name was elided and replaced by Haida designations. Racist MLA Robert Burnaby is a capitalist whose name was bestowed on a city in the centre of Metro Vancouver, a mountain, a lake, etc. The same applies to other questionable characters in the smallpox war such as Alfred Waddington who was behind the ill-fated Waddington’s Road at Bute Inlet, MLA dr John Helmcken, AG George Cary, HBC insider Ranald McDonald, colonel Richard Moody, and others.

Indigenous characters are portrayed as well: Haida hyas tyee (roughly translates as “chief”) captain John, hyas tyee Gitkun, hyas tyee Albert Edenshaw, great Haida hyas tyee Geesh, Ts’msyen diarist Arthur Wellington Clah, etc.

Solving the “Indian Question”

Pre-1862-63, the settler-colonialists were vastly outnumbered by the Indigenous peoples and presented Douglas with the quandary of how to solve the “Indian Question.” Douglas was fervently against launching costly Indian wars. As a last resort, Douglas decided upon inflicting “cruelty and injustice” on the Indigenous peoples in the case that their suffering “could be given less regard than the ‘evils’ colonists associated with autonomous communities operating freely in colonizing zones…” (p 123-124) About this Douglas had no compunction since “natives who would not compromise their sovereign dignity should expect collective punishments. Otherwise in Douglas’ words, “the country will become intolerable as a residence for white-settlers.” (p 128)

“Cruelty and injustice” included starvation, ethnic cleansing (clearing The Peoples out of Victoria), and genocide via smallpox.

Smallpox-afflicted persons traveled by ship from San Francisco. Dubious inoculations were given to some of The Peoples. Dubious because, as Swanky relates, multiple eye-witness reported, and the timing of numerous outbreaks tends to corroborate, that Indigenes who were told that they were being vaccinated with harmless cowpox where instead inoculated with smallpox and, in that way, instead of contributing to controlling the disease, they were made into conduits for spreading the disease. Understanding inoculation as a tool of spreading the disease under the guise of vaccination is critical to understanding the “intent” required to prove genocide. The British Parliament’s Vaccination Act of 1840 had outlawed inoculation precisely because of the ease with which the procedure produced epidemics. (p 139)

Quarantining is also a tool for controlling the spread of contagions. The Songhees (a Lekwungen people) would ride out smallpox on a nearby island. Tellingly, the Douglas administration would violate British law by forcibly expelling the Northerners, forcing sick and healthy Indigenes into close contact and then putting them on the move to carry the disease up the coast and into their home territories. The administration implied that decreasing the risk of infection for Victoria’s resident colonists — most of whom had been vaccinated — justified actions that were certain to increase the First Nation death toll.

Swanky, furthermore, furnishes evidence showing that the pliable Poole, who was employed and coached throughout by MLA Robert Burnaby, set out and created his own “trail of blood” (chapters 10-13), thereby magnifying the smallpox epidemic.

Why Resort to Biological Warfare?

The settler-colonialists wanted the land. Land is regarded with deep reverence by most First Nations.⁵ For colonialists, land is money, and private property is a key cornerstone of capitalism. If a people are disappeared, then the empty land is for the taking. Smallpox was a means to weakening the ability of the First Nations to resist dispossession.

Swanky had as his starting point the oral history of The Peoples. Swanky found that the oral history is supported by the written record. That history, according to knowledge keepers as reported by Swanky, reveals that, starting in 1862, the colonialist administration of James Douglas engaged in biological warfare by spreading smallpox throughout First Nation territories. That measures such as inoculations/vaccinations and quarantines were obviated or ineffective suggests the criminality of the colonial administrations.

Thus today, the once numerous Indigenous peoples constitute 5.9% (2016 census) of the BC population. Where smallpox has not ended the existence of First Nations sovereignty in their unceded territories, colonial governments still resort to militarized RCMP and colonial courts to maintain colonial law. And when it suits the authorities, colonial court decisions anathema to politicians and corporations will be ignored. Thus today, the Wet’suwet’en are resisting an assault on their unsurrendered territory which is being scarred for a pipeline.

When the Indigenous peoples and the land they exist on is disregarded and hence disrespected, then reconciliation is diminished to a mere buzzword. It feels good to talk about it, but where is the action to back up the rhetoric?

That is why Swanky’s The Smallpox War Against the Haida is important. It is an extraordinary historically based opus resulting from detective work that combs the historical record, names the criminals, and points out legal redress to the grave crimes committed against the Haida by settler-colonialists.

If the admonition against forgetting history is a precautionary wisdom, then The Smallpox War Against the Haida ought to be promulgated in media; be taught in educational institutions, including in public schools; and should set in motion appropriate steps at atonement, beginning with a sincere apology. Indirectly, the book also provides a template for some steps for settler-colonialist society to achieve genuine reconciliation with The Peoples who were appallingly wronged, such as:

1. listening to the Original Peoples,
2. taking into account the evidence supporting the oral history,
3. listening to one’s conscience and what one’s sense of morality dictates,
4. publicly exposing history’s dissemblers and their disinformation and recasting the information and the dissemblers in an honest light,
5. educating people about the racism/supremacism that underlies the crimes of colonization,
6. recognizing the sovereignty of Original Peoples on their unceded territory,
7. recognizing the inherent humanity of all human beings, and
8. living according to the golden rule.⁶

ENDNOTES

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

That is pretty rich given that the US is arming Taiwan (which the present US administration confirms is a province of the People’s Republic of China), and certainly Taiwan’s location makes an excellently situated listening post for the CIA. Thus it appears more so, using Gaetz’s analogy, that Taiwan is being made to serve as a stationary US aircraft carrier right off the coast of Fujian. Nonetheless, China’s presence in Cuba does not violate American sovereignty. Contrariwise, the US’s meddling in Taiwan is viewed as objectionable and provocative by Beijing.

And where is the evidence for Gaetz’s claim?

Western media asked Wang Wenbin, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for comment on 9 June 2023:

AFP: Reports by US media outlets say that China and Cuba have agreed to set up a Chinese spy facility capable of monitoring communications across the southeastern part of the US. Officials in Washington and Havana have said these reports are not accurate. Does the Chinese foreign ministry have a comment?

Wang Wenbin: I am not aware of what you mentioned. It is well known that the US is an expert on chasing shadows and meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. The US is the global champion of hacking and superpower of surveillance. The US has long illegally occupied Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for secretive activities and imposed a blockade on Cuba for over 60 years. The US needs to take a hard look at itself, stop interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs under the pretext of freedom, democracy and human rights, immediately lift its economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba, and act in ways conducive to improving relations with Cuba and regional peace and stability, not otherwise.

And again on 13 June 2023:

Prensa Latina: Although China and Cuba denied the recent reports, the US government said over the weekend that it had information about this alleged spy center that they say China has been operating in Cuba. What is your comment about it?

Wang Wenbin: I made clear China’s position on this last week. Over the past few days, we have seen self-conflicting comments from US officials and media on the so-called allegation of China building “spy facilities” in Cuba. This is another example of “the US negating the US.”

What is true can never be false, and what is false can never be true. No matter how the US tries with slanders and smears, it will not succeed in driving a wedge between two true friends, China and Cuba, nor can it cover up its deplorable track record of indiscriminate mass spying around the world.

Thus, Gaetz has once again revealed the absurdity/mendacity of American politicians. Besides, what does it matter if China is building a listening post in Cuba? Is there any country on the planet that believes that the US is not spying on them? What is it that the Five Eyes are doing? What are all those eyes in the sky doing? Do US embassies and consulates not function as intelligence gathering bases? The US collects intelligence on friends and foes alike.

It even surveilles its own citizens. Don’t Americans know this? That is why Edward Snowden faces arrest should he return home. It is a moral contradiction that a whistleblower who exposes government illegality would be arrested by that same government for exposing its illegal actions.

This plays into another US narrative of the Threat of China. (See Paolo Urio, America and the China Threat: From the End of History to the End of Empire, 2022. Review.) Fox News cites an unnamed Biden administration official on the awareness

of a “number of” efforts by the People’s Republic of China “around the world to expand its overseas logistics, basing, and collection infrastructure.” These outposts would allow the People’s Liberation Army “to project and sustain military power at a greater distance.”

That is the rules-based order writ large. The US can do whatever it pleases. It can build military bases around the world and listen in on whoever it wants. But there are rules for the rest of the world to obey.

What does Gaetz propose doing? He supports “an Authorization for Use of Military Force to take out the Chinese assets in Cuba.”

I support an Authorization for Use of Military Force to take out the Chinese assets in Cuba.

We should be a lot more concerned that China is functionally turning Cuba into a stationary aircraft carrier right off the coast of Florida. pic.twitter.com/rH0WIpU5rV

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 22, 2023

Is this what American citizens need now, another war with a powerful country their government chooses to regard as an adversary — all this while the US and its NATO minions are going down to ignominious defeat in Ukraine?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

“In addition to the five existing sites, these new locations will strengthen the interoperability of the United States and Philippine armed forces and allow us to respond more seamlessly together to address a range of shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, including natural and humanitarian disasters,” said Singh.

A day later, 4 April, the US embassy in the Philippines announced a joint US-Philippines military exercise, Balikatan-2023, to be held from April 11 to 28. It was billed as the largest military manoeuvres in the history of the Philippines, with more than 5,000 Philippine troops and more than 12,000 US troops taking part.

To anyone familiar with the world map, it jumps out immediately that the Philippine’s geographical proximity to Taiwan and the South China China is exactly what the US is looking for in its Pivot to Asia (specifically China): a location where the US can try and impose containment on China.

This realization was clear to China, and China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Yi responded guardedly: “China has sent a signal to the Philippines to not allow third parties to sabotage the friendly relations between the two countries.”

Helping Those in Need

More recently, on 16 June, the Philippines news website Inquirer.net ran a piece on a request put out by Philippines president Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr to help his country procure affordable fertilizer.

Did the US step up?

China stepped up and donated 20,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer to the Philippines.

“This donation that came from China was a product of our request from all our friends around the world during the crisis when fertilizer — well, what we are still feeling now when fertilizer prices went up and the availability was also because of the supply chain problems that we are experiencing with our usual suppliers and China did not think twice and immediately came up,” said Marcos.

Relationships Based in Dialogue

China does not base its relationships with other countries through force of arms.

Regarding disputed territory in the South China Sea, China seeks to solve this through negotiation. One point of contention is a dispute over fishing in the South China Sea. China says the fishing ban from May to August is to sustain fish stocks and improve the marine ecology. The Philippines is opposed to this imposition.

Regarding this, Marcos said, “We already have coordination with them (China) when there is a fishing ban so there won’t be a sudden fishing ban. At least we can have a plan. We are making some progress in that regard.”

A stark Difference between the US and China vis-a-vis Philippines

Following the Spanish-American War, the US sought to recolonize hitherto Spanish colonies, one of which was the Philippines. The Philippines resisted US imperialism. So the US waged a bloody war against the Philippines from 1899 to 1902. The estimates of Filipino fatalities ranges from 200,000 to 3 million.

According to one researcher on the US genocide in the Philippines:

200,000 to 300,000 dead just can not be correct. A People’s History of the United States (1980) [by Howard Zinn, p. 308] cites 300,000 Filipinos killed in Batangas [a province in Luzon, south of Manila] alone, that alone proves the figures wrong, William Pomeroy’s American Neocolonialism (1970) cites 600,000 Filipinos dead in Luzon alone by 1902. This is backed up by General Bell himself, who said “we estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon — some 600,000 people.”

How Was a Marcos Returned to Malacanang Palace?

During the period when I lived in the Philippines in 2000, a Filipino colleague who had worked at the US naval base in Subic Bay expressed approval at the US departure, citing the breakdown in cultural morale and rampant prostitution. Now US service personnel are returning to Subic Bay as a result of Marcos’s renewed ties with US militarism.

Yet, the election of Marcos is puzzling. His father, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr, had been toppled by a People Power Revolution. The kleptocratic family was sent into exile in Hawai’i.

The current president, however, refuses to apologize for the sins of his father. Fair enough if he had no part in his father’s sins. But he could and should deplore the atrocities of his father’s regime. People of good conscience deplore atrocities regardless of who the perpetrator is. Bongbong doesn’t. Neither has the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family been returned to the Filipino people.

It is an electoral conundrum that speaks more to the psyche of the masses. When the masses are mired in poverty and hold illusions of better times under martial law, then logic often goes out the window. Sadly, the admonition about people who don’t remember their history bodes ill for the poor masses.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

During the economic crisis in 2008, the United States sought China’s aid. US treasury secretary Hank Paulson conferred with Chinese officials, and China agreed to increase the value of the RMB and to stop selling US T-bills which it had been doing at that time.

Paulson said, “It is clear that China accepts its responsibility as a major world economy that will work with the United States and other partners to ensure global economic stability.” But the notion that China was acting in a selfless fashion was also dispelled by Paulson who stated China helps when it is in their own interest.

Paulson depicted the US position during the crisis as “dealing with Chinese from a position of strength…”

That same attitude was repeated by the US State Department in March 2021 during the first face-to-face meeting with president Joe Biden’s administration in Anchorage, Alaska: “America’s approach will be undergirded by confidence in our dealing with Beijing — which we are doing from a position of strength — even as we have the humility to know that we are a country eternally striving to become a more perfect union.” [emphasis added]

Given the baleful US shenanigans against China, Chinese high-ranking officials were ill-disposed to meet with their American counterparts. Chairman Xi Jinping was not interested in meeting with Biden after the US shot down a Chinese weather balloon. The Pentagon sought a meeting between defense secretary Lloyd Austin and China’s minister of national defense Li Shangfu, but the latter reportedly ghosted Austin in Singapore.

Finally, secretary of state Antony Blinken managed to secure a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang in Beijing. The official readouts for each country, however, reveal a glaring gap between them.

The Chinese readout noted that “China-U.S. relations are at their lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic ties…” Other excerpts read:

China has always maintained continuity and stability in its policies towards the United States, fundamentally adhering to the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation proposed by President Xi Jinping. These principles should also be the shared spirit, bottom line, and goal that both sides uphold together.

Qin Gang pointed out that the Taiwan question is at the core of China’s core interests, it is the most significant issue in China-U.S. relations, and it is also the most prominent risk. China urges the U.S. side to adhere to the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. Joint Communiqués, and truly implement its commitment not to support “Taiwan independence”.

That the US and China were not on the same page was clear from the oft-heard banality in the American readout:

The Secretary made clear that the United States will always stand up for the interests and values of the American people and work with its allies and partners to advance our vision for a world that is free, open, and upholds the international rules-based order.

That the US side made no comment on China’s core interest was a glaring brush off. Instead the US side pushed its “international rules-based order,” which is about rules defined by the US for others to follow. In other words, China does not decide what rules apply to its province of Taiwan.

The readouts made crystal clear that China and the US view the world through different lenses.

China is about peaceful development and win-win trade relations. The US is about waging war, sanctions, bans on trading, and an immodest belief in its indispensability. Because of this, China and Russia with the Global South are each forging their own way, a way that respects each country’s sovereignty. In future, it will be increasingly difficult for the US to use loans to impoverish other nations and plunder their wealth through the IMF’s financial strictures. Sanctions, freezing assets, and blocking financial transactions through the SWIFT system have pushed countries away and toward de-dollarization, joining BRICS, taking part in the Belt and Road Initiative, and using other financial institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank based in Beijing. Even companies in countries nominally aligned with the US are pulling back from the harms of adhering to US trading bans. The US pressure tactics have resulted in blowback, and there is sure to be growing apprehension within empire.

The US is a warmaker. It flattened Iraq, Libya, and would have done the same to Syria had not Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah intervened at the invitation of the Syrian government. Nevertheless, the US still illegally occupies an enormous chunk of Syria and plunders its oil, revealing its true nature to the world.

China is a peacemaker; for example, the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, the Syrian-Arab League reunion, a ceasefire between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, a proposal for peace between Russia and Ukraine that was rejected by the US, and currently China is playing an honest broker to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, something the US has failed miserably at solving (not that it was ever interested in solving this besides, perhaps, a brief interregnum under Jimmy Carter).

China has stood steadfastly with Russia during its special military operation in Donbass and Ukraine. China knows that if the US-NATO would succeed in their proxy war, the plan is “regime change” and a carve up of Russia to exploit its resource wealth. This would pave the way for further “regime change” in China.

The Blinken-Qin meeting has been an abysmal failure in diplomacy. Communist China is ascendant, and the capitalist US is in economic decline, but it still believes that it can bully and fight its way to the top by keeping the others down.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The US claims full-spectrum dominance. US politicians make bellicose statements about which country the US will attack next. And when a pretext is required the US will fabricate one. (See AB Abrams’s excellent book Atrocity Fabrications and Its Consequences, 2023. Review)

I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of 3 books including Democracy: What the west can learn from China and Tiananmen Square’s “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs Silent Evidence, how aggressive US posturing impacts China.

Kim Petersen: It is clear that the US is waging an economic war against China. However, based on the bombast of several American military and political figures, the US is also pining for a military confrontation. US Air Force four-star general Mike Minihan said his gut warns of a war with China in 2025.  The Chinese claim to most of the South China Sea has caused the US to assert the right to freedom of navigation by sailing its warships off the Chinese coast. But when has China ever denied any ships the right to freely traverse the South China Sea? And as for the disputed territoriality in the South China Sea, why does the US arrogate to itself a supposed right to meddle in the affairs of other countries even those thousands of kilometers from the US shoreline? The Brookings Institute informs that of potential threats worldwide, “China gets pride of place as security challenge number one — even though China has not employed large-scale military force against an adversary since its 1979 war [what even Wikipedia calls a “brief conflict”] with Vietnam.” Consider that the media organ of British capitalism, The Economist, complains that “People’s Liberation Army (PLA) fighter jets keep staging recklessly close, high-speed passes to intimidate Western military aircraft in international airspace near China.” The magazine doesn’t blink at the risible scenario it has described: foreign fighter planes near China. Isn’t there sufficient airspace for American military jets in the US? Or sufficient coastline to practice freedom of navigation with its warships in US waters?

The US is so fixated on the economic rise of China that it even scuppered a multibillion-dollar deal its ally France had to sell submarines to Australia and replace it with nuclear submarines to be supplied by itself and the United Kingdom — AUKUS. The obvious target of the nuclear subs: China. China’s foreign minister Qin Gang has called on the US to put the brakes on to avoid confrontation and conflict. What does all the militaristic hoopla directed at China portend?

Nonetheless, SCMP.com reported on 24 March 2023 that China has developed a coating for its submarines — an “active” tile based on giant magnetostrictive material (GMM) technology — that “could turn the US active sonar technology against itself.”

Also, the Chinese navy has many more ships than the US (around 340 Chinese navy ships to the 300 US navy ships) and that gap is widening.

Given that the rise of China is not just economic, but that China has also developed a staunch defensive capability, what do the military experts say about China’s capability of defending itself against an American attack? Such an attack would also be insane because war between two nuclear-armed foes is a scenario in which there are no winners.

Wei Ling Chua: The US is the most warmongering country on the planet with every inch of its territory looted from others. Like former US President Jimmy Carter told Trump in a (2019) phone conversation: “US has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history.”  The US is also the only nuclear power ever to use such a weapon of mass destruction, which it did on 2 populated civilian cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So, any military threat from the US cannot be taken lightly.

In addition, one should also note that the Chinese military grouped itself into 5 defense regions (Western defense region, Northern defense region, Central defense region, Southern defense region, and Eastern defense region), they are all within China and defensive in nature; whereas, the US military grouped itself into 6 command centers covering the entire world [Africa Command (AFRICOM), Southern Command (covering Latin America), European Command (covering Europe, part of the Middle East and Eurasia), Central Command (covering the Middle East), Indo-Pacific Command (covering the entire Asia Pacific Region, and half the Indian Ocean), and Northern Command (covering the US, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and Bahamas)]. The US military is obviously imperialistic in nature.

However, the good news is that after WW2, the US-led military coalition never won any war in Asia. Their military coalition was badly beaten in the Korean War and Vietnam War (both of which involved China). The latest sudden and messy US withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of brutal occupation demonstrates that the US military is not as powerful as perceived. It appears to be as Mao famously described: “A Paper Tiger.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Atrocities and the disinformation surrounding them is the subject of an important book by AB Abrams, Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences: How Fake News Shapes World Order (Clarity Press, 2023). It is an important book because it delivers an incisive account on how hegemony is systematically conducted by the US Empire. It cuts through the disinformation used to foment wars by the US, backed by its allies. What the US is engaged in is aggression, what the Nuremberg Tribunal deemed “the supreme international crime”; therefore, it undermines the US Constitution. It also creates a pretext for the US to attempt an overthrow of governments it doesn’t like, killing and displacing people, destroying infrastructure and economies, and leaving devastated lands to rebuild (often with treasuries and resources looted by the US).

The table of contents is a lead-in to how Atrocity Fabrication reveals the systematic nature of hegemony: Cuba and Viet Nam, the US war in Korea, the disinformation about a massacre in Tiananmen Square, the first US war in the Gulf (i.e., war on Iraq), the US war on Yugoslavia, the second US war on Iraq, creating conflict with North Korea, the NATO-Libyan war, the western-backed insurgency in Syria, and the demonization of the rising economy of China.

In each of these ten chapters, Abrams adumbrates some historical background, and a pattern of what is inimical to Empire is spelled out: anti-communism, control of resources wherever they may be, and instilling and maintaining obedience to Empire.

Abrams makes clear what the rules-based order is: rules decided by the US for other countries; however, the US is above the law. The order is enforced by the US as it sees fit.

It was clear that Yugoslavia’s military had not been defeated, but attacks on civilian targets and its economy had terrorised it into submission. (p 241)

Yet, the US usually does not openly flout the laws. It will create pretexts, surround itself with supportive international actors, and call upon its stenographic media. This is one stage of atrocity fabrication. For instance, Saddam Hussein’s purported weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and the purported genocide in Xinjiang. Abrams brings this sleazy tactic to the fore.

Western reports were notably frequently sympathetic towards the perpetrators of terror attacks in China, with commentaries published that would be unimaginable if Western or Western-aligned countries had been similarly targeted. (p 455)

Perhaps the worst of all fabrications is the false flag. This is when a massacre is perpetrated and the perpetrator lays the blame laid elsewhere, thereby creating a false casus belli. Such an atrocity fabrication may willfully sacrifice innocent people to attain a foreign policy objective. One example of this was the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. The West seized upon this to vilify Syrian leader Bashar al Assad. Or the warmaker will use the fabrication to justify one’s own hand in mass killing by blaming the other side. This Madeleine Albright did when she infamously said the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth achieving US policy objectives.

Demonizing the leader of a country that the US identifies as an enemy state (i.e., a state that is not sufficiently obedient) is another important weapon in the arsenal of Empire. Thus Assad, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Miloševic, the Kims in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Muammar Gaddafi are all caricatured along the lines of the WWII boogeyman, Adolf Hitler. Today, the US excoriates Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Nicolás Maduro, and anyone else who does not bend to Empire.

U.S. print media notably likened Hussein to Hitler 1,035 separate times. (p 163)

The French humanitarian NGO Medecins du Monde even spent $ 2 million on a publicity campaign promoting juxtaposed pictures of Hitler and President Milosevic, … (p 215)

In attaining its objectives, the US will stoop to whatever means it deems necessary. Atrocity Fabrication is replete with the most sordid acts of criminality: massacres, rapes and violent sexual indecencies, torture, burying people alive, brutalizing prisoners-of-war, using cluster bombs, napalm, depleted uranium. The book must be read to grasp the inhumanity and perversion of warmakers.

Whatever and whoever, thus, the US will ally with Islamic terrorist groups such as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), al Qaeda, and Islamic State (IS) — and even retract the designations of groups formerly held to be terrorist, such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). In other words, the terrorist enemy of a US enemy is no longer a terrorist. Too often, it is those actors wielding the term terrorist that may be the biggest terrorist. As the noted linguist Noam Chomsky stated in the film Power and Terror (2002): “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.”

The US-aligned world has regularly resorted to propping up defectors and encouraging false narratives. Along with this is the often insidious role played by NGOs to bring down governments.

This is the third book that I have read by AB Abrams, so I am aware of the depth of research, the substantiated factuality, the logic, and the implicit morality that led to these books being written. Books by Abrams are critical reading.

It is clear that there is a rogue entity beholden to its oligarchic class and that this lawless class seeks full spectrum domination through whatever means. That Empire and hegemony persist in the 23rd century is condemnatory; enlightened and morally centered people must relegate such criminality to an atavistic past.

Don’t be deceived by the warmaking demagogues. Refuse to be an accomplice to killing. Life is meant for all humans to live together in peace.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

As I write this, June 4 is nigh upon us, and that means it is time for the western-aligned media to crank out their discredited myth of a massacre having taken place in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The photos of the Tank Man allegedly blocking tanks from entering Tiananmen Square will form a major part of the disinformation. The fact is that the tanks were leaving the city, and it was the day after the mythologized massacre. The tanks did all they could to avoid colliding with the citizen who placed himself in front of the tanks. (Read Jeff Brown’s  setting the record straight regarding the western monopoly media account of the Tank Man.)

Alas, the monopoly media disinformation storm is already upon us.

Human Rights Watch, funded by the anti-communist Georg Soros, published an article about a “bloody crackdown” that demands: “The Chinese government should acknowledge responsibility for the mass killing of pro-democracy demonstrators and provide redress for victims and family members.”

The United States government-funded Radio Free Asia historizes, “Troops aligned with hardliners shot their way to Tiananmen Square to commit one of the worst massacres in modern Chinese history.” RFA was originally operated by the CIA to broadcast anti-Communist propaganda.

The CBC quotes “Tiananmen Square survivor” Yang Jianli, now a resident in Washington, DC, who “was at Tiananmen Square in 1989” and spoke of how a “nationwide pro-democracy movement in 1989 ended in the bloodshed of Tiananmen Square massacre.”

Yahoo!News headlines with “Tiananmen Square Fast Facts,” such as:

In 1989, after several weeks of demonstrations, Chinese troops entered Tiananmen Square on June 4 and fired on civilians.

Estimates of the death toll range from several hundred to thousands.

One wonders which is the fact: several hundred or thousands? Assertions are a staple in western monopoly media, evidence is scant, but the evidence-free assertions persist year-after-year.

There are complaints of Chinese censorship. This raises the question of whether censorship can be justified and if so under what circumstances. Arguably, there is something more insidious than censorship, and that is disinformation. Professor Anthony Hall articulated the insidiousness of disinformation at the Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation in 2004 where it was held to be a crime against humanity and a crime against peace:

Disinformation originates in the deliberate and systemic effort to break down social cohesion and to deprive humanity of perceptive consciousness of our conditions. Disinformation seeks to isolate and divide human beings; to alienate us from our ability to use our senses, our intellect, and our communicative powers in order to identify truth and act on this knowledge. Disinformation is deeply implicated in the history of imperialism, Eurocentric racism, American Manifest Destiny, Nazi propaganda, the psychological warfare of the Cold War, and capitalist globalization. Disinformation seeks to erode and destroy the basis of individual and collective memory, the basis of those inheritances from history which give humanity our richness of diverse languages, cultures, nationalities, peoplehoods, and means of self-determination. The reach and intensity of disinformation tends to increase with the concentration of ownership and control of the media of mass communications.

In other words, people must not have a right to freely speak lies that reach the level of crimes against humanity or peace. The disinformation campaign about a Tiananmen Square massacre demonizes China and constitutes a crime against the humanity of the Chinese people. If people wish to allege a massacre by state forces against its citizens, then present the incontrovertible evidence. Where are the photos of soldiers killing citizens? There are plenty of photos of murdered soldiers mutilated by nasty elements outside Tiananmen Square.

So why does the disinformation persist? Because it works when people unquestioningly accept what their unscrupulous government and media tell them: China is Communist. China is bad.

Is such rhetoric compelling?

American expat Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World: Talent at the Top, Data in the Middle, Democracy at the Bottom answered a Quora question: “There are people that claim nothing bad happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 What happened to the pro democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square when the tanks and troops with the PLA showed up to suddenly put and end to the protests?” Roberts replied:

The tanks and troops with the PLA did not show up to suddenly put and end to the protests. Nor did they harm anyone in Tiananmen Square.

They waited at the railway station for three weeks but began moving into town when rioters–like those we see in Hong Kong today–began killing people in Chang’An Avenue. Even then, the first battalions were unarmed… [emphasis in original]

Roberts wrote another excellent Quora piece preserved at the Greanville Post.

Regarding the wider myth created of a massacre at Tiananmen Square, the go-to evidence-based account is the book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence by Wei Ling Chua.

Kim Petersen: In 2014, I reviewed your important book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence that threw a glaring light on what the monopoly media were saying about a massacre in Tiananmen Square versus the subsequent recantations by western-aligned journalists and the narratives of protestors and witnesses than were contrary to the western media disinformation. In other words, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. Nonetheless, people living in the western-aligned world can expect, for the most part, to be inundated with monopoly media rehashing their disinformation about what happened on 4 June 1989, omitting the nefarious roles played by the CIA and NED.

Recently, AB Abrams included a 29-page chapter, “Beijing 1989 and Tiananmen Square,” in his excellent book Atrocity Fabrications and Its Consequences (2023). It basically lays out what you did in your book (without citing it), but it does present more of a historical basis for the interference of US militarism in 20th century China because of American anti-communist prejudice. Thus, the US supported the Guomindang (KMT) led by the brutal Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-Shek). Abrams reads quite critical of paramount leader Deng Xiaopeng, quoting one student who complained of the increasing corruption under Deng that was not tolerated under chairman Mao Zedong. (p 125) Basically, however, Abrams buttresses what you had already written, pointing a stern finger at Operation Yellowbird’s NED, CIA, and Hong Kong criminal triads who inserted (and extracted) unruly (even bloodthirsty, notably Chai Ling) elements into Tiananmen Square who happened to find themselves well armed and supplied with Molotov cocktails, and who were not hesitant about using lethal force against remarkably restrained PLA soldiers.

Despite the several recantations by western journalists in Beijing who had reported a massacre and despite the narratives that seriously impugn the monopoly media narratives, why does the myth of a massacre in Tiananmen Square persist? How is it that this fabricated atrocity gets dredged up annually, and why do so many people buy into the disinformation proffered by a source serially revealed to be manufacturing demonstrably false narratives? How can this disinformation be exterminated?

Finally, massacres should not be forgotten, but if the narratives of massacres are meant to be revisited annually, then shouldn’t the massacres carried out — especially by one’s own side — also be memorialized, as an act of penance and atonement? In the US case, there would be yearly memorials to the massacres of several Indigenous peoples by the White natives of Europe. There are several massacres requiring atonement for the rampant criminality of the White Man. Wounded Knee, the Bear Creek massacre, the Sand Creek massacre, and the Trail of Tears spring readily to mind. There is the Kwangju massacre in South Korea, My Lai in Viet Nam, Fallujah in Iraq (and this is just skimming the surface). What does it say that the US-aligned media unquestioningly reports on fabricated atrocities elsewhere while being insouciant to the crimes of American troops against Others?

Wei Ling Chua: Since publishing the book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence (The Art of Media Disinformation is Hurting the World and Humanity vol. 2) in 2014, I began to use Google alerts to receive daily emails on any news or articles posted on the net with the term “Tiananmen Square Massacre”, and it is depressing to say that the Western media disregards their own journalists’ confessions and have continued to unrelentingly use the term frequently over the past 34 years.

The following description introduces the book.

Readers will notice from the table of contents that this book comes in 4 parts:

1) Screenshot evidence of journalists who confessed that they saw no one die that day (June 4th, 1989) at Tiananmen Square, CIA declassified documents, WikiLeaks, and Human Rights Watch decided not to publish their own eye-witnesses accounts that report that support the Chinese side of the stories… ;

2) Explanation, with examples, of how the Western media used the power of words to overpower the silent evidence (their own photos and video images) that actually shows highly restrained, people-loving PLA soldiers and the CCP government handling of the 7 weeks of protests.

3) Explanation of the 3 stage bottle-necks effect of the market economy and how Western nations respond to each stage of such economic hardship created by an uncontrolled market economy. The purpose of such analysis is to remind developing nations’ citizens not to destroy their own countries by allowing Western-funded NGOs to carry out covert operations in their countries to create chaos at times of economic hardship;

4) Comparing how the CCP handled the 1989 protesters with the US government handling of the 2011 anti-Wall Street protesters [Occupy Wall Street], the book draws a 6-point conclusion to explain why the Wall Street protesters should admire the Tiananmen protesters, and why the PLA deserves a Nobel Peace prize:

• Freedom of protesters
• The rule of law
• The barricade strategy
• Brutality of authorities
• Media freedom
• Government response

I encourage readers to read the book review by you: Massacre? What Massacre?

The US and other Western governments are notorious in promoting hatred, fake news, and misleading information about China. As a result, whenever foreigners went to China for the first time, they seemed to be shocked by how advanced, how wealthy, how safe, how green, how friendly, and how beautiful China is. A lot of YouTubers from all over the world voluntarily and passionately produce videos to share their daily impression of China or to defend China against any smear campaigns by the Western media. Below is just a quick pick of a dozen YouTubers:

• Daniel Dumbrill
• Gweilo 60
• Living in China
• Nathan Rich
• Barrett
• Richard Aguilar
• Miriam Follin
• FerMuBe
• numuves
• Reports on China
• Ychina
• Jerry Goode
• GoYvon

As for getting at the truth, the best way to understand a country is to travel there and see it with our own eyes:

At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a group of American athletes arrived at the Beijing International Airport with masks and later were shocked that the air quality was good and that they were the only ones wearing masks in Beijing. They were also shocked by how beautiful and modern Beijing is compared to American cities. In an embarrassment to America, these young Americans were spot on and held a press conference to publicly apologize to the Chinese people for their mask-wearing insult to China.

The same thing happened to many Taiwanese, many were so ignorant about China that they thought that the Chinese people were very poor. In 2011, a Taiwanese professor Gao Zhibin told his audience in a TV show that the mainland Chinese are so poor that they cannot even afford to eat a tea leaf egg. That video became a laughing stock and quickly circulated being viewed by hundreds of millions of Chinese people, and even made its way to the Chinese mainstream media across the country as a sort of entertainment. Now, the Taiwanese Professor has a nickname in China: “tea leaf egg professor“.

Hong Kong also has the same problem. So, after putting down the US-backed violent protests a few years ago, one of the education programs is to take the students for a free trip to the mainland to see by themselves how prosperous, green, clean, modern, friendly, and advanced their mother country is.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Investopedia provides a useful definition of free trade:

A free trade agreement is a pact between two or more nations to reduce barriers to imports and exports among them. Under a free trade policy, goods and services can be bought and sold across international borders with little or no government tariffs, quotas, subsidies, or prohibitions to inhibit their exchange.

The concept of free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

In the eyes of the US, China is threateningly making major headway in 6G, AI, robotics, supercomputing among other technology fields. This has scared the Biden administration, so Biden has sought to cut off Chinese access to semiconductor chips below 14 nanometers. Foreign Policy called it going for China’s jugular after one term of ex-US president Donald Trump inflicting “flesh wounds” to China.

“This is economic coercion and is unacceptable,” said China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning of the US actions. China did not stand idly by; it banned the US memory chip Micron on security grounds.

China, correspondingly, has reduced its import of chips by $129.1 billion since 2022, harming US, Taiwanese, and Korean exporters and giving Shanghai’s SMIC a shot in the arm.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett was so bearish on the world’s largest semiconductor company, TSMC, that he sold all his shares.

The US also told ASML, producer of lithography machines used to make chips, to curb sales to China. Hence, China was forced to develop its own lithography machines to produce chips. ASML also has seen a decline in its profit picture and now is potentially faced with competition from a former customer. Telecommunications giant and leader in 5G technology, Huawei, has found itself faced with trade barriers relentlessly erected by the US. It was forced to develop its own lithography machines. Peter Winnick, president of ASML, complained that China’s development of its own lithography machine “is a ‘destructive behavior” that will cause impact and chaos to the global chip industry chain.” ASML, however, is said to be considering to ignore US directives on such technology sales.

Even US chip makers, whose businesses are adversely affected by government directives, are instead prioritizing their own business with China.

This situation is similar to what transpired when the US rejected Chinese participation in the International Space Station. China went out and built its own space station, the Tiangong, which orbits the planet 340 and 450 km above the surface.

So far protectionism has proven a double-edged sword for the US and its allies, as initially China is negatively affected, but soon enough, China winds up becoming independent for these technologies while also becoming an exporting competitor in the marketplace for such technologies.

I interviewed Wei Ling Chua, the author of 3 books including Democracy: What the west can learn from China and Tiananmen Square’s “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs Silent Evidence, for his perspective.

Kim Petersen: The United States has always trumpeted the benefits of so-called free trade being “A rising tide lifts all boats.” That is fine when you have the biggest boat in global capitalism. But does that tide raise all boats equally? China, which eschews hegemony, now has a big boat, and that boat is portrayed as a threat to the US. The US hegemon prides itself on being exceptional, indispensable, and craving full-spectrum dominance. Yet fear of the China threat caused former US president Barack Obama to exclude China from negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was to comprise the largest free-trade region in history and include forty percent of world trade. Obama’s successor Donald Trump scuttled that deal, but he enacted various sanctions and tariffs against China. Fast forward to Joe Biden and the anti-China rhetoric continues unabated. Biden’s disdain for free trade is revealed by the continuation of sanctions against China, depicting it as a security threat, and never producing any credible evidence to support his assertion. In particular, Biden has sought to squeeze China out from access to chip technology and from the purchase of lithography machines to produce the chips. It has sought to cajole or coerce myriad countries such as Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, and the Chinese province of Taiwan to join in the denial of trade. In doing so, it appears that Biden and the complying countries have shot themselves in the foot. How do you see this denial of trade, imposing tariffs (i.e., protectionism), and sanctioning playing out?

Wei Ling Chua: Western so-called free trade was designed at a time when they had absolute advantages in many areas over the rest of the world. Why wouldn’t they? After centuries of colonialism, wars, slavery, and looting, the West enjoyed absolute advantages in wealth accumulation (they are very rich with plenty of cash to take over the assets of others and attract talents from all over the world) after WW2. The West was also more industrialized after the world war, while much of the rest of the world was war ravaged, poor, and under-developed. So, their so-called free trade is nothing more than demanding the lesser-developed world to allow the West to use money looted from them to take control of their assets, resources, market, and factories, and keep the economies of lesser-developed nations in the primitive stage of cheap labor, cheap resources, and polluting industry.

The WTO, IMF, and the World Bank are just tools that the West uses to control the rest of the world’s opportunities to freely trade with each other and access funding. The West uses these financial tools to manipulate free access to member-state markets by erecting trade barriers against countries who seek to protect local industry and, therefore, refuse to accept western-imposed trading terms.

It took China 15 years of negotiation with the US before the US allowed China to enter the WTO in 2000. During that time, the West was happy to transfer polluted and labor-intensive industries to China: they were happy to allow China to set up factories to assemble iPhones for Apple. Why not? Apple pays the price of a cappuccino to the Chinese factories for each iPhone assembled while selling the iPhones back to Chinese consumers and the rest of the world for hundreds of dollars per unit of iPhone.

There is absolutely no such thing as Western kindness in setting up factories in China or importing in a big way from China. The benefits to both sides are not equal. It is about the West eating the meat and drinking the soup, and the leftover meat on the bone is then shared among millions of Chinese wage slaves. So, in 2017, when China successfully test flies her passenger plane C919, the news heading across China is (translated): “the day China uses 800 million shirts in exchange for one Boeing Plane will become history“.

In recent years, we have witnessed how the US initiated a series of sanctions against Chinese high-tech manufacturers and products of far higher quality than US companies are able to produce. The victims include Huawei 5G, smartphones, chip imports, DJI drones, TikTok, etc. So, the so-called free market never existed in real terms under the western International rule-based order.

It is the Chinese who oblige free trade: The Chinese happily enjoy and buy quality products from all over the world. At the time of unfair US sanctions against Huawei and many other Chinese high-tech firms, China continued to allow Apple to make huge profits in China, and it openly assured the world that China will not resort to protectionism. As long as foreign companies do not violate Chinese law, they are free to conduct their business as usual in China, and they will be treated as equal as the local businesses.

As we can see, the US counters competition with protectionism in the form of sanctions and bullying, whereas China overcomes competition via innovation through investment in education, R&D, and building government infrastructure to facilitate the development of new technology. E.g., China has just overtaken Japan as the world’s top car exporter, and this was made possible by the farsighted investment of the Chinese government in laying down the foundation for EV car manufacturing with market readiness, such as offering incentives for consumers to buy EV cars and building millions of battery charging stations to facilitate the use of EV cars across the country.

As for Internet technology, after decades of paying billions and billions of dollars for intellectual property to US companies for using their 2G, 3G, and 4G technologies, the Chinese company Huawei invested heavily in R&D and produced a far more advanced 5G technology and began to collect intellectual property payments from the world for using its 5G. This is something that the West, particularly the US cannot tolerate. So, by sanctioning Huawei 5G (the world’s most affordable and advanced 5G technology), the US lost its ability to facilitate its tech companies to develop AI technology that required high-speed wifi, while the Chinese state-owned telecommunication companies heavily invested in building millions of Huawei 5G stations across the country to facilitate Chinese companies in developing AI technology. As a result, according to Nicholas Chaillan, the Pentagon’s ex-software chief: “China has won AI battle with the US.” In fact, former British Business and Industry Minister Vince Cable said in an interview in 2022, “The UK government decision to ban Huawei 5G equipment and services had nothing to do with national security, and was because of American pressure.” Cable then, regrettably, made this statement: “If Britain had kept with 5G, we would now be at the forefront of countries using the most advanced technologies, and we are not.”

In fact, in the semiconductor sector, the US-led sanctions on technology exports to China have effectively given away more than $300 billion per year worth of the Chinese chip market (the world’s biggest) exclusively to the Chinese chip industry. As a result, we have already witnessed US chip companies’ revenues being reduced, share prices dropping and a massive staff retrenchment taking place while China experienced a rise in chip production and a drop in imports.

It is not hard to predict what will happen to the US and China under US sanctions:

1) Without the world’s biggest market, many of the US high-tech companies will lose economies of scale, and be eventually unable to compete in the world market.

2) The US’s destructive behavior that violates market regulations only serves to alert the world to the risk of investing, buying, and doing business with the US. The weaponization of the supply chain will only damage the US’s credibility and reliability as a business partner in the mind of the rest of the world.

3) As for China, upholding fair trade and continuing to protect the interests of all foreign investment in China, including Apple, this will enforce the world impression of a reliable and stable Chinese business environment. Hence, China will continue to become a magnet for world investors.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Investopedia provides a useful definition of free trade:

A free trade agreement is a pact between two or more nations to reduce barriers to imports and exports among them. Under a free trade policy, goods and services can be bought and sold across international borders with little or no government tariffs, quotas, subsidies, or prohibitions to inhibit their exchange.

The concept of free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

In the eyes of the US, China is threateningly making major headway in 6G, AI, robotics, supercomputing among other technology fields. This has scared the Biden administration, so Biden has sought to cut off Chinese access to semiconductor chips below 14 nanometers. Foreign Policy called it going for China’s jugular after one term of ex-US president Donald Trump inflicting “flesh wounds” to China.

“This is economic coercion and is unacceptable,” said China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning of the US actions. China did not stand idly by; it banned the US memory chip Micron on security grounds.

China, correspondingly, has reduced its import of chips by $129.1 billion since 2022, harming US, Taiwanese, and Korean exporters and giving Shanghai’s SMIC a shot in the arm.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett was so bearish on the world’s largest semiconductor company, TSMC, that he sold all his shares.

The US also told ASML, producer of lithography machines used to make chips, to curb sales to China. Hence, China was forced to develop its own lithography machines to produce chips. ASML also has seen a decline in its profit picture and now is potentially faced with competition from a former customer. Telecommunications giant and leader in 5G technology, Huawei, has found itself faced with trade barriers relentlessly erected by the US. It was forced to develop its own lithography machines. Peter Winnick, president of ASML, complained that China’s development of its own lithography machine “is a ‘destructive behavior” that will cause impact and chaos to the global chip industry chain.” ASML, however, is said to be considering to ignore US directives on such technology sales.

Even US chip makers, whose businesses are adversely affected by government directives, are instead prioritizing their own business with China.

This situation is similar to what transpired when the US rejected Chinese participation in the International Space Station. China went out and built its own space station, the Tiangong, which orbits the planet 340 and 450 km above the surface.

So far protectionism has proven a double-edged sword for the US and its allies, as initially China is negatively affected, but soon enough, China winds up becoming independent for these technologies while also becoming an exporting competitor in the marketplace for such technologies.

I interviewed Wei Ling Chua, the author of 3 books including Democracy: What the west can learn from China and Tiananmen Square’s “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs Silent Evidence, for his perspective.

Kim Petersen: The United States has always trumpeted the benefits of so-called free trade being “A rising tide lifts all boats.” That is fine when you have the biggest boat in global capitalism. But does that tide raise all boats equally? China, which eschews hegemony, now has a big boat, and that boat is portrayed as a threat to the US. The US hegemon prides itself on being exceptional, indispensable, and craving full-spectrum dominance. Yet fear of the China threat caused former US president Barack Obama to exclude China from negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was to comprise the largest free-trade region in history and include forty percent of world trade. Obama’s successor Donald Trump scuttled that deal, but he enacted various sanctions and tariffs against China. Fast forward to Joe Biden and the anti-China rhetoric continues unabated. Biden’s disdain for free trade is revealed by the continuation of sanctions against China, depicting it as a security threat, and never producing any credible evidence to support his assertion. In particular, Biden has sought to squeeze China out from access to chip technology and from the purchase of lithography machines to produce the chips. It has sought to cajole or coerce myriad countries such as Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, and the Chinese province of Taiwan to join in the denial of trade. In doing so, it appears that Biden and the complying countries have shot themselves in the foot. How do you see this denial of trade, imposing tariffs (i.e., protectionism), and sanctioning playing out?

Wei Ling Chua: Western so-called free trade was designed at a time when they had absolute advantages in many areas over the rest of the world. Why wouldn’t they? After centuries of colonialism, wars, slavery, and looting, the West enjoyed absolute advantages in wealth accumulation (they are very rich with plenty of cash to take over the assets of others and attract talents from all over the world) after WW2. The West was also more industrialized after the world war, while much of the rest of the world was war ravaged, poor, and under-developed. So, their so-called free trade is nothing more than demanding the lesser-developed world to allow the West to use money looted from them to take control of their assets, resources, market, and factories, and keep the economies of lesser-developed nations in the primitive stage of cheap labor, cheap resources, and polluting industry.

The WTO, IMF, and the World Bank are just tools that the West uses to control the rest of the world’s opportunities to freely trade with each other and access funding. The West uses these financial tools to manipulate free access to member-state markets by erecting trade barriers against countries who seek to protect local industry and, therefore, refuse to accept western-imposed trading terms.

It took China 15 years of negotiation with the US before the US allowed China to enter the WTO in 2000. During that time, the West was happy to transfer polluted and labor-intensive industries to China: they were happy to allow China to set up factories to assemble iPhones for Apple. Why not? Apple pays the price of a cappuccino to the Chinese factories for each iPhone assembled while selling the iPhones back to Chinese consumers and the rest of the world for hundreds of dollars per unit of iPhone.

There is absolutely no such thing as Western kindness in setting up factories in China or importing in a big way from China. The benefits to both sides are not equal. It is about the West eating the meat and drinking the soup, and the leftover meat on the bone is then shared among millions of Chinese wage slaves. So, in 2017, when China successfully test flies her passenger plane C919, the news heading across China is (translated): “the day China uses 800 million shirts in exchange for one Boeing Plane will become history“.

In recent years, we have witnessed how the US initiated a series of sanctions against Chinese high-tech manufacturers and products of far higher quality than US companies are able to produce. The victims include Huawei 5G, smartphones, chip imports, DJI drones, TikTok, etc. So, the so-called free market never existed in real terms under the western International rule-based order.

It is the Chinese who oblige free trade: The Chinese happily enjoy and buy quality products from all over the world. At the time of unfair US sanctions against Huawei and many other Chinese high-tech firms, China continued to allow Apple to make huge profits in China, and it openly assured the world that China will not resort to protectionism. As long as foreign companies do not violate Chinese law, they are free to conduct their business as usual in China, and they will be treated as equal as the local businesses.

As we can see, the US counters competition with protectionism in the form of sanctions and bullying, whereas China overcomes competition via innovation through investment in education, R&D, and building government infrastructure to facilitate the development of new technology. E.g., China has just overtaken Japan as the world’s top car exporter, and this was made possible by the farsighted investment of the Chinese government in laying down the foundation for EV car manufacturing with market readiness, such as offering incentives for consumers to buy EV cars and building millions of battery charging stations to facilitate the use of EV cars across the country.

As for Internet technology, after decades of paying billions and billions of dollars for intellectual property to US companies for using their 2G, 3G, and 4G technologies, the Chinese company Huawei invested heavily in R&D and produced a far more advanced 5G technology and began to collect intellectual property payments from the world for using its 5G. This is something that the West, particularly the US cannot tolerate. So, by sanctioning Huawei 5G (the world’s most affordable and advanced 5G technology), the US lost its ability to facilitate its tech companies to develop AI technology that required high-speed wifi, while the Chinese state-owned telecommunication companies heavily invested in building millions of Huawei 5G stations across the country to facilitate Chinese companies in developing AI technology. As a result, according to Nicholas Chaillan, the Pentagon’s ex-software chief: “China has won AI battle with the US.” In fact, former British Business and Industry Minister Vince Cable said in an interview in 2022, “The UK government decision to ban Huawei 5G equipment and services had nothing to do with national security, and was because of American pressure.” Cable then, regrettably, made this statement: “If Britain had kept with 5G, we would now be at the forefront of countries using the most advanced technologies, and we are not.”

In fact, in the semiconductor sector, the US-led sanctions on technology exports to China have effectively given away more than $300 billion per year worth of the Chinese chip market (the world’s biggest) exclusively to the Chinese chip industry. As a result, we have already witnessed US chip companies’ revenues being reduced, share prices dropping and a massive staff retrenchment taking place while China experienced a rise in chip production and a drop in imports.

It is not hard to predict what will happen to the US and China under US sanctions:

1) Without the world’s biggest market, many of the US high-tech companies will lose economies of scale, and be eventually unable to compete in the world market.

2) The US’s destructive behavior that violates market regulations only serves to alert the world to the risk of investing, buying, and doing business with the US. The weaponization of the supply chain will only damage the US’s credibility and reliability as a business partner in the mind of the rest of the world.

3) As for China, upholding fair trade and continuing to protect the interests of all foreign investment in China, including Apple, this will enforce the world impression of a reliable and stable Chinese business environment. Hence, China will continue to become a magnet for world investors.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of Democracy: What the West can learn from China and Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, his forecast for the Chinese economy.

Kim Petersen: In a recent article, “Why China Can’t Pull the World Out of a New Great Depression,” strategic risk consultant F. William Engdahl writes, “… in real physical economic production, China has left the USA and everyone else in the dust. Therefore, the future course of industrial production in China is vital to the future of the world economy.”

He writes that steel production is “the single best indicator of a growing real economy” for which China crushes the competition. China leads in coal production, rare earth mining and processing, motor vehicle production, as supplier of essential cement for construction, aluminum production, and copper consumption. Engdahl adds, “The list goes on.”

Then Engdahl identifies a problem: “A huge problem with China’s economic model over the past two decades has been the fact that it has been a debt-based finance model massively concentrated on real estate speculation beyond what the economy can digest.” He points at the inflated housing market, rising unemployment, the dubiousness of official figures for total state debt, and the lack of transparency for financial information.

It is expected that there would be bumps along the road in the development of what was once, not so long ago, a very poor country compared to the economic colossus that China has become today. In addition to the commodities exported worldwide, China has also garnered much skepticism for its growth and development over the years, and yet China has always managed to steam ahead. China has a planned economy, and assuredly the mandarins have contingency plans for the unexpected.

What is your take on the Engdahl article?

Wei Ling Chua: I think the author lacks an understanding of the CCP series of policies and reforms, and he relies too heavily on the crusader agenda-based line-of-thinking.

Unlike western, Japanese, USSR development that relied heavily on imperialism, expansionism and looting

1) In the first 30 years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the sources of finance were mainly from the agricultural sector, and the hard work, delegation and sacrifices of the entire population to rebuild the nation.

The Mao era was the hardest era in the history of the PRC, as the country just managed to hold together the entire nation with virtually nothing (no technology, no money, a 90% illiteracy rate, a divided population, a population hungry and in poor health with a super short average life-expectancy of 36 years, a hostile international environment (Korean war, Sino-India war, USSR border war, plus western sanctions, and in the 1960s USSR sanctions as well).

However, Mao managed to win the Korean war with mainly foot soldiers armed with rifles and hand grenades, helped Vietnam to chase away the US occupier, and defeated India and the USSR in skirmishes. China worked herself into the UN to replace the nationalist government as the only legitimate government of China. It also completed the first stage of the Chinese industrial revolution with all types of light industry (self-made household appliances, processed food), an active agriculture sector, fisheries, etc, and heavy industry such as producing trucks, cars, buses, trains, atomic bombs, satellite, missiles, and all type of other military weapons, construction technology…

2) over the next 30 years, China financed her economic reform via opening up with massive foreign investment plus massive land mortgage financing to fund all types of infrastructure across the country.

But, unlike the rest of the developing countries, China used cheap land and labor to attract foreign investment to build factories, and used her own land allocation as a guarantee to print money and provide loans for building infrastructure, commercial and residential property, and therefore, not incurring too much foreign debt. So, most of China’s debts are domestic and are outside of foreign control.

3) Since Xi came into power, his zero tolerance towards corruption and successful anti-corruption policy very much ensured the country’s continued smooth operation with high efficiency and less waste. This is a most vital element in any nation’s development and future prosperity (whereas all western countries are down down and down at the moment due to legalised corruption in the name of lobbying, political donations, speech bureaus, privatisation, etc)

Xi’s centralised medicine approval strategy has successfully reduced all drug prices by up to more than 90%, and hence china was able to introduce sustainable nationwide medicare coverage. Such a policy freed up people’s savings for domestic consumption. This economic generator is a pillar of any advanced country.

Under Xi, the average wages of the nation basically more than doubled.

Yes, like the rest of the world, the real estate market and tax on property transactions are major sources of government revenue. But Xi knew that if the real-estate market was allowed to continue being controlled by a handful of billionaires to reap speculative profits then the housing prices would keep rising. So, he openly told the nation that housing is for people to live, not for speculative profit. He cracked down on irresponsible real estate giants controlling too much real estate and using them to mortgage and buy more. Finally, this caused some collapse in overheated pricing. But unlike the US, there is no too-big-to-fail company in China; Xi froze these troubled giant companies from issuing dividends to shareholders, and made the owners sell their own assets to repay the interest and loans, sell their overseas companies and assets, and then domestic assets to repay the loans. And when the state bails out a company, all those assets return back to the people; i.e., state control.

The author also failed to take in a lot of things that have taken place in China.

4) Yes, there are debt issues in China, but debts should be distinguished between good debt and bad debt:

Across the west, they keep printing money to give away to political donors in exchange for personal benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, they also give away money to voters to win votes. These are bad debts as they produce no future return for the masses.

But, for China, the debts transform into infrastructure domestically and overseas. The outcome is apparent: more and more regions and countries with Chinese investment enjoy economic prosperity; hence, they help China to continue enjoying prosperity despite western decoupling policies.

The winning of trust and friends across the world will only pave the way for China’s Belt and Road win-win strategy to ensure mutual prosperity even without the West. We are now witnessing that the BRICS’s GDP is bigger than that of the G7, and the Chinese economy has been bigger than the entire EU (the combined GDP of 27 countries) since 2021.

Besides, the rise of China’s high-tech economy are obvious: due to China’s superiority in EV car technology, China has just replaced Japan as the world’s biggest new car exporter (the world number 1 in EV car exports), solar technology exports as well, infrastructure exports, ship building etc, and lately, overtaking the US in military armament exports to places like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Thailand… etc. Consider also the growing popularity of the RMB as a reserve currency. It is important to note that China managed to achieve these feats without firing a single shot; its all about investment in education, R&D, development of infrastructure, and a policy of win-win.

China’s future is very bright with the coming development, export of chips, nuclear power plants, and reunification with Taiwan. At this moment, the world has seen China managing to finally create a peaceful and Chinese-friendly Central Asia, Russia, Middle East, and ASEAN (excluding the Philippines under Marcos). We also notice that almost all African countries and Latin American countries are also very much preferring China over the West. This peace dividend will help create an entire region surrounding China to move towards the world’s biggest economic block developing in peace and harmony. It will become a magnet for the rest of the world.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

[S]uffice it to state that the US Guardian Elite are very much of and for the overworld of private wealth. Since the end of World War II, the US Guardian Elite have functioned most decisively as executors of dark power.

— Aaron Good, American Exception, p 107

Aaron Good, who received his PhD in political science at Temple University, has written an exceptional book: American Exception: Empire and the Deep State (Skyhorse, 2022). The title of the first chapter broadly lays out the thesis of the book: “Empire, Hegemony, and the State.”

Good develops two terms, exceptionism (institutionalized lawlessness) and the tripartite state (which includes the public state, security state, and the deep state), that he fleshes out throughout American Exception.

The author identifies the US as exceptionist in that it serially violates its own constitution. The United Nations Charter forbids warmaking and covert operations, and since the United States government has ratified the UN Charter it is legally applicable as per the US Constitution. Thus, the launching of wars and CIA cloak-and-dagger missions are in contravention of the US Constitution, adducing the exceptionism of the US.

Anti-communism, the boogeyman of the American establishment, used to serve as a pretext for US exceptionism, but as Good points out, with the fall of the Soviet Union this pretext has vanished. Since the military-industrial complex needs a boogeyman, the Global War on Terror, Russophobia, and the China Threat have been reified to keep the war machine cranking along for imperial hegemony, what Good defines as hegemony in the pursuit of empire. (p 15)

The US hegemon demands that all nation states, excluding itself, must adhere to the rules based order, which is not the same as the rule of law. In this rules based international order, elitists in the periphery benefit themselves by subordinating their nation states to the US hegemon.

The author asks, “Can the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] manage and constrain these forces [of its billionaire class], or will Chinese elites increasingly identify more with the transnational corporate class and less with Chinese nationalist or socialist aims?” (p 270) Today, many in the periphery are now standing up against US hegemony with Russia and China at the forefront. They are bypassing and ignoring US-NATO sanctions and are challenging the financial basis of the imperial empire by de-dollarizing.

A recent case in point is that of Chinese business magnate Ma Yun, known in the West as Jack Ma. Ma was planning to expand his monopolistic business empire whereupon he criticized Chinese regulators. The Chinese government stepped in, broke up Ma’s Ant Group and laid heavy fines on Ma’s rapacious business interests causing Ma to keep a low profile afterwards. China is a nation state that has demonstrated that it will not allow 1%-ers to undermine the domestic national good. This speaks to the threat that China poses to US elitists. China has ended extreme poverty and is focused on creating a xiaokang (moderately prosperous) society, not a state wherein the billionaires can plunder the national wealth. Moreover, contrary to the US, China also touts multipolarity, peace, and win-win trade relations.

American Exception questions the notion of the United States as a democracy, as the state does not serve the masses, rather it serves the interests of the “elites,” what politicians call the national interest. What the term elite denotes is apparent when Good discusses “Socioeconomic elite criminality (i.e., crimes of the superrich)…” (p 3. Elite is a term Good uses throughout the book; I refrain from using the word elite — “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society” — preferring instead the noun elitist — “a person who believes that a society or system should be led by an elite,” as per Google dictionary). When discussing institutionalized democracy, it is important to note that merely claiming to be such does not make an entity democratic. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and Good produces the proof throughout his opus.

The criminality of the imperial hegemon is striking in its blatant disregard to the well-being for the American masses, especially the downtrodden, and its insouciance to the carnage it inflicts on peoples elsewhere. Good finds such egregious behavior by American policymakers to be sociopathic. (p 70) This should not be a surprise given that the US economy is built on permanent war and organized around the private corporation. (p 81) Neither should it surprise that the US is currently behind the proxy war in support of a Ukrainian government and its military brimming with neo-Nazis (a fact now elided by compliant US-aligned media) despite American soldiers having sacrificed their lives during World War II fighting the Nazi-German war machine paradoxically built up by US elitists. (p 83)

Writes Good,

If institutions are themselves corrupting, the men who people them are corrupted as a matter of course. The higher immorality has become a systematic feature of the US elite; its widespread acceptance has become a key aspect of the mass society. (Good, p 86. Cited in C Wright Mills, The Power Elite, 1956, p 343)

This corrupting effect may well be so, but the people who are attracted to work in such corrupt(ing) institutions may well already be corrupted or leaning that way — hence, the attraction. Fortunately, there are plenty of people who refuse to work in potentially corrupting institutions such as the police, espionage agencies, and military.

To maintain an elitist-led society, egalitarianism must be eschewed. Good cites George Orwell who wrote “… a hierarchical society was only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.” (p 128) The job of the poor as perspicacious comedian George Carlin noted was “to scare the shit out of the middle class” for their job security. (p 130)

American Exception is a tome that sifts through history, basically from the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt until Donald Trump. It sifts through so-called democracy; the security apparatus: CIA, FBI, NSA; deep state involvement in drug running and assassinations, such as of John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr; parapolitics (the unaccountability of power); the US dollar as a fiat and world reserve currency; how Watergate — “the historical fact of conspiratorial high criminality in the US” (p 203) — led to Richard Nixon’s impeachment and eventually paved the way for Ronald Reagan and the advent of the exceptionist tripartite state “comprised of (1) a feckless public state, (2) a sprawling security state, and (3) the anti-democractic deep state” — a top-down hierarchy; how elitists, academia, the media, the military-industrial complex, and the oil market have undergirded imperial hegemony.

Good has done extensive research, cited experts, and covered a lot of ground. That ground provides essential background information and independent, insightful analysis that makes one sit up and seriously reflect on the counterposed depictions of historical events by academia and legacy media. American Exception is a must read to develop a deeper understanding of what US hegemony is about.

Since the publication of American Exception, Russia has responded to US-NATO expansionist provocations by launching a special military operation against Ukraine to secure the motherland. The US is stepping up its provocations against China by stirring up separatist elements in the province of Taiwan, thus violating the One-China policy set down in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972. Iran is seeking to join BRICS with Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and Venezuela is inquiring about joining as well. Biden seeks to shut China out of chip technology (so much for the US’s much ballyhooed “free trade“) and China just develops its own technology and becomes a competitor for export of the technology. De-dollarization is proceeding apace as the Joe Biden presidency continues to shoot itself in the foot.

There is plenty of grist for a future edition of American Exception. A documentary version of Good’s book is currently being produced by film director Scott Noble of Metanoia Films.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

What is socialite? According to Google Dictionary: “a person who is well known in fashionable society and is fond of social activities and entertainment.” Typically, this term is applied to a female. Think Paris Hilton, Ghislaine Maxwell and their social activities.

Regardless of Simpson’s vocation, Edward abdicated his throne as a penance for marrying a divorcee.

This was considered a no-no for the royal family back then. Nowadays, we have a divorced king/adulterer married to his divorced queen/adulteress. No pejorative is attached to the terms adulterer or adulteress. This merely signifies that they were not faithful to their wedding vows. But, oh, how times have changed.

Probably the biggest argument for keeping the inegalitarian institution of the monarchy extant is tradition. When Charles married his first wife, Diana, she had to submit to a gynecological examination to verify that she was a virgin. Man, how times have, indeed, changed.

With the modern monarchy we became privy to Charles’s secretly recorded fantasy of being Camilla’s Tampax. Camilla responded mirthfully to Charles’s bawdy words of vaginal habitation: “You are a complete idiot! (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.”

The coronation of Charles has been revealed to cost £250 million (US$316 million). How many homeless people in Britain would that have housed? It was reported in January 2023 that “at least 271,000 people are recorded as homeless in England, including 123,000 children.” Priorities?

How did these two salacious characters attain status as the heads of state in not only the United Kingdom but also Canada, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), Jamaica, and ten other countries. Was it meritocratic? No. Were they elected? No. Charles won the vaginal lottery and was born to be a future king; Camilla married to become queen. So much for any pretense to being a genuine democracy in these 15 countries.

The anachronistic system of monarchy is how countries wind up with Charles and Camilla as heads of state.

Although the monopoly media are having a grand time gushing over the coronation, the famous British playwright William Shakespeare may have put it rather more succinctly and aptly as much ado about nothing.

• Image credit: Buzzfeed.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Despite whatever charges Julian Assange may be accused of, it is well known that the WikiLeaks publisher was targeted for exposing the war crimes of the US government. In an upside-down Bizarro World, the screws are being ever so gradually tightened on Assange by the war criminals and their criminal accomplices. It is, in fact, a slow-motion assassination being played out before the open and closed eyes of the world.

— “The Slow-motion Assassination of Julian Assange“

The above was written in 2020. Little has changed. In the foreword to Guilty of Journalism by Kevin Gosztola, American journalist Abby Martin writes, “Assange was only publishing the leaks. He never committed any crime. He only published evidence of the crimes.” (p xiii)

Assange’s “crime” is exposing the crimes of the US; especially revelatory was the Collateral Murder video where US troops in an Apache helicopter gleefully gunned dead 12 civilians on a street in New Baghdad. The murderers remain scot-free. For exposing war crimes, Assange and Chelsea Manning have been punished.

Kevin Gosztola who has followed much of the judicial proceedings against Manning and Assange presents his knowledge of the cases, in particular that of Assange, in Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case against Julian Assange (Seven Stories Press, 2023).

What is readily apparent is that the releases by WikiLeaks triggered a tsunamic vendetta. This has resulted in a brazen miscarriage of justice manipulated by a red-faced United States with the connivance of allied nation states such as Australia; Sweden; Britain; after a change of presidents, Ecuador; and the bystander nations of the world.

The US seeks to try Assange under the Espionage Act, a relic from WWI designed to control the release of information (see chapter 4). Yet, such a prosecution of Assange is hampered by the US Constitution, as the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. Prosecuting a publisher/journalist would entail grave implications for journalism and publishing in the US.

The book’s title, Guilty of Journalism, is apt. It speaks to the legal perturbations to eliminate a perceived threat to the US’s full-spectrum hegemony. For a hegemon to operate unhindered, it must control the medium and its messages. Thus, the US asserts that Assange is not a journalist, this despite Assange being recognized as a journalist by the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, being a member of the International Federation of Journalists, being published in several media around the world, and having been awarded several prizes for his journalism. It is akin to blithely stating someone is not a lawyer despite having a law degree from a recognized law school, having passed the bar exam, having worked as a lawyer for several years, and having been celebrated for her accomplishments as a lawyer. It is patently a non sequitur to reject evidence purely on someone’s say-so.

The US government prefers to keep its sordid business in some dark corner under wraps. Assange and WikiLeaks, however, cast a light on the inner workings of governments. Many people hold a principle that states the people have a right to know what their governments are doing in their name.

The US persists in its claim that Assange is not a journalist. He is depicted variously as an anarchist or a hacker posing as a journalist. Ponder this: if a teacher hacks computer systems at home in the evening, is she no longer a teacher? Nonetheless, WikiLeaks publishes journalism and the monopoly media (Gosztola uses the term “prestige media” in his book) has even indulged in publication of the WikiLeaks‘s releases.

The US also holds that Assange is guilty of “aiding the enemy” and asserts that the information published by WikiLeaks would be used by enemies such as Al Qaeda.

Gosztola quotes Assange’s civilian defense attorney David Coombs: “No case has ever been prosecuted under this type of theory, that an individual by nature of giving information to a journalistic organization would then be subject to [aiding the enemy].” (p 51)

There seems to be a causal link missing in the chain of the US legal strategy: if the US personnel had not been committing undeniable war crimes, then there would have been no story to be published about it in the media. No war crimes, no story, then no need to fear alleged succor being provided to an enemy. A question then: who is primarily culpable in this chain of events?

Harvard professor Yochai Benkler found that there was no evidence “that any enemy had, in fact, used WikiLeaks.” (p 57) Nonetheless, Gosztola noted that judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had eased the burden of proof for prosecutors with her ruling that they need not show that information could potentially damage the US. (p 66)

Gosztola writes, “It does not matter who received the information. It does not matter if damage occurred as a result of the disclosure or publication of the information. It is all the same to DOJ prosecutors.” (p 79)

WikiLeaks was branded a “non-state hostile intelligence service” by then director of the Central Intelligence Agency Mike Pompeo. (p 87) One ought to consider the nature of the organization previously headed by Pompeo vis-à-vis WikiLeaks. Douglas Valentine wrote a book that lays out what the CIA is: The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World. Sounds an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black; except WikiLeaks is no kettle. “WikiLeaks has a perfect in document authentication and resistance to all censorship attempts.”

Besides, some might consider any claims by a character such as Pompeo to be rich given that he once chuckled: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.”

A question: “Who to Believe: The CIA and Corporate Media or WikiLeaks?”

The criminality of the US government is such that its intelligence services considered assassinating Assange; spied on him while in asylum; relied on the testimony of a sociopath — Sigudur Ingi Thordarson, known for engaging in sex with underage boys — to fraudulently smear Assange; subpoenaed witnesses to appear before the fishing expeditions of a grand jury (for which Chelsea Manning was again imprisoned and fined daily for refusing to testify). They even deprived Assange of his razor so that when he was hauled out of the Ecuadorian embassy he appeared with an unkempt beard. (p 107)

If only stolen razors were the extent of the criminality of the US authorities, but Gosztola brings to light additional crimes in chapter 9: “Retaliation for Exposing Torture, Rendition, and War Crimes.” Guilty of Journalism seamlessly segues into the next chapter detailing what happens to those brave souls who expose the rampant criminality of the state. The US prison system, to be generous, is sorely lacking in decency for the humanity, health, and sanity of those housed within its walls.

Gosztola examines the behavior of the moneyed media and its lies of omission and commission. Assange and WikiLeaks were heavily criticized for putting lives at risk, but: “Notably, WikiLeaks never called attention to any names in the war logs, but prestige media did so, as they helped the US government stir panic, which distracted from the contents of the historical records.” (p 206)

Media allegations lacked evidence, and later the entire fiasco would morph into the prestige media’s discredited Russiagate conspiracy. (chapter 13)

Currently, Assange finds himself still incarcerated in the maximum security Belmarsh Prison in southeast London awaiting the outcome of an appeal against extradition to the US, where the deck will be stacked against him should he be sent there. In the US, Assange will be charged under the Espionage Act which, in actuality, is a contrived criminal indictment for exposing criminal acts.

Assange is one man, one man who has had the might of the American government and the supporting machinery of several nation states, who feel aggrieved and antagonized by the media exposures in WikiLeaks, arrayed against him. Assange is not alone. He is beloved by family and friends; he is backed by colleagues in WikiLeaks; he is vital to the readers of WikiLeaks missives; and he is supported by many independent media, attested to by Guilty of Journalism.

The irony and perversity of the vicious web in which Assange is entangled is laid bare in Guilty of Journalism. People who care about access to information, who want their governments to honor their constitutions and operate transparently, and who care about justice ought to read Guilty of Journalism, become further informed, and add their voices to justice for Julian Assange and to all the others who have sacrificed themselves to bring to light the corruption and crimes of governmental nexuses and the complicit prestige media.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

One must not be harsh, as one can assume that to not declare an unwavering patriotism would put these independent speakers at risk of a harsh backlash.

I admire Ritter and MacGregor for their independent streak. (I also appreciate the analysis of former US marine Brian Berletic who does not engage in rah-rah for the United States, but then he is an ex-pat).

Of course, that an ex-military man can provide excellent military analysis does not mean that views expressed outside one’s bailiwick are equally profound. Such views may even be deserving of criticism or censure.

In a recent video, MacGregor is interviewed by Stephen Gardner (who displays a large Star and Stripes in the background). MacGregor imparts a perspective that is at odds with that trotted out by his government and the US monopoly media concerning warring in Ukraine.

However, a final question that Gardner posed to MacGregor was rather revealing in a very negative light.

Gardner tendentiously asks (around 29:25), “You mentioned that the humane thing would be for the United States to step in and say this war is over; let’s be done. Don’t you feel like China is trying to fill that vacuum, where they are now saying, ‘Oh Saudi Arabia and Iran, there’s a lot of money to be made, let’s broker peace. Russia, Ukraine, hey, the United States is not going to step in; we are going to step in and broker peace.’ Is this one more way for China to try to eclipse the United States on the world stage?”

What basis does Garner have for posing such a loaded question? Gardner ascribes selfish motives to China’s seeking to broker peace. One assumes that making war is preferable in Garner’s estimation. When has China ever boasted that it aspires to eclipse any country or be top dog? China eschews hegemony, and it consistently states its preference for a multipolar world, a world of peace, and developing win-win relationships with countries. Africans, long pillaged by Europeans and the Anglo diaspora, know this well.

MacGregor responded well, at first, “Well, first of all, I do not subscribe to the view that China wants to eclipse us.” Fine, but this was immediately and emphatically followed by: “They know they can’t.” This comes across as chest thumping, USA, USA, USA, from a former military man.

This is followed by a several assertions: “They [China] have serious problems internally, as well.” He opines that China “is too big to do more than it has already done.” He asserts that China’s chairman Xi Jinping wakes everyday wondering how to hold the country together. He does not cite one example to substantiate what he says. Under Xi, China eliminated extreme poverty and it is on the path to moderate prosperity. If only the US could come close to such monumental achievements for its citizenry. China is forging ties with nations from around the world with its Belt and Road initiative. This is what Xi thinks about each day – not the nonsense MacGregor espouses.

Most disturbingly, MacGregor reveals himself in the video to be a Sinophobe by making all kinds of wild racist assertions; e.g., (at 32:14) “No one in central Asia trusts the Chinese; no one in Asia beyond the China’s borders trusts the Chinese [followed by snickering].”

“People… are all very concerned about the Chinese… the Chinese do what they have always done, if you leave it on the table, they’ll steal it. That’s what they do; they’ve been doing it for thousands of years.”

Now replace the word “Chinese” with “Jews” and imagine the torrent of outrage that would flow in the West.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet. One of the great revelations of the age of space exploration is the image of the earth finite and lonely, somehow vulnerable, bearing the entire human species through the oceans of space and time.

— Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980

All people opposed to war must be anti-imperialist. To not be anti-imperialist would render a declared antiwar position as a contradiction.

Scott Ritter, steeped in military knowledge, has compellingly put forth the legal argument that Russia’s special military operation against the Ukrainian forces is legal. Ritter contends that the Russians are fighting the war with kid gloves, bending over backwards to limit civilian casualties. Ritter has gravitas since he was a US Marines intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector. Said Ritter,

… the military imperative, the military necessity of shutting this [conflict] down is real, but Russia didn’t do it. Why? Because Russia isn’t viewing this as we viewed the war against the Iraqis. Russia is viewing this as a special military operation — people make fun of that word — but it’s not war because if it was war, Ukraine would be gone today, eliminated… [view from 49:16]

To Rid the World of Warmaking, Target the Apex of Warmaking

If one truly wants to rid the world of war, one needs to target the warmaker, the aggressor, the initiator of violence: the United States. The violence of the US even gave pause to the pacifist sentiments of Martin Luther King, Jr who said:

… I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.

Noted linguist Noam Chomsky ridiculed the Orwellian notion of a defense department in the US:

… the Pentagon is in no sense a defense department. It has never defended the United States from anyone: it has only served to conduct aggression, and I think the American people would be better off without a Pentagon.

The world would be better off without a Pentagon. To rid the world of war, as the preeminent superpower and rogue nation, the US has the moral obligation to seek a worldwide demilitarization. This will require full transparency verified through monitoring and compliance enforced by an independent and empowered body. After that, those entities and individuals responsible for US aggression and other war crimes should stand trial and be prosecuted, as should all responsible individuals in all nations that perpetrate war crimes.

Of Course, War Should be Abolished

Most people will distinguish between offensive warmaking and warring in self-defense. To draw an equivalency in criticism between an aggressor and and a war of resistance to attack is, palpably, wrongheaded. Worse, it provides succor to the aggressor since it fares no worse than its targeted enemy. Thus, a principled antiwar position would abjure scapegoating and falsely assessing equivalency in blame to a country that only seeks mutual security yet finds itself cornered by a hegemon. As T.P. Wilkinson compellingly argued:

… the claim that Russia should not have violated Ukrainian sovereignty is based on the erroneous belief that Ukraine was invaded. This assertion is based on ignorance. Quite aside from the international-law issues posed by the sovereign claims of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), and hence whether they could exert sovereign rights to conclude treaties and hence invite military aid, there is the long-standing original threat and active aggression of NATO in and through Ukraine’s governments. The recognition of sovereignty does not outweigh the right of self-defense.

Prominent antiwar activist David Swanson wrote, “But unless we get back to disarmament, the long-term prospects for humanity are grim.

I agree with Swanson’s assessment. As for disarmament, that is what Russia is carrying out right now in Ukraine. Weapons companies won’t be happy about that. However, it is high time that the Kellogg-Briand Pact be adhered to.

Swanson continues, “Of course, NATO and everyone else have always wanted a neutral Ukraine, so this shouldn’t be such a huge hurdle.”

This is puzzling. If NATO had wanted a neutral Ukraine all along, then why did NATO say yes to future Ukraine membership, albeit without specifying a date for joining? NATO even recognized Ukraine as an “enhanced opportunity partner.” Moreover, if the US-financed military biological program in Ukraine becomes verified, then it puts an emphatic kibosh to any talk of NATO having wanted a neutral Ukraine.

Regarding the Russian demands, Swanson writes, “Of course, it is a horrible precedent to meet the demands of a warmaker.”

But Ukraine is also a “warmaker” according to Swanson’s definition because it also wages war with Russia. Question: Did Swanson ever call Ukraine a “warmaker” back in 2014 for shelling Donbass? And just who made the war in Ukraine? Why did Russia “invade” Ukraine? Was it not Ukraine’s shelling of Donbass that precipitated an exodus of ethnic Russians into Russia and Ukraine’s refusal to abide by the Minsk Agreements that caused Russia, exasperated at the infidelity of its negotiating partners, to recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics? Was it not Ukraine that made war — specifically, that was the initiator of making war? Was Ukraine not undermining Russian state security by seeking NATO membership and being loaded up with NATO weaponry? Ukraine became a proxy of the US. In actuality, the initiator of warmaking is not Ukraine but the US. Swanson has failed to point this out.

And why does a wide swath of antiwar types focus inordinately on Russia in Ukraine? Israel (an occupier of historical Palestine) has been aggressing Palestine, Syria, Iran, Lebanon for several years. The US is occupying a large chunk of Syria and stealing its oil and wheat. The US military refuses to remove its military from Iraq although ordered to do so by the Iraqi parliament — in essence, a de facto military occupation. Meanwhile the continental US sits in occupation of Indigenous nations territory, in occupation of Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, Guantánamo Bay, Guam, Saipan, the ethnically cleansed Chagos archipelago. How do Israel and the US escape sanctions and continual censure for their warmaking?

Yet, by “invading” Ukraine, Russia is poised to very quickly become a war-ender. The timetable for the war from the Russian side is undisclosed, but it appears Russia has been proceeding slowly to ensure minimal civilian casualties. This is not a prediction, however, with Ukraine becoming militarily depleted, it is not out of the question that by summer Russia will have ended a war that has raged since 2014 between Ukraine and Donbass.

Swanson’s final paragraph reads: “One way to negotiate peace would be for Ukraine to offer to meet all of Russia’s demands and, ideally, more, while making demands of its own for reparations and disarmament. If the war goes on and ends someday with a Ukrainian government and a human species still around, such negotiations will have to happen. Why not now?”

Fine, peace now would be great. But what is the reasoning behind Swanson’s demand that Russia should pay for reparations and disarmament to Ukraine? Will Swanson also demand that Ukraine pay reparations to Donbass? Will Ukraine pay reparations to Russia for dragging it into the mess it created at the behest of the US?

If Ukraine should be demanding reparations, then it should be demanding them from US-NATO that in an abjectly cowardly manner abandoned (and thank goodness it did) its prospective NATO member to face Russia alone. And Swanson would do well to argue that the US-NATO pay reparations to Ukraine, Donbass, and Russia. And then the US should be demanded to pay reparations to a historical list of countries that it has criminally devastated.

Nonetheless, I find it strange that the US warmaker extraordinaire and a neo-Nazi-infiltrated Ukraine are glanced over while blame is laid on Russia.

Although I may dissent on the facts and logic proffered on the warring, I am unequivocally in solidarity with worldwide disarmament and ending war forever. That day, unfortunately, has not arrived yet.

A Principled Antiwar Coalition

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) appears to have reached a principled antiwar position. I posed some questions based on their statement of Principles:

Kim Petersen: “UNAC holds that the U.S. government…” From this I understand that the US military-industrial-governmental-etc nexus is the primary obstacle to a world without war. Is this correct?

UNAC: Yes, the US government is the main imperialist power in the world and the main cause of war. It has about 20 times the number of foreign military bases as all other countries in the world and has a military budget that represents about 45% of the total military budget of all other countries. It has militarily intervened in other countries over 65 times in the past several decades. It is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on people.

KP: “We support the right of all oppressed peoples, including colonized and formerly colonized countries, to determine their own road to liberation.” Does this grant the oppressed peoples the right to violently resist (at least equivalent to) the violence of oppression to liberate themselves?

UNAC: Yes, the countries that the US has attacked and provoked have the right to defend themselves against US/NATO military aggression. The problem is that the US military has been much stronger than the countries it attracted until now.  This time, however, Russia is winning the proxy war against the combined might of the US-NATO and countries around the world are seeing that the “West” can be defeated. Even with its strong military, the people of Vietnam and Afghanistan were about to defeat the US military. Today to avoid the people of the US turning against their wars, they conduct proxy wars where others fight the battles. This was true in Libya, Syria and now they are showing their willingness to fight the war in Ukraine to the last Ukrainian.

KP: Since UNAC supports “Mutual self-defense” how does UNAC view the denial of mutual security sought by Russia as justification to gain security through a special military operation?

UNAC: The denial of Russian security was a deliberate strategy on the part of the US to provoke the war we are seeing today. The US thought that the war and the sanctions would cause regime change and the break-up of Russia. It is proving to be a mistake. The US provoked them by moving NATO up to their border, despite pledges not to do so. They have conducted “war games” on the Russian border and put nuclear capable missiles close to their borders. They created a coup in Ukraine to get rid of a government that wanted good relations with its neighbor and built the Ukraine military to the strongest in Europe. They trained them, armed them, gave them logistic support and paid for their military, all to try and defeat the Russian military. The US has never been interested in stability in the region or in Russian security. This has led to the war in Ukraine.

The Antiwar Costa Rican Example

In 1946, the pacifist physicist Albert Einstein wrote in a letter: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war. We must all do our share, that we may be equal to the task of peace.”

In 1949, the Central American country of Costa Rica courageously embraced the logic expressed by Einstein. Costa Rica set the example for other genuinely antiwar countries to follow when it abolished its army.

Worldwide disarmament is required. This will, undoubtedly, be a most difficult fight — dismantling the military-industrial complex in the US and disassembling other militaries abroad. Yet peace would be the glorious reward for people everywhere. Imagine what could be achieved with military spending redirected to job creation, healthcare, education, infrastructure construction and maintenance, social security, environmental protection and enhancement, space exploration, a living wage, etc. Is a perpetual state of spending on killing really what people should accept from their governments?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The sooner the war in Ukraine is over, the sooner the U.S. and Russia can get down to the business of preserving arms control as a viable part of the relationship between the two nations.

By seeking to extend the Ukraine conflict, however, the U.S. is in effect engaging in an act of self-immolation that threatens to engulf the world in a nuclear holocaust.

— former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter

It is an imperative, and it must be a universal principle of all morally conscious people that war is anathema and militaries should be abolished everywhere, at least on the national level. (I leave open space for the establishment and maintenance of a genuinely international military force under a nonaligned international command to uphold the disarmament and abolishment of national and extranational militaries.)

In the article, “On the Left and Violence in Syria: The imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 7,” B.J. Sabri and I discussed violence in the context of mortal struggle between or inside nation states and the need to consider the factors that generated it. It is a given that every decent person in the world should decry the killing of kids, women, elderly, and civilians of all ages anywhere, and this includes men; there is no debate on this point. However, our rage, analysis, and criticism should be directed primarily and even exclusively on all those governments whose involvement in imperialism, warring, and killing that create death, destruction, and tragedies.

However, the root causes of warring must be addressed, and not all warring must be considered as equivalent. Morality and principles must guide us in how we address warring.

Earlier, I argued: “As a principle, resistance to oppression must be an inalienable right no matter what the type of resistance it may be. Blame for any violent resistance must never be laid on the oppressed but rather on the oppressor because oppression in itself is violent and when one suffers violence then violent resistance becomes justified as self-defense.”

Numerous anti-imperialist writers from around the world are antiwar. Yet, not all clearly distinguish between the initiator of the violence, resistance to the initial violence, and machinations that corner a rival country which then fights it way out from the corner.

Ted Glick, antiwar activist and author of Burglar for Peace, wrote on 24 February,

The Ukraine/Russia war continues to be, at root, a battle for national self-determination by Ukraine against an imperialist power, Russia. Disturbingly, there continue to be leftist groups and individuals in the US who deny this fact.

I demurred with his contention that it was “a battle for national self-determination by Ukraine against an imperialist power, Russia,” so I asked Ted Glick,

How do you define NATO’s massive eastward encroachment to Russia’s border? Yet, you define Russia as an imperialist for defending its security after its proposal of a mutual security agreement was rejected by US-NATO-Ukraine. It sure seems to me that Russia asked for a win-win from all parties, and that the blame lies on those who rejected security for all.

Glick replied,

An invasion by 125,000 troops into a neighboring country isn’t ‘defending its security,’ it is imperialist aggression.

Peace advocate Jan Oberg, co-founder of the The Transnational Foundation (a think tank dedicated to bringing about “peace by peaceful means”), wrote in an email missive on 8 April 2022:

It’s time to say it clear and loud: Russia is responsible for its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. The West is responsible for its military, economic and political reaction to it and for NATO’s expansion before it. And Ukraine’s leaders are responsible for how they operated 2014-2022.

And it is every social science intellectual’s duty to do comparative studies – to compare also this war with other wars over the last 30 years, the far majority of which conducted illegally and immorally by the US and NATO allies – and with many times worse consequences than the war on Ukraine has so far had.

I asked Jan Oberg,

My reading from the above is that Russia acted without provocation. So provocation (unless you reject that) based on a rejection of mutual security and knowing full well what US imperialism has wreaked over the years up to today only makes the West responsible for their reaction to Russia’s invasion? This strikes me as the onus being placed on Russia. Others argue that the SMO was legal (e.g., Scott Ritter). Immoral. Yes, killing in isolation is immoral, but killing in self-defense is not immoral. Allowing a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of the Russian people to continue to encroach closer with an agenda to carve up Russia and siphon off its resources would be a dereliction of a government’s duty, no?

Oberg replied,

No, the invasion was by no means unprovoked – I would never use that stupid NATO phrase/lie.

In terms of a bit of philosophy, each of us are responsible for how we choose to react to a provocation – and other acts.  There is no automaticity that legitimates violent actions – I am too much of a Gandhian to believe in that. And that what I said here, today a year ago:

https://transnational.live/2022/02/25/there-were-alternatives-why-russia-should-not-have-bombed-ukraine/

Secondly, all my arguments are written up here – but I admit it is a long one:

https://transnational.live/2022/08/18/the-tff-abolish-nato-catalogue/

It’s one long argument that NATO has made the mother of all blunders – in trying to getting Ukraine into NATO and NATO into Ukraine. A series of scholars – including I myself – warned that war would be the outcome. Nobody listened to us – not even to (now CIA’s) William Burns (see my latest article) and also not to any Russian leader for 30 years.

Even so, I would argue, the invasion was not acceptable – although understandable/explainable.

David Swanson of War Is A Crime.org, has been an unrelenting opponent of war — a principled sentiment. What sane and morally guided person doesn’t share this sentiment? Although opposition to warmaking is a unifying factor of antiwar types, there is room for dissent as to what constitutes warmaking and the legitimacy of different forms of warring. For instance, Swanson lumps together warmaking and the warring of a resistance, such that he criticizes all violence, even that in self-defense, as reprehensible. Not only is such lumping flawed but it is arguably a barrier to attaining a world in which there is no more war. If one fails to unequivocally differentiate between offensive violence (what I would define as “warmaking,” although an equally apt term may be “aggression.”) and the violence of self-defense or joint defense of an ally under attack (which is not “warmaking” – except in an Orwellian sense – but is more aptly defined as “resistance.”) George Orwell was scathing in his rejection of pacifism: “Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other.”¹

In response to a 3 September 2019 article, “Nonviolence Denial Is As Dangerous As Climate Denial” by Swanson, I interviewed him to discern how he could seemingly equate all actors in a war notwithstanding why the warring started and why the warring actors where engaged. I find some of his statements factually inaccurate, logically and ethically flawed, and evasive.

For example, Swanson cited, by way of Stephen Zunes, “Mariupol became the largest city to be liberated from control by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine…” This is propaganda for NATO. Another writer would have noted that the US engineered a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the elected government using neo-Nazis, to which a resistance arose in the east of Ukraine.

In a similar vein to Oberg, Swanson presents as a successful passive resistance the Gandhian example in India. Of this, George Orwell wrote, “As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government.”¹ Those people who were subservient to British empire in the Indian subcontinent could be considered accomplices in a genocide that has been calculated to number 100 million.

As for the problem with pacifism, to get at the core of the matter, I present a scenario from which readers can draw their own conclusions.

Imagine that a person unfamiliar to you suddenly punches you in the face. You recoil from the blow and massage your sore jaw. Somehow you stifle any physical retaliation. Instead you try to understand why this stranger would assault you. He replies, “Just because I don’t like your face.”

He comes at you again with his fist, and it lands in your solar plexus. You are bent over and winded by the blow. Then he kicks you in the side. At this point you fully understand that the attacker is going to continue to inflict physical violence against you.

Two questions for readers to ponder:

1) Seeing no other options, if you defend yourself physically, are you blameworthy for any part of the violence?

2) Are you then a “violence-maker” along with the attacker who threw the first punches without any legitimate justification?

While non-violent resistance sounds righteous. I submit that a violent attacker prefers nothing better than to target a passive “resistor”? What good is being self-righteous when you are hospitalized or dead, leaving behind your family and friends to fend for themselves and their potentially becoming the next targets for violence? I side with the logic proffered by the anti-racist revolutionary Malcolm X:

I myself would go for nonviolence if it was consistent, if everybody was going to be nonviolent all the time. I’d say, okay, let’s get with it, we’ll all be nonviolent. But I don’t go along with any kind of nonviolence unless everybody’s going to be nonviolent…. But as long as you’ve got somebody else not being nonviolent, I don’t want anybody coming to me talking any nonviolent talk.²

Readers ought to reach their own conclusions and consider the above scenario while reading the following interview with Swanson.

*****

Kim Petersen: I am thoroughly antiwar, and I’d like to see every nation disarm. However, I grant the victims of attack the right to defend against and resist attacks. This does not come through to me in your latest piece. So I pose the following questions.

David Swanson: Because I disagree with it.

KP: You wrote: “I severely criticized my fellow peace activists when some of them cheered for Russian bombings in Syria. I even went after Russia for its warmaking in Syria repeatedly on Russian television.”

I agree that warmaking is a heinous crime. And as I understand it, you condemn all warring. Nonetheless, for warring to occur there has to be a starting point and, I submit that a war does not usually start simultaneously between/among combatants. Therefore, I ask if a party makes war against your country, how should you respond? Would you not defend your country?

DS: Usually this is asked as “Do the Iraqis get to fight back?” since it’s the U.S. doing most of the aggression. The short answer to that question is that if the aggressor would have refrained, no defense would have been needed. Turning resistance to U.S. wars around into justification for further U.S. military spending is common on this topic, yet too twisted even for a K Street lobbyist.

The slightly longer answer is that it’s generally not the proper role for someone born and living in the United States to advise people living under U.S. bombs that they should experiment with nonviolent resistance.

But the right answer is a bit more difficult than either of those. It’s an answer that becomes clearer if we look at both foreign invasions and revolutions/civil wars. There are more of the latter to look at, and there are more strong examples to point to. But the purpose of theory, including Anti-Just-War theory, should be to help generate more real-world examples of superior outcomes, such as in the use of nonviolence against foreign invasions.

Studies like Erica Chenoweth’s have established that nonviolent resistance to tyranny is far more likely to succeed, and the success far more likely to be lasting, than with violent resistance.³ So if we look at something like the nonviolent revolution in Tunisia in 2011, we might find that it meets as many criteria as any other situation for a Just War, except that it wasn’t a war at all. One wouldn’t go back in time and argue for a strategy less likely to succeed but likely to cause a lot more pain and death. Perhaps doing so might constitute a Just War argument. Perhaps a Just War argument could even be made, anachronistically, for a 2011 U.S. “intervention” to bring democracy to Tunisia (apart from the United States’ obvious inability to do such a thing, and the guaranteed catastrophe that would have resulted). But once you’ve done a revolution without all the killing and dying, it can no longer makes sense to propose all the killing and dying — not if a thousand new Geneva Conventions were created, and no matter the imperfections of the nonviolent success.

Despite the relative scarcity of examples thus far of nonviolent resistance to foreign occupation, there are those already beginning to claim a pattern of success. Here’s Stephen Zunes:

“Nonviolent resistance has also successfully challenged foreign military occupation. During the first Palestinian intifada in the 1980s, much of the subjugated population effectively became self-governing entities through massive noncooperation and the creation of alternative institutions, forcing Israel to allow for the creation of the Palestine Authority and self-governance for most of the urban areas of the West Bank. Nonviolent resistance in the occupied Western Sahara has forced Morocco to offer an autonomy proposal which — while still falling well short of Morocco’s obligation to grant the Sahrawis their right of self-determination — at least acknowledges that the territory is not simply another part of Morocco.

“In the final years of German occupation of Denmark and Norway during WWII, the Nazis effectively no longer controlled the population. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia freed themselves from Soviet occupation through nonviolent resistance prior to the USSR’s collapse. In Lebanon, a nation ravaged by war for decades, thirty years of Syrian domination was ended through a large-scale, nonviolent uprising in 2005. And last year, Mariupol became the largest city to be liberated from control by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine, not by bombings and artillery strikes by the Ukrainian military, but when thousands of unarmed steelworkers marched peacefully into occupied sections of its downtown area and drove out the armed separatists.”⁴

One might look for potential in numerous examples of resistance to the Nazis, and in German resistance to the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923, or perhaps in the one-time success of the Philippines and the ongoing success of Ecuador in evicting U.S. military bases, plus of course the Gandhian example from India. But the far more numerous examples of nonviolent success over domestic tyranny also provide a guide toward future action.

To be morally right, nonviolent resistance to an actual attack need not appear more likely to succeed than violent. It only need appear somewhat close to as likely. Because if it succeeds it will do so with less harm, and its success will be more likely to last.

KP: And if you and your allies engage in defense, does that mean that you are a “warmaker”?

DS: That would depend on whether your defense uses war.

KP: Sorry, I should have elaborated. If you use the physical violence characteristic of warring to defend against a war launched against you, does that make you a “warmaker”?

DS: Yes, if you wage war you wage war.

which does not mean Hitler = Roosevelt = Castro

it just means if you wage war you wage war

KP: In the case of Syria, the legitimate government (meaning that it governs the country and is recognized as the government by other countries) found itself under physical attack, (and for the sake of argument whether we agree or not on this point) is that government not allowed to defend itself from physical threat?

DS: The simple answer of yes or no in a particular circumstance as well as the answer to “How much mass slaughter is acceptably characterized as defense”? is not empirically answerable by a scientist or a lawyer and, as you know, is answered by the U.S. and allied nations as they see fit. What I would consider a moral answer is of course a completely different one.

KP: You wrote: “If the United States and Russia escalate a joint bombing campaign in Syria, things will go from very bad to even worse for those not killed in the process.”

With all due respect, this comes across as an assertion; one could equally assert the opposite: if fanatical “insurgents,” “rebels,” “mercenaries,” etc. (whatever monikers one wishes to attach to the forces seeking to depose the government) are allowed to attack without resistance and depose the government then the situation will surely become a hell, and the evidence for this is the smoldering carcass of the formerly leading African nation of Libya.

DS: It’s not an assertion. It’s a guarantee. But it’s not exclusive of your worry, as the U.S. is not setting aside overthrowing the government and throwing the region into chaos and likely putting ISIS in power. Clinton says Obama was wrong not to bomb and overthrow the government three years ago, and she intends to do so.

KP: You wrote: “Of course the U.S. went ahead with arming and training and bombing on a much smaller scale. Of course Russia joined in, killing even more Syrians with its bombs than the United States was doing, and it was indeed deeply disturbing to see U.S. peace activists cheer for that. Of course the Syrian government went on with its bombings and other crimes, and of course it’s disturbing that some refuse to criticize those horrors, just as it’s disturbing that others refuse to criticize the U.S. or Russian horrors or both, or refuse to criticize Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Iran or Israel.”

By trying to come across as evenhanded in your criticism, I submit a bias arises. Do you agree or disagree that if Saudi-, Qatari-, western-backed “rebels” had not launched/supported an attempted coup that there would have been no need for the Syrian government to defend the country (and, of course, the government) and there would have been no need to ask Russia to intervene or Iran or Hezbollah?

DS: The Syrian government cracked down on a mostly Syrian opposition before it became such a proxy war — which excuses the ongoing mass murder by absolutely nobody. [This narrative by Swanson has been compellingly refuted by independent journalist Eva Bartlett who has often been on the ground in Syria during the fighting.⁵ ]

KP: If my contention is factual, then why focus equal blame on the resistance to the “rebels”? The rebels made war, and this gave rise to resist the “rebels.”

DS: Blaming everyone engaged in making a situation worse does not mean blaming them all equally, and I have certainly never tried to imply such a thing which would of course be ridiculous.

Part 4: Ending war for once and all.

1. George Orwell, “Pacifism and the War.”
2. Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks (New York: Grove Press, 1965): 138.
3. Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia University Press, 2012).
4. Stephen Zunes, “Alternatives to War from the Bottom Up.”
5. From Eva Bartlett, “Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria,” Dissident Voice, 10 October 2015:

   Yet, it is known that from the beginning, in Dara’a and throughout Syria, armed protesters were firing upon, and butchering, security forces and civilians. Tim Anderson’s “Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa” pointed out that police were killed by snipers in the March 17/18 protests; the Syrian army was only brought to Dara’a following the murder of the policemen. Additionally, a storage of protesters’ weapons was found in Dara’a’s al-Omari mosque.

   Prem Shankar Jha’s, “Who Fired The First Shot?” described the slaughter of 20 Syrian soldiers outside Dara’a a month later, “by cutting their throats, and cutting off the head of one of the soldiers.” A very “moderate”-rebel practice.

   In “Syria: The Hidden Massacre” Sharmine Narwani investigated the early massacres of Syrian soldiers, noting that many of the murders occurred even after the Syrian government had abolished the state security courts, lifted the state of emergency, granted general amnesties, and recognized the right to peaceful protest.

   The April 10, 2011 murder of Banyas farmer Nidal Janoud was one of the first horrific murders of Syrian civilians by so-called “unarmed protesters.” Face gashed open, mutilated and bleeding, Janoud was paraded by an armed mob, who then hacked him to death.

   Father Frans Van der Ludt—the Dutch priest living in Syria for nearly 5 decades prior to his April 7, 2014 assassination by militants occupying the old city of Homs—wrote (repeatedly) of the “armed demonstrators” he saw in early protests, “who began to shoot at the police first.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Back in February of 2003, an estimated 10 million to 15 million people hit the streets around the world in opposition to a war on Iraq. US president George W Bush dismissed the protesting masses as a “focus group.” Bush and his partner in crime, UK prime minister Tony Blair, invaded Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, as well as thousands of the invading troops.

Unfortunately, 20 years later, the Rage Against War Machine rally in Washington DC didn’t draw near enough numbers to make an impression. One estimate put the numbers between 1,000 and 3,000 people, which has to be majorly disappointing for the antiwar movement. The rally has been for the most part ignored by the monopoly media, much as the W Bush and Blair governments paid scant heed to the antiwar protestors in 2003.

Why the low turnout? Did W Bush crush the soul of the antiwar movement?

While the number of protestors in the US and Britain seemed impressive in 2003, when one considers the numbers as a percentage of the population, then one might conclude that either many more people were insouciant or worse that many more people supported the war machine.

TP Wilkinson interviewed Joan Roelofs, author of The Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why There Is So Little Anti-War Protest in the United States. As to the paucity of antiwar protest, Roelofs postulated:

There is a heritage of violence and its glorification in the US, perpetrated by propaganda, the educational system, and the adoration of family members who have been in the military. In addition, there are other reasons for supporting the military, including fear (of being considered unpatriotic, etc.), distractions, and interests. My book is mainly about the interests and the military connections pervading our social, educational, cultural, and economic institutions.

Or does a segment of the antiwar movement pursue a wrongheaded strategy?

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and was attacked. Therefore every country should have nuclear weapons.

NATO didn’t add Ukraine, which was attacked. Therefore every country or at least lots of them should be added to NATO.

Russia has a bad government. Therefore it should be overthrown.

These lessons are popular, logical — even unquestionable truth in many minds — and catastrophically and demonstrably wrong.

Swanson tries to dismantle the argument that “every country that gives up nukes gets attacked.” He states Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. Those nukes were Soviet nukes, and Ukraine never had control of these nukes. All of the nukes were removed to Russia under a 1994 agreement. Swanson acknowledges, “Now, it is true that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program and was attacked.” Libya gave up its program, but it never had nukes, and Swanson eludes the question of whether Libya would have been attacked if it had succeeded in the development and retention of its nukes.

Swanson: “And it is true that numerous countries lacking nuclear weapons have been attacked: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc. But nuclear weapons don’t completely stop India and Pakistan attacking each other…”

Comment: The key words here are “don’t completely stop” attacks. What has not transpired is an all-out attack. Dangerous as a pin-prick attack might be, there is a undeniably large difference between such attacks and launching a major military offensive. Granted, a pin-prick attack is risky and might indeed provoke a heightened response leading to great devastation, but both sides certainly must be aware that if a certain red line is crossed and a nuclear exchange is precipitated that it is goners for all sides. Such is the ineluctable outcome of nuclear war.

Swanson: “… don’t stop terrorism in the U.S. or Europe…”

Comment: Terrorism is a damnable scourge. What Swanson points to is retail terrorism, and it is tiny in destructive magnitude compared to the wholesale terrorism of nation states such as the US. One must not condemn one form of terrorism, retail, and neglect to condemn the far greater wholesale terrorism. Indeed, all terrorism that targets civilians must be condemned. Thankfully, terrorists do not have nukes … yet. There are still, however, unrecovered broken arrows out there.

Swanson: “… don’t prevent a major proxy war with the U.S. and Europe arming Ukraine against Russia…”

Comment: Proxy wars speak more to madness and false bravado. In the case of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, it speaks to cowardice — the abject refusal to own up to the crime one committed, even though every politically aware person knows the US did it with the considerable aid of Norway and also the investigation’s cover-up carried out by Sweden and Denmark. The reality is a nation that presents itself as an exceptional and indispensable beacon on the hill, but it doesn’t have the gumption to own up to what it did.

Swanson: “… don’t stop a major push for war with China…”

Comment: Pushing for and carrying out war are different animals. As it stands, US-NATO-Ukraine are headed for a major defeat, and that precludes an attack on China in the near and longer term.

Swanson: “… don’t prevent Afghans and Iraqis and Syrians fighting against the U.S. military…”

Comment: What is the choice?: either capitulate and live on one’s knees or resist with honor. Besides, the US is hamstrung from using nukes, particularly against less militarily potent countries that do not possess nuclear weapons because overtly using WMD would thoroughly undermine (if that isn’t the case yet) the attack on an Iraq that was fundamentally disarmed. And it would/should result in a massive condemnation of the US and the fracturing of its alliances.

Swanson: “… and have as much to do with starting the war in Ukraine as their absence does with failing to prevent it.”

Comment: Looks like Swanson is destroying his own argument here. The Ukrainians don’t have nukes, so Russia need not employ nukes. If Ukraine had had nukes, would Russia have invaded? Just imagine a nightmare scenario of neo-Nazis having control over nukes.

Swanson: “Among Russia’s excuses for invading Ukraine was the positioning of weaponry nearer its border than ever before. Excuses, needless to say, are not justifications…”

Comment: Who decides what is a justification or an excuse? Swanson? He needs to define what the difference between an excuse and a justification is and why a particular case is neither one or the other; merely stating so is thoroughly uncompelling. Is not removing a credible threat being stationed ever closer to Russian territory justifiable? Apparently not to Swanson.

Swanson: “… and the lesson learned in Russia that the U.S. and NATO will listen to nothing other than war is as false a lesson as those being learned in the U.S. and Europe.”

Comment: Sounds like a strawman argument. So who is saying that “the U.S. and NATO will listen to nothing other than war” and that this is the lesson Russia has learned? Swanson is, arguably, absolving the US and its NATO minions because provoking a war is more-or-less warmaking by intention. If setting up the situation knowing that it will lead to war is not sufficient to qualify as a “lesson learned,” then the flow of weapons from the US-NATO into Ukraine is undeniably a “lesson learned.”

Did the US intentionally provoke the war? There are numerous pronouncements by politicians and media calling it a proxy war, for example, by German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock said: “We are fighting a war against Russia…,” by Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, who serves on the House Armed Forces Committee, by the Washington Post, by Fox News: “Tucker: We are at war with Russia, whether or not Congress has declared it,” by the Cato Institute, by Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, etc. It is indeed a proxy war, a war the US, Canada, and Europe finance with Ukrainian blood to try and weaken Russia.

The goal is to break up Russia and exploit its resources.

Swanson: “Russia could have supported the rule of law and won over much of the world to its side.”

Comment: Which law says that Ukraine cannot join NATO? Which law says that the US cannot station weapons in Ukraine and point them at Moscow? Which law? The laws of the rules-based order? Swanson assumes the rule of law works in this world. But Swanson knows well, for instance, the purposeful miscarriage of justice against Julian Assange. Why should Russia fare any better under the law than Assange? The US regards international law with impunity. The US has not enacted Article 6 as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; it is not a member of the ICC; it even ignores rulings by the World Court against it. Russia is well aware of this. Israel is a serial violator of international law, yet it is backed by the US and many of the NATO countries, so Swanson appears to be talking from the ether here. Julian Assange has been awaiting justice for over a dozen years, yet Swanson laments that Russia “chose not to” have pursued the legal route. Before proposing solutions such as turning to the courts, first it has to be demonstrated that law works. The law throughout history, up to the present day, has been clearly and demonstrably hit-and-miss. Why would Russia submit its security to such a flawed process?

Swanson: “In fact, the United States and Russia are not parties to the International Criminal Court.”

Comment: Why would Russia bind itself to the ICC when its main adversary refuses to join? What sense would that make? Why would Russia sign the Ottawa Treaty on the prohibition of landmines when the US refuses? Why would Russia denuclearize if the US doesn’t? Moreover, why does Swanson grant that the ICC is an impartial administrator of justice?

Swanson: “The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, the U.S. and Russian efforts to win over Ukraine for years, the mutual arming of conflict in Donbas, and the Russian invasion of 2021 highlight a problem in world leadership.” [italics added]

Comment: A contradiction? Why did Swanson earlier make the argument that Russia could appeal to the rest of the world through law when there is a problem in world leadership? Again, no mention was made of NATO encroachment toward Russia. Is not the eastward spread of NATO (facilitated by a US-backed coup in Ukraine) the greater precipitating invasion? And did not the US-fueled coup in Ukraine beget the Russian invasion?

Furthermore, what needs to be stated is that there is no Russian encroachment toward Europe or the US. Europe and the US do not find themselves ringed by Russian military bases. Knowing this, it is undeniably clear who the intrusive, provocative party is.

Swanson: “Of 18 major human rights treaties, Russia is party to only 11, and the United States to only 5, as few as any nation on Earth. Both nations violate treaties at will, including the United Nations Charter, Kellogg Briand Pact, and other laws against war. Both nations refuse to support and openly defy major disarmament and anti-weapons treaties upheld by most of the world.”

Comment: Again, if a major belligerent such as the US rejects treaties, then countries targeted by the US, such as Russia, might feel compelled to abstain from such treaties that would tie their hands vis-à-vis an antagonist. This may well hamper the ability of a country to defend itself. Consider also treaties signed by Russia and not signed by the US, such as “Protection from Torture, Ill-Treatment and Disappearance,” “Employment and Forced Labour,” and “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.” Therefore, to criticize both parties and without pointing out key differences points to a bias. To the point, there is no equivalence between the US and Russia.

Swanson: “… the United States actually keeps nuclear weapons in five other nations and considers putting them into more, while Russia has talked of putting nukes in Belarus.”

Comment: As they say: talk is cheap or, more aptly, actions speak louder than words. Hence, there is no equivalence between militaristic actions actually carried out by the US and rumors about what Russia might do. Besides, if Russia did move nukes into Belarus, criticism must take into consideration why Russia did so because every nation has a right to ensure its security, and that is why the special military operation was launched against Ukraine: because Russian security concerns were ignored.

Swanson: “Russia and the United States stand as rogue regimes outside the Landmines Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Arms Trade Treaty, and many others.”

Comment: What if the USA signed? Is the reason that Russia has not signed because it objects to handcuffs on its military operability, or is the reason for Russia not signing because the US will not? Why did Russia get the bomb? Because the US had it. Swanson completely misses this point. Russia signed the Outer Space Treaty; the US is the only country to reject it.

Swanson: “The United States and Russia are the top two dealers of weaponry to the rest of the world, together accounting for a large majority of weapons sold and shipped.”

Comment: Has Swanson considered that Russia might very well stop selling weaponry if the US and all other countries agreed to this? Should Russia stand aside and allow the US to reap monster profits from weapons sales to further finance its own arsenal? Would that be a prudent move by a nation exposed to incessant US warmongering against it?

Swanson: “Meanwhile most places experiencing wars manufacture no weapons at all. Weapons are imported to most of the world from a very few places. The United States and Russia are the top two users of the veto power at the UN Security Council, each frequently shutting down democracy with a single vote.”

Comment: It is poor argumentation to argue against the use of a veto right by a UN Security Council member nation without analyzing what the veto was used for and whether the veto use was valid or not. Consider, for example, what happened when China and Russia abstained from the UNSC Resolution 1973 calling for a ceasefire and setting up no-fly zones in Libya. NATO members reinterpreted the resolution, invoked the Farcical Responsibility to Protect principle, (Obviously farcical because what about the responsibility to protect Palestinians from Israeli killing sprees? Protect the Yemenis from (instead of bolstering) Saudi attacks. Etc.) and attacked Libya which wound up being destroyed by the attackers. Arguably, if either Russia or China had used its veto, the carnage and devastation in Libya could have been averted. Besides, if one country flagrantly wields the veto to the detriment of the other what choice is left to the other? Reporting an equivalence in criticism to both parties when one party is the preponderant warmaker suggests a superficial analysis.

Swanson: “Russia could have prevented the invasion of Ukraine by not invading Ukraine.”

Comment: How should one respond when someone states the obvious? But sure, allow Ukraine and NATO to deny Russia their desired security. If Russia permitted that would it be a smart move on Russia’s part — inviting NATO to set missiles up near its border?

Swanson: “Europe could have prevented the invasion of Ukraine by telling the U.S. and Russia to mind their own business.”

Comment: That would be nice, but it would also be absurd. Since when does Europe tell the US what to do rather than bending over when ordered to do so by the hegemon?

Swanson: “The United States could almost certainly have prevented the invasion of Ukraine by any of the following steps, which U.S. experts warned were needed to avoid war with Russia:

• Abolishing NATO when the Warsaw Pact was abolished.
• Refraining from expanding NATO.
• Refraining from supporting color revolutions and coups.
• Supporting nonviolent action, training in unarmed resistance, and neutrality.
• Transitioning from fossil fuels.
• Refraining from arming Ukraine, weaponizing Eastern Europe, and conducting war rehearsals in Eastern Europe.
• Accepting Russia’s perfectly reasonable demands in December 2021.”

Comment: If Russia’s demands were “perfectly reasonable,” why is Swanson inordinately finding fault with Russia? Is Russia militarily encircling the US? And why does Swanson think that the US wanted to prevent the invasion? Why does Swanson not put the whole onus on the US-NATO where it belongs and demand that they should have accepted the “perfectly reasonable” security demands sought by Russia?

Swanson: “In 2014, Russia proposed that Ukraine align with neither the West nor the East but work with both. The U.S. rejected that idea and supported a military coup that installed a pro-West government.”

Comment: Again, why is he criticizing Russia so much? If Russia had supported a military coup to overthrow the government in Mexico and installed an unfriendly regime that placed missiles pointed at the US, what would have been the American response? Informed people are well aware of what happened when Soviet missiles were stationed in Cuba.

Swanson: “But refraining from expanding NATO would not have prevented Russia attacking Ukraine because the Russian government is a noble philanthropic operation.”

Comment: Snarky criticism from Swanson exposes either Russophobia or a US-centric bias. What removing an offer of NATO membership to Ukraine would have done is remove a Russian objection and address Russian security concerns. Plus, Russia would have been cast as a bad faith actor had it subsequently invaded Ukraine. What Swanson fails to acknowledge is the widespread reputation of Putin for not bluffing; succinctly, he means what he says.

Also consider why Russia was not admitted into the purported defensive alliance of Nato? What better way to remove an adversary than to join with them.

Swanson: “It would have prevented Russia attacking Ukraine because the Russian government would have had no good excuse to sell to the Russian elites, the Russian public, or the world.”

Comment: Does Swanson mean an excuse, or does he mean justification? Whatever, it presupposes that Putin wanted to attack Ukraine, and that the security proposals that his government proffered were just a ruse. Swanson offers no substance to his speculation. It appears rather that Swanson is providing an excuse for the US. Although he is critical of US warmaking, he lessens criticism against the US by providing a justification/excuse in the form of a reified Russian bogeyman for the US — all without irrefutable substantiation.

In Part 3: Voices from the antiwar movement.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

I am antiwar. In a perfect world, all warmaking would be abolished, the toys of war disassembled, and the military industries repurposed to more humane ends. While the warmakers and the armaments industry would likely be discontented in such circumstances, the great mass of humanity would be far better off. But I am not antiwar in a vacuum. Antiwar sentiment cannot be slapdashed in the same manner to any and all protagonists and situations.***

On 26 January, Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio interviewed prominent antiwar activist and author David Swanson. The episode was entitled “David Swanson on What Russia Could Have Done Instead of Invading Ukraine.”

Attempting to strike an impartial demeanor, and it is assumed that Swanson believes that he is indeed being evenhanded, the antiwar activist says, “I will speak against US warmaking and Russian warmaking which will blow some circuits in most human brains because, God knows, I hear from many people everyday who oppose only one of those two things…”

Drawing an equivalence by pairing “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world” (as spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr.) with Russia is not only wrong, but it points to a bias, probably tied to patriotism.

Moreover, speaking to Russian warmaking begs the question of whether Russia’s war in Ukraine was unprovoked or whether it was instead provoked by the US-NATO.

Former US marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter read what he considers journalist Seymour Hersch’s “most important work ever” on the US sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and concluded:

The decision to attack the Nord Stream pipeline puts a lie to the US contention that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked act of aggression, instead underscoring the harsh truth that the United States had a strategic plan which hinged on provoking a conflict with Russia in Ukraine to provide the geopolitical cover for ending Europe’s reliance upon cheap Russian natural gas by demonstrating that every time Russia sought a negotiated end to the crisis, whether before the invasion through implementation of the Minsk Accords, or after in the Istanbul round of talks scheduled for April 1, the United States sabotaged the effort, keeping the conflict alive long enough to implement its major objective—the destruction of Nord Stream.

Horton turns to Swanson and poses the question: “What other choice did Vladimir Putin have?”

Swanson says that Russia could have tried to communicate its position to the world. Swanson opines that most of the world doesn’t believe in “Russia’s innocence.”

Comment: It is assumed that Swanson believes Russia is not innocent since he merely stated it and didn’t refute it? Granted, it matters somewhat what the world believes. What matters much more is the truth of Russia’s innocence. Is it not absurd to describe a country as innocent — presumably in toto, as innocence is all-or-nothing? And it is quite puerile because, after all, what country is innocent? Further clarification is required: what does Swanson mean by “world”? Is he referring to the 8 billion people on the planet? And just how is it that Russia would achieve effective communication of its position? President Vladimir Putin did speak to the Duma about how a NATO member Ukraine would imperil Russian security and that Russia was seeking a binding security guarantee and how that could be achieved. It was posted online and translated into English. Nonetheless, the state of concentrated media ownership and the reliance on advertising revenue would tend to slant any narrative toward that desired by the corporate-governmental nexus (in which the military-industrial complex holds great influence). Or is Swanson speaking to the leaders of the world’s nations? This would also have been fanciful because when does a hegemon – especially one which has accorded to itself exceptional status, indispensability, and the right to full spectrum dominance – bend to the concerns of its subalterns? Besides, the US can count on genuflection from NATO, Sweden, Finland, Israel, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), Japan, and South Korea, and let’s not forget Micronesia. That is a fair chunk of the world, but then there is South America, Africa, and Asia – and it turns out that most of the world’s population is arrayed against the US directives connected to the war in Ukraine – rejecting the sanctioning of Russia and 73% of the global population rejecting the call for Russian reparations to Ukraine. (It is important to note that such demand for reparations from the US and NATO for their warmaking in ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria — or of Israel for its violence against Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria — have not been made widely known. Syria, for one, has demanded reparations for the US invasion, air strikes against it, and theft of its oil.)

Swanson argues that Russia could have signed on to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and sought prosecution of the US.

Comment: How effective would that be? What happened when the ICC sought to investigate the alleged war crimes of US-arch ally Israel, a non-member of the ICC? The Middle East Monitor pointed to a bias causing one to wonder what kind of justice might be expected from the ICC:

This important development came seven years after the Palestinian Authority first asked the Court to investigate crimes “in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June, 2014″. In comparison, it took only six days for the same Court to start investigating Russia for the alleged crimes committed during the invasion of Ukraine. The comparison here begs the question: “How far is the ICC prepared to go, and how long will it take to produce any results on Palestine?”

Honestly and pragmatically very little is expected from any investigation and it is likely the ICC will face pressure to shelve any criminal indictments against any Israeli military and political officials.

Given this, if a prosecution of the US were to be undertaken, just how long would the wheels of justice be expected to take to render a decision? And what would happen in Ukraine in the meantime? How many more people in Donbass would have to die or be maimed by the war criminals in the Volodymyr Zelenskyy government? Swanson’s palpable bias comes through in his writing on 12 February 2023: “Needless to say, I think that Putin (and every living U.S. president, and quite a number of other world ‘leaders’) should be prosecuted for their crimes.” Conspicuously absent is a call, by name, for the prosecution of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy. There are videos (if authenticated) that reveal Ukrainian soldiers having executed Russian prisoners-of-war and using chemical weapons. This is not to deny that war crimes were perpetrated by fighters from Russia and other countries. This merely points out that Putin is named by Swanson and Zelenskyy is not named and neither are Biden, Trump, and Obama named. Finally, by having more time, how much better militarily armed and trained would Ukraine become? Might Ukraine not have become a NATO member in the interregnum? Ukraine used the many years after the Minsk agreements to violate them and to militarize. Swanson must have heard the common refrain: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Putin, however, does not come across as a fool.

Swanson suggests that Russia could have sent unarmed non-violent defenders into Donbass. Swanson realizes that some of these unarmed defenders could be killed but rationalizes that thousands more could die in a war.

Comment: All these choices that Swanson puts forward on the radio interview conspicuously place an onus on Russia. Russia did pursue a path to peacefully solve its security concerns vis-à-vis Ukraine seeking membership in NATO. The then-German chancellor Angela Merkel, then-French president Francois Hollande, and Ukraine’s former president Petro Poroshenko have all admitted that the Minsk agreements were a stalling tactic so that Ukraine could become militarily fortified. Furthermore, did Russia not approach the US and NATO to address security concerns for which it was rebuffed?

Swanson proposes a ceasefire.

Comment: Is Swanson a clandestine propagandizing ally of NATO? Why should Russia agree to a ceasefire knowing that time is a critical issue for NATO to resupply Ukraine with weapons and train its fighters?

Swanson: “Russia could have used financial weapons that US and NATO have been using.”

Comment: And how has that gone for the West? Russia’s economy is growing according to the IMF. On 23 June 2022, CNBC headlined, “Russia’s ruble hit strongest level in 7 years despite sanctions.” Blowback is in process as the world is removing a major weapon in the US arsenal with de-dollarization. Besides Russia does not control SWIFT, the IMF, World Bank, or the willingness or necessity of NATO and other countries to use the US dollar. So what are the “financial weapons” that Swanson suggests Russia could use?

Reaching into his bag, Swanson pulls out the Russia-could-have-tried-more card to get Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements.

Comment: Why is the onus put on Russia instead of the deal-breaker Ukraine and the deal-breaking guarantors of the agreement, France and Germany? Swanson appears partial and still seemingly unaware of how NATO and Ukraine could take advantage of any time delays.

Swanson calls for a new vote in Crimea and Donbass.

Comment: Swanson, seemingly, does not grasp that this is not just about the territorial acquisitions of Crimea and Donbass. These proposed votes would not address Russian security concerns on the arming of Ukraine and its joining NATO. Besides, does Swanson call for a new vote for Indigenous Hawaiians on return of sovereignty? Or Puerto Ricans for return of their sovereignty? Chagossians, Chamorros, and the Original peoples of the continental US for the return of sovereignty?

Swanson: “There are always choices other than bombing people’s houses.”

Comment: Well, Russia tried other choices with the Minsk agreements and the security proposals to the US. So who is rejecting peace? It clearly points to the US-NATO-Ukraine as rejecting peace. With all due respect to the incredible suggestions put forward by Swanson, Russia must protect its security. History is clear how the US will react to perceived weakness.

Conclusion

Those who identify as antiwar aspire to a world rid of warring. Worldwide peace is the goal of an enlightened, moral humanity. However, the roots of warmaking must be identified as well as the major perpetrator of warmaking. Lumping all countries that wage war together equally without regard for the circumstances that led to their warring is shallow analysis and cossets imperialist warmakers. Such poorly thought-out antiwar rhetoric is antithetical toward bringing about a world beyond war. If this rhetoric is unquestioningly accepted by would-be peacemakers, it, plausibly, detracts from opposition to imperialism, which is a sine qua non for world peace. It must be understood that as long as there is a military superpower that, for its own selfish reasons, threatens other nations, forms strategic military alliances, and surrounds its designated enemies with bases and armaments that any aspiration for a world devoid of war will not be realized. The head must be chopped off the warmaking kingpin.

In Part 2: The impartiality of some antiwar activists.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

… NATO doesn’t respect anything about Russia. NATO knows no limits.

— Scott Ritter

It is difficult for the person-on-the-street to get a proper handle on what is happening in a war. Regarding the current fighting between Russia and Ukraine, the monopoly media in the “West” has often pointed to Ukraine winning. Other independent sources will state the opposite. Who should one believe?

Beware. The aphorism “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” cautions against too readily believing a known source of disinformation. To do so runs the risk of being made to look foolish. There are several instances of the United States pulling the wool over gullible people’s eyes. But one instance of lying is sufficient to throw doubt on the source of disinformation.

A legal maxim holds, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). According to this legal wisdom, one instance of mendacity suffices to discredit future information from the same source. At the very least, one should regard with extreme skepticism what that discredited source claims.

File photo of US Secretary of State Colin Powell holding up a vial as he addresses the UN Security Council. (Photo by Timothy A. Clary / AFP)

In 2003, then-US secretary of state Colin Powell, to his everlasting disgrace, held up a vial of anthrax and lied throughout his testimony to the UN security council. The US subsequently launched a devastating war (“shock and awe” as the military behemoth bragged) against Iraq, on the pretext of it having WMD. It didn’t.

Why then would thinking people trust the US about not having committed the war crime of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines? Why would people believe the monopoly media that has so often gotten it wrong but somehow still manages to attract a readership/viewership?

So again: who to trust? There are two American patriots steeped in US militarism: former Marine intelligence officer (and the UN weapons inspector who warned that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed”) Scott Ritter and retired colonel Douglas MacGregor, both of whom have stated emphatically, and have done so all along, that Russia will win and is winning the war in Ukraine. That these two sources are former US military and profess to love their country gives them credibility.

Giving credence to the statements of Ritter and MacGregor is a Turkish media source, Hürseda Haber, that has reported data on the fighting in Ukraine that indicates a one-sided death toll. But the data also reveals that the fighting is not two-sided:

UKRAINE:
The casualties of Ukraine, which was on the ground with 734 thousand soldiers (plus 100 thousand reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries, are as follows:

Aircraft – 302
Helicopters – 212
(S)UAV – 2,750
Tanks and armored vehicles – 6,320
Howitzers (Artillery systems) – 7,360
Air defense systems – 497
Dead – 157,000
Injured – 234,000
Captives – 17,230
Dead – NATO military trainers (US and UK) – 234
Dead – NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, …) – 2,458
Dead – Mercenaries – 5,360

RUSSIA:
Russian losses in the field with 418 thousand soldiers (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and the increasing number of Wagner mercenaries:

Aircraft – 23
Helicopters – 56
(S)UAV – 200
Tanks and armored vehicles – 889
Howitzers (Artillery systems) – 427
Air defense systems – 12
Dead – 18,480
Injured – 44,500
Captives – 323

• Google translate of data from Hürseda Haber.

Giving further credence to Ritter and MacGregor, and so many others that have stated this is a proxy war, is the death toll that reveals that the Russians are fighting not just Ukrainians but also NATO military trainers, NATO soldiers, and mercenaries (thousands of the NATO personnel and mercenaries having died).

Ritter had pointed out the consequence of failing to accept the Russian demands that Ukraine be neutral, eliminate Nazism, and recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk:

… basically what the Russian position will be is, if you don’t accept this, then what we can offer you is death. And not just death of your soldiers, but death of the nation.

Russia is one country going up against many countries. That will magnify the success of attaining Russian military objectives. Conversely, such a NATO defeat will be a massive loss of face for hyped-up American military dominance and throw cold water on the NATO alliance.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Putin’s invasion has been a test for the ages. A test for America. A test for the world.

Would we stand for the most basic of principles?

Would we stand for sovereignty?

Would we stand for the right of people to live free from tyranny?

Would we stand for the defense of democracy?

“Would we stand for the most basic of principles?”

It is important to parse what Biden said. Notice how this is spoken as a series of questions. Biden is not saying that the US stands for the most basic of principles. Neither is he saying that the US (“we”) stands for all principles. He speaks to just the most basic principles. What are those “most basic of principles”?

Is sabotage not a violation of a most basic principle? Veteran journalist Seymour Hersch investigated the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and the evidence shows that the US did it.

How about America’s much ballyhooed fidelity to so-called free trade? Take the case of China in which the US has recently begun seizing aluminum products imported from China, accusing China of using forced labor in Xinjiang for these products. The US, under Donald Trump’s tenure, had Canada arrest Huawei’s chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver International Airport and place her under house arrest for three years. (What is it they say about justice delayed? Meng was released with all charges against her dismissed by the judge.) The US has applied strong-arm tactics worldwide to have countries reject purchase of Huawei’s 5G network. It tried to force China to give America the social media sensation Tik Tok. It is coercing countries to prevent China from buying chip technology. Is this principled economic competition?

Adhering to signed treaties would seem to qualify as a most basic principle? Yet the string of broken treaties that the US had entered into with Indigenous nations speaks not to standing for principle.

Certainly not committing or partaking in genocide should be at, or very near, the top of a most basic principle list. But the US is founded through genocide and dispossession.

“Would we stand for sovereignty?”

This question is better posed as “Have we stood for sovereignty?”

Does the US respect the sovereignty of Venezuela in trying to impose an unelected Juan Guaido as the Venezuelan president or by abducting Venezuelan diplomats? Does the US respect the sovereignty of Syria by invading the country, stealing the oil and wheat, and attempting regime change? Has the US ever respected the sovereignty of Haiti where it has overthrown elected leaders and occupied the country, exploiting it as a low-wage workforce? In recent times, there is much speculation of an imminent invasion of Haiti by the US. There is also the US’s absence of respect for sovereignty in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Chagos archipelago, Cuba, etc.

And most egregiously, the US has destroyed the sovereignty of the Indigenous nations on Turtle Island.

“Would we stand for the right of people to live free from tyranny?”

How about Palestinians who suffer under Jewish Israeli tyranny? When has Biden stood for Palestinians to live free from tyranny? In fact, Biden proudly claims to be a Zionist.

What is the US but a tyranny of the 1%-ers over the masses? Universal health care, a most basic principle in many countries, is thwarted at each foray by the 1%-ers against the will of the majority of Americans. The US is a country with over half-a-million people enduring the indignity of homelessness. Isn’t that a basic principle? The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25:1) says it is. And the US is a signatory. No matter. It is a non-binding declaration and not a treaty. But then treaties don’t seem to matter either to the US.

Emphatically, the Indigenous people in the undeniably stolen landmass called the US live under tyranny.

“Would we stand for the defense of democracy?”

Is democracy what the US stands for in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, etc?

What is democratic about mandating experimental so-called vaccines on the population? Writer Ben Bartee considers this to reveal an anarcho-tyranny. As time passes, the establishment’s fraudulent COVID-19 narrative crumbles more and more.

In the case of the US, there are two business parties that control what is fallaciously called democracy. However, if the people would choose social democracy and the pliable Bernie Sanders is their candidate of choice, then the big-money wheels will step in to undo any democratic expression that they consider unacceptable. Thus, the US winds up with a worn-out, intellectually diminishing Biden and his reviled vice president Kamala Harris — a woman whose integrity was destroyed in the presidential debates by Tulsi Gabbard.

The US can claim to stand for democracy when its claim to be such is a sham because the media is part of the controlling apparatus. As Michael Parenti explains in his book Democracy for the Few, democracy in the US is controlled by the moneyed class.

So what the hell was Biden going on about in the speech? And why were all these politicians clapping?

And how does America fare on Biden’s test?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Imagine what would have been the reaction in the West if a headline had appeared — “Major Palestinian Raid in Tel Aviv Kills 9 Palestinians”?

Such is the hypocrisy of the “West” that Israel can unleash lethal violence against Palestinians with scarcely a peep from the “West.” A Palestinian reprisal would undoubtedly be denounced in the strongest language as terrorism, and Palestinian officials would be called onto the carpet to unequivocally condemn the violence. Even the United Nations hardly comes across as a neutral party.

The US can steal oil in open daylight from Syria, and there is not a peep from US-allied countries. Palestinians know this all too well, as Israel has been expropriating Palestinian oil and gas for years. The US occupies Cuban territory, and there is hardly a peep from the US-alliance. Britain can steal the gold reserves of the Venezuelan people, and there is little complaint from governments in the West.

Western thievery has extended to Russia, as its bank assets were frozen by the US and by the European Union with the stated intention of using Russian assets to reconstruct Ukraine.

The peoples of Palestine, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela people, among other nationalities, suffer from US thievery and violence. As an accomplice or silent actor, this also points to the inhumanity of US-allied governments. These are the same governments that criticize Russia for its “unprovoked invasion” of Ukraine.

A Telling Comparison

What happened when one out-of-uniform US marine officer, first lieutenant Robert Paz, was killed by Panamanian soldiers in December 1989? US president George HW Bush launched Operation Just Cause [sic]. A US invasion of Panama happened. About 600 Panamanians were killed (half civilians) and 23 US soldiers. Panamanian president Manuel Noriega, the drug-running CIA asset (and a person who should have been untouchable by having diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 29 reads, “The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable.”) was abducted and brought back to the US to face American justice.

Since 2014, following the US-orchestrated coup in Ukraine, a war has been carried out by the Ukrainian state, including its neo-Nazi fighters, against the predominantly ethnic Russian peoples of Donbass. Over 13,000 people had been killed, according to data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.¹

Consider that the US invaded Panama after one US marine was killed, but the killing of thousands of ethnic Russians (who had been clamoring for secession to Russia) was muted by the US, the self-same country which created the circumstances that filliped Russia’s Special Military Operation to protect its security from further NATO encroachment.

That the US invaded a country (many countries in its history) does not mitigate a Russian invasion of a country. But the invasions are not the same. There was no credible threat to US security from Syria, Palestine, Iran, Libya, Viet Nam, Venezuela, etc, but the US invaded or abetted the attack on these countries nonetheless. Russia has made irrefutably clear the security concerns posed by NATO missiles appearing on the Ukraine-Russia border just minutes away from Moscow. Russia was faced with an existential threat, a threat that the US would never allow (witness the US reaction to the stationing of Soviet missiles in Cuba).

This essential background information will not appear in monopoly media.

1. “According to calculations of the total number of human losses related to the conflict in Ukraine (from April 14, 2014 to January 31, 2021) amounts to 42,000-44,000: 13,100-13,300 killed (no less than 3,375 civilians, about 4,150 Ukrainian servicemen and approximately 5,700 members of armed groups)… Tass.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Professional sports serve as a microcosm of rampant capitalism — a, perhaps necessary, distraction for the masses.

Many Vancouverites live and die along with the fortunes of their National Hockey League team, the Vancouver Canucks. Unfortunately, the season so far has been a disappointment, as the team finds itself outside of a playoff spot. The 2021-2022 NHL season saw a mid-season coaching change with Bruce Boudreau taking over a floundering Canucks team. He coached the Canucks to a 32-15-10 finish, finishing just outside the playoff picture by five points.

Based on the solid finish, one might reasonably have projected bigger and better things for Boudreau and the Canucks for the upcoming 2022-2023 year. However, Canucks experienced more upheaval last season. In came a new manager, Patrik Allvin, and president of hockey operations, Jim Rutherford.

For some reason, despite the Canucks’s outstanding second half, the new team did not sign Boudreau to a contract right away. Given the circumstances, the new management team had little choice to sign him, as fans would have scratched their heads at letting a winning coach loose, and Boudreau was eventually rehired, in May 2022, but only given a one-year contract.

Training camp and the start of the current season were inauspicious for the Canucks, and the pressure was put on Boudreau for a team whose current construction under Rutherford is severely flawed. Indeed, Rutherford had to admit to his insufficient off-season tinkering, “I thought we’re going to have to do minor surgery… Have I changed my position? Yeah, we have to do major surgery.” He further confessed, “I’m disappointed in the job I’ve done to this point.”

Nonetheless, despite Rutherford’s own responsibility for the Canucks’s misfortunes, it is Boudreau who has been left hanging — and, to make matters worse, Rutherford is publicly shopping for a new coach.

Every hockey fan is aware of it. So is Boudreau who answered when asked, “I’d be a fool to say I don’t know what’s going on.”

During the game last Friday, supportive Vancouver fans honored Boudreau with chants of “Bruce, there it is!”

Boudreau was moved. “I’ve only been here a year but it’ll go down in my memory books, out of the 48 years I’ve played and coached, as the most incredible thing I’ve experienced on a personal level, other than winning championships, of course. But it’s very touching.”

The team on-the-ice is also adversely affected by management’s blunders.

“It kind of seems like the mindset and the mood got to us tonight,” said Canucks veteran defenceman Tyler Myers following a loss to the Tampa Bay Lightning. “You can tell guys are down. It’s not easy times right now, there’s a lot going on. We’ve got to find a way to stay positive and keep working.”

Outside the hockey game, the morbid waiting game continues, as media speculate when the ax will fall.

Pro sports is about winning, but this maltreatment of staff winds up making Rutherford look like a loser. Rutherford has been part of three championship teams in his long tenure, but for many his seeming inhumanity is also now a part of his legacy

The media also looks pathetic. It is usually sad when any human is rendered jobless. But an enormous spotlight has been shone on well-to-do pro sports personalities while others languish in far more dire circumstances. To wit, monopoly media leaves a media hero like Julian Assange hanging to the cruelty of an angered hegemon in overt defiance of any norms of justice. Palestinians have endured the persecutions, massacres, and oppression of Israeli Jews for decades with scant media coverage of the Zionist crimes, and even worse, often providing justifications for the crimes. There are plenty of major crimes that escape the lens of monopoly media.

Most of us like to be entertained. But entertainment must not become a distraction from the reality of the world. It is important that we all hold on to our humanity and care about and for fellow human beings. We must not lose sight of how much human-on-human cruelty there is in the world. Hence, it is incumbent not to become sidetracked by spectacles put on by capitalism and, thereby, forget the fates of unfortunate peoples elsewhere.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Japan’s actions in a certain period of the past not only claimed numerous victims here in Japan but also left the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere with scars that are painful even today. I am thus taking this opportunity to state my belief, based on my profound remorse for these acts of aggression, colonial rule, and the like that caused such unbearable suffering and sorrow for so many people, that Japan’s future path should be one of making every effort to build world peace in line with my no-war commitment. It is imperative for us Japanese to look squarely to our history with the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere… [emphasis added]

— Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama, “Peace, Friendship, and Exchange Initiative”

When considering the state of affairs between two nation states, understanding the history of the relationship is critical.

Japan’s current prime minister Fumio Kishida ought to consider Murayama’s advice to look squarely at Japan’s history with neighboring countries. However, before addressing Kishida’s recent demands of China, there are some pertinent questions to consider in the relationship between the two countries?

Has China ever invaded Japan? Sort of. It was back in the 13th century CE, and it was the Mongol Dynasty (aka the Yuan Dynasty) and its Mongolian Emperor, Kublai Khan — the grandson of Genghis Khan, that twice attempted to invade Japan, in 1274 and 1281. The weather gods, however, were aligned against the Mongol Empire as typhoons, known as the kamikaze (divine winds), scuppered both invasion attempts. China was an ally of the US in World War II, a fact that seems to hold negligible currency with the US, as it prefers its defeated enemy, Japan.

Has Japan ever invaded and occupied China? Yes, Japan has invaded and occupied China and committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese people. Among the atrocities are the Nanking Massacre (unwrapped by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, 1997) and the cruel biological and chemical weapons experiments carried out on Chinese by Unit 731 in Harbin, China.

Has Japan ever apologized for its war crimes? Murayama’s prolix non-apology speaks to the evasions of several Japanese politicians whereby Japan as a nation has abjectly failed to take the necessary first step toward atonement for past national crimes. Individual prime ministers have often expressed remorse, regret, sorrow — weasel words that evade saying sorry, which has seldom been meaningfully spoken. What does this mean in a country where apologizing on an individual level is deeply entrenched in the culture? Japan is a society where people profusely apologize for the slightest indiscretion. But on a national level, it is another story. It seems an apology by the Japanese Diet, rather than cleansing the national consciousness, is considered to sully the national image. Thus, the Diet has never officially apologized to the people and nations it victimized during WWII and before. Instead the Japanese government evades any obligation to apologize.

There is, in fact, no serious will among collective Japanese politicians to apologize. This is clear on many levels. Japanese leaders, to the consternation of aggrieved nations, still visit the Yasukuni Shrine which houses the kami of Japanese war criminals. History is sanitized. Japanese students are taught a history that elides Japan’s crimes. Japan has even lobbied other governments to remove statues of a comfort woman erected in their jurisdiction — stark reminders of the crimes of the Japanese military.

Comfort woman statue in Berlin, a replica of a model placed in 35 countries.

And what has this historical revisionism wrought? There is pressure from the US — contrary to the pacifist American-drafted constitution imposed on Japan — to beef up Japan’s military and even gang up on a formerly victimized country, China.

“It is absolutely imperative for Japan, the United States and Europe to stand united in managing our respective relationship with China,” said Kishida. This is portrayed as “enhancing Tokyo’s U.S. alliance in the face of growing challenges from Beijing.” Given the history, one wonders how it is that China is presented as a “growing challenge” to Japan?

According to Kishida, China is also a central challenge to the United States. This raises another pertinent question:

Have the US and Europe ever invaded China? Chinese remember how the US, Europeans, Russians, and Japanese effected the Century of Humiliation for China. Britain would impose the first of the unequal treaties on China following the First Opium War and assume control over Hong Kong. Other unequal treaties forced China to make concessions to the Portuguese, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, and Japanese. With this history in mind, why is it that China is presented as a threat by the victimizing countries? What are astute thinkers to conclude about the current propaganda targeting China by the western-allied bloc?

Kishida posited, “The international community is at a historical turning point: the free, open and stable international order that we have dedicated ourselves to upholding is now in grave danger.” These weasel words are easily parsed. What is meant by “international community” given that Kishida only calls for a united front with the US and Europe? What about Asia, Africa, and Latin America? Are they not part of the international community? And what kind of order is the “international order”? Why is the “international order” in grave danger, and for who is this a danger? Arguably, the “international order” as Kishida envisions it ought to be abandoned in favor of a world that is truly “free, open and stable.” Wouldn’t that be preferable to a world split between a so-called developed world and developing world or, as it is more euphemistically framed, as between the West and the Global South.

US president Joe Biden is on side with the alarmist tone of Kishida, and he commended Japan’s recently announced “historic” defense build up.

China’s vision for the international order differs from the views of Japan and the United States in some ways that the allies “can never accept,” said Kishida. This seems puzzling because China calls for multipolarity. The international order for Japan, however, is not about reducing power asymmetry among nations.

Japan’s acquiescence to a lower ordered rank is revealed by never having rid itself of the lingering vestiges of occupation — a stark reminder of its defeat in WWII. Seventy-seven years later, US military bases are still situated throughout Japan, especially in Okinawa much to the chagrin of Okinawans.

Depending on which source one trusts, the US has 750 to 900 military bases around the world. This is the international order that Kishida speaks of, an order that adduces US hegemony. China, on the other hand, rejects hegemonic status.

Kishida complains of China’s rejection of unipolarity. “China needs to make a strategic decision that it will abide by established international rules and that it cannot and will not change the international order in ways that are contrary to these rules.”

Kishida’s “shameful subservience to the US” (as Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, put it, according to the Guardian) is odd considering that the US is the country that firebombed Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yet, one can deduce from Kishida’s words that Japan accepts being a vassal of the hegemon.

Nonetheless, the tides of history have begun to erode the “international order.” China, Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and other countries are no longer willing to exist as second-class nation states.

Image credit: geschichte der gegenwart.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Yellowknife, Boxing Day 2022

Can you imagine walking downtown in Seattle, Vancouver, New York, Toronto, or any other burg in Canada or the United States and not seeing any panhandlers? This homelessness, begging, and dumpster diving is not confined to major urban centers. Last week, I was in Yellowknife, the capital of Denedeh (Home of the People; colonially designated as Northwest Territories), home to about 20,000 souls, where the temperatures ranged from -30° Celsius to -40° Celsius. Despite this, the homeless were out in the frigid temperatures asking change for a cup of coffee. There are shelters in Yellowknife. The take-away point, however, is that some people struggle with penury despite Canada being a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose preamble recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family…”

Specifically, Article 23(1) of the UNDHR holds,

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 25(1) of the UNDHR states,

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

If Canada and the US honored their signatures on the UNDHR and abided by its articles, then absolute poverty should not exist.

While poverty is an important story for people to be cognizant of, and while it may not receive the media coverage and government prioritization that it deserves, the marginalized story that so many people seem unaware of is that there is a country that made it through 2022 having lifted its citizenry out of absolute poverty.

China declared victory against poverty in 2021. And it is not just China lauding its victory. UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres commended China on its fight against poverty. The World Bank noted that China has lifted 770 million out of poverty over the last 40 years. Michelle Bachelet, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said, “Poverty alleviation and the eradication of extreme poverty, 10 years ahead of its target date, are tremendous achievements of China.” Citing China’s eradication of absolute poverty, even the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, was moved to praise China’s amazing economic development.

This achievement was by the nominally communist China. Being aware of the victory over poverty is great, but this awareness ought also to be kept in mind before unthinkingly criticizing socialism or communism. The intellectual poverty of the criticism is such that many people consider it sufficient to just remark, “That’s communism/socialism,” as if providing a label for a political-economic system should evoke fear and invalidate it. Thus, in the US, Barack Obama was risibly derided as a socialist; he, nonetheless, sought to distance himself from such a descriptor.

Donald Trump declared his scorn for the bugaboo of socialism (apparently ignorant of what spending on the military; police; border security; highway, airport, train stations, railways, port facilities, bridge construction and maintenance; education; etc represent) and communism. He unsuccessfully tried to paint his presidential challenger in 2020, Joe Biden, as a socialist (again risibly).

Even university professors, such a Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, would add their ill-contrived opinions to the anti-socialist, anti-communist chorus.¹

What Obama, Trump, Biden, Peterson, Justin Trudeau and other western-aligned personalities beholden to capitalism cannot tolerate is that a developing nation in the earliest stage of socialism (one with Chinese characteristics) has done something that the longtime capitalist-butt kissing nations have never, despite any lip service, come close to achieving: the elimination of absolute poverty.

What’s Next for Chinese Society?

China has identified a metric: “Human rights are an achievement of humanity and a symbol of progress.” Now China has set its eyes on achieving xiaokang (moderate prosperity), defined as “a status of moderate prosperity whereby people are neither rich nor poor but free from want and toil.” Xiaokang is to benefit all Chinese and benefit the world.

Meanwhile, the poor masses in capitalist countries languish while the middle classes, in the US and Canada, fall behind.

Why isn’t this war on poverty covered regularly and widely in capitalist media? Why doesn’t everyone know that the Chinese have conquered poverty and are embarked upon creating a prosperous society for all Chinese? Shouldn’t this be something all nations sincerely and actively aspire to?

1. See “Understanding the Red Menace,” “Understanding the Soviet Union, Inequality, and Freedom of Expression,” and “IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control, Mao, and Communism.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

In fits of, what might well be termed, masochism, some of us now-and-then tune in to the legacy media. When doing so, one is likely to hear western-aligned politicians rhetorize ad nauseam about the linguistically vogue rules-based order. Now and then, the word “international” is also inserted: the rules-based international order.

But what exactly is this rules-based order?

The way that the wording rules-based order is bandied about makes it sound like it has worldwide acceptance and that it has been around for a long time. Yet it comes across as a word-of-the-moment, both idealistic and disingenuous. Didn’t people just use to say international law or refer to the International Court of Justice, Nuremberg Law, the UN Security Council, or the newer institution — the International Criminal Court? Moreover, the word rules is contentious. Some will skirt the rules, perhaps chortling the aphorism that rules are meant to be broken. Rules can be unjust, and shouldn’t these unjust rules be broken, or better yet, disposed of? Wouldn’t a more preferable wording refer to justice? And yes, granted that justice can be upset by miscarriages. Or how about a morality-based order?

Nonetheless, it seems this wording of a rules-based order has jumped to the fore. And the word order makes it sound a lot like there is a ranking involved. Since China and Russia are advocating multipolarity, it has become clearer that the rules-based order, which is commonspeak among US and US-aligned politicians, is pointing at unipolarity, wherein the US rules a unipolar, US-dominated world.

An Australian thinktank, the Lowy Institute, has pointed to a need “to work towards a definition” for a rules-based order. It asks, “… what does America think the rules-based order is for?

Among the reasons cited are “… to entrench and even sanctify an American-led international system,” or “that the rules-based order is a fig leaf, a polite fiction that masks the harsh realities of power,” and that “… the rules-based order can protect US interests as its power wanes relative to China…”

China is aware of this, and this is expressed in the Asia Times headline: “US ‘rules-based order’ is a myth and China knows it.”

The Hill wrote, “The much-vaunted liberal international order – recently re-branded as the rules-based international order or RBIO – is disintegrating before our very eyes.” As to what would replace the disintegrated order, The Hill posited, “The new order, reflecting a more multipolar and multicivilizational distribution of power, will not be built by Washington for Washington.”

The Asia Times acknowledged that it has been a “West-led rules-based order” and argued that a “collective change is needed to keep the peace.”

It is a given that the rules-based order is an American linguistic instrument designed to preserve it as a global hegemon. To rule is America’s self-admitted intention. It has variously declared itself to be the leader of the free world, the beacon on the hill, exceptional, the indispensable nation (in making this latter distinction, a logical corollary is drawn that there must be dispensable nations — or in the ineloquent parlance of former president Donald Trump: “shithole” nations).

Thus, the US has placed itself at the apex of the international order. It seeks ultimate control through full-spectrum dominance. It situates its military throughout the world; it surrounds countries with bases and weapons that it is inimically disposed toward — for example, China and Russia. It refuses to reject the first use of nuclear weapons. It does not reject the use of landmines. It still has a chemical-weapons inventory, and it allegedly carries out bioweapons research, as alluded to by Russia, which uncovered several clandestine biowarfare labs in Ukraine. This news flummoxed Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. Dominance is not about following rules, it is about imposing rules. That is the nature of dominating. Ergo, the US rejects the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and went so far as to sanction the ICC and declare ICC officials persona non grata when its interests were threatened.

Thus it was that Joe Biden, already back in 2016, was urging Canada’s prime minister Trudeau to be a leader for rules-based world order.

When Trudeau got together with his Spanish counterpart, Pedro Sánchez, they reaffirmed their defence of the rule-based international order.

It is a commonly heard truism that actions speak louder than words. But an examination of Trudeau’s words compared to his actions speaks to a contradiction when it comes to Canada and the rule of law.

So how does Trudeau apply rules based law?¹

Clearly, in Canada it points to a set of laws having been written to coerce compliance. This is especially evident in the case of Indigenous peoples.²

It seems Canada is just a lackey for the leader of the so-called free world.

One of the freedoms the US abuses is the freedom not to sign or ratify treaties. Even the right-wing thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations lamented, “In lists of state parties to globally significant treaties, the United States is often notably absent. Ratification hesitancy is a chronic impairment to international U.S. credibility and influence.”

The CFR added, “In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.”

It is a matter of record that the US places itself above the law. As stated, the US does not recognize the ICC; as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US has serially abused its veto power to protect the racist, scofflaw nation of Israel; it ignored a World Court ruling that found the US guilty of de facto terrorism for mining the waters around Nicaragua.

The historical record reveals that the US, and its Anglo-European-Japanese-South Korean acolytes, are guilty of numerous violations of international law (i.e., the rules-based, international order).

When it comes to the US, the contraventions of the rules-based order are myriad. To mention a few:

1. Currently, the US is occupying Syria and stealing the oil of the Syrian people;
2. It attacked, occupied, and plundered Afghanistan;
3. It has been carrying out an embargo, condemned by the international community, against Cuba and its people for six decades;
4. The US has been in illegal occupation of Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay since 1903; even if deemed to be legal, it is clearly unethical;
5. American empire has a history of blatant, wanton disregard for democracy and sovereignty;
6. The US funded the Maidan coup that overthrew the elected president of Ukraine, leading to today’s special military operation devastating Ukraine, which continues to fight a US-NATO proxy war.
7. Then, there is the undeniable fact that the US exists because of a genocide wreaked by its colonizers, which has been perpetuated ever since.
8. Even the accommodations that the US imposed on the peoples it dispossessed are ignored, revealed by a slew of broken treaties.³

The history of US actions (as opposed to its words) and its complicit tributaries needs to be kept firmly in mind when the legacy media unquestioningly reports the pablum about adhering to a rules-based order.

1. See also Yves Engler, “Ten ways Liberals undermined international rules-based order,” rabble.ca, 17 September 2021.
2. Read Bob Joseph, 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act: Helping Canadians Make Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples a Reality, 2018.
3. Vine Deloria, Jr., Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence, 1985. This governmental infidelity to treaties is also true in the Canadian context.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

In fits of, what might well be termed, masochism, some of us now-and-then tune in to the legacy media. When doing so, one is likely to hear western-aligned politicians rhetorize ad nauseam about the linguistically vogue rules-based order. Now and then, the word “international” is also inserted: the rules-based international order.

But what exactly is this rules-based order?

The way that the wording rules-based order is bandied about makes it sound like it has worldwide acceptance and that it has been around for a long time. Yet it comes across as a word-of-the-moment, both idealistic and disingenuous. Didn’t people just use to say international law or refer to the International Court of Justice, Nuremberg Law, the UN Security Council, or the newer institution — the International Criminal Court? Moreover, the word rules is contentious. Some will skirt the rules, perhaps chortling the aphorism that rules are meant to be broken. Rules can be unjust, and shouldn’t these unjust rules be broken, or better yet, disposed of? Wouldn’t a more preferable wording refer to justice? And yes, granted that justice can be upset by miscarriages. Or how about a morality-based order?

Nonetheless, it seems this wording of a rules-based order has jumped to the fore. And the word order makes it sound a lot like there is a ranking involved. Since China and Russia are advocating multipolarity, it has become clearer that the rules-based order, which is commonspeak among US and US-aligned politicians, is pointing at unipolarity, wherein the US rules a unipolar, US-dominated world.

An Australian thinktank, the Lowy Institute, has pointed to a need “to work towards a definition” for a rules-based order. It asks, “… what does America think the rules-based order is for?

Among the reasons cited are “… to entrench and even sanctify an American-led international system,” or “that the rules-based order is a fig leaf, a polite fiction that masks the harsh realities of power,” and that “… the rules-based order can protect US interests as its power wanes relative to China…”

China is aware of this, and this is expressed in the Asia Times headline: “US ‘rules-based order’ is a myth and China knows it.”

The Hill wrote, “The much-vaunted liberal international order – recently re-branded as the rules-based international order or RBIO – is disintegrating before our very eyes.” As to what would replace the disintegrated order, The Hill posited, “The new order, reflecting a more multipolar and multicivilizational distribution of power, will not be built by Washington for Washington.”

The Asia Times acknowledged that it has been a “West-led rules-based order” and argued that a “collective change is needed to keep the peace.”

It is a given that the rules-based order is an American linguistic instrument designed to preserve it as a global hegemon. To rule is America’s self-admitted intention. It has variously declared itself to be the leader of the free world, the beacon on the hill, exceptional, the indispensable nation (in making this latter distinction, a logical corollary is drawn that there must be dispensable nations — or in the ineloquent parlance of former president Donald Trump: “shithole” nations).

Thus, the US has placed itself at the apex of the international order. It seeks ultimate control through full-spectrum dominance. It situates its military throughout the world; it surrounds countries with bases and weapons that it is inimically disposed toward — for example, China and Russia. It refuses to reject the first use of nuclear weapons. It does not reject the use of landmines. It still has a chemical-weapons inventory, and it allegedly carries out bioweapons research, as alluded to by Russia, which uncovered several clandestine biowarfare labs in Ukraine. This news flummoxed Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. Dominance is not about following rules, it is about imposing rules. That is the nature of dominating. Ergo, the US rejects the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and went so far as to sanction the ICC and declare ICC officials persona non grata when its interests were threatened.

Thus it was that Joe Biden, already back in 2016, was urging Canada’s prime minister Trudeau to be a leader for rules-based world order.

When Trudeau got together with his Spanish counterpart, Pedro Sánchez, they reaffirmed their defence of the rule-based international order.

It is a commonly heard truism that actions speak louder than words. But an examination of Trudeau’s words compared to his actions speaks to a contradiction when it comes to Canada and the rule of law.

So how does Trudeau apply rules based law?¹

Clearly, in Canada it points to a set of laws having been written to coerce compliance. This is especially evident in the case of Indigenous peoples.²

It seems Canada is just a lackey for the leader of the so-called free world.

One of the freedoms the US abuses is the freedom not to sign or ratify treaties. Even the right-wing thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations lamented, “In lists of state parties to globally significant treaties, the United States is often notably absent. Ratification hesitancy is a chronic impairment to international U.S. credibility and influence.”

The CFR added, “In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.”

It is a matter of record that the US places itself above the law. As stated, the US does not recognize the ICC; as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US has serially abused its veto power to protect the racist, scofflaw nation of Israel; it ignored a World Court ruling that found the US guilty of de facto terrorism for mining the waters around Nicaragua.

The historical record reveals that the US, and its Anglo-European-Japanese-South Korean acolytes, are guilty of numerous violations of international law (i.e., the rules-based, international order).

When it comes to the US, the contraventions of the rules-based order are myriad. To mention a few:

1. Currently, the US is occupying Syria and stealing the oil of the Syrian people;
2. It attacked, occupied, and plundered Afghanistan;
3. It has been carrying out an embargo, condemned by the international community, against Cuba and its people for six decades;
4. The US has been in illegal occupation of Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay since 1903; even if deemed to be legal, it is clearly unethical;
5. American empire has a history of blatant, wanton disregard for democracy and sovereignty;
6. The US funded the Maidan coup that overthrew the elected president of Ukraine, leading to today’s special military operation devastating Ukraine, which continues to fight a US-NATO proxy war.
7. Then, there is the undeniable fact that the US exists because of a genocide wreaked by its colonizers, which has been perpetuated ever since.
8. Even the accommodations that the US imposed on the peoples it dispossessed are ignored, revealed by a slew of broken treaties.³

The history of US actions (as opposed to its words) and its complicit tributaries needs to be kept firmly in mind when the legacy media unquestioningly reports the pablum about adhering to a rules-based order.

1. See also Yves Engler, “Ten ways Liberals undermined international rules-based order,” rabble.ca, 17 September 2021.
2. Read Bob Joseph, 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act: Helping Canadians Make Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples a Reality, 2018.
3. Vine Deloria, Jr., Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence, 1985. This governmental infidelity to treaties is also true in the Canadian context.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Musk finds Twitter threatened with an advertiser boycott. As I previously alluded to, the boycotters of free speech on Twitter could well find themselves boycotted by free-speech supporters. Two can play the boycott game. Musk seems to realize that now. He warned of a “thermonuclear name & shame” reprisal against boycotting advertisers.

Musk has expressed willingness to fight the “activist groups pressuring advertisers” and their compliant advertisers who are “trying to destroy free speech in America.”

But has Musk provided a free speech forum for all Twitter users? Yours truly, a small-fry free-speech, anti-racism, anti-war, anti-disinformation sporadic user of Twitter have been banished without notice or reason for several months now. I assume it is for my progressivist principles that are not shared by Democrats working in the Twitter space (e.g., support for Palestinian rights, support for Indigenous rights, support for all human rights, etc).

But changes are afoot at Twitter. Musk has cut the Twitter workforce in half. This is unfortunate for the ordinary workers just trying to earn an honest living; but, as far as cleaning out the anti-free-speech riff raff at Twitter, it might signal an opening for free-speech advocates.

Alas, Musk seems to think free speech shouldn’t be “free.” Twitter Blue will only be available to those who can afford the monthly $8 fee.

Donald Trump (a personality equally reprehensible to Joe Biden) has, as far as I know, not been invited for reinstatement to Twitter. I dislike most of Trump’s ideological views, but I support his right to express them honestly.

Then there is the case of Scott Ritter, an American patriot who comes across as a fierce critic of US imperialism. For his anti-imperialist views, he found himself banned from Twitter. After the takeover of Twitter by Musk, Ritter set up a new Twitter account and sent out a tweet, stating that Ukraine was behind the massacre at Bucha, as a challenge to Musk. Ritter, a former marine intelligence officer, found himself promptly banned from Twitter again.

Ritter quoted The Who: “Won’t get fooled again. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

It is the early days of Twitter under Musk. Nonetheless, if Musk truly is a free speech devotee, truly is a man of principle, then he will use his Twitter ownership for the promotion of respectful free speech.

I submit that Musk might best demonstrate this by setting in motion a twitter storm pushing for the release of Julian Assange, a heroic free-speech advocate and a principled supporter of the public’s right to know.

Assange has suffered at the hands of corrupt American power abetted by its minions for which he should never have been targeted or persecuted. Conversely, he should be celebrated for his actions which include exposing US war crimes in Iraq. If there is any justice in empire, then Assange and must be released, exonerated of all wrongdoing, fairly recompensed, and regarded with all due respect for his sacrifice to humanity — as should all those brave souls who spoke out about the crimes of empire and find themselves languishing under unjust circumstances.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

A question: can you declare that you are for freedom of speech/expression and ban, or maintain a ban, on a person from expressing himself in a purportedly public forum and preserve your integrity? Whether the new owner of Twitter, Musk, steadfastly stands on the principle of freedom of expression looks like it is about to be revealed.

One question is whether the former president Donald Trump will be allowed back onto the Twitter platform.

When Elon Musk met Donald Trump (Image credit: Mashable)

Musk was critical of Twitter’s ban of Trump. He called it a “morally bad decision” and “foolish in the extreme.”

A section of the corporate sector (obviously, the corporate sector is not a monolith, as Trump and Musk both belong to this sector) is threatening a boycott of its advertising dollar if Musk allows Trump back on Twitter. This has set the stage for what could turn out to be a showcase of corporate infighting.

Does one section of the corpocracy predominate? Politically, the answer would seem to be no. In the United States, the Democrats and Republicans represent two wings of the corpocracy that alternate between them in forming the government, with, what many would contend, is minimal separation politically.

USA Today, the newspaper with the largest circulation in the US, pointed the finger at Trump as the instigator behind the riot on Capitol Hill that led to him being banned from Twitter. This is an allegation — borne out by the panoply of media takes on the Capitol Hill riot and who is to blame. Allegations, however, do not carry the imprimatur of certitude.

While supporting the principle of freedom of speech/expression is fine in the abstract, it should not be an absolute. For instance, the 2004 Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation participants unanimously held disinformation to be a crime against humanity and a crime against peace. In a moral world, lies that cause death and suffering must not be condoned or given a deceitful, argumentative free pass.

So the billionaire Musk seemingly finds himself on the horns of a dilemma: losing money or losing face. Musk has a choice. He can give in to corporate blackmail and uphold the ban on Trump and preserve advertising revenue for Twitter or he can reinstate Trump and, at least on this measure, maintain his integrity.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Our most important contribution is to have demonstrated concretely how to reconcile democratic planning with worker and consumer autonomy. We believe this was the Achilles’ heel of socialism during the twentieth century, which must be resolved if there is to be a future for socialism in the twenty-first century.

— Robin Hahnel speaking to the breakthrough that would be achieved in A Participatory Economy, 2022 (p 236-237)

In his book, A Participatory Economy, Robin Hahnel, a professor emeritus of economics at American University, begins by clarifying the goals of a participatory economy: economic freedom, economic justice, solidarity, efficiency, environmentally sustainable, and economic variety.

Economic justice is achieved by remunerating people based on their effort and sacrifice, how much of the burden one bears. Effort and sacrifice will be judged by colleagues in the workplace. Efficiency is the converse of wastefulness — that work performed is beneficial. Environmental sustainability means attaining intergenerational equity. Economic variety recognizes that people are different, have different tastes and wants; therefore, achieving an economy that produces a diversity of outcomes and lifestyles is sought.

Chapter 2 looks at different political-economic models and discusses why a participatory economy (parecon) is preferable and superior to capitalism, communism, and democratic socialism.

Hahnel shoots down the canard relentlessly propounded by adherents of capitalism that humans are motivated by greed. Hahnel writes, “The fallacy is in asserting that people will act in the same greedy and fearful ways in a system where they are given the opportunity to make their own decisions, are positively rewarded for embracing a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity, and are rewarded, not punished, for acting in solidarity with others.” (p 32-33)

Perhaps the most controversial feature in a parecon is that there will be no private enterprise. This is because of the belief that “… only full social ownership of all productive resources is capable of achieving economic justice and distributive justice.” (p 40)