Monday, July 11, 2022

CHINA
Another protest erupts over the billion-dollar bank fraud in Henan

Hundreds of people gathered outside the Zhengzhou branch of China’s central bank to demand access to their savings, which have been frozen for months in a banking fraud worth billions.
Published July 11, 2022
Eyepress News via Reuters Connect.

Hundreds of people gathered before dawn on Sunday on the steps outside the People’s Bank of China building in Zhengzhou, Henan Province, in the latest clash over a banking scandal that sparked national outrage earlier this year.

“Henan Bank, return my savings!” chanted some of the protesters, with some calling on China’s No. 2 official and economic leader, Lǐ Kèqiáng 李克强, as they held up banners to demand the return of their frozen deposits worth up to tens of billions of yuan.Within hours, swathes of local security forces showed up to disperse the protesters, warning them that they were an illegal assembly, and would be detained if they refused to leave.
Later videos posted on social media showed the scene turning violent: One video showed an unidentified team of men in plain black or white clothes — who many have speculated were part of security forces — being pelted with water bottles and other objects as they charged into the crowd.

Another video showed individuals being shoved and dragged down the steps by the same plain-clothed men, with some protesters left with broken bones and eye injuries, according to the Financial Times.

The desperate customers have been locked in a months-long dispute with local lenders, after four small banks in Henan suddenly suspended online cash withdrawals in April, sparking panic among hundreds of their customers who feared they had lost their savings.Just three weeks earlier, authorities in Zhengzhou punished five officials for changing the health codes of more than 1,300 customers of the banks to red, a move that restricted their public movements and that many have called an abuse of the nationwide health code app that tracks users’ data.

​​Later that day, Henan banking authorities posted a short notice saying that authorities are speeding up the verification of customer funds in the four banks, and have since ordered payments of smaller amounts starting on July 15 with bigger payments to be made later.“​​On the surface, it looks like good news, but it is actually a frog in boiling water. If someone gets a part of it back, they will not fight for it anymore,” said one user on Weibo.

“I am happy for the depositors, but at the same time I want to ask: Where do the advanced payments come from? If the funds cannot be recovered, who will pay for the 40 billion yuan?” said another.

Though authorities have so far accused Henan Xincaifu Group, a stakeholder in the four lenders, of colluding with bank employees to illegally attract depositors through third-party platforms, the case has highlighted the vulnerability of lenders in China’s less-developed areas amid growing financial risks in the world’s second-largest economy.“The central government needs to worry more now about the property sector issue spilling over into the regional banks,” said a Hong Kong–based trader in developer debt. “Regional banks have a lot more exposure to property than they would like to admit.”


Nadya Yeh is a Staff Writer and Editorial Associate at SupChina. Nadya has previously done research at the China Institute and got her Master’s degree at the Global Thought program at Columbia University. Read more
Sri Lanka: Opposition leader ready to run for presidency

By Anbarasan Ethirajan
BBC News, Colombo

Sajith Premadasa says he is ready to take part in an all-party interim government

Sri Lanka's main opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has told the BBC he intends to run for president, once Gotabaya Rajapaksa steps down.

This comes after his Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) party held talks with allies to get support for the move.

Sri Lanka is facing an unprecedented economic crisis which has brought thousands to the streets since March.

The country has run out of cash and is struggling to import basic items like food, fuel and medicine.

President Rajapaksa announced that he plans to resign this week, and the speaker of parliament has said lawmakers will choose the next president on 20 July.

Mr Premadasa told the BBC that his party and allies agreed he should be "putting my nomination for the position of presidency, if a vacancy occurs".

He lost the presidential election in 2019, and would need the support of the governing alliance MPs to win.

He is banking on getting it due to the popular discontent against Mr Rajapaksa and his family, who have dominated Sri Lankan politics for more than two decades.

The country's inflation rate reached a whopping 55% in June, and millions of people are struggling to make a living.

Mr Premadasa said he was ready to take part in an all-party interim government.

The SJB leader has been criticised for refusing to take the post of prime minister when it was offered to him in April. His rival Ranil Wickremesinghe was appointed - but has also indicated he would resign to make way for a unity government.

Mr Premadasa described the current situation in Sri Lanka as "confused, uncertainty and total anarchy", saying it needs "consensus, consultation, compromise and coming togetherness".

Sajith Premadasa said the nation needed consensus and compromise

The country's usable reserves have dropped to around $250m (£210m), according to local media reports.

The crippling shortage of fuel has devastated public transport. There are rolling power cuts as power plants lack enough fuel to function. Schools are closed this week as well due to the fuel crisis. Many people are trying to leave the country.

Mr Premadasa has conceded that there are no quick fixes.

To return the economy to 2019 levels would take approximately four to five years, he said, adding that his party had an economic plan to overcome the crisis.

"We are not going to hoodwink the people. We are going to be frank and present a plan to get rid of Sri Lanka's economic ills," Mr Premadasa said.

But the protesters at the Galle Face site in Colombo say that all 225 members of parliament are responsible for the current situation, and they want a new beginning with fresh and energetic people in politics.


One Year After July 11, 2021: Washington Carries On It’s Economic War Against Cuba Despite Political Isolation

[T]he heroism of normality in Cuba does not generate headlines.
— Cuban revolutionary journalist Rosa Miriam Elizalde

July 11, 2021 in Cuba quickly went from legitimate, valid, peaceful street protests to violent provocations and destructive acts directed by US clients in Cuba. Thousands of people in many cities, towns, and working-class neighborhoods took to the streets in response to harsh, deteriorating conditions — the worst of the Covid Delta infections, hospitalizations, and deaths on the island before the application of the Cuban-vaccines; the electricity blackouts in the scorching Cuban summer; on top of the existing shortages of food, gasoline, and medicines — and perceived shortcomings in government measures and action. This was accompanied by the highly orchestrated, parallel activation of longstanding counter-revolutionary networks, catalyzed and coordinated by US “social media” platforms with clear, documented threads leading to Washington and its minions. Of course, these counter-revolutionary networks are financially sustained and politically directed by US government agencies.

While most of the protests remained peaceful, there were significant levels of violence in numerous neighborhoods, including assaults on police and other citizens; the destruction and looting of public and private homes, properties, and businesses; and overturning cars and dumping garbage in the streets. Some 1300 Cuban citizens were initially arrested and detained, with most subsequently released. Hundreds have been charged and tried over recent months in judicial proceedings that are ongoing, around 70 on relatively minor charges. Heavy sentences have been handed down for those convicted so far – based on documented evidence with the right to defense council and due process – of the violent crimes referred above.

Fizzle and Collapse

As the July 11 anniversary comes and goes, its ephemeral character became apparent within days — if not hours — as the “unprecedented uprising against communist tyranny” and for “freedom” fizzled out and collapsed.

The first line of defense for the Cuban revolutionary socialist government, under the leadership of President Miguel Diaz-Canel, was not “repression” (of course, the violent riots perpetrated directly and indirectly by US clients had to be quickly contained and stopped by force) but was political, on two intertwined levels, in the historic traditions of the Cuban Revolution and the undefeated legacy of Fidel Castro and his extraordinary leadership team in defense of Cuban sovereignty and socialism.

Within hours and days of the July 11 protests and subsequent counter-revolutionary violence, the Cuban revolutionaries and working class vanguard took to the streets in mass counter-mobilizations which made crystal clear what the actual political and social relationship of forces on the island is.

Part of this revolutionary mobilization was the initiatives of the Diaz-Canel government to directly go to neighborhoods and communities and cities where protests erupted. President Diaz-Canel was continually present on the ground, not behind legions of heavily armed police and military, not before a staged, hand-picked audience, but rather to listen to grievances and project advances and solutions within the limitations of the asphyxiating blockade.

The political tone taken by the Cuban president and government was not to castigate and demonize those who took to the streets on July 11 as participants, but to differentiate between legitimate and valid grievances and demands and the US-directed counterrevolutionary subversion and violence. This was complemented and intertwined with the actions of the mass organizations – the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR); Confederation of Cuban Workers (CTC), Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), and the mass organizations of small farmers, students, artists and intellectuals, and more — that are the grass-roots mass expressions of Cuba’s participatory, socialist “democracy,” which is, of course, distinct from the forms and practice of capitalist parliamentary “democracy,” a subject of great theoretical and practical-political importance (and for a different essay I would like to take up in the future.)

A July 10, 2022 NBC News piece grudgingly states that:

Since the protests a year ago, Cuba has taken steps to try to address discontent relating to conditions in the island, including renovating about 1,000 impoverished neighborhoods. President Miguel Díaz-Canel has also stressed the ‘urgent effort’ of addressing ‘opportunity’ — rather than ‘assistance’— aimed at the country’s youth, including tackling issues of employment, training and housing.

(See attached speech by Miguel Diaz-Canel.

From Trump to Biden

After July 11, 2021 bipartisan Washington and the capitalist media oligopolies unleashed a propaganda blitzkrieg against the Cuban government. This campaign unrealistically (wildly so!) raised expectations and illusions across the board in Washington; this was especially the case with right-wing Cuban-Americans energized under the Donald Trump Administration. (President Joseph Biden’s policies and broken campaign promises to alleviate or reverse Trump’s deepening of the blockade also accelerated the growth of Puentes de Amor-Bridges of Love and the inspiring Caravan movement of Cuban-Americans against the blockade, which have spread across the US, Canada, and worldwide.)

The Biden Administration instead shamelessly used the July 11, 2021 events as a cover for continuing and deepening the very same Trump measures. From Trump to Biden there was a seamless transition in these stepped-up “regime change” programs and economic asphyxiation.

Perhaps most critical in this further imperialist turning-of-the-screws under Biden and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was their decision to keep Cuba on the US State Department list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” reinstated in the last days of the Trump Administration. This obscenity is a stunningly bogus and two-faced fabrication that reversed the Barack Obama-Biden Administration’s removal of Cuba from the notorious list in May 2015. Revolutionary Cuba has been a historic and contemporary recipient of terrorism, mostly US-based, including directly and indirectly, from the US government. Inclusion on the lists makes state and private economic entities wary of economic exchanges with Cuba in fear of extraterritorial US sanctions.

“Repression”

Faced with the political debris from the post-7-11 failure of what had been the most concerted and coordinated stab at “regime change” in decades, Washington politicians and the capitalist media are settling on a common “explanation” for the actual course of events. The “explanation” comes down to the “exceptional” efficacy of Cuban government and state “repression.” That is, the ability of Cuba’s government and mobilized majority to defend itself and their sovereign workers state from the US blockade and US subversive projects, policies, and programs which are longstanding and well-funded. This is bipartisan Washington’s political line and rationalization for the collapse and routing of their client base and agencies…and they’re sticking to it!

A typical account in the NBC News online piece cited above quotes Juan Pappier, a “senior Americas researcher” at “Human Rights Watch”: “Over decades, the Cuban government has been able to develop a machinery of repression, which is unique in its sophistication in the Western Hemisphere,” said Pappier. What Human Rights Watch means by “unique in its sophistication” is that the Cuban Revolution and its revolutionary Marxist leadership has been particularly effective in defending itself against ongoing US bellicosity over many decades. That is fairly unique in the contemporary history of Latin American, Central American, and Caribbean revolutionary processes which necessarily come up against US subversion and intervention.

(See my article for a description of this notoriously anti-Cuban, Washington-echoing Human Rights Watch outfit.)

It is an illusion and a diversion to frame the failure of Washington and its clients inside Cuba to gain serious political traction and political momentum as the result of “repression.” It is, of course, the duty and obligation of the revolutionary socialist Cuban government to counter and defeat Washington’s permanent, subversive, “regime change” schemes. And the Cuban revolutionaries are damn good at it from experience! After all, necessity is the mother of invention.

What does not exist in Cuba for the counter-revolutionary forces under the direction of Washington is a mass base with a united organization and program. Their base is in Washington and part of the polarized Cuban-American community in Miami and elsewhere. Otherwise, inside Cuba what these forces have left are just various networks and money-laundering operations with threads that all lead to Washington. These groups do not exist to lead a mass counter-revolutionary movement for which they have no significant mass base, but to be points of support for any potential direct US military intervention and invasion under the “right” conditions of economic and social collapse from the US economic and political war.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Cuba’s mass participatory decision-making political forms and electoral processes – certainly distinct from the parliamentary democratic forms of many capitalist states — knows that freewheeling debate and contention within the Revolution is a norm that exists alongside necessary and voluntary revolutionary unity under the conditions of permanent economic, financial, and political siege by the US imperialist superpower. Within that crucible – not at all what any revolutionary Marxist would consider ideal – “socialist democracy” advances and flourishes. A stunning example today is the rich and sometimes contentious, nationwide debates, within a mass deliberative process, over modernization and updating of Cuba’s renamed Families Code that includes issues of same-sex marriage, the rights of children, and much more.

The caricature of a cowed and tyrannized Cuban population anxious to be “liberated” by a benevolent Uncle Sam is nonsense that has gained little political traction beyond the Washington and Miami policymaker’s bubble. Do most of them even believe it themselves?

Cracks in the Blockade’s Armor?

It is never easy for a bully to back down. Under some pressure to avoid a united boycott of the June 2022 US-hosted Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles Summit from numerous countries – including perhaps the entire bloc of Caribbean states constituting CARICOM – the Biden Administration made some limited concessions – easing family remittances (although mechanisms have yet to be established; loosening travel restrictions and allowing new airline routes; and liberalizing “people-to-people” exchanges (although normal tourist travel remains banned and hotel access for US citizens and legal residents is severely restricted) – that cushioned the Summit from a humiliating debacle. CARICOM, with the honorable exception of PM Ralph Gonsalves of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines – ended up in the room – although, once there, the remarks of CARICOM members blasted the exclusions of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua and US anti-Cuba policies from the floor.

At the same time the Biden Administration is under mounting pressure from the growing numbers of Cubans who are emigrating under the accumulating harshness of economic conditions that Biden’s blockade has maintained in continuity with Donald Trump’s policies. This is an inevitable consequence of the US economic war against Cuba. These numbers are up to over 140,000 leaving Cuba aiming to enter the US, the largest numbers since the so-called Mariel boat lift of 1980 that reached 125,000.

The Primary Contradiction

The triumph of the mobilized Cuban people and revolutionary socialist government over the Washington-directed “soft coup” was already apparent in the immediate aftermath of the July 11, 2021 events. This political triumph was intertwined with the successful development and production of Cuban vaccines against COVID-19 and the highly successful mass vaccination efforts, including for children two-years and up. November 15, 2021—the announced day that Cuban schools, tourism and much else officially reopened — was touted by Washington and its counter-revolutionary networks to be a day of renewed protests, with the banging of pots in the streets and from home windows, with all the hyperbole they could muster. But the “heroism of normality” triumphed on that day and the retreat and isolation of the US-directed counter-revolutionary network again fell flat.

We should add the incredible mobilizations – 6.5 million in the streets across the country, some one million in Havana – for the May Day celebrations which brought out the organized Cuban working class and fighting people as a whole. This was the first May Day held for two years because of COVID and the enthusiasm and determination of the marchers was evident to anyone there (as I was privileged to be).

May Day 2022 in Havana

All of this has also led to negative political consequences for the bipartisan US anti-Cuba aggressive policy implemented by Biden and Blinken in their first 18 months in the White House and “Foggy Bottom.” Their policy has failed to gain traction and remains isolated in the Americas, as registered at the Los Angeles Summit.  This will be further registered worldwide in the annual Fall vote in the UN General Assembly – this will be the 30th such vote since 1992! – to overwhelmingly oppose the US extraterritorial commercial, financial, and economic embargo, the blockade. (Washington, of course, has appealed for the UN General Assembly to condemn the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation government of Vladimir Putin but has tried to put its head in the sand over 30 consecutive UN condemnations!) But for now bipartisan Washington is carrying on amidst the growing political wreckage.

At the same time, the economic (and thereby social) crisis in Cuba continues to deepen with a horrific, devastating impact. The US blockade is a sadistic policy, insofar as its authors are conscious of the human consequences of the tightening of the US asphyxiation policies under Trump and Biden.

In summary, we can say that the primary contradiction at this conjuncture in the fight for the normalization of US-Cuba relations is between the political isolation of bipartisan Washington and the political defeat – after such raised expectations and the anti-Cuba, anti-communist propaganda blitzkrieg – from July 11 to November 15, 2021 on one hand and the continuing and deepening material pounding from the blockade on the Cuban economy and people on the other.

It is clear from eyewitness reports from recent visitors to Cuba from the US solidarity movement that we are approaching a reality where Cuban people are going to die from shortages in medicines such as insulin and many other life-saving medications and medical equipment that the blockade prevents Cuba from purchasing. (And let us never forget – or forgive – that the blockade was deepened by the Trump and Biden Administrations during the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.)

Everything in the next period flows from this primary contradiction which is also the primary political dynamic. There is no question that the resistance of the Cuban workers state, elected government, and fighting people will continue on every front. Biden and Blinken are going into a period where their anti-Cuba policy is more, not less, isolated. The October 2022 parliamentary elections in Brazil seem set for the ignominious ouster of the Jair Bolsonaro regime and the election of Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva. Lula da Silva, like President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of Mexico, is an historic friend of Cuba and a strong opponent of the US anti-Cuba blockade.

If elected, Lula, like other newly elected left-wing governments in Honduras, Chile, and Colombia, may or may not be able to effectively counter the resistance of the capitalists and large landowners, backed by the capitalist states (military, police, courts, prisons) they will be governing, to any progressive reforms in the interests of the working class, landless peasants, oppressed nationalities, women, and youth or anti-imperialist policies they aim to carry out to significantly diminish the neoliberal capitalist order in the current, mounting world capitalist economic crisis with its permanent political volatility and instability.

Nevertheless, none of these governments, even Chile’s President Gabriel Boric, who has tossed out some anti-Cuba boilerplate while also speaking out against the blockade, will be an ally to Biden and bipartisan Washington, in pursuing the criminal blockade.

The remaining months of 2022 will see the UN vote, the Brazilian presidential and parliamentary elections, and the mid-term Congressional elections in the United States.

The Cuba solidarity and anti-blockade movement must build on our significant advances in the next period to step up our solidarity aid and our political work against the blockade. Out of many fronts of struggle let us unite in one fist against the blockade. Let us support the many solidarity caravans and brigades traveling to Cuba in the coming days, weeks, and months. Support and donate to the Saving Lives Campaign for US-Cuba-Canada Collaboration and the Global Health Partners Campaign to send critically needed anesthesia machines and sutures to the Calixto Garcia Hospital main surgical trauma center in Havana. Let us unite in mass actions in New York City, across the US, Canada, and worldwide to mark the Fall UN vote!

We Are With the World!

Cuba Si, Bloqueo No!Facebook

Ike Nahem is a retired Amtrak Locomotive Engineer and Teamsters Union member. A longtime anti-imperialist, socialist, and Cuba solidarity activist and leader, Ike is a founder and organizer for the New York-New Jersey Cuba Si Coalition, a member of the US National Network on Cuba, and a central organizer of the forthcoming March 18-20 International US-Cuba Normalization Conference in New York City. He is the author of many published, widely circulated essays online including The Life of Fidel Castro: A Marxist Appreciation and To the Memory of Malcolm X: Tribute to a Revolutionary. Contact Ike at ikenahem@gmail.comRead other articles by Ike.

 NATO headquarters flag star Photo Credit: NATO

Why NATO Is Outdated, Dangerous And Deserves To Be Abolished – OpEd

By 

Let’s look at NATO’s reaction to Russia’s ill-considered and international law-violating military action in Ukraine. From a conflict-analytical point of view, it is reasonable to say that Russia is responsible for the war but that NATO with it reckless expansion against all promises given to Russia and a series of expert warnings is responsible for the underlying conflict.

It can safely be concluded that the Western/NATO response has moved beyond the proportionality principle, beyond rationality and a realistic image of the world and its own role in it:

NATO leaders express limitless hatred of everything Russia; historically hard and time-unlimited economic sanctions have been imposed – using the illegal method of collective punishment;  weapons for an estimated US$ 60-100 billion will be pumped into Ukraine to defeat Russia there. NATO has added US$ 350 billion in military expenditures since the US-instigated regime change in Kiev in 2014 and, since then, prepared Ukraine for a role in NATO. The 2% goals is now a floor, not a ceiling. Forward reaction forces shall increase from 40 000 to 300 000; US troops in Europe up to 100 000. Russian reserves in the West – some US$ 300 billion – are frozen and will likely be stolen and used to rebuild Ukraine. Russia is, for all practical purposes, cancelled from Europe.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 310 000 have died in Syria but less than 5 000 in Ukraine. The US War on Terror has cost a million lives and forced 35-50 million to become refugees and IDPs.

We seem to have to do with an outdated militarist institution that has proven itself unable to create peace – having tried to since 1949 – and which violates it own funding Treaty on a daily basis.

TFF Associates and myself are working on a larger report – ”The Abolish NATO Catalogue” – with articles, videos and arguments on why it is time to abolish it and create something entirely new. We also argue that today’s post-Ukraine NATO is the single most dangerous institution on Earth.

Western decision-makers and mainstream media seem to see their role as simply selling NATO. They seldom, if ever, discuss NATO as such, its strong and weak sides. An examination of a 73-year old institution would be natural, like for decades there have been debates about how to reform the United Nations. But criticism of NATO as such is hard to find.

NATO is consistently called a “defensive” alliance.  One must indeed wonder how the systematic use of that particular adjective across all mainstream media has come about since there exist no valid definition of defensiveness that could possibly include NATO.

Likewise, it’s taken for granted that NATO has contributed to peace. But what kind of peace? What other factors have contributed to it – and is it at all meaningful to use the word ’peace’ about today’s Euro-Atlantic space?

NATO simply exists. It’s a saviour. Like God exists in the lives of the believers who may then expect salvation. Its fundamentally militarist values come across to the taxpayers (who finance it) as benevolent and innocent in its role as the Creator of stability, security and peace – to repeat the Secretary-General’s unsubstantiated mantra at virtually every press conference.

While there can be – and has been – intelligent philosophical debates about what a world without God looks like, there has not yet been a broad discussion about what a world without NATO might look like.

Or, to put it differently, NATO has become a kind of God to those who believe in it and there is a scholarly, media and political priesthood that propagates it to such an extent that meaningful, rational analyses of what it’s good and not so good at hardly exist.

TFF Associate David R. Loy has a more philosophical – Buddhist – approach to militarism and writes in “Why We Love War”:

If our modern, secularized world is plagued by an unacknowledged and therefore misunderstood sense of lack, it is not surprising that war too continues to be so attractive, even addictive. War can give us the meaning we crave, because it provides a reassuring way to understand what is wrong with our lives.

War offers a simple way to bind together our individual lacks and project them outside, onto the enemy. They are evil because they want to hurt us. Since we are merely defending ourselves, we can feel good about what we do to them. The karma that results is not difficult to understand: the cause of each war is usually the previous one, at least in part.

If war is a collective response to our collective problem with lack, we cannot expect war to cease until we find better ways to address that basic spiritual problem.

The contemporary West’s unreflective belief in violence as the solution – or militarism as the new secular religion promising salvation – and our culture’s psycho-political need for constant enemy imaging often by sheer projection of one’s own dark sides – must come from somewhere. Perhaps the lack of meaning and the need for standing together around some values and some policy. Just think “Ukraine” which has become the single event that brought the otherwise rather declining and fragmented West together, at least for a short while.

This is of particular relevance also because NATO is an alliance based on nuclear weapons; it’s an alliance that is able to wipe out humanity many times over – that is, do harm way outside its circle of member states. It is also an alliance that reserves for itself the right to be the first to use nuclear weapons even against a conventional attack.

And it’s an alliance led by the United States with a global Empire, human history’s largest military expenditures – some 40% of the world’s military expenditures – which insists on being the unchallenged global power with 600+ military basis in 130+ countries and special forces in even more.

In other words, while there is a tendency to see NATO as a predominantly Euro-Atlantic alliance because all its members minus one are European, the alliance is a de facto global military power-projecting institution because of its leader’s global power reach and imperial ambitions. We see how, at the moment Art 5 is de facto applied to Ukraine, a non-member of NATO. And at NATO’s Madrid Summit and elsewhere in NATO, China is appointed the Enemy # 1 in the future.

Surreal or bizarre as it may seem, the idea that NATO might be a party to a conflict with Russia is also pretty foreign to itself and most of its advocates. The media choreography is simple: As a principle, NATO has never done anything wrong and continues to only promote “security, stability and peace” while Russia and its president act as a constant nuisance. It’s rather much like a homeowner who is not in a conflict with a thief – a criminal – but has to guard himself and his family against the thief’s evil plans.

Compared with being in a conflict, this self-understanding relieves the presumed innocent from any sense of responsibility.

From that stems the symbolic idea that NATO is a kind of home insurance. However, an insurance is paid only after the unwanted event and the destruction it wrought. Insurances do not prevent the accident, so this is pure nonsense but also never addressed.

Contrary to the pervasive positive but unreflective mainstream concepts and images of NATO that are disseminated virtually on a daily basis to millions, there is absolutely nothing sacrosanct about that old institution. And in contrast to the pious believers’ attitude to their God, NATO can and should be criticised. And replaced.

Let’s discuss the post-NATO world.

Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. CV: https://transnational.live/jan-oberg
https://transnational.live

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS)

By 

President Joe Biden’s foreign policy advisors are applauding themselves for devising a “sensitive” itinerary as he plans to embark on a trip to the Middle East on July 13.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Biden defended his controversial planned meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (known as MBS), saying it is meant not only to bolster U.S. interests but also to bring peace to the region.

It seems that his trip will not include Yemen, though if this were truly a “sensitive” visit, he would be stopping at one of Yemen’s many beleaguered refugee camps. There he could listen to people displaced by war, some of whom are shell-shocked from years of bombardment. He could hear the stories of bereaved parents and orphaned children, and then express true remorse for the complicity of the United States in the brutal aerial attacks and starvation blockade imposed on Yemen for the past eight years.

From the vantage point of a Yemeni refugee camp, Biden could insist that no country, including his own, has a right to invade another land and attempt to bomb its people into submission. He could uphold the value of the newly extended truce between the region’s warring parties, allowing Yemenis a breather from the tortuous years of war, and then urge ceasefires and settlements to resolve all militarized disputes, including Russia’s war in Ukraine. He could beg for a new way forward, seeking political will, universally, for disarmament and a peaceful, multipolar world.

More than 150,000 people have been killed in the war in Yemen, 14,500 of whom were civilians. But the death toll from militarily imposed poverty has been immeasurably higher. The war has caused one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, creating an unprecedented level of hunger in Yemen, where millions of people face severe hardship.

Some 17.4 million Yemenis are food insecure; by December 2022, the projected number of hungry people will likely rise to nineteen million. The rate of child malnutrition is one of the highest in the world, and nutrition continues to deteriorate.

I grew to understand the slogan “No Blood for Oil” while living in Iraq during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm war, the 1998 Desert Fox war, and the 2003 Shock and Awe war. To control the pricing and the flow of oil, the United States and its allies slaughtered and maimed thousands of Iraqi people. Visits to Iraqi pediatric wards from 1996 to 2003 taught me a tragic expansion of that slogan. We must certainly insist: “No Starvation for Oil.”

During twenty-seven trips to Iraq, all in defiance of the U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq, I was part of delegations delivering medicines directly to Iraqi hospitals in cities throughout the country. We witnessed the ghastly crime of punishing children to death for the sake of an utterly misguided U.S. foreign policy. The agony endured by Iraqi families who watched their children starve has now become the nightmare experience of Yemeni families.

It’s unlikely that a U.S. President or any leader of a U.S-allied country will ever visit a Yemeni refugee camp, but we who live in these countries can take refuge in the hard work of becoming independent of fossil fuels, shedding the pretenses that we have a right to consume other people’s precious and irreplaceable resources at cut rate prices and that war against children is an acceptable price to pay so that we can maintain this right.

We must urgently simplify our over-consumptive lifestyles, share resources radically, prefer service to dominance, and insist on zero tolerance for starvation.

This article first appeared in The Progressive Magazine.

Kathy Kelly

Kathy Kelly (Kathy@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Kelly is an American peace activist, pacifist and author, as well as one of the founding members of Voices in the Wilderness. She has been arrested more than sixty times at home and abroad, and written of her experiences, including among targets of U.S. military bombardment.

US To Possibly Resume Offensive Arms Sales To Saudi Arabia: Report
Senior Saudi officials pressed their US counterparts to scrap a policy of selling only defensive arms to its top Gulf partner in several meetings in Riyadh and Washington in recent months.
Posted by Supriti David
Updated: July 11, 2022 


Saudi Arabia is the biggest US arms customer.


Washington/Riyadh: 

The Biden administration is discussing the possible lifting of its ban on US sales of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, but any final decision is expected to hinge on whether Riyadh makes progress toward ending the war in neighboring Yemen, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Senior Saudi officials pressed their US counterparts to scrap a policy of selling only defensive arms to its top Gulf partner in several meetings in Riyadh and Washington in recent months, three of the sources said ahead of President Joe Biden's visit to the kingdom this week.

The internal US deliberations are informal and at an early stage, with no decision imminent, two sources said, and a US official told Reuters there were no discussions on offensive weapons under way with the Saudis "at this time."

As Biden prepares for a diplomatically sensitive trip, he has signaled that he is looking to reset strained relations with Saudi Arabia at a time when he wants increased Gulf oil supplies along with closer Arab security ties with Israel to counter Iran.

At home, any move to rescind restrictions on offensive weapons is sure to draw opposition in Congress, including from Biden's fellow Democrats and opposition Republicans who have been vocal critics of Saudi Arabia, congressional aides say.

Soon after taking office early last year, Biden adopted a tougher stance over Saudi Arabia's campaign against the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen, which has inflicted heavy civilian casualties, and Riyadh's human rights record, in particular the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist and political opponent Jamal Khashoggi.

Biden, who as a presidential candidate denounced Saudi Arabia as a "pariah," declared in February 2021 a halt to US support for offensive operations in Yemen, including "relevant arms sales."

Saudi Arabia, the biggest US arms customer, has chafed under those restrictions, which froze the kind of weapons sales that previous US administrations had provided for decades.

Biden's approach has softened since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in March, which has prompted the United States and other Western countries to appeal to Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, to pump more oil to offset loss of Russian supplies.

Saudi Arabia also won White House praise for agreeing in early June on a two-month extension of a UN-brokered truce in Yemen, scene of the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Washington would now like to see it turned into a permanent ceasefire.

A person in Washington familiar with the matter said the administration had begun internal discussions about the possibility of removing Saudi weapons restrictions but indicated they had not reached a decision-making stage.

Among the times when Saudi officials raised the request was during Deputy Minister of Defense Khalid bin Salman's visit to Washington in May, according to a second source.

The Saudi government did not respond to a request for comment.

Yemen Conflict

The sources stressed, however, that no announcement was expected around Biden's July 13-16 trip, which will include stops in Israel and the West Bank.

Any decision, they said, is expected to depend heavily on whether Riyadh is deemed to have done enough to find a political settlement to the Yemen conflict.

Among the biggest-ticket items the Saudis would likely seek are precision-guided munitions (PGM) such as those approved under former President Donald Trump in the face of objections from members of Congress.

The Biden administration is expected to move cautiously as it discusses which systems might be offered, two sources said. Amnesty International said US-made precision-guided bombs were used in a Saudi-led coalition air strike on a detention center in Yemen in January that killed scores.

If Washington eases the ban, it may be easier to push through sales of less-lethal equipment such as armored personnel carriers or replenish stocks of less-sophisticated ground-to-ground and air-to-ground weaponry.

Even under existing restrictions, the United States began stepping up its military support for Saudi Arabia earlier this year following Houthi missile strikes on the kingdom.

Washington approved missiles and an anti-ballistic defense system sales to Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon said in November, and the United States sent Patriot missiles this year as well - all deemed by US officials to be defensive in nature.

The Biden administration has also maintained backing for the Saudis to receive a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system first approved in 2017 to counter ballistic missile threats.

While lawmakers have mostly acquiesced to such sales, Biden could face fallout on Capitol Hill if he decides to sell Riyadh offensive weapons again.

Some have questioned Biden's decision to visit Saudi Arabia, seeing it as lending legitimacy to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi de facto leader who the US intelligence community concluded was behind Khashoggi's murder.

Among the likely opponents would be Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, a staunch critic of the Saudi campaign in Yemen who praised Biden when he froze offensive arms sales.

An aide said Murphy does not believe now is the time to resume such supplies.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY