Kurdish association in Bremen reacts to racist threat

"The criminalization policy of the state organs paves the way for racist attacks by racist people and circles," said the Bremen Democratic Kurdish Community Center, reacting to the threat with a bullet with the word SS written on it.

ANF
BREMEN
Sunday, 25 Feb 2024, 

Four days ago, cartridges bearing a swastika were discovered in the letterbox of the Kurdish association Biratî in Bremen. The association's premises in Bremen's Neustadt district are under constant surveillance by the police. This is known from various criminal proceedings against alleged PKK cadres. The surveillance logs from the past even contain details of who smoked a cigarette or drank tea in front of the club and when.

In a written statement, the Kurdish Democratic Community Center said, "On November 23, 2023, a letter was sent to Kurdish businesses in Bremen saying, 'I will blow you up'. On February 21, 2024, a letter containing bullets with the word SS and a swastika was left in the mailbox of the Bremen Kurdish Community Center Brati."

The statement said: "Kurds are the most organized community living in Germany. They are among the largest immigrant group in the State of Bremen. As part of Bremen society, the Kurdish community is an integral part of the multicultural structure of the city. However, the recent discriminatory, criminalizing and threatening practices against the Kurdish community in the city of Bremen have caused great reaction in our society in Germany in general and in Bremen in particular after the details of the anti-immigrant and racist meeting organized by the AfD and right-wing groups in Potsdam in November were covered by the press.

Millions of people in favor of democracy, human rights and a multicultural life took to the streets and reacted by saying "Never Again". The reaction of the German society has brought some relief to the Kurdish community, which is part of the immigrant communities and has become part of Germany. As a matter of fact, Kurds are subjected to many racist attacks in Germany. A look at the identity of those murdered in Hanau with racist delusions will reveal the Kurds' uneasiness. On the other hand, at a time when the AfD is on the rise, we observe that the criminalization policy against Kurds is being continued by state organs. It should not be forgotten that the criminalization policy of state organs paves the way for racist attacks by racist individuals and circles. Thus, Kadri Saka was arrested on January 13, the Kurdish Community Center in Bremen was raided. On February 21, a threatening letter with a bullet was left at the Kurdish Community Center, indicating that racists have an opportunity to send threatening messages.

As Kurds living in Germany, we demand the following from the German state organs: Stop criminalizing us!

Investigate racist attacks and threats against the Kurdish community and share all findings with us in detail.

Show the same sensitivity to anti-Kurdish racism as you do to anti-Semitism and protect Kurdish institutions."

Naela Quadri: Kurdish women's struggle against ISIS is a historic epic

Naela Quadri, the Prime Minister of the Balochistan government-in-exile, stated that the Balochi people are struggling against oppression just like the Kurdish people.

SEYÎD MISTEFA
CAIRO
Saturday, 24 Feb 2024, 13:11

Balochis living in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have been subjected to attacks and persecution by these states for years. The Balochi people, who have been struggling for their rights against attacks for many years, are still being massacred. Naela Quadri, the Prime Minister of the Balochistan government-in-exile, spoke to ANF about the experiences of the Balochi people.

When was the Balochistan government-in-exile established and what is its purpose?

The Government of Balochistan-in-exile was established in 2016. On March 21, 2022, we established diplomatic relations with international institutions, including the United Nations, and human rights organizations that support the liberation of Balochistan. The Balochi issue is not an internal issue in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Baloch people want self-rule in their country. Our goal is to liberate Balochistan and establish a democratic and peaceful state. All surface and underground resources should be shared equally by the people of Balochistan. We are fighting for 60 million Balochistanis to get their rights.

How do you evaluate the attacks and rights violations against the Baloch people?

There are serious criminal attacks against the Baloch people. The states of Iran and Pakistan continue to persecute the Baloch people. The Baloch people are facing genocide as defined in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Hundreds of old graves have been found where the bodies of slaughtered women, children and men were dumped. Doctors who examined these graves found that the victims had been buried alive. Counter-terrorism management is itself an instrument of terror. There are also hundreds of unmarked bodies riddled with bullets and tortured. The bodies of thousands of Baloch were found mutilated. In October 2022, nearly 500 bodies were found on the roof of Noshtar Miltan hospital. At the same time, the Pakistani army has tortured and raped many Baloch women.

How do you see the struggle of Kurdish women against ISIS gangs?

The struggle of Kurdish women against ISIS is a historic epic in the world, an unforgettable story of these women defending their honor and sacrificing their lives. Kurdish women are a very important example in the world in terms of struggle. We hope that the women of the world will be like Kurdish women. The resistance and strength of Kurdish women cannot be measured.

RAWA: We take courage from our Kurdish sisters

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan issued a message for the internationalists in Rojava on the anniversary of the International Conspiracy against Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan.

ANF
NEWS DESK
Sunday, 18 Feb 2024, 15:47

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sent a message to the internationalist women struggling in Rojava on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the international conspiracy that led to Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan’s abduction from Kenya and handover to Turkey on 15 February 1999.

The RAWA's message includes the following:

"To Dear Internationalist Women Comrades in Rojava,

We, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, advocate united struggle and solidarity for the release of Abdullah Öcalan and all political prisoners.

For more than half a century, Afghan women have been living under the heavy burden of imperialism and oppressive fundamentalist regimes. Recently, the Taliban regime has further oppressed women and ignored everything related to them. It has usurped women's rights and dignity, confined them to their homes and imposed compulsory head covering, arresting those who do not comply.

Despite all, Afghan women, like their fellows around the world, resist imprisonment, violence and threats.

The bond between the Kurdish and Afghan peoples is not formed by common suffering. The bond between us is determined by common resistance and determination. We take courage from our Kurdish sisters who fight shoulder to shoulder with their male comrades.

Mr. Öcalan's leadership has shown that women have the power to change themselves and society.

To honor our imprisoned comrades and in memory of the fallen heroes, we must continue our work until freedom and justice prevail in our land. As imperialism and religious extremism join forces against us, we must stand together as revolutionaries and fighters against occupation, misogyny and injustice.

Let us build a future free of prison and torture in solidarity!"

Freedom and Democracy Rally: We will break the door of Imrali!

Speaking at the "Freedom and Democracy" rally organized in Esenyurt, Istanbul, DBP Co-Chair Keskin Bayindir said, "We will break the door of Imrali and provide a solution. We do not accept this isolation."

ANF
ISTANBUL
Sunday, 25 Feb 2024, 18:04

The "Freedom and Democracy" rally organized by the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Istanbul Provincial Organization on Sunday saw the participation of thousands of people.

The rally was also attended by politicians who staged the "Great Freedom March" to demand the physical freedom of Abdullah Öcalan, who is held in total isolation in Imrali Island Prison in the Sea of Marmara and has not been heard from for 35 months.

The Great Freedom Marchers took the stage together with the mothers holding a Justice Watch with the same demand and greeted the masses.

Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Co-Chair Keskin Bayındır demanded freedom for Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan in his speech at the rally.

Bayındır, who also took part in the "Great Freedom March" launched for the physical freedom of Abdullah Öcalan and a solution to the Kurdish question, recalled that thousands of people had to migrate to metropolises in Turkey due to the burning of Kurdish villages 30 years ago.

"They were saying that they would destroy the Kurds and Kurdish organizations. Those who said this; look at this square, look at this state of organization, look at this freedom square," Bayındır said.

Referring to the Great Freedom March staged in Kurdistan between February 1-15, Bayındır said, "We came together with our heroic and resilient people in Kurdistan, province by province, district by district, village by village. Today, Istanbul is giving voice to this march for freedom. Kurdistan and Turkey are saying 'freedom' for Kurds and Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan."

Noting that Kurdish was labeled as an "unknown language" in the Parliament of Turkey, Bayındır said, "Today we speak our language in the squares in Istanbul. They say 'speak Kurdish, but speak it at home.' Today we speak our language here. We are Kurds, we are from Kurdistan."

Referring to the hunger strike of PKK and PAJK prisoners in Turkish prisons, which has been ongoing since 27 November , Bayındır said: "Today is the day of freedom and winning. Today is the day to stand up. Today is our day. This is our time. There has been a hunger strike in prisons for 3 months. Thousands of our comrades are on hunger strike in tens of prisons. They are resisting in dungeons, we are resisting on the streets. We send greetings to those resisting in prisons. We resist oppression. For 100 years we have not bowed our heads and we will not bow today. This stance will definitely reach its goal. Those who miscalculate, those who think they can subjugate the Kurds should look at this square."

Bayındır stated that Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan is the interlocutor for the solution of the Kurdish question and continued: "He is not far away. He is in İmralı. We will break the door of Imrali and provide a solution. We do not accept this isolation. If you don't want war and enmity, lift this isolation. The interlocutor of the Kurdish people is clear. And that is Mr. Öcalan. We send greetings to İmralı from here. Our struggle in Kurdistan will succeed. Do not make wrong calculations. Kurds want their rights. Kurds want a solution to the problem with their interlocutors."

Refusing To Admit US Foreign Policy Blunders

by Ted Galen Carpenter Posted onFebruary 22, 2024

A recurring defect in US foreign policy is a refusal by elites to concede when they made a serious policy mistake.  This is not a new problem, but it has grown decidedly worse in the past few decades.  It characterized the intervention in Vietnam years after it should have become evident that Washington’s approach was failing.

Even one of the few worthwhile lessons from the bruising Vietnam experience proved only to be temporary; The U.S. should not get involved in murky civil wars.  A generation later, the United States had embarked on forceable nation building missions in both the Balkans and the Middle East.  The subsequent interventions in Libya and Syria were even less defensible because Washington already had the Iraq fiasco as fresh evidence that the Vietnam failure was not unique.

One might have thought that the Vietnam experience would have inoculated US policymakers against a repetition in other parts of the world, however, even that benefit appeared to be temporary.  Not even the sacrifice of 58,000 American lives and approximately 1,000,000 Vietnamese lives caused US leaders to reconsider a policy of global interventionism.  Indeed, two decades later the United States was mired in another full-fledged civil war, this time in the Balkans.  Another decade later, US leaders once again attempted to forcibly execute a strategy that created a client both democratic and compliant in Iraq.  Such conduct strongly indicated that US officials might be incapable of learning appropriate foreign policy lessons.  The latest adventure of the U.S. and its NATO allies in Ukraine appears to be less rewarding and even more dangerous than the previous examples.

A new generation of policy makers replicated many of the same mistakes a generation later in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world.  Civilian and military officials in George W. Bush’s administration clung to failing policies even when it became obvious that the strategy being pursued was based on the illusion that Washington’s Iraq clients were winning the struggle.

And once again, the United States and its allies ignored multiple signs early on that the latest interventions would turn out badly.  The portrayal of conditions in Afghanistan, for example, had almost no resemblance of actual battlefield conditions.  Media accounts and congressional testimony bore little resemblance to the actual situation on the ground in that country.  In the real world, Taliban forces made steady advances.  Such spewing of fiction about an ultimate democratic victory continued during the Obama and Trump administrations.  And when Joe Biden’s administration finally withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the withdrawal turned into a fiasco.

Worse, while Biden and his advisors at least belatedly realized that the Afghanistan mission was a failure, they continued indulging in wishful thinking about the prospects for pro-U.S. factions in Ukraine, a much more dangerous setting, risking a direct military conflict with Russia.  Contrary to Washington’s mythology, the Kiev government was not democratic, peace loving, or winning the war.  Weeks into the Ukraine-Russia war, prominent members of the foreign policy establishment insisted that it was just a matter of time until Ukrainian resistance fighters expelled Russian forces from their country.   It took until the autumn of 2023 for major Western figures to admit that the battlefield situation was far less optimistic.  Calls mounted for the Ukrainian government to negotiate the compromise solution to bring the fighting to an end.  Even given the failure of the much-touted offensive in the summer of 2023, the Biden administration did not press Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government to commence serious peace negotiations.

Washington’s foreign policy initiatives in the post-cold war era have been characterized by a series of disappointments and outright failures.  Those failures have had common characteristics.  One is excessive optimism about the prospects for the success of the U.S. proxies, even when conditions on the ground do not warrant optimism.  Officials overestimate pro-U.S. and pro-democracy sentiments; thus U.S. policy goals often are unrealistic.  This lack of realism has led to disappointment after disappointment.

The United States is the most powerful country, militarily, in the world.  But as the refusal of independent powers to heed Washington’s call to impose sanctions on Russia has shown, the United States is not nearly as powerful as it used to be.  Except for long-standing clients, important powers in the world no longer automatically follow Washington’s policy lead.  

Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, is the author of 13 books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs. Dr. Carpenter held various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato institute. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

Washington, Pro-Democracy? Depends on the Country

by Ted Snider Posted onFebruary 19, 2024

Pakistan just held an election; Venezuela is about to. Both incumbent governments have banned the leading opposition figure from competing. The United States sanctioned one and was silent on the other. What was the difference? Not international law or responsible leadership, both of which require a consistent application of laws and a consistent response. The important difference was that the United States supported the incumbent coup government in one case and opposed the incumbent coup survivor in the other.

On January 30, the United States reversed the small and rare diplomatic progress it had made with Venezuela by revoking the sanction relief on gold mining and by promising to revoke the sanction relief on Venezuela’s oil and gas sector at the first opportunity. The State Department cited “Actions by Nicolas Maduro and his representatives in Venezuela, including the arrest of members of the democratic opposition and the barring of candidates from competing in this year’s presidential election” as the reason.

Of central concern to the United States was its choice of an opposition leader to run against Nicolás Maduro, Maria Corina Machado, who recently appeared before a roundtable organized by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs subcommittee. On January 26, Venezuela’s highest court upheld the decision to bar Machado from running for president in the upcoming election.

But Machado was banned for reasons that might be considered reasonable in some democracies. She has a long history of being involved in coups against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. During the failed 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, Machado was a signatory to the Carmona Decree, which suspended democracy, revoked the constitution, and installed a coup president.

As if participation in a coup is not enough to be barred from running for president, Machado was stripped of her position in the National Assembly in 2014 for acting, according to Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History at Pomona College and one of the world’s leading experts on Venezuelan history and politics, as “a delegate of the Panamanian government” who “sought to testify before the Organization of American States.” She sought to testify against her own country.

That same year, Miguel Tinker Salas says, “hoping to precipitate a crisis,” Machado helped organize La Salida, The Exit, to push President Maduro out of power. She “sought to mobilize forces and take to the streets.”

The next year, in 2015, Venezuelan officials produced evidence in support of their claim of a U.S.-backed coup attempt. According to the officials, the day before the planned coup, Machado joined two other opposition leaders in signing a National Transition Agreement. They say weapons were found in the office of the opposition party.

Machado has endorsed economic sanctions on Venezuela and foreign military intervention to remove the government of Venezuela.

Despite this record, the United States reimposed sanctions for barring Machado. The European Parliament went even further, denying that the Venezuelan court has legal grounds and insisting that Machado “remains eligible to run for the elections.” It says “Unless María Corina Machado is allowed to participate in the elections…elections and election results will not be recognised.” The European Parliament then urged EU member states “to tighten existing sanctions” and to add new sanctions on judges of Venezuela’s Supreme Court.

In Pakistan, the story is very different. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has been jailed and banned from running in the presidential election. His party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has been demolished by the Pakistani military, who arrested its senior members.

But the American response to the barring – and even jailing—of, perhaps, the most popular candidate has been very different from their reaction to the barring of Machado in Venezuela. The State Department says that the arrest of Khan “is an internal matter for Pakistan” and that, “The United States is prepared to work with the next Pakistani government, regardless of political party…”

The difference may reflect American position on coups in these countries. Whereas, the United States has supported multiple failed coup attempts to remove the current government in Venezuela and, so, opposes that government; it supported what seems to have been the coup that replaced Khan with the current government.

In April 2022, Khan was removed from office in a non-confidence vote. Khan has claimed that the non-confidence vote was a U.S.-backed coup in democratic disguise. He may not be wrong. A leaked Pakistani cable reveals a meeting between Asad Majeed Khan, then-Pakistani ambassador to the United States, and two State Department officials, one of whom was Donald Lu, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs

Lu begins the meeting by expressing that the United States and Europe “are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position” on the war in Ukraine. He pins responsibility for Pakistan’s neutral defiance of the U.S. on Khan, saying, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” Lu informs the Pakistani ambassador that the trigger for the American concern was “the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow.” On the day Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, Khan was in Moscow, meeting with Putin. He defied the United States by refusing to cancel the meeting.

Lu then advises Pakistan’s ambassador, “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead…[H]onestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”

As the polls closed in the Pakistani election, and the media began reporting stunning victories by independent candidates associated with Khan’s PTI party, the Election commission of Pakistan suddenly paused the announcement of results in remaining constituencies. By the time announcements restarted, PTI candidates who had been leading had suddenly lost.

The candidates associated with the PTI were running as independents because they were neither allowed to campaign under the PTI name nor even be identified by the PTI symbol on ballots, challenging voters’ ability to even identify PTI candidates. TV stations were banned from airing Khan’s speeches. Cell phone and internet services were cut, creating logistical confusion for voters. Voter suppression was widespread.

Despite all the obstacles, PTI candidates forced to run as independents won 102 seats. The second place party, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, came in second with 73 seats. Despite winning the most seats, Khan’s party did not win a majority in the 265 seat National Assembly and will have trouble forming the government.

The U.S. State Department assessed that the election featured “undue restrictions on freedoms of expression…electoral violence…attacks on media workers, and access to the internet and telecommunications services, and…allegations of interference in the electoral process.” Despite that assessment, it declared that it “is prepared to work with the next Pakistani government, regardless of political party.”

Yet again following a foreign policy guided by a rules-based order that only applies the law when it benefits the United States and its allies, instead of a foreign policy guided by international law that applies the same universal standard impartially, the U.S. has confirmed the worst suspicions of a global majority that is losing faith in American leadership. The U.S. sanctions Venezuela for banning a candidate from competing in elections but is willing to work with Pakistan who has done the same. “As consistency starts to be questioned,” S. Jaishankar, India’s Minister of External Affairs has said, “many more nations will start to do their own thinking and planning.”

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

War with China

How Primed for War Is China?

by Dan Lieberman / February 20th, 2024

Don’t want to spoil your weekend, but the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has picked Foreign Policy (FP) magazine’s article, How Primed for War Is China, as a top commentary. AEI states: “The likelihood of war with China may be the single-most important question in international affairs today.

FP knows how to start an article and capture attention ─ start with words that startle the audience.

If China uses military force against Taiwan or another target in the Western Pacific, the result could be war with the United States—a fight between two nuclear-armed giants brawling for hegemony in that region and the wider world. If China attacked amid ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the world would be consumed by interlocking conflicts across Eurasia’s key regions, a global conflagration unlike anything since World War II. How worried should we be?

Not worried about war at all. I am concerned that FP and AEI circulations of fabrications may lead to China deciding it’s had enough of the trashing, cash in its treasury holdings that finance U.S. trade debt (already started), use reserves to purchase huge chunks of United States assets, diminish its hefty agricultural imports from Yankee farms, and enforce its ban of exports of rare earth extraction and separation technologies  (China produces 60 percent of the world’s rare earth materials and processes nearly 90 percent). In short, we should worry that by not cooperating with China, the Red Dragon may decide to no longer bother with Washington’s inanities and use its overwhelming industrial power, with which the U.S. cannot compete, to sink the U.S. economy.

Another question comes to mind. “What will a war with China resemble?”

Will the U.S. military load ships in Los Angeles with soldiers and ship them across the Pacific to land on the shores of China? Things have changed since May 1840, when the British fleet proceeded up the Pearl River estuary to Canton and occupied the city. I doubt another D-day landing will be possible.

Will the U.S. Air Force pound the Chinese mainland into submission? Will a nation, knowing that China will retaliate, permit the U.S. to launch aircraft from its soil? Hardly likely.

Will it be a nuclear war? Mutual mass destructions are not advisable.
Could be a cyber war, but who cares if computers get hurt?

To buttress its rash assumption, FP introduces an assortment of unproven and ambiguous statements, passed off as facts.

Under Chinese President Xi Jinping, Beijing is amassing ships, planes, and missiles as part of the largest military buildup by any country in decades.
China is abetting Russia’s brutalization of Ukraine and massing forces on the Sino-Indian border.
Beijing now outspends every other country in Asia combined.

By FP’s admission, which appears later in the article, it was about time China started building (not massing) its military forces. FP states that with “a pathetic air force and navy prior to the 2000s, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have amounted to a ‘million-man swim.’” China had a weak military and, with Washington rattling the saber, it was wise to strengthen armed might.

Notice that unlike the U.S., which is aiding and abetting in the genocide of the Palestinian people by assisting Israel, FP only accuses China of abetting Russia in brutalization. Score a big one for China. FP is confused. On December 20, 2022, Times (of London) scare headlined: Indian army (not Chinese) masses on Chinese border after soldiers clash. It is possible that Beijing sent 100 soldiers (mass number) to reinforce those who had fought the small skirmish with Indian troops.

The dishonorable manner in which “authoritative” commentators present their arguments bothers me They frame all reporting to suit agendas and satisfy their audiences. It shows in the sentence, “Beijing now outspends every other country in Asia combined,” making it seem that China is doing something unusual and must be doing it for nefarious reasons. The “objective” FT commentators omit significant details of their argument.

• Except for India, China has a population almost equal to all of the Asian nations that need a strong military force.
• China has a GDP almost equal to the GDP of all the Asian nations that need a strong military force. Besides,
• Unlike other Asian nations, China has a GDP that can afford a stronger military force.
• China borders 14 countries and already has had small wars with a few of them — Russia, India, and Vietnam — and friction with others in the area.
• Unlike other Asian nations, China faces constant U.S. threats.

The historical graphs on military buildup describe the “military buildup” differently.
Note: Watch the scales in the left graph, some from the right, others from the left.

• In proportion to GDP, Chinese military expenditures have remained constant.
• In proportion to GDP, Chinese military expenditures are the least of the surveyed nations.
• The U.S. already had a superior fighting force when China started its buildup and the U.S. is still spending three times that of China.

The sentence, “Personalist dictatorships are more than twice as likely to start wars as democracies or autocracies in which power is held in many hands,” intrigued me. Making a controversial statement without backup data is not credible. Apparently, FP does not have a demanding customer base. Nor is the statement true; the United States, the world’s foremost democracy has fought wars almost every year in its existence, and big ones. Two thriving democracies, Great Britain and France have been involved in great wars. Who and where are the personalist dictators involved in wars?

What reasons does China have for going to war? FP cites four factors.

These four factors—insecure borders, a competitive military balance, negative expectations, and dictatorship—help explain China’s historical use of force, and they have ominous implications today.

Insecure borders? Some frictions, but presently well contained. Who is going to war over a bunch of rocks in the ocean and fishing rights? The parties may hurl invectives, throw stones, or use water cannons, like teenagers at beach parties. No cannons with munitions, that’s for sure,

FP claims that because the military balance in Asia has shifted to China that could make Beijing perilously optimistic about the outcome of war. FP does not realize what China realizes ─ it will also suffer losses in a war and its military balance is a defensive strategy.

The negative expectations mean that as “China’s short-term military prospects improve, its long-term strategic and economic outlook is darkening — a combination that has often made revisionist powers more violent in the past.” Nations, revisionist and non-revisionist, and mostly the former, have waged wars during times of severe economic decline — depression, lost markets, depleted resources, and ultra-high unemployment. A “darkening economic outlook” — couched words ─ is far, far from a depression, not unusual for any country and certainly not for China, which has had almost uninterrupted growth for 40 years. Darkening economic growth for China is welcome growth for most nations.

“China turned into a personalist dictatorship (more dubious and couched words) is of the sort especially prone to disastrous miscalculations and costly wars.” A previous paragraph contested this argument. Add to the refutation the observation that several American presidents have declared small wars without permission of Congress and large wars based on false information. Spanish-American War (sinking of the ship, The Maine), Vietnam War (North Vietnam attacked U.S. warships in Tonkin Bay Resolution), and Iraq War (Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) are a few examples.

When in doubt, bring in Taiwan, which FP does.

In short, the United States must wield a credible ability to defend Taiwan and, at the same time, offer a credible pledge that it aims to prevent either side from unilaterally changing the status quo.

My subjective opinion is that if Chinese troops slipped into Taiwan overnight and recaptured the province, the Taiwanese in the countryside would hardly notice. Urban dwellers may sense something different and wouldn’t be bothered — government officials would be Chinese, police would be Chinese, everyone would be speaking Mandarin, all signs and media would be in Mandarin, all foods would be Chinese, Taiwanese would see no change in their TV preferences, and Chinese would fly back and forth between Taiwan and the mainland. One big difference ─ no American military advisors and no signs of Yankee go home.

FP concludes with an inspiring message.

A powerful but troubled China is heading in a bad direction. It will take all the strength and sobriety the United States and its friends can muster to prevent a slide into war.

The sentence begs word changes.

A powerful but troubled America is heading in a bad direction. It will take all the strength and sobriety China and its friends can muster to prevent America from pushing China into war.

The reason the revised sentence has more legs is that capitalist nations have waged wars during times of severe economic decline — depression, lost markets, depleted resources, and ultra-high unemployment — in efforts to regain markets and resources. Unable to overcome the competition, war has previously happened and can happen again.

I have a suspicion that the authors of the article own a factory that produces nuclear bomb shelters. Can anyone confirm?

Wars on Terrorism

United States, Israel, China, and Russia Counter-attack

by Dan Lieberman / February 19th, 2024

Domestic and international terrorism have caused havoc in several nations. Each nation exhibits a unique approach to combatting terrorism; each nation exhibits a unique outcome from its approach. Examining types, causes, approaches, and outcomes of wars on terrorism in four nations — United States, Israel, China, and Russia — discloses successful strategies, self-destructive strategies, and strategies that deceive the public and terrorize others with impunity. The words “terrorist” and “terrorism” are not always allied; terrorist actions are not always due to terrorists.

Depending on perspective, the word “terrorism” ─ the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government ─ can be falsely labeled and falsely applied. Those who exhaust peaceful protests against oppression and provocation lash out at their oppressor and inflict damage on the civilian population that keeps the oppressor in power. Not understanding the origins of terrorism and the reasons it is committed have unfavorably skewed the responses and led to more terrorism.

United States

United States administrations exhibited a strange method for repelling terrorists — let them enter an area, establish themselves, become strong, and commit atrocities, and then attack them — the spider approach. Muhammad Atta and his eighteen partners freely entered the United States, studied how to go up and not come down, and did their dirty deeds.

After facing several terrorist situations during the 1990s, the September 11, 2001 bombings compelled the United States government to wage a War on Terrorism. The U.S. government used one strategy to respond to terrorism ─ brute force.

Twenty-three years after the 9/11 attack the U.S. breathes easier, no terrorism on its mainland, and the major terrorist organizations — al Qaeda and ISIS — decimated. From appearances, the U.S. applied an effective counter-terrorism strategy and contained terrorism. Not quite. U.S. strategy expanded terrorism and moved terrorism into parts of Africa. The reduction in terrorism came mainly from the efforts of other nations.

By blending its battles against terrorism with preservation of American global interests, the U.S. initially expanded terrorism. The battles to overcome terrorism evolved into conflagrations in Afghanistan and Iraq; the former beginning and ending with undefined meaning and the latter having no relation to terrorism.

U.S. assistance to Pakistan intelligence during the Soviet/Afghan war indirectly supplied weapons to Osama bin Laden, financed his activities, and helped create the al-Qaeda network.

U.S. manufacture of terrorists continued during Clinton’s administration. Battles between U.S. and Somali forces weakened Somali leadership. From an imposed anarchy in Somalia, al-Shabaab eventually emerged. In 2023, the militant group continues its violent insurgency in Somalia.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in moving bin Laden from a grim and arduous perch in a rugged and isolated mountain to a comfortable villa in Pakistan, from where he was eventually captured and killed. Other than that accomplishment, the 20-year incursion into Taliban territory accomplished nothing positive — the Taliban returned to power and, thanks to the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy, other terrorist groups operate within its boundaries. In August 2022, the U.S. government located al-Qaeda leader Aimen al-Zawahiri residing in Kabul and killed him in a drone strike.

By invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. extended the battle against terrorism rather than confining it. Except for Ansar al-Islam, a northern radical Islamic group close to the Iran border, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq contained no Al-Qaeda affiliated elements. After the U.S. invasion destroyed the Iraqi armed forces and policing functions, Al Qaeda members moved into Iraq from Pakistan and formed ‘Al-Qaeda in Iraq’ (AQI ).

AQI was responsible for its downfall. Sunni tribes revolted at al-Qaeda’s indiscriminate violence and the “Iraqi surge,” with assistance from U.S. troops, inflicted heavy losses on the al-Qaeda organization. Stability returned to Iraq until the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, emerged from the remnants of AQI, and took advantage of growing resistance to U.S. troops in Iraq and discontent with Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Baghdadi formed a force that captured about a third of Syria and 40 percent of Iraq, including the cities of Raqqa and Mosul.

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Contributed by Sémhur, Flappiefh – Own work from Near East topographic map-blank.svg by Sémhur ; data from the New York Times.

President Barack Obama and his administration share blame for the creation of ISIS, allowing its recruitment throughout the world, not preventing recruits from entering Syria, its rapid capture of territory, and expansion into a caliphate. Former President Donald Trump exaggerated the claim that his administration was the primary force in defeating ISIS. U.S. airpower, which killed too many civilians and was not always welcome, helped; other groups liberated the ISIS dominated areas.

·         Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), mainly composed of Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) militia, backed by U.S. airpower, liberated Raqqa.

·         Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russian airpower, recaptured Aleppo.

·         Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, Sunni Arab tribesmen, and Shia militiamen, assisted by US-led coalition warplanes, drove ISIS from Mosul.

Amnesty international lists 1,600+ civilians dead from the war in Raqqa and between 9,000 to 11,000 civilians killed in the battle for Mosul, mostly from U.S. air attacks. Foreign Policy estimates that “8,000 buildings were destroyed or heavily damaged in Mosul’s Old City. Include other parts of the city where the battle raged and the estimates of buildings damaged or destroyed are as high as 138,000.”

The irony of Trump’s Trumpism is his assassination of a person responsible for ISIS’ defeat, Iranian Major General Qassim Soleimani. The U.S. contributed to ISIS’ initial successes by training an inept Iraqi army that fled Mosul and left the city to a small contingent of ISIS forces that equipped itself with captured weapons. Showing no will and expertise to fight, Iraq’s debilitated military permitted ISIS to rapidly expand and conquer Tikrit and other cities. The disasters energized Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Force (PMF). With cooperation from Iran and leadership from Major General Qassim Soleimani, the PMF recaptured Tikrit and Ramadi, pushed ISIS out of Fallujah, and eventually played a role in ISIS’ defeat at Mosul. Instead of receiving praise for his efforts, Major General Qassim Soleimani, who was never responsible for any terrorist activity, was eliminated as an arch-terrorist. Who committed the terrorism in his death? Israel’s PM, Benjamin Netanyahu dropped out of the joint assassination plan at the last minute and left President Chump holding the bag.

NATO, with the U.S. providing air force and ballistic missile support, played the decisive role in overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi, a leader who constrained Radical Islam and its terrorist activities. Militants from Libya flowed east, through friendly Turkey into Syria and Iraq, and added to ISIS ranks. Weapons captured from Gadhafi’s stockpiles flowed west to equip al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). AQIM led the 2013 attack on a gas facility in southern Algeria; individuals trained in Libya attacked tourists at beaches and museums in Tunisia; and Boko Haram spread havoc throughout northern Nigeria.

Another defect in U.S. strategy ─ Osama bin Laden left no doubt that America’s unqualified support of Israel provided terrorists with a reason to augment its ranks.

During the 1990s, two documents,”Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” and the “Declaration of the World Islamic Front,” retrieved from Osama bin Laden, jihad, and the sources of international terrorism, J. M. B. Porter, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, provide additional information on bin-Laden’s attachment of his terrorist responses to Zionist activities.

[T]he people of Islam have suffered from aggression, iniquity, and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist/Crusader alliance … Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon, are still fresh in our memory.

So now they come to annihilate . . . this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. … if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula

From Pakistan, through Egypt to North Africa and Nigeria, and South to Somalia and Kenya, al-Qaeda, Daish, and a multitude of terrorist organizations perform daily bombings, killings, and insurrections, a result of policies of all U.S. administrations since the “gipper” assumed the presidential office.

Israel

Israelis have been victims of many terrorist attacks; few of these attacks have been performed by terrorists. The great magnitude has been done by Palestinians who had exhausted the means to overcome their oppression. To express their oppression and popularize their cause, they have lashed out at their oppressor and inflicted damage on the civilian population that keeps the oppressor in power. The terrorist actions are mostly revenge attacks due to provocations, succeeding Israeli military and civilian terror attacks on innocent Palestinian civilians.

Depicting Israel as a nation that has suffered excessive terrorism is a mischaracterization. More correct is that by magnitudes more than any nation, not even close, Israel is the major terrorist nation in the world. Look at the record. In almost every country of the world, apartheid Israel has committed terrorist actions.

Begin with the 1948-49 war against the Palestinians. From Wikipedia:

According to several historians, between 10 and 70 massacres occurred during the 1948 war. According to Benny Morris the Yishuv (or later Israeli) soldiers killed roughly 800 Arab civilians and prisoners of war in 24 massacres. Aryeh Yizthaki lists 10 major massacres with more than 50 victims each.

The newly established Israeli government continued its aggression against the Palestinians by terrorizing Palestinian communities, ethnically cleansing 1.1 million Palestinians, and forcing them into displaced persons and refugee camps.

Israel followed the ethnic cleansing by instituting apartheid and continually terrorizing West Bank and Gazan Palestinians with provocative terror attacks.

 

Gaza before Oct. 7-Courtesy of ABC News

Gaza after Oct. 7-Courtesy of Aljazeera

Going beyond its borders, Israel drove the PLO out of Lebanon and used terror attacks on the Lebanese population.

Going worldwide, Israel uses its intelligence service, Mossad, to assassinate foreign scientists, military hardware suppliers, Palestinian activists, and those who harmed Israelis.

Israel displays a dual strategy in the war on terrorism. Building walls to separate Israel from the West Bank and Gaza, restricting travel between Israel and its occupied territories, scrutinizing entry at checkpoints, and cleverly surveilling all Palestinians have prevented terrorism within Israel. Provoking Palestinians into committing terrorist acts and stimulating settlers to make revenge “price tag” attacks against Palestinian communities and the military to wage war against the terrorists is the other side of the coin.

The violence committed against the Palestinians emits a backlash from worldwide supporters of the Palestinians and causes harm to Jews. The backlash is converted into spurious charges of anti-Semitism and used to justify Israel’s actions.

Add it up and Israel is an apartheid country, the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, and planner of the genocide of the Palestinian people, a triple combination that no nation in all history has been able to equal. The Israeli government and its worldwide public relations machine convince the world it is an innocent victim of Hezbollah terrorists, Hamas terrorists, anti-Semites, surviving Nazis, liberal misfits, and disoriented people who cannot get out of the way of bullets and bombs. Western governments pay no heed to the triple play.

Russian Federation

A reported 1,312 terrorist attacks caused 1,179 Russian deaths between 2007 and 2021 and gripped the Russian Federation. After peaking in 2009, attacks and deaths in Russia consistently declined to only one attack and two deaths in 2021. Three of the major attacks happened when Chechen insurgents attacked apartment buildings in Moscow in September 1999, killing 200 people and injuring several hundred; on October 23, 2002, when Chechen insurgents attacked the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow and an estimated 129 people were killed during the rescue operation, and during September 1–3, 2004, when Chechen and Ingush insurgents attacked a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, and held more than 1,100 hostages. A careless rescue operation caused more than 300 deaths, including 186 children.

Terrorism arose from a combination of extremist ethno-nationalist and Islamist militants from North Caucasus’s republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Kabardino-Balkariya. The dual nature of terrorism ─ people seeking more autonomy and extremists seeking more Islam complicated the Kremlin’s strategy to combat terrorism.

In retaliation for Chechnya terrorist attacks in Moscow, Russian troops invaded the Republic of Chechnya, a name whose roll from the lips has an endearing quality. Massive and indiscriminate bombings of cities and villages that caused high civilian casualties, herding of people into camps, extra-judicial killings, torture, and disappearances occurred from both sides and made it difficult to ascertain, who were the ‘good guys’ and who were the ‘bad guys.’ Which side was more guilty of terrorism?

Vladimir Putin registered his name, ruthlessness, pragmatism, and authority by resolving the Chechnya terror crisis. He followed Abraham Lincoln’s pattern of using force and making friends with the enemy. Putin convinced Akhmad Kadyrov, Chief Mufti of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in the 1990s, to switch sides. Kadyrov later became the President of the Chechen Republic. Grozny has been rebuilt and Chechnya exists on multi-billion-dollar subsidies from Moscow.

Grozny

Recognizing that Islamist insurgents in the North Caucasus were loosely allied with al-Qaeda’s network and many traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the Islamic State, the Russian president realized that joining Syria in its civil war against ISIS was a means of preventing the Islamic extremists from extending their reach. Decimating the central authorities of the terrorist campaigns would subdue the morale and incentives of the al-Qaeda “look-alikes” on Russian soil. Without having to use Russian ground troops, and air force pilots not facing challenges in the sky, support of the be-sieged al-Assad regime was a “win-win proposition for Moscow. Putin’s strategy to combat terrorism has been successful — ISIS and al-Qaeda are mostly gone from the Arab lands of the Middle East (still in Syria, Afghanistan, and Africa) and the Russian Federation has had no terrorist attacks in the last two years.

China

A shadowy and shifting group of Uyghur separatists is responsible for terrorism committed against Chinese authorities and citizens. Incomplete statistics from The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China show that “from 1990 to the end of 2016, separatist, terrorist, and extremist forces launched thousands of attacks in Xinjiang, killing large numbers of innocent people and hundreds of police officers, and causing immeasurable damage to property.” From 1990 to 2001 the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which proposes the establishment of a fundamentalist Muslim state, “was responsible for over 200 acts of terrorism, resulting in at least 162 deaths and 440 injuries.”

Two of the reported and more serious terrorist attacks.

On May 22, 2014, five terrorists drove two SUVs through the fence of the morning fair of North Park Road of Saybagh District, Urumqi, into the crowd and detonated a bomb that claimed the lives of 39 and left 94 injured.

On 1 March 2014, a group of 8 knife-wielding terrorists attacked passengers in the Kunming Railway Station in Kunming, Yunnan, China, killing 31 people, and wounding 143 others. The attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers at random.

A more complete description of the terrorist attacks is available in an article by The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China.

As the terrorist attacks rose, Beijing had one strategy ─ ruthlessly seek out the perpetrators. “In the period 2013–2017 police arrested 330,918 in the province, 7.3 percent of total arrests in China. This compares to 81,443 arrests in the previous five years. In March 2019, Chinese officials said that they had arrested more than 13,000 militants in Xinjiang since 2014.”

Realizing their strategy had developed into a “tit-for-tat” operation, where each blow against the terrorist apparatus was countered by a blow against Chinese, the Chinese government changed its strategy. In 2014, China launched the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism in Xinjiang and combined the use of force with initiatives that integrated the Uyghur populations into Chinese society and improved their standard of living. The new strategy has been successful — no reported terror attacks in recent years, the GDP of a stagnant Xinjiang province increased from 963 billion yuan in 2016 to 1,774  billion yuan in 2022, and the unemployment rate decreased from 2.48 percent to 2.04 percent during the same interval.

While Western media accuses China of destroying mosques, the Xinjiang Islamic Association states, “There are some 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang. Many in the region were built in the 1980s and 1990s or earlier, but some of these mud-and-brick structures (ED: the demolished Kargilik’s Grand Mosque was a mud-and-brick structure) or small buildings were not well maintained or repaired. They became unsafe for religious activities and posed a serious threat in the event of an earthquake. The mosques were also inadequately designed, making worship difficult.”

Kashgar’s Id Kah Mosque

Before Renovation

After Renovation

Conclusion

Terrorism’s principal strategy is to inflict pain, pain, and more pain on a civilian population until the civilian population’s government agrees to their demands. Governments may care but always place national interests above that of the local population. The struggle to overcome terrorism has had two principal strategies

(1)    Give ‘em nothing and fight them until the death, and

(2)    Use force to keep terrorism contained and offer benefits that will satisfy some grievances and lower the temperature until the heat becomes normal.

The United States pursued the ‘fight until death’ strategy. After excessive deaths from the ongoing terrorism and civilians caught in the battles, the U.S. appears to have won the war; terrorism in the Middle East has declined to an acceptable level.

Israel has pursued a strategy of “we can outdo all terrorist attacks by being more terrorist than the terrorists.” Pushing the oppressed Palestinians into terrorist attacks enables Israel to respond tenfold to the attack on its populace. Terrorizing opposition in other nations is neatly performed by false charges of anti-Semitism, cyber attacks, and, when necessary, Mossad hitmen.

Russia went from ‘fight until death’ to offering the leaders of domestic terrorism a good bribe and letting them take care of it. Total force was used against international terrorism. Both strategies have been successful.

China departed from brute force to a more conciliatory strategy that recognized the wants of the Uyghurs and devised plans to satisfy the population. Most successful of all of the strategies.

Each nation that confronts terrorism may have unique characteristics that shape the terrorism and the response to it. This investigation shows that Chinese President Xi-Jinping eventually realized the exact nature of the terrorism his country was experiencing and accepted a plan that quickly solved the problem. Russian President Vladimir Putin also was pragmatic and changed his stance as events unfolded. Soon afterward, Russia had no more terrorism.

For Israel, terrorism is part of the daily diet. Israel commits terrorism, Israel invites terrorism, Israel commits terrorism, Invites terrorism, on and on until there will be none.

The United States invited terrorism by helping Pakistan’s intelligence fortify Osama bin Laden, not listening to the al-Qaeda leader’s grievances, and invading Iraq. In 1998, bin Laden demanded the expulsion of all American soldiers from the Arabian Peninsula and voiced objections to a U.S. foreign policy that armed Israel. Did U.S. troops need a base in Saudi Arabia? Why has the U.S. had close ties with the apartheid country, which is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, and planner of the genocide of the Palestinian people? Assuredly, the date 9/11 would just be another day on the calendar if U.S. administrations understood the origins of terrorism and the reasons it is committed.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com. He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.