radiofree.asia

Category: John kirby

  • Their Rules-Based International Order Is the Rule of the Mafia

    Ana Segovia (Mexico), Huapango Torero (‘Huapango Bullfighter’), 2019.

    The skin is the largest organ of the human body. It covers our entire surface, at some points only as thin as a piece of paper and at other points about half as thick as a credit card. The skin, which protects us from all manner of germs and other harmful elements, is fragile and unable to defend humans from the dangerous weapons we have made over time. The ancient blunt axe will break the skin with a heavy blow, while a 2000-pound MK-84 ‘dumb bomb’ made by General Dynamics will not only obliterate the skin, but the entire human body.

    Despite a 24 May order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Israeli military continues to bomb the southern part of Gaza, particularly the city of Rafah. In blatant disregard of the ICJ’s order, on 27 May Israel struck a tent city in Rafah and murdered forty-five civilians. US President Joe Biden said on 9 March that an Israeli attack on Rafah would be his ‘red line’, but – even after this tent massacre – the Biden administration has insisted that no such line has been violated.

    At a press conference on 28 May, communications advisor to the US National Security Agency John Kirby was asked how the US would respond if a strike by the US armed forces killed forty-five civilians and injured two hundred others. Kirby responded: ‘We have conducted airstrikes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where tragically we caused civilian casualties. We did the same thing’. To defend Israel’s latest massacre, Washington has chosen to make a startling admission. Given that the ICJ has ruled that it is ‘plausible’ that Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza, could it be said that the US is guilty of the same in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Ficre Ghebreyesus (Eritrea), Map/Quilt, 1999.

    In 2006, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began to assess the possibility of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then, in 2014 and 2017, respectively, opened formal investigations into crimes committed in both countries. However, neither Israel nor the United States are signatories to the 2002 Rome Statute, which established the ICC. Rather than sign the statute, the US Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act – known informally as the ‘Hague Invasion Act’ – which legally authorises the US government to ‘use all means necessary’ to protect its troops from ICC prosecutors. Since Article 98 of the Rome Statute does not require states to turn over wanted personnel to a third party if they have signed an immunity agreement with that party, the US government has encouraged states to sign ‘Article 98 agreements’ to give its troops immunity from prosecution. Still, this did not deter ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (who held the post from 2012–2021) from studying evidence and issuing a preliminary report in 2016 on war crimes in Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan joined the ICC in 2003, giving the ICC and Bensouda jurisdiction to conduct their investigation. Even though it signed an Article 98 agreement with Afghanistan in 2002, the US government fervently attacked the ICC’s investigation and warned Bensouda and her family that they would face personal repercussions if she continued with the investigation. In April 2019, the US revoked Bensouda’s entry visa. Days later, a panel of ICC judges ruled against Bensouda’s request to proceed with a war crimes investigation in Afghanistan, stating that such an investigation would ‘not serve the interests of justice’.

    Staff at the ICC were dismayed by the court’s decision and eager to challenge it but could not get support from the justices. In June 2019, Bensouda filed a request to appeal the ICC’s decision not to pursue the investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Bensouda’s appeal was joined by various groups from Afghanistan, including the Afghan Victims’ Families Association and the Afghanistan Forensic Science Organisation. In September 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC ruled that the appeal could go forward.

    Dawn Okoro (Nigeria), Doing It, 2017.

    The US government was enraged. On 11 June 2020, US President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13928, which authorised his government to freeze ICC officials’ assets and ban them and their families from entering the United States. In September 2020, the US imposed sanctions on Bensouda, a national of Gambia, and senior ICC diplomat Phakiso Mochochoko, a national of Lesotho. The American Bar Association condemned these sanctions, but they were not revoked.

    The US government eventually repealed the sanctions in April 2021, after Bensouda left her post and was replaced by the British lawyer Karim Khan in February 2021. In September 2021, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan said that while his office would continue to investigate war crimes by the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan, it would ‘deprioritise other aspects of this investigation’. This awkward phrasing simply meant that the ICC would no longer investigate war crimes committed by the United States and its allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The ICC had been sufficiently brought to heel.

    Alexander Nikolaev, also known as Usto Mumin (Soviet Union), Friendship, Love, Eternity, 1928.

    Prosecutor Khan again demonstrated his partial application of justice and fealty to the Global North ruling elites when he rushed into the conflict in Ukraine and began an investigation into war crimes by Russia just four days after its invasion in February 2022. Within a year, Khan would apply for warrants for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, which were issued in March 2023. Specifically, they were charged with colluding to abduct children from Ukrainian orphanages and children’s care homes and take them to Russia, where – it was alleged – these children were ‘given for adoption’. Ukraine, Khan said, ‘is a crime scene’.

    Khan would use no such words when it came to Israel’s murderous assault on Palestinians in Gaza. Even after more than 15,000 Palestinian children had been killed (rather than ‘adopted’ from a war zone), Khan failed to pursue warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his military subordinates. When Khan visited Israel in November–December 2023, he warned about ‘excesses’ but suggested that since ‘Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders’, they could prevent any horrendous violations of international humanitarian law.

    Ayoub Emdadian (Iran), The Sapling of Liberty, 1973.

    By May 2024, the sheer scale of Israel’s brutality in Gaza finally forced the ICC to take up the issue. The orders from the ICJ, the outrage expressed by numerous governments of the Global South, and the cascading protests in country after country together motivated the ICC to act. On 20 May, Khan held a press conference where he said that he filed applications for the arrest of Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his head of military, Yoav Gallant. Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara said that the ICC accusations against Netanyahu and Gallant are ‘baseless’ and that Israel will not comply with any ICC warrant. For decades now, Israel – like the United States – has rejected any attempt to apply international humanitarian law to its actions. The ‘rules-based international order’ has always provided immunity for the United States and its close allies, an immunity whose hypocrisy has increasingly been revealed. It is this double-standard that has provoked the collapse of the US-driven world order.

    Buried within Khan’s press statement is an interesting fragment: ‘I insist that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence the officials of this Court must cease immediately’. Eight days later, on 20 May, The Guardian – in collaboration with other periodicals – published an investigation that revealed Israel’s use of ‘intelligence agencies to surveil, hack, pressure, smear, and allegedly threaten senior ICC staff in an effort to derail the court’s inquiries’. Yossi Cohen, the former head of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, personally harassed and threatened Bensouda (Khan’s predecessor), warning her, ‘You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family’. Furthermore, The Guardian noted that ‘Between 2019 and 2020, the Mossad had been actively seeking compromising information on the prosecutor and took an interest in her family members’. ‘Took an interest’ is a euphemistic way of saying gathered information on her family – including through a sting operation against her husband Philip Bensouda – to blackmail and frighten her. These are clichéd mafia tactics.


    Hamed Abdalla (Egypt), Conscience du sol (‘The Consciousness of the Earth’), 1956.

    As I followed these stories of the blood and law, I read the poems of Chechnya-born Jazra Khaleed, writing in Greek in Athens. His poem ‘Black Lips’ stopped me in my tracks, the last stanzas powerful and bleak:

    Come let me make you human,
    you, Your Honor, who wipe guilt from your beard
    you, esteemed journalist, who tout death
    you, philanthropic lady, who pat children’s heads without bending down
    and you who read this poem, licking your finger—
    To all of you I offer my body for genuflection
    Believe me
    one day you will adore me like Christ

    But I’m sorry for you sir—
    I do not negotiate with chartered accountants of words
    with art critics who eat from my hand
    You may, if you desire, wash my feet
    Don’t take it personally

    Why do I need bullets if there are so many words
    prepared to die for me?

    Which words are slowly dying? Justice, perhaps, or even humanitarianism? So many words are thrown about to assuage the guilty and to confuse the innocent. But these words cannot muffle other words, words that describe horrors and that demand redress.

    Words are important. So are people, such as Gustavo Cortiñas, who was arrested by the Argentinian military dictatorship on 15 April 1977, never to be seen again. He became one of the 30,000 people whom the military killed between 1976 and 1983. On April 30, two weeks after Gustavo was arrested, his mother, Nora Cortiñas (or Norita, as she was lovingly known), joined other mothers of the disappeared to protest in front of the government house Casa Rosada, at the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, the first in what became a regular feature.

    Norita was a co-founder of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, which courageously shattered the wall of misleading words that tumbled out of the mouths of the military Junta. Though her son was never found, Norita found her voice looking for him – a voice that was heard at every protest for justice and spoke with great feeling about the pain in the world until the weeks leading up to her death on 31 May. ‘We say no to the annexation of Palestine’, she said in a video message in 2020. ‘We oppose any measure that tends to erase the identity and existence of the Palestinian people’.

    Norita leaves us with her precious words:

    Many years from now, I would like to be remembered as a woman who gave her all so that we could have a more dignified life… I would like to be remembered with that cry that I always say and that means everything I feel inside me, that means the hope that someday that other possible world will exist. A world for everyone. So, I would like to be remembered with a smile and for shouting loudly: venceremos, venceremos, venceremos! We will win, we will win, we will win!

  • See also “What is the Rules-Based Order?“
    • The post Their Rules-Based International Order Is the Rule of the Mafia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Distinctions Without Difference: The Security Council on Gaza Passes

    The UN Security Council presents one of the great contradictions of power in the international system. On the one hand vested with enormous latitude in order to preserve international peace and security, it remains checked, limited and, it can be argued, crippled by an all too regular use of the veto by members of the permanent five powers (US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France).

    When it comes to the bleeding and crushing of human life in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces (32,300 dead Palestinians and rising), resolutions demanding a cease fire of a conflict that began with the attack on Israeli soil by Hamas militants have tended to pass into voting oblivion.  The United States, Israel’s great power patron and defender, has been consistent in using its veto power to ensure it, exercising it on no less than three occasions since October 7.

    On March 25, a change of heart was registered.  Washington, reputationally battered for its unconditional support for Israel, haughtily defied by its own ally in being reduced to airdrops of aid for the expiring residents of Gaza, and resoundingly ignored by the Netanyahu government in moderating the savagery of its operations in the strip, abstained.  In terms of resolution protocol, it meant that 14 out of 15 Council members favoured the vote.

    Resolution 2728 calls for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable” halt to hostilities, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, “ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs” and “demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”.  The resolution further emphasises “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip”.  All barriers regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law” are also to be lifted.

    The wording of the resolution has a degree of lexical ambiguity only tolerable to oily diplomats and paper mad bureaucrats.  Neither Hamas nor Israeli hostages are mentioned, ghosts unacknowledged at the chattering feast.  Does the latter, for instance, cover Palestinian prisoners?

    The justification from the US delegation was uneven and skewed. The abstention, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken explained, “reaffirms the US position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza.”  While some provisions of the text had caused disagreement in Washington, the sponsors of the resolution had made sufficient changes “consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with the release of the hostages.”

    Mild mannered approval for this sloppy, weak position (the apologetics of abstentions are rarely principled, suggesting a lack of moral timbre) followed. Hadar Susskind, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, even praised the stance in Newsweek.  “By allowing the resolution to pass the US has staked out a position in favor of ending this horrible war, and in opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s prioritization of his political well-being over the current and future good of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

    For his part, Netanyahu cancelled a planned Washington visit of two of his ministers, Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi, to specifically discuss the impending attack on Rafah, though much of this is bound to be studiously ceremonial, given the language of inevitability associated with the planned operation.  Besides, neither are versed in anything related to military matters.  But just as one pays attention to a wealthy, doddering relative who keeps funding your bad habits in the hope that you might, one day, see sense, it pays to feign courtesy and interest from time to time to your benefactor.

    As if to prove this point, John F. Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, reminded journalists that various other meetings would still be taking place between the US and Israel, notably those between President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, and with Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

    In a gruff statement, the Israeli PM rebuked the abstention as “a retreat from the consistent American position since the beginning of the war”.  In taking that stance, Washington had given “Hamas hope that international pressure will enable them to achieve a cease-fire without freeing the hostages.”

    Netanyahu’s approach to Hamas, Gaza and the Palestinians has become one with his obsession with political survival and rekindling the fires of the Israeli electorate.  As far back as December, a Likud official was already making the observation that the PM had adopted the posture of a vote getting electioneer even as the war was being prosecuted.  “Netanyahu is in full campaign mode.  While the external political threats are gradually increasing, Netanyahu knows that over time the attacks and the calls to remove him will also increase.  He has been acting first to win back his base.”

    For the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, the resolution had to be implemented.  “Failure would be unforgivable.”  But failure to do so, certainly in the context of the planned assault on Rafah so solemnly denounced by the international community, is most likely.

    The post Distinctions Without Difference: The Security Council on Gaza Passes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Coalition of “Grassroots Diplomats” Take the Lead on International Solidarity with South Africa in the Absence of Diplomacy and Accountability from U.S. Officials


    Peace activists across the country have embarked on a campaign to mobilize global support for South Africa’s charge of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The campaign, spearheaded by CODEPINK, World Beyond War, and RootsAction, aims to rally nations to submit a “Declaration of Intervention” supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ. The focus is on holding Israel accountable for alleged genocide in Gaza and putting an end to the tragic suffering of an imprisoned population. Delegations from major cities engaged with U.N. missions, embassies, and consulates worldwide, urging countries to invoke the Genocide Convention at the United Nations’ judicial arm.

    The campaign started two weeks ago with an open call for people to join in a petition and letter-writing campaign urging countries to invoke the genocide convention and charge Israel with genocide in the International Court of Justice. Since then, over 30,000 people signed the petition, accompanied by an impressive 118,290 letters sent to various countries urging support of the cause.

    The nationwide delegations of “grassroots diplomats” took on this campaign because officially appointed U.S. diplomats continue to insist on supporting Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, rejecting the sentiments of a majority of people in the U.S. and around the world who want a ceasefire and an end to the slaughter.

    White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby calls South Africa’s 84-page suit accusing Israel of genocide “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.” Notably, the United States supported Ukraine invoking the Genocide Convention last year in the International Court of Justice with far less evidence.

    In the first week of January, delegations of grassroots diplomats embarked on a petition and letter delivery campaign across the United States, urging missions, consulates, and embassies to support South Africa’s legal action against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the U.N. Convention on Genocide. While the visits and deliveries varied from city to city, the overall reception by staff and representatives in each U.N. Mission, Embassy, and Consulate was encouraging and supportive, with some delegations able to meet directly with country representatives.

    The NYC delegation visited around 30 U.N. missions, engaging in significant diplomatic efforts. They had a positive meeting with Colombia’s U.N. Ambassador, Arlene Tickner, exploring the potential for a Declaration of Intervention to support South Africa’s legal action. Another meeting took place with the Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the U.N. At the Bolivia Mission, the delegation received a warm reception, providing a letter and petition. A productive meeting occurred with the Bangladesh U.N. Consul, who expressed interest in connecting with legal experts. The NYC team met African Union diplomats who offered support and suggested additional efforts for South Africa. A meeting at the South Africa Mission involved discussions with the counselor and Deputy Permanent Representative. The delegation expressed their gratitude and support to the South African government. The South African representative acknowledged and appreciated the delegation’s work in their peace work.

    The D.C. team engaged in diplomatic efforts, meeting with the Deputy Minister at the Colombian Embassy to encourage the Colombian government’s continued stance against Israeli actions and to join South Africa’s case. They visited and submitted their petition to the Ghanaian, Chilean, and Ethiopian Embassies, urging support for South Africa’s case against Israel. The team also had discussions with the Bolivian Embassy. Currently, they are arranging a meeting with the Turkish ambassador to further their diplomatic initiatives.

    Three delegations from Miami divided their efforts to visit ten consulates, including those of Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, France, Honduras, Ireland, Spain, and Turkey. The delegations had the opportunity to meet with consular generals from Bolivia, Honduras, and Turkey, all notably welcoming and receptive. In addition, the Miami team reached out to the Turkish ambassador in Washington, D.C., further extending their diplomatic efforts. The Türkiye Consulate in Miami emphasized the visit on their social media platform, underscoring the significance of the engagement.

    The Tampa team focused on a single visit to the Greek Consulate, accompanied by a representative from CAIR Florida, based in Tampa. CAIR is a nationwide federation of legally independent chapters dedicated to safeguarding the civil liberties of Americans. The Greek Consulate warmly received the delegation, expressing appreciation for a gift of olive oil. Furthermore, they assured the team they would forward the petition and letter to the Embassy of Greece in Washington, D.C., indicating a positive reception and willingness to address the delegation’s concerns.

    Orlando engaged with five consulates representing Mexico, Italy, Brazil, Haiti, and Colombia. The meeting at the Haitian Consulate was mainly positive, with a productive discussion with an Assistant Consul urging support for South Africa’s case against Israel. Similarly, the delegation met with the Vice Consular of Colombia, delivered a petition, and urged their support for South Africa’s case against Israel, indicating a proactive approach in advancing their diplomatic efforts.

    In Houston, the delegation reported successful engagements during their visits. They met with the Consulate of Belize staff and spoke with Consulate General Francisco Leal of Chile. The Honduran consulate staff extended kindness during their visit. The delegations also visited the Pakistan consulate as part of their diplomatic efforts.

    The San Francisco delegation visited three consulates – Chile, Brazil, and Colombia. They engaged with the staff at the Chilean and Brazilian consulates, delivering the petition and letter at the Colombian Consulate, situated in the same building as the Israeli Consulate. Security at the building instructed the delegation to wait outside for a representative. However, the doors were subsequently locked, preventing entry. In response, the delegation affixed the petition and letter to the building’s door to convey their message.

    The delegation in Los Angeles visited nine foreign consulates in the city, including Belize, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, and Kuwait. The delegation expressed gratitude to the staff at the South African Consulate for South Africa’s filing in the ICJ that charges Israel with genocide. As a goodwill gesture, the activists brought flowers, a simple yet well-received token of peace and unity. They also had an encouraging meeting with Bolivian Consulate Gabriella Silva, who supported the delegation’s effort.

    Delegations from Detroit, Chicago, Boston, and San Antonio also made visits to their local Consulates. Prior to deliveries, Turkey, Malaysia, and Slovakia publicly came out in support of South Africa’s filing. Since then, Jordan announced that they will file a “Declaration of Intervention” supporting South Africa’s case.

    This grassroots diplomatic effort represents a unified plea for justice, demanding global solidarity against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The tireless advocacy seeks to bridge nations in support of South Africa’s pursuit of justice in the International Court of Justice.

    Deliveries will continue into the first of next week with the hopes of engaging with as many missions, consulates, and embassies as possible before the start of the ICJ hearing on Jan. 11.

    The oral argument of South Africa will take place on Thursday 11th January 2024 and Israel’s oral argument on Friday 12th January 2024. The hearings will be streamed live and on demand on the ICJ’s Website and on the UN Web TV.

    The oral argument of South Africa will take place on Thursday 11th January 2024 and Israel’s oral argument on Friday 12th January 2024. The hearings will be streamed live and on demand on the ICJ’s Website and on the UN Web TV.

    The post Coalition of “Grassroots Diplomats” Take the Lead on International Solidarity with South Africa in the Absence of Diplomacy and Accountability from U.S. Officials first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Why Has WSJ Become a “Professional Rumormonger” against China?

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    On June 8, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an “exclusive report” citing anonymous US officials, stating that China agreed to pay cash-strapped Cuba several billion dollars to allow it to build an eavesdropping station. To understand what this news means to Washington, which has become so sensitive about China-related issues, we can refer to the “Chinese made cranes,” “corn factories,” and “balloon incident” that the US hyped up earlier this year. The nature of these events is somewhat similar, though the severity cannot be compared with the “Cuban eavesdropping station,” but they have all caused a stir in the US.

    Cuba is only about 160 kilometers from Florida. If China really builds surveillance facilities there, will Washington’s politicians still be able to sleep? The WSJ called it “a brash new geopolitical challenge by Beijing to the US,” which immediately reminded people of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War – the Cuban missile crisis. Other US media outlets quickly followed suit, and the members of Congress who have made being anti-China their political careers also took action. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a joint statement solemnly stating that building a spy base will pose a “serious threat to our national security and sovereignty.” As a result, the tension suddenly increased, and these people obviously wanted to escalate the situation.

    John Kirby, spokesperson for the US National Security Council, said before the WSJ article was published that he couldn’t comment on the details of the report, but stated that the US was monitoring the situation and taking steps. After the article was published, Kirby clearly stated that “this report is not accurate,” so there were obvious contradictions. The Pentagon also said that the media reports are “not accurate.” To be honest, the denials by the White House and the Pentagon were somewhat surprising. It may be that the quality of the WSJ’s information is so poor that officials cannot publicly endorse it. Cuba stated that the article was “totally mendacious and unfounded information,” and China pointed out that “spreading rumors and slander” is a common tactic of “hacker empire” the US.

    The WSJ is a habitual and repeat offender when it comes to spreading rumors about China. Not long ago, it created a major international rumor by saying that China proposed recognizing the “occupied territories of Ukraine as part of Russia.” Because it was so absurd, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba immediately refuted the claim and clarified it. There are many such examples. However, not only does the WSJ not take responsibility or pay the price for these false accusations, it instead thrives in stirring American public opinion and goes further down the road of spreading rumors. It is hard to believe that there was no US official tolerance, encouragement, or feeding of these rumors. People suspect that this is a case of one person playing the good guy and the other playing the bad guy. In fact, rumors have become a handy tool and weapon for the US to contain and suppress China, and they are very cheap.

    These rumors and hype often appeared at a moment when a turning point in China-US relations seems imminent. Just as the US media revealed that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken might visit China in the next week or two, the WSJ’s rumors came out, as was the case with the “balloon incident” in February. This once again made people realize that there is a force, a black hand, secretly causing damage to bilateral relations and pushing the two countries toward confrontation. When the US government uses rumors, rumors in turn also manipulate and influence the US government. The reason why the White House and the Pentagon refuted the story this time may be because they are afraid that if the rumors are allowed to ferment, they will lose control and become passive. However, the US government’s ability to control this dark political force is becoming weaker and weaker.

    From this incident, it can also be seen how difficult it is to bring the US back to a normal and rational state of understanding toward China. In fact, the US has been carrying out activities such as global surveillance, building military bases near China’s territory, and conducting close reconnaissance along China’s coast in recent years. After the false news that “China is building an eavesdropping station in Cuba” came out, some American scholars even said that China is prepared to do the same in America. This is very ironic. If those lawmakers who get nervous and lose sleep at any sign of “China wanting to cause trouble near the US” can show a little empathy and think about how the US’ actions would make Chinese people feel, China-US relations would not have reached the current difficult situation.

    The US has repeatedly expressed its hope of avoiding conflict and confrontation with China, but if something goes wrong internally every time there is a sign of an easing in bilateral relations, then this has become a major uncertainty that China-US relations face, and it is also a huge risk that the US cannot avoid. The WSJ has become a professional rumormonger against China, which is not only a media outlet degrading itself, but also a footnote to the pathological environment in Washington.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Officials Really, REALLY Want You To Know The US Is The World’s “Leader”

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    In response to questions he received during a press conference on Monday about Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin cementing a “new era” in strategic partnership between China and Russia, the White House National Security Council’s John Kirby made no fewer than seven assertions that the US is the “leader” of the world.

    Here are excerpts from his comments:

    • “The two countries have grown closer. But they are both countries that chafe and bristle at U.S. leadership around the world.”
    • “And in China’s case in particular, they certainly would like to challenge U.S. leadership around the world.“
    • “But these are not two countries that have, you know, decades-long experience working together and full trust and confidence. It’s a burgeoning of late based on America’s increasing leadership around the world and trying to check that.”
    • “Peter, these are two countries that have long chafed, as I said to Jeff — long chafed at U.S. leadership around the world and the network of alliances and partnerships that we have.”
    • “And we work on those relationships one at a time, because every country on the continent is different, has different needs and different expectations of American leadership.”
    • “That’s the power of American convening leadership. And you don’t see that power out of either Russia or China.”
    • “But one of the reasons why you’re seeing that tightening relationship is because they recognize that they don’t have that strong foundation of international support for what they’re trying to do, which is basically challenge American leadership around the world.”
    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    John Kirby really wants everyone to know that America is in charge of the world. This is from one single press conference. pic.twitter.com/HeE9uGEwrW

    — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) March 21, 2023

    The illusory truth effect is a cognitive bias which causes people to mistake something they have heard many times for an established fact, because the way the human brain receives and interprets information tends to draw little or no distinction between repetition and truth. Propagandists and empire managers often take advantage of this glitch in our wetware, which is what’s happening when you see them repeating key phrases over and over again that they want people to believe.

    We saw another repetition of this line recently at an online conference hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce, in which the US ambassador to China asserted that Beijing must accept the US as the “leader” of the region China happens to occupy.

    US empire managers are of course getting very assertive about the narrative that they are the world’s “leader” because that self-appointed “leadership” is being challenged by China, and the nations which support it with increasing openness like Russia. Most of the major international news stories of our day are either directly or indirectly related to this dynamic, wherein the US is struggling to secure unipolar planetary domination by thwarting China’s rise and undermining its partners.

    The message they’re putting out is, “This is our world. We’re in charge. Anyone who claims otherwise is freakish and abnormal, and must be opposed.”

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    US Ambassador To China: "We're The Leader" Of The Indo-Pacific

    The way US empire managers talk about "leading" ostensibly sovereign states with ostensibly independent governments shows you they really do think they own the world.https://t.co/obSehF6xZ1

    — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) March 2, 2023

    Why do they say the US is the “leader” of the world instead of its “ruler”, anyway? I’m unclear on the difference as practically applied. Is it meant to give us the impression that the US rules the world by democratic vote? That this is something the rest of the world consented to? Because I sure as hell don’t remember voting for it, and we’ve all seen what happens to governments which don’t comply with US “leadership”.

    I’m not one of those who believe a multipolar world will be a wonderful thing, I just recognize that it beats the hell out of the alternative, that being increasingly reckless nuclear brinkmanship to maintain global control. The US has been in charge long enough to make it clear that the world order it dominates can only be maintained by nonstop violence and aggression, with more and more of that violence and aggression being directed toward major nuclear-armed powers. The facts are in and the case is closed: US unipolar hegemony is unsustainable.

    The problem is that the US empire itself does not know this. This horrifying trajectory we’re on toward an Atomic Age world war is the result of the empire’s doctrine that it must maintain unipolar control at all costs crashing into the rise of a multipolar world order.

    It doesn’t need to be this way. There’s no valid reason why the US needs to remain in charge of the world and can’t just let different people in different regions sort out their own affairs like they always did before. There’s no valid reason why governments need to be brandishing armageddon weapons at each other instead of collaborating peacefully in the interest of all humankind. We’re being pushed toward disaster to preserve “American leadership around the world,” and I for one do not consent to this.

    ______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon, Paypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Energy Wars: Outing the Nord Stream Saboteurs

    When news first emerged over explosions endured by the Nord Stream pipelines, known collectively as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, an army of guessers was mobilised. The accusation that Russia had done it seemed counterintuitive, given that the Russian state company Gazprom is a majority shareholder of Nord Stream 1 and sole owner of Nord Stream 2. But this less than convenient fact did not discourage those from the Moscow-is-behind everything School of Thinking. “It’s pretty predictable and predictably stupid to express such versions,” snarled Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.

    The first reports noted three leaks in both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipeline systems. A fourth was subsequently revealed. Then came news that the first explosion had taken place in a Russian built section of the pipeline. Der Spiegel summed up the various questions. Was Moscow behind it? Or the United States, which had always been implacably opposed to the project? And what of Ukraine or perhaps “rogue” agents? For those wishing for a more savoury sauce, there was babbling that Mossad might have been behind it.

    Statements were issued in number, some more equivocal than others in attributing blame. The Council of the European Union, in promising a “robust and united response” to the incidents, declared that “all available information indicates those leaks are the result of a deliberate act.”

    Gerhard Schindler, former chief of the German Federal Intelligence Service, insisted that the damage, sustained at depths of 80 metres in the Baltic Sea, required “sophisticated technical and organisational capabilities that clearly point to a state actor.” Russia, he continued, was the only power that could be seriously considered “especially since it stands to gain most from this act of sabotage.”

    In the black and white world of most Ukrainian officials, the damage had to have been inflicted by Moscow. An advisor to the Ukrainian president, Mykhailo Polodyak, called the incident “a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards [the EU].”

    In this bluster and bombast, it was striking to note the absence of any alternatives. Over the course of last summer, Washington had issued a pointed warning to several of its European allies that the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines would be the subject of threat, even potential attack. The nature of such warnings, based on US intelligence assessments, was vague. The hostility of the Biden administration was not.

    In the scheme of things, the outing of the US role in this affair by the establishment’s tolerated contrarian is unsurprising and far from stunning. According to Seymour Hersh, the culprits were well trained deep-water divers who had gone through the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center. Under the cover of a NATO exercise named BALTOPS 22, the divers planted devices that would be remotely triggered three months later.

    The claims made in the article were coolly dismissed by various officials. White House spokesperson Adrienne Watson responded with a swat. “This is false and complete fiction.” Ditto the waspish spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, Tammy Thorp: “This claim is completely and utterly false.” For his part, Biden accused Russia for “pumping out disinformation and lies”.

    But as Hersh writes, the decision to sabotage the pipelines had few opponents in Washington’s national security community. Weaning Europe off its dependence on Russian energy supplies has been a goal near and dear to US policy makers. The issue lay in how best to execute the action without clear attribution.

    To keep the cloak of secrecy firmly fastened, resort was made to US Navy divers rather than units from the Special Operations Command. In the case of the latter, covert operations must be reported to Congress. The Gang of Eight, comprising the US Senate and House leadership, must also be briefed. No such protocols exist in the context of the Navy.

    Even now the denials continue. On February 19, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby flatly rejected the suggestion that the United States was behind the explosions. “It’s a completely false story. There is no truth to it, Shannon,” he told the host Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday. “Not a shred of it. It is not true. The United States, and no proxies of the United States, had anything to do with that, nothing.”

    When pressed by Bream on whether there was an obligation to inform Congress of such an operation, Kirby replied that “we keep Congress informed appropriately of things both classified and unclassified. But I can tell you now, regardless of the notification process, there was no US involvement in this.”

    The European Commission’s Press Officer Andrea Masini has opted for the line that revelations from an investigative reporter are less trustworthy than official investigations. “We do not comment on speculations about the perpetrators of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines. The only basis for any possible response can be the outcome of an official investigation. Such investigations are the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.”

    Hersh’s revelations, drawn from a source with intimate knowledge of the sabotage operations, and the brimming hostility Washington has shown towards cheap Russian natural gas and its nexus with the European energy market, seem far from speculative. The plotters have been outed, and what an inglorious bunch they look.

    The post Energy Wars: Outing the Nord Stream Saboteurs first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Pentagon Confirms It Shot Down ‘Object’ 40,000 Feet Over Alaska

    This is a developing story. Please check back for possible updates…

    The Pentagon on Friday confirmed that the U.S. military shot down an unidentified “object” tens of thousands of feet over Alaska, less than a week after an F-22 fighter jet downed a Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic.

    John Kirby, the coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council, briefed members of the press on the incident, which he said involved a much smaller object than the spy balloon.

    The object was flying at about 40,000 feet and was determined to pose a “reasonable threat” to the safety of civilian aircraft.

    “We’re calling this an object because that’s the best description we have right now,” Kirby told one reporter who asked whether it should be described as an aircraft, air ship, or balloon.

    He added that it was “roughly the size of a small car.” The balloon that was shot down last Saturday was about the size of three school buses, according to officials.

    Fighter pilots who observed the object over Alaska on Friday before shooting it down determined that it was not manned, according to the Pentagon. The object reportedly crashed into waters off the Alaska coast that are currently frozen, and Kirby said authorities have not yet determined whether it’s owned by a government, corporation, or private owner.

    He added that the White House expects to be able to recover the downed material so it can determine who owns the object and whether it held surveillance equipment or weaponry.

    Last week’s incident alarmed some peace advocates after Republicans claimed the Chinese balloon posed a security threat to the U.S. and “American sovereignty,” as House China Select Committee Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) said.

    China denounced the Pentagon’s decision to shoot down the balloon as “excessive” and said it violated “international convention.”