Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

How the Little Red Book created a cult ‘of socialism’ and not ‘of Mao’ (4/8)


April 17, 2019
by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog
How the Little Red Book created a cult ‘of socialism’ and not ‘of Mao’ (4/8)
What is Mao’s Little Red Book, first published in 1964 at the start of the Cultural Revolution? In 2019, I think we have to look at it in three ways:
The Little Red Book was a work of journalism. This means it sought to impart knowledge which was specific to its exact time, and as a response to the needs of its particular moment. Were you to read a report of mine from 2009, of course it would not be considered as relevant, hip and accurate were it to be directly applied to the situation in 2019… but that doesn’t mean it didn’t hit the nail on the head the day it was published. Mao’s Little Red Book served an immediate need for immediate decision-making, much like journalism does.
Secondly, the Little Red Book was essentially of code of conduct. It was aimed at workers in the government and preached an ascetic program of socialist officialdom. I.e., it was moral instruction for civil servants, telling government workers to be good workers.
Thirdly – and this is the source of the Little Red Book’s greatest social impact during the CR and the reason it is immortal – it was able to be used as a very real weapon of democratic empowerment for China’s lowest classes against bad civil servants.
This series examines The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village by Dongping Han, who was raised and educated in rural Jimo County, China, and is now a university professor in the US. Han interviewed hundreds of rebel leaders, farmers, officials and locals, and accessed official local data to provide an exhaustive analysis of seeming unparalled objectivity and focus regarding the Cultural Revolution (CR) in China. Han was kind enough to write the forward to my brand-new book, Ill Ruin Everything you Are: Ending Western Propaganda in Red China. I hope you can buy a copy for yourself and your 300 closest friends.
Han does something which Westerners never do without total derision, total ignorance of its contents, and a general disinterest in the aims of socialism to begin with: he fairly discusses the impact of Mao’s Little Red Book. Han writes with his characteristic modesty and refusal to exaggerate:
“Fundamentally speaking, yang banxi (the model Beijing operas) and Mao’s quotations served important social functions. They promoted a democratic, modern political culture and established a highly demanding, though loosely worded, code of official conduct. They called on Communist Party members to accept hardship first and enjoyment later. They required government officials to think about the livelihood of the masses. They denounced high-handed oppressive behavior and promoted subtle persuasion in dealing with difficult persons. … They set up good examples for the officials to emulate, and, more importantly, they provided the ordinary people with a measuring stick of good official conduct.”
Providing a new measuring stick – is that not what Revolutions are all about?
“To the outside world and to the educated elite, songs based on Mao’s quotations and yang banxi constitute a personality cult carried to the extreme. But in a way this cult served to empower ordinary Chinese people. Ordinary villagers used Mao’s words to promote their own interests. What some outside observers don’t realize is that Mao’s works had become a de facto constitution for rural people. More importantly, this de facto constitution became an effective political weapon for ordinary villagers.”
There is no doubt that longtime China analysts in the West are flummoxed by such a positive, democratic analysis.
Just like journalism, we can only judge the true worth of the Little Red Book by accepting the judgment of the local masses. It’s easy to imagine that non-Chinese, especially properly educated ones, may view the Little Red Book as unnecessary instruction… but this was decidedly not the case in 1964 China for the average person. When “ability to increase the empowerment of the average person” becomes our measuring stick, then our assessment must change…but for this type of focus – which is egalitarian and communal, as opposed to individualistic – we need people like Han and not Harvard professors.
“Scholarly critics of the Cultural Revolution dismiss the study of Mao’s works as blind submission to Mao’s words as the final authority. That is very true. It is true that few people in China ever, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, subjected Mao’s work to any theoretical scrutiny, which is sad indeed. However, critics sometimes forget the social context of Chinese society in the mid-1960s, and the most urgent needs of ordinary people at that time. For the illiterate and powerless villagers, it was not the business of the day to subject Mao’s works to theoretical scrutiny, but to use Mao’s words as a weapon to empower themselves against official abuses and to overcome their traditional submissive culture.”
Again, Mao’s Little Red Book is a superb piece of urgently-needed journalism which created a code of conduct that people from the disempowered classes could immediately use as a democratic weapon.
What are we supposed to do with such an analysis of Mao’s Little Red Book? Are we to tell Professor Han – with all his research, personal background, knowledge and ability to provide context – that his point of view is less informed and intelligent than that of Western journalists and academics? This is why Han’s book is revolutionary: those who read it can either accept it and change their “measuring stick” of the CR, the Little Red Book and many other things Chinese socialist… or they can be fairly denounced as reactionaries who believe that upholding illogical but traditional thought – which only supports an obviously unequal status quo – is more important than the use of honesty, reason and moral fairness.
Han, not being a journalist as I am, is not at all prone to such indignant accusations, LOL.
Mao’s problem is that he was both a genius politician and a genius thinker. His double genius, and his incredible ineffectiveness at his chosen tasks, have inspired such awe and loyalty that the popularity of the Little Red Book is assumed in the West to be solely a product of a “cult of personality” for Mao instead of its amazing democratic utility.
I have never heard of a “cult of personality” applied to a Westerner. I’d like to discuss this with you sometime in France – we can go to the tiniest of villages and meet at Place du Charles de Gaulle, which is at the intersection of Avenue Charles de Gaulle and Rue Charles de Gaulle, and catty-corner from Allée Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle, I note, did not even produce an equivalent of the Little Red Book, and thank God for that – it would surely have been based merely around the grandeur of France, i.e. petty nationalism.
The ideas, beliefs and sayings of Mao compiled in the Little Red Book were obviously so dear and so accepted by the Chinese people that the Book’s popularity became proof of brainwashing to anti-socialists. However, to socialists the Book was obviously something much more: it was a necessary tool of empowerment.
Dismissing the Little Red Book shows that one either hasn’t read it, or is a loud-mouthed reactionary
For Han, schoolchildren using the Little Red Book to teach political empowerment to their illiterate parents is not the source of amusement, nor is it trivial, nor is it authoritarianism-cloaked-in-leftism – it is real leftism in action, and incredibly suited for its time and place. We can debate its academic/theoretical quality regarding socialist political theory, but Han relates how it was a superb tool of democracy against bad governance.
“I would argue that one reason why ordinary villagers made such an effort to study Mao’s works and why they could recite Mao’s quotations and other lengthy works at that time is because they gained power by doing so.”
That certainly seems logical: a low-level Party official might commit the Little Red Book to superficial memory, but why would an “ordinary villager” take the time out of their busy farming day to do so? This is a question which will endlessly flummox Westerners, and to the point where they resort to the most absurd fear-mongering: “Oh, they must have feared the gulag if they didn’t learn it.”
During the public forums for which the CR is known for, imagine a corrupt cadre being confronted publicly with Mao’s injunctions, such as:
However active the leading group may be, its activity will amount to fruitless effort by a handful of people unless combined with the activity of the masses. (Page 251)
This surely was used by Chinese peasants to compel Party cadres to include the democratic will when creating local policy, but to make cadres work in the fields (and that truly happened during the CR decade, and en masse).
If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and monsters were allowed to crawl out – while our cadres were to shut their eyes to this and in many cases fail to even differentiate between the enemy and ourselves… the Marxist-Leninst Party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist party and the whole of China would change its color. (Page 79)
These are honestly the two first passages I randomly turned to in my copy of the Little Red Book. Why are they so good? Because The Little Red Book is a “Greatest Hits of Mao Zedong” – it’s the best thoughts from his speeches, writings and interviews from over decades. I truly just turned at random again, and this is something de Gaulle would have hated (I knew it’d be easy to write this article):
“But we must be modest – not only now, but 45 years hence as well. (I.e., the year 2001, as this was written in 1956.)We should always be modest. In our international relations we Chinese people should get off great-power chauvinism resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely.”
Fake-leftists condemn Mao as a tyrant, yet his words were beloved by the masses because they were so empowering, clear-hearted and universal. It should be clear that his works were not memorized in a rote form as a way to pass a civil service test – they were learned by heart because they were so very intelligent yet so applicable. The reality is that during the CR decade old Chinese peasants who had just learned to read were waving the Little Red Book in the faces of shamefaced, younger Party cadres.
Han provides us fascinating, accurate, local insight into the impact, need for and democratically empowering motivations behind the Little Red Book. We should be able to see why the Cultural Revolution would not have spread far and wide within China without it.
The reality is that Chinese peasants in 1965 were leap years ahead of Westerners, from a mental-political perspective – that’s what 16 years of socialism will do for somebody:
“To many Western scholars, Mao’s Cultural Revolution-era messages were extremely ambiguous. Andrew Walder, for instance, has written: ‘It takes an extraordinary amount of energy and imagination to figure out precisely what Mao really meant by such ideas as ‘the restoration of capitalism’ or ‘newly arisen bourgeoisie.’ However, to Chinese people, even to the illiterate villagers, these terms were not so hard to grasp. Due to China’s leap ahead in political modernity, and some subsequent obstacles, capitalism’s restoration meant incomplete land reform for farmers, and the new bourgeoisie were the Party leaders who acted very much like the old landlords.”
Such sentences from Walder-types are constant when reading Anglophones discuss socialism: they adore to subtly but clearly express their belief that – at its base – socialism is just a childish fantasy, without any grounding in logic or reality.
These cynical notions take one very far in the West. Walder won a Guggenheim fellowship and taught at Harvard and Stanford despite being far stupider than the average Chinese peasant (by his own admission). It’s incredible that someone who cannot understand those two simple terms would rise so far in the realm of political science academia; it is not surprising that such a person would produce obviously anti-China and anti-socialist works such as China Under Mao: A Revolution Derailed. Han’s work explains why the CR was in fact a re-railing of socialist revolution…but I do not think he will get a Guggenheim Fellowship for his efforts, sadly.
The reality is that until we learn to prioritize local/native studies and views we will always have great difficulty in understanding foreign cultures. Yet when it comes to socialist-inspired countries native voices are totally excluded in the allegedly-free press/free thought-loving West.
“Today farmers still say that, ‘Chairman Mao said what ordinary villagers wanted to say (shuo chu liao nongmin de xinli hua).’”
For those many Westerners who envision Mao burning in Hell, I think he’s pretty happy where he is because that is an extremely meritorious legacy for any politician – being a conduit for the ordinary People.
Conversely, ex-French President Francois Hollande was recently asked if what the French say about current President Emmanuel Macron is true: that he is the “president of the rich”. Hollande, who was bitterly derided by the decidedly not witty Nicolas Sarkozy as “Mr. Little Jokes”, responded: “No, he’s not. He’s the president of the super-rich.” (Where was this great analysis when you were charge, Francois?)
De Gaulle could never say what ordinary villagers wanted to say…unless they were French villagers – his political ideology was based on petty, blinkered French nationalism; he could never have united scores of European ethnicities, whereas Mao did (and still does) unite 56 officially-recognised ethnicities.
Macron is capitalist, De Gaulle was imperialist – both should not write even very little books, and of any color.
The Little Red Book remains a source of amusement in the West, but it’s not as if they understand it. And it’s not as if ever-surging, ever-united China needs Western acceptance in 2019.
Han has helped prove that the legacy of the Little Red Book will be that it enabled a new worship and devotion to the tenets of socialism (with Chinese characteristics) – Mao was merely the conduit of thoughts much larger than his person.
It is unfortunate that the West continues to build and worship their ignorant cult of anti-Mao, rather than understanding how the Little Red Book increased democracy and empowerment.
**********************************
This is the 4th article in an 8-part series which examines Dongping Han’s book The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village in order to drastically redefine a decade which has proven to be not just the basis of China’s current success, but also a beacon of hope for developing countries worldwide. Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!
Part 1 – A much-needed revolution in discussing China’s Cultural Revolution: an 8-part series
Part 2 – The story of a martyr FOR, and not BY, China’s Cultural Revolution
Part 3 – Why was a Cultural Revolution needed in already-Red China?
Part 4 – How the Little Red Book created a cult ‘of socialism’ and not ‘of Mao’
Part 5 – Red Guards ain’t all red: Who fought whom in China’s Cultural Revolution?
Part 6 – How the socioeconomic gains of China’s Cultural Revolution fuelled their 1980s boom
Part 7 – Ending a Cultural Revolution can only be counter-revolutionary
Part 8 – What the West can learn: Yellow Vests are demanding a Cultural Revolution
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of Ill Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

US Rep. Says Cutting Military Aid to «Israel» Is «on the Table»


US Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez raised eyebrows during an interview Sunday when she said the possibility of cutting military or economic aid to the “Israeli” entity is “on the table” after the election of “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Ocasio-Cortez was on Yahoo News’ “Skullduggery” podcast when she said Netanyahu’s election comes during a disturbing trend of “authoritarianism across the world” and called the leader a “Trump-like figure.”
The US representative further slammed the “Israeli” policy of detaining Palestinian minors, saying other senators have proposals asking the US not to fund “Israeli” detention of Palestinian children.
The representative reflected her concerns, as a US citizen, if “Trump started really pursuing more and more increasingly dangerous policies and everyone standing aside saying this is normal.”
Netanyahu has pledged to “apply sovereignty” to settlements in the occupied West Bank. He told “Israeli” Channel 12 TV that, “we will go to the next phase to extend ‘Israeli’ sovereignty.”
“I will impose sovereignty, but I will not distinguish between settlement blocs and isolated settlements,” he continued, The Associated Press reported.
Trump has recognized al-Quds [Jerusalem] as “Israel’s” so-called capital early in his term. Trump has also recognized the so-called “Israeli” sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The move was viewed in the entity as a political gift from Trump to Netanyahu.
Related




Video: Israel Strikes ‘Iranian Targets’ in Homs. Only Syrian Missile Launcher Found to be Destroyed


Global Research, April 15, 2019
Overnight on April 13, warplanes of the Israeli Air Force delivered strikes on targets near the town of Masyaf in the Syrian province of Homs from Lebanese airspace.
According to the Syrian version of the events, most of Israeli missiles were intercepted, but the rest of them destroyed several buildings and injured at least 20 people, including 3 service members. Fragments of at least one Israeli missile were found near the Lebanese border.
The College of Management, the Scientific Research center and the Accounting School were among the targets inside Masyaf itself.
Israeli strikes also hit the nearby town of Umm Haratayn where, according to released photos, they destroyed a Maysalun heavy artillery rocket launcher. Maysalun is a Syrian-made variant of the Iranian Zelzal-2 unguided long-range artillery rocket. The rocket has a range of 210km and a heavy high-explosive warhead. Israeli sources had accused Iran and Syria of upgrading these rockets with guidance systems, thus converting them into precision-guided rockets.
It is important to note that the Israeli strikes took place near positions of launched of the S-300 air defense system delivered by Russia to the Syrian military. The system was not employed and likely remains not operational.
ISIS has drastically increased attacks on pro-government forces in the al-Mayadin-Deir Ezzor-al-Sukhna triangle. During the past few weeks, at least two convoys of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and pro-government militias came under attacks there. Various sources say that from 7 to 15 pro-government fighters were killed in these attacks.
On April 12, the Russian Aerospace Forces even delivered strikes on supposed ISIS targets near the town of Huribishah. In March, the SAA and its allies conducted a security operation against ISIS in the areas of Huribishah and Kobajjep, but these limited efforts were not enough to get rid of ISIS terrorists. Some sources even speculate that ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is hiding in the central Syrian desert.
The situation around the Idlib de-escalation zone remains unchanged. Ceasefire violations and artillery duels erupt across the entire contact line between the so-called opposition and the SAA on a constant basis.
On April 12, Kommersant daily reported citing informed sources that Gen Col Andrey Serdykov has become a commander of the Russian military group in Syria. One his key tasks, according to the report, is to set conditions for launching joint Russian-Turkish patrols along the demilitarized zone and to put an end to the ceasefire violations. Local sources say that this goal remains unrealistic while radical militants armed with heavy weapons remains deployed in the formally declared demilitarized zone.
On the eastern bank of the Euphrates, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are conducting a wide-scale security operation in an attempt to track and eliminate remaining ISIS cells.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Washington and Organized State Terrorism

The US President Donald Trump today embodies the American bullying with all its aggressiveness, the dealer of political positions doesn’t know about the corridors of international politics, except what uncover the aggressive mentality inherent in the successive American administrations. He is a blind, fanatic and ignorant of the facts of history and does not know what the essence of critical issues on the international scene and makes decisions away from understanding the reality of what is going on in the world, just to tell the world that he is a powerful and brutal authority.
Trump’s ominous decision on the occupied Syrian Golan revealed unequivocally the extent of his naiveté and contempt for international legitimacy. He admitted that he was ignorant of the realities of history and how he dealt with the hot international issues. However, he wanted to prove that he is the most loyal to the Zionist rulers, unlike his predecessors of US presidents who tried hard through deception, hypocrisy and continuous military support to carry out the same Zionist agenda, but Trump excelled at them all in arrogance and insolence.
Although Trump’s decisions are politically and legally worthless, they do illustrate the agendas of US politics on the international arena, which only knows the language of threat, violence, pressure, blackmail, using all political means and economic terrorism to achieve US interests. Even that the traditional allies of Washington are not immune to that reckless policy but it will be doomed to inevitable failure because the will of the peoples will say their word in the end and it is certainly stronger than America’s arrogance and conceit.
The reckless decisions of the American administration towards many historical facts such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli entity and the Golan under Israeli sovereignty and the classification of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity and other racist colonial resolutions, all this will be met with reactions to defend the right, sovereignty and dignity. This means that the US policy, through its aggressive policy, creates crises in the region, through supporting terrorism to serve the schemes of American-Zionist domination on the wealth of the region.
No longer a secret to anyone who has sight and insight and follow the American policy that the US administration is trying to drag the region into an extremely dangerous unknown fate through practicing state terrorism by raising an accusation against states, entities and parties that oppose its policy. This act has been demonstrated recently by the classification of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity, which raises the level of tension in the region and the risk of sliding into confrontations and wars that no one can predict of their disastrous consequences.
The US administration’s decision against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is a precedent in international history. There has never been a state that classified a part of the armed forces of another state as a terrorist entity, which is at the same time a blatant attack on the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which fights terrorism. Arrogance and terrorism as a strategy to serve the Israeli occupation entity and to encourage terrorist organizations that spread terrorism in the region, which places the region in front of a barrel of powder that can explode at any time.
What the US administration is doing of the deployment and support to organized state terrorism will never achieve its colonial agenda and will not give the racist entity only a fake force that will later be discovered it is weaker than the cobweb.
Thanks to the will and determination of the peoples of the region to defend their rights, sovereignty and dignity. The statement issued by the Islamic Republic to classify the US forces in Asia as a terrorist entity is a good example that the American-Zionist schemes will never pass, and the US administration and the Israeli entity will not reap from their aggressive policy except disappointment and humiliation.
Sharif Al -Khatib
Editor-in-Chief
RELATED NEWS

الأسباب الأميركية للحرب على لبنان تزداد؟


أبريل 15, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

هذا الاحتمال ليس تهويلاً لأنه يستند إلى حاجات أميركية وإسرائيلية طارئة لا يمكن «تدبّرها» الا بالمزيد من التصعيد.

رأسُ هذه الحاجات هو وصول الحصار الأميركي المفروض على إيران الى أوج «مرحلة ما قبل الصدام العسكري» مباشرة، واتجاهه في شهر أيار المقبل لمزيد من التحرّشات العسكرية في مياه الخليج التي لن يُحمد عقباها.

هناك حاجات أخرى شديدة الحساسية منها ما يتعلق برغبة الرئيس الأميركي ترامب التجديد لنفسه لولاية جديدة، وهذا يتطلب منه الانخراط الإضافي في تأييد «إسرائيل» بمنحها مزارع شبعا وكفرشوبا اللبنانية والقسم اللبناني من قرية الغجر، مع تبني محاولاتها للسطو على آبار مشتركة من النفط والغاز عند الحدود والبحرية والبرية المشتركة بين فلسطين المحتلة ولبنان.

ما يثير البيت الأبيض هنا ليست فقط هذا الخلاف على الآبار بل ولادة محاولات لبنانية لتأسيس حلف لموارد الطاقة مع قبرص واليونان بالتعاون مع سورية لتأسيس مواقع إنتاج ومدّ أنابيب لنقل النفط والغاز من لبنان وقبرص وسورية عبر اليونان باتجاهات أوروبية مختلفة، وهذا يزعج الأميركيين والأتراك و»الإسرائيليين».

نعم، يزعجهم لخروجه عن تغطيتهم وبروز دور روسي في الخلفية المباشرة بدليل أنّ شركة روسية نفطية تشارك مع شركتين إيطالية وفرنسية في التنقيب في بعض المواقع البحرية اللبنانية ولأنه يستبعد أيضاً «إسرائيل» من هذه الشراكة المتوسطية بعد رفض لبناني لأيّ عمل إنتاجي مشترك معها مباشرة، أو بالواسطة، كما أعلن الرئيس ميشال عون.

أما تركيا التي تسيطر عسكرياً على ثلث قبرص فتعتبر أنّ حقول النفط فيها هي للقبارصة الأتراك، يتبقى الوضع اللبناني الداخلي، وهو عامل متفجّر بذل وزير الخارجية الأميركي بومبيو في زيارته الأخيرة للبنان، جهوداً كبيرة لبناء حلف من قوى داخلية لبنانية تتولى مجابهة حزب الله بدعم أميركي مفتوح، ففهم الكثيرون هذا التحريض وكأنه دعوة إلى وقف صعود حزب الله في الدولة وذلك عبر تفجير حرب أهلية داخلية ضدّه.

كما حاول بومبيو دفع الدولة اللبنانية إلى عدم التعاون مع حزب الله على أساس أنه حزب إرهابي متجاهلاً أنه جزء من المؤسسات الدستوريّة اللبنانيّة في مجلس النواب والحكومة ويحوز على ثقة غالبية اللبنانيين بناء على دوره التحريري.

إنّ ما أصاب الأميركيّين بقلق هو رفض الدولة المطالب الأميركية بخصوص حزب الله وتلكؤ القوى اللبنانية بالاستجابة للتحريض الأميركي بذريعة العجز وعدم القدرة على مثل هذه الأدوار.

فهل يكتفي الأميركيون بهذا المشهد «النفطي» الخارج عن سيطرتهم والسياسي الذي يبدو حزب الله فريقاً أساسياً فيه؟ فهذا لا يمنح ترامب دور «منقذ إسرائيل» كما يقدّمه لوسائل الإعلام، خصوصاً أنه يقول إنّ نجاح اليمين الإسرائيلي في الانتخابات الأخيرة والعودة المرتقبة لنتنياهو الى رئاسة الحكومة، هما دافعاه إلى اعترافه بإسرائيلية القدس المحتلة والجولان السوري المحتلّ، لذلك من المعتقد أنّ شهر أيار المقبل هو موعد تشكل الظروف المتكاملة لاندلاع حرب على لبنان قد لا تنحصر في إطاره وتمتدّ إلى سورية وإيران.

لماذا؟

لن يتأخّر ترامب في إعلان «إسرائيلية» مزارع شبعا وكفرشوبا والغجر مع تأييده للترسيم الاسرائيلي للحدود مع لبنان في البرّ والبحر، هذا بمواكبة إصدار قرارات أميركية جديدة بمقاطعة المؤسسات السياسية والدستورية والاقتصادية التي يشارك فيها حزب الله في لبنان. فهذا وحده كافٍ لعرقلة علاقة الدولة بالخارج السياسي والاقتصادي بما يؤدّي الى انهيار اقتصادي كامل، وشلل المؤسسات السياسية، واهتزاز التضامن السياسي والاجتماعي الداخليين.

وقد يكون هذا السيناريو مناسباً لهجوم «إسرائيلي» خاطف على حزب الله بمواكبة حرب أميركية على إيران تتبلور ملامحها في الأفق القريب، كما تروّج وسائل الإعلام الخليجية و»الإسرائيلية» ومكاتب دراسات بعض الأميركيين من أصول لبنانية منحازين لـ»إسرائيل» منذ عقود عدة.

إذا كانت هذه العوامل مشجّعة على حرب أميركية «إسرائيلية» على لبنان ترتدي طابعاً سياسياً واقتصادياً قد يغطي حرباً عسكرية مرتقبة، فكيف يعمل الطرف الآخر؟

يجتاز حزب الله أفضل المراحل، ففي سورية نجح في دحر الإرهاب داعماً الدولة السورية مشكلاً من لبنان قوة أساسية لردع أيّ عدوان «إسرائيلي» إلى جانب الجيش اللبناني وهو دور سبق وألحق هزيمتين متتاليتين بـ»إسرائيل».

سياسياً يشكّل حزب الله قوة أساسية في لبنان بدأت تشارك في التفاعلات السياسية الداخلية من باب الالتزام بقضايا الناس وبأساليب شفافة لم يسبقه إليها أحد من القوى الداخلية، بمراقبته للإنفاق وتصدّيه للفساد.

عسكرياً ازداد الحزب قوة على مستويي الخبرة المحترفة في القتال والتجهيز بالتقاطع مع بنية عسكرية تعمل في إطار الجهاد من أجل مشروع وطني. وهذا يعني أنّ لـ «إسرائيل» القدرة على شنّ حرب لكن السؤال هنا يتعلق بمدى قدرتها على كسبها، أو الخروج منها سليمة، هذا مع الإقرار بأنّ «إسرائيل» قوة أساسية في الشرق الأوسط، بينما يتمتع حزب الله بقدرات في «حروب الغوار» تلغي الإمكانات الكلاسيكية للجيوش الكبيرة.

فهل يدفع الأميركيون المنطقة الى حرب؟

مهاجمتهم لإيران في الخليج من شأنها دفع كامل المنطقة الى حروب بالجملة، وليس مستغرباً على رئيس متهوّر مثل ترامب أن يضع إمكانات بلاده الداخلية والخارجية كافة من أجل إقناع اليهود الأميركيين بانتخابه في 2020 ووضع إمكاناتهم الإعلامية والمصرفية في خدمة مشروعه الخاص، وهذا يحتاج الى حرب في «الشرق الأوسط» يغطيها الأميركيون.

Related Videos
Related Articles

«ثنائية الجيش والدفاع الشعبي» تعمّق مأزق العدوان الأميركي


أبريل 16, 2019

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

بعد إيران ولبنان والعراق وسورية، ها هي فنزويلا تخطو خطوة مماثلة وتعتمد نظرية «الدفاع الشعبي» الرديف للجيش الرسمي، حيث أعلن الرئيس مادورو هذا القرار معتبراً «قوات الدفاع الشعبي في البلاد، ستصبح جزءاً من القوات المسلحة الفنزويلية». قرار جاء ليشكل ضربة قاسية لما تخطط له أميركا من غزو لفنزويلا، وتجعل كلّ سلوكيات التهويل والتهديد الأميركي جوفاء لا يكترث بها، فأميركا تعلم جيداً ما معنى أن يكون كلّ الشعب مقاوماً وما معنى أن تواجه القوات المحتلة حركة مقاومة شعبية تنطلق ضدّ الاحتلال ولا تتوقف حتى زواله. وللوقوف على أهمية اعتماد هذه النظرية نعود إلى ما سبق واعتمدته الدول الاستعمارية من سياسة في مجال بناء الجيوش للدول الأخرى. وكيف جاءت هذه النظرية رداً عليها وأفشلتها.

ففي سياق الإمساك بالدول في العالم الثالث اعتمد الغرب عامة وأميركا بشكل خاص سياسة الإمساك بالقدرات العسكرية والتحكم بالجيوش وبسياسة التسلح في تلك الدول. وكان واضحاً أن جيوش دول العالم الثالث تلتزم بالإطار التنظيمي الذي تضعه لها احدى دول الغرب، كما أنها تلتزم بالعقيدة القتالية ومستوى ومصدر التسليح وأنظمة القتال التي توضع لها من قبلها وكان ذلك يبعث الطمأنينة لدى الغرب بأن تلك الجيوش التي لا تملك مصادر تسليحها والتي تخضع مباشرة أو مداورة لإملاءات الخبراء الأجانب، أن تلك الجيوش لن تجازف في القيام بأيّ مهمة عسكرية لا تكون محلّ رضا او قبول او تشجيع دول الغرب، وبهذه الصيغة معطوفة على الصيغة السياسية للحكم تكون دول الغرب حافظت على الإمساك بقرار تلك الدول واطمأنت لانصياعها وعدم الخروج عن سيطرتها.

لكن دولاً في المنطقة خرجت عن السياسة الأميركية وتملّصت من قيودها واستطاعت في حقبة من الزمن أن تحقق إنجازات وطنية هامة كما هو الحال مثلاً في مصر وسورية اللتين استطاعتا تنظيم جيش لكلّ منهما امتلك القدرة على تحقيق انتصارات في الميدان على «إسرائيل» كما حصل في العام 1973، لكن أميركا والغرب كانت تتنبّه للثغرات في سياستها التضييقية وتسارع إلى سدّها بشكل يمكنها من العودة للتحكم بمسار الأمور وتمنع عن مثل هذه الدول التي لا تخضع لقرارها السياسي الوصول إلى مصادر القوة.

أما الشيء الذي لم تستطع دول الغرب إيجاد حلّ له، فهو ما بات يُعرف بنظرية الثنائية العسكرية لقوى الدفاع الوطني في الدول التي تحفظ استقلالها الوطني وتمتنع عن الدخول في دائرة التبعية للقرار الوطني، فكرة عرفتها إيران ونفذتها تحت عنوان الحرس الثوري والجيش الرسمي ومعهم قوات الباسيج. ثم بدأت الفكرة تنتشر في المنطقة، فشهد للبنان المقاومة إلى جانب الجيش وأرسى معادلة القوة القائمة على الجيش والشعب والمقاومة، وشهد العراق الحشد الشعبي إلى جانب الجيش وفي سورية كانت قوات الدفاع الوطني إلى جانب الجيش السوري ثم كانت الضربة الكبرى التي تتلقاها أميركا اليوم هو ما تشهده فنزويلا من الاتجاه إلى تشكيل قوى الدفاع الشعبي التي ينتظم فيها ملايين من الفنزويليين ليرفدوا الجيش في مهام الدفاع عن الوطن ويفشلوا أي مخطط أميركي لغزو فنزويلا وإسقاط حكومتها الشرعية برئاسة مادورو وتنصيب حكومة انقلابية عميلة لأميركا بدلاً منها.

إن الفكر العسكري المقاوم الذي ابتدع فكرة الدفاع الوطني القائم على الثنائية المؤسسية، حول المواجهة مع العدوان والاستعمار الاحتلالي من مواجهة مع الجيش يقود فرد إلى مواجهة مع الشعب لا يمكن أن يصادر قراره حاكم واعتمد للمواجهة أساليب قتال تجعل سلاح الخصم المتطوّر والفتاك، سلاحاً محدود الفعالية في مواجهة خلايا تتقن القتال من الجيل الرابع، أو تشحن نفسها لتتحوّل قنابل بشرية ترعب العدو وتفتك بمراكزه وتحشداته.

لقد وقفت أميركا عاجزة عند المشهد الجديد في دفاعات من لا يرضخ لحكمها وقرارها، ما جعلها تتجه أيضاً إلى اعتماد الثنائية المعاكسة فلجأت إلى استراتيجية القوة الناعمة وابتدعت منظمات إرهابية تواجه بها قوى المقاومة والدفاع الوطني الشعبي من جهة أولى، واعتمدت سياسة التجويع للتركيع عبر اللجوء إلى التدابير الكيديّة والحرب الاقتصاديّة التي أسمتها عقوبات بحق الخارجين عن إرادتها.

وباتت المواجهة بين أميركا وبين الآخرين المتمرّدين على قراراتها وسياستها الاستعمارية تشمل اليوم حرباً إرهابية وحرباً اقتصادية مع تلويح بالحرب العسكرية التي تشنّها الجيوش التقليدية، وقد أثبتت السنوات الماضية من هذا العقد انّ الحرب الإرهابية قادرة على التدمير والتشريد، لكنها غير قادرة على فرض الإرادة الأميركية على الدول المستهدفة إذا توفرت إرادة المقاومة لدى حكامها واعتمدت الثنائية الدفاعية المتمثلة بالجيش وقوى الدفاع الشعبي المتعدّد التسميات حرس ثوري – مقاومة حشد شعبي دفاع وطني الخ… أما العقوبات الاقتصادية فرغم أنها أحدثت بعض الأثر في حياة الشعوب وعرّضت رفاهيتهم لأضرار شتى فإنها ومع وجود الإرادة والصلابة والوطنية تبقى عجزة عن الوصول إلى الأثر الذي تتوخاه أميركا.

ومع هذا المشهد ونتائج المواجهة، ترى أميركا أنّ التهديد والتهويل بالحرب لا يجدي نفعاً مع وضوح الرؤية لدى الأطراف التي يوجه إليها التهديد مع وجود إرادة الدفاع لديها ووجود قوة قتالية متنوّعة مستعدة للمواجهة وقادرة على خوض الدفاع والقتال الدفاعي المتعدّد الأشكال والأجيال، وهذا ما حصل في غربي آسيا ووضع أميركا أمام حالة العجز الميداني الذي ألجأها إلى قرارات استراتيجية علاجية برأيها، كان أولها قرار تجميد الوضع السوري مع اللجوء إلى حرب استنزاف منخفضة السقف، وقرار الانزياح إلى أفريقيا وتفجير الوضع مجدّداً في بعض دولها العربية الجزائر والسودان فضلاً عن ليبيا وقرار تصنيف مؤسسة رسمية إيرانية منظمة إرهابية الحرس الثوري .

لكن أميركا تدرك أنّ الغرض الأساسي من سياستها وهو تركيع دول مركزية في منطقة الشرق الأوسط وفي طليعتها ايران وسورية أمر لن يتمّ بالعقوبات والحرب الاقتصادية ولم تنجح في تحقيقه الحرب الإرهابية، وأنّ الحرب العسكرية أمر ليس مضمون النتائج في ظلّ إرادة وطنية فولاذية لدى الأنظمة الحاكمة واحتضان شعبي لها وخاصة مع وجود تلك الثنائية الفذّة في تنظيم القوى المدافعة القائمة على جيش رسمي وتشكيلات شعبية، لذلك تشدّد أميركا على سياسة العقوبات الاقتصادية التي هي أيضاً باتت محلّ شكوك في إحداث الآثار المطلوبة مع الخشية إلى انقلاب السحر على الساحر فيها والاضطرار في تطبيقها إلى عمل عسكري ما لا يضمن أن يبقى محدوداً، او القبول بارتفاع جنوني لأسعار النفط واكتواء أميركا بناره.

إذن… وخلافاً لما تريد أميركا إشاعته إعلامياً ودبلوماسياً، فإنّ أميركا ليست طليقة اليد في فعل ما تشاء ضدّ الدول التي تستهدفها بقراراتها العدوانية، وليس لأميركا هامش واسع للمناورة فيه ضدّ هذه الدول خاصة مع تلك التي عرفت كيف تنظم دفاعها على الفرعين من التشكيلات وأن تحصّن قرارها بإيلائه إلى حكام وطنيين غير مرتهنين للاستعمار، ولهذا لا يكون مستغرباً أن تشنّ أميركا هذه الحملات العدوانية الشعواء على مثل هؤلاء الحكام وتعمل على تغيير أنظمة الحكم التي يعتمدونها كما وتعمل بكلّ جهدها لحلّ التنظيمات الدفاعية الرديفة للجيوش بعد أن تصنّفها إرهابية وتحشد أوسع الطاقات لمحاربتها والضغط لتصفيتها وأن تمنع عن الجيوش الرسمية أيّ عمل تدريبي او تسليحي يمكّن هذه الجيوش من امتلاك القوة الوطنية المستقلة… ويبقى المستقبل للشعوب التي عرفت كيف تدافع عن حريتها واستقلالها وسيادتها…

أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

Related Videos
Related News

The Legal Narrative Funnel That’s Being Used To Extradite Assange

By Caitlin Johnstone
Source
1 MEEfZ6Lx91n8OWXDWzvUcA 0c13b
Isn’t it interesting how an Ecuadorian “asylum conditions” technicality, a UK bail technicality, and a US whistleblowing technicality all just so happened to converge in a way that just so happens to look exactly the same as imprisoning a journalist for telling the truth?
Following the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, top UK officials all began simultaneously piping the following exact phrase into public consciousness: “No one is above the law.”
Embedded video
“This goes to show that in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law,” Prime Minister Theresa May told parliament after Assange’s arrest.
“Julian Assange is no hero and no one is above the law,” tweeted Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
“Nearly 7 years after entering the Ecuadorean Embassy, I can confirm Julian Assange is now in police custody and rightly facing justice in the UK. I would like to thank Ecuador for its cooperation and @metpoliceuk for its professionalism. No one is above the law,” tweeted Home Secretary Sajid Javid.
Over and over again that phrase showed up to be unquestioningly re-bleated by the human livestock known as the British press in all their reporting on the Assange case: No one is above the law. No one is above the law. No one is above the law. Something tells me they really want people to know that, with regard to Julian Assange, no one is above the law.
But what is “the law” in this particular case? What they are constantly referring to as “the law” with regard to Assange is in fact nothing more than a combination of ridiculous bureaucratic technicalities which can be (and have been) interpreted very differently, but are now instead being interpreted in a way which just so happens to lead to a truth-telling journalist being locked in a cage, awaiting extradition to the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning.
Now, the US is a Free Democracy™. When you are a Free Democracy™, you can’t just go around imprisoning journalists willy nilly simply for telling the truth about your government. That’s something other countries do, bad countries, the kind of country the US routinely invades in order to help spread Freedom and Democracy™. The US would never do that. But it would diddle a bunch of narratives in such a way that just so happens to achieve exactly the same result.
As we discussed yesterday, the Trump administration’s extradition request is accompanied by criminal charges which are based on the same information which the Obama administration declined to charge Assange for, a point which has been discussed in more detail in a new article by The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald and Micah Lee. The Obama administration looked at the evidence and concluded that there was no way to charge Assange with anything without endangering press freedoms, then the Trump administration looked at literally the exact same evidence and said screw press freedoms, we’re going after him. They wanted to punish Assange and show the world what happens to a journalist who exposes US war crimes, so they changed the narrative to make it happen.
But they couldn’t extradite Assange from the UK if the British government didn’t legally have Assange in custody.
To get around this problem, the UK, which is functionally just a province within the US-centralized empire, used a bail technicality to justify his arrest. After the Swedish government decided to drop its sexual assault investigation without issuing any charges, Assange’s legal team attempted last year to get a British arrest warrant dropped for a bail violation which went into effect when the WikiLeaks founder took political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. The judge in that case, Emma Arbuthnot, just happens to be married to former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip James Arbuthnot, who served as director of Security Intelligence Consultancy SC Strategy Ltd with a former head of MI6. Lady Arbuthnot denied Assange’s request with extreme vitriol, despite his argument that British law does have provisions which allow for the time he’d already served under functional house arrest to count toward far more time than would be served for violating bail. The British government kept police stationed outside the embassy at taxpayers’ expense with orders to arrest Assange on sight.
But they couldn’t arrest Assange as long as he had legal political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.
To get around that problem, Ecuador’s new president Lenin Moreno found himself being courted by the US government, meeting with Vice President Mike Pence and reportedly discussing Assange after US Democratic senators petitioned Pence to push for Moreno to revoke political asylum. The New York Times reported last year that in 2017 Paul Manafort met with Moreno and offered to broker a deal where Ecuador could receive debt relief aid in exchange for handing Assange over, and just last month Ecuador ended up receiving a 4.2 billion dollar loan from the Washington-based IMF. And then, lo and behold, we just so happen to see Ecuador justifying the revocation of political asylum under the absurd claim that Assange had violated conditions that were only recently invented, using narratives that were based on wild distortions and outright lies.
In this way a kind of narrative funnel was created, funneling Assange from the embassy to British police on the imaginary narrative that Assange had violated asylum conditions and that he needs to serve time for a bail violation, which in turn allows for Assange to be funneled from the UK into the US on the imaginary narrative that he broke some kind of law by trying to help Chelsea Manning cover her tracks and avoid detection, which is all made possible by the fact that the government of Australia another province in the US-centralized empire) has refused to provide any protection for its citizen. And the end result just so happens to look the same as what you see when a journalist tries to expose malfeasance in an overtly totalitarian government.
This is called Nice Guy Fascism. With a little narrative manipulation you get to act just like a brutal totalitarian regime and then say it’s not because you’re a brutal totalitarian regime, it’s because you’re deeply deeply concerned about the adherence to a specific interpretation of the bureaucratic technicalities of bail protocol. No one is above the law. No one is above the law. No one is above the law.
They keep saying “No one is above the law,” but what they really mean is “No one is safe from the law.” Our rulers are using Assange to show that they can get anyone who tells the truth about them, even if there are laws and policies in place which ostensibly prohibit that.
Manipulators love the rule of law, because they are able to twist it toward their infernal ends. It’s always possible to squint at laws in such a way that it allows them to be interpreted to the benefit of the powerful, which is why lawyers are often horrible human beings. All the most horrific things that have been done throughout the history of civilization have been carried out not by criminals but by law-abiding citizens, because they were perfectly legal under the ruling governments of that time. Genocide, slavery, torture, the use of the atomic bomb: all perfectly legal and state-sanctioned in their time.
They want you looking at “the rule of law”. They want you fixated on it. But really “the rule of law” is nothing other than a series of mental narratives which are treated as reality by existing power structures. Assange is a prisoner by narrative, because he punched holes in the authorized narratives of the powerful. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world.

What Makes the EU So Rabidly Hypocritical


What Makes the EU So Rabidly Hypocritical
ERIC ZUESSE | 15.04.2019 | WORLD / EUROPE

What Makes the EU So Rabidly Hypocritical

Unlike America under Donald Trump, who is proudly psychopathic and went so far as to blurt out that his followers would accept his leadership even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, the European Union is so rabidly hypocritical (Trump would probably call it “politically correct”) that its leaders routinely moralize about ‘human rights and democracy’ even while their governments indiscriminately rob and slaughter people in foreign lands (as will be documented here). EU leaders assist US-led atrocities while using prettier language to describe their alleged motivation for these policies. Though the US Government also occasionally employs such verbal sucker-punches (insincere or “politically correct” rhetoric), such moralizing is now the exception for the US Government, and is no longer (as it had been under the immediately prior US President, Barack Obama) the routine American practice — very much like the EU’s was, and still remains: such ‘idealistic’ hypocrisy.
But even Obama wasn’t as hypocritical as EU leaders still are. The biggest difference between the US and the EU is that, whereas even under America’s Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning (and continuing to be predominantly sanctified) President Obama (the invader of Libya, Syria, Yemen, and more), America’s head-of-state repeatedly said that America is “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that all other nations are “dispensable.” By contrast, there is no EU leader, and not even any European head-of-state, who says, in the modern era, anything of the sort. Adolf Hitler infamously did it when reasserting “Deutschland über alles!” (i.e, that Germany is the one indispensable nation). But modern Europe’s leaders know better than to copy such rhetoric. (Trump’s version, of course, is “America first,” but this can mean many different things, and not only mean that “America is the one indispensable nation.” Obama’s version was far less ambiguous than Trump’s is, because Obama’s clearly means that every other nation is “dispensable,” and that only America is not. And, yet, still, Europe’s leaders accepted it — they accepted that their nations were and are “dispensable.” After all: they are vassals.)
America’s leaders are simply more honest about their psychopathy than modern Europe’s are. In fact, ever since at least the time of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, “Greed is good” has been America’s unofficial, but clearly dominant, political philosophy — virtually the official American philosophy. How many European nations today publicly and proudly assert anything like that? Do any?
A recent example of the EU’s hyper-hypocrisy was headlined at the far-right UAWire Ukrainian news-site on March 31st, “EU urges Russia to stop attacks on Crimean Tatars”, which reported that,
The EU decisively condemns the arrest of 23 Crimean Tatars in police raids by the Russian occupation authorities in Crimea on 27 and 28 March, said EU Spokesperson for EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Maja Kocijancic in a statement.
“A court in the Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed from Ukraine by Russia, has ruled that all 23 Crimean Tatars detained on 27 March and 28 March will be held in pre-trial detention until 15 May. They are accused of belonging to the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in Russia but not in Ukraine. The European Union does not recognise the enforcement of Russian legislation in Crimea and Sevastopol and expects all illegally detained Ukrainians to be released without delay,” Kocijancic stated.
“The recent detentions, as well as the prior searches of their private property, constitute the latest targeting of Crimean Tatars, human rights defenders, and people who have spoken out peacefully against the illegal annexation by Russia of the Crimean peninsula,” the EU spokesperson stressed…
Here is what Wikipedia says about that banned-by-Russia group:
Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حزب التحرير) (Translation: Party of Liberation) is an international, pan-Islamist political organisation, which describes its ideology as Islam, and its aim as the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) to resume the Islamic way of life in the Muslim world. The caliphate would unite the Muslim community (Ummah)[4] upon their Islamic creed and implement the Shariah, so as to then carry the proselytising of Islam to the rest of the world.[5] …
Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in countries such as Germany, Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey,[14] and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen, and the UAE.[15][16] In July 2017, the Indonesian government formally revoked Hizbut ut-Tahrir’s charter, citing incompatibility with government regulations on extremism and national ideology.[17] …
They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da’wah will be carried “to all mankind” and will “bring them into the Khilafah state,” and the importance of declaring “Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;” (Ummah’s Charter),[97][117] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).[97][118]
Do Europeans really want people such as this to be increasing in the EU? The Ukrainian regime that Obama had installed in February 2014 thinks it’s fine, but do Europeans, really? Obama had fooled Russia’s Government, at least until his 2012 re-election, to think that he wasn’t aiming like all his predecessors since at least the time of Reagan were aiming — for the US Government ultimately to conquer and absorb Russia into the steadily growing US empire — but after the bloody US coup right on Russia’s doorstep in Ukraine in 2014, the EU has been clearly the US regime’s vassal in this conquer-Russia enterprise — participating in it, though reluctantly.
The EU’s leadership has consistently been working in secret to assist jihadists — mass-murderers and terrorists — whenever jihadists are fighting in the US-led international war against Russia and against any nation whose leadership (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro) are either allied with or even just friendly toward Russia. Syria, and its President, Bashar al-Assad, constitute one particular example of this EU hypocrisy.
Here are examples of this US-EU support for jihadists that are trying to overthrow a Russia-friendly government:
On 10 December 2012, AFP bannered “Jihadists seize key north Syria army base”, and reported that, “Jihadists led by the radical Al-Nusra Front seized a strategic army base in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo on Monday, in a fresh setback for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. … On the political front, the EU gave a vital boost to the newly-formed Syrian opposition coalition, describing it as the ‘legitimate representatives’ of the Syrian people following talks in Brussels with its leader Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib.”
On that very same day, December 10th, Britain’s Telegraph headlined and sub-headed “Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group: Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.” That report opened: “A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting ‘brigades’ and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.” So: no one could reasonably doubt that America’s alleged ‘rebels’ in Syria were, in fact, loyal to al-Nusra. Yet, the EU and US continued supporting them.
Also on that same day, Bill Roggio at Long War Journal bannered, “Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo”, and he reported that, “The Syrian government has warned that rebels may also use chemical weapons after the Al Nusrah Front took control control of a chlorine factory in Aleppo last week. Islamists hold sway over new rebel military command.” So: it was already clear, even then, that the ‘rebels’ were interested in perpetrating against civilians a chemical-weapons attack that their supporters in the US and EU could then blame against Syria’s Government as being an alleged reason to invade Syria by their own forces in order to ‘protect the Syrian people and establish democracy and human rights there’, or similar lies.
The next day, December 11th, Roggio reported that “The Al Nusrah Front has by far taken the lead among the jihadist groups in executing suicide and other complex attacks against the Syrian military. The terror group is known to conduct joint operations with other Syrian jihadist organizations.”
And, on the very next day, December 12th, Roggio headlined “Syrian National Coalition urges US to drop Al Nusrah terrorism designation”. Anyone who, after this, didn’t know that the US and EU were supporting jihadists to take control over Syria, was very deceived, because the truth was now known, and was then being subsequently hidden from the public, by almost all of the subsequent ‘news’-reporting. But there were a few exceptions:
The Al Nusrah Front has now claimed credit for 46 of the 55 suicide attacks that have taken place in Syria since December 2011, according to a tally of the operations by The Long War Journal (note that multiple suicide bombers deployed in a single operaton are counted as part of a single attack).
Al Nusrah spearheads military assaults
Al Nusrah has also served as the vanguard for jihadist forces in the major attacks on Syrian military bases. In concert with allied jihadist groups such as the Ahrar al Sham, the Islamic Vanguard, Mujahedeen Shura Council, the Muhajireen Group, and Chechen fighters, the terror group has overrun three large Syrian installations since last fall.
On 20 April 2013, Reuters headlined “Rebels battle with tribesmen over oil in Syria’s east” and reported that, “The EU said this week it wants to allow Syria’s opposition to sell crude in an effort to tilt the balance of power towards the rebels.” The EU supported and backed the ‘rebels’ seizure and black-market sale of whatever oil they could steal from Syria. This was the EU’s ‘humanitarianism’.
On 22 April 2013, the AP headlined “EU lifts Syria oil embargo to bolster rebels” and opened: “The European Union on Monday lifted its oil embargo on Syria to provide more economic support to the forces fighting to oust President Bashar Assad’s regime. The decision will allow for crude exports from rebel-held territory.”
On 1 May 2013, TIME bannered “Syria’s Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil” and reported that, “Without an embargo, European companies can now legally begin importing barrels of oil directly from rebel groups, which have seized several oil fields in recent months, mostly around the eastern area of Deir Ezzor. That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011, and in theory hasten the downfall of Bashar Assad’s regime.” No mention was made, in any of this reporting, that this constituted aggression by the EU against the sovereign nation of Syria under the UN’s Charter and was therefore an international war-crime. The Western press didn’t care about such things — but only about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and other such billionaires’ bumper-stickers for suckers.
On 22 February 2019, one of the UN’s top experts on international law, Alfred de Zayas, was interviewed for a half hour on the ways in which America and its allies are blatantly violating international law by attempting a coup to overthrow Venezuela’s Government, and by going even further and imposing sanctions against Venezuela’s Government because it was resisting this (in effect) economic invasion-by-means-of-sanctions. The EU is one of these invading countries, but some of its constituent states oppose the US-sponsored invasion.
On 31 March 2019, I headlined “EU Joins NATO’s War Against Russia” and reported on the EU’s knee-jerk increase of economic sanctions against Russia as being the initial phase — the sanctions phase — of the US regime’s wars to overthrow the leaders of nations that are friendly toward Russia (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Viktor Yanukovych, and now Nicolas Maduro), and now (ever since the 2012 Magnitsky Act sanctions fraud against Russia) increasingly to apply Washington’s economic sanctions against Russia itself.
In international affairs, the EU therefore is clearly a stooge of the constantly aggressive US regime.
After all, the US regime had initiated and led the creation of the European Union. This scheme started as soon as FDR died and Harry S. Truman became America’s President. The death of FDR was also, in a sense, the death of any real democracy in the United States. Truman was forced onto the Democratic Party’s Presidential ticket in 1944 by the Democratic Party’s centi-millionaires against the will of FDR.Truman and Churchill started the Cold War, which increasingly became mass thought-control in America (culminating with Joseph R. McCarthy) and with the CIA’s operations Gladio in Europe and Mockingbird in the US itself. First, NATO, and then the EU, were born as part of that secret US strategy to conquerRussia even after the end of the USS.R and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact counterbalance to America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance. Ever since that time (1991), America’s controlling owners of international corporations (our billionaires) have also controlled — via European nations’ own super-rich — first, Europe’s national Governments, and then the EU itself. It secretly remains true even after the 1991 end of the Cold War on Russia’s side.
Consequently: when there’s a choice to be made between supporting jihadists (or other extremists such as — in Ukraine — nazis) or else to side with Russia (or any nation that’s friendly toward Russia), the American team always back the jihadists or other extremists, and they say it’s being done ‘for human rights and democracy’ and other such hypocrisies, while they perpetrate actual war-crimes, and make fools of their own publics, in order ultimately to conquer Russia. That’s doing it the “diplomatic” way, and they don’t like Trump’s doing it the “Greed is good” way. The directness of his greed makes themselves look bad. That’s why these super-hypocrites preferred Obama.