What Joe Biden has done right
We should praise Joe Biden for the good decisions that he had made during his first few months in office. He has filled positions in his cabinet with and administration with an ethnically diverse and gender balanced group of people. For example, we can think of his new Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, who is a Native American. We can also think of his choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate. These decisions are to be applauded.
We must also praise President Biden for taking the climate emergency seriously and acting to support the replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy, as well as for rejoining the Paris Agreement.
The Biden administration has been successful in its efforts to vaccinate a large number of US citizens against COVID-19. Thus, there are many reasons for praising Joe Biden’s actions during the months that he has been in office. But if we turn to foreign policy, the picture is different.
US foreign policy is essentially unchanged
On Joe Biden’s appointment of Antony Blinken as Secretary of State signaled that the aggressive foreign policy of the United States would remain unchanged. During the administrations of every US president, violence, war and murder have been exported to the remainder of the world, and the appointment of Blinken, who is known for advocating the invasion of Iraq, signaled that this would not change under Biden. Bombs would be dropped, and people would be murdered by drones or by the dirty tricks department of the CIA.
https://countercurrents.org/2021/03/ten-problems-with-bidens-foreign-policy-and-one-solution/
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2021/03/america-is-back-joe-bidens-us-foreign-policy/
Insults instead of diplomacy in Alaska
A high-level meeting between diplomats from China and the United States took place in Alaska in March, but the meeting was decidedly undiplomatic. It degenerated to public name-calling by both sides, especially accusations of human rights violations. There is so much need for cooperation between the US and China on important issues, such as climate action, that one might have hoped for fewer insults and more diplomacy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56452471
Military threats to China
In an era of all-destroying nuclear weapons, war is suicidal or perhaps omnicidal. War is unthinkable, but the profits made by arms manufacturers are so large and their political influence so great that war remains a threat. The arms manufacturers do not actually want war. They only want war to be threatened, in order to justify the obscenely large expenditures on armaments that are regularly endorsed by politicians whose votes have been bought by the arms industry.
Since the Biden administration owes its allegiance to the corporate oligarchy, it is not surprising that war with China is threatened, even though such a war would be suicidal.
https://countercurrents.org/2021/03/nuclear-weapons-blazing-britain-enters-the-us-china-fray/
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2021/03/biden-continues-the-u-s-conflict-with-china-through-the-quad/
https://popularresistance.org/bidens-cia-nominee-identifies-china-as-top-adversary/
A new cold war with Russia
Similarly, war with Russia is also threatened, and Russia is demonized by the United States under the Biden administration, just as it was under previous administrations.
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2021/03/lets-stop-pretending-russia-and-china-are-military-threats/
https://unac.notowar.net/2021/03/16/u-s-calls-europe-to-arms-against-china-russia/
The illegal bombing of Syria
According to the United Nations Charter, the use of military force, or even the threat of use of force, against a sovereign state is a violation of international law, although a nation being actively attacked has a right to defend itself until the Security Council has had time to act. Thus Biden’s bombing of Syria was a violation of international law.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/joe-biden-unlawful-agression-syria-signals-endgame-region
Sanctions are also illegal
Richard Nephew, the advisor on sanctions in Biden’s State Department, is the author of a 2017 book entitled “The Art of Sanctions: A View of the Field”. He brags of the pain and suffering caused by US sanctions imposed on Iran, Venezuela and other countries. But according to international law, sanctions may not be imposed by individual countries, but only by the Security Council. They are also a violation of international laws that forbid collective punishment.
https://popularresistance.org/bidens-foreign-policy-hire-considers-sanctions-an-art-form/
https://popularresistance.org/blinken-threatens-germany-with-sanctions/
An illegal new nuclear weapons program
As mentioned above, the Biden administration owes its allegiance to the corporate oligarchy, of which the arms industry is a large part. This probably explains Biden’s endorsement of a program to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. This is a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s Article VI, which requires the nuclear weapons states to quickly and effectively rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. It is also a violation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which recently came into force. More importantly, it is a violation of common humanity and common sense.
The Republican Party is far worse
None of the issues discussed in this article should be a reason for citizens of the United States to vote for candidates from the Republican Party, a party which has now become totally irresponsible, and has adopted the strategy of making the US ungovernable so that they will be able to blame failures on the Democrats. Biden’s aggressive foreign policy is, however, a reason for progressive US voters to put pressure on the Biden administration to abandon the futile search for global hegemony and instead to join the international community as a law-abiding equal partner.
John Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen. He is noted for his books and research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and history of science. His 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution set forth the view that the phenomenon of life, including its origin, evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its background situated in the fields of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Danish National Group of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Between 2004 and 2015 he also served as Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy. He founded the Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, and was for many years its Managing Editor. He also served as Technical Advisor to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (19881997).
http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm. He can be reached at avery.john.s@gmail.com. To know more about his works visit this link. https://www.johnavery.info/
Police have arrested 26 people following clashes in London as thousands of demonstrators attended numerous marches against a controversial UK government crackdown on protests.
Demonstrators on Saturday marched and gave speeches while holding signs with slogans such as ‘Kill the Bill,’ referring to the controversial proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
The proposed legislation would give police more authority in restricting public protests, supposedly in an effort to avoid rioting and destruction to property. Critics believe the “draconian” bill is thinly-veiled crackdown on the freedom of assembly, which has already been de-facto heavily restricted by the tough British Covid-19 regulations. The bill has passed its second reading in the House of Commons on March 16, gives police additional powers to restrict and control all public protests, while reinforcing the punishment for public disturbance.
People marched from the capital’s Hyde Park with placards saying ‘Protect our rights’ and ‘Kill the Bill,’ referring to the controversial proposed legislation.
Scotland Yard said 10 officers were injured, none of them seriously, as violence flared during a stand-off between police in riot gear and Kill the Bill protesters in Westminster.
The demonstrations were the latest in a continued outcry over the government’s policing bill, which opponents say threatens to contravene the right to protest.
Despite the Covid-19 lockdown, people marched in 25 towns and cities including London, Newcastle, Birmingham, Liverpool and Bristol against the legislation, which would give police in England and Wales more power to impose conditions on non-violent protests, including those deemed too noisy or a nuisance, and threaten those convicted with fines or jail terms.
Throughout the day, thousands of people took part in what various police forces described as peaceful Kill the Bill protest, with more demonstrations in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Oxford, Cambridge and Dorset.
Protests are lawful under coronavirus regulations and can go ahead as long as organizers submit risk assessments and have taken all steps to limit the transmission of the virus.
By Saturday evening, the Metropolitan Police said that “a small minority” of protesters, who were not social distancing, were still in London’s Parliament Square.
Arrests were made after they refused to leave, police said.
A woman was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon after a knife was recovered.
Commander Ade Adelekan, who described it as “challenging day for officers,” said: “The vast majority of people who turned out in central London today did so while adhering to social distancing.
“They engaged with my officers when required and left when asked – I would like to thank them for doing so.”
Dozens of police with riot helmets had arrived in Westminster as protesters continued the standoff with officers.
The majority of protesters from the Kill the Bill demonstration, who gathered at Parliament Square earlier in the day, had dispersed several hours earlier.
Those still present shouted “shame on you” repeatedly at officers.
The remaining protesters marched down Whitehall to Trafalgar Square, where violent scuffles broke out with police.
Demonstrators threw projectiles and several people were led away in handcuffs.
Earlier at the demonstration in Parliament Square former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told crowds that the policing was bill a “very dangerous, slippery slope”, as he defended the right to protest.
To cheers and applause, he said: “If we don’t protest, things don’t change.”
More than 1,000 people attended Bristol’s Kill the Bill protest, according to Avon and Somerset Police.
The force said that officers had sought to “engage with protesters” and to ensure the demonstration took place peacefully.
Later in the evening, about 100 people began marching again, and Avon and Somerset Police had to shut off part of the M32 motorway to traffic after protesters sat on the road.
The motorway was closed to inbound traffic at junction 3 “in the interests of safety,” a spokesman said.
There was a low-key response from Northumbria Police as hundreds of people gathered beneath Grey’s Monument in Newcastle.
Protesters, including one who held up a placard saying, “we will not be silenced”, cheered as a singer with a guitar performed in opposition to the proposed bill.
Demonstrators who marched from the monument through Newcastle city centre chanted: “Whose streets, our streets.”
Many took the knee at the Civic Centre and held a minute’s silence for victims of oppression, after which a round of applause broke out.
Dorset Police thanked those who took part in “peaceful protests” in Bournemouth and Weymouth, and stuck to the Covid-19 restrictions.
In Manchester, protesters gathered in St Peter’s square with placards and banners.
The Kill the Bill protest took place in spite of a 48-hour police dispersal order, which gives officers the power to tell people engaged in anti-social behavior to leave an area.
Videos on Twitter also showed crowds marching past Leeds town hall, with most protesters wearing masks and chanting, “kill the bill” to the rhythm of drums.
The protests are expected to continue, while the feminist group Sisters Uncut has called for a National Day of Action on Easter Sunday, involving a series of small events and actions that can take place from home.
In addition to the proposed restrictions on protests, the bill includes a wide range of measures to increase sentencing for serious criminals, double maximum sentences for low-level assaults on emergency workers, create powers to more closely monitor terrorist offenders released from prison, bring in community sentences for less serious crime and change sexual offence laws to tackle abusive adults in positions of trust.
Police described the event as a “policing operation.” “Today’s policing operation is still ongoing and arrest numbers may rise, but at this time, 26 people have been arrested for a variety of offences,” London’s Metropolitan Police announced on Saturday hours after the protests kicked off.
The bill was introduced on the heels of the Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protests.
This is Fourth in the series on the flux in the global scene by the seasoned diplomat, an expert on Middle East, Eurasia, Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific… Fifth will follow.
Part I : China neutralises the US campaign on Muslim Uighur issue
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (R) and China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) exchange documents during the signing ceremony of a 25-year cooperation agreement, Tehran, March 27, 2021.
When China and Iran, two of the United States’ main adversaries in the contemporary world situation, enter into a 25-year strategic pact, it is pointless to split hairs and speculate whether the development affects American strategies. Of course, it does. The West Asian region is all about geopolitics — starting from oil and jihad to petrodollar. The region served as the crossroads of empires for centuries between Europe and Asia.
And in modern history, foreign intruders conflated new poignant realities — failed states, humiliated peoples, crippled economies, extreme inequality and poverty, devastated environments, plundered resources, conflicted geographies, and violent radicalism.
The historic China-Iran agreement signed on March 27 in Tehran during the visit of China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has been under negotiation since the 2016 visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Tehran. Numerous visits by Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif to China in the recent years testified to the high importance Tehran attached to the negotiations culminating in the formal signing ceremony in Tehran Saturday, which also marked the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between these two “civilisation states” of the 21st century that enjoyed vast historical continuity and cultural unity across a large geographic region through millennia.
The text of the agreed document has not yet been put on public domain but broadly, we can glean from the joint statement issued on March 27 that the agreement reached during Xi’s visit to increase bilateral trade to $600 billion in the next decade has been acted upon. In fact, the joint statement begins by invoking Xi’s visit. Two supplementary documents signed by the two countries pertain to the “MOU on Jointly Promoting the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road” and the “MOU on Reinforcement of Industrial and Mineral Capacities and Investment”, whereby both sides “shall expand cooperation and mutual investments in various areas including transportation, railway, ports, energy, industry, commerce and services.”
The joint statement says that given their relative economic advantages, both sides shall enhance their cooperation in the field of energy. Iran will supply oil and gas to China while the Chinese side “shall consider financing and investing in the up-and-downstream projects of the energy industries” in Iran. Again, wide-ranging economic cooperation is envisaged covering investment and trade exchanges, banking, financing, mining, transportation, communications, space, manufacturing industries, development of ports, upgrade and expansion of Iran’s railway networks, introduction of express railway systems in Iran, agriculture, water resources, protection of environment, food security, fighting desertification, water desalination, use of nuclear energy, etc. A bilateral “MOU on Strengthening of Investment Cooperation” is devoted to this aspect and the exchange of knowhow and technology.
Yet, the scope of the pact by far transcends trade and investment. A commentator in the Chinese state media noted, “As it stands, this deal will totally upend the prevailing geopolitical landscape in the West Asian region that has for so long been subject to US hegemony.”
The joint statement states that the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signifies “a major agreement in all areas of bilateral relations and regional and international issues.”
It adds, “Currently the regional and international situation is experiencing deep and complex developments. Under such circumstances, the two sides emphasise the importance of cooperation between the developing countries on international affairs and are committed to joint efforts towards realisation of peace, stability and development in the region and the world at large.”
Interestingly, the joint statement highlights that “China attaches importance to Iran’s effective role as the regional power and evaluates positively Iran’s role in activities under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and supports Iran’s application for full membership of the Organization.”
Of course, it is a way of telling the world that China does not accept the isolation of Iran from the world community. Conceivably, China and Russia are on the same page here.
The US has contributed significantly in providing a raison d’être for such a pact. Neither China nor Iran is expecting any goodwill from the US. They perceive that the adversarial mindset in America is only hardening under President Joe Biden’s watch. As for Tehran, it no longer pins hope that Biden will revive the JCPOA or lift sanctions anytime soon.
Thus, without doubt, pushing back against the US unilateralism and sanctions is a leitmotif of the China-Iran strategic partnership.
China’s interest lies in “broad-basing” this leitmotif to embrace its relationships with the regional states as a whole. Wang’s regional tour covered Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, UAE and Oman. The fact that he travelled to Iran via Saudi Arabia is both symbolic and of substantive importance. At his meeting in Riyadh on March 24 with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Wang said China supports Saudi Arabia in safeguarding its sovereignty, national dignity, security and stability, and opposes interference in Saudi Arabia’s internal affairs under any pretext. Prince Mohammed affirmed in response that the rise of China is conducive to global peace, stability and prosperity, as well as a more balanced global development.
The Crown Prince expressed the hope that the two countries will boost anti-terrorism and security cooperation to uplift the bilateral ties to a higher level. Importantly, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia ‘firmly supports China’s legitimate position on the issues related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong, opposes interfering in China’s internal affairs under any pretext, and rejects the attempt by certain parties to sow dissension between China and the Islamic world.’
Plainly put, Saudi Arabia has undercut the current US campaign against China regarding Xinjiang. It is a snub to the Biden administration.
In fact, Wang’s regional tour testifies to the ground reality that there are no takers for the US’ diatribes against China. The regional states sense that the US is being driven by seething rivalry over a rising China poised to overtake it in a near future as the world’s number one superpower. They refuse to take sides in the rivalry.
The salience lies here: China has introduced, after careful assessment of the power dynamic in West Asia, certain common principles that are equally applicable across the region to provide the basis for its relationships with the regional countries.
The unspoken objective is to encourage the regional states to shift to independent foreign policies, shaking off the western yoke, especially US hegemony.
But China’s method of doing this is radically different from the coercive and often violent tactics that western powers traditionally adopted in the region.
China has absolutely no interest in using coercion as an instrument of “persuasion” even with Turkey which has a vocal Uighur diaspora (who held a demonstration during Wang’s visit.)
At the meeting with Wang, President Recep Erdogan underscored Turkey’s deep interest in “boosting mutual trust, promoting the synergy between China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Turkey’s “Middle Corridor” plan, enhancing cooperation in the fields including interconnection and intercommunication, infrastructure construction and investment, seeking more balanced development of bilateral trade, and encouraging local currency settlement. China instead is offering equal relationships.”
Erdogan also voiced Turkey’s appreciation for China’s five-point initiative for achieving the security and stability in the Middle East and its willingness to deepen communication and coordination with China on regional affairs.
Fundamentally, China’s projection of a constructive agenda to develop “win-win” engagement with the regional states is gaining traction.
***
Posted in his blog on March 30, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
https://www.indianpunchline.com/the-china-iran-pact-is-a-game-changer-part-i/
***
See also by the same author in the current series on the flux in the global scene
India’s agony and ecstasy over Quad, published on March 31, 2021
https://countercurrents.org/2021/03/indias-agony-and-ecstasy-over-quad/
China resents US presence in Afghanistan, published on April 1, 2021
https://countercurrents.org/2021/04/china-resents-us-presence-in-afghanistan/
This is how shingles of Indian interests in Myanmar overlap Russia and China’s, published on April 2, 2021
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar served the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years. He introduces about himself thus: “Roughly half of the 3 decades of my diplomatic career was devoted to assignments on the territories of the former Soviet Union and to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Other overseas postings included South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, and Turkey. I write mainly on Indian foreign policy and the affairs of the Middle East, Eurasia, Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific…”
His mail ID : indianpunchline@gmail.com
Whenever it is recognized that foreign policy distortions of one or more superpowers have led to serious human rights violations and humanitarian crisis in developing countries, the focus has been on studying how the people in developing countries suffered. This is as it should be , as this is clearly the most important issue.
However from the point of view of more complete understanding of the folly by people and policy-makers in superpower countries, it is important also to study the other aspect of how even the crucial interests, particularly the longer-term interests of the superpowers involved are also harmed in the process.
This may be explained here in the context of the policies pursued by the USA towards Bangladesh during the crucial year of 1971 . This was a very important year in the history of the people of Bangladesh, perhaps the most important year.
As is well-known Bangladesh was earlier the Eastern part of Pakistan and remained so till 1971, suffering a lot of discriminations and injustices. However when the right to form a government was denied to the Awami League political party led by a very popular leader Sheikh Mujibur Rehman after its very convincing electoral victory, the simmering discontent and smaller rebellions erupted in more or less a call for complete independence of ( now openly declared) Bangladesh by Mujibur.
He was arrested by the Yahya Khan led Pakistani regime , and genocidal killings and tortures of people of Bangladesh ensued , as confirmed by senior local US diplomats stationed in Bangladesh.
The question is—what were the options before foreign policy makers in Washington and what was the choice they made?
Clearly for proper policy they needed confirmed facts. Their regional diplomats hastened to provide them the factual position that the repression and atrocities were indeed of genocidal proportions. They were right. In fact by the end of the year the highly disturbing toll would amount to around 2.5 million persons killed, nearly 300 thousand women raped , nearly 10 million people displaced as refugees.
Both the US consul-general in Dhaka and the US Ambassador in India , senior and accomplished diplomats, men of standing and principles, provided the right information and sound advice at an early stage. The advice was not to support the perpetrators of the genocide. Given this advice and information and this critical situation, how would Nixon guided by Kissinger exercise his options?
In Washington Kissinger as National Security Adviser enjoying very close confidence of President Nixon led the decision-making. The options were clear. He and his President were on very friendly terms with Yahya Khan who had served as a link in renewing contacts with China. So the first option was to use their good relations with Yahya Khan to stop the genocide. The second option was to give ‘good friend’ Yahya Khan the go-ahead to do what he wanted, which in practical terms meant giving the go-ahead to go on killing innocent people. The Nixon-Kissinger duo consciously selected the second option, completely against the advice of their diplomats in Dhaka and India.
Opting for the second option led to the further killing of over 2 million people and the uprooting of over 8 million by the end of the year. Now let us see what opting for the first option would have meant.
As Nixon and Kissinger, with perhaps a little extra pressure , were clearly in a position to influence Yahya Khan, what they could have and should have done was to help broker a deal with Mujibur which could have resolved the crisis at a very early stage. Remember that in the early days of the repression being unleashed, Mujibur as a prisoner was in a very weak position and so were his colleagues back home who had come under heavy pressure due to the enormity of the repression unleashed. So an early intervention by so powerful and influential a mediator as the USA, particularly if it led to respect of recent electoral verdict, would have been accepted by Mujibur Rehman and his colleagues. Hence the crisis would have been resolved by around May 1971 or so and hence all the killings, rapes and displacements which took place after this could have been avoided, providing also for the safe return of those who had been forced already to escape to India as refugees.
This would have been accepted as a win-win situation ( in those early days and circumstances existing then) by all concerned. Pakistan would have benefited by avoiding its great split of losing the greater part of its population to secession. The people of Bangladesh would have escaped further repression while at the same time having a government led by their leader in Pakistan which would have surely acted to check discrimination and injustices inflicted earlier on them by less caring rulers. India would have benefited by avoiding the enormous pressure of refugees. The USA would have benefited by gaining the goodwill of all sides and earning worldwide praise for bringing peace to a highly violent region. Unfortunately this was not to be as this option which was clearly available was rejected by Kissinger and Nixon. And this is the reason why the genocide went on till December and was only stopped after Pakistan was comprehensively defeated in the resulting India-Pak war.
Now from the point of view of the USA it is clear that Kissinger-led policy lost a great opportunity to earn the goodwill of the democratic leaders as well as the people of South Asia as US foreign policy-makers rejected the option of bringing benefits to all and selected the option which inflicted great suffering . This has remained as a permanent blot on the foreign policy of the USA which could have been easily avoided.
Durable foreign policy impacts are seen not only in terms of impacts on governments but also people. The overwhelming majority of people in South Asia saw the Kissinger policy on Bangladesh in 1971 as a complete disaster and 100 per cent at variance with the stated US policy goals of protecting democracy and human rights. India has many supporters and admirers of the USA but they just could not find any justification for its policy. As the most important country of this region, India was known as a leading non-aligned country, but the USA pursued policy options which more or less pushed India towards a special friendship treaty with the Soviet Union. Hence clearly the USA’s foreign policy interests suffered durable harm and disrepute as a result of the clearly wrong options chosen by Kissinger against the advice of his regional senior diplomats. Similar conclusions emerge from other policy choices under Kissinger.
Bharat Dogra is a journalist and author. His recent books include Planet in Peril and Protecting Earth for Children.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.