Thursday 18th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

washington's rackets, in the nasty footsteps of madeleine albright...

o'brieno'brien

“One gets an impression that the West has lost a culture of political dialogue. The partners have forgotten how to address problems in a civilized manner,” said Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Pankin on December 8. Pankin explained that the West most often responds to any decision that does not conform to its logic by unilateral sanctions. “In fact, no state pursuing a sovereign, Western-independent policy can be immune from them,” he believes.

To conduct such actions, President Biden even nominated a particular staff member, James O’Brien, to serve as the US coordinator for sanctions policy, whose functions would include all matters related to the compilation and coordination of White House blacklists.

 

Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the prestigious Tufts University in Boston, leaves no stone unturned in the US sanctions policy in the Foreign Affairs pages. Not only are they criminally cruel, as sanctions have left the children of Iraq without medicine and the people of Cuba without meat, but they have not toppled any regime. Sanctions make the US enemies fearless. Since the USA does not know how to lift sanctions, the enemy has nothing to lose because no concessions can be expected from Washington. As a result, Belarus and Cuba are beginning to live without paying attention to the USA, simply ignoring the demands and threats of the Americans.

On December 7, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained during talks with his US counterpart Joe Biden that sanctions have no positive effect for the USA itself either. And in doing so, he forced the head of the White House to seriously reflect on the tactics of such foreign policy pursued by Washington in recent years.

The sanctions policy of Western countries creates powerful additional incentives for the dynamic development of foreign economic relations and cooperation of the countries rejected by the Western sanctions policy. And this, in particular, is demonstrated by the Belarusian Directive #9, aimed at strengthening the strategic partnership with China in 2021-2025.

“Our best response is to team up for the joint development on the principles of equality, mutual trust and respect,” Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said during a videoconference with his Chinese counterpart Li Keqiang on November 30. In his words, this also applies to the intertwining of plans between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Chinese Belt and Road initiative. According to the Russian Prime Minister, this is important for bolstering the interconnection in Eurasian space. It will help guarantee the economic progress of Russia and China and create a solid foundation for the formation of a Greater Eurasian partnership. This year, trade turnover between Russia and China increased by 31% to $110 billion in January-October. This is a serious amount, and it is obviously set for growth, as well as the multifaceted cooperation between the two countries in various vectors.

Russia’s response to EU sanctions imposed under US pressure has dealt a severe blow to Greece’s exports, especially food, halved since 2014. Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Co-Chair of the Joint Greek-Russian Inter-Ministerial Committee, told TASS correspondent about it on November 28.

Unfortunately, today some countries, especially those that do not pursue independent policies, in order to please Washington in their adulterous actions, have decided to “try” to get into a tougher confrontation with US adversaries as a trial balloon. And here, Lithuania decided to especially “prove itself.” However, having limited analytical skills, the current political elite of this country did not even bother to calculate the consequences of such vassal policy for Lithuania. And the reason for the current collapse of such actions by Lithuania is not at all the latest studies of American scientists, who showed that coronavirus could infect the brain and cause long-term neurological effects, including affecting the mood and memory of those infected.

Thus, in his desire to please Washington, Žygimantas Pavilionis, Chair of the Seimas Committee on Foreign Affairs, called urgently to stop the transit of potash fertilizers from Belarus in solidarity with the USA, “which protects Lithuania’s freedom.” At the same time, many experts have repeatedly stated that the cessation of transit of Belaruskali products will lead to significant losses for the Baltic Republic, which turned out to be the case: Minsk switched to the transhipment of potash fertilizers through Russian seaports when supplying products for export. In addition, Lithuania lost transit of Belarusian oil products.

However, its own miscalculations have not brought Lithuania to its senses. While all countries worldwide are trying to build good economic relations with China, Lithuania has decided to go along with Washington’s anti-China policy to please the White House. Thus, in May last year, Vilnius decided to pull out of China’s 17+1 in Eastern Europe. In November of this year, Lithuania has become the first European country in the last 30 years to open Taipei Economic and Cultural Office despite strong protests of China and a warning that of Lithuania continues to act destructively in the Taiwan issue, the Celestial Empire may break off diplomatic relations with it completely. It should not be forgotten that the actual damage caused by Lithuania to China is minimal.

After China announced its decision to reduce diplomatic relations with Lithuania to the level of chargé d’affaires, bilateral trade and investment have come under severe attack, the Global Times wrote. Beijing has vowed to make Lithuania pay a high price for its recklessness on the Taiwan issue. However, some Lithuanian politicians continued on the path of self-destruction. China’s Foreign Ministry urged Lithuania to correct its mistakes. It stressed that the Taiwanese authorities’ attempts to achieve independence in collaboration with outside forces are ill-considered and doomed to failure.

After official Lithuania pretended not to hear Beijing’s diplomatic warnings relying on Washington’s intercession, Chinese authorities removed Lithuania from the customs register. As a result, Lithuanian exporters have lost the opportunity to process their goods through Chinese customs, and they cannot legalize the goods delivered to China, of which there have already accumulated more than 400 containers in Chinese ports by December 3. On December 3, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis asked for support from other EU countries regarding blocking the Baltic States’ cargo by China. Still, he did not receive any reassuring answers from the EU. At the same time, Landsbergis had to admit in the discussion of this issue with Brussels that Lithuania could not impose retaliatory sanctions, as the European Commission regulates customs systems. As regards the EU, it clearly will not go for aggravation of trade and economic relations with China because of Lithuania, especially now that the coronavirus pandemic has already shaken the EU economy.

In these circumstances, Beijing decided to give Vilnius an additional opportunity to “correct its mistakes” in relations with China by temporarily reinstating Lithuania in China’s computerized customs systems on December 7. However, as Lithuanian businessmen told 15min.lt, China has not yet ruled out other means of pressure on Lithuanian business. Thus, exporting Chinese goods from Chinese ports to Lithuania is restricted. One business, which had been waiting a month for a shipment, heard that its cargo was being moved to the back of the queue. According to Vidmantas Janulevičius, President at Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists, China is trying to put pressure on Lithuania through enterprises of other countries.

For example, a garment manufacturer that makes clothes for the French reported that the Chinese have decided not to buy any more products from the French company because they are made in Lithuania. “The French say, ‘Take care of this issue; otherwise, we will look for other garment workers. This could affect quite a few members of the Garment and Textile Association. Another case happened with one of the chemical industry enterprises, which has been working and buying electronics from China for many years. One of the suppliers wrote that we would no longer perform these orders for you,” said Ričardas Sartatavičius, CEO at Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists.

Undoubtedly, such “educational corrective measures” of Beijing on Lithuania and those who wished to join its actions concerning China in their Washington-loving craze should bring such executors of instructions of the White House to their senses. This may also affect those countries that, following US orders, are now trying to deploy a movement of “diplomatic boycott” of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.

It should not be further forgotten that the range of countries willing to support Beijing in its opposition to Washington’s sanctions policy may soon expand to significant proportions, which could severely damage the USA and its sanctions allies, plunging them into an even greater financial and economic crisis from which they are already suffering because of the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/12/13/a-recent-case-in-point-of-what-anti-chinese-sanctions-could-bring/

 

 

NOTE: We are given a glowing review of James by the White House:

 

James O’Brien has been Principal and Vice Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, an international advisory firm. He is a former career employee of the State Department and recipient of numerous performance awards, and has previously served two U.S. administrations as a special Presidential envoy. As the first Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs between 2015 and 2017, he helped establish the office and worked for the safe return of one hundred American citizens. From 1989 to 2001, he served as Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Principal Deputy Director of Policy Planning, and Presidential Envoy for the Balkans.

Over the course of his career at the State Department, he has led a large and successful sanctions program and advised on a range of issues, including peace negotiations in Europe, scientific and environmental agreements, and initiatives to investigate and prosecute persons responsible for war crimes [except Americans]. O’Brien has also negotiated agreements protecting intellectual property rights for scientific cooperation with China, promoted environmentally sound international trade regulations for hazardous and recyclable materials, and worked to make public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility an important element in American foreign policy. O’Brien earned a J.D. from Yale Law School, an M.A. degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Not a single photograph of James is available on the internet... Gus Leonisky concentrates on the people, characters and idiots who are in charge of stuff, as well as expose the stupidity of policies, because individuals who are in charge do not have the brains to see beyond the damage their actions are doing. James is the epitome of such stupidity. Despite having a million degrees from "Law Schools" et al, he is an idiot. Madeleine Albright has been the most vicious woman that ever led "sanctions policies" which should have been declared WAR CRIMES. James is walking in her shoes...

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

solomon's unrest?...

 

US Torches Solomon Islands for Choosing China

 

BY Brian Berletic

 

Recent unrest in the Solomon Islands, a small Oceania nation northeast of Australia’s coasts, is a reminder of just how far the US is willing to go to penalize nations for choosing to do business with China versus obeying threats from Washington not to.

Reuters in an article titled, “Explainer: -What is behind unrest in the Solomon Islands?,” would report that a group calling itself “Malaita for Democracy” ravaged the capital Honiara’s Chinatown after the nation’s prime minister failed to address them.

This follows the current Solomon Islands government’s growing ties with Beijing after its decision in 2019 to recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of “one China” – a policy adopted by virtually all nations on Earth (including AUKUS members; the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) with the exception of only a small and shrinking number of outliers.

The article would note Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare’s explanation:

Sogavare said unnamed foreign powers had intervened because they did not want the Solomon Islands to have diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has denied any involvement in the unrest.

Reuters would go on to explain:

China and Taiwan have been rivals in the South Pacific for decades. Some island nations have switched allegiances and allegations have surfaced about rival offers of aid and infrastructure being made to sway influence.

Fifteen countries maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. The last two to ditch Taipei in favour of Beijing were the Solomon Islands and Kiribati in September 2019.

Malaita’s premier, Daniel Suidani, has banned Chinese companies from the province and accepted development aid from the United States.

The Solomon Islands’ province of Malaita is clearly a foothold of US influence – its local government bought off by Washington in a demonstration of blatant foreign interference in violation of the UN Charter protecting the political independence of all sovereign nations.

Whilte Taiwan is also cited as playing a significant role in interfering in the Solomon Islands – its “Taiwan Foundation for Democracy” is little more than an extension of Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy with little to no actual independence meaning that Taiwan is simply one of several vectors US interference is laundered through.

Washington’s Long History of Meddling in the Solomon Islands 

Far from comments made by the Solomon Islands’ prime minister or admissions from Reuters alone, US interference in Malaita’s internal political affairs through tranches of supposed “aid” money has been noted across the Western media and for many decades.

A US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks titled, “IV PROGRAM FOR SOLOMON ISLANDS,” and dated 1976, discusses grant money to be provided for the now late Solomon Islands politician Fred Osifelo.

The cable would note Osifelo’s future potential as a prominent Solomon Islands’ politician from Malaita, and the desire to “broaden” his knowledge of the United States in order for him to be “of value to the US government.” The cable demonstrates US attempts to buy off the nation’s leadership as they rose through the ranks of government.

More recently and in direct connection with recent violence in the Solomon Islands – in an October 2020 article in the Diplomat titled, “US Aid Pledge to Pro-Taiwan Solomon Islands Province Raises Eyebrows,” it would be reported that:

The United States has pledged $25 million in aid to the Solomon Islands province of Malaita, which has in recent weeks made calls for secession from the national government over its relationship with China.

Malaita, the largest province in the Solomon Islands, announced its plan to hold a referendum on independence last month, citing the central government’s switch in diplomatic relations with Taiwan to China last year. The decision has put Malaita at odds with the rest of the country, as Malaita preferred to continue relations with Taiwan.

The Diplomat would continue, noting:

The US aid package, more than 50 times what the province received in aid from all countries in 2018, has sparked concerns that Washington is using the aid for geopolitical gain, to counter China – despite the risks it poses in flaring old tensions. 

Clearly – at the risk of large numbers of human lives, the political and economic stability of the entire nation itself as well as the nation’s future – the United States has deliberately created division within the Solomon Islands, specifically to prevent positive developments resulting from closer ties between the island nation and Beijing.

China – soon to be the world’s largest economy and a nation renowned for its expertise in alleviating poverty, driving development, and building infrastructure around the globe – will be key to overcoming the Solomon Islands’ chronic poverty and lack of opportunities.

The United States, on the other hand, has demonstrated throughout the 21st century both a lack of ability to drive global development as well as a lack of interest in partnering with nations for mutual benefit. Instead, the United States imposes itself on a targeted nation, capturing administrative control over it, strip-mining its economy, and using what’s left as a battering ram or brush fire to destabilize neighboring nations. What aid it or allies like the current administration of Taiwan pass out is deliberately designed to maintain dependency on and obedience to Washington.

It is clear that the Solomon Islands is the latest demonstration of this process, with lives already being lost, property being damaged, and the threat of a larger conflict looming overhead solely because the United States refuses to let the Oceania nation make the obvious choice of working with China toward a better economic future and toward opportunities the United States admittedly cannot and will not provide any alternatives to.

The deployment of mostly Western troops to the Solomon Islands to quell unrest of Washington’s own deliberate design bodes ill for the islands’ future and serves as an example of what awaits other smaller nations around the globe if they fail to prepare against similar attempts to undermine their sovereignty and co-opt their foreign policy.

Although Prime Minister Sogavare survived a no-confidence vote after the US-sponsored violence, and as plans to pivot the islands closer to China move forward – it remains to be seen whether the recent violence was a punishment meted out in vain by Washington or the first round of much wider destabilization efforts being engineered to deny the islands as a functioning, viable parter for Beijing.

 

 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/12/14/us-torches-solomon-islands-for-choosing-china/

 

MEANWHILE:

Australian resources assigned to curb Chinese expansion would be better used to counter vaccine hesitancy and lift supply.

The geopolitical battle of the 21st century between China and the West encompasses all regions. The Pacific is not immune. In the case of the Solomon Islands, its decision in 2019 to cease a formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan had the expected outcome of strengthening bilateral ties with China. This has exacerbated the discontent on the island, especially towards the Chinese population.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare blamed “external factors” and stated that the riots were a “sad and unfortunate event, aimed at bringing a democratically-elected government down”.

When receiving the call for assistance, Australia was no doubt relieved to be contacted first, rather than China.

As Australia committed a small group of soldiers and police to the islands in order to quell the unrest, the question has to be asked: is deployment purely for the geopolitical reasons of countering the perceived Chinese threat?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison unconvincingly denied this, stating: “We are seeking to take no part in the internal issues of the Solomon Islands but simply to ensure that any issues they have can be addressed in a calm and peaceful way.”

The intervention is conveniently timed for an Australian government that in recent weeks has stepped up its aggression towards Chinese hostilities. Defence Minister Peter Dutton has been especially vociferous and hawkish, which has resulted in him being accused of fanning the flames of conflict by both Chinese state media and former Australian prime minister Paul Keating.

Internally, the Australian government is worried about the Chinese influence on the Pacific nation that was the epicentre of aggressive conflict during World War II.

Since 2016, Australia has attempted to reduce Beijing’s presence with the “Pacific Step-Up” program, which the neoliberal think tank, the Lowy Institute, argues is important to “limit Beijing’s revisionist tendencies and ‘debt-trap’ Belt and Road Initiative”.

In response to a deal that Chinese telecommunication company Huawei had with the Solomon Islands to build a high-speed internet connection underwater, in 2018 Australia stepped in and agreed to fund the building of the cables. This mirrored the decision made in 2017 to fund the internet project in Papua New Guinea.

Call it what you will, it’s realpolitik

Despite the posturing of the prime minister, Australia’s insouciant regard of the Pacific region highlights how this intervention is simply an example of realpolitik. Australia has often disregarded the region when it suited, no more so than when it comes to climate change and the vaccine roll-out.

 

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/solomons-intervention-merely-serves-australias-own-pacific-interests/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

sanction this, thus, that, thot, thit....

Sanction this. Sanction that. The Department of the Treasury is currently administering dozens of sanction programs designed to change the behavior of certain countries.

And yet, no one seems to ask the important question: Do sanctions promote peace and understanding or escalate tensions between nations? What behavior has China modified since the U.S. began sanctions? Has Russia changed her behavior? Has Russia given back Crimea?

Sanctions, though lacking in proof of effectiveness, are very popular with both parties. Embargoes, sanctions’ big brother, also garner bipartisan enthusiasm. The U.S. embargo of Cuba has now endured for more than 60 years without any evidence of a change in regime or even a change in the regime’s policy.

Embargoes are often described, especially by the embargoed country, as an act of war. Many historians say the U.S.’s embargo of 1807 ultimately led to the War of 1812. President Jefferson’s embargo was intended to punish France and England for their aggressions at sea but instead the embargo crippled American shipping exports. Exports declined by 75 percent along with a reduction in imports.

Some historians also blame the U.S. embargo of Japan in 1941 for the ensuing war. Franklin Roosevelt seized all of Japan’s assets and Japan lost access to the vast majority of its international trade and over 80 percent of its imported oil. Effectively, at least from Japan’s perspective, the embargo was an act of war.

Yet enthusiasts for embargoes and sanctions still clamor for more. Sanctionistas point to the international sanctions against Iran as the lever that brought about the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran.

Perhaps. But an equally valid argument can be made that it was the extension of carrots rather than sticks that brought Iran to the table. Funny how diplomacy seems to require give and take and not just take, take, take.

Our interaction with Iran should illuminate today’s debate over sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline from Russia to Germany. But, the shade of mercantilism is dimming the light of experience. Opponents of the pipeline, not surprisingly, are largely from states that compete in the sale of natural gas. Acknowledging that this debate is only superficially about national security and really more about provincial protectionism helps us better understand the dynamics.

History demonstrates that trade and interconnectedness between nations is a barrier to war. Engaging in mutually beneficial commerce coupled with a potent military deterrence is the combination that best promises peace.

Over the past decade Congress and presidents have heaped sanctions on Russia and China. When I’ve asked State Department officials to reveal what behavioral changes have come about as a result of sanctions, I’ve gotten only blank stares. Now the sanctionistas want to sanction an already completed pipeline. But what behavior are they asking Russia to change? What specifically is Russia being asked? What Russian action is necessary for the sanctions to end?

If Nord Stream II sanctions were really about changing Russian policy or deterring aggression, then NATO, including Germany, could threaten sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine. Now that threat of sanctions, with Germany as an ally, might actually have deterring value.

But as today’s debate unfolds, I think you’ll find that sanctions against Nord Stream II are more about mercantilism and protectionism than national security.

 

Rand Paul serves as the junior United States senator from Kentucky. 

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nord-stream-sanctions-are-not-about-security/

 

Read from top.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!