- Published in World
The noted Brazilian political scientist and theologian Frei Betto recently said that “the Yankees will do everything so that our continent will go back to being their backyard.”
President Nicolas Maduro, alongside thousands of Venezuelans, participates in an event to commemorate the popular uprising against a 2002 coup, Caracas, Venezuela, April 13, 2016.
Despite the rhetoric about democratic values that emanates from Washington, the U.S. government has always been willing to use any means necessary to impose their will on Latin America. This has often translated into foreign intervention.
But the U.S. public has grown weary of their government's imperialist adventures, which as of late have ended in utter disaster. Washington elites know they must first fool the public into believing that intervention is a necessity.
To accomplish this they turn to private media outlets and their editorial boards, who help drum up support for U.S. intervention in foreign countries.
Enter the latest example: a recent editorial by the Washington Post entitled: “Venezuela is in desperate need of a political intervention.”
This from the same paper that was once vilified by U.S. conservatives for its supposed leftist tilt.
The use of the word intervention is deliberate, the Post knows that the Bolivarian Revolution – started by Hugo Chavez and continued by his successor Nicolas Maduro – still commands enormous support. The Venezuelan people will not simply hand the state back over to the very same politicians that abused the working class for decades.
An intervention done in the name of the Organization of American States, as the editorial calls for, is still imperialist. And it's not just Venezuelans who know it but the whole region, which has seen the OAS used time and again to legitimize the imperialist fancies of the U.S. in the region.
The Post also knows that deceiving their audience sometimes requires outright lies.
Like the New York Times editorial on Venezuela that proceeded the Post's, the editorial team claims that lack of cooperation between the Maduro government and the opposition-controlled National Assembly is entirely the fault of Maduro.
The Post claimed that he “pursued scorched-earth warfare with the National Assembly,” while the Times claimed that it opposition only reluctantly settled on ousting the democratically-elected Maduro from power.
Lies. All of it.
From the moment they were declared the winners of the parliamentary election, the opposition said their goal was ousting Maduro from power.
There was never an opportunity for cooperation between the Venezuelan government and the opposition and the blame for that lies with the opposition. On the day the new parliament was sworn in, Henry Ramos Allup, a leading figure in the opposition, literally ran his finger across his throat to indicate his feelings about the government and its supporters.
Does that sound like a politician interested in dialogue? Hardly unsurprising that the Post would chose to leave that detail out.
But lying through omission isn't enough for the Post editorial board. They fancy themselves legal experts, able to pass judgment on Venezuela's division of powers and the decisions of its Supreme Court.
The Post took issue with the court's decision to rule a highly controversial “amnesty” bill as unconstitutional. This bill doesn't promote amnesty for so-called political prisoners, it affords impunity for people directly responsible for the deaths of dozens.
The objective of the opposition's impunity bill was the release of politicians involved in efforts to oust Maduro by force, politicians like Leopoldo Lopez who was found guilty of inciting the violent protests that led to the deaths of 43 people.
Of course the truth doesn't fit their narrative, so the Post brazenly claims that state security forces were largely responsible for the deaths during the 2014 protests. The truth is the vast majority of those killed were either innocent bystanders, government supporters, or state security officials.
It wasn't the state that set up violent blockades, it wasn't the state that strung up barbed wire so that passing motorists would be decapitated, it was Lopez's supporters.
Venezuela is confronting a major economic crisis, that much is true, but the Post doesn't bother with an investigation as to why. No, instead it blames everything on Maduro, including the drought that is affecting Venezuela's ability to produce electricity. The same drought that is causing similar problems in neighboring Colombia. Is that too the fault of Maduro?
Seems as if the Post's editorial board is also gifted with the power of premonition, predicting that the opposition's efforts to prematurely end Maduro's mandate would be declared void.
Media outlets made the same sort of predictions ahead of the 2015 parliamentary elections, claiming that the government would not recognize the results. Of course Maduro immediately recognized the results.
The opposition is free to pursue a recall referendum against Maduro, as they did with Chavez, which they lost. All that Venezuela's electoral authority asks is that they follow the rules, something they seem unable to do.
As for an effort to pass a law to shorten Maduro's term, well even the Post's friends at the Times understands that “it would be hard to justify carrying out that change retroactively when Mr. Maduro was elected for a six-year term.”
Any foreign intervention, even one under the auspices of the OAS, would indeed result the kind of intense scenes the Post describes, but it would come as a result of millions of Venezuelans hitting the streets to reject it.
Venezuelans, and more broadly speaking Latin Americans, have lived through an era where the shackles of imperialism have been shed. They will not allow the region to become the backyard of the United States ever again.
Partially financed by the Cuban-Venezuelan far right-wing of Miami, it approached the current politics of Washington towards Havana.
It did it in an editorial where it suggests that its essential purpose is to impose a régime change.
Such writing was published on Thursday entitled “Obama, Castro and the Embargo.”
It affirms that the new meeting between “ruler” Castro and president Obama, now in New York, left to many mouths opened.
On one side, it adds, Cuba demanding among other matters the end of what the editorial calls embargo.
On the other hand, Obama defending to eliminate a policy that has failed in more than 50 years.
It is worth clarifying that it did pay off thanks to those who have promoted it in Washington and Miami: its huge diplomatic isolation in that topic.
The first voting of the UN General Assembly on the “blockade to Cuba” took place in 1992 and it would repeat with that message for 20 of its yearly sessions until 2014.
In that first year, 57 countries rejected it and about twelve months ago 188 did the same, while Washington, supported by Israel, remained as main supported.
A detail worth mentioning is that never during that UN period has used the term “embargo” to substitute the most exact term “blockade”.
Now it’s speculated that after the well known gradual approach between Cuba and United States, the White House could abstain in the coming voting of the United Nations on this issue.
Las Americas newspaper point out that apparently Obama and Raúl coincide, but there’s a great difference between them on how to achieve the same objective.
Seemingly the Cuban régime conquered in the last days, but Obama insists “that only his strategy has changed to take a future of progress and human rights to the people of Cuba”, adds the editorial.
It reads that it’s a politics where the régime from Havana attempts to keep the cave in darkness or with a dim light.
At the same time, according to the article, the United States shows Cubans that the world “is full of light and opportunities.”
How to assess the meaning of those words amid the everyday tragedy of so many millions of inhabitants in the planet?
Simply, like a slap to human intelligence, a mock to the doomed of the Earth.
Just that blundered criterion strips from all seriousness everything written up to that point and what comes afterwards.
Like when they insist in the version that Washington has given plenty to Cuba without receiving something in return, mistake, firstly they would have to lift the blockade.
Then it resorts to a more aggressive approach when it outlines that in the long run “there won't be anyone capable to contain the huge influence that the most powerful nation in the world through its “soft power.”
The Editorial Staff of Las Americas finished with a sentence that strips naked all that insinuates very clearly:
“There isn’t a strong rock for soft waves.”
Hence, the forewarned war circling above Cubans bare its fangs wider enveloped in silk.
And Las Americas Newspaper, unlike others, strips it naked, untimed, and brutally.
Will any official or propagandist spokesman from Washington dare to deny it? The ball is in their turf.
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on his U.S. counterpart John Kerry in a telephone call on Wednesday to unite together in the fight against the Islamic State in Syria.
After having negotiated a regional alliance against the Islamic Emirate which implied Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, Russia suddenly had to abandon its strategy after the Turkish turn-around. Ankara has in fact decided to break off its ties with Moscow, and has cancelled, without genuine motive, the contract for the gas pipe-line Turkish Stream, created, in partenership with Ukraine, an international Islamic Brigade intended to destabilise Crimea . It has also come to the help of the Islamic Emirate in their fight against the Kurds of the PKK and the YPG.
In the same way, the White House has been obliged to change its own strategy after the manœuvers by General John Allen, who agreed to help President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to create a « security zone »for the Islamic Emirate in Northern Syria .
Finally, Moscow and Washington have coordinated
- the removal of Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey ;
- the creation of a Russo-Syrian military Commission.
The end of the no-fly zone
The Patriot missiles had been installed by NATO in Turkey as from January 2013, in order to prevent the Syrian Air Force from deploying on the frontier. As a result, the jihadists of the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaïda) were able to seize the North of the country, and as from the summer of 2014, this no-fly zone was occupied by the Islamic Emirate.
Thus, during the battle of Kobane, the Syrian Air Force were unable to bomb the Islamic Emirate, and Syria was obliged to attempt a land attack to save the city. Since it was unable to advance the last thirty kilometres, the Atlantist Press presented the Kurdish forces of the YPG as being independent of Damascus, although the Syrian Arab Republic had supplied it with weapons and was paying its soldiers.
The Patriot missiles, initially deployed by Germany and Holland, are today German and Spanish. They will first of all be revised and modernised, then redeployed in Lithuania, at the Russian frontier.
The entrance of the Russian army into the war against Syria
Although Russia had abstained from participating in military operations since the beginning of the conflict, it has now created a Russo-Syrian Military Commission. And yet, NATO had organised all the events concerned in what was called the « Arab spring », including the war against Syria, and coordinated foreign jihadist groups and their Libyan and Syrian collaborators, called « rebels », from the Turkish base in Izmir , now also the location of LancCom (command of the land troops of the 28 member states of the Atlantic Alliance).
Within a few weeks, many military advisors arrived in Damascus.
Six Mikoyan-Gourevitch MiG-31’s were delivered. These planes are the best interceptors in the world. They had been bought in 2007, but the contract had been frozen. Their delivery is not affected by the arms embargo, since they can not be used in operations concerning the maintenance of law and order, but only for national defence, in this case, possible incursions by Israël or Turkey. Under various pretexts, these two states acted many time during the war to support the jihadists whenever they were in difficulty.
So, on the 30th January 2013, Tsahal bombed the Centre for Military Research in Jemraya, under the pretext of destroying weapons that were destined for Hezbollah. In fact, the attack was intended to destroy a communications brief-case captured by the Syrian Arab Army, containing NATO satellite data, before they were able to decipher it . The operation had been commanded by the Israeli Air Force in coordination with the Free Syrian Army, which in turn was directed by officers of the French Foreign Legion under the supervision of NATO’s LandCom.
Simultaneously, and for the first time, the Russian army has just supplied satellite images to Syria. This decision, awaited for five years, inverses the military situation. Indeed, so far the jihadists have often escaped the Syrian Arab Army thanks to satellite images supplied by NATO in real time. Even though, over a six-month period, it would seem that NATO no longer shares its intelligence with the Islamic Emirate, but only with the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaïda).
Finally, the Russian military advisors possess a wealth of information which they use in order to study the possibility of an international deployment under banner of the UNO. They have to present a report to the Kremlin which would also study the possibility of a Russian operation as well as a joint operation by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
The CSTO will be meeting in Douchanbe, Tadjikistan, on the 15th September. A deployment by the CSTO had aleady been envisaged, in June 2012, during the preparation for the « Geneva Conference 1 » . Indeed, this military alliance includes three states with a Muslim population - Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, and Tadjikistan, who are better prepared than Russia to fight terrorists who claim to be Islamist. However, at the time, the CSTO had no agreement with the UNO to carry out peace operations. This situation was resolved on the 28th September 2012 – it could also be applied as well in Afghanistan as in Syria .
The limits of the cooperation between the Kremlin and the White House
In any event, the cooperation between the Kremlin and the White House has its limits – Russia wants to eradicate the jihadists before they turn against her, while the United States hope that some of them could be re-activated in other conflicts, as was earlier the case in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya and Kosovo.
Already, certain elements of Daesh have arrived in Kherson (Ukraine), where a so-called « Crimean Government in Exile » already exists.
It is apparent that from the US side, the withdrawal of the Patriot missiles is a trap. Washington would be happy for Russia to reduce the number of active jihadists, but at the same time, it would not be dismayed if it were to get bogged down in Syria. That is why the Russian bear is advancing prudently.
The opposition between the United States and Iran, which had dominated Near-Eastern politics since the speech given by Imam Rouhollah Khomeiny at Teheran cemetery on the 1st February 1979, to the signature of the bilateral agreement with the government of Cheikh Hassan Rohani on the 14th July 2015, no longer exists. As from now, Washington and Teheran are both pusuing the interests of the same global ruling class.
At the time, President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Council advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński had to deal with the desertion of Iran, which, until then, had been Washington’s « local police force ». They reacted first by soliciting the Saudis for help in countering the Imam’s revolutionary, anti-imperialist message – this signalled the beginning of the Wahhabisation of world Islam – then by deciding to control the Near Eastern reserve of hydrocarbons.
During his « State of the Union » speech of the 23rd January 1980, Jimmy Carter declared - « Let our position be absolutely clear – any attempt by a foreign power to take control of the Persian Gulf region will be considered as an attack on the vital interests of the United States of America, and any such attack will be resisted by all necessary means, including military force. »
With this objective, the Pentagon organised a regional command for its army, the Central Command (CentCom), whose zone of competence included all the states in the region with the exception of Israel and Turkey.
The end of the artificial Sunnite/Chiite conflict
For 35 years, we have watched the slow development of an abyss between the Sunnites, commanded by their Saudi champion, and the Chiites, commanded by their Iranian leader. The former defended the United States and their capitalist economic model, while the latter hoped to die delivering the world from Anglo-Saxon imperialism.
This conflict, and this form of economic cleavage, had never before in History existed at such a degree of intensity. It peaked with the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaïda and Daesh, three movements financed by the Gulf monarchies and their allies, and from time to time, Israël against the Chiites.
Since the 14th July, and without the slightest explanation, Riyadh has ceased to evoke this religious conflict, which has clearly been resolved without the help of the theologians. Saudi Arabia is no longer fighting Iran, which is now a partner of its US overlord, but finds itself in opposition to Iran in the new Near East. So now Riyadh is no longer claiming to represent the Sunnites, but the Arabs, while Iran can no longer pose as the leader of the Chiites, but only the Persians.
However, until 2010, the Arab world was no longer under unilateral Saudi control, but governed by a triumvirate composed of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The evolution of CentCom
Although the reform of CentCom is not yet on the schedule, the subject will have to be addressed soon. Currently, its zone of competence includes the Near East and Central Asia. However, we should not only be seeing peace coming to Yemen and Syria very soon, but we may also see the war moving on towards the Black Sea, Turkey and Crimea.
The United Nations have announced their intention to organise inter-Syrian negotiations and refer them to a « contact group », in other words, the powers that have been sponsoring the war for the last four and a half years.
Globally speaking, we are moving towards an agreement which will recognise the « victory » of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and that of Iran in Syria.
Stefan de Mistura, Ban Ki-moon’s special envoy, has declared : « • I intend to invite the Syrians to participate in a round of simultaneous thematic debates, engaged in parallel within the framework of an inter-Syrian work group, to look closely at the fundamental aspects of the Geneva Communiqué, which they identified during the primary phase of consultations, and which specifically aim to guarantee the security and protection of all, to find a way to end the sieges, to guarantee access to medical care and to free prisoners.
• The second phase will concentrate on the political and constitutional aspects, notably the essential principles, the transitory authorities and the elections.
• The third phase will concern the military and security aspects, particularly an efficient opposition to terrorism with the participation of all, as well as the cease-fires and integration.
• The fourth phase will concern public institutions, construction and development, which means, as we have pointed out, that we must do whatever is necessary to avoid reproducing what happened in Iraq, specifically, when the institutions have brutally vanished, and the country is in a situation of great difficulty. These institutions must continue to ensure public services, under the direction of their universally accepted leaders, and who act in respect of the principles of good government and human rights. » 
At the same time, Turkey has opened a new front by declaring war on its Kurdish minority. This decision, if it were to continue, would plunge the country into a long and terrible civil war. After all sorts of contradictory declarations, the United States has forbidden it to pursue the PKK into Syria – where it is known under the name of the YPG – so that, finally, Syria will become the host nation for the Kurdish revolutionaries.
Above all, Turkey has broken off the economic relations that it had been building with Russia over the last eight months, and has constituted an « International Islamist Brigade » with Ukraine, in other words, a terrorist organisation destined to destabilise Crimea .
In the absence of a legitimate government in Turkey, a situation which has now lasted for more than a month, it is impossible to predict what will become of the country, but it is clear that the worst is possible.
What are the United States hoping to gain from Resolution 2235 ?
In the present context, we observe with anxiety the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 2235. It has been agreed to create a mechanism for inquiry run conjointly by the OPCW and the UNO in order to determine who is using chemical weapons in Syria .
The investigators of the OPCW, who until now did not have a mandate to determine who is using chemical weapons, have established that at least 14 attacks using chlorine were perpetrated in 2014. The US ambassador claimed that these weapons were delivered by helicopter, which the « rebels » do not possess. In other words, the OPCW and the UNO were engaging the responsibility of the Syrian Arab Republic. However, a careful reading of the three preceding reports by the OPCW  reveals another possibility – these attacks may have been perpetrated by the Turkish army, as the Syrian ambassador claims. He also expressed his satisfaction that the resolution had been adopted.
Let us note that doubts about Turkey’s role are legitimate, taking into account that on the 11th May 2013, it organised a false-flag attack in Reyhanlı which killed fifty of its own citizens in order to accuse Syria, and that, on the 21st August 2013, it organised a chemical attack against the Ghouta in Damascus, once again in order to accuse Syria and attempt to drag NATO into war, and that in March 2014, the Turkish army entered the Syro-Armenian village of Kessab with al-Qaïda and the Islamic Army (pro-Saudi militia) to ransack the village and continue the genocide of the Armenian people.
The OPCW reports are already eight months old, but have only now given rise to this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Coucil each have at their disposition a satellite system which enables them to determine the responsibility for these chemical attacks. In the event that the OPCW and the UNO were to establish the responsibility of Turkey, Mr. Erdoğan would become the scapegoat for the entire Syrian crisis.
The hardening of relations between Washington and Moscow
The US-Iran peace accord leaves Washington the latitude to concentrate on working to counter Moscow.
We mentioned earlier the transfer of Daesh jihadistes to Crimea by Ukraine and Turkey. Basically, this is no more than the reprise of the sabotage operations that were executed inside the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
More serious is the US attempt to use the destruction of flight MH17 to accuse Russia. On the 29th July, Washington presented the Security Council with a project for a resolution aimed at establishing an international penal Tribunal in order to judge the authors of this crime . It was clearly a court created to condemn President Vladimir Putin, just as the special Tribunal had been created for Lebanon – using false testimony – to condemn Presidents Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud.
Naturally enough, Russia opposed the project by using its veto. One can not avoid thinking of the proposition made by President Barack Obama to his Russian opposite number in 2011, promising to support him if he agreed to bring his Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, before an international court. There was talk at the time of holding the potential defendant responsible for the war in Chechnya, which had in fact been organised by Washington.