STRATEGIC ALERT NEWSLETTER
|
|
|
| | | “It should be clear to any alert observer that we are potentially on the verge of a global nuclear war in the short term, which can be triggered by a further escalation of either of two conflicts, the Ukraine war or the Israel-Hamas conflict. What makes this situation so dangerous in the immediate term is that Western leaders are not insisting on an immediate ceasefire and diplomatic solutions, but are taking sides unilaterally. And the United States is clearly preparing in the medium term to wage a simultaneous war against Russia and China, which would be a nuclear one in either case.”
|
Such is the assessment of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as laid out in an article written Oct. 21, under the title “Whom the gods would destroy... On the way to World War III”. She goes on to call for a “global mobilization” in favor of immediate ceasefires in both regions, and for support for the Chinese proposal for a Southwest Asia Peace Conference. Beyond that, on a higher level, a new global security and development architecture “that definitively does away with geopolitics” is needed.
|
Indeed, Israel’s government has warned that the offensive in Gaza will be "long and intense” and “hard to stomach”, as others speak openly of the “extermination” of the Palestinian population, and the humanitarian catastrophe spins out of control. Israel threatens to open a second front against the Hezbollah in Lebanon, and in the worst case, Iran could become a party to the conflict. The Biden Administration has already heavily deployed naval forces and aircraft carriers in the Eastern Mediterranean.
|
The danger in Ukraine has not lessened, although NATO’s strategy has obviously failed there. Washington has now approved delivery of the ATACMS, missile systems with a range of over 300 km capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, and the White House is demanding over $100 billion in new defense funds, for Ukraine and Israel among others (cf. below). In response to these developments, Russian President Putin announced from Beijing, after a long meeting with Xi Jinping, that Russian fighter jets, carrying hypersonic Kinzhal missiles, will now carry out permanent patrols over the neutral zone of the Black Sea. Such missiles can easily reach the Eastern Mediterranean as well as all targets in Ukraine.
|
Western European leaders, for their part, have jumped on Washington’s bandwagon only too willingly. German Chancellor Scholz has been the most outspoken, promising “unconditional support” to Israel. But as Zepp-LaRouche points out in her article, the question is “which Israel”? The one wielding totally disproportionate violence to wipe out the Palestinians, or the one whose citizens are calling for the immediate ouster of Netanyahu and denouncing the fact that he and his allies have armed and financed the Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority and sabotage a two-state solution (cf. SAS 42/23)?
|
To prevent the conflicts in Ukraine and Southwest Asia from escalating into a world war, all citizens should demand that their respective governments promote peace initiatives, as well as the implementation of UN Resolution 242, unanimously adopted on Nov. 22, 1967. In addition, Helga Zepp-LaRouche concludes, the “Oasis Plan” proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in 1975 provides “the necessary economic development program that must be the basis for any pacification of the region”.
|
| The full article by Helga Zepp-LaRouche can be read in English translation here. |
| |
|
| | | The following petition was released on Oct. 23 by the International Peace Coalition, of which the international Schiller Institute is a member. Our readers are invited to sign it here.
|
The cycle of perpetual violence in Southwest Asia, also known as the Middle East, consumes generation after generation in deadly war. We come together as one humanity to stop this immediately, we add our voices to what Brazil, China, and other nations of the Global Majority are suggesting to the United Nations.
|
China stated that it “supports the Security Council in holding an emergency meeting on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, agrees that the meeting should focus on humanitarian concerns, demand a ceasefire, an end to violence and the protection of civilians, form a binding international consensus and take concrete next steps.”
|
We believe this indicates the proper course of action. We propose the following steps:
|
Step 1: We demand the end of forced migration from Gaza.
|
Step 2: We demand a ceasefire and an end to the daily killing by all means available.
|
Step 3: The United Nations must find ways to enforce its Resolution 242, adopted November 22, 1967, and that resolution’s two points: “(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
|
| These steps will uplift the voice of the post-colonial Global South, instead of only that of “Global NATO.” The proper concern of all humanity is peace, not global war and we thus evoke the original intention of the United Nations charter to be upheld: |
| | | “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…” |
|
| We, the undersigned, commit to find what Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin called “the courage to change our axioms,” and to seek and win peace in Southwest Asia. |
| |
|
| | | President Biden used a nationally televised address on Oct. 19 to make the case for an escalation of U.S. support for wars to defend "democracy". He had just returned from Israel, where he bolstered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and met with his war cabinet.
|
Biden’s strategy is to link Ukraine funding to aid for Israel, which he incorporated into the supplemental war budget he sent the next day to Congress. His proposal came at the point that the initial $113 billion appropriated for Ukraine's proxy war against Russia in 2022 is nearly depleted; that aid for Ukraine has come under fire in the Congress, especially from conservative Republicans, and as new polls show 56% of Americans oppose any additional funding.
|
Thus, in his speech to the nation, Biden connected the war in Ukraine to support for Israel against Hamas. By doing so, he hopes to undercut all those who are fully behind Netanyahu, for various reasons, but oppose the corrupt regime in Kyiv. "Hamas and Putin represent different threats," he said, "but they share this in common: They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy.” He then added what no one outside of gullible, or ideologically blind, Americans could take seriously: “American leadership is what holds the world together. American values are what makes us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it's just not worth it.”
|
For his strategy to prevail, Biden proposed a new $105 billion special appropriation, with $10.8 billion for Israel (on top of the annual $3.8 billion aid), and over $60 bn slated for Ukraine, as well as more funding for the Asia-Pacific region to counter China. This strategy was embraced by Democratic Party war hawks.Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer applauded the plan, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Ben Cardin concurred, saying the linkage has bi-partisan support.
|
In the days since the attack on Israel, supporters of permanent war have added Iran to the target list. The CEO of the pro-war Atlantic Council, Frederick Kempe, wrote an op-ed praising Biden's speech, saying he "connected the dots between Russia's criminal war... and Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel, assisted by Iran". This coincides with a traveling road show of neocons, run by Polaris National Security, and Bastion Institute. Associated with these two "think tanks" are officials who were involved in pushing the U.S. to go to war against Iraq, such as Elliot Abrams, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Doug Feith and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
|
| The stated purpose of these and allied hawkish groups is to make "security issues" central to the race for a presidential candidate in the Republican party, in order to defeat Donald Trump and his "America Firsters", who oppose involving the U.S. in these wars. Perhaps not unrelated to their efforts is Trump's recent “100%” embrace of Netanyahu's war strategy, which has undermined his his credibility as an adversary of the ominous "Deep State". |
| |
|
| | | Due to his advocacy of diplomacy on the Ukraine issue, his refusal to denounce the Russian President and his calls for restoring good relations with Russia, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has been locked out of mainstream media coverage for most of the past 16 months. Therefore, the interview with him which Berliner Zeitung published Oct. 20 was an exception.
|
The former Chancellor criticized Washington’s strategy on Ukraine as “fatal”, recounting what he knew personally from March 2022, when negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were progressing. He himself has been asked by the Ukrainians to mediate between the two parties. At the time, Schröder explained, now Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov “had shown willingness to make concessions: no Ukrainian membership in NATO and the lifting on a ban of Russian language in the Donbass. But in the end, nothing happened. My impression: nothing could happen, because everything else was decided in Washington.”
|
| In Schröder’s view, a European initiative should be launched by the French President and the German Chancellor: “Scholz and Macron should actually support a peace process in Ukraine because it’s not just an American matter, but above all a European matter... Why did Scholz and Macron not combine the arms deliveries with an offer to talk? Macron and Scholz are the only ones who can talk to Putin.” Without taking into account Russia’s security interests, he said, “peace will be difficult to achieve”. |
| |
|
| | | The general elections in Switzerland on Oct. 22 delivered a clear win to the People's Party (SPP) and a defeat to the Greens (GPS and GLP). The SPP, already the largest party, increased its score by 3% to 28.6%, gaining 9 seats in the lower house (National Council); the Green Party lost 3.8% sinking to 9.4%, and the Green Liberal Party was down 0.6% to 7.2%. Together, the two latter lost 11 seats. The final results for the upper house, the Council of States, are not yet known, as several runoffs are scheduled for November.
|
The composition of the federal government, however, will not change, as the four largest parties make up the seven-member cabinet. The SPP, although the largest, has two members, as do the Socialist Party and the Liberals. The Center (Christian Democrats) has one. That said, the federal government will have to acknowledge the political signal sent by the voters: a clear rejection of climate policies and an endorsement of the SPP proposals on migration and neutrality issues.
|
The latter is of strategic importance. The SPP campaigned against the government decision to abandon the country’s traditional neutrality and endorse EU sanctions against Russia last year. In reality, giving up neutrality was just the last stage of a creeping process in which Switzerland's sovereignty has been eroded, starting with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the emergence of globalization. The country’s financial sector was increasingly integrated into the Wall Street and City of London-dominated financial casino, and when the 2008 financial crisis broke out, it became clear that the Swiss Government and Parliament could not take any independent action corresponding to national interest, but had to obey orders coming from the outside, under the “Too Big to Fail” dictate.
|
In that context, the betrayal of neutrality in foreign policy was only a formality. Nevertheless, the decision to join the EU sanctions on Russia, under the pretext of the Ukraine war, had a bombshell effect on Swiss patriots. By de facto supporting one side in the war, Switzerland gave up the moral status and the prestige which has allowed it to be a forum for peace and other negotiations in modern times. Earlier this year, the SPP began organizing for a popular referendum to re-establish Swiss neutrality and enshrine it in the Constitution. The general elections gave a clear political boost to that demand.
|
| The other issue at stake in the immediate future, is whether Switzerland will continue to rescue American megabanks with taxpayer money, as it did in 2008 with the bailout of UBS and this year again with Credit Suisse (cf. SAS 12-16/23). The balance of power in Parliament and in the government has not (yet) changed on this issue. Although a coalition of SPP, SP and Greens in the National Council would have enough votes to pass a reform to separate commercial banks from investment banks, and let the latter fail if they go bankrupt, it would be difficult to reach a majority in the Council of States. |
| |
|
| | | Left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht finally announced Oct. 23 the founding of a new association (the "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht" or BSW) as a prelude to setting up a new party with a different name early next year. Nine other members of the federal parliament belonging to the Left Party have already joined her. All ten, however, will remain in the parliamentary group until the new party is set up. Once those ten have left, the Left party will be reduced to 28 members and lose official group status in the Bundestag, which implies a number of restrictions including financial ones -- which will severely reduce the group's possibilities for political initiatives.
|
In making the announcement, Wagenknecht reiterated her criticism of the Scholz government, calling it "probably the worst government" in the history of the Federal Republic, and that, “at a time of crisis and war”. "We need a return of reason to politics," she said.
|
Elaborating, but without much detail, on the plans to found a party, Wagenknecht said, "Things must not continue as they are at present. Otherwise, we probably won't recognize our country in ten years." She mentioned the collapsing economy, the dilapidated railway system and low retirement pensions, among other problems. Charging "unregulated immigration" with exacerbating "the problems at schools, especially in poorer residential areas," she also denounced “blind, haphazard eco-activism that makes people's lives even more expensive, but actually doesn't help the climate at all".
|
| Although Wagenknecht has attacked the Green Party policy repeatedly, her defense of “climate change” as well her opposition to nuclear power and her indifference to pioneer technologies are weak points of her party project. On the other hand, the population can rally to her opposition to weapons deliveries to Ukraine and her support for the Chinese and Brazilian peace proposals. Germany's leading mass-tabloid Bild published an INSA opinion poll showing that up to 27% of voters were in favor of the Wagenknecht project. A new party would likely gather support from anti-war factions in the SPD layers and the Green Party, but also from many who now turn to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) out of disgust with the mainstream parties. |
| |
|
| | | One day before U.S. President Joe Biden requested over $100 billion in new funding for wars abroad (cf. above), Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the equivalent of approximately $100 billion in new funding for Belt and Road Initiative development projects. The contrast in policy orientation could not be clearer.
|
Xi Jinping was speaking at the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing on Oct. 18, which hosted participants from some 150 countries, including thousands of entrepreneurs and 22 heads of state and government. The guest of honor was Russian President Vladimir Putin, who spoke in the opening session right after his Chinese counterpart, reviewing Russia’s infrastructure projects and how they are to be integrated into the Belt and Road (cf. below).
|
In its decade of existence since 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has led to 200 accords with 150 countries and 30 international organizations, and over 3,000 individual projects worth over $1 trillion. The main categories of investment and construction are energy and power, transport, metals, and public services, including health and education. At this year’s forum, at least 450 concrete new projects were agreed upon, according to Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who presented the overall results of the two-day event Oct. 19.
|
Wang stressed that the BRI was open to all nations and that China was prepared to work with others on the basis of cooperation in infrastructure, citing as an example, the willingness to work with Europe’s Gateway program. However, he pointed out, trying to weaken a competitor rather than competing on a level playing field is unacceptable.
|
President Xi, in his keynote address, laid out an approach to the solutions of the crises facing mankind, which is clearly in the spirit of the historic Treaty of Westphalia. “We should all treat each other as friends and partners, respect and support each other, and help each other succeed,” he stated. “Helping others is also helping oneself.”
|
Xi stressed that “We have learned that humankind is a community with a shared future. China can only do well when the world is doing well. When China does well, the world will get even better.”
|
| He referred several times to the ancient Silk Road and the aura of cooperation surrounding it, noting that “the pioneers of the ancient silk routes won their place in history not as conquerors with warships, guns, horses, or swords. Rather they are remembered as friendly emissaries leading camel caravans and sailing ships loaded with goods.” |
| |
|
| | | The speech delivered by Vladimir Putin at the Third Belt and Road Forum built on the renewed impetus for development spurred by the expansion of the BRICS group, as he focused on Russia’s planned transportation and trade corridors, which are to crisscross the entirety of the Eurasian continent. These routes, he pointed out, reflect “the deep changes that are ongoing in the global economy and the new role the Asia-Pacific and Global South countries and other centers of growth and development are playing now”.
|
Putin’s trip to Beijing and his three-hour in-depth meeting with Xi Jinping was taken up by well-known journalist Pepe Escobar in an article in Sputnik. He described it as “a graphic illustration of Russia-China co-hosting the drive towards a multipolar world”. The two Presidents, he wrote, “signed the largest deal in their shared history for the supply of grain; 2.5 trillion rubles ($26 billion) for 70 million tons of grain, leguminous and oilseed cargo delivered for 12 years”.
|
| Even more impressive are the natural gas agreements concluded, as reported by Gazprom. While Europe continues to sabotage its own energy supply, despite soaring prices for European consumers, China-Russia trade in gas is growing very fast. In 2022, Russia sold 15.5 billion cubic meters of gas to China via the Power of Siberia gas pipeline. In 2023, this number is expected to reach 22 bn cubic meters. Under the extended agreements, the pipeline’s designed capacity of 38 bn cubic meters per year is expected to be reached by 2025, but will grow to 48 billion cubic meters shortly thereafter by implementing the Far Eastern Route. |
| |
|
| | | In Argentina’s Oct. 22 general elections, presidential candidate Sergio Massa, of the ruling Unity for the Fatherland (UP) coalition, won a surprising 36.7% of the vote, beating out Libertarian extremist Javier Milei of the Freedom Advances (LLA) party, whose 30.1% remained unchanged from his score in the Aug. 14 primaries (cf. SAS 36/23). Coming in third with 24% of the vote, neoliberal Patricia Bullrich is now out of the running. Milei, however, has called on her and her backers to join forces with him to defeat Massa in the Nov. 19 runoff election.
|
That Massa’s vote totals were 10% higher than the 27% he won in the August primaries surprised even many of his supporters, who are now pointing to the “Massa miracle”. He is currently Economics Minister of the government of President Alberto Fernandez, and many voters blame him for the economic disaster in a country subjected to financial warfare from the City of London and Wall Street, where inflation is nearly 140%, the poverty rate is over 40%, and supermarket shelves are often empty.
|
Anglo-American media also expressed shock and consternation at the surge of “populist” Massa, chief among them Financial Times which headlined its Oct. 23 coverage “Surprise win shows Peronism’s remarkable resilience”. The London daily attributes his result to the fact that he took Brazilian President Lula da Silva’s advice of a few months back to “stop collecting dollars and collect votes”. Lula had also sent in a team of about 20 election experts to help Massa shape a positive campaign message, focused on program and a future-oriented perspective, rather than simply attack Milei’s outrageous proposals (including to “dollarize” the economy).
|
The FT also lamented that “investors had little to cheer in Sunday’s result,” since the City’s preferred “pro-business” candidate Bullrich was eliminated, and Massa is “likely to double down” on the social welfare spending and tax reduction measures he has announced in recent weeks.
|
The central policy issue, however, is that Massa has stated that he intends for Argentina to join the BRICS, accepting the invitation offered at the Aug. 22-24 BRICS summit in South Africa. Both Milei and Bullrich are totally hostile to the group and its pro-development policies, and want Argentina to firmly ally with Wall Street and the IMF.
|
More than any increased social spending, a crucial factor in Massa’s win was the overwhelming victory of Axel Kiciloff, the incumbent governor of the province of Buenos Aires. He swept the election with 45% of the vote in the province that represents 37% of the national electorate and is the base of the country’s industrial and trade union machinery. Kiciloff, who served as Cristina Kirchner’s Finance Minister from 2013-2015, is a tough, anti-IMF hard-core Peronist.
|
| Massa did surprisingly well in Buenos Aires, because he rode the coattails of the more popular Kiciloff. In that light, Massa might want to rethink his strategy of forming a “national unity” government with such weak, pro-IMF figures as former Finance Minister Roberto Lavagna or other questionable politicians who don’t want to alienate the “rules-based order”. Thus, a real policy brawl is expected over the next four weeks leading to Nov. 19. |
| |
|
| | | | | | |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment