By Dr. Guy Millière.

At the end of the parade, a few dozen people release yellow balloons into the sky and distribute leaflets saying “The yellow vests are not dead.” The police disperse them, quickly and firmly. Moments later, hundreds of “Antifa” anarchists arrive, throw security barriers on the roadway to erect barricades, start fires and smash the storefronts of several shops. The police have a rough time mastering the situation, but early in the evening, after a few hours, they restore the calm.

A few hours later, thousands of young Arabs from the suburbs gather near the Arc de Triomphe. They have apparently come to “celebrate” in their own way the victory of an Algerian soccer team. More storefronts are smashed, more shops looted. Algerian flags are everywhere. Slogans are belted out: “Long live Algeria”, “France is ours”, “Death to France”. Signs bearing street names are replaced by signs bearing the name of Abd el Kader, the religious and military leader who fought against the French army at the time of the colonization of Algeria. The police limit themselves to stemming the violence in the hope that it will not spread.

Around midnight, three leaders of the “yellow vest” movement come out of a police station and tell a TV reporter that they were arrested early that morning and imprisoned for the rest of the day. Their lawyer states that they did nothing wrong and were just “preventively” arrested. He emphasizes that a law passed in February 2019 allows the French police to arrest any person suspected of going to a demonstration; no authorization from a judge is necessary and no appeal possible.

On Friday, July 19, the Algerian soccer team wins again. More young Arabs gather near Arc de Triomphe to “celebrate” again. The damage is even greater than eight days before. More police show up; they do almost nothing.

On July 12, two days before Bastille Day, several hundred self-declared African illegal migrants enter the Pantheon, the monument that houses the graves of heroes who played major roles in the history of France. There, the migrants announce the birth of the “Black Vest movement”. They demand the “regularization” of all illegal immigrants on French territory and free housing for each of them. The police show up but decline to intervene. Most of the demonstrators leave peacefully. A few who insult the police are arrested.

France today is a country adrift. Unrest and lawlessness continue to gain ground. Disorder has become part of daily life. Polls show that a large majority reject President Macron. They seem to hate his arrogance and be inclined not to forgive him. They seem to resent his contempt for the poor; the way he crushed the “yellow vest” movement, and for his not having paid even the slightest attention to the protesters’ smallest demands, such as the right to hold a citizen’s referendum like those in Switzerland. Macron can no longer go anywhere in public without risking displays of anger.

The “yellow vests” seem finally to have stopped demonstrating and given up: too many were maimed or hurt. Their discontent, however, is still there. It seems waiting to explode again.

The French police appear ferocious when dealing with peaceful protesters, but barely able to prevent groups such as ‘Antifa’ from causing violence. Therefore, now at the end of each demonstration, “Antifa” show up. The French police seem particularly cautious when having to deal with young Arabs and illegal migrants. The police have been given orders. They know that young Arabs and illegal migrants could create large-scale riots. Three months ago, in Grenoble, the police were pursuing some young Arabs on a stolen motorcycle, who were accused of theft. While fleeing, they had an accident. Five days of mayhem began.

Democracy receding 

President Macron looks like an authoritarian leader when he faces the disgruntled poor. He never says he is sorry for those who have lost an eye or a hand or suffered irreversible brain damage from extreme police brutality. Instead, he asked the French parliament to pass a law that almost completely abolishes the right to protest, the presumption of innocence and that allows the arrest of anyone, anywhere, even without cause. The law was passed.

In June, the French parliament passed another law, severely punishing anyone who says or writes something that might contain “hate speech”. The law is so vague that an American legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, felt compelled to react. “France has now become one of the biggest international threats to freedom of speech”, he wrote.

Macron does not appear authoritarian, however, with violent anarchists. When facing young Arabs and illegal migrants, he looks positively weak. He knows what the former interior minister, Gérard Collomb, said in November 2018, while resigning from government:

“Communities in France are engaging in conflict with one another more and more and it is becoming very violent… today we live side by side, I fear that tomorrow it will be face to face”.

Macron also knows what former President François Hollande said after serving his term as president: “France is on the verge of partition”.

Macron knows that the partition of France already exists. Most Arabs and Africans live in no-go-zones, apart from the rest of the population, where they accept the presence of non-Arabs and non-Africans less and less. They do not define themselves as French, except when they say that France will belong to them. Reports show that most seem filled with a deep rejection of France and Western civilization. An incressing number seem to place their religion above their citizenship; many seem radicalised and ready to fight.

Macron seems not to want to fight. Instead, he has chosen to appease them. He is single-mindedly pursuing his plans to institutionalise Islam in France. Three months ago, the Muslim Association for Islam of France (AMIF) was created. One branch will handle the cultural expansion of Islam and take charge of “the fight against anti-Muslim racism”. Another branch will be responsible for programs that train imams and build mosques. This autumn, a “Council of Imams of France” will be established. The main leaders of the AMIF are (or were until recently) members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement designated as a terrorist organisation in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — but not in France.

French President is aware of the demographic data. They show that the Muslim population in France will grow significantly in the coming years. (The economist Charles Gave wrote recently that by 2057, France will have a Muslim majority). Macron can see that it will soon be impossible for anyone to be elected President without relying on the Muslim vote, so he acts accordingly.

Macron apparently sees that the discontent that gave birth to the “yellow vest” movement still is there. He appears to think that repression will be enough to prevent any further uprising, and so does nothing to remedy the causes of the discontent.

The “yellow vest” movement was born of a revolt against exorbitantly high taxes on fuel, and harsh government measures against cars and motorists. These measures included reduced speed limits – 90 km/h on most highways — and more speed-detection cameras; a sharp rise in the penalties on tickets, as well as complex and expensive annual motor vehicle controls. French taxes on fuels recently rose again and are now the highest in Europe (70% of the price paid at the pump). Other measures against the use of automobiles and motorists still in force are especially painful for the poor. They were already chased from the suburbs by intolerant newcomers, and now have to live — and drive — even farther from where they work.

Socio-culturally disenfranchised 

President has made no decision to remedy the disastrous economic situation in France. When he was elected, taxes, duties and social charges represented almost 50% of GDP. Government spending represented 57% of GDP (the highest among developed countries). The ratio of national debt to GDP was almost 100%.

Taxes, duties, social charges and government spending remain at the same level now as when Macron came in. The debt-to-GDP ratio is 100% and growing. The French economy is not creating jobs. Poverty remains extremely high: 14% of the population earn less than 855 euros ($950) a month.

“How else to explain that the post-WWII come-and-help-our-recovery slogan Gastarbeiter willkommenbecame an Auslander Rausroar in a matter of only two decades. Suddenly, our national purifiers extensively shout ‘stop überfremdungof EU, we need de-ciganization’of our societies, as if it historically does not always end up in one and only possible way– self-barbarization. In response, the socially marginalized and ghettoized ‘foreigners’ are calling for the creation of gastarbeiterpartie. Indeed, the first political parties of foreigners are already created in Austria, with similar calls in Germany, France and the Netherlands. Their natural coalition partner would never be any of the main political parties. We should know by now, how the diverting of the mounting socio-economic discontent and generational disfranchising through ethno engineering will end up, don’t we?” – warned prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic years ago in his brave and farsighted essay ‘Denazification urgently needed in Europe’. 

Consequently, our top executives pay no attention to the growing cultural disaster also seizing the country. The educational system is crumbling. An increasing percentage of students graduate from high school without knowing how to write a sentence free of errors that make incomprehensible anything they write. Christianity is disappearing. Most non-Muslim French no longer define themselves as Christians. The fire that ravaged the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris was officially an ‘accident’, but it was only one of the many Christian religious buildings in the country that were recently destroyed. Every week, churches are vandalised — to the general indifference of the public. In just the first half of 2019, 22 churches burned down.

The main concern of Macron and the French government seems not to be the risk of riots, the public’s discontent, the disappearance of Christianity, the disastrous economic situation, or Islamization and its consequences. Instead, it is climate change. Although the amount of France’s carbon dioxide emissions is infinitesimal (less than 1% of the global total), combatting “human-induced climate change” appears Macron’s absolute priority.

A Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, age 16, — nevertheless the guru of the “fight for the climate” in Europe — was recently invited to the French National Assembly by members of parliament who support Macron. She delivered a speech, promising that the “irreversible destruction” of the planet will begin very soon. A Baby-revolutionary added that political leaders “are not mature enough” and need lessons from children. MPs who support Macron applauded warmly. She received a Prize of Freedom, just created, which will be given each year to people “fighting for the values ​​of those who landed in Normandy in 1944 to liberate Europe”. It is probably reasonable to assume that not one of those who landed in Normandy in 1944 thought he was fighting to save the climate. Such minor details, however, seem beyond Macron and the parliamentarians who support him.

Macron and the French government also seem unconcerned that Jews — driven by the rise of anti-Semitism, and understandably worried about court decisions infused with the spirit of submission to violent Islam –continue to flee from France.

Kobili Traore, the man who murdered Sarah Halimi in 2017 while chanting surasfrom the Qur’an and shouting that the Jews areSheitan(Arabic for “Satan”) was found not guilty. Traore had apparently smoked cannabis before the murder, so the judges decided that he was not responsible for his acts. Traore will soon be released from prison; what happens if he smokes cannabis again?

A few weeks after the murder of Halimi, three members of a Jewish family were assaulted, tortured and held hostage in their home by a group of five men who said that “Jews have money” and “Jews must pay”. The men were arrested; all were Muslim. The judge who indicated them announced that their actions were “not anti-Semitic”.

On July 25, 2019 when the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Haifa was competing in Strasbourg, the French government limited the number of Israeli supporters in the stadium to 600, not one more. A thousand had bought plane tickets to come to France to attend the match. The French government also banned the waving of Israeli flags at the game or anywhere in the city. Nonetheless, in the name of “free speech”, the French Department of the Interior permitted anti-Israeli demonstrations in front of the stadium, and Palestinian flags and banners saying “Death to Israel” were there. The day before the match, at a restaurant near the stadium, some Israelis were violently attacked. “The demonstrations against Israel are approved in the name of freedom of expression, but the authorities forbid supporters of Maccabi Haifa to raise the Israeli flag, it is unacceptable,” said Aliza Ben Nun, Israel’s ambassador to France.

The other day, a plane full of French Jews leaving France arrived in Israel. More French Jews will soon go. The departure of Jews to Israel entails sacrifices: some French real estate agents take advantage of the wish of many Jewish families to leave, so they buy and sell properties owned by Jews at a price far lower than their market value.

Fighting the ghost 

Macron will remain as president until May 2022. Several leaders of the parties of the center-left (such as the Socialist Party) and center-right (The Republicans) joined The Republic on the Move, the party he created two years ago. After that, the Socialist Party and The Republicans electorally collapsed. Macron’s main opponent in 2022 is likely to be the same as in 2017: Marine Le Pen, the leader of the populist National Rally.

Although Macron is widely unpopular and widely hated, he will probably use the same slogans as in 2017: that he is the last bastion of hope against “chaos” and “fascism.” He has a strong chance of being elected again. Anyone who reads the political program of the National Rally can see that Le Pen is not a fascist. Also, anyone who looks at the situation in France may wonder if France has not already begun to sink into chaos.

The sad situation that reigns in France is not all that different from that in many other Euriopean countries. A few weeks ago, an African cardinal, Robert Sarah, published a book, Le soir approche et déjà le jour baisse(“The evening comes, and already the light darkens”). “At the root of the collapse of the West”, he writes, “there is a cultural and identity crisis. The West no longer knows what it is, because it does not know and does not want to know what shaped it, what constituted it, what it was and what it is. (…) This self-asphyxiation leads naturally to a decadence that opens the way to new barbaric civilizations.”

That is exactly what is happening in France — and Europe.

———————————–

A bout the author: Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Earlier version published by the GeterstoneInstitute under the title France Slowly Sinking into Chaos

A Conversation with Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro

By Geovanny Vicente Romero.

A few days ago, I had the honor of joining an event that the Brademas Center and the prestigious New York University (NYU) hosted on its campus in Washington, DC, better known as NYU-DC. The event was titled, “A conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) Luis Almagro“. This important discussion was held within the framework of the #DCDialogues, a forum that convenes academia, government, the private sector, and the general community in the political capital of the world, Washington, DC.

I posed several questions to Secretary General Luis Almagro about the diverse challenges the hemisphere faces at present in the areas of democracy, citizen liberties and human rights, especially in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaraguaand Haiti.

This analysis of current developments in these countries is pivotal  to the role the OAS plays in fulfilling its mission for, “more rights for more people,” across the Americas.

Venezuela

One of Gabriel García Márquez’s most famous works is No One Writes to the Colonel. In the case of Venezuela, Almagro has become the voice of those Venezuelans who have no one to write to them, no one to listen to them and no one to protect them from their own abusive regime led by Nicolás Maduro. I pointed out that we all have a lot of concern and hope for Venezuela but it was necessary to know what outcome we could expect in the near future and what is needed to supporting the Juan Guaidó movement and help the brave and strong people of Venezuela fulfill their own destiny. The Secretary began by indicating that making a short-term forecast would not be possible, but it was clear that, “Guaidó is the last hope we have for a peaceful solution. The most violent solution that can be applied to the country is the one that is being applied now. My concern with empty slogans like #HandsOffVenezuela is that meanwhile all the violence in the world is being applied to millions of Venezuelans. Millions of people had to abandon the country because they didn’t have any medical care.  Millions of people are starving.”

Cuba

I then transition to the largest island in the Caribbean, noting that after all the efforts to integrate Cuba into the region and bring it closer to the United States of America, we find ourselves back at square one.  The only difference is that for the first time in 60 years, the Cuban president is not named Castro.  Almagro’s answer could not be more clear, “The Cuban dictatorship is the worst kind of dictatorship you can find in the whole world. They are not tied at all to the needs and the feeling of the people.  When this is tied to Venezuela, it makes the failure even more evident. They [Cuba] are the most parasitic country that has existed.  He noted, “The Cuban government has been sucking blood from Venezuela. Today, Venezuela is a corpse and they are still sucking the blood from a dead body. It is a severe case of parasitism. They cannot afford to live without Venezuelan oil. It will be worse than during the Special Period.  They [the Cuban government] know that any other government will not be able to keep delivering this oil to Cuba.

“The name of the President is not Castro, but the name of power is still Castro,” said Almagro.

Nicaragua

It is imperative to know more about the OAS’ involvement in Nicaragua. From the very beginning, the OAS has been working for democratization, stronger political institutions, rule of law, and the independence of the different branches of government in the country.  The OAS has strived to be part of the solution to the political crisis in Nicaragua, since it has been a year since the protests began in April 2018.  Almagro said the opposition, although they were not well organized, had an opportunity at the first two months of the protests, as they were strong enough to demand early elections and some institutional solutions.  However, this period passed and the government prevailed by force. The government then tried to consolidate the peace they achieved by force through human rights violations.

Almagro shared with us that the OAS acted as a witness in the negotiation process that the government and the opposition carried out. The Secretary General urged the government of Daniel Ortega to release political prisoners as soon as possible, stop the repression on demonstrations, guarantee political freedoms and begin electoral reforms.

Almagro called for maturity from both sides, “We need people to stop lying to us.  The needs of the people are too great.  We need to deliver solutions. We don’t like when people play political games with this situation. It is not acceptable.  We [the OAS] concentrate on the duties of the government, because only they can deliver solutions for the people.” I concluded this portion of the discussion adding that the Nicaraguan government is seeking to buy time so that the current situation becomes the new normal.

Haiti

Our conversation returned to the Caribbean. I started by noting how the international press rarely covers the important current events in Haiti, a country that recently appointed a new prime minister in the wake of protests. The Secretary General expressed his deep respect for the Haitian nation, his concern for the economic and political conditions of the country and his great admiration for all the struggles the country has historically overcome.

“We want the country to stabilize; people to be respected; and the electoral process to be implemented. The country needs a lot of international cooperation for the country to stabilize, and we will provide it.  In early May, there will be meetings in Haiti’s Congress to confirm the interim the government.  We need to keep clear.  We can’t play with fire when we are all in a barrel of fuel.  We should help always to stabilize Haiti. We shouldn’t exploit their structural problems.  We should be concerned about their needs.”

He commended the country saying, “Haiti was the first Caribbean country to investigate the corruption in PetroCaribe. It’s a commitment against corruption and puts a lot of stress on the political system.”

Social Inclusion

I did not want to end this conversation without knowing a little more about the steps that the OAS takes to close the inequality gap, taking into account that Latin America is considered the most unequal region in the world. My idea was to address vulnerable populations such as the indigenous peoples, afro-descendents, and the LGBTQ community, among others.

Almagro pointed to the central mission of the OAS, “More rights for more people”.  He detailed the social inclusion campaign carried out as an organization and when referring to the LGBTQ community, he said that, “we want each country to resolve the discrimination suffered by the people of this community.” He even indicated that he attended the Vancouver Gay Pride and will attend the Washington Pride. Coincidentally, two days after this discussion, Almagro published a photo in which he is seen receiving the Global Champions Awards 2019from the Human Rights Campaign, for his leadership for LGBTQ rights and for the work of social inclusion that his organization carries out.

These four countries in the Americas, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Haiti, require the most focus from the OAS and the international community.  There are many bright spots within the Americas, but as a region, we are only as strong as our weakest link.  For more details on the dialogue with Secretary Almagro, we leave you with this video from the event.

———————

Photography by Polly Terzian/NYU-DC

By Martina Maschauer, Managing Director Bayern International .

It was a great pleasure for me to be able to take over the management of Bayern International after having held positions in the Bavarian State Chancellery, Brussels and China, among others.

Like hardly any other economy, Bavaria is linked to the global economy. Bavarian companies have an export quota of around 50% – every second euro is earned abroad. As Bayern International, we see it as our task to make it easier for Bavarian companies to enter foreign business. We have focused on Bavarian SMEs. The small and medium-sized companies are the heart of the Bavarian economy. These include hidden champions whose names are unknown worldwide, but who are world market leaders in their field.

Bayern International, a subsidiary of the Free State of Bavaria, is an established brand in Bavarian foreign trade. We have around 100 events in our programme every year and our projects often take us to so-called pioneer markets, so that we can also draw attention to previously unknown markets.

As part of the Bavarian Trade Fair Participation Program, we are realizing the Bavarian Pavilions, under which Bavarian companies present themselves. In cooperation with the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, we organize delegation trips with the political support of the Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs or the Bavarian State Secretary for Economic Affairs. Our work requires close cooperation with embassies, consulates and business organisations.

The success of a project is also the result of successful cooperation with the institutions in the target country. Especially the embassies can pave the way and open doors for us and the participating companies from Bavaria.

We work closely together with the institutions of the economy such as the Chambers of Industry and Commerce, the Chambers of Crafts here in Bavaria and the Chambers of Commerce Abroad.

We never work alone, but see ourselves as part of an extensive network, whose threads we bring together in the context of a project, in order to bring Bavarian companies the best possible service and benefit. 

Image credits: Bayern International GmbH, Munich. 

There are no general rules for facade advertising. The rules are determined by each municipality independently. However, the more prominent and invasive the advertising is, the sooner a permit will be required. Therefore, first check the rules in your municipality or ask legal advice before placing facade advertising.
 

Local

Each municipality determines separately in its general municipal by-law whether, and under which conditions, facade advertising is allowed. Many municipalities have a permit system: facade advertising without a permit is prohibited.

In some cases, submitting a notification form is sufficient. A notification might be sufficient if the facade advertising requires no structural intervention, for instance if the advertising is painted onto the facade of a building and is not illuminated. If screws and bolts are used, a permit will soon be necessary.
 

Integrated environmental permit

If a permit is required, the municipality will check it against criteria such as size, location, structural safety and requirements regarding the external appearance of buildings. If your business is located in a listed-building, there may be further restrictions as to the appearance of the advertising and its integration into the building. In that case, an additional listed-building consent is required. Now that post-war functional architecture is increasingly being designated as listed buildings, you may also find yourself unexpectedly sitting in a listed building.

If an existing facade advertising needs to be replaced, current permit criteria apply to the replacement. This could make ‘replacement by the same’ impossible. Therefore, in the event of a replacement or renovation check what the applicable rules are.
 

Alternatives

If your business is not eligible for a required permit for facade advertising, you might want to consider alternatives, such as a flag pole, advertising on a lighting column or advertising on your company cars. These alternatives may also be subject to a permit but the conditions thereof might be less restrictive.

More information:

Do you need legal advice on facade advertising? Or do you have any other questions about real estate and rent? Please contact us:

By Reinier W.L. Russell, LL.M.

Countries can recover cultural heritage that was illegally exported. Art dealers and collectors might be confronted with such a claim unexpectedly, for instance if they have bought an artwork at an auction. If it turns out that the artwork was indeed exported illegally, it must be relinquished to the state in question. If the buyer has bought it in good faith, he is entitled to a compensation.

For cultural heritage from the European Union, this is all covered by the directive on the return of cultural objects (Directive 2014/60/EU). How this scheme works in practice is illustrated by a recent case before the District Court Gelderland.
 

Seizure for return and seizure for investigation

An art dealer had bought several Italian paintings at an auction and offered them for sale via his own website. A secretary recognized the paintings as altarpieces that were stolen from the Abbey of Santa Maria in Sylvis, a listed building in Italy, in 2002. At the request of the Italian police, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service seizes the two altarpieces. The aim is the return of the altarpieces to Italy where (1) further investigations regarding the paintings will be carried out and (2) the paintings will possibly be returned to the original owner.

In preliminary relief proceedings against the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, the art dealer requests the return of the artworks. According to him, the seizure is not necessary to determine the truth. He is willing to cooperate in an investigation into whether the artworks involved are indeed the stolen paintings. The immediate restitution to the Abbey is no ground for seizure. As he is a buyer in good faith, he is the one who is entitled to the artworks. In addition, he is entitled to a compensation if he has to return the artworks to Italy. If the works of art are immediately relinquished to the Abbey, he will lose that right.

The court determines that further investigations regarding the paintings are required. According to the description, the characteristics of the works of art offered for sale partly differ from those of the stolen paintings. Therefore, the seizure remains in force.

However, restitution to the Abbey is no ground for seizure. If the paintings turn out to have been stolen, there is a standard procedure for restitution within Europe, so-called revendication proceedings. Thus, after the authenticity research the paintings have to be returned to the art dealer. The Italian State is not allowed to keep the paintings, even if the paintings have indeed been stolen. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service must ensure that they are indeed returned.
 

Revendication proceedings

If the paintings turn out to have been stolen, the Italian State has to commence legal proceedings for the restitution of the paintings in the Netherlands. Then, the Dutch court will decide who is entitled to the paintings. In the event of proven theft this will be the Abbey. The question then arises whether the art dealer is entitled to compensation. This will only be the case if he was in good faith. The Public Prosecution Service doubts this, as the paintings had appeared on the internet as stolen. The judge does not rule on this. This is not possible in preliminary relief proceedings.
 

Provenance research

Could the art dealer have prevented all this? As a general rule, if the buyer does not carry out any research prior to the purchase of a work of art, it is at his risk if he buys a stolen or false work of art. In this case a provenance research was not possible, because at auctions works of art are regularly auctioned without the name of the seller being made public.

Can the buyer at an auction do nothing to prevent this? The buyer can check prior to the purchase whether works of art appear on a national list of cultural heritage or in the Art Loss Register. This seems cumbersome for works of art of low value, but it can prevent a lot of legal issues.
 

Our advice

• Check the provenance when purchasing works of art
• Do not simply agree with a seizure by the Public Prosecution Service
• Engage a specialized lawyer if you are confronted with stolen art or looted art
   

More information

Is your purchase claimed by a previous owner or would you like to claim an artwork that was stolen from you? Do you want to know how to prevent the purchase of stolen or false art? Or do you have any other questions regarding buying and selling of art?

Please contact us @: reinier.russell@russell.nl
t: +31 20 301 55 55

By Calistrat M. Atudorei, International Institute for Global Analyses.

The United States became a militarized state, a perpetual war machine, fundamentally oriented towards the domination of the other states, at all levels. As shown in previous works, this status is viewed in the theories of political realism, as an expression of any superpower’s tendency to achieve hegemony, thus ensuring its maximum degree of security. In terms of political realism, the Power of a state is chiefly conferred by the state’s military force. The higher the force of the army, the greater is the persuasion of that state on the others. Ultimately, “the law of force” is the strongest argument. It is useful to recall that political realism explains more precisely that the power of a state is its ability to convert latent resources (socio-economic components) into effective power (military power).

Following the logic of this power equation, we understand why the United States is obstinately seeking to control as many global resources and markets as possible and makes huge investments to deploy an army to dominate the entire planet. So in order to ground the Power, to feed the war machine, resources are needed. Resources became a strategic objective and for this reason the White House officially announced its determination, assuming that “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supply and strategic resources” is represents a “vital national interest for US” for which it is determined to resort even to “unilateral use of military power.”[1]

Nevertheless, market control means much more than access to resources. It means controlling the global economic and financial system as well. A decisive step in this direction was made after the Second World War, with the establishment of a strong network of global institutions. Beyond the pacifist and altruistic ideals expressed, these institutions are built in such a way as to ensure a substantial advantage for the US economic system. The US dollar is the reference currency for global foreign exchange reserves, based on which most trade are conducted and to which the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Trade Organization (WTO) relate. The petrodollar system, which continually favors, implicitly, the demand for US dollars in the global market, is, we could say, the very structural axis of US economical domination. I presented many examples that pointed out the aggressiveness with which US administrations require the petrodollar system keeping, any offense in this respect being severely punished at a political, economic or even military level.

The Mechanism of State Indebtedness

The dollar is a banknote issued by the Federal Reserve Bank (FED), a private cartel that has the authority to issue currency by law. An essential aspect I referred to [2] as well is that since 1971, the US currency is no longer gold-backed. On the 15th August 1971, US President Richard M. Nixon shocked the global market when officially put an end to the international convertibility of US dollars in gold, thus bringing the end of the Bretton Woods agreement. From that moment on, the American dollar became a “fiat currency,” an abstract entity that is no longer supported by any physical commodity.

By nullifying the equivalence of dollars with gold, Washington affected not only US economic policy but also global economic policy. In the Bretton Woods system, all currencies related their value according to American dollar. And the dollar derived its value from the established fixed price of gold reserves. But when the value of the dollar was detached from gold, it became what economists call floating currency. The term floating means that the currency is not attached, it is not related to a physical, external value. The most frequently used term for this is fiat money. Obviously, since the dollar became a floating currency, the rest of previously dollar- equivalated currencies became floating too (i.e. fiat currency).

Through globally issuing a currency that has no use value and for which it levied particular taxes, the Federal Reserve Bank developed a strong interest in keeping a global, stable and growing demand for US dollars. And indeed, the domination power of the US dollar steadily increased, and the other states of the world have contributed inevitably to this process, which in fact creates a detrimental addiction. And if any state gets into economic trouble, the cartel [3] of global financial institutions proposes a seductive solution: a loan. But the influx of dollars will add a little improvement only in the short term. Long-term dependence on the dollar is accentuated as loans are almost impossible to repay. Through this genuine trap the states enter a spiral of debt that dizzyingly grows with every year, which makes them much easier to sway at a political level. Here is in short how the world’s states progressively become, through this system, in the position of vassal states to the international financial system.

Naturally, in time the situation generated from the states that were deluded a series of initiatives to shift to other reference currencies. But these attempts were promptly and severely punished. Under various pretexts, those countries were attacked economically, and even militarily by NATO (led by the US), and often the leaders of those states were assassinated and replaced by others, more… cooperative.

At this point it becomes necessary to foreground one important matter: the financial system that controls the world does not serve the United States as a nation, but only the international financial Elite, which established global control centers in America and which avails the Washington administration. We may observe in this sense that although the financial elite accumulated tremendous riches, the American people themselves are brought to their knees and dominated by financial manipulation. Without going into too much detail, I mention that US dollars are emitted by the private institution Federal Reserve Bank as a loan to the United States government, under the title “Notes of the Federal Reserve.” For this loan, the Federal Reserve charges interest too, the rate of which is also fixed by FED. Obviously, the higher the “borrowed” amounts, the higher the interest. This is one of the reasons (very little brought into public attention) that explain why the United States began accumulating colossal debts for decades.

Understanding very well that this financial system enslaves and destroys the American economy, President J.F. Kennedy issued an executive order (order No 11110) on June 4, 1963, withdrawing FED the authorization to print banknotes and transferred this function to the US Treasury, which he empowered to print dollars with the title “United States Notes.” He was aiming in this way to stop the fraud by which the Federal Reserve extorted the American people with fake money for which it also charged interest. In his economic report presented before the Congress, Kennedy said: “I urge the Congress to take prompt action and repeal of the (…) authorization for the Federal Reserve System to issue notes.” [4] As we know, a few months after he signed this order, in November 1963, J.F. Kennedy was assassinated.

It is notable that in 2008, when the economic crisis hit the entire American financial system (with global repercussions), the US government introduced atypical tax policies (such as bail out, quantitative easing or negative interest) which had the purpose of preferentially injecting money into sectors deemed “too big to fail” (especially banks). As Steve Bannon, former chief executive of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign explained [5], to save globalist’s business in the US, the Wall Street’s elites opened the liquidity taps and printed (from nothing) no less than 4,000 billion dollars. The entire burden of the crisis has been loaded by the middle class and low income taxpayers, who ruined their already difficult financial situation and eventually deepened even more the gap between the rich and the poor.

Currently, amid the enormous military spending and the gradual devaluation of the dollar, there is a worsening of the US fiscal situation. The federal government reached a annual budget deficit of $ 1.1 trillion in 2019, which is huge. More specifically, the US has $ 3.7 trillion in revenue and $ 4.8 trillion in spending. Much of the expenditure is made up by the military budget, which is $700 billion a year. Considering the budget deficit, it means that the US economy goes on the whole at a loss. US debt reached astronomical value: over $22,4 trillion in July 2019. It is the largest in the world! But did you wonder who does America owe this money to? Well, the answer is telling: first of all to the financial institutions that “lent” its money, of course! In conclusion, it had already become a sort of ’public secret’ that Washington administration, along with the US Congress is dependent on the Federal Reserve, an institution which they cannot really regulate.

Regarding foreign economic policy, it has become more and more common in recent years that the US administration (which bends to certain influences) sanctions, obstructs and blocks through overwhelming American currency market domination, any state that does not obey the White House directives. Among the intensely sanctioned states in the current period one may list Russia, China, Iran, Turkey or Venezuela. Far from being simple “fines,” the sanctions can have particularly severe impact on the targeted country’s economy because it involves blocking sales / buying transactions on the global market and many other particularly inconvenient restrictions. And what’s the worst is that sanctions get to kill people. Western corporatist media avoids this aspect of reality, and prefers to intimate that sanctions are a kind of gentle cautionary measures. Measures that only hinder economy and create a negative image to “corrupt” or “dictatorial” elites of the targeted state. In reality, sanctions primarily affect the population because they restrict access to drinking water, food, and medicines. In order to get a picture of the disastrous effect that the blockade of sanctions can bring, I recall that following the embargo on Iraq (through the United States initiative), between 1990 and 2003, 1.5 million Iraqis died, out of whom, more than half a million children.

To put it plainly, sanctions became a routine, an economic weapon by which Washington’s neocons seek to get to despair a nation, stir a revolt, and then intervene militarily for ’humanitarian reasons’ to save the population, and to establish ’democracy’.

It is relevant to make a brief overview with concrete data. As reported by the US Department of the Treasury [6], President Obama signed a hundred sanctions during the ten years he spent at the White House. Yet, Trump has already outnumbered him after only two years in office, approving a few hundred sanctions. Here is a part of them.

The most destructive infliction of sanctions takes place in Iran, against which Trump nullified a major economic treaty and introduced 143 sanctions that drastically weakened the Iranian economy. In Syria, Trump authorized 287 sanctions against the Bashar al-Assad regime, almost double the number of sanctions Obama imposed.
In North Korea there were 80 sanctions, in Libya 43.
For the Russian Federation, Trump ordered 105 new sanctions for various reasons, ranging from the annexation of Crimea and the alleged interference in the 2016 elections to the so-called poisoning attempt of the spy Sergei Skripal. Plus other 40 sanctions that relate to cyber-attacks.
In Venezuela, sanctions imposed by the US have a devastating effect. Despite the fact that the country was already severely affected by Obama’s sanctions, Trump added 63 new sanctions, which virtually nullify Maduro’s government’s chance to reinvigorate the economy.

Above all, America threatens that any country that has the courage to establish trade relations with “blacklist” states will also be sanctioned on the charge of undermining international order.
Let’s see some details that will integrate certain important economic and political aspects.

Challenging Russia

The sanctions imposed by Washington began in March 2014, after the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea. I have extensively described this context previously, but it is worth noting now, comparatively, that Israel’s annexation of Golan Heights territory from Syria does not prompt any sanctions at international level, although the US-Israel alliance was widely criticized by both the UN and the EU. There is also a crucial difference: Golan was annexed by force, after a war, while Crimea joined Russia through extensive popular adhesion, peacefully following a referendum. And yet, since then, the US (and the EU, under pressure from Washington) consistently places sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea. It has already become a cliché in NATO rhetoric that the annexation of Crimea is the so-called “clear evidence” of “Russian aggression.”

But sanctions have been imposed on Russia for many other reasons. Because the Russian Federation got involved in the conflict in Syria and would have carried there a brutal air campaign, because it would have been deployed disinformation operations aimed at undermining US and European elections, for Russian military actions in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine, or for detaining soldiers from three Ukrainian naval ships in the Kerch Strait on November 25, 2018. Or because it would continue to undermine Western democracies through cyber-attacks and “dark money.”[7]

Sanctions began to manifest their destructive effect as early as 2014. At the end of the year, Russia’s finance Minister announced that punitive measures created an estimated prejudice of $40 billion. On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the United States is working with Saudi Arabia to deliberately weaken Russia’s economy by lowering the price of oil. According to an assessment [8] made in May 2016, Russia had so far lost about $170 billion due to financial sanctions and nearly $400 billion after losing revenue that could have come from oil and gas transactions.

Russia also reacted by hitting several countries with sanctions, including the total ban on food imports from the EU, the United States, Norway, Canada and Australia. After a period of recession, Russia has, however, begun in recent years to recover and even achieve significant economic progress. In November 2018 Deutsche Welle [9] announced that the International Monetary Fund indicated that the Russian economy went up by 1.7 percent in 2018 and expects to increase by 1.8 percent in 2019. Slow growth, but under drastic sanctions!

What particularly irritates Washington is that Russia continues to sign contracts with countries like Turkey, Syria, India, China or Venezuela to sell units of its S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system, one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world. These contracts are, obviously, the reason for other sanctions inflicted by the White House.

Beyond all this, it seems that, in the end, the effect of the sanctions turns back against those who imposed them. Because precisely the tough policy of punishment determined the great powers of the world to get united against America’s hegemony. To mitigate the effect of sanctions, many states have begun to avoid transactions and possessions in dollars, as they may at any time be blocked by Washington. States form new alliances, focusing on new economic levers, which increasingly set the shift towards a multipolar order.

In Russia’s new trade relations the direction of “Moscow-Beijing Axis” is strengthened on the basis of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is a strategic alliance between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. Another Russia-China cooperation project envisages building a pipeline suggestively called “Power of Siberia,” which will link Beijing directly to the Siberia’s basins rich in hydrocarbons. The project will start for a three decades period and will involve a final investment of $400 billion. Analysts from Bloomberg [10] quote IMF data indicating that Russia’s yuan share was in January 2019 at about a quarter of world’s reserves in yuan to avoid US dollars.

It also visibly strengthens Russia’s relationship with Germany. For many members of the Bundestag, the US demand for Germany to buy US liquefied natural gas (LNG) at a significantly higher price than that of Russian gas appears totally unnatural. In addition, the LNG infrastructure is at an early stage, while the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline is almost complete. In fact, in Germany, the suspicion that the US applies sanctions to Russia only as a pretext to actually pursue its own economic interest on the aluminum and natural gas markets has become an ordinary conception. In terms with data provided by Foreign Policy Research Institute[11], former German Foreign Affairs minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian chancellor Christian Kern dared to say it forthrightly: the bill to extend sanctions on Russia is actually targeting the sale of US natural gas!
So we ascertain exactly what the hawks in Washington least wanted: the rise of the Heartland power, the alliance between Russia and Germany, to which China is also associated.

For these reasons, Vladimir Putin stated that America is making a big mistake trying to turn the dollar into an economic weapon. In a speech in October 2018 before representatives of nearly 70 countries at the international forum Russian Energy Week in Moscow, Putin explained that “we aren’t ditching the dollar, the dollar is ditching us” and that “we’re not the only ones doing it, believe me.” In his opinion, “our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake” which he considered “typical of any empire. They think that nothing will happen, everything is so powerful, everything is so strong and stable, there will be no negative consequences. But, no, they come sooner or later.”[12]

Rivalry with China

Relations between the United States and China have degenerated rapidly in recent years, approaching outright hostility. The extraordinary rise of the Chinese economy is considered by US administrations as a structural threat to America’s world economic leadership.

In order to seize the economic dynamics in the world, it is significant to note that, as reported by data compiled by Asia Times[13], since the financial crisis of 2008—which devastated the West— China’s economy grew by 139%, while the USA growth[14] was only 34%. At the same time, the European Union’s economy recorded a decrease (negative growth) of 2%.

Concomitantly, since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2002, the Chinese economy has made phenomenal progress in commercial terms. In 17 years it passed from accounting for less than 5% of world trade to about 14.56% in 2017.

Economists around the world relate China’s fulminating success primarily to the so-called “state capitalism,” characterized by the fact that there is no real internal competition nor a free market in China, but the economy is dictatorially controlled by the “one-party system.” Although the West criticizes the Chinese internal organization, focused on a communist, totalitarian ideology, it has difficulty recognizing that it is very hard for them to face it.

The US accuses unfair commercial practices that are supported by the Beijing authorities, including theft of intellectual property from Western partners, which was supposed to cause serious damage to the US industry. The Washington administration believes the United States’ largest bilateral trade deficit is definitely triggered by business concluded with China. One of the US economists’ argument is that since 2002, when China joined the WTO, the US trade deficit with China grew almost threefold, reaching $375 billion in 2017.

The economic dispute between the United States and China became very tense since the summer of 2018, when the United States Trade Representative (USTR) estimated that US damage amounts to an associated value of $50 billion a year. To offset the downturn in US economic activity, USTR announced it would substantially increase tarrifs on imports of Chinese products. In a tit-for-tat reaction, China immediately responded by increasing US import tariffs. Washington retaliated by a new increase, as well as Beijing. Damage on both sides amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars but, more than that, they led to serious disturbance in relations with other trading partners in the international community, against whom tariffs had to be raised too.

Chinese officials firmly criticized these US trade practices, saying they are expressions of American “unilateralism” and “protectionism.” The Chinese declared that America ignored the WTO rules and that Washington’s measures are nothing more than a form of economic war. Beijing also criticized the new NAFTA Agreement (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA), signed on September 30, 2018, which—at the insistence of the US government—effectively grants the United States a right of veto (the so-called “anti-dragon clause”) which, at Washington’s insistence, refrain any country with a free trade agreement with the U.S. from establishing free trade with nonmarket economies (China). In the Asian Review[15] analyst’s perspective, the measure is designed by Washington’s leaders as a model for future negotiations with other entities (such as the EU, the UK or Japan) and, of course, as a method of China’s economic isolation.

Notably, in the Asian region China is a regional hegemon, both economically and politically and even militarily. But China’s orientation is not in line with America’s plans, which is why the White House is applying two other measures to undermine Chinese authority.
One of these is the deployment of ample international US-led naval military exercises in the South China Sea. The outlook from Washington seems to be somber even at the moment. Not accidentally Mike Pence recently declared that “Perhaps the greatest challenge NATO will face in the coming decades is how we must all adjust to the rise of the People’s Republic of China.”[16]
A second measure, which terribly irritates the Chinese side, is encouraging Taiwan (an island also called the Republic of China— ROC) in its insubordination attitude toward the Chinese government.

The trade dispute with the United States and the sanctions against China’s largest trading partners forced Beijing to take measures to reduce its dependence on the US dollar. To this end, the People’s Bank of China regularly reduced the share of its holdings in the US currency. At the same time, China seeks to internationalize its own currency, the yuan (or renminbi), which in October 2016 was included in the basket of reserve currencies, recognized by the IMF, alongside the US dollar, the Japanese yen, the euro and the pound sterling.

A Chinese initiative that America seeks to halt by any means is the deployment of the extensive project “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), also called also called “The New Silk Road.” Through the enormous multilateral opportunities it opens, the project has the potential to accelerate Euro-Asian (Eu-China) integration and, in the long run, will revolutionize both Eurasia Economic Union (EEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO), two organizations that already have a great economic impact in the Asian region. Nearly 150 countries are now co-opted in the new “silk road.”

In preparation of trade agreements for BRI, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Europe between March and April 2019. Giuseppe Conti, the prime minister of Italy, became the first G7 leader to sign a memorandum of support for the BRI initiative. Then, on 9 April, the Chinese president attended a major China-Eu Summit in Brussels where he met the most important European leaders of the moment: German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president Emmanuel Macron and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. At these meetings, Xi Jinping already signed an agreement with the president of France. In line with the information released by Reuters[17], the agreement involved 15 bilateral contracts worth $63.6 billion, including contracts for renewable energy, shipping and banking, as well as an order for the delivery of 300 Airbus planes.

We must not be fooled by appearances. The EU leadership officially declares that China is an “economic rival” for the Union and that Eastern European countries should not trade with China. In fact, especially for France and Germany, contracts with China are flowing. The explanation is that the governors in Brussels and all the European states know very well that Washington will harshly punish any Atlantic “ally” that is too close to Beijing. Or by Moscow or Tehran. However, we remark that slowly, but surely, the EU is shifting priorities and turns from the West towards the Orient.

The Reorientation of the European Union

European Union leaders began to realize that Europe cannot afford to become a battlefield during the New Cold war between America, on the one hand, and Russia, China and Iran on the other. It is relevant to notice the constant divergence of the EU towards America in the UN General Assembly. The most recent example was the decision taken by 22 EU Member States to condemn the Trump public administration to support the illegal annexation by Israel of Golan Heights in March 2019. It is also the fact that commercial transactions of the European countries with Russia, China and even with Iran are, despite Washington’s menaces, more likely to be far more convenient than US offers. That is why the EU refused, as I will detail, to follow Trump in withdrawing from the international nuclear agreement with Iran. Also, to the open dissatisfaction of European officials, the US raised prices for steel and aluminum imports for the countries of Europe (but also for Canada and Mexico).

The sensitivity of the European leaders towards the United States’ decision to withdraw from possible commercial relations with Russia and Iran is also due to the vulnerability of the big European companies in the energy sector. Germany, France, the UK and Italy have two main sources of oil and gas: Russia and Iran. And the US wants to block both of them. Without these resources, large European corporations such as Peugeot, Citroen, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Uniper or Wintershall would be as “unplugged.” Following the development in recent years of the exploitation technology of shale hydrocarbons, government officials in the United States now aspire to replace the supply of Russian gas to Europe with liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. They have already invested in LNG export and storage terminals, and Europe would be a good and reliable place to sell. To eliminate Russian competition, Washington uses all methods: from diplomatic suggestions to strategic explanations or, if Europeans still don’t grasp the idea, economic sanctions may follow. AFP announced in February 2019 that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that “President Trump has been very clear that America is going to do what it can within its power”[18] to stop Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe. However, it is obvious that the relationship between Germany and the Russian Federation is substantially strengthening, and Germany is not willing to give up—despite US pressure—massive imports of natural gas coming from Russia. At the end of 2018, 60% of the natural gas used by Germany comes from Russia, and since the end of 2019, once the Nord Stream 2 pipeline becomes operational, the proportion will increase further, according to already established German-Russian agreements.

Given that Germany is the world’s fourth most powerful economy—after the US, China and Japan—it seems that the Germans have begun to behave manifesting a sort of aversion to US tutelage. As reported by a recent study conducted by Atlantik-Bruecke and the Civey Institute for public survey, “Nearly 85 percent of Germans have a negative or very negative view of U.S.-German relations.”[19]

On his turn, French president Emanuel Macron haven’t been shy at all to foreshadow in August 2018 a new orientation of Europe, insisting that “we need to build a strategic partnership with Russia and Turkey, because they are two important powers for our collective security, because they must be tied to Europe”.[20] Backed by Merkel, Macron stated he wishes a “sovereign Europe” which has “a true European army” and that eventually defends by itself. Not just against Russia or China, but “even against the United States of America.”[21]

Macron’s allegations correlate with the establishment in 2017 of a European military structure, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), operating in the area of security and defense policy. PESCO has been established by a EU Council decision on 11 December 2017, with 25 EU Member States participating.

It is not surprising in this context that the constant insistence from America for all the European members of the North Atlantic Alliance to increase their contribution to NATO’s military spending is viewed with some suspicion.

Above all, the determination of the White House to achieve its objectives leads to more and more transparent pressures on important leaders of EU structures in order to persuade them to adopt policies favorable to the interests of Washington. The director of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Mark Leonard, described[22] with sufficient details in October 2018 that US representatives did not hesitate to threaten with specific sanctions on civil servants with key roles in EU councils, major EU officials, SWIFT [23] directors and, apparently, even the directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB). According to the director of the ECFR, there were most likely threats for the directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Germany (Bundesbank), the Central Bank of France and the European Central Bank.

German Foreign Affairs minister Heiko Maas is no longer hiding the antipathy he developed against the United States administration. In an article published by the Handelsblatt daily, Maas wrote that “Germany now sees the current trans-Atlantic antipathy as a historic opportunity to redefine the EU’s role.” Taking a step further in this direction, he also recommends some concrete measures: “It is therefore essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels independent of the US, a European Monetary Fund and an independent SWIFT [payments] system.”[24]

It is necessary to point out here that although the leaders of France, Germany or Brussels speak for the whole of Europe, their legitimacy in front of the peoples of the Old Continent suffers considerable depreciation. This is because they have a federalist agenda regarding the States of Europe, which are thus in danger of losing their national sovereignty. This is the basic reason for Brexit. And Trump Administration knows this and insists to the maximum on supporting dissidence in the EU. Political trends that struggle to maintain national identity (and opposing artificially created Muslim immigrant waves) are clearly on the rise, including Europe’s richest countries. Against this backdrop, it is possible that in the coming years there will be a slow down on the “progressive” (neo-Marxist) plans induced from Brussels to all the states of Europe. At the same time, considering the US domineering policies, it is possible to emerge, seemingly paradoxically, a growing openness to the cooperation alternatives offered by the Russian Federation and a cooling down to the expansionist and war-like policies imposed by the United States through NATO.

Sanctions on Iran

Iran has long been on the US administration list of target countries for a regime change (it would not be the first time in this country) or even for an invasion such as the ones in Iraq, Libya or Syria.

One thing that certainly added fuel to the fire was that, as other Middle Eastern countries did, Iran had the boldness to confront the United States on financial ground. As reported by Associated Press, in April 2008 Iran “totally ceased to conduct oil transactions in US dollars.” In an unconcealed act of defiance of US administration, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the dollar “worthless paper”[25]. Predictably, the position of Tehran was regarded with hostility by the White House as Iran is the second largest OPEC oil supplier after Saudi Arabia and their decision would greatly affect the petrodollar. A major step on the international stage took place on May 8, 2018, when the US announced it was withdrawing from the international nuclear agreement with Iran and, moreover, decided to impose new sanctions on Iranians. Entitled Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA), the agreement with Iran was signed in 2015 by the United States, the Russian Federation, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China, and aimed at implementing measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons technology. In return for Iran’s compliance with the provisions of the treaty, the economic sanctions imposed by the signatory countries (with the exception of Russia, which did not impose any sanction) were to be lifted. The surprising aspect is that the UN’s constant checks and inspections following the signing of the agreement have shown that Iran has honored its commitments and has not developed nuclear weapons. And yet, despite UN reports, secret services in the US and Israel claim they have evidence (secret) that Iran allegedly violated its obligations and jeopardized the security of the area.

On this topic of the treaty with Iran, head of foreign diplomacy and Security Department of EU, Federica Mogherini declared on May 8, 2018 that “Nuclear deal with Iran is crucial for regional security of Europe and the world” and that “cancelling sanctions (imposed on Iran) is an essential part of the agreement.” Mogherini emphasized that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “published ten reports which certified that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons” and as long as Iran continues to meet the conditions, “EU will remain committed to compliance with the Agreement.”[26]

In a previous interview at the end of 2017, Mogherini explained that “the agreement does not belong to a specific country but is the result of a 12-year negotiation and a UN Security Council resolution where it was unanimously voted.” EU High Representative also stressed that “US decision to break the agreement gives a bad example to other nations (…) and shows that one can no longer trust America.”[27]

The White House followed unwavering its decision to withdraw from the agreement despite the fact that all other members of the treaty have remained. The United Kingdom, France and Germany along with the rest of the EU continue to support the nuclear agreement with Iran, but this option now expose them to the US administration’s punishments, which threatened them with sanctions. It would not be anything new. As Forbes[28] reported, in 2015, BNP Paribas (France’s largest international bank) was fined by the US with $8.9 billion for violating Washington’s sanctions against Iran, Cuba and Sudan.

Following the new US embargo after the US quit JPCOA, Iran’s oil exports have fallen by about 1 million barrels a day (bpd): from more than 2.5 million bpd before sanctions, they got in early April 2019 to export of less than 1.5 million bpd. But for the US it was not enough.

In the context of military tensions in Syria, Yemen and across the Middle East, the United States and Israel have repeatedly accused the Iranian army—and in particular the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)—of supporting terrorist groups. On April 8, 2019, the US Department of Defense announced that from that day it considers Iran’s elite army (IRGC) itself as a “terrorist group.” It is an unprecedented fact that the United States includes a faction of a foreign government on the list of terrorist organizations. The consequences are particularly severe because, by association, the entire Iranian state becomes practically nominated as a “terrorist state.” This attracts an economic and diplomatic blockade, generalized at international level. And the worst thing is that by declaring the IRGC as terrorist group the Pentagon paved the way for attacking Iran without too much “bureaucratic formalities” on the part of the US Congress or the UN Security Council.

The US (and Israel) aversion to Iranian Revolutionary Guards can also be explained by the fact that this military elite body has a technology that definitely confound the Pentagon. It is not a nuclear type technology (prohibited by international treaties), but it puts in an embarrassing position of inferiority all the systems the US department regards as superadvanced.

For example, as early as 2011, the IRGC publicly demonstrated by video recordings that it took over the electronic control of American drones that entered the Iranian airspace illegally. In December 2011, US President Barack Obama publicly asked[29] the Iranians to return a drone manufactured by the famous American concern Lockhed Martin. The Iranians captured the drone in flight, in full mission, at a height of about 6 kilometers. And they controlled it to land without causing the slightest scratch. Of course, they refused to return the drone and pointed out they were rather awaiting the excuses from the US government. The situation was repeated in February 2019 after, according to the New York Times[30], the US administration sought to implement a secret plan of sabotaging the Iranian missile defense system. IRGC again made public on the Internet a series of videos proving that several drones that US Air force had used until then in operations in the sky of Iraq and Syria were taken under Iranian control. Commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace division, Brigadier general Amir Ali Hajizadeh, declared that “we did this to tell them (the Americans) that you not only failed to achieve your goals, but we infiltrated into your systems.”[31]

A new level of tensions with Iran and its trade partners was reached on May 2, 2019, when the US decided to impose sanctions on any country that will deal with Iran (will no longer be granted sanctions waivers). The decision was motivated by the US department of State as follows “the goal of the policy is to drive up the costs of Iran’s malign behavior and more strongly address the broad range of threats to peace and security their regime presents.”[32] Through the Secretary of Defense Mike Pompeo, the White House announced that it intends to deprive Iran of its $50 billion revenue earned from oil trade and insists that Tehran cut its nuclear program, ballistic missile tests and support for the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. In gaining a sufficiently credible motivation to trigger a devastating conflict, the United States seems to be pursuing a strategy of collecting accusations against Iran.

On June 13, 2019, US officials accused Iran of attacking two sea-going vessels (one Japanese and one Norwegian) crossing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran denied accusations blaming the United States for spreading disinformation and warmongering. Based on the incident, the US build up its troops in the Middle East and sent four days later 1,000 extra soldiers. On June 20, 2019, an American RQ-4A global hawk drone (worth nearly $ 200 million)was shot down by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Forces. US officials warned that Iran made a big mistake because the drone was flying over an international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, the Iranians claimed that GPS records demonstrate that the drone illegally passed over the Iranian territory. As a retaliation, the US was about to launch an air attack against some IRGC radar sites, but the attack was canceled at the very last moment on Donald Trump’s order.

It seems that once a certain threshold of tension is reached, when US public opinion will be sufficiently convinced (persuaded) of the need for an attack on Iran, it will eventually be triggered. We remember that before Iraq’s invasion, media and American politicians have launched a campaign of alarmist messages (based on false premises) that a mass destruction weapon attack on Saddam Hussein’s order is imminent and that is why the US must apply a preemptive strike. But the equation of attacking Iran is much more complicated because the power of Iran is incomparably higher than that of Iraq. American strategists need to keep in mind that if the attack started in an almost classical way, the Iranian response would have the ability to strongly affect the interests of the US. And in the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the main US allies, who would instantly be directly involved in the conflict. As Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah explained:

war on Iran will not remain within that country’s borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family. [33]

Another extremely inconvenient consequence for the United States, in the case of a long-term war with Iran, would be that the Strait of Hormuz would undoubtedly be immediately closed. In line with a Goldman Sachs experts estimate[34], the crisis that would follow would increase the barrel cost from nearly $ 60 in June 2019 even to $ 1,000 a few weeks after the Strait of Hormuz was shut down. Given that 33% of the world’s oil and 44% of world’s maritime trade crosses the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz daily, it would seriously affect the world’s economy and ruin the US economy as well.

We are all aware that in the event of a conflict, Russia and China would directly support Iran, positioning themselves with a huge military force against America. That’s how, although the war hawks in Washington desperately want the war with Iran to ground the quasi-total domination (alongside Israel) in the region, the factors to be considered are numerous and extremely risky.

Divergences between the US and Turkey

Relations between the United States and Turkey have entered on a very dangerous slope for nearly three years. It is not just an economic war—which has already begun—but it is also the role that Turkey plays in NATO. The diplomatic relationship between Ankara and Washington got seriously deteriorated after a coup d’état in Turkey in July 2016 aimed at removing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan from power. Erdogan suspects US involvement in supporting the operation and considers that it would have been coordinated by the cleric Fethullah Gulen. And all this despite the fact that Gulen fled the country in 1999. He settled in America, where he received political asylum. To purge all potential traitors within the Turkish administration, Erdogan maintained a state of emergency in Turkey for two years and arrested nearly 50,000 suspects. Among them was the American evangelical pastor Andrew Brunson.

Brunson’s arrest caused a strong rabid reaction from the White House, which, since March 2018, imposed drastic sanctions on Turkey, especially on steel and aluminum imports. In July 2018, US vice President Mike Pence announced that if Pastor Brunson is not released immediately, the US will issue even tougher sanctions to Turkey. Since Erdogan did not comply, the sanctions entered into force on 1 August 2018.

Following US sanctions, the Turkish lira lost almost half of its value reported to the dollar by the end of 2018. The currency depression led to rising inflation and rising prices for goods and services. Facing this disaster, Erdogan ceded and released Andrew Brunson from prison, who returned to the United States.

The situation definitely contributed to the Turkish leader’s decision to accede to a state of political and economic independence of Turkey towards the United States and the other Western powers. The Turkish president made his intention clear through direct public statements, in which he repeatedly called on Turkish compatriots to sell their dollars and euro to boost national currency. As reported by Reuters news on August 14, 2018, Erdogan stated at a meeting of the ruling party that “together with all the people, we will decisively position ourselves against the dollar, foreign exchange rates, inflation and interest rates.”[35]

The United States strongly urges Turkey to abandon its nationalist ambitions, but this strategy could trigger Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO, which would lead to major weakening of the North Atlantic organization. Turkey’s geostrategic position, with several maritime gates and essential continental openings, makes this country a fundamental link due to its potential to influence the three neighboring continents.

At the beginning of 2019, the Turkish president announced his firm intention to end the US monopoly by adopting a new trade policy. Erdogan aims to develop relations mainly with Russia, China and Iran, states in a trade war with the US. It goes without saying that these transactions will be held in currency other than the dollar.

Another situation that exacerbates international tensions is the opening of Turkey to Russia. By the end of 2017, the Turkish government signed a contract with the Russian Federation to receive the famous S-400 military anti-air systems. The Pentagon has since transmitted that the acquisition by Turkey of Russian military systems will have “serious consequences” from America. Washington’s first measure was to suspend the delivery to Turkey of fifth generation fighter aircrafts F-35 and Patriot anti-missile systems. US vice President Mike Pence said on April 4, 2019 that Turkey’s acquisition of S-400 Russian anti-aircraft systems is a worrying concern in the US and poses a threat to NATO unity. In addition, he asked Turkey to make a choice: to remain an important partner of the alliance or to compromise its security by making “foolish” decisions and “undermining” NATO. The Turkish Foreign Affairs minister replied that the S-400 system will help the country defend itself because Turkey faces threats from Kurdish rebels and Islamic militants. And that Turkey will not give up this agreement with Russia, which, according to the BBC[36] was concluded for 2.5 billion pounds sterling ($3.25 billion). As expected, US officials said that this could lead to imposition of sanctions by the United States. Turkey’s confrontation with America on this particularly sensitive issue is also related to the fact that Washington intends to establish a Kurdish state at the border between Turkey and Syria, with the prospect that this new state will also include a part of the Kurdish community in Turkey. Ankara is already in conflict with Kurdish groups in the region and finds it unacceptable for a rupture of its territory.

One more serious divergence between the United States and Turkey occurred after, as mentioned above, the US stated that it included Iranian Army’s elite unit (IRGC) on the list of terrorist organizations. Turkey and Iran are tied by a closely alliance, which is why the Ankara government condemned America’s decision. We are now faced with a very complicated situation in which Turkey, the second state as a NATO power, officially contradicts a decision of the alliance leader. And it is not about an insignificant detail, but about a strictly military, international security issue. The Turkish Foreign Affairs minister declared, according to Channel News Asia, “these kinds of decisions will pave the way for instability in our region.”[37] The divergence will also have important economic consequences as the United States will no longer allow Turkey nor other states to enter trade relations with Iran. But Turkey reacts. And alongside Turkey are Russia, China, India and other great powers.

De-dollarization and Return to Gold Standards

I emphasize again that the power of sanctions—which the US is currently using as a mechanism to assert its interests—is based precisely on the fact that the dollar is the reference currency for global reserves. Under these circumstances, giving up dollar transactions had become a security and defense measure used by more and more states in the world over the last few years. The process is known as “de-dollarization” and had taken an already large course worldwide. The countries that firmly opted for de-dollarization are primarily Russia, China, India (countries that form the basis of the BRICS alliance), but also other countries with great economic potential such as Iran, Turkey, Venezuela or large African countries. Venezuela also created a virtual currency (the petro) that is directly related to the value of oil (or gold), without being in any way related to the value of the dollar.

Not only did the dollars begin to be avoided in transactions, but large bank deposits in the form of bonds in US treasuries began to be withdrawn. China, Russia and Japan are at the forefront of these measures. China and Japan each have over $ 1 trillion in bonds in America. And they began to ask them back.

We also note that many countries adopted the measure of bringing back their gold stored in the US (but also from other countries) after the 2008 financial crisis. The leaders of those states were worried that the gold reserves deposited in the United States could be confiscated urgently —whenever possible—if Washington declares that it sanctions that state for various reasons (or pretexts).

Russia withdrew its gold reserves from all of its foreign deposits and, in addition, began to buy gold for a number of years in very large quantities. Moscow Central Bank data, quoted by Bloomberg[38], shows that Russia’s gold reserves increased almost fourfold in the past ten years. Moreover, during 2018 Russia bought almost as much gold as the rest of the world together, and this Moscow strategy continues[39].

A number of other countries, primarily from Europe, started to repatriate their gold about five years ago. Amid the unexpected change in the policies of Wall Street-controlled central banks (especially the FED), the governments of the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Turkey, Hungary and other countries concluded that it is more prudent to keep their precious metals at home than to rely on the US as a custodian. The new economic policy tends to become that of making payments mainly in euros, yuan or directly in gold, in order to weaken the power of the American petrodollar.
A Compromising Document

A document declassified by WikiLeaks in December 2008, just two months after it was issued by the secret services of the US Army, reveals some “unconventional warfare” methods that US administrations use to gain influence on “foreign state and non-state actors.” As a handbook, the document makes it very clear that these methods had already been applied for a long time through leading international institutions such as the World Bank (WB) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And that the economic war is part of the so-called Unconventional Warfare, assumed clearly by structures such as the Army Special operations forces, the Department of State and Intelligence Community.

The importance of this act is, of course, huge, because if it is authentic, it demonstrates that these global institutions are far from being neutral and independent. Let us look at some of the directives outlined in the 248 pages of the US unconventional war manual. The document is accessible online and shows all the bureaucratic features of an original document.

In the section entitled Economic Instrument of United States National Power and Unconventional Warfare, it is specified that the US government applies its “unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions.”[40]

The world’s most important financial institutions—the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the organization for Economic Cooperation and development (OECd) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)—are described as “diplomatic financial venues to accomplish”[41] US objectives.

As explained in the manual, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC—overseeing US sanctions on other nations) “has a long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF [42] UW [43] campaign.”[44] It is noted that such unconventional war campaigns are carefully coordinated by the ARSOF, department of State (DOS) and Intelligence Community (IC) to determine “which elements of the human terrain in UWOA[45] are most susceptible to financial engagement.”[46] Thus, the ARSOF can use the financial strength as a genuine “weapon,” starting with “conflict” situations up to and including “large-scale general war.”[47]

More concretely, the US military financial warfare involves, among other things, “financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels.”[48] or “state manipulation of tax and interest rates and other legal and bureaucratic measures” which “can apply unilateral U.S. financial action to open, modify, or close financial flows.”[49]

Indeed, many analysts have signalled for decades that the largest international institutions consistently promoted US geopolitical objectives abroad. Yet, the value of this document is that it provides a concrete basis for showing that all of these have been an integral part of the carefully designed plans in US command structures.

About the author:

Calistrat M. Atudorei, International Institute for Global Analyses. © 2019 Vision & Global Trends – International Institute for Global Analyses © 2019 Calistrat M. Atudorei

This article is an excerpt from the coming English version of Atudorei’s book: Planurile Americii Pentru Hegemonia Mondiala(America’s Plans for World Hegemony)

First Edition: August2019

Analytical Dossier – N. 23/2019

www.vision-gt.eu 

Calistrat M. Atudorei, is a Romanian political scientist. His last work is: Planurile Americii Pentru Hegemonia Mondiala: Studiu, 2018
Calistrat Atudorei was born in Bacău, Romania, on March 4, 1968. He studied technical disciplines at “Gheorghe Asachi” University in Iași and worked for a period as engineer. For about ten years he collaborated with several human rights organizations and turned his interest to social sciences. Currently he is a PhD student at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Bucharest, where he focus on the field of International Relations.
He published articles related to social sciences in magazines and specialized sites in Romania, such as Lumea, the website of the Union of Professional Journalists or ActiveNews.

References

1. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to the President and the Congress, 1999, p. 4, https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/documents/annual_reports/1999_dod_ar.pdf?ver=2014-08–22095354-640
2. See references to Petrodollar System in Calistrat M. Atudorei, America’s Plans for World Hegemony.
3. The lack of neutrality of global financial institutions is reflected in the document presented at the end of this paper.
4. Economic Report of the President, p. XXIII. January 21, 1963. House document No. 28, 88th Congress, 1st Session. U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
5. Adrian Pătrușcă, Strategul lui Donald Trump anunţă cine va domina Europa curând. Steve Bannon despre lupta contra Globalismului, Evenimentul Zilei, April 16, 2019, https://evz.ro/trump-bannon-europa-globalism.html?v=347635&page=2
6. US Department of the Treasury, Sanctions Programs and Country Information, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/programs/pages/programs.aspx
7. Dark Money – offering large amounts of money through non-profit organi zations for secret purposes; for example to influence elections in a country, without the voters knowing where the money comes from, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money
8. Trude Pettersen, Russia loses $600 billion on sanctions and low oil prices, The Barents Observer, May 5, 2016, https://thebarentsobserver.com/ru/node/414
9. Jo Harper, Do sanctions against Russia work?, Deutsche Welle, November 22, 2018, https://www.dw.com/en/do-sanctions-against-russia-work/a-46407184
10. Natasha Doff, Anna Andrianova, Russia Buys Quarter of World Yuan Reserves in Shift From Dollar, Bloomberg, January 9, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-09/russia-boosted-yuan-euro-holdings-as-it-dumped-dollars-in-2018
11. Janis Kluge, Taking Stock of U.S. Sanctions on Russia, Foreign Policy Research Institute, January 14, 2019, https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/01/taking-stock-of-u-s-sanctions-on-russia/
12. Vesti News, Sparks Fly at Energy Forum: Why Does Russia Blame US For High Oil and Gas Prices?, October 4, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=176&v=i618_cRd5sE
13. Pepe Escobar, The EU bows to ‘systemic rival’ China, AsiaTimes, March 27, 2019, https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-eu-bows-to-systemic-rival-china/
14. This is a strictly transactional increase, but it does not cover the budget deficit
15. Minxin Pei, US and China face growing risk of military clashes as conflict intensifies, Nikkei Asian Review, October 11, 2018, https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/US-and-China-face-growing-risk-of-military-clashes-as-conflict-intensifies2
16. White House, Remarks by Vice President Pence at NATO Engages: The Alliance at 70, April 3, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-nato-engages-alliance-70/
17. Marine Pennetier, John Irish, France seals multi-billion dollar deals with China, but questions Belt and Road project, Reuters, March 25, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-china/france-seals-multi-billion-dollar-deals-with-china-but-questions-belt-and-road-project-idUSKCN1R61NF
18. AFP, Backed by Poland, Pompeo vows to try to stop Russia pipeline, France 24, February 12, 2019, https://www.france24.com/en/20190212-backed-poland-pompeo-vows-try-stop-russia-pipeline
19. Andrea Shalal, Nicht gut: Nearly 85 percent of Germans see U.S-German ties as negative, Reuters, 8 februarie 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-usa/nicht-gut-nearly-85-percent-of-germans-see-u-s-german-ties-as-negative-idUSKCN1PX1C7
20. Andrew Rettman, EU needs to stand apart from US, France and Germany say, EUObserver, 28 august 2018, https://euobserver.com/foreign/142668
21. Nicholas Vinocur, Paul Dallison, Donald Trump: Without the US, the French would be speaking German, Politico, November 13, 2018, https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-without-the-us-the-french-would-be-speaking-german/
22. Mark Leonard, The New Tyranny of the Dollar, Project Syndicate, October 30, 2018, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-secondary-sanctions-eu-iran-by-mark-leonard-2018-10?barrier=accesspaylog
23. SWIFT – The acronim from Society for Worlwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
24. Heiko Maas, Making plans for a new world order, Handelsblatt, august 22, 2018, https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opinion/heiko-maas-making-plans-for-a-new-world-order/23583082.html?ticket=ST-2959475-qwu4vFR07lCW9g0zvMda-ap6
25. Article of The Associated Press preluat de CBSNews: Iran Ends Oil Transactions In U.S. dollars, 30 aprilie 2008, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-ends-oil-transactions-in-us-dollars
26. Ruptly, Italy: Mogherini declares EU will ’preserve the Iran nuclear deal’, 8 mai 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=971cacj-eZm
27. PBS News hour, Iran nuclear deal will remain valid regardless of U.S. decision, says EU policy chief, 11 oct 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euF1oz8dWu
28. Kenneth Rapoza, Prediction: Europe Will Keep Ignoring Washington Sanctions On Russian Pipeline Nord Stream II, Forbes, May 10, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/05/10/prediction-europewill-ignore-washington-sanctions-on-russian-pipeline-nord-stream-ii/#37aeefcf5f4b
29. CBS News, Obama asks Iran to return downed drone, December 12, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RckGP_z6hQ&feature=player_embedded
30. David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, U.S. Revives Secret Program to Sabotage Iranian Missiles and Rockets, New York Times, February 13, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/iran-missile-launch-failures.html
31. Iran hacked US drone command center in response to Washington’s impudence: IRGC, Press TV, Feb 24, 2019, https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/02/24/589445/IRGC-drone-Hajizadeh-US-missile-Aerospace-Division
32. Kate Sullivan, Washington Post: State Department to announce all countries importing Iranian oil will be subject to US sanctions, CNN, April 22, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/21/politics/state-department-iran-oil-sanctions/index.html
33. Pepe Escobar, Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”, Strategic Culture, June 20, 2019, https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/20/iran-goes-for-maximum-counter-pressure/goes
34. Idem, Pepe Escobar, Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”
35. Daren Butler, Behiye Selin Taner, Erdogan says Turkey will boycott U.S. electronics, lira steadies, Reuters, 14 august 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-currency/erdogan-says-turkey-will-boycottus-electronics-lira-steadies-iduSKBn1KZ09Z
36. *** US warns Turkey over Russian S-400 missile system deal, BBC News, 4 April 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47809827
37. ***Turkey says US move against Iran Guards creates ‘instability’, Channel New Asia, 10 aprilie 2019, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/turkey-says-us-move-against-iran-guards-creates–instability–11428076
38. Andrey Biryukov , Rupert Rowling , Yuliya Fedorinova, Russia Is Dumping U.S. Dollars to Hoard Gold, Bloomberg, March 29, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-29/russia-is-stocking-up-on-gold-as-putin-ditches-u-s-dollars
39. Marko Marjanović, In 2018 Russia Bought Nearly as Much Gold as All the Rest of the World Combined, CheckPoint Asia, April 9, 2019, https://www.checkpointasia.net/in-2018-russia-bough-nearly-as-much-gold-as-all-the-other-countries-combined/
40. FM 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare, September 30, 2008, p. 2-8, https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-fm3-05-130.pdf
41. Idem, FM 3-05.130, p.2-8
42. ARSOF – Army Special Operations Forces
43. UW – Unconventional Warfare
44. Idem, FM 3-05.130
45. UWOA – Unconventional Warfare Operations Area
46. Idem, FM 3-05.130
47. Idem, FM 3-05.130
48. Idem, FM 3-05.130
49. Idem, FM 3-05.130

By Mara Lemanis.

No sooner did the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announce her intent to investigate the United States’ involvement with alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, than the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, struck back, announcing restrictions on visas to ICC staffers investigating US personnel and accusing the ICC of attacking American rule of law. Security Adviser, John Bolton, warned that sanctions would be imposed on the Court if it pursued probes into US activities in Afghanistan.

Human rights groups condemned the decision, but Fatou Bensouda’s visa was revoked, and because the US has a Bilateral Security Agreement with Afghanistan, investigators there have no incentive to cooperate with the ICC.

Known as the “court of last resort,” the ICC became operational on July 1, 2002, advancing the provisions of the Rome Statute, convened in 1998 for the purpose of establishing investigation and prosecution of crimes against humanity, including war crimes, crimes of aggression, and genocide. Despite United Nations members who voted against the Rome Statute—China, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, Iraq, Israel, and the U.S.—123 nation states are members of the Court and parties to the Rome treaty. Afghanistan ratified the Rome Statute in 2003.

The Court has been able to sentence and convict rebel leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, such as Germain Katanga and Thomas Lubanga, and Islamic militant, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi  (destruction of religious and historic monuments in Timbuktu, Mali).

But other accused aggressors, such as Congolese Vice President Jean Pierre Bemba and Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, have had charges overturned by the appeals court or have been acquitted. One of the most egregious warlords, President Oman al-Bashir of Sudan, though issued an arrest warrant by the Court, found defenders who cited legal flaws and kept him out of detention. Noteworthy, too, was Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s withdrawal from the ICC in March 2018 after the ICC began an inquiry into Duterte’s methods of dealing with drug offenders. Other candidates accused of war crimes are still undergoing trial.

Any contention about the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court must recognize that it can only prosecute cases where national authorities cannot or will not. This is due to what is understood as the principle of “complementarity,” which means that under international law primary accountability for atrocious crimes rests with national authorities. This often can result in the ICC prosecutor’s jurisdiction getting blocked by national influence, leading to inadequate or feckless remedies.

The ICC is an outgrowth from the nation states’ realization that sanguine agreements to uphold peaceful co-existence could quickly founder from sudden eruptions among or within states and break that co-existence.

The League of Nations, precursor to the United Nations, had proved impotent to prevent WWII—its deterrents were disarmament, collective security, and negotiation, not armed forces acting as preventatives. Clearly a foundational contradiction existed between disarmament and necessary military force.

When Article X of the Versailles Treaty stated that members are committed to protecting the territorial integrity and independence of all countries, the US Foreign Relations Committee assumed that it would fall to the US to provide aid to any nation confronting aggression or invasion. This assumption prevented America from joining the League. Most Americans chose to remain isolationist in order to avoid ongoing conflicts in Europe.

 

Britain and France, too, though members of the League, did nothing to prevent Germany from invading the Rhineland, the Sudetenland, Austria, and Poland. And they remained feckless when Mussolini’s troops bombarded Corfu and invaded Ethiopia and continued to shy away from engagement in 1923 when French and Belgian troops invaded Germany’s main industrial site, the Ruhr.

As a result, after WWII, it was glaringly certain that nation states needed to organize stronger measures to prevent hegemonic nationalism from devastating the world. The presumed corrective was the Atlantic Charter of 1941, signed into the United Nations by 51 members in 1945.

The keystone of the International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute of 1998, authorized and established the ICC by 2002 for the sake of investigating and prosecuting persons accused of serious crimes against the international community.

Yet the US has not joined the ICC. While supporting the ICC’s intervention in Darfur in 2005 with sanctions on Sudan’s oil industry, voting for referral of the Libyan crisis to the Court in 2011, and voluntarily transferring Congolese suspects to the ICC in 2012 and 2015, it has refused to become party to the Court.

When the US threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of several peacekeeping mandates unless US nationals were exempted from the ICC’s jurisdiction, the UN secretary-general at the time, Kofi Annan, said that proposal “flies in the face of treaty law.”

Regardless, America insisted on special rights and obtained through the UN Security Council Resolution 1847, known as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act. This resolution was endorsed in 2003, but in 2004, after documents surfaced of U.S. troops torturing and abusing Iraq prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the Security Council justifiably denied the exemption. It had become obvious that the U.S.  Protection Act had breached its right to immunity for its service personnel.

What the U.S. did after WWII with the European Recovery Program, known as the Marshall Plan, was restorative and smart—financing a program to reconstruct and unify countries devastated by the war. That was redemptive, not vengeful as the Versailles Treaty had been.

But promoting itself as the proprietor of an exceptional status vis-à-vis the international community undermines whatever effectiveness the ICC can muster.

The formula for exempting not only ASPA members but all US nationals, and the pressure on countries to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements to prevent the ICC from extraditing US citizens from any country they were either visiting or in which they were stationed, clearly crippled the ICC from proceeding with investigations or prosecutions of war crimes. The result is that violations of human rights have pretty anemic remedies.

A happier development was that by 2009 the US did not renew the Bilateral Immunity Agreement that previously had cut off economic support to nations that refused to sign it.

But with the current State Department censorship under the triumvirate of Messrs. Pompeo, Bolton, and Trump, that thaw has frozen again, and America’s self-appointed exceptionalism in the world community again rears its head.