Archive for the ‘imperialism’ Category

Vladimir PutinBy Carlos Martinez

I tried to write this status without swearing, but I can’t do it, sorry. Stephen Fry is a dickhead. How ridiculously hypocritical and stupid to call for the Russian Winter Olympics to be banned on account of “anti-gay” laws.

Why didn’t Fry call for the London Olympics to be banned? Does Britain have a great record on human rights? Have we respected the human rights of the Iraqi, Libyan, Afghan, Yugoslav and Syrian people? And if brown people and weird Slav(e)s aren’t important enough to worry about, then have we respected the human rights of the Irish, on whom the British state developed the world’s most advanced torture techniques?

Why didn’t Fry call for the Atlanta Olympics, or the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, to be banned, given the US record of flagrant human rights abuses at home and abroad? How about the fact that the US imprisons over 1% of its adult population (double Russia’s incarceration rate), and how about the fact that black people are incarcerated at 10 times the rate of whites? Does that not warrant a boycott? (Sorry, I keep forgetting that non-whites don’t really have ‘rights’ in the commonly understood sense of the word.)

What Stephen Fry is saying is that the most significant form of oppression in the world today is homophobia. Colonialism, imperialism, racism, capitalism, neoliberalism, sexism – none of these really matter. This (self-evidently wrong) position puts him solidly on the side of imperialism. He applauds Cameron for supporting gay marriage, whilst condemning Putin – one of the precious few world leaders moving seriously and confidently against western hegemony. In summary, Fry may be a very witty, eloquent, amiable chap, but he is unquestionably on the wrong side of the global barricades.

The irony is that his first suggestion for an alternative location is Utah, where the majority of the population is Mormon. The Mormonic view on homosexuality is summed up quite nicely on the mormon.org FAQ site: “We cannot stand idle if homosexuals indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” And yet it’s Vladimir Putin who “cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world”?! Ridiculous.

Obviously, this issue is closely linked with Russia’s granting of asylum to Edward Snowden, and with Obama’s cancellation of his Moscow visit. Stephen Fry is letting us know, loud and clear, that he stands with Obama, Cameron, and the rest of the “civilised” (imperialist) world against the growing tide of multipolarity and national liberation.

(And, before you start an irrelevant debate: I do oppose homophobia and have nothing against homosexuals getting married!)


from the Agent of Change


Read Full Post »



Those who had hoped US President Barack Obama’s term of office would be different had been disappointed, Young Communist League (YCL) national secretary Buti Manamela said on Friday.

Obama’s three-nation tour, scheduled to bring him to South Africa later in the day, was a one-sided affair for the US’s benefit, Manamela said.

“In reality, Obama is here for trade relations, not for the benefit of the continent, but the gain of United States imperialism. The benefit of American companies to continue raping our mineral resources.”

Manamela and other officials led more than a thousand activists in a march to the US embassy in Arcadia, Pretoria.

“We are here to display our anger and frustrations in relation to continued US domination, not only of the economy, but the political sphere as well,” he said.


Read Full Post »

obama_lamericaby Mark Weisbrot

Recent events indicate that the Obama administration has stepped up its strategy of “regime change” against the left-of-center governments in Latin America, promoting conflict in ways not seen since the military coup that Washington supported in Venezuela in 2002. The most high-profile example is in Venezuela itself, during the past week. As this goes to press, Washington has grown increasingly isolated in its efforts to destabilize the newly elected government of Nicolas Maduro.

But Venezuela is not the only country to fall prey to Washington’s efforts to reverse the electoral results of the past 15 years in Latin America. It is now clear that last year’s ouster of President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay was also aided and abetted by the United States government. In a brilliant investigative work for Agência Pública, journalist Natalia Viana shows that the Obama administration funded the principal actors involved in the “parliamentary coup” against Lugo. Washington then helped organize international support for coup.

The U.S. role in Paraguay is similar to its role in the military overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009, where Washington hijacked the Organization of American States (OAS) and used it to fight the efforts of South American governments who wanted to restore democracy. Zelaya later testified that Washington was also involved in the coup itself.

In Venezuela this past week, Washington could not hijack the OAS but only its Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, who supported the White House (and Venezuela opposition) demand for a “100 percent recount.” But Insulza had to back down, as did Spain, the United States’ only other significant ally in this nefarious enterprise – because they had no support.

The demand for a “recount” in Venezuela is absurd, since there has already been a recount of the paper ballots for a random sample of 54 percent of the voting machines. The machine totals were compared with a hand count of the paper ballots in front of witnesses from all sides. Statistically, there is no practical difference between this enormous audit that has already happened, and the 100 percent audit that the opposition is demanding. Jimmy Carter called Venezuela’s electoral system “the best in the world,” and there is no doubt about the accuracy of the vote count,even among many in the Venezuelan opposition.

It is good to see Lula denouncing the U.S. for its interference and Dilma joining the rest of South America to defend Venezuela’s right to a free elections. But it is not just Venezuela and the weaker democracies that are threatened by the United States. As reported in the pages of this newspaper, in 2005, the U.S. government funded and organized efforts to change the laws in Brazil in order to weaken the Workers’ Party. This information was discovered in U.S. government documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Most likely Washington has done much more in Brazil that remains secret.

It is clear that Washington did not see the mildly reformist Fernando Lugo as threatening or even radical. It’s just that he was too friendly with the other left governments. The Obama administration, like that of President Bush, does not accept that the region has changed. Their goal is to get rid of all of the left-of-center governments, partly because they tend to be more independent from Washington. Brazil, too, must be vigilant in the face of this threat to the region.


Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Read Full Post »



The President of the Republic, Nicolas Maduro, today criticized the interference of the U.S. government in the internal affairs of Venezuela. The president held a meeting Wednesday with the governors of the states, in which he described as “obscene” American intervention in the political process in the country, including the recent election of April 14.

The U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, today demanded  a recount of votes in Venezuela and questioned the legitimacy of Maduro.

Maduro was emphatic in rejecting the statements of Kerry. “What basis do you have to be talking about Venezuela, aren’t there enough economic, social and political burdens on the American people?” Maduro asked. ”Enough interventionism, get out!”

Of the U.S. refusal to recognize the results given by the CNE, he said: “We do not need your recognition: we decided to be free and we will be free and independent, with you or without you.”

Read Full Post »

yugoslaviaOn March 24, fourteen years will have elapsed since the start of the NATO bombing of FR Yugoslavia (which consisted of Serbia and Montenegro). In 1999, after unsuccessful talks between Serbs and Kosovo Albanians in Rambouillet, France, 19 NATO member-states started air strikes, first on the barracks and anti-air defence of the Yugoslav Army. On this occasion, the then commander of the War Air-Force and Anti-Air Defence of the Yugoslav Army, Spasoje Smiljanić, and military analysts Miroslav Lazanski and Aleksandar Radić, spoke for our radio. More by Mirjana Nikolic.

According to General Smiljanić, the defence of our country was more effective than it was expected in the conditions of the time. Both sides made some wrong assessments, he says. NATO generals believed they would destroy the Yugoslav Army in just a few days and that the state leadership would capitulate soon. On the other hand, the Serbian side believed there would be just several warning attacks and only in the region of Kosovo and Metohija, after which the West will resort to diplomacy. Both sides had been deluded. NATO had underestimated the Serbian soldier and officer and their readiness and resolve to defend their homeland. Thus, the NATO aggression on the FRY began with 460 and ended with more than 1,000 aircraft, emphasizes Smiljanić. The fact that more than 500 civilians were killed in the NATO bombing and that the number of killed Army members amounted to 271 confirms that civilians, civilian facilities and non-military infrastructure were actually a NATO target and not an alleged collateral error, emphasizes the general.

According to military analyst Miroslav Lazanski, the bombing was an imperialist move by NATO, which, in 1999, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, was thus sending a message to Russia, China and to all the others who remained faitfhul to their stands in international relations. He says that the true question is why NATO chose FR Yugoslavia as the place of its first intervention after its foundation when it was known in advance that nothing could be achieved by force. The West did not count on two things. First, they did not expect the Serbian nation to remember the bombing for such a long time and, secondly, the intervention failed to solve the problem, stresses Lazanski. He emphasizes that in the Balkans all the nations, except the Serbs, have attained their national interests.

Military analyst Aleksandar Radić assesses the NATO bombing as a historical and political delusion of the USA and Western powers. At that time, both in the West and in the East, the ruling politicians were those who thought it was possible to conduct politics with bombs, or rather, that diplomacy and high technology could estabilish an idyllic mutual relation. According to him, the bombing was an attempt of NATO at proving itself as a military power although its subsequent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be a catastrophe. The ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo and Metohija region was only to be expected after the Serbian forces withdrew and KFOR arrived. KFOR was unable, and also unwilling, to oppose that as, initially, it was a military formation prepared for battle against conventional forces, stresses Radić.


Read Full Post »


“I solemnly request the President to convene in January 2014…  a referendum on France leaving the European Union.”

—  Marine Le Pen

President of the Front National, the third-largest political party in France

Read Full Post »

Israel’s former military intelligence chief has called for the Zionist regime’s stronger ties with al-Qaeda-linked militants in Syria to face Iran.

Major General Amos Yadlin, quoted by Jerusalem Post newspaper, said Israel should strengthen its relationship with emerging Sunni forces in Syria to confront “the big enemy, which is Iran.”

Yadlin, who was speaking at the unveiling of the strategic assessment for 2012-2013 of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), noted that Syria is an influential “component of the Iranian-led regional axis.”

He stated that the ongoing destructive violence in Syria has brought about strategic benefit for Israel.

Eric Draister, the founder of stopimperialism.com, told Press TV in an interview on Monday that Israel and al-Qaeda are two sides of the same coin in creating instability and provoking violence in Syria.

“Israel and al-Qaeda are two sides of the US dominated imperial system which has waged war on the independent nation of Syria attempting to destroy that country,” he said.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of Army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government has said that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and that a very large number of the militants operating in the country are foreign nationals.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »