The Biden Administration seems intent on breaking the agreement signed under the Trump Administration for US troops to finally leave Afghanistan, the longest and perhaps most pointless war in US history. Rather than follow through with the withdrawal, the White House is attempting to negotiate with the Taliban for six more months. How many more Americans (and Afghanis) will have to die for this failed policy? Also today, Biden ratchets up war tensions in Ukraine, shipping more than 300 tons of new weapons. War drums getting louder. On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
In the past few months, Grayzone journalist Aaron Mate has interviewed two former ambassadors to Syria: former UK Ambassador Peter Ford and former U.S. Ambassador Robert S. Ford.
The two ambassadors have a common surname but dramatically different perspectives. This article will compare the statements and viewpoints of the two diplomats.
UK Ambassador Peter Ford (PF)
Peter Ford trained as an Arabist and served in the British foreign service in numerous cities including Beirut, Riyadh, and Cairo. He was Ambassador to Bahrein from 1999 to 2003, then Syria from 2003 to 2006. From 2006 until 2014 he was a senior officer with the UN Relief Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
The interview with UK Amb. Peter Ford (PF) shows why he is exceptional former diplomat. He analyzes and criticizes western aggression against Syria.
Ricochet recently reported on internal government documents regarding a discussion about selling sensors for armed drones to Turkey. Last spring the Trudeau government approved an exemption to an arms export ban to Turkey, allowing Ontario-based L3Harris Wescam to sell its thermal surveillance and laser missile targeting technology. It was subsequently employed in the deadly conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.
In providing the exemption, government officials demonstrated concern about corporate interests and Canadian relations with a NATO ally. "The need for cooperation among NATO partners was a major element of the justification for the carve-out that allowed Canadian tech to be transferred despite the stated ban," reported Jon Horler.
This is not the first time NATO has been invoked to justify arms sales that fueled a war. In 1967 Prime Minister Lester Pearson responded to calls by opponents of the war in Vietnam to end the Defense Production Sharing Agreement, the arrangement under which Canada sold the US weapons, with the claim that to do so would imperil NATO. Lester Pearson claimed this "would be interpreted as a notice of withdrawal on our part from continental defense and even from the collective defense arrangements of the Atlantic alliance."
Boris Johnson’s March 16 speech before the British Parliament was reminiscent, at least in tone, to that of Chinese President Xi Jinping in October 2019, on the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China.
The comparison is quite apt if we remember the long-anticipated shift in Britain’s foreign policy and Johnson’s conservative Government’s pressing need to chart a new global course in search for new allies – and new enemies.
XI’s words in 2019 signaled a new era in Chinese foreign policy, where Beijing hoped to send a message to its allies and enemies that the rules of the game were finally changing in its favor, and that China’s economic miracle – launched under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping in 1992 – would no longer be confined to the realm of wealth accumulation, but would exceed this to politics and military strength, as well.
A document released by the British Ministry of Defence, titled "Defence in a competitive age", identifies Moscow as its main threat and states that London intends to increase its presence around Russia – specifically in the Black Sea, the Arctic, the Baltic Sea and the Western Balkans. The United Kingdom also plans to invest significant funds into new military equipment so that soldiers can adapt to "the new threat." The document acknowledges Britain’s awareness of multipolarity, but also its intentions to still challenge Russia while opening a path of cooperation with China.
The British Strategy for the Western Balkans is mentioned more than any other region in the document, suggesting they want more influence there. However, it is inconceivable that they will be able to bolster their forces in the region. Instead, it is more likely that Britain could be more involved in so-called cyber war. The document has a large part dedicated to cyberspace, and states "Cyberspace espionage can and will be used as part of wider influence and propaganda campaigns, as well as in support of wider hostile activity up to and including conventional warfare."
Americans For Prosperity and Concerned Veterans of America had me out to give a talk to a committee of the Montana State Senate in Helena on Tuesday.
Here is some of the audio. The first 15 minutes or so about how the corruption of the military industrial complex and the boom and bust caused by the pro-empire easy money policy is pushing American liberals toward socialism are unfortunately not included.