Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Chinese Foreign Ministry stands behind Pakistan, criticises Trump and SLAMS India

According to China, India is “slapping its own face” with its provocative actions along the Chinese border.

Published

on

2,360 Views

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying has held a press conference where she discussed recent events while taking questions from journalists. The overall weight of her remarks speak to the fact that China is getting increasingly fed up with India’s failure to engage in dialogue with China over the Doklam/Donglang border dispute as well as other areas of the China-India frontier whose demarcations are not universally recognised.

In her statements Hua also affirmed China’s commitment to its manifold partnership/friendship with Pakistan while subtly warning Donald Trump not to insult Islamabad’s commitment to peace in South Asia.

When asked about Donald Trump’s recent announcement on Afghanistan, Hua Chunying responded in the following way,

“The Chinese side is actively committed to promoting the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. We always maintain that political dialogue is the only way out for resolving the Afghanistan issue. The international community should support the ‘Afghan-led’ and ‘Afghan-owned’ reconciliation process, support Afghanistan in realising the widespread and inclusive political reconciliation, support the Afghan people in exploring a development path suiting their own national conditions and support the Afghan government in enhancing counter-terrorism capability and combating extreme terrorist forces. We need to attach importance to the important role of Pakistan in the Afghanistan issue and respect the sovereignty and legitimate security concerns of Pakistan. The Chinese side is willing to maintain communication and coordination with the United States on the Afghanistan issue and make concerted efforts for achieving the peace and stability of Afghanistan and the region at large”.

When asked a follow up question about the Pakistani Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to China, she stated,

“In recent days, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua visited China. State Councilor Yang Jiechi, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Assistant Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou met with her respectively. The relevant press release has been issued. The Chinese side said that China and Pakistan are all-weather strategic cooperative partners and the two sides always firmly support each other on the issues concerning each other’s core interests. Against the backdrop of the complex and volatile international and regional situations, the strategic significance of the China-Pakistan relations has become more prominent. The Chinese side appreciates the efforts made by Pakistan to fight terrorism and safeguard the security of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and is willing to strengthen all-round cooperation with Pakistan so as to achieve common development. Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua said that China and Pakistan enjoy ironclad friendship and no matter how the political situation changes in Pakistan, its friendly policy towards China remains unchanged. The Pakistani side will as always firmly stand together with China on the issues concerning China’s core interests and join hands with China to advance the building of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and continuously move forward the bilateral relations”.

In describing the friendship between Pakistan and China as “ironclad” while emphasising the importance of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor all the while rebuffing Donald Trump’s statements which said that Pakistan isn’t doing enough to help foster peace in Afghanistan, China has shown that it is willing to stand by its Pakistani ally on several fronts including, trade, infrastructure, peacekeeping and regional stability. With China’s firm commitments to Pakistan, it will be unlikely that any American economic threats to Pakistan will have the impact they would have had in recent decades.

Furthermore, China’s firm commitment to Pakistan’s sovereignty implies that China will at the very least condemn any further US drone strikes on Pakistan’s soil, strikes which in the past, the US conducted with impunity, often killing civilians in the process.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman was then asked the following question on India’s provocative acts along India’s lengthy borders with China,

“According to the report of the Hindustan Times, recently, India’s Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has cleared a proposal to construct a road from Marsimik La to Hot Spring. Marsimik La is only 20 kilometers away from the northwestern tip of the Pangong Lake. The Indian media said that the road will give Indian security forces in the remote regions the access to the disputed areas of the China-India boundary so as to “ensure the strength of the Indian border troops”. What is your comment”.

She responded in the following way,

“This report makes me feel that India is slapping its own face. The Chinese side constructs roads on its own territory, but India illegally crossed the boundary to obstruct that under the so-called pretext of ‘security concerns’. Now the actions of India exactly prove that on the relevant issues concerning the China-India boundary, India’s deeds cannot match its words and what it did is inconsistent and contradicts with what it said.

The western sector of the China-India boundary has not been delimited. China and India have agreed that pending the final settlement of the boundary issue, they will make concerted efforts to uphold the peace and tranquillity of the border area. India’s construction of the infrastructure which is obviously for the military purpose near the Line of Actual Control in the western sector cannot help to uphold the peace and stability of the western sector of the China-India boundary or ease the current situation of the boundary between the two countries”.

The Chinese position remains clear. While China legally builds roads on Chinese territory, India is sending troops and builders into non-Indian territory. She further accused India of effectively disturbing the peace and failing to take appropriate measures to ease the current tensions.

In many ways, the most startling aspect of the recent flare-ups along the Sino-Indian border is that China has remained so calm in the face of Indian provocations that have not been accompanied by any apparent willingness to discuss the issue in a diplomatic forum.

The forthcoming BRICS summit which will begin on August 31st in Xiamen, located in China’s Fujian Province will be the first time that the Indian and Chinese leadership will have met since the commencement of this summer’s stand-off in Doklam/Donglang.

This could present India with an opportunity to once and for all speak directly with China at the highest levels about the issues. As BRICS members, India, China and Russia are also members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). In this sense, the BRICS meeting could also theoretically pave the way for a conflict solving session among SCO members. Russia which retains good relations with both China and India could almost certainly mediate in the dispute, but this is only possible if India admits that dialogue must begin at once while further provocations must cease.

By contrast, the summit could inversely reveal the growing schism between Beijing and New Delhi if Indian Prime Minister Modi refuses to speak about the issue, which clearly China is eager to resolve peacefully.

In six days time, India and Mdo in particular will be put to the test. Modi can either maturely utilise the BRICS and SCO to bring an end to the conflict, or otherwise prolong the conflict, making many fellow BRICS and SCO members begin to doubt India’s international commitments and its wider commitment to diplomatic problem solving.

It is of course in India’s economic and geo-political interests to work with the BRICS and SCO to solve the crises amicably. The prolonged conflict is counter productive in respect of India’s own economic advancement or as China stated, India “slapping its own face”.

There already exists a precedent for Modi to seek out a bilateral meeting with China to solve these longstanding issues once and for all. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has broken with his successors and spoken directly to China about disputes in the South China Sea. China has received Duterte graciously and both sides have ruled out the use of force while committing to cooperation.

READ MORE: DUTERTE’S TRIUMPH–China hails “golden period” of relations with Philippines

India has the opportunity to do the same in respect of settling disputes with China and organising a permanent problem solving mechanism through the SCO and/or through bilateral channels. This would be a win-win but thus far Modi has been a master of the lose-lose.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

India is seeing China as her adversary, so it seems. If Pakistan manages to come out as more reliable partner then India that will be the strangest thing ever and India will have only her government to “thank” for.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

BRICS should be interesting. Funny, how India has her independence and so much hatred for the time she was a colony of Great Britain. So why is her Government seriously wanting to go back to those times, aligned with the same crowd that was responsible for the East India Tea Corporation? Wans’t the same crowd responsible for the ‘Chinese Opium War’? The Chinese moved on, as ‘justice is a dessert best served cold’ so comes to mind. Not being able to make head or tail of any of it, thanks Guy, for recommending this book, which will no doubt help… Read more »

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

Hi Anne-Marie, On the subject of this Modi creature (he reviles me), have a read of this May 2014 article, shared by a The Duran reader recently:
https://pando.com/2014/05/26/revealed-the-head-of-omidyar-networks-in-india-had-a-secret-second-job-helping-elect-narendra-modi/

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Thanks Suzanne. I have just skimmed through the article and will go back as it is well worth reading. ‘…Shortly after Sinha left Omidyar Network to help Modi win, Modi gave a speech calling for opening India’s e-commerce market to foreign companies such as Ebay, whose largest shareholder is Pierre Omidyar. The message was clear: Modi is the candidate of hi-tech India, violent ultranationalism notwithstanding…’ Silicon Valley is so reliant on cheap, Indian Labour and it screams out ‘beware’. The only thing that appealed to me, initially with regards Modi, was the fact India was close to Russia and appeared… Read more »

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

Maybe Mr. Modi has been “promised something nice” by the Hegemony. But he will receive it not earlier than having made a mess between India and China so the Hegemony “have to come in” to help defend the Indian “democracy” and they can build another military base near the Chinese border “anywhere” along the line.
Remember that the Yankee democracy is intensifying its “profits” from Afghanistan which is near Russian Federation and near China. Just driving a wedge. India does do the dirty work, for Israel first, as usual.
IMO.

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

Love it: “What did make my tonsils need a chat with the S Bend” – cracked me up but so very, very ‘politically correct’ xoxoxo

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Haha and feel free to use the line.

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

Who is pulling Modi’s strings? And why is he such a willing puppet? How long will China and India allow this charade to continue? How long will the Chinese and Indian people allow this kind of immature behaviour to continue? The petty disputes between China and India must be resolved face-face and at this BRICS meeting urgently, in the spirit mutual respect and partnership to build an Asian century. As a British Indian, let me point some brutal facts to both sides: India: this country has been independent since 1947. Its ancient civilization from the time of the Vedas does… Read more »

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

The Zionists want to own the planet, remember?

Bente Petersen
Guest
Bente Petersen

I do not think Modi will be re-elected in India… he is a trouble maker in so many areas… ambitious for himself not for india and its people…

Hudaf Shaikh
Guest
Hudaf Shaikh

Afghanistan is very crucial to China’s goal to become #1 world power by 2030 – China continues to encourage it’s ally Pakistan to provide support and harbor the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists in order to drain US both politically and financially and distract it from the huge damage it is inflicting on the European and US core industries like steel and aluminum through aggressive dumping.

Today, UK has just a single operation aluminum factory and it’s steel industry is cutting back on production sharply under the onslaught – European and US producers too are in a similar boat –

Herbert Dorsey
Guest
Herbert Dorsey

The problem with Modi is the undue influence that the U.S. and Israel have over him.

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending