Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

America

Former Congressman Ron Paul remarks on declining American global influence

Trump is single handedly repolarizing the world’s balance of power

Published

on

1,428 Views

As I’ve been commenting on America’s decline in influence, and the shifting of the poles of global power and influence, its been interesting to watch how these perspectives have been independently cropping up elsewhere. Lately, one of the most recent of these is a piece published by former American congressman Ron Paul at the Ron Paul Institute:

Just two weeks after President Trump pulled the US from the Iran nuclear agreement, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued 12 demands to Iran that could never be satisfied. Pompeo knew his demands would be impossible to meet. They were designed that way. Just like Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in July, 1914, that led to the beginning of World War I. And just like the impossible demands made of Milosevic in 1999 and of Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and so many other times when Washington wanted war. These impossible demands are tools of war rather than steps toward peace.

Secretary Pompeo raged at Iran. The mainstream news media raged at Iran. Trump raged at Iran. But then a strange thing happened: nothing. The Iranians announced that they remained committed to diplomacy and would continue to uphold their end of the nuclear agreement if the Europeans and other partners were willing to do the same. Iranian and European officials then sought out contacts in defiance of Washington in hopes of preserving mutually-beneficial emerging commercial relations.

Washington responded to the European snub by threatening secondary sanctions on European companies that continued doing business with an Iran that had repeatedly been found in compliance with its end of the bargain. Any independent European relationship with Iran would be punished, Washington threatened. But then, again, very little happened.

Rather than jump on Washington’s bandwagon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made two trips to Russia in May seeking closer ties and a way forward on Iran.

Russia and China were named as our prime enemies in the latest National Security Strategy for the United States, but both countries stand to benefit from the unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran deal. When the French oil company Total got spooked by Washington threats and pulled out of Iran, a Chinese firm eagerly took its place.

It seems the world has grown tired of neocon threats from Washington. Ironically the “communist” Chinese seem to understand better than the US that in capitalism you do not threaten your customers. While the US is threatening and sanctioning and forbidding economic relations, its adversaries overseas are busy reaping the benefits of America’s real isolationism.

If President Trump’s canceled meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un remains canceled, North and South Korea have shown that they will continue with their peacemaking efforts. As if Washington was no longer relevant.

I’ve often spoken of the unintended consequences of our aggressive foreign policy. For example, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq only helped Iran – our “enemy” – become more dominant in the Middle East. But it seems new consequences are emerging, and for the neocons they must be very unintended: for all of its bellicosity, threats, demands, sanctions, and even bombs, the rest of the world is increasingly simply ignoring the demands of Washington and getting on with its own business.

While I am slightly surprised at this development, as a libertarian and a non-interventionist I welcome the growing irrelevance of Washington’s interventionists. We have a far better philosophy and we must work hard to promote it so that it can finally be tried after neocon failure becomes obvious to everyone. This is our big opportunity!

But America’s decline isn’t something that had to happen, at least not right now. What is happening right now can be directly traced to Donald Trump and the policies that he has pursued.

On his own, Trump is an anomaly. His staff and cabinet are like a revolving door. Having a job in his administration is not a secure thing, which in itself doesn’t have to be seen as a sign of inconsistency, but can lead to that conclusion when paired with other factors.

His ‘Twitter diplomacy’ is a novelty, and is regarded as unprofessional, and certainly can be perceived as not well-advised on numerous grounds, whether it is the giving away of his thought processes to giving the impression that he makes decisions on the spur of the moment without carefully considering them and proceeds to blurt them out on the internet, presumably for the attention.

And then, there are the repeated off the cuff comments from Trump and his staff which are oftentimes harmful of international relations, and a sign that Trump’s policies are not always well devised.

Trump threatens nations that he is supposed to be engaging in peace talks with, wavers on commitments to diplomatic talks, and even casually threatens, on numerous occasions, to unleash nuclear annihilation on their nation.

Trump goes about fanning the flames of war by arming dissident governments and militias, as may be viewed through the backing of the Kurds in Syria, regardless of the consequences for Syria and for relations with NATO allies, namely Turkey, and the arming of militants in the Ukraine, further stoking conflict in the war torn country.

He has no qualms about bombing other countries, as might be seen by the manner in which his first strike against Syria was conducted over dessert while at a resort. His second bombing on Syria was based on spurious information gathered from a tweet.

All of these things cast some doubt on the reliability of Trump as an individual and head of state, but isn’t necessarily something that might damage America’s influence on the global level. America’s international clout is enough to withstand issues like this.

After all, Bush and Obama did their fair share of meddling in other countries’ affairs and in waging wars, as noted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, etc. But America still held its place in the world, almost unquestionably.

The Kicker

What is really doing damage to America’s position in the world, and the influence that it has traditionally held in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere is not Trump’s warmongering or his threats, or his inconsistent manner, no, it is the way that his foreign policy has been affecting so much of the globe.

Trump has violated numerous multilateral pacts with its allies, and other nations, including the TPP, the Paris Climate Accord, and the JCPOA Iran nuclear agreement, as well as threatened NAFTA, and having threatened other members of NATO.

Against the advice of the international community, Trump fanned the flames of the conflict in Palestine by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State, in transferring the American embassy there from Tel Aviv.

He engaged in a negative stance towards Pakistan, withdrawing US foreign aid to the Middle Eastern Country, which has since become a part of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative.

Trump’s new defense posture considers both China, once again its biggest trade partner, and Russia, as adversaries. How else would such a move be received? Even some of Trump’s top military brass has been spouting rhetoric painting China as a threat, while warning congress to be prepared for a possible war with China. A similar outlook was enunciated relevant to Russia.

On the economic level, where Trump has done the most damage to present multilateral world order, Trump seems to have broken the camel’s back. Trump seemed not too concerned about the economic interests of countries that trade using American currency or using American banking systems, or happen to be trade partners, as apparently, his only mission at the Davos Economic Forum was to parrot his ‘America First’ foreign policy.

He notified the world at this forum, that his only real concern was America, that America gets the best end of the stick, the best position in all agreements, etc. He made it no secret there that he viewed the interests of the nations of the world as entirely dispensable, as long as America capitalizes on its own interests.

Towards this end, Trump’s aggressive trade policies have become manifest. He has levied tariffs on the nations of the world, mainly as regards to metals like aluminum and steel, and just about initiated a trade war with America’s largest trading partner, China.

China responded in kind in each case before a cease fire was negotiated over several days by Chinese diplomats visiting Washington. But Trump has since again levied more tariffs on China, this time worth only about $50 billion, but nonetheless a new economic provocation after just dialing back on what was escalating to a real trade row with his biggest trade partner.

But it was Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA that seems to have done the most damage, in one fell swoop. He sought to kill the deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program, a deal designed to aid non proliferation efforts in the region, a move which was condemned seemingly by the entire world.

In addition to withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, however, Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, using coded language, and his Secretary of State has imposed demands which have no real chance of being met in order to avoid adverse action from America, hence, Trump is still working for the destruction of the deal, as the European work as hard as they can to try to save it. Trump has, on these efforts, gone on to propose a coalition against Iran, mainly consisting of Israel and the Gulf States.

The move dealt a blow to Europe’s security, as well as the looming threats of economic sanctions on any country that does business with Iran. This meant threatening America’s partnership and alliances in Europe with sanctions for following through on a multilateral agreement that they had committed to, which unilateral action is perceived as a threat to the multilateral nature of the present world order. From this point, America’s down hill slide has become more like an avalanche.

The European Response

Nations around the world have increasingly condemned America’s foreign policies as of late, and denounced the unpredictability of not only the Trump administration, but of America’s role in global affairs. In words, we glean this from those of EU Chief Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker as he addressed the Flemish Regional Parliament in Brussels “At this point, we have to replace the United States, which as an international actor has lost vigour, and because of it, in the long term, influence.” 

The EU’s Foreign Policy Chief, Frederica Mogherini, came out critical of Trump’s policy towards his allies just a matter of days after Juncker’s remarks and Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, saying
“It seems that screaming, shouting, insulting and bullying, systematically destroying and dismantling everything that is already in place, is the mood of our times. While the secret of change — and we need change — is to put all energies not in destroying the old, but rather in building the new. This impulse to destroy is not leading us anywhere good,” she added. “It is not solving any of our problems.”

Speaking at an EU summit in Bulgaria, EU Council President Donald Tusk remarked “We are witnessing today a new phenomenon: the capricious assertiveness of the American administration. Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, some could even think, ‘With friends like that, who needs enemies?’”

At a dinner with EU members, he elucidated these comments, saying “I have no doubt that in the new global game, Europe will either be one of the major players, or a pawn. This is the only real alternative. In order to be the subject and not the object of global politics, Europe must be united economically, politically and also militarily like never before. To put it simply: either we are together, or we will not be at all.

“But, frankly speaking, Europe should be grateful by President Trump, because thanks to him we have got rid of old illusions. He has made us realise that if you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm.

“Europe must do everything in its power to protect – in spite of today’s mood – the transatlantic bond. But at the same time we must be prepared for those scenarios where we have to act on our own.” 

“The [Iran] deal is good for European and global security, which is why we must maintain it.”

“The EU and US are friends and partners, therefore US tariffs cannot be justified on the basis of national security,” he said. “It is absurd to even think that the EU could be a threat to the US. We need to bring back reality in this discussion, which is not the case today.”

Europe, then, seems to be growing a bit of a backbone, as these statements by three important European officials are not all there is to the European Trump response. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have recently made similar comments.

Macron, before an audience in Aachen gathered for an awards ceremony, remarked “Other powers, just as sovereign as us, have decided not to respect their own word,” Macron added. “Should we renounce our own choice? … We must choose, speak with everybody to succeed in building our own sovereignty which, in this region, will be a guarantee of stability.”

 “If we accept that other major powers, including allies… put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy, security for us, and sometimes even make us run the worst risks, then we are not more sovereign and we cannot be more credible to public opinion,” Macron said.

Merkel, at the same event, stated “It is no longer the case that the United States of America will simply protect us — Europe must take its fate in its own hands.”

In Münster, speaking to the Catholic Convention, she observed “If we always step away from multilateral agreements as soon as we don’t like something about them, that would be a bad message for the world. We want to strengthen multilateralism.”

Both Merkel and Macron went on to pursue meetings with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who had been the boogeyman of world politics up until Trump’s attempted destruction of the JCPOA, tariffs, and threats of sanctions. But Angela Merkel demonstrated that her regard for Washington’s sanctions was not what it used to be.

She went to Russia to help move along the North Stream 2 project, which Washington has since responded to with further threats of sanctions, not just to buck a deal between the Germans and Russians, but also in a bid to advance America’s own interests in the LNG market by attempting here to strong arm the Germans into purchasing their gas from America, which is openly a bad deal for the Germans.

On this point, Germany is looking to find a way to cooperate with Russia on the Ukraine issue, as well as the conflict in Syria. Germany’s Energy Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister have also made trips to Russia this month, all in a bid to seek further cooperation with Russia, primarily regarding the preservation of the JCPOA that Trump has tried so hard to kill.

Macron went on to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum as a guest of honor, with a goodwill gesture towards the Russians of economic cooperation deals worth around $15 billion. The Forum included many other heads of state and international investors, and a major topic of the forum was America’s foreign policy, its aggression, unreliability, unilateralism, etc.

On top of actions and words by Macron and Merkel, EU foreign ministers have gather together on two occasions in order to affirm their dedication to the Iran deal, in opposition to the will of Washington, and their defiance of American sanctions.

But these sorts of words and actions are not limited to Europe. Multiple other countries have condemned Trump’s policies, threatened to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs, and to ignore his sanctions against Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. But most of all, Trump’s move has been consolidating national interests into blocs of sorts which share common regional political, economic, security, and energy concerns.

Russia is weaning itself of any reliance on America by developing its own alternative to the SWIFT banking system and seeking to get away from the American dollar, which has already begun as Russia is already trading with some of its partners using national currencies. Russia is demonstrating the pole shift as might be seen by what has happened at the SPIEF, as well as new agreements signed by the EAEU with China and Iran.

China is developing its own markets, and its own Petroyuan as an alternative to the American Petrodollar, together with its international economic initiative which envisions economic cooperation and transit from Beijing to Europe. Venezuela is also looking to get around the Petrodollar by developing its Petro, a cryptocurrency with which to conduct oil transactions. Europe is also considering getting away from using the dollar in limited circumstances, namely, in conducting business with Iran, with the proposal being that the currency of use would be the Euro.

Trump is single handedly repolarizing the world’s balance of power, by destroying America’s influence while organizing the interests of just about everyone else in a manner that focuses on China and Russia, which is partly why one might wonder if the Russians had a hand in putting Trump in office [a fiction used by his political opposition, albeit], when one considers the way in which he is tearing down America’s hegemony.

 

 

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Some Russian monarchists want Tsar Vladimir Putin

Latest news from Russian monarchists highlight the debate over bringing the Russian Empire back to life in modern times.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

A December 13 report in The Wall Street Journal shone light on a notion that has been afoot in the Russian Federation since the fall of Communism in 1991 – the restoration of the Monarchy as the form of government, complete with a new Tsar of all the Russias.

Of course, some of these monarchists have a top contender in mind for that post, none other than President Vladimir Putin himself.

This idea has long been used in a pejorative light in the West, as various shadowy and not-so-shadowy elements in the American media speculated over the years that Mr. Putin was actually aspiring to become Tsar. This was thrown around until probably the time that the Russian president spoke, lamenting the fall of Communism, and since then the prime accusation has been that President Putin wants to bring back the Soviet Union.

This is not true. It also does not appear to be the case that the Russian president wants to be Tsar. But the monarchists are not fazed in the slightest. Here is excerpted material from the WSJ piece, with emphases added:

The last time term limits forced Russian leader Vladimir Putin to step down from the presidency, he became prime minister for a few years.

This time around, a group of pro-Kremlin activists have a different idea: Proclaim him Czar Vladimir.

“We will do everything possible to make sure Putin stays in power as long as possible,” Konstantin Malofeyev, a politically active businessman, said recently to thunderous applause from hundreds of Russian Orthodox priests and members of the country’s top political parties gathered at a conference outside Moscow. They were united by one cause—to return the monarchy to Russia…

Even among those who want a monarchy, however, there are splits over what kind it should be. Is an absolute monarchy better than a constitutional monarchy? Should a blood line be established or should the czar be elected? For those who favor male succession, would it be a problem that Mr. Putin reportedly only has two daughters? Some have even suggested others besides Mr. Putin should accede to the throne.

There is a very keen interest indeed among some in Russia that propose various options as to who might best become Tsar in the event that the Monarchy is restored.

Grand Duke George Mikhailovich Romanov and his mother, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, together with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, head of the Russian Orthodox Church Department of External Relations

One candidate that has received significant attention is a man by the name of George Mikhailovich Romanov. He is an actual member of the Royal family, the heir apparent to Maria Vladimirovna Romanova, Grand Duchess of Russia. There are other heir apparents as well, and the issue as to who it should be has not been settled among the surviving members of the Romanov family.

The restoration of the Russian monarchy is unique because to carries strong religious significance. As far back as the 8th and 9th centuries, A.D., a host of saints and prophets appear to have foreseen the advent of the Soviet times and the restoration of the Tsar after their conclusion.

Some such prophecies are attributed to anonymous sources, but some are named. Here are two with rather extensive editing, so please go to the site linked for the fullest description of the prophecies.

Monk Abel the Prophet (+1831).

In a conversation with Tsar Paul I (+1801), after prophesying the destinies of all the Tsars from Paul I to Nicholas II:

“What is impossible for man is possible for God. God delays with His help, but it is said that He will give it soon and will raise the horn of Russian salvation. And there will arise a great prince from your race in exile, who stands for the sons of his people. He will be a chosen one of God, and on his head will be blessing. He will be the only one comprehensible to all, the very heart of Russia will sense him. His appearance will be sovereign and radiant, and nobody will say: ‘The Tsar is here or there’, but all will say: ‘That is him’. The will of the people will submit to the mercy of God, and he himself will confirm his calling. His name has occurred three times in Russian history. Two of the same name have already been on the throne, but not on the Tsar’s throne. But he will sit on the Tsar’s throne as the third. In him will be the salvation and happiness of the Russian realm.”

“Russian hopes will be realized upon [the cathedral of Hagia] Sophia in Tsargrad [Constantinople]; the Orthodox Cross will gleam again; Holy Rus will be filled with the smoke of incense and prayer, and will blossom like a heavenly lily.”

And from one of the most famous saints in Russian history:

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908):

“I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built – according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian.”

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”

What may surprise those in the West is that there are a great many people in Russia and in Orthodox Christian countries in general who take these prophecies quite seriously.

Interestingly enough, when the idea of restoring the monarchy was brought to President Putin’s attention, he regarded the idea as “beautiful” according to Lt. General Leonid Reshetnikov, but also expressed concern that it would lead to stagnation within the country.

A second statement, this one by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, noted that President Putin does not like the idea of bringing back the monarchy, but offered no comment on the conversation with Mr. Reshetnikov.

The idea of restoring the monarchy is not completely absurd. Britain overthrew its own monarchy in 1649 during that country’s Civil War, but it was restored shortly afterwards under King Charles II. Spain cast aside its monarchy in 1931, with its king, Alfonso XIII going into exile, but after sixteen years this monarchy, too, was restored.

Both of these monarchies have become largely ceremonial, with most governing functions carried out through some kind of Parliament and Prime Minister. It is therefore not clear what a ruling monarchy in Russia would look like.

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

Latest

US confirms pullout from INF treaty, Moscow will respond if missiles placed in Europe – deputy FM

Moscow will respond to possible attempts to place short and intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe if the US decides to go on with this plan.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Washington has confirmed its decision to withdraw from the INF treaty is final, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said, adding that Moscow will ‘take measures’ if American missiles that threaten its security are placed in Europe.

“Washington publicly announced its plans to withdraw from the treaty (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) already in October. Through the high-level bilateral channels it was confirmed to us that this decision was final and wasn’t an attempt to initiate dialogue,” Sergey Ryabkov told the Kommersant newspaper.

The Deputy FM said that Moscow will respond to possible attempts to place short and intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe if the US decides to go on with this plan.

“We’ll be forced to come up with effective compensating measures. I’d like to warn against pushing the situation towards the eruption of new ‘missile crises.’ I am convinced that no sane country could be interested in something like this,” he said.

Russia isn’t threatening anybody, but have the necessary strength and means to counter any aggressor.
Back in October, President Donald Trump warned that Washington was planning unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty because “Russia has not adhered to the agreement.” The US leader also promised that the country would keep boosting its nuclear arsenal until Russia and China “come to their senses.”

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Washington will suspend its obligations under the treaty within 60 days if Russia does not “return to compliance.”

Signed in late 1988, the INF agreement was considered a milestone in ending the arms race between the US and the USSR.

In recent years, Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of violating the INF deal. While the US has alleged that Russia has developed missiles prohibited by the treaty, Russia insists that the American anti-missile systems deployed in Eastern Europe can actually be used to launch intermediate-range cruise missiles.

The deputy FM said that Washington “never made a secret” of the fact that its INF treaty pullout “wasn’t so much about problems between the US and Russia, but about the desire of the Americans to get rid of all restrictions that were inconvenient for them.”

The US side expressed belief that the INF deal “significantly limits the US military’s capabilities to counter states with arsenals of medium-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles,” which threaten American interests, he said. “China, Iran and North Korea” were specifically mentioned by Washington, Ryabkov added.

“I don’t think that we’re talking about a new missile crisis, but the US plans are so far absolutely unclear,” Mikhail Khodarenok, retired colonel and military expert, told RT, reminding that the Americans have avoided any type of “meaningful discussion” with Moscow in regards to its INF deal pullout.

While “there’ll be no deployment of [US missiles] in Europe any time soon,” Moscow should expect that Washington would try to void other agreements with Russia as well, Khodarenok warned.

The INF deal “just stopped being beneficial for the US. Next up are all the other arms control treaties. There’ll be no resistance from the NATO allies [to US actions],” he said.

“The neocons who run Trump’s foreign policy never have liked arms reduction treaties,” former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT. “The new START treaty which comes up for renewal also could be in jeopardy.”

“The risk of a new nuclear buildup is really quite obvious” if the US withdrawals from the INF treaty, Dan Smith, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, told RT.

“I think the relations between the great powers – the US and Russia as well as the US and China – are more difficult than they’ve been for a long time,” he added.

However, with Washington having indicated that it wants China to be part of the new deal, “there are still possibilities for negotiations and agreement,” according to Smith. Nonetheless, he warned that following this path will demand strong political will and tactical thinking from the leadership of all three countries.

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

Latest

US Pressures Germany To Ditch Huawei Over ‘Security Concerns’

This news will likely not go over well in Beijing, which is still struggling with the US and Canada over the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


First it was Australia, New Zealand and Japan, now the US is pressing the German government to refuse to use equipment manufactured by Chinese telecom giant Huawei as Europe’s largest economy seeks to build out its 5G infrastructure.

According to Bloomberg, a US delegation met on Friday with German Foreign Ministry officials in Berlin to talk about the security risks presented by Huawei’s equipment, which the US says is vulnerable to spying. The meeting in Germany follows a report from late last month claiming the US had launched an “extraordinary outreach campaign” to warn its allies against using Huawei equipment (while its vulnerability to Chinese spying has been cited as the reason to avoid Huawei, it’s also worth noting that the US and China are locked in a battle for who will dominate the global 5G space…a battle that Huawei is currently winning).

Germany is set to hold an auction early next year to find a supplier to help expand its 5G network. The Berlin meeting took place one day after Deutsche Telekom said it would reexamine its decision to use Huawei equipment.

US officials are optimistic that their warnings are getting a hearing, though any detailed talks are in early stages and no concrete commitments have been made, according to one of the people.

The US pressure on Germany underscores increased scrutiny of Huawei as governments grapple with fears that the telecom-equipment maker’s gear is an enabler for Chinese espionage. The Berlin meeting took place a day after German carrier Deutsche Telekom AG said it will re-evaluate its purchasing strategy on Huawei, an indication that it may drop the Chinese company from its list of network suppliers.

France is also reportedly considering further restrictions after adding Huawei products to its “high alert” list. The US has already passed a ban preventing government agencies from using anything made by Huawei. But the telecoms equipment provider isn’t taking these threats to its business lying down.

U.S. warnings over espionage are a delicate matter in Germany. Revelations over the scale of the National Security Agency’s signals intelligence, including reports of tapping Merkel’s mobile phone, are still fresh in Berlin five years after they came to light.

Huawei is pushing back against the accusations. The company’s rotating chairman warned this week that blacklisting the Chinese company without proof will hurt the industry and disrupt the emergence of new wireless technology globally. Ken Hu, speaking at a Huawei manufacturing base in Dongguan, cited “groundless speculation,” in some of the first public comments since the shock arrest of the company’s chief financial officer.

This news will likely not go over well in Beijing, which is still struggling with the US and Canada over the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver. In an editorial published Sunday, the Global Times, an English-language mouthpiece for the Communist Party, warned that China should retaliate against any country that – like Australia – takes a hard line against Huawei. So, if you’re a German citizen in Beijing, you might want to consider getting the hell out of Dodge.

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