Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

US, Britain, and France stand up to China in the South China Sea

International Law is a club for the US and its allies to bend other nations to their will

Published

on

1,349 Views

The three nations which got together to create a ‘coalition’ that engaged in ‘precision strikes’ in Syria back in April are getting together again, this time the intended target is China.

In Syria, there was a tweet showing a video which was posted by a group which actively works with and around al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists and which video contents or origin was never verified.

Nevertheless, the claim was that a chemical attack had occurred and the site was Douma, where the Syrian government forces were gaining ground against the jihadists. So the story was that the Syrian government had carried out a chemical attack in Douma, and that the attack led to the deaths of nearly 600 people. And then, the leadership of Britain, France, and the US came out claiming that they had proof that Syria was ‘likely’ to have carried out a chemical attack in Douma on April 7th.

An OPCW investigation was called for and was dispatched, but the ‘coalition’ carried out a military strike on Damascus and surrounding areas hours before that investigation could be initiated. So, the allegations were that Syria had broken international law and that swift punishment was coming from a self appointed coalition before an independent investigation could be conducted.

That coalition, however, was breaking international law by carrying out a military strike without independently acquired evidence, and without a UNSC mandate, so they were breaking international law to punish the breaking of international law. But that works out well for Trump, May, and Macron.

Now, they’re claiming a breach of international law in the South China Sea, and they want to strutt about the area knowingly antagonizing the Chinese, instead of taking the matter up in a diplomatic fashion.

Deutsche Welle reports:

US Secretary of Defense James Mattis is in China this week for the first time and at the top of the agenda between the two nations is China’s continued expansion of military installations in the South China Sea (SCS).

After Mattis met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday, China’s state broadcaster CCTV reported that Xi told Mattis China would not “lose one inch” of territory “left behind by our ancestors.”

China frequently refers to islands in the SCS as part of its historical territory, although they are claimed by six other nations.

“Regarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, our attitude is firm and clear,” said Xi.

In early June at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a regional security conference in Singapore, Mattis told the audience that there would be “much larger consequences” in response to China’s continued installation of military infrastructure on disputed islands in the SCS.

Joining the revamped US effort to increase pressure on China in the SCS, French Defense Minster Florence Parly said a French maritime task group, together with UK helicopters and ships, would conduct freedom of navigation operations, sailing naval vessels through international waters in the SCS, which China considers as its maritime territory.

Referring to the political differences between France and Britain, Parly said in a speech that when meeting in Asia, the two countries shared deeply significant “vision, strength and values” along with a “willingness to project them.”

Parly added that France supported a rules-based international order on the SCS and that freedom of navigation must be upheld.

“France fully supports a code of conduct in the South China Sea, which should be legally binding, comprehensive, effective and consistent with international law,” said Parly. “We should be very clear that the fait accompli is not a fait accepted.”

Freedom of navigation

By building military installations on islands in the SCS, China claims territorial sovereignty over areas far from the mainland, although this is not officially recognized by any international body. The freedom of navigation operations carried out by the US and other navies are a way to demonstrate the validity of international law.

China remains defiant in claiming international waters and is using its growing navy to enforce its territorial ambition.

Jonas Parello-Plesner, an observer who was aboard a French military vessel during the joint freedom of navigation operation announced at the Singapore conference, gave a first hand account to the Wall Street Journal of the flotilla’s encounter with the Chinese navy near the Spratly Islands.

Parello-Plesner reported that a Chinese frigate contacted the French vessel by radio as they passed through Mischief, Subi and Fiery Cross Reefs, where China in recent years has built artificial islands and military installations.

“This is China warship calling. The Nansha islands are under Chinese sovereignty. What are your intentions?” After the French captain replied that they were lawfully sailing through international waters, they were tailed by Chinese naval vessels.

A Chinese lake?

It is estimate that in 2014, China began construction of artificial islands on reefs in the Spratly archipelago. This raised alarm in the US and Asia that China would be able to project its military around the SCS and potentially exert control over waterways that carried an estimated $3.3 trillion, or one-third of global trade, in 2016.

Despite continued international condemnation led by the US, China’s militarization of the SCS has continued unabated.

In 2017, satellite images released by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (ATMI), part of the Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), showed the extent of China’s military build up on the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands further north. According to the ATMI, China has extensive missile systems along with radar jammers on the islands.

The images clearly show completed airstrips and other infrastructure. In April 2018, China conducted its largest-ever naval exercise in the SCS. In May, the Chinese landed a warplane for the first time on an air strip on Woody Island, in the Paracels.

China’s ambition vs. international law

Although China continues to increase its capability, observers do not think that it is too late for international coalitions to maintain the integrity of international waterways passing through the SCS.

“Beijing is certainly winning more peacetime control over activity on and above the South China Sea each day, but it hasn’t completed that control yet,” Gregory Poling, the director of ATMI told DW, adding that increased engagement of the French and British navies send a strong signal to China.

“They make clear that the SCS is not a Sino-US issue,” said Poling. “It’s a matter of China vs. an overwhelming international consensus about international law and norms.”

As for the “consequences” promised by US Secretary of Defense Mattis, there are limitations to what the US military can do, outside of projecting force. Mattis is in China this week on his first visit since becoming secretary.

In May, the US rescinded China’s invitation to participate in Rimpac, an international biennial military exercise in the Pacific Ocean. On Tuesday the US aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Regan, anchored in Manila Bay to begin patrolling the South China Sea. It is the third US aircraft carrier sent this year.

“There are a lot of ‘larger consequences’ the US could consider, but most of them don’t come from the Pentagon,” said Poling, adding that while the joint training and deterrence measures were what the US Department of Defense should be doing, political pressure is what’s missing.

“Putting additional pressure on Beijing will require high-level focus and a strategy from the White House, which has been sorely lacking,” said Poling.

Putting pressure on Beijing

An important part of a political solution addressing China’s ambition in the SCS is building international coalitions. The UK and France declaring their will to cooperate on maintaining international maritime norms is a reminder to China that the SCS is still an important issue.

“The UK and France are showing that they care about the international rules that almost the entire world has signed up,” Bill Hayton a South China Sea expert at the UK-based think tank Chatham House, told DW.

“The right of all ships to sail wherever they want in the sea on the basis of innocent passage has been a fundamental international principle for decades but it looks as if China is attempting to unilaterally limit it,” said Hayton. “The recent voyages by French and British warships are a way of resisting that limitation.”

“The SCS needs to be put back at the top of the diplomatic agenda to isolate Beijing,” said Poling from CSIS.

It seems the UK and France have realized that the only way to salvage UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principles on which it and the larger rules-based order are based is to join the effort to convince Beijing to clarify its claims,” he added. “The US cannot do it alone, even if it were so inclined.”

So, now, all of the sudden, there’s this international rules-based order that nations are expected to abide by to keep everybody from stepping on each other’s toes and to preserve peace and order, and prosperity, and all that sort of jazz. It doesn’t seem to mean that much to the Americans who are out slapping tariffs on the rest of the planet and dropping bombs wherever they jolly well please, and it certainly didn’t mean much to the ‘coalition’ which set out to bomb Syria just over two months ago. Where was, and is, international law relevant to these matters?

Part of what makes a law a law is that it has the respect of the community that it was promulgated to, but in the case of international law, it increasingly looks like it was and is something created by America and its allies as a club to use at their discretion to smear other nations with and to use as a pretext and/or justification for military or economic aggression. That’s why Nikki Haley considers it ‘patently ridiculous’ to apply human rights standards to America, and to measure America’s performance, as if America were actually expected to subject to those sorts of standards.

International law, based on what we see coming out of the West, then, is not so much actual internationally agreed upon standards of conduct to preserve peace and prosperity as they are a means of projecting the power of the West by means of internationally agreed upon propaganda.If and when it shows that it actually has the meanings which it says it has, in whichever body or agreement, then it should be demonstrated by realizing its application not just in non-NATO countries, but especially there, to be the examples of how nations in a civilized world ought to carry themselves.

For this reason, why should we expect China to waltz to the tune being played by the US, which is violating trade rules which it created for its own benefit with other nations, and which nations happen to be their own allies and trade partners? Is this why we’re seeing ‘freedom of navigation’ operations taking place in the South China Sea, instead of carrying out some diplomacy in the matter to help come to an understanding, because the US has no interest in diplomacy, and believes that action is required now while thinking and talking can go down later, after the US has what it wants? Then the question is, why now all of the sudden the interest from the US and its two best friends, when this issue is not a new one, what’s in it for them now that wasn’t there before? Is this part of a new pressure cooking campaign to push China in a certain direction, possibly trade related?

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
9 Comments

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
AM HantsJohn MasonIsabella JonesLinda WrenJohn Vu Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

Doubt China will have the patience of Russia.

John Mason
Guest
John Mason

The messaging is plain: Iran, China, and Russia are the three key players in what promises to be the Eurasian Century. They are also working as one in the Real War on Terror in Syria. President Trump – and his administration – is the ultimate fraud here, willing to do anything – even provoke what Beijing says AN ALL-OUT WAR to divide and threaten these three countries in a desperate bid to regime change Syria, to stop the Eurasian Century from happening, and to “Make America Great Again”. All this has the potential to backfire splendidly though. Contrary to Trump’s… Read more »

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

Headline is wrong. To say someone is “standing up to” another, is to carry the implication that the one doing the “standing up” is being honourable, courageous, against a bully. It’s called the South China Sea. It’s along way from America, UK or France. They need to get the blazes out of there. Hopefully China can make them see that without resorting to force. The writer is correct though, regarding the total destruction of any sort of International Law especially. However, there is one thing the recent actions of the Rogue – 3 have done – they have highlighted for… Read more »

Linda Wren
Guest
Linda Wren

China should call in American debt. That is legal.

John Vu
Guest
John Vu

Devil has a plan for your country: After Putin got his fill with Crimea and Syria, now it’s Deepstate’s turn to make some dough selling some surplus stale equipments to the Filip and Vn.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

Hold on a minute….I just read the article on Duran that the Eu wants to deepen economic ties with China due to the US actions and now they are going to try to “contain China”….good luck with both
http://theduran.com/eu-to-deepen-economic-cooperation-with-china-amid-trade-row-with-america/

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

US, France and UK have no borders anywhere near the South China Sea.
Go home and sort out your own problems, of which there are many.
Mind your own business.

Che Serna
Guest
Che Serna

The 3 stooges lead by the big pimp USA’s military industrial complex! No one has yet explained why China would want to stop freedom of navigation in the SCS. About 75% of all commercial shipping goes in and out of Chinese ports which include of course HK. Moreover, warships are not innocent passage in respect to the law of the sea convention. In which America refuses to ratify as a world rogue leader state. So on the one hand you have hypocrites lead by the USA wanting the rule of law which she USA refuses to join! Talk about American… Read more »

Nexusfast123
Guest
Nexusfast123

Those people (Trump, May and the creepy French twat) are ignorant of history. I’m sure the Chinese have not forgotten what the European empires and the US did to them. Also ironic the vast majority of trade that passes through the SCS is Chinese. This is more a threat to China’s sea going commerce than China threatening other nations.

Latest

More evidence of Clinton election meddling, as calls for investigation grow louder (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 85.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the real case for Russia collusion before and during the 2016 US Presidential election, not against Donald Trump, but the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Authored by John Solomon, via The Hill


With Republicans on both House and Senate investigative committees having found no evidence of Donald Trump being guilty of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.

As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.

Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.

A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.

The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show.

That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves.

Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns.

In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarm that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.

“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.

“Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?”

A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage. And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.

Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.

The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion and bribery.

Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.

Campbell also warned that a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department. Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.

Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.

Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele — whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump — to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election.

Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.

Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.

Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians.

Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegationsagainst Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.

Steele’s dossier also relied on information from a Belarus-born Russian businessman, according to numerous reports and a book on the Russia scandal.

Steele and Simpson had Russian-tied business connections, too, while they formulated the dossier.

Steele worked for the lawyers for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and tried to leverage those connections to help the FBI get evidence from the Russian aluminum magnate against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The effort resulted in FBI agents visiting Deripaska in fall 2016. Deripaska told the agents that no collusion existed.

Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon — which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties — and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Simpson insists the two dinners sandwiching one of the seminal events in the Trump collusion narrative had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, a claim many Republicans distrust.

Whatever the case, there’s little doubt the main instigators of the Clinton-inspired allegations against Trump got information from Russians and were consorting with them during the political opposition project.

This past week, we learned from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that his committee came to the same conclusion as the House: There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But now there is growing evidence — of Democratic connections to Russia. It’s enough that former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) believes a probe should be opened.

There is “obvious collusion the Democrats had through Glenn Simpson and through Fusion GPS, that they were talking directly to Russia,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s “Rising” in an interview to be aired Monday.

Collusion can be criminal if it involves conspiracy to break federal laws, or it can involve perfectly legal, unwitting actions that still jeopardize America’s security against a “frenemy” like Russia.

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns.

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.


NOTE: This story has been updated from the original to correct that Uranium One is a Canadian company and to clarify that House and Senate investigating committees have cleared the president.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video

 

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

Latest

Douma chemical weapons hoax exposed by BBC producer

Very frightening for us all is the coordination of propaganda between the States of US, Britain, France and Israel.

Richard Galustian

Published

on

It is beyond doubt that the White Helmets ‘staged’ the false flag operation at the Douma hospital that caused President Trump to attack Syria last April.

Days after the attack the much to be admired, yet still maligned by many, investigative reporter, Robert Fisk was on the ground in Douma and interviewed countless people, videoed the scene, made it public in the newspapers and by TV the fact of the fake sarin attack.

What happened next were attempts to rubbish Fisk’s story; a almost frightening Orwellian propaganda machine kicked in….and went into overdrive. That is to say a combination of ‘corrupt’ reporters; some just naive or dumb, many of whom had never been to Douma or even Syria, plus the full weight of the US, British and French Governments and finally, not forgetting, one of the greatest fraudsters of this century an absolute nobody, that calls himself Eliot Higgins and his ‘Bellycat Organisation’, all weighed in to accuse Fisk of lying.

Clearly not in order of importance but suffice to say Elliot Higgins, is now obviously ‘used’ as a convenient tool for Russia bashing by certain Western powers, but is a total fraud. Rather than write too much about this person, judge by reading an exposé that couldn’t be more revealing, uncovering his lie in the Daily Telegraph (link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10730163/The-blogger-who-tracks-Syrian-rockets-from-his-sofa.html).

Not much more need be said about this con-man turned ‘G-Man’. However later in this piece, I will quote some of the Douma ridiculing propaganda of Higgins/Bellingcat, as it is too crass not to be reminded of the way our governments operate.

So based on a complete lie, President Trump ordered an attack on an Assad controlled area in Syria using several bombs including 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 JASSM-ER (fired from USAF fighters, air to surface standoff missiles). The price for all was around $200million. Much needed money wasted that belongs to the people of US in these austere times.

That by the way does not include the cost of the coordinated attack by the British and French of a total (together) of 17 stormshadow missiles dropped from fighters. Its worth mentioning that in a pathetic display of oneupmanship directed at the British, the French made a last minute decision to add a meagre three more missile types to their attack; ‘Missiles de Croisière Navals’.

As said earlier it is important to remember the Orwellian ‘anti-truth’ propaganda and instead of commenting on it, I’ll just quote what Higgins/Bellingcat said at the time. “The OPCW-FFM report on the February 4 2018 chemical attack in Saraqib, Idlib, reveals not only information about the Saraqib attack, but also the broader use of chemical weapons in Syria by Assad, and additional evidence to support the theory that Assad’s Syrian government forces were behind the April 7 2018 chemical attack in Douma, Damascus. Consistent with Bellingcat’s earlier investigation into the Saraqib chemical attack, the OPCW-FFM report establishes it was the same case in Douma.”

Nonsense.

This scandal of this and other fake White Helmets videos is developing as more details emerge daily, so expect more facts matched with more disinformation and lies from the US and UK.

What we have is first a copy of a twitter exchange which is self explanatory:

So as to be absolutely clear, on February 13th, BBC Syria’s Producer said he could “without a doubt” prove that the Douma hospital scene was false, a White Helmets (WH) fake event.

He said “the Douma Hospital scene was staged. No fatalities occurred in the hospital. All the WH, activists and people I spoke to are either in Idlib or Euphrates Shield areas.

Only one person was in Damascus.”

The evidence is seen above in the tweet at 05:33 – 13 February 2019, the BBC Producer wrote on his personal, verified Twitter account, which has since been made private or perhaps blocked by persons or governments unknown, anyway someone who controls Twitter.

So some sort of what clearly must have been a false flag attack did happen at Douma but it was like a film scene, staged, using as left over evidence, cylinders filled with say oxygen even chlorine, anything but poison gas and certainly not Sarin gas. The cylinders were left in tact, undamaged as if laid there on the site rather than dropped from thousands of feet from the sky – and who can prove Assad’s airforce dropped them? – and how come they remained undamaged when hitting the ground? – ridiculous; how stupid do our governments think we, the people, are.

“Everything around the attack was manufactured for maximum effect.”

Adding “I can tell you that Jaysh al-Islam ruled Douma with an iron fist. They co-opted activists, doctors and humanitarians with fear and intimidation.”

In fact, one of the 4 people filming the scene was Dr. Abu Bakr Hanan, whom the BBC Producer described as a “brute and shifty” doctor affiliated with Jaysh Al-Islam. The Producer further stating that the narrative should be that “there weren’t enough doctors”. That said, there was one even (seen and filmed) filming and not taking part in the rescue efforts.” A joke!

Why, we must all ask, has no major newspaper or TV any large media outlet in US, UK or France headlined or even mentioned these new facts, that Douma was a lie, that it was staged?

On 9 February, James Harkin, published in ‘The Intercept’ an article where Harkin speaks about Jaysh al-Islam’s rule in Douma, among others. His article ends with “What government pummels its citizens with bombs and chlorine to get them to pressure rebels to leave their city? At the same time, Jaish Al-Islam was sending volleys of improvised rockets into Damascus and snatching activists and members of religious minorities for ransom or to be disappeared. It’s between these two violent truths that the real story of the Syrian conflict begins to emerge not in a bewildering collage of images sent from a war zone, designed to terrify and outrage.”

To conclude, the BBC Producer was so disgusted at pro-rebel activists and rebels’ conduct and the seeming complicity of Western officials, he decide to speak out.

As far as the Russian government is concerned, they now are counter accusing the British government of ordering the White Helmets to fake a chemical attack to help persuade President Trump to unleash cruise missiles. The Russian response was to an allegation by the British government that the “demonisation” of the (thoroughly already discredited) White Helmets comes from the Russian government itself.

Which version do you believe?

Very frightening for us all is the coordination of propaganda between the States of US, Britain, France and Israel.

ALL these wars must stop.

I am neither pro-nor against Russia, but it is very clear to anyone that these wars and attempts at regime changing is a US/British/Israeli idea.

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

Latest

Here’s Where America’s Imported Oil Comes from: Venezuela Is Currently the 4th-Largest

Saudi Arabia used to be the top foreign source of oil imported into the US, but now it’s only a very weak second-place to Canada.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org:


At the present time, the latest month for which the US Department of Energy publishes the number of barrels per day (bpd) of oil that’s exported to the US is November 2018. Here are the rankings:

1. Canada        142,206 bpd

2. Saudi Arabia  30,028

3. Mexico        18,020

4. Venezuela     16,889

5. Iraq          11,767

6. Colombia      7,769

7. Russia        7,611

8. Ecuador       5,866

9. Nigeria       5,392

10. Algeria      4,848

11. UK           4,653

12. Norway       4,073

13. Kuwait       3,027

14. Brazil       2,777

15. Belgium      2,075

16. S. Korea     1,927

17. Netherlands  1,462

18. Egypt        1,405

19. UAE          1,771

20. China        1.268

21. France       1,239

22. Singapore    1,232

23. Indonesia    1,204

24. Argentina    1,101

25. Peru         1,061

26. Denmark      1,000

27. Brunei       961

28. Spain        846

29. Angola       833

Here were the top 10 for the entire year of 2015 as reported by Bloomberg Finance at Forbes. For comparison to today, the country’s sales and rank in November 2018 is also indicated [between brackets]”

1. Canada        3.2 million bpd  [1. Canada 142,206]

2. Saudi Arabia  1,1 [2. Saudi Arabia 30,028]

3. Venezuela     780,000 bpd [4. Venezuela 16,889]

4. Mexico        690,000 [3. Mexico 18,020]

5. Colombia      370,000 [6. Colombia 7,769]

6. Iraq          230,000 [5. Iraq 11,767]

7. Ecuador       225,000 [8. Ecuador 5,866]

8. Kuwait        210,000 [13. Kuwait 3,027]

9. Brazil        190,000 [14. Brazil 2,777]

10. Angola       190,000 [29. Angola, 833]

Clearly, the figures change over time. Whereas Angola was #10 in 2015, it’s #29 now; and whereas Russia, Nigeria, and Algeria, weren’t in the top 10 in 2015, they now are.

US President Donald Trump is bringing down the latest Venezuelan monthly number from 16,889 to close to zero. On 25 August 2017, Reuters headlined two stories, “Trump slaps sanctions on Venezuela; Maduro sees effort to force default” and “Venezuela says US sanctions designed to push Venezuela to default”. The first of those reported that, “US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that prohibits dealings in new debt from the Venezuelan government or its state oil company on Friday in an effort to halt financing that the White House said fuels President Nicolas Maduro’s ‘dictatorship’.” The second reported that Venezuela’s Government daid that Trump’s action “essentially forces the closure of its US refining unit Citgo,” which means bringing an end to Venezuela’s oil exports to the US

Venezuela’s socialized oil company, PDVSA, of which Citgo is the US distributor, had never prepared for the measures that Trump is now imposing, and Reuters’s report said, “As a result, it will be it tricky for PDVSA to refinance its heavy debt burden.” The Reuters report continued:

“Maduro may no longer take advantage of the American financial system to facilitate the wholesale looting of the Venezuelan economy at the expense of the Venezuelan people,” US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Friday.

PDVSA, the financial engine of Maduro’s government, is already struggling due to low global oil prices, mismanagement, allegations of corruption and a brain drain.

However, the likely failure of Venzuela’s oil company is due not only to the lowered price of oil, but to the fact that Venezuela’s oil is among the two costliest in the world to produce, because it’s from the dirtiest source, tar sands, much like Canada’s oil is. The difference between Canada and Venezuela is twofold: first, that whereas Canada is a vassal-state of the US empire and so its aristocracy is allied with America’s aristocracy (which controls America’s Government), Venezuela isn’t. And, second, that whereas Venezuela has a monoeconomy that’s based on oil (which accounts for around 95% of Venezuela’s exports), Canada does not.

Saudi Arabia used to be the top foreign source of oil imported into the US, but now it’s only a very weak second-place to Canada in this, exporting only 21% as much oil to the US as does Canada. This is a huge decline for the Sauds.

Whereas Saudi oil is the world’s most “light” or cleanest and least-costly to produce and therefore has the lowest “carbon footprint” of any oil, Canada and Venezuela have the most “heavy” or dirtiest and most-costly to produce and therefore have the highest “carbon footprint” of all the world’s oils.

(NOTE: There are many different ranking-systems for the ‘average’ cost per barrel of oil produced, such as this and this and these, but all tend to vastly underestimate in order to continue the case for fossil fuels. The BBC once noted that its calculation-system “only covers the cost of production, not the cost of exploration and development.” And it also ignored the cost of transit. It also ignored environmental costs. It also ignored the costs to taxpayers for the many subsidies they pay in order for the fossil-fuels investors to continue investing in those companies. The environmental site “The Energy Mix” headlined in April 2018, “Ditched Bitumen Desperately Seeks True Commitment” and reported that fewer and fewer investors were continuing to trust the industry’s reported numbers regarding the costs of tar-sands oils. Also, on 11 February 2019, they headlined “Trans Mountain’s Fee Plan for Fossil Customers Represents $2-Billion Taxpayer Subsidy”. But, mostly, the heavy taxpayer subsidizations to the fossil-fuels industries are ignored, both by consumers and by investors. Realistically, the tar-sands oils in both Canada and Venezuela are costing far more than any per-barrel oil price that’s below $100. They are money-losers, but bring lots of money to the ‘right’ people.)

So: the US is replacing the world’s cleanest oil with the world’s filthiest oil, and that’s not only from Canada but also from Venezuela. However, because the US aristocracy want to take over Venezuela, the US Government now is set to zero-out oil imports from Venezuela, so as to increase the pressure on Venezuela’s Government to place in charge there a leader who will do America’s bidding. Canada has been working right alongside the US to achieve that objective, and will probably be supplying to the US much (if not all) of the 16,889 bpd oil that currently has been supplied by the other producer of very dirty oil: Venezuela. The US produces fracked oil, which is dirty but not as dirty as that from Canada and Venezuela. The US, Canada, and Venezuela, have been committed to ignoring the global warming problem. To the extent that the problem becomes globally recognized, the oil-production in all three of those countries will decline in its marketable price even more than will the oil-production in other countries (especially than Saudi Arabia’s oil-production, since that’s the cleanest); and, so, the profits from those dirty oils will quickly (especially for Canada and Venezuela, where it has already happened) turn into losses. All three governments — Venezuela, Canada, and US — are trying to postpone that, till as late a time as possible.

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