The Most/Recent Articles

Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
USA

Trump Resurrection: America Just Produced the Most Dangerous President Ever

Trump’s victory is the death knell for the republic. Trump’s return is not a comeback for a man wronged, nor is it a second chance for a reformed leader. This is something far darker. What we are witnessing is the rise of a man who has learned from his first failed attempt and emerged even more dangerous, more determined, and more unhinged.

by Luxman Aravind

Donald Trump is back, and with him comes the most dangerous, divisive, and unpredictable presidency in modern American history. His re-election, which has defied every expectation, has paved the way for a president who, after two near-death experiences — both literal and political — is returning with an unquenchable thirst for revenge and a blueprint to dismantle the nation as we know it.

Trump’s second term will not be an echo of his first — it will be a radical overhaul of American society, government, and, most terrifyingly, its democratic institutions. In his own words, it will be “nasty a little bit at times, and maybe at the beginning in particular.” And given the agenda he’s already outlined, we can only expect chaos, authoritarianism, and devastation for the United States and the world beyond. The story of Trump’s political comeback isn’t just a tribute to his tenacity; it is a chilling indictment of the nation’s descent into chaos and a disturbing reflection of the failure of democracy itself.

After the historic victory

Trump’s return is not a comeback for a man wronged, nor is it a second chance for a reformed leader. This is something far darker. What we are witnessing is the rise of a man who has learned from his first failed attempt and emerged even more dangerous, more determined, and more unhinged. The nightmare that America faced during his first tenure—the corruption, the lies, the embrace of authoritarianism, the fuel of racial animus—is back, but this time, it’s more polished, more refined, and more threatening. His rise from the ashes of defeat in 2020 is not simply a return to power. It is a heralding of America’s future, one where democracy stands on its last legs, clinging to a fragile existence, and where the will of the people is replaced by the will of one man—Donald Trump.

The fact that we are even discussing a second Trump presidency speaks volumes about the decay of American democracy. After two impeachments, multiple criminal investigations, and an assault on the Capitol that shook the world to its core, the American people are once again giving Trump the power to reshape the nation in his image. His return is a grotesque symbol of how low the political discourse has sunk and how willing the nation is to embrace authoritarianism in the name of misguided populism. Trump is not a man who respects the rule of law, but a man who has weaponized it for his own benefit—transforming the judiciary into a tool of political retribution, and bending every system of governance to his whims. The fact that he remains a popular figure after all of this, that he can ride a wave of populist rage into the White House once again, is a reflection of just how far we have fallen.

To understand the significance of Trump’s return, one must examine the state of the nation that has embraced him once more. America in 2024 is a deeply fractured country, one that has been torn apart by polarization, economic instability, and the breakdown of social cohesion. The middle class, long considered the backbone of American society, is crumbling under the weight of inflation, wage stagnation, and the erosion of opportunity. The political establishment, with its elite connections and detachment from the concerns of the average citizen, is no longer seen as a vehicle for change but as the enemy of the people. Enter Trump—whose entire political brand is built on the rejection of the elite establishment and the promise of a new order where the concerns of “real” Americans are front and center. His political language is one of grievance and resentment, and his message is clear: the elites have failed, and only a strongman like Trump can restore order.

This rhetoric resonates with millions of voters who feel left behind and unheard. Trump speaks to their anger, their frustration, and their sense of disillusionment. His promise to “Make America Great Again” was never just about policy; it was about validation. It was about telling people that their anger, their sense of abandonment, and their need for retribution were justified. In a country where economic inequality has reached new heights and political representation seems more like a charade, Trump becomes a beacon of hope for those who feel that their voices have been silenced by a corrupt system. This is not a vision for a more just society. It is a vision for revenge—against the elites, against minorities, and against the very idea of democracy itself.

Trump’s victory in 2024 will not be a victory for American democracy—it will be its undoing. His campaign has been marked by divisiveness, vitriol, and the exploitation of America’s worst impulses. The promises he has made to his base—mass deportations, a crackdown on dissent, the dismantling of social safety nets, and a return to a time when American identity was defined by whiteness and nationalism—are all aimed at consolidating his power, stoking fear, and further fragmenting the nation. His strategy has always been to divide, to pit Americans against each other, and to exploit their differences for political gain. And it is working.

Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ chosen candidate to carry the mantle of progressivism and a more inclusive future, has utterly failed to match the energy, the drive, or the vision of her opponent. Harris’s campaign in 2024 was a disaster from the start. Rather than offering a bold vision for America’s future, she played it safe with empty platitudes and weak promises of progress. Her candidacy lacked fire, lacked the urgency needed to combat Trump’s populist fervor, and lacked the understanding of the real fears and frustrations plaguing the country. Her inability to rise above the noise, to offer concrete solutions for America’s economic pain, and her reluctance to confront the forces of racism, xenophobia, and extremism allowed Trump’s vision to dominate.

Kamala Harris’s loss is not just the loss of an individual politician; it is the failure of an entire political establishment. It is the failure of a system that has become so entrenched in its own power that it no longer understands the needs of the people. Harris’s inability to face the reality of her defeat, her refusal to acknowledge the depth of the political crisis facing her party, reflects the broader inability of the Democrats to evolve and address the very issues that Trump has so expertly exploited. Her defeat is not an isolated failure—it is the culmination of a political system that has long since lost touch with the electorate. The Democrats’ focus on identity politics, on appeasing a vocal minority, and on maintaining the status quo has cost them the election, and more importantly, it has cost the country its future.

In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, the United States will be forced to reckon with the consequences of its choices. The institutions of democracy, from the judiciary to the media to the civil service, will come under assault as Trump embarks on his plan to reshape America in his image. His promises to purge the government, to silence dissent, and to root out “radical leftists” from all positions of power will lead to an era of political repression unlike anything America has seen since the darkest days of the McCarthy era. The Constitution, once a symbol of democracy and freedom, will be trampled underfoot in the name of “law and order.” The rule of law will mean whatever Trump says it does.

The world will be forced to watch as America’s experiment in democracy comes to a close. The international order that has been built on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights will be imperiled as Trump’s authoritarian vision spreads beyond America’s borders. What we are witnessing is not just the rebirth of a single man’s political career. It is the death of democracy itself. The global order will tremble as Trump’s message of hate, division, and nationalism infects other countries. The rise of right-wing populism will not be confined to the United States. It will spread like a disease, infecting democracies around the world, leading to a dark new age of authoritarianism.

Trump’s victory is the death knell for the republic. As he ascends to the presidency once again, “Democracy: Your Fire; Now Go and Die.” The flames of freedom are about to be extinguished, and the world will witness the end of an era. Mors tua vita mea. Your death is my life. The revolution has begun. Will you survive the fallout, or will you too fall into the ashes?

World Leaders Urge Biden to Remove Cuba from Terror List

Former Leaders Across the World Urge President Biden to Reconsider Sanctions and Remove Cuba from State Sponsors of Terrorism List

A collective of former world leaders from Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia has issued an urgent appeal to President Joseph Biden to reconsider the United States’ stance on Cuba, specifically addressing the economic sanctions and Cuba’s inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In a detailed letter dated September 11th, 2024, they highlighted the dire situation faced by the Cuban population and called for a more humanitarian approach to the decades-long political standoff.

Evening in Havana: The Cuban flag waves proudly over the bustling streets, where classic cars, colonial architecture, and vibrant street life paint a picture of the city's enduring charm and cultural vitality [ AI Generated Image]

The letter underscores the severe impact of the U.S. sanctions on Cuba’s economy, describing the country as being at a “point of no return.” It points out that these unilateral sanctions have made the Cuban economy one of the most heavily impacted in the world. The leaders argue that the sanctions not only harm Cuba’s economy but also adversely affect the most vulnerable sectors of the Cuban population, especially in light of the recent pandemic.

Historical Context and Appeal for Diplomacy:
During the Obama administration, which President Biden was a part of, there were significant efforts toward easing sanctions and normalizing diplomatic relations between the two nations. This historical step was seen as progress toward mutual cooperation despite the countries’ differing ideological systems. The signatories of the letter remind President Biden of this effort and call for a return to this diplomatic path.

The letter argues that international relations should not be conditioned on ideological alignment, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty and self-determination. The former leaders urge the United States to recognize that keeping Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list contradicts recent decisions by the State Department. In May of the same year, the State Department removed Cuba from the list of countries not cooperating fully against terrorism, a move the signatories commended.

How can it be asserted, at the same time, that a country cooperates in the global fight against terrorism while simultaneously accusing it of openly supporting it?

Contradictory U.S. Policy:
The letter criticizes the U.S. for simultaneously claiming that Cuba cooperates in the fight against terrorism while maintaining its status as a supporter of terrorism. It points out the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against Cuba, which has also been a victim of terrorist activities. The signatories argue that these sanctions are unjust and contribute to the destabilization of Cuba’s economy, thereby worsening the humanitarian situation.

Human Rights and International Support:
The former leaders express concern that the ongoing sanctions violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by impacting Cuba’s most vulnerable populations. The letter notes that these measures have been condemned in over thirty United Nations General Assembly resolutions, where an absolute majority voted against the blockade. The letter also highlights Cuba’s active role in peace-building efforts, such as the Peace Accord signed in Havana between the Colombian government and the FARC, and recent dialogues seeking peace between the Colombian State and the ELN.

Call for Humanitarian Action:
The appeal is framed as a compelling humanitarian plea, emphasizing the devastating impact of the U.S. sanctions on innocent people in Cuba. The former leaders argue that the sanctions have contributed to a dramatic situation in Cuba, evidenced by the unprecedented wave of Cuban migrants to the United States. They urge President Biden to send a clear message of humanism and understanding, transcending ideological differences for the sake of millions of people.

A Call for Historic Gesture:
The signatories call on President Biden to make a historic gesture by removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, suggesting that this would be recognized as a significant act of diplomacy and humanity by the Cuban people and the international community. The letter concludes with a respectful appeal for President Biden to consider the seriousness of the fight against terrorism and the importance of acting beyond political purposes.

Global Appeal: Former leaders from Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia unite in a joint letter urging President Biden to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, advocating for a humanitarian approach to international relations.

THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER IS AS FOLLOWS:

September 11th, 2024

Mr. JOSEPH BIDEN

President of the United States of America Mr. President,

As you are aware, for decades of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, the Cuban economy has been one of the most heavily impacted in the world and is currently, socially, at a point of no return. During the Barack Obama administration -of which you were a part- progress was made in a historic step towards the easing of those sanctions and the normalization of diplomatic relations between two neighbors who should not deprive each other of their mutual cooperation simply because they have political systems with different ideological inspiration.

There is no record in our post-war history, since the founding of the United Nations System, of any international normativity that stipulates that relations between States must be governed or conditioned according to their level of ideological alignment, which would imply the end of sovereignty and self-determination as fundamental pillars upon which the world governance system has been established in peace since the end of World War II. Precisely based on this reasoning, Obama himself recognized the anachronism of some unilateral measures against states like Cuba.

In May of this year, the State Department decided to remove Cuba from the list of countries not cooperating fully against terrorism, a fair and correct decision that we applauded at the time. Despite this, in a contradictory manner, your country’s authorities insist on keeping Cuba included on another list -the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism-. How can it be asserted, at the same time, that a country cooperates in the global fight against terrorism while simultaneously accusing it of openly supporting it?

Without any evidence, Cuba is accused of having links to terrorist activities of which it has also been a victim and harsh sanctions are imposed based on this presumption, directly impacting its population and permanently destabilizing its economy.

Furthermore, maintaining Cuba’s inclusion on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism constitutes a coercive measure that is difficult to justify in the 21st century when equality among states must be a reality. This unjust decision also affects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the ethical pillar of contemporary international relations-, by impacting the most vulnerable sectors of the Cuban population, who have been severely affected recently by the devastating effects of the pandemic, exacerbated by the lack of medicines and equipment to address the emergency.

The difficult situation that the Cuban economy is going through can be explained - among other factors - by the unilateral sanctions applied by the United States, which have been condemned for their unilateralism by the United Nations system and by many people and institutions on various occasions and opportunities. In the United Nations General Assembly, the blockade against Cuba has been condemned in more than thirty resolutions by an absolute majority.


In Cuba, Mr. President, the situation is beginning to be dramatic. This reflects a critical juncture that can and should be corrected if justice is done with Cuba’s demonstrated efforts to fight against, and not with, terrorism.

The unprecedented wave of Cuban migrants to the United States is perhaps the most illustrative example of the devastating impact and suffering caused by extreme measures against the Cuban

economy, resulting from its inclusion in the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The extraterritorial effect of financial blockade measures against Cuba also affects the interests of our countries, including the banking and business sectors.

The active participation of the Cuban government in the construction of the Peace Accord signed in Havana in 2016 between the State of Colombia and “Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia” (FARC), coupled with its recent role as a guarantor country in the dialogue seeking peace between the Colombian State and the “Ejército de Liberación Nacional” (ELN), Cuba demonstrates the humanitarian will for peace and not for war that animates Cuba and its government.

In summary, Mr. President, the reasons we present for requesting that Cuba be removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism are grounded in a compelling humanitarian appeal aimed at alleviating the situation of millions of innocent people and our profound conviction that the Cuban government is seriously committed against terrorism and promoting peace in the region and the world. No country should compromise, with political purposes, the seriousness of the fight against the scourge of terrorism.


Therefore, we ask you to consider sending this clear message of humanism and understanding beyond the legitimate ideological differences that cannot and should not justify acting otherwise. The people of Cuba and the countries we represent will recognize your historic gesture, Mr. President.

Respectfully,

  1. Dilma Rousseff, former president of Brazil.
  2. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, former president of Argentina.
  3. Ernesto Samper Pizano, former president of Colombia.
  4. Evo Morales, former president of Bolivia.
  5. Rafael Correa, former president of Ecuador.
  6. Donald Ramotar, former president of Guyana.
  7. David Arthur Granger, former president of Guayana.
  8. Moses Nagamootoo, ex primer ministro de Guyana.
  9. Ollanta Moisés Humala Tasso, former president of Peru.
  10. Mirtha Esther Vásquez Chuquilín, former prime minister of Peru.
  11. Aníbal Torres Vásquez, former prime minister of Peru.
  12. Salomón Lerner Ghitis, former prime minister of Peru.
  13. Said Musa, former prime minister of Belize.
  14. Dean Barrow, former prime minister of Belize.
  15. Salvador Sánchez Cerén, former president of El Salvador.
  16. Vinicio Cerezo, former president of Guatemala.
  17. Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras.
  18. Martin Torrijos, former president of Panama.
  19. Ernesto Pérez Balladares, former president of Panama.
  20. Baldwin Spencer, former prime minister of Antigua y Barbuda.
  21. Leonel Fernández, former president of the Dominican Republic.
  22. Hipolito Mejía, former president of the Dominican Republic.
  23. Charles Angelo Savarin, former president of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
  24. Keith Mitchell, former prime minister of Grenada.
  25. Percival James Patterson, former prime minister of Jamaica.
  26. Kenny Anthony, former prime minister of Saint Lucia.
  27. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, former president of the Spanish Government.
  28. Tomislav Nikolić, former president of Serbia.
  29. John Dramani Mahamat, former president of Ghana.
  30. Joaquim Alberto Chissano, former president of Mozambique.
  31. Hifikepunye Pohamba, former president of Namibia.
  32. Sam Nujoma, former president of Namibia.
  33. Danny Faure, former president of Seychelles.
  34. Mari Bim Amude Alkatiri, former prime minister of East Timor.
  35. Mahatir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia.

Was Osama Bin Laden Really Behind 9/11?

Bin Laden became the poster boy for evil Muslims and the whipping boy for all of Washington’s mistakes in its new colonial wars in the Muslim world.

by Eric S. Margolis

Twenty-three years ago this month the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon shook the United States and horrified the world. 

Almost three thousand Americans died. The US launched attacks across the Muslim world in what the media called ‘the War on Terror.’ The repercussions of these events continue today.

Pakistani family members leave the area after viewing the walled compound of a house, seen in background, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan. [Anjum Naveed/AP]

Washington quickly blamed Saudi/Yemeni jihadist Osama bin Laden for these attacks and vowed to hunt him down. But was he really guilty? As a veteran of the Afghan Wars and Mideast struggles, I still don’t believe most of Washington’s claims, most notably that the perpetrator was Osama bin Laden.

It was subsequently revealed that the 9/11 attacks were likely planned in Germany and Spain, not Kabul, Afghanistan. The head of Pakistani intelligence told me he believed bin Laden may have known in advance of the planned attacks but was not personally involved.  Let’s recall that bin Laden was a CIA asset during the war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan - which I covered. 


Other senior Afghan mujahidin leaders concurred with this view.  They believed the 9/11 attacks originated from Saudi Arabia.  Many Saudis believed their nation was ‘occupied’ by the US.  Most of the 19 aircraft hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. They were based around Delray Beach, Florida.  But the US could not admit this embarrassing fact.  

Interestingly, bin Laden, whose path I crossed in Afghanistan, claimed that the 9/11 attacks were ‘in revenge’ for Israel’s attacks on Beirut and other parts of southern Lebanon in 1982.  Israel asserts the Lebanon attack was part of its campaign to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization which sought refuge in Lebanon.

US-supplied Israeli heavy artillery destroyed important parts of Lebanon’s capitol, Beirut, killing large numbers of Lebanese civilians over three months. Water and food to Beirut were cut off by Israel, a harbinger of the punishment currently being inflicted on Gaza. Lebanese neo-fascists allied to Israel massacred large numbers of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. I was there for Day 1 of the Lebanese civil war.

The George W. Bush administration was determined to conquer Afghanistan to secure a route for oil pipelines from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. Bush had no idea about any of this but his far-right Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was lusting for oil and hated Afghanistan’s resistance movement, Taliban, which refused to take orders from the White House.

Cheney decided to invade Afghanistan.  9/11 was, of course, his perfect excuse, no matter the facts. The Afghans became the whipping boy for Washington’s egregious blunders during the 9/11 period.  President Musharraf of Pakistan told me that Washington threatened to ‘bomb us back into the Stone Age’ if Pakistan did not allow US forces to attack Afghanistan from Pakistan. He gave in.

The tame US media amplified the war of lies against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. After 9/11, I was the principal CNN commentator on Afghanistan.  Few Americans knew anything at the time about this distant, mysterious nation - except for me.  I was with all the senior Afghan resistance leaders and with Taliban when it was formed to stop attacks by Communist forces, stop opium production and protect Afghan women from wide-scale rape. 

Big TV in the US decided to label the Afghan resistance ‘terrorists.’ I refused to use this dishonest terminology originated by Israel to delegitimize the Palestinians.  I refused to parrot the anti-Afghan propaganda being promoted by US TV.  I called all the film clips of bin Laden supposedly blessing the 9/11 attacks as crude fakes.  They were produced by the Afghan communists, America’s allies of the moment.

Unsurprisingly, I was kicked off CNN and blacklisted by them. According to a CNN producer, the Bush White House called CNN and ordered that I be taken off the air.

Bin Laden became the poster boy for evil Muslims and the whipping boy for all of Washington’s mistakes in its new colonial wars in the Muslim world.

Osama bin Laden wanted to see heavy-handed US influence evicted from the Muslim word.  He failed.  He was murdered gangster style in Pakistan in 2011 by a US hit squad.  At the time, the so-called `world’s most dangerous terrorist’ was living in quiet retirement in Pakistan. 

The real culprits behind 9/11 have never been revealed.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2024

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in globally recognized newspapers and He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC. As a war correspondent Margolis has covered conflicts in Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Sinai, Afghanistan, Kashmir, India, Pakistan, El Salvador and Nicaragua. He was among the first journalists to ever interview Libya’s Muammar Khadaffi and was among the first to be allowed access to KGB headquarters in Moscow.
USA

The Fall of the American Empire: What Lies Ahead for Us All”

Why not suggest a similar trajectory for U.S.-China relations over the next generation? Except for ideologues detached from reality, the world would prefer it over the nuclear alternative.

by Richard D. Wolff

The evidence suggests that empires often react to periods of their own decline by over-extending their coping mechanisms. Military actions, infrastructure problems, and social welfare demands may then combine or clash, accumulating costs and backlash effects that the declining empire cannot manage. Policies aimed to strengthen empire—and that once did—now undermine it. Contemporary social changes inside and outside the empire can reinforce, slow, or reverse the decline. However, when decline leads leaders to deny its existence, it can become self-accelerating. In empires’ early years, leaders and the led may repress those among them who stress or merely even mention decline. Social problems may likewise be denied, minimized, or, if admitted, blamed on convenient scapegoats—immigrants, foreign powers, or ethnic minorities—rather than linked to imperial decline.

[Cartoon: Mohammad Sabaaneh]

The U.S. empire, audaciously proclaimed by the Monroe Doctrine soon after two independence wars won against Britain, grew across the 19th and 20th centuries, and peaked during the decades between 1945 and 2010. The rise of the U.S. empire overlapped with the decline of the British empire. The Soviet Union represented limited political and military challenges, but never any serious economic competition or threat. The Cold War was a lopsided contest whose outcome was programmed in from its beginning. All of the U.S. empire’s potential economic competitors or threats were devastated by World War II. The following years found Europe losing its colonies. The unique global position of the United States then, with its disproportional position in world trade and investment, was anomalous and likely unsustainable. An attitude of denial at the time that decline was all but certain morphed only too readily into the attitude of denial now that the decline is well underway.


The United States could not prevail militarily over all of Korea in its 1950-53 war there. The United States lost its subsequent wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The NATO alliance was insufficient to alter any of those outcomes. U.S. military and financial support for Ukraine and the massive United States and NATO sanctions war against Russia are failures to date and are likely to remain so. U.S. sanctions programs against Cuba, Iran, and China have failed too. Meanwhile, the BRICS alliance counteracts U.S. policies to protect its empire, including its sanctions warfare, with increasing effectiveness.

In the realms of trade, investment, and finance, we can measure the decline of the U.S. empire differently. One index is the decline of the U.S. dollar as a central bank reserve holding. Another is its decline as a means of trade, loans, and investment. Finally, consider the U.S. dollar’s decline alongside that of dollar-denominated assets as internationally desired means of holding wealth. Across the Global South, countries, industries, or firms seeking trade, loans, or investments used to go to London, Washington, or Paris for decades; they now have other options. They can go instead to Beijing, New Delhi, or Moscow, where they often secure more attractive terms.


Empire confers special advantages that translate into extraordinary profits for firms located in the country that dominates the empire. The 19th century was remarkable for its endless confrontations and struggles among empires competing for territory to dominate and thus for their industries’ higher profits. Declines of any one empire could enhance opportunities for competing empires. If the latter grabbed those opportunities, the former’s decline could worsen. One set of competing empires delivered two world wars in the last century. Another set seems increasingly driven to deliver worse, possibly nuclear world wars in this century.

Before World War I, theories circulated that the evolution of multinational corporations out of merely national mega-corporations would end or reduce the risks of war. Owners and directors of increasingly global corporations would work against war among countries as a logical extension of their profit-maximizing strategies. The century’s two world wars undermined those theories’ appearance of truth. So too did the fact that multinational mega-corporations increasingly purchased governments and subordinated state policies to those corporations’ competing growth strategies. Capitalists’ competition governed state policies at least as much as the reverse. Out of their interaction emerged the wars of the 21st century in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza. Likewise from their interaction, rising U.S.-China tensions emerged around Taiwan and the South China Sea.


China presents a unique analytical problem. The private capitalist half of its hybrid economic system exhibits growth imperatives parallel to those agitating economies where 90-100 percent of enterprises are private capitalist in organization. The state-owned-and-operated enterprises comprising the other half of China’s economy exhibit different drives and motivations. Profit is less their bottom line than it is for private capitalist enterprises. Similarly, the Communist Party’s rule over the state—including the state’s regulation of the entire Chinese economy—introduces other objectives besides profit, ones that also govern enterprise decisions. Since China and its major economic allies (BRICS) comprise the entity now competing with the declining U.S. empire and its major economic allies (G7), China’s uniqueness may yield an outcome different from past clashes of empires.

In the past, one empire often supplanted another. That may be our future with this century becoming “China’s” as previous empires were American, British, and so on. However, China’s history includes earlier empires that rose and fell: another unique quality. Might China’s past and its present hybrid economy influence China away from becoming another empire and rather toward a genuinely multipolar global organization instead? Might the dreams and hopes behind the League of Nations and the United Nations achieve reality if and when China makes that happen? Or will China become the next global hegemon against heightened resistance from the United States, bringing the risk of nuclear war closer?


A rough historical parallel may shed some additional light from a different angle on where today’s class of empires may lead. The movement toward independence of its North American colony irritated Britain sufficiently for it to attempt two wars (1775-83 and 1812-15) to stop that movement. Both wars failed. Britain learned the valuable lesson that peaceful co-existence with some co-respective planning and accommodation would enable both economies to function and grow, including in trade and investment both ways across their borders. That peaceful co-existence extended to allowing the imperial reach of the one to give way to that of the other.

Why not suggest a similar trajectory for U.S.-China relations over the next generation? Except for ideologues detached from reality, the world would prefer it over the nuclear alternative. Dealing with the two massive, unwanted consequences of capitalism—climate change and unequal distributions of wealth and income—offers projects for a U.S.-China partnership that the world will applaud. Capitalism changed dramatically in both Britain and the United States after 1815. It will likely do so again after 2025. The opportunities are attractively open-ended.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, in New York. Wolff’s weekly show, “Economic Update,” is syndicated by more than 100 radio stations and goes to 55 million TV receivers via Free Speech TV. His three recent books with Democracy at Work are The Sickness Is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us From Pandemics or Itself, Understanding Socialism, and Understanding Marxism, the latter of which is now available in a newly released 2021 hardcover edition with a new introduction by the author.

Cellphone Bans Surge in U.S. Schools Amid Mental Health Concerns

Of the nation's 20 largest school districts, at least 7 forbid use of cellphones during the school day or plan to do so, while at least another 7 impose significant restrictions, such as barring use during class time but permitting phones during lunch or when students are between classes, said the report.

by Xinhua News Agency

Students returning to school in a growing number of U.S. states and districts are facing tight restrictions and outright bans on cellphone use as evidence mounts of the damaging impact persistent connection to the internet has on teenagers, reported The Washington Post on Tuesday.

High school students walk on a campus in Plano, Texas, the United States, on Aug. 31, 2022. (Photo by Xin Jin/Xinhua)

In Los Angeles, the second-largest district in the country, the school board voted in June to ban cellphone use. In Clark County, Nevada, the district will require students in middle and high schools to store phones in pouches during the day, starting this fall, according to the report.

Several states, including Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida, have enacted legislation limiting cellphone access during the school year. And governors in at least three other states, including Virginia, have called on schools to restrict or ban the devices. Other states have provided funding to support restrictive policies.

Of the nation’s 20 largest school districts, at least 7 forbid use of cellphones during the school day or plan to do so, while at least another 7 impose significant restrictions, such as barring use during class time but permitting phones during lunch or when students are between classes, said the report.

“Pressure on school leaders has come from teachers and parents who see cellphones as a distraction, an impediment to learning and a constant toll on students’ mental health,” it noted.

Fragile Progressivism in Latin America

The Weakness of Progressive Latin American Governments in These Precarious Times

by Vijay Prashad

On 16 August 2024, the Organisation of American States (OAS), whose 1948 formation as a Cold War institution was instigated by the United States, voted on a resolution regarding the Venezuelan presidential elections. The nub of the resolution proposed by the US called upon Venezuela’s election authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE), to publish all the election details as soon as possible (including the actas, or voting records, at the local polling station level). This resolution asks the CNE to go against Venezuela’s Organic Law on Electoral Processes (Ley Orgánica de Procesos Electorales or LOPE): since the law does not call for the publication of these materials, doing so would be a violation of public law. What the law does indicate is that the CNE must announce the results within 48 hours (article 146) and publish them within 30 days (article 155) and that the data from polling places (such as the actas) should be published in a tabular form (article 150).

Daniel Lezama (Mexico), El sueño del 16 de septiembre (The Dream of September 16th), 2001.


It is pure irony that the resolution was voted upon in the Simón Bolívar room at the OAS headquarters in Washington, DC. Simón Bolívar (1783-1830) liberated Venezuela and neighbouring territories from the Spanish Empire and sought to bring about a process of integration that would strengthen the region’s sovereignty. That is why the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela pays tribute to his legacy in its name. When Hugo Chávez won the presidency in 1998, he centred Bolívar in the country’s political life, seeking to further this legacy through initiatives such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) that would continue the journey to establish sovereignty in the country and region. In 1829, Bolívar wrote, ‘The United States appears to be destined by providence to plague [Latin] America with misery in the name of liberty’. This misery, in our time, is exemplified by the US attempt to suffocate Latin American countries through military coups or sanctions. In recent years, Bolivia,  Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have been at the epicentre of this ‘plague’. The OAS resolution is part of that suffocation.

Bolivia, Honduras, Mexico, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines did not come to the vote (nor did Cuba, as it was expelled by the OAS in 1962, leading Castro to dub the organisation the ‘Ministry of Colonies of the United States’, or Nicaragua, which left the OAS in 2023). Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) described why his country decided not to appear at the OAS meeting and why it disagrees with the US-proposed resolution, quoting from article 89, section X of the Mexican Constitution (1917), which states that the president of Mexico must adhere to the principles of ‘non-intervention; peaceful settlement of disputes; [and] prohibiting the threat or use of force in international relations’. To that end, AMLO said that Mexico will wait for the ‘competent authority of the country’ to settle any disagreement. In Venezuela’s case, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice is the relevant authority, though this has not stopped the opposition from rejecting its legitimacy. This opposition, which we have characterised as the far right of a special type, is committed to using any resource - including US military intervention - to overthrow the Bolivarian process. AMLO’s reasonable position is along the grain of the United Nations Charter (1945).

Many countries with apparently centre-left or left governments joined the US in voting for this OAS resolution. Among them are Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Chile, even though it has a president who admires Salvador Allende (killed in a US-imposed coup in 1973), has displayed a foreign policy orientation on many issues (including both Venezuela and Ukraine) that aligns with the US State Department. Since 2016, at the invitation of the Chilean government, the country welcomed nearly half a million Venezuelan migrants, many of whom are undocumented and now face the threat of expulsion from an increasingly hostile environment in Chile. It is almost as if the country’s president, Gabriel Boric, wants to see the situation in Venezuela change so that he can order the return of Venezuelans to their home country. This cynical attitude towards Chile’s enthusiasm for US policy on Venezuela, however, does not explain the situation of Brazil and Colombia.

Our latest dossier, To Confront Rising Neofascism, the Latin American Left Must Rediscover Itself, analyses the current political landscape on the continent, beginning by interrogating the assumption that there has been a second ‘pink tide’ or cycle of progressive governments in Latin America. The first cycle, which was inaugurated with the 1998 election of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and came to an end following the 2008 financial crisis and US counter-offensive against the continent, ‘frontally challenged US imperialism by advancing Latin American integration and geopolitical sovereignty’, while the second cycle, defined by a more centre-left orientation, ‘seems more fragile’. This fragility is emblematic of the situation in both Brazil and Colombia, where the governments of Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva and Gustavo Petro, respectively, have not been able to exercise their full control over the permanent bureaucracies in the foreign ministries. Neither the foreign minister of Brazil (Mauro Vieira) nor Colombia (Luis Gilberto Murillo) are men of the left or even of the centre left, and both have close ties to the US as former ambassadors to the country. It bears reflection that there are still over ten US military bases in Colombia, though this is not sufficient reason for the fragility of this second cycle.

In the dossier, we offer seven explanations for this fragility:
  • the worldwide financial and environmental crises, which have created divisions between countries in the region about which path to follow;
  • the US reassertion of control over the region, which it had lost during the first progressive wave, in particular to challenge what the US sees as China’s entry into Latin American markets. This includes the region’s natural and labour resources;
  • the increasing uberisation of labour markets, which has created far more precarity for the working class and negatively impacted its capacity for mass organisation. This has resulted in a significant rolling back of workers’ rights and weakened working-class power;
  • the reconfiguration of social reproduction, which has become centred around public disinvestment in social welfare policies, thereby placing the responsibility for care in the private sphere and primarily overburdening women;
  • the US’s increased military power in the region as its main instrument of domination in response to its declining economic power;
  • the fact that the region’s governments have been unable to take advantage of China’s economic influence and the opportunities it presents to drive a sovereign agenda and that China, which has emerged as Latin America’s primary trading partner, has not sought to directly challenge the US agenda to secure hegemony over the continent;
  • divisions between progressive governments, which, alongside the ascension of neofascism in the Americas, impede the growth of a progressive regional agenda, including policies for continental integration akin to those proposed during the first progressive wave.
These factors, and others, have weakened the assertiveness of these governments and their ability to enact the shared Bolivarian dream of hemispheric sovereignty and partnership.

One additional, but crucial, point is that the balance of class forces in societies such as Brazil and Colombia are not in favour of genuinely anti-imperialist politics. Celebrated electoral occasions, such as the victories of Lula and Petro in 2022, are not built on a broad base of organised working-class support that then forces society to advance a genuinely transformative agenda for the people. The coalitions that triumphed included centre-right forces that continue to wield social power and prevent these leaders, regardless of their own impeccable credentials, from exercising a free hand in governance. The weakness of these governments is one of the elements that allows for the growth of the far right of a special type.

As we argue in the dossier, ‘The difficulty of building a political project of the left that can overcome the day-to-day problems of working-class existence has unmoored many of these progressive electoral projects from mass needs’. The working classes, trapped in precarious occupations, need massive productive investments (driven by the state), premised on the exercise of sovereignty over each country and the region as a whole. The fact that a number of countries in the region have aligned with the US to diminish Venezuela’s sovereignty shows that these fragile electoral projects possess little capacity to defend sovereignty.

In her poem ‘Quo Vadis’, the Mexican poet Carmen Boullosa reflects on the problematic nature of pledging allegiance to the US government’s agenda. Las balas que vuelan no tienen convicciones (‘flying bullets have no convictions’), she writes. These ‘progressive’ governments have no conviction regarding regime change operations or destabilisation efforts in other countries in the region. Much should be expected of them, but at the same time too much disappointment is unwarranted.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

Three Years On: Afghanistan’s Return to Terrorism

Washington’s iron-clad commitment to ensure Israel’s security and its inability to end the devastating Gaza war have further stirred radical forces in the Muslim world and boosted America’s foes.

by Amin Saikal

This week marks the third year since America’s retreat from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

The United States had intervened in Afghanistan in response to the September 11 2001 terror attacks by al-Qaeda. The aim was to combat international terrorism and chart a new global order to make the world safer and more secure.

Taliban authorities mark the third anniversary of the Afghan government takeover in Kandahar this week. Qudratullah Razwan/EPA

Yet, as I argue in my new book, How to Lose a War: The Story of America’s Intervention in Afghanistan, the world today is arguably more conflict-ridden and polarised than during the Cold War. It potentially stands on the edge of yet another world war.

America’s goals - and failures
Backed by its NATO and non-NATO allies, as well as extensive global sympathy, the key US objectives in Afghanistan were:

eliminate al-Qaeda
dismantle the Taliban’s ultra-extremist regime as the protector of al-Qaeda
help change Afghanistan so it would never again become a nest of international terrorism.
Success in Afghanistan was intertwined with two other broader US foreign policy goals under the presidency of Republican George W. Bush - the global war on terrorism and promoting democracy. Both of these were means to bring change to the Middle East - and indeed the wider world - in accordance with the interests of the US as the sole post-Cold War superpower.

Ultimately, the US could not achieve any of these objectives.


At first, it prevailed militarily in toppling the Taliban government and dispersing al-Qaeda, with assistance from the anti-Taliban Afghan forces. But the respective leaders of both groups, Mullah Mohammad Omar and Osama bin Laden, and their main operatives escaped to Pakistan.

The Taliban swiftly regrouped. And with Pakistan’s support and its continuing alliance with al-Qaeda, it mounted an insurgency beyond the expectations of the US and its allies, including the fledgling Afghan government in Kabul.

The US had not originally intended to stay in Afghanistan for more than a few years. But its failure to decapitate al-Qaeda in the early days of its intervention resulted in a US hunt for bin Laden that took a decade. It also led to America’s deepening involvement in the difficult task of state-building in a highly socially divided and traditional Afghanistan.


Without ensuring Afghanistan was firmly placed on a stable, secure and democratic trajectory, the Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003 on the false premises that the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with bin Laden and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was prioritised over Afghanistan. This resulted in a shift of important intelligence and military assets from the latter to the former.

In the absence of a well-thought-out plan of action about how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Iraq, the US found itself entangled in two unwinnable wars. This left it with little choice but to bow out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and Afghanistan by August 2021, without achieving its original objectives.

It also left behind two broken countries. Iraq is still struggling to recover. Afghanistan is in a mess under the Taliban.

The Afghanistan defeat could not be any less humiliating for the US than its devastating Vietnam War five decades earlier.

The Taliban’s extremism
The Taliban’s 2.0 minority tribal government has proven to be as dreadfully extremist and discriminatory as its previous reign of terror from 1996-2001.

It has professed a self-centred and self-serving version of Islam, which is not practised anywhere else in the Muslim world. Women are stripped of all basic rights (including to education and work). Any form of opposition is brutally suppressed. Other minorities, along with remnants of the previous US-backed regime, are punished daily. Many have been murdered.


The group has transformed Afghanistan into a protective enclave for al-Qaeda and several other similarly minded groups. These include the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP) and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP).

A new survey by the UN Mission in Afghanistan shows only 4% of respondents wanted the Taliban to be recognised internationally. The group’s lack of domestic legitimacy is paralleled by its pariah status in the global community.

Yet the group has been able to consolidate power in Afghanistan and stave off outside pressure, having taken advantage of regional and major power geopolitical rivalries and ambitions.

A more unstable world
The Taliban’s re-empowerment has significantly inspired and emboldened like-minded groups in many parts of the Muslim world, such as the TTP and ISKP. And the US defeat in Afghanistan has heartened America’s chief adversaries - Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.

Washington’s iron-clad commitment to ensure Israel’s security and its inability to end the devastating Gaza war have further stirred radical forces in the Muslim world and boosted America’s foes.


The related growing tensions between Israel and Iran, as well as with Tehran’s allies (most importantly Hezbollah in Lebanon), have seriously imperilled the cause of stability and security in a traditionally volatile region. A potential Israel-Iran war could drag the US in to defend Israel, with Russia and China supporting Iran.

This is not a scenario about which the Middle East and the world can be sanguine.

Source: The Conversation

Amin Saikal is an emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies at the Australian National University and an adjunct professor at the University of Western Australia and S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. He is a Non-Resident Fellow at Princeton's Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination and an awardee of the Order of Australia (AM) and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (FASSA). Saikal has authored several books, including How to Lose a War: The Story of America’s Intervention in Afghanistan (Yale UP, 2024) and Iran Rising (Princeton University Press, 2021). He is also an op-ed writer with contributions to major publications like The New York Times and The Guardian, and frequently appears as a commentator on national and international media.

US Allegedly Handed Tehran List of Mossad Agents in Haniyeh Killing

According to al Jarida, the mission was allegedly intended to deliver messages to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, with claims that the Biden-Harris administration was "kept in the dark" by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the assassinations of key figures in Hamas and Hezbollah.

Reports have surfaced alleging that a high-ranking American security delegation, mediated by Oman, secretly traveled to Tehran to de-escalate tensions in the region between Iran and Israel. The report, originally published by the Kuwaiti newspaper al Jarida, has been categorically denied by the United States.

The spokesman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that different aspects of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh will be investigated in this committee attended by IRGC Quds Force and Intelligence Ministry officials. [ Photo: IRNA]

According to al Jarida, the mission was allegedly intended to deliver messages to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, with claims that the Biden-Harris administration was “kept in the dark” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the assassinations of key figures in Hamas and Hezbollah. While Israel has admitted responsibility for the assassination of Hezbollah’s Fuad Shukr, it has remained silent on the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.

The Jerusalem Post, independently verifying details from other sources including The New York Times, reported that Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device hidden in his Tehran guesthouse. The bomb, reportedly planted in June, was detonated remotely, suggesting a meticulously planned operation.

An earlier report by The Telegraph claimed that Mossad, Israel’s national intelligence agency, had employed Iranian security agents to plant the explosive device. This report, citing unnamed Iranian officials, suggested that the agents had since left the country but continued to maintain a close source within Iran.

Fox News, also covering the developments, noted that the American delegation allegedly arrived in Iran via Turkey, landing at Payam-e-Khorram Airport in Karaj. The delegation is reported to have engaged in a brief meeting with Iranian officials before returning to Turkey. During this meeting, the Americans purportedly provided a list of ten Mossad agents believed to be involved in the assassination of Haniyeh, in what was described as a “good faith” initiative in response to Israel’s unilateral strikes.

Despite these detailed reports, a spokesperson for the US National Security Council firmly denied any such mission took place, branding the claims as “categorically false.”

Could Harris’ VP pick appeal to multiple voting blocs in presidential race

Democrats hope that having Walz on the ticket will help shore up support in key battleground states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

by Matthew Rusling

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, who has won enough delegate votes to secure Democratic presidential nomination, on Tuesday chose a running mate who could appeal to myriad voting blocs, experts said.

Harris, 59, on Tuesday named Minnesota Governor and former Congressman Tim Walz as her running mate.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris (C) attends an event on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., the United States, on July 22, 2024. (Xinhua/Hu Yousong)

“One of the things that stood out to me about Tim is how his convictions on fighting for middle class families run deep. It’s personal. As a governor, a coach, a teacher, and a veteran, he’s delivered for working families like his own,” Harris said in a statement.

Walz, 60, previously served as a U.S. House representative. He was elected governor of Minnesota in 2018 and re-elected in 2022.

“Walz is broadly acceptable to the various groups that make up the Democratic party and doesn’t provoke any schisms or dissension within the ranks,” Christopher Galdieri, a political science professor at Saint Anselm College, told Xinhua.

“Walz appeals to different groups for different reasons. Progressives and liberals like his record as governor,” the scholar said.

“Walz also has a cultural appeal. As a Democrat from a rural area who served in the military and coached high school football before running for Congress, he can appeal to voters in the Rust Belt states that will be crucial in this election,” Galdieri said.

Democrats hope that having Walz on the ticket will help shore up support in key battleground states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.


Those are strongholds of the Democratic party, although Harris’ opponent and former President Donald Trump flipped them when he clinched the White House in 2016. Biden flipped them back to the Democrats with his 2020 victory. This time around, the three states are crucial to winning the election.

Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Darrell West said Walz helps Democrats in the Midwest.

“He comes from that part of the country, knows how to talk to ordinary Midwesterners, and talks about ways to boost economic opportunities for the middle class,” West told Xinhua.

“He has a wide range of political experience, having been a legislator and an executive and should help Harris draw the contrasts with Trump,” West said, noting that Harris has come up “quite a bit” in the polls and the race now is very competitive between Trump and Harris.

According to polling data compiled by the U.S. election information website Real Clear Politics, as of Tuesday, Harris leads Trump by an average of 0.5 percentage points in national polls, but Trump still leads in several key swing states.


The possibility that Walz will be the No. 2 leader in the United States is growing by the day. Prior to Harris’ nomination, President Joe Biden was getting crushed in the polls by Trump.

Trump was leading by leaps and bounds in key battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, according to Real Clear Politics’ average of polls.

While Trump retains the lead in most key swing states, Harris is closing the gap.

Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, told Xinhua that Walz has effectively attacked the Republican nominee for vice president, J.D. Vance.

“If there is a debate, it will be widely watched. The value of vice-presidential candidates in winning an election is greatly exaggerated, but Walz is a very skilled campaigner,” Ramsay said.

Walz ran for the House of Representatives as a Democrat in a usually Republican district, and won it many times before running successfully for governor, Ramsay added.


Meanwhile, critics blast Harris as simply an extension of the Biden administration, whose time in office has seen food inflation skyrocket.

Critics also blast Harris for, they claim, allowing millions of migrants to illegally pour over the U.S. southern border during Biden’s tenure.

In reaction to the selection of Walz, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that “this is the most Radical Left duo in American history. There has never been anything like it.”
USA

What Does Arming Israel Cost Us?

Americans spend billions each year to arm Israel. Since its founding, Israel has received more than $300 billion in aid from U.S. taxpayers.

by Sonali Kolhatkar

What will it take to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza? That’s the question confounding people of conscience all over the world since last October. After Israeli citizens, tax-paying residents of the United States have the most leverage over the perpetrators of genocide given that the U.S. is Israel’s biggest weapons supplier. What if our taxes were spent on the things we need rather than on the deadly weapons Israel is thirsting for?

Israeli troops are seen near the border with Rafah of southern Gaza Strip, in southern Israel, June 16, 2024. (Photo by Gil Cohen Magen/Xinhua)

For months, a majority of the U.S. public has disapproved of Israel’s relentless mass killings. College students organized dramatic encampments to demand divestment from Israel. Protesters confronted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit.

Yet, President Joe Biden has done little beyond paying lip service to address the public rage over Israel’s murderous assault. Now, his proxy, Vice President Kamala Harris, faces a similar calculus in running for the presidency: pull back U.S. weapons from fueling genocide, as United Nations experts have urged, or risk losing voters in a critical election.

Unfortunately for Palestinians and their allies, Harris appears to be taking a similar approach to Biden’s: using strong terms to uplift Palestinian suffering, while affirming “her longstanding and unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel and the people of Israel.”

When Biden was the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he resolutely refused to budge on funding Israel, even if it meant he might lose the election. Harris may truly believe Palestinian suffering needs to end, but between now and November, she faces a critical choice: to pledge allegiance to Israel or to adhere to basic standards of morality that value human life.

But, given the stranglehold that Israel and its powerful lobby have on the U.S. political system, Harris and her party may feel they risk more by alienating Israel than curbing its genocide.

And, given that Harris’s main election opponent will be no better (or possibly worse) than Biden on Gaza, is there any significant leverage left to end Palestinian suffering?

Can the roughly 700,000 “uncommitted” Democratic voters who have threatened to withhold their ballots over Gaza be loud and strong enough to sway Harris to do the right thing? Perhaps. But she might call their bluff, weighing the aforementioned political risks and touting the dangers of a Donald Trump presidency on the domestic front.

The sad truth is that while Democrats and Republicans have had distinct domestic platforms, they have tended to be relatively united on foreign policy for decades. Democrats have often backed the same wars as their Republican opponents in the Middle East and antiwar organizers have struggled to stop wars even where U.S. soldiers were directly involved in killing civilians, let alone proxy wars such as Israel’s Gaza genocide.

In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama distinguished himself in the 2008 election as an “antiwar candidate” with respect to U.S. involvement in Iraq. But he remained a pro-war candidate over the war in Afghanistan begun in 2001.

Still, Obama’s talking points on Iraq offer a tantalizing way forward on Gaza in 2024. In combating his opponent Senator John McCain, Obama said, “For a fraction of what we’re spending each year in Iraq, we could be giving our teachers more pay and more support, rebuilding our crumbling schools, and offering a tax credit to put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one.”

McCain’s response was to call Obama “irresponsible,” saying his ideas would jeopardize the U.S.’s national security. It didn’t work. In 2008 Americans were tired of the two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and if they couldn’t put an end to both, they would pick the candidate promising to end at least one and chose Obama. It wasn’t until 2021 that the U.S. war in Afghanistan finally ended when Biden pulled all troops out.

There is a direct line between the issue Americans care most about in this election and the Palestinian right to exist: the U.S. economy. One of the most compelling arguments that could move the average American voter—who might be struggling far too much in their day-to-day life to care about Palestinians being massacred on the other side of the planet—is to remind ourselves of the cost of backing Israel’s devastating pogroms.

Americans spend billions each year to arm Israel. Since its founding, Israel has received more than $300 billion in aid from U.S. taxpayers.

The U.S. spent more tax dollars on Israel in the past year—$12.5 billion—than it did to fund a critically important federal agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency, whose $9.2 billion budget for fiscal 2024 was cut by nearly $1 billion from the year before.

Last year alone, taxpayers spent more on arming Israeli genocide than the annual funding shortfall for Pell Grants.

The federal government spent many times more money on Israel than the budget cuts facing the Department of Education.

Every year, Republicans use budgetary concerns to extract domestic spending cuts from the federal government on social programs that help Americans. Democrats could counter those demands by cutting Israel funding to pay for the things we are told we can’t afford.

Palestinian suffering cannot be allowed to continue. If making cold, hard calculations comparing the cost of carrying out their annihilation versus the cost of funding American needs will help to move the needle away from Israel’s genocide, then so be it.

Think tanks such as the National Priorities Project have, for years, made direct links between war spending and domestic social programs, saying “Funding for Militarism Compromises Our Welfare.”

Senator Bernie Sanders has often questioned the size of military budgets compared to social spending, saying in April 2024 that $95 billion in supplemental military spending was “a lot of money—especially at a time when many Americans are unable to afford their rent or pay their mortgages, pay their bills, afford healthcare, [and] are struggling with student debt or many other needs.”

U.S. politicians have been able to undercut such logic by touting vague notions of “national security” in response. But that excuse won’t work with respect to Israel. Let Israel worry about its “national security” while Americans focus on funding our needs.

Not only could antiwar and pro-Palestinian activists center the financial costs of gifting weapons to Israel as an election issue, but Harris could use it as political cover for doing the morally right thing.

Such an approach could have more resonance in an election year than hoping enough American voters will care about the fate of Palestinians to withhold votes from a liberal Democrat—especially when faced with the prospect of a fascist authoritarian.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute.

U.S. Spy on Lula: A Disturbing ‘Backyard’ Mentality

"In recent years, the U.S. control over its so-called 'backyard' seems to have been relaxed on the surface, but this is based on strengthening another kind of control, namely the surveillance of key figures in various fields, which has now reached an unscrupulous level in Latin America," a Brazilian scholar told Xinhua.

by Bian Zhuodan

The revelation that the U.S. government and military agencies have been monitoring Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the current Brazilian president, since more than half a century ago, has caused an uproar in Latin American public opinion.

The mainstream view in Brazilian academic and media circles is that this incident fully proves that the U.S. imperial hegemonic thinking of Latin America as its “backyard” has not changed over the past 200 years since the birth of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attends the EU-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States summit in Brussels, Belgium, July 17, 2023. (Xinhua/Zheng Huansong)

“In recent years, the U.S. control over its so-called ‘backyard’ seems to have been relaxed on the surface, but this is based on strengthening another kind of control, namely the surveillance of key figures in various fields, which has now reached an unscrupulous level in Latin America,” Marcos Pires, director of the Institute of Economics and International Studies at Sao Paulo State University, told Xinhua.

In mid-July, Lula’s biographer Fernando Morais revealed that his writing team had recently obtained 819 documents totaling 3,300 pages of records about Lula from 1966 to 2019 from different U.S. agencies.


According to the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, most of the documents were produced by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which holds 613 documents on Lula, totaling 2,000 pages. U.S. agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Security Agency (NSA) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network have not yet responded to requests for information from Lula’s biographers.

At the same time, the documents applied by the biographers are only records about Lula’s activities before 2019. The number of such documents over the past five years, especially during Lula’s third term starting from 2023, is unknown. Brazilian political analysts believe that the real number of documents related to Lula may far exceed expectations.


The U.S. government’s surveillance of leaders of other countries is nothing new. As early as 2013, Brazilian media reported the NSA’s surveillance activities against Brazil’s then-President Dilma Rousseff and many senior officials in her government. However, the time span and the breadth of surveillance content on Lula are more than staggering.

Ever since Lula joined the metalworkers union in 1966, “the United States has always been there, keeping an eye on him,” Gleisi Hoffmann, president of Brazil’s ruling Workers’ Party, said on X last week.

“In addition to the notorious CIA and NSA, the U.S. Department of Defense, Southern Command are also on the watcher list,” Hoffmann said. “They monitor our national defense, foreign relations, and who knows what others!”


As for why Lula fell victim to surveillance, Reinaldo Azevedo, a columnist for the mainstream portal UOL, refers to Brazil’s importance as an emerging economy with great potential and its geographical proximity to the United States, and Lula as a progressive politician with global influence. “But he is not the kind of person who is reverent to the United States,” Azevedo said.

Brazilian international relations expert Vladimir Feijo believes that the surveillance incident may heighten tensions between Brazil and the United States.

“What is the extent of the investigation of countries that claim to be partners, respectful, that have good relations and why would it be necessary to use a secret service, so to speak, if there are open channels of communication?” he asked.

In this regard, some Brazilian politicians and academics are of one mind — the U.S. government does not actually respect the sovereignty of other countries that it claims to respect. The U.S. government’s surveillance behavior is “not only an unacceptable act of violence against Brazilian citizens, but also an insult to Brazil’s national sovereignty,” according to Hoffmann.

Azevedo pointed out that the United States believes that Brazil, located in its so-called “backyard,” should be a country that is subject to its interests and is “part of the American group.” However, Brazil hopes to maintain its diplomatic independence.

Brazil regards its relationship with the United States as a cooperative and commercial partnership, which makes the United States “unhappy.”

“Brazil is also a key country in the Global South and BRICS that the U.S. is fighting,” said Azevedo.

According to the columnist, the United States is spying on the entire world, which is what an empire does when it thinks it is an empire. Though the world is showing a multi-polar trend, the increasingly decadent America is still monitoring its so-called “backyard.”

Worryingly still, the United States has the power to intervene all over the world. If it intervenes too much in some places, it may destroy the world, Azevedo warned.