Is 'Stop War' misunderstanding Trump?

by Brian Bamford

'STOP the War' in a newsletter below issued yesterday* calling on Theresa May to end the 'Special Relationship' between the USA and the UK, declared:
'As Trump's aggressive foreign policy - which has led to further bombing in Syria and Iraq- becomes ever clearer it is urgent that we end the special relationship now.'
Most media pundits, other that 'Stop War', find Donald Trump's foreign policy anything but 'clear'. 
But last November, Thomas Wright, an expert on U.S. foreign policy at the Brooklings Institute said:  'No other election has had the capacity to completely overturn the international order - the global economy, geopolitics , etc.'
The conventional view is that President Trump is going to be an isolationist in so far as he is, according to Thomas Wright, 'opposed to America's alliance arrangements with other countries.'
What is fairly clear is that Trump is frustrated with the exiting alliance arrangements that mean that the U.S. has had to defend Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others such as the E.U. and does believe that the U.S. should keep coughing up so much. 
Referring to Hillary Clinton, Trump said:
'I would be slower to go to war than Hillary I would be very, very cautious. I think I'd be a lot slower.  She has a happy trigger.  You look, she votes for the wars, she goes in Libya.  I think it's a tremendous burden.  I think there is no greater burden that anybody could have.'
For pundits like Thomas Wright, what's not clear is if he means he just wants the others to pay a bit more, or whether he opposes the alliances overall,
If the latter is the case one would have thought that the Stop the War crowd  would be over the moon.
One would have thought that they would be even more over the moon, when he says NATO's original mission is 'obsolete', and that he doesn't believe that the U.S. (military) to be forwardly present.
* Help us to break the special relationship 'Today Theresa May goes to Washington. Any civilised or sensible government would be breaking links with President Trump but our PM is rushing to be the first foreign leader to meet him. As Trump's aggressive foreign policy - which has already led to further bombing in Syria and Iraq - becomes ever clearer it is urgent that we end the special relationship now. Stop the War Convenor Lindsey German said: 'Trump wants to increase military spending and the level of nuclear weapons. He also support torture. The special relationship has never benefited the people of Britain. With this president it will be positively harmful and should be ended.'

Corbyn and Trident Renewal

JEREMY Corbyn Vice President of CND is facing a circle which he cannot square.    He wears a red poppy at PMQs in the House of Commons and his apparent reluctance to wear a white poppy is inconsistent with his continuing role in CND.    What is even worse is his failure to take on the nuclearphiles at the Labour Party Conference.    It now transpires that a National Policy Forum       Report Agenda 2015. Britains Global Role  passed.    Hidden away on page 122 of a report of over 200 pages was the following:
'We are committed to a minimum,credible, independent nuclear deterrent delivered through a continuous At-Sea Deterrent.'    I
n another section Enhancing NATO (sic)  it states:
'NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy and Labour will continue to press for financial investment in NATO.'

In the past Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned for British Withdrawal from NATO which is a nuclear alliance with a 'first strike' policy.   What is his position now?   He is conspicuous by his silence on this issue.  Pledges not to press the nuclear button are fatuous if Britain remains in NATO.

All those socialists and peace campaigners who voted for Corbyn for the labour leadership need to address these issues. In all conscience can he continue to lead a party in which the great majority of Labour Shadow Ministers and MPS are likely to vote for Trident renewal?

In Whose Interests?

by Martin S. Gilbert

WHAT is in the interests of those in power as opposed to 'the public interest' ?   If you believe we have democracy they are synonymous others see a big gap.  When, for example will we see full publication of Chilcot’s enquiry into the Iraq war?  He does not want to embarrass certain people too much but is that caution 'in the public interest'  if so, how?  Also, while definitions of torture change over time, there will not be a Public Enquiry into how IRA suspects were treated during 'the troubles' (1)  The states torturers may have extracted relevant information. In doing so they created hatred, fear and reprisals, aiding IRA recruiters.  It all delayed what became 'the peace process' which was hailed as a victory for office holders. An explanation of such torture would pose the 'one bad apple in the barrel' idea, there being at its height some 22,000 troops in Ulster at that time.  The truth will remain hidden.  A main cause of the present tensions between Russia and NATO has also escaped general attention.

America’s 'missile defence system' has caused much unplanned-for, unreported trouble. In theory such missiles are directed by “spy satellites” space-placed hardware. Dubbed 'star wars' by its critics it has control centres is at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill Yorkshire. A problem for it’s boffins and American tax payers is that this system has never actually worked in spite of it’s vast budget.

Records released by the Kremlin showed that the Cuban situation was resolved by quiet diplomacy, not by “nuclear deterrence”. Removal of NATO bases on Turkey’s border with Russia helped that process. Such facts got little attention in the media, maybe they were “not in the public interest”.

Subsequently, a major cause of tension was America’s plans to build a star-wars base in Poland by 2018. On 15.10. ’09 Reuters International News reported that Russia “was worried about” (such plans) that could hinder efforts to 'improve their relationship with America.' (2)  That year Obama’s administration cancelled these plans but without making Putin feel any safer.  Military hardware was 'rolled out' in Poland and the Czech Republic in response to perceived problems with Iran (3)  Again, NATO had placed heavy weaponry too close for Putin’s comfort.

It does not help that the Russian premier has a foreign policy based on unpredictability.   Putin needs to keep his macho image, so no official complaints were made internationally.   Any major leak could have alerted the Russian public to this potential threat on their door step, detracting from Vlad the athletic horseman’s P.R.  The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea can be seen as an attempt to show military muscle, preserving Putin’s image and those close to that leader. 

Linked to these events are the recent revelations about the death of spy - defector Alexander Litvinenko. Although he was murdered in 2006, the enquiry into his death has finally been published. Delay also seems to be due in an effort not to embarrass a public
figure – Mr. Putin. In whose public interest was that lengthy concealment? Certainly not that of the Russian people.

martin s. gilbert, Cumbria, March . ’15

references:- 1. John McGuffin, “The Guinea Pigs” Penguin Special, 1974

2. Conor Sweeny, “Business and Financial News, Breaking US &
International News / Reuters.com page 1

3. Richard Weitz, World Politics Review, 29.4.’14 www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13739/nato-s-missiledefense-counteroff  

Murdering journalists … them and us

by William Blum

AFTER Paris, condemnation of religious fanaticism is at its height.  I’d guess that even many progressives fantasize about wringing the necks of jihadists, bashing into their heads some thoughts about the intellect, about satire, humor, freedom of speech.  We’re talking here, after all, about young men raised in France, not Saudi Arabia.

Where has all this Islamic fundamentalism come from in this modern age?  Most of it comes – trained, armed, financed, indoctrinated – from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  During various periods from the 1970s to the present, these four countries had been the most secular, modern, educated, welfare states in the Middle East region.  And what had happened to these secular, modern, educated, welfare states?

In the 1980s, the United States overthrew the Afghan government that was progressive, with full rights for women, believe it or not  , leading to the creation of the Taliban and their taking power.

In the 2000s, the United States overthrew the Iraqi government, destroying not only the secular state, but the civilized state as well, leaving a failed state.

In 2011, the United States and its NATO military machine overthrew the secular Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi, leaving behind a lawless state and unleashing many hundreds of jihadists and tons of weaponry across the Middle East.

Read the full article here -- expert analysis of the catastrophe the USA has brought to the Middle East:

http://williamblum.org/aer/read/136