‘Xenophobic’ Latin America?

Reply to Al Jazeera’s Megan Janetsky on ‘Xenophobia’

by Serban V.C. Enache

In this article, Megan Janetsky claims that “Venezuelans have faced increased xenophobic attacks and attitudes,” but doesn’t invoke a single example of such an attack. The fact that countries in Latin America have begun to take measures to stem immigration is not a sign of xenophobia, it’s the inevitable consequence of the reality on the ground. It’s simply impractical for these countries to accommodate higher and higher inflows of people from Venezuela. There’s only so much space, facilities, job offers, and money [foreign funds on which these countries are largely dependent] to go around. Instead of playing the xenophobia card, lecturing countries and governments about how bad they are for not being xenophiles, the author should lay the blame on Washington’s foreign policy, not just on Maduro’s Government. By the way, Megan Janetsky doesn’t mention the trade sanctions, doesn’t mention the West’s hostile policy toward the country at all. This fact alone betrays the article as being nothing more than propaganda, a liberal’s virtue signalling, false humanitarianism, and promotion of the ‘no-borders’ and ‘limitless immigration’ mentality.

Crippling Western sanctions and theft of Venezuelan assets held abroad, on top of efforts to foment civil unrest and treason within the country’s law enforcement and military, are the major factors – but Maduro’s Government certainly has its share of the blame, and it goes back to Chavez’s administration as well.

And, yes, it’s also a failure of Venezuelan type of socialism. Take Cuba, for instance. Cuba has lived under US trade sanctions for more than half a century [plus US-sponsored terrorism]; and despite the odds, living on the hegemon’s doorstep, it managed to retain socio-economic and political stability. Cuba doesn’t have a fraction of Venezuela’s natural wealth; but it does have 1/3 of Venezuela’s population. Since the 1960s, Venezuela’s birth rate, measured per 1000 people, has fallen dramatically as you can see in the graph below.

In order to move away from the ‘resource exporter’ model, a country requires an increase in population size in order to diversify production, without depriving its traditional sectors of manpower. Simply put, if you want to diversify without causing shortages elsewhere, you need a bigger labor force. Chavez and Maduro didn’t even try to diversify, nor would they have succeeded without promoting population growth. The fact that a country the size of Venezuela has only three times the population of Cuba is a statistic worthy of national shame. The same goes for my country of Romania, which has only two times Cuba’s population. The fact that there are stores, filled with produce while people face severe malnutrition, that gasoline basically has no price in Venezuela, but electricity is rationed and public transportation is curtailed or paralyzed, points to the fact that Bolivarianism, or more accurately Chavism, was carried out with a total disregard for true economic and geopolitical planning. While hostile state actors and domestic renegade forces do offer the ruling political class in Venezuela a degree of extenuating circumstances, such adversity doesn’t wash away the complacency and criminal incompetence of the country’s Left wing governing parties and leaders. All decision factors across the hierarchical chain, who place ideology or their own status above the Nation must be ejected and their designs carefully examined and purged of any ideological adventurism and self-seeking schemes. Maduro and his crew aren’t fit for office, and Guaido should be arrested and condemned for high treason.

The Duran: US-China Trade War Heralds New World System

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the economic and political divorce unfolding between the US and China. President Trump announced last week he would add 10 percent tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods starting on September 1st. The move covers all goods the US buys from China. In response, Beijing allowed its currency, the yuan, to weaken to more than 7 per 1 USD, a level many analysts considered important. Trump called the slide in the Chinese yuan “a major violation.” For the first time in 15 years, the US Treasury Department proceeded to name China a currency manipulator.

My comment: Alexander Mercouris is right on the benefits inherent to mutually assured deterrence. I believe the divorce between the two super-powers is inevitable as well. And just to be clear, even though the process kicked off under Trump’s term, it was taught out well before he took office. That’s why US trade sanctions and military escalation have bipartisan support; and why pro-peace voices are labeled as “Putin stooges.” I’m also disappointed by the Chinese… they continue to put the exports sector ahead of domestic consumption. What’s the point in another devaluation of the yuan vs the USD? You retain your chunk of the US market. For what purpose? All dollars owned by the Chinese as checking and saving accounts at the US central bank are at risk, given the geopolitical situation between the two. It’s high time China recycled some of its trade surpluses in other countries, to the benefit of foreign exporters and their own citizens.

With regard to the European Union. I’m highly skeptical of any major divergence from Washington’s dictates. Western Europe is US military occupied territory. The US can strangle Europe in more ways than one – and its propaganda outlets are stronger than ever. National intelligence services of EU member states are in the USA’s pockets. A military switch of allegiance would result in economic warfare, sabotage, and widespread unrest. Regardless of who’s in the right or wrong, those who control the propaganda machine control the narrative. And unless there’s a massive economic crisis, no significant geopolitical shift will occur. The unipolar moment is gone; and new alliances are shaping the world…

Half of All Refugees, created by the US Government


UN report doesn’t show Colombia, because these were the refugee-flows only for the year of 2018.

That visual is around half of the interpretable content in the entire 28-page UN report. It’s a visual way of showing that the US regime’s regime-change operations produce around half of the entire world’s refugee-problem. The only US Presidential candidate who even so much as just mentions America’s “regime-change wars” (and she is strongly against them) is Tulsi Gabbard, and she currently scores the support of fewer than 1% of America’s Democrats in that Party’s Presidential primary polls. So, at least America’s Democrats are overwhelmingly unconcerned about their country’s causing around half of the entire world’s refugee crisis. And there is no indication that America’s Republican voters are more concerned about it than the Democratic voters are. Americans, evidently, don’t care about this matter. At least, not yet.

Read the full article by Eric Zuesse here.

Trump thinks we’re all Fools

by Serban V.C. Enache

On the third day of his visit to Japan, Trump publicly insulted the intelligence of his global audience. He said he’s not looking to hurt Iran at all; that he wants the Iranians to say no to nuclear weapons, because the world has enough problems with nuclear weapons – and that he isn’t seeking regime change in Iran. Trump said Iran has tremendous economic potential and that he is willing to let that country achieve its potential if they come to the negotiating table. Utter hogwash!

Let’s take a brief lesson in recent history. Ahead of his term, during the election campaign, wasn’t Trump worried that the USA’s nuclear arsenal was obsolete? Wasn’t he afraid that the nukes won’t go off if the Government launched them? Didn’t he say he wants the US to have more and better nukes? Yes, he did. Did he also speak favorably of nuclear proliferation, if that happened on the USA’s terms? Yes, back during the campaign, he invoked Japan and South Korea as potential candidates; and just recently he entertained the notion of Saudi Arabia developing its own nuclear program. What did that disgusting wretch, Mike Pompeo say about the Iranian Government? Well, he said plenty of nasty things, but the word “thugs” was given particular airtime. What does Pompeo say about the Saudi Government, after Khashoggi’s barbaric assassination and after the butchery displayed by that same Government with the recent executions of dissenters, including the 16 year old boy that was crucified? What about the siege of Yemen? Crickets? Yeah, that’s what I thought too.

Now let’s talk about nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Israel is the single actor in the region which has nuclear weapons. Israel is not even a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Iran’s leadership repeatedly said that it doesn’t seek to develop atomic weapons and that it desires the Middle East to be a region free of such weapons. The regime in Teheran has been following the agreement struck with the Obama administration in 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency [the IAEA] has repeatedly confirmed that Iran is compliant with the nuclear deal’s terms. But let’s say that Iran wished to follow the US in abandoning the accord. Isn’t it hypocritical for Washington to decide which countries can and can’t have nukes? Who is Trump to decide which countries are free to better themselves [economically] and which are forbidden to? From what moral law does such a view stem, because it certainly doesn’t spring from International Law, or from Natural Law [see Vattel, Grotius & others]. I suppose it springs from the [garbage] idea that the United States is god’s chosen country, while the rest of the world’s nations are composed of inferior races. I suppose that’s what many so-called Christians in the US believe; but their god sounds a lot like the barbaric and genocidal Yahweh, and not like Jesus Christ. Then again, the USA is a place full of fake Christians that – since 1776 – has been at peace for less than 20 years. The rest of the time it’s been engaged in some type of military conflict, at home and or abroad.

Trump’s claim that he isn’t looking to hurt Iran at all is absolutely ridiculous, given his Government’s belligerent statements [from press conferences to posts on social media], military operations, and financial sanctions – going so far to threaten any other country willing to do commerce with Iran with the same belligerent actions. The freezing of a country’s foreign assets and trade sanctions is war by other means and it too produces plenty of victims. Trump’s sanctions against Venezuela, initiated in August 2017, are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in that country. The strong-arm tactic is absolutely about HURTING the other side, to squeeze concessions out of him. It has nothing to do with bargaining in good faith [positive sum outcomes for all].

I think not even Trump’s base believes him anymore when it comes to foreign interventionism. Trump has done so many 180 degree turns on this subject [and others], that one would have to be an utter fool to believe he’s adamant about anything. And that’s precisely what Trump is gambling on; the desire of the American public to remain willfully ignorant. He’s gambling on the larger hatred for the liberals and the SJWs among republicans and independents, to – in their eyes – outweigh his own broken promises and policy failures. If that happens, and it likely will, Trump and his neocons and the Deep State and all the rent-seekers and usurers and war profiteers behind them will get another term, another chance to rob and destroy nations.