Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Unione Europea

Croazia. Cina inaugura il ponte Pelješac. La Cina c’è ed agisce, proprio qui in Europa.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-08-01.

Croazia Pelješac Bridge 001 

«The Pelješac Bridge is a cable-stayed bridge in Dubrovnik-Neretva County, Croatia. The purpose of the bridge is to provide a fixed link from the southeastern Croatian semi-exclave to the rest of the country while bypassing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s short coastal strip at Neum. The bridge spans the sea channel between Komarna on the northern mainland and the peninsula of Pelješac, thereby passing entirely through Croatian territory and avoiding any border crossings with Bosnia and Herzegovina at Neum.

Construction started on 30 July 2018, and the bridge was connected on 28 July 2021. The bridge and its access roads opened for traffic on 26 July 2022.» [Fonte]

Croazia Pelješac Bridge 002

* * * * * * *

Quando l’ex Jugoslavia si è sciolta e la Croazia è diventata indipendente nel 1991, i nuovi confini hanno fatto sì che due parti della costa croata fossero divise da un tratto di costa bosniaca lungo 9 km, noto come corridoio di Neum.

Salutato come uno dei momenti più importanti della storia croata, è stato inaugurato un ponte a lungo atteso che collega le zone costiere meridionali al resto del Paese.

Finora i croati dovevano attraversare il territorio della Bosnia-Erzegovina. Il ponte di Peljesac, lungo 2.4 km, è stato costruito dalla Cina.

L’UE ha accettato di finanziare l’85% del ponte, per un importo di 357 milioni di euro (300 milioni di sterline), utilizzando i fondi di coesione per quello che, a suo dire, avrebbe migliorato significativamente la vita quotidiana dei croati.

Inizialmente la Bosnia si era lamentata che il ponte avrebbe compromesso il suo accesso al mare, finché la Croazia non ha accettato di aumentare l’altezza del ponte a 55 metri.

La società statale cinese che si è aggiudicata l’appalto croato per il ponte – la China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) – ha presentato un’offerta molto inferiore a quella dei suoi rivali europei.

* * * * * * *

Questo fatto si presta a numerose considerazione.

In primo luogo, la Cina è diventata da tempo un attore determinato nello scenario europeo. Occupa le posizioni abbandonate o sguarnite da parte del blocco europeo. Contratta su base paritaria, nel pieno rispetto della sovranità altrui. Così facendo si sta conquistando sempre più numerosi amici.

In secondo luogo, si noti come la offerta fatta dalla The China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC)  sia stata di gran lunga inferiore alle offerte fatte da parte di imprese europee. È inutile girare attorno a questo problema: le imprese europee sono fuori mercato.

In terzo luogo, dovrebbe essere evidente la latitanza del Consiglio Europeo. È davvero imbarazzante che sia la Cina a risolvere i problemi della Europa.

* * * * * * *

«When the former Yugoslavia broke up and Croatia became independent in 1991, the new borders meant that two parts of the Croatian coastline were split by a 9km-long section of Bosnian coastline known as the Neum corridor»

«Hailed as one of the biggest moments in Croatian history, a long-awaited bridge has opened that links southern coastal areas to the rest of the country»

«Until now, Croatians had to cross land belonging to Bosnia and Herzegovina …. The 2.4km (1.5-mile) Peljesac bridge was built by China»

«The EU agreed to fund 85% of the bridge, to the tune of €357m (£300m), using cohesion funds for what it said would improve significantly the everyday lives of Croatians»

«Bosnia initially complained the bridge would affect its access to the sea, until Croatia agreed to increase the bridge’s height to 55m (181ft)»

«The Chinese state-owned company that won the Croatian contract for the bridge – The China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) – bid far less than its European rivals»

* * * * * * *


Fanfare as Croatia’s Chinese-built bridge finally opens.

Hailed as one of the biggest moments in Croatian history, a long-awaited bridge has opened that links southern coastal areas to the rest of the country.

Until now, Croatians had to cross land belonging to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The 2.4km (1.5-mile) Peljesac bridge was built by China but largely funded by the European Union.

Celebrations took place throughout the day, with 250 runners crossing the bridge and small boats with Croatian flags sailing beneath the six pylons.

Residents also took the opportunity to walk along the initial stretch of the bridge before the day culminated in a glittering firework display.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang delivered a video message at the ceremony. His Croatian counterpart Andrej Plenkovic declared “tonight, we are uniting Croatia!” and described the bridge as a necessity, not a luxury.

During the opening ceremony, a Croatian-made electric hypercar called the Rimac Nevera made the first official crossing.

The EU agreed to fund 85% of the bridge, to the tune of €357m (£300m), using cohesion funds for what it said would improve significantly the everyday lives of Croatians. It also funded access roads, tunnels and other infrastructure.

When the former Yugoslavia broke up and Croatia became independent in 1991, the new borders meant that two parts of the Croatian coastline were split by a 9km-long section of Bosnian coastline known as the Neum corridor.

Bosnia’s right to coastal access dates back to 1699, when Neum was ceded by Dubrovnik – in modern-day Croatia – to what was then the Ottoman Empire.

As Bosnia is not in the EU and Croatia is, anyone trying to go north from the medieval city of Dubrovnik on the southernmost Adriatic coast or cross from the Peljesac peninsula to the mainland had to go through two border checks. Now anyone can drive straight along Croatia’s Adriatic coast via the new bridge.

The mayor of Neum, Dragan Jurkovic, told Bosnian TV that the new bridge would reduce traffic along the coast during the summer months and that he could only see benefits in the new bridge. However, some restaurateurs and traders were concerned that the decline would be bad for the area’s economy.

Tourists, many of them Czechs, Poles and Germans, have become regular visitors to Neum, where prices are considered far cheaper than in Dubrovnik but that is now likely to change.

The bridge has not been without controversy.

Bosnia initially complained the bridge would affect its access to the sea, until Croatia agreed to increase the bridge’s height to 55m (181ft).

The Chinese state-owned company that won the Croatian contract for the bridge – The China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) – bid far less than its European rivals. That prompted an Austrian company to file a complaint, alleging that CRBC was “price-dumping” and receiving Chinese state aid.

China’s Xinhua state news agency said the bridge opening was expected to further deepen mutual trust and expand co-operation between Croatia and Beijing.

Pubblicato in: Brasile, Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Geopolitica America Latina.

Mercosur. Nega l’accesso ad uno Zelensky che lo impetra. Intanto la Siberia lo aspetta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-26.

Lavron e Putin che ridono 003

Nella terminologia scientifica il rilassamento di una funzione indica il suo crollo quasi istantaneo. Ma questo tipo di comportamento è riscontrabile anche in politica e nelle scienze umane.

Basti pensare a quanto è accaduto negli ultimi due mesi.

Il vanaglorioso Macron ha avuto una severa débâcle con la perdita delle elezioni per il rinnovo della Assemblea Nazionale. Senza maggiorana parlamentare Macron conta meno del due di briscola, e le opposizioni ne approfittano per togliersi i molti sassolini che avevano nelle scarpe.

Boris Johnson è stato costretto alle dimissioni dalla rivolta che si era sviluppata proprio in seno al suo partito, che lo ha cacciato via a badilate nei denti. La superbia è una gran brutta bestia.

Di questi giorni Mario Draghi ha visto liquefarsi la sua maggioranza parlamentare ed anche lui è stato costretto a dimettersi, mentre il presidente Mattarella, obtorto collo, ha dovuto indire nuove elezioni politiche anticipate.

Caratteristica politica comune la fede nella dottrina liberal e l’essere andati di persona a sostenere a Kiev il presidente pro tempore Zelensky.

Questi, avvezzo ad un appoggio incondizionato da parte dei liberal occidentali, fu invitato con grandi onori a parlare in sedi di potere apicale quali, per esempio, le Nazioni Unite.

Già.

Ma adesso Macron, Johnson e Draghi non esistono più e Joe Biden ha i suoi grattacapi con una inflazione stroboscopica e midterm alle porte. Ancora tre mesi, e Biden farà la fine di Macron, sempre che Embolo non accorci i tempi.

Da ultimo

«South America’s Mercosur trade bloc has declined a request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to address its upcoming summit».

Serve solo avere ancora un pochino di pazienza.

Mr Putin e Mr Lavrov intanto si sganasciano dal ridere.

«despite international sanctions against Moscow».

I liberal sono di coccio. Il mondo libero se ne infischia delle loro sanzioni.

* * * * * * *

Il blocco commerciale sudamericano Mercosur ha rifiutato la richiesta del presidente ucraino Volodymyr Zelensky di intervenire al suo prossimo vertice, ha dichiarato mercoledì il Paraguay, paese ospitante.

I membri del blocco Argentina, Brasile, Uruguay e Paraguay non sono riusciti a trovare un accordo sulla richiesta di Zejlensky, presentata al Paese ospitante la scorsa settimana.

Zelensky si è rivolto a diversi parlamenti nazionali e a forum regionali e internazionali dopo l’invasione del suo Paese da parte della Russia a febbraio.

Il leader ucraino ha parlato con il presidente del Paraguay Mario Abdo Benitez la scorsa settimana, chiedendo di poter intervenire a un vertice del Mercosur.

Il mese scorso, Bolsonaro ha dichiarato di aver ricevuto da Putin la garanzia che la Russia continuerà a fornire al gigante agricolo sudamericano i fertilizzanti di cui ha bisogno.

La settimana scorsa, il Brasile ha dichiarato che avrebbe acquistato quanto più gasolio possibile dalla Russia, nonostante le sanzioni internazionali contro Mosca.

Creato nel 1991, il Mercosur rappresenta un mercato di circa 300 milioni di persone, con un territorio di quasi 5,8 milioni di miglia quadrate (14,8 milioni di chilometri quadrati).

I ministri hanno anche concordato di ridurre del 10% la tariffa esterna comune (AEC) su una serie di prodotti importati, una richiesta chiave del Brasile.

Non è ufficialmente all’ordine del giorno della riunione il piano dell’Uruguay di negoziare unilateralmente un accordo di libero scambio con la Cina.

* * * * * * *

«South America’s Mercosur trade bloc has declined a request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to address its upcoming summit, host Paraguay said on Wednesday»

«Bloc members Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay failed to reach an agreement on Zelensky’s request, made to the host country last week»

«Zelensky has addressed several national parliaments as well as regional and international forums since Russia’s invasion of his country in February»

«The Ukrainian leader spoke to Paraguay’s President Mario Abdo Benitez last week, asking to be allowed to address a Mercosur summit»

«Last month, Bolsonaro said he had received assurances from Putin that Russia would continue to deliver much-needed fertilizer to the South American agricultural giant»

«Last week, Brazil said it would buy as much diesel from Russia as it could, despite international sanctions against Moscow»

«Created in 1991, Mercosur represents a market of some 300 million people, with a territory of almost 5.8 million square miles (14.8 million square kilometers)»

«The ministers also agreed to reduce by 10 percent the Common External Tariff (AEC) on a range of imported products — a key demand of Brazil»

«Not officially on the agenda for the meeting is Uruguay’s plan to unilaterally negotiate a free trade agreement with China»

* * * * * * *

Mercosur Declines Zelenskiy Request to Address Bloc’s Summit

South America’s Mercosur trade bloc has declined a request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to address its upcoming summit, host Paraguay said on Wednesday.

Bloc members Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay failed to reach an agreement on Zelensky’s request, made to the host country last week, according to deputy foreign minister Raul Cano, who declined to say which states were against it.

Zelensky has addressed several national parliaments as well as regional and international forums since Russia’s invasion of his country in February, including NATO, the G7, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and even the Cannes Film Festival.

The Ukrainian leader spoke to Paraguay’s President Mario Abdo Benitez last week, asking to be allowed to address a Mercosur summit to be held on Thursday, following a ministerial meeting on Wednesday.

“There was no consensus,” said Cano, adding the decision had been communicated to Kyiv.

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, whose presence at the summit has not been confirmed, has said his country would remain “neutral” over Russia’s war on Ukraine.

He had travelled to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in February, just days before the invasion.

                         Deal with Singapore

Last month, Bolsonaro said he had received assurances from Putin that Russia would continue to deliver much-needed fertilizer to the South American agricultural giant.

Last week, Brazil said it would buy as much diesel from Russia as it could, despite international sanctions against Moscow.

Argentina’s Alberto Fernandez was also in Moscow in early February. On the day of the start of the invasion on February 24, Fernandez urged “all parties” in a tweet “not to use military force.”

“We call on the Russian Federation to put an end to the actions taken and for all parties involved to return to the dialogue table,” he said at the time.

Brazil and Argentina did not sign a February 25 Organization of American States (OAS) resolution condemning the war, while Uruguay and Paraguay did.

Mercosur announced Wednesday that it had concluded a free trade agreement with Singapore.

Mercosur exports to Singapore in 2021 amounted to $5.9 billion, and imports $1.2 billion, according to data provided by the four-member bloc.

Created in 1991, Mercosur represents a market of some 300 million people, with a territory of almost 5.8 million square miles (14.8 million square kilometers).

The deal could mean additional exports of about $500 million per year to Singapore, a country of about six million people, said Paraguay’s deputy economy minister Ivan Haas.

The ministers also agreed to reduce by 10 percent the Common External Tariff (AEC) on a range of imported products — a key demand of Brazil.

The bloc imposes common tariffs on imports from abroad, and Argentina — for whom Brazil is a major tariff-free market — has opposed a reduction of the AEC.

“It is a historic decision, an essential decision… particularly at a time of economic crisis and international inflation,” according to Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Franca, who said it would boost competitiveness and regional production.

Not officially on the agenda for the meeting is Uruguay’s plan to unilaterally negotiate a free trade agreement with China.

Mercosur introduced a rule in 2000 under which it is compulsory to jointly negotiate common trade deals with third parties.

Argentina is opposed to Uruguay’s proposal.

Pubblicato in: Brasile, Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Geopolitica Mondiale, India, Russia

Brics. Si espandono ad Iran, Argentina, Egitto, Arabia Saudita e Turkia. Club energetico maggiore al mondo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-18.

0000-0000__ Brics 001

Il gruppo Brics ha ricevuto richieste di adesione da parte di Iran, Argentina, Egitto, Arabia Saudita e Turkia.

Si formerebbe in questa maniera un gruppo coordinato che insieme ai già membri Brasile, Cina, India, Russia e Sud Africa governerebbe quasi il settanta per cento delle risorse petrolifere ed energetiche mondiali e di gran parte delle materie prime.

Non solo.

Questo gruppo di dieci stati sovrani ma economicamente coordinati dispone di un Pil Ppp di 60,453.574 miliardi, contro quello americano di 25,346.805 miliardi e quello europeo do 23,730.275 miliardi.

In altri termini, i Brics sono diventati la potenza egemone mondiale. L’occidente ha ancora grandi risorse, ma è afflitto da una inflazione devastante, aggravata dal peso di immani debiti pubblici, non più a lungo sostenibili.

Ma questo non è tutto.

Il Club dei Brics è soprattutto un blocco economico nel cui ambito si rispetta in modo paritetico la sovranità nazionale altrui, senza interferenza alcuna negli altrui affari interni.

Questa è la carta vincente e rende ragione del fatto che molti altri stati sovrani stanno valutando se chiedere di essere ammessi nel Club.

L’enclave liberal occidentale sta devolvendo dissolvendosi: ci vorrà ancora qualche tempo, ma il destino è segnato. E proprio in un momento così delicato i governi occidentali sono traballanti, paralizzati, ed incapaci di prendere decisione operazionale alcuna.

* * * * * * *


BRICS expects Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to join group soon

The president of the BRICS International Forum expects Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to join the group “very soon”. In an interview with Russia’s Izvestia, Purnima Anand said that China, Russia and India discussed this issue during the 14th BRICS Summit, which was held online last month.

“All these countries have shown an interest in joining and are preparing to apply for membership. I think this is a good step, because expansion is always perceived positively; this will clearly increase the influence of BRICS in the world,” explained Anand. “I hope that the accession of countries to BRICS will happen very quickly, because now all representatives of the core of the association are interested in expanding the organisation, so it will be very soon.”

She stressed that the accession of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey may not take place at the same time.

Earlier, Li Kexin, Director-General of the Department of International Economic Affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that several countries were “knocking on the doors” of the organisation, including Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Argentina.

The BRICS forum is a political organisation that began negotiations for its formation in 2006 and held its first summit in 2009. Its members were the countries with emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, and China, operating under the name BRIC, before South Africa joined the organisation in 2010, making it BRICS.

The organisation’s countries are characterised as being among the industrialised developing countries with large and emerging economies. Half of the world’s population lives in these five countries, and their combined gross domestic product is equivalent to that of the US ($13.6 trillion). Their total foreign exchange reserves are $4 trillion.

In 2017, during the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China, there was talk of the BRICS expansion plan, whereby new countries are added to the BRICS group as permanent guests or participants in the dialogue.

* * * * * * *


The Rise of BRICS: The economic giant that is taking on the West

The G7 summit in Elmau, Germany, June 26-28, and the NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, two days later, were practically useless in terms of providing actual solutions to ongoing global crises – the war in Ukraine, the looming famines, climate change and more. But the two events were important, nonetheless, as they provide a stark example of the impotence of the West, amid the rapidly changing global dynamics.

As was the case since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, the West attempted to display unity, though it has become repeatedly obvious that no such unity exists. While France, Germany and Italy are paying a heavy price for the energy crisis resulting from the war, Britain’s Boris Johnson is adding fuel to the fire in the hope of making his country relevant on the global stage following the humiliation of Brexit. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration is exploiting the war to restore Washington’s credibility and leadership over NATO – especially following the disastrous term of Donald Trump, which nearly broke up the historic alliance.

Even the fact that several African countries are becoming vulnerable to famines  – as a result of the disruption of food supplies originating from the Black Sea and the subsequent rising prices – did not seem to perturb the leaders of some of the richest countries in the world. They still insist on not interfering in the global food market, though the skyrocketing prices have already pushed tens of millions of people below the poverty line.

Though the West had little reserve of credibility to begin with, Western leaders’ current obsession with maintaining thousands of sanctions on Russia, further NATO expansion, dumping yet more ‘lethal weapons’ in Ukraine and sustaining their global hegemony at any cost, have all pushed their credibility standing to a new low.

From the start of the Ukraine war, the West championed the same ‘moral’ dilemma as that raised by George W. Bush at the start of his so-called ‘war on terror’. “You are either with us or with the terrorist,” he declared in September 2001. But the ongoing Russia-NATO conflict cannot be reduced to simple and self-serving cliches. One can, indeed, want an end to the war, and still oppose US-western unilateralism. The reason that American diktats worked in the past, however, is that, unlike the current geopolitical atmosphere, a few dared oppose Washington’s policies.

Times have changed. Russia, China, India, along with many other countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America are navigating all available spaces to counter the suffocating western dominance. These countries have made it clear that they will not take part in isolating Russia in the service of NATO’s expansionist agenda. To the contrary, they have taken many steps to develop alternatives to the west-dominated global economy, and particularly to the US dollar which, for five decades, has served the role of a commodity, not a currency, per se. The latter has been Washington’s most effective weapon, associated with many US-orchestrated crises, sanctions and, as in the case of Iraq and Venezuela, among others, mass hunger.

China and others understand that the current conflict is not about Ukraine vs Russia, but about something far more consequential. If Washington and Europe emerge victorious, and if Moscow is pushed back behind the proverbial ‘iron curtain,’ Beijing would have no other options but to make painful concessions to the re-emerging west. This, in turn, would place a cap on China’s global economic growth, and would weaken its case regarding the One China policy.

China is not wrong. Almost immediately following NATO’s limitless military support of Ukraine and the subsequent economic war on Russia, Washington and its allies began threatening China over Taiwan. Many provocative statements, along with military maneuvers and high-level visits by US politicians to Taipei, were meant to underscore US dominance in the Pacific.

Two main reasons drove the West to further invest in the current confrontational approach against China, at a time where, arguably, it would have been more beneficial to exercise a degree of diplomacy and compromise. First, the West’s fear that Beijing could misinterpret its action as weakness and a form of appeasement; and, second, because the West’s historic relationship with China has always been predicated on intimidation, if not outright humiliation. From the Portuguese occupation of Macau in the 16th century, to the British Opium Wars of the mid-19th century, to Trump’s trade war on China, the West has always viewed China as a subject, not a partner.

This is precisely why Beijing did not join the chorus of western condemnations of Russia. Though the actual war in Ukraine is of no direct benefit to China, the geopolitical outcomes of the war could be critical to the future of China as a global power.

While NATO remains insistent on expansion so as to illustrate its durability and unity, it is the alternative world order led by Russia and China that is worthy of serious attention. According to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Beijing and Moscow are working to further develop the BRICS club of major emerging economies to serve as a counterweight to the G7. The German paper is correct. BRICS’ latest summit on June 23 was designed as a message to the G7 that the West is no longer in the driving seat, and that Russia, China and the Global South are preparing for a long fight against Western dominance.

In his speech at the BRICS summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the creation of an “international reserve currency based on the basket of currencies of our countries”. The fact that the ruble alone has managed to survive, in fact flourish, under recent Western sanctions, gives hope that BRICS currencies combined can manage to eventually sideline the US dollar as the world dominant currency.

Reportedly, it was Chinese President Xi Jinping who requested that the date of the BRICS summit be changed from 4 July  to 23 June, so that it would not appear to be a response to the G7 summit in Germany. This further underscores how the BRICS are beginning to see themselves as a direct competitor to the G7. The fact that Argentina and Iran are applying for BRICS membership also illustrates that the economic alliance is morphing into a political, in fact geopolitical, entity.

The global fight ahead is perhaps the most consequential since World War II. While NATO will continue to fight for relevance, Russia, China, and others will invest in various economic, political and even military infrastructures, in the hope of creating a permanent and sustainable counterbalance to Western dominance. The outcome of this conflict is likely to shape the future of humanity.

* * * * * * *


BRICS expands to build multipolar world: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to join in
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey want to join the BRICS, Purnima Anand, President of the BRICS International Forum said, Izvestia reports.

The decision was discussed by Russia, China and India during the 14th BRICS Summit, she added.

“All of these countries have shown their interest in joining and are preparing to apply for membership. I think this is a good step, since expansion is always perceived positively, this will clearly increase the influence of the BRICS around the world,” Purnima Anand said in a statement.

The process to accept new members should not take long, Anand said, as the countries are already in the process of joining the group. However, the states will enter the BRICS gradually, one by one. Discussions on Iran, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey can be expected at the next summit in South Africa in 2023.

A high-ranking source told the publication that Saudi Arabia’s membership was reviewed during the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Riyadh on June 1-2. Moscow supported the government’s initiative. A diplomatic solution is currently being sought.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the leadership of the BRICS countries was in demand to build the multipolar world. One may also count on the assistance of African, Asian and Latin American countries that pursue an independent policy, he added.

Pavel Knyazev, Russia’s sous-sherpa at BRICS, confirmed that it was decided to start discussing the expansion of the group.

“At the last summit, a decision was made to start discussing modalities, principles and criteria for the expansion process. Once consensus is reached on these issues, all members of the five will have to decide when to start discussing potential candidates,” Knyazev said. Moscow welcomes the interest of all states in joining the BRICS, he added.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the process to prepare for the expansion of the BRICS association had been launched.

“Of course, both Argentina and Iran are worthy and respected candidates, just like a number of other countries that appear in discussions,” Lavrov said.

On June 27, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh announced that the authorities of the republic had applied for BRICS membership. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed that Iran and Argentina intend to become members of the group.

BRICS is the acronym coined to associate five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on world affairs. Since 2009, the governments of the BRICS states have met annually at formal summits.

Pubblicato in: Brasile, Cina, Diplomazia, India, Russia

G20 di Bali. I ministri di Cina, India, Brasile, Turchia, Argentina e Indonesia hanno ascoltato Mr Lavrov con deferenza.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-15.

Gatto nero

«They were saying that Nato isolated Russia, it was his party that isolated Boris Johnson»

«Dicevano che la Nato aveva isolato la Russia, è stato il suo partito a isolare Boris Johnson»

* * *

Quando Mr Lavrov ha preso la parola hanno abbandonato l’aula i rappresentanti di una Francia il cui presidente conta nulla, della Spagna che vive nel’incubo delle prossime elezioni venture, della Germania terrorizzata dalla prossima chiusura del gas russo, degli Stati Uniti sull’orlo del collasso economico.

Si è allontanato il club dei derelitti perdenti.

I rappresentanti del mondo libero sono tutti rimasti.

I media liberal occidentali godono della grande caratteristica che è vero l’esatto contrario di quanto essi affermano.

* * * * * * *

Lavrov è un paria all’evento del G-20, ma solo per alcuni.

Il ministro degli Esteri russo Sergey Lavrov ha partecipato venerdì (8 luglio) a Bali a una riunione dei ministri delle Finanze del Gruppo dei 20 Paesi industrializzati, nonostante lo status di paria del suo Paese in Europa.

Il Segretario di Stato Antony Blinken ha rifiutato di incontrare Lavrov, così come molti altri ministri degli Esteri occidentali.

Ma in un riflesso del motivo per cui la Russia continua a fare affari con il mondo esterno e a finanziare la sua implacabile macchina da guerra, Lavrov si è seduto con diversi ministri di nazioni che hanno rifiutato di unirsi alla coalizione guidata dall’Occidente contro il suo Paese.

Tra loro c’erano diplomatici di Cina, India, Brasile, Turchia, Argentina e Indonesia.

L’incontro si è concluso senza un tradizionale comunicato congiunto che esprimesse obiettivi condivisi.

Le attività di Lavrov sono state una delle numerose e drammatiche trame di un incontro del G-20, su cui hanno pesato anche l’annuncio del primo ministro britannico Boris Johnson, giovedì, di volersi dimettere e l’assassinio, venerdì, dell’ex primo ministro giapponese, Shinzo Abe.

Lavrov ha anche colto l’occasione per denigrare Johnson, un giorno dopo aver detto che si sarebbe fatto da parte per un nuovo leader. Johnson aveva guidato una delle risposte più aggressive dell’Occidente all’invasione della Russia, sostenendo con forza il governo dell’Ucraina.

Dicevano che la Nato aveva isolato la Russia, è stato il suo partito a isolare Boris Johnson.

Sebbene la presa in giro di Johnson e dell’Occidente da parte di Lavrov non sia stata condivisa da altri partecipanti, era chiaro che le opinioni americane ed europee nei confronti della Russia e dell’Ucraina non rappresentavano un consenso tra i ministri presenti a Bali.

Mentre a Lavrov potrebbe essere impedito di viaggiare negli Stati Uniti e nell’Unione Europea, si è mosso liberamente nell’hotel di lusso che ha ospitato l’incontro di Bali, apertosi giovedì.

Il ministro degli Esteri indiano Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, che è stato visto passeggiare e chiacchierare con Lavrov nella hall dell’hotel, ha dichiarato su Twitter che lui e Lavrov hanno “scambiato opinioni” su questioni che includono “il conflitto in Ucraina” e l’Afghanistan.

L’India ha relazioni amichevoli con Mosca, da sempre patrocinatore e fonte di vendita di armi. Ha anche aiutato la Russia a resistere alle sanzioni aumentando gli acquisti di petrolio russo, approfittando di uno sconto significativo offerto da Mosca.

* * * * * * *


«Lavrov is pariah at G-20 event, but only for some»

«Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of 20 industrialised nations in Bali on Friday (July 8), despite his country’s pariah status in Europe»

«Secretary of State Antony Blinken declined to meet with Lavrov, as did several other Western foreign ministers»

«But in a reflection of why Russia remains able to do business with the outside world and fund its relentless war machine, Lavrov sat down with several ministers from nations that have declined to join the Western-led coalition against his country»

«They included diplomats from China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia»

«The gathering concluded without a traditional joint communiqué expressing shared goals»

«Lavrov’s activities were one of several dramatic plotlines at a G-20 gathering also shadowed by the announcement of Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain on Thursday that he plans to resign and the Friday assassination of Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe»

«Lavrov also took an opportunity to disparage Johnson a day after he said he would step aside for a new leader. Johnson had led one the West’s most aggressive responses toward Russia’s invasion, strongly supporting Ukraine’s government»

«They were saying that Nato isolated Russia, it was his party that isolated Boris Johnson»

«While Lavrov’s mockery of Johnson and the West was not seconded by other attendees, it was clear that American and European views towards Russia and Ukraine did not represent a consensus among the ministers in Bali»

«While Lavrov may be barred from travel to the United States and the European Union, he moved freely through the luxury hotel that hosted the Bali gathering, which opened on Thursday»

«India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar who was seen strolling and chatting with Lavrov through the hotel lobby, said on Twitter that he and Lavrov had “exchanged views” on matters including “the Ukraine conflict” and Afghanistan»

«India has friendly relations with Moscow, a longtime patron and source of arms sales. It has also helped Russia weather sanctions by increasing its purchases of Russian oil, taking advantage of a significant discount offered by Moscow»

* * * * * * *


Russia’s Lavrov is pariah at G-20 event, but only for some

Nusa Dua, Indonesia (Nytimes) – He was shunned by many, though by no means all.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of 20 industrialised nations in Bali on Friday (July 8), despite his country’s pariah status in Europe and elsewhere over its brutal war in Ukraine.

His country’s invasion of its neighbour drove two central topics of discussion at the annual event: global disruptions of food and energy supplies.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken declined to meet with Lavrov, as did several other Western foreign ministers. So many attendees refused to pose with Moscow’s top diplomat that a customary group photograph was cancelled.

But in a reflection of why Russia remains able to do business with the outside world and fund its relentless war machine, Lavrov sat down with several ministers from nations that have declined to join the Western-led coalition against his country. They included diplomats from China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia.

Lavrov’s activities were one of several dramatic plotlines at a G-20 gathering also shadowed by the announcement of Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain on Thursday that he plans to resign and the Friday assassination of Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, an act that Blinken called “shocking” and “a loss for the world”.

The gathering concluded without a traditional joint communiqué expressing shared goals, an impossible feat given that Russia would have had to sign off on any such document.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of 20 industrialised nations in Bali on Friday (July 8), despite his country’s pariah status in Europe and elsewhere over its brutal war in Ukraine.

His country’s invasion of its neighbour drove two central topics of discussion at the annual event: global disruptions of food and energy supplies.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken declined to meet with Lavrov, as did several other Western foreign ministers. So many attendees refused to pose with Moscow’s top diplomat that a customary group photograph was cancelled.

But in a reflection of why Russia remains able to do business with the outside world and fund its relentless war machine, Lavrov sat down with several ministers from nations that have declined to join the Western-led coalition against his country. They included diplomats from China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia.

Lavrov’s activities were one of several dramatic plotlines at a G-20 gathering also shadowed by the announcement of Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain on Thursday that he plans to resign and the Friday assassination of Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, an act that Blinken called “shocking” and “a loss for the world”.

The gathering concluded without a traditional joint communiqué expressing shared goals, an impossible feat given that Russia would have had to sign off on any such document.

Lavrov also took an opportunity to disparage Johnson a day after he said he would step aside for a new leader. Johnson had led one the West’s most aggressive responses toward Russia’s invasion, strongly supporting Ukraine’s government.

“They were trying to establish this new alliance – the UK, the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine,” Lavrov said, calling it an attempt to create “an English bridgehead on the continent” after Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“They were saying that Nato isolated Russia,” Lavrov said. “It was his party that isolated Boris Johnson.”

The news of Johnson’s planned resignation led his foreign minister and potential successor, Liz Truss, to return to London and miss Friday’s programme.

While Lavrov’s mockery of Johnson and the West was not seconded by other attendees, it was clear that American and European views towards Russia and Ukraine did not represent a consensus among the ministers in Bali.

In opening remarks as the event’s host, Indonesia’s foreign minister departed from Western rhetoric when she said that growing food and energy disruptions make it the world’s “responsibility to end the war sooner than later and settle our differences at the negotiating table, not the battlefield”.

US and European officials have generally tried to avoid the perception of pressuring Ukraine into peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom they doubt would negotiate in good faith.

While Lavrov may be barred from travel to the United States and the European Union, he moved freely through the luxury hotel that hosted the Bali gathering, which opened on Thursday.

India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar who was seen strolling and chatting with Lavrov through the hotel lobby, said on Twitter that he and Lavrov had “exchanged views” on matters including “the Ukraine conflict” and Afghanistan.

India has friendly relations with Moscow, a longtime patron and source of arms sales. It has also helped Russia weather sanctions by increasing its purchases of Russian oil, taking advantage of a significant discount offered by Moscow.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Materie Prime, Stati Uniti

Biden. The Washington Post lo distrugge per essere in ginocchio da chi aveva definito un ‘pariah’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-14.

2022-07-14__ Bden 001

The Washington Post prende a cannonate alzo zero Joe Biden, che va in ginocchio a supplicare colui che poco aveva prima definito essere un ‘pariah‘ da distruggere.

Questi fatti non costituirebbero notizia se non fosse che il The Washington Post sia uno dei più ortodossi giornali liberal, e che l’articolo non fosse stato scritto da Mr Fred Ryan, liberal di specchiata fede, tutto ideologia e grembiulino, fervido sostenitore della morale liberal che inneggia aborto ed ogni sorta di trasgressione sessuale.

Costituisce motivo di profondo stupore che questa volta abbia persino detto la verità, forse esasperato per il destino segnato a midterm.

In calce riportiamo una versione inel linguaggio di quell regione.

* * * * * * *

Fred Ryan è l’editore del The Washington Post e scrive che il viaggio di Biden in Arabia Saudita erode la nostra autorità morale.

I politici inesperti spesso imparano a fatica la differenza tra campagna elettorale e governo, facendo dichiarazioni audaci sul sentiero che poi richiedono imbarazzanti retromarce.

Quando, in cerca di voti, Biden ha giurato di rendere il principe ereditario saudita Mohammed bin Salman un “pariah” per il suo ruolo nell’omicidio dell’editorialista del Washington Post Jamal Khashoggi, il mondo aveva tutte le ragioni per pensare che facesse sul serio.

Allora perché il presidente Biden si reca ora a Jiddah in ginocchio per stringere la mano sporca di sangue del “pariah”? Ancora una volta, è in cerca di voti.

Ma il presidente dovrebbe sapere che l’incontro con Mohammed bin Salman, o MBS, come è noto, darà al leader saudita esattamente ciò che tre anni di campagne di PR saudite, spese di lobbying e persino un nuovo campionato di golf non hanno dato: un ritorno alla rispettabilità.

In primo luogo, l’incontro di Biden segnalerà che i valori americani sono negoziabili. Ora è il Presidente degli Stati Uniti a chiudere un occhio sull’omicidio di Jamal nel tentativo di abbassare i prezzi della benzina in vista delle elezioni di metà mandato di quest’autunno.

Il viaggio invia il messaggio che gli Stati Uniti sono disposti a guardare dall’altra parte quando sono in gioco i loro interessi commerciali. Facce da dietro le quinte come quella che sta facendo Biden erodono la nostra autorità morale e alimentano il risentimento antiamericano. Comunicano agli attivisti per la democrazia e ai governi riformisti di tutto il mondo che Washington è un partner inaffidabile.

In risposta agli appelli statunitensi per un aumento della produzione, MBS ha invece snobbato i principali funzionari dell’amministrazione Biden e si è rifiutato di partecipare a una telefonata con il presidente. Quando l’immagine di Biden che stringe la carne all’assassino di Jamal farà il giro del mondo, cosa dirà a Vladimir Putin e ai siriani, che hanno in mano le vite di questi giornalisti? Prigionieri politici, dissidenti, giornalisti indipendenti e altri sono imprigionati e torturati su ordine di MBS. Le donne sono cittadini di seconda classe e i diritti delle minoranze LGBTQ non esistono.

Se Mohammed bin Salman non si sbilancia, Biden dovrebbe rifiutare la stretta di mano inscenata che il principe ereditario desidera tanto. Altrimenti, la foto di MBS apparterrà all’album della vergogna americana.

* * * * * * *

«Fred Ryan is publisher of The Post»

«Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia erodes our moral authority»

«Inexperienced politicians often learn the hard way about the difference between campaigning and governing, making bold statements on the trail that later require embarrassing reversals»

«When, seeking votes, Biden vowed to make Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a “pariah” for his role in murdering Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, the world had every reason to think he meant it»

«So why is President Biden now going to Jiddah on bended knee to shake the “pariah’s” bloodstained hand? Once again, he is seeking votes»

«But the president should know meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as he is known, will give the Saudi leader exactly what three years of Saudi PR campaigns, lobbying expenses, and even a new golf league have not: a return to respectability»

«First, Biden’s meeting will signal that American values are negotiable»

«Now, it is the U.S. president who is turning a blind eye to Jamal’s murder in an effort to lower gasoline prices in advance of this fall’s midterms»

«The trip sends the message that the United States is willing to look the other way when its commercial interests are at stake»

«About-faces such as the one Biden is making erode our moral authority and breed anti-American resentment»

«They communicate to democracy activists and reform-minded governments worldwide that Washington is an unreliable partner»

«In response to U.S. pleas for increased production, MBS instead snubbed key Biden administration officials and refused to participate in a phone call with the president»

«When the image of Biden pressing flesh with Jamal’s murderer flashes around the world, what will it say to Vladimir Putin and to the Syrians, who hold the lives of these journalists in their hands?»

«Political prisoners, dissidents, independent journalists and others are jailed and tortured at MBS’s direction. Women are second-class citizens, and LGBTQ and minority rights do not exist»

«If Mohammed bin Salman delivers anything less, Biden should refuse the staged handshake the crown prince so desperately craves. Otherwise, MBS’s cherished photo will belong in an album of American shame»

* * * * * * *


The Washington Post. Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia erodes our moral authority

Fred Ryan is publisher of The Post.

Inexperienced politicians often learn the hard way about the difference between campaigning and governing, making bold statements on the trail that later require embarrassing reversals. But when it comes to international realpolitik, no recent candidate could have been better informed than Joe Biden. After decades on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and eight years as vice president, Biden campaigned in 2020 partly on his foreign-policy experience.

When, seeking votes, Biden vowed to make Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a “pariah” for his role in murdering Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, the world had every reason to think he meant it.

So why is President Biden now going to Jiddah on bended knee to shake the “pariah’s” bloodstained hand? Once again, he is seeking votes.

The president has justified his trip as a necessary move to promote stability in the Middle East and to deter Russian and Chinese aggression. But the president should know meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as he is known, will give the Saudi leader exactly what three years of Saudi PR campaigns, lobbying expenses, and even a new golf league have not: a return to respectability. This undeserved absolution will, in turn, only undermine the foreign-policy goals Biden hopes to achieve.

First, Biden’s meeting will signal that American values are negotiable. Earlier this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan abruptly shut down the trial of 26 Saudis suspected in Jamal’s murder — just before he was scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia to plead for economic investment that would boost his own 2023 reelection bid. Now, it is the U.S. president who is turning a blind eye to Jamal’s murder in an effort to lower gasoline prices in advance of this fall’s midterms.

Biden needs the Saudis to increase their oil production to help keep global energy prices in check. The trip sends the message that the United States is willing to look the other way when its commercial interests are at stake. We have learned, through decades of hard lessons, that terrorists recruit by exploiting hatred of the United States among people brutalized by their own despotic leaders. That narrative succeeds best when Americans talk a good game about human rights until there’s something else we need more — such as cheap oil.

About-faces such as the one Biden is making erode our moral authority and breed anti-American resentment. They communicate to democracy activists and reform-minded governments worldwide that Washington is an unreliable partner. And that sows confusion and sabotages our diplomacy — the opposite of what Biden says his trip is trying to achieve.

No meaningful obstacle prevented the Saudis from boosting oil output as soon as Russian troops rolled into Ukraine. In response to U.S. pleas for increased production, MBS instead snubbed key Biden administration officials and refused to participate in a phone call with the president.

Neither meetings with Biden’s deputies nor a phone call would give MBS what he most wanted: a photo of the president shaking his hand. So, MBS held out until Biden grew desperate enough to give in. We can be sure other “allies,” whose support we need, are taking note.

Biden’s meeting also sends a dangerous message about the value the United States attaches to a free press. A grip-and-grin photograph with MBS signals to autocrats everywhere that you can quite literally get away with murdering a journalist as long as you possess a natural resource the United States wants badly enough.

This danger is hardly hypothetical. When Jamal, who lived in Virginia, was killed, the world was stunned that MBS would butcher a journalist so closely connected to the United States. Today, Vladimir Kara-Murza, another Post contributor and a permanent U.S. resident, languishes in a Russian jail. And Austin Tice, a U.S. citizen who has freelanced for The Post and other outlets, remains in captivity in Syria after nearly a decade. When the image of Biden pressing flesh with Jamal’s murderer flashes around the world, what will it say to Vladimir Putin and to the Syrians, who hold the lives of these journalists in their hands?

Some have tried to argue in advance of Biden’s trip that enough time has passed since Jamal’s murder to allow the U.S.-Saudi relationship to simply move on. But it’s not too late for Biden to wring some good out of this ill-conceived blunder. We cannot forget that, even though Jamal was killed more than three years ago, right now, every day, the Saudi people are subjected to grotesque repression. Political prisoners, dissidents, independent journalists and others are jailed and tortured at MBS’s direction. Women are second-class citizens, and LGBTQ and minority rights do not exist.

Biden’s team has already said that the president will “raise the issue of human rights” with his Saudi counterparts. With that box checked, conversations are sure to turn swiftly to the real agenda items for the meeting — like oil flow — with nothing real to show for it. Biden should insist on more. Before meeting with MBS, Biden should send over a list of political prisoners to be released as a precondition for the encounter. And, as Ronald Reagan did when visiting the Soviet Union, Biden should insist on meeting face-to-face with Saudi dissidents while in the country. If he is going to bring global attention to burnish a murderer’s image, the least he can do is turn a spotlight on men and women risking everything for the freedom and dignity of their people.

In a country where total censorship, public floggings, beheadings, “disappearances” and hundreds of political prisoners are the norm, releasing a few activists will make a small dent in addressing the kingdom’s barbarity. But it’s a start. It is a way to show that Biden’s self-abasement is meant to secure greater human rights, not just cheaper gas at American pumps. And it’s something MBS can do now, immediately upon Biden’s request, as a minimum show of good faith.

If Mohammed bin Salman delivers anything less, Biden should refuse the staged handshake the crown prince so desperately craves. Otherwise, MBS’s cherished photo will belong in an album of American shame.

* * * * * * *


رأي | رحلة بايدن إلى السعودية تقوّض سلطتنا الأخلاقية

غالبًا ما يتعلم السياسيون عديمو الخبرة بالطريقة الصعبة الفرق بين الحملات الانتخابية والحُكم، حيث يدلون ببيانات جريئة خلال حملاتهم تتطلب لاحقًا تراجعات محرجة. ولكن عندما يتعلق الأمر بالسياسة الواقعية الدولية، فلا يوجد مرشح حديث أفضل اطلاعًا من جو بايدن. بعد عقود في لجنة العلاقات الخارجية بمجلس الشيوخ وثمان سنوات كنائب للرئيس، شن بايدن حملته في عام 2020 جزئيًا بناءً على خبرته في السياسة الخارجية.

عندما تعهد بايدن في سعيه وراء الأصوات الانتخابية بجعل ولي العهد السعودي الأمير محمد بن سلمان “منبوذًا” لقاء دوره في جريمة قتل الكاتب في صحيفة البوست جمال خاشقجي، كان لدى العالم كل الأسباب للاعتقاد بأنه يعني ما قد قاله.

فلماذا إذًا يذهب الرئيس بايدن الآن إلى جدة جاثيًا على ركبته ليصافح يد الدولة “المنبوذة” الملطخة بالدماء؟ مرة أخرى، إنه يسعى لنيل الأصوات.

برر الرئيس رحلته بأنها خطوة ضرورية لتعزيز الاستقرار في الشرق الأوسط وردع العدوان الروسي والصيني. ولكن يجب على الرئيس أن يعرف أن لقاءه مع محمد بن سلمان سيمنح الزعيم السعودي بالضبط ما لم تحققه ثلاث سنوات من حملات العلاقات العامة السعودية ونفقات التأثي وحتى دوري جديد لرياضة الغولف: العودة لاكتساب الاحترام. سيؤدي هذا الإعفاء غير المستحق بدوره إلى تقويض أهداف السياسة الخارجية التي يأمل بايدن في تحقيقها.

أولًا، سيشير اجتماع بايدن إلى أن القيم الأميركية قابلة للتفاوض. في وقت سابق من هذا العام، أغلق الرئيس التركي رجب طيب أردوغان فجأةً محاكمة 26 سعوديًا يشتبه في تورطهم في مقتل جمال قبل وقت قصير من الموعد المقرر لزيارته إلى السعودية للمطالبة باستثمارات اقتصادية من شأنها تعزيز محاولة إعادة انتخابه في عام 2023. الآن رئيس الولايات المتحدة هو الذي يغض النظر عن مقتل جمال في محاولة لخفض أسعار البنزين قبل الانتخابات النصفية في الخريف.

بايدن بحاجة للسعوديين لكي يزيدوا إنتاجهم النفطي للمساعدة في إبقاء أسعار الطاقة العالمية تحت السيطرة. ترسل الرحلة رسالة مفادها أن الولايات المتحدة مستعدة لغض البصر عندما تكون مصالحها التجارية على المحك. لقد تعلمنا من خلال عقود من الدروس الصعبة أن الإرهابيين يجندون من خلال استغلال كراهية الولايات المتحدة بين الناس الذين تمت معاملتهم بوحشية من قبل قادتهم المستبدين. هذا السرد ينجح بشكل أفضل عندما يتحدث الأميركيون ببراعة عن حقوق الإنسان إلى أن يكون هنالك شيء آخر نحتاجه أكثر – مثل النفط الرخيص.

تغييرات الاتجاه المفاجئة كالتي يفعلها بايدن الآن تقوّض سلطتنا الأخلاقية وتولّد الاستياء ضد أميركا. إنهم ينقلون رسالة إلى الناشطين في مجال تحقيق الديمقراطية والحكومات ذات العقلية الإصلاحية في جميع أنحاء العالم مفادها أن واشنطن شريك غير موثوق به. وهذا يثير الارتباك ويفسد دبلوماسيتنا – وهو تصرف بعكس ما يقول بايدن إنّ رحلته تحاول تحقيقه.

لم تمنع أي عقبة ذات مغزى السعوديين من زيادة إنتاج النفط بمجرد دخول القوات الروسية إلى أوكرانيا. تجاهل ابن سلمان مسؤولي إدارة بايدن الرئيسيين ورفض المشاركة في مكالمة هاتفية مع الرئيس كاستجابة لنداءات الولايات المتحدة لزيادة الإنتاج.

لن تمنح الاجتماعات مع نواب بايدن ولا أي مكالمة هاتفية ابن سلمان أكثر ما يريده: صورة للرئيس وهو يصافحه. لذلك صمد ابن سلمان حتى أصبح بايدن يائسًا بما يكفي للاستسلام. يمكننا أن نتأكد من أن “الحلفاء” الآخرين الذين نحتاج دعمهم يلاحظون ذلك.

كما يبعث اجتماع بايدن برسالة خطيرة حول القيمة التي توليها الولايات المتحدة للصحافة الحرة. تشير صورة بقبضة وابتسامة مع ابن سلمان إلى الحكام المستبدين في كل مكان بأنه يمكنك حرفيًا أن تفلت من قتل صحفي طالما أنك تمتلك موردًا طبيعيًا تريده الولايات المتحدة بشدة.

هذا الخطر ليس افتراضيًا. عندما قُتِل جمال الذي كان يعيش في ولاية فرجينيا، ذهل العالم من أن ابن سلمان قد يقتل صحفيًا على صلة وثيقة بالولايات المتحدة. واليوم يقبع مساهم آخر في صحيفة البوست ومقيم دائم في الولايات المتحدة يُدعى فلاديمير كارا مورزا في سجن روسي. ولا يزال مواطن أميركي عمل لحسابه الخاص لدى الصحيفة ومنشورات أخرى يُدعى أوستن تايس محتجزًا في سوريا بعد ما يقرب من عقد من الزمان. عندما تظهر صورة بايدن وهو يضغط جسده مع جسد قاتل جمال في جميع أنحاء العالم، ماذا ستقول لفلاديمير بوتين وللسوريين الذين يتحكمون في حياة هؤلاء الصحفيين؟

حاول البعض أن يجادل قبيل رحلة بايدن أن وقتًا كافيًا قد مضى منذ مقتل جمال للسماح للعلاقة الأميركية-السعودية بالمضي قدمًا. ولكن لم يفت الأوان بعد على بايدن لاعتصار بعض الخير من هذا الخطأ الفادح. لا يمكننا أن ننسى أنه على الرغم من مقتل جمال منذ أكثر من ثلاث سنوات، فإن الشعب السعودي يتعرض كل يوم لقمع بشع. ويُسجَن ويُعَذَّب السجناء السياسيون والمعارضون والصحفيون المستقلون وغيرهم بناءً على توجيهات ابن سلمان. النساء مواطنات من الدرجة الثانية، وحقوق المثليين والأقليات لا وجود لها.

سبق أن قال فريق بايدن إن الرئيس “سيثير قضية حقوق الإنسان” مع نظرائه السعوديين. بعد الانتهاء من الإدلاء بتصريح كهذا، فمن المؤكد أن المحادثات ستتحول بسرعة إلى بنود جدول الأعمال الحقيقية للاجتماع – مثل تدفق النفط – من دون تقديم أي مجهود مقابل ذلك. يجب أن يصر بايدن على المزيد. قبل لقاء ابن سلمان، يجب على بايدن إرسال قائمة بأسماء السجناء السياسيين ليُطلَق سراحهم كشرط مسبق للقاء. وكما فعل رونالد ريغان عند زيارة الاتحاد السوفيتي، يجب على بايدن الإصرار على مقابلة المعارضين السعوديين وجهًا لوجه أثناء تواجده في البلاد. إن كان يريد جذب الانتباه العالمي لتلميع صورة القاتل، فإن أقل ما يمكنه فعله هو تسليط الضوء على الرجال والنساء الذين يخاطرون بكل شيء من أجل حرية وكرامة شعبهم.

في بلد تشيع فيه الرقابة الكاملة والجلد العلني وقطع الرؤوس و”الاختفاء” ووجود مئات السجناء السياسيين، فإن إطلاق سراح عدد قليل من النشطاء سيحدث تأثيرًا طفيفًا في معالجة وحشية المملكة. لكنها بداية ما. إنها طريقة لإظهار أن تحقير بايدن لنفسه يهدف إلى تأمين قدر أكبر من حقوق الإنسان وليس مجرد نفط أرخص في المضخات الأميركية. وهذا شيء يمكن لابن سلمان فعله الآن فور طلب بايدن كحد أدنى من إظهار حسن النية.

إن قدّم ابن سلمان أي شيء أقل من ذلك، فيجب على بايدن رفض المصافحة المدبَّرة التي يتوق إليها ولي العهد بشدة. وإلّا فإن صورة ابن سلمان المنشودة سيكون مكانها إلى ألبوم العار الأمريكي.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

Nato. Gli alleati europei si sono staccati da Biden e sono discordi tra loro. – Bloomberg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-03-31.

Buco nell'acqua. Lago Berryessa. California. 001

Il summit Nato di Varsavia si è risolto in un nulla di fatto. Un buco nella acqua.

Gli alleati europei si sono nettamente dissociati da Biden e per di più hanno evidenziato una congerie di posizioni politiche ed economiche opposte e conflittuali.

Bloomberg riporta il suo punto di vista sulla situazione in un lungo editoriale, del quale riportiamo in calce una traduzione in italiano per quanti non siano familiari con l’inglese.

* * * * * * *

«As North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies discuss the terms of any potential peace deal to be struck between Russia and Ukraine, signs of strategic splits are emerging from within their ranks»

«There are also divergences over what further weapons to send Ukraine, and on the question of whether talking to President Vladimir Putin is helpful or not»

«Some of those differences spilled into the open over the weekend after United States President Joe Biden said that Putin couldn’t remain in power and then backtracked as his comments drew criticism»

«”We shouldn’t escalate, with words or actions,” President Emmanuel Macron told French television when asked about Mr Biden’s remarks»

«At a Nato leaders’ summit last week, Mr Scholz cautioned against any rushed moves»

«Other Nato members believe the dialog that Paris and Berlin are pursuing with the Kremlin is counterproductive and could play into Mr Putin’s hands»

«Mr Macron has said he is talking to Mr Putin because Mr Zelensky asked him to, as well as to try to secure humanitarian corridors»

«European governments are split along similar lines over whether they should expand the scope of sanctions to Russia’s energy sector»

«Another area of disagreement among allies is how heavily they should arm Ukraine as they weigh concerns that a cornered Mr Putin could revert to using weapons of mass destruction»

«Although they have provided Ukraine with military support, some western European governments noted there are limits to the types of weapons that can be provided due to fears that events could escalate out of control»

«A French official said that sending tanks – which Mr Macron has publicly ruled out – and jets would pour oil on the fire and play into the hands of hard-liners in Moscow»

«Mr Macron understands that sending weapons to Ukraine would only create more targets for the Russian army»

* * * * * * *


NATO Allies Are Split on Whether They Should Talk to Putin.

Europe (Bloomberg) – As North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies discuss the terms of any potential peace deal to be struck between Russia and Ukraine, signs of strategic splits are emerging from within their ranks.

With the war now in its second month, a series of dilemmas are coming into sharp focus over which conditions could be deemed acceptable by Ukraine for any accord, especially as regards the security guarantees alliance members might be able to offer Kyiv.

There are also divergences over what further weapons to send Ukraine, and on the question of whether talking to President Vladimir Putin is helpful or not, according to people familiar with discussions that have taken place in the past week between leaders on both sides of the Atlantic and documents seen by Bloomberg.

Some of those differences spilled into the open over the weekend after United States President Joe Biden said that Putin couldn’t remain in power and then backtracked as his comments drew criticism.

“We shouldn’t escalate, with words or actions,” President Emmanuel Macron told French television when asked about Mr Biden’s remarks.

To avoid a military confrontation, the aim is to achieve a cease-fire now and then the withdrawal of Russian troops via diplomatic means, Mr Macron said.

Berlin is on a similar wavelength.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s chief spokesman, Mr Steffen Hebestreit, told reporters on Monday that “in view of the horrible pictures that we currently have to stomach now for several days and actually weeks, the highest priority for now is to be able to reach a cease-fire so that the killing can stop.”

Mr Scholz discussed the negotiation process on Monday (March 28) with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

At a Nato leaders’ summit last week, Mr Scholz cautioned against any rushed moves, such as abandoning the Nato-Russia Founding Act.

Nixing that agreement would permanently shut the door on Moscow and remove binding commitments on troop deployments for both sides, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussions.

While Russia has burned all bridges of cooperation for the foreseeable future, Germany’s government sees the possibility that the Founding Act and its guidelines could still be needed some day, one of the people said.

Ditching it would be a symbolic gesture that wouldn’t help stop the war, another said. At the end of the day, allies will have to find a way to deal with Mr Putin whether they like it or not, the second official added.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi is expected to talk to Mr Putin this week, and will call for a cease-fire and humanitarian corridors.

Other Nato members believe the dialog that Paris and Berlin are pursuing with the Kremlin is counterproductive and could play into Mr Putin’s hands, according to one of the documents.

Britain, Poland and other central and eastern European nations – with the exception of Hungary – are sceptical that Russia’s president is serious about negotiating an acceptable peace deal, according to the same document.

At the Nato summit, Polish President Andrzej Duda asked the other leaders if they really believed that negotiations on the terms put forward by Mr Putin could succeed and were acceptable, according to people familiar with his remarks.

Whoever supports those conditions would be backing Russia, one of the people said, of the point Mr Duda was communicating in his intervention.

Those who would push Ukraine to agree to a peace deal without the full withdrawal of Russian troops “serve Putin,” said a diplomat from one eastern European nation.

And those who are reaching out to Mr Putin frequently “do so only for the purpose of their campaigns” domestically.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was similarly sceptical of Mr Putin’s intentions, another person said.

Ahead of the meeting, Mr Johnson told reporters that Mr Putin had already crossed a red line with his actions in Ukraine.

“It is right to make the most of any possible negotiated settlement, but clearly we need to be alive to the fact that he has not lived up to his promises,” Mr Max Blain, the prime minister’s spokesman, said on Monday.

“Throughout we have seen Putin say one thing and do another and so that is the imperative, that we judge him and his regime on how they act.”

Despite the setbacks on the ground, Britain doesn’t believe Mr Putin’s strategic aims have changed, according to a senior British official.

Two other senior diplomats from the group of nations dubious of dialog with Mr Putin told Bloomberg they were worried that Mr Macron could push Mr Zelensky into agreeing to neutrality on Russia’s terms in exchange for a cease-fire.

They noted, however, that Mr Macron had been clear in refuting Moscow’s demands about Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Mr Zelensky has said he is open to adopting a neutral status as part of a peace agreement with Russia but that such a pact would have to come with security guarantees and be put to a referendum.

One of the diplomats said that leaving open questions about Ukraine’s territory to future diplomatic talks risked repeating past errors, and would complicate the scope of any security guarantees.

One senior western European official questioned whether guarantees would apply to Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders or to those that emerge after the war, another document seen by Bloomberg shows.

Mr Macron has said he is talking to Mr Putin because Mr Zelensky asked him to, as well as to try to secure humanitarian corridors.

A diplomat said that Mr Macron could also convey information to the Russian president about how badly the war was going for his troops, as those around him were likely cocooning him from the truth.

An Elysee official said France doesn’t do anything without consulting Mr Zelensky. France is asking for the total withdrawal of Russian forces, the official added, noting that Mr Macron says so publicly.

Ukraine’s president has repeatedly said he will not compromise on the country’s territorial integrity.

European governments are split along similar lines over whether they should expand the scope of sanctions to Russia’s energy sector.

Another area of disagreement among allies is how heavily they should arm Ukraine as they weigh concerns that a cornered Mr Putin could revert to using weapons of mass destruction.

Allies are also adamant that as they take these decisions they will not contemplate any direct Nato military involvement in the war.

Leaders from Britain the Baltic states and most eastern European countries have called on allies to send more weapons to Kyiv, including anti-aircraft capabilities, to allow Ukraine’s forces to keep pushing back against Russian assaults and bombs, people familiar with the Nato discussion said.

A senior official told his counterparts that Mr Putin didn’t need an excuse if he wanted to act, he would just invent one, according to one of the documents

Although they have provided Ukraine with military support, some western European governments noted there are limits to the types of weapons that can be provided due to fears that events could escalate out of control, the document shows.

A French official said that sending tanks – which Mr Macron has publicly ruled out – and jets would pour oil on the fire and play into the hands of hard-liners in Moscow.

Meanwhile, a person familiar with the thinking in Moscow praised Mr Macron by saying his stance has been positive and useful to avoid further escalation.

Mr Macron understands that sending weapons to Ukraine would only create more targets for the Russian army and make a cease-fire more difficult, the person said.

Asked about Mr Macron declaring weapons like tanks a red line, Mr Zelensky told the Economist magazine that France was afraid of Russia and that Mr Boris Johnson was a leader “who is helping more”.

* * * * * * *


Gli alleati della NATO sono divisi sul fatto che dovrebbero parlare con Putin.

Europa (Bloomberg) – Mentre gli alleati dell’Organizzazione del Trattato Nord Atlantico (Nato) discutono i termini di qualsiasi potenziale accordo di pace tra Russia e Ucraina, i segni di spaccature strategiche stanno emergendo dall’interno dei loro ranghi.

Con la guerra ormai al suo secondo mese, una serie di dilemmi si stanno mettendo a fuoco su quali condizioni potrebbero essere considerate accettabili dall’Ucraina per qualsiasi accordo, specialmente per quanto riguarda le garanzie di sicurezza che i membri dell’alleanza potrebbero essere in grado di offrire a Kiev.

Ci sono anche divergenze su quali ulteriori armi inviare all’Ucraina, e sulla questione se parlare con il presidente Vladimir Putin sia utile o meno, secondo persone che hanno familiarità con le discussioni che hanno avuto luogo nell’ultima settimana tra i leader di entrambi i lati dell’Atlantico e documenti visti da Bloomberg.

Alcune di queste differenze sono uscite allo scoperto durante il fine settimana dopo che il presidente degli Stati Uniti Joe Biden ha detto che Putin non può rimanere al potere e poi ha fatto marcia indietro quando i suoi commenti hanno attirato le critiche.

“Non dovremmo escalation, con parole o azioni”, ha detto il presidente Emmanuel Macron alla televisione francese quando gli è stato chiesto delle osservazioni del signor Biden.

Per evitare un confronto militare, l’obiettivo è quello di raggiungere un cessate il fuoco ora e poi il ritiro delle truppe russe attraverso mezzi diplomatici, il signor Macron ha detto.

Berlino è su una lunghezza d’onda simile.

Il portavoce capo del cancelliere Olaf Scholz, Steffen Hebestreit, ha detto ai giornalisti lunedì che “alla luce delle immagini orribili che dobbiamo digerire per diversi giorni e settimane, la massima priorità per ora è quella di poter raggiungere un cessate il fuoco in modo che le uccisioni possano fermarsi”.

Scholz ha discusso il processo di negoziazione lunedì (28 marzo) con il presidente ucraino Volodymyr Zelensky.

In un vertice dei leader della NATO la scorsa settimana, Scholz ha messo in guardia contro qualsiasi mossa affrettata, come l’abbandono dell’Atto di fondazione Nato-Russia.

La cancellazione di quell’accordo chiuderebbe permanentemente la porta a Mosca e rimuoverebbe gli impegni vincolanti sul dispiegamento di truppe per entrambe le parti, secondo due funzionari a conoscenza delle discussioni.

Mentre la Russia ha bruciato tutti i ponti di cooperazione per il prossimo futuro, il governo della Germania vede la possibilità che l’Atto fondatore e le sue linee guida potrebbero essere ancora necessari un giorno, ha detto una delle persone.

Abbandonarlo sarebbe un gesto simbolico che non aiuterebbe a fermare la guerra, ha detto un altro. Alla fine della giornata, gli alleati dovranno trovare un modo per trattare con Putin, che gli piaccia o no, ha aggiunto il secondo funzionario.

Il primo ministro italiano Mario Draghi dovrebbe parlare con Putin questa settimana, e chiederà un cessate il fuoco e corridoi umanitari.

Altri membri della NATO credono che il dialogo che Parigi e Berlino stanno perseguendo con il Cremlino è controproducente e potrebbe giocare nelle mani del signor Putin, secondo uno dei documenti.

La Gran Bretagna, la Polonia e altre nazioni dell’Europa centrale e orientale – ad eccezione dell’Ungheria – sono scettici sul fatto che il presidente russo sia serio nel negoziare un accordo di pace accettabile, secondo lo stesso documento.

Al vertice della NATO, il presidente polacco Andrzej Duda ha chiesto agli altri leader se davvero credono che i negoziati sulle condizioni proposte da Putin possano avere successo e siano accettabili, secondo persone che hanno familiarità con le sue osservazioni.

Chiunque sostenga queste condizioni starebbe sostenendo la Russia, ha detto una delle persone, del punto che il signor Duda stava comunicando nel suo intervento.

Coloro che spingerebbero l’Ucraina ad accettare un accordo di pace senza il pieno ritiro delle truppe russe “servono Putin”, ha detto un diplomatico di una nazione dell’Europa orientale.

E coloro che stanno raggiungendo il signor Putin spesso “lo fanno solo per lo scopo delle loro campagne” interne.

Il primo ministro britannico Boris Johnson era similmente scettico sulle intenzioni del signor Putin, ha detto un’altra persona.

Prima dell’incontro, il signor Johnson ha detto ai giornalisti che il signor Putin ha già attraversato una linea rossa con le sue azioni in Ucraina.

“È giusto trarre il massimo da ogni possibile accordo negoziato, ma chiaramente dobbiamo essere consapevoli del fatto che non ha mantenuto le sue promesse”, ha detto lunedì Max Blain, portavoce del primo ministro.

“Abbiamo visto Putin dire una cosa e farne un’altra, e questo è l’imperativo: giudicare lui e il suo regime per come agiscono”.

Nonostante le battute d’arresto sul terreno, la Gran Bretagna non crede che gli obiettivi strategici del signor Putin siano cambiati, secondo un alto funzionario britannico.

Altri due alti diplomatici del gruppo di nazioni che dubitano del dialogo con Putin hanno detto a Bloomberg che erano preoccupati che Macron potesse spingere il signor Zelensky ad accettare la neutralità alle condizioni della Russia in cambio di un cessate il fuoco.

Hanno notato, tuttavia, che il signor Macron è stato chiaro nel confutare le richieste di Mosca sull’integrità territoriale e la sovranità dell’Ucraina.

Zelensky ha detto di essere aperto all’adozione di uno status neutrale come parte di un accordo di pace con la Russia, ma che un tale patto dovrebbe essere accompagnato da garanzie di sicurezza ed essere sottoposto a un referendum.

Uno dei diplomatici ha detto che lasciare le questioni aperte sul territorio dell’Ucraina ai futuri colloqui diplomatici rischiava di ripetere gli errori del passato, e avrebbe complicato la portata di qualsiasi garanzia di sicurezza.

Un alto funzionario dell’Europa occidentale ha messo in dubbio se le garanzie si applicherebbero ai confini internazionalmente riconosciuti dell’Ucraina o a quelli che emergono dopo la guerra, come mostra un altro documento visto da Bloomberg.

Il signor Macron ha detto che sta parlando con il signor Putin perché il signor Zelensky glielo ha chiesto, così come per cercare di garantire corridoi umanitari.

Un diplomatico ha detto che il signor Macron potrebbe anche trasmettere informazioni al presidente russo su quanto male la guerra stava andando per le sue truppe, come quelli intorno a lui erano probabilmente bozzolo lui dalla verità.

Un funzionario dell’Eliseo ha detto che la Francia non fa nulla senza consultare il signor Zelensky. La Francia chiede il ritiro totale delle forze russe, ha aggiunto il funzionario, notando che il signor Macron lo dice pubblicamente.

Il presidente dell’Ucraina ha ripetutamente detto che non scenderà a compromessi sull’integrità territoriale del paese.

I governi europei sono divisi lungo linee simili sul fatto che dovrebbero espandere la portata delle sanzioni al settore energetico della Russia.

Un’altra area di disaccordo tra gli alleati è quanto pesantemente dovrebbero armare l’Ucraina, dato che pesano le preoccupazioni che un Putin messo all’angolo potrebbe tornare a usare armi di distruzione di massa.

Gli alleati sono anche irremovibili sul fatto che quando prenderanno queste decisioni non contempleranno alcun coinvolgimento militare diretto della NATO nella guerra.

I leader della Gran Bretagna, degli stati baltici e della maggior parte dei paesi dell’Europa orientale hanno chiesto agli alleati di inviare più armi a Kiev, comprese le capacità antiaeree, per permettere alle forze ucraine di continuare a respingere gli assalti e le bombe russe, hanno detto persone che hanno familiarità con la discussione della Nato.

Un alto funzionario ha detto alle sue controparti che il sig. Putin non ha avuto bisogno di una scusa se ha voluto agire, appena avrebbe inventato uno, secondo uno dei documenti.

Anche se hanno fornito supporto militare all’Ucraina, alcuni governi dell’Europa occidentale hanno notato che ci sono limiti ai tipi di armi che possono essere forniti a causa dei timori che gli eventi potrebbero escalation fuori controllo, il documento mostra.

Un funzionario francese ha detto che l’invio di carri armati – che il signor Macron ha pubblicamente escluso – e di jet avrebbe versato olio sul fuoco e giocato nelle mani degli estremisti di Mosca.

Nel frattempo, una persona familiare con il pensiero a Mosca ha elogiato il signor Macron dicendo che la sua posizione è stata positiva e utile per evitare un’ulteriore escalation.

Il signor Macron capisce che l’invio di armi in Ucraina creerebbe solo più obiettivi per l’esercito russo e renderebbe più difficile un cessate il fuoco, ha detto la persona.

Interrogato sul fatto che il signor Macron abbia dichiarato le armi come i carri armati una linea rossa, il signor Zelensky ha detto alla rivista Economist che la Francia ha paura della Russia e che il signor Boris Johnson è un leader “che aiuta di più”.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia

Lituania. Inverte la rotta. Sempre detto che con le cattive si ottiene tutto.


Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-03-31.

Lituania__001

Lituania. Blocca il transito del potassio della Bielorussia verso il suo porto di Klaipeda.

Lituania. Le multinazionali tedesche premono a favore della Cina. Smacco della EU.

Lituania. Blinken e Simonyte e le sanzione imposte dalla Cina. Lituania sulla brace.

Lituania. Cina bandisce le società che hanno rapporti con la Lituania. Vilnius ed EU sulla brace.

Russia espelle sette diplomatici della Slovakia, Lituania, Lettonia ed Estonia.

Unione Europea e Visegrad. Scontro (quasi) finale. La Lituania.

Lituania. Altra débâcle socialista. Socialdemocratici crollano al 15.5%.

* * * * * * *

«Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda on Tuesday acknowledged as a mistake the country’s decision to allow the opening of a “representative office” in Vilnius under the name of “Taiwanese” instead of “Taipei.”»

«With such a confession, Lithuania is now admitting to its brazen mistake in violating the one-China principle»

«Over the past months, in disregard of Beijing’s repeated and resolute oppositions, Lithuania has been bent on taking the wrong path»

«Yet Vilnius attempted to whitewash its wrong-headed decision and mislead the international community by saying that setting up such an office “does not mean any conflict or disagreement with the ‘One China’ policy.”»

«the one-China principle …. is the political foundation for China to develop bilateral relations with other countries, including Lithuania»

«And that is why Beijing’s responses, such as downgrading its diplomatic ties with Vilnius, are totally legitimate»

«China’s determination to defend its core sovereign interests is beyond question, and any attempt to disregard or violate the one-China principle will pay a heavy price»

* * * * * * *

Facendo parte del blocco europeo e della Nato, la Lituania per molto tempo è stata ossequiosa esecutrice dei suggerimenti di Washington.

A gennaio si è slargata ben oltre le sue concrete possibilità.

Ha aperto in Vilnius un ufficio di rappresentanza di Formosa denominato “taiwanese”.

La Cina è montata su tutte le furie perché per lei Formosa è parte integrante del territorio cinese.

Dapprima la Cina ha fatto aspre rimostranze ad una Lituania che faceva ostentatamente orecchie da mercante.

Quindi ha ridotto la sua rappresentanza diplomatica e messo l’embargo a tutti i beni sia della Lituania sia di tutte quelle ditte straniere che avessero legami di qualsiasi tipo con essa.

Adesso la Lituania ha completamente rinnegato il suo operato.

Sempre detto che con le cattive si ottiene tutto.

* * * * * * *


Xinhua Commentary: Why was Lithuania wrong?

Beijing,  Xinhua — Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda on Tuesday acknowledged as a mistake the country’s decision to allow the opening of a “representative office” in Vilnius under the name of “Taiwanese” instead of “Taipei.”

With such a confession, Lithuania is now admitting to its brazen mistake in violating the one-China principle, which it has promised to follow when the two sides forged their diplomatic relationship over 30 years ago in 1991.

Over the past months, in disregard of Beijing’s repeated and resolute oppositions, Lithuania has been bent on taking the wrong path. Under the one-China principle, any exchanges with China’s Taiwan should be civil and non-official.

Yet Vilnius attempted to whitewash its wrong-headed decision and mislead the international community by saying that setting up such an office “does not mean any conflict or disagreement with the ‘One China’ policy.”

For the record, the one-China principle is one of the universally recognized norms governing international relations as well as the consensus of the international community, and is the political foundation for China to develop bilateral relations with other countries, including Lithuania.

According to the joint communique the two countries signed in 1991 on the establishment of bilateral diplomatic ties, Lithuania recognizes “the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and Taiwan as an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

By allowing the establishment of a “representative office” under the name of “Taiwanese,” Vilnius has apparently reneged on its promise. And that is why Beijing’s responses, such as downgrading its diplomatic ties with Vilnius, are totally legitimate. It is sending a clear-cut signal: China’s determination to defend its core sovereign interests is beyond question, and any attempt to disregard or violate the one-China principle will pay a heavy price.

And for those still conspiring to play the Taiwan card, to unhesitatingly toss out the fantasy that somehow their political manipulation over the Taiwan question will do the trick can spare themselves from severe consequences. Lithuania is living proof. ■

Pubblicato in: Diplomazia, India, Russia

India. Non appoggia bensì si dissocia dalle sanzioni alla Russia.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-03-12.

India 013

«Delhi’s first statement in the UN Security Council (UNSC) did not name any country directly but it said it regretted that calls from the international community to give diplomacy and dialogue a chance had not been heeded.»

«It, however, stopped short of criticising Russia»

«Delhi continued with its strategy as it chose to abstain when the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to demand an immediate end to the invasion of Ukraine»

«India has not named any country»

«The most important are India’s time-tested defence and diplomatic ties with Moscow»

«Russia continues to be India’s largest arms supplier even though its share has dropped to 49% from 70% due to India’s decision to diversify its portfolio and boost domestic defence manufacturing»

«Also, Russia is supplying equipment like the S-400 missile defence system which gives India crucial strategic deterrence against China and Pakistan»

«Moscow has vetoed UNSC resolutions over disputed Kashmir in the past to help India keep it a bilateral issue»

«Delhi doesn’t seem comfortable with what is happening in Ukraine but it’s not likely to change its stand»

«India also has the tough task of trying to evacuate 20,000 citizens, mostly students, from Ukraine»

«In that sense, India is in a unique position as it’s one of the few countries which has good relations both with Washington and Moscow»

«The issue of sanctions over the purchase of the S-400s still loom»

«Moscow could use its own pressure points which include strengthening ties with India’s arch-rival Pakistan if it sees a change in Delhi’s strategy»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo innanzi tutto di fare chiarezza.

L’Assemblea Generale dell’Onu aveva votato non una mozione di condanna della Russia, bensì la richiesta di una immediata sospensione delle attività belliche. Sono due concetti totalmente diversi tra di loro. E l’India si è astenuta.

L’India non si è associata alle sanzioni americane contro la Russia ed alle Nazioni Unite si è astenuta.

L’articolo riportato spiega il tutto in termini militari ed economici, i quali sono a nostro sommesso avviso reali ma non esaustivi.

Nei fatti l’India si dissocia dal comportamento degli Stati Uniti e della Nato nei confronti della Russia.

* * * * * * *


Ukraine: Why India is not criticising Russia over invasion

India has had to walk a diplomatic tightrope over Ukraine in the past few days as it tried to balance its ties with Moscow and the West.

Delhi’s first statement in the UN Security Council (UNSC) did not name any country directly but it said it regretted that calls from the international community to give diplomacy and dialogue a chance had not been heeded.

It, however, stopped short of criticising Russia. And before the UNSC voted on a draft UN resolution to condemn the invasion, Delhi faced calls from Russia, the US and Ukraine “to do the right thing”.

Ukraine and Russia even issued public appeals for Delhi to take a clear stand. India chose to abstain from the vote but a careful reading of its statement suggests that it did go a step further and indirectly asked Moscow to respect international law.

India talked about the importance of “the UN Charter, international law, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states”, adding that “all member states need to honour these principles in finding a constructive way forward”.

Delhi continued with its strategy as it chose to abstain when the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to demand an immediate end to the invasion of Ukraine.

The third abstention was followed by calls from senior officials in Washington to India to “take a clear position”.

India’s strategy has raised questions, particularly in the West, over whether the world’s largest democracy should have taken a clearer stand.

                         No good options

Former Indian diplomat JN Misra says India “has bad and worse options to pick from”.

“One can’t tilt both ways at the same time. India has not named any country, which shows it won’t go against Moscow. India had to be subtle in picking a side and it has done that,” he adds.

There are several reasons for India’s quest to find a diplomatic balance over Ukraine.

The most important are India’s time-tested defence and diplomatic ties with Moscow.

Russia continues to be India’s largest arms supplier even though its share has dropped to 49% from 70% due to India’s decision to diversify its portfolio and boost domestic defence manufacturing.

Also, Russia is supplying equipment like the S-400 missile defence system which gives India crucial strategic deterrence against China and Pakistan, and that is the reason why it went ahead with the order despite threats of looming US sanctions.

                         Defence supplies matter

Moreover, it’s hard for Delhi to overlook decades of history of diplomatic co-operation with Russia on several issues. Moscow has vetoed UNSC resolutions over disputed Kashmir in the past to help India keep it a bilateral issue.

In this context, India appears to be following its famed strategy of non-alignment and promoting dialogue to resolve issues.

Michael Kugelman, deputy director at think tank the Wilson Center, says India’s stand is not surprising as it’s consistent with its past strategy.

He adds that Delhi doesn’t “seem comfortable with what is happening in Ukraine but it’s not likely to change its stand”.

“It simply can’t afford to do so at the moment because of its defence and geopolitical needs,” he says. Though he adds that Delhi has chosen some strong words in the UNSC to show it’s not comfortable with the situation in Ukraine.

India also has the tough task of trying to evacuate 20,000 citizens, mostly students, from Ukraine.

Former Indian diplomat Anil Triguniyat, who served in Moscow and also in Libya where he oversaw the evacuation of Indian citizens when conflict broke out in 2011, says safety assurances are needed from all parties in a conflict to run a successful evacuation operation.

“India can’t take a side at the risk of endangering the safety of its citizens. Moreover, it’s seeing the holistic picture which involves keeping channels open with everyone,” he adds.

India has been able to get help both from Ukraine and Russia to evacuate its citizens, specially from the heavily hit Kharkiv city. It still has hundreds of citizens, mostly students, stuck in Ukraine and it will continue to seek cooperation from all sides.

In that sense, India is in a unique position as it’s one of the few countries which has good relations both with Washington and Moscow.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has held talks with officials in Washington.

Mr Modi has also held talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr Triguniyat says India has done well in keeping diplomatic channels open with both sides.

“India hasn’t criticised Russia directly but it’s not that India has turned a blind eye to the suffering of Ukrainians. It has adopted a balanced approach. It talked strongly about territorial integrity at the UNSC and it was clearly meant to highlight Ukraine’s plight,” he added.

But if Washington and its European allies continue to impose severe sanctions on Russia, India may find it tough to continue doing business with Moscow.

The US seems to understand India’s position at the moment but there are no guarantees it will continue to do so.

When US President Joe Biden was recently asked about India’s stand, he didn’t give a definitive answer. “We are going to have consultations with India [over Ukraine]. We haven’t resolved that fully,” he said.

The issue of sanctions over the purchase of the S-400s still loom. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (Caatsa) was introduced in 2017 to target Russia, Iran and North Korea with economic and political sanctions. It also prohibits any country from signing defence deals with these nations.

Washington had not promised any waiver even before Russia invaded Ukraine, and experts believe that the issue could become a bargaining chip between India and the US.

Meanwhile, Moscow could use its own pressure points which include strengthening ties with India’s arch-rival Pakistan if it sees a change in Delhi’s strategy.

Russia has accepted India’s growing ties with the US in the past two decades but Ukraine is a red line that it wouldn’t want Delhi to cross.

Mr Kugelman says such tipping points will only come if the conflict in Ukraine becomes prolonged and ends up creating a bipolar world.

“Let’s just hope it doesn’t happen. But if it does, India’s foreign policy will be severely tested,” he says.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Diplomazia, Russia

Russia. Germania bandisce la russa RT DE, e Kremlin blocca Deutsche Welle.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-02-05.

Bundestag 001

«Russia has withdrawn the press credentials of all Deutsche Welle staff and is shutting down the organization’s office in Moscow»

«It is also taking measures to shut down DW broadcasting on Russian territory»

«Russia had earlier criticized a German broadcasting regulator’s ban on German-language programming by Russia’s state broadcaster RT as an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press»

* * * * * * *

In un clima politico già fortemente acceso ed aspro, questa bega sembrerebbe apparire essere ben più complessa di quanto potrebbe apparire.

«La Commissione tedesca per la regolamentazione dei media ha vietato a RT DE di trasmettere in tedesco in Germania a causa della mancanza della licenza richiesta»

«La Commissione per le licenze e la supervisione (ZAK), l’organo centrale dell’agenzia tedesca Medienanstalten, ha dichiarato il 2 febbraio che l’Autorità per i media di Berlino-Brandeburgo (MABB) aveva ragione nel dichiarare RT DE Productions GmbH un’emittente basata in Germania, soggetta alle leggi e ai regolamenti del paese»

«RT DE è una “emittente che richiede una licenza ai sensi dell’articolo 52 del trattato tedesco sui media (MStV), che non è stata né richiesta né concessa”, sostiene l’agenzia Medienanstalten in una dichiarazione emessa quest’oggi, aggiungendo che la trasmissione di RT DE “dovrebbe quindi essere interrotta via live stream, anche su internet, via mobile e smart TV app RT News, così come via satellite”»

«Le produzioni RT DE hanno affermato che “MABB sta cercando di ritrarre falsamente RT DE Productions, che è una società di produzione indipendente, come emittente del canale televisivo RT DE, con sede a Mosca»

«c’è una legge per loro e un’altra per te»

«è ironico che solo l’idea di un nuovo canale di notizie TV con una voce diversa che appare in Germania abbia reso le autorità locali, compreso il regolatore MABB, così nervose e disperate, da abbandonare i loro tanto propagandati principi come la libertà di parola»

«RT DE Productions in precedenza aveva affermato che, come chiaramente indicato dal nome, si tratta di una società di produzione con sede a Berlino a produrre contenuti per l’emittente con sede in Russia. Il segnale televisivo proviene da Mosca e viene trasmesso in Germania via satellite, su una licenza di trasmissione assicurata in Serbia nel 2021»

«Sebbene i media tedeschi abbiano dichiarato tale licenza priva di valore, è legalmente vincolante ai sensi della Convenzione Europea sulla televisione transfrontaliera (ECTT), di cui sia Berlino che Belgrado sono firmatari»

«RT DE opera in Germania, trasmette su internet, ed è la quarta più grande sui social media»

* * *

Poi c’è anche la bega su YouTube.

«YouTube, di proprietà della statunitense Alphabet, ha bandito il canale originale di RT in lingua tedesca a settembre, per una presunta opera di “disinformazione” sulla pandemia del coronavirus in un paio di video»

«Quando RT DE ha iniziato a trasmettere a dicembre, YouTube ha bannato il suo nuovo canale, con la motivazione che stava cercando di “aggirare” il divieto precedente»

«Il concetto tanto sbandierato in occidente della libertà di stampa sembra completamente archiviato quando appare sulla scena un media che porta una visione diversa dal mainstream»

* * * * * * *

La Germania ha i nervi scoperti. Questo esalta la sua già straordinaria capacità di suscitare inutili quanto complicati problemi inesistenti.

Di certo i tedeschi stanno dimostrandosi idiosincrasici a quanti mai la pensassero in modo diverso da loro.

* * * * * * *


Russia shuts DW’s Moscow office, withdraws staff credentials.

Russia has withdrawn the press credentials of all Deutsche Welle staff and is shutting down the organization’s office in Moscow. It is also taking measures to shut down DW broadcasting on Russian territory.

* * *

Russia on Thursday said it was closing the Moscow bureau of German broadcaster Deutsche Welle and revoking its employees’ accreditations in the country.

The Russian foreign ministry also said in a statement that it would “terminate the satellite and other broadcasting (output) of Deutsche Welle” on Russian territory.

Russia had earlier criticized a German broadcasting regulator’s ban on German-language programming by Russia’s state broadcaster RT as an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The German MABB media watchdog and Commission for Licensing and Supervision (ZAK) of media organizations said this week that RT DE could not broadcast in Germany using a Serbian licence.

The Russian government said it was planning to initiate a procedure for considering recognizing DW as a foreign media outlet performing the functions of a foreign agent.

It will also compile a list of representatives involved in restricting the broadcasting of RT in Germany, who would be banned from entering the Russian Federation.

RT — formerly Russia Today — broadcasts internationally in six languages. While it claims that its programming contributes to public debate, critics accuse RT of funneling propaganda and disinformation on behalf of the Kremlin. As well as German, Moscow-based RT offers services in English, Spanish, Arabic and French.

* * * * * * *


La Russia blocca le trasmissioni di Deutsche Welle in risposta al divieto per RT DE

In precedenza, l’autorità dei media tedeschi MABB aveva ufficialmente vietato le trasmissioni di RT DE in Germania, sostenendo che il canale non avesse le autorizzazioni necessarie per andare in onda nel Paese.

La Russia oscura Deutsche Welle in risposta al divieto imposto dalle autorità tedesche alla trasmissione di RT DE in Germania e al tempo stesso sta avviando una procedura per riconoscerla con lo status di agente straniero, ha affermato il ministero degli Esteri russo.

“È stato chiuso l’ufficio del corrispondente della compagnia televisiva e radiofonica tedesca Deutsche Welle nella Federazione Russa”, ha affermato il dicastero diplomatico russo, aggiungendo che tutti i dipendenti perderanno l’accreditamento.

Mosca redigerà anche un elenco di funzionari coinvolti nell’oscuramento di RT DE, a cui sarà impedito di entrare in Russia, ha fatto sapere il ministero degli Esteri.

All’inizio della giornata, il portavoce del Cremlino, Dmitry Peskov, ha descritto il divieto di trasmissione di RT DE come una violazione della libertà di parola.

La portavoce del ministero degli Esteri russo, Maria Zakharova, ha osservato che l’Osce finora è rimasta in silenzio sulla decisione della Germania di vietare la trasmissione di RT DE. La rappresentante dell’Osce per la libertà dei media, Teresa Ribeiro, non ha visto “nulla” che potesse essere d’interesse, ha affermato la Zakharova.

In precedenza, l’autorità di regolamentazione dei media della Germania aveva vietato la trasmissione di RT DE nel Paese, affermando che il canale non aveva le autorizzazioni necessarie per andare in onda. RT ha fatto sapere a sua volta che RT DE Productions avrebbe impugnato la decisione dell’autorità tedesca in tribunale.

Il ministero degli Esteri russo aveva annunciato la preparazione di misure di ritorsione speculari contro i media tedeschi accreditati in Russia, nonché contro le piattaforme web che avevano cancellato arbitrariamente e irragionevolmente gli account del canale.

* * * * * * *


Grave caso di censura in Germania: vietate le trasmissioni a RT DE

La Commissione tedesca per la regolamentazione dei media ha vietato a RT DE di trasmettere in tedesco in Germania a causa della mancanza della licenza richiesta. L’autorità si schiera così con le autorità di Berlino-Brandeburgo nel tentativo di chiudere le operazioni del canale. La decisione arriva dopo che il governo tedesco ha negato di aver fatto pressione sul canale.

La Commissione per le licenze e la supervisione (ZAK), l’organo centrale dell’agenzia tedesca Medienanstalten, ha dichiarato il 2 febbraio che l’Autorità per i media di Berlino-Brandeburgo (MABB) aveva ragione nel dichiarare RT DE Productions GmbH un’emittente basata in Germania, soggetta alle leggi e ai regolamenti del paese.

RT DE è una “emittente che richiede una licenza ai sensi dell’articolo 52 del trattato tedesco sui media (MStV), che non è stata né richiesta né concessa”, sostiene l’agenzia Medienanstalten in una dichiarazione emessa quest’oggi, aggiungendo che la trasmissione di RT DE “dovrebbe quindi essere interrotta via live stream, anche su internet, via mobile e smart TV app RT News, così come via satellite”.

RT DE ha ora quattro settimane per appellarsi alla decisione in tribunale, cosa che ha intenzione di fare.

Le produzioni RT DE hanno affermato che “MABB sta cercando di ritrarre falsamente RT DE Productions, che è una società di produzione indipendente, come emittente del canale televisivo RT DE, con sede a Mosca. Non riusciamo a capire perché un regolatore che dovrebbe essere informato e indipendente cerca di agire su quelle che sembrano essere motivazioni puramente politiche, sotto gli auspici di una falsa versione della realtà, piegata alle loro intenzioni. Consentendo al suo regolatore di agire in questo modo, la Germania sta dicendo alle altre nazioni che rispettano le Convenzioni europee che c’è una legge per loro e un’altra per te”.

Anna Belkina, vicedirettore capo di RT, ha affermato che “è ironico che solo l’idea di un nuovo canale di notizie TV con una voce diversa che appare in Germania abbia reso le autorità locali, compreso il regolatore MABB, così nervose e disperate, da abbandonare i loro tanto propagandati principi come la libertà di parola”.

La portavoce del Ministero degli Affari Esteri russo, Maria Zakharova, aveva precedentemente affermato che la Germania non ha le basi legali per vietare la trasmissione del canale RT via satellite. Il ministero degli Esteri ha definito le azioni delle autorità tedesche un ostacolo diretto al lavoro dei giornalisti.

A metà gennaio, i media tedeschi hanno riferito che MABB aveva affidato la questione alla ZAK poiché si trattava di un “problema nazionale”.

RT DE Productions in precedenza aveva affermato che, come chiaramente indicato dal nome, si tratta di una società di produzione con sede a Berlino a produrre contenuti per l’emittente con sede in Russia. Il segnale televisivo proviene da Mosca e viene trasmesso in Germania via satellite, su una licenza di trasmissione assicurata in Serbia nel 2021. Sebbene i media tedeschi abbiano dichiarato tale licenza priva di valore, è legalmente vincolante ai sensi della Convenzione Europea sulla televisione transfrontaliera (ECTT), di cui sia Berlino che Belgrado sono firmatari.

L’emittente di lingua tedesca ha ottenuto una licenza in Serbia perché la sua precedente richiesta per una licenza in Lussemburgo era stata negata. Sebbene la cancelliera Angela Merkel abbia negato di aver esercitato pressioni sul Lussemburgo, numerosi media tedeschi hanno riferito che il suo governo ha in realtà avuto più incontri con i funzionari del paese vicino sulla questione. 

Tobias Schmid dell’European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) ha affermato all’epoca che la Germania avrebbe “chiesto chiarimenti alla Commissione Europea” se non ci fosse stato un accordo con il Lussemburgo. Schmid in seguito descrisse RT DE come un “fastidio” di cui “occuparsi”.

Il 18 gennaio, il ministro degli Esteri tedesco Annalena Baerbock ha negato che il suo governo avesse qualcosa a che fare con i tentativi di chiudere l’emittente russa in lingua tedesca, sostenendo che RT DE “opera in Germania, trasmette su internet, ed è la quarta più grande sui social media”.

RT è sempre rappresentata alle conferenze stampa del governo, ha sostenuto la Baerbock, dicendo che era “semplicemente falso” che Berlino stesse facendo pressione sull’emittente. Il divieto di YouTube sui canali RT DE era dovuto a “una violazione delle regole di trasmissione” e non aveva “nulla a che fare con il governo tedesco”, ha poi aggiunto il ministro.

YouTube, di proprietà della statunitense Alphabet, ha bandito il canale originale di RT in lingua tedesca a settembre, per una presunta opera di “disinformazione” sulla pandemia del coronavirus in un paio di video. Un altro canale è stato bandito per aver ripubblicato i video, che non erano stati segnalati in quel momento. Quando RT DE ha iniziato a trasmettere a dicembre, YouTube ha bannato il suo nuovo canale, con la motivazione che stava cercando di “aggirare” il divieto precedente.

Il concetto tanto sbandierato in occidente della libertà di stampa sembra completamente archiviato quando appare sulla scena un media che porta una visione diversa dal mainstream. Segno evidente che sanno quanto sia fragile la loro propaganda, capace di stare in piedi solo grazie all’opera capillare di disinformazione condotta dall’intero apparato mediatico dominante.