Ogni persona ha il suo approccio per conquistarsi i potenziali clienti ai quali poter vendere le proprie merci.
Se poi si vendono armi, non si dovrebbe andare troppo per il sottile. Le armi servono per ammazzare la gente, mica per andare in birreria a farsi il bicchiere della staffa.
Così la nostra Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel se ne andata in Arabia Saudita a cercare di vendere qualcosa. Più o meno come il Prode Anselmo.
Lo ha fatto dispiegando al meglio le tipiche arti diplomatiche tedesche.
«German Chancellor Merkel has arrived in the Saudi port city of Jeddah to hold talks with the kingdom’s authorities. Women’s rights are high on her agenda following massive criticism of Riyadh’s UN women’s body role.»
«dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.»
«has raised fears that German arms were being misused»
* * *
«We will not cause any more problems
for the German government
with new requests for weapons»
* * * * * * *
Così gli arabi non hanno voluto diventare femministi, né tanto meno diversamente ed alteramente senzienti (leggasi, checche impenitenti).
Hanno cortesemente risposto a Frau Merkel che non importuneranno ulteriormente la Germania con altre richieste di armamenti.
A Saudi official has told “Der Spiegel’ magazine that good relations with Berlin come before arms deals. This comes as Chancellor Merkel, on a visit to the kingdom, called for an end to Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia intends to refrain in future from asking for more weapons from Germany, and to concentrate instead on economic cooperation in other sectors, according to an interview in the German news magazine “Der Spiegel” published on Sunday.
“We accept the German reticence with regard to exports to Saudi Arabia; we know the political background,” Saudi Deputy Economy Minister Mohammed al-Tuwaijri told the magazine.
“We will not cause any more problems for the German government with new requests for weapons,” he added.
Al-Tuwaijri said the reason for the change was a desire for closer cooperation with Berlin in areas other than arms, with Riyadh aiming to make Germany one of its “very most important economic partners.”
“Relations with Germany are much more important to us than arguing about weapons deals,” he said.
Controversial – but lucrative – issue
German weapons deals with Saudi Arabia have been controversial for many years, with the kingdom frequently the target of criticism for its poor human rights record.
Among other issues, the country’s involvement in the long-running war in Yemen, in which many civilians have died in airstrikes carried out by warplanes from a Saudi-led Arab coalition, has raised fears that German arms were being misused.
According to preliminary figures, in 2016 Germany exported armaments to Saudi Arabia to the tune of more than half a billion euros.
The interview was published as Chancellor Angela Merkel arrived in the kingdom on Sunday for talks with Saudi King Salman and other officials. There were no representatives of armaments companies in the business delegation accompanying her, though the German government has previously said that weapons could still be delivered to Saudi Arabia on a case-by-case basis.
At the talks in the commercial hub of Jeddah, Merkel called for an end to the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen.
“We believe in the UN-led process of diplomatic resolution,” she said. “We do not think that there can be a military solution to this conflict.”
She said something had to be done to prevent even more people in the already impoverished country from being brought into an “extremely bad humanitarian situation,” while conceding that Saudi Arabia was not the only party that had to accept compromises.
The Saudi government has been intervening in the war in Yemen for more than two years, leading a Sunni Arab coalition that has been bombing positions of Shiite Houthi rebels, which Riyadh sees as proxy forces for its regional rival, Iran. In view of the large number of civilian casualties in the strikes, even the United States, a close ally of the kingdom, has called for the attacks to cease.
Military and police training
Despite German reservations about Saudi military actions, an agreement was signed during Merkel’s visit that provides for German Bundeswehr soldiers to help train their Saudi counterparts, a government spokesman in Berlin said.
Under the deal, Saudi soldiers are to receive training at Bundeswehr facilities, the spokesman said, giving no further details.
A declaration of intent was also signed on police training cooperation, according to information from the government. The scheme would see German federal police giving instruction to Saudi border police, among other things.
German Chancellor Merkel has arrived in the Saudi port city of Jeddah to hold talks with the kingdom’s authorities. Women’s rights are high on her agenda following massive criticism of Riyadh’s UN women’s body role.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel landed in Saudi Arabia Sunday on a one-day official visit. She will hold talks with the Saudi leaders on the fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) militant group and the conflict in Yemen. Trade and business ties will also feature in the discussion between German and Saudi officials.
In her talks in Jeddah with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayf, Merkel will raise questions about the human rights situation and the role of women in the Arab country.
The Arab country’s human rights record, especially its treatment of women, is extremely poor. Rights organizations say that the state is responsible for crimes against women in the country. Women are not allowed to drive, and most aspects of their lives are controlled by “male guardians.”
The wife of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, whose imprisonment and public lashing provoked an international outcry, has also called on Merkel to seek a pardon for her husband from Saudi authorities.
“Saudi Arabia has made marginal improvements on women’s rights in recent years, primarily in employment and access to higher education, but such changes have been hindered or even nullified because authorities have allowed the male guardianship system to remain largely intact, enabling men to maintain control over female relative’s lives,” says Adam Coogle, Human Rights Watch’s Middle East researcher.
Public opinion in Germany is unequivocally against Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. Merkel needs to press Saudi authorities harder over women’s rights. It should be a lot more than just not wearing the headscarf on Saudi soil and paying lip service to the feminist cause.
«Kenyan president describes gay rights as a non-issue after Obama calls for equality for gays and lesbians in Africa»
«South Africa is the only country on the continent to have legalised gay marriage. Most African countries have made it illegal to be gay or lesbian»
* * * * * * *
L’Editorialista del Deutsche Welle ha sintetizzato al meglio il fallimento occidentale in Africa con queste parole:
«China’s popularity in Africa is strong. Its policy of not linking aid and investments to human rights and good governance has made Beijing many friends on the continent, beyond its authoritarian governments»
La dizione “human rights” si estingue per gli Occidentali nel riconoscere giusto ciò essi reputano sia tale, ovvero l’accettazione come normale del comportamento contro-natura e tutto un bagaglio ideologico condiviso solo da loro. Davvero misera concezione, ma soprattutto, ripetiamo, non condivisa da nessuno.
La Cina non ha avuto altro da fare che andare ad occupare lo spazio lasciato vuoto dagli Occidentali.
Tra l’altro, non è impelagata nel fomentare guerre civili.
«African countries require Chinese expertise, technology and financial resources to accelerate the next phase of socio-economic transformation»
«I regard Chinese engagement with Africa as really transformational both in trade, investments and infrastructure development»
«trade, investments and infrastructure development»
Queste sono le key words del successo cinese, totalmente alieno da motivazioni ideologiche e soprattutto rispettoso dell’altrui sovranità e tradizione.
African countries require Chinese expertise, technology and financial resources to accelerate the next phase of socio-economic transformation, a researcher has said.
Executive Director of Africa Economic Research Consortium (AERC), Professor Lemma Senbet, told Xinhua in a recent interview that China’s robust engagement with the world’s second largest continent has been a game changer in many spheres.
“I regard Chinese engagement with Africa as really transformational both in trade, investments and infrastructure development, there has been positive impact on Africa’s growth trajectory,” Senbet said.
The Ethiopian born scholar was optimistic that the current geopolitical shockwaves linked to economic nationalism and isolationism in the west will not affect Sino-Africa bilateral cooperation.
He said China has eclipsed traditional African allies in the West to become the leading source of foreign direct investments in the continent.
At the same time, the Asian giant has become the leading trading partner with Africa, a feat credited for the continent’s stellar economic growth in the last two decades.
Senbet refuted claims that China was only interested with Africa’s natural resources and emphasized that Sino-Africa partnership has been framed around mutual respect and pursuit of common aspirations.
“Basically some people think of natural resources when it comes to China’s engagement with Africa yet the country is strong in trade, retail and financial services sector in Africa,” said Senbet.
He said African countries should court China as they embark on economic diversification, regional integration and strengthening of political institutions.
Senbet hailed China’s investment in modern infrastructure projects across Africa saying the move will hasten the continent’s economic development through robust trade and investments.
“China’s investments in this continent’s infrastructure have been huge. For instance, the Nairobi-Mombasa railway has impacted positively on regional integration,” Senbet said.
He added that African countries will benefit immensely from creation of Belt and Road Initiative envisioned by Chinese leaders to revive ancient trading routes.
The initiative is “playing the role of enhancing economic integration of African countries,” Senbet said while hailing China’s investment in Africa’s modern industrial parks.
African countries require Chinese soft loans and grants to support infrastructure development and modernization of social sectors like education and health.
Senbet noted that investments in Africa’s knowledge-based economy as opposed to financial aid would sustain the continent’s renaissance for the long haul.
He emphasized that China should help African countries strengthen their capacity to harness local expertise and resources in order to propel growth.
The scholar singled out technology transfer as an area that would unleash optimum benefits to both China and Africa.
African countries should forge strong partnership with China in areas that advance democracy, good governance and the rule of law.
Senbet reiterated that African countries can borrow lessons from China to strengthen their political institutions and shield them from internal and external shocks.
China’s popularity in Africa is strong. Its policy of not linking aid and investments to human rights and good governance has made Beijing many friends on the continent, beyond its authoritarian governments.
“We didn’t really ask that question,” said Anyway Chingwete, co-author of a survey recently published by Afrobarometer. She was referring to the difference between East and West in their approach to trade and development aid relations with Africa. But the senior project leader for the African organization that measures public attitudes on economic, political and social issues in sub-Saharan Africa believes that China’s approach, its policy of not making aid and investments conditional on performance on human rights and good governance, has won China a lot of sympathy across the continent. “It has had a positive impact in terms of the growth of trade relationships between China and African countries.” Chingwete told DW.
Zimbabwe is a case in point; the perceived meddling by western powers drove the regime of long-term President Robert Mugabe to look to the east for much needed investments. Now Zimbabweans not only feel that China has the greatest external influence in their country by far, but many of them also approve this: 48 percent say this influence is positive as opposed to 31 percent who perceive it as negative.
Contrary to countries like Mali, where China meets with a 92 percent approval rate, Zimbabweans are divided over whether China or the US offer the best model for development: 25 percent still feel the Americans have better solutions, but a significant 20 percent prefer the Chinese way.
This is not to say that Africans overlook problematic aspects in Sino-African relations. Zambians have not forgotten that a couple of years ago their miners had to fight to get minimum wages from Chinese investors. The protests resulted in riots which turned deadly. Still ,72 percent of Zambians today say that China’s economic and political influence is positive. Analyst Chingwete says: “I think people possibly weigh the positive and the negative. I know there were issues. But I think they also look at the positive aspect.”
China’s investments are especially welcome
According to the survey, there are a number of factors which are liable to tarnish China’s good reputation among Africans: “Citizens highlighted issues having to do with the quality of Chinese products,” Chingwete said. More than one third of Africans (35 percent) feel the products they buy from China are not up to standard. Other negative perceptions are China’s extraction of resources from the continent, land grabbing and taking away jobs and trade from Africans. On the positive side are Chinese investments in infrastructure and other projects, business partnerships and the low cost of imported products.
Currently, former European colonial powers are still seen as the countries having the strongest political and economic influence on the continent (28 percent). But the gap with China (23 percent) is narrowing. The US comes a close third with 22 percent. But with 30 percent they are still ahead of China (24 percent) when it comes to being a role model.
Will China soon replace America in that position? Expert Chingwete doesn’t think so. The US is increasing its presence in Africa, and Africans are well aware of the benefits of trade relations with the US: “For instance we can look at the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA. This has really helped most African countries to be able to trade effectively with the States.” But, she adds, “China is really coming on board and moving very fast.”
Sale ancora la tensione tra Turchia e Germania. Il presidente Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in un intervento a Istanbul, ha accusato ancora una volta la cancelliera Angela Merkel di sostenere i terroristi, riferendosi al caso del giornalista turco-tedesco della Die Welt, Deniz Yucel, in carcere in Turchia. “Grazie a Dio è stato arrestato e tu ci stai chiedendo indietro un agente terrorista”, ha detto Erdogan, sottolineando che sarà processato da un sistema giudiziario “indipendente”.
E Ankara ha convocato l’ambasciatore tedesco in Turchia in merito alla manifestazione di 30mila curdi ieri a Francoforte, per dire no al referendum costituzionale, in cui sono state sventolate bandiere del Pkk. “La Germania ha messo il suo nome in nuovo scandalo”, ha detto il portavoce presidenziale Ibrahim Kalin, ricordando che il Pkk è un “gruppo terrorista separatista”.
Si apre un nuovo fronte di tensione tra la Turchia e l’Europa. Il ministro degli Esteri danese Anders Samuelsen ha reso noto di aver convocato l’ambasciatore turco per chiedere spiegazioni su presunte minacce nei confronti di alcuni cittadini con doppia cittadinanza. Il quotidiano danese Berlingske ha raccolto le testimonianze di alcuni cittadini turco-danesi che sarebbero stati minacciati di una denuncia per “alto tradimento” e di colpire le loro famiglie in Turchia, a causa di commenti anti-Erdogan sui social media.
Turkey has summoned Germany’s ambassador to voice its anger over a Kurdish march in Frankfurt where many protesters carried symbols of the outlawed PKK. An Erdogan spokesman denounced the rally as a “scandal.”
Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin decried the open use of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) insignia at the demonstration in an interview with broadcaster CNN Turk on Sunday.
“The German ambassador was invited – was summoned – to the Foreign Ministry and this was condemned in the strongest way,” he said.
Some 30,000 pro-Kurdish protesters attended the rally on Saturday to call for a ‘no’ vote in an April 16 referendum on expanding the powers of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The demonstration prompted an angry response from Turkey. Officials in the foreign ministry accused Germany of hypocrisy for allowing the march to go ahead despite preventing Turkish ministers from campaigning there for a ‘yes’ vote.
The ban on Turkish officials addressing rallies of expatriate Turks in various European countries, including the Netherlands and Germany, has brought relations between Ankara and the EU to a new low. Erdogan responded by calling the bans fascist and threatening to pull out of a year-old migration deal with the bloc.
In a move that could further increase tensions with Berlin, Erdogan spokesman Kalin told CNN Turk there was a possibility Erdogan could plan another rally to address Turks in Germany before the referendum.
The controversial constitutional amendment would create an executive presidency in Turkey and give Erdogan sweeping new powers. The Turkish government says the changes would boost stability and make governance more efficient. But opponents fear the shift would lead to one-man rule.
Kalin: Germany supports coup plotters
In the interview with CNN Turk, Kalin also accused Germany of supporting the US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, who Ankara believes was responsible for last year’s attempted coup. His comments came after the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, Bruno Kahl, said Ankara had failed to provide evidence of Gulen’s involvement in the July plot.
“Turkey has tried to convince us of that at every level but so far it has not succeeded,” Kahl was quoted as saying by the “Spiegel” news magazine.
Erdogan’s spokesman said the remarks were “proof” Berlin was siding with Gulen and his supporters. “Why are they protecting them? Because these are useful instruments for Germany to use against Turkey,” he said.
Gulen, a former Erdogan ally who has lived in self-imposed exile in the US since 1999, has denied the allegations.
Abituata ai diversamente ed alteramente senzienti che pullulano la Germania attuale, degenerati smidollati contro natura, Frau Merkel pensava di mangiarsi in un boccone Mr Trump, che invece di testosterone ne ha da vendere.
Mr Trump ha innalzato le arcate sopraciliari ed il mondo ha obbedito: in particolare Frau Merkel è corsa come un leprotto finlandese a lavare tutti i cessi di obamiana memoria.
Frau Merkel che stabilisce lei cosa deve trattare il G20?
Ma siamo matti da legare!!
«Opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia and others has forced Germany to drop a reference to financing programs to combat climate change from the draft communique at a G20 finance and central bankers meeting»
«A G20 official taking part in the meeting said on Friday that efforts by the German G20 presidency to keep the wording on climate change financing had run into resistance»
«Climate change is out for the time being»
* * * * * * *
Ma chi mai si credeva di essere la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel?
La Germania sta estinguendosi e tra dieci anni saranno quattro gatti spelacchiati, non hanno esercito, l’Unione Europea sta disintegrandosi, la loro economia traballa e stava in piedi perché la passata presidenza Obama lo permetteva.
Ma chi mai si credeva di essere la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel?
Opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia and others has forced Germany to drop a reference to financing programs to combat climate change from the draft communique at a G20 finance and central bankers meeting.
A G20 official taking part in the meeting said on Friday that efforts by the German G20 presidency to keep the wording on climate change financing had run into resistance.
“Climate change is out for the time being,” said the official, who asked not to be named.
At their last meeting in July 2016 in the Chinese city of Chengdu, the G20 financial leaders said they encouraged all signatories of the Paris Agreement on climate change to bring the deal into force as soon as possible.
But U.S. President Donald Trump, who took office in November, has called global warming a “hoax” concocted by China to hurt U.S. industry and vowed to unpick the Paris climate accord that is supposed to curb rising temperatures.
Under the Chinese G20 presidency, finance ministers last year called on all governments to implement financial commitments made under the Paris deal in a “timely” way and promised to continue working on climate finance in 2017.
Trump’s administration on Thursday proposed a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, as the White House seeks to eliminate climate change programs and trim initiatives to protect air and water quality.
Asked about climate change programs, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, told reporters on Thursday “we consider that to be a waste of (Americans’) money.”
Ad ogni azione corrisponde una reazione eguale e contraria.
Questo è un principio della fisica che si applica alla perfezione anche ai rapporti umani.
Da otto anni l’Amministrazione Obama aveva assunto l’iniziativa di redigere un report pubblicato a cadenza annuale, il Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, cui dare risonanza mondiale.
Questo report dettagliava quanto ciascuno degli stati esistenti fosse o meno coerente con ciò che l’Amministrazione Obama definiva essere i “diritti umani“. Erano, e sono tuttora, giudizi tranchant, emessi per di più senza possibilità di contraddittorio.
Da un punto di vista teoria e logico formale, etica e morale sono materia oggettiva, non soggettiva. Se infatti potessero esistere più etiche o più morali, essere sarebbero in contraddizione vicendevole, e la contraddizione è segno evidente di falsità. Di conseguenza, non può esiste che una ed una sola etica, una ed una sola morale.
Questo semplice ragionamento evidenzia la fallacia di ciò che i liberals democratici americani considerano essere i “diritti umani“, da loro ritenuti essere soggettivi. Essi infatti includono in tale categoria logica tutta una serie di asserzioni da loro ritenute essere indimostrati ed indimostrabili “diritti umani“. È una loro visione squisitamente soggettiva, che vale allora tanto quanto una che la contraddicesse in toto.
Anche se gli esempi dovrebbero essere alieni dai ragionamenti teorici, potremmo ricordare come, per esempio, la democrazia intesa come suffragio universale sia nella storia solo uno dei tanti modi eticamente corretti di reggere i popoli. Un altro chiaro esempio inerisce l’etica e la morale sessuale, nell’ambito delle quali i liberals postulano l’esistenza di assiomi da loro ritenuti essere di carattere generale, ma che sono invece contraddittori e conflittuali. E la loro principale contraddizione è la negazione del diritto alla vita. Ma senza vita, non esiste altro che il ricordo, se mai riuscise a sussistere nel tempo.
In poche parole, i così detti “diritti umani” esistono solo nella mente dei liberals e sono praticati solo dove essi siano direttamente od indirettamente al governo. Per esempio, l’Amministrazione Trump non li condivide affatto, e con lei la maggioranza del popolo sovrano che la ha eletta. Infine, non esistono diritti senza i relativi doveri: anzi, è l’adempimento di un dovere che conferisce un diritto.
Per esempio: prima si versino i conributi pensionistici e poi, dopo e solo dopo ciò, si acquisisce il diritto a percepire la pensione pattuita.
Da un mero punto di rapporti di forza, gli Stati Uniti rendono conto di circa un ventesimo della popolazione mondiale. Con 18.6 trilioni di Usd di pil, rendono conto del 24.6% di quello mondiale, fatto che li pone come primaria potenza economica, ma molto ben lontana da quando agli inizi degli anni sessanta gli Usa costituivano il 70% del pil mondiale. Dal punto di vista militare, gli Stati Uniti sono una delle due superpotenze atomiche, ma anche una delle tante nazioni dotate di tali armi. Ma, a partire dalla guerra del Vietnam, hanno sicuramente vinto molte battaglie, ma alla fine hanno perso militarmente e politicamente le guerre. Trenta anni or sono il Mare Cinese del Sud era un loro lago personale, dal quale sono oggi praticamente banditi.
In poche parole di riassunto, non hanno più la forza di imporre i propri voleri.
In questo contesto il Country Reports on Human Rights Practices si pone come eticamente e moralmente inconsistente e, per di più, politicamente molto inopportuno.
«La Segreteria di Stato degli Stati Uniti d’America si occupa, o dovrebbe occuparsi, della conduzione della politica estera della nazione. Un report che esprima considerazioni su nazioni sovrane è un evento di politica estera a carattere unilaterale: la sua pubblicazione potrebbe anche produrre reazioni avverse, sempre che agli Stati Uniti competa il compito di giudicare il mondo.
Già: chi mai avrebbe dato agli Stati Uniti il diritto di giudicare? E sono molte le nazioni che si pongono questo quesito, esattamente come si pongono la domanda se poi l’Occidente rispetti i diritti fondamentali dell’uomo. Infatti, gran parte del resto del mondo la pensa in modo opposto a come la sta pensando l’Occidente.» [Fonte]
I liberals democratici, sparuta minoranza politica ancorché ancora occupante alcuni importanti centri di potere, ha reagito con grande clangore al fatto che il Segretario di Stato, Mr Tillerson, non abbia presentato i Report in prima persona e con enfasi.
«Rex Tillerson said he wanted to see facts before criticizing countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Philippines».
Invero, non sembrerebbe destituita di sano buon senso la posizione assunta dal Segretario di Stato di voler prima esaminare i fatti e poi, dopo adeguata analisi e ripensamento, esprimere giudizio, se mai fosse da esprimersi.
Il risultato in ogni caso è stato immediato, e le critiche piovute sul Report pienamente giustificate.
«China on Monday questioned the findings of a United States human rights report and cautioned against using the issue of human rights to interfere in China’s internal affairs»
«The U.S. State Department released an annual report on global human rights Friday, which pointed a finger at China and some other countries»
«Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang voiced firm opposition to the “2016 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” which he said was full of unfounded accusations and prejudice»
«China holds that countries should have dialogue and exchanges with one another on human rights on the basis of equality and mutual respect»
«Geng dismissed the false accusations and stressed that the United States has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of China»
* * * * * * * *
Non sarà sfuggito a nessuno il fatto che il Ministero degli Esteri cinese abbia risposto non per voce del Ministro, bensì tramite un semplice portavoce: da un punto di vista diplomatico un ceffone a piena mano. Né sarà sfuggito che nomina il U.S. State Department , non certamente Mr Tillerson. Una sottigliezza per il volgo, un oceano di differenza in diplomazia.
Poniamoci allora una domanda.
Ha poi così grande importanza andare a cercarsi inimicizie per nulla?
Tanto poi, alla fine, ci si deve ben sedere attorno ad un tavolino e trattare, con reciproco beneficio ed accordo. Come dicono i cinesi: «on the basis of equality and mutual respect».
China on Monday questioned the findings of a United States human rights report and cautioned against using the issue of human rights to interfere in China’s internal affairs.
The U.S. State Department released an annual report on global human rights Friday, which pointed a finger at China and some other countries.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang voiced firm opposition to the “2016 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” which he said was full of unfounded accusations and prejudice.
China has lodged solemn representations with the U.S. side, Geng said at a regular press conference.
He said anyone free of political bias about China’s human rights situation would not deny the remarkable improvements since the founding of the People’s Republic of China.
China holds that countries should have dialogue and exchanges with one another on human rights on the basis of equality and mutual respect, Geng said.
He urged the United States to view China’s human rights situation in an objective and fair manner and stop using the issue to interfere in China’s internal affairs.
Regarding the report’s accusations about the human rights situation in the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions, Geng dismissed the false accusations and stressed that the United States has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of China.
Since the return of Hong Kong and Macao, the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and the Basic Law have been implemented comprehensively, and Hong Kong and Macao residents enjoy full rights and freedom in accordance with the law, said Geng.
These are well-established facts and cannot be called into question, he added.
Mr Rubio ha giocato la vecchia ma sempre valida carta di scavalcare a sinistra i sinistri.
Per un po’ si è atteggiato a critico severo di Mr Tillerson, rubando la scena ai liberals democratici.
Poi, al momento del voto, si è schierato compatto con i soci repubblicani: e così Rex Tillerson ha passato la votazione in commissione.
Sinceramente, non ci aspettiamo miracoli né dal Presidente Trump né dal Segretario di Stato Tillerson. Ambedue stanno operando in un ambiente fortemente ostile in Patria e per nulla accomodante sullo scenario internazionale.
Se è vero che Mr Putin richiama l’ammirazione di molti per le sue doti diplomatiche da statista di alto livello, sarebbe altrettanto vero ed utile ricordare che è un russo e che fa gli interessi della Russia, esattamente come Mr Trump vuole fare gli interessi degli Stati Uniti.
Nulla vieta però che i capi delle due superpotenze nucleari mondiali possano sedersi serenamente attorno ad un tavolino, parlare e trovare alla fine un accordo.
Sotto questa ottica, la nomina di Mr Tillerson alla carica di Segretario di Stato potrebbe spianare potentemente la strada ad una intesa duratura che soddisfi ambedue le parti.
Si prospetta un gioco a due.
Cina ed Unione Europea resteranno sullo sfondo, specialmente questa ultima.
Ma non c’è solo la Russia sullo scacchiere mondiale.
In Commissione al Senato non si è quasi parlato di che fine debba fare l’Unione Europea.
– blamed illegal ballots for his failure to win the popular vote, without offering evidence
– promised to have a new Supreme Court nominee within two weeks
Also on Monday, the Senate confirmed Mike Pompeo as Mr Trump’s CIA director.
Mr Pompeo’s immediate task, correspondents say, will be to establish an effective relationship between the spy agency and Mr Trump.
The president has been critical of the CIA for concluding that Russia had been actively working to influence the US presidential election in his favour.
In another development, new US Defence Secretary James Mattis said Washington had an “unshakeable commitment” to Nato, despite Mr Trump’s earlier description of the military alliance as “obsolete”.
Trump takes charge
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Mr Tillerson after leading Republican Senator Marco Rubio dropped his opposition.
Mr Rubio sparred with Mr Tillerson, a 64-year-old Texan oil executive, during confirmation hearings earlier this month, accusing him of being soft on Russia.
The former head of Exxon Mobil, Mr Tillerson knows Russian President Vladimir Putin through his business dealings.
But Mr Tillerson has criticised Moscow for its annexation of Ukraine’s southern Crimea peninsula in 2014.
Mr Rubio said that although he had doubts over the choice, he believed a new president was entitled to deference in assembling his cabinet.
“Despite my reservations, I will support Mr Tillerson’s nomination in committee and in the full Senate,” said Mr Rubio.
He had challenged Mr Tillerson over his refusal to call President Putin a “war criminal” over Russia’s air strikes in Syria and his failure to condemn strongly enough human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and the Philippines.
Mr Rubio was among the candidates who fought Mr Trump in the battle for the Republican presidential ticket.
The partisan split in the voting is unusual. Traditionally, nominees for secretary of state have been approved by overwhelming votes from both parties.
Senator Ben Cardin, the committee’s top Democrat, had said he would not vote for Mr Tillerson, also over his position on Russia as well as other issues.
He also suggested that Mr Tillerson’s “business orientation” could “compromise his ability as secretary of state to forcefully promote the values and ideals that have defined” America.
While critics raise concern about his ability to trade in his corporate interest for a national one, some supporters suggest the former CEO’s background as a global dealmaker may bring fresh perspective to the nation’s top diplomatic post.
At a closed doors meeting on Monday night, Mr Trump told congressional leaders he would have won the popular vote in the election if millions of undocumented immigrants had not voted illegally. He gave no evidence for the claim.
Democrat Hillary Clinton won nearly three million votes more than her opponent, who got more support in key swing states and won the electoral college.
But any notion of widespread voter fraud was widely rejected as untrue when Mr Trump made the same claim in November.
President-elect reported to be planning to meet Russian counterpart in Reykjavik shortly after becoming assuming office.
Donald Trump’s first foreign trip is to be to Iceland for a summit with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, according to reports.
In a move that echoes Ronald Reagan’s cold war meeting in Reykjavik with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, Trump and his team have reportedly told British officials that the summit will take place within weeks of him becoming US president.
The summit would be an attempt to rest reset western relations with the Kremlin, with the agenda thought to include a deal limiting nuclear weapons. The news comes as Trump continues to face claims that Russia holds material which could be used to blackmail him.
On Saturday the president-elect said he would consider dropping sanctions against Russia if Moscow helped tackle terrorism and worked with the US on other goals, although they would remain in place “at least for a period of time”.
He also said he was willing to meet Putin. “I understand that they would like to meet, and that’s absolutely fine with me,” he said.
A source who discussed the plan with Trump and officials at the Russian embassy in London told the Times: “The idea of a summit with Putin is definitely on the cards. The Russians are also keen on it.”
A Trump adviser confirmed the president-elect’s intention to meet Putin very soon and said that Reykjavik was under active consideration.
“What does Putin want?” the adviser said. “Prestige, centre stage at the summit, the one-on-one meeting, the hand on the back from Trump. That gives the US tremendous leverage. Mr Trump is master of the photo op and he will use that skill.”
The news is unlikely to be welcomed by senior figures in the British government, who fear a deepening relationship between the US and Russia under Trump risks leaving Britain out in the cold. It is understood Downing Street expects Theresa May to visit Trump at the White House in the second half of February.
Britain has called for sanctions against Moscow over Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and Syria. It is understood that British intelligence has sought reassurance from the CIA that UK agents in Russia will be protected when intelligence is shared, the Times reported.
A British intelligence source with extensive transatlantic experience said US spies had labelled Trump and his advisers’ links to the Kremlin problematic. “Until we have established whether Trump and senior members of his team can be trusted, we’re going to hold back,” the source told the Times. “Putting it bluntly, we can’t risk betraying sources and methods to the Russians.”
Russia has caused further alarm by announcing plans to move thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of troops to Nato’s borders this year in a development that has caused concern among the Baltic states.
Trump’s claims that he has “nothing to do with Russia” appear to have been contradicted by his son Donald Jr, who reportedly said in a speech in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section” of a lot of the Trump Organisation’s assets.
The Russian embassy in London referred calls to the foreign affairs ministry in Moscow, which did not comment.
Riassumiamo le notizie al momento ritenibili sicure.
– Marine Le Pen è a New York ed è stata vista e fotografata all’interno della Trump Tower.
– Lo staff presidenziale ha affermato che «Le Pen has no meetings scheduled with Trump nor his aides».
– «Lombardi told reporters later Thursday that he’d organized a private party for Le Pen on Wednesday night that included “entrepreneurs, businessmen, industrialists –- there was a couple of people from the United Nations” who are supporters of her.»
– «Trump once described Lombardi and his wife as “friends for a long time.” Lombardi said last year that he helped organize a Trump rally in Washington during the campaign»
– «We did not reach out to Mr. Trump even though he’s a friend of mine»
* * * * * * *
Mrs Marine Le Pen riferisce di essere andata privatamente a New York.
Per canone diplomatico la sua presenza nella Trump Tower avrebbe dovuto essere stata previamente concordata con l’inquilino della medesima.
– Le Pen has no meetings scheduled with Trump nor his aides
– French presidential candidate is leading in latest poll
French National Front leader Marine Le Pen made an unannounced visit to New York and caused a stir when she was spotted at Trump Tower flanked by a longtime friend of President-elect Donald Trump.
But Le Pen, who leads in the latest opinion poll for the French presidential election, had no meeting scheduled with Trump nor with members of his transition team, according to representatives for her and for the president-elect. Her campaign chief, David Rachline, said she was making a private trip to New York.
Le Pen waved off reporters when approached while she sat drinking coffee with three other people outside the Trump Ice Parlor on Thursday.
Among them was Guido Lombardi, an adviser to Le Pen who lives three stories below Trump’s penthouse and is a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump once described Lombardi and his wife as “friends for a long time.” Lombardi said last year that he helped organize a Trump rally in Washington during the campaign.
Lombardi told reporters later Thursday that he’d organized a private party for Le Pen on Wednesday night that included “entrepreneurs, businessmen, industrialists –- there was a couple of people from the United Nations” who are supporters of her.
“We did not reach out to Mr. Trump even though he’s a friend of mine,” Lombardi said. “I know very well his policy about not meeting foreign leaders. He had this policy all throughout his campaign. We know that. We respect that. We didn’t ask him to meet her. We did not go begging for any interview with anyone on the transition team because she was here to meet other people.”
Lombardi said, laughing, that on Thursday he, Le Pen and the others “were just grabbing coffee and were hoping nobody was here.”
Trump spokesman, Sean Spicer said that the French politician had no meeting with members of Trump’s staff and he didn’t know why she was in Trump Tower. “It’s a public building,” he said.
Le Pen is set to launch her official campaign on Feb. 4 in a meeting with supporters in the French city of Lyon. She has repeatedly said she supports Trump’s policies for the U.S. and called him “a sign of hope” for European anti-establishment politicians in a press conference this month.
“The message is very similar. The message is a populist message that resonate with what we call the working class,” Lombardi said, adding that a third of her support comes from the left. “The working class, even in France, are fed up with the elitist, globalist politicians that are not doing anything for their own people, and they are looking for someone, a new voice.”
Trump has met on several occasions with Nigel Farage, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, most recently in December.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is on a roll. The catalog of his alarming moves is well-known: Aggression in Ukraine, interference in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, stepped-up intelligence efforts that may include a hybrid operation to discredit Hillary Clinton, a slick, prolific propaganda machine, support for nationalist and populist movements in Europe. But why is Putin doing all this?
The common explanation is that Putin and his circle see Russia’s relationship with the West as a zero-sum game. Molly McKew, a former adviser to anti-Russian leaders of Georgia and Moldova, recently wrote a much-shared article expounding the view that this is a war and urging the West to act to defeat the aggressive Russian leader.
A sideline of this school of thought focuses on Putin’s sheer bloody-mindedness and self-interest. Gary Kasparov, the chess champion and long-time Putin opponent, argues that Putin has “no consideration of what is or is not good for Russia, or for Russians, only what is best for him and his close circle of oligarch elites.”
Both perspectives have merit: Putin’s view of the West, or at least of its centrist elite, is unflinchingly adversarial and revanchist. The perpetuation of his own power is clearly a goal, evidenced by his efforts to flatten domestic opposition by whatever means, from election rigging to stifling the media. But these cliches also oversimplify things. In the rush to frame the terms of what is in all-but-name a renewed Cold War, Western policy-makers risk missing the forest for the trees. To better assess what actions are worth countering, they should first try to understand Putin’s strategic objectives.
Rather than a crude us-versus-them mindset, a cocktail of mysticism and capitalist instincts seems to animate Putin and his close friends and aides. Anton Vaino, appointed Putin’s chief of staff last year, co-wrote a book, called “The Image of Victory,” about the global politics as a game. It’s an esoteric treatise known for its discussion of the nooscope — a strange device to “detect and register changes in the biosphere and in human activity.” It does, however, offer plenty of clues to current Kremlin thinking. For example, it makes this distinction between a war and a game:
In war, there is us and them, friends and enemies, front and rear. A was has and end and a beginning. Victory and Defeat. In a game, everything is different. A game is a system of chess, card or checkers moves made in a different space than that of war, with a different degree of foresight of the convergent processes of interaction between adversaries. In a game, time flows differently and interaction, too is different. One of us can be theirs, and one of them can be ours.
Putin has been declared a thug; he, however, still sees himself as a chess grandmaster playing a complicated game with elements of violence and subterfuge. In “The Image of Victory,” the goal is economic: A massive increase in the value of Russian assets, which would make Russia an equal in determining “the rules of the Global Game.” Since 2012, when the book was published, Putin has made policy choices that prioritized geopolitics over economics. That doesn’t mean, however, that the long-term goal has changed.
There are indications that it hasn’t. Frauke Petry, co-leader of Alternative for Germany (AfD) — the nationalist, pro-Putin party that has made much headway in recent German regional elections — this week published an essay in the Swiss weekly Weltwoche, arguing for an enormous free-trade area that would include the U.S., Europe and Russia, turning the European Union into a far looser, primarily economic, bloc than it is today. Petry wrote:
With the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, new options will also open up here: free trade from Vladivostok to Anchorage, but not on terms which give big industry exclusive competitive advantages over medium-sized companies.
Putin himself has repeatedly mentioned a trade zone from Lissabon to Vladivostok, though not extending it as far as the U.S. The Kremlin is looking for channels to communicate its ideas in the West and European nationalists like Petry are probably one of the best sources on Putin’s agenda today. Putin’s United Russia party is even forging formal alliances with European nationalist parties, and the AfD is no exception.
It’s also worth recalling that the Ukraine crisis started when Russia tied to pull the neighboring country into a post-Soviet free trade area Putin has been trying to patch together. Ukraine opted to move toward EU membership; the Kremlin wanted trilateral talks on economic cooperation, but the EU refused to invite Russia to the table. Moscow then put pressure on then-president Viktor Yanukovych to hold off signing a trade deal with Europe, and soon afterwards, pro-European Ukrainians deposed him. Three years later, it’s hard to imagine amicable talks between Russia, Ukraine and the EU — but the opportunity was once there.
Elsewhere, as with Ukraine, Russia may only want relatively modest economic advantages and a seat at the table. In pushing for better trade terms and more security, Putin is more predictable than the mercurial Donald Trump. It needn’t be zero sum.
In the Middle East, for example, Russia wants to sell its weapons and do energy-related deals with Turkey and U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. and Europe lose nothing by allowing that and working with Russia against common terrorist threats. The United Nations Security Council appears to have recognized that by backing a Syrian ceasefire sponsored by Russia and Turkey; it’s largely holding so far.
To many in the West, Putin destroyed the possibility of such plain dealing with his militant misbehavior. The default was to think in terms of retribution. The reality is that Russia is a major nuclear power that no country, including the U.S., wants to take on militarily. Comprehensive, Iran-style sanctions are also impossible because a cornered Putin might make even more aggressive moves, perhaps even testing North Atlantic Treaty Organization cohesion.
This may be unpleasant, both to Western leaders and to Russians hoping for a more democratic government in their country. But there’s no point in denying it. Since 2014, Putin’s tactical goal has been to demonstrate the uselessness of half-hearted containment policies, the impossibility of an open war and the unifying effect a perceived external threat can have on Russians.
The demonstration has been persuasive. It has also hurt U.S. prestige in the world and created new threats to the EU. But because many Western politicians still act unconvinced, Putin feels forced to continue his saber-rattling and his disruptive KGB-style forays into Western domestic politics. Neither Putin nor the elite around him wants to keep playing the bad guy. Many of them celebrated Trump’s victory because to them, it meant a potential respite.
A genuine attempt by Western leaders to find common ground would, of course, be labeled appeasement. Rather, it would be a powerful move to undermine Putin’s long-term ascendancy. Even the botched “reset” of U.S.-Russian relations during Barack Obama’s first term nearly had a disastrous effect on his rule: Russia’s increasing inclusion in the Western world’s economy under that policy enriched and emboldened Moscow’s middle class, and by 2011, it was ready to protest electoral fraud and search for new leaders.
The current hostilities, by contrast, are only strengthening Putin’s hold on power and weakening his pro-Western opponents, who barely register on most Russians’ radars anymore. Paradoxically, the achievement of Putin’s ultimate strategic goals could lead to change that would eventually destroy what is seen as the Russian threat today.