The Conspiracy Against Cuba

 

Cuba faces a renewed effort by the United States to depose the government. The Cuban Communist Party has resisted the United States for close to 65 years. The war of aggression directed at Venezuela was not just to procure its oil, but to ensure US dominance in South America. Leftist governments are being targeted in the region. Cuba's fall would be a means of the United States having more direct control over the Caribbean. The US Justice Department is seeking an indictment of former head of state Raul Castro. The charge is related to the shooting of planes in 1996 operated by Brothers to the Rescue. Raul Castro left office in 2021 and appears to have little influence over current Cuban policy. Brothers to the Rescue has been criticized for its activities. The organization claims to wants to help Cubans fleeing Cuba, but focuses on efforts related to infiltration and possible espionage. The Cuban exile group is less of a human rights organization and more of an instrument for regime change. The founder of the group Jose Basulto has been thought to have connections to the CIA. Some Cubans would take rafts and make the dangerous journey to the United States. Brothers to the Rescue claimed they were just saving people, but were also dropping propaganda leaflets. Since the Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuba has been harassed by the United States. Blockades and sanctions are an extension of economic warfare. The pattern of behavior provides evidence of a wider conspiracy that involves Cuban exile organizations, spying, and foreign interference. Cuba has an energy blockade imposed upon it by the US. The result is frequent black outs and a reduced oil supply. Mexico is attempting to substitute what was Venezuela's role as Cuba's energy supplier. The Trump administration continues to threaten Mexico and Colombia for assisting Cuba.   

Why Maria Corina Machado Was Awarded The Nobel Prize

 

Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Prize. The choice comes at a period when Venezuela is under threat from foreign powers. Machado being given the Nobel Prize was related to her activism. This was not some humanitarian campaign, rather it was her effort to depose the legitimate government of Venezuela. Those not familiar with her political career would see her as an activist. For two decades Maria Corina Machado tried to depose the government by extralegal means. Sumate claims to be a civil volunteer organization, but it motivation when established was to have President Hugo Chavez removed from office. It was in 2004 Sumate launched a referendum to recall  President Hugo Chavez . When evidence surfaced that the National Endowment for Democracy was funding Sumate the government acted. When President Hugo Chavez died, Machado became an enemy of the Nicolas Maduro administration. Being a participant in the 2014 protests boosted her political profile . Machado is similar to Juan Guaido. A political opposition figure trying to obtain the presidency to rule on the behalf of foreign interests. Maria Corina Machado has expressed a desire to privatize state run sectors and dismantle socialist policies. Awarding Machado the Nobel Prize was method of undermining the legitimate government of Venezuela. There is speculation that Maria Corina Machado could be working in some capacity with foreign intelligence. No evidence of this claim as been uncovered. Machado's Nobel Prize was more of a public relations operation promoting military action.   

Renewed Escalation In The Syrian Civil War

 

The Syrian Civil War has been fought for 13 years. Now there is a renewed escalation. The conflict has morphed into a war of proxy, with multiple countries arming terrorists organizations. Armed groups like the Free Syria Army and the Syrian  Democratic Forces  were prominent during the 2010s. ISIS operated between the borders of Iraq and Syria. The country is going through a balkanization process similar to Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Turkey, the United States, and the UAE are providing weapons to these armed groups and terrorist organizations. The sudden resurgence is connected to Israel's aggression in both Gaza and Lebanon. Israel conducted a number of airstrikes in Syria during the long civil war. Removing the Assad government would weaken Hezbollah and Iran. The Syrian Civil War now has transformed into a regime change operation. The Al-Nusra Front  has  done rebrand of its organization. Although still terrorists, they  are no longer collaborating with al-Qaeda. The new name of the terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seeks to establish a theocratic government. The last Baathist government in the Middle East is facing threats from old rivals and recent ones. The Gulf monarchies and radical political Islamism are two major enemies to the Bashar Al-Assad presidency. If the Bashar Al-Assad government falls that means Syrian refugees will either go to Europe or Turkey. Israel could use the opportunity to take more territory. Russia and Iran are going to intervene on the behalf of Syria. Russia's war in Ukraine remains a priority, but Syria is a place in which the UK, US, France, and Germany can be undermined. Iran realizes that it is in a state of war with Israel and that Syria is too important to lose. The rebels have taken Aleppo and continue to push further south. If the Baathist government loses Damascus, the war to keep Syria whole is lost.  

Dianne Feinstein Claims Iraq A Threat To The US (2014)

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein (1933-2023) stated that Iraq was still a threat to the United States. She claimed that ISIS could attack the US, but did not provide evidence in a CNN interview. What was ignored is that she voted for the Iraq War and then later said she was lied to by President Bush. Her vote on October 11, 2002 contributed to the destabilization of Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein enabled terrorist organizations to enter the country. Then it has been revealed that some of these organizations were being aided by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to depose Bashar Al-Assad. As long as the US was attacking Syria Senator Feinstein's suggestion of reproachment with Iran was an empty gesture. As Chair of  the Intelligence Committee she had knowledge of US operations in the Middle East. When this was aired in 2014, the Syrian Civil War was being exacerbated as a result of attempts at regime change. ISIS was fighting between the borders of both Iraq and Syria. There is no serious discussion of why people would want to go fight in these countries. US foreign policy has generated much anger among these populations making terrorist organizations appear to be an alternative to US influence in West Asia. Senator Dianne Feinstein claimed there will be plots to kill American citizens. ISIS had not made an attack on the US so far. Inducing fear in the public is another way to justify neo-colonial projects in other countries. The fact Senator Feinstein remained in power so long represents a problem with the American political system. Refusal to change policy or usher in new leadership means more foreign policy failures and internal concerns. 

George Shultz Answers Questions About The Iran Contra Scandal (1986)

 

George P. Shultz (1920- 2021)  served as secretary of state under the Ronald Reagan administration. He went on Face The Nation to defend US policy in Latin America. The US was attempting regime change in Nicaragua by funding the Contras. The funds were generated from arms sales to Iran. Congress forbid this, but the Reagan presidency went ahead with covert action. Shultz in hi testimony denied having any knowledge of the arms for hostages agreement. The truth however was that he had knowledge of arms sales between December 1985 to May of 1986. The image of George P. Shultz being an honest figure in the Reagan administration  was more so a fabrication. Shultz during the interview states that the USA was being tough on terrorism and the arms embargo directed at Iran. The reality is that the US was sponsoring multiple terrorist organizations and armed groups globally. The scandal could no longer be covered up and members of Reagan's cabinet were charged. Shultz was able to avoid criminal charges, but that did not mean he was innocent of wrong doing. George P. Shultz was aware of the sale of TOW and HAWK missiles. 

Muammar Qaddafi Calls on Libyans To Resist NATO (2011)

 

Ten years ago Muammar Qaddafi was assassinated.  Libya was in a state of civil war, however this was induced by the UK, France, US, and NATO countries. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates also contributed to regime change in Libya. Protests did occur in response to the events in Tunisia. These were peaceful  demonstrations. Armed groups and terrorist organizations not associated with protestors started violence. Libya descended in civil war and NATO began a bombing campaign. Qaddafi called on all Libyans to resist aggressive war waged by NATO. The African Union was seeking  to end the conflict with diplomacy. This was ignored by both the UN and EU. The violent destruction of a prosperous African country was planned for decades. Libya's oil resources and influence in the global south made it a target of Western powers. Qaddafi earned much respect for his contribution to anti-colonial freedom struggles and the fight against white minority rule regimes in the Southern African region. His death was a major blow to the African continent. 

Laurent Gbagbo Return and The Irovry Coast

 

Laurent Gbagbo has returned to Ivory Coast. There is no indication if Gbagbo intends to be active in politics following ten  years out of the country . He was acquitted of criminal charges by the ICC. The legitimacy of the International Crimes Court has been called into question. A disproportionate  number of African leaders have been targeted by the ICC. European leaders rarely are subject to the ICC despite involvement in numerous wars in both Africa and Asia. President Alassane Outarra has held the presidency ever since 2011 and Gbagbo's return could be a political threat. Ivory Coast fell into violence following the disputed election in 2010. Fears grow that peaceful transfers of power could result in a long lasting civil war. During Gbagbo's presidency, there was war between the opposition. The French backed and UN forces captured Gbagbo in 2011 placing Outarra in power. The run off election did not bring an end to disputes. The narrative was that he lost the election and was clinging to power. The ICC case found no evidence that their was a plan to keep Gbagbo in power. Nor was there evidence of a plot to murder civilians. Gbagbo could still face prison in Ivory Coast. Such an action would cause more outrage in a country divided. 

The Afghan War, US Withdraw , and The Failure of Nation Building

 The Biden administration has announced its intention of US withdraw from Afghanistan. The exit of US troops will be gradual with September 11th being the set deadline. The Afghan War  has been the longest conflict in US history. The devastation will have a lasting impact of the people living in the Central Asian nation. The war was overseen by four presidential administrations and no solution was reached. This withdraw is not American troops just leaving a deteriorating country. The United States was defeated similar to the Vietnam conflict. Slowly the mendacious claims about democracy promotion and fighting terrorism have unraveled. Nation building projects do not exist for the sake of human rights. The objective is to advance a neocolonial imperialist agenda. The war in Afghanistan was presented to the public as a dire emergency that required military  force.  The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was used as a justification for humanitarian intervention into Afghanistan. The target was Al-Qaeda and governments that were providing them bases. The Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden, because they wanted evidence he was directly involved in the attacks. When this occurred the US then considered the Taliban as an enemy. Out of this grew a popular fiction. The idea that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were a giant military threat emerged. Al-Qaeda was presented as a omnipotent organization that was responsible for terrorism across the globe. Terrorist groups existed before Al-Qaeda and many were working independently from one another. Osama Bin Laden did not have complete control over these terrorist  groups in other countries. Bin Laden was more so a patron of some groups rather than a leader or fighter. The War on Terror was a justification  for the US expanding into Central Asia and the Middle East. President George W. Bush started the Afghan War and his successors continued it with the hope of pushing further into the region. Beyond just mere economic exploitation and increasing geopolitical power an idea was being experimented with. Imposing liberal democracy through military force was a neoconservative political vision for the world. Afghanistan was a testing ground for US nation building and extremist  neoconservative foreign policy. Other nations were to fall victim to America's rampage which included Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia. Afghanistan had a unique situation seeing as it was the first to experience a new type of US military aggression. President Joseph Biden may not meet the indented deadline  considering the situation has become more unstable. Past  presidents have made promises of withdraw, but have vacillated. Afghanistan's internal challenges will spread across borders. 

       The war in Afghanistan has involved both NATO and US forces. Unlike Iraq, this was a multilateral military intervention. When the invasion commenced in 2001, opposition was to the conflict was not as potent. There was a lack of understanding about the country and the complexities in a wider geopolitical context. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to maintain the Marxist regime. Following this was a growing armed resistance. The mujahideen would fight the Soviet occupation with  aid coming from Pakistan and the United States. America's intelligence apparatus armed the groups that could become the future terrorists. The Soviet withdraw in 1989 left a power void in Afghanistan's fractured society. The country was in a state of civil war. Al-Qaeda emerged around 1988. The country provided the organization a base of operations. The Taliban was both a movement and  armed group that appeared around 1994. The most formidable adversary of the Taliban was the Northern Alliance. Ultimately, the Taliban would rule most the country by 1996. By the year 2000, the Taliban was close to controlling all  of the country. Mohammed Omar the founder and leader of the Taliban was de facto  head of state. Little is known about how much  he contributed to Osama Bin Laden's activities. At the time, the Taliban was at the height of its power and Bin Laden was losing significance in the political Islamist movement. Attempts at starting building Islamic republics in Sudan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia were not successful. The instability in Afghanistan allowed for Osama to move freely and try once more to build a movement that could depose the secular regimes of North Africa and the Middle East.  

The US invasion at first used planes and drones to bomb select targets. Special forces then followed after the bombing campaigns. The Taliban fell from power, but the insurgency continued. The US-NATO forces were fighting a conventional war, while the Taliban used guerilla warfare. Afghanistan's mountainous terrain makes it perfect for this type of irregular warfare. The is not one Taliban. There are man armed branches of it throughout the country. Pakistan has been accused of aiding some sections of it on its borders. Neighboring countries have gotten more involved in Afghanistan's internal affairs. Uzbekistan provided bases to US combat soldiers during the war. Iran wanted to see the Taliban fall, because it did not want a Sunni Muslim state at its border. Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have economic interests in the country. The Afghan War gave the US an opportunity to have a larger foothold in Central Asia. This would be modeled similar to how the US has influence in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. The invasion was the start of a new decline in Russia-US relations. As it became clear that there was not plan for an exit under the Bush administration, Russia began reconfiguring its foreign policy. When President Obama was elected relations were beyond repair. Drone attacks increased and the US-NATO forces became a permanent feature. There have been discussions of withdraw for years. So far, they are nothing more than empty promises. President Trump proposed a peace deal with the Taliban, but there was not commitment to full scale withdraw. This is why some critics are skeptical of President Joseph Biden's  statements. 

        The US withdraw may not be what it appears. US-NATO combat troops could exit, but special forces and a large intelligence apparatus could remain. Air strikes and drone attacks could still continue. There is another possibility. The withdraw is an admission of defeat. The war can not be won. The conflict between 2006 to present has become a battle of attrition. The United States continued to use conventional tactics, while the Taliban adapted to the changing conditions. Ambushes, the use of IEDs, and infiltration into the armed forces kept the Taliban formidable.   Afghanistan has a long history of fighting invasions. Attempts at conquest were never really successful. Alexander the Great tried to add the country to his empire, but met intense resistance. The British Empire fought the Anglo-Afghan Wars sending troops from its Indian colony. Britain was never able to fuse the country into its empire. The Russian Empire was not able to absorb it either like other Central Asian states. History demonstrates a war with Afghanistan is no simple task.   The costs are increasing to conduct long term warfare would require a dramatic increase in taxes. 

The American public would not accept this. Growing evidence of war crimes and civilian deaths has also made the war more unpopular. The only way to win such a conflict would be to use more force and along with assistance from  neighboring states. Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan,  Iran, Tajikistan  and Kazakhstan would have to have their armies active in Afghanistan combined with the NATO-US force. This is not a realistic plan, due to the fact India and Pakistan still have contentious relations. The United States remains hostile to Iran and does not want to see its influence spread. A permanent occupation force along with a hated government makes resistance grow stronger. A military solution is not possible unless there is total war . Such brutality would further damage America's international  reputation . It has been declining since the Bush administration and changes in leadership have not improved America's image in the world. Afghanistan has become similar to America's war in Vietnam during the Cold War.  The Gulf War contributed to the US overcoming one of its worst military defeats. Born out of this was a hubris knowing it was the world's sole superpower. The Afghan War brought America back into diplomatic and political reality. America can be defeated and there will be backlash from military intervention. 

         Fighting to eliminate terrorism is not possible. Terrorism is a tactic of asymmetric warfare. Unlike trying to challenge an ideology such as fascism or communism, terrorism is not a conviction. Political Islamism does not constitute enough of a threat to harm global security. The War on Terror is a flawed concept, because it is based on the idea that one religious and ethnic group is the source of terrorism. Muslims, Arabs, and Central Asians are in the media presented as the source of terrorism. Around the world there are multiple insurgencies and terrorist organizations that are not Muslim or West Asian. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda has committed various acts of terrorism and they are Christians. Myanmar has multiple armed groups that it continually fights with in its borders. To that one group has a monopoly on violence and terrorism shows racist and Islamophobic thought. Afghanistan was victim to this type of attitude by western powers. This justified egregious acts of violence over the past decades. The War on Terror narrative as the Afghan War progressed  became more illogical. Osama Bin Laden was presented as an all powerful leader of a terrorist organization who extended branches across the world. He did not have control of every terrorist group that existed. Osama's influence over the internal politics of Afghanistan was more limited than previously thought. There is no indications Bin Laden was formulating policy for the Afghan government. During most of the US-NATO occupation, Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan and was killed there in 2011. Most of the fighting in Afghanistan was done by the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. Based on this reasoning, Pakistan should have been invaded if the purpose of the conflict was to dismantle Al-Qaeda. These action demonstrated that the War on Terror was used to legitimize wars against multiple countries. Counter-terrorism became a cover for aggressive war. 

     Nation building should not be an objective of foreign policy. The US applied this to its invasion of Afghanistan intending to mold it into another type of nation-state. Objectives and goals did not take into account Afghanistan is divided society among Hazara, Pashtun, Uzbek, and Tajik. A multi-ethnic society may struggle to create a single national identity. A liberal democratic system is foreign to Afghanistan. Throughout its history it has either been a monarchy, experimented with a communist  regime , and theocratic government. Democratic systems cannot be imposed by invasion. The people residing in the country must be the ones to select which type of government they will have. Otherwise, the country becomes nothing more than a puppet state. Presidential  elections have not produced the stability and peace that the majority of Afghans desire. Discord is growing and  more armed groups could emerge in the coming instability. Neoconservatives have a vision of the world in which liberal democracy will be the only system of government. To do this, authoritarian governments must be invaded. The motive goes beyond trying to just maintaining US hegemony. The desire to transform various countries. Afghanistan during the 2000s was going to be a part of the neoconservative ambition in nation building. The long lasting conflict has brought an end to nation building as a practical  policy. Considering America's growing internal problems, it should not be a model to export or imitate. The nation building projects of the West such as democracy promotion and the export of cultural values creates more conflict. The idea that a foreign power can transform another country into what it sees fit cannot work. Nation building as shown in Afghanistan projects a hubris that world powers have when associating with other countries. The United States wanted to impose a political system that Afghanistan did not want and the reaction was growing resistance. If the US remains longer the majority of the population will turn against US-NATO forces. America's nation building projects can never function in a rapidly changing international stage. 

        Complete withdraw could take decades if it actually happens. There are doubts that President Joseph Biden is willing or capable of making it happen. Based on the previous administrations, there is no indication that a change in US policy will happen. Previous presidents have made promises and all have broken them. Even if combat troops are to exit, private security contractors and mercenaries are going to be active. The US could return after a short withdraw. The concern would be growing Russian and Chinese influence in Afghanistan. Tension between the US, China, and Russia has grown and show no sign of reduction. This has spread to other areas of the world and there is no reason to think that Afghanistan would be excluded. The country's large lithium reserves make it a target for economic exploitation. If it could stabilize and make peace it could benefit from its natural resources. Regaining control if its economy and reasserting its national sovereignty  is the only way Afghanistan can improve its condition. There are going to be major consequences for the decades of war and occupation inflicted. Blowback is inevitable, but it is uncertain what could happen. The Taliban could return to power and depose the Ashraf Ghani government. Afghans do get to elect their leaders, yet all have failed in stopping the violence or developing the country. Just like former president Hamid Karazi, President Ghani seems more like a puppet leader. Afghanistan saw limited improvement in human rights, economic condition, and infrastructure during the US occupation. Generations of frustration, hopelessness, and anger can only result in an Afghan public willing to follow an authoritarian or extremist figure. Between war, occupation, and political corruption the desire for order takes precedence . Afghanistan's experiment with liberal democracy may be short lived. History will document America's war in the country as a failed attempt to impose US power on a region. The vision of nation building as a catalyst for strengthening US influence has come to an end.         

Anti-Asian Racism, Sinophobia, and US-China Tension

 The United States has seen an increase in anti-Asian racism and hate crimes. This spark in bigotry is nothing new to the United States. The nation was built upon the enslavement of  African Americans  and the eradication of the Native American population. Anti-Asian racism follows in a similar tradition of violence, abuse,  and discrimination in US history. The current wave is different because it is connected to a pandemic, demographic shifts, and a change in the geopolitical order. China has been demonized as a threat to world security. As US power declines a new world of multipolarity international politics is emerging. The United States has wanted to remain the world's sole superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union.  To do this an aggressive foreign policy was crafted. Neoconservative ideology seeks to have the world order revolve around the United States.  Democracy promotion and humanitarian intervention was used as cover for advancing geopolitical hegemony. The militarist advance would inevitably create tension with China.  The real concern about China has nothing to do about its one party state or human rights abuses. China is becoming a major economic competitor. The US has another reason to continue to escalate tensions. The military industrial complex can not function in times of peace. The arms and defense  industry would not be able to survive without conflict. Sinophobia has become US foreign policy with commentators erroneously describing this as a new Cold War. What is a pattern of scapegoating  and hysteria to justify US military intervention around the world. The consequence of this is that Asian Americans are viewed with  suspicion  and animosity. Scapegoating provides a distraction to growing economic instability, political corruption, and the public health crisis. Racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment will only get worse. The growing tension between both the US and China could lead to direct military confrontation . Anti-Asian racism has its roots in European colonial imperialism. The legacy continues to present. 

        Asia was subject to invasion and colonization by the British, French, Dutch, Americans, and Germans. Japan and Thailand were the only countries to avoid such fates. Afghanistan and Persia's sovereignty and security were under threat from both the British Empire and Russia.   China's situation was unique. Seeing as the country was so large it was carved up into spheres of influence. Concessions were established in which the Qing government  exerted little or no control. The process of  dividing China began with the establishment of an open door policy. European powers agreed to respect one another's claims to economic zones. All agreed  to practice extraterritoriality. That meant law enforcement would be conducted in concessions by the foreign power rather than the Qing government . The Tiaping rebellion caused Chinese to emigrate to other nations. Chinese went to America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South America. The Tiaping rebellion was a mass uprising against the government between the years of 1850 to 1864. The countries that the Chinese emigrated to they found themselves facing racism and violence. The Chinese experience during the 19th century culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act . The law was designed to prevent and discourage Chinese from coming to America. Enacted in 1882, it was one of many racist and xenophobic laws enforced in the United States.  Chinese emigration was used to help with labor shortages in the countries they settled in. When the Chinese came to America working on railroads they were paid less in comparison to their white counterparts. When the economic depression of 1873 occurred Chinese workers were blamed for suppressing wages and the economic turmoil. While Chinese were not the cause of the depression of 1873, American political leaders were using anti-immigrant sentiment and racism to distract the public. Across the Pacific Ocean , Southeast Asia was being absorbed by France. Around 1887 the Indochinese Union was formed which consisted of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The Netherlands had full control of Indonesia. The British Empire's colonial possessions included Pakistan, India, Burma, Malaya, Brunei, North Borneo, and Sarawak. Asia was mostly under European subjugation. The United States acquired Guam and the Philippines during the Spanish American War.  This sparked resistance and growing anti-colonial movements. The Boxer rebellion in 1900 and the Russo-Japanese War showed that Asia was not willing to accept imperial domination by Europe.   

The colonies of the European colonial empires in 1914. Germany and Austria would lose their colonies during World War I. 

China lost wars against the British Empire and faced the Tiaping rebellion by 1850. Unable to resist external threats China was divided by European empires. 

Anti-Asian violence in America during the 19th century 

These events reinforced a racist myth of yellow peril. Asia had to be colonized to prevent the rise of an East Asian threat to the West. The Chinese and other East Asians were presented as violent and uncivilized.  The biggest fear was that of a Chinese and Japanese alliance.  If there was some form of Pan-Asian solidarity the European colonial empires would not survive. This did not happen instead the Japanese Empire adopted a more hostile stance to China. The militarist and ultranationalist factions of the government took over and sought to expand. Japan's wars were not for the sake of liberation. The intent was to push out European powers and replace it with a system of Japanese dominance.   Anti-Asian racism in its modern form was born from the colonial past.  

     Sinophobia is a type of anti-Asian racism that describes  the fear or hatred of Chinese. During the 20th century that nature of it changed in the US. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 was another form of legislation preventing Chinese emigration. Combined with the extensions of the Chinese Exclusion Act an entire race was specifically banned from entering the country. When the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937, US policy was adjusted to the situation. The US and China would become allies during World War II in the fight against the Japanese Empire. Although both countries were allies Anti-Asian racism did not stop. The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed, but immigration restriction remained in place. Executive Order 9066 resulted in the internment  of  Japanese Americans. Although Chinese and Japanese Americans had different racial backgrounds they faced a similar experience  of prejudice. The end of World War II did little to improve attitudes.   When the Chinese Communist Party won the civil war, China became part of America's Cold War focus. Mao Zedong declared the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Sinophobia was updated for the Cold War era. China and Chinese were viewed as a red menace. The containment policy was used as a justification for wars of aggression in Asia. According to this policy, if communism was not contained it would spread around the world and take over. China the US claimed was attempting to assert control over all of Asia. 

The Red Scare during the 1950s made Americans more paranoid about communism and the loyalty of Asian Americans. The image of perpetual foreigner constantly questioned whether or not Asians could be real Americans. Domino Theory was also utilized for the purpose of the US influence in Asia. With the exit of the British and French from Asia, the region became another front in the Cold War. Korea now had new colonizers of the US and Russia. When the Korean War broke out China mobilized for combat. The Chinese intervention halted chances of a US-UN takeover of the entire Korean peninsula. Korea would remain divided. Vietnam had to fight against the French and the US to achieve unification. China was not as dedicated to Vietnam as it was Korea. However, what the Pentagon Papers exposed was a large scale US campaign to be a successor to the French and British in Asia. From 1945 to 1967 the US became more involved in the region. The majority of the American public was unaware of the bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia. The US intervention was presented as saving Vietnam from communism and stopping Chinese domination of Asia. The geopolitical reality was that the US was trying to exploit Asia. America's wars against Asia resulted in many deaths and refugees. Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese would flee to the US when the communists won the war. The new immigrants were not welcomed. Oddly, a new concept emerged which had two purposes. The model minority myth was created as means to show that America was no longer racist. The fallacy was proven by the murder of Vincent Chin in 1982.  Japanese competition  in the auto industry was putting strain on America's domestic produced cars. Detroit Michigan used to be the center of America's auto industry, but was facing decline. Asian Americans were as a whole scapegoated for the failure of the auto industry in the area. When Chin was murdered by two white auto workers, they assumed he was Japanese . Chin was a Chinese American, but to them it made no difference.  Asians were still subject to discrimination, prejudice, and violence. The model minority myth was then used by racists to disparage other ethnic groups. The idea that African Americans or Latinos were not trying hard enough to succeed in American society was the talking point using Asians as a comparison. the surge in Sinophobia and Anti-Asian racism has morphed both domestically and internationally. 

        The new wave of anti-Asian racism is correlated with the COVID-19 pandemic. If the virus started in some other nation, these spike in attacks might not have happened. Instead of giving sympathy to those who lost their lives China is being blamed for the global health crisis. To say that China is responsible for all the world's deaths from COVID-19 is an exaggeration. Numerous conspiracy theories have been spread. The most prominent of these is that COVID-19 is a bioweapon developed by China. There is no evidence of this, but there are a sizeable amount of people who believe it. Such xenophobia and racism is expressed by conservative political circles. Liberal and moderate circles are not immune either. Like most Americans they have been convinced that China represents some form of global threat. This is only expressed in a subtle manner among the liberal and centrist faction.  This goes beyond legitimate condemnation of the practices of the CCP. Chinese people are seen as an enemy or a danger to the world .   The virus is called by the prejudiced minded  as "the China virus" or  "kung flu." Governments tend to direct public anger at groups that have nothing to do with the crisis. Asians did not cause the virus. Pandemics have started in various points in history. The origin of COVID-19 is disputed, but it has been thought to be  zoonotic. What the current crisis exposed was the World Health Organization's slow  response and how low quality healthcare systems put people at risk. The World Health Organization response has been less effective. There has been massive institutional failures from governments and supranational organizations. To mask these failures a narrative was created that China   is responsible for the COVID-19 crisis. Pandemics can happen anywhere and to place the blame on one country demonstrates a bias.  

         The demonization of China is a means to keep the military industrial complex relevant. The United States continues to spend more on its military rather than domestic programs. Seeing as it is a large exporter of arms to various nations, conflict becomes profitable. The arms industry is a major part of the US economy. If there was some type of peace or decrease in war the arms industry would suffer. Some question why the US needs multiple bases around the globe or why arms production has dramatically increased. The need for a nation to be classified as a rogue state  or threat to international peace is required. Making China look like an existential threat allows for American militarism to remain unquestioned. Classifying nations in simple terms such as good or evil ignores the geopolitical complexities of the world. To define the world in such terms ignores history, culture, and the reasons for long term conflict. The military industrial complex is preserved by the China fear for the purpose of a permanent state of warfare. The United States  invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan destabilizing the Middle East and Central Asia. The US has conducted military strikes in Syria and Yemen. The War on Terror was used an excuse to wage war in West  Asia. However,  the War on Terror concept is not useful enough to expand military operation. It is too amorphous  and declaring a war against a tactic is illogical. To some degree all states use terrorism against other nations during war or against targeted groups. The only way the public will accept egregious  amounts of violence is if there is a false ethical cause presented. Invasions are reimagined as liberation and war as a form of democracy promotion. China becomes in this fantasy a caricatured villain , while America is presented as a heroic savior. America must be aggressive to keep the world safe in this perspective. This distorted view is no different from the European colonial empires of the past. America is in terms of its capability a larger threat to global  security  than China could ever be. The China threat myth keeps the military industrial complex active, even when there is no point to its existence. 

           The US-China tension has a basis in economics. World powers are in competition for global markets. China's rapid rise was due to its emphasis on a manufacturing sector and the adoption of neoliberal capitalist  policies. The question remains on whether China is truly communist anymore seeing as it has abandoned Maoist economic policy. It would be difficult to even classify China as market socialism. When Deng Xiaoping promoted economic reforms in the 1980s agriculture and industry would change. Farming communes were dismantled and individual farming was allowed. China was becoming an export based economy. China would acquire Hong Kong from the British in 1997, which was a major financial center. China's economic power was growing. The United States was becoming more nervous and vexed at this economic progress. The Obama administration wanted to halt China's economic rise with the Trans-Pacific Partnership  (TPP).  The behavior that America demonstrates is similar to when Japan was becoming more economically powerful. During the Reagan administration a prosperous Japan was seen as a threat. The decline of heavy industry in America enabled Japan to gain influence in the US market. At the time,  similar xenophobic sentiments were expressed about their economic success. The rise of China during the late 1990s to early 2000s was met with the same distrust. When President Trump launched a trade war against  China the previous US presidents were already establishing the ground work for future economic warfare. The Bush administration took notice of China's access to African markets. President Obama wanted to counter this, which explains the reasons for increased military action in Libya and Somalia. The Obama administration took this another step further by the Asia pivot foreign policy. Currently, both the European Union and US have imposed sanctions on China. The reason is based on the abuse of Uyghurs. The sanctions are not for the purpose of human rights concerns, rather to stop Chinese economic progress. Racism and discrimination against Uyghurs and Tibetans has been widely known. The sudden concern is not out of some ethical epiphany. The new sanctions will most likely not stop China's economic rise. China's exploration into information technology such as 5g wireless networks will make it more powerful.  China  is now a upper middle income country and the world's second largest economy. 

        US-China tension is not a new Cold War. The risks are more precarious. The reason is that certain conditions are making it possible for a direct military confrontation. The United States has more bases in East Asia and continues to instigate disturbances in the South China Sea. Disputes related to territory existed prior to American involvement. However, US interference has only made the situation worse. North Korea becomes a focal point in this struggle for regional influence. Hong Kong and Taiwan will also become involved. The events that occur there become  sources of contention among China and the US.  Through observation it is  seen  that the US has no interest in diplomacy. The policy seems to emphasize  planning for war with China through a larger coalition. What has emerged out of  American think tanks is the concept of the Chinese challenge. The notion that China represents a unrelenting international antagonist was developed by these organizations. Yellow peril has been updated for a new generation of leaders. The articulation of this is more sophisticated than the more blatant racism of the past. The argument is that Chinese assertion is a threat to security. Every country has to assert itself if it wants to survive. Otherwise, it could be subject to external manipulation or conquest. Maybe the real problem is large power competition among nations, rather than China itself. The plans are in motion to form an anti-China coalition. The US, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Korea will gradually become more aligned in military force. The prospect of mass global conflict only increases with such an obsession  with China. The intent should be to reduce escalation, rather than making justifications for aggression. The worst consequence of all of this is that other Asian nations will suffer. Countries may have to select a faction between China or the United States. Myanmar, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh will get caught up in US-China tension. Asia will thus be divided against itself. A US-China war would be devastating. The world cannot survive another conflict similar to the Great War  or World War II . The loss of life, economic stability, and infrastructure would be so immense recovery would not be possible. The past three presidential administrations made no effort to reduce tensions and it appears that the current one will not either. 

       The new rise of anti-Asian hate is a revival of past racism with a modern update. It must be acknowledged these racist sentiments are a part of the US government and foreign policy establishment. The mainstream media and entertainment  also is guilty of promoting prejudiced ideas and racist stereotypes. The image of perpetual foreigner, model minority, or dragon lady has been presented in literature  , TV, film, and other visual media. When China is mentioned on the news it normally given a negative representation. China is seen as an adversary methodically plotting against the United States.  The process of othering allows people to justify mistreatment or violence of certain races. The racism that America is witnessing remains part of a larger problem. For too long, the concept of a real  American meant to be white. The melting pot only applied to European immigrants. Irish, Germans, Italians, and Russians could be accepted, but African, Asian, Latino  Americans were not . America's changing demographics has resulted in growing xenophobia and hatred of other countries. Economic decline has caused the population scapegoat and project frustration. Instead of American leaders devising solutions they instead try direct discord away from their constant failures. Stagnant wages, growing national debt,  an  inadequate healthcare  system, and the growing chance of an mass eviction crisis demonstrate America has little ability to take care of its population. China becomes a distraction to America's internal economic and political issues. Simultaneously, Asian Americans are becoming more isolated and marginalized. Resistance is growing to the rise in hate crimes. Stop Asian hate demonstrations have been held across America. If people are dedicated to this cause, then they should also protest US foreign policy in Asia. A person cannot say they are against Asian hate, while supporting US aggression or neocolonialism on the Asian continent . The public should oppose the attempt to escalate US-China tension, wars in West Asia, or belligerence with North Korea. America requires a major reassessment of  its behavior and how it interacts with Asian  countries.      

 

The US Charges Nicolas Maduro with Drug Trafficking and Proposes a Plan of Political Transition

The Trump administration no longer recognizes President Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. New charges of  drug trafficking have been made, but so far there has been little evidence to suggest that his government has a full scale operation. The United States has been attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of Venezuela under the claim of protection of human rights. The ulterior motive is to get access to the country's oil and important geographic location. There has been a coordinated attempt to depose democratically elected leftist governments across Latin America. Bolivia and Brazil have been subject to a right-wing resurgence. There is a cash reward for President Maduro's arrest issued by the US government. The Trump administration has suggested that military action could be a possible option, if  President Nicolas Maduro is able to survive the political crisis.The pretext seems similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama or the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US transition plan demands that both Juan Guaido and Nicloas Maduro  step aside. Doing so would mean an interim government would be installed. Sanctions would be lifted only when the process is over by both the US and EU. Neither leader would be willing to do this. Venezuela may find itself in direct conflict with the United States. Venezuela has an alliance with Cuba,  but other countries may not come to its aid if war were to break out.     

The Tunisian Elections (2014)

It was 2014 when Tunisia declared its first truly free and fair election. President Zine El Abidine  Ben Ali had been removed from office due what would be know as the Arab Spring uprisings that swept across North Africa and the Middle East. This video from five years ago reports on the polls by Euronews. Beji Caid Essebsi became Tunisia's next president, but his association with the former administration drew criticism. He served as parliament speaker under the Ben Ali administration and some feared that the authoritarian tendencies would reemerge. Like most North African countries the new political transitions did not bring about more freedoms or improved living standards. Moncef Marzouk of the Congress of the Republic party ran against him claiming human rights would be under threat. Beji Caid Essebsi 's rule was not long when he passed  away at the age of 92 in 2019. The concern about electing older leaders is that their health may effect their capacity to govern. Sudden deaths could put the country in turmoil and peaceful transitions may not be possible. The Nidaa Tounes party has to figure out its political vision without their leader. Tunisia faces a bigger challenge of being next to two countries Libya and Algeria which are also dealing with political crisis and insurrection. Essebi's legacy is already being mythologized for the sake of make it seem as if the 2011 revolution promoted progress. It is too early to make such a proclamation, however the next administration will have to confront security and economic problems.