Nigel Farage predicted everything that is happening in Europe today. He is a nationalist and the man behind Brexit. But he is also the man who tried to stop the war in Ukraine eight years ago. He talked about it in a speech at the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, on 16 September 2014.
The debate is about the «Situation in Ukraine and state of play of EU-Russia relations». We all know that the Elite was shocked when Putin and Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year, but that is weird because experts have warned you all multiple times in many years.
Farage was speaking as a UKIP leader & Co-President of the European of Freedom and Direct Democracy group at that time and talked about the long list of foreign policy failures and contradictions in the last few years including the bombing av Libya, the desire to arm the rebels in Syria, that has been the unnecessary provocation of Vladimir Putin.
He said this EU Empire even seeking to expand. Stated its territorial claim on Ukraine some years ago. Just to make that worse, of course, some NATO members said they too would like Ukraine to join NATO.
We directly encouraged the uprising in Ukraine that led to the toppling of president Yanukovych and that led of course in turn to Vladimir Putin reacting, and the moral of the story is if you poke the Russian bear with a stick, don`t be surprised when he reacts.
As we speak, Farage said, there are NATO soldiers engaged in military exercises in Ukraine. Have we taken leave of our senses do we actually want to have a war with Putin? Because if we`re certainly going about it the right way.
Perhaps we ought to recognize that the West now faces the biggest threat and crisis to our way of life that we have seen for over 70 years.
The recent beheadings of the British and American hostages graphically illustrate the problem, and of course, we have our own citizens from our own countries engaged in that struggle too. In the war against Islamic extremism.
Vladimir Putin, whatever we may think of him as a human being, is actually on our side. I suggest we grow up. I suggest we recognize the real threat facing all of our countries, communities, and societies.
We stop playing war games in Ukraine, and we start to prepare a plan to help countries like Syria, Iraq, Kenya, and Nigeria, to help them do deal with the real threat that faces us.
Let`s not go on, provoking Putin whether we like him or not.»
That was a strong speech from Farage, but he knew what was coming, and he ended the speech by saying; «let`s not go on, provoking Putin», but the war has already started. So, what do you think started the war?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Will Smith is an actor, but he`s also a rapper. He won the first MTV Video Music Award for best rap video with «Parents just don`t understand». The rap magazine XXL has referred to him as «one of the most important rappers of all time». On top of that, he is also one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In other words; he is a role model for many upcoming stars on this planet.
But Will Smith made headlines during Sunday`s Oscars ceremony when he walked on stage (live on TV), and struck comedian Chris Rock. He slap his face because he mocked his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith`s bald head. She struggles with alopecia, which causes hair loss.
Comedian Chris Rock made a crack that Jada Pinkett Smith was ready to star in «G.I. Jane 2» thanks to her closed-shaved look. Will Smith went to the stage, and slap Rock in the face, and said; «Leave my wife`s name out of your f-king mouth.»
«I think Chris was messy….. (Jada) was hurt. And (Will) protected his wife. And that`s what a man is supposed to do,» Tiffany Haddish said to the LA Times.
«I think it`s inappropriate to make any joke about someone with alopecia as it`s a condition that highly impacts mental health for that individual and isn`t a laughing matter,» Ex on the Beach» contestant Zara Lena Jackson, who has the same illnes, said.
The Academy tweeted that they does not condone violence of any form, and everybody around the world is talking about Will Smith and violence. But why isn`t someone talking about Chris Rock`s violence?
Both were violent, and violence isn`t okay. Nor is an assault the answer. But this is the second time Chis has made fun of Jada on the Oscars’ stage. This time Chris went after her alopecia. Sophia Bush tweeted that punching down at someone`s auto-immune disease is wrong. Doing so on purpose is cruel.
We are living in a world with so much hate, and the biggest problem is at the school among teenagers. They are mocking each other. Some people are “gang stalkers,” and paid to do it. But it`s not going to be any better if it is ok to do it on TV. Among big stars, politicians, PM`s and presidents.
What about Trump. The Hate Trump Media mocked him every single day in four years. Hair is probably of high interest to people. They mocked Trump`s hair. They mocked his fingers too. Did someone stop it? No. It was funny.
This is violence, and violence is often understood as the use or threat of force that can result in injury, deprivation or even death. It can be physical, but it can also be verbal or mental. Violence is also the myriad and often less obvious consequences of violent behaviour, such as psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment that compromise the well-being of individuals, families and communities.
Chris crossed a line, and mocked Jada twice. This is harassment, and harassment is illegal.
Harassment can include offensive or derogatory jokes, racialor ethnic slurs, pressure for dates or sexual favors, unwelcome comments about a person`s religion or religious garments, or offensive graffiti, cartoons or pictures.
Verbal harassment includes, but is not limited to, the use of profanity, loud or boisterous remarks, inappropriate speech, inappropriate suggestive conduct or body movements or comments that could be interpreted by the hearer as being derogatory in nature.
What Chris Rock did to Jada is a statement about who he is as a human being. It`s ok if Chris Rock dislike Jada, but it`s not ok to disrespect, degrade, and humiliate someone. Emotional abuse is just as bad as physical abuse. Sometimes it can be worse. People can break a leg and they can heal broken bones, but people can`t heal a broken mind.
Mental abuse is much more painful than physical abuse because people are consumed by their own thoughts. People with an ugly soul enjoy bullying other people. They like to be verbally and mentally abusive. They like to put people down, insulting them and hurting them with their rudness. Being a comedian is not an excuse, because what comes around, goes around. Hate generates hate.
What Chris Rock did was not ok. What Will Smith was not ok either. But don`t just look at the target. Look at the harasser too.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Thursday this week marks the 23rd anniversary of NATO`s bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which began on March 24, 1999, and lasted 78 days, Serbian media reported.
The European security crisis began in 1999 when US/Nato started to bomb Yugoslavia, and that was then erosion of all foundations of the world order, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in an interview with Russian Tass.
«Back then, these bombs in addition to killing civilians started destroying the system of international relations. It was exactly then that NATO (and when we say «NATO», we mean «Americans») started to bomb the foundation of the world order, which led to the European security crisis, which we are living through today», the spokesman underscored.
This is exactly in line with what I have said in my recent articles. Putin`s war in Ukraine has many sides. Putin is attacking the European globalists, and globalization is dead.
Peskov pointed out that this crisis primarily involves the European continent. Russia and other states are located, most of which are currently unfriendly towards Moscow. «The very Americans, who instigated all this, they suffer from this crisis much less, we must understand it well», he added.
Serbia was attacked as responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, and the immediate cause was the events in Racak and the failure of negotiations on Kosovo`s future status in Rambouillet and Paris, according to Novinite.
NATO’s air operation began at 7.45 p.m. on 24 March 1999. Nineteen NATO countries began bombing ships in the Adriatic and four air bases in Italy. First, the air defenses and other Yugoslav military sites in Pristina, Batajnica, Belgrade, Mladenovac, and elsewhere were bombed.
According to the Serbian Ministry of Defense, 2,500 civilians were killed during the NATO airstrike, including 89 children and 1,031 members of the army and police. 6,000 civilians were injured, including 2,700 children and 5,173 soldiers and police, and 25 are still missing.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said last night that there was no justification for NATO aggression in 1999 but that if he had been in Slobodan Milosevic’s place, he would have acted differently, Politika reported.
“In a few days, I would have stopped it, either by resigning or something else. 78 days is too long to cripple a country that had no chance to defend itself and wait for someone else to help us, but we knew that no one would,” Vucic said in an interview with RTV.
The president noted that Russia at the time, led by Boris Yeltsin, was weak. Vucic also pointed out that the one who leads the country must take care of how to save his people.
“I am now looking at the conflict in Eastern Europe and wondering why some people are not thinking well about the consequences”, Vucic said.
Serbian President Aleksander Ucic said in an interview on March 24; «“Now, after 23 years, one can see with clarity how despicable, ill-judged, unlawful and immoral this operation by 19 NATO countries was” and how “ridiculous, even stupid, to hear them now blaming Russia for its so-called aggression against Ukraine”, adding that “the morals, principles, and values they constantly talk about do not exist at all”. Does China have any comments?
Wang Wenbin is a Chinese politician diplomat, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, deputy director of the Foreign Ministry Information Department, and a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He had a speech and said this on CCTV:
«On March 24, 1999, US-led NATO forces blatantly bypassed the UN Security Council and began the 78-day incessant bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a sovereign country, in grave violation of relevant international conventions and basic norms governing international relations.
In 12,000 strikes, over 10,000 tonnes of explosives were dropped and more than 3,000 missiles fired, targeting everything from medical facilities to ancient cultural relics, residential buildings, and schools.
Thousands of innocent civilians including three Chinese journalists were killed. During the bombing campaign, NATO even used depleted uranium bombs prohibited by international conventions, causing long-term damage to Serbia’s environment and people’s health.
The people of Serbia will not forget NATO’s aggression, nor will the people of China and the rest of the world.
NATO is convening a summit on Ukraine on the 23rd anniversary of its bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I wonder if the US and other NATO members have asked themselves:
What is the root cause of the Ukraine crisis?
What responsibility should the US and NATO assume?
Before reflecting on their crimes against the people in countries like Serbia, Iraq , and Afghanistan, the US and NATO have neither right nor authority to judge others.
Born out of the Cold War, NATO serves no other purpose than war. It has never contributed to the peace and security of our world and will never do so. All those who truly love peace and are committed to advancing peace will resolutely reject NATO’s continued expansion».
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Peaceful Buddhist monks without any weapons can demonstrate on the streets in Myanmar, but the military junta government with weapons can kill them if they want, and that have happened. What`s even worse is their systemic killings of the Rohingya minorities. That’s Genocide.
For most of its independent years, Myanmar has been engrossed in rampant ethnic strife and its myriad ethnic groups have been involved in one of the world`s longest-running ongoing civil wars. Myanmar is an ethnically diverse nation with 135 distinct ethnic groups officially recognized by the Burmese military Government.
The UN and several other organizations have reported consistent and systemic human rights violations in the country.
In 2011, the military junta was officially dissolved following a 2010 general election, and a nominally civilian government was installed. This, along with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners and successful elections in 2015, had improved the country`s human rights record and foreign relations and had led to the easing of trade and other economic sanctions, although the country`s treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly in connection with the Rohingya conflict, continued to be condemned by international organizations and many nations.
Following the 2020 Myanmar general election, in which Aung San Suu Kyi`s won a clear majority in both houses, the Burmese military again seized power in a coup d’etat.
The coup, which was widely condemned, led to widespread protests in Myanmar and has been marked by a violent response by the military.
The military junta also arrested Aung San Suu Kyi and charged her with crimes ranging from corruption to the violation of Covid protocols, all of which have been labeled «politically motivated» by independent observers.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a Burmese politician, diplomat, author, and a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate who served as State Counsellor of Myanmar and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2016 to 2021.
The Rohingya people have consistently faced human rights abuses by the Burmese regime that has refused to acknowledge them as Burmese citizens, despite the fact that some of them have lived in Burma for over three generations.
The Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since the enactment of a 1982 citizenship law.
The law created three categories of citizenship:
citizenship
associate citizenship, and
naturalised citizenship
Citizenship is given to those who belong to one of the national races such as Kachin, Kayah (Karenni), Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, Kaman, or Zebedee.
Associate citizenship is given to those who cannot prove their ancestors settled in Myanmar before 1823 but can prove they have one grandparent, or pre-1823 ancestor, who was a citizen of another country, as well as people who applied for citizenship in 1948 and qualified then by those laws.
Naturalized citizenship is only given to those who have at least one parent with one of these types of Burmese citizenship or can provide «conclusive evidence» that their parents entered and resided in Burma prior to independence in 1948.
The Burmese regime has attempted to forcibly expel Rohingya and bring in non-Rohingya to replace them.
This policy has resulted in the expulsion of approximately half of the 800,000 Rohingya from Burma, while the Rohingya people have been described as «among the world`s least wanted», and «one of the world`s most persecuted minorities».
But the origin of the «most persecuted minority» statement is unclear.
Rohingya are not allowed to travel without official permission, are banned from owning land, and are required to sign a commitment to have no more than two children.
As of July 2012, the Myanmar government does not include the Rohingya minority group, classified as stateless Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh since 1982, on the government`s list of more than 130 ethnic races and, therefore, the government states that they have no claim to Myanmar citizenship.
In 2007, German professor Bassam Tibi suggested that the Rohingya conflict may be driven by an Islamist political agenda to impose religious laws, while non-religious causes have also been raised, such as a lingering resentment over the violence that occurred during the Japanese occupation of Burma in World War II.
During this time period, the British allied themselves with the Rohingya and fought against the puppet government of Burma (composed mostly by Bamar Japanese) that helped to establish the Tatmadaw military organization that remains in power for a 5-year lapse in 2016 – 2021.
Since the democratic transition began in 2011, there has been continuous violence in Myanmar. A UN envoy reported in March 2013 that unrest had re-emerged between Myanmar`s Buddhist and Muslim communities.
Yesterday, the Biden administration declared that the military junta in Myanmar has committed genocide against the Rohingya minority. The Biden administration has enough evidence to say that the junta has a clear intent to destroy the Rohingya.
The evidence of killings is mass rape and arson, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday.
Antony Blinken had a speech at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, and he said that the killings of the Rohingya minority were «widespread and systematic». Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar since the military crackdown that began in 2017.
Mr. Blinken announced the US would provide $1 million in new funding for the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, which continues to examine atrocities. A case against Myanmar, also called Burma, was opened at the International Court of Justice in 2019.
«The day will come when those responsible for these appalling acts will have to answer for them», Mr. Blinken said.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
What president or prime minister won`t protect its own country and its own citizens? Most of the countries around the world have their own foreign policy, which is their activities in relation to their interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities.
Diplomacy has been practiced for a very long time. The idea of long-term management of relationships followed the development of professional diplomatic corps that managed diplomacy. Since 1711, the term diplomacy has been taken to mean the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations.
In the 18th century, due to extreme turbulence in European diplomacy and ongoing conflicts, the practice of diplomacy was often fragmented by the necessity to deal with isolated issues, termed «affairs».
Organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States are sometimes employed by government foreign relations organizations to develop foreign policy proposals as alternatives to an existing policy, or to provide analytical assessments of evolving relationships.
There are several objectives that may motivate a government`s foreign policy. Among other reasons, foreign policy may be directed for defense and security, for economic benefit, or to provide assistance to states that need it.
All foreign policy objectives are interconnected and contribute to a single, comprehensive foreign policy for each state. Unlike domestic policy, foreign policy issues tend to arise suddenly in response to developments and major events in foreign countries.
Foreign policy is often directed for the purpose of ensuring national security.
Governments have historically formed military alliances with foreign states in order to deter and show stronger resistance to attack. Foreign policy also focuses on combating adversarial states through soft power, international isolation, or war.
In the 21st century, defensive foreign policy has expanded to address the threat of global terrorism. Foreign measures such as foreign aid and financial sanctions are believed to decrease terrorist activity, while military intervention and military aid risk increase terrorist activity.
Foreign policy is central to a country`s role within the world economy and international trade. Economic foreign policy issues may include the establishment of trade agreements, the distribution of foreign aid, and the management of imports and exports. The World Trade Organization facilitates the economic foreign policies of most countries.
Superpowers are able to project power and exercise their influence across the world, while great powers and middle powers have moderate influence in global affairs.
Small powers have less ability to exercise influence unilaterally, as they have fewer economic and military resources to leverage. As a result, they are more likely to support international and multilateral organizations.
The diplomatic bureaucracies of smaller states are also smaller, which limits their capacity to engage in complex diplomacy. Smaller states may seek to ally themselves with larger countries for economic and defensive benefits, or they may avoid involvement in international disputes so as to remain on friendly terms with all countries.
The political institutions and forms of government play a role in a country`s foreign policy. In a democracy, public opinion and the methods of political representation both affect a country`s foreign policy.
Democratic countries are also believed to be less likely to resort to military conflict with one another.
Autocratic states are less likely to use legalism in their foreign policies. Under a dictatorship, a state`s foreign policy may depend heavily on the preferences of the dictator. Dictators that interfere significantly with their foreign policy apparatus may be less predictable and more likely to make foreign policy blunders.
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.
The doctrine was central to U.S foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence.
Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S security.
In turn, the U.S would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
By the end of the 19th century, Monroe`s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and effect of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S statesmen and several U.S presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kenndy, and Ronald Reagan.
After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism (an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal) and non-intervention.
Despite the United States’ beginnings as an isolationist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already laid even during George Washington`s presidency. According to S.E. Morison, «as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish the United States as a world power and hoped that it would suddenly become strong enough to keep the European powers outside of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S herself.
Hamilton expected that the United States would become the dominant power in the New World and would, in the future, act as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.
Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World.
The U.S government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.
As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.
(The Holy Alliance was a coalition linking the monarchist great powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. It was created after the final defeat of Napoleon at the behest of Emperor (Tsar) Alexander I of Russia and signed in Paris on 26 September 1815. The alliance aimed to restrain liberalism and secularism in Europe in the wake of the devastating French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, and it nominally succeeded in this until the Crimean War).
About three months after the Final Act of the Congress of Vianna, the monarchs of Catholic (Austria), Protestant (Prussia), and Orthodox (Russia) confession promised to act on the basis of «justice, love, and peace», both in internal and foreign affairs, for «consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections».
The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S lacking sufficient naval capability.
The U.S resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the War of 1812, however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.
In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country`s protection.
The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States, the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, making invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.
Scholars such as Neil Smith have written that Woodrow Wilson effectively proposed a «Global Monroe Doctrine» expanding US supremacy over the entire world. Some analysts assert that this prerogative for indirect control and sporadic invasions and occupations across the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower role since World War II.
Such an expansion of the doctrine is premised on the «normal equality» of independent states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by material inequality, making the US a de facto global empire.
Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in the establishing of this global protectorate situation.
After World War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere against foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada, 75% Mexico and Central America, 69% South America, 66% West Indies, and 59% Greenland.
In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, denouncing the intervention of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962 news conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today.
That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS (Organization of American States) and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.
During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the farmers of US foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution (1953 – 1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to present the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.
Under this rationale, the U.S provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion (as in the case of Operation Condor).
In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds of the United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic on Cuban soil.
The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S CIA had been covertly training «Contra» guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega.
CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S intervention in Nicaragua would be «totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine».
President Barack Obama`s Secretary of State John Kerry told the OAS in November 2013 that the «era of the Monroe Doctrine is over».
Several commentators have noted that Kerry`s call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe`s intentions than the policies enacted after his death.
President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela after his CIA Director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation`s deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.
In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as «clearly…..a success», warning of «imperial» Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region`s preferred trade partner.
Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018. Vasily Nebenzya criticized the US for what the Russian Federation perceives as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on January 26, 2019.
Venezuela`s representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine, and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider it «a direct military threat to the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela».
Cuba`s representative formulated a similar opinion, «The current Administration of the United States of America has declared the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect…..».
On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration`s policy in the Americas, saying «In this administration, we`re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine….. It`s been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere.
Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.
When we talk about great power politics, rights in the final analysis just don`t matter. Might makes right, according to John Mearsheimer
In international politics, states usually pay attention to international law. They also pay attention to moral precepts as long as they`re in their strategic interests. But if there is a conflict between international law and a country`s strategic interests, the country will always privilege its strategic interests, and international law and human rights will be pushed off the table.
This is why Mearsheimer thinks it`s not very helpful to talk about rights. When you talk about whether Russia has the right to have a buffer state, or Ukraine has the right to have its own foreign policy. These are concepts that get you into all sorts of trouble.
In the international system; «MIGHT MAKES RIGHT».
For example; the United States would never tolerate a situation where Canada or Mexico invited in a legal way, China to bring military forces into Toronto or Mexico City.
The U.S has the Monroe Doctrine which is in the U.S’ strategic interest, and the Monroe Doctrine says; no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the Western Hemisphere. Period. End of story.
What the Russians are doing is they`re basically articulating their own version of the Monroe Doctrine. They`re saying you cannot turn Ukraine into a Western bastion on our border. That has nothing to do with rights.
It doesn`t matter whether Ukraine has the right to do this or that. Putin and Russia are saying they can`t do it. Just like the U.S is saying that Cuba can`t invite the Soviets to bring military forces into the Western Hemisphere.
Rights just don`t matter. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Those who can`t put themselves in Putin`s shoes have a huge problem.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Business, Politics, Finans 