Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

#BlockTheBoat: Global mobilization to stop cargo vessel carrying explosives to Tel Aviv

By Maryam Qarehgozlou | Press TV | September 14, 2024

In a display of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, activists around the world have joined forces to block the MV Kathrin, a cargo vessel carrying explosives for the Israeli regime.

While the vessel has been traversing the seas for over a month, a campaign dubbed “#BlockTheBoat” aims to expose the Zionist regime’s violations of the Genocide Convention and the UN Human Rights Declaration amid the genocidal war on Gaza that has already claimed over 41,000 lives.

The campaign has been trending globally on social media platforms with supporters expressing anger and outrage over the continued military aid to an apartheid regime in Tel Aviv.

Spearheading this fight is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has been advocating for an end to Israeli occupation and apartheid through boycotts and sanctions.

The movement has called on countries with stakes in the MV Kathrin to end their complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza while urging people to pressure their governments to comply with international law and rulings of the top UN court.

Key facts about MV Kathrin

The MV Kathrin (IMO 9570620) is owned by Lubeca Marine Germany GMBH and operated by Ocean 7 Project through AGL (Africa Global Logistics).

The vessel is reportedly carrying eight containers of Hexogen/RDX explosives destined for the Israeli-occupied territories, in addition to 60 containers of TNT with unknown destinations.

The explosive cargo was loaded in Hai Phong, Vietnam, on July 21. It is scheduled to be unloaded at the port of Koper, Slovenia, before reaching its final destination in the occupied territories.

This information was provided to the media by the Namibian National Police and Namport authorities.

What is RDX?

RDX, a vital component in Israel’s aircraft bombs and missiles, has been widely used in the ongoing genocidal war on the Gaza Strip and the relentless bombings of the besieged territory and killing and maiming of nearly 136,000 Palestinians, more than 70 percent of them women and children.

Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, ranks among the top global consumers of the explosive material RDX.

This highlights the significant role RDX plays in the manufacturing of Israel’s military equipment, according to military experts.

Industry insiders noted in March that Israel’s mass production of ammunition would be hindered by the limited availability of RDX on the global market.

Countries providing Israel’s RDX supply

MV Kathrin is a German-owned cargo ship and Germany has been a major supplier of weapons to Israel during its genocidal war against the 2.3 million civilian population of Gaza.

Germany is already facing charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza in a case brought by South Africa to the top UN court late last year.

The vessel was loaded in Vietnam. The Israeli regime resumed its military cooperation with Vietnam a decade ago, despite its popular support for Palestinian rights.

Vietnam is now facilitating the export of the same explosives that the US used to exterminate and maim millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War (1954–75).

Kathrin is scheduled to unload its cargo in Koper, Slovenia. This marks the second instance in recent months that the Slovenian port has been implicated in illegal weapons transfers to Israel.

It also raises concerns about Slovenia’s lack of compliance with international law and the ICJ’s ruling on the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

Kathrin and Portuguese complicity in genocide

The MV Kathrin is registered under the Portuguese flag through the International Shipping Register of Madeira (MAR), which is one of the leading ship and yacht registers in the European Union.

Despite calls from Portuguese Palestine solidarity organizations and political parties like Bloco de Esquerda, Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel in late August evaded responsibility, claiming that the Kathrin is not transporting ready-made weapons, is not headed to the Israeli-occupied territories, and that this arms trade has “commercial purpose.”

On Friday, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) sent a legal notice to the Portuguese government demanding the removal of its flag from the MV Kathrin “in compliance with the erga omnes obligations to prevent the crime of Genocide.”

Despite mounting pressure from civil society and political stakeholders, Portugal has yet to take any concrete action in response to the controversial situation.

France, Italy, and Switzerland are other countries that are complicit in the Israeli genocide. Africa Global Logistics (AGL) is a French logistics operator with headquarters in Puteaux.

Although AGL functions independently, it is an integral part of the Cargo Division of the Italo-Swiss MSC group.

Which countries refused to be complicit in the genocide?

On August 20, almost a month after MV Kathrin left the port of Hai Phong, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) warned activists and decision-makers in Namibia regarding the MV Kathrin which was set to arrive at the port of Walvis Bay.

The committee has raised concerns over credible intelligence suggesting that the ship was transporting military supplies destined for Israel.

On August 22, the Economic and Social Justice Trust (ESJT), a Namibian human rights organization, also called on Walvis Bay port to deny the MV Kathrin entry.

The Namibian government on August 24 canceled the docking permit for the Kathrin, after having received written confirmation from the vessel that 8 containers of RDX/Hexogen explosives were destined for Israel.

Namibian Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab said that this decision “complies with our obligation not to support or be complicit in Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, as well as its unlawful occupation of Palestine.”

Following a nearly week-long period of remaining stationary off the Namibian coast, the MV Kathrin had to change course and headed toward Angolan waters on August 31.

At about the same time, BNC sent an appeal to Angola to follow Namibia’s example, not to let the Kathrin dock or confiscate the military supplies destined for Israel.

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, also urged Angola not to let the Kathrin dock.

“This may be a breach of the Genocide Convention. Critical reminder: Any military transfer to Israel, which the ICJ determined may be plausibly committing genocide, amounts to a breach of the Genocide Convention and of the HRC resolution 55/L.30 mandating an arms embargo on Israel,” she said.

MV Kathrin also waited over a week off the coast of Angola, however, on September 5 it was confirmed that Kathrin had to reroute and schedule Bar (Montenegro) as the next port of destination.

The BDS in its calls for blocking Kathrin warned concerned governments that Participation in arms transfer to Israel amounts to “complicity in genocide, crimes of humanity and war crimes.”

It highlighted since ICJ decided in January that Israel is “plausibly” perpetrating genocide, refraining from playing any direct or indirect role in arming Israel during its genocidal carnage in Gaza is a “legal duty for all states.”

“Together, we can block the boat and stop the deadly cargo from feeding Israel’s unspeakable massacres,” says BDS.

On Friday, Malaysia also joined global efforts to stop the MV Kathrin’s cargo.

BDS Malaysia activists lodged a police report at the Sentul Police Station concerning the involvement of United O7 Asia Sdn Bhd with a vessel, according to a statement issued by BDS Malaysia.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

How Britain Started the Vietnam War

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | September 12, 2024

On September 2nd 1945, within hours of Imperial Japan’s Emperor Hirohito formally signing an instrument of surrender and ending World War II in the Pacific, Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Viet Minh, proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam’s foundation. Liberally citing passages from the 1776 US Declaration of Independence, Ho pledged that his newly-created state would never again be subject to foreign domination or exploitation, and evermore remain governed solely by and for its people.

Vietnam’s radical post-war euphoria was palpably captured by French photographer Germaine Krull, a French photographer who visited the country mere days later. In her diary, she observed how in Saigon, “all the streets were hung with large banners and all the walls and official buildings” bore revolutionary inscriptions. They declared; “down with French imperialism; down with the colonials; the era of colonization is over; down with slavery.” The Communist-dominated Viet-Minh’s “big red [flag] with the yellow star” could also be seen in profusion.

Japanese soldier hands over his sword to the British, September 1945

This was quite some contrast from the scenes that greeted Krull at Saigon airport. There, “an unusual situation prevailed”:

“It was being serviced entirely by the Japanese. They were doing everything: driving trucks and cars, standing guard, carrying luggage and refuelling. The British were in command of them and kept order… The Japanese performed their duties faultlessly and were perfectly disciplined.”

Krull had flown in on one of several “transport planes carrying British troops,” among them a sizeable detachment of “handsome, impeccable” Gurkhas, along with “their Scotch commanding officer.” Unstated by the photographer, their mission was to comprehensively crush the country’s dreams of independence, and re-establish France’s control over her colonial holding. Under its auspices, the “unusual situation” of Vietnam’s recently vanquished Japanese occupiers taking orders from and working alongside the British, until mere days earlier their sworn adversaries, was not restricted to Saigon airport.

Many decades later, Britain’s immediate post-war intervention in Vietnam remains virtually unknown. Yet, despite lasting just six months, the bitter conflict cost many lives, and effectively ignited the three-decade-long Vietnam War, which ended in embarrassing defeat for Western powers. The impact on the region, and wider world, endures for untold numbers of people today. It is a sordid, secret chapter in London’s recent history, urgently demanding re-evaluation.

That the British meant grave business in Vietnam is amply underscored by their Indian Army’s entire 20th Division’s deployment to the country. As journalist George Rosie reported in 1970, this force had “been at the very heart of the fighting” against Japan over Burma, and in turn control over the whole subcontinent. Across countless brutal battles, its units fought off “ferocious” attacks, “inflicting terrible casualties” on the enemy.

The 20th Division was particularly central to these efforts. By the end of World War II, Rosie recorded, “there was no more skilful, experienced and battle-hardened” unit in Burma. The Division was “probably the best division in one of the best armies in Asia.” Now, its soldiers were to target their well-honed proficiency in the art of killing against the Vietnamese. In all, 26,000 British soldiers along with 2,500 military vehicles were airdropped into Saigon for the purpose.

Three artillery regiments also arrived, while the Royal Air Force was on hand with 14 spitfires and 34 Mosquito fighter bombers in support. Backing this vast invading army were Vichy French and Japanese troops, who were provided with new weapons by their British counterparts. The official objective was to “maintain law and order and ensure internal security” in Vietnam. Still, the British and their conquered underlings were given explicit orders to savagely crush any and all local resistance, even if innocent civilians were killed:

“There is no front in these operations: we would be dealing with bands of guerillas… We may find it difficult to distinguish friend from foe… Also beware of ‘nibbling’ at opposition. Always use the maximum force available to ensure wiping out any hostile we may meet. If one uses too much, no harm is done. If one uses too small a force and it has to be extricated [sic], we will suffer casualties and encourage the enemy.”

Japanese soldiers repair an airfield, while British troops observe

Quickly, the Vietnamese began dying in vast numbers. However, this bloodsoaked incursion initially went entirely unremarked upon in the British media, and parliament, for several months. As such, the public at home remained completely in the dark about their Army waging another grand foreign entanglement, let alone in tandem with its World War II enemies. This conspiracy of silence continued until December 1945, when a joint letter authored by British soldiers in Vietnam, sent to then-Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, was published by The Guardian:

“It appears that we are collaborating with Japanese and French forces against the nationalist forces of Viet Minh. For what purpose is this collaboration? Why are we not disarming the Japanese? We desire the definition of government policy regarding the presence of British troops in Indo-China.”

These bombshell disclosures attracted little interest, and were promptly forgotten. The signatories received a stern talking-to from a senior military official, and no further revelations about Britain’s covert war in Vietnam subsequently emerged. In the meantime, slaughter of innocent civilians continued apace. Much later, one of the signatories to the joint letter recalled of his time in the country:

“We saw homes being burned and hundreds of the local population being kept in compounds. We saw many ambulances, open at the back, carrying mainly – actually, totally – women and children, who were in bandages. I remember it very vividly. All the women and children who lived there would stand outside their homes, all dressed in black, and just grimly stare at us, really with… hatred.”

Come mid-January next year, the Viet Minh had learned lessons from launching large-scale attacks on British-led forces, which frequently ended with significant casualties due to their opponents’ superior firepower, and extensive use of machine guns. Hanoi’s freedom fighters thereafter adopted a raft of guerrilla tactics, including ambushes, assassinations, and hit-and-run raids on enemy patrols. It was the world’s first modern unconventional war. These strategies were devastatingly employed against French and US invaders over the next three decades.

Control of the mission was formally signed over by London to French generals at the end of March 1946, and most of her forces duly left Hanoi. France was emboldened by the perceived success of Britain’s intervention, believing Ho Chi Minh’s forces couldn’t withstand further onslaught from a “civilised”, professional army. This delusion led Paris to launch all-out war against Hanoi again in December that year. It ended in bitter defeat eight years later, and then the Americans stepped in.

For its part, in the post-World War II period, Britain waged a number of comparable, covert wars in every corner of the world, as its financial and military clout rapidly withered. In many cases, the US subsequently stepped in to fill London’s shoes, taking over management of far-flung crises and emergencies, and in the process Britain’s fallen empire. The past 80 years has been a neverending story of American struggle to master the dual legacies of colonialism and partition, bequeathed by its own former imperial overlord.

September 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

A Tale of Two Disputes: How China Handles Hanoi and Manila

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | September 12, 2024

A recent article in the South China Morning Post caught my eye—the topic being why Beijing has taken such an apparently different approach to its territorial disputes with Vietnam versus the similar disputes it has with the Philippines.

Given the now weekly near misses between competing claimants in the South China Sea, the topic is a timely one, and in analyzing Beijing’s contrasting responses to territorial claims by Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea, it becomes clear that China’s strategic calculations are shaped by varying historical, political, and diplomatic dynamics.

Historically, Vietnam’s claims to the South China Sea date back several centuries, although the exact extent and nature of these claims have evolved significantly over time.

Vietnamese records from the Nguyễn Dynasty (1802–1945) suggest that Vietnamese rulers asserted control over certain islands and features in the South China Sea. And references to the Spratly and Paracel Islands appear in historical texts from as early as the seventeenth century. These documents suggest that Vietnamese fishing fleets and merchant vessels regularly visited the islands and considered them within their traditional maritime territory.

When France colonized Vietnam in the late nineteenth century, it began asserting territorial claims on behalf of the Vietnamese protectorate in the South China Sea. In the 1930s, the French government formally claimed both the Paracel and Spratly Islands, citing historical Vietnamese sovereignty. The French established outposts and conducted surveys on some of the islands, mainly driven by the strategic importance of the South China Sea for naval dominance. These colonial claims are crucial because they form part of the modern Vietnamese argument that sovereignty was maintained through continuous occupation, even when the country was under colonial rule.

After the French withdrew in 1954, both North and South Vietnam laid claims to the islands, though South Vietnam maintained physical control over most of the features in the South China Sea. Following the Vietnam War and the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, the unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam continued asserting sovereignty over the islands and expanded its presence in the Spratlys, bolstering its post-colonial efforts to keep the islands under effective control through patrols and the construction of outposts even as China began moving to assert its claims.

The longstanding control of these features is one reason why Beijing has been relatively restrained in responding to Hanoi’s recent expansion activities.

Moreover, Vietnam’s strategy of managing maritime disputes with Beijing “quietly” contrasts sharply with the Philippines’ approach of publicizing clashes and appealing to international forums. Vietnam’s decision to handle disputes internally and seek “friendly consultations” has helped to de-escalate tensions with China, despite the fact that its island-building mirrors China’s own efforts over the past decade.

Indeed, the political relationship between China and Vietnam is arguably the key factor shaping Beijing’s measured response. As the article from the South China Morning Post notes, the overall bilateral relationship is defined by economic cooperation and mutual geopolitical interests, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, Beijing seeks to preserve its broader relationship with Vietnam, using diplomacy and economic enticements as buffers against outright hostility. This is in contrast to the Philippines, whose defense ties with Washington have escalated tensions. The longstanding U.S.-Philippine alliance is viewed by Beijing as part of a broader strategy of “containment,” especially in light of the recently revived Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives the U.S. military access to more bases close to Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The Philippines has made headlines by consistently publicizing its maritime disputes with China. Videos of Chinese coast guard vessels colliding with Philippine boats and the use of water cannons have garnered international attention, forcing Beijing to defend its actions diplomatically. Furthermore, Manila’s close alignment with Washington, particularly under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has heightened tensions with China. This is exacerbated by joint military exercises between the Philippines, the United States, and other allies like Japan and Australia. For Beijing, this has elevated the Philippines to a higher priority in terms of countering what it perceives (correctly) as a U.S.-led containment effort in the region. Vietnam, by contrast, has avoided such provocative military cooperation with external powers, further explaining why Beijing’s approach has been comparatively restrained.

The American role in the region cannot be understated. Washington’s decision to interpret existing treaty obligations to defend Manila in the event of an armed attack under the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty raises the stakes significantly and decreases the likelihood that Manila will choose to deescalate. This brings into focus the risk of conflict between the United States and China in defense of territorial claims in the South China Sea, which would likely start with a confrontation over the Scarborough Shoal or Spratly Islands. Beijing has increasingly seen its conflict with Manila as an extension of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, particularly regarding Taiwan, which further complicates the maritime disputes and endangers the world.

At the same time, as Beijing seeks to prevent a collective response from claimant states, recognizing that pushing too hard against Vietnam could drive Hanoi closer to the United States and its allies. While Vietnam has taken advantage of Beijing’s focus on the Philippines to accelerate its island-building activities, Beijing’s restraint towards Vietnam does not rule out future escalations, especially if Vietnam’s militarization of these features intensifies.

While much is uncertain, one thing seems clear: far from being a force for peace in the region, Washington’s intervention, far from America’s own shores, is a clear source of instability and potential danger.

September 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

American Bombings of Vietnam during World War II

Tales of the American Empire | August 15, 2024

Americans know about the massive American bombing of Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. Few know that thousands of American bombs fell on Vietnam during World War II. The Japanese had occupied some ports in French Indochina in 1940 to support naval and air operations in the region. After the United States entered the war, the US Army Air Corps needed targets to justify strategic bombing since Japan remained beyond range until B-29s arrived in 1944. As a result, many questionable targets were bombed in Vietnam that resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, while a million Vietnamese starved during the resulting famine.

______________________________________________

Related Tale: “The Anglo-American War on France”;    • The Anglo-American War on France  

Related Tale: “American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cities in World War II”;    • American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cit…  

“Bombing of South-East Asia (1944–1945)”; Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing…)

“The OSS in Vietnam, 1945: A War of Missed Opportunities”; Dixee Bartholomew-Feis; The National World War II Museum; July 15, 2020; https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war…

Related Tale: “American Bombings of Allied Cities in World War II”;    • American Bombings of Allied Cities in…  

Related Tale: “The Illusion Called South Vietnam”;    • The Illusion Called South Vietnam  

Related Playlist: “The Vietnam War”;    • The Vietnam War  

August 16, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

A new multipolar security system based on ‘Pax Rossiya’

Strategic Culture Foundation | June 21, 2024

For several years now, Russia, China and other members of the expanding BRICS alliance have been formulating progressive trade and financial relations of the emerging multipolar world order. That order is based on mutual respect and partnership grounded in international law and the UN Charter.

The BRICS concept is rightly the zeitgeist of our time. It is rallying more nations to its fold especially those of the so-called Global South which for decades have been subjected to the unilateralism of Western hegemony.

The trouble is that for a new world order based on equality and fairness to succeed in practice, it needs to be secure from arbitrary military aggression and imperialist tyranny. In other words, a new security architecture is required to underpin the development of a multipolar world.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been advocating for a new indivisible international security system. This week saw the plan for a new security arrangement put into action.

The Russian leader embarked on state visits to North Korea and Vietnam during which he signed new strategic partnership and defense accords.

Ahead of his trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Putin outlined the integrated vision thus: “We are also ready for close cooperation to make international relations more democratic and stable… To do this, we will develop alternative mechanisms of trade and mutual settlements that are not controlled by the West, and jointly resist illegitimate unilateral restrictions. And at the same time – to build an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia.”

The concept of indivisible security is by no means limited to Eurasia. Russia has signaled the same principles apply to Latin America, Africa and indeed every other corner of the world.

During Putin’s meetings with Chairman Kim Jong Un of the DPRK and President Lo Tam of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the strategic partnerships agreed were not merely about military defense and security. They involved comprehensive partnerships for the development of trade, transport, technology, education, science and medicine.

Nevertheless, it was clear that the commitment to strategic partnership was underpinned by new mutual defense accords. This was most explicit in the treaty signed with the DPRK which furnished “mutual assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties”.

This is a game-changer. It totally upends the geopolitical calculations of the United States and its NATO partners who have been unilaterally expanding military force and provocations in Eurasia and elsewhere.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has ramped up aggression in the Asia-Pacific against China and North Korea with impunity. Under his watch, the US has increasingly moved nuclear forces into the region to intimidate not only Beijing and Pyongyang but also Moscow. The Biden administration has been assiduous in forming hostile military formations in the region with its NATO partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.

Year after year, the United States has built up weapon systems in Taiwan to provoke China and on the Korean Peninsula to threaten North Korea.

This unilateral aggression and “might is right” arrogance underpin the notion of Pax Americana that prevailed for decades after the Second World War. That notion was always a cruel euphemism for American imperialist violence to impose its economic and political interests. The Korean and Vietnam Wars in which millions of civilians were annihilated were the real-world grim translations of Pax Americana and its fraudulent “rules-based order”.

Geopolitical perceptions have dramatically changed in a few short years. The U.S. and its Western partners – a global minority – have come to be seen by most people of the world as rogue states that have trashed international law through illegal wars and unilateral bullying with economic sanctions. The U.S. dollar and Washington’s relentless debt spending are seen as instruments of imperialist looting.

The BRICS multipolar world order is a welcome alternative to the mayhem of the Western-dominated system. The principles of fairness and cooperation are laudable and necessary to implement. But such principles must be reinforced with military defense and security for all. This is far from the one-sided “defense and security” of the United States and its NATO partners, which in reality is an Orwellian cover for aggression.

The defense commitments given by Russia to the DPRK this week can be seen as long overdue. One may wonder how the U.S. and its allies got away with threatening the people of North Korea for so long and denying Pyongyang the sovereign right to self-defense. Admittedly, Russia did previously support UN sanctions on North Korea over its missile program. That’s over.

The U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia that erupted in February 2022 was a wake-up call for Moscow and many people around the world.

Patently, the Western hegemonic system will stop at nothing to assert its neocolonialist privileges, even to the point of antagonizing a nuclear world war.

There is only one language that the U.S. and its minions understand – and that is the threat of devastating countervailing force.

Washington and its NATO lackeys think they can put missiles in Ukraine to hit Russia or in South Korea and Japan to hit North Korea – at no cost to their own security. Well, now, they might want to think again. There’s a new sheriff in town, as this week’s developments show.

A new global security system is being incarnate. Russia’s vision of indivisible, mutual security is shared by China and many other nations because it is fully compliant with international law and nations’ sovereignty.

Russia, China and other supporters of a multipolar world are not preemptively threatening anyone. But it takes the guarantee of unassailable nuclear powers, Russia and China, to make a new security system viable by restoring the deterrence towards the rogue states of the United States and NATO accomplices.

The defense accords between Russia, the DPRK and Vietnam are installments of the new security architecture that is needed in Eurasia and globally. The has-been American hegemon has been served notice that from now on its presumption of belligerence with impunity, to destroy nations, and to have a license to murder en masse is null and void.

Welcome to the new multipolar order and Pax Rossiya. All are welcome – except hegemonic rogue states.

June 22, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | 2 Comments

The U.S. Defeat in Vietnam Changed Nothing

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | May 14, 2024

April 30 was the anniversary date when North Vietnamese forces forced U.S. officials to exit Vietnam, much to their chagrin. That was after some 58,000 American men had died for nothing, not to mention the tens of thousands of injured American soldiers and the millions of Vietnamese who were killed or injured as a result of U.S. intervention in Vietnam’s civil war.

To this day, there are those who claim that those 58,000 men died for their country and in defense of our freedoms here at home. Almost 50 years after the end of that sordid intervention, such people continue to operate under severe self-delusion.

North Vietnam never attacked, invaded, or occupied the United States or even had any interest in doing so. Moreover, North Vietnam lacked the military, money, transport ships, planes, and supply lines that would have been necessary to cross the Pacific and invade the United States. If they had been successful in landing a few thousand troops on the West Coast, they would have been quickly massacred by the U.S. military or by well-armed private Americans. All that North Vietnam wanted to do was reunite North Vietnam and South Vietnam and make it one country again — Vietnam.

In other words, North Vietnam never posed a danger to our rights and freedoms here in the United States. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, despite the fact that North Vietnam defeated the United States and won the war, the defeat did not result in North Vietnam’s taking away any of our rights and freedoms. In fact, the irony is that it is the U.S. government — our government — that has destroyed our rights and freedoms.

By the same token, those 58,000 U.S. soldiers who were sacrificed in Vietnam did not die for their country. They died for their government. There is a difference. The government is one entity and the country is another entity. This difference is reflected by the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the country from the government. Dying for one’s government is not the same as dying for one’s country.

During the war, the U.S. government resorted to conscription, which is also known as the draft. It’s impossible to reconcile conscription with freedom. When a government has to force people to fight in a war, that’s a pretty good sign that that is a no-good, rotten war. If the war were really about protecting our freedom and our country, people wouldn’t have to be forced to fight. They’d be willing to fight voluntarily.

The rotten nature of the war was reflected by the disparate treatment between rich and poor and blacks and whites. The rich white kids were given college and post-graduate school deferments, which would enable them to delay being forced into the military and sent to Vietnam. Another way for rich white kids to get out of being sent to Vietnam was to use political influence to get into a National Guard unit or a Reserve unit. During the Vietnam War, those units were not being activated to be sent to Vietnam. Thus, anyone who was lucky enough or privileged enough to get into those units knew that there was no risk of being sent to Vietnam. The poor were not so lucky. They couldn’t afford college and so they were drafted immediately on graduation from high school. They became the U.S. government’s cannon fodder in Vietnam.

Of course, from the day he was forced into the army, every soldier was indoctrinated into believing that he was being sent to Vietnam to protect our “freedoms” here at home. One irony of this indoctrination was that if black conscripts were lucky enough to make it back alive, the “free” society to which they were returning was a segregated one.

Those who had the audacity to challenge or criticize the war were immediately branded traitors, cowards, or communist lovers or appeasers. That included civil-rights leader Martin Luther King and championship boxer Mohammad Ali. U.S. officials destroyed Ali’s boxing career by ensuring that he was prohibited from fighting at the height of his career. But at least they let him live. They snuffed out King’s life given that they were convinced that he and the civil-rights movement were advance, Fifth Column troops of a communist invasion of the United States.

Unfortunately, North Vietnam’s victory over the United States didn’t result in any fundamental changes here at home. Today, Americans continue to live under a national-security state form of government, an interventionist foreign policy, and an empire of foreign military bases. The Cold War is still being waged against Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and China; ironically, North Vietnam is, at least for now, considered an official friend. The war on communism has been replaced by the war on terrorism and Islam. State-sponsored assassinations, torture, indefinite detention, and military tribunals are still part and parcel of America’s legal system. And so are unconstitutional undeclared wars that sacrifice American soldiers for nothing, like with the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

May 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

Still Trying to End the Vietnam War Killings

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | April 10, 2024

The Vietnam War ended nearly 50 years ago. Still, the killing and maiming is not over. People continue to suffer from and succumb to injuries from the war long past. And others, often people born since the war’s end, are killed or injured by the explosion of some of the many bombs from the war that now clutter Vietnam.

A March 15 New York Times article profiles Chuck Searcy who, as a United States Army intelligence analyst in Vietnam, became disillusioned with the war. Years later, writes Seth Mydans in the article, Searcy is working in Vietnam on ameliorating the harm from the left behind bombs. Project Renew that he cofounded has been “deploying teams of de-miners, teaching schoolchildren how to stay safe, and providing prosthetics and job training to victims” for over 20 years. You can read the article here.

It is inspiring that people are dedicated to trying to minimize the long-term damage of the US government’s wars. It is unfortunate, though, that, since the Vietnam War, Americans have been suckered into allowing their government to pursue a series of devastating wars across the world. These wars, like the Vietnam War, have killed and maimed many people and then, after their conclusion, left behind new streams of suffering that flow into the future.

The world would do much better if there were a big uptick in one “illness” in America: the Vietnam Syndrome.

April 10, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Henry Kissinger and his legacy as a war criminal

Press TV – January 11, 2024

Henry Kissinger was one of the most influential US statesmen of the 20th century, who shamelessly used his position to manipulate the United States into providing unequivocal support to Israel.

As a hardcore Zionist, Kissinger was incredibly Machiavellian, but unlike his modern-day equivalents, he was not stupid and he certainly was not demented. Kissinger was also the architect of some of the 20th century’s worst human rights abuses and war crimes.

Henry Kissinger, his life and legacy

The passing of a war criminal, the death of Henry Kissinger at 100 years old marks the end of a bloody life.

Kissinger is well known for his role in engineering the coup that brought General Pinochet to power in Chile and overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende.

Kissinger’s fingerprints were all over the wars from Vietnam to Cambodia to East Timor to Bangladesh.

Less well known though, is Kissinger’s role in the neutralization of Egypt as an effective actor in the struggle against Zionism and the marginalization of Palestinians by regional allies.

It’s fair to say you would not have the same level of Egyptian complicity that you have today, including the genocidal blockade on Gaza at the Rafah crossing, without Kissinger’s work to subvert the powerful Arab state.

As Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Kissinger was intimately involved in saving Israel in the 1973 war of attrition fought by Syria, Egypt, and Libya against the settler entity.

When the Zionists suffered consecutive losses, Kissinger and Nixon organized the emergency supply of weapons to the entity in a move known as Operation Nickel Grass.

The operation consisted of the US Air Force Military Airlift Command, delivering 22,325 tons of tanks, ammunition, and military equipment, over 32 days, directly to the battlefield.

Following the war, Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat sent a secret message to Zionist Prime Minister Golda Meir: “When I threatened war, I meant it; when I talk of peace now, I mean it. We have never had contact before, We now have the services of Dr. Kissinger. Let us use him and talk to each other through him”, asserted Sadat.

It was Kissinger who took Sadat under his wing and convinced him of the benefit of normalizing with the temporary entity. This work culminated with the visit of the Egyptian leader to the Israeli parliament, where he addressed the Israeli political elite, stating his desire for peace with the entity.

The infrastructure of collaboration that was set up during his time remains in place. When marking the death of Kissinger, Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, credited the former US Secretary of State with laying the cornerstone of the peace agreement between Egypt and the Zionist entity.

Israel lobbyist and former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, wrote a book about Kissinger’s political career with a special concentration on his services to Israel in 1981.

In reference to his diplomatic work in the Middle East, Kissinger asserted that his main objective was to isolate the Palestinians.

The truth is that Palestinians are not isolated, and support for them has outlived Henry Kissinger.

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vietnam prioritizes Russian ties despite US attempts to pull it into its orbit

By Drago Bosnic | September 13, 2023

On September 11, Joe Biden concluded his visit to Vietnam, often hailed as an historic one by the mainstream propaganda machine. For instance, the BBC claims that “more than 50 years since the last American soldier left Vietnam, Mr Biden travelled to Hanoi to sign the agreement that will bring the former foes closer than ever before”. The troubled Biden administration hailed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Vietnam as a major upgrade in relations with Hanoi and the culmination of efforts Washington DC invested in over the last several years. Biden also tried to present the rapprochement as having nothing to do with containing or isolating China, but about “maintaining stability in accordance with international rules”.

“I think we think too much in terms of Cold War. It’s not about that. It’s about generating economic growth and stability,” Biden told reporters on September 10, adding: “I want to see China to succeed economically, but I want to see them succeed by the rules.”

Obviously, this is a laughable claim for anyone remotely familiar with the rabidly Sinophobic policies the United States keeps escalating, be it the strategic containment of China, the never-ending stoking of tensions in Taiwan, attempts to prevent or at least derail Beijing’s technological development, etc. And to say nothing of the vaunted “rules-based world order”, as nobody actually knows what “rules” Biden is referring to. Not even Western leaders could pinpoint or even broadly explain the meaning of this pointless phrase, as the “rules” they keep parroting about are not defined. Essentially, they just make them up as they go, depending on the geopolitical circumstances, only later trying to present them as “in line with the international law”.

Still, even the BBC had to admit that Vietnam sees this rapprochement as nothing more than symbolic. According to Le Hong Hiep from Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, “Hanoi has thought this through”, as the aforementioned agreement with the US is “symbolic rather than [one of] substance”. Washington DC was hoping to use the sizeable investments of various American corporations in Vietnam for geopolitical purposes, including the reduction of China’s economic influence and Russia’s close military cooperation with Hanoi. However, both attempts are bound to fail, as Vietnam will certainly not break close ties with either for the sake of US interests in the region, particularly not with Moscow, one of its closest allies.

Namely, on September 9, the New York Times published the contents of a leaked document issued by the Vietnamese Ministry of Finance, revealing a plan to covertly acquire advanced Russian weapons. It should be noted that the US would have to impose sanctions in the case that Hanoi goes through with the deal, which is not exactly a very good message if Washington DC wants a strategic rapprochement with Vietnam. The NYT complains that “even as the United States and Vietnam have nurtured their relationship over recent months, Hanoi is making clandestine plans to buy an arsenal of weapons from Russia”. This only reinforces the notion that the “upgraded US-Vietnam relations” are indeed largely symbolic.

“The Ministry of Finance document, which is dated March 2023 and whose contents have been verified by former and current Vietnamese officials, lays out how Vietnam proposes to modernize its military by secretly paying for defense purchases through transfers at a joint Vietnamese and Russian oil venture in Siberia,” the NYT reports, adding: “Signed by a Vietnamese deputy finance minister, the document notes that Vietnam is negotiating a new arms deal with Russia that would ‘strengthen strategic trust’ at a time when ‘Russia is being embargoed by Western countries in all aspects’.”

In other words, Vietnam is clearly determined not to turn its back on one of its oldest and closest allies. Hanoi could certainly get concessions from the US, including advanced weapons, but its leadership is perfectly aware that this would be unwise, to say the least. Russian weapons haven’t only been proven as much more robust and equally or more advanced than American equivalents, but also much more affordable and logistically less strenuous. To say nothing of the history of US aggression in Indochina, where the belligerent thalassocracy killed up to four million people in Vietnam alone. And yet, the casualties would’ve been a lot worse had it not been for Moscow’s extensive aid, both economic and military.

It was Russian SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems that brought down thousands of American aircraft, saving millions of civilians in the process. Without Russian assault rifles, tanks, artillery and other weapons, Vietnam’s chances of driving out American invaders would’ve been slim to none. Hanoi never forgot that and continues fostering close ties with Moscow. The document cited by the NYT states precisely that – “Our party and state still identify Russia as the most important strategic partner in defense and security.” Vietnam’s reliance on Russian weapons is the most geopolitically sound, as Hanoi’s complicated relationship with both the US and China prevents it from relying on either militarily. This is highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

September 13, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

Henry Kissinger, Statesman, Centenarian, War Criminal

By Declan Hayes | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2023

So, Henry Kisisinger has done it. He has emulated Vietnam’s legendary General Võ Nguyên Giáp by reaching 100 years of age and not out. Congratulations! Happy birthday! Roll out the red carpet and give him a 100 gun salute! Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light….

But after all that superficial 4th of July, Apple Pie, Disneyland tinsel, go look at that guy’s rap sheet to get a grasp of how he and his have drowned the world with the blood of the innocents.

NATO awarded this bastard its 1973 Nobel Peace award for helping to end the Third Indo-China War, that led to independence for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In point of fact, it was not Kissinger’s alleged diplomacy but the heroic armed forces of Vietnam, led by the inestimable General Giáp, and armed and abetted by the Soviet Union and China, that ended that unremitting genocide the United States and its coalition of the willing (the United States, the ANZAC criminals, France, South Korea, the Philippines, Germany, Taiwan, Malaysia, Italy and Singapore) waged against the women of children of My Lai and tens of thousands of other Vietnamese villages, hamlets and towns. If Kissinger is hale and hearty enough to still opine on matters like Ukraine, then he is fit enough to swing for his culpability in America’s mass use of chemical and biological weapons in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. If he lived like a dog, then he should have no complaints about being hanged like one.

And, after hanging him over Indo-China, Kissinger should be dug up and hanged again over Chile, where he and his Chicago school of economic hit-men orchestrated the overthrow of Allende, the pauperisation of the Chileans and the installation of the CIA trained fascist butcher Pinochet.

Och sure that was so long ago, would you not leave the old war criminal alone to enjoy his old age, something that bastard denied so many millions of others? Chile and Vietnam are so yesterday.

If only they were. Leaving to one side the tens of thousands of Vietnamese babies who are born with congenital diseases as a result of Kissinger spraying Monsanto’s Agent Orange on their grandmothers and even forgetting that Kissinger’s Yankee mates this very day oppose Chinese aid to Cambodia, a country whose people they unmercifully slaughtered with the active help of their media shills, Kissinger’s neck must still answer for his complicity in the crimes of Pakistan, whose military, led by the United States, committed the most unspeakable outrages in Bangladesh, East Pakistan, which was the Donbas of its day, and which these gangsters are now perpetrating in Pakistan itself.

And then there is Israel, with whom Kissinger directly colluded not only against Egypt, Jordan and Assad’s Syria in the Yom Kippur war, but where he also colluded against POTUS Nixon. If that is not another hanging offence, what is?

Let’s momentarily forget, if we can, the hanging hyperbole and look at Kissinger the man if we can assume, for the sake of argument, he is a man and not the anti-Christ incarnate. Although many others before him, from at least the time of Cardinal Richelieu, had the ear of the king, it is fair to say that Kissinger’s control of Nixon was a turning point for the worst in the affairs of man. Kissinger, often with Nixon’s connivance and as often without, manipulated the Beltway’s movers and shakers to a degree that the world had previously not witnessed and people are still being slaughtered in Donbas, in Pakistan and in Latin America as a result.

Out were the self-made politicians, folk like Eisenhower, Kennedy, de Gaulle, Harold Wilson and Willy Brandt, who had excelled, as often as not in the field of battle, but always under their own steam, owing favours to no one. In were the mandarins, the Yes Prime Ministers, snivelling wretches like Kissinger, who owed their prominence to backroom deals and favours cut, thanks to the Epsteins and other shadowy king makers of the Beltway’s netherworld.

Let’s look at the U.S. military to illustrate this important point. There are currently 39 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 13 in the Army, 3 in the Marine Corps, 10 in the Navy, 12 in the Air Force, 1 in the Coast Guard, 2 in the Space Force, and none in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

This bloated number, which is far in excess of what the Yanks had at the height of the Second World War, is explained by the Kissinger effect, creeping Jesuses like Kissinger playing their own game, rather than playing for Team America. The objective of the top brass is not to win wars, to defend America or any such thing but it is to enrich themselves and the defence companies they will be parachuted into upon retirement.

The same goes for the Beltway’s movers and shakers, those creeping Jesuses who have inherited Satan’s relay baton from Kissinger and who, like him, consider American domestic and foreign policy, along with America’s piggy bank, to be their own personal plaything. If you look at those at the Beltway’s centre, anti-Christs like Victoria Nuland, Lindsey Graham and John Bolton, you can trace a slime trail via the Bush Presidencies all the way back to Kissinger and Nixon. Though America might periodically change its king, its permanent government of war mongers and piggy bank robbers stays firmly in place.

But what then of General Giáp? Wasn’t he too around almost forever? Yes, but Giáp was tested not once, but always against the Japanese, the French and the hated Americans. And, because each and every time he proved his mettle, he is, arguably, the most outstanding leader of the twentieth century.

Although Giáp might conceivably have liked to have ended his adult life, as he began it, as a history teacher in provincial Vietnam, fate dictated otherwise. Not so with the Beltway’s creeps, Kissinger’s droppings, who have to this very day to see a war they did not like or profit from.

So, as the world’s hypocrites salute this degenerate’s 100th birthday on May 27th, let’s first of all remember the millions of Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chileans who died the most horrible of deaths because of this conniving creep, and then let’s also say an Ave for the millions of others whose lives were sacrificed on the altars of Blair, Bush, Clinton, Obama and Kissinger’s other criminal clones.

May 27, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | 3 Comments

California Dreamin’/Napalm Death

February 17, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

The Forgotten Terrorist Pretext of the Vietnam War

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | February 16, 2023

Since 9/11, terrorism has become the ultimate entitlement program for America’s political elite. Whether it is illegally spying on Americans or blowing Somali dissidents to pieces, invoking terrorism provides all the cover needed for Washington policymakers. But the disastrous results of granting politicians a blank check to fight terrorism should have been undeniable almost 60 years ago.

Back in the 1960s, terrorism was what the communists did. Anti-terrorist moral fervor and ideological blinders propelled the U.S. into its biggest foreign policy blunder since World War II.

As the French Foreign Legion struggled to reconquer Vietnam in the wake of World War II, the U.S. government constantly embellished the storyline to demonize the communist opposition. A CIA operative provided materials for a massive bomb that ripped through a main square in Saigon in 1952. A Life magazine photographer was waiting on the scene, and his resulting snap appeared with a caption blaming the carnage on Viet Minh Communists. The New York Times headlined its report: “Reds’ Time Bombs Rip Saigon Center.” The bombing was touted as “one of the most spectacular and destructive single incidents in the long history of revolutionary terrorism” committed by “agents here of the Vietminh.” The press coverage boosted public support for U.S. government aid to the French army fighting the Communists. A Vietnamese warlord named General Trinh Minh Thé, a CIA collaborator, claimed credit for the bomb but the U.S. media ignored his statement.

In the wake of the French defeat in 1954, U.S. military advisors poured into Vietnam. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy declared: “Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place.” The Kennedy administration sought credibility by profoundly deceiving the American people and Congress regarding its Vietnam policy. JFK violated the limits on the number of American military advisors established in the 1954 Geneva peace treaty between the French and the Vietnamese communists. He also deceived the American public by mislabeling the growing U.S. contingent in South Vietnam as advisors at a time when they were becoming actively engaged in fighting.

The US government regarded the South Vietnamese government headed by Ngo Dinh Diem as corrupt, oppressive, and inept. The Pentagon Papers described a May 8, 1963 debacle in the city of Hue, South Vietnam: “Government troops fire on a Buddhist protest demonstration, killing nine and wounding fourteen. The incident triggers a nationwide Buddhist protest and a crisis of popular confidence for the Diem regime. [The Government of South Vietnam] maintains the incident was an act of [Viet Cong] terrorism.”

The Diem government was outraged that the Buddhists demanded legal equality with Catholics and the right to fly the Buddhist flag. In August 1963, South Vietnamese Special Forces “carried out midnight raids against Buddhist pagodas throughout the country. More than 1,400 people, mostly monks were arrested and many of them were beaten,” according to the Pentagon Papers. The CIA was bankrolling these Special Forces, which were supposed to be used for covert operations against the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, not for religious repression. Diem’s terrorizing of the Buddhists swayed the U.S. to back a coup that led to his assassination a few months later.

The Lyndon Johnson administration exploited the terrorist label to sway Americans to support greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In a special message to Congress on May 18, 1964 seeking additional fund for Vietnam, LBJ declared, “the Viet Cong guerrillas, under orders from their Communist masters in the North, have intensified terrorist actions against the peaceful people of South Vietnam. This increased terrorism requires increased response.” Johnson scorned a proposal by French president Charles de Gaulle for a Geneva conference on the growing Vietnam conflict because LBJ declared the conference would “ratify terror.” In a June 23, 1964 press conference, LBJ declared that “our purpose is peace. Our people in South Viet-Nam are helping to protect people against terror.”

U.S. policymakers were hungry for a pretext to unleash bombing. On May 15, 1964, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge recommended planning for the South Vietnamese air force to hit “a specific target in North Vietnam,” carefully timed after a “terrorist act of proper magnitude beforehand by the North Vietnamese,” the Pentagon Papers revealed.

At that time, the U.S. was already carrying out an array of “non-attributable hit-and run” raids against North Vietnam, including “kidnappings of North Vietnamese citizens for intelligence information, parachuting sabotage and psychological warfare teams into the north, commando raids from the sea to blow up rail and highway bridges, and the bombardment of North Vietnamese coastal installations by PT boats,” according to the Pentagon Papers. Thai pilots flying American planes bombed and strafed North Vietnamese villages. But the Johnson administration denied that the U.S. was committing any provocations.

Johnson had already decided to attack North Vietnam to boost his election campaign. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox fired on North Vietnamese ships near the North Vietnamese coast. Two days later, the Maddox reported that it was under attack from North Vietnamese PT boats. Within hours, the ship’s commander wired Washington that the reports of an attack on his ship may have been wildly exaggerated: “Entire action leaves many doubts.” But the Maddox’s initial report was all LBJ needed to go on national television and announce that he had ordered immediate “retaliatory” airstrikes against North Vietnam. Johnson railroaded a resolution through Congress granting him unlimited authority to attack North Vietnam. The resolution was written months earlier and the administration was waiting for the right moment to unveil it.

Both the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese government were terrorizing people at the time the U.S. involvement rapidly expanded in 1965. But the U.S. government looked only at the Viet Cong’s terrorism to justify launching its own bombing campaign that killed far more civilians than did the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese army prior to the end of the war.

The American media endlessly recited the terrorist storyline that the U.S. government created to justify ramping up the Vietnam War. University of California Professor Daniel Hallin observed, “The theme of terrorism directed against civilians was central to television’s image of the enemy… Television coverage of the North Vietnamese… focused on terror to the almost total exclusion of politics. The American media also almost completely ignored attacks on Vietnamese civilians by the U.S. military.”

The political racketeering that spawned the Vietnam War should remind Americans to be wary of any salvation mission championed by their rulers. The U.S. government perennially claims to be an innocent bystander after its covert interventions unleash havoc abroad. There is no shortage of evil governments and evil factions that butcher innocent people. But foreign atrocities, real or imagined, don’t make Washington trustworthy.

Jim Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and 7 other books.

February 16, 2023 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 4 Comments

« Previous Entries