Us policy – Alg A http://alg-a.com/ Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:16:06 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://alg-a.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-6-120x120.png Us policy – Alg A http://alg-a.com/ 32 32 Palestinian officials outraged by slowness of US policy towards PA https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-pa/ https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-pa/#respond Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:07:07 +0000 https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-pa/ Frustrated Palestinian officials say US pledges to the Palestinian Authority (PA) are a “mirage,” and US policy towards Ramallah under President Joe Biden is no different from that of its predecessor, Donald Trump, describing the contrast as a “cosmetic change”. A Palestinian official close to PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the 86-year-old leader was “outraged” […]]]>

Frustrated Palestinian officials say US pledges to the Palestinian Authority (PA) are a “mirage,” and US policy towards Ramallah under President Joe Biden is no different from that of its predecessor, Donald Trump, describing the contrast as a “cosmetic change”.

A Palestinian official close to PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the 86-year-old leader was “outraged” by the slowness of US policy towards the Palestinians. Privately, Ramallah officials accused Washington of delaying and misleading them.

4 בגלריה

US Vice President Joe Biden (right) and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas speak during a meeting in the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah

US President Joe Biden (right) and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

(Photo: AFP)

“Everything they promised has evaporated, they have not kept any of their commitments,” the official said.

Biden still refuses to meet Abbas, according to sources in Ramallah, who said Abbas canceled his trip to the United Nations General Assembly in September, due to the failure of the PA’s efforts to secure a Abbas reunion with Biden.

The two spoke once by phone last May, following the 11-day cross-border conflict between Israel and Gaza, and there is an open official channel of communication between the two. Meanwhile, US officials are visiting Ramallah again.

Abbas became furious with the Biden administration during a meeting with the Palestinian leadership last month, attacking US officials, calling them “liars for not keeping the promises they made to us.”

These promises include the reopening of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington, the provision of financial support to the Palestinian Authority, and the reopening of the US consulate in Jerusalem.

Recently, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Central Committee of the Fatah movement led by Abbas, said that “the current US administration has no initiative for peace.”

The Palestinians counted on renewed American support, both politically and financially.

4 בגלריה

President Mahmoud Abbas gestures during meeting with Palestinian leadership to discuss UAE's deal with Israel to normalize relationsPresident Mahmoud Abbas gestures during meeting with Palestinian leadership to discuss UAE's deal with Israel to normalize relations

President Mahmoud Abbas

(Reuters)

Ahmad Rafiq Awad, president of the Jerusalem Center for Studies at Al-Quds University, said there is a general feeling among the Palestinian leadership that the US administration has let them down.

“They feel frustrated and disappointed because there are hardly any tangible measures on the ground taken by the United States,” said Rafiq Awad.

The PLO office remains closed with barely a trickle of financial aid, and despite the US pledge to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem, no date has been set for such a move.

“The Palestinians were beaming when Biden won the White House, they had high expectations of him. They have to come down because the reality is that Biden can’t seem to put pressure on the Israeli government, ”he said.

Hasan Awwad, an expert on Palestinian affairs at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, said the PA lives in “isolation” and is so weak that it cannot make political demands of anyone , including in the United States.

“These are difficult times for the PA and Abbas, hardly anyone is cooperating with him. Neither the EU nor the Arabs. Abbas is in trouble, ”according to Awwad.

At a press conference on Saturday night, Israeli officials halted any US plans to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told reporters that the disputed city is the “capital of one state” and that there is “no room” for the US consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem.

4 בגלריה

the United States Consulate building in Jerusalem the United States Consulate building in Jerusalem

The United States Consulate building in Jerusalem

(Photo: TPS)

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, standing next to Bennett, has suggested that a site in the West Bank is acceptable to Israelis.

“As for the consulate, as we both said, it’s not about politics and political stability. It is the State of Israel refusing in principle that a consulate be opened in Jerusalem. If they (the United States) want to open a consulate in Ramallah, that’s okay with us, ”he said.

The comments infuriated Palestinian Authority officials, who praised the administration’s plan; they quickly rejected the last position of the Israeli government. Abbas’s spokesman said the Palestinian Authority would only accept a US consulate in Jerusalem, which he called the capital of the Palestinian state.

US officials have publicly stated that they want to move forward with their plans to open the consulate; however, Israeli officials insist that the decision to authorize the diplomatic mission rests with Israel.

Former Palestinian Authority Minister Ziad AbuZayyad said the White House was trying to repair the damage caused by its previous occupants.

“The Biden administration is trying to overturn all the stupid decisions made by the Trump administration, including the nuclear deal (Iran), move the embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” he said. he declares.

4 בגלריה

ארה"בירושליםארה"בירושלים

U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem

(Photo: Reuters)

Reopening the diplomatic mission in Jerusalem that was shut down by Trump was a campaign pledge by Biden, which he has yet to keep. Professor Ronnie Shaked of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute at Hebrew University said a crisis between the two allies could be brewing.

“It’s going to be a crisis. Yes, there will be a crisis on the way. There will be some kind of pressure. The US president understands the situation in Israel and he will delay his decision, ”Shaked said.

It was a decision that delighted the Israeli administration and outraged the Palestinians. “This decision undermines any possibility of a political solution to the conflict; therefore, the United States is bound and demanded to reverse this decision and reopen an American embassy in East Jerusalem to deal with the Palestinians, ”AbuZayyad said.

The US administration has refrained from pushing the consulate issue, pending approval of the Israeli budget – which was passed late last week, thus avoiding the automatic dissolution of the government that its failure would have triggered. Now that he is on the sidelines and the fragile governing coalition seems secure, all eyes are on the White House pending a possible announcement.

The article was written by Mohammad Al-Kassim and reprinted with permission from The media line.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-pa/feed/ 0
Palestinian officials outraged by slowness of US policy towards the Palestinian Authority https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-the-palestinian-authority/ https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-the-palestinian-authority/#respond Tue, 09 Nov 2021 18:55:10 +0000 https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-the-palestinian-authority/ Privately, PA officials accuse Washington of delaying and misleading them Frustrated Palestinian officials say US pledges to the Palestinian Authority (PA) are a “mirage,” and US policy towards Ramallah under President Joe Biden is no different from that of its predecessor, Donald Trump, describing the contrast as a “cosmetic change”. A Palestinian official close to […]]]>

Privately, PA officials accuse Washington of delaying and misleading them

Frustrated Palestinian officials say US pledges to the Palestinian Authority (PA) are a “mirage,” and US policy towards Ramallah under President Joe Biden is no different from that of its predecessor, Donald Trump, describing the contrast as a “cosmetic change”.

A Palestinian official close to PA President Mahmoud Abbas told The Media Line that the 86-year-old leader is “outraged” by the slowness of US policy towards the Palestinians. Privately, Ramallah officials accused Washington of delaying and misleading them.

“Everything they promised has evaporated, they have not kept any of their commitments,” the official said.

Biden still refuses to meet Abbas, according to The Media Line sources in Ramallah, who said Abbas canceled his trip to the United Nations General Assembly in September because of the PA’s efforts to secure a meeting. Abbas with Biden had failed.

The two spoke once by phone last May, following the 11-day cross-border conflict between Israel and Gaza, and there is an open official channel of communication between the two. Meanwhile, US officials are visiting Ramallah again.

Abbas became furious with the Biden administration during a meeting with the Palestinian leadership last month, attacking US officials, calling them “liars for not keeping the promises they made to us.”

These promises include the reopening of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington, the provision of financial support to the Palestinian Authority, and the reopening of the US consulate in Jerusalem.

Recently, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Central Committee of the Fatah movement led by Abbas, said that “the current US administration has no initiative for peace.”

The Palestinians counted on renewed American support, both politically and financially.

The Palestinians were beaming when Biden won the White House, they had high expectations of him. They have to come down because the reality is that Biden doesn’t seem able to put pressure on the Israeli government.

Ahmad Rafiq Awad, president of the Center for Jerusalem Studies at Al-Quds University, told The Media Line that there is a general feeling among Palestinian leaders that the US administration has let them down.

“They feel frustrated and disappointed because there are hardly any tangible measures on the ground taken by the United States,” said Rafiq Awad.

The PLO office remains closed with barely a trickle of financial aid, and despite the US pledge to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem, no date has been set for such a move.

“The Palestinians were beaming when Biden won the White House, they had high expectations of him. They have to come down because the reality is that Biden doesn’t seem able to put pressure on the Israeli government, ”he said.

Hasan Awwad, an expert on Palestinian affairs at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, told The Media Line that the Palestinian Authority lives in “isolation” and is so weak that it cannot make any political demands on it. anyone, including the United States.

“These are difficult times for the PA and Abbas, hardly anyone is cooperating with him. Neither the EU nor the Arabs. Abbas is in trouble, ”according to Awwad.

At a press conference on Saturday night, Israeli officials halted any US plans to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told reporters that the disputed city is the “capital of one state” and that there is “no room” for a US consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem.

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, standing next to Bennett, has suggested that a site in the West Bank is acceptable to Israelis.

“As for the consulate, as we both said, it’s not about politics and political stability. It is the State of Israel which in principle refuses a consulate to be opened in Jerusalem. If they (the United States) want to open a consulate in Ramallah, that’s okay with us, ”he said.

The comments infuriated Palestinian Authority officials, who praised the administration’s plan; they quickly rejected the last position of the Israeli government.

Abbas’s spokesman said the Palestinian Authority would only accept a US consulate in Jerusalem, which he called the capital of the Palestinian state.

US officials have publicly stated that they want to move forward with their plans to open the consulate; however, Israeli officials insist that the decision to authorize the diplomatic mission rests with Israel.

Biden administration tries to overturn all stupid decisions made by the Trump administration

Former Palestinian Authority Minister Ziad AbuZayyad told The Media Line that the White House is trying to repair the damage caused by its previous occupants.

“The Biden administration is trying to overturn all the stupid decisions made by the Trump administration, including the nuclear deal (Iran), moving the embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” he said. he declares.

Reopening the diplomatic mission in Jerusalem that was shut down by Trump was a campaign pledge by Biden, which he has yet to keep.

Professor Ronnie Shaked of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute at Hebrew University said a crisis between the two allies could be brewing.

“It’s going to be the crisis. Yes, there will be a crisis on the way. There will be some kind of pressure. The US president understands the situation in Israel and he will delay his decision, ”Shaked said.

Trump closed the Jerusalem Consulate and merged its staff with the U.S. Embassy in Israel, which he moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018, breaking decades of U.S. policy.

It was a decision that delighted the Israeli administration and outraged the Palestinians.

“This decision undermines any possibility of a political solution to the conflict; therefore, the United States is bound and demanded to reverse this decision and reopen an American embassy in East Jerusalem to deal with the Palestinians, ”AbuZayyad said.

The US administration has refrained from pushing the consulate issue, pending approval of the Israeli budget – which was passed late last week, thus avoiding the automatic dissolution of the government that its failure would have triggered. Now that he is on the sidelines and the fragile governing coalition seems secure, all eyes are on the White House pending a possible announcement.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/palestinian-officials-outraged-by-slowness-of-us-policy-towards-the-palestinian-authority/feed/ 0
With Israel’s budget passed, US policy could be the next big test for the Bennett government https://alg-a.com/with-israels-budget-passed-us-policy-could-be-the-next-big-test-for-the-bennett-government/ https://alg-a.com/with-israels-budget-passed-us-policy-could-be-the-next-big-test-for-the-bennett-government/#respond Sun, 07 Nov 2021 17:03:06 +0000 https://alg-a.com/with-israels-budget-passed-us-policy-could-be-the-next-big-test-for-the-bennett-government/ Main challenges could stem from Biden administration’s policy towards Palestinians, political analysts say Members of the Israeli government coalition breathed a collective sigh of relief at the start of the weekend. In a move seen as a key victory for the Bennett-Lapid government, lawmakers passed a state budget ahead of the impending November 14 deadline. […]]]>

Main challenges could stem from Biden administration’s policy towards Palestinians, political analysts say

Members of the Israeli government coalition breathed a collective sigh of relief at the start of the weekend.

In a move seen as a key victory for the Bennett-Lapid government, lawmakers passed a state budget ahead of the impending November 14 deadline.

The 2021-2022 budget was the first to be approved in more than three years, following a prolonged political stalemate that saw the country catapulted into a seemingly endless election cycle. Had it not been passed, Israel would have entered a fifth round of elections in about two years.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Saturday welcomed the decision, calling it the end of “three years of instability”.

Yet even with the first major obstacle behind Israel’s coalition government, which is made up of various parties from across the political and ideological spectrum, several important tests could disrupt its stability.

Dr Batia Siebzehner, an expert on Israeli politics and a researcher at the Harry S. Truman Research Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said the Biden administration’s pending decision on whether or not to open a consulate in East Jerusalem for the Palestinians could prove to be a pivotal moment for the coalition.

“The question is how far the Biden administration is willing to push,” Siebzehner told The Media Line. “They discuss the consulate in East Jerusalem, which could snowball [political] crisis.”

She added that: “The left-wing coalition parties – Meretz and Labor – will also be forced to decide whether they support or oppose this motion. “

There is pressure on Bennett within his own party and other coalition parties, as well as pressure from the Biden administration

Bennett and Lapid both presented a united front in their opposition to the reopening of the consulate and suggested instead that it be placed in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, the current seat of the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, while Israel considers Jerusalem its indivisible capital.

US President Joe Biden has vowed to reopen the consulate in East Jerusalem, which was closed by former President Donald Trump in 2018 when the US embassy was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but did not not yet given a specific date as to when this would occur.

Another obstacle the coalition faces is construction in West Bank settlements, according to Siebzehner. Last month, the Ministry of Construction and Housing announced that 1,300 new homes would be built in several West Bank settlements, also known as Judea and Samaria.

While Washington and a number of parties in the Bennett-Lapid government oppose further construction in Jewish settlements, the right-wing coalition parties – including Bennett’s Yamina party – have long demonstrated political in favor of the colonists.

“There is pressure on Bennett within his own party and other coalition parties, as well as pressure from the Biden administration,” Siebzehner said.

Nonetheless, she added, “at this point neither party can afford to break with the coalition and risk Israel going to another election.”

Amir Oren, a senior Israeli political analyst, believes that now that a budget is no longer an issue, the government will do what it can to avoid taking risks.

“The coalition cannot really agree on a common policy and therefore there will be no initiatives,” Oren told The Media Line. “This means that the only way the country can move forward, for example in the peace process, is for someone else – namely the Biden administration – to take its own initiative so that the government has to react.”

As long as the glue that holds everyone together – mistrust of Netanyahu – is relevant, and as long as Netanyahu is still in the system, there is a chance the coalition can survive.

Professor Gideon Rahat, senior researcher at the Israel Institute of Democracy and professor of political science at the Hebrew University, believes that there is only one thing that holds the Bennett-Lapid government together: the former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who remains the leader of the opposition.

“As long as the glue that holds everyone together – mistrust of Netanyahu – is relevant, and as long as Netanyahu is still in the system, there is a chance that the coalition can survive,” Rahat told The Media Line. “Netanyahu played and played and played and in the end he shot himself in the foot. It created a situation in which Israel has been dragged over and over again to elections. “

Now that the initial hurdle in the form of the state budget has been overcome, ideological differences among coalition members are more likely to emerge.

“It’s not a simple government,” Rahat argued. “They are likely to come into conflict in this area; and I believe someone will try to turn on the fuse to make sure these conflicts arise.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/with-israels-budget-passed-us-policy-could-be-the-next-big-test-for-the-bennett-government/feed/ 0
American politics https://alg-a.com/american-politics/ https://alg-a.com/american-politics/#respond Mon, 01 Nov 2021 01:00:00 +0000 https://alg-a.com/american-politics/ Maduro’s rejection of legitimacy dates back to early 2015, when the Obama administration declared Venezuela a threat to US national security. The statement paved the way for Trump’s tough sanctions, designed to intimidate global companies into severing ties with Venezuela. Francisco Rodriguez, a Venezuelan economist formerly of the Bank of America and senior opposition adviser, […]]]>

Maduro’s rejection of legitimacy dates back to early 2015, when the Obama administration declared Venezuela a threat to US national security. The statement paved the way for Trump’s tough sanctions, designed to intimidate global companies into severing ties with Venezuela. Francisco Rodriguez, a Venezuelan economist formerly of the Bank of America and senior opposition adviser, extrapolated that without the sanctions, oil production in the high-yielding Orinoco region would have been three to five times higher this year.

In the November elections, the conservative Popular Volunteer party, founded by Lopez, will present candidates on the ticket of an alliance between the main opposition parties in the country. A host of small moderate parties are also fielding candidates who have criticized the sanctions and, contrary to popular will and its allies, recognize Maduro’s legitimacy. The fragmentation of the opposition increases the possibility that Maduro’s United Socialist Party will achieve plurality at the ballot box.

A recent poll placed the Socialist Party’s popularity at 34%, compared to 13% for the Popular Will and the rest of the opposition combined. (Opposition pollster Luis Vicente Leon, on the other hand, says the Socialist Party is at 20 to 25 percent). Despite the advance of the Socialist Party, a “Nicaraguan phenomenon” (where the Nicaraguan elected the Sandinistas from power in 1990 for fear of continued violence and economic sanctions promoted by the United States) could benefit the party. ‘opposition.

Virtually nothing has changed since President Joe Biden took office in 2020, Maduro recently claimed. “There has not been a single positive sign,” Maduro lamented, while acknowledging that at least some State Department officials “agree with a political dialogue between Venezuelans.”

Nonetheless, Biden’s policy departs from Trump’s strategy of inciting a military coup and threat of military intervention. However, despite this approach, the Panam Post noted that the Biden administration has generally downplayed the importance of Venezuela and “turned its gaze to Nicaragua,” where the prospects for regime change are more promising.

The real change in 2021 has been to make Maduro consider the economic and political interests of the United States, as opposed to regime change. Days after the 2020 U.S. election, Abrams recommended that Biden no longer use sanctions as a regime change strategy against Venezuela. Instead, the new approach proposes modifying or lifting the sanctions in exchange for Maduro’s concessions.

Maduro, in an interview with Bloomberg, said he knew how to play the game. “Bondholders know it’s possible to invest in Venezuela,” he said, “as long as all this persecution and those sanctions are not there. “

In response, Bloomberg reporter Erik Schatzker asked: “When negotiations begin, if they do, will you seek an all-or-nothing deal, or will you accept a gradual process? “

Except: “The policy of the United States towards Venezuela has never been to promote democracy”

Commondreams.org


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/american-politics/feed/ 0
Reviews | US policy towards Venezuela has never been to promote democracy https://alg-a.com/reviews-us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/ https://alg-a.com/reviews-us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/#respond Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:53:16 +0000 https://alg-a.com/reviews-us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/ Last year, then Special Representative Elliott Abrams declared that the Trump administration was “working hard” to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now Abrams (currently a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations), in collaboration with the Biden administration, is urge the Venezuelan opposition to participate in the next national and local elections in November. […]]]>

Last year, then Special Representative Elliott Abrams declared that the Trump administration was “working hard” to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now Abrams (currently a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations), in collaboration with the Biden administration, is urge the Venezuelan opposition to participate in the next national and local elections in November.

Washington’s recent setback, however, does not mean that they have given up on interfering in Venezuela’s internal affairs.

Unsurprisingly, Washington lobbied the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, led by self-proclaimed President Juan Guaidó and opposition leader Leopoldo López, to to give up their three year policy to boycott the elections, which they claim to be rigged. Voter turnout is a tough pill for both politicians to swallow because it shatters the illusion, held by many in Washington, that Guaidó is the legitimate president and that he is only a few days or weeks away from occupying the office. presidential palace.

Pushing for concessions in the interests of American business is hardly the same as promoting democratic ideals.

Maduro’s rejection of legitimacy dates back to early 2015 when the Obama administration declared Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the United States. The statement paved the way for Trump severe penalties, designed to intimidate global companies into severing their relationship with Venezuela. Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist formerly of the Bank of America and top adviser to the opposition, extrapolated that without the sanctions, oil production in the high-yield region of the Orinoco would have been three to five times bigger this year.

In the November elections, the conservative Popular Volunteer party, founded by López, will present candidates on the ticket of an alliance between the main opposition parties in the country. A host of small moderate parties are also fielding candidates who have criticized the sanctions and, contrary to popular will and its allies, recognize Maduro’s legitimacy. The fragmentation of the opposition increases the possibility that Maduro’s United Socialist Party will achieve plurality at the ballot box.

A recent poll placed the Socialist Party’s popularity at 34%, compared to 13% for Popular Will and the rest of the opposition combined. (Opposition pollster Luis Vicente León, on the other hand, says the Socialist Party is 20 to 25 percent). Despite the advance of the Socialist Party, a “Nicaraguan phenomenon” (where Nicaraguans voted the Sandinistas removed from office in 1990 for fear of continued violence and economic sanctions promoted by the United States) may benefit the opposition.

Virtually nothing has changed since President Joe Biden took office in 2020, Maduro recently claimed. “There has not been a single positive sign,” Maduro lamented, while acknowledging that at least some State Department officials “agree with a political dialogue between Venezuelans.”

Nonetheless, Biden’s policy departs from Trump’s strategy of inciting a military coup and threat of military intervention. However, despite this approach, the Panama Post noted that the Biden administration has generally downplayed the importance of Venezuela and “turned its gaze to Nicaragua,” where the prospects for regime change are more promising.

The real change in 2021 was pushing Maduro to welcome us economic and political interests, as opposed to regime change. A few days after the 2020 US elections, Abrams recommended to Biden that he no longer uses sanctions as a regime change strategy against Venezuela. Instead, the new approach proposes modifying or lifting the sanctions in exchange for Maduro’s concessions.

Maduro, in an interview with Bloomberg, said he knew how to play the game. “Bondholders know it is possible to invest in Venezuela, “he said,” as long as all this persecution and these sanctions are not there. “

In response, Bloomberg reporter Erik Schatzker asked: “When negotiations begin, if they do, will you seek an all-or-nothing deal, or will you accept a gradual process? How far are you willing to go with this [economic] reopening?”

Washington’s leverage approach reveals that politics towards Venezuela has never really been about democracy. Pushing for concessions in the interests of American business is hardly the same as promoting democratic ideals.

Carlos Ron, Venezuelan deputy foreign minister for North America, told Progressive that, despite Washington’s positions, he “never really cared about Venezuelan democracy and attempted to undermine and reject all electoral processes since President Chavez. ”

Concerned that Biden should lift the sanctions, Maduro’s concessions tilt in favor of the Popular Will party. In July, Maduro released Popular Will’s Freddy guevara, accused of inciting violence, from prison. Unsurprisingly, it was Guaido who appointed the opposition negotiating team for talks with the Venezuelan government in Mexico.

White House spokesperson Ned Prize has announced that Washington will “ease sanctions” if there is “significant progress” in negotiations between Maduro and the opposition. In the same way, Abrams suggests the possible “easing of sanctions or agreement to use certain frozen assets for health and related purposes”, depending on the concessions Maduro is prepared to make.

Much like the administration’s market-driven approach to securing economic concessions, its piecemeal strategy on the political front favoring right-wing leaders makes it difficult to argue that democracy is, or ever has been, Washington’s end of the game when it comes to Venezuela.

Washington’s binary rhetoric of good versus bad would convince anyone that the choice in November is between Maduro and Guaidó. Filling the mantle of Washington, “our man in Caracas”, Guaidó is supposed to be the main opposition spokesman, while Popular Will is supposed to be the biggest opposition party.

This status denies The unpopularity of Guaidó in Venezuela and the fact that the Popular Will is a relatively small party on the radical fringes of the opposition. Indeed, the privileged treatment accorded to Guaidó and his party by Washington has hurt the opposition as a whole, as other anti-government parties and leaders have greater credibility in Venezuela.

The rivalry between the popular will and its closest allies ahead of the November 21 elections is just the tip of the iceberg. As of September 6, there was 70,244 candidates — the majority of whom are anti-government — vying for 3,082 positions. While the four biggest parties, including the Popular Will, are united in an electoral alliance, other groups blame them for their botched attempts at regime change under Washington’s leadership.

Opposition pollster Luis Vicente León predicts an abstention rate of 50 to 60 percent, despite the national and international attention these competitions have received. According to Léon, the problem for the opposition is its extreme fragmentation and the fact that in some cases it leads “candidates who are unrepresentable, who arrive on the scene following a political agreement”.

Politically, America’s policy toward Venezuela has also had a devastating effect: it exacerbates polarization at the expense of common ground between opposition moderates as well as Maduro’s critics on the left.

US sanctions have wreaked havoc on the Venezuelan economy and people. How could it be otherwise when for a century Venezuela has been totally dependent on the export of oil which is now blocked by sanctions against any company anywhere in the world that dares to purchase the product.

Politically, America’s policy towards Venezuela has also had a devastating effect: it exacerbates polarization at the expense of common ground between opposition moderates as well as Maduro’s critics on the left. The moderates, as opposed to the Popular Will, are more in tune with the concerns of Venezuelans; they oppose the punishments and focus on solutions to concrete economic problems rather than regime change.

The big dilemma for the opposition will be to get the vote in November. The projected 50 percent abstention rate in November reflects widespread rejection of the entire political class among voters. Indeed, half the country blames the government for the country’s pressing economic problems, as well as the opposition for cracking down on Washington’s regime change agenda.

Over the past three years, the main opposition parties have welcomed the high abstention rate in Venezuelan elections, affirming that those who did not vote were a “silent majority“who sympathized with their cause. Now that these same parties have opted for voter turnout, the high abstention rate expected for the November election is a clear indication of their overestimated popular support.

If this is indeed the case, the failure of the Venezuelan right to secure a substantial majority among eligible voters will demonstrate the folly of Washington’s continued recognition of Juan Guaidó as the true president of Venezuela.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/reviews-us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/feed/ 0
US policy towards Venezuela has never been to promote democracy https://alg-a.com/us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/ https://alg-a.com/us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/#respond Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:44:32 +0000 https://alg-a.com/us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/ Last year, then Special Representative Elliott Abrams declared that the Trump administration was “working hard” to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now Abrams (currently a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations), in collaboration with the Biden administration, is urge the Venezuelan opposition to participate in the next national and local elections in November. […]]]>

Last year, then Special Representative Elliott Abrams declared that the Trump administration was “working hard” to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now Abrams (currently a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations), in collaboration with the Biden administration, is urge the Venezuelan opposition to participate in the next national and local elections in November.

Washington’s recent setback, however, does not mean that they have given up on interfering in Venezuela’s internal affairs.

“When the negotiations begin, if they do, will you seek an all-or-nothing deal, or will you accept a gradual process? How far are you willing to go with this [economic] reopening?”

Unsurprisingly, Washington lobbied the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, led by self-proclaimed President Juan Guaidó and opposition leader Leopoldo López, to to give up their three year policy to boycott the elections, which they claim to be rigged. Voter turnout is a tough pill for both politicians to swallow because it shatters the illusion, held by many in Washington, that Guaidó is the legitimate president and that he is only a few days or weeks away from occupying the office. presidential palace.

Maduro’s rejection of legitimacy dates back to early 2015 when the Obama administration declared Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the United States. The statement paved the way for Trump severe penalties, designed to intimidate global companies into severing their relationship with Venezuela. Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist formerly of the Bank of America and top adviser to the opposition, extrapolated that without the sanctions, oil production in the high-yield region of the Orinoco would have been three to five times bigger this year.

In the November elections, the conservative Popular Volunteer party, founded by López, will present candidates on the ticket of an alliance between the main opposition parties in the country. A host of small moderate parties are also fielding candidates who have criticized the sanctions and, contrary to popular will and its allies, recognize Maduro’s legitimacy. The fragmentation of the opposition increases the possibility that Maduro’s United Socialist Party will achieve plurality at the ballot box.

A recent poll placed the Socialist Party’s popularity at 34%, compared to 13% for Popular Will and the rest of the opposition combined. (Opposition pollster Luis Vicente León, on the other hand, says the Socialist Party is 20 to 25 percent). Despite the advance of the Socialist Party, a “Nicaraguan phenomenon” (where Nicaraguans voted the Sandinistas removed from office in 1990 for fear of continued violence and economic sanctions promoted by the United States) may benefit the opposition.

Virtually nothing has changed since President Joe Biden took office in 2020, Maduro recently claimed. “There has not been a single positive sign,” Maduro lamented, while acknowledging that at least some State Department officials “agree with a political dialogue between Venezuelans.”

Nonetheless, Biden’s policy departs from Trump’s strategy of inciting a military coup and threat of military intervention. However, despite this approach, the Panama Post noted that the Biden administration has generally downplayed the importance of Venezuela and “turned its gaze to Nicaragua,” where the prospects for regime change are more promising.

The real change in 2021 was pushing Maduro to welcome us economic and political interests, as opposed to regime change. A few days after the 2020 US elections, Abrams recommended to Biden that he no longer uses sanctions as a regime change strategy against Venezuela. Instead, the new approach proposes modifying or lifting the sanctions in exchange for Maduro’s concessions.

Maduro, in an interview with Bloomberg, indicated that he knew how to play the game. “Bondholders know it is possible to invest in Venezuela, ”he said,“ as long as all this persecution and these sanctions are not there.

In response, Bloomberg Journalist Erik Schatzker asked: “When negotiations start, if they do, will you seek an all-or-nothing deal, or will you accept a gradual process? How far are you willing to go with this [economic] reopening?”


Washington’s leverage approach reveals that politics towards Venezuela has never really been about democracy. Pushing for concessions in the interests of American business is hardly the same as promoting democratic ideals.

US sanctions have wreaked havoc on the Venezuelan economy and people.

Carlos Ron, Venezuelan Deputy Foreign Minister for North America, said The Progressive that, despite Washington’s postures, he “never really cared about Venezuelan democracy and tried to undermine and reject all electoral processes since President Chavez”.

Concerned that Biden should lift the sanctions, Maduro’s concessions tilt in favor of the Popular Will party. In July, Maduro released Popular Will’s Freddy guevara, accused of inciting violence, from prison. Unsurprisingly, it was Guaido who appointed the opposition negotiating team for talks with the Venezuelan government in Mexico.

White House spokesperson Ned Prize announced that Washington would “relax the sanctions” if there was “significant progress” in the negotiations between Maduro and the opposition. In the same way, Abrams suggests the possible “easing of sanctions or agreement to use certain frozen assets for health and related purposes”, depending on the concessions Maduro is willing to make.

Much like the administration’s market-driven approach to securing economic concessions, its piecemeal strategy on the political front favoring right-wing leaders makes it difficult to argue that democracy is, or ever has been, Washington’s end of the game when it comes to Venezuela.

Washington’s binary rhetoric of good versus bad would convince anyone that the choice in November is between Maduro and Guaidó. Filling the mantle of Washington, “our man in Caracas,” Guaidó is supposed to be the main opposition spokesperson, while the Popular Will is said to be the biggest opposition party.

This status denies The unpopularity of Guaidó in Venezuela and the fact that the Popular Will is a relatively small party on the radical fringes of the opposition. Indeed, the privileged treatment accorded to Guaidó and his party by Washington has hurt the opposition as a whole, as other anti-government parties and leaders have greater credibility in Venezuela.

The rivalry between the popular will and its closest allies ahead of the November 21 elections is just the tip of the iceberg. As of September 6, there was 70,244 candidates — the majority of whom are anti-government — vying for 3,082 positions. While the four biggest parties, including the Popular Will, are united in an electoral alliance, other groups blame them for their botched attempts at regime change under Washington’s leadership.


Opposition pollster Luis Vicente León predicts an abstention rate of 50 to 60 percent, despite the national and international attention these competitions have received. According to Léon, the problem for the opposition is its extreme fragmentation and the fact that in some cases it leads “candidates who are unrepresentable, who arrive on the scene following a political agreement”.

US sanctions have wreaked havoc on the Venezuelan economy and people. How could it be otherwise when for a century Venezuela has been totally dependent on the export of oil which is now blocked by sanctions against any company anywhere in the world that dares to purchase the product.

Politically, America’s policy towards Venezuela has also had a devastating effect: it exacerbates polarization at the expense of common ground between opposition moderates as well as Maduro’s critics on the left. The moderates, as opposed to the Popular Will, are more in tune with the concerns of Venezuelans; they oppose the punishments and focus on solutions to concrete economic problems rather than regime change.

The big dilemma for the opposition will be to get the vote in November. The projected 50 percent abstention rate in November reflects widespread rejection of the entire political class among voters. Indeed, half the country blames the government for the country’s pressing economic problems, as well as the opposition for cracking down on Washington’s regime change agenda.

Over the past three years, the main opposition parties have welcomed the high abstention rate in Venezuelan elections, affirming that those who did not vote were a “silent majorityWho sympathized with their cause. Now that these same parties have opted for voter turnout, the high abstention rate expected for the November election is a clear indication of their overestimated popular support.

If this is indeed the case, the failure of the Venezuelan right to secure a substantial majority among eligible voters will demonstrate the folly of Washington’s continued recognition of Juan Guaidó as the true president of Venezuela.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/us-policy-towards-venezuela-has-never-been-to-promote-democracy/feed/ 0
What is the US policy of “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan? https://alg-a.com/what-is-the-us-policy-of-strategic-ambiguity-towards-taiwan/ Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://alg-a.com/what-is-the-us-policy-of-strategic-ambiguity-towards-taiwan/ President Joe Biden’s statement that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion has renewed discussions on whether Washington’s long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity” on this thorny geopolitical issue is underway. being reassessed. But what is strategic ambiguity and why would a strong commitment to Taiwan’s defense be risky? – […]]]>

President Joe Biden’s statement that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion has renewed discussions on whether Washington’s long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity” on this thorny geopolitical issue is underway. being reassessed.

But what is strategic ambiguity and why would a strong commitment to Taiwan’s defense be risky?

– Rival China –

Taiwan and China split in 1949 when nationalists from Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island to set up a separate authoritarian government after losing a civil war on the mainland to the communists of Mao Zedong.

Both sides claimed to represent China and for the first three decades the conflict remained heated, with China regularly bombing Taiwanese islands close to the mainland.

A detente was established, followed by a tacit agreement in 1992 where the two parties decided that there would be “one China” but agreed to disagree on what that meant. .

Since then, a more distinct Taiwanese identity has emerged which views the island as a de facto independent state with a separate destiny from mainland China.

President Tsai Ing-wen of the ruling Progressive Democratic Party is hated by Beijing because she sees Taiwan as a de facto independent nation, not part of “one China.”

Taiwan’s opposition party, the KMT, is now in favor of closer ties with China and is sticking to the “1992 consensus.”

– Diplomatic switch –

In the aftermath of the civil war in China, most countries, including the United States, recognized Chiang’s Republic of China rather than Mao’s People’s Republic of China.

But that started to change in the 1960s and 1970s when it became increasingly clear that nationalists would never return to power on the mainland and that relations had to be forged with communist China.

Countries began to transfer diplomatic recognition to Beijing, which Washington did in 1979.

But he has maintained a carefully calibrated and deliberately opaque stance towards Taiwan and what should happen to it.

The military element of the US approach is known as “strategic ambiguity”.

– How does ambiguity maintain peace? –

In the run-up to the diplomatic change of 1979, the United States did not make Taiwan a treaty ally like Japan and South Korea where American troops would come to defense in the event of an attack.

But he didn’t completely abandon Taiwan, either.

Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of arms to Taiwan in order to adequately defend itself.

The United States has never ruled out coming to the aid of Taiwan.

The policy was designed to enforce peace by leaving both sides guessing.

Beijing couldn’t be sure that an invasion would trigger all-out war with the United States.

And Taiwan would avoid officially declaring its independence – a red line for Beijing – because it could not guarantee that the United States would stand up for it.

– The One China Policy –

The United States has also maintained an equally opaque political approach to Taiwan.

Known as the “One China Policy”, it recognized the PRC as China’s only legitimate government.

But he deliberately took no position on Taiwan beyond saying that the future of the island should be decided by the Taiwanese people and that no change to the status quo should be made by force.

This position is markedly different from Beijing’s “one China principle” which maintains that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the PRC to one day be reunited with the mainland.

– Does ambiguity still work? –

There are serious discussions among experts as to whether strategic ambiguity holds sway at a time when China is ruled by its most authoritarian leader in a generation and has modernized its military to a point where it may be able to. to invade Taiwan.

Under President Xi Jinping, China has become demonstrably more aggressive towards Taipei in recent years, and it has made the island’s capture a fundamental pledge as it seeks to hold a third term next year.

Xi also faces pressure from hard-line supporters who view Taiwan’s continued independence from the mainland as a slap in the face of the Chinese Communist Party.

Military exercises simulating an invasion have been stepped up as Chinese fighter jets and bombers now fly regularly in the Taiwan Air Defense Identification Zone.

For decades, no one believed that China had the military capacity for an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. But Taiwanese officials now fear it will soon be achievable.

A growing number of US experts argue Washington should move to “strategic clarity” – explicitly telling Beijing that the US military would respond to an invasion of Taiwan, although Washington still takes no position on the island’s status .

Those who advocate the pursuit of “strategic ambiguity” argue that a firm commitment to come to the defense of Taiwan could be disastrous, as that may well be the excuse Beijing would use to justify an invasion.

jta / sct / bgs


Source link

]]>
Re-engaging US policy in favor of a two-state solution is the best way to promote peace in the Middle East https://alg-a.com/re-engaging-us-policy-in-favor-of-a-two-state-solution-is-the-best-way-to-promote-peace-in-the-middle-east/ https://alg-a.com/re-engaging-us-policy-in-favor-of-a-two-state-solution-is-the-best-way-to-promote-peace-in-the-middle-east/#respond Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:45:05 +0000 https://alg-a.com/re-engaging-us-policy-in-favor-of-a-two-state-solution-is-the-best-way-to-promote-peace-in-the-middle-east/ In 1990, as a 29-year-old graduate student at the University of Michigan, I helped organize an interfaith delegation to Israel and Palestine. Upon returning from my trip – my first to the region – I wrote an op-ed for the Detroit Jewish News urging my fellow American Jews to speak out in favor of a […]]]>

In 1990, as a 29-year-old graduate student at the University of Michigan, I helped organize an interfaith delegation to Israel and Palestine. Upon returning from my trip – my first to the region – I wrote an op-ed for the Detroit Jewish News urging my fellow American Jews to speak out in favor of a two-state solution and an end to the occupation. I asked, “Why don’t we join thousands of brave Israelis in opposing the policies of their government as it goes against Israel’s own interests and denigrates centuries of struggle of the Jewish people against injustice?

It was, at the time, a radical position in our community, and one that did not earn me many friends among some powerful American Jewish organizations. Today, however, supporting a two-state solution is not only uncontroversial – it sometimes seems trite and even meaningless.

In recent years, saying that we support a two-state solution has become like offering “thoughts and prayers” in the aftermath of a mass shooting. People say they support two states, but the words are not linked to any act; and actions that endanger the possibility of a viable Palestinian state are often met with silence.

We no longer have the time to stop acting, nor to look away. America must reaffirm its long-standing role in bringing these two parties together and helping to create the conditions for real peace and security.

Earlier this year, we witnessed a conflict in Israel and Gaza that claimed hundreds of lives and caused devastating damage to homes and livelihoods, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We have seen riots erupt in Israeli cities once applauded as models of peaceful coexistence between Jews and Palestinians. All of this happened in the context of a the deepening of the occupation in the Palestinian territories which, if continued unabated, will completely exclude the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

As we enter a new year in the Jewish calendar, I believe that we must also enter a new chapter. It is by chance that we find ourselves at the beginning of a Shmita year. According to the Shmita project, “In this seventh year, God commands us to let the earth rest, pay off debts, resolve disputes, and open our hands and hearts to those in need. As a Jew and a member of Congress, I feel compelled to do what I can to resolve a dispute that has claimed thousands of lives and torn the Jewish community apart for decades and to work more urgently to secure the future. Israel as a democratic state and homeland for the Jewish people is safe and the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own can be fulfilled.

That is why I introduced the Two-State Solution Act, a bill aimed at accelerating progress towards a two-state solution and discouraging actions that put one out of reach. It clarifies the distinction between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and overturns policies put in place by the Trump administration that have removed those distinctions. It also funds programs to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to strengthen Palestinian civil society organizations. On top of that, the bill stresses the importance of diplomacy, encouraging the reopening of the PLO’s foreign mission in Washington and improving interpersonal programming for Israelis and Palestinians.

The bill also reaffirms the importance of US security aid to Israel, while specifying that there should be strict control over such aid, as there should be over aid to any countries, and that the laws authorizing this aid do not allow its use for activities that perpetuate the occupation or allow annexation – whether de jure Where de facto – from the West Bank.

This provision can elicit condemnations like the ones I heard 30 years ago when I spoke on behalf of two states.

Critics will say the bill sets Israel apart by imposing restrictions, even though Congress specifies which taxpayer dollars can and cannot be used all the time. I myself have drafted such provisions, such as the one that states that no US funding can be used for assistance to the Armed Forces of Haiti.

They will accuse us of taking a radical stand, even if most American Jewish voters support restrict assistance to Israel to prevent the growth or persistence of the occupation, like other Americans.

They will say that the bill would make Israel less secure, even if it does not diminish the support that the United States gives to Israel for its security, if only by a dollar, and even if it does not. There is no reason to believe that prolonging the status quo – and continuing to restrict the rights of the Palestinian people – will bring peace and security to the Israelis. Peace with Egypt and the return from Sinai improved Israel’s security. Peace with Jordan has improved Israel’s security. The situation has been going on for 54 years, and it has led to recurrent bloodshed, increased isolation and has failed to bring security or peace to the Israelis.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians lack the status quo. If we are to embrace the concept of Shmita and use this moment to resolve differences, then we cannot shirk our responsibility to act to establish a peaceful coexistence between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Levin represents Michigan’s 9th District and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/re-engaging-us-policy-in-favor-of-a-two-state-solution-is-the-best-way-to-promote-peace-in-the-middle-east/feed/ 0
North Korea launches missile as diplomat denounces US policy – KXAN Austin https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy-kxan-austin/ Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy-kxan-austin/ SEOUL, South Korea (AP) – North Korea fired a short-range missile into the sea on Tuesday around the same time its UN diplomat was decrying US “hostile policies” against it , in an apparent return to his weapon mixing scheme. with openings of peace to wrest external concessions. The launch, its third round of gunfire […]]]>

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) – North Korea fired a short-range missile into the sea on Tuesday around the same time its UN diplomat was decrying US “hostile policies” against it , in an apparent return to his weapon mixing scheme. with openings of peace to wrest external concessions.

The launch, its third round of gunfire this month, came just three days after North Korea reiterated its offer of conditional talks with South Korea. Some experts say the latest missile launch was likely intended to test South Korea’s reaction, as North Korea needs Seoul to persuade Washington to relax economic sanctions and make other concessions.

At an emergency National Security Council meeting, the South Korean government expressed regret for what it called “a short-range missile launch” from the North. The South Korean military said earlier that the object fired from the mountainous Jagang province in northern North Korea had headed for the waters off the north east coast. Further details of the launch were being analyzed.

The US Indo-Pacific Command said the launch was not an immediate threat, but stressed “the destabilizing impact of (North Korea’s) illicit weapons program.” Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said North Korea had fired “what could be a ballistic missile” and his government had stepped up vigilance and surveillance.

A ballistic missile launch would violate a UN Security Council ban on North Korean ballistic activities, but the council generally does not impose new sanctions on North Korea for close-range weapon launches.

The launch came after Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, contacted Seoul twice on Friday and Saturday, saying her country was open to resuming talks and reconciliation measures if the conditions were met. She criticized Seoul for calling Pyongyang’s previous missile tests provocative and called on Seoul to drop “unfair double playing standards” and “hostile policies”.

Its opening followed two previous rounds of missile launches from the North this month – the first with a newly developed cruise missile and the other with a ballistic missile fired from a train, a new launch pad. These launches demonstrated North Korea’s ability to attack targets in South Korea and Japan, two key US allies where a total of 80,000 US troops are stationed.

Tuesday’s launch “was like testing the South Korean government to see if it would impose a double standard and call it a provocation,” said analyst Shin Beomchul of the Seoul-based Korea Research Institute for National Strategy . He said North Korea’s status as a nuclear state would be enhanced if South Korea and others did not react strongly.

Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, said North Korea may have tested a new missile such as a hypersonic glide vehicle that was part of an array of weapons. technology that Kim Jong Un is committed to procuring.

South Korea called Kim Yo Jong’s openness to the talks “meaningful,” but urged North Korea to restore communication channels before talks between the rivals can be organized.

The inter-Korean lines of communication remained largely dormant for about 15 months, so their restoration could be a criterion to assess the seriousness of the North in its offer. Seoul’s Unification Ministry said on Tuesday that North Korea remained unresponsive to South Korea’s attempts to exchange messages on the channels.

Almost simultaneously with Tuesday’s launch, North Korean Ambassador Kim Song used his speech on the last day of the annual high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly to justify his country’s development of a “War deterrent” to defend against American threats.

“The possible outbreak of a new war on the Korean Peninsula is not contained because of the United States’ leniency towards the DPRK, but because our state is developing a reliable deterrent that can control hostile forces during the ‘an attempted military invasion,’ Kim said. DPRK refers to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea.

Kim Yo Jong’s offer of conditional talks was a response to renewed calls by South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a political declaration ending the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in a technical state of war.

The three-year conflict pitted South Korea and US-led UN forces against North Korea and China and killed 1-2 million people. In his own speech to the UN last week, Moon proposed that the declaration of end of war be signed between the two Koreas, the United States and China.

After the North launched on Tuesday, Moon ordered officials to examine its latest gunfire and previous campaigns comprehensively before formulating countermeasures, according to Moon’s office.

A US-led diplomatic effort to convince North Korea to give up nuclear weapons in return for economic and political benefits has stalled for the past 2.5 years. U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed hope for continued talks, but also made it clear that long-term sanctions imposed on North Korea will remain in place until the North takes concrete steps towards denuclearization. .

While North Korea tested short-range weapons and vowed to continue building its nuclear arsenal, Kim Jong Un maintained a moratorium on testing longer-range weapons capable of reaching the American homeland, an indication that he wants to keep the chances of a future diplomacy with the United States alive.

___

Associated Press editors Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.


Source link

]]>
North Korea launches missile as diplomat denounces US policy https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy/ https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy/#respond Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy/ SEOUL, South Korea (AP) – North Korea fired a short-range missile into the sea on Tuesday around the same time its UN diplomat was decrying US “hostile policies” against it , in an apparent return to his weapon mixing scheme. with openings of peace to wrest external concessions. The launch, its third round of gunfire […]]]>

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) – North Korea fired a short-range missile into the sea on Tuesday around the same time its UN diplomat was decrying US “hostile policies” against it , in an apparent return to his weapon mixing scheme. with openings of peace to wrest external concessions.

The launch, its third round of gunfire this month, came just three days after North Korea reiterated its offer of conditional talks with South Korea. Some experts say the latest missile launch was likely intended to test South Korea’s reaction, as North Korea needs Seoul to persuade Washington to relax economic sanctions and make other concessions.

At an emergency National Security Council meeting, the South Korean government expressed regret for what it called “a short-range missile launch” from the North. The South Korean military said earlier that the object fired from the mountainous Jagang province in northern North Korea had headed for the waters off the north east coast. Further details of the launch were being analyzed.

The US Indo-Pacific Command said the launch was not an immediate threat, but stressed “the destabilizing impact of (North Korea’s) illicit weapons program.” Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said North Korea had fired “what could be a ballistic missile” and his government had stepped up vigilance and surveillance.

A ballistic missile launch would violate a UN Security Council ban on North Korean ballistic activities, but the council generally does not impose new sanctions on North Korea for close-range weapon launches.

The launch came after Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, contacted Seoul twice on Friday and Saturday, saying her country was open to resuming talks and reconciliation measures if the conditions were met. She criticized Seoul for calling Pyongyang’s previous missile tests provocative and called on Seoul to drop “unfair double playing standards” and “hostile policies”.

Its opening followed two previous rounds of missile launches from the North this month – the first with a newly developed cruise missile and the other with a ballistic missile fired from a train, a new launch pad. These launches demonstrated North Korea’s ability to attack targets in South Korea and Japan, two key US allies where a total of 80,000 US troops are stationed.

Tuesday’s launch “was like testing the South Korean government to see if it would impose a double standard and call it a provocation,” said analyst Shin Beomchul of the Seoul-based Korea Research Institute for National Strategy . He said North Korea’s status as a nuclear state would be enhanced if South Korea and others did not react strongly.

Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the Seoul University of North Korean Studies, said North Korea may have tested a new missile such as a hypersonic glide vehicle that was part of an array of weapons from high technology that Kim Jong Un is committed to procuring.

South Korea called Kim Yo Jong’s openness to the talks “meaningful,” but urged North Korea to restore communication channels before talks between the rivals can be organized.

The inter-Korean lines of communication remained largely dormant for about 15 months, so their restoration could be a criterion to assess the seriousness of the North in its offer. Seoul’s Unification Ministry said on Tuesday that North Korea remained unresponsive to South Korea’s attempts to exchange messages on the channels.

Almost simultaneously with Tuesday’s launch, North Korean Ambassador Kim Song used his speech on the last day of the annual high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly to justify his country’s development of a “War deterrent” to defend against American threats.

“The possible outbreak of a new war on the Korean Peninsula is not contained because of the United States’ leniency towards the DPRK, but because our state is developing a reliable deterrent that can control hostile forces during the war. ‘an attempted military invasion,’ Kim said. DPRK refers to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea.

Kim Yo Jong’s offer of conditional talks was a response to renewed calls from South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a political declaration ending the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in a technical state of war.

The three-year conflict pitted South Korea and US-led UN forces against North Korea and China and killed 1-2 million people. In his own speech to the UN last week, Moon proposed that the declaration of end of war be signed between the two Koreas, the United States and China.

After the North launched on Tuesday, Moon ordered officials to examine its latest gunfire and previous campaigns comprehensively before formulating countermeasures, according to Moon’s office.

A US-led diplomatic effort to convince North Korea to give up nuclear weapons in return for economic and political benefits has stalled for the past 2.5 years. U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed hope for continued talks, but also made it clear that long-term sanctions imposed on North Korea will remain in place until the North takes concrete steps towards denuclearization. .

While North Korea tested short-range weapons and vowed to continue building its nuclear arsenal, Kim Jong Un maintained a moratorium on testing longer-range weapons capable of reaching the American homeland, an indication that he wants to keep the chances of a future diplomacy with the United States alive.

___

Associated Press editors Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.


Source link

]]>
https://alg-a.com/north-korea-launches-missile-as-diplomat-denounces-us-policy/feed/ 0