With Iran, the USA is playing into the hands of China and Russia

The Three Musketeers

In the final analysis, the new UN Security Council resolution passed on Thursday calling for an end to nuclear proliferation did not name Iran - despite robust canvassing by the US and Britain - and that was because Russia and China wouldn't allow that to happen. Also, the resolution stopped well short of authorizing forced inspections of countries believed to be developing weapons. M K Bhadrakumar - Asia Times

(Brazilian VP) Jose Alencar, who also served as defense minister from 2004 to 2006, said in an interview with journalists from several Brazilian news media that his country does not have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should: "We have to advance on that."  "The nuclear weapon, used as an instrument of deterrence, is of great importance for a country that has 15,000 kilometers of border to the west and a territorial sea" where oil reserves have been found, Alencar said.  Associated Press

Venezuela's science and technology minister said his country is working with Russia to detect deposits of uranium but withdrew an earlier denial that the country was also working with Iran. Associated Press

David Seaton's News Links

Let me cut directly to the chase, right to the bottom line:

In the "third world" -- which is a nice way of saying "former European (read "white") colonies", -- Britain, France and the USA have always been considered the great imperialist powers. And during the Cold War Soviet Russia and Communist China were considered the "anti-imperialist" powers.

With the collapse of "really existing socialism" and the advent of globalization it is interesting to note that this description remains valid.

During the Cold War this anti imperialist reputation gained much influence for China and Russia and many leaders and intellectuals of third world or "non-aligned" countries, with no desire to import the Soviet or Mao Tse Tung's version of socialism into their countries, found both countries useful counterweights to the USA, Britain and France in their struggle to maintain some semblance of their national sovereignty.

What was least attractive about Communism (especially in the Soviet case) for the former "western" colonies, bent on defending their newly won sovereignty, was the idea that "really existing socialism" was a "global" movement, international, and which subordinated its allies, like colonies, to "The Motherland of Socialism", with its capital in Moscow.

These former "western" colonies, with their history of exploitation and subordination, tend to be equally suspicious of a global movement, which we could call "Really Existing Globalization", that subordinates its allies, like colonies, to "The Motherland of Capitalism"... with its capital in Washington.

The end of the Cold War brought China and Russia into the world economic system... which means they can play both games simultaneously: they can buy and sell advanced weapon systems, cars, electronics and assorted bric-a-brac all over the world and at the same time refresh their Cold War street cred as defenders of the national sovereignty of the west's (read white people's) former colonies, where most of the world's natural resources are, (that's why they were colonies in the first place).

America's invasion of Iraq, while it simultaneously pussyfoots around the much more tyrannical and grotesque, but atomic bomb armed, North Korea, has made it clear to everyone that the only reliable guarantor of national sovereignty is the atomic bomb.

The atom bomb means the end of gunboat diplomacy.

Naturally, many citizens of the third world see that the "west's" urgency in keeping Iran from having an atomic weapon, like Israel's, Pakistan's and India's, is simply in order to dominate Iran more comfortably. The United States, Britain and France, from this point of view, have a lot to lose if more countries get the atomic bomb, it would mean the end of globalization as a western controlled power system, as it would no longer be possible for the "western" powers to continue to bend the former colonies to their will. using military force... or at least many of these countries might have reason to believe or to hope so.

So finally, just by dragging their feet on sanctioning Iran and continuing to sell that country weapons and to buy their oil,  Russia and China are building up much good will and influence in the countries who produce the commodities that the developed world transforms.

I can imagine some readers saying, "Oh it's all different now, because Barack Obama's father came from Kenya and he's black". To those readers I would say that the president of the United States is the president of the United States, no matter if he is black, white, yellow or green. If anyone in the third world ever thought that President Obama would not behave as his office  and the economy of his country, or the interests of those who paid for his campaign oblige him to, they will soon learn differently. DS

Globalization versus Islam: the unspeakable versus the inedible

David Seaton's News Links
There is a movement afoot in the world's Muslim community, sometimes violent, sometimes democratic, at its center it is "anti-imperialist".

"Imperialism" here is taken to mean the domination of non-Christian, non-European peoples, by European or Euro-American-Christians (since roughly the 1950s the Jewish people of the United States under the neologism, "Judeo-Christian" have been given the status of "honorary Christians", in much the same way that the Japanese were considered "honorary whites" under the former apartheid regime of South Africa). Certainly for the inhabitants of Muslim countries the distinction between Zionists (read Jews) and "crusaders" (read Christians) has become rather blurred over time.

At first the political tools used by "third world" countries to resist this domination were nationalism (emphasizing local sovereignty, UN seat, nationalized-socialized economy, etc.) and in many cases simultaneous alignment with the Soviet block in "national liberation struggles". In order to weaken the allure of left-wing nationalism the United States and her allies often encouraged Islamic fundamentalism and encouraged the growth of movements such as the Taliban, Hamas and Hizbullah. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the advent of globalization, secular nationalism and socialism lost practically all their usefulness as tools for loosening the grip of aliens on the economies, lives and customs of non-"European" peoples.

However, by now, many Muslims have discovered that, for better or worse, Islam is the one idea, culture and "way of life" that cannot be dissolved or co-opted by the omnivorous powers of synthesis and the economic and military hegemony of the "New World Order". Thus, as day follows night, with nowhere else to turn, "Islam is the Answer" has now become the default slogan of anti-imperialism among Muslims and may, who knows, begin to resonate among disaffected, heretofore non-Muslims, that find themselves helpless victims of American-led globalization. DS

Democracy, not terror, is the engine of political Islam - Guardian
Abstract: Six years after 9/11, throughout the Muslim world political Islam is on the march; the surprise is that its rise is happening democratically - not through the bomb, but the ballot box. Democracy is not the antidote to the Islamists the neocons once fondly believed it would be. Since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a consistent response from voters wherever Muslims have had the right to vote. In Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Algeria they have voted en masse for religious parties in a way they have never done before. Where governments have been most closely linked to the US, political Islam's rise has been most marked.(...) in concentrating on the violent jihadi fringe, we may have missed the main story. For if the imminent Islamist takeover of western Europe is a myth, the same cannot be said for the Islamic world. Clumsy and brutal US policies in the Middle East have generated revolutionary changes, radicalising even the most moderate opinion, with the result that the status quo in place since the 1950s has been broken. Egypt is typical: at the last election in 2005 members of the nominally banned Muslim Brotherhood, standing as independents, saw their representation rise from 17 seats to 88 in the 444-seat people's assembly - a five-fold increase, despite reports of vote-rigging by President Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Alliance. The Brothers, who have long abjured violence, are now the main opposition. The figures in Pakistan are strikingly similar. Traditionally, the religious parties there have won only a fraction of the vote. That began to change after the US invasion of Afghanistan. In October 2002 a rightwing alliance of religious parties - the Muttahida Majlis Amal or MMA - won 11.6% of the vote, more than doubling its share, and sweeping the polls in the two provinces bordering Afghanistan - Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province - where it formed ultra-conservative and pro-Islamist provincial governments. If the last election turned the MMA into a serious electoral force, there are now fears that it could yet be the principle beneficiary of the current standoff in Pakistan. The Bush administration proclaimed in 2004 that the promotion of democracy in the Middle East would be a major foreign policy theme in its second term. It has been widely perceived, not least in Washington, that this policy has failed. Yet in many ways US foreign policy has succeeded in turning Muslim opinion against the corrupt monarchies and decaying nationalist parties who have ruled the region for 50 years. The irony is that rather than turning to liberal secular parties, as the neocons assumed, Muslims have lined up behind parties most clearly seen to stand up against aggressive US intervention.(...) the religious parties tend to be seen by the poor, rightly or wrongly, as representing justice, integrity and equitable distribution of resources. Hence the strong showing, for example, of Hamas against the blatantly corrupt Fatah in the 2006 elections in Palestine. Equally, the dramatic rise of Hizbullah in Lebanon has not been because of a sudden fondness for sharia law, but because of the status of Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, as the man who gave the Israelis a bloody nose, and who provides medical and social services for the people of South Lebanon, just as Hamas does in Gaza. READ IT