Saturday, December 17, 2016

Why is Henry Kissinger in the News Recently?


What Henry Kissinger thinks about Obama, Trump and China  
Published on Nov 21, 2016
At 93, Henry Kissinger is still one of the most influential -- and controversial -- foreign policy figures in America, says Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic editor-in-chief. The former secretary of state recently joined Goldberg for a conversation about the Obama legacy, the president-elect and more. Judy Woodruff reports as part of a collaboration between The Atlantic and the PBS NewsHour.

Henry Kissinger On President Trump & Putin
Published on Nov 20, 2016
On November 8th, 2016 Donald Trump became the 45th President Of the United States of America by winning the Presidential Election over Hillary Clinton.
Coverage of the race for president between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mrs. Clinton is attempting to become the first female president of the United States of America. Her husband Bill Clinton was the 42nd President. Donald Trump is a business man from New York City who started his career in real estate but has since moved into the political sphere by running for president.
Untold Story of Henry Kissinger's Involvement in Chilean Coup of 1973
Sputnik International
Henry Kissinger AP Photo/Richard Drew
The role played by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon in the Chilean coup d'état of 1973 and the establishment of the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet is still overlooked by the mainstream media, Pablo Sepulveda, the grandson of ousted President of Chile Salvador Allende told Sputnik.
Last Saturday Henry Kissinger, an American diplomat and former US Secretary of State attended the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway; on the next day the 93-year old delivered a speech at the Nobel-connected forum.
However, the Nobel Peace Prize winner of 1973 was "greeted" by demonstrations in Oslo with slogans saying "Kissinger is a war criminal," the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, reported. "For many politicians, especially in the US government, the acquisition of the Nobel Peace Prize has become the way to whitewash their record and rewrite history so that their crimes, genocide and murder would be less visible," Pablo Sepulveda, the grandson of former President of Chile Salvador Allende, told Sputnik Spanish.
In 1973 Allende, the democratically elected President of Chile, was toppled in a coup d'état sponsored by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and died in shooting. The dictatorship was established in the country headed by a military junta presided by Augusto Pinochet.
At that time Henry Kissinger served as US Secretary of State. Allende's grandson wrote an open letter for Aftenposten, Norway's largest printed newspaper, appealing to the Norwegian government to arrest Kissinger. In his letter Sepulveda bemoaned the fact that Kissinger "who coordinated a military coup" against his grandfather, was honored at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum last Sunday, while the voice of "the victims of his war crimes and criminal policies" remained unheard. Sepulveda emphasized that Kissinger played a part not only in the Chilean coup but also in America's overseas operations in Latin America and Southeast Asia. For Kissinger, Allende's grandson wrote, human life had no value so that he had no scruples about sacrificing it to his ambitions.
"The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger has always triggered a heated debate, but for me it seems outrageous that he was again invited to attend [the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony] in the 21st century — when we have made a significant progress in understanding the human rights issue. It is the way to rehabilitate his image and whitewash his crimes," Sepulveda, who currently lives in Venezuela, underscored in his interview with Sputnik. "It is obvious that [Kissinger] will be neither arrested nor condemned," Sepulveda remarked, "However, the media hype over this matter will at least shed light on his deeds so that history will remember him not as a Nobel Peace Prize winner or national advisor, but as a criminal and executioner."
Special Advisor Henry Kissinger (D) with President Richard Nixon in May 1972 in Vienna ©AFP 2016/ VOTAVAUS
Sepulveda — a physician, like his grandfather — believes that the role of the United States in supporting the Chilean dictatorship before the coup is largely downplayed while the story of the involvement of then President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the brutal implementation of the neo-liberal economic model in Chile has yet to be told.
He pointed out that a few days after Allende won the 1970 presidential election in Chile American politicians met with Agustin Edwards, the owner of conservative newspaper El Mercurio, seeking to prevent the Chilean president-elect's inauguration. At that time the president was approved by the country's Congress and Washington tried to persuade Chilean lawmakers not to allow Allende to take office.
Speaking to Sputnik, Sepulveda also called attention to the murder of Rene Schneider, then the Army Supreme Commander, by an ultra-right group. The military chief said that he would "respect the elected president who received a mandate from the people of Chile." In the course of a kidnapping attempt, aimed at exerting pressure on Congress and preventing Allende from assuming the presidency, Schneider was killed. According to Sepuveda, the group behind the kidnapping obtained its weapons through the American Embassy in Chile. The physician noted that "the Strike of Entrepreneurs" of 1972 that caused disruption to the distribution of goods in the country was also funded by the US. "Kissinger was behind Operation Condor," Sepulveda said, referring to the campaign of political repression and state terror which started in 1968 and was championed by right-wing dictatorships of Latin America. However, he added, the mainstream media remains mute about US involvement in the Chilean coup, shifting the focus to far-right groups and the figure of Augusto Pinochet.
Never miss a story again — sign up to our Telegram channel and we'll keep you up to speed! Read more:
What is Henry Kissinger Up To?
Paul Craig Roberts
December 28, 2016
The English language Russian news agency, Sputnik, reports that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is advising US president-elect Donald Trump how to “bring the United States and Russia closer together to offset China’s military buildup.”
If we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with China.
China’s military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.
Kissinger, who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.
At President Putin’s last press conference ( ), journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to forms of foreign semi-domination: “Our economy, industry, ministries and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.” The journalist asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area too?”
Every Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.
All of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy, and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon. The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks, university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign Relations.
We also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of tough guy and will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have done ( ).
I do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since President Clinton violated the George H. W. Bush administration’s promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Unless Trump were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars. In contrast, Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the military/security budget rests.
Clearly, the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.
The lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.
The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.
Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.
Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)
Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.
Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.
American capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat, not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost overruns that boost profits.
The latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems ( ) and is already outclassed. The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success pointless wars against women and children.
Washington, given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less to the strategic alliance between the two powers.
The neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful influence on US foreign policy. Until Trump relegates them to the ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
Trump's Win Brings an End to Kissinger's US-Led 'New World Order' Dream
Politics International
Ekaterina Blinova

President-elect Donald Trump, left, walks with his son Barron, center, and wife Melania, to speak at an election night rally, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, in New York

There is a big controversy surrounding the prospects of Sino-American relations and Washington's Asia-Pacific policies under Donald Trump. "Trump wants business" and he will most likely kill the TPP, Malaysian academic Mathew Maavak told Sputnik, adding that there is more to Trump's foreign policy shift than meets the eye.Trump's win in the US presidential election has not come as a surprise for Asian intelligentsia, Mathew Maavak, a doctoral researcher in Risk Foresight at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and regular Op-ed contributor to China's CCTV, told Sputnik, adding that the US now has a chance to be a major partner in the economic development of the Asia-Pacific.
"Actually, a good portion of the Asian intelligentsia knew Trump would win hands down if the Nov 8 balloting would be free from extreme prejudicial influences," Maavak pointed out. "It was the Asian financial elite, however, who seemed shell-shocked by the results," he continued, "This is what happens when you are taken in by the distorted analyses of the US mainstream media and financial punditry. And let me categorically state that if Hillary Clinton had snagged the presidency, it would have been tantamount to a US declaration of war against many nations, including those in the Asia-Pacific." "We were that close to a global disaster," he stressed. The Malaysian academic underscored that a Trump presidency may produce a "diametrically opposite outcome."
Trump's Asia-Pacific Shift
"The US now has a chance to be a major partner in the economic development of the Asia-Pacific, minus the budget-sapping excessive militarism that has bedeviled US foreign policy for decades," Maavak stressed.
There are conflicting opinions on the prospects for US-Chinese relations after Trump's victory. Some analysts assume that Washington may tighten its pressure on China and beef up its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
"I think that Washington will continue its efforts meant to contain China by creating a barrier out of Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam, with the United States controlling this process," Dmitry Mosyakov, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RIA Novosti. Speaking to Sputnik, Russian military expert Vasily Kashin suggested that Washington under Trump is likely to adopt a Reagan-style "peace through strength" approach toward China thus making the situation in the Asia-Pacific region "much more explosive." Russian journalist Petr Akopov of Vzglyad argues, however, that Russia won't remain neutral if Washington tries to impose further pressure on China — Moscow's strategic Eurasian partner. On the other hand, Tom McGregor, Commentator and Editor at China Network Television (CNTV), believes that Washington would rather embrace the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) initiative and jump on the China-led One Belt, One Road bandwagon. 'Trump Wants Business, the More the Merrier' So, how the situation will unfold? "This is indeed a tough question to answer," Maavak responded. "In my opinion, Washington will be inclined to participate in the AIIB and New Silk Road initiatives. Trump wants business; the more the merrier," he emphasized.
"On the other hand though, a Trump administration may adopt a more hawkish stance toward China's trade practices. It will all boil down to how well both sides haggle in the Silk Road bazaar. With a de facto military détente offered — at least on the surface — by the Trump administration, this may be China's opportunity to lose," Maavak noted.
Donald Trump has repeatedly hinted at the fact that he will abolish the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) project, championed by US President Barack Obama. Will Trump kill the TPP?
"Trump had revealed his hostility towards the TPP throughout his campaign period, citing its potentially deleterious effects on American workers. But the problem is much deeper than that. Western-style capitalism and trade regimes tend to etiolate the Middle Class," Maavak emphasized.
TPP and Henry Kissinger's 'Assembly of a New World Order'
The academic stressed that social stability depends on the permanent presence of a solid middle class. "I had written a peer-reviewed journal on this subject which seemed ahead of its time then. Titled ‘Class Warfare, Anarchy and the Future Society,' it explored the ever-widening wealth gap between the Super 1% and the rest of society. Either the Super 1% ultimately relents and resets the economic cycle or it can resort to a 'Gramscian Political Society' to control dissent. The latter option seems to be the globalist wet dream," Maavak underscored.
He referred to Henry Kissinger's 2014 essay published by The Wall Street Journal back in 2014 and entitled "Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order."
"[Kissinger] renewed the call for a New World Order echoing two variations of the future society outlined in my paper, namely the need for regionalized power centers led by strongmen who can control their respective turfs for the benefit of the transnational capitalist class," the Malaysian academic noted. "The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another," Kissinger wrote in his essay. "So, the TPP looks like a stalking horse means to introduce regional gulags down the line; one that will only benefit the borderless global elite at the expense of the nation state," Maavak explained. "That's why the likes of George Soros are getting desperate, and are throwing everything including the kitchen sink at this eruption of nationalism worldwide. The fact that nationalists worldwide are exhorting each other — instead of invoking bogeymen among themselves — is infuriating the globalist lobby," the Malaysian academic told Sputnik. "Trump will need to kill the TPP or radically alter its foundations to uphold national sovereignty, including that of the United States," he believes.
China's Financial Elite and The Soong Sisters Story
Why then China's financial elites in Hong Kong and Shanghai could have been "shell-shocked" by Trump's victory? According to Maavak the antagonism between China's central government and its influential financial elites is a "recurring theme in Chinese history." "It represents the Chinese trichotomy immortalized by this saying about the famous Soong sisters: 'One loved money, one loved power, one loved her country'," the academic remarked. "Beijing would have also noted that Chinese tycoons in Southeast Asia have a pro-Western bias, despite overt pretensions to the contrary. This poses a quandary to Beijing. While the Communist Party of China (CPC) sees itself as the inheritor of the Chinese civilizational mantle, it is the ethnic Chinese financial elite that works against Beijing's interests, in concert with the transnational capitalist class with whom they share much commonality," Maavak suggested.
"In the end, Beijing may exercise greater central control to prevent another dynastic-type revolution," the academic concluded. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.