The Economist Confesses: Sovereignty and Development Are The Enemies of The “Liberal World Order”By Gretchen Small
Oct. 11—Leave it to The Economist, mouthpiece of the City of London and UK Foreign Office, to be so blindly arrogant as to publish, even as rebellion explodes worldwide against every aspect of their dying imperial order, a long Special Report demanding that China be treated as the enemy of all humanity because it champions a return to a world order in which sovereign nations cooperate in developing their peoples, in peace with one another.
Don’t take EIR’s word for this. Patriots in nations around the world should read for themselves this Special Report called “A New Order.” It denounces China, because its “officials express scorn for interventions by America and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. They are especially hostile to claims that these reflected a ‘responsibility to protect’.”
It also argues that China’s loans for projects along the Belt and Road Initiative threaten the “liberal world order,” because they do not include conditionalities, enable regime-change, or finance hordes of environmentalists, so-called “human rights,” labor and other activists deployed in the name of the same “responsibility to protect.” The Economist also targets Russia for its “brazen defiance,” but it argues that China’s “more subtle” opposition is “more disruptive,” and thus the next to be confronted.
With that in mind, now review the state of the war in Europe. Today, the Group of Seven convened a virtual meeting to hear Ukrainian President Zelensky’s pleas for more weapons, especially air-defense systems. The G7 issued a 13-point statement afterwards promising that there is not now, and will be no change in the policy of providing Ukraine with whatever weapons, money, and guidance it takes to wage war on Russia until that nation is crushed. As usual, no acknowledgment of Russia’s security concerns was included, nor of the steps over decades which led into the war, nor of the extreme danger of a general war, even nuclear war, resulting from NATO’s unceasing eastward expansion. There was no intimation that grounds for negotiations could be sought — only threats against Russia, and Belarus, charges that Russia is the sole party engaging in “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” and promises that “any use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons by Russia would be met with severe consequences,” not further elaborated.
The G7 statement demands that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its troops and military equipment from Ukraine,” and promised that until Russia capitulates, this group—the U.S., UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan—will “continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, diplomatic and legal support and will stand firmly with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
As that statement was issued, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a press conference previewing the agenda for the two-day NATO Defense Ministerial that opens on Wednesday at its Brussels headquarters, that NATO “will step up and sustain our support for Ukraine…. Our message is clear. NATO stands with Ukraine. For as long as it takes.” Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov will join NATO on the first day of its meetings, both for the US-led Contact Group for Ukraine and for a dinner with NATO Ministers, he reported.
Answering a question, Stoltenberg bragged, “We have to remember that NATO Allies have provided support to Ukraine since 2014, including training tens of thousands of Ukrainian officers, soldiers which are now playing a key role in the defense against the Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
Ominously, NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group meets on day two of the ministerial, and NATO’s annual nuclear exercise, Steadfast Noon, starts next week. Yes, these exercises are held yearly, but to proceed with so-called “routine” nuclear training with NATO and Russia on the brink of direct conflict is itself a dangerous provocation.
The crisis is reaching the tipping point at which more opposition voices are making themselves heard in many countries around the world. Take Tuesday’s news from the United States: four weeks before the midterm elections, former Democratic presidential precandidate Tulsi Gabbard announced that she is leaving the Democratic Party, “above all” because its warmongering leadership “is dragging us closer to nuclear war.” Gabbard also called on other “common-sense, independent-minded Democrats” to leave with her.
What she will do next, we do not know. But we do know what must be done. Join us this Saturday at the Schiller Institute conference geared to young people and find out more!