(And never mind the worrying impulse towards conflict with Russia this entails, or its collateral damage on others)….
This aim simply has overpowered any other considerations – such as likelihood that the outside world will conclude that America’s ability to pursue or even to have a foreign policy is non-existent.…
The law states that the process of securing such consent requires that the President send to Congress a (prior) report stating and arguing the presumed benefit that would accrue to the U.S. through the lifting of any sanction. The Congress then may institute hearings on the President’s report,
and on the merit of his argument about the potential quid pro quo –
justifying his proposed action. In the light of these hearings, Congress may then considera resolution of approval or disapproval (within 30 days of receiving the President’s statement).
The influential Lawfare site points out, however, that “the provision is drafted
In short, Congress gave itself a 30-day review period to vote down any changes Trump tries to make in terms of America’s foreign relations with Russia.
Offending Europe
These are the teeth, but the Act has other little flourishes: The legislation targets the Russian energy sector,
Wondering: How is an “American Adversary” defined? Does Congress vote
on the definition? Does congress compute the harm done to millions of
innocent families and children via their “sanctions?”
“President Anderson, members of the faculty, board
of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd,
who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law
school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen:
Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking
about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to
build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively
invulnerable nuclear forces and
refuse to surrender without resort to those forces.
It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon
contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the
allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by windand water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men.
I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit
of war–and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears.
But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament—and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it.
But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation--for
our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this
school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring
peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude
toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the
course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–
that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade–
therefore, they can be solved by man.
And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and
good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the
value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and
incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace– based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on
a gradual evolution in human institutions–
on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in
the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this
peace–no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.
Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process–a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests,
as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community
peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor–it requires only
that they live together in mutual tolerance,
submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history
teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do
not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the
tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the
relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write.
It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on
Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and
incredible claims–such as the allegation that “American imperialist
circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real
Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man
pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements–to realize the
extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning–a warning to the
American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to
see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian peoplefor their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than
At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked.
A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland–a loss
equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again–no matter how–our two
countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate
fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of
devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.
that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease.
We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other,
and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union
and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine
peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are
in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours–and even the most
hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty
obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.
And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the
world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic
common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the
same air.
We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.
we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points.
We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of
judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have
been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes
within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now
seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it
becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations
To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of
a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America’s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully
controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our
military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-
restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants
and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute.
We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded.
but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system–
a system capable of resolving disputes
on the basis of law,
of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of
creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world,
where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues
which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which
threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We
have also tried to set an example for others–by seeking to adjust small
but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico
and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap.
Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin,
for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital
interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at
the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they
are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope– and the purpose of allied policies–to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future,
so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.
The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on
others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no
doubt that,
a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding
will require increased contact and communication.
One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for
a direct line between Moscow and Washington,
to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and
misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of
crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war.
Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however,
designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political
developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the
place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been
an effort of this Government since the 1920’s.
It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And
however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this
effort–to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where
a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests.
The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling
arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the
nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the
greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear
arms.
Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady
pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort
nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible
safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce
Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history–but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second:
To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter,I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere
so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to
resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty,
but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a
substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine
our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home.
The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad.We
must show it in the dedication of our own lives–as many of you who are
graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving
without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National
Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that
peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the
peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens
by all means within their authority.
It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all
levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it
adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all
sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to
respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace.
“When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh
even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the
last analysis, basically a matter of human rights–the right to live out
our lives without fear of devastation–the right to breathe air as nature
provided it–the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also
is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much
it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can
provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.
But it can–if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers–
offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows,
will never start a war.
We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough–more than enough–of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build
a world of peace where the weak are safe
and the strong are just.
We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on–not toward a strategy of annihilation but
witnesses from all parties and compared to the electronic vote count.
If there are any discrepancies, a full audit is conducted.
In 2013, the electronic vote was 99.98% accurate. This was because,
across Venezuela, 22 people who had voted on the machines failed to put
their paper ballot in the box.
Since his rise to power, Washington has waged a relentless
economic war on Venezuela in an attempt to strangle his administration. There are
currently over 900 U.S. sanctions against the country.
The effect has been devastating: under the weight of the American blockade, Venezuela’s oil industry collapsed, causing it to lose 99% of its international income. Under
threats of secondary sanctions, countries and businesses refused to trade with Venezuela,
causing massive shortages of food and other necessary goods.
A report published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a D.C. think tank, found that,
The economic war is mirrored by a political war, as Washington has attempted to isolate Venezuela internationally. Media, too, have played their part, constantly demonizing Venezuela as a failed state presided over by a dictatorship. In
his victory speech on Sunday evening, Maduro claimed the results were a
victory of truth over lies and decried the “dirty war” against
Venezuela being played out in the press and on social media.
including NGOs, student organizations, and political parties. Marina Corina Machado is a case in point. The opposition leader’s “human rights” group, Súmate, was
bankrolled by the CIA front group,
the [so-called] National Endowment for Democracy [NED].
Fighting US Imperialism
Venezuela has been a target because it offers an alternative vision
of how society should be organized. Under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela
nationalized its vast oil industry and used the profits to fund massive
social welfare programs, including free healthcare, education and
housing.
Under Chavez, poverty was reduced by half, and extreme poverty was reduced by three-quarters.
Illiteracy was eradicated,
and the student population grew to become the fourth largest in the world.
and gave its oil away for free to poor countries and communities,
including black and Native American populations in the U.S. who had their homes heated for free or at heavily discounted rates courtesy of the Venezuelan government.
U.S. sanctions have devastated the country. But the Maduro
administration appears to have successfully weathered the worst of the
storm. Stores are full again, inflation has been tamed,
and Venezuela now produces 96% of the food it consumes.
On top of that, Maduro’s signature housing policy, Misión Gran Vivienda Venezuela, just celebrated the building of its five-millionth apartment. “Venezuela is healing” is a common slogan across the country.
While the likes of Anthony Blinken and Marco Rubio condemn the electoral process in Venezuela,
their positions are not supported by the dozens of Americans who were actually on the ground in Venezuela
last week. It is doubtful, however, that those observers’ words and
testimonies will be heeded by those in power. After all, for the U.S.
Empire, some issues are too important to let the truth get in the way….
Much to the chagrin of the U.S. government, socialist candidate Nicolas Maduro won a third successive term in office on Sunday, convincingly beating his U.S.-backed opponents, Edmundo Gonzalez and Maria Corina Machado, by seven points.
Almost immediately after the results were announced, American officials began decrying the elections as a farce.
“We commend [the Venezuelan people’s] courage and commitment to
democracy in the face of repression,” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken
said in a speech on Sunday evening, adding:xxx
“We have serious concerns that the result announced
does not affect the will or the votes of the Venezuelan people. It is
critical that every vote be counted fairly and transparently. That
election officials immediately share information with the opposition and
independent observers without delay, and that electoral authorities
publish the detailed tabulation of votes. The international community is
watching this very closely, and will respond accordingly.”
Senator Marco Rubio, a longtime Venezuela hawk, went further, stating, “Everybody knows massive voter turnout like the one today in Venezuela would result in a massive loss by Maduro. The ONLY way he wins is with massive fraud.”
He went on to say that Maduro should have lost by 40 points and would
immediately institute a communications blackout across the country in
an effort to cement his rule (something that did not happen).
“I don’t agree with Marco Rubio,” said Wyatt Souers, a representative of the International People’s Assembly, explaining that:
“The U.S. has tried to destabilize and undermine the legitimacy of basically every Venezuelan election in recent memory.Ahead of the election, they always put out statements and media pieces, declaring the election a fraud before it even happens. But what we have witnessed this week is tons of support for the Maduro government amongst the people here.”
Souers visited several polling stations in the Caracas area and noted that turnout was “massive”, with hundreds of people inside the voting stations at any given time.
“We got to go in and see the voting process. Everything was happening according to protocol. And so, I would say it seems like these elections are legitimate, and we fully support the right of the Venezuelan people to determine their own future.”
Roger D. Harris, an observer from Task Force on the Americas, spent
the day observing electoral centers in Miranda State. He and others told
MintPress that opposition supporters were perfectly happy to
publicly announce their allegiances and express their grievances with
the government. Despite their opposition to socialism, most retained confidence in the electoral system. As Harris noted:
“I spoke to a person who is voting against Maduro, a professional who studied psychology in San Francisco. She was hopeful for change. But what was very significant was that she thought that the electoral process is free and fair.
Overall, our impression of going to the various polling places was that
people were very welcoming to us international observers, and were very
proud to be out there voting for their country.”
“We witnessed several polling stations, and we did not see any irregularities or anything that would point to any type of fraud or illegitimacy. The voting process here is much more rigorous than in the United States,” Souers told MintPress. “They have a very good process here.”
Elizabeth Burley, a representative of Unión de Vecinos, a Los Angeles tenants’ union, spent election day monitoring voting in La Guaira state and noted a number ofsuperior features of Venezuelan democracy, including that the polling system is automated and completely consistent between localities. Furthermore, she said,
Venezuelan elections are held on Sunday rather than midweek as they are in the U.S., allowing more people to participate. Burley noted that she was able to go inside stations and observe everything and that there were
witnesses from both government and opposition parties present. Apart from a few verbal exchanges between left and right-wing voters, she said, events proceeded in a state of calm.
MintPress, however, witnessed a crowd of over 100 opposition supporters arrive at a voting center in central Caracas at 6 pm,
attempting to force polling stations to close exactly on time. The
crowd tried to block latecomers from voting but without success. One
opposition supporter blocking the door said, “Nobody should be allowed
to vote unless they are from our side.”
“Venezuela’s Autocrat Is Declared Winner in Tainted Election,” ran the New York Times headline.
The BBC described Maduro’s celebration party as “choreographed,”
implying he does not enjoy widespread support. Elon Musk, the
billionaire owner of Twitter, retweeted a call from far-right
Argentinian politician Javier Milei to the Venezuelan military to stage a
coup against Maduro. “Shame on dictator Maduro,” Musk said.
Fake news abounds on social media as well, as images circulate of thieves supposedly stealing election boxes full of ballots. What can clearly be seen in those videos, however, arepeople taking huge air conditioning units.Ballot
boxes in Venezuela are made of brown cardboard and are barely larger
than a shoebox. The giant white appliances thieves drag out with them in
the video bear zero resemblance to ballot boxes.
[Image: Medvedev and Obama agree to cut nuclear arsenals, March 2010, AP]
