18. Februar 2020
We write to you with great respect for your domestic policies. We recognize that the presidential primaries were rigged against you in 2016, and the same might happen in 2020.
We support the position of thousands of people who signed a petition during your presidential campaign urging you to take on militarism.
We have heard you mentioning the need to take on the military industrial complex and we are particularly fond of your proposal to hold a meeting of all the major nations, including Russia, China, Pakistan, India and asking that all our countries stop spending over one trillion dollars a year on our militaries to kill each other and use those funds to save our planet from the catastrophic climate disasters we are facing.
Some of us supported your 2016 presidential campaign. Some of us would work even harder for your nomination this time, if you would proof to be a real candidate for peace. But many are confused by statements you made in recent months.
In a recent series of questions by the New York Times you answered as following:
Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Your answer was: Yes.
(In the name of defending “human rights” the U.S. waged the war in Bosnia and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s, the 2011 air war against Libya that ended with the lynching of deposed ruler Gaddafi, and the war in Syria that was fomented by Washington and conducted by its Al Qaeda-linked proxy militias. The humanitarian pretexts for US-wars of aggression were no more legitimate than the lie of “weapons of mass destruction” used in the invasion of Iraq. The result has been the destruction of entire societies, the death of millions and dislocation of tens of millions more.)
Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?
Your answer was: Yes.
(Why would you as an anti-war candidate fully subscribe to the doctrine of “preemptive war” declared to be official US policy in 2002 by the administration of George W. Bush. Why would you be open to launching a military strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent not even a threatened missile or nuclear strike against the United States, but a mere weapons test. This would risk a war in order to block a weapons
test by countries that have been subjected to devastating US sanctions and diplomatic, economic and military provocations for decades.)
Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet states, should the United States regard it as an adversary,
or even an enemy?
Your answer was: Yes.
Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back into the G-7?
Your answer was: Yes.
(In the Ukraine, a group of US-policymakers as well as european politicians were heavily involved in toppling a democratically elected government, and replacing it with a pro-nazi, anti-Russian, government. Members of that government, that came into power after the coup in early 2014 are disciples of Stepan Bandera, a pro-nazi Ukrainian nationalist, who was directly involved in the brutal murders of thousands of Jewish people, and others, during WW2. This, US-installed, pro-nazi government was also supported by Netanyahu and the Israeli government. Joe Biden was rewarded for his involvement in the Ukraine coup by having his son, Hunter Biden, appointed to the board of a Ukrainian gas extraction company, who have the contracts for gas extraction, mainly by fracking, including in the Eastern region of Ukraine, where the Russian speaking population are under attack by the pro-nazi Ukrainian government forces, largely recruited from nazi combat groups, such as the ‚Azov Battalion‘. To demand from Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine, would mean to call for handing cover the ports of Crimea to NATO, which is absolutely immpossible for Russia to accept.)
Question: Should respect for Hong Kong’s political independence, under the terms of the handover agreement with Britain, be a prerequisite for
normal relations and trade with China?
Your answer was: Yes.
Question: Should normal relations and trade be contingent on China’s closing its internment camps for Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups?
Your answer was: Yes.
(In the West and in the U.S. many are horrified that China is taking a lead in word politics, and in order to preserve the status quo they antagonize, provoke and to smear China by all means, be it over Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea or, above mentioned “Uygur Issue”.
In July of 2019 a group of 22 countries, most in Europe plus Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, sent a letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council criticizing China for mass arbitrary detentions and other violations against Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region. The statement did not include a single signature from a Muslim-majority state.
Later, a group of of 54 countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America — submitted a letter in defense of China’s policies. These countries expressed their firm support of China’s counterterrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang. More than a dozen member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the U.N. signed the statement.
A further statement on Oct. 31 to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly explained that a number of diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists had traveled to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of counterterrorism and deradicalization. “What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the [Western] media,” said the statement.)
New York Times article:
http://bit.do/fuUgB
Former Appeal to Bernie Sanders:
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11541
and this http://bit.do/fuzfw
Gefällt mir:
Gefällt mir Wird geladen...
