Qatar and GCC row: Behind the headlines

In a move that surprised even keen observers Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and other Middle East countries have severed diplomatic ties with the State of Qatar this week.
The official reason for the public to consume was to protect from “various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilizing the region” as announced by Saudi Arabia on June 5.

Similar statements where heard from other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) capitals and was immediately followed by air, land, and sea travel bans to and from Qatar by the same countries.

Qatar for its part has defended its position, stating that the recent email leaks by its leader Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was a fabrication designed to implicate and isolate the country, and that it was not behind the leaked emails of Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador to the United States.

Referring to the Saudi-led diplomatic embargo, leaders in Doha articulated that the unjustified action against them aims “to impose guardianship on the state” and that “this by itself is a violation of its [Qatar’s] sovereignty as a state.”

The days leading up to the GCC dispute

It can be recalled that during the end of May, US President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia, his first such visit outside America as president. The visit to Riyadh was perceived as quite a surprise choice, and is part of a nine-day, five country tour across the Middle East and Europe. The areas of discussion and agreements included the signing of a $110 billion arms deal between the two countries, the ongoing war in Syria, and the issue of Israel.

The visit was not well received in Qatar, as they opined that the it only resulted in emboldening Riyadh’s stance against Doha’s quasi-independent foreign policy, especially regarding long standing issues like the latter’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its cordial relationship with Iran, the arch nemesis of Saudi in the region.

Also during that week the Qatar government announced that its state-run news agency was hacked, where unidentified attackers published a fake story about alleged controversial comments made by the ruling emir. In response, Saudi Arabia and the UAE blocked Qatari media, including the influential Al-Jazeera news channel.

On June 5, unknown hackers have leaked the emails of Yousef al-Otaiba, where it was revealed that the UAE had strong links to think-thanks closely linked to Israel, as well as other points including the Emirate’s efforts to destabilize Turkey, its fight against Islamic movements including the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, and its efforts to taint the reputation of Qatar and Kuwait.

The email leak also showed the Emirate’s ambition to replace Saudi Arabia as the United States’ “right hand” in the Middle East, and plans by Washington and the Emirates to halt a meeting between Hamas and the leadership of Qatar.

Bigger issues that have triggered this latest GCC row

It is important to note that a similar diplomatic spat occurred in 2014, when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar as a result of Doha’s failure to implement a security pact of non-interference in their respective internal affairs. In response, leaders in Doha expressed their “disappointment and surprise” and that the real issue was about Qatar’s support of the deposed Egyptian leader Mohamed Morsi. At the height of the GCC dispute, former Qatar ambassador to the United Nations and the US expressed that “I am sure in the days after that wisdom will come and these countries will realize that trying to impose the philosophy of my way and the highway will not work with Qatar.”

Qatar has been criticized for its support for the Muslim Brotherhood especially in Egypt. This Islamic movement, which favors Sharia law to be implemented in the country, supports free and open elections, which does not sit well with most Arab monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia. The Saudis see elections as a threat to its legitimacy and internal security, and thus has lobbied to brand this Islamic movement as a terrorist organization.

In Washington, President Trump along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson supports the Saudi’s judgement of the Muslim Brotherhood, although other bodies, such as the Human Rights Council, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, opposed such terrorist branding.

The Iranian connection

Prior to Donald Trump’s Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh, a leading Saudi newspaper published a story accusing Qatar Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani of meeting the Iranian Qud Force Commander Qasim Sulaimani, during the former’s visit to Iraq.

The visit was allegedly about helping arrange the release of members of the Qatari royal family, who where in Iraq as part of a falconry trip and then kidnapped in late 2015. The 26-man falconry party was released after the Qatari government paid a heft $1 billion ransom for their release early this year.

This meeting was perceived by the House of Saud as compromising the merits of their anti-Iran agenda. The ransom paid to Iranian agents is said to be money that directly or indirectly supported extremists in the region. This accusation is despite Qatar’s signing the anti-Tehran Riyadh Declaration which condemned, among other allegations, that Iran had “hostile positions” and continues to interfere “in the domestic affairs of other countries.”


Doha has so far denied their deep involvement in Iran’s alleged hostile influence in the region. For instance, the Saudi-led war in Yemen is being supported by Qatar, which has about 1,000 troops combating the Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Despite this military support, Riyadh still accuses Doha of supporting the anti-government forces in Yemen.

Fake News: the new name of propaganda

There used to be a song with the lyrics “before you accuse me take a look at yourself” which was popularized by the English singer and songwriter Eric Clapton. The ‘mass hysteria’ regarding the frenzied ‘proliferation’ of what they now brand as ‘fake news’ has enraged the ruling establishment and the media alike. But really, who is accusing who?

Just a few days back Reuters, the international news agency from London, has accused the Russian television network RT and the Russian news outlet Sputnik of spreading fake news against the accusation that the Russian government intervened in the very recent French presidential elections.

To begin with, Reuters quoted their usual anonymous “US officials” (who are therefore unaccountable) stating that the Russian government attempted to influence the outcome of the French elections in order to favor far right leader Marine Le Pen against Emmanuel Macron who favors a stronger stance against the Kremlin, and who’s political party also accused the Russians of meddling in their campaigns.

Macron has since taken the presidency in a definitive win against the softer, anti-NATO and reconciliatory Le Pen. He is widely believed to be pro-European Union, elitist, and staunchly anti-Russian who favors even more damaging sanctions. And although any evidence to back up their claims has not since surfaced (or ever will) the fake news accusations has since been mirrored by the mainstream media outlets in the other side of the Atlantic.

For instance CNN ran a story with the usual fear mongering tone with a headline declaring “Fears of Russian meddling as France prepares to go to the polls”. In the article, they quoted Richard Burr, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, as saying “I think it’s safe by everybody’s judgement that the Russians are actively involved in the French elections…part of our responsibility is to educate the rest of the world.” And buried in between the paragraphs there is a link with the title “Read: How Russia hacks you”. To top it all off, not a single evidence has been presented regarding this fantastical claim of Moscow’s meddling and hacking.

Not too far ago the same stories were published across the mainstream news media regarding Russia’s ‘push’ to help Donald Trump win the American elections. Does anyone remember how the likes of CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and others have monitored ‘the polls’ showing that Hillary ‘the warmonger’ Clinton was leading, and we eventually knew how surprised and upset the news outlets were when ‘suddenly’ Trump won the race to the Oval Office.

In the past decade alone, the United States government together with its media tentacles have spewed false news in order to rally the public into taking destructive action abroad. This may be in the form of an outright military intervention, or it can be by means of economic and political war waged against America’s enemies.

Such was the case with Iraq when the whole American and British mainstream media establishments ran the unescapable fake news that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that the Iraqi leader had ties to Osama Bin Laden. Who could forget Colin Powel, then Secretary of State during George W. Bush’s presidency, presented the ‘physical evidence’ of Saddam’s WMDs to the United Nations Security Council. The world, but perhaps not Iraq, has since moved on with these fake news from the US government itself and the United States has since been bogged down in that country up to the present time.

Led by the American establishment the world has time and again been witness to various unfounded ‘facts’ (and therefore fake news) against Washington’s enemies, including the Syrian chemical attacks alleged to have been instigated by the Syrian government (no evidence has since been presented), to the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 that crashed over Ukraine and was attributed to “Putin’s missile” immediately (not even a day after the accident), to how Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are traitors and spies, that ISIS presented an “existential threat to the security of the United States of America”, that China aims to become the dominant military power in the next few decades, that foreigners are stealing American jobs, that the 2014 Sochi Olympics in Russia was plagued by “security concerns”, that the Cold War was over and NATO had no plans to expand to the East to Russia’s doorsteps, that Western Europe needed anti-ballistic missile installations near Russia’s borders are necessary to counter the “Iranian missile threat”, and so on and so forth. We all know by now that such emotion-stirring headlines and “worst case scenarios” didn’t happen to the benefit of the world. 

British media in a state of hysteria as Russian aircraft carrier passes by the English Channel

As Russia’s aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, heads to Syria via the English Channel, the UK’s mainstream news outlets have gone on a mad frenzy of fearmongering headlines to further paint Russian president Vladimir Putin of ‘flexing Moscow’s military might’ and of ‘provoking another world war.”

Mail Online, a British news outlet featured a rather terrifying clickbait story with the headline “The Russians are here! Putin’s attack fleet arrives at Dover as warships enter channel on their way to launch strikes in Syria.”

Another popular mainstream news website, The Independent has produced a video clip showing “Russian warships in English water “a smokescreen to distract world” while the BBC has bashed the Admiral Kuznetsov with stories concerning the sorry state of toilets in the aircraft carrier to its troubled engine and to a large tug boat accompanying the vessel ‘in case it breaks down.’ Also, British ‘analysts’ commented that the Russians ‘have achieved complete media and public opinion focus on one bright, shiny object.”

Be that as it may, but the UK does not even have its own aircraft carrier to match the Russian flotilla, which by now has passed the English Channel onto the Mediterranean and probably towards Syria to launch strikes against Islamic State terrorists. The British military will not have a new aircraft carrier until next year with the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by 2020.

The British Defense Ministry for its part has bragged about its capabilities, where Secretary Michael Fallon reassured “to keep Britain safe” by “man marking” the Russian fleet passing the narrow English Channel.

Alas the hysteria is completely uncalled for. The Russian aircraft carrier group’s deployment to Syria has been announced a few months back. To make matters preposterous, Admiral Kuznetsov and its supporting warships passage is via international waters and is being completely transparent in their movements; there has been a deliberate and exasperated attempt to sensationalize and plant even more hate against Moscow.

Meanwhile, in American mainstream media, the deployment of the Russian aircraft carrier has been seen “as a kind of infomercial for its weapons sales” and that the “battle group adds to Russia’s military leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the United States and other Western powers over the future of Syria.” The Russian flotilla was also described as “a threat to its crew than anything else.”

These so called journalists have clearly missed how America and its allies in Western Europe have ‘manufactured’ conflicts around the world to merit their military’s deployment around the globe and with it billions of dollars of weapons. Indeed, the Admiral Kuznetsov, a floating airbase carrying more than 40 aircraft at a time, is just a ‘threat to its crew than anything else.” 

South China Sea: How the Philippines is being used as geostrategic pawn by the US

It turns out that vis-à-vis the South China Sea dispute, the Philippines not only lacks in understanding their neighbor, but also exposes Filipinos as being ignorant to how it is being manipulated by Western powers, particularly the United States, to counter China’s undeniable influence in the region and to the rest of the world.

A month has passed since The Hague ruling regarding the arbitration case concerning the Philippines' right to be heard in its claims to the disputed seas. What most Filipinos do not know is the fact that this ruling put before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea only covers the legal status of the maritime dispute, as opposed to whether the said ruling decides on who owns anything.

Even the tribunal to which the Philippines initiated its arbitration case is not the body that represent the position of the United Nations. As the spokesperson of the UN Secretary General said “the UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims.”

The reaction from Beijing is understandable and unsurprising, at least from realists observing the issue: it has fiercely rejected the jurisdiction of The Hague ruling on an otherwise sovereignty dispute, and reminded others that the United States is not even a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of The Sea (UNCLOS) and thus compromises Washington’s real intentions on the maritime dispute.

An editorial appearing in The Greenville Post made the correct assumption on the matter stating “many observers, in Beijing and abroad, pointed out that the ruling was clearly political, and that out of five, four judges were citizens of the EU, while one (the chairman) was Ghanaian but also a long-term resident of Europe.”

Also widely unknown to Filipinos is Washington’s clearly stated pivot to Asia policy, which asserts an increased military and political pressure to be pursued against China. This interventionist policy, announced in 2011 when Obama was about to be reelected to office, requires a sustained effort to increase diplomatic and military pressure against what the United States sees as opposing its hegemonic status, including in the South China Sea. As a leading academic in the Philippines correctly asserts “What’s happening is that our political elites are clearly encouraged by the US to provoke China, and there is also the big influence of the US military on our armed forces. I would say that the Philippine military is very vulnerable to such type of ‘encouragement’. So the US is constantly nurturing those confrontational attitudes.”

Even the Philippine government’s ties to the United States during the Cory Aquino administration deserves scrutiny to help understand why the UNCLOS issue was put forward during the time of Benigno Aquino III’s presidency. Although it ultimately failed, it was Cory Aquino who supported the renewal of maintaining US military bases in Subic and Clark. For his part, Aquino III also supported the highly contentious Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) military exercises with the United States. Thus, the timing of putting forward an illegitimate case against China on the South China Sea issue (which the Philippines now calls as West Philippine Sea) should not be surprising and also that  that the Aquinos have been a willing pawn in playing Uncle Sam’s warmongering stance in the region.

Some realist scholars in the Philippines admit that through the decisions made by the previous Arroyo and Aquino III administrations, the United States has successfully inserted ‘anti-terror’ forces in the Philippines which of course is a guise to counter Beijing’s growing interest in the region, a region where some $5 trillion dollars of trade passes annually.

As for the resources stored in the South China Sea itself, Washington’s aim is to ensure that the weakest nations get to control this region, particularly its allies in East Asia. As an observer accurately asserts “We (Filipinos) are totally dependent on foreign companies for the exploitation of our natural resources…Foreign multinationals would greatly profit from the natural resources of the China Sea, if a weak and dependent country like this one (The Philippines) were to be put in charge of them.”

To conclude, undeniably the Philippines’ memory is chillingly short-sighted. Its present guarantor of ‘peace and security’ the United States invaded it a century ago and has made the country an economic, diplomatic, and military puppet ever since. None of these shameless history have ever been put forth by China against the Philippines in the past. Will someone please stand up and remind the Filipinos about their unfortunate history with Uncle Sam?

In a surprising and historic move, Britain has voted to leave the European Union. It is important to note that this has been the decision of ordinary Brits and not by those Eurocrats whose leadership is unpopular across Europe.  EU bureaucrats be warned: if Britain who’s not as affected by the so-called peripheral countries can do it, all the more those countries that are at the mercy of severe austerity and left to guess what Brussels is up to next.

For the uninformed, how important was this decision? Remember that the European Union project has its roots in the post-World War II economic integration, with the goal of avoiding conflict in Europe. The EU project has fulfilled this purpose quite decently in the past 60 years. It has allowed the free movement of people within the Eurozone, created a common currency (not joined by Britain), established preferential trade among member states, and most importantly the preservation of peace in the continent.

But as the unelected predatory capitalists leaders in Brussels became increasingly more focused on unnecessary bureaucracy and squeezed the life out of ordinary Eurozone citizens as banks “too big to fail” have received privileges despite their enormous failures, the Brits in this Brexit referendum clearly confirmed they have had enough.

 To be fair with the British people, they have been half-footed in the EU from the beginning. Perhaps the most obvious indication is their separate currency from the Euro, as well as its non-observance of the Schengen Agreement, which allows the free movement of EU nationals without the usual hassle of traveling to other countries.

The decision to leave the EU will be not be smooth for sure. The initial euphoria the referendum created will have to come to terms with the consequences of opposing the Remain vote. Already, for instance, the conservative party in Britain has hinted it will invoke Article 50 where Britain will be faced with years of ‘proper exits’ through possibly endless renegotiations.

Elsewhere in Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Brexit referendum “a break in Europe’s history” and that it reflects “a fundamental doubt about the current direction of European integration.”

Some British mainstream media have already propagandized a few interesting points in the Brexit referendum. For instance, some news outlets have already downplayed the public’s decision as uninformed with headlines like “Brits frantically searched what the EU means hours after voting out of the EU” and that the “EU will treat Britain like Greece.” Such fear mongering should not be surprising as before the referendum London’s mouthpiece media have already done their part to dissuade the British public from bailing out of the EU.

 And of course, Mr. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has already intensified the drama when he resigned the next day. In a visibly emotional speech, Cameron stated that “I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safe and better off inside the EU… (But) the British people made a different decision to take a different path. As such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.”  Indeed, the man who proclaimed “Assad must go” became the man who would go first.

The developments of the past few days in the Middle East, especially in Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have triggered an atmosphere of fear concerning a conflict that may involve the entire region.

In the past day, Turkey has already pursued Kurdish militants inside Syria using heavy artillery against targets south of its border with Syria. The Syrian government and Turkish military have confirmed that targets have been hit in Hatay Province, Aleppo Province, Idlis Province, and Latakia Province inside Syria.

Damascus has already sent a letter of complaint to the United Nations, where it described the attacks as an assault on Syrian government forces. It called for the UN to “take responsibility for international peace and security by putting an end to the crimes committed by the Turkish regime.” It also added that Ankara’s offensive is “an attempt to increase the morale of armed terrorist groupings, who are being defeated (by the Syrian Arab Army).”

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has started to mass its troops near Syria as part of a military ‘exercise’, announcing it as the “largest and most important” in the region’s history. Over the weekend, Riyadh also announced its commitment to oust the Islamic State (ISIL/ISIS) threat out of Syria thus justifying its planned military drills, which as of press time, will commence in a few hours.

Riyadh’s and Ankara’s military escalation an act of desperation

Although far from being implemented, last week’s talks of a cessation in hostilities in Syria as discussed by major world powers in Munich have been received rather negatively by the Saudis and Turkish government. For one, both countries fear that a cease fire agreement might benefit Bashar Al Assad, Syria’s legitimate president, to stay in power and put to waste their 5-year effort of supporting the so-called ‘moderate’ rebels fighting the Syrian government.

Syria’s government described the Turkish attack on Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city and stronghold of different terrorist groups including Islamic State, as retaliation for the advances made by the Syrian military against rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime. The Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu insisted that the artillery firing was in response to Kurdish insurgency crossing into Turkey’s border with Syria. Contrary to this claim, it has been revealed that Turkey’s interest in Syria has been the supply of illegal oil being shipped from IS to refineries in Turkey – an operation which was stopped by the Russian air campaign against Islamic State.

Escalation will lead to total war in the region

The Turks and Saudis possible ground offensive in Syria will have unimaginable consequences for the region. At present, the conflict in Syria already involves all major rebel and terror groups in the region, including the likes of Al Qaeda, Al-Nusrah Front, and Islamic State. The United States and Russia are involved in ‘fighting’ IS, but both having a different outcome in mind for Syria’s future. NATO forces are also involved in the military operations, as provided by the UK, France, and now Turkey.

Experts and commentators alike have described the Syrian Civil War as a “proto-world war with nearly a dozen countries embroiled in two overlapping conflicts.” In the latest Munich Security Report, it has been stated that “for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the escalation of violence between major powers cannot be dismissed as an unrealistic nightmare.”

Russia is aiming to maintain a transitional government that includes the present leadership of Syria, a prospect opposed by the United States, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies. Syria’s main ally in the region, Iran, also supports Moscow’s position. Iraq and Lebanon also shares a Syria that still involves Bashar Al Assad’s regime.

The government of Turkey, which authorized the downing of Russian bomber jet back in November 2015, is currently bombarding targets in Syria, choosing to use artillery instead of its air force to avoid Russia’s anti-aircraft installation in the northern part of Syria.

Syria has warned that any invasion force that challenges the country’s sovereignty will be considered an act of war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who for years has advocated a negotiated settlement for Syria, gave a grim warning against such invasion force, saying that “the Americans and our Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war? All sides must be compelled to sit at the negotiating table instead of unleashing a new world war.”

So far, the American position in this latest conflict escalation is to lead the different factions back into the negotiating table and warned Turkey and the Saudis against destabilizing actions in Syria, as stated by US Secretary of State John Kerry in a recent Munich Security Conference. Curiously though, behind the negotiations US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said he expects commando units from Saudi and the UAE to start covertly invading Syria.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced in a conference that “there is some serious discussion going on with regards to looking at a ground component in Syria, because there has to be a possibility of taking and holding ground, that one cannot do from the air.” The Foreign Minister is advocating for a ground offensive, but that which should involve and be led by the United States. Earlier, he also called for the removal of Bashar al-Assad “by force.”

As for the Iranians they have warned that a military escalation led by the Saudis will be met in kind. Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Deputy Staff Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri declared that “we will not let the situation in Syria get out of control so that some rogue states could implement their policies. If needed, we will take some appropriate decisions.”

2016: What is ahead for the world?

By and large the previous year was a year of crisis escalation, brought forth by the emergence of new sources of tension not only in diplomacy but also in actual military conflict. On the one hand, fresh sources of armed engagement and humanitarian issues had world leaders worried overnight (ISIS beyond Syria and Iraq, Russian intervention in Syria, migrant crisis in Europe). These events were not predicted before 2015.

2016 will be marked by an increase in local conflicts, like in Ukraine and in the Arabian Peninsula where the rift between Sunni and Shia Muslims will intensify. In fact, as of press time, Saudi Arabia has cut off all diplomatic ties with Iran, the latter infuriated over the execution of a prominent Shia cleric. It is expected to be joined by other Sunni majority countries in the Middle East. This year might just be the time for the spreading of these conflicts to more states.

The presidential elections in the United States will put on hold major foreign policy decisions, as the American public gets distracted by the convoluted race to the White House. As for the exiting American president, Obama will protect what he has accomplished in 2015, including the rapprochement with Iran and Cuba.

As the United States continues to be rejected in many areas of the world, the leadership vacuum that it will create will give opportunities to other major powers, and with it, a new era of anti-West geopolitics will emerge. The post-American century is an irreversible occurrence now as other major powers like Russia, China, and Brazil take on responsibilities beyond their typical spheres of influence. In the military sphere, Russia has re-entered the Middle East in a big way, while China will now formally launch the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), aimed at rivaling the IMF and World Bank.

The global economy is expected to be ‘disappointing and uneven’ in 2016 because of the continuing slowdown in China, sluggishness in world trade, the threat of rising interest rates in the US, the ongoing fall of oil prices, and the vulnerability of emerging economies to absorb economic shocks, according to the IMF.

General elections will take place in Taiwan, a Western-backed state that is unsure about its identity vis-à-vis China. The emerging leader might give Beijing fresh fears regarding the longstanding One-China policy. The UK public will go to the polls to decide whether to stay or leave the European Union, while in the Philippines, presidential elections will decide whether a future leader will continue to provoke China and further impress the United States for its own benefit.

Islamic State (ISIS) is expected to be put on hold territorially in Syria and Iraq, thanks to Russia’s military intervention. However, it might gain influence beyond the region as other terrorist groups (like Boko Haram in Nigeria, and other groups from Somalia to terror groups in South East Asia) pledge their allegiance to Daesh.

The United States and NATO will further infuriate Moscow as it decides on sending nuclear weapons to Poland, a former Warsaw Pact member. As a result of Washington’s antagonizing policies in Europe, Russia will further invest in its armed forces, which might trigger a new, expensive, and unnecessary arms race in continental Europe.

Europe’s most powerful leader, Angela Merkel, is expected to leave office after three successive terms. What this might mean for Europe is a change in policy towards Russia (sanctions), the migrant crisis, the German commitment to the entire Eurozone project and Berlin’s attitude towards economically and socially troubled states like Spain, Greece, and Italy.

Turkey betrays Russian efforts to contain ISIS with shooting down of military aircraft

Ending the Syrian Civil war has just took a step backward as Turkey, a member of the imperialist NATO military alliance, shot down a Russian warplane on a bombing mission to eradicate ISIS inside Syrian territory.

In the immediate hours after this major military incident, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan furiously defended his position, stating that “I think if there is a party that needs to apologize, it is not us…those who violated our airspace are the ones who need to apologize.”

Russia’s response was calm but with hints of Washington’s involvement in the matter, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stating his country has no intention of going to war with Turkey, while Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted that “the American side, which leads a coalition that Turkey belongs to, knew about the location and time of our plane’s flights”, effectively accusing the US of passing the mission’s details to Ankara.

Moscow also accused Turkey of a ‘planned provocation’ and supporting ISIS (there is considerable evidence showing such) in the fight against Syrian military forces to overthrow President Bashar Al Assad. Putin alleged once again that “we see from the sky where these (stolen oil) vehicles are going. They are going to Turkey (from terrorist controlled territory in Syria) day and night.”

Now that the damage has been done, Russia announced it will strengthen its position in northern Syria, along the Turkish border, by installing highly-advanced anti-aircraft weaponry as well as a series of economic sanction against Turkey.

The sanctions include a ban on goods, cancellation of labor contracts, halting of investment projects, and Russia’s advice to its citizens to avoid holidaying in Turkey because of security concerns. Russia is Turkey’s second biggest trading partner, and a major supplier of energy to the country.

Syria Recap: Who supports who?

Turkey has an interest in carrying out the United States’ declaration of ‘Assad must go’ policy towards Syria, while Russia is interested in maintaining the Syrian regime to be in charge of the country.

As such, with Moscow’s military intervention in Syria since the end of September, Ankara saw this as threat to its grand ambitions in Syria. Turkey tacitly supports ISIS and other ‘moderate’ rebel groups to oust Assad. While Washington openly declares war with ISIS, it is not doing so in such a way that will endanger rebel forces fighting the Syrian government. Indeed, the decision to down a Russian bomber in Syria reflects Turkey’s frustration in the current situation in Syria.

As Moscow steadily weakened Islamic State positions in Syria, policy makers in Washington and its allies became increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that a supposedly external power, Russia, is setting the agenda in the Middle East.

For Turkey, which is suspected of doing the bidding for NATO to compromise Russian air campaigns against rebel groups and in fact called NATO first instead of Moscow after downing the Russian SU-24 bomber, its interest lay in derailing the huge steps Russia has made to marginalize and defeat ISIS.

As for the United States, it is not pleased to work with other regional actors, like Russia and Iran, for doing so will show that its influence is starting to erode; that its being the region’s de facto hegemon is steadily being assigned to Moscow and Tehran. 

McCain’s anti-reality and hysteria a reflection of the West’s insecurities towards Russian war in Syria

By now, the Russian military’s involvement in the ongoing Syrian Civil War is not breaking news. The facts have been properly laid down and conveyed to the watching world with reports that are verified, and in some cases, in a high-tech kind of delivery. What seems like a constant CCTV feed from the skies and the seas has shown highly accurate weapons raining down on the otherwise common enemy that is the Islamic State (IS).

What is perhaps interesting is how, predictably, the West has downplayed the Russian effort, from spreading slanderous unconfirmed reports of dead civilians to President Putin’s macho-man image reporting in the Western mainstream media. Indeed, even for the West, especially in Washington, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy.

For one, John McCain, the Republican politician who previously lost his presidential ambition to Obama back in 2008, and famous for advocating military aggression and political subversion, has recently shared his hysterical interpretation of Moscow’s war against Islamic State in Syria.

In a chilling, Hollywood-style op-ed published in CNN, McCain blamed the Obama administration’s weakness in confronting its adversaries, most especially Russia. He sees Moscow’s bombing of IS forces in Syria as just an effort to restore Russia’s image in the Middle East. What he does not recognize, and most Americans perhaps, is the fact that the spread of terrorism, which the United States helped foster in the first place, is a major concern for Putin, as the countries plagued by extremism is really not that far from Russia’s southern flanks.

He opined that Putin “must be stopped, not least because he will inflame every aspect of this conflict in the process: the refugee crisis, the mass atrocities and the growth of ISIS.” What McCain overlooked is the fact that if it weren’t for his country’s intervention in the Syrian conflict, ISIS would’ve not strengthened and spread in the Middle East. The fact is that these extremely violent Islamists where the ‘moderate’ rebels they were supporting during the early years of the so-called Arab Spring.

Washington’s brand of frenzied foreign policy is not generous enough for McCain and his Republican panic crew: he’s called for “check(ing) Putin’s ambitions…impose greater costs on Russia’s interests…by striking significant Syrian leadership or military targets.” As a former military man himself, does he understand the possible chain of events that might follow if the United States directly attacked Syria’s military? He seems to have forgotten that Washington’s involvement in Syria is not authorized by the United Nations and thus is an illegal act under international laws.

And then McCain indulges in more disgusting assault, calling for more pressure against Russia ‘where it counts’ including sending more weapons to Ukraine, spreading corruption exposes on the Russian leadership, and even more sanctions against Moscow. He added that the US can find ‘willing partners’ in Europe for another ‘coalition of the willing’ (or killing) to further prop up the ‘moderate opposition.’ Finally, he called America’s intervention as it’s ‘last opportunity to make a difference in Syria and avert a strategic disaster…we cannot afford to squander.”

For their part, the Western mainstream media continues to indulge in spreading and amplifying unconfirmed reports of the alleged victims caused by the Russian expedition inside Syria. For instance, the reported civilian casualties resulting from the Russian air campaign where actually spread even before the first bomber sorties had even begun. Also, the purported landing of Russian cruise missiles in Iran has been confirmed (by Tehran and Moscow) to be just ‘part of the intensified Western propaganda war.’

Such apocalyptic visions and mantra of ‘intervene-now-or-never’ runs contrary to what’s spewing out of the Kremlin. For their part since the beginning, Russia has expressed interest in finding “pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat.” Putin has expressed his country’s interest in establishing a broad coalition to fight Islamic State, from the simple sharing of intelligence (a proposal Washington rejected) to ending the ‘training program’ of ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels in the ground. In fact, the United States has airdropped a fresh supply of weapons, some 50 tons of it, to support their Syrian puppets.

Washington’s obsession with bringing poisoned ‘democracy’ A.K.A. regime change to the Middle East should be stopped for good if the region deserves to be in peace. It has been clear that the ‘must-go’ policy pursued by the United States against Arab dictators has only worsened the situation. The quagmire has exploded out of proportion that even Europe, with the present influx of refugees to the continent, needed to tackle this otherwise non-issue. 

Refugee crisis being used as another pretext for war with Syria

The tragedy that is the exodus of refugees from the Middle East to Europe in recent weeks has already claimed first-order policy concerns from Europe’s capitals. Branded as the ‘worst migrant crisis since World War II” the situation has been blamed on innocent people leaving from ‘war, oppression, and economic uncertainty.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that although the nationalities of the refugees are mixed, Syrians comprise the biggest number of fleeing people for safety into Turkey and the rest of Europe.

Now that the refugee situation has reached European shores and cities, Western imperialist powers have started to claim that the crisis would not have been this appalling if not for American inaction and avoidance of the use of military force. For instance, in an op-ed piece featured in the American government-sponsored New York Times, the author maintained that “American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates. Not doing something is no less of a decision than doing it.”

Such a statement clearly smacks in the face of the Syrian refugees fleeing their country, where their plight can be directly blamed on Western policies that created those ‘moderate rebels’ who have been stubbornly but openly funded by the United States, as a result of Obama’s interventionist policy on Syria. On the one hand, it is interesting to observe that the increase in refugees fleeing the region has coincided with the intensification of NATO’s bombing of ISIS positions in the country. The civil war has been waging for close to 5 years now, and yet this is the only time when the number of people fleeing has reached record levels.

As tragic as it is, this is as a result of the United States’ policy of “Assad must go.”

Back in 2011, when euphoria for the so-called Arab Spring was at its zenith, Western capitals hailed it as the arrival of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to the common peoples of the Middle East, who finally ‘awakened’ to the decades-old tyranny of their ‘despotic’ leaders. In their minds, without sending boots on the ground to topple the region’s dictators, the citizens of these countries have chosen to pursue a peaceful path to a better future. Fast forward to today, and the grim horrors of that triumphalist ‘idealization’ continue to disappoint.

In late 2013, the same strategy of playing the emotional card was employed, when Western media outlets quickly blamed the chemical weapon attacks on the Syrian government, where scores of people where shown to have died as a result. Evidence has since shown that the chemical weapon attack came from the ‘moderate rebels’ whose aim was to use it as a pretext for American military intervention (again), but this time in Syria.

In the past few weeks, American policy makers and their Western European counterparts have been escalating the drumbeat on yet another attempt at bringing boots on the ground to fight Bashar Al Assad, but this time seizing upon the refugee crisis and the supposed “Russian involvement’ inside Syria.

Directly or hidden, Washington’s involvement in Syria is undeniable: from Obama’s ‘responsibility to protect’ excuses to the issuance of no fly zones and now the bombing of extremists which it helped create in the first place. Here’s a stimulating point to think about: as the self-proclaimed defender of ‘freedom’ and ‘humanitarian’ nonsense, what if the United States actually did more for the Syrian people?

What if the United States actually helped the Syrian people by taking in more refugees than, say, Germany and Sweden, both of which have taken in the most number of refugees in continental Europe? Germany alone is expected to receive 800,000 refugees this year. In comparison, the United States has just accepted 1,500 Syrian refugees since the war broke out in 2011, a fact that has caused disdain from many, including from the International Rescue Committee (IRC).

On the contrary, Western media outlets were quick to blame ‘gateway countries’ like Hungary for being lukewarm to this humanitarian catastrophe. Nowhere in the mainstream news media can you hear the role played by the West in perpetuating this suffering, so much so that quietly, those responsible (UK and the US) are contemplating bombing Syria even more.

Regardless of their final decision to bomb Syria into extinction, it is clear that where Western involvement is concerned, the results are nothing short of devastating. What happened to the Middle East in the past five years alone is vindication of the unintended consequences of projecting a dying unilateralism in an age of choice.

China’s stock market troubles sends shivers across the world

China’s capital market trouble is now all over the headlines. Despite being at the center of mockery by the Feds in the US, Beijing’s economic convulsion is affecting markets everywhere — and this gloomy story should put some breaks to the West’s China-bashing indulgence for this issue will affect them just as badly.

Although it is too early to point to a specific cause for the global ‘panic’, Western outlets are already spreading the blame on China’s recent currency devaluation, a policy implemented to beat lower market expectations for its economy.

For a while now, China’s economic team have figured that the way forward is to pivot away from exports and investments and instead focus on a consumer-driven economic activity. But this rebalancing has had the effect of less industrial output, and thus led to the propping-up policies. What followed was the devaluation of the Yuan to help China maintain its manufacturing competitiveness.

This policy has caused problems for analysts in the West where they insist that China is playing the currency manipulation game. But guess what? Since the 2008 financial crisis, Washington has repeatedly printed moremoney (euphemistically called Quantitative Easing) to artificially manufacture ‘recovery’, the consequences of which have helped undercut global competition.

The US Federal Reserve has a problem with China’s currency devaluation policy, but not with its own reality-distorting stimulus.  Not many realize that this inflated money-printing policy is actually just a bubble: zero interest rates have artificially propped-up the US economy. That is why those in the know worry what may happen once the Feds take away zero percent interest rates (running for 7 years now).  Once this fake shroud blows away, the United States will be sent back to recession once more.

According to Western market ‘analysts’ and commentators, China’s present capital market strain has caused people to panic. But who are those people anyway? They are the investors and analysts who recklessly took risks that led to the 2008 financial meltdown and then quickly spread the propaganda of economic recovery.

They are the same people who always screamed wolf on everything Chinese. As they see it, Beijing’s present trouble presents an opportunity to further deepen the country’s political chasm anyway.  Indeed, in their view, economic woes translate to more political accountability, which in turn gives way to mass discontent. It will be only a matter of time before we see Western media headlines cry Occupy Hong Kong 2.0, but on a much larger scale this time.

American Independence: Delusional Liberals continue their toxic media assault on Russia

It may not be surprising to see that the Western mainstream media (with the likes of CNN, and BBC), is nothing but the vessel for Washington’s adventurism anywhere it sees fit. What is interesting though is the persistent and stubborn disinformation emanating from the Western press, especially vis-à-vis the Russia-Ukraine issue.

In the past week, during the American Independence Day celebration, CNN has lambasted Russia’s actions, like the bomber planes sent by President Vladimir Putin near California and Alaska. The article stated that “the aircraft’s presence was clearly a warning for the US.”

It is not hard to overstate that the new Cold War has been triggered by the West, and not the East. Fundamentally, the illegal Ukraine crisis was hijacked by Washington and its cronies in Europe, which in turn triggered a knee jerk reaction from Russia. Being in Russia’s vicinity, and taking into account its deep historical ties with Kiev, the United States might have reacted the same if Moscow took the same opportunity of pitting Mexico against the United States.

Indeed, the Western media’s convenient framing of the cause and effects of recent world events are at an all-time high. Simply, pouring over their words is a trip down the hypocrisy hole, one that is hard to escape, especially for people who spend their days enslaving themselves to mainstream news.

The CNN article also went to accuse Russia of patrolling too close to Washington’s allies, from aircraft ‘incursions’ in international airspace and Moscow’s deployment of submarines near NATO countries. The author clearly and conveniently turned a blind eye on Washington’s regular, provocative, and relentless military exercises conducted on former Soviet soil. How will Washington react if Russia did the same to former US colonies?

It may be a bit cliché by now, but the root of all this Ukraine mess has its roots after the collapse of the USSR, when NATO, despite its assurances, expanded and devoured over the weak former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact members. The Soviet Union’s last president, Mikhail Gorbachev, dismantled the Warsaw Pact almost exclusively because of the West’s promise of no-expansion to the East.

The United States has spent much of its time spreading its propaganda that “the Russians are coming” and which presents an unprecedented threat to American security, while forgetting it has a military budget bigger than the next 10 militaries combined, and has the most military bases deployed abroad, not to mention the most at-war country in the world since World War II.

On the lost Arab Spring and the influence of politics on policy

It is perhaps fair to say the Arab Spring was such a missed opportunity, and in many ways, it is.

The Arab Spring was supposed to be the vanguard for change in the complex politics of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. It was launched on a platform of Arab democracy (as opposed to American democracy) that will instigate a wave of change, from free speech to economic opportunities.

Despite its disassociation from Western grand plans for the region, the Arab Spring was nevertheless glorified in the West. The revolution took everyone by surprise – including President Barack Obama himself. And it was almost hijacked by the Western mainstream media (BBC, CNN, Fox) as something that the West endorsed, especially with the exaggerated role that technology played to make it happen. They may have supported the revolution at a later point, but certainly did not play a role in its creation.

But some four years since the whole saga began in Tunisia, what we find is a more confused Western, and especially American, policy in the MENA region. For starters, the United States is still a big supporter of whatever Israel does (occasional wars against its neighbors, assassination of foreign leaders); it has a very good military relationship with Sunni Saudi Arabia regardless of Riyadh actions in the region; it used to support ‘moderates’ in such countries as Iraq and Syria where the same moderates have transformed them into extremism and ISIS; and now it is negotiating a historic nuclear deal with Iran, it’s supposed arch-nemesis in the region.

The politics of Obama’s final years in office

Opposed by both Israel and Saudi Arabia, the latest Iranian nuclear deal is being praised as a landmark breakthrough in Middle East policy. Notwithstanding the merits of such a deal, the agreement with Iran requires a deeper look especially since Obama’s days in the office is in 2016.

Before his second term started in 2012, Obama pulled out of Afghanistan in late 2011 – some 3 years later than what he had promised during his fight for presidential candidacy in 2008, and just a few months before he was to reassume office at the White House. Indeed, when policy is at the mercy of politics, things ‘suddenly’ get done.

The rush to accomplish things before the time is out

A clearly defined United States’ policy aside, the upcoming US presidential race will certainly shake things up, with more policies being concluded and other surprises being taken into consideration. For instance, we might see a Cuban breakthrough as America pursues normalization with Cuba, an island nation long been under the economic embargo of the United States. Perhaps we can also see a softening of American policy toward Russia and Ukraine to avoid a political backlash for the Democrats in the upcoming presidential elections, or the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, a promise made by Obama since his 2008 nomination.

On April 12, Hillary Clinton will formally announce her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, a move that will mark the de-fact start of the intense presidential elections. Eight years since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought it out for the nomination, a woman in the White House is no doubt an interesting thing to see. But we are not there yet: big promises are set to entertain again, just like how Obama promised the impossible before. Conversely, the remaining 19 months will be a thrilling time to see what gets accomplished in the final days of Obama’s presidency.

On a related note: The curious case of Netanyahu’s Congress stunt

To gain political ground for his party once more, America’s main ally in the region, Israel’s hysterical Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed his opposition to the US-Iran nuclear deal in a highly emotional speech before the US Congress. The same tactic of ‘getting things done’ at a critical moment persuaded Netanyahu to grandstand in the receptive US Congress to gain political leverage before a major election.

Unfortunately for him, Netanyahu’s Congress stunt did not grain traction among the wider American establishment. Beyond the shock and awe of his emotional speech calling for a strike against Iran (as always), the spotlight went to the fact that his US Congress speech was not endorsed by the White House (he actually bypassed Obama on this), that the war-hungry Republicans invited Netanyahu to make the speech, and that Obama has since pointed out that all foreign policy decisions should be endorsed by the White House. 

Just like the US, Japan faces backlash for interventionist policy

The term ‘backlash’ couldn’t be more accurate to describe Japan’s recent anti-pacifist agenda – a foreign policy course set by pro-American Prime Minister Shinzo Abe which has taken its toll with the recent Islamic State (IS) beheading of two Japanese citizens.

The beheading of Japanese journalist Kenji Goto, and defense contractor Haruna Yukawa has been described in the accompanying IS video as a form of personal retaliation against Shinzo Abe’s pledge to combat IS through the announcement of a $200 million non-military aid to countries fighting IS.

For his part, Abe condemned the killings, but also pledged that Japan would “resolutely fulfill its responsibility to the international community in the fight against terrorism.” Such statement sounds very much like what is spewing out of Washington’s propaganda machine (international community – US, John Kerry).

And very much like how the West takes advantage of such ‘despicable acts’, Mr. Abe also declared a need for a legislation “aimed at protecting the lives and well-being of the people…if Japanese abroad come under harm’s way, as in the recent case (IS beheading), the (Japanese military) Self-Defense Forces (SDF) aren’t able to fully utilize their abilities.”

As regrettable as it is for the families of those murdered by IS as a result of Abe’s militaristic policies, the backfiring of his new strategy to ‘engage’ the world and tackle ‘terrorism’ has been swift and brutal.  Following his pronouncements, his critics charged “no doubt the government will argue that this is all the more reason why Japan needs to rid of its constitutional ban on military and take on a fuller role in the ‘war on terror’” and that the beheading is a result of the Tokyo’s antagonistic foreign policy, which has its roots in Japan’s most uneasy neighbor: China.

Roots in China

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe described Japan’s new foreign policy as ‘proactive pacifism’ which under no guise is aimed at China. But many see it as Tokyo’s renewed interests in expanding the nation’s military which, as historians would point out, should be a worrying direction the country must not take.

Since being in office, Mr. Abe has caused discomfort to his neighbors, particularly China and South Korea. So far, he has had close-call skirmishes with Beijing concerning disputed islands, Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine (a tribute to Japanese leaders convicted of war crimes), as well as his attempts to normalize relations with the breakaway island of Taiwan – an issue that is particularly sensitive for Beijing.

As his foreign policy have expanded not just beyond East and South East Asia, Abe’s policies elsewhere (especially in the Middle East) have made new enemies, all in the name of rearmament and global engagement to please Washington. And this policy did not come out of nowhere: the US is keen on rearming a country that has attacked it during World War II all in the name of containing China. Clearly the toxic relationship with Washington has taken its toll on its allies and lessons will always be learned the hard way as long as you are in Uncle Sam’s camp.

Hollande, Merkel visits Putin to discuss Ukraine

Who would've thought that the Ukraine semi civil war will still be a major topic after months of seemingly stalemated power struggle between the West and Russia? Indeed it is a major issue: in fact not only it has become the major theater of the new Cold War, but also a central issue that has prompted a joint visit from France’s and Germany’s leaders to talk directly to Putin so they can engage in a constructive dialogue, minus the Americans of course.

French President Francois Hollande and Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Moscow comes at a time when the hawks in Washington are preparing to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, a plan that has met criticism in European capitals, including from the UK, France, and Germany.

Perhaps an important aspect of this visit is its secrecy and that fact that it excluded any delegation from the United States, which, as mounting evidences shows, has had a hand in the unraveling of Ukraine. The joint visit to Moscow highlights the progress stated in the restarting the Minsk agreements, which is described as key to stopping the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said “On the basis of proposals made by the French President and German Chancellor, there is currently ongoing joint work to prepare the text of a possible joint document on the implementation of the Minsk agreements – a document that would include proposals made by Ukrainian President Poroshenko and proposals put forward today by Russian President Putin.”

Fearing an independent course might take hold in Europe, for his part, American Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Obama administration had “no illusions that there is a military solution” to Ukraine. The headlines in the Western press also stress Kerry’s ‘humanitarian aid’, which may include, as he stated, lethal weaponry that Ukraine leaders “desperately need to defend themselves.”

There is of course criticism on the United States’ double-faced policy on Ukraine. In statement to Russia’s RT, Post-Examiner columnist Martin Sieff said “Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande [have] belatedly recognized the seriousness of what is happening in Ukraine, they do want to move back from the brink, they do want to restrain the Kiev government, and they are strongly in favor on a negotiated settlement. The problems will be in Washington and Kiev, not in Paris and Berlin.” 

As far as the American press goes, the European move to tackle the Ukraine issue presents not an opportunity to end the war, but rather a ‘diplomatic trap set by Putin.’ The diplomatic trap crap was quoted directly from Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the American-pampered prime minister who was famous for presenting a wrong flag to the Swiss president and who got Word War II history by saying the USSR invaded Germany.

In a post-Moscow visit, Angela Merkel was quoted as saying “I understand the debate (on weapons supplies) but I believe that more weapons will not lead to the progress Ukraine needs. I really doubt that.”

Freedom of speech is morally relative, at least for the West

‘Edgy and provocative’ - that is how most people interpret the cartoons that provoked the terrorist attack on the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Indeed, the terrorist attack is a lamentable act of defiance, especially in a world where the supposed champions of liberal democracy bombard the news with who is supposed to express and protect ‘freedom of speech’.

But in a world where the concept of the ‘clash of civilizations’ is screaming its urgency, the political right to one’s opinion is sadly becoming a tool to circumvent what would otherwise be a morally questionable act that is not acceptable in a different culture.

For his part, and despite being absent in the Paris Unity march where some 50 world leaders rallied to defy violence, Obama expressed his “deepest sympathy and solidarity to the people of France following the terrible terrorist attack in Paris”. Earlier, the US president said that “the fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press…a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can’t be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few.”

Thus to sum what he stands for, Obama, and the West made us believe that they are the standard bearer of what a free society should be – a society where the freedom of speech (and criticism) can be in any form, no matter how offensive.

When others are not entitled to defy satirical narrative

Just back in December, a cyber-attack was launched against Sony Pictures when a preview of their satirical movie “The Interview” was leaked and the Western mainstream media quickly branded the attacks as ‘state sponsored terrorism’, which was blamed on North Korea.

In the movie, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is shown to be the target of an assassination. Following the news of the attacks, the US president was quick to blame the cyber-attack to have originated from North Korea.

From a moral standpoint, a society that reacts emotionally to a depiction of their leader as having been a target of harm should be understandable. Simply put, such depiction of harm, even in a satirical manner, is not a laughing matter. How would Americans react if Obama was put in the same satirical narrative?

Freedom of expression should have limitations

For all its complexities, the least that a government should guarantee is to confine, if not limit, the concept of political expression. There is no denying that freedom of speech is one of the qualities of a democratic society. Conversely, to avoid clashing with other cultures, it is best for governments to confine freedom of expression to their own borders – that is to encourage freedom of speech on domestic matters while limiting speech that might provoke other societies. Thus, the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks have shown that out-of-control freedom of speech should have its own limits. In this case, it is clear that Muslims did not ‘buy’ what is supposed to be a ‘joke’.

As opposed to the West’s call for the ‘protection of freedom of expression’, it might be that the opposite should be what their society should pursue: to shut up, mind their own business, and avoid offending others. Indeed, moral relativism has its own perils: the West should start realizing this if they are to avoid harm, in a satirical manner or otherwise.