The greed of
multinationals always finds support in US governments and their propensity for
war. Today in Venezuela, yesterday in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...
The latest US military
interventions abroad, in the last decades, are almost always associated with
fossil fuels. This is certainly not a coincidence.
The list of US interventions and
wars within the American continent is quite long, from the wars against Mexico
and the absorption of Texas in the nineteenth century, and the many coups
d’état, especially through military enticed or bribed for this purpose, under
the scope of the Monroe doctrine according to which America belongs to the
Americans... although there are some who self-ascribe the right to intervene
and decide what is convenient for others: and in addition to, of course, the
crushing of the Indian nations, whose members were only formally no longer
considered foreigners (!) in the twentieth century
2019 - Venezuela, an appetizing
lode
Regarding the current situation
in Venezuela, Trump's animosity is clearly related to oil:
·
The Orinoco oil basin covers an area of 600x70 km in
the middle course of the river closest to its mouth.
·
In 2009 the USGS – US Geological Service estimated the
reserves of the Orinoco basin at 1 400 000 000 000 barrels, against the 1 300
000 000 000 calculated by PDVSA (the Venezuelan state oil company); and at a
depth between 150 and 1500 metres.
·
The same North American source estimates between
380/652 000 000 000 barrels the technically recoverable portion in the Orinoco,
which places it as one of the main sources of recoverable oil in the world. This
is without considering the use of the SAGT (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage)
technology, as we will see next.
·
Taking into account SAGT and other very dense oil
extraction technologies would raise that estimate to 70% of the calculated
reserves; that is, to 980 000 000 000 barrels. However, these calculations do
not contemplate the use of new technologies such as DHSG (Downhole Steam
Generation) – which require huge energy expenditure with nuclear reactors
producing smoke at a temperature of 900o; or the Solvent Assisted
SAGD which consists in the injection of vapour impregnated with chemical
compounds.
·
Assuming a global consumption stabilized around 35 000
000 000 barrels per year, the Orinoco could meet the current world’s needs for
about 30 years. Considering the current (relatively low) price of $ 55 /
barrel, the revenues of those who exploit the lode can be valued at $ 1 925 000
000 000 per year... roughly eight times the Portuguese public debt...
·
Alberta’s bituminous sands, in Canada, have long been
considered an oil reserve to be used where other sources with easier extraction
would become either reduced, or insufficient or inaccessible for political
reasons. SAGT technology is used to extract 80% of the Alberta production (2.7
M barrels per day).
·
The oil extracted in Alberta is only feasible at
market prices in excess of $ 35 / barrel, but it must be taken into account
that its oil basin is smaller than that of the Orinoco; that Venezuelan oil is
not as heavy as the Canadian one; that the Venezuelan climate is warmer; and
that the coast, for export purposes, is close, unlike what happens in Alberta.
Thus, with the importance of
Venezuelan oil to the global economy summarily described, the table below shows,
on the one hand, the bitter struggle between the US and its European
subalterns; and, on the other hand, China and the other countries of the SCO – Shanghai
Cooperation Organization. The Euro-Americans are in strategic decline and the
latter are in ascension and challenging an US accustomed, since about a century
ago, to a situation of hegemonic power; and which, in desperation, makes Trump
to enact sanctions against Russia, China, Iran and to promote a business boycott
with Venezuela.
Oil
– In % of world total
2017
|
|
Reserves
|
Production
|
Consumption
|
|
USA
|
2.9
|
14.1
|
20.2
|
|
Venezuela
|
17.9
|
2,3
|
0.5
|
|
Canada
|
10.0
|
5.2
|
2.5
|
|
United Arab Emirates
|
5.8
|
4.2
|
1.0
|
|
Saudi Arabia
|
15.7
|
12.9
|
4.0
|
|
Iran
|
9.3
|
5.4
|
1.8
|
|
Iraq
|
8.8
|
4.9
|
0.8
|
|
Kuwait
|
6.0
|
3.3
|
0.5
|
|
Russia
|
6.3
|
12.2
|
3.3
|
|
China
|
1.5
|
4.2
|
13.0
|
|
Europe
|
0.8
|
3.8
|
15.3
|
Source: BP
Statistical Review of World Energy
In this context of major
imbalances between the location of reserves and their consumption, it is
possible to understand the reasons for the inclusion of Central Asia in the
Sino-Russian universe, US support for the Gulf monarchies, an essential supply
region for India, China, Japan, and South Korea, duly overseen by the US
military establishment. As well as the ostracism and the animosity of the
United States for not being able to take possession over Iran’s great oil reserves
can be understood; and, of course, US’s preference for getting supplies from
the west coast of Africa, and especially from Venezuela, closer to the US than
the Gulf and Russia or Central Asia’s oil fields, linked to Europe by oil
pipelines. Recall NATO's uneasiness about the submarine conduct in the Baltic,
connecting Russia to Germany, aiming to bypass Poland, with its close ties to
the USA and bad memories about Germany and Russia.
In a context of a great struggle
for fossil fuel reserves, and taking into account Venezuela’s energy potential,
the Brazilian reserves (0.8% of the world total) appear to be negligible; but
not as much as the supply of energy to a country with more than 200 M people, headed
by a former thuggish soldier and the financier Paulo Guedes, willing to
privatize Petrobras and sell the Pre-Sal.
Thus, difficulties are piling up in
Venezuela, created by the United States, anxious for a change of regime that
favors the acquisition of that country’s energy reserves by the multinationals,
in addition to the inability of Maduro and the shouts of that Guaidó person who
has already demonstrated — by defending a US military intervention in his
country — his role as a Trump puppet. This Guaidó role has already been
denounced, even by Henrique Capriles, a historical adversary of Chavez and,
later, Maduro.
In the absence of any predictable
hostile UN attitude toward Venezuela, including embargoes, it is the United
States that takes the lead, following a long-standing hostility, coming from Chavez's
time; but that has not prevented the US from being the main destination for
Venezuelan exports (41% of the total, essentially oil, crude or refined) or Venezuela's
largest external supplier (38% of the total in 2017). What will not give the US
any comfort is to see that China is now absorbing 23% of Venezuelan exports,
since 2017, compared to 11% in 2010, when China's foreign trade role in
Venezuela began; on the other hand, China filled 18% of Venezuelan imports in
2017 (3.6% in 2005) and made substantial loans to the South American country.
This rapid rise in Sino-Venezuelan trade relations — squarely in the middle of
Uncle Sam's "backyard" — does not please the US establishment at all.
EU’s subordinate position or,
rather, that from less than half of its members[1] is completely misplaced. In 2017, the main European exporter to
Venezuela was Spain, with 2.1% of the total imports by that country and also as
a destination of 1.4% of Venezuelan exports to Europe. This means that, from a
commercial point of view, Venezuela is irrelevant to the EU, even in terms of
oil supply. So there does not seem to be any great reason for a European
platoon to stand to attention before Trump; it would have been more intelligent
to support the efforts of the United Nations, Mexico, and Uruguay to seek
peaceful solutions without taking sides in internal differences, as is the norm
for relations between states. Or, to observe the support of the African Union to the Venezuelan
government, while distancing itself from the North American aggressiveness.
Any idea, by the EU side, about defending
democracy in Venezuela or anywhere else is ridiculous. Firstly because,
increasingly, in Europe, national regimes and global institutions are closed,
reactionary, oligarchic, in an osmotic relationship with xenophobic and
nationalist political forces; then, because if democracy is (still) a value in
Europe, it turns a blind eye to the regimes of the Gulf monarchies, as in the
case of the war of Saudi Arabia and its peers in Yemen; a Europe that regards
as respectable the racist and genocidal Zionist regime, while seemingly having forgotten
the agreements for the creation of a Palestinian state, even in such a backwards form that admits something as
aberrant as the Zionist entity.
In following the US warlike objectives
in Venezuela, the former’s supporters endanger the numerous communities of
Europeans (mainly Portuguese, Spanish and Italian) and their descendants; they open
the way to risky situations such as life-threatening ones or the loss of
assets, as well as of disorderly flight to neighboring countries or in the form
of aerial bridges.
Other US interventions worldwide
(in chronological order)
a)
1980 - Saddam receives power of attorney to attack
Iran
Banned from Iran after the fall
of their beloved Reza Palehvi, the US encouraged Saddam's Iraq to invade that
country and seize the Iranian Kuzistan’s reserves, as a reward for the
overthrow or domestication of the new Iranian regime. Saddam failed that
objective and, in order to recover the costs of several years of war
(1980/1988), in an emergency situation, he invaded Kuwait, also rich in oil, in
order to seize the emir's safe box;
Teheran, the tribute to the war dead
b)
1991 - The First Gulf War
Faced with such a huge policy miscalculation
– the United States is a staunch supporter of the status quo in the Gulf
– Iraq was forced, at gun point, to leave Kuwait in 1991 by the Bush-father
troops and its many supporters; and to concede the sovereignty over the
southern part of the country and Kurdistan... by coincidence the areas where
the oil fields are. The United States did not overthrow Saddam; they just
dedicated themselves to control his armament, by organizing a criminal embargo that killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, especially children.
c)
2001 - September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan
In the aftermath of the events of
September 11, 2001, the Trump of that time, who was called George W. Bush,
decided to look in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda's head (bin Laden) and his host,
mullah Omar[2] the top leader of the Taliban, who had come to power. This mountainous
country is populated by several tribes of hardy shepherds, little given to the
acceptance of invaders, as the English in the nineteenth century and the
Soviets in the late 1980s were able to verify. And it does not appear that
US-led coalitions have had better luck, even after training an Afghan national
army.
However, the US, major promoters
of entrepreneurship and value creation, has taken over the trafficking
of heroin whose production has been centered in Afghanistan, in order to
offset the expense.
From the political point of view
of a major power, the invasion of Afghanistan – a country without oil resources
– was part of the "war against terror" decreed by G.W. Bush,
humiliated by the US vulnerability to a suicide action well set up by al-Qaeda.
Retaliation was needed to cover up the enormous failures of American security
and to elevate the pride and morale of the Empire. And the target looked easy –
one of the poorest countries in Asia, run by a strict Sunni group – the
Taliban, the "students of theology." Today, 18 years after the
invasion, the Taliban dominate much of the country, the Kabul government and
the US embassy are stationed in a heavily guarded area of the capital and cannot
avoid the frequent and bloody attacks perpetrated by the insurgents. However, Trump-the-rough,
at the beginning of his term, ordered "the mother of all bombs" to be tested in
Afghanistan, in an area emptied of population for that purpose, and which... may
have given a lift to the Taliban ... with the spectacle that can be seen above;
meanwhile, Trump changed his mind and declared a total withdrawal.
From a strategic point of view the
US sought to fulfill several objectives. First, to establish a platform to
control or condition the oil-rich Central Asian ex-Soviet republics
(Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan); secondly, to positioned themselves in the
"back" of Russia and China (to be destabilized, if convenient, having
even had a military base in Kyrgyzstan, distant 40 km from another, Russian);
and also because it would serve as a base for encircling Iran[3], use
the Pakistani generals and, ultimately, to be a land reinforcement for the many
military bases and fleets that the United States permanently maintain in the
Gulf, in Turkey, in the Indian Ocean, and in the China seas.
The US military presence in
Afghanistan is ineffective at various levels. Firstly because the Kabul
government depends on US support and it is not difficult to see that the
Taliban, or a coalition with its presence, will once again dominate the
country. Foreign capital invested in the country is Chinese and Indian, with a
direct road link between China and Afghanistan being planned shortly, through
the Wakhan corridor.
d)
2001 – The establishment in Eurasia of a political, economic
and military bloc
The US intervention in
Afghanistan accelerated economic integration and political cooperation in Asia,
which led to the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in
2001, with subsequent enlargements, and to which China, Russia, India and
Pakistan belong, among others. This integration favors the development of the
roads, known as "One Road and One Belt Initiative" (or Silk Road)
which also involve European capitals (including Portugal); but with the blatant
absence of the US... as is understandable.
The Silk Road, in its several
maritime and railroad incarnations, tends to integrate not only Eurasia but
also Africa, reducing the United States’ scope for maneuver, who, faithful to
the doctrine of Mackinder, Alfred Mahan or Saul Cohen, bet on a " sanitary
cordon" of sea and air bases, and war fleets, in a domination strategy
inherited from the British empire, capable of maintaining the "colonial
order" in politically and economically dominated and unstructured areas; those,
today are not, at all, the characteristics of the Asian countries. Europe,
mainly the Eastern Europe for which the transactions with China have, already
since some years, exceed those with the United States, become associated with
that major project. Reticence comes from the European countries facing the
Atlantic, more faithful followers of NATO, such as Norway, Great Britain,
Holland, and... Portugal (on geopolitics involving see).
e)
2003 - The invasion of Iraq
The invasion, occupation and
dismemberment of Iraq in 2003 takes place under the auspices of a nebulous thing
called the "international community" which, by chance, always happens
to have an opinion, on any subject, coinciding with that of the United
States... Of course the world was trembling before the threat of the weapons of
mass destruction that Saddam presumably had, and even the children would quickly
eat their soup when their parents spoke of those weapons... The following year,
however, the Duelfer Report of the Iraq Research Group demonstrated that such
weapons did not exist... although Bush had shown to Blair, Aznar and Durão[4]
unmistakable proofs of their existence! Their non-existence, the war and the occupation
should have make that quartet the culprit in process of crimes against humanity
and the object of a trial, as happened to the Serbian generals, to Milosevich
(who, meanwhile, died) and Karadjic, with few sympathies in the USA. The said
quartet is still responsible for civilian casualties of 183000 to 205000 , in a latest poll dated last January.
In the occupation of Iraq, the
brilliance of the US-appointed proconsul Bremer shone early on, and it was
probably only when he boarded the plane to Baghdad that he saw on the map where
that place was. He must have been very surprised when he discovered that the
Sunni minority reigning with Saddam, once overthrown, opened space for a Shiite
majority power and a path to revenge and violence between the two communities; this
without mentioning the Kurds that, although being Sunnis, played on their own
lane. In his stupidity, Bremer dismantled the Baath party, where state power was
anchored, and the (Sunni-based) Iraqi army, sending into unemployment about
800,000 soldiers which were unable to get work. In a chaotic country, where
weapons were widespread everywhere, with so many military unemployed and with a
legitimate popular repudiation of the invaders, jihadism and a space for
al-Qaeda and the emergence of Daesh develops.
f)
2011/2019 – Syria
Syrian demonstrations against the
Assad regime took place within the scope of the so-called Arab Spring. Between
the violence of the government and that of the armed groups that arose
simultaneously, a violent war with a great degree of destruction and
populations in flight quickly developed. Alongside Assad and the Syrian armed
forces took place, mainly, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran and Russia, with
armament support from China, Iraq or North Korea. On the opposite side were the
western powers, Turkey, Saudi Arabia (arms supplier), Qatar (the arms purchase financer),
the Syrian Free Army, which was composed of opponents to the regime and army
deserters, and Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, or Jaysh al Islam
(Salafists), Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda), and ISIS or Daesh. Outside this
essentially confessional framework are the Syrian Democratic Forces, militias
of various ethnic or religious backgrounds, with particular emphasis for the
Syrian Kurds who formed democratic and secular structures of self-government,
popularized by the name of Rojava.
The en force entry into Syria of the Daesh (2014), with enormous
brutality and immense religious fanaticism, followed its conquests in Iraq,
mainly Mosul, where they took possession of a lot of armament; recall the
support that Daesh had obtained from former soldiers of Saddam's army. In this
context, in the course of 2015, the US, other Western and Arab countries were involved
in bombing in Syria, attacking the Daesh, supporting other Assad opposition
groups, without ever supporting the latter, obviously.
At the end of 2015 occurs the
arrival of the Russian aviation in support of Assad, against Daesh and the
other rebel groups, in a concerted action with Hezbollah and (not formally) with
Iran. In February 2016 a cease-fire agreement, Russian - American, that began
to collaborate in the fight against the Daesh. Shortly afterwards, Turkey entered
the camp against Daesh (from which it had discreetly bought Syrian oil some
months earlier) and the Kurdish militias of Rojava or Iraqui, in order to avoid
a "secessionist contagion" of their large Kurdish minority.
The war in Syria had strategic
importance for the two camps fighting against the Daesh and even before the
Daesh’s eruption. The seizure of power in Iraq by the Shiite majority, subsequent
to the 2003 US invasion, opened up the country’s close relationship with Iran,
something that may have surprised the US narrow view at the time of the Iraq’s
invasion. On the other hand, Syria, with Assad and the Alawite community in
power, would allow Iran a fluid connection with the Mediterranean, through
Hezbollah, the main force in Lebanon, also Shiite. This reality that came to be
established, created a "Shi'ite bow" from the eastern border of Iran,
with Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Lebanese and Syrian ports[5] in the Mediterranean; one which would come to prevent the flow of oil
by land between the Gulf monarchies and the Syrian-Lebanese coast, shortening
the sales costs to Europe. This situation is also very unfavorable to the
Zionist entity that sees in Iran its main rival, its relationship with Turkey
also having deteriorated since the episode of the Mavi Marmara in
2010.
The new geopolitical situation
that isolated the Sunni monarchies led them to become involved in the civil war
in Yemen in 2016, which developed following the popular movements of 2011.
The reasons for this are several.
One is of confessional character, as in 2015 the Houthis (Shiite) with Sunni
allies took Sanaa, the capital, startling Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirs that
saw in that move an influence of Iran in the strategic Bab el Mandeb. As this
strait is vital for the global maritime traffic, the monarchies, with
logistical and information support provided by the US, Britain and France,
decided to invade Yemen still in 2015.
What seemed easy became
difficult. After four years and much destruction, the Arab monarchies failed to
dominate their opponents and the war is chipping away at their finances; to
Trump’s great satisfaction who, in 2018, met with Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) to close
a fabulous arms sales contract.
In parallel, in June 2017, Saudi
Arabia, the Gulf monarchies and Egypt decided to block their economic and
diplomatic relations with Qatar, on charges of it supporting terrorism, having
good relations with Iran (since a long time, for historic reasons) as well as demanding
the shutdown of the al-Jazeera station and threatening to build a moat that
would make Qatar an island!
g)
2011 - The Arabian springs - Egypt
Egypt is the most populous Arab
country and home to the Suez Canal, a vital route for maritime traffic between
the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, between Asia or East Africa and Europe
and North Africa. Egypt was invaded by Napoleon who, from there, intended to
attack India where the English dominated. French, Egyptian, and English later
dominated the canal's exploration until, in 1956, Nasser nationalized it;
France, Britain and the Zionist entity have tried to reverse the situation by
the use of arms, but with the intervention of the UN they have been forced to
give in.
After the Six Day War, in 1967,
the canal was closed after the occupation of its eastern shore by the Zionists.
In 1973, in a new war, Egypt expelled the Zionists from the Sinai and recovered
the canal which was reopened in 1975, causing, during its closure and after
reopening, profound changes in industry and maritime trade.
Sadat, Nasser's successor was
assassinated in 1981, following a peace agreement signed between Egypt and the
Zionist entity in 1978, sponsored by Carter, then US president; and which had
the opposition of almost the entire Arab world. He was succeeded by another
soldier, Mubarak, who during his long consulate received strong US military and
financial support to ensure the security of the Suez and the border with the
Zionist entity as far as the Palestinians were concerned.
Mubarak, accused of corruption
and murder during demonstrations in Tahrir Square in 2011, has been driven from
power. Still in jail, in 2014 he expressed his support for al-Sissi to succeed
him; which, in fact, came to happen after a brief period in which the
presidency fell on Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood who had won
the 2012 elections, in the sequence of electoral gains he had been accumulating
since 2005.
With al-Sissi, the US has become more
tranquil about Egypt, as the Muslim Brotherhood is clearly the adversary of the
Zionist entity and supporter of Palestinian Hamas. Hilary Clinton's reiterated
support for the democratization of Egypt was greatly diminished when al-Sissi
consolidated his power after the deposition of Morsi, thus ensuring Egypt's
continuity as a US pawn in the region and benefiting from strong military and
financial support. And so Trump has recently advanced with the symbolic gesture
of recognizing Jerusalem as the Zionist capital, without great manifestations
of dislike by the Arab states.
h)
2011 - The Arabian springs - Bahrain
In Bahrain, in 2011, the
population demonstrated against the monarchy anchored in the al-Khalifa family
and for democracy, for a parliamentary regime, in a struggle that lasted until
the middle of 2012. The intervention of the military from the Gulf Cooperation
Council, mostly Saudis, represented the emirs' solidarity with the Bahrain
colleague; add to that a situation where the population is largely Shiite and
without a big love for the reigning family, that is Sunni.
The United States, which have in
Bahrain 1500 military personnel at its V Fleet naval base[6], which function is to control the traffic in the Gulf and participate
in the siege curtain on Iran, could not allow instability to settle in there.
However, they were able to promote the war in Libya at that time and criticize
the brutality of Assad's repression in Syria, in face of an armed opposition. Two weights,
two measures.
i)
2011 - The Arabian springs - Tunisia
At the beginning of 2011, the
Tunisians revolted following the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi and in protest
against the crushing of the poor by the corrupt regime of Ben Ali and his
family, supported by the police and the military, hated by the population that
suffered its extortion and brutal behavior. Ben Ali fled to a safe location – Saudi
Arabia – and the situation evolved into a typical market democracy. In this
case, the US certainly followed the events but did not intervene; probably
because... Tunisia is not an oil power.
j)
2011 – The invasion of Libya
In 2012 Libya held the second place
among African countries in the human development index (HDI), the tenth place
in terms of oil reserves, and as in 2010 it had only 6.2 million people it
became a desirable lode; furthermore, when a character such as Gaddafi had been
more than 40 years in power, majestic and authoritative; but someone who knew
how to enlist Western leaders, such as Sarkozy or Cameron. The latter had the
misfortune to be confronted with the intervention of the US and his courtiers
in Libya, which made unfeasible a large sale of English armament.
In February of 2011, the echoes of Tahrir and Tunis are
felt in Libya and are seized by two jihadi-inspired parties – Al-Watan (near to al-Qaeda) and Umma al-Wasat,
as well as the Salafist al-Asala, among others; a National Transitional Council
was formed which had its first external supporter in France. The insurgents are
forced to retreat to Benghazi which is surrounded by Gaddafi's troops; and as
the UN approves, in March, the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect
civilians, the US and France begin the bombing.
NATO’s support was instrumental
in supporting rebels who arrive in Tripoli by August and, after Gadhafi's
death, killed after being sexually abused, is followed by a long period of war,
that is still going on, between rival factions. In the aftermath of the external
aggression, oil and gas production was appropriated by multinationals such as
Total (France), ENI (Italy), Repsol (Spain), Wintershall (Germany) and
Occidental (USA), amongst others.
Following
NATO's intervention, armed rivalries in Libya, with antagonistic local powers,
continue today. Moreover, following the collapse of political unity in Libya,
much weaponry was taken to the south, where the Tuareg populations live, as in
Chad, Niger and Mali, which are not much sensitive to national borders. This
gave rise to a vast area where Libyan weapons supply regional
guerrilla movements.
The amazing performance
of Minister Santos Silva
The Portuguese government's
prompt subservience to Trump is, by all accounts, stupid. Or, if you prefer, it
reveals a parochial subservience within the European, NATO, Iberian and even
the CPLP (The Community of Portuguese Language Countries) contexts.
· Given that most EU
countries did not stand side by side with Trump in recognizing a more than
doubtful legitimacy of Guaidó, the Portuguese government was not obliged to do
so.
· Portugal has some
hundreds of thousands of Portuguese people and their descendants in Venezuela
and any worsening of the situation in that country – especially if accentuated
by the government in Lisbon – is a huge irresponsibility. Is the minister's
memory void of the reminiscence of the arrival of many thousands of returnees
from the former colonies?
· After the illegitimate
and stupid intervention in Venezuela's internal affairs, with an even more
disagreeable acceptance of Guaidó, who, in reality, only has the political
notoriety created by Trump, Santos Silva sends eight policemen and armament to
Venezuela, knowing that the legitimate and real power belongs to an entity he
does not recognize. Hence, it occurs the immediate dispatch to origin of the Portuguese
policemen and weapons. With such stupidity, Santos Silva should be demoted to a
position of clerk in the Portuguese consulate in Punta Arenas.
This and other texts at:
[1] EU countries that did not interfere in Venezuela's
internal affairs: Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Poland, Estonia, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia,
Cyprus, Malta.
EU countries supporting Trump:
United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal,
Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Spain.
[2] Bin Laden was
shot down by US Special Forces in Pakistan, in 2011, and his body was laid to
the sea in the Indian Ocean. The mullah Omar, died of tuberculosis in 2013,
although his death was only revealed two years later.
[3] The US quickly emplaced in Shindand, 100 km from the Iranian border, the
largest military base in Afghanistan; despite the major logistical center being
in Bagram, to the north.
[4] Durão Barroso,
Portugal’s Prime Minister at the epoch. (TN)
[5] These are the countries where the Russian military bases of Latakya (air
force) and Tartus (navy) are located.
[6] In addition to Bahrain and to
police the Persian Gulf, which is vital for supplies, especially in Asia and
Iran to which the right bank belongs, the United States had a military apparatus
composed of 32 bases in the Gulf region, where Seeb, Thumrait and Masirah in
Oman, Al-Ubeid in Qatar, and Camp Arifjan or Camp Doha in Kuwait, stand out.
Between 1991 and 2003, the United States had 5000 to 10000 soldiers in Saudi
Arabia, which were withdrawn because the Saudis did not like to have foreign
troops in the country where such holy places of Islam as Mecca and Medina, are
located. This does not prevent them from quietly supporting the Saudi
government in the Yemen war.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário