Wang Wenbin, Chinas Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, held his regular press conference in Beijing, on May 11th, and answered a reporters question: It was reported that the G7 Summit to be held in Japan will ask China to abide by international rules. Do you have any comment? by saying that those countries are hypocritical for accusing others of violating the never-defined stock phrase of the U.S. Government international rules. He said:

The US has spied indiscriminately on countries globally, not least its G7 allies, strong-armed countries diplomatically, and applied economic coercion and military interference. The US has blatantly invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and other countries that are smaller and weaker than the US, killing and displacing tens of millions of innocent civilians. When it comes to international rules, the USs place is in the dock. It is in no position to point fingers at other countries.

His statement that When it comes to international rules, the USs place is in the dock suggests that international rules means the same thing as international laws, but the U.S. Government, and its allies, have never defined what the term international rules means, nor what international body sets those rules, nor where they are codified, nor what they are. If those rules are international laws, then it would be easy to document which Government violates them more than any other Government does, because obviously that is the U.S. Government itself.

Wenbins answer also included the following:

When the G7 talk about international rules, they mean the Western rules that draw lines according to ideologies and values and the US-first and G7-dominated rules of a small circle. Those rules serve the vested interest of a very few countries, including the G7, rather than the common interests of the international community.

By the international community, he was referring to the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is the U.N., and not the U.S. Government, which establishes those laws. Wengbin opened his answer by talking about that:

Before discussing international rules, we need to first of all make clear what exactly the international rules are. For the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, international rules consist of the basic norms governing international relations b...

Imran Khan poses the greatest threat to Pakistans military monopoly on political power.

The arrest of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and leader of the Pakistan Movement for Justice (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI) caused thousands of Pakistanis to take to the streets and protest. However, Pakistans Supreme Court ordered on May 11 his release, offering a significant victory for the onetime leader responsible for bringing Islamabad closer to Moscow and away from US dominance until his removal from power.

On May 9, Khan was detained and arrested for the alleged embezzlement of 50 billion Pakistani rupees  ($240 million). This unleashed a wave of violent demonstrations in several cities in the country and threatens to unravel the fragile state.

The current situation is taking place against the background of several military coups because the army continues to play an essential role in the critical decisions of state policy. These internal factors had an even more substantial effect on the situation than the fact that Khan was trying to pursue an independent course in foreign policy, particularly with Moscow, whilst deepening his countrys dependency on Beijing. In addition, his domestic policy is rejected by elite military circles that maintain close ties with Britain and the US.

The former prime minister at first did not depend on any political party, and, in fact, he challenged traditional political and military circles. In Pakistan, there are two older parties: the Pakistan Muslim League and the Pakistan Peoples Party, which, apart from the military, have maintained political power.

Khan, a former cricket star, emerged as a revolutionary by deciding that Pakistan needed to choose another path and divorce itself from Western dominance.

Pakistani voters protested after Khan was removed from power in a soft coup on 10 April 2022 and continued to support him vehemently. Now, the protesters continue to demonstrate against his targeting. Through imprisonment, Khan would have been prevented from participating in the political struggle because the military had already made its position clear preserving the status quo, i.e., their own personal interests.

As for the US relationship with Pakistan, the latter is vital for the Americans as it is a state that directly borders Afghanistan and influences what is...

Al Mytty in Illinois during webinar for which these remarks were prepared.

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, May 12, 2023

We very much need World BEYOND War educational and activist events and campaigns in Illinois (and every other location). We also need the people of Illinois (and every other location on Earth) as part of the global movement to end war.

I say that having been in Chicago many times and at least once to Carbondale. Interstate 64 which comes by my house also cuts through Illinois, so a few cups of coffee and Im there.

We started World BEYOND War in 2014 to work with thousands of existing peace groups but to do three things a bit differently. One is to be global. Another is to go after the entire institution of war. Another is to use education and activism, both and together. Ill say a few words about each of these things.

First, on being global. Theres a great peace activist named Bill Astore who has an article this week at TomDispatch where he suggests that if we rid the world of nuclear weapons he could like his country better. I also read yesterday a book by my old philosophy professor Richard Rorty, probably the smartest person in many ways Ive ever met, who simply obsesses over the need to view U.S. history as a glass half full, even if it means believing in myths and ignoring ugly facts. Unless one does that, he writes, we cannot do the work of creating a better country. He never even entertains long enough to reject it the possibility of staring at all the facts head-on and doing the work regardless (is the question of whether a country has done more harm or more good even answerable?). Nor does he ever even consider the possibility of identifying with the world or a locality more so than a nation.

What I love most about online World BEYOND War events is that people use the word we to mean we people of the Earth. Now and again, youll have someone always its someone from the United States use we to mean a military always its the U.S. military. As in Hey, I remember you from that jail cell we were in for protesting the fact that we were bombing Afghanistan. This assertion would seem like a riddle to a Martian who might wonder how one can bomb Afghanistan from a jail cell and why one would have also protested ones...