Chaos Under Heaven: South Korea’s Deepening Political Debacle

Koreans fill the roads outside to Gyeongbok Palace in Seoul on Saturday, March 15, 2025, to call for the Constitutional Court to expel President Yoon Suk-yeol from office at a rally organized by Bisang Action for Yoon Out and Social Reform. Kim Tae-hyeong/Hankyoreh.

 

By K. J. Noh, Popular Resistance

US Elites want South Korea to be a “dictatorship for democracy”

Morse Tan, a high-ranking former US State Dept. official, recently let the cat out of the bag on the US ruling elite position on South Korea’s Martial Law.  He declared that “Yoon declared Martial Law to preserve South Korea’s Democracy“.  Having previously labeled South Korea a model democracy, this is a No-Scotsman-move taken to absurdity.  

Now Tan is not a current US government official, but he is an indicator of what the US national security state is thinking, in particular, what its neocon wing is thinking.  Tan also recently claimed that “the impeachment against Yoon is an insurrection” led by opposition party leader Lee Jae Myung “who wants to turn the country over to the Chinese communists”.

As absurd and conspiratorial as these allegations sound, these are actually finely-tuned and well-honed Washington-CPAC talking points about Chinese threats and interference in Korea, and they are echoed endlessly, if histrionically by US flag-waving foot soldiers at South Korean protests and on YouTube.  These anti-China messages were also repeated in German State TV ARD’s documentary “Staatskrise im Schatten von China und Nordkorea” (State Crisis in the Shadow of China and North Korea), released to its German public television website on Feb 25. The documentary claimed that China had hacked South Korea’s legislative election to put the opposition DP party into power, which is now taking orders from North Korea and China to impeach Yoon.   There is clearly a highly convergent and disciplined campaign of anti-China propaganda around the impeachment. ARD has removed its documentary, but the damage has clearly been done.

It’s impossible not to highlight the absurdity of Tan’s statement–“Yoon declared martial law (i.e. military dictatorship) to preserve democracy”.  And, as a foreign national, Tan is breaking South Korean law by directly participating in domestic Korean politics.  But the free reign he is given, and the lack of disavowal or reprimand from the State Department–if only for his own safety–is very revealing.

Tan’s position in the state department was Ambassador at Large.  These are powerful, Viceroy-type postings: they represent US policy and US interests on a (grand) strategic level. Consider other Ambassadors-at-Large:  Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge,  Paul Nitze, Paul Bremer III, StrobeTalbott,  Robert Gallucci.  These are not individuals given to improvising and airing idiosyncratic personal opinions.  As a former state Viceroy, with the enduring prestige and power of state connections, the platforms that Tan has been given to expound his views signal that he is expressing the direction of official doctrine, reflected both in Tan’s public statements, state media talking points, and the coordinated erasure of counter viewpoints. 

Strategic Unambiguity: What the US wants

US policy on South Korea’s dictatorship/martial law is analogous to its policy on Taiwan: Strategic “ambiguity” in language, concrete support and escalation in actions.  The “ambiguity” serves to pretextually mask war preparations against China.  Of course, there is nothing ambiguous about the strategy, other than the desire for a fig leaf of plausible deniability.

What the US wants from Korea is that which is strategically most advantageous for the US: a right-wing Korean client regime to do the bidding of the US: escalate and prepare for war with China.  This is a war that it has been envisioning since the early 2000’s and which was institutionalized by Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.  In fact, the reason Yoon was selected, elected, and lionized as South Korea’s president is because he was a walking neocon fulfillment list for this war.  

As these war preparations accelerate and intensify, a South Korean military dictatorship with the US in control of the South Korean military is the easiest and most advantageous configuration to enact these plans. The US will settle for a client-plutocratic democratic state, but dictatorship has actually been the historical norm since South Korea was created by the US.  Given the tight timelines involved, it is also possible for this configuration to be instituted again:  this project of war is urgent and time-bound–US natsec heavyweights have calendared 2025 and 2027 (“the Minihan” & “Davidson windows”) as the propitious date range to trigger war with China. 

Easy-peasy political proxy

South Korea offers two key strategic advantages.  First, geographically and historically, Korea has always been the on ramp and bridgehead for invasion into China. War with China has always started from the Korean peninsula or Taiwan island, usually as interlinked pairs. Second, South Korea has the world’s 3rd largest standing army–including reservists, 3.6 Million troops–, larger than the militaries of China and Russia combined.  The US gets operational control over these troops immediately if there is war.  War with China is thus most compatible and convenient with a South Korean dictatorship.  

There is very strong circumstantial evidence that the US knew beforehand about Yoon’s Martial Law declaration, due to the length and intricacy of the preparation and the aggressive military nature of the operation-which would have required coordination and communication with US forces in Korea.   At the very least, they would have been aware.  And regardless, they would have benefited, geostrategically.

Sworn testimony shows that Yoon’s gambit was to trigger war with North Korea (through drone attacks, missile attacks, shelling, false flag assassinations of opposition) to justify declaring Martial Law.  Only poor execution, North Korean forbearance, and rapid citizen mobilization prevented the seamless rollout of this military coup.  Evidence has come out that Yoon was preparing repeated coups. Historically, all military coups on the southern peninsula have been green lighted by the US.

On that point, Morse Tan is the Nancy Pelosi of Korea: he functions like a Track II US envoy–cheerleading for a right wing South Korean military coup, with just the slightest hint of plausible deniability.

Note the dead radio silence out of Washington throughout this whole process: silence during the Martial Law declaration, silence after the rejection of Martial Law, silence after the impeachment, and silence throughout.  Not a word of critique or condemnation. Note also the deafening hush of the mainstream corporate media.

Meanwhile, the fissures in SK society are approaching civil war.
Institutional Civil War, Governmental chaos

There is already intergovernmental war: on March 22nd the CIO (Corruption Investigation Office, similar to the US Inspector General) raided the Prosecutor’s Office (similar to the Attorney General) for corruption, just days after the Prosecutor’s Office raided the CIO for evidence of warrant shopping on Yoon’s impeachment.   This would be like the Inspector General raiding the Attorney General after the Attorney General raided the Inspector General.   

Yoon has been released from custody on a technicality (“counting hours, not days”) despite being indicted for insurrection.  His co-conspirators are still incarcerated, but the ringleader is free, highlighting the absurdity of the ruling.  The prosecutor’s office, ostensibly committed to prosecuting Yoon, did not even bother to file an appeal.  The prosecutor’s office is considered to be Yoon’s private army–Yoon was the former prosecutor general of Korea, and he promised to create a “Republic of Prosecutors”.  That much he has been successful on.  

The Return of the Zombie

Han Duck Soo, the impeached South Korean Prime minister (and former acting president) has just had his impeachment reversed yesterday, and is now acting president again.

The constitutional court found that Han had violated the constitution (by refusing to appoint already approved justices to the Constitutional Court to rule on the impeachment issue) but they reinstated him anyway.  Never mind the irony that the court could have lacked standing to try his case if he had been successful in disabling the court.  Han had also been tasked with appointing an independent counsel to investigate Yoon (to avoid the conflicts of interest that have appeared with the prosecutor’s office), but he had declined, leading to the current debacle of suspect loyalties and suspicious/delayed/tampered/sabotaged legal processes.  One Constitutional Court justice claimed that the current political chaos was directly related to Han’s malfeasance and non-cooperation in these matters and found for impeachment–but she was a tiny minority of one in the ruling.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling on Han Duck Soo was already problematic in that it was out of sequence.  The fact that they ruled first before Yoon’s case, and ruled against impeachment is an ominous signal. Two other high officials, Kim Seong-hun, and Lee Kwang-woo (of the presidential security service), indicted for impeding Yoon’s arrest, have recently also had their arrest warrants rejected.  These are powerful figures who are now at large, with huge axes to grind. The trends are not in favor of impartial justice or peaceful resolution.

Washington’s Dirty Hand

The delayed impeachment ruling of Yoon itself is widely thought to be due to Washington’s pressure: it has been one month since the testimony was completed, but still there has been no ruling.  This is abnormally long for what is an open-and-shut case: there is no doubt that Yoon declared Martial Law (he is on television declaring it!), and there is no doubt that he used extra-constitutional means–military force–to implement it and to try to prevent its rescission.  But it’s widely considered that the ruling is delayed so that Lee Jae Myung’s appeal ruling (due on 3/26) will be decided before the Constitutional court’s ruling on Yoon is made public.

This is because Lee Jae Myung, the opposition DP party chair, would be the leading candidate for president if the impeachment of Yoon triggers a snap election (in 60 days). He is currently 20+ points ahead of any other potential candidate by polling. The presidency would be his to take under normal circumstances.  

However, if Lee’s guilt is sustained by the appellate court, he would be stripped of all political rights for a decade, and the opposition DP would lose its strongest candidate.  Washington does not want Lee Jae Myung as president, because it’s understood that he would balance with China against the US, and de-escalate the coming war on China.  Hence the delay.  Opposition party representative Park Sun-won has verified that the US is exerting pressure through diplomatic channels to align the impeachment date as close to Lee Jae Myung’s sentencing as possible.

On the Brink of Explosion

South Korea is now a tinderbox on the brink.

One million protestors hit the streets over the weekend, demanding the Constitutional court deliver its verdict immediately.  Some of these protestors had been previously protesting in the snow for weeks, demanding justice.  From the right, there has been open aggression by right wing counter-impeachment protesters, paid up or pumped up with “anti-communist” fervor by religious leaders and the ruling party, repeating ARD and CPAC tropes on “Chinese communist intervention”. These shock troops have destroyed and rampaged through Seoul’s Western District Courthouse, assaulted opposition party politicians, as well as attacked Chinese tourists as “spies”. The right have openly spoken of reconstituting the North West Youth league–the genocidal red-baiting death squads of the Korean war.

And so,  it seems the American flag-waving beatings will continue until the anti-communist morale improves in the country.  Regardless of the rulings to come, South Korea’s destiny is precarious: more potential turbulence, more violence, even potential civil war.  Certainly more twists and turns.  If the constitutional court acquits Yoon, there will be mass popular protests in the millions: Yoon will be incapable of ruling and is likely to declare Martial Law again, if only to save his bacon (he is facing insurrection charges).  Recent news has revealed that Yoon had plans to declare Martial Law multiple times.   

On the other hand, if the constitutional court successfully impeaches Yoon, the ruling party and its followers will pull out all the stops:  street violence and a Maidan-type insurrection by the right wing cannot be ruled out.  The quiet acquiescence of the right as was the case after the Park Geun Hye impeachment is unlikely, given the heated propaganda allegations and the polarized ideology.

So, South Korea is facing risky outcomes either way.   The forces acting on this small country are immense.  Whether Koreans get a clear diamond or spontaneous combustion from the immense pressure remains to be seen.

There is a tiny, narrow path that would relieve pressure and facilitate a more peaceful outcome. If the US removes its finger from the scale in South Korean affairs–and disavows the US-flag-waving right that it is stoking and supporting–a single word of reprimand would deflate the South Korean right wing like a sharp pin to a blow up doll.

But that would take a geostrategic shift–a downshifting and downsizing dreams of US Hegemony, and a turn towards peace and win-win.

Is the US capable of this?  Or will it continue its dangerous ways?  The fate of the peninsula–and possibly the planet–lies in the balance.  

Africa celebrating exit of USAID: 'Major meddling agenda'

 

Far from being a tragedy for Africa, the demise of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the hands of President Donald Trump's administration should be cause for celebration, argues Arikana Chihombori-Quao, the former ambassador of the African Union to the US. 

Chihombori-Quao tells host Steve Clemons that USAID doesn’t have much to show for its decades of education and healthcare projects in Africa and often destabilised countries under the guise of environmental, human rights or social justice agendas. 

And if the US is not interested in Africa, African leaders shouldn’t beg for better relations, she said. “It takes two to tango,” the former diplomat said. 

Music history: Pride & struggle

 

Winner of the Best Documentary Critics Choice Award as well as the Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival, SUMMER OF SOUL (...OR, WHEN THE REVOLUTION COULD NOT BE TELEVISED) is an exhilarating experience. 

In his acclaimed debut as a filmmaker, Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson presents this powerful and transporting documentary that's part music film and part historical record, created around an epic event that celebrated Black history, culture and fashion. 

Over the course of six weeks in the summer of 1969, just one hundred miles south of Woodstock, The Harlem Cultural Festival was filmed in Mount Morris Park (now called Marcus Garvey Park). The footage was largely forgotten – until now. 

SUMMER OF SOUL shines a light on the importance of history to our spiritual well-being and stands as a testament to the healing power of music during times of unrest, both past and present. The film includes concert performances by music legends Stevie Wonder, Nina Simone, Sly & the Family Stone, Gladys Knight and the Pips, Mahalia Jackson, B.B. King, The 5th Dimension and more.

Trump's Iran fixation could be his doom

Trump and Putin begin addressing cumulated geo-strategic debris… amidst Trump’s ultimatum to Iran

By Alastair Crooke

The phone call on 18 March between Presidents Trump and Putin has happened. It was a success, insofar as it allowed both sides to label the result as ‘positive’. And it did not lead to a breakdown (by virtue of the smallest of concessions from Putin – an energy infrastructure truce) – something easily it could have done (i.e. devolve into impasse – with Trump excoriating Putin, as he has done to Zelensky), given the fantastical and unrealistic expectations being woven in the West that this would be the ‘decider meeting’ for a final division of Ukraine.

It may have been a success too, insofar as it has laid the groundwork for the absent homework, now to be handled by two teams of experts on the detailed mechanics of the ceasefire. It was always a puzzle why this had not been earlier tackled by the U.S. team in Riyadh (lack of experience?). It was, after all, because the ceasefire was treated as a self-creating entity, by virtue of an American signature, that western expectations took flight in the belief that details did not matter; All that remained to do – in this (flawed) estimation – was to ‘divvy out the cake’.

Until the mechanics of a ceasefire – which must be comprehensive since ceasefires almost always break down – there was little to discuss on that topic on Tuesday. Predictably, then, discussion (reportedly) seemed to have turned to other issues: mainly economic ones and Iran, underlining again that the negotiation process between the U.S. and Russia does not boil down to just Ukraine.

So, how to move to ceasefire implementation? Simple. Begin to unravel the ‘cats cradle’ of impedimenta blocking normalised relations. Putin, plucking out just one strand to this problem, observed that: 

    “Sanctions [alone] are neither temporary nor targeted measures. They constitute [rather], a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Our competitors perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities … they churn out these packages incessantly”.

There is thus much cumulated geo-strategic debris to be addressed, and corrected, dating back many years, before a Big Picture normalisation can start in earnest.

What is apparent is that whilst Trump seems to be in a tearing hurry, Putin, by contrast, is not. And he will not be rushed. His own constituency will not countenance a hastily fudged accord with the U.S. that later implodes amidst recriminations of deceit – and of Moscow again having been fooled by the West. Russian blood is invested in this strategic normalisation process. It needs to work.

What is behind Trump’s evident hurry? Is it the need for breakneck speed on the domestic front to push ahead, before the cumulated forces of the opposition in the U.S. (plus their brethren in Europe) have the time to re-group and to torpedo normalisation with Russia?

Or does Trump fear that a long gap before ceasefire implementation will enable opposition forces to push for the recommencement of arms supplies and intelligence sharing – as the Russian military steamroller continues its advance? Is the fear, as Steve Bannon has warned, that by rearming Ukraine, Trump effectively will ‘own’ the war, and shoulder the blame for a massive western and NATO defeat?

Or, perhaps Trump anticipates that Kiev might unexpectedly cascade into a systemic collapse (as occurred to the Karzai government in Afghanistan). Trump is acutely aware of the political disaster that befell Biden from the images of Afghans clinging to the tyres of departing U.S. transport planes (à la Vietnam), as the U.S. evacuated the country.

Yet again, it might be something different. I learned from my time facilitating ceasefires in Palestine/Israel that it is not possible to make a ceasefire in one place (say Bethlehem), whilst Israeli forces were concurrently setting Nablus or Jenin ablaze. The emotional contagion and anger from one conflict cannot be contained to one locality; it would overflow to the other. It was tried. The one contaminated the implied sincere intentions behind the other.

Is the reason for the Trump haste mainly that he suspects his unconstrained support for Israel eventually will lead him to embrace major war in the Middle East? The world of today (thanks to the internet) is much smaller than before: Is it possible to be a ‘peacemaker’ and a ‘war-maker’ simultaneously – and have the first taken seriously?

Trump and those U.S. politicians ‘owned’ by the pro-Israeli lobby, know that Netanyahu et al. want the U.S. to help eliminate Israel’s regional rival – Iran. Trump cannot both retrench the U.S. as a western hemisphere ‘Sphere of Influence’, yet continue to throw the U.S.’ weight around as world Hegemon, causing the U.S. government to go broke. Can Trump successfully retrench the U.S. to Fortress America, or will foreign entanglements – i.e. an unstable Israel – lead to war and derail Trump’s administration, as all is intertwined?

What is Trump’s vision for the Middle East? Certainly, he has one – it is one that is rooted in his unstinting allegiance to the Israeli interest. The plan is either to destroy Iran financially, or to decapitate it and empower a Greater Israel. Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei included a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.

A day after his missive, Trump said the U.S. is “down to the final moments” with Iran:

    “We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem”.

U.S. journalist Ken Klippenstein has noted that on 28 February, two B-52 bombers flying from Qatar dropped bombs on an “undisclosed location” – Iraq. These nuclear-capable bombers were carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran”. Why B-52s and not F-35s which also can carry bombs? (Because ‘bunker-buster’ bombs are too heavy for F-35s? Israel has F-35s, but does not have B-52 heavy bombers).

Then on 9 March, Klippenstein writes, a second demonstration was made: A B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refuelling operations. The Israeli press correctly reported the real purpose of the operation – “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran”.

Then, last Sunday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz boasted that multiple Anglo-U.S. airstrikes “took out” top Houthi officials, making it very clear that this is all about Iran:

    “This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership, and two, holding Iran responsible”.

Marco Rubio elaborated on CBS: “We’re doing the entire world a favour by getting rid of these guys”.

Trump then followed up with the same theme:

    “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

In a further piece, Klippenstein writes:

    “Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war – with “nuclear weapons on the table” (the Trident II low-yield option) Pentagon and company contracting documents I’ve obtained describe “a unique joint staff planning” effort underway in Washington and in the Middle East to refine the next generation of “a major regional conflict” with Iran. The plans are the result of a reassessment of Iran’s military capabilities, as well as a fundamental shift in how America conducts war”.

What is new is that the “multilateral” component includes Israel working in unison with Arab Gulf partners for the first time, either indirectly or directly. The plan also includes many different contingencies and levels of war, according to the documents cited by Klippenstein, from “crisis action” (meaning response to events and attacks), to “deliberate” planning (which refers to set scenarios that flow from crises that escalate out of control). One document warns of the “distinct possibility” of the war “escalating outside of the United States Government’s intention” and impacting the rest of the region, demanding a multifaceted approach.

War preparations for Iran are so closely restricted, that even contracting companies involved in war planning are prohibited from even mentioning unclassified portions, notes Klippenstein: 

    “While a range of military options are often provided to presidents in an attempt on the part of the Pentagon to steer the President to the one favoured by the Pentagon, Trump already has shown his proclivity to select the most provocative option”.

    “Equally, Trump’s green light for the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza, killing hundreds, [last] Monday, but ostensibly targetted on the Hamas leadership can be seen as consonant with the pattern of taking the belligerent option”.

Following his successful assassination of Iran’s top general Qassim Suleimani in 2020, Trump seems to have taken the lesson that aggressive action is relatively cost-free, Klippenstein notes.

As Waltz noted in his press interview:

    “The difference is these [Yemen attacks] were not pinpricks, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out”.

Klippenstein cautions that, “2024 may be behind us but its lessons aren’t. Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah officials in Lebanon was largely perceived by Washington to be a resounding success with few downsides. Trump likely took back the same message, leading to his strike on [the] Houthi leadership this week”.

If western observers are seeing all of what’s going on as some repeat of Biden’s tit-for-tat or limited attacks by Israel on Iran’s early warning and air defences, they may be misunderstanding what’s going on behind the scenes. What Trump might now do, which is right out of the Israeli playbook, would be to attack Iran’s command and control, including Iran’s leadership.

This – very certainly – would have a profound effect on Trump’s relations with Russia – and China. It would eviscerate any sense in Moscow and Beijing that Trump is agreement capable. What price then his ‘peacemaker’ ‘Big Picture’ reset were he, in the wake of wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, to start a war with Iran? Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?

~ Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.  

Pepe Escobar in Yemen at U.S. bombed civilian sites

 

Pepe Escobar in exclusive first interview from Yemen!

US indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Yemen. Washington says it is sending a message. 

What is the message? Surrender to US-Israel or we will turn Yemen into Gaza?

Who says the US actually wants peace?

When Biden was president, Trump called on him to stop bombing Yemen. Now look. Has Trump surrendered to the Deep State or does he work for it as well?

US & Israel are two peas in a pod. Both genocidal colonial powers. 

This is forever war. The US can only pay for it if they take Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from the American people. Education, environmental care, Veterans benefits, and more must be cut to pay for forever wars.

Pepe says the capital city in Sana'a is the most beautiful ancient city in the Middle East. 

Bruce  

Genocidal Western ‘Democracy’

 

President Donald Trump receives a menorah from Miriam and Sheldon Adelson at the Israeli American Council National Summit, Dec. 7, 2019, in Hollywood, Florida. (White House, Joyce N. Boghosian)

By Craig Murray

As 320 Palestinians were massacred on March 17, most of them women and children, we live in a world where it is accepted as legal that U.S. President Donald Trump is genocidally Zionist because he received a $100 million donation from Miriam Adelson to be so.

In addition to which Adelson is the second largest donor to AIPAC, which openly pays hundreds of other elected and potential U.S. politicians to be genocidally Zionist too.

This is Western democracy.

The argument – now used against Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student who led pro-Palestine campus demonstrations and who is detained by the Trump administration and threatened with deportation  – that the First Amendment only applies to U.S. citizens, was also employed by the Biden administration in extradition proceedings against Julian Assange.

It surprises me how very often the Assange case proves revealing of the internal workings of power in the U.S.

When the C.I.A. wished to bug Julian Assange on Ecuadorian diplomatic premises in London, and to look into the possibility of kidnapping or murdering him there, they decided to operate through a cutout for such a diplomatically fraught move.

That C.I.A. cutout was Sheldon Adelson, multi-billionaire late husband of Miriam Adelson. Adelson’s fortune had come from a Las Vegas casino and property empire.

You are probably aware this is not, in general, the most respectable and free-from-organised-crime area of economic activity.

There is a lazy stereotype that the control over crime in Las Vegas lies with the Italian mafia.

In fact from the days of Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky, Las Vegas organised crime has had close ties to Israel from its very establishment as a state, and in recent times Israeli mobster gangs have controlled narcotic distribution in Las Vegas.

Allow me to point out that the first of those two links is to the official Catholic publication The Tablet, and the second is to Forward, the American Jewish magazine and not the British far-right publication of the same name.

Adelson hired a private security company named UC Global, headed by a former Spanish marine named David Morales, to conduct the illegal surveillance for the C.I.A. As one of subjects of the illegal surveillance, I gave evidence last year to the court case in Madrid in which Morales, head of U.C. Global, is criminally charged.

This case seems to ramble on forever, but last week there was a development as Morales was charged with forging documents in the case, for which a new trial is opening. He allegedly fabricated emails from the Ecuadorian ambassador commissioning the spying.

The C.I.A. commissioned the activity from Adelson during the first Trump presidency, but notably the Biden administration condoned this and defended it during the Assange extradition proceedings.

It is yet a further example of the meaningless nature of democracy in uniparty America, of the power and reach of the ultra-wealthy and of the fascist links between big business and secret state agencies.

~ Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.