laitimes

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

author:Global Bureau of Investigation

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said that being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, and being an ally of the United States is fatal.

It has to be said that Kissinger, who is 99 years old and is regarded as an "evergreen tree" in politics, is one of the people in the world who knows the United States best in the world. And this sentence he said not only summarized the situation of the United States as an opponent and ally, but also showed the threat of the United States to world peace and stability.

On January 13, there were 3 major events in the world that deserve attention, and behind each of them, there was an element of the United States "fueling the waves".

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

First, the eight Un nations countries were deprived of the right to vote because of arrears in their contributions.

On the 13th, Kubiank, spokesman for the President of the United Nations General Assembly, said that due to eight countries such as Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and Guinea, which are in arrears in the payment of unpaid contributions for more than 2 years, in accordance with Article 19 of the UN Charter, these 8 countries will lose their voting rights in the UN General Assembly.

If you want to restore the right to vote, you must pay the arrears or provide "proof of uncontrollable factors" that you cannot pay the contribution.

In fact, as the world's largest international organization, the voting power of the United Nations has always been the most important thing for all countries, and it is not willing to lose it easily.

Among the 8 countries that have been deprived of the "right to vote" this time, there are indeed countries that "do not have money to pay", but there are also countries that have money to pay but cannot pay, such as Iran and Venezuela.

According to data released by the United Nations, Iran needs to pay $18.4 million to restore voting rights, while Venezuela needs to pay nearly $40 million. For both countries, paying this arrears is actually not too much of a problem.

But the problem is that billions of dollars in foreign banks have been frozen as a result of the intense financial sanctions imposed by the United States and the ubiquity of dollar hegemony. Under such circumstances, even if Iraq and Venezuela have money and want to pay their dues, there are no dollars for them.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

After all, the United Nations headquarters is in the United States, and it is still very difficult to pay membership fees through other currencies. Otherwise, Iran and Venezuela, which are also major oil exporters, will not fail to pay their UN contributions.

In addition, it has to be mentioned that compared with the tens of millions of DOLLARs owed by Iraq, Venezuela and other countries, the United States is the biggest "old lai" of the United Nations, and the various expenses owed to the United Nations have exceeded 1 billion US dollars.

As for why the United States owes so much money, why it has not been deprived of the right to vote, mainly because the United States knows the "card rule" very well and will not let the arrears of membership dues exceed 2 years, for example, this year's money owed in the previous year is a bit similar to "eating and eating grain", and it has always owed money to the United Nations.

Moreover, it is because the United Nations headquarters is in the United States, making the White House more "fearless", but also making the United Nations have to be jealous because of "sending people under the fence".

Therefore, due to dissatisfaction with the "old lai" behavior of the United States, there have been calls for "moving" within the United Nations in recent years.

It can be seen from this that the impact of US-style hegemony on the international community and the interference of US-style sanctions on various countries cannot be ignored.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

Prince Andrew

Let's talk about the second thing, the United States is bent on embarrassing Britain! Insist on a British prince on trial.

On the 13th, Kaplan, New York, France, announced that it refused to reject the "sexual assault lawsuit" against Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom. This means that as the trial continues, Prince Andrew is likely to be tried in the United States and even jailed.

It turned out that last August, a woman named Gioffrey in the United States filed a lawsuit with the Manhattan Police in New York, accusing Prince Andrew of violating him when he was under 18 years old.

Prince Andrew has always denied this, saying that he does not know Jufrey. On the British royal side, Queen Elizabeth also paid for it herself, helping Andrew find a top legal team to defend him.

But now, with Prince Andrew's request to dismiss the lawsuit and rejected by a U.S. judge, this not only means that the case is moving in a direction that is "unfavorable to Andrew", but also very likely affects the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

On the one hand, Prince Andrew represents the British Royal Family, and the Queen has also funded an army of lawyers to help Andrew form a team of lawyers, which shows that this matter has a great impact on the British Royal Family, and while the international community is concerned, the Queen is also worried.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

On the other hand, the American judge ignored the reaction of the British royal family and rejected Andrew's request, seemingly just on the surface, but behind the scenes, it did not rule out the intention of deliberately making the United Kingdom "ugly".

Therefore, judging from the development of Andrew's case today, it is nothing more than 3 possibilities in the end.

1, the British government put pressure on the United States, so that the case was finally closed;

2, the US government ignores the United Kingdom and continues to hear the case impartially, then Andrew may face trial, or even imprisonment;

3, Andrew's legal team continues to think of other ways to obstruct the trial of the case, or deliberately dilute the impact of the case, so that the case gradually "disappears".

In short, the impact of Andrew's case on the British royal family is indeed too great, and the US and British governments are not expected to be indifferent.

But no matter what, or the old saying, many acts of injustice will kill themselves, and sooner or later they will have to pay it back. Sooner or later, whoever makes a mistake will pay a terrible price.

Next, let's see how the situation develops.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

Finally, let's talk about the Lithuanian government's blind pursuit of the United States, which has aroused strong public dissatisfaction.

On the 13th, a poll commissioned by the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed that nearly 60% of the Lithuanian people did not support the current Policy of the Government on China, while 47% of Lithuanians no longer trusted the Lithuanian Government.

Ironically, however, for the results of this poll, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landz Bergis, who insists on "pro-American", is still "hard-mouthed", saying that the Lithuanian government's China policy is "consistent".

It should be noted that this poll data was commissioned by the relevant agencies by the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which shows that they also want to know whether what they are doing so far is in line with the people's hearts and has the support of the people.

But with the release of the poll results, it shows that the vast majority of Lithuanians do not support the government's current China policy, and the foreign minister's sophistry is undoubtedly the most ridiculous and ironic act.

In addition, on the 11th, the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party issued a voice calling for the resignation of the Legislative Foreign Minister in order to ease relations with China; the Lithuanian shadow cabinet also issued a statement saying that it hoped that the Legislative Yuan government would immediately correct the current wrong dialogue policy.

Earlier, on the 4th of this month, the Lithuanian government also took the initiative to "admit its mistake", saying that the remarks and actions related to Taiwan were a mistake, which aroused widespread concern from the outside world.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania

It has to be said that at the present time of successive oppositions, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister dares to jump up and down and disregard the facts, which is tantamount to opposing the interests of the Lithuanian people and the country. Such a foreign minister is not far from being fired.

Of course, the reason why the Lithuanian foreign minister has repeatedly disregarded national interests and made wrong remarks is that it is estimated that there is still the support of the United States behind it.

Or rather, I want to continue to get more rewards and rewards by making overtures to the United States. But as everyone knows, behind these small profits, there will be a huge trap that will plunge Lithuania into the abyss.

Finally, let me make a few comments.

First, the United States is indeed a huge threat to the current international situation, whether it is fanning the flames all over the world in order to grab benefits, acting recklessly, or encouraging other countries to exert pressure on their opponents, all of which are affecting the current situation.

In particular, with the outbreak of the epidemic in the United States, economic and social crises one after another, the White House's desire to grab benefits and divert attention will become more and more intense, and it will become more and more relentless in foreign affairs.

Has the situation changed? On January 13, eight unencumbered countries were denied the right to vote; the United States tried the British prince

Second, all kinds of indications show that in the eyes of the United States, there has never been an ally and an opponent, and some are only "the interests of the United States first, other countries on the side." For the sake of profit, the United States can not hesitate to betray its allies, and it can also sit down with its opponents to talk about cooperation.

I have to say that for such a mercenary United States, all countries must be vigilant.

Finally, come out of the mix sooner or later to pay back! As strong as the United States is no exception.

With the continuous development of the world process, the international pattern of one superpower and many powers has become a thing of the past, and the decline and end of the US hegemony is also destined to be the trend of the times and an indisputable fact.

I can only say, do it and cherish it, America!

Read on