Cervantes

Hoy es el día más hermoso de nuestra vida, querido Sancho; los obstáculos más grandes, nuestras propias indecisiones; nuestro enemigo más fuerte, el miedo al poderoso y a nosotros mismos; la cosa más fácil, equivocarnos; la más destructiva, la mentira y el egoísmo; la peor derrota, el desaliento; los defectos más peligrosos, la soberbia y el rencor; las sensaciones más gratas, la buena conciencia, el esfuerzo para ser mejores sin ser perfectos, y sobretodo, la disposición para hacer el bien y combatir la injusticia dondequiera que esté.

MIGUEL DE CERVANTES
Don Quijote de la Mancha.
La Colmena no se hace responsable ni se solidariza con las opiniones o conceptos emitidos por los autores de los artículos.

9 de septiembre de 2026

When Will the United States Apologize for Its War Crimes?

 By S. Brian Willson

[This article was originally published by Global Research in 2001.]

U.S. President Clinton’s recent refusal to explicitly apologize for the murder of Korean civilians by U.S. military forces during the Korean War is another lost moment of desperately needed “American” honesty.

*

The United States inquiry, and Clinton’s statement of mere “regret,” was focused on only one crime scene at a particular location. It implied that the deaths were merely unfortunate rather than part of a systematic pattern that cumulatively murdered as many as three million civilians. Careful examination of the empirical record reveals multiple dozens, perhaps a couple hundred, massacre sites at various locations throughout the entire Korean Peninsula. The suggestion of malicious intent is incontrovertible. There was an overwhelming pattern of systematic targeting the Korean people, with no serious effort to distinguish “civilians” from “combatants.”

This should come as no surprise! Beginning in 1945 the U.S. record in Korea is horrendous! It would behoove our political leaders, and academicians, to learn an authentic history of Korea. Simply relying on popular comic book demonization of North Koreans without recognizing the U.S. role in creating the conditions that led to the war in the first place continues a tragic disservice to history. When the Japanese were finally defeated on August 15, 1945, the vast majority of the people who resided on the Korean Peninsula immediately began to celebrate, then organize for a return to Korean sovereignty after 40 years of hated foreign occupation. When the U.S. immediately insisted on creating the peninsula as a Cold War arena with the Russians, people throughout Korea organized resistance, at first nonviolent, later in the form of a guerrilla war. The U.S. created a puppet government, similar to what it later did in Vietnam, and between 1945-1950 oversaw the systematic repression and murder of hundreds of thousands of Koreans who rightfully demanded independence. That U.S. military and political policy to this day does not understand this fundamental Korean history continues one of the most tragic chapters of the Twentieth Century.

During the Korean “hot” war, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the U.S. Air Force to “destroy every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” south of the Yalu River boundary with China. Massive saturation bombings alone, especially with napalm and other incendiaries, murdered perhaps 2.5 million civilians. Major General William B. Kean of the 25th Infantry Division ordered “civilians in the combat zone” to be considered enemies. The famous July 25, 1950 Fifth Air Force memorandum to General Timberlake declared that adherence to Army orders to “strafe all civilian refugees [have been] complied with.” USA Today (Oct. 1, 1999) and the New York Times (Dec. 29, 1999) reported from declassified U.S. Air Force documents the “deliberate” strafings and bombings of Korean “civilians” and “people in white.” In the August 21, 1950 issue of Life, John Osborne reported that U.S. officers ordered troops to fire into clusters of civilians.

.

Chinese forces cross the Yalu River and joined the Korean War (Fair use)

.

U.S. racism has been an unfortunate but tragic feature (along with arrogant ethnocentrism) of the origins of the U.S. American Republic. This institutionalized racism has substantially contributed to the cruelty of a long imperial history under the rubric of “American Manifest Destiny” that has engineered well over 400 overt military, and as many as 6,000-10,000 covert, interventions in over 100 countries. Directed toward the Korean (and later Vietnamese) people, who we regularly called “gooks,” racism helped justify commission of a gruesome, almost unlimited and careless war. In Korea this included use of germ warfare and the regular threat of dropping nuclear bombs. The highest law officer in the land, President Truman’s second Attorney General, J. Howard McGrath, referred to the Koreans as “rodents.” During World War II, massive saturation bombings in Germany and Japan had been conducted with no pretense of striking only military targets. This precedent legitimized bombing with no concern for civilians, despite explicit prohibition by the U.S. Field Manual 27-10 Rules of Land Warfare. Such indiscriminate saturation bombings were routinely and relentlessly continued in Korea.

The roots of U.S. racism are deep and historic. The defining and enabling experience of the Republic of the United States of America continues to be the genocidal elimination of the human beings who originally lived on our lands. Eurocentric racism and so-called divinely inspired ethnocentrism have been inherent characteristics facilitating the “development ” of our civilization. This development has been accomplished through a long history of exploitation of land, labor, and natural resources that first began on the North American Continent, but now stretches to every corner of the globe.

In the early 1600s Captain John Smith of the Virginia colony referred to our original inhabitants as “subanimals” and “beasts” worthy only of “extermination.” Puritan leader John Endecott of the Massachusetts Bay Colony regularly ordered “death” to the Pequot Indians. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, refers to our original inhabitants as “merciless savages” and George Washington termed them “beasts of prey” to be “destroyed.” European settlers regularly called them “brutes” or “vermin” to be “destroyed.” General William Tecumseh Sherman in the 1870s ordered “extermination” as the “final solution” to the “Indian problem.”

During what we call the Spanish-American War U.S. forces fought against Filipino citizens, calling them “goo-goos,” while murdering upwards of a half million of them under orders such as “burn and kill the natives” issued by General Jacob H. (“Hell-Raising”) Smith to U.S. Marines.

Lyman Frank Baum, author of the ever popular The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), called for the “annihilation” of all Native Americans.

Another name for our racism is native-hating, whether “Redskins,” “Niggers,” “Chinks,” “Japs,” “Greasers,” “Dagoes,” “Wops,” – or “Gooks.” The fact is that from the very beginning the people whom our European ancestors were demonizing, both here and abroad, were real human beings, tragically caught in the path of merciless “American Manifest Destiny.” Under any legal or moral definition, virtually all would be considered “civilians,” until some chose to defend their sovereignty and land from the invaders and exploiters from the West in which case they became “combatants.”

With the advent of aerial bombings during World War I, the number of civilians murdered in war dramatically increased. The bombing of civilian targets by U.S. forces preceded similar crimes by Italy in Ethiopia in 1936-37 and Germany in Guernica, Spain in 1937. The U.S. used aerial bombings in Haiti in 1919 and Nicaragua in 1927 in efforts to rout native people resisting U.S. occupation forces, murdering countless civilians in the process, always disregarding the cries of the people for due recognition. The stage was set for the massive indiscriminate bombings of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Serbia/Kosovo.

This cultural trait also contributes to a long pattern of misrepresentations and out-and-out lies. For example, in 1973, as part of the Paris Peace Accords ending the U.S. War against Vietnam, Henry Kissinger, representing President Nixon, promised the Vietnamese over $4 billion in reparations as part of the cease-fire agreement. The United States dishonored that agreement, consistent with Native Americans’ long-standing conclusion that the “White Man speaks with forked tongue,” citing the U.S. government’s violation of each of the 400 treaties signed with the Indigenous.

President Clinton came close to apologizing to Guatemala in 1999 for the earlier decades-long role of the U.S. in supporting repressive forces that murdered over 200,000 Mayan Indians. He stated that U.S. policy was “wrong,” even as it continues to support economic policies destined to preserve miserable poverty there. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara confessed in his book, In Retrospect (1995), that what the U.S. did in Vietnam was “wrong,” though he did not acknowledge that we had violated moral or legal codes. When Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen visited Vietnam in March 1999, he explicitly refused to apologize. Clinton, during his visit to Vietnam in November 1999, also failed to issue an apology or to explain why the reparations promised in 1973 have never been paid.

The question continues to beg: when will the United States ‘fess up to its long history of crimes against humanity, thereby revealing that a genuine humility has replaced U.S. arrogance? Failing that, the lives of all the people of the world, including our own, are endangered by an arrogance continually nourished by insidious racism that seeks to mercilessly spread its unwanted “neoliberal” values. The American Way Of Life (AWOL) inevitably creates rage among billions of people who resent the forced imposition of U.S. values and policies.

An apology by the United States, followed by an offer of appropriate reparations to the Korean people, would be a tremendous new omen for a peaceful world based on mutual respect and justice.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Brian Willson, Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer, has been a lifelong critic of US domestic and foreign policy. His essays and biography are found at his website: brianwillson.com. His recent book, “Don’t Thank Me for My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies” is published by Clarity Press (2018). His psycho-historical memoir, “Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson” was published by PM Press (2011). A documentary, “Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson” was produced in 2016 by Bo Boudart Productions.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl tiredly trudges by a stalled M-46 tank, at Haengju, Korea (Public Domain)


Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Ukraine Drained Stockpile of U.S. Patriot Interceptors. Washington Unable to Replenish Ammunition Stocks

 By Ahmed Adel

Ukraine is “desperately short” of Patriot interceptors, the only systems in its inventory that can reliably stop ballistic missiles, Serhii Beskrestnov, Volodymyr Zelensky’s defense-technology adviser, told The Guardian. He said he was “not sure” the Ukrainian president could obtain enough missiles from abroad “to prevent a crisis.” Last month, Zelensky said he wanted 300 Patriots for the winter.

Ukrainian lawmaker Anna Skorokhod had already called the air defense picture “catastrophic” and said the armed forces had stopped publishing the number of incoming missiles shot down. Zelensky has said interceptor stocks are 2.5 times lower than in 2025.

“Now, this is a war of cities, a war of infrastructure,” Beskrestnov told the British newspaper, adding that he estimates Russia could fire more than 100 ballistic missiles a month. He predicted Ukraine would “attack Russia more and more with deep strikes,” adding: “We have a target from our president to increase the quantity of attacks to 1,000 a day,” up from about 300 now.

The pressure on the Patriots extends beyond Ukraine and is also an American industrial issue, intensified by the conflict with Iran.

The Washington Post reported in August that the Pentagon asked American defense firms to “rapidly escalate the production and delivery of weapons, including munitions that are in extreme shortage due to the war with Iran,” citing a Defense Department memo it obtained.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg gave companies 21 days to submit plans to “drive significantly faster, more aggressive delivery schedules and/or increased production for critical capabilities.”

“Years-long development cycles are not acceptable,” he added.

The Post and follow-up reports highlighted how quickly stockpiles were depleting. During the first month of the Iran war, the United States launched over 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles, more than 1,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptors, and over 1,300 Army tactical ballistic missiles. A CSIS analysis cited in the reports indicated that the global Patriot stockpile had dwindled to fewer than 827 units, down from 2,200 before the conflict. Likewise, THAAD inventory fell from 452 to below 278.

Agreements with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman aim to triple PAC-3 missile production by 2030, supported by a potential contract valued at up to $58.6 billion. Nonetheless, this plan is not binding and requires congressional approval. A $1.15 trillion defense bill is still under negotiation.

Although President Donald Trump claims publicly that the US has an “enormous” munitions stockpile, internal documents, as reported by The Post, say the opposite is true. The gap between public confidence and classified figures prompted an investigation into the leak.

On September 4, The New York Times reported that approximately 50 officers and civilians on the Joint Staff underwent polygraph testing in August, following disclosures to journalists—including that the Iran war led to shortages of vital munitions. CBS News, citing sources familiar with the investigation, reported that Trump “was furious about the leaks.” An anonymous source informed CBS that only a few people had access to the classified details about the munitions, which raised worries about possible foreign intelligence involvement.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department “takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who announced a Pentagon–Justice Department task force on leaks in July, warned that “Leaked information risks lives.”

After months of conflict in the Persian Gulf, the US’s PAC-3 missile stockpiles were depleted and unavailable for export. Trump emphasized that the Pentagon must replenish its missile arsenal within 1.5 to 2 years. In the coming years, US factories will operate at full capacity to fulfill Pentagon orders, making it impossible to supply other clients.

Domestic production in Ukraine is not a near-term option either. After floating the idea of licenses at the NATO summit and in talks with Zelensky, Trump pulled back, telling reporters that the underlying technology was “a hard thing to give away” and that recipients “can someday turn on you.” The withheld license also reflected US intelligence warnings that Patriot know-how could leak to third countries, including American adversaries, through “gray schemes.”

Nonetheless, even a license would not have filled the winter gap. Former US Army Europe commander Ben Hodges said Ukraine would produce nothing for the next three to six months, and other estimates suggest a year or more. Kiev is therefore still seeking finished interceptors from a stockpile that Washington is trying to rebuild for itself.

Washington intends to replenish ammunition stocks depleted in Iran, while Kiev is working to acquire or produce a limited number of interceptors before winter. It appears unlikely that either effort will succeed in time. Internal Pentagon records and polygraph examinations indicate that American officials were unsure whether the public was supposed to know how scarce their supplies had become.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.


Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Mao, la modernización y el «Viejo tonto»

 


Avatar de prensabolivariana

De prensabolivariana en septiembre 9, 2026

Por Xulio Ríos* | 09/09/2026 | Mundo

El 9 de septiembre de 1976, hace ahora cincuenta años, moría Mao Zedong. Su muerte cerraba una etapa decisiva de la historia contemporánea de China, pero no clausuraba su influencia. Medio siglo después, Mao continúa presente en la memoria política y simbólica del país, aunque la China actual sea, en muchos aspectos, profundamente diferente de aquella que él gobernó. Una de las razones de esta persistencia es que, más allá de las enormes contradicciones y tragedias del maoísmo, en su pensamiento político ya estaba presente una determinada concepción de la transformación de China: la modernización como una tarea histórica de largo aliento, que exigía una voluntad colectiva capaz de afrontar obstáculos aparentemente insuperables.

Hay una parábola que permite aproximarse a esa idea con particular nitidez: la del Viejo tonto que mueve las montañas (Yugong yishan), procedente de la tradición clásica china. Según el relato, un anciano decide retirar dos enormes montañas que dificultan el paso delante de su casa. Ante las burlas de quienes consideran absurda la empresa, responde que, aunque él no consiga terminarla, continuarán sus hijos, sus nietos y las generaciones posteriores. La montaña, por tanto, acabará desapareciendo.

Mao recuperó esta parábola en momentos decisivos. En 1945, poco antes de la victoria comunista, la utilizó para expresar una idea que trascendería el contexto revolucionario inmediato: las grandes transformaciones históricas exigen perseverancia, organización y confianza en la capacidad humana para modificar una realidad aparentemente inmóvil. No era solamente una metáfora sobre la revolución. Era también una determinada filosofía de la acción histórica.

Aquí podemos encontrar una de las conexiones más sugerentes con la modernización china posterior. La China que emerge de la revolución de 1949 heredaba un país extraordinariamente atrasado, fragmentado y debilitado tras décadas de guerras, intervención extranjera y convulsión política. La recuperación de la soberanía era inseparable de la recuperación de la capacidad para transformar el país. Modernizar China no podía ser, desde aquella perspectiva, una operación limitada a la economía pues implicaba reconstruir el Estado, transformar la sociedad, elevar la educación, desarrollar la ciencia y la industria y recuperar una posición internacional acorde con su dimensión histórica.

El problema es que la voluntad transformadora del maoísmo acabó errando en varias ocasiones. El Gran Salto Adelante constituye probablemente el ejemplo más dramático. La convicción de que la voluntad política podía superar los límites económicos y materiales condujo a una movilización cuyos costes humanos y económicos fueron enormes. La Revolución Cultural llevó todavía más lejos esa lógica al considerar que la propia sociedad podía ser remodelada mediante una movilización ideológica permanente, incluso contra las instituciones, el conocimiento especializado y buena parte de la propia tradición cultural china.

La paradoja es significativa. La misma cultura política que podía proporcionar una extraordinaria capacidad de perseverancia podía alimentar también una peligrosa confianza en la omnipotencia de la voluntad política. El Viejo tonto podía representar la paciencia de las generaciones, pero también podía ser interpretado como una invitación a ignorar los límites de la realidad.

Después de la muerte de Mao, la modernización china experimentaría una profunda rectificación. Deng Xiaoping no abandonó la idea de la transformación del país, pero modificó radicalmente sus instrumentos. La prioridad pasó de la lucha de clases al desarrollo económico; de la movilización ideológica a la experimentación; de la ruptura con la tradición a la recuperación de elementos útiles del pasado; y de la voluntad de transformar inmediatamente la sociedad a la construcción gradual de las capacidades materiales necesarias para hacerlo.

En cierto sentido, el Viejo tonto regresaba, pero con una lectura diferente. La montaña ya no tenía necesariamente que ser derribada de una vez: podía ser rodeada, perforada, atravesada o removida poco a poco. La modernización china posterior a 1978 fue, en buena medida, un aprendizaje sobre cómo convertir la voluntad transformadora en un proceso más pragmático, experimental y acumulativo.

Esto ayuda también a comprender la continuidad existente entre etapas políticas que a veces se presentan como radicalmente contrapuestas. Mao, Deng y Xi representan modelos muy diferentes de ejercicio del poder y distintas fases de la modernización, pero comparten la convicción de que China debe recuperar, mediante una acción deliberada y sostenida, su capacidad de desarrollo y su posición en el mundo. La diferencia fundamental reside, en buena medida, en la respuesta a una misma pregunta: ¿cómo se mueve la montaña?

El denguismo confió especialmente en el crecimiento, la apertura y la experimentación. A partir de los años noventa, la integración económica internacional se convirtió en una poderosa palanca de transformación. Con Xi Jinping reaparece con fuerza la dimensión estratégica y nacional de la modernización. La innovación tecnológica, la seguridad económica, la reducción de las vulnerabilidades externas, la revitalización rural, la prosperidad común o la construcción de un país fuerte forman parte de un proyecto que vuelve a subrayar la necesidad de una dirección política capaz de mantener el rumbo durante décadas.

Por eso resulta interesante contemplar los cincuenta años de la muerte de Mao no simplemente como una efeméride sobre el pasado, sino como una ocasión para preguntarnos qué permanece de aquella concepción de la transformación. La China tecnológica de las inteligencias artificiales, los vehículos eléctricos, los trenes de alta velocidad o la exploración espacial parece muy alejada del país rural y empobrecido de 1949. Y, sin embargo, detrás de esa extraordinaria transformación existe una cultura política que concede enorme importancia a la planificación, a la continuidad histórica, a la movilización de recursos y a la capacidad de perseguir objetivos durante largos periodos.

También existen, naturalmente, importantes zozobras. La historia china del último siglo demuestra que la voluntad de modernizar puede producir avances extraordinarios, pero también costes inmensos cuando carece de contrapesos, de información fiable o de capacidad para corregir los errores. Esa es quizá una de las grandes lecciones que separan la experiencia maoísta de la posterior pues no basta con saber adónde se quiere llegar; hay que saber medir el camino, reconocer los obstáculos y rectificar cuando sea necesario.

El Viejo tonto, finalmente, no es tanto el símbolo de un hombre que consigue mover una montaña como el de una sociedad que acepta que determinadas empresas históricas no se completan en una sola generación. La modernización china puede leerse así como una sucesión de generaciones que reciben una tarea, la modifican, la corrigen y la transmiten a la siguiente.

La revolución liderada por Mao pretendía cambiar China en una generación; la modernización descubrió que cambiar China era, en realidad, una tarea de generaciones. Y la parábola del Viejo tonto, mucho más antigua que el maoísmo, continúa ofreciendo una imagen poderosa de esa larga marcha que no aporta la certeza de que la montaña desaparecerá mañana, sino la convicción de que merece la pena empezar a moverla hoy.

Mao aporta muy tempranamente la idea de la transformación como empresa histórica intergeneracional, pero el maoísmo incurre en la tentación de acelerar artificialmente ese proceso; Deng introduce la paciencia, la experimentación y el pragmatismo, mientras que Xi recupera una visión más estratégica y deliberada de la modernización.

Xulio Ríos acaba de publicar China, la modernización permanente (Txalaparta, 2026)

♦♦♦

*Xulio Ríos, analista, ensayista y uno de los principales especialistas españoles en política china. Es fundador y asesor emérito del Observatorio de la Política China y fundador del Instituto Galego de Análise e Documentación Internacional (IGADI). Ha desarrollado una amplia trayectoria dedicada al estudio de China, su sistema político, economía, política exterior y relaciones internacionales. Es autor de numerosos libros y ensayos sobre la evolución de la República Popular China, el Partido Comunista de China, Taiwán y la geopolítica asiática. Ha colaborado con universidades, centros de investigación y medios de comunicación de España, China y América Latina.

BLOG. AUTOR  Xulio Ríos
Siguenos en X @PBolivariana
Telegram @bolivarianapress
Instagram @pbolivariana
Threads @pbolivariana
Facebook @prensabolivarianainfo
Correo pbolivariana@gmail.com
País Mundo
Fuente
https://rebelion.org/
ABB8C43D -FEF69F