by Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
from
EndTheLie Website
Part 1
December 31, 2011
A ship-launched,
intercept-aerial guided missile (RIM-7) is launched from
a NATO Sea Sparrow (MK-57)
launcher during a live-fire exercise
aboard the aircraft carrier
USS Enterprise (CVN 65).
Enterprise is conducting
work-ups and flight operations in preparation for
an upcoming deployment.
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass
Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tiger Martinez/Released)
There is something big brewing across the globe and it does not look good.
India, Japan and Australia are strengthening trilateral ties while the
United States and NATO are looking to firm up alliances between them all
along with Ukraine and Armenia.
This comes soon after the United States announced they are going to place
2,500 Marines in Australia, in addition to cutting edge fighter jets and
transport planes and Australia announced they are going to purchase $950
million in military equipment.
This is a large and quite complex picture that requires a great deal of
reading and research and I recommend that everyone check out my sources and
come to their own conclusions.
I can only speculate as to the purpose of these geopolitical developments
and I would love to hear what my readers think as well so please
email me if
you care to share your analysis.
I will be going country by country and breaking down these latest
developments in order to present to you the most complete information I can,
but I am sure this is far more intricate than even I realize at this point.
India-Japan-United
States
Japan is reportedly partially lifting their 40-year-long self-imposed ban on
arms trade which began in 1967.
The ban stated that they could not buy or sell arms in concert with nations
that had Communist governments or nations at war.
Slowly Japan ceased all military cooperation with every nation, aside from
the United States of course.
This is seen as a move to not only expand military cooperation but also to
allow for Japan to get in on the controversial European Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) project.
Despite the ban on a great deal of arms trade, in the 1980s Japanese
corporations outfitted the United States with some 15 new
technologies for
the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
The SDI was proposed in 1983 by the President at the time, Ronald Reagan,
and was derisively called “Star Wars” by the program’s many detractors.
Now Japan, in a partnership with the Unites States, is in the process of
creating a unit for a new, upgraded SM3 ship missile which is expected to
become a key component in the European ABM system, according to the Voice of
Russia.
The head of the Center for Japanese Studies, Valery Kistanov, said,
“Above all Japan wants to strengthen its
military alliance with the US. Japan needs it amid current instability
in the Asian Pacific region."
“It is concerned about the so-called Chinese
military threat and the situation on the Korean peninsula after the
death of Kim Jong-il. The government’s recent move is probably intended
to show that Tokyo is loyal and committed to its alliance with the US,”
Kistanov added.
There is also the notable factor of a growing
close cooperation between Tokyo and Brussels - the location of the
headquarters of NATO - which would greatly contribute to a greater presence
in the Asia-Pacific region.
This is just another instance of NATO mission creep far beyond what the
alliance was originally intended to do, and as you will see, this is
expanding to a disturbing degree just as we saw in the case of Libya.
Japan is also greatly strengthening ties between India, starting with a 2008
Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation which was modeled on a 2007
defense-cooperation accord with Australia.
This treaty later spawned a similar accord between India and Australia in
2009, leading to circular ties which are now developing into trilateral
relations.
Japan is also reinforcing economic ties with India with a free-trade accord
known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) which
became active a mere three months ago.
CEPA covers over 90 percent of trade and even spreads into the sectors of
services, rules of origin, intellectual property rights, investment, customs
regulations and other related trade issues.
This agreement is intended to strengthen bilateral trade between the two
nations in order to reduce trade with China, which still outweighs trade
between Japan and India by a large margin.
According to
the Japan Times, India is already becoming a preferred nation
for Japanese foreign direct investment.
Japan and India have also come to an agreement on development of rare earths
after China leveraged their monopoly on production of rare earths to cut off
exports to Japan in the fall of 2010.
Japanese-Indian relations go even deeper with an annual summit meeting
between the two prime ministers along with several annual dialogues between
their respective foreign ministers, defense ministers, and Japan’s minister
of economy, trade and industry and India’s commerce and industry minister.
There are also separate meetings between ministers of energy and other
economic talks, dialogues between the Indian foreign and defense secretaries
and the Japanese vice minister equivalents, a maritime security dialogue,
comprehensive security talks and even military-to-military dialogues which
include regular visits between the chiefs of staff of both nations.
To even further cement these relations, Japan, India and the United States
have begun trilateral strategic talks which began in Washington just last
week.
India and Japan already have their own missile defense cooperation
agreements with Israel and the United States but they are also looking to
develop defense systems in cooperation with each other as well.
Despite the economic turmoil at home, the so-called leaders of America
continue to pour
astounding amounts of money into the Israeli missile
defense program.
While Japan only has naval interoperability with the United States Navy,
former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in a speech in New Delhi,
India that the aim should be that,
“sooner rather than later, Japan’s navy and
the Indian navy are seamlessly interconnected.”
Japan is also planning on employing the F-35
next generation fighter jet, which was developed with nine nations including
Britain and the United States.
The regulations against arms exports in place previously prevented Japan
from joining the development team for the F-35, even though they were asked
to join the project.
A remarkable article was published in Gulf News written by Jaswant Singh,
who is the former Indian finance minister, foreign minister, and defense
minister entitled, “New regional order in Asia is reaction to Chinese
hegemony.”
I found this noteworthy due to the phrase “New regional order” which calls
to mind the infamous “new world order” concept, which is quite an
interesting choice of words indeed.
Speaking of the trilateral relations between India, Japan and the United
States, United States Deputy Secretary of State William Burns said it could
very well “reshape the international system.”
According to Singh,
“Burns and much of the rest of America’s foreign-policy
establishment, now thinks that India’s regional influence has become
comprehensive,” although he is obviously coming from a highly biased
perspective.
It is quite remarkable that Japan and India are now developing the same type
of comprehensive military and economic ties that have so long been the
hallmark of ties between the United States and Japan.
Singh erroneously claims that the newly formed trilateral alliance is also
aimed at helping to mitigate the so-called “gaping hole” which will
supposedly be left in the Asian security architecture after the West will
remove troops from Afghanistan without establishing peace there.
Of course, this is outright absurd seeing as there is no indication that the
United States or NATO will actually be leaving Afghanistan.
This became clear in November when the spokeswoman for
the loya jirga in
Afghanistan stated that
Washington wanted a complete media blackout over the
conditions being set in the new strategic long-term deal between American
and Afghanistan.
Many of the loya jirga participants complained that they were not being
provided with information about the terms and conditions of the long-term
deal and Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that so long as some minor
conditions were met they would be prepared to allow U.S. troops to remain in
Afghanistan for an unspecified length of time.
One man covering Kabul and provinces for The New York Times, Sharifullah
Sahak, said at the time via Twitter that,
“members with different views [are] saying
[the] government should sign the strategic pact for 10, 20, even for 50
years with the US.”
It is quite clear that Singh is parroting the
blatantly false line promulgated by NATO and the United States despite all
of the proof showing that they have no interest in leaving that theater.
Rick Rozoff of
Stop NATO (which puts out
a free daily newsletter that is an
absolute must read for anyone trying to keep up with the diabolical
geopolitical machinations going on every day) says the evolution and
expansion of the so-called “Asian NATO” is nothing new.
In fact, he says that he has been writing for at least 10 years on this
subject and yet these developments are generally ignored like far too many
other important issues that impact us all.
Rozoff points to the fact that Europe was first brought “under the NATO
boot” and having finished that has now moved on to the Middle East and
Africa.
“Asia is the only ‘unsubjugated’ part of the
world except for Latin America - which is being saved for ‘dessert,’”
Rozoff said.
It is clear that Asia is the new focus and this
only becomes clearer as we continue to look at recent developments that the
West is setting the proverbial sights on the Asia-Pacific region.
It has also become quite obvious to even the casual observer that this is
aimed at encircling the countries that will not follow the West’s orders,
most notably China, Russia and of course Iran.
During the recent visit of India’s Defense Minister A.K. Antony to Tokyo, it
was decided that there would be a joint naval and air force exercise in 2012
between Japan and India, which would be a first.
This is part of the agreement between Japan and India which is aimed at
increasing cooperation on,
“maritime security issues, including
anti-piracy measures, freedom of navigation,” in addition to
“maintaining the security of the Sea Lanes of Communication to
facilitate unhindered trade, bilaterally as well as multilaterally with
regional neighbors,” which Singh points out obviously means China.
In early 2012 a “Japan-India Defense Policy
Dialogue” will be held in Tokyo along with the many top-level meetings
between government and military officials as previously mentioned.
Singh says that these ties will certainly upset China while claiming that
China’s role in the South China Sea dispute,
“has been a wake-up call about the type of
regional order that China would establish if it had the power.”
Then again, the “new regional order” being
established by NATO isn’t quite as glorious and peaceful as Singh is making
it out to be, and the United States has been
pretty clearly goading China in
the South China Sea dispute.
“India’s and China’s rival aspirations to be acknowledged as regional Great
Powers, as well as their quest for energy security, are compelling both
countries to seek greater maritime security,” Singh writes.
Of course in this case “maritime security” is a not-so-subtle way of saying
naval dominance as determined by the clout of alliances and sheer firepower.
Singh acknowledges the Indian approach has been opting,
“to construct a regional security structure
with no Chinese participation,” and isolation isn’t quite the phenomenal
strategy Singh seems to be making it out to be.
Cutting a nation out of the equation while
encircling it and engaging in saber-rattling is bound to be disruptive,
especially when the nation feels threatened.
This is exactly what we’re seeing right now with the NATO ABM program in
Europe which is
not leaving Russia either happy or reassured, as Rozoff has
been extensively pointing out in his newsletters.
China is also not quite pleased with these developments, evidenced by
China
Daily saying that Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda’s visit to India was aimed
at containing China.
They cite Lu Yaodong, the director of the department of Japanese diplomacy
at the Institute of Japanese Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social
sciences who says that the summit between India and Japan is a continuance
of the Japanese strategy known as the “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity.”
They also point to an expected dollar swap accord worth up to $10 billion
along with possible increased nuclear cooperation between the two nations.
Su Hao, the director of the Asia-Pacific research center at China Foreign
Affairs University in Beijing reportedly said that Japan’s move to ease the
arms trade restrictions,
“will complicate security in the
Asia-Pacific region,” and thus “will have a negative effect on China,”
according to the India Times.
There is also the concern that the Chinese
People’s Daily Online
reported on June 15, 2011 that the Liberation Army
Daily said,
“China resolutely opposes any country
unrelated to the South China Sea issue meddling in disputes, and it
opposes the internationalization of the South China Sea issue.”
This is a pretty clear statement to the United
States who has been conducting naval exercises with nations involved in the
dispute, arming others and encircling China with their increasing Japanese,
Indian and Australian ties.
It is also worrisome that Australia has decided to
sell natural uranium to
India, which is a total reversal from the previous policy which had been in
place since India had first developed a nuclear weapons program.
The
Australian Greens characterized this “unethical, illogical and probably
illegal,” pointing to the fact that India is not a signatory of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, although I think we all know just how much
treaties are worth these days.
This comes as there is significant opposition to Indian nuclear power,
including hunger strikes and the Australian Senator for Western Australia
Scott Ludlam said that,
“selling uranium to India will increase the
proliferation of nuclear weapons in our region.”
Ludlam also cites the former head of the Indian
National Security Advisory Board K. Subrahmanyam who said,
“It is to India’s advantage to categorize as
many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by
imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade
plutonium production.”
It is quite clear that uranium sold to India
will just replace other uranium which would go to civilian nuclear programs
so more uranium can be devoted to weapons grade plutonium production and
thus nuclear weapons.
Ludlam also said that even the Indian civilian nuclear program was
considered dangerous, pointing out,
“This trade is illegal, dangerous and
opposed by many Indian people including nuclear experts.”
This issue dovetails with the concern over
America’s new and quite pronounced military presence in Australia, which in
combination with the nuclear proliferation is sure to make China a bit
concerned.
There is also the matter of Australia purchasing some $950 million in
military equipment from the United States.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency informed the U.S. Congress earlier
in December that Australia will be purchasing 10 C-27J military planes and
other equipment like missile warning and radar systems.
Washington approved the sale which is being done under the guise of helping,
“improve the air mobility and capability of
the Australian Defense Force to run humanitarian and disaster relief
operations in Southeast Asia,”
according to the International Business
Times.
They point out that the United States will also
be opening a training center in Australia on top of the 2,500 Marines and
the cutting edge F-22 fighter jet capable of cyberwarfare and electronic
warfare, along with other military hardware, all of which will supposedly,
“help U.S. allies and protect American
interests in Asia.”
Other items included in the order are:
more
electronic warfare equipment, portable flight mission planning systems, 23
Rolls Royce AE2100D2 engines, radios, support and test equipment, spares,
aircraft ferry and tanker support, training equipment and personnel
training, technical data and publications, maintenance trainers and an
operational flight simulator.
Is this preparation for innocent humanitarian missions like they claim or
could it possibly be building up supplies for a greater encirclement and
possible future military action?
The Philippines
The Filipino Presidential Communications Operations Office
announced on
December 26 that the Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15) set out from Manila to the
province of Palawan on December 23 for her first deployment as a warship of
the Philippine Navy, after being handed over by the U.S. Coast Guard on May
13, 2011.
The Philippine Navy said that the vessel will act to strengthen the naval
security in the Malampaya Oil Fields along with other areas west of the
Palawan province.
The Malampaya field is roughly 80 km off the coast of Palawan Island, which
Is not too far from the South China Sea as you can see in the following map
where “A” is the South China Sea and “B” is Palawan Island (below image.)
While there very well might be closer areas to
the South China Sea in the Philippines, the newest patrol frigate can
sustain a month-long mission without any need to re-provision and is 378
feet long with a beam of 42 feet.
The ship carries 18 officers and 144 enlisted personnel and thus represents
yet another aspect of the expansion and encirclement in the region thanks to
the United States.
Ukraine
According to
the KyivPost (Kyiv is an alternate spelling of Kiev), Ukraine
hopes that the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago in May of 2012 will
strengthen ties between NATO and Kiev.
They cite Oleh Voloshyn, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s information policy
department director, who said,
“We very much hope that next year’s NATO
summit in Chicago will be an impetus to the deepening of cooperation between
Ukraine and the alliance.”
Voloshyn also said that Ukraine and NATO have been engaging in intensified
dialogues this year in a clear effort to bring the Eastern European nation
into the alliance to further encircle Russia and China.
“Of course, we will continue to see NATO as
our strategic partner in the sphere of security, reform of the armed
forces, and in the sphere of tackling the consequences of emergency
situations,” Voloshyn added.
The KyivPost adds that the United States
Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft said that the Ukrainian President,
Viktor Yanukovych, would also be invited to attend the NATO summit in
Chicago in May.
Bringing Ukraine into NATO could be a huge boon for those seeking to further
encircle Russia and continue to grow the hegemonic Western control as
Ukraine is a relatively large nation which shares a border with Russia.
Armenia
According to Public Radio of Armenia, recently the interdepartmental
commission which was coordinating the implementation of the Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) between Armenia and NATO held their final
meeting in 2011.
While Armenia does not border Russia, it is quite close and would provide
yet another way to encircle Russia and strengthen NATO’s grip on the region.
Ashot Hovakimyan, the Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister lauded the
effectiveness of the interdepartmental commission’s activity over the past
year in presenting the general assessment of their actions.
Armenia’s First Deputy Defense Minister David Tonoyan said that the main
areas of cooperation with NATO in the field of defense would be the
participation of Armenian so-called peacekeepers in NATO actions along with
support from NATO and member states in implementing defense reforms.
During the final sitting the results of the implementation of the objectives
of IPAP in 2011 were summarized along with the progress they had made
towards expanding the cooperation between Armenia and NATO.
If nothing else, this much is clear: NATO and the West are expanding far
beyond their original stated intentions when NATO was created and now moving
into new regions, expanding ties and military dominance, and overall doing
whatever it takes to grow the hegemonic control of the world.
The direction this is heading is far from pleasant and despite the constant
reassurances that this is being done for humanitarian purposes or
motivations that seem otherwise innocent, I think by now all of my readers
realize this is very unlikely, to say the least.
Part 2
January 2, 2012
Recently I wrote a relatively exhaustive article
(above Part 1) on the geopolitical maneuvering being carried out by the United States and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is now engaging in
activities far beyond that which it was created to do.
This is part two of what will likely become a
long-running series covering these global developments and the implications
thereof.
Unfortunately, most of the news is presented in bite-sized portions which
purposefully do not connect the clearly relevant events in order to present
the average reader with a better understanding of what it all means, which
is exactly why I’m writing these articles in an attempt to counter this
method of disinformation.
This disjointed method of presenting information
allows for compartmentalization and an artificial separation of issues which
are all clearly part of a greater trend.
It now appears that the West - and thus the United States and NATO at the
forefront - is attempting to isolate a group of countries that includes as
the most major constituents Russia and China.
This is being done through a multi-pronged approach which lends itself to
being hidden under the guise of random events and developments that are not
officially related.
Of course, once one aggregates all of these issues as I have done, it
becomes quite clear that they are all indeed part of a greater push around
the world.
This includes a significantly greater presence in the Asia-Pacific region to
stifle China and/or
goad the large nation into engaging in hostilities over
the South China Sea dispute, which would justify a brutal Western assault.
There is also an effort to bring Eastern European nations into NATO and
expand the so-called Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system in the region,
which
raises the ire of Russia just as the South China Sea issue does with
the Chinese.
Georgia
There seems to be a significant push to bring Georgia into NATO, which is
quite noteworthy due to the fact that Georgia shares its largest border with
Russia.
Not to mention that relations between Georgia and Russia are
shaky at best
after the so-called “Rose Revolution” in 2003, especially when it comes to
the conflicts over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, most notably during the
Russo-Georgian War of 2008, also known as
the 2008 South Ossetia War.
2011 has been an eventful year in terms of Georgia’s move to integrate into
NATO and the European Union, according to Georgia’s Deputy Prime Minister
Giorgi Baramidze.
This includes the successful utilization of a “NATO-Georgia Commission”
which Baramidze says has already resulted in 20 meetings and thus a closer
relationship between the US-led alliance and Georgia.
“NATO Secretary General’s visit to Georgia
and mentioning Georgia among countries - candidates for Alliance’s
membership were important,” Baramidze said,
as reported by Azerbaijani
Trend News Agency.
He emphasized that this was the first time and
that the decision made at the NATO summit in Bucharest saying that Georgia
would become a NATO member still holds true.
Baramidze said that Georgia will be aiming to maintain a,
“high rate of integration into the NATO and
EU,” during 2012.
He stated that the negotiations on an
association agreement between the European Union and Georgia are important
and must continue, including discussions on free trade and visas.
“Georgia expects [a] clearer signal on which
steps should be taken for closer approximation,” Trend quotes Baramidze
as saying, although the translation seems to be a bit off.
Georgian troops have also been acquiring
experience on the hellish battleground that is Afghanistan, which they - or
at least Georgia’s government - relish.
Recently Georgia’s Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaya visited Afghanistan to
praise the Georgian contingent deployed there and meet with NATO commanders.
He met with the commanders of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),
the American commanders and stated that,
“The NATO command in Afghanistan
has told me once again about the highest marks given to the Georgian
contingent’s actions. Certainly, it inspires pride in the country and our
servicemen,”
according to Interfax.
The Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has also recently made some quite
strong statements about Russia, including the prediction that the Russian
“empire will inevitably fall” and thus Georgia would be “liberated.”
He made these proclamations during a New Year message to the nation, noting
that he considered 2011,
“an important year for Georgia” during which
they “achieved serious progress in many directions.”
“In 2008 our enemy [Russia] thought that [Georgia] was leveled to the
ground, but in recent years an opinion has been firmly established
throughout the entire post-Soviet space - in Ukraine, in Central Asia,
among our neighbors and even in Russia - that Georgia is an absolute
leader in terms of carrying out reforms and fighting corruption,”
Georgian President Saakashvili said.
Saakashvili also touched on the prospect of
Georgia becoming a full member in the EU, although
Civil Georgia’s coverage
makes no mention of NATO.
Saakashvili stated that in 2011,
“everyone in the European Union seriously
started [saying] that Georgia should become in following years [a]
full-fledged member of the EU and this is a real geopolitical
revolution.”
Indeed it would be a huge boon for the West to
bring Georgia into the EU and NATO, while exerting more control over the
nation and leveraging its strategic position near Russia, along with putting
Georgia into increased receivership and dependence.
China’s Xinhua also recently published a piece speculating about the South
Caucuses being a spot in which another crisis could emerge, especially
seeing that will likely serve as a pipeline after Western troops
(supposedly) leave Iraq.
Azerbaijan
The Georgian integration dovetails with the efforts to bring Azerbaijan into
the sphere of the United States and thus NATO along with the rest of Eastern
Europe.
Azerbaijan is also becoming increasingly chummy with the Western powers,
most notably the United States, which is inseparable from NATO and NATO from
it.
According to Trend, both the Azerbaijanis and NATO have endorsed the third
stage of a pact which was first signed in 2005.
The third stage of the Individual Partnership Action Plan, or IPAP, between
NATO and the small country of Azerbaijan, relatively close to Russia, covers
cooperation between the alliance and the Azerbaijani government throughout
2012 and 2013.
Trend states that the IPAP covers four sections but then lists a great deal
more than four issues which the agreement covers.
The sections they list are:
politics and security, defense and military
issues, public information, civil emergency planning, science and
environmental issues, administrative issues, security of information,
resources and legal issues, which seems pretty comprehensive in scope.
Given that phase one and two of the IPAP have
already been successfully implemented, it is only logical to assume that
stage three will be similar, especially since Trend says that the first two
phases,
“were highly appreciated at various levels
by NATO officials.”
Azerbaijan is far from alone in having an IPAP
in place in the region, indeed the alliance is pushing for increased
integration with most of Eastern Europe in order to further encircle Russia
and strengthen regional ties.
Currently the following nations have IPAPs implemented (in order of signing
from earliest to most recent):
It was also announced by the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry’s press service on
December 30 that Azerbaijan and the United States will be holding bilateral
military consultations on January 12-13.
These meetings will be held in Washington and the issues being discussed are
not public
according to the Azeri-Press Agency (APA).
This begs the question: what is being discussed that is too sensitive to
publicize? If it is just matters surrounding the third phase of the IPAP,
surely these matters should be public given that they involve the people of
both Azerbaijan and America alike?
Even if the meeting is totally innocent and the subjects being discussed are
harmless, it is surely going to do little to allay Russia’s concerns when a
nearby nation is engaging in closed-door discussions with the United States,
especially if the discussions touch on the ABM system.
Oddly enough,
the APA reported on the Commander in Chief of the Oklahoma
National Guard Myles Deering’s visit to Azerbaijan last December.
In an interview Deering stated that he had met with Azerbaijani Defense
Minister Safar Abiyev, noting,
“we have a lot of similarities. That is the
reason why Oklahoma [is] a partner of Azerbaijan. Because Azerbaijan has
the oil and natural resources as [does] Oklahoma.”
It is quite clear that the United States is
pushing to integrate Azerbaijan tightly into the NATO framework, even if
just under the guise of the IPAP.
Japan-India-Philippines-Australia
The majority of the previous installment was spent discussing the intricate
web of relations in the Asia-Pacific region that is bringing together the
United States with Japan, India and Australia.
These ties are all multilateral and complex but all are indeed troubling to
those who relish peace, along with those whose objections might not be so
pure of heart, like China - which is far from a guilt-free nation when it
comes to these dastardly machinations.
The state-run media out of China has been expressing some
serious concerns
over the decision to lift the self-imposed Japanese ban on the arms trade
and the increasingly tight integration of the Japanese and Indian
militaries.
Not to mention the fact that Australia will be providing nuclear materials
to India - a factor I covered in the previous installment, which you truly
must read if you have yet to do so - and the American military presence in
the region is getting a major upgrade.
There are also concerns over Japanese arms experts to the Philippines, which
also just received a patrol vessel from the United States Coast Guard to be
deployed in a region relatively close to the disputed South China Sea.
As I previously said, while there are regions of the Philippines that are
closer than Palawan Island where it is being deployed, the ship is capable
of carrying out a month-long mission so travel to the South China Sea would
be no problem.
However, currently it is patrolling the rich
Malampaya Oil Fields and other
areas to the west of the Palawan province, although this is not likely to
make China too happy even if it is totally innocuous.
Liu Jianyong, a man described as an expert on Japan studies at Tsinghua
University, points out that the lifting of the arms ban allows for the
export of arms to Japan’s neighbors and allies which will at first be done
under the auspices of maritime security.
“But offensive weapons may eventually enter
the picture, because that’s the only way to fuel its indigenous defense
industry,” he said.
This is quite true as like every industry, the
market needs to continue to expand in order for profit to grow and once the
need for all defense maritime security equipment is met, there will still
need to be more sales.
Therefore, it is only logical that Japanese contractors, like their American
counterparts, will continue to create equipment even though there is
actually no real need for it.
Liu states that in the long-term this Japanese policy shift will prove to be
detrimental for China, especially when the inevitable maritime disputes
arise.
“When these countries engage in maritime
disputes with China - that’s when the impact of this policy may come to
affect us,” he said.
It isn’t too hard to understand why China might
see themselves as a potential target of the rapidly developing partnerships
in the Asia-Pacific region, which will likely serve to increase the already
significant tensions.
Zhao Gancheng, the director of the South Asia research department at the
Shanghai Institute for International Studies, stated that Indian-Japanese
arms trade may indeed make tensions even stronger in the region because of
China’s status as a potential - if not likely - target.
Zhao sees this as a contradiction because while Japan,
“wants to counter china by linking with
countries such as the US, India and Australia… it is aware of the fact
that Sino-Japanese relations are a prerequisite for its quest to become
a normal country.”
“So personally, I think the policy is itself contradictory,” Zhao added.
Zhao’s point was underlined by the announcement
on December 26 that China and Japan have agreed to begin
direct trading of
their currencies, although chances are that Zhao is attempting to say that
the Japanese are being contradictory but not the Chinese.
It was also said that Japan would be applying to buy Chinese bonds in 2012
after Japanese Prime minister Yoshihiko Noda met with Chinese President
Hu
Jintao.
This seemingly oxymoronic relationship is quite interesting, seeing that
Japan seems to be drawing military and diplomatic support from one side,
while increasing economic ties on the other while the relationships are
ostensibly contradictory.
This is one of the many cases that makes me wonder if all of this
geopolitical maneuvering very well might be pure theatrics in an attempt to
distract the public from the fact that the most powerful nations of the
world are in fact working together towards total economic hegemony due to
the ruling elite in all nations having the same interests.
Of course, this is pure speculation and the growing tension in the region
does have all the hallmarks of a real conflict in the making.
Then again, the defense industry requires perpetual war, so it very well
might be the case that the powers controlling the governments of these
nations are pushing their countries towards war, while making sure that
their economic hegemony remains unchallenged in order to ensure future
profits.
Afghanistan-Pakistan
Often referred to as AfPak or Af-Pak
Relations between Pakistan and NATO are, to say the least, unstable at this
point. While the strain is nothing quite new, it has become considerably
worse after NATO aircraft invaded Pakistani airspace and
killed 24 Pakistani
troops on November 26 (2011.)
This led to the Pakistanis demanding that the
Shamsi military base be
vacated and a complete halt on drone strikes, along with restrictions on the
transfer of military supplies which contributed to a $400/gal. price tag on
gasoline in Afghanistan, which of course the American taxpayer is put on the
hook for.
This is evidenced by the Pakistani refusal to allow new American drone bases
on their sovereign territory.
This is leaving the United States searching for more locations in central
Asia and Afghanistan from which to launch their deadly drones.
Currently the United States is operating seven drone bases in Pakistan, one
of which is run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) while the rest are
joint operations between the Army, Air Force and Navy.
Anonymous officials have stated that the United States is currently
considering additional covert military bases in central Asia in order to
continue the controversial drone strikes in Pakistan against alleged
militants.
However, it appears that they are meeting some resistance as the Central
Asian Republics (CARs) have reportedly refused to allow bases to be built
due to pressure from Russia.
It seems quite likely that this will act as yet another issue which weighs
on the strained ties between NATO and Russia, as it has become clear that
the West truly does not appreciate any opposition whatsoever, no matter how
legitimate it may be.
The drone program in Pakistan has killed an estimated 3,659 people since
2004, including civilians and suspected militants.
In 2011 alone, 78 attacks killed about 607 people and 306 strikes have
occurred since 2004 according to the Conflict Monitoring Center (CMC), a
think tank based out of Islamabad, Pakistan which monitors conflict
scenarios in South Asia.
The numbers
provided by the Long War Journal are slightly different and are
broken down in more detail at the link cited.
Abdullah Khan, the director of the CMC
told Pakistan’s The Nation that the
American drone program is,
“not as convenient and easy as it used to
be. There are too many operational constraints involved in launching
drone strikes from Khost compared to Shamsi.”
“Secondly, given that Pakistan has completely disrupted intelligence
sharing on drones, it’s next to impossible for them (CIA) to continue
with drones here,” Khan added.
The Khost provincial government spokesman
Mubarez Zadran expressed ignorance as to the presence of covert military
bases for drones in the province, which The Nation rightly points out is
“something nobody would want to speak on,” given the thick veil of secrecy
under which they operate.
Similarly, the United States embassy in Islamabad and NATO do not officially
comment on the CIA’s drone program and NATO’s officials in Afghanistan deny
any involvement with drone strikes in Pakistan.
Russia continues to disagree with the sustained presence of the United
States and NATO in Afghanistan, and it looks unlikely that it is going to
change any time soon
if the loya jirga in November is any indication.
The Nation reports that United States Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s
October visit to Pakistan came on the heels of,
“a secretive agreement on drones as part of
the renewed military Pak-US cooperation after a spree of hostility.”
“Unearthed by The Nation on October 22nd, the agreement envisaged
resumption of intelligence cooperation between Pakistan’s Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI) and CIA for hunting down the militants on both sides
of the border,” they added.
There is also the matter of strategic
partnerships between Afghanistan and the European nations of England, France
and Italy.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet
announced that French armed forces
would remain in Afghanistan post-2014 yesterday with Pajhwok Afghan News
reporting that strategic agreements with England and Italy were also
announced by Janan Musazai, the spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
Musazai stated that more discusses regarding the proposed Afghan-American
strategic agreement needed to be held, while Pajhwok Afghan News points out
that the accord was discussed originally at the loya jirga almost two months
ago.
“The delegates gave a conditional green
signal to the agreement allowing the Americans to establish military
bases in Afghanistan,” they report.
The mainstream Western media has been
conspicuously silent on this and continues to pretend that the rapidly
approaching date of 2014 will be honored by any of the major players, which
is a wholly laughable assertion.
As is the case with Japan’s security ties pulling one way and economic ties
with China pulling in another, it appears that Afghanistan is attempting to
balance their relations with the United States with Iran and other nations
with seemingly opposing interests like Russia and China.
This was highlighted by the deal with Europe’s contrast with the
fuel
agreement between Afghanistan and Iran and the recent
Afghan oil deal with
China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC).
It is also quite interesting that the United States
just acquired the
“Avenger” Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or drone, which is being billed as
the largest and fasted hunter-killer drone ever, built by General Atomics
Aeronautical Systems Inc., the same company behind the MQ-1 Predators and
MQ-9 Reapers.
This is odd given that drone operations in Pakistan are seemingly going to
become more difficult, although it could very well be flying out of one of
the many
new secret drone bases which will be used to launch incursions into
Somalia and Yemen and possibly other locales.
There is also the worrisome possibility that the so-called Predator C could
be used against us here at home given that the
domestic use of drones is
increasing at a disturbing pace.
However, I find this highly unlikely given that the newest model evades
radar, travels at 460 miles per hour and can carry a payload of up to 15,800
pounds which translates to a great deal of firepower.
The expansion of the drone program both inside and outside the United States
is troubling for me and many others due to the fact that there are actually
civilians in the so-called “kill chain”
and drone pilots can be operating up
to four drones at once with little training compared to traditional
aircraft.
Drone pilots require less than 25% of the training that normal pilots
receive, 44 hours instead of 200 to be exact.
There is also the matter of the immense number of personnel required to run
the drones. Keeping a Predator in the air for 24 hours requires a whopping
168 people, while the Global Hawk needs 300, according to the Air Force.
This is quite a large figure compared to the 100 personnel required for a
mission on with an F-16 fighter jet, although the Los Angeles Times doesn’t
make it clear if that is also for a 24-hour period or for a shorter mission.
The constant expansion of the drone program defies logic yet is
unquestioned, for the same reason that I discussed earlier in the case of
Japan.
The so-called defense contractors need to make money, and in order to do so
they need to continue to receive government funds which can only be done by
providing a product.
This requires perpetual conflict and a war with no end, which is exactly
what the “War on Terror” happens to be.
The expansion of NATO and Western hegemony is not an issue that is going
away any time soon and thus I will have no choice but to continue to cover
this as much as possible.
All of the geopolitical rumblings we are witnessing at this point seem to be
pointing in one direction: conflict.
There is an undeniable trend towards
encircling China and Russia, isolating them while of course continuing to do
business.
I cannot be sure if,
-
all of this is purely superficial
-
or if there is actually a fundamental
schism between the West along with the nations being swallowed up by
its influence and nations like Russia, China and Iran
-
or if it is just being done to continue
to manufacture a need for one of the world’s most profitable
industries: war
Part 3
January 19, 2012
Geopolitical developments continue at a pace
that likely makes most peoples’ heads spin, and for good reason.
With the situation in Syria, the
push for war with Iran and the
global
growth of NATO control, it appears we are in truly volatile and historic
times.
The confrontation between the West and Russia over the missile shield in
Europe and Turkey only continues to get more heated, especially with the
Russian announcement of new radar systems.
The fact that Russia is also butting heads with the West over Syria
definitely does not help defuse the situation.
There is also the matter of the United States, European Union and NATO
bringing the Balkan states into the Western sphere of influence.
Western Balkans
Yesterday at a hearing of the U.S. Helsinki Commission in Washington, it was
stated that,
“All Western Balkan countries should become members of the
European Union and NATO, and the U.S.A. should continue to offer support to
this process,” according to
EMG.
The hearing, called “The Western Balkans and the 2012 NATO Summit” included
Congressman Christopher Smith saying that the violence in Kosovo and
Bosnia-Herzegovina prove NATO must remain in the region.
Similarly, Congressman Eliot Engel said that American troops should not
leave Kosovo but instead should use the drawdown in Iraq as an opportunity
to step up their presence.
Engel said that all of the nations in the region should become integrated in
the EU and NATO, a move which is likely aimed at further isolating,
encircling and indirectly threatening Russia.
He said that Serbia’s membership must not be accepted before that of Kosovo
because it might block Kosovo’s entry, adding that Belgrade needs to accept
that the division of Kosovo is not possible in order to create regional
peace.
Present at the hearing was Ivan Vejvoda, the Executive Director of the
Balkan Trust for Democracy who stated that while the Serbian parliament was
neutral about NATO membership in 2006, it now votes against it.
Vejvoda claims that the situation in Kosovo has calmed down, all involved
parties have assumed more moderate positions adding that supposedly
dialogues between Belgrade and Pristina will begin soon.
Despite this claim, Vejvoda said that the level of KFOR troops present in
Kosovo should not be reduced, indicating that it is not nearly as calm as he
is attempting to make it out to be.
Daniel Serwer of Johns Hopkins University also said that both Montenegro and
Macedonia should be integrated into NATO at the Chicago Summit coming up in
May, however Serwer believes that Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo are
all not ready to join NATO.
He acknowledged that it is ultimately Belgrade’s decision,
“but in order to
become a NATO member Serbia should respect territorial integrity and
sovereignty of its neighbors.”
I find this assertion quite laughable given that NATO is an egregious
violator of territorial integrity and sovereignty, exemplified most
obviously by invasions of Pakistani airspace along with the bloody Libyan
operation.
Nida Gelazis from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars also
thinks that NATO should have an extended presence in the region, saying that
the Kosovo police cannot replace KFOR “for a long time to come.”
Georgia
Georgia is also a key variable in this equation, especially given the
nation’s strategic positioning relative to Russia.
Yesterday the Azerbaijani Trend News Agency
reported that Mikheil
Saakashvili, the Georgian President, is set to meet with
Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America, to,
“underline the special
relations of both countries,” according to Temur Yakobashvili, Georgia’s
Ambassador to the United States.
Yakobashvili said that these talks will include all of the major areas of
bilateral cooperation which include issues of a political and economic
nature and security and defense cooperation.
The latter is arguably one of the most important given Georgia’s critical
geographic location and the role it can play in the United States and NATO’s
effort to surround Russia and China.
Yesterday Trend
also reported that the Georgian president’s press secretary,
Manana Manjgaladze made a statement to reporters in conjunction with
Saakashvili’s official visit with Obama on January 30.
“In the two decades since Georgia gained independence, U.S. support has been
crucial for Georgia’s sovereignty, its democratic transformation, its
economic development and its progress towards NATO membership,” Manjgaladze
said.
Azerbaijan
Another article published in Trend yesterday
covered a meeting between an
official from the United States Department of State and the Defense Minister
from Azerbaijan.
The meeting was between Eric Rubin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs and Azerbaijani Defense Minister
Colonel-General Safar Abiyev.
The Defense Ministry told Trend that they discussed the successful military
cooperation between Azerbaijan and the United States along with the
development of ties in different fields.
Rubin said that it is in the United States’ interest to protect,
“Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity to establish peace in the region.”
Rubin said that the United States recognizes that Azerbaijani territories
are occupied while the Azerbaijani Defense Minister said that Armenia is
continuing their aggressive policy and,
“that protraction of the peaceful
settlement creates favorable conditions to resume the war in the region.”
Montenegro
New Europe
reports that NATO has announced that it will continue its support
of Montenegro’s defense reforms, along with their intention to join NATO.
On January 17, Commandant of Strategic Operations Command Admiral James Stavridis and the Montenegrin Chief of Joint Staff Admiral
Dragan Samardzic
met in Brussels to discuss what is in store for Montenegro’s defense.
Stavridis highlighted the Montenegrin efforts to join NATO along with their
advancements in their defense systems and NATO’s commitment to help them in
these efforts.
Also emphasized was the participation of Montenegrin troops in the NATO ISAF
operation in Afghanistan, which Montenegro appears to be a part of for the
long haul as Samardzic presented Stavridis with future plans for their
participation in the ISAF operation and other plans to integrate Montenegro
in Euroatlantic structures.
India
India is playing a large role in this global growth of the U.S.-NATO Empire
with a strategic location, immense land mass and large population, it is the
perfect ally for the West to use to extend their hegemony over the region.
India is part of the growing multilateral relationship between the United
States, Australia, Japan and India - which, like all of the other alliances
emerging now – acts to encircle and isolate both Russia and China.
Now the United States is trying to work with India to
expand the missile
shield which is currently dominating Europe and making the Russians quite
concerned.
This comes just weeks after the United States offered to sell the fifth
generation F-35 fighter jets to India.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher characterized the
Indian-American defense ties as not only valuable but critical for the
security and stability of the region and the world at large.
Scher emphasized that the United States,
“is and will be a dependable weapons
supplier to India.”
The United States is also dependably turning a blind eye to the Indian
nuclear program along with the trade of natural uranium from Australia to
India - allowing India to devote their more locally obtained uranium to
their nuclear weapons program.
Scher said that Washington is awaiting a response from India while saying
that they had already been involved in discussions surrounding the missile
shield project.
Russia
Obviously Russia is not part of the global growth of NATO but instead
represents one of the most vocal and powerful opponents to said growth and
thus plays a large part in this equation.
Dmitry Rogozin, the Vice-Premier of Russia,
said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station that the new U.S.-NATO missile defense system
includes around one thousand missiles.
Rogozin stated that this number is near the threshold established by the
START-3 treaty, which was signed on April 8, 2010.
Russian President Medvedev has also warned that Russia very well might back
out of the START agreement entirely if the United States continues down this
path with no regard for Russia’s legitimate concerns.
This dovetails with Rogozin’s statement that the actions of the United
States, NATO and allied states could bring about a new arms race.
Rogozin said that the United States is pressuring allies in Europe to obtain
warships which are outfitted with Aegis missile interception systems.
He also pointed out that there is no guarantee that the United States will
stop developing the missile defense system after the set date of 2020.
I can understand his concerns, especially since there is not so much as a
guarantee that the United States will not target Russia, Russian interests
or Russian allies with the so-called defense system.
South China Sea
The South China Sea is one of the focal points of this cold war between the
West and China with the United States and NATO increasingly trying to draw
in allies in the region in order to further isolate China.
Obviously the United States does not side with China in the dispute and some
previous actions on the part of the United States have made me wonder if
this is all an attempt to
goad China into attacking.
China has repeatedly told the United States that no country without a direct
interest in the South China Sea dispute should be meddling in the issue, but
the United States has taken no heed whatsoever.
A recent conference in Beijing was held between senior officials from China
and ASEAN member nations in which they discussed the problems surrounding
the implementation of the Declaration of Conduct (DOC) and the nations were
actually able to come to an agreement on some key issues.
Meanwhile, a conference in Washington was held by the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), coinciding with the release of their report, “Cooperation
from Strength - The United States, China and the South China Sea.”
According to
China’s Global Times, the Beijing meeting,
“sent a signal that
countries directly concerned with regional disputes want peace,” while the
Washington conference’s signal “was mixed with some hostility.”
They likely take this position because the CNAS study argues that the South
China Sea is a geopolitical epicenter which will determine whether the
United States can hold on to a dominant role in the Asia-Pacific region,
which is precisely what the Pentagon’s new strategy intends to do.
During the conference, the United States’ Chief of Naval Operations,
Jonathan Greenert, said that certain aspects of the report would be
integrated into military planning; adding that he believes the United States
Navy can hold a predominant influence in the West Pacific.
The CNAS study advised that the United States lead a multilateral security
mechanism which is aimed at countering China’s growing power and influence
in the Asia-Pacific region.
This is precisely what is happening, as I outlined in part one of this
series.
The new multilateral alliance would include Japan, South Korea, the
Philippines and Australia, which is exactly what is happening as I write
this.
Interestingly, the Global Times writes,
“the US cannot force others to
recognize them as the leader. It no longer has the power to play such an
important role, nor do countries in the region need Uncle Sam’s care. Any
strategic attempt to form an alliance against China would be against the
will of the countries in the region, and the last thing those countries want
to do is pick a side between the US and China.”
Indeed I find this to be a very pertinent point as many nations are being
pulled both ways between a waning power (the United States) and rising
powers (Russia and China).
It will be interesting to see if the United States can hold on to the
influence they have in the Asia-Pacific region or expand their power as the
Pentagon is hoping to do.
Part 4
January 21, 2012
The global growth of the West and NATO is so
complex and so far reaching that it is almost overwhelming.
However, I have been writing this series in an attempt to show my readers
how many seemingly disconnected events are, in fact, highly connected and
interrelated developments.
Without further ado, let’s jump right in and start examining some of the
more important events which have transpired since the last part of this
series.
Estonia
At a meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Estonian
President Toomas Hendrik Ilves discussed continuing long-term NATO air
operations in the Baltics, saying,
“We have clearly stated repeatedly that
the air security mission is not only unavoidable in a military sense, but it
also represents a good example of smart defense and an expression of NATO’s
internal [solidarity] with respect to its member states,”
according to
Estonian World Review.
Ilves said that Estonia is considering raising their monetary support of
NATO and therefore would be,
“entitled to expect support from its allies.”
Yet the strongest statement coming from Ilves was when he said,
“Baltic air
space is also NATO’s air space; it is NATO’s task to defend this air space.
This can only be done by the fighters of NATO members [sic] states located
in the Baltic states.”
Given the region’s strategic location relative to Russia, this statement is
quite interesting, to say the least.
It seems that the Estonian president is eager to give up his nation’s
sovereignty in exchange for a spot in the vicious NATO alliance, something
which I find quite worrisome for the people of Estonia and the greater
Baltics as a whole.
He also said that a long-term air security solution should be adopted at the
2012 NATO summit in Chicago with the goal of,
“enhanced defense and
deterrence capabilities of NATO.”
Ilves also said that they would need to maintain,
“the continued presence of
the US armed forces in Europe, enhancing NATO’s cyber defense ambitions.”
Interestingly, it was also reported that they discussed the Afghan operation,
“and its possible development after the end of the mission’s military
stage.”
Yet, as I have been repeatedly pointing out, there have been no indications
that there is going to be an end of the mission’s military stage any time
soon evidenced by the talks surrounding a
long-term American-led presence in
Afghanistan.
This fact fits into the picture perfectly because it serves as a strategic
location relative to several nations including Pakistan, Iran and Russia.
During Rasmussen’s trip to Estonia, he praised the nation’s commitment to
continue high levels of military spending in the face of an economic crisis
and austerity.
“I particularly value the Estonian government’s decision to increase its
defense spending to 2 percent of GDP this year. This is a significant
achievement, and a most welcome commitment. And it sets an excellent
example,” he
said.
“You used the economic crisis as an opportunity to implement substantial
defense reforms. By streamlining your military structures and making them
more efficient, you were able to make substantial savings,” the Secretary
General said.
“You have used these savings to invest in higher priorities – in operational
needs and in more useable capabilities. And that is one important lesson for
the Alliance more widely,” he added.
I find this type of logic to be nothing short of abhorrent and the fact that
it is being employed to justify military spending in countries that cannot
afford it is quite worrisome and should be a matter of concern for the
people of Estonia.
We are facing a similar dilemma in the United States with the
war profiteers
parasitically eating our economy alive along with the similarly corrupt and
corporatist financial industry.
Lithuania
The Lithuanian Minister of National Defense, Rasa Jukneviciene, also met
with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a joint meeting with
the Prime Minister, Andrius Kubilius.
During the meeting the two Lithuanian leaders and the top NATO official
discussed,
“perspectives of the Baltic Air Policing mission, smart defense,
the operation of the INternational Security Assistance Force [ISAF] in
Afghanistan and join military training,”
according to DefPro.
“Collective planning within NATO is of utmost importance to us, just like
joint military training,” Jukneviciene said.
This is Rasmussen’s second visit since 2009 when he visited during the
Baltic States’ 5th anniversary of NATO accession, something which I would
argue is hardly worth celebrating.
Lithuania is an important ally in NATO’s global encirclement effort due to
their strategic location relative to Russia.
Philippines
Reuters has
reported that the United States and the Philippines will be
engaging in joint military drills near the disputed area of the West
Philippine Sea.
They rightly point out that these operations “may anger Beijing” as they are
aimed at “testing their readiness to protect offshore oil and natural gas
platforms,” not to mention the fact that the United States recently gave a
naval vessel to the Philippines as well.
Lieutenant-General Juancho Sabban, the military commander on the
Philippines’ western island of Palawan, stated that this would be the first
time that an annual military exercise would focus primarily on protecting
offshore energy platforms.
He claimed that the maneuvers should not irk China, although I think that is
quite doubtful given that they indeed have claims to territory in the
region.
To support this contention, I point to China repeatedly telling the United
States that countries without a direct interest in the South China Sea
dispute should stay out it, something which the United States has clearly
ignored.
“Why should they [China] be angry, this is an annual activity,” he said,
ignoring the fact that the United States is involved.
It appears that the exercise is mostly aimed at preparing to protect
corporate interests which could possibly, in the future, come “under attack
by terrorists,” according to Sabban.
This dovetails with the ship recently provided to the Philippines which is
being used to patrol the same region which this exercise seems to be focused
on.
The drills are reportedly to be held near the Malampaya gas project which
includes property owned by,
-
a division of Chevron, Chevron Malampaya LLC
-
along with a division of Royal Dutch Shell, Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
This cooperation between the United States and the Philippines is hardly
new, with American Special Forces troops holding training sessions for
Filipino troops since 2002.
This has been done under the guise of,
“fighting a group of al Qaeda-linked
Islamist militants in the southern Philippines” and the classic humanitarian
excuse as well.
But this history goes back even further, with joint military exercises being
held under a security treaty signed in 1951.
Recently four prominent American Senators traveled to the Philippines to
meet with President Aquino to discuss the growing military cooperation.
John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Sheldon Whitehouse and Kelly Ayotte, all members
of the Senate’s armed services committee, vowed to support the Philippines
request to acquire a second Hamilton-class cutter according to
The
Philippine Star.
“The senators said that they are increasing their presence in the
Asia-Pacific region. As you know, they already have established bases in
Australia and Singapore. There will be increased military exercises in
Asia-Pacific region and that would also include the Philippines,” said Edwin
Lacierda, presidential spokesman, quoting the Defense Secretary Voltair
Gazmin who was present at the meeting between the president and the American
Senators.
Lacierda added that the Philippines is ready to participate in more military
exercises with the United States saying,
“We profit from the experiences of
joint military exercises. It enhances our experience, it improves our
capabilities. We learn from the Americans.”
Unfortunately what they are learning is how to be militaristic,
imperialistic and brutal, traits which are not conducive to a peaceful
resolution of the South China Sea dispute.
Then again, it has become quite obvious that the West and NATO have no
interest in peace. If they did, they would sign a pact with Russia dealing
with the anti-ballistic missile shield program and also take up the Russian
offer to integrate their radar systems with the NATO system.
This approach to the South China Sea dispute was highlighted by McCain in
saying that China should not be allowed to have “disproportionate control”
over what they pointedly call the West Philippine Sea.
“If there is indeed a withdrawal of the US then I believe that that would
mean a lessening of stability in the region,” McCain said, perfectly
reflecting the nonsensical attitude held by so many warmongers who are in
the pockets of the defense contractors.
Apparently angering China by meddling in the dispute and increasing the
stakes by heavily arming some nations creates more stability than if the
United States dealt with the massive domestic problems instead and let these
countries solve their own disputes as nations have done for centuries.
Currently several countries claim the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea
or the “West Philippine Sea” depending on what you read (and how biased the
source is) but the typically agreed upon location is indeed the South China
Sea, contrary to what you might read in Filipino publications.
Countries which claim the islands include China, the Philippines, Brunei,
Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan, some of which have small numbers of military
units in the region.
The Philippines is currently making a push to modernize their armed forces,
with the United States providing a great deal of the equipment.
“The secretary asked for assistance regarding military hardware, especially
cutters,” the spokesman for the Filipino Department of National Defense (DND)
Peter Galvez said, without giving further details.
The dangerous aspect of this partnership is that the United States is indeed
planning on conducting military exercises in the region of the Spratly
Islands themselves, something which would likely make China uncomfortable,
and rightly so.
China has made it painfully clear that they want the United States and any
country without direct involvement in the dispute to mind their own
business. This hardly seems like an unreasonable request given that the
United States really has no place in the dispute.
Except, of course, for the Western corporations which are operating in the
area and given that the United States military more often than not serves
corporate interests nowadays, it is only logical that the U.S. would insert
itself into the equation despite the fact that it will only serve to make it
more dangerous for everyone involved.
Poland
Since 2004 Polish pilots have been trained on bases belonging to the United
States and recently the Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed
Forces, General Mieczyslaw Cieniuch
paid a visit to the 162nd Fighter Wing
at the Tucson International Airport in Tucson, Arizona.
General Cieniuch is the highest ranking Polish military officer and is the
equivalent of General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, thus the appearance was quite a meaningful one.
The U.S. Air Forces in Europe report,
“Other dignitaries who travelled with
General Cieniuch were Army Maj. Gen. Andrzej Falkowski, the Polish Defense
Attaché to Washington D.C., and Army Brig. Gen. Sławomir Wojciechowski,
Polish Deputy Chief of Operational Planning.”
This visit came just days avert General Cieniuch visited Washington D.C.
where he was given the Legion of Merit award by General Dempsey.
The award was conferred for General Cieniuch’s,
“leadership with the
cooperation, understand and relationship between the armed forces of the
United States and Poland.”
Like Lithuania and Estonia, Poland is an important strategic ally for NATO
and the West because Poland’s capital of Warsaw is less than 800 miles from
the Russian capital, Moscow (which is also its most populous city in Russia
and the entirety of Europe with over 11.5 million residents according to the
2010 Census).
Of course Poland is also a key player in the anti-ballistic missile system,
which is rightfully angering the Russians and has led them to
create their
own advanced warning radar system.
Hopefully the people of these various countries will not allow themselves to
be deceived into thinking they need to join the Western war machine.
The U.S.-NATO approach to conflict clearly does not work, evidenced by the
constant war, suffering and death we see plaguing the globe.
Maybe if more people step back and take a look at the larger scheme that is
playing out here we will be able to push back the tide of neo-imperialistic
militarism.
If we do not, I can guarantee whatever comes out of it will not be pretty,
to say the least.
