4 New Messages
Digest #4446
Messages
Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:45 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
July 29, 2012
Soldier, wounded in Afghanistan, died in Georgia
N. Kirtzkhali
Tbilisi: A Georgian soldier, wounded in Afghanistan, died in a military hospital in Gori (Shida Kartli, eastern Georgia).
According to the Georgian Defence Ministry, Corporal Givi Pantsulaia, who was born in 1984, died.
Corporal Pantsulaia was wounded in the Afghan province of Helmand in January 2012. After being wounded he was in a coma. At first he was treated in America and Germany, and then placed in Gori hospital.
However, despite treatment of doctors all efforts to save him failed. According to employees of the hospital, Pantsulaia died yesterday, and has already been taken home.
He is the 16th Georgian military, who died in Afghanistan.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Trend News Agency
July 29, 2012
Soldier, wounded in Afghanistan, died in Georgia
N. Kirtzkhali
Tbilisi: A Georgian soldier, wounded in Afghanistan, died in a military hospital in Gori (Shida Kartli, eastern Georgia).
According to the Georgian Defence Ministry, Corporal Givi Pantsulaia, who was born in 1984, died.
Corporal Pantsulaia was wounded in the Afghan province of Helmand in January 2012. After being wounded he was in a coma. At first he was treated in America and Germany, and then placed in Gori hospital.
However, despite treatment of doctors all efforts to save him failed. According to employees of the hospital, Pantsulaia died yesterday, and has already been taken home.
He is the 16th Georgian military, who died in Afghanistan.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:38 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
July 29, 2012
Qatar may purchase 200 German tanks
Qatar has invited a German company to tender for the supply of 200 of the world's most powerful battle tanks, a move that could trigger a storm in Germany, Der Spiegel reported Sunday.
...
Qatar was believed to be interested in the A7 model of the Leopard 2 tank, which is enhanced for urban combat with features to shove aside barricades, turn tight corners and detect and destroy snipers. It has powerful air conditioning to suit fighting in hot deserts.
Qatar has assisted rebels in Syria and also assisted in the overthrow last year of Libyan strongman Moamer Gaddafi.
According to Spiegel, a delegation from the manufacturer, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, visited Qatar several weeks ago to discuss an offer of Leopard 2 tanks.
If a deal were agreed, it would be likely to have a value of nearly 2 billion euros (2.4 billion dollars).
German arms exports outside the NATO region require a clearance from the Federal Security Council, a secretive panel of Chancellor Angela Merkel and close aides.
Asked for confirmation of the Spiegel report, an Economics Ministry spokeswoman said no comment was available as a matter of principle on any matter where the Federal Security Council was concerned.
Spiegel said a tender of tanks to Qatar had not yet been discussed in the Federal Security Council.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Trend News Agency
July 29, 2012
Qatar may purchase 200 German tanks
Qatar has invited a German company to tender for the supply of 200 of the world's most powerful battle tanks, a move that could trigger a storm in Germany, Der Spiegel reported Sunday.
...
Qatar was believed to be interested in the A7 model of the Leopard 2 tank, which is enhanced for urban combat with features to shove aside barricades, turn tight corners and detect and destroy snipers. It has powerful air conditioning to suit fighting in hot deserts.
Qatar has assisted rebels in Syria and also assisted in the overthrow last year of Libyan strongman Moamer Gaddafi.
According to Spiegel, a delegation from the manufacturer, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, visited Qatar several weeks ago to discuss an offer of Leopard 2 tanks.
If a deal were agreed, it would be likely to have a value of nearly 2 billion euros (2.4 billion dollars).
German arms exports outside the NATO region require a clearance from the Federal Security Council, a secretive panel of Chancellor Angela Merkel and close aides.
Asked for confirmation of the Spiegel report, an Economics Ministry spokeswoman said no comment was available as a matter of principle on any matter where the Federal Security Council was concerned.
Spiegel said a tender of tanks to Qatar had not yet been discussed in the Federal Security Council.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thenews.
The News
July 28, 2012
Aggressive US foreign policy
Brian Cloughley
Air travel isn’t much fun these days, what with searches, pat-downs, holdups, crowds and queues, so it’s good when sometimes you can have a laugh while travelling, which I did when reading a newspaper report. It made me hoot with mirth in the airport lounge, thus attracting a few raised eyebrows, but I couldn’t stop for a few moments, such was the wackiness of a statement by Hillary Clinton.
It wasn’t intended as humour, of course. It was one of the usual self-righteous scolding sermons to which Washington figures are so addicted. When lecturing the world from Phnom Penh she declared that “the nations of the [South China Sea] region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats, and without use of force.” Which prompts the question: in that case why does the United States of America, which has no justification for any presence in the South China Sea, have a vast fleet, including carrier strike groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, menacing the area? And it doesn’t explain why the US refuses to ratify a UN Treaty relevant to the China Sea which, inter alia, expresses the “desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea.”
As the Asia Times noted about American military expansion in Asia, “The US also intends to station four new US Navy Littoral Combat ships and increase ship visits and base surveillance aircraft in Singapore. In addition, upgraded military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei will support already existing US plans with Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.”
And US Defence Secretary Panetta, never one to ignore an opportunity to increase international tension, declared to Fox News during a visit to Vietnam that “The more I am out here, the more critical I view this region in terms of our national defence and the defence of the world. This is an area that is critical to the future security and prosperity of our country and the world. For that reason we need to be rightly focused on playing a bigger role here in the Asia Pacific.”
US confrontation with China looms ever closer, and it’s hardly the fault of the Chinese, whose position, in the words of Beijing, is that “the tree craves calm but the wind keeps blowing.” But there’s one thing certain: the Chinese tree will whip back if the Washington wind increases its intensity. As the Chinese well understand, the world in general craves calm, but the out-of-control US military machine, in an expansionist wave of unprecedented energy, is hell-bent on domination.
The Chinese can look after themselves, of course, even if their defence spending is only an eighth of that of America, and if the US is foolish enough to provoke a military engagement there will be interesting developments, not the least of which could be massive cyber attacks on the US systems. Washington’s intimidating posture and threats are taken seriously in Beijing, and China is concentrating on advanced weapons systems specifically intended to engage enemy warships.
The Chinese navy is nowhere near as powerful as the USN (United States Navy) – but it is capable of resisting attempted US domination in its own backyard. The Iranian navy, on the other hand, is far from being in a similar position.
It would be absurd to try to claim that there is no coercion intended or threat presented by the huge US fleet, 10,000 troops and vast aerial strike capability in the Persian Gulf region, where some 400 combat aircraft and 50 ships are ready to join Israel in attacking Iran. It was reported that on July 15 “the Pentagon confirmed it had brought forward the deployment of a third strike group, led by the carrier USS John Stennis, by four months, in order to further bolster its presence [in the Gulf].”
It seems that the US foreign policy concerning avoidance of coercion and threats does not extend to its dealings with Tehran. In May Israel’s Haaretz reported Vice President Biden’s threats to Iran, made at the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly, to the effect that “the US takes ‘no options off [the] table,’ and that the ‘window has not closed to Israelis if they chose to act militarily’.” The message to Iran was unmistakable, and the US wind keeps blowing hard against the Iranian tree.
And so it goes on, round the world – from Cuba to the South China Sea, by way of the determined military encirclement of Russia – the constant US menace to nations which seek to pursue policies deemed inconvenient to Washington.
In Pakistan’s case the campaign of coercion includes Clinton’s threat to destroy the economy by sanctions if Pakistan and Iran build the gas pipeline which is so vital for Pakistan to reduce power cuts. It doesn’t sound much in international terms, but it’s a vitally important matter for Pakistan. Let’s hope this tree can resist the wind.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website is www.beecluff.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The News
July 28, 2012
Aggressive US foreign policy
Brian Cloughley
Air travel isn’t much fun these days, what with searches, pat-downs, holdups, crowds and queues, so it’s good when sometimes you can have a laugh while travelling, which I did when reading a newspaper report. It made me hoot with mirth in the airport lounge, thus attracting a few raised eyebrows, but I couldn’t stop for a few moments, such was the wackiness of a statement by Hillary Clinton.
It wasn’t intended as humour, of course. It was one of the usual self-righteous scolding sermons to which Washington figures are so addicted. When lecturing the world from Phnom Penh she declared that “the nations of the [South China Sea] region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats, and without use of force.” Which prompts the question: in that case why does the United States of America, which has no justification for any presence in the South China Sea, have a vast fleet, including carrier strike groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, menacing the area? And it doesn’t explain why the US refuses to ratify a UN Treaty relevant to the China Sea which, inter alia, expresses the “desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea.”
As the Asia Times noted about American military expansion in Asia, “The US also intends to station four new US Navy Littoral Combat ships and increase ship visits and base surveillance aircraft in Singapore. In addition, upgraded military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei will support already existing US plans with Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.”
And US Defence Secretary Panetta, never one to ignore an opportunity to increase international tension, declared to Fox News during a visit to Vietnam that “The more I am out here, the more critical I view this region in terms of our national defence and the defence of the world. This is an area that is critical to the future security and prosperity of our country and the world. For that reason we need to be rightly focused on playing a bigger role here in the Asia Pacific.”
US confrontation with China looms ever closer, and it’s hardly the fault of the Chinese, whose position, in the words of Beijing, is that “the tree craves calm but the wind keeps blowing.” But there’s one thing certain: the Chinese tree will whip back if the Washington wind increases its intensity. As the Chinese well understand, the world in general craves calm, but the out-of-control US military machine, in an expansionist wave of unprecedented energy, is hell-bent on domination.
The Chinese can look after themselves, of course, even if their defence spending is only an eighth of that of America, and if the US is foolish enough to provoke a military engagement there will be interesting developments, not the least of which could be massive cyber attacks on the US systems. Washington’s intimidating posture and threats are taken seriously in Beijing, and China is concentrating on advanced weapons systems specifically intended to engage enemy warships.
The Chinese navy is nowhere near as powerful as the USN (United States Navy) – but it is capable of resisting attempted US domination in its own backyard. The Iranian navy, on the other hand, is far from being in a similar position.
It would be absurd to try to claim that there is no coercion intended or threat presented by the huge US fleet, 10,000 troops and vast aerial strike capability in the Persian Gulf region, where some 400 combat aircraft and 50 ships are ready to join Israel in attacking Iran. It was reported that on July 15 “the Pentagon confirmed it had brought forward the deployment of a third strike group, led by the carrier USS John Stennis, by four months, in order to further bolster its presence [in the Gulf].”
It seems that the US foreign policy concerning avoidance of coercion and threats does not extend to its dealings with Tehran. In May Israel’s Haaretz reported Vice President Biden’s threats to Iran, made at the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly, to the effect that “the US takes ‘no options off [the] table,’ and that the ‘window has not closed to Israelis if they chose to act militarily’.” The message to Iran was unmistakable, and the US wind keeps blowing hard against the Iranian tree.
And so it goes on, round the world – from Cuba to the South China Sea, by way of the determined military encirclement of Russia – the constant US menace to nations which seek to pursue policies deemed inconvenient to Washington.
In Pakistan’s case the campaign of coercion includes Clinton’s threat to destroy the economy by sanctions if Pakistan and Iran build the gas pipeline which is so vital for Pakistan to reduce power cuts. It doesn’t sound much in international terms, but it’s a vitally important matter for Pakistan. Let’s hope this tree can resist the wind.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website is www.beecluff.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:05 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
The Hankyoreh
July 25, 2012
Moving Beyond Militarization: Northeast Asia needs collective security, not conflict
By Honda Hirokuni
Professor of Economics, Dokkyo University
====
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system
The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii.
====
Korea and Japan recently drafted GSOMIA (General Security Of Military Information Agreement), an agreement for closer military cooperation. The proposed agreement caused tremendous backlash in Korea. Media reports in Japan suggest that the Korean people are opposed because of anti-Japanese sentiment. But I personally feel that for Japan and Korea to take a military approach to their role in supporting the geopolitical order in Asia, under the supervision of the United States, is in no way a positive development for the stability of East Asia.
The American government over the last few decades has supported efforts to increase the overseas activities of the Japanese self-defense forces and strived to draw South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia into military cooperation agreements as part of its effort to maintain a robust military presence in Northeast Asia. The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii. The relocation of the Futenma base in Okinawa and the demands from the United States for increased intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) concerning North Korea and China from the Self Defense Forces are part of this overall change in American posture.
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system. Japan has systematically developed a new military system both in preparation for a possible military conflict and also for the proactive sharing of intelligence and the division of labor with the United States in future conflicts.
In addition, the Japanese government claims that the American forces stationed in Japan are meant as deterrence to maintain order in the Pacific Region, thus recognizing the need for US bases throughout Japan and even establishing a so-called “good will budget” of 200 billion Won to support the costs of US troops. The whole situation is rather humiliating for Japan.
Even as economic interdependency increases in Asia, the US-Japan alliance priority for military relations increases the overall insecurity in the whole region and increases distrust between the China and the United States and a tendency to think of responses to problems in military terms.
What is really needed for peace and prosperity in Asia is not a system that supports military responses to all problems between nations based on collective defense capacity, but rather a security architecture for the mutual inhibition of military build ups and of military intimidation. That depends on a collective security assurance regime to resolve conflicts through open means.
Moreover, with regard to historical issues, territorial issues, and other disputes, we need exchanges in terms of collaborative research on history, scholarly and cultural exchange, tourism and economic interaction. We need to assure the safety of fishermen in their work. At the same time we need to work towards mutual prosperity through the systematic pursuit of mutual plans for the development of undersea resources in the region. I feel that the critical role in this process lies with Asia‘s scholars and scientists.
British military affairs analyst Michael Howard has pointed out that the peace in Europe after the Second World War can be attributed primarily to a massive shift in the culture of Europe after the terror of the First and Second World Wars. Howard suggests in his book “War in European History” (2009) that the people of Europe came to the conclusion that war was certainly not the unavoidable fate of humanity, but not even a powerful political tool. The terrible price that Europe paid for two world wars led to the formulation of a completely different deterrence architecture than had existed previously over centuries of unending conflict.
So what about East Asia? Before the end of the war in East Asia, the leaders of the allies gathered in Yalta and established a blueprint for the post-war order. That vision clearly was not enough to prevent the Korean War, or the Vietnam War and to some degree America’s overreaction to the spread of socialism at Yalta meant that democratization of East Asia was constrained.
Whereas the economic development in Europe took place within the context of the Cold War and a balance of power, in the Asian case, although there was some variation between countries, the distorted developmental model that countries found themselves following ineluctably was a combination of a developmental authoritarian government system paired with a model for economic development based on exports.
And yet, although the feelings may have been slightly weaker than the case in Europe, there was also a tremendous desire to avoid war in Asia after the Second World War. Japan established a peace constitution, which included Article 9, which renounces the right to declare war or use military force.
Of course Japan and the United States signed a mutual defense treaty and the Self-Defense Forces were established with the encouragement of the United States thereafter, so Japan did in fact have a military. Nonetheless, the restrictions imposed by the constitution meant that for many years Japan‘s military was exclusively defensive in nature as a matter of policy. As a result, the role of the Self-Defense Forces was quite limited.
There are already many organizations formed by citizens, scholars, journalists and local governments dedicated to creating a peaceful future for the Asian region. Some recent examples include the response to the problem of assured security by constitutional law scholars written up in the study “Research on a Comprehensive Peace Assurance Policy that can replace military power” and “The Campaign for a United Nations Declaration for the right to peaceful existence.” In addition, Korean, Chinese and Japanese historians have been working on a joint history of the region since 2004.
The Hankyoreh
July 25, 2012
Moving Beyond Militarization: Northeast Asia needs collective security, not conflict
By Honda Hirokuni
Professor of Economics, Dokkyo University
====
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system
The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii.
====
Korea and Japan recently drafted GSOMIA (General Security Of Military Information Agreement), an agreement for closer military cooperation. The proposed agreement caused tremendous backlash in Korea. Media reports in Japan suggest that the Korean people are opposed because of anti-Japanese sentiment. But I personally feel that for Japan and Korea to take a military approach to their role in supporting the geopolitical order in Asia, under the supervision of the United States, is in no way a positive development for the stability of East Asia.
The American government over the last few decades has supported efforts to increase the overseas activities of the Japanese self-defense forces and strived to draw South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia into military cooperation agreements as part of its effort to maintain a robust military presence in Northeast Asia. The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii. The relocation of the Futenma base in Okinawa and the demands from the United States for increased intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) concerning North Korea and China from the Self Defense Forces are part of this overall change in American posture.
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system. Japan has systematically developed a new military system both in preparation for a possible military conflict and also for the proactive sharing of intelligence and the division of labor with the United States in future conflicts.
In addition, the Japanese government claims that the American forces stationed in Japan are meant as deterrence to maintain order in the Pacific Region, thus recognizing the need for US bases throughout Japan and even establishing a so-called “good will budget” of 200 billion Won to support the costs of US troops. The whole situation is rather humiliating for Japan.
Even as economic interdependency increases in Asia, the US-Japan alliance priority for military relations increases the overall insecurity in the whole region and increases distrust between the China and the United States and a tendency to think of responses to problems in military terms.
What is really needed for peace and prosperity in Asia is not a system that supports military responses to all problems between nations based on collective defense capacity, but rather a security architecture for the mutual inhibition of military build ups and of military intimidation. That depends on a collective security assurance regime to resolve conflicts through open means.
Moreover, with regard to historical issues, territorial issues, and other disputes, we need exchanges in terms of collaborative research on history, scholarly and cultural exchange, tourism and economic interaction. We need to assure the safety of fishermen in their work. At the same time we need to work towards mutual prosperity through the systematic pursuit of mutual plans for the development of undersea resources in the region. I feel that the critical role in this process lies with Asia‘s scholars and scientists.
British military affairs analyst Michael Howard has pointed out that the peace in Europe after the Second World War can be attributed primarily to a massive shift in the culture of Europe after the terror of the First and Second World Wars. Howard suggests in his book “War in European History” (2009) that the people of Europe came to the conclusion that war was certainly not the unavoidable fate of humanity, but not even a powerful political tool. The terrible price that Europe paid for two world wars led to the formulation of a completely different deterrence architecture than had existed previously over centuries of unending conflict.
So what about East Asia? Before the end of the war in East Asia, the leaders of the allies gathered in Yalta and established a blueprint for the post-war order. That vision clearly was not enough to prevent the Korean War, or the Vietnam War and to some degree America’s overreaction to the spread of socialism at Yalta meant that democratization of East Asia was constrained.
Whereas the economic development in Europe took place within the context of the Cold War and a balance of power, in the Asian case, although there was some variation between countries, the distorted developmental model that countries found themselves following ineluctably was a combination of a developmental authoritarian government system paired with a model for economic development based on exports.
And yet, although the feelings may have been slightly weaker than the case in Europe, there was also a tremendous desire to avoid war in Asia after the Second World War. Japan established a peace constitution, which included Article 9, which renounces the right to declare war or use military force.
Of course Japan and the United States signed a mutual defense treaty and the Self-Defense Forces were established with the encouragement of the United States thereafter, so Japan did in fact have a military. Nonetheless, the restrictions imposed by the constitution meant that for many years Japan‘s military was exclusively defensive in nature as a matter of policy. As a result, the role of the Self-Defense Forces was quite limited.
There are already many organizations formed by citizens, scholars, journalists and local governments dedicated to creating a peaceful future for the Asian region. Some recent examples include the response to the problem of assured security by constitutional law scholars written up in the study “Research on a Comprehensive Peace Assurance Policy that can replace military power” and “The Campaign for a United Nations Declaration for the right to peaceful existence.” In addition, Korean, Chinese and Japanese historians have been working on a joint history of the region since 2004.
