4 New Messages
Digest #4477
Messages
Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:15 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Agence France-Presse
August 30, 2012
Australian military suffers worst day since Vietnam
Five Australian troops were killed in two separate incidents in Afghanistan in what Prime Minister Julia Gillard Thursday described as the nation's deadliest day in combat since the Vietnam War.
The deaths, which included three killings in an "insider attack" by an Afghan solider, brought to 38 the number of Australian lives lost in the conflict.
"This is a very big toll...this is our single worst day in Afghanistan,
"Indeed this is the most lost in combat since the days of the Vietnam War."
Australia's acting defence chief Air Marshal Mark Binskin said the first incident occurred inside a patrol base near Tirin Kot in the restive southern Uruzgan province where about 1,500 Australian troops are deployed.
In the second, two Australian special forces soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed in Helmand province.
"Three Australian soldiers from the 3RAR task group were shot and killed when an individual wearing an Afghan National Army uniform opened fire with an automatic weapon from close range," he told reporters.
The dead soldiers were aged 40, 23, and 21 and were relaxing at the end of the day when the Afghan opened fire, he added.
============
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@
============
Agence France-Presse
August 30, 2012
Australian military suffers worst day since Vietnam
Five Australian troops were killed in two separate incidents in Afghanistan in what Prime Minister Julia Gillard Thursday described as the nation's deadliest day in combat since the Vietnam War.
The deaths, which included three killings in an "insider attack" by an Afghan solider, brought to 38 the number of Australian lives lost in the conflict.
"This is a very big toll...this is our single worst day in Afghanistan,
"Indeed this is the most lost in combat since the days of the Vietnam War."
Australia's acting defence chief Air Marshal Mark Binskin said the first incident occurred inside a patrol base near Tirin Kot in the restive southern Uruzgan province where about 1,500 Australian troops are deployed.
In the second, two Australian special forces soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed in Helmand province.
"Three Australian soldiers from the 3RAR task group were shot and killed when an individual wearing an Afghan National Army uniform opened fire with an automatic weapon from close range," he told reporters.
The dead soldiers were aged 40, 23, and 21 and were relaxing at the end of the day when the Afghan opened fire, he added.
============
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@
============
Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:23 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 30, 2012
Commentary: U.S. should stop playing double game
Edited by RR
BEIJING: An awkward moment was seen Tuesday when a U.S. State Department spokeswoman shunned a question from a Xinhua reporter regarding the territorial status of the Diaoyu Islands.
At a regular briefing, Victoria Nuland ignited a controversy by saying that the U.S.'s official name for the Diaoyu Islands is the Senkakus, Japan's naming for the uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
She then moved hastily to the next question without explaining the contradiction between Washington's self-proclaimed neutrality and its commitment to Japan to provide necessary security support for the islands should they come under attack.
It is the double game the United States plays that reduces Nuland to silence.
Though asserting it does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, Washington has never ceased to employ gamesmanship to roil the waters in the region.
Take the naming of the islands for example. It is a normal practice and a show of neutrality for a third party to simultaneously mention the names used by all the claimants when it comes to a disputed territory, but Washington refuses to follow that practice.
Though the choice of name possesses no legal effect, it does have a political connotation, which is explained by Washington's series of moves.
As tensions between China and Japan continued to rise and opened a huge rift within the region, Washington staged a 37-day joint drill with Tokyo, stirring up the already volatile waters.
What's more, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will discuss tensions in the South China Sea during an upcoming trip to China, suggested the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Japan-U.S. security pact, lending veiled support to Tokyo's claim over the islands.
All these moves show that Washington has strayed off its commitment to not taking sides in the territorial dispute between China and Japan, which, in part, stemmed from U.S. strategic concerns that a rising China would be a threat.
Cold War thinking would be detrimental to China-U.S. relations, which are increasingly important for both regional and world peace and stability.
To be trustworthy partner, the United State should back up its words with actions and abandon the double game.
============
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@
============
Xinhua News Agency
August 30, 2012
Commentary: U.S. should stop playing double game
Edited by RR
BEIJING: An awkward moment was seen Tuesday when a U.S. State Department spokeswoman shunned a question from a Xinhua reporter regarding the territorial status of the Diaoyu Islands.
At a regular briefing, Victoria Nuland ignited a controversy by saying that the U.S.'s official name for the Diaoyu Islands is the Senkakus, Japan's naming for the uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
She then moved hastily to the next question without explaining the contradiction between Washington's self-proclaimed neutrality and its commitment to Japan to provide necessary security support for the islands should they come under attack.
It is the double game the United States plays that reduces Nuland to silence.
Though asserting it does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, Washington has never ceased to employ gamesmanship to roil the waters in the region.
Take the naming of the islands for example. It is a normal practice and a show of neutrality for a third party to simultaneously mention the names used by all the claimants when it comes to a disputed territory, but Washington refuses to follow that practice.
Though the choice of name possesses no legal effect, it does have a political connotation, which is explained by Washington's series of moves.
As tensions between China and Japan continued to rise and opened a huge rift within the region, Washington staged a 37-day joint drill with Tokyo, stirring up the already volatile waters.
What's more, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will discuss tensions in the South China Sea during an upcoming trip to China, suggested the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Japan-U.S. security pact, lending veiled support to Tokyo's claim over the islands.
All these moves show that Washington has strayed off its commitment to not taking sides in the territorial dispute between China and Japan, which, in part, stemmed from U.S. strategic concerns that a rising China would be a threat.
Cold War thinking would be detrimental to China-U.S. relations, which are increasingly important for both regional and world peace and stability.
To be trustworthy partner, the United State should back up its words with actions and abandon the double game.
============
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@
============
Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:52 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 30, 2012
Shift rotation in Gulf: preparations for war?
Ilya Kramnik
The US is sending its aircraft carrier John Stennis, accompanied by warships and a submarine, to the Persian Gulf, where it will replace the Enterprise aircraft carrier. The John Stennis will start its mission in the Gulf four months ahead of schedule, and its deployment will allow the US Central Command to keep two aircraft carriers in the region.
A possibility of a new conflict in the Middle East remains high, with Washington seeking to continue to have a free hand, according to Moscow-based Middle East expert Yevgeny Satanovsky.
"All signs point to the strong possibility of a war in the Gulf," Satanovsky says, praising an array of attempts to prevent this war. "Right now, efforts are being made to ease pressure on Iran, improve ties between Tehran and Arab countries and unblock the Iranian-Israeli conflict. I don’t rule out that the US president will have to take a decision to meddle in a military conflict or launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, something that stipulates the US president having a host of relevant instruments for the purpose."
At present, the possibility of a conflict remains as high as at the beginning of this year, when many believed that war was inevitable. At the time, all those war-related speculations prompted the US to dispatch the Enterprise aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf even though the warship was to be mothballed in the spring of 2012, says Moscow-based defense expert Konstantin Bogdanov.
"This is little more than a planned rotation," Bogdanov says. "The Enterprise’s terms of service has repeatedly been prolonged, and it is only natural that it will be replaced with the John Stennis aircraft carrier. This is a sign that Americans are poised to keep its naval task force of two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region," he concludes.
Meanwhile, experts say that the two carriers’ arsenal will hardly be enough to launch a full-blown air campaign against Iran. In this vein, speaking of a possible war in the Gulf is now irrelevant, they say, adding, however, that the potential deployment of a third US aircraft carrier would add significantly to the possibility of a war.
============
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@
============
Voice of Russia
August 30, 2012
Shift rotation in Gulf: preparations for war?
Ilya Kramnik
The US is sending its aircraft carrier John Stennis, accompanied by warships and a submarine, to the Persian Gulf, where it will replace the Enterprise aircraft carrier. The John Stennis will start its mission in the Gulf four months ahead of schedule, and its deployment will allow the US Central Command to keep two aircraft carriers in the region.
A possibility of a new conflict in the Middle East remains high, with Washington seeking to continue to have a free hand, according to Moscow-based Middle East expert Yevgeny Satanovsky.
"All signs point to the strong possibility of a war in the Gulf," Satanovsky says, praising an array of attempts to prevent this war. "Right now, efforts are being made to ease pressure on Iran, improve ties between Tehran and Arab countries and unblock the Iranian-Israeli conflict. I don’t rule out that the US president will have to take a decision to meddle in a military conflict or launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, something that stipulates the US president having a host of relevant instruments for the purpose."
At present, the possibility of a conflict remains as high as at the beginning of this year, when many believed that war was inevitable. At the time, all those war-related speculations prompted the US to dispatch the Enterprise aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf even though the warship was to be mothballed in the spring of 2012, says Moscow-based defense expert Konstantin Bogdanov.
"This is little more than a planned rotation," Bogdanov says. "The Enterprise’s terms of service has repeatedly been prolonged, and it is only natural that it will be replaced with the John Stennis aircraft carrier. This is a sign that Americans are poised to keep its naval task force of two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region," he concludes.
Meanwhile, experts say that the two carriers’ arsenal will hardly be enough to launch a full-blown air campaign against Iran. In this vein, speaking of a possible war in the Gulf is now irrelevant, they say, adding, however, that the potential deployment of a third US aircraft carrier would add significantly to the possibility of a war.
============
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@
============
Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:52 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.chinadai
China Daily
August 30, 2012
Tread with caution in the East
By Yang Danzhi
====
The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing?
Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.
====
Amid the intensified diplomatic row over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, Japan's senior vice-minister of foreign affairs, arrived in Beijing on Tuesday carrying a letter from Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to President Hu Jintao.
Noda was reported to emphasize the importance of "maintaining the strategic and beneficial relationship" in the letter, which indicates Japan's efforts to play down the dispute.
However, to properly handle the dispute, not only Japan and China should deal with each other with calm and reason, but also the US should no longer add fuel to the fire.
For a long time, the United States has considered itself a provider of common security in East Asia and some East Asian countries have appreciated its role. People who advocate the "hegemonic stability theory" believe the US' presence in East Asia is a prerequisite for peace and security in the region after the end of the Cold War.
The maritime disputes in East Asia, especially the escalation of the disputes over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan and the Dokdo Island (called Takeshima Island in Japan) between the Republic of Korea and Japan, are testing the US' capability of managing a complicated regional situation.
Although the US has repeatedly emphasized the importance of developing and consolidating its ties with China, it recently reiterated that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan, sending a wrong signal to Japan.
In fact, Noda's government had to act tough on China, because a weak stance could lead to a further decline in his domestic support rate to the delight of Japanese right-wingers, and the Japanese government assumed it could count on the strong support of the US. To some extent, the Diaoyu Islands dispute provides an opportunity for Washington to play its role as Tokyo's patron and mediator.
Washington should know that it would create suspicion and discontent in one country if it takes the side of the other in the Sino-Japanese dispute. The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing? No, it will not, even though it is more powerful than China. There are several reasons for that.
Over the past 20 years, the US has been cementing its ties with Japan as the basic shaft of its East Asia strategy. Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.
But the US has ignored a basic fact: Though Japan is used to allying with the stronger of two countries, it lacks systematic strategic thinking. Japan wants to become a political power, but it does not have the ability to cope with the complex regional situation independently and cannot even handle its relations with neighbors that have historical grievances. For one, it refuses to genuinely introspect on its atrocities that brought grave disaster on people in East and Southeast Asian countries in the past.
In recent years, China's rise has added to Japan's strategic anxiety and has had an impact on Sino-Japanese relations. In this sense, the Diaoyu Islands dispute is a reflection of the structural contradictions between Japan and China.
The possibility of the dispute spinning out of control can't be ruled out as the nationalist sentiment is still strong in both countries. To respond to the Japanese right-wingers' provocations and Japan's continuous plan to "nationalize" the Diaoyu Islands, there were protests against Japan across China and calls for the boycotting of Japanese goods. The Japanese flag was even pulled down from the car of the Japanese ambassador to China, making it even harder for both countries to resolve the dispute.
Hence, it is high time the US stopped adding to the tension, for it doesn't serve its own interests. Though the US has declared that it will not support either party in the Diaoyu Islands dispute, developments are making it increasingly difficult to remain its neutrality and continue its strategic ambiguity. So structural contradictions between China and the US and between China and Japan could erupt simultaneously, which is the biggest risk to peace in East Asia.
In the long term, the intensifying of the Diaoyu Islands dispute will narrow the room for maneuvering between China and the US, which does not conform to the interests of the two countries.
For the US, the ROK-Japan island dispute is easier to control than the one over the Diaoyu Islands.
First, despite having historical grievances against Japan, the ROK is not deeply worried about Japan's existing strategic policies. And Japan has no reason to be wary of the ROK's strategies. In fact, domestic political factors to a large extent determine the two countries' foreign policies.
Recently, ROK President Lee Myung-bak and Noda saw their domestic support rate slip below 30 percent. But the two governments know that they can divert people's attention from immediate domestic issues, garner more public support and enhance the reputation of their leaders and parties by resorting to hard-line foreign policies in times of rising nationalist sentiments. Hence, the ROK-Japan island dispute is likely to cool down gradually.
Second, the ROK and Japan are not only eager to guard against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but also are reluctant to see a too powerful China even in the long run.
Also, Japan and the ROK have common interests in the security field and their dispute has not damaged the original framework of security cooperation between them.
Third, the ROK and Japan are part of the US-led security alliance. Since 2010, the US has been trying to build a trilateral - US-ROK-Japan - security cooperation mechanism in Northeast Asia, to which neither the ROK nor Japan has objected.
Such a mechanism can help prevent the ROK-Japan bilateral dispute from escalating. So long as the US continues to pressure, as well as appease the ROK and Japan, they will get back onto the diplomatic track.
Regional cooperation in East Asia has reached a critical stage, while frequent and escalating maritime disputes are impeding the process of regional integration. This may ease Washington's concerns over East Asian regionalism forming spontaneously.
But an East Asia without cooperation but with a surfeit of disputes could become another Balkans, where nobody can predict accurately when the powder keg is going to explode. And the day it does, it will be disastrous for the countries in the region as well as the US.
The author is a researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
China Daily
August 30, 2012
Tread with caution in the East
By Yang Danzhi
====
The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing?
Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.
====
Amid the intensified diplomatic row over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, Japan's senior vice-minister of foreign affairs, arrived in Beijing on Tuesday carrying a letter from Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to President Hu Jintao.
Noda was reported to emphasize the importance of "maintaining the strategic and beneficial relationship" in the letter, which indicates Japan's efforts to play down the dispute.
However, to properly handle the dispute, not only Japan and China should deal with each other with calm and reason, but also the US should no longer add fuel to the fire.
For a long time, the United States has considered itself a provider of common security in East Asia and some East Asian countries have appreciated its role. People who advocate the "hegemonic stability theory" believe the US' presence in East Asia is a prerequisite for peace and security in the region after the end of the Cold War.
The maritime disputes in East Asia, especially the escalation of the disputes over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan and the Dokdo Island (called Takeshima Island in Japan) between the Republic of Korea and Japan, are testing the US' capability of managing a complicated regional situation.
Although the US has repeatedly emphasized the importance of developing and consolidating its ties with China, it recently reiterated that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan, sending a wrong signal to Japan.
In fact, Noda's government had to act tough on China, because a weak stance could lead to a further decline in his domestic support rate to the delight of Japanese right-wingers, and the Japanese government assumed it could count on the strong support of the US. To some extent, the Diaoyu Islands dispute provides an opportunity for Washington to play its role as Tokyo's patron and mediator.
Washington should know that it would create suspicion and discontent in one country if it takes the side of the other in the Sino-Japanese dispute. The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing? No, it will not, even though it is more powerful than China. There are several reasons for that.
Over the past 20 years, the US has been cementing its ties with Japan as the basic shaft of its East Asia strategy. Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.
But the US has ignored a basic fact: Though Japan is used to allying with the stronger of two countries, it lacks systematic strategic thinking. Japan wants to become a political power, but it does not have the ability to cope with the complex regional situation independently and cannot even handle its relations with neighbors that have historical grievances. For one, it refuses to genuinely introspect on its atrocities that brought grave disaster on people in East and Southeast Asian countries in the past.
In recent years, China's rise has added to Japan's strategic anxiety and has had an impact on Sino-Japanese relations. In this sense, the Diaoyu Islands dispute is a reflection of the structural contradictions between Japan and China.
The possibility of the dispute spinning out of control can't be ruled out as the nationalist sentiment is still strong in both countries. To respond to the Japanese right-wingers' provocations and Japan's continuous plan to "nationalize" the Diaoyu Islands, there were protests against Japan across China and calls for the boycotting of Japanese goods. The Japanese flag was even pulled down from the car of the Japanese ambassador to China, making it even harder for both countries to resolve the dispute.
Hence, it is high time the US stopped adding to the tension, for it doesn't serve its own interests. Though the US has declared that it will not support either party in the Diaoyu Islands dispute, developments are making it increasingly difficult to remain its neutrality and continue its strategic ambiguity. So structural contradictions between China and the US and between China and Japan could erupt simultaneously, which is the biggest risk to peace in East Asia.
In the long term, the intensifying of the Diaoyu Islands dispute will narrow the room for maneuvering between China and the US, which does not conform to the interests of the two countries.
For the US, the ROK-Japan island dispute is easier to control than the one over the Diaoyu Islands.
First, despite having historical grievances against Japan, the ROK is not deeply worried about Japan's existing strategic policies. And Japan has no reason to be wary of the ROK's strategies. In fact, domestic political factors to a large extent determine the two countries' foreign policies.
Recently, ROK President Lee Myung-bak and Noda saw their domestic support rate slip below 30 percent. But the two governments know that they can divert people's attention from immediate domestic issues, garner more public support and enhance the reputation of their leaders and parties by resorting to hard-line foreign policies in times of rising nationalist sentiments. Hence, the ROK-Japan island dispute is likely to cool down gradually.
Second, the ROK and Japan are not only eager to guard against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but also are reluctant to see a too powerful China even in the long run.
Also, Japan and the ROK have common interests in the security field and their dispute has not damaged the original framework of security cooperation between them.
Third, the ROK and Japan are part of the US-led security alliance. Since 2010, the US has been trying to build a trilateral - US-ROK-Japan - security cooperation mechanism in Northeast Asia, to which neither the ROK nor Japan has objected.
Such a mechanism can help prevent the ROK-Japan bilateral dispute from escalating. So long as the US continues to pressure, as well as appease the ROK and Japan, they will get back onto the diplomatic track.
Regional cooperation in East Asia has reached a critical stage, while frequent and escalating maritime disputes are impeding the process of regional integration. This may ease Washington's concerns over East Asian regionalism forming spontaneously.
But an East Asia without cooperation but with a surfeit of disputes could become another Balkans, where nobody can predict accurately when the powder keg is going to explode. And the day it does, it will be disastrous for the countries in the region as well as the US.
The author is a researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
