3 New Messages
Digest #4455
Messages
Tue Aug 7, 2012 3:53 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rickrozoff.
Stop NATO
August 7, 2012
Turkey: NATO's Neo-Ottoman Spearhead in the Middle East
Rick Rozoff
Turkey already has troops in Syria and has threatened military action to protect the site they guard.
A 1921 agreement between Ottoman Turkey and France (the Treaty of Ankara) [1], the latter at the time the colonial administrator of Syria, guaranteed Turkey the right to station military personnel at the mausoleum of Suleyman Shah (Süleyman Şah), the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I (Osman Bey).
Turkey considers the area adjacent to the tomb to be its, and not Syria's, sovereign territory and late last month reinforced its 15-troop contingent there.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated the following in an interview televised on August 5: "The tomb of Süleyman Şah and the land surrounding it is our territory. We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory, as well as an attack on NATO land. Everyone knows his duty, and will continue to do what is necessary.” The gravesite of a Seljuk sultan who was reputed to have drowned in the Euphrates River while on a campaign of conquest is now proclaimed a NATO outpost in Syria.
If confirmation was required that a neo-Ottoman Turkey is determined to reassert the influence and authority in Mesopotamia it gained 700 years before and lost a century ago and, moreover, that it was doing so as part of a campaign by self-christened global NATO to expand into the Arab world, the Turkish head of state's threat to militarily intervene in Syria with the support of its 27 NATO allies should provide it.
Especially as the above complements and reinforces the roles of the U.S. and NATO in providing military assistance to Ankara in its current war of attrition against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey and Iraq, with Syria soon to follow as last week Turkey deployed troops, tanks, other armored vehicles and missile batteries to within two kilometers of the Syrian border last week for war games [2]. Last week a retired Turkish official compared the current anti-Kurdish offensive to the Sri Lankan military's final onslaught against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) three years ago, ending the 25-year-long war against the latter with its complete annihilation.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's trip to Colombia in April was designed to achieve the same result in the 48-year joint Colombian-U.
In the current era of international lawlessness, only NATO states and American clients like Colombia and Israel are permitted to conduct military strikes and incursions into other nations and to wage wars of extermination against opponents.
In the same interview cited above, Turkey's Erdogan asserted the right to continue launching military strikes against Kurdish targets in neighboring countries, stating, "It should be known that as long as the region remains a source of threat[s] for Turkey we will continue staging operations wherever it is needed."
Turkish Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin recently claimed that his nation's armed forces had killed 130 suspected PKK members and supporters in Hakkari province, which borders Iran and Iraq.
Specifically in respect to military attacks inside Syria, Erdogan stated: "One cannot rule that out. We have three brigades along the border currently conducting maneuvers there. And we cannot remain patient in the face of a mistake that can be made there."
He also stated, in reference to fighting in the Syrian city of Aleppo, "I believe the Assad regime draws to its end with each passing day" and criticized Iran's support, which is to say its recognition, of the Syrian government. Iran is the inevitable secondary target of actions directed by Turkey and its NATO and Persian Gulf Arab allies against Syria and will be struck through Iraq also.
In the same interview the Turkish head of state identified a third target: Iraq. He condemned the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declaring it illegitimate and urging it be overthrown. In what portends confrontation and possible conflict with Iran and Syria as well by exploiting the PKK issue, he added:
"Even though we should be countries that share the same values, for us to be in such rigor [conflict?] only makes the terrorist organization more powerful. This leads us to approach each other with suspicion."
In the process he criticized Iran as well:
"It is not possible to accept Iran's stance [of supporting the Iraqi government]. We conveyed this to them at the highest level of talks. We said to them, 'Look, this has been a source of disturbance in the region.'"
His comments occurred after the Iraqi government criticized the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to the cities of Kirkuk and Irbil in the Kurdistan Regional Government-controll
On August 7 Hurriyet Daily News columnist Murat Yetkin offered this perspective on the matter:
"Because Iraq [is] at risk of falling apart. Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the north of the country, which borders Turkey, has started to sign oil and gas deals with energy giants despite the objection of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, who refuses to approve a hydrocarbons law to regulate the sharing of oil and gas income. The energy giants have an interest in supplying more oil and gas that is not controlled or is less controlled by Russia and Iran to Western markets; Turkey provides an option under NATO protection for both Iraqi Kurdish and Azeri resources to be transferred further west. The presence of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the KRG region and its armed campaign is, of course, a pain in the neck and a big obstacle to greater cooperation.
On July 26 the same commentator claimed that "There are already political and economic actors trying to push Turkey to claim some energy-rich parts of Iraq and Syria, which would mean a regime change such as a federated Turkey, with Kurdish and possibly Arabic members," which, he conceded, "could drag the whole region into a chain reaction of wars."
Part of Turkey's justification for involvement in northern Iraq, and another pretext for potential military intervention, is the protection of their ethnic kin, the Turkmen, in the country.
However, since the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq in 2003 the true indigenous people of the north, the Assyrians, have been decimated by attacks from Barzani's peshmergas and Saudi-backed Wahhabi extremists without Turkey, or the West, being in the least degree concerned. Eight years ago there were an estimated 1.5 million Assyrian and other Christians in Iraq; now there under 500,000. Churches have been destroyed and in 2008 the Chaldean Catholic Archeparch of Mosul, Archbishop Mar Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped and murdered in the northern Iraqi city where he resided. Other religious minorities - Shiites, Mandeans, Sabeans and Yezidis - have suffered the same fate.
The Barzani government in the north has become a Turkish foothold inside the country, which has aided Ankara by preventing the PKK from operating on its territory and suppressing its sympathizers. It is also a dependable Sunni ally for Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies in efforts to weaken the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. The al-Maliki administration condemned last week's visit by the Turkish foreign minister to the Kurdish-dominated north as a violation of Iraq's constitution and national sovereignty as Davutoglu had neither requested nor obtained permission to enter Kirkuk.
Iraq's Foreign Ministry handed the Turkish chargé d'affaires in Baghdad a harshly-worded statement and the Turkish Foreign Minister in response summoned the Iraqi ambassador to lodge a protest.
With Turkish threats against Iraq and Syria, and by inevitable implication Iran, mounting, on August 6 the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Seyed Hassan Firuzabadi, warned that:
“Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are responsible for blood being shed on Syrian soil.
“This is not an appropriate precedent, that neighboring countries of Syria contribute to the belligerent purposes of...the United States. If these countries have accepted such a precedent, they must be aware that after Syria, it will be the turn of Turkey and other countries.
He added that Iran fears “Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have become victims of promoting the terrorism of al-Qaeda and we warn our friends about this.”
On the same day Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian stated, "There is a question that when al-Qaeda plays an active role in Syrian terrorism and violence, why the US and other countries back the shipment of heavy and semi-heavy weapons to the country?"
Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that "Turkey and those who support and arm terrorists" in Syria were responsible for the safety of 48 Iranians kidnapped in the country on August 4.
The following day the Turkish press reported that Osman Karahan, a Turkish lawyer who defended a suspected top-level al-Qaeda operative accused of participating in deadly bomb attacks in Istanbul in November of 2003 was killed in Aleppo fighting with anti-government forces. In 2006 the Turkish government charged Karahan with aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.
Syria has announced that it captured several Turkish and Saudi military officers in Aleppo. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have established a base in the Turkish city of Adana, 60 miles from the Syrian border, to supply weapons and training to Syrian rebels for cross-border attacks.
The Turkish government is providing bases, training and advisers for al-Qaeda and other participants in the insurrection against the Syrian government at the same time that it is threatening Syria, Iraq and Iran over the "terrorist" Kurdistan Workers' Party.
In bordering Iran, Iraq and Syria, Turkey provides NATO - and through NATO the Pentagon - direct access to those three nations. The final stage in the West's Greater Missile East Initiative is now well underway, as is a new redivision of the Levant modeled after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.
1) http://www.hri.
2) NATO’s Secret Kurdish War: Turkey Prepares Iraq-Style Attacks Inside
Syria
Stop NATO
August 1, 2012
http://rickrozoff.
3) U.S.’s Post-Afghanistan Counterinsurgency War: Colombia
Stop NATO
April 23, 2012
http://rickrozoff.
============
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@
============
Stop NATO
August 7, 2012
Turkey: NATO's Neo-Ottoman Spearhead in the Middle East
Rick Rozoff
Turkey already has troops in Syria and has threatened military action to protect the site they guard.
A 1921 agreement between Ottoman Turkey and France (the Treaty of Ankara) [1], the latter at the time the colonial administrator of Syria, guaranteed Turkey the right to station military personnel at the mausoleum of Suleyman Shah (Süleyman Şah), the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I (Osman Bey).
Turkey considers the area adjacent to the tomb to be its, and not Syria's, sovereign territory and late last month reinforced its 15-troop contingent there.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated the following in an interview televised on August 5: "The tomb of Süleyman Şah and the land surrounding it is our territory. We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory, as well as an attack on NATO land. Everyone knows his duty, and will continue to do what is necessary.” The gravesite of a Seljuk sultan who was reputed to have drowned in the Euphrates River while on a campaign of conquest is now proclaimed a NATO outpost in Syria.
If confirmation was required that a neo-Ottoman Turkey is determined to reassert the influence and authority in Mesopotamia it gained 700 years before and lost a century ago and, moreover, that it was doing so as part of a campaign by self-christened global NATO to expand into the Arab world, the Turkish head of state's threat to militarily intervene in Syria with the support of its 27 NATO allies should provide it.
Especially as the above complements and reinforces the roles of the U.S. and NATO in providing military assistance to Ankara in its current war of attrition against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey and Iraq, with Syria soon to follow as last week Turkey deployed troops, tanks, other armored vehicles and missile batteries to within two kilometers of the Syrian border last week for war games [2]. Last week a retired Turkish official compared the current anti-Kurdish offensive to the Sri Lankan military's final onslaught against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) three years ago, ending the 25-year-long war against the latter with its complete annihilation.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's trip to Colombia in April was designed to achieve the same result in the 48-year joint Colombian-U.
In the current era of international lawlessness, only NATO states and American clients like Colombia and Israel are permitted to conduct military strikes and incursions into other nations and to wage wars of extermination against opponents.
In the same interview cited above, Turkey's Erdogan asserted the right to continue launching military strikes against Kurdish targets in neighboring countries, stating, "It should be known that as long as the region remains a source of threat[s] for Turkey we will continue staging operations wherever it is needed."
Turkish Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin recently claimed that his nation's armed forces had killed 130 suspected PKK members and supporters in Hakkari province, which borders Iran and Iraq.
Specifically in respect to military attacks inside Syria, Erdogan stated: "One cannot rule that out. We have three brigades along the border currently conducting maneuvers there. And we cannot remain patient in the face of a mistake that can be made there."
He also stated, in reference to fighting in the Syrian city of Aleppo, "I believe the Assad regime draws to its end with each passing day" and criticized Iran's support, which is to say its recognition, of the Syrian government. Iran is the inevitable secondary target of actions directed by Turkey and its NATO and Persian Gulf Arab allies against Syria and will be struck through Iraq also.
In the same interview the Turkish head of state identified a third target: Iraq. He condemned the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declaring it illegitimate and urging it be overthrown. In what portends confrontation and possible conflict with Iran and Syria as well by exploiting the PKK issue, he added:
"Even though we should be countries that share the same values, for us to be in such rigor [conflict?] only makes the terrorist organization more powerful. This leads us to approach each other with suspicion."
In the process he criticized Iran as well:
"It is not possible to accept Iran's stance [of supporting the Iraqi government]. We conveyed this to them at the highest level of talks. We said to them, 'Look, this has been a source of disturbance in the region.'"
His comments occurred after the Iraqi government criticized the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to the cities of Kirkuk and Irbil in the Kurdistan Regional Government-controll
On August 7 Hurriyet Daily News columnist Murat Yetkin offered this perspective on the matter:
"Because Iraq [is] at risk of falling apart. Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the north of the country, which borders Turkey, has started to sign oil and gas deals with energy giants despite the objection of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, who refuses to approve a hydrocarbons law to regulate the sharing of oil and gas income. The energy giants have an interest in supplying more oil and gas that is not controlled or is less controlled by Russia and Iran to Western markets; Turkey provides an option under NATO protection for both Iraqi Kurdish and Azeri resources to be transferred further west. The presence of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the KRG region and its armed campaign is, of course, a pain in the neck and a big obstacle to greater cooperation.
On July 26 the same commentator claimed that "There are already political and economic actors trying to push Turkey to claim some energy-rich parts of Iraq and Syria, which would mean a regime change such as a federated Turkey, with Kurdish and possibly Arabic members," which, he conceded, "could drag the whole region into a chain reaction of wars."
Part of Turkey's justification for involvement in northern Iraq, and another pretext for potential military intervention, is the protection of their ethnic kin, the Turkmen, in the country.
However, since the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq in 2003 the true indigenous people of the north, the Assyrians, have been decimated by attacks from Barzani's peshmergas and Saudi-backed Wahhabi extremists without Turkey, or the West, being in the least degree concerned. Eight years ago there were an estimated 1.5 million Assyrian and other Christians in Iraq; now there under 500,000. Churches have been destroyed and in 2008 the Chaldean Catholic Archeparch of Mosul, Archbishop Mar Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped and murdered in the northern Iraqi city where he resided. Other religious minorities - Shiites, Mandeans, Sabeans and Yezidis - have suffered the same fate.
The Barzani government in the north has become a Turkish foothold inside the country, which has aided Ankara by preventing the PKK from operating on its territory and suppressing its sympathizers. It is also a dependable Sunni ally for Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies in efforts to weaken the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. The al-Maliki administration condemned last week's visit by the Turkish foreign minister to the Kurdish-dominated north as a violation of Iraq's constitution and national sovereignty as Davutoglu had neither requested nor obtained permission to enter Kirkuk.
Iraq's Foreign Ministry handed the Turkish chargé d'affaires in Baghdad a harshly-worded statement and the Turkish Foreign Minister in response summoned the Iraqi ambassador to lodge a protest.
With Turkish threats against Iraq and Syria, and by inevitable implication Iran, mounting, on August 6 the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Seyed Hassan Firuzabadi, warned that:
“Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are responsible for blood being shed on Syrian soil.
“This is not an appropriate precedent, that neighboring countries of Syria contribute to the belligerent purposes of...the United States. If these countries have accepted such a precedent, they must be aware that after Syria, it will be the turn of Turkey and other countries.
He added that Iran fears “Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have become victims of promoting the terrorism of al-Qaeda and we warn our friends about this.”
On the same day Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian stated, "There is a question that when al-Qaeda plays an active role in Syrian terrorism and violence, why the US and other countries back the shipment of heavy and semi-heavy weapons to the country?"
Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that "Turkey and those who support and arm terrorists" in Syria were responsible for the safety of 48 Iranians kidnapped in the country on August 4.
The following day the Turkish press reported that Osman Karahan, a Turkish lawyer who defended a suspected top-level al-Qaeda operative accused of participating in deadly bomb attacks in Istanbul in November of 2003 was killed in Aleppo fighting with anti-government forces. In 2006 the Turkish government charged Karahan with aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.
Syria has announced that it captured several Turkish and Saudi military officers in Aleppo. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have established a base in the Turkish city of Adana, 60 miles from the Syrian border, to supply weapons and training to Syrian rebels for cross-border attacks.
The Turkish government is providing bases, training and advisers for al-Qaeda and other participants in the insurrection against the Syrian government at the same time that it is threatening Syria, Iraq and Iran over the "terrorist" Kurdistan Workers' Party.
In bordering Iran, Iraq and Syria, Turkey provides NATO - and through NATO the Pentagon - direct access to those three nations. The final stage in the West's Greater Missile East Initiative is now well underway, as is a new redivision of the Levant modeled after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.
1) http://www.hri.
2) NATO’s Secret Kurdish War: Turkey Prepares Iraq-Style Attacks Inside
Syria
Stop NATO
August 1, 2012
http://rickrozoff.
3) U.S.’s Post-Afghanistan Counterinsurgency War: Colombia
Stop NATO
April 23, 2012
http://rickrozoff.
============
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@
============
Tue Aug 7, 2012 3:53 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 7, 2012
Isn't the US too late in its scramble for Africa?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
While the US was flexing its muscles in Iraq and Afghanistan (later, in Libya, currently in Syria, and further on other nations), taking a much less outspoken but nonetheless more effective approach of "soft power" penetrated the abandoned regions. The role of the frontrunner among new patrons of the developed world was unambiguously taken by China, which has established itself as the number one trade partner and a prominent investor not only in Africa but also in the region that for centuries had been regarded as the US' "backyard" – Latin America.
[W]hat is surprising, though, is the fact that a call to Africa not to fall prey to "new colonialism" comes from Washington. Or do US political and business leaders think that the "forgotten continent" is also forgetful and that the people of Africa have forgotten what real colonialism and neocolonialism is, and who were the main bearers of the phenomenon?
====
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a high-ranking delegation of US officials and representatives of huge American companies including Boeing and General Electric is currently in South Africa with the aim of boosting trade and investment in what until recently was called a "forgotten continent".
The delegation is headed by Fred Hochberg, chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the US and one of the highest-ranking business leaders in the Obama administration.
The task facing the US business leaders is not a simple one. For decades, Africa was looted by colonial and later neo-colonial powers, the US being the leader among the latter. Then, for some reason, the West largely lost interest in the continent (at least in its sub-Saharan part). The tendency became more than obvious during George W. Bush tenure – he was so preoccupied with the idea of establishing US dominance in the "Greater Middle East" that he left other regions virtually unattended – Africa being the most obvious but not the only among them.
But as is widely known, there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature. While the US was flexing its muscles in Iraq and Afghanistan (later, in Libya, currently in Syria, and further on other nations), taking a much less outspoken but nonetheless more effective approach of "soft power" penetrated the abandoned regions. The role of the frontrunner among new patrons of the developed world was unambiguously taken by China, which has established itself as the number one trade partner and a prominent investor not only in Africa but also in the region that for centuries had been regarded as the US' "backyard" – Latin America.
The basic statistics quoted in the WSJ speak for themselves. In 2011 the US was only the third largest exporter to Africa after China and former colonial power France, while exports from numbers 2 and 3 on the list (France and the US) combined together do not even match those from China.
Barack Obama's administration has realized that the narrow focus on the Broader Middle East is fraught with too many risks – both domestically and internationally.
At the end of 2011, the administration proclaimed the Asia-Pacific as the area of core US interests. The move was universally recognized as aimed at containing China's influence. But as it turns out, China's growing influence is not limited to the adjacent regions only. China has established itself as a marine power with perpetual presence in the Indian Ocean, and, as has been said above, is successfully positioning itself as the main partner on other distant playgrounds.
So, the task of containing China becomes the administration'
In this context, the visit of the US business delegation cannot be regarded as an isolated event. Not surprisingly, about a week ago, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton also paid a visit to a number of sub-Saharan African countries. During the visit, she took all pains to persuade her African partners that the relationship with the US is more beneficial for them than relations with China. Among the arguments Ms. Hillary put forward were the usual appellations to the "respect for democracy and human rights that accompany US investments"
It is true that the methods China is using in Africa (an elsewhere) are far from being truly respectful of the local partners and more often than not violate basic socio-economic, environmental and other humanitarian principles. A recent incident in Zambia, when a Chinese manager of a mine was killed during a local workers' riot is just one of numerous examples showing the real nature of China's relationship with its partners.
But what is surprising, though, is the fact that a call to Africa not to fall prey to "new colonialism" comes from Washington. Or do US political and business leaders think that the "forgotten continent" is also forgetful and that the people of Africa have forgotten what real colonialism and neocolonialism is, and who were the main bearers of the phenomenon?
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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 7, 2012
Isn't the US too late in its scramble for Africa?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
While the US was flexing its muscles in Iraq and Afghanistan (later, in Libya, currently in Syria, and further on other nations), taking a much less outspoken but nonetheless more effective approach of "soft power" penetrated the abandoned regions. The role of the frontrunner among new patrons of the developed world was unambiguously taken by China, which has established itself as the number one trade partner and a prominent investor not only in Africa but also in the region that for centuries had been regarded as the US' "backyard" – Latin America.
[W]hat is surprising, though, is the fact that a call to Africa not to fall prey to "new colonialism" comes from Washington. Or do US political and business leaders think that the "forgotten continent" is also forgetful and that the people of Africa have forgotten what real colonialism and neocolonialism is, and who were the main bearers of the phenomenon?
====
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a high-ranking delegation of US officials and representatives of huge American companies including Boeing and General Electric is currently in South Africa with the aim of boosting trade and investment in what until recently was called a "forgotten continent".
The delegation is headed by Fred Hochberg, chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the US and one of the highest-ranking business leaders in the Obama administration.
The task facing the US business leaders is not a simple one. For decades, Africa was looted by colonial and later neo-colonial powers, the US being the leader among the latter. Then, for some reason, the West largely lost interest in the continent (at least in its sub-Saharan part). The tendency became more than obvious during George W. Bush tenure – he was so preoccupied with the idea of establishing US dominance in the "Greater Middle East" that he left other regions virtually unattended – Africa being the most obvious but not the only among them.
But as is widely known, there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature. While the US was flexing its muscles in Iraq and Afghanistan (later, in Libya, currently in Syria, and further on other nations), taking a much less outspoken but nonetheless more effective approach of "soft power" penetrated the abandoned regions. The role of the frontrunner among new patrons of the developed world was unambiguously taken by China, which has established itself as the number one trade partner and a prominent investor not only in Africa but also in the region that for centuries had been regarded as the US' "backyard" – Latin America.
The basic statistics quoted in the WSJ speak for themselves. In 2011 the US was only the third largest exporter to Africa after China and former colonial power France, while exports from numbers 2 and 3 on the list (France and the US) combined together do not even match those from China.
Barack Obama's administration has realized that the narrow focus on the Broader Middle East is fraught with too many risks – both domestically and internationally.
At the end of 2011, the administration proclaimed the Asia-Pacific as the area of core US interests. The move was universally recognized as aimed at containing China's influence. But as it turns out, China's growing influence is not limited to the adjacent regions only. China has established itself as a marine power with perpetual presence in the Indian Ocean, and, as has been said above, is successfully positioning itself as the main partner on other distant playgrounds.
So, the task of containing China becomes the administration'
In this context, the visit of the US business delegation cannot be regarded as an isolated event. Not surprisingly, about a week ago, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton also paid a visit to a number of sub-Saharan African countries. During the visit, she took all pains to persuade her African partners that the relationship with the US is more beneficial for them than relations with China. Among the arguments Ms. Hillary put forward were the usual appellations to the "respect for democracy and human rights that accompany US investments"
It is true that the methods China is using in Africa (an elsewhere) are far from being truly respectful of the local partners and more often than not violate basic socio-economic, environmental and other humanitarian principles. A recent incident in Zambia, when a Chinese manager of a mine was killed during a local workers' riot is just one of numerous examples showing the real nature of China's relationship with its partners.
But what is surprising, though, is the fact that a call to Africa not to fall prey to "new colonialism" comes from Washington. Or do US political and business leaders think that the "forgotten continent" is also forgetful and that the people of Africa have forgotten what real colonialism and neocolonialism is, and who were the main bearers of the phenomenon?
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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@
============
Tue Aug 7, 2012 7:16 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 6, 2012
Obama and his baseball bat: “speak softly and carry a big stick”
John Robles
A picture is worth a thousand words and this time the picture in question, a photo of U.S. President Barack Obama holding a baseball bat while speaking to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is seen as a clear threat to the prime minister of the staunch U.S. ally and the sovereign nation of Turkey.
Imagery is very important and the White House is acutely aware of that, therefore the release of the photo can in no way be something as innocent as Obama possessing a love of baseball, a claim made by the White House.
Had he been dressed in a tracksuit and tennis shoes perhaps we could have been convinced of Obama’s sporting virtues and love of sports, yet the photograph shows Obama in his official uniform, complete with jacket and tie, as he very demonstrably holds a baseball bat with a white-knuckle grip.
Perhaps Obama has taken the example of Teddy Roosevelt a little too literally and decided to proceed with his Middle East plans as Roosevelt did with the Monroe Doctrine, his corollary being: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”
Roosevelt, who quite possible coined the phrase himself, claimed the phrase was a West African proverb, some saying he did so to show what a prolific reader he was. The phrase and Obama’s carefully composed Oval Office photograph point to the idea of negotiating diplomatically while threatening with a big stick, something so amoral and Machiavellian in nature that it really has no place in our modern “civilized” world, yet which characterizes U.S. foreign policy.
With the U.S. launching wars of aggression at will and already engaged in a campaign of re-shaping and subjugating the entire Muslim world, and most of the planet for that matter, posting a picture of the so-called “leader of the free world” with a baseball bat while stating clearly who he is speaking with is, to a rational person, a very thinly veiled threat at military aggression.
Since the White House was kind enough to inform the world as to the topic of the discussion he was having with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, that being Syria, it is clear that the message was that Turkey had better toe the line when it comes to Syria.
Turkish politicians and the Turkish people were clearly insulted by what many see as a clear threat by the U.S. According to Metin Lutfi Baydar, a Turkish politician with Turkey’s Republican People’s Party who has been heavily quoted in the press: ”The photo reveals from whom our Prime Minister receives orders to rule the country...” Hmm, orders to rule the country? Interesting.
Another reaction from the Turkish side was by columnist Ahmet Hakan, for the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, who wrote: “We need to do something – retaliation seems to be the most reasonable method. Our prime minister needs to hold something in his hand as he’s calling Obama...perhaps a slipper, a belt or a rolling pin.”
The Prime Minister himself told Turkey’s Haber news channel that Obama is “a friend who never falls short of respect or politeness.” clearly a diplomatic acquiescence to his all-powerful “friend” Obama.
The Western media, forever apologists for the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy, was quick to publish White House disclaimers and statements as to the innocence of the photo in question.
According to White House spokesperson Caitlin Hayden: “We released the photo with only one purpose in mind, to highlight the President’s continuing close relationship with Prime Minister Erdogan and draw attention to the important conversation they had about the worsening situation in Syria.”
To tell us that it was an innocent photo is to insult our intelligence and an attempt to make us believe something that is highly unlikely. The White House, which employs the world’s best propaganda experts and media analysts, does not make such gaffs.
The whole affair brings to mind a photo by the Bush White House, which was quickly pulled and disappeared from the net as quickly as it appeared. It showed Bush standing with his arms outspread and his head tilted in a sympathetic and merciful manner with a chandelier in the background appearing as a halo over his head, a clear imitation of images of Jesus Christ. This was a clear message promoting Bush’s view that he was on a mission from God.
The White House knows exactly what it is doing. Imagery is a powerful tool and this time the adage; “a picture is worth a thousand words” has never been more true or applicable.
Voice of Russia
August 6, 2012
Obama and his baseball bat: “speak softly and carry a big stick”
John Robles
A picture is worth a thousand words and this time the picture in question, a photo of U.S. President Barack Obama holding a baseball bat while speaking to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is seen as a clear threat to the prime minister of the staunch U.S. ally and the sovereign nation of Turkey.
Imagery is very important and the White House is acutely aware of that, therefore the release of the photo can in no way be something as innocent as Obama possessing a love of baseball, a claim made by the White House.
Had he been dressed in a tracksuit and tennis shoes perhaps we could have been convinced of Obama’s sporting virtues and love of sports, yet the photograph shows Obama in his official uniform, complete with jacket and tie, as he very demonstrably holds a baseball bat with a white-knuckle grip.
Perhaps Obama has taken the example of Teddy Roosevelt a little too literally and decided to proceed with his Middle East plans as Roosevelt did with the Monroe Doctrine, his corollary being: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”
Roosevelt, who quite possible coined the phrase himself, claimed the phrase was a West African proverb, some saying he did so to show what a prolific reader he was. The phrase and Obama’s carefully composed Oval Office photograph point to the idea of negotiating diplomatically while threatening with a big stick, something so amoral and Machiavellian in nature that it really has no place in our modern “civilized” world, yet which characterizes U.S. foreign policy.
With the U.S. launching wars of aggression at will and already engaged in a campaign of re-shaping and subjugating the entire Muslim world, and most of the planet for that matter, posting a picture of the so-called “leader of the free world” with a baseball bat while stating clearly who he is speaking with is, to a rational person, a very thinly veiled threat at military aggression.
Since the White House was kind enough to inform the world as to the topic of the discussion he was having with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, that being Syria, it is clear that the message was that Turkey had better toe the line when it comes to Syria.
Turkish politicians and the Turkish people were clearly insulted by what many see as a clear threat by the U.S. According to Metin Lutfi Baydar, a Turkish politician with Turkey’s Republican People’s Party who has been heavily quoted in the press: ”The photo reveals from whom our Prime Minister receives orders to rule the country...” Hmm, orders to rule the country? Interesting.
Another reaction from the Turkish side was by columnist Ahmet Hakan, for the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, who wrote: “We need to do something – retaliation seems to be the most reasonable method. Our prime minister needs to hold something in his hand as he’s calling Obama...perhaps a slipper, a belt or a rolling pin.”
The Prime Minister himself told Turkey’s Haber news channel that Obama is “a friend who never falls short of respect or politeness.” clearly a diplomatic acquiescence to his all-powerful “friend” Obama.
The Western media, forever apologists for the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy, was quick to publish White House disclaimers and statements as to the innocence of the photo in question.
According to White House spokesperson Caitlin Hayden: “We released the photo with only one purpose in mind, to highlight the President’s continuing close relationship with Prime Minister Erdogan and draw attention to the important conversation they had about the worsening situation in Syria.”
To tell us that it was an innocent photo is to insult our intelligence and an attempt to make us believe something that is highly unlikely. The White House, which employs the world’s best propaganda experts and media analysts, does not make such gaffs.
The whole affair brings to mind a photo by the Bush White House, which was quickly pulled and disappeared from the net as quickly as it appeared. It showed Bush standing with his arms outspread and his head tilted in a sympathetic and merciful manner with a chandelier in the background appearing as a halo over his head, a clear imitation of images of Jesus Christ. This was a clear message promoting Bush’s view that he was on a mission from God.
The White House knows exactly what it is doing. Imagery is a powerful tool and this time the adage; “a picture is worth a thousand words” has never been more true or applicable.
