3 New Messages
Digest #4476
Messages
Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.southern
Southern Times
August 28, 2012
AFRICOM juggernaut comes to town
Edited by RR
Windhoek: The US already has more than 2,000 troops at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti to combat “terrorism and piracy”.
America also has agreements with Gabon, Mali, Morocco, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia for use of local military bases, dubbed “lily pads”, as and when it needs.
Since 2007, Washington has made a concerted push to permanently house AFRICOM in Africa.
The US believes 2012 is the year that the dream becomes a reality.
In 2010 Peter Pham, a neoconservative African policy “expert” and US military advisor, said Africa was a “neglected stepchild” of Washington's foreign policy.
“Myself and a few other academics had been kicking around the idea of a combatant command for Africa since the late 1990s, without much success.
“When the (George W.) Bush administration suddenly saw these ungoverned spaces as a cause for concern, I thought, if you are looking for ungoverned areas, porous borders and weak states, then look no further than Africa.
"That created a buzz,” Pham said.
The following year, Pham told the US Congress: “This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy, averaging nine percent growth per annum over the last two decades, has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it.
“It seems AFRICOM is off to a strong start as the opposition to China in Africa.
“The litmus test will be who Obama selects as his Africa person and whether he tries to weaken Congo President Joseph Kabila in favour of backing Nkunda’s death squads, naturally in the name of ‘restoring democracy.'”
And then in July last year, as previously reported by The Southern Times, a US Congressional Research Service paper for members and committees said AFRICOM would have an African home in 2012.
The paper, “AFRICOM: US Strategic Interests and the Role of the US Military on Africa”, was presented by Lauren Ploch, an American “expert” on African affairs.
She said, “A decision on AFRICOM’s final headquarters location has been postponed to 2012 to allow the command to gain greater understanding of its long-term operational requirements.”
The “humanitarian” card has already been used to deploy the military in Libya, Cote d'Ivoire, East Africa and the Horn of Africa in the last year alone.
Lysias Dodd Gilbert and Christopher Isike – doctoral candidates at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa – have said the US is being driven by resource greed in Africa.
In a research paper titled “USAFRICOM: Security for Whom?”, which they co-authored with Ufo Okeke Uzodike (Associate Professor of International Relations and head of the School of Politics at KwaZulu Natal University), they said: “Can a military command of an imperial power be truly as benign and contributive (socially and economically) as suggested by the American declarations about AFRICOM?
“Why did Africa suddenly become an area of ‘vital interest’ to the US, deserving the creation of a full-fledged military command?
“Was AFRICOM established for the development, and alleviation of vulnerabilities and human security challenges in Africa or was it created for the pursuit of US hegemonic and state-centric security interests?
“A cursory understanding of the imperialistic and hegemonic inclinations of the US explains vividly the reasons why AFRICOM was established.
“Put simply, AFRICOM was introduced to further America’s national security objectives..
“(T)he US has demonstrated increased readiness to use its power unilaterally in pursuit of its national interests as evidenced by its invasion of Iraq despite non-endorsement by the UN.
“AFRICOM was unilaterally created for the furtherance and consolidation of US state-centric security interests but packaged in human security paraphernalia for the twin purpose of credibility and acceptability by African statesmen.”
============
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@
============
Southern Times
August 28, 2012
AFRICOM juggernaut comes to town
Edited by RR
Windhoek: The US already has more than 2,000 troops at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti to combat “terrorism and piracy”.
America also has agreements with Gabon, Mali, Morocco, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia for use of local military bases, dubbed “lily pads”, as and when it needs.
Since 2007, Washington has made a concerted push to permanently house AFRICOM in Africa.
The US believes 2012 is the year that the dream becomes a reality.
In 2010 Peter Pham, a neoconservative African policy “expert” and US military advisor, said Africa was a “neglected stepchild” of Washington's foreign policy.
“Myself and a few other academics had been kicking around the idea of a combatant command for Africa since the late 1990s, without much success.
“When the (George W.) Bush administration suddenly saw these ungoverned spaces as a cause for concern, I thought, if you are looking for ungoverned areas, porous borders and weak states, then look no further than Africa.
"That created a buzz,” Pham said.
The following year, Pham told the US Congress: “This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy, averaging nine percent growth per annum over the last two decades, has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it.
“It seems AFRICOM is off to a strong start as the opposition to China in Africa.
“The litmus test will be who Obama selects as his Africa person and whether he tries to weaken Congo President Joseph Kabila in favour of backing Nkunda’s death squads, naturally in the name of ‘restoring democracy.'”
And then in July last year, as previously reported by The Southern Times, a US Congressional Research Service paper for members and committees said AFRICOM would have an African home in 2012.
The paper, “AFRICOM: US Strategic Interests and the Role of the US Military on Africa”, was presented by Lauren Ploch, an American “expert” on African affairs.
She said, “A decision on AFRICOM’s final headquarters location has been postponed to 2012 to allow the command to gain greater understanding of its long-term operational requirements.”
The “humanitarian” card has already been used to deploy the military in Libya, Cote d'Ivoire, East Africa and the Horn of Africa in the last year alone.
Lysias Dodd Gilbert and Christopher Isike – doctoral candidates at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa – have said the US is being driven by resource greed in Africa.
In a research paper titled “USAFRICOM: Security for Whom?”, which they co-authored with Ufo Okeke Uzodike (Associate Professor of International Relations and head of the School of Politics at KwaZulu Natal University), they said: “Can a military command of an imperial power be truly as benign and contributive (socially and economically) as suggested by the American declarations about AFRICOM?
“Why did Africa suddenly become an area of ‘vital interest’ to the US, deserving the creation of a full-fledged military command?
“Was AFRICOM established for the development, and alleviation of vulnerabilities and human security challenges in Africa or was it created for the pursuit of US hegemonic and state-centric security interests?
“A cursory understanding of the imperialistic and hegemonic inclinations of the US explains vividly the reasons why AFRICOM was established.
“Put simply, AFRICOM was introduced to further America’s national security objectives..
“(T)he US has demonstrated increased readiness to use its power unilaterally in pursuit of its national interests as evidenced by its invasion of Iraq despite non-endorsement by the UN.
“AFRICOM was unilaterally created for the furtherance and consolidation of US state-centric security interests but packaged in human security paraphernalia for the twin purpose of credibility and acceptability by African statesmen.”
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://presstv.
Press TV
August 29, 2012
NATO secretly authorizes Syrian attack
By Gordon Duff
No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.
Yesterday afternoon, Monday, August 28, 2012, in a meeting in Brussels, NATO military leaders in consultation with “telephonic liaison” with officers of military forces in several former Soviet Republics, major African states, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states came to a combined decision to act against Syria.
Two issues were on the agenda:
1. How climate change in Greenland will effect geopolitics, immigration and military affairs for the EU
2. Syria and the potential for Russian and Chinese intervention.
3. Iran was not an official agenda item but it is an unspoken conclusion that, if China and/or Russia stand aside for interference by NATO in Syria’s internal affairs, this will be seen as an authorization for incursions into Iran, a systematic “Balkanization” based on a prescribed formula of “manufactured and simulated internal political and social strife.”
No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.
News stories throughout North America and Europe earlier in the day were filled with reports of mass killings by the Syrian Army and the presence of Iranian troops in Syria. True or not, these stories represent a pre-staging for the NATO conference.
The critical reporting issue involves rhetoric. We moved, yesterday, from discussions of “fighting” to “systematic execution of hundreds of civilians.”
No video nor photos were included to verify neither claims nor sources given other than reports from “rebel forces.”
Recent consultation with friends in the Pentagon as to Syria’s air defense system indicated that the US has, in place, a play to destroy the command and control capability of Syria’s system.
The problems are twofold:
1. Russian technicians man the Syrian system
2. The S300P2 system Syria uses is extremely “robust”
An additional political consideration is a simple one, there is no UN authorization. Both Russia and China have vetoed even sanctions against Syria much less authorized an attack.
Thus, there is no existing authority capable of justifying an attack.
In an interview this week at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) conference in Tehran, attended by 120 member states, a huge defeat for NATO interests in the area, this interview yielded some substantive and surprising facts.
Press TV: Certain powers have been trying to isolate Iran, actually, by not holding such a conference at such a high ranking level. As you said, this all has failed.
Now tell us about all the sanctions against Iran which have propagated against Iran, that Iran should be isolated, but as you said it’s all been failed. What is really important is that the agenda of the 688-point draft document which talked about, as you call and urge all countries to make the world free from any nuclear weapons.
You were a senior expert in the IAEA as an inspector. Tell us about that and also with the particular focus on Israel which has not yet signed up to the NPT.
Abu Shadi: I oppose strongly any kind of accusation on any state based on intelligence information. All the accusations given to the nuclear program in Iran is based only on intelligence information. There is no single proof that Iran is deviating from its commitment from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I am very surprised that the Security Council took four decisions, sanctions against Iran just because of rumors that the intelligence source may think there is something.
I think this policy should be changed. The Security Council and its way of veto, and its limited number only to the big powers should be changed. I think that will also be one of the points to be addressed in this conference. I believe strongly that that situation, which is actually politically influenced by the West, should be changed.
With respect to your second part about the NPT, in fact, almost all the states in the world respects the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] except the five weaponized states, which they should reduce their weapons which didn’t happen up until today, and the three or four states which did not sign the NPT including Israel. Israel is the only state in the Middle East who did not sign the NPT.
None of the Western countries who are accusing not only Iran but before also Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Egypt, considered any accusation to what the Israelis are doing. I believe this bias in the international organization should be stopped.
Shadi makes some particularly interesting points and raises some concerns few had noticed. His most damning statement, of course, is that the Security Council, a carryover from a war 70 years ago, certainly a demonstration of oligarchic rule at the United Nations, has been directed at Iran.
In particular, he notes that the council’s unilateral and undemocratic decisions, followed by nations, China and Russia, who defended Syria, were aimed at Iran but backed by no presentation of facts or even qualified intelligence assessments. In fact, since Colin Powell’s humiliating WMD presentation before the UN, no “American fact” has been taken seriously nor is likely to.
CNN quotes a top Powell aid:
A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.
"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."
Actual risks and ramifications
Top intelligence analysts in private consultation fear a larger Middle East war. “Russia and China won’t stand back, not with the US planning a unilateral moves on Africa and its resources. It’s like 1947 again with Truman and the Marshall plan, encirclement, but a war over, not just resources, but a world war against what has now seen as the real threat, what Americans call the “middle class.”
Thus, taking Syria without taking Iran is “not in the cards.” Here I return to the words of H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds. His grasp in this fiction well over a century old reflects on our times in a curious and wonderfully literate manner:
“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
"Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
"The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of...
"And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety--their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours--and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.”
Martians, this is how NATO and Israel look on the world, as expressed through the prose of Wells. Their gaze “cool and unsympathetic,” as drone warfare and their plans, calculated acts of false flag terror, kidnappings, assassinations, the abomination of mythical news reporting.
The end of the road, this path of “hubris” could well be world war, least of all fuel price increases that collapse the currencies and economies.
Talking of death is nothing as we are now pre-staged to look on life as nothing, all victims are “militants” if you want them dead or “collateral damage” when you err.
Iran’s position chairing NAM makes them a harder target. The general criticism by many NAM members, the dictatorial rule of the United Nations by the Security Council, has not prevented the Syrian conflict from becoming a threat to world peace.
For Iran, their choice seems, on the surface, to be in aiding Syria, negotiations, using oil leverage with India, China and others and predicting how the west is plotting.
If Iran falls, it will be only another domino.
Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.
============
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@
============
Press TV
August 29, 2012
NATO secretly authorizes Syrian attack
By Gordon Duff
No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.
Yesterday afternoon, Monday, August 28, 2012, in a meeting in Brussels, NATO military leaders in consultation with “telephonic liaison” with officers of military forces in several former Soviet Republics, major African states, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states came to a combined decision to act against Syria.
Two issues were on the agenda:
1. How climate change in Greenland will effect geopolitics, immigration and military affairs for the EU
2. Syria and the potential for Russian and Chinese intervention.
3. Iran was not an official agenda item but it is an unspoken conclusion that, if China and/or Russia stand aside for interference by NATO in Syria’s internal affairs, this will be seen as an authorization for incursions into Iran, a systematic “Balkanization” based on a prescribed formula of “manufactured and simulated internal political and social strife.”
No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.
News stories throughout North America and Europe earlier in the day were filled with reports of mass killings by the Syrian Army and the presence of Iranian troops in Syria. True or not, these stories represent a pre-staging for the NATO conference.
The critical reporting issue involves rhetoric. We moved, yesterday, from discussions of “fighting” to “systematic execution of hundreds of civilians.”
No video nor photos were included to verify neither claims nor sources given other than reports from “rebel forces.”
Recent consultation with friends in the Pentagon as to Syria’s air defense system indicated that the US has, in place, a play to destroy the command and control capability of Syria’s system.
The problems are twofold:
1. Russian technicians man the Syrian system
2. The S300P2 system Syria uses is extremely “robust”
An additional political consideration is a simple one, there is no UN authorization. Both Russia and China have vetoed even sanctions against Syria much less authorized an attack.
Thus, there is no existing authority capable of justifying an attack.
In an interview this week at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) conference in Tehran, attended by 120 member states, a huge defeat for NATO interests in the area, this interview yielded some substantive and surprising facts.
Press TV: Certain powers have been trying to isolate Iran, actually, by not holding such a conference at such a high ranking level. As you said, this all has failed.
Now tell us about all the sanctions against Iran which have propagated against Iran, that Iran should be isolated, but as you said it’s all been failed. What is really important is that the agenda of the 688-point draft document which talked about, as you call and urge all countries to make the world free from any nuclear weapons.
You were a senior expert in the IAEA as an inspector. Tell us about that and also with the particular focus on Israel which has not yet signed up to the NPT.
Abu Shadi: I oppose strongly any kind of accusation on any state based on intelligence information. All the accusations given to the nuclear program in Iran is based only on intelligence information. There is no single proof that Iran is deviating from its commitment from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I am very surprised that the Security Council took four decisions, sanctions against Iran just because of rumors that the intelligence source may think there is something.
I think this policy should be changed. The Security Council and its way of veto, and its limited number only to the big powers should be changed. I think that will also be one of the points to be addressed in this conference. I believe strongly that that situation, which is actually politically influenced by the West, should be changed.
With respect to your second part about the NPT, in fact, almost all the states in the world respects the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] except the five weaponized states, which they should reduce their weapons which didn’t happen up until today, and the three or four states which did not sign the NPT including Israel. Israel is the only state in the Middle East who did not sign the NPT.
None of the Western countries who are accusing not only Iran but before also Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Egypt, considered any accusation to what the Israelis are doing. I believe this bias in the international organization should be stopped.
Shadi makes some particularly interesting points and raises some concerns few had noticed. His most damning statement, of course, is that the Security Council, a carryover from a war 70 years ago, certainly a demonstration of oligarchic rule at the United Nations, has been directed at Iran.
In particular, he notes that the council’s unilateral and undemocratic decisions, followed by nations, China and Russia, who defended Syria, were aimed at Iran but backed by no presentation of facts or even qualified intelligence assessments. In fact, since Colin Powell’s humiliating WMD presentation before the UN, no “American fact” has been taken seriously nor is likely to.
CNN quotes a top Powell aid:
A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.
"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."
Actual risks and ramifications
Top intelligence analysts in private consultation fear a larger Middle East war. “Russia and China won’t stand back, not with the US planning a unilateral moves on Africa and its resources. It’s like 1947 again with Truman and the Marshall plan, encirclement, but a war over, not just resources, but a world war against what has now seen as the real threat, what Americans call the “middle class.”
Thus, taking Syria without taking Iran is “not in the cards.” Here I return to the words of H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds. His grasp in this fiction well over a century old reflects on our times in a curious and wonderfully literate manner:
“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
"Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
"The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of...
"And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety--their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours--and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.”
Martians, this is how NATO and Israel look on the world, as expressed through the prose of Wells. Their gaze “cool and unsympathetic,” as drone warfare and their plans, calculated acts of false flag terror, kidnappings, assassinations, the abomination of mythical news reporting.
The end of the road, this path of “hubris” could well be world war, least of all fuel price increases that collapse the currencies and economies.
Talking of death is nothing as we are now pre-staged to look on life as nothing, all victims are “militants” if you want them dead or “collateral damage” when you err.
Iran’s position chairing NAM makes them a harder target. The general criticism by many NAM members, the dictatorial rule of the United Nations by the Security Council, has not prevented the Syrian conflict from becoming a threat to world peace.
For Iran, their choice seems, on the surface, to be in aiding Syria, negotiations, using oil leverage with India, China and others and predicting how the west is plotting.
If Iran falls, it will be only another domino.
Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 29, 2012
US and support of authoritarian regimes
The United States has repeatedly touted its mission of spreading democracy across the world. In reality, it is the United States that remains the main source of support for authoritarian rulers, among them Washington’s friends and foes. Here, it is worth quoting one of the US presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, as saying that “he [Nicaraguan dictator Somoza] is, of course, a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”.
At present, authoritarianism on post-Soviet space is mainly financed and backed by the West and the United States. Washington is boosting relations with the Turkmen authorities and is involved in a complicated political game with Kazakhstan. Also, the United States supports authoritarian methods by the Georgian president and develops cooperation with Azerbaijan. US authorities hail the authoritarian regimes of these countries, which are closely intertwined in terms of the development of the oil and gas sector.
For example, during recent talks between members of the Turkmen delegation and chief executives of the leading US oil and gas companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, in Washington, representative of US business circles signaled their readiness to help Turkmenistan fulfill a strategy of diversification of its energy exports to the international market.
The US business people also indicated the intent to take an active part in rendering services and implementing a host of projects to construct new trans-national pipelines and new facilities related to the oil and gas sector. During the talks, the sides also discussed the US businessmen’s possible participation in a variety of projects in Turkmenistan, such as the development of new technologies and investments. Also, Washington said that “the United States appreciates Turkmen’s role in maintaining good neighborly relations with neighboring countries”, in particular when it comes to dealing with a raft of issues related to Afghanistan.
As for US-Kazakh relations, they are based on a strategic partnership which is characterized by a wide spectrum and a deep degree of interaction. Bilateral relations rest on a solid international treaty framework. Annual US-Kazakh political consultations add significantly to bolstering bilateral ties.
In 2012, a decision was made to upgrade bilateral political consultations to the Kazakh-US Commission for Strategic Partnership. During the first session of the consultations in September 2010, the US State Department touted Kazakhstan as “the only Central Asian country with which the United States has such a comprehensive and detailed bilateral cooperation agenda”. The United States remains one of Kazakhstan’s largest trade partners. In 2011, the two countries’ trade turnover amounted to 2,743 billion dollars, a 26-percent increase as compared to 2010, when the figure stood at 2,181 billion dollars. In addition, the United States has repeatedly endorsed Kazakhstan’s drive to join the WTO before the end of 2012.
It is common knowledge that US authorities support the policy pursued by Mikheil Saakashvili. The United States backs Tbilisi’s push for entering NATO as Georgia currently takes part in an array of NATO operations in Afghanistan. Speaking during the opening of the Georgian-US Commission for Strategic Partnership in Batumi in June 2012, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Georgia makes its own contribution to ensuring global security by taking part in NATO operations in Afghanistan, where it will soon be the first contributor among non-NATO members. We welcome and appreciate this”.
As for Azerbaijan, it has long been a supporter of the United States in post-Soviet space and a main entity to implement the Greater Caspian strategy. Back in September 1994, the United States and Azerbaijan signed what was billed as a “contract of the century” – an agreement on dividing production related to the development of the Azeri Chirag and Guneshi oil fields over thirty years.
In 2006, the Baku-Tbilisi-
Also, the Baku-Tbilisi-
Aside from supporting authoritarian regimes on post-Soviet space, the United States also backs South Sudan’s authoritarian regime in its war with Sudan despite the fact that South Sudan’s actions were condemned by the United Nations. South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit holds a hard-line position because he is constantly supported by the United States, which helped South Sudan deal with “a dictatorship regime in Khartoum”.
Speculation is rife that a US military base will soon be stationed on the territory of the new state. It is already touted as the US’ largest base in Africa. Also, US companies are lobbying for the construction of an oil pipeline which will link South Sudan’s deposits with the Kenyan port of Lamu on the Indian Ocean coast.
Voice of Russia
August 29, 2012
US and support of authoritarian regimes
The United States has repeatedly touted its mission of spreading democracy across the world. In reality, it is the United States that remains the main source of support for authoritarian rulers, among them Washington’s friends and foes. Here, it is worth quoting one of the US presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, as saying that “he [Nicaraguan dictator Somoza] is, of course, a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”.
At present, authoritarianism on post-Soviet space is mainly financed and backed by the West and the United States. Washington is boosting relations with the Turkmen authorities and is involved in a complicated political game with Kazakhstan. Also, the United States supports authoritarian methods by the Georgian president and develops cooperation with Azerbaijan. US authorities hail the authoritarian regimes of these countries, which are closely intertwined in terms of the development of the oil and gas sector.
For example, during recent talks between members of the Turkmen delegation and chief executives of the leading US oil and gas companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, in Washington, representative of US business circles signaled their readiness to help Turkmenistan fulfill a strategy of diversification of its energy exports to the international market.
The US business people also indicated the intent to take an active part in rendering services and implementing a host of projects to construct new trans-national pipelines and new facilities related to the oil and gas sector. During the talks, the sides also discussed the US businessmen’s possible participation in a variety of projects in Turkmenistan, such as the development of new technologies and investments. Also, Washington said that “the United States appreciates Turkmen’s role in maintaining good neighborly relations with neighboring countries”, in particular when it comes to dealing with a raft of issues related to Afghanistan.
As for US-Kazakh relations, they are based on a strategic partnership which is characterized by a wide spectrum and a deep degree of interaction. Bilateral relations rest on a solid international treaty framework. Annual US-Kazakh political consultations add significantly to bolstering bilateral ties.
In 2012, a decision was made to upgrade bilateral political consultations to the Kazakh-US Commission for Strategic Partnership. During the first session of the consultations in September 2010, the US State Department touted Kazakhstan as “the only Central Asian country with which the United States has such a comprehensive and detailed bilateral cooperation agenda”. The United States remains one of Kazakhstan’s largest trade partners. In 2011, the two countries’ trade turnover amounted to 2,743 billion dollars, a 26-percent increase as compared to 2010, when the figure stood at 2,181 billion dollars. In addition, the United States has repeatedly endorsed Kazakhstan’s drive to join the WTO before the end of 2012.
It is common knowledge that US authorities support the policy pursued by Mikheil Saakashvili. The United States backs Tbilisi’s push for entering NATO as Georgia currently takes part in an array of NATO operations in Afghanistan. Speaking during the opening of the Georgian-US Commission for Strategic Partnership in Batumi in June 2012, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Georgia makes its own contribution to ensuring global security by taking part in NATO operations in Afghanistan, where it will soon be the first contributor among non-NATO members. We welcome and appreciate this”.
As for Azerbaijan, it has long been a supporter of the United States in post-Soviet space and a main entity to implement the Greater Caspian strategy. Back in September 1994, the United States and Azerbaijan signed what was billed as a “contract of the century” – an agreement on dividing production related to the development of the Azeri Chirag and Guneshi oil fields over thirty years.
In 2006, the Baku-Tbilisi-
Also, the Baku-Tbilisi-
Aside from supporting authoritarian regimes on post-Soviet space, the United States also backs South Sudan’s authoritarian regime in its war with Sudan despite the fact that South Sudan’s actions were condemned by the United Nations. South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit holds a hard-line position because he is constantly supported by the United States, which helped South Sudan deal with “a dictatorship regime in Khartoum”.
Speculation is rife that a US military base will soon be stationed on the territory of the new state. It is already touted as the US’ largest base in Africa. Also, US companies are lobbying for the construction of an oil pipeline which will link South Sudan’s deposits with the Kenyan port of Lamu on the Indian Ocean coast.
