4 New Messages
Digest #4469
Messages
Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
August 22, 2012
Russia Blames West for Fueling Armed Conflict in Syria
Moscow: Moscow accused on Wednesday the West of inciting armed resistance to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and said violence would not resolve the political crisis in Syria.
“Our Western partners have not done anything to influence the opposition and convince it to start dialogue with the authorities,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its Web site.
“They are openly encouraging the opposition to continue armed resistance instead,” the statement said. “It is clear that these methods will not help in finding a political solution to the crisis.”
...The West is pushing for Assad’s ouster, while Russia and China are trying to prevent outside interference in Syria saying the Assad regime and the opposition are both to blame for the bloodshed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that a chance still remains for national reconciliation in Syria, despite the large number of opponents of that process including those outside the country.
------------
http://www.interfax
Interfax
August 22, 2012
Moscow rejects Washington's accusation of inaction in Syrian settlement
MOSCOW: The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected U.S. accusations that Russia is doing nothing to settle the Syrian crisis.
A ministry commentary circulated on Wednesday says the Russian side recently suggested adopting a statement of the Action Group urging all sides to the conflict in Syria to stop hostilities as soon as possible and to get down to dialogue.
"However, our Western partners demonstrate complete reluctance to even discuss the possibility of adopting such a statement. Instead, they are trying to distort the essence of the Geneva understandings but they say that they have allegedly grown outdated. Moreover, all this is happening in the context of accusing Russia of foiling the efforts of the UN Security Council to settle the Syrian crisis. Such a stance cannot be described otherwise than self-righteous,
------------
http://www.rbcnews.
RosBusinessConsulti
August 21, 2012
Russia, China reiterate commitment to U.N. Syria mandate
Moscow: Any violation of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations in respect to an eventual military intervention in Syria would be unacceptable, official representatives of Russia and China pointed out during the visit of China's State Councilor Dai Bingguo to Moscow.
During the meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Western countries against any unilateral actions in Syria.
Diplomatic cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is based "on the need to adhere strictly to the rules of international law, the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and to prevent any violations of these principles ," Lavrov pointed out.
============
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@
============
Russian Information Agency Novosti
August 22, 2012
Russia Blames West for Fueling Armed Conflict in Syria
Moscow: Moscow accused on Wednesday the West of inciting armed resistance to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and said violence would not resolve the political crisis in Syria.
“Our Western partners have not done anything to influence the opposition and convince it to start dialogue with the authorities,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its Web site.
“They are openly encouraging the opposition to continue armed resistance instead,” the statement said. “It is clear that these methods will not help in finding a political solution to the crisis.”
...The West is pushing for Assad’s ouster, while Russia and China are trying to prevent outside interference in Syria saying the Assad regime and the opposition are both to blame for the bloodshed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that a chance still remains for national reconciliation in Syria, despite the large number of opponents of that process including those outside the country.
------------
http://www.interfax
Interfax
August 22, 2012
Moscow rejects Washington's accusation of inaction in Syrian settlement
MOSCOW: The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected U.S. accusations that Russia is doing nothing to settle the Syrian crisis.
A ministry commentary circulated on Wednesday says the Russian side recently suggested adopting a statement of the Action Group urging all sides to the conflict in Syria to stop hostilities as soon as possible and to get down to dialogue.
"However, our Western partners demonstrate complete reluctance to even discuss the possibility of adopting such a statement. Instead, they are trying to distort the essence of the Geneva understandings but they say that they have allegedly grown outdated. Moreover, all this is happening in the context of accusing Russia of foiling the efforts of the UN Security Council to settle the Syrian crisis. Such a stance cannot be described otherwise than self-righteous,
------------
http://www.rbcnews.
RosBusinessConsulti
August 21, 2012
Russia, China reiterate commitment to U.N. Syria mandate
Moscow: Any violation of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations in respect to an eventual military intervention in Syria would be unacceptable, official representatives of Russia and China pointed out during the visit of China's State Councilor Dai Bingguo to Moscow.
During the meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Western countries against any unilateral actions in Syria.
Diplomatic cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is based "on the need to adhere strictly to the rules of international law, the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and to prevent any violations of these principles ," Lavrov pointed out.
============
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 22, 2012 6:33 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 22, 2012
Moscow concerned about U.S. statements on Syria
Margarita Bogatova
Russia is concerned about the plans of the West to use chemical weapons as a pretext for invading Syria. Earlier Barack Obama said that that the deployment or the use of the chemical weapons in Syria would become a reason for him to act differently. Later Washington was surprised to hear that media people made a sensation out of this statement because the USA had made numerous statements of this kind before too.
Russia believes that the West is inciting the Syrian opposition to armed struggle and that this will not be helpful in settling the conflict. Moscow and Washington are holding talks on chemical weapons with the two sides involved in the Syrian conflict. Besides, Russia stays in contact with official Damascus, discussing with it the security and preservation of the Syrian arsenals with official Damascus.
For its part, Washington has given a strict order to the rebels to approach neither to chemical weapons depots nor to the plants producing it. Parallel with this, the USA is instructing the Syrian media to work, bypassing their government, and students to protest and to support the opposition by all possible means.
Washington is doing nothing to promote dialogue between the opposition and the government, despite the fact that this is one of the main clauses of the Geneva treaty and of the plan of the former special envoy for Syria Kofi Annan. Parallel with this the Western countries as well as representatives of the countries of the Persian Gulf area openly told media people that they would unite their efforts to corrupt high-ranking Syrian officials, which means that they are clubbing together to pay the so-called fees to Syrian officials who are siding with the opposition.
Moscow is seriously concerned about the conduct of Washington, that is prepared for military action bypassing the UN Security Council.
Western countries’ invasion of Syria will add to the destabilization of the situation in the Middle East at large and will put pressure on Iran, a Russian political analyst, Boris Mezhuyev, says.
"In this situation Assad’s regime remains absolutely unprotected. Obama’s statements actually mean that Assad should be ready to get away. It may happen that at any moment in the future his regime may find itself in danger – meaning America’s invasion of Syria. The prevention of a chemical war in the Middle East or other bad things that may occur there will serve as a pretext for the USA. Of course, this is another step towards destabilizing the situation in the Middle East and putting more pressure on Iran which, from the point of view of both the West and conservative Arab monarchies, became more strengthened after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime."
Obama’s statements on acting differently depending on the deployment or the use of chemical weapons are also a pre-election move. Thus, the elimination of a “bad fellow”, like bin Laden, would do good to Barack Obama, who is a presidential candidate, a political analyst, Dmitry Drobnitsky, says. However, neither he nor his rival Romney will benefit from active preparations for war, which will undoubtedly cause damage to both of them: they may lose their voters in America as a result.
Syrian government forces that have completed their military operation in Aleppo today say that they have eliminated 700 rebels in the region, stressing that there are no casualties among the peaceful civilians there. Altogether, 18,000 people have been killed in the one-and-a-half-
============
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 22, 2012
Moscow concerned about U.S. statements on Syria
Margarita Bogatova
Russia is concerned about the plans of the West to use chemical weapons as a pretext for invading Syria. Earlier Barack Obama said that that the deployment or the use of the chemical weapons in Syria would become a reason for him to act differently. Later Washington was surprised to hear that media people made a sensation out of this statement because the USA had made numerous statements of this kind before too.
Russia believes that the West is inciting the Syrian opposition to armed struggle and that this will not be helpful in settling the conflict. Moscow and Washington are holding talks on chemical weapons with the two sides involved in the Syrian conflict. Besides, Russia stays in contact with official Damascus, discussing with it the security and preservation of the Syrian arsenals with official Damascus.
For its part, Washington has given a strict order to the rebels to approach neither to chemical weapons depots nor to the plants producing it. Parallel with this, the USA is instructing the Syrian media to work, bypassing their government, and students to protest and to support the opposition by all possible means.
Washington is doing nothing to promote dialogue between the opposition and the government, despite the fact that this is one of the main clauses of the Geneva treaty and of the plan of the former special envoy for Syria Kofi Annan. Parallel with this the Western countries as well as representatives of the countries of the Persian Gulf area openly told media people that they would unite their efforts to corrupt high-ranking Syrian officials, which means that they are clubbing together to pay the so-called fees to Syrian officials who are siding with the opposition.
Moscow is seriously concerned about the conduct of Washington, that is prepared for military action bypassing the UN Security Council.
Western countries’ invasion of Syria will add to the destabilization of the situation in the Middle East at large and will put pressure on Iran, a Russian political analyst, Boris Mezhuyev, says.
"In this situation Assad’s regime remains absolutely unprotected. Obama’s statements actually mean that Assad should be ready to get away. It may happen that at any moment in the future his regime may find itself in danger – meaning America’s invasion of Syria. The prevention of a chemical war in the Middle East or other bad things that may occur there will serve as a pretext for the USA. Of course, this is another step towards destabilizing the situation in the Middle East and putting more pressure on Iran which, from the point of view of both the West and conservative Arab monarchies, became more strengthened after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime."
Obama’s statements on acting differently depending on the deployment or the use of chemical weapons are also a pre-election move. Thus, the elimination of a “bad fellow”, like bin Laden, would do good to Barack Obama, who is a presidential candidate, a political analyst, Dmitry Drobnitsky, says. However, neither he nor his rival Romney will benefit from active preparations for war, which will undoubtedly cause damage to both of them: they may lose their voters in America as a result.
Syrian government forces that have completed their military operation in Aleppo today say that they have eliminated 700 rebels in the region, stressing that there are no casualties among the peaceful civilians there. Altogether, 18,000 people have been killed in the one-and-a-half-
============
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 22, 2012 7:45 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.vanguard
The Vanguard
August 22, 2012
The US, China and Africa
Charles Onunaiju
====
[S]ecluded in the opulence of presidential palaces, the august Washington visitor delivered her homilies, paying tribute to the brilliant success of the years of painstaking neo-liberal economic reforms, evident in the bulging tummies and robust cheeks of her official hosts.
Since the notorious Berlin Conference in the 1880s, where Africa was arbitrarily partitioned and carved up among European powers, the legacy of the ruthless and savage exploitation of the continent has endured to keep the continent not only physically apart and the later vicious American imperialism ensured that Africa’s need and desire to act in unison is shorn of any enabling capacity and capability.
Such a state of affairs in Africa could embolden the US and its militarist allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, to ride roughshod over the continent and take out regimes that are not in their good books as in Libya or put pressure on others through damaging sanctions as in Zimbabwe and little Eritrea.
====
Abuja: As usual, the largely symbolic and valedictory 11-day tour of 10 African states by the US Secretary of State, Mrs Hillary Clinton, grabbed headlines and prime airtime on major media outlets across the continent. Mrs Clinton, ostensibly on her last tour of Africa as Secretary of State, delivered pulsating messages.
Apart from cajoling her hosts to remain loyal to Washington’s prescriptions of democratic practice, she urged them to take ‘tough decisions’ on economic measures, an allusion to neo-liberal economic policy which has been ruthlessly enforced by several regimes in Africa in collusion with the Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Thirty years into the neo-liberal economic reforms, whose major components includes privatisation whose obvious result has been massive asset-stripping of public utilities, deregulation and its consequence of a free-fall of the local currency, wage freezes, massive lay-offs of workers and the sustainable trend of de-industrializatio
As usual with such high-level visits, as Mrs Clinton made her way to the various presidential palaces, roads are cleared of destitutes, child labourers who hawk assorted wares to sustain their families, former workers-turned-
Then, secluded in the opulence of presidential palaces, the august Washington visitor delivered her homilies, paying tribute to the brilliant success of the years of painstaking neo-liberal economic reforms, evident in the bulging tummies and robust cheeks of her official hosts.
With nothing to offer, since there is really nothing to give, the American Secretary issued rebuttals about some a certain international partnership with the continent that might aim to “extract resources” and even urged the Nigeria president, Mr. Goodluck Jonathan, beleaguered and almost over-run by a local insurgency, to stay focused on making the tough decision on economic reforms.
With the continent reeking from infrastructural decay, depletion of human capital and down on all human development indexes as contained in the recent report of the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, the former US first lady who has only words for all her hosts across the continent and the words, which ranged from rebuttals, homilies and subtle threats, made headlines across the continent.
American leaders have ways of ventilating outside when the domestic political situation becomes cagey. Before Mrs Clinton’s foray into Africa, the Republican challenger of his principal, Mr Mitt Romney, has taken time off the domestic brouhaha of his sleazy tax profile to venture abroad.
From London to Tel-Aviv in Israel and Poland, Mr Romney did his best to provoke a world outrage, ostensibly to sell to his American audience an image of a tough guy. Not to be outdone in the international dimension of the looming US presidential election, Mr Barack Obama sent his erudite and glamorous Secretary of State to Africa, where she could re-echo American political ideals and Washington’s determination to ensure its triumph on a universal scale, without challenge.
As the media lauded and laundered Mrs Clinton's 11-day foray to the continent was in full bloom, a far more significant and life-changing event in Africa, which held earlier in Beijing, the capital of the People’s Republic of China got very modest media attention. Between the 19th and 20th of July, the Forum for China-Africa Co-operation, FOCAC, held its fifth ministerial conference in Beijing.
At the conference of China and Africa, a review of the past three years since the fourth ministerial conference was held in the Egyptian holiday resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, concluded that Beijing has remained faithful to all its commitments to Africa, including the disbursement of $10 billion in concessionary grants to African countries and has in addition built over 100 schools, 30 hospitals and agricultural demonstration centres as was contained in the eight-point practical measures read out by Premier Wen Jiabao to boost China-African co-operation.
More significantly and even symbolically, China finished and handed over the new African Union Secretariat and office complexes in practical demonstration of Beijing’s effort to enhance African institutional capacity and forging of Pan-African institutions to effectively tackle the challenges in the continent.
In fact, the Beijing conference concluded that in spite of the political turbulence in some countries in the continent, China swiftly and on schedule met all its commitments to the strengthening and boosting of co-operation between the two sides.
A key component of the commitment of zero or very low tariffs of African products to the Chinese market was fulfilled. In comparison to the much- hyped American Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, the preferential non-tariff entry of African products into China’s market has been hugely successful.
At the Beijing conference last month, China‘s President, Mr Hu Jintao, outlined a practical road map to further strengthen and boost the China-Africa new type of partnership. He announced five-point priority areas where he said China and Africa would work together.
Among the priority areas, the Chinese leader promised that Beijing would provide $20 billion in concessionary grants to enhance infrastructure, boosting small- and medium-scale business among others. More significantly, he promised that China would participate in transnational and trans-regional infrastructure development in Africa that would provide functional linkages to practical integration efforts in Africa.
Since the notorious Berlin Conference in the 1880s, where Africa was arbitrarily partitioned and carved up among European powers, the legacy of the ruthless and savage exploitation of the continent has endured to keep the continent not only physically apart and the later vicious American imperialism ensured that Africa’s need and desire to act in unison is shorn of any enabling capacity and capability.
Such a state of affairs in Africa could embolden the US and its militarist allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, to ride roughshod over the continent and take out regimes that are not in their good books as in Libya or put pressure on others through damaging sanctions as in Zimbabwe and little Eritrea.
With China’s robust engagement in Africa affecting the critical areas that would boost the continent’s capacity and capabilities, the West’s standard response has been to instigate scare-mongering and hype the ‘resource extraction’ mantra.
Mrs Clinton at the start of her African tour in Dakar, Senegal hinted darkly of the partnership for the extraction of natural resource, a deliberate misrepresentation of the China-Africa partnership. China and the United States are key players in the contemporary global arena and have a clearly remarkable impact in Africa. The US has been the traditional player in the continent along with her European allies, and nearly six decades after the West’s involvement in post-colonial Africa, the legacy mostly consists of the scares of proxy wars, fragile states characterized by weak and dysfunctional institutions and a social landscape dotted with excruciating poverty, disease and hunger.
China, a fairly new entrant to the continent, is redefining the socio-economic landscape with critical interventions in such strategic sectors as infrastructure, health, agriculture and education facilities, in addition to giving real value to Africa’s resources through robust trade that stood at over 163 billion US dollars in 2011, making China Africa’s largest trading partner.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The Vanguard
August 22, 2012
The US, China and Africa
Charles Onunaiju
====
[S]ecluded in the opulence of presidential palaces, the august Washington visitor delivered her homilies, paying tribute to the brilliant success of the years of painstaking neo-liberal economic reforms, evident in the bulging tummies and robust cheeks of her official hosts.
Since the notorious Berlin Conference in the 1880s, where Africa was arbitrarily partitioned and carved up among European powers, the legacy of the ruthless and savage exploitation of the continent has endured to keep the continent not only physically apart and the later vicious American imperialism ensured that Africa’s need and desire to act in unison is shorn of any enabling capacity and capability.
Such a state of affairs in Africa could embolden the US and its militarist allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, to ride roughshod over the continent and take out regimes that are not in their good books as in Libya or put pressure on others through damaging sanctions as in Zimbabwe and little Eritrea.
====
Abuja: As usual, the largely symbolic and valedictory 11-day tour of 10 African states by the US Secretary of State, Mrs Hillary Clinton, grabbed headlines and prime airtime on major media outlets across the continent. Mrs Clinton, ostensibly on her last tour of Africa as Secretary of State, delivered pulsating messages.
Apart from cajoling her hosts to remain loyal to Washington’s prescriptions of democratic practice, she urged them to take ‘tough decisions’ on economic measures, an allusion to neo-liberal economic policy which has been ruthlessly enforced by several regimes in Africa in collusion with the Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Thirty years into the neo-liberal economic reforms, whose major components includes privatisation whose obvious result has been massive asset-stripping of public utilities, deregulation and its consequence of a free-fall of the local currency, wage freezes, massive lay-offs of workers and the sustainable trend of de-industrializatio
As usual with such high-level visits, as Mrs Clinton made her way to the various presidential palaces, roads are cleared of destitutes, child labourers who hawk assorted wares to sustain their families, former workers-turned-
Then, secluded in the opulence of presidential palaces, the august Washington visitor delivered her homilies, paying tribute to the brilliant success of the years of painstaking neo-liberal economic reforms, evident in the bulging tummies and robust cheeks of her official hosts.
With nothing to offer, since there is really nothing to give, the American Secretary issued rebuttals about some a certain international partnership with the continent that might aim to “extract resources” and even urged the Nigeria president, Mr. Goodluck Jonathan, beleaguered and almost over-run by a local insurgency, to stay focused on making the tough decision on economic reforms.
With the continent reeking from infrastructural decay, depletion of human capital and down on all human development indexes as contained in the recent report of the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, the former US first lady who has only words for all her hosts across the continent and the words, which ranged from rebuttals, homilies and subtle threats, made headlines across the continent.
American leaders have ways of ventilating outside when the domestic political situation becomes cagey. Before Mrs Clinton’s foray into Africa, the Republican challenger of his principal, Mr Mitt Romney, has taken time off the domestic brouhaha of his sleazy tax profile to venture abroad.
From London to Tel-Aviv in Israel and Poland, Mr Romney did his best to provoke a world outrage, ostensibly to sell to his American audience an image of a tough guy. Not to be outdone in the international dimension of the looming US presidential election, Mr Barack Obama sent his erudite and glamorous Secretary of State to Africa, where she could re-echo American political ideals and Washington’s determination to ensure its triumph on a universal scale, without challenge.
As the media lauded and laundered Mrs Clinton's 11-day foray to the continent was in full bloom, a far more significant and life-changing event in Africa, which held earlier in Beijing, the capital of the People’s Republic of China got very modest media attention. Between the 19th and 20th of July, the Forum for China-Africa Co-operation, FOCAC, held its fifth ministerial conference in Beijing.
At the conference of China and Africa, a review of the past three years since the fourth ministerial conference was held in the Egyptian holiday resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, concluded that Beijing has remained faithful to all its commitments to Africa, including the disbursement of $10 billion in concessionary grants to African countries and has in addition built over 100 schools, 30 hospitals and agricultural demonstration centres as was contained in the eight-point practical measures read out by Premier Wen Jiabao to boost China-African co-operation.
More significantly and even symbolically, China finished and handed over the new African Union Secretariat and office complexes in practical demonstration of Beijing’s effort to enhance African institutional capacity and forging of Pan-African institutions to effectively tackle the challenges in the continent.
In fact, the Beijing conference concluded that in spite of the political turbulence in some countries in the continent, China swiftly and on schedule met all its commitments to the strengthening and boosting of co-operation between the two sides.
A key component of the commitment of zero or very low tariffs of African products to the Chinese market was fulfilled. In comparison to the much- hyped American Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, the preferential non-tariff entry of African products into China’s market has been hugely successful.
At the Beijing conference last month, China‘s President, Mr Hu Jintao, outlined a practical road map to further strengthen and boost the China-Africa new type of partnership. He announced five-point priority areas where he said China and Africa would work together.
Among the priority areas, the Chinese leader promised that Beijing would provide $20 billion in concessionary grants to enhance infrastructure, boosting small- and medium-scale business among others. More significantly, he promised that China would participate in transnational and trans-regional infrastructure development in Africa that would provide functional linkages to practical integration efforts in Africa.
Since the notorious Berlin Conference in the 1880s, where Africa was arbitrarily partitioned and carved up among European powers, the legacy of the ruthless and savage exploitation of the continent has endured to keep the continent not only physically apart and the later vicious American imperialism ensured that Africa’s need and desire to act in unison is shorn of any enabling capacity and capability.
Such a state of affairs in Africa could embolden the US and its militarist allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, to ride roughshod over the continent and take out regimes that are not in their good books as in Libya or put pressure on others through damaging sanctions as in Zimbabwe and little Eritrea.
With China’s robust engagement in Africa affecting the critical areas that would boost the continent’s capacity and capabilities, the West’s standard response has been to instigate scare-mongering and hype the ‘resource extraction’ mantra.
Mrs Clinton at the start of her African tour in Dakar, Senegal hinted darkly of the partnership for the extraction of natural resource, a deliberate misrepresentation of the China-Africa partnership. China and the United States are key players in the contemporary global arena and have a clearly remarkable impact in Africa. The US has been the traditional player in the continent along with her European allies, and nearly six decades after the West’s involvement in post-colonial Africa, the legacy mostly consists of the scares of proxy wars, fragile states characterized by weak and dysfunctional institutions and a social landscape dotted with excruciating poverty, disease and hunger.
China, a fairly new entrant to the continent, is redefining the socio-economic landscape with critical interventions in such strategic sectors as infrastructure, health, agriculture and education facilities, in addition to giving real value to Africa’s resources through robust trade that stood at over 163 billion US dollars in 2011, making China Africa’s largest trading partner.
============
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 22, 2012 8:08 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 22, 2012
The Taliban salutes General Dempsey
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country's topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
====
Early Tuesday morning, the Taliban launched an attack on the US military in Afghanistan, which might have yielded minor results from the purely military point of view, but has definitely become a major PR win. Two rockets hit the heavily guarded Bagram airbase – right at the time the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey was visiting it.
General Dempsey and his team were not hurt – they were in their sleeping quarters away from the affected spot. Only two US soldiers were slightly wounded. But the major impact the attack had was the damage inflicted on General Dempsey's plane. The damage was significant enough for the general to use another plane when leaving the Bagram airbase.
The Taliban claimed that the attack was targeted and they knew where General Dempsey's plane was. US officials tried to contradict the claim, saying that the plane bore no distinct marks that would distinguish it from other planes in the field.
In any case, the story is much more than just an isolated incident.
First of all, why did General Dempsey fly to Afghanistan? The main topic of his talks with Afghan officials was far from being a routine one. He was discussing the so called "green-on-blue" attacks which have become common in the recent months. A growing number of US and other foreign soldiers are getting killed by people clad in Afghan security forces uniforms (and presumably, members of Afghan police or security forces).
This in itself puts in doubt all talks of the US withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan by 2014, when Afghan security forces will be ready to take the responsibility upon themselves. Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Second, assuming that the Taliban claim that the attack was targeted is true, one has to come to the conclusion that Taliban informers have infiltrated Afghan security forces much more deeply than Afghan officials and their foreign supervisors would like to admit.
This poses a question of governability in today's (and tomorrow's) Afghanistan. When foreign occupation began back in early 2002 and for several years after Afghan President Hamid Karzai was labeled by his ill-wishers "the mayor of Kabul". Terrorist attacks that have swept Kabul have shown that even that is an exaggeration, and Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country's topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
And last, but definitely not least. The incident should be looked upon in a much broader context of US politics. The strange thing about the current presidential campaign is that neither of the two main candidates is eager to say anything on the issue. It could be understandable in the case of the incumbent president Barack Obama, who might not be willing to comment on his unfulfilled promise of 2008 to end the war. But what about Mitt Romney – isn't it a lucrative occasion to tarnish Obama's image of a peacemaker?
The explanation is simple. A recent analysis published by the Huffington Post draws a clear conclusion: "Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney will say it out loud, but the unpopular, 11-year war in Afghanistan is not drawing to a close. Instead, substantial numbers of U.S. troops likely will be committed there for years, no matter who wins."
Indeed, now that the number of Americans killed in the war has reached 2,000, polls show that more than two-thirds of US citizens oppose the war and are in favor of a speedy pullout – even before the 2014 deadline. But this is not on the mind of Washington strategists – no matter what their partisan affiliation is. The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
Since the cost of the operation "Enduring Pressure" is going to be high (and the Bagram attack is just one of numerous proofs of it), both candidates prefer to keep a low profile and not annoy the American public before it is too late for the latter to object.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
Voice of Russia
August 22, 2012
The Taliban salutes General Dempsey
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country's topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
====
Early Tuesday morning, the Taliban launched an attack on the US military in Afghanistan, which might have yielded minor results from the purely military point of view, but has definitely become a major PR win. Two rockets hit the heavily guarded Bagram airbase – right at the time the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey was visiting it.
General Dempsey and his team were not hurt – they were in their sleeping quarters away from the affected spot. Only two US soldiers were slightly wounded. But the major impact the attack had was the damage inflicted on General Dempsey's plane. The damage was significant enough for the general to use another plane when leaving the Bagram airbase.
The Taliban claimed that the attack was targeted and they knew where General Dempsey's plane was. US officials tried to contradict the claim, saying that the plane bore no distinct marks that would distinguish it from other planes in the field.
In any case, the story is much more than just an isolated incident.
First of all, why did General Dempsey fly to Afghanistan? The main topic of his talks with Afghan officials was far from being a routine one. He was discussing the so called "green-on-blue" attacks which have become common in the recent months. A growing number of US and other foreign soldiers are getting killed by people clad in Afghan security forces uniforms (and presumably, members of Afghan police or security forces).
This in itself puts in doubt all talks of the US withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan by 2014, when Afghan security forces will be ready to take the responsibility upon themselves. Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Second, assuming that the Taliban claim that the attack was targeted is true, one has to come to the conclusion that Taliban informers have infiltrated Afghan security forces much more deeply than Afghan officials and their foreign supervisors would like to admit.
This poses a question of governability in today's (and tomorrow's) Afghanistan. When foreign occupation began back in early 2002 and for several years after Afghan President Hamid Karzai was labeled by his ill-wishers "the mayor of Kabul". Terrorist attacks that have swept Kabul have shown that even that is an exaggeration, and Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country's topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
And last, but definitely not least. The incident should be looked upon in a much broader context of US politics. The strange thing about the current presidential campaign is that neither of the two main candidates is eager to say anything on the issue. It could be understandable in the case of the incumbent president Barack Obama, who might not be willing to comment on his unfulfilled promise of 2008 to end the war. But what about Mitt Romney – isn't it a lucrative occasion to tarnish Obama's image of a peacemaker?
The explanation is simple. A recent analysis published by the Huffington Post draws a clear conclusion: "Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney will say it out loud, but the unpopular, 11-year war in Afghanistan is not drawing to a close. Instead, substantial numbers of U.S. troops likely will be committed there for years, no matter who wins."
Indeed, now that the number of Americans killed in the war has reached 2,000, polls show that more than two-thirds of US citizens oppose the war and are in favor of a speedy pullout – even before the 2014 deadline. But this is not on the mind of Washington strategists – no matter what their partisan affiliation is. The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
Since the cost of the operation "Enduring Pressure" is going to be high (and the Bagram attack is just one of numerous proofs of it), both candidates prefer to keep a low profile and not annoy the American public before it is too late for the latter to object.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
