6 New Messages
Digest #4468
Messages
Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:08 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 21, 2012
New U.S. ultimatum to Syria
Konstantin Garibov
====
"Americans have more than once resorted to the use of force without paying attention to the UN’s decisions. Suffice it to mention the US’ invasions of Panama and Grenada, as well as its aggressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq in 1999 and 2003, respectively.
Obama threatened to change his stance in case of Damascus using chemical or biological weapons. This is little more than a new ultimatum to Damascus and a challenge to the international community which has a spate of conventions-
During a civil war in Afghanistan, US special services supported Osama bin Laden who was referred as an ‘an agent of influence of the United States.’ Right now, Washington along with leading NATO countries is trying to prod radical Islamists to topple the Assad regime in Syria, not least with the help of al-Qaeda.
====
The United States threatens actions in Syria without heeding United Nations’ decisions. A statement to this effect was made on Monday by US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who made it plain that Washington will brief the new UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, on the matter.
Brahimi has, in turn, repeatedly stressed the necessity of his peacekeeping mission being endorsed by developed countries. According to Victoria Nuland, the US will try to make Brahimi believe that the UN has allegedly exhausted all possibilities to resolve the Syrian crisis. In this connection, it is worth mentioning the international community’s failed attempt to break the Syrian deadlock, especially after the resignation of UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who admitted the lack of unanimous support of his mission in Syria by major international players.
All signs are that the US is keen to deal a new blow to the UN’s authority related to overcoming crises, says Alexei Podtserob, of the Moscow-based Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"It’s not surprising that Nuland made such a statement," Podtserovb says. "Americans have more than once resorted to the use of force without paying attention to the UN’s decisions. Suffice it to mention the US’ invasions of Panama and Grenada, as well as its aggressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq in 1999 and 2003, respectively. As for the 2003 aggression, it was staged under a clearly trumped-up pretext of Saddam Hussein possessing biological and chemical weapons. That aggression was never endorsed by the UN either. As for a possible strike on Syria, it may be fraught with serious repercussions, right down to a full-fledged war," Podtserob warns. "Even though Syria will certainly be unable to contain the US, I’m sure that Syrians will fight up to the last ditch, something that means that this will be a new and very bloody war in the Middle East."
Speaking at a news briefing in Washington on Monday, President Barack Obama also warned of a possible intervention against Syria. He said that a decree to this effect has not yet been issued. At the same time, Obama threatened to change his stance in case of Damascus using chemical or biological weapons. This is little more than a new ultimatum to Damascus and a challenge to the international community which has a spate of conventions-
It is these mechanisms that should be used in contacts with Damascus as soon as possible, in view of an ever-increasing threat of Syria’s WMD being seized by al-Qaeda militants. Paradoxically, the US can help them fulfill this task given Washington’s support of the armed Syrian opposition leaning more and more on al-Qaeda fighters.
For their part, Americans have repeatedly denied information about their lending military support to the Syrian opposition. At the same time, Washington welcomes efforts by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to shore up Syrian rebels who are also supported by Turkey and Libya which continue to send more militants and arms to Syria. In this regard, a close collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaeda is only natural, says Boris Dolgov, another analyst from the Institute for Oriental Studies in Moscow.
"Afghanistan, Yemen and the US are fighting al-Qaeda which is perceived as Enemy Number One there," Dolgov says. "At the same time, Washington is, in fact, backing al-Qaeda’s effort in Syria, something that was also the case with Washington’s accretions with respect to Afghanistan and Lebanon. During a civil war in Afghanistan, US special services supported Osama bin Laden who was referred as an ‘an agent of influence of the United States.’ Right now, Washington along with leading NATO countries is trying to prod radical Islamists to topple the Assad regime in Syria, not least with the help of al-Qaeda. Of course, the US pursues its own interests when interacting with the Islamists," Dolgov says, referring to Washington’s similar attempts in Afghanistan. All this may well lead to grave consequences, Dolgov concludes, cautioning the US against playing with fire.
On Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, warned against arms trafficking in Syria, citing Libya, Turkey and Lebanon which turned into ‘channels of arms supplies to Syrian opposition.’
============
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 21, 2012
New U.S. ultimatum to Syria
Konstantin Garibov
====
"Americans have more than once resorted to the use of force without paying attention to the UN’s decisions. Suffice it to mention the US’ invasions of Panama and Grenada, as well as its aggressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq in 1999 and 2003, respectively.
Obama threatened to change his stance in case of Damascus using chemical or biological weapons. This is little more than a new ultimatum to Damascus and a challenge to the international community which has a spate of conventions-
During a civil war in Afghanistan, US special services supported Osama bin Laden who was referred as an ‘an agent of influence of the United States.’ Right now, Washington along with leading NATO countries is trying to prod radical Islamists to topple the Assad regime in Syria, not least with the help of al-Qaeda.
====
The United States threatens actions in Syria without heeding United Nations’ decisions. A statement to this effect was made on Monday by US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who made it plain that Washington will brief the new UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, on the matter.
Brahimi has, in turn, repeatedly stressed the necessity of his peacekeeping mission being endorsed by developed countries. According to Victoria Nuland, the US will try to make Brahimi believe that the UN has allegedly exhausted all possibilities to resolve the Syrian crisis. In this connection, it is worth mentioning the international community’s failed attempt to break the Syrian deadlock, especially after the resignation of UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who admitted the lack of unanimous support of his mission in Syria by major international players.
All signs are that the US is keen to deal a new blow to the UN’s authority related to overcoming crises, says Alexei Podtserob, of the Moscow-based Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"It’s not surprising that Nuland made such a statement," Podtserovb says. "Americans have more than once resorted to the use of force without paying attention to the UN’s decisions. Suffice it to mention the US’ invasions of Panama and Grenada, as well as its aggressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq in 1999 and 2003, respectively. As for the 2003 aggression, it was staged under a clearly trumped-up pretext of Saddam Hussein possessing biological and chemical weapons. That aggression was never endorsed by the UN either. As for a possible strike on Syria, it may be fraught with serious repercussions, right down to a full-fledged war," Podtserob warns. "Even though Syria will certainly be unable to contain the US, I’m sure that Syrians will fight up to the last ditch, something that means that this will be a new and very bloody war in the Middle East."
Speaking at a news briefing in Washington on Monday, President Barack Obama also warned of a possible intervention against Syria. He said that a decree to this effect has not yet been issued. At the same time, Obama threatened to change his stance in case of Damascus using chemical or biological weapons. This is little more than a new ultimatum to Damascus and a challenge to the international community which has a spate of conventions-
It is these mechanisms that should be used in contacts with Damascus as soon as possible, in view of an ever-increasing threat of Syria’s WMD being seized by al-Qaeda militants. Paradoxically, the US can help them fulfill this task given Washington’s support of the armed Syrian opposition leaning more and more on al-Qaeda fighters.
For their part, Americans have repeatedly denied information about their lending military support to the Syrian opposition. At the same time, Washington welcomes efforts by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to shore up Syrian rebels who are also supported by Turkey and Libya which continue to send more militants and arms to Syria. In this regard, a close collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaeda is only natural, says Boris Dolgov, another analyst from the Institute for Oriental Studies in Moscow.
"Afghanistan, Yemen and the US are fighting al-Qaeda which is perceived as Enemy Number One there," Dolgov says. "At the same time, Washington is, in fact, backing al-Qaeda’s effort in Syria, something that was also the case with Washington’s accretions with respect to Afghanistan and Lebanon. During a civil war in Afghanistan, US special services supported Osama bin Laden who was referred as an ‘an agent of influence of the United States.’ Right now, Washington along with leading NATO countries is trying to prod radical Islamists to topple the Assad regime in Syria, not least with the help of al-Qaeda. Of course, the US pursues its own interests when interacting with the Islamists," Dolgov says, referring to Washington’s similar attempts in Afghanistan. All this may well lead to grave consequences, Dolgov concludes, cautioning the US against playing with fire.
On Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, warned against arms trafficking in Syria, citing Libya, Turkey and Lebanon which turned into ‘channels of arms supplies to Syrian opposition.’
============
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 21, 2012 6:49 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
U.S. should cease to stoke tensions over Diaoyu Islands
By Liu Chang
====
Intentionally ignoring the articles written in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulate that Japan must return all lands it usurped during the Second World War, the Nixon administration in 1971 erroneously and unilaterally transferred the administration power of the Diaoyu Islands, an undisputed part of China's territories, to Japan.
Never considering to remedy its profound mistake, the United States, since the Obama administration came to power in 2009, has started to expand its involvement in a series of other maritime disputes between China and some southeastern Asian nations in the South China Sea.
====
BEIJING: As tensions between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands have been gravely heightened by Tokyo's egregious provocations, it is advisable that the United States not fan the flame in the region.
On Tuesday, Japanese forces join U.S. Marines in the western Pacific Ocean for a month-long military drill aimed at tackling the scenario of taking back islands occupied by enemy troops.
Though no country was named as the imaginary occupier, an official with the Japanese Ministry of Defense hinted that the war game is targeted at China, according to a report by Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun.
Given the recent flaring tensions over the Diaoyu Islands, the deliberate decision to carry out such an agitative drill serves nothing but fuels the fire, as it will aggravate the situation and jeopardize any future efforts for a peaceful settlement.
The move also gives the lie to Washington's alleged neutral stance towards the China-Japan dispute and gives birth to more suspicion over the United States' true intentions in the Asia-Pacific.
For the record, it is not the first time that the United States rats on its own words on matters concerning China's Diaoyu Islands.
U.S. State Department spokeswomen Victoria Nuland once said the Diaoyu Islands fall into a security and cooperation treaty between Washington and Tokyo. Her remarks undisguisedly indicated whose side the United States is actually on.
As a matter of fact, it was the United States which initially sowed the seeds of the China-Japan spat over the islands decades ago.
Intentionally ignoring the articles written in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulate that Japan must return all lands it usurped during the Second World War, the Nixon administration in 1971 erroneously and unilaterally transferred the administration power of the Diaoyu Islands, an undisputed part of China's territories, to Japan.
Over the years, the Chinese government has consistently denied the legitimacy of such a preposterous and ulterior decision by Washington and demanded the return of these islets.
Never considering to remedy its profound mistake, the United States, since the Obama administration came to power in 2009, has started to expand its involvement in a series of other maritime disputes between China and some southeastern Asian nations in the South China Sea.
By doing so, the United States, despite its denials, is trying to contain China's rapid emergence in the region, and at the same time sending out a clear-cut message that its self-crowned leadership in the Asia-Pacific is never allowed to be challenged.
However, if Washington takes a review of China's long history, it should not be surprised to find that the Chinese people have always been strong and steadfast enough to defend their nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Thus rather than paying lip service to its commitment of not choosing side in the disputes, the United States should start to truly respect China's sovereign rights and prevent the thorny situation from spiralling out of control.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 20, 2012
Diaoyu solution lies in strength and unity
Several Japanese rightists landed on the Diaoyu Islands Sunday, spurring a wave of angry reaction from the Chinese public.
The Diaoyu issue is facing a possible escalation. More than a few Chinese cities saw anti-Japan protests Sunday.
In a forum sponsored by the Global Times on the Diaoyu issue Sunday, scholars and activists from the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao offered their suggestions. The Diaoyu issue has become a focus of the nation.
The public has become increasingly aware of the complexity of the issue, but Chinese have also seen the advances the country can make.
There are also complaints, but agreement and unity brought by the Diaoyu crisis among Chinese worldwide are much more obvious. The radical ideas of the minority cannot eclipse the maturity of the majority.
The visit to the Diaoyu Islands by Japanese rightists was a response to the latest Chinese assertion of sovereignty over Diaoyu. The back and forth has exposed to the world the Diaoyu controversy. Japan's claim over Diaoyu is a lie. It also shows strong Chinese public will in safeguarding the country's sovereignty over Diaoyu.
China will definitely take further steps regarding Diaoyu. This is a shared goal of both the government and the public, and also a trend given China's continuous development.
This round of conflict may be a turning point in the Diaoyu issue. Japan should stop using Diaoyu as an excuse to vent its anger against China.
Chinese worldwide have a growing awareness of the issue. With the public's deepening interest and influence, official efforts will also increase, making it more difficult for Japan to withstand the pressure.
China has no intention of engaging in a military clash with Japan over Diaoyu. But China can suppress Japan's control gradually until the trend reverses.
If Japan continues its confrontational stance, in the future, China may detain Japanese who land on Diaoyu and repatriate them later.
The contest over Diaoyu tests China's will and wisdom, but the result ultimately depends on strength, and not only Japan's strength. The support the US lends to Tokyo should also be taken into consideration. The national strength of China, as long as its growth continues, will become the bargaining chips that force Japan to back off.
The reluctance to resort to military means doesn't mean China is afraid of war.
China will launch a reciprocal competition with Japan over Diaoyu. For example, if Japan sends Self-Defense Forces, it should expect the participation of China's navy ships.
------------
http://usa.chinadai
China Daily
August 20, 2012
Japan toughens stands
The unfurling of Japanese flags by 10 Japanese nationals on one of the Diaoyu Islands on Sunday is an affront to China's sovereignty.
Meetings between the two countries' high-level officials have already been suspended. Now Japan is building another wall in its relations with China, and the Japanese intruders and their government seem hell-bent on freezing Sino-Japanese ties.
The presence of the 10 Japanese nationals, including some local assembly members, on the largest islet of the Diaoyu Islands indicates the tough line Japan has taken. But it would be a mistake for Japan to see China's use of reason and restraint to deal with the Diaoyu Islands dispute as its weakness.
While on a visit to the 11th regional headquarters of Japan Coast Guard in Haha in June, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda encouraged officials to patrol the islands' surrounding waters. In July, he even hinted at using Japan's self-defense forces to defend the islands and announced that three of the five Diaoyu Islands would be "nationalized"
Japan agreed to put the Diaoyu Islands dispute on the backburner when it re-established diplomatic relations with China in 1972. But now it refuses to even acknowledge the issue by saying that there is no territorial dispute with China.
Some 50 Japanese nationals, including lawmakers, attended a commemorative ceremony in Okinawa prefecture on Saturday for the victims of the United States' attacks on vessels sailing near the islands in 1945. They thus knowingly hurt the feelings of their neighbors.
The public support rating of the Noda government is dismal because of a recent legislation to double the consumption tax to 10 percent from October 2015 and the decision to restart reactors at Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture. In such circumstances, the Diaoyu Islands issue has become the proverbial life-saving straw for the Noda government.
Japan acted tough by arresting the 14 Chinese activists who landed on one of the islands last week to protect their country's territory. But by showing off its strong-armed diplomacy, Japan is actually cornering itself and making it harder for it to deal with its neighbors.
Noda and some of his cabinet ministers will meet on Tuesday to discuss additional countermeasures Japan can take in response to Republic of Korea President Lee Myung-bak's recent visit to the group of isles controlled by ROK but claimed by Japan. But Japanese leaders should know that territorial disputes are not going to save their political careers.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 17, 2012
Nation’s strength backs Diaoyu progress
The tension surrounding the Diaoyu Islands is focused on whether the detained Chinese activists will be released by Japanese authorities today. Public sentiment in China and Japan is in a state of confrontation. China cannot back off from its previous stance, and needs to rescue the detainees as soon as possible. It is a challenge to China's diplomacy and a test of China's overall strength.
China now requests that the Japanese government promptly and unconditionally free the detainees. If China doesn't have enough leverage over Japan, the request will be nothing more than empty words.
Judging from the current situation, the Japanese side is likely to free the Chinese activists to ease the situation. But if China's request is ignored by the Japanese side, the Diaoyu crisis will escalate to a new level.
It has to be noted that years of efforts to protect the Diaoyu Islands between the Chinese government and public have significantly altered Japan's "actual control" over Diaoyu. Japan has had to accept a series of sovereignty-
China's marine administrative ships have routinely patrolled the surrounding waters, and privately sponsored activist ships are frequently present in the area.
It is already a huge sign of progress. In the future, China can launch more various actions to assert its sovereignty over Diaoyu, forcing Japan to gradually relinquish its control over the Islands. But we also need to be clear that Japan will not give up its "sovereignty claim" over Diaoyu and its actual control.
However, it's no longer the time for major powers to resort to war to settle territorial disputes. It is unrealistic for China and Japan to solve the Diaoyu issue through an all-out war.
Though voices calling for military action can be heard in cyberspace in both countries, mainstream society has no such inclination.
The Diaoyu issue is a problem created by the US. It is a thorny issue between China and Japan. It can be intensified, forcing a showdown between the two sides. It can also be eased, allowing the two countries to engage in other exchanges.
Early in the 1970s, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping proposed that the two countries "shelve bilateral disputes and seek common development" on the Diaoyu Islands issue, so that the issue would not hinder cooperation between and development of both countries.
But Japanese right wing groups triggered the dispute first, and the Japanese government failed to restrain their behavior, resulting in a chain reaction.
The mainstream idea prevailing in both China and Japan holds that this is not the best time for a showdown over the Diaoyu issue.
But neither country can control the other, and both are acting in a more provocative way.
Hostile sentiment over the Islands is growing. In addition to the sovereignty of the Islands, it seems that the two are competing for something more.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
U.S. should cease to stoke tensions over Diaoyu Islands
By Liu Chang
====
Intentionally ignoring the articles written in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulate that Japan must return all lands it usurped during the Second World War, the Nixon administration in 1971 erroneously and unilaterally transferred the administration power of the Diaoyu Islands, an undisputed part of China's territories, to Japan.
Never considering to remedy its profound mistake, the United States, since the Obama administration came to power in 2009, has started to expand its involvement in a series of other maritime disputes between China and some southeastern Asian nations in the South China Sea.
====
BEIJING: As tensions between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands have been gravely heightened by Tokyo's egregious provocations, it is advisable that the United States not fan the flame in the region.
On Tuesday, Japanese forces join U.S. Marines in the western Pacific Ocean for a month-long military drill aimed at tackling the scenario of taking back islands occupied by enemy troops.
Though no country was named as the imaginary occupier, an official with the Japanese Ministry of Defense hinted that the war game is targeted at China, according to a report by Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun.
Given the recent flaring tensions over the Diaoyu Islands, the deliberate decision to carry out such an agitative drill serves nothing but fuels the fire, as it will aggravate the situation and jeopardize any future efforts for a peaceful settlement.
The move also gives the lie to Washington's alleged neutral stance towards the China-Japan dispute and gives birth to more suspicion over the United States' true intentions in the Asia-Pacific.
For the record, it is not the first time that the United States rats on its own words on matters concerning China's Diaoyu Islands.
U.S. State Department spokeswomen Victoria Nuland once said the Diaoyu Islands fall into a security and cooperation treaty between Washington and Tokyo. Her remarks undisguisedly indicated whose side the United States is actually on.
As a matter of fact, it was the United States which initially sowed the seeds of the China-Japan spat over the islands decades ago.
Intentionally ignoring the articles written in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulate that Japan must return all lands it usurped during the Second World War, the Nixon administration in 1971 erroneously and unilaterally transferred the administration power of the Diaoyu Islands, an undisputed part of China's territories, to Japan.
Over the years, the Chinese government has consistently denied the legitimacy of such a preposterous and ulterior decision by Washington and demanded the return of these islets.
Never considering to remedy its profound mistake, the United States, since the Obama administration came to power in 2009, has started to expand its involvement in a series of other maritime disputes between China and some southeastern Asian nations in the South China Sea.
By doing so, the United States, despite its denials, is trying to contain China's rapid emergence in the region, and at the same time sending out a clear-cut message that its self-crowned leadership in the Asia-Pacific is never allowed to be challenged.
However, if Washington takes a review of China's long history, it should not be surprised to find that the Chinese people have always been strong and steadfast enough to defend their nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Thus rather than paying lip service to its commitment of not choosing side in the disputes, the United States should start to truly respect China's sovereign rights and prevent the thorny situation from spiralling out of control.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 20, 2012
Diaoyu solution lies in strength and unity
Several Japanese rightists landed on the Diaoyu Islands Sunday, spurring a wave of angry reaction from the Chinese public.
The Diaoyu issue is facing a possible escalation. More than a few Chinese cities saw anti-Japan protests Sunday.
In a forum sponsored by the Global Times on the Diaoyu issue Sunday, scholars and activists from the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao offered their suggestions. The Diaoyu issue has become a focus of the nation.
The public has become increasingly aware of the complexity of the issue, but Chinese have also seen the advances the country can make.
There are also complaints, but agreement and unity brought by the Diaoyu crisis among Chinese worldwide are much more obvious. The radical ideas of the minority cannot eclipse the maturity of the majority.
The visit to the Diaoyu Islands by Japanese rightists was a response to the latest Chinese assertion of sovereignty over Diaoyu. The back and forth has exposed to the world the Diaoyu controversy. Japan's claim over Diaoyu is a lie. It also shows strong Chinese public will in safeguarding the country's sovereignty over Diaoyu.
China will definitely take further steps regarding Diaoyu. This is a shared goal of both the government and the public, and also a trend given China's continuous development.
This round of conflict may be a turning point in the Diaoyu issue. Japan should stop using Diaoyu as an excuse to vent its anger against China.
Chinese worldwide have a growing awareness of the issue. With the public's deepening interest and influence, official efforts will also increase, making it more difficult for Japan to withstand the pressure.
China has no intention of engaging in a military clash with Japan over Diaoyu. But China can suppress Japan's control gradually until the trend reverses.
If Japan continues its confrontational stance, in the future, China may detain Japanese who land on Diaoyu and repatriate them later.
The contest over Diaoyu tests China's will and wisdom, but the result ultimately depends on strength, and not only Japan's strength. The support the US lends to Tokyo should also be taken into consideration. The national strength of China, as long as its growth continues, will become the bargaining chips that force Japan to back off.
The reluctance to resort to military means doesn't mean China is afraid of war.
China will launch a reciprocal competition with Japan over Diaoyu. For example, if Japan sends Self-Defense Forces, it should expect the participation of China's navy ships.
------------
http://usa.chinadai
China Daily
August 20, 2012
Japan toughens stands
The unfurling of Japanese flags by 10 Japanese nationals on one of the Diaoyu Islands on Sunday is an affront to China's sovereignty.
Meetings between the two countries' high-level officials have already been suspended. Now Japan is building another wall in its relations with China, and the Japanese intruders and their government seem hell-bent on freezing Sino-Japanese ties.
The presence of the 10 Japanese nationals, including some local assembly members, on the largest islet of the Diaoyu Islands indicates the tough line Japan has taken. But it would be a mistake for Japan to see China's use of reason and restraint to deal with the Diaoyu Islands dispute as its weakness.
While on a visit to the 11th regional headquarters of Japan Coast Guard in Haha in June, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda encouraged officials to patrol the islands' surrounding waters. In July, he even hinted at using Japan's self-defense forces to defend the islands and announced that three of the five Diaoyu Islands would be "nationalized"
Japan agreed to put the Diaoyu Islands dispute on the backburner when it re-established diplomatic relations with China in 1972. But now it refuses to even acknowledge the issue by saying that there is no territorial dispute with China.
Some 50 Japanese nationals, including lawmakers, attended a commemorative ceremony in Okinawa prefecture on Saturday for the victims of the United States' attacks on vessels sailing near the islands in 1945. They thus knowingly hurt the feelings of their neighbors.
The public support rating of the Noda government is dismal because of a recent legislation to double the consumption tax to 10 percent from October 2015 and the decision to restart reactors at Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture. In such circumstances, the Diaoyu Islands issue has become the proverbial life-saving straw for the Noda government.
Japan acted tough by arresting the 14 Chinese activists who landed on one of the islands last week to protect their country's territory. But by showing off its strong-armed diplomacy, Japan is actually cornering itself and making it harder for it to deal with its neighbors.
Noda and some of his cabinet ministers will meet on Tuesday to discuss additional countermeasures Japan can take in response to Republic of Korea President Lee Myung-bak's recent visit to the group of isles controlled by ROK but claimed by Japan. But Japanese leaders should know that territorial disputes are not going to save their political careers.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 17, 2012
Nation’s strength backs Diaoyu progress
The tension surrounding the Diaoyu Islands is focused on whether the detained Chinese activists will be released by Japanese authorities today. Public sentiment in China and Japan is in a state of confrontation. China cannot back off from its previous stance, and needs to rescue the detainees as soon as possible. It is a challenge to China's diplomacy and a test of China's overall strength.
China now requests that the Japanese government promptly and unconditionally free the detainees. If China doesn't have enough leverage over Japan, the request will be nothing more than empty words.
Judging from the current situation, the Japanese side is likely to free the Chinese activists to ease the situation. But if China's request is ignored by the Japanese side, the Diaoyu crisis will escalate to a new level.
It has to be noted that years of efforts to protect the Diaoyu Islands between the Chinese government and public have significantly altered Japan's "actual control" over Diaoyu. Japan has had to accept a series of sovereignty-
China's marine administrative ships have routinely patrolled the surrounding waters, and privately sponsored activist ships are frequently present in the area.
It is already a huge sign of progress. In the future, China can launch more various actions to assert its sovereignty over Diaoyu, forcing Japan to gradually relinquish its control over the Islands. But we also need to be clear that Japan will not give up its "sovereignty claim" over Diaoyu and its actual control.
However, it's no longer the time for major powers to resort to war to settle territorial disputes. It is unrealistic for China and Japan to solve the Diaoyu issue through an all-out war.
Though voices calling for military action can be heard in cyberspace in both countries, mainstream society has no such inclination.
The Diaoyu issue is a problem created by the US. It is a thorny issue between China and Japan. It can be intensified, forcing a showdown between the two sides. It can also be eased, allowing the two countries to engage in other exchanges.
Early in the 1970s, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping proposed that the two countries "shelve bilateral disputes and seek common development" on the Diaoyu Islands issue, so that the issue would not hinder cooperation between and development of both countries.
But Japanese right wing groups triggered the dispute first, and the Japanese government failed to restrain their behavior, resulting in a chain reaction.
The mainstream idea prevailing in both China and Japan holds that this is not the best time for a showdown over the Diaoyu issue.
But neither country can control the other, and both are acting in a more provocative way.
Hostile sentiment over the Islands is growing. In addition to the sovereignty of the Islands, it seems that the two are competing for something more.
============
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 21, 2012 12:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
3 killed in U.S. drone strike in NW Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: At least three people were killed as U.S. drones fired four missiles at a house suspected of being a militant hideout in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of North Waziristan on Tuesday evening, local media Dunya reported.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
3 killed in U.S. drone strike in NW Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: At least three people were killed as U.S. drones fired four missiles at a house suspected of being a militant hideout in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of North Waziristan on Tuesday evening, local media Dunya reported.
============
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 21, 2012 12:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
August 21, 2012
Russia, China say bypassing UN rules is ‘impermissible’
Russia and China have jointly called for other nations to strictly observe the UN charter and the international law after the US said it would bypass the UN in its actions on Syria.
“Russia and China have very reliable criteria with which we measure all our steps. This is the necessity to strictly observe the norms of international law and the principles contained in the UN Charter, and not to allow their violation," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said as he was meeting with Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo in Moscow.
“This is the only right way in modern conditions,” the Russian official added.
The joint comment came soon after the US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland announced that her country was still set to act in circumvention of the UN Security Council’s decisions on Syria. The official stated that Washington doubted that the Security Council would manage to reach a consensus on a Syrian settlement.
US President Barack Obama added to the tensions by announcing that the United States could use military force against Syria if it sees a threat of use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad.
Lavrov told the press that effective approaches can only be collective. He said that the resolution signed by the UN, EU and Arab League on June 30 was a fine example of such approach. The resolution stipulates that all sides in the Syrian conflict must cooperate with UN observers, allow humanitarian aid to be delivered, release detainees, grant journalists access and protect the right to peaceful demonstrations.
------------
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
Senior Chinese, Russian officials meet on strategic security
MOSCOW: Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo said Monday that China and Russia should further strengthen their coordination and cooperation on strategic security issues.
Dai made the remarks at the seventh round of China-Russia strategic security consultations with Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow.
During the talks, Dai noted that China and Russia had common interests in strategic security, as both countries were making efforts to realize their national rejuvenation and development, which required favorable internal and external environments.
Under the current complex international situation, it was of great significance for the two countries to strengthen their coordination and cooperation on strategic security issues, Dai said.
The two countries should also continue to support each other on safeguarding national sovereignty, territorial integrity and security and take the development road according to its national conditions, he said.
Dai also called on the two countries to continue to unite in safeguarding the purposes of the UN Charter and the norms of international relations, push forward a multi-polar world and the democratization of international relations, create peaceful and favorable conditions for the two countries' development and promote tangible bilateral cooperation to provide solid material foundations for the development of China-Russia relations.
Guided by the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, China was willing to jointly endeavor with Russia to persistently boost the development of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, in order to benefit the two peoples and promote world peace and stability, Dai said.
Patrushev lauded the development of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, saying the two countries' tangible cooperation and their strategic coordination had been fruitful.
He said the two countries held similar positions on many major issues and there was no obstacle to Russia-China ties.
The official also recalled Russian President Vladimir Putin's successful state visit to China in June, saying the new consensus reached by the two countries' leaders showed the way for further development of Russia-China relations.
Russia would like to work with China to further promote bilateral cooperation, strengthen communication and coordination on international and regional affairs through the use of the mechanism of strategic security talks, Patrushev said.
The two countries should also make the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination better serve each country's development, safeguard regional and international security and stability, and build a more just and equitable international order, he said.
During the talks, the two sides also exchanged views on major international and regional affairs.
Dai left Beijing for the talks Sunday at the invitation of Patrushev.
He will also pay an official visit to Mongolia as guest of the Mongolian government.
------------
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 20, 2012
Interview: Int'l unity crucial to end Syrian crisis: Assad advisor
BEIJING: Real political will from all sides is needed to end the 18-month Syrian crisis, a senior adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said.
In an exclusive interview with Xinhua, Bouthaina Shaaban, Assad's special envoy and political and media advisor, said the reason a ceasefire didn't happen despite UN-Arab League joint envoy Kofi Annan's persistent efforts was the lack of real political will, especially on the Western countries' side.
"The Western forces led by the U.S. say that they support the six-point plan of Kofi Annan, but in reality they support or they allow other countries also to support the armed groups with weapons and money," Shaaban said.
"Hence, there is a contradiction in this," Shaaban said, blaming Western countries for acting "exactly against the plan."
To achieve solidarity in the international community over the Syrian issue, according to the 59-year-old former Syrian Minister of Expatriates, would depend on whether the West was ready to sit around the table with Russia and China, the two countries that "supported in word and in action the Kofi Annan plan."
"We as Syria's government are ready to engage in any dialogue. But it is the opposition who would not (be) ready and who all the time announce that they will not engage in a dialogue with the Syria government," Shaaban said.
She urged Western powers to stop aiding the armed rebels and instead press them to start immediate dialogue with government forces.
"And if there is a political will on the Western countries' side, then everybody will sit around the table and it will be easy to find a roadmap to get out of the Syria crisis," she said.
On Thursday, Shaaban met Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi here for talks, in which Yang urged both the Syrian government and the opposition to coordinate with international mediation efforts to end the crisis quickly.
Shaaban pledged the Syrian government was ready to work with relevant parties to seek ways for a ceasefire, and begin an inclusive dialogue with the opposition to promote a Syria-led political process and restore security and stability in the country.
On the U.N. mission in Syria, Shaaban said the Syrian government supported the UN role in Syria and any "formula" it wanted to employ.
It also supports veteran Algerian diplomat al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi, who succeeds Annan as the new UN envoy to Syria, Shaaban said.
She stressed international coordination as a cornerstone for the UN mission in Syria to succeed.
"If you notice what al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi said, that, in order to succeed, he needs the international community to agree on a course of action in Syria, and I agree with that, that the international community should agree on supporting mediation and supporting a political solution," she said.
However, some Western and Arab nations were apparently "destabilizing Syria by providing money and armaments to armed groups who committed the most horrible crimes," although they pledged support for Annan's peace plan, she said.
She urged those countries to "truly support the UN mission," like Russia, China, Iran and the Syrian government, to make it a success.
Asked whether there would be a no-fly zone over Syria, as some western countries proposed, Shaaban said that would be "considered as an aggression against Syria.
"Syria is a country that will not accept any aggression and will defend itself," said Shaaban, who has served as Assad's political and media adviser since 2008.
The envoy also denied any possibility of a no-fly zone established under a different guise in the future: "I don't think so...And I hope this will never be agreed upon."
On political reforms, Shaaban said the Syrian government is "pressing ahead with reforms, despite the fact that economic sanctions and armed rebels are of course making us pay a heavy price."
"But no matter what happens in the country, we are pressing ahead with our reforms," she said.
============
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@
============
RT
August 21, 2012
Russia, China say bypassing UN rules is ‘impermissible’
Russia and China have jointly called for other nations to strictly observe the UN charter and the international law after the US said it would bypass the UN in its actions on Syria.
“Russia and China have very reliable criteria with which we measure all our steps. This is the necessity to strictly observe the norms of international law and the principles contained in the UN Charter, and not to allow their violation," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said as he was meeting with Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo in Moscow.
“This is the only right way in modern conditions,” the Russian official added.
The joint comment came soon after the US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland announced that her country was still set to act in circumvention of the UN Security Council’s decisions on Syria. The official stated that Washington doubted that the Security Council would manage to reach a consensus on a Syrian settlement.
US President Barack Obama added to the tensions by announcing that the United States could use military force against Syria if it sees a threat of use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad.
Lavrov told the press that effective approaches can only be collective. He said that the resolution signed by the UN, EU and Arab League on June 30 was a fine example of such approach. The resolution stipulates that all sides in the Syrian conflict must cooperate with UN observers, allow humanitarian aid to be delivered, release detainees, grant journalists access and protect the right to peaceful demonstrations.
------------
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 21, 2012
Senior Chinese, Russian officials meet on strategic security
MOSCOW: Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo said Monday that China and Russia should further strengthen their coordination and cooperation on strategic security issues.
Dai made the remarks at the seventh round of China-Russia strategic security consultations with Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow.
During the talks, Dai noted that China and Russia had common interests in strategic security, as both countries were making efforts to realize their national rejuvenation and development, which required favorable internal and external environments.
Under the current complex international situation, it was of great significance for the two countries to strengthen their coordination and cooperation on strategic security issues, Dai said.
The two countries should also continue to support each other on safeguarding national sovereignty, territorial integrity and security and take the development road according to its national conditions, he said.
Dai also called on the two countries to continue to unite in safeguarding the purposes of the UN Charter and the norms of international relations, push forward a multi-polar world and the democratization of international relations, create peaceful and favorable conditions for the two countries' development and promote tangible bilateral cooperation to provide solid material foundations for the development of China-Russia relations.
Guided by the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, China was willing to jointly endeavor with Russia to persistently boost the development of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, in order to benefit the two peoples and promote world peace and stability, Dai said.
Patrushev lauded the development of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, saying the two countries' tangible cooperation and their strategic coordination had been fruitful.
He said the two countries held similar positions on many major issues and there was no obstacle to Russia-China ties.
The official also recalled Russian President Vladimir Putin's successful state visit to China in June, saying the new consensus reached by the two countries' leaders showed the way for further development of Russia-China relations.
Russia would like to work with China to further promote bilateral cooperation, strengthen communication and coordination on international and regional affairs through the use of the mechanism of strategic security talks, Patrushev said.
The two countries should also make the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination better serve each country's development, safeguard regional and international security and stability, and build a more just and equitable international order, he said.
During the talks, the two sides also exchanged views on major international and regional affairs.
Dai left Beijing for the talks Sunday at the invitation of Patrushev.
He will also pay an official visit to Mongolia as guest of the Mongolian government.
------------
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 20, 2012
Interview: Int'l unity crucial to end Syrian crisis: Assad advisor
BEIJING: Real political will from all sides is needed to end the 18-month Syrian crisis, a senior adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said.
In an exclusive interview with Xinhua, Bouthaina Shaaban, Assad's special envoy and political and media advisor, said the reason a ceasefire didn't happen despite UN-Arab League joint envoy Kofi Annan's persistent efforts was the lack of real political will, especially on the Western countries' side.
"The Western forces led by the U.S. say that they support the six-point plan of Kofi Annan, but in reality they support or they allow other countries also to support the armed groups with weapons and money," Shaaban said.
"Hence, there is a contradiction in this," Shaaban said, blaming Western countries for acting "exactly against the plan."
To achieve solidarity in the international community over the Syrian issue, according to the 59-year-old former Syrian Minister of Expatriates, would depend on whether the West was ready to sit around the table with Russia and China, the two countries that "supported in word and in action the Kofi Annan plan."
"We as Syria's government are ready to engage in any dialogue. But it is the opposition who would not (be) ready and who all the time announce that they will not engage in a dialogue with the Syria government," Shaaban said.
She urged Western powers to stop aiding the armed rebels and instead press them to start immediate dialogue with government forces.
"And if there is a political will on the Western countries' side, then everybody will sit around the table and it will be easy to find a roadmap to get out of the Syria crisis," she said.
On Thursday, Shaaban met Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi here for talks, in which Yang urged both the Syrian government and the opposition to coordinate with international mediation efforts to end the crisis quickly.
Shaaban pledged the Syrian government was ready to work with relevant parties to seek ways for a ceasefire, and begin an inclusive dialogue with the opposition to promote a Syria-led political process and restore security and stability in the country.
On the U.N. mission in Syria, Shaaban said the Syrian government supported the UN role in Syria and any "formula" it wanted to employ.
It also supports veteran Algerian diplomat al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi, who succeeds Annan as the new UN envoy to Syria, Shaaban said.
She stressed international coordination as a cornerstone for the UN mission in Syria to succeed.
"If you notice what al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi said, that, in order to succeed, he needs the international community to agree on a course of action in Syria, and I agree with that, that the international community should agree on supporting mediation and supporting a political solution," she said.
However, some Western and Arab nations were apparently "destabilizing Syria by providing money and armaments to armed groups who committed the most horrible crimes," although they pledged support for Annan's peace plan, she said.
She urged those countries to "truly support the UN mission," like Russia, China, Iran and the Syrian government, to make it a success.
Asked whether there would be a no-fly zone over Syria, as some western countries proposed, Shaaban said that would be "considered as an aggression against Syria.
"Syria is a country that will not accept any aggression and will defend itself," said Shaaban, who has served as Assad's political and media adviser since 2008.
The envoy also denied any possibility of a no-fly zone established under a different guise in the future: "I don't think so...And I hope this will never be agreed upon."
On political reforms, Shaaban said the Syrian government is "pressing ahead with reforms, despite the fact that economic sanctions and armed rebels are of course making us pay a heavy price."
"But no matter what happens in the country, we are pressing ahead with our reforms," she said.
============
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 21, 2012 7:33 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.flonnet.
Frontline
August 25-September 7, 2012
This time for Africa
John Cherian
The United States makes a scramble for the African continent to set up a string of military bases
====
The regime change in Libya has been a feather in the cap for U.S. military planners. Slain Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had played an important role in convincing the African Union to protest strongly against the presence of AFRICOM on the continent.
There are reports that the Americans are now getting ready to help Ethiopia launch another war of aggression against neighbouring Eritrea. The U.S. describes the country as a “destabilising” force in the region.
Washington’s closest allies in the region today are authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent. They include Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda; Yoweri Museveni, the long-ruling President of Uganda; and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who has been rigging elections ever since ousting Mengistu Haile Mariam in the early 1990s.
====
It was clear by 2007 that Washington had once again turned its attention to the African continent with renewed vigour. The decision that year by the George W. Bush administration to set up the Africa Command (AFRICOM) was a signal of Washington’s intent to set up a string of military bases in Africa. American interest in the African continent had waned considerably after the end of the Cold War.
Until the early 1990s, the United States and its Western allies tried their best to derail the liberation movements that had come to power in countries such as Angola and Mozambique. The West propped up authoritarian, corrupt and racist regimes during this period. Until the very end, the Ronald Reagan administration supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and its occupation of Namibia. Mobutu Sese Seko, the kleptomaniac who controlled the vast riches of the Congo, was a long-standing ally of the West.
In the past decade, as countries such as China, Brazil and India turned their diplomatic and trade focus on the continent, which is blessed with a great variety of mineral resources, the U.S. decided to make its mark forcefully. Since 2007, Washington has used the “war on terror” to extend its military reach. Initially, its military moves were restricted to the Horn of Africa, where Islamist militants have emerged as the main fighting force in the long-running civil war in Somalia. Today, however, American forces operate covertly and sometimes overtly in sub-Saharan Africa. There were overt operations in Somalia and Libya, where U.S. Special Forces helped tilt the balance in favour of puppet regimes.
The emergence of South Sudan as an independent “client” state of the U.S. has come as a boost for policy planners at the Pentagon. The creation of the new state was virtually the handiwork of the Bush administration, which forced the central government in Sudan to agree to the dismemberment of the country in 2005. Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti and Ethiopia are now firmly aligned with the U.S. and are facilitating the American build-up in the region.
The regime change in Libya has been a feather in the cap for U.S. military planners. Slain Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had played an important role in convincing the African Union to protest strongly against the presence of AFRICOM on the continent. “Operation Odyssey Dawn”, the military operation that led to his overthrow, was led by AFRICOM. The new Libyan regime is indebted to the West for its existence. The strategic location of the country will be of vital importance for the U.S. military as it expands its footprints on the continent.
Speaking at a conference in 2008, U.S. Vice Admiral Robert Moeller declared that the setting up of AFRICOM was to preserve “the free flow of oil and natural resources from Africa to the global market”. Two years later, in an article in Foreign Policy magazine, he was even more explicit: “Let there be no mistake. AFRICOM’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests.”
As of now, the U.S. only admits to having one formal base on the continent – Camp Lemonnier in the small Republic of Djibouti located in the Horn of Africa. But it is common knowledge that U.S. soldiers operate from other countries in the region, helping the troops of client states in their ongoing battles with various rebel groups. Ethiopia launched a full-scale invasion of Somalia at the behest of the U.S. to dislodge a moderately Islamist government that had briefly brought an end to the civil conflict. Last year, it was the turn of the Kenyan army to invade Somalia, again at the U.S’ instance, to liberate towns and areas that were under the control of Al Shabab, the Islamist militant group that has emerged as a powerful resistance force. American drones and planes are being used freely to target the leaders of Al Shabab. Military drones take off on assignments in Somalia from the U.S. base in the island nation of Seychelles.
There are reports that the Americans are now getting ready to help Ethiopia launch another war of aggression against neighbouring Eritrea. The U.S. describes the country as a “destabilising” force in the region. Eritrea is among the few countries on the African continent to have refused to kowtow to the diktats of Washington. In 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatened to “take action” against Eritrea for allegedly helping Al Shabab. The United Nations’ monitors dispatched to Eritrea, however, found no evidence of this. The U.S. then persuaded the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on the impoverished country. Despite the absence of any evidence to back the American claims, the sanctions on Eritrea have not been lifted. The U.S. claims that the punitive sanctions have forced the Eritrean government to stop aiding the Somali resistance, and, therefore, they should remain.
Lily pads
The Americans admit to having “lily pads” on the African continent. Though not formal bases, these are small facilities with a limited number of troops and pre-positioned weapons. One such is on the island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, just off the West African coast. U.S. officials compare this base to the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia has played an important role in ensuring American military domination in the Persian Gulf region.
There has been pressure on India too from the U.S. to secure “lily pad” facilities. “Around the world, from Djibouti to the jungles of the Honduras, the deserts of Mauritania, the Pentagon has been pursuing as many lily pad bases as it can, as fast as it can,” wrote David Vine of Washington University.
There are reports of injured American soldiers being flown in from the Horn of Africa to military hospitals in Europe. There have been many U.S. Special Forces and commando missions inside Somalia in recent years. The Ugandan airport in Entebbe has been increasingly used since 2009 for surveillance missions in the African continent.
Within a month of the killing of Qaddafi in October 2011, the U.S. announced that it would be sending troops to four African countries – Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The U.S. has already deployed some 100 to 200 troops in Uganda to help the government there defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and capture or kill its notorious leader, Joseph Kony.
The remnants of the LRA troops are mostly concentrated in neighbouring South Sudan and the Central African Republic. The U.S. is believed to have a troop presence in these countries too. A senior U.S. military official told Nick Turse, an American investigative reporter, that the soldiers had been positioned in these countries at the request of the host governments.
There were reports in the American media of three Special Forces personnel being killed in northern Mali in April. Since an American-trained military officer led a coup in Mali in March this year, the country has been witnessing a conflict as the northern part dominated by the Tuareg ethnic group declared independence. Today, the dominant force in towns such as Timbuktu and Gao are militant Islamist groups like Ansar Dine, which Washington has deemed to be hostile to its interests.
Training exercises
Washington also conducts counterterrorism training in many African countries and arms their armies. They include the armies of Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Chad, Mauritania and Niger. AFRICOM is scheduled to complete 14 important training exercises in 2012 with countries such as Morocco, Cameroon, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Senegal and Nigeria.
The U.S. has been funnelling increasing amounts of military aid to friendly African states to fight terrorism. The Pentagon has given $82 million in counterterrorism aid to Uganda, Burundi, Kenya and Djibouti. According to reports in the American media, the U.S. is planning to introduce more conventional forces into Africa next year. “Special Forces have a particular capability in this area, but not the capacity to fulfil the demand, and we think that we can fulfil the demand by using conventional forces,” Col. Andrew Dennis of the U.S. Army told a reporter. The U.S. newspaper Army Times reported that 3,000 American soldiers would be deployed in Africa by next year.
President Barack Obama rarely mentions AFRICOM in his speeches despite turning the continent into a military playground for the U.S. Army. Along with his Secretary of State, he has kept on lecturing Africans that all the problems they face are because of bad governance and corruption. The main priority of the U.S., according to its President, is building “democratic structures”.
Partnering the U.S. enthusiastically on this issue is the Indian government. In many countries, especially those aligned with the U.S., Indian officials are actively involved in training government and civil society members with the help of funds coming from the U.S. State Department in many instances.
Hillary Clinton, on a tour of friendly African countries in early August, suggested in a speech in the Senegalese capital, Dakar, that some countries were out to exploit the natural resources of the continent while “America stands up for democracy and universal human rights even when it might be easier to look the other way and keep the resources flowing”.
Countries such as China and Brazil prefer to invest in infrastructure projects in a big way while loosening their purse strings to give developmental aid at very low interest rates.
By the way, Washington’s closest allies in the region today are authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent. They include Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda; Yoweri Museveni, the long-ruling President of Uganda; and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who has been rigging elections ever since ousting Mengistu Haile Mariam in the early 1990s.
============
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@
============
Frontline
August 25-September 7, 2012
This time for Africa
John Cherian
The United States makes a scramble for the African continent to set up a string of military bases
====
The regime change in Libya has been a feather in the cap for U.S. military planners. Slain Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had played an important role in convincing the African Union to protest strongly against the presence of AFRICOM on the continent.
There are reports that the Americans are now getting ready to help Ethiopia launch another war of aggression against neighbouring Eritrea. The U.S. describes the country as a “destabilising” force in the region.
Washington’s closest allies in the region today are authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent. They include Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda; Yoweri Museveni, the long-ruling President of Uganda; and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who has been rigging elections ever since ousting Mengistu Haile Mariam in the early 1990s.
====
It was clear by 2007 that Washington had once again turned its attention to the African continent with renewed vigour. The decision that year by the George W. Bush administration to set up the Africa Command (AFRICOM) was a signal of Washington’s intent to set up a string of military bases in Africa. American interest in the African continent had waned considerably after the end of the Cold War.
Until the early 1990s, the United States and its Western allies tried their best to derail the liberation movements that had come to power in countries such as Angola and Mozambique. The West propped up authoritarian, corrupt and racist regimes during this period. Until the very end, the Ronald Reagan administration supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and its occupation of Namibia. Mobutu Sese Seko, the kleptomaniac who controlled the vast riches of the Congo, was a long-standing ally of the West.
In the past decade, as countries such as China, Brazil and India turned their diplomatic and trade focus on the continent, which is blessed with a great variety of mineral resources, the U.S. decided to make its mark forcefully. Since 2007, Washington has used the “war on terror” to extend its military reach. Initially, its military moves were restricted to the Horn of Africa, where Islamist militants have emerged as the main fighting force in the long-running civil war in Somalia. Today, however, American forces operate covertly and sometimes overtly in sub-Saharan Africa. There were overt operations in Somalia and Libya, where U.S. Special Forces helped tilt the balance in favour of puppet regimes.
The emergence of South Sudan as an independent “client” state of the U.S. has come as a boost for policy planners at the Pentagon. The creation of the new state was virtually the handiwork of the Bush administration, which forced the central government in Sudan to agree to the dismemberment of the country in 2005. Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti and Ethiopia are now firmly aligned with the U.S. and are facilitating the American build-up in the region.
The regime change in Libya has been a feather in the cap for U.S. military planners. Slain Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had played an important role in convincing the African Union to protest strongly against the presence of AFRICOM on the continent. “Operation Odyssey Dawn”, the military operation that led to his overthrow, was led by AFRICOM. The new Libyan regime is indebted to the West for its existence. The strategic location of the country will be of vital importance for the U.S. military as it expands its footprints on the continent.
Speaking at a conference in 2008, U.S. Vice Admiral Robert Moeller declared that the setting up of AFRICOM was to preserve “the free flow of oil and natural resources from Africa to the global market”. Two years later, in an article in Foreign Policy magazine, he was even more explicit: “Let there be no mistake. AFRICOM’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests.”
As of now, the U.S. only admits to having one formal base on the continent – Camp Lemonnier in the small Republic of Djibouti located in the Horn of Africa. But it is common knowledge that U.S. soldiers operate from other countries in the region, helping the troops of client states in their ongoing battles with various rebel groups. Ethiopia launched a full-scale invasion of Somalia at the behest of the U.S. to dislodge a moderately Islamist government that had briefly brought an end to the civil conflict. Last year, it was the turn of the Kenyan army to invade Somalia, again at the U.S’ instance, to liberate towns and areas that were under the control of Al Shabab, the Islamist militant group that has emerged as a powerful resistance force. American drones and planes are being used freely to target the leaders of Al Shabab. Military drones take off on assignments in Somalia from the U.S. base in the island nation of Seychelles.
There are reports that the Americans are now getting ready to help Ethiopia launch another war of aggression against neighbouring Eritrea. The U.S. describes the country as a “destabilising” force in the region. Eritrea is among the few countries on the African continent to have refused to kowtow to the diktats of Washington. In 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatened to “take action” against Eritrea for allegedly helping Al Shabab. The United Nations’ monitors dispatched to Eritrea, however, found no evidence of this. The U.S. then persuaded the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on the impoverished country. Despite the absence of any evidence to back the American claims, the sanctions on Eritrea have not been lifted. The U.S. claims that the punitive sanctions have forced the Eritrean government to stop aiding the Somali resistance, and, therefore, they should remain.
Lily pads
The Americans admit to having “lily pads” on the African continent. Though not formal bases, these are small facilities with a limited number of troops and pre-positioned weapons. One such is on the island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, just off the West African coast. U.S. officials compare this base to the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia has played an important role in ensuring American military domination in the Persian Gulf region.
There has been pressure on India too from the U.S. to secure “lily pad” facilities. “Around the world, from Djibouti to the jungles of the Honduras, the deserts of Mauritania, the Pentagon has been pursuing as many lily pad bases as it can, as fast as it can,” wrote David Vine of Washington University.
There are reports of injured American soldiers being flown in from the Horn of Africa to military hospitals in Europe. There have been many U.S. Special Forces and commando missions inside Somalia in recent years. The Ugandan airport in Entebbe has been increasingly used since 2009 for surveillance missions in the African continent.
Within a month of the killing of Qaddafi in October 2011, the U.S. announced that it would be sending troops to four African countries – Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The U.S. has already deployed some 100 to 200 troops in Uganda to help the government there defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and capture or kill its notorious leader, Joseph Kony.
The remnants of the LRA troops are mostly concentrated in neighbouring South Sudan and the Central African Republic. The U.S. is believed to have a troop presence in these countries too. A senior U.S. military official told Nick Turse, an American investigative reporter, that the soldiers had been positioned in these countries at the request of the host governments.
There were reports in the American media of three Special Forces personnel being killed in northern Mali in April. Since an American-trained military officer led a coup in Mali in March this year, the country has been witnessing a conflict as the northern part dominated by the Tuareg ethnic group declared independence. Today, the dominant force in towns such as Timbuktu and Gao are militant Islamist groups like Ansar Dine, which Washington has deemed to be hostile to its interests.
Training exercises
Washington also conducts counterterrorism training in many African countries and arms their armies. They include the armies of Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Chad, Mauritania and Niger. AFRICOM is scheduled to complete 14 important training exercises in 2012 with countries such as Morocco, Cameroon, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Senegal and Nigeria.
The U.S. has been funnelling increasing amounts of military aid to friendly African states to fight terrorism. The Pentagon has given $82 million in counterterrorism aid to Uganda, Burundi, Kenya and Djibouti. According to reports in the American media, the U.S. is planning to introduce more conventional forces into Africa next year. “Special Forces have a particular capability in this area, but not the capacity to fulfil the demand, and we think that we can fulfil the demand by using conventional forces,” Col. Andrew Dennis of the U.S. Army told a reporter. The U.S. newspaper Army Times reported that 3,000 American soldiers would be deployed in Africa by next year.
President Barack Obama rarely mentions AFRICOM in his speeches despite turning the continent into a military playground for the U.S. Army. Along with his Secretary of State, he has kept on lecturing Africans that all the problems they face are because of bad governance and corruption. The main priority of the U.S., according to its President, is building “democratic structures”.
Partnering the U.S. enthusiastically on this issue is the Indian government. In many countries, especially those aligned with the U.S., Indian officials are actively involved in training government and civil society members with the help of funds coming from the U.S. State Department in many instances.
Hillary Clinton, on a tour of friendly African countries in early August, suggested in a speech in the Senegalese capital, Dakar, that some countries were out to exploit the natural resources of the continent while “America stands up for democracy and universal human rights even when it might be easier to look the other way and keep the resources flowing”.
Countries such as China and Brazil prefer to invest in infrastructure projects in a big way while loosening their purse strings to give developmental aid at very low interest rates.
By the way, Washington’s closest allies in the region today are authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent. They include Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda; Yoweri Museveni, the long-ruling President of Uganda; and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, who has been rigging elections ever since ousting Mengistu Haile Mariam in the early 1990s.
============
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 21, 2012 7:34 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 20, 2012
ABM in Qatar: American way to control the 'axis of evil'
====
[T]here is a contingency plan in the Pentagon of invading and striking Iran's nuclear installations. In this sense the Iranian air defense is much stronger than any air defense they have met before. Neither Libya, nor even Syria have such a strong defense as Iran does.
[I]t is a part of a global net of American missile defense installations. And they hope that this will give them superiority for a long time over any possible rival in the international affairs.
====
“The Persian Gulf could not be avoided by Americans in terms of controlling the air space in the area of the so-called “axis of evil”. And one of the elements of the “axis of evil” as we understand of course is Iran. So, this is the first dimension.” - Gennady Yevstafyev, retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.
The US is planning to deploy an ABM system in Qatar. How will it influence the situation around Iran?
We have to understand that there are two dimensions of the problem. One dimension is that Americans have a far-reaching, long-term plan to have a global missile defense system as part of the system that they have already established.
The same kind of facilities are in Japan. Now they are building them in Australia and in Turkey, which is a part of the European missile defense. And auxiliary installations are on the territory of Romania. And of course such a sensitive area as the Persian Gulf could not be avoided by Americans in terms of controlling the air space of the area where they have as they call the “axis of evil”. And one of the elements of the “axis of evil” as we understand of course is Iran. So, this is the first dimension.
The second dimension is the American relationship with Iran. Whatever we say, whatever the developments are, I have a feeling, of course the Obama Administration rejects this and says there is no such plan, but I do think that there is a contingency plan in the Pentagon of invading and striking Iran's nuclear installations. In this sense the Iranian air defense is much stronger than any air defense they have met before. Neither Libya, nor even Syria have such a strong defense as Iran does.
So, Qatar is a very close ally of the US and they think that, it is a rich country of course, they think that they are very safe in this area and that’s why they are building this installation exactly in Qatar because the stability of this country allows them to be quite sure. But this will raise the American military presence in the region because to run this kind of radar and auxiliary installations you have to have very sophisticated personnel, and that is a secret. And this kind of personnel and the whole thing of secrecy could be trusted only to the Americans.
To sum up, I have to say that we should not really limit the whole problem to controlling the air space in the Persian Gulf and over quite a big territory of Iran, but it is a part of a global net of American missile defense installations. And they hope that this will give them superiority for a long time over any possible rival in the international affairs.
Voice of Russia
August 20, 2012
ABM in Qatar: American way to control the 'axis of evil'
====
[T]here is a contingency plan in the Pentagon of invading and striking Iran's nuclear installations. In this sense the Iranian air defense is much stronger than any air defense they have met before. Neither Libya, nor even Syria have such a strong defense as Iran does.
[I]t is a part of a global net of American missile defense installations. And they hope that this will give them superiority for a long time over any possible rival in the international affairs.
====
“The Persian Gulf could not be avoided by Americans in terms of controlling the air space in the area of the so-called “axis of evil”. And one of the elements of the “axis of evil” as we understand of course is Iran. So, this is the first dimension.” - Gennady Yevstafyev, retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.
The US is planning to deploy an ABM system in Qatar. How will it influence the situation around Iran?
We have to understand that there are two dimensions of the problem. One dimension is that Americans have a far-reaching, long-term plan to have a global missile defense system as part of the system that they have already established.
The same kind of facilities are in Japan. Now they are building them in Australia and in Turkey, which is a part of the European missile defense. And auxiliary installations are on the territory of Romania. And of course such a sensitive area as the Persian Gulf could not be avoided by Americans in terms of controlling the air space of the area where they have as they call the “axis of evil”. And one of the elements of the “axis of evil” as we understand of course is Iran. So, this is the first dimension.
The second dimension is the American relationship with Iran. Whatever we say, whatever the developments are, I have a feeling, of course the Obama Administration rejects this and says there is no such plan, but I do think that there is a contingency plan in the Pentagon of invading and striking Iran's nuclear installations. In this sense the Iranian air defense is much stronger than any air defense they have met before. Neither Libya, nor even Syria have such a strong defense as Iran does.
So, Qatar is a very close ally of the US and they think that, it is a rich country of course, they think that they are very safe in this area and that’s why they are building this installation exactly in Qatar because the stability of this country allows them to be quite sure. But this will raise the American military presence in the region because to run this kind of radar and auxiliary installations you have to have very sophisticated personnel, and that is a secret. And this kind of personnel and the whole thing of secrecy could be trusted only to the Americans.
To sum up, I have to say that we should not really limit the whole problem to controlling the air space in the Persian Gulf and over quite a big territory of Iran, but it is a part of a global net of American missile defense installations. And they hope that this will give them superiority for a long time over any possible rival in the international affairs.
