5 New Messages
Digest #4493
Messages
Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:03 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
September 17, 2012
US wades into China-Japan island dispute with missile defense deal
A territorial dispute between China and Japan could spark a “violent conflict,” US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. The US also inked a missile defense deal with Tokyo likely to anger Beijing, while mass anti-Japanese protests grip China.
"I am concerned that when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgment on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict," Panetta said.
He also warned that Beijing and Tokyo should put an end to provocations or risk a “potentially expanding” conflict.
Following the diplomatic meeting with Panetta, Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba said that Washington had agreed that the Senkaku islands, claimed by both Japan and China, are covered by a US-Japan security treaty.
In the 1960 treaty, the US committed to aid the Japanese in the event of an attack on the nation’s territory.
"I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that [the islands] are covered by the treaty," Gemba said after the meeting on Monday. Washington previously claimed that the US would not take sides in the territorial dispute over the archipelago in the East China Sea.
The US also signed an agreement with Japan on Monday to build a second missile defense radar installation on Japanese territory, aimed at countering North Korea. China may view the move as a provocation.
The Senkaku islands – known as Diaoyu to the Chinese – are uninhabited, but are believed to contain rich mineral deposits and are located on important shipping lanes.
Violent protests rocked China after Japan announced last week that it had purchased three of the islands from a private owner. In the latest bout of demonstrations, anti-Japanese activists attacked Panasonic factories in the eastern city of Quingdao. Protesters burned Japanese flags and targeted Japanese-made cars.
In response to the wave of unrest, Panasonic temporarily ceased operations in China. In addition, Canon announced that it would suspend operations for employees’ safety. Toyota Motor Corp also said that it was affected by the anti-Japanese unrest, citing a suspected arson attack on one of its factories in the eastern Shandong province.
‘A decade of stagnation’
In a worrying escalation of the standoff around 1000 Chinese fishing boats are heading to waters near the disputed Senaku Islands, the state –run China National Radio reported, in what may be an additional counter measure over the Japanese nationalization of the isles.
The 1000 fishing boats may be joined by six Chinese surveillance ships, which have been stationed nearby since Friday.
On Monday, the Chinese government threatened that Japan could suffer from another “lost decade” if relations between the two countries deteriorate further.
"How could be it be that Japan wants another lost decade, and could even be prepared to go back by two decades," state newspaper the People's Daily said in a front-page article. China "has always been extremely cautious about playing the economic card," it said.
The paper claimed that China was prepared to “take up the battle,” should tensions persist.
James Corbett, an independent journalist based in Japan, said that the Japanese government’s move to sign a missile defense deal with the US will have “a very destabilizing effect on the region.”
“It’s destined to inflame tensions even further,” Corbett said. He dismissed US claims that the new missile defense radar is aimed at countering a North Korean threat as, “silly as saying that the missile defense shield going up in Europe is not aimed at Russia.”
Corbett described the “diplomatic scuffle” over the islands as relatively recent, stemming from the deposits of natural gas and oil believed to be near to the islands.
“For an awfully long time these islands were claimed by Japan and no one really cared about it in the region,” Corbett 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
September 17, 2012
US wades into China-Japan island dispute with missile defense deal
A territorial dispute between China and Japan could spark a “violent conflict,” US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. The US also inked a missile defense deal with Tokyo likely to anger Beijing, while mass anti-Japanese protests grip China.
"I am concerned that when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgment on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict," Panetta said.
He also warned that Beijing and Tokyo should put an end to provocations or risk a “potentially expanding” conflict.
Following the diplomatic meeting with Panetta, Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba said that Washington had agreed that the Senkaku islands, claimed by both Japan and China, are covered by a US-Japan security treaty.
In the 1960 treaty, the US committed to aid the Japanese in the event of an attack on the nation’s territory.
"I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that [the islands] are covered by the treaty," Gemba said after the meeting on Monday. Washington previously claimed that the US would not take sides in the territorial dispute over the archipelago in the East China Sea.
The US also signed an agreement with Japan on Monday to build a second missile defense radar installation on Japanese territory, aimed at countering North Korea. China may view the move as a provocation.
The Senkaku islands – known as Diaoyu to the Chinese – are uninhabited, but are believed to contain rich mineral deposits and are located on important shipping lanes.
Violent protests rocked China after Japan announced last week that it had purchased three of the islands from a private owner. In the latest bout of demonstrations, anti-Japanese activists attacked Panasonic factories in the eastern city of Quingdao. Protesters burned Japanese flags and targeted Japanese-made cars.
In response to the wave of unrest, Panasonic temporarily ceased operations in China. In addition, Canon announced that it would suspend operations for employees’ safety. Toyota Motor Corp also said that it was affected by the anti-Japanese unrest, citing a suspected arson attack on one of its factories in the eastern Shandong province.
‘A decade of stagnation’
In a worrying escalation of the standoff around 1000 Chinese fishing boats are heading to waters near the disputed Senaku Islands, the state –run China National Radio reported, in what may be an additional counter measure over the Japanese nationalization of the isles.
The 1000 fishing boats may be joined by six Chinese surveillance ships, which have been stationed nearby since Friday.
On Monday, the Chinese government threatened that Japan could suffer from another “lost decade” if relations between the two countries deteriorate further.
"How could be it be that Japan wants another lost decade, and could even be prepared to go back by two decades," state newspaper the People's Daily said in a front-page article. China "has always been extremely cautious about playing the economic card," it said.
The paper claimed that China was prepared to “take up the battle,” should tensions persist.
James Corbett, an independent journalist based in Japan, said that the Japanese government’s move to sign a missile defense deal with the US will have “a very destabilizing effect on the region.”
“It’s destined to inflame tensions even further,” Corbett said. He dismissed US claims that the new missile defense radar is aimed at countering a North Korean threat as, “silly as saying that the missile defense shield going up in Europe is not aimed at Russia.”
Corbett described the “diplomatic scuffle” over the islands as relatively recent, stemming from the deposits of natural gas and oil believed to be near to the islands.
“For an awfully long time these islands were claimed by Japan and no one really cared about it in the region,” Corbett 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@
============
Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:13 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.stripes.
Stars and Stripes
September 17, 2012
US, Japan announce expanded missile defense system
By Chris Carroll
TOKYO: The United States and Japan have agreed to station another ground-based missile defense radar in Japan, even as the two nations are still hashing out the deployment of MV-22 Ospreys to Okinawa, top defense officials announced after their meetings Monday.
Defense secretary Leon Panetta announced the U.S. will beef up its ballistic missile early warning defenses in Asia with a second ground-based X-Band radar capable of tracking missile launches.
...
An American team landed in Japan in recent days to search out a site for the radar in southern Japan, though not on Okinawa, officials stressed. The United States operates another X-Band missile defense radar near the northern tip of Japan’s main island, Honshu.
A defense official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the growing array of radars — which includes a number of other X-Band radars on U.S. ships in the region — is aimed at countering a growing North Korean ballistic missile arsenal.
...
The announcement comes at a time of rising tension between Japan and China, which have long been at odds over a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.
Each country claims the islands, but Japan purchased several of them in recent days from private owners, prompting China to send warships into the area.
Panetta said that while the U.S. takes no side in the territorial dispute, it stands by the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty...
============
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@
============
Stars and Stripes
September 17, 2012
US, Japan announce expanded missile defense system
By Chris Carroll
TOKYO: The United States and Japan have agreed to station another ground-based missile defense radar in Japan, even as the two nations are still hashing out the deployment of MV-22 Ospreys to Okinawa, top defense officials announced after their meetings Monday.
Defense secretary Leon Panetta announced the U.S. will beef up its ballistic missile early warning defenses in Asia with a second ground-based X-Band radar capable of tracking missile launches.
...
An American team landed in Japan in recent days to search out a site for the radar in southern Japan, though not on Okinawa, officials stressed. The United States operates another X-Band missile defense radar near the northern tip of Japan’s main island, Honshu.
A defense official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the growing array of radars — which includes a number of other X-Band radars on U.S. ships in the region — is aimed at countering a growing North Korean ballistic missile arsenal.
...
The announcement comes at a time of rising tension between Japan and China, which have long been at odds over a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.
Each country claims the islands, but Japan purchased several of them in recent days from private owners, prompting China to send warships into the area.
Panetta said that while the U.S. takes no side in the territorial dispute, it stands by the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty...
============
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@
============
Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://indrus.
Russia & India Report
September 17, 2012
From Vzglyad
Will the U.S. learn a lesson from the death of its Ambassador in Libya?
Andrei Rezchikov
====
America and NATO bombed Libya and suffered as a result. These are the fruits of their own air raids. The country is divided, and it is not clear whether it will survive as a single state.
One should understand the cause of all of this, and it lies in the fact that a country has been bombed out of existence. It is difficult to say how we can restore it. The Americans are trying to repeat this in Syria, and this is dangerous.
====
Russia’s former Ambassador to Tripoli attributes the death of the U.S. Ambassador to miscalculations in Washington’s policy.
Former Russian Ambassador to Libya Veniamin Popov: “The U.S. has a lesson to learn from the death of its Ambassador in Libya.” Source: ITAR-TASS
On September 12, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three members of the embassy staff died in a rocket attack in the city of Benghazi.
The Ansar al-Sharia rebel group that launched the assault said the attack was a response to the American film “Innocence of Muslims,” which it claims is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Just one day before the assault in Libya, the U.S. diplomatic mission in the capital of neighboring Egypt was also attacked.
The last incident of this nature occurred in 1979, when U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was kidnapped and killed. His death prompted a hardening of Washington’s policy towards the country and, ultimately, contributed to the course of events that led up to the war in Afghanistan.
In the following interview, former Russian ambassador to Libya and current Director of Foreign Relations at the Islamic Culture, Science and Education Fund, Veniamin Popov, reflects on the causes of the tragedy in Benghazi, what lessons the U.S. should take from it and whether Washington will change its attitude to Tripoli.
Vzglyad: Will the U.S. break off diplomatic relations with Libya?
Veniamin Popov: I don’t think that America will sever relations with Libya. Libya is a very rich country. It has good quality oil, so the Americans are not interested in leaving. They are trying to play down the significance of these events, emphasize cooperation with Libya and so on.
Vzglyad: Are aid programs to Libya likely to be put on hold?
V.P.: They will tread more cautiously now, because they have to react somehow. If they do nothing, then tomorrow they will be shot at and killed. That isn’t the way to go about doing things. How can you conduct a dialogue if diplomats are being killed?
Vzglyad: What are the chances that the authorities will find those responsible for the attacks?
V.P.: Benghazi is not a big city, so people know who did it. I think they will find them; but whether or not they will be able to arrest them is a different matter altogether. Libya has colossal stockpiles of weapons which have spilled all over the place. Everybody is armed now.
Vzglyad: Do you think America regrets aiding rebels in Libya a year ago?
V.P.: America and NATO bombed Libya and suffered as a result. These are the fruits of their own air raids. The country is divided, and it is not clear whether it will survive as a single state. There are a number of tribes in various regions seeking full independence.
Our European and American partners have cause to think hard about what they are doing in Syria, where al-Qaeda and other extremist elements are backed. There are at least six thousand al-Qaeda supporters in Syria, according to the AFP.
This is a short-sighted policy. One should understand that military interference in Syria is out of the question.
Vzglyad: What should the international community have done a year ago? Force the warring sides to make peace and hold free elections?
V.P.: Yes, of course. In this day and age, it is impossible to solve religious, national and ethnic problems by military force. Military superiority does not count anymore. Obviously, the parties to the Syrian conflict should have been brought to the negotiating table. Civil wars never end well.
I grieve for the unfortunate American diplomats: they were innocent victims. This was the result of miscalculations in American policy.
One should understand the cause of all of this, and it lies in the fact that a country has been bombed out of existence. It is difficult to say how we can restore it. The Americans are trying to repeat this in Syria, and this is dangerous. Lessons should be drawn, and I hope they will be.
============
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@
============
Russia & India Report
September 17, 2012
From Vzglyad
Will the U.S. learn a lesson from the death of its Ambassador in Libya?
Andrei Rezchikov
====
America and NATO bombed Libya and suffered as a result. These are the fruits of their own air raids. The country is divided, and it is not clear whether it will survive as a single state.
One should understand the cause of all of this, and it lies in the fact that a country has been bombed out of existence. It is difficult to say how we can restore it. The Americans are trying to repeat this in Syria, and this is dangerous.
====
Russia’s former Ambassador to Tripoli attributes the death of the U.S. Ambassador to miscalculations in Washington’s policy.
Former Russian Ambassador to Libya Veniamin Popov: “The U.S. has a lesson to learn from the death of its Ambassador in Libya.” Source: ITAR-TASS
On September 12, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three members of the embassy staff died in a rocket attack in the city of Benghazi.
The Ansar al-Sharia rebel group that launched the assault said the attack was a response to the American film “Innocence of Muslims,” which it claims is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Just one day before the assault in Libya, the U.S. diplomatic mission in the capital of neighboring Egypt was also attacked.
The last incident of this nature occurred in 1979, when U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was kidnapped and killed. His death prompted a hardening of Washington’s policy towards the country and, ultimately, contributed to the course of events that led up to the war in Afghanistan.
In the following interview, former Russian ambassador to Libya and current Director of Foreign Relations at the Islamic Culture, Science and Education Fund, Veniamin Popov, reflects on the causes of the tragedy in Benghazi, what lessons the U.S. should take from it and whether Washington will change its attitude to Tripoli.
Vzglyad: Will the U.S. break off diplomatic relations with Libya?
Veniamin Popov: I don’t think that America will sever relations with Libya. Libya is a very rich country. It has good quality oil, so the Americans are not interested in leaving. They are trying to play down the significance of these events, emphasize cooperation with Libya and so on.
Vzglyad: Are aid programs to Libya likely to be put on hold?
V.P.: They will tread more cautiously now, because they have to react somehow. If they do nothing, then tomorrow they will be shot at and killed. That isn’t the way to go about doing things. How can you conduct a dialogue if diplomats are being killed?
Vzglyad: What are the chances that the authorities will find those responsible for the attacks?
V.P.: Benghazi is not a big city, so people know who did it. I think they will find them; but whether or not they will be able to arrest them is a different matter altogether. Libya has colossal stockpiles of weapons which have spilled all over the place. Everybody is armed now.
Vzglyad: Do you think America regrets aiding rebels in Libya a year ago?
V.P.: America and NATO bombed Libya and suffered as a result. These are the fruits of their own air raids. The country is divided, and it is not clear whether it will survive as a single state. There are a number of tribes in various regions seeking full independence.
Our European and American partners have cause to think hard about what they are doing in Syria, where al-Qaeda and other extremist elements are backed. There are at least six thousand al-Qaeda supporters in Syria, according to the AFP.
This is a short-sighted policy. One should understand that military interference in Syria is out of the question.
Vzglyad: What should the international community have done a year ago? Force the warring sides to make peace and hold free elections?
V.P.: Yes, of course. In this day and age, it is impossible to solve religious, national and ethnic problems by military force. Military superiority does not count anymore. Obviously, the parties to the Syrian conflict should have been brought to the negotiating table. Civil wars never end well.
I grieve for the unfortunate American diplomats: they were innocent victims. This was the result of miscalculations in American policy.
One should understand the cause of all of this, and it lies in the fact that a country has been bombed out of existence. It is difficult to say how we can restore it. The Americans are trying to repeat this in Syria, and this is dangerous. Lessons should be drawn, and I hope they will be.
============
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@
============
Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://usa.chinadai
China Daily
September 18, 2012
US behaving badly
====
[T]he dispute over the Diaoyu Islands is essentially a US-made legacy of World War II.
The US' intentional blindness to the illegal nature of Japan's claims to the islands and the ambiguity they are intentionally trying to bring into the dispute are hypocritical. And including the territory into the US-Japan security treaty violates a core Chinese national interest.
====
The visiting US Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is expected to appeal for Chinese restraint in handling the escalating tension with Japan over the disputed Diaoyu Islands during his meeting with his Chinese counterpart, General Liang Guanglie.
While in Tokyo, Panetta made a similar appeal to Japan on Monday, expressing the hope that the dispute be resolved in a peaceful manner.
Clearly, defusing the dangerous situation is in the United States' best interest - his country has nothing to gain from being dragged into an open military showdown with China by a bellicose Japan.
Yet leaving aside the fact that US military strategy is increasingly targeted at China as a potential enemy, the US has been playing a very negative role in the current turmoil in the East and South China seas.
The world constantly hears US appeals for restraint and negotiations over territorial disputes and we continually hear Washington proclaim that it is taking no sides in such disputes, yet behind the scenes it is clearly a different matter.
On his way to Japan, Panetta reiterated that his country is not taking sides in the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. But, then on Monday, after his meeting with Koichiro Gemba, the Japanese foreign minister, Gemba told the press that the Diaoyu Islands are covered by the security treaty between Japan and the US.
Panetta should clarify why, if the US does not have a position in the dispute, his country seems to have extended coverage of the security treaty, meant to protect Japanese territory, to include the Diaoyu Islands, which are legally Chinese territory as the US well knows.
This is important particularly because the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands is essentially a US-made legacy of World War II.
The US' intentional blindness to the illegal nature of Japan's claims to the islands and the ambiguity they are intentionally trying to bring into the dispute are hypocritical. And including the territory into the US-Japan security treaty violates a core Chinese national interest.
Panetta's visit is supposed to be part of the US' alleged commitment to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. But he is going to have a lot of explaining to do to convince China of this and successfully achieve his stated goal of deepening the military-to-
============
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@
============
China Daily
September 18, 2012
US behaving badly
====
[T]he dispute over the Diaoyu Islands is essentially a US-made legacy of World War II.
The US' intentional blindness to the illegal nature of Japan's claims to the islands and the ambiguity they are intentionally trying to bring into the dispute are hypocritical. And including the territory into the US-Japan security treaty violates a core Chinese national interest.
====
The visiting US Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is expected to appeal for Chinese restraint in handling the escalating tension with Japan over the disputed Diaoyu Islands during his meeting with his Chinese counterpart, General Liang Guanglie.
While in Tokyo, Panetta made a similar appeal to Japan on Monday, expressing the hope that the dispute be resolved in a peaceful manner.
Clearly, defusing the dangerous situation is in the United States' best interest - his country has nothing to gain from being dragged into an open military showdown with China by a bellicose Japan.
Yet leaving aside the fact that US military strategy is increasingly targeted at China as a potential enemy, the US has been playing a very negative role in the current turmoil in the East and South China seas.
The world constantly hears US appeals for restraint and negotiations over territorial disputes and we continually hear Washington proclaim that it is taking no sides in such disputes, yet behind the scenes it is clearly a different matter.
On his way to Japan, Panetta reiterated that his country is not taking sides in the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. But, then on Monday, after his meeting with Koichiro Gemba, the Japanese foreign minister, Gemba told the press that the Diaoyu Islands are covered by the security treaty between Japan and the US.
Panetta should clarify why, if the US does not have a position in the dispute, his country seems to have extended coverage of the security treaty, meant to protect Japanese territory, to include the Diaoyu Islands, which are legally Chinese territory as the US well knows.
This is important particularly because the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands is essentially a US-made legacy of World War II.
The US' intentional blindness to the illegal nature of Japan's claims to the islands and the ambiguity they are intentionally trying to bring into the dispute are hypocritical. And including the territory into the US-Japan security treaty violates a core Chinese national interest.
Panetta's visit is supposed to be part of the US' alleged commitment to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. But he is going to have a lot of explaining to do to convince China of this and successfully achieve his stated goal of deepening the military-to-
============
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@
============
Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:41 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dailytim
Daily Times
September 18, 2012
Cold War II
Muhammad Arif Shafi
====
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed invasions and change of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq without any solid reason by the US and its allies. The second decade is more violent and Syria is facing a civil war with the clear interference of Western powers. Iran is being threatened and Pakistan is facing continuous violations against its national sovereignty in the shape of drone attacks.
[T]he Obama administration in January 2010 announced the sale of $6 billion worth of Patriot anti-missile systems to Taiwan. Chinese officials on that occasion called the step “a stab in the back”. China cut off military ties with the US soon after the deal.
====
The Cold War term was used for the first time in 1945 by George Orwell, an English writer, in his article, ‘You and the Atomic Bomb’. It denotes indirect conflict between two atomic superpowers — the United States (US) and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Their hostility started soon after the end of World War II. Although both powers fought as allies in that war, they considered each side a danger for world peace after the victory of the allied forces. The US feared Soviet expansionism and thought the Soviets would control the whole world. Communists were also not happy with US interference in world affairs and its growing military power. The Cold War ended with the dismemberment of the USSR, following great losses in the Afghan war.
The world was called ‘uni-polar’ from then on and the US became free to interfere and dominate it. The first decade of the 21st century witnessed invasions and change of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq without any solid reason by the US and its allies. The second decade is more violent and Syria is facing a civil war with the clear interference of Western powers. Iran is being threatened and Pakistan is facing continuous violations against its national sovereignty in the shape of drone attacks.
China, yet another communist state without an expansionist policy, has emerged as another world power. Although the Chinese economy started growth from 1949 onward, in recent years the country has shown enormous progress, covering almost the whole of the world market. The US and China have clarified on a number of occasions in the near past that they are not rivals, but some recent developments and a difference of opinion in several aspects of world affairs give evidence that the second cold war has started, and that too without a declaration.
In 1962, a month-long war (from October 20 to November 20) was fought between India and China over a number of border disputes, which ended with a decisive victory by China. The war coincided with the US-Cuba missile crisis and, no doubt, the US did not play any direct role in the Indo-China war at that point. However, in the following years India was supported by the US to become a regional power. India also provided political asylum to the Tibetan spiritual and political leader, the Dalai Lama, who escaped to India during the uprising in Tibet in 1959. The Dalai Lama is still a thorn in Indo-Chinese relationship.
India, as a large country and economy, is important for US foreign policy in the region, and growing strategic relations between the US and India during the last few years have alarmed China.
In 2003, when the US was busy with the Iraq war, the Bush administration, on a number of occasions, had said they supported the one-China policy and were against an independent Taiwan. China claims Taiwan is a part of its territory. However, after seven years, the Obama administration in January 2010, announced the sale of $6 billion worth of Patriot anti-missile systems to Taiwan. Chinese officials on that occasion called the step “a stab in the back”. China cut off military ties with the US soon after the deal.
In September 2011, although denying having sold new F-16 fighter jets, the US made a deal of $5.85 billion to upgrade Taiwan’s fleet of F-16s. The Chinese deputy foreign minister demanded an immediate cancellation of “the wrong decision”. People’s Daily, a top Chinese newspaper and mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party, called it a “huge mistake” and wrote, “If American politicians feel that the United States can irresponsibly and randomly damage China’s core interests without paying a price, that is a major and huge mistake.”
According to some analysts, the Taliban while they were in power in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US, and the US had other strategic motives behind the occupation of Afghanistan. One of those motives was to establish bases near the Chinese border. Besides the 11-year long war and the loss of more than 3,000 soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), no major changes have occurred in Afghanistan. The US has agreed with the Afghan government to maintain military bases in the country until 2014.
China has a dispute over islands in the East China Sea with Japan and tension between the two nations has grown during the last few days. Although the US has not shown a clear position on the dispute, Tokyo is a longtime ally of Washington and under the US-Japan Security Treaty the US is obliged to respond to any attack on Japan or its territory.
Asia is not a limit to this undeclared cold war; in fact, Africa is also witnessing the growing influence of both powers. China is investing $490 billion in Africa, making the continent the third largest recipient of its Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), following Asia and Europe.
Recently (in August 2012), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Africa with a number of executives from leading American companies to assure Africans that the US was interested in investing in the continent. Although late, the US has realised that China benefits from African potential by investing there.
Australia is the third continent where growing rivalry between the two powers can be witnessed. Addressing the Australian parliament during his visit last November, US President Barack Obama announced an agreement between the two nations under which the US would send an additional 2,500 marines to the port city of Darwin in northern Australia. Both China and the US want to increase their influence in Australia, which is mostly a militarily dependent state. China considers the Australian decision as a sign of joining sides. The arrival of US marines is a sign that the establishment of a land base will take place there and it is considered as a move against China.
War is a misery for humans, it does not matter if it is cold or hot, and the world, especially the US and China, must realise that before it is too late.
The writer can be reached at Arifshafi6@gmail.
Daily Times
September 18, 2012
Cold War II
Muhammad Arif Shafi
====
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed invasions and change of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq without any solid reason by the US and its allies. The second decade is more violent and Syria is facing a civil war with the clear interference of Western powers. Iran is being threatened and Pakistan is facing continuous violations against its national sovereignty in the shape of drone attacks.
[T]he Obama administration in January 2010 announced the sale of $6 billion worth of Patriot anti-missile systems to Taiwan. Chinese officials on that occasion called the step “a stab in the back”. China cut off military ties with the US soon after the deal.
====
The Cold War term was used for the first time in 1945 by George Orwell, an English writer, in his article, ‘You and the Atomic Bomb’. It denotes indirect conflict between two atomic superpowers — the United States (US) and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Their hostility started soon after the end of World War II. Although both powers fought as allies in that war, they considered each side a danger for world peace after the victory of the allied forces. The US feared Soviet expansionism and thought the Soviets would control the whole world. Communists were also not happy with US interference in world affairs and its growing military power. The Cold War ended with the dismemberment of the USSR, following great losses in the Afghan war.
The world was called ‘uni-polar’ from then on and the US became free to interfere and dominate it. The first decade of the 21st century witnessed invasions and change of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq without any solid reason by the US and its allies. The second decade is more violent and Syria is facing a civil war with the clear interference of Western powers. Iran is being threatened and Pakistan is facing continuous violations against its national sovereignty in the shape of drone attacks.
China, yet another communist state without an expansionist policy, has emerged as another world power. Although the Chinese economy started growth from 1949 onward, in recent years the country has shown enormous progress, covering almost the whole of the world market. The US and China have clarified on a number of occasions in the near past that they are not rivals, but some recent developments and a difference of opinion in several aspects of world affairs give evidence that the second cold war has started, and that too without a declaration.
In 1962, a month-long war (from October 20 to November 20) was fought between India and China over a number of border disputes, which ended with a decisive victory by China. The war coincided with the US-Cuba missile crisis and, no doubt, the US did not play any direct role in the Indo-China war at that point. However, in the following years India was supported by the US to become a regional power. India also provided political asylum to the Tibetan spiritual and political leader, the Dalai Lama, who escaped to India during the uprising in Tibet in 1959. The Dalai Lama is still a thorn in Indo-Chinese relationship.
India, as a large country and economy, is important for US foreign policy in the region, and growing strategic relations between the US and India during the last few years have alarmed China.
In 2003, when the US was busy with the Iraq war, the Bush administration, on a number of occasions, had said they supported the one-China policy and were against an independent Taiwan. China claims Taiwan is a part of its territory. However, after seven years, the Obama administration in January 2010, announced the sale of $6 billion worth of Patriot anti-missile systems to Taiwan. Chinese officials on that occasion called the step “a stab in the back”. China cut off military ties with the US soon after the deal.
In September 2011, although denying having sold new F-16 fighter jets, the US made a deal of $5.85 billion to upgrade Taiwan’s fleet of F-16s. The Chinese deputy foreign minister demanded an immediate cancellation of “the wrong decision”. People’s Daily, a top Chinese newspaper and mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party, called it a “huge mistake” and wrote, “If American politicians feel that the United States can irresponsibly and randomly damage China’s core interests without paying a price, that is a major and huge mistake.”
According to some analysts, the Taliban while they were in power in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US, and the US had other strategic motives behind the occupation of Afghanistan. One of those motives was to establish bases near the Chinese border. Besides the 11-year long war and the loss of more than 3,000 soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), no major changes have occurred in Afghanistan. The US has agreed with the Afghan government to maintain military bases in the country until 2014.
China has a dispute over islands in the East China Sea with Japan and tension between the two nations has grown during the last few days. Although the US has not shown a clear position on the dispute, Tokyo is a longtime ally of Washington and under the US-Japan Security Treaty the US is obliged to respond to any attack on Japan or its territory.
Asia is not a limit to this undeclared cold war; in fact, Africa is also witnessing the growing influence of both powers. China is investing $490 billion in Africa, making the continent the third largest recipient of its Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), following Asia and Europe.
Recently (in August 2012), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Africa with a number of executives from leading American companies to assure Africans that the US was interested in investing in the continent. Although late, the US has realised that China benefits from African potential by investing there.
Australia is the third continent where growing rivalry between the two powers can be witnessed. Addressing the Australian parliament during his visit last November, US President Barack Obama announced an agreement between the two nations under which the US would send an additional 2,500 marines to the port city of Darwin in northern Australia. Both China and the US want to increase their influence in Australia, which is mostly a militarily dependent state. China considers the Australian decision as a sign of joining sides. The arrival of US marines is a sign that the establishment of a land base will take place there and it is considered as a move against China.
War is a misery for humans, it does not matter if it is cold or hot, and the world, especially the US and China, must realise that before it is too late.
The writer can be reached at Arifshafi6@gmail.
