6 New Messages
Digest #4486
Messages
Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://open.
Peace Visionary's Blog
September 9, 2012
War Crimes
Ariel Ky
I would like to start a movement of people who want to end wars and are willing to prosecute those responsible for promoting them. In my lifetime (I'm 58 years old, born in 1953), the United States of America has been responsible for most of the wars fought in the world.
Most recently, attacks on Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, have all been aggressive wars started by the U.S. The U.S. has also infiltrated a number of countries where it presently feeds insurrections through training, arming and paying people to fight.
We need to file a class action suit against the Senators, representatives, attorneys, presidents and their cabinets and administrators, the Secretary's of State, Condaleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton, and other politicians who are responsible for the wars that the U.S. has been fighting. We need to prosecute Obama, both Bush Sr. and Jr., Clinton, Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, and all the individuals who have been masterminding military strategy against other countries.
We need to prosecute every single politician who has lied to the American people and misled us into wars. We need to prosecute every person responsible for false flag operations in this century and the last... every person still alive with blood on their hands. And until we do that, nothing is going to change.
We need to prosecute the Carlyle Group and every private equity firm and Wall Street firm that has financed military deals and made fortunes on them. We need to prosecute the companies that have made money on death-dealing armaments, munitions, military vehicles, surveillance systems, space-based weaponry coordinating systems, drones, etc. We need to put the armaments industry out of business by making them pay reparations for the deaths and destruction that they have caused.
We also need to hold the intelligence community responsible for their clandestine actions that have contributed to the militarization of the world and prosecution of wars.
Until we rid ourselves of this cancerous growth which has sped on and encouraged the militarization of the U.S. economy, we are looking at ongoing wars that never, never end.
I will not participate in any more global meditations or prayers for peace until they are joined with legal action for accountability that ends the profitability of waging wars.
We must change direction immediately or we are headed for the precipice, the lemmings swarming over the cliff to fall to their deaths in the sea.
============
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@
============
Peace Visionary's Blog
September 9, 2012
War Crimes
Ariel Ky
I would like to start a movement of people who want to end wars and are willing to prosecute those responsible for promoting them. In my lifetime (I'm 58 years old, born in 1953), the United States of America has been responsible for most of the wars fought in the world.
Most recently, attacks on Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, have all been aggressive wars started by the U.S. The U.S. has also infiltrated a number of countries where it presently feeds insurrections through training, arming and paying people to fight.
We need to file a class action suit against the Senators, representatives, attorneys, presidents and their cabinets and administrators, the Secretary's of State, Condaleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton, and other politicians who are responsible for the wars that the U.S. has been fighting. We need to prosecute Obama, both Bush Sr. and Jr., Clinton, Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, and all the individuals who have been masterminding military strategy against other countries.
We need to prosecute every single politician who has lied to the American people and misled us into wars. We need to prosecute every person responsible for false flag operations in this century and the last... every person still alive with blood on their hands. And until we do that, nothing is going to change.
We need to prosecute the Carlyle Group and every private equity firm and Wall Street firm that has financed military deals and made fortunes on them. We need to prosecute the companies that have made money on death-dealing armaments, munitions, military vehicles, surveillance systems, space-based weaponry coordinating systems, drones, etc. We need to put the armaments industry out of business by making them pay reparations for the deaths and destruction that they have caused.
We also need to hold the intelligence community responsible for their clandestine actions that have contributed to the militarization of the world and prosecution of wars.
Until we rid ourselves of this cancerous growth which has sped on and encouraged the militarization of the U.S. economy, we are looking at ongoing wars that never, never end.
I will not participate in any more global meditations or prayers for peace until they are joined with legal action for accountability that ends the profitability of waging wars.
We must change direction immediately or we are headed for the precipice, the lemmings swarming over the cliff to fall to their deaths in the sea.
============
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 10, 2012 11:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
September 10, 2012
Talks about Georgia NATO membership encourage revanchism: diplomat
MOSCOW: NATO’s promoting the issue of Georgia’s possible membership in the Alliance encourage revanchist aspirations of the Georgian leadership, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Monday.
“Promoting Georgia as a possible NATO member country does not strengthen the security of anyone. It encourages revanchist aspirations of the Georgian leadership, stirring up its unwillingness to recognize the political realities that have been established in the region, and increases tensions in the South Caucasus,” the top Russian diplomat said.
“Clear legal guarantees of the non-use of force by Georgia against its neighbors discussed within the framework of the Geneva discussions must become a real contribution to the strengthening of security in the region,” Lukashevich stressed.
NATO has failed to learn a lesson from the tragic events of 2008 in the South Caucasus, Lukashevich said, commenting on a statement by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen that NATO is Georgia’s future home, made during his visit to Tbilisi on September 6.
According to the diplomat, this statement “contains no new elements as compared with the decision reached at NATO’s summit in Bucharest (in 2008) and once again confirmed at the summit of the Alliance in Chicago (in 2012), which stated that ‘Georgia will become a NATO member country’”.
“Such statements show that NATO has failed to learn a lesson from the tragic events in the South Caucasus and continues sending ‘encouraging signals’ to Tbilisi,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasized.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
September 10, 2012
Russia wary as Georgia cozies up to NATO
Robert Bridge
As Tbilisi continues to cozy up to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Moscow is concerned the relationship may result in Georgia again provoking tension with Russia.
At a briefing with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the future was in Georgia's hands but it should know that it had a friend in NATO.
Later, Georgian Defense Minister Dimitri Shashkin told reporters that "NATO is the future home of Georgia."
Concerned that the western military alliance may be encouraging Georgia to mischief, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said such statements prove that NATO has not learned any lessons from the 2008 conflict in the South Caucasus.
“Such statements tell us that NATO failed to learn its lessons from the tragic events that took place in the South Caucasus in 2008, and continues to encourage Tbilisi,” Alexander Lukashevich, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, said.
The comment was posted on the ministry’s web-site on Monday.
“Everybody knows Russia’s approach to this,” Lukashevich continued. “We don’t think that continuing with this notion of Georgia’s possible membership in NATO will boost anybody’s security. On the contrary, [such statements] encourages the Georgian authorities in their efforts to seek revenge.”
Such statements serve to aggravate tension in the South Caucasus due to Tbilisi’s reluctance to accept the current political situation, the minister added.
Moscow has reason to be concerned about an overconfident Tbilisi in its backyard. On August 8, 2008, Russia was forced to respond to a Georgian military offensive against South Ossetia. The surprise attack on the capital of Tskhinval resulted in the death of Russian peacekeepers, as well as hundreds of civilians.
The assault led to five days of hostilities, with the Russian military eventually advancing temporarily into Georgian territory before a ceasefire was brokered.
Following the conflict, Russia voted to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign states.
Moscow is concerned that Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by NATO overtures, may be tempted to initiate another military misadventure in the region.
Meanwhile, in an ongoing scramble to join the Alliance, Tbilisi is busy trying to persuade the West that it respects democracy. Rasmussen lectured Georgia on upcoming parliamentary elections this October and Presidential elections in 2013, saying they would serve as a litmus test for Georgian democracy, and thus a determining factor in joining NATO.
“I trust that all political players in Georgia will play a responsible role in this process,” said the Secretary General. “The future is in your hands. But know this: you have a friend in NATO – and a future home in NATO.”
“Georgia will continue its course of democracy and reforms,” Saakashvili said. “Let me assure you that the authorities will do everything to make these elections the freest and most transparent polls in the history of this country."
Rasmussen said that NATO would keep the door open to countries which continued moving on the path of reform and integration.
No third country has a right to interfere with NATO decisions; NATO is conducting an "open doors" policy and hopes that Russia would respect its decision, he said.
The NATO secretary-general reminded that during the NATO summit in Chicago held in May 2012 confirmed, NATO welcomed Georgia's desire to become a member of the military pact, which was borne out of the Cold War.
Not all Georgians, however, are enthusiastic over Saakashvili’s militaristic ambitions.
Several local opposition parties in Georgia have come out against NATO membership, calling for a policy of non-alignment with any political blocs. The political opposition argues that if Georgia abandons its course towards NATO membership the process of a peaceful unification with Russia will begin.
In April 2008, NATO refused to grant membership to Tbilisi and Kiev under the Membership Action Plan (MAP). In December 2008, NATO foreign ministers presented Georgian officials a new format of cooperation, which include the implementation of national programs designed at bringing Georgia into the NATO fold.
Last week, the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen participated in a farewell ceremony for the two Georgian battalions setting off for Afghanistan. With Australia pulling out troops Georgia will become the largest non-NATO contributor to the US-led mission.
Although the alliance will complete its mission in Afghanistan in 2014, it will continue to provide support to the Afghan Armed Forces, and Georgia will continue to be a “major non-NATO contributor,” Rasmussen 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@
============
Itar-Tass
September 10, 2012
Talks about Georgia NATO membership encourage revanchism: diplomat
MOSCOW: NATO’s promoting the issue of Georgia’s possible membership in the Alliance encourage revanchist aspirations of the Georgian leadership, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Monday.
“Promoting Georgia as a possible NATO member country does not strengthen the security of anyone. It encourages revanchist aspirations of the Georgian leadership, stirring up its unwillingness to recognize the political realities that have been established in the region, and increases tensions in the South Caucasus,” the top Russian diplomat said.
“Clear legal guarantees of the non-use of force by Georgia against its neighbors discussed within the framework of the Geneva discussions must become a real contribution to the strengthening of security in the region,” Lukashevich stressed.
NATO has failed to learn a lesson from the tragic events of 2008 in the South Caucasus, Lukashevich said, commenting on a statement by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen that NATO is Georgia’s future home, made during his visit to Tbilisi on September 6.
According to the diplomat, this statement “contains no new elements as compared with the decision reached at NATO’s summit in Bucharest (in 2008) and once again confirmed at the summit of the Alliance in Chicago (in 2012), which stated that ‘Georgia will become a NATO member country’”.
“Such statements show that NATO has failed to learn a lesson from the tragic events in the South Caucasus and continues sending ‘encouraging signals’ to Tbilisi,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasized.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
September 10, 2012
Russia wary as Georgia cozies up to NATO
Robert Bridge
As Tbilisi continues to cozy up to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Moscow is concerned the relationship may result in Georgia again provoking tension with Russia.
At a briefing with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the future was in Georgia's hands but it should know that it had a friend in NATO.
Later, Georgian Defense Minister Dimitri Shashkin told reporters that "NATO is the future home of Georgia."
Concerned that the western military alliance may be encouraging Georgia to mischief, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said such statements prove that NATO has not learned any lessons from the 2008 conflict in the South Caucasus.
“Such statements tell us that NATO failed to learn its lessons from the tragic events that took place in the South Caucasus in 2008, and continues to encourage Tbilisi,” Alexander Lukashevich, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, said.
The comment was posted on the ministry’s web-site on Monday.
“Everybody knows Russia’s approach to this,” Lukashevich continued. “We don’t think that continuing with this notion of Georgia’s possible membership in NATO will boost anybody’s security. On the contrary, [such statements] encourages the Georgian authorities in their efforts to seek revenge.”
Such statements serve to aggravate tension in the South Caucasus due to Tbilisi’s reluctance to accept the current political situation, the minister added.
Moscow has reason to be concerned about an overconfident Tbilisi in its backyard. On August 8, 2008, Russia was forced to respond to a Georgian military offensive against South Ossetia. The surprise attack on the capital of Tskhinval resulted in the death of Russian peacekeepers, as well as hundreds of civilians.
The assault led to five days of hostilities, with the Russian military eventually advancing temporarily into Georgian territory before a ceasefire was brokered.
Following the conflict, Russia voted to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign states.
Moscow is concerned that Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by NATO overtures, may be tempted to initiate another military misadventure in the region.
Meanwhile, in an ongoing scramble to join the Alliance, Tbilisi is busy trying to persuade the West that it respects democracy. Rasmussen lectured Georgia on upcoming parliamentary elections this October and Presidential elections in 2013, saying they would serve as a litmus test for Georgian democracy, and thus a determining factor in joining NATO.
“I trust that all political players in Georgia will play a responsible role in this process,” said the Secretary General. “The future is in your hands. But know this: you have a friend in NATO – and a future home in NATO.”
“Georgia will continue its course of democracy and reforms,” Saakashvili said. “Let me assure you that the authorities will do everything to make these elections the freest and most transparent polls in the history of this country."
Rasmussen said that NATO would keep the door open to countries which continued moving on the path of reform and integration.
No third country has a right to interfere with NATO decisions; NATO is conducting an "open doors" policy and hopes that Russia would respect its decision, he said.
The NATO secretary-general reminded that during the NATO summit in Chicago held in May 2012 confirmed, NATO welcomed Georgia's desire to become a member of the military pact, which was borne out of the Cold War.
Not all Georgians, however, are enthusiastic over Saakashvili’s militaristic ambitions.
Several local opposition parties in Georgia have come out against NATO membership, calling for a policy of non-alignment with any political blocs. The political opposition argues that if Georgia abandons its course towards NATO membership the process of a peaceful unification with Russia will begin.
In April 2008, NATO refused to grant membership to Tbilisi and Kiev under the Membership Action Plan (MAP). In December 2008, NATO foreign ministers presented Georgian officials a new format of cooperation, which include the implementation of national programs designed at bringing Georgia into the NATO fold.
Last week, the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen participated in a farewell ceremony for the two Georgian battalions setting off for Afghanistan. With Australia pulling out troops Georgia will become the largest non-NATO contributor to the US-led mission.
Although the alliance will complete its mission in Afghanistan in 2014, it will continue to provide support to the Afghan Armed Forces, and Georgia will continue to be a “major non-NATO contributor,” Rasmussen 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 10, 2012 3:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.china.
Beijing Review
September 10, 2012
China and U.S. at odds over Islands
By Ding Ying
====
"Clinton set fire to the Diaoyu Islands issue as part of U.S. foreign policy turning its focus to the Asia Pacific, showing an obvious intention to contain China. Now the fire is so big that it is going to be out of U.S. control."
====
With Washington's high-tune claim of shifting the focus of its foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific region, the quiet ocean is being stirred up. The growing tension is jeopardizing not only regional peace and stability, but also mutual trust between China and the United States.
Chinese observers have criticized the U.S. bias toward regional tension, stressing that the two sides must refocus on promoting mutual trust, so as to put the bilateral relationship back on the right track.
U.S. double standards
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China on September 4 and 5 as part of an 11-day tour of Asia. This was likely to be Clinton's last visit to China as the U.S. secretary of state. She had paid seven visits to China previously—four visits for the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue and another three for the High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange.
Observers pointed out that the visit could be considered a farewell tour by the departing secretary of state. However, considering the escalating tension in Asia, especially the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan, it was more like a fire-fighting tour. They reckon the U.S. bias over territorial disputes is likely to encourage Japan's irrational actions regarding the Diaoyu Islands issue.
"Clinton's visit was definitely connected to regional tension," Yu Wanli, an associate professor with the School of International Studies, Peking University, told Beijing Review. He explained that Clinton hoped to convince China to "restrain" itself over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, while trying to press China to accept a code of conduct in the South China Sea.
"Clinton set fire to the Diaoyu Islands issue as part of U.S. foreign policy turning its focus to the Asia Pacific, showing an obvious intention to contain China. Now the fire is so big that it is going to be out of U.S. control," Yu said.
According to Kyodo, an influential Japanese news agency, the Japanese Government has agreed on terms with the Kurihara family, which claims to own the Diaoyu Islands, to buy the islands on September 5. The report said the Central Government of Japan agreed to pay 2.05 billion yen ($26.15 million) for the "purchase" of part of the chain of islands in the East China Sea.
Yu recalled that the Diaoyu Islands issue essentially had been under control during the past decades. But the situation became tense in recent years, especially after the United States declared it was shifting the focus of its foreign policy toward the Asia Pacific. Yu said as Washington sticks to a principle of giving its allies priority, its Asia-Pacific policy has an obvious bias. Although the United States iterated it doesn't "take a position" on the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, it has repeatedly claimed that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty applies to the Diaoyu Islands.
Under the 1960 treaty, Washington will provide assistance to Tokyo when the territories under Japan's administration come under armed attack. Since the Diaoyu Islands are part of China's inherent territory, the Chinese Government has voiced opposition to U.S. statements that put the islands within the scope of the treaty.
Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), said U.S. tactics on the Diaoyu Islands reflected its ambivalence. Yang explained that, on the one hand, Washington wants to act with an image of a protector of Japan; on the other hand, it doesn't hope to pay an actual price for the protection. "The ideal status for the U.S. side is: The dispute over the Diaoyu Islands continues forever, but without the danger of escalating into a fight," Yang concluded.
The United States, which claims not to take sides in disputes between China and some of its neighbors, is somewhat blamed for rising tension due to its de-facto support of the parties opposite to China, especially its allies Japan and the Philippines.
Yang mentioned that although the United States declared it doesn't take a position on territorial disputes in Northeast Asia, its stances are quite different. On the Japan-South Korea dispute over Dokdo Island, which Japan calls Takeshima, its stance is impartial because the related two countries are both its allies. But its actual attitude is biased toward the Japanese side on the Diaoyu Islands issue.
"Current escalating tension over the Diaoyu Islands was started by the Japanese side, so why does Washington require China to show restraint?" said Yang, pointing out that the U.S. attitude is actually encouraging to Japan.
Yang believed that Washington is also ambivalent on China: It wants to create a tense security environment in China's neighborhood to contain China's development. But it also needs to promote cooperation and mutual trust to satisfy common interests between them. Want it or not, U.S. tactics on the Diaoyu Islands and Asia Pacific are starting to hurt mutual trust between the two biggest economies in the world.
Calls for respect
Both China and the United States have realized the hidden dangers and are trying to bolster mutual trust through high-level exchanges. Following Clinton's visit, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to visit China in mid-September. Observers believed that both Clinton and Panetta's visits are targeted at stabilizing the bilateral relationship. They called for efforts to enhance mutual trust based on respect for each other's core interests.
Jin Canrong, a professor with the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, pointed out Clinton's other goal during her recent trip was to clarify that the adjusted U.S. policy regarding the Asia Pacific is not targeted at China. Jin said there were criticisms inside the United States because the adjusted Asia-Pacific policy is offensive and fruitless. He hoped that Clinton and Panetta's communication with China could help to diminish tension between the two sides.
Jin pointed out that some countries try to gain extra profit for themselves by hitching onto the U.S. foreign policy shift, causing many problems in China's neighborhood. And China feels bad about the current situation in the region. "Now the atmosphere of the Sino-U.S. relationship is not very good. But the basic structure of the relationship, which combines competition amid cooperation, is still the same," Jin said.
Yu of Peking University believed that both sides need to show sincerity and make an effort to promote mutual trust. "Of course there is mutual trust between the two countries. But the current mutual trust is not enough to ease their suspicion of each other's strategic intention," Yu said.
He explained that mutual trust includes two directions. The positive direction is to conduct cooperation, while the negative direction is mainly to keep crisis between two countries under control. Now China and the United States are focused on how to control conflicts more than how to promote cooperation, Yu said. He pointed out that mutual trust cannot be promoted solely by China, because it is also determined by U.S. strategic interests.
Jia Xiudong, a researcher on U.S. studies at the CIIS, said it is understandable that the United States has its interests in the Asia Pacific. However, Jia underlined, the United States cannot sacrifice China's interests when increasing its strategic, political, economic and security input. Jia pointed out that Washington must remember three principles: China is not a challenger of existing international orders; don't try to challenge China on issues concerning China's core interests; and provoking dissension in China's neighborhood will bring the United States more loss than gain. "Respecting each other's core interests is pivotal to keeping the bilateral relationship under healthy development,
Sovereignty and territorial integrity are undoubtedly among China's core interests. "China, like all other countries in the world, has an obligation to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a press conference on September 3.
While China has the sincerity of maintaining a good Sino-U.S. relationship, such a relationship should never be established at the expense of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, Chinese analysts 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@
============
Beijing Review
September 10, 2012
China and U.S. at odds over Islands
By Ding Ying
====
"Clinton set fire to the Diaoyu Islands issue as part of U.S. foreign policy turning its focus to the Asia Pacific, showing an obvious intention to contain China. Now the fire is so big that it is going to be out of U.S. control."
====
With Washington's high-tune claim of shifting the focus of its foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific region, the quiet ocean is being stirred up. The growing tension is jeopardizing not only regional peace and stability, but also mutual trust between China and the United States.
Chinese observers have criticized the U.S. bias toward regional tension, stressing that the two sides must refocus on promoting mutual trust, so as to put the bilateral relationship back on the right track.
U.S. double standards
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China on September 4 and 5 as part of an 11-day tour of Asia. This was likely to be Clinton's last visit to China as the U.S. secretary of state. She had paid seven visits to China previously—four visits for the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue and another three for the High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange.
Observers pointed out that the visit could be considered a farewell tour by the departing secretary of state. However, considering the escalating tension in Asia, especially the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan, it was more like a fire-fighting tour. They reckon the U.S. bias over territorial disputes is likely to encourage Japan's irrational actions regarding the Diaoyu Islands issue.
"Clinton's visit was definitely connected to regional tension," Yu Wanli, an associate professor with the School of International Studies, Peking University, told Beijing Review. He explained that Clinton hoped to convince China to "restrain" itself over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, while trying to press China to accept a code of conduct in the South China Sea.
"Clinton set fire to the Diaoyu Islands issue as part of U.S. foreign policy turning its focus to the Asia Pacific, showing an obvious intention to contain China. Now the fire is so big that it is going to be out of U.S. control," Yu said.
According to Kyodo, an influential Japanese news agency, the Japanese Government has agreed on terms with the Kurihara family, which claims to own the Diaoyu Islands, to buy the islands on September 5. The report said the Central Government of Japan agreed to pay 2.05 billion yen ($26.15 million) for the "purchase" of part of the chain of islands in the East China Sea.
Yu recalled that the Diaoyu Islands issue essentially had been under control during the past decades. But the situation became tense in recent years, especially after the United States declared it was shifting the focus of its foreign policy toward the Asia Pacific. Yu said as Washington sticks to a principle of giving its allies priority, its Asia-Pacific policy has an obvious bias. Although the United States iterated it doesn't "take a position" on the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, it has repeatedly claimed that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty applies to the Diaoyu Islands.
Under the 1960 treaty, Washington will provide assistance to Tokyo when the territories under Japan's administration come under armed attack. Since the Diaoyu Islands are part of China's inherent territory, the Chinese Government has voiced opposition to U.S. statements that put the islands within the scope of the treaty.
Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), said U.S. tactics on the Diaoyu Islands reflected its ambivalence. Yang explained that, on the one hand, Washington wants to act with an image of a protector of Japan; on the other hand, it doesn't hope to pay an actual price for the protection. "The ideal status for the U.S. side is: The dispute over the Diaoyu Islands continues forever, but without the danger of escalating into a fight," Yang concluded.
The United States, which claims not to take sides in disputes between China and some of its neighbors, is somewhat blamed for rising tension due to its de-facto support of the parties opposite to China, especially its allies Japan and the Philippines.
Yang mentioned that although the United States declared it doesn't take a position on territorial disputes in Northeast Asia, its stances are quite different. On the Japan-South Korea dispute over Dokdo Island, which Japan calls Takeshima, its stance is impartial because the related two countries are both its allies. But its actual attitude is biased toward the Japanese side on the Diaoyu Islands issue.
"Current escalating tension over the Diaoyu Islands was started by the Japanese side, so why does Washington require China to show restraint?" said Yang, pointing out that the U.S. attitude is actually encouraging to Japan.
Yang believed that Washington is also ambivalent on China: It wants to create a tense security environment in China's neighborhood to contain China's development. But it also needs to promote cooperation and mutual trust to satisfy common interests between them. Want it or not, U.S. tactics on the Diaoyu Islands and Asia Pacific are starting to hurt mutual trust between the two biggest economies in the world.
Calls for respect
Both China and the United States have realized the hidden dangers and are trying to bolster mutual trust through high-level exchanges. Following Clinton's visit, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to visit China in mid-September. Observers believed that both Clinton and Panetta's visits are targeted at stabilizing the bilateral relationship. They called for efforts to enhance mutual trust based on respect for each other's core interests.
Jin Canrong, a professor with the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, pointed out Clinton's other goal during her recent trip was to clarify that the adjusted U.S. policy regarding the Asia Pacific is not targeted at China. Jin said there were criticisms inside the United States because the adjusted Asia-Pacific policy is offensive and fruitless. He hoped that Clinton and Panetta's communication with China could help to diminish tension between the two sides.
Jin pointed out that some countries try to gain extra profit for themselves by hitching onto the U.S. foreign policy shift, causing many problems in China's neighborhood. And China feels bad about the current situation in the region. "Now the atmosphere of the Sino-U.S. relationship is not very good. But the basic structure of the relationship, which combines competition amid cooperation, is still the same," Jin said.
Yu of Peking University believed that both sides need to show sincerity and make an effort to promote mutual trust. "Of course there is mutual trust between the two countries. But the current mutual trust is not enough to ease their suspicion of each other's strategic intention," Yu said.
He explained that mutual trust includes two directions. The positive direction is to conduct cooperation, while the negative direction is mainly to keep crisis between two countries under control. Now China and the United States are focused on how to control conflicts more than how to promote cooperation, Yu said. He pointed out that mutual trust cannot be promoted solely by China, because it is also determined by U.S. strategic interests.
Jia Xiudong, a researcher on U.S. studies at the CIIS, said it is understandable that the United States has its interests in the Asia Pacific. However, Jia underlined, the United States cannot sacrifice China's interests when increasing its strategic, political, economic and security input. Jia pointed out that Washington must remember three principles: China is not a challenger of existing international orders; don't try to challenge China on issues concerning China's core interests; and provoking dissension in China's neighborhood will bring the United States more loss than gain. "Respecting each other's core interests is pivotal to keeping the bilateral relationship under healthy development,
Sovereignty and territorial integrity are undoubtedly among China's core interests. "China, like all other countries in the world, has an obligation to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a press conference on September 3.
While China has the sincerity of maintaining a good Sino-U.S. relationship, such a relationship should never be established at the expense of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, Chinese analysts 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 10, 2012 6:41 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.nato.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
September 10, 2012
NATO’s partners in the South Caucasus
Last week, NATO’s Secretary General visited the South Caucasus – a region that is strategically important to the Alliance. NATO has been progressively deepening dialogue and cooperation with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia since the early 1990s. All three partners provide valuable support to NATO-led operations, while benefiting from NATO support for security and defence-related capacity building and reform.
The South Caucasus is a crossroads of civilizations, situated between the Black Sea to the west, the Caspian Sea to the east and bordering Turkey, Russia and Iran. The region has been of considerable geostrategic importance through the ages – and continues to be so today.
The region borders the territory of a NATO member state and includes Georgia, a country aspiring to join the Alliance. It also offers useful alternative transit options for the transport of supplies to and from the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.
...
Energy security is an important security issue of shared concern. The South Caucasus sits on key oil and gas transit routes, and has significant oil and gas reserves. Energy-importing countries are looking to diversify their energy sources and supply routes, while energy-exporting and transit countries need to ensure the security of their industry and pipeline infrastructure.
...The Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia continue to be sources of tension, in particular following the conflict with Russia in August 2008.
...
Valued support for operations
All three Caucasus partners have provided valuable support for NATO-led operations. Armenia has been contributing troops to the Kosovo Force (KFOR) since 2004. It first deployed personnel in support of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2010 and increased its deployment from 40 to 126 in 2011.
Having actively supported KFOR in the past, Azerbaijan currently has 94 personnel deployed in support of ISAF. The country also supports ISAF’s mission with over-flight rights and has contributed to the development of Afghan national security forces through financial support and training in de-mining.
Today, with around 800 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan, Georgia is the second largest non-NATO ISAF troop contributing nation and planned deployments this autumn will make it the largest. The country also supports Operation Active Endeavour, NATO’s...maritime surveillance operation in the Mediterranean. Georgia also contributed to KFOR in the past.
All three countries are actively working towards the development of units that meet NATO standards and that can in future participate in international peacekeeping operations.
Deepening partnership
...In the past decade, all three countries have chosen to deepen the level of cooperation and tighten the focus on their respective reform priorities.
Armenia and Azerbaijan have both developed Individual Partnership Action Plans with NATO. In the case of Georgia – following a dialogue with the Alliance about its membership aspirations and the declaration by Allies at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that the country will become a member – intensified cooperation is now being taken forward through the unique framework of the NATO-Georgia Commission that was established in September 2008.
...
============
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@
============
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
September 10, 2012
NATO’s partners in the South Caucasus
Last week, NATO’s Secretary General visited the South Caucasus – a region that is strategically important to the Alliance. NATO has been progressively deepening dialogue and cooperation with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia since the early 1990s. All three partners provide valuable support to NATO-led operations, while benefiting from NATO support for security and defence-related capacity building and reform.
The South Caucasus is a crossroads of civilizations, situated between the Black Sea to the west, the Caspian Sea to the east and bordering Turkey, Russia and Iran. The region has been of considerable geostrategic importance through the ages – and continues to be so today.
The region borders the territory of a NATO member state and includes Georgia, a country aspiring to join the Alliance. It also offers useful alternative transit options for the transport of supplies to and from the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.
...
Energy security is an important security issue of shared concern. The South Caucasus sits on key oil and gas transit routes, and has significant oil and gas reserves. Energy-importing countries are looking to diversify their energy sources and supply routes, while energy-exporting and transit countries need to ensure the security of their industry and pipeline infrastructure.
...The Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia continue to be sources of tension, in particular following the conflict with Russia in August 2008.
...
Valued support for operations
All three Caucasus partners have provided valuable support for NATO-led operations. Armenia has been contributing troops to the Kosovo Force (KFOR) since 2004. It first deployed personnel in support of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2010 and increased its deployment from 40 to 126 in 2011.
Having actively supported KFOR in the past, Azerbaijan currently has 94 personnel deployed in support of ISAF. The country also supports ISAF’s mission with over-flight rights and has contributed to the development of Afghan national security forces through financial support and training in de-mining.
Today, with around 800 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan, Georgia is the second largest non-NATO ISAF troop contributing nation and planned deployments this autumn will make it the largest. The country also supports Operation Active Endeavour, NATO’s...maritime surveillance operation in the Mediterranean. Georgia also contributed to KFOR in the past.
All three countries are actively working towards the development of units that meet NATO standards and that can in future participate in international peacekeeping operations.
Deepening partnership
...In the past decade, all three countries have chosen to deepen the level of cooperation and tighten the focus on their respective reform priorities.
Armenia and Azerbaijan have both developed Individual Partnership Action Plans with NATO. In the case of Georgia – following a dialogue with the Alliance about its membership aspirations and the declaration by Allies at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that the country will become a member – intensified cooperation is now being taken forward through the unique framework of the NATO-Georgia Commission that was established in September 2008.
...
============
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 10, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.b92.
Tanjug News Agency
September 10, 2012
"NATO will not remove troops from Kosovo"
BRUSSELS: NATO does not intend to reduce the number of troops in Kosovo after the closing of the International Civilian Office (ICO).
This is according to the western military alliance's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who spoke on Monday.
"Our strategy will not change and the number of NATO troops will remain the same," Rasmussen told a news conference at the NATO seat in Brussels.
The ICO shutdown is seen as "the end of the supervised and the beginning of full independence for Kosovo" - which Priština is celebrating on Monday with a series of ceremonies.
KFOR will remain in Kosovo together with the EU mission, EULEX, whose mandate was recently extended by another two years.
============
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@
============
Tanjug News Agency
September 10, 2012
"NATO will not remove troops from Kosovo"
BRUSSELS: NATO does not intend to reduce the number of troops in Kosovo after the closing of the International Civilian Office (ICO).
This is according to the western military alliance's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who spoke on Monday.
"Our strategy will not change and the number of NATO troops will remain the same," Rasmussen told a news conference at the NATO seat in Brussels.
The ICO shutdown is seen as "the end of the supervised and the beginning of full independence for Kosovo" - which Priština is celebrating on Monday with a series of ceremonies.
KFOR will remain in Kosovo together with the EU mission, EULEX, whose mandate was recently extended by another two years.
============
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 10, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.b92.
Tanjug News Agency
September 10, 2012
KFOR blocks alternative roads in northern Kosovo
LEPOSAVIĆ: A member of the municipal council in Leposavić says that KFOR blocked all alternative routes in the municipalities of Leposavić and Zubin Potok.
The roads lead from the north of the province towards central Serbia.
In a statement to Tanjug, Zoran Milojević said that KFOR blocked the roads Poštenje-Tresava-
Milojević added that the international troops had also blocked alternative routes that connect the municipality of Zubin Potok with central Serbia.
On Sunday, the KFOR troops blocked the road between Poštenje and Košutica in the municipality of Leposavić, thus starting the blockade of alternative routes that Serbs from the north of the province are using, he noted.
“All alternative routes have been completely closed off. We do not know why. Thus, the freedom of movement is limited; in fact, nonexistent. Presidents of the north Kosovo municipalities will hold a joint meeting on Monday to discuss the issue," Milojević said.
Serbs can go from the north of Kosovo to central Serbia, and vice versa, only across two official administrative crossings in northern Kosovo - Jarinje and Brnjak.
Tanjug News Agency
September 10, 2012
KFOR blocks alternative roads in northern Kosovo
LEPOSAVIĆ: A member of the municipal council in Leposavić says that KFOR blocked all alternative routes in the municipalities of Leposavić and Zubin Potok.
The roads lead from the north of the province towards central Serbia.
In a statement to Tanjug, Zoran Milojević said that KFOR blocked the roads Poštenje-Tresava-
Milojević added that the international troops had also blocked alternative routes that connect the municipality of Zubin Potok with central Serbia.
On Sunday, the KFOR troops blocked the road between Poštenje and Košutica in the municipality of Leposavić, thus starting the blockade of alternative routes that Serbs from the north of the province are using, he noted.
“All alternative routes have been completely closed off. We do not know why. Thus, the freedom of movement is limited; in fact, nonexistent. Presidents of the north Kosovo municipalities will hold a joint meeting on Monday to discuss the issue," Milojević said.
Serbs can go from the north of Kosovo to central Serbia, and vice versa, only across two official administrative crossings in northern Kosovo - Jarinje and Brnjak.
