5 New Messages
Digest #4600
Messages
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:18 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
January 9, 2013
Syria must be defenseless for America to illegaly invade, Rated:XXX
John Robles
====
Some pundits and analysts are saying: Use the Kosovo model, or the Libyan scenario, or the Afghanistan example, or don’t repeat the mistakes in Iraq. However each and every one of them is missing the whole point and that being from Yugoslavia to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya, from the Arab Spring to Syria, US intervention is not wanted or asked for.
Yugoslavia was a watershed moment for NATO and the US and the more or less success of the operation emboldened the US to attempt to do more. To launch a war, reshape part of Europe, devastate a people and do so all on the whim of a president who wanted to distract the electorate from a sex-scandal, seemed bold and dangerous, but it more or less worked.
====
Poised and ready to invade Syria and continue its plans for complete global military and political domination at any cost, the US is faltering and has yet to invade Syria. Most likely stopped by the fact that Syrian defenses are robust enough to effectively deal with the invader'
The West continues to debate what the United States should do in Syria and the US what options it has to bring about another interventionist invasion, yet is continuing to have problems in bringing about the conditions it needs to give the green light to military forces staged and waiting to pounce.
The arrogance of those debating the fate of Syria from thousands of miles away, as if they even have a right to in the first place, is mind-boggling. Who told the United States that they are responsible for deciding the fate of Syria or the Syrian people? No one. Who told the United States that they have some right or some mandate under international law to “intervene” wherever they desire? No one. Yet that is what they are doing.
Some pundits and analysts are saying: Use the Kosovo model, or the Libyan scenario, or the Afghanistan example, or don’t repeat the mistakes in Iraq. However each and every one of them is missing the whole point and that being from Yugoslavia to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya, from the Arab Spring to Syria, US intervention is not wanted or asked for.
The US understands this and knows the real reason it is going after these countries, that being resources and geo-political plans, yet it can not openly state such to the world.
Yugoslavia worked because the right propaganda was spread at the right time and the world was not ready nor did it have reason to believe that the US’ intentions were anything more than what they were publically touting. Since then every pretext for invading Yugoslavia has been found and proven to have been false and self-created by the US whose real goal was to carry out the geo-political redesigning of the Balkans.
It became clear in Yugoslavia and in what has taken place since then in that region that the United States has one thing in mind when carrying out their interventionist invasions and that is control of resources and the advancement of geopolitical ambitions and position.
If anyone doubts look at who they supported and continue to support in Serbia and in Kosovo: Muslim extremists, drug traffickers and black-market organ traders. Why? Because the US is able to manipulate and “work” with these elements, whereas Christian Serbians who lean geopolitically towards Russia are a bit more difficult to manipulate and bend to the American will.
We can see this same kind of thinking all over the world and in particular in the Middle East. The United States has no real interest in human rights or in oppressed peoples; that is a proven given what it does care about is resources, ease of manipulation and geopolitical clout.
Yugoslavia was a watershed moment for NATO and the US and the more or less success of the operation emboldened the US to attempt to do more. To launch a war, reshape part of Europe, devastate a people and do so all on the whim of a president who wanted to distract the electorate from a sex-scandal, seemed bold and dangerous, but it more or less worked.
There were doubters and there were detractors and the destruction of Yugoslavia did not have the broad support that the planners in Washington had hoped for. So a group of neo-conservatives was tasked with studying the issue of how to bring about the pretext for a global war of domination. Those in power were tired of the United Nations and the international community and even the American electorate always sticking their noses into everything and asking for reasons and justifications. They wanted a free rein.
So those neo-conservatives, calling themselves the Project for the New American Century, came up with a plan for complete and total world domination. The only problem as they saw it was that to allow for the implementation of the plan, after all what they were doing was illegal, would require a catalyst, and as they called it themselves, “A new Pearl Harbor”.
The carefully planned and orchestrated events of 9-11 were the catalyst that they needed to launch an open-ended and endless “War on Terror” that had no borders and allowed for anyone to become a target. First on the list was the invasion of Iraq and second Afghanistan, Hussein was the first target because he had changed all oil trade in Iraq to the Euro the day before the invasion and United Nations and international inspectors already knew that Hussein had no weapons with which to fight back.
Afghanistan was another story but it did not really matter because the Taliban, like al-Qaeda, had always been on the US payroll and wiping out that little backward country, as the US military planners thought, would be no problem. That little invasion took place over ten years ago and the US is still in Afghanistan and has been completely defeated.
Then we have the case of Libya, another country that had agreed to US inspections for those evil WMDs and had proven it did not possess weapons and then was invaded after changing its oil trade to the Euro. Libya had long been on the US wish list of countries to invade but the problem was that by then the US had pretty much lost the capital it had gained from the orchestrated events of 9-11, and people started questioning.
Now we have the Syrian “intervention”, and everything that the United States now does is being questioned. The world has seen one act of aggressive invasion after the other carried out by the US and NATO and has quite frankly had enough.
Why hasn’t the US invaded Syria yet? One reason is you and I. Every false flag plan they come up with, we are there to expose it. Every false and sanctimonious move they make to allow them to invade and rape another country we are there to document. We know they are funding terrorists and mercenaries and that the Syrian people themselves do not want America. Lastly Russia is stopping it, by giving the Syrian people what Libya and Iraq did not have, the tools and the ways and means to defend themselves and defend their country.
============
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
January 9, 2013
Syria must be defenseless for America to illegaly invade, Rated:XXX
John Robles
====
Some pundits and analysts are saying: Use the Kosovo model, or the Libyan scenario, or the Afghanistan example, or don’t repeat the mistakes in Iraq. However each and every one of them is missing the whole point and that being from Yugoslavia to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya, from the Arab Spring to Syria, US intervention is not wanted or asked for.
Yugoslavia was a watershed moment for NATO and the US and the more or less success of the operation emboldened the US to attempt to do more. To launch a war, reshape part of Europe, devastate a people and do so all on the whim of a president who wanted to distract the electorate from a sex-scandal, seemed bold and dangerous, but it more or less worked.
====
Poised and ready to invade Syria and continue its plans for complete global military and political domination at any cost, the US is faltering and has yet to invade Syria. Most likely stopped by the fact that Syrian defenses are robust enough to effectively deal with the invader'
The West continues to debate what the United States should do in Syria and the US what options it has to bring about another interventionist invasion, yet is continuing to have problems in bringing about the conditions it needs to give the green light to military forces staged and waiting to pounce.
The arrogance of those debating the fate of Syria from thousands of miles away, as if they even have a right to in the first place, is mind-boggling. Who told the United States that they are responsible for deciding the fate of Syria or the Syrian people? No one. Who told the United States that they have some right or some mandate under international law to “intervene” wherever they desire? No one. Yet that is what they are doing.
Some pundits and analysts are saying: Use the Kosovo model, or the Libyan scenario, or the Afghanistan example, or don’t repeat the mistakes in Iraq. However each and every one of them is missing the whole point and that being from Yugoslavia to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya, from the Arab Spring to Syria, US intervention is not wanted or asked for.
The US understands this and knows the real reason it is going after these countries, that being resources and geo-political plans, yet it can not openly state such to the world.
Yugoslavia worked because the right propaganda was spread at the right time and the world was not ready nor did it have reason to believe that the US’ intentions were anything more than what they were publically touting. Since then every pretext for invading Yugoslavia has been found and proven to have been false and self-created by the US whose real goal was to carry out the geo-political redesigning of the Balkans.
It became clear in Yugoslavia and in what has taken place since then in that region that the United States has one thing in mind when carrying out their interventionist invasions and that is control of resources and the advancement of geopolitical ambitions and position.
If anyone doubts look at who they supported and continue to support in Serbia and in Kosovo: Muslim extremists, drug traffickers and black-market organ traders. Why? Because the US is able to manipulate and “work” with these elements, whereas Christian Serbians who lean geopolitically towards Russia are a bit more difficult to manipulate and bend to the American will.
We can see this same kind of thinking all over the world and in particular in the Middle East. The United States has no real interest in human rights or in oppressed peoples; that is a proven given what it does care about is resources, ease of manipulation and geopolitical clout.
Yugoslavia was a watershed moment for NATO and the US and the more or less success of the operation emboldened the US to attempt to do more. To launch a war, reshape part of Europe, devastate a people and do so all on the whim of a president who wanted to distract the electorate from a sex-scandal, seemed bold and dangerous, but it more or less worked.
There were doubters and there were detractors and the destruction of Yugoslavia did not have the broad support that the planners in Washington had hoped for. So a group of neo-conservatives was tasked with studying the issue of how to bring about the pretext for a global war of domination. Those in power were tired of the United Nations and the international community and even the American electorate always sticking their noses into everything and asking for reasons and justifications. They wanted a free rein.
So those neo-conservatives, calling themselves the Project for the New American Century, came up with a plan for complete and total world domination. The only problem as they saw it was that to allow for the implementation of the plan, after all what they were doing was illegal, would require a catalyst, and as they called it themselves, “A new Pearl Harbor”.
The carefully planned and orchestrated events of 9-11 were the catalyst that they needed to launch an open-ended and endless “War on Terror” that had no borders and allowed for anyone to become a target. First on the list was the invasion of Iraq and second Afghanistan, Hussein was the first target because he had changed all oil trade in Iraq to the Euro the day before the invasion and United Nations and international inspectors already knew that Hussein had no weapons with which to fight back.
Afghanistan was another story but it did not really matter because the Taliban, like al-Qaeda, had always been on the US payroll and wiping out that little backward country, as the US military planners thought, would be no problem. That little invasion took place over ten years ago and the US is still in Afghanistan and has been completely defeated.
Then we have the case of Libya, another country that had agreed to US inspections for those evil WMDs and had proven it did not possess weapons and then was invaded after changing its oil trade to the Euro. Libya had long been on the US wish list of countries to invade but the problem was that by then the US had pretty much lost the capital it had gained from the orchestrated events of 9-11, and people started questioning.
Now we have the Syrian “intervention”, and everything that the United States now does is being questioned. The world has seen one act of aggressive invasion after the other carried out by the US and NATO and has quite frankly had enough.
Why hasn’t the US invaded Syria yet? One reason is you and I. Every false flag plan they come up with, we are there to expose it. Every false and sanctimonious move they make to allow them to invade and rape another country we are there to document. We know they are funding terrorists and mercenaries and that the Syrian people themselves do not want America. Lastly Russia is stopping it, by giving the Syrian people what Libya and Iraq did not have, the tools and the ways and means to defend themselves and defend their country.
============
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@
============
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:18 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://isnblog.
ISN Security Watch
January 10, 2013
Pacific NATO?
Julian Lindley-French*
====
[D]oes the term “North Atlantic area” now include the the US and Canadian Pacific coast and their Pacific possessions? If it does, NATO’s westernmost point is the US Wake Island, some 12045kms/7485 miles from Brussels but only 3207kms/1993 miles from Tokyo. Indeed, Alaska is only 90kms/58miles from Russia’s Far East across the Bering Strait.
There are some reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considering a Pacific-Atlantic Treaty Organization or PATO. Certainly, is hard to imagine a future Asia-Pacific conflict that involves the US not demanding of Europeans at the very least solidarity.
NATO is slowly beginning to grapple with the modernization of Article 5 collective defense. To be credible in this new age that will necessarily mean a NATO capable of generating the biggest of security pictures. It will also mean the creation of advanced deployable military forces reinforced by the defensive and offensive technologies of our time; missile defense, cyber-defense and global intelligence across five domains – air, sea, land, cyber, and space.
====
The Atlantic Alliance is about to enter a tumultuous period of change both in Europe and the wider world. How we all conceive of our place in that world will be critical to the Alliance.
This dawning reality was brought home to me Friday when I had the honor of debating NATO’s emerging security challenges with the Norwegian ambassador to NATO and his colleagues on the Norwegian Permanent Delegation. Given changing energy patterns and the melting of Arctic ice, Norway will find itself on a new ‘front-line’ as the High North becomes a source of exploitation and friction. Moreover, with yesterday’s re-election of Shinzo Abe as Japan’s prime minister and the possibility of renewed tensions with China, a most profound question was also apparent: what, if any, is NATO’s Pacific role?
NATO’s role in the Pacific I hear you ask? Ask many Europeans where NATO’s responsibility stops and I am pretty sure they would say the English Channel on one end and the Baltic states’ borders with Russia on the other. Many forget that NATO includes the United States and Canada and simply assume it is an organization for the American-led defense of Europe. Indeed, the only time NATO’s Armageddon Article 5 collective defense clause was ever invoked was on 12 September, 2001 in defense of the United States.
This matters because it is not the United States that is ‘pivoting’ away from Europeans, but Asia-Pacific that is ‘pivoting’ towards Europe and Europeans need to begin to get their heads around this. Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty states, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Now, no attack is pending, but does the term “North Atlantic area” now include the the US and Canadian Pacific coast and their Pacific possessions? If it does, NATO’s westernmost point is the US Wake Island, some 12045kms/7485 miles from Brussels but only 3207kms/1993 miles from Tokyo. Indeed, Alaska is only 90kms/58miles from Russia’s Far East across the Bering Strait.
There are some reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considering a Pacific-Atlantic Treaty Organization or PATO. Certainly, is hard to imagine a future Asia-Pacific conflict that involves the US not demanding of Europeans at the very least solidarity. But what would that mean in a Pacific context? It is certainly the emptiest and most over-used word one hears in Europe these days. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘solidarity’ as “holding together, mutual dependence, community of interests, feelings and actions.. For many Europeans it seems to mean, ‘you have an obligation to defend me and to give me your money for which I will do little or nothing in return.’ The asymmetric commitment to successive crises has rapidly undermined the ‘contracts’ at the core of both NATO and the EU.
The 2010 NATO Strategic Concept states, “This Strategic Concept will guide the next phase in NATO’s evolution, so that it continues to be effective in a changing world, against new threats, with new capabilities and new partners.” NATO is slowly beginning to grapple with the modernization of Article 5 collective defense. To be credible in this new age that will necessarily mean a NATO capable of generating the biggest of security pictures. It will also mean the creation of advanced deployable military forces reinforced by the defensive and offensive technologies of our time; missile defense, cyber-defense and global intelligence across five domains – air, sea, land, cyber, and space. Above all, it will require a complete overhaul of NATO’s strategic mindset so that everything the Alliance does is considered in the context of the world as it is, not the very narrow focus beloved of Europeans. If not, NATO will not die but will slowly fade like
the old soldier that it now is. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, Europeans must ask not what the Alliance can do for Europe, but what Europe can do for the Alliance.
The sub-title of the Strategic Concept is “Active Engagement: Modern Defence.” If that is to mean anything it will mean an Alliance credible to the security needs of all its members, not just a few. As the Alliance begins the long slog to rebuild the mutual confidence and trust undermined by the imbalance of effort in Afghanistan it will also a twenty-first century NATO relevant to the twenty-first century not the twentieth.
Pacific NATO. It is already a fact. Can we ever make it a reality?
This article was originally published by ISN partner, Atlantic Council.
*Julian Lindley-French is Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy, Fellow of Respublica in London, Associate Fellow of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council. He is also a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the NATO Defence College in Rome. This essay first appeared on his personal blog, Lindley-French’s Blog Blast.
============
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@
============
ISN Security Watch
January 10, 2013
Pacific NATO?
Julian Lindley-French*
====
[D]oes the term “North Atlantic area” now include the the US and Canadian Pacific coast and their Pacific possessions? If it does, NATO’s westernmost point is the US Wake Island, some 12045kms/7485 miles from Brussels but only 3207kms/1993 miles from Tokyo. Indeed, Alaska is only 90kms/58miles from Russia’s Far East across the Bering Strait.
There are some reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considering a Pacific-Atlantic Treaty Organization or PATO. Certainly, is hard to imagine a future Asia-Pacific conflict that involves the US not demanding of Europeans at the very least solidarity.
NATO is slowly beginning to grapple with the modernization of Article 5 collective defense. To be credible in this new age that will necessarily mean a NATO capable of generating the biggest of security pictures. It will also mean the creation of advanced deployable military forces reinforced by the defensive and offensive technologies of our time; missile defense, cyber-defense and global intelligence across five domains – air, sea, land, cyber, and space.
====
The Atlantic Alliance is about to enter a tumultuous period of change both in Europe and the wider world. How we all conceive of our place in that world will be critical to the Alliance.
This dawning reality was brought home to me Friday when I had the honor of debating NATO’s emerging security challenges with the Norwegian ambassador to NATO and his colleagues on the Norwegian Permanent Delegation. Given changing energy patterns and the melting of Arctic ice, Norway will find itself on a new ‘front-line’ as the High North becomes a source of exploitation and friction. Moreover, with yesterday’s re-election of Shinzo Abe as Japan’s prime minister and the possibility of renewed tensions with China, a most profound question was also apparent: what, if any, is NATO’s Pacific role?
NATO’s role in the Pacific I hear you ask? Ask many Europeans where NATO’s responsibility stops and I am pretty sure they would say the English Channel on one end and the Baltic states’ borders with Russia on the other. Many forget that NATO includes the United States and Canada and simply assume it is an organization for the American-led defense of Europe. Indeed, the only time NATO’s Armageddon Article 5 collective defense clause was ever invoked was on 12 September, 2001 in defense of the United States.
This matters because it is not the United States that is ‘pivoting’ away from Europeans, but Asia-Pacific that is ‘pivoting’ towards Europe and Europeans need to begin to get their heads around this. Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty states, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Now, no attack is pending, but does the term “North Atlantic area” now include the the US and Canadian Pacific coast and their Pacific possessions? If it does, NATO’s westernmost point is the US Wake Island, some 12045kms/7485 miles from Brussels but only 3207kms/1993 miles from Tokyo. Indeed, Alaska is only 90kms/58miles from Russia’s Far East across the Bering Strait.
There are some reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considering a Pacific-Atlantic Treaty Organization or PATO. Certainly, is hard to imagine a future Asia-Pacific conflict that involves the US not demanding of Europeans at the very least solidarity. But what would that mean in a Pacific context? It is certainly the emptiest and most over-used word one hears in Europe these days. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘solidarity’ as “holding together, mutual dependence, community of interests, feelings and actions.. For many Europeans it seems to mean, ‘you have an obligation to defend me and to give me your money for which I will do little or nothing in return.’ The asymmetric commitment to successive crises has rapidly undermined the ‘contracts’ at the core of both NATO and the EU.
The 2010 NATO Strategic Concept states, “This Strategic Concept will guide the next phase in NATO’s evolution, so that it continues to be effective in a changing world, against new threats, with new capabilities and new partners.” NATO is slowly beginning to grapple with the modernization of Article 5 collective defense. To be credible in this new age that will necessarily mean a NATO capable of generating the biggest of security pictures. It will also mean the creation of advanced deployable military forces reinforced by the defensive and offensive technologies of our time; missile defense, cyber-defense and global intelligence across five domains – air, sea, land, cyber, and space. Above all, it will require a complete overhaul of NATO’s strategic mindset so that everything the Alliance does is considered in the context of the world as it is, not the very narrow focus beloved of Europeans. If not, NATO will not die but will slowly fade like
the old soldier that it now is. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, Europeans must ask not what the Alliance can do for Europe, but what Europe can do for the Alliance.
The sub-title of the Strategic Concept is “Active Engagement: Modern Defence.” If that is to mean anything it will mean an Alliance credible to the security needs of all its members, not just a few. As the Alliance begins the long slog to rebuild the mutual confidence and trust undermined by the imbalance of effort in Afghanistan it will also a twenty-first century NATO relevant to the twenty-first century not the twentieth.
Pacific NATO. It is already a fact. Can we ever make it a reality?
This article was originally published by ISN partner, Atlantic Council.
*Julian Lindley-French is Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy, Fellow of Respublica in London, Associate Fellow of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council. He is also a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the NATO Defence College in Rome. This essay first appeared on his personal blog, Lindley-French’s Blog Blast.
============
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@
============
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:18 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
January 10, 2013
Japan not to change position on South Kuriles – government
TOKYO: The Japanese government did not change its position on the South Kurile Islands despite the fact that the prime minister’s special envoy mentioned different variants of the resolution of the dispute, Chief Cabinet Secretary Youshihide Suga said.
Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Suga said, “The government’s position remains unchanged under which if our sovereignty to the four islands is confirmed, we will take a flexible stance on the term of their real return.”
Thus, he confirmed that Tokyo claimed all South Kurile Islands – Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and a string of small uninhabited islands that Japan names Habomai - and considers them a single island.
At the same time, the chief cabinet secretary confirmed that this government was ready to hold talks on this issue with Russia.
Japanese ex-premier Yoshiro Mori told BS Fuji TV on Wednesday, January 9, that the division of the disputed islands could be one of the variants of the resolution of the problem.
In his words, Russia could have the largest, economically developed island, Iturup. Japan would have Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai. The border will pass between Iturup and Kunashir. “If we draw the line, it would be the best variant,” Mori said, adding that the government’s special envoy, Shinzo Abe, would take a decision on this issue.
The 1956 Soviet-Japanese Declaration, which proclaimed the end of the war between the two countries and restored diplomatic, trade and other relations, says the USSR is ready to hand over Japan the islands of Shikotan and Habomai only after both countries sign a peace treaty. Russia and Japan recognise the efficacy of the document. However, Japan insists all South Kurile Islands be handed it over.
============
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
January 10, 2013
Japan not to change position on South Kuriles – government
TOKYO: The Japanese government did not change its position on the South Kurile Islands despite the fact that the prime minister’s special envoy mentioned different variants of the resolution of the dispute, Chief Cabinet Secretary Youshihide Suga said.
Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Suga said, “The government’s position remains unchanged under which if our sovereignty to the four islands is confirmed, we will take a flexible stance on the term of their real return.”
Thus, he confirmed that Tokyo claimed all South Kurile Islands – Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and a string of small uninhabited islands that Japan names Habomai - and considers them a single island.
At the same time, the chief cabinet secretary confirmed that this government was ready to hold talks on this issue with Russia.
Japanese ex-premier Yoshiro Mori told BS Fuji TV on Wednesday, January 9, that the division of the disputed islands could be one of the variants of the resolution of the problem.
In his words, Russia could have the largest, economically developed island, Iturup. Japan would have Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai. The border will pass between Iturup and Kunashir. “If we draw the line, it would be the best variant,” Mori said, adding that the government’s special envoy, Shinzo Abe, would take a decision on this issue.
The 1956 Soviet-Japanese Declaration, which proclaimed the end of the war between the two countries and restored diplomatic, trade and other relations, says the USSR is ready to hand over Japan the islands of Shikotan and Habomai only after both countries sign a peace treaty. Russia and Japan recognise the efficacy of the document. However, Japan insists all South Kurile Islands be handed it over.
============
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@
============
Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:28 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.presstv.
Press TV
January 10, 2013
‘Global outcry’ may stop US drone strikes
Audio at URL above
Only a “global outcry” can put an end to the “deadly, illegal, immoral, and counterproductive” U.S. drone attacks overseas, says Rick Rozoff from the Stop NATO organization.
“The new year, 2013, has already seen the resumption and really an intensification of deadly illegal U.S. drone strikes inside Pakistan,” said Rozoff in a phone interview with the U.S. Desk on Thursday.
On Tuesday, antiwar.com reported that the U.S. killed at least 25 people in Pakistan in four separate drone attacks on a single day.
Warning that the U.S. drones’ “carnage continues”, Rozoff suggested that “it takes a global outcry” to stop the carnage.
“It takes a global outcry. You know, the informed and concerned citizenry of countries throughout the world have got to demand this issue be raised in the United Nations”, he said.
Rozoff also warned against Obama’s decision to nominate John Brennan, the man who masterminded the expansion of the U.S. drone strikes, as the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
“We can anticipate and fear yet further intensification of these attacks, particularly in Pakistan where they are being directed by the Central Intelligence Agency”, he said.
In a 2011 statement, Brennan said that there had not been "a single collateral death" in the previous year of drone attacks.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Press TV
January 10, 2013
‘Global outcry’ may stop US drone strikes
Audio at URL above
Only a “global outcry” can put an end to the “deadly, illegal, immoral, and counterproductive” U.S. drone attacks overseas, says Rick Rozoff from the Stop NATO organization.
“The new year, 2013, has already seen the resumption and really an intensification of deadly illegal U.S. drone strikes inside Pakistan,” said Rozoff in a phone interview with the U.S. Desk on Thursday.
On Tuesday, antiwar.com reported that the U.S. killed at least 25 people in Pakistan in four separate drone attacks on a single day.
Warning that the U.S. drones’ “carnage continues”, Rozoff suggested that “it takes a global outcry” to stop the carnage.
“It takes a global outcry. You know, the informed and concerned citizenry of countries throughout the world have got to demand this issue be raised in the United Nations”, he said.
Rozoff also warned against Obama’s decision to nominate John Brennan, the man who masterminded the expansion of the U.S. drone strikes, as the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
“We can anticipate and fear yet further intensification of these attacks, particularly in Pakistan where they are being directed by the Central Intelligence Agency”, he said.
In a 2011 statement, Brennan said that there had not been "a single collateral death" in the previous year of drone attacks.
============
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@
============
Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:12 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
January 11, 2013
China ready for worst-case Diaoyu scenario
====
How far the Diaoyu crisis goes depends on whether Japan is just putting on a show by intercepting China's military aircraft or it really wants to confront China. If it chooses the latter, then it is choosing a military clash.
China and Japan are likely to become long-term rivals or even enemies. Japan has become the vanguard of the US' strategy which aims to contain China.
====
According to Japanese media, Japan's Self-Defense Forces have scrambled fighter jets against China's military aircraft, including fighter jets, which flew to the Diaoyu Islands. It was the first time that military aircraft from both China and Japan confronted each other over the Diaoyu Islands. All of East Asia is now facing intense uncertainty.
Thanks to Japan's arrogance toward China, the Diaoyu Islands dispute has come to this point. Japanese politicians, including Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara and former prime minister Yoshihiko Noda, are to blame.
China and Japan may stand at a turning point that leads to confrontation. The resentment toward each other has come to the highest level since World War II. The Sino-Japanese relationship is looking dim.
Japan has mistakenly estimated China's strategic stance toward constant external provocations. A year ago, Japanese politicians wouldn't have thought that China would send fighter jets.
Some Japanese believed China had to be restrained at any costs to ensure a peaceful period of strategic opportunities. But the fighter jets yesterday proved them wrong.
How far the Diaoyu crisis goes depends on whether Japan is just putting on a show by intercepting China's military aircraft or it really wants to confront China. If it chooses the latter, then it is choosing a military clash.
Chinese society is tired of simple verbal protests toward Japan. The Chinese people hope the country will carry out actions against Japan's provocations. China's sending fighter jets to the islands reflects Chinese public opinion.
A military clash is more likely. We shouldn'
China and Japan are likely to become long-term rivals or even enemies. Japan has become the vanguard of the US' strategy which aims to contain China.
Chinese society should reach consensus on a number of issues. First, China should firmly respond to any Japanese provocation. It won't be the initiator of the war, but it shouldn'
China should have the courage to face military confrontations with any rival when provoked. At the same time, we should remain cool-headed.
China and Japan have been cooperating in trade and other economic fields. We should try not to let political confrontations affect business. This will minimize China's losses, which conforms to China's overall interest and would help the nation gain support from the public in any confrontation.
The Diaoyu crisis is a test of China's unity in the Internet era. China's strength has enabled it to take countermeasures against Japan and face any uncertainty. This requires society to remain united.
Global Times
January 11, 2013
China ready for worst-case Diaoyu scenario
====
How far the Diaoyu crisis goes depends on whether Japan is just putting on a show by intercepting China's military aircraft or it really wants to confront China. If it chooses the latter, then it is choosing a military clash.
China and Japan are likely to become long-term rivals or even enemies. Japan has become the vanguard of the US' strategy which aims to contain China.
====
According to Japanese media, Japan's Self-Defense Forces have scrambled fighter jets against China's military aircraft, including fighter jets, which flew to the Diaoyu Islands. It was the first time that military aircraft from both China and Japan confronted each other over the Diaoyu Islands. All of East Asia is now facing intense uncertainty.
Thanks to Japan's arrogance toward China, the Diaoyu Islands dispute has come to this point. Japanese politicians, including Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara and former prime minister Yoshihiko Noda, are to blame.
China and Japan may stand at a turning point that leads to confrontation. The resentment toward each other has come to the highest level since World War II. The Sino-Japanese relationship is looking dim.
Japan has mistakenly estimated China's strategic stance toward constant external provocations. A year ago, Japanese politicians wouldn't have thought that China would send fighter jets.
Some Japanese believed China had to be restrained at any costs to ensure a peaceful period of strategic opportunities. But the fighter jets yesterday proved them wrong.
How far the Diaoyu crisis goes depends on whether Japan is just putting on a show by intercepting China's military aircraft or it really wants to confront China. If it chooses the latter, then it is choosing a military clash.
Chinese society is tired of simple verbal protests toward Japan. The Chinese people hope the country will carry out actions against Japan's provocations. China's sending fighter jets to the islands reflects Chinese public opinion.
A military clash is more likely. We shouldn'
China and Japan are likely to become long-term rivals or even enemies. Japan has become the vanguard of the US' strategy which aims to contain China.
Chinese society should reach consensus on a number of issues. First, China should firmly respond to any Japanese provocation. It won't be the initiator of the war, but it shouldn'
China should have the courage to face military confrontations with any rival when provoked. At the same time, we should remain cool-headed.
China and Japan have been cooperating in trade and other economic fields. We should try not to let political confrontations affect business. This will minimize China's losses, which conforms to China's overall interest and would help the nation gain support from the public in any confrontation.
The Diaoyu crisis is a test of China's unity in the Internet era. China's strength has enabled it to take countermeasures against Japan and face any uncertainty. This requires society to remain united.
