Posts Tagged ‘china’

PN

Land Destroyer

Image: The US now openly supports chaos on the streets of Hong Kong, this
after condemning “occupy” protests in Bangkok earlier this year. The
difference being in Thailand, protests sought to oust a US proxy, Hong Kong
protests seek to put one into power. 

September 30, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The “Occupy Central” protests in Hong Kong continue on – destabilizing the small southern Chinese island famous as an international hub for corporate-financier interests, and before that, the colonial ambitions of the British Empire. Those interests have been conspiring for years to peel the island away from Beijing after it was begrudgingly returned to China in the late 1990’s, and use it as a springboard to further destabilize mainland China.

Behind the so-called “Occupy Central” protests, which masquerade as a “pro-democracy” movement seeking “universal suffrage” and “full democracy,” is a deep and insidious…

View original post 1,706 more words

Advertisements

Tibet, Activism And Information

So much for the claims made by China’s regime that it respects and is supporting Tibet’s Buddhist culture!

View original post

Tibet, Activism And Information

Taksta Monastery Gutted By 'Mysterious' Fire Taksta Monastery Gutted By ‘Mysterious’ Fire

Image:tibettimes

Yet another Tibetan monastery has been engulfed in flames, Taksta based in Zoege County in Eastern Tibet’s Kham region was struck by a raging inferno on Monday June 30, with the main prayer hall suffering the greatest damage. This latest fire follows two other blazes one earlier this year and another in November 2013 badly damaging Buddhist temples, also located in Kham. All are hugely important and influential centers, associated with historic and more recent opposition to China’s vicious and illegal occupation of Tibet.

The Smoking Ruins Of Lithang Monastery The Smoking Ruins Of Lithang Monastery

Image:archivenet

On November 16 2013 Lithang Monastery was ablaze, if we are to believe China’s propaganda agency, Xinhua, the cause it claimed was a faulty wiring problem.

Yesterday Serthar Monastery was engulfed in flames destroying a significant part of the sprawling Buddhist institute

Serthar Monastery Ablaze Serthar Monastery Ablaze

Image: via lobsangjinpa

The question looming here…

View original post 39 more words

Tibet, Activism And Information

Image:news.cn

What does the British ‘Foreign Office’ (the equivalent of the State Department) say about China’s policy of forced sterilizations? Well usually absolutely nothing, a tradition followed by its sister organization the ‘Department For International Development’. However there were raised hopes on the release of its 2014 Human Rights and Democracy Report which mentioned at least the issue. Yet before rushing off those congratulatory emails best to closely read what the English Mandarins decided to say on the matter:

“There were continued reports of illegal coercive implementation of family planning policies, including forced abortions and sterilisations.” (Emphasis Added) SOURCE

Well of course absolutely nothing to do with those nice folks at China’s regime, just the criminal excesses of a few over-zealous birth-control officials. right? Wrong! The British authorities know very well that the atrocities arising from China’s population control program are centrally engineered, resourced, endorsed and administered by the…

View original post 136 more words

Adam Henry 5 June 2014, 8:30pm

Source: Independent Australia

Historian Dr Adam Hughes Henry says Western media – and notably our own ABC – are presenting a self-serving and grossly distorted account of the 1989 ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’.

READING THE ABC ONLINE NEWSWIRE, I am provided with a significant amount of information outlining the ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’, much righteous indignation from western observers and pundits, and calls for the Chinese Communist Government to come clean about these events, including by luminaries such as Hamish MacDonald.

Yet this is a confusing situation.

On the one hand, a tyrannical Communist Government is certainly not a far-fetched narrative bereft of numerous facts that could outline such a story with little difficulty. Neither is the tragic story of human rights in China — there are numerous examples of the kinds of injustices that occur and continue to occur and they are well documented.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that amongst all of this condemnation over the ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’, is this not the same government which nations like Australia and the rest now consistently praise for those sweeping economic reforms; whose economic growth is held to be some kind of validation of the neo-liberal fundamentalism that has engulfed the globe? There is no mention of the irony of this in any of the ABC coverage I have examined.

Are they suddenly a different type of government, a nicer, friendlier type of authoritarian regime?

Why then do we trade so extensively with such a nation, why do our mining companies grow fat from Chinese purchases, what exactly did the great economic reforms allow China to provide to the world economy that makes neo-liberal advocates swoon?

I should like to come back to this, but first I’d like to outline some well documented points about Tiananmen and the Western reporting of this event.

Throughout the ABC coverage online, there was not one specific mention of crucial pieces of information that effectively deconstruct the standard western analysis of the ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’. These pieces of information are all easily found in this digital age and it is difficult to fathom exactly how the ABC might have omitted any – and indeed all – references to them.

The simple story of a pro-democracy protest by university students in Tiananmen Square and their subsequent massacre by members of the Chinese armed forces fits neatly into Western perceptions of what occurred and highlight the selectivity of the Western human rights condemnation. Consistent throughout the ABC coverage is the moral high ground occupied by the West, as per the standard requirements of mainstream journalism — an unquestioned truism.

According to a former U.S. correspondent who covered the protests, Jay Matthews, and a number of other sources, the Western reporting of what happened in Tiananmen Square was littered with misinformation and numerous inaccuracies.

The falsehoods that became part of the preferred Western narrative of the event quickly becoming embedded in news reports throughout the Western world. Matthews highlights, that despite numerous inferences otherwise then and now, no students – as far as we know – were actually killed in Tiananmen Square and that those that had stayed to the end were allowed to leave the square by security forces.

Just to make this clear: there was no wholesale massacre of protesting students in Tiananmen Square.

Why then does it feel that, by coming to this reasoned conclusion using solid evidence easily accessible to those who care to look, one enters into a world of atrocity denial?

I would suggest this is because it runs counter to the preferred Western narrative of ‘The Tiananmen Square massacre’ and its righteous indignation and selective empathy with the thwarted attempt to be ‘free’.

Students did die that night and this is, of course, awful — but so did far greater numbers of non-students, in and around the connecting suburbs and streets not far from Tiananmen.

There was a massacre, but not the one the Western media propagated through its careless reporting and continues to peddle.

As Black and Munro noted in 1993:

The phrase “Tiananmen Square massacre” is now fixed firmly in the political vocabulary of the late twentieth century. Yet it is inaccurate. There was no massacre in Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. But on the western approach roads, along Chang’an Boulevard and Fuxingmen Avenue, there was a bloodbath that claimed hundreds of lives when the People’s Liberation Army found its path blocked by a popular uprising that was being fuelled by despair and rage. To insist on this distinction is not splitting hairs. What took place was the slaughter not of students but of ordinary workers and residents – precisely the target that the Chinese government had intended.

In reading the ABC coverage, the focus on the students perpetuates the idea that they and ­only they were the targets of the crackdown.

In fact, the workers of the surrounding suburbs were also protesting that night and supported the student protests, and were the true target:

The official conspiracy theory demanded other threats and other scapegoats – “outside elements” with “ulterior motives.” This meant dissident intellectuals and workers. After their ruthless repression under Mao, the intelligentsia had been granted a kind of historic compromise by Deng. But by the spring of 1989, they had come to be seen as the agents of bourgeois liberalization, of China’s “peaceful evolution” toward Western-style pluralism. After Tiananmen, they would be singled out for punishment. The working class, meanwhile, had become the carrier of an even more dangerous virus – the Polish disease…The students initiated the Tiananmen movement, and they brilliantly out maneuvered and embarrassed a leaden-footed government. But after the mass demonstrations of mid-May, the threat from the students was dwarfed by the intervention of much broader social forces.

Again, this is not difficult to verify, nor is the information obscure. They were angry at the economic reforms — the same reforms that have since turned Chinese workers into sweatshop fodder for Western corporations to much Western applause and rampant government corruption.

The treatment of the workers – and any protesters who found themselves in the streets around Tiananmen – was a violent and furious struggle against the security forces. Again easily documentable and easy to verify.

Totally ignored by the ABC is that the main target of the crackdown was not actually the students – who would certainly feel unjust political persecution following Tiananmen – but the workers in the surrounding areas, where the violent clashes actually took place in the streets and many people were killed by the security forces, were the carriers of the ‘Polish disease’.

Where is their story on the ABC, why are we not told why they were protesting, what were they protesting against, what happened to them?

No doubt, the Australian Embassy and many foreign correspondents saw terrible things that night in the streets and suburbs, but surely not a massacre of unarmed students gathered peacefully in Tiananmen Square. What they actually saw is provided in fragments, fragments that do not tell any reader the real context of the crackdown.

Why is it that the far greater and more significant workers protests and workers resistance is not the main focus of the story, or at least given some serious copy? Why is it that they have simply been written out of the ABC coverage and, in fact, appear to be irrelevant to their coverage.

If a wholesale massacre of students in Tiananmen Square remains a primary component of the 1989 story – and indeed this was the story seemingly told by the Western media almost immediately – and the university students (as the peaceful face of a pro-democracy movement) ruthlessly crushed are the worthy victims, what of the workers?

Could it be that the student protests appealed far more to the foreign correspondents and the West?

This could all be neatly understood in much the same simple way as what was happening in Eastern Europe; they were not really expressing historical and cultural dissent from decades of tyranny and corruption, or asserting their human rights as citizens, freedom of expression as unique human beings, or as workers tired of being exploited by governments — what they were really asking for, as far as we were concerned, was Western style democracy; or, in other words, to be just like us.

This would no doubt be natural conclusions by the Western media because, after all — who wouldn’t want to be just like us?

Yes, it is true that the Chinese Government is an authoritarian and corrupt regime, however – as demonstrated by the relationship with numerous other corrupt and authoritarian regimes – foreign multinationals and governments from the enlightened and freedom loving west apparently think nothing of creating military and or financial partnerships that not only prop up these regimes and protect them, but guarantee strategic gains and massive exploitative profits for shareholders while perpetuating human misery. The continued cost is to block, as a matter of daily diplomatic and economic practice, the very freedoms and human rights crushed so ruthlessly by the Chinese Government in 1989, which of course we condemn.

They will censor and attempt to whitewash the history of 1989 in order to preserve their order and control, but then so have we. They have been assisted in their propaganda efforts by the Western media whose inaccuracies, then and now, maintain the focus on a ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre’ of unarmed students by security forces.

The main story, missed or ignored by the Western media appears to be the suppression and destruction of the workers in and around Tiananmen Square.  Through its inaccurate and selective condemnation, the Western media have effectively helped the Chinese Government to bury the story of 1989.

As a detailed 1989 study of U.S. media coverage highlights:

…this study nonetheless concludes that some of the media should have come closer to a rounded appreciation of the events of June 3-4 within the first week. Wildly inflated casualty figures and the use of the geographically erroneous catch phrase “Tiananmen Square massacre” gave the Chinese government a pretext for deflecting the central moral issue raised by its brutal response to the protesters. If some of the media were wrong about how many people died, and where, were they also wrong about the significance of the killings? No, they were not. But the exaggerations and the error of geography permitted that question to be raised, and undercut the media’s credibility in some quarters. 

Surely, even a most cursory moment of philosophical reflection would provide a some obvious conclusions for the ABC – the successful crackdown in 1989 made certain that

  1. the Chinese communist party would continue its rule without challenge; and
  2. that the so called economic reforms, routinely applauded by the West, would continue to be implemented on Chinese workers, no matter what the human cost.

There is no need for Western media condemnation of the human cost of the economic reforms buttressed by the crackdown. The result was a cheap Chinese workforce with few rights – let alone strong human rights – paid a pittance, who work under oppressive conditions for numerous Western multinationals under the watchful eye of the Chinese Communist Party — the same people we hypocritically condemn for the 1989 crackdown.

Not one Australian journalist and, particularly, the ABC appear at all interested in the very stark contrast between the tear stained reaction of the Australian Labor Party to events in China in 1989 and events much closer to home.

I can personally vouch for this.

I pitched a very reasonable and detailed program idea ‘The Tale of Two Massacres’ to the ABCs Hindsight program on Radio National; their response was, without explanation, to cease responding to my very genuine emails.

Is this comparison between the Australian Government reaction to Tiananmen and East Timor so outrageous, so beyond the pale, that the response from a top ABC current affairs radio program should be the coldest of shoulders?

Apparently so.

In 1989, Australia signed the Timor-Gap Treaty with Indonesia — a treaty that, in the clearest breach of international law, recognised the acquisition of territory by blatant and illegal armed aggression. It also ignored the maintenance of illegal Indonesian control by the most horrendous and ruthless of methods.

In 1991, the Labor Government did not publicly cry over dead East Timorese of the Dili Massacre; in fact, they downplayed the event and continued the Australian love affair with Suharto’s New Order Regime — aka one of the most corrupt, anti-human rights and murderous regimes of the 20th Century.

The student protesters of the ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre’ are worthy victims, the workers and residents irrelevant, while the Timorese and Indonesian victims of Suharto and his brutal military regime are to be conveniently forgotten.

Should we wait with bated breath for any comparable ABC expose on the Timor Gap or Dili Massacre as prominent and as outraged as we have seen recently on the ABC over Tiananmen?

The Western reporting of what was a most significant Chinese event in 1989 – the worker and student protests – has so distorted what actually happened, that it has promulgated the preferred Western narrative at the expense of the whole historical truth.

The current ABC coverage is little better; in fact, given the materials around to examine any or all of these points, a few of which are provided in this article, it is arguably worse.

I agree with Hamish MacDonald, it is never too late for the Chinese government to come clean over their repressive crackdown in 1989 and after — but I would also add, it is never too late for MacDonald, fellow journalists, and programs such as Hindsight to want get it right too.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Please contact the Author of this site for any further information via the “Leave a reply” box below.

Dandelion Salad

by Finian Cunningham
Writer, Dandelion Salad
East Africa
Crossposted from PressTV
April 23, 2014

US President Barack Obama kicks off his East Asia tour this week with a threat of military aggression towards China at the same time that vice president Joe Biden was stepping up similar provocations to Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

That is because the so-called American “pivot to Asia” is intimately connected with the crisis in Ukraine and the increasing tensions between Washington and Moscow. Both cases are the result of US imperialist aggression aimed at postponing the collapse of American global hegemony. Although in the laughable way that the Western corporate media invert reality Washington’s vice is turned into a virtue.

View original post 1,044 more words

World

A Chinese doctor, Zhang Shuxia, admitted to stealing babies from families she was close to and then selling them into human trafficking, state media said. She is expected to face harsh punishment under Chinese law.

Six of the seven babies who were stolen have been rescued, but one girl died, local media said.

In 2012, almost 1900 cases of child trafficking were uncovered in China, according to China Daily.

READ: TIME’s cover story on China’s one-child policy.

View original post

Tibet, Activism And Information

Image: https://www.anonyme.com/View/49220c02-b192-4eb5-a6e0-03619d6c001e

The image above was today posted on an Anonymous Blog called ‘OpTibet’ and reports another Chinese government site http://www.qionghai.gov.cn/ was crashed for over 48 hours following a denial of service attack, in the ongoing Anonymous action called Operation Tibet. Many thanks to @AnonymousTibet for the heads-up on this,which is another embarrassing reminder for China’s regime that its sites are being successfully targeted in support of Tibet and its people.

View original post

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/08/protestors-in-china-clash-with-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Add your thoughts here… (optional)

Tibet, Activism And Information

Tibet’s eastern region of Amdo, though suffering intense suppression from thousands of Chinese paramilitary continues to witness Tibetan resistance to China’s tyranny, and has seen a wave of self-immolations over recent days. The latest took place yesterday evening, again in the Rebkong area, when another Tibetan, Mr  Sangdag Tsering, 24 self-immolated to protest against China’s occupation of Tibet. Sangdag died following his action. More details HERE

Appreciation To Dossier Tibet

View original post

The Extinction Protocol

November 1, 2012CHINAAn earthquake measuring 3.2 on the Richter scale hit a central China region where the world’s biggest water reservoir the Three Gorges Dam is located, though no harm to the structure was reported. The tremor hit Zigui County of Yichang City in Hubei Province at 3:42 am and its epicentre was located at five km below ground, according to the China Earthquake Networks Center. No casualties were reported though the earthquake was felt across Zigui, state-run Xinhua news agency said. “The minor earthquake has not affected the Three Gorges Dam, which can endure far stronger earthquakes,” Hu Xing’e, vice head of the management bureau of the project with the China Three Gorges Corporation said. She said that no earthquake-triggered landslides have been reported in the reservoir area and all power generating units and ship locks are working normally. The dam, the world’s largest water…

View original post 219 more words

US Soldiers in Nepal on China’s Tibet Border, On a Reconnaissance “Humanitarian Mission”

Global Research, September 22, 2012

Early this week, sixty-five American soldiers landed in Kathmandu and moved to Dhikurpokhari of Kaski district of Nepal. They are also travelling in Manang and Mustang districts bordering China’s Tibet region. 

Ostensibly they are on a “humanitarian mission” of assessing the quality of healthcare services available to the local people. They have been meeting health workers and holding talks with NGOs working in these parts. This job could have been better accomplished by a team of public health experts in civilian dress.

In reality, it looks like an advance reconnaissance party to evaluate the nature of local terrain and assess possible local cooperation to overcome logistical bottleneck in the event of Nepal’s occupation. Nepalese Army’s senior officer is coordinating with American soldiers; again the coordination could have been better with local public health experts who are more knowledgeable in these matters. Effectively, this ‘humanitarian mission’ appears to be strictly an army matter and it stinks.

The US soldiers have never ever entered a sovereign country on a humanitarian mission anywhere in the world, except in a limited way during the Second World War and that too in Europe.

In every third world country, US Government’s ‘humanitarian mission’ has been a cover to eliminate popular leaders and/or incite civil wars.

Since there is no leader in Nepal either popular or opposed to Western domination or both, that can’t be a reason for the humanitarian mission of US soldiers. On the other hand, the undercurrent of simmering ethnic strife stoked by well funded INGOs and NGOs, USAID, FORD Foundation, Asia Foundation, George Soros’ Human Rights groups and the UN Framework Team could be used as an opportunity to grab strategic territory close to China. The construction of Lily Pad in Gorkha district, of no use to the local civilian population, is a strong indication that the US Government is planning an extremely risky surgery in the Himalayan heart.

Nepalese NGOs, people and politicians should note that Russia has expelled USAID for their nefarious activities including interference in Russia’s electoral process. [1]

Intelligence reports from North Korea confirm that US boots are also on ground there, with the connivance of Kim Jong-un’s sister and brother-in-law who want North Korea to become another star in the spangled banner.  Equaling or surpassing the Korean pecuniary motives, are the over ambitious India educated Prime Minister Bhattarai and his cohort, well known to the Nepalese people. Aptly, a leading Kathmandu daily, responding to Bhattarai’s helpless ‘power is not in my hand’, asked “So, where is the power centre?” Valid question. Since Bhattarai doesn’t know where his power stems from, who allowed the US soldiers on the Nepalese soil is a moot question.  If the Prime Minister approved it then Nepal has a huge problem as it amounts to surrender of national sovereignty.

State of Nepal’s political institutions and politicians

At this juncture, Nepal’s governed under the 2007 Interim Constitution; the mandated tenure of the Constituent Assembly [CA] expired on 27th May, 2012. The mandate to the Prime Minister stands on pretty shaky ground, yet, he somehow managed to represent Nepal in the recently concluded Non-Aligned Movement [NAM] summit in Teheran. Along with him went twenty without people’s mandate. During preparations in Kathmandu, ambassadors of Israel, US and UK made several visits to the Foreign Ministry to dissuade the troupe not to go to Teheran because ‘it’d send a wrong signal that Nepal supports a terrorist state.’ Did any senior leader give a press statement that Iran is not a terrorist state? I can’t recall even one senior politician stating that Nepal is a sovereign state and at full liberty to enter into any relationship with any country including Iran. [2] Only one person Dr Shashank Koirala, BP Koirala’s youngest son, has said “International forces perceive China as the future super power. They thus want to unnerve China by provoking aTibetan issue through the Nepali soil”, as reported in The Telegraph Nepal.

On the contrary, while leaders have been asserting that Nepal is a buffer state between China and India, during the past two decades these very politicians, willingly or unwillingly, have allowed infamous international institutions with known history of covertly engineering civil wars in third world countries, to expand their activities in Nepal which threatens peace and stability in border areas of China and India. Worse, the situation they have created will make life miserable for the Nepalese people and for the ethnic minorities in some of the most sensitive regions.

Learning from history

After the untimely demise of King Mahendra Vir Vikram Shahdev’s in 1972, not one Nepali leader, including the well meaning late King Virendra, has shown the perspicacity of steadfastly remaining neutral in regional power politics panning out now under the Zionist Neo-Conservative sponsored Project for the New American Century [PNAC]. If King Virendra had his father’s insight into the subtle manipulations of the western powers, he would not have allowed Kathmandu to become the South Asian operational base of fifth columnist INGOs and NGO and all the Trojan horses of rogue international developmental agencies. It was King Mahendra who had a consistent policy of keeping Nepal as a buffer state between China and India, leaning towards China, and keeping western powers’ illicit and perverted designs at bay.

Recall that the moment King Mahendra found out that the then Prime Minister BP Koirala had secured arms from Israel to overthrow monarchy he ordered his arrest and imprisoned him for treason. His advisors were astute analysts and nationalists. They knew how the British and CIA had engineered the murder of democracy and violent overthrow of Mossadeq of Iran in 1953 to install a brutal despot, the ‘Shah’ as King of Iran. They also knew that Americans had a hand in democratically elected Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination to install a military dictator five years later [Ayub Khan] as an agent of chaos in South and West Asia. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, one after another, democratically elected popular leaders were removed or murdered by the same western powers whose soldiers are on ground in Nepal today. The current Nepali leadership is complicit in defiling God’s own divine soil.

Delve into the history of Indonesia where popular leader Sukarno was removed and a brutal dictatorship of Suharto was installed. Both USAID and FORD Foundation played pernicious role and Mrs. Ann Dunham Soetoro, mother of the US President Barak Hussain Obama whose real name is Barry Soetoro and has travelled to South Asia [Pakistan] on an Indonesian passport with his mother, working as anthropologist for the CIA, handed over a complete list of every ethnic group that had even remotest communist leaning. Ann Dunham, according to Wayne Madsen’s sources, was perhaps responsible for a quarter million to one million Indonesians slaughtered by Suharto in league with the CIA. [3]

Complete list of every ethnic group in Nepal by number of households, population, residence, social structure, economic activity, and religious and political affiliations are known to CIA, MI6, and MOSSAD. That list was prepared by the Christian Church under Joshua Project and that list is in the public domain. Similar lists have been prepared for Burma, Northeastern region of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Scientific Committee of the Vatican, despite opposition of many Archbishops, approved the use of Genetically Engineered Seeds on 17th May, 2009, and the USAID and MONSANTO have already announced in league with stupid Nepalese Agricultural scientists to promote GM seeds; this will decimate Nepalese population within two generations. [4] Contrary to media reports, the US and NATO forces are unlikely to leave Afghanistan and the US will further intensify Drone attacks on Pakistani people.

Nepalese people should further note that Islamic Relief Worldwide [IRW] working in Nepal is under heavy scanner in India for funding Islamic terrorist activities in South Asia. There are hard evidences that the European Community headquartered in Brussels directly funds their activities in South Asia controlled from Dacca. [5] This organization also gets Wahhabi funds from Saudi Arabia whose rulers are Zionists closely allied with Israeli Government. This network coordinates with the Chabad Lubavitchers and the Tibetan refugee centres in Kathmandu and funds hard drug production and distribution via Nepal which Nepalese authorities can’t control. [6]

 

Nepalese people should watch every move of foreign agencies and that of their politicians carefully. They can’t be trusted exactly as the leaders thousand mile West-South of Kathmandu can’t be trusted by 1.2 billion Indians. Sitting silently in the hope that the current crop of leaders or the ethnic federalists NGOs will provide them with stable and democratic Government is tantamount to national suicide. Trusting European and American institutions to help them would be even more foolish.

Notes:

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-20/russia-expels-usaid/4271094

Most people don’t realize that USAID is a division of the US-Department of Defense and serves the expansionary imperialist agenda of the US Government and their cohorts in West Europe, especially UK.

[2] I don’t have access to all the Nepali dailies. If any leader has responded to the three ambassadors’ interference in Nepal’s sovereign right to decide its foreign policy, then I apologize and stand corrected.

[3] Wayne Madsen; “The Manufacturing of a President”-How the CIA ‘inserted’ Barak Hussain Obama into the White House; Lulu Publication; 2012

Wayne Madsen is a former US Naval intelligence officer and a well known investigative journalist. He has extensive intelligence network in Asia and has the canny ability to accurately predict events by connecting the dots.

[4]   Weaponization of the food system-Genetically engineered maize threatens Nepal and the Himalayan region;  Centre for Research on Globalization; 2012.http://www.globalresearch.ca/weaponization-of-the-food-system-genetically-engineered-maize-threatens-nepal-and-the-himalayan-region/

A recent French study shows that rats fed GM foods develop cancers and vital organ failure. If Nepal’s agricultural scientists, with dollars rammed down their throats, think that Nepalese people are laboratory rats, and they can live with this scenario, then I have no further comments, except that Nepal will be completely depopulated in two generations and that will affect China and India and the entire Himalayan region too. Nepal’s Agricultural scientists can amass wealth but they have no right to kill people in three countries because of their stupidity.

[5] Islamic Relief Worldwide is registered in Birmingham, UK. They are the conduit of European Community funding of social chaos and terrorism in South Asia. India’s Home Ministry has extensive documents tracking their nefarious activities. Nepal should ban their activities but, unfortunately, Nepal does not have a leader who has the anatomical feature of having a spine.

[6] Political Crisis in Nepal; Centre for Research on Globalization; 2012http://www.globalresearch.ca/weaponization-of-the-food-system-genetically-engineered-maize-threatens-nepal-and-the-himalayan-region/

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Extinction Protocol

September 23, 2012TOKYOChina has cancelled events to commemorate 40 years of diplomatic relations with Japan, further signaling its anger over a simmering territorial dispute. Japanese foreign ministry official Hiroaki Sakamoto confirmed that China has cancelled the events, planned for Thursday. He did not provide further details. China’s Xinhua news agency, citing officials with the China-Japan Friendship Association and another government-affiliated group, reported on Sunday that the events would not take place as planned. It said they would be held “at a proper time.” Calls to China’s foreign ministry were not answered Sunday. In its evening broadcast, China Central Television said the timing of the events was being “adjusted.” Relations have sunk to their worst level in years as the two sides spar over islands in the East China Sea claimed by both countries and by Taiwan. In the latest large anti-Japan protest in China, up…

View original post 403 more words

Hidden Agendas

 

Published on Sep 17, 2012 by RussiaToday

Anti-Japanese protests have swept China, as the volatile dispute over who owns a series of islands escalates. The fallout over the archipelago dispute has been widening between Tokyo and Beijing since Japan decided to bypass China and buy the territories from private investors. This comes as Washington and Tokyo agreed to put a second anti-missile defence radar in Japan, claiming it’ll be focused on deterring North Korean aggression. But James Corbett, editor of the Corbett Report website who lives in Japan thinks the system will be deployed for all the wrong reasons.

Category:

News & Politics

This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as…

View original post 144 more words

World

Anti-Japanese sentiment is no stranger to Chinese public opinion, where the horrors of World War II still fan nationalist flames. Tensions over a tiny archipelago claimed by Japan — the Chinese refer to the spits of land as the Diaoyu Islands, the Japanese as the Senkaku Islands — have heightened in recent months, prompting Japanese businesses to shutter in China and sparking mass protests in a number of Chinese cities. U.S. officials have warned of the threat of armed conflict between the two Asian powers. The following are Hipstamatic images shot by one photographer at a demonstration near the Japanese embassy in Beijing.

View original post

World

Anti-Japanese protests flared all weekend in major cities across China, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Qingdao, and Hong Kong. People came out in force to demonstrate against Japanese claims to a group of disputed islands known as Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan. Tensions have been growing for months between Asia’s two biggest economies. This most recent spate of protests comes after the Japanese government announced last week that it purchased some of the islands.

(MORE: Turf Wars: A Guide to East Asia’s Troubled Waters)

(PHOTOSAnti-Japan Protests Hit China’s Capital)

View original post

World

The standoff between China and Japan over a group of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea continues to escalate, raising fears that the world’s second and third largest economies could stumble into armed conflict. On Friday, six Chinese patrol boats approached the Japanese-controlled islands, which are called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese. That was four more China Maritime Surveillance vessels than China had previously acknowledged dispatching to the islands northeast of Taiwan. “It is deplorable that the invasion of the territorial waters happened at this time and we strongly request that the Chinese authorities leave our territory,” Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told reporters Friday morning.

View original post 1,029 more words

The Daily Cheese.

 

Is US Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton evil?

Clinton Wants more Powerful Drone Surveillance Technology to Find Kony

 

China warns US on South China Sea row as Clinton visits.

China has urged the US not to meddle in regional disputes, hours before US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began a two-day visit to the country.

Ms Clinton arrived after talks in Indonesia which focused on territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

In Indonesia she urged regional bloc Asean to form a united front on the issue.

Ms Clinton and Chinese officials are also expected to discuss Syria, Iran and North Korea.

She arrived in Beijing late on Tuesday and will spend all of Wednesday meeting senior officials.

After China she is scheduled to visit East Timor and Brunei before heading to the Apec forum in Russia as part of her 11-day tour.

Territorial rows

Ahead of Ms…

View original post 2,369 more words

CounterPsyOps

20120902-050627.jpg

China says a political dialogue is the only solution to the ongoing crisis in Syria as Russia calls it “naïve” for the West to expect Syrian leader to withdraw his troops from conflict-ridden cities.

In a telephone conversation with the new UN Arab League special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi urged the international community to seek a political solution to Syria crisis and vowed that his country would continue cooperation with the international community over the issue.

The Chinese top diplomat reiterated that his country has been deeply concerned about the humanitarian conditions in Syria, saying Beijing expected Brahimi to play an active role in resolving the Syria crisis.

The UN Arab League envoy, for his part, attached great importance to China’s role in putting an end to the ongoing crisis in Syria.

View original post 210 more words

Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China.

 
Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China
 
Global Research, August 24, 2012
 
 
 

 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nominal end of the Cold War some twenty years back, rather than reducing the size of its mammoth defense spending, the US Congress and all US Presidents have enormously expanded spending for new weapons systems, increased permanent military bases around the world and expansion of NATO not only to former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia’s immediate periphery; it also has expanded NATO and US military presence deep into Asia on the perimeters of China through its conduct of the Afghan war and related campaigns.

 

Part I The Pentagon Targets China

On the basis of simple dollar outlays for military spending, the US Pentagon combined budget, leaving aside the huge budgets for such national security and defense-related agencies of US Government as the Department of Energy and US Treasury and other agencies, the US Department of Defense spent some $739 billion in 2011 on its military requirements. Were all other spending that is tied to US defense and national security included, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates an annual military spending of over $1 trillion by the United States. That is an amount greater than the total defense-related spending of the next 42 nations combined, and more than the Gross Domestic Product of most nations.

 

China officially spent barely 10% of the US outlay on its defense, some $90 billions, or, if certain defense-related arms import and other costs are included, perhaps $111 billion a year. Even if the Chinese authorities do not publish complete data on such sensitive areas, it is clear China spends a mere fraction of the USA and is starting from a military-technology base far behind the USA.

 

China today, because of its dynamic economic growth and its determination to pursue sovereign Chinese national interests, merely because China exists, is becoming the Pentagon new “enemy image,” now replacing the earlier “enemy image” of Islam used after September 2001 by the Bush-Cheney Administration to justify the Pentagon’s global power pursuit, or that of Soviet Communism during the Cold War. The new US military posture against China has nothing to do with any aggressive threat from the side of China. The Pentagon has decided to escalate its aggressive military posture to China merely because China has become a strong vibrant independent pole in world economics and geopolitics. Only vassal states need apply to Washington’s globalized world.

 

Obama Doctrine: China is the new ‘enemy image’

 

After almost two decades of neglect of its interests in East Asia, in 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the US would make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy to focus its military and political attention on the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, that is, China. The term “strategic pivot” is a page out of the classic textbook from the father of British geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, who spoke at various times of Russia and later China as “pivot powers” whose geographical and geopolitical position posed unique challenges toAnglo-Saxon and after 1945, to American hegemony.

 

During the final months of 2011 the Obama Administration clearly defined a new public military threat doctrine for US military readiness in the wake of the US military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. During a Presidential trip to the Far East, while in Australia, the US President unveiled what is being termed the Obama Doctrine.[1]

 

Obama told the Australians then:

 

With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation…As President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and strategic decision — as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future…I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority…As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace…Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in the region.

 

The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay. Indeed, we are already modernizing America’s defense posture across the Asia Pacific. It will be more broadly distributed — maintaining our strong presence in Japan and the Korean Peninsula, while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia. Our posture will be more flexible — with new capabilities to ensure that our forces can operate freely .. I believe we can address shared challenges, such as proliferation and maritime security, including cooperation in the South China Sea.[2]

 

The centerpiece of Obama’s visit was the announcement that at least 2,500 elite US Marines will be stationed in Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. In addition, in a series of significant parallel agreements, discussions with Washington were underway to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean. Also the US will gain greater use of Australian Air Force bases for American aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on the country’s west coast.

 

 

 

 

The Pentagon’s target is China.

 

To make the point clear to European members of NATO, in remarks to fellow NATO members in Washington in July 2012, Phillip Hammond, the UK Secretary of State for Defense declared explicitly that the new US defense shift to the Asia-Pacific region was aimed squarely at China. Hammond said that, “the rising strategic importance of the Asia-Pacific region requires all countries, but particularly the United States, to reflect in their strategic posture the emergence of China as a global power. Far from being concerned about the tilt to Asia-Pacific, the European NATO powers should welcome the fact that the US is willing to engage in this new strategic challenge on behalf of the alliance.” [3]

 

As with many of its operations, the Pentagon deployment is far deeper than the relatively small number of 2,500 new US soldiers might suggest.

 

In August 2011 the Pentagon presented its annual report on China’s military. It stated that China had closed key technological gaps. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia, Michael Schiffer, said that the pace and scope of China’s military investments had “allowed China to pursue capabilities that we believe are potentially destabilizing to regional military balances, increase the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation and may contribute to regional tensions and anxieties.” [4] He cited Chinese refurbishing of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier and China’s development of its J20 Stealth Fighter as indications of the new capability requiring a more active US military response. Schiffer also cited China’s space and cyber operations, saying it was “developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.” [5]

 

Part II: Pentagon’s ‘Air-Sea Battle’

 

The Pentagon strategy to defeat China in a coming war, details of which have filtered into the US press, is called “Air-Sea Battle.” This calls for an aggressive coordinated US attack. US stealth bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems deep inside the country. This initial “blinding campaign” would be followed by a larger air and naval assault on China itself.[6] Crucial to the advanced pentagon strategy, deployment of which has already quietly begun, is US military navy and air presence in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and across the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Australian troop and naval deployment is aimed at accessing the strategic Chinese South China Sea as well as the Indian Ocean. The stated motive is to “protect freedom of navigation” in the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. In reality it is to be positioned to cut China’s strategic oil routes in event of full conflict.

 

Air-Sea Battle’s goal is to help US forces withstand an initial Chinese assault and counterattack to destroy sophisticated Chinese radar and missile systems built to keep US ships away from China’s coastline.[7]

 

US ‘Air-Sea Battle’ against China

 

In addition to the stationing of the US Marines in the north of Australia, Washington plans to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the strategically vital Indian Ocean. Also it will have use of Australian Air Force bases for American military aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on Australia’s west coast.[8]

 

The architect of the Pentagon anti-China strategy of Air-Sea battle is Andrew Marshall, the man who has shaped Pentagon advanced warfare strategy for more than 40 years and among whose pupils were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. [9] Since the 1980s Marshall has been a promoter of an idea first posited in 1982 by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet general staff, called RMA, or ‘Revolution in Military Affairs.’ Marshall, today at the ripe age of 91, still holds his desk and evidently very much influence inside the Pentagon.

 

The best definition of RMA was the one provided by Marshall himself: “A Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a major change in the nature of warfare brought about by the innovative application of new technologies which, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine and operational and organizational concepts, fundamentally alters the character and conduct of military operations.” [10]

 

It was also Andrew Marshall who convinced US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his successor Robert Gates to deploy the Ballistic Missile “defense” Shield in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Japan as a strategy to minimize any potential nuclear threat from Russia and, in the case of Japan’s BMD, any potential nuclear threat from China.

 

PART III: ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy of Pentagon

 

In January 2005, Andrew Marshall issued a classified internal report to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled “Energy Futures in Asia.” The Marshall report, which was leaked in full to a Washington newspaper, invented the term “string of pearls” strategy to describe what it called the growing Chinese military threat to “US strategic interests” in the Asian space.[11]

 

The internal Pentagon report claimed that “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives.”

 

In the Pentagon Andrew Marshall report, the term China’s “String of Pearls” Strategy was used for the first time. It is a Pentagon term and not a Chinese term.

 

The report stated that China was adopting a “string of pearls” strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China that includes a new naval base under construction at the Pakistani port of Gwadar. It claimed that “Beijing already has set up electronic eavesdropping posts at Gwadar in the country’s southwest corner, the part nearest the Persian Gulf. The post is monitoring ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea.” [12]

 

The Marshall internal report went on to warn of other “pearls” in the sea-lane strategy of China:

 

• Bangladesh: China is strengthening its ties to the government and building a container port facility at Chittagong. The Chinese are “seeking much more extensive naval and commercial access” in Bangladesh.

 

• Burma: China has developed close ties to the military regime in Rangoon and turned a nation wary of China into a “satellite” of Beijing close to the Strait of Malacca, through which 80 percent of China’s imported oil passes. China is building naval bases in Burma and has electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal and near the Strait of Malacca. Beijing also supplied Burma with “billions of dollars in military assistance to support a de facto military alliance,” the report said.

 

• Cambodia: China signed a military agreement in November 2003 to provide training and equipment. Cambodia is helping Beijing build a railway line from southern China to the sea.

 

• South China Sea: Chinese activities in the region are less about territorial claims than “protecting or denying the transit of tankers through the South China Sea,” the report said. China also is building up its military forces in the region to be able to “project air and sea power” from the mainland and Hainan Island. China recently upgraded a military airstrip on Woody Island and increased its presence through oil drilling platforms and ocean survey ships.

 

• Thailand: China is considering funding construction of a $20 billion canal across the Kra Isthmus that would allow ships to bypass the Strait of Malacca. The canal project would give China port facilities, warehouses and other infrastructure in Thailand aimed at enhancing Chinese influence in the region, the report said… The U.S. military’s Southern Command produced a similar classified report in the late 1990s that warned that China was seeking to use commercial port facilities around the world to control strategic “chokepoints.” [13]

 

Breaking the String of Pearls

 

Significant Pentagon and US actions since that 2005 report have been aimed to counter China’s attempts to defend its energy security via that “String of Pearls.” The US interventions since 2007 into Burma/Myanmar have had two phases.

 

The first was the so-called Saffron Revolution, a US State Department and CIA-backed destabilization in 2007 aimed at putting the international spotlight on the Myanmar military dictatorship’s human rights practices. The aim was to further isolate the strategically located country internationally from all economic relations, aside from China. The background to the US actions was China’s construction of oil and gas pipelines from Kunming in China’s southwest Yunnan Province, across the old Burma Road across Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal across from India and Bangladesh in the northern Indian Ocean.

 

Forcing Burma’s military leaders into tighter dependency on China was one of the factors triggering the decision of the Myanmar military to open up economically to the West. They declared that the tightening of US economic sanctions had done the country great harm and President Thein Sein made his major liberalization opening, as well as allowing US-backed dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi, to be free and to run for elective office with her party, in return for promises from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of US investment in the country and possible easing of US economic sanctions. [14]

 

The US corporations approaching Burma are hand-picked by Washington to introduce the most destructive “free market” reforms that will open Myanmar to instability. The United States will not allow investment in entities owned by Myanmar’s armed forces or its Ministry of Defense. It also is able to place sanctions on “those who undermine the reform process, engage in human rights abuses, contribute to ethnic conflict or participate in military trade with North Korea.” The United States will block businesses or individuals from making transactions with any “specially designated nationals” or businesses that they control — allowing Washington, for example, to stop money from flowing to groups “disrupting the reform process.” It’s the classic “carrot and stick” approach, dangling the carrot of untold riches if Burma opens its economy to US corporations and punishing those who try to resist the takeover of the country’s prize assets. Oil and gas, vital to China, will be a special target of US intervention. American companies and people will be allowed to invest in the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.[15]

 

Obama also created a new power for the government to impose “blocking sanctions” on any individual threatening peace in Myanmar. Businesses with more than $500,000 in investment in the country will need to file an annual report with the State Department, with details on workers’ rights, land acquisitions and any payments of more than $10,000 to government entities, including Myanmar’s state-owned enterprises.

 

American companies and people will be allowed to invest in the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise, but any investors will need to notify the State Department within 60 days.

 

As well, US “human rights” NGOs, many closely associated with or believed to be associated with US State Department geopolitical designs, including Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Asian Democracy, Open Society Foundations, Physicians for Human Rights, U.S. Campaign for Burma, United to End Genocide— will now be allowed to operate inside Myanmar according to a decision by State Secretary Clinton in April 2012.[16]

 

Thailand, another key in China’s defensive String of Pearl Strategy has also been subject of intense destabilization over the past several years. Now with the sister of a corrupt former Prime Minister in office, US-Thai relations have significantly improved.

 

After months of bloody clashes, the US-backed billionaire, Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra , managed to buy the way to put his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra in as Prime Minister, with him reportedly pulling the policy strings from abroad. Thaksin himself was enjoying comfortable status in the US as of this writing, in summer 2012.

 

US relations with Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, are moving in direct fulfillment of the Obama “strategic pivot” to focus on the “China threat.” In June 2012, General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, after returning from a visit this month to Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore stated: “We want to be out there partnered with nations and have a rotational presence that would allow us to build up common capabilities for common interests.” This is precisely key beads in what the Pentagon calls the String of Pearls.

 

The Pentagon is now quietly negotiating to return to bases abandoned after the Vietnam War. It is negotiating with the Thai government to create a new “disaster relief” hub at the Royal Thai Navy Air Field at U-Tapao, 90 miles south of Bangkok.

The US military built the two mile long runway there, one of Asia’s longest, in the 1960s as a major staging and refueling base during the Vietnam War.

 

The Pentagon is also working to secure more rights to US Navy visits to Thai ports and joint surveillance flights to monitor trade routes and military movements. The US Navy will soon base four of its newest warships — Littoral Combat Ships — in Singapore and would rotate them periodically to Thailand and other southeast Asian countries. The Navy is pursuing options to conduct joint airborne surveillance missions from Thailand.[17]

 

In addition, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter went to Thailand in July 2012 and the Thai government has invited Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who met with the Thai minister of defense at a conference in Singapore in June.[18]

 

In 2014, the US Navy is scheduled to begin deploying new P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft to the Pacific, replacing the P-3C Orion surveillance planes. The Navy is also preparing to deploy new high-altitude surveillance drones to the Asia-Pacific region around the same time. [19]

 

 

PART IV: India-US Defense ‘Look East Policy’

 

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was in India in June of this year where he proclaimed that defence cooperation with India is the lynchpin of US security strategy in Asia. He pledged to help develop India’s military capabilities and to engage with India in joint production of defence “articles” of high technology. Panetta was thr fifth Obama Cabinet secretary to visit India this year. The message that they have all brought is that, for the US, India will be the major relationship of the 21st century. The reason is China’s emergence. [20]

 

Several years ago during the Bush Administration, Washington made a major move to lock India in as a military ally of the US against the emerging Chinese presence in Asia. India calls it India’s “Look East Policy.” In reality, despite all claims to the contrary, it is a “look at China” military policy.

 

In comments in August 2012, Deputy Secretary of defense Ashton Carter stated, “India is also key part of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, and, we believe, to the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century. The US-India relationship is global in scope, like the reach and influence of both countries.” [21] In 2011, the US military conducted more than 50 significant military activities with India.

 

Carter continued in remarks following a trip to New Delhi, “Our security interests converge: on maritime security, across the Indian Ocean region; in Afghanistan, where India has done so much for economic development and the Afghan security forces; and on broader regional issues, where we share long-term interests. I went to India at the request of Secretary Panetta and with a high-level delegation of U S technical and policy experts.” [22]

 

Indian Ocean

 

The Pentagon “String of pearls” strategy against China in effect is not one of beautiful pearls, but a hangman’s noose around the perimeter of China, designed in the event of major conflict to completely cut China off from its access to vital raw materials, most especially oil from the Persian Gulf and Africa.

 

Former Pentagon adviser Robert D. Kaplan, now with Stratfor, has noted that the Indian Ocean is becoming the world’s “strategic center of gravity” and who controls that center, controls Eurasia, including China. The Ocean is the vital waterway passage for energy and trade flows between the Middle East and China and Far Eastern countries. More strategically, it is the heart of a developing south-south economic axis between China and Africa and Latin America.

 

Since 1997 trade between China and Africa has risen more than twenty-fold and trade with Latin America, including Brazil, has risen fourteen fold in only ten years. This dynamic, if allowed to continue, will eclipse the economic size of the European Union as well as the declining North American industrial economies in less than a decade. That is a development that Washington circles and Wall Street are determined to prevent at all costs.

 

Straddled by the Islamic Arch–which stretches from Somalia to Indonesia, passing through the countries of the Gulf and Central Asia– the region surrounding the Indian Ocean has certainly become the world’s new strategic center of gravity.[23]

 

No rival economic bloc can be allowed to challenge American hegemony. Former Obama geopolitical adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a student of Mackinder geopolitics and still today along with Henry Kissinger one of the most influential persons in the US power establishment, summed up the position as seen from Washington in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and It’s Geostrategic Imperatives:

 

It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geo-strategy is therefore the purpose of this book. [24]

 

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…. America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. [25]

 

In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources. [26]

 

The Indian Ocean is crowned by what some call an Islamic Arch of countries stretching from East Africa to Indonesia by way of the Persian Gulf countries and Central Asia. The emergence of China and other much smaller Asian powers over the past two decades since the end of the Cold war has challenged US hegemony over the Indian Ocean for the first time since the beginning of the Cold War. Especially in the past years as American economic influence has precipitously declined globally and that of China has risen spectacularly, the Pentagon has begun to rethink its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean. The Obama ‘Asian Pivot’ is centered on asserting decisive Pentagon control over the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean and the waters of the South China Sea.

 

The US military base at Okinawa, Japan is being rebuilt as a major center to project US military power towards China. As of 2010 there were over 35,000 US military personnel stationed in Japan and another 5,500 American civilians employed there by the United States Department of Defense. The United States Seventh Fleet is based in Yokosuka. The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa. 130 USAF fighters are stationed in the Misawa Air Base and Kadena Air Base.

 

The Japanese government in 2011 began an armament program designed to counter the perceived growing Chinese threat. The Japanese command has urged their leaders to petition the United States to allow the sale of F-22A Raptor fighter jets, currently illegal under U.S law. South Korean and American military have deepened their strategic alliance and over 45,000 American soldiers are now stationed in South Korea. The South Koreans and Americans claim this is due to the North Korean military’s modernization. China and North Korea denounce it as needlessly provocative.[27]

 

Under the cover of the US war on Terrorism, the US has developed major military agreements with the Philippines as well as with Indonesia’s army.

 

The military base on Diego Garcia is the lynchpin of US control over the Indian Ocean. In 1971 the US military depopulated the citizens of Diego Garcia to build a major military installation there to carry out missions against Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

China has two Achilles heels—the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca near Singapore. Some 20% of China oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz. And some 80% of Chinese oil imports pass through the Strait of Malacca as well as major freight trade.

 

To prevent China from emerging successfully as the major economic competitor of the United States in the world, Washington launched the so-called Arab Spring in late 2010. While the aspirations of millions of ordinary Arab citizens in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere for freedom and democracy was real, they were in effect used as unwitting cannon fodder to unleash a US strategy of chaos and intra-islamic wars and conflicts across the entire oil-rich Islamic world from Libya in North Africa across to Syria and ultimately Iran in the Middle East. [28]

 

The US strategy within the Islamic Arch countries straddling the Indian Ocean is, as Mohamed Hassan, a strategic analyst put it thus:

 

The US is…seeking to control these resources to prevent them reaching China. This was a major objective of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these have turned into a fiasco. The US destroyed these countries in order to set up governments there which would be docile, but they have failed. The icing on the cake is that the new Iraqi and Afghan government trade with China! Beijing has therefore not needed to spend billions of dollars on an illegal war in order to get its hands on Iraq’s black gold: Chinese companies simply bought up oil concessions at auction totally within the rules.

 

[T]he USA’s…strategy has failed all along the line. There is nevertheless one option still open to the US: maintaining chaos in order to prevent these countries from attaining stability for the benefit of China. This means continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and extending it to countries such as Iran, Yemen or Somalia.[29]

 

PART V: South China Sea

 

The completion of the Pentagon “String of Pearls” hangman’s noose around China to cut off vital energy and other imports in event of war by 2012 was centered around the increased US manipulation of events in the South China Sea. The Ministry of Geological Resources and Mining of the People’s Republic of China estimated that the South China Sea may contain 18 billion tons of crude oil (compared to Kuwait with 13 billion tons). The most optimistic estimate suggested that potential oil resources (not proved reserves) of the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea could be as high as 105 billion barrels of oil, and that the total for the South China Sea could be as high as 213 billion barrels. [30]

 

The presence of such vast energy reserves has not surprisingly become a major energy security issue for China. Washington has made a calculated intervention in the past several years to sabotage those Chinese interests, using especially Vietnam as a wedge against Chinese oil exploration there. In July 2012 the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel islands. US influence in Vietnam since the country opened to economic liberalization has become decisive.

 

In 2011 the US military began cooperation with Vietnam, including joint “peaceful” military exercises. Washington has backed both The Philippines and Vietnam in their territorial claims over Chinese-claimed territories in the South China Sea, emboldening those small countries not to seek a diplomatic resolution.[31]

 

In 2010 US and UK oil majors entered the bidding for exploration in the South China Sea. The bid by Chevron and BP added to the presence of US-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in the region. That move is essential to give Washington the pretext to “defend us oil interests” in the area. [32]

 

In April 2012, the Philippine warship Gregorio del Pilar was involved in a standoff with two Chinese surveillance vessels in the Scarborough Shoal, an area claimed by both nations. The Philippine navy had been trying to arrest Chinese fishermen who were allegedly taking government-protected marine species from the area, but the surveillance boats prevented them. On April 14, 2012, U.S. and the Philippines held their yearly exercises in Palawan, Philippines. On May 7, 2012, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying called a meeting with Alex Chua, Charge D’affaires of the Philippine Embassy in China, to make a serious representation over the incident at the Scarborough Shoal.

 

From South Korea to Philippines to Vietnam, the Pentagon and US State Department is fanning the clash over rights to the South China Sea to stealthily insert US military presence there to “defend” Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean or Philippine interests. The military hangman’s noose around China is being slowly drawn tighter.

 

While China’s access to vast resources of offshore conventional oil and gas were being restricted, Washington was actively trying to lure China into massive pursuit of exploitation of shale gas inside China. The reasons had nothing to do with US goodwill towards China. It was in fact another major weapon in the destruction of China, now through a form of environmental warfare.

F. William Engdahl author of, Es klebt Blut an Euren Händen  (FinanzBuchVerlag)

 

 

Notes:

 

[1] President Barack Obama, Remarks By President Obama to the Australian Parliament, November 17, 2011, accessed in
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/17/remarks-president-obama-australian-parliament.  

 

[2] Ibid.

 

[3] Otto Kreisher, UK Defense Chief to NATO: Pull Your Weight in Europe While US Handles China, July 22, 2012, accessed in
http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/19/uk-defense-chief-to-nato-pull-your-weight-in-europe-while-us-ha/?icid=related4 .

 

[4] BBC, China military ‘closing key gaps’, says Pentagon, 25 August 2011, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14661027 .

 

[5] Ibid.

 

[6] Greg Jaffe , US Model for a Future War Fans Tensions with China and inside Pentagon, Washington Post, August 2, 2012, accessed in
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/139681/us-model-for-a-future-war-fans-tensions-with-china-and-inside-pentagon.html.  

 

[7] Ibid.

 

[8] Matt Siegel, As Part of Pact, U.S. Marines Arrive in Australia, in China’s Strategic Backyard, The New York Times,

April 4, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/world/asia/us-marines-arrive-darwin-australia.html.  

 

[9] Greg Jaffe, op. cit.

 

[10] F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totallitarian democracy in the New World Order, Wiesbaden, 2009, edition.engdahl, p. 190.

 

[11] The Washington Times, China Builds up Strategic Sea Lanes, January 17, 2005, accessed in http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/17/20050117-115550-1929r/?page=all#pagebreak  

 

[12] Ibid.

 

[13] Ibid.

 

[14] Wall Street Journal, An Opening in Burma: The regime’s tentative liberalization is worth testing for sincerity,

Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2011, accessed in
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577049964259425018.html  

 

[15] Radio Free Asia, US to Invest in Burma’s Oil, 7 November, 2011, accessed in
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/sanctions-07112012185817.html  

 

[16] Shaun Tandon, US eases Myanmar restrictions for NGOs, AFP, April 17, 2012, accessed in
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmwmJ3e0yIjyD-7N52GAFISnweAA?docId=CNG.a8c1c3e2edf92a30cc1b3c9bd5ed11c1.131  

 

[17] Craig Whitlock, U.S. eyes return to some Southeast Asia military bases, Washington Post, June 23, 2012, accessed in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-seeks-return-to-se-asian-bases/2012/06/22/gJQAKP83vV_story.html  

 

[18] Ibid.

 

[19] Ibid.

 

[20] Premvir Das, Taking US-India defence links to the next level, June 18, 2012, accessed in http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-taking-us-india-defence-links-to-the-next-level/20120618.htm  

 

[21] Zeenews, US-India ties are global in scope: Pentagon, August 02, 2012, accessed in
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/us-india-ties-are-global-in-scope-pentagon_791212.html  

 

[22] Ibid.

 

[23] Gregoire Lalieu, Michael Collon, Is the Fate of the World Being Decided Today in the Indian Ocean?, November 3, 2010, accessed in
http://www.michelcollon.info/Is-the-fate-of-the-world-being.html?lang=fr  

 

[24] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997, Basic Books, p. xiv.

 

[25] Ibid., p. 30.

 

[26] Ibid., p. 31.

 

[27] Cas Group, Background on the South China Sea Crisis, accessed in
http://casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/3907/1326143354_South_China_Sea_Guide.pdf  

 

[28] Gregoire Lalieu,, et al, op. cit.

 

[29] Ibid.

 

[30] GlobalSecurity.org, South China Sea Oil and Natural Gas, accessed in
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly-oil.htm  

 

[31] Agence France Presse, US, Vietnam Start Military Relationship, August 1, 2011, accessed in
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110801/DEFSECT03/108010307/U-S-Vietnam-Start-Military-Relationship  

 

[32] Zacks Equity Research, Oil Majors Eye South China Sea, June 24, 2010, accessed in www.zacks.com/stock/news/36056/Oil+Majors+Eye+South   

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl

Note to Readers and Publishers

This information is shared under the Copyright Fair Use Act. This information is of importance to the general public. No monetary gains are made from the sharing of this information. Original website and Author stated.

Antiwar literary and philosophical selections

RT
August 14, 2012

US military plan against China outlined in think tank report

====

The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.

The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.

====

As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.

The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.

The report was written by the…

View original post 481 more words

The Extinction Protocol

August 14, 2012BEIJINGThe armyworm outbreak in China’s key grain producing areas has posed a major threat to the corn and rice crops this year, authorities said Tuesday. The agriculture ministry has warned the local governments to heed to its pest control advice to ensure grain security, the China Daily reported.We haven’t seen such a pest plague in so many places in almost a decade,” a spokesman for the ministry’s crop production department said. To date, at least two million hectares of autumn crops nationwide have been affected. The areas include Hebei, Jilin, Liaoning, Heilongjiang and Shanxi provinces, the Inner Mongolia region and Beijing and Tianjin municipalities. The government will allocate 200 million yuan ($3.5 million) to fight the pests, the official added. –NY Daily

View original post

The Extinction Protocol

August 11, 2012INDIAINS Arihant, planned to be the first of five submarines of its class, will be ready to begin sea trials, said Admiral Nirmal Verma, the navy commander. When the vessel eventually becomes operational, India will be able to launch nuclear missiles from the sea, land and air, joining a handful of countries possessing the “nuclear triad.” The strategic aim is to deter China and Pakistan and establish India as the leading power in the Indian Ocean. “INS Arihant is steadily progressing towards becoming operational,” said Adml Verma. “We are pretty close to putting it to sea.” The navy was poised to “complete the triad, and our maritime and nuclear doctrines will then be aligned to ensure our nuclear insurance comes from the sea,” added Adml Verma. “Given our unequivocal ‘no first-use commitment,’ a retaliatory strike capability that is credible and invulnerable is an imperative.”…

View original post 171 more words

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, August 2, 2012

Speculation that Israel and the United States may decide to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities have heightened after former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told the New York Times, “If I were an Iranian, I would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks.”

The NY Times report speculates that the window of opportunity to strike is closing, partly because of Israel’s aversion to winter battles and partly because Benjamin Netanyahu fears that whoever wins the US presidential election, impetus will be lost.

“Mr. Netanyahu feels that he will have less leverage if President Obama is re-elected, and that if Mr. Romney were to win, the new president would be unlikely to want to take on a big military action early in his term,” states the report.

As we reported yesterday, according to Israeli sources, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also recently told military chiefs to expect “war within weeks.”

Whether speculation that conflict could break out over the next two months is merely Israeli propaganda remains to be seen. Experts have noted that the rhetoric could merely be a bargaining tool to force the Iranians to submit to tighter controls over their nuclear energy program.

Alongside the narrative that President Barack Obama has given the green light for a strike against Iran before the election is a more substantive scenario that suggests any decision on attacking Iran will not be made until at least spring 2013.

This delay was based on a war simulation which discovered that any attack on Iran would immediately be met with an Iranian missile launch that would kill 200 Americans, a price deemed not worth paying by U.S. generals.

During the same meeting, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also acknowledged that Israel would not act alone in striking Iran before the U.S. presidential elections in November, according to Haaretz’ Amir Oren, meaning that, “For all intents and purposes, it was an announcement that this war was being postponed until at least the spring of 2013.”

Congressman Ron Paul responded to a new sanctions bill passed yesterday that punishes banks, insurance companies and shippers that help Tehran sell its oil by pointing out that Iran is a third world nation with no significant air force or navy that poses no threat to the United States.

“We have not been provoked, they are not a threat to our national security, and we should not be doing this we’ve been doing it too long – for the last 10,15 years we’re just obsessed with this idea that we go to war and try to solve all the problems of the world – at the same time it is bankrupting us,” said Paul.

Watch the clip HERE

As originally sourced from Infowars.com – Author stated above.

Note: This information is posted under the Copyright “fair use policy”. This information is provided free of charge and no monetary gains will be made by the sharing of this information. it is my belief that this information is important to the Australian community. Original source identified and Website and Author stated.