A lesson in hope from Roger

I don't know about you, but I sure don't feel very festive today.  I just was outdoors with my son and we heard the distance sounds of fireworks going off.  From time to time, a rocket shot up into the night sky.  And even though this will sound trite, I have to tell you that my thoughts went to the night sky over Slaviansk, Kramatorsk and Nikolaevka who, in some sense, probably appeared superficially similar with artillery fire from the distance, explosion sounds and flares in the sky.  Over here, in Florida, people are rejoicing.  In Novorussia, they are dying.  And considering the role of Uncle Sam in this massacre, I really feel less inclined to join the 4th celebrations then ever.  Besides, what kind of "independence" can the people here celebrate other than a delusional one?  The truth is that the people of the USA have been reduced to the status of serfs for the 1%.  Their ancestors would have been much better off humbly asking to be accepted into the Iroquois Confederacy or another other Native American culture, than breaking away from the British Crown only to end up ruled by bankers and financiers, just like... the UK.

But it is also true that the poor people of the USA need something simple and consensual to celebrate, at least a few times a year.  So maybe a different, more subdued but also more inspiring celebration is in order?  Something uniquely American, but which would also be something universal, something which would touch the hearts of all humans and make Americans and non-Americans feel for a few minutes that they belong to the same race and the same world?

Maybe this is naive or clumsy, but this is my idea of how we all, "aliens" like myself and Americans can feel together for a few minutes:music.  I hope that you will enjoy this uniquely American song, performed by one of my favorite musicians (a fellow "legal alien" living in the US of A).

The Saker

Senators suggest recalling Russia’s ambassador from US over Obama speech

RT reports that Russian Senators are going to ask President Vladimir Putin to consider recalling Moscow’s Ambassador to the USA following President Barack Obama’s “aggressive” comments on the situation in Ukraine, the chamber speaker said.

Could the latest 2+2 meeting finally yield some tangible results? Maybe.

I just watched the short press conference given today in Washington DC by U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russian Defense Minister Shoigu and I wondered what could come of that meeting.  The good news is that all of these men are experienced and smart politicians (compared to Hillary Kerry is simply a genius).  Furthermore, I doubt that these four would have agreed to sit down and negotiate together in such a powerful format (2+2) if there was clearly nothing to negotiate to begin with.  After all, these are all really powerful and busy folks and not politicians running in some silly campaign.  So the fact that they got together is, in itself, definitely a positive and encouraging sign.

The bad news is that that accursed US Congress and the various lobbies running it (Israel of course, but also quite a few others) have truly outdone themselves in trying to vitiate the atmosphere between Russia and the US.  Senile imbeciles like McCain or Bolton have basically convinced a good chunk of the US public opinion and press that any deal with Russia, no matter its scope or nature, is a sign of weakness if not an outright surrender to "that evil KGB agent Putin".  All the US hysterics about Snowden really only make sense in this context as in a normal non-ideological pragmatic world the entire Snowden saga would be "page 3 news" and not something to be discussed at a Ministerial or Presidential level.

Obama, Kerry and Hagel understand all that, but they are still willing to sit down with Lavrov and Hegel and this, I think, could indicate one of two things: either they are willing to press ahead regardless of the russophobic hysteria of the Republicans and Neocons, or they are looking for some kind of secret deal which both sides could deny.

Let me say immediately here that I am quite confident that the recent trip to Moscow by the Saudi intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan was a complete failure.  Bandar tried to buy off Putin and it failed.  Predictable as this move was, I cannot blame the Saudis or the Americans for at least trying.  And, at least, the Americans got their Saudi poodle to present this humiliating offer on their behalf.  But now that this Kindergarten-level "diplomacy" is over, the real stuff must be tackled.

What is unclear to me is whether Putin at this moment in time feels powerful enough to being tightening some screws on the Americans or not.  What kind of screws?  Well, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is one option, but there are others.  The big unknown here is whether the covert anti-Putin opposition inside the Kremlin - what I refer to as the "Atlantic Integrationists" - and their allies in the West (big banking and NWO organizations) have been weakened enough for Putin to overtly put pressure on the USA.  Personally, I would not wager on that yet.  The good news here is that both Lavrov and Shoigu are 100% "Putinists" - what I refer to as "Eurasian sovereignists" - so they will fully support Putin's political stance.

And then there was this secret letter exchange between Obama and Putin.  Clearly, and even though the two man obviously hate each other, something of substance was discussed.

If I had to guess I would say that something is likely to come out of these negotiations.  Maybe a more or less symbolic and public deal combined with a second, and more substantial but secret and deniable deal.  What could that deal include?

Maybe that the US would refrain from any over the board actions in Syria in exchange for a Russia tacit support for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan?  Such a deal or, better, such an understanding could be easily denied by both parties (thus keeping the crazy Republicans at bay) while being to the advantage of everybody.

Do I sound too optimistic?

Well, let me ask you this: do you believe that the people who put Obama in power really want to overthrow Assad?  No, I am not talking about a bellicose bitch like Hillary (who "was resigned" and replaced by Kerry).  I am talking about the deep "old Anglo guard" which is the real power which selected Obama as President.  The Kissingers, the Bakers, the Rockefellers, the Bushes. etc.  All the folks who regardless of ethnicity or official party affiliation care much more about their American wealth than about the Likudniks in Israel.  Do they want Assad out?

Consider this: by now it is pretty darn clear to all that should the so-called "Syrian" (which it ain't) insurgency win, an al-Qaeda regime would come to power in Syria and that would be really bad news, no not for Russia or China, but for the USA.  Even the CIA says so.  And why would the US want to replace Assad who did such an excellent job torturing rendered CIA detainees for Uncle Sam anyway?

Sure, the Ziolobby wants wars everywhere.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Iran and, of course, Syria.  And if the Ziolobby get's its way, no amount of 2+2 negotiations between Russia and the US will ever yield any result.  But the fact is that the Ziolobby does not control the White House at this time (if it did an attack on Iran would already have happened a while ago).

Now, of course, no US politician would ever commit the mother of all heresies and admit that the US and Israel might have different interests.  Hagel tried, a long time ago, and he paid hell for it.  So this is why Obama cannot openly step on the breaks with this war in Syria.  Officially, the US and its moronic EU allies are "in" to the hilt, such are the requirements of their ideology.  But I bet you that in their private deliberations they realize that the war on Syria looks much less than the war against Libya and much more like the war in Iraq, or even worse, the war in Somalia.

The absolutely undeniable fact remains that the plutocratic and imperialistic West is far better off dealing with a known and rational actor like Assad than with some al-Nusra version of Mullah Omar.  This, in turn, tells me that Washington might be better off letting the Russians "win" Syria then trying to overthrow Assad at all costs - assuming that it could do that, which I don't believe.  The facts on the ground seem to indicate that it is not Russia that "won" in Syria as much as it is the Syrian military which has created on the ground the conditions needed to convince the more rational part of the US power elites that now is the time to slowly and carefully walk away from this mess.

Just to make this clear: I know that this one is far from over and there is a good chance the the "crazies" in the USA will prevail and make any deal with Russia impossible.  And if, God forbid, the Hillary-types ever come back to power (I hear that she is probably going to run for President again!!), then all bets are off - and the bloodbath will resume at an even bigger scale.  My hope is that the rational folks in the US will manage to prevail against the "crazies" and allow an outcome which is really to everybody's advantage.

Do such rational people exist in the US power elites?  Absolutely.  Let me give you a little known but quite amazing example.

Several Russian sources, including Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin himself, have confirmed that when Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers on 08.08.08 there had been an initial move of US military forces to provide direct military help, possibly including cruise missile strikes, to their Georgian allies.  What happened then is crucial: Russian military commanders directly contacted their US colleagues and told them in no uncertain terms that the US should stay out of this one or face a Russian military response.  Rogozin himself told the same thing to the NATO military commander in Brussels.  Basically, Russia threatened the US with war if the Americans directly intervened.  And the Americans backed down and withdrew.  No, not because the Americans are cowards or because they thought Russia would win - no, they did so simply because to persist was not worth the risk.  In 08.08.08 Russia simply could not back down: its soldiers had been attacked and killed and its vital security interests were involved.  In contrast, no vital or even important US national interest was affected by this war.  Needless to say, the likes of McCain, Bolton or Hillary are simply unable to think in such rational, pragmatic, political terms.  But even if, say, the "crazies" were in full control of the White House, there would still be the formidable power of the Joint Chiefs who would veto any irresponsible decision by a crazy President (at least so far, this seems to have been the case).

All this is to say that there are rational people in the US power elites and that, at least as far as I know, Kerry and Hegel are much closer to such pragmatists than loonies like Hillary or McCain.

To be an optimist, even a cautious one, is always a bad bet in international affairs.  Nor is it my natural inclination.  But I do want to believe that bringing such top quality people like Kerry, Hegel, Lavrov and Shoigu together is not done just to agree on nothing.  Nor is such an exercise needed when the agreement is easy and obvious.  No, you bring folks like that together when you want to get something tricky but very important done, when you want to make darn sure that all parties understand and agree to the terms of the understanding.

We will soon know.  Chances are I will be making my mea culpa here in just a few days.  But until then I will try to force myself to hope that the bloodbath in Syria can be gradually reduced.

One more thing: the negotiations over the US missile "defense" program (which should really be called the "US first strike enabling program") are going nowhere.  Even though Obama & Co. fully realize that this is just a handout to the US military-industrial complex, and that this program will do nothing to protect the USA or Europe, they will stubbornly stick to it.  First, this is an easy way to show McCain and the other "crazies" how "tough" the Democrats can be on Russia, but even more fundamentally this is a typical Obama move: his entire Presidency has been centered on giving billions of dollars to the banks, Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, etc.  As for the Russians, they will not like it, but they can easily defeat its purpose by a few well chosen asymmetrical measures.  Everything is possible, I suppose, but I don't see any agreement between the two sides on this one.

Does anybody else want to hazard a guess on what will come out from these 2+2 talk?

The Saker

The "war of the lists" is over, now the serious stuff begins

So finally the US has published its "Magnitsky List" (see full list here).  Russia instantly retaliated with its own list (see full list here).  Now what?

Nothing.

Let's recap what happened.  The US Republicans, now completely controlled by Jewish Neocons, tried to play electoral politics by showing that, unlike the Democrats, they are "tough on Russia".  First, this caters to the traditional Jewish hatred of everything Russia and, second, it also caters to the instincts of those Americans who want to see their country like some kind of cop of the universe.  So the country which has legalized torture and the extra-judicial murder of "enemies" was now seriously expressing its outrage at the death of one man in disputed circumstances. 

Obama and his Democrats wanted none of that since they perfectly understood how ridiculous the entire scheme was.  This is why the actual number of names on the US list has gone from 60 to 240 to 280 to a mere 18 in the final version.  Not only was the list very short, but no major Russian figure was involved.  Something of a wet firecracker, really.

The Russian "retaliatory" list was equally short and limited in scope. The Russians fully understood that Obama had nothing to do with this nonsense, so they kept their response to the required minimum.

Now that this kindergarten-level episode is over, at least until the next elections in the USA, its time to turn back to serious, adult, politics and, first and foremost, the upcoming trip of U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to Moscow were he will no doubt present a "grand bargain" to Putin: drop your support for Syria and we will re-deploy our anti-missile system further away from Russia and/or provide some written guarantees about its purpose.

This will be a tempting deal for Putin as it would appear to give him a big political victory.  But, if my instincts about the man are correct, he will reject that deal because he is aware of two crucial facts:

a) the Russian "asymmetrical" response to the US deployment is a cost-effective way to deal with this threat.

b) if Syria falls to the US/NATO/al-Qaeda alliance, Iran and Russia are next.

There will probably be some very tough bargaining, but I want to believe that Putin will remain firm and reject the US offer.

We shall see soon.

The Saker

This guy makes a really good case for his beliefs

Strait History and Iran’s Options

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

George Santayana wisely said: “"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Oblivious to history and its lessons, America and its Western allies are repeating their actions of the 1950’s -- that of imposing an oil embargo on Iran. The American-led alliance has forgotten the past.

Iran remembers.

When under the leadership of the nationalist Dr. Mossadegh, Iran opted to nationalize its oil industry, the British Royal Navy blocked Iran’s oil exports to forcefully prevent if from nationalizing its oil. In retaliation to Iran’s nationalistic ambitions, and to punish Iran for pursuing its national interests, the British instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil.

In the 1950’s, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. The subsequent events is described in The New York Times1 article as a “lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid” when an oil-rich Third World nation “goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.” Iran learnt that sovereignty and nationalism necessitate tactical/military strength and determination.

Not heeding the aftermath of the 1950’s, the American-led Western allies have once again imposed an oil embargo on Iran. In retaliation, Iran has drafted a bill to stop the flow of oil through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz, to countries which have imposed sanctions against it. This bill is not without merit and contrary to the previous oil embargo, it would appear that Tehran has the upper hand and the heavy cost associated with the embargo will not be borne by Iran alone.

Iran’s Legal Standing 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage. Although Iran has signed the Treaty, the Treaty was not ratified, as such, it has no legal standing. However, even if one overlooks the non-binding signature, under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”2.

Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every oil-tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, these inspections and subsequent delays would maintain or contribute to higher oil prices. While higher oil prices would benefit Iran and other oil-producing countries, they would further destabilize the European economy which is already in crisis.

The Military Option 

Although American-led Western allies are flexing their muscles by sending battle ships to the Persian Gulf, Washington’s own war game exercise, The Millennium Challenge 2002 with a price tag of $250 million, underscored America’s inability to defeat Iran. Oblivious to the lesson of its own making, by sending more warships to the Persian Gulf, the United States is inching towards a full scale conflict. The inherent danger from the naval buildup is that unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, the forces in the Persian Gulf are not confined to two leaders who would be able to communicate to stop a run-away situation. Nor would the consequences of such a potential conflict be limited to the region.

Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. While only 1.1 millions barrels per day goes to the United States, a significant amount of this oil is destined for Europe. Surely, one must ask why the United States demands that its “European allies” act contrary to their own national interest, pay a higher price for oil by boycotting Iranian oil and running the risk of Iran blocking the passage of other oil-tankers destined for them?

Again, history has the straight answer. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the United States and not the oil-producing countries has used oil as a weapon. Some examples include the pressure the United States put on Britain in the 1920s to share its oil concessions in the Middle East with U.S. companies. Post World War II, the United States violated the terms of the 1928 Red Line Agreement freezing the British and the French out of the Agreement.

In 1956, the United States made it clear to Britain and France that no oil would be sent to Western Europe unless the two aforementioned countries agreed to a rapid withdrawal from Egypt. The U.S. was not opposed to the overthrow of Nasser, but as Eisenhower said: “Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it"3.

Demonstrably, although Europe is a major trade partner of the United States, the U.S. does not concern itself with Europe’s well being when it comes to executing its foreign policy. This should come as no surprise, especially since the United States sacrifices its own national interest to promote the Israeli agenda and that of the military industrial complex. But this does not explain why Europe would shoot itself in the foot at a time when its economical woes have passed the crisis point.

It is possible that the leaders of Western European countries are beholden to special interest groups – the pro-Israel lobbies, as the United States is, or they believe Iran will not call their bluff by ratifying the bill passed by Majlis and their oil will be delivered unhindered; perhaps both. Either way, they are committing financial suicide and their demise may well come before Iran’s resolve is shaken.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
-------
1 THE IRANIAN ACCORD”, The New York Times, Aug 6,1954, cited by S. Shalom

2 Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1. 

3 Stephen Shalom; The Iran-Iraq War citing Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p. 651 

Saker comment:

My good friend Soraya is making a lot of very interesting points, in particular one which is wholly overlooked by the corporate media: that Iran's legal position about the what constitutes "innocent passage" is rock solid.  Check out what Article 19 of Section 3 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea actually says:

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Interesting, no?  All the US saber-rattling and assorted threats against Iran would, in fact, legally allow Iran to prevent the passage of US ships through the strait.  Of course, considering the wholesale disregard and systematic violation of pretty much any and all forms of international law by the US and Israel such legal trivialities will make no difference to them.  The only thing that will matter them is whether or not Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz or not.  Unlike most observers, I do not believe it can.   As for the 2002 Millennium Challenge exercise, it was a very controversial exercise designed to validate concept of network centric warfare and not a rehearsal of actual US strike plans on Iran.  Furthermore, from a military point of view any military exercise in which the "good" sides "looses" is a perfect opportunity to learn the important lessons before the real shooting begins.  It would be foolish to expect the USN to attack Iran exactly according to the main lines of a scenario it fully knows will results in a defeat.  In fact, we can be darn sure that having learned all the lessons from that exercise the USN will strike in a very different manner than what was tested already a full decade ago.

I agree that Iran would have the full right to shut down the strait to any vessel deemed in violation of the UNCLOS, and I agree that Iran would be able to shut down the Strait if Hormuz, but what I don't believe in is Iran's capability to maintain the Strait closed for a extended period of time.  Finally, I am also very concerned that any Iranian move to close down the Strait of Hormuz would offer the Zionists a perfect pretext to further demonize Iran and paint it as an enemy of the rest of mankind.

As I wrote in 2007 in my piece Iran's asymmetrical response options, I believe that Iran better asymmetrical responses than closing down the Strait of Hormuz (the 2007 article is in some aspects dated today - in particular in what regards US deployments in Iraq and the Gulf - but its basic rationale still holds, I believe) which could be summed up as "the strategic version of Hezbollah's tactics in 2006": ride out the strikes and reply with missiles on US regional targets.

FYI: here is what shipping in the SOH looks on a typical day (click on image for full size) - already chaotic without any missiles flying; just imagine the panic which would result from any US strike on Iran even without the Iranians taking defensive action at all.

Shipping density in the SOH on 7/5/2012

US "mega base" at Al Udeid, Qatar: an ideal target?

The Brits are going crazy again

From the BBC website this morning:

Ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters to Syria' halted off Scotland

The UK has made moves to stop a cargo vessel allegedly carrying refurbished Russian-made attack helicopters from completing its journey to Syria. The MV Alaed had its insurance withdrawn by The Standard Club in London while it was about 50 miles (80.4km) off Scotland's north coast.  The insurer said it had sought more information on the boat's cargo.  Withdrawal of insurance prevents the MV Alaed from sailing until its owner can secure new cover.  It is thought that the vessel has stopped off the Western Isles.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said it was unclear where the vessel would now go.  The Russian embassy in London has not yet commented.  The UK and US have raised concerns with Russia about shipments of weapons to Syria, which is subject to a European Union arms embargo.  In a statement, the FCO said: "We are aware of a ship carrying a consignment of refurbished Russian-made attack helicopters heading to Syria.  "The foreign secretary made clear to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov when they met on 14 June that all defence shipments to Syria must stop.

It sure looks like the USA's "poodle" is fancying itself as a fierce Rottweiler who will courageously protect the world from the Russian bear.  And you got the admire the macho language of the foreign secretary who "made it clear" to Lavrov that "all defense shipments to Syria must stop".

The fact that the British poodle is growling only because it has Uncle Sam to protect him from the Russian bear is apparently lost on the BBC.  As is the fact that no UNSC resolutions have banned the fulfillment of military maintenance contracts with Syria.

As for the Russians, they need to make sure that the Standard Club in London pays for its subservience to political interests and insure its ships elsewhere.  The Russian commercial fleet is very big, and by taking its business elsewhere it can probably hurt the SC where it counts: is pocket.

For the Brits and their traditional Russophobic hysteria all this is God sent: it's an opportunity to brown-nose its US patron and a way to put itself back on the map of big politics, or so they hope.  The real, meaningful bargaining and horse-trading over Syria did, of course, happen during yesterday's meeting between Obama and Putin.  The Brits were not invited.

The Saker

PS: also check out this piece on Mikhail Voytenko's excellent Maritime Bulletin.

The Western corporate media: the Empire's most subservient lackey

Following President Medvedev's speech yesterday, I decided to scan the western corporate media for reactions.  I was curious, what would the pundits make of what I personally consider a total failure of Obama's foreign policy?  Would at least the European press express outrage over the fact that the always imbecile US foreign policy has now turned several European countries into targets?

I mean, really, let's consider the following basic and, I strongly believe, undeniable facts:

a) There is no Iranian missile threat to Europe, nor will there ever be.  Under no imaginable scenario would the Iranians ever even consider striking at Europe simply because it would make absolutely no sense.

b) It is a well-known "secret" that this entire anti-missile system is designed to "protect" NATO from a putative Russian strike.  However, since it is quite evident to anybody except for a complete cretin that under no circumstances would Russia ever gain anything from striking at Europe.  Thus the real reasons behind this anti-missile system are the following:

1. to provide more taxpayer money to the US MIC
2. to firmly peg the East-Europeans into the NATO colonial realm
3. to spite and threaten Russia by brazenly ignoring its legitimate concerns

c)  Militarily speaking, this anti-missile shield is only a minor annoyance for Russia because Russia does have the technical means to defeat it.  President Medvedev outlined these measures, adding that "these measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost". He is right.  This is not Reagan's "Star Wars", but a system deployed within a short range of Russia's borders.  Countering it will be cheap.

What this deployment does "achieve" is a psychological return to the worst years of the Cold War, at least for Europe.  For those who, like myself, lived in the late 1970s and 1980s under the threat of Soviet SS-20 missiles, it is deeply distressing to see that the USA is, again, turning the European continent into a target, in particular considering the fact that there is no "Russian threat" to "counter" (why would Russia ever wanted to threaten its biggest market for gas? and if it really wanted to threaten the EU, all it would need is to cut its gas supplies anyway...).

Bottom line: this entire anti-missile debacle is useless, counter-productive, and fundamentally toxic.  The only 'winners' in all this are the CEOs of a few American corporations, and the USA faithful servant in Eastern Europe.

I wondered, would the Western corporate press notice any of that?

I checked the WSJ, the WP, NYT and a host of other outlets and I was shocked.  Speaking with one voice, as they apparently always do, they brought it all down to three talking points:

a) Medvedev is catering to his election campaign (he ain't running, but nevermind)

b) Russia is creating a new Cold War (and what is NATO doing exactly?)

c) NATO is "frustrated" by Russia's stance (and the Russians, might they be frustrated?)

That's it.  Nothing more.  Not a single attempt at understanding anything, no analysis of the Kremlin's position.  Not a word about the consequences for Europe.  The Western corporate press is basically fully and unconditionally endorsing the White House's propaganda without any attempt whatsoever to form its own opinion.

In its ever-present hubris, the West fails to see an important detail: we are not living in the 1980s anymore and, unlike the Brezhnev years, Russia's economy is booming, while both the EU and the USA are in the midst of a deep, structural, crisis with no foreseeable way out.  Furthermore, the US empire is hopelessly over-extended,  spending more on "defense" than the rest of the planet combined.  Who do you think has more staying power this time to win this arms race?

Could it be that Obama's empire is repeating exactly the same mistakes as the Soviet Union committed under Brezhnev?

The Saker

PS: there is one entity in Russia which, no doubt, is deeply satisfied with Obama's hubris: the Russian military intelligence service, GRU, which Medvedev had almost abolished, and whose Spetsnaz brigades have been reduced in number.  It just so happens that the original function of the (then still Soviet) Spetsnaz forces was precisely to destroy the kind of system which the USA will be deploying in Europe.  Thanks to Obama, the GRU and its Spetsnaz forces - which have just be re-subordinated to the Russian strategic commands - have now re-acquired their traditional target.

I can just imagine the high-fiving at 766 Khoroshovskoye shosse...

U.S. Backs Japan In Looming Confrontation With Russia

by Rick Rozoff for Stop NATO

Last week Kamitsuki Toyohisa, the Japanese Foreign Ministry counselor for European Affairs, said that the relationship between his country and Russia is “at its worst point in decades.”

In fact the dramatic ratcheting up of rhetoric – and corresponding actions – on both sides over the Kuril Islands are more evocative of the situation preceding the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 and the two nations’ conflict on the Manchurian border in 1938-1939 than any previous developments after the Second World War.

On February 15 Japan’s Kyodo News reported that the Russian coast guard had fired on a Japanese fishing vessel off the Kurils, a charge denied by the Russian side. However, a Russian news agency lately revealed the potential for a serious confrontation in recalling that a year ago last month “two Japanese fishing vessels entered Russia’s territorial waters off Kunashir Island and ignored warning shots from a Russian guards’ helicopter. As a result, the guards had to open direct fire at the vessels. The fishing boats returned to their port of Rausu with numerous bullet holes on their hulls.” [1]

On the same day the same Russian press source announced that Russia would deploy short- and long-range air defense missile systems, including the advanced S-400 Triumf system with long-range surface-to-air missiles, to the South Kuril Islands, located between Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula and Japan’s Hokkaido island. The S-400 is designed for use against aircraft (including stealth warplanes), cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

An official from the nation’s General Staff of the Armed Forces confirmed that “S-400 missile defense systems could be deployed to the islands to protect them from possible attacks.” [2]

A week earlier Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan spoke at this year’s National Rally to Demand the Return of the Northern Territories – Northern Territories is the Japanese, and as will be seen shortly, the U.S. name for the South Kurils – in Tokyo and referred to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to one of the four South Kuril Islands last November (the first by a Russian or Soviet head of state) as an “unforgivable outrage.”

Two days afterward, in a meeting with Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Regional Development Minister Victor Basargin, who had recently returned from the Kurils, Russian President Medvedev ordered the deployment of military hardware to the islands, stating “the additional weapons to be deployed there must be sufficient and modern in order to ensure the security of the islands as an integral part of Russia”. [3]

On February 11 Russian and Japanese foreign ministers Sergei Lavrov and Seiji Maehara met in Moscow for two hours, one-on-one for half of that time. Maehara is an advocate of revising Article 9 of his nation’s constitution (which states “the Japanese people forever renounce war”) and of securing the Kurils’ early return from Russia, which seized them in the waning days of the Second World War.

The Chinese press at the time quoted a Pacific affairs analyst as follows:

“During the rally in Tokyo on Monday [February 7], Maehara pledged that he would personally see to it that the islands are returned to Japan, in fact he staked his political career on the realization of this.

“Maehara fundamentally believes two things: firstly, the islands are legally Japanese territory and secondly, that Japan cannot completely end World War II until the islands are returned and a peace treaty signed.

“I don’t think this issue should be dismissed as merely a ‘territorial spat’ and let’s not forget that for all intents and purposes Japan and Russia are still at war.” [4]

In the words of Agence France-Presse, the meeting, “marked by an icy atmosphere,” ended in “acrimonious failure.” Russia’s top diplomat told his Japanese counterpart: “To be honest, I expected to receive you in Moscow against a better backdrop. Your visit comes against the background of a series of completely unacceptable actions.” [5]

The allusion was to the Northern Territories Day events of four days earlier in Tokyo and Hokkaido, in the second case within eyesight of the southernmost of the Kurils, during which, in addition to the prime minister’s revanchist statement, Japanese nationalists desecrated a Russian flag and a bullet was mailed to the Russian embassy.

Maehara rejected Lavrov’s suggestions for a historical commission to examine the issue of the contested islands and for turning the Kurils into a free trade zone, stating that Japan would consider the second proposition only if it did not “alter Japan’s legal position” on what it calls its Northern Territories. The Japanese foreign minister was conspicuously not invited to meet with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

While Maehara was in Moscow the chief of staff of the Russian Presidential Executive Office informed him that the events on the February 7th Northern Territories Day, including Prime Minister Kan’s comments on the occasion, “could not but meet with an adequate reaction on the Russian side.”

On the day of the envenomed and ill-fated meeting of the two countries’ foreign ministers, a Russian commentary appeared on a major news site entitled “Russia to boost Kuril defense to ward off war,” which stated in part:

“Russia’s unresolved conflict with Japan over the Kuril Islands, which has been simmering since WWII, may reach a boiling point now that Russian authorities are set to go ahead with their plan to build up the disputed territory’s defense potential.

“The plan, unveiled by President Dmitry Medvedev and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as part of a comprehensive development program for Russia’s Pacific Coast, envisages, among other things, the deployment of modern armaments to defend the country’s eastern borders against a hypothetical military attack.”

The article went on to say that “In conventional armaments, Japan now enjoys numerical supremacy over the Russian Far Eastern forces, and it also boasts a higher percentage of modern hardware in the navy, the air force, and the army.” [6]

The author advocated the resumption of a permanent deployment of combat aircraft on Sakhalin Island northwest of the South Kurils and “a forward-based airfield” on the islands themselves with “a squadron of jet fighters on standby.”

Using the expression si vis pacem, para bellum (if you wish peace, prepare for war), the writer concluded his piece by reflecting: “All these plans to reinforce the Kuril Islands’ defense potential should be translated into reality so as to discourage the most radical of Japanese politicians from contemplating regaining the possession of the South Kuril Islands through the use of military force.”

On February 15 Feng Shaolei, professor at and dean of the School of Advanced International and Area Studies at the East China Normal University was interviewed by a Russian news outlet and said:

“Certain changes have…taken place in the [East Asian] region in recent times, with the main one being the U.S. ‘comeback in Asia.’ In my view, U.S. military strategy is the key to understanding the current situation in the region, whether we talk about the possibility of building a defense system in the region or about the resolution of the Kuril conflict.” [7]

On February 19 Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, also minister in charge of Northern Territories issues, visited Hokkaido to inspect the South Kuril Islands. Before he began his two-day trip he stated:

“The question of the Northern Territories is the problem of not only former residents of these islands, but also of the whole Japanese people. I would like to heighten attention to this problem with the Japanese public.”

During his stay he said, “Japan’s claims for the Northern Territories could have been much louder if only the people of Japan realized how close to them the islands are.”

Foreign Minister Maehara viewed the island from a plane in December and Prime Minister Kan is also planning to inspect them from Hokkaido in the near future.

On February 21 the American ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry where his “attention was drawn to the recent statement made by officials with the U.S. Department of State and of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, which expressed support for Japan’s territorial claims to Russia,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement posted on its official website. [8]

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry added:

“We drew Mr. Beyrle’s attention to recent statements made by officials of the US State Department and the US embassy in Moscow, in which they expressed their support for Japan’s territorial claims to Russia. In this respect the Foreign Ministry reiterated Russia’s categorical and unwavering and unchanged position regarding its sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands.” [9]

After the meeting, the U.S. embassy released a statement reiterating Washington’s support for Japan’s territorial claims on the South Kurils, echoing comments made by State Department spokeswoman Joanne Moore among others that precipitated the summoning of the U.S. envoy. Moore had insisted “that the US government supports Japan and recognizes its sovereignty over the Islands.”

In the words of a recent Russian commentary, “current statements of the US State Department amid growing threats from Japanese radicals look like outright instigation.” [10]

The State Department spokeswoman’s affirmation of the American – which is to say the Japanese – position vis-a-vis the islands was reminiscent of that of Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip Crowley on November 1 in which he supported Japanese territorial contentions and referred to the Kurils as the Northern Territories. His pronouncement followed by four days a pledge by Secretary State Hillary Clinton – in the presence of Japanese Foreign Minister Maehara in Hawaii – relating to an analogous territorial dispute between Japan and China over what the first calls the Senkaku and the second the Diaoyu islands:

“The Senkakus fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. This is part of the larger commitment that the United States has made to Japan’s security. We consider the Japanese-U.S. alliance one of the most important alliance partnerships we have anywhere in the world and we are committed to our obligations to protect the Japanese.” [11] Earlier in the same month Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa asserted “that their countries will jointly respond in line with a bilateral security pact toward stability in areas in the East China Sea covering the Senkaku Islands that came into the spotlight in disputes between Japan and China.” [12]

Though State Department spokesman Crowley made a distinction between the Senkaku/Diaoyu and Kuril islands in regards to honoring military commitments to Japan, as the former are currently administered by Japan and the latter are not, the door is left open for Washington to invoke Article 5 on behalf of Japan should an armed confrontation between it and Russia occur.

In the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed in 1951 to officially end World War Two, the U.S. recognized that Japan had lost any rights to reclaim the South Kurils as well as Sakhalin Island, although it did not recognize then-Soviet claims either. The treaty, to which the U.S. is one of 48 signatories, unequivocally states that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kuril islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it” acquired after the Russo-Japanese War.

The current American position on the Kurils, then, is what it is in relation to the South Caucasus nations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: That they are “Russian-occupied territories” belonging to other sovereign nations. Japan in the first case and Georgia in the other two.

Washington’s role in exacerbating the conflict over the Kurils is a dangerous throwback to Cold War-era politicking.

Valery Kistanov, head of the Center for Japanese Studies at Russia’s Far East Institute, was quoted earlier this week as recalling:

“This is not the first time that the US has tried to drive a wedge between Russia and Japan….In 1955-1956, the USSR and Japan held talks on a peace treaty which resulted in the adoption of a Soviet-Japanese declaration. This declaration envisaged the restoration of diplomatic ties and the end of military action but did not resolve the territorial issue.

“At that stage Japan was considering abandoning its claims to the four South Kuril Islands. But Washington threatened Tokyo that if it did so, the US would not return Okinawa to Japan, the country’s southernmost island, which was occupied by the US at that time.” [13]

A Chinese analysis of the same date as the above appeared, February 22, illuminated the geostrategic significance of what might otherwise strike outsiders as an obscure island dispute. It disclosed that:

“Analysts say Russia will never make concessions to Japan on the islands, which it calls the Southern Kurils and Japan calls the Northern Territories, as they are the crux of Russia’s strategy for its Far East and beyond that to the Asia-Pacific region.”

“The islands are located in a key geographic position where they secure the entrance into the Pacific Ocean for Russia’s Pacific Fleet.

“If the four islands were regained by Japan and used as a natural barrier by Japan and the United States, Russia’s Pacific Fleet would be cut off from the Pacific and may face direct military threats from the two.

“Analysts said a ‘butterfly effect’ could mean the neighbouring Kamchatka Peninsula and Sakhalin region, both strategic to Russia’s ability to respond to attacks, would also be exposed.

“Local media held that the fairly sudden renewed interest in the Southern Kurils was a major move in Russia’s east-oriented strategy against the backdrop of the ongoing global readjustment in a new era.”

In addition, it is perceived in some Russian circles that “if the islands were regained by Japan, it would encourage other countries to pursue claims in other Russian regions and accomplish their conspiracy of altering the history of World War II.” [14]

The Russian Pacific Fleet is based in Vladivostok, south of the Sea of Okhotsk which is enclosed by Kamchatka to the northeast, Sakhalin Island to the southwest and the Kuril Islands to the southeast. But Russia maintains a submarine base in Vilyuchinsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula which hosts Russian strategic nuclear-powered submarines, including the new Borey class variety. Foreign control of the Kurils could impede the Russian navy’s ability to move part of its strategic nuclear triad, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, from the North Pacific Ocean in and out of the Sea of Okhotsk where they would be less exposed and vulnerable, especially in the event of hostilities.

“The Kurils are the gateway to the sea of Okhotsk, which lies off the coast of Russia’s far east. Control of the islands have been crucial for Russia, which has given it access to the Pacific Ocean.

“Russia has built a military base on Shikotan island [in the South Kuril chain], while also placing border forces on the four islands.

“On top of the military importance, the islands hold vast mineral wealth, together with about 160 million tons of natural gas and nearly 1,900 tons of gold and other valuable metals like silver, titanium, sulfur and rhenium. The total value of the four islands has been estimated to be 50 billion US dollars.” [15]

North of the Russian Kurils lies Sakhalin Island, which according to a U.S. Energy Information Agency estimate contains seven billion barrels of oil and 80 trillion cubic feet of natural gas [16] as well a wealth of other resources.

The Japanese government’s brazenness on the island conflict can only be understood within the context of the U.S. recruiting Japan as not only a strategic military ally in East Asia but internationally while reciprocating by backing Japan to the hilt against both Russia and China.

In mid-January U.S. Defense Secretary Gates was in Japan to meet with senior government leaders including Defense Minister Kitazawa – in 2007 the Japan Defense Agency was elevated to the status of Ministry of Defense – and stated:

“As our alliance grows and deepens further still, it will be important for Japan to take on an even greater regional and global leadership role that reflects its political, economic and military capacity.” [17]

In the past decade Japan has violated the spirit if not the exact letter of its constitution’s Article 9 by deploying troops to a combat zone for the first time since World War Two in Iraq and by supplying U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization warships for the war in Afghanistan, where it has now assigned military personnel – medics – for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Joining U.S., French and other NATO nations’ forces there, it will soon open its first foreign military base since World War Two in Djibouti in northeastern Africa. [18]

In addition to recently joining a U.S.-engineered tripartite military alliance with South Korea [19] and extending its operational integration with the U.S. into the Indian Ocean, Japan is also forging defense ties with Georgia, which fought a five-day war with Russia in 2008. Earlier this month Hiroshi Oe, director general for International Affairs in the Bureau of Defense Policy of the Japanese Defense Ministry, visited Georgia and in a closed-door meeting with the country’s deputy foreign minister discussed “further prospects of military cooperation between Georgia and Japan.” [20]

While Gates was in Japan he promoted further interceptor missile collaboration, which he praised as “one of the most advanced of its kind in the world” [21] – Japan is the U.S.’s only partner in developing the Standard Missile-3 interceptor for use on ships and for land-based deployments in Romania, Poland and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea – and advocated that “Japan consider three U.S. planes to upgrade their fleet”: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F/A-18 Hornet the F-15 Eagle. [22]

Regarding the development of an international missile shield, Gates and Defense Minister Kitazawa agreed “to speed talks on the possibility of providing jointly developed sea-based missile-shield systems to other countries….Japan and the U.S. jointly developed the ballistic missile interception system, the Standard Missile-3….The U.S. is keen to boost its missile defense in Europe and wants SM-3 interceptors there.” [23]

For there, read along Russia’s Western flank from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and eventually into the South Caucasus.

According to an official U.S. armed forces source, Gates also maintained that “The U.S. needs troops in Japan for the long term to keep China’s rising power in check and contain North Korea’s aggressive nuclear and missile aspirations.” [24]

Late last year the U.S. and Japan conducted their largest joint war games in history, Keen Sword 2011, with 60 warships, including the USS George Washington nuclear-powered aircraft carrier – whose home port is the Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan – accompanied by carrier and expeditionary strike groups, 400 aircraft and 44,000 troops.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Tokyo last December, a week after Keen Sword 2011 ended.

The next month the USS Carl Vinson nuclear-powered supercarrier, equipped to carry 90 fighter jets and helicopters, and two guided missile destroyers and a guided missile cruiser engaged with the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in war games in the East China Sea.

In Late January the armed forces of the U.S. and Japan conducted the annual bilateral Yama Sakura command post exercise to “practice defending Japan” in the southwest of the country with the participation of 6,000 troops. Ahead of the event the spokesman for U.S. Army Japan and I Corps Forward, “the Army’s newest rapid-response contingency unit in Japan,” stated:

“We’re preparing for an enemy with all kinds of capabilities.” [25]

The U.S. is to spend $3.7 billion over the next five years to develop as many as 100 “new, stealthy, long-range, manned bomber[s] likely specifically intended to penetrate Chinese air defences.” The new warplane, as yet unnamed, is reported to be a long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber with the option of being piloted remotely.

“The Pentagon’s bomber development coincides with the scripting of a new battle plan aimed at preserving US military capabilities in the Pacific. This so-called AirSea Battle plan is meant to help coordinate US Navy and Air Force ships and planes….” [26]

On February 21 the commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, which is based in Yokosuka, Japan and is the largest overseas navy fleet in the world, encompassing over 48 million square miles – the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean with the Kuril Islands at the northern tip of its area of responsibility – Vice Admiral Scott Van Buskirk was in Hong Kong where he said:

“The 7th Fleet has actually increased its capabilities in several significant ways. The ships and aircraft that we operate today are vastly more capable than they were just a few years ago. At the same time, we have enhanced our maritime partnerships with navies around the region, enabling us to work together cooperatively more than ever before.”

He said that at any given time there are 70 U.S. warships in his fleet’s area of responsibility and “cited the deployment to Japan of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington…with greater speed, range, ammunition stowage and endurance, as an example of how the fleet’s capabilities have increased.”

The commander also highlighted “the deployment of the Ohio-class fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), the 60-40 split of attack submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the recent deployment of the Virginia-class submarine USS Hawaii (SSN 776), which reflects the fleet’s growing capability under the sea.”

Van Buskirk touted “upgrades to surface ships, including Ballistic Missile Defense capability and enhanced sonar suites, making them ‘increasingly potent,’” emphasizing that “Our alliance with Japan continues to be the cornerstone of our forward presence in Asia….” [27]

The U.S. recently completed this year’s Cobra Gold military exercise in Thailand. “The participation of Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia makes the 30th annual joint exercise one of the world’s largest multilateral military maneuvers.” As a testament to the dramatic expansion of a U.S.-led Asia-Pacific NATO, the exercise also included observers from India, Sri Lanka, Laos, Brunei, Mongolia, the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand among others.

Since the last Cobra Gold was held in June of 2010, “the US has held around 20 joint military maneuvers with nations in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan and South Korea.” [28]

This month Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, said that “The United States plans to deploy the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA upgrade by 2018″ in a letter to Nobushige Takamizawa, director general of policy at the Japanese Defense Ministry.

“The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency is pressing Tokyo to clear the sale of advanced missile interceptors, codeveloped with Japan, to third countries and to agree to joint production.” [29]

As noted above, Standard Missile-3 deployments are slated for nations like Poland, which borders Russian territory, and Romania, which lies across the Black Sea from Russia.

Early this month Japan announced that it will open its new Air Defense Command – with interceptor missile batteries – to Yokota, home to U.S. Forces Japan headquarters and the Fifth Air Force, this spring.

Last December Japan released its National Defense Program Guidelines for 2011, which detailed plans to increase the nation’s submarines from 16 to 22, acquire next-generation fighter jets, increase the number of Aegis class destroyers equipped with Standard Missile-3 interceptors from the present four to six and deploy Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missiles to 12 air bases throughout the country.

Japan is already one of the world’s major military powers. The U.S. is the world’s preeminent, having approved a World War Two-level $725 billion National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 in December.

The two strategic military partners are preparing to confront their only competitors in East Asia and the Western Pacific: China and Russia. An altercation near a contested island grouping may prove the spark that sets off a conflagration involving the world’s two main nuclear powers.

Notes:

1) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 16, 2011

2) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 15, 2011

3) Interfax, February 9, 2011

4) News Analysis: Japan, Russia continue to lock horns over islands row

Xinhua News Agency, February 11, 2011

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-02/11/c_13728158.htm

5) Agence France-Press, February 11, 2011

6) Alexandr Grashenkov, Russia to boost Kuril defense to ward off war

Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 11, 2011

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20110211/162553992.html

7) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 15, 2011

8) Interfax, February 21, 2011

9) Voice of Russia, February 22, 2011

10) Russia-Japan-US – three’s a crowd

Voice of Russia, February 22, 2011

11) U.S. Supports Japan, Confronts China And Russia Over Island Disputes

Stop NATO, November 4, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/u-s-supports-japan-confronts-china-and-russia-over-island-disputes

12) Kyodo News, October 11, 2010

13) Russia-Japan-US – three’s a crowd

Voice of Russia, February 22, 2011]

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/22/45579622.html

14) Zheng Haoning and Wei Lianglei, Disputed islands: crux of Russia’s

regional strategy

Xinhua News Agency, February 22, 2011

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-02/22/c_13744452.htm

15) Backgrounder: Importance of Southern Kuril Islands

Xinhua News Agency/China Television

February 17, 2011

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2011-02/12/c_13729119.htm

16) U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Sakhalin/Background.html

17) Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2011

….

U.S. Builds Military Alliance With Japan, South Korea For War In The East

Stop NATO, December 14, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/u-s-builds-military-alliance-with-japan-south-korea-for-war-in-the-east

18) Japanese Military Joins U.S. And NATO In Horn Of Africa

Stop NATO, April 25, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/japanese-military-joins-u-s-and-nato-in-horn-of-africa

19) U.S. Builds Military Alliance With Japan, South Korea For War In The East

Stop NATO December 14, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/u-s-builds-military-alliance-with-japan-south-korea-for-war-in-the-east

20) Trend News Agency, February 4, 2011

21) Stars and Stripes, January 13, 2011

22) United Press International, January 18, 2011

23) Japan Times, January 14, 2011

24) Stars and Stripes, January 13, 2011

25) Stars and Stripes, January 25, 2011

26) New US Bomber Aimed at China?

The Diplomat, February 22, 2011

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/02/22/new-us-bomber-aimed-at-china/

27) Navy NewsStand, February 22, 2011

28) China Daily, February 15, 2011

29) Reuters, February 14, 2011

US-Egypt: ‘Why?’

Eric Walberg reflects on the reasons for the very different reactions to Egypt’s revolution among North Americans

Western media always welcomes the overthrow of a dictator -- great headline news -- but this instance was greeted with less than euphoria by Western -- especially American -- leaders, who tried to soft-peddle it much as did official Egyptian media till the leader fled the palace. Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak was a generously paid ally for the US in its Middle East policy of protecting Israel, and the hesitancy of the Western -- especially US -- governments in supporting fully what should have been a poster-child of much-touted US ideals was both frustrating and highly instructive.

Canadian government support for Mubarak was even more staunch until vice-president Omar Suleiman’s 20 second resignation speech 11 February, clearly written with a metaphorical gun to one or both of their heads. This craven loyalty to an autocrat reviled by his people was the US-Israeli preferred solution. Much better to cool the passionate revolutionaries, allow the system, so beneficial to Israel, to adjust and survive.

But perhaps more important, much better to continue Egypt’s state-of-emergency laws that allow the regime to keep Israel critics and devout Muslims under raps, and just as important, allow the US to “render” undesirable Muslims there to be tortured. Imagine if the records of these renditions over the past decade by the US (and Canada) to Egypt were to come to light, falling into the hands of the revolutionaries, much like Britain’s secret treaties in WWI fell into the Bolsheviks’ hands?

“They’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube,” quipped Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper glumly. He could well be articulating -- in his own tasteless way -- the sentiments of the Egyptian military establishment, which had no use for a Mubarak dynasty and sided with the rebels, though at a considerable cost. Those now in power, nominally headed by Minister of Defence and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces Mohammed Tantawi, must push determined demonstrators out of Tahrir Square, get people back to work, shut down further strikes, and keep their US military advisers (not to mention the US president himself) assured that the centrepiece of Egyptian foreign policy remains in place. Truly a messy task.

It is hard to believe now that just a few weeks ago, Mubarak was invincible, his visage gracing at least one page in every newspaper every day, meeting with some Western leader, posing with Israeli notables, confident that he was in control of his desert ship-of-state. After the initial euphoria, and as evidence of his misrule and the perilous state that he left Egypt in pours out of newly liberated media, people are overwhelmed, irritable and depressed. People have undergone a wrenching shift in their thinking in the past three weeks.

Iranian leaders note the eerie coincidence with their own revolution of 11 February 1979 overthrowing the shah (1941-79). A national holiday, more than half the population of Iran was out on the streets celebrating along with Egyptians when Mubarak finally resigned last Friday evening. US commentators prefer to compare the revolution to the overthrow of Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos (1965-87) and Indonesian president Suharto (1968-98). They even suggest it could lead to another Iranian revolution.

Despite the many differences, Iran and Indonesia are the closest parallels: an anti-colonial revolt against a repressive pseudo-Muslim autocrat whose corruption and nepotism undid him. Those revolts triumphed when the army and police gave up supporting the US-backed leader, much as Egypt’s security apparatus did. The long repressed Muslim Brotherhood is the Sunni equivalent of the Iranian clerics. Even if the US can steer Egypt into the secular Indonesian model, it will still have to come to terms with the fact that Indonesia does not recognise Israel, that any future Egyptian government will almost surely renegotiate the 1979 peace agreement with Israel.

It seems that Egypt’s suffering and oppression are something alien to Western experience. But this is far from the truth. As the fervour spread like wildfire during the first few weeks, I recalled how the leftist community in Toronto is just as self-righteous and eager for change, how neoliberalism has left Canadian society with yawning income disparities not much different than those of Egypt. The most obvious difference being that the general standard of living in Canada is higher and the middle class (still) more numerous. But the very idea of such a spectacular event as happened here to address issues of social justice is impossible to imagine there or in the US.

It struck me that the most stark and instructive parallel is not with Indonesia or Iran, but between pre-revolution Egypt and the current US, which, like Egypt, has reached the end of the same gruelling 30-year neoliberal road that Egypt did under Mubarak’s reign, jettisoning any pretense of a just society. The coincidences abound: both the US and Egypt began their ill-fated journeys in that very 1981, with the ascendancy of US president Ronald Reagan and the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat, though El-Sadat had actually pre-empted Reaganomics with his infitah, dismantling of much of Egypt’s socialism.

Each US presidency since then has either embraced or been pressured by the exigencies of capitalism and electoral democracy to enact greater and great tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, meanwhile cutting social services and increasing spending on so-called defence. Each "new" government has regularly flouted the consensus of the electorate on all major issues, from the environment, social services, jobs, to weapons production, invasions, drug laws and the Cubas and Irans which in defiance dare to flout the empire.

Income disparity is arguably the strongest impulse to revolt. As measured by the Gini coefficient (0 is perfect equality) Egypt stands in a far better light at .34 than the US .45 (Canada is .32).

So why did Egyptians succeed spectacularly where Americans -- in even greater need of a revolution -- fail spectacularly?

Egyptians seem to be much more politically astute than their American counterparts, more willing to admit that their leaders take bribes, lie, follow policies dictated by business or lobbies and which counter public opinion.

But the key to understanding why a revolution like Egypt's is impossible in the US is the fact that, unlike Egypt's army (composed mostly of conscripts), the US has a mercenary (excuse me, professional) army, which would have little compunction to fire on any group threatening the sanctity of the political establishment. Conscription is a vital brick in building a democratic society, an safeguard allowing the society to be dismantled if it turns into a jail or a brothel, a brick which has been lost to the US and its satellites. A brick that Egyptian protesters used to telling effect.

Senator John Kerry said that the Egyptian people “have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities”. So what are Egypt's prospects of creating a thriving democracy? They would be wise to listen to Kerry and to observe the US system, though not to copy it but on the contrary to learn from its sorry state.

Why would Americans expect a president to be fair and hear them when he must raise a billion dollars from corporations to outspend his equally compromised rival in elections? New York Times analyst Bob Herbert looked enviously at Egyptians’ longing for democracy, comparing the US political system to a “perversion of democracy”, bemoaning that at the very moment Egyptians are discovering it, “Americans are in the mind-bogglingly self-destructive process of letting a real democracy slip away.”

And yet Americans blissfully pledge their allegiance, weep on 4 July and during presidential inaugurations, despite the unassailable evidence of the injustices both domestically and abroad of the system they live under. Egyptians, though just as nationalistic, were able to see through the facade of their pseudo-democracy and rise up to overthrow the guilty parties. They are the heroes of all true democrats in the world. The few people particularly in North America who see through their own quite transparent political facade can only look on wistfully.

What became the anthem of the revolution — “Why?” by Mohamed Munir — was written, presciently, a month before the 25 January spark that burned away (let’s hope) much of the chaff accumulated during 30 years of neoliberal “reforms”. He cries out to his homeland like a spurned lover who vows to take his country back from the usurpers:

If love of you was my choice

My heart would long ago have changed you for another

But I vow I will continue to change your life for the better

Till you are content with me.

How different from the equivalent American song — Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” — self-pitying and hopeless in this, the world’s sole superpower:

You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much

‘Till you spend half your life just covering up.

***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/