|
|
 |
 |
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Is the Iran Crisis for Real?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer to both is no.
By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants.
Why, then, this talk of confrontation and pre-emptive strikes? Even if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity by a regime that, no matter how militant, has shown no desire for war with America.
What is the worry? Just this. If or when Iran goes nuclear, she has a deterrent to intimidation. U.S. freedom of action in the Persian Gulf comes to an end. We would have to behave as gingerly with the mullahs as we do with Kim Jong Il, something intolerable to our neoconservatives and President Bush.
For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's invulnerability would come to an end. She would enter the world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the better. But herein lies the problem for President Bush.
Britain, France and Germany do not want to take the first step to confrontation by asking the U.N. Security Council to vote sanctions on Iran for restarting the enrichment process. And even if the Europeans agree to go to the Security Council, a resolution calling for sanctions would face vetoes by Russia and China.
If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. It would be interesting to see how many U.S. allies are willing to support sanctions on the third largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel.
Moreover, if the present negotiations end in sanctions on Iran, then, just as North Korea sped up its nuclear program when talks broke down, Iran might do the same. That would leave the United States with the final option: air and missile strikes to destroy all of Iran's known facilities for the enrichment of uranium.
But as Iran is permitted such facilities as long as it allows absolute freedom for U.N. inspectors, how could we justify such acts of war?
After all, we give a $160 billion trade surplus to China, though she is targeting our cities with nuclear missiles. President Bush cut a deal to help India develop nuclear power, though she has tested bombs. We give foreign aid to Pakistan and Israel, which had clandestine and successful programs that built atomic weapons. And we have a basket of goodies on offer to Kim Jong Il if he will shut down his nuclear facilities and hand over any bombs.
Where is the consistency here?
There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S. strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik demonstrator. As Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War College writes in The New Republic, Iran's best strategy might be to lash out in retaliation.
What could Iran do? Plenty. Send Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S. troops. Incite Hezbollah to launch rockets on Israel to widen the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the Shi'ites in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring terror home to the United States.
In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy into instant cardiac arrest.
And as the United States lacks the ground forces to invade Iran and topple the regime, U.S. retaliation would be restricted to air and cruise missile strikes. But just as 9/11 united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime, enhancing its prestige as it fought America to protect Iran's equal right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear technology, an issue upon which almost all Iranians agree.
President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would be no cakewalk.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Posted at 10:47 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Get Ready for World War III
|
| by Paul Craig Roberts |
With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush's war against Iraq and convinced that Bush's invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the U.S. Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.
Bush refuses to meet with Cindy Sheehan, instead using his vacation time at the Crawford ranch to talk war with Israeli television. In a recent interview with Israeli TV, Bush said "All options are on the table" with regard to Iran.
Likudnik Israel is Bush's last remaining ally, or egger-on, in his war against "Islamic terrorism." Israel, which is loaded with nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the nuclear pacts, is the accuser against Iran, asserting that Iran's nuclear energy program is just a veil behind which to produce weapons. Israel's Likud Party fears that Iranian weapons would be a check to its plans to complete the dispossession of the Palestinians and further expand Israel's borders.
Iran has signed the nonproliferation pact and is willing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear energy program.
Bush, however, dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia.
Bush can ignore the American public, because the Democrats, like the Tory Party in the UK, have completely collapsed as an opposition party. The Republican Party is now increasingly referred to as the Republikud Party.
The only check on Bush is the lack of U.S. troops. Bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, U.S. commanders are stating that a third rotation of our exhausted and demoralized troops in Iraq can be avoided only by troop withdrawals by next spring.
However, on Aug. 11, Bush nixed the military's talk of reducing U.S. troops in Iraq. The next day, the commander of U.S. logistics in Iraq announced that the number of insurgent attacks on US forces along supply routes has doubled in the last year, making it clear that far from winning, the U.S. is not even holding its own.
Cindy Sheehan has the right question for Bush: What noble cause is being served by all this suffering and destruction?
Bush is in hiding from Mrs. Sheehan, because he knows only ignoble causes are being served. According to the CIA, the main beneficiary of the war is Osama bin Laden's recruitment drives. While America's military recruitment falters and U.S. generals announce that the war has broken the Reserves and National Guard, the cause of Islamic extremism basks in the Iraqi war.
Gentle reader, do you realize the danger of having a president so disconnected from reality that he plots to attack Iran – a country three times the size of Iraq – when he lacks sufficient forces to occupy Baghdad and to protect the road from Baghdad to the airport?
Despite all the high profile "sweeps" of U.S. forces through insurgent strongholds, U.S. commanders report a doubling of insurgent attacks.
The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush's impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon. This may please some Christian evangelicals conned by Rapture predictions, but World War III will please no one else.
|
Posted at 10:37 pm by R7fel
Permalink
The Mockery Becomes Unbearable
Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?
|
| by Ramzy Baroud |
The BBC’s striking revelations regarding the secretive and disconcerting British role in making an Israeli nuclear bomb possible, deserves more than a quick pause and a few dozen news reports. It obliges a thorough investigation coupled with a complete reversal in the double standard that views Israel’s fully-fledged nuclear capabilities as a trivial concern.
The BBC program, Newsnight, broadcast on August 3, confirmed that Britain was in fact the original source of heavy water, the crucial ingredient that allowed Israel to transform its generic nuclear reactor in Dimona in the Negev Desert – initially developed with French help – into a proficient nuclear manufacturing plant.
It was always assumed, following the dramatic disclosures made by former Dimona technician, Mordechai Vanunu to the British Sunday Times in 1986, that the 20 tons of heavy water originated from Norway. Norway chose complete silence regarding the nature of the deal.
But according to the BBC broadcast, the well-guarded deal made with Israel was concealed as a resale to Norway of a heavy water consignment that was of no use to Britain. In turn, the shipment was dispatched to Israel, who, within three years has apparently exhausted much of the 20 tons of heavy water. In 1961, according to the report, Israel asked for more, but the uncovering of Israel’s nuclear ambitions by the Daily Express newspaper seem to have made any additional sales a complicated matter.
Many years later, thanks to the audacity of Vanunu, the world had a chance to grasp the extent of Israel’s perilous experimentations with deadly agents: hundreds of nuclear warheads, by modest counts, which, according to Western experts, place Israel as one of the world’s leading nuclear powers; number six to be exact.
Israel continues to adopt the attitude of not confirming and not denying the increasingly well-documented charges of its nuclear program. Thus, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres – who was the director general of Israel’s defense ministry from 1953-58 and is credited for being the leading architect of the country’s nuclear program – refused to comment on the BBC report, according to the Associated Press a day later.
The acknowledged involvement of France and Norway, and Britain’s recently exposed role in making Israel’s nuclear aspirations possible, clearly delineate a European intent on ensuring Israel’s "unique military superiority" over its Arab neighbors, which incidentally is a key phrase reiterated by top American officials whenever describing the US commitment to Israel.
While at the time, the US administrations of Eisenhower and Kennedy "strived to stop Israel from going on to build nuclear weapons" – as reported in the Guardian – the current right-wing US administration is totally ignoring the Israeli nuclear buildup while considering "all options", including a military intervention, to crackdown on Iran for allegedly endeavoring to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israel’s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEA’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
Israel’s unruffled attitude is reinforced by unconditional military and political support pouring from Washington, which views Israel’s sins with completely different spectacles than those used to magnify the sins of other Middle Eastern countries.
The mockery becomes almost unbearable when US officials tie their Middle East crusade to Israel’s security. In a January 2005 interview with MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republic’s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel." He then appeared to be giving a green light to Israel (with an estimated 200 nuclear heads) to take on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, according to the IAEA itself, are yet to raise serious suspicions. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant capabilities, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney exclaimed, in response to Imus’s thoughtless inquiry: "Why don’t we make Israel do it?"
Only a naïve would argue that perhaps Cheney was not aware of the magnitude of Israel’s destructive nuclear capabilities when he made such insolent remarks.
Yet, despite the near complete forgery and endless pretexts used to invade Iraq, victimizing millions of people while further destabilizing an already unstable region, the US government carries on unhindered with the same logic. Now the menacing wolf is Iran and the harmless sheep, unsurprisingly, is the state of Israel.
However, the last piece of the puzzle has been recovered now that the international community knows where Israel’s heavy water, used for enriching nuclear fuel, originated from and – thanks to the courageous Vanunu – what has become of it. Even the often weak-willed ElBaradei had the nerve to tell Ha’aretz that his agency is operating under the assumption that Israel in fact possesses nuclear weapons.
The concern, and indeed the fear, is that neither the BBC’s report nor the outcry of many states in the Middle East and beyond will jeopardize, or for a second, halt the grinding wheel of death and destruction nurtured in Israel, with European help and under American blessings and protection.
It’s in fact this duplicity and double standard under which the West continues to operate that makes peace in the Middle East a mere illusion as the furnace of weapons of mass destruction continues to wickedly burn in the doomed Negev Desert.
|
Posted at 10:30 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Will They Lose Their Ventures?
Hide Tide of the Neocons
By GARY LEUPP
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat.
And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3
The neocon plan as I understand it is to stand by while the EU-Iran talks collapse; hold France, Germany and Britain to an earlier promise to support UN sanctions against Iran in the wake of that collapse; push Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA to find Iran in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (even though it's not); attempt, knowing the effort will fail, to acquire a Security Council resolution condemning Iran; have John Bolton as new U.S. ambassador to the UN declare the organization irresponsible if not useless; and then tell the American people the U.S. has tried to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons threat (and its support for international terrorism, and the prospect of nukes falling into the hands of Islamic Jihad or Hizbollah) through the international body, but failed due to China's obstructionism based on Chinese selfish demand for Iranian oil.
Soon thereafter (before a massive movement against an attack on Iran can form) they would like to conduct a horrific tactical-nuke operation against Iranian nuclear facilities as well as government offices. Scott Ritter suggests that they plan an actual invasion from Azerbaijan. They apparently plan to use Mujahadeen Khalq forces much as they used Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan. Europe might stay out this time, although Israel may have an important role, and France having generally reconciled with the U.S. and having worked with the U.S. to reconfigure Syria and Lebanon (and Haiti) may be assigned a major role in her former colonies in the Levant.
The neocons must anticipate resurgent resistance activity in Afghanistan (due both to the activities of one-time CIA favorite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as well as to Taliban "remnants"), as well as intensified fighting in Iraq, where the Shiites and Sunnis alike will see the Iran attack as a U.S. war on Islam, on behalf of Israel. The American Empire in Southwest Asia will as it expands remain in a semi-chaotic state, with weak client regimes struggling alongside overstretched U.S. forces to contain insurgencies. But that is okay with the neocons, who delight in chaos and see glorious victory and progress in the disarray of Afghanistan and Iraq. They apparently think that their imperial goals can be achieved even in the context of ongoing low-intensity warfare, and that they can meet those goals (of controlling the flow of oil and gas and establishing permanent military bases throughout the region) without a Vietnam-like disaster, or a level of dissent in the U.S. that could actually lead to the fall of the Bush administration.
Over two years ago I wrote that "the neocons' Achilles heel is arrogance. They did not plan on the degree of Iraqi opposition, just as they did not anticipate the magnitude of the global antiwar movement in the months before the March attack." They may not have expected that their noble lies would produce some serious scandals, which probably have led several of them (including Feith and Libby) to leave their posts. They may think that they can ride out any near-future political storm, or at least achieve the next goals in the Terror War before they become totally exposed and discredited. But ongoing resistance in all of the attacked countries, combined with resistance to wars of conquest in the U.S. itself, might actually force an end to the "Greater Middle East" empire project. It's just conceivable that within a fairly short time we'll have, not an America on the march in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, but America in crisis, bitterly divided politically and culturally, internationally more isolated and opposed than now, and unable to realize its foreign policy goals or to afford their prosecution.
I personally think there'll be an attack on Iran this year, but then I expected one in June or July. It seems that the schedule has been delayed, and the whole plan could certainly be aborted. A vast movement in this country specifically demanding "Hands Off Iran!" could help prevent the planned attack. But while millions of Americans saw the Iraq attack coming, and protested, the Iran attack if it comes will come swiftly, "like a thief in the night." Surely it would provoke popular opposition, but how big would it be, both in Iran and here? How well would the regime be able to deploy its Apocalypse-obsessed fundamentalist Christian Zionist supporters? How vigorously might it deploy the fascistic means in place to curb dissent?
* * *
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune
This is what they're thinking. They have three more years, and foes---advocates of "reality mode" reasoning, international law, domestic constitutional law, and basic morality---are working hard to ruin them and their project. Time is of the essence. If they don't achieve their program now, the rest of their lives may be "bound in shallows and miseries"--maybe in jail cells if there's a substantial political shift. Polls show the country deeply divided on the president's performance, more than half questioning his honesty, more than half finding the Iraq war not "worth the cost." Far behind are the halcyon days of the U.S. flags on half the houses, half the cars. "United We Stand" doesn't cut it so well anymore, because we are in fact a very divided people. But another 9-11 might shellshock a substantial portion of those now critical. It might incline them to embrace the general drift towards fascism.
When we read that Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11," we realize that the administration understands full well and is eager to use the "opportunities" such an attack would provide them. http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html To draw again on Shakespeare's drama about Imperial Rome, the conspirators must "take the current while it serves"---or lose their ventures.
The historical record shows us that Brutus and his fellow conspirators succeeded short term but indeed lost out in the end. The unruly masses and their own bad timing brought an end to their ventures. There's no such thing as historical inevitability; there are merely historical opportunities, such as those provided to the unscrupulous by the tragedy of 9-11. The neocons have ruthlessly exploited those opportunities, but might just maybe, following their triumphalist voyage, get trapped in the shallows, shipwrecked in the shoals, appropriately miserable.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
Posted at 09:32 am by R7fel
Permalink
The Struggle Is Heating Up
US, China Entering New Cold War By ChangHsi-mo ±i¿ü¼Ò
Saturday, Aug 13, 2005,Page 8
The main theme running through East Asian history in recent years has shifted away from economic issues and a war on terror, and is now focused on geopolitical conflict. The contest between the major powers -- which is becoming increasingly tense -- looks more and more like a "Cold War" between the US and China.
The contemporary focus in both East Asia and the world has changed. Apart from Taiwan, no one still believes in the empty cliche that the economy is everything. Over the past four years, the war on terror has receded from being clearly in focus to background buzz, and the anti-terror alliance between the US, Russia, China and other countries has practically disintegrated.
It has been replaced by a geopolitical contest between major powers, particularly the US and China. This is clearly indicated by recent incidents, including China National Offshore Oil Corp's (CNOOC) failure to take over the US oil company Unocal, Uzbekistan's decision to drive the US military off its territory, and the six-party talks about nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula.
In the end, CNOOC had to back down from its attempt to acquire Unocal. This acquisition, which would have been the largest ever by a Chinese company had it succeeded, put the US on the alert against China, and it also revealed how contradictory the two countries' energy strategies are.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is aware that their greatest weakness lies in a lack of energy resources. Beijing is now seeking to increase its energy assets and secure diverse energy sources in Central Asia, Siberia and its nearby marine territories. It is also strengthening its navy to change the current situation in which the US controls the sea lanes through which China's crude oil is transported. Energy and the wish to gain regional hegemony is leading China to make a concrete attempt to become the dominant power in East Asia and the Western Pacific.
Concerns over energy security are making Beijing authorities eager to drive out US forces from Central Asia as a way of breaking through the US' "containment." On July 5, the Astana, Kazakhstan summit of the China and Russia-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) resulted in a joint communique citing the gradual stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan as a reason for demanding that the US present a timetable for withdrawing its forces from Central Asia.
On July 30, the Uzbek government sent a diplomatic note to the US government giving it 180 days to remove US troops and military equipment from the K2 base in Uzbekistan, possibly as a result of strong US criticism against the government following the May massacre by the Uzbek military of hundreds of residents of the city of Andijan. This is a rare setback for the US, and behind this decision by the Tashkent authorities was strong support from Russia and, most of all, China.
The US government is familiar with the Chinese communists' method of attack and their strategic ambitions. The Pentagon's latest annual report on China's military strength, which was issued on July 19, for the first time points out that China's active expansion of its military arsenal is not only aimed at Taiwan, but rather at "Taiwan and beyond."
The report says that, "Some Chinese military analysts have expressed the view that control of Taiwan would enable the PLA Navy to move its maritime defensive perimeter further seaward and improve Beijing's ability to influence regional sea lines of communication."
The changes in the Sino-US relationship clearly also affect the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The recently held fourth round of the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue was the longest of the rounds. Although Russia (with China's blessing) used new ways of throwing US plans into disarray, the whole process shows that Washington has changed its policy and now is willing to keep negotiations going and reach a solution in order to deprive China of its "North Korean card." This places the US in a more advantageous position in its competition with China.
All signs point to China and the US now entering into a new version of the Cold War. The two are still important trading partners, but they are also becoming involved in a geopolitical struggle centering around their opposing energy strategies. This struggle is now heating up.
Chang Hsi-mo is an assistant professor at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
Posted at 07:57 am by R7fel
Permalink
Friday, August 12, 2005
Military/Police Dictatorship
Pentagon Devising Scenarios for Martial
Law in US
By Patrick Martin
9 August 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.
The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of the military’s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but “officers who drafted the plans” gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham, who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of military rule.
According to Graham, “the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.”
The Post account declares, “The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement.”
A total of 15 potential crisis scenarios are outlined, ranging from “low-end,” which Graham describes as “relatively modest crowd-control missions,” to “high-end,” after as many as three simultaneous catastrophic mass-casualty events, such as a nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attack.
In each case, the military would deploy a quick-reaction force of as many as 3,000 troops per attack—i.e., 9,000 total in the worst-case scenario. More troops could be made available as needed.
The Post quotes a statement by Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of Northcom: “In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned—of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved—to take the lead.”
The newspaper describes an unresolved debate among the military planners on how to integrate the new domestic mission with ongoing US deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign conflicts. One major document of over 1,000 pages, designated CONPLAN 2002, provides a general overview of air, sea and land operations in both a post-attack situation and for “prevention and deterrence actions aimed at intercepting threats before they reach the United States.” A second document, CONPLAN 0500, details the 15 scenarios and the actions associated with them.
The Post reports: “CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top aides for further study and approval, the officers said. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting” at Northcom headquarters.
While Northcom was established only in October 2002, its headquarters staff of 640 is already larger than that of the Southern Command, which overseas US military operations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
About 1,400 National Guard troops have been formed into a dozen regional response units, while smaller quick-reaction forces have been set up in each of the 50 states. Northcom also has the power to mobilize four active-duty Army battalions, as well as Navy and Coast Guard ships and air defense fighter jets.
The Pentagon is acutely conscious of the potential political backlash as its role in future security operations becomes known. Graham writes: “Military exercises code-named Vital Archer, which involve troops in lead roles, are shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, other homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely publicized.”
Military lawyers have studied the legal implications of such deployments, which risk coming into conflict with a longstanding congressional prohibition on the use of the military for domestic policing, known as posse comitatus. Involving the National Guard, which is exempt from posse comitatus, could be one solution, Admiral Keating told the Post. “He cited a potential situation in which Guard units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not,” Graham wrote.
Graham adds: “when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise, probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to civilian authorities.”
A remarkable phrase: “probably would be temporary.” In other words, the military takeover might not be temporary, and could become permanent!
In his article, Graham describes the Northern Command’s “Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian agencies as the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service.” The article continues: “A senior supervisor at the facility said the staff there does no intelligence collection, only analysis. He also said the military operates under long-standing rules intended to protect civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal activity.”
Again, despite the soothing reassurances about respecting civil liberties, another phrase leaps out: “intelligence information on political dissent.” What right do US intelligence agencies have to collect information on political dissent? Political dissent is not only perfectly legal, but essential to the functioning of a democracy.
The reality is that the military brass is intensely interested in monitoring political dissent because its domestic operations will be directed not against a relative handful of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists—who have not carried out a single operation inside the United States since September 11, 2001—but against the democratic rights of the American people.
The plans of Northcom have their origins not in the terrible events of 9/11, but in longstanding concerns in corporate America about the political stability of the United States. This is a society increasingly polarized between the fabulously wealthy elite at the top, and the vast majority of working people who face an increasingly difficult struggle to survive. The nightmare of the American ruling class is the emergence of a mass movement from below that challenges its political and economic domination.
As long ago as 1984—when Osama bin Laden was still working hand-in-hand with the CIA in the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan—the Reagan administration was drawing up similar contingency plans for military rule. A Marine Corps officer detailed to the National Security Council drafted plans for Operation Rex ’84, a headquarters exercise that simulated rounding up 300,000 Central American immigrants and likely political opponents of a US invasion of Nicaragua or El Salvador and jailing them at mothballed military bases. This officer later became well known to the public: Lt. Colonel Oliver North, the organizer of the illegal network to arm the “contra” terrorists in Nicaragua and a principal figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.
As for the claims that these military plans are driven by genuine concern over the threat of terrorist attacks, these are belied by the actual conduct of the American ruling elite since 9/11. The Bush administration has done everything possible to suppress any investigation into the circumstances of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—most likely because its own negligence, possibly deliberate, would be exposed.
While the Pentagon claims that its plans are a response to the danger of nuclear, biological or chemical attacks, no serious practical measures have been taken to forestall such attacks or minimize their impact. The Bush administration and Congress have refused even to restrict the movement of rail tank cars loaded with toxic chemicals through the US capital, though even an accidental leak, let alone a terrorist attack, would cause mass casualties.
In relation to bioterrorism, the Defense Science Board determined in a 2000 study that the federal government had only 1 of the 57 drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tools required to deal with such an attack. According to a report in the Washington Post August 7, in the five years since the Pentagon report, only one additional resource has been developed, bringing the total to 2 out of 57. Drug companies have simply refused to conduct the research required to find antidotes to anthrax and other potential toxins, and the Bush administration has done nothing to compel them.
As for the danger of nuclear or “dirty-bomb” attacks, the Bush administration and the congressional Republican leadership recently rammed through a measure loosening restrictions on exports of radioactive substances, at the behest of a Canadian-based manufacturer of medical supplies which conducted a well-financed lobbying campaign.
Evidently, the administration and the corporate elite which it represents do not take seriously their own warnings about the imminent threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons—at least not when it comes to security measures that would impact corporate profits.
The anti-terrorism scare has a propaganda purpose: to manipulate the American people and induce the public to accept drastic inroads against democratic rights. As the Pentagon planning suggests, the American working class faces the danger of some form of military-police dictatorship in the United States.
See Also:
US Congress votes to make Patriot Act permanent
[1 August 2005]
Posted at 08:43 am by R7fel
Permalink
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
If We Fail To Change Direction
AND THE GIANT SUV
THAT IS AMERICA
GOES OFF THE CLIFF...
The Long Emergency
Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Disasters of the Twenty-First Century
by James Kunstler
Grove/Atlantic, 2005
by Tim Corrigan
Hate Walmart and Hummers? Good news! The end of them is nigh--but you'll have little time to enjoy their demise as you huddle in the cold and dark ten years from now and scramble for food to avoid your own end... James Kunstler's The Long Emergency is about the approach of the peak of global oil production and its aftermath, and he argues that the foreseen disasters will happen much sooner than we expect and without much warning. He also argues that our blinders on this issue and lack of preparation will make the ensuing disaster even worse than it might otherwise be.
Peak oil is the idea first described by M. King Hubbert, a geologist working for Shell Oil, who created a mathematical relationship to describe the time between the peak of exploration and the peak of production, and how production will decline over time. In other words, some time after you realize you are finding less new oil fields, you can use this curve to figure out approximately when you will start producing less oil, and from that you can roughly determine when your lights will go out.
The peak of global oil discoveries was in 1964, and the peak of global production may have already occurred. At current rates of consumption, that would give an absolute maximum of about 37 years between the peak and the definitive end of the oil-based economy--and, as he emphasizes, the first half was the oil that was easy to find and extract. Additionally, global consumption is growing as China and India ramp up their consumer economies.
Due to what he calls "the rear view mirror" effect, we'll only wake up to the decline after we're already in it. Some disruptive global event similar to the 1973 OPEC embargo will occur, and prices will find a new level far higher than now. The high oil-consuming nations realize that we have entered the era of permanent scarcity.
Kunstler's argument is that we have already reached the point he calls "overshoot," where no matter how well-intentioned and hard-working we are in addressing the issue (assuming, for a second, our country had any serious intention of working hard on this issue) we are in for a hard landing that may disrupt civilization for an indefinite amount of time. We're using what he calls a one-time endowment of millions of years of accumulated solar energy in the form of oil to subsidize American civilization's greatest "achievement"--sprawl. We can't get that energy back, and he argues that no other form of fuel will allow that level of energy concentration needed to make car culture possible. And the very size of our investment in the suburbs and our sense of entitlement as Americans will, he argues, prevent us from taking any steps to start dealing with our energy issues seriously. For suburbanites, it is literally unthinkable that we would have to give up our cars.
When you wish upon a star…
Kunstler attacks what he sees as the American tendency to think that because we have solved many technical problems in the past, we will auto-magically come up with something that will fix our lack of oil, just in time. He calls this the "Jiminy Cricket effect," where we seem to believe that just wishing will make it so. In one chapter he quickly runs through half a dozen alternative energy technologies, and dispatches almost all of them in a few pages. To one extent or another, he describes them as being either simply infeasible or indirectly dependent on oil to create. For example, the production of solar panels is dependent on oil energy. Panels are made out of plastic and silicon - the manufacturing process requires oil, and some of the actual material comes from oil products. And panels are useless without batteries created from petroleum byproducts. Hydrogen is simply a storage medium for energy, but is not energy itself. He sees nuclear as one option that would produce more juice than it loses, but argues that at this point America will not be able to build enough of a nuclear infrastructure to keep the lights on--partly because people aren't scared enough yet to overcome NIMBY attitudes.
Kunstler dismisses a huge number of new technologies, many of which have already reached feasibility on a limited scale. It's true that renewables are a tiny fraction of a percent of our energy use now, but the technologies are still maturing, and people have not had a reason yet to use them on a large scale because oil was at $10 a barrel only three years ago. To use an analogy from digital technology: we had digital cameras for consumers for almost a decade before they became popular, and then they went from no penetration to virtually supplanting film cameras in less than a decade. Solar cells have roughly tripled in efficiency in the last 15 years, become common in certain applications, and are spreading to new ones every day. Wind power has reache economic viability in many places without subsidies.
To say that all of these technologies are impossible to build without oil is ludicrous--many forms of metal production actually use electricity as their main form of power. Wind is not as convenient or high-grade a power source as oil (you can't plug your car into a windmill; some storage mechanism is required), but we have a lot of plains and coastlines where it could be easily exploited.
Wind power also requires aluminum and steel, and Kunstler says that we will not be able to extract the raw materials for this renewable energy push when we need them. On the other hand, if we are moving beyond SUV's and Walmarts, obviously a lot of recyclable raw materials--metals and plastics in particular--will already be close at hand in the vast lots of suddenly immobilized Hummers and Excursions.
To be fair, his argument is that these technologies might be possible for a large portion of the power we will need, but they will not allow suburbia to continue as it has. He may be right about this, or maybe not. The needs of most commuters could be served fairly well by a number of technologies that exist, or are close to economic viability--for example, a car in Italy was developed to use compressed air as its power source. It might look more like a scooter with a roof than a Hummer, but if that was the car that your typical American could afford they'd no doubt take it over a bicycle or trains. The suburbs may become smaller and more dense, but there is no reason we could not rebuild streetcar lines where we currently have major highways.
However, Kunstler may still be correct in his overall scenario, since even if the renewable energy technologies end up being feasible, we may not choose to deploy enough renewable energy soon enough to prevent the disasters predicted in The Long Emergency.
Kunstler seems driven to quickly get these alternative energy sources out of the way so he can get on to his main topic--the collapse of suburbia and the drive-thru lifestyle. He has written several other books about suburbia and its impact on American life--most notably 1993's The Geography of Nowhere--and he sets up a scenario where our sprawl will simply disintegrate as people are unable to get the energy they need to commute. All of us who don't like the Walmartization of American culture will have some reason to cheer--as the oil that makes the products cheaply and transports them 12,000 miles runs out, we will find the big box stores drying up and blowing away. The very scale that they operate at will make them unable to continue, as consumers can no longer drive 80 miles round trip to buy tchotchkes from China. The problem is, however, that we will be looking to replace everything we currently import with things produced locally--which we don't have the expertise or supply chain to do any more--just around the time that we're running out of energy and dealing with the impact of global warming.
The stuff we buy used to be made in the town where we lived--there were local clothing mills, shoe makers, metal smiths, not to mention farmers nearby. First with the railroad, and then with trucks and planes, we've stretched this to the point where if we aren't bringing containers in from China, we will have no clothes. Our produce is increasingly from Mexico. Car parts are also from China and Mexico. Electronics are almost entirely produced overseas. In other words, we can't maintain our current way of doing things if international trade shuts down for any length of time. Worse yet, the chain of human skills necessary to get the factories going again is gone.
In fact, the way he sees things, the big, looming, obvious disaster is likely to distract us from seeing the equally huge but less obvious disasters to follow. Networks that we have built around plentiful energy will suddenly stop working, with additional disastrous, unforeseen side effects. One example is the natural gas network--right now this is the cooking and heating fuel for millions of urban consumers; however, the natural gas supply depends on a minimum level of pressure in the lines. Below that, air gets into the lines, and the utility companies are forced to shut off the supply temporarily to rebuild the pressure. Some of the pilot lights in hot water heaters around the country might not go back on by themselves, causing gas explosions. If all of this happened during winter, skyscrapers could face a situation where their heat is off and forty stories of plumbing freezes and explodes--a scenario he claims almost happened in the winter of 2003. (A similar unexpected follow-on happened during the blackout of summer 2003, where people found that after the electricity went out they also couldn't get gas because the pumps were all electric.)
The end result of these disasters, Kunstler believes, is that it will be impossible to organize a rational response to the problem as many different systems crucial to our society break down simultaneously. For instance, Kunstler predicts disruption of our food supply. Hydrocarbons are the feedstock of our "green revolution." Beyond the fact that the fixings for the average Caesar salad travel 2,000 miles before they reach your plate, hydrocarbons are the base for the fertilizers and pesticides that we liberally spray on our fields and crops to increase yields to unnatural levels. He argues that really without hydrocarbons the "green revolution" does not exist, and we are in a situation where we will have billions of people more than we can support.
"One might take the view that World War Three has already started and we are well into it."
While Kunstler argues for the end of big box stores and for a return to a more sustainable, local life, he is more a follower of realpolitick than a liberal. He was for the war in Iraq--because it was for oil.
"Of course [the war] was about oil…But members of the anti-war lobby were just as likely to be car-dependent suburbanites as Bush supporters were. At least that was my observation among my fellow middle aged yuppies in upstate New York. One family in my neighborhood had a sign in their yard that said 'War is Not the Answer'--and had two SUV's parked in the driveway."
He argues that the war was the only rational response that a society as oil-dependent as ours could have had, as our supply was put in great danger by the erratic Baghdad regime. He thinks we should have eliminated Hussein and left. It seems Kunstler believes we should have gotten our society to a sustainable point long ago so all of this wouldn't be necessary--but since we haven't, we will have less and less latitude to act rationally as the crisis comes on us. Once we're cold and hungry, we'll support anyone who can keep the lights on, including, as he puts it "corn pone Nazis."
At that point, we'll still be in the Middle East, but current fig leaves of pretending to care about democracy there (or here) will vanish, as we are "forced" to occupy all of the Persian Gulf states to secure our fix of oil. Once we've alienated the Muslim world, they will destroy enough of the oil infrastructure to force us to withdraw (or make it pointless to stay), and China will be there to pick up the pieces--assuming there are pieces left to pick up. The global disaster could happen in a way that we don't initially realize is connected to the struggle for oil--in much the same way that World War I was (to appearances) ignited by an assassination of one man.
Kunstler also predicts the crisis will bring world regionalization. Once the cheap transportation fuel is gone, globalization will be over--so over, in fact, that all regions of the world, and even constituent parts of large countries, will be left to muddle through as best they can on their own. Europe is very well prepared for this future already, since the cities there have little suburban sprawl, and distances are small. Local agriculture using sustainable methods has continued uninterrupted, and many of the European countries are well along in preparing for the end of oil--for example Denmark gets 15% of its power from wind already, and France gets 70% of its power from nuclear. Europe's main problem is that a little ice age may occur as global warming shuts down the Gulf Stream conveyor of warm water that keeps the continent from freezing over.
In the United States, in contrast, the size of our country and the scale of the disaster will leave our regions to very different fates. Residents of the Southwest will wake up to the fact that they are in the desert, and 30 million or more people will need to move somewhere else--but not before a small war is fought with local Chicano insurgents seeking to establish the region as the Mexican-American homeland "Aztlan," or re-unite it with Mexico.
The Great Plains will be marginally better off, and will largely de-populate as the current method of farming with fossil water becomes impossible with depletion of the aquifers. The Southeast will return to its agricultural, feudal roots. The Northeast and the Northwest will fare the better than the rest of the country due to climate, water supplies and culture, but the Northwest may be beset by Asian pirates.
This is one of the strangest predictions of The Long Emergency. For some reason, although he predicts the Gulf Stream conveyor will shut down and Europe will suddenly be in a little ice age, and "everything will become more local," Asian pirates will ravage our West Coast after sailing 7,000 miles across the Pacific. It's hard to understand why Europeans plunged into a new Dark Age will not also be a problem on our East Coast. I guess he never heard of the Vikings. Meanwhile, Mexicans will overthrow El Norte to reclaim an uninhabitable desert. Much of this seems to be a little bit of sensationalism to make the book more exciting. As I read these perhaps slightly racist sections, I found myself thinking that if Kunstler's nightmare scenario ever does happen, we're going to need every campesino we can find to teach us how to survive again as subsistence farmers.
Kunstler's sheer catalog of catastrophes leaves a reader overwhelmed - global warming, but also a potential new ice age, the end of fossil water in the Great Plains, new diseases, natural gas shortages, economic collapse, wars for oil, wars for water, famine, piracy, rioting, and the list goes on. The Long Emergency ends up being like a Khmer Rouge fantasy of all of humanity forced to move back to the land in one huge Peak Oil Year Zero. If you follow this vision of the future--if you don't just give up immediately--your next move should be to quickly acquire a skill like candle-making or shoeing horses and move out of the city. He offers some consolations in this nightmare future, as local communities rebuild--but to get there we end up abandoning many of our larger cities, and incidentally millions of people starve to death, kill each other or die in disease waves.
Kunstler is at his most effective where he is talking about our social and political obstacles to change. Our investment in the suburbs is such at this point that any talk of change would mean destroying virtually our entire economy as it now exists. In fact, he argues that except for the illusory industry of building the suburbs, we haven't really had any economic growth of any kind in the last forty years--and that seems about right. He assails the assumption that we could have an entire economy based on cutting each other's hair as being a fantasy. The parts of the book that critique suburban culture are good. The main problem with The Long Emergency is its use of questionable science to close off entire parts of the debate. It still provides a sobering look at a near worst-case scenario of where our culture's momentum might take us if we fail to change our direction.
RESOURCES:
The Long Emergency excerpt, Rolling Stone, March 2005, online at TruthOut: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/9893
See also WW4 REPORT's ongoing coverage of the global oil crisis
http://www.ww4report.com/node/729
----------
Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Aug. 1, 2005
Posted at 12:09 pm by R7fel
Permalink
New Missions and New Wars Will Have To Be Engineered
NEOCOSERVATISM, WHERE TROTSKY MEETS STALIN AND HITLER
by Srdja Trifkovic
The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”
Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community.
Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives’ hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is more rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism—within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF—that Hitler would have appreciated.
Some form of gradual but irreversible and desirable withering away of the state is a key tenet of the Trotskyite theoretical outlook. The neoconservatives, by contrast, are statists par excellence. Their core belief—that society can be managed by the state in both its political and economic life—is equally at odds with the traditional conservative outlook and with the non-Stalinist Left. In this important respect the neoconservatives are much closer to Stalinism and National Socialism. They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on Constitutional grounds.
The neoconservative view of America as a hybrid, “imagined” nation had an ardent supporter eight decades ago: in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler argued for a new, tightly centralized Germany by invoking the example of the United States and the triumph of the Union over states’ rights. He concluded that “National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.” Hitler was going to make a new Germany the way he imagined it, or else destroy it. In the same vein the Weekly Standard writers are “patriots” only insofar as the America they imagine is a pliable tool of their global design. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States’ federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints. The lines they inserted into President Bush’s State of the Union address last January aptly summarized their Messianic obsessions: the call of history has come to the right country, we exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers, we know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation: “The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”
Such megalomania is light years away from a patriotic appreciation of one’s nation. A psychotic quest for power and dominance is the driving force, and the “nationalist” discourse its justification. The reality is visible in ultimate distress: Towards the end of the Second World War Josef Goebbels welcomed the Allied bombing for its destruction of the old bourgeois cuckoo-clock and marzipan Germany of the feudal principalities. Driven by the same impulse, Bill Kristol’s “national greatness” psychosis seeks to sweep away the old localized, decentralized America of bingo parlors and little league games.
Most heirs of the Trotskyite Left are internationalists and one-world globalists, whereas all neoconservatives are unabashed imperialists. The former advocate “multilateralism,” in the form of an emerging “international community” controlled by the United Nations or through a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears resemblance to the New European Order of six decades ago, or to the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. Even when they demand wars to export democracy, the term “democracy” is used as an ideological concept. It does not signify broad participation of informed citizens in the business of governance, but it denotes the desirable social and political content of ostensibly popular decisions. The process likely to produce undesirable outcomes—an Islamic government in Iraq, say—is a priori “undemocratic.”
Whereas the Trotskyite Left is predominantly anti-militarist, the neoconservatives are enthusiastically militarist in a manner reminiscent of German and Soviet totalitarianism. Their strategic doctrine, promulgated into official policy last September, calls for an indefinite and massive military build-up unconnected to any identifiable military threat to the United States. Their scribes demand ‘citizen involvement,’ in effect, militarization of the populace, but the traditional ‘citizen soldier’ concept is reversed. Their goal is to get suitably indoctrinated young Americans to go and risk their lives not for the honor and security of their own country, but for the missions that have to be misrepresented to the public (e.g. the non-existant Iraqi WMDs) in order to be made politically acceptable. As Gary North has pointed out, neoconservative foreign policy is guns before butter: “Butter always follows guns, but this is regarded as the inescapable price of American regional presence abroad.”
The neoconservatives’ deep-seated distaste for the traditional societies, regimes, and religion of the European continent, particularly Russia and East European Slavs, is positively Hitlerian. The sentiment was most glaringly manifested in the 1999 NATO war against the Serbs: William Kristol’s urge to vicariously “crush Serb skulls” went way beyond the 1914 Viennese slogan “Serbien muss sterbien.” In terms of strategic significance for the United States, however, the neocons’ visceral Russophobia is mush more significant. In the aftermath of the Cold War the neoconservatives have continued to regard Moscow as the enemy, enthusiastically supporting Chechen separatists as “freedom fighters” and advocating NATO expansion. Their atavism is comparable to Hitler’s obsession with Russia, an animosity that was equally unrelated to the nature of its regime. It is only a matter of time before some neocons start advocating a new Drang nach Osten, in the form of an American-led scramble for Siberia.
The neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is a Nazi and Stalinist trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the Trotskyite Left). The replacement of the Soviet threat with the more amorphous “terrorism” reflects the doomsday revolutionary mentality that can never rest. New missions and new wars will have to be engineered, and pretexts manufactured, with the same subtlety that characterized the “attack” on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on August 31, 1939. Even the tools for the enforcement of domestic acquiescence are not dissimilar: the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist Messianism equally common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen wrote that “creative destruction” is America’s eternal mission, both at home and abroad, and the reason America’s “enemies” hate it: “They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
The neoconservatives’ mendacity apparent in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi crisis to the American people recalls the Goebbelsian “hypodermic needle approach” to communication, in which the communicator’s objective was to “inject” his ideas into the minds of the target population. “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering said when it was all over, in his prison cell in Nuremberg in 1946:
Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship ... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
It does indeed. Goering’s observation is echoed in our time by the Straussian dictum that perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is necessary because they need to be led, and they need to be told what is good for them. On this, at least, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler would all agree. (As Hitler had said, “The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble.”) In the Straussian-neoconservative mindset, those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
That mindset is America’s enemy. It is the greatest threat to the constitutional order, identity, and way of life of the United States, in existence today. Its adherents have only modified the paradigm of dialectical materialism in order to continue pursuing the same eschatological dream, the End of History devoid of God. They are in pursuit of Power for its own sake—thus sinning against God and man—and the end of that insane quest will be the same as the end of the Soviet empire and of the Thousand-Year Reich.
Copyright 2003, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org
Posted at 05:15 am by R7fel
Permalink
Monday, August 08, 2005
Collective Security Treaty Organization
|
Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia
By K Gajendra Singh
08/08/05 "ICH" -- -- The Kyrgyz government decision allowing continued use of its Manas air base by the US forces , after the 25-26 July visit of US Secretary of Defence , Donald Rumsfeld, followed a few days later by the Uzbek government’s courier delivered note to the US Embassy in Tashkent demanding that Washington wind up its Karshi-Khanabad (K2) base in south Uzbekistan in 180 days , along with the announcement of joint Russian Chinese military exercises scheduled for August , in the wake of 5 July notice to USA by Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to set a time table to withdraw its troops from bases in central Asia, are some of the strategic moves being made on the Eurasian chess board to counter US led Western expansion into eastern and even central Eurasian lands , by Russia as well as its former Soviet republics , with China now joining hands.
Russia has separated the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) into a core group which with measures being proposed could transform it into a full-fledged collective security organization.
Along with India, Iran and Pakistan were admitted as Observers to the SCO , at its Moscow summit.
History never ends as a reading of world history would tell anyone. After the fall of the Berlin Wall , U.S.-led West moved first stealthily , then rampantly to roll back Russia from the strategic space it occupied as a 2nd world war victor , beginning with the removal ofMilosevicofSerbia,anOrthodoxSlavpeople,traditionalfriendsofOrthodoxSlavRussians.opopSPANP
US then brought about regime changes in Georgia and Ukraine and installed its puppets and allowed Ilham Aliev succeed his father Haidar Aliev , President of Azerbaijan , an US ally , in a disputed 2003 election. In this 21st century struggle for the control of strategic space, energy sources and raw materials, US has built up a million barrel a day Baku-Tibilsi-Ceyhan pipeline, an energy corridor to squeeze Russia and Iran out from energy transportation to Europe . Stationing of troops in Georgia and Azerbaijan to guard it would be a strategic menace for the region, specially Azerbaijan‘s southern neighbour Iran , part of US Axis of evil and off and on its hit list .
But when the US financed and supported franchised street revolutions to bring about favourable regime changes reached into the very heart of central Asia in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan , it was too close for comfort not only for Russia but also for Kyrgyzstan’s eastern neighbour China ,which is also facing US moves to hem it in from east and south. Whether USA, caught in the Iraq quagmire with its forces thinly spread, can succeed in is objectives is another matter.
In history ,the former Soviet Union steppes have been the scene of decisive battles and wars by chariot riding Indo-Europeans and horse riding Turkish, Mongol and other tribes who moulded the history of the then known civilized world in Asia , Middle East , Eastern Europe and Mediterranean. Once again it occupies a central space.
Unprecedented joint military exercises by China and Russia ;
In a clear message to the United States and others , in an unprecedented move China and Russia would carry out a joint military exercises scheduled for August 18 to 25 near Russia's far-east port city of Vladivostok, before moving to the Yellow Sea and then to an area off the coastal Chinese province of Shandong. Apart from 2000 Russian troops, the exercises would involve Russia's Il-76 transport planes with paratroopers, Tu-95MS bombers firing cruise missiles at targets in the sea and Su-27SM fighter jets simulating coverage of ground forces.
The exercises are said to concentrate on anti-terrorist drills, when a fictitious state becomes plagued by terrorist violence and seeks assistance from neighboring states (ie Russia and China) to restore law and order. But why the strategic bombers and submarines ! Reports indicated differences over the location, with Russia wanting it near Xinjiang , while China wanted to locate it near Taiwan ,but it is now quite far away from both these places. Sixty five percent of Izvestia ‘s readers in an internet poll indicated that the exercises were aimed at USA .
Russian and Chinese Generals, including defense ministers , Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky and his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie, are expected to attend the exercises . This exercise was first included in a memorandum of understanding between Chinese Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Guo Boxiong, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov in July 2004 but made public in December 2004, when Ivanov visited China.
US base in Kyrgyzstan;
After meetings with Rumsfeld on 26 July in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, its leaders were persuaded that as Afghanistan remained volatile and the Manas base was needed to provide logistical support for US operations . "The base at Manas will stay as long as the situation in Afghanistan requires," acting Kyrgyz Defense Minister Ismail Isakov said during a news conference with Rumsfeld. "Once there is stabilization, there will be no need. But now I agree with [Rumsfeld], who said the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable." This was Rumsfeld’s second visit to Bishkek this year .
President Kurman Bakiyev thanked Rumsfeld for the US support and said that a new period began with the change in Kyrgyz administration on March 24, culminating with the presidential elections on July 10, ( which he won). He thanked USA for its contribution in ensuring that the elections were democratic and legal. He said that the US administration was always with Kyrgyzstan in its democratic and economic development since its independence. The US has reportedly provided $750 million in aid to Kyrgyzstan since its independence in 1991.
Assuring Bakiev of continued US support for the development of democracy in Kyrgyzstan , Rumsfeld said that the 10 July presidential elections was a victory for the people for Kyrgyzstan and Bakiyev. The base built to serve their mutual interests had done no harm to the region and played a significant role in the US war on international terrorism, extremism and narcotics, added Rumsfeld.
About the SCO deadline for the US evacuation from the region, Rumsfeld remarked in his inimitable style "I don't really know. I wasn't at the meeting. We are not a member of that organization. And I don't know what their motives might have been." Rumsfeld emphasized that the situation in Afghanistan was not yet stable. He said that independent countries made decisions without any pressure or outside intervention.
Bakiyev, who was elected the new Kyrgyz President on July 10 after a popular uprising in March had toppled former US poster boy Askar Akayev, had expressed doubts about the need for the U.S. presence at Manas . He told reporters on July 11 “This issue was raised at the SCO summit, since the situation in Afghanistan has changed. The situation in Afghanistan will soon stabilize. The country has had presidential elections and is getting ready to elect a parliament, so the question about the coalition base’s presence in Kyrgyzstan arises.”
US claims that the bases serve as important conduits for humanitarian aid and military equipment sent to Afghanistan .But they are seen as part of a shift in Pentagon strategy that establishes near the world's hot spots , small, rapid response outposts that can be quickly ramped up during crises. Central Asia, home to numerous Islamic extremist and terrorist groups, is one of those hot spots. But since 2001 USA has done really little to stop Pakistan from sending terrorists to India or controlling Kurdish PKK militants from Turkey , now holed up in north Iraq under US protection, which even commit terrorist acts inside Turkey.
Continued Tajikistan support to USA;
Rumsfeld visited Tajikistan after Bishkek and announced that US troops would continue to use Tajik airspace and plants. Rumsfeld and President Imamali Rahmonov said in Tajik capital Dushanbe that Tajikistan remained a close US partner in its Afghan operations, a "solid partner in the global struggle against extremism." Later Rumsfeld described US ties with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in excellent shape.
During his visit to Bishkek and Dushanbe, Rumsfeld clarified that the United States had no intention to withdraw its bases from Central Asia in the near future. He added that the U.S. forces were deployed on the bases according to bilateral agreements for mutual benefits.
Bases in Uzbekistan;
Although the US had expected the Uzbek decision, the manner of the delivery of the notice to vacate the K2 base without assigning any reason surprised USA, although it put up a brave front . After the Andijan uprising USA and its pillion rider UK soft pedaled their criticism of the violent confrontation, in which after the rebels had killed many security personnel and soldiers and taken over government buildings, in the act of suppressing it , according to Human Rights organizations over 700 persons were killed , while Tashkent maintained less than 180 were killed .
K2 has been a hub to transfer goods to be taken by road into northern Afghanistan, particularly to Mazar-e Sharif -- with no other alternative during the winter. K2 is also a refueling base with a long runway to handle large military aircraft, the alternative being costly midair refueling. A few months ago Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman had described the airfield "undeniably critical in supporting our combat operations" and humanitarian deliveries, for which USA paid $15 million to Uzbekistan since 2001.
On 25 July, Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that losing access to K2 would not jeopardize U.S. operations in Afghanistan. "We're always thinking ahead. We'll be fine," Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita emphasised that the U.S. did not depend on one base in any part of the world. "We'll be able to conduct our operations as we need to, regardless of how this turns out. It's a diplomatic issue at the moment," Di Rita said.
In a way there was a battle of nerves between the two governments since the May uprising in Andijan. President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan had cut off U.S. night flights and some cargo flights, forcing Washington to move search-and-rescue operations and some cargo flights to Bagram air base in Afghanistan and Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan , with further deterioration in relations .
The quit notice was given soon after 439 Uzbek political refugees were flown out from neighboring Kyrgyzstan -- over Uzbek objections -- by the United Nations to Romania on temporary asylum . How ever 15 refugees were held behind in Kyrgyzstan named by Uzbekistan. Tashkent had wanted all the refugees be returned but the Bush administration had pressurised Kyrgyzstan not to do so..
The termination note was delivered 4 days before Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns was to pressurize Tashkent to allow an international investigation into the Andijan protests, Burns was also going to warn the government, to open up politically or risk the kind of upheavals witnessed recently in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said. But surely Buns would have made another try to make Tashkent relent on the base.
After the May Andijan rioting some commentators viewed it as an important test for the Bush administration - whether the anti-terrorism efforts or promotion of democracy took priority. "We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees," said a senior official, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy. "We could have saved the base if we had wanted."
This is as usual a false claim which only true info-challenged Americans might believe. Because ,in reality , top US officials did whatever they could to make Tashkent regime change its mind on the US troops' presence, including a well known attempt to block UN action calling for an official investigation into the massacre. Closeness between European nations and the US, a product of years of cooperation, is however often taken for granted for US benefit. So, Europeans did not blink an eyelid when they saw the US block the UN effort to call Uzbek leaders to question on atrocities in Andijan. So much for the tall talk on human rights by USA and its European allies.
It is unlikely that US will give the promised $22 million in aid to Uzbekistan as in its view it has not complied with the provisions on political and economic reforms included in a 2002 strategic partnership agreement with Washington. Last year, USA withheld almost $11 million.
View of an insider –Former British Envoy to Tashkent;
Former British Ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, who was relieved of his charge for openly protesting against US and British coddling of Karimov ,said that Washington was only trying to cover its retreat behind a smokescreen of belated concern for human-rights abuse in Uzbekistan. It suddenly discovered “one of their most intensively courted allies – in shock horror - to be an evil dictator. (Remember Saddam?) But the reality is much more complex.”
It might be noted that Tashkent received in 2002 alone $120 m in US aid for the army and $82 m for the security services. Prior to the decision, there was no indication at all that the US was going to review its military links with Uzbekistan - in fact US General Richard Myers had specifically stated that they would continue. Britain gave no indication of stopping cooperation either. Nor “ that we will stop the practice whereby the Uzbek security services share with the CIA and MI6 the so-called intelligence extracted from Karimov's torture chambers. So much for the pretence of moral repugnance. ”
Craig also disclosed that Germany had leased a base at Termez in southern Uzbekistan , with Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister a frequent visitor and admirer of Karimov “Karimov has never intended to move Uzbekistan towards democracy or the free market. His very limited experimentation with attracting western investment in the mid-1990s convinced him that western-style capitalism was incompatible with containing all economic clout in the hands of his family and immediate cronies. Since then he has turned to Russian and Chinese state companies for investment.”
At the end of last year, Karimov finally came off the fence and opted for Russia's Gazprom rather than US firms to develop Uzbekistan's massive gas fields thus “ questioning the viability of the hydrocarbons pipeline over Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea, the holy grail of US policy in central Asia since before the Afghan war.”
The US franchised revolutions in former Soviet republics made up Karimov’s mind .An angry Eduard Shevardnadze visited him after being ousted and warned him against Soros and other NGOs. Karimov immediately kicked out the Open Society Institute and put crippling restrictions on other NGOs, setting his face against US promoted democracy. This helped increasing a warm relationship with Vladimir Putin.
Karimov was, on the face of it, an unlikely man for Putin to embrace. After independence he had encouraged anti-Russian nationalist sentiment, and 80% of ethnic Russians - more than 2 million people - fled Uzbekistan. But Putin and Karimov share many things.
“Uzbekistan has half the population of central Asia, a dominant geo-strategic position and the region's largest and best-equipped armed forces. But to the north, Kazakhstan, under President Nazarbayev, has far outstripped Karimov in economic performance, and not only because of greater hydrocarbon resources. He has kept a balance between Russia and the west, and the economy is relatively open, with much more western investment.”
But Bush in his penchant for rhetoric to promote democracy called for fair elections in Kazakhstan and upset President Nazarbayev. In a recent letter to him, Bush urged him to allow fair elections later this year when the latter seeks a third term. "The latest events in the region have stressed the importance of a balanced economic growth, responsible governance and democratic development. I urge you to make sure that economic reforms are backed up with bold democratic reforms," said an edited version of the Bush letter. Like US ally late Haidar Aliev of Azerbaujan , both Karimov and Nazarbayev have ambitions that their daughters succeed them .Has it not happened in USA , where Bush senior helped his son with little real federal level political experience and passed on his own his advisers like Dick Cheney , Colin Powell and others.
Recently Ms Rice said in Cairo that for 60 years US had promoted stability over democracy but would now promote democracy. But US ally President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt , who has ruled for 25 years with emergency powers and has not allowed any other Presidential contender , is again gearing to get himself re-elected in a similar fashion without a whimper from Washington . Ever since Pakistan’s independence, US has been happier dealing with military rulers in Pakistan . Except for those persuaded by ‘manufactured consent’ in USA who re-elected George W. Bush , rhetoric or spin by US leadership and its corporate controlled media , makes little impact elsewhere and only brings down US credibility
James O' Halloran, editor of the annual publication "Jane's Land Based Air Defence" said the K2 closure could have significant impact. "The [K-2] airfield itself is a forward operating base [in the southern part of Uzbekistan] which, logistically, gives the U.S. a very good jumping off point into Afghanistan when it needs to move troops and logistics in that area," O'Halloran said. But he added that Tashkent's decision did not come as a surprise.
"I believe that the U.S. has expected to lose the K-2 base for some time now as political pressure has been applied through various sources to hold back the U.S. expansion, shall we say, into the former Soviet empire," he said. "A lot of people are saying that [the United States is] expanding a little too quickly now. They're over-stretching things. And I do believe it is politics which has forced the expected closure of K-2."
O' Halloran also believed that Putin put political pressure on Uzbekistan to demand for the U.S. withdrawal. "On the world scale of things, I don't think [the U.S. reaction to the Andijon crisis] played a major part in this," he said. "I think the politics coming out of Moscow probably has more to do with it than anything else."
According to Eurasia net , while Kyrgyz and Tajik leaders might see value in maintaining strategic cooperation with the United States, there are many signs that officials in both countries now see Russia as their primary security partner. Soon after Rumsfeld left Bishkek, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass published on July 26, an interview with President Bakiyev, who said that Moscow has "always held and will hold a special place in Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy." He added that Kyrgyzstan would boost strategic cooperation in the future.
"We think Russia’s presence in the Central Asian region is, first of all, a safeguard of stability and security," Bakiyev continued. "International terrorism, religious extremism, illegal trade in drugs and arms, organized crime and various kinds of violence – all this requires ever closer cooperation and joint actions based on complete trust."
At the same time Tajikistan ‘s strategic and economic relations with Russia have been strengthened over the past year. During the October 2004 visit of Putin to Tajikistan, Russia agreed to forgive $350 million in debt in exchange for a satellite surveillance complex in Nurek. Russian companies also signed agreements to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Tajik infrastructure and industrial projects. Dushanbe made Russia’s military base permanent after the visit.
Russia maintained silence on Rumsfeld’s visits to Bishkek and Dushanbe .But some claims in the Russian media that the United States granted $200 million in financial assistance for continued access to the Manas air base were denied by Kyrgyz officials .However political observers expect that Moscow will continue to use regional multilateral organizations, including the SCO and the CSTO to undermine the American position in Central Asia.
It is not that the Manas base pumps about $156,000 a day into the local economy and accounted for about 5% of Kyrgyzstan's GDP but the period of laissez faire under deposed President Akayev helped infiltrate US friends in to positions of power in Kyrgyzstan. The country is too infested with US supporters .The training provided to police and military personnel by USA in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan ( there was furor in some US circles that US trained soldiers had fired in Andijan ) is very useful in subverting the loyalty to wards it .This was a routine Cold War game played by the two super powers .That is how Soviets infiltrated into Afghanistan before moving fully in 1970s .
Other bases in the region;
Russia also has a base at Kant in Kyrgyzstan which has about 500 Russian troops and 20 combat and transport planes and helicopters. Moscow is planning to double the number of troops Russian troops which stayed put in Tajikistan after the collapse of the USSR. A recent agreement between Moscow and Dushanbe legalized the Russian presence.
In April, Afghanistan's Defence minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak said that details were being worked out for permanent basing of US forces in the country , including permanent air bases or “pre-positioned” military equipment that would be used by rapidly deployed US forces in a crisis. Gen Wardak tried to mollify neighbouring countries about permanent US presence, that any agreement with the US would come along with security pacts with regional powers. Iran is worried about reconnaissance operations by USA , which handed over control of a civil-military unit based in the western city of Herat, close to the Iranian border, to Nato. There were reports of even a Pakistan payback for the US largesse in letting its territory be used for spying over Iran, which of course, Pakistan denied.
As part of Pentagon’s overall policy to rearrange its forces around the world including 13 in south Germany ,11 around Wuerzburg in Bavaria would be handed over to the German government by September 2007 with two later on . It is a part of plans to relocate, convert and deactivate parts of the US Armed forces at home and abroad. Plans are afoot for USA to use air bases in Romania and Bulgaria , although after reprisals against countries helping US led war in Iraq ,such projects are now shrouded in silence .While Romania has a small Muslim population , mostly Tatars , tens of thousands of Israeli citizens holiday in their ‘home’ Romania .Hundreds of Israeli citizens are migrants from Romania and many speak Romanian .They could be targeted as were a synagogue and Jews in neighbour Turkey’s commercial capital Istanbul in end 2003.
Enough is enough and SCO call;
The call for withdrawal of US military bases in Central Asia was most likely decided in the meetings between Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Moscow summit from June 30 to July 3, just before the SCO summit. In a bilateral statement, “World Order in 21st Century,” issued on July 2, China and Russia warned of the danger of “unilateralism” in international relations and called for a greater role for the United Nations, and stability in the Korean Peninsula. Hu told reporters after his talks with Putin: “We reinforced our mutual support on key issues like Taiwan and Chechnya, which concern our vital interests.”
Russia might be concerned about China's growing influence and engagement in Central Asia, and China might have been keen to weaken Russia's influence over these countries by strengthening its economic links with them ,but seeing what USA was up in Eurasia made them close ranks.
A significant aspect of the SCO summit was granting of observer status to Iran, India and Pakistan. While India , faced with terrorism from Jihadis operating from Pakistan and Afghanistan , like other members of SCO , was keen to join SCO for some time but for Chinese opposition ,who wanted Pakistan too in the organization , which is a problem and not a solution and certainly does not fit in with the anti terrorism objectives of SCO. Iran in spite of its defensive connections with Hizbullah , now under US threats has become an economic partner with China and India with long term energy deals and technical partner with Russia for arms supply and nuclear energy reactor technology.
All the SCO states are also opposed to a possible US plan for a regime change in Tehran. The Central Asian republics will have then problems next door as Iraq’s neighbours , even US allies have learnt to their cost . They are concerned at the US bases on their territories being used for aggression against Iran. Not only Russia and China but most other countries do not want to see another major oil producer being transformed if not into a US client state but a source of turmoil.
China signed a long-term $70 billion agreement with Tehran for a 51 percent stake in Iran’s largest onshore oilfield. At the SCO summit, Iranian vice president, Mohammad Reza Aref, declared his country could become the “bridge” that connected the SCO states to the resources of the Persian Gulf. India , Pakistan and Iran are negotiating for a pipeline to transfer Iranian gas to Pakistan and energy hungry India , in spite of illogical opposition by USA .
China , with a ruling Communist party is now a status quo power , with a capitalist mode of production with some free market features .It is as unlikely a combination as between luxury loving Saudi Princes and puritan Wahabi ideology and could face strains sooner or later , with very destabilizing repercussions .But as for now China has invested heavily in Central Asia for its energy and other resources . It is constructing a 1,000-kilometer pipeline from Kazakhstan's central Karaganda region to its own adjoining Xinjiang region. Likely to be completed by the end of 2005, the Karaganda pipeline will be a vital link in a 3,000-kilometer project that would link China further west to the Caspian Sea.
China-Russian Cooperation;
After forming a “strategic relationship”, bilateral trade between Russia and China rose dramatically to $21.2 billion in 2004 and is expected to grow 20 percent this year. It could touch $60-$80 billion by 2020. Oil imports from Russia by will go up 50 percent this year to 70 million barrels. Chinese oil companies are looking for major investments in Russian energy sector. Rosneft, the main state-owned oil exporter to China has been granted over $6 billion in Chinese loans.
It appears that the main Chinese energy focus is on Siberia which has half of all the proven oil reserves of the former USSR and 70 percent of total Russia’s coal reserves. The region is Russia’s largest producer of oil, the second for coal and a major centre of metal industries. Some 140 out of some 200 largest enterprises in Siberia are weapon manufacturers, whose main customer is China.
China is also working with Uzbekistan to develop its gas fields in the Ferghana Valley and has invested in hydroelectric projects in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. China is greatly interested in Central Asian markets for its products. An unstable Central Asia could result in a spillover of conflicts into its already restive Xinjiang province. It has sought to secure its borders by firming up its relations with Central Asian governments. It has invested resources and time in enlarging the scope of the SCO more than any other member.
The American presence in Central Asia is clearly a challenge and danger to China’s energy security and stability. But China itself is signing energy deals and agreements not only with Iran but in Africa and Latin America , traditionally US oil companies backyard . It even made a bid for US oil giant UNOCOL .( remember it , when Afghan Taleban government reneged on a deal with UNOCOL for energy transport from central Asia via Afghan territory to the Arabian Sea , relations between Talebans and UNOCOL and hence USA went from bad to worse and Talebans welcomed Osama bin Laden. The rest is history.)
Andrei Grozin, director of the Central Asia section of the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] Institute, told the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta on July 4 that the SCO might “create a working, functioning structure to support stability and to preserve those political systems that have taken shape in the post-Soviet Asiatic states”.
Sergei Markedonov, a researcher at Russia’s Institute of Political and Military Analysis, told the Moscow-based RIA Novosti newspaper on July 13 that the recent political unrest in Central Asia [ encouraged by US financed institutions] showed that Russia, in cooperation with China, needed to function as “a regional policeman”.
Collective Security Treaty Organization to counter aggression and interference;
According to RIA Novosti of August 2 a press release by the CSTO based in Moscow has drawn up a draft protocol for providing military aid and equipment to member countries in emergency situations. CSTO includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Member countries would now discuss the draft protocol for approval.
CSTO ‘s secretary general Nikolai Bordyuzha explained that the protocol would apply in situations which ‘include preparations for aggression and actual aggression as such, the plotting and carrying out of international terrorist attacks, and external threats to the security, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of one or more CSTO members.’ The protocol also lays down guidelines for the interaction between state and interstate CSTO bodies in such situations.
Bordyuzha said aid would be provided if requested by one or more parties and should be sent to the chairman of the Collective Security Council, the supreme CSTO body comprising of heads of state. Requests should include a list of required military equipment, in addition to the amount of equipment and the terms of the requested aid. The aid could include military equipment free of charge or on privileged terms to maintain and restore the combat efficiency of CSTO armed forces.
Before the Russian Chinese Summit on 2nd July, on June 22-23, Moscow hosted a meeting of the heads of state of CSTO ( also members of Commonwealth of Independent States –CIS ) in conjunction with meetings of CSTO countries' ministers of foreign affairs, defense ministers, and secretaries of the national security councils. The meetings approved a framework plan on CSTO development in two stages -- through 2010 and beyond -- as well as plans to upgrade the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia and to create an inter-state commission for handling deliveries and servicing of military equipment at preferential prices. These measures on the agenda have been taken up in view of recent developments.
Coming in the wake of the so called US franchised ‘Tulip’ revolution in Kyrgtzstan and failed uprising in Andijan in Uzbekistan , the summit decided to separate the CIS Joint Air Defense System (nominally of ten countries) from that of the CSTO's planned United Air Defense System (six member countries). While the Joint System lets forces function under national command, with periodic military exercises coordinated from Russia, with each member's airspace as distinct and sovereign, the proposed United System would place all forces under a single ie Russian planning system and command. It transforms CSTO airspace as a single entity . Russian officials explained the separation because some CIS countries aspired joining NATO.
Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov, and CSTO Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha described the the Andijan uprising unambiguously as an act of international terrorism and radical Islam against Uzbekistan.
Russian leaders and officials including President Putin criticized the failure of U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan to suppress "terrorist training bases, including those supported by certain intelligence services" and for tolerating the booming export of Afghan heroin to Russia and Europe. It was said that the CSTO was prepared to help and assist Afghanistan, as well as setting up "a working group to coordinate with Afghan structures" and a joint anti-drug authority.
But Kazakh Defense Minister General Mukhtar Altynbayev opposed a Russian initiative to create a joint standing conventional military force for Central Asia within the CSTO's framework and told the media, "Creating a cumbersome force for permanent stationing would be worthless." This issue was deferred for the next meeting. The differences on budgeting and financing of the CSTO office , command and control systems and the Rapid Deployment Forces were not fully resolved .
President Robert Kocharian of Armenia (which is ranged against US ally Azerbaijan ) found comfort "in the CSTO's lineup, one in which we do not disagree among ourselves, but strive for practical results" , while current US bete noire in the region Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka praised the CSTO as a counter weight to the "unipolar dictatorship of a single super-power" [the United States]. For the first time, the Russian military now plans to hold joint ground-force exercises in 2006 at the command-and-staff level in the CSTO's "western region" and "southern region" -- that is, in Belarus and in Armenia so far held in its Central Asian region only. Putin also took over the annual chairmanship of the Collective Security Council (the top political authority of the CSTO) from Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev.
Caspian Sea Basin ;
The US objectives for bases was to stem the flow of drugs, illicit nuclear material, and small arms illicitly crossing borders. But the Caspian basin is also rich in energy resources, and the United States supported construction of a new oil pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan, Turkey. This has led to the charge that the United States was really after the region's oil. "[Washington is] killing two birds with one stone," fighting terrorists while securing energy sources
In Azerbaijan , Ilham Aliev , son of late President Haidar Aliev , former Politburo member in Moscow and called father of the Azeri nation , who was allowed to succeed his father in a controversial election in 2003 , might find the US embrace too suffocating .He could be set aside if found not amenable to US designs in the region both for security of oil transportation which begins from Baku and in US aims to attack or destabilize Iran from Azerbaijan .
As of next year, Central Asia will come fully online to Western energy markets, as twin oil and gas pipelines linking the Caspian sea to Turkey will begin to deliver .Ever since the region's oil wealth was freed after the collapse of the USSR, US policymakers worked hard to get Baku on its side and vice versa. The completion of this key strategic asset, 'East-West energy transit corridor' would run through Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia with oil also from Kazakhstan but exclude Iran and Russia.
Though U.S. officials deny that their forces are already stationed in Azerbaijan, they concede that the country is vital for the future of the US bases in the region. Stratfor website reported in April that some U.S. aircrafts , troops and materiel were already in the country, and more forces and aircraft would be deployed later this year. It claimed that Azerbaijani government sources also confirmed that there was an agreement between Baku and Washington on locating U.S’s "temporarily deployed mobile forces", in a deal struck at the Baku airport by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's and the Azerbaijani Prime Minister Artur Rasizade and Defense Minister Safar Abiyev ,acting on behalf of Ilham Aliyev who was conveniently out of the country at the time.
The recently forged access to a base in Azerbaijan, situated next to Iran, was reportedly subject to some heavy coercing. Discussions between the US secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and officials representing president Ilham Aliyev, publicly might have passed for negotiations but were first hand example of the very bullying that the US officials accuse Russia and China of in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Recently, Nato’s Assistant Secretary-General for Defence Planning and Operations , John Colston visited Baku and reported that "Special reports will be prepared soon, which will identify the main directions of cooperation between the alliance and Azerbaijan.” It is expected Azerbaijan is ready to join the alliance 2006. The issue of disputed Nagorno Karabakh is likely to be the key here.
Georgia has also been compensated and was recently paid US$ 64 million as part of a two-year "train and equip" mission, in which US Special Forces trained a 2,000 strong antiterrorist force that patrols the Pankisi Gorge, which is where Chechen rebels and AI Qaeda fighters hide out. This easily outstrips the country's annual income from overseas workers and tourism. The company building the barracks and other facilities for the US trainers is Kellogg Brown & Root division of Halliburton industries, the former business of US vice president Dick Cheney, which is building plenty of other facilities in this region, as well as in Iraq.
Some facilities are quite advanced notably in Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova , all Members GUAM, an organization modeled on NATO's Conventional Forces in Europe, which was launched in 1996. The countries coordinate their defense policies and pool their diplomatic resources to oppose Russia. The main reason for the organization encouraged by USA was to create more security through collaboration against possible destabilizing action by Russia .But all countries except Azerbaijan are dependent on supplies of oil and gas either from or through Russia which can employ tactics like suspending the supplies or redirecting export routes to manipulate the foreign and domestic policies of the members .
US failed to persuade its Nato ally Turkey in joining and letting US troops use Turkish territory in South East to open another front in north of Iraq in March 2003 . There are reports that in case US decides to attack Iran and ,plans for such contingencies are being formulated in Washington, among others by the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) ,it would involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons", reported Counterpunch columnist Gary Leupp, in an article entitled 'Is Iran being set up?' "Do they even realize that southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical Shiism, and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shiites, U.S. forces have acquired in Iraq?", he wondered.
This could explain Baku’s preference to delay the arrival of the major U.S. forces' or its formal announcement until after the elections this November. "The current government would be accused of election fraud and treated accordingly by the West and Western-encouraged opposition", according to the Stratfor analysis. It might meet the fate of US loyalist Sheverdnazde , ex President of next door Georgia., Ilham Aliyev favors a pluralistic foreign policy, having resolved differences with Russia over its troops in the Qabala base , northwest of Baku. It is believed that President Putin has tentatively agreed to allowed US troops ( for pipeline security ) being stationed there, but wants that he must be kept informed.
Like the complex Sunni , Shia and Kurd relationships in Iraq , which US did not take into account before invading Iraq , it might like to ponder that Azerbaijan is also a Shia nation , while Iran has twice as many Azeri ( Turkic language cousin) speaking Iranians , including its spiritual leader Ali Khameini . The Muslim masses have seen through US game and its ruthless pursuit of interests .Instead US might worry over Azeris and others sabotaging Baku Tiblsi Ceyhan pipeline .
Changing USA’s Global preparedness;
In a reorganization of its military bases beyond the stability of cold-war bases in Europe and the Far East , USA is now looking for new alliances with nations from Southeast Asia to the Horn of Africa which promise quick access to the remotest corners of the globe. "We're going to be fighting this global war against irregular forces in much different places than we were willing to fight in the past," says Robert Work, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments here. "And in [these places] there are no long-term allies."
"We're going to find this is going to be a rolling process," Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's undersecretary for policy, told Congress last year. "Some of what we're planning to do is either not doable because we can't get the kind of legal arrangements or other commitments that we want, in which case we're going to have to make adjustments, or we may find that some countries are so eager to work with us on certain things that the deals they're offering induce us to change some of our plans," he added.
The shift is part of the Pentagon's Global Posture Review, which looks at overseas bases in much the same way that the Base Realignment and Closure process is now looking at domestic bases. The Pentagon believes that its current network of home and overseas bases is a relic of the cold war and needs change which should be flexible enough to meet unforeseen demands.
During the cold war, "we had forward garrison forces configured to fight near and where they were based," said Ryan Henry, the Pentagon's principal deputy undersecretary for policy, in congressional testimony. "Today we no longer can predict where, when, or in what manner our forces may be called on to fight." "It's a reshuffling of the deck," says Charles Peña, a defense analyst at the Cato Institute.
Already, the American military has expanded its presence to unfamiliar areas, from Senegal to Singapore. Yet that is taking American forces into more volatile areas. There, they can help stabilize unsettled regions through their presence and training. But in these regions allegiances to America can easily ebb and flow. As happened with Turkey and Saudi Arabia when invading Iraq .Of course it is too much for these worthies to study history and interstate relations . From the corporate sector they believe countries can be treated like machines, bought and sold at will.
The arrival of American troops at their doorstep after September 11 did trigger worry in Russia and China but neither country objected vigorously to the US setting up bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. But soon it transpired that US had plans to invade Iraq to control its oil and the region as well as bases in central Asia were part of plans of US administrations to control central Asia’s energy and other resources.
By now it is quite clear that the US War on Terror, beginning with the attack on Afghanistan was exploited by Washington to place its forces for strategic control of regions , as spelt out by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a controversial organization whose members dominate the echelons of power in Washington.
The idea that that the US should control the oil and gas resources and territories of Central Asia was highlighted in the early 1970s by Zbignew Brzezinski and later explained in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard’. A former advisor to Rockefeller and President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski's book reads like a document for strengthening the neo-cons case for the war on Iraq for its oil . But seeing the mess in Iraq , Brzezinski is now singing a different tune .
(K Gajendra Singh, served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan in 1992-96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to Jordan (during the 1990-91 Gulf war), Romania and Senegal . He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies, in Bucharest . The views expressed here are his own.- Email-Gajendrak@hotmail.com) |
|
Posted at 07:11 pm by R7fel
Permalink
The Drive To War Will Not Be Derailed
Why Iran will lead to World War 3
"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News
by Mike Whitney
08/08/05 "ICH" -- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.
Sound familiar?
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.
That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.
Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."
Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.
The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.
The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace.
Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.
No way.
So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.
Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?
Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.
Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.
Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.
The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.
We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.
Isn't that so?
If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.
In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.
It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.
It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.
We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.
The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.
When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Posted at 06:41 pm by R7fel
Permalink
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|