Messages In This Digest (17 Messages)

1.: Hillary Clinton's Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:22 pm (PST)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/hillary-clintons-prescription-make-the-world-a-nato-protectorate

Stop NATO
January 31, 2010

Hillary Clinton's Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate
Rick Rozoff

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in London and Paris last week advancing the new Euro-Atlantic agenda for the world.

As the top foreign policy official of what her commander-in-chief Barack Obama touted as being the world's sole military superpower on December 10, she is no ordinary foreign minister. Her position is rather some composite of several ones from previous historical epochs: Viceroy, proconsul, imperial nuncio.

When a U.S. secretary of state speaks the world pays heed. Any nation that doesn't will suffer the consequences of that inattention, that disrespect toward the imperatrix mundi.

On January 27 she was in London for a conference on Yemen and the following day she attended the International Conference on Afghanistan in the same city.

Also on the 28th she and two-thirds of her NATO quad counterparts,
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (along with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton), pronounced a joint verdict on the state of democracy in Nigeria, Britain's former colonial possession.

Afterwards she crossed the English channel and delivered an address called Remarks on the Future of European Security at L'Ecole Militaire in Paris on January 29. That presentation was the most substantive component of her three-day European junket and the only one that dealt mainly with the continent itself, her previous comments relating to what are viewed by the United States and its Western European NATO partners as backwards, "ungovernable" international badlands. That is, the rest of the world.

While in Paris, Clinton held a joint press conference with her counterpart Kouchner and said, "we...discussed the results of the London meetings on Yemen and Afghanistan. We have a lot of work ahead of us. We appreciate greatly the support that France has given in developing a European police force mission to support NATO in its effort to train police.

"We will be consulting even more closely. Our work in Africa is particularly important. I applaud France for resuming diplomatic relations with Rwanda, and I also appreciate greatly the work that Bernard and the government here is doing in Guinea and in other African countries." [1]

Rwanda and Guinea (Conakry) are former French colonies.

Two days before she made a similar joint appearance in London with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr Abdullah al-Qirbi. Yemen is a former British colony. The conference on that country held on January 27 also included the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, but not Secretary General Amr Moussa or any other representative of the 22-member Arab League.

Having the foreign minister of the unpopular government in Yemen that the U.S. is waging a covert - and not so covert - war to defend against mass opposition in both the north and south of the nation and the foreign minister of the nation that is bombing villages and killing hundreds of civilians in the north was sufficient for the Barack Obama and Gordon Brown governments. A war on the Arabian peninsula whose three major belligerents are the Yemeni government, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is not viewed by Washington and London as a matter that 20 other Arab nations need to be consulted about.

Clinton delivered comments on the occasion that were exactly what were required to obscure the real state of affairs in Yemen in furtherance of her nation's military campaign there: "The United States is intensifying security and development efforts with Yemen. We are encouraged by the Government of Yemen's recent efforts to take action against al-Qaida and against other extremist groups. They have been relentlessly pursuing the terrorists who threaten not only Yemen but the Gulf region and far beyond, here to London and to our country in the United States." [2]

Bombing Shia civilians in the country's north and resorting to the preferred "diplomatic" intervention of the last four American secretaries of state - cruise missiles - in the south in the name of protecting London from Osama bin Laden is yet another illustration of how a nation behaves when it doesn't have a formal diplomatic corps.

In the same breath she added "The Yemeni people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future," when there was nothing further from her mind.

She acknowledged that "a longstanding protest movement continues" in the south and that fighting in the north "has left many thousands dead and more than 200,000 displaced" - without in any manner alluding to Saudi armed assaults in the north and U.S. cruise missile attacks in the south - but her focus remained firmly on "extremists who incite violence and inflict harm." American bombs and missiles, of course, are nonviolent and harmless in the Secretary's us-versus-them view of statecraft.

Clinton didn't miss an opportunity to dress down her nation's client Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh - "This must be a partnership if it is to have a successful outcome" - for his failure to adequately "protect human rights, advance gender equity, build democratic institutions and the rule of law." The U.S. may extend its Afghanistan-Pakistan war into the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa [3] in nominal support of the Yemeni head of state and his Somali counterpart President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, but they and their like - Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's Asif Ali Zardari - should not for a minute forget who is in charge and who makes the rules.

The secretary of state had nothing to say about the condition of human rights, gender equality and so forth in Saudi Arabia and America's other military vassals in the Persian Gulf. Medieval monarchies and hereditary autocracies that host American military bases, buy billions of dollars of advanced weapons from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and are home to the U.S. 5th Fleet are not subjected to homilies on human rights and "democratic institutions."

On the day of the London conference on Afghanistan Clinton, flanked by the foreign ministers of Africa's two former major colonial masters, Britain's David Miliband and France's Bernard Kouchner, also delivered a lecture to the government of Nigeria, ordering it to address "electoral reform, post-amnesty programs in the Niger Delta, economic development, inter-faith discord and transparency." [4]

At the January 28 International Conference on Afghanistan, attended by the foreign ministers of all 28 NATO member states and dozens of NATO partnership underlings with troops in the South Asian war zone - the "international community" as the West defines it - Clinton complemented the Pentagon's allies and satraps:

"I think that what we have seen is a global challenge that is being met with a global response. I especially thank the countries that have committed additional troops, leading with our host country, the United Kingdom, but including Italy, Germany, Romania." [5]

She will need yet more troops in the near future for a far larger conflict than those the U.S. and NATO are currently involved with in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia if the following comments contribute to the results they appear to intend:

"I also had a chance to discuss Iran's refusal to engage with the international community on its nuclear program. They continue to violate IAEA and Security Council requirements.

"The revelation of Iran's secret nuclear facility at Qom has raised further questions about Iran's intentions. And in response to these questions, the Iranian Government has provided a continuous stream of threats to intensify its violation of international nuclear norms. Iran's approach leaves us with little choice but to work with our partners to apply greater pressure...."

Washington and its main NATO partners Britain, France and Germany along with miscellaneous allies around the world - "rogue" nuclear powers India, Israel and Pakistan among them (who know who to align with and purchase arms from) - dictate the terms on matters ranging from the proper holding of elections to which nation can develop a civilian nuclear power program. Any country outside the "Euro-Atlantic" and "international" communities faces censure, threats, "greater pressure" and ultimately military attack.

The U.S. has a population of 300 million and the European Union of 500 million, combined well under one-eighth that of the world. Yet the two, whose military wing is NATO, hold "international conferences" on Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world and presume to deliver ultimatums to all other nations.

To cite a recent example, the New York Times reported that "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on [January 29] that it would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an American-led campaign." [6] On the same day "The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers." [7]

Clinton has joined in the U.S. chorus of hectoring of China since she took up her current post last year, in May even raising the specter of Chinese penetration of Latin America.

China is not Afghanistan or Yemen. It is not even Iran. The last generation's foreign policy hubris and megalomania of the West, epitomized by its wars in Southeast Europe and South Asia and the Middle East, may be headed into far more dangerous territory.

Grandiosity, arrogance and perceived impunity blind those afflicted with them, whether individuals or nations.

No clearer example exists than Secretary Clinton's remarks in Paris on January 29.

To demonstrate the worldview of those she represents - that the United States and Europe are the incontestable metropolises and rulers by right of the planet - early in her address Clinton said "I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United States, France, and every country on this continent and far beyond the borders: the future of European security." [8]

That is, the U.S. arrogates to itself the prerogative of not only speaking with authority on the security of a continent 3,500 miles away but intervening around the world in its alleged defense.

Flattering her hosts, she further said: "As founding members of the NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side for decades to build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are working even more closely now that France is fully participating in NATO's integrated command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his leadership and look forward to benefiting from the counsel of our French colleagues as together we chart NATO's future."

Regarding the phrase "to defend and promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law," evocative of almost identical terms used two days earlier in reference to Yemen, Clinton's Paris speech was fairly overflowing with similar language.

The words recently have been tarnished and debased so thoroughly by the use they have frequently served - justifying war - that they are at risk of deteriorating into not so much noble as suspect abstractions.

Worse yet, they are incantations employed to praise oneself for uniquely possessing them and to castigate others who don't. ["Our work extends beyond Europe as well....European and American voices speak as one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran." But not in Saudi Arabia, Western Sahara, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, post-"independence" Kosovo, Estonia and Latvia, etc.]

Clinton's speech contained these terms and phrases in the following sequence:

democracy, human rights, and the rule of law

unity, partnership, and peace

global progress

reconciliation, cooperation, and community

security and our prosperity

importance of liberty and freedom

peace and security

development, democracy, and human rights

human potential

democratic institutions and the rule of law

progress and stability

democracy and stability

accountable, effective governments

economic and democratic development

expanding opportunity

development and greater stability

defend and promote human rights

peace and opportunity and prosperity

defending and advancing our values in the world

a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous

The last is a variant of A Europe Whole And Free [9] first employed by President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to inaugurate his putative new world order.

As will be seen by further excerpts from her address (as well as its location and context), Clinton's use of the above expressions was, as noted, both self-congratulatory and in contradistinction to the implied lack of what they pertain to in the world outside of the Euro-Atlantic community and its approved allies elsewhere.

Again taking up the theme of Western superiority and the need for the Euro-Atlantic precedent to be enforced on others, she said "European security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It is, after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history and geography. It is a model for the transformative power of reconciliation, cooperation, and community."

However, "much important work remains unfinished. The transition to democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia." The subjugation of Europe's eastern "hinterlands" will be explored later in relation to her comments on the European Union's Eastern Partnership and related matters.

"The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global security and a powerful force for global progress.

"NATO is revising its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance's summit at the end of this year here at (inaudible). I know there's a lot of thinking going on about strategic threats and how to meet them. Next week, at the Munich Security Conference, leaders from across the continent will address urgent security and foreign policy challenges.

"The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to foster security on a global scale."

To elite trans-Atlantic policy makers the above paragraphs' meaning is indisputable: The use of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization military bloc - the true foundation of the "transatlantic partnership" - in waging war in and effectively colonizing the Balkans and in expanding into Eastern Europe, incorporating twelve new nations including former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics, is the worldwide paradigm for the West in the 21st century.

That mechanism, using Europe as NATO's springboard for geopolitical aggrandizement in the east and the south, is being applied at the moment against larger adversaries than the bloc has tackled before now:

"European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity. Much of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on working together with Europe....And so we are working with European allies and partners to help bring stability to Afghanistan and try to take on the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear ambition."

"We have repeatedly called on Russia to honor the terms of its ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and we refuse to recognize Russia's claims of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. More broadly, we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one country seeks to control another's future. Our security depends upon nations being able to choose their own destiny."

The final sentence is galling beyond endurance, coming as it does from the foreign policy chief of a nation with hundreds of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and which with its NATO allies waged war against Yugoslavia and tore the nation apart.

The one preceding it is equally absurd, as Clinton repeatedly insists on the right of the U.S. to be not only a major player on the European continent but the main arbiter of military, security, political, energy and other policies there while denouncing Russia - it didn't need to be named - for alleged designs to establish a "sphere of influence" in neighboring states.

"Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public discourse around Europe's security has been fixed on geographical and political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner....We are closer than ever to achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the sum of its parts...."

For decades, indeed since the end of World War II, American leaders have been "inspired" by a vision of a Europe transformed and unified - under NATO military command and a European Union serving as the civilian, and increasingly military, complement to the Alliance.

"NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can meet the requirements of membership," even Ukraine where the overwhelming majority of its citizens oppose being pulled into the military bloc. ["We stand with the people of Ukraine as they choose their next elected president in the coming week, an important step in Ukraine's journey toward democracy, stability, and integration into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to efforts to resolve enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus."]

And should a nation be incorporated into the bloc even against the will of its people, then the U.S. "will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France and our other NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our promise to each other was not rhetorical, but real....And for that, I thank you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our commitment to Europe's defense is equally strong.

"As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about building a new missile defense architecture...."

Washington is uncompromisingly bent on expanding NATO even further along Russia's borders - Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Finland - despite misgivings among some NATO allies in Europe, and will use the Alliance's Article 5 war clause to "protect" those new outposts. It will also drag all of Europe into its worldwide interceptor missile system.

And not against military threats - there is no military threat to any European nation - but against a veritable plethora of phantom pretexts, including so-called cyber and energy security, both of which are subterfuges for the U.S. to intervene against Russia. A host of other ploys for NATO intervention were added, many from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's 17-point list of last year [10]: Iran's nuclear program, "confronting North Korea's defiance of its international obligations," "tackling non-traditional threats such as pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children" and the "need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense, counternarcotics, and Afghanistan." Anything and everything is grist to the U.S.'s and NATO's mill.

As Clinton put it, "In the 21st century, the spirit of collective defense must also include non-traditional threats. We believe NATO's new Strategic Concept must address these new threats. Energy security is a particularly pressing priority. Countries vulnerable to energy cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic risks as well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to diversify its energy supplies."

Diversifying energy supplies is a code phrase for driving Russia and keeping Iran out of oil and natural gas deliveries to Europe. If the tables were turned the U.S. would view - and treat - such a policy as an act of war.

The global expansion of the American agenda in Europe was indicated further in Clinton's remarks that "This partnership is about so much more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on defense, but on offense."

And placing the current world situation in historical perspective, she said: "We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability. We have worked together this year to complete the effort we started in the 1990s to help bring peace and stability to the Balkans. And we are working closely with the EU to support the six countries that the EU engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative."

The Eastern Partnership is a U.S.-backed European Union program to pull six of twelve former Soviet repiblics that formed the Commonwealth of Independent States into the Western orbit: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. [11] Armenia and Belarus are members with Russia of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a potential counterbalance to NATO's drive into the former Soviet Union. Along with Serbia and Cyprus, those nations represent the last obstacles to NATO, and behind it the U.S., securing control of all of Europe.

Clinton also had the audacity to raise the issues of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), the first almost two months beyond its December 5 expiration and the other, in its adapted form, not ratified by a single member state of NATO, which - led by the U.S. - is exploiting its suspension for military buildups in new Eastern European nations.

"Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty, while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a further obstacle to moving forward...." The U.S. and NATO have justified their non-ratification of the Adapted Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty by demanding that Russia withdraw a small handful of peacekeepers it maintains in post-conflict zones in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniester. Had those forces been withdrawn earlier under Western pressure, Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia in 2008, coordinated with an attack on Abkhazia, might have proven successful for its American-trained army.

Part of Clinton's self-serving interpretation of the CFE Treaty is "the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops in their territory." That is, U.S. and NATO and decidedly not Russia troops. There can be no spheres of influence in former Soviet space - except the West's.

Her understanding of an autonomous Europe not "besieged" by Russia and Iran - and North Korea - includes not only stationing American troops on its soil but also nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are still housed in NATO bases in several European countries. "President Obama declared the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and we will guarantee that defense to our allies.

"[W]e are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United States and our allies...." Clinton didn't indicate which European nations have requested to be placed under the Pentagon's nuclear shield.

After her presentation Clinton answered questions from the audience at the French Military Academy.

Her extemporaneous comments were even more revealing that her prepared text.

They included:

"When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of cooperation to increase.

"But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer cooperation and more complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all of our interests to try to forge common policies – economic and development and political and legal on the one hand in the EU, and principally security on the other hand in NATO. But as I said in my remarks, they are no longer separated. It's hard to say that security is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role to play in security issues."

NATO's new Strategic Concept lays particular emphasis on the advancement - indeed the culmination - of U.S.-EU-NATO global military integration. [12]

Regarding the implementation of that project, Clinton stipulated the issue of energy wars. "[I]t would be the EU's responsibility to create policies that would provide more independence and protections from intimidation when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But I can also see how in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a role for NATO as well."

When asked about what in recent years has been referred to as Global NATO "extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries, emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might fulfill their criteria," Clinton advocated a series of expanding partnerships in addition to the Partnership for Peace, Adriatic Charter, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Contact Country, Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission and others that take in over a third of the nations in the world:

"How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in Afghanistan.

"In many ways, it's quite remarkable, the success of this alliance. Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF – the international partners – have come up with a total of 9,000 more troops....NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really test the international community. And it's a test we have to pass. Now, there are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I don't think that's an adequate response.

"[C]yber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences far beyond boundaries. And it won't just be NATO nations. NATO nations border non-NATO nations."

A small consortium of Western nations, two in North America and 26 in Europe - though most of the latter are nothing more than slavishly subservient junior partners - has appointed itself, for its own interests, the arbiter of world affairs in all matters from judging the political legitimacy of governments to who receives energy supplies from whom to the most urgent question of all, when and against whom wars can be launched. [13]

Clinton's speech in Paris has signaled her country's intention to formalize and extend that role throughout the world in the 21st century.

1) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/136280.htm
2) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135930.htm
3) U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean
Stop NATO, January 8, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/u-s-nato-expand-afghan-war-to-horn-of-africa-and-indian-ocean-2
4) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/136151.htm
5) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/136159.htm
6) New York Times, January 29, 2010
7) New York Times, January 30, 2010
8) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/136273.htm
9) Berlin Wall: From Europe Whole And Free To New World Order
Stop NATO, November 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/berlin-wall-from-europe-whole-and-free-to-new-world-order
10) Berlin Wall: From Europe Whole And Free To New World Order
Stop NATO, November 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/berlin-wall-from-europe-whole-and-free-to-new-world-order
11) Eastern Partnership: The West's Final Assault On the Former Soviet Union
Stop NATO, February 13, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eastern-partnership-the-wests-final-assault-on-the-former-soviet-union
12) EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination
Stop NATO, February 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eu-nato-us-21st-century-alliance-for-global-domination
13) EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination
Stop NATO, February 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eu-nato-us-21st-century-alliance-for-global-domination
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: NATO Civilian Chief: More Casualties, Troops In Afghanistan 10 More

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:28 pm (PST)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7120696/Nato-chief-more-casualties-and-violence-in-Afghanistan-in-2010.html

Sunday Telegraph
January 31, 2010

Nato chief: more casualties and violence in Afghanistan in 2010
By Rosa Prince

The newly-appointed Nato civilian representative in Afghanistan has warned that 2010 will bring "many more" casualties and an "awful lot of violence" in the fight against the Taliban

But Mark Sedwill, the senior British diplomat who will represent the coalition in non-military matters, predicted that this year would also see a turning point in the conflict, as Nato beefed up its strategy politically and in terms of its fighting force.

Predicting that troops would be fighting for between three and five more years, he told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "This year will be another very challenging year.

"I am sure there will be many more casualties, there will be an awful lot of violence. That is, I am afraid, the nature of the conflict.

"My own view on this... is that we will probably still have troops in these front-line roles for three years, maybe three to five years.

"We will have many foreign troops there in training and supporting probably for a decade or more."

Mr Sedwill predicted that even once the troops departed, Afghanistan would require development aid for: "20, 30, 40 years, even."
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: NATO Transfers Troops Out, Hands Kosovo To KLA Successors

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:31 pm (PST)

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100131/157732233.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 31, 2010

NATO slashes its Kosovo peacekeeping contingent to 10,000

Sarajevo: NATO said it cut the alliance's peacekeeping contingent in Kosovo to 10,000 troops.

"Ten thousand soldiers from 32 nations will provide security and stability for the people in Kosovo," the statement said adding that the remaining contingent will have "a much leaner and more flexible structure."

Some 14,000 NATO troops were deployed in Kosovo, which on February 17 celebrates two years of its unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia.

The NATO military contingent in Kosovo (KFOR) has been deployed under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999.

Over 60 countries, including major Western powers, have recognized the independence of Kosovo. The rest of the world, including Russia, China and India, considers Kosovo to be part of Serbia.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: Persian Gulf: U.S. Readies Interceptor Missiles For Bahrain

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:56 pm (PST)

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=269639

Gulf Daily News
February 1, 2010

US missiles for Bahrain?

-General Petraeus revealed on January 22 the US was keeping a number of Aegis cruisers - equipped with advanced radar and anti-missile systems - on patrol in the Arabian Gulf.

US anti-missile systems may be installed in Bahrain to protect the country against possible retaliatory attacks from Iran, according to reports.

Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait are also in line to receive Patriot defensive missile batteries, while Saudi Arabia already possesses such equipment, according to the New York Times.

Specialised ships are also being positioned off the Iranian coast in the event of any retaliation to sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear programme, the newspaper said.
....
It is understood Oman has also been approached with an offer of missile defence equipment, but no missiles have yet been deployed there.

US Army Central Command commander General David Petraeus had earlier confirmed a total of eight Patriot missile batteries, "two in each of four countries", were being deployed.

However, which countries exactly had remained unconfirmed and classified.

General Petraeus revealed on January 22 the US was keeping a number of Aegis cruisers - equipped with advanced radar and anti-missile systems - on patrol in the Arabian Gulf.
....
News of increased missile defence systems in the Gulf follows months of tense negotiations between the US and Iran.

The US is seeking to win broad international consensus for sanctions against an alleged covert nuclear arms programme in Iran.

US President Barack Obama warned Iran in his State of the Union address there would be "consequences" if it continued to defy UN demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: Ukraine: Election Or Emergency Rule?

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:56 pm (PST)

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2740

Strategic Culture Foundation
January 31, 2010

Ukraine: Elections or Emergency Rule?
Sergei Molchanov

The Internet abounds with forecasts concerning the second round runoff in Ukraine's presidential elections. Public opinion polls suggest that Yanukovich's victory is imminent, and the majority of experts seem to agree with the prediction.

The natural question in this context is: given that from the outset the Orange Revolution in Ukraine prevailed as the result of the unconstitutional annulling of the former run-off outcome, can we expect compliance with democratic norms this time?

Chances are too high that ballots will be counted by Yulia Tymoshenko's campaign managers. The trajectory of her ascension to power was too tricky and the West's investments in the Orange project too serious to believe that she has no Plan B for the runoff.

When the preliminary results of the first round were announced, Tymoshenko immediately responded by charging that mass rigging had taken place in South and East Ukraine. She is a priori determined not to admit to being defeated and will seize every opportunity to derail the elections by instigating mass falsifications, provocations, mass protest rallies, and court hearings.

It became widely known that about a thousand Georgian citizens posing as observers landed in Ukraine on the eve of the elections. They will launch provocations and attempt to destabilize the elections in Donetsk, the main city of pro-Russian Southwest Ukraine where Yanukovich enjoys practically undivided support.

The relatively quiet conduct of the Georgian "visitors" during the first round of the elections only makes one await an escalation during the runoff. Ukrainian nationalist groups will likely contribute, and the conflicts may take a violent turn. Under the scenario, Ukraine will face an internal schism regardless of the outcome since the legitimacy of the new president will be open to controversy. The imposition of Tymoshenko's victory would be tantamount to direct suppression of the will of the majority of Ukraine's constituency.

The Party of Region press release says: "We have reliable information about plans to destabilize the already complicated situation in the country. We will continue sharing this information with the public and resist the implementation of the plans". Director of the Ukraine Department of CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] Countries Institute V. Kornilov expressed the same view: "In case Tymoshenko loses, she will nevertheless claim that she has won. We must be ready to see the main battle take place not at polling stations but in courts and in Kyiv's main square".

Tymoshenko will not recognize her defeat on February 7. This is the first conclusion. However, there is yet another potential scenario which carries the risk of broader destabilization – the introduction of emergency rule in Ukraine.

The second conclusion is that the outgoing President Yushchenko gives his support to his foe, Prime Minister Tymoshenko. For a limited period of time, the Orange Revolution leaders stop warring to jointly confront Yanukovich in the runoff.

Yushchenko's support for Tymoshenko is not limited to useless calls to vote for her as the candidate representing the smaller evil. The measures taken by president-eject Yushchenko are clearly aimed at promoting the common Orange cause. He sided with Tymoshenko in the conflict over the January 25 seizure of the Ukraine Publishers plant. Police master Yu. Lutsenko is regarded as Tymoshenko's ally. The police are patrolling the perimeter of the plant while Yushchenko's Presidential Security Service is controlling the printing of the ballots. Large numbers of uncounted ballots can thus be printed and injected during the runoff.

It is not Tymoshenko that Yushchenko is working for, and chances are the latter will emerge as the winner from the brewing conflict instead of the former.

There is a high probability that the elections in Ukraine will end with the introduction of emergency rule and the prolongation of Yushchenko's presidential term.

Massive falsifications and violations by both sides and clashes – ethnic and political – in the Crimea or elsewhere would provide Yushchenko with a pretext for indefinitely extending his term as the guarantor of the Constitution. Efforts have been made in Ukraine to probe into the public reaction to the establishment of "the dictatorship of law" by the law-enforcement agencies. In November, 2009 a major upheaval was caused by interviews on the issue given by former army intelligence chief and deputy director of security service A. Skipalski.

Ukrainian nationalists openly espouse the plan in their blogs. A typical post read: "I vote for Tymoshenko in the hope that either she wins and a pro-Russian criminal will not become our President or she loses by a minimal margin and takes the case to court if not start fighting. Then the current President will have to disqualify both candidates and impose an emergency rule to avoid bloodshed".

The implementation of the scenario would require serious armed backing, but in this respect Yushchenko's resources are limited, which must be the key argument against the plan. The security service has no major armed units (except for a special forces crack team which counts a relatively small number of servicemen). The Ukrainian army is weak and Yushchenko can hardly expect loyalty from it. The police and the internal troops have the largest and most combat-ready forces, but the police territorial divisions are mostly under the de facto control of regional elites. As the result, Ukrainian nationalist groups – quite considerable across the country - are the main force at Yushchenko's disposal.

There is almost no doubt that guerrillas from the ranks of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar nationalists will be employed to provoke armed clashes in the Crimea and in Sevastopol.

Provocations in the Crimea may be cited to justify expelling the Russian Navy from its Sevastopol base and declaring a state of emergency.

Indicatively, Yushchenko said that a recently inaugurated Russian copter-carrying ship would be used by Russia to occupy the Crimea. In such a case, Yushchenko's claim that as the guarantor of the constitution he is trying to prevent the disintegration of politically divided Ukrainian society can be reinforced by invoking the threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: India To Afghanistan: NATO Supplies Pass Uninspected Through Pakista

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:58 pm (PST)

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/13+indian-goods-being-taken-to-nato-troops-via-pakistan-120-za-07

Dawn News
February 1, 2010

Indian goods being taken to Nato troops via Pakistan By Khawar Ghumman

-Soon after the US attacked Afghanistan, the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf offered a special concession whereby Isaf and Nato got a blanket cover for importing their cargoes through Pakistani ports and airports.

ISLAMABAD: Despite Pakistan's refusal to let Indian products be taken to Afghanistan through its territory under the Afghan Transit Trade (ATT), Indian goods are being taken to the country via Pakistan under the tags of Isaf and Nato.

Documentary evidence placed in the National Assembly library may have failed to catch the attention of honourable parliamentarians, but International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) personnel are receiving Indian goods transported through Pakistan under special arrangements.

Soon after the US attacked Afghanistan, the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf offered a special concession whereby Isaf and Nato got a blanket cover for importing their cargoes through Pakistani ports and airports. The government issued the Customs General Order (CGO) 12/2002 for the purpose.

Such goods were given customs duty exemption and Pakistani customs officials were neither allowed nor they had any mechanism to check details of imported items and had to accept the information provided by the countries in the international alliance.

The present government made no changes in the arrangement introduced by the Musharraf regime.

A recent information sheet of cargoes meant for Nato transported through Pakistan carries the name Tata—a 66-seater bus—scores of other Indian brand items which are mentioned only as 'Provisions for Isaf and Nato'.

Documents available with Dawn reveal that the facility was being regularly used since the start of the war on terror and Pakistan playing the role of a frontline state.

According to Minister of State for Finance and Revenue Hina Rabbani Khar, the movement of consignments for Isaf and Nato to Afghanistan is not covered by the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement (ATTA) 1965, which is a bilateral accord.

Ms Khar provided the information in response to a question raised by Engineer Khurram Dastigir Khan of the PML-N.

She said that a special arrangement had been made by the former government for the movement of cargoes meant for Nato and Isaf through Pakistan which did not carry the provision of examination or physical checking of goods. This arrangement was worked out in consultation with the Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Commerce and it had since been working smoothly.

The minister also accepted that Nato countries seldom provided detailed description of the imported goods by them. This hesitation, the minister argued, might be because of heightened security concerns.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: China Threatens As U.S. Defends Taiwan Weapons Deals

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:16 pm (PST)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117503&sectionid=351020404

Press TV
January 31, 2010

China threatens as US defends Taiwan arms deals

China on Sunday renewed a warning to the United States over its arms deal with Taiwan, after Washington defended the five arms sales transactions worth $6.4 billion.

"China firmly opposes and is strongly dissatisfied with arms sales to Taiwan by the United States," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement Sunday, Al Jazeera reported.

China says the deal — which includes 60 Black Hawk helicopters, a pair of Osprey mine-hunting ships, 114 advanced Patriot air defense missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles and loads of advanced communications technology systems — will seriously harm American-Sino ties.

The fresh warning comes after the Obama administration sparked a diplomatic row with the Communist regime by notifying Congress of its plan to proceed with the proposed arms deal on Friday.

In an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures on Saturday, China postponed a very important arms control meeting and suspended plans for visits between the Chinese and US military.

It also announced plans to impose sanctions on certain US arms makers.

Washington defended the deal and expressed regret about China's reaction.

"We regret that the Chinese side has curtailed military-to-military and other exchanges" said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, according to Reuters. "We also regret Chinese action against US firms transferring defensive articles to Taiwan."

The State Department describes the arms deal to Taiwan — which neither China nor the United States recognizes as an independent country — as a way to guarantee security and stability, despite China's strenuous objections.

"Such sales contribute to maintaining security and stability across the Taiwan Strait," said Laura Tischler, a State Department spokeswoman.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-01/30/c_13157364.htm

Xinhua News Agency
January 30, 2010

Arms sale causes severe damage to overall China-U.S. cooperation

WASHINGTON: Ignoring repeated solemn representations made by China, the U.S. government on Friday notified Congress of its nearly 6.4 billion-U.S.-dollar arms sale package to Taiwan.

The sale is a wrong decision, which not only undermines China's national security interests and her national unification cause, but also once again hurts the national feelings of the Chinese people.

Moreover, it also will cause serious damage to the overall cooperation and relationship between China and the United States.

Frankly speaking, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan have become a chronic disease that has been disturbing China-U.S. ties for a long period of time.

In the August 17 Communique jointly issued by China and the United States in 1982, the U.S. said clearly it intended to gradually reduce the sale of arms to Taiwan both in quality and quantity, leading to a final termination of such sales.

Although those words are crystal clear, this time the U.S. once again stubbornly made a wrong decision to plan a new arms sale to Taiwan, seriously violating the principles of three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, especially those of the August 17 Communique.

Such an act violently interferes in China's internal affairs, seriously undermines China's national security and her national unification cause, and thus inevitably casts a shadow on China-U.S. relations.

The Taiwan issue is closely related to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, her core national interests, and the national feelings of the 1.3 billion Chinese people.

The China-U.S. Joint Statement points out that "the fundamental principle of respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques that guide China-U.S. relations.

"Neither side supports any attempt by any force to undermine this principle. The two sides agreed that respecting each other's core interests is extremely important to ensure steady progress in China-U.S. relations."

The words are still echoing but the U.S. government broke the promise and acted in a way that seriously undermines the core interests of China.

As a result, it is totally reasonable to suspect the sincerity of U.S. pledges on "respecting each other's core interests."

With efforts made by compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, recent years have witnessed more frequent cross-Strait dialogues and exchanges, and closer cross-Strait economic and trade relations.

The cross-Strait relationship has started to walk on a path of positive interaction.

The U.S. has said repeatedly that peace between both sides of the Taiwan Strait is "in the interests of the United States" and it welcomes peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.

It has also said, many times, that it hopes both sides of the Taiwan Strait strengthen their dialogues and interactions in economic, politics and other areas and establish a more positive and stable relationship.

However, while the entire picture of the cross-Strait relations became brighter, the U.S. made a new decision on an arms sale to Taiwan.

The decision not only runs counter to the mainstream will of pursuing development and cooperation among the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, but also exposes the U.S. usage of double standards and hypocrisy on major issues related to China's core interests.

China and the United States, both world powers, have broad common interests and important responsibilities in a series of major issues related to peace and development of each nation and all mankind.

Despite all the ups and downs over the past 30 years, the overall China-U.S. relationship has maintained forward-moving development, while common interests and cooperation between the two countries have continuously expanded.

That not only brought concrete benefits to the peoples of both nations, but also contributed to world peace and development.

Obviously, the current good situation in China-U.S. relations is a result of no easy effort, and both nations need to take extra care of it.

The global financial situation has been improved, but uncertainties remain.

It requires China, the United States and the international community as a whole to make continuous efforts in a coordinated way.

China-U.S. cooperation is indispensable in solving counter-terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, climate change and other major international and regional security issues.

The age of our times needs healthy, stable and developing China-U.S. ties.

Defying such a historic trend and making such a wrong decision that undermines China's core interests and the overall situation of China-U.S. cooperation, can't be viewed as a wise action by any responsible government, no matter if it was influenced by residue of the Cold War mentality or the pressure of certain special interests.

China recently has made several solemn representations to the American government on the arms sale issue, asking the U.S. to fully assess the serious damage caused by the sale and to take China's concerns seriously and stop the transaction.

Otherwise, the sale will cause seriously negative effects on China-U.S. exchanges and cooperation in important areas, and ultimately will lead to consequences that neither side wishes to see.

If the U.S. continues to ignore the solemn position made by China and is determined to make the wrong decision to sell arms to Taiwan, it ought to take all the responsibilities for any serious consequence caused by such a decision.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: Counter-ALBA: Colombian President Visits Honduras

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:18 pm (PST)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-01/31/c_13157846.htm

Xinhua News Agency
January 31, 2010

Colombian president visits Honduras

TEGUCIGALPA: Colombian President Alvaro Uribe arrived here Saturday for an official visit.

At a press conference at the Honduran Presidential Palace, Uribe said his country is willing to continually strengthen cooperation with Honduras in trade as well as the fight against drug trafficking.

Honduran newly inaugurated President Porfirio Lobo said he appreciated Uribe's help and support to Honduras when it was in difficulty. He also hoped the two countries will further cooperation in trade, agriculture and forest development.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: U.S. Missile Attacks Kill At Least 15 In Pakistan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:20 pm (PST)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117536&sectionid=351020401

Press TV
January 31, 2010

15 killed in US drone strike in northwest Pakistan

US drones have fired three missiles in northwest Pakistan, killing at least 15 people and injuring several others.

The attack took place in the North Waziristan tribal region, Pakistani officials announced on Saturday.

It is not clear whether any so-called high value target was in the area at the time of the strike.

Drone attacks in the region have increased significantly since December 30, when seven CIA operatives were killed in an attack in Afghanistan's Khost province, which borders Waziristan.

Hundreds of people, many of them civilians, have been killed since 2006 in CIA-operated drone strikes in Pakistan.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: State Department Official In Yemen As Government Rejects Ceasefire

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:30 pm (PST)

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\01\story_1-2-2010_pg4_6

Reuters
January 31, 2010

Clashes continue as Yemen rejects rebels' ceasefire offer

-The rebels said they would accept five conditions set by Sanaa for a ceasefire that include the removal of rebel checkpoints, withdrawal of forces and clarification of the fate of kidnapped foreigners. The government says the rebels must also return captured military and civilian equipment and stay out of local politics.

SANAA: Yemen rejected a ceasefire offer from rebels on Sunday and said fighting was continuing, as neighbouring Saudi Arabia accused the insurgents of mounting sniper attacks inside its territory.

The conflict with the northern rebels, who complain of social, religious and economic discrimination in the southern Arabian state, has rumbled on since 2004, but intensified last year and drew in oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
....
The US State Department's counterterrorism chief was visiting Yemen on Sunday, state media reported, a week after Britain hosted a conference on how to stabilise the Arab world's poorest country.

Clashes

Yemeni soldiers clashed with rebels in the northern provinces of Malahidh and Saada, killing 20, including a leader responsible for training, state media reported on Sunday.

Rebel leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi said on Saturday he was prepared to accept government conditions for a truce, days after he made a ceasefire offer to Saudi Arabia and said his fighters had withdrawn from Saudi territory.

But a government official said on Sunday, "The Houthi offer is rejected as it does not vow to end attacks on Saudi Arabia and because it sets as a condition an end to military operations (by the government) first."

The rebels said they would accept five conditions set by Sanaa for a ceasefire that include the removal of rebel checkpoints, withdrawal of forces and clarification of the fate of kidnapped foreigners. The government says the rebels must also return captured military and civilian equipment and stay out of local politics.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.: Opposition: Georgia To Be Turned Into U.S., NATO Military Hub

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:35 pm (PST)

http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=35442&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=

Rustavi2
January 30, 2010

Georgian Labour Party objects to president`s offer to US

The Georgian Labour Party commented on the president`s interview with the Associated Press.

Members of the Labour Party say that Mikheil Saakashvili in his interview offered the US the use of Georgia`s Black Sea ports for Western military supply ships and its airports as refuelling points for cargo planes in the fight against the Taliban.

The Georgian Labourists find the offer unacceptable and say that Georgia will be turned into a place of arms and calls on the friendly countries not to take the issue seriously.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12.: Pentagon Shifts Its Strategy to Small-Scale Warfare

Posted by: "linguisticresearch" LinguisticResearch@gmx.de

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:49 pm (PST)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033550816782256.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#

* JANUARY 30, 2010

Pentagon Shifts Its Strategy to Small-Scale Warfare

By AUGUST COLE
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=AUGUST+COLE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
And YOCHI J. DREAZEN
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=YOCHI+J.+DREAZEN&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon will lay out a long-term vision for U.S.
national security on Monday that jettisons the military's decades-old
belief that it needs to be prepared to fight two large-scale wars
simultaneously, according to defense officials familiar with the matter.

The shift in strategy sets up potential conflicts with defense
contractors and powerful lawmakers uneasy with the Pentagon's growing
focus on smaller-scale, guerilla warfare.

The Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated report on
U.S. military thinking presented by the administration every four years,
will instead focus on developing the strategies and weapons needed to
prevail in Afghanistan, Iraq and the broader war on terror in places
such as Pakistan and Yemen, the officials said.

The review will be released on the same day as the administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Pentagon, making it easier for
the White House to ground the strategic thinking in nuts-and-bolts
decisions about specific weapons systems.

Defense officials say the two documents will call for buying more
unmanned drones and helicopters, both items sorely needed in
Afghanistan. The QDR will also call for developing fuel-efficient
armored vehicles and aircraft as part of a broad push to lower the
Pentagon's energy bills and reduce the number of supply convoys that
need to make dangerous journeys across the war zones, the officials said.

The QDR is meant to focus on the nation's strategic outlook over the
next two decades, but the thinking behind the document was heavily
influenced by today's military operations and the growing fiscal
pressure on the U.S. government.

In particular, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has come to think that the
Pentagon's traditional belief that it needed to be able to fight two
major wars at the same time was outdated and overly focused on
conventional warfare. The new QDR moves away from that model, a mainstay
of U.S. military thinking for more than two decades, in favor of an
expanded focus on low-intensity conflict.

Mr. Gates telegraphed some of the changes last year. In a sweeping
budget shake-up, he terminated or curtailed some of the military's most
costly and complex weapons programs, including the Air Force's most
advanced and expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

Reflecting a rebalancing of the military toward irregular warfare, the
2010 budget included the largest ramp up in special-operations forces
since the Vietnam War and large quantities of new unmanned aerial
vehicles and ground-surveillance systems.

Defense contractors and their congressional allies mounted a strong
effort to undo the changes, pushing legislation that would have
purchased more of the F-22s than Mr. Gates wanted, but the defense chief
came out on top in last year's political fight.

Mr. Gates recently announced that he would remain at the helm of the
Pentagon for at least another year, and officials said the department's
new budget will reflect the defense chief's belief in the importance of
focusing on future small-scale wars like Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We've been leaving a trail of bread crumbs over the past several years
in terms of where the secretary was heading in terms of reforming the
defense budget," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said this week. "You
will see fiscal year 2011 continue to build upon the reforms and the
rebalancing that were first put forth in the 2010 budget."

Defense analysts believe the Pentagon's budget, already at a record
level, will rise even higher next week. The administration requested
about $534 billion last year, plus an additional $130 billion in war
costs. This time around, many analysts expect the White House to seek
more than $700 billion for the military and wartime operations.

Chris Hellman, a defense analyst and director of research at the
National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan think tank focused on budget
issues, expects a request from the White House of about $745 billion,
which would include war costs, $25 billion for Energy Department nuclear
and other security spending, and the Pentagon's base budget of about
$555 billion.

*Write to * August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com
<mailto:august.cole@dowjones.com> and Yochi J. Dreazen at
yochi.dreazen@wsj.com <mailto:yochi.dreazen@wsj.com>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

13.: QDR: New U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan Focuses On China, Iran

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:32 pm (PST)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-iran-prompt-u-s-air-sea-battle-plan-in-strategy-review.html

Bloomberg News
February 1, 2010

China, Iran Prompt U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan in Strategy Review
By Viola Gienger and Tony Capaccio

-The joint Air Force-Navy plan would combine the strengths of each service to conduct long-range strikes that could utilize a new generation of bombers, a new cruise missile and drones launched from aircraft carriers.
-"This is truly a wartime QDR," Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in a cover letter for the report.
-"In the mid- to long-term, U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames," the Defense Department says in the review.
"This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors."
-[T]he review calls for "a more widely distributed" and flexible U.S. presence in Asia that relies more on allies. Partners would include Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.
-The Pentagon has about 400,000 U.S. military personnel stationed overseas, either in war zones or elsewhere. The review emphasizes "taking care of our people" serving in multiple long deployments that take a "significant toll" on them and their families.

The U.S. military is drawing up a new air-sea battle plan in response to threats such as China's persistent military build-up and Iran's possession of advanced weapons, according to the Pentagon's latest strategy review.

The Air Force and Navy are seeking more effective ways of ensuring continued access to the western Pacific...according to the Quadrennial Defense Review to be released later today.

The joint Air Force-Navy plan would combine the strengths of each service to conduct long-range strikes that could utilize a new generation of bombers, a new cruise missile and drones launched from aircraft carriers. The Navy also is increasing funding to develop an unmanned underwater vehicle, according to the report.

The battle plan is among a range of new initiatives outlined in the review, which is conducted every four years to revise U.S. military strategy for the coming decade or more. The new report places top priority on the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq and against terrorist threats elsewhere, while also preparing for future threats.

"This is truly a wartime QDR," Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in a cover letter for the report. "For the first time, it places the current conflicts at the top of our budgeting, policy and program priorities."

Two-War Capability

The review deemphasizes but does not abandon the Pentagon's doctrine that calls for the military to be able to fight two major wars nearly simultaneously. It acknowledges this mission but says planning should focus more closely on other scenarios, such as irregular warfare including conflicts involving insurgents or drug traffickers and even humanitarian disasters.

"In the mid- to long-term, U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames," the Defense Department says in the review.

"This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors," it states.

Alluding to China in his cover letter, Gates cites longer- term threats such as "the military modernization programs of other countries." He also hints at dangers such as al-Qaeda in referring to "non-state groups developing more cunning and destructive means to attack the United States and our allies and partners."

Tensions With China

U.S. officials have often called on their Chinese counterparts to provide explanations and assurances that their moves are purely defensive. The two countries resumed military talks last June, then China halted visits again over the Defense Department's Jan. 29 announcement of a new arms sale to Taiwan.

China is developing and deploying "large numbers" of advanced missiles, new attack submarines, long-range air defense systems and capabilities to wage electronic warfare and target computer systems, according to the report, which echoes an assessment of China's military power issued almost a year ago.

China's refusal to provide adequate assurances of its intentions raises "a number of legitimate questions regarding its long-term intentions," the Pentagon says in the review.

Citing "more complex" security conditions in the region, including North Korea and terrorist threats in Southeast Asia, the review calls for "a more widely distributed" and flexible U.S. presence in Asia that relies more on allies. Partners would include Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

Threat From Iran

In the Middle East, Iran is fielding small attack boats in the Persian Gulf, a development that U.S. officials have cited in the past. That compounds the threat to naval operations from the acquisition by Iran and other nations of weapons such as quiet submarines and advanced cruise missiles that can target ships, according to the report.

Iran also has provided drones and shoulder-fired missiles to the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Russia and other nations have contributed to the spread of surface-to- air missiles, the department said.

Among the solutions proposed are more ways to deploy U.S. forces abroad, such as naval assets, "in regions facing new challenges." Existing bases also need to be either hardened to protect against potential attacks or reinforced with back-up locations or by dispersing them in multiple places, the department concluded.

The Pentagon has about 400,000 U.S. military personnel stationed overseas, either in war zones or elsewhere. The review emphasizes "taking care of our people" serving in multiple long deployments that take a "significant toll" on them and their families.

Other Concerns

In addition to supporting existing wars, the Quadrennial review emphasizes the need for more unmanned aircraft, intelligence, special forces, helicopters and long-range strike capabilities as well as skills such as foreign languages and training of foreign military forces.

The U.S. military, especially the Navy and Air Force, also should find better and faster ways to strengthen the defense systems of foreign allies and partners as needed, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon should continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal as a "core mission" until "such time as the administration's goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is achieved," according to the report.

The potential threat of cyber attacks and the need to conduct "high-tempo operations" will require more expertise in that field and centralized command of cyber operations, the department said.

-Editor: Bill Schmick
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

14.: Analysis: U.S. Deal Forces China To Boost Defense Budget

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:36 pm (PST)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/01/content_9404320.htm

China Daily
February 1, 2010

US deal forces China to boost defense budget
By Cheng Guangjin

It would be justified and proper for China to increase military expenditure as the US has posed a threat and challenged China's core strategic interest by planning a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, Chinese experts said.

"The US action gives China a justified cause to increase its national defense expenditure, to enhance the development and purchase of weapons, and to accelerate its modernization process in national defense," said Luo Yuan, a senior researcher with the Academy of Military Science, in an interview with the Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV.

"China is being pressured by the US which is posing a threat to it's core interests," Luo said.

Within 17 hours of the Obama administration notifying US Congress on Friday of the plan to sell Taiwan an arms package that includes Patriot missiles, Black Hawk helicopters and minesweepers, China announced countermeasures.

The Defense Ministry said it would suspend scheduled military exchange visits with the US and closely monitor the situation and take further actions as required.

Exchange visits were arranged for this year during Vice-Chairman of China's Central Military Commission Xu Caihou's visit to the US last Oct 24 to Nov 3, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen's visits to China, and Chinese military's chief of the general staff Chen Bingde's visit to the US.

These arrangements were confirmed in the Joint Statement issued during US President Barrack Obama's visit to China last November.

However, similar steps were taken by China in 2008 after the former Bush administration announced a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan, but eight months later military dialogues were resumed.

"This sent the US a signal that China's actions only operate for a limited period of time, and later on everything will return to as before," said Luo Yuan.

But the international community should know this is not "China threats", but "US threats".

"China did nothing to threaten the US, why should the US challenge our core strategic interests?" said Luo.

Luo said China should play tougher cards to terminate US arms sales to Taiwan, which fundamentally means building a stronger army and national defense.

In 2009, China's national defense budget was over 48 billion yuan, up by 14.9 percent than the previous year. But its defense expenditure takes up about 1.4 percent of the total GDP, while the figure in the US is over 4 percent, and over 2 percent in UK and France.

Jin Canrong, an expert in international affairs at Renmin University of China, said the Chinese army should carry out more tests in high-tech weapons, to accelerate military modernization, and the military expenditure this year should be increased by over 10 percent.

Since China and the US established formal diplomatic ties in 1979, the US has continued to sell arms to Taiwan, and China has consistently made representations.

Guo Xiaobing, a researcher with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, pointed out that military relations between China and the US have been lagging behind their economic and political relations.

"What the US did this time will further impede possible improvements in their relationship, and the US hopes to learn more about China, its biggest competitor, through exchanges and communication," Guo said.

But for China, which does not have many technical exchanges with the US in defense building, suspending exchanges will not affect it much, said Guo.

However, by not including the F-16 fighter in the sale package this time, which concerns Beijing most, the US shows that it did not intend to irritate China beyond redemption, Guo said.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.: Pentagon's New Battlegrounds: Space And Cyberspace

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:39 pm (PST)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ff81a32-0e94-11df-bd79-00144feabdc0.html

Financial Times
January 31, 2010

US military responsibilities to expand
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and Jeremy Lemer in New York

-"It is no longer appropriate to speak of 'major regional conflicts' as the sole or even the primary template for sizing, shaping and evaluating US forces. Rather, US forces must be prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances."
-Despite President Barack Obama's emphasis on beginning a drawdown in Afghanistan in July 2011, the draft also envisages 75,000 US troops will remain in the country for the "near and mid-term future".

The US will take on a broader range of military responsibilities, including defending space and cyberspace, in spite of growing pressure on budgets, a long-awaited administration report is set to conclude on Monday.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, is due to unveil the Obama administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, which shifts emphasis from the post-cold war doctrine that the US is able to fight two "major regional conflicts" at one time.

According to a December draft, the US military will restructure its forces to "prevail in today's wars" and buy more of the helicopters and unmanned drones that have proved their worth in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the draft also highlights "a multiplicity of threats", including cyberattacks and anti-satellite weapons, as well as terrorist groups and the prospect of more nuclear weapon states.

"It is no longer appropriate to speak of 'major regional conflicts' as the sole or even the primary template for sizing, shaping and evaluating US forces," the draft says. "Rather, US forces must be prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances."

In an apparent nod to Iran, it says that within the next decade the US's adversaries could include "regional powers armed with modest numbers of nuclear weapons, as well as larger more powerful states". Despite President Barack Obama's emphasis on beginning a drawdown in Afghanistan in July 2011, the draft also envisages 75,000 US troops will remain in the country for the "near and mid-term future".

The prospect of increased demands on the military comes as the administration releases its 2011 budget proposals on Monday, which analysts expect will underline growing strains on defence spending.

....
Mr Gates has pushed to rebalance spending and cut expensive cold war weapons systems in favour of kit designed for current operations - something that the QDR is set to continue.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

16.: U.S. Raises Stakes Against Iran, Deploys Ships And Missiles

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:47 pm (PST)

-The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen...said last month that the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Mr Obama call for them.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/31/u-s-raises-stakes-on-iran-by-sending-in-ships-and-missiles/

The Daily Caller
January 31, 2010

U.S. raises stakes on Iran, deploys ships and missiles

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7010364.ece

The Times (London)
February 1, 2010

US raises tensions with Iran by selling anti-missile systems
Tim Reid in Washington

-The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen...said last month that the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Mr Obama call for them.

Tensions in the Gulf between the US and Iran are set to rise further after it emerged that American-made anti-missile systems are to be deployed to Washington's Arab allies in the region.

The Obama Administration said yesterday that it was speeding up arms sales to a number of states and that it had also deployed warships in the Gulf as defences against possible Iranian missile attacks.

The moves...include the sales of anti-missile systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and....

The deployments come as President Obama enters a new phase in efforts to halt Iran's nuclear programme after the failure of a diplomatic offensive. Washington is anxious to get a tough new round of UN sanctions against Tehran, something that China and Russia have shown little interest in backing.

The new arms sales build on deals struck by George W. Bush when he was in office to develop a deterrent among the region's Sunni nations, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, against the predominantly Shia Iran.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have bought more than $25 billion (£15.5 billion) of US arms in the past two years.

Abu Dhabi has bought $17 billion of US hardware since 2008, including Patriot anti-missile systems, while the UAE as a whole recently bought 80 F16 jets.

The Pentagon is to sell eight Patriot missile batteries, which are capable of shooting down short-range missiles, to the region — two each to Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait. Patriot batteries countered Iraqi Scud missile strikes on Israel in the 1991 Gulf War and were fired from Kuwait in the 2003 conflict with Iraq.

The US is also keeping Aegis cruisers, which can shoot down medium-range missiles, on patrol in the Gulf.
....
In addition the US is to help Saudi Arabia expand from 10,000 to 30,000 a specialist military force which will be used to hunt down al-Qaeda operatives and respond to potential attacks by Iranian-backed groups including Hezbollah.

General David Petraeus, who as head of US Central Command is responsible for military operations across the Middle East, said this month that the US had stationed eight Patriot missile batteries in four Gulf countries, which he did not identify.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, also said last month that the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Mr Obama call for them.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

17.: NATO Gets Georgian Black Sea Ports, Airports For Afghan War Transit

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Mon Feb 1, 2010 5:54 am (PST)

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100201/157740785.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti
February 1, 2010

Georgia expects Russia's understanding on NATO transit offer

-Georgia says the proposed transit route from Romania via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would boost the global as well as its national and regional security....The transit of NATO military cargoes via Georgia would also make it harder for Russia to bloc Georgia's rearmament by Western powers following the August 2008 brief war between Moscow and Tbilisi over South Ossetia.

TBILISI: Georgia confirmed on Monday its offer of military cargo transit for NATO troops in Afghanistan and expressed hope that Russia would not object to this move.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told Associated Press last Friday that Georgia had offered its Black Sea ports to NATO military supply ships and its airports as refueling points for NATO cargo planes en route to Afghanistan.

"Georgia is offering a transit corridor, including for military cargoes," Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Nino Kalandadze reiterated the proposal in an interview with Novosti-Georgia news agency.

Georgia says the proposed transit route from Romania via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would boost the global as well as its national and regional security and will be less expensive than the existing corridor through Russia.

"We are interested...in contributing to global security. We also believe that these proposals will contribute greatly to Georgia's and regional security," Kalandadze said.

Georgia's desire to join NATO has been central to Saakashvili's foreign policy since he came to power in 2004. The alliance has put Georgia's bid on hold, although it promised to revisit the decision in the future.

Georgia has made a number of contributions to the NATO-led military campaign in war-torn Afghanistan, including the deployment of 900 troops as part of the international coalition fighting Taliban militants.

Some experts believe the Georgian move could unnerve and infuriate Russia because Moscow would not want to see an increased presence of NATO ships in the Black Sea.

The transit of NATO military cargoes via Georgia would also make it harder for Russia to bloc Georgia's rearmament by Western powers following the August 2008 brief war between Moscow and Tbilisi over South Ossetia.

Moscow and Washington are already working closely to establish regular transits of Afghanistan-bound cargoes via Russia.

Kalandadze expressed hope that Russia would show understanding of Georgia's motives and would not object to the proposal.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)