Ha’aretz: Bring Israel Into NATO

Ha’aretz
August 31, 2012

Bring Israel into NATO
Israeli membership in NATO is a type of long-term structural solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East that policy makers should seriously consider.
By Yehuda Lukacs

====

Israel, already a de-facto member of the alliance, maintains close ties with several member states. Germany, for example, has built for the Israeli navy several Dolphin-class submarines, which are capable of carrying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads – viewed as Israel’s second-strike capability.

Normalization of relations with Turkey – NATO’s largest Muslim member – is a vital Israeli national interest. Such a rapprochement is also a NATO interest.

Perhaps Israeli membership in NATO could become part of the “reconciliation package” between the two countries.

Israeli membership in NATO is a type of a bold, long-term structural solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East that policy makers should seriously consider as the foundations of a new security system in the most volatile region of the world.

====

A nuclear Iran is virtually a fait accompli. A military strike by Israel, the United States or both may delay but will not prevent the Islamic Republic from eventually acquiring such capability.

Decision-makers ought to consider devising a new security architecture, one that would deter Iran and guarantee Israel’s long-term survival. A radical alternative to war is required – one that would make Israel a member of NATO, protected by the “one-for-all, all-for-one” policy of the 28-member alliance.

Injecting the alliance’s reach into the Middle East could provide it with a renewed sense of mission in the post-Cold War environment, especially as the NATO combat presence in Afghanistan is about to draw down in two years.

Iran’s quest for a nuclear option dates back to 1957, when it signed a civil-technical cooperation agreement with the United States under the “Atoms for Peace” program. However, eventual development of nuclear weapons was regarded as reflecting the nation’s greatness and its ambitions to become the region’s preeminent power. After the 1979 revolution, such weapons were also viewed as a potential deterrent vis-a-vis Israel’s nuclear arsenal or other external threats. No credible evidence exists that the regime is irrational or suicidal – as claimed by some – but the current Iranian leadership’s true intentions are unknown and therefore Israel’s concerns are legitimate.

It seems that all the alternatives advocated to deal with the present crisis – sanctions and negotiations, a military strike, or deterrence – will be insufficient by themselves to address Israel’s long-term security. Even if Iran acquires an atomic bomb, it would not dare to attack a NATO member. By itself, an explicit guarantee by the United States to defend Israel might not be taken seriously by the Iranians. But Iran cannot ignore a NATO commitment backed by the full membership.

Israel, already a de-facto member of the alliance, maintains close ties with several member states. Germany, for example, has built for the Israeli navy several Dolphin-class submarines, which are capable of carrying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads – viewed as Israel’s second-strike capability.

During an interview with this writer in January 2012, a senior member of the German Bundestag acknowledged his country’s commitment: “We subsidize and build these submarines for Israel because guaranteeing Israel’s security has become an integral part of Germany’s identity.”

Notwithstanding the unique German-Israeli relationship, the clear obstacles confronting an Israeli membership in NATO include: Turkey, Israel’s estranged ally, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Israel’s own image as a self-reliant power.

Israeli-Turkish ties deteriorated significantly due to the Gaza flotilla incident in May 2010, among other reasons. In all likelihood, Turkey would veto Israel’s accession to NATO (all existing members of the alliance must approve the admission of a new member ). Sooner or later, however, Jerusalem will have to cede to Ankara’s demands for a formal apology for the killing of the pro-Palestinian activists on the Turkish boat and compensation to the victims’ families. Normalization of relations with Turkey – NATO’s largest Muslim member – is a vital Israeli national interest. Such a rapprochement is also a NATO interest.

Perhaps Israeli membership in NATO could become part of the “reconciliation package” between the two countries. A possible incentive for Turkey is to link renewed efforts to seriously address the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to the accession process. Failure to make real progress on the Palestinian issue, as even Defense Minister Ehud Barak has reportedly warned recently in Israel, will likely result in resumption of large-scale violence in the occupied territories, a development dreaded by most Israelis, and could lead to a serious overload on the overstretched Israel Defense Forces. Turkey, which regards itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause, could be offered a special role in restarting the derailed peace process.

Ironically, though, Israel could prove to be the staunchest opponent of its own NATO membership. Its national ethos espouses self-reliance and the motto “never again” is ingrained in the nation’s collective psyche. The notion that the international community is taking responsibility for the country’s security and survival might be difficult for Israelis to swallow, especially if a genuine compromise on the Palestinian question is also linked to Israeli membership in NATO.

Israelis may have to face up to the fact that despite their potent military, the threats against their country are at such a level that Israel must become a member of a regional security system. Moreover, they also have to realize that as long as the Palestine issue remains unresolved, the survival of Israel as a Jewish state will continue to be challenged, as is the case now with Iran.

Israeli membership in NATO is a type of a bold, long-term structural solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East that policy makers should seriously consider as the foundations of a new security system in the most volatile region of the world.

“A bomb or to bomb” – the popular Hebrew expression meaning living with a bomb or bombing Iran – need not be the only options available.

*Yehuda Lukacs is associate provost for international programs and director of the Center for Global Education at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia.

“Buffer Zones,” Special Forces: NATO Plans War Against Syria

Voice of Russia
August 31, 2012

UN Security Council urges humanitarian support for Syria
Konstantin Garibov

====

“This is an attempt to create safe havens for Syrian militants who will be under protection of NATO aircraft. Needless to say, such an approach to creating security zones is unacceptable, for this will become an attempt to oust Assad and extend most favored nation treatment to militants. Such a strategy is also unacceptable because it will weaken the legitimate Syrian government and consolidate the opposition.”

Meanwhile, more than 200 British special forces have been sent to Syria, according to the UK’s The Daily Star…Experts recall that this month also saw the deployment of US and French special forces in Syria.

====

The UN has requested 180 million dollars for humanitarian operations in Syria, with half of this sum already allocated. A statement to this effect was made by Jan Eliasson, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, during the UN Security Council emergency session on Syria on Friday. According to him, at least 2.5 million Syrians now badly need humanitarian support.

The diplomat urged countries to pump more money into programs pertaining to Syria. He said that Syrians do not need arms, supplied by those who want to further destabilize this Middle Eastern country. He said that he deems it necessary to deploy more UN humanitarian bodies and non-governmental organizations in Syria. Their security should be ensured by both parties to the conflict, according to Eliasson.

For his part, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said that a spate of economic sanctions, slapped on Syria by a number of countries without being endorsed by the UN, makes the lives of ordinary Syrians more complicated. He added that the economic blockade makes it impossible for Syrians to meet their basic needs and duly use their basic human rights.

The Friday session focused on the creation in Syria of “buffer zones” or “corridors”. Earlier, the idea was floated by Turkey which stressed the necessity of protecting at least one million Syrians who have been displaced as a result of the war.

For his part, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres referred to the international community’s experience which he said showed that the idea failed to prove its feasibility, a statement that was echoed by Vitaly Churkin. Moscow-based political analyst Pavel Svyatenkov described a proposal on creating buffer zones as a new attempt to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs.

“This is an attempt to create safe havens for Syrian militants who will be under protection of NATO aircraft,” Svyatenkov says, not ruling out these militants’ possible attacks on the Syrian army in the future. “Needless to say, such an approach to creating security zones is unacceptable, for this will become an attempt to oust Assad and extend most favored nation treatment to militants. Such a strategy is also unacceptable because it will weaken the legitimate Syrian government and consolidate the opposition,” Svyatenkov concludes.

Meanwhile, more than 200 British special forces have been sent to Syria, according to the UK’s The Daily Star. The troops are tasked with destroying possible arsenals of chemical and biological weapons there, the newspaper reported. Experts recall that this month also saw the deployment of US and French special forces in Syria.

Analysts draw parallels between the latest developments in Syria and last year’s events in Libya, where the West was involved in a military operation to topple Muammar Gaddafi. The deployment of foreign special forces to Syria came right after the withdrawal of a UN observer mission from the country, something that was initiated by the Unites States, France and Britain. Russia was up in arms against the pullout that Moscow warned might be fraught with an outside interference in Syria’s domestic affairs. It seems, analysts say, that the forecast currently comes true.

Friday sees the expiration of a mandate of UN-Arab League envoy to Syria Kofi Annan, whose successor Lakhdar Brahimi is yet to announce an exact plan of his trip to Syria, scheduled for later next month. Earlier this week, Brahimi held talks with representatives of those countries which are interested in the resolution of the Syrian crisis. During the talks, Brahimi specifically urged the diplomats to lend support to his mission.

Non-Aligned Movement and the Preservation of Peace

Xinhua News Agency
August 31, 2012

NAM, voice of developing countries in a time of drastic change
By Yang Shuyi, Zhu Xiaolong, Du Yuanjiang

TEHRAN: “The preservation of peace…It is in the pursuit of this policy that we have chosen the path of nonalignment in any military or like pact of alliance.” Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and prominent advocate of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), delivered a well-known speech in 1956 explaining why developing countries should follow the non-alignment course.

With NAM’s 16th summit held in Iran’s capital of Tehran from Aug. 26 to 31, heads of states or governments and high officials from over 100 countries and regions, many of which bear little economic or political similarities except that they are from the developing world, gathered again to speak in one voice on major challenges the world is facing, especially in this time of drastic change.

Twenty years after the last days of Cold War, the very scenario that prompts the birth of non-alignment concept, the purpose of NAM’s summit, or of the NAM organization itself, is just as solid as ever: giving a voice to the developing world, so as to promote world peace and cooperation.

As the largest grouping of countries outside of the United Nations, NAM’s membership is particularly concentrated in developing countries.

So far, NAM consists of 120 members, 17 observer countries and 10 observer organizations, representing nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ members, or about 55 percent of the world population, which makes its decisions influential.

As the grouping of developing countries, “we should contribute to the solution of the problems in the world today,” Z. Jerkic, a senior official from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s foreign ministry, told Xinhua on the sidelines of the NAM summit in Tehran.

“There are so many issues that are of the interest of the members of the Movement, but certainly political crisis are the ones that the focus of attention should be, and also economic issues,” he noted.

Consisting of countries and regions with different economic and political interests, NAM features a loose organizational structure. The one thing that links all the members together, notably, is their common belief in the world peace and cooperation.

Over the years, members of NAM adopt synchronized policies in dealing with various international issues, which leaves a huge impact on the process of policy making at the global level.

NAM’s commitment to peace even predates its establishment in 1961, as in the 1950s prominent leaders such as Indonesian President Sukarno and Indian Prime Minister Nehru already echoed the five principles put forth by late Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, which includes mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non- interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence.

The world is experiencing dramatic changes, especially the Middle East region that has been witnessing a widespread transformational thunderstorm over the past year and a half. The upheaval in Syria, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, among others, as well as the Iranian nuclear issue, not only affects regional countries but also the whole world.

In May, ministers of NAM countries agreed that the present global scenario pose great challenges in the areas of peace and security, economic development, social progress, as well as rule of law. They also realized that many new areas of concern and challenges have emerged, particularly the global financial and economic crisis.

“It’s a very challenging global environment at the moment. The Movement needs to remain true to its principles, but at the same time must adapt to changing global circumstances,” Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa told Xinhua on the sidelines of the 16th NAM summit.

During the summit, one of the main topics is how to ensure a more just global governance, said the Indonesian minister. “The global governance, the global framework, must allow for the contribution by Non-Aligned Movement countries in the promotion of international peace and security, promotion of social and economic development, promotion of good governance and human rights.”

As the voice of developing countries, NAM continues to strive for the maintenance of international peace and security, a goal that could not be achieved without strengthening and revitalizing NAM in this time of drastic change. Benin’s President Yayi Boni said during the summit that NAM is not against any specific country or government, and called on NAM members to forget about their differences and become “one political voice.”

U.S. Playing With Balkans-Style Powder Keg In East Asia

China Daily
August 30, 2012

Tread with caution in the East
By Yang Danzhi

====

The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing?

Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.

====

Amid the intensified diplomatic row over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, Japan’s senior vice-minister of foreign affairs, arrived in Beijing on Tuesday carrying a letter from Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to President Hu Jintao.

Noda was reported to emphasize the importance of “maintaining the strategic and beneficial relationship” in the letter, which indicates Japan’s efforts to play down the dispute.

However, to properly handle the dispute, not only Japan and China should deal with each other with calm and reason, but also the US should no longer add fuel to the fire.

For a long time, the United States has considered itself a provider of common security in East Asia and some East Asian countries have appreciated its role. People who advocate the “hegemonic stability theory” believe the US’ presence in East Asia is a prerequisite for peace and security in the region after the end of the Cold War.

The maritime disputes in East Asia, especially the escalation of the disputes over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan and the Dokdo Island (called Takeshima Island in Japan) between the Republic of Korea and Japan, are testing the US’ capability of managing a complicated regional situation.

Although the US has repeatedly emphasized the importance of developing and consolidating its ties with China, it recently reiterated that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan, sending a wrong signal to Japan.

In fact, Noda’s government had to act tough on China, because a weak stance could lead to a further decline in his domestic support rate to the delight of Japanese right-wingers, and the Japanese government assumed it could count on the strong support of the US. To some extent, the Diaoyu Islands dispute provides an opportunity for Washington to play its role as Tokyo’s patron and mediator.

Washington should know that it would create suspicion and discontent in one country if it takes the side of the other in the Sino-Japanese dispute. The US is likely to lose its credibility with its faithful ally Japan if it sides with China. But by siding with Japan, it may risk a China-US conflict. Once the situation gets out of control and leads to an armed conflict, will Washington honor the US-Japan security treaty and confront Beijing? No, it will not, even though it is more powerful than China. There are several reasons for that.

Over the past 20 years, the US has been cementing its ties with Japan as the basic shaft of its East Asia strategy. Because of a decline in its hegemony in recent years, the US wants Japan to shoulder more regional responsibilities and play a more proactive role in East Asia, especially to counterbalance the rise of China.

But the US has ignored a basic fact: Though Japan is used to allying with the stronger of two countries, it lacks systematic strategic thinking. Japan wants to become a political power, but it does not have the ability to cope with the complex regional situation independently and cannot even handle its relations with neighbors that have historical grievances. For one, it refuses to genuinely introspect on its atrocities that brought grave disaster on people in East and Southeast Asian countries in the past.

In recent years, China’s rise has added to Japan’s strategic anxiety and has had an impact on Sino-Japanese relations. In this sense, the Diaoyu Islands dispute is a reflection of the structural contradictions between Japan and China.

The possibility of the dispute spinning out of control can’t be ruled out as the nationalist sentiment is still strong in both countries. To respond to the Japanese right-wingers’ provocations and Japan’s continuous plan to “nationalize” the Diaoyu Islands, there were protests against Japan across China and calls for the boycotting of Japanese goods. The Japanese flag was even pulled down from the car of the Japanese ambassador to China, making it even harder for both countries to resolve the dispute.

Hence, it is high time the US stopped adding to the tension, for it doesn’t serve its own interests. Though the US has declared that it will not support either party in the Diaoyu Islands dispute, developments are making it increasingly difficult to remain its neutrality and continue its strategic ambiguity. So structural contradictions between China and the US and between China and Japan could erupt simultaneously, which is the biggest risk to peace in East Asia.

In the long term, the intensifying of the Diaoyu Islands dispute will narrow the room for maneuvering between China and the US, which does not conform to the interests of the two countries.

For the US, the ROK-Japan island dispute is easier to control than the one over the Diaoyu Islands.

First, despite having historical grievances against Japan, the ROK is not deeply worried about Japan’s existing strategic policies. And Japan has no reason to be wary of the ROK’s strategies. In fact, domestic political factors to a large extent determine the two countries’ foreign policies.

Recently, ROK President Lee Myung-bak and Noda saw their domestic support rate slip below 30 percent. But the two governments know that they can divert people’s attention from immediate domestic issues, garner more public support and enhance the reputation of their leaders and parties by resorting to hard-line foreign policies in times of rising nationalist sentiments. Hence, the ROK-Japan island dispute is likely to cool down gradually.

Second, the ROK and Japan are not only eager to guard against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but also are reluctant to see a too powerful China even in the long run.

Also, Japan and the ROK have common interests in the security field and their dispute has not damaged the original framework of security cooperation between them.

Third, the ROK and Japan are part of the US-led security alliance. Since 2010, the US has been trying to build a trilateral – US-ROK-Japan – security cooperation mechanism in Northeast Asia, to which neither the ROK nor Japan has objected.

Such a mechanism can help prevent the ROK-Japan bilateral dispute from escalating. So long as the US continues to pressure, as well as appease the ROK and Japan, they will get back onto the diplomatic track.

Regional cooperation in East Asia has reached a critical stage, while frequent and escalating maritime disputes are impeding the process of regional integration. This may ease Washington’s concerns over East Asian regionalism forming spontaneously.

But an East Asia without cooperation but with a surfeit of disputes could become another Balkans, where nobody can predict accurately when the powder keg is going to explode. And the day it does, it will be disastrous for the countries in the region as well as the US.

The author is a researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

U.S. Carrier Rotation In The Gulf: Preparations For War?

Voice of Russia
August 30, 2012

Shift rotation in Gulf: preparations for war?
Ilya Kramnik

USS John Stennis nuclear-powered supercarrier

The US is sending its aircraft carrier John Stennis, accompanied by warships and a submarine, to the Persian Gulf, where it will replace the Enterprise aircraft carrier. The John Stennis will start its mission in the Gulf four months ahead of schedule, and its deployment will allow the US Central Command to keep two aircraft carriers in the region.

A possibility of a new conflict in the Middle East remains high, with Washington seeking to continue to have a free hand, according to Moscow-based Middle East expert Yevgeny Satanovsky.

“All signs point to the strong possibility of a war in the Gulf,” Satanovsky says, praising an array of attempts to prevent this war. “Right now, efforts are being made to ease pressure on Iran, improve ties between Tehran and Arab countries and unblock the Iranian-Israeli conflict. I don’t rule out that the US president will have to take a decision to meddle in a military conflict or launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, something that stipulates the US president having a host of relevant instruments for the purpose.”

At present, the possibility of a conflict remains as high as at the beginning of this year, when many believed that war was inevitable. At the time, all those war-related speculations prompted the US to dispatch the Enterprise aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf even though the warship was to be mothballed in the spring of 2012, says Moscow-based defense expert Konstantin Bogdanov.

“This is little more than a planned rotation,” Bogdanov says. “The Enterprise’s terms of service has repeatedly been prolonged, and it is only natural that it will be replaced with the John Stennis aircraft carrier. This is a sign that Americans are poised to keep its naval task force of two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region,” he concludes.

Meanwhile, experts say that the two carriers’ arsenal will hardly be enough to launch a full-blown air campaign against Iran. In this vein, speaking of a possible war in the Gulf is now irrelevant, they say, adding, however, that the potential deployment of a third US aircraft carrier would add significantly to the possibility of a war.

Havelock Ellis: War, a relapse from civilisation into barbarism, if not savagery

Anti-war essays, poems, short stories and literary excerpts

Havelock Ellis
From Essays in War-Time (1917)

Evolution and War

It has sometimes been maintained — never more energetically than to-day, especially among the nations which most eagerly entered the present conflict — that war is a biological necessity. War, we are told, is a manifestation of the “Struggle for Life”; it is the inevitable application to mankind of the Darwinian “law” of natural selection. There are, however, two capital and final objections to this view. On the one hand it is not supported by anything that Darwin himself said, and on the other hand it is denied as a fact by those authorities on natural history who speak with most knowledge. That Darwin regarded war as an insignificant or even non-existent part of natural selection must be clear to all who have read his books.

…

The case is altered when we turn from savagery to civilisation. The new and more complex social order while, on the one hand, it presents substitutes for war in so far as war is a source of virtues, on the other hand, renders war a much more dangerous performance both to the individual and to the community, becoming indeed, progressively more dangerous to both, until it reaches such a climax of world-wide injury as we witness to-day. The claim made in primitive societies that warfare is necessary to the maintenance of virility and courage, a claim so fully admitted that only the youth furnished with trophies of heads or scalps can hope to become an accepted lover, is out of date in civilisation. For under civilised conditions there are hundreds of avocations which furnish exactly the same conditions as warfare for the cultivation of all the manly virtues of enterprise and courage and endurance, physical or moral. Not only are these new avocations equally potent for the cultivation of virility, but far more useful for the social ends of civilisation. For these ends warfare is altogether less adapted than it is for the social ends of savagery. It is much less congenial to the tastes and aptitudes of the individual, while at the same time it is incomparably more injurious to Society. In savagery little is risked by war, for the precious heirlooms of humanity have not yet been created, and war can destroy nothing which cannot easily be remade by the people who first made it. But civilisation possesses — and in that possession, indeed, civilisation largely consists — the precious traditions of past ages that can never live again, embodied in part in exquisite productions of varied beauty which are a continual joy and inspiration to mankind, and in part in slowly evolved habits and laws of social amenity, and reasonable freedom, and mutual independence, which under civilised conditions war, whether between nations or between classes, tends to destroy, and in so destroying to inflict a permanent loss in the material heirlooms of Mankind and a serious injury to the spiritual traditions of civilisation.

It is possible to go further and to declare that warfare is in contradiction with the whole of the influences which build up and organise civilisation…As soon as civilised society realised that it was necessary to forbid two persons to settle their disputes by individual fighting, or by initiating blood-feuds, or by arming friends and followers, setting up courts of justice for the peaceable settlement of disputes, the death-blow of all war was struck. For all the arguments that proved strong enough to condemn war between two individuals are infinitely stronger to condemn war between the populations of two-thirds of the earth. But, while it was a comparatively easy task for a State to abolish war and impose peace within its own boundaries — and nearly all over Europe the process was begun and for the most part ended centuries ago — it is a vastly more difficult task to abolish war and impose peace between powerful States. Yet at the point at which we stand to-day civilisation can make no further progress until this is done. Solitary thinkers, like the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, and even great practical statesmen like Sully and Penn, have from time to time realised this fact during the past four centuries, and attempted to convert it into actuality. But it cannot be done until the great democracies are won over to a conviction of its inevitable necessity.

…

War is not a permanent factor of national evolution, but for the most part has no place in Nature at all; it has played a part in the early development of primitive human society, but, as savagery passes into civilisation, its beneficial effects are lost, and, on the highest stages of human progress, mankind once more tends to be enfolded, this time consciously and deliberately, in the general harmony of Nature.

War and Eugenics

“Wars are not paid for in war-time,” said Benjamin Franklin, “the bill comes later.”

…

It is scarcely necessary to add that all [the] bald estimates of the number of direct victims to war give no clue to the moral and material damage — apart from all question of injury to the race — done by the sudden or slow destruction of so large a proportion of the young manhood of the world, the ever widening circles of anguish and misery and destitution which every fatal bullet imposes on humanity, for it is probable that for every ten million soldiers who fall on the field, fifty million other persons at home are plunged into grief or poverty, or some form of life-diminishing trouble.

…

This consideration brings us to those “moral equivalents of war” which William James was once concerned over, when he advocated, in place of military conscription, “a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature.” Such a method of formally organising in the cause of civilisation, instead of in the cause of savagery, the old military traditions of hardihood and discipline may well have its value. But the present war has shown us that in no case need we fear that these high qualities will perish in any vitally progressive civilisation. For they are qualities that lie in the heart of humanity itself. They are not created by the drill-sergeant; he merely utilises them for his own, as we may perhaps think, disastrous ends.

Morality in Warfare

There are some idealistic persons who believe that morality and war are incompatible. War is bestial, they hold, war is devilish; in its presence it is absurd, almost farcical, to talk about morality. That would be so if morality meant the code, for ever unattained, of the Sermon on the Mount. But there is not only the morality of Jesus, there is the morality of Mumbo Jumbo. In other words, and limiting ourselves to the narrower range of the civilised world, there is the morality of Machiavelli and Bismarck, and the morality of St. Francis and Tolstoy.

…

As a matter of fact, this charge of “barbarism” against those methods of warfare which shock our moral sense must not be taken too literally. The methods of real barbarians in war are not especially “barbarous.” They have sometimes committed acts of cruelty which are revolting to us to-day, but for the most part the excesses of barbarous warfare have been looting and burning, together with more or less raping of women, and these excesses have been so frequent within the last century, and still to-day, that they may as well be called “civilised” as “barbarous.”

…

The fact seems to be that while war is nowadays less chronic than of old, less prolonged, and less easily provoked, it is a serious fallacy to suppose that it is also less barbarous. We imagine that it must be so simply because we believe, on more or less plausible grounds, that our life generally is growing less barbarous and more civilised. But war, by its very nature, always means a relapse from civilisation into barbarism, if not savagery. We may sympathise with the endeavour of the European soldiers of old to civilise warfare, and we may admire the remarkable extent to which they succeeded in doing so. But we cannot help feeling that their romantic and chivalrous notions of warfare were absurdly incongruous.

U.S. Plays Double Game In China-Japan Island Dispute

Xinhua News Agency
August 30, 2012

Commentary: U.S. should stop playing double game
Edited by RR

BEIJING: An awkward moment was seen Tuesday when a U.S. State Department spokeswoman shunned a question from a Xinhua reporter regarding the territorial status of the Diaoyu Islands.

At a regular briefing, Victoria Nuland ignited a controversy by saying that the U.S.’s official name for the Diaoyu Islands is the Senkakus, Japan’s naming for the uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

She then moved hastily to the next question without explaining the contradiction between Washington’s self-proclaimed neutrality and its commitment to Japan to provide necessary security support for the islands should they come under attack.

It is the double game the United States plays that reduces Nuland to silence.

Though asserting it does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, Washington has never ceased to employ gamesmanship to roil the waters in the region.

Take the naming of the islands for example. It is a normal practice and a show of neutrality for a third party to simultaneously mention the names used by all the claimants when it comes to a disputed territory, but Washington refuses to follow that practice.

Though the choice of name possesses no legal effect, it does have a political connotation, which is explained by Washington’s series of moves.

As tensions between China and Japan continued to rise and opened a huge rift within the region, Washington staged a 37-day joint drill with Tokyo, stirring up the already volatile waters.

What’s more, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will discuss tensions in the South China Sea during an upcoming trip to China, suggested the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the Japan-U.S. security pact, lending veiled support to Tokyo’s claim over the islands.

All these moves show that Washington has strayed off its commitment to not taking sides in the territorial dispute between China and Japan, which, in part, stemmed from U.S. strategic concerns that a rising China would be a threat.

Cold War thinking would be detrimental to China-U.S. relations, which are increasingly important for both regional and world peace and stability.

To be trustworthy partner, the United State should back up its words with actions and abandon the double game.

Serving NATO: Most Australian Combat Deaths Since Vietnam

Agence France-Presse
August 30, 2012

Australian military suffers worst day since Vietnam

Five Australian troops were killed in two separate incidents in Afghanistan in what Prime Minister Julia Gillard Thursday described as the nation’s deadliest day in combat since the Vietnam War.

The deaths, which included three killings in an “insider attack” by an Afghan solider, brought to 38 the number of Australian lives lost in the conflict.

“This is a very big toll…this is our single worst day in Afghanistan,” said Gillard, who cut short a trip to the Pacific Islands Forum to return home and deal with the fallout.

“Indeed this is the most lost in combat since the days of the Vietnam War.”

Australia’s acting defence chief Air Marshal Mark Binskin said the first incident occurred inside a patrol base near Tirin Kot in the restive southern Uruzgan province where about 1,500 Australian troops are deployed.

In the second, two Australian special forces soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed in Helmand province.

“Three Australian soldiers from the 3RAR task group were shot and killed when an individual wearing an Afghan National Army uniform opened fire with an automatic weapon from close range,” he told reporters.

The dead soldiers were aged 40, 23, and 21 and were relaxing at the end of the day when the Afghan opened fire, he added.

NATO Secretly Authorizes Syrian Attack

Press TV
August 29, 2012

NATO secretly authorizes Syrian attack
By Gordon Duff

No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.”

Yesterday afternoon, Monday, August 28, 2012, in a meeting in Brussels, NATO military leaders in consultation with “telephonic liaison” with officers of military forces in several former Soviet Republics, major African states, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states came to a combined decision to act against Syria.

Two issues were on the agenda: 

1. How climate change in Greenland will effect geopolitics, immigration and military affairs for the EU 

2. Syria and the potential for Russian and Chinese intervention.

3. Iran was not an official agenda item but it is an unspoken conclusion that, if China and/or Russia stand aside for interference by NATO in Syria’s internal affairs, this will be seen as an authorization for incursions into Iran, a systematic “Balkanization” based on a prescribed formula of “manufactured and simulated internal political and social strife.”

No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously. 

News stories throughout North America and Europe earlier in the day were filled with reports of mass killings by the Syrian Army and the presence of Iranian troops in Syria. True or not, these stories represent a pre-staging for the NATO conference. 

The critical reporting issue involves rhetoric. We moved, yesterday, from discussions of “fighting” to “systematic execution of hundreds of civilians.” 

No video nor photos were included to verify neither claims nor sources given other than reports from “rebel forces.” 

Recent consultation with friends in the Pentagon as to Syria’s air defense system indicated that the US has, in place, a play to destroy the command and control capability of Syria’s system. 

The problems are twofold: 

1. Russian technicians man the Syrian system 

2. The S300P2 system Syria uses is extremely “robust” 

An additional political consideration is a simple one, there is no UN authorization. Both Russia and China have vetoed even sanctions against Syria much less authorized an attack. 

Thus, there is no existing authority capable of justifying an attack. 

In an interview this week at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) conference in Tehran, attended by 120 member states, a huge defeat for NATO interests in the area, this interview yielded some substantive and surprising facts.

Press TV: Certain powers have been trying to isolate Iran, actually, by not holding such a conference at such a high ranking level. As you said, this all has failed. 

Now tell us about all the sanctions against Iran which have propagated against Iran, that Iran should be isolated, but as you said it’s all been failed. What is really important is that the agenda of the 688-point draft document which talked about, as you call and urge all countries to make the world free from any nuclear weapons. 

You were a senior expert in the IAEA as an inspector. Tell us about that and also with the particular focus on Israel which has not yet signed up to the NPT. 

Abu Shadi: I oppose strongly any kind of accusation on any state based on intelligence information. All the accusations given to the nuclear program in Iran is based only on intelligence information. There is no single proof that Iran is deviating from its commitment from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

I am very surprised that the Security Council took four decisions, sanctions against Iran just because of rumors that the intelligence source may think there is something. 

I think this policy should be changed. The Security Council and its way of veto, and its limited number only to the big powers should be changed. I think that will also be one of the points to be addressed in this conference. I believe strongly that that situation, which is actually politically influenced by the West, should be changed. 

With respect to your second part about the NPT, in fact, almost all the states in the world respects the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] except the five weaponized states, which they should reduce their weapons which didn’t happen up until today, and the three or four states which did not sign the NPT including Israel. Israel is the only state in the Middle East who did not sign the NPT. 

None of the Western countries who are accusing not only Iran but before also Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Egypt, considered any accusation to what the Israelis are doing. I believe this bias in the international organization should be stopped. 

Shadi makes some particularly interesting points and raises some concerns few had noticed. His most damning statement, of course, is that the Security Council, a carryover from a war 70 years ago, certainly a demonstration of oligarchic rule at the United Nations, has been directed at Iran. 

In particular, he notes that the council’s unilateral and undemocratic decisions, followed by nations, China and Russia, who defended Syria, were aimed at Iran but backed by no presentation of facts or even qualified intelligence assessments. In fact, since Colin Powell’s humiliating WMD presentation before the UN, no “American fact” has been taken seriously nor is likely to. 

CNN quotes a top Powell aid: 

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state’s presentation to the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was “the lowest point” in his life. 

“I wish I had not been involved in it,” says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.” 

Actual risks and ramifications 

Top intelligence analysts in private consultation fear a larger Middle East war. “Russia and China won’t stand back, not with the US planning a unilateral moves on Africa and its resources. It’s like 1947 again with Truman and the Marshall plan, encirclement, but a war over, not just resources, but a world war against what has now seen as the real threat, what Americans call the “middle class.” 

Thus, taking Syria without taking Iran is “not in the cards.” Here I return to the words of H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds. His grasp in this fiction well over a century old reflects on our times in a curious and wonderfully literate manner: 

“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. 

“Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. 

“The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of… 

“And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety–their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours–and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.” 

Martians, this is how NATO and Israel look on the world, as expressed through the prose of Wells. Their gaze “cool and unsympathetic,” as drone warfare and their plans, calculated acts of false flag terror, kidnappings, assassinations, the abomination of mythical news reporting.

The end of the road, this path of “hubris” could well be world war, least of all fuel price increases that collapse the currencies and economies. 

Talking of death is nothing as we are now pre-staged to look on life as nothing, all victims are “militants” if you want them dead or “collateral damage” when you err. 

Iran’s position chairing NAM makes them a harder target. The general criticism by many NAM members, the dictatorial rule of the United Nations by the Security Council, has not prevented the Syrian conflict from becoming a threat to world peace. 

For Iran, their choice seems, on the surface, to be in aiding Syria, negotiations, using oil leverage with India, China and others and predicting how the west is plotting. 

If Iran falls, it will be only another domino. 

 
Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. 

Energy Strategy And U.S. Support Of Authoritarian Regimes

Voice of Russia
August 29, 2012

US and support of authoritarian regimes

The United States has repeatedly touted its mission of spreading democracy across the world. In reality, it is the United States that remains the main source of support for authoritarian rulers, among them Washington’s friends and foes. Here, it is worth quoting one of the US presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, as saying that “he [Nicaraguan dictator Somoza] is, of course, a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”.

At present, authoritarianism on post-Soviet space is mainly financed and backed by the West and the United States. Washington is boosting relations with the Turkmen authorities and is involved in a complicated political game with Kazakhstan. Also, the United States supports authoritarian methods by the Georgian president and develops cooperation with Azerbaijan. US authorities hail the authoritarian regimes of these countries, which are closely intertwined in terms of the development of the oil and gas sector.

For example, during recent talks between members of the Turkmen delegation and chief executives of the leading US oil and gas companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, in Washington, representative of US business circles signaled their readiness to help Turkmenistan fulfill a strategy of diversification of its energy exports to the international market.

The US business people also indicated the intent to take an active part in rendering services and implementing a host of projects to construct new trans-national pipelines and new facilities related to the oil and gas sector. During the talks, the sides also discussed the US businessmen’s possible participation in a variety of projects in Turkmenistan, such as the development of new technologies and investments. Also, Washington said that “the United States appreciates Turkmen’s role in maintaining good neighborly relations with neighboring countries”, in particular when it comes to dealing with a raft of issues related to Afghanistan.

As for US-Kazakh relations, they are based on a strategic partnership which is characterized by a wide spectrum and a deep degree of interaction. Bilateral relations rest on a solid international treaty framework. Annual US-Kazakh political consultations add significantly to bolstering bilateral ties.

In 2012, a decision was made to upgrade bilateral political consultations to the Kazakh-US Commission for Strategic Partnership. During the first session of the consultations in September 2010, the US State Department touted Kazakhstan as “the only Central Asian country with which the United States has such a comprehensive and detailed bilateral cooperation agenda”. The United States remains one of Kazakhstan’s largest trade partners. In 2011, the two countries’ trade turnover amounted to 2,743 billion dollars, a 26-percent increase as compared to 2010, when the figure stood at 2,181 billion dollars. In addition, the United States has repeatedly endorsed Kazakhstan’s drive to join the WTO before the end of 2012.

It is common knowledge that US authorities support the policy pursued by Mikheil Saakashvili. The United States backs Tbilisi’s push for entering NATO as Georgia currently takes part in an array of NATO operations in Afghanistan. Speaking during the opening of the Georgian-US Commission for Strategic Partnership in Batumi in June 2012, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Georgia makes its own contribution to ensuring global security by taking part in NATO operations in Afghanistan, where it will soon be the first contributor among non-NATO members. We welcome and appreciate this”.

As for Azerbaijan, it has long been a supporter of the United States in post-Soviet space and a main entity to implement the Greater Caspian strategy. Back in September 1994, the United States and Azerbaijan signed what was billed as a “contract of the century” – an agreement on dividing production related to the development of the Azeri Chirag and Guneshi oil fields over thirty years.

In 2006, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline in the Caspian region was put into operation. The pipeline began to deliver oil supplies bypassing Russia. Despite the fact that the project’s economic feasibility was never confirmed because of false information about the real natural resources of Azerbaijan, the United States signaled its readiness to render financial assistance to the project, if necessary.

Also, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline was constructed in the South Caucasus. In this vein, Azerbaijan’s participation was seen by the United States as the first step in implementing the Greater Caspian strategy. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline were to become a link to be used to create unified systems of main oil and gas transportation pipelines which are designed to deliver Kazakh oil and Turkmen gas.

Aside from supporting authoritarian regimes on post-Soviet space, the United States also backs South Sudan’s authoritarian regime in its war with Sudan despite the fact that South Sudan’s actions were condemned by the United Nations. South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit holds a hard-line position because he is constantly supported by the United States, which helped South Sudan deal with “a dictatorship regime in Khartoum”.

Speculation is rife that a US military base will soon be stationed on the territory of the new state. It is already touted as the US’ largest base in Africa. Also, US companies are lobbying for the construction of an oil pipeline which will link South Sudan’s deposits with the Kenyan port of Lamu on the Indian Ocean coast.