Archive
U.S. Asia-Pacific Strategy Destabilizes Region
China.org.cn
September 29, 2012
US Asia-Pacific strategy destabilizes region
By Zheng Yongnian
====
Thinking that the U.S. will invest huge resources to confront China as it did against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, these countries, especially the ones which have maritime boundary disputes with China, have chosen to side with the U.S.
[T]he U.S. pivot has shifted the priority in Asia from economic policy to strategic policy. This has occurred, in part, due to U.S. perception of its own strengths. After the onset of the financial crisis, U.S. economic dominance weakened, but its military remains the most powerful in the world.
History has shown that economic competition is mostly benign, but strategic confrontation can and has lead to military conflict. When the two countries fall into such confrontation, they will inevitably assume the roles of the two ancient Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta, or the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
====
The United States claims that its high-profile “pivot to Asia” strategy aims to “deter” the threat from a rising China in order to maintain the existing order in Asia. But the effects of this strategy seem to prove just the opposite.
Is Asia now more stable than it was before the U.S.’s adoption of this Asia-Pacific strategy? Obviously not. China and the U.S. had been living on relatively good terms before. But dramatic changes have happened in Asia due to America’s new policy.
Before this new policy, China and other Asian nations had been constantly adjusting themselves to cater to the needs of others. Most Asian countries, ASEAN nations in particular, adopted a pragmatic foreign policy. They regarded China’s economic growth as an opportunity and accordingly adjusted their relations with China. Meanwhile, China prioritized its economic and trade relations with other Asian countries, and accordingly kept a low profile on political and strategic issues and recognized the leading role of ASEAN. It was because of this mutual effort that the relationship between ASEAN nations and China had rapidly progressed, and the bilateral relations between China and other Asian countries became gradually institutionalized through various regional, international, bilateral and multilateral channels.
Some Western scholars have already realized the fact that during the past three decades, Asia maintained peace despite China’s rapid growth, seemingly disproving the “tragedy of great power politics” in which an emerging power will eventually challenge the existing great power. Peace in Asia, to a large extent, was a result of rational choices and mutual adjustment of Asian countries including China. China placed its strategic priorities on economy and trade instead of the military.
The so called “threat” that the U.S. faces in Asia ― fears that China will eventually push it out of Asia ― is therefore more cognitive than real. Where do these fears come from? There are many contributing factors, including the so-called “security dilemma” caused by structural anarchy in international relations, differences in political ideology, and a lack of mutual trust.
How does the U.S. “pivot to Asia” affect regional geopolitics? Here we have to take into consideration the relationships between China and the U.S., China and other Asian countries, and the U.S. and other Asian countries.
First of all, the U.S. Asia strategy has changed and even interrupted the process of mutual adaptation of China and other Asian countries. Although the Obama administration has only voiced the strategy in its political rhetoric, the shift is enough to amplify Asian countries’ expectations for U.S. support. Thinking that the U.S. will invest huge resources to confront China as it did against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, these countries, especially the ones which have maritime boundary disputes with China, have chosen to side with the U.S. Although China’s response to the U.S. strategy has been largely defensive, it is still enough to prevent its relations with these countries from developing further.
Secondly, the U.S. pivot has shifted the priority in Asia from economic policy to strategic policy. This has occurred, in part, due to U.S. perception of its own strengths. After the onset of the financial crisis, U.S. economic dominance weakened, but its military remains the most powerful in the world. During the Cold War period, economic and military presence had the same weight in the U.S.’s foreign policy. But with its pivot, the U.S. is re-introducing strategic competition into Asia. This change has forced China to begin to move its focus from the economy to military strategy.
After years of joint efforts, China and the U.S. have actually built up very close bilateral relations, particularly in economic cooperation, trade and finance. As a result, some American scholars created a term “ChinAmerica” to describe the interactions and interdependency of China and the United States. But the U.S.’s re-introduction of strategic competition has changed this relationship. History has shown that economic competition is mostly benign, but strategic confrontation can and has lead to military conflict. When the two countries fall into such confrontation, they will inevitably assume the roles of the two ancient Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta, or the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The U.S. bases its “pivot to Asia” on its cognition of “national interest”. Likewise, it is also difficult for China to change its cognition of national interest. However, this does not mean that China-U.S. military confrontation is unavoidable. If U.S. wants to counterbalance China in Asia by pivoting back to the region, China must find means to counterbalance the U.S. Such means are the guarantee of peace.
The author is director of the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore.
(This article was published in Chinese and translated by Chen Qiuping.)
Pakistan-Russia Ties
The News International
September 29, 2012
Pak-Russia ties
====
In the final analysis, as the Central and South Asian configuration of states undergoes a new transformation, Russia and Pakistan need to reach out to each other to reap the full and positive benefits of a real relationship, including the tempting energy and economic objectives that could lead to advantageous geopolitical outcomes for all involved.
====
A flurry of high-level visits by Russian officials to Islamabad in the recent past and the much-anticipated trip by Russian President Vladimir Putin have been reported both as highlighting Russia’s efforts to augment strategic relations with Pakistan and Pakistan’s attempt to find new friends given the growing impasse with the United States.
While there has been much talk of a quiet and inconspicuous Russo-Pak rapprochement evolving, what do we make of Putin calling off his visit to Pakistan at the eleventh hour this Thursday? This has also meant the deferment of a planned quadrilateral summit between Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan that was to be held in Islamabad on Oct 2.
For now, there is no word on new dates either for the summit or for Putin’s visit. The reasons for the deferral are also unclear. There is speculation that Putin’s decision was the result of Pakistan’s reluctance to award, without bidding, the contract for building its section of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline to Russian energy giant Gazprom. The other view is that Russia may have pulled out of the trip due to Indian pressure. Hopefully, the Russians will provide a fuller explanation soon – it is certainly being read as a setback for Pakistan’s attempt to cultivate new relationships and create negotiating space vis-à-vis the US.
Russia and Pakistan have been working, quietly and out of sight, on a rapprochement after decades of bitterness and misgivings. The reorientation of ties has been particularly spurred by developments in Afghanistan.
President Zardari and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev have met six times in the last three years. On Russia’s end, it realises that, given the US-Nato exit from Afghanistan in the near future, power in the region will shift.
It is, thus, trying to improve economic ties and secure its southern borders against the spread of terrorism by reaching out to both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Russia sees Pakistan as a gateway for energy trade to the entire Subcontinent. On the other hand, Pakistan desires better ties with Russia not just on the economic front but also as an alternate source of military supplies, especially given Washington’s growing foot-dragging and China’s continued inability to meet all of Pakistan’s requests.
The question remains: given extenuating reasons on both sides to push for enhanced ties and a recent display of all the right gestures and statements, how then do we explain the cancellation of Putin’s visit, which is clearly a step back in the relationship? Before jumping to conclusions, it is important to take into account the long-standing foundation of mistrust that will undergird any future relationship between Pakistan and Russia. In light of a deeply acrimonious past, hiccups along the way are to be expected. Let us then look at Putin’s decision as just one of these hiccups that will hopefully be ironed out in time. In the final analysis, as the Central and South Asian configuration of states undergoes a new transformation, Russia and Pakistan need to reach out to each other to reap the full and positive benefits of a real relationship, including the tempting energy and economic objectives that could lead to advantageous geopolitical outcomes for all involved.
Syria: Russian Foreign Minister Warns of Abyss of Bloody Sectarian Strife
RT
September 28, 2012
Rebel support ‘pushes Syria deeper into the abyss of bloody sectarianism’ – Lavrov
14-minute video of Lavrov’s address to the United Nations General Assembly
Those who insist on a ceasefire only by the Syrian government encourage the opposition to intensify its hostilities, and “take upon themselves an enormous responsibility,” Russian FM Sergey Lavrov said in a speech to the UN General Assembly.
The shortest way to stop the loss of life in Syria, Lavrov said, is to adhere to the commitments in the Geneva communique, which were agreed upon by the Action Group as follow-up of the Kofi Annan Plan.
“We proposed to adopt a resolution in the UN Security Council that would endorse the Geneva communique as the basis for negotiations at the beginning of the transitional period, but this proposal had been blocked,” Lavrov noted.
“Those who oppose the implementation of the Geneva communique,” he explained, “in fact push Syria even deeper into the abyss of bloody sectarian strife.”
Lavrov noted that the deepening of internal conflict in Syria is of particular concern because the militarization of the conflict is combined with open calls for foreign intervention.
“We have consistently called for the consolidated efforts of the international community to compel the government and its opponents to immediately cease the violence and come to the negotiating table,” Lavrov said, adding that so far, there has been no progress in reaching unanimity on how to create conditions towards achieving that goal.
The foreign minister also expressed concern about the growing number of war crimes on both sides of the conflict, as recorded in a recent report by the UN Human Rights Council.
“Extremist organizations including al-Qaeda have become more active in Syria – they perpetrate terrorist attacks against innocent civilians and civil infrastructure,” Lavrov said.
The situation in the region requires the international community to use a comprehensive approach, and to reject “simplified and ideology-driven patterns and double standards,” the FM asserted.
He also condemned any unilateral sanctions “imposed by a state or a group of states sidestepping the United Nations to advance their political goals.”
“We have no doubt that such sanctions, especially when they are applied extra-territorially, weaken the unity of the international community and undermine the effectiveness of its efforts,” Lavrov said, adding that the events of recent years have clearly shown that “unilateral actions that violate international law and go beyond the decisions of the UN Security Council or distort the substance of these decisions do not do any good.”
He urged the UN to discuss the consequences of such actions and to resume discussions on the humanitarian limits of sanctions, a topic that, he said, somehow “faded away” in the UN.
Meanwhile on Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington would contribute an additional $15 million in “non-lethal gear” to the “civilian opposition” trying to oust Assad. Another $30 million will be sent in humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the continuing conflict, Clinton said at a Friends of Syria meeting on the sidelines of the UNGA.
“It is no secret that our attempts to move forward at the UN Security Council have been blocked repeatedly, but the United States is not waiting,” Clinton said.
Outside Meddling In Syria Threat To Whole World Order: Russian Official
Xinhua News Agency
September 28, 2012
Syria crisis can only be solved within U.N.: Russian official
MOSCOW: Attempts to solve the Syria crisis outside the U.N. would have destructive consequences for both Syria and the existing world order, a senior Russian diplomat said Friday.
“The attempts to look for ways out of the crisis in Syria outside the U.N. Security Council would have very destructive and dangerous consequences for Syria itself, for the Middle East region and, eventually, for the current world order as a whole,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said at a conference of professional diplomats.
He said the only way out is through negotiations and compromise.
“Implementation of the Libyan model, supporting only one side in this confrontation is a way to nowhere,” Ryabkov said.
The task of the international community is not to take sides in a domestic conflict or conduct operations to topple a government, but to stop violence and facilitate dialogue so as to find a compromise solution, Ryabkov said.
He also warned that “deep changes” in the Middle East and North Africa will cause repercussions in many other regions of the world for a long time.
—————————————————————————-
Itar-Tass
September 28, 2012
UN Resolution on Syria Inadmissible
The resolution on Syria of the United Nations Human Rights Council contains a number of “inadmissible clauses”, Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Maria Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva said, commenting on Russia’s vote against this document.
“One can’t agree with the unilateral conclusions concerning the tragedy in El-Houleh as well as with the fact that these murders are similar to other such incidents in Syria,” she said.
The Russian diplomat says that the investigation should be completed instead of accusing the government of having insufficient proof.
“There are countries that are actually encouraging terrorism in Syria, therefore we have no doubt that the episode in El-Houleh is being intentionally hyped in the media and is being used for the purpose of a forceful scenario regarding that country,” Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva stressed.
The El Houleh Village became known after the mass murder of 116 people there at the end of May.
South Ossetia: Georgia Plans False Flag Terror Attacks In Abkhazia
Republic News Agency
September 28, 2012
Georgian intelligence services are planning to carry out acts of terror in Abkhazia
September 30, on the Independence Day of the Republic of Abkhazia, in the Gali district, the residents of which are mainly Megrelians, Georgian special services are planning to carry out a terrorist attack.
As IA Res has been informed by a competent source in the security services of South Ossetia, “three groups, consisting of 15 people, are being prepared for this purpose. The groups` leaders are Amiran Kvartsheliya, Bakur Bumetskeriya and Dmitri Boiko.
According to information available to local intelligence services, the diversionists are going to carry out explosions at mass festivities and fire upon the FSS Border Control Agency of Russia in the Republic of Abkhazia.
“Once again Georgian authorities are planning to impose the responsibility for the attacks on the Abkhazian authorities and on the Russian military forces,” said the official.
U.S. Cannot Read Runes In Middle East
China Daily
September 28, 2012
US cannot read runes in Mideast
By Hua Liming*
Amid the anti-American protests in Muslim countries, US President Barack Obama urged world leaders on Tuesday to strongly oppose violence and extremism, arguing that protecting free speech is a universal responsibility rather than just an American obligation.
It seems that US politicians haven’t learned any lesson from the anti-US fury sparked by the film that belittles Prophet Muhammad. The United States also refuses to accept that the Muslim protests will make it even more difficult for it to deal with the “anti-American” regimes in Iran and Syria.
The film first sparked anti-American protests in Egypt and Libya, which soon spread to more than 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond.
Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, was killed along with three colleagues in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The violent protests also forced 65 US embassies across the world to issue warnings to Americans to take precautions against violent attacks, and the Pentagon has sent Marines to protect embassies in Yemen and Sudan. Indeed, the range and violent intensity of the present anti-American wave is unprecedented.
In a vain attempt to calm the anti-American sentiments, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US government “had absolutely nothing to do with” the film. But Washington has to think beyond the immediate impact of the film, because the protests are an outburst of Muslims’ longstanding anger at the US.
Washington has remained unrivalled in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, with its presence enhanced by US-Israeli relations. It also plays a key role in the Israel-Palestine peace talks, even though it is not welcomed by many in the Middle East.
Things, however, could have been different. The US could have been a welcome superpower in the Middle East after the end of World War II, when several countries had gained independence and learned many things from the US’ experience. But the US blindly “helped” Israel win the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and deal with other conflicts. Supported by the US, Israel annexed Arab territories beyond the proposed borders of a Jewish state and kept expanding its settlements in occupied land.
Many of the millions of displaced Palestinians are now living in exile, away from the land of their ancestors. Besides, the past few years have seen many Arab countries fall into economic stagnation. These have helped Islamic fundamentalists attract more youths to their camp. As a result, there has been a massive rise in the number of Islamists since the 1960s and 1970s.
The Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks deepened Americans’ hatred of Muslims which in turn intensified anti-American feelings among Muslims. The US used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, killing countless civilians and displacing millions. Wartime scandals such as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and the burning of the Quran by US servicemen added fuel to the fire burning within many Muslims.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at former US president George W. Bush and was jailed for his act, said after his release that he may be free now, but his country is still captive. He said it was humiliating seeing his country suffer, Baghdad burn and Iraqi people killed indiscriminately.
The journalist’s words echo the feelings of many Arabs. US-based polling agency Zogby International’s annual polls in the recent past show the majority of respondents in six Arab countries, including Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, hate the US and some 80 percent regard Washington and Tel-Aviv as the two biggest threats to regional security.
Washington got it wrong in the Middle East in the first place and is now paying a bloody price for that. Taken aback by the violent protests in the Middle East one year after the “Arab Spring”, Clinton said “it is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable,” adding that “the people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob.”
Clinton’s remarks suggest Washington has not yet understood why the Muslim world has erupted in anger. The US has always considered its social system and values superior to that of other countries and is still keen on promoting US-style democracy in the Middle East.
Bush tried to impose democracy with the help of the gun. His plan was doomed to fail, and it did. So when people in some Arab countries overthrew their leaders in 2011, the US rejoiced assuming that it would benefit immensely from the regime changes brought about by the “color revolution”.
The reality, however, has turned out to be different. Islamist parties and groups have evolved rapidly and come to power in the Middle East countries that have seen regime changes. Western media reports say that Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of Western democracy, have burgeoned in the Middle East after the Arab Spring.
The truth is the self-righteous democratic model of the West is rather feeble, and cannot be applied to a region where Islam is the dominating ideology. No wonder, the new leaderships in the Middle East countries cannot and do not want to contain Muslim anger at the US and Israel. In this sense, the anti-American wave is the inevitable result of the Arab Spring.
If Washington calls the anti-American protesters a “mob”, it has to take the risk (one of the greatest it has taken) of confronting almost the entire Muslim population in the world.
But the US will not give up on the Middle East – not because the region is no longer a haven for Americans, not even because it is focused on its “pivot to Asia” strategy. Let us hope the US realizes it opened a “Pandora’s box” by launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it would be utterly unwise to open another in the Middle East.
*The author, a former ambassador to Iran, is a researcher at the China Institute of International Studies.
Geostrategy: U.S. Tries To Recruit Armenia Against Iran, Russia
PanArmenian.net
September 27, 2012
Expert: U.S. trying to shape Armenia into ally for anti-Iranian policy
====
“Armenia borders Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran…The U.S. has a significant stake in all five countries, and Armenia is now coming into view as a potentially potent lever to advance American aims…As the US tries to woo Armenia to become a stronger ally in the region, the term ‘geostrategic’ has never been more apt.”
“Through economic and diplomatic incentives, the U.S. is actively trying to shape Armenia into an ally. As President Obama seeks to economically isolate Iran – his sanctions have cut the value of Iran’s currency in half – he is trying to regionally isolate the regime, as well. Armenia is key to that strategy.”
“Armenia’s two best friends at the moment are arguably the U.S.’s most challenging adversaries: Russia and Iran.”
====
In America’s eyes, Armenia might be in the most important position of any US ally to pursue an anti-Iranian policy, the Truman Project’s Daniel Gaynor writes.
In his article, the expert tries to answer the question as to why the U.S. prioritizes cooperation with Armenia.
“Few countries are in a better position to shape US foreign policy than Armenia. Armenia borders Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran. As a part of the former Soviet Union, it relies on nearby Russia extensively for trade and military backing. The U.S. has a significant stake in all five countries, and Armenia is now coming into view as a potentially potent lever to advance American aims. That is, if the Armenians can be won over. As the US tries to woo Armenia to become a stronger ally in the region, the term ‘geostrategic’ has never been more apt.
“Armenia is literally at the center of a number of countries that Washington considers among its top priorities. As President Obama tries to accomplish key foreign policy objectives – like preventing Iran from attaining nuclear bombs or seeing democracy flourish in Russia – he’s got to encourage Armenia to play along. To Armenia’s south, one such issue is unfolding in Iran’s nuclear centrifuges,” the article reads.
“America is racing to develop every diplomatic pressure point it can on Iran, lest Israel launch a preemptive attack and embroil America in a third Middle East war in ten years. One of those pressure points goes straight through Armenia. While the US has cut off formal relations with Iran – Washington talks through Switzerland’s embassy there – it’s no secret that it employs a variety of foreign policy crowbars to influence and destabilize Iran’s ruling regime. Some, like President Obama’s latest round of economic sanctions, are well known. Partnering with Armenia is not, but could have, a major impact. Through economic and diplomatic incentives, the U.S. is actively trying to shape Armenia into an ally. As President Obama seeks to economically isolate Iran – his sanctions have cut the value of Iran’s currency in half – he is trying to regionally isolate the regime, as well. Armenia is key to that strategy.
“For Armenia, the game is far less simple. Partnering with the U.S. – with whom it has a good, but not great, relationship – could alienate the few friends Armenia has left in the South Caucasus region. It wants military cooperation with Russia, but economic access to the West. While it has tried to deepen relations with the European Union and the U.S., Armenia’s two best friends at the moment are arguably the U.S.’s most challenging adversaries: Russia and Iran. That’s not necessarily because of shared ideologies, or even shared interests; it’s because Armenia doesn’t have many friends to pick from. Of its four neighbors, two – Turkey and Azerbaijan – have closed off their borders to Armenia,” Mr. Gaynor writes, according to stratrisks.com.
Diaoyu Dispute: Declining U.S. Seeks To Contain Rising China
China Daily
September 27, 2012
Friendly advice to Japan,US
By Zhou Fangyin
====
The US should not forget the aggressive past of Japan, especially the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which partly was the result of Washington’s tolerance of Japanese expansionism.
China’s influence is increasing in the Asia-Pacific region and even the rest of the world, while the US’ is declining. This is a relatively long-term but inevitable trend, which the US finds very uncomfortable to accept. The change in the balance of power will gradually erode the supremacy of the US and other countries’ confidence in America’s might. This realization seems to be giving American politicians and policymakers sleepless nights.
====
China issued a white paper on the Diaoyu Islands on Tuesday so that the international community would better understand Beijing’s stance on the Diaoyu Islands dispute. This is especially important because of the United Nations General Assembly session underway in New York.
The “nationalization” of the Diaoyu Islands by Japan is not only an infringement of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also a severe challenge to the post-World War II international order. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 and Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 required Japan to return Taiwan and its affiliated Diaoyu Islands to China, which is part of the international order.
The international community, especially the United States, made great efforts to build the post-World War II international order. So Washington has to be aware of the serious consequences Tokyo’s provocations could cause. The US should not forget the aggressive past of Japan, especially the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which partly was the result of Washington’s tolerance of Japanese expansionism.
Unfortunately, the contradictory statements of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta during his visit to Japan and China last week proves the fact that Washington is using the China-Japan dispute to strengthen its military presence in the Asian-Pacific region. On one hand, Panetta said the US would not take sides in the Diaoyu Islands dispute, on the other hand, he declared that US-Japan security treaty covers the Diaoyu Islands.
The US wants to play the role of a “mediator”. However, a mediator should be impartial, which Washington is not. Nor does it want to help resolve any dispute. Moreover, the US-Japan alliance disqualifies Washington from being even a “communicator” in the Diaoyu Islands dispute.
Nobody expected Panetta’s visit to Asia to break the impasse, because the US wants to use Japan and the Sino-Japanese dispute to contain China’s rise so that it can maintain its supremacy in Asia-Pacific. But at the same time, Washington doesn’t want the situation to go out of control, because that could draw it into direct confrontation with China.
Against this backdrop and as part of its “pivot to Asia” strategy, the US has taken a series of steps in the Asia-Pacific region, including the deployment of the Osprey aircraft in Okinawa, Japan.
Japan is trying to get a free ride on America’s “pivot to Asia” strategy now that the balance of power between China and the US is changing and Washington needs Tokyo to guard against Beijing. So to “deal” with China, Japan will not shy away from making full use of the US.
Considering Japan’s motive and purpose, US policymakers need to tread with caution and rethink their commitment to Japan, if they have any, so that America is not drawn into an unnecessary conflict. This is why Panetta warned the Japanese government not to take radical actions.
Electoral factors, too, have prompted Japan to intensify its disputes over islands with Russia, the Republic of Korea and China. But Japan should not be swayed by its electoral politics, for a seasoned politician has to see beyond domestic public opinion. It is easy to arouse national sentiments but much more difficult to cool them down. In case nationalism gains the upper hand in Japan, other policy options will get a not so glorious burial, which would not be a welcome situation, because it could lead to conflicts with other countries in the region.
China’s influence is increasing in the Asia-Pacific region and even the rest of the world, while the US’ is declining. This is a relatively long-term but inevitable trend, which the US finds very uncomfortable to accept. The change in the balance of power will gradually erode the supremacy of the US and other countries’ confidence in America’s might. This realization seems to be giving American politicians and policymakers sleepless nights.
Given China’s increasing diplomatic influence in East Asia, the US will make every effort to maintain its influence in the region. That’s why it is using the territorial sea disputes between China and some of its neighbors to display its diplomatic “smart power”.
The US is taking some short-term measures to create an unfavorable situation for China to thwart its peaceful rise. What Washington has done after announcing its “pivot to Asia” strategy is in line with this logic.
The Diaoyu Islands dispute has intensified to such an extent that it could lead to more frequent frictions and even a military conflict, which is something China does not want.
For China, an overly tough, inelastic policy or an overly mild policy both will lead to problems. In the long run, Beijing’s foreign policy should be a well-balanced combination of both mild and tough policies. China should judge a situation on the basis of reality and the reactions of other countries.
Had Japan been rational, it would have realized that it is unwise to infringe on the interests of a rising neighboring power, even with the backing of the US, for once a conflict breaks out, Washington will be more than happy to stand by and see Tokyo pay a heavy price.
Over the past several decades, China has been pursuing a foreign policy of “win-win” cooperation.
But the results of such a policy depend on whether the other side is equally willing to do so. If the other side pursues an agenda of winner-takes-all or is opportunistic, China’s unilateral goodwill will not yield any results. Instead, it will make it easier for the other side to take more provocative actions and encourage other countries to do the same.
The author is associate research fellow at the National Institute of International Strategy, China Academy of Social Sciences.
Interview: Egypt Must Reclaim Non-Aligned Legacy
Press TV
September 27, 2012
Israel refusal to join NPT inexcusable: Analyst
Interview with Rick Rozoff, Center for Research on Globalization
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has warned Israel over its saber-rattling against Iran and the obstructionism of Tel Aviv which is preventing the realization of a nuclear-free Middle East.
The Middle East “no longer tolerates” any country’s refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), “especially if this is coupled with irresponsible policies or arbitrary threats,” Morsi said in his address at the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday.
The Egyptian leader was referring to Israel’s policy of ambiguity about its military nuclear activities, which has helped it procure the Mideast’s only nuclear arsenal.
Press TV has interviewed Rick Rozoff, with the Center for Research on Globalization, from Chicago about the issue. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: I wanted to ask you, firstly, how you assess the relationship between Egypt and Israel especially since the fall of Mubarak and especially with this recent speech of President Morsi?
Rozoff: Yes, the speech today before the General Assembly in the United Nations by newly-elected President Morsi appears to signal a significant shift in the Egyptian position not only vis-à-vis Israel, but I would say in terms of intervening actively against threats by the United States, Israel and its allies – verbal at this point, perhaps more in the future – against Iran and other neighboring countries.
Considering the significance of Egypt in the Arab world, having the largest population, that this is a very meaningful transition, apparently, and one that I hope President Morsi and his government continue with.
Press TV: How does that equal then with Morsi’s government essentially saying that they will keep the “peace treaty” with Israel alive?
Rozoff: Well, that’s not the only impediment to Egypt realizing really its legacy – one that went back to Nasser of course – as being an independent, non-aligned country and that hopefully Egypt will reassert itself in that capacity, but it means, first of all, seriously reexamining the Camp David Accords and everything that has followed.
But it also means the military client state relationship it has with the United States. The fact that it remains a major member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partnership program, called the Mediterranean Dialogue, to continue along the path of genuine non-alignment and de-militarization of the region and ultimately all over the world, Egypt would have to sever its close military ties with the United States and would have to withdraw from the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue program.
Press TV: How significant is Morsi’s call for Israel to join the NPT and on that topic of nuclear non-proliferation also about the fact that every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy?
Rozoff: That’s a very good combination of requests, or of demands. First of all, it is inexcusable that Israel has remained a non-signatory nation to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for half a century practically.
And it’s this sort of rogue activity of Israel and its major sponsor of course the United States; ‘law of the jungle’ is an expression that Egypt’s Morsi used and that’s not an inaccurate one. That is, the largest beast who feels it can operate with impunity summarily violates international law and Israel is certainly doing so in relation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That’s a legitimate demand. It should be taken up seriously by the [UN] General Assembly and it should be introduced into the Security Council.
Syria: David Cameron As Ivan Karamazov
Voice of Russia
September 17, 2012
David Cameron poses as Ivan Karamazov
Boris Volkhonsky
1862: Dostoevsky on the new world order
====
He did not particularly mention those who are “of no conscience”, but British diplomats have made it clear that the British Premier had in mind Russia and China – the two countries that have blocked a number of West-sponsored resolutions on Syria.
[T]he tip of his criticism should be aimed at those who instigate violence in Syria in order to achieve their geopolitical aims. And to find those, the British premier should not look at Russia or China, but rather turn his eyes westwards (or, while being in New York, look around).
[W]hile speaking of the sufferings of young Syrian children, why didn’t Mr. Cameron mention the sufferings of young Yugoslav children in the late 1990s who died under NATO bombings? Why didn’t he refer to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who were killed as a result of Western aggression, in which Britain took an active part, second only to its elder brother? Why didn’t he made any reference to Western marines who went on a rampage in Libya leading to mass atrocities against Gaddafi loyalists?
====
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron launched a strong attack at the United Nations and its inability to stop atrocities in Syria by saying that the blood of young Syrian children is a “terrible stain” on UN’s reputation.
“If the United Nations charter is to have any value in the 21st century we must now join together to support a rapid political transition,” the Guardian quotes Mr. Cameron as saying. “And at the same time no one of conscience can turn a deaf ear to the voices of suffering.”
He did not particularly mention those who are “of no conscience”, but British diplomats have made it clear that the British Premier had in mind Russia and China – the two countries that have blocked a number of West-sponsored resolutions on Syria.
Now, it would be permissible to ask Mr. Cameron a couple of questions.
First of all, is it really the fate of “young children” that bothers the British Premier, or is it the strategic dominance of Britain’s elder brother in the crucial Middle Eastern region – the dominance, for which Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are posing the two last remaining obstacles. Otherwise, why be so insistent on a “rapid political transition”, even putting it before the “voice of suffering”.
Second, the course of events in Syria definitely shows that there is a civil war going on, a war in which the government is only trying to quell a mutiny. The mutiny itself was raised by local radicals with the direct participation of mercenaries from a number of adjacent countries and armed by the West via its satellites in the Middle East.
A war is always fraught with atrocities, and despite whatever Mr. Cameron might have been saying from the UN rostrum, the insurgents are no “meek lambs” or “innocent children”.
As has been demonstrated by numerous reports from Syria, the biggest bulk of atrocities were committed by insurgents armed with Mr. Cameron’s friends’ assistance. So, he may be right in criticizing the UN for being unable to stop the atrocities, but the tip of his criticism should be aimed at those who instigate violence in Syria in order to achieve their geopolitical aims. And to find those, the British premier should not look at Russia or China, but rather turn his eyes westwards (or, while being in New York, look around).
Third, while speaking of the sufferings of young Syrian children, why didn’t Mr. Cameron mention the sufferings of young Yugoslav children in the late 1990s who died under NATO bombings? Why didn’t he refer to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who were killed as a result of Western aggression, in which Britain took an active part, second only to its elder brother? Why didn’t he made any reference to Western marines who went on a rampage in Libya leading to mass atrocities against Gaddafi loyalists? Such questions may go on indefinitely.
Indeed, those events do not seem to have taught Mr. Cameron and his like anything. The invasion of Iraq has led to total chaos in the country. The invasion of Afghanistan has not only alienated 99.99 percent of Afghans against the West but has also led to a loss of a long-time Western ally in the region, Pakistan. The “Arab Spring” which caused such enthusiasm in the West just a little bit more than a year ago now has backlashed in a way that no one would like to have experienced.
And still, while lamenting over “the sufferings of Syrian children” (which, for the most part have been a direct result of Western interference), the West, under an outdated pretext of “freedom of expression,” remains stubborn in its intentions to let the instigators of violence to roam at large and add further fuel to the bonfire flaring up in all the Muslim world.
Or, maybe by referring to the “suffering of young children” Mr. Cameron suddenly remembered Ivan Karamazov who rejected global harmony based on a single tear of a child. But in really the allusion is a very disclosing one – while speaking about the “child’s tear” Ivan Karamazov in fact instigated Smerdyakov to murder the Karamazovs’ father. Isn’t it something the British premier is trying to do now?
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
