The Conundrum of Iran
Leonid Slavin

====

If the conflict with Iran takes the shape of a protracted bombing campaign and comes as a prologue to the occupation of the country, the US will need to strengthen its positions in adjacent regions, meaning that Washington will be trying to draw the Caucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan) and those of Central Asia into the orbit of its policy and thus tightening the “Anaconda loop” around Russia.

Since the new US military strategy implies focusing on two regions – the Greater Middle East and South East Asia – the issue of the Strait of Hormuz appears coupled to that of the Strait of Malacca which offers the shortest route for the oil supply from the Indian Ocean to China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of South East Asia.

====

The EU oil embargo recently slapped on Iran and the threats voiced by the US and other Western countries to come up with further sanctions against the country led watchers to conclude that an armed conflict between Iran and the West has finally became imminent.

The first potential scenario in this context is that the current standoff would eventually escalate into a war. The US forces in the Gulf area currently number 40,000, plus 90,000 are deployed in Afghanistan, just east of Iran, and several thousand support troops are deployed in various Asian countries. That adds up to a considerable military potential which may still fall short of what it takes to keep a lid on everything if armed hostilities break out. For example, Colin H. Kahl argues in a recent paper in Foreign Affairs that, even though “there is no doubt that Washington will win in the narrow operational sense” (1), the US would have to take a vast array of pertinent problems into account.

At the moment, maintaining the status quo is not in US interests, holds Stratfor, a US-based global intelligence agency: “If al Assad survives and if the situation in Iraq proceeds as it has been proceeding, then Iran is creating a reality that will define the region. The United States does not have a broad and effective coalition, and certainly not one that would rally in the event of war. It has only Israel…” (2) If the conflict with Iran takes the shape of a protracted bombing campaign and comes as a prologue to the occupation of the country, the US will need to strengthen its positions in adjacent regions, meaning that Washington will be trying to draw the Caucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan) and those of Central Asia into the orbit of its policy and thus tightening the “Anaconda loop” around Russia.

An alternative scenario also deserves attention. EU sanctions would surely hurt many of the European economies – notably, those of Greece, Italy, and Spain – by ricochet. In fact, Spanish diplomatic chief José Manuel García-Margallo Y Marfil bluntly described the sanctions decision as a sacrifice (3).

As for Iran, the oil blockade can cause its annual budget to contract by $15-20 billion, which generally should not be critical but, as the country’s parliamentary elections and the 2013 presidential poll are drawing closer and the West actively props up its domestic opposition, outbreaks of unrest in Iran would quite possibly ensue. Tehran has already made it clear it would make a serious effort to find buyers for its oil export elsewhere.

China and India, Iran’s respective number one and number three clients, brushed off the idea of the US-led sanctions momentarily. Japan pledged support for Washington over the matter but did not post any specific plans to reduce the volume of oil it imports from Iran. Japan, by the way, was badly hit in 1973 when Wall Street provoked an oil crisis and US guarantees turned hollow. Consequently, Tokyo can be expected to approach Washington’s sanction suggestions with the utmost caution and to ask the US for unequivocal guarantees that the White House will be unable to provide. Right now the US is courting South Korea with the aim of having it cut off the import of oil from Iran.

The opposition mounted to the plans underlying the military scenario by China, Russia, and India seems to hold the promise of an alliance of countries seeking to tame US hegemony and raging unilateralism. Stratfor analysts have a point saying that time is not on the US side, considering that the BRICs countries have some opportunities to influence the situation in the potential conflict zone by launching joint anti-terrorism and anti-piracy maneuvers in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, etc.

Inducing regime change in Iran, which is Washington’s end goal, still takes a pretext. The US has long been eying various factions in Iran in the hope of capitalizing on the country’s existing domestic rivalries parallel to the employment of tested color revolution techniques such as the support for the Green Movement or the establishment of a virtual embassy in Iran.

Richard Sanders, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, opined that, at least since the invasion of Mexico in the late XIX century, the US permanently relied on the mechanism of war pretext incidents to compile justifications for its military interventions (4). US arch-conservative Patrick J. Buchanan cited in his opinion piece titled “Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?” the fairly common view that US financial circles knowingly provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to drag the US into a war with the remote goal of ensuring the dollar empire’s global primacy (5).

The lesson to be learned from the history of the Vietnam War, namely the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which USS Maddox entered Vietnam’s territorial waters and opened fire on boats of its navy, is that the initial conflict was similarly ignited by the US intelligence community, the result being that the US Congress authorized LBJ to militarily engage Vietnam. (By the way, no retribution followed in June 1967 when the Israelis attacked USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 172). The morally charged concepts of humanitarian interventions and war on terror had just as well been invoked to legitimize downright aggressions against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Speaking of the current developments around the Persian Gulf, Washington’s choice of pretexts for aggression comprises at least three options, namely (1) Iran’s nuclear dossier; (2) an engineered escalation in the Strait of Hormuz; (3) allegations that Iran supports international terrorism. The US objective behind the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program – to make everybody in the world accept Washington’s rules of the game – has never been deeply hidden. The abundant alarmist talk is intended to deflect attention from the simple truth that building a nuclear arsenal with the help of civilian nuclear technologies is absolutely impossible, but Matthew H. Kroenig from the Council on Foreign Relations recently went so far as to warn that Iran would some day pass its nuclear technologies to Venezuela (6). The motivation must be to somehow bundle all critics of the US foreign policy.

The Strait of Hormuz, which is the maritime chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, is regarded as the epicenter of the coming new war. It serves as the avenue for oil supplies from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and is therefore being closely monitored by all likely parties to the conflict. According to the US Department of Energy, 2011 oil transit via the Strait of Hormuz totaled 17 billion barrels, or roughly 20% of the world’s total (7). Oil prices are projected to increase by 50% if anything disquieting happens in the Strait of Hormuz (8).

Passing through the Strait of Hormuz takes navigation across the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Iran grants as a courtesy the right to sail across its waters based on the UN Treaty on Maritime Goods Transportation. It must be understood in connection with Washington’s recurrent statements concerning the Strait of Hormuz that in this regard the US and Iran have the same legal status as countries which penned but did not ratify the treaty, and thus the US has no moral right to references to international law. Iran’s administration stressed recently after consultations on national legislation that Tehran would possibly subject to a revision the regulations under which foreign vessels are admitted to Iranian territorial waters (9).

Navies are also supposed to observe certain international laws, in particular those defining the minimal distance to be maintained by vessels of other countries. It constantly pops up in the US media that Iranian boats come riskily close to US vessels but, as watchers note, provocateurs like the CIA-sponsored separatists from Iran’s Baluchistan could in some cases be pulling off the tricks in disguise.

Chances are that a part of the oil embargo plan is to make the West encounter oil supply problems and start constructing pipelines across Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and Iraq as alternative routes reaching the shores of the Arabian, Red, and Mediterranean Seas. A few of these projects, the Hashan–Fujairah pipeline, for instance, are as of today in the process of being implemented. If that is the idea, the explanation behind Washington’s tendency to convince its allies to create a “safer” pipeline infrastructure is straightforward. Geopolitics being an inescapable reality, it does have to be taken into account, though, that the region’s countries remain locked in a variety of conflicts and, due to geographic reasons, Tehran would be a key player even if the pipelines are launched.

Since the new US military strategy implies focusing on two regions – the Greater Middle East and South East Asia – the issue of the Strait of Hormuz appears coupled to that of the Strait of Malacca which offers the shortest route for the oil supply from the Indian Ocean to China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of South East Asia. The arrangement implicitly factors into the Asian countries’ decision-making related to Iran.

The precedent of “the war on terror” – a campaign during which the US occupied under dubious pretexts Iraq and Afghanistan at the costs of thousands of lives – must also be kept in mind. Ages ago, the White House sanctioned subversive activities against various parts of the the Iranian administration, including the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. Former CIA operative Phillip Giraldi writes that US and Israeli agents have been active in Iran for quite some time and are responsible for the epidemic of the Stuxnet virus and the series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear physicists. The groups within Iran which aligned themselves with the country’s foes are the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, the Baluchistan-based separatist Jundallah, whose leader Abdolmajid Rigi was arrested in February, 2010 by Iranian security forces and admitted to cooperating with the CIA, and the Kurdish Free Life of Kurdistan (10).

In essence, a war against Iran – up to date a secret war – is underway. The problem the parties involved are trying to resolve is to find a way of prevailing without entering the “hot” phase of the conflict.

(1) Colin H. Kahl. Not Time to Attack Iran. January 17, 2012.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-time-to-attack-iran?cid=nlc-public-the_world_this_week-link6-20120120

(2) Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis. January 17, 2012. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/iran-us-and-strait-hormuz-crisis?utm_source=freelist f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120117&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=b90cfbef7b1a402ea2f1fc384080fa15

(3) La UE acuerda vetar las importaciones de petroleo de Iran. 23.01.2012 http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20120123/54245752767/ue-vetar-importaciones-petroleo-iran.html

(4) Richard Sanders. How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents. Global Research, January 9, 2012. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28554

(5) http://buchanan.org/blog/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor-4953

(6) Recent Events in Iran and the Progress of Its Nuclear Program. January 17, 2012. http://www.cfr.org/iran/recent-events-iran-progress-its-nuclear-program/p27090?cid=nlc-public-the_world_this_week-link5-20120120

(7)  http://www.eia.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/full.html
(8) Michael T. Klare. Danger Waters. January 10, 2012. http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2012/01/danger-waters.html#more

(9) Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf? Global Research, January 8, 2012. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28516

(10) Philip Giraldi. Washington’s Secret Wars. 08 December 2011. http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/opinion-a-analysis/item/1236-washington%E2%80%99s-secret-wars 

New U.S. Army Stresses Space, Interceptor Missile, Cyber Capabilities

Canadian Troops, 155-Vehicle Convoy Head To Arctic

NATO’s Afghan War Distribution Network And The Baltic States

NATO Requirements: Baltic Lands Forces Integrated Into Danish Division

NATO Allies To Observe U.S.-South Korea-Japan War Games

====

New U.S. Army Stresses Space, Interceptor Missile, Cyber Capabilities

http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2012/01/space_missile_defense.html

Huntsville Times
January 27, 2012

General says space, missile defense critical tools for a smaller, restructured Army
By Kenneth Kesner

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama: The economic challenges faced by the nation will lead to military force reductions and program changes and a different future for all, including the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, said Lt. Gen. Richard Formica.

But as tough decisions are made, the SMDC leader said it’s critical – especially to a smaller Army and the envisioned “joint force” – that commanders and troops not be denied access to space and cyberspace capabilities.

“If the Army wants to be able to shoot, move and communicate, it needs space. [I]t needs missile defense,” Formica said Thursday, addressing the Air, Space and Missile Defense Association’s annual meeting.

“I believe that exploiting the potential of space and missile defense capabilities will be more important in the future, where conflicts will take place in domains without boundaries, and where forward presence may be reduced,” he said.

…

The luncheon was held amid exhibits of Huntsville’s space history and technology in the Davidson Center for Space Exploration at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. That’s where an ASMDA civilian “Wall of Honor” is now featuring portraits of men and women who have made significant contributions to missile defense over the decades.

…

====

Canadian Troops, 155-Vehicle Convoy Head To Arctic

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/01/23/edmonton-military-trek-arctic.html

CBC
January 23, 2012

Military convoy begins trek to the Arctic

Hundreds of military vehicles and personnel are beginning a three-day trek from CFB Edmonton to Yellowknife to test themselves and their gear in a harsh winter environment.

Soldiers from 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group learn how to properly pack a toboggan in preparation for the Exercise Arctic Ram. (Courtesy: DND)
The military convoy consists of three large groups travelling on separate dates:

* 90 soldiers and 50 vehicles will travel Jan. 20-22.

* 230 soldiers and 80 vehicles will travel Jan. 25-27.

* 60 soldiers and 25 vehicles will travel Feb. 9-11.

All vehicles will be further broken down into ‘packets’ of about 10 vehicles for reasons of safety and to alleviate congestion on highways.

The convoys will stop for rest and refueling at specified stops along the way. Fuel trucks will be travelling with the convoy.

The training exercise called ARCTIC RAM 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group’s first to be conducted in the Northwest Territories.

Exercise ARCTIC RAM, from Feb. 14 to 26, will re-familiarize soldiers with northern operations by assessing their ability to operate in a cold winter climate, test all personnel and equipment, and help soldiers to develop an awareness of the unique requirements of Arctic operations.

====

NATO’s Afghan War Distribution Network And The Baltic States

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/182317.htm

U.S. Department of State
January 20, 2012

The Northern Distribution Network and the Baltic Nexus
Remarks
Thomas P. Kelly
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Remarks at the Commonwealth Club, Washington
Washington, DC
As prepared

-The NDN has many paths. For example, there is a multi-modal route which enters the NDN at Poti, Georgia or Mersin, Turkey, and then transits the Caucasus and Central Asia. But the Baltic Republics offer a particularly important set of embarkation points for the surface routes to Afghanistan. The first shipment of U.S. cargo on the NDN was completed March 14, 2009, on a route that originated in Riga, Latvia, and continued through Russia into Afghanistan.

Minister Masiulis, Ambassador Pavilionis, Ambassador Nauduzas, Minister Rivasseau, distinguished guests, and friends:

It’s a great pleasure for me to participate on this panel sponsored by my Lithuanian friends. I spent three happy years in Vilnius as Deputy Chief of Mission, and one of the greatest benefits of my return to Washington a few months ago is the opportunity to collaborate with our Lithuanian friends and allies once again. This morning, I’d like to make some brief comments on the rationale for the Northern Distribution Network, ending with a few remarks on the role played by our stalwart allies in the Baltic Republics.

By way of introduction, I represent the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in the Department of State, known colloquially as PM. We serve as in-house State Department experts on military and security assistance issues, and we are one of the key interlocutors for foreign governments on strategic security issues. We also serve as a bridge to the Department of Defense. When the DoD needs diplomats to accomplish U.S. security goals abroad, PM is on the job.

One of PM’s top priorities over the past few years has been to do the diplomatic work necessary to ensure that our soldiers in Afghanistan are properly supplied. As a landlocked country surrounded by some of the world’s highest mountains, Afghanistan has always posed logistical challenges. For both the Departments of Defense and State, establishing a northern supply route to supplement the traditional routes through Pakistan has been a priority since 2009. By definition, additional supply routes increase our operational flexibility, enabling us to more effectively move items in and out of Afghanistan to support the efforts of our troops and our allies.

With the help of our friends in Central Asia, the Baltic Republics, and Russia, the United States managed to establish a network of land, sea and air routes that approach Afghanistan from the north. We now refer to this as the Northern Distribution Network, or NDN. The NDN consists of integrated routes of transportation to bring cargo along commercial surface and air networks to our troops serving in Afghanistan.

The NDN team in the U.S. Government includes PM; the Bureaus of European and South and Central Asian Affairs at the State Department; the U.S. Transportation Command; the U.S. Central Command; the Defense Logistics Agency; the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff. At PM, our key responsibility in this area is to secure international transit agreements that support the NDN.

Together with our partner nations along the network, we have transformed logistic support to Afghanistan in a relatively short period. Starting in March 2009, we began using existing rail and road infrastructure. To date, more than 58,000 containers of construction material, food, water, and other general supplies for U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been delivered via the NDN.

…

We have come a long way in building the NDN, but we hope to do more. Ultimately, we seek to ship 750 containers of cargo per week through the NDN. To put that goal in perspective, we deliver the equivalent of about 1,100 containers of cargo each week to Afghanistan from all routes.

The NDN has many paths. For example, there is a multi-modal route which enters the NDN at Poti, Georgia or Mersin, Turkey, and then transits the Caucasus and Central Asia. But the Baltic Republics offer a particularly important set of embarkation points for the surface routes to Afghanistan. The first shipment of U.S. cargo on the NDN was completed March 14, 2009, on a route that originated in Riga, Latvia, and continued through Russia into Afghanistan.

Riga was the primary point of embarkation in the Baltics initially. But we also send NDN Cargo through Tallinn, Estonia and one of my favorite cities, Klaipeda, Lithuania. Because of Lithuania’s strong contributions to Operation Enduring Freedom and the competitiveness of Klaipeda, Lithuania was added to the NDN in December 2010. Since then, it has facilitated the movement of over 4,000 containers of vital sustainment material to our troops in Afghanistan. I know that Minister Masiulis visited TRANSCOM two days ago, and that there are plans afoot for further modernization of the port facilities in Klaipeda…

Since its independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Lithuania and its sister Baltic republics of Latvia and Estonia have always been responsive to the United States. I’d just like to reiterate today what I’ve told many of my friends from the Baltics – your willingness to help us when we need your help does not go unnoticed. This kind of collaboration gives me great confidence in the staying power of our nation’s alliance with all three of the Baltic republics.

====

NATO Requirements: Baltic Lands Forces Integrated Into Danish Division

http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/baltic_news/?doc=8584

Baltic Course
January 20, 2012

Baltic land forces to be integrated in Danish Division by end-2013

-The Defense Ministry emphasizes that the integration of the Infantry Brigade into the Danish Division will consolidate Latvia’s military capacity, improve the planning and performance of military operations, and standardize cooperation between the Baltic and Danish units pursuant to NATO requirements.

Riga: By December 31, 2013, the Land Force Infantry Brigade of the National Armed Forces, as well as the brigades of the Estonian and Lithuanian armed forces, will be integrated into the Danish Division, writes LETA.

According to the government’s action plan released by the government this week, which will be altered and supplemented in accordance with proposals received from non-governmental organizations and other expert groups, the integration of the Latvian Land Force battalion into the Danish Division will be funded with state budget money provided to the Defense Ministry.

During the implementation of the three Baltic countries’ joint unit, the Baltic Battalion (BALTBAT), close military cooperation developed with the Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, the Defense Ministry’s Press Department. As part of this cooperation, significant support was provided for BALTBAT, thereby consolidating the National Armed Forces’ capacity.

After the BALTBAT project was halted and the Land Force Infantry Battalion set up, it became obvious that quality and adequate support for the battalion’s training was necessary.

This support has been provided by the Danish Division since 2005.

The continuation of the cooperation between the three Baltic countries and Denmark should be considered as a continuation of the BALTBAT project, albeit on a higher level, and it proves that the Baltic countries wish to continue stable cooperation in the long term, the Defense Ministry informs

The Defense Ministry emphasizes that the integration of the Infantry Brigade into the Danish Division will consolidate Latvia’s military capacity, improve the planning and performance of military operations, and standardize cooperation between the Baltic and Danish units pursuant to NATO requirements.

====

NATO Allies To Observe U.S.-South Korea-Japan War Games

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-South-Korea-to-Hold-Joint-Military-Exercises-138187854.html

Voice of America News
January 27, 2012

US, South Korea to Hold Joint Military Exercises
Steve Herman

Seoul: The United States and South Korea are to hold two military exercises on the Korean peninsula soon. They will be the first such war games since the recent change of leadership in North Korea.

There had been speculation one or both of the joint U.S.-South Korean military drills might be postponed or called off this year. But on Friday, the U.S. and South Korea militaries announced the annual exercises would go ahead.

…

A command post exercise, named “Key Resolve” is to start on February 27. It will involve 2,100 U.S. personnel, including 800 coming from Japan and elsewhere, as well as the participation of 200,000 South Korean troops.

Members of the U.N. Command, as well as officers from Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark and Norway, are to observe.

…

It will overlap with the start of a two-month joint tactical field exercise, known as “Foal Eagle.” The training is to involve 11,000 U.S. forces, along with a still undecided number of South Korean military divisions and smaller-sized units.

Foal Eagle, is to run from March 1 through April 30.

…

====

America reinvents policies to meet new challenges
Mayuri Mukherjee

By scripting the most dramatic shift in its foreign and defence policies since the end of the Cold War, the US prepares to confront a new world order

====

In the last two decades since, Washington, DC has actively played the role of a global hegemon that has maintained an absolute military superiority over the rest of the world, further strengthened by its economic prowess.

Think of how quickly popular support waned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though far more American soldiers died in the Vietnam and Korea. No one really bought the fourth World War logic, and they are no less glad that it is now over.

====

When US President Barack Obama said in a recent interview that, “I made a commitment to change the trajectory of American foreign policy…and I think we have accomplished those principal goals,” his statement was lot more true than popularly acknowledged. Indeed, the new set of ‘defence strategies’ unveiled by his Administration earlier this month marks the most significant shift in US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

In the last two decades since, Washington, DC has actively played the role of a global hegemon that has maintained an absolute military superiority over the rest of the world, further strengthened by its economic prowess. Indeed, even after the threat of a communist take-over had been effectively eliminated by the late eighties, the US military was only nominally downsized from its war-time proportions.

In the first half of the post-Cold War era, the continued maintenance of such a mammoth defence structure was justified by military engagements in Europe (think of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ of the US-led Nato forces in the Balkan Wars) and in West Asia (a successful Gulf War saw the containment of a belligerent Saddam Hussein). Then, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there emerged a new enemy in the form of Al Qaeda and its network of jihadi groups. It was, and still is, a stateless, shadowy entity that has nevertheless been portrayed as an evil superpower, somehow akin to communist Russia or Nazi Germany, to once again rationalise the presence of a vast American military. Indeed, as the first US troops landed in Afghanistan, neo-conservatives even declared that this would be the fourth World War (the third being the Cold War), or the ‘Long War’.

A decade later, Mr Obama has now declared that war to be over. Osama bin Laden is dead (although the threat of global jihadists remains, but that is another story), US engagement in Afghanistan is winding down, and for all practical purposes, there are no longer any American boots in Iraq.

But that is not all — the past 10 years have also witnessed the sagging of America’s economic strength. Weighed down by a mounting national debt, the US economy which is yet to fully recover from the global financial meltdown of 2007-2008, can no longer afford a gigantic military — and definitely not one that had supposedly been prepped to fight two wars at the same time. Besides, the possibility of a traditional land war is almost obsolete in a nuclear and globalised 21st century.

It is against this backdrop that the new policy, which seeks to trim the US military and renounce the bipartisan consensus achieved post-1989, must be understood. From performing the traditional role of a hegemon fighting ‘nation-building wars’, Mr Obama’s new doctrine focuses America’s attention on balancing power equations among emerging nations such as India and China in the Asia-Pacific region.

This will be done through a network of regional allies on the front-stage, in diplomatic terms, and through sophisticated secret surveillance, un-manned drones and CIA-style special operations in the back-stage, in military terms. A preview of this kind of warfare is already available in the manner in which the US is carrying out counter-insurgency operations in the AfPak region.

Also, compare this to the far more boots (and weapons) intensive approach of traditional warfare and it naturally explains the smaller, leaner, more agile but technologically advanced military that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked about at the release of this strategic document at the Pentagon. Finally, the new strategy also fits in with the narrative of fiscal discipline and domestic cost-cutting that has become an American imperative since the economic downturn.

Grounded in realism, the new policy is a classic example of realpolitik and marks a definite break from the quest for imperial hegemony of the neo-conservative years of former President George Bush and his deputy Dick Cheney who foolishly led US troops into an expensive and ineffective ground battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the new policy is not without flaws. For instance, if the Obama Administration hopes to contain China’s imperialist tendencies — and make no mistake that that is exactly what the new strategy is all about — then simply positioning ships across the Asia-Pacific from Japan to South Korea and even in far away Australia will not serve any purpose. If anything, this unnecessarily aggressive posturing of the US can only serve to provoke an already jittery China.

Ultimately, Mr Obama’s policy is a reflection of his people’s mood. Americans are tired of foreign wars and now simply want their boys to come back home and not in a body casket, please. There may have been a time when a John F Kennedy could have captured the nation’s imagination by promising that his country would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” But those days of a zealous commitment to Americana or the rhetoric of freedom and liberty that surrounds it are long gone. Think of how quickly popular support waned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though far more American soldiers died in the Vietnam and Korea. No one really bought the fourth World War logic, and they are no less glad that it is now over.

Working together for an Asian century
By Mukul Sanwal

====

The policy issue before India is clear: will it work with China to decisively shape the future of Asia and become a major participant in world politics, or, will it partner with the US to contain China, so that it can become a regional power.

The third strategic shift is taking place within international institutions, where India and China have begun to coordinate their actions on climate change and trade negotiations, the restructuring of global economic institutions and opposition to military interventions.

====

India and China are competitors, but their difficulties in achieving long-term cooperation reflect lingering attitudes rather than conflicting strategic goals. In the emerging multi-polar world, major powers will have to come to some sort of accommodation with each other, shaped by three strategic shifts.

First, a significant shift of power is taking place from the United States to Asia as the driver of global politics. The US can no longer maintain its hegemony alone and it is therefore encouraging India to join it in securing a military balance of power in Asia. But any such treaty or understanding would be implicitly against China.

India last month rejected any notion of joining a trilateral security pact with the United States and Australia.

The policy issue before India is clear: will it work with China to decisively shape the future of Asia and become a major participant in world politics, or, will it partner with the US to contain China, so that it can become a regional power.

The unresolved question for military strategists in India is China’s intentions.

Understanding the second major strategic shift now taking place in the world provides one answer to this question. The US has correctly framed the issue, by recognizing that countries are gaining influence now “less because of the size of their armies than because of the growth of their economies”.

India’s growth has differed from China’s and the rest of Asia in its reliance on domestic demand and growth in services rather than labor-intensive manufacturing.

China is now India’s biggest trading partner. Trade and business ties between China and India have increased dramatically from around $5 billion in 2002 to more than $60 billion in 2010, and the aim is to boost trade over the next five years to $100 billion annually.

The most striking difference between India and China is the demographic dividend, as a surge in Indian youth coincides with the graying of China. While India’s workforce will increase by 110 million over the next decade, China’s will increase by less than 20 million. This could push India’s growth rate ahead of China’s.

The drivers of competition between the two countries will therefore be shaped by water and energy rather than by efforts to expand trade. India has successful experience with the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. The perspective that energy is a zero-sum game is a Western construct, as they are profligate users of energy and see it as an integral part of their way of life. India and China on the other hand are taking steps to curb their energy consumption. The sharing of natural resources can be managed by modifying growth pathways to provide the same level of service.

No doubt both India and China want to secure their energy supplies, and since the oil supplies for both cross the Indian Ocean the answer lies in developing a joint strategic doctrine for this zone.

The third strategic shift is taking place within international institutions, where India and China have begun to coordinate their actions on climate change and trade negotiations, the restructuring of global economic institutions and opposition to military interventions. The foreign policy challenge for both countries is to work together to build networks of institutions and relationships that will support a new global order.

There is a need to review threat perceptions, security challenges and new opportunities by integrating the military, economic and multilateral spheres, because they interact with each other, and can no longer be considered in isolation. The boundary issue is moving towards an agreed framework, and the two countries must now develop a strategic partnership to realize the Asian century.

The author is a visiting professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

Americans oppose war: But does govt care?

VIDEO

With harsh US rhetoric and tensions around Iran’s nuclear program snowballing by the hour, American polls nonetheless show that most Americans think a war with Tehran would be a grave mistake. But do the leaders care?

NATO’s grisly crimes in Libya
Farirai Chubvu

Steadfast Jaguar exercise in Cape Verde, 2006: NATO’s first war games in Africa

While Charles Ray – the US envoy here [Zimbabwe] – portrays himself as the face of the free world, a champion of human rights and democracy, and has been vociferous about his country’s role in the Libyan invasion, it turns out that just like Vietnam and other illegal wars before it, Libya is turning into a major embarrassment for Uncle Sam.

A report released last week by human rights groups in the Middle East presents extensive evidence of war crimes carried out in Libya by the United States, NATO and their proxy “rebel” forces during last year’s invasion, that culminated in the murder of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The “Report of the Independent Civil Society fact-finding Mission to Libya” presents findings of an investigation carried out last November by the Arab Organisation for Human Rights, together with the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium.

Based on interviews with victims of war crimes as well as with witnesses and Libyan officials in Tripoli, Zawiya, Sibrata, Khoms, Zliten, Misrata, Tawergha and Sirte, the report calls for the investigation of evidence that NATO targeted civilian sites, causing many deaths and injuries.

Civilian facilities targeted by NATO bombs and missiles included schools, government buildings, at least one food warehouse, and private homes.

The report also presents evidence of systematic murder, torture, expulsion and abuse of suspected Gaddafi loyalists by the NATO-backed “rebel” forces of the National Transitional Council. It describes the forced expulsion of the mostly black-skinned inhabitants of Tawergha and the ongoing persecution of sub-Saharan migrant workers by forces allied to the NTC and its transitional government.

The investigators report savage and repeated beatings of prisoners held without trial or charges, the summary execution of pro-Gaddafi fighters, and witness reports of “indiscriminate and retaliatory murders, including the ‘slaughter’ (i.e., throat slitting) of former combatants.”

The report exposes the human rights and democratic pretexts employed by the US, France, Britain and their NATO accomplices to carry out a colonial-style war of conquest. It makes clear that UN Security Council Resolution 1973, imposing a “no-fly zone” and arms embargo on Libya supposedly to protect civilians from repressive actions by Muammar Gaddafi, was in fact used to carry out a ruthless air war waged in co-ordination with “rebel” forces on the ground.

The report suggests that soon after the outbreak of anti-Gaddafi protests in Benghazi and other cities, opposition forces were receiving training from Western armed forces as well as weapons from NATO powers and allied Arab states. Opposition to Gaddafi that erupted last February following the fall of Mubarak in Egypt was rapidly taken into hand by the US, France, Britain and their agents within Libya to launch a pro-imperialist invasion.

As the report states: “From first-hand information available to the Mission, and secondary sources, it appears that NATO participated in what could be classified as offensive actions undertaken by the opposition forces, including, for example, attacks on towns and cities held by Gaddafi forces.

Equally, the choice of certain targets, such as a regional food warehouse, raises prima facie questions regarding the role of such attacks with respect to the protection of civilians.”

The report gives only the palest picture of a brutal onslaught whose purpose was to turn the clock back 43 years to the conditions that prevailed under the US-UK stooge King Idris, who turned the country’s oil resources over to American and British conglomerates and allowed the two powers to maintain large military bases on Libyan soil. The mass destruction and killing, which culminated in the levelling of Sirte and lynching of Gaddafi, make the UN-sanctioned claims of a war for “human rights” and the “protection of civilians” not only absurd, but obscene.

The rape of Libya was the Anglo-Saxons response to the revolutionary uprisings that ousted long-time pro-Western regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, two countries that border Libya. The aim of the invasion was to impose complete control on the country’s oil resources, divert and suppress the growth of working class struggles throughout North Africa and the Middle East, and deal a blow to China and Russia, which had established close economic relations with the Gaddafi regime.

The war destroyed Libya. The NTC – an unstable coalition of ex-Gaddafi regime officials, Islamists, including some with links to Al Qaeda, and Western intelligence assets – itself estimates that the invasion claimed 50,000 lives and injured another 50,000. Rising infighting between the NTC’s factions is opening the door to full-scale civil war between rival clan-based and regional militias.

Just this weekend, amid warnings from NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil of looming civil war, a crowd demanding the resignation of the transitional government forced its way into the NTC’s headquarters in Benghazi. Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, the vice president of the NTC, promptly resigned.

The report on US-NATO war crimes is also a further indictment of the assortment of “left” parties, intellectuals and academics who parroted the human rights pretexts of Washington and NATO and thus gave open or backhanded support to the invasion of Libya.

And still, the so-called International Criminal Court is deafeningly silent.

====

Notably, after the announced withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, the US has decided to establish six permanent military bases in the war-torn country having an eye on the energy resources of Central Asia with multiple strategic designs against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia. Russia wants to get more involved in regional affairs to counterbalance the growing influence of the US-led West in the region. It knows that Pakistan can play a key role in the Afghan endgame and for Russian interests in Afghanistan.

Apart from the above-mentioned strategic factors which have brought together Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan against the undue influence of the US, there are some other reasons which particularly compelled Islamabad to review its policy with Washington.

====

There are no permanent friends and enemies in international politics because friendship and enmity change in accordance with the states’ interests, which are of primary importance.

In this regard, after having a strong relationship with the United States for more than 60 years, a shift has occurred in Pak-US ties because of a number of reasons, and Pakistan has inclined towards the Russian Federation which also needs the latter. So a new era has started in Pak-Russia relations.

Sources confirmed that Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar would visit Moscow in February to further boost bilateral relations between the two countries. Recently, the 7th meeting of the Pakistan-Russia Consultative Group on Strategic Stability was held in Moscow. The two sides discussed matters of mutual interest relating to international issues including arms control, nonproliferation and counter-terrorism.

On May 12, 2011, Pakistan and Russia agreed to promote trade, investment and joint projects, particularly in energy, infrastructure development, metal industry and agriculture. In a joint communiqué issued after the meeting of President Asif Ali Zardari and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Kremlin, both leaders agreed that this enhanced cooperation would help develop a strong bilateral relationship based on mutual respect and mutual interests.

Moscow has shown special interest in energy projects. A working group of both countries met in October, 2011 to explore cooperation in this sector. Islamabad is interested in Russian investment in its oil and gas sectors as well as in heavy industries.

Russia has offered Pakistan counter-terrorism equipment. The package includes 10 MI-17 helicopters of an unarmed configuration. When Russian military Chief Col-Gen. Alexander Postnikov visited Pakistan in May last year, he discussed with Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani the possibility of expanding defence ties by holding joint military exercises, exchanging trainees and trainers and selling and buying weapons. Moscow has also offered to sell the Sukhoi Superjet 100, a modern aircraft with a capacity of up to 95 passengers, while the upgrading of Pakistan steel mills by Russia is being finalised.

Cordial relations with Moscow suit Islamabad’s long-term strategic interests as it seeks to diversify resources, especially in view of continuing problems with Washington that has hitherto been its biggest supplier.

During the Cold War, Pakistan was allied with the United States and the former Soviet Union backed India. However, the Soviet Union’s arms sales to New Delhi and criticism of Pakistan’s position in the 1971 war with India weakened bilateral relations.

The U-2 incident occurred in 1960 when a US spy plane was shot down by the former Sovit Union and the pilot was captured alive. The fact that the plane flew from Pakistani territory enraged the Soviet Union. The Soviets threatened to bomb the Pakistani base if future missions were flown from it. In relation to the incident, Pakistani General Khalid Mahmud Arif had stated, “Pakistan felt deceived because the US had kept her in the dark about such clandestine spy operations launched from Pakistan’s territory.”

In 1974, then-Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto visited Moscow. For the first time in their history, the Soviet Union’s ties with Pakistan began to warm. His talks prompted the former Soviet Union to establish a steel mill in Karachi at its own expanse. However, after the American CIA orchestrated the removal of Bhutto, tensions began to mount with General Zia ul-Haq, who opposed the Soviet Union ideologically.

The two countries were bitter enemies in the 1980s when Pakistan became a frontline state of the US-led war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and also during the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

After Pakistan joined the US war againt terrorism in 2001, Russia vowed its support for Islamabad’s fight against the Taliban militants. In 2007, relations between Pakistan and Russia were reactivated after the visit of Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.

It is of particular attention that in 2010 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated that Russia was against developing strategic and military ties with Pakistan because of its desires to place emphasis on strategic ties with India. But Moscow changed its policy in 2011 when Putin publicly endorsed Pakistan’s bid to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and remarked that Pakistan was a very important partner for Russia in South Asia and the Muslim world.

In recent years, besides, various annual summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which includes Russia, China and four Central Asian states including Pakistan and Iran, on 16 August 2007, in their summit, the leaders of the SCO displayed strength against the US rising dominance in the region and military presence in Afghanistan, near the region of Central Asia.

Notably, after the announced withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, the US has decided to establish six permanent military bases in the war-torn country having an eye on the energy resources of Central Asia with multiple strategic designs against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia. Russia wants to get more involved in regional affairs to counterbalance the growing influence of the US-led West in the region. It knows that Pakistan can play a key role in the Afghan endgame and for Russian interests in Afghanistan.

Besides, US President Barack Obama unveiled a defence strategy on January 5 this year which calls for greater US military presence in Asia. Obama elaborated that the strategy also calls for the US military to “rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region…even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding.”

As regards Russia, it opposes the US intention to deploy an antiballistic missile defence system (NMD) in Europe, while differences already existed between Moscow and Washington over the US-led NATO’s attack on Libya. Both Moscow and Beijing, which favour multi-polar system in the world, have opposed incremental UN sanctions on Iran and US-Israeli war-mongering diplomacy against Tehran over the peaceful nuclear programme of the latter.

Apart from the above-mentioned strategic factors which have brought together Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan against the undue influence of the US, there are some other reasons which particularly compelled Islamabad to review its policy with Washington. In this respect, the US’s perennial blame game against Pakistan’s Army and the country’s intelligence agency ISI in supporting insurgency in Afghanistan and the Haqqani network, backing subversive acts, Baloch separatism and deployment of espionage system in the country to destabilize Pakistan including America’s old maximum to do more against militancy without bothering about public backlash had already worsened Pak-US relations.

Meanwhile on May 2, 2011, US commandos killed Osama bin Laden by violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, while Pak-US ties received a further blow when on November 26, US-led NATO aircraft deliberately carried out unprovoked firing on two Pakistan Army border posts in the Mohmand Agency, killing 24 troops in the wake of intermittent US-backed infiltration of militants from Afghanistan, which killed a number of security forces in Pakistan, coupled with drone attacks. In response, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership took tough measures such as the blockage of the NATO supply route to Afghanistan, the vacating of the Shamsi Airbase, a boycott of the second Bonn Conference on the future of Afghanistan, the rejection of the US investigation report in relation to the air strikes. Finally, Islamabad decided to reassess its engagement with the US.

It is notable that on November 28, 2011, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the NATO cross-border air attack in Pakistan, emphasised that a nation’s sovereignty should always be upheld, even when hunting terrorists.

As Pakistan is redefining its relationship with America, based upon mutual respect and especially assurance of Pak sovereignty, US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman has recently been asked by Islamabad to stop visiting the country until Pakistan finalises the review of its new partnership with America.

Nonetheless, a new era of Pak-Russia relations has commenced, and with the passage of time both countries will further strengthen their ties.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

====

Pentagon To Unleash Special Operations Troops Worldwide

No To NATO: Ukrainians Protest Arrival Of U.S. Warship

Post-NATO War: Libya Teeters On Edge Of Civil War

Mongolia: Strategic U.S. Ally Between China And Russia

U.S. Regaining Military Foothold In The Philippines

NATO Chief: Missile Shield Fundamentals In Place By Chicago Summit

Russia To U.S. – Drop Missile Shield Or Face Response

No Unilateral Concessions On NATO Missile Shield: Russia

U.S. Able To Intercept Russian Missiles If Strategic Forces Not Upgraded

Win On Any Battlefield: U.S. Army Expands Global Partnerships

Pentagon’s Asia Shift Favors Submarines, Tankers

NATO International School Of Azerbaijan Session Begins

Increase In Energy Reserves Enhances Azerbaijan’s Strategic Role

Davos: Caspian-Black-Baltic Seas Pipelines Discussed

====

Pentagon To Unleash Special Operations Troops Worldwide

http://www.stripes.com/news/bin-laden-raid-commander-seeks-global-expansion-of-special-ops-1.166880

Stars and Stripes
January 26, 2012

Bin Laden raid commander seeks global expansion of special ops

U.S. officials say the Pentagon is moving to unleash special operations troops worldwide as traditional military operations are cut back.

According to The Associated Press, defense officials have embraced a proposal by U.S. Special Operations Command chief Adm. Bill McRaven to push troops as they withdraw from war zones to reinforcement of units in areas somewhat neglected during the decade-long focus on al-Qaida. Positioning commandos closer to new crisis zones would make it easier to launch raids such as the ones that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden and the recent rescue of hostages from Somali pirates.

====

No To NATO: Ukrainians Protest Arrival Of U.S. Warship

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120126/170963407.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 26, 2012

US Warship Calls at Ukrainian Port Amid Protests

SEVASTOPOL: A U.S. guided missile cruiser stopped at the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol on Thursday with a group of some 50 protesters chanting “Yankee, go home!” and “No to NATO!”

The USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, is on a mission in the Black Sea and is to visit the ports of Constanta, Sevastopol and Odessa.

It carries 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and has elements of a missile defense system on board.

The protesters also burned a U.S. flag featuring the Nazi swastika instead of stars.

Yevhen Dubovik, a protest organizer, said the visit was illegal because it had not been authorized by Ukraine’s parliament.

“Nevertheless, a warship has called here that has offensive weapons on board and it is not ruled out that if it receives orders it will deliver a strike on Iran in close proximity to our coast,” he said.

“Thus Ukraine, a state not affiliated with any military blocs, may automatically become involved in an international conflict.”

The USS Vella Gulf is to remain in Sevastopol until January 31. A number of joint tactical exercises with Ukrainian naval units have been planned.

====

Post-NATO War: Libya Teeters On Edge Of Civil War

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/26/64661112.html

Voice of Russia
January 26, 2012

Libya teeters on edge of civil war
Konstantin Garibov

-”There have been clashes between Arabs and Berbers and between other tribes on ethnic grounds. It’s also important that the so-called fighters for freedom and democracy came to power in Libya with the help of NATO, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain and France which supplied planes or special task forces. For Libyans, the National Transitional Council is not legitimate.”
-”There has been no revolution in Libya. The western media have made it all up. From the very outset, it was clear that whoever would come to power after Gaddafi would be unable to rule the country or maintain its territorial integrity. Many Arabic scholars foresaw a split and it came sooner than expected. The reality is that Libya has entered a civil war.”

       
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay and the UN Libya envoy Ian Martin have expressed concern over the situation in Libya where they say the new authorities have failed to assert full authority and instill order.

The recent clashes between pro-Gaddafi supporters and NTC forces were provoked by both parties, Ian Martin said. Until recently, the interim authorities managed to handle these kinds of incidents fairly well but they might happen again in the future, the UN human rights commissioner said.

On Monday armed units of pro-Gaddafi supporters seized Bani Walid where the elders had passed a no-confidence motion against the central government. Sweeping violence also gripped Benghazi and Tripoli. Bani Walid returned under the control of the Libyan government by Wednesday.

The attacks by pro-Gaddafi forces are taking place amid the acute crisis that has hit the NTC and Libya as a whole. Alexei Podtserob of the Institute of Oriental Studies, comments.

“There have been clashes between Arabs and Berbers and between other tribes on ethnic grounds. It’s also important that the so-called fighters for freedom and democracy came to power in Libya with the help of NATO, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain and France which supplied planes or special task forces. For Libyans, the National Transitional Council is not legitimate.”

The revolutionaries are disgruntled at the absence of transparency in the government’s work, its failure to pay compensations promised and the presence of former Gaddafi functionaries in the current leadership. For this reason, many experts believe that the NTC is incapable of taking the situation under control. Andrei Volodin of the Center for Oriental Research at the Russian Foreign Ministry, has this to say.

“There has been no revolution in Libya. The western media have made it all up. From the very outset, it was clear that whoever would come to power after Gaddafi would be unable to rule the country or maintain its territorial integrity. Many Arabic scholars foresaw a split and it came sooner than expected. The reality is that Libya has entered a civil war.”

The so-called Arab Spring revolutions naturally spill into full-scale civil wars, Yevgeny Satanovsky of the Institute of the Middle East says. Given this, the new regimes are unlikely to see stability in the near future. According to Satanovsky, the current turmoil in Libya has the potential to wreak havoc across North Africa, and the unrest in Yemen may plunge the whole of the Arabian Peninsula into chaos.

====

Mongolia: Strategic U.S. Ally Between China And Russia

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-01/26/c_131377913.htm

Xinhua News Agency
January 26, 2012

Mongolia holds seminar to mark anniversary of ties with U.S.

Mongolia: Pentagon Trojan Horse Wedged Between China And Russia

ULAN BATOR: The Mongolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade held a seminar Thursday to commemorate the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Mongolia and the United States.

Addressing an audience of some 100 government officials, scholars and U.S. diplomats, U.S. ambassador to Mongolia Jonathan Addleton said the two countries have expanded cooperation in a wide range of areas over the past years and more and more big U.S. companies have been engaged in Mongolia’s economic development.

The ambassador also mentioned Mongolia’s “active role in international peacekeeping missions.”

Mongolia-U.S. relations have developed rapidly over the past years as the two countries have agreed to build a “comprehensive partnership based on common strategic interests.”

====

U.S. Regaining Military Foothold In The Philippines

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/26/64690091.html

Voice of Russia
January 26, 2012

U.S. regaining military foothold in the Philippines
Vladimir Gladkov

       
The contest for domination over the South China Sea between the US and China reaches a new level as the Philippines enters negotiations with the White House about expanding the American military presence in the country. This move will be a frustrating surprise for China. A decision to start the talks came two decades after the eviction of US forces from their biggest base in the Pacific. The development of the situation will certainly raise tensions between the US and China, considering the aggressive efforts of America aimed at expanding its military presence in the region and China’s growing thirst for oil.

The energy-rich South China Sea became a contested territory in the middle of the last century, when the Chinese Communist Party claimed its “indisputable sovereignty” over almost the entire basin. Now when China’s demand for energy has dramatically risen, Beijing will hardly accept any compromises in the battle for the Sea. According to the International Energy Agency in Paris, China will double its demand for oil in the next quarter century. Considering the fact that China imports more than half its oil while its own onshore oil resources are expecting a decline in oil-production, the expansion of American presence in the oil-rich South China Sea will infuriate Beijing.

However, the While House will hardly miss a chance to confront its main opponent, especially now when many other Southeast Asian countries seem to be on the side of the US…

“I don’t see in the near future an American base in Vietnam, but we have seen much more increased military cooperation,” said James Webb, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific affairs and a Vietnam War veteran.

…The US already has about 600 special operations troops on the territory of the Philippines…but if the agreement is reached, the Philippines islands will start hosting American Navy warships and surveillance aircraft.  The deal would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of US Marines in northern Australia and to station warships in Singapore…

…

====

NATO Chief: Missile Shield Fundamentals In Place By Chicago Summit

http://www.rttnews.com/1806656/nato-chief-basic-components-of-european-missile-defense-to-be-ready-by-may.aspx?type=gn&Node=B1

RTT News
January 27, 2012

NATO Chief: Basic Components Of European Missile Defense To Be Ready By May

-The year 2011 also saw significant changes in NATO’s partnerships. Consultation and cooperation went beyond traditional formats. The Libya operation included direct partner involvement in decision-making for NATO-led military operations and saw consultation and cooperation with the United Nations and the League of Arab States, as well as with Libya and other countries in the region.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that the initial components of the European missile defense system are expected to be in place by the time of the Chicago Summit in May.

He said this on Thursday, while launching NATO’s first ever ‘Annual Report,’ which gives a brief overview of the Alliance’s principal achievements and challenges in 2011.

The missile defense system…is “smart defense” at its best and it embodies transatlantic solidarity, the NATO chief said in his foreword to the annual report.

He said the Alliance had already made considerable progress, as along with a prominent and phased U.S. contribution, a number of Allies have made significant announcements, including Turkey, Poland, Romania, Spain, the Netherlands and France. These different national contributions will be gradually brought together under a common NATO command and control system. Key elements of it have already been tested successfully, Rasmussen added.

The Chicago Summit will be “an opportunity to renew our commitment to the vital transatlantic bond between us and to redouble our efforts to share the burden of security more effectively,” according to him. He said important decisions will be taken at the summit “to keep NATO committed, capable and connected.”

The assessment of Alliance activities in the annual report 2011 focuses on NATO operations, emerging security challenges, modernization of NATO – its structures and capabilities – as well as NATO’s growing partnerships. These areas are examined against the backdrop of the financial crisis.

In 2011, NATO operations continued across three continents. In Afghanistan, greater stability and the beginning of transition characterized 2011. Although Afghanistan constitutes the Alliance’s most significant operational commitment to date, 2011 was marked by the Alliance’s Operation Unified Protector in Libya, which mobilized NATO forces for seven months…Progress in Kosovo was marred by peaks of violence in the north, whereas counter-piracy efforts off the Horn of Africa and in the Gulf of Aden helped to reduce the pirate attack success rate in 2011. And NATO’s training mission in Iraq was terminated on December 31 after eight years of operation.

The report highlights the key measures taken by NATO to tackle cyber attacks, to respond to the growing number of countries acquiring ballistic missiles and to counter terrorism…

…

The year 2011 also saw significant changes in NATO’s partnerships. Consultation and cooperation went beyond traditional formats. The Libya operation included direct partner involvement in decision-making for NATO-led military operations and saw consultation and cooperation with the United Nations and the League of Arab States, as well as with Libya and other countries in the region.

====

Russia To U.S. – Drop Missile Shield Or Face Response

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/27/64767504.html

Itar-Tass
January 27, 2012

Russia to US: drop ABM plans of face response

       
Russia  has warned the US to drop its missile defence plans or face a Russian response, of the kind that has been outlined by President Dmitry Medvedev.

Speaking in Moscow Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin also renewed Russia’s proposal to the US and NATO to develop a joint air and missile defence system for Europe.

The Americans are sending missile defence ships to the Baltic, the Barents and the Norwegian Seas and planning to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland in 2018.

====

No Unilateral Concessions On NATO Missile Shield: Russia

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/27/64715239.html

Ekho Moskvy/Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 27, 2012

No unilateral missile defense concessions from Russia – Ryabkov

       
Moscow does not intend to propose any initiatives on missile defense which the U.S. could interpret as concessions. This was stated by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio station.

According to him, negotiations on this subject proceed with difficulty, but they are not at an impasse. “A political decision is feasible, if there is a will to seek compromise,” said the official.

“We cannot simply adopt the American position. This would amount to action in detriment of one’s own interests,” added Ryabkov.

Moscow believes that deployment of American missile defense system elements in close proximity to Russian borders is directed against this country’s strategic nuclear forces. Negotiations have stalled due to U.S. refusal to provide legal guarantees the deployed system does not target Russia’s deterrent force.

====

U.S. Able To Intercept Russian Missiles If Strategic Forces Not Upgraded

http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/327363.html

Itar-Tass
January 26, 2012

US might be able to intercept RF missiles if Russia does not upgrade its forces – diplomat

MOSCOW: If Russia takes no effort to modernize its strategic forces, the United States might be able to intercept our missiles by 2020, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Ekho Moskvy radio station on Thursday.

When asked what is a threat a U.S. missile defence system might pose to Russia, he said, “The threat is that within the span of several years, if the U.S. plans are implemented, we will have by the year 2020 a system that will be able to intercept Russian strategic forces unless we upgrade them so that they would be able to get through this system.”

Russia sees no point in putting forth new initiatives in talks with the United States on problems of missile defence, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister said.

“There was a moment when we were close, so to say, to an intermediate common understanding of the core of the problem and of what issues are to be settled first,” he told the Ekho Moskvy radio station. “But later, regrettably, the U.S. side decided not to pass a relevant document.”

“As a result, the position of our partners has grown stiff,” he noted. “In these conditions we see no point in making any steps that might be taken as Russia’s unilateral concessions.”

====

Win On Any Battlefield: U.S. Army Expands Global Partnerships

http://www.army.mil/article/72498/Odierno__Army_seeks_increased_partnerships_in_Asia/

U.S. Army
January 25, 2012

Odierno: Army seeks increased partnerships in Asia
By C. Todd Lopez

-Odierno expects development of a trilateral relationship between South Korea, Japan and the United States for security cooperation, something he said “is an important step as we continue to expand our relationships in Northeast Asia.”
-”We will strengthen our presence in the region,” [Odierno] said. “We have five of our seven mutual defense treaties in this region and we continue to conduct longstanding exercises with Korea, Japan, Thailand and the Philippines. The Army will actively seek new opportunities for expanding and existing training and engaging with new partners.”
In Europe, Africa and South America, Odierno expects similar partnerships. Even with a reduced footprint in Europe, for instance, the Army maintains its commitment there to NATO allies, Odierno said, and will have increased training opportunities with its European partners.

WASHINGTON: The Army is looking for increased opportunities to partner with allies in Asia, including both Korea and Japan.

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno recently returned from a trip to the Pacific region, including Korea and Japan, as well as other parts of Pacific Command to include Hawaii and Alaska.

Odierno spoke Jan. 25 at a breakfast hosted by the Association of the United States Army’s Institute of Land Warfare in Arlington, Va.

In Japan, the general met with the Japanese minister of defense and the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force commander.

“Both expressed their optimism and were excited about increased opportunities to work together with the Army, which they see as critical to the future of the Asian region,” Odierno said.

While in Korea, he met with the country’s minister of defense and army chief of staff.

“Both leaders were extremely appreciative of our Army’s continued commitment and dedication to security in Northeast Asia,” Odierno said.

Odierno expects development of a trilateral relationship between South Korea, Japan and the United States for security cooperation, something he said “is an important step as we continue to expand our relationships in Northeast Asia.”

The general said the trip to Asia was productive, adding that it’s “clear that our partners and allies in Asia/Pacific desire increased engagement with our great Army – especially as we continue to maneuver our way through these complex and uncertain times we have,” Odierno explained.

…He also said the Army must not lose the ability to conduct missions across any operational environment, including regular and irregular warfare, civilian operations, counter insurgency and humanitarian assistance.

The Army can also shape the international environment “with strong military relationships with allies and by building partner capacity,” he added.

Such relationships, Odierno said, are already strong in Asia, and will continue to grow.

“We will strengthen our presence in the region,” he said. “We have five of our seven mutual defense treaties in this region and we continue to conduct longstanding exercises with Korea, Japan, Thailand and the Philippines. The Army will actively seek new opportunities for expanding and existing training and engaging with new partners.”

In Europe, Africa and South America, Odierno expects similar partnerships. Even with a reduced footprint in Europe, for instance, the Army maintains its commitment there to NATO allies, Odierno said, and will have increased training opportunities with its European partners.

The Army must also be “ready to win,” dominantly and decisively. “The cost of indecision and cost of entering the fight without a dominant capability, enabled by superior technology and unmatched leadership, is the unnecessary loss of American lives,” Odierno said. “We must and will retain an Army with the capacity and capability to win decisively on any battlefield, should the terms fail.”

…

====

Pentagon’s Asia Shift Favors Submarines, Tankers

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/pentagon-s-focus-on-asia-favors-submarines-bombers-tankers-panetta-says.html

Bloomberg News
January 26, 2012

Pentagon’s Asia Shift Favors Subs, Tankers
By Tony Capaccio

-The plan calls for increasing the size of the Navy’s current Virginia-class attack submarines to carry more Tomahawk cruise missiles and to develop an undersea, non-nuclear “strike option” similar to an intercontinental ballistic missile.
-The Littoral Combat vessels, made for operating close to shore by Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Maryland, and Austal of Henderson, Australia, get an expanded role in the plan. Panetta said the Navy intends to base some of them in Singapore and other patrol craft in Bahrain.

The Pentagon’s shift to forces focused on Asia and the Middle East in a budget outlined today may protect from deep cuts U.S. makers of aircraft carriers, submarines, surface-combat vessels, electronic-warfare sensors, drones, long-range bombers and tankers.

While the plan would slow the pace of shipbuilding, its emphasis on naval forces in an era of budget-cutting may help vessel-makers Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., General Dynamics Corp. (GD), Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Austal Ltd. It also may provide opportunities for aircraft companies Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Boeing Co. (BA) and missile maker Raytheon Co. (RTN)

“This budget protects, and in some cases increases, investments that are critical to our ability to project power in Asia and the Middle East,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference at the Pentagon today disclosing elements of a $613 billion defense proposal for fiscal 2013. That includes $88.4 billion for continuing combat, led by the war in Afghanistan.

…

‘Far More Lethal’

The biggest initiative other than military hardware is a reduction of the Army – “gradually,” according to Panetta – to 490,000 personnel from about 565,000 today. The Army numbered about 480,000 in February 2002, one year before the Iraq invasion. The budget also calls for reducing the Marines to 182,000 from about 202,000 today.

“They will be fundamentally shaped by a decade of war, far more lethal, battle-hardened and ready,” Panetta said of U.S. forces. The Army was increased by as much as 95,000 and the Marines by 30,000, largely because of the Iraq war.

…

The Pentagon’s Asia and Middle East emphasis reinforces the need for a long-range, stealthy bomber, and sustaining the Navy’s 11-carrier force with 10 air wings and big-deck amphibious vessels, Panetta said.

Huntington Ingalls of Newport News, Virginia, is building the three-ship, $40 billion Gerald R. Ford class of carriers to be equipped with a new electromagnetic catapult system built by closely held General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

‘‘Modernizing our submarine fleet will be critical to our efforts to maintain maritime access in these vital regions,” Panetta said.

‘Strike Option’

The plan calls for increasing the size of the Navy’s current Virginia-class attack submarines to carry more Tomahawk cruise missiles and to develop an undersea, non-nuclear “strike option” similar to an intercontinental ballistic missile. Raytheon of Waltham, Massachusetts makes the Tomahawk. Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics make the submarine.

The “strike option” concept was first proposed by the Bush administration and resurrected in fiscal 2011 under Obama.

The Littoral Combat vessels, made for operating close to shore by Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Maryland, and Austal of Henderson, Australia, get an expanded role in the plan. Panetta said the Navy intends to base some of them in Singapore and other patrol craft in Bahrain…

…

The fiscal 2013 budget proposal is 1 percent less, unadjusted for inflation, than this year’s $531 billion plan. The numbers include spending on military construction.

The defense number, not including combat, grows to $534 billion in fiscal 2014, $546 billion in fiscal 2015, $556 billion in fiscal 2016 and $567 billion in 2017.

Adjusted for inflation, the Pentagon projects a 1.6 percent reduction in real spending power between 2013 and 2017.

====

NATO International School Of Azerbaijan Session Begins

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=164573

Azeri Press Agency
January 27, 2012

Winter session of NATO International School of Azerbaijan (NISA) starts

Baku: The next winter session of NATO International School of Azerbaijan (NISA) starts.

Press service of Ministry of Foreign Affairs told APA that the opening ceremony will be held on January 30.

====

Increase In Energy Reserves Enhances Azerbaijan’s Strategic Role

http://en.trend.az/capital/energy/1985196.html

Trend News Agency
January 27, 2012

Turkish minister: Increase in energy reserves enhances Azerbaijan’s role
A. Taghiyeva

Baku: The increase in energy reserves enhances Azerbaijan’s role for Turkey, Turkish Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Taner Yildiz said in an interview with T24 on Friday.

“The discovery of new gas fields in Azerbaijan is also our achievement,” Minister said.

Yildiz said that the implementation of the Trans Anadolu (TANAP) project contributes to the supply of Azerbaijani gas to Europe.

Earlier, Azerbaijan and Turkey signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a consortium. It will build a pipeline to supply gas from the Shah Deniz field to Europe through Turkish territory.

The construction of the TANAP gas pipeline is required to export most of 50 billion cubic meters of gas that Azerbaijan intends to produce by 2025.

The participants of the project plan to resolve all issues on this gas pipeline in 2012 and begin construction for the project to be implemented by late 2017, when the implementation of the second stage of Shah Deniz field development is launched. The gas pipeline will be the basis of the Southern Gas Corridor.

====

Davos: Caspian-Black-Baltic Seas Pipelines Discussed

http://en.trend.az/capital/energy/1984862.html

Trend News Agency
January 27, 2012

Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Turkey to implement joint energy projects

-The two countries have an agreement on transportation of Azerbaijani oil via system of main oil pipelines of Ukraine: in the direction of the Kremenchuk oil refinery from the port of Odesa; transit in the direction of the Mozyr oil refinery (Belarus); transit in the direction of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic), as well as in the direction of Poland’s oil refinery with the use of the Belarusian and Polish sections of the oil pipeline Druzhba (for the period prior to completion of the Brody-Plock pipeline construction).

Baku: Ukraine is holding an active dialogue with Azerbaijan on implementation of joint projects in the energy sector, president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich told Ukrainian mass media outlets in Davos on Thursday following a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the presidential press service reported.

“We held another round of negotiations. Two protocols are being prepared for signing. There are technical issues that need to be considered by specialists. Undoubtedly, Ukraine will continue to work on transportation of the Caspian gas as a gas consumer and as a country that can take part in the construction of gas-transport systems involving our resources. It is very interesting for us,” President Yanukovych said.

He said now trilateral negotiations are underway between Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkey on cooperation in energy sector projects.

“We see the perspective,” President Yanukovych said, adding that the negotiation parties practically confirmed their interest in these projects.

Two documents will be signed between the two countries on gas supplies to a LNG terminal and establishment of a Ukrainian-Azerbaijan company to develop the project to build the facility.

It is expected that the developer of a feasibility study for a Ukrainian LNG-terminal, the Spanish company Socoin, will complete the work soon. The cost of construction of the terminal was decreased from $1.5 billion to $1 billion.

The Ukrainian national project LNG terminal includes construction of a marine terminal for liquefied natural gas. Ukraine will be able to diversify gas supplies in the volume of 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year after implementation of the project.

The two countries have an agreement on transportation of Azerbaijani oil via system of main oil pipelines of Ukraine: in the direction of the Kremenchuk oil refinery from the port of Odesa; transit in the direction of the Mozyr oil refinery (Belarus); transit in the direction of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic), as well as in the direction of Poland’s oil refinery with the use of the Belarusian and Polish sections of the oil pipeline Druzhba (for the period prior to completion of the Brody-Plock pipeline construction).

====

The U.S. prepares for unmanned warfare
Boris Volkhonsky*
Edited by RR

====

First of all, a network of special operation bases and the use of drones signify that the U.S. would be able to attack any adversary anywhere, not bothering too much about whether they are attacking a sovereign state or not.

Sources say that the U.S. plans to use such bases in Australia and in the Philippines, which reflects a new emphasis Washington is laying on confronting China along its eastern borders. With drones and special bases being deployed all over the globe and especially in the vicinity of such a sensitive area as the South China Sea, it gives the U.S. new opportunities to further alienate an unlimited number of nations.

====

As the U.S. Defense Secretary has been getting ready to present a new Pentagon budget for 2012, some details of his plans became known to the media.

One of the striking new features in the plan is that while the Pentagon is preparing to cut its conventional forces, it lays more emphasis on unmanned drones and special operation bases. According to some sources, the plan is to increase the fleet of unmanned aircraft by 30 percent in the coming years. Also, new, small so-called “lily-pad” bases will be deployed in various points of the globe for launching special operations and engaging allies.

Definitely, such plans reflect a growing weariness felt by the American public after the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which have claimed thousands of American lives. The number of civilian casualties among Iraqis and Afghans exceeds it by scores, but who cares?

Definitely, the majority of American taxpayers are no longer ready to pay for the deaths of their children. Unmanned aircraft seem a much more preferable tool for conducting warcraft. Again, it should be said that the use of drones does not significantly diminish the number of civilian casualties in the countries they are deployed in, but that again hardly bothers the U.S. public as well as authorities.

Therefore, from the elections point of view, the new plan might serve President Obama’s interests. But what could be its long-term implications?

First of all, a network of special operation bases and the use of drones signify that the U.S. would be able to attack any adversary anywhere, not bothering too much about whether they are attacking a sovereign state or not.

This has been done repeatedly in recent years. Drones were used over Somalia and Pakistan, with which the U.S. is not engaged in any war. The most notorious special operation launched by the U.S. last year on the territory of a sovereign state was the elimination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan without even giving prior notice to Pakistani authorities.

It also sheds some light on the future of Afghanistan. Most probably, Obama (or whoever will be the White House host in 2014) will fulfill the promise to withdraw combat troops from there. But it will in no way mean that the operation is over. Instead of the stationary presence of regular troops, there will be small mobile units launching secret raids and hunt-and-kill missions.

With the expansion of the drone fleet and special operation bases, one should expect that the number of drone strikes and special forces raids will only increase. Formally, it would allow U.S. authorities to state that a) they are not launching any war against anybody, and b) they are sparing the lives of American soldiers. But in fact it would only be a continuation of the old belligerent policy.

But what would such practice result in? If we look back at Pakistan where the use of drones was most widespread, we can see that it not only inflicted enormous damage in terms of human lives and infrastructure, but also extremely alienated the Pakistani people from the U.S. and brought bilateral relations to the verge of total collapse. In fact, the Chinese were the only ones who were happy about the outcome, since it enabled them to tie Pakistan much closer to their strategic interests.

Sources say that the U.S. plans to use such bases in Australia and in the Philippines, which reflects a new emphasis Washington is laying on confronting China along its eastern borders. With drones and special bases being deployed all over the globe and especially in the vicinity of such a sensitive area as the South China Sea, it gives the U.S. new opportunities to further alienate an unlimited number of nations. So, the dilemma the present administration is facing is the following: is it worth risking further international isolation (which favors the U.S.’ global opponents and primarily China) for the sake of securing re-election for a second term?

*Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies

ASEAN and SCO: Same traditions and missions
Vitaly Vorobyev*
Edited by RR

====

Non-bloc approaches, equality, transparency, collective principles, non-confrontation and supremacy of universal rules of international law are the pillars of such an architecture. Creating global indivisible security based on mutual understanding, respect and cooperation is largely a reflection of fundamental ideas of philosophy initially inherent to ASEAN and SCO. If the two organizations with observer status in the UN General Assembly come closer, it would not only strengthen their positive international image but also make their shared ideas even more relevant globally.

Why not, for example, consider ASEAN becoming an observer at the SCO and the SCO receiving ASEAN Dialogue Partner status? What prevents the SCO and ASEAN from thinking about the SCO’s joining the Bali Treaty? Apparently, there are no fundamental or procedural obstacles to that. Not only ASEAN and the SCO, but also the whole cause of designing and creating a security and stability architecture in the Asia-Pacific will benefit from this.

====

Moscow: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, widely known as ASEAN, will celebrate its 45th anniversary in August 2012.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) marked its 10th anniversary in 2011. Both organizations lie in the vast Euro-Asian terrain. The 10 ASEAN member states constitute a southern part of this territory, while the six SCO member states (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) cover its heartland — the northern and eastern parts.

The most crucial world shipping lanes between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans pass through the ASEAN area to the Atlantic Ocean and Europe. At the same time the SCO area may be called as a land transport corridor connecting the Pacific Basin with Europe and the Atlantic coast.

Despite an “age difference,” both unions have already established a chain of dialogue partners and observers among which are the largest and the most powerful states of the modern world.

It is not only the location that naturally brings the SCO and ASEAN closer to each other. Generally, they have much in common, including a common spirit and similar basic principles.

Neither of the organizations is a military and political bloc with instruments of compulsion.

Regardless of size and power, all members of both ASEAN and the SCO are equal and follow the same consensus principle while adopting the most important decisions. Both multifaceted organizations, being socially oriented, work hard with a view to adequately match the priorities of domestic development with the necessity to respond continuously to the volatile flow of external challenges and threats.

Financial and economic globalization has embraced almost the entire world. Local crises resonate in all directions and it has become impossible to mitigate them on a national level only. International terrorism fuelled by drug trafficking and separatism, organized crime and illegal migration, kidnapping and human trafficking have achieved a global dimension. Efforts by individual states are obviously insufficient to oppose them.

Both megatrends can only be efficiently reversed through a wide international consensus for risk evaluation and decision-making. The course of events brings new possibilities for international players to unite their efforts if they view problems more or less in the same way and/or have similar interests, though not in each and every respect.

In this context, it is urgently needed to intensify the implementation of the framework agreements on SCO-ASEAN cooperation achieved a few years ago. There is not even a visible obstacle for that. It is time to establish working contacts between them not on an occasional but on a regular and institutional basis. Progress in this direction will add substance to the creation of regional architecture on security and multilateral cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region.

Non-bloc approaches, equality, transparency, collective principles, non-confrontation and supremacy of universal rules of international law are the pillars of such an architecture. Creating global indivisible security based on mutual understanding, respect and cooperation is largely a reflection of fundamental ideas of philosophy initially inherent to ASEAN and the SCO. If the two organizations with observer status in the UN General Assembly come closer, it would not only strengthen their positive international image but also make their shared ideas even more relevant globally.

Cooperation between the SCO and ASEAN can develop actively in many, if not all, domains of their work. To this end, it is important to organize information exchanges between the Secretariats in Beijing and Jakarta.

The establishment of contacts between two major working bodies — the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO and the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting — appears quite promising.

Both organizations have either specific programs or specialized structures aimed at combating terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and trans-border crime. For example, the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, a permanent body in the SCO framework. The SCO has gathered useful practices in countering cyber crime.

Large-scale tasks to create by 2015 involve three communities — namely, political-security, economic and socio-cultural — which are being tackled by ASEAN would undoubtedly be of interest to the SCO, as would be the ASEAN Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity approved in 2010 and aimed at developing the transport, information and communication infrastructure of the association. ASEAN could take an interest in some practical projects that are being implemented by the SCO, including those in cooperation with ESCAP.

The fact that ASEAN and the SCO carry out their activities without infringing on the diversity of cultures, religions and values of the peoples living in their member states serves as the common ground for joint efforts. Mutual exchange of relevant experience would help make SCO and ASEAN even more attractive.

The agendas of the SCO and the ASEAN Regional Forums have much in common. Both structures can only benefit if dialogue is established and the SCO joins the Forum’s activities as soon as possible.

Over the years, ASEAN has gone through a number of difficult transformation periods, including the enlargement of its original membership. Today, keenly and timely adapting to world changes, ASEAN is leading the integration processes in the Asia-Pacific. Many characteristics and qualities of ASEAN can serve as a worthy and useful example for the SCO, which as it enters a phase of intensified development in the new decade.

Both organizations can complement each other without prejudice to their independence, self-sufficiency, and specificity. Formally, it can be done on a networking basis. Why not, for example, consider ASEAN becoming an observer at the SCO and the SCO receiving ASEAN Dialogue Partner status? What prevents the SCO and ASEAN from thinking about the SCO’s joining the Bali Treaty? Apparently, there are no fundamental or procedural obstacles to that. Not only ASEAN and the SCO, but also the whole cause of designing and creating a security and stability architecture in the Asia-Pacific will benefit from this.

*The writer was ambassador of the special envoy of the president of Russia for the SCO Affairs during 2000-2006.