Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

America Keeps Moving Towards War

By Brian CLOUGHLEY – Strategic Culture Foundation – 15.03.2016

Very few US official figures are known for their sense of irony, least of all the Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, and it is unfortunate that he and others lacking appreciation of unintentional absurdity would be unable to find dark amusement in the contrast between two recent parallel events.

On February 25 the Defence Secretary and his uniformed glove puppet, Air Force General Breedlove, appeared in front of the House Appropriations Committee to provide justification for spending as much on military affairs as the next eight nations in the world. It is likely he chose Breedlove to accompany him rather than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking Pentagon officer, because Breedlove is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe – the man responsible for carrying out the policy of confrontation with Russia.

Carter is the man who declared last year that «the US military has helped to maintain peace and stability in [Asia] for 70 years», having had a slight lapse of memory about the US war in Vietnam from 1955 to 1973 in which 58,220 members of its military forces lost their lives while hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Vietnam and its unfortunate neighbours died in merciless US bombing onslaughts. Countless thousands of children were sentenced to infirmity and grotesque deformity by Washington’s use of hideous poisons intended to destroy trees other vegetation.

As for the glove puppet, Germany’s Der Spiegel recorded a year ago that «General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington [and said] that Putin had once again ‘upped the ante’ in eastern Ukraine – with ‘well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defence, battalions of artillery’ having been sent to Donbass. ‘What is clear,’ Breedlove said, ‘is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.’ German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the BND, Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander…»

This was not surprising – because there was not a word of truth in any of his wild assertions.

At the very time Carter and Breedlove were speaking to the ever-receptive «support our troops» Congressional Committee («under your leadership, the men and women who serve in the US military answer the call time and again to leave their loved ones, put themselves in harm’s way, and execute challenging missions abroad») the count-down to test-firing a US Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was under way.

The defence secretary told the American public that «It’s a competitive world out there. We compete with China, we compete with Russia, we compete with terrorists. And we have to win». 

Minuteman missiles have nuclear warheads and are manufactured by the Boeing Company which is proud that «the Minuteman program established Boeing as a leader in large-scale system integration. Today, the combined heritage of the Minuteman programs of Boeing and Autonetics continues as Boeing Strategic Missile Systems (SMS), supporting the Air Force with system evaluation, testing, training and modernization».

The US arsenal of deployed nuclear weapons includes 450 Boeing ICBMs, each having an explosive power of 475 kilotons (Kt). The US bombs that totally destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 20 Kt.

On February 25 Boeing’s shares opened at 116.35 and went to a high of 117.60. Next day they reached 119.45. In early March they had increased to 123.49. It seems they’re taking off with comparable velocity to their Minuteman missiles, boosted by statements on the part of the military and their legions of supportive politicians that China and Russia are threatening the United States.

Washington fails to realise – simply refuses to understand – that the only thing wanted by Russia and China is that the United States should mind its own business and stay out of other nations’ affairs that do not concern it. Secretary Carter states that militarily «We compete with China, we compete with Russia» – but Russia and China don’t want to compete with the United States. They just want to progress and develop economically and socially and stay in their own backyards, with secure borders, while trading with as many countries as possible.

Neither Russia nor China has 700 military bases in over 40 countries round the world. Neither Russia not China attempts to vastly expand military alliances specifically designed to threaten the United States. Neither Russia nor China possess nuclear-armed Carrier Strike Groups or Amphibious Ready Groups of the type and strength that the US deploys threateningly around the coasts of sovereign nations who prefer to mind their own business.

The latest US move to threaten China is deployment to the South China Sea of the nuclear-armed aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis along with the guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay and the guided missile destroyers USS Stockdale and USS Chung-Hoon. They and their many escort vessels arrived off China on 4 March to join the guided missile cruiser USS Antietam and its fleet of ancillary ships.

In another wonderfully ironic episode, just as this mighty US attack fleet was arriving to menace China, Defence Secretary Carter announced to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that «China must not pursue militarization in the South China Sea». Mystically, he observed that «Specific actions will have specific consequences» and when asked what these might be, he «told reporters the US military was already increasing deployments to the Asia-Pacific region and would spend $425 million through 2020 to pay for more exercises and training with countries in the region that were affected by China’s actions».

With good historical justification, China maintains that most of the islet chains and groups in the South China Sea are its sovereign territory, although some areas are claimed by Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. The United States has got nothing to do with these disputes. Washington has no treaties with any of these nations that would require military intervention in the event of one of them having a disagreement with another country.

The United States has no territory of its own closer than the Pacific island of Guam, where, according to the US Congressional Research Service, «Since 2000, the US military has been building up forward-deployed forces… to increase US operational presence, deterrence, and power projection». In other words, the US build-up is intended to confront China, which is now, understandably, being forced to increase its own military forces to be prepared for what might happen as a result of US «power projection».

Complementing the US muscle-flexing in the South China Sea, the indefatigable Breedlove explained why Washington is indulging in similar antics in Europe. Ignoring the fact that the insurgency against Syria’s government was energetically supported by the US, in training and equipping what it absurdly called «moderate rebel forces», thus contributing to massive destruction and creating a dire refugee problem, Breedlove told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the refugee crisis in Europe is all the fault of Russia. «Together», he declared, «Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration… to break European resolve».

In a fit of fantasy Breedlove announced that Russia has «chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat» to the United States and its allies, and emphasised that the Supreme Allied Command Europe, «is deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary».

The US is deliberately and most aggressively threatening China and Russia. Its military representatives are making belligerent statements that are intended to implant fear in Moscow and Beijing.

But the immature bluster and bravado of such as Breedlove and Carter do not create fear in those they seek to intimidate. They create determination in such countries – the resolve to stand up to the menace presented by the incessant deployment of military force against them.

This is exactly what is happening at the moment, and the US may be in for some nasty surprises.

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

China irate as US targets Iran trade

cc8cb04c-6e83-4d42-bd9e-05b1ac672922

Press TV – March 7, 2016

China is outraged as the US government plans to punish its largest telecom equipment maker ZTE Corps for alleged violations of sanctions on Iran.

China and Iran have close diplomatic, economic, trade and energy ties. Beijing played a key role in a nuclear agreement which came into effect in January and lifted sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

The US, however, contends that the deal involves “secondary sanctions” related to Iran’s nuclear program and “primary sanctions” linked to terrorism and human rights accusations are still in place.

The US Commerce Department is set to place export restrictions on ZTE, effective on Tuesday and applying to any company worldwide that ships American-made products to the Chinese company.

The announcement forced ZTE to suspend its shares in Hong Kong Monday.

The company is accused of having signed contracts in 2012 to ship millions of dollars worth of hardware and software to Iran’s largest telecoms carrier, Telecommunication Co of Iran (TCI).

China’s Foreign Ministry expressed anger at the action, saying it is “opposed to the US citing domestic laws to place sanctions on Chinese enterprises.”

“We hope the US stops this erroneous action and avoids damaging Sino-US trade cooperation and bilateral relations,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing in Beijing.

Experts say the move is set to further strain relations between China and the US. Beijing, they say, is likely to retaliate against American companies by tightening market access or regulatory control over US companies in China.

The US move comes as China is trying to make its companies global leaders in next generation IT.

ZTE is already the fourth-largest provider of smart phones to the US market and expanding in Europe. According to its website, the company has operations in 160 countries.

Under the US restrictions, ZTE’s suppliers will need to apply for an export license before selling US equipment or parts to the Chinese company anywhere in the world.

The US restrictions will reportedly also apply to two of ZTE affiliates in China as well as Iran’s ZTE Parsian.

March 7, 2016 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Dragging Our Feet Toward Disaster

By Ira Helfand | CounterPunch | February 29, 2016

A United Nations meeting in Geneva this week could have enormous implications for United States national security, but it is being ignored by most of the media and by America’s political leaders. It deserves serious attention.

A new policy-making body called the Open Ended Working Group will consider ways to break the current impasse in efforts to reduce the danger of nuclear war. The group expects to make formal recommendations to the UN this fall. The initiative is especially important given recent studies on the catastrophic effects that would follow even a limited use of nuclear weapons.

The group was established by an overwhelming majority at the UN. The U.S. and all of the other nuclear weapons states voted against and are boycotting the meeting. Why?

Robert Wood, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, recently defended the American decision in a tweet: “agenda ignores security dimension of nuclear weapons. Only practical and realistic efforts will lead to a world w/o nukes.” His claim would have more weight if the United States were pursuing “practical and realistic efforts” instead of planning to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades to maintain its nuclear arsenal indefinitely.

The real reason for the boycott is that this meeting will explore ways to make the nine nuclear weapons states, which include Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, live up to their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, which requires them to negotiate the abolition of their nuclear arsenals. It very well may recommend negotiation of a new treaty that will effectively ban nuclear weapons, defining their possession as a violation of international law.

Based on the medical evidence, the nonnuclear weapons states are right to call for the elimination of these weapons.

Over the last three years, a series of major global conferences have explored the medical consequences of nuclear war. The new scientific data presented at these meeting have demonstrated the unacceptable, existential threat to humanity posed by nuclear arsenals.

Representatives of the International Red Cross have testified that the world’s leading disaster relief organization can do nothing significant to mitigate the consequences of even a single nuclear explosion, let alone a nuclear war.

Climate scientists and medical experts have presented new data showing that even a very limited nuclear war would cause catastrophic effects worldwide. The fires caused by as few as 100 small nuclear weapons, less than one-half of one percent of the world’s nuclear arsenals, directed against urban targets, would cause global climate disruption. The resulting decline in food production would trigger a “nuclear famine” across the planet and put up to two billion people at risk. A famine on this scale would be unprecedented in human history. While it would not mean the extinction of our species, it would almost certainly mean the end of modern civilization.

A limited war between India and Pakistan, using less than half of their current arsenals, could cause that kind of famine, as could the use of the nuclear warheads on a single US Trident submarine. The US has 14 of them and an arsenal of nuclear bombers and land-based missiles as well.

A full-scale war between the US and Russia using all of these weapons would cause a “nuclear winter,” with ice-age conditions across the planet persisting for a decade or more. The collapse of food production under these circumstances would lead to the death of the vast majority of the human race. It might cause our extinction as a species.

The US and Russia are now engaged in a new game of nuclear chicken in Europe and the Middle East, with the ever-present danger that one side or the other will miscalculate, or that an accident will trigger a nuclear exchange. There have been at least five occasions since 1979 when either Moscow or Washington prepared to launch a nuclear war, in the mistaken belief that they were already under attack.

The determination to hold on to these weapons stems from a deeply held belief that they somehow make a nation more secure. For most of human history, having more powerful weapons did protect us. But as Albert Einstein observed at the beginning of the nuclear era, the splitting of the atom changed everything, except the way we think and thus we head for unprecedented disaster.

If the use of even a tiny fraction of our nuclear arsenal will cause a global holocaust that engulfs us as well as the rest of humanity, how can these weapons be seen as agents of our security? They are suicide bombs. By possessing them, we are a nation of suicide bombers.

Nuclear weapons, the evidence, is now clear, are the greatest threat to our national security. We need to make their elimination our highest national security priority. The U.S. should start by joining the working group in Geneva and, as the next step toward that goal, working for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Ira Helfand MD practices internal medicine at an urgent care center in Springfield, MA. He is a Past President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and is currently the Co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the 1985 Nobel Peace Laureate.

February 29, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UN Sanctions Won’t Put Pyongyang Off Nuclear Weapons

Sputnik – 28.02.2016

The draft resolution for tougher sanctions against North Korea that the US submitted to the UN with China’s backing will not discourage Pyongyang from developing nuclear and ballistic missiles, North Korean expert Michael Madden told Sputnik.

On Friday, Washington, with Beijing’s backing, submitted a new resolution to the UN Security Council for additional sanctions against North Korea to deter it from progressing further with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Michael Madden, a North Korean expert who runs the North Korean Leadership Watch blog, told Radio Sputnik that the sanctions are unlikely to succeed in stopping the programs, even if they do harm to the North Korean economy.

​”It’s not a terrific economy but in the last couple of years they’ve had modest growth and they’ve had some progress in terms of domestic economic development so it will remain to be seen if the sanctions affect that,” Madden said.

“One of the things that they’ve done is to allow the technocrats that are within North Korea’s cabinet to start managing programs, these people are very experienced [in dealing with] the fundamental flaws in North Korea’s economy, they know some of the fixes they need to make.”

“There have been some light reform measures that they’ve taken since Kim Jong-un has come to power, there’s a little more flexibility for the technocrats, there’s a little more flexibility in terms of food production, there’s some very basic market principles that they’re applying to their economy and I think that has affected growth rates over the last couple of years.”

North Korean President Kim Jong-un and many of those in his circle are more open-minded because they were educated abroad, and Madden said the president is aware of the gaps in his knowledge and open and amenable to advice, particularly from technocrats and economic planners.

“There is a certain degree – a very specific degree because it’s a totalitarian state – of flexibility that he has allowed officials to have in terms of formulating policies.”

However, that flexibility does not extend to its nuclear program, and sanctions will not make Pyongyang give up its nuclear program, Madden warned.

“North Korea has basically said on a number of occasions that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons program, and no intention of stopping space launches, and we’re going to have to take them at their word.”

“They have numerous reasons for that, they’ll say ‘Iraq and Libya got rid of their WMD programs, look what happened there,’ and to a certain degree they’re justified in their thinking based on what they’ve seen happen to other similar political systems after they negotiated away their WMD programs.”

Madden said that Beijing has supported the US proposal for tougher sanctions against Pyongyang because of legitimate concerns about the potential for nuclear fallout and earthquakes as a result of the weapons tests, which “annoy China to a great extent, especially the nuclear weapons tests.”

While China and North Korea share a close relationship, China’s influence is somewhat exaggerated by a lot of external observers and government policy makers, and Pyongyang is likely to react with open hostility to the proposed sanctions, Madden said.

“Kim Jong-un spent last week inspecting military exercises; we’re probably going to see him inspecting more military exercises, they’re certainly going to tighten social controls.”

“Once the sanctions are passed, we’ll see some very interesting statements coming out of North Korea, they’ll just continue to heighten tensions on the Korean peninsula, and that’s what we’ll be seeing.”

February 28, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Beijing Sees Nothing Anti-Chinese in TPP Deal

Sputnik – 23.02.2016

BEIJING — Beijing does not consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal to be directed against China, the country’s Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Tuesday.

“We do not think that the TPP deal is directed against China. We also do not think that the TPP deal and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership [RCEP] contradict each other. I think they supplement each other,” Gao said at a press conference.

According to the minister, the official text of the agreement has been completely translated into Chinese and some time is needed to analyze the deal.

Gao noted that China always positively regarded transparent regional free trade agreements.

In early February, the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam signed the TPP agreement. Under the TPP deal, a free trade zone was established between these 12 nations that constitute 40 percent of the world’s GDP. The agreement is to be ratified by every participant.

The US President Barack Obama administration had noted previously that the TPP would allow the United States to write the rules of global trade in the 21st century.

February 24, 2016 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

US dominates global weapons sale amid increasing imports

c854a07d-000a-4313-82b9-2ad3869e8bf4

Press TV – February 22, 2016

The United States has expanded its weapons business, increasing its global arms sales amid rising imports by Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

According to a new study published Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the volume of international transfers of major weapons, including sales and donations, was 14 percent higher in 2011-2015 than over the five previous years, with the US and Russia doing most of the exporting.

The biggest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The report pointed to the Saudi-led war on Yemen, where Saudi Arabia has been seeking to reinstate the country’s fugitive former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and undermine the Yemeni Ansarullah movement.

“A coalition of Arab states is putting mainly US- and European-sourced advanced arms into use in Yemen,” senior SIPRI researcher Pieter Wezeman said in the report.

The report also said US arms went to more than 90 countries.

The United States has sold or donated major arms to a diverse range of recipients across the globe, the report said.

“As regional conflicts and tensions continue to mount, the USA remains the leading global arms supplier by a significant margin,” said Aude Fleurant, director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Program.

“The USA has sold or donated major arms to at least 96 states in the past five years, and the US arms industry has large outstanding export orders,” including for over 600 F-35 combat aircraft, said Fleurant.

The biggest chunk of US major arms, 41 percent, went into Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East.

Now Scott Bennett, former US Army psychological warfare officer, says the trend does not come as a surprise “because it indicates a pattern that we’ve long seen, but has really quickened since the September 11th wars were initiated by the United States.”

Bennett told Press TV on Monday that the US governments “simply followed a policy of igniting fires around the world and then selling the equipment to put them out.”

Meanwhile, the latest report adds that Russia remains in second place on the SIPRI exporters list, with its share of the total up three points to 25 percent, though the levels dropped in 2014 and 2015 — coinciding with Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

India took the largest chunk of Russian weaponry, AFP reported.

While the flows of weapons to Africa, Asia and Oceania and the Middle East all increased between 2006-10 and 2011-15, there had been a sharp fall in the flow to Europe and a minor decrease in the volume heading to the Americas, according to SIPRI.

The overall transfer of arms has been upwards this century after a relative drop in the previous 20 years.

China leapfrogged both France and Germany over the past five years to become the third-largest source of major arms globally, with an 88-percent rise in exports. Most of the Chinese weapons went to other Asian countries, with Pakistan the main recipient.

India remains by far the biggest importer of major arms, accounting for 14 percent of the total; twice as much as second-placed Saudi Arabia and three times as much as China.

February 22, 2016 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

China to Ban Online Foreign Media After March 10 – Statement

No Chinese Spring

Sputnik – 19.02.2016

BEIJING – Foreign companies will be banned from publishing online in China from March 10, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television said in a joint statement Friday.

“Sino-foreign joint ventures and foreign businesses shall not engage in online publishing services,” the regulations state.

The rules apply to “informative, ideological content text, pictures, maps, games, animation, audio and video digitizing books and other original works of literature, art, science and other fields.”

Joint projects are required to apply for special permission to carry out such activities from the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television, according to the new rules.

Domestic online media are required to inform the relevant authorities about their sources of funding, expenditure, personnel, domain name registration as well as being required to keep all servers and equipment in China.

Online outlets are prohibited from publishing information that may cause “harm to national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” “spread rumors, disturb social order or undermine social stability,” and harm “social morality or endanger national cultural tradition,” among others.

Foreign websites, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and a number of Western publications remain inaccessible in China. Beijing has adopted a series of normative and ideological directives in recent years requiring national internet providers and media to closely monitor the quality of information disseminated online.

February 19, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

China opposed to US missile deployment in South Korea: FM

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Munich, Germany, Feb. 12, 2016 [Xinhua]

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Munich, Germany, Feb. 12, 2016 [Xinhua]
The BRICS Post | February 13, 2016

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Friday reacted strongly to South Korea-US talks on possible deployment of an advanced US missile defense system.

Wang said this “would complicate the regional stability situation”.

Meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Wang made clear China’s opposition to the possible deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system in South Korea.

The United States and South Korea have begun negotiations on the deployment of THAAD. The Pentagon made the announcement hours after North Korea’s recent rocket launch.

As one of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world, THAAD can intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or just outside the atmosphere during their final phase of flight.

Despite claims by Washington and Seoul that the missile shield would be focused solely on North Korea, Beijing says the US deployment would pose considerable threat to neighboring countries.

In an interview with Reuters on the sidelines of the Munich meeting, Wang said he was concerned by the possible deployment of the sophisticated anti-missile system in South Korea.

“The deployment of the THAAD system by the United States … goes far beyond the defense needs of the Korean Peninsula and the coverage would mean it will reach deep into the Asian continent,” Wang said.

“It directly affects the strategic security interests of China and other Asian countries,” he added.

The Chinese foreign minister urged the US side to act cautiously, not to undermine China’s security interests or add new complications to regional peace and stability.

Regarding the DPRK’s recent nuclear test and rocket launch, Wang said both moves violated UN resolutions and pose serious challenges to the global non-proliferation regime.

China and the United States have agreed to speed up the consultation process at the UN Security Council to reach a new resolution and take strong and effective measures to deter further development of nuclear and missile programs by North Korea, Wang noted in his meeting with Kerry.

Reiterating China’s stance on sanctions against North Korea, he said “it remains to be our common goal to work together and find a way to bring the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue back to the right track of dialogue and negotiations, which is fully in line with the interests of all parties, including China and the United States.”

In the interview with Reuters, Wang said China insists that there should be no nuclear weapons on the peninsula, no matter whether they were possessed by the north or the south side, and no matter whether they were developed locally or introduced from the outside.

China, a neighboring country of the Korean Peninsula and a major stakeholder in regional stability, also maintains that the Korean Peninsula denuclearization should be achieved via dialogue, not war, and that China’s national security interests should be guaranteed, he added.

Russia has also expressed concern about the potential deployment of THAAD, saying it could trigger an arms race in Northeast Asia.

On Wednesday, South Korea suspended operations at the Kaesong industrial zone as punishment for the rocket launch and nuclear test.

February 13, 2016 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

China at odds with US over N Korea response

The BRICS Post | February 8, 2016

An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council early Monday has “strongly condemned” North Korea’s launch of a satellite into space, but China and the US differed on the type of response debated among world powers.

North Korea says the satellite launch was for peaceful and scientific research purposes, but global powers fear that the launch was a part of Pyongyang’s development of its ballistic missile program.

United States ambassador Samantha Powers called for robust responses to “violations” committed by the North Koreans.

It is likely the Security Council will draft a number of measures to increase and deepen economic sanctions already in place on North Korea.

However, North Korea’s only ally in the Security Council – China – fears that too severe a sanctions regimen will destabilize North Korea and the region.

It is likely that Washington will lean on Beijing to exert all its diplomatic efforts to rein in its weapons programs.

In the meantime, South Korea and the US said they will hold talks to possibly deploy an anti-missile defense system called Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) on the peninsula – a move that Beijing says will harm regional peace.

While China summoned North Korea’s ambassador to protest Pyongyang’s satellite launch on Sunday, it also summoned the South Korean ambassador to protest THAAD’s deployment.

“China holds a consistent and clear stance on the anti-missile issue,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Monday.

“When pursuing its own security, one country should not impair the security interests of others,” Hua added.

China says that the deployment of such advanced anti-missile weaponry will not help in deescalating tensions in the Korean peninsula.

February 8, 2016 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Testing of a DPRK Hydrogen Bomb and Sino-North Korean Relations

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 31.01.2016

Our analysis of the international response to North Korea’s test of a hydrogen bomb directs our attention to China’s position and US-China debates about “what to do and who to blame.”

First, let’s look to the statement by Xinhua news agency on January 8. On the one hand, North Korea’s actions have been condemned, on the other hand, it was pointed out that “it was Washington’s antagonistic approach that pushed Pyongyang to carry on the development of nuclear weapons.” “The US military approach put Pyongyang in an acutely insecure position and encouraged the country to ignore the restrictions on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The DPRK, balancing on the brink of a nuclear war, really deserves international condemnation, as it seriously undermines the regional stability and peace in the world, might resort to desperate attempts of the country to improve its position in the fight against the USA.“

At the same time, according to anonymous sources of Yonhap news agency in diplomatic circles, Beijing is said to be very angry with the nuclear test, which came unexpectedly, especially given Pyongyang’s active attempts to improve bilateral relations. Official Spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Hua Chunying came up with a sharp condemnation of the tests and virtually admitted that Beijing had not been informed of the planned tests.

A number of statements from US diplomats and politicians are of interest, stating that the main villain of the place is the PRC and that China should have applied maximum efforts to “solve the problem.” Its policy and intention to continue the course to the six-party negotiations are said to have resulted in appeasement of Pyongyang. As US Secretary of State John Kerry said, “China had a particular approach to the DPRK, and Beijing partners in the six-party negotiations – Russia, the USA, South Korea and Japan – agreed to abide by this policy. The idea was to “give space” to China for cooperation with Pyongyang for the purpose of denuclearization of the Korean space… But now it is clear it did not work.”

In other words, since 2003 China has been promoting the idea of ​​six-party talks as the solution of the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem with political and diplomatic means, but its actions did not lead to denuclearization. And it is necessary to increase pressure on North Korea and expand sanctions. Or actualize them so that they have the desired effect, whereas much depends on China, its main cross-border trade partner.

Donald Trump, a controversial US presidential candidate, also stated on January 10 that China should solve the problem; otherwise it will suffer from loosening its trade connections with the USA. China is believed to have total control over Pyongyang, so the USA must find a way to force Beijing to address this issue using as much economic pressure as possible. Some westerners even expressed the idea of a “Chinese-sponsored DPRK nuclear project.”

However, we can also note the fact that both experts on bilateral relations and representatives of the PRC disagree. The Chinese often mention that they have no special relations with North Korea, but “no special relations” may mean a lot depending on the situation: “we have no favorable attitude”, “we do not have the leverage”, and “our capabilities to put pressure on North Korea are limited.” It is partly so, because the ideological influence is gradually reduced, however it should be noted that even before Pyongyang listened to Beijing only formally, especially on the nuclear issue. China’s weakening influence is due to the fact that North Korea is building relationships with other countries, primarily with Russia.

China clearly sees how America and its allies use the pretext of the North Korean threat to accumulate force aimed not against North Korea and in this situation try to blame China, although it is well known, whose non-constructive position blocked the negotiation process at least in the same degree as the intransigence of the DPRK. There are many examples here (enough for a series of articles on the emergence of the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem and ways to resolve it), as the joint draft solution dated 2005 developed by the parties, and the USA and Japan having done everything in their power to stall it.

Moreover, China’s military preparations are quite obvious. On January 13, in his address to the people of the South Korea, President Park Geun-hye did not exclude the possibility of considering placing American THAAD anti-missile complexes in South Korea. This provoked a sharp reaction from Beijing, which objected the deployment of THAAD, considering that the radars can be aimed at China.

Therefore, The Global Times responded to Kerry’s accusations possibly even tougher than Xinhua : “The origins and causes of the North Korean nuclear issue are very complicated. On the one hand, the North Korean regime has taken the wrong way to ensure its security, and on the other, the USA consistently chose a hostile approach to North Korea.” And “until the USA, South Korea and Japan change their approach to Pyongyang, there can be no hope to solve the DPRK nuclear issue.” It also implies that the hope for Beijing to solve everything for everyone and make the North abandon its nuclear ambitions is “an illusion.”

Commenting on Seoul’s propaganda resumption and the raid of the US strategic bomber to South Korea, the PCR Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed that “ALL parties should make joint efforts to avoid further escalation. We hope that the parties will take careful steps to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia.” In short, “we did everything we could, but what have YOU done to ease up the problem except for sharpening it?”

However, displeasure towards the North also is demonstrated. According to the South Korean media (or rather the memorable Chosun Ilbo) with reference to its sources in the area of ​​China-North Korean border, the Chinese authorities have tightened border controsl with Korea. As well as the passage through the bridge over the Tumen River is said to be closed, some cooperation projects canceled, and goods at customs and border points inspected by the Chinese more carefully. There is no information on the full-fledged sanctions from the authorities of China, but at least they started to do everything “strictly according to the rules” that previously were not always respected.

What does this mean? From the viewpoint of the author (as repeatedly mentioned) the PCR policy on the Korean Peninsula is slowly beginning to resemble the Russian one in terms of its so-called “multidirectional character.” At the same time, China is making use of the differences between the two Koreas and the balance of power. The North Korean issue is considered in the context of having a system of loyal regimes across the border (in this context, unauthorized DPRK actions are annoying) and in the context of potentially growing confrontation with the USA (whereas the DPRK is an ally, albeit difficult). The balance of these factors will determine ensuing actions.

Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D, Chief Research Fellow of the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

January 31, 2016 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Plummeting commodities saves Beijing $460bn a year

RT | January 25, 2016

While a sharp drop in commodity prices is hitting resource-based economies hard, analysts suggest China has arguably become the biggest beneficiary.

Last year, China became the world’s top buyer of crude oil and nearly every other commodity. According to calculations by Kenneth Courtis, former Asia vice chairman at Goldman Sachs Group, the world’s second biggest economy saves $320 billion on cheaper oil, and another $140 billion in metals, coal and agricultural produce.

This has allowed China to cut or keep steady prices of everything from utility bills and petrol prices to the cost of raw materials at plants, Bloomberg reports.

Keeping the money within the economy has also given Beijing a chance to continue the transformation from an industrial to a consumer-driven economy.

“It’s shown up in low consumer-price inflation and more stuff that households have been able to buy,” Louis Kuijs, the head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics in Hong Kong and a former World Bank economist told Bloomberg. “Manufacturing companies would have had even worse profit developments if it had not been for those low commodity prices,” he added.

Besides importing a record volume of oil in 2015, China also had record imports of iron ore, soybeans and copper concentrate. Paying less for the imports, Beijing saw a $594.5 billion trade surplus surge last year, which has softened the consequences of capital outflows.

“China is the great winner from the crash of commodity prices,” said Courtis, the author of the calculations. “A significant portion of that windfall gain is being transferred to the domestic population,” he added.

January 25, 2016 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Good News, World! You Can Stop Worrying About the South China Sea!

By Peter Lee | China Matters | January 23, 2016

There has been a concerted campaign to depict the South China Sea as an indispensable artery for commercial shipping and, therefore, a justifiable object of US attention and meddling.

This flagship of this effort is invoking the “$5 trillion dollars” worth of goods that pass through the SCS each year. Reuters, in particular, is addicted to this formula.

Here’s seven Reuters news stories within the last month containing the $5 trillion figure:

China Says South China Seas militarization depends on threat

China seeks investment for disputed islands, to launch flights

China defends South China Sea reef landings after Vietnam complaint

Philippines files protest against Chin’s test flights in disputed sea

China again lands planes on disputed island in South China Sea: Xinhua

Filipino protestors land on disputed islands in South China Sea

South China Sea tensions surge as China lands plane on artificial island

What interests me is that these seven articles reflect the work of six reporters and seven editors (seven to six! Glad to see Reuters has a handle on the key ratios!) in five bureaus and they all include the same stock phrase. How’s that work? Does headquarters issue a ukaz that all articles about the South China Sea must include the magic $5 trillion phrase? Does the copyediting program flag every reference to the South China Sea omitting the figure? Or did the reportorial hive mind linking Beijing, Manila, Hanoi, Hong Kong, and Sydney spontaneously and unanimously decided that “$5 trillion” is an indispensable accessory for South China Sea reporting?

I guess it’s understandable. A more accurate characterization of the South China Sea as “a useful but not indispensable waterway for world shipping whose commercial importance, when properly exaggerated, provides a pretext for the United States to meddle in Southeast Asian affairs at the PRC’s expense” is excessively verbose and fails to convey a sense of urgency.

The kicker, of course, is that the lion’s share of the $5 trillion is China trade, and most of the balance passes through the South China Sea by choice and not by necessity. … Full article

January 24, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »