Rey Claro Casambre
Philppine Peace Center
13 November 2002

A couple of days ago, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a US-
sponsored resolution with regard to Iraq. The resolution compels Saddam Hussein of Iraq to allow a team of UN inspectors to ascertain the veracity of the Iraqi leader’s pronouncements on Iraq’s manufacture and possession of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or “weapons of mass destruction”. Opinions are divided on whether or not in the long run, this resolution will lead us closer to world peace, depending on whether or not you are, as Bush says, “with us or against us”. But there is little disagreement that in the short run, it means that it will only be a matter of time when the US would once again unleash a full-scale offensive against Iraq, with the objective of deposing Saddam, gaining control of the immense Iraqi oil reserves and consolidating US hold on Western Asia.

US President George Bush struggles and strains to pass this off as part of the US-led “war against terrorism” and a logical sequel to the war on Afghanistan. But opposition to the war on Iraq has been as broad as support for the Afghanistan war had been. In fact, opposition to the entire US-led “war against terror” has grown throughout the world over the past year and two months since the bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Questions have been raised, and attempts to give answers only give rise to more questions. Who are the terrorists? Who are behind them? Why do they hate America so much? How can they be discovered and defeated? How should they be dealt with? How will this “war on terror” be carried out? How can it succeed? Will it lead to world peace?

Here at home, few eyebrows were raised when President Macapagal-Arroyo quickly threw the Philippines’ support behind the “war on terror”, generously offering the US use of Philippine territory and resources, including Philippine troops, for the Afghanistan offensive. When US troops were deployed in Southwestern Mindanao to participate in military offensives against the Abu Sayyaf under the pretext of joint military exercises. The exercises are long over, US troops are still around. So are the Abu Sayyaf. What has been gained by compromising our sovereignty and territorial integrity? Are the US troops staying over to keep the peace, or will they cause the further escalation of armed conflict?

To answer all these questions, we must take a closer, more critical look at this US-led “war against terrorism”.

1. The current US-led “war on terror” did not begin on or shortly after September 11, 2001. The war plans, including the offensive against Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban government, were on Pres. Bush’s table a day before the terrorists crashed their planes on the WTC and the Pentagon. Thus this so-called “War on Terror” is not as it is being touted, a retaliatory strike and a defensive campaign to prevent other terrorist attacks from occurring.

2. The global military offensive is closely linked, and compliments, the US-led trade and cultural offensive commonly known as “globalization”. This includes primarily the imposition on weaker states and economies of the “neo-liberal” policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization. The breaking down of trade and protectionist barriers purportedly to allow the free flow of capital, technology, ergo, peace and prosperity – from the highly industrialized countries to the developing third world countries. The economic offensive is accompanied by the drumbeating over the demise of socialism, the victory of democracy over communism, capitalism as the end of history.The past twelve years have shown that “globalization” has resulted not in the flow of capital and high technology from the advanced economies to the backward, but rather that of greater profits from the backward to the advanced. Greater reconcentration of wealth. Bigger monopolies and supermonopolies. Global financial crises as a result of the abuse of finance capital, as exemplified by the bloated value of transactions and the flagrant misrepresentation of profits by giant conglomerates. Third world economies are drowning in an ever deeper and wider ocean of debt. Even the advanced economies – US, Europe and Japan – are bogged down in depressed growth rates and feeble recoveries.

3. The Sept 11 bombings provided the impetus for the implementation of a “paradigm shift” in US global military force structure and approach. From a force structure that was greatly reduced in the wake of the end of the Cold War, to one of increased forward stationing and forward deployment. The declared objective is to be able to fight two simultaneous major wars and win them quickly and decisively with the minimum of reinforcements or redeployment of forces from one theater to another. From an approach that was multilateral – requiring military actions to be undertaken by US-led coalitions (such as the Desert Storm in 1991) and alliances (Kosovo, 1995) – to one that is unilateral (“if other governments won’t act, America will).This paradigm shift will be carried out by increasing the number of US military bases (which had been reduced with the end of the Cold War), by maintaining status-of-forces and access or logistics support agreements, and by conducting a wide variety of “stability operations”. According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report the US currently has military bases in at least 38 countries worldwide. This number could rise to 60 if we include newly acquired bases and forward bases such as in Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, and considerable troop concentrations in Central Asia (60,000) since 9-11. In addition, the US has access agreements with 57 countries. There are 250,000 US troops outside US territory, 200,000 on land and 50,000 at sea. One hundred thousand of these are in the Asia-Pacific region, 75,000 of which are in Northeast Asia.

   Stability operations are operations conducted by US Armed Forces outside the US and US territories. They include joint military training exercises, humanitarian and civic assistance, peace-keeping, peace-enforcement, support to insurgencies, information-gathering, counternarcotics, counter-terrorist, “foreign internal defense” operations, noncombatant evacuation, arms control, “small contingency actions”, and “show of force”. These operations are planned and synchronized in such a way as to ensure or maintain a suitable and effective forward deployment of forces at all times.

   Special operations forces — which include Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Air Force Special Forces, and the clandestine “Delta Force” – are at the core and play a key role in all these operations.A special word on the special forces: numerous independent and government (e.g., congressional) studies have raised the concern for rampant human rights violations brought about by US-sponsored training programs and by the increased deployment and use of Special Operations Forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has stepped up the training of surrogate forces. The US trains and employs local forces in much the same way and for much the same reason as the AFP trains and employs the CAFGUs: to economize, to bring down the casualty rate of the regulars, and to exploit the familiarity of the local forces with the terrain and the population.

   Special operations forces gained fame in the Vietnam War, notably the Green Berets who were touted as highly trained, highly skilled, armed with sophisticated weapons and high-tech gizmos. Indeed, they are trained and armed to perform special missions. With the end of the Cold War, the political imperative to bring down casualty rates and military spending has further bolstered their role in the US war machine. More and more, they have been given covert roles.

   Listed last but not least among the “Special Collateral Missions” of the SOFs is the following: Special activities – subject to limitations imposed by Executive Order and in conjunction with a presidential finding and congressional oversight, plan and conduct actions abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives so that the role of the U.S. government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly

   As described in the US Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2001, issued September 20, 2001, the “paradigm shift” visibly calls for beefing up US “forward deterrent forces” in the entire Asian region. US strategists anticipate – or predict — that these two wars would likely be fought in Asia: one in West Asia (aka Middle East) and another in Northeast Asia (Korea-Japan). Thus the increased importance of Asia to its military strategy. Thus also, the increased strategic importance of Southeast Asia, which lies midway between West Asia and Northeast Asia. And finally of the Philippines, which lies smack in the middle of Southeast Asia.

   The US has currently no permanent military base between North Asia (where it has big military bases in South Korea and Japan) and Diego Garcia in the India Ocean. Rand Corporation, a US military think tank whose board of directors includes Paul Wolfowitz and whose recommendations have always been followed by Pentagon, has pointed out the need for the US to re-establish a major military base in the Philippines. The team that conducted this particular study was headed by Zalmay Khalilzad, who became a member of the US National Security Council and is the US special ambassador to Afghanistan.

4. Bush has declared that the US reserves the right to act unilaterally, to make a preemptive strike, even a nuclear strike, and includes in its objectives the option for regime change, i.e., a forcible overthrow of an existing government that the US has decided to be a threat to world peace – read: US interests. All these disregard the norms of international law and infringe on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. It has ignored and violated the UN Charter and UN Resolutions when it wishes and uses them when it suits its purpose. In launching the war against Afghanistan, the US did not bother to seek the approval of the UN Security Council, even if it had a good chance of gaining it.(The UN Charter allows a state to use force or attack another state in self defense when under attack by that state, or when all diplomatic means have been exhausted, or as part of a multilateral peace-enforcement action decided on by the Security Council.)

5. The US has opposed ratification of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), a permanent independent judicial body mandated to receive complaints and prosecute the gravest crimes under international law: genocide, other crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.The US admits that it opposes the establishment of the ICC because it does not want the operations and actions of its overseas troops to be harassed with suits filed against them with the ICC, or by the threat of being sued with the ICC for whatever acts they commit in the performance of their duties or the execution of their mission.

6. The US has taken a lead in enacting “anti-terrorist” laws that suspend the constitutional rights of its citizens. The “Patriot Act” has resulted in thousands of cases of secret arrests and prolonged detention of Americans and aliens, mostly Arab and of color, violations of privacy and other violations of human rights. The US has encouraged and pressed other countries to enact and enforce similar laws under the mantle of “anti-terrorism” and “counterterrorism”.

7. The US has used 9/11 to declare a polarized world: of terrorist vs counter-terrorist, with us or against us, virtually declaring war against all who would not do its bidding.The US defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence …usually directed against civilians… to inculcate fear…intending to coerce or intimidate governments or societies… in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals.”

   Is there a universal definition for “terrorism”? The United Nations has at least twelve conventions or treaties covering “terrorist” acts such as hijackings, bombings, kidnapping of civilians and civilian establishments, but does not have a single consolidated definition of what “terrorism” is. Last January, diplomats and legal advisers from more than 100 countries attempted to craft a definition that has evaded the United Nations for 30 years. This would have been the key to a comprehensive treaty against terrorism that would compel all 189 UN member-states to go after terrorists.

   While there was little debate on the condemnation of any targeting of civilians, there was significant insistence on differentiating terrorists from “national liberation movements” and “resistance to foreign occupation.”

   The European Union Council on Justice and Home Affairs proposed to define terrorism as, “offenses intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country.” This proposal promptly provoked an appeal from 200 European lawyers expressing their concern that the definition could be used to crack down on legitimate dissent such as trade union strikes and anti-globalization mass protest actions.

   So how can a global “war on terror” be carried out without a global definition of terrorism? This lack of a universal definition has not hampered the US from carrying out its so-called “war on terror” unilaterally. Bush’ “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” statement makes it clear whose definition matters. Ironically, the statement carries a thinly veiled threat backed up by the actual use of awesome power against those the US has considered “terrorist”.

8. Not a few have pointed out that by its own definition, the US itself would turn out to be not just a terrorist but the number one terrorist or a superterrorist. It would also include several countries solidly behind the US in the global “war on terror” such as Pakistan and Israel, who are themselves guilty of violating human rights and international humanitarian law.

The conclusion is stark-clear. The US-led “war on terror” is nothing but a naked use of power to consolidate and gain more economic, political and military power under the guise of “combatting terrorism”, “defending the US”, “promoting world stability and peace”. It threatens to lead to more wars, collateral damage, violations of human rights, sovereignty of nations.

The US-led “war on terror” will not lead to world peace. As designed, its objective is to strengthen and impose US supremacy throughout the world, of shaping or creating a world that will promote the economic interests not of the world at large, not of the American nation, but only of the small clique of the wealthiest and most powerful monopolists in the US. It aims to deter and decisively and swiftly defeat all those that threaten these interests. It imposes its will by the combination of sheer coercion, bribery and deception. It puts itself above international law, and wantonly violates human rights and international humanitarian law. But this design has the grievous flaw of creating more and more enemies as it attempts –and momentarily succeeds—to do so.

Implications on the Philippines:

We can now examine and understand recent events in the Philippines in the light of the discussion above on the US-led “war on terror”.

1. Philippines and Southeast Asia as “second front” in the “war against terror”.
2. Strategic position
3. Increased military presence: VFA, Balikatan, then Balikatan 02-1 purportedly vs Abu Sayyaf, MLSA—-> setting up a base
4. Peace Negotiations

The peace negotiations between the government and the NDFP and between the government and the MILF are among the first casualties in the US-led “war on terror” in the Philippines.

Even before Sept 11, there was a quiet tug of war between the doves and hawks in government on how to go about the peace negotiations. The doves favored the continuation and even the acceleration of the formal talks wherein the substantive agenda of basic reforms to address the age-old social, political, economic and cultural problems which bring about armed conflict. The hawks favored the abandonment of the peace negotiations and recourse to greater military force to pressure the rebels to surrender or to negotiate within the framework of the Philippine Constitution.

The “war on terror” shifted the balance heavily in favor of the hawks. On March 16, Malacanang announced the unilateral suspension of formal talks with both the NDF and MILF. Backchannel talks would supposedly be undertaken instead.

On August 5, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ordered more troops redeployed to NPA areas, including those that have been employed in the combat operations against the Abu-Sayyaf during Balikatan 02-1. On August 9, Secretary of State Collin Powell announced the US action declaring the CPP-NPA as “foreign terrorist organizations”. This action was promptly “welcomed” by the Arroyo government, signaling a further shift away from the peace talks, given the government’s policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

August 12, the US Department of Finance included Prof. Jose Ma Sison in its list of terrorists against whom financial actions are to be taken. Prof Sison is the NDFP chief political consultant and a key person in the peace negotiations. On August 13, the Dutch government, upon the request of the US, declared the CPP-NPA and Prof. Sison as terrorists, and subsequently froze Prof. Sison’s bank account (which contained his subsidy), and withdrew his housing and other personal privileges from the Dutch government due him as a recognized political refugee who was barred from earning a living in The Netherlands.

On October 28, as a result of a country-hopping campaign by a Philippine delegation led by Secretary Ople and including Secretaries Norberto Gonzales, Silvestre Afable and Ermita, the European Council of Ministers included the NPA in their list of terrorists.

These actions, by their own pronouncements, are intended by the US, Dutch and Philippine governments to stigmatize and isolate the CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison and pressure them into “laying down their arms” and “rejoining the mainstream of society”. The NDF has condemned these moves as attempts to force them into capitulation.

All these seriously jeopardize and may have in fact already killed the peace negotiations. As pointed out, it is untenable now for the GRP and NDFP negotiations to continue with the government considering the CPP-NPA and Prof. Sison as terrorists. The NDFP has also stated that these actions by the government constitute grievous violations of prior agreements, notably the 1992 The Hague Joint Declaration and the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG).

Hopes for Peace

While the US-led “war on terror” appears to be an awesome and unstoppable war machine, it is hampered by its own contradictions, not the least of which is that it is guilty of the very terror it professes to combat.

In the US and Europe, hundreds of thousands have joined rallies and protest actions against the US “war on terror”, especially the impending war against Iraq. Notable is the protest movement that sprouted from among the relatives of the WTC victims and has grown into a nationwide anti-war movement called “NOT IN OUR NAME”. Similar protest movements have grown worldwide, including Asia, Southeast Asia and here in the Philippines.

The US economy, just as the entire world capitalist system, continues to suffer from chronic stagnation and bouts of recession and feeble, incomplete recovery. The US cannot pursue as much unilateralism as it boasts or wishes. It is forced to accommodate and give concessions to rival powers in alliances and coalitions to gain needed political, military and financial support for the wars it seeks to wage. It must contend with them, first of all, in inter-capitalist and inter-imperialist competition for sources of raw materials and cheap labor and outlets for products and excess capital.

Finally, there are the “brushfires” of liberation movements worldwide that continue to burn. It has sought, through the past half century, to extinguish these little pesky fires. But it has so far failed, despite the past decade of unchallenged all-round supremacy. In truth, these brushfires may be the real targets of the “war on terror”. Last January 18, Secretary Colin Powell told the Nepalese King Gyandera and Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in Kathmandu last January 18:

“You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world.”

Right now the warmongers and militarists of the world, including our local ones here, are riding high, bleating and boasting, thinking they will eventually get their way and eventually crush all their enemies with military force.

Diyan sila nagkakamali. (That is where they are mistaken.)

Annex I: From: QDDR 2001,

III. Paradigm Shift in Force Planning

“The new force-sizing construct specially shapes forces to:

• Defend the United States
• Deter aggression and coercion forward in critical regions
• Swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major conflicts while preserving for the President the option to call for a decisive victory in one of those conflicts – including the possibility of regime change or occupation
• Conduct a limited number of smaller-scale contingency operations

Deter Forward

As a global power, the US has important geopolitical interests around the world.

…new planning construct calls for maintaining regionally tailored forces forward stationed and deployed in Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asia Littoral, and the Middle East/Southwest Asia…

…will strengthen its forward deterrent posture. Over time, US forces will be tailored increasingly to maintain favorable regional balances in concert with US allies and friends with the aim of swiftly defeating attacks with only modest reinforcement…. A key objective of US transformation efforts over time will be to increase the capability of its forward forces…

Security cooperation will serve as an important means for linking DoD’s strategic direction with those of its allies and friends…A particular aim… will be to ensure access, interoperability, and intelligence cooperation,,,

From IV. Reorienting the US Military Global Posture

One of the goals of reorienting the global posture is to render forward forces capable of swiftly defeating an adversary’s military and political objectives with only modest reinforcement. Key requirements … include new combinations of immediately employable forward stationed and deployed forces; expeditionary and forcible entry capabilities;…information operations; special operations forces; and rapidly deployable, highly lethal and sustainable forces that may come from outside a theater of operations.

US global military posture will be reoriented to:

• Develop a basing system that provides greater flexibility for US forces in critical areas of the world, placing emphasis on additional bases and stations beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia.
• Provide temporary access to facilities in foreign countries that enable US forces to conduct training and exercises in the absence of permanent ranges and bases.
• Redistribute forces and equipment based on regional deterrence requirements
• Provide sufficient mobility, including airlift, sealift, prepositioning, basing infrastructure, alternative points of debarkation, and new logistical concepts of operations.

Accordingly, the Department has made the following decisions:

• The Secretary of the Army will….
• The Secretary of the Navy will increase aircraft carrier battlegroup presence in the Western Pacific and will explore options for homeporting an additional three to four surface combatants, and guided cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), in that area
• The Secretary of the Air Force will develop plans to increase contingency basing in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as in the Arabian Gulf. The Secretary of the Airforce will ensure sufficient en route infrastructure for refueling and logistics to support operations in the Arabian Gulf or Western Pacific Areas
• The Secretary of the Navy will develop new concepts of maritime pre-positioning. High-speed sealift, and new amphibious capabilities for the Marine Corps…. In consultation with allies and friends, the Secretary of the Navy will explore the feasibility of conducting training for littoral warfare in the Western Pacific for the Marine Corps.
• DoD will also recommend changes in the worldwide alignment of special operations forces assets to account for new regional emphases in the defense strategy.
• The United States will maintain its critical bases in Western Europe and Northeast Asia, which may also serve the additional role of hubs for power projection in future contingencies in other areas of the world.

 

Appendix 2

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES MISSIONS AND ACTIVITIES

SOF Principal Missions – SOF are organized, trained, and equipped specifically to accomplish their assigned roles, as described below, in nine mission areas:

• Counterproliferation (CP) – combat proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons across the full range of U.S. efforts, including the application of military power to protect U.S. forces and interests; intelligence collection and analysis; and support of diplomacy, arms control, and export controls. Accomplishment of these activities may require coordination with other U.S. government agencies.
• Combating terrorism (CBT) – preclude, preempt, and resolve terrorist actions throughout the entire threat spectrum, including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism), and resolve terrorist incidents when directed by the NCA or the appropriate unified commander or requested by the Services or other government agencies
• Foreign internal defense (FID) – organize, train, advise, and assist host-nation military and para-military forces to enable these forces to free and protect their society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency
• Special reconnaissance (SR) – conduct reconnaissance and surveillance actions to obtain or verify information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning characteristics of a particular area
• Direct action (DA) – conduct short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions to seize, destroy, capture, recover, or inflict damage on designated personnel or materiel
• Psychological operations (PSYOP) – induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives by conducting planned operations to convey selected information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and, ultimately, the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals
• Civil affairs (CA) – facilitate military operations and consolidate operational activities by assisting commanders in establishing, maintaining, influencing, or exploiting relations between military orces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian population in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operation
• Unconventional warfare (UW) – organize, train, equip, advise, and assist indigenous and surrogate forces in military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration
• Information operations (IO) – actions taken to achieve information superiority by affecting
  adversary information and information systems while defending one’s own information and
  information systems

SOF Collateral Activities – Based on their unique capabilities, SOF are frequently tasked to participate in the following activities:

• Coalition support – integrate coalition units into multinational military operations by training
  coalition partners on tactics and techniques and providing communications
• Combat search and rescue (CSAR) – penetrate air defense systems and conduct joint air, ground, or sea operations deep within hostile or denied territory, at night or in adverse weather, to recover distressed personnel during wartime or contingency operations. SOF are equipped and manned to perform CSAR in support of SOF missions only. SOF perform CSAR in support of conventional forces on a case-by-case basis not to interfere with the readiness or operations of core SOF missions.
• Counterdrug (CD) activities – train host-nation CD forces and domestic law enforcement agencies on critical skills required to conduct individual and small-unit operations in order to detect, monitor, and interdict the cultivation, production, and trafficking of illicit drugs targeted for use in the United States
• Humanitarian demining (HD) activities – reduce or eliminate the threat to noncombatants and friendly military forces posed by mines and other explosive devices by training host-nation personnel in their recognition, identification, marking, and safe destruction; provide instruction in program management, medical, and mine-awareness activities
• Humanitarian assistance (HA) – provide assistance of limited scope and duration to supplement or complement the efforts of host-nation civil authorities or agencies to relieve or reduce the results of natural or manmade disasters or other endemic conditions such as human pain, disease, hunger, or privation that might present a serious threat to life or that can result in great damage to, or loss of, property
• Security assistance (SA) – provide training assistance in support of legislated programs which provide U.S. defense articles, military training, and other defense-related services by grant, loan, credit, or cash sales in furtherance of national policies or objectives
• Special activities – subject to limitations imposed by Executive Order and in conjunction with a presidential finding and congressional oversight, plan and conduct actions abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives so that the role of the U.S. government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly

June 29, 1999

SOFAs or other agreements conferring legal status on US forces and personnel overseas have been in effect with respect to the following countries and areas since the years indicated below. Agreements for specific or time-limited purposes and activities (other than the Bosnia Sustaining Force, SFOR) are not included. Classified agreements are designated by (C) or (S), as appropriate. “TIAS” references are to the published Treaties and Other International Acts Series of the Department of State. Other unclassified agreements referred to below have not been published.

Albania (1996)

Antigua and Barbuda (1977) (TIAS 9054)

Ascension Island (1956) (TIAS 3603, 4296, 6308)

Australia (1963) (TIAS 5349)

Austria (1998)

Bahamas (1983) (TIAS 11058)

Bahrain (1971) (TIAS 7263, 8208, 8632) and (1987)(S)

Bangladesh (1998)

Belgium (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Benin (1998)

Bermuda (1991)

Bosnia-Herzegovina (1995, for IFOR/SFOR)

Brunei (1994)

Bulgaria (1996)

Cambodia (1996)

Canada (1953) (TIAS 2846, 3074)

Cote d’Ivoire (1998)

Croatia (1995, for IFOR/SFOR)

Czech Republic (1996)

Denmark (1953) (TIAS 2846, 4002)

Diego Garcia (1966) (TIAS 6196, 7481, 8230)

Dominican Republic (1988)

Egypt (1981) (TIAS 10238)

Estonia (1996)

Ethiopia (1994)

Former Republic of Yugoslavia (1997)

Federated States of Micronesia (1986)

Finland (1997)

France (1953) (TIAS 2846)*

FYROM (Macedonia) (1996)

Georgia (1997)

Germany (1963) (TIAS 2846, 5351, 5352, 7759, 10367)

Ghana (1998)

Greece (1963) (TIAS 2846, 3649)

Grenada (1993)

Haiti (1995)

Honduras (1982) (TIAS 10890, 11256)

Hungary (1996)

Iceland (1951) (TIAS 2295)

Israel (1994)

Italy (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Japan (1953) (TIAS 4510)

Jamaica (1962) (TIAS 2105) **

Jordan (1996)

Kazakhstan (1997)

Kenya (1980) (C)

Korea (1966) (TIAS 6127)

Kuwait (1991) (S)

Latvia (1996)

Lithuania (1996)

Luxembourg (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Malaysia (1990) (C)

Mali (1997)

Marshall Islands (1986) (TIAS 11671)

Moldova (1997)

Mongolia (1996)

Morocco (1982) (S)

Netherlands (1953) (TIAS 3174)

New Zealand (1958) (TIAS 4151)

Norway (1953) (TIAS 2846, 2950)

Oman (1980) (S)

Palau (1994)

Panama (1979) (TIAS 10032)

Papua New Guinea (1990) (TIAS 11612)

Philippines (1998)

Poland (1997)

Portugal (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Qatar (1992) (S)

Romania (1996)

St. Kitts & Nevis (1987)

St. Lucia (1979) (TIAS 2105) **

Saudi Arabia (1953) (TIAS 2812, 5830, 7425) (S)

Singapore (1990) (S)

Slovak Republic (1996)

Slovenia (1996)

Solomon Islands (1991)

Somalia (1980) (C)

Spain (1951) (TIAS 2846)

Sri Lanka (1995)

South Africa (1999)

Sudan (1981) (TIAS 10322)

Sweden (1996)

Tonga (1992)

Trinidad and Tobago (1962) (TIAS 2105) **

Turkey (1945) (TIAS 2846, 3020, 3337, 6582, 9901)*

Turks and Caicos Islands (1979) (TIAS 9710, 9711)

Uganda (1997)

Ukraine (1997, provisionally)

United Arab Emirates (1994) (S)

United Kingdom (1952) (TIAS 2846, 11537) ***

Uzbekistan (1996, provisionally)

Western Samoa (1990)

TOTAL: 92

* Both France and Turkey have resisted the application of NATO SOFA to activities in their territory which are not in support of NATO purposes.

** SOFA provisions of 1941 United States – United Kingdom Lend Lease Agreement apply, and were continued in application by former United Kingdom territories when they gained their independence.

*** The 1952 Visiting Forces Act is a unilateral British statute enacted to supplement the NATO SOFA of 1951 within the United Kingdom. Britain elected this approach, rather than concluding a supplementary agreement with the United States as a sending state. Unfortunately, the Visiting Forces Act does not fully agree with NATO SOFA, particularly regarding claims, and this has led to disputes from time to time.

COUNTRIES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF FORCES DATED 19 JUNE 1951 (as of March 2000)

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

COUNTRIES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY AND THE OTHER STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR FORCES

DATED 7 JULY 1955 (as of March 2000)

Albania                                                                                      Poland

Austria                                                                                       Romania

Belgium                                                                                     Slovak Republic

Bulgaria                                                                                     Slovenia

Canada                                                                                      Spain

Czech Republic                                                                         Sweden

Denmark                                                                                   United Kingdom

Estonia                                                                                      United States

FYROM (Macedonia)                                                               Uzbekistan

Finland

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Kazakhstan

Latvia

Lithuania

Moldova

Netherlands

Norway

US military bases, facilites and activities overseas fall into three general categories:

1. Larger bases or installations with a permanent US military presence, usually comprising combat-capable forces (Attachment A).

2. Lesser or technical facilities, again with a permanent US military presence, which may be largely civilian contractor personnel (Attachment B).

3. Access rights for US forces to use host country facilities for visits, exercises or training, without a significant permanent US military presence (Attachment C).

Most of these arrangements were established through securing prior approval from the host countries concerned, and negotiating formal agreements with them. In the NATO area, Japan and Korea, host nations generally made state-owned land and structures available without cost. Following Congressional approval, new facilities were then constructed, either by the U.S. at its own expense, or through multilateral infrastructure funding in NATO countries. As a matter of international law, title to those improvements vests in the host nation, which grants use rights to the U.S.

With respect to larger bases or installations, no rent is paid as a matter of principle, and the following considerations apply:

(1) Japan, Korea and Germany absorb a significant proportion of the local support costs of U.S. forces. Other wealthy Allies also make a burdensharing contribution, but to a lesser extent.

(2) U.S. security and economic assistance programs for such countries as Greece, Turkey and Egypt reflect in part their provision of basing or access rights.

The U.S. does pay rent for certain lesser facilities and access rights in Antigua, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Oman and Seychelles.

Attachments D and E respectively list those countries with formal U.S. defense commitments, and those having defense relations with the U.S., but not a formal defense commitment.

COUNTRIES AND AREAS WITH US MILITARY BASES OR INSTALLATIONS

Europe (10) East Asia and Pacific (3)

Belgium, Australia, Germany, Japan, Greece, Korea, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal (Azores), Spain, Turkey,United Kingdom

Western Hemisphere (4) Indian Ocean (1)

Canada, Diego Garcia, Cuba, (United Kingdom) Greenland, Panama

TOTAL: 18

COUNTRIES AND AREAS WITH LESSER OR TECHNICAL US MILITARY FACILITIES

Western Hemisphere (2) East Asia and Pacific (2)

Antigua and Barbuda, Marshall Islands, Bahamas, New Zealand

Middle East/Indian Ocean (1) South Atlantic (1)

Bahrain Ascension Island (United Kingdom)

TOTAL: 6

COUNTRIES GRANTING THE US ACCESS RIGHTS FOR USE OF THEIR FACILITIES

Europe (2) East Asia (5)

Denmark, Brunei, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand

North Africa, Middle East

and Southwest Asia (9) Other Africa (5)

Egypt, Djibouti, Israel, Liberia*, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Senegal, Morocco, Somalia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

Western Hemisphere (2)

Antigua and Barbuda, Honduras

TOTAL: 23

* Exercise of U.S. access rights is currently in abeyance.

COUNTRIES WITH FORMAL U.S. DEFENSE COMMITMENTS

(By treaty or otherwise)

NATO (15) Rio Pact (22)

Belgium, Argentina,Canada, Bahamas, Czech Republic, Bolivia, Denmark, Brazil, France, Chile, Germany, Colombia, Greece Costa Rica, Hungary, Cuba*, Iceland, Dominican Republic, Italy, Ecuador, Luxembourg, El Salvador, Netherlands, Guatemala, Norway, Haiti, Poland, Honduras, Portugal, Mexico, Spain, Nicaragua, Turkey, Panama, United Kingdom, Paraguay, Peru

Asia/Pacific Bilaterals (4)

Trinidad & Tobago, Japan, Uruguay, Korea, Venezuela, Philippines, Thailand

ANZUS (2) Agreements of Cooperation (2)

Australia, Liberia***, New Zealand**, Pakistan****

Freely Associated States (3)

Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau

TOTAL: 48
* Cuba has been excluded from participation in the Inter American System, including the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.

** The US has suspended its security obligation to New Zealand under the ANZUS Treaty of 1951.

*** By 1959 executive agreement only.

**** By 1959 executive agreement pursuant to 1957 joint Congressional resolution.

COUNTRIES HAVING DEFENSE RELATIONS WITH THE U.S. THROUGH MILITARY COOPERATION, EXCHANGES OR VISITS, BUT NOT A FORMAL DEFENSE COMMITMENT

Partners for Peace (26) North Africa/Middle East (11)

Albania, Bahrain, Austria, Egypt, Armenia, Israel, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Belarus, Kuwait, Bulgaria, Morocco, Estonia, Oman, Finland, Qatar, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan,Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan, United Arab Emirates, Latvia, Lithuania

Other, Africa (5)

Macedonia (FYROM), Moldova, Dijbouti, Romania, Eritrea, Russia, Kenya, Slovakia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Caribbean (2)

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States*, Jamaica

Asia/Pacific (7)

Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Singapore, Taiwan**

TOTAL: 51

* Comprises Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

** No formal diplomatic relations. A foreign mlitary sales relationship is provided by the Taiwan Relations Act, 1979.

Rey Claro Casambre
Philippine Peace Center
ILPS Philippines Chapter

(Paper read at the conference to launch an international campaign against US overseas military bases, September 20-22, 2003, at Chanai, Crete, Greece.)

Introduction

Twelve years ago, in September 1991, the Filipino people kicked out US troops and shut down
US bases in the Philippines.

Today, US troops are back in the Philippines. Permanently, if the US and Philippine governments would have their way. Displaying utter disregard for Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, they have circumvented the constitutional ban on foreign military troops and bases. They did this by sneaking two highly questionable military agreements through the token scrutiny of Congress and the Supreme Court, and ramming these roughshod over the people’s protest and opposition.

First, the Philippine Senate ratified a “status-of-forces agreement” — the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in May 1999, opening up the Philippines to US troops and equipment for unspecified military activities for virtually unlimited periods of time. Second, the US Defense Department and the Philippine Department of National Defense entered into an “acquisition and cross-servicing agreement”, the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) last November through their respective Defense Departments allows US forces to access or use Philippine installations and to practically set up their own facilities anywhere on Philippine territory.

The arithmetic is simple:

VFA = Status of Forces Agreement ⇒ US TROOPS

MLSA = Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement ⇒ US FACILITIES

VFA + MLSA = US MILITARY BASES.

This time throughout the Philippine archipelago, not just in Clark and Subic (the cites of the big US air and naval bases until 1991). The entire country is now one big US military base.

US Ally or Vassal State?

The Philippines has long been known to be the closest ally of the US in Southeast Asia. But in fact, it is more accurately described as a neo-colonial vassal state. A half century of colonial rule and another half century as a neo-colonial client state has secured for the US an all-too compliant and servile ruling elite and a population that still looks up to the US as a benevolent Big White Brother.

Factions of the ruling elite vie for US support, with the most favored assured of winning the elections and remaining in power. Thus, the US has several stables of aspiring puppets, and enjoys the luxury of allowing whoever could most effectively serve its interest to rule.

What is not too well-known is that outside Malacanang (Presidential Palace), the most trusted and reliable subalterns of the US in the Philippines are to be found not in the civil bureaucracy but in the military: the armed forces and the police. Since its formation under American colonial rule, the Philippine military has always been oriented, trained, supplied and directed by the US. This went on even after the Philippines was granted political independence in 1946 through a series of military treaties and agreements such as the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT, Military Assistance Pact (MAP), and the Military Bases Agreement (MBA).

In 1991, the MBA expired and a draft US-RP Treaty of Friendship which would have allowed the continuation of US Bases was rejected by a Philippine Senate in the face of massive demonstrations for the expulsion of the US Bases. This was followed by a brief period of feverish but low-profile negotiations for a Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would allow the temporary presence of US troops in the Philippines, and an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that would allow the US to use Philippine facilities for training, repairs and other services, port calls, pre-positioning of war materiel, and other logistic support.

Using its assets in the bureaucracy and the military, the US eventually secured the VFA in 1999 despite widespread protest and outrage over its onerous and blatantly one-sided provisions. Joint military exercises have been resumed since then, all of them low-key if not secret.

Up until 9-11. Then President Macapagal-Arroyo loudly proclaimed her government’s all out support for “Operation Enduring Freedom”. In November 2001, she accepted George W. Bush’s offer for US troops and equipment purportedly to help the Philippine military wipe out the Abu Sayyaf, a bandit group once linked to Al Qaeda, with a paltry sum of military and economic aid as a thinly veiled “reward”. Bush and Macapagal-Arroyo would not have been so brazen in cutting this deal and publicly announcing it had not the September 11 bombings occurred.

Enter the Dragon: “Balikatan Joint Military Training Exercises”

In the first half of 2002, more than 3,000 US troops came to the Philippines and participated in offensive operations against the Abu Sayyaf group. The relative ease by which Bush and Macapagal-Arroyo were able to pass off the “Balikatan 02-1” as a legitimate Joint Military Training Exercise in accordance with the MDT and VFA owes not so much to the merit of their arguments as to the overwhelming sentiment that the Abu Sayyaf deserve to be blown off this planet, the sooner the better. The general perception was that the US abundantly had the motivation and the means to locate and pulverize the Abu Sayyaf, the two things the AFP had displayed a miserable lack of, ergo let the Americanos “just do it”.

Protests and objections were not lacking. US Troops Out Now!, a broad multisectoral coalition of patriotic organizations and individuals, condemned “Balikatan 02-1” and the “war against terror” as a mere pretext for allowing the entry of US troops in violation of Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity.

President Macapagal-Arroyo has unabashedly declared that there will be more “Balikatans” in 2003 and in the coming years. True enough, while “Balikatan 02-1″ was underway, another joint military exercise was being held in another island. And as some of the US troops packed up and returned to their home bases, other troops arrived for a joint naval evacuation and rescue exercise. Furthermore, long after the joint training exercises were over, there are still hundreds of US Marines and Special Forces elements left behind at Basilan and elsewhere in Southwestern Mindanao purportedly to finish the public works and construction projects jointly undertaken by the US and Philippine troops as part of “humanitarian operations” in the area and to defend these from hostile attacks.

All these have further proven the critics and oppositors of the VFA right. The VFA will allow the stationing of US troops in the country for indefinite periods of time, not to mention granting them immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses committed while “on duty”.

Recently, the White House, State Department and Pentagon announced that US forces will engage in combat operations in another round of “joint military exercises” against the Abu Sayyaf in Sulu. The US also reportedly proposed that a certain area be assigned as the US’ “area of responsibility” (AOR) where its troops can operate alone, separate from Philippine troops, and not under a Filipino commander3. The Philippine government quickly denied this and signaled the US that they could not get away with such a blatant violation of the constitution.

The message however, is clear: US troops are not only here to stay, they will continue to come in greater force and continue to intervene militarily in the country’s internal affairs.

US Global Interests & Military Objectives

If “Balikatan 02-1” and the “war against terrorism” were mere pretexts for US presence, what then were the US troops really doing in Basilan, Zamboanga, and for that matter in all the other “Balikatan” areas? To answer this question, we would need to look at the US’ global military objectives, policies, strategy and tactics

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Sept 30, 2001) published by the US Department of Defense candidly states that “US interests, responsibilities and commitments span the world”. The QDRR 2001 explicitly states:

…The global nature of US interests and obligations implies that full spectrum dominance will continue to depend on overseas presence and power projection capabilities.

One can easily see that the US can invoke “US national interest” to justify US military presence and, if necessary, military intervention in any place in the world. In fact, US military strategy is designed to do precisely that.

The US’ conduct of the Afghanistan war showed a clear break from the more passive “multilateral approach” to a more aggressive unilateral approach and military posture. These changes are also reflected in the QDRR 2001, in particular Sections III. Paradigm Shift in Force Planning and IV Reorienting the US Military Global Posture.

The “paradigm shift” is a shift from “rapid deployment” to any given “trouble spot” to “forward stationing” and “forward deployment” in all potential theaters of war. The object is to station or deploy sufficient US forces in all critical regions worldwide in order to deter any threats to US interests in the region; and if deterrence fails, to defeat these threats with a minimum of reinforcements from other theaters or regions. Further, the “paradigm shift” arrogantly and brazenly states that the military posture shall preserve “the President’s option to call for a decisive victory… “including the possibility of regime change or occupation”. We can see in the Iraq invasion and occupation, the application of the QDRR 2001 as an unabashed handbook of US aggression and intervention, in blatant violation of international law.

QDDR2001 envisages the reorientation of US military posture to include, among others:

• increase in aircraft carrier battlegroup presence and homeporting an additional three to four surface combatants, and guided cruise missile submarines (SSGNs)in the Western Pacific,
• increase in contingency basing in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and in the Arabian Gulf….and sufficient en route infrastructure for refuelling and logistics to support operations in the Arabian Gulf or Western Pacific Areas
• new concepts of maritime pre-positioning…high-speed sealift, and new amphibious capabilities for the Marine Corps…. conducting training for littoral warfare in the Western Pacific for the Marine Corps (in coordination with “allies and friends”).

Since 9-11, this “paradigm shift” has already resulted in the establishment of additional bases, forward stationed and forward deployed forces notably in the Balkans, Central Asia, West Asia or the Middle East, and in the East Asia-Pacific Region.

Access or Bases?

It is in the context of the renewed US drive for military bases and access agreements all over the world that the question of US basing in the Philippines should be viewed. Both US and Philippine governments, in attaining the VFA and the MLSA, repeatedly profess that the US is no longer interested in setting up US military bases in the Philippines. The argument is that with the end of the Cold War following the collapse of the East European and Soviet regimes in 1989 and 1991, the US no longer needs these bases and has in fact dismantled many of them worldwide. Further, the US has shifted its strategy to the more economical forward deployment and pre-positioning which would require not permanent bases but mere access agreements with its allies worldwide for limited and temporary use of facilities.

This was before Sept 11. 9-11 gave Bush’s drive a big and timely boost by generating a wave of domestic and international support for his “war vs. terrorism” that translated into a bipartisan Congressional approval of his defense budget. According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report the US currently has military bases in at least 38 countries worldwide, not including newly acquired bases, forward bases such as in Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, and considerable troop concentrations in Central Asia (60,000) since 9-11.

Considering (1) the importance of East Asia to US global interests, or more particularly to its drive to expand and consolidate its hegemony, (2) the strategic geographic position of the Philippines in Southeast Asia, (3) the renewed drive of the US to set up military installations worldwide after 9-11, we can confidently conclude that the US is seeking to reestablish and even upgrade its military bases in the Philippines.

Southeast Asia is located at the center of an arc US military strategy refers to as “the East Asia littoral” — beginning with the concentration of industrial and technological power in Japan, Korea, and Eastern China, down to the resources and manpower-rich Southeast Asian countries and the South China Sea through which half — or $500 billion worth– of world trade annually passes, to the Indian sub-continent and the oil-rich Middle East. This arc also encircles China, which the US considers as its potential long-term peer rival.

The 1998 US Security Strategy for East Asia-Pacific Region states:

Maintaining an overseas military presence is a cornerstone of US National Security Strategy and a key element of US military policy of “shape, respond, and prepare”. In Asia, US force presence plays a particular key role in promoting peace and security in regional affairs.

The Philippines is at the center of Southeast Asia, in which the US still does not have a single military base. Strategy studies for the US Armed Forces, such as the Rand Corporation’s, point to the unique geographical and socio-political-economic vantage position of the Philippines as the necessary site for large permanent US military bases.

In addition to the factors above, the enthusiasm with which the Macapagal-Arroyo government supports Bush’ “war on terror” and the relative openness of the population to US presence, are factors that would allow the US to push beyond the VFA and MLSA or for more favorable terms in agreements and treaties.

Finally, the question must be asked, if the Abu Sayyaf and the Al Qaeda were only pretexts for re-establishing a “robust” and eventually permanent presence of US troops in the Philippines, who are its real targets? Evidently, the targets are those whom the US considers its long-term enemies. Foremost is the CPP-NDF and New People’s Army, which it includes in its list of “terrorist organizations”, just as it targets all anti-imperialist organizations, armed and unarmed, that oppose its world hegemonic designs.

No less than US State Secretary Colin Powell confirmed this in his remarks to Nepalese King Gyandera and Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in Kathmandu last January 18:

“You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world.”

Filipino people join the struggle against all overseas US bases

There is now a broad and strong people’s movement against US military presence and intervention in the Philippines and in the East Asia-Pacific region. It consists of individuals and mass organizations of workers, peasants, youth, women, indigenous peoples, and various professionals. The Filipino people have not too long ago succeeded in throwing out US military bases in the Philippines. There is no doubt that they can once again muster their collective strength to oppose the renewed US intervention not only in the Philippines but in the entire region.

The difference is that today, they are more aware of the internationalist dimension of their struggle, of the fact that they must fight not only US intervention in the Philippines but also the US war of terror in the region and all over the world. Just as their victory against the US bases was brought about by the Filipino people’s unity in struggle, they now close ranks with the peoples of the world opposing all overseas US military bases, and fighting US imperialism and war.

In this regard we would like to report that the ILPS Philippines Chapter and individual ILPS member organizations in the Philippines are coordinating or in touch with anti-bases, anti-nuclear and anti-imperialist formations in the East Asia-Pacific especially in Japan, Korea and Australia.

Many of these formations have recently come together in an International Solidarity Mission in the Philippines last year. Last March, an International Conference on US Military Activities and the Environment was held in Okinawa, Japan. Next week, on Sept. 28, the Fremantle Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) will hold a protest action against the US Navy’s “Sea Swap Exercise” and against US military presence in Western Australia in general. I propose that this conference send its message of solidarity and support for this action.

There is an urgent need and a strong potential for reviving, rebuilding and further revitalizing an anti-bases network and campaign in the East Asia-Pacific region, and link it to an international network and campaign to oppose and shut down US overseas military bases.

A lot of study, research, education and propaganda must be done. In this connection we propose that this conference be a part of the current effort to set up an ILPS study commission on the concern for peace against imperialist wars of aggression and intervention and against nuclear and other weapons of genocide and mass destruction. This is without prejudice to contributing to other study commissions likewise related to the issue of US overseas military bases. The forthcoming activity Mumbai Resistance next January is one opportunity for holding these fora.

We propose further the immediate holding of sectoral and multi-sectoral, local and regional conferences, seminars and other fora for exchanges of information and experiences, for building linkages, networks and formations, and for planning and coordinating various actions.

The ILPS Philippines Chapter is prepared and willing to do its part in this important endeavor.

###

 

<< BACK

(Impact on Policy by Obama’s Presidency)

Prepared by Rey Claro Casambre for the Workshop on US Aggression and Military Intervention, Conference of Lawyers in the Asia-Pacific, September 18, 2010, SMX Convention Center, Manila, Philippines.

VIEW SLIDE PRESENTATION

Brief Historical Background

The 20th century is beyond doubt the bloodiest and most violent century that mankind has ever seen. Much of that blood is on the hands of US imperialism.

From the beginning and up to the present, it has been US monopoly capital that dictates its global imperial thrust and policy, including or especially that in the Asia-Pacific region. It is thus the incessant drive for profit by exporting capital, exploiting cheap labor, and plundering the resources of weaker countries it subjugates and dominates that dictates the US’ global policies from trade to diplomacy to war. Also from the beginning, up to the present, this very same imperial thrust to oppress and exploit other peoples, has been carried out under the glossy mantle of altruism and benevolence, in the name of democracy, world peace, universal freedom and prosperity. Thus, human rights violations, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been committed over and over again not just in the name of world peace but even in God’s name.

>>> US aggression and military intervention in Asia-Pacific began at the turn of the 20th century, along with the rise of modern imperialism.

Using the blowing up of the US battleship Maine at the Havana harbor in Cuba as a pretext, the US declared war on Spain in 1898 and sent its invasion and occupation forces across the Pacific to seize the Philippine Islands from Spain and turn it into its colony and strategic military outpost and springboard in Asia,

By the accounts of its own generals, 1/6 of the population of Luzon or 600,000 Filipinos have been killed or died of disease after three years of the Fiipino-American War. This figure would rise to up to a million or around 1/6 of the Filipino population by the end of the pacification campaigns in 1916. The Filipino-American war was a virtual laboratory for US imperialism’s counter-guerrilla and counter-insurgency tactics that it would use and develop further in many more interventions and aggression especially in third world countries.

The emergence of the US from the Second World War in 1945 as the preeminent, most prosperous and most powerful, if most unscathed imperialist power on the globe allowed and thereafter used its military superiority to engage in aggression and intervention to preserve its supremacy and expand and consolidate its global hegemony.

In Asia it ruled over the Philippines and controlled Japan and had the biggest and most powerful military bases in the region. It set up the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a military or security alliance to prevent socialism from spreading from Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea and North Vietnam and deter the growth and spread of national liberation movements in the region. The US intervened in Korea to install its own puppet government in the South and prevent unification of North and South by subverting elections which Kim Il Sung of the DPRK would have won handily. In 1954 the US was poised to take over South Vietnam from the French when the latter left after the defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the US’ strong military presence in the region with large military bases and stationed troops in Korea, Japan and the Philippines and complete naval supremacy in the whole Pacific and Pacific coasts except the Russian coast on the Pacific. This strong presence was justified by the US and accepted by most countries in the region as a necessary counterfoil to the expansionist designs of China and the USSR. The Cold War was a handy excuse to maintain forces and conduct a host of military activities in the region. Nonetheless, US aggression and intervention in Indochina resulted in their defeat and the victory of national liberation forces in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Wherever there were US military bases,

The US lost its excuse for maintaining a large military force in Asia-Pacific, as elsewhere in the world, with the collapse of the USSR and Eastern European regimes in the early 90s, and with China’s opening up to the world capitalist system with the ascension of Deng Hsiao Peng to power in the late 1970s.

US Presence, Geopolitical Interest and Objectives in Asia-Pacific

The US Pacific Command stands as a symbol and expression of US power and its geopolitical interest in the Asia Pacific. It is the biggest of the US armed forces’ regional or theater commands, with 325,000 troops or 1/5 of the US armed forces. The diagram below, taken from its website, sums it up:

– (covers) 36 nations encompassing about half of the earth’s surface (another US PACOM document counts 48 countries within its area of responsibility)

– home to more than 50% of the world’s population (the population of East Asia is 1/3 of the world population)

– world’s six largest armed forces (China, US, Russia, India, North Korea, South Korea)

– Source of about 1/3 of US trade (USD 1.3 trillion worth or ½ of world trade passes through the waters of Southeast Asia)

– World’s three largest economies (US, China, Japan)

– Five nations allied with the US through mutual defense treaties (Australia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Japan)

US PACOM has 325,000 troops, 1/5 of the total US armed forces. One hundred thousand (100,000) of these are based in Japan and Korea alone.

These troops, specially the US Special Forces are also some of the most engaged in actual war or committed to “hot spots” such as in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Long before 9-11, the think tank Rand Corporation, came up with a study stressing the need for a permanent US military base in the Philippines especially for its long-range bombers. (see illustration)
US Aggression and Militarism under the Bush-led “War on Terror”

• The 9/11 attacks on the US became a new and effective pretext for the US to once again employ its military superiority to the hilt to expand and consolidate global hegemony , seize and control strategic resources, prevent the rise of a peer rival and ensure its preeminent position as sole superpower. It employed the combination of deception and force, with coercion and force as the main and decisive instrument.

The Bush regime conjured all sorts of lies (eg WMDs in Iraq), stirred intense fear and terror in the population, and invoked the name of God to justify or get away with wanton human rights violations and violations of international law such as violations of national sovereignty, disregard for UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, The USA PATRIOT ACT, practice of rendition and detention in secret locations, targeted assassinations, degrading and inhumane treatment of detained suspected terrorists such as in Guantanamo and Abu Graib, etc are only some of the most notorious crimes of terror perpetrated by the US under the Bush regime in the name of “counter terrorism”.

Everyone knows now that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan in order to install a friendly regime that would allow UNOCAL to lay out oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean. Further, occupying and having US military bases in Afghanistan would tighten US control over the region flanking China to the west. The military plans for invasion and occupation were complete long before 9/11. The US special forces and other troops used in the invasion had been training for years in the nearby Central Asian republics to familiarize with the terrain.

In January 2002, a few months after the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush declared Southeast Asia as the “second front in the war against terror” and promptly increased its forward presence and activities in the Philippines. The pretext was to crush the Abu Sayyaf, a small bandit group of Islamic militants whose leaders had trained and fought with the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan under the US CIA. In the same month, then US Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Nepal, offered the King and Prime Minister of Nepal US military assistance in going after the Nepalese revolutionaries led by the CPN-M, declaring that, “You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this is really the kind of thing we are fighting all over the world.”

Numerous documents described the vision and design of the neoconservatives in preserving US supremacy through unilateralism and sheer military might backed by heavy spending for the military, at the same time feeding the military-industrial complex with fat contracts and government funding. But the neoconservatives’ design for global domination through the “war on terror” could not be fully implemented because of financial constraints arising from the global economic crisis, and political difficulties arising from prosecuting a basically unjust war.

US Aggression and Militarism in Asia-Pacific under Obama

The financial elite who decide and dictate US policy and global affairs – those in the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and/or the Council on Foreign Relations — saw in Obama an effective instrument for “changing the face” of US imperial designs, with Bush’s ‘war on terror” already discredited and having difficulties even in maintaining, much less leading, its alliances.

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned –and won the Presidency – largely on a promise of reversing the Bush policies in pursuing what he called a “dumb war”, as well as allowing the bankers to screw the economy. But President Obama early on conceded that the “war on terror” was necessary to protect the USA and preserve world peace, stability and progress. He had since reversed not Bush’ policies and thrusts in relation to the War on Terror, nor on the US and global economy. but his own word and most of his promises.

In Asia-Pacific, the Obama regime has escalated tension in Northeast Asia with its year-long joint military exercises with South Korea. Using the sinking of a South Korean boat allegedly by the North Korean navy, the US and South Korea have embarked on the biggest military exercises involving 20,000 US and 56,000 US troops, 200

China – and for that matter any thinking person — has every reason to believe that these military exercises are directed more against China than against North Korea, especially with the US’ insistence that they would hold naval exercises on the Yellow Sea, within striking distance of Beijing and other major Chinese cities. China has long been identified by US policymakers as the most likely peer competitor of the US within 10-20 years.

Obama has not rescinded the US’ assertion that never again will it allow a competitor to even come close to challenging its supremacy. Obama has not taken back the US’ assertion of its “right to preemptive strike”— including or especially a nuclear attack – against any threat to its supremacy, and that includes even its allies. In this connection, the Obama regime has stepped up the US anti-ballistic missile program

Neither has Obama made good his promise of closing down the Guantanamo prison and stopping the practice of extraordinary rendition – using Special Forces operatives to grab suspected terrorists wherever they are and secretly whisking them off to secret “terrorist” prisons for interrogation and detention. Worse, the practice of “targeted killings” – a euphemism for assassinations – has increased under the Obama regime, nearly always accompanied by civilian “collateral damage” and destruction of civilian properties and infrastructure.

One of the campaign promises Obama has kept, though, was to increase US military presence and activity in Southeast Asia. Just recently, one of its mightiest war machines, the USS George Washington Carrier Group, docked in Manila ostensibly for rest and recreation. In the US field manual on Stability Operations, this is properly called a “show of force”.

Doubtless, all of these are dictated not so much by what US official documents and even military manuals call “US national interest” but the interest of a small group of financiers – the same parasites who have created the global financial and economic crisis and then used the regimes they control to siphon off trillions of public funds into their pockets. The US government under Bush and Obama have made possible the unprecedented reconcentration of immense wealth into the hands of a few finance capitalists while causing widespread hardship and suffering of billions of people all over the world

Obama continues to use deceit to cover up the real intentions and action of the US. He claims to have kept his promise of ending the combat role of the US and withdrawing US troops from Iraq. But in fact more than 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, not counting mercenaries or “outsourced” troops under the US command. Obama proudly announces that the only mission of the remaining troops are (1) to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, (2) conduct counter-terrorist actions, and (3) protect US personnel and installations. What Obama does not say is that by current US military doctrine, all three missions (which belong to a wide range of military operations euphemistically called “stability operations”) inevitably involve combat operations.

The Obama regime has of late attempted to give a new and more benign face to its wars of aggression by ‘civilianizing” it and stressing the “primacy of non-military means”, even avoiding the use of the phrase “war against terrorism” and preferring to use “war of counter-insurgency” instead. But on the ground, the reality is that coercion and force, not deception, are the main instruments for suppressing resistance and protext, and for perpetuating the status quo.

Conclusion: Impact on Human Rights and Conflict

Peace and Human Rights have been two of the first casualties in the US-led “war on terror”. The sovereignty of nations have been flagrantly trampled upon. US troops are being given free reign to commit gross human rights violations with impunity. However, this is not without resistance.

(In the Philippines, leaders and activists of progressive organizations were systematically assassinated, arrested and tortured, involuntarily disappeared. Many more became victims of gross human rights violations committed with impunity by state security forces.
From the beginning, the intolerable hardships and suffering brought about on the people by the plunder of weaker economies and wars of aggression and intervention have pushed more and more people to protest and fight for their rights. Deception, pretexts, promises and excuses invariably work only at the start. The reality on the ground – the suffering and hardships, injustice, increasing poverty and death, etc. – inevitably reveal the truth. The more the people perceive the truth about the root causes of their misery and hardship. and find that strength is gained through collective action, the more that deception fails and force is increasingly resorted to by those who wish to retain the status quo.
Corollarily, the less the people perceive the truth about the roots of their hardship and miseries, about the role of state terrorism and imperialist aggression and intervention in suppressing their struggles in the name of “peace and security”, the less organized the people are in struggling for their rights, for justice and freedom, then the more that deception can succeed in perpetuating the ruling system that oppresses and exploits them.
The current global financial and economic crisis has wrought further hardships and misery on the peoples of the world. But it also allows more and more people worldwide to see and understand the roots of their suffering and pushes them to unite in common struggles to bring about genuine change.

This underscores the role which progressives – including you, progressive lawyers – can and must play. You can play a unique role in raising the awareness of your clients and strengthening their unity and resolve as you support their legal struggles. Laws, like wars, are basically intended to preserve and perpetuate the ruling system; and the harshness and anti-people bias of law is moderated only by the rights won through hard struggle by the people. Lawyers can serve the people well by defending, standing with and speaking for them in the courts of law. But no amount of arguments in the courts, even by the best and most courageous people’s lawyers, can liberate the people from the oppressive and exploitative system that those courts are designed to preserve. Peace and human rights cannot flourish where there is systemic oppression and exploitation by imperialism and its local reactionary partners. People’s lawyers need to combine their efforts inside the courtroom with the people’s struggles, as well as their own, outside.

Not being a lawyer, it is best that I leave the elaboration on this point, and acting upon it, to you.

By Prof. Jose Maria Sison
Chairperson, International League of Peoples’ Struggle
30 August 2013

We, the International Coordinating Committee of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS), call on the entire ILPS, its global region region committees, its national chapters and member-organizations to undertake all possible and necessary actions against the US plan to bomb Syria and engage in a brazen war of aggression against Syria and the Syrian people.

This call is consistent with the ILPS statement dated May 12, 2013 titled, “ILPS Reiterates Support for the Syrian People, Condemns Intervention by US, NATO, Israel et Al.” We pointed out in this statement, “Due to the ineffectiveness of its mercenaries, the US has practically announced the escalation of US-NATO and Israeli intervention on the false charge that Syria is using chemical weapons of mass destruction.”

Since May 5, evidence has emerged that the mercenaries themselves hired by the US imperialists have been culpable for the use of chemical weapons. The surviving victims have confirmed the fact. But the US and the so-called Free Syria Army have persisted in carrying out false flag operations with the use of chemical weapons in order to justify US-NATO bombing of Syria and the start of flagrant aggression by the imperialist powers.

The latest pronouncement of the US President Obama is that the US has “worked out the evidence” and is prepared to launch a military attack on Syria. By its pronouncements and actions, the US is hell-bent on waging a war of aggression on Syria in the interest of the US war manufacturers and the oil companies, despite the opposition of the people of the world.

The US and its imperialist allies are big liars in claiming that they are protecting civilians and conducting “humanitarian intervention” by launching the most brutal acts of military intervention and aggressive wars, killing far more people and destroying far more social infrastructure than their mercenaries can. The Syrian government has been winning the civil war. And the US is fabricating the reason for aggression in order to help its losing puppets. The US is thus blatantly violating the UN Charter and international law.

The US is a total hypocrite in making false claims against Syria on the use of chemical weapons. The US is the biggest user of chemical weapons in its wars of aggression. It uses napalm, white phosphorous and other bombs, depleted uranium tipped artillery shells and bombs and defoliants like Agent Orange. Until now, the US has not apologized to Vietnam and to humanity for the extensive and intensive use of Agent Orange, which continues to victimize the Vietnamese people.

The entire ILPS, its global region committees, national chapters and member-organizations must engage in united front against imperialism and coordinate with all other possible forces in order to maximize their strength and in order to arouse, organize and mobilize the people in their millions. The people in every country and in the whole world must unite and act against every military intervention and war of aggression that the US and its imperialist allies are planning and carrying out.

###

by Eric Brown
(re-posted from International Business Times)
September 5, 2013

Pope Francis has urged world leaders to reconsider a direct military intervention in Syria. In an open letter to Russian President Vladamir Putin, who is hosting the G20 summit, Pope Francis asked the Russian president and other world leaders to consider taking a nonmilitary solution to the Syrian civil war.

“To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution,” Pope Francis wrote in the letter. “Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community.”

The Pope urged against armed conflict in general, stating that the war would stall economic progress and possibly cause more violence in the future.

“Without peace, there can be no form of economic development. Violence never begets peace, the necessary condition for development,” the Pope continued. “It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding.”

Earlier in the week, Pope Francis also took a hard line against chemical weapons. “War brings on war! Violence brings on violence,” the Pope said with raised hands during an appearance in St. Peter’s Square. “With utmost firmness, I condemn the use of chemical weapons. I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart.”

During the same appearance, Pope Francis called for a worldwide day of prayer and fasting in response to the Syrian civil war. He has called on Catholics, other Christians, nonbelievers and anyone who is a “man of good faith” to take part in the fast and attend a prayer vigil in Vatican City on Sept. 7.

(A Statement of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum on the Plan of the United States of America to Attack the Regime of President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria)

Here comes again the self-appointed global policeman, ready to strike at innocent people!

US President Barrack Obama has announced that he is ready to punish the leadership of Syria for using chemical weapons against its own people. More than a thousand innocent civilians, women and children included, died in the attack. The perpetrators of this heinous crime against humanity should be made accountable!

What does Obama hope to accomplish by attacking Syria? Sensing that the international community and the American public themselves do not support him, he blinked, and decided to seek approval from the US Congress before taking action. He clarified that the objective of the attack is not regime change but simply to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, and “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” his regime’s ability to use chemical weapons again. Obama’s does not intend, he says, to enter into war with Syria, but launch a “limited cruise missile strike” in order to send its message.

Does President Obama treat President al-Assad as a little child? That al-Assad will simply accept the “punishment”?

On the contrary, al-Assad vows to defend his country, asserting that Syria has the capability to enter into a full-scale war against the West. And should the war happen, even the Syrian rebels may fight against the US because they don’t trust this country. Opposition activist Mohammad al-Tageb said that the US “has never been a friend but an enemy.”

For the US to strike at Syria would be another blunder like its attack on Iraq. It will be very costly not only in terms of money but more so in terms of lives. If Assad’s regime had killed 1,400 (counts of other groups are much less), the casualties of US action in Syria could reach tens of thousands. The contemplated solution would only result to bigger problems. More innocent lives, including women and children, will become victims as the missiles would not distinguish between armed targets and civilians.

It would be wiser for Obama to stay put so that the lives of American soldiers will be spared as well. The message he wants to send al-Assad had already reached the latter.

Obama, a former Muslim and a Christian, should listen to the prophet Isaiah who said: “He (God) shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4, NKJV).

He should stay off Syria.

Issued this 7th day of September, 2013.

BISHOP ELMER M. BOLOCON, UCCP
Executive Secretary
MOST REV. DEOGRACIAS S. IñIGUEZ, JR., D.D.
Co-chairperson

BISHOP FELIXBERTO L. CALANG, IFI
Co-chairperson