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

Workshop 4 : On the cause of just peace and struggles against wars of counterrevolution and aggression and against nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction.

Advance the peoples’ struggles against imperialist wars of counterrevolution and aggression!

Barely a decade into the 21st century, imperialism has clearly proven itself as the main source of war and the deadliest wielder of weapons of mass destruction. It remains the greatest threat to genuine peace, progress and the all-rounded development and well-being of the peoples of the world. As the crisis of the world capitalist system deepens, the rivalry among imperialist powers intensifies even as they collaborate to further exploit and oppress the world’s peoples for greater profit. — Workshop 4 Resolution, ILPS 3rd International Assembly

As the world enters the 2nd decade of the 21st century, the statement above has become more and more validated. To survive the prolonged depression and continue to amass superprofits, the monopoly capitalists have intensified the oppression and exploitation of the toiling peoples all over the world, even as they continue to compete among themselves for greater spheres of influence, markets and dumping grounds for their products and capital. More and more, the deep and protracted economic and financial crisis has spurred new political conflicts and further intensified old ones, and in some places, caused these to erupt into armed confrontations and open war.

The US is attempting to change its image and approach from that of Bush’s arrogant, warmongering bully to the “soft approach” of a well-mannered and responsible policeman. But its overall geopolitical goals and strategies remain the same – to expand and consolidate its hegemony, prevent the rise of a peer competitor and reserve the right to preemptive strike and regime change. The increasing limitations on its resources due to the economic crisis, political constraints arising from its flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of nations, as well as its own contradictions with its imperialist rivals have forced the US to set aside the unilateral policies and rhetoric characteristic of the Bush-led neoconservatives. It has adopted instead a multilateral approach and policy, rallying its fellow imperialist powers to join it in wars of aggression and in return partake in its spoils (albeit with the US having the lion’s share) and making full use of surrogate forces and resources of its client states all over the world.

The US and its NATO allies have sank deeper into a quagmire in Afghanistan, where the US shifted the focus of its “war on terror” from Iraq, and NATO forces were deployed for the first time outside Europe in 2003. The US continues to invoke its right to preemptive strike, violates Pakistani territorial and political sovereignty and completely disregards the safety of civilians when it conducts air strikes by unmanned armed vehicles against suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda lairs in Pakistan.

In Northeast Asia. US has deliberately provoked confrontation with North Korea and taunts China by conducting massive year-long military exercises with its surrogate South Korean armed forces, purportedly to defend the South Korean people from an attack by North Korea, but in truth as a show of force and provocation against China.

In South Asia, US-directed and advised Indian state forces launched Operation Greenhunt against the Indian revolutionaries and people in mostly adivasi or tribal areas to protect and support multinational mining operations. The US, along with India, is also directly intervening in Nepal, preventing the Nepali people from forming a truly independent and democratic government.

US troops are also operating in Latin America, where some of the countries, notably Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras and Argentina are ruled by governments avowedly striving to adhere to and implement socialist principles. Under the guise of counter-narcotic operations, the US has beefed up its forces and presence in Colombia and leads surrogate Colombian forces in encroaching into Venezuelan territory in a clear move to subvert, weaken and eventually overthrow the Venezuelan government and cripple the entire anti-imperialist movement in Latin-America.

The US continues to rely on Israel as its junior partner in the Middle East and unconditionally supports and defends it against worldwide outrage over its brutal attacks on the Palestinian people and transgressions into Palestinian territory.

In 2007, the US signaled its increased strategic interest in and intent to control the whole of Africa by establishing the US Africa Command. Not long after, the US-led and directed NATO opened up another war theater in North Africa, taking advantage of peoples protests and uprisings in North Africa spreading to Libya in order to carry out bombings and shelling of Libya, under the cover of a UN Security Council resolution purportedly for “humanitarian intervention”. Already overstretched and straining under financial and political constraints, the US has been reluctant to deploy ground troops in Libya. Underscoring these limitations is the refusal of the African nations to host the Africa Command, with the exception of Morocco and Liberia, so that the Africa Command continues to be based in Stuttgart, Germany.

The UN Resolution 1973 (2011) calling on Member States to intervene militarily in Libya under the pretext of “humanitarian intervention” is only the latest and most flagrant example of how the UN is being used by the US and other imperialist powers to sanction its blatantly aggressive acts. In Sept 2008, the United Nations Organization (UNO) and NATO signed an agreement to establish “a framework for consultation and dialogue and cooperation” and “further develop the cooperation between our organizations on issues of common interest, in, but not limited to, communication and information-sharing, including on issues pertaining to the protection of civilian populations; capacity-building, training and exercises; lessons learned, planning and support for contingencies; and operational coordination and support.” This agreement, which the UN tried to keep secret, has drawn criticism and condemnation for bringing the UNO, whose mandate is to preserve peace, into a framework of patently military cooperation with NATO. It in fact betrays the true nature of the UNO and NATO as machineries for imperialist aggression and plunder masquerading as instruments of peace, security and progress.

The New Strategic Concept launched in the NATO Lisbon Summit last November 2010 describes the “new environment” of missile defense, conventional sources, climate change, etc. and pushed for increasing and upgrading its deployable forces such as the NATO Response Force, ensuring the member countries’ contributions, increasing military actions and interventions in order to secure energy sources, communications and transport lines, protect their citizens, anticipate, deter and defeat enemy attacks, etc. The NATO Summit revealed the increasing difficulties of the US and other imperialists in pursuing their collective and individual interests. Their inter-imperialist contradictions in the face of continuing global economic depression and growing protests and resistance from peoples all over the world are continually coming to the fore.

The sharpest expression of these contradictions are currently found in the turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The US-NATO are attempting to take advantage of and control these eruptions to effect regime change whenever and wherever it is possible and to their advantage or interest.

Peoples’ protests and resistance have arisen and intensified against imperialist aggression and intervention all over the world. These in turn have provided the main political constraint to the designs of the US and other imperialists to dominate and exploit other peoples.
The peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to resist foreign occupation, inflicting the heaviest toll on the imperialist occupation forces and resources and preventing full control and pacification after more than a decade of direct aggression. The Palestinian people persevere in their just struggle to return to their homeland despite brutal attacks by the Zionist fascist forces.

Armed struggle against imperialist-backed reactionary and fascist regimes continue to be waged and gain ground in India, the Philippines, Peru, Turkey, Colombia and elsewhere. In countries where there are US military bases and activities , the people of the host countries protest and demand the dismantling of these bases, the halt to US military operations and withdrawal of all foreign troops.

Proposals for Plan of Action

1. Conduct global and regional coordinated actions on specific issues such as:
   • the US-NATO aggression and intervention in Libya and other North African and Middle Eastern countries
   • the US-NATO occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
   • Zionist attacks on the Palestinian people and continuing occupation of the Palestinian homeland
   • US intervention in Latin America, such as Plan Colombia and the US-Colombian military threats and incursions against Venezuela
   • US militarism and intervention in South Asia (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka)
   • US militarism in East Asia and Oceania, eg military exercises and other activities with allied and surrogate forces such as in Australia, Korea and the Philippines
2. Activate, expand and strengthen ILPS global and regional campaigns and formations against US overseas military bases; demand the dismantling of all foreign military bases worldwide and withdrawal of foreign troops.Expose and oppose imperialist-directed state terrorism, counterrevolutionary wars and intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign countries, and all foreign military aid to puppet, surrogate and fascist regimes.
3. Undertake a campaign for the disarming and destruction of all nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction.
4. Expose and oppose the development and production of new weapons and weapons systems such as space-launched weapons, tactical nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missiles.
5. Set up and operationalize Commission 4 with representatives from all global regions and with a secretariat to maintain communications and serve as a coordinating center.

Specific Resolutions

1. Resolution condemning the US-NATO aggression in Libya and intervention in North Africa and the Middle East
2. Resolution for an international campaign and formation against U.S. and All Foreign Military Bases
3. Resolution against the acts of provocation under the guise of US-South Korea military exercises
4. Resolution against imperialist instigation and backing of Operation Greenhunt
5. Resolution against US intervention and aggression in Latin America
6. Resolution condemning the US Anti-Ballistic Missile program and continuing threats to use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction
7. Resolution supporting the Palestinian struggle for their right to return to their homeland and against continuing fascist Zionist attacks against Palestinians and occupation of the Palestinian homeland
8. Resolution Condemning the US-Israeli and other Imperialists plans against Iran
9. Resolution for Withdrawal of US-NATO troops from Iraq and Afghanistan

###

 

<<  BACK

July 6, 2011

Dr. Dante C. Simbulan, Sr.*
*Retired Professor of Political Science and Government
Former Professor, Philippine Military Academy &
University of the Philippines, Ateneo University
Former Dean, College of Arts and Science, Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Political Prisoner of the Marcos Dictatorship

VIEW SLIDE PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION

From Pax Roman to Pax Americana

In its essence, Imperialism has not really changed through the ages. It has attempted to change its stripes but it has retained its substance. The old Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish, British, French, and the American Empires have much the same policies, goals, and objectives which are: the policy and practice of extending or expanding its power and dominion over other nations, either by direct conquest and territorial expansion or by more subtle methods and not so subtle methods in order to impose its authority and influence over the captive nations, or both.

This domination extends to all spheres of human activity – it seeks to impose its will on the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the victim nation. Old imperialism does this mainly through the use of force, coercion, and intimidation. Its modern-day practitioners, however, use a combination of methods.

MODERN-DAY IMPERIALISM

The modern-day imperialists have learned from the bad experiences of old imperialism and have modified and improved their methods. Their methods are largely influenced by the main engine which drives imperialist expansion: Global Capitalism.

Driven by greed for more and more profits, it seeks:

A. The control of territories that are sources of cheap raw materials to feed their hungry factories: oil and gas, iron ore for making steel products, copper, silver, tin, nickel, manganese, etc.;

B. The control of sources of cheap labor mainly from third world countries– former colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America—as main targets.

C. The control of areas in the world where excess capital can be profitably invested, generating vast wealth and super profits which they bring home to their home countries, while leaving the masses of peoples in the countries they exploit, poor and hungry and their land devastated and robbed of its wealth and resources;

D. The control of profitable markets for their manufactured goods, for business and for trade, usually the densely populated countries of the world with the targeted buying power.

This capitalist engine propels the imperialist country to expand and extend its tentacles all over the globe. Its working slogans are: Free Trade, Globalization, Privatization, Liberalization, Deregulation, etc. It promises “development,” “growth,” and “prosperity.” In practice, however, only the wealthy few they chose to be their junior partners or business agents (compradors) have developed, have grown, and have prospered. In practice, the sharks have taken over and have devoured the weak. The big has eliminated the small. The rich have become richer while the hundreds and hundreds of millions of the world’s poor have become poorer!

Modern-day imperialism uses more subtle and crafty ways to attain its goals. It operates insidiously, always waiting for the opportunity to entrap its victims. It employs deceptive ways of gaining its foreign policy objectives, whether these be economic, political, social, cultural, and military.

The art of deception has been perfected by the practitioners of imperialism. They liberally use euphemisms, that is, the substitution of agreeable inoffensive language for one that more accurately describes reality but which suggests something unpleasant. They use the word “aid,” instead of the more appropriate word “bribe” that better describes the intent of their acts. (I discussed this more fully in “The Art of Keeping Power” in “The Modern Principalia: The Historical Evolution of the Philippine Ruling Oligarchy,” by Dante C. Simbulan, Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press, 2007, Chapter 5).

Imperialist forays and military interventions in many parts of the world—in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, the Philippines, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Somalia and, most recently, in Libya, were explained and “justified” as “peace operations,” operations to save democracy and preserve freedom, or otherwise made for “humanitarian” reasons or concern for human rights.

Modern-day imperialism, therefore, uses many guises, hides behind many masks. It would camouflage or hide its real foreign policy goals and objectives by emphasizing instead its “intention” of spreading democracy, freedom, and human rights throughout the world. The aim is to cloak or to hide its real economic and power goals.

The attainment of these objectives, of course, are extremely detrimental and harmful to the peoples of the captive nations, but they could be very enticing to the native ruling elites who see the prospect of getting more wealthy, thereby increasing their power and dominance over the masses of the people they rule if they join the imperialist bandwagon.

The use of compliant native rulers – the mercenary elites, corrupt oligarchs, military dictators, and just plain undisguised puppets – is another common technique of the imperialist. Their names have changed through time – from the pejorative servants and vassals to rulers of protectorates and client states, to the more appealing “friends and allies,” and “partners in defending democracy and freedom” in the world.

The Strategy and Tactics of US Imperialism under Obama

In May 2010, President Barack Obama outlined a “National Security Strategy” in a White House Proclamation. In this proclamation, he outlined “a strategy for the world we seek” and explicitly stated: “Our national strategy is…. focused on renewing American leadership so that we can more effectively advance our interests in the 21st century. We will do so by building upon the sources of our strength at home while shaping an international order that can meet the challenge of our time.”

His emphasis is on “our multinational engagement with close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East – ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and prosperity of the world.”

A lot of these, of course, are clever rhetorical formulations of a wily American president. For the fact remains that US interests are really the interests of the ruling capitalist elites of Wall Street which are closely bound not to the peoples of the world but to the interests of the ruling elites and corrupt oligarchies elsewhere in the world.

Obama also talks of sharing the costs of protecting the world (read: the capitalist global empire) that is, of involvement of regimes which are willing collaborators and accomplices of US imperialism. By assuring the ruling elites of these countries of US protection and “assistance,” the US hopes to entice them to be part of an “alliance” (the so-called “coalition of the willing” in Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples) in defending the empire.

On February 2010, the US Department of Defense issued a Quadrennial Defense Report that outlines the goals and implementation of Obama’s “Top National Priorities”. These are:

A. Prevail in today’s wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, etc.)

B. Prevent and deter conflict by a show of military strength (land, air, and naval forces around the world).

C. Prepare to militarily defend “US national interests”

D. Build the security capacity of partner states (particularly in their counter-insurgency wars)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates states: “Our deterrent remains grounded on land, air, and naval forces (around the world) capable of fighting limited and large-scale conflicts in environments where anti-access weaponry and tactics are used, as well as forces prepared to respond to the full range of challenges posed by state and non-state groups.”

PROTECTING AND DEFENDING THE US EMPIRE

Primary Role of Overseas US Military Bases

At the end of the World War II, the US and its erstwhile “ally” against Hitler, the USSR, parted ways and the “Cold War” between the two superpowers began. The arms race and space race started and the establishment of numerous military bases also followed. In all these activities, both countries invested huge resources.

By the end of the Cold War, the US became the lone superpower with the USSR disintegrating to many nation-states. By this time, the US had built on estimated 800 to 1,000 military bases and had stationed hundreds of thousands of US troops around the world.

Determined to maintain its superpower status and to protect the vast economic empire it had built, the US proceeded to divide the world into Ten US Global Commands. All the US military bases in the world were placed under these Military Commands.

After 9/11, the “Global War on Terror”, Pres. George W. Bush, fuming with anger and outrage at the killing of 3,000 people in the Twin Towers by Al Qaeda operatives unleashed the full might of US military power against Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and his Pentagon minions invented reasons to justify a massive assault on Iraq, falsely claiming that Iraq was a threat to US national security because of its weapons of mass destructions (WMD). Without UN sanction and in violation of international law, the US unilaterally assembled a so-called “coalition of the willing,” bombed and shelled with long-range missiles Baghdad and other cities of Iraq, inflicting thousands of civilian casualties. The invasion of Iraq followed and after defeating a much-inferior and poorly equipped Iraqi army, the US succeeded in its purpose of having a “regime change”. The anti-American Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and many members of his cabinet were tried, found guilty and hanged by the American-installed Iraqi government.

This invasion of a sovereign and independent country; the destruction of its buildings, road, bridges and infrastructures; and the tortures and killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of whom were civilians were all war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law which the imperialist countries are fond of invoking. But the imperial US and its co-conspirators and accomplices who committed all these crimes were not indicated but instead, it was their victims – President Saddam Hussein and members of his cabinet were the ones indicted as war criminals. This is Imperialist Justice. Meanwhile, the BIG OIL companies of the US and its Western accomplices are now in control of Iraqi oil.

The US Global Military Commands

The table below shows the different US Global Military Commands, their areas of responsibility, the year of their establishment, and the location of their headquarters.

In addition to the above US military global commands, the CIA and the FBI have also been tasked to expand their areas of responsibility. They operate openly or covertly anywhere around the world, often without the knowledge or permission of the country where they operate. The CIA had been operating around the world clandestinely a long time ago. It has its African Division, Far East Division, a Near East Division, a Western Hemisphere Division, A Central American Task Force, Operations Groups in Iraq, Nicaragua, South Asia, etc. (see Secret Wars of the CIA by John Prados, Chicago, 2006).

Even the FBI, which is a domestic investigating agency of the US Justice Department, normally operating in the United States, has now embarked on many overseas operations. It arrests suspected “terrorists” in the territories of supposedly sovereign and independent countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Central and South America and other countries in Africa and in the Middle East. Indeed, both the FBI and the CIA are acting like self-appointed (although illegal) international policemen, exercising police powers in many parts of the world in violation of the independence and sovereign rights of countries, violating principles of international law and the UN Charter, which the US says it subscribes to.

One interesting thing to note is the sheer arrogance of US imperialism in placing the whole world under its US UNIFIED GLOBAL COMMANDS. Even big and powerful countries which are potential adversaries (like Russia and China) were placed under the area of responsibility of these US Military Global Commands. Russia was placed under the responsibility of the US European Command (US EUCOM) and China and India were placed under the US Pacific Command. No other country has done this before, dividing the whole world into actual US Military Commands, each under a four-star general or admiral with the specific mission to protect, defend and enhance US national interests in their respective areas of responsibility. The accusation that the US has appointed itself the “international policeman of the world” is a valid one for it assumes that it can act preemptively and arbitrarily, in violation of international law, in removing or combating what it perceives as “threats to its national security,” particularly in pursuing its so-called “global war on terror.” The only problem is its definitions of “terror” and “terrorist” organizations are rather vague and flexible. It does not apply to the US and its allies and their war crimes and crimes against humanity in their numerous military interventions throughout the world that actually terrorize hundreds of millions of people as acts of terror!

THE DOD BASE STRUCTURE REPORT (September 2008)

This US Defense Department Report outlines the US military installations built around the world.

A second DOD Report released on December 31, 2010 shows the distribution of active duty US military personnel by regions and by country numbering 1,429,367 worldwide: 1,137,716 (in the US and its territories) and 458,500 in foreign countries. This Report also indicate that 101,468 of these are “afloat,” meaning that they are deployed in US Naval Warships operating around the world.

A New Development: A few of the large bases has been reduced but an increasing number of ”Access Arrangements” and other forms of Military Cooperation Agreements have been signed as shown in the map. (countries with Access Arrangements, and Cooperative Security Location.)

THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC STRAITS (CHOKEPOINTS)

In order to protect and defend US strategic interests and hegemony throughout the world, the US and its allies have established control over strategic straits (chokepoints) around the world.

These chokepoints control the economic lifeblood of the world — the shipping lanes where the commerce and trade of the world and the naval warships that protect such interests and commerce of the major powers pass.

The deployment of overseas US military bases globally is intended, among others, to provide protection and defense of these vital and strategic straits.

The history of how these strategic straits came under the control of the imperial powers is closely linked to the wars and conflict due to the global expansion of the empire-building western powers.

THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR

The narrow channel of Gibraltar connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Atlantic Ocean and the countries of Europe. It is also a very important shipping route to the trading countries of Southern Europe and Northern Africa. Through the Suez Canal, these countries are able to trade with Western Asia and beyond. In the past, wars have been fought to control the Strait of Gibraltar.

THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Much of the world’s oil coming from the oil-rich region of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran) pass through the narrow Strait of Ormuz. Iran has a strategic interest in Ormuz because some of the small islands along the strait belong to her. In a future war over oil, Ormuz will certainly be a vital area of contention. The U.S. has permanently stationed naval forces in the area.

SUEZ CANAL

The Suez links the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, thence to the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa. The Suez Canal shortens the shipping lanes from Europe to India and the rest of Asia by over 5,000 miles.

From 1875, the British Empire controlled the Canal. In 1922, the British granted a fake independence to Egypt which continued to be ruled by corrupt monarchs who were British proxies. The British retain effective control of Egypt, particularly the Suez Canal where they maintained military and naval bases and garrisons. It was only when Col. Abdel Nasser, an Arab nationalist leader who overthrew the British puppet, Egyptian King Farouk, when the British were forced to give up control of the Canal in 1956. When Nasser nationalized the canal, the US proxy in the Middle East, Israel, invaded Egypt while the British and the French sent their armed forces to retake the Canal. Suez was reopened in l957. The Suez Canal was closed again during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. It was not reopened until 1975.

STRAIT OF MALACCA

The Strait connects the Indian Ocean (and beyond) with the South China Sea and the Pacific. Bordering Sumatra (Indonesia), Thailand and the Malay Coast, it is the shortest trade route between India and China. The Strait of Malacca is one of the most heavily travelled channels in the world. In the past, it came successively under the control of the Arabs, the Portuguese, the Dutch (who colonized Indonesia) and the British (who colonized Malaya and Singapore). Today giant oil tankers from the Middle East transport oil to China, Korea, Japan and other countries of South East Asia and East Asia. Shipping pass through the Spratleys whose ownership is now the bone of contention between the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and China. The US is (again) trying to insert itself into the conflict.

PANAMA CANAL

The Panama Canal links the East Coast of the US, the Atlantic and the Caribbean

to the Pacific and Asia. Panama used to be part of Colombia. When the US saw the great potential of linking the Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean and Asia through a canal, it encouraged and aided a local rebellion against Colombia. The rebels, with US support won the Panama section, and declared independence from Colombia in 1903. The US immediately recognized the new country of Panama and took control of the Canal Zone. Under a treaty, the Canal reverted back to Panama but the Canal is still virtually under US protection and control.

HORN OF AFRICA

Traditionally, the “Horn of Africa” refers to the region consisting of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia. After 9-11, the US took interest in the region by virtue of its strategic location. Yemen, the country where Osama bin Laden was born and where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is based became a country of interest to the US. So is Somalia where a strong anti-US Islamic movement was in .power.

The US wanted a base in the Horn of Africa from which it could launch wars of intervention in the region. Through dollar diplomacy and the promise of continuing aid, the US persuaded the Djibouti government to lease around 57 acres in Djibouti. In 2006, an access agreement was made and the lease of land was increased to 500 acres. The lease agreement was for 5 years but it can be renewed.

The US Africa Command can now launch COIN operations in the rest of Africa with the Djibouti base at Camp Lemonnier as the logistics and launching area.

In 2006, the US Africa Command was able to persuade the Ethiopian government to invade Somalia. The US provided money, weapons and munitions, military advisers to the invading Ethiopia army. The Somalian government was toppled and the President was replaced by one more acceptable to the US.

CONCLUSION

In protecting and defending the global interests of the US, Barack Obama and his strategic
planners in the Pentagon and the State Department have shifted from the unilateral and arrogant “cowboy” approach of Pres. GW BUSH to a multilateral policy in which it tries to involve fellow imperialist powers before launching its defense of the Empire and its wars of aggression.

The US is now experimenting with a new form of warfare involving the collaboration of (1) Special Forces and (2) the CIA’s paramilitary units of its “Special Activities Division’ and (3) other units of the US Armed Forces. The Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command (part of SOCOM) runs the show. This new form of warfare is now being tested in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in training sites in Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Home 0f Special Forces ) and in Fort Benning, Georgia ( Home of the Rangers).

The assassination of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan is a result of such new method of the US Special Operations Command. It was an operation participated in by the CIA (use of Pakistani “assets,” intel-gathering Drones, the US Navy warship and the aircraft carrier-based SEALs who executed the final assault. It was an operation which took months (maybe years) in the making.

This new form of warfare is complemented by the COIN shift from a purely conventional approach (the use of conventional forces) to the application of “Soft Power” (e.g. psychological and asymmetrical warfare). Initiated by Sec. Donald Rumsfeld and tried in several countries of Africa it has been expanded by Sec. Robert Gates and it is now being used in many countries faced with “insurgency” problems (read: revolutionary movements) . (See 2009 US Counter Insurgency Guide; In the Philippines we now have OPLAN ”Bayanihan” being implemented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines)

Except for the major Headquarters located in continental US and abroad, the US is experimenting more and more on the use of ACCESS agreements (SOFA, MLSA, VFA, etc.), stationing smaller, housekeeping forces and highly trained Special Operations Forces to wage “asymmetrical” or “irregular warfare” against any non-state forces that are hostile to the interests of US Imperialism and its local ruling partners. Targeted enemies include revolutionary forces fighting for national and social liberation, which are first demonized and tagged as “terrorist” organizations to justify their “legitimate” inclusion against the US global war on terror.

In the “US Global War on Terror,” US military forces are authorized by their superiors (civilian and military) to violate international law, the territorial integrity of independent and sovereign states (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines); conduct preemptive strikes, decapitate (assassinate) a country’s political leadership, effect regime change, torture or kill civilian suspects, etc. (Examples abound: Haiti, Honduras, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan; there are ongoing attempts in Libya and Syria by US and NATO (and most probably Israel’s notorious MOSSAD). Obviously these are all indictable war crimes but the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council, strongly influenced and manipulated by the US and NATO, are turning a blind eye, pretending not to notice these gross violations of international law and crimes against humanity, or are just looking the other way!!

Barack Obama differs from George W. Bush only on the emphasis in the use of “soft power” rather than the use of brute military force. But Obama’s way, while more subtle and deceptive, also aims to protect the so-called “strategic interests” of US Imperialism.

The peoples of the world must unite as one and resist these criminal violations of international law and the territorial integrity of sovereign and independent states by US Imperialism.

There is an urgent need for the world’s peoples to unite in solidarity and wage a global struggle to eliminate all US military bases in the world; unite and struggle against all forms of intervention by US IMPERIALISM and its collaborators! Let us all join hands and struggle for Peace with Justice throughout the world!

REFERENCES

DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES

Strategic Sea Trade Routes

Noer, John H. & Gregory, David. Chokepoints: Maritime Economic Concerns in Southeast Asia. (1996). Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA319445

Panama Canal. (2011). In Answers.com. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.answers.com/topic/canal-zone

Strait of Gibraltar. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/233262/Strait-of-Gibraltar

Strait of Hormuz. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/271900/Strait-of-Hormuz

Strait of Malacca. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/359411/Strait-of-Malacca

Suez Canal. (2011). In Answers.com. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.answers.com/topic/suez-canal

US Unified Command Plan

About United States Africa Command. (2011). U.S. Africa Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.africom.mil/AfricomFAQs.asp

Area of Responsibility. (2011). United States Southern Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/pages/aoi.php

Command History Overview. (2011). United States Southern Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/factFiles.php?id=76

Countries in USPACOM Area of Responsibility (AOR). United States Pacific Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.pacom.mil/web/site_pages/uspacom/regional%20map.shtm

United States European Command: A Brief History. (n.d.). United States European Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.eucom.mil/english/history.asp

U.S. Central Command History. (n.d.). United States Central Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.centcom.mil/en/about-centcom/our-history/

U.S. Northern Command History. (n.d.) United States Northern Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/history.html

USPACOM History. (n.d.) United States Pacific Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.pacom.mil/web/site_pages/uspacom/history.shtml

USTRANSCOM History. (n.d.) United States Transportation Command. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from www.transcom.mil/about/summary.cfm

Deployment of US Special Operations Forces Abroad

Davies, Lynn & Shapiro, Jeremy (eds.). (2003). The U.S. Army and the New National Security Strategy. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2010/MR1657.pdf

Department of Defense. (2010). Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country (309A), December 31, 2010. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2010/hst1003.pdf

Department of Defense. (2009). Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2009Baseline. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2009baseline.pdf

Department of Defense, United States of America. (2010). Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.PDF

Eland, Ivan and Rudy, John. (2002). Special Operations Military Training Abroad and Its Dangers. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-5/2-5-reader-cato.html

Feickert, Andrew & Livinsgton, Thomas. (2011). U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS21048.pdf

Gates, Robert. (2009). A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63717/robert-m-gates/a-balanced-strategy

Klare, Michael & Kornbluh Peter. (1988). The New Interventionism: Low Intensity Warfare in the 1980s and Beyond. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/Low_Intensity_Warfare.html

Priest, Dana. (1998). U.S. Military Trains Foreign Troops. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/overseas/overseas1a.htm

Taillon, J. Paul. (2007). Coalition Special Operation Forces: Building Partner Capacity. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo8/no3/doc/taillon-eng.pdf

Zeigler, Jack Jr. (2003). The Army Special Operations Forces Role in Force Projection. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/zeigler.pdf

Types of US Bases Abroad

Dufour, Jules. (2011). The Worldwide Network of US Militaty Bases: The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

Simbulan, Roland. (2010). The Pentagon’s Secret War and the Facilities in the Philippines. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2011/2011-02Feb06-FilAmWar/doc2/CPER_SIMBULAN.pdf

US Counterinsurgency Strategy Worldwide

Asian Defense News. (2010). Philippines to Adopt US Strategy in Counter-insurgency Starting January 1. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/philippines-to-adopt-us-strategy-in-counter-insurgency-starting/

Headquarters, US Department of the Army. (2008). Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://file.wikileaks.info/leak/us-fm3-05-130.pdf

Headquarters, US Department of the Army. (1994). Foreign Internal Defense, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Special Forces. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/US_Special_Forces_Foreign_Internal_Defense_Tactics_Techniques_and_Procedures_for Special_Forces,_FM_31.20-3,_2003

Headquarters, US Department of the Army. (2003). Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://file.wikileaks.info/leak/us-fm3-05-130.pdf

Headquarters, US Department of the Army (Gen. David Petraeus?). (2009). The US Counterinsurgency Field Manual(FM3-24.2). Retrieved June 27, 2011 from http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-24-2.pdf

Metz, Steven. (2007). Learning from Iraq. Counterinsurgency in American Strategy. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub752.pdf

Oliveros, Benjie. (2006). Political Killings, Part of U.S.-Phil. Counterinsurgency Strategies. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-46/6-46-us3.htm

US Department of Defense. (2009). The 2009 US Counterinsurgency Guide. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf

Office of the President, The White House, Washington, D.C. (2010). The United States National Security Strategy

(May 2010). Retrieved June15, 2011 from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

 

<<Back