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

 

<<BACK    NEXT>>

Wim De Ceukelaire
Intal – Belgium
Prepared for the International Panel Discussion on Overseas US Military Bases, Quezon City, Philippines, 6 July 2011

Officially, the US military operates 909 facilities in 46 countries and territories worldwide. In fact, it has a military presence in over 130 countries, ranging from vast installations to smaller spy bases or joint training camps, stores for nuclear missiles, “rest and recreation” facilities and refueling stations. In addition, the US has port-of-call rights, landing rights for military and intelligence planes, refuel rights and flyover rights, often formalized in a Status of Forces Agreement.

After the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the US started a massive “base restructuring” program. The program intended to reduce the number of US troops based in Europe and East Asia, while at the same time expanding its global military reach by opening strategic, often small, bases in previously US-army free areas.

Objectives

The inability to sustain military ground invasions in Somalia in the 1990s and in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade has shed doubt among US military elites over the original aim to reduce the presence of its ground troops overseas. In addition, the US seems to be planning about a dozen “enduring” bases supporting thousands of its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, actually expanding its overseas military infrastructure as well as putting debates about US “withdrawal” into perspective.

Next to nuclear weapons dominance, there is no more universally recognized symbol of the US superpower status than its overseas basing system. Pentagon documents indicate that overseas US military bases are seen as military assets for power projection in the region in which they are located. The United States has been extremely reluctant to relinquish any base once acquired. Bases obtained in one war are seen as forward deployment positions for some future war, often involving an entirely new enemy. US bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia were crucial to the prolonged bombing campaigns against Iraq in the 1990s, not to mention the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the US-backed invasion of Lebanon by Israel. The current build-up of military means in Iraq, Afghanistan, central Asia, Pakistan and the Gulf states could allow the US to suppress or even invade Iran in the future.

The projection of US military power into new regions through the establishment of US military bases should not be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of US imperialism. For example, US corporations and the US government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of US bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality. The principal exponent of this policy has been the Unocal corporation (now part of Chevron Corporation).

Recent developments in North Africa and the Middle East have brought to light a loss of influence of US imperialism, with the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries rising up against reactionary regimes and aspiring for sovereignty, democracy and social progress. US imperialism, at first taken by surprise, rapidly adjusted to the new situation and took advantage of the turmoil in Libya to re-enter the stage in force, with a full-fledged military intervention.

MIDDLE EAST

In the Middle East, there is a number of US military bases that have been left behind by each of the interventions since 1990. The Gulf War, the Balkan wars in the former Yugoslavia, the Afghan war and now the Iraq war have left behind these sprawling installations in places where the US didn’t have permanent bases before. And if you look at it collectively, this US sphere of influence sits strategically right in between the EU and China, its two main economic competitors.

US military bases expert Zoltan Grossman observes: “You could say bases were used te be constructed to wage wars. Now you can almost say: wars are being waged in order to station bases. Pentagon documents consider what is left behind after the war as more important than the war itself.” In fact, Syria and Iran are about the only countries left in the region without any US military presence.

Not surprisingly, Iraq contains dozens of US bases. One of the largest of these is Camp Anaconda, near Balad Airbase, 64 km north of Baghdad. It houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12-square-mile “security perimeter.” These mammoth base areas are a world apart from Iraq itself, with working lights, proper sanitation, clean streets and strictly observed rules and codes of conduct. Some bases have populations of more than 20,000, with thousands of contractors and third-country citizens to keep them running.

While US combat forces may start withdrawing by the end of 2011, an expected 50,000 troops will remain on several permanent US military bases in Iraq and in the massive fortress in the Green Zone of Baghdad that is the “US Embassy” – as large as the Vatican.

It is easy to understand why the recent uprising in Bahrain became such a headache for US imperialism if you know the tiny Kingdom’s importance in the US military’s structure of overseas bases. Naval Support Activity Bahrain (or NSA Bahrain) is home to US Naval Forces Central Command and United States Fifth Fleet. It is the primary base in the region for the naval and marine activities for the US wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 1996, lacking an air force of its own, Qatar built Al Udeid Air Base at a cost of more than $1 billion with the goal of attracting the US military. Al Udeid Air Base has served as a major command and logistics hub for US regional operations including its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is home to a forward headquarters of the United States Central Command, in charge of military operations in the Middle East and parts of Asia.

Other Middle East countries

There are also US bases and troops in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. It is no coincidence that Saudi troops – trained and armed by the US and its NATO allies – invaded Bahrain to quell the popular protest during the so-called Arab Spring, nor that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were the only Arab countries to participate in the US-led war of aggression against Libya.

It is often forgotten – or deliberately omitted – but US imperialism is also militarily present in the territory of its Middle East satellite Israel. The Dimona Radar Facility is a US-operated radar base in the Negev, staffed by 120 US military personnel, while the Port of Haifa maintains facilities for the US Sixth Fleet.

Turkey

Incirlik Air Base on the outskirts of Adana, Turkey, is the largest US military facility in a strategically vital NATO ally. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the Incirlik Air Base for US power projection in the Middle East. The entire Iraq policy of the United States hinged on Incirlik.

Resistance to foreign military presence is almost as widespread as the bases themselves. The perception of US military bases as intrusions on national sovereignty is widespread in “host” countries. Even in Iraq, for example, protest organizations are launching sit-ins in front of military bases. Among the protesters is also Muntazer al-Zaidi, the famed Bush shoe-thrower, who helps lead an organization, called the Popular Movement to Save Iraq.

Since the start of the war of aggression on Iraq in 2003, over four thousand US military died in combat, but the total figure of US deaths related to the Gulf War may run into the tens of thousands. Attacks by Iraqi resistance fighters on US troops and bases continue to take place on a weekly basis, all over the country. The Arab Spring didn’t pass unnoticed in Iraq: on several occasions, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets to demand an end to the occupation, sovereignty and democracy.

AFRICA

Until the 1990s, direct US military interventions in Africa were relatively marginal. While the US was engaged in the Korean or Vietnam war or in other military projects in Asia and Latin America, they preferred to exert their influence through political pressure and networks. Whenever they needed military power, they relied on local proxies or European allies. The US has become more involved since the importance of Africa for the US has increased.

It is only very recently, in October 2008, that a new US military command structure was established especially for Africa, the AFRICOM. The AFRICOM’s creation is indicative of the increasing competition with the European allies and signals the greater interest of US imperialism to militarily control events in the resource-rich African continent. Already in 2002, a US government think tank, the National Intelligence Council, estimated that by 2015, West African oil exports to the US would constitute about 25% of total US oil import requirements.

One reason why Africa has become an important continent for the US is the growing presence there of its competitors India and China. What makes US and European imperialists nervous is that Africa now has alternatives to Western impositions. It has become increasingly important to show some muscle in order to maintain dominance in the continent.

During a conference on ‘The Evolution of African Militaries,’ in February 2009, co-hosted by US Africa Command and the US Department of State, Professor David H. Shinn, adjunct professor for George Washington University, observed: “China is projected to pass the United States by 2010 as Africa’s largest trading partner. It has diplomatic relations with forty-nine of Africa’s fifty-three countries (four countries still recognize Taiwan) and has an embassy in all forty-nine countries except Somalia. That equals the number of US embassies in Africa, and China has more independent consulates than the United States. India is expanding rapidly in Africa and plans in five years to reach China’s current level of trade with the continent, which exceeds $100 billion. Brazil has made a major push into the continent in recent years, especially with lusophone countries. Several Gulf States, Iran and Turkey are also expanding their ties with Africa. The playing field is much more crowded than it was just ten years ago. This gives the Africans more options, but it also complicates the nature of Africa’s interaction with outside interests.”

“A prosperous and stable Africa is strategically important to the United States,” AFRICOM commander General Carter F. Ham told the US Senate Armed Services Committee last April 7. “An Africa that can generate and sustain broad based economic development will contribute to global growth, which is a long-standing American interest. However, poverty in many parts of Africa contributes to an insidious cycle of instability, conflict, environmental degradation, and disease that erodes confidence in national institutions and governing capacity. This in turn often creates the conditions for the emergence of a wide range of transnational security threats that can threaten the American homeland and our regional interests.”

It shows the objectives of AFRICOM are twofold: On the one hand it wants to maintain and consolidate its control on key African regimes that support its economic interests. On the other hand it acknowledges the threat of people’s protest to these interests. Ham further observed ‘ in his testimony before the Senate Committee that “forty-three percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s population is below the age of 15. (…) this potential pool of undereducated and unemployed youth could present a possible source of instability and potential recruiting pool for violent extremist organizations or narcotics traffickers.”

AFRICOM is carrying out a whole series of activities designed to strengthen the ability of key African allies to stay in power, through arm sales and providing military training programs for African military forces. There are also various other security assistance programs to strengthen the military capability of, first of all, regimes that control countries which are primary sources of oil and other natural resources like Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Chad, Equatorial Guinea and other oil producing countries. There are also some countries that have been able to count on US military assistance in so far as they have been willing and able to serve as proxies for the US on the global war on terror, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia.

In addition to the assistance already mentioned, there has been a dramatic build-up of US naval forces off the coast of Africa, particularly off the oil-rich coast of Guinea and also off the coast of Somalia.

According to Daniel Volman from the African Security Research Project, the US actually knows that this is a strategy which is likely to fail over time. This kind of regimes are not stable and will not stay in power indefinitely, as they tend to collapse with the growing movement of democratization in Africa. The day may come when the US may have to use its own forces to intervene directly in Africa.

This evolution is not unlike what we have seen in the Middle East under the US Central Command, which was established in essentially the same way in 1979. It started out as a small headquarters based in Florida, without any control over or command of troops, but it is currently running two major wars in the Middle East and has major military bases in the region at its disposal.

So far, the US has established, essentially as part of the Central Command, only one base on the African continent in Djibouti, with approximately 2300 troops. Camp Lemonnier originally focused on US involvement in the Middle East but is becoming increasingly focused on the Horn of Africa and East Africa. It’s the base from which the US launches military strikes into Somalia, for example.

In addition the US has concluded what are known as ‘access agreements’. It is understood that it is not desirable for the US to build a lot of expensive and highly visible military bases around Africa. Rather, what they need is access to as many local military facilities as possible. The US has therefore concluded base access agreements with governments across the continent.

Because of these flexible arrangements, the US has the capability to set up very large military bases literally in a few days’ time. That is essentially what happens when a US president visits an African country. They establish a temporary military base for the duration of the trip and bring in thousands of marines, and stockpiles of military equipment and other supplies, including sophisticated communication equipment systems. In addition to that they have started contingency planning and other preparations for direct military interventions in Africa.

Until its closure by Qaddafi in 1970, the US maintained an air force base in Libya, Wheelus Air Base. It is not far-fetched to think that the US or NATO may be interested in re-establishing a military base in an occupied or otherwise controlled Libya, right in between Tunisia and Egypt, and overseeing the entire African continent.

Washington has one major problem: there is a growing resistance and hostility on the African continent against the US as a whole, and against the US military in particular. Of all African nations, only Liberia has publicly expressed willingness to host AFRICOM’s headquarters. The US has been forced to keep the Africa Command headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany for the “foreseeable future”.

The Africans are well aware of the US role in wars fought by proxies. It would have been impossible, for example, for a small country like Rwanda to invade the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1998 to 2003 without any outside help. Also the ongoing war on Libya is creating more opposition throughout the continent. The African Unity has opposed the aggression from the very beginning, and several high-profile African leaders have tried to broker peace in order to avert and, later, stop the war. Neighboring countries like Niger and Mali are already bearing the brunt of the war because its migrants that used to work in Libya are now unemployed. The more the US gets involved in the war, the more it will be met with resistance from governments and the people across the African continent.

VIEW SLIDE PRESENTATION

Len Cooper
Chairperson ILPS Australia
4th July 2011

The Australian authorities are completely subservient to the alliance with US Imperialism. This has led to the dominance of Australia’s politics, economics, foreign policy and culture by US Imperialism’s objectives and priorities.

The military and intelligence cooperation between the Australian and United States Governments is very close and this has led to the establishment of a series of US bases, facilities and operations which are a central component of the US military capability and communications across the globe.

For example, the US uses a low frequency communications system which amongst other things allows the US nuclear fleet to communicate without the requirement to break the surface of the ocean waters and it uses a system which enables the US fleet to re charge their power supplies whilst submerged. The bases and facilities in Australia is a central part of those systems.

The Australian people have been campaigning against the US military bases and facilities since at least the 1970’s.In those days there were about 33 US bases and facilities and a few British bases. Today the number of US bases, facilities and operations has grown. The bases are part of an electronic communications network, a nerve system stretching over the entire world. But of course they are also much more than that.

They are part of intelligence collection, hosting of military aircraft, part of the US electronic and satellite war systems, and part of US military training. They span Northern Australia, West Austraia, Tasmania and further south, in Sydney on the east coast, Canberra the capital, Northern Victoria, and South Australia.

As a result of the WikiLeaks we are now aware of yet another secret agreement between the US and Australian governments.

As a result of recent AUSMIN talks, (talks with the Australian minister of defence), there is a major escalation of military cooperation with the United States.

AUSMIN envisages more visits by US ships and aircraft, greater access to Australian military facilities, increased numbers of US military personnel, and more joint military exercises. It may be a step towards a permanent US military presence in Australia. Townsville in Queensland, the Stirling naval base in West Australia, and Darwin in Northern Australia could be possible sites. Some of these military personnel could relocate from Okinawa where there is widespread opposition to US forces.

This is also part of the US/Australian build up aimed at China as the US repositions itself to further encircle China in line with the US objective to remain the dominant power in the Asia/Pacific.

The recent secret agreement includes the intensified cooperation and intelligence sharing in the field of GEOINT –geospatial intelligence derived from imagery and other information obtained from satellites and reconnaissance

The agreement was signed by the Federal Labor Government in February 2008,but only made known to us by the WikiLeaks.

The Talisman Sabre joint US/Australia military exercises are occuring again this year from the 18th to the 29th of July with lead up activities from the 11th July. TS11 as it is called, will involve 30,000 Australian and US personnel and will include use of live ammunition, parachute drops, amphibious landings, artillery, armour and infantry manoeuvres, air combat training, special forces operations, science and technology projects and advanced maritime operations.

The Australian people have begun various protest exercises and activities during the current school holidays, which include peace convergences in various parts of Australia, non violence training, and various children’s activities. The calls that have gone out from the peace movement include resist war, bring the Australian troops home from Afghanistan and resist the war machine.

Currently, Australia’s so called” defence” budget is $27 billion for 2010/11.Immagine if it was spent on low cost housing, adequate health care, better education, care for Australia’s refugees and so on. World military spending in 2010 was estimated to be US $ 1630 billion. It would take about one tenth of that of that to lift all people out of extreme policy by 2015,according to the United Nations.

Another campaign being waged in Australia, which has some support from the union movement is the world wide campaign by the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers led by the United States wish to hang on to their monopoly of nuclear weapons and at the same time deny other countries who feel threatened by the US Imperialist aggression the option of developing their own nuclear weapons. We must demand that the blackmail by us imperialism cease and demand that all nuclear weapons be destroyed.

One of the most spectacular examples of the immediate threat posed to a nations independence by the presence of US bases on another countries soil was the constitutional overthrow of the elected Federal Government of Australia, the Whitlam Labor Government, in 1974.

Because the Then US government was refusing to provide the Australian Government with information on the operation of the US bases and because the Whitlam Labor government was threatening to name, in parliament, certain CIA operatives who had dealings with the US bases, the then elected government of Australia was overthrown by the Governor General of Australia. This was the first Labor Government elected in Australia in over 23 years. It was elected on a popular and progressive policy programme which included withdrawal from the Vietnam war, ending conscription into the military and recognition of communist China. It carried out all these policies before being overthrown.

Please keep in mind that this was also the year of the overthrow of the socialist Allende Government in Chile by a US backed fascist coup de etat.

Over the past two years, the US under the Obama administration has stepped up its drive to expand and consolidate its worldwide economic and political domination under the guise of the “war against terrorism” and the sham of “spreading democracy to the world”.
US imperialism has attempted and is continuing to attempt to put a “friendly Obama face” on imperialist aggression and war and the imperialist drive to dominate and exploit the resources and labour of the world in it’s drive for super profits.

In terms of it’s invasion of Afghanistan the USA the people are making it clear by large majorities that they want the war to end and the troops to come home. This is also the case in Australia. A recent poll showed that over 70% of Australians want out. We must step up our campaigns against the wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. US Imperialism must feel the peoples anger everywhere. We must also step up our protests and opposition to US/Israel aggression against and oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the US attempts to further destabilise the Korean Peninsula and further threaten China.
There is a need for the broadest coalition of peoples forces against US bases, against nuclear weapons, and against US aggression and war, both within our separate countries and internationally. That is we must regularise and professionalise our coordination and support work on a grand scale across the globe.

Good research, to help demonstrate what the war policies of imperialism are costing the people and what could be done to meet the people’s needs could be an important motivating factor, particularly in the light of capitalisms austerity measures which are really biting on the people at present.

This could also be an important way to demonstrate the real cause of war and raise the question of ending imperialism and the profit motive in order to solve the world’s massive problems.

# # #

<< BACK

 

 

 

Part 2   NEXT >>

 

By Bobby M. Tuazon*

*Bobby M. Tuazon is a co-author and editor of the book, Unmasking the War on Terror (2002, CAIS). A faculty of the University of the Philippines in Manila, Tuazon has also written special reports, journal articles, and analytical studies on national security, foreign policy, and international politics. He has also co-authored and edited other books dealing with human rights, corruption, political parties, elections, and on Bangsamoro.)

(Note: This short paper is contributed for the 4th assembly of the ILPS. It deals principally on the military repercussions of the renewed territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the profits they bring to the U.S. war industry. It does not, therefore, discuss China’s military modernization and its impact on the SCS territorial tensions.)

Just as the post-9/11 “war on terror” was used to justify U.S.’ increased militarism in Asia Pacific and elsewhere in the world the heightened territorial disputes in the South China Sea are now being spun to boost the Pentagon’s encirclement strategy on China. The tension triggered by the territorial disputes is giving the U.S. grounds for strengthening and expanding its security relationships with traditional allies, vassal states, and other countries in the region. The immediate beneficiary of this enhanced militarism is America’s arms trade involving weapons suppliers and military training providers. Their war industry has been boosted by President Barack Obama’s new arms exports strategy in the region including Southeast Asia.

At a time when peaceful and diplomatic approaches may help defuse the tension in the South China Sea arising from the conflicting territorial claims, this renewed war environment is even stimulating an arms race among major states in the region further enhancing their dependency on the U.S. weapons supply chain.

In the first six months of 2011, various reports pointed to Chinese incursions in parts of the Spratly Islands claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, and three other countries. Although Beijing denied the allegations, the reported incidents ignited diplomatic protests with at least one of the claimants – the Philippines – calling on U.S. protection by invoking the cold war-vintage 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).[1] Amid the tension, bilateral war exercises have been held by the U.S. with the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries even as China likewise enhanced its maritime surveillance in the South China Sea (SCS).

Described as the “mother of all territorial disputes,” the SCS is also claimed as the “second Persian Gulf” presumed to be rich in oil, gas, and other sea-based minerals aside from being one of the world’s richest fishing grounds. Being the world’s busiest maritime superhighway, over 50 percent of global merchant fleet and supertanker traffic traverse its waters particularly the Malacca Strait. The SCS along with the Spratly Islands is claimed by China that dates back to 2 BC although its first official sovereign claim was made in 1951. China’s claim was subsequently followed by other countries notably the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Note, however, that the overlapping territorial claims on the Spratlys are just one of other flashpoints in the Sea that include Taiwan (China claim), the Korean peninsula, Senkaku Islands (Japan vs China), Sacotra Rock (South Korea vs China), Sabah (Philippines vs Malaysia), Hibernia reef (Australia vs Indonesia), Kanang Unarang (Indonesia vs Malaysia), Doi Lang (Burma vs Thailand), not to mention unresolved disputes between India and Pakistan, and between China and India.

‘Core national interest’

With its fastest growing economy and in reaction to the counter-claimants, China has become more assertive of its sovereign claims. Last year, China described the SCS as a “core national interest” at par with Taiwan and Tibet, adding that its territorial rights are “indisputable.” Such determination can also be explained by the fact that 75 percent of China’s energy needs (it is now the biggest oil importer) are currently supplied through the SCS. The SCS is also China’s gateway to the Indian Ocean and other trade routes for its energy supplies sourced from various continents of the world where it has become a major investor.

Citing statements from some member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) that China’s “bullying” warranted an active defense role of the U.S. in the SCS, Washington cast a new superpower posturing when last year it identified the Sea likewise as a “national interest.” While recent reports of Chinese incursions elicited policy reactions from the U.S. calling for “restraint” and “multilateral talks,” it has in no ambiguous terms continued to realign its military forces in the region while forging new defense partnerships, holding more war exercises, and opening new basing facilities. This network of treaties, access arrangements, forces and facilities is embedded in the U.S. Pacific Command with its 7th Fleet as well as the Central Command (Cencom) that have assured America an imperial presence in Asia Pacific in the past several decades.

Although security partnerships, expansion, and armed aggression have been embedded into the U.S. empire’s bid for continuing global supremacy, current conflicts and tensions not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in the SCS “arc of instability” boost the trade of arms and military services that earn huge profits for U.S. weapons manufacturers, military training providers, and other foreign suppliers. The military-industrial complex is very much in business.

Arms shopping

Tensions building up in the SCS since last year until today have led to unprecedented arms shopping in the U.S. particularly by claimant-countries including:

Philippines: Under President Benigno S. Aquino III, the purchase of U.S. naval equipment including a Hamilton class cutter, for patrolling the Spratly waters. Furthermore in April 2011, Aquino transferred PhP8 billion (U.S.$183 million) for the deployment and training of naval personnel assigned to secure oil and gas explorations off Palawan and Mindanao. A report said part of the funds was to go to Blackwater, a notorious U.S.-based security firm.[2] Aquino’s energy department also announced the purchase of three blue water ships from the U.S. as well as helicopters and radar systems in support of oil projects in Palawan and Mindanao, southern Philippines.

Taiwan: A leading arms importer and military aid recipient of the U.S., Taiwan in 2010-2011 was set to buy new models of F-16 combat aircraft and two other purchases, all worth $20 billion. U.S. arms manufacturers received $16.5 billion of arms orders from Taiwan in 2007-2010 alone. Taiwan ranks fourth among U.S. arms customers worldwide behind Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Indonesia: Indonesia recently planned to buy fighter and cargo aircraft from the U.S. costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The U.S. also pledged $35.7 million in 2010-2011 to help modernize the Indonesian military (TNI).

Aside from Indonesia, arms sales to Malaysia also increased significantly in recent years while Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia among top 10 arms buyers worldwide.

By end-2011, U.S. arms traders would have amassed $46 billion of military sales worldwide, nearly doubling the 2010 figures. Of the world’s 10 largest arms vendors, seven are American: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies.[3] As the world’s biggest weapons supplier controlling more than 30 percent of the market, most of its military products go to, in descending order, Asia Pacific (39 percent), the Middle East (36 percent), and Europe (18 percent). Southeast Asia has been eyed by the Obama administration for major expansion of arms sales.

Obama’s arms export policy

A new U.S. presidential policy makes this possible. In July 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the relaxation of arms export restrictions aimed at expanding the U.S. market share so that by 2015, he said, U.S. weapons exports would have doubled. Obama’s new national security strategies and quadrennial defense reviews have essentially retained Bush’s war on terror-inspired unilateralist and pre-emptive doctrines that also gave primacy to arms transfers all over the world.

As the U.S. reels from a prolonged economic recession, arms trade remains lucrative to the military-industrial complex. Profits reaped from weapons sales are guaranteed in regions gripped by tension and risks of war and armed conflicts. Thus the tensions arising from the territorial disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have made it expedient for the U.S. to expand its military presence in the region capitalizing on revived xenophobia and anti-China bashing to justify Pentagon’s strategic encirclement of China not only by strengthening its current security partnerships but also by exploring new alliances and realigning its forward-deployed forces and weapons especially nuclear missile systems. In turn, the enhancement of U.S. interoperability of its network of alliances opens new grounds for more frequent joint war exercises and military trainings and instructions that are closely tied to weapons sales and transfers. In short, arms acquisitions especially from U.S. allies and client states are “an integral and long-term partnership between the supplier and the purchaser”[4]. The captive market guarantees long-term profitability for the arms suppliers.

Arms sales or transfers are transacted especially with U.S. strategic allies and partners through government-to-government schemes and commercial military sales. Through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, about 79 percent of arms exports are financed by client countries and organizations with the balance funded by U.S. aid programs. Other programs that facilitate arms trade are those managed by the state department or the Department of Defense (DoD) such as Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Coalition Support Funds, and the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). In recent years, these programs were used by the U.S. as leverage for securing preferential access to oil and other strategic resources[5] and for ensuring support to its wars of aggression. In particular, FMF and IMET help expand and deepen U.S. regional influence with its allies while the ESF, among other objectives, promotes U.S. engagement with ASEAN toward enhancing U.S. security objectives in the region.

U.S. security arrangements

The security issues sparked by the territorial disputes coupled with the much-hyped threats arising from China’s military modernization are now being used by the U.S. to strengthen treaty alliances and access agreements with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Zealand. While potential defense partnerships are being explored with India – which maintains military hostility with China – and Indonesia, plans for joint war exercises with Vietnam are also afoot. Parallel to moving forward the new U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral security initiative are plans for the U.S. to deploy new forces and missile systems in existing military bases west of Australia. Part of moves by the U.S. for the ASEAN to check Chinese “hegemonic ambitions” in the SCS are plans to establish a NATO- or SEATO-type regional alliance force in the region. In no uncertain terms, these moves are clearly targeted supposedly to check an emerging “military hegemon” in China. The new security and basing rearrangements pursued by the U.S. enhance the military dependency of many countries in the region and, hence, reliance on the U.S. war industry for arms exports.

The arms strategy that the U.S. pursues in the region and elsewhere in the world bolsters the militarist and repressive tendencies of its traditional allies and defense partners who then adopt war-like policies even as peaceful and diplomatic mechanisms are in place that promote the resolution of territorial disputes. Repressive regimes among America’s allies and vassal states comprise the permanent ring of arms buyers and consumers for U.S. war profiteers or merchants of death. The U.S. arms strategy is consistent with the agenda of the military-industrial complex that, since the end of World War 2, has begun to cobble a permanent war economy. Entrenched in the top echelons of America’s social and political order, the financial oligarchs behind the military-industrial complex make sure that the armaments industry continues to thrive and profit under the permanent environment of instabilities and war scares most of which are contrived anyway by their ideologues, media monopolies, and neo-conservative think tanks.

END NOTES

[1] Forged by the U.S. and the Philippines in 1951, the MDT provides for mutual protection against “external aggression.” For the past five decades, progressives in the Philippines have called for its termination in the absence of guarantees for automatic retaliation by the U.S. and for being onerous in favor of the latter.

[2] Blackwater, founded by ex-SEAL members, has been denounced in the U.S. media as a mercenary army performing jobs for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It was also reported to be maintaining a training facility inside Subic, Olongapo City (Philippines) – former site of U.S. naval base.

[3] Figures by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

[4] Rick Rozoff, “Washington uses arms sales to achieve global supremacy,” Global Research, Dec. 30, 2010.

[5] William D. Hartung & Frida Berrigan, “U.S. weapons at war 2008,” New American Foundation, December 2008.