China strikes back, threatens to sanction US companies over Taiwan issue

Last night, in an article about media misrepresentations of U.S. policy towards China, I indicated that the current U.S. foreign policy of continually baiting China is risky because it increases the likelihood that China will one day directly confront U.S. hedgmony – an event that could end very badly for many people in the world. I found an interesting report printed yesterday in the Australian media that confirms that China is already starting to show signs of resistance. As with Copenhagen, where China got together with India to develop a united policy front against the Western nations who wanted them to adopt  carbon reduction iniatives, this article presents more evidence that China is starting to push back against the Western powers – massive news for us all.

China threatens US sanctions over arms sale

John Garnaut,

Sydney Morning Herald,

February 3rd, 2010.

GUANGZHOU: China will erect trade sanctions against Boeing and other large US companies unless the US Congress blocks the Obama administration’s planned $US6.4 billion ($7.2 billion) weapons sales program to Taiwan, a senior defence strategist said.

Rear Admiral Yang Yi told the Herald yesterday China was prepared to hurt itself in order to teach the administration a lesson.

”We’re waiting for the reaction from US Congress and if they don’t have a U-turn then the follow-up of sanctions will come soon,” said Admiral Yang, who previously co-wrote Chinese defence white papers while director of international strategic studies at the National Defence University.

”We are clear this action will harm ourselves but we don’t care,” he said. ”We are going to give a lesson to the US government that harming others will harm yourself. This will not only affect Boeing but all companies involved in this.”

The theme of teaching the US a lesson has emerged in China since it strengthened its economic and strategic standing after the global financial crisis. Last month China’s climate change ambassador, Yu Qingtai, told the Herald that ”the key lesson” developed countries should learn from his team’s aggressive diplomacy at Copenhagen was that China could not be pushed around.

Read the full article…

: : : : : : : : : : :

Comments on AP’s pro World War III propaganda story, ‘Clinton presses China over Iran nuke sanctions’

In this post I aim to highlight important aspects of US foreign policy towards China and demonstrate that a lot of the reporting in the mainstream press about this issue is biased and ultimately presents an ignorant and frankly dangerous view of world events. The article being commented on (‘Clinton presses China over Iran nuke sanctions’) is from the Associated Press and was printed courtesy of MSNBC on Jan 29^th, 2010:

PARIS – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday it risks diplomatic isolation and disruption to its energy supplies unless it helps keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Speaking in Paris, Clinton said she and others who support additional sanctions on Iran for refusing to prove it has peaceful nuclear intentions are lobbying China to back new U.N. penalties on the Iranian government.

She said she understood China’s reluctance to impose new penalties on Iran, its third-largest supplier of oil.

But she stressed that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Persian Gulf and imperil oil shipments China gets from other Muslim states in the region.

Clinton delivered a veiled threat to the Chinese by suggesting that their future energy security (a vital component of the internal stability of the Chinese Communist Party itself) is essentially tied to its decision to back US sanctions on Iran. The implication, made plain by Clinton, is that peaceful trading with a nuclear Iran would be impossible – in the event that Iran goes nuclear, that country’s economy would be so severely disrupted by the ensuing US/Israeli onslaught that China will end up suffering the inevitable loss of all that sweet Iranian oil and natural gas that helps propel their own economic growth. Not only that, other countries in the region would themselves be destabilized by such a conflict. In other words, Clinton is saying to the Chinese, “go along with us, or we will have no choice but to attack Iran and *unfortunately* you will suffer a loss of much of your energy supplies from the entire region.”

Too bad then that the U.S. has been overtly disrupting and threatening China’s energy supplies since the dying days of the Bush administration and throughout the entire Obama presidency to-date – ever since the Brzezinski foreign policy clique ousted the Neocons in steering Washington’s foreign policy direction to be exact (see Webster Tarpley’s book, Obama: The Postmodern Coup for specific details). The main example of this that springs to mind has been amply covered on this blog; the fools-drive to mobilize the Pakistani Taliban via haphazard drone attacks (with no accompanying counterinsurgency strategy) in order to smash the development of the Iran-Pakistan-China natural gas pipeline that could supply China with billions worth of natural gas and ease China’s reliance on vulnerable sea lanes for its energy supplies. On a side note, the recent U.S. move into Yemen should also be read in this light – how convenient that it pre-empts China’s recent discussions regarding opening up a naval base in nearby Somalia and locates U.S. military forces in the gulf of Aden – the key choke point along Chinese sea lines of communication, whose security is critical for its energy transport.

Clinton’s threats of diplomatic isolation for China are ultimately empty – which countries would or could feasibly isolate themselves from China?? Certainly not the US, which must be worried about China dumping their almost $800 billion worth of US treasury securities. Threats to China’s energy security on the other hand should be taken very, very seriously – they propel the likelihood that one day China may decide to stand its ground and assert its national defence by offering military support for its key energy suppliers like Iran. This is the danger of the new U.S. foreign policy direction of playing their key enemies against each other– in the best case it produces new Cold War conditions, in the worst, World War III. Put in the correct context, Clinton is essentially asking the Chinese to put aside their aspirations for real long-term energy security, which for the Chinese mean secure overland pipelines from Central Asia such as the proposed Iran-Pakistan-China natural gas pipeline. One day these types of requests may be too much for the Chinese to abide by and they may assert themselves in a much more aggressive fashion. AP’s reportage is nothing but fluff and actually helps increase these dangers by keeping people uniformed about the significance behind world events.

There is a new push for sanctions at the U.N. because of Iran’s continued refusal to engage on the matter with the five permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and Germany.

China ‘will be under a lot of pressure’
Administration officials have invited new talks with Iran, but with no sign that Iran wants to do business, the focus has turned to penalties.

“As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supplies,” Clinton said.

The United States is the most visible leader in the new push for U.N. Security Council sanctions, and Clinton spent much of her time in Europe this week lobbying major powers whose support she needs to pass and enforce new economic penalties.

Some of the additional measures that will be proposed target elements of Iran’s powerful militia structure, U.S. officials said.

The Obama administration has said Iran appears bent on developing nuclear weapons, although Iran claims its nuclear work is peaceful.

Behind all the talk of penalties and sanctions is a US administration that clearly wants to get rid of the Khamenei/Ahmedinejad faction and help install an Iranian government that is a better fit for their long-term geopolitical goals in Eurasia, but would prefer to avoid an actual war with Iran if it can. Sorry Neocons and other reactionaries, avoiding such a war is the sensible course of action. A war with Iran could be catastrophic for the US. In such a war we would expect to see: vast danger to US supply lines in Iraq, economic woes caused by blockades of the Straight of Hormuz, the potential for mass damage to the US navy, real terrorism in US cities and facilities world-wide, missile attacks on Israeli cities (using modern weapons) and the mobilization of a whole raft of Shi’a militias causing trouble throughout the region.) Though America would prefer to avoid this war, politically it is in a tight spot because in order to save face (and also meet the demands of the Israeli lobby) it would be forced to launch military strikes on Iran if it ever went nuclear.

A new arms race in the Gulf
Iran is thought to have stockpiled more than enough nuclear material to manufacture a single bomb, and more is being made daily.

The risks of an Iranian bomb are manifold, Clinton said.

“It will produce an arms race,” in the Persian Gulf, and Israel will feel its very existence threatened, Clinton said in response to a question from an audience member during a speech at a French military academy. “All of that is incredibly dangerous.”

This statement by Clinton is ridiculous; if any arms race is indeed going on in the Middle East, it is because U.S. Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates has been going around and encouraging the Arab states to arm themselves to the teeth with American weapons as a hedge against Iranian influence. Meanwhile, Obama drums up the Iranian side by constantly threatening them. This ill-thought out strategy is essentially a policy for a U.S. created arms race in the Middle East; one that dramatically raises the stakes of a regional sectarian war feeding into a larger Cold War scenario or even World War III. This has been a concern of mine for some months and was reported on in a post on this blog in September last year.

The United States has cautioned Israel publicly against a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s known nuclear facilities, arguing that such an attack would invite an arms race and retaliation.

China has traditionally resisted U.N. Security Council sanctions, saying they are counterproductive and harm efforts to persuade Iran to prove its claim that the nuclear program is peaceful.

The U.S. has ‘cautioned’ Israel against a pre-emptive strike in a number of ways. It was none other than former US National Security Advisor and Obama foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski who actually threatened to have U.S. planes shoot down any Israeli warplanes caught flying to Iran over Iraqi airspace.  Zbigniew really does not want a war with Iran, not because such an attack could cause a Middle Eastern arms race (another AP lie as the U.S are already causing one in the region), but because of the hope that soft-power could be utilized to turn Iran into a regime that is more cordial to U.S. geopolitical strategy in Eurasia. If you want a hint of what this might be in aid of, simply recall the chants of “Death to Russia, Death to China” issued from Mousavi supporters during the mass unrest in Iran last year).

Give us some real info AP and stop producing stories with so many gaps in it that they virtually function as propaganda for orthodox Obama-Brzezinski foreign policy.

: : : : : : : : : : :

News: Indonesian authorities consider removing Obama statue, ‘Little Barry’

A sign that Obama’s global appeal is waning? Article courtesy of Google.

Indonesia mulls tearing down Obama statue

AFP,

January, 25th, 2010

JAKARTA — Indonesian authorities said Monday they are considering a petition to tear down a statue of US President Barack Obama as a boy, only a month after the bronze was unveiled in Jakarta.

The statue of “Little Barry” — as Obama was known when he lived in the capital in the late 1960s — stands in central Jakarta’s Menteng Park, a short walk from the US president’s former elementary school.

Critics say the site should have been used to honour an Indonesian and 55,000 people have joined a page on social networking website Facebook calling for the statue to be removed.

“We’ve been discussing for the past two weeks what to do with the statue… whether to take it down, move it elsewhere or retain it. We’re finding the best solution,” Jakarta parks agency official Dwi Bintarto said.

Obama, who was born in Hawaii, lived for four years as a child in Jakarta from 1967 after his divorced mother married an Indonesian.

The bronze was designed by Indonesian artists and depicts the boy Obama dressed in shorts and a T-shirt with a butterfly perched on his hand.

“The statue is of Obama as a child, not as the US president. His relatives and friends who erected it said it’s meant to motivate children to study hard and dream big,” Bintarto said.

Members of the “Take Down the Barack Obama Statue in Menteng Park” group on Facebook say Obama has done nothing for Indonesia.

“Barack Obama has yet to make a significant contribution to the Indonesian nation. We could say Obama only ate and s (expletive) in Menteng. He spent his subsequent days living as an American,” the web page says.

“For the dignity of a sovereign nation, Barack Obama’s monument in Menteng Park must be removed immediately.”

The childhood connection and his knowledge of a few words of Indonesian made Obama popular in the mainly Muslim country of 234 million people.

Obama said in November he would visit Indonesia this year along with First Lady Michelle Obama and daughters Malia and Sasha.

———

“We’re on the verge of a complete phenomenon. Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put himself out above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic.” – Rupert Murdoch, as reported by the London Guardian, 30th May, 2008.

Warnings surrounding the impending Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline deal

Found some important news in the Iranian press today that needs additional discussion.

Iran, Pakistan to sign gas pipeline deal ‘next week’

Press TV,

Thursday, 21st January, 2010.

Pakistani Federal Minister for Petroleum Naveed Qamar has declared that Iran and Pakistan have finalized an agreement to build a natural gas pipeline.

Qamar said the federal government is taking serious measures to combat the current energy crisis in the country.

He noted that the two countries will sign an accord on the pipeline next week, Dawn newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The Pakistani minister’s remarks come as the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke had earlier urged Islamabad to avoid the deal with Iran.

Holbrooke said the US would help Pakistan secure liquefied natural gas supplies, should it abandon the planned gas deal with Iran.

———————–

As I have repeated on this blog several times, an Iran-Pakistan pipeline deal is of key importance for countries in the region. Firstly, such a deal greatly increases Pakistan’s energy security and represents an opportunity for the country to overcome its domestic energy shortages. This deal is a great political and economic boon for Iran and will vastly increase their regional influence. The pipeline can be extended into China, who has expressed great interest in such a deal. For China, a natural gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan means increased energy security via reduced reliance on vulnerable sea transports from the Middle East and Africa. It also means co-dependence on Iran and Pakistan for its energy needs and a key interest in the political security of those nations.

For these reasons, such a pipeline does not fit in with the long-term geopolitical strategy of the U.S. and will be heavily opposed. Consequently, expect significantly increased actions by the U.S. against Pakistan and Iran to disrupt this deal over the coming months. Efforts to destabilize Pakistan will likely significantly increase. Mostly this will be more of the same – internal disruption via mobilization of insurgent groups against the Pakistani government. We will see many more (1) al-Qaeda-like terrorist attacks that destabilize the country and promote civil war conditions, (2) agitation against the Pakistani government amongst militant Islamic groups such as when the CIA run al-Qaeda, blamed the Pakistani government for crimes it committed, (3) predator drone attacks which do nothing but stir up resistance and recruit people for the Taliban. Imperial overstretch means that conventional war (i.e. boots on the ground) is probably not possible between the U.S. and Pakistan. Therefore, be on the lookout for any attempts to play India off against Pakistan. Though any such action would have an incredibly slim chance of success and in the short term would actually stabilize Pakistan by galvanizing Pakistani patriotism, such an action could feasibly be attempted in order to use India as a stooge to diminish the strength of the Pakistani military. While this would inevitably create resistance to India amongst the various Islamic and tribal factions, a diminished military would increase the possibility over time that the various tribal and Islamic groups may try to seize power in Pakistan and end up Balkanizing the nation.

The U.S. does seem to want to avoid a conventional war with Iran, so I am predicting covert, rather than overt actions in that country (though Israel can always throw a spanner in the works at any time by unilaterally bombing Iran). The strategy regarding Iran will be to resurrect the Mousavi faction. Due to the inherent risk of blowback in Iraq, these actions will be less extreme compared to what can be done in Pakistan. I would expect to see increased efforts in Iran to get rid of the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime in order to kill the pipeline deal. There will be: (1) more disruption from the Mousavi faction (he might even be killed to spark mass unrest), (2) more cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan like last October’s suicide bombing of Revolutionary Guard commanders by U.S. funded group, Jundullah, (3) more internal terrorism from MKO etc during protests. Basically, anything to elicit a violent domestic response and cause further destabilization that does not provoke an Iranian response in Iraq.

If any significant escalation in covert activity within these two countries eventuates in the next few months, we will know who the real culprits are and the reasons behind their attacks.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Why Al-Qaeda and Adam Gadahn want to destabilize Pakistan

---

“Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police…..”

George Orwell, Nineteen-Eighty-Four

---

I found out tonight that Al-Qaeda released a new English-language video just before Christmas last year. With all the news surrounding Copenhagen, Yemen and underwear bombs, I somehow missed out on this announcement. Not wanting to forgo the opportunity to check out the latest in slickly-produced black-propaganda, I decided to watch the video. Happily, the video starred American al-Qaeda frontman, Adam ‘Goldstein’ Gadahn. Like all Gadahn’s videos, this one was particularly hilarious and contained an aura of overwhelming fakery.

An article printed in the Boston Globe on Dec 13th, last year summarized the content of the video:

“Al Qaeda issued a new English-language video… denying that it was behind a series of bombings in Pakistan that have killed hundreds of civilians, calling such attacks un-Islamic.

US-born Al Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn, who commonly delivers the organization’s English messages, said the extremist network was being framed for the bloodshed by the US and Pakistani intelligence services .

…

“The mercenaries of the ISI, RAW, CIA, or Blackwater are the real culprits behind these senseless and un-Islamic bombings,’’ he added.”

Before I get into commenting on the geopolitical implications of these statements, I need to briefly reiterate the purpose of U.S. operations in Pakistan. As I’ve pointed out previously on this blog, U.S policy regarding Pakistan represents neither a coherent counter-insurgency, or counter-terrorism strategy. This is not because the Obama administration is simply incompetent in its military and foreign policies. In his article ‘Obama Declares war on Pakistan’, historian and Obama biographer, Webster Tarpley explains that:

“This is no longer the Bush Cheney Afghan war we have known in the past. This is something immensely bigger: the attempt to destroy the Pakistani central government in Islamabad and to sink that country into a chaos of civil war, Balkanization, subdivision and general mayhem. The chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines. It is an oblique war using fourth-generation or guerrilla warfare techniques to assail a country which the United States and its associates in aggression are far too weak to attack directly. In this war, the Taliban are employed as US proxies. This aggression against Pakistan is Obama’s attempt to wage the Great Game against the hub of Central Asia and Eurasia or more generally.”

The destabilization of Pakistan is a key move in the ‘Great Game’ of geopolitics. A destabilized Pakistan prevents China from consolidating its energy security via secure overland pipelines such as the proposed Iran-Pakistan-China natural gas pipeline and forces them to rely on vulnerable and lengthy sea lanes to satisfy energy demands. Preventing the development of this pipeline also denies the current Iranian regime regional influence as well as  economic and political stability and makes them more vulnerable to increased cross-border covert attacks, such as last years suicide bombing of Revolutionary Guard commanders on October 18^th, carried out by U.S. funded group Jundullah from Pakistan.

What about the video???

Part 1/2:

Part 2/2:

TRANSLATION: ‘Al-CIA-duh’ goes around bombing, killing, maiming and generally doing everything it can to start sectarian wars in any country it operates in, including Pakistan. Al-Qaeda then releases a video that correctly identifies the U.S. and ISI (among others) as the real culprits for the violence in Pakistan; not because it decided to finally admit that it is itself a CIA front, but simply as a cynical means of deflecting negative attention away from itself and to agitate amongst the various Islamic factions in Pakistan in order to stir up enmity towards the government. In my opinion, this video represents the ham-fisted attempt of al-Qaeda, a CIA front to (1) mobilize the various anti-government Islamic groups in Pakistan by blaming the government for crimes carried out by al-Qaeda (2) help recruit useful idiots in the West to wage Jihad against the Pakistan government. The net result of this is another thrust towards the destabilization of Pakistan, which fits perfectly into the current U.S. program of destabilizing that country by any means necessary.

Snog: Al-Qaeda is your best friend

——————-

: : : : : : : : : : :

Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport: Launchpad of underwear bomber, also first in world to trial body scanners back in 2007

The man who raised the stock value of several security firms

I’ve started doing a bit of research for an article that I’m currently writing for this blog about the recent trials of airport body scanners in Melbourne, Australia. While trying to figure out when these trials started in Australia, I came across a very interesting article printed in the Australian press on 1st April, 2008 (article is posted below).

This article is pretty standard – it  mostly talks about how great this new body scanning technology is, and how it *definitely* won’t be used by airport security to take pictures of your groin. The last paragraph of the article, however,  particularly grabbed me. It reads:

“Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport introduced a similar scan in May last year, becoming the first airport in the world to use the system, officials said.”

Schiphol was the airport that Umar Farouk Abdul-Muttalib, the ‘underwear bomber’, flew out of in order to carry out his failed terrorist attack (source: L.A. Times). In other words, the terrorist attack that directly lead to the recent scramble for these body scanning machines was launched from the very airport that conducted the world first trials of these systems back in May 2007.

More evidence of a false flag or simple coincidence? Either way it’s very strange.

Qantas scanner can see through clothes

The Courier-Mail,

April 1st, 2008

A SECURITY scanner that can see through the clothes of its targets is to be tested on Qantas passengers flying from Melbourne airport.

The airline intends to introduce the device, which uses millimetre waves to scan the body, “at selected Qantas screening points in the not too distant future”, Qantas security manager Geoffrey Askew said in a statement.

The test at Melbourne’s domestic terminal this week is aimed at assessing the public’s response to the new security system.

“Passengers are invited to view and test the equipment on a voluntary basis in order for Qantas to gain customer feedback on this new technology,” Mr Askew said.

Passengers would walk into the unit and stand in a designated spot for three seconds with arms raised.

“The millimetre waves used to generate the individual’s image are not invasive or harmful. The image created simply resembles an outline of the person and indicates the position of any foreign object,” he said.

“The face is unrecognisable and sensitive areas of the body are blurred. The security operative is the only person with access to the image and that person is located away from the screening location.

“This is a major advancement on current technology and will eventually deliver significant improvements for security and the efficient movement of passengers through airport terminals.”

Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport introduced a similar scan in May last year, becoming the first airport in the world to use the system, officials said.

: : : : : : : : : : :

News: Australians’ personal debts now exceed the annual GDP for the entire country

Holy hedge-funds!! So this is what happens when you roll out poorly conceived economic stimulus packages…

Credit binge sets new debt record

The Australian

December 27th, 2009.

In a new record, Australians now owe more in household debt than the country’s entire economy earns in a year.

Reserve Bank figures show mortgage, credit card and personal loan debts now stand at $1.2 trillion, up 71 per cent from just five years ago and equating to $56,000 for every man, woman and child in the country, News Ltd says.

Our spending binge, fuelled most recently by the federal government’s First Home Owner Grant, means personal debt now totals 100.4 per cent of Australia’s annual GDP – one of the highest ratios in the developed world.

“It’s the first time household debt has cracked 100 per cent of annual GDP and it’s a terrible, terrible sign,” University of NSW economics professor Steve Keen told News Ltd.

“It shows we are living beyond our means and many highly geared borrowers are now extremely vulnerable to further rate rises – they are already saturated with debt and will not be able to tolerate much of an increase to their repayments.”

Our financial headache is likely to get worse before it gets better. We are in the midst of the peak spending season when billions goes on the plastic, yet the Reserve Bank data dates back to October’s debt levels only, so that means there are another two months of First Home Owner Grant-fuelled mortgage activity still to be taken into account.

The extra cost is expected to add billions to the burgeoning debt tally.

———————————————

Rudd: 1, Australia: nil

: : : : : : : : : : :

Principles of China’s foreign policy: Understanding the calls for a Chinese Naval base in Somalia

One major focus of this blog has been to document and discuss recent actions undertaken by the United States government in the ‘Great Game’ of geopolitics, particularly its military interventions in Central Asia and the Middle East and those covert and diplomatic actions that seek to impact upon the long-term national interests of Russia and China. Such a focus may give the false impression that the U.S. is the only global actor, and that other nations simply react to its policies and behaviour. This is not my intention, for while it is the case that the United States has a powerful position relative to other countries and thus an increased ability to overcome resistance in its efforts to project power and influence into other regions of the world, the United States is not the only major player of the Great Game.

When considering recent reports that the Chinese military had discussed the possibility of constructing a naval base in Somalia to combat piracy there is a critical need to understand some of the basic principles that drive Chinese strategies for power projection. By understanding these principles we can form more accurate impressions of present Chinese foreign policy and better predict China’s future course. To this end it is imperative to consider China’s energy resource requirements and the means by which China obtains these resources. One document that I have personally found to be particularly informative was a 2006 report entitled ‘String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral’ published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the United States Army War College (SSI). The full text of this publication is freely available on the SSI website.

In brief, the report explains that the Chinese government’s chief strategic concerns are intrinsically linked with its economy – the satisfaction of the Chinese people, the survival of the central bureaucracy and upholding China’s domestic security during a period of globalization means that the Chinese economy must continue to expand outward. To sustain the required economic growth however, China relies on the importation of foreign energy resources; oil and natural gas. As China has been unable to secure these resources through overland pipelines from Russia and Central Asia (see my post on US disruption of natural gas pipelines in Central Asia for context), China is heavily reliant on the Middle East and Africa for these goods. Their great distance from China, however, means that China relies almost exclusively on sea transport and secure Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) to be able to meet its resource demands and chief strategic concerns (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Critical Chinese Sea Lines of Communication – Oil flow

Source: Wikipedia

The security of China’s SLOCs are paramount – the report notes that at the time, over 70% of China’s oil imports were from the Middle East and Africa, all of which were transported by sea. The centrality of China’s SLOCs in expanding thier economy has given rise to a geopolitical strategy of forging beneficial relationships, projecting influence and establishing a forward presence along critical SLOCs. This geopolitical strategy has been dubbed the “String of Pearls”, where each ‘pearl’ along the string is a centre of Chinese influence or military presence. These pearls are found scattered along the path of China’s SLOCs “from the coast of mainland China through the littorals of the South China Sea, the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the littorals of the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf” (p.3). Specific examples of Chinese ‘pearls’ given in the report include: an upgraded airstrip in Vietnam, ports located in Pakistan near the Strait of Hormuz, a rail line from Southern China to the Gulf of Thailand, a plan to build a canal in Thailand’s Kra Isthmus in order that ships heading for China may avoid the chokepoint at the Strait of Malacca.

The String of Pearls theory explains some of the key motivations behind Chinese power projection and identifies the sites that China is likely to project its influence to in the future. The theory shows why the recent discussions about building Chinese naval bases in Somalia to combat pirates were so important; even if they were downplayed in the Chinese media (e.g. China Daily). Reports about the possibility of building naval bases in Somalia should be read through the lens of the String of Pearls theory.

China may build Middle East naval base

Malcolm Moore,

London Telegraph,

30th December, 2009

In a sign of the growing confidence of the Chinese military, Admiral Yin Zhuo said that the country may set up a base in the Gulf of Aden in order to support missions against Somali pirates.

Since the end of last year, China has sent four flotillas to the Middle East in order to take part in anti-piracy operations together with US, European, Indian and Russian warships. The latest mission, which departed from China in October, involved two missile frigates.

Mr Yin said a permanent base in the region would help supply Chinese ships. “We are not saying we need our navy everywhere in order to fulfil our international commitments,” he said, cautiously. “We are saying to fulfil our international commitments, we need to strengthen our supply capacity.”

His words, which came just a few days after China rescued 25 sailors from Somali pirates, were posted in an interview on the Defence ministry website. China is reported to have paid a USD4 million (Pounds2.5 million) ransom to free the De Xin Hai, a coal carrier.

Mr Yin, who is a senior researcher at the navy’s Equipment Research centre, pointed out that the first Chinese ships in the Gulf of Aden spent 124 days at sea without docking, a logistical challenge.

However, Chinese ships have since been permitted to dock at a French base.

“If China establishes a similar long-term supply base, I believe that the nations in the region and the other countries involved with the (anti-pirate) escorts would understand,” he said. “I think a permanent, stable base would be good for our operations.”

Yin added he was aware that Chinese naval ships in the waters near the Gulf have aroused suspicions, but believed other nations understood Beijing’s intention was to counter pirates. As the world’s largest importer of oil, China is believed to want to establish bases throughout the Indian Ocean and South China Sea to protect its tankers.

—————————————————-

If, as many people believe, the possibility of a rising China attempting to supplant the US in the future is something worthy of serious consideration, we may see the first signs of this along areas near China’s SLOCs. One major question highlighted in the SSI report was whether China would “continue to cede security guarantees to the United States or if China one day will make a bid for regional primacy”(p.8).  As the news article printed above demonstrates, China is no longer fully reliant on the US for the security of its shipping in Somalia – Chinese flotillas have already been deployed there. Despite this, at present, China has been content to follow an internationalist approach to the piracy issue, working in conjunction with the EU, NATO and the U.S. (source: CCTV). The discussion of the Somalian naval base is a step towards, or at least may be percieved by the United States as, a step towards a future bid for Chinese primacy in the region.

On a side note, if China were to make serious strides in this direction do not be surprised if you see a lot more pirate activity in Somalia, most likely in the form of privateers paid to go after Chinese shipping and international transports travelling to China. The necessity for secure SLOCs is a double edged sword for China. While one the one hand it is one of the main motivating factors behind the global projection of Chinese influence, it is also a major vulnerability that could be exploited if the US ever felt sufficiently threatened. Without overland pipelines from Central Asia or Russia, Chinese energy security is particularly vulnerable and the Gulf of Aden off the Somalian coast is a convienient choke point (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of Gulf of Aden

Source: Wikipedia

: : : : : : : : : : :

News: Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children

The Times Online

December 31st, 2009

American-led troops were accused yesterday of dragging innocent children from their beds and shooting them during a night raid that left ten people dead.

Afghan government investigators said that eight schoolchildren were killed, all but one of them from the same family. Locals said that some victims were handcuffed before being killed.

Western military sources said that the dead were all part of an Afghan terrorist cell responsible for manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have claimed the lives of countless soldiers and civilians.

…

“First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That’s why his wife wasn’t killed.”

A local elder, Jan Mohammed, said that three boys were killed in one room and five were handcuffed before they were shot. “I saw their school books covered in blood,” he said.

Read the full article…

So much news, so little time: Rant on Copenhagen, Obama’s warmongering, black-ops and Israeli organ theft

Apologies to the readers out there – very busy work demands over the last fortnight have meant that I simply have not had the time available to make any updates to this blog. It’s always a very busy time of year, but no doubt the situation will reverse itself after the Christmas period and I can get into some serious blogging.

News-wise, what a crazy couple of weeks it’s been! Over the last fortnight there has been some massive stories coming out, chief among them the COP15 global warming conference held in Copenhagen during a European cold snap that in the last week, has frozen to death more than 100 people. In Copenhagen in-between travelling around in the 1,200 limousines and 140 private jets and being offered free and presumably carbon neutral sex from the local prostitutes, our social betters laid out their plans for the total rerouting of the world economy. In Copenhagen the entire globalist agenda was laid down on the table (including the sculpted caviar wedges). Meanwhile in our compartmentalized slave pens, stationed around the comforting glow of our energy efficient televisions we ate our microwaved soya beans and watched world history unfold. It was high drama – at first we were compulsively looking at our watches and wondering when Al Gore was going to show up, afterwards we marvelled at the sheer scale of the intended bureaucracies that were initially proposed (especially the 2% GDP funding required from each country.), chuckled when China called for a global one child policy, and slapped our knees in delight when the big boys from the Western countries got together in a secret meeting to condemn the Third World to limited industrialization and accelerated starvation (this was simultaneous to Britain switching financial aid from funds tackling global poverty to eugenics… I mean climate change funds). In between reruns of the Oprah Winfrey Show, with defiant fists pumping in the air like some kind of biofuel-driven piston, we shared the rage of our foundation funded brothers who bravely protested in many staged events that let the globalists know that they were simply not doing enough for Mother Gaia– clearly the public wants *more* U.N. taxation to fund even *more* bureaucracies. Finally, we wept in joy and watched through tear stained eyes at some of the most poorly constructed news propaganda of all time, as Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama saved the day, flying into Copenhagen at the 11^th hour and through a combination of wit and/or charm brokered a deal – perhaps not the full deal (damn third world countries getting on their high horse just because they found out we wanted to starve them to death and have the World Bank loot their filth encrusted corpses!), but an agreement none the less.

…Ahem…

Anyway, speaking of the Man of Peace, in the last fortnight we’ve had more clear indicators (as if we needed *more* examples!) that Obama’s rampant militarism continues unabated. Not content with sending 30,000 additional troops to guard the various pipelines routes and poppy fields within Afghanistan, Obama seems to think that Pakistan has not been destabilized enough and has suggested that the drone wars not simply be limited to the tribal areas of Pakistan, but now be expanded into Pakistani cities.  This is rather reminiscent of the ‘targeted assassinations’ carried out in Palestine by Israel over the last few decades, where a target is assassinated in a crowded city with an air-to-ground missile or laser guided bomb from a fighter jet that also manages to blow the legs off any little boys and girls in the nearby area.

Please note that in a post made at the start of October I indicated that even though it had not been explicitly discussed in the press, the escalation of both the troop surge and drone war would be an option Obama would likely go with for the Af/Pak war (i.e. escalating counter-insurgency and ‘counter-terrorism’ measures). My reasoning for this was asinine in the extreme – I imagined that this would be a highly probable occurrence simply because it was the WORST POSSIBLE military decision that Obama could make. And this is exactly what occurred. The Obama regime (like the Bush regime that preceded it) is so mired in hubris that it seems you can predict the future course of U.S. policy simply by considering the range of policy decisions his administration could make and choosing the one that has the worst outcome for short-term U.S. interests. Given the increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, what Obama needs now to complete this strategic error is open hostilities with Iran in order to make sure troops in Afghanistan are caught in an expensive Stalingrad-esque situation (thanks Tarpley.net) where supply lines are pretty much cut-off and supplies have to be flown in via aircraft. (this one may not actually happen as arch-strategist Brzezinski does want to be friends with Iran and it seems that the US does not really want to engage Iran, but on the other hand knowing the downwards trend of America…)

Obama the peacemaker has also massively increased the chance of the Cold War II scenario emerging in the Middle East as a series of regional sectarian wars between U.S./Saudi Arabia and Iran as briefly outlined in one of my first posts of this blog in September this year. In addition to launching some cruise missiles at stuff, killing in excess 60 people, including 28 kids, U.S Special Forces were deployed in Yemen to fight ‘al-Qaeda’. I wonder how much ‘al-Qaeda’ they are actually fighting. Last I heard the U.S. air force was bombing Yemeni Shi’ite rebels on behalf of Saudi Arabia instead. This has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Rather it has to do with damping Iranian influence throughout the ‘Shia Crescent.’

Finally, to ease tensions with Venezuela over recent U.S. power projection into neighbouring Colombia, US spy planes have been spotted flying over Venezuela.

…

In other news:

• The Indian government revealed that David Headley, a man arrested for allegedly conducting reconnaissance for, and helping in the planning of, last years terrorist attack in Mumbai was a ‘rogue’ U.S. agent (Times Online, London Telegraph, Russia Today).
• The Israeli government admitted that they were not only harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians without the permission of their families, but also those of fellow Israelis (Al Jazeera, Huffington Post).

And it goes on … and on … and on…

Seriously though folks, Merry Christmas

: : : : : : : : : : :