Modi’s Trip to Jakarta Is a Geopolitical Event

September 14th, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s daylong visit to Jakarta for the ASEAN-India Summit on Thursday despite the countdown having begun for the G20 summit he’s hosting in New Delhi, stands out as a sign of Indian diplomacy responding to a transformative geopolitical environment in Asia. 

Modi’s decision signifies the highest importance Delhi attributes to its relations with the ASEAN region, which is in the throes of a creeping new cold war like it never experienced since the Vietnam War ended fifty years ago. 

Modi stated at the ASEAN Summit that India regards the group as a central pillar of its Act East policy. In his words, “India supports ASEAN’s outlook on Indo-Pacific. While our partnership enters fourth decade, ASEAN occupies prominent place in India’s Indo-Pacific initiative.” He lavishly praised ASEAN as the epicentre of growth, playing a  crucial role in global development. 

The full import of Modi’s remarks can be understood only if they are read in the immediate context of the opening remarks earlier on Tuesday by Indonesian President Joko Widodo, calling on the ASEAN to devise “a long-term tactical strategy that is relevant and meets people’s expectations”. [Emphasis added.]  

Jakowi, as this charismatic statesman is fondly called, warned against ASEAN getting dragged into big-power rivalry, saying “ASEAN has agreed not to be a proxy to any powers. Don’t turn our ship into an arena for rivalry that is destructive.”

Jokowi added,

“We, as leaders, have ensured this ship keeps moving and sailing and we must become its captain to achieve peace, stability, and prosperity together.” 

Jakowi’s exhortation has a complex backdrop. For a start, it comes in the downstream of an impassioned plea by China’s top diplomat Wang Yi addressed to an audience in Jakarta last Saturday that southeast Asian countries must avoid following in the footsteps of Ukraine and beware of being used as geopolitical pawns by foreign forces that are sowing discord in the region for their own gain. 

The geopolitical pantomime is crucially about the mounting US pressure on Indonesia to get the latter to bandwagon with the Biden Administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Washington is anxious to “lock in” Indonesia, the biggest Muslim nation in the world and an Asian powerhouse, as part of a US-led bloc arrayed against China. 

Indonesia felt compelled to pull back its BRICS membership application seeking more time to reflect. Jokowi was originally expected to participate in the BRICS Summit at Johannesburg on August 22-24. 

President Joe Biden is skipping the ASEAN Summit in Jakarta and is heading from the G20 event in Delhi to Vietnam on September 10. In a nuanced commentary, Voice of America, the flag carrier of America’s public diplomacy, posed a tantalising riddle on Sunday titled Why Is Biden Going to Vietnam, Not Indonesia, differentiating between Vietnam and Indonesia through the prism of US interests: 

“Vietnam is a valuable partner for the United States as it develops ties in Southeast Asia… Vietnam is now ready to increase its relations with the US after 10 years of comprehensive partnership. One reason Vietnam might now be ready to increase relations with the US is because of China’s activities in the South China Sea… Vietnam wants to protect its rights in the South China Sea by making partnerships that strengthen its position. Earlier this month [September], Biden said Vietnam “want[s] relationships because they want China to know that they’re not alone.” 

“The US has supported Vietnam’s maritime, or sea, security in the past… Increased partnership would help Vietnam develop its technology industry. This would include production of semiconductors and development of artificial intelligence. Both these fields are areas of competition for the US and China.” 

When it comes to Indonesia, though, VOA quotes expert opinion to make the point that “among Southeast Asians, the United States was more popular than China and that popularity increased from the year before. However, Indonesians appeared to be outliers. The percentage of Indonesians choosing the US fell 18 percentage points from 2021 to 2023. Those choosing China rose by about the same number of percentage points during the same period… finding balance between the US and China is the “biggest homework” for Indonesia. One way for Indonesia to find balance is to look to the US to provide arms.” [Emphasis as in original text.] 

Poking reluctant or sceptical partners by simulating contrived attitudes is an old  trick in the US diplomatic toolbox. Thus it happened that Washington took advantage as the host country to exploit the recent visit of the Indonesian Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto to stake outlandish claims in a fake joint press statement on the Pentagon website. 

It claimed amongst other things that Prabowo and Secretary Austin “shared the view” regarding China’s “expansive maritime claims” in the South China Sea; “jointly condemned violations of national sovereignty” and “deplore in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine.”  

But Jakarta wasn’t amused. Defence Minister Prabowo publicly insisted later through the national news agency Antara that “there was no joint statement [with Austin], nor was there a press conference.” Prabowo was actually on a working visit to Washington! 

Prabowo said,

“The important thing is, I can underline here that we (Indonesia) have very good relations with China. We build mutual respect and understanding. I conveyed that in the US. We are close friends with China, we respect America, and we seek friendship with Russia. Indonesia’s position is clear that we are non-aligned. We befriend all countries.”

The minister then announced his plans to visit Moscow and Beijing this year.

“I will visit Moscow, I also have an invitation to visit Beijing in October. Insya Allah (God willing), I was invited. We want to befriend all countries. If possible, we can become a bridge for all.”

This bottom line has now been confirmed at the ASEAN Summit in Jakarta on Tuesday by President Widodo himself. The entire ASEAN alliance “agreed not to become a proxy for any power,” declared Jokowi. He asserted that ASEAN cooperates with any countries for peace and prosperity, but no one is allowed to make the alliance “an arena of destructive rivalry.” And Jakarta insists on its neutrality.  

Suffice to say, Modi’s Jakarta visit can be seen as a geopolitical event. In all likelihood, it was an intentional move by Delhi. After all, Modi was also one of the first Asian leaders to warmly felicitate the new prime minister of Thailand Srettha Thavisin on September 5 after he took oath of office in front of King Maha Vajiralongkorn, marking another spectacular defeat of another Western-sponsored colour revolution in Asia, after the turmoil in Hong Kong three years ago. 

If China moved with “coercive smart power” to weather the storm, the Thai establishment leaned on “coercive soft power” — possibly with Beijing’s backing behind the scene — to marginalise the protestors who enjoyed Anglo-American support and were rooting for the overthrow of the ancient Thai monarchy in that deeply religious nation and impose  republicanism as the state ideology under the leadership of a tycoon trained in Harvard and inserted latterly into Thai politics as a cult figure by the social media — reminiscent of Mikhail Saakashvili during the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in 2008.   

The stabilisation of Thai politics works well for India. India, Thailand and China are more for less on the same page as stakeholders in the Myanmar situation. Modi’s visit to Jakarta (as indeed the invitation to Bangladesh as special invitee to the G20 summit) testify to an independent foreign policy. The Act East policy is adjusting in tune with the Asian regional environment.  

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi (5th from left) and leaders of Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Jakarta, sept 7, 2023

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Two Japanese F-35 fighter jets and a contingent of 55 military personnel landed in Australia on August 26 as part of Japan’s first air force deployment to a country other than the United States since World War II.

The visit was organised as part of the that came into effect on August 13 and which, according to Australia’s defence ministry, seeks “greater defence cooperation” between the Australian Defence Force and Japan Self-Defense Forces.

The deployment also came just two days after Australia and Japan participated alongside the US and the Philippines in a joint naval exercise in the South China Sea. Disputes over the South China Sea have led to heightened tensions between neighbouring countries. Meanwhile, the US — with Australia’s support — continues to build up its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Green Left’s Federico Fuentes interviewed Japanese Communist Party (JCP) International Commission vice chair Kimitoshi Morihara regarding the peace and security initiatives the party is promoting to help counter growing militarisation in the region.

*

Federico Fuentes (FF): We have seen an important tightening of military cooperation between Japan and Australia. These moves come amid a significant strengthening of Japan’s military ties with the US. What do you believe is motivating the Japanese government’s actions?

Kimitoshi Morihara (KM): The Japanese government made its views clear in the paper released last December — a document that marks an important shift in Japan’s post-war security policy.

In this document, the Japanese government states that “China’s current external stance, military activities, and other activities have become a matter of serious concern for Japan and the international community, and present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge in ensuring the peace and security of Japan and the peace and stability of the international community” (my emphasis).

The document also refers to North Korea as an “even more grave and imminent threat to Japan’s national security than ever before” (my emphasis). Regarding Russia, the document says that its “external and military activities … in the Indo-Pacific region … together with its strategic coordination with China, are of strong security concern” (my emphasis).

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida presented this document to US President Joe Biden in January. Following their meeting, they issued a committing the two leaders to “reinforcing cooperation on the development and effective employment of Japan’s counterstrike and other capabilities”.

The Japanese government had always maintained that, in accordance with the 1960 , Japan’s Self-Defense Forces would only play the role of a “shield” while the US military would play the role of a “spear” in case of any potential conflict. With its National Security Strategy document, the Japanese government has declared that the US and Japan are now united as one single “spear”.

The government’s decision to carry out this dramatic shift in Japan’s post-war security policy was done without first seeking public support through an election or explaining it in the Diet [parliament]. Instead, Kishida prioritised reporting it to the US and pledging his allegiance to the US.

This attitude cannot be described as that of a government of a genuinely independent country. It is clear that Japan simply follows US hegemonism when it comes to its Indo-Pacific strategy because the government cannot come up with, or even begin to imagine, any non-military means to address the security situation in the region and, in particular, deter China.

The day after the the US-Japan-South Korea summit held on August 18 — the first trilateral meeting of its kind — JCP Chair Shii Kazuo issued a statement noting the summit’s outcomes were “a highly dangerous move, creating a new trilateral military-focused framework in line with US strategy, deepening the division in the Indo-Pacific region through bloc-building, and accelerating the vicious spiral of military-to-military confrontation in East Asia”.

Shii added: “The Japanese and US leaders at their bilateral meeting agreed on the joint development of an advanced interceptor missile to deal with hypersonic weapons. The JCP strongly opposes this move as it will drag Japan deep into the US military-led scheme of Integrated Air and Missile Defense, fuel a dangerous arms race, and heighten regional tensions.”

Should Japan obtain powerful long-range missiles to use as “deterrent forces” against China, Japan would become integrated into the US’ Indo-Pacific “” defence strategy.

All this confirms that Japan remains a US client state — militarily, economically and politically — as it has been since the US occupation officially ended in 1952.

FF: Growing tensions between the US and China in the region are of great concern. What, in the JCP’s opinion, is behind US military strategy in the region? Conversely, how does the JCP view China’s actions, both towards the US and its neighbours in the region?

KM: The US’s overall strategy is, bluntly speaking, to maintain its hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. This means denying China any sphere of influence in the region — economically, diplomatically and militarily.

The US seeks to do this using different words, such as “defending the rules-based order”, and trying to mobilise US-aligned democratic states against authoritarian regimes. But the so-called Global South has objected, noting that they have not been included in the rule-making process.

The JCP also criticises Chinese hegemonism. China is increasingly engaging in a dangerous course of Great Power chauvinism.

First, China’s reactionary position of rejecting calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons is of increasing concern. Second, China’s hegemonic behaviour in the South and East China Seas has become more aggressive.

Third, China has not taken any meaningful steps to rectify the arrogant behaviour it has displayed at international conferences by undermining democratic procedures, something that is in violation of the principles mutually agreed upon by the JCP and Chinese Communist Party. Fourth, human rights abuses have become increasingly grave, especially in Hong Kong and in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Although we criticise China, the JCP strongly opposes the Japanese government’s military buildup under the pretext of the “China threat”. Second, the JCP opposes attempts to inflame “anti-China” sentiments and the use of right-wing historical revisionism to beautify Japan’s past wars of aggression.

Third, as China is one of Japan’s most important neighbours, our criticism is based on our sincere desire to establish true friendship between the governments and peoples of Japan and China. We believe that pointing out faults in a subdued and rational manner can help to build friendly relations between both countries.

FF: In light of all these tensions, what kind of initiatives does the JCP think could help foster a more peaceful and cooperative Asia-Pacific region?

KM: The JCP proposed the following in its policy document, :

“Currently, ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is strengthening the East Asia Summit (EAS), which is made up of 10 ASEAN countries and eight other countries, including Japan, the United States and China, to make the region ‘a region of dialogue and cooperation not rivalry’, in line with the principles of ‘peaceful resolution of disputes and renunciation of the use and threat of force’.

“The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) was unveiled as a grand vision to create a region of dialogue and cooperation rather than competition, and to eventually create an East Asian-wide friendship and cooperation treaty.

“What Japan needs to do now is seriously promote the AOIP, placing the peaceful resolution of disputes at the forefront of its security policy and working hand-in-hand with the countries of ASEAN.

“The JCP’s ‘Diplomatic Vision’ is to create a mechanism for collective security on an East Asian scale. The most important significance of this is that it is not an exclusive framework that establishes an external virtual enemy like a military bloc, but rather an inclusive framework that embraces all countries in the region — ‘a region of dialogue and cooperation, not rivalry’…

“The LDP government and others are saying ‘look at Ukraine’ and raising calls for ‘strengthening the US-Japan alliance’, but they have not learned from the diplomatic failures that led to war in Europe. This is the wrong path and will only intensify military tensions in East Asia.

“The lesson to be drawn from Europe’s failure is not to strengthen military alliances that fall into a ‘force versus force’ framework, but to create a framework for peace that is inclusive of all countries in the region.”

[A longer version of this interview can be read at .]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Japanese Self Defence Forces are becoming more integrated with the United States’ Indo-Pacific military strategy. Photo: Wikimedia Commons CC By SA 4.0

Children in Police Watch Houses: A Nasty Queensland Experiment

September 8th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

They really are a brutal lot. While the Queensland Labor Government croons on matters regarding rights, liberties and, it should be said, the plight of the First Nations Peoples, its policy, notably on youth detention, is a contradictory abomination. This situation finds itself repeated across the country, though the Sunshine State, as it is sometimes called, does it better than most.

In Australia, jurisdictions have persistently refused to raise the age of criminal responsibility. Down under, troubled children are treated as threatening ogres, monsters to cage rather than educate. Legislatures and lawmakers have taken fiendish pleasure in using more stick than carrot in the penal process, the result being that errant ten-year-olds find themselves in facilities of supervised squalor. These are fecund grounds for future, full-fledged criminals, and they rarely fail to disappoint as teachers in that regard.

For the pure sake of electoral benefit, political parties continue to demonise and denigrate wayward, lawbreaking delinquents. Governments continue to detain children with varying degrees of severity, with officials scratching their heads on novel ways of keeping them off the streets and in the cells. Queensland has had a particularly insatiable appetite for the practice, having used it for decades. Between 2021 and 2022, thousands of children were detained for durations exceeding six hours; hundreds for 48 hours or more. The rough cost for this exercise over two years: A$35 million.

In early August, Queensland’s Department of Youth Justice had to come clean to the state Supreme Court that it had been running a gruesome, unlawful experiment in penology. Remanded children were being held in police watch houses otherwise designed for adults instead of youth detention centres. This also entailed placing children alongside adult offenders. The practice was brought to light in a challenge by the Caxton Legal Centre acting for the non-government support agency Youth Empowered Towards Independence Incorporated (YETI Cairns).

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus requiring the removal of eight children being held in various watch houses across the State controlled by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service. During proceedings, it became increasingly clear after initial investigations on the part of the government that something was brewing. Five of the original eight children had been transferred to youth detention centres, leaving the focus on the remaining three in police-controlled watch towers. It was duly found, as noted in the judgment, that the Queensland government “could not discharge the onus on them to establish the lawfulness of the detention of these children,” requiring, therefore, their delivery to the youth detention centres.

Chastened but not deterred, the Palaszczuk government, as a matter of haste, introduced legislation permitting such imprisonment in watch houses. The legislation also contained a reproachful sneer to the Queensland Supreme Court: the practice of detaining children in watch houses was rendered retrospectively legal. Inquisitors and Medieval Church prosecutors would have been proud. Donald Trump, were he to know of that fact, would have sighed with envy.

Then came further changes introduced by the police minister, Mark Ryan, part of a package to an otherwise unrelated bill. To ensure the effectiveness of the measure, the State was effectively suspending its Human Rights Act. The minister put this callous move down to a matter of “immediate capacity issues” in the state’s prison system, which is rather revealing in of itself. In the mangled language of administration, Ryan suggested that the measure was only temporary. “It is not intended to make acceptable the long-term use of watchhouse or corrective services facilities for young people.”

A terse, accurate description of the proceedings was offered by the Queensland Greens MP, Michael Berkman. “At 3:30pm, they moved 57 pages of amendments to an unrelated bill w [sic] 30 mins for debate. They suspend the Human Rights Act to allow children to be kept in watch houses & adult prisons.”

The suspension of the Human Rights Act was done with the calm, dismissive air of a desk clerk untroubled by the rule book. In a country where parliaments are regarded as awesomely, even tyrannically supreme, there are virtually no impediments on such monstrous conduct.

“This is now the second time Queensland has suspended its Human Rights Act to criminalise and punish children in this state,” Gunggari campaigner Maggie Munn told the National Indigenous Times. “Incarcerating children whether in prisons or watch houses is harmful, the government knows this and yet continues to enforce these conditions.”

Child advocacy and support organisation SHINE for Kids was fittingly aghast. “Locking up children might make people feel safer, but it doesn’t reduce crime or make them safer,” stated the organisation’s CEO, Julie Hourigan. “The government needs to address community safety with interventions that work, not just get headlines.”

This attempt at retrospective self-exemption from liability will not go unchallenged. Peter O’Brien, a lawyer representing former youth detainee Dylan Voller in a class action against the Northern Territory’s Don Dale youth detention centre, suggests the opportunity for litigation is ripe. “If the circumstances of the detention were particularly decrepit, or unpleasant, or cruel, or inhumane, then that would go to aggravated damages,” he argues. “And then in addition to that, there would be damages of a punitive nature, exemplary damages.” In that case, the Queensland government could owe children unlawfully held in such watch houses up to A$5,000 for each day spent behind bars.

O’Brien’s bristling confidence in the matter may be misplaced. The principle does not lie in the horrific treatment and conditions facing the children, but the scope of parliamentary power. Australian courts have held that State and Federal Parliaments may validly pass retrospective legislation, thereby soiling that purportedly sacred principle known as the Rule of Law. Parliamentary power here verges on true despotism. The only argument that could be made is that the case law blessing such a deplorable state of affairs tends to apply to ex post facto criminalisation rather than a government’s efforts to exonerate its own unlawfulness or criminality. The wriggle room here, however, is barely worth mentioning.

With a hoary repetitiveness, the case for a commonwealth wide Bill of Human Rights is demonstrated by the appalling conduct of supposedly wise politicians who reject its value in the name of populist howls and administrative ineptitude. The conduct of the Queensland government is simply another one on the slagheap.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected] 

Featured image is from Sydney Criminal Lawyers

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Abstract

This article shows how security forces in Japan in the early 1960s used studies of the violence and unrest that followed the Great Kantō Earthquake as templates for speculation about the challenges they would face in the aftermath of Tokyo’s next disastrous earthquake. Both studies reiterated the ambiguities associated with earlier state-sanctioned descriptions of the circumstances surrounding the massacres of Koreans and others in 1923, while maintaining that the Imperial Japanese Army and the police had done all they could to prevent that violence. The Self-Defense Agency and police analysts responsible for the two new studies concluded that if the capital district were to suffer another earthquake disaster like the one in 1923, then it was quite likely that the spread of misinformation – among other factors – would once again lead to outbreaks of vigilante violence and political instability, leaving the police and the SDF with no choice but to respond as their counterparts had forty years earlier.

Introduction

This article offers a close reading of two government studies of the unrest that followed the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake. The reports were written in the early 1960s by analysts from Japan’s self-defense forces and Tokyo’s Metropolitan Police Department, respectively. Lessons from the Great Kantō Earthquake (Kantō Daishinsai kara eta kyōkun) was released in pamphlet form by a unit of the Defense Agency’s Ground Staff Office (Rikujō bakuryō kanbu dai 3-bu, in Tokyo) in March 1960. Earthquake Disaster Countermeasures Research Materials (Daishinsai taisaku kenkyū shiryō) published two years later, was the product of a collaboration between the Security Bureau of the Metropolitan Police Department (Keishichō keibibu) and staff in the Headquarters of the Ground Self Defense Forces (GSDF) Eastern Army (Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu), also based in Tokyo. Lessons is short, only 40 A5 pages or so; at 250 pages, Research Materials is much longer.

The two studies were products of institutions with histories as first responders in the aftermaths of disasters. Their analytical interest in the 1923 earthquake in service of that work, however, was new and significant on several registers. Both Lessons and Research Materials combined retrospective accounts of how security forces had responded to that disaster with speculative assessments of the challenges they would face if another, equally powerful earthquake were to strike the capital in the present day. The retrospective elements of the studies reiterated long-standing state-sanctioned narratives about the actions of the security forces that had taken root shortly after the disaster, first in media accounts, then in various official histories that followed.1 Like those responsible for those earlier accounts, the reports’ authors portrayed the actions of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Tokyo Metropolitan Police as they related to the restoration of public order after the Great Kantō Earthquake as necessary responses to threats of or acts of violence that they themselves had done nothing to provoke, and as having produced positive outcomes in the end. The security forces were said to have helped rescue thousands of Koreans and others from potential vigilante attacks by taking them into protective custody, for example, even as the capital’s Japanese residents – supposedly convinced they were about to be overrun by marauding colonial others – were reportedly overjoyed at the arrival of the army, the declaration of martial law, and the subsequent restoration of order (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 237). When the authors of Research Materials acknowledged that the army had been responsible for the murder of leftist activists at Kameido, and that military police captain Amakasu Masahiko had killed Itō Noe, her nephew and Ōsugi Sakae, they framed those well-known incidents as isolated, extraordinary events, and as not representative of the otherwise lawful actions of the army or the police (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 70-71).

What was new about these narratives in the context of the early 1960s was not their content, which was familiar and orthodox, but the uses to which they were being put. The studies’ authors used their accounts of the 1923 earthquake’s aftermaths to argue first that Tokyo’s next disaster would also be followed by violent civil unrest, and second that Japan’s security forces would once again have no choice but to step in and restore order. The experts believed that the security forces would be called upon once again to contain post-disaster threats to society posed by vigilantes, radical activists, and foreigners. Some of the activities the report’s authors imagined the military performing in that context would not have been part of the GSDF’s normal operational repertoire in the 1960s but were at least adjacent to it; these included dispatching troops to safeguard government buildings and the Imperial Palace, for example. A significant subset of the GSDF’s post-disaster plans described in Lessons, however, was both unprecedented (by postwar standards, anyway) and almost certainly unlawful. In a section on “Preserving the Public Order” (Chian iji ni tsuite), for example, Lessons’ authors observed that:

Although taking into custody or placing under surveillance Koreans or other resident foreigners, as well as other individuals of interest (those suspected of thought-crimes (shisōhan) or of other violations of the law) are also means of guarding [the capital], there is concern that doing so could develop into an international problem. Special care will be necessary (Rikujō bakuryobu dai 3-bu, 1960, 32).

The prospect of taking people into custody was entirely aspirational on the GSDF’s part at that point, but it was also just one of several forms of direct intervention in civil society that Lessons’ analysts hoped would be available to security forces in the event of another earthquake. The two reports’ authors avoided going into specifics, but both studies referenced the need for new legislation or other policy initiatives that would give the police and the SDF the legal authority they said they would need to restore order after a major disaster in the capital district.

This essay explores how the studies’ authors drew parallels between the unrest in Tokyo after the earthquake in 1923 and conditions in the capital in the early 1960s. Their argument, essentially, was that the city was still just a disaster away from disorder and mayhem on a grand scale. My argument is that understanding how the security forces’ experts came to that conclusion is valuable for what it tells us about how the violence that followed the Great Kantō Earthquake has been remembered, for the questions it raises about how “lessons” from one disaster shape preparations for others, and for what it reveals about how vulnerable the police and the military believed Japan’s postwar stability really was. 

Planning for Disasters in the Early 1960s

The security forces’ novel focus on the Great Kantō Earthquake was in part a product of a growing awareness of Japan’s vulnerability to disasters in general in the early 1960s. The Isewan Typhoon in September 1959, which left more than 5,000 people dead, set the stage for a series of high-profile debates over how best to make sure that the country was better prepared for other catastrophes to come. One of the outcomes of those debates was the government’s designation of September 1, 1960 as Japan’s first-ever “Disaster Preparedness Day” (Bōsai no hi), thereafter an annual occasion for exhibitions of fire-fighting equipment and techniques, simulated emergencies, and evacuation drills in which the public was encouraged to participate (Mizuide, 2019). The 1961 Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law, another legislative response to the typhoon’s effects, made comprehensive disaster preparedness planning mandatory at all levels of government (Kazama, 2002). Speculation about the effects of disasters that hadn’t happened yet was set to become something that the media, policy makers, and state agencies did as a matter of course.

There was also a more particular precedent of sorts for the security forces’ interest in the relationship between what had happened to Tokyo in 1923 and the capital’s vulnerabilities in the present. Starting in the mid-1950s, the Tokyo Metropolitan Fire Department had begun using data gathered in the wake of the Great Kantō Earthquake to produce detailed estimates of how quickly and how far fires would spread if an earthquake as powerful as the one in 1923 were to strike the capital again. The department’s experts had no reason at that point to think that another such earthquake was imminent, but mapping the data from 1923 onto the city Tokyo had become was an excellent way to arrive at a sort of “worse-case” scenario for planning purposes. The police and the SDF were briefed on the fire department’s data and concerns in 1961 (if not earlier), and many of its main findings were included in Research Materials when it was completed in 1962 (Tokyo Shōbōchō, 1961; Ōya, 1977, 205).

A final note about Lessons and Research Materials is that both would have been written and read with the unrest associated with the Anpo protests in mind. The first demonstrations against Prime Minister Kishi’s attempts to ratify a new security agreement with the U.S. began in the spring of 1959, and reached their peak the following June, when hundreds of thousands of protestors marched on the Diet (Kapur, 2018). Lessons was finished a few months before those final, massive demonstrations in Tokyo, and Research Materials a year or so after Prime Minister Kishi’s resignation brought the crisis to a close. Neither study’s authors cited the recent protests as a factor in their analyses of the capital’s vulnerabilities, and yet the intensity and scale of the disruptions in 1959 and 1960 almost certainly made the possibility of unrest in a post-disaster Tokyo imaginable in ways it wouldn’t have been before. The Anpo protests in addition raised questions about how far the government was willing to go to restore order, ones that were likely to come up again in the aftermath of a major earthquake. The police’s actions left little doubt that it was willing and able to use force against civilians, for example, but the SDF’s utility as domestic peacekeepers was not yet clear. Prime Minister Kishi’s June 1960 attempt to deploy GSDF troops against the protestors faltered because the Defense Agency Director, a civilian, personally opposed it, not because there were absolute institutional prohibitions against their use (Skabelund, 2022, 163-164).

With these contexts in mind, we can turn to the studies’ main arguments about the “lessons” of the Great Kantō Earthquake. 

Reflecting on Post-Earthquake Violence

Most of Lesson’s content consisted of descriptions of the earthquake’s physical effects on Tokyo and summary accounts of the activities of the army and the police in the days and weeks after September 1. Research Materials covered the same topics in more detail, while also cataloging the changes to the capital’s built environment and patterns of habitation since 1923, and relating experts’ estimates of how much harm another M7.9 event would do were it to strike the city as it was in 1962. Both studies conclude with attempts to connect their analyses of Tokyo’s past and present vulnerabilities to speculation about how to protect the capital in the future. It was clear, for example, that in the event of another powerful earthquake the military and the police would again be responsible for making sure that survivors had access to food, water, shelter, and medical care, that damaged communication and transportation infrastructures would have to be repaired as quickly as possible, and so on. The reports argued that the security forces had to be prepared to perform the same roles after the next big earthquake that their 1920’s counterparts had after the last one. Which was, incidentally, more or less the same conclusion that the Tokyo Metropolitan Fire Department had reached at about what its role would need to be under those same circumstances.

Unlike the fire department’s experts, however, the authors of Lessons and Research Materials also took it upon themselves to reflect on the 1923 disaster’s effects on “public safety” (chian). More specifically, they described the post-earthquake spread of misinformation targeting Koreans in conjunction with the emergence of the jikiedan (vigilante groups), and acknowledged (to a degree) that acts of violence had followed in the wake of those two developments. (Lessons refers to Koreans as senjin throughout; the other study uses chōsenjin.) Lessons implicates the jikeidan in unnamed criminal acts without identifying who was harmed by them, or on what scale. Research Materials is more specific, and supported its descriptive summaries of post-earthquake disquiet with data about when and where the jikeidan were formed (there were 562 in the capital as of September 16, it noted), how many people participated in their activities, and so on (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 60). The report goes on to state that the jikeidan in and around the capital had targeted Koreans, and that they had harassed, assaulted, robbed and even murdered some of those they encountered. How many may have been harmed is mentioned only in passing. According to Research Materials, the vigilantes in Tokyo had been directly responsible for the deaths of only twenty or so Koreans after the earthquake and injuries to another hundred (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 73). Those numbers are of course much lower than the ones provided by witnesses at the time and by historians later, but they are in line with some of the tallies that officials had settled on after the earthquake and stuck with since.

In keeping with their search for “lessons” from the disaster, the authors of both studies pivoted from describing what the vigilantes had done to speculating about why they had acted as they did. The police and the military’s experts came to similar conclusions about that, with both settling on a list of factors that they said helped explain the aberrant behavior of their fellow citizens in 1923. Perhaps not surprisingly, both blamed the spread of misinformation about potential sabotage or insurrection by Koreans for the creation of an environment that tacitly justified violence. The sheer volume of misinformation and the stakes of the threats they conveyed had convinced frightened earthquake survivors to take matters into their own hands, the reports implied. Lessons and Research Materials repeated the gist of many of those “rumors,” and advanced several theories about why so many people had been willing to believe that they were true. One factor was of course the intense personal anxiety that survivors of such a traumatic disaster could hardly avoid; another was the absence of more reliable sources of information than whatever news was being spread by word-of-mouth. To those factors the analysts added others that were unique outgrowths of Japan’s colonial policies in Korea and the experiences of Koreans as colonial subjects. Lessons, for example, suggested that (presumably negative) ideas about Koreans harbored in the subconscious of most Japanese were to blame for the violence (Rikujō bakuryobu dai 3-bu, 1960, 12). The 1962 study took a somewhat more nuanced approach, which was to point out that many Japanese assumed that Koreans would of course be resentful over how they had been treated under colonial rule, and therefore found it easy to believe that they would want to take revenge when the opportunity arose. (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 69).

Anticipating Post-Earthquake Unrest in the 1960s

One conclusion that could be drawn from the reports’ analyses of circumstances that were so clearly unique to Imperial Japan in 1923 and their links to the horrors that began on September 1 is that there was no reason to think that another disaster, even one on the same scale as the Great Kantō Earthquake, would once again be followed by such systemic violence and mayhem. If the post-earthquake killings in 1923 had been primarily a phenomenon of empire, in other words, one might conclude that Japan in the 1960s need not fear a repeat of mob violence, vigilantism, or widespread unrest in the wake of the next major seismic event to strike the capital, whenever that might be.

That was not, however, the conclusion at which the authors of the two studies arrived. The police and the military instead interpreted the violence in 1923 as directly relevant to their preparations for Tokyo’s next earthquake disaster. Officials acknowledged the importance of the colonial context and long-standing prejudices against Koreans in their analyses of the violence in 1923, but in the end they assigned much of the blame for that unrest to factors that were neither products of empire nor unique to the 1920s. Both studies, for example, blamed the rapid spread of misinformation (including but not only in the form of rumors) for amplifying the fear and anxiety the authorities claimed had precipitated widespread acts of violence after the earthquake. Lessons and Research Materials took it as a given that the next disaster would generate conditions similar to the last, and that if official channels of communication fell silent (as they well might), false and inflammatory information would once again spread quickly. The security forces also anticipated that the capital’s residents in the early 1960s would react to misinformation and rumors in more or less the same ways as their counterparts in the 1920s had, namely by forming “self-defense organizations” (jikeisoshiki) in misguided and dangerous attempts to maintain “public order” (Rikujō bakuryobu dai 3-bu, 1960, 33). To be clear, the reports’ authors were not suggesting that these groups would necessarily once again target Koreans; rather, their assertion was that frightened and desperate civilians would be highly susceptible to rumors inviting them to focus their fears on some external threat, with unpredictable but potentially lethal consequences.

In addition to their worries about revenant jikeidan, security officials expressed concern about other potential provocateurs. Research Materials claimed that “hooligans” (gurentai) and juvenile delinquents were all but certain to take advantage of the chaos after an earthquake, raiding warehouses and stores, looting abandoned homes, and so on (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 239-240). Its authors warned too that one or more groups of political activists might launch crime sprees of their own, or exploit survivors’ fears and uncertainties in service of campaigns to force the Diet, the ministries, and/or Tokyo’s government to acquiesce to their demands, whatever those might be. Lessons provides fewer details about who might be behind the threats it expected the GSDF would have to confront, but it is clear from the document’s description of the many locations in Tokyo it anticipated having to guard – the Imperial Palace, government offices, and so on – that it took those threats seriously. The cryptic reference in Lessons to plans to detain “Koreans or other resident foreigners, as well as other individuals of interest (those suspected of thought-crimes (shisōhan)),” cited earlier, is the only time the document hinted at whom the military thought it would be guarding those locations against.

As Kenji Hasegawa has pointed out, official accounts of the post-disaster violence in 1923 were often deliberately ambiguous “about whether or not the reported attacks by ‘Korean malcontents’ after the earthquake were real or not”(Hasegawa, 2020, 116). That rhetorical strategy is also present in the studies under discussion here; both anticipated that misinformation would spread in the wake of Tokyo’s next disaster and that it would again lead to vigilante violence, but both also concluded that gangs of “hooligans,” Koreans and other bad actors actually existed and that they would pose real threats to lives and property. The ambiguities embedded in Lessons and Research Materials are also reflected in the studies’ discussions of the security forces’ plans for preserving the peace, in which their authors describe taking control of the media, putting some “people of interest” under surveillance and taking others into custody, among other interventions, while admitting that they lacked the legal authority to do any of those things (Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu, 1962, 241). Lessons’ call for changes to “the legal and legislative structures related to the maintenance of order” stopped well short of explaining what those revisions would actually entail, or who would pursue them (Rikujō bakuryobu dai 3-bu, 1960, 20).

Conclusion

As Aaron Skabelund and others have noted, the SDF’s very visible association with the successes of the 1964 Olympics was one of the key factors in the public’s embrace of increasingly positive views of the military in that era. Its routine participation in relief and rescue operations and in disaster preparedness exercises was another (Skabelund, 2022, 181; Murakami, 2013). Even Tokyo, which for many years had refused to allow the SDF to be part of its disaster preparedness programming, normalized the armed forces’ participation in those events over the course of the 1980s. 

Part of what made those developments possible was that the police and the SDF appeared to abandon the idea of turning to the Great Kantō Earthquake for lessons not long after they first embraced it. Neither the Self-Defense Agency nor the police publicly endorsed either of the two studies, and neither seem to have subsequently lobbied policy makers to grant the security forces the new powers that Lessons and Research Materials implied they would need going forward. The SDF’s spokesmen have not, so far as I can tell, suggested at any point since the early 1960s that Japan’s armed forces were making preparations for dealing with civil unrest or “hooligans” as part of its post-disaster planning, much less that it anticipated taking people suspected of thought crimes into custody.2 The security forces’ public-facing plans for dealing with Tokyo’s next earthquake disaster focused instead on activities that had few obvious corollaries with their more problematic interventions in 1923 – providing personnel, helicopters, and heavy equipment in support of large-scale search-and-rescue exercises, for example.

The publication in 1963 of the first in a series of new, analytically rigorous works documenting the actual scale of the post-earthquake violence against Koreans and the state’s complicity in it was an important first step toward a clearer understanding of that history, and thus of any lessons it might yield (Kang Tŏk-sang and Kŭm Pyŏng-dong, 1963). Scholars since have shed yet more light on the killings, on those responsible for them, and on the lingering implications of their crimes (Smith 2023). These developments would certainly have made it difficult for the security forces to stand by the claims that Lessons and Research Materials relied on.

Perhaps more importantly, it was also the case that legislators (primarily on the left) reacted quite strongly to both documents once their contents were known. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, opposition politicians took to quoting the documents’ more provocative passages during deliberations in the Diet – including the excerpt from Lessons, above – when the government introduced proposals that would have significantly expanded its powers or those of the security forces in times of crisis.3 They argued that the studies’ semi-nostalgic sketches of the authority granted to the military and the police in the 1920s and their complaints about the unfortunate limits on their powers in the present day were nothing more than thinly veiled appeals for a return to pre-war legal and political norms. Self-Defense Agency spokesmen were put in the difficult position of having to admit that Lessons had been written in-house while denying that the document necessarily reflected the military’s thinking or goals. For legislators and members of the public in the 1960s and 1970s already dubious about the purposes to which the SDF might be put, documents like Lessons and Research Materials only heightened their anxieties and encouraged them to push back against a number of government initiatives that might otherwise have faced less opposition. The studies were ultimately far more effective in that cohort’s hands as leverageable evidence that the state was not to be trusted than they ever were in their authors’ as blueprints for enhancing the security forces’ authority.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Sources

Hasegawa, K. (2020) The Massacre of Koreans in Yokohama in the Aftermath of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Monumenta Nipponica, 75, 91-122.

Kang Tŏk-sang and Kŭm Pyŏng-dong (Eds.) (1963) Kantō daishinsai to Chōsenjin Misuzu Shobō, Tokyo.

Kapur, N. (2018) Japan at the Crossroads: Conflict and Compromise after Anpo. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kazama, N. (2002) Saigai taisaku kihonhō no seitei: bōsai seisaku netowaku no keisei. Kinki daigaku hōgaku, 50, 1-82.

Keishichō keibibu, Rikujō jieitai tōbu hōmen sōkanbu. (1962) Daishinsai taisaku kenkyū shiryō. Keishichō keibibu, Tokyo.

Magnier,M. (2000) Tokyo Governor Assails Critics, Says Remarks Were Misunderstood. Los Angeles Times, April 13, https://www.proquest.com/docview/421511257?accountid=9758.

Mizuide, K. (2019) ‘Saigo’ no kiokushi: Medeiya ni miru Kantō daishinsai – Isewan taifū. Jinbunshoin, Tokyo.

Murakami, T. (2013) Jieitai no saigai haken no shiteki tenkai. Kokusai anzen hoshō, 41, 15-30.

Ōya, S. (1977) Shinsai ni tsuyoi toshi zukuri no mondaiten to kadai. Hōritsu jihō, 49, 204-211.

Rikujō bakuryobu dai 3-bu. (1960) Kantō Daishinsai kara eta kyōkun: Kantō Daishinsai ni okeru gun, kan, min no kōdō to kore ga kansatsu. Rikujō Bakuryō Kanbu Dai 3-bu, Tokyo.

Sims, C. (2000) Tokyo Chief Starts New Furor, on Immigrants.” New York Times, April 11, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/tokyo-chief-starts-new-furor-on-immigrants/docview/91695644/se-2.

Skabelund, A. (2022) Inglorious, Illegal Bastards: Japan’s Self-Defense Force during the Cold War. Cornell University Press.

Smith, K. (2023) Introduction, Japanfocus special issue on the 100th anniversary of the Great Kantō Earthquake.

Tokyo Shōbōchō. (1961) Tokyo-to no daishinkasai higai no kentō: taisaku ni taisuru shiryō (dai ippō). Tokyo Shōbōchō, Tokyo.

Tolbert, K. (2000) Old Words Can Still Wound in Japan; Governor’s Use of WWII Reference to Foreigners Stirs Furor.” The Washington Post, April 13, https://www.proquest.com/docview/408610587?accountid=9758.

Yoshikawa Mitsusada. (1949) Kantō Daishinsai no chian kaiko. Hōmufu Tokubetsu Shinsakyoku, Tokyo.

Notes

See for example Andre Haag’s article in this special issue, and (Yoshikawa Mitsusada, 1949).

The Governor of Tokyo Ishihara Shintarō’s April 2000 claims (among others) that “Atrocious crimes have been committed again and again by sangokujin and other foreigners,” and that ”We can expect them to riot in the event of a disastrous earthquake” makes it evident that beliefs like those that had shaped the two studies were still in circulation many decades after their publication (Sims 2000). The powerful backlash against Ishihara’s remarks, however, suggests that the number of Japanese who were willing to express support for those beliefs at the end of the twentieth century were few (Magnier, 2000; Tolbert, 2000).

Lessons came up on numerous occasions in the spring of 1978 during Diet debates over provisions in the Large-Scale Earthquakes Countermeasures Act (Dai kibō jishin taisaku tokubetsu sōchihō) having to do with the prime minister’s authority to dispatch SDF troops in anticipation of a disaster that hadn’t yet happened. See for example, committee minutes from the 84th Diet, Shūgiin, Saigai Taisaku Tokubetsu Iinkai, April 25, 1964 and 84th Diet, Sangiin, Saigai Taisaku Tokubetsu Iinkai, June 2, 1978.

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Lessons from Japan’s 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake: Spread of Misinformation Would Lead to Violence and Unrest
  • Tags: ,

Wheel Has Come Full Circle in Myanmar

August 16th, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Aung San Suu Kyi, the iconic figure of Myanmarese politics, has been moved from prison to house arrest. This may seem a baby step, but make no mistake, the journey of a thousand steps begins with one step, as the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu had said. 

This development signifies stirrings in the air, a willingness to explore dialogue, and must be welcomed by neighbouring countries — in particular, India, China and Thailand. 

If the past is any guide, the military leadership in Myanmar has either been talking to Suu Kyi behind the scenes or is hoping to re-engage her in a meaningful conversation. The fact that Thailand’s foreign minister Don Pramudwinai paid a secret visit to Nay Pyi Taw three weeks ago and met with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and Suu Kyi in prison suggests pivotal undercurrents. 

Don travelled on a special military plane. Evidently, the powerful Thai military was on board, which is only to be expected as the generals in Bangkok are also locked in an existential struggle of sorts with the very same western powers who are igniting a guerrilla war in Myanmar. 

The paradox is, Western intelligence agencies are fuelling an armed rebellion against the Myanmarese generals in power from the hideouts in Thailand while also promoting a colour revolution and regime change in Thailand itself. The Myanmarese and Thai militaries traditionally kept close fraternal ties.  

Don described his trip to Nay Pyi Taw as “an approach of the friends of Myanmar, who would like to see a peaceful settlement”. Interestingly, his trip took place just days before the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting in Jakarta on July 11-12. The timing suggests that Don’s mission provided a vital input for the ASEAN deliberations on Myanmar. 

The ASEAN faces a Hobson’s choice. To reconcile with the military coup in Myanmar is a bitter pill to swallow. On the other hand, the western pressure to isolate Myanmar is a road to nowhere; the generals in Nay Pyi Taw simply hunkered down. And in the process, ASEAN unity got eroded.

The ASEAN cannot be unaware that it is in Washington’s crosshairs, since the group stubbornly refuses to take sides in the US’s rivalry with China. The QUAD members once swore passionately by “ASEAN centrality,” but today a fragmented ASEAN suits US interests in the Indo-Pacific — ‘you are either with us, or against us.’  

All these subplots make the geopolitics of Myanmar very complex. But it is possible to be cautiously optimistic. Importantly, the joint communique issued after the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting avoided polemical references to Myanmar and even complimented the authorities in Nay Pyi Taw over their implementation of the pilot repatriation project with Bangladesh to facilitate 7,000 Rakhine refuses to return by the end of this year. 

The ASEAN joint communique stated:

“We reaffirmed ASEAN’s continued support for Myanmar’s efforts to bring peace, stability, the rule of law, promote harmony and reconciliation among the various communities, as well as ensure sustainable and equitable development in Rakhine State…

“We discussed the developments in Myanmar and reaffirmed our united position that the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) remains our main reference to address the political crisis in Myanmar. We strongly condemned the continued acts of violence, including air strikes, artillery shelling, and destruction of public facilities and urged all parties involved to take concrete action to immediately halt indiscriminate violence, denounce any escalation, and create a conducive environment for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and inclusive national dialogue.” [Emphasis added.] 

The ASEAN didn’t openly identify with Don’s trip to Myanmar but, significantly, the joint communique made it a point to mention that “a number of ASEAN member states viewed as a positive development” the initiative by Thailand, without elaborating or specifying which states were in support. 

Equally significant, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia which are known to have taken a strong stand against any engagement with Nay Pyi Taw that could be perceived as recognising Myanmar’s top generals as legitimate leaders, piped down their rhetoric. The Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, host of the summit in Jakarta, avoided commenting on Don’s meeting with Suu Kyi. 

Meanwhile, the military leaders in Nay Pyi Taw are watching keenly the political developments in Thailand, which point toward emasculating the colour revolution sponsored by the West. 

The Thai military is making sure that Pita Limjaroenrat, a rich playboy retreaded through Harvard University and pitchforked to the vanguard of the colour revolution in Bangkok will not get the requisite majority support in the parliament to form a government. 

Pita’s electoral alliance is unravelling leaving him in limbo. The second biggest constituent of his electoral alliance, Pheu Thai party, is seeking a modus vivendi with the politico-military establishment in Bangkok (backed by the monarchy) to work out a power-sharing arrangement that nips in the bud Washington’s best-laid plans to turn Thailand into a vassal state an anti-China base — an Ukraine in Asia on China’s doorstep. 

Pita had made it abundantly clear that once in power, he would do all he could to evict the generals in power in Myanmar. Indeed, the Western strategy is to turn Thailand into a staging post to destabilise the countries along China’s “soft underbelly” — Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar. Washington pinned high hopes on Pita who also possesses, curiously, the communication skills comparable to Ukraine’s Zelensky.

However, the Thai military is digging in, with support from the monarchy, to thwart the Western game plan to “lock in” their country as a base camp of the Indo-Pacific strategy to encircle China. The heart of the matter is that although the US-Thai alliance is decades-old and served mutual interests, times have changed, and today, the two countries share few strategic interests.

Relatedly, the military-backed elites in Bangkok are interested in closer ties with Beijing, whom it sees as a more reliable defence and economic partner. A strategic drift has been building up over the recent decades and Thailand no longer shares strategic interests with the US.

Perceptions changed in 1998, when the US failed to bail out Thailand during the Asian economic crisis. Thailand does not view China as a revisionist power or a military threat. Instead, Bangkok considers Beijing as the country’s largest economic partner, and an ally. Succinctly put, American and Thai strategic concerns are sharply out of alignment. 

Suffice to say, the political developments in Thailand and Myanmar are intertwined. The Thai establishment’s advice to the Myanmarese generals would be, conceivably, to “weaponise” electoral politics as they are doing in Bangkok and defang and assimilate the opposition, so as to keep the wolves away. It seems the generals in Nay Pyi Taw heeded Don’s message. 

The ASEAN too is not wanting matters to be taken to a point of no return and will be quietly pleased that Don’s consultations broke the political stalemate in Myanmar. After all, both the Myanmarese military leadership and Suu Kyi are staunch nationalists and cannot be happy with the state of their beloved country becoming prey to predatory foreign powers. 

Suu Kyi’s absence worked well for the western proxies to try to usurp the democratic leadership in the country. Her return poses a dilemma for the Western powers.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Desperate to present a united front at the upcoming Labor conference in Meanjin/Brisbane, on two crucial issues, dissent is feared. The Anthony Albanese government looks likely to prevent delegates voting on the merits of the AUKUS alliance and to recognise Palestine as a state.

An opportunity for informed debate on each issue will be lost. Toeing a party line is the priority, not Australia’s identity as an independent, human rights respecting country.

The controversy over AUKUS involves the lives of future generations and their understanding of security, via Australia’s alliance with the United States military.

On Palestine, Labor delegates need the chance to oppose decades of collusion with successive Israeli governments’ cruelties, including its practice of ignoring Israeli settlers’ violence towards Palestinians.

The reasons for challenging any prospective steamrolling of debates should be known, and not just by Labor delegates.

Respect for a common humanity demands we pay attention to the human rights of Palestinians.

A common humanity, not just Australia’s, is also at risk in the carefully promoted assumptions that China is our “enemy”. The AUKUS-engineered purchase of obscenely expensive nuclear-powered submarines is designed to protect US economic interests by patrolling Chinese coasts.

Forces which influence and frighten Labor managers have been around for years but why do they influence the agenda of a national conference in 2023?

Debates at NSW Labor meetings have registered members’ reject the AUKUS agreement. Labor Party HQ has perceived such rejection as a “threat to unity” and an unwelcome snub to powerful allies.

A regional NSW Labor conference on July 30 disallowed a vote on the anti-AUKUS motions and returned the matter to constituencies, asking the architects of those motions to think again.

The management’s plan is clear: to prepare for a “non-controversial” national conference, the least delegates know the better.

An understanding of the implications of AUKUS means motions should be encouraged and debates held rather than trust advice from retired US admirals and from inaccessible Canberra-based, alleged expert think tanks.

For Labor’s managers, however, the paradoxical route to truth is to remain ignorant and fear dissent.

AUKUS became policy when Labor in opposition was booby-trapped by the Scott Morrison government, which engineered the US-British-Australia alliance by deceiving the French.

There was no scrutiny or debate, neither in parliament nor at any level of the Labor Party. But why should a practice of concealment and secrecy continue at a national conference?

Labor’s reported avoidance on recognising a Palestinian state derives from the same reluctance — to avoid offending powerful allies as occurred in establishment deliberations about AUKUS.

Cowardice over Palestine is obnoxious, but odd. Almost 140 nations, including the Vatican, have recognised Palestine as a state. Nasser Mashni, Chair of the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network, reminded the government that Australia recognised Israel 75 years ago so what smidgeon of courage does it take to recognise Palestine now?

An answer to that question lies in the conduct of a Zionist/Jewish lobby which still thinks it has a taken-for-granted entitlement to influence Australia’s policies towards Palestinians.

The Israeli Ambassador to Australia argues that Palestine should not be recognised as a state until a final peace agreement has been reached. This is a monumental red herring, given that a decades-long peace process has been a farce.

Eager to promote the same arguments, the biased Colin Rubinstein, who is Director of the Australian/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, cannot resist advising the Labor conference that any motion to recognise Palestine as a state would be a setback to the peace process.

Given this man’s hypocrisy, it is astounding that any Labor member should still take notice of such a predictable lobbyist.

Labor members should also recall Israeli Finance Minister Bezael Smotrich claiming that Palestinians do not exist; they have no history and that Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gavir, supported settler violence with his own national guard.

If those events do not prompt support for a Palestinian state, the Labor conference could at least heed Israeli journalist Gideon Levy’s warning that, in face of slaughter by Israeli forces and pogroms by rampaging settlers, Palestinians are not even allowed to defend themselves.

Awareness of events in Israel/Palestine must raise questions about conference tactics to quell reminders about previous Labor undertakings to recognise Palestine.

Labor’s recognition of Palestine as a state would boost the morale of a people under siege by the most violent, right-wing government in Israeli history.

Fear of dissent seems likely to drive attempts to stifle debate about an AUKUS foreign policy which cannot be afforded, seem likely to be scuttled by the US Congress and has nothing to say about dialogues for peace as ways to enhance the chances of life on Earth.

Discussion of such serious problems should not be stifled by determination to stage an impression of political unity at Labor’s national conference.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

A version of this article was first published at Pearls and Irritations.

Featured image: Protesting the Talisman Sabre war rehearsals in Meanjin/Brisbane. Photo: Alex Bainbridge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Hundreds of South Korean activists gathered in central Seoul on Saturday to protest against Japan’s plan to release treated radioactive water from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.

Japan’s Asahi Shimbun daily reported earlier this week that the country plans to start releasing the water into the ocean as early as late August, citing unidentified government sources.

“If it is discarded, radioactive substances contained in the contaminated water will eventually destroy the marine ecosystem,” said Choi Kyoungsook of Korea Radiation Watch, an activist group that organised the protest.

“We are opposed… because we believe the sea is not just for the Japanese government, but for all of us and for mankind.”

Hundreds of protesters held up signs saying “Keep It Inland” and “Protect the Pacific Ocean!” while singing songs and listening to rally organisers.

Japan’s nuclear regulator last month granted approval for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power to start releasing the water, which Japan and the International Atomic Energy Agency said is safe but nearby countries fear may contaminate food.

US President Joe Biden will meet Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol for a trilateral summit on August 18.

“There is talk that the dumping of contaminated water is on the summit agenda. The governments of South Korea, the US, and Japan should view it an environmental disaster, rather than a political issue and agree to block it… for future generations,” Choi said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Millennium Report

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Today’s global geopolitics is more about great power competition than any other thing. It is evident from the ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe, and it is evident from the ways in which the US has been trying to build a global coalition against China for the past many years now. So far, Washington has achieved no substantial success. While Washington, presuming that there is a lot of potential for conflict in the region and the countries are eager to find a powerful ally against China, hoped that it will be able to wean the Pacific nations – including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – to its side, it has not happened. Recent developments indicate that it has never been more unlikely to happen in the near future than today. As it stands, most Pacific nations have learned to adapt to the ongoing great power competition, not in terms of choosing, or having to choose under pressure, one side over the other, but in terms of playing both sides to extract maximum advantage. Pacific nations are playing a long game, one that Washington may not be very enthusiastic about, but is certainly the one that serves them.

New Zealand, for instance, is one country playing this game very vividly. In early June, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins visited China to “boost economic ties … reaffirm our close economic relationship by supporting businesses (to) renew their connections with Chinese counterparts and helping grow new ones to support New Zealand’s economic recovery.” Now, these remarks directly challenge the US politics of “decoupling” from China, insofar as New Zealand is all about coupling.

Days later, Hipkins also attended the NATO summit as part of NATO’s extended arm in the Pacific, i.e., the alliance’s four Indo-Pacific partners including New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Soon after his return from the summit, Hipkins, while referring to “China’s rise”, said that “our region is becoming more contested, less predictable, and less secure. And that poses challenges for small countries like New Zealand.” Hipkins’ projections about potential instability become a gateway for smaller countries to develop security ties with the US and NATO and achieve security stability. But in the absence of any comparable programme of economic partnership with the West, these countries’ ties with China become a source of economic stability.  Hence, the long game of playing the great power competition to their best possible advantage. Instead of choosing a clear side, New Zealand, like many other countries in the region, is doing interest-based politics, i.e., ‘looking’ East and West for the specific purposes they serve. This pattern is region-wide.

On the 15th of July, when ASEAN foreign ministers met in Jakarta for the 56th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting, Indonesian President Widodo told them that ASEAN “cannot be a competition, it can’t be a proxy of any country [i.e., China or USA].” The Indonesian Foreign Minister said that ASEAN cannot “be another battleground” [i.e., just like Ukraine is today for the US and NATO, or just Taiwan may become against China for the US and NATO]. Again, this message from ASEAN actually rebuffs the message that the US Secretary of State brought to ASEAN very recently: that the ASEAN states must be free to choose partners. Yet, the ASEAN nations reiterated their openness to engaging with the US and developing trade and economic ties, while maintaining ties with China.

A key reason why the US is unable to find any meaningful success in ASEAN, or in the wider Pacific region, is that it continues to grossly underestimate the depth and the strength of China’s presence in the region and the trade ties it has developed over the past few decades. This strength, despite Washington’s pressure, is growing, as the Pacific nations continue to rise as powers capable of navigating complex geopolitical scenarios autonomously. ASEAN, for instance, does not deny that they do not have any territorial conflict with China. There certainly is. Where they differ from the US is in ways of managing that conflict.

Washington favours confrontation over negotiations, and it aims to use the scenario to make ASEAN dependent on US military support. Some countries, such as The Philippines, certainly, have deep military ties with the US. However, while these military ties allow Manila to develop its military strength – which almost all states in the world need – it does not mean that Manila is not open to non-military – and non-confrontational – ways of managing its ties with China.

In fact, in the second week of July, ASEAN and China adopted Guidelines to Implement a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Negotiations for the code have been going on since 2002. And, despite many US attempts to ignite a stand-off in the region through its intervention, the guidelines have been adopted, leading the region one crucial step closer to adopting the actual framework. As the Indonesian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, “This year, the relationship between the two sides made a long history, namely the understanding of guidelines to strengthen effective and substantive CoC negotiators, the understanding of joint development on a single COC draft, and the implementation of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) 20-year agreement on cooperation and cooperation.”

Could we ever expect a different outcome? It would have been naïve to have a different expectation. Given the depth of China-ASEAN trade, mutually agreed frameworks are the only logical outcome that serves all parties. Since 2020, ASEAN has been China’s biggest trading partner. In mid-2023, bilateral trade reached a whopping US$ 447.3 billion. Why would China, or even ASEAN, want to disrupt this situation? Washington clearly miscalculated, which is why its attempts at expanding the politics of “decoupling” globally are actually backfiring now in the face of more sophisticated methods that ASEAN is deploying.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Featured image is from NEO

New Zealand’s New Prime Minister Is Making Nice with China

August 9th, 2023 by Prof. Derek Grossman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

Since taking over as prime minister of New Zealand in January, Chris Hipkins has subtly stepped back from the assertive language predecessor Jacinda Ardern previously used in reference to China.

Wellington’s return to speaking softly about and to Beijing suggests that it will be even more reluctant than before to support America’s stepped-up Indo-Pacific strategy for countering China, or to engage with related multilateral groupings such as the Quad and AUKUS.

Ardern, by contrast, marked a milestone in June 2022 by becoming the first Kiwi leader to address a summit of NATO nations as the Western alliance began putting more focus on China.

At the event, Ardern called out Beijing for being “more assertive and more willing to challenge international rules and norms.” She argued that “we must respond to the actions we see … [and] speak out against human rights abuses at all times when and where we see them.”

Two months earlier, she issued a statement with U.S. President Joe Biden expressing concern about “the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interest” after China signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands.

Hipkins has been noticeably more circumspect. At the NATO summit last month in Vilnius, Lithuania, the prime minister merely observed that “China’s increasing assertiveness is resulting in geopolitical change and competition.”

Click here to read the full article on NikkeiAsia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Derek Grossman is a senior defense analyst at the think tank RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, California, and adjunct professor in the practice of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California. He formerly served as an intelligence adviser at the Pentagon. 

Featured image: Profile Photo of Chris Hipkins, Member of Parliament for Remutaka and current Prime Minister of New Zealand. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States and Papua New Guinea recently concluded a comprehensive Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement will give the US military unimpeded access to many PNG key naval facilities. This new agreement is expected to increase the US military presence in the Pacific region amid the intensifying US–China rivalry.

In response to the agreement, members of Indonesia’s parliament have voiced concern about the increasing extra-regional military presence in the region. Christina Aryani, a member of the committee that oversees foreign relations and defence, warned that the new agreement might increase tensions between the United States and China, and that. Indonesia must be aware of any possibility of spillover effects.

Certainly, as a result of the agreement there might be a significantly increased US military presence in PNG. It is important that the United States ensures passage of warships and aircraft to and from PNG will not impinge on Indonesia’s territory and remain consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is unlikely to make any formal statement on this issue. Indonesia understands it is PNG’s choice to make a defence arrangements with any country. Any statement might be seen as Indonesia meddling in PNG’s domestic issues. Indonesia did not make any statement when the Solomon Islands made a security pact with China.

Indonesia remains very much aware that its relationship with PNG is important. In July 2023, Indonesian President Joko Widodo made an official visit to Port Moresby to discuss the bilateral relationship. But the meeting was more focused on economic and education cooperation — not on security issues.

Even though there was no formal statement from Jakarta, Indonesia has always been concerned with extra-regional military presence in the region. For instance, Indonesia responded to British Malaya’s formation through Konfrontasi and Indonesia is concerned with the US military base in the Philippines. Indonesia also raised concerns with AUKUS and how it might provoke an arms race. Indonesia does not want the region to become a hotspot for US–China competition.

Still, Indonesia’s concern is primarily with ASEAN. Indonesia wants to ensure ASEAN will not choose between two geopolitical giants, and pushed the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. So far, ASEAN countries have remained solid in not choosing between the United States and China.

In Indonesia’s neighbouring region, the Pacific, US–China rivalry is intensifying. Pacific countries are more divided between the United States and China. At the end of 2022, the Solomon Islands concluded a security agreement with China. Though the agreement will not establish a Chinese military base in the Solomon Islands, it might allow increased Chinese military presence. This has raised concerns in many Western countries.

This intensifying US–China rivalry has divided Pacific countries, with some leaning toward the United States and some toward China. Geopolitical rivalry in the Pacific will not influence Indonesia’s neutral position.

It is in Indonesia’s interest to have a peaceful and stable Pacific region. During the opening of the Indonesia Pacific Forum for Development in Bali in December 2022, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi emphasised that ‘we must maintain the Pacific as a peaceful, stable, and prosperous region’. Any security development in the Pacific might also impact Indonesia’s security.

Indonesia has increased its engagement with Pacific countries through the Indonesia Pacific Elevation program. But it seems that Indonesia’s engagement with Pacific countries is mostly dominated by economic cooperation, such as infrastructure and trade arrangements. Indonesia should engage more with Pacific countries on security cooperation. Security cooperation is important to building trust and confidence between Indonesia and the Pacific.

It is too early to judge whether the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific is successful. Indonesia should also promote the Outlook to Pacific Island states. Other than ASEAN centrality, one of the key principles of the Outlook is that Indo-Pacific countries should not choose the United States or China, but engage both countries in cooperation. It would be beneficial if the Pacific Islands Forum were also committed to keeping the region neutral in the intensifying US–China rivalry.

During President Widodo’s latest visit to Port Moresby, he mentioned that ASEAN should engage more with the Pacific. This indicates how ASEAN could expand its neutrality principals to Pacific neighbours.  ASEAN–Pacific cooperation should not only be on geopolitical issues, but extend to people-to-people connections.

During Widodo’s visit to PNG, Indonesia signed a memorandum of understanding on education and committed to increasing the number of student exchanges between the two countries. Closer ties will create a level of trust where Indonesia should not worry about PNG’s close defence relations with other countries.

Indonesia acknowledges the sovereignty of its neighbours and their right to cooperate with other countries. But it is important the region remains committed to maintaining peace, respects neighbours’ territorial integrity and recognises the role of international law in preventing conflicts.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Aristyo Rizka Darmawan is PhD Scholar at The ANU College of Asia and the Pacific at The Australian National University and Lecturer in International Law at Universitas Indonesia.

Featured image is from EAF

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s meeting with ASEAN in mid-July, focused on convincing the bloc to confront Beijing, follows a long-running US strategy to transform Southeast Asia into a united front against China. By doing so, nations in the region are encouraged or coerced to antagonize China, despite the growing superpower being their largest trade partner, investor, and source of tourism as well as their most important infrastructure and development partner.

Reuters in its article preceding the meeting titled, “Blinken to press ASEAN to take tougher line on Myanmar, China,” would claim:

Washington hopes to rally Southeast Asian nations to take tougher action against Myanmar’s military junta and to push back on China’s actions in the South China Sea as top U.S. diplomat Antony Blinken heads to the region for meetings next week, a State Department official said on Friday.

By turning Southeast Asia into a battering ram against its largest, closest, and most important regional partner, it will be undermining its own peace, stability, and prosperity simply to serve Washington’s foreign policy objectives which not only include the encirclement and containment of China, but preventing the rise of all of Asia.

Secretary Blinken’s agenda is not unique to the current administration of US President Joe Biden. Transforming Southeast Asia into a US-controlled front against China has been a US foreign policy objective since the end of World War 2.

In a 1965 memorandum from then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to then US President Lyndon Johnson titled, “Courses of Action in Vietnam,” Secretary McNamara would describe a “long-run United States policy to contain Communist China” which he said, “looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.” 

In the same memorandum, Secretary McNamara defined the three primary fronts along which the US sought to contain China, “(a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.”

The US policy of containing China has continued, unabated, ever since, with Secretary Blinken’s attempts to coerce Southeast Asia to turn on its largest, closest, and most important neighbor, simply the latest attempt to fulfill it.

Eliminating Chinese Allies – Starting with Myanmar 

The US seeks to use all of Southeast Asia as a united front against China, much in the way it has transformed Eastern Europe into a united front against Russia. To do this, the US has engaged in interference in each of Southeast Asia’s nations’ internal political affairs, creating and building up political opposition parties, supporting “civil society” networks to help them take and maintain power, creating powerful media networks to dominate Southeast Asia’s information space, and even organizing and supporting violent street movements and militant groups.

The worst hit by US interference is Myanmar, a nation with a particularly close relationship with not only China which it shares a border with, but also Russia, another chief US adversary.

Myanmar has been plunged into violence since the nation’s military ousted the US-backed government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) in 2021. Since then, the US has both attempted to isolate Myanmar’s military and central government, as well as assist armed militants fighting the government and  terrorizing Myanmar’s civilian population.

Part of this support includes the “Burma Act,” passed by the US Congress and included in the 2023 US National Defense Authorization Act. It provides “non-lethal assistance” to militant groups engaged in violence. It is similar to other assistance programs accompanying US regime change operations elsewhere in the world, including in Libya and Syria in 2011, both of which evolved from “non-lethal assistance” and into US military interventions.

In order to effectively provide this “non-lethal assistance,” and eventually arms, ammunition, and other military equipment, the US requires nations along Myanmar’s borders to willingly serve as partners. As a result of the 2023 general elections in Thailand, US-backed opposition parties are poised to take power and have already vowed to adopt the US “Burma Act” as part of Thai foreign policy despite ASEAN’s fundamental principles of non-interference.

This provides a clear example of how the US is interfering across the entire region to either coerce governments into siding against their neighbors and their largest trade partner, China, or face being removed from power and replaced by a US-backed client regime that will.

The South China Sea: Subverting, Not Securing Maritime Security

Myanmar is only one engineered crisis of many the US is using to organize Southeast Asia against China. Another is centered on the South China Sea.

In the same aforementioned Reuters article, the State Department’s Daniel Kritenbrink would claim that, “countries in the region should make progress in resolving maritime disputes with each other in order to strengthen their collective voice in disputes with China in the South China Sea.” 

The US government and the Western media have attempted to depict China as an aggressor in an otherwise peaceful South China Sea, threatening to disrupt the free flow of commerce.

In reality, the vast majority of commerce flowing through the South China Sea is between China and its regional trade partners. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in a presentation titled, “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?,” includes a graphic clearly depicting China and its largest trade partners in the region as dominating trade through the South China Sea.

Chinese trade alone consists of over a quarter of all trade flowing through the sea. This is larger than the US-led anti-China “Quad” and “AUKUS” associations combined. It should also be noted that China is, in fact, the largest trade partner of both Australia and Japan despite their participation in US-led anti-China associations.

However, there are indeed disputes in the South China Sea, but despite US claims, China is not only at odds with other claimants, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, all of these nations are also at odds with one another.

Maritime disputes are common around the globe, as are the sometimes heated incidents that erupt because of them.

While US government-funded media outlets like Benar News will publish articles like, “US Condemns Sinking of Vietnamese Fishing Boat by China’s Coast Guard,” reinforcing the perception that Beijing is at the center of South China Sea tensions, local media regularly reports on Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam sinking each others boats as well.

Vietnam Express International, in an article titled, “Indonesia sinks 86 Vietnamese fishing boats,” would also admit, “Among the sunk vessels were 86 Vietnamese-flagship boats, 14 from the Philippines and 20 Malaysian.”

The Star in an article titled, “Kelantan MMEA disposes of seven seized Vietnamese boats,” admits:

The Kelantan Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) disposed of seven Vietnamese fishing vessels forfeited by courts by sinking the boats and turning them into artificial reef 5.3 nautical miles from Kuala Besar in Kota Bharu on Tuesday (Feb 14).

The article also discusses the scale on which this takes place:

“Since 2007, Kelantan Maritime has disposed of a total of 264 Vietnamese fishing boats through a variety of disposal methods like sinking, destroying, auctioning and selling and gifting with an estimated value of more than RM380 million.”

Quite clearly then, China isn’t “bullying” the rest of the region, the South China Sea is an area of multiple overlapping and highly contested claims which result in all nations harassing, seizing, and even destroying each other’s boats. As heated as these disputes may be, they are always bilaterally resolved before they spiral out of control, all while bilateral and even regional relations continue to expand and improve positively.

The United States, including through Secretary Blinken’s mid-July meeting with ASEAN, is attempting to insert itself into these heated but relatively ordinary maritime disputes, escalate them into a regional or perhaps even global conflict to then serve as a pretext for a continued US military build up in the region and Washington’s growing belligerence toward China in the South China Sea itself.

Secretary Blinken attempting to convince Southeast Asia to resolve their own overlapping claims and disputes among themselves, but only so they can unite and escalate their disputes with China, is an overt admission that the US doesn’t seek to underwrite stability in the Indo-Pacific, only to more effectively undermine it.

The US Is Dividing Asia Against Itself 

While the US describes its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” as supporting “open societies and to ensure Indo-Pacific governments can make independent political choices free from coercion,” it is clear that nations in the region are not given the opportunity to make independent political choices specifically because of US interference and coercion. Southeast Asia in particular is one of the chief beneficiaries of China’s rise. If Southeast Asia were allowed to make independent political choices free from coercion, it would clearly continue building its ties to China to further benefit from its rise.

That at least some in Southeast Asia are not only on a path opposite of doing so, but on a path that leads off the cliff of US-sponsored proxy conflict, demonstrates just how overwhelming US interference and coercion is in the region. It also demonstrates how this US interference and coercion, not Beijing and its policies, constitutes the biggest and most enduring threat to peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has discussed at length a number of security issues to enhance the self-defense of both the organization itself and the individual states that constitute it. Among these issues is the defense against US-sponsored “color revolutions,” which in one form or another is the primary tool the US is using now in Southeast Asia to coerce nations into belligerence toward China and in forfeiting their own best interests in the process.

Will the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopt similar measures as the SCO? Could ASEAN work closely together with the SCO to once and for all throw off Western influence, interference, and coercion, persistent since the age of European colonization, and move forward into the future able to truly, genuinely determine Southeast Asia’s destiny? Will the nations in the region finally be able to work with partners around the globe, including both China and the United States, but purely on their own terms?

Clearly in order to do so, the process Secretary Blinken was sent to ASEAN to advance must first be exposed, then stopped, and eventually reversed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brian Joseph Thomas Berletic, is an ex- US Marine Corps independent geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, writing under the pen name “Tony Cartalucci” along with several others.

Featured image is from TheAltWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Sonny Melencio is a Filipino socialist activist and Party of the Labouring Masses (PLM) chairperson. He spoke with Green Left’s Federico Fuentes about global imperialism and the Filipino left’s response to the looming threat of a US-China war.

*

Federico Fuentes (FF)How do you view the current dynamics at play within the global imperialist system?

Sonny Melencio (SM): At the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower. But this did not mean other nations would simply subordinate themselves to the US. Rising powers, especially China, have sought to expand their spheres of influence and are beginning to challenge the US’ traditional dominance.

The US military’s global interventions have left the superpower overstretched and affected its economy. That is why former US President Donald Trump called to end “costly” US military interventions.

Within this scenario, other military powers have filled the power vacuum left behind in certain regions, flexing their power to establish a limited hegemony and regional sphere of influence.

But most of these military powers — such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia — are close to, if not adjuncts of, US and Western interests. US imperialism remains entrenched in the economy and politics of these countries.

It would seem that aside from China, the efforts of other sub-imperialist, regional or military powers are an extension of US efforts to maintain its global rule while also allowing these countries to carve out their own spheres of influence.

There is also a more positive scenario taking place in Latin America that needs to be taken into account. While the ALBA [Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our Americas] project of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is on the backburner, the election of left and progressive governments in Colombia, Brazil and Chile are very encouraging.

All of this points to heightened and increasing instability for the imperialist world order.

FF: How have these global dynamics affected politics in the Philippines?

SM: We are in the middle of a looming theatre of war between the US and China, in which the policy adopted by the previous Rodrigo Duterte regime of favouring the Chinese government’s interests and taking a “soft” stance on the West Philippine issue has been replaced by President Ferdinand Marcos Jnr’s shameless subservience to US imperialist interests.

Aside from its military bases in the Pacific, the US also has many nuclear submarines, hundreds of warships, almost a thousand combat aircraft and more than 300,000 soldiers and personnel patrolling the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including the South China Sea.

China has deployed four nuclear submarines, 350 warships, thousands of ground-launched missiles capable of retaliating against US bombs (and reaching the west coast of the US) and air-defence systems are scattered across China, occupied islands and atolls in the South China Sea.

The left and progressive movements in the Philippines oppose these preparations for war by both the US and China.

PLM is campaigning to dismantle US bases established under the Visiting Forces and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), and for the withdrawal of all troops belonging to the US and its imperialist allies stationed in the Asia-Pacific region.

PLM also calls on China to halt its militarisation of the region and its bullying of countries that maintain sovereign rights over specific zones of the South China Sea. We call for the implementation of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Treaty to urgently demilitarise the region, and advocate for a broader Asia-Pacific-wide nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty and regime.

We are also campaigning against AUKUS [the Australia-UK-US military alliance] and its fielding of more nuclear submarines in the Asia-Pacific.

FF: How do you explain the growing tensions between the US and China and how do you view China’s role in the region?

SM: There are left forces that view China becoming a major industrial power — and even outstripping the US — as a positive development. But China’s rise to superpower status does not constitute an advance for socialism.

China is likely to surpass the US as the world’s largest economic power before 2030. China is also starting to build up its military defence perimeter and number of military bases, even if it is not doing this in the same way as other imperialist powers. Rather than military interventions and occupation, China is relying on bilateral agreements based on economic considerations leveraged by China’s massive investments in infrastructure projects.

China has escalated its bid for exclusive territorial control of the South China Sea by expanding Longpo Naval Base, on Hainan Island, as a home port for four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. In the disputed Spratly Islands, China has begun to dredge artificial atolls for military airfields in the centre of the sea and has built permanent bases on seven shoals.

Left and progressive movements in the Philippines are opposed to China’s bullying in the West Philippine Sea. The West Philippine Sea is the more than 370 kilometre Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that the international arbitration tribunal in The Hague has ruled belongs to the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The West Philippine Sea is also part of the South China Sea, which China claims is exclusively its own. This unilateral declaration rules out any possibility of a negotiated settlement with countries that have claims to parts of the Sea — one that holds 12% of global fisheries and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves.

China continues to attack Filipino ships and fisherfolk fishing in the West Philippine Sea. These fisherfolk are not trying to further some geopolitical interests, they are simply eking out a living. We have to condemn these incidents of bullying by China.

China’s foreign policy is the logical consequence of China becoming capitalist — or, at least, state capitalist — and trying to carve out its space in a global capitalist world still dominated by the US and other Western industrialised countries.

There is a capitalist class in China and it may well be the case that sections of this new capitalist class have imperialist ambitions. At this stage, China’s foreign policy is driven by an aggressive nationalism based on economic integration.

FF: What about the US’ role?

SM: The US’s pivot towards Asia, which was started under the Barack Obama administration, is an attempt to militarily encircle China.

In announcing this pivot, Obama said the US was turning its attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific, home to more than half of the global economy. China is considered a threat to the “security” and economic interests of the US, especially in the Asia-Pacific.

Since then, the US has begun rebuilding its chain of military bases and strategic alliances along the Asian littoral. In 2014, a battalion of US marines was deployed to Darwin, Australia, on the Timor Sea — well positioned to access the strategic Lombok and Sunda Straits that lead to the South China Sea.

There is also the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement, which allows US troops and warships to be based at Darwin. Around the same time, the US signed the EDCA agreement with the Philippines.

We recognise that China’s actions in the South China Sea are aimed at expanding its defence perimeter to protect its industrial heartland in South and South-Eastern China from a potential attack from US bases and US ships. That is why we have taken a more active position of focusing on campaigning against US military intervention and designs for the region.

Our position is: No to US military intervention in the region and No to China’s military mobilisation and bullying of countries with sovereign rights in parts of the South China Sea.

FF: Taiwan seems to be the key flashpoint in US-China tensions. What is your stance on this issue?

SM: Taiwan is increasingly becoming a key piece in the US’ militarisation plans for the region.

While China considers its sovereignty over Taiwan as non-negotiable, its strategy has been to promote cross-strait economic integration as the main mechanism towards eventual reunification.

But over the past two decades, China’s overall defensive position in the region has changed to a “tactical offensive” position. The trigger for this was Taiwan.

China launched missile drills in 1995 as payback following then-Taiwanese President Lee Theng-hui’s visit to the US. It did so again in 1996 after Taiwan held its first popular presidential election.

The Bill Clinton administration responded by sending USS Independence and USS Nimitz to the Taiwan Straits in March 1996. This was the biggest display of US power in the region since the Vietnam War and was intended to underline the determination of the US to defend Taiwan by force.

The US’ intervention revealed just how vulnerable the coastal region of East and Southeast China was to US naval firepower. It was this realisation that prompted the change in China’s strategy.

The PLM recognises Taiwan’s national sovereignty. We also oppose US plans to use the unresolved status of Taiwan to pursue its war aims against China.

Read the full interview at links.org.au.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Mongolia’s recent decision to adopt SpaceX’s Starlink internet services is stirring security concerns across the border in China, both as a potential military threat and a possible way around Beijing’s strict censorship regime on perceived as “harmful” foreign websites.

On July 6, the Communications Regulatory Commission of Mongolia issued special licenses for SpaceX, founded by American billionaire tycoon Elon Musk, to operate as a service provider using low-orbit satellites and for Starlink to provide internet services in the country.

The decision, part of the country’s ongoing digital transformation and New Recovery Policy, was announced ahead of the annual Mongolia Economic Forum 2023 held on July 9-10. 

“A network of fiber optic cables already provides wide-reaching access to high-speed internet across Mongolia,” Minister for Digital Development and Communications Uchral Nyam-Osor said on July 7.

“But Starlink’s technology will provide greater access to hard-to-reach areas of the country. Herders, farmers, businesses and miners living and working across our vast country will be able to access and use information from all over the world to improve their lives,” the minister said.

Currently, people in China cannot access foreign websites blocked by the Golden Shield Project, also known as the “Great Firewall of China,” unless they use virtual personal networks (VPNs). China has not adopted Starlink’s internet services due to national security concerns.

Some Chinese pundits have an alarmist view of the satellite deal.

“Mongolia is our neighbor. The satellite cannot provide its services to one area and sharply draw a line and stop providing them in another area,” Chen Jiesen, a Shanghai-based commentator, says in his vlog. “The network capacity can easily spill over to nearby places. Will it break our Great Firewall?”

Chen says even if Starlink promises not to cross the line, it has already planned to provide services in Mongolia and Pakistan, neighbors of China’s Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang regions, respectively. He writes if destabilizing social events happen in either neighbor, the related news may influence people in China through Starlink’s services.

He also says that, with Starlink’s autonomous services, countries that use its services cannot opt to shut down internet services in such situations.

Some Chinese commentators have said that Starlink’s dual-use satellites could pose a threat to China’s information and national security, especially during wartime.

A Falcon 9 rocket carrying Starlink 4-27 payload launches from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on August 19, 2022. Photo: US Space Force / Joshua Conti

SpaceX did not immediately reply to Asia Times’ request for comment.

A spokesperson of the Mongolian Ministry of Digital Development and Communications asserted, however, that the use of Starlink’s services will not affect Mongolia’s relations with neighboring states.

“Cross-border communications infrastructure and connectivity are governed by international treaties that have been mutually agreed upon by all countries, including Mongolia and its neighboring states,” the spokesperson said. “These treaties serve as a foundation for fostering cooperation and understanding among the nations involved.”

He said Mongolia maintains friendly bilateral relations with its neighbors and holds the utmost respect for the sovereignty of all nations.

“As for China, it has established its own regulations and monitoring mechanisms concerning such technologies,” he said. “Consumers in China will be governed by their own jurisdiction in accordance with their country’s laws and regulations.”

He said the Mongolian government has openly extended an invitation to all low-orbit connectivity providers to explore market opportunities within the country and Starlink was chosen as it was the first to enter the market.

Beijing’s Warning

As of May this year, Starlink had built a fast-growing network of more than 4,000 satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO). The company has plans to boost that number to 42,000 by mid-2027.

Its services have so far been adopted by at least 32 countries with holdouts including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Iran, according to a company map.

Starlink’s internet services will be available in most Asian countries, except China and North Korea. Photo: starlink.com/map

In May last year, the People’s Liberation Army Daily, a Chinese military-run newspaper, published an article entitled, “Beware of Starlink’s barbaric expansion and military applications.” 

“Although Starlink says it provides high-speed internet services for civil use, it has a deep background related to the US military,” the article said. “One of its launch centers is located inside the US Vandenberg Air Force Base and it tested a secure connection between its satellites and the US Air Force’s fighter jets.”

The article said Starlink’s satellites can boost the US military’s combat power, including through satellite-enabled remote sensing, communication, navigation and positioning capabilities.

Last October, Musk told a Financial Times editor that Beijing had sought assurances that he would not sell Starlink in China.

“Starlink is the backbone of the Ukrainian army’s command and control system on the Ukrainian battlefield, and China also needs to have this capability,” a Jiangxi-based military writer says. The safety factor and communication capabilities that come with having tens of thousands of Starlink satellites are far superior to relying on a few large satellites, he says. 

The writer stresses that, as high-speed data transmission is essential in wartime, China’s demand for communication satellites will continue to increase. He says China has built a 5G network locally and will develop a low-orbit satellite network to serve Belt and Road countries.

On July 9, China successfully launched its first low-orbit satellite that can provide internet services, Xinhua reported.

Mongolia’s ‘Crazy Idea’

Apart from Starlink, Mongolia is seeking to form a partnership with Musk’s Tesla, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer.

On June 7, Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai asked Musk in a virtual meeting to start research on the use of Mongolia’s copper and rare earth elements to make Teslas in the country. He said that, although this idea may sound crazy for the moment, it could work. 

He also suggested the establishment of a scholarship program to train Mongolia’s information technology (IT) engineers.

The Mongolian government said Starlink’s introduction is the first stage of its ambitious and wide-ranging program to develop a space economy. It said it is strengthening partnerships with G7 countries to explore space-related cooperation opportunities for peaceful purposes, including on communication satellites.

Mongolian Parliament Speaker Gombojavyn Zandanshatar told Asia Times in an interivew that during this year’s Mongolia Economic Forum the government also entered into a partnership with the London-based What3Words, which operates a geocode system that can help streamline postal services and highlight tourism spots.

To attract more foreign investment, the government will also set up a private partnership center and an investment and trade agency, Zandanshatars said, adding that Parliament is committed to revising the Draft Law on Investment.

“China is a particularly important trading partner for Mongolia, representing 82% of our exports in 2021,” he said. “Further investment in this partnership from our side will ensure the success of our long-term development policies.”

He stressed that Mongolia will continue to create an environment that welcomes responsible foreign investors in all sectors and ensures that they are given the same level of treatment as local businesses.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: SpaceX’s Starlink Mission in 2019. Photo: Starlink

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Any security arrangement with too many variables and multiple contingencies, risks stuttering and keeling over. Critical delays might be suffered, attributable to a number of factors beyond the parties concerned. Disputes and disagreements may surface. Such an arrangement is AUKUS, where the number of cooks risk spoiling any meal they promise to cook.

The main dish here comprises the nuclear-powered submarines that are meant to make their way to Australian shores, both in terms of purchase and construction. It marks what the US, UK and Australia describe as the first pillar of the agreement. Ostensibly, they are intended for the island continent’s self-defence, declared as wholesomely and even desperately necessary in these dangerous times. Factually, they are intended as expensive toys for willing vassals, possibly operated by Australian personnel, at the beckon call of US naval and military forces, monitoring Chinese forces and any mischief they might cause.

While the agreement envisages the creation of specific AUKUS submarines using a British design, supplemented by US technology and Australian logistics, up to three Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines are intended as an initial transfer. The decision to do so, however, ultimately resides in Congress. As delighted and willing as President Joe Biden might well be to part with such hulks, representatives in Washington are not all in accord.

Signs that not all lawmakers were keen on the arrangement were already being expressed in December 2022. In a letter to Biden authored by Democratic Senator Jack Reed and outgoing Republican Senator James Inhofe, concerns were expressed “about the state of the US submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN [nuclear sub] end state.” Current conditions, the senators went on to describe, required “a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the US submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”

On May 22, a Congressional Research Service report outlined some of the issues facing US politicians regarding the procurement of the Virginia (SSN-774) submarine for the Australian Navy. Should, for instance, Congress “approve, reject, or modify DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023”? Would the transfer of three to five such boats “while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy” have a “net impact on collective allied deterrence”? And should Beijing even worry, given some unequivocal remarks from Australian officials that they would not automatically use the US-supplied boats against them in a conflict involving Washington.

The report has proven prescient enough. Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee have realised that stalling aspects of AUKUS might prove useful, if it entails increasing military spending beyond levels set by the current debt-limit deal. On July 16, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, one of the committee’s ranking members, took to the Wall Street Journal to declare that the US had to double submarine production. The opening words of praise for the security pact are merely the prelude for a giant dollop of America First advice, snootily relegating Australia to the status of mere clients. “As it stands, the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy’s requirements.”

The magic number of 66 nuclear submarines was some way off; the US only had 49 in its fleet, a number that would fall to three by 2030 as aging submarines retired at a rate faster than their replacement. The industrial base for such vessels had been stretched, with a mere 1.2 Virginia-class attack submarines being produced annually instead of the necessary two. For Wicker, the halcyon days for submarine procurement were the 1980s, when bold, muscular administrations lustily spent money on the program.

Then came another problem: almost 40% of the US attack submarines would be incapable of deployment due to maintenance delays. The senator offered one example from 2021: an accident to the USS Connecticut in the South China Sea meant that it would not be of use until 2026.

The terms, for Wicker, are stark. “To keep the commitment under AUKUS, and not reduce our own fleet, the US would have to produce between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year.” There would have to be improvements in the field of submarine maintenance and “more forward basing of submarines” (Australia is not mentioned as an option for such staging, but the implication throbs in its obviousness). While acknowledging that Australian investment in US shipyards will help, the amount of $3 billion in the submarine base, Wicker stated in a separate interview fell far short of what was necessary.

Priorities are what they are: “we cannot afford to shrink the overworked US submarine fleet at a dangerous moment.” And why should that be so? Because the People’s Liberation Army of China will, as instructed by China’s President Xi Jinping, “be ready for a Taiwan invasion by 2027. Time is of the essence.”

When, then, to be done? No fuss will be made by the senator and his colleagues were Biden to “immediately send Congress a request for supplemental appropriations and authorities – including a detailed implementation – that increases US submarine production to 2.5 Virginia-class attack submarines.” General investments in US submarine production capacity including supplier and workforce development initiatives were needed. Remember, Wicker urges, those bold and brash expenditures of the Second World War and the Cold War. “To fulfill the promise and benefit of the AUKUS agreement, we need such clarity of purpose once again.”

Such manoeuvring has caught the Democrats off guard. Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who had hoped for an easy transfer of submarines pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act, is pondering the need for a separate amendment to the defence policy bill facilitating the submarine transfer. He thought that Republican reluctance to permit the transfer to the Australians was “foolish because giving us the ability to have that type of presence in the Pacific with a strong ally makes a lot of sense”.

As US lawmakers wrestle over funds and the need to increase submarine production, the Australian side of the bargain looks flimsy, weak, and dispensable. With cap waiting to be filled, Canberra’s undistinguished begging is qualified by what, exactly, will be provided.  What the US president promises, Congress taketh. Wise heads might see this as a chance to disentangle, extricate, and cancel an agreement monumentally absurd, costly and filled with folly. It might even go some way to preserve peace rather than stimulate Indo-Pacific militarism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Arming Taiwan Is an Insane Provocation

July 21st, 2023 by John V. Walsh

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Island of Taiwan has been turned into a “powder keg” by the infusion of U.S. weaponry, pushing the Taiwanese people into the “abyss of disaster.”  These are the words of the Chinese Defense Ministry in reaction to the recent $440 million sale of U.S. arms to the island. And now the U.S. is also giving, not selling, arms to Taiwan, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

The “First Island Chain” Strategy of the U.S.

Taiwan is but one in a series of islands along the Chinese coast, often called “The First Island Chain,” which now bristles with advanced U.S. weapons. These are accompanied by tens of thousands of supporting U.S. military personnel and combat troops.  The “First Island Chain” extends from Japan in the north southward through Japan’s Ryukyu islands which include Okinawa, to Taiwan and on to the northern Philippines. (U.S. ally, South Korea, with a military of 500,000 active duty personnel and 3 million reserves is a powerful adjunct to this chain.) In U.S. military doctrine the First Island Chain is a base to “project power” and restrict sea access to China.

Taiwan is at the center this string of islands and is considered the focal point of The First Island Chain strategy. When the fiercely hawkish Cold Warrior, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, conceived the strategy in 1951, he dubbed Taiwan America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

Taiwan is now one source of contention between the U.S. and China. As is often said but rarely done, the pursuit of peace demands that we understand the point of view of those who are marked as our adversaries. And, in China’s eyes, Taiwan and the rest of these armed isles look like both chain and noose.

How would the U.S. react in a similar circumstance? Cuba is about the same distance from the U.S. as the width of the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Mainland. Consider the recent U.S. reaction to rumors that China was setting up a listening post in Cuba. There was a bipartisan reaction of alarm in Congress and a bipartisan statement that such an installation is “unacceptable.” What would be the reaction if China armed Cuba to the teeth or sent hundreds of soldiers there as the U.S. has done to Taiwan? It is not hard to imagine. One immediately thinks of the U.S. sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and later the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Clearly, the arming of Taiwan is a provocative act that pushes the U.S. closer to war with China, a nuclear power.

The Secessionist Movement in Taiwan

According to the One China Policy, the official policy of the U.S., Taiwan is part of China. The UN took the same position in 1971 with passage of Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) which recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the legitimate government of all of China and its sole representative in the UN.

In recent decades a secessionist movement has developed on the island of Taiwan, a sentiment represented by the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party). Currently Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP is President. But in the local elections of 2022, the DPP lost very badly to the KMT (Kuomintang) which is friendly to the Mainland and wishes to preserve the status quo or “strategic ambiguity,” as it is called. Tsai built the DPP’s 2022 campaign on hostility to Beijing, not on local issues. And at the same time, her government passed legislation to increase the compulsory service for young Taiwanese males from 6 months to a year. Needless to say, this hawkish move was not popular with the under 30 set.

Polling in 2022 showed that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese now want to preserve the status quo. Only 1.3% want immediate unification and only 5.3% want immediate independence. Compared to previous years, a record 28.6 percent of those polled said they preferred to “maintain the status quo indefinitely,” while 28.3 percent chose the status quo to “decide at a later date,” and 25.2 percent opted for the status quo with a view to “move toward independence.” Thus, a total of 82.1% now favor the status quo! Not surprisingly, every prominent presidential candidate professes to be in favor of the status quo. However, DPP candidates also contend there is no need to declare independence since in their eyes Taiwan is already independent.

The stated policy of the People’s Republic of China is to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan. Only if the secessionist movement formally declares independence does Beijing threaten to use force. Clearly the Taiwanese do not wish to find themselves in the position of Ukrainians, cannon fodder in a U.S. proxy war.

Here we might once more consider how the alleged enemy of the U.S., China, sees things and might react to a formal act of secession and declaration of independence by Taiwan. And again, we might be guided by our own history. When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the U.S. descended into the bloodiest war in its history with 620,000 soldiers dead. Moreover, a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of the colonial West. Given these circumstances, arming Taiwan clearly creates a “powder keg.” A single spark could ignite it.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea. The U.S. would come out on top. It is the neocon Wolfowitz Doctrine put into play. But in the nuclear age such stratagems amount to total insanity.

If some Taiwanese hope that the U.S. will come to its aid, they should ponder carefully the tragedy of Ukraine. Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives so far and millions more turned into refugees. A similar U.S. proxy war in Taiwan could easily turn into a full-scale conflict between the world’s two largest economies, certainly triggering a global depression and perhaps a nuclear exchange. And U.S. President Joe Biden has committed to send troops to fight the People’s Liberation Army should hostilities break out. So, the situation is even more perilous than the one in Ukraine!

No Arms to Taiwan

When all this is considered, arming Taiwan is asking for trouble on a global scale. Taipei and Beijing can settle their disagreements by themselves. Frankly put, disagreements between the two are none of America’s business.

So, we Americans must stop our government from arming Taiwan. And we need to get our military out of East Asia. It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S. We do not have Chinese warships off our Pacific Coast, nor do we have Chinese troops or Chinese military bases anywhere in our entire hemisphere.

China calls for peaceful coexistence and a win-win set of relationships between us. Let’s take them up on that.

And let’s bring all those troops, submarines, bombers, rockets, and warships out of East Asia before they stumble into a conflict or become the instrument of a false flag operation. We should keep in mind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, a fake report of a Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a de facto declaration of war against Vietnam. In the end millions lost their lives in Southeast Asia in that brutal, horrific war. Even that will look like a schoolyard squabble compared to the conflagration unleashed by a U.S.-China war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

John V. Walsh writes about issues of war, peace, empire, and health care for Antiwar.com, Consortium News, DissidentVoice.org, The Unz Review, and other outlets. Now living in the East Bay, he was until recently Professor of Physiology and Cellular Neuroscience at a Massachusetts Medical School. John V. Walsh can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Over the past decade, the Singaporean government has geared up its surveillance capacities by using avant-garde technology to monitor civilians. It claims that these technologies will help keep Singaporean society safe and secure. Civil society organisations (CSOs), however, raised concerns[i] over the rights to privacy and the People’s Action Party (PAP) administration advancing to become a digital authoritarian regime.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Singapore government strongly pushed forward its use of surveillance technology. The government promoted tracking applications and other monitoring tools as a main solution to the health crisis. This article argues that the government used COVID-19 to legitimise the extension of surveillance infrastructure. Using health risk concerns, the government was able to, without facing any resistance, get its citizens under the ambit of digital authoritarianism. Given the widespread self-censorship in the city-state, Singapore citizens and residents predictably restrained[ii] themselves from voicing any critical opinions of the government’s move to place the country and its population under tighter surveillance.

The Consolidation of State Surveillance

Digital authoritarianism is a form of political rule under which governments use digital and cyber tools to control and manipulate information flows. Through such tools, governments can keep a close eye[iii] on those who challenge their preponderance. This empowers them to tighten their political grip on power at the expense of civilians’ rights to privacy.

Even before the pandemic, Singapore was moving ahead towards being a surveillance state, devoting a significant amount of its resources to improving its monitoring capability. As of May 2023, there were a little over 109,000 CCTV cameras[iv] in the city-state or 17.94 cameras per 1,000 people. Additionally, the government plans to add another 90,000 cameras, for a total of 180,000 cameras[v] by 2030. The island also has at least 20,000 public Wireless@SG hotspots[vi]. Wireless@SG is operated by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which are majority-owned by the government. These ISPs have been reported to give away personal information[vii] of their users to the government.[viii] Wireless@SG can thus provide a platform for the government to collect data on Singaporeans’ internet usage and activities.

Apart from these tools, which provide lawful mechanisms for obtaining information and data from people living in the country, the Singapore government has acquired and used state-of-the-art spyware against critics of the PAP administration. The country’s law enforcement agencies have “extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance and highly sophisticated capabilities to monitor […] digital communications intended to remain private”[ix]. These capacities were utilised against government critics and political activists[x], as revealed by reports and leaked documents. For example, in 2021, the government reportedly attempted to use spyware to hack into[xi] the Facebook accounts of two Singaporean journalists[xii] whose pieces are often critical of the government.

The use of surveillance tools, whether their use is legal or not, is enabled or facilitated through legal provisions and loopholes. At the government’s disposal are the Cybersecurity Act, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, and the Infectious Disease Act. They contain vague and subjective definitions of key terms. To name one example, the High Court, in the case Chee Siok Chin and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Another, laid out the context of “public order” in which rights may be restricted. The High Court’s interpretation, however, is built upon what is considered the ‘interest’ of public interest and not the maintenance of public order. This gives room[xiii] for the government to implement intrusive measures against individuals even though such measures may not contribute to the maintenance of public order.

Furthermore, the lack of privacy laws must also be noted. Section 23 of the Cybersecurity Act (2018), gives extensive powers to the Commissioners should there be a cybersecurity emergency, “for the purpose of preventing, detecting or countering any serious and imminent threat to essential services or the ‘national security, defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order of Singapore”. Apart from enabling those in charge to enact measures provided in other Sections, authorities can order information relating to the design, configuration or operation of any computer and undertake information-gathering operations. This may include mass real-time information collection to identify, detect, or counter any such threat. While the law protects any access to information subject to legal privilege, it has effect “despite any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by law, contract or rules of professional conduct”.

The Singapore government rolled out the TraceTogether app for its contact tracing initiative. Screenshot from GovSG video. 

Online State Surveillance

Throughout the course of the pandemic, surveillance technology played a crucial role in Singapore’s COVID-19 measures. The government concentrated on subduing the infection rate to the bare minimum by restricting and controlling people’s movement. This was made possible by tracking applications. SafeEntry and TraceTogether later merged into one under TraceTogether.[xiv] The use of this application was enforced to track people’s movement to identify cluster-prone areas and detect if people were in close proximity to those infected. TraceTogether was presented by the government as a technology-driven solution, reflecting the grand strategy to adopt digital solutions to aid and assist Singapore’s version of governance.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the use of tracking applications raised questions from the public,[xv] who were particularly concerned by the infringement of their privacy. Many people feared that the applications would give away their geo-location and movement, enabling the government to assess their habits and activities. Some were concerned that the government might eavesdrop on phone conversations through these apps. There were fears of the applications being the government’s Trojan[xvi] for spyware to be embedded in their devices. Such concerns were not groundless, given Singapore’s history of state surveillance combined with vague and excessive cyber laws and legal loopholes.

However, the government was quick to dismiss such concerns, arguing that TraceTogether operates on Bluetooth technology and uses a “digital handshake” to collect data only when a device comes into proximity with other devices. It does not use GPS technology, which can pinpoint the real-world location of devices, nor does it collect real-time movements (Ibid.). Government health experts also came out to claim[xvii] that enforcing tracking devices is a common COVID-19 measure in Asia and that TraceTogether was less intrusive compared to tracking applications used in democratic Taiwan and Korea. Simply put, the Singapore government argued that the application does not surveil people because it lacks the capacity to do so.

Such explanations are problematic because they are built on the assumption that[xviii] Bluetooth technology is privacy-friendly. This has been proven wrong[xix] as one study showed that TraceTogether can identify and locate its user. The Bluetooth technology itself, while less intrusive, offers little to block the government[xx] from accessing data or hacking the handset. By downplaying the intrusiveness of the application, the government was able to set a new standard of what was publicly accepted when it comes to surveillance. Moreover, it omitted from the public discussion concerns regarding legal loopholes and overbroad laws that legalise mass surveillance in the first place. The government did not clarify how Singapore’s laws will apply to data from the application, nor did it issue legal provisions that would govern the use of the application. However, the government affirmed that the data from the application would be used solely for health purposes. Later when it came to light that the police accessed TraceTogether’s database for a case, the government revoked its own word[xxi] by arguing that the Singapore Police Force, empowered by the Criminal Procedure Code, can access TraceTogether’s database for criminal investigations.

Singaporeans use the TraceTogether app to comply with government COVID-19 regulations. Screenshot from GovSG video.

Normalisation of Surveillance as Part of Life

The Singaporean government used the rhetoric of the common good to compromise on rights to privacy. On different occasions, it cited health and safety as reasons for enforcing the tracking application. The argument goes that it is a duty of good civilians to sacrifice some of their rights for the collective good of their fellow nationals. The government even used healthcare workers to support this claim, saying that the application will lighten the burden of healthcare workers[xxii] who risk their lives for others. To be sure, this rhetoric is nothing new to Singaporeans. It is the same kind of excuse[xxiii] that the government has been using to install CCTV cameras with facial recognition on street corners. However, it is during the pandemic that Singapore saw more of its population endorsing state surveillance.

As the pandemic prolonged, surveys show that Singaporeans became more in favour of TraceTogether as a solution to the health crisis. In a survey[xxiv] conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in 2020, 49.2% of respondents strongly agreed with the government’s proposed methods of using cellphone data to track people’s movement without their consent during the COVID-19 lockdown. Another survey in 2021[xxv] shows that more Singaporeans agreed that TraceTogether should be made obligatory. Singaporeans surveyed in 2022[xxvi] have facilitated the use of TraceTogether among themselves. This inclination is particularly prevalent in a 2022 report[xxvii], in which respondents expressed that they will continue using TraceTogether despite the infection rate subsiding. This proves that many Singaporeans have been successfully led to believe in the government’s use of security as a justification for extensive surveillance. The enforcement of TraceTogether normalised the state of being under surveillance[xxvii] and made it an acceptable part of life in Singapore.

The government took advantage of Singaporeans’ indifference and trust and expanded its physical and online surveillance networks, both legal and illicit. It was during the pandemic that the government abruptly increased the budget[xxix] for information and communications technology to $3.5 billion, with part of the budget intended to enhance the country’s surveillance infrastructure, arguing that this will get the nation through the crisis and emerge stronger. In February 2022, it came to light that the Singaporean government purchased spyware from QuaDream, an Israeli developer.[xxx] Soon after that, also in February 2022, the chairperson of the opposition Workers’ Party claimed in parliament that she had received a notification from Apple that the government attempted to install spyware[xxxi] into her cellphone. The Minister contended that the phone was not infected and challenged the chairperson to send the phone to the police for forensic examination. The chairperson chose not to take the matter further, stating that the Minister’s response was satisfactory. These examples show that privacy is of concern as surveillance technologies are rolled out in Singapore, and the government insists it is not abusing surveillance tools.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, the Singapore government has continually used this momentum and the public’s acceptance to expand their surveillance. Facial recognition has recently been introduced in public services, including the use of SingPass – an application all citizens and residents can use to access government services. The SingPass application now incorporates facial recognition technologies, which, according to the official reasoning, will facilitate easier access to both government and private services. Also under the Singpass initiative, the government is trialling biometric authentication[xxxii] at hospital entrances. CCTVs with facial recognition technologies[xxxiii] have also been installed in prisons to check headcounts and detect inmates’ activities.

Overall, surveillance has reinforced a culture of self-censorship and fear in Singapore which further mutes public criticism of the government. Citizens and residents of Singapore who live under intensive surveillance are becoming more subconsciously fearful of speaking up and being more mindful of their actions both on and offline (Asia Centre, 2023). In February 2023 the pandemic was declared over[xxxiv] in Singapore and the government allowed citizens to uninstall TraceTogether, return Bluetooth tokens and move about freely. Nevertheless, Singaporeans continue to be unwilling to express themselves freely and many restrain themselves from formulating critical thoughts even when they are by themselves.

Constant surveillance in Singapore also creates unease among its residents. People may fear[xxxv] that any wrong actions or choice of words could be reported back to the government. Such unease can be further exacerbated by lateral surveillance – a form of surveillance conducted by individual members of society. With the government successfully constructing acquiescence to state surveillance as a duty, Singapore residents may further internalise this new convention and believe that reporting to the government of “unsavoury social behaviour” is a characteristic of a good citizen or resident.

Conclusion

The pandemic normalised digital authoritarianism in Singapore. Under the pretence of COVID-19 measures, the government rolled out a tracking application that, together with the existing legal tools, intruded into the private life of people in Singapore. There were some concerns and pushback from the public at first. But as the pandemic lingered, Singaporeans have become more and more accepting of the fact that being watched by the government via their electronic devices and other forms of surveillance was in their best interest. Such acceptance was brought about by the government’s use of the rhetoric of the common good, which forces Singaporeans and residents of Singapore to voluntarily give up their rights to privacy as a form of patriotism. As a result, the pandemic shaped the city-state’s’ favourable attitude and mindset towards state surveillance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr James Gomez is Regional Director at the Asia Centre. He oversees its evidence-based research on issues affecting the Southeast Asian region. He led the Centre’s research team that drafted the baseline studies, COVID-19 and Democracy in Southeast Asia: Building Resilience, Fighting Authoritarianism (Asia Centre, 2020) and Securitisation of COVID-19 Health Protocols: Policing the Vulnerable, Infringing Their Rights (Asia Centre, 2021). Dr. Gomez holds a PhD in political communication from Monash University, Australia and brings to Asia Centre over 25 years of international and regional experiences in leadership roles at universities, think-tanks, inter-governmental agencies and non-governmental organisations.

Notes

[i] ALTSEAN-Burma et al., “Joint Submission to the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, OHCHR, June 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/digitalage/reportprivindigage2022/submissions/2022-09-06/CFI-RTP-ASEAN-Coalition-to-SDD.pdf.

[ii] James Gomez, “Maintaining One-party Rule in Singapore with the Tools of Digital Authorisation”, Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia, https://kyotoreview.org/issue-33/one-party-rule-in-singapore-tools-of-digital-authoritarianism/.

[iii] Bahia Albrecht and Guara Naithani, “Digital Authoritarianism: A Global Phenomenon”, DW Akademie, 17 March 2022, https://akademie.dw.com/en/digital-authoritarianism-a-global-phenomenon/a-61136660.

[iv] Paul Bischoff, “Surveillance Camera Statistics: Which Cities Have the Most CCTV Cameras?”, Comparitech, 23 May 2023, https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/.

[v] “CCTV Cameras in Singapore to Double by 2030 in Crime Solving”, Surveillancezone, 17 March 2023, https://www.surveillancezone.com.sg/cctv-cameras-in-singapore-to-double-by-2030-in-crime-solving.

[vi] Hariz Baharudin, “More Than 20,000 Wireless@SG Hot Spots Currently in Singapore: IMDA”, The Straits Times, 9 October 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-than-20000-wirelesssg-hot-spots-now-in-singapore-imda.

[vii] Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net 2021”, Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-net/2021.

[viii] Privacy International, “The Right to Privacy in Singapore”, Privacy International, June 2015, https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Singapore_UPR_PI_submission_FINAL.pdf.

[ix] “Singapore 2021 Human Rights Report”, United States Department of State, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/313615_SINGAPORE-2021-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Kirsten Han, Twitter post, 17 December 2021, 10:01 AM, https://twitter.com/kixes/status/1471676913097707522.

[xii] John Berthelsen, “Australian Woman’s Fight to Prove Singapore Fraud”, Asia Sentinel, 12 January 2022, https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/australian-woman-fight-prove-singapore-fraud?ref=singapore-samizdat.com.

[xiii] “OM 39/2005, SIC 5162/2005 Chee Siok Chin and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Another [2005] SGHC 216”, CommonLII, http://www.commonlii.org/sg/cases/SGHC/2005/216.pdf.

[xiv] “ How do TraceTogether and SafeEntry work together? Is SafeEntry still required since there is TraceTogether?”, TraceTogether, https://support.tracetogether.gov.sg/hc/en-sg/articles/360052744534-How-do-TraceTogether-and-SafeEntry-work-together-Is-SafeEntry-still-required-since-there-is-TraceTogether.

[xv]  Dewey Sim and Kimberly Lim, “ Coronavirus: why aren’t Singapore residents using the TraceTogether contact-tracing app?”, South China Morning Post, 18 May 2020, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3084903/coronavirus-why-arent-singapore-residents-using-tracetogether.

[xvi] “TraceTogether – behind the scenes look at its development process”, Gov Tech Singapore, 25 March 2020, https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/technews/tracetogether-behind-the-scenes-look-at-its-development-process.

[xvii] Tatiana Mohamad Rosli, “TraceTogether app should be mandatory for all: Experts”, The Straits Times, 4 May 2020, https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/tracetogether-app-should-be-mandatory-all-experts.

[xviii] Terence Lee and Howard Lee, “Tracing surveillance and auto-regulation in Singapore: ‘smart’ responses to COVID-19”, Media International Australia 177, no.1 (2020): 47-60, https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20949545.

[xvix] Douglas J. Leith and Stephen Farrell, “Coronavirus Contact Tracing App Privacy: What

Data Is Shared By The Singapore OpenTrace App?”, School of Computer Science & Statistics, 28 April 2020, https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/opentrace_privacy.pdf.

[xx] Privacy International, “Bluetooth tracking and COVID-19: A tech primer”, Privacy International, 31 March 2020, https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/3536/bluetooth-tracking-and-covid-19-tech-primer.

[xxi] Matthew Mohan, “ Singapore Police Force can obtain TraceTogether data for criminal investigations: Desmond Tan”, CNA, 4 January 2021, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-police-force-can-obtain-tracetogether-data-covid-19-384316.

[xxii] Charissa Yong, “Coronavirus: Contact-tracing apps key to country opening up again, says Shanmugam”, The Straits Times, 3 May 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/contact-tracing-apps-key-to-country-opening-up-again-shanmugam.

[xxiii] “ Smart city surveillance: Singapore’s camera system stands as a potent deterrent”, Statescoop, 3 May 2017, https://statescoop.com/smart-city-surveillance-singapores-camera-system-stands-as-a-potent-deterrent.

[xxiv] Mathew Mathews, Alex Tan, and Syafiq Suhaini, “Attitudes towards the use of surveillance technologies in the fight against COVID-19”, Institute of Policy Studies, 24 May 2020, https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-report-on-attitudes-towards-the-use-of-surveillance-technologies-in-the-fight-against-covid-19-240520.pdf.

[xxv] Mathew Mathews et al., “The Covid-19 Pandemic in Singapore, One Year On: Population Attitudes And Sentiments”, IPS Working Paper40 (April 2021), https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/working-paper-40_the-covid-19-pandemic-in-singapore-one-year-on-population-attitudes-and-sentiments.pdf.

[xxvi] Mathew Mathews et al., “Attitudes Towards Work and Workplace Arrangements Amidst Covid-19 in Singapore”, IPS Working Paper 45 (April 2022), https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/working-paper-45_attitudes-towards-work-and-workplace-arrangements-amidst-covid-19-in-singapore.pdf.

[xxvii] Mathew Mathews, Mike Hou and Fiona Phoa, “Moving Forward Through Covid-19 in Singapore: Well-Being, Lessons Learnt and Future Directions”, IPS Working Paper 46 (July 2022), https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-no-46_moving-forward-through-covid-19-in-singapore.pdf.

[xxviii] Terence Lee and Howard Lee, “Tracing surveillance and auto-regulation in Singapore: ‘smart’ responses to COVID-19”, Media International Australia 177, no. 1 (2020): 47–60, https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20949545.

[xxix] Yip Wai Yee, “ Govt to boost spending on infocomm technology to $3.5b”, The Straits Times, 9 June 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/govt-to-boost-spending-on-infocomm-technology-to-35b.

[xxx] Christopher Bing and Raphael Satter, “EXCLUSIVE iPhone flaw exploited by second Israeli spy firm-sources”, Reuters, 4 February 2022, https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-iphone-flaw-exploited-by-second-israeli-spy-firm-sources-2022-02-03.

[xxxi] Kenny Chee, “ WP chairman Sylvia Lim’s phone not hacked by Singapore Govt: Shanmugam”, The Straits Times, 19 February 2022, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-chairman-sylvia-lims-phone-not-hacked-by-singapore-govt-shanmugam.

[xxxii] Zhaki Abdullah, “ SingHealth testing facial recognition system for hospital visitors”, The Straits Times, 31 October 2022, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/singhealth-testing-facial-recognition-system-for-hospital-visitors.

[xxiii] Thomson Reuters Foundation, “ ‘Like being in a fishbowl’: spotlight on Singapore’s prisons over facial recognition technology”, South China Morning Post, 22 February 2023, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3211068/being-fishbowl-spotlight-singapores-prisons-over-facial-recognition-technology.

[xxxiv] Zhaki Abdullah, “ TraceTogether users can uninstall app, return tokens at CCs from Feb 13”, The Straits Times, 10 February 2023, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/tracetogether-safeentry-to-be-stepped-down-data-deleted.

[xxxv] Hee Jhee Jiow and Sofia Morales, “Lateral Surveillance in Singapore”, Surveillance and Society 13 (3/4): 327-337, https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i3/4.5320.

Featured image is from EngageMedia

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Singapore Under the Pandemic: The Normalisation of Digital Authoritarianism
  • Tags: ,

Dumping Doubts: Releasing Fukushima’s Waste Water

July 13th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Nothing said from the nuclear industry can or should be taken for face value. Be it in terms of safety, or correcting defects or righting mistakes; be it in terms of construction integrity, there is something chilling about reassurances that have been shown, time and again, to be hollow.

The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) disaster has forever stained the Japanese nuclear industry. Since then, the site has been marked by over 1,000 tanks filled with contaminated water that arises from reactor cooling. The attempts by the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc (TEPCO) to decommission and clean the plant has also seen a daily complement of 150 tons arising from groundwater leakage into the buildings and systems involved in the cooling process.

According to Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority, the gradual 1.3 million or so tons kept in those tanks into the Pacific over three decades is something that can be executed without serious environmental consequences. This was a view that was already entertained in 2021, expressing confidence that the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) being used in cleaning the contaminated water would be effective. Of primary concern here is the presence of a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium, the presence of which is a challenge to remove.

There are various questions arising from this, not least the assumption that the levels of radioactivity arising from tritium will be significantly reduced by 1/40th of regulatory standards through the use of seawater. But as has been pointed out by such scientists as Ken Buesseler, Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress and Antony M. Hooker, there are also nontritium radionuclides that “are generally of greater health concern as evidenced by their much higher dose coefficient – a measure of the dose, or potential human health impacts associated with a given radioactive element, relative to its measured concentration, or radioactivity level.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency neither recommends nor endorses the plans – a curious formulation that does little for confidence. Its safety review of the plan to release treated water does, however, conform, in the view of the IAEA General Rafael Mariano Grossi, to the body’s safety standards.

“The IAEA notes the controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water into the sea, as currently planned and assessed by TEPCO, would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.”

A number of countries have expressed consternation at the planned move, including concern that the IAEA may have been lent upon to reach its conclusions on the Japanese release program. Tokyo is, after all, a generous donor to the organisation. For his part, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno huffed at the claim that “Japanese funding and staffing at the IAEA [could be used] to question the neutrality of the IAEA final report”. Not only did such criticism “completely miss the target but also shakes the significance of the existence of international organisations.”

Members of Japan’s fishing and agricultural industry, China, South Korea and the Pacific Island nations concerned about the fate of the Blue Pacific, have been vocal opponents. China’s Foreign Ministry opined that the report had been released in “haste”, failing “to fully reflect the views from experts that participated in the review”.

But some in the nuclear and environmental science fraternity are wondering what the fuss is all about, though their rebuttals hardly inspire optimism. University of Portsmouth’s Jim Smith, an academic of environmental science, considered all such concerns “just propaganda. The politicians don’t have any evidence in saying this.” More to the point, other sites had also been responsible for releasing tritiated water, including a nuclear site in China and the Cap de La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site, which already “releases 450 times more tritiated water into the English Channel Fukushima ha planned for release into the Pacific”. What examples to emulate.

Nigel Marks, Brendan Kennedy and Tony Irwin also tell us, based on their “collective professional experience in nuclear science and nuclear power”, that the release will be safe. Their primary focus, however, is solely on the treatment of tritium, based on an almost heroic assumption that 62 other relevant radionuclides higher than regulatory standards have been effectively removed by the ALPS approach.

They dismiss those old phobias of radiation, underlining it as a common feature of the environment. “Almost everything is radioactive to some degree, including air, water, plants, basements and granite benchtops. Even a long-haul airline flight supplies a few chest X-rays worth of radiation to everyone on board.” Continuing their focus on tritium, the wise trio find that the Pacific Ocean already has 8.4 kg (3,000 petabecquerels, or PBq) of the substance, compared to 3g (1PBq) of the total tritium present in the Fukushima waste water.

Such views serve to soften and conceal the broader problems of institutional malfeasance and past secrecy, citing the argument of sound science to conceal error and good old incompetence. The discharge plans have also been sold in technical, jargon-laden terms, notably to such audiences as the Pacific Islands Forum.

Adding to this the inherent clandestine air that has surrounded TEPCO, scepticism should not only be mandatory but instinctive. Why not, ask such voices as Hooker and Buesseler, consider other disposal methodologies, such as solidifying the ALPS treated wastewater within concrete? No, counter the Japanese authorities, citing insuperable technical and legal problems.

That remains the troubling question. As Dalnoki-Veress writes, Japan’s claims to have investigated and rejected that encasement option in any comprehensive, systematic way should be dismissed out of hand. “One way it is different is that it suggested using diluted water rather than ALPS treated water which will be 2 orders of magnitude less in volume.” How awfully cheeky of them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

The Robodebt Rogues Gallery

July 10th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

If ever there was an instance of such a hideous failing in government policy and its cowardly implementation by the public service, Australia’s cruel, inept and vicious Robodebt program would have to be one of them.

Robodebt was a scheme developed by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and submitted as a budget measure by the then Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, in 2015.  Its express purpose: to recover claimed overpayments from welfare recipients stretching back to the 2010-11 financial year. The automated scheme used a deeply flawed “income averaging” method to assess income and benefit entitlements, yielding inaccurate results. Vitally, the assumption there was that recipients had stable income through the financial year. The scheme also failed to comply with the income calculation provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

The results were disastrous for the victims in receipt of crude, harrying debt notices. The scheme induced despair and mental ruin. It led to various instances of suicide. It saw a concerted government assault on the poor and vulnerable. A remorseless campaign was waged by such unwholesome types as the former human services minister, Alan Tudge, ever keen to libel the undeserving.  Media outlets such as A Current Affair were more than happy to provide platforms for the demonising effort.  “We will find you,” he told the program, “we will track you down, and you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.”

The grotesque policy eventually caught the ire of the courts, which ruled the scheme unlawful. That, along with a change in government, eventually led to the establishment of a Royal Commission, whose findings by Commissioner Catherine Holmes were released on July 7. They make for grim reading.

While it will take time to wade through a report running over 1,000 pages, it is fitting to single out a few of the rogues who played starring roles of lasting infamy in the robodebt drama. Who better to start with than the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, whose relationship with the truth continues to be strained and estranged.

In December 2014, Morrison was appointed Minister for Social Services. He immediately wanted to impress with his promised scalping of alleged welfare cheats and scroungers. Wishing to make an impression he, unusually, held direct meetings with the secretary of the DHS, Kathryn Campbell, to tease out what would become the robodebt proposal. Concern from legal officers and senior staff within the Department of Social Services (DSS) about the legal compliance of the program were ignored or dismissed.

The Commission duly rejected “as untrue Mr Morrison’s evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the Executive Minute was an established practice and a ‘foundational way’ in which DHS worked.” The New Policy Proposal (NPP) that arose was utterly at odds with the legal position of the Department of Social Services stating that legislative change was required to implement the new income averaging approach.

Morrison assiduously ignored making any inquiries as to the reasons for that reversal. He “allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry.” The necessary information – that the scheme would require legislative and policy change to permit the use of income averaging – was not supplied. He accordingly “failed to meet his ministerial responsibility … to ensure that [the scheme] was lawful.”

Tudge comes in for special mention for the “use of information about social security recipients in the media”. This could only be regarded as an abuse of power. After knowing that the scheme had claimed the lives of at least two people from suicide, the minister also “failed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Scheme, including its fundamental features, or to consider whether its impacts were so harmful to vulnerable recipients that it should cease.”

Christian Porter, who also occupied the position of Minister for Social Services, “could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme on the basis of his general knowledge of the NPP process, when he did not have actual knowledge of the content of the NPP, and had no idea whether it had said anything about the practice of income averaging.”

The government services minister holding the robodebt reins in its final days also cuts a less than impressive figure. In Stuart Robert’s mind, he was a moral man coming late to a policy he wished to end, despite praising it publicly and using false figures. The Commission found that Robert had not unequivocally instructed the secretary of human services in November 2019 “to cease income averaging as a sole or partial basis for debt raising.” It was “reasonable to suppose that Mr Robert still hoped to salvage the Robodebt Scheme in some respects.”

The public service, supposedly famed for providing the frank and fearless advice treasured by ministers, also yields its clownish and cowardly rogues. The officers of the DSS and DHS, the Commissioner finds, failed to give Morrison “frank and full advice before and after the development of the NPP”, the result of “pressure to deliver the budget expectations of the government and by Mr Morrison, as the Minister for Social Services, communicating the direction to develop the NPP through the Executive Minute.”

Kathryn Campbell, Secretary of the DHS, is a true standout. “Her response to staff concerns, including those about income averaging and debt accuracy, was not to seek external assurance, or even to make inquiries about the matter with her chief counsel or other departmental lawyers.”  What took place, instead, was a communication on January 25, 2017 to staff that there would be “no change to how we assess income or calculate and recover debts”.

The DHS also receives a stinging rebuke in its approach to the media’s coverage of the scheme’s evident defects.  In 2017, when robodebt came under withering scrutiny, the department responded “to criticism by systematically repeating the same narrative, underpinned by a set of talking points and standard lines.”  The policy of bureaucrats was to act as “gatekeepers” keen on “getting it [the media criticism] shut down as quickly as possible”.

The names of the robodebt architects and apologists should be blazoned upon a monument of execration for time immemorial.  Even now, its perpetrators are resorting to extravagant acts of hand washing, gleefully claiming they have not been named as subjects of potential criminal or civil prosecution.  Campbell, in a time-honoured tradition showing that gross failure rewards, continues to receive money from an advisory role in the Defence Department specific to implementing the AUKUS security alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, can only concede that “mistakes” had been made.  Labor’s Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, had “politicised” the issue.  But for the string of coalition governments whose existence only came to an end in May 2022, the politics and ideology of punishing welfare recipients remained central and, in the end, pathological.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Scott Morrison, Minister for Social Services (Dec 2014-Sep 2015) (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Despite years of protest and warnings from environmentalists, the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog on Tuesday approved a plan by Japan to release tens of millions of gallons of water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.

The massive storage of radioactive water has been ongoing since the 2011 tsunami disaster triggered a meltdown of the plant, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the plan orchestrated by the Japanese government and TEPCO, the plant operator, meets safety standards.

Based on a “comprehensive” two-year assessment, “the IAEA has concluded that the approach and activities to the discharge of ALPS treated water taken by Japan are consistent with relevant international safety standards,” the agency’s director general Rafael Mariano Grossi said in the foreword of a new report released alongside the decision.

“Furthermore,” Grossi continued, “the IAEA notes the controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water to the sea, as currently planned and assessed by TEPCO, would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.”

According to the IAEA statement:

The water stored at the FDNPS has been treated through an Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to remove almost all radioactivity, aside from tritium. Before discharging, Japan will dilute the water to bring the tritium to below regulatory standards.

Despite assurances, nuclear experts have said that concerns about tritium cannot be overstated. In 2020, Greenpeace International released a report warning that the contaminated water risks “potential damage to human DNA” and questioned the government and TEPCO’s push for the release.

As Bloomberg notes,

“an assessment of the discharge facility by a domestic nuclear regulator is still required before a timeline is finalized to begin releasing the water—equivalent in volume to about 500 Olympic-size swimming pools. Government officials have indicated the discharges, which could take decades, would begin during the summer.”

The IAEA’s assessment flies in the face of scientific warnings, environmentalists, and local residents who have argued that dumping the water into the Pacific Ocean should be “‘simply Inconceivable.”

“Piping water into the sea is an outrage. The sea is not a garbage dump,” 71-year-old Haruo Ono, who has been fishing off the coast of Fukushima his entire life, told CBS News earlier this year after the IAEA released a preliminary assessment of the plan. “The company says it’s safe, but the consequences could catch up with us 50 years down the road.”

[From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jon Queally is managing editor of Common Dreams.

Featured image is from The Millennium Report

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US military has gained “unimpeded access” to sites in Papua New Guinea under a new military pact Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed in the Pacific island nation last month.

AFP obtained a copy of the full deal, which confirmed the US can deploy troops and station vessels to six ports and airports in Papua New Guinea, including the Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island in the northern part of the country.

According to the text of the agreement, the US can “pre-position equipment, supplies and materiel” at the military sites. The US will have “exclusive use” to some sites where “construction activities” can take place, signaling that the US might build new bases in the Pacific island nation.

Map of the region (US Indo-Pacific Command)

The US military had a significant presence in Papua New Guinea during World War II, and the new agreement is part of the Biden administration’s strategy to prepare for a future war with China in the region. US military sites in Papua New Guinea could be used to resupply US forces in Guam, the Philippines, and during a future battle over Taiwan.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape has come under domestic criticism for signing the deal. Former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill said the agreement has painted a target on Papua New Guinea. “America is doing it for the protection of their own national interest, we all understand the geopolitics happening within our region,” he said.

It’s no secret that any US military base in Papua New Guinea would become a potential target for China in a future war. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, commander of the US Pacific Air Forces, recently told Nikkei Asia that the purpose of expanding in the region was to give China more areas it would need to target.

“Obviously we would like to disperse in as many places as we can to make the targeting problem for the Chinese as difficult as possible,” he said. “A lot of those runways where we would operate from are in the Pacific Island nations.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, traveled to Papua New Guinea January 29-30 (Source)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Philippine lawmakers have pushed the Marcos administration to amend two defence treaties with the US and make the long-time security ally cough up for using Manila’s military bases to fund a cash-strapped armed forces pension scheme that is staring at “financial collapse”.

Senator Francis Escudero said he backed fellow legislator Ronald dela Rosa’s proposal seeking to make American troops pay for their presence in the country to revitalise the pension funds of military and other uniformed personnel (MUP).

Escudero, a lawyer, said the United States “usually pays host countries for its foreign bases to cover the expenses of building, maintaining the sites and paying rent or other financial compensation to the host country”.

“These agreements are usually established through formal diplomatic channels and can be revised or renegotiated over time,” he added.

In April the Philippines announced the locations of four more military bases, including near the Taiwan Strait and the disputed South China Sea, that it is allowing the US military to use on top of the five agreed under the 2014 Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

China has warned the expanded deal could endanger regional peace.

In 2021 Manila renewed the long-standing Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with Washington after Rodrigo Duterte, who was president at the time, threatened to scrap the pact allowing US troops to operate and train in the Philippines.

There are currently around 500 US military personnel in the Southeast Asian nation.

Dela Rosa last week accused the US of not paying anything for its presence in the Philippines and suggested the government collect money from Washington to prop up the MUP (military and uniformed personnel) pension system that President Ferdinand Marcos Jnr has warned will run out of cash within six years if it does not become self-sustaining.

Click here to read the full article on SCMP.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Philippine Marines join with US Marine Corps during an exercise at Naval Base Camilo Osias in the Philippines last year. Photo: US Marine Corps

Questioning the Quad’s Rhetoric

June 16th, 2023 by Mark Valencia

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the wake of the rancorous China-US standoff at the Shangri-La Dialogue, the Quad looms ever larger in importance. 

The Quad – short for Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – is a loose but rapidly evolving security arrangement of Australia, India, Japan and the US. As it evolves and expands its participants in Quad-Plus “initiatives,” it is a good time to parse its intent and direction. The Quad leaders’ statement of May 20 from their fifth meeting provides a starting point.

In the leaders’ words, the core intent of the Quad is to maintain a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” and uphold “the rules-based international order.” 

This is code for the international system primarily built and dominated by the US and the West and that preferentially benefits them. The leaders think it is increasingly under threat from a rising China and this must be deterred. They hope to do this by coordinating their strategy to constrain, contain and, if necessary, confront China.  

The Quad’s agenda includes traditional security issues like “upholding peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific maritime domain” and “adherence to international law,  particularly that reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,” or UNCLOS.

The Quad has already held joint military exercises and its Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness could well provide a basis for cooperation on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance targeting China’s military. This is but the tip of an iceberg of ongoing and planned traditional security cooperation.

However, it has deftly merged the United States’ real raison d’être with an agenda that includes cooperation on non-traditional security issues like climate change, disaster risk, pandemics, infrastructure, and cyber and maritime safety.

The non-traditional part of the security agenda is a sop to wary India and Japan and the sensitivities of Southeast Asian countries.

Anti-China agenda

Indeed, the Quad’s evolution toward a hardcore security arrangement would have moved much faster but for India’s non-alignment policy and markedly different worldview – as evidenced by its refusal to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and Japan’s constitutional constraint against deploying offensive weapons. 

Australia also doesn’t want it to move too quickly toward a defense alliance because of the sensitivities of China and Southeast Asia.

While these factors may slow the pace of its evolution into a full-blown anti-China defense arrangement, Japan and India seem to be changing their political tune in response to an increasingly aggressive China and moving toward the US goal. 

The US intent of the Quad for the time being is for it to be a US-driven “quiet and implicit deterrent” against an increasingly aggressive China. Certainly China and many other countries in the region see it this way. 

But the Quad’s spin doctors hide its real intent. The recent Quad Leaders’ Joint Statement repeats what has become the standard language for its intent: “We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific that is inclusive and resilient.” A key word is “inclusive” as advocated by India and Southeast Asia. But in US eyes it doesn’t seem to include China.

Indeed, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told the Shangri-La Dialogue that the United Staates is “doubling down” on regional alliances and partnerships “at every stage of defense planning.”

“Our shared goals are clear: to deter aggression and to deepen the rules and norms that promote prosperity and prevent conflict,” he said. “So we’re stepping up planning and coordination, and training with our friends from the East China Sea to the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean.”

The Quad Statement says: “We seek a region where no country dominates and no country is dominated – one where all countries are free from coercion….” This is aimed at China. But the US coerces countries militarily and economically around the world – including in the Indo-Pacific. 

Examples include its co-called “freedom of navigation operations” challenging others’ maritime claims with warships and its sanctions imposed on such countries as China and even some of its leaders, such as Defense Minister Li Shangfu, to try to force a change in policies and actions. Amazingly, it then complains that he won’t meet with his US counterpart.

Even the leaders’ self-serving claim to be responsible for the security of the Indo-Pacific region is questionable. Australia is the only Quad member that is a genuine geographic Indo-Pacific country bordering both oceans.

The US does border the Pacific Ocean and has many possessions there left over from the colonial era and World War II. But what is the basis of the US claim to be an “Indo” country? If it is its military base on Diego Garcia that is currently controlled by the UK, that is quite a stretch.

Many African countries border the Indian Ocean. That doesn’t make them “Pacific” countries. India is not a “Pacific” country and Japan is not an “Indo“ state, unless one counts its dependence on its sea lanes for its oil and gas imports.  

The US has created this fuzzy Indo-Pacific concept and grouping by cobbling together countries at the extreme edges of the region in its strategy to surround China. This verbal geographic sleight of hand seems to be based on conceptual imperialism. 

Indeed, the key for the US is that it has security interests and military bases in the area and deploys its military there. By this definition, the US is a global country. 

The Quad leaders reaffirmed their “consistent and unwavering support for ASEAN centrality and unity.” This assertion is now included in all Quad statements to try to spin reality. But rather than supporting ASEAN centrality, the Quad – if effective – will become central to regional security management, particularly in the South China Sea.

Indeed, the US and its allies wanted to use the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or some of its members as a bulwark and buffer against China. But they would not cooperate to the extent that the Quad leaders sought. So the US and its allies went around and over ASEAN to form the Quad and its ancillary AUKUS, an Australia-US-UK defense pact. As a result, ASEAN centrality in regional security affairs has been weakened. 

The Quad leaders emphasize the importance of adherence to international law and UNCLOS. But the US has not ratified that treaty, and some of its practices and claims, as well as those of Australia, India and Japan, are contrary to its provisions. Moreover all of them – just like China – have defied the rulings of international panels.

The point is that one should not rely solely on the Quad’s pompous rhetoric but instead gauge its intent by its actions. For perceptive analysts and policymakers, reality trumps spin. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The power dynamic in Northeast Asia is undergoing a dramatic change against the backdrop of the “no limits” strategic partnership between China and Russia. The collapse of Kiev’s counteroffensive” and abject defeat in the war with Russia may compel Biden administration to put “boots on the ground” in western Ukraine, triggering a global confrontation, and, equally, the US-China relations are at their lowest point since their normalisation in the 1970s, while Taiwan issue may potentially turn into a casus belli of war.

To be sure, the Northeast Asian theatre is going to be a crucial arena in the brewing big-power confrontation what with the Arctic hotting up and the Northern Sea Route becoming operational, which will catapult the strategic importance of the Russian Far East and Siberia as the powerhouse of the world economy in the 21st Century combining with its present status as the world’s number one nuclear power. The outcome of the Ukraine war might be the last chance for the United States to rein in Russia from keeping its tryst with destiny. That is what makes the Far East the most consequential region for the US in its global strategy.

Symptomatic of the cascading tensions, Russian foreign ministry summoned the Japanese ambassador on Friday and a protest was lodged in extraordinarily harsh language, as it came to be known that the 100 vehicles that Tokyo innocuously promised last week to Ukraine would in reality be armoured vehicles and all-terrain vehicles. Apparently, Tokyo was dissimulating, since Japan’s export rules ban its companies from selling lethal items overseas! 

Tokyo is crossing a “red line” and Moscow is not amused. The foreign ministry statement on Friday “stressed that the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida should be ready to share responsibility for the deaths of civilians, including those in Russia’s border regions… (and) driving bilateral relations even deeper into a dangerous impasse. Such actions cannot remain without serious consequences.”

Significantly, on Friday, in a video conference with General Liu Zhenli, Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff Department of China’s Central Military Commission, the Chief of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence General Valery Gerasimov expressed confidence in the expansion of military cooperation between the two countries and noted, “Coordination between Russia and the People’s Republic of China in the international arena has a stabilising effect on the world situation.” 

The Chinese media later reported that the two generals agreed that Russia will participate (for the second time) in the Northern/Interaction-2023 exercise organised by China, signalling a new framework of China-Russia joint strategic exercises alongside the  joint air patrol over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea by their strategic bombers. By the way, the sixth such joint air petrol was conducted on Tuesday since the practice began in 2019. 

The big picture is that the shift in Japanese policies through the past year — close alignment with the US regarding Ukraine; copying the West’s sanctions against Russia; supply of lethal weaponry to Ukraine, etc. — has seriously damaged the Russo-Japanese relationship. On top of it, Japan’s re-militarisation with American support and its  growing ties with the NATO (which is lurching toward the Asia-Pacific) makes Tokyo a common adversary of both Moscow and Beijing. 

The imperative to push back this resurgent US client is strongly felt in Moscow and Beijing, which also has a global dimension since Russia and China are convinced that Japan is acting like a surrogate of American dominance in Asia and is subserving western interests. On its part, in a turnaround, Washington now actively encourages Japan to be an assertive regional power by jettisoning its constitutional limits to rearmament. It pleases Washington that Japan pledged a long-term increase of over 60 percent in defence spending. 

What worries Moscow and Beijing is also the ascendance of revanchist elements — vestiges of Japan’s imperial era — in the top echelons of power in the recent period. Of course, Japan continues to be in denial mode as regards its atrocities during the period of its brutal colonisation of China and Korea and the horrific war crimes during World War 2. 

This trend bears striking similarity to what is happening in Germany, where too the pro-Nazi elements are reclaiming habitation and a name. Curiously, a German-Japanese axis is present at the core of Washington’s strategies against Russia and China in Eurasia and Northeast Asia. 

The German Bundeswehr is expanding its combat exercises in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and will deploy more naval and air force units to the Asia-Pacific region next year. A recent German report noted, “The intensification of German participation in Asian-Pacific regional manoeuvres is taking place at a time when the United States is carrying out record-breaking manoeuvres in Southeast Asia, in its attempts to intensify its control over the region and displace China as much as possible.”

Japan’s motivations are easy to fathom. Apart from Japanese  revanchism which fuels the nationalist sentiments, Tokyo is convinced that a settlement with Russia over Kuril Islands is not to be expected now, or possibly ever, which means that a peace treaty will not be possible to bring the World War 2 hostilities to an end formally. Second, Japan no longer visualises Russia to be a “balancer” in its  troubled relationship with China. 

Third, most important, as Japan sees the rise of China as a political and economic threat, it is rapidly militarising, which in turn creates its own dynamic in terms of both upending its power position in Asia as also integrating itself with the West (“globalising”). Inevitably, this translates as promoting NATO in the Asian power dynamic, something that cuts deep into Russia’s core national security and defence strategies. Consequently, whatever hopes the strategists in Moscow had nurtured in the past that Japan could be weaned away from the US orbit and encouraged to exercise its strategic autonomy have evaporated into thin air. 

Arguably, in his zest to integrate Japan into the US-led “collective West”, Prime Minister Kishida overreached himself. He behaves as if he is obliged to be more loyal than the king himself. Thus, on the same day that President Xi Jinping visited Moscow in March, Kishida landed in Kiev from where he went to attend a NATO Summit and openly began lobbying for establishment of a NATO office in Tokyo. 

Kishida followed up by hosting NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Tokyo and giving him a platform to berate China publicly from its doorstep. There is no easy explanation for such excessive behaviour. Is it a matter of impetuous behaviour alone or is it a calculated strategy to gain legitimacy for the ascendance of revanchist elements whom Kishida represents in the Japanese power structure?

To be sure, Northeast Asia is a priority now for China and Russia, given their overlapping interests in the region. NATO expansion to Asia and the sharp rise in the US force projection bring home to the defence strategists in Beijing and Moscow that the Sea of Japan is a “communal backyard” for the two countries where their “no limits” strategic partnership ought to be optimal. The Chinese commentators no longer downplay that the Russian-Chinese military ties “serve as a powerful counterbalance to the US’ hegemonic actions.” 

It is entirely conceivable that at some point in a near future, China and Russia may begin to view North Korea as a protagonist in their regional alignment. They may no longer  feel committed to observe the US-led sanctions against North Korea. Indeed, if that were to happen, a host of possibilities will arise. The Russian-Iranian military ties set the precedent. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) met China’s State Councillor and Defence Minister Li Shangfu (L), Moscow, April 17, 2023

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Abstract

A little over 75 years ago, a Japan-designed Asia-Pacific community collapsed, leaving not only Japan, but much of the region, in chaos. Millions were dead, with cities left in ruins. Important lessons the world—and many Japanese people—took from the catastrophe of the Asia-Pacific War and the demise of the Japanese Empire were incorporated in the American-crafted constitution of Japan that took effect one year later, which pledged under Article 9 that Japan would forever renounce “war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” adding that “land, sea, and air forces … will never be maintained.” That pledge remains, unrevised but steadily emptied of content, and the 1946 aspiration to create a new kind of state, one resting on the “peace” principle, has been largely forgotten. Over subsequent decades, the US, which had imposed Article 9 on an occupied Japan, came to regret its recrafting of Japan as a “peace state,” and began steadily exerting pressure on it to revive and expand its military. Thus, with US encouragement, Japan has, over time, indeed built formidable land, sea, and air forces, evading constitutional proscription by calling them “Self-Defence” forces (rather than Army, Navy, and so on). 

*

Regional states with good reason to know and fear Japanese militarism, Australia included, also abandoned their commitment to the idea of permanent demilitarisation. The constitution being steadily sidelined, by early 21st century Japan was already one of the world’s great military powers, poised on the brink of further, massive expansion. 

Figure 1: Japanese military expenditure, 1952-2021

In December 2022, the Government of Japan announced a series of measures designed to substantially elevate the country’s already significant military posture, doubling military expenditure from one-percent of GDP (the NATO level) and expending a grand total of around 43 trillion yen ($US 335 billion) over the five-year period to 2027, bringing it to number three in the world for military spending (after only the United States and China).1  Among other things, Japan is to purchase missiles (with the potential to strike enemy bases in China and Russia as well as North Korea), plus large quantities of attack and reconnaissance drones, F-35 stealth fighters, submarines, and warships.2 It also declared readiness, under certain conditions, to carry out pre-emptive attack on threatening enemy forces.3 The Article 9 principle renouncing war has clearly been degraded to an extreme degree.

Under Abe Shinzo (Prime Minister 2006-7, 2012-2020) and subsequent governments, responding to persistent and unequivocal US demands, Japan committed substantial resources to upgrading the existing US facilities on Okinawa Island. A major new facility in the north for the US Marine Corps to replace the obsolescent Futenma began construction, while at the same time, Self-Defence Force installations (basically missile, anti-missile and intelligence gathering electronics) were built in the outlying islands of Amami, Mage, Miyako, Ishigaki, and Yonaguni. Mage and Yonaguni constitute key components of the overall project.

First Island Chain

Significant US military presence—approximately 26,000 US personnel, or half the total stationed in Japan—is positioned on Okinawa Island, where most attention has been focused on the hugely unpopular and still hotly contested Henoko base being built there by Japan for the US Marine Corps to replace the obsolescent Futenma. Meanwhile, Japan over the past decade has steadily expanded its own military (Self-Defence Force) presence on its lesser known islands. Under strong US pressure, it has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, missile and counter-missile units in a series of new or under-construction bases, decisively changing the character of the Ryukyu island chain that stretches from Kagoshima to Taiwan, via

  • Mage, area 8.5 kms2, population zero
  • Amami, area 306 kms2, population 73,000
  • Okinawa, area 1,206 kms2, population 1.4 million 
  • Miyako, area 204 kms2, population 46,000
  • Ishigaki, area 239 kms2, population 48,000
  • Yonaguni, area 28 kms2, population 1,669 

In geographical terms, a line drawn from Kagoshima City in western Japan to the northern shores of Taiwan passes through these islands, and Japan and the US believe that, when or if the need arises, they can “bottle up” and deny China access or egress to or from the Pacific Ocean that lies beyond it. Japan’s southwestern frontier islands serve as a key component in this US-Japan “first island chain” China containment strategy. 

Neither Mage, to the north and closest to Kagoshima, nor Yonaguni, to the south and just 110 kilometres from the coast of Taiwan, are named on the attached Google satellite photograph. Appearing there meely as insignificant blue dots, both nevertheless demand attention.4 Mage, adjacent to the Japanese space industry island of Tanegashima, was initially chosen to house US carrier-based fighter jet take-off and landing exercises, but gradually evolved into a project to accommodate all three of Japan’s military forces (Ground, Sea and Air Self-Defence Forces) together with unspecified numbers of their US counterparts, under a US sharing arrangement that ensured ultimate Pentagon coordination, control, and command of Japanese military operations throughout the adjacent seas. Construction of this unprecedented Mage Island facility commenced in January 2023 and is projected to take four years.5 As for Yonaguni, close enough to Taiwan that on a clear day its mountains may be seen and occasional Taiwan friendship missions have landed on Yonaguni beaches from motorized jet skis, went furthest of Japan’s outlying islands in developing a distinctive post-Cold War vision for an East China Sea community. However, the community split over the choice between the government’s commitment from about 2011 to install a major military installation on the island and the “peace” vision of 2004. Vision proponents eventually failed in a February 2015 island referendum to win the majority they needed.6 A site was chosen, barracks and other installations installed, and in March 2016 a 160-strong Ground Self Defense Force unit marched in.

Mage and Yonaguni, both once renowned for the richness of their biodiversity, are thus to become centres for the preparation and conduct of war. 

East China Sea from Space (Google)

Filling in the Blank Spots

Throughout the Cold War decades, what distinguished the southwestern islands (other than Okinawa itself, where major units of US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are entrenched) was the absence of US military installations. Undefended, they posed no threat and so were themselves unthreatened. Those who knew the islands in their pre-military base days – this author among them – remember them as idyllic. But to bureaucrats and Self-Defence Force brass in Tokyo, and to the Pentagon, the absence of such military forces signified a blank spot to be filled. From 2010, the defence of the southwestern islands gradually became of paramount importance in national defence doctrine. The raison d’être for these Okinawan islands became their positions as US-Japan bastions from which to project force in the service of the regional and global hegemonic project, ultimately for “containing” China and addressing any “Taiwan contingency” or war over it.7

Japanese military spending steadily rose throughout the Cold War, but remained, until 2020, below the self-imposed one percent of GDP limit set in 1976. First, under former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, that restriction was set aside. Later, in 2022, the government announced a commitment to spend up to two percent of GDP on military each year by 2027. In 2021, military expenditure reached 5.9 trillion yen ($54.1 billion) and a further 26 percent increase, to 6.8 trillion yen, was projected for 2023.8 This considerable expansion allows Japan to update maritime and air systems and to acquire new weapon systems designed for counterstrike purposes. Over 80 percent of the planned aircraft and most of the long-range missiles will be procured from US arms producers.

The nominal reason for the militarization of the so-called “first island chain” is to defend Taiwan in case of a “contingency,” the sobriquet by which war over Taiwan between China and Taiwan has come to be contemplated since former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s statement that “a Taiwan contingency would be a Japan contingency.”9 Yet, it is clear that the much broader role assigned the first island chain is to position US-Japan power in a place where they can contain a rising China in the region that has come to be known as the Indo-Pacific. The US insists on its own “full-spectrum dominance,” meaning global economic, technological, and military hegemony, and to the extent that it challenges or appears to challenge that prerogative, China “threatens” the US. Consequently, over and under the East China Sea, battleships and aircraft carriers, missile and counter-missile systems, fighter jets and submarines—not only Japanese and American, but also British, French, Australian, Canadian, and German—rehearse a possible future war between a US-led coalition of the willing and China.10

A sane defence policy for a country such as Japan—or indeed for any sane country—would be one that attached highest importance to avoiding, rather than striving to “win,” any such war. This is for two reasons. Firstly, any East Asian war today or tomorrow would be a missile war, involving naval and air power, and could conceivably become a nuclear war. Missile and anti-missile units are now being rushed to the southwestern islands, including 400 “off the shelf” Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles for which Japan suddenly placed an order (at a cost of about 21 billion yen, or $1.6 billion) late in 2022.11 However, such missiles, capable of attacking forces within a 1,500-kilometre radius (including major centres in Russia, China, and North Korea) would provide little defensive reassurance for the roughly 160,000 people living on those Islands, who would surely be targeted in the earliest exchanges of such a war. Secondly, regardless of whoever “wins” this war, damage and devastation is assured for all sides of the conflict. Contemplating such catastrophe, Okinawans recall their sacrifice in the spring of 1945 in the final battle of the Pacific War, which took the lives of more than one-fourth of the civilian population. Japan’s authorities might issue an “alert” warning in case of conflict breaking out, as was done on the occasion of several recent North Korean missile launches, but in 2023 as in 1945 there would be simply no time for the Okinawan civilians to be withdrawn to safety, and indeed nowhere to go.  

500 Years of Friendship

The irony is that the Okinawa now being militarized and readied for war with China not only has no dispute with today’s China, but has a 500-year-long history of friendly interchange with it (in Ming and Qing dynasties) and the Okinawan people (as Okinawa-based scholar Doug Lummis puts it) “do not share the militaristic Japanese Bushido ethic.”12 There is no evidence of the Chinese resorting to violence in its relations with the Ryukyu authorities over those multiple centuries, and the exchanges are still remembered and celebrated in Naha today. The experience of Okinawan incorporation in the modern Japanese state, conversely, was accompanied with great violence, from the torture-induced assent by Ryukyu kingdom elites to the absorption of the Ryukyu Kingdom and its territories into Japan in 1879, through the violent attempts to crush the distinctive Okinawan language and identity since then, followed by the catastrophe of 1945 when Okinawa alone among Japanese territories suffered the horror of land war.13 The violence continues even today, with ongoing assault from the contemporary Japanese state trying to break the Okinawan will for a non-militarized East China Sea community identity.14

Belatedly, the Okinawan prefectural government today appears to have realized that to overcome the threat of war, it must shift its emphasis from preparing for war to creating peace. This author recalls having urged a former (1990-1998) Okinawan governor, Ota Masahide, to combat militarist agendas by taking initiatives to build an East China Sea peace community, hosting leaders of East China Sea states at Naha to figure out an appropriate agenda of peace and cooperation. That suggestion went nowhere, as shortly after our conversation, Governor Ota was driven from office by an intense national government campaign. Reading now of today’s Okinawan Deputy Governor Teruya Yoshimi’s visit to the newly appointed Chinese ambassador to Japan,Wu Jinghao, to press upon him a meeting between today’s governor, Tamaki Denny, and China’s President Xi Jinping,15 I could only reflect that the urgency of such steps is so much greater now than during Ota’s office as governor.

From January 2023, Japan assumed a globally significant role with its two-year membership of the United Nations Security Council beginning and, simultaneously, holding the chair of the G-7 group of industrial states. After visiting major G-7 countries (France, Italy, UK, Canada), Prime Minister Kishida called on President Joe Biden in Washington. He stressed throughout the need for strategic coordination between Japan and the NATO states (under US direction) and support for the US/NATO war in Ukraine. The statement to which he and Biden added their names on 13 January referred to the Japan-U.S. alliance as “the cornerstone of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region,” and to “Japan’s bold leadership in fundamentally reinforcing its defence capabilities.” In the fine print was the ominous message that the US would defend Japan “using all capabilities, including nuclear weapons.”16 Such explicit reference to the “deterrence” afforded by the US nuclear umbrella was rare, raising the question of whether Kishida had sought it in advance. In any case, the nuclear nature of the US-Japan relationship was made plain. So too was the threat to the people of these southwestern frontier islands as, increasingly, people in neighboring China perceive them to be “anti-China.”

The post-World War II Asia-Pacific settlement thus continues to morph from the 1947 declaration of peace towards war preparation. While China, outraged by US-Japan led attempts to freeze it out of regional and global institutions, pours its formidable and rapidly growing resources into its military, reinforcing its presence in the East and South China Seas in particular, Japan deploys tanks and missiles to remote East China Sea Japanese islands, conducts evacuation drills, and urges local residents to make contingency plans for war. The US Marine Corps, meanwhile, “re-purposes” its Okinawa-based units, facilitating their deployment to farther, further islands and arms them with anti-ship missiles for use against Chinese shipping in the event of any Taiwan “contingency.” 

Early in 2023, Japan reached agreement with NATO on the establishment in Japan of an Asia-Pacific NATO liaison office, to open in 2024.17 From a Chinese point of view, such steps could only be seen as part of the process of consolidation of a global anti-China front. If a peaceful East Asian community of nations is to be constructed, it is certain that Okinawa, at the centre of the East China Sea, will be its centre, and if it cannot be constructed, the prospects for peace in both Okinawa and Japan will be dim.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor of Australian National University, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, and author of many books and articles on aspects of modern East Asian history. Much of his work has also been translated and published in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

Notes

Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Strategy, 16 December 2022; Yuka Koshino, “Japan’s transformational national security documents,” International Institute of Security Studies, Online analysis, 21 December 2022. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/12/japans-transformational-national-security-documents/

Nick Allen, “Japan to spend $480b to boost its firepower,” Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2022.

Iida Masahiro, “Teki kichi kogeki noryoku to anpo hosei,” Sekai, April 2022, pp. 50-61. 

For further details on Mage and Yonaguni, see my The State of the Japanese State (Renaissance Books, 2018)at pp. 155-157 (Mage) and 149-154 (Yonaguni), and Konishi Makoto, Jieitai no Nansei shifuto (Shakai hihyosha, 2018).

For the base construction design: “Mageshima kichi koji’ sagyo-in shukusha o tonai ni 3,000 shitsu cho sechi e,” Minami Nihon Shimbun, 11 February 2023. On the ongoing struggle between the base project endorsing mayor and the civic opposition, Konishi Makoto, “’Mageshima’ o meguru shicho to shimin no kumon,” Okinawa Times-plus, 27 January 2023, https://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/-/1092536.

McCormack, pp. 149-150.

For a comprehensive account of the “shift to the southwest,” Ogata Osamu, “Okinawa/Nansei shoto, kyugeki ni susumu misairu kichika,” Nomoa Okinawa sen nuchi du takara, Bungei shicho, No 87, 19 April 2023, http://nomore-okinawasen.org/7820.

Xiao Liang and Nan Tian, “The proposed hike in Japan’s military expenditure,” SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), 2 February 2023.

“Taiwan yuji wa Nihon yuji,” “Abe moto shucho ga Taiwan no shinpo de,”Asahi Shimbun, 1 December 2021.

10 Gavan McCormack, “Global Agendas 2022 – NATO and RIMPAC, Asia Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, 1 July 2022. See also Tom Hazeldine, “The North Atlantic Counsel, Complicity of the International Crisis Group,” New Left Review, 63, May-June 2010.

11 Handa Shigeru, “Shin anzen hoshoron,” No 59 “Tsukaikata sae wakarazu ‘bakubai’suru tomahoku,” Shukan kinyobi, 24 March 2023, p. 28.

12 C. Douglas Lummis, “Japan declares Okinawa a ‘combat zone’ in possible war with China,” Pearls and Irritations, John Menadue, 15 March 2022.

13 See my “Ryukyu/Okinawa’s trajectory from Periphery to Centre, 1600-20015,” Sven Saaler and Chrisopher W.A. Szpilman, eds, Routledge Handbook of Modern Japanese History, Routledge, 2018, pp. 118-134.

14 On the Okinawan aspiration for a peace-rooted and base-freed East China Sea identity, see Satoko Oka Norimatsu and Gavan McCormack, Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States, Lanham, Maryland, 2nd edition, 2018.

15 Amaki Naoto, “Tai-chu jishu gaiko ni kaji wo kitta Okinawa no dai eitan to Okinawa no shonenba,” Amaki Naoto no meru magajin, 1 April 2023, https://foomii/00001.

16 The Whte House, “Joint Statement of the United States and Japan,” 13 January 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/13/joint-statement-of-the-united-states-and-japan/

17 Daniel Hurst, “Nato planning to open Japan office to deepen Asia-Pacfic ties – report,” The Guardian, 3 May 2023.

Featured image: Japan is moving to remilitarize despite its pacifist constitution. Image: Shutterstock via The Conversation

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Japan’s Drive for Military Greatness in the Lengthening Shadow of US-China Confrontation
  • Tags: ,

Queensland Labor Delegates Vote Against AUKUS

June 8th, 2023 by Alex Bainbridge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

A motion supporting the AUKUS pact between Australia, Britain and the United States was rejected by Queensland Labor delegates at its conference in Mackay over June 3-4.

The Guardian and Labor Against War (LAW) reported that 229 delegates voted against an Australian Workers Union-aligned motion to congratulate the federal government on the AUKUS agreement.

“Conference congratulates Albanese Govt investing in the AUKUS agreement. An agreement that will create jobs for the country, establish and retain a new industry being nuclear science and secure our nation in the future” was supported by just 140 delegates.

LAW reported that Queensland Labor president John Battams, Queensland MPs Ali King and Jonty Bush and former federal Bowman candidate Donisha Duff voted against the motion. Left faction powerbroker and United Workers Union Garry Bullock abstained, as did Labor Secretary Kate Flanders.

Electrical Trades Union (ETU) delegates successfully moved an additional motion calling for a ban on nuclear-powered submarines entering Queensland waters.

Annette Brownlie, President of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN), told Green Left: “IPAN congratulates the ETU Queensland/NT for maintaining its historic work to keep Queensland nuclear free”.

LAW welcomed the conference decision, tweeting “the fight is just starting to turn this terrible policy around”.

This is the latest indication that there is significant opposition to the militaristic AUKUS pact within Labor’s ranks.

Since former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating made a blistering attack on the AUKUS submarine deal at the National Press Club last November, opposition to AUKUS inside Labor has grown.

LAW spoke out at a May 24 protest in Gadi/Sydney and announced its formation at the South Coast Labour Council’s May Day in Port Kembla, where unions and community groups made a point of rejecting a submarine base.

Anti-AUKUS campaign groups are also organising public actions to educate and involve more of the public, such as the May 27 protest in Walyalup/Fremantle.

The Australian Anti-AUKUS Coalition (AAAC) has just announced a protest against AUKUS will be organised outside Labor’s national conference in Meanjin/Brisbane on August 18.

“This is military madness and many unions and others in the labour movement, including former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, have criticised the deal,” AAAC said.

“This is money that could be spent on housing, health, aged care, education, renewable energy, increasing the Jobseeker allowance and more. It also risks provoking an arms race, or even war with China, which will come at the cost to workers everywhere.”

*

[This is the anti-nuclear resolution successfully moved by ETU delegates at the Queensland state Labor conference.]

Anti-nuclear

Therefore, we move that the 2023 Queensland Labor Party Conference adopt the following motion:

1. The Queensland Labor Party categorically opposes the manufacture/construction of nuclear-powered/armed submarines or vessels in Queensland, including but not limited to Brisbane or any other Queensland port current or future port facility. This opposition is based on concerns over safety, environmental impact, and public sentiment.

2. The Queensland Labor Party will actively engage in public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the potential risks and consequences associated with nuclear-powered/armed submarines or vessels. This initiative aims to foster informed public discourse and encourage community support for the opposition f such vessels in Queensland waters.

3. The Queensland Labor Party is called upon to immediately reject any proposal to store nuclear waste generated by the proposed submarines or any other military nuclear waste in this state.

4. The state government is called upon to, in this term of government introduce amendments to the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 and any other legislation required to meet commitments outlined in 1-4 above.

By adopting this motion, the Queensland Labor Party reaffirms its commitment to the safety, environmental sustainability, and public sentiment of our state. We recognise the need for clear and unequivocal opposition to nuclear-powered submarines or ships in Queensland waters and call upon the Queensland Labor Government to publicly declare and commit to this stance.

We believe that this position aligns with the values and aspirations of our party and will contribute to the well-being and future prosperity of Queensland. We can make a difference and ensure we continue to live in a state that rejects the use of nuclear power as a source of energy by also ensuring we do not expose the people of this state to its toxic legacy through military use.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: South Coast Labour Council Secretary Arthur Rorris at the May Day rally in Port Kembla on May 6. Photo: Peter Boyle

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Labor has a bill before parliament which, if passed, would exempt nuclear plants on nuclear-propelled submarines from two other important laws — the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 aims to insert a paragraph into these two laws to exempt “a naval nuclear propulsion plant related to use in a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine” from the “requirements” of each of them when they refer to “nuclear power plants”.

This is not only alarming, it is illogical to make a distinction between controls and protections on a nuclear plant providing power to propel conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines and a land-based nuclear power plant: it is still a nuclear power plant.

In fact, a nuclear power plant on a submarine needs the same, or more, protection requirements as a nuclear power plant on land.

The uranium which will be used in the proposed SSN (a hull classification system denoting nuclear-powered submarines) is enriched to the level used in nuclear weapons.

It is more dangerous to the naval staff than conventional uranium-fired nuclear power plants, as they live and work in very close proximity to the nuclear power plant powering the submarine.

When docked in a port, residents living nearby are exposed to the toxic impact of possible radiation leaks from the submarine’s nuclear power plant.

If passed, the amendments to exempt a nuclear power plant on board a nuclear-propelled submarine from the safety requirements of these two Acts amount to a betrayal of naval staff operating the submarines and the wider public especially those living close to the ports servicing these lethal weapons.

Members of parliament have never been given an opportunity to discuss or vote on joining the trilateral AUKUS security treaty which allowed for the nuclear-powered submarine technology is to be transferred to Australia.

It has never been given an opportunity to discuss the decision to buy and/or acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Here is one — possibly the only — opportunity for MPs to voice their opinion on one aspect of the nuclear-propelled submarine aspect of AUKUS.

The Senate has referred this dangerous bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. It will report by June 9.

It was only introduced and read on May 10 and submissions to the inquiry close on May 26. The government is clearly trying to get its dangerous amendments through with as little discussion as possible.

You can send your opposition submission here.

There are many reasons this bill is irresponsible and must be opposed.

1. The AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines are to be deployed in a hunter-killer role, and would be subject to enemy attack. A torpedo attack on a nuclear-powered submarine would release toxic radiation from the power plant and its enriched uranium fuel: this toxic pollution would remain for generations to come.

2. It is authoritarian to minimise public and parliamentary discussion about such a move.

3. It is irresponsible because the AUKUS nuclear-propelled submarines depend on US technology to be built as well as for their maintenance and operation.

4. This means that Labor’s alignment to US foreign policy will have to be maintained to gain and maintain access to this technology. This means Australia loses the ability to make decisions in the best interests of its people.

5. It may well draw Australia into a US war against China, which will lead to economic distress not just for us but the nations and peoples of the Indo-Pacific region.

6. Australia is not under military threat from China, or any other country; it does not need nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarines — designed for forward deployment.

7. The huge cost — $368 billion with substantial blow-outs expected — means less ability to address serious social needs including public housing, hospitals, education, nurses and teachers and transitioning to renewable energy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist. He edits the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network’s monthly e-publication Voice.

Featured image: Green Left with a BAE Systems image of a design for an AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine.

NATO Is Creeping Into Asia, Warns North Korea

May 18th, 2023 by Countercurrents.org

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

North Korea’s Foreign Ministry has claimed NATO is seeking to increase its influence in Asia, citing growing “military collusion” with Japan, which hosted a delegation from the military alliance last month to discuss ways to step up cooperation.

In comments carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday, an official with the Foreign Ministry’s Japan Research Center, Kim Seol-hwa, said Washington is gradually pushing NATO into Asia through partnerships with regional powers.

“It is an open secret that the United States has been trying to create a military alliance like this in the Asia-Pacific region,” he said, adding that the “recent unprecedented military collusion between Japan and NATO is arousing great concern and alertness in the international community.”

Kim went on to cite recent reports that NATO is now in talks to open a “liaison office” in Japan, its first such facility in Asia. The office would be used to “conduct periodic consultations with Japan and key partners in the region such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand,” according to the Nikkei Asia news website.

Japan Enters A Dangerous Phase

“All facts clearly show that NATO’S attempt to advance into the Asia-Pacific region through military collusion with Japan has entered a dangerous implementation phase,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry official continued, also pointing to other “confrontational alliances” such as the ‘Quad’ bloc – which Beijing has decried as an “Asian NATO” – and AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK and the U.S.

Japan-NATO Military Cooperation

Last month, Japan hosted a delegation from NATO’s Cooperative Security Division, which met with senior military leaders to “discuss the current military cooperation and opportunities to foster a stronger partnership,” as well as future joint drills with Japan’s armed forces.

Further highlighting the increased cooperation, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sat down with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels on April 4, where the two officials vowed to further strengthen their partnership. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida also met with the NATO chief earlier this year, after attending an alliance summit in 2022, a first for a Japanese premier.

Kim argued that NATO’s overtures to countries like Japan and South Korea were part of plans to “build a huge anti-China and anti-Russia encirclement” in the broader region, claiming the U.S.-led alliance hopes to “keep neighboring countries in check” while expanding its military footprint across the continent.

China’s Reaction To Reports Of NATO Office In Japan 

An earlier media report said:

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged its Asian neighbors to exercise “high vigilance” in response to media reports claiming that NATO is planning to open its first liaison office in the region, in Japan’s capital Tokyo.

Asia is an anchor for peace and stability and a promising land for cooperation and development, not a wrestling ground for geopolitical competition,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said when addressed on the issue during a briefing on Thursday.

NATO’s Continued Eastward Foray

Mao warned that “NATO’s continued eastward foray into the Asia-Pacific and interference in regional affairs will inevitably undermine regional peace and stability and stoke camp competition.”

“High vigilance among regional countries” is required in view of the U.S.-led military bloc’s attempts to gain presence in Asia, she added.

According to the Nikkei Asia outlet, NATO wants to establish a one-man station in Tokyo to be able to conduct periodic consultations with Japan and its other allies in the Asia-Pacific, such as Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The idea of NATO establishing a liaison office was first raised by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during their meeting in Tokyo in late January. Japan must agree to fund the operations of the bloc’s mission in order for it to open in the country, Nikkei Asia added.

The abbreviation ‘NATO’ stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but the bloc has recently openly admitted that it also has interests in the Indo-Pacific. Last June, the bloc’s allies from the region participated in the NATO Summit for the first time ever.

NATO is “strengthening relations” with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand because “in today’s complex security environment, relations with like-minded partners across the globe are increasingly important to address cross-cutting security issues and global challenges, as well as to defend the rule-based international order,” the bloc said in a statement last month.

Russia, which strongly opposes NATO’s expansion towards its borders, has also criticized the bloc’s attempts to spread its activities into Asia.

NATO To Open Office In Japan

Another earlier Nikkei Asia report said:

Japan and NATO are reportedly seeking to increase collaboration in cyberspace and the U.S.-led military bloc plans to open its first liaison office in Tokyo.

According to the outlet, which cited both Japanese and NATO officials, the planned one-person station would allow, the bloc conduct periodic consultations with regional ‘partners’ such as Australia, New Zealand and South Korea.

The outlet noted that similar NATO stations are usually provided by the host nation, and that if Tokyo ends up funding a Western military foothold in Japan, it would mark a new phase in defense cooperation for the country.

Tokyo also reportedly plans to sign an Individually Tailored Partnership Program with the bloc before the NATO summit in Lithuania in July. Japan and NATO are supposedly looking to deepen collaboration in tackling cyber threats, coordinate stances on emerging and disruptive technologies, and exchange notes on fighting disinformation, Nikkei reported.

The news comes after NATO openly outlined its plans to increase cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. In its 2022 Strategic Concept, the bloc explained the need to create new alliances by emphasizing “systemic challenge” to Euro-Atlantic security posed by China and Russia, with Moscow described as the “most significant and direct threat” to NATO.

China has also denounced NATO’s Strategic Concept, claiming it was filled with distorted facts and tainted with a Cold War mentality that smears Beijing’s foreign policy.

West Building WWII Axis-style Alliance, Says Putin

An earlier media report said:

Western countries are seeking to put together new global alliances reminiscent of those forged by the Axis powers prior to World War Two, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking in an interview with Russia 1 TV aired in March 2023, the Russian leader dismissed claims that Moscow and Beijing are forming a military bloc that could threaten the West. He described the cooperation between the two as “transparent,” adding that Russia and China make no secret about their ties in various spheres, including defense.

Meanwhile, Putin continued, the U.S. is creating new alliances, citing NATO’s new Strategic Concept as an example of such efforts. “It directly stipulates that NATO is going to develop relations with nations in the Asia-Pacific region, including New Zealand, Australia and South Korea,” he said.

Global NATO

The bloc also announced that it would endeavor to create what Putin called “global NATO,” adding that the UK and Japan recently signed a reciprocal military access agreement.

“Thant is why Western analysts themselves – not us – are saying that the West is starting to build a new axis similar to the one that was created back in the 30s by the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, and militaristic Japan.”

The U.S.-led military bloc approved the new concept at the Madrid summit of the bloc last June, while describing Russia as the “most significant and direct threat” to NATO amid the Ukraine conflict. In a first, it also addressed the challenges stemming from China, claiming that Beijing’s “hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric” target the alliance’s security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Asia Media International

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

It is alarming to see the rise of propaganda films in India that use art as a tool to propagate hate and create division among communities. Even Kerala, the God’s Own Country is not spared while filmmakers influenced by the fringe elements are trying to pose the state in a bad light. Thanks to the upcoming release of the film ‘The Kerala Story’ which is as propaganda as the earlier releases like the controversial film ‘Kashmir Files’. KF was criticized for spreading half-truths and fiction while claiming to be based on facts and yet it was declared as the top grosser at the box office.

The Distortion Continues 

Let’s not forget, how Kashmir Files was labeled as “propaganda” and “vulgar” by the head of the jury at the 53rd International Film Festival held in Goa, has stirred outrage in India and Israel. While the film’s makers claimed it to be an honest portrayal of the subject matter, it soon proved out to be an attempt to come up with a propaganda film thus trivializing the truth by marketing the object of hate .The head of the jury, Nadav Lapid, has stood by his initial diagnosis of the film despite the backlash it has received. However, as the head of the jury, it is his responsibility to evaluate the films objectively and provide an honest assessment of their quality.

While it is important to acknowledge and address issues faced by various communities, films that use distorted narratives and sensationalize situations for propaganda purposes can only cause more harm than good. We see the distortion continues with the advent of ‘The Kerala Story’. The filmmakers have made a baseless claim that 32,000 Hindu girls have been converted and are part of the Islamic State, without any credible source to back up their assertion. The filmmakers’ fantasy about Kerala, claiming the film to be based on a true story, is clearly meant for propaganda purposes. The film’s narrative appears to be aimed at creating a false image of the state, promoting communal tensions and creating division among communities.

When Cinema Is Used to Spread Hate?

The use of art to spread misinformation and propaganda is a disturbing trend that needs to be addressed by the authorities. Such films have the potential to create long-term damage by fueling hate and creating divisions that take years to heal. We still see the effect of Kashmir Files and it will continue to contaminate in the coming times and similar will be the story of The Kerala Story. The film claims that 32,000 Hindu girls were converted by the Islamic State. However, the paper by Adil Rasheed titled ‘Why fewer Indians have joined ISIS’ sheds light on the issue of Indian recruits to the Islamic State gives a different story. According to the paper, there are about 40,000 recruits to the Islamic State across the world, with the majority of them coming from Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, and other Middle Eastern and European countries.

In contrast, the paper reveals that less than 100 Indian migrants ever left for Islamic State territories in Syria and Afghanistan, and about 155 were detained for having links with it. This indicates that the number of Indian recruits to the Islamic State is significantly lower than that of other countries. The paper also touched on the reasons behind the low number of Indian recruits to the Islamic State. These reasons are both varied and complex. One possible explanation is that India is a predominantly Hindu country, with a large Muslim minority. The paper suggests that Indian Muslims have largely rejected the extremist ideology of the Islamic State and have instead chosen to embrace mainstream Islam. At such a helm of affair movies like The Kerala Story are nothing but an attempt to spread hate using the platform of art and films.

Wrapping up 

As responsible citizens, it is our duty to ensure that we do not fall prey to such propaganda and instead work towards building a harmonious and inclusive society. We must be vigilant in identifying and opposing propaganda films that are created to spread hate and misinformation. At the same time, it is important for filmmakers to be responsible and sensitive towards the subject matter they choose to portray in their films. The use of art to spread hate and division can have serious consequences for our society and must be strongly condemned. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that propaganda films that seek to spread misinformation and create communal tensions do not gain any traction.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mohd Ziyaullah Khan is a Sr. Content Writer/Content Head in an IT & Digital Marketing Company in Nagpur.

Ten Strategies to Stop a War in the Asia-Pacific

May 5th, 2023 by Dr. Reihana Mohideen

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The United States’ “Pivot to Asia” was the Barack Obama administration’s military, economic and political strategy to deploy more than half the US Navy to the Pacific.

During Donald Trump’s administration, intermediate-range nuclear missiles freed up by the US’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, were stationed in the Pacific.

Under President Joe Biden, Washington has brought in ships from NATO allies Britain, France and Germany to join US, Australian, South Korean, Japanese and Philippine vessels to patrol the South China Sea.

The Asia Pacific region has always been an important one for the US and the Global North imperialist bloc. It is where they have waged imperialist wars against liberation struggles in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It is where they have stationed military bases and military treaties, as in the Philippines, and organised political interventions to set up, or prop up, dictatorships, such as in Vietnam and the Philippines.

They relied on the newly industrialized country (NIC) economic “development” model of integration, as in South Korea, especially after World War II when the primary motive was to stop the “spread of communism” in the region. Attacking and containing China and Russia was the centre-piece of this strategy.

The central aim of the “pivot to Asia” strategy and Washington’s foreign policy today is similar, but contains important differences.

It is aimed at curbing China’s rising economic weight and its rapidly increasing influence in the Asia-Pacific. Washington wants to regain strategic balance through direct competition with China. It is also concerned about the alliances China is forming, such as with Russia. 

The United States’ National Security Strategy Paper, issued last October, which many saw as a declaration of enmity, branded China as the US’s main rival.

In launching it, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan asserted that the post-Cold War détente with Beijing “is over”. At last October’s Chinese Communist Party Congress, President Xi Jinping warned that “stormy weather” was ahead.

Capitalism’s multiple crises

The US’ aggressive regional plan comes amid capitalism’s multiple crises.

The working class today continues to suffer from the combined systemic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the generalised crisis of capital, the climate emergency and rising inter-imperialist contestations.

These conjunctural crises are pushing the US towards more aggressive path on the world stage.

US imperialism is embarking on a revitalised offensive of economic and defence-based initiatives to guarantee America’s pre-eminent standing in the capitalist world order into the latter half of the 21st Century.

A cornerstone of this strategy is the “triad of aggression”: AUKUS-IPEF-Quad initiatives: AUKUS — Australia-United Kingdom-United States “trilateral security partnership,” under US command, strengthens collective security and represents a willingness to build a strong international counterforce to China.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), with a dozen countries initially joining the US’ brand new neoliberal project targeting Asian markets for super-profits, is expected to undermine and outflank China’s own expanding economic influence in the region.

The Quad — the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue — involving India, Japan, Australia and the US, issued a strong statement obviously aimed at China to “strongly oppose any coercive, provocative or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo” in the Asia-Pacific region at its summit last May in Japan.

For the US, the priority on its military offensive is leading to a rapid escalation in the militarisation of the Asia-Pacific region.

The South China Sea dispute

China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea and its estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The area is also a major trade route.

Competing claimants are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The claimant countries’ position is that under the United Nations’ Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they should have freedom of navigation through exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the sea, and are not required to notify claimants of military activities.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling in July 2016 on a claim brought by the Philippines against China, under UNCLOS, in favour of the Philippines on almost every count. The Philippines has renamed the areas it claims as the “West Philippine Sea”.

Walden Bello, the PLM’s candidate for Vice President, described the ruling as a “flawed victory”. “The Hague verdict is not an undiluted victory for the Philippines and, at least in the short term, it will not unlock the door to peace in the region,” he said.

The PLM argues for a two-pronged approach involving both military de-escalation and multilateral agreements.

Unfortunately China has taken to making unilateral moves to secure what it sees as a defensive perimeter, instead of cooperating with other countries to reach multilateral agreements.

The PLM sees this as “bullying tactics driven by an aggressive nationalist stance”.

China has unilaterally claimed more than 90% of the South China Sea, with its infamous nine-dash line map, that has no historical or legal basis. It has moved to grab maritime formations such as Scarborough Shoal and Mischief Reef that are in the Philippines’ EEZ. There is no excuse for this. China must engage in negotiations with the ASEAN countries that have legal claims in the South China Sea to bring about a peaceful territorial settlement.

However, Beijing’s actions stem from an effort to expand its defence perimeter to protect its industrial heartland in south and south-eastern China from a potential attack from US bases and US ships that are within a striking distance of the Chinese coast.

The US has leveraged the dispute over the South China Sea to its advantage. It is using it to militarise the region, signing various military agreements, including base agreements with the claimant countries.

The Philippines signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US in 2014 ostensibly to secure territorial claims when, in fact, it increases US military access to East Asia and undermines efforts to peacefully acquire territory through the Hague Tribunal.

Vietnam’s ‘Four Nos’

By contrast, Vietnam’s more positive move was shown by Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong reiterating to Beijing, during his visit to China last year, that his government would continue to its “Four Nos” foreign policy approach in the region.

These are that Vietnam would not: join military alliances; side with one country against another; give other countries permission to set up military bases or use its territory to carry out military activities against other countries; and use force – or threaten to use force — in international relations.

Contrast this to Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippine Ambassador to Washington (and a relative of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr), who said the new administration might give the US permission to use its bases in the Philippines to support Taiwan in the event of hostilities. This only encourages US military adventurism.

The Marcos regime has also increased the number of US bases in the Philippines from five to nine.

Currently, the Philippines is hosting the largest ever military exercise with the US with 17,000 troops: 12,000 from the US, 5000 from the Philippines and 111 from Australia. This has been described as the “recolonisation” of the Philippines.

China could stop building military bases in the South China Sea, while the Philippines should scrap EDCA.

The process would build on previous ASEAN initiatives, such as the treaty which makes ASEAN a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) and the agreement setting up the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone (SEANWFZ).

The bilateral talks should focus on military de-escalation, not resolving the territorial conflicts. 

ASEAN and China should schedule multilateral talks on a code of conduct to govern the maritime behaviour of all parties with claims in the South China Sea. 

Should these confidence-building measures prove successful, then ASEAN and China could begin to multilateral negotiations on exclusive economic zones, continental shelves and other sovereignty issues.

Washington’s decline, Taiwan

Washington’s aggressive approach to addressing its decline as a hegemonic power is fraught with danger.

Although Russia’s war in Ukraine is the leading trouble spot today, the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea is a close second.

Taiwan is increasingly becoming a key piece in the US’ militarisation plans for the region.

Washington’s bellicose mood was underlined by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan last year, followed by Biden’s explicit commitment to assist Taiwan “militarily”.

While Beijing considers its sovereignty over Taiwan non-negotiable, its strategy has been to promote cross-straits economic integration as the main mechanism that would eventually lead to reunification. 

China’s overall defensive position in the region has, some argue, more changed to a “tactical offensive” position over the last two decades.

The trigger for this was Taiwan.

China launched missile drills in 1995 as payback following then President Lee’s US visit. It did so again in 1996 after Taiwan held its first democratic presidential election.

The Clinton administration responded by sending the USS Independence and the USS Nimitz to the Taiwan Straits in March 1996. This was the biggest display of US power in the region since the Vietnam War and it was intended to underline Washington’s determination to defend Taiwan by force.

Washington’s intervention revealed just how vulnerable the coastal region of east and south east China, the industrial heart of the country, was to US naval firepower. It was this realisation that prompted the change in China’s strategy, which has been unfolding since.

The PLM recognises Taiwan’s national sovereignty. At the same time we oppose the US plan to use the unresolved status of Taiwan to pursue war plans against China.

Mass anti-war movement needed

The US’ war plans will have a disastrous impact on the peoples in the region. It will also have a disastrous impact on the climate crisis.

We know that the Global North imperialist bloc is prepared to fight China to the last Filipino standing, with no concern for the destruction of the region’s ecology.

Some governments are no better: the Marcos regime is willing to be used as a US proxy in this war.

Building mass anti-war movements, based on regional and international solidarity, is key. We must use every platform, every arena of struggle to do this.

In the Philippines it took a peoples-power revolution to get rid of the two major US bases in the country — the Clark and Subic bases. On September 13, 1991, the Filipino Senate voted to reject a lease extension on the bases, ending almost a century of US military presence.

This only came about because of the large mass movement pressuring the senate and individual Senators (despite Cory Aqunio reversing her position and campaigning to keep the US bases).

The left played a crucial role in this movement. Today, as a recolonisation takes place, this is our challenge: we call it the “continuing revolution”.

The experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement in Australia, that won its key demand to pull out troops, is important to reflect on as well.

The PLM is campaigning for:

1.  All US and British imperialist troops, together with other foreign military forces, be immediately withdrawn from Asia. All US military bases and facilities across the Asia-Pacific region must be shut down.

2. Close down Five Power Defence Arrangements bases as well as all other foreign military bases in the region.

3. Dismantle Asia-Pacific-based physical forces and intelligence interception infrastructure of the imperialist-controlled Five Eyes intelligence alliance and the Echelon intelligence network.

4. Firmly uphold the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty to urgently demilitarise the area and advocate and campaign for a broader Asia-Pacific-wide nuclear weapon-free zone treaty and regime.

5. Advance a common security policy by promoting progressive regional peace initiatives to foster a more peaceful and cooperative global order, especially for the Asia-Pacific region.

6. Support worldwide moves to boost the Non-Aligned Movement, especially its historically progressive principles to decrease and deescalate great power contentions.

7. Popularise the idea of a Shared Regional Area of Essential Commons, with a progressive code of conduct for the South East Asian Sea.

8. Intensify the struggles to dismantle authoritarian, ultra-rightist and fascistic regimes in the Asia-Pacific region that serve to support US imperialism. Replace them with working-class states that will advance and build socialism.

9. Reject the US’ AUKUS, IPEF and Quad (the “Triad of Aggression”). Push ASEAN, its member-states and other non-ASEAN countries in the Asia-Pacific region, to adopt an actively neutral and non-aligned stance concerning inter-imperialist rivalries, while rejecting any efforts to join the Triad of Aggression.

10. Expand and consolidate working-class solidarity and internationalism to resist and defeat US imperialism’s global manoeuvres. Renew all efforts to bolster anti-imperialist/anti-fascist united fronts for militant mass struggles at national-regional-international levels.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr Reihana Mohideen is National Council member of the Party of the Laboring Masses and the head of the party’s international work. The above was abridged from a presentation to a Socialist Alliance–Green Left forum on resisting AUKUS in Naarm/Melbourne on April 18.

Featured image: Philippine Marines join with US Marine Corps during an exercise at Naval Base Camilo Osias in the Philippines last year. Photo: US Marine Corps

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

As Aotearoa/New Zealand’s Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control within the Labour-Alliance coalition government in 1999, I was mandated to promote NZ’s opposition to nuclear weapons and membership of aggressive military blocs such as NATO to the world. And I did.

What I did not realise at the time — and should have, having read Ralph Miliband on “Parliamentary Socialism” — was that all the top brass of the NZ military, intelligence services and the top civil servants were working overtime to assure the United States’ officials that NZ would eventually return to the fold (not their words of course) as a junior imperialist power in the South Pacific and supporter of US military-led alliances. And this is what is happening.

NZ’s anti-nuclear policy and its correlative opposition to nuclear armed military blocs was based on the 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, legislated by the then-Labour government, to reinforce membership of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty or the Treaty of Rarotonga.

These strong anti-nuclear policies, which had seen New Zealand turfed out of the ANZUS military pact by its “allies” — with Australian PM Bob Hawke being particularly insistent — were forced upon the Labour government by a vibrant mass movement that had spilled over into Labour’s base.

Labour leaders were to cynically state that conceding an anti-nuclear position was worth it, to distract attention from the blitzkrieg that forced through the neoliberal program of wholesale privatisation, deregulation and an end to free public healthcare and education. Indeed, in the period of the anti-nuclear campaign’s success, NZ suffered the implementation of the complete neoliberal agenda and roll back of the welfare state. This betrayal of the gains of the labour movement saw Labour crash in 1990 to its worst electoral defeat.

Now, Labour’s successors are implementing a new betrayal: of the gains of the mass anti-war movement. The roots of that powerful movement lay in the opposition to the US imperialist war on Vietnam, a war crime in which both Australia and NZ participated, and which, in turn fed into the mass anti-nuclear movement, opposition to South African Apartheid and the subjugation of East Timor.

Opposition to nuclear weapons and military blocs with nuclear weapons was so strong that even the conservative National Party was forced to endorse it. National’s opposition leader Don Brash told visiting US senators in 2004 that the anti-nuclear policy would be gone by lunchtime if National was re-elected. In fact, it was Brash who was gone — if not by lunchtime at least by afternoon tea — and National confirmed its commitment to NZ being nuclear free.

Former PM Jacinda Ardern — touted by the Western media as a promoter of peace and goodwill — visited the US in May last year. There she met with US President Joe Biden and Kurt Campbell, Biden’s US Indo-Pacific National Security Coordinator, among others.

Defence minister Andrew Little also met with Campbell last month and on March 23, confirmed to The Guardian that NZ was discussing joining AUKUS Pillar Two — the non-nuclear part of the defence alliance founded by Australia, Britain and the US. Pillar Two covers the sharing of advanced military technologies, including quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

Labour has also enthusiastically, but without any public discussion, become part of NATO’s Asia Pacific 4 (AP4): Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.

It appears — from the many statements and actions and visits by the top panjandrums of the US, NATO and others — that a deal has been done on AUKUS Pillar Two and its greater integration with AP4.

Apparently AP4 is “a love at this stage that dare not speak its name”, even though NATO head Jens Stoltenberg recently proclaimed it at a speech at Tokyo’s Keio University in February, reported by Geoffrey Miller’s April 11 piece for democracyproject.nz. Stoltenberg told his audience that NATO had “in many ways … already institutionalised” the AP4 and described the four countries’ participation at the NATO leaders’ summit in Spain in 2022 as a “historic moment”, wrote Miller.

NATO Policy Planning Head Benedetta Berti will speak at the NZ Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) conference this week — where in 2021 Campbell and Ardern performed a show of mutual admiration as the NZ PM welcomed the “democratic” and “rules-based“ US back into the Pacific, to confront China.

At NZIIA, no doubt, Berti will explain how NATO, the largest military force in the world with a nuclear First Strike policy and bases everywhere, is expanding its ties with the AP4 to contain an aggressive and militaristic China.

NZ’s foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta attended the annual NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels this month — alongside her counterparts from Australia, Japan and South Korea. Recently appointed PM Chris Hipkins will travel to the NATO Leaders’ Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July (in the company of other Asia Pacific members) and no doubt show Russia (and China our biggest trading partner) that we are part of Russia’s greatest fear — the continual advance of nuclear-armed NATO and its allies right up to the Russian border.

NZ’s participation in the Talisman Sabre and Rim of the Pacific military exercises and interoperability are all part of preparing NZ for this aggression.

Miller has demonstrated that the greatest betrayal has begun: NZ’s total integration into nuclear-armed NATO; participation in the containment strategy of China as part of the NATO Pacific strategy; and as part of Pillar Two AUKUS with cybersecurity etc. as part of the excuse.

There appears to be more softening up of NZ’s position to come. Recent comments I heard from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials — that the 1987 legislation is out of date — certainly indicate as much.

Only Te Pati Maori (the Maori Party) seems prepared to fight and there is not a peep from within Labour. We have a fight (to use a militaristic term) on our hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Matt Robson is a former NZ cabinet minister, and served as an MP from 1996 to 2005, first as a member of the Alliance, then as a Progressive.

Featured image: A Labour contingent at a 1972 anti-Vietnam war protest in Auckland. Photo: John Miller

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on How the New Zealand Cabinet Learned to Stop Worrying About the Bomb and Love NATO
  • Tags: ,

China’s Exports Shifting From West to Global South

April 26th, 2023 by David P. Goldman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Central Asian countries increased imports from China in March by 55% over the year-earlier month, beating the 35% jump in Chinese shipments to Southeast Asia reported previously.

Former Soviet republics as well as Turkey and Iran all contributed to a near-record gain in Chinese exports to the region, a focus of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

China’s exports to the region have nearly tripled since 2018. The chart below includes Turkey and Iran in the Central Asian total.

Several factors contributed to the export boom, which included every country in the region.

China is investing heavily in energy, mineral resources and rail transport across the Asian continent, including a new rail line between China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan scheduled to start construction next year.

The rail project, which will link China to European markets, has been planned since 1997 but only won approval in 2022, after Russia backed the venture. Russia’s need for Chinese support in the Ukraine war outweighed longstanding strategic rivalries between the two powers.

“The CKU railway is crucial to China for two interconnected purposes—to advance its geopolitical interests and to secure favorable relations with Central Asian elites for their support over Chinese legitimacy in Xinjiang (East Turkestan),” Niva Yau Tsz Yan wrote in a March 2023 commentary for the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

“Russia’s war in Ukraine has made new trade routes bypassing Russia more profitable, and a new Uzbek government is looking to expand regional and international engagement,” Yan wrote.

Iran’s imports from China had fallen to just US$800 million a month during 2019-2022 from a 2014 peak of $2.8 billion a month. But seasonally-adjusted Chinese shipments to Iran more than doubled to $1.7 billion in March.

Chronically short of cash, Iran depends on trade credits from China, by far its largest trading partner. The March increase evidently reflected more Chinese financing, and came after Iran accepted Chinese mediation in restoring diplomatic relations with its regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia. A reasonable inference is that Iran was being rewarded for good behavior.

China’s exports to Russia continued to rise sharply, along with exports to Turkey, which acts as an intermediary for Chinese trade with Russia. China has avoided direct violation of American sanctions on Russia, but Turkey and former Soviet republics have resold sanctioned goods to Moscow. The sharp increase in China’s exports to Kazakhstan probably reflects this intermediation.

Reuters reported on March 27 that Kazakhstan “would require exporters to file additional documents when sending goods to Russia, following reports that Russian companies have been using local intermediaries to bust Western sanctions… After the West barred sales of thousands of goods to Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine, some Kazakh businesses started purchasing such items and reselling them to Russian firms.”

China’s export prowess isn’t entirely free of tensions, though. In March, Turkey imposed a 40% tariff on imports of Chinese electric vehicles (EV’s), hoping to protect a local manufacturer. The Turkish automaker Togg plans to release its first EV later this year with a sticker price of $50,000.

A comparable Chinese model, for example, BYD’s Song sedan, sells for $27,500 in China—which means that BYD would still undercut Togg’s price despite the 40% surcharge. Meanwhile, BYD has just released its $11,300 Seagull subcompact, which has no competitor in the price range anywhere in the world.

In the kaleidoscope of Central Asian politics, a myriad of local factors explains the jump in China’s influence in the region. But all of them line up like iron filings before a magnet. China’s capacity to provide physical and digital infrastructure as well as affordable consumer goods, and its capacity to finance trade and investment out of its current account surplus, explain its economic power and political influence in the region.

There’s another geopolitical consequence of China’s export prowess in Central and Southeast Asia: China’s exports to the Global South and BRICS countries in March reached a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $1.6 trillion a year.

That’s nearly four times China’s exports to the United States and more than the combined total of China’s exports to the US, Europe and Japan, which reached a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $1.38 trillion in March.

That represents a geopolitical point of no return of sorts, the moment when China’s economic dependence on the United States in particular and developed markets in general slipped behind its economic standing in the developing world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Trade containers are seen at the Horgos Port in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, February 6, 2021. Photo: Xinhua

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

While the mass slaughtering of, and slaughter by, soldiers, is always a touchy subject of commemoration, a tension has existed between those who did the fighting, and those who ordered it. Comfortably secure in furnished rooms and battle props, planners would, as they still do, draw up the blueprints, concoct the strategy, and give the orders.

In Australia, politicians should have every reason to stay out of the grief and suffering they contributed to by sending their citizenry (wait, subjects – for the State remains a constitutional monarchy) to countries they could barely spell. But the bosom and milk of British empire was, like US hegemony now, too powerful to resist. Enthusiastic, young volunteers were sent to be cut down in the fields of Flanders and the beaches of Gallipoli.

Things have not improved much since. Apart from the Second World War, which saw Australia’s own coastline threatened by the forces of Imperial Japan, Canberra has fallen into a nasty habit of sending troops to fight other people’s wars. The tendency has begun to resemble that of coke-addiction. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq stand out as mercenary missions of invasion and predation rather than defence ventures, the crude calculations of fleshy armchair strategists hankering for security and approval from foreign masters. 

The military and political tradition going back to Gallipoli in 1915 is not an enviable one; talk about being slain in the name of freedom is hollow when it comes from the invaders. In a perverse, and glorious twist of public relations, modern Turkey’s creator Kemal Atatürk knew how to turn the bad behaviour of the invasion into the good grace of forgiveness. You, soldiers of Anzac, invaded us; having died on our soil, you became our sons.

Such skilful marketing is conspicuously ignored every April 25, but remains most profitable for local vendors in Türkiye. It should also be said that, in racial and cultural terms, it clearly ignores the Armenians and those caught in the Turkification project Atatürk pursued with sanguinary tenacity. They died gruesomely, aliens in their own land.   

Around these engagements, the politician as demagogic promoter of ANZAC – the name given to both the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and the cult surrounding it – has come to the fore. It is common, and convenient, to link the sacral elevation of the Anzac tradition – muscular, masculine sacrifice by sturdy blokes keen on freedom and the “fair go” – to Prime Minister John Howard. The process of burnishing the legend and reviving it for more contemporary consumption actually began with the Australian Labor Party, and Australia’s longest serving Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke.

It was his visit to Gallipoli on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings that made things turn. The meaning of the Anzac tradition, Hawke told those gathered, “forged in the fires of Gallipoli, must be learned anew, from generation to generation.” 

As wise political chief, and one who could shed a tear or two, he suggested that the meaning of the tradition “can endure only as long as each new generation of Australians finds the will to reinterpret it to breathe, as it were, new life into the old story: and, in separating the truth from the legend, realise its relevance to a nation and a people, experiencing immense change over the past three-quarters of a century.”

Contrary to Hawke’s hope, the truth from the legend has never been separated, as they never are in the context of any religion.  Faith, and denial, papers over any disparity. 

What Hawke left in brick, Howard turned into marble and sinister mythology. Anzac returned to the cult of mateship indebted to country, and it was to be exploited. Little mention would be made about political responsibility for war: the politician would extol the creed; the rest would follow. Australians gathered on April 25, he remarked on Anzac Day in 2001, were drawn by “a great silent summons to repay a debt to the past. Each year the numbers of us grow. Each year, more and more young Australians hear the call, though far removed, in time and circumstance, from those they seek to honour.”

Since then, Anzac has become a militaristic prop, a promotions exercise for arms manufacturers and the publicity for war. This was best exemplified by the decision to spend almost A$500 million over nine years to redevelop the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The primary reason for this profligate spending: to create more room for advertising space for military hardware: jet fighters, Chinook helicopters, and the like. Disgracefully, there were arguments that making former and current service personnel see such weapons and platforms of war would supply therapy rather than despair. Suffice to say, such PR is not intended to include the victims of such weapons.

The tradition of Anzac has also done nothing to offer lessons to Australian leaders to be cautious, reflective, and wise in sending troops to foreign theatres. Hawke was hardly going to buck the trend of an automatic deployment of Australian personnel to wars waged by the US. He had, after all, been one of the keenest converts to its messages, spiked by Freedom Land’s convictions.  Despite having received no request from Washington to send a military contingent, Hawke, on August 10, 1990, proudly committed three frigates to US Operation Desert Shield.

When Howard’s conservative coalition won office in 1996, the salient lessons of needless death and foolish deployment showed the extent that Anzac was to be commemorated: as a hat doffing ceremony to war’s necessity rather than its avoidable dangers.  On Australia’s Vietnam fiasco, he “accepted the government’s position that the involvement was justified. I accepted then, and I see no reason to have changed my mind.” Students of his record should have found his instinctive throwing of Australian personnel into the US-led attacks on Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 as fairly consistent. He was never a man to learn much, and errors could never be put down to stupidity or ignorance.

Unfortunately, the current Labor government has also suffered the same condition; Anzac’s lessons of woe and suffering have also failed to filter through the current adjutants of the US empire in Canberra. When the AUKUS security pact was broached to the opposition leader Anthony Albanese by the previous Morrison government in 2021, he made the decision to approve it within twenty-four hours. He was even “proud” of the decision, noting “that the United States’s position was that a precondition of their support for AUKUS and these arrangements certainly was a bipartisan commitment.” The arrangements, including the acquisition of nuclear-propelled submarines, were preparations for war with China.

Beware, then, the warmongering jingoes perfumed in freedom-loving garb. They are bound to be the ones leading the country to a blood-soaked demise. And the Anzac legend has become the ideal, incubating vehicle for doing so, built upon the fiction of sacrificial debt rather than colossal, even criminal blunders.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Politicians and the Anzac Tradition: A Story of Manipulation and Mythology
  • Tags: ,

The Death of Over a Thousand Garment Workers in Bangladesh

April 24th, 2023 by Prof. Vijay Prashad

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On Wednesday 24 April 2013, 3,000 workers entered Rana Plaza, an eight-story building in the Dhaka suburb of Savar in Bangladesh. They produced garments for the transnational commodity chain that stretches from the cotton fields of South Asia, through Bangladesh’s machines and workers, and on to retail houses in the Western world. Garments for famous brands such as Benetton, Bonmarché, Prada, Gucci, Versace, and Zara are stitched here, as are the cheaper clothes that hang on Walmart racks. The previous day, Bangladeshi authorities had asked the owner, Sohel Rana, to evacuate the building due to structural problems. ‘The building has minor damage’, said Rana. ‘There is nothing serious’. But at 8:57 am on 24 April, the building collapsed in the span of two minutes, killing at least 1,132 people and injuring over 2,500 more. The circumstances of the collapse were similar to the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City, where 146 people died. Tragically, a century later, garment workers are still subject to these dangerous labour conditions.

The list of avoidable ‘accidents’ in Savar is long and painful. In April 2005, at least 79 workers died in a factory collapse; in February 2006, 18 workers died in yet another collapse, followed by 25 in June 2010 and 124 in the Tazreen Fashion Factory fire in November 2012. Since the Rana Plaza devastation ten years ago, at least 109 other buildings in the area have collapsed, resulting in the death of 27 workers (at minimum). These are the deadly factories of twenty-first century globalisation: poorly built shelters for a production process geared toward long working hours, third-rate machines, and workers whose lives are submitted to the imperatives of just-in-time production. Writing about the factory regime in nineteenth-century England, Karl Marx noted in chapter 10 of Capital:

But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its werewolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight. … All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour power that can be rendered fluent in a working day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility.

Image: Poly Akhter’s mother, Shahana (38), grieves for her, 1 June 2013. Credit: Taslima Akhter

These Bangladeshi factories are part of the landscape of globalisation echoed in factories along the US-Mexico border, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, and in other places around the world that opened their doors to the garment industry’s savvy uptake of the new manufacturing and trade order of the 1990s. Subdued countries that had neither the patriotic will to fight for their citizens nor any concern for the long-term debilitation of their social order rushed to welcome multinational clothing companies that no longer wanted to invest in factories. So, they turned to subcontractors, offering them narrow profit margins, compelling them to run their factories like prison houses of labour. The garment industry in Bangladesh, which comprises 80 per cent of the country’s total export earnings, grew entirely in security zones, offering workers few prospects to unionise. It is no wonder that these factories are a warzone.

The subcontracting process allowed multinational firms to deny any culpability for the actions of small factory owners, allowing wealthy shareholders in the Global North to enjoy profits from the lower costs of production without having their consciences stained by the terror inflicted on these workers. Men like Sohel Rana, a local tough guy who oscillated between different political parties depending on who held power, became local thugs for multinational firms. After the collapse of the building, Rana was hastily disowned by all politicians and arrested (the trial against him continues, although he is out on bail).

Men like Rana assemble workers, shove them into these shoddy buildings, and ensure that they are beaten if they threaten to unionise while elites living in the mansions of Gulshan and Banani offer small gestures of liberalism through charity and the allowance of modest, but unfulfilled, labour laws. Labour inspectors are few, and – even worse – they are powerless. As the International Labour Organisation noted in 2020, ‘Labour inspectors have no administrative sanctioning power and cannot impose fines directly. However, they can file a case in the labour court, but the resolution of these cases usually takes a long time, and the fines imposed… do not provide a sufficient deterrent’. An occasional outburst of liberal sentiment in the Global North forces some companies to ‘self-regulate’, an exercise in whitewashing the horrors of the global commodity chain. Capitalist democracy requires this alliance of brutality and reform, of neofascism and paternalism. It celebrates the Ranas of the world until they become a liability, and then it simply replaces them.

Image: This harrowing photograph, taken on 25 April 2013 in Savar, Bangladesh, has come to be known as A Final Embrace. Credit: Taslima Akhter

One day after the building collapse, Taslima Akhter went to Rana Plaza and photographed the ruins in what she saw as an act of remembrance. A selection of her photographs illustrates this newsletter. Later, Akhter published a 500-page book, Chobbish April: Hazaar Praner Chitkar (‘24th April: Outcries of a Thousand Souls’), which displays a collection of the posters put up by frantic family members looking for their loved ones and passport photographs of the dead with a brief note on their lives.

Chobbish April opens with the story of 35-year-old Baby Akhter, a swing operator at EtherTex Garment who began working at Rana Plaza only 16 days before her death. Akhter came to Dhaka from Rangpur, where her father was a landless peasant. Eighty per cent of the workers in these factories are women, and most, like Baby Akhter, migrate from conditions of landlessness. They bring with them the desolation of the countryside, its overworked soil and poisoned water ravaged by industrial agriculture as well as by the law of value that makes the small farmer redundant before the might of capitalist farms. Baby Akhter’s husband, Delowar, recalled that her luxuries were chewing paan (‘betel leaf’) and using a hand-held fan. ‘She was ready to fight any war’, he said. Her photograph exudes defiance and kindness, a smile hidden in her face.

Image: Baby Akhter. Credit: Bangladesh Garment Sramik Samhati (‘Bangladesh Garment Workers Solidarity’

Bangladeshi workers like Baby Akhter have regularly organised to fight against their wretched conditions. In June 2012, the year before Rana Plaza collapsed, thousands of workers in the Ashulia Industrial Zone outside Dhaka protested for higher wages and better working conditions. For days on end, these workers closed 300 factories, blocking the Dhaka-Tangail highway in Narasinghapur. In retaliation, the owners shut down the factories, and the state took their side, with inspector Abul Kalam Azad declaring that the factories would only re-open if the workers ‘behaved properly’. Police officers marched down the street with batons and tear gas used to ‘educate’ the workers about so-called proper behaviour. After the 2012 protests, the government set up the Crisis Management Cell and the Industrial Police, both of which ‘collect intelligence and pre-empt labour unrest in industrial areas’. When Human Rights Watch investigated the situation in 2014–15, one worker told the investigator that despite being pregnant, she was ‘beaten with metal curtain rods’. One of the owners of a big factory explained to the investigator why the violence is viewed as necessary:

Factory owners want to maximise profits, so they will cut corners on safety issues, on ventilation, on sanitation. They will not pay overtime or offer assistance in the case of injuries. They push workers hard because they don’t want to miss deadlines… Workers have no unions, so they can’t dictate their rights… Some of this can also be blamed on the branded retailers who place bulk orders and say, ‘Scale up production lines because it is a big order and improve your margins’. Even 2–3 cents can make the difference, but these companies don’t want to factor [labour rights and safety] compliance into costing.

Each of these sentences seems lifted directly from Marx’s Capital, written over 150 years ago. The harsh conditions set by the global commodity chain make Bangladesh one of the worst countries in the world to be a worker. A studypublished in January 2023 shows that during the pandemic, multinational garment companies squeezed subcontractors to cut costs, which resulted in harsher conditions for workers.

A commemoration march in 2022 on the ninth anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse. Credit: Saifuzzaman Sium

In 1926, the All Bengal Tenants’ Conference met in Krishnanagar to form the Kirti Kisan (‘Worker-Peasant’) Party, an early communist political platform in South Asia. Kazi Nazrul Islam sang his Sramiker Gaan (‘Song of the Workers’) at this meeting, a poem that could have been written for Rana Plaza workers and for the millions who toil along a global commodity chain that they do not control:

We are mere coolies working at the machines
in these terrible times.
We are mere dupes and fools
to discover the diamond and to make a gift of it
to the king, to adorn his crown.

Hold fast your hammer, pick up your shovel,
sing in unison and advance.
Switch off the machine-light, the Satan’s eye.
Come along, O Comrade, and keep your weapon high.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: The mother of an 18-year-old missing worker, Rina, waits for her lost daughter in front of a barricade in Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 24 July 2013.  Credit: Taslima Akhter

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Death of Over a Thousand Garment Workers in Bangladesh

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

China’s Nuclear Supercarrier Vision Coming Into View

April 18th, 2023 by Gabriel Honrada

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Building on the Fujian aircraft carrier’s success, China’s carrier development program is gaining steam with the recent unveiling of its nuclear-powered supercarrier concept.

This month, The Warzone reported that China’s Jiangnan Shipyard has released concept art of what appears to be a nuclear-powered supercarrier similar to the US Gerald Ford class and France’s Next Generation Aircraft Carrier.  

Although the artwork reveals few precise details, the report notes that the design has a catapult-assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) configuration.

The report says the artwork shows numerous stealth aircraft similar to the FC-31 on the carrier’s deck, hinting that the plane may form the backbone of this new carrier’s air wing.

China has been incrementally approaching its carrier program, first learning carrier operations before moving on to nuclear propulsion.

Concept art of a Chinese nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Photo: DefenceTalk / Screengrab

A 2017 Center of Strategic and International Studies commentary noted that the Liaoning and Shandong both have small fighter wings, with just 18-24 J-15 fighters for the Liaoning and four more jets for the Shandong. The relatively small complement of fighter aircraft carried by both ships presents China with an offense-defense dilemma. 

Asia Times noted last August that such a small complement of aircraft poses limitations on how much of the Liaoning and Shandong’s respective air wings can be dedicated for attack or defense.

Allocating more aircraft to attack increases the vulnerability of their respective carrier battlegroups, but committing more aircraft to fleet air defense diminishes their attack power. However, the Fujian, which can carry between 50-70 aircraft, could overcome those challenges.

The Fujian is also equipped with China’s version of the electromagnetic launch system (EMALS), which uses powerful electromagnets to launch aircraft, enabling the launch of additional and heavier types of aircraft faster.

These aircraft could include improved J-15Bs, naval versions of the J-20 and FC-31, and J-600 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) planes and drones.

Moreover, Asia Times reported that China might be preparing to deploy the FC-31 stealth fighter and the FH-97A Loyal Wingman drone from the Fujian. The carrier-based version of the FC-31, dubbed the J-35, may be used for air supremacy missions.

At the same time, the improved J-15Bs perform ground and sea attacks, possibly eliminating the offense-defense dilemma associated with Liaoning and Shandong.

The J-35 may be complemented by a carrier-based version of the FH-97A, with the land-based version optimized for air-to-air operations, with a front-mounted electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) and internal weapons bay for six air-to-air missiles.

With the offense-defense dilemma possibly surmounted, the next step in improving China’s carrier warfare capabilities will be to eliminate the range and endurance limitations related to conventionally-powered ships.

Asia Times reported last October that China’s fourth carrier will most likely be nuclear-powered, with China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) developing a nuclear-powered carrier design since February 2018 and declaring that it should achieve a breakthrough in nuclear propulsion technology by 2027.

The Fujian aircraft carrier’s launch party. Image: Twitter

At present, however, China’s nuclear propulsion technology lags way behind the US. South China Morning Post (SCMP) notes in an article from last June that developing a nuclear-powered supercarrier cannot be rushed for safety and scientific reasons.

The report notes that China’s Linglong One small modular reactor, considered its most advanced model, needs to be refueled once every two or three years, compared with the reactor on a Ford-class carrier that can operate for half a century.

Nevertheless, in the event of a Taiwan contingency, a Chinese nuclear-powered carrier can reduce the need to break off operations and resupply, increase sortie rates by combat aircraft and strengthen a possible Taiwan blockade by providing a persistent presence.

Given the strategic importance of carriers, China may aims to have a six-carrier navy, with its three fleets operating two carriers each.

In such a configuration, one carrier would be on active deployment while another would undergo maintenance, refitting and crew training.

Building such a navy may already be within China’s shipbuilding abilities. Asia Times noted in February China’s massive shipbuilding production rate and its use last month of artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate warship design processes.

As of 2022, the PLA-N was the world’s largest navy with 340 ships; the US Navy, in comparison, has only 280 ships. China also has 13 naval shipyards, with each facility having more capacity than all seven US naval shipyards combined.

China’s massive shipbuilding lead over the US can be partly attributed to its civil-military fusion strategy, with the concurrent building of warships and civilian ships in the same shipyards ensuring that its shipbuilding industry operates at capacity despite economic downturns.

The fusion strategy also applies civilian mass-production techniques and advanced technologies to naval shipbuilding, allowing it to maintain surge production capability and also circumvent sanctions targeting its military modernization program.

Moreover, China has used an AI operating on a small computer that reputedly allows it to design a warship’s electrical systems in a day. This task would have taken human designers with the most advanced computer tools 300 days to complete.

China now has more naval vessels than the US. Image: Xinhua

Although building a six-carrier navy at astonishing speed is one thing, producing the required numbers of professional sailors, airmen and marines is quite another.

Given that, Edward Luttwak noted in an UnHerd article last month that a manpower shortage has undercut the PLA-N’s spending plans.

Luttwak says that’s because young and talented Chinese who can absorb high-level technical skills are turning down military jobs due to low pay compared to the civilian sector and a reluctance to serve under strict military discipline and hierarchy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: China is developing its first nuclear-powered submarine. The above shadowy image is of the conventional Shandong carrier. Photo: Twitter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

More than 100 people including at least 30 children were reportedly killed Tuesday in airstrikes by Myanmar’s military dictatorship targeting opponents of the coup regime.

Witnesses and members of the opposition National Unity Government told reporters that a military jet and Mi-35 helicopter gunship bombed and strafed a gathering marking the opening of a new office of the People’s Defense Force (PDF), a militant resistance group, in the village of Pa Zi Gyi, Kanbalu Township in the country’s northwestern Sagaing region.

“This was a war crime,” Byar Kyi, a resistance fighter who helped recover victims’ bodies, told The New York Times. “The place they attacked was not a military target.”

Tom Andrews, the United Nations’ special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, tweeted:

“The Myanmar military’s attacks against innocent people, including today’s airstrike in Sagaing, [are] enabled by world indifference and those supplying them with weapons. How many Myanmar children need to die before world leaders take strong, coordinated action to stop this carnage?”

One villager told the BBC that the jet bombed Pa Zi Gyi at about 7:00 am local time, followed by a sustained 20-minute attack by the helicopter.

Local residents and journalists uploaded gruesome photos and videos showing dead and dismembered children, many of their bodies burned or blasted beyond recognition, lying strewn about the bombed-out village in the wake of the attack.

“The corpses cannot be identified since they are all scattered in body parts—legs and heads,” one rescue worker told The Irrawaddy, an anti-junta news site. “After gathering them all, we burned them.”

A resident of a neighboring village told the same publication that “at the moment it’s hard to say exactly how many casualties there were.”

“We haven’t been able to retrieve bodies and body parts, as the area where the air strike occurred is still burning,” they added.

Regional media also reported at least 11 deaths in a Monday airstrike on a high school run by the Chin National Defense Force in Falam Township, Chin state.

Myanmar’s military—which seized power in a February 2021 coup—frequently targets anti-regime strongholds including Sagaing and Chin state. According to a BBC analysis published at the end of January, there have been over 600 aerial attacks by the junta’s forces since the coup.

Last September, a pair of military helicopters attacked a school in Sagaing, killing at least 11 children, according to the United Nations children’s agency. The following month, regime warplanes bombed an outdoor concert in Kachin state, killing at least 80 people.

“The military continues its mindless war on our country’s own people. Their sole aim is to consolidate power through death and destruction. They will not succeed,” National Unity Government Acting President Duwa Lashi La said in a Tuesday Facebook post.

“We will continue our fight for a new Myanmar,” he added. “Our goal is a Myanmar in which such atrocities cannot occur and where power derives from the will of the people, not force of arms.”

Human rights groups amplified calls to suspend aviation fuel shipments to Myanmar’s military in the wake of the latest airstrikes.

“The relentless air attacks across Myanmar highlight the urgent need to suspend the import of aviation fuel,” Montse Ferrer, Amnesty International’s business and human rights researcher, said in a statement.

“Amnesty reiterates its calls on all states and businesses to stop shipments that may end up in the hands of the Myanmar Air Force,” Ferrer continued. “This supply chain fuels violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, and it must be disrupted in order to save lives.”

Referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Ferrer added:

“Instead of taking a back seat, ASEAN must step up and play a leading role in resolving the human rights catastrophe in Myanmar. The United Nations Security Council must find ways to push through effective actions to hold the Myanmar military accountable, including by referring the situation in the country to the International Criminal Court.”

The European Union and countries including Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have moved to block the sale, supply, and shipment of aviation fuel to the Myanmarese regime and associated companies and businesspeople.

However, a March report from Amnesty International, Global Witness, and Burma Campaign U.K. showed Asian and European companies continued to be involved in supplying Myanmar’s military with aviation fuel.

“Since the military’s coup in 2021, it has brutally suppressed its critics and attacked civilians from the ground and the air. Supplies of aviation fuel reaching the military enable these war crimes,” Ferrer said last month. “These shipments must stop now.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image: This photograph shows the aftermath of an April 11, 2023 Myanmarese airstrike on the village of Pa Zi Gyi, an attack that reportedly killed more than 100 people. (Photo: Kyun Hla Kanbalu Activists Group/Twitter)

The Philippines as Springboard for US War on China

April 7th, 2023 by Jezile Torculas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Written on February 17, 2023. 

Update as of April 6, 9:30 AM ET:

The Philippines has recently announced the additional four new EDCA sites which are as follows: Naval Base Camilo Osias in Santa Ana, Cagayan; Camp Melchor Dela Cruz in Gamu, Isabela; Balabac Island in Palawan; and Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan. 

The geographic locations of the sites are very convenient for America’s China containment strategy — three in northern Luzon with close proximity to Taiwan, and one in southern Luzon, just along the South China Sea. 

Map of the new sites encircled in red. (Image source: Nations Online Project)

Moreover, US-PH Balikatan exercises will be held on April 11-28, involving more than 17,600 members of the Armed Forces of the PH and the US military“. It is said to be the largest iteration to date.

***

The US-Philippine relations are at a detente under the new administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. This is especially evident in the strengthened military ties between the two countries, which are accelerating the full implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a pillar of the US-PH alliance. Reports from the PH Department of National Defense (DND) confirm the addition of four more agreed locations to the existing five agreed locations in strategic areas in the country. This translates to US military access of a total of nine local military bases, presence of US troops and placement of defense assets. The alliance is set to conduct their biggest war games in the second quarter of 2023, involving more troops than the previous year. This renewed vigor is occurring against a backdrop of escalating tension in the South China Sea (SCS) and a looming Taiwan conflict. 

According to the DND, the additional EDCA locations will expedite response to “shared challenges” especially on matters of regional and national security. The US feels threatened by the inevitable rise of China as a regional (and global) key player; therefore it is only equally necessary and important to reinforce its military relations with Asian friends. What is being untold is that the Philippines is used as a springboard for Washington’s war on Beijing due to its favorable proximity to Taiwan. In other words, the geographic location of the Philippines is leveraged by the US to accomplish its goal of encircling China, with the Philippines’ claimant status on the SCS as the icing on the cake. 

The SCS is a bilateral issue between the Philippines and China; it is an issue that needs bilateral agreement and resolution without the need for militarization. US-PH military exercises only send wrong signal to China, given the prevailing geopolitical circumstances. What needs to be done is for involved parties to open communication lines for bilateral talks, dialogue and negotiation. The presence of US military in Philippine soil will only escalate the tension between China and the Philippines and will subsequently disturb regional security architecture. 

The EDCA is clearly a liability more than a benefit. The Philippines should reconsider. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jezile Torculas has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. She is an Assistant Editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Through the Balikatan 2023 Joint Mobility Coordination Center, a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III carrying equipment to support the Philippines’ oil spill response in Oriental Mindoro lands at Subic Bay International Airport on March 25. (Source: US Embassy in the Philippines)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Taiwan has pushed back against threats of retaliation by China, ahead of an expected meeting between the island’s president and the US House speaker that will underscore her administration’s claim to sovereignty.

The meeting on Wednesday outside Los Angeles comes on what is technically a stopover for President Tsai Ing-wen, after her two-country trip in Latin America to visit Taiwan’s few remaining official allies.

Tsai also met with senior security officials on Tuesday to discuss the “regional situation” ahead of her meeting with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in California, which China has demanded not take place.

Beijing calls Taiwan as its breakaway province and balks at any official contact Taipei has with other countries.

This week it warned McCarthy, a Republican and California native who is second in line to the US presidency, that he was “playing with fire” by meeting Tsai.

“China is strongly opposed to the US arranging for Tsai Ing-wen to transit through its territory, and is strongly opposed to the meeting between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking US official, and Tsai Ing-wen,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters.

“It seriously violates the One-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, and seriously undermines China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” she said.

The United States formally recognises Beijing and One-China principle, but is an important backer of Taiwan, and maintains strong unofficial ties.

Taipei enjoys strong bipartisan support in the US Congress, and has grown closer to Washington under Tsai’s leadership.

‘Threatening things’

Last year, McCarthy’s predecessor, Democrat Nancy Pelosi sparked fury in Beijing by becoming the most senior US politician to visit the island in over two decades.

That prompted Beijing to launch its largest-ever military exercises in waters around Taiwan.

McCarthy had originally planned to go himself, but has opted instead to meet Tsai at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

His office said that the meeting would be “bipartisan,” while US media reported that over a dozen other members of Congress would attend.

The decision to meet in the United States was viewed as a compromise that would underscore support for Taiwan but avoid inflaming tensions with China.

Tsai’s visit to southern California comes after trips to Guatemala and Belize and after a brief stop in New York last week, where she was greeted by flag-waving Taiwanese expatriates.

“We have demonstrated a firm will and resolve to defend ourselves, that we are capable of managing risks with calm and composure and that we have the ability to maintain regional peace and stability,” she said in New York.

China’s consulate in Los Angeles said on Monday the meeting in California would “greatly hurt the national feelings of 1.4 billion Chinese people” and undermine “the political foundation of China-US relations.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Philippines on Monday announced the locations of four military bases that the US will now have access to under a deal Washington and Manila signed in February.

Three of the Philippine bases will be located in northern Philippine provinces, a move that angers China since they can be used as staging grounds for a fight over Taiwan. The US will be granted access to the Lal-lo Airport and the Naval Base Camilo Osias, which are both located in the northern Cagayan province. In the neighboring Isabela province, the US will gain access to Camp Melchor Dela Cruz.

The US military will also be able to expand to Palawan, an island province in the South China Sea, disputed waters that are a major source of tensions between the US and China. The US will be granted access to Balabac Island, the southernmost island of Palawan.

The new locations are on top of five bases the US currently has access to, bringing the total number of bases the US can rotate forces through in the Philippines to nine. The expansion in the Philippines is a significant step in the US effort to build up its military assets in the region to prepare for a future war with China.

The US expansion is being done under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Arrangement (EDCA), a deal Washington and Manila signed in 2014 to give the US greater access to the Philippines and allow it to build military facilities. The EDCA built on the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which provides the legal basis for the US military presence in the Philippines.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s decision to allow the US to expand significantly departs from the policies of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who threatened to scrap the VFA and kick US troops out of the country over US sanctions on Philippine officials related to the country’s drug war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image source

Punjab: Democracy Under Siege?

March 29th, 2023 by Sandeep Banerjee

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We were getting distress signals from writings of friends in Punjab and those outside Punjab but are well connected with events there. Internet suspension for days, police raids and arrests, even taking journalists to ‘custody’, imposition of Section-144, and even NIA and paramilitaries all were there apparently in search of one Amritpal who is said to be pro-Khalistan, who ‘mysteriously’ escaped arrest attempts, but all these created an atmosphere of fear. National media was not concerned with peoples’ loss of democratic space; they filled air about pro-Khalistan ‘influence’ in Punjab, machinations from abroad, particularly Pakistan, recovery of weapons and all such news-garbage. Renowned writer Amandeep Sandhu wittily wrote in his great piece on recent Punjab in Frontline magazine: “If militancy plunged Punjab into a crisis, after militancy, politicians of all hues — traditionally Congress and Akali Dal, and now the new Aam Aadmi Party — have displayed apathy and unwillingness to untie Punjab’s knots and give it the healing it needs. A former Chief Minister kept talking about security threats from across the border but never answered why Pakistan viewed the State as ready for the picking and if his own government had assuaged Punjab’s woes. The Centre deployed the Border Security Force in half of Punjab, along the India-Pakistan border, yet ironically, the drugs everyone talks about proliferates in this very belt.” [1]

But the issue is not just concerns of individuals now, for example, in a statement issued by Amarjit Singh, the Jamhuri Adhikar Sabha Punjab (Association For Democratic Rights, Punjab) declared about observing Anti Black Law protests on April 7 at Barnala, Punjab Khet Mazdoor Union (PKMU) secretary Lachman Sewewala issued protest statement on behalf of workers and working people, to mention just a few. Twitter handles of hundreds of persons were suppressed.

As the govt and the media are now seen to be keen in prolonging the Apritpal Singh – Khalistan – Foreign hand etc ‘Serial’ readers may find why the govt find it so convenient to resume new episodes and why many people outside Punjab often fall prey to the propaganda. And it is also imperative to know some ground reality about Punjab which are connected with this. Though this article might seem superfluous after getting analyses from many renowned and knowledgeable persons, but some points need to be mentioned which secular intelligentsia may find provocative or embarrassing. This article wants to visit a few such points: (1) Why Delhi Rulers and Media Can Often Portray Punjab’s Movements as Sikh’s movement (i.e., with religious connotation) OR Why Punjab’s Movements Often Look Like Sikh Movement! (2) Some Incidents During Farmers Long Protest Movement Around Delhi (3) Some Recent Events: Twist & Turn?

Why Delhi Rulers and Media Can Often Portray Punjab’s Movements As Sikh’s movement (i.e., with religious connotation) OR Why Punjab’s Movements Often Look Like Sikh Movement!

First point: It happened historically, or it is indeed a historical fact arising from Punjab’s Hindus’ abnegation of their Punjabi identity starting just after India’s independence: In the 1951 and 1961 census there were concerted efforts by Punjabi Hindus to record their language as Hindi and not Punjabi. It created the basis of further division of Punjab – into Haryana (a state and Chandigarh, an UT), after ceding places including Shimla, Punjab’s capital, to Himachal. There are so many records of this, including illuminating books by Paul. R. Brass and writings of many researchers. This did not happen spontaneously, the Arya Samaj and RSS acted with full strength to make this successful. Haryana was born on 1966.

Second point: The repeatedly wounded and amputated state of Punjab then started its own movement for the interest of Punjab, and naturally Punjabis against rulers higher-up – but take it with caution, as a “nation’s” or nationality’s interest, except in case of liberation war against imperialism, does mean the interest of the influential classes and strata of that nation or nationality, while other lower-down sections may think that to be in their interest too, or they can be made to think so, or, in worst case scenario, they may stay aloof/neutralised in conflict (of course, there could be chances of some trickling down of benefits in case that nation’s interest to some extent could be appropriated). Here came the Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973. Though in some points it did have some religious overtones (and that is not artificial and by some legal/constitutional provision of some article, Sikhism could/can be portrayed as a sect of Hinduism) the resolution was actually addressing concern of a rising class of entrepreneurs in agriculture and also small industries who were facing heavy difficulties. It was not uncommon in India – states were reorganised and founded on linguistic-cultural, national basis and the respective nations fought for their ‘proper’ share – for example, we have long standing water dispute problems among states in the South.

Third point: In case of Punjab the agricultural entrepreneuring strata in villages and some little entrepreneurs in town were Sikhs and businessmen class was overwhelmingly urban and Hindu — to the extent that, suppose, in 1981 Rural Punjab had more than 71% Sikhs whereas Urban Punjab had more than 64% Hindus! [2]

By the way: This is also a reason why Punjab’s farmers movement look like nearly an all-Sikh movement – it is based on a stubborn fact. Moreover, the division created during 1951-1961 and afterwards, included “hate propaganda” against Punjabi and created “lot of bitterness”, according to Dr J. S. Puar. Ex-VC, Punjabi University [3].

Second and third point together led to: Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973 was formally taken as a party resolution of Shiromani Akali Dal in 1978. Strangely, in the case of Punjab the regional/national, or as some may call it, wrongly, sub-national, movement was taken up by a party which was connected in many ways with a particular religion or its institution, unlike, say DMK or Telugu Desham, or etc. We may remember the Sarkaria Commission which was constituted in 1983 to look after centre-state relation, demands of federalism against the strong unitary way of functioning of Govt of India forgetting that the ‘State’ in India was codified as The Union of India. Shiromani Akali Dal’s movement for Punjab’s interest (please remember the caution mentioned about a nation’s or nationality’s interest) ultimately resulted in launching “Dharam Yuddh Morcha” in alliance with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in 1982. Of course, Akali Dal had a compulsion as its students wing, Sikh Students Federation was much under influence of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. No so-alled ‘secular’ party’ did (or could) take up the agenda or part set in Anandpur Sahib resolution and led the movement. The Akali Dal, after some time, came out of the alliance. But the movement was advancing. We know the rest of this episode of 1980s, there would be stories of ‘foreign hands’, ‘international diaspora’ and so on, and it would be forgotten who joined this movement and suffered — Bhindranwale’s initial support base was poorer economically than that of Akali Dal, the movement gained more momentum in districts with higher inequalities and higher depeasantisation and etc, and also about the condition of people far below for who nobody bothered much, the Dalits, mainly landless, and labouring section, about a third of the population of the state.

As in Assam, so also in case of Punjab, after head of collisions with the state during Indira-regime, we would see one after one ‘accords’ during Rajiv-regime, Assam and Punjab got accords. Tamils of Sri Lanka too. Now we can take a little break in this historical journey, with a little reminder only: the agricultural practice enforced by the Indian Govt., the Green Revolution technology, started taking its toll on humans and nature which was much apparent by late 1980s, from presence of DDT in human breast milk to irrigation water shortage to emptying of groundwater layer and so on.

Fourth point: Just ten years ago a movement started spontaneously — Bandi Skh Rihai – and it got support from wide range of people in Punjab. Gurbax Singh Khalsa started a fast which lasted 44 days and compelled the govt. to commute death sentence of Balwant Singh, one of the imprisoned Sikhs, imprisoned for charges of terrorism. Bandi Sikh movement continued demanding release of Sikh prisoners who have already served their jail sentence but yet not released. Five years ago, 2018 on March 21, Gurbax Singh Khalsa, who was again of a fast to death with this demand, committed suicide [4].

By the few above mentioned points, we wished to express a curious fact: how Punjab’s movement often turned out to be or seemed to be a Sikh movement, in general terms, to the outside world.

Some Strange Incidents During Farmers Long Protest Movement Around Delhi

Act 1: The January 26, 2021 Red Fort Event. While all major farmers unions, who were determined to continue their protest, decided for the Million Farmers March on the Ring Road as agreed with administration, some hundreds of protesters, or some parts of the march were seen to be marching towards Red Fort and they reached there. On one side there were some Quixotic movements of tractors, clash with police, etc, a large crowd was seen around the fort and a few climbed on to raise Sikh religious flag. TV channels started a high-pitched propaganda campaign against farmers unions, their disloyalty to the ‘country’, their ‘traitorous’ nature and what not. Quickly, a ‘Khalistan’ link could be discovered by the lackey media. Whole of the farmers movement was portrayed by them as ‘separatist’, ‘traitors’ and supported by ‘foreign hands’. The religious flag hoisting was done by some Nihang Sikhs and a renowned figure of Punjab, Deep Sidhu was one of the main architects behind this who appeared the scene in a car.

Taking advantage of this, the administration tried to attack the farmers protest sites and almost evicted the farmer-protesters in Gazipur border. TV crews merrily and victoriously beamed how police were clearing up protest sites, showing senior farmer leader Tikait in tears in almost deserted site.

It took efforts of big farmers unions of Haryana and Punjab to rush thousands of tractor-loads of activists to help that camp. Thousands of farmers from Tikait’s place started marching to save the situation. And ultimately the farmers movement could be made more fortified. The unity grew farther. Some ‘positive’ lessons were learnt by farmers of western UP, and we saw the famous Lota-Nun Oath at Muzaffarpur on February 7, 2021 [5].

But how could a small part of the big farmers rally reach Red Fort when all roads towards that site were supposed to be closed at multiple points? How could Deep Sidhu and the Nihang group reach there and hoisted their flag and smoothly return by car?

Khair. Anyway, there are people who think Deep Sidhu did this courageous act and it was the correct protest, whereas all farmers unions compromised with the police and did not march to the Red Fort as was declared previously.

Act 2: October 15, 2021, the Singhu Border Event. On the early hours a dalit Sikh labourer, Lakhbir Singh from Cheema Khurd village of Tarn Taran district was found dead; he was killed by some Nihang at farmers’ protest site at Singhu Border on the allegations of sacrilege of Holy Book. The govt and BJP and naturally the media started roaring again about ‘violent farmers’, ‘anarchists’, religious terrorists and etc blemishing the farmers protest which, by then, was near to complete one year of continuous protest.

Later, the govt constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for this incident. By mid-November, The Caravan exposed how the incident was being ‘planned’ since months, how the victim was taken by a car from his village and many related facts [6]. On December 22, The News Click reported “Professor Sukhdev Singh Sohal, who specialises in the social and economic history of Punjab from Guru Nanak University, seconds Sekhon. “People know that nothing comes out of these investigations. … What happened to the case of the man who killed a Nihang at the Singhu border? What about his past and his links? Apparently, something fishy is going on,” he alleges. … Recently, the BKU Ugrahan said that whenever people raise a voice for their demands, such incidents occur to divert attention from the real issues.” [7]

We find from the above facts that there might be some design, some machination, from some quarters to bring a religious, a Khalistani hint, way back in 2021. What the BKU (Ugrahan) commented, ‘whenever people raise a voice for their demands, such incidents occur to divert attention from the real issues’, is really a big point in concern.

Moreover, the crisis ridden society does not only serve as a ground for increasing drug-menace, but also produces frustrated youth, a section of which may turn to some path which may be viewed as ‘uncalled-for’ by many observers.

Some Recent Events: Twist & Turn?

Bandi Sikh movement gave rise to a Quami Insaf Morcha which has been sitting in protest in Mohali in the beginning of this year.

Farmers organisation pledged support for this movement in early February this year. On February 1, Kisan Mazdoor Sangrash Committee members even took part in the dharna in Mohali and on February 4, Krantikari Kisan Union members joined the morcha at Chandigarh. On behalf of the biggest farmers union, BKU (Ekta Ugrahan) “Dr Navsharan Singh, … said, “We are raising the demands for release of all prisoners be it Sikh, Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims etc, who have completed their jail terms. Though we trust our judicial system but people who haven’t been released from jail even after completing their terms raises a question mark.””; and “Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, general secretary of BKU Ugrahan, said, “We will be organising district-level protests on February 13 to raise the demand of release of all prisoners who have completed their jail terms.” [8] BKU (Danduka) also came in support of the movement [9].

Later support poured from some other quarters: four Panthik Groups pledged their support for it on Feb 22 [10]. They started their march from Amritsar; two wheelers, cars, buses load of Panthic activists were scheduled to reach Mohali by evening.

In recent weeks, Indian Express reported: Carrying swords and sticks, the protesters, who were part of the Quami Insaaf Morcha, criticised the police for its action against the self-styled Sikh preacher and blocked a road near Gurdwara Singh Shaheedan in Mohali [photo caption]. Supporters of self-styled Sikh preacher Amritpal Singh Sunday (March 19) held a demonstration in Mohali in protest against the police crackdown against the radical leader. The protest was going on till filing of this report. The ‘Quami Insaaf Morcha’ too extended support to the protesters and condemned the police action. [11]

In lieu of conclusion

The author would like to appeal to readers who took pain to read this lengthy piece, to fight against the propaganda to malign Punjab and Punjabis.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The author is an activist who writes on political and socioeconomic issues and also on environmental issues. Some of his articles are published in Frontier Weekly. He lives in West Bengal, India.  Presently he is a research worker. He can be reached at [email protected]

Notes

  1. What Khalistan means for the Sikhs of Punjab, Published : Mar 23, 2023 AMANDEEP SANDHU, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/understanding-the-k-word-what-khalistan-means-for-the-sikhs-of-punjab-amandeep-sandhu/article66634435.ece
  2. Sikhs in contemporary times: Religious identities and discourses of development, Surinder S. Jodhka, Jawaharlal Nehru University, June 2009, Sikh Formations Religion Culture Theory 5(1):1-22, DOI:10.1080/17448720902935029 Future Tense, I P Singh, 5 oct 2019,
  1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/future-tense/articleshow/71408895.cms
  2. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikh-activist-gurbaksh-singh-khalsa-commits-suicide-5105833/
  3. Lota Nun https://www.amandeepsandhu.com/?p=2416https://www.amandeepsandhu.com/?s=Lota+Nun
  4. https://caravanmagazine.in/news/singhu-lynching-lakhbir-sarabjit-nihang-sikh-lived-cheema-kalan
  5. https://www.newsclick.in/Punjab-Sacrilege-Incidents-Attempt-Divert-Attention-Real-Issues

8.https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/bku-ugrahan-demands-release-of-prisoners-who-have-completed-terms-backs-qaumi-insaaf-morcha-8430550/

  1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/bku-dakaunda-pledges-support-to-radical-groups-101676137043588.html
  2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/4-panthic-groups-to-join-qaumi-insaaf-morcha-protest/articleshow/98137502.cms
  3. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/qaumi-insaaf-morcha-bats-for-amritpal-slams-police-action-8505750/

Build the Movement to Oppose AUKUS Nuclear Submarines

March 29th, 2023 by Jacob Andrewartha

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Anthony Albanese’s March 13 AUKUS announcement about how Australia would be acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is a massive escalation of militarism in the Asia-Pacific region and undermines peace in the world.

Over the next three decades Labor and the Coalition have committed to buying, building, operating and maintaining a fleet of more than eight nuclear powered submarines.

It amounts to the single biggest investment in Australia’s “defence” capacity since colonisation.

The AUKUS program also represents an extraordinary waste of public money.

The program will exceed $368 billion — more than doubling the $170 billion projected cost a week ago — with working people expected to contribute more than $3 billion over the first three years.

To do this when we face the fight of our lives to stop runaway global warming and a growing cost-of-living crisis displays utter contempt for ordinary working people.

Albanese’s enthusiasm to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States means that every part of the federal budget is under threat.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s offer to negotiate budgets cuts, including to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to pay for the submarines was probably support Albanese could have done without, as it was made very clear who will be paying.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been quick to rule out scrapping the $243 billion Stage Three tax cuts to help foot the submarine bill.

Labor is using the creation of just 20,000 jobs over the next 30-years in relevant industries as a selling point. By that measure, it would have to be the least sustainable jobs creation program in history.

The billions should instead be used to address funding shortfalls in education, health and housing, along with the transition to renewable to combat the biggest existential threat faced by humanity — the climate crisis. Beyond Zero Emissions’ (BZE) Million Jobs Plan showed in 2020 that more than 1.8 million jobs could be created through undertaking steps to reboot Australia as a low-carbon economy.

The government has been tight lipped on the potential environmental and health risks impacts posed by nuclear-powered submarines (Australia’s and others) docking in harbours.

It has showed zero concern over AUKUS violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, via a loophole that allows fissile material to be used for non-explosive military use such as naval propulsion.

The AUKUS submarine program also opens the door to private industries to ramp up their push for nuclear power, something the Opposition is keen to support.

Defence minister Richard Marles sought to justify Labor’s bipartisanship on AUKUS by talking up the need to safeguard “security and peace” in the Asia-Pacific region.

The opposite is true.

The AUKUS partners’ highly provocative move threatens an escalating arms race in the region. It will mean billions in profits for arms’ manufacturers, already doing very well from the war in Ukraine.

Albanese claims his government wishes to improve relations with China. However, AUKUS represents a determination by Western imperialist powers to try and block China’s growth and influence, which they regard as a threat.

China is a rising capitalist power, albeit with command-style economic characteristics and a dictatorial government that does not rule in the interests of ordinary Chinese people.

The claim that China’s growth represents a threat to the security and well-being of Australians is propaganda aimed at building public support for greater military spending and preparing us for any direct military conflict with China.

One impact of this government-media propaganda is rising racism against people of Asian descent.

The front page of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald which interviewed five “experts” about how Australia could be at war with China within three years was the latest blatant softening-up exercise, timed just before the AUKUS announcement, and the Defence Strategic Review that is about to be tabled.

However, despite the propaganda, the public is still wary of war. A Lowy poll last year found 51% want Australia to remain neutral “in the event of a military conflict between China and the US”.

It means that many are seeing through the lies: China is not about to launch a war or invade and AUKUS is an offensive, not a defensive, military alliance.

A number of unions have passed motions opposing AUKUS, and we need to encourage more to do that.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s criticism of Labor has given others in the Labor camp the courage to speak out.

This is an opportunity to rebuild the anti-war movement before any war can be launched against China.

We need a foreign policy that is based on justice and peace, not more militarism to prepare the country for a new cold war against China. We need a security policy that supports not only our needs here, but those of the people of the Asia Pacific, who are struggling with the real threat — climate change.

Socialist Alliance urges you to find and join your local anti-war group and pass an anti-AUKUS motion in your union or workplace association.

Only a broad-based movement has a chance of forcing Labor to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — which has now taken on new urgency — and to reverse course on the madness of the AUKUS nuclear submarines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jacob Andrewartha is a national co-convenor of the Socialist Alliance.

Featured image is by Alan Moir, moir.com.au

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On episode 27 of the show we are joined by Vladimir Zakharov, a specialist in Chinese language and literature, diplomat and orientalist. For many years he worked at the embassy of the USSR, and then of the Russian Federation in Beijing. Former Deputy Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and senior lecturer of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics, Higher School of Economics.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Crop damage by wild animals in Sri Lanka during the first half of 2022 totaled around 144,989 metric tons of 28 types of crops, including paddy and vegetables, and 93 million coconuts resulting in an overall loss of 30,215 million Sri Lankan rupees ($ 87.5 million), according to a new estimate.

The toque macaque tops the list of crop raiders followed by wild boar, elephant, peafowl, giant squirrel and porcupine with five types of crops most heavily damaged: coconuts, paddy, vegetables, corn and bananas.

A high-level committee consisting of experts in agriculture, veterinary science, zoology, natural sciences and conservation ecology conclude that population control of some of these animals may have to be seriously considered.

Experts also recommend a data-driven, science-based approach to solve the problem before it escalates further, as different regions may experience different facets of the problem, requiring diverse solutions.

*

Arjuna Jinadasa owns a plot of land full of coconut trees in Kurunegala, in northwestern Sri Lanka, where he enjoys a good produce of about 3,000 coconuts a month. With Sri Lanka’s traditional cuisine heavily reliant on coconut milk, it’s a crop with high demand. Jinadasa has made healthy profits from his plantation until recently — when daily aerial attacks by monkeys started to impact the harvest.

“These monkeys destroy at least 200 young coconuts daily, and now my monthly yield is reduced to about 250 coconuts,” says Jinadasa. The farmer tried many non-lethal methods to keep the raiding monkeys away, but the success was short-lived, as the primates got used to them.

Sri Lanka has three species of monkeys, but the endemic toque macaque (Macaca sinica) is also the most problematic. Coconut plantations in many areas are also often subjected to aerial attacks by grizzled giant squirrels (Ratufa macroura), as they eat young coconuts. Sri Lanka’s minister of agriculture, Mahinda Amaraweera, says nearly 100 million coconuts are destroyed by monkeys and giant squirrels each year, causing a loss of about 6,638 million Sri Lankan rupees ($19.3 million).

Amaraweera makes this comment based on a preliminary estimate of crop damage caused by wild animals compiled by the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. The report is based on data gathered by the Agrarian Development Department, and it lists coconut as the worst-affected crop, followed by paddy, vegetables, corn and bananas. The toque macaque tops the list of crop raiders, followed by wild boar (Sus scrofa), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), giant squirrel (Ratufa macroura) and Indian porcupine (Hystrix indica).

Toque macaques and giant squirrels cause the worst damage to coconuts, while elephants, wild boars and peafowl mainly target paddy (rice), Sri Lanka’s staple food. Porcupines tend to damage young coconut plants and vegetables.

Massive financial loss

The report estimates the financial loss caused by crop damage due to wild animals in the first half of 2022 as a massive 30,215 million Sri Lankan rupees ($87.5 million). “Sri Lanka is facing a severe economic crisis, and the recorded crop devastation intensifies the food crisis we already face here. The government is looking for ways to reduce the population of identified wild animals considered agricultural pests,” Amaraweera tells Mongabay.

In this backdrop, there have been many queries about the government being compelled to consider culling as a solution. “We haven’t decided yet, but we need to urgently find ways to control these pests,” Amaraweera says.

The intensification of human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka is also linked to crop raiding. Elephants cause substantial crop damage, especially to paddy and bananas; but even though the problem continues to escalate, the animal’s status as an endangered species makes it difficult to find easy solutions and calls for urgent and alternative management practices, Amaraweera says.

The cuddlesome grizzled giant squirrel (Ratufa macroura) is Sri Lanka’s national animal but has become problematic to coconut planters who want the squirrel population brought under control. Image courtesy of Evarts Ranley.

In December 2022, the Ministry of Agriculture convened a meeting of experts from a variety of fields including naturalists, farmers and environmentalists to discuss solutions. “This is a complex problem that doesn’t have simple, ready-made solutions,” says Buddhi Marambe of the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Peradeniya, who led the committee proceedings. There are different types of stakeholders and different opinions, but all agree that these troublesome, crop-damaging animal populations need to be controlled, Marambe tells Mongabay.

The committee is continuing to discuss many possible solutions ranging from translocations to sterilization and deterrence methods, but recommendations are yet to come, says Marambe.

“We agree there is a serious need for some effective controlling mechanisms, but these solutions must be based on scientific study, “says well-known environmentalist Hemantha Withanage of the Center for Environmental Justice. “We first need to identify whether these animal populations have actually increased or animals have moved from the wilds to human habitats”.

Withanage says it is necessary to enrich the habitats of protected forests so at least the problematic animals near the forest edges can be chased back to their natural habitats. Losing the ecological balance could also be a contributory factor to the problem. A reduction in natural predators can increase these pest populations. An example is the significant reduction in Sri Lankan jackal (Canis aureus naria) populations, which has led to thriving peafowl populations, he says.

It is not just crop damage; these animals also harass villagers, so their grievances, too, must be considered when seeking solutions, adds Withanage, pointing out that the toque macaque’s problem particularly goes well beyond crop damage. Monkeys swoop into houses, stealing food and messing up households, making it difficult for people to leave doors and windows open during the day, says Dilan Chathuranga. Even if we block the entrances, these highly intelligent primates find some way to get inside. Only those who face this situation understand the suffering, Chathuranga tells Mongabay.

Sterilization programs

Ashoka Dangolla of the veterinary faculty at the University of Peradeniya has been trying to deal with the problem for more than two decades and says the translocation approach does not work. The main method used is the sterilization of female monkeys and their subsequent releasing back to the troops. It is an uphill task, but it can bear long-term results, Dangolla says.

“First, you need to catch them, and then take them for surgery. Initially, we removed the wombs but monkeys often get the stitches removed and start bleeding”, he adds. “Now we perform a laparoscopy known as keyhole surgery to do the sterilization and it is relatively safer,” Dangolla tells Mongabay.

A monkey troop has an alpha male that earns the right to mate with all the females in a troop. Theoretically, this alpha male will not allow any other male to touch the females, so many think that castrating the alpha male can lead to population control among monkeys and may prove successful. “But there are young male monkeys that manage to attract females when the alpha male is not around and take the chance to mate with females, so castrating only the alpha male may fail,” says Dangolla.

Even though animal controlling mechanisms are carried out in other countries, it would be a difficult task to execute them in Sri Lanka, where cultural and religious factors including compassion toward animals are not easily challenged. Adding further complexity, some of the problematic animals are also endangered, and the grizzled giant squirrel is Sri Lanka’s national animal.

The peafowl is considered the vehicle (Vahana) of the Hindu god Skanda and enjoys special cultural status. Skanda is revered by most Sri Lankans irrespective of their faith, so people do not want to harm the peacock.

“This is why it needs a scientific approach. We need to analyze the enormity of the problem, its growth and impact on society and seek a science-based response. The old thinking can only aggravate the problem,” says Thasun Amarasinghe, a Sri Lankan herpetologist with the University of Indonesia.

“If we take the approach of no harm to animals due to religious beliefs, then one cannot get rid of mice because rat is the vehicle of Ganesh, another Hindu god,” Amarasinghe says, emphasizing the need to overcome cultural religious boundaries to find a scientific solution.

An ape-faced scarecrow stands in a paddy field, a popular method used by farmers to scare off crop-raiding animals. Image courtesy of Harsha Bandara.

Data-driven solutions

There should be a data-driven approach to understand the population dynamics of these problematic species, researchers say. In other countries, hunting licenses are issued after scientifically assessing populations. For example, if the number of females increases, then the number that needs to be controlled would be assessed and certain licenses are issued for hunting only the permitted number of females. There may be years in which no hunting licenses are issued if the population is under control, Amarasinghe tells Mongabay.

Sudden population increases can impact native biodiversity in addition to crop damage by some of these pests. The peafowl was restricted to Sri Lanka’s dry zone, but now the bird can be found in the heart of the wet zone closer to rainforests and even in the hill country near cloud forests. These are home to a lot of endemic reptiles that peafowl feed on. This could break the critical ecological balance, Amarasinghe says.

During the past few months, there have been several indications that despite the enormity of the problem with agricultural pests, the government would not consider their killing as part of the solution.

“It is dangerous even to give such signals, as the law is not amended yet. Killing of most of these animals is still illegal,” says Jagath Gunawardana, an environmental lawyer and naturalist. Gunawardane was also a member of the committee convened in December 2022 to consider solutions, but he says even the members of the expert committee were not provided with the report on crop damage by wild animals. It is important to scrutinize the report, as the level of crop damage caused by wild animals appears very high. However, the complete report still has not been shared with the expert committee, says Gunawardane.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Two toque macaques (Macaca sinica) feeding on human food waste in north-central Sri Lanka. Image by Malaka Rodrigo.

Imperial Visits: US Emissaries in the Pacific

March 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For some time, Washington has been losing its spunk in the Pacific.  When it comes to the Pacific Islands, a number have not fallen – at least entirely – for the rhetoric that Beijing is there to take, consume, and dominate all.  Nor have such countries been entirely blind to their own sharpened interests.  This largely aqueous region, which promises to submerge them in the rising waters of climate change, has become furiously busy.

A number of officials are keen to push the line that Washington’s policy towards the Pacific is clearly back where it should be.  It’s all part of the warming strategy adopted by the Biden administration, typified by the US-Pacific Island Country summit held last September.  In remarks made during the summit, President Joe Biden stated that “the security of America, quite frankly, and the world, depends on your security and the security of the Pacific Islands.  And I really mean that.”

Not once was China mentioned, but its ghostly presence stalked Biden’s words.  A new Pacific Partnership Strategy was announced, “the first national US strategy for [the] Pacific Islands”.  Then came the promised cash: some $810 million in expanded US programs including more than $130 million in new investments to support, among other things, climate resilience, buffer the states against the impact of climate change and improve food security.

The Pacific Islands have also seen a flurry of recent visits.  In January this year, US Indo-Pacific military commander Admiral John Aquilino popped into Papua New Guinea to remind the good citizens of Port Moresby that the eyes of the US were gazing benignly upon them.  It was his first to the country, and the public affairs unit of the US Indo-Pacific Command stated that it underscored “the importance of the US-Papua New Guinea relationship” and showed US resolve “toward building a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.”

In February, a rather obvious strategic point was made in the reopening of the US embassy in the Solomon Islands.  Little interest had been shown towards the island state for some three decades (the embassy had been closed in 1993).  But then came Beijing doing, at least from Washington’s perspective, the unpardonable thing of poking around and seeking influence.

Now, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare finds himself at the centre of much interest, at least till he falls out of favour in the air conditioned corridors of Washington.  His policy – “friends to all, enemy to none” – has become a mantra.  That much was clear in a May 2022 statement.  “My government welcomes all high-level visits from our key development partners.  We will always stand true to our policy of ‘Friends to All and Enemies to None’ as we look forward to continuing productive relations with all our development partners.”

For the moment, the US interim representative, Russell Corneau, was satisfied in noting that the embassy would “serve as a key platform” between Washington and the Solomon Islands.  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in fairly torturous language, declared that the reopening “builds on our efforts to place more diplomatic personnel throughout the region and engage further with our Pacific neighbours, connect United States programs and resources with needs on the ground, and build people-to-people ties.”  Sogavare, adopting his hard-to-get pose, absented himself from the ceremony.

This month, the Deputy Assistant to the US President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific National Security Council Kurt Campbell has been particularly busy doing his rounds.  The Solomon Islands has been of particular interest, given its security pact with Beijing.  No sooner had Sogavare had time to compose himself after two high profile visits from Japan and China, there was Campbell and his eight-member delegation.

“We realise that we have to overcome in certain areas some amounts of distrust and uncertainty about follow through,” Campbell explained in his usual middle-management speak to reporters in Wellington.  “We’re seeking to gain that trust and confidence as we go forward.  Much of what we are doing has been initiated by the president, but I want to underscore that it’s quite bipartisan.”

In Honiara, Campbell was forward in admitting that the US had not done “enough before” and had to be “big enough to admit that we need to do more, and we need to do better.”  Doing more and doing better clearly entailed dragging out from Sogavare a promise that his country would not create a military facility “that would support power projection capabilities” for Beijing.

Earlier in the month, Qian Bo, China’s Pacific Island envoy, was also doing his bit to win support for the cause.  His Vanuatu sojourn was a wooing effort directed at the Melanesian Spearhead Group, comprising Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Kanak independence movement in New Caledonia.  But as with any muscle-bound hegemon seeking to impress, the crumbs left were treated with some circumspection.

A leaked letter from Micronesia’s President David Panuelo took a more dim view of China’s offerings.  In the March 9 document, the cogs and wheels of calculation were busy, taking into account the US proposal of US$50 million into Micronesia’s national trust fund and annual financial assistance of US$15 million.  “All of this assistance, of course, would be on top of the greatly added layers of security and protection that come from our country distancing itself from the PRC.”  Micronesian officials, he charged, had been the targets of bribes and offers of bribes from the Chinese embassy.

Not all his colleagues in the Pacific are in accord with Panuelo, though the view suggests that both Beijing and Washington are finding, in these small countries, political figures more than willing to exploit the rivalry.  To that end lie riches.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image:  Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, traveled to Papua New Guinea January 29-30 (Source: US Indo-Pacific Command)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Monday announced a new plan to promote an open and free Indo-Pacific, promising billions of dollars in investment to help economies across the region in everything from industry to disaster prevention.

The plan he announced in New Delhi is seen as Tokyo’s bid to forge stronger ties with countries in South and Southeast Asia to counter China’s growing assertiveness there.

Kishida also said Japan wanted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to end as soon as possible and called on the “Global South”, a broad term referring to countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania and Latin America, to “show solidarity” after his talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kishida said there were four “pillars” to Japan’s new Indo-Pacific plan: maintaining peace, dealing with new global issues in cooperation with Indo-Pacific countries, achieving global connectivity through various platforms, and ensuring the safety of the open seas and skies.

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

AUKUS a Hard Nuke Sale in Next Door Southeast Asia

March 21st, 2023 by Richard Javad Heydarian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“I would say, ‘Do you need to be contained? Are you expanding? Are you an expansionist power?’ To a very great extent, the United States was the champion for China’s rise. And in no way are we seeking to contain China. But we are seeking for them to play by the rules,” said Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Fleet, in a recent interview.

Many regional states have been forced “to forge closer military ties to the US” in response to “China’s increasingly aggressive moves in the Western Pacific – encroaching on territory, illegal fishing and building bases in the middle of the South China Sea,” the four-star admiral said.

Paparo’s statement was strategically delivered to coincide with the recently-announced US$368 billion Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) submarine deal, which aims to enhance the anglophone allies’ ability to project power across the Indo-Pacific well into the 21st century. But many neighboring states, including those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), are skeptical of the deal and its implications for regional security.

For them, AUKUS is a clear reflection of an emerging US-led “containment strategy” against China, especially amid rising tensions over Taiwan and across the South and East China Seas in recent years.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin predictably warned the AUKUS deal would “exacerbate” regional tensions and “totally disregarded the concerns of the international community and gone further down the wrong and dangerous path.”

But some Southeast Asian states, most notably Indonesia and Malaysia, also worry that the AUKUS deal will intensify a building regional “arms race” and, along the way, further undermine ASEAN’s centrality.

Meanwhile, the AUKUS deal has also put Australia’s Anthony Albanese administration in a political bind with stinging opposition aired by fellow Labour Party stalwarts, including not least former prime minister Paul Keating.

“Naturally, I should prefer to be singing the praises of the government in all matters, but these issues carry deadly consequences for Australia and I believe it is incumbent on any former prime minister, particularly now, a Labour one, to alert the country to the dangerous and unnecessary journey on which the government is now embarking,” he wrote in a strongly-worded public statement.

“Falling into a major mistake, Anthony Albanese…emerges as prime minister with an American sword to rattle at the neighborhood to impress upon it the United States’ esteemed view of its untrammeled destiny,” the former Australian prime minister added.

It could also complicate Australia’s strategic reboot with ASEAN following years of relatively tense relations under the former Scott Morrison administration.

Since coming to power last year, the Albanese administration has placed ASEAN at the center of its regional diplomacy. In fact, Albanese and his Foreign Minister Penny Wong visited key Southeast Asian capitals shortly after winning election.

During his maiden visit to the region last year, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles made it clear that “ASEAN is completely central to Australia’s security interests and our economic interests, and you’ll see a focus on this region.”

From its very inception, the nuclear-powered submarine deal has been deeply controversial. Both US allies in Europe, most especially France, as well as key partners in the Indo-Pacific from Indonesia to New Zealand, expressed deep concerns when the trilateral grouping first announced its nuclear-powered submarine deal back in 2021.

Although the AUKUS deal involves nuclear-powered yet conventionally-armed submarines, rather than nuclear-weapons carrying platforms, regional states have nerveless expressed worries over threats to key ASEAN initiatives, namely the 1971 Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in Southeast Asia (ZOPFAN) as well as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which broadly seek to maintain regional peace and renounce the threat or use of force.

As ASEAN’s current rotational chairman, Indonesia was among first regional states to respond to the AUKUS submarine deal last week.

“Indonesia has been closely following the security partnership of AUKUS, particularly the announcement on the pathway to achieve AUKUS critical capability,” Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. “Maintaining peace and stability in the region is the responsibility of all countries. It is critical for all countries to be a part of this effort,” it added.

With ZOPFAN and Australia’s accession to the TAC in mind, Indonesia reminded its southern neighbor how it “expects Australia to remain consistent in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT [Non-Proliferation. Treaty] and IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Safeguards, as well as to develop with the IAEA a verification mechanism that is effective, transparent and non–discriminatory.”

Malaysia, which has been ASEAN’s fiercest AUKUS critic, reiterated its lingering concerns, though it didn’t say it would pursue direct “consultations” with China on the matter, as it did in late-2021. In a public statement, the Malaysian foreign minister called on “all parties to fully respect and comply with its existing national regime in relation to the operation of nuclear-powered submarines in its waters.”

A linchpin of ASEAN, Malaysia warned AUKUS members against “any provocation that could potentially trigger an arms race or affect peace and security in the region.”

Leading ASEAN experts are also ringing certain alarms. Prominent Thai academic Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor at Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University, has questioned the necessity for the new submarine deal since “there are enough measures out there” to constrain China.

He underscored how ASEAN is “increasingly divided” amid US-China competition since “all member states need economic ties with China but rely on the US for stability and security.”

In a November 27, 2022 paper for the China International Security Review journal, published by Peking University, Mingjing Li writes, “Despite the divergence in regional states’ views, we can perhaps draw this conclusion: one year after the pronouncement of AUKUS, ASEAN as a collective entity has already cautiously accepted AUKUS as a new reality.”

Li added: “Facing ASEAN now are two highly challenging tasks: first, how to carefully address the intensifying US-China rivalry; second, how to deal with the threats to its unity and centrality posed by this new tripartite security arrangement. Also, it is quite clear from ASEAN’s grudging embrace of AUKUS that this minilateral security pact will instigate many new dynamics in Indo-Pacific regional security.”

In a diplomatic bid to win over critics, Australian Foreign Minister Wong and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel J Kritenbrink reached out to ASEAN to explain “what AUKUS is and what AUKUS is not.”

“AUKUS is about promoting peace, stability, security and prosperity across the Indo-Pacific region, it’s a modernization of our existing alliances and partnerships,” the US official said during recent visits to Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. “This is a responsible and transparent agreement that is carried out in the name of the highest standards of non-proliferation,” he added.

For her part, Wong told Singapore’s Channel News Asia that Canberra planned to “talk with the region and listen to the region about any concerns they may have.” She also reiterated that her country “will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons.”

To be sure, not all regional states are opposed to AUKUS. Although largely refraining from making any categorical statement, key ASEAN members such as Vietnam and Singapore have been broadly sympathetic to AUKUS, recognizing the need to counterbalance China’s expanding military footprint in the region.

The Philippines, which has doubled down on defense cooperation with the US, Australia and Japan under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, has publicly backed the AUKUS deal.

“For the Philippines, it is important that partnerships or arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region, such as AUKUS, support our pursuit of deeper regional cooperation and sustained economic vitality and resilience, which are essential to our national development and to the security of the region,” the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

“We consider it important for these arrangements to uphold ASEAN’s central role in the regional security architecture, and reinforce an international rules-based order that underpins regional security and development,” the statement said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on Twitter at @Richeydarian

Featured image: AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is already making ripples across the Indo-Pacific. Image: US Embassy in China

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

To understand the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapse spooking markets, look no further than events in Jakarta.

The Indonesian rupiah’s 3.2% drop since February 1 demonstrates how quickly Asia has resigned itself to the fact that the US Federal Reserve isn’t done tightening. Another batch of too-strong-for-Fed-comfort US employment figures in February only increased the risk.

Episodes of extreme dollar strength tend to hit Southeast Asia particularly hard. And while Indonesia’s financial system is far healthier than it was amid the Asian financial crisis 25 years ago, vulnerabilities abound. Not surprisingly, the region’s dollar-centric economies tend to see another potential 1997-like crisis around every corner.

Case in point: the Fed’s most aggressive tightening cycle since the mid-1990s, an episode that still haunts leaders from Jakarta to Tokyo. As the Fed doubled short-term rates in just 12 months between 1994 and 1995, the collateral damage really started to rack up.

Victims included Mexico, which plunged into the peso’s “tequila crisis.” Orange County, California veered into bankruptcy. Wall Street securities giant Kidder, Peabody & Co went extinct. Then the most spectacular pileup of all: Asia.

As the dollar skyrocketed, currency pegs became impossible to defend in Bangkok, Jakarta and Seoul. Fallout from the barrage of devaluations paved the way for the late 1997 collapse of the 100-year-old Yamaichi Securities, one of Japan’s fabled big-four brokerages.

Yamaichi’s demise panicked officials in Washington. Both the US Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund worried not that Japan was too big to fail. They worried it was too big to save.

China, too. In 1997 and 1998, US officials all but begged Beijing not to devalue the yuan. That, they feared, would spark a new wave of competitive currency devaluations and drag Malaysia and the Philippines, two nations that hadn’t devalued, into the fray.

All this explains why the SVB collapse is triggering Asia’s post-traumatic stress disorder over Fed austerity from the late 1990s. That PTSD was on display back in 2013 amid the Fed “taper tantrum.” Back then, Morgan Stanley included India and Indonesia in its “Fragile Five” list of economies on the brink along with Brazil, South Africa and Turkey.

At the time, Bank of America strategist Michael Hartnett warned of a “repeat of the 1994 moment.” Then-Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein admitted that “I worry now as I look out of the corner of my eye to the 1994 period.”

This is the minefield that Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is struggling to navigate.

“Hence the canary-in-the-coal-mine fear, which has caused US bank stocks to plunge more than 15% in a week and market volatility to surge,” says analyst Tan Kai Xian at Gavekal Research.

“These travails were only reinforced by Powell’s Congressional testimony last week, amounting to a ‘whatever it takes’ declaration to crush inflation, even if that means upping the pace of rate hikes and putting people out of work.”

Over the weekend, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Powell-led Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation unveiled steps to contain the fallout from Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.

With all SVB depositors being paid back in full, averting a potential collapse of the US financial system, it now falls to Powell’s team to devise a way forward. And preferably one that won’t send markets from Indonesia to Japan reeling.

The “action dramatically reduces the risk of further contagion,” says analyst Thomas Simons at Jefferies. It’s heartening, too, that SVB’s mistakes in managing its balance sheet are seen as “highly idiosyncratic” to analysts at Morgan Stanley, reducing risks of broader US financial contagion.

Erik Nielsen, economic adviser at UniCredit Bank, calls SVB “a rather special case of poor balance-sheet management, holding massive amounts of long-duration bonds funded by short-term liabilities.”

Economist Paul Ashworth at Capital Economics notes that “rationally, this should be enough to stop any contagion from spreading and taking down more banks, which can happen in the blink of an eye in the digital age. But contagion has always been more about irrational fear, so we would stress that there is no guarantee this will work.”

Indeed, the underlying problem is that the Fed is trying to tame inflation with tools that won’t get the job done. Much of this inflation is better addressed with supply-side reforms that President Joe Biden and Congress have been slow to implement. Anyone who thought driving the US into a controlled recession might work just had a brutal wake-up call from California.

“While the Fed wants tighter financial conditions to restrain aggregate demand, they don’t want that to occur in a non-linear fashion that can quickly spiral out of control,” says economist Michael Feroli at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “If they indeed have used the right tool to address financial contagion risks – time will tell – then they can also use the right tool to continue to address inflation risks: higher interest rates.”

The mini-panic on global markets suggests many aren’t buying the SVB-is-an-isolated-case argument. That has economists at Barclays Plc thinking the Fed rate that had been widely expected later this month is now on hold.

“It raises risks of broader distress within the banking system that could make the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) reluctant to return to 50bp hikes in March,” they wrote. “Indeed, the possibility of capital losses at other institutions cannot be completely dismissed, with rising policy rates raising banks’ funding costs.”

Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius agrees. “In light of the stress in the banking system, we no longer expect the FOMC to deliver a rate hike at its next meeting on March 22,” he says. More likely, the Fed will do smaller 25 basis point hikes in May, June and July, boosting rates as high as 5.5%.

Yet the fallout from SVB could further stymie America’s innovative animal spirits in ways that leave the world’s biggest economy even less productive and nimble.

“It certainly is going to have very substantial consequences for Silicon Valley — and for the economy of the whole venture sector, which has been dynamic — unless the government is able to assure that this situation is worked through,” former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told Bloomberg.

It’s already having substantial consequences for Asian markets trying to read the Washington policy tea leaves. The 1990s vibe emanating from Fed headquarters in Washington is becoming harder and harder for dollar bulls to dismiss.

The more upward pressure there is on the US currency, the less capital that flows to Indonesia and other Southeast Asian economies that need investment to finance giant infrastructure projects.

Continued tight Fed policies pose their own risks to Xi Jinping’s China, just as the Communist Party leader is beginning his third term. Rising US rates put China’s vital export engine at risk and add to the strains facing highly indebted mainland property developers struggling to avoid default.

Fed overtightening is also a direct threat to the roughly $1 trillion of Chinese state wealth parked in US government debt.

The yen’s dwindling value, thanks to a strong dollar, is a crisis in slow motion for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and outgoing Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda. Asia’s No 2 economy is importing increasing waves of inflation via food and energy markets.

For governments in Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila and Putrajaya, currencies under downward pressure make US debt harder to service. That also raises the costs of food and other vital items.

Recently, says economist Jonathan Fortun at the Institute of International Finance, “we see clouds forming on the horizon. A renewed hawkish Federal Reserve sentiment is spilling over into some emerging markets, causing short-dated receivers to struggle as interest-rate expectations are pushed further back in time. Monetary policy uncertainty may boost demand for dollar protection, as the relationship between EM currency and US interest-rate volatility continues to strengthen.”

For now, few think the SVB debacle will trigger a 2008-like global financial meltdown. But the speed with which Asian officials have swung from guarded optimism over the US financial system to worrying about another 1997 is its own economic indicator for the year ahead. And not a good one.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Screengrab / Twitter / TechCrunch

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article was originally published in October 2022.

An Israeli media outlet, The Jerusalem Post recently published an online reportage in September 2022 insisting that a “secret delegation” from Indonesia was scheduled to depart for Israel to engage in “secret visits”. While this claim is unbelievable enough, the report further adds that relations between Israel and Indonesia have grown warmer in the last few months of 2021, notably in the realm of trade and tourism. Finally, the report mentions the possibility of normalisation of Indonesia-Israel ties, a view upheld by American officials.

This was certainly not the first time rumours pertaining to the opening of diplomatic relations between the two countries were circulated, and likely would not be the last. Such false claims have been widespread many times in the past by both Indonesian and foreign (especially Israeli) media, a move that Indonesia’s foreign ministry believes is aimed to frame the issue for Israel’s benefit. The question of whether Indonesia should or should not actually push the agenda forward has been subject to controversy.

High-level Israeli officials have kept the possibility open for decades. When Indonesia held chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin visited Jakarta to meet President Soeharto in person. Reportedly, the visit was aimed to promote opportunities of cooperation with Israel and garner support in the Middle East peace process. Indonesian minister Murdiono later stated that Indonesia was not at all considering establishment of diplomatic relations, likely because the meeting itself sent mixed signals to outside observers.

Some high-ranking Indonesian officials have teased upon the idea as well. In 1999, President Abdurrahman Wahid’s government planned to open “economic and trade links” with Israel as part of its commitment to interfaith tolerance. It was also hoped to boost local economic recovery after Indonesia was hit hard by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. But as expected, this plan was met with intense domestic opposition. Protests by Muslim organisations, students, and members of parliament were widespread. His successors never publicly made such politically dangerous comments.

One argument in favour of opening diplomatic ties with Israel is Indonesia’s wish to act as a mediator in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation. Indonesia has long supported a two-state solution where ideally both Israel and Palestine coexist as independent and sovereign nations. With formal ties in place, Indonesia’s lobbying power on the international arena, especially among nations in the West, in theory should increase. However, the widespread belief that opening relations with Israel is mutually exclusive to supporting Palestinian independence undermines this otherwise rational argument.

The preamble of Indonesia’s constitution explicitly expresses the Indonesian people’s eternal support for the “independence of all nations” and the struggle against colonialism. While the face of world politics have drastically changed since the end of World War II up to the present day, the preamble remains unchanged ever since it was established in 1945. It remains a floating constant in a sea full of variables, sometimes presenting problems for Indonesian policymakers in regards to which nations can Indonesia recognise and befriend, and which it should maintain utmost caution in approaching.

It should also be noted that presently, Indonesia does not officially recognise Israel’s existence as a legitimate, sovereign state. One major issue, Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestine, remains a crucial deciding factor whether Indonesia would push for a formal recognition and opening of diplomatic relations. The Indonesian government will measure domestic support from voters and Indonesia’s international standing, mainly within the Muslim world. Evidently, both of these factors are unsupportive of furthering any sort of official ties with Israel.

As the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, the ever-present voice of political Islam in the domestic sphere has influenced Indonesia’s foreign policy in regards to the Middle East region. Religious mass organisations with grassroots support including the Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah, and the Indonesian Ulema Council will harshly react to any move entertaining the idea of establishing relations with or even just officially recognising Israel. These organisations form the “moderate Islam” support base for the current administration of President Joko Widodo, thus any action that may disappoint them will likely negatively impact the government’s popular support.

Of course, there’s also the potential of sparking radical Islamist sentiment within militant groups, pushing them to rise up against the government if they see its actions as undermining Islamic teachings and struggles of the global Muslim community.

Internationally, Indonesia is a well-regarded member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a grouping of over 50 states with a Muslim majority or significant minority population. In December 2017, Indonesia urged OIC members to “reconsider” their relationship with Israel to further support Palestinian independence efforts. Several OIC member-states have indeed normalised relations with Israel, a move heavily criticised as a betrayal to the creed of solidarity with Palestine. Later in May 2021, Indonesia led an OIC condemnation against Israel for its increased military attacks in the Gaza Strip that was framed by Israel as “self-defence”.

Further back in history, Indonesia has used other platforms to criticise Israel’s existence and actions. When Indonesia hosted the 1962 Asian Games, President Soekarno’s government refused to issue visas to the Israeli delegation, thus de facto preventing them from competing in the Games. This was done to accommodate the wishes of Arab states seeking to internationally isolate Israel at the time and an expression of Indonesia’s ardent anti-colonial spirit.

Thus, if Indonesia establishes ties with Israel today, it would certainly be viewed by the public as a hypocritical move and an upsetting inconsistency with its past actions and statements. Indonesia’s credibility in the eyes of other countries within the Muslim world as a defender of Palestinian struggle will also be tarnished.

Taking a look back at The Jerusalem Post’s peculiar report, if Israel’s underlying motivation of spreading such rumours is to obtain recognition from the world’s biggest Muslim-majority nation to strengthen its legitimacy, it is surely advisable that it throws away any and all expectations. The extremely high political cost imposed by domestic and international factors means that recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations is not a politically feasible option for Indonesia and thus will not even be considered at all by whichever government is in power.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kenzie Ryvantya is an undergraduate Political Science student at the University of Indonesia. His interests include Indonesian foreign and security policy, Southeast Asian studies, as well as global geopolitics.

Featured image: People was raising Indonesian and Palestinian flags at a rally on safe Al-Quds at the National Monument square in Jakarta (May 2018). (Indonesia Window)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol are hoping to mend the fraught ties that have defined bilateral relations over the past few years when they meet on Thursday.

Yoon’s two-day visit to Japan will be the first such trip by a South Korean leader in 12 years.

“This visit … will be an important milestone in the improvement of relations between South Korea and Japan which has been promo ted by the Yoon administration since inauguration,” Yoon’s national security adviser, Kim Sung-han, told a briefing on Tuesday.

Here is what is expected to be on the agenda:

‘Shuttle diplomacy’

Japan and Korea are expected to revive regular visits between the leaders in what has been called “shuttle diplomacy”, according to a Yomiuri daily report citing Japanese government sources.

The last time the leader of either country visited the other’s country was more than a decade ago, when then-President Lee Myung Bak travelled to Japan in 2011 before heading to remote islands that both nations claim as their own.

Relations subsequently deteriorated.

Kishida is considering visiting South Korea as early as this summer, Kyodo has reported.

Defence cooperation

Yoon said that he expects to “invigorate” security cooperation, including the intelligence-sharing General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) pact, which Seoul threatened to pull out of in 2019, in several written interviews with international media published on Tuesday.

The two countries and the United States are preparing to meet next month to discuss the possibility of setting up an information-sharing framework that would allow Japan and South Korea to share information on North Korean ballistic missile launches in real time, a Japanese defence ministry official told Reuters.

G7 invitation 

Kishida may extend an invitation to Yoon to attend the G7 summit set to take place in Hiroshima in May, several media reported.

In 2008, then-South Korean President Lee Myung-bak attended outreach events of the Group of Eight summit in Toyako, Hokkaido.

Lifting the 2019 restrictions

The two leaders could confirm their countries’ intention to resolve Japan’s high-tech material export curbs against South Korea.

South Korea’s presidential office said on Tuesday that the two countries were discussing the matter and that it expected it to be resolved “in due time”.

Seoul is preparing to normalise its involvement in GSOMIA, and will time the announcement for that of the lifting of the curbs, Jiji news agency said without clarifying its sources.

Japan tightened restrictions on the export of high-tech semiconductor materials to South Korea in 2019 as a row over how to compensate wartime labourers flared.

Last week, on the same day Seoul announced its plan to resolve the forced labour dispute, Tokyo said it would hold talks with Seoul about potentially lifting the 2019 restrictions. Tokyo has maintained that the curbs are unrelated to the labour issue.

Currency swap

The Japan-South Korea currency swap arrangement, once a symbol of bilateral financial cooperation, expired in February 2015 and Seoul has indicated its desire to restore it.

Talks to restart it became strained as relations worsened amid a row over girls and women forced to work in Japan’s wartime brothels.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Much has been made of Australia’s renewed engagement with Asia and the Pacific since Labor came to power.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s “charm offensive” in the Pacific was seen as the beginning of a new process of listening to the region, not dictating to it. Labor’s Asia-Pacific policy has also been hailed as striking a balance between the US and China.

In announcing the AUKUS submarine deal in the US this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised it was aimed at allowing nations in the region to “act in their sovereign interests free from coercion” and would “promote security by investing in our relationships across our region”.

The reality of the submarine deal is not, however, in that spirit. Instead, it leads Australia towards half a century of armaments build up and restricted sovereignty within a US-led alliance aimed at containing China.

Worse, it hearkens back to a colonial vision of the region as rightfully dominated by Anglophone powers who enjoy a military advantage over others that live there.

In the process, it has also deliberately endangered the spirit – if not the letter of nuclear non-proliferation agreements – and heightened what our neighbours see as a destabilising and unnecessary naval race that can only further provoke China.

Relinquishing sovereignty of foreign policy

The deal confirms two things that nations in the region have long suspected.

First, Australia is incapable of imagining an Asia-Pacific region that is not militarily dominated by the United States.

In addition, the deal suggests we are still politically attached to the United Kingdom – the post-Brexit ghost of a past British empire once again looking east of the Suez Canal towards Asia and the Pacific.

The second is that, despite the window dressing, Australia’s deafness to regional misgivings has not improved since the change to a Labor government.

AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal are far from universally admired in Asia and the Pacific. The ASEAN bloc has repeatedly expressed its wish to avoid an arms race in the region. Regional powers such as Indonesia and Malaysia have made this clear on several occasions.

Other approaches to regional security do exist. And our neighbours have their own sense of how the Asia-Pacific can best balance the growing influence of both the US and China.

Malaysia, for example, has emphasised that so clearly identifying China as an enemy will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Pacific states have warned against becoming so clearly aligned with the US and sparking a renewed arms race in the Pacific. New Zealand, too, says it sees no sense in moving towards a nuclear-fuelled foreign policy.

Instead of taking these concerns seriously and engaging in deep regional diplomacy to head off future conflict, Australia seems to have has given up sovereign control of its foreign policy.

Canberra is moving towards what former Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating have respectively called “shared sovereignty” and “outsourced” strategic sovereignty.

Contrary to the assurances of Defence Minister Richard Marles, Australia has decided to become absolutely central to the US policy of containing and encircling China. Retreating from the assumed military role that comes with this would take the kind of foreign policy courage that has not been seen for many decades.

War with China is not a certainty

Th submarine deal also comes against a backdrop of some dangerously incautious media predictions that Australia could be at war with China within three years.

Scarcely to be heard is the view that if war were to occur, it would be a war of choice, not a war to defend Australian sovereignty, even broadly defined.

Bad assumptions about the future can unfortunately drive bad policy. The assumption of a regional war is in part a consequence of viewing China through the lens of the faulty idea of an inescapable “Thucydides Trap”.

For adherents of this belief, war between the US and China is simply a natural fact dictated by history when a rising power challenges an established power, similar to what happened in the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece.

Chinese brinkmanship and assertion of control over disputed territories and waters, however, is not a Greek tragedy. And Australian strategic decision-makers should not take for granted that war is coming either between China and Taiwan, or China and the United States – much less with Australia.

Herein lies the danger of handing over our sovereign foreign policy decision-making to the US and relaxing into the faux security offered by AUKUS.

We are led to the false sense there is no alternative but to be involved militarily wherever the US is in a conflict, whether that be in Iraq, Afghanistan or a future war over Taiwan.

Ceding Australia’s capacity to make serious decisions about war and peace cannot be accepted unless all pretence of Australian sovereignty is abandoned. Australia could have tried to work towards a regional approach with other Asian and Pacific countries. But this week’s agreement makes that all but impossible.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 is Professor in International History, Flinders University.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Writing festivals are often tired, stilted affairs, but the 38th Adelaide Writers’ Week did not promise to be that run-of-the-mill gathering of yawn-inducing, life draining sessions.  For one thing, social media vultures and public relations experts, awaiting the next freely explosive remark or unguarded comment, were at hand to stir the pot and exhort cancel culture.

The fuss began with the festival organisers’ invitation of two Palestinian authors, Susan Abulhawa and Mohammed El-Kurd.  Abulhawa was specifically targeted for critical comments on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, notably regarding NATO membership, and for being a mouthpiece of “Russian propaganda”, while El-Kurd has been singled out for social-media commentary on the Israeli state, calling it “sadistic”, “demonic” and “a death cult”.

Righteously, the South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas showed his less than worldly view on such festivals by insisting on boycotting their talks and presentations.  Ever the vote-getting politician, there were those constituents at the Association of Ukrainians in South Australia who had been making noise, notably through their president, Frank Fursenko.  “We are very concerned that [the festival organisers] are giving a platform to people who are known apologists for the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” insisted Fursenko.

Malinauskas even contemplated pulling government funding from the event, something he declared at his address opening Writers’ Week.  (This was also the view of the South Australian opposition leader, David Speirs.)  The premier, it should be noted, is less morally troubled when it comes to funding the LIV Golf tournament, backed by the obscurantist journalist-assassinating regime of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

At the very least, he made some concession to maturity: refusing “to listen to someone’s viewpoint” also involved surrendering “the opportunity to challenge it, much less change their mind.”  But for all that Abulhawa’s presence at the Writers’ Week had to be “actively” questioned.

The Advertiser was less reserved, barking in childish condemnation and demanding, via a statement from editor Gemma Jones, that the Writers’ Week director Louise Adler resign.  “The views of the two writers in question are repugnant.”

Law firm MinterEllison also took up a tenancy in the land of black and white in their decision to withdraw sponsorship, citing concerns about “the potential for racist or antisemitic commentary.”  The company had decided “to remove our presence and involvement with this year’s Writers’ Festival program”.  That’s branding for you.

Consultancies hardly known for their principled stances on intellectual debate let alone the public good took to the podium of virtue even as they withdrew their support.  PwC, which provides pro bono auditing for the Adelaide Festival Foundation, openly disassociated itself from the event by requesting that its logo be removed from the festival website.  “We condemn in the strongest terms any antisemitic comments and any suggestion of support for Russia’s war against Ukraine,” the company stated in a memorandum.  “We stand with the Jewish and Ukrainian communities who have been understandably hurt by this issue.  In this respect, we have asked the chair of the Adelaide Foundation that any association with PwC with this aspect of the festival be removed.”

In all these shallow, stubbornly ahistorical assessments, context is missing.  The background, and sense of where such supposedly horrendous opinions sprung from, are dismissed.  The culture of cancellation and erasure, as it has been previously, is the prerogative of the powerful and their PR offices.  It is also insidious, stressing the trendy, appealing brand of the moment, the acceptable opinion which makes the acceptable person.

El-Kurd, Palestinian poet and correspondent for The Nation, enraged since the day Jewish settlers made their way into his East Jerusalem home, has made no secret in adopting a more militant stance for Palestinians.  It was, he stated, “not enough that I have lost my  home to Israeli settlers, it’s not enough that I grew up and lived as a refugee under military occupation.”  In his protest and suffering, he had been constantly told to be “polite” and “respectable”.

Those years were behind him, times which featured a “failed strategy” that placed a heavy emphasis on humanising unacceptable tragedy: the focus on women and children (again, the branding that matters); the focus on “our inability to commit violence, our inability to feel rage”.  “And we over-emphasise the victims whose qualifiers make them human.”

In her response to the storm, Abulhawa expressed gratitude to Adler and the Board of the  Adelaide Festival “for bravely ensuring that we do and will have space to speak and interact with readers on a cultural landscape.”  She then moved to chart the fault lines that have made contrarian views – or at least views deemed undesirable by the anointed policing agents on the Ukrainian War – a matter of vengeful reaction.  To be critical of the Ukrainian Saint was to somehow be a shill for Russia’s Vladimir Putin; to be a proponent for peace was somehow akin to encouraging genocide.  “These assertions are false, absurd and libellous.”

Specifically regarding Zelenskyy, his sins lay in “taking actions and provocations that would lead to foreseeable, even predictable, war, which has not only wrecked Ukraine and her people, but led to global insecurity and fuel shortages, affecting the most vulnerable among us.”

Her views are not unusual, or astonishing.  They are also echoed through the Global South, where the brands of the noble Ukrainian victim and the remorseless Russian monster have lesser currency.  One can understand the dynamics, and sad perversions of power, without justifying their brutal manifestations.  Abulhawa references John Mearsheimer’s warnings about US provocations against Russia, using Ukraine as a base and pretext.  The Ukraine conflict, to that end, is not isolated or regional.  It is a “global proxy war, the outcome of which may well determine the world order for generations to come.”

Abulhawa would have also been well within her rights to cite the very figure who gave birth to the doctrine of Soviet containment at the start of the Cold War.  The late diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan, eyeing the expansionist drive of NATO and US power eastwards towards the Russian border, could only issue this warning in 1997: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

To her estimable credit, Adler remained adamant and defiant in permitting the writers to attend their events.  “Our business,” she told the ABC, “is to operate an open space, not a safe space, in which ideas that may be confronting, disturbing, provocative, are debated with civility, that’s the agenda.”  Writers, she also explained to The Age, were not sought out “via their Twitter feeds. I do not think the social media space for a nuanced or reasoned analysis and discussion.”  It never was such a place, but to the cancel culture footsoldiers, that is exactly where they feel most comfortable.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Monash University

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Branding the Acceptable: Battling Cancel Culture at Adelaide Writers’ Week
  • Tags:

Fiji’s Pacific Ways: Troubles in Paradise

March 9th, 2023 by Greg Guma

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two coups had overturned a left-leaning government in Fiji. Only a month after nationwide elections, a fundamentalist general had taken charge. A year later I wanted to talk with the Christian Socialist doctor and labor leader who was Prime Minister so briefly in the spring of 1987. 

I also wanted to relax, to find out what paradise was like, to shed my shoes and sit at the ocean’s edge just watching the tide roll in.

We were just a few miles south of Bligh Water, riding the whitecaps toward a South Pacific island. More than two hundred years ago Captain William Bligh and 18 of his men, cast adrift by the mutineers of the HMS Bounty, covered the same waters. But in 1789 the men on the longboat pulled oars, and the Fijians pursuing them were angry cannibals In 1988 cruise ships and market boats brought most people to the islands, and the welcome was far more encouraging.

Bligh’s group escaped to Timor, an island near Indonesia, and never had the luxury to spend a few weeks on the lush islands that many people often imagine as paradise. Fiji’s native Melanesians haven’t eaten any visitors for more than a century. On the contrary, they’ve become so “pacific” in their approach to life that even two military coups hadn’t led to bloodshed.

Even before that, Fiji wasn’t the most popular or accessible vacation spot on the globe. From New England it took 18 hours by plane, not counting airport madness. And when you landed at the tiny international airport in Nadi (pronounced Nandi), you had really just begun your trip. But that was part of the charm of going to the other end of the earth. Everything broke ingrained patterns and reopened jaded eyes.

I’d made the journey for both pleasure and politics. In 1987, I left the US on a one-way ticket and became a West German resident. Looking back, I view it as an expatriate aspiration, harbored for years, and then sparked by the second election of Ronald Reagan. Jutta, my flat mate and lover in Munich, was well-traveled, had visited Fiji several times, and understood the culture.

Politically, I was curious about the roots of the two coups that had overturned a left-leaning government. Just a month after nationwide elections, Sitiveni Rabuka, a fundamentalist general, had taken charge. “I was chosen by the Almighty,” he claimed. A year later I wanted to talk with Timoci Bavadra, the Christian Socialist doctor and labor leader who was Prime Minister briefly in the spring of 1987. I also wanted to relax, to find out what paradise was like, to shed my shoes and sit at the ocean’s edge just watching the tide roll in.

Fiji is a sprawling collection of 322 islands about 1,400 miles east of Australia, perched at the edge of the Indo-Australian plate. Many are sunken volcanic remnants of a long lost continent. Over 100 are inhabited by a mixture of Melanesians, Polynesians and East Indians, plus a smattering of Chinese, Micronesian and European expatriates.

Because the country spent 100 years as a British colony, most people spoke English fluently, though with a distinct accent. Their mother tongues, however, were liable to be Fijian, Hindi, or one of several Pacific variations. Walking through the huge open air market in Suva, the national capital on Viti Levu, I heard a rich linguistic blend as people hawked produce grown in the village garden plots.

Most Fijian natives had their own small piece of paradise — land. They could grow enough food to be almost self-sufficient. Only a few staples like sugar, tea, and flour, along with some canned and junk food, were imported from the capital. But Indians, who outnumbered Fijians on the two biggest islands, weren’t permitted to buy native-owned land. Over the years since immigrating, however, they had come to virtually monopolize the middle levels of business.

When you wanted to take a taxi or go browsing in a city shop, you’d almost always deal with an Indian. But if you wanted some papaya or an island adventure, you started by meeting one of the dark-skinned, curly-headed native Fijians.

Getting into the country, it turned out, was the simple part. Finding the “real” Fiji, away from its Europeanized cities, required an invitation.

Adi Sayaba, our ticket to ride, was an island rarity, a clever business woman who had turned her clan’s compound on Waya island into a miniature resort. One of her bures (houses) was equipped with a gas-powered stove, refrigerator and bed space for up to six people. Her outhouse sported the only flush toilet on the island. There was no electricity, however, and the strictly rationed village water ran for only an hour or two each day.

We rendezvoused with Adi in Lautoka, a port city on the dry western coast of Viti Levu. At the wharf we waited for hours as she tried to arrange our voyage, haggling with captains for seats on a motor-powered boat. The winds were too stiff that day, so our ship never sailed.

But Adi (the name is actually a title for female chiefs) had an uncle, she explained, who captained a modern launch used by divers. We spent the night at his house, watching videos with the extended family. Early the next morning we made it, finally, onto the water.

As the sea splashed over the deck, captain Elisa headed for the Yasawas, a chain of 16 islands that begins about two hours from Lautoka. Soon we could see Waya, its mass of rock jutting into the clear blue sky, its deep, clear water and white beaches beckoning. When we were in sight of Yalobi, Adi’s village, a corrugated tin boat sped out to ferry us ashore.

“You’ll have to visit the chief,” Adi reminded us. “Do you have the kava?”

We did. Jutta was well acquainted with the protocols of island life. In the Suva market, we purchased a batch of the pepper plant root that, when pounded into dust and mixed with water, becomes Fiji’s national drink.

The chief wasn’t at home on the day we arrived. When he was ready to receive us, Adi advised, he’d let us know.

Each island and village in Fiji had a chief, a hereditary leader who exerted a strong traditional influence. Although the country had a constitutional government the great Council of Chiefs also played a prominent and powerful watchdog role.

We met Waya’s chief in his ornate thatched bure near Yalobi’s white sand beach. Palm trees lined the path to his door. Inside the walls and floors were covered with woven mats. Round wooden beams stretched the length of the building under a high peaked roof.

“This house is hurricane proof,” the chief announced proudly after we removed our sandals and took our places on the floor.

Expressing our admiration, we pushed our sevusevu (offering) forward and waited for the kava drinking to begin. At the head of the circle, lit by Coleman lanterns, the official mixer prepared the ceremonial drink in a hand-carved wooden bowl.

Known as yagona or grog, this traditional non-alcoholic beverage is actually a tranquilizing drug that numbs the tongue, and unless abused, helps to focus the attention. Sharing the drug is the most honored feature of Fiji’s formal life, a ceremony and social event that sometimes goes on well into the night.

First, the mixer offered a prayer of thanks and welcome. Then the kava was served in polished coconut shells. Tradition determined the order of service and participatory ritual. As I accepted my bowl, I clapped my hands once; everyone else clapped three times in response. I downed the slightly muddy-tasting liquid in one gulp. Afterward, everyone gave another three claps.

With each round and each drink, we repeated the ritual. In between, we talked about our trip, the old days on the island, and Adi’s father, Timoci. “The old man with the young spirit” had died a year before. He had been a warm and inspiring presence on Waya, a wise man, a teacher and a World War II hero of the Solomon Islands.

Even the chief, who was only “top man” because Timoci hadn’t wanted the job, missed the village leader.

The days melted past, the hot sun making me lazy and relaxed. There was nothing to do, really, except just be — or meet people, watch children play or watch women make mats and crafts for visiting tourists.

The only downside was this also opened much too much time to think about the end of my relationship with Jutta. The night before boarding our flight she had dropped the news: She wanted to break up. But she also wanted me to make the trip anyway. Once we arrived in Fiji she was a fine companion, but not much interested in discussing the last year. In the end, I came to think it may have been the right move. Just being there helped me to reflect and process what was happening between us.

On most weekdays, a huge Blue Lagoon cruise ship pulled into the bay at midday, disgorging passengers onto the beach. Villagers lined up their displays on the sand — shell and black coral jewelry, woven bags and gorgeous shells found along the coral reefs. Tourists browsed, spent some money and sampled the warm water.

Later the men came down from their hillside tetes (gardens) and families ate, stretching out afterward for post-dinner naps.

For foreigners, getting to know people could be difficult. Most islanders had little interest in the outside world. There were no shops or cafés, no nightlife except at the divers’ compound down the beach. But with a story or game I could break the ice and get a glimpse of daily life.

By accident, I also stumbled onto a way to start a real dialogue. My deck of Rider-Waite Tarot cards and dog-eared divination book created a doorway to intimacy. Laying out the cards, sometimes during kava ceremonies, I would merely describe what the pictures told me. Then I’d ask what the person who had shuffled was thinking about.

Without the slightest hesitation, people would open up about their marriage plans, worries about the future, struggles with a village “black magician,” or hopes for a good fishing catch. Thinking visually and dropping inhibitions, they would react viscerally to the imagery of the cards.

During tarot evenings, I learned about the foreign developers wrangling to establish a resort on a small nearby island owned by some Waya villagers. People told me their fears — of punishment for breaking a teenage beer-drinking taboo, or rivalries for a good building plot — and hopes for a resort job or a good crop.

Before I realized it, two weeks had passed. It was time to return to the mainland.

*

Reaching Dr. Bavadra proved complicated. Even with Adi’s contacts and an introduction from Captain Elisa, a relative, it took weeks to make the connection. Even out of power, the head of the Labor-Indian Coalition Party was busy man.

Meanwhile, we had a friend in Suva, Larry, who was more than willing to be our host. A part-European playwright, he worked at the University of the South Pacific and had a comfortable house near the sea.

Traveling without contacts can be trying, even in the best of circumstances. It’s not just the cost; in Fiji, hotel prices ranged then from $10 to $150, food was cheap and abundant. But without friends it could be hard to get off the well-trodden tourist path. Usually, I made travel contacts in advance through Servas, an international network of hosts and travelers. In this case, Larry invited us, eager to share thoughts and show us his new play.

The Fiji Arts Club was one of the few creative outlets for Suva’s intelligentsia. Since turning 19, Larry had been a central force, directing both foreign and native-written productions. This season’s play, Just another Day, was his first stab at directing his own work.

The play was a slice of local life. It was set in an average urban living room where a Fijian extended family shared tea, wisecracks and gossip. The mother, Margaret, smoked incessantly as she scolded the lazy boys and girls, gabbed with pregnant friends or argued with her husband.

A portrait of good-natured resignation and passivity, it should have been sad, but the ironic humor managed to keep it light. And the native cast played it with rough-edged verve and authenticity. Like Larry, some of them came from families much the same.

Larry and his educated friends were more aware of the country’s political turmoil than the Waya islanders. We spent many evenings speculating about Rabuka’s next moves. The most obvious effects of the coups were higher prices and unemployment.

The atmosphere was damaging to relations between ethnic Fijians and Indians. Relegated to second class status by the traditional Chiefs and the military, non-Fijians were losing faith in the future. Fijians were divided between defenders of native power and advocates of some kind of reform.

After 17 years of rule by the Alliance, a conservative party controlled by the chiefs, a new coalition had won a fair election. Indians joined forces with labor unions and urban intellectuals, won a parliamentary majority, and put Timoci Bavadra in charge. He was Fijian, but most of his support was Indian. Fear of their future dominance was a handy excuse to overreact.

One month later, Rabuka closed parliament at gunpoint and brought the old administration back. Newspapers were closed for several days, and troops kept the lid on demonstrators while Rabuka worked out a game plan with the chiefs. Negotiations between the Alliance and the Coalition eventually produced an apparent compromise. But Mara really wanted to rewrite the constitution to ensure a perpetual Fijian majority. On Sept. 25, about a month before I arrived, Rabuka led his second coup.

Australians and New Zealanders were incensed at the military takeover, as well as Rabuka’s manipulation of racial tensions and religious beliefs. He had weakened the press and expanded the military, and was trying to revamp the constitution. “The real intent,” charged Bavadra, “is to sanction the military dictatorship we now have.” He called the proposed constitutional overhaul “feudalistic, authoritarian and racist.”

By 1988, the number one song in Australia was a send-up of Susanne Vega’s hit about domestic abuse, “Luca,” called “My Name is Rabuka.” With gunfire in the background the dictator sang about his coups and warned, “You just don’t argue anymore.”

*

In Suva, I spoke with V. J. Naidu, a university professor who was active in the nuclear-free zone movement. Hopes for an anti-nuclear shift in Fiji’s foreign policy — under consideration by Bavadra’s government — had evaporated. “Parliament is ineffective, and there is no separation of powers,” he added. Yet Naidu could see a silver lining.

Despite the manipulation of race, there was actually little hatred between ethnic groups, he claimed. A new consciousness was emerging, and the economic problems intensified by the coups had spurred more skepticism.

Most of the Indian citizens I met were not so optimistic. They often talked about emigrating to Australia, and about their second class citizenship in an inflationary economy. More than 5,000 Indians initially left the country after Rabuka seized power, many of them skilled professionals.

Unemployment was over 10 percent. The tourist sector was the hardest hit. Only a dramatic increase in military recruitment was keeping the situation from becoming a full-blown crisis. Criticism was permitted — up to a point. But public discourse was muted by a cowed media and a generalized fear that tolerance had its limits.

In a review of Rabuka’s official biography, pointedly titled No Other Way, Professor Som Prakash noted that the coups ultimately produced the results they were designed to prevent: breaking the Commonwealth tie with Britain and opening the country to foreign infiltration.

“It is the Rabuka-backed government,” Prakash wrote, “which brought about the establishment of the Israeli embassy in Fiji and the strengthening of French connections. And this was an invitation to the Libyans, Palestinians and others to destabilize Fiji further. All but the most gullible reader will see that the bulk of Rabuka’s actions were based on some farfetched, often self-fulfilling prophecies with an ironic twist: what Rabuka claims he fears others might do, he ends up doing himself.” In many ways, he was following the dictator’s playbook, exploiting divisions and using classic Fascist techniques.

In Fiji, irony wasn’t hard to find. By breaking relations with Britain and souring ties with Australia and New Zealand, for instance, the coup-makers had created an opening for the Japanese and later others. One of the first Japanese acquisitions was the Pacific Harbor resort, one of the country’s most exclusive. By the early 21st century, India turned out to be a more acquisitive foreign investor, with China not far behind.

In the long run, preserving the exclusive land rights of Fijians, along with a Fijian lock of state power, turned out to be a very limited victory.

*

Back in Lautoka, just a day before leaving, I reached Bavadra’s wife Kuini (pronounced Queenie) on the phone. They might have time to see us that night if we wanted to take a taxi to Viseisei village. Luckily, it wasn’t Sunday, so Rabuka’s Sabbath ban on transportation couldn’t prevent the meeting.

Since Bavadra was also a chief, we brought an offering, some German tea. Doc Bavadra wasn’t home when we first arrived, but Kuini was friendly, articulate, and ready to begin. The house decor mixed European and Fijian influences; there were easy chairs and modern coffee tables, piled high with international magazines and newspapers, as well as traditional mats and an open space for kava ceremonies.  The young men of the household, Bavadra’s disciples and bodyguards, watched us quietly as I asked my questions.

The two coups, Kuini explained, had actually been planned by former Prime Minister Ratu Mara in order to cover up years of graft. Rabuka was a front man; the real power had not changed hands.

Doc Bavadra joined us and agreed. Ratu Mara — full name Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister since Independence in 1970 — had orchestrated racial tensions, approved plans for the takeover in advance, and provided help in the subsequent “neutralization” operation, he said. Like other autocrats, he didn’t want to surrender power.

Some charges couldn’t be verified, like rumors that US diplomats, worried about the independent drift in Fiji’s foreign policy, had given a silent nod. Or that American forces may have participated. But interviews with Fijians and others close to the previous and current regimes did verify that Mara’s Alliance Party was integral to the May 1987 overthrow. At least one member of Mara’s immediate family was directly involved. Yet Mara insisted publicly that he was surprised and dismayed, and only “reluctantly” returned to his old post at Rabuka’s request.

In reality, divisions had been stirred up between the Taukei (ethnic Fijian landowners and members of chiefly clans) and the Indian community. Firebombings of Indian businesses by Alliance Party supporters were claimed to be Taukei attacks. Meanwhile, the new government’s appointment of Indians to some key positions was vilified as the first stage of an Indian takeover, supposedly leading to the loss of exclusive Fijian land rights and eventual Soviet infiltration. Until the Coalition won, the major races had co-existed better than might have been expected.

“Traditional customs and democracy should be kept separate,” said Bavadra, “but the chiefs say people should follow their lead. Chiefs have to make a choice — stay in the villages or get into elections and play the game there under the rules that apply to everybody. Right now they expect to be treated differently than the rest.”

The talk eventually turned to hopes for the future. Both Doc and Kuini were confident that a majority of people would ultimately reject what they viewed as a “form of apartheid.” Kuini, herself a Fijian member of a chiefly family, rejected the notion of “special status” for Fijians as “an insult, which assumes that we are inferior and need a special status to compete.”

People were learning the truth, they believed. Traditional Taukei leaders and Methodists, once behind the coup-makers, were beginning to reconsider. If a referendum or new elections were permitted, the Coalition might gain a foothold in the government.

When we met, one reason for their optimism was the recent conversion of an old enemy, Ratu Meli, an ardent Taukei who was “converted through prayer meetings and confessed that he made a big mistake,” according to Kuini. “He sees that calling for Fijian supremacy was wrong, and knows he was used.” As a result, he signed a statement that revealed the true story of the coup, an action that angered other Taukei leaders.

Fijians believe in the power of such conversions. It was conversion to Christianity that led Fijians to give up cannibalism. Abandoning that grisly tradition saved the country from invasion and set the stage for Fiji’s cession to Britain. The worst impacts of being a Crown colony were also avoided, and in 1970 the country, still culturally intact, regained its independence. But that led to another, perhaps even deeper transition. Democracy was in its infancy, and the forces of tradition remained powerful.

“If you study the Fijian way of life,” said Doc Bavadra, “you see it is very democratic, based on reciprocity and consensus.” He believed in the possibility of a return to full democracy, a reduction of chiefly influence and improved relations between the races, without a loss of traditional Fijian land rights.

He was mostly correct. At least 90 percent of all land is still owned and controlled by native Fijians. Indians can lease plots for up to 30 years. But they still can’t own the land on which they farm or build their homes. It’s no surprise that many of them continue to feel insecure or ultimately decide to leave.

“I look at the people as one,” Bavadra nevertheless said when we met in 1988. “I don’t see them in terms of race. But the ones who need the most service are the underprivileged across race. There are classes here.”

Bavadra died in November 1989, only a year after we met. By 1992 the country had returned to democratic elections and a constitution-based government. Rabuka remained a powerful political force, in and out of legal office, for the next 30 years. At 74, he was just re-elected Prime Minister in 2022.

*

Fiji was an easy place to fall in love with. Despite the political turmoil and my relationship problems, I rarely felt as comfortable away from Vermont. Fiji has almost the same land area and only 300,000 more inhabitants than the Green Mountain State. It was intimate, open, polite and not overdeveloped. Aside from the mosquitoes, it was almost idyllic.

That can change, of course, but when I was there no one put Fiji at the top of their “to do” list for rapid exploitation, not even the Japanese. And Fijians didn’t seem eager to be modern anyway. On Waya island I sometimes heard gossip about gold. But no one seemed to care much if it was extracted. They mainly just liked the idea that it might be there. Today, by the way, Waya hosts at least four full-service resorts.

And when I worried about being detained at the airport as a result of meeting with Bavadra, a New Zealand expatriate told me not to worry. They had no computers then to put my name in, and were too pacific to be first-rate oppressors. That may be as close to a modern definition of paradise as you can get.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Greg Guma / For Preservation & Change.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Fiji’s Pacific Ways: Troubles in Paradise
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

India’s presidency of the Group of Twenty (G20) comes at a critical juncture; even as the  pandemic wanes, geopolitical tensions between the US and China could spiral into a possible military confrontation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is now entering into its second year with little signs of resolution. Economists have been warning of an imminent recession in 2023 as also a deepening of the food crisis. With the global climate talks continuing to flounder the climate and biodiversity crisis will soon cross the tipping point. Earlier trends of authoritarianism and shrinking democratic spaces continue to spread across various regions of the world.  As India assumed G20 Presidency in November 2022, as a representative of the countries of the Global South, it can play a vital role in the face of extreme wealth inequality, increasing ecological devastation, pro-corporate regulatory regimes and criminalisation of dissent.

The G20 was constituted by the finance ministers of the G7 group of countries in 1999 in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis to unite finance ministers and central bankers from twenty of the world’s largest economies. At a primary level, its mandate was to discuss monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies, infrastructure investment, financial regulation, financial inclusion, international taxation etc. With time, G20’s appetite to discuss more issues (beyond finance and economic policy) increased with the Sherpa track (such as issues like health, education etc.) and various engagement groups. With the Sherpa track the ensuing presidency keeps forth its priorities, while the engagement groups and the processes associated with them are supposed to be independent of the government. However, several of these engagement groups often turn into a platform for corporations (for example, kicking the can down the road with more loans and debt suspension instead of looking at debt cancellation) and their allied interest groups. Over the years, the year-long presidency becomes a popular networking event for the rich and the powerful under the pretence of saving the world, leaving very little space for groups that are critical of neoliberalism to put forth any alternative paradigms. Over the years, the Sherpa track, Finance track, and the engagement groups have stayed in the realm of being high-end talk-shops with no representation of people’s agenda.

G20 has remained as an exclusive club, a forum to save capitalism at the highest political level through the promotion of neoliberal policies. This provides an important imperative for the progressive civil society groups to raise questions around G20’s accountability and more importantly its legitimacy as a forum of global economic governance.

The threat of recession is looming all over the world; climate crisis is manifesting into extreme weather calamities and along with biodiversity loss and pollution, worsening its impact on the most vulnerable communities and making it difficult for several vulnerable nations to embark on a sustainable future; poverty, hunger, malnutrition and socio-economic inequalities have risen to an alarming level; and a serious debt crisis is threatening economic sovereignty of many countries. All of these calls for an immediate intervention and restructuring of the global economic order that is democratic, just and truly sustainable. Despite this, the G20 as an economic and political forum continues to prescribe the  business as usual approach and policies that advance capitalism, the root of the polycrisis in the first place. More often than not, such policy prescriptions push lower and middle income countries and peoples to the verge of collapse.

At a time when the world is facing such multifaceted problems, instead of raising important issues of the global south and vulnerable communities of the world, the government of India is using the G20 presidency as an opportunity to seek political and electoral gains before the upcoming national elections. The scale at which the G20 meetings are being organised to portray a picture perfect narrative of shining India, reeks of a vulgar display of wealth at a time when India’s performance on every social barometer is abysmal; not to forget, all on tax payers’ money. In the run-up to scheduled G20 meetings in different cities of India, government authorities are displacing the homeless people to far-flung areas, removing street vendors, and small shops from the roadsides to ‘beautify’ the cities. The party in power is forwarding India as the “centre of diversity” and “mother of democracy” while also consistently using all national institutions at its disposal to silence the dissenting voices of human rights defenders, repeatedly attacking minority communities with impunity and systematically destroying institutions and progressive civil society spaces. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranks India at number 46 with “flawed democracy” label and Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-DEM) ranks India at 101 in the world with its classification as an “electoral autocracy” on par with Russia. On freedom of press, India is 11th in the “global impunity index” of Committee to Protect Journalists and in Reporters Without Borders ranks India at 150 in 2022.

Members of adivasi as also dalit-bahujan farming, fishing, livestock rearing and other forest dwelling communities, in other fragile ecosystems, are losing their lives or their freedoms in the struggle to safeguard their rights over natural resources while constantly facing threats from governments and profit-hungry private corporations. Publicly owned enterprises – importance of which was evident during the pandemic – are being handed over to few privately owned business houses through a massive push for privatisation. Policies are being changed to push the informal sector including small and micro businesses to the edge and to make space for medium and big players. Mega infrastructure projects are being implemented without any heed to their socio-economic impact on communities and environmental damage. And, a complete negligence of the working class and labour rights through withdrawal of welfare policies has resulted in high levels of inequality and social progress indicators touching an abysmal low. The richest 98 billionaires of India own the same wealth as the bottom 40% of Indian society and top 1% percent own more than 40.5% of total wealth in India. In the face of such striking ground realities, the Indian Prime Minister’s messages such as “India’s national consensus is forged not by diktat, but by blending millions of free voices into one harmonious melody” and “our citizen-centric governance model takes care of even our most marginalised citizens” do not hold much ground.

Against this background, the forum of G20 needs to be questioned for its absolute silence on declining spaces of dissent, human rights abuses, shrinking space of democracies and rising fascism and authoritarianism in countries including in the G20 nations themselves; as well as for undermining the democratic multilateralism; for its inactions resulting in a global policy paralysis; for being an obstacle in democratisation of global economic governance and for its own illegitimate nature.

G7 countries are still controlling the sovereign financial policies and related regulatory mechanisms through dictats of Financial Stability Board (FSB). With no regards to concerns of countries from the global south, expansion and consolidation of global food supply chains is being promoted as the only way to meet global food security. The Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) and Common Framework for Debt Treatment (CF) have fallen short in tackling the debt crises due to lack of transparency and exclusion of loans from private sector creditors. G20’s policy recommendations through its various tracks and engagement groups are not only attempting to impose the reforms in sovereign finance related policies, but also pushing the capital-driven and pro-market policies in many critical sectors. These changes and imposed reforms have taken countries away from welfare centred approach, created problems for the masses on every front along the way, and have left them struggling for basic essentials like decent healthcare, affordable housing, quality education, employment, food security, and a healthy environment to live in. One example of this influence is the extent to which the Financial Stability Board’s recommendations featured in the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, which was introduced in 2017, later withdrawn in 2018, after ample scrutiny.

The mere inclusion of few developing countries from the southern hemisphere and the G20 troika being composed of the countries of the south – Indonesia, India and Brazil, does not grant it a legitimate status and makes it a representative body of the global population. In fact, it means very little, for the Global South (i.e. the most vulnerable, poor people across the world) remains excluded from the G20 decision-making process and from its priorities. The G20 forum is still being used to safeguard international monetary systems and global economic governance framework in line with the demands of global capital and to serve the interests of corporations and the political and economic elite in both industrial and industrialising nations. The continuous failure of the G20 forum in tackling multiple recurring crises, its top-down approach through token representation and absence of the voices representing concerns of the Global South must be exposed by all means. The role of the Indian government in projecting a false rosy image of India and the silence of G20 countries on rising authoritarianism at the global level should also be challenged and an alternative agenda for the working classes across the G20 nations needs to be asserted. Across the G20 countries, thousands of people’s initiatives are showing what a sustainable, equitable present and future could look like, and how this would be possible to achieve with appropriate policy support.  We, the undersigned, affirm our resolution to strengthen our struggles against the neoliberal policies and authoritarian governance pushed ahead by forums such as G20, and our attempts at forging truly sustainable, democratic, equitable and just economies and societies. We appeal to all citizens, global people’s movements, national and international trade unions, students and academia to not be deceived by the gimmicks of the Indian government and its false propaganda, but to work for these struggles and initiatives.

Endorsed by:

  1. Jawhar Sircar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
  2. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan / National Alliance of People’s Movements
  3. Teesta Setalvad, Sabrang India
  4. Devasahayam MG, People First
  5. E A S Sarma, Forum for Better Visakha
  6. Anil Sadgopal, All India Forum for Right to Education
  7. Shaktiman Ghosh, National Hawker Federation
  8. Sagari Ramdas, Food Sovereignty Alliance, India
  9. Meera Sanghamitra, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
  10. S Janakarajan, Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts
  11. John Dayal, All India Catholic Union
  12. Ulka Mahajan, Sarvahara Jan Andolan
  13. Himanshu Thakkar, Bengaluru
  14. Ashish Kothari, Pune
  15. Achin Vanaik, Retired Professor, Delhi University
  16. Prasad Chacko, Ahmedabad
  17. Ashok Shrimali, mines, mineral & People
  18. Edwin, OpenSpace
  19. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group
  20. Soumya Dutta, South Asian People’s Action on Climate Crisis
  21. Mujahid Nafees, Minority Coordination Committee
  22. K Ashok Rao, Power Engineer and Public Sector Officers Federations
  23. Ravi Nair, Journalist, New Delhi
  24. Anil Bakshi, Hawker Majdoor Mahasangh
  25. Devidas Tuljapurkar, Maharashtra State Bank Employees Federation
  26. Raj Kumar Sinha, National Alliance of People’s Movements, Madhya Pradesh
  27. Dr. Sunilam, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti
  28. Madhu Bhushan, Women’s Rights Activist
  29. D Thomas Franco, People First
  30. Dinesh Abrol, National Working Group on Patent Laws and WTO
  31. Biswajit Dhar, Economist
  32. Chandan Kumar, Labour Rights Activist
  33. CP Krishnan, Bank Employees Federation of India
  34. Nandita Narain, Democratic Teachers’ Front, Delhi University
  35. Pankaj Bisht, Hawkers Joint Action Committee
  36. Manju Goel, Amazon India Workers Commitee
  37. Friends of the Earth India (FoE India)
  38. Poonam K, GIG Workers Association (GIGWA)
  39. Prafulla Samantara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan
  40. Vineet Tiwari, All India Progressive Writers’ Association
  41. Ram Wangkheirakpam, Indigenous Perspectives
  42. K.J. Joy, Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India
  43. Ravindranath, River Basin Friends
  44. National Federation of Indian Women
  45. Working Group on International Financial Institutions (WGonIFIs)
  46. Deen Bandhu Samaj Sahyog Samiti, Madhya Pradesh
  47. Maansi, Article 21 Trust
  48. Persis Ginwalla, Ahmedabad
  49. Dimple Oberoi Vahali, Independent Activist
  50. Ahmar Raza, Retired Scientist
  51. Geo Damin, Poovulagin Nanbargal
  52. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Asangthit Majdoor Haqu Abhiyan
  53. Izmat Ansari, The Climate Agenda
  54. TN Krishna Das
  55. Centre for Financial Accountability, New Delhi
  56. Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch (DASAM)
  57. Financial Accountability Network India (FAN India)
  58. Raghu Menon, Pondicherry Science Forum
  59. Kurien John, Bangalore
  60. Linda Chhakchhuak, Shillong
  61. Vasudha Varadarajan, Vikalp Sangam
  62. Prakash Louis, Xavier Institute of Social Research, Patna
  63. Rajendra Bhise, Activist
  64. Awadhesh Kumar, Srijan Lokhit Samiti
  65. Pankaj Kumar, Srijan Lokhit Samiti
  66. Dinkar Kapoor, All India People’s Front
  67. Vivek Pawar, Jan Sangharsh Morcha
  68. Aamana Begam, Jan Jagaran Samiti
  69. Pradeep Esteves, Context India
  70. Binu Mathew, Kochi
  71. T Swaminathan, Nagpur
  72. Nidhi, Shehri Mahila Kamgar Union
  73. S Maria Sebastian, Pensioner’s Association
  74. Samali Banerjee, Student, Kolkata
  75. Maria Sebastian. S, Pensioner’s Association
  76. Usman Jawed, Delhi
  77. Vijay Kumar, Caste Annihilation Movement, Madhya Pradesh
  78. Lambert Solomon, Goa
  79. R. Ajayan, Editor, Navayugam weekly, Kerala
  80. Sitaram Shelar, Pani Haq Samiti
  81. Bhupender Rawat, Jan Sangharsh Vahini
  82. Shabina, Delhi Solidarity Group
  83. Avinash Kumar, Wada Na Todo Abhiyan
  84. Arvind Kaul, Delhi
  85. Mini Bedi, Development Support Team
  86. Imtiaz Quadri, Hyderabad
  87. Kalpana, Collective
  88. Raghavan, New Delhi
  89. Dimple Oberoi Vahali, New Delhi
  90. Akash Bhattacharya, All India Central Council of Trade Unions
  91. Avay Shukla, Retired Civil Servant
  92. Rajendra Ravi, People’s Resource Centre
  93. Vijay Kumar, Teacher, Bengaluru
  94. Dr. Sylvia Karpagam, Health for All
  95. A. R. Vasavi, Researcher, Bengaluru
  96. Purushan Eloor, Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithy
  97. Peggy Devraj, Bangalore
  98. Geeta Menon, Stree Jagruti Samiti
  99. Sudha S, Bangalore
  100. Lovish Kumar, Betterplace Safety Solutions Private Limited
  101. Reshma, Karnataka
  102. Syed Salman, Bahutva Karnataka
  103. Pooja Tanna, Pune
  104. Prabhat Sharan, Mumbai
  105. Manohar Singh, Haryana
  106. Alex Kerketta, Daltanganj
  107. Anand Athialy, Student, Pune
  108. Anand Lakhan, Indore
  109. Amitanshu Verma, Delhi Solidarity Group
  110. Niraj Bhatt, Chennai
  111. Vijayan MJ, Delhi Solidarity Group
  112. Sundarrajan, Poovulagin Nanbargal
  113. K Sukumaran, Advocate Gudalur
  114. Satyarupa Shekhar, Chennai

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English @as @as, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Public Statement by Indian People’s Movements, Trade Unions and Other Civil Society Groups on G20
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the latest escalation in Australia’s increasingly forceful campaign to manufacture consent for war with China, the Murdoch-owned Sky News Australia has aired a jaw-droppingly propagandistic hour-long special which advocates a dramatic increase in the nation’s military spending.

Australians are uniquely vulnerable to propaganda because our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, the lion’s share of it by Rupert Murdoch, who has well-documented ties to US government agencies going back decades. The propaganda campaign against China has gotten so aggressive here in recent years that I’ve repeatedly had complete strangers start babbling at me about the Chinese threat in casual conversation, completely out of the blue, within minutes of our first meeting each other.

The Sky News special is one of the most brazenly propagandistic things I have ever witnessed in any news media, with its opening minutes featuring footage of bayonet-wielding Chinese troops marching while ominous cinematic Bad Guy music plays loudly over the sound of the marching. In its promotional clip for the special, Sky News Australia tinged all footage pertaining to China in red to show how dangerous and communist they are. These are not decisions that are made with the intention of informing the public, these are decisions that are made with the intention of administering war propaganda.

The first expert Sky News brings on to tell viewers about the Chinese menace is Mick Ryan, an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is funded by military-industrial complex entities like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and is also directly funded by the US government and its client states, including Australia and Taiwan. Sky News of course makes no mention of this immense conflict of interest while manufacturing consent for increased military spending, calling Ryan simply a “former major general.” This is on the same level of journalistic malpractice as running an article by Colonel Sanders on the health benefits of fried chicken but calling him “Harland David Sanders, former fry cook.”

The next expert Sky News presents us with is Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan, who oh-so-sadly passed away last month. I’ve written about Molan previously specifically because the Australian media love citing him in their propaganda campaign against China, last time when he was pushing the ridiculous claim that China is poised to launch an invasion of Australia.

The other experts Sky News brings in are former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s Director of Chinese Affairs Dr Lai Chung, Japan’s ambassador to Australia Yamagami Shingo, Australian Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hastie, and John Coyne of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a virulent propaganda firm which is once again funded by US-aligned governments and military-industrial complex war profiteers.

So it’s about as balanced and impartial a punditry lineup as you’d expect.

At the 8:15 mark of the special, Sky News repeats the unevidenced propaganda claim that former Chinese president Hu Jintao was politically purged during the 20th Communist Party Congress last year.

At 19:15 Jim Molan talks about the need to fight and die with our allies the Americans while patriotic cello music plays in the background.

At 21:30 we are shown images of Australia being bombed alongside the Chinese flag (very subtle, guys).

At 24:25 Sky News accidentally does a version of the “look how close they put their country to our military bases” meme with a graphic display of all the US war machinery that surrounds China. The US would never tolerate being encircled by the Chinese military like that and would immediately wage war if China tried; it’s clear that the US is the aggressor in this conflict and China is reacting defensively.

“The United States plays a major strategic role in the Indo-Pacific,” says Sky News anchor Peter Stefanovic as the screen lights up with graphics showing the military presence surrounding China. “With 375,000 personnel, there’s a vast network of operations that extend from Hawaii all the way to India.”

At 26:30 we are shown a digital representation of China’s satellite systems in space, with the Chinese satellites colored red to help us all appreciate how evil and communist they are.

At 27:45 we are shown illustrations of how much smaller Australia’s military is than China’s or America’s to help us understand how important it is to increase the size of our nation’s war machine, ignoring the fact that Australia’s total population is a tiny fraction of either of those countries.

At 32:45 we are told that the AUKUS pact will “beef up America’s military presence in the north of Australia,” and that “America has long used Australia as a key strategic outpost,” showing images of Pine Gap and other parts of the US war machine which dot this continent. “Now, there’s more to come,” says Stefanovic, with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin describing the surge in US military presence we’re to expect in Australia.

At 34:10 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute guy explains why the US is so keen to use Australia in its planned confrontation with China, saying the continent’s geography puts it in “the Goldilocks location” of being close enough to China to be meaningful but far enough away that its war machinery can’t be easily struck.

At 35:15 Stefanovic warns that “our nation could quite literally be brought to its knees” if a war to the north sees shipping lanes cut off since Australia is so heavily dependent of imports. You would think this is an argument about the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with China, but instead it’s used to foment fear of China and argue for the need to be able to defeat it in a war.

And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase. Australia currently has a military budget of $48.7 billion, a little less than two percent of the nation’s GDP. The late Butcher of Fallujah tells Sky News that “we need to at least double our defense expenditure” to four percent, and the special’s pundits openly discuss the need for Australians to be persuaded to accept this using narrative management.

“The Australian government needs to talk to the Australian people about the kinds of threats it faces,” says Mick Ryan. “It needs a more compelling narrative to convince the Australian people that they need to spend more on defense.”

“I think it is important that we are having a conversation with the Australian people which makes it clear that we live in a world which is more fragile than we have for a very long period of time,” Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles tells Sky News. “And what that is going to require is a defense posture and a defense force which is in truth gonna cost more than it has in the past. We’re gonna need to increase our defense spending.”

To be clear, this is not just a call to increase military spending, this is a call to propagandize Australians into consenting to more military spending. It’s not very often that the propaganda comes right out and explains to you why it is propagandizing you.

I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.

The time to start resisting is now.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Solomon Islands has begun uprooting US interference in its political and information space;

It has also banned violent US-backed opposition groups and removed from power US-sponsored opposition leaders;

This has been made possible with support from China, the Solomon Islands’ largest trade partner;

The US and the Western media are now accusing China of “encroaching” on the island nation and of the nation’s government of suppressing “democracy” and “human rights;”

This same pattern of US interference is exactly what precipitated the ongoing US proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As a four-day reggae, rock and hip hop music fiesta got underway Feb. 17, putting many wild animals inhabiting a forest reserve in Habarana in Sri Lanka’s North Central province at risk, authorities have chosen to look the other way.

The Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival 2023 is organized by a company named Deep Jungle Entertainment (Pvt) Ltd and will be held Feb. 17-20 on privately owned land in Habarana, a nearly four-hour drive from the commercial capital, Colombo.

The entire area surrounding the site of the event is forested land and is a habitat for many animals including the Sri Lankan elephant (Elephas maximus maximus).

Sumith Pilapitiya, an environmental scientist, elephant ethologist and a former director of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, said that elephants from Minneriya — which is located east of the event site — are now in the forests of the Gal Oya Forest Reserve and Hurulu Eco Park, after spending “a stressful dry season due to inadequate grazing grounds.”

“The planned event is taking place just a couple of hundred meters from the Gal Oya Forest Reserve and Hurulu Eco Park,” he said.

Tickets for the event were sold in advance for $50, $60, or $70, with a gate ticket for each visitor being priced at $83. At least 50 artists, both local and foreign — including three from Russia and one each from Brazil and Australia — are scheduled to perform at the event.

“Our aim is to promote sustainable tourism locations and activities in Sri Lanka,” Deep Jungle Entertainment said in a notice on its website to promote the event. But multiple concerns have arisen on the event’s sustainability, given the negative impact it is bound to have on the surrounding habitat.

The map depicts the location at which the Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival is being held, a venue  surrounded by forestland. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Key concerns

The issues relating to the festival, which will have more than 100 hours of nonstop music, are primarily the sound and light emissions that can disturb wildlife in a highly sensitive environment.

Although the event is being held on privately owned land, all quarters including the organizers have acknowledged that the surrounding area is a natural forest reserve inhabited by elephants.

“Habarana is a popular tourist destination for its rich wildlife and safaris, as two popular elephant sanctuaries are situated in the area,” Deep Jungle Entertainment has said on its website.

In a letter dated Feb. 2, and seen by Mongabay, the divisional forest office in Polonnaruwa had granted conditional approval for the event, stating that it was to take place in an area inhabited by wild elephants and other animals.

“Steps must be taken to limit the emission of sounds through devices such as loudspeakers, only to the area in which the event is taking place,” the divisional forest office said in a letter to the director of Deep Jungle Entertainment.

Environmental groups are skeptical about assurances granted by the organizers stating they will adhere to the sound limits.

“We will be using the latest array sound system during the festival in keeping with the guidelines. If anyone doubts that, they can clear their suspicion by visiting us when the event is taking place,” the organizers added in another statement.

The location where the music festival will take place with 100 hours of nonstop music. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Panchali Panapitiya, the founder and executive director of RARE Sri Lanka, an animal conservation group, noted that animals are extremely sensitive to sounds and lighting and respond differently to such situations.

“When there is massive lighting from the event, the birds might assume that it is daytime and then crash on trees when flying in a disoriented way. This will lead to their possible death,” Panapitiya told Mongabay. “Since this is a four-day carnival, the situation will be worse.”

“Similarly, elephants are creatures that are terrified of sound. If they can’t cross this area peacefully, then they will explore alternative routes, which might transverse through villages. This will create serious risks to both humans and elephants.”

According to research papers seen by Mongabay, elephants are among the wild animals that are extremely sensitive to sounds.

“Elephants can hear sounds in the frequency range of 1-20.000 Hz with a distance of 10 km of hearing,” according to research published in the Conference Series of the Journal of Physics. “Absolutely, increasing of human activity around elephant habitat causes noise effects that result in a decrease of quality and quantity of elephant habitat that can be impacted to population decline,” the report states.

Meanwhile, Spencer Manuelpillai, a general committee member of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society (WNPS) told Mongabay that the surrounding habitat is not just home to wild elephants but also other species of animals, so the greatest possible care must be taken.

According to WNPS, birds such as the black eagle, Eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) and roufus woodpecker (Micropternus brachyurus) and animals like the grey slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus), fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), jungle cat (Felis chaus), Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), chevrotain (Tragulidae family) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) inhabit the area.

Use of public sound systems

Sri Lanka’s Police Ordinance clearly lays out the regulations relating to the use of loudspeakers.

Under Section 80 of the legislation, no person can use a loudspeaker or any other device that amplifies noise in a public area without a permit issued by the officer in charge of the police station in the respective area.

The law states that the permit has to be obtained to use a sound amplification device even if the event is to be held at any other place, if the sound reaches a public place.

In addition to the ordinance, in 2007, Sri Lanka’s police chief issued a circular prohibiting the use of sound amplification equipment from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in public areas.

According to the circular, permits for using loudspeakers or other sound amplifying devices during this period can be issued by the police only after consulting the land owners in the vicinity and with the approval of the magistrate’s court.

Lights have been fixed close to the forest reserve. Image courtesy of the Center for Environmental Justice.

“The organizers have not obtained permission from us,” a senior police officer at the Habarana police station who requested anonymity as he is not authorized to speak to the media, told Mongabay. He declined to offer further details.

Mongabay tried contacting Deep Jungle Entertainment to ask why it had not obtained approval to use the sound amplification systems. Calls and messages sent to the organizers went unanswered.

Hemantha Withanage, the director of the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), pointed out that if such a permit is not obtained, the police could take legal action against the organizers.

“But the authorities are not willing to take corrective action,” he told Mongabay.

The CEJ has said it will take legal action against the organizers, the police, the Department of Wildlife and Conservation, and the Department of Forest Conservation for organizing the event in violation of existing laws and regulations. On Feb. 17, the Hingurakgoda magistrate court ordered electronic/technological silence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Despite mounting protests, organizers have decided to go ahead with the event. Image courtesy of the Center for Environmental Justice.

Withdrawal of approval

In the face of public outrage, the divisional forest office in Polonnaruwa, in a letter dated Feb. 13, informed the organizers it would withdraw its approval granted for the event.

“The organizers did not have to obtain permission from us since the event is taking place on private land and not in the forest reserve,” a senior official speaking to Mongabay on the basis of anonymity at the forest office told Mongabay.

“We gave them approval previously, only because they asked for it from us.”

When Mongabay questioned whether the divisional forest office has no responsibility even if the event negatively impacts a forest reserve under its purview, the officer said he could not comment on that.

Multiple attempts by Mongabay to reach the conservator general of forests for comment proved futile.

The poster published by the organizers for the Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival that is to run across four days. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Chandana Sooriyabandara, the director general of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, said his institution has informed the organizers that the event should be held in a way that does not harm animals.

“We cannot forecast what action we would take if they violate the laws. If animals are affected by this, then we can decide at that time. That depends on the evidence that is available,” Sooriyabandara told Mongabay.

The Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau has “strongly recommended” canceling the event if the organizers have not obtained the relevant approval and clearances from the environmental, forest and wildlife agencies.

Despite the divisional forest office reversing its approval and the police not permitting the use of sound amplification devices, Deep Jungle Entertainment on Feb. 15 posted a message on its official Facebook page stating the event will go ahead as planned. “Forcing the company to cancel the event just 03 days before the festival is not practical!!” the organizers said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Source

Abdulla et al. (2020) “The effect of antrophogenic noise on Sumatran Elephant’s anti-predator behavior in the Elephant Conservation Center,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series [Preprint] Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/591/htm

Featured image: Elephants near the Huruluwewa reservoir. Image courtesy of Namal Kamalgoda.

Everything Japan Vowed to Give Marcos Jr.

February 16th, 2023 by Richard Javad Heydarian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr triumphantly returned from his five-day trip to Japan with major economic and defense deals in his pocket.

It was the leader’s ninth foreign visit in just over eight months, with previous trips to the US and China, and proved to be his most fruitful yet.

In Tokyo, the Filipino president secured US$13 billion in investment pledges and another $3 billion in loans, which according to the official readout could create as many as 24,000 jobs in the Philippines.

The two sides discussed the status of a whole range of big-ticket Japanese infrastructure projects, including the North-South Commuter Railway for Malolos-Tutuban, and the North South-Commuter Railway Project Extension.

Japan is also currently building the Southeast Asian country’s first-ever underground metro system, which promises to revolutionize Manila’s decrepit and clogged public transportation system.

Japan also agreed to provide the Philippines comprehensive assistance in the areas of agriculture, digital economy, the peace process in Mindanao and training of Filipino civil servants.

Historically a top source of development aid and infrastructure investments, Japan hopes to take its bilateral relations with the Philippines to a new level. Accordingly, Tokyo is finalizing an unprecedented defense aid package as well as a Reciprocal Access Agreement with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

The two sides also signaled their intent to expand joint military exercises, with an eye on a more robust US-Japan-Philippine triangular alliance amid rising geopolitical tensions with China in the region.

By several indications, Marcos Jr is cementing his country’s pivot back to traditional allies after six years of a Beijing-friendly foreign policy under the authoritarian populist regime of Rodrigo Duterte.

Trade and investment deals

As expected, trade and commercial deals dominated Marcos Jr’s trip to Japan, which is the only country to have a bilateral free trade deal with the Philippines.

Since coming to power, the Filipino president has made commercial diplomacy a central theme of his administration, as the Southeast Asian nation aims to boost its post-pandemic recovery amid fears of global recession and heightened inflation at home.

“Coming back, we carry with us over 13 billion US dollars in contributions and pledges to benefit our people and create approximately 24,000 jobs, and further solidify the foundation of our economic environment,” declared Marcos Jr upon his arrival back in the Philippines.

The Filipino president also declared that Japan is offering around $3 billion to finance big-ticket infrastructure projects such as the North-South Commuter Railway Project Extension and the North-South Commuter Railway for Malolos-Tutuban. Both aim to enhance connectivity among the country’s more industrialized regions.

“The completion of these projects along with other large-scale development assistance projects such as the Metro Manila Subway Project and many more across the country are expected to translate to better lives for Filipinos through improved facilitation of the movement of people of goods and services,” Marcos Jr added.

The two sides also welcomed progress in the Japan-led Metro Manila Subway Project while exploring further deals on the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing railway systems, most notably the Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3).

Japan has also promised to help the Philippines modernize its failing air transport infrastructure under the New Communications, Navigation and Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Development Project.

Last month, Marcos Jr attended the World Economic Forum in Davos with a large delegation of the country’s leading business and conglomerate leaders.

Cognizant of his country’s patchy reputation after six years of populist antics under his predecessor Duterte, Marcos Jr, who has also had to grapple with his family’s political notoriety, is bent on “reintroducing” the Philippines to the wider world while rehabilitating his family’s reputation.

In Tokyo, the Filipino president met top business leaders to discuss “the new and better business climate and investment environment in the Philippines.” He also met the relatively large Filipino community in Japan, including Filipino seafarers who constitute 70% of Japan’s maritime crew.

“The Japanese shipping companies also have investments and long-term partnerships with Filipino stakeholders in maritime education and welfare programs,” Marcos Jr added.

As the concurrent agriculture secretary, the Filipino president, who has been grappling with rising food inflation at home, also explored new cooperative deals with Japan, including the establishment of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and other forms of interagency mechanisms to help create “resilient and sustainable agriculture and food systems, smart technology, [and] strengthe[n] food value chain.”

Japan also offered to help the Philippines to realize its own Universal Health Coverage plan while also expanding its assistance to ongoing peacebuilding efforts in the historically restive island of Mindanao through, inter alia, “vocational training for livelihood improvement and industrial development.”

The two sides also agreed to expand people-to-people cooperation through initiatives such as the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program, JENESYS (Japan–East Asia Network of Exchange for Students and Youths) and the Project for Human Resource Development Scholarship Grant Aid of Japan (JDS).

Integrated deterrence

What made Marcos Jr’s trip particularly significant, however, was the expanded focus on defense cooperation, especially as Japan embarks on its own massive defense buildup and the Philippines restores military cooperation with its American mutual defense treaty ally.

During Marcos Jr’s trip, the two sides agreed to regularize high-level dialogues such as Foreign and Defense Ministerial Meeting (“2+2”) and the Vice-Ministerial Strategic Dialogue and the Political-Military (PM) Dialogue.

The Filipino president largely welcomed Japan’s new “National Security Strategy (NSS),” the “National Defense Strategy (NDS),” and the “Defense Buildup Program (DBP)”, which collectively facilitate the Northeast Asian country’s re-emergence as a major defense player in the Indo-Pacific region.

The two sides also agreed to the terms of reference concerning Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) activities of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) in the Philippines, which simplifies joint military activities and exchanges between the two countries’ armed forces.

Down the road, Japan and the Philippines hope to finalize a Visiting Forces Agreement, which would enable more large-scale joint military exercises in addition to pre-existing Philippine-US and Philippine-Australia defense agreements.

Crucially, Japan has also agreed to provide a new package of defense aid and other forms of defense equipment transfer programs. In particular, the two sides are exploring the transfer of new air-surveillance radar systems, Japan-made 97-meter-class patrol vessels and other forms of military hardware, which could enhance the Philippines domain awareness and maritime security capabilities vis-à-vis China.

Japan is also set to assist the development of a Philippine Coast Guard Subic Bay support base, which “could serve as the home of, and the installation of satellite communications system on patrol vessels.”

The Philippines and Japan are also exploring a tripartite security agreement with the US as part of a broader “integrated deterrence strategy” against China.

In recent years, Japan has regularly attended major joint drills in the Philippines, including the large-scale Philippines–US “Balikatan”, “KAMANDAG” and “Sama-Sama” exercises and the Philippines–Australia “Lumbas” drills.

Moving forward, the two sides also agreed to institutionalize the Japan-Philippines-US Land Forces Summit and underscored their commitment to deepening defense exchanges through trilateral mechanisms such as the Japan-Philippines-US Trilateral Joint Staff Talks and the Japan-Philippines-US Trilateral Defense Policy Dialogue, as well as the JSDF’s participation in Philippines-US joint exercises.

“It is something that we certainly are going to be studying upon my return to the Philippines. I think just part of the continuing process of strengthening our alliances because in this rather confusing, and I dare say dangerous situations, that we have,” Marcos Jr said, referring to ongoing discussions for a tripartite Philippine-US-Japan security agreement.

“So that is, I think, a central element to providing some sort of stability in the face of all these problems that we are seeing around us,” he said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr (L) and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida listen to their national anthems at the prime minister’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan, February 9, 2023. Image: Pool / Twitter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The International Criminal Court will resume the investigation into alleged crimes against humanity in the war on drugs of the Duterte administration more than a year since it was suspended.

“​​After having examined the submissions and materials of the Philippines Government, and of the ICC Prosecutor, as well as the victims’ observations, the Chamber concluded that the various domestic initiatives and proceedings, assessed collectively, do not amount to tangible, concrete and progressive investigative steps in a way that would sufficiently mirror the Court’s investigation,” the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I said in a Jan. 26 announcement.

Although the Pre-Trial Chamber, a judicial branch under the ICC, recognized the efforts of various government offices to probe the alleged crimes, it concluded that such initiatives do not show progressive investigative steps.

“[W]hen taking into account the possible interaction between government agencies, and assessing the various domestic initiatives and proceedings collectively as assessed above, these steps do not, at present and based on the material before the Chamber, amount to tangible, concrete and progressive investigative steps,” it said.

However, the pre-trial chamber assured that the Philippine government is still allowed to provide materials for Khan’s office or the chamber itself in the future “to determine inadmissibility of the investigation or of any actual case, if and when needed.”

Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, said the resumption of the drug war probe shows that the ICC “offers a path forward to fill the accountability vacuum” due to the alleged failure of the Philippine government to conduct genuine investigations.

Robertson said,

“[T]he ICC investigation in the Philippines is the only credible avenue for justice for the victims and their families of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s murderous ‘war on drugs.’”

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, however is not amenable to ICC coming to the Philippines to investigate.

“Definitely I do not welcome this move of theirs and I will not welcome them in the Philippines unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard,” he said in a press conference. “I will not stand for any of these antics that will question our status as a sovereign country. We will not accept that.”

The Philippines withdrew from the ICC on March 17, 2018 which took effect a year after. ICC investigation on alleged crimes against humanity arising from Duterte war on drugs covered the period July 1, 2016 to March 16, 2019. The ICC is also looking into killings and other related crimes in the Davao region as early as November 2011.

In a statement to VERA Files, National Union of People’s Lawyers chairperson and International Association for Democratic Lawyers transitional president Edre Olalia welcomed the resumption of the probe “in the midst of continuing impunity, selective memory and orchestrated denial by the past and present governments.”

“It validates once again what the victims have been asserting all along: that there are no adequate and effective measures to achieve concrete justice for them on the ground even at this very day despite official claims to the contrary,” he said.

In a joint statement, the NUPL and Rise Up for Life and for Rights, a group of families of victims and drug war survivors, called on those involved in crimes committed in the Duterte administration’s drug war such as police officers, agents and assets to surface and testify against those with “ultimate guilt.”

“Apela namin na lumantad ang mga pulis, ahente, asset, o tao na alam ang sistema at pagkakawing-kawing ng mga direktiba, at tumestigo laban sa mga ultimong salarin,” the groups said.

(We appeal to police officers, agents, assets and persons who know the system and links of the directives to surface, and testify against those with ultimate guilt.)

Aurora Parong, co-chairperson  of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC noted that the decision came after very strong recommendations for prosecution of the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings in the War on Drugs (WoD) during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Philippines in Geneva, Switzerland where Justice Secretary Remulla spoke about “real justice in real time”. The justice secretary must now give evidence to show that indeed there is real time justice in the country.

“The Philippine government should now realize that badmouthing the ICC, diplomatic runs and rhetorics on justice will not stop the International Criminal Court  from doing its work to investigate crimes within its jurisdiction and deliver justice for serious crimes in international law. Instead of calling the ICC decision an “irritant”, the Justice Secretary should consider it a wake- up call. It is a wake -up call to do more and launch bolder actions to exact accountability for serious crimes from those who pulled the trigger and especially officials or heads of state who emboldened them to kill without fear,” the PCICC said in a statement.

Fr. Flavie Villanueva, who runs Program Paghilom “that provides dignified, systematic and holistic healing and care for the victims of Duterte’s war-on- drugs, said, the ICC’s most recent decision “speaks loud and clear that ÿou cannot run away from your past sins.”

Remulla said he has yet to speak with Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra on the next actions of the Marcos administration.

Guevarra said in a separate statement that the government intends to exhaust legal remedies including appealing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision to the ICC Appeals chamber.

The investigation into the Duterte administration’s bloody war on drugs began in September 2021. The probe, however, was temporarily suspended in November 2021 on the request of the Philippine government to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to defer to local procedures.

The ICC prosecutor alleged at least 12,000 to 30,000 suspected drug personalities died in the Duterte administration’s drug war.

Read the announcement of the court here and the full copy of the decision here.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Protest by local human rights groups, remembering the victims of the drug war, October 2019.  (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Seven months on from the anti-government uprising in Galle Face and on the anniversary of the founding of the Sri Lankan state, Susan Price spoke with Green Left contributor Janaka Biyanwila about how government spin backed up with state violence is attempting to keep a lid on popular discontent.

Janaka Biyanwila: February 4 marked 72 years since the formation of the Sri Lankan state. However, for Tamils, Muslims and the majority of Sri Lankans, this was not a day for celebration. Why is this?

Susan Price: The Independence Day is mostly a project of the elite classes, based on promoting “nationhood” or the national community as a patriarchal Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalist project. One of the main acts following independence was the denial of citizenship (1948 Citizenship Act) to Tamil workers in tea plantations. At the time, the population was around 7 million, with close to a million migrant Tamil workers, mostly working in the tea plantations, but they were also part of the urban working classes.

Then in 1956, the Sinhala language was granted constitutional privileges. Although this was seen as an assertion of cultural self-determination, it was mostly about discriminating against Tamil, Muslim and Burger (Eurasian) communities, in order [for Sinhala speakers] to gain public sector jobs. This triggered the initial wave of migration of minority ethnic communities to other parts of the former British Empire (the British Commonwealth) including Australia.

This was followed by the 1972 privileged status given to Buddhism within the constitution, which discriminated against other religions. This piece of legislation linked the state and party politics more closely with conservative, elitist, Buddhist monks. This was also a strategy by the local ruling elites to break the popularity of communist and socialist secular tendencies among the masses. In other words, displacing class politics with ethnic-identity politics.

Then you have the post-1977 market economy which promoted a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism under the “righteous society” (Dharmishta Samajaya) slogan. The market economy project also shifted the party politics from a parliamentary democracy towards a presidential system, which concentrated and centralised power within the presidency.

The state repression of Tamil agitations that began in the early 1970s mainly in the North to demand cultural recognition — led to the rise of militant Tamil groups. Following the 1983 Anti-Tamil pogrom, the civil war broke out, ending in 2009 in a blood bath. Following this military solution, rather than a political solution, there were no efforts towards a genuine reconciliation. So, 15 years after the ending of the civil war, there are still people displaced, living with families and friends, political prisoners and over 20,000 disappeared people, whose families are still searching for answers.

As for the Muslim community, after the end of the civil war, the Muslim community became the target of Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism. This was bolstered by the Islamophobia triggered following 9/11 [the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre in the United States] and the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) attacks on Muslims in India.

There were multiple incidents of violence against Muslim communities led by militant Buddhist monks, and these attitudes escalated after the 2019 Easter Sunday bombing by an extremist Muslim group. But the investigations into the attack revealed that the military intelligence services had contact with this group. In October 2021, then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed the same militant monk who led the anti-Muslim attacks, to head a Presidential Task Force called the “one country, one law”, mainly targeting changes to personal laws based on Islam.

It is also important to recognise that there are a few Tamil and Muslim capitalists and middle classes that support the ruling regime, but Sinhala-Buddhist ethno-chauvinism is configured by co-opting a few minorities. So, for the Tamil and Muslim communities the celebration of Independence has little meaning.

JB: Seven months on from the protests in Galle Face, how would you characterise the state of the anti-government movement?

SP: The anti-government movement (the Aragalaya or struggle) is still active but at a much lower scale because of government repression. After President Gotabaya resigned and the new president, Rani Wickramasinghe was elected, popular support gradually declined. This is mostly because of government propaganda, echoed by the mainstream media, manufacturing a narrative that the economic situation is getting better. Of course, the long queues and shortages that triggered the uprising have disappeared, but the cost of living has increased, pushing more people into poverty and struggling to make a living.

After the occupation of the Galle Face public space (the “Gota go gama”) ended in early August 2022, the government started targeting movement leaders, particularly student movement leaders. In August, two leaders of the student movement, Venerable Galwewa Siridhamma (a student monk) and Wasantha Mudalige, were arbitrarily arrested under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA). This piece of legislation, introduced in 1978, essentially allows torture, government secrecy and impunity for those who commit crimes on behalf of the state.

There were multiple protests demanding the release of these student leaders, and the government cracked down on those protests too. Faced with increasing dissent, the government released the leader of the student monks in January. In early February, Wasantha Mudalige was released. This release was an outcome to continued protests by the students as well as a range of activists linked with Aragalaya. One of the first things Wasantha talked about following his release was about Tamil political prisoners, mostly framed under dubious charges.

Some of the Aragalaya activists are linked with the trade union movement and working-class parties [such as] the JVP [Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna — People’s Liberation Front] and FSP (Frontline Socialist Party), and they continue their activism as well as raising awareness of the people. The JVP is more focused on electoral politics, mainly the upcoming local government elections, scheduled for March, while the FSP is more focused on movement building.

The Aragalaya activists fragmented following the August crackdown, and some of them continued with grassroots activism while others joined the regime in different ways. But, I think this is also a time when activists are reflecting about different forms of engagement, now that local government elections have been announced.

The mainstream media, linked with patronage networks to the ruling regime, is maintaining its agenda of stigmatising and discrediting activism. Meanwhile, the police and the Attorney General’s office is trying to manipulate the legal system to prevent protests and the right to dissent. The popular (working class) resentment is fermenting and it is hard to say how the next mass protest is going to play out.

JB: Has the economic crisis that sparked the protests been resolved? Should we believe the government’s story that the SL economy will be “back in the black” by 2026?

SP: The government is incapable of predicting anything at this stage, other than appeasing the masses by promising that things are going to improve soon. Global growth is declining and inflation is going to be around for a while, at least through next year, according the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Even the IMF is also reluctant to make any strong forecasts. The war in Ukraine is a major impediment to local tea exports as well as tourist earnings — both Russia and Ukraine are major markets — so revenues from international trade are going to be constrained. Internally, the government is implementing IMF policies imposing austerity measures. The latest is the increase in taxes.

There was a major mobilisation on February 9 by the labour movement, mostly the public sector unions, against a new policy for an income tax of up to 36% on [incomes exceeding] a threshold of 100,000 rupees (A$393) a month, with no deductions. In the context of inflation, where people are struggling in their daily lives, this is a major burden.

Meanwhile, the government spent lavishly on Independence Day, which was mostly televised without a live public audience. More importantly, this was a highly militarised fanfare, featuring a range of military and police forces, an array of high-tech military hardware, a customary 25-gun salute, Air Force flyovers and a parachute jump by paratroopers carrying a giant National Flag. It’s a kitsch military aesthetic, compatible with that of the ruling elite. But, all this not only adds to the debt, but reinforces and normalises global militarism and arms trade.

This is represented as patriotism but the hidden code is about state monopoly violence. It’s a message to the working classes, as well as minority ethnic groups, that the ruling elites have access to all this technology of violence for class wars and ethnic wars, which includes gender (male) terror, to keep the masses submissive and compliant.

Again the mainstream media frames this event as national pride and patriotism, normalising the militarisation of the state, while completely disregarding the suffering of the working classes as well as Tamil and Muslim populations in the North and the East in particular. This is a working-class or labour force where two-thirds are in the informal sector, and approximately one out of every six (16%) or 3.5 million people in Sri Lanka were considered multidimensionally poor in 2019. That was before the pandemic, so the poverty rates have increased. And, the military, with a bloated budget, is maintaining the colonisation of the North and East provinces.

Nevertheless, there were multiple protests across the island against this waste of public resources. One protest by Aragalaya activists was disrupted by thugs mobilised by the government, followed by the police firing water cannons and tear gas to disperse those protesting. This was a peaceful non-violent protest by less than 100 people. Many were injured and a few were arrested then released. It was a brutal use of excessive force, which has become the standard police practice encouraged by a few senior police figures and the Minister for Police.

So when the government promises “back in the black” by 2026, this is mostly addressing the financial markets, indicating that we are a credit-worthy nation, meaning financial credit-worthiness, and that the elites are going to comply and provide financial markets their return on investment. The IMF is the front organisation for financial markets. The financial markets never demand cuts in military spending, exposing the link between the financial markets and militarism. So this is also about maintaining a system of accumulation (by dispossession) where the elites are the main beneficiaries.

So these government promises represent the “cruel optimism” of the ruling elites. The promise of “prosperity”, despite debt bondage, inequality, poverty, racism, sexism, ecological vandalism and state violence.

It was against this type of repeated fake guarantees of the ruling elite that the Aragalaya emerged, demanding justice and system change.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: ‘Goto go gama’ protest camp at Galle Face last year. Image: @publicnewsdotlk/twitter

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Sri Lanka: Talk of ‘Prosperity’ a Smokescreen for People’s Ongoing Suffering and State Violence
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Under a renegotiation of an agreement known as the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the US has been given permission to occupy or build military sites in 9 different locations across the Philippines.

The decision caused an uproar among the population who have been in between the US and her enemies in two different wars, which together may have caused 2 million Filipino dead.

The agreement was signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the son of a previous dictator of the country who forged a neutral foreign policy, and significantly scaled back what was then a de-facto US occupation of the Islands following the Second World War.

A joint statement by the Philippines and the US laid out “their plans to accelerate the full implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the agreement to designate four new Agreed Locations in strategic areas of the country and the substantial completion of the projects in the existing five Agreed Locations”.

People’s Dispatch reports that the locations of the new bases haven’t been chosen, but are likely to be on or near Palawan Island, the nearest one to Taiwan.

The Filipino editorial press seems united in their acknowledgment that the EDCA is a pact to involve their nation in a war over Taiwan. While some acknowledge the continual violation of territorial waters, as well as the long rap sheet of perceived slights over disputed waters in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, they see these as jobs for the diplomatic corps, and not the marine corps.

Hard facts

Unlike the visiting Sect. of Defense Lloyd Austin, who like the rest of Biden’s cabinet charge all their statements with moral rhetoric, Filipinos are looking at a hard facts approach to the cost/benefit analysis of the expanded EDCA.

Others, like human rights group Karapatan took a harder approach, protesting Austin’s arrival outside Camp Aguinaldo, the general headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. A spokesperson described Austin as “a man whose career and fortune were built on the deaths and destruction resulting from US-driven wars of aggression,” adding that he was among those “who led the US’s bloody wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan that claimed almost a million lives, most of them civilians, he is the face of the money side of US warmongering”.

A Manila-based think tank on statecraft, the Integrated Development Studies Institute, published an editorial regarding the expansion of the EDCA in which they describe the country as being turned into a “warship” by Sect. Austin.

They first took a look at what the Philippines’ only real national security risk is—the dispute with China in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, of which they recognize that “many experts agree that for China, the South China Sea dispute is negotiable”.

“…There are multiple claimants including Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, of which China already has ongoing negotiations. China has also offered 60-percent profit sharing in favor of the Philippines in disputed areas, far better than what the Philippines received from US and UK partners in the Malampaya deal. While there are occasional incidents, our own fishermen and official government statistics have reported increased fish stocks in the West Philippine Sea since 2016 due to its being protected now during spawning seasons. China has also resolved border issues with 12 of her 14 neighbors, although negotiations took decades and not without minor incidents, but China even gave concessions in pursuit of peace.”

But, they continue, Taiwan has repeatedly been singled out as a non-negotiable, national security issue of greatest importance, much like Ukraine is to Russia—comparisons sprinkled throughout the media coverage of the EDCA update.

“Allowing the US bases in the Philippines, located in sites that clearly encircle Taiwan, will put the Philippines squarely in the war calculations of the People’s Liberation Army,” the institute concludes.

The Institute adds that the “measly” $82 million in development aid money promised by Austin in his visit pales in comparison to what previous Filipino presidents have extracted for the rights to use their island as a base, including $900 million in the 1980s, and $2 billion in the 1990s.

Furthermore, China was the only country to send any medical supplies to the Philippines, writes the Institute, during the worst of the early pandemic months, and has become the largest importer of Philippine agricultural products.

‘Victory is not enough’

In a series of 25 war game simulations run by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based MIC think tank, found that a coalition was able to repel a Chinese amphibious landing of Taiwan, but at a terrible cost of “dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of servicemembers”.

Furthermore, the conflict would be inconclusive. “Taiwan’s economy was devastated,” they told The Diplomat, adding that “the high losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. Victory is, therefore, not enough”.

Reporting on statements made by US Air Mobility Command, Gen. Mike Minihan that in five years the US will go to war against China based on his gut feeling, The New York Times wrote of the Philippines “the plans for a larger US military presence in the Philippines come amid fears about a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan”. The Times Southeast Asia bureau chief wrote that the US officials regard the Philippines as a “key strategic partner for Washington in the event of a conflict with China”.

“If there will be a major conflict here, it will be over Taiwan and most certainly not over the Philippine atolls and sandbanks taken and occupied by China from the Philippines and the few tons of fish stolen daily from Philippine waters,” concludes Father Shay Cullen, an Irish missionary at St. Joeseph’s Parish in Olongapo City where he has taught the most disparate children in society—most of whom were fathered by US sailors who eventually left the islands.

“The US military presence in the West Philippine Sea has not deterred China from grabbing more atolls and islands from the Philippines and arming them with missiles,” continues Cullen, writing at the Manila Times.

“The Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Philippines is of no help. There has to be an act of war by China against the Philippines to trigger a US military response. Any such response will need the approval of the US Congress. The presence of so many US military bases inside Philippine bases is making the Philippines an open and vulnerable target for retaliatory strikes by China”.

Visiting Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum meeting, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said he wanted to stay away from anything resembling Cold War power struggle in the region.

“The forces of us going back to that Cold War type of scenario where you have to choose one side or the other are strong—I think we are determined… to stay away from that,” he said.

However, Satur Ocampo, writing for the Philippines Star, quotes the president changing tune a month later in a joint press conference with Sect. Austin.

“It seems to me that the future of the Philippines and, for that matter, the Asia-Pacific, will always have to involve the US simply because those partnerships are so strong and so historically embedded in our common psyches that can only be an advantage to both our countries,” said the president in a rare moment of honesty.

The islands’ media seems to see this as a real coup in their nation, and with the US on the warpath, avoiding a multi-national conflict over Taiwan now in large part hinges on President Marcos Jr.’s future decisions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Jr. welcomes US Sect. of Defense Lloyd Austin. (Source: World at Large)