"Secret Japan-US nuclear deal" revealed

US nuke-weapons have a Free Pass to enter Japan

“Secret Japan-US nuclear deal” revealed

June 1, 2009, a Japanese former Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ryohei Murata, and other 3 former Vice-Ministers admitted the existence of a “Secret Nuclear Deal” between the U.S. and Japan in Japanese news papers.

The long standing agreement has allowed U.S. war vessels and aircraft to bring nuclear weapons into Japan, totally in violation of the 3 Non-Nuclear Principles –to neither possess, manufacture, nor allow nuclear weapons to enter the country.

The Japanese government has denied the existence of such an agreement since 1960, but many citizens and peace activists have maintained outright skepticism. The ex Vice Minister’s revelation is another jolt to government credibility, both for the many years of secrecy, and for the serious violation of nuclear prohibitions.

Source: http://www.jpkenpo.us/News.en.html

This is Where We Take Our Stand

Check out the documentary series “This is Where We Take Our Stand” by Displace Films, featuring the Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Hearings.   There are two episodes now up on the site.  The first is entitled “For Those Who Would Judge Me”:

Here’s an excerpt from the site:

Where’s the debate?

Are we watching passively while Barack Obama carries out the same policies as George W. Bush?

When an American bombing raid this May killed over two hundred civilians in a village in Afghanistan, it was met with a deafening silence. When Obama’s promised “withdrawal” from Iraq leaves 130,000 troops there for at least two more years and 50,000 permanently, it’s hailed as an end to the occupation. And who is demanding to know just what the mission really is when 30,000 more troops are sent to Afghanistan?

Where’s the debate?

In March of 2008, two hundred and fifty veterans and active duty soldiers marked the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by gathering in Washington, DC, to testify from their own experience about the nature of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. It was chilling, horrifying, and challenging for all who witnessed it. Against tremendous odds, they brought the voices of the veterans themselves into the debate. That was then.

This is now. Today, we present to you This is Where We Take Our Stand, the inside story of those three days and the courageous men and women who testified. And we present this story today, told in six episodes, because we believe it is as relevant now as it was one year ago. Maybe more.

Here is our challenge to you: Watch the series; spread it far and wide; and ask yourself is this about the past, or the present and future. Then add your voice.

If you are a veteran or active duty, present your own testimony. If you are not, but you are still a living, breathing member of the human race, then do whatever you can to join and fan the flames of debate.

End the Korean War! Vigil for peace

Light a Candle for PEACE

In Remembrance of the Costs of the Korean War and for a Peaceful Future

Monday July 27, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Candlelight Walk and Vigil

Fifty six years have passed since an armistice agreement was signed to bring a temporary end to the Korean War. A lack of a more formal peace treaty has meant that both Koreas have remained heavily militarized and are ready for hostilities to recommence at any time. As tensions between the United States and North Korea remain high we recognize it is time for a peace treaty to put a final end to the Korean War.

Please join us July 27th for a quiet candlelight walk and vigil for peace. Across the country vigils will be taking place in Hawai’i (Honolulu), California (San Francisco, Los Angeles), New York (New York City) and Washington D.C.

Place and Time: Gather in front of the former Slumberworld (1314 Kapi‘olani Boulevard) at 7:15 PM. We will be walking to Pawaa Park, 1400 South King Street. *You are welcome to bring a poem or a few brief words to share*

National Campaign to End the Korean War: Honolulu
Contact: Soo Sun Choe soosunc@yahoo.com
For more info www.endthekoreanwar.org
and visit the online exhibit http://stillpresentpasts.org

Retired Army officer, Japan peace delegation tour Guam

Retired Army officer, Japan peace delegation tour Guam

A peace delegation from Osaka, Japan is on island to study and tour Guam and to hear from the locals on their thoughts about the Marines’ relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Joining them is a retired U.S. Army colonel who says the move won’t be good for Guam.

By Michele Catahay

A peace delegation from Osaka, Japan is on island to study and tour Guam and to hear from the locals on their thoughts about the Marines’ relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Joining them is a retired U.S. Army colonel who says the move won’t be good for Guam.

During the eve of Liberation Day, a peace delegation from Osaka took a tour around the island today to visit the many sites where Chamorros suffered the atrocities of war. The group toured various locations and memorials, to include here at the Tinta caves, where they paid respect to those Chamorros who died during the Japanese occupation of Guam. Joining them is retired Colonel Anne Wright, who says their mission is to study the impact Guam will have on the move.

In fact, Wright says there will be a negative impact, noting, “I’m very concerned about the militarization of Guam. Of course, it is a dilemma. Where does the U.S. put its military forces, but to put it in such small islands that are going to be negatively impacted by such a large increase in population. Plus, the weapons that are going to be used, the toxic materials that are used as a part of war, fighting and practicing the exercise training areas that will be used here on Guam.”

Wright was once a diplomat in Micronesia and visited Guam in the past. She says Guam’s pristine lands will be greatly impacted by the increase of Marines and their dependents. “I would urge our military to take our military to other places and put it in an area that has the capability of absorbing so many people and so many war-fighting materials,” she said.

Wright will be speaking at several conferences as she joins the peace delegation back to Japan.

Meanwhile, trip organizer Ako Miamoto from Osaka says her group currently promotes peace in a nuclear-free world. She says the trip will give them insight on what happened during World War II and what could happen once the Marines move to Guam. “Today we’re traveling all around Guam to study what our Japanese military did during the Second World War and now the relocation issues,” she said. “They are already so many concerns about it. So that’s why we invited 18 people.” She also said, “It’s our common issue. We’re all against the relocation of U.S. Marines.”

The group also met with native rights groups. They will leave the island tomorrow.

Source: http://www.kuam.com/bm/news/retired-army-officer-japan-peace-delegation-tour-g.shtml?15081

Former diplomat warns against US plan for Guam

Ex-envoy warns against US plan for Guam

Wednesday, 22 July 2009 00:51 by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

A FORMER U.S. diplomat turned peace activist advised Guam residents to be wary of the American government’s military buildup plan for the island.

“We need to be looking very carefully at what our federal government does to us,” said Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army colonel who spoke to a small crowd on the implications of the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam during a presentation held Monday night at the University of Guam.

“While we all want to be safe and secure in the world, sometimes our federal government uses this issue of national security to do things to us that we normally wouldn’t put up with,” she added.

Wright accompanied members of the Code Pink Japan, a peace activist group, who visited Guam to discuss the impact of the military buildup with local activists. The group left Guam yesterday.

“Our delegation is here in solidarity with the people of Guam in terms of the movement of 8,000 marines from Okinawa. The people of Japan, particularly the people on Okinawa, have been working very hard to remove some of the extensive military forces. Now, they seem to be coming to your lovely island,” said Wright, a native of Arkansas.

“The [Okinawans] certainly understand that whenever the U.S. military lands somewhere, it leaves a very large footprint. You all know it very well, because much of your land is already occupied by the U.S. military,” the former U.S. envoy told the audience.

Anti-war

Wright is a former U.S. deputy ambassador who was assigned in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Mongolia and Micronesia. She joined the military at the time when the U.S. military was invading Vietnam.

On March 19, 2003, the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wright cabled a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stating that without the authorization of the UN Security Council, the invasion and occupation of a Muslim, Arab, oil-rich country would be a isaster. Since then, she has been writing and speaking out for peace and is now a resident of Honolulu.

“It has been deeply emotional for all of us. Here we are in war again. The United States has started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” she said. “When you look at the number of civilians who have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guam, it brings home to us all what we should be working on.”

“The history of the United States is not a peaceful history,” said Wright, who added that the U.S. has, “a history of invading other countries.”

Land grabbing

With regard to the local military buildup, Wright told the audience that, “You have been seeing your own lands being taken from you,” adding that, “The federal government builds without your agreement. They build enormous facilities that have disastrous effects on your environment.”

The retired colonel suggested that people weigh the importance of their own lands, and whether or not it is worth it to lose those lands for an increase in short term values such as trade and business.

“Once the federal government gets its hands into something it never gets it out. With the Obama administration I certainly hope that we will all join together to throw out many of the provisions of the Patriot Act that are really curtailing our own civil liberties,” she said.

Threatened

Japanese parliamentarian and Code Pink member Sumi Fujita said that because of the long military presence and all of the rape cases in Okinawa, “women [there] now feel threatened.”

“All of the military promises to help the Okinawan economy have been a big lie,” Fujita said, through interpreter Hisae Ogawa.

As for the rape issue, Wright said, “This is a failure in leadership that is coming to you, that will allow this to continue.”

“Sometimes being an activist leads to things that you’d never thought you’d be doing,” said Wright.

The former U.S. diplomat also stated that we should all be aware of the “isms” created by policy makers. “Our government has been very good, meaning very bad, in using the ‘isms’ like communism, terrorism, and fascism to frighten and scare the American public so that they can do things that normally we would protest,” she said. “It something we should always be very wary of, when there’s another ‘ism’ coming up.”

Source:

http://guam.mvarietynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7666:ex-envoy-warns-against-us-plan-for-guam&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=2

Commander wants to expand number of U.S. troops occupying Afghanistan

Posted on: Sunday, July 12, 2009

Call for troop boost likely

U.S. commander seeks to accelerate training of forces in Afghanistan

By Julian E. Barnes
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

WASHINGTON – The U.S. commander in Afghanistan has told top Pentagon officials that Afghan security forces must expand faster and beyond current target levels to more quickly secure the country, defense officials said.
Advertisement

A dramatically stepped-up training program likely would require additional U.S. troops, but it is not clear how many, if any, extra trainers American commanders in Afghanistan will request.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is set to make a formal report with his recommendations in August. Defense officials emphasized that while McChrystal believes more Afghan security forces are needed, he has not yet made formal recommendations.

But the need for more Afghan security forces is clear – military leaders in Afghanistan have repeatedly said they need more Afghan army soldiers and police officers to help secure cities and villages.

“It isn’t any secret that commanders want more Afghan troops,” a defense official said. The official and others declined to be quoted by name because McChrystal’s recommendations have not been made public.

The Afghan army, generally considered far more skilled than the police, has about 85,000 members and is already scheduled to grow to 134,000.

The Pentagon has accelerated the training schedule and military officials are debating how much faster they can go, as well as how many more American trainers the job would require.

“We don’t want to put any numbers to it yet, but everyone knows expanding the Afghan national security forces is key to the counterinsurgency campaign,” a military official said.

With about $800 million a year in overall revenues, the Afghan government cannot support the security forces it already has. Further expansion would require support for years to come from the United States or other nations.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, would not discuss a conversation last week between McChrystal and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and said it was “premature” to conclude what the recommendations would be.

“Everybody recognizes, and the secretary has said time and time again, the key to the U.S. ultimately leaving Afghanistan is to develop an Afghan military and police forces” capable of providing security, Morrell said.

Obama Administration Says Key in Afghanistan: Economy, Not Military

Obama intensified the war and occupation of Afghanistan.   His early support came from the anti-war movement and sympathizers, but he has quicky changed his position to expand the war in Afghanistan and defend and prolong Bush’s illegal torture and detention policies.

afghansitan-trops

Key in Afghanistan: Economy, Not Military

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

The message seems designed to cap expectations that more troops might be coming, though the administration has not ruled out additional deployments in the future. Jones was carrying out directions from President Obama, who said recently, “My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops.”

“This will not be won by the military alone,” Jones said in an interview during his trip. “We tried that for six years.” He also said: “The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed.”

Jones delivered his message after a 30-minute briefing by Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, who commands 9,000 Marines here, nearly half the new deployments Obama has sent to Afghanistan.

The day before in Kabul, Jones delivered the same message to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new overall commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal has undertaken a 60-day review designed to address all the issues in the war. In addition, Jones has told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that they should focus on implementing the current strategy, completing the review and getting more Afghan forces involved in the fight before requesting additional U.S. troops for Afghanistan.

The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized.

Nicholson and his senior staff, 20 Marine colonels and lieutenant colonels, sat around a table made of unfinished plywood the size of at least three ping-pong tables in a command headquarters that stands where there had been nothing but desert six months ago. The headquarters is located in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, 370 miles from the capital, Kabul, in a region known as the Desert of Death because of its scorching heat and choking fine, dustlike sand. The province is facing a rising and lethal Taliban insurgency.

During the briefing, Nicholson had told Jones that he was “a little light,” more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. “We don’t have enough force to go everywhere,” Nicholson said.

But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. “At a table much like this,” Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, “the president’s principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan.” The principals — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair — made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments, which included Nicholson’s Marines.

Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, “oops,” we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.

“They then said, ‘If you do all that, we think we can turn this around,’ ” Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.

Now suppose you’re the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?

Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have “a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.” Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF — which in the military and elsewhere means “What the [expletive]?”

Nicholson and his colonels — all or nearly all veterans of Iraq — seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.

Jones, speaking with great emphasis to this group of Iraq veterans, said Afghanistan is not Iraq. “We are not going to build that empire again,” he said flatly.
A Question Not Settled

Obama sent Jones last week to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to make an assessment and explain the president’s thinking.

As a presidential candidate and as president, Obama stressed that the Afghan war was neglected in the Bush administration. In announcing the first additional 17,000 troops on Feb. 17, Obama said that “the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan” and that al-Qaeda “threatens America from its safe haven” in neighboring Pakistan.

“We don’t need more U.S. forces,” Nicholson finally told Jones. “We need more Afghan forces.” It is a complaint Jones heard repeatedly. Jones and other officials said Afghanistan, and particularly its president, Hamid Karzai, have not mobilized sufficiently for their own war. Karzai has said Afghanistan is making a major effort in the war and is increasing its own forces as fast as possible.

In an interview, Nicholson said that in the six months he has been building Camp Leatherneck and brought 9,000 Marines to the base, not a single additional member of the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) has been assigned to assist him. He said he needed “Afghanistan security forces — all flavors,” including soldiers, police, border patrol and other specialists.

The evening before the Jones meeting, a Marine was killed during a patrol in Now Zad, a town in Helmand where people had fled the fighting.

“If we had several ANA in Now Zad, we might not have lost that Marine,” said one civilian official, noting that the Afghan army could supply the “eyes and ears” that were badly needed to sound warnings and scout on patrols. One senior U.S. diplomat in Afghanistan estimated that the military needs one member of the Afghan security forces for every 10 U.S. troops to operate safely and stabilize the area. That would mean Nicholson should have approximately 900 Afghans, and he effectively has none.

At the briefing for Jones, Nicholson pointed to the mission statement, which said that “killing the enemy is secondary.” His campaign plan states, “Protect the populace by, with and through the ANSF,” the Afghanistan National Security Forces, which makes the absence of the additional Afghans particularly galling to Nicholson.

Though the United States supplies most of the funding for the Afghan army, the force is controlled by the Defense Ministry. Jones said he would press Karzai and others to deploy more of the Afghan soldiers to work here in Helmand.
‘The Razor’s Edge’

Jones said repeatedly on this trip that the new strategy has three legs, all of which he said had to be dramatically improved: security; economic development and reconstruction; and governance by the Afghans under the rule of law.

“The president realizes it’s on the razor’s edge,” Jones said, suggesting not only a difficult, dangerous time but also a situation that could cut either way. “And he’s worried that others don’t.”

The National Security Council is developing a series of measurements to assess the effectiveness of the strategy and the capability of the Afghan government and Afghan security forces. This is expected to be presented to Congress soon.

Jones made it clear in his visit to Afghanistan that it is a new era and that Obama will not automatically give the military commanders whatever force levels they request — the frequent practice of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war.

“This is a decisive moment,” Jones told U.S. military leaders, diplomats and the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, “a strategic moment, and we better get it right.”

In early 2007, when Gen. David H. Petraeus took command in Iraq, he declared that the situation, nearly four years into the war, was “hard” but “not hopeless.” Jones and his staff use similar words to describe Afghanistan today.

The U.S. military and the 32,000 other NATO troops are engaged in a robust effort to improve security in Afghanistan, but insurgent attacks have escalated, reaching an all-time high of more than 400 attacks during one week in May.

Though that does not rival the violence in Iraq, which peaked at 1,600 attacks in one week during the summer of 2007, it represents a trend that has alarmed U.S. military leaders.
‘The Golden 500’

It is a 25-minute helicopter ride from Camp Leatherneck to Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, where Jones met with the leaders of a provincial reconstruction team, a unit of about 160 British, U.S., Afghan and other civilians and military officers working to rebuild the economy, improve security and increase effective government.

In a meeting, the reconstruction team leaders told Jones that there had been 58 makeshift-bomb attacks in the past week in the province. They stressed that the biggest problem was “Afghan capacity” because the government had not provided sufficient Afghan military, police and civilians.

The British, who lead the team, said the key to progress in Helmand, the largest Afghan province with 1.2 million people, has been provincial Gov. Gulab Mangal. They said that in the past 15 months, he had moved on nearly all fronts to modernize, improve governance and launch a war on corruption.

The British have identified what they call “the golden 500” — government and other officials beginning with Mangal whom they want to stay in their positions in Helmand so progress can continue.

U.S. and British officials believe that Karzai, who is running for reelection in August, plans to replace Mangal. To ensure his reelection, one official said, Karzai is making deals with a number of Afghan politicians.

Jones and the British voiced their distress at the possibility that Mangal would be ousted, and Jones promised to intervene personally with Karzai. As a first step, Jones called in about a dozen Afghan reporters and sat down on a couch next to Mangal for a news conference at team headquarters. Mangal, 52, is a soft-spoken leader with black hair and a neatly trimmed beard.

First, Jones publicly embraced Mangal’s leadership and said he was there “on behalf of the president, who is committed to a new strategy. I know of no place in Afghanistan that has more potential.”

He said “the cornerstone is the Afghan people, the Afghan military and the Afghan police,” adding, “We want to make sure Afghans control their own destiny.”

Jones noted that he had been coming to Afghanistan since 2003. He was NATO commander when the alliance took over the Afghanistan war. “I know what to do,” Jones said glancing at Mangal.

In a brief interview, Mangal said of Karzai, “He sent me as a soldier to Helmand province.” Mangal noted that he had previously been a governor in two other provinces. Did he hope to continue? Mangal nodded yes.

After retiring as NATO commander in 2007, Jones became co-chairman of the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank. In 2008, the council issued a report that began, “Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan.”

Flying back from his three-country trip Friday night, Jones cited the report and said most of its bleak conclusions still apply — insufficient reconstruction, weak economic development, the continuing “epidemic in opium production” and “disorganized, uncoordinated and at present insufficient” international efforts.

“We are doing the same things well and the same things poorly,” he said. It was not mission impossible, he said, causing him to feel “urgency but not panic.”

Researcher Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063002811_pf.html

Obama increasing use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://rebelreports.com//140378/

Obama Has 250,000 ‘Contractors’ Deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and is Increasing the Use of Mercenaries

By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
Posted on June 1, 2009, Printed on June 6, 2009

A couple of years ago, Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz seemed to see a silver lining for mercenary companies with the prospect of US forces being withdrawn or reduced in Iraq. “There is a scenario where we could as a government, the United States, could pull back the military footprint,” Schmitz said. “And there would then be more of a need for private contractors to go in.”

When it comes to armed contractors, it seems that Schmitz was right.

According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion.

Overall, contractors (armed and unarmed) now make up approximately 50% of the “total force in Centcom AOR [Area of Responsibility].” This means there are a whopping 242,657 contractors working on these two U.S. wars. These statistics come from two reports just released by Gary J. Motsek, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support): “Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, IRAQ, and Afghanistan and “Operational Contract Support, ‘State of the Union.'”

“We expect similar dependence on contractors in future contingency operations,” according to the contractor “State of the Union.” It notes that the deployment size of both military personnel and DoD civilians are “fixed by law,” but points out that the number of contractors is “size unfixed,” meaning there is virtually no limit (other than funds) to the number of contractors that can be deployed in the war zone.

At present there are 132,610 in Iraq and 68,197 in Afghanistan. The report notes that while the deployment of security contractors in Iraq is increasing, there was an 11% decrease in overall contractors in Iraq from the first quarter of 2009 due to the “ongoing efforts to reduce the contractor footprint in Iraq.”

Both Pentagon reports can be downloaded here.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

"Blood and treasure": America's claim to the Pacific

Sec. of Defense Gates speaking at the “Shangri-La Dialogue” on Asia Pacific Security evoked the old argument for America’s claim to the entire Pacific region: “blood and treasure”:

America has paid a significant price in blood and treasure to fight aggression, deter potential adversaries, extend freedom, and maintain peace and prosperity in this part of the world. We have done so over many generations and across many presidential administrations. Our commitment to the region is just as strong today as it has ever been – if not stronger since our own prosperity is increasingly linked with yours.

Blood and treasure was one of the reasons cited after WWII for the Pacific to be treated differently than other regions of the world. While the world community denounced imperialism and colonialism as root causes of wars and called for decolonization through an internationally mediated process, the Pacific was treated differently.

The U.S. wanted to have exclusive control over the Pacific because it had spent so much blood and treasure “liberating” the Pacific from the Japanese, and because the Pacific was seen as an integrated strategic area for maintaining America’s security. This is why there were “strategic trusts” created for the Pacific islands where the US maintained control over the process of transition from Japanese colonialism to self-determination. Of course, the US had no intentions of letting these islands become truly independent and made every effort to stunt their development and maintain their dependency on the US in order for the US to maintain a military base network that blanketed the Pacific.

The Pacific is increasingly becoming the strategic center of gravity for the US and the other regional powers. Here’s a quote from Gates’ speech:

So, in the central and western Pacific, we are actually increasing our military presence, with new air, naval, and marine assets based over the horizon in Guam and throughout the region – prepared as always to respond to a number of contingencies, natural or man-made.

It is time to rethink the whole meaning of the Pacific region: “American Lake” or “Ka Moana Nui” (The great ocean that connects the Oceanic nations, a term the developed out of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement and other Pacific peoples’ struggles for freedom and justice.)

===

Sat, 30 May 2009 21:49:00 -0500

Gates Outlines Administration’s Asia Security Strategy

By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

SINGAPORE, May 30, 2009 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates opened the “Shangri-La Dialogue” Asia security summit here today outlining a broad set of regional security issues and promising continued support from the U.S. administration.

The annual conference gathers defense, senior military and other officials from across the region to discuss mutual security challenges.

“America has paid a significant price in blood and treasure to fight aggression, deter potential adversaries, extend freedom, and maintain peace and prosperity in this part of the world,” Gates said. “Our commitment to the region is just as strong today as it has ever been, if not stronger, since our own prosperity is increasingly linked with yours.”

Gates said the challenge now is to fashion defense policies that adapt to the new realities of the region. He cited the long-standing treaties with Japan and South Korea, both formed in the early years of the Cold War “when both nations were impoverished and virtually destroyed.” Now, Gates said, the countries are economic powerhouses with modern, well-trained and well-equipped military forces.

“They are more willing and able to take responsibility for their own defense and assume responsibility for security beyond their shores,” Gates said.

As a result, the United States is making adjustments in its policies to maintain a posture that is more like that of a partner, Gates said. South Korea will take the lead role in its own defense in 2012. The U.S. military presence in the Pacific is growing, Gates added, noting increased relationships with India and China.

The secretary said the changes represent a shift in the defense strategy in the region, placing more emphasis on building the capacity of its allies and less on solely conventional military deterrence. The shift will represent a more balanced mix of “soft” and “hard” power, he added, with military, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian elements integrated seamlessly.

“It is an approach intended to further strengthen and deepen security in the Pacific Rim through maintaining our robust military presence, but also through strengthened and deepened partnerships,” Gates said.

The secretary noted the unity in the global responses to the economic crisis, the threat of a pandemic flu and piracy. Despite occasional differences of opinion, he said, nations overall have come together to develop unified responses.

Gates said that stronger relationships among countries in the region are the key to facing security challenges such as piracy, weapons proliferation and terrorism, and that the U.S. administration promises a more collaborative and consultative foreign policy.

“What these challenges all have in common is that they simply cannot be overcome by one, or even two countries, no matter how wealthy and powerful,” Gates said. “While the United States has unparalleled capabilities, we also recognize that the best solutions require multiple nations acting with uncommon unity.”
Related Sites:

Speech Transcript

The Shangri-La Dialogue

Statement of International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of the Arms Race

Statement of International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of the Arms Race

Seoul, South Korea

April 17, 2009

Here we have come together, facing a new decade in the 21st century where the history of war and strife is being repeated. We are witnessing many countries and regions, having learned nothing from the conflict and hostility-ridden Cold War era, still tenaciously pursue arms buildup. Especially the nation with military hegemony and its many followers, rather than seeking to understand the roots of conflict and finding peaceful resolution, search for new threat and enemy as a means to reinforce their military capabilities, and at times even exaggerate the threat in order to justify their arms buildup.

This is shown by the expansion of military networks and countless military bases around the globe and by the space militarization activities. However, we want to make it clear that this militaristic approach is a worn-out strategy obstructing prevention and peaceful settlement of conflict and a losing hand triggering a vicious cycle of global arms race.

We are especially observant of how the US missile defense system triggers not only space militarization but also unnecessary arms race and political and diplomatic strain between nations. Proposed missile defense installations in Czech Republic and Poland are generating massive public dissent in the region and infuriating Russia to the point of a “new Cold War.”

Planned US missile defense system in the Asia Pacific poses a burden to regional attempts to alleviate Cold War tensions, thereby further provoking confrontation between sea powers and land powers. In the Asia Pacific where the US leads the Asia Pacific missile defense efforts, supported strongly by Japan and Australia, Korea is next in line with its cutting-edge weaponry and a new set of roles. As a result, China, Russia, and North Korea all have expressed enormous opposition, fueling an arms race in the Asia Pacific. Such an arms race also risks undermining the war-renouncing Article 9 of Japan’s peace constitution, a key foundation for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.

The controversy over North Korea’s long-range rocket launch that has become a key factor in the current tension pervading the Korean Peninsula leaves room for discussion. North Korea’s rocket launch should be seen as a byproduct of both a divided Korean peninsula and the arms race in the Asia Pacific. However, this aspect has been ignored. Instead there is exaggerated interpretation of threat and stirring up of security fears, mobilizing the justification for developing a missile defense system in the region. North Korea’s long-range rocket launch, on the contrary, reveals the utmost need and urgency for placing confidence building and normalization of relations among nations, as well as cooperative mutual disarmament, on top of our agenda.

Above all, we are aware that the logic behind “absolute security” through the missile defense system does not differ from other aggressive military thinking. Furthermore, the missile defense system is a risky plan which has yet to prove its effectiveness. As a project requiring astronomical costs, the system is based on the logic of unlimited military spending expansion, solely for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. This, we must not forget, sacrifices many resources to be invested for improving the welfare and the quality of life of the many people suffering from economic, public welfare, and environmental crisis.

Many nations and people throughout the world today are suffering from the economic crisis and the climate change. These crises must be taken as opportunities for each country to stop the wasteful arms race and turn its attention to the daily living of its citizens who are taking heavy blows from the economic crisis and the climate change. The development of unnecessary and offensive weapons, including the missile defense system, must be halted first. National security that neglects the safety of the people and community is meaningless.

We, therefore, resolve to act jointly against the missile defense system and the arms race which impede the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula, East Asia, and the international community. We will inform people about the falsehood of the missile defense and the damage caused by the consequent arms race and military conflict. As a member of the international community, we pledge to develop a new peace mechanism starting from where we stand, in our local communities, to bring about peaceful coexistence and conflict resolution in place of military confrontation. We declare we will do our duty and part to turn the coming decade into a period of transformation for overcoming the worn-out military paradigm.

17 April 2009

The Korea Organizing Committee
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
GPPAC Northeast Asia

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false