Untold Facts

World War III: A Pre-emptive nuclear war against Iran

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005. If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East Central Asia region would flare up. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III Scenario. World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.

The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or a “limited” punitive bombing against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “Global Security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Moreover, 21st Century military technology is at an advanced stage of development combining an array of sophisticated weapons systems. We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. The future of humanity is at stake.

The present situation is one of advanced war planning by a formidable military force using nuclear warheads. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: [The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

Military action is waged in the name of the “Global War on Terrorism” and Global Security. It has a stated “humanitarian” “pro-democracy” mandate. The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.
If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East Central Asia region would flare up. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III Scenario. World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or a “limited” punitive bombing against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “Global Security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Moreover, 21st Century military technology is at an advanced stage of development combining an array of sophisticated weapons systems. We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. The future of humanity is at stake.

The present situation is one of advanced war planning by a formidable military force using nuclear warheads. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.
Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: [The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.
Military action is waged in the name of the “Global War on Terrorism” and Global Security. It has a stated “humanitarian” “pro-democracy” mandate.

It is predicated on the notion that the West’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons are (in contrast to those [nonexistent] of the Islamic Republic), according to expert scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground.”
Irresponsible politicians are unaware of the implications of their actions. They believe their own war propaganda: nuclear weapons are heralded as an instrument of peace and democracy.

War is heralded as a peace-keeping making operation carried out with the support of the “international community”.

The victims of war are described as the perpetrators. Iran and Syria constitute a threat to Global Security thereby justifying pre-emptive military action.

Global warfare
The concept of the “Long War” has characterised US military doctrine since the end of World War II.
The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.
We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda was predicated on “waging a war without borders”.

The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” in different regions of the World as well perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a Worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”. (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defences. pdf, September 2000)
This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his predecessor in the White House, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.

In the present context, the US military and intelligence actions have been undertaken in different part of the World. Ongoing war plans within the broader Middle East Central Asian region would involve coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan leading to an extended regional war theatre. The three existing and distinct war theatres (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China (See map below). Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in the conflict.

It is important to address the history of this military agenda including the slated role of Israel.
The main coalition partners, including the US, UK, Israel and Turkey have been in “an advanced stage of readiness” since 2005. The Combatant Command structure of a military operation against Iran is centralized and controlled by the Pentagon.

In 2005, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” This Combatant Command integration also included coordination with America’s allies including NATO, Israel and a number of frontline Arab states, which are members of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue.

To implement USSTRATCOM’s mandate, a new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS was granted the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack against Iran in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons not only against “rogue states” (i.e. Iran) but also against China and Russia. The operational implementation of the “Global Strike” was labelled CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,” CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

Say no to WW III
The antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.
There is a definite need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda, the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”

Breaking the “big lie” which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
It should be understood that whatever its justification, War is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremburg.

George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq.
War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British Prime Minister. There are, so to speak, “New War Criminals on the Block” including the president of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama, among others.

The acting heads of state and heads of government which support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression under an R2P pretext are war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, address the issue of war crimes, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a global war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

Nuclear waragainst Iran
Below are excerpts from my January 2006 article (emphasis added) which outlines the process of military deployment including the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. To read the complete article click here: Nuclear War against Iran. A more detailed analysis is contained in my book entitled Towards a World War III Scenario (see ordering details below):

“Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military manoeuvres in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments [late 2005], CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets.” Goss reportedly asked “for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.” (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the

Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March [2006]:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran…. The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran’s nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel’s War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005).

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage [December 2005], as to the nature of NATO’s involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

“Shock and Awe”
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theatre, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities … or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq. (See Globalsecurity.org at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

In November [2005], US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a “global strike plan” entitled “Global Lightening”. The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a “fictitious enemy”.
Following the “Global Lightening” exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness.

Consensus for nuclear war
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union. There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin.

Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building “a consensus” both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states [i.e. Arab League] are now tacit partners in the US/Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel’s top military brass met at NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. [Arabic league and Israel work hand in glove] A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and “anti-terror manoeuvres” together with several Arab countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a “threat to World Peace”. The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/anti-globalization agenda.

The “surgical strikes” are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: “Safe for civilians”
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration’s doctrine of “pre-emptive” nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or “low yield” “mini-nukes”, with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground.

The following article published in January 2006 outlined the main features of this diabolical military agenda. In recent developments, following the threats by Britain and Israel, we have reached a major turning point.

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A pre-emptive nuclear attack [against Iran] using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for “overseeing a global strike plan” consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of “a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defence; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence….”

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created. JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against “rogue states” but also against China and Russia.

Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Ibid).

CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats—Iran, North Korea—proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran. The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defence, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022. CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. It does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops. CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posts a small-scale operation and no “boots on the ground.” The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces—air, ground, sea—and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations….The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2011
Source: Weekly Holiday

Afghanistan may tip the balance against the US like it did for the USSR

US strategy in Afghanistan is under review. India and Pakistan have interests in the region and both are offering advice. If the US took India’s advice, Afghanistan would remain a pariah state and a menace to peace. Not just that, Obama may become a one term President resulting in proliferation of wars and collapse of the world socio-economic order.

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was orderly and under a UN sponsored agreement. Yet it led to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Surely the defeat in Afghanistan alone could not have caused the dissolution of an empire put together over many centuries. When the Soviet Union broke up it was still one of the two super powers with military power unparalleled in history. Afghanistan played the role of the last ounce that tipped the balance. While several generations had overextended Soviet role and power the perestroika generation discovered that the Russian standards of living was well behind that of the rest of Europe. They decided they did not want an empire; they wanted prosperity.

The defeat in Afghanistan also revealed that the military prowess of the Soviet Union was just as hollow as its prosperity. The display of its powerlessness tipped the balance. All the structural weaknesses of the state and the society which had been kept out of sight of the people to maintain a semblance of power and prosperity all showed up. At one time it appeared that it might be difficult to even hold Russia together. But wise leaders and rise in oil prices saved the day and Russia is back in robust good health as a society and a country.

The US is in a much worse position in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union was when it withdrew in 1985. The USSR was contiguous to Afghanistan and therefore had a secure LofC. The US started with the disadvantage of a very long and a very insecure LofC to the war theatre of Afghanistan. To make matters worse, the US Government and the press portrayed the war in Afghanistan as one between Islam and the West. Co-operating with the ‘US War on Terror’ was seen as collaboration. Any Muslim country that committed itself to war on the side of the US in Afghanistan was bound to be unpopular.

Pakistan, which had been a US ally of long standing, was faced with Hobson’s choice. Its troops fight alongside the US whose US drones and helicopters have killed thousands of Pakistanis. The US objectives are murkier than ever. The benign view is that the USA does not know who the enemy is. A more realistic view is that different power centres have different enemies and in the peculiar situation of Pakistan all of those are able to strike at their favourite targets usually unsuccessfully. Pakistan has two power centres – the military and the political class. The political class want money and support for their unpopular rule; the military wants to see the war end early. All the factions of the political class want US support. Until now the US was satisfied with the situation in Pakistan as it did not have to commit it to any side. But obsequiousness to the US has now begun to affect the prospects of success in Afghanistan where the Taliban keep extending their control despite the cruelty of their methods. Clearly, fear has proved to be a more powerful weapon than the battle for hearts and minds.

A review of the objectives and strategy is going on in Pakistan as well. Although Pakistan’s objectives continue to be early withdrawal of US and NATO forces; it fears that the longer the ‘targets’ are present the Afghans would keep shooting at them. Judging by its conduct in the past, the USA might turn on Pakistan at any time. Some in the US see Pakistan’s fear as ‘helpful’ because it precludes Pakistan denying the US vital land access to Afghanistan. But such views sustain suspicion, undermine military operations and make it impossible to evolve common objectives and strategies. The only country which is gleeful about the present situation in Afghanistan is India. Under American protection, India can engage in clandestine operations against Pakistan – particularly in Baluchistan – with impunity. Pakistanis view the situation with concern and suspect that it is the US that drives its joint efforts with India and Karzai’s Afghanistan against Pakistan.

The lingering air of suspicion in US Pakistan relations has undermined America’s efforts to leave the Bush era behind and build bridges with the Muslim World. During his election campaign and his first year in office President Obama showed awareness that he must convince the Muslim World that America is not its enemy. His efforts appeared genuine in intent and honest in content. But the ease with which Israel and its lobbies in the US were able to frustrate him on the minor issue of moratorium on new settlements in occupied Palestinian territories has not only discredited President Obama but also dwarfed the institution of the US President. His supporters are unhappy that he has not pursued his agenda with resolve. In any case his strategy in Afghanistan was founded on a misconception from the outset. The ‘surge’ to win a few battles spectacularly did not work. Afghan resistance which controls 75% of the territory does not appear to be eager to rush to the negotiating table. Any agreement with Hamid Karzai would not be worth the paper it is written on. As things stands now whenever the American leave they would leave it in the control of war lords and there will be a repeat of what happened after the Soviet Union withdrew.

The question is why should the Americans care and what can they do even if they did care. The conventional wisdom is that the US merely wants to ensure that Al-Qaeda did not find a safe haven in Afghanistan once again. That objective has been achieved. The USA has no way of ensuring they do not return but the neighbours of Afghanistan have the will and the ability to ensure that. America can and should work with them. But if America’s real aim is something else it would soon be evident as India takes its seat as a member of the UN Security Council for two years. Actually it is no secret what India wants. It wants the USA to remain entangled in Afghanistan and be viewed by the Muslim World as an enemy. If the Obama Administration adopted the Indian recommendation that would have huge implications for the United States as well as the wider world.

America has two choices in Afghanistan. One is to accept what Pakistan’s military has been saying for a long time i.e. it is the best interest of America to withdraw early and work for a peace agreement with the neighbours of Afghanistan and the war lords Taliban as well as non-Taliban. The other option is to dig in for a long haul in Afghanistan with defeat and ignominious withdrawal a certainty.

Polls in the USA are predicting that the elections in the US due to be held in November may result in the Democratic Party losing control of the Congress. That would set President Obama on course for being another one tern President. The nightmare of America would not end with that. By present trends, the Republican who would win the presidential election would be so right wing and belligerent that he/she could strike many more Muslim countries. The Republican successor of Obama would be real wrecker – a Boris Yeltsin who got his instructions from Tel Aviv. That would be a dream come true for those who aspire for Armageddon in their life time.

It may be already too late for the Democratic Party to win the mid term elections. But it is still possible for President Obama to win a second term if he presented clear choices to the American people who are sick and tired of war. He must stand out as the candidate for peace. To be that he must deliver on complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of his first term in office. US military victory is well nigh impossible but a defeat would be deadlier for Pakistan than Afghanistan which is already devastated by three decades of war. If the Americans accepted the recommendation of Pakistan, our country would have a stake in its success. Pakistan and the USA working together for America to maintain a benign civil presence in the region is an objective all Pakistanis can be comfortable with. But that entails a huge challenge.

The challenge is two-fold. On the one hand it would entail a public information effort to drive home the point that the Taliban had control over more than 75 % of the territory including Kabul and Kandhar but their legitimacy was based on ‘conquest’ alone. If the Americans left Afghanistan without an agreement with the ‘resistance’ the Taliban prospects of ever gain power would evaporate. They might be able to conquer somewhat less of Afghanistan at huge cost but they would still be without legitimacy and international recognition. As a land locked state put together by conquest would a pariah state. A landlocked pariah state can play no role other than being a menace to its people and the region. The Americans are offering the resistance a negotiated peace. That would give them international recognition and legitimacy. If they did not accept the offer Afghanistan would indeed be a menace for all its neighbours. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been the supporter and well wishers of the resistance in Afghanistan. But if it did not accept the advice of its sincere friends, Afghanistan would be on its own condemned to perpetual civil war.

The other challenge comes from the ineffectiveness of the corrupt governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America now has two unpopular governments – Zaradri and Karzai regimes - that it cannot dump or support wholeheartedly. There is still hope in Pakistan where the robustness of its judiciary and the military may prevent excessive damage to other institutions of the state. But one hesitates to make a recommendation for Afghanistan. The Soviet Union resorted to assassination of its erstwhile lackeys - Hafizullah Amin Babrak Karmal - in similar circumstances. What would the US do?

A wrong decision in Afghanistan may not just result in Obama becoming another one term President. He may be followed by Netanyahu as President albeit with a different name; Sarah Palin or Joe Lieberman would do just as well as wreckers of the world. ++

Author: Usman Khalid

(The writer served as Brigadier in the Pakistan Army. He is the Chairman of London Institute of South Asia)

Kosovo: A new surfaced Hot Spot

Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in February 2008 piercingly separated international view. On the one side, the US and several top members of the EU argued that there was no choice but to let Kosovo to go its own means. Regional stability in the Balkans required nothing less than the acknowledgment that Kosovo symbolized, for improved or for worse, a exclusive case under international law.
In disparity with, Russia and China,backed by the mainstream of the world’s states, argued that Kosovo could not be regarded as sui generis. If it could declare independence then the way would be open for others to follow. It was in this context that Serbia managed to secure a resolution putting the very question of the legality of the declaration of independence before the international court of justice.
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo was a request for an advisory opinion referred to the International Court of Justice by the UN General Assembly regarding the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, the latter being the authors of the declaration of independence. This was the first case regarding a unilateral declaration of independence to be brought before the World Court.
The court delivered its advisory opinion on 22 July 2010, opining by a vote of 10 to 4 that “the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law.
The President of ICJ Hisashi Owada read the decision according to which Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate international law in principle, since the latter contains no prohibition of such kind. In this light, he pointed to around 100 similar declarations throughout world history, whose legality has not been questioned. Further, the Court’s decision read that the UN Charter principle of territorial integrity applies to inter-state relations, not secessions. With regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the Court argued that it did not preclude any sort of final status outcome, including independence.
Key considerations for the court – arising from submissions by UN members and Kosovo’s leadership – included issues of sovereignty, the slim volume of precedent in international law, and how former large states such as the Soviet Union broke up along administrative borders.

The judgment did not mention whether Kosovo’s secession was legal, or whether other states could legally recognize its independence. Rather, all it did was to rule that international law does not prohibit the declaration of independence. The ICJ opinion can be summarized in three main points:

1. Kosovo’s Declaration of independence does not violate international law
2. Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244
3. Independence does not violate the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government

Although not binding, the ICJ’s advisory opinion bears significant political weight and forms a turning point in the long-debated Kosovo issue, as it can be seen from the reactions that it provoked both throughout the region, as well as globally. Reactions of the two parties concerned are indicative of their attitudes and their future intentions. Additionally, since each side is not made up of one single subject, it is crucial to examine all basic actors that exercise a larger or smaller influence within each side.

Reaction from Serbia
The advisory opinion of the ICJ came as a slap in the face to the Serbian side. Optimist statements of their leaders in the previous days notwithstanding, Serbs were very disappointed to see that their own initiative backfired, although it had initially been experienced as a victory, when pro-Albanian countries at the UN General Assembly in September 2008 failed to block the Serbian proposal from proceeding to the ICJ.
Serbian president Boris Tadić described the decision as harsh, but nevertheless tried to downplay its impact by pointing out to the rather vague distinction that ICJ itself had made between the unilateral declaration of independence and the right to secede, claiming that the Court concentrated on the technical nature of the former, while it avoided to take positions on the latter, which is of most substance. This distinction, as well as the Court’s omission to rule on the legal implication of the independence declaration (as, for example, on whether it produces statehood), has appeared in the statements of other Serb officials, too, and generated a debate about whether the question to the ICJ was properly formulated by the legal expert team. The government, on its part, reaffirmed its resolution never to recognize an independent Kosovar state and reiterated its commitment to continue fighting by political means. Furthermore, it announced an extraordinary session to examine its next steps, above all seeking the adoption of a favorable resolution at the UN General Assembly.
In conclusion, initial Serb reactions to ICJ’s decision show that no major shift is expected to take place on Serbian policy as far as the Kosovo issue is concerned.

As a consequence, many are those who fear that Serbia again risks turning isolationist and putting its European integration perspective at stake, not only because this perceived national debacle is attributed to the pro-Western block, but also because Serbian citizens largely got disillusioned by the international community, and especially Western nations, most of which stood against their country with no serious reservation.

Reaction from Kosovo
The advisory opinion of the ICJ drew immediate reactions from Kosovo and Albanian-inhabited countries. Scattered across Kosovo, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia and Montenegro, Albanians followed intently what was happening miles away in The Hague. The decision has been interpreted as a historical victory for the Albanian nation, and also an argument that will add many more recognizing states to the current list of 69. Kosovars celebrated the verdict on the streets of Pristina by hugging each other, blowing the horns of their cars and waving Kosovo’s flag, considering the decision a resounding reaffirmation of the legitimacy of their cause.

Kosovo Assembly has adopted a declaration in support of the advisory opinion, stating that the historical decision will contribute to peace and stability not only of the Republic of Kosovo, but the whole region. Considering the Court’s decision to be professional and impartial, respecting at the same time Kosovo citizen’s willingness for independence the declaration call the European Union to find a modus vivendi on Kosovo issue while demands from the reluctant countries to recognize the new state. In clear contrast to Serbian views, Kosovo officials believe that Kosovo does not constitute a precedent in any other case in the world. The Court’s opinion was closely tailored to the unique circumstances of Kosovo; it was not about other regions or states. Furthermore, as far as the statements of Kosovo officials are concerned, it has been clear that nothing in the opinion given by the Court casts any doubt on the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo, which is an established fact.

The reaction from the political parties was in the same wavelength. The IJC opinion was considered from both government and opposition parties as the best answer that has been given thus far on the Kosovo’s right as a legitimate, legal, consolidated and functional state. Generally, there was a consensus between them that the decision is righteous international historical response to historical injustice that has been made to Kosovo. In contrast to Kosovo’s officials, the Vetevendosje (self-determination) movement, a popular nationalist civil society group, does not share the same views. They accuse Kosovo government and politicians of attributing more importance to the formal attributes of Kosovo independence and less to its territorial integrity and genuine sovereignty. Vetevendosje thinks that the government’s celebratory tones are not justified by the ICJ decision since the latter did not rule on the substance of Kosovo’s independence but rather on the fact that the declaration is not illegal. More have to be done for consolidating Kosovo independence. The movement’s leader Albin Kurti protests against the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan as it does not provide sovereignty to Kosovo but a ‘deepening partition’ giving Belgrade actually the opportunity through decentralization to control every Serbian populated territory.

The proceedings themselves proved to be fascinating. While the countries that opposed the declaration of independence resorted to fairly standard arguments about the sanctity of state borders, the states that had recognised Kosovo used an array of approaches to justify Kosovo’s right to secede from Serbia. Perhaps the key argument made was that a declaration of independence has no legal meaning in itself. It is the act of recognition that counts, and this is a political decision that remains the sovereign prerogative of states. In other words, it was suggested that the court had been asked the wrong question.

Nationalism as the Root of the Conflict
The Kosovo conflict has its root causes in the clash of two distinct types of nationalism. The first is the Albanian both separate and emancipatory nationalism.
The separate nationalism is associated with the long-lasting goal of Kosovar Albanians to secede from Serbia. For Hobsbawm, this type of nationalism is characteristic of post-communist multinational/ federal states. In both of the multinational “real socialist” societies, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, it was officially claimed that the national question was successfully solved. It turned out that it was not. Old national conflicts appeared, at least temporarily, unresolved. Under the conditions of accelerated material growth and progressively improving standards of living, they assumed a latent form. They flared up soon after those societies had entered a period of serious economic and political crisis. The basis is that after democratic changes in communist federations, the formation of separate nationalism occurs in federal units when these units are based on national identities. This was a major explanation of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR.
However, we cannot neglect the earlier history of Albanian nationalism, which starts at the end of the 19th century with the formation of national states in the Balkans. This nationalism was emancipatory, in terms of freeing oneself from the Ottoman Empire, and from Serbia respectively.

Kosovo split from Serbia in 2008 after a bloody war in 1998-99 and nearly a decade of international administration.
Triggered by a brutal crackdown by Serb forces against Kosovan separatists, the war saw about 10,000 ethnic Albanians die before ending with a 78-day Nato bombing campaign. Hundreds of Serbs were killed in retaliatory attacks.
Today Kosovo, itself divided, with a Serb enclave in the north around the town of Mitrovica, said Serbia should now deal with it as a sovereign state. “This is a great day for Kosovo, and my message to the government of Serbia is ‘come and talk to us,’” the foreign minister, Skender Hyseni, said outside court.
The ruling is expected to bolster demands for recognition by territories as diverse as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
The ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact in Mitrovica, where the Serb majority has broken away and deadlock sometimes erupts into violence. The ruling will reinforce Kosovan resistance to any kind of renegotiation, particularly over the status of Serb majority areas in the north where a small area with a Serb majority has split away itself around the north of the town of Mitrovica, which has about 100,000 residents .
This is undoubtedly a victory for Kosovo – but only of sorts. It could have been told that the UDI was illegal, which would have put all those states that recognised it in a very tight spot. However, the narrowness of the opinion means that the positive effects for Kosovo in the short- to medium-term are likely to be rather more limited than one might expect. States, such as Russia and China, that oppose Kosovo’s independence on the grounds that it is an illegal act of secession can hold to this position. The court did not, after all, issue an opinion on this point. They can argue that by actually recognising Kosovo they will be legitimising what they still believes is an illegal act of secession. This will prevent Kosovo from joining the UN and other international organisations. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found.
As for the wider picture, what sort of impact does this have for other secessionist entities seeking statehood? In short, not that much. It means that any group or territory can declare independence. What matters is whether they are recognised. This has always been the hard part, and will remain so.
To conclude, partition is not perfect; it is painful and it carries risks, but the current situation is shaky. The resulting deadlock has sometimes erupted into violence with Serbs and Kosovans running their own areas. It is better to move the border than people to be trapped by it. Partition is certainly not a universal solution. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found. When everything else has failed, we need to have the courage to have responsibility for the solution

Author: Mahmud Amin

Mr Gates’ statement about Turkey-Israel relation and a BBC report

According to a BBC report titled “US Defence Secretary Gates blames EU for Turkey ‘drift’” (Wednesday 9 June 2010, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10275379.stm), the American Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently said that the strain relationship between Turkey and the Zionist state Israel was caused by EU’s denial to give Turkey its membership. We all understand that EU’s political stance on Turkey’s entry is influenced by Europe’s prejudice against Muslims and Muslim states and we all believe that Turkey’s inclusion in the EU is long overdue.

However, what is surprising is the fact that Mr Gates failed to see any other good reasons for Turkey’s diplomatic strain with Israel. Routine killings of Palestinians by the Israelis, usurpation of Palestinian land and dispossession of the Palestinians, the Israeli genocide of 2008 that left Gaza in tatters and killed over 1,400 people including women and children, the blockade of Gaza by Israel since Hamas was elected to power, the recent Israeli attacks on humanitarian aid flotilla that left 9 dead and dozens injured and so many recurrent human rights violations by Israel are no credible reasons to Mr Gates for which a country or individual can and should hate the Zionist state!

As members of the larger human community worldwide, it is time for us to stop and think about what we stand for. Has human life become so cheap and insignificant? Has diplomacy replaced our sense of humanity and concerns for human life? How long will the language of power dominate that of moral and ethical values? Is it so difficult for the western governments to consider Muslims as equal human beings?

Mr Gates really baffles us and offends our human conscience, as he could not condemn Israel for such continuous, blatant human rights violations and for all its murderous acts; he rather seems to be more concerned with the practices and practicalities of diplomacy. BBC’s report is no less baffling. It begins the said report with “Turkey’s growing hostility to Israel”. What hostility has Turkey shown or done to Israel? Isn’t it Israel that humiliated Turkey’s ambassador to the country and isn’t it Israel that killed Turkish citizens? How long shall we have to read such biased reports? I don’t know what God’s plan is. But what I believe is that these injustices by the Western governments and distortions of facts by the media should stop for the sake of our common humanity.

Author: Shimul Chaudhury

Does Israel rule the world?

With many of the major powers bowing to Tel Aviv, those aboard the Freedom Flotilla should be praised for risking their lives

Yesterday, the Israeli military attacked and boarded one of the Turkish aid ships sailing to Gaza as part of a flotilla, killing 19 and injuring many more. As this occurred in international waters, it is not only an act of piracy but could also be construed as an ‘act of war’. This attack on unarmed civilian men and women illustrates the moral depths to which the Jewish state has sunk.

An Al Jazeera reporter on board the vessel says the Israelis fired live bullets even after a white flag was hoisted. This atrocity and the potential fall-out should merit loud condemnation from the international community … but don’t hold your breath! We have yet to witness the extent of Turkey’s response.

Why are so many nations bending to Israel’s will or staying silent on its crimes? What is it about this minuscule country that enables it to have so much control on decisions made by larger and more powerful nations? It refuses to abide by international laws and treaties. It illegally occupies great swathes of Palestinian land and it’s imposing an illegal blockade on Gaza. Moreover, it is the only country that could get away with assassinating its enemies on foreign soil.

* If any other country or territory with a smaller population than New York behaved as outrageously as Israel, it would be isolated, boycotted and, perhaps, even invaded. Yet, Israel gets away with ignoring a long list of UN Security Council resolutions — as opposed to Saddam’s Iraq, which was invaded, plundered and occupied on those same grounds.
* Israel has a stockpile of undeclared nuclear weapons and, as documentation recently released by Pretoria confirms, was prepared to sell nuclear warheads and technology to South Africa during apartheid; a reality that counters US claims that Israel is a responsible democracy that would never supply weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to rogue states.
* Iran, on the other hand, which does not have nuclear weapons — and, unlike Israel, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — is being subjected to UN sanctions.
* Last Friday, all 189 signatories to the NPT — including the US — agreed to hold a conference during 2012 “on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons …” Sounds good! President Barack Obama has espoused the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East.
* The entire Arab world has been pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has long called for a nuclear-free region.

But wait! The usual suspect, Israel, is none too pleased because it believes it is being singled out. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the call as “deeply flawed and hypocritical”, while his office has issued a statement that reads: “As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this conference, which has no authority over Israel”.

No surprise there! But then Obama promptly does an about-turn, saying, “We strongly oppose efforts to single-out Israel and will oppose actions that jeopardise Israel’s security”. His message begs the question, how on earth can the region ever be free of nuclear weapons if Israel is kept out of the equation when it is the only nuclear country in the area?

Change of heart

Now here’s a turn of events that makes me wonder whether America’s capital city is actually Tel Aviv.
When the proposed uranium swap between Iran and Brazil that is slated to take place on Turkish soil was recently announced, the White House dismissed it as a delaying tactic on the part of Tehran and began to pressurise UN Security Council members to agree to a new round of anti-Iranian sanctions.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says a proposal that buys time for Iran “makes the world more dangerous, not less”.

In response, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the US and its allies of “lacking a fair and sincere approach”.

He is absolutely right and it appears that the Brazilian president agrees with him.

In a break from protocol, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has leaked a letter he received from his US counterpart in April this year in which Obama warmly supported the uranium swap, provided Iran were to agree to Turkey holding its low-enriched uranium “in escrow” for up to a year.

“Iran has never pursued the ‘escrow’ compromise and has provided no credible explanation for its rejection,” Obama wrote. Now that Tehran has rubber-stamped the very procedure Obama advocated in the missive, it seems that he is unable to take ‘yes’ for an answer. Could it be because Netanyahu has denounced the fuel deal as “trickery” intended to avoid international sanctions?

The US is far from being the only country allowing Israel to call the tune. Greek Cypriot authorities attempted to prevent a group that included 17 Irish, Bulgarian and Swedish members of parliament from travelling on small ferry boats to join the aid flotilla attempting to break the siege of Gaza in order to protect the island’s “vital interests”.

When much of the western world bows and scrapes in front of the Israeli standard, those aboard ships in the Flotilla should be applauded for risking their lives to do what is right. It’s beyond time that the international community grew a backbone and followed suit!

By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News June 1, 2010
- Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs.

Judicial Murder: From Joan of Arc to ZA Bhutto to Col (R) Farook, Col (R) Shahriar, etc.

Possibility
On the 31st anniversary of the hanging to death of the then Pakistan PM ZA Bhutto in April 1979 the seating PM of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Reza Gilani a few days go has publicly reiterated that the PPP government under his leadership is going to reopen the case of judicial murder of Z. A. Bhutto. He did not say when and how they are going to reopen the case, but one can presume both difficulties and possibilities that there are causes for action in the court of law.

ZA Bhutto Issue
ZA Bhutto deposed from power by army coup in 1977 was put on trial for a murder charge that many considered controversial. The then Army Chief General Ziaul Haq led the coup against him, then took over as the President, made a controversial murder charge, and the pliant court gave him death sentence and so was he hanged to death on 4th April 1979. General Ziaul Haq engineered successfully to stay in power until late 1988 when he was killed in a mysterious air crash. The election held right after the Pakistan Peoples Party established by ZA Bhutto won and Bhutto’s Oxford educated daughter Benazir formed the government. She became the PM, first woman PM in any Muslim/Islamic country on December 2 1988. She stayed in power this term for about two years and was dismissed by the President for corruption. During the two year period in power, she did not do anything openly of her pains of losing father in a controversial court decision and execution to death that is being now termed possibly rightly so as the judicial murder. She became once again the PM in October 1993 but even at the second turn she remained almost silent about her father’s tragic demise in the judicial murder. How come then the issue is now picked up not only 31 years after but also at a time when none of Bhutto’s progeny is alive; his two sons were mysteriously killed and passed away, and his only daughter Benazir, as well, got killed in terrorist attack in December 2007 that is yet to be traced out who were responsible for her killing. In the backdrop of ongoing Pakistani politics, whether the judicial murder case of ZA Bhutto would have any useful redress is to be seen.

Judicial Murder Case of Joan of Arc
Judicial murder of important personalities in the history of other nations is on record. One such was in France in the early 15th century. Joan of Arc for her valor as a young soldier and commander had driven out the Englishmen who kept in occupation North of France and secured freedom for her nation except regaining Paris, the capital. Unfortunately, instead of rewarding her with prize and credit, she had been given death sentence and burnt to death as a ‘witch’ in 1431 A.D. Those who ordained for her punishment to death were all French ecclesiastics enticed and supported by the English ecclesiastics from the other side of the English Channel. The English churches had the prompting for the fact that the English people had to face defeat at the war effort of young commander Joan. For nearly five centuries, in the rise and fall of the French nation since then, her position remained in obscurity and then was reopened for consideration as a likely case of judicial murder. In early 20th century in 1920 after 489 years of her burning to death in 1431 A.D., she was not only freed from the charge of being a witch but also awarded by the French church the highest award as the SAINT and recognized by France as the great patriot.

In Wrong Headed Hasina’s Bangladesh
In Bangladesh we have similar case of the latest judicial murder. On the 27th January 2010 five former brilliant army officers were given death sentence and were immediately hanged to death on the night of 27-28 January as simple murderer under Cr.P.C. That they had been victorious mutineers with indemnity inherent and not ordinary murderers was rightly echoed by many as clear Political Trial (The Economist, 27 November 2009) out of vengeance of the PM Hasina for her father’s blood. She thus eliminated the only hard line enemies she had in Bangladesh politics that chilled Delhi’s spine as well. The spineless judges failed to rise above collusive executive interference for petty personal gains that in fairness all sensible ones duly expected the judges to stand firmly for that they had not been ordinary killers but heroes of successful mutiny that in it enjoyed indemnity for bloodletting during coup proper. That was why many advanced democratic countries and well known humanitarian organizations raised their voices in protest against the execution to death. Whether the judicial murder perpetrated here in Dhaka in late January would be taken up for due redress in future by some patriotic souls in government replacing the vengeful fifth columnist wrong headed woman (Earlier the freer High Court so judged her as wrong headed) Hasina, no matter if that would take 35 years as she took in her blood thirst remains to be seen for the future progeny.

Unity of Inner Voice
From the available information from authentic sources there seemed to have had curious unity of ‘Inner Voice’ that inspired both Joan and Farook for the task they had undertaken in driving out particular anti-national oppressors of their own times and places. Farook, etc. had no remorse but pride as was well known for the heroically noble job undertaken on the 15th August 1975 just as Joan of France did have no remorse but pride in her driving out the occupier Englishmen. During her so-called partisan trial in Paris in 1931 youthful Joan of Arc stated very firmly: “Everything that I have done that was good I did by command of my voices” (Brockhampton, Dictionary of World History, London edition 1997, p.321). In their unity of inner voices it was clearly established that they were spiritually elevated souls and have undoubtedly become the great SHAHIDS or martyrs.

Author: BK Din

US-China new strategic equation

What happens when country A owns $800 billion worth of bonds from an international rival, country B? Country A starts to call the shots.

Yes, there’s a strong mutuality about that position - neither can afford the deterioration of that financial equation. But if that ‘money talks’ analysis sounds a somewhat crude estimate of the outcome of President Obama’s visit to Asia it is nevertheless where we are at this juncture in the relationship.

Above all, the meetings illustrated all too graphically how the world landscape of power has been transformed by the banking crisis in ways that no one could have imagined even a year ago.

For the Americans the good news is that their current position internationally - with debilitating commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq - could well improve dramatically in the medium term if the right decisions are taken. But for the Chinese a myriad of contradictions could mean the gloss comes off their rise to greater power and influence.

The meetings and their outcomes were classically Chinese - developing themes and directions and obtaining commitments, however vague, which will inform the relationship over the coming decades. Indeed, at first blush, it is hard to see what Washington took away from the exchanges in terms of specific gains.

First of all the Chinese were looking for some kind of long-term strategic relationship. They would have liked a ’strategic partnership’ which, in their eyes, would have been virtually indistinguishable from an alliance. That they did not get but they achieved a commitment to a regime of ’strategic bilateral trust’ - a gloriously vague term which may be invoked by Beijing at any moment when they believe the Americans are becoming too intrusive in their area of influence.

It raises more questions than it answers. Would it, for example, mean that Washington would have to adopt the Chinese’ understanding of the word ’strategic’, the area it covered and what maintaining that trust would entail? Does it mean that Washington must cease and desist from commenting on what happens in Tibet because it is part of the Chinese landmass and does it mean that American plans to step up their trade, influence and, in some cases, military relationship not only with Laos and Cambodia but also Burma where Chinese influence is all-pervasive will be put at risk?

Anybody interested in trying to help blighted minorities in the Asian hinterland or even atempt to beter the lot of the imprisoned Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi must begin to consider the visit potentially a retrograde step, never mind enhancing our ability to disentangle truth from propaganda in northwest China where the Uyghurs are variously seen as an Al Qaeda franchise or a disenfranchised Muslim minority whose rights mean nothing to Beijing policy makers. We are also left to wonder what all of this means for Taiwan should the Chinese get restive if the inevitable unification does not follow their time schedule.

For their part the Washington policy makers have agreed to recognise a ’strong and prosperous China’ and to do nothing to hinder its economic progress, not that there was any viable alternative for a nation which is already so in hock to its Pacific partner.

In return Beijing deigned to recognise the United States as a power with geostrategic interests in the Pacific, something that has been apparent to the rest of the world for some time now and which, in any event, is no great concession from a rising power to a declining one.

That recognition appears to acknowledge that the two nations have interests in common and that Beijing might be willing to support U.S. regional interventions in the area in the future. That, of course, could work two ways and it may be that the U.S. will be able to use its influence to moderate Chinese behaviour against American allies such as Japan.

The U.S. also agreed to cooperate in the fields of aviation, aerospace and environmental technology which some observers see as a precursor to the lifting of the arms embargo against China that has been in place since the dreadful events of Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Two areas where the U.S. and China see prospects for mutually beneficial co-operation are in Iran and Afghanistan, though the balance of benefits would surely fall to Washington should they agree to take practical cooperative measures in both countries. And therein lies the overall difficulty for the Americans: they need the Chinese more than vice versa.

In its Iranian policy the new American administration has elected to pursue the same policy of sanctions that was pursued so fruitlessly by its predecessor.

So far Washington has failed to get decisive traction with any of the countries which can actually affect the outcome on sanctions. China is one of their few remaining hopes, albeit a slender one. And one of the few surprises of the Beijing meeting between the two leaders was the apparent commitment of the Chinese to take a more active part in resolving the standoff over Iran’s determination to develop its nuclear capability.

China is heavily commited to trading with and developing the Iranian hydrocarbons sector. The Iranians are a key element of Beijing’s plans to import energy across the Asian landmass by pipeline well away from the potential interdiction of its supplies through the Indian Ocean.

Already this year China has signed $8 billion worth of contracts with Tehran to help expand two existing oil refineries and to develop the large South Pars natural gas field. The Iranian national oil corporation, meanwhile, has invited Chinese firms to participate in a $42.8 billion project to build seven oil refineries and a 1,600 kilometre trans-Iranian pipeline that will help it import fuel from the country.

China, then, certainly has an interest in the maintenance of stability in Iran but it is hard to see what the Chinese might do to sort out the nation’s domestic political conflicts or to influence national policy on such a sensitive issue. Still, America needs all the friends it can get on this front But if it is to benefit at all it needs to recognise the growing triad of energy interests that is fast developing between China, Russia and Iran. Whether it can be navigated in support of America’s punitive policy against Iran is another mater.

On Afghanistan the United States is in a bind over its approach to China.

Beijing has recently commited itself to the largest-ever inward investment into Afghanistan worth $3.5 billion. This is its down payment towards the development of the Aynak copper field which is said to contain some $88 billion worth of the precious metal, a value which is roughly twice the country’s gross national product

Not surprisingly, this has won the Chinese a lot of friends in the corridors of power in Kabul but it is galling to the Nato allies and the Americans to see their troops effectively policing and protecting a strategic Chinese investment when Beijing is taking no discernible risk. And Beijing clearly does not intend to since it has declared that it wants to see a setlement between the various tribal factions at the earliest opportunity.

So, do the Americans try and get the Chinese involved with troops on the ground as part of the price of geting their hands on all that copper? Perhaps, but then a litle bit of instability on the route to China’s Muslim ‘back door’ in Xinjiang is not entirely to Washington’s dislike. The new Asian dispensation between Beijing and Washington is clearly going to be a complex exercise.

Author: David Wats
Source: The New Nation