As government attempts to track every purchase to increase their power, Australia is spearheading this war on cash by outlawing any purchases in cash over $10,000.
The post War On Cash Goes into Full Effect — Purchases Over $10,000 ILLEGAL in Australia appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The island nation of New Zealand is bracing itself for what scientists are calling “super gonorrhea.” They say it is not a matter of ‘if’ the nation will be impacted by the disease, but a matter of ‘when.’
A historically resistant strain of gonorrhea has made its way from South East Asia to the United Kingdom and Australia, and experts are warning New Zealand will be struck next by the antibiotic-resistant super-bug gonorrhea strain. It’s in Eastern Australia, and it’s in Queensland, Australia, so those in New Zealand are rightly concerned.
Last month, it was reported a British man had contracted what was dubbed the world’s ‘worst ever’ case of gonorrhea, that he picked up in southeast Asia. It was the first documented case of the sexually transmitted infection that could not be cured with a combination of standard antibiotics. England’s public health agency even launched an “incident response” after discovering more cases of gonorrhea recently that are resistant to nearly all antibiotics currently available.
So, how long will it be before it makes its way to New Zealand? According to Family Planning’s Christine Roke, “if it isn’t here now, it will be very soon.” Auckland University associate professor of infectious diseases Mark Thomas agrees, telling Morning Report it’s “almost certain” there will be cases within the next year or two. It’s simply a matter of “who has sex with who,” he said.
Gonorrhea is caused by the Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteria. The symptoms of the disease are difficult for men to live with, so most know fairly soon if they’ve contracted the infection. Symptoms can include discolored discharge, stomach pain, various forms of bleeding from the genitalia, discharge or bleeding from the anus and, for the fellas, sore testes. Women often are unaware of an infection, as it normally infects the cervix, which has no sensation. Occasionally you may also get a dry throat if you’ve contracted the bacteria. Normally, it has been easily treated with antibiotics, however, this new strain, appears to be resistant.
“The problem with gonorrhea is it’s a very wily bug,” says Roke. “And it’s able to mutate very easily. This leads to developing resistance.” Thomas agreed, adding that it is entirely possible that within the next ten years, humanity will run out of drugs to treat the bacteria. Roke also says that with international travel at the levels it is these days, it’s only a matter of time before someone smuggles the gonorrhea bacteria unintentionally into the country. As invasive as customs can be, New Zealand is not exactly screening for this stuff at the border.
Thomas said the current test for gonorrhea does not determine if the usual treatment of an injection antibiotic and two oral antibiotic pills will work. He said more resistant strains will require hospitals to administer the necessary antibiotics.
An infectious flesh-eating ulcer caused by a bacteria is spreading so quickly through Australia that scientists in the state of Victoria are declaring this outbreak an epidemic. Normally abundant in West and central Africa and, the buruli ulcer is now taking hold in the “land down under.”
In a study published Monday in the Medical Journal of Australia, the authors caution that the outbreak of the ulcers, described as an “epidemic” in the study, requires an “urgent scientific response.” They report that Victoria is facing a worsening epidemic “defined by cases rapidly increasing in number, becoming more severe in nature, and occurring in new geographic areas.”
Buruli ulcer is caused by infection with the organism Mycobacterium ulcerans. It often affects the skin by deteriorating the tissue, but can go so deep it affects the bone structure. The organism belongs to the family of bacteria that causes tuberculosis and leprosy. However, M. ulcerans is an environmental bacterium and the mode of transmission to humans remains unknown. The organism produces a unique toxin – mycolactone – which causes tissue damage and inhibits the immune response.
According to numbers reported by CNN, in 2016, there were 182 new cases reported, a spike of 72%. But even this number was dwarfed by a further increase of 51% from November 2016 to the same month a year later. In November 2016, there were 156, which rose to 236 cases.
“In Australia, it seems more to be a terrestrial transmission whereas in Africa, for example, the strain is very different and is mostly transmitted through aquatic ecosystems,” said Andres Garchitorena, a researcher at the Institute of Research and Development in France and an expert on Buruli ulcers, who was not involved in the most recent report.
But the cases in Australia are becoming more severe and doctors also do not know the reason. “One possibility is maybe there’s some resistance to the antibiotics that they are using,” Garchitorena said. “It is difficult to prevent a disease when it is not known how infection is acquired,” wrote the lead author and associate professor Daniel O’Brien, an infectious diseases consultant.
Although some deaths from the infection have been reported, most cases are not life-threatening, according to Garchitorena. “There are cases where people have died, but the most common outcome when it’s not treated is a handicap: People may need an amputation or surgery with functional limitations for life,” he said. WHO also reports management of the buruli ulcer becomes more difficult when the patient is dealing with a coinfection of HIV, perhaps lending to the increased severity of the infections in Africa, although that’s largely speculation as still more in-depth studies of this disease are warranted.
The majority of cases are still being reported in West and Central Africa, including Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ghana. There are no predictable trends in the number of cases reported yearly either.
Australia is at risk of running out of fuel in the next few weeks due to the ongoing conflict in Syria. The escalating situation in the war-torn country threatens to cripple the supply chains that keep Australia going.
While the International Energy Agency mandates that countries hold a stock reserve “equivalent to 90 days of net imports,” Australia only has 43 days worth of supply, the Australian reports. And that could be cut down even further if a global crisis threatens supply channels from places like the Middle East.
Low oil reserves and an over-dependence on imports is what’s driving Austrailia’s fuel concerns. Defense Strategy and Capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Dr. Malcolm Davis says Australia’s fuel reserves would last “20 days at best” if supplies were cut off, News.com.au reports. “[Australia is] one of the few countries in the world that does not take our energy security seriously,” said Dr. Davis. “It would be a Mad Max world. Our society and our economy would begin to fall apart very quickly… [because] everything depends on fuel to make an economy run. It is very serious.”
The rather ominous forecast comes in the wake of major US-led strikes on the Syrian government. As tensions escalate and threaten to compromise international trade, this could prove dire for Australia: a nation that outsources its oil refining to such international locations as Singapore. “Instead of investing in refinement facilities here for refining fuel, the government has decided it’s cheaper to do it overseas,” said Dr. Davis. “The price they pay for that in a crisis is that China can interrupt flow to Australia [from Singapore] relatively easy and our economy falls apart.”
According to The Daily Mail UK, liberal Senator and former major general in the Australian Army Jim Molan agrees that “we [Australia] stand[s] in real trouble.” Speaking to 2GB on Monday Morning, Molan criticized the government’s passive approach to issues of fuel supply and energy security, calling it “a single point of failure for Australia.”
“The way that we seem to get around this is that we buy credits overseas which ignores the entire problem,” Nolan said. “Those credits say that if things go wrong we can buy from overseas, but hang on: our supply lines of communication by ship are likely to be either threatened or because of insurers nothing will come to us at all.”
Moreover, a chronic shortage of petrol, diesel, and aviation fuel could render the Australian military immobile, and in these times where rhetoric and tensions over a war are high, that could prove disastrous for the country.
One of the most common phrases heard from senior Australian government officials including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister is Australia’s belief in what it is pleased to call the “rules based international order.” This phrase is usually used in the context of implied or explicit criticism of another nation with whom Australia is in disagreement. For example, Australia is very prone to criticizing Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea, or China’s assertion of its claimed rights in the South China Sea.
The inference one is expected to draw is that other countries may breach international law but Australia is a model of probity by comparison. This claim looks slightly tattered in the light of Australia’s manifest breaches of international instruments that it is a signatory to in its treatment of refugees, or the bullying of East Timor over the development of maritime resources.
As serious as these matters are they pale in comparison with the waging of a war against another sovereign nation. The history of Australia’s involvement in the waging of a war against the sovereign government of Syria is a case in point.
On 16 September 2014 the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott gave an interview to the ABC. In the interview he expressed as reservations about Australia becoming involved in a war that was being conducted by the United States, mainly through its support of proxy terrorist groups who it was financing and arming in conjunction with its allies Saudi Arabia and Israel.
”The legalities” he said, “of operating inside Syria are quite different from the legalities of operating in Iraq at the request and in support of the Iraqi government.”
Two weeks after that interview the Australian government received legal advice dated 30 September 2014 that it failed to disclose or even indicate that it had received such advice. Abbott was overthrown in an internal coup by Malcolm Turnbull on 15 September 2015.
One week prior to the coup Australia had written a letter to the United Nations Security Council on 9 September 2015. In that letter Australia claimed that the United States was justified in making military strikes against Syria on the basis that Syria was “unwilling and unable” to prevent the use of its territory to conduct terrorist attacks against Iraq.
Curiously, the United States made the same claim in its letter to the Security Council justifying its actions on Syrian sovereign territory, but their letter was dated 23 September 2014. In other words, it took a whole year and a change of prime minister to persuade Australia that its actions could be justified in terms of the “unwilling and unable” doctrine. We do not know why the Australian government changed its mind, particularly as it had been sitting on legal advice about the advisability or otherwise of joining the Syrian war for nearly a year.
We do not know because the matter has never been debated in the Australian parliament and neither has the Australian government released the legal advice, which it had received in September 2014. Rather, its public statements on the matter have being misleading. For example, in August 2015 the Foreign Minister said that no decision would be made on whether to join the American assault upon Syria until it had received legal advice. She did not disclose that the Australian government had in fact received the legal advice nearly a year earlier.
As the government has refused to release the legal advice we do not know whether or not that advice relied upon the “unwilling or unable doctrine.” It is not a minor matter as the status of such a doctrine can best be described as dubious in international law, and without that fig leaf of legal respectability, there is no other basis upon which Australia could claim any entitlement to wage war in Syria.
Interestingly, when the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was interviewed on ABC radio after the publication of an article by this writer criticizing the illegality of the decision, she claimed that the decision to join the war in Syria was made “pursuant to the collective self defence provisions of the article 51 of the UN Charter, and at the request of the Iraqi government”. No mention at all was made of the reliance upon the “unwilling or unable” doctrine.
There were a number of problems with the Foreign Minister’s explanation. First, the Office of the Prime Minister of Iraq issued a statement saying that it had made no such request of the Australian government. No written evidence of any such request has ever been produced by the Australian government. Furthermore, in their own letter to the Security Council dated 20 September 2014 the Iraq government had only asked for help within its own territorial boundaries to enable it to regain control of its own borders.
Specifically, Iraq did not invoke article 51 of the UN charter. The linking of an explicit request for help in the exercise of collective self-defence is legally significant as it is a precondition for the involvement of third nations, as has been recognised international law since the Nicaragua Case in 1986.
Equally curiously, neither the United States nor Australia that reportedly rely upon the “unwilling or unable” doctrine mentioned collective self defence in the numerous debates that took place in the Security Council before 30 September 2015, more than one year after strikes against Syria began.
The Syrian government has consistently protested in formal letters to the Security Council against the involvement of Australia and others on their territory. In their letter of 21 September 2015 to the Security Council Syria again complained that the actions of Australia and others did not follow any consultation with the Syrian government and that Australia (and others) had distorted both the provisions of international law and the UN Charter.
A similar complaint has been made by the Russian government, who unlike the United States and it’s so called coalition allies, is in Syria at the specific request of the sovereign Syrian government. Iranian, Iraqi and Hezbollah troops operating in Syria are similarly there at the request of the Syrian government.
Neither did Australia call upon the numerous relevant resolutions of both the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly is providing legitimacy for its position. Not a single one of those resolutions makes any reference to either article 51 or the unwilling or unable argument.
On the contrary, United Nations Security Council resolution 2178 (2014) specifically called upon “member states to cooperate and consistently support each other’s efforts to counter violent extremism”. On the 19th of September 2014 the Security Council reaffirmed “it’s respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in accordance with the UN Charter.”
On 18 December 2014 the General Assembly reaffirmed “it’s strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the principles of the Charter.” There is no single document emanating from either the Security Council or the General Assembly that approves any unilateral military action, much less one relying upon the dubious doctrine of “unwilling or unable.”
This is hardly surprising. To adopt such a doctrine would significantly lower the thresholds contained in both Article 2.4 (the general prohibition on the use of force) and Article 51 (self defence) of the Charter. The Armed Activities decision of the International Court of Justice (2005) reinforces this view. The court expressly stated that the inability to put an end to irregular military activities does not justify a violation of Article 2.4.
Applied to the Syrian situation, the fact that as of 2015 Syria and it’s Russian, Iraqi, and Hezbollah allies had not then succeeded in defeating the ISIS terrorists did not justify third party intervention. Bishop’s statement and Australia’s letter to the Security Council is based on the assumption that Article 51 could be applied two non-state actors such as ISIS.
There is absolutely no support for this view, neither in international law texts nor any judgement all the International Court of Justice. Even if Iraq had asked for Australia’s help, as claimed by Bishop but refuted by the Iraqi Government, it would still be insufficient to justify Australia attacking Syrian territory. Under Article 39 of the UN Charter it is the Security Council that is the competent body to determine any threats to peace and to make the appropriate recommendations to restore International peace and security.
It is increasingly clear that the Syrian government with the assistance of its legitimate allies has succeeded in almost completely liberating its major cities from the terrorist occupation they have suffered for many years. This is despite the blatant obstruction by the United States that continues to support its proxy terrorist allies, and has openly attacked Syrian government forces, as well as occupying Syrian territory and setting up military bases. It has declared its intention to remain in Syria, despite the complete absence of any legal justification for doing so.
The Australian government for its part has made a token reduction in its military operations in Syria, but typically refuses to disclose details; continues to criticize the Syrian government; and remains unwavering in its support for the continuing illegal actions of the United States in Syria. It also seems incapable of acknowledging the critical role played by Russia in helping the sovereign Syrian government rid its territory of the terrorist menace.
Given that the fig leaf of legal respectability that the Australian government claimed for itself in respect of Syria has been demolished both in the legal and practical terms the time is now long past for the Australian government to withdraw completely for all military operations in Syria, and take some steps to match its rhetoric about its compliance with, and adherence to, the rules based international order with its actions.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In 2005 Japan raised the possibility of a separate grouping of four nations, Australia, India, Japan and the United States, as a potential counterweight to the growing power of China. It was an ill-considered notion then, and nothing has happened since then to make it a better idea. If anything, it is a worse idea now that was 12 years ago.
Notwithstanding the illogicality and counter-productive nature of the proposal we see the same four nations yet again raising the possibility of a “Quad” alliance. The one constant factor apart from the profound stupidity of the idea is that having an ambition to constrain China remains at the core. That Australia should even contemplate joining such an ad hoc alliance highlights the fundamental dilemma confronting Australia’s foreign policy.
On the one hand Australian foreign policy and defence commentators, strategists and politicians constantly reiterate that United States is the cornerstone or bedrock of Australia’s security strategy. The rhetoric surrounding this reached its apogee last year with Prime Minister Turnbull declaring that Australia and the United States were “joined at the hip” on defence and security issues.
On the other hand however, not only is Australia geographically located in the Asia-Pacific region, its trade and other relationships are increasingly integrated into what the Australian defence planners used to call “Australia’s Near North.”
The recently released trade statistics for the 2016-2017 calendar years are revealing. Of total exports of $291.4 billion, 71.8% went to the East Asia market (China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan). This compares with just under $19 billion for the whole of the European Union, and less than $17 billion for the whole of the Americas, from Canada to Patagonia. That latter figure was actually a decline of 5.9% over the previous year.
Conversely, trade with China rose 27.1%, Hong Kong 45.7%, Japan 17.4% and South Korea 15%.
In 2015 Australia signed both a free trade agreement with China, and also membership of the China initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
In December 2017 however, Australia was participating in a meeting in India, the so-called Raisina Dialogue, attended by the next US ambassador to Australia, well known Sinophobe Admiral Harry Harris, and the naval chiefs of staff of Japan, India and Australia.
In addressing the meeting, Harris said “the reality is that China is a disruptive transitional force in the Indo Pacific. They are the owner of the trust deficit that we have spent the last hour or so talking about.”
Harris’s terminology reflected the language of the latest Pentagon defence strategy, released in December 2017, that label to China and Russia “revisionist powers bent on undermining the international rules based order” and accused China of “predatory economics” that sees its expression in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
It was no coincidence that the theme of the Raisina Dialogue was “managing disruptive transitions.” In one sense that is true. The BRI will certainly “disrupt” the existing order, both in trade and geopolitically. Whether or not one sees that as a good or a bad thing, depends in part on one’s view of the existing geopolitical order.
This is the order that western politicians and commentators almost invariably cite as the “rules based international order”, the standard bearer and upholder of which is also almost invariably cited as the United States.
One of the greatest difficulties in persuading Australians to address the dichotomy between their perceived security interests (US centred) and their national trade interests (East Asian centred) is to have them understand that the parrot like recitation of the United States as an upholder of the rules based international system is based upon a complete fiction.
The United States has been at war for 225 of the 242 years since its independence in 1776. Since 1945 alone it has attacked and in many cases occupied, at least 37 nations, killing more than 30 million people in the process. It has engineered “regime change” in at least as many countries again. It is the single greatest violator of international law of any nation on the planet. Its list of broken international agreements is a major reason why Vladimir Putin described the United States last year as “not agreement capable.”
The BRI, contrary to Harris’s reported comments, is an outstanding example of multilateral peaceful development. Of course China wants a geopolitical benefit from its huge investments. The outstanding difference with the history of the Western great powers of old however, is that China does not and never has, sought to subjugate countries that provide its raw materials. Neither has it invaded other countries nor sought “regime change” in governments who failed to comply with its wishes.
The lessons of history are clear for those not blinded by ideology and a fantasy view of reality.
The Quad proposal is as internally inconsistent now as it was when first proposed in 2005. If it was truly a union of democratic forces seeking to provide peace and security in the Indo Pacific region, why then does it not include, for example, Indonesia, Singapore and South Korea?
The reason should be obvious. Those three countries perceive the Quad for what it is: a thinly veiled anti-China alliance to replace the Obama administrations failed pivot to Asia. They are smart enough not to be associated with a scheme that would upset its most important trading partner and the major power in the region, if not yet the world.
There are also doubts about the external consistency of the Quad proposal. When first proposed by Japan’s Prime Minister Abe in 2005, the explicit aim was to assist in Japan in resisting China’s inexorable rise is a geopolitical power in East Asia. Now, although there are some lingering disputes between the two nations, as in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, Japan is also actively cooperating with China in the construction of bridge and tunnel links to the Eurasian mainland so that Japan can benefit from the BRI links to European markets.
India similarly has a dispute with China over border issues, but it is also an important member of BRICS, recently became a full member of the SCO, and it is the starting point for the North South Transportation Corridor via Iran and Azerbaijan to Russia. That development alone could not be seen as consistent with the United States’ geopolitical objectives, which currently demonizes both Iran and Russia on a full time basis.
That leaves Australia, twisting on the horns of its self-created and unresolved dilemma. Despite the trade figures cited above; despite the apparent support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for Australia to join the BRI following explicit invitations from the government of China and the strong support of a number of business related groups who see it’s enormous potential; it seems that the real driver of Australia’s foreign and trade policy is the Department of Defence.
The forthcoming ASEAN meeting being hosted in Canberra should be a golden opportunity to address the geopolitical realities. If history is any guide however, Australia will continue to foster its delusions and cling to the coattails of the United States.
Until the confusion as to what constitutes Australia’s real national interest is resolved, the country will continue to follow the United States and its disastrous path to the detriment of Australia’s economic and political well being.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
At first thought, the title of this article may look inappropriate. Indeed, Australia has a political and military union with the USA, while Beijing (the main geopolitical opponent of Washington) is considered as a source of foreign policy troubles. However, Canberra (in contrast with Washington) tries not to use the term “threat” in this case.
Therefore, how can we say “between” while talking about Australia’s positioning in respect of the participants of the main geopolitical duet of the USA-China?
However, the real life does not often fit the simple schemes. The trip of the Australian mega-delegation headed by the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to the USA from February 21 to February 23 is a bright demonstration of this maxim.
The Joint Statement following the results of the negotiations between the honored Australian guest with the American President contains the mandatory in such cases set of political and diplomatic clichés that form the (undiscussable) “symbol of faith” of the union members.
In particular, it says about an American-Australian alliance that is “rock solid and based on a common purpose: to promote peace and prosperity” and commitment “to fostering an Indo-Pacific region where all countries abide by international law”, and that “there are no greater friends than the United States and Australia.”
Only after a careful reading one can see in the document the traces of the discussion of the main topic of the current policy, which is the revival prospects of the project for the creation of the “Four” in the region, that is a (quasi)union of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.
However, this topic is shifting to the center of the U.S. regional policy. Most likely, the transition from the long-standing conversations about the formation of the “Four” to practical events will be the main task of the new US Ambassador to Australia, Admiral H. Harris.
On the eve of Prime Minister’s visit, Australia believed that the general topic of “security” would be prevailing during the upcoming negotiations. It has found its reflection in the Joint Statement in the passage about the readiness to the joint struggle with “terrorism, cyber activity, or transnational crime”. It mentions the DPRK, of course, which tries to obtain the nuclear weapon illegally.
As for the “Four” project, the phrase “our two nations are committed to deepening our engagement with our allies and all partners” apparently demonstrates that this topic has been discussed (most likely).
It is worth mentioning that even the current government of the Australian Conservatives avoids taking any definite anti-Chinese position on the security issues in the region. Meanwhile, the “Four” project has a clear anti-Chinese sentiment.
Before going to Washington on February 20, Malcolm Turnbull, in an interview with Sky News, said that he did not view China as a source of threat because he did not see any “hostile intentions” coming from there.
As we have repeatedly noted on these pages, Australia’s restrained position on the issue of turning China into a global power is essentially connected with the exclusive advantage of developing trade relations with it. In summer 2015, the parties signed an agreement on a gradual removal of duties on the goods purchased from each other.
For the country, a quarter of whose GDP depends on the foreign trade, any measures promoting its development have a vital meaning. It is exactly for this reason that Australia is one of the 11 participants of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which further presupposes the gradual establishment of a free cross flow of goods and services.
Let us remind you that the TPP included 12 participants until January 2017. But then the new US President, Donald Trump, by his very first decree withdrew from the TPP its main participant, thus putting the entire project on the verge of collapse. It was saved in the “TPP without the USA” format mainly by efforts of Japan. Its “presentation” is to take place at the summit of the member states on March 8 in Chile.
Even now, the remaining 11 members of the TPP still hope for the possible return of the USA to the project, the country with the biggest domestic market. Donald Trump’s statement at the last forum in Davos has revived this hope. However, the entire statement is rather vague.
The probing of the “recent trends” in Washington in respect of the TPP was evidently the second main issue of the negotiations between Malcolm Turnbull and D. Trump. However, the result of this probing is still as unclear as it was after the discussion of the first topic.
The Joint Statement covering the issues of economic cooperation does not mention the TPP at all. It contains the most general statement, for example, “we are cooperating to ensure that the international trading system is rooted in market-based principles, fair competition, private sector-led development, and good economic governance.”
It notes that the USA is the largest foreign investor in Australia. Of course, it does not mention that PRC has long been Australia’s largest trade partner. The trade turnover between these two countries is 5-6 times larger than the volume of the U.S.-Australia trade.
China might easily steal leadership from the USA in the field of investment in Australia’s economy. However, Canberra (like Europe and the USA lately) protects it from excessive Chinese penetration for “strategic” reasons. Earlier, we commented on the failure of Beijing to invest in the Australian power distribution network system to the tune of 8 billion dollars.
In general, the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to the USA has brought nothing new in the splitting, which has long characterized Australia’s positioning in respect of the two world players.
In order to end Australia’s political insanity, the USA sends one of its main military hawks to Canberra as an ambassador. Let us see how successful he will be at this important but civil position.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
One of the signs of the worsening situation in the Indian and Pacific ocean region, where the focus of world politics is shifting, is the strengthening of the military’s voice in the cacophony of the sounds that are coming from the Indo-Pacific Region.
Moreover, the trend towards the adoption of foreign policy functions by military organs is characteristic not only of the leading world power. Earlier we noted that the excessive (in the author’s opinion) publicity of the Commander of Indian Ground Forces, General B. Ravat nearly led to the disruption of the process of resolving an extremely dangerous conflict with the PRC, which had developed in the Himalayas during the summer of 2017.
These are all bad signals. For if the polysyllabic muse of professional diplomats can be silenced then the roar of guns will take its place.
Such unhappy sentiments are provoked by the announcement of the appointment of the current head of the most powerful American commander of the Pacific Command (USPACOM), Admiral Harry Harris, to the (vacant since September 2016), post of US Ambassador to Australia. However, judging by the site of the command, at the time of this article being written, he continues to act as head of USPACOM.
The IMC has repeatedly paid attention the political activity of Admiral Harry Harris. It is namely with him that the current actualization (almost forgotten) ‘Initiative of the Quartet’, the United States, Japan, India and Australia, in the second half of the last century is associated. Practical implementation of the ‘Quartet’ project will definitely lead to radical shifts (negative ones) in the region and in the world as a whole.
The first information that President Donald Trump was considering Harris’ candidacy for a ‘key diplomatic post in the face of rising tensions in the region’ appeared in the Washington Post in late August 2017.
It has also been reported that the candidacy of Harry Harris for the post of envoy to Australia enjoyed the full support of then-closest adviser to Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon, that is, one of the biggest ‘anti-China hawks’ of the United States. Apparently, Stephen Bannon’s ‘case’ continues to live on, although he himself has left the political arena.
The word ‘China’ occupies a central place in the current comments of the American press on Harris to an extremely important diplomatic post. Once again, the words or mantras, which he has repeatedly pronounced over the last two years on certain political platforms, have been reproduced. Such, for example, as: ‘undermining the international order’, ‘US military challenges in the region’. These words are invariably used as arguments in favour of creating the ‘Quartet’.
Harry Harris pays particular attention to the situation in the South China Sea, where, in his opinion, the notorious foreign policy ‘drive’ of the PRC is particularly evident.
Just at the time of the last burst of media attention to his personage, another call came in the South China Sea of a shock group led by aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. A spokesman for USPACOM said on board the aircraft carrier that in response to China’s construction work on the islands in the SCS, the US ‘will continue patrolling wherever international law is allowed’.
We recall that in this type of turnover, ‘notwithstanding’ Washington’s failure to recognize the very fact of China’s claims to 80-90% of the water area of the SCM and, in particular, to own the islands located here. On some of them there has been active construction of various facilities, including military ones, over the past few years.
Recently, the Australian Navy has been actively joining in the “patrolling” in the SCM. However, this is only one of the two main, contradictory components of Australian policy towards the PRC (present, however, in American politics, but not in such a clearly expressed form). The second is related to Australia’s extreme interest in developing economic ties with the very same PRC.
Depending on the party affiliation of the country’s current leadership, in this political schizophrenia, one or the other component takes precedence. Now (for the second consecutive term) a conservative bloc led by the Liberal Party is in power.
Before that (from 2007 to 2013), the Labour Party was in power, whose leader Kevin Rudd immediately put an end to the ‘Initiative of the Quartet’ (as it seemed at the time) and brought anout a significant portion of the positive relations with the PRC in the political arena.
In the 2013 elections, the Labour Party suffered a severe defeat, in 2016 it significantly restored its positions in the parliament and in the next elections, which are to be held in the summer of 2019, may well return to power. It is important for the Australian conservatives that Harry Harris in the remaining year not ‘plough up’ the region very strongly.
Meanwhile, British conservatives have joined their colleagues from Australia, attempting to return to the London policy of the region ‘east of Suez’. On February 13, the Gardian newspaper reported that during the two-day visit to Australia, British Secretary of Defence G. Williamson had decided to send the anti-submarine frigate Sutherland (‘next month’) to the South China Sea.
It has also been said that the ship will enter the 12-mile zone around one of the islands, which the PRC claims to own. We note that earlier only American ships engaged in ‘calls’. ‘We fully support the United States in this’, said Gavin Williamson.
All the same, the phenomenon of British foreign policy is amazing! Only two weeks before the decision by the Minister of Defence, his boss, Prime Minister Teresa May had been on a visit to Beijing, where she smiled charmingly at the Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The beginning of an era of ‘creative and cultural cooperation’ had even been announced.
It should be noted that two years earlier, during Xi Jinping’s visit to London, a ‘golden era’ in the sphere of bilateral economic relations was spoken about. And how does this intention, an increasingly rosy ‘era’, fit in with the intention to send a British ship to China (as they believe in the PRC) to Chinese territorial waters?
So far, the era of confrontation with China by American-British-Australian conservatives is looming. Is this not indicative by the appointment of one of the US military’s ‘hawks’ to an important diplomatic post in the region ?
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
There has been a flurry of activity caused by the comments made by Green’s parliamentarians Adam Bandt and Richard di Natale over recently installed Liberal Senator Jim Molan. The facts relate to the Australian situation, but the issue has wider ramifications.
The ostensible reason for the attack on Molan was his sharing of two videos originating from a Neo Nazi far right group in the United Kingdom.
Bandt, who later withdrew his remarks, called Molan a “coward” and said that Molan should be prosecuted for his service in the Iraq war. In the Senate di Natale accused Molan of overseeing a “humanitarian catastrophe” nearly 15 years ago during the assault on Fallujah, Iraq.
Di Natale said that there was “a question that needs to be answered, and the only way with answer that is through an enquiry.”
Liberal politicians, from the Prime Minister downward, came to Molan’s defence, claiming that he was a “great Australian soldier” who “stood up for freedom.”
Lost among all the expostulations and threats of legal action were two key issues behind the remarks of both Bandt and Di Natale: were there war crimes committed in Iraq by Australian forces; and whether or not there should be an enquiry (as has happened in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) into the precise circumstances surrounding Australia’s involvement in that disastrous war.
Instead we have seen sustained attempts two divert from legitimate questions surrounding this issue. It has been variously suggested that Molan is not racist; that it is somehow scurrilous to question the conduct of Australia’s servicemen; and that Bandt and Di Natale had a view “that anyone who goes to war is a war criminal.” That simply does not address the real issues.
To answer the first of those questions one needs to go no further then the assaults on Fallujah, the first of which occurred in April 2004 and the second, codenamed Operation Phantom Fury, in October 2004.
Before the second attack began, citizens were instructed to leave, but that did not extend to men aged 15-45 who were prohibited from leaving. Once the bombing began, all exits from the city were sealed off. According to the Washington Post, electricity and water were also cut off. The Red Cross and other agencies were denied access to the city to deliver humanitarian aid and render medical assistance.
A United Nations special rapporteur, Jean Ziegler, described these action as a
”flagrant violation” of the Geneva Conventions. Mr Zeigler was unquestionably correct. Cutting off water and electricity and denying access to humanitarian aid is prohibited under Article 54 (Protocol 1) of the Geneva Conventions.
The attacking forces also seized the city’s only hospital, taking its staff prisoner, and also bombed to destruction two other medical clinics. Eyewitness accounts described Red Cross workers being denied entry to the city, and ambulances trying to enter the city being fired upon. This is also a breach of Article 8 of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1).
There were further eyewitness accounts of snipers shooting women and children in the street, and unarmed men carrying a white flag were also shot. The United States also admitted using chemical weapons, including white phosphorus, napalm and depleted uranium weapons. The use of such weapons are banned under Protocol III of the United Nations Convention on Certain Weapons that Australia ratified on 29 September 1983. The United States has refused to ratify this Convention.
General Molan has admitted his role in planning and directing the attacks in Fallujah in October 2004. It is a matter of public record that Molan was seconded from the Australian defence forces to US forces in April 2004 and served as chief of operations through 2005. An article in the Australian emphasized that Molan not only planned, but directed the 2004 assault on Fallujah.
The horrific consequences for civilians of this assault have also been documented, with extraordinarily high levels of birth defects, infant and maternal mortality, and various cancers. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent described the results reported by Busby and his co-researchers as worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There can be no serious argument therefore, that war crimes were committed in Fallujah (and elsewhere) in October 2004. Who then might be held responsible? Under the legal doctrine of common purpose, senior Australian officials are responsible for these attacks. Those individuals would include the defence Minister Robert Hill, the foreign minister Alexander Downer, and at the Prime Minister John Howard.
Under the doctrine of command responsibility Government and military officials can be held liable if they knew, or should have known, anyone under their command was committing war crimes and failed to prevent them from doing so. These principles are incorporated in the Statute of the International Criminal Court that Australia ratified on 27 June 2002 and which came into effect in Australian law on 1 September 2002.
Before persons alleged to have committed war crimes can be referred to the International Criminal Court however, the accused’s own State must take action against them, and only if that State is “unable or unwilling” to act will the ICC become involved.
There is legislation on the Australian statute books that is designed to provide a means off prosecuting alleged war criminals. The Howard government introduced a raft of legislative changes to the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) beginning in 2002 before the Iraq invasion. Part 5.3 of s100 of the Criminal Code, for example, creates the offence of a “terrorist act”. This is defined as being when there is serious harm to property or death caused with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, and with it the intention of coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of a foreign country, or intimidating the public or a section of the public.
It is submitted that this is precisely describes the actions of the Australian government and its officials, including military personnel, in the conduct of the Iraq War in general, and in specific instances of which Fallujah is a prime, but far from only example.
Successive Australian governments have refused to prosecute anyone involved in the events described above. The ICC’s requirement of a State being “unable or unwilling” to prosecute alleged war crimes has therefore been met. In these circumstances there is nothing to prevent a direct referral to the ICC Public Prosecutor who must then initiate their own inquiry.
It is this history that probably accounts for the reaction to questions raised about General Molan’s alleged responsibility for war crimes committed in Iraq. The politicians and mainstream media coming to his defence with frankly ridiculous and irrelevant claims are fully aware of their own potential liability for the events arising out of the original illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Di Natale was simply stating the obvious: there should have been a proper inquiry, there should be one now, and Australia’s persistent refusal to do so only undermines its frequently professed claims to being a strong supporter of the “rules based international order.”
James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
This year’s strain of the flu is now widespread, spanning 46 states, and can make you fatally sick. Coupled with how fast the flu has struck, an ineffective vaccine, and how early it hit, this year is shaping up to be one of the worst ones yet for the flu virus.
The strain responsible for the outbreak is H3N2, a particularly deadly variety of influenza and the number of cases have spiked, with 46 states now reporting widespread activity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. The CDC also claims that at least 13 children have died from the flu since October when the season began to really get into full swing.
California has been particularly hard hit, with at least 27 deaths of people under 65 attributed to the flu, according to reports. As the number of cases continues to climb there, hospitals are beginning to run out of Tamiflu, the anti-viral medication used to treat the illness.
The most identified strain of the virus is influenza A (H3N2). According to a CDC emergency health advisory released December 27, 83 percent of reported cases were N3N2, a strain associated with more hospitalizations and deaths in those over 65 years of age and in young children compared to other age groups.
During this year’s flu season in Australia, the vaccine was only 10 percent effective. The CDC still says you should get the flu shot because it will lessen the suffering from symptoms should you contract the flu, even though it will make you sicker in later years.
“How well the vaccine works can depend in part on the match between the vaccine virus used to produce the vaccine and the circulating viruses that season,” the CDC notes. “It’s not possible to predict what viruses will be most predominant during the upcoming season.” The agency also noted that the vaccine is ineffective due to the mutative nature of this year’s flu strain.
The CDC recommends that all people over the age of five get the shot to reduce the symptoms of the virus. “It’s not too late to get a flu vaccine — as long as flu is spreading vaccination should continue,” the CDC’s Kristen Nordlund told weather.com. “It’s important to know that it takes about two weeks for protection to set in.”
*This is not to say you should or should not get the flu shot. You should, however, do some research, and know the risks, side effects, and possible complications down the line should you chose to get or not get this year’s flu shot. This should help you come to the right conclusion for yourself.
Authored by Philip Soos & Lindsay David via RenegadeInc.com,
The original wizard of Wall Street, W.D Gann was a finance trader and wealthy speculator that spent decades investigating cyclical trends in equity market patterns and found that prices could be predicted long in advance. He successfully predicted the crashes in the 1929 and Dot-Com stock market bubbles. And according to his analysis, the US stock market is due for another crash in 2020.
Every movement in the market is the result of a natural law and of a Cause which exists long before the Effect takes place and can be determined years in advance. The future is but a repetition of the past, as the Bible plainly states…
After suffering through the worst economic and financial crisis since the 1930s depression when the real estate and stock markets crashed in 2007, the United States’ bubble economy is back into full swing. Residential and commercial real estate prices are growing strongly, along with equities.
The US stock market, as defined by the S&P500 index, has boomed after collapsing to a trough in 2009. The market ‘recovered’ more quickly than anyone thought it would, and has continued surging from thereon in.
This has led to a lot of commentary and media coverage that the S&P500 is in the thrall of yet another bubble that will burst. Despite the many predictions of collapse, the bubble has powered on unhindered.
Like all asset bubbles, the primary cause is speculators taking on debt to bid up prices to ever-higher levels, generating a stream of greater fools willing to purchase at inflated valuations. In the case of equities, the type of debt used is margin debt.
The trends in the S&P500 index and margin debt are obvious. The name of the game is capital gains; income is increasingly sidelined as yields become compressed to record lows.
The annual change in margin debt (the first derivative) closely tracks that of the S&P500 index. In Australia, this was true of our largest equities bubble on record, which peaked in 2007 and then burst, declining by 55% from peak to trough.
Margin debt all too coincidently rose rapidly during the boom.
In the case of the S&P500 bubbles which peaked in 2000 and 2007, margin debt also peaked a few months beforehand in terms of absolute values, annual growth and acceleration (the second derivative).
It is therefore worth closely tracking the trends in margin debt to understand where equity prices are heading.
Another metric to watch out for is private non-financial business debt because the very low interest rates on business bank loans makes it easy for corporate executives to drive up stock prices by loading up on debt to engage in stock buybacks.
As prices are often linked to executive remuneration, they have every incentive to engage in this unproductive strategy.
The peaks in the annual change of non-financial business debt correspond with those of the equities market. It should be noted that non-financial business debt is also used to speculate on commercial land, which is why land prices cycle in tandem with debt.
The yield curve is one of the best leading indicators of recession and equity market downturns. The yield curve inverted a few months before both peaks in 2000 and 2007. Currently, the yield curve is 108 basis points above zero, and could take a while before it inverts.
While the metrics noted above can accurately indicate the peak of an equities bubbles several months in advance, they cannot tell us anything years ahead of time. For this, we must turn to the research of the original wizard of Wall Street, W.D. Gann. He was a finance trader who developed technical analysis tools and forecasting methods based on geometry, astronomy, astrology and ancient mathematics.
He was a successful and wealthy speculator, spending decades investigating patterns in equities markets. He concluded that equities exhibited a cyclical trend over decades and thus prices could be predicted long in advance.
In 1908, Gann constructed his financial timetable, which tabulated the booms and busts, peaks and troughs of the US equities market. Just like the Geoist land market cycle, there is a repeating 18-year average between every major cycle.
Gann managed to predict the crash of 1929 years in advance. He realised that the timetable would have to be recalibrated on the 25th December 1989.
The updated timetable is amazingly accurate from that date onward, predicting the Dot-Com bubble peak in 2000 and its collapse. The GFC peak was off by one year; 2007 instead of one year earlier in 2006. The trough was in 2009, followed by a minor panic in 2015, when the S&P500 dipped but has since boomed.
According to the timetable, 2020 will be the peak of the equities bubble, followed by a major crash similar to that of the Dot-Com bubble.
To the economists we’ve spoken to, the peak could range between 2019M09 to 2020M03. Given how large the S&P500 bubble has become, it is worth treading very carefully during this period for those exposed to US equities.
Gann is famous for saying: “Every movement in the market is the result of a natural law and of a Cause which exists long before the effect takes place and can be determined years in advance. The future is but a repetition of the past, as the Bible plainly states…”
Due to the ETF revolution, it is a straightforward matter to gain exposure to the S&P500, including leveraged and inverse instruments. It would be even better if the government would enact policies to prevent speculation and subsequent bubbles in the first place. This can be done by banning margin debt and other securities-based loans, and heavily taxing capital gains based on the length of time they were held for (the longer, the less tax).
While the equities market boom has added a great deal of wealth to the balance sheet of US households, it is merely the latest instance in a long line of asset bubbles. No doubt many speculators believe that ‘this time is different’ but the ghost of Gann would argue otherwise.
Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,
China"s working age population is clearly defined as those aged 16 to 50 years old for females (55 for "white collar" females) and 16 to 60 years old for males. China mandates retirement at these outer age limits. Perhaps of some interest should be that this working age population peaked in 2011 and has been declining since. This decline will continue indefinitely as China has a collapsing childbearing population (detailed HERE), net emigration (outflow), and a still decidedly negative birthrate.
There is no evidence to believe the working age declines will abate any decade soon. As the chart below shows, China"s potential workforce will be shrinking indefinitely... and by 2030 China"s potential workforce will be over 100 million fewer than the 2011 peak (an 11% decline)...and only further down from there.
China has one of the youngest average retirement ages in the developed world. On average, according to a recent study (HERE), Chinese leave the work force by age 55 compared to age 63 in the US (Norway has the latest average departure at age 67). So, perhaps China will be raising the retirement age to curb the ballooning 60+yr/old population entering retirement (chart below)? More on that later.
Comparing the working age population versus the 60+yr/old population (chart below). A shrinking potential workforce since peaking in 2011 and a rapidly growing elderly population.
Below, that elderly growth versus the working age depopulation as a % of all adults (chart below)...think hockey stick. After nearly six decades of maintaining a consistent 60+yr/old % of the adult population...the elderly explosion is just beginning.
If we take the now declining total potential working age population vs. China"s still rising total number of employed individuals (according to Statista)...the chart below shows that if China adds just a mere million employees a year (about a third of the annual average employment growth seen from "06 through "16)...that by 2030 China"s employment will exceed 100% of the potential workforce. Wait...what?!? Or perhaps working from the premise that people who don"t exist can"t be employed...it"s time to start considering China"s employed population is set to begin falling.
This idea that there are "millions upon millions of Chinese just waiting to be incorporated into the workforce"...not so much. While a continuing shift from rural to urban is likely, China has already or will soon experience peak employment. Simply put, there will be fewer consumers of everything (homes, cars, appliances, etc.) every year than the year before.
Whatever overcapacity exists now will be joined by massive increases in excess housing, excess production, excess shopping malls as this depopulation plays out over the coming years and decades.
1) China ends one child policy, with little to no impact...
Although China implemented its one child policy in 1979 and officially phased it out in 2015, China"s birthrate was actually consistently higher than most of the other major economies in East Asia (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...chart below) and only N. Korea"s fertility rate is currently higher.
None of these other East Asia nations ever implemented birth restrictions. Instead, their populaces chose not to replace themselves responding to the availability of birth control, surging costs of child rearing, and inclusion of females into the workforce, etc. Simply put, the one child policy was inevitable and has now organically gone global. The phase out of this policy will have little to no impact of China"s fertility rates.
2) China to raise retirement age, but no time soon...
In early 2015, China suggested it would detail in 2017 (which I still have not seen) a gradual, multiyear process to raise the retirement age (China"s version of political suicide). Suggestions focused on slowly, incrementally, raising female retirement ages to match males and likewise, pushing retirements out by a month or two per year. However, none of this was even suggested to start within the next five years and like most things, almost surely be back-end loaded so any real impacts are overstated. Regardless Communist or "Capitalist" politicians, the game is the same. A little "razzle-dazzle" that ensures any negative policy impacts never occurs on your watch.
3) China to institute Universal Pension Plan...
In late 2015, China said "We will achieve a basic pension for all employees nationally". Currently, about 800 million of China"s 1.3 billion are eligible for state pensions. According to Sinosphere, pensions for non-state employees vary widely, as high as 3000 RMB ($480) month in Beijing to as little as 80 RMB for rural farmers. Civil Servants pensions are generally higher than those of non-state employees. The party statement said, China would be;
“Building a fairer and more sustainable social welfare system.
Implementing plans for every person to take part in social insurance.
Diverting capital from state-owned enterprises to social security funds.
Offering all urban and rural residents insurance for serious illness.”
4) Chinese wages & average per capita disposable income rising but gains are hugely variable...
While Chinese factory wages in tier 1 urban areas are now inline with Portugal or S. Africa, this terrific rise has created it"s own problems. The rise in wages has been met with inflationary spikes in rents, fuel, food, etc. etc. Average disposable income has risen in the urban areas but flat at best across rural China. However, the response of employers to the spectacular rising wages has been automation, a shift away from labor intensive production, and outsourcing to lower cost countries. This is at odds with the generally low skill/low education rural population looking for opportunity in the urban areas. The breadth and size of further gains in disposable income is likely to be limited. Economically, a declining total number of workers making marginally more money will not provide the desired growth.
5) China cannot export its way out of this...
The annual change to the 0-64yr/old combined populations of the 35 OECD nations (US, Canada, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia/NZ) plus China, Brazil, and Russia begin declining in 2018 (chart below). The core populations of the nations responsible for consuming 80%+ of all Chinese exports have peaked and begin shrinking. Fewer consumers every year than the year before, indefinitely. As for the nations that are doing all the growing, India and Africa, they consume about 4% of all Chinese exports. BTW, the chart below shows when each nation/region 0-64yr/old population began declining.
Simply put, China is offering to increase and broaden it"s pension system to a ballooning population of elderly but will have a decreasing potential number of employees from which to pay for that increase?!?
How will China achieve this? Well, as the chart below shows, as Chinese core population growth has been decelerating, Chinese debt growth has been accelerating.
While China"s GDP and energy consumption have led the world, they have not responded in kind to China"s debt explosion and exponentially more will be necessary to continue to show "growth". Over a third and perhaps half of all the debt has been mal-invested in a housing bubble for a population that is never coming.
What comes next isn"t going to be good for China nor the rest of the world as China looks to flood a depopulating nation with new debt only creating more housing overcapacity... China will look to beat the Japanese at the debt game.
For instance, the Chinese public-pension system as of 2014, took in 2.33 trillion yuan in revenue and paid out almost 2 trillion...with 3 trillion in net funds. The net outflows and drawdown of those net funds is imminent.
But not to worry, the Communist Party explained that..."We will look at some opportunities with higher yields but will contain risk". Again, no details were offered. However, one asset it is clear the Chinese will not be buying...US Treasury"s (chart below, showing the net purchases since the debt ceiling debate of July 2011 according to TIC). Since that date, China has been a net seller of US Treasury debt despite running record US dollar surplus" (BLICS = Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Island, Switzerland).
From 2000 "til July 2011, China recycled 50% of its dollar trade surplus into US Treasury debt accumulating over $1.3 trillion. Since July 2011, China has net sold over $100 billion and as of October, held about $1.2 trillion (chart below).
But I"m pretty sure those dollars aren"t sitting fallow and are finding their way into some asset, probably one in particular that is selling on the cheap about right now.
Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,
The last section of the new US National Security Strategy (NSS) describes the envisaged application of the Trump Doctrine in a regional context all across the world, and it’s worthwhile to examine what storylines will most likely be advanced by the policy document’s intrinsic infowar component. This analysis is divided according to the geographic categories contained in the NSS and proceeds along that order, after which a brief summary will be presented in highlighting the most discernable global trends.
The US says that “a geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region” as China employs multifaceted influence strategies in a concerted effort to get regional states to follow its economic and political models. Although presented by China as being mutually beneficial, the NSS describes Beijing’s Silk Road relationships as being detrimental to its partners’ sovereignty. In response, Washington claims that “states throughout the region are calling for sustained U.S. leadership in a collective response that upholds a regional order respectful of sovereignty and independence”, which implies the creation of what the author has previously described as a ‘China Containment Coalition’ (CCC) to preserve the existing US-led unipolar system them. The suggested outcome of this initiative is the US’ “quadrilateral cooperation with Japan, Australia, and India”, with the latter once again being referred to as a “Major Defense Partner” whose “growing relationships throughout the region” will be supported by the US.
Elsewhere in the area, North Korea is identified as “a global threat that requires a global response”, later revealed in this section as being missile defense cooperation between the US, Japan, and South Korea towards the eventual aim of “an area defense capability”, one which was previously described in the document as “not intended to undermine strategic stability or disrupt longstanding strategic relationships with Russia or China.” Looking southwards, the US wants to “reenergize [its] alliances with the Philippines and Thailand and strengthen [its] partnerships with Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and others to help them become cooperative maritime partners”, with it being inferred that “reenergizing” is a euphemism for “winning back” Manila and Bangkok. Altogether, the US plans to use ASEAN and APEC as regional institutions for advancing its geopolitical and economic interests, with the former probably seeing some of the ASEAN states become the US’ “Lead From Behind” partners in “containing China” while the latter will result in more bilateral trade deals.
Russia is fear mongered as engaging in “subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America’s commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments”, suggesting that any objective developments that even remotely hint at either of these three conclusions will be dismissed as ‘Russian propaganda’ and their messengers discredited as ‘Russian agents/trolls’. China is also mentioned in this section as having “gain[ed] a strategic foothold in Europe by expanding its unfair trade practices and investing in key industries, sensitive technologies, and infrastructure”, showing that the US is now paying attention to the progress that its 16+1 framework has made in the “Three Seas” region of Central and Eastern Europe and will likely go on the information offensive against it in the coming future.
Daesh and the Migrant Crisis are also listed as posing serious threats to the EU as well.
In reassuring the continent, the US says that its “European allies and partners increase [its] strategic reach and provide access to forward basing and overflight rights for global operations”, which explains the self-interested reason why Washington will evidently abide by its Article 5 commitment to NATO. It believes that deepening transatlantic collaboration is necessary to protect Europe from the aforementioned threats that were described, with military spending increases geared towards modernizing capacities and building a ‘missile defense shield’ to ‘protect’ against Russia, Iran, and even supposedly North Korea too, while US efforts to “contest China’s unfair trade and economic practices and restrict its acquisition of sensitive technologies” in the EU will probably mean that Junker’s September 2017 proposal for a “European Enabling Framework” ‘screening process’ will become a roadblock to Beijing’s plans.
Furthermore, the US wants to expand its energy exports to Europe, which might see it getting more involved in the activities of LNG terminal-hosting “Three Seas” states such as Croatia and thus setting the stage for a “Balkan Pivot” to more directly counter China there.
Right off the bat, the US blames Iran for all of the region’s woes by stating that “the interconnected problems of Iranian expansion, state collapse, jihadist ideology, socio-economic stagnation, and regional rivalries have convulsed the Middle East”, accusing what it labels as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” of “tak[ing] advantage of instability to expand its influence through partners and proxies, weapon proliferation, and funding” that oftentimes takes the form of Iran “develop[ing] more capable ballistic missiles and intelligence capabilities, and [undertaking in] malicious cyber activities.” Iran is painted as the ultimate evil in order to whitewash Israel, which the US attempts to unabashedly do in the passage where the authors write that “the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region’s problems.”
In fact, the NSS notes, “states have increasingly found common interests with Israel in confronting common threats”, in a nod to the de-facto alliance between the GCC and Israel against Iran. The US lists its chief objectives as strengthening cooperation with the GCC and what it describes as the “independent state” of Iraq, with the latter phrase hinting that Washington will work behind the scenes to counter Tehran’s influence in Baghdad. This presumption is apparently confirmed by the next passage where the US commits to “work[ing] with partners to…neutralize Iranian malign influence”, which again implies a similar “Lead From Behind” strategy just like it wants to employ in the Indo-Pacific.
Moreover, the US says that it will “seek a settlement to the Syrian civil war that sets the conditions for refugees to return home and rebuild their lives in safety”, signaling a step back from its previous regime change obsession and possibly opening the doors for a pragmatic ‘New Détente’ deal with Russia over this issue. In addition, the expected US commitment “to helping facilitate a comprehensive peace agreement that is acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians” is reiterated in the text, though this is nothing more than rhetoric for distracting from the US’ determinedly pro-Israeli policies. Most interestingly, however, is the penultimate policy prescription that the US will “help (its) partners procure interoperable missile defense and other capabilities to better defend against active missile threats”, which demonstrates that its missile defense plans are indeed Eurasian-wide and stretch all across the EU-Mideast-Northeast Asian Rimland.
The US draws significant attention what it describes as Pakistan-based threats on multiple occasions, slyly speaking tongue-in-cheek when talking about the Pakistan that it’s supposedly seeking in order to indirectly accuse the Pakistan of today of embodying these said threats. For example, when the authors write that their country “seeks a Pakistan that is not engaged in destabilizing behavior…will press Pakistan to intensify its counterterrorism efforts, since no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists who target a partner’s own service members and officials…(and) will also encourage Pakistan to continue demonstrating that it is a responsible steward of its nuclear assets”, it’s essentially saying that Pakistan is destabilizing the region, supporting anti-American militants and terrorists who target US forces in Afghanistan, and irresponsibly wielding nuclear weapons which might one day fall into the hands of the same terrorists that it’s accused of backing.
India, US, Japan annual Malabar naval drills
All of these hostile narratives against Pakistan explain why the US wants the world to think that “the prospect for an Indo-Pakistani military conflict [which] could lead to a nuclear exchange remains a key concern requiring consistent diplomatic attention”, as the thinly veiled inference is that Islamabad is solely responsible for this dangerous state of affairs. It’s predictable that Washington would weave such a one-sided storyline because it envisions New Delhi as its 21st-century partner for ‘containing China’, with its strategists writing that the US “will deepen [its] strategic partnership with India and support its leadership role in Indian Ocean security and throughout the broader region”.
Concerning Central Asia, the NSS says that the US “will encourage the economic integration of Central and South Asia to promote prosperity and economic linkages that will bolster connectivity and trade”, and since it’s improbable that this is an oblique statement of support for CPEC, the only realistic conclusion is that it’s an American endorsement for the Central Asian component of India’s Chabahar project. As even the most inexperienced observer would know, this port is based in Iran, so the US will have to work overtime in crafting a semi-cohesive explanation for why it doesn’t mind India working with Washington’s hated nemesis in Tehran, though the answer could probably be simplistically summed up as ‘realpolitik’ for ‘containing China’.
Another point to mention is that the US says that it “seeks Central Asian states that are resilient against domination by rival powers, are resistant to becoming jihadist safe havens, and prioritize reforms”, and that it “will work with the Central Asian states to guarantee access to the region to support [its] counterterrorism efforts.” Evidently, the US is aiming to exploit the new Daesh threat to the region that it helped transfer from “Syraq” to Afghanistan as an excuse for reestablishing the military partnerships that it used to have with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, possibly up to the point of once again basing its troops on their territory. While pretending that this is only in the interests of “counterterrorism efforts”, the real motivation would be to boost their “resilien[cy] against domination by rival powers”, or in other words, try to dislodge them from the joint Russian-Chinese multipolar orbit of the SCO.
The US claims that “democratic states connected by shared values and economic interests will reduce the violence, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration that threaten [their] common security”, but in reality it’s only concerned about leveraging its economic connectivity with Latin American states to counter the three mentioned threats and doesn’t actually care too much about “democratic states” or “shared values”. After all, the US supports the Honduran government of Juan Orlando Hernandez despite the OAS requesting an electoral redo after the incumbent was suspected of stealing the election and then openly resorting to deadly force to suppress opposition protests against him. The Trump Administration’s visceral hatred of anything socialist is also on full display in condemning Cuba and Venezuela, which it believes have served as magnets for inviting Chinese and Russian influence into the region via economic and military means, respectively.
The NSS emphasizes the US’ “regional efforts to build security and prosperity through strong diplomatic engagement” and its desire to “isolate governments that refuse to act as responsible partners in advancing hemispheric peace and prosperity”, suggesting that the incipient anti-Venezuelan coalition model that’s forming could be replicated against the similarly multipolar-aligned ALBA states of Bolivia and Nicaragua due to their socialist ideals and in the event that they forcibly react against any forthcoming Hybrid War provocations against them. The declaration that the US “will encourage further market-based economic reforms and encourage transparency to create conditions for sustained prosperity” adds credence to the claims that it will probably expand its “Operation Condor 2.0” unconventional campaign of restoring its hegemonic hemispheric influence against those states and possibly other ones as well.
US President Donald Trump attends a working dinner with Latin American leaders in New York
On the economic front, the document says that the US “will modernize [its] trade agreements and deepen [its] economic ties with the region and ensure that trade is fair and reciprocal”, which is just a reaffirmation of Trump’s well-known intent to renegotiate NAFTA, but which could also extend to the US’ other hemispheric multilateral trade deal of CAFTA-DR and the bilateral ones that it has with Chile, Colombia, and Peru (the latter three of which plus NAFTA-member Mexico constitute the four states of the Pacific Alliance trading bloc). The phrasing about “deepening economic ties with the region” might indicate the US’ plans to reach bilateral trade deals with the Mercosur members, probably beginning with Brazil and then having the rest of the bloc fall in line afterwards. Altogether, the interweaving of bilateral trade deals all throughout the hemisphere would represent the de-facto fulfillment of the long-sought “Free Trade Area of the Americas” (FTAA).
The final section of the NSS’ regional context review is the most direct about the US’ intentions to “contain China” and obstruct its Silk Road strategy. The authors confidently write that Africa “represent[s] potential new markets for U.S. goods and services”, the demand of which “is high and will likely grow” because of what it hints as being the desire of many countries to replicate its political and economic models. This is obviously the infowar narrative that will be spun in serving as the ‘carrot’ for attracting African partners (subordinates), while the ‘stick’ is the equally weaponized storyline that “some Chinese practices undermine Africa’s long-term development by corrupting elites, dominating extractive industries, and locking countries into unsustainable and opaque debts and commitments.”
US President Donald Trump congratulates African leaders
In case there was any doubt that the US wants to challenge China’s dominance in Africa, the document unambiguously announces that the US “will offer American goods and services, both because it is profitable for [it] and because it serves as an alternative to China’s often extractive economic footprint on the continent.”
To this end, the US “seeks sovereign African states that are integrated into the world economy”, which is a just another way of saying that it wants its partners to abandon the Chinese model of state-driven development and open up their economies to Western businessmen and their Indo-Japanese partners instead. “Support[ing] economic integration among African states” could be seen as developing an anti-Chinese trading bloc in the future, though this is unlikely since all existing economic organizations on the continent are closely aligned with the People’s Republic, as are most of the countries that are party to the massive 2015 Tripartite Free Trade Area in China’s most active “sphere of Silk Road influence”.
However, where the US is most capable of making African inroads is through military-security relations in “partner[ing] with governments, civil society, and regional organizations to end long-running, violent conflicts”, which carries with it a whiff of “Lead From Behind” “nation-building” that America is much more experienced with (for better or for worse) than China. By using the existing anti-terrorist pretext present throughout most of Africa to degree or another and especially in the transregional Sahel, the US will probably seek to leverage its military advantages to “stabilize” these states in exchange for them disengaging from China and/or clinching profitable trade deals with the US afterwards, since it will otherwise be exceptionally difficult for the US to economically counterbalance China any other way.
After examining the Trump Doctrine in all of its regional contexts, it’s possible to detect several interconnected global trends that are present in the US’ National Security Strategy:
Demonization Of Strategic Rivals:
The US is hell-bent on framing its strategic multipolar rivals of Russia, China, and Iran as responsible for global destabilization in order to deflect attention from it and its partners’ responsibility for this state of affairs, with the distinct possibility that Pakistan will soon be added to this list of adversaries as America moves towards making India its top international ally in the future.
Assembling “Lead From Behind” Coalitions:
The demonization of the US’ strategic rivals provides it with the ‘plausible pretext’ for assembling regional coalitions against them all throughout the Eurasian supercontinent and potentially even in Latin America too if it gets its way against Venezuela, thus formalizing a new model of unipolar proxy control that has flexibly adapted to multipolar challenges.
Building “Missile Defense Shields”:
One of the most prominent state-to-state manifestations of “Lead From Behind” cooperation between the US and its subordinates is the construction of “missile defense shields” on trumped-up pretexts in order to undermine Russia and China’s nuclear second-strike capabilities, with the possibility existing that the same model can one day be implemented in South Asia to support India against Pakistan.
Exploiting Non-State Threats:
Another way in which the US plans to utilize its “Lead From Behind” coalitions is to exploit the prevalence of threatening non-state actors such as jihadists and transnational criminal organizations by using them as a ‘plausible pretense’ for setting up a range of differently sized regional bases in its partnered countries to support special forces raids against these shared menaces.
Stopping The Silk Road:
The combination of demonizing infowars, “Lead From Behind” coalitions, and multidimensional partnerships with its allies naturally leads one to the conclusion that the US plans to employ all instruments of its power (Hybrid War) in stopping China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity so as to counter multipolarity and indefinitely preserve the declining unipolar system.
