To get around the obstacle of public opinion, the United States government has an extensive history of lying their way into war.
The post As War Drums Beat for Syria, Remember, Lies And Propaganda Started Nearly Every War In US History appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
To get around the obstacle of public opinion, the United States government has an extensive history of lying their way into war.
The post As War Drums Beat for Syria, Remember, Lies And Propaganda Started Nearly Every War In US History appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
An outstanding event took place recently in the conflict around the South China Sea. The US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson moored in the Vietnamese port Cam Ranh. The Americans obviously took a triumph lap in this event – once again after the sadly remembered Vietnamese War and flight from Cam Ranh, where the American aircraft carriers were based at that time, they solemnly returned. Thus, the USA demonstrated both coherence and achievements of their policy in returning the American military forces to South-East Asia, which was declared in 2011.
The question is why the former American and then Soviet naval and air forces base once again solemnly accepted the American aircraft carrier? This fact seemed to be impossible, as the communists that won in Vietnam in 1975 excluded any opportunity of the American return. In addition, the consequences of the barbaric bombing with poisonous substances of Vietnamese fields and forests, thousands of victims among Vietnamese civilians killed by the American soldiers, would predetermine the relations between the two countries for a long time. However, it turned that it is not the case, once again demonstrating how unpredictable the modern foreign policy can be.
The case is that the problem of the ownership of the isles in the South China Sea, where Vietnam and China are disputing over the insular territories, has become one of the most important ones for Vietnam, and solution of which is not evident yet. China’s position has remained practically unchanged for several decades: it declared almost 80% of the water area of the South China Sea as its territory without any agreement with its neighbours stating that all the islands of the sea – the Paracel and Spratly Islands – should also belong to Beijing. Such an approach has resulted into the fact that the conflict in the South China Sea turned into the region’s “sore spot”. Washington decided to use this situation for its benefit.
The power balance around Vietnam is very fortunate for the Americans: the country is in a complex situation, in fact. Russia’s rapprochement with China and the joint manoeuvres of the two fleets in the South China Sea leave no illusions for Hanoi in respect of Moscow’s position in the case of the hot stage of the conflicts in the South China Sea. Washington, through the statements of all its high-ranking visitors in Hanoi starting from President Obama, shows in every possible way its determination and desire to support Vietnam in the event of a military aggravation in the conflict around the islands and marine areas.
It is absolutely clear that all these promises of the USA are no more than a stroke of policy aimed at drawing Vietnam to their side and turning this country into ally in confrontation with China. In addition to the implementation of the so-called hedge policy – that is to form allies among the Southeast Asian nations bordering China that could be managed in a complex system of the US-Chinese relations, the goal of the Americans, especially in Vietnam, was to prove to all – we returned to Vietnam, and returned as the victors. In this regard, we should note that the entire American policy in respect of Vietnam pursues not only pragmatic goals, but propagandistic ones to show that the USA lose the battle, but win the war. In addition, some Americans state that their flight from Vietnam in 1975 was a temporary event, while their return will be permanent.
Meanwhile, It is absolutely obvious that the arrival of Carl Vinson in Cam Ran does not strengthen the security of Vietnam even slightly. There is no doubt that the Americans will act for their own benefit while using their presence in the country to make terms with China, and the situation of January 1974 may occur again. At that time, the Chinese marines landed on the Paracel Islands, where the South Vietnamese troops allied to the Americans have been located. The Americans did not answer to all the appeals of their allies who could not stem the Chinese attack because they already “sold” these isles and the allied Vietnamese units for China’s agreement to confront the USSR in the Cold War with the USA, and for the opportunity to locate their centres to track the launches of the Soviet missiles from Baikonur in the border areas of the Chinese Dzungaria.
Unfortunately, it is not yet clear that this sad experience was taken into account in the steps to bring the two countries closer. They should have kept it in mind.
Dmitry Mosyakov, Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Centre for Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
It is no secret that Vietnam is Russia’s key partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The two countries are linked by their long-standing, stable and friendly relations. Vietnam is also one of the most successful and influential members of ASEAN. Taken together, these factors make the development of relations with Vietnam a top-priority goal in Russia’s foreign policy. In order for two countries to work together successfully, it is very important that they be linked by a reliable transport infrastructure. Russia and Vietnam understand this very well, and are now working on some joint railway projects.
Most of the goods traffic between Vietnam and Russia is still carried by sea, while most passenger transport between the two countries is by air. Clearly, sea freight takes longer than land freight, while air freight is much more expensive. The best way to reduce the cost of transporting goods between Vietnam and Russia would thus be to transport them by land. This has become particularly evident as trade has increased over the last few years.
In October 2016 the Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union (EEA) – of which Russia is a member- and Vietnam entered into force. Since then the volume of trade between Russia and Vietnam has increased steeply. For example, in the third quarter of 2017 the total trade in goods between the two countries was worth $1.4 billion, almost 58% more than in the equivalent period in 2016.
Vietnam has also become much more popular with Russian tourists. More than half a million Russians visited Vietnam in 2017. All things considered, both countries need more efficient transport links to speed up both passenger and freight transport between them. The rate of the increase in trade and tourism gives grounds for confidence that it will not take long to recover the cost of establishing and constructing transport infrastructure to link Russia and Vietnam. The most effective way to transport large volumes of goods and large numbers of passengers is by rail.
In April 2015, during a visit by the Russian prime minister, Dimitry Medvedev, to Vietnam, the Russian national railway company, Russian Railways (RZhD), signed an agreement on cooperation with its Vietnamese equivalent, Vietnam Railways (VR).
In June 2017 RZhD and VR signed an action plan to implement the 2015 agreement. In accordance with this document RZhD may take part in the reconstruction of Vietnam’s existing railway network and the construction of new lines. Russian specialists may also help VR with the development of computer programs and with staff training. The plan also provides for test railway shipments from Russia to Vietnam.
In December 2017 the international trade fair Expo-Russia Vietnam 2017 took place in Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam, along with a Russian-Vietnamese business conference: “Economic Cooperation in a Free Trade Environment.” During this event, RZhD Logistics, a daughter company of RZhD, introduced its new service – fast container delivery from Vietnam to Russia, via China, and back. According to a company representative, transporting goods between Moscow and Hanoi along this route takes half as long as the sea route via the Suez Canal. Future users of the service were assured that a simplified customs procedure would apply and guarantee of shipments safety.
At the beginning of January 2018 the first test container train departed from Kaluga Region in Russia for Hanoi. The train started from Freight Village Borisino multimodal transport and logistics facility, part of Borisino industrial park, located on the boundary between Kaluga Region and Moscow. The shipment arrived at its destination in 20 days. As promised, this was approximately twice as fast as transporting it by sea would have been. Commenting on the news, a representative of RZhD Logistics said that the shipment in effect marked the opening of the Vietnam-Russia-Vietnam international transport corridor (ITC). A ceremonial reception committee made up of senior government officials and business leaders from both Russia and Vietnam greeted the train on its arrival in Hanoi.
The start of rail services between Russia and Vietnam may have both regional and global effects. For example, it should give a powerful boost to trade between Russia and Vietnam.
For example, it is well-known that Vietnam is one of the top ten global leaders in fishing and seafood exports. Its seafood is popular in many countries, but so far, it has only been exported to Russia in relatively small volumes. In February 2018, shortly after the trial launch of the new route, it was announced that Russia and Vietnam are discussing the possibility of significantly increasing Vietnamese seafood exports to Russia. This may well be connected to the launch of the new rail link, since seafood is perishable and needs to be delivered quickly, something that the new rail route will make possible. As the export of fish and seafood is one of the Vietnamese economy’s main sources of income, increasing sales to Russia will significantly strengthen economic links between Russia and Vietnam.
Rail links between Russia and Vietnam via China may also have an effect on relations between Vietnam and China. The increase in Russia’s presence in Vietnam and ASEAN may help to dilute China’s influence, the growth of which worries many countries in the region. It is also possible that it may have an effect on the territorial dispute between Vietnam and China over a group of islands in the South China Sea. Russia is an important partner for both Vietnam and China. The growth of Russia’s influence in the counties of South-East Asia may help Russia become an intermediary in their dispute with China.
One further possible consequence of the launch of the Vietnam-Russia-Vietnam ITC, more global in scale, is an increase in Eurasian integration. It is often said that Vietnam is a gateway to ASEAN for both Russia and for the EEU. Now a reliable road will take both goods and passengers to that gateway. The new ITC will also provide a good link to China’s One Belt One Road initiative, which has similar goals to the EEC- the economic integration of the countries in Eurasia and the creation of a unified transport network.
Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It’s a well-established fact that when two states are determined to get engaged in defense and security cooperation in a bilateral format, they must enjoy sound relations before even thinking about such an undertaking. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) is traditionally one of the oldest and most reliable partners of the Russian Federation, as the military cooperation between Moscow and Hanoi is decades old.
During the Vietnam War of 1957-1975 the USSR would provide all sorts of assistance to Vietnamese communists, making a significant contribution to their victory victory over invading American forces. Once this victory was achieved, both states enjoyed warm bilateral relations until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The state that emerged in its place and inherited its legacy and its debts was the Russian Federation that would be pretty persistent in maintaining its ties with Vietnam. However, you can’t have too much of some things, that’s why military cooperation remains a pivotal component of the Russian-Vietnamese friendship. Vietnamese officers receive military training in Russia, while the Vietnamese armed forces are getting armed with all sorts of Russian military equipment. Vietnam is one of the largest, oldest and most reliable importers of Russian weapons. For example, the Vietnamese Air Force is flying Russia’s aircraft almost exclusively. According to some media reports, Soviet MiG-21 and SU-22 fighters are still in service, and since the beginning of the 2000s, Vietnam has been purchasing modern Russian SU-30MK2 rather actively.
Further still, these days the defense cooperation between Russia and Vietnam undergoes a constant process of rejuvenation. Firstly, this fact can be attributed to the general strengthening of Russian-Vietnamese relations, which required an extensive amount of efforts being invested by both states. Additionally, one cannot help but notice the growing tensions between Vietnam and China that remain unable to resolve the territorial dispute over the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea. The situation around those islands remain rather stable, but in order to better defend its position Vietnam needs to show its regional partners that it is a capable state, the one that has to be reckoned with. At the same time, Hanoi remains fairly concerned over the situation around North Korea and the constant growth of the terrorist threat across Southeast Asia. So it’s no wonder that when a state is presented with a list of such security challenges, it needs to ensure that it’s on the same foot with its most reliable partner.
In 2016, Vietnam started operating six Russian submarines, while various media sources keep running reports that Hanoi is planning to acquire a number of Russian conventional warships.
Last year’s visit of the Vietnamese President, Chiang Dai Kuang to Russia that was desgined to allow him to hold prolonged negotiations with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, resutled in a total of 20 investment contracts being signed with a total worth of 10 billion dollars. The Vietnamese and Russian leaders declared common views on security issues in the APR and their adherence to the UN Charter. Soon after the visit of the Vietnamese leader to Russia, the SRV made an order for the purchase of 64 Russian tanks.
Additionally, at the very begginging of this year Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, arrived to Hanoi in order to enjoy a two weeks long stay. During this visit he met with the President of Vietnam, Chiang Dai Kuang along with with his Vietnamese counterpart Ngô Xuân Lịch. It was reported that the sides discussed various issues of cooperation in various military areas. Among them was the question of acquisition of Russian S-400 AA systems that, according to Shoigu, still possess unsurpassed capabilities, which were displayed by their recent deployment in Syria.
When describing the ongoing cooperation between Russia and Vietnam, Shoigu would note that it is strategic in its nature as it remains Russia’s top priority to maintaini close ties with Vietnam, adding that Vietnam is one of Moscow’s most important security partners in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is reported that a comprehensive plan that would allow the two states to enchase the military cooperation between the Russian Federation and Vietnam has already been drafted for the years 2018-2020. It provides a list of various activities, including joint military exercises. According to Russia’s Defence minister, Russian armed forces are preapared to share their hands on experience of testing even the most advance military equipment in combat conditions. It is expected that the document will be signed in the near future. Further still, this year will be marked by yet another high-profile Russian-Vietnamese meeting.
Futher development of the ongoing cooperation between Moscow And Hanoi will bring a drastic change to the situation in Southeast Asia, as it’s been announced two years ago that Russia was thinking about the possiblity of rebuilding the former Soviet naval base in Vietnam.
It should be recalled that back in 1979 the USSR received the right to freely use for 25 years a navy miltary base near Cam Ran free of charge. It ceased its operations in 2002, when the Russian side decided not to renew its lease. However things have changed since then, that is why a Russian-Vietnamese agreement signed in 2003 alowed both states to use the joint base in Cam Ran for the repair of submarines. In November 2014, two countries signed an agreement on a simplified procedure of the entry of Russian naval vessels to Cam Ran. The ships of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Federation make regular official and unofficial visits to Vietnam. Now the question of granting the ships of the Vietnamese Navy the right to make to visit the Russian port of Vladivostok freely is being discussed.
There’s no details about the possibility of negotiations on the reconstruction of the Russian military base in Vietnam. However, the above mentioned agreements can be considered a step towards such negotiations. The return of the Russian armed forces to Vietnam be beneficial for the Russian Federation, which wants to increase its influence in the APR. In addition, Russia’s military presence could help stabilize siutation in the region that has been experiencing a great many of turbulent processes, now that the APR has become a zone of political rivalry between a number of states. This notion is usually examined through the prism of the struggle for regional dominance between the US and China. However, Beijing has a long list of ongoing territorial disputes with India, Japan and a number of ASEAN countries. Moreover, there’s been a surge of Islamist militant acitvities in both Myanmar and Thailand. Against this background it is possible that a fully operational Russian military base in Vietnam may allow regional players to counter balance the influence exploited by other extra-regional players, namely the United States.
Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is set to host a US aircraft carrier from the pacific fleet. The USS Carl Vinson will be docked in Vietnam, and this will send a clear message of hostility from Vietnam to the People’s Republic of China.
The South China Sea has been a point of contention in recent years, as China works to secure the route of oil tankers and other importing vessels destined for Shanghai and other Chinese ports. The USA seeks to maintain its ability to stop China’s oil supply at any time with a heavy military presence in the pacific. China has escalated its military presence in the South China Sea, looking to make sure that no matter what happens in international relations, the huge apparatus of production on the Chinese mainland cannot be shut down by a US blockade. A Chinese corporation is currently working to construct a canal through Nicaragua, so that imports to China crossing into the Pacific can never be compromised.
While Donald Trump cancelled the Trans Pacific Partnership, and promised a divergence away from the Obama-era strategies, he has continued courting Vietnam as an ally against China.
In the early months of his administration, the Trump White House promoted dissidents and religious activists who sought to overthrow the Communist Party of Vietnam. Trump seemed to be reassuring the anti-Communist Vietnamese exile community that he would not continue Obama’s overtures toward Hanoi. However, Trump has not reinstated the arms embargo against Vietnam which was lifted in 2016, and the docking of the USS Carl Vinson will be the largest US military presence in the Southeast Asian country since the “Fall of Saigon” in 1975.
Kissinger and Brzezinski: Dividing Countries, Manipulating Leftists
The strategy of playing China and Vietnam against each other did not begin with Barack Obama, but goes as far back as the Nixon administration. In the aftermath of the Sino-Soviet split, China attempted to present itself as a bastion of third world anti-colonial revolution. China escalated its support for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, accusing the Soviet leadership of being “revisionists” and “betrayers of people’s war.”
But as China’s Cultural Revolution escalated, and the Gang of Four of ascended following the fall of Lin Biao, China’s tensions with the Soviet Union took on a different character. China began to speak of the Soviet Union as “Social-Imperialists” and “the main danger” to the world. The “Theory of Three Worlds” laid the ideological basis for Mao Zedong to welcome Richard Nixon to Beijing, and establish diplomatic relations with Washington. Henry Kissinger, advisor to Richard Nixon, is widely credited with the strategy of recruiting China as an ally against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
The withdrawal of the USA from Vietnam after Nixon’s “secret plan” of mass bombing failed, was viewed as a humiliating defeat for the United States. The Pentagon strategy of “peace through strength” fell out of favor in Washington, and those who advocated covert action and the funding of proxies had the upper hand in foreign policy strategy.
President Jimmy Carter called himself a student of CIA strategist Zbiegnew Brzezinski. The Carter administration talked a language of detente and non-interventionism to the world, while the USA escalated its covert operations in Latin America and Central and Southeast Asia under the surface.
While Kissinger’s strategy for normalization of relations between the USA and China on the basis of opposing the Soviet Union laid the basis for the divisions, the Kampuchea War, in which thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Chinese people lost their lives, came about by utilizing the strategies of Brzezinski.
USA covertly supported Pol Pot wing of the Communist movement in Cambodia, which slaughtered the Marxist-Leninists and put forward a bizarre ideology of “Agrarian Socialism.” Pol Pot was nominally a Communist, but he opposed industrial development. Pol Pot’s regime persecuted intellectuals, evacuated the urban centers, and abolished all currency, arguing that Cambodia could remain “pure” in its communist ideals by remaining a deeply impoverished, agricultural military state. The world communist movement widely condemned Pol Pot as ultra-left and semi-anarchist. His government of “Democratic Kampuchea” rejected the notion of historical progress and development, which is central to Marxism. Not surprisingly, it also condemned Vietnam for its alliance with the Soviet Union, echoing the position that the USSR was a bastion of “Soviet Social Imperialism.”
This was the same strategy that Brzezinski had implemented in Eastern Europe. In Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and many other parts of the Eastern Bloc, Brzezinski had mastered the art of manipulating youth and intellectuals. Most of the young people who received covert support from US intelligence as they destabilized Marxist-Leninist governments did not advocate capitalism, but articulated some brand of middle class leftism. The Prague Spring of 1968, the Hungarian Revolt of the 1956, and many other anti-communist uprisings fomented by the CIA involved young people who believed they were “anarchists,” “Trotskyists,” “syndicalists” or “democratic socialists.” These young people, often from intellectual strata, with grievances against their government were effectively manipulated to serve the west. The ultra-leftist rhetoric served as a cover, as Washington manipulated them as pawns against the Soviet Union and its allied Marxist-Leninist states.
Pol Pot was a wealthy Cambodian intellectual who had studied in France. He considered Soviet society to be overly rigid and authoritarian, and wanted to implement a more utopian and anti-industrial leftist vision in his home country. Whether he was aware of it or not, much like the idealists in European color revolutions, the US Central Intelligence Agency aided him in implementing his ultra-leftist, anti-communist potpourri. The Khmer Rouge served as a counter gang of sorts, preaching Communist sounding rhetoric as they rallied people in Cambodia to fight against Vietnam and the Soviet Union.
Disagreements in Hanoi
While the US backed government in south Vietnam collapsed in 1975, Vietnam was unable to begin the process of peaceful socialist construction until 1980. War with China and Pol Pot’s “Democratic Kampuchea,” covertly supported by the United States, kept the country in a state of war for another half decade. Since peace was established in 1980, the Vietnamese Communist Party has made huge achievements in raising the life expectancy and increasing the standard of living for the population. The official position of the Vietnamese Communist Party is that they have not fully achieved the construction of modern socialism like China, Cuba, and other countries, but that they are diligently working toward that end, utilizing foreign investment in the process.
While Washington’s strategy in the late 1970s was to support China and Pol Pot against Vietnam, which was a soviet aligned country at the time, in the present time, when China has ascended to the role of a global superpower, the strategy has flipped. Now US leaders court Hanoi, hoping to maneuver it toward becoming a satellite against Beijing. The hope is that Vietnam can become a mechanism in the operation of preventing China from securing the South China Sea, and maintaining the potential US “oil veto” over Chinese industry.
While there is a long history of war and hatred between the people of China and Vietnam that goes back centuries, the people of Vietnam and the people of China are now both led by Marxist-Leninist Parties. Both countries have overturned capitalism, are constructing state controlled planned economies, utilizing market mechanisms.
While Vietnam continues to respond in-kind to Washington’s overtures, there are clear disagreements about this within the Communist Party. The fall of Nguyen Tan Dung, the most anti-Chinese voice within the party, seems to indicate that anti-Chinese sentiment is not universal. The Vietnamese Communist Party seems to be clashing internally when it comes to many issues, including economic policy, as well as foreign relations.
While Vietnam’s path forward is unclear, Washington’s strategy is very clear. The hope is that Vietnam and China, despite being led by ideologically similar parties, and having the same goal of eliminating poverty and raising the standard of living with socialist planned economies, can be turned against each other. “Divide and Conquer,” the catch phrase of conquerers in ancient Rome, remains applicable in 2018, as Wall Street and London seek to keep their grip on the world.
Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam was at one time one of the poorest countries in Asia. But, as a result of the transformation that the country has undergone in the last few decades, many are now of the opinion that it deserves to be considered as one of the ‘Asian tigers’ – a designation that traditionally refers to Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. It is worth noting that Russia has successfully developed its relationship with Vietnam, a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), in particular.
At the end of the 1980s Vietnam started introducing certain elements of free market principles into its economy, while still preserving socialistic base. This decision played a significant role in developing Vietnam’s manufacturing, energy, science, agriculture and tourism sectors, and boosted its foreign trade. These changes also led to an increase in foreign investment. This renewal of Vietnam’s economy is still continuing, making it one of the leaders in the ASEAN group.
It is worth noting that China is exercising a strong influence over the ASEAN countries, an influence which is steadily growing as a result both of the USA’s loss of influence in the region, and of China’s own ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) initiative. Vietnam is no exception: China is a major exporter into this country. Vietnam is actively involved in the OBOR initiative and is developing its transport links with China. The Kunming–Singapore railway, which will link China with the ASEAN countries, runs through almost the whole of the Indochinese peninsula.
However, Vietnam has been able to resist China’s influence to a certain extent. It is doing what it can to develop a mutually beneficial working relationship with China without allowing China to influence its foreign policy or trade links. Thus, Vietnam’s key trade partners include the USA, the leading importer of Vietnamese goods. Vietnam also actively supported the now-abandoned Trans-Pacific Partnership, in which the USA and Japan were to play a leading role and which China viewed as a challenge to its economic supremacy in Asia.
One further factor in Vietnam’s success in the ASEAN group is its relationship with its neighbor Laos. The two countries’ shared border is more than 2 100 km long, and ethnic Vietnamese constitute the largest section of Laos’s population. Vietnam played a leading role in the formation of the modern nation of Laos: the Vietnamese army fought in the Laotian Civil War (1968-1973), and the two countries have had a close relationship ever since. Vietnam is now Laos’s main foreign investor (with a total investment of approximately $5 billion) and an important trade partner. A record level of over $1 billion trade between the due countries was reached as early as 2014. The two countries are continuing to expand their cooperation, not only in the economic sphere but also in relation to cultural, political and security issues.
As a matter of fact, Vietnam and Laos can be seen as an alliance within ASEAN. Since each member of ASEAN has a vote and veto right within the organization, Vietnam’s close relationship with Laos significantly increases its influence within the group.
Vietnam has a similarly close relationship with another neighbor- Cambodia. In January 2018 there was a meeting of the Organizing Committee of the Vietnam-Laos Solidarity and Friendship Year 2017 and the Vietnam-Cambodia Solidarity and Friendship Year 2017. This event was led by the Vietnam’s Foreign Minister, Phạm Bình Minh. The meeting reviewed the results of the Year, which Phạm Bình Minh held to be a success. He said that Vietnam’s links with Laos and Cambodia were continually getting stronger, and growing in all sectors.
We can conclude that Vietnam is one of the most successful and influential countries in the ASEAN group, with an active foreign policy and a real influence in both ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific region. As a result those countries wishing to develop their relationship with ASEAN would do well to start with Vietnam. That is precisely the course that Russia is following at the moment.
The good relationship between Vietnam and Russia dates back to the Second Indochina War, in which the USSR provided the Vietnamese Communists with invaluable support in their fight against South Vietnamese forces, supported by US interventionists.
In 1994, after the fall of the USSR, Vietnam and Russia signed a Treaty of Friendship. After that, they continued to develop their cooperation in economic, political and military matters.
In 2012, the two countries published a joint declaration on a comprehensive strategic partnership.
As during the Soviet period, Russia and Vietnam continue to cooperate in the military and technical sphere. Russia provides the Vietnamese army and navy with military hardware, and Vietnamese soldiers undergo training in Russia. As it is known cooperation in the military and related spheres is a sign of the high level of trust between the two countries.
Russia and Vietnam are also working together on financial matters, oil and gas extraction and nuclear power projects. Cooperation in the area of tourism is also growing healthily. In 2017, for example, Vietnam was visited by more than half a million Russian tourists.
In 2015 trade between Russia and Vietnam was approximately $3.9 billion, and since then Vietnam has been Russia’s major trade partner in ASEAN.
One major achievement in the growth of economic cooperation between Russia and Vietnam has been the Free Trade Agreement between Vietnam and the Eurasian Economic Union, a body in which Russia plays the leading role. This agreement was signed in May 2015 and came into effect in October 2016.
It was not long before the agreement began to yield fruit. The level of trade between Russia and Vietnam has recently increased considerably. In the first quarter of 2017 trade between the two countries surpassed $984 million, which was almost 24% more than the figure for the equivalent period in the previous year. In the second quarter of 2017 trade between Russia and Vietnam was in excess of $1 billion, 32% higher than the figure for the second quarter in 2016. And, finally, the figure for the third quarter of 2017 was almost $1.5 billion, 57% higher than the figure for the equivalent period in 2016.
To sum up, we can say that Vietnam is a reliable partner of Russia. The two countries have decades of friendly relations behind them, and great plans for the future. Vietnam is one of the most successful and influential ASEAN countries and, as a result, friendship with Vietnam can help Russia to develop its relations with all the other countries in the group.
Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Western think tanks have been increasingly busy cultivating a narrative to explain the sudden and spreading presence of militants linked or fighting under the banner of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) across Southeast Asia.
This narrative – these think tanks would have audiences believe – entails militants fleeing Syria and Iraq, and entrenching themselves amid supposedly sectarian conflicts in Southeast Asia. The think tanks conveniently never mention how tens of thousands of militants are funding the logistical feat required to move them to Southeast Asia or sustain their militant operations in the region once they arrive.
Among these think tanks is the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG). In its report, “Jihadism in southern Thailand – A phantom menace,” it claims:
The decline of the Islamic State (ISIS) and the advent of ISIS-linked violence in South East Asia evince the possibility of a new era of transnational jihadist terrorism in the region.
Recurring, albeit unsubstantiated, reports about ISIS activity in Thailand have prompted questions about the vulnerability of the country’s Muslim-majority deep south and, in particular, its longstanding Malay-Muslim insurgency to jihadist influence.
While ICG claims that “to date” there is no evidence that ISIS has made inroads in southern Thailand, it warns:
But the conflict and a series of ISIS scares in Thailand are fanning fears of a new terrorist threat. Such fears are not irrational, though they are largely misplaced and should not obscure the calamity of the insurgency and the need to end it.
Direct talks between insurgent leaders and the government are a priority; a decentralised political system could help address the principal grievances in the south while preserving the unitary Thai state.
In essence, ICG is warning of a crisis it itself admits is unlikely, then recommends that Bangkok pursue a course of action it already is taking – talking with militant leaders in its southern most provinces.
The lengthy ICG report – in reality – is just one of many reoccurring and premeditated attempts to place the notion of ISIS militancy taking root in Thailand into the realm of possibility. Just as the US and its allies have used ISIS as a geopolitical tool elsewhere in the world, and more recently, in Southeast Asia itself – particularly in the Philippines – a longstanding US goal in Thailand is to find and exploit sociopolitical and sectarian fault lines across which to divide, destroy, and control the Thai state.
It was in a 2012 leaded memo drafted by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that admitted the US and its allies sought the creation of what it called at the time a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State), specifically in eastern Syria where eventually ISIS would base itself before joint Russian-Iranian-Syrian operations uprooted and expelled them.
The 2012 report (.pdf) states specifically (emphasis added):
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
Thus, if ISIS is a geopolitical tool first designed and deployed by the US and its allies to subvert, isolate, and overthrow the government of Syria, it follows that ISIS’ expansion into other regions of the world US foreign policy is facing increasingly insurmountable challenges is also very much planned and fueled by US policymakers and the special interests that sponsor them.
Who is the ICG and Why are They Promoting ISIS Fear?
ICG is a corporate-funded and directed policy think tank and network that creates and leverages conflicts under the guise of “preventing” them.
It claims on its website that:
Crisis Group aspires to be the preeminent organisation providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage deadly conflict. We combine expert field research, analysis and engagement with policymakers across the world in order to effect change in the crisis situations on which we work. We endeavour to talk to all sides and in doing so to build on our role as a trusted source of field-centred information, fresh perspectives and advice for conflict parties and external actors.
Yet a look at its sponsors and membership reveals a Westerners-only club of corporate-financier special interests, lobbying groups, lawyers, and politicians linked directly to the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, or governments beholden to either or both.
These sponsors include oil giants Chevron, Eni, Noble Energy, Shell, Statoil, and British Petroleum (BP). It also includes financiers such as HSBC Holdings, MetLife, and RBC Capital Markets.
There is also the matter of law firms and lobbyists which fund and are directly involved in ICG’s agenda including Sherman & Sterling, White & Chase, APCO Worldwide, and Edelman.
APCO Worldwide is notorious for fabricating news articles to manipulate inner corporate governance, while Edelman is notorious specifically regarding Thailand for providing lobbying services (PDF) to ousted dictator Thaksin Shinawatra, removed from power in 2006 via a military coup ICG itself vehemently opposed, condemned, and to this day protests.
Edelman’s lobbying for Thaksin Shinawatra was headed by Kenneth Adelman, who joined Edelman as a senior adviser in 2001. Not only is Edelman a corporate sponsor of ICG, but Kenneth Adelman himself is listed in the appendixes of ICG’s Thailand report as a senior ICG adviser. Adelman also chairs the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidiary, Freedom House – another front alongside Washington and London-based lobbyists that have pressured Thailand since the ousting of Shinawatra in 2006.
Listed along with Adelman is George Soros who sits on ICG’s board of trustees. Soros’ Open Society Foundation is listed by ICG as one of its sponsors.
Soros and his Open Society Foundation’s involvement is essential to note. Virtually all of Thailand’s “opposition” groups – from supposed student and academic fronts to media platforms and activists – are funded by both NED and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. These include Prachatai, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), Thai Netizens, the New Democracy Movement (NDM), Human Rights Watch Thailand, Amnesty International Thailand, iLaw, the Isaan Record, and many more.
The concerted efforts by ICG, its corporate sponsors through lobbying, and among its memberships various other associations like Freedom House and Open Society to attack and undermine Thailand in favor of the West’s proxy of choice – Thaksin Shinawatra and the large and growing opposition front the West is building inside Thailand – already raises suspicions about ICG’s motivation in publishing its most recent report regarding ISIS in Thailand.
Observing Western efforts against Thailand’s Southeast Asian neighbors, particularly Myanmar and the Philippines, raises suspicions even further.
The United States has expertly cultivated a deadly sectarian divide in Myanmar – turning nationalist extremists against the nation’s Rohingya minority and using the resulting violence to undermine the nation’s military while propelling Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) into power. The violence also compromises constructive economic and diplomatic ties between Myanmar and China.
In the Philippines, ISIS-linked militants managed to seize an entire city in the nation’s southern region. The money, weapons, and militants required for this feat clearly required state sponsorship. Just as in Syria, ISIS in the Philippines is linked to Saudi Arabia which serves as an intermediary for US money, weapons, supplies, and directives.
The conflicts in both Myanmar and the Philippines has given the US the initiative in serving as “mediator” in Myanmar, and providing “military assistance” in the Philippines. Both moves serve to give Washington a tighter grip over both nations at a time when the whole of Southeast Asia moves further out from under the shadow of US hegemony and into a more constructive and mutually beneficial embrace with Beijing.
Thailand – because of its large economy, population, and geostrategic location at the center of continental Southeast Asia – would serve US interests well in reasserting hegemony over Asia Pacific and creating a untied front against Beijing. However, Thailand – because of its independent institutions, particularly its military and monarchy – enjoys a level of unity its neighbors do not.
Under Thaksin Shinawatra, the US sought to exploit sociopolitical and class fault lines. As this fails, it appears the US is trying to use the very same networks of “reds” to stoke the same sort of nationalist fervor that has consumed neighboring Myanmar. “Reds,” referring to Shinawatra’s ultra-violent United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) street front, have already begun shifting activity toward temples to cultivate a previously nonexistent Buddhist-Muslim divide.
Soros-funded fronts like Prachatai posing as “rights advocates” have decried swift and decisive moves by the Thai military to detain and defrock “monks” attempting to promote sectarian violence.
To bookend US efforts to engineer a sectarian divide in Thailand, it appears that organizations like ICG are creating a narrative to explain soon-to-be ISIS activity in Thailand. The abhorrent nature of ISIS operations will play well into the anti-Islam propaganda promoted by US-backed networks in Thailand’s northeast. Somewhere in the middle – US policymakers hope – a self-sustaining “clash of civilizations” can be sparked, and consume Thailand’s historically impressive national unity.
Once divided, Thailand will be more easily coerced toward US objectives in Thailand and across the wider region.
What Thailand Should Really Do
The militancy in southern Thailand is contained. The Thai government must continue existing efforts to bring socioeconomic progress to the region to drain the swamps of poverty and perceived injustice that drives recruitment into militant organizations. But beyond that, Bangkok must identify and deal with the logistical nature of the conflict, particularly those involved in arming, training, and funding the militancy.
To preemptively stop efforts by the US to expand the conflict, the government would benefit from Singapore-style hate speech legislation which makes attempts by groups to promote sectarian violence impossible without receiving immediate and severe jail sentences.
Simultaneously, efforts to further promote interfaith understanding, mutual respect, and activism would enhance Thailand’s already renowned values of tolerance and diversity. Many Thais are already aware of the constructive role members of the Thai Muslim community have played in Thailand’s history. There is already positive cross-cultural exchanges that happen accidentally everyday in Thailand’s markets and among its many street vendors. Highlighting and enhancing this will help further inoculate the public from attempts to divide and destroy the nation along sectarian lines.
Also, the government must expose and hinder efforts by US NED and Open Society-funded fronts. Citing the US’ own precedent in forcing Russia’s RT to register as “foreign agents,” the Thai government could legislate mandatory disclosures in all social media profiles and at the beginning and end of every publication in print or online – including social media posts – by fronts like Prachatai indicating who funds them and why.
Finally, understanding that ISIS’ source of strength came from networks propped up by the US and its allies means that fighting an ISIS militancy in Thailand begins with understanding that the US Embassy represents the very source of the militancy’s strength. Rather than fostering a direct confrontation with the United States, alternative Thai media could link ISIS activity directly and repeatedly with the US embassy – ensuring any terrorist act is immediately linked to suspicion of the US Embassy.
The more covert US-sponsored terrorism that unfolds, the more US credibility in Thailand and in the region will suffer.
Finally, when seeking allies in a true “War on Terror,” Bangkok should cultivate ties with nations that are truly waging war on terror. This includes China, Russia, and Iran.
When the US begins losing and being excluded permanently everywhere it brings its “War on Terror,” policymakers in Washington will either be held accountable and the tactic abandoned, or the US itself will find itself as isolated and irrelevant as it has tried to make nations like Syria and Iraq upon which it first unleashed its ISIS menace.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
A new Veteran’s Affairs study is showing that a parasite from Vietnam could be killing veterans who fought in the war a half a century later.
Hundreds of veterans have a new reason to believe they may be dying from a silent bullet. Test results show some men may have been infected by a slow-killing parasite while fighting in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The Department of Veterans Affairs this spring commissioned a small pilot study to look into the link between liver flukes ingested through raw or undercooked fish and a rare bile duct cancer. It can take decades for symptoms to appear. By then, patients are often in tremendous pain, with just a few months to live.
According to Fox News, of the 50 blood samples submitted, more than 20 percent came back positive or bordering positive for liver fluke antibodies, said Sung-Tae Hong, the tropical medicine specialist who carried out the tests at Seoul National University in South Korea. “It was surprising,” he said, stressing the preliminary results could include false positives and that the research is ongoing.
All those who tested positive for the parasite have been notified. Gerry Wiggins, who served in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969, has already lost friends to the disease ad he was among those who got the call. “I was in a state of shock,” he said. “I didn’t think it would be me.”
The 69-year-old, who lives in Port Jefferson Station, New York, didn’t have any symptoms when he agreed to take part in the study but hoped his participation could help save lives. He immediately scheduled further tests, discovering he had two cysts on his bile duct, which had the potential to develop into cancer, known as cholangiocarcinoma. They have since been removed he’s doing well.
But other veterans have already succumbed to the parasite’s cancer-causing effects. Endemic in the rivers of Vietnam, the worms can easily be wiped out with a handful of pills early on, but left untreated they can live for decades without making their hosts sick. Over time, swelling and inflammation of the bile duct can lead to cancer. The symptoms, which include jaundice, itchy skin, and weight loss only when the disease is in its final stages.
The VA suggests that veterans who ingested undercooked or raw fish while serving in Vietnam should get tested for fluke, and have their liver examined by a medical professional.
In 2015, the Pentagon tried the same thing, a duplicitous 50th anniversary commemoration.
It reinvented naked aggression against a nation threatening no one – ending in a humiliating US defeat, slaughtering millions of Southeast Asians its only accomplishment.
Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers revealed what the Pentagon wanted suppressed. Burns tried the same thing in 18 PBS episodes, titled “The Vietnam War,” a deplorable exercise in deception.
It begins quoting unindicted war criminal Henry Kissinger, deplorably saying America needs to “heal the wounds and put Vietnam behind us.” It ends with Beatles’ anti-war activist John Lennon’s “Let It Be” over the credits.
His lyrics to “Imagine” and “Give Peace a Chance” communicated powerful anti-war sentiment. He was an iconic anti-war activist of his time.
Distinguished documentary filmmaker, author, writer, and imperial critic John Pilger served as a war correspondent in Vietnam.
Commenting on Burns’ reinvented history, he quoted him deplorably saying his Vietnam War series “will inspire our country to begin to talk and think about the Vietnam war in an entirely new way.”
His reinvented history ignored the rape and destruction of a country, the merciless slaughter of millions of its people, the deadly legacy of Agent Orange, the dioxin defoliant one of the deadliest substances known, minute amounts able to cause serious illnesses or death.
After watching Burns’ first episode, Pilger explained it left “no doubt of its intentions right from the start,” the narrator falsely claiming the war “was begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings.”
“There was no good faith,” Pilger stressed. “The faith was rotten and cancerous…no mention of Vietnamese dead, only Americans” – a deplorable whitewashing of one of history’s great crimes.
Burns is an apologist for imperial power, mindless of its ruthlessness, his Vietnam War episodes a shameful attempt to sanitize mass slaughter and destruction.
Over half a century after the war’s end, most Americans know nothing about the horrors their country inflicted on Southeast Asians – in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
They’re ignorant about ongoing US imperial wars, naked aggression against multiple countries, new ones threatened against North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, the possibility of catastrophic nuclear war.
Here’s what I wrote about US Southeast Asian aggression earlier – world’s apart from Burns’ propaganda series:
The late Gabriel Kolko wrote the definitive Vietnam War history. His “Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience” explains what everyone needs to know.
Washington installed the authoritarian Ngo Dinh Diem regime to build military strength, crush opposition, and gain a reliable ally.
In the 1950s, military advisors arrived. Escalation followed. Lyndon Johnson wanted war on Vietnam. He got it.
The August 1964 false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale conflict. It raged after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Authorizing war without declaring it is longstanding US tradition. Big lies launch and perpetuate them.
Mass killing and destruction follow. In February 1965, Operation Thunder began, war without mercy, raging through October 1968.
It featured indiscriminate terror-bombing, using over a million tons of ordnance. Its aim was destroying Vietnam’s economy and will to resist.
Over the course of war from 1965 – 1973, eight million tons of bombs were dropped, threefold WW II tonnage, around 300 tons for every Vietnamese man, woman, and child.
Napalm was used along with other incendiary devices – terror weapons.
Anti-personnel cluster bombs spewing thousands of metal pellets, striking everything in their path. Indiscriminate land mines claim victims to this day.
War targeted Cambodia and Laos. From March 1969 through May 1970. Nixon ordered secret bombings without consulting Congress, allegedly to destroy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong sanctuaries. Around 3,500 sorties were flown.
About 600,000 deaths followed, mostly civilians, helping Khmer Rouge elements gain power in 1975.
Cambodia was bombed with over 500,000 tons of ordnance until August 1973.
Over 25,000 US ground forces invaded. Dozens of towns, villages and hamlets were destroyed. Many thousands more were killed, mostly peasants.
A 1962 Geneva Accord recognized Laos as a neutral state, banning foreign military personnel from its territory.
Reality was much different. From 1965 – 1973, America flew around 580,000 sorties, dropping over two million tons of ordinance, the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes round-the-clock for nine years.
The objective was destroying North Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail supply lines, targeting the Pathet Lao government.
Secret bombings again were used. So were terror weapons, including napalm, white phosphorous and cluster bombs.
Millions of unexploded bomblets remained buried in fields, roads, forests, villages and rivers.
Around one-third of Laos’s 6.5 million people were killed, injured or displaced. Southeast Asia’s wars were devastating, killing around four million people, causing mass destruction.
On August 10, 1961, America began spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Operation Ranch Hand waged herbicidal warfare for 10 years.
Around 20,000 sorties were flown. Other spraying was done from boats, trucks, or soldiers mounted with backpacks.
Over five million acres were contaminated. About 20% of South Vietnam was sprayed at least once.
Millions of gallons of dioxin-containing defoliant were used across vast areas. Concentrations were 50 times greater than for other defoliation purposes. Horrific consequences followed.
Millions of combatants and civilians were irreparably harmed or killed. Washington wants its toxic legacy buried, its high crimes against peace forgotten, whitewashed from history.
Burns’ Vietnam War episodes tried making America’s ugly past look respectable – ignorant individuals alone buying it
Create your own review
Vietnam — (ZH) The lack of prosecution of US bankers responsible for the great financial crisis has been a much debated topic over the years, leading to the coinage of such terms as “Too Big To Prosecute”, the termination of at least one corrupt DOJ official, the revelation that Eric Holder is the most useless Attorney General in history, and of course billions in cash kickbacks between Wall Street and D.C. And, naturally, the lack of incentives that punish cheating and fraud, is one of the main reasons why such fraud will not only continue but get bigger until once again, the entire system crashes under the weight of accumulated theft, corruption and Fed-driven malinvestment. But what can be done? In this case, Vietnam may have just shown the way – sentence embezzling bankers to death. Because if one wants to promptly stop an end to all financial crime, few things motivate as efficiently as a firing squad.
According to the BBC, the former head of a major Vietnamese bank has been sentenced to death for his role in a fraud case involving some 800 billion dong (which sounds like a lot of dong, but equals roughly $35 million) of illegal loans. Nguyen Xuan Son, who served as general director of OceanBank, was convicted of embezzlement, abuse of power and economic mismanagement. Bank founder, tycoon Ha Van Tham, and dozens of other banking officials are also on trial, accused of lending violations.
Advertisment
Nguyen Xuan Son was sentenced to death at the People’s Court in HanoiMeanwhile, dozens of former employees also received lengthy prison sentences in the major corruption trial. Because OceanBank is partially-state owned, Son’s crime of mishandling state money was thought to be particularly serious. After leaving the bank, he rose to be head of state oil giant PetroVietnam. As Reuters reported previously, PetroVietnam and Vietnam’s banking sector are at the heart of a sweeping corruption crackdown in the communist state.
The four officials are accused of intentional breaches of state rules over a loss-making investment in Ocean Group’s banking unit, police said in an online statement.
Investigations into PetroVietnam made global headlines last month when Germany accused Vietnam of kidnapping Trinh Xuan Thanh, a former official of a PetroVietnam unit, from a park in Berlin and forcing him home to face charges of financial mismanagement.
A Politburo member who was a former PetroVietnam chairman and a vice trade minister have also been sacked from their positions as part of the crackdown — unusual moves in a country where such senior officials are rarely dismissed.
To be sure, Vietnam is one of the world’s biggest executioners, according to Amnesty International, but this is said to be the first time in years that the death penalty has been given to such a high-flying former official. Back in 2013, another former banker, Vu Quoc Hao, the former general director of Agribank Financial Leasing Co, was also sentenced to death by lethal injection for embezzling $25 million (or what Goldman would call “weekend lunch money”) a case which however was relatively low profile and received little international attention.
READ MORE: Trump Appoints Goldman Sachs Insider as Treasury Sec, Bank"s Stocks Skyrocket to Record Highs
Earlier in the day, OceanBank’s ex-chairman Ha Van Tham, once one of the richest people in Vietnam, was jailed for life on the same charges, and for violating lending rules. Judge Truong Viet Toan said: “Tham and Son’s behaviour is very serious, infringing on the management of state assets and causing public grievances, which requires strict punishment.”
The bank’s ex-chairman Ha Van Tham was jailed for lifeMore details from BBC:
In total, 51 officials and bankers stood trial, accused of mismanagement leading to losses of $69m (£50m).
The case comes amid a massive anti-corruption crackdown in Vietnam, which is ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in Asia. It is ranked 113th out of 176 countries on Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index.
The government has vowed to tackle the issue in order to boost the country’s economic growth. In May, a top Vietnamese official was sacked for “serious violations” while running PetroVietnam.
And yet, while one could be left with the impression that this is a case of justice finally being done, even today’s sentences appears to have an element of corruption to them: according to BBC, the blitz, while tackling corruption, has mainly targeted opponents of Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.
Still, no matter the circumstances, an outcome such as this in the US remains impossible: after all it is America’s very own embezzling bankers that control the legislative and judicial branches, and most recently, the executive not to mention the central bank, which is why deterrence of any substantial scale will never take place in the US and small, medium and large-scale theft will continue unabated, with the occasional slaps on the wrist, until there is nothing left to steal.
(ANTIMEDIA) U.S. ally Japan pledged six new patrol boats to Vietnam on Monday, Reuters reports, as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits the country during a diplomatic trip to several nations in the region.
“We will strongly support Vietnam’s enhancing its maritime law enforcement capability,” Prime Minister Abe said while announcing the pledge.
The potential problem lies in the fact that Vietnam has been one of the few nations in the region to display a willingness to oppose China — particularly on the issue of the South China Sea, of which the Southeast Asian superpower and incoming President Trump are on opposite sides.
A point highlighted by Reuters:
“Abe’s stop in Vietnam completes a tour through an arc of a region where Japan stakes a leadership claim in the face of China’s growing dominance and uncertainty over what policy change Donald Trump will bring as U.S. president.”
Last week, while in Manila, Prime Minister Abe pledged nearly $9 billion toward infrastructure development in the Philippines — a nation that appears, on the surface, to be wholeheartedly embracing the one-China policy.
Speaking to President Duterte at his home, Abe said Japan “will create business opportunities through Official Development Assistance and private sector investments which, together, will be in the order of one trillion yen ($8.7 billion) over the next five years.”
On the current tensions over disputed waters, Abe asserted, “[T]he issue of the South China Sea is directly linked to regional peace and stability and is a concern of the entire international community.”
As Reuters once again noted Monday, “China claims almost all of the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion worth of sea-borne trade passes every year.” This is what Abe is referring to when he says the dispute is of international concern.
This is also what makes Abe’s pledge of patrol boats to Vietnam so interesting. Only days ago, Vietnam vowed to work with China peacefully on the territorial disputes over the South China Sea, marking a change in tone in negotiations.
Given the facts — and the geopolitical environment they originate from — one might conclude that U.S. ally Japan is trying to win favor, via pledges of financial investment, with nations facing a decision to turn from the West and succumb to a one-China authority.
This article (Japan Pledges Patrol Boats to Vietnam As Dispute With China Grows) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to James Holbrooks and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.
(ANTIMEDIA) — Notable American foreign policy critic and linguist, Professor Noam Chomsky, has stated numerous times that the United States’ power has steadily been declining since the end of World War II. As Chomsky notes, in 1945, the United States had “literally half the world’s wealth, incredible security, controlled the entire Western Hemisphere, both oceans, [and[ the opposite sides of both oceans.”
In that context – and in the context of the United States waging war in multiple countries across the globe with the most advanced military technology in the world – it is hard to understand how this has happened. But Chomsky is not wrong.
Beginning with what was referred to as the “loss of China” in the 1940s, the United States slowly began to lose areas of Southeast Asia, which led America to brutally launch the Indochina wars. As Chomsky notes, by destroying South Vietnam in the heavily criticized Vietnam War — a move designed to prevent Vietnam from achieving independence and perhaps becoming a Communist state — the U.S. sent a message to the rest of Indochina that if a nation attempted to break free of U.S-European control, it would likely be bombed into oblivion. The strategy worked at the time; as Chomsky notes, by 1965, every country in the region had dictatorships that were prepared to rule in a way suitable to America’s foreign policy interests. As recent developments in the Asian region have shown, however, the success of this bully-style strategy has been short-lived indeed.
Regardless, the United States has also lost South America. According to Chomsky, the “loss” of South America is easily observable:
“One sign is that the United States has been driven out of every single military base in South America. We’re trying to restore a few, but right now there are none.”
Over the course of the last few decades, the United States has begun to lose the Middle East, as well. In Iraq, the United States helped support Saddam Hussein’s rise to power and went so far to support his war of aggression against neighboring Iran. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Hussein, attacking Iraq in 1991 under the presidency of George H.W. Bush. As a result, the U.S. learned at least one valuable lesson from bombing Iraq in the early nineties: that Russia was not going to intervene in America’s ambitions in the Middle East.
The Middle East was, therefore, ripe for the taking, and this continued to be the case up until the Syrian war. What people fail to understand, however, is that the United States is not bombing the Middle East into submission because of its immense power, but because it is losing its power, influence, and control throughout the region.
As should be quite clear to anyone following the conflict, Russia has replaced the United States as judge, jury, and executioner (and supposed peace broker) in the five-year Syrian war, successfully retaking the major city of Aleppo from NATO-backed rebel groups.
Russia’s advances in the Middle East have spilled over to the rest of the world. In October of last year, the U.S. officially “lost” its stranglehold over the Philippines. Though it was previously seen as an integral ally U.S. ally vital to countering China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region, the Philippines openly and proudly boasted about their new ties with Russia and China.
As it transpires, the Philippines has put its money where its mouth is. Russian warships arrived in Filipino territory this Tuesday. According to the Philippines’ Navy, the visit is merely a “goodwill visit,” but the future of joint exercises is to be discussed. A report from Russia’s state-run Sputnik News seemed to contradict this, stating the ships were there specifically to conduct joint exercises with Philippine forces for the purposes of fighting maritime piracy and terrorism.
“You can choose to cooperate with United States of America or to cooperate with Russia,” Russian Rear Admiral Eduard Mikhailov said, speaking at the Manila Harbor.“But from our side we can help you in every way that you need. We are sure that in the future we’ll have exercises with you. Maybe just maneuvering or maybe use of combat systems and so on.”
Mikhailov also seemed to indicate that other players in the region, such as China and Malaysia, would coordinate with the potential training exercises within the next few years. Russia has also offered the Philippines sophisticated weaponry, including aircraft and submarines.
The United States has only one move left: surround Russia’s borders with NATO troops and missiles, which they are doing quite rapidly. Sooner or later, however, the United States will have to admit its very real decline in world standing and will have no choice but to learn to coordinate global affairs with the likes of Russia and China.
Let’s face it — what is the alternative?
This article (End of the US Empire: Russian Warships Just Arrived in the Philippines) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.
