Who's Profiting from Israel's Offensive in Gaza?

A little insight, through a great interview, into why there has never been peace in Middle East, since the founding of Israel, & how there will never be any peace over there. Major reason: Military-Industrial Complex.

This military-industrial complex will never rest until the whole world is in flames. There are wars being fought all over the world. This piece is highlighting how Israel uses Gaza as a live experiment space for its weapons, & uses the success rates of the war as a major selling point. But, other major industrial, developed, countries, who always say, on one hand, that they are working hard for peace around the world, &, on the other hand, sell & promote weapons of mass destruction to the whole world. For instance, UK keeps selling its weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is using those weapons against poor Yemenis in its years-long, useless war against Yemen.

The general public is either so naive or stupid that it doesn't see who are the actual puppeteers behind all these wars around the world. Hamas & Palestinians get blamed for the violence & wars in Israel & Occupied Territories. Nobody points any fingers towards Israel & how its own weapon companies are profiting by killing innocent Palestinians. Hamas may use Palestinians as human shields but it doesn't raise $132,000 per Palestinian head in financing for new weapons.

Similarly, Pakistan, India, Colombia, Afghanistan, Kenya, Nigeria, Congo, UAE, Iraq, Libya & many other developing countries have been, are being, & will be blamed for violence in their regions, but nobody will make the UN Security Council members accountable for their actions in creating unrest around the world. US, China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Canada, & even Sweden actively manufacture, promote, & sell weapons, & these weapons are a major source of their exports & GDP.

So, how can ever there be peace on this Earth, when developed countries, who are perceived as the role models on such issues as leadership, governance, economics, business, development etc. are the ones hawking weapons of mass destruction, pushing developing countries towards wars, & profiting from killing & destruction of lives of innocent people around the world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ot2JOP_QA

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: So, Shir, the violence continues in Gaza, and it begs the question, who is actually profiting from this war?

SHIR HEVER, ECONOMIST, ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION CENTER: I have to say it feels very cynical to talk about economy and profiteers when we're talking about such a massive human tragedy and so many people killed--murdered, actually. But I think it is very important to understand the economic aspect of it, because it also tells us a little bit why, why this is happening, and maybe also gives us an idea of what is required in order to stop it.

We've seen in the last couple of years a pattern. Every two years or so, the Israeli military attacks Gaza, attacks the Gaza Strip, and causes a lot of destruction. But right after each one of those attacks, there is a trade show in which Israeli weapon companies show their wares, show their technologies, and boast that these are the very technologies that have been used just now against Palestinians in Gaza. We saw that after the attack of 2008-2009, known as Cast Lead, where the main theme was those robots that go into houses to look around corners. Then we saw that again in the attack of 2012, which was called Pillar of Cloud, in which the main theme was the Iron Dome system that can intercept the Palestinian rockets. And now, in the current attack, we have again the Iron Dome system that is supposed to intercept rockets.

And all of these Israeli companies, which are becoming an increasingly important and very significant part of the Israeli export system and the Israeli economy, depend on those wars. They depend on periodic fighting where they can showcase their equipment, their technology. And the first thing that they say when they try to market whatever it is that they develop: we've already used that on actual human beings. And by making that claim, they're able to compete with weapon manufacturers from other countries.

DESVARIEUX: But, Shir, which companies are we talking about here? And are any of them connected to the United States?

HEVER: One of the major companies that we're talking about is Israeli Aerospace Industries. This company, there was a little article about it in the newspaper just two days ago that right now, in the middle of this attack, they've issued a call--they've issued bonds and tried to raise finance in order to expand the company and increase their production. And they were able to raise $132 million in just one week, which comes up as $132,000 per Palestinian killed in this attack. By now, there are more Palestinians who have been killed, but by now the company's also sold additional bonds. And this company sees a direct relation between the violence against Gaza and the ability of this company to find new markets for its products.

Another very prominent company is called Elbit Systems. This is a very famous Israeli company which specializes in drones. And, of course, they're also very active in this war.

All of these companies are also extremely connected to the United States. And the United States is the biggest supplier of aid, military aid to Israel. And this military aid comes in the form of weapons, actually. So these military companies have learned to work in symbiosis with the U.S. arms industry so that they develop their technologies together in order to provide components which are produced in Israel and work with U.S.-manufactured weapons. So, in fact, this war is not, this attack on Gaza is not just a trade show for the Israeli arms industry; it's also a trade show for the United States arms industry. And the demand for weapons always increases every time Israel goes into another cycle of violence in the Middle East.

I think there's one point that is very important to make, though, because through understanding the importance of the arms trade to this conflict, we can also understand why the Hamas Party has made its ceasefire proposition, joined with the Islamic Jihad about two weeks ago, in which they offered a ten-year ceasefire. Now, Hamas is [an] acronym for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, which means the Islamic resistance movement. Their whole idea is to resist the occupation. And they basically said in their ceasefire offer, we're willing to stop resisting the occupation for ten years. And I think they only could make that offer because they knew that Israel would not accept it. They knew that the Israeli arms industry is so dependent on these cycles of attacks every two years that Israel will never accept a ten-year ceasefire, because it would be a deadly blow to the Israeli arms industry.

Iran: A victim of terrorism

Another great opinion piece by Belen Fernandez. With the help of international traditional media & social media, the world has been brainwashed to blame the victims for their actions, while praising & wholeheartedly supporting the actions of oppressors.

As my prior blog posts have stated multiple times, double standards & lies are the norm of Global North / developed economies of North America & Western Europe. One of their citizens get hurt, the world has to come to a standstill, but thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Japanese, Palestinians, Nigerians, Nicaraguans, Iranians etc. can die but nary a peep from the media or governments. To add insults to injuries, those countries & those victims get blamed for their deaths.

While the permanent members of UN Security Council sells arms & ammunition around the world, like US did to Israel while it was relentlessly bombing Gaza, which is also known as, "the largest open-air prison in the world," or how UK & Canada are selling their arms & weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is using them to bomb innocent civilians in Yemen, but when Pakistan shared its nuclear technology with Libya & Iran, its top nuclear scientist was house bound & restrictions were placed on the country. While Iran has to pretty much "take off its clothes in public" to keep its nuclear technology & to get rid of economic sanctions, UN Security Council members are trying to out-sell each other in terms of selling their military technology to the whole world, just so more & more innocent civilians die each & every day around the world.

How do you think an Iraqi father would regard an American when he comes to hear Madeleine Albright saying that killing one / most / all of his children was "worth it" due to Iraqi economic sanctions of 1990's? Although, harming / killing an innocent person is wrong everywhere in the world, regardless of where that person lives, but showing no empathy, & even blaming the victims, for actions which he / she didn't commit in the first place, is far more worse. No compassion & empathy would lead to seething anger & then that anger would find a violent outlet & then that outlet would be called "terrorism".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/iran-victim-terrorism-150906053617492.html

"One should have a single, not a double, standard."

These were the (translated) words of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, speaking at a conference I recently attended in Tehran. His observation was in reference to the habit of the United States & Co of decrying terrorism but then applauding terroristic behaviour when it serves their interests.

US mastery of the double standard means that, for example, the word "terrorism" is dutifully applied to situations in which planes are flown into US buildings, but not to ones in which US warships shoot down Iranian passenger jets, killing everyone on board.

A look at reality

While Iran is portrayed in Western & Israeli circles as a relentless supporter of terrorism worldwide, the conference focused on a less politically convenient reality: that of Iran as a victim of terror.

According to Iranian calculations, more than 17,000 persons have perished as a result of terrorist operations in the country since the Islamic revolution of 1979. The majority of these were perpetrated by the anti-government Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

Casualties have included three-year-old Fatima Taleghani, who burned to death when MEK members set fire to her room, teenager Zeynab Kamayee, who was reportedly suffocated with her veil, and 35-year-old Dariush Rezaeinejad, one of five Iranian scientists assassinated in recent years - apparently with the help of the Israelis.
...

'Material support'

The US government has also demonstrated sympathy for select Iranian terrorists, albeit in a far less noble fashion. In 2012, the US state department delisted the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), despite reports of continuing terroristic activities.

Prominent journalist & constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald described the delisting as "more vividly illustrat[ing] the rot and corruption at the heart of America's DC-based political culture than almost any episode I can recall".

While still on the FTO list, Greenwald wrote, the MEK had thrown large sums of money at an array of Democratic & Republican personalities, journalists, & other opinion shapers, who then became advocates for the organisation.

Along with previous training sessions in the US for MEK operatives, Greenwald argued that such collaborative arrangements seemed to constitute "material support" for terrorism - a felony under US law.

But the US justice system prefers to reserve this crime for hapless Muslims, like Syed Fahad Hashmi, a US citizen & Brooklyn College graduate sentenced to 15 years in prison - following several years of pre-trial solitary confinement - for allegedly providing material support to al-Qaeda.

What was the exact nature of Hashmi's "support"? Having once provided temporary accommodation in London to a man who happened to supply al-Qaeda members with socks & rain ponchos.

The US on trial

Again, the term "double standard" comes to mind.

And it returns with a recent Wall Street Journal article titled: "Terror Victims Eye Thawing with Iran", which explains that "[o]ver the past two decades, terrorism victims have filed about 100 lawsuits against Iran in US courts", alleging Iranian sponsorship of attacks ranging from the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut to 9/11.

Citing testimonies from the victims' lawyers, the article notes that "lifting just the nuclear sanctions [against Iran] could free up billions of Iranian assets in Europe and elsewhere that victims may attempt to seize as part of their judgements".

The barracks bombing is regularly attributed to the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah - which didn't officially exist at the time. If we follow the above line of reasoning, however, it appears that the US is eligible for a fairly infinite number of lawsuits - in Lebanon & beyond.

Not only did the US rush shipments of weaponry to Israel during its assault on Lebanon in 2006 - an affair that dispensed with approximately 1,200 human lives, most of them civilian - it also contributed financially & morally to Israel's sustained terrorism in Gaza via billions of dollars in annual aid & ceaseless repetitions of the mantra that Israel is engaged in self-defence.

Standard operating procedure

Other US hobbies, like drone strikes & imperialist wars, can also be pretty terroristic in nature. Furthermore, as California-based independent researcher Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich remarked during her presentation at the conference in Tehran: economic sanctions against Iran constitute a form of "UN-sanctioned terrorism" given their detrimental effects on the well-being of innocent civilians.

One of the more glaring examples of the ruthlessness of sanctions is, of course, Iraq. Reports in 1996 that half-a-million children had so far died as a result of the policy elicited the following response from then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "We think the price is worth it."

Indeed, when it comes to terrorising people, the "land of the free" beats the Islamic Republic, hands down. But the victory goes largely unreported in mainstream circles because double standards have become standard operating procedure.


Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

Who Makes US Foreign Policy? - Lawrence Wilkerson on Reality Asserts Itself

Couple points to highlight from this interview of Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell):

1. As I always blog that there's no such thing as "democracy" in this world. Many countries, & billions of people either say that "they are living in a democratic country" or "they are fighting for democracy", but everyone of them think "democracy" is merely voting in "free & fair elections". That's not democracy. Democracy is not merely about voting in elections, but it's much more. Democracy is when the voice of the majority of a nation are heard on major internal & external issues; issues which are affecting a country.

But, as this interview proves once again, that the wealthy people of United States, for instance, are controlling the government, & hence, all the major decisions American government makes; regardless of it's domestic or foreign matters. As Larry Wilkerson says, that "the oligarchs ... buy the president and thus buy American foreign policy." He also gives example of this is similar to what happens in Putin's Russia. I completely agree with it. Many Americans will of course disagree with it, but it's the bitter truth. There's no "democracy" in US, since it doesn't matter what the general public needs or wants, it's the rich elites who get what they want.

2. Another point I frequently make in my blogs is that arms sales around the world, ironically, by the permanent members of UN "Security" Council, create more chaos & deaths around the world than brutal dictatorships.

Such international arms manufacturing companies as Lockheed & Raytheon vigorously lobby politicians in US, UK, Canada, France etc. to allow them to sell international arms & weaponry to such countries as Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Nigeria, UAE, Bahrain etc. Then, these countries have to find any excuse whatsoever to use that stockpile, & hence, wars start. Poor people die in large numbers in neighbouring countries like Palestine, Yemen, Syria etc.

But who benefits from all these arms & weapons transactions? Definitely not Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Nigeria. These countries are importing these arms & hence, they are indebted to their Western counterparts. But companies like Lockheed & Boeing, & of course, those politicians who pushed their countries' foreign policies towards more belligerence & wars, benefit tremendously. As Larry Wilkerson says in regards to the re-emergence of another potential Cold War era between US & Russia that "this group alarms me probably more than any other in the world, and particularly my own country--that is interested in a constant state of war, or as near a constant state as possible, because they sit behind all the belligerents and make money."

So does the majority of American or Russian public want their countries at each other's throats? Or how about the new Asian pivot of America? Does the majority of Americans want US & its Asian allies (Philippines, Japan etc.) banding together against China? I don't think so. But do they have any say in this matter? Of course not. So is this "democracy" when the general public suffers because their tax dollars, which they are paying just so they can get better public infrastructure, education, healthcare etc., are actually being used towards military hardware & a perpetual war against the world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZW8T4NA3Is

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Larry, you were right at the center of the State Department. Back when you were there, and then sort of extrapolating to today, who runs U.S. foreign policy? 'Cause there's this sort of feeling there's this grand design and, grand machinations and chessboard-playing and all of that. Where are the centers of power for making U.S. foreign policy? 'Cause it seems to me it's not just the president.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: I think you're right. And part of what I teach--and I teach post-World War II policy more than anything else, but we have to go back into the past to understand that policy. Part of what I teach is how since World War II and the acquisition of this enormous power by what in essence is the new Rome in the world, the United States, part of the shift that takes place in manipulating and managing that new power is a centralization of foreign policy away from the old cabinet places where it used to take place, most prominently through the Foreign Service and through the secretary of state, to the White House and to the creation of the 1947 National Security Act, the National Security Council. So if you ask me pro forma where does it exist today, it exists more in the National Security Council and its staff than it does anywhere else, certainly anywhere else in the cabinet. So what I'm saying is it's centralized in the White House.

But what does that mean in terms of, I think, your real question, who's behind the White House, and who's therefore behind U.S. foreign policy, more or less? I think the answer today is the oligarchs, which would be the same answer, incidentally, ironically, if you will, for Putin in Russia, the people who own the wealth, the people who therefore have the power and who more or less ... buy the president and thus buy American foreign policy. ...

JAY: There seems to also be centers or circles of power. For example, Lindsey Graham and John McCain seem to represent an alignment of forces. It seems that the fossil fuel industry, military-industrial complex--and certainly not that they are exclusively backing McCain and Graham. They have their hooks into both parties and to--they're kind of a hidden hand throughout much of American politics. But it seems to be a somewhat distinct center. And then Wall Street seems to have even--although it's not monolithic, it's a distinct center of power. What's the actual dynamic? Like, how do they influence National Security Council decisions? How do these processes take place? Where do the discussions take place?

WILKERSON: I think it's probably less fundamental and less precise, and therefore less in the interest, often, of the United States than you might think or that the American people might think. Because of what you've just suggested, that there are many poles in American foreign-policy, from the Congress to even the Supreme Court, to the White House, to the State Department, the Foreign Service, and so forth, it's a very complex mix, and it's rarely ever articulated in a way or manifests itself in a way that good leadership can control it, handle it, and manage it toward a real strategic objective. That's part of our problem in the world today.

But I would submit to you that certain oligarchs, anyway, big food, big pharmacy, big energy, oil, real estate, things like that, they like it this way because then they can flow into the void in the particular region or function or both that they want to control, that they want to manipulate, and do so effectively, whether it's subsidies from the federal government for oil companies or whether it's massive efforts by the government, clandestinely or otherwise, to influence someone like Monsanto being able to operate in Latin America and do the things that it does. So it's incredibly complex, difficult to analyze from a strictly governmental standpoint.

But when you start probing and you start analyzing, you begin to discover that there are centers in this mess, if you will, that are getting what they want. And what they want is basically wealth and power. And they then turn that wealth and power back into political contributions, which now almost have no limits, no constraints on them, and they influence people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank when he was in there and so influential with the banking committee, and they get what they want in terms of legislation that oftentimes I'm convinced the legislatures do not even realize they're doing. They don't understand that they're fulfilling this objective of a particular oligarch or conglomeration of oligarchs. And yet they're doing it, and they're doing it because they are well paid for doing it, in the sense that their PACs are flush and full and they get reelected.

Is John McCain motivated entirely by this? Is Bob Menendez motivated entirely by this? Of course not. They're not intellectual giants, and they don't spend lots of time analyzing this situation in the complex ways that we do. So they think they're actually fulfilling their principles and bending over a little bit to accept the money and the cash necessary to do that. So that's how the system works. That's not even half the explanation, but that's how the system works. And, incidentally, it has worked that way for a very long time, I would say probably since about Andrew Jackson coming into the White House after we'd really established ourselves.

JAY: I think it's a really interesting point, because those of us that sit back doing this geopolitical analysis--and we look at what are the objective interests of the powers and what are the objective interests of the different parts of these powers, and then we kind of think there's people making policy the same way, but they kind of ... what's the crisis that I'm going to deal with today? How am I going to make money out of this tomorrow? It seems to me that with the odd exception of ... the Brzezinskis and these type of people that seem to think in a broader way--most of it seems to be what is in it for me today, the hell with tomorrow, & not so conscious of the forces. I mean, one of the things that always hits me is when you look at the predictions of who would win World War II. Most of what I've seen is by 1940, '41, it was pretty clear Hitler's going to lose. Now, if you're in the German monopoly capitalist class doing analysis, you'll say, well, this is not leading to anything good for us; why aren't we bailing? But the forces of refusing to accept the reality of it were far too strong.

WILKERSON: Well, that's a good point. I would say--and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theory normally, but I would say there were forces behind that shadow, if you will, who were doing quite well, Swiss, German, American, and others who were more or less feeding off the conflict and got very wealthy feeding off the conflict, just as they did off World War I, even more dominantly with respect to the United States in particular, German reparations and so forth. We made a ton of money off of World War I, and we really didn't contribute a whole lot, if you'll remember. We were only really there substantially for a very short period of time, roughly April 1917 to Armistice Day. So there is a group that's interested in this kind of thing--and this group alarms me probably more than any other in the world, and particularly my own country--that is interested in a constant state of war, or as near a constant state as possible, because they sit behind all the belligerents and make money.

JAY: And there seems to be sectors of the economy that profit from volatility, brinksmanship, geopolitically, which leads to massive arms sales. And I've mentioned before on air that I was at this dinner of this organization that does military advice and policymaking to Middle Eastern countries, mostly about arms purchases, and of course who backs the organization's advice is Lockheed Martin and Boeing and, all the military manufacturers. So the brinkmanship sells weapons. And then, of course, Wall Street also does great in volatility, 'cause--especially if you're one step ahead, which the insiders are. But then there's other parts of the economy. ... if you're trying to sell stuff to the American public, massive volatility is not particularly good for you.

WILKERSON: No, it's not. The real economy in this country, though, has shrunken so dramatically since World War II--I show the stats to my students, and I usually use the CIA stats. I can't remember them precisely right now, but I can give you general idea. In 1945, we were about 25% or so services and about 60% or so what was called heavy, medium, or light industry, manufacturing mostly. It's completely the opposite today. It's about 11% to 12% manufacturing, and the latest stat--and this is a precise number from the CIA--76% services. So you don't have the same real economy, if you will, and you don't have the same GDP reflective of that real economy. And that's a very different economy to wage war under than the one we had when we entered World War II, for example. Very different. And you could say in some respects this shadow behind the power that makes money off war, period, no matter who's the belligerent, makes money off that volatility now, especially with computers that are able to assist them in doing so, like currency manipulation, for example, or just general speculation. With computers you can do it at lightning speed and you can do it in a nanosecond, and you can make billions in that nanosecond, and you don't care about what you're doing to the real economy, because you're raking in the dough.

JAY: Has the American elite, including that section which profits on near war and profits on actual war--but in general has there come to a conclusion now that ... if you want a really good Cold War, a really good arms race, then Russia's the right one to do it with?

WILKERSON: That's an interesting speculation. ... I think what's happening is people are beginning--people, these people I'm talking about, who really understand the dynamics in the world--and some of those are in the White House, no question about it. Some of them are people bearing the burden of public policy. No question about it. ... what's happening ... with Ukraine and with Russia, of course, is what you just said: hey, ... we yearn for the solidity and the stability of the Cold War, and my God, Putin's giving it back to us. Let's accept the offer.
...

JAY: ... Is this coming from the Obama administration? Or is it coming from--and this is where I get to who makes U.S. foreign-policy--how many lines of this kind of policy exist that kind of circumvent the White House and the National Security Council?

WILKERSON: I don't think they necessarily circumvent it. I think they are at times in tension within it, but I don't think they necessarily circumvent it, like, for example, Dick Cheney did in the Bush administration. I think what you have is you have people like Samantha Power and Susan Rice who are right-to-protect-people. This is very traditional. This is messianic Christianity manifesting itself in a secular way. This is we have to bear the brown person's burden, we have to go fix these problems in the world. So this is not something new. It's just got a more sophisticated manifestation in 2014.

And it makes a difference. It made a difference in Somalia when Madeleine Albright and Boutros Boutros-Ghali were pushing for state building in Somalia, when any anyone with a brain could have seen impossible task, you're going to fail, and you're going to have to leave ignominiously, which is exactly what Bill Clinton had to do. It manifested itself in the Balkans and in Kosovo. Two days of bombing and Milosević will cave. 78 days later and the threat of ground forces and Milosević finally caves.

So there's that strain, a messianic strain that's always been there.

Then there is a strain of real power, realpolitik. And that's people who are actually trying to achieve American interests, whatever they may be, and the way they think they should be achieved. I would put President Obama in that category.

And then you've got people who are closet neoconservatives, who really do feel that America has to assert itself periodically at a minimum in order to teach the rest of the world that it can't climb the hill on which America is the king.

JAY: But Ukraine is setting up we have to teach Putin a lesson, except you helped create the conditions where you have to teach Putin a lesson ... and more or less play into Putin's hands.

WILKERSON: Well, this is a chess game, to a certain extent, played on multiple levels simultaneously. And when you have a person like Putin with the capabilities that Putin has--I would suggest to you that the KGB and the GRU or NKVD, whenever you want to talk about, were probably the best intelligence people in the world for a long time. When you've got those kind of capabilities, you can do things, and particularly when you're operating on interior lines.

I'll take you into a military jargon here. Interior lines means I've got a border with you and I can move my tank 15 feet and kill you. But I am the person going to contest that tank, and I'm 10,000 miles away, and I've got to fly my tanks into your country before I can even take you on. The advantage of operating on those interior lines is really, really huge. It'd be like us doing something in Mexico and Russia trying to object or us doing something in Cuba and Russia trying to object. It's really difficult. You can do it, but it's really difficult.

So there are a lot of things operating with respect to Crimea, Ukraine, Odessa, and so forth, Georgia, right now that play into what some of these people, like ... John McCain, Lindsey Graham, would love to see happen, and that is the development of a new Cold War, a new Cold War with old antagonists.
...

WILKERSON: ... When Jim Baker and George H. W. Bush really accomplished what I think was one of the real diplomatic feats of the end of the 20th century, the reunification of Germany, whether we agree with that or not, they did it, and they did it without a shot being fired. It was wonderful to watch H. W. Bush do that, and Jim Baker. But one of the reasons they could do it was because they assured Gorbachev, and later Yeltsin, that NATO would be quiescent, it wouldn't move, it wouldn't threaten Russia. In fact, I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member -- observer first and then a member and so forth.

Well, that fell apart on the fact that they perceived right quickly that we weren't really serious. And then we start, under pressure from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and others, to sell weapons to Poland and weapons to Georgia and weapons to Romania and everybody else we could bring into the fold. Under those pressures and others, we started to expand NATO and stuck both our fingers in the Russian eye, so to speak, immediately. It's clear to me why Putin responded in Georgia and why he's now responding to Crimea in Ukraine. This is what great powers do when they get concerned about their so-called near abroad.
...

"Biggest Arms Exporters" by Rainer Hachfeld

"Biggest Arms Exporters" - Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, Berlin, Germany

With a $42 Billion defense budget, is Japan a hawk in dove's clothing?

An informative piece. I didn't know that Japan was a pacifist nation but then still spends $42 Billion on its defense budget & a naval force more powerful than China's.

South China Sea & Eastern Europe are the next 2 battlegrounds for US & its allies. With everyone beefing up their military muscles, this is not going to be a great world to be living in the next 10-20 years. There might not be another nuclear war, but more than enough armament at hand, politicians being pressured by military hawks to use that armament pile their countries have built up, & a decreasing war-time casualty rate due to drones will make it seem like a nuclear war happening all around the world.

Wishing for peace in this world is only that; a wish. The world may seem "modern" to a naïve person, but it seems to me, that humans are regressing towards a cavemen mentality. Technology has only made it easier to attack another human or nation, just like a club or any other piece of ancient war-time technology made it easier for a caveman to attack its fellow being.

The humans & hence, the world, are definitely not moving towards a bright future for this planet. Perhaps, that's why, the rich are exploring ways to emigrate from this planet (e.g. Virgin Galactic) & Hollywood keep peddling movies where the Earth has been abandoned because of environmental disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/idUS56270205620150428

Japan’s identity as a pacifist nation, as defined by Article 9 of its constitution, is increasingly at odds with reality. The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Force is the second-most powerful naval force in the region, trailing only its close ally, the US Navy. Japan has the seventh-largest defense budget in the world; its Ministry of Defense is the largest department in the entire Japanese government.
 
Strategically, a strong Japanese military allows the US — a close ally of Japan’s — to maintain distance from any military confrontation with China over territorial claims. It deprives China of the argument that the US is neither a party to the dispute, nor native to the region. The problem for the US lies in convincing allies, especially South Korea, that an increasingly robust Japanese military does not risk a return to Japanese imperialism.
 
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, adopted in 1947, forbids Japan from having “land, sea, & air forces, as well as other war potential.” The article established Japan as a pacifist nation, but in 1950 change was already needed, as the US deployed its troops from Japan to Korea and left Japan defenseless. To counter this vulnerability, General Douglas MacArthur authorized the establishment of national defense forces to protect the Japanese home islands. Reinterpretations have continued ever since, to the point that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are an army, a navy & an air force in all but name.
 
For all of the reinterpretations, Japanese forces remained confined to Japanese home territories without much change until 1992. At that time, Japanese embarrassment over being unable to contribute anything but financial support to Operation Desert Storm led to the passage of a law reinterpreting Article 9 to allow the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to take part in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
 
In 2004, Japan sent troops to Iraq to conduct humanitarian relief, where they were only allowed to fire if fired upon, & were not permitted to come to the aid of other coalition troops under attack. The cloak of pacifism, though markedly smaller, still adequately covered all sensitive aspects of the JSDF. But in the last few years, most of the remaining cover has been pulled away.
 
Last year the Japanese government adopted a new law, reinterpreting Article 9 yet again, this time to allow for “collective self-defense.” Japanese forces can now be deployed to assist allies under attack. While the US & the Philippines welcomed this development, other countries in the region were less than enthusiastic. It is no surprise that China, which has long criticized Japan for not adequately acknowledging & repudiating its past atrocities, objected to this change. But a sharp negative response from US ally South Korea must have rattled US military planners. Even Australia, generally in lock-step with US defense policies, gave a tepid response.
 
Already, the widening scope of the Japanese military is changing the defense landscape in the region. Japan has negotiated agreements to cooperate with Vietnam & the Philippines in conducting naval exercises & patrolling disputed areas in the South China Sea, which should give China pause as it considers its next steps in the region.
 
These agreements continue to stretch the envelope of collective self-defense. Protecting allies from bullying is a far cry from aiding allies in a war. The US & Japan are walking a fine line, as the US encourages Japan to be a greater participant in defense issues, well beyond limits on collective self-defense expressed just months ago, while not raising the specter of a Japanese return to militarism.
 
Japanese Prime Minister Abe has long advocated changing the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to become a “normal” nation, with a military matching its economic & diplomatic instruments of power. While he is unable to say it out loud, the christening of the Izumo warship last month has normalized Japanese naval power to a great degree. The Izumo is an indigenously developed helicopter-carrying destroyer, & the largest vessel in the Japanese fleet. The Japanese are careful not to call it a carrier, which would make it an offensive weapons system, but in size & capacity, it is very similar to a US Marine Corps’ helicopter carrier. While currently slated to carry only general purpose helicopters, the Izumo could be modified to handle attack helicopters, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, or even the F-35B, the Marines’ vertical short takeoff & landing version of the new fighter. Configured in this way, the Izumo would be a clear match for China’s lone aircraft carrier.
 
Today, Japan’s cloak of pacifism has been reduced to little more than a fig leaf. The Japanese are developing capabilities that allow it to fight any adversary. The fig leaf will soon be gone.

Bishop of Manchester says Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

A great opinion by the bishop of Manchester, UK. Developed countries are feverishly trying to destabilize developing countries through arms & weapons smuggling / selling, & of course, actively encouraging wars among developing countries.

As I have blogged previously that one of the primary reasons of creating wars overseas for developed countries is to create such dire conditions in the developing countries that their bright minds (& hopefully, with money) are forced to emigrate to developed countries, where they become compliant, law-abiding, tax-paying second-class citizens.

Problem with these "illegal" migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, & Northern African countries is that these are poor &, in most cases, are uneducated, too. Not exactly the kinds of immigrants developed countries of North America & Europe are looking for. So they just want to push them back to their own countries.

But, the justice would be "if you break it, you buy it." (meaning: if you are going to actively intervene in another country's political, economic, social, & cultural facets, then you may as well be prepared for picking up the pieces if your strategy backfires).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/25/uk-moral-duty-accept-refugees-from-wars-david-walker-bishop-manchester

One of the country’s most senior bishops has said that Britain has a moral imperative to accept refugees from conflicts in which it has participated.
 
After a week in which the death toll of migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Europe grew to 1,700 so far this year, the bishop of Manchester, David Walker, said there was a duty to treat the survivors with compassion.
 
In a piece for the Observer published online, he writes: “They are pushed, not pulled, towards the EU, forced out of their homelands by war, terrorism & the persecution of minorities. A political rhetoric that characterises them as wilful criminals rather than helpless victims is as unworthy as it is untrue.”

The UK’s pivotal role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq prompted a sectarian war that the UN said had forced two million Iraqis to flee the country, an involvement that ran alongside the 13-year Afghanistan war & was followed by the 2011 attacks on Libya, both of which precipitated significant regional instability & migration.
 
According to the UN Refugee Agency in 2013, one in four refugees was Afghan, although most were in neighbouring countries, while the ongoing instability in Libya was credited with making the north African state a haven for people smugglers.
 
Walker writes: “The moral cost of our continual overseas interventions has to include accepting a fair share of the victims of the wars to which we have contributed as legitimate refugees in our own land.

“I want my country to be governed by those who are prepared to look at the faces of the desperate, be it the desperation of the asylum seeker or of the food bank client, & to look at them with compassion.”

Despite the huge numbers of migrants heading north, only 5,000 resettlement places across Europe have been offered to refugees under an emergency summit crisis package agreed by EU leaders, with the rest sent back as irregular migrants under a new rapid-return programme coordinated by the EU’s border agency, Frontex.

“Welcome though it was that European leaders sat down to talk about the situation this week, their conclusions seem more directed at making the symptoms less visible than at tackling the disease,” said Walker.
 
A 2014 report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime estimated that there might be 600,000 migrants on the north Africa coast who could try to get to Europe by sea.

The $18 Billion arms race helping to fuel Middle East conflict

Nothing much to say here (since, I've blogged quite a few times how members of the UN Security Council & developed countries sell weapons & arms to developing countries to keep destabilizing those regions).

The Middle East is destabilizing & turning into a war zone very rapidly, thanks to the developed countries' constant need to sell arms & ammunition to these countries, & when these weapons are used by these countries against each other or against their own public, we in the West decry how "uncivilized" these people in Middle East are.

Canada used to be considered a peaceful nation. Now, "the one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract." That's how much Canada has changed in the global weapons market.

Why don't these developed countries sell green energy, for instance, to these developing countries? Wouldn't that be a much better investment to make the world a better place? That move alone, for instance, wouldn't create so many refugees, either, which in itself, is creating another migrant crisis in the developed countries of Europe.

Developed countries have so much modern technology in non-arms area that they could & can easily sell that technology hardware & software to developing countries & regions, & help improve lives for all. It does happen but compared to billions of weapons transactions, these transactions have not much scope & influence.

So, if we want peace in this world, the first step is to stop the developed countries to stop giving weapons to the madmen of developing countries. Who is willing to take this first step? (Per my answer, not even one developed country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/the-18bn-arms-race-middle-east-russia-iran-iraq-un

The Middle East is plunging deeper into an arms race, with an estimated $18 billion expected to be spent on weapons this year, a development that experts warn is fuelling serious tension & conflict in the region.

Given the unprecedented levels of weapon sales by the west (including the US, Canada & the UK) to the mainly Sunni Gulf states, Vladimir Putin’s decision ... to allow the controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran ... seems likely to accelerate the proliferation.

That will see agreed arms sales to the top 5 purchasers in the region - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt & Iraq – surge this year to more than $18 billion, up from $12 billion last year. Among the systems being purchased are jet fighters, missiles, armoured vehicles, drones & helicopters.

The Russian declaration came only 2 days before Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, disclosed that he was seeking arms worth billions of dollars from Washington – with payment deferred – for the battle against Islamic State (Isis).

Last week France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, disclosed progress in talks to sell Rafale fighter jets to the UAE, one of the Middle East’s biggest & most aggressive arms buyers.

With conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya & Yemen, & with Egypt also battling Islamist extremists in the Sinai, the signs that Russia is preparing to increase its own arms sales – & to the Gulf states’ biggest rival, Iran – are raising fears that tensions will be stoked further still. In particular, Saudi Arabia & Iran are facing off in the conflict in Yemen ... .

According to the New York Times, defence industry officials have notified Congress that they are expecting additional requests from Arab states fighting Isis – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan & Egypt – for thousands of new US-made weapons, including missiles & bombs, to rebuild depleted arms stockpiles.

Ironically, among the key weapons suppliers in the arms race are permanent members of the UN security council who have been at the centre of 2 unconventional arms control initiatives – disarming the Syrian government’s stockpiles of chemical weapons & negotiating for a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The scale of the arms race was revealed this year in reports published by IHS Jane’s Global Defence Trade Report & the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). They showed how Saudi Arabia had become the world’s largest importer of weapons & fourth largest military spender & that other Middle East states were sharply increasing their arms purchases.

Adding to the concern is the fact that the spending spree on arms comes against the background of a marked increase in military interventions by countries in the region since the Arab spring in 2011. Saudi Arabia has intervened in Bahrain (at the request of that kingdom’s ruler during the so-called Pearl revolution), in Yemen in 2009 & again in Yemen this year.

And among those concerned by Saudi’s new military assertiveness - on the back of its arms buying spree - was the Iraqi prime minister, Abadi. “The dangerous thing is, we don’t know what the Saudis want to do after [their intervention in Yemen],” Abadi told US reporters last week. “Is Iraq within their radar? That’s very, very dangerous. The idea that you intervene in another state unprovoked just for regional ambition is wrong. Saddam has done it before. See what it has done to the country.”

And if the Saudi intervention in Yemen has been overt, no less real has been the proxy conflict that has set Iran & the Gulf states against each other in Syria, where Tehran has backed the government of Bashar al-Assad with military assistance & weapons, & Gulf states have backed different rebel groups, including Islamist ones.

“It’s crazy,” says Ben Moores, author of IHS Jane’s annual report on arms buying trends. “The one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract. And this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Saudi has booked enough arms imports in 24 months for them to be worth $10 billion a year.”

While some countries, such as Kuwait, are in the process of modernisation, a key trend identified by Moores is how states are retooling to fight insurgency conflicts in the same way the US military has in Afghanistan & Iraq. “Look at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Algeria. They were all countries that bought a lot of conventional arms in the past that are no use in a sectarian war or an insurgency.

“If you look at what was bought at the recent Idex arms fair in Abu Dhabi, it was drones, high-end surveillance satellites, strategic transport aircraft for projecting power. One of the reasons Egypt went with its recent purchase of Rafale jets [from France] is because it wanted planes that could deliver precision-guided standoff weapons.”

And as Tobias Borck of the Royal United Services Institute points out, states in the Middle East are now more prepared to use the weapons they are buying. “[The] Saudi-led military operations in Yemen [are] the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” he says. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect & pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”

Referring to the inconsistent approach by key security council members towards arms control in the region, he adds: “There are a lot of different streams feeding into this arms race. On Syria’s chemical weapons & the Iranian nuclear programme, the 2 issues were ring fenced as pure arms control questions. When it comes to how we perceive our arms sales – whether they are British or US or whatever – it tends to be seen as a domestic economic issue – protecting our factories.

“That neglects the regional political dimensions, with arms sales taking place with a lack of regard for that context & without long-term strategic awareness.”

Borck says that the scale of the arms being supplied to countries such as Saudi Arabia & the UAE by the west may also be acting as an incentive for Russia to get back into the Middle East – not least via arms sales to its old clients such as Iran – & may have been a motivating factor in the Kremlin’s decision to lift the ban on the delivery of the S-300 missile system.

Putin, defending the decision to supply the missiles during a call-in television show last week, cited Russia’s prerogative to pursue its own foreign policy initiatives & suggested that the missiles could represent “a deterrent factor in connection with the situation in Yemen”.

Omar Ashour, an expert on Middle East security issues at Exeter University, has sounded a further note of caution, this time over the intentions of the new Saudi-led Arab coalition, warning that its interventions are unlikely to contribute to stability. “The rise of Arab military coalitions raises serious concerns,” he wrote in a recent piece for Project Syndicate. “Such interventions were usually aimed at empowering a proxy political force over its military & political rivals, instead of averting humanitarian disaster or institutionalising a non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism following a war.”

Speaking to the Guardian last week, he added: “On top of that, the increases in arms sales are bound to be extremely destabilising. At the moment most of the interventions have been against softer targets – Saudi Arabia targeting guerrillas in Yemen; Egypt against Bedouin in Sinai; or strikes against ragtag armies in Libya. But if the ‘soft’ keeps being hit hard, they won’t remain soft. They will find their own patrons & proxies & hit back & it will lead to a vicious cycle.”

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at Sipri, which maintains a database tracking arms contracts, raises another concern. “Something that doesn’t get mentioned is the complete lack of interest in arms control among the countries in the region. It is not in the minds of leaders & decision-makers, except for the need to arm to defeat any potential opponent.

“There is already instability in the region on several levels. You have instability in Yemen, Syria & Iraq. There is instability between Iran & the Gulf states. What is important now is how the massive expansion of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, UAE & Qatar will be seen as posing a clear threat to Iran.”

Borck adds a final warning: “If you are going for an ever bigger hammer, then the more desperate you are to make every problem a nail.”