Pacific – Page 7 – DMZ hawaiʻi

December 7, 2010

Marshallese confront existential threat with climate change

As reported in the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Marshall Islands delegates to the UN climate change conference in Cancun are confronting unique problems as a nation state that is rapidly disappearing under rising seas. Not only have Marshallese and other Micronesians had to deal with the legacy of imperialism, wars, and nuclear testing; they are now facing extinction as an entire nation due to the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialized countries:

CANCUN, Mexico >> Encroaching seas in the far Pacific are raising the salt level in the wells of the Marshall Islands. Waves threaten to cut one sliver of an island in two.

“It’s getting worse,” says Kaminaga Kaminaga, the tiny nation’s climate change coordinator.

The rising ocean raises questions, too: What happens if the 61,000 Marshallese must abandon their low-lying atolls? Would they still be a nation? With a U.N. seat? With control of their old fisheries and their undersea minerals? Where would they live, and how would they make a living? Who, precisely, would they and their children become?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

December 5, 2010

The Explosive Growth of U.S. Military Power on Guam Confronts People Power

Source: http://www.japanfocus.org/-LisaLinda-Natividad/3454

The Explosive Growth of U.S. Military Power on Guam Confronts People Power: Experience of an island people under Spanish, Japanese and American colonial rule

LisaLinda S. Natividad and Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero

Background

The United States Department of Defense is planning a massive military build-up on Guahan (Guam) that threatens to change the entire make-up of the island. Guahan, nestled at the southern-most tip of the Marianas Archipelago in the Micronesian region of Oceania, is a mere 212 square miles in area, barely bigger than a dot in most world maps. The island is similarly small in the consciousness of most American and Japanese taxpayers, who will be funding the military expansion. Guahan, however, has a large and rich history. While the island and her people remained in relative isolation from the Western world for over 3,500 years from the earliest indications of settlement, its strategic location as a crossroad between East and West has resulted in colonization by successive maritime powers over the last six centuries.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

December 4, 2010December 13, 2010

Wikileaks Cables Reveal Diego Garcia Marine Reserve Will Prevent Return of Chagos Islanders

Marine conservation zones as cultural genocide? The British marine reserve in the Chagos islands was a deliberate attempt to prevent the return of the evicted Chagossians to Diego Garcia, one of America’s crucial military bases in the Indian Ocean. The Chagos reserve was modeled on the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument and the proposed Mariana Island National Marine Monument, both of which contain broad exemptions for the military. Mahalo to Marta Duenas for sharing the following comments and article:

The displacement of the Chagossian people of the island of Diego Garcia is justified using references to “strategic” purposes and “security.” These are the exact terms used in the rationale & promotion of the military buildup in Guam. The British Indian Ocean Territory – BIOT which encompasses the 55 islands surrounding and including Diego Garcia, and the Mariana Island National Marine Monument prohibit activities in the area. Military activities are EXEMPT from any of the prohibitions and regulations.

Diego Garcia and the Mariana Islands are poised to fulfill the United States Department of Defense “Full Spectrum Dominance Vision 2020.”

>><<

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk

The Guardian UK

Wikileaks Cables Reveal Foreign Office Mislead Parliament Over Diego Garcia

UK official told Americans that marine park plan would end the ‘Man Fridays’ hopes of ever returning home

Rob Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor

Thursday, 2 December 2010

Diego Garcia islanders protest WikiLeaks cables suggest the Foreign Office knows its plan to declare Diego Garcia a marine park will end any chance of islanders winning the right to return Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

The Foreign Office misled parliament over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base, according to secret US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

More than 2,000 islanders – described privately by the Foreign Office as “Man Fridays” – were evicted from the British colony of Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s. The Foreign Office, backed by the US, has fought a long legal battle to prevent them returning home.

The islanders’ quest to go back will be decided by a ruling, expected shortly, from the European court of human rights.

New leaked documents show the Foreign Office has privately admitted its latest plan to declare the islands the world’s largest marine protection zone will end any chance of them being repatriated.

The admission is at odds with public claims by Foreign Office ministers that the proposed park would have no effect on the islanders’ right of return. They have claimed the marine park was a ploy to block their return, claiming it would make it impossible for them to live there as it would ban fishing, their main livelihood.

The disclosure follows years of criticism levelled at Whitehall over the harsh treatment of the islanders, many of whom have lived in poverty in other countries since their deportation.

In the past, National Archive documents have revealed how the Foreign Office consistently lied about the eviction, maintaining the fiction that the islanders had not been permanent residents.

The latest leaked documents are US state department cables recording private meetings between Foreign Office mandarins and their American counterparts.

In May 2009, Colin Roberts, the Foreign Office director of overseas territories, told the Americans Diego Garcia’s value in “assuring the security of the US and UK” had been “much more than anyone foresaw” in the 1960s, when the plan to set up the base was hatched.

“We do not regret the removal of the population since removal was necessary for [Diego Garcia] to fulfil its strategic purpose,” he added under a passage that the Americans headed “Je ne regrette rien”.

Roberts, admitting the government was “under pressure” from the islanders, told the US of the plan to set up the marine park on 55 islands around Diego Garcia, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). “Roberts stated that, according to [Her Majesty’s government’s] current thinking on a reserve, there would be ‘no human footprints’ or ‘Man Fridays’ on the BIOT uninhabited islands,” according to the American account of the meeting. The language echoes that used in 1966 when Denis Greenhill – later the Foreign Office’s most senior official – described the inhabitants as “a few Tarzans and Man Fridays”.

The leaked documents also record that Roberts “asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents”.

This private stance differs from the Foreign Office’s public line in April when a series of MPs asked if the marine park ruled out the islanders, known as Chagossians, ever returning home.

The Foreign Office told parliament the proposed park “will not have any direct or indirect effect on the rights or otherwise of Chagossians to return to the islands. These are two entirely separate issues”.

Leading conservation groups have supported the marine park plan. Roberts is quoted as telling the Americans that Britain’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the [islanders’] advocates”.

Attached is a copy of the cable archived by Wikileaks:

This is not the original Wikileaks document! It’s a cache, made on 2010-12-01 23:11:00. For the original document check the original source: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09LONDON1156.html

ID	09LONDON1156
SUBJECT	HMG FLOATS PROPOSAL FOR MARINE RESERVE COVERING
DATE	2009-05-15 07:07:00
CLASSIFICATION	CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
ORIGIN	Embassy London
TEXT	C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 001156 NOFORN SIPDIS EO 12958 DECL: 05/13/2029 TAGS MARR, MOPS, SENV, UK, IO, MP, EFIS, EWWT, PGOV, PREL SUBJECT: HMG FLOATS PROPOSAL FOR MARINE RESERVE COVERING THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY) REF: 08 LONDON 2667 (NOTAL) Classified By: Political Counselor Richard Mills for reasons 1.4 b and d ¶1. (C/NF) Summary. HMG would like to establish a “marine park” or “reserve” providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official insisted that the establishment of a marine park — the world’s largest — would in no way impinge on USG use of the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, for military purposes. He agreed that the UK and U.S. should carefully negotiate the details of the marine reserve to assure that U.S. interests were safeguarded and the strategic value of BIOT was upheld. He said that the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve. End Summary. Protecting the BIOT’s Waters —————————- ¶2. (C/NF) Senior HMG officials support the establishment of a “marine park” or “reserve” in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which includes Diego Garcia, Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) Director, Overseas Territories, told the Political Counselor May 12. Noting that the uninhabited islands of the Chagos Archipelago are already protected under British law from development or other environmental harm but that current British law does not provide protected status for either reefs or waters, Roberts affirmed that the bruited proposal would only concern the “exclusive zone” around the islands. The resulting protected area would constitute “the largest marine reserve in the world.” ¶3. (C/NF) Roberts iterated strong UK “political support” for a marine park; “Ministers like the idea,” he said. He stressed that HMG’s “timeline” for establishing the park was before the next general elections, which under British law must occur no later than May 2010. He suggested that the exact terms of the proposals could be defined and presented at the U.S.-UK annual political-military consultations held in late summer/early fall 2009 (exact date TBD). If the USG would like to discuss the issue prior to those talks, HMG would be open for discussion through other channels — in any case, the FCO would keep Embassy London informed of development of the idea and next steps. The UK would like to “move forward discussion with key international stakeholders” by the end of 2009. He said that HMG had noted the success of U.S. marine sanctuaries in HAWAII and the Marianas Trench. (Note: Roberts was referring to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. End Note.) He asserted that the Pew Charitable Trust, which has proposed a BIOT marine reserve, is funding a public relations campaign in support of the idea. He noted that the trust had backed the HAWAIIan reserve and is well-regarded within British governmental circles and the larger British environmental community. Three Sine Qua Nons: U.S. Assent… ———————————– ¶4. (C/NF) According to Roberts, three pre-conditions must be met before HMG could establish a park. First, “we need to make sure the U.S. government is comfortable with the idea. We would need to present this proposal very clearly to the American administration…All we do should enhance base security or leave it unchanged.” Polcouns expressed appreciation for this a priori commitment, but stressed that the 1966 U.S.-UK Exchange of Notes concerning the BIOT would, in any event, require U.S. assent to any significant change of the BIOT’s status that could impact the BIOT’s strategic use. Roberts stressed that the proposal “would have no impact on how Diego Garcia is administered as a base.” In response to a request for clarification on this point from Polcouns, Roberts asserted that the proposal would have absolutely no impact on the right of U.S. or British military vessels to use the BIOT for passage, anchorage, prepositioning, or other uses. Polcouns rejoined that designating the BIOT as a marine park could, years down the road, create public questioning about the suitability of the BIOT for military purposes. Roberts responded that the terms of reference for the establishment of a marine park would clearly state that the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, was reserved for military uses. ¶5. (C/NF) Ashley Smith, the Ministry of Defense’s (MOD) International Policy and Planning Assistant Head, Asia Pacific, who also participated in the meeting, affirmed that the MOD “shares the same concerns as the U.S. regarding security” and would ensure that security concerns were fully and properly addressed in any proposal for a marine park. Roberts agreed, stating that “the primary purpose of the BIOT is security” but that HMG could also address environmental concerns in its administration of the BIOT. Smith added that the establishment of a marine reserve had the potential to be a “win-win situation in terms of establishing situational awareness” of the BIOT. He stressed that HMG sought “no constraints on military operations” as a result of the establishment of a marine park. …Mauritian Assent… ———————- ¶6. (C/NF) Roberts outlined two other prerequisites for establishment of a marine park. HMG would seek assent from the Government of Mauritius, which disputes sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, in order to avoid the GOM “raising complaints with the UN.” He asserted that the GOM had expressed little interest in protecting the archipelago’s sensitive environment and was primarily interested in the archipelago’s economic potential as a fishery. Roberts noted that in January 2009 HMG held the first-ever “formal talks” with Mauritius regarding the BIOT. The talks included the Mauritian Prime Minister. Roberts said that he “cast a fly in the talks over how we could improve stewardship of the territory,” but the Mauritian participants “were not focused on environmental issues and expressed interest only in fishery control.” He said that one Mauritian participant in the talks complained that the Indian Ocean is “the only ocean in the world where the fish die of old age.” In HMG’s view, the marine park concept aims to “go beyond economic value and consider bio-diversity and intangible values.” …Chagossian Assent ——————– ¶7. (C/NF) Roberts acknowledged that “we need to find a way to get through the various Chagossian lobbies.” He admitted that HMG is “under pressure” from the Chagossians and their advocates to permit resettlement of the “outer islands” of the BIOT. He noted, without providing details, that “there are proposals (for a marine park) that could provide the Chagossians warden jobs” within the BIOT. However, Roberts stated that, according to the HGM,s current thinking on a reserve, there would be “no human footprints” or “Man Fridays” on the BIOT’s uninhabited islands. He asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents. Responding to Polcouns’ observation that the advocates of Chagossian resettlement continue to vigorously press their case, Roberts opined that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.” (Note: One group of Chagossian litigants is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) the decision of Britain’s highest court to deny “resettlement rights” to the islands’ former inhabitants. See below at paragraph 13 and reftel. End Note.) Je Ne Regrette Rien ——————- ¶8. (C/NF) Roberts observed that BIOT has “served its role very well,” advancing shared U.S.-UK strategic security objectives for the past several decades. The BIOT “has had a great role in assuring the security of the UK and U.S. — much more than anyone foresaw” in the 1960s, Roberts emphasized. “We do not regret the removal of the population,” since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose, he said. Removal of the population is the reason that the BIOT’s uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters are in “pristine” condition. Roberts added that Diego Garcia’s excellent condition reflects the responsible stewardship of the U.S. and UK forces using it. Administering a Reserve ———————– ¶9. (C/NF) Roberts acknowledged that numerous technical questions needed to be resolved regarding the establishment and administration of a marine park, although he described the governmental “act” of declaring a marine park as a relatively straightforward and rapid process. He noted that the establishment of a marine reserve would require permitting scientists to visit BIOT, but that creating a park would help restrict access for non-scientific purposes. For example, he continued, the rules governing the park could strictly limit access to BIOT by yachts, which Roberts referred to as “sea gypsies.” BIOT: More Than Just Diego Garcia ——————————— ¶10. (C/NF) Following the meeting with Roberts, Joanne Yeadon, Head of the FCO’s Overseas Territories Directorate’s BIOT and Pitcairn Section, who also attended the meeting with Polcouns, told Poloff that the marine park proposal would “not impact the base on Diego Garcia in any way” and would have no impact on the parameters of the U.S.-UK 1966 exchange of notes since the marine park would “have no impact on defense purposes.” Yeadon averred that the provision of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea guaranteed free passage of vessels, including military vessels, and that the presence of a marine park would not diminish that right. ¶11. (C/NF) Yeadon stressed that the exchange of notes governed more than just the atoll of Diego Garcia but expressly provided that all of the BIOT was “set aside for defense purposes.” (Note: This is correct. End Note.) She urged Embassy officers in discussions with advocates for the Chagossians, including with members of the “All Party Parliamentary Group on Chagos Islands (APPG),” to affirm that the USG requires the entire BIOT for defense purposes. Making this point would be the best rejoinder to the Chagossians’ assertion that partial settlement of the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago would have no impact on the use of Diego Garcia. She described that assertion as essentially irrelevant if the entire BIOT needed to be uninhabited for defense purposes. ¶12. (C/NF) Yeadon dismissed the APPG as a “persistent” but relatively non-influential group within parliament or with the wider public. She said the FCO had received only a handful of public inquiries regarding the status of the BIOT. Yeadon described one of the Chagossians’ most outspoken advocates, former HMG High Commissioner to Mauritius David Snoxell, as “entirely lacking in influence” within the FCO. She also asserted that the Conservatives, if in power after the next general election, would not support a Chagossian right of return. She averred that many members of the Liberal Democrats (Britain’s third largest party after Labour and the Conservatives) supported a “right of return.” ¶13. (C/NF) Yeadon told Poloff May 12, and in several prior meetings, that the FCO will vigorously contest the Chagossians’ “right of return” lawsuit before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). HMG will argue that the ECHR lacks jurisdiction over the BIOT in the present case. Roberts stressed May 12 (as has Yeadon on previous occasions) that the outer islands are “essentially uninhabitable” and could only be rendered livable by modern, Western standards with a massive infusion of cash. Comment ——- ¶14. (C/NF) Regardless of the outcome of the ECHR case, however, the Chagossians and their advocates, including the “All Party Parliamentary Group on Chagos Islands (APPG),” will continue to press their case in the court of public opinion. Their strategy is to publicize what they characterize as the plight of the so-called Chagossian diaspora, thereby galvanizing public opinion and, in their best case scenario, causing the government to change course and allow a “right of return.” They would point to the government’s recent retreat on the issue of Gurkha veterans’ right to settle in the UK as a model. Despite FCO assurances that the marine park concept — still in an early, conceptual phase — would not impinge on BIOT’s value as a strategic resource, we are concerned that, long-term, both the British public and policy makers would come to see the existence of a marine reserve as inherently inconsistent with the military use of Diego Garcia — and the entire BIOT. In any event, the U.S. and UK would need to carefully negotiate the parameters of such a marine park — a point on which Roberts unequivocally agreed. In Embassy London’s view, these negotiations should occur among U.S. and UK experts separate from the 2009 annual Political-Military consultations, given the specific and technical legal and environmental issues that would be subject to discussion. ¶15. (C/NF) Comment Continued. We do not doubt the current government’s resolve to prevent the resettlement of the islands’ former inhabitants, although as FCO Parliamentary Under-Secretary Gillian Merron noted in an April parliamentary debate, “FCO will continue to organize and fund visits to the territory by the Chagossians.” We are not as sanguine as the FCO’s Yeadon, however, that the Conservatives would oppose a right of return. Indeed, MP Keith Simpson, the Conservatives’ Shadow Minister, Foreign Affairs, stated in the same April parliamentary debate in which Merron spoke that HMG “should take into account what I suspect is the all-party view that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognized, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands, if not the inner islands.” Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT. End Comment. Visit London’s Classified Website: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Unit ed_Kingdom TOKOLA
HEADER	VZCZCXYZ0030 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHLO #1156/01 1350700 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 150700Z MAY 09 FM AMEMBASSY LONDON TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2316 INFO RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS 0141 RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHDC RUVNSAO/NAVSUPPFAC DIEGO GARCIA RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHDC XTAGS: XTAGMARR, XTAGMOPS, XTAGSENV, XTAGUK, XTAGIO, XTAGMP, XTAGEFIS, XTAGEWWT, XTAGPGOV, XTAGPREL
ADDED	2010-12-01 23:11:00
STAMP	0000-00-00 00:00:00
VOTE_POINTS	36
VOTE_COUNT	4
VOTE_RATING	9000
PRIORITY	RR
TWEETS	0

November 22, 2010November 22, 2010

After NATO Summit, U.S. To Intensify Military Drive Into Asia

“The Pentagon has indeed marked this as its Asia-Pacific century.”

>><<

http://www.opednews.com/articles/After-NATO-Summit-U-S-To-by-Rick-Rozoff-101117-274.html

Stop NATO
November 17, 2010

After NATO Summit, U.S. To Intensify Military Drive Into Asia

Rick Rozoff

Barack Obama, the latest rotating imperator of the first global empire, will arrive in Lisbon on November 19 to receive the plaudits of 27 North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and secure their continued fealty on issues ranging from the war in Afghanistan to a continental interceptor missile system, the continued deployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, participation in the Pentagon’s cyber warfare plans and expanded military missions in the planet’s south and east.

Perfunctory discussions of minor details notwithstanding, strictly pro forma to maintain the myth of NATO being a “military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America,” the banners and pennants of 26 European nations, Canada and dozens of other countries contributing troops for the Afghan mission will be lowered in the presence of the leader of the world imperium.

No fewer than 38 European nations have supplied NATO troops for the Afghanistan-Pakistan war as well as providing training grounds and transport centers to support the war effort. As envisioned for at least a century, through peaceful means or otherwise, Europe has been united, not so much by the European Union as under the NATO flag and on the killing fields of Afghanistan. It is now relegated to the role of pre-deployment training area and forward operating base for military campaigns downrange: The Middle East, Africa and Asia.

So uncritically and unquestioningly compliant has Europe been in the above regards that Obama and the governing elite in the imperial metropolis as a whole have already looked beyond the continent for additional military partners. With the exception of fellow members of the NATO Quint – Britain, Germany, France and Italy (Britain more and Italy less than the others) – Alliance partners are accorded the same status and assigned the same functions as American territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands: Geopolitically convenient locations for live-fire military training and for troop, warplane and warship deployments.

Two millennia ago the Pax Romana of Augustus brought roads and ports, aqueducts and irrigation, amphitheaters and libraries, and Greek writers from Aristotle to Aeschylus to occupied territories. Bellum Americanum burdens its vassals and tributaries with military bases, interceptor missile batteries, McDonald’s and Lady Gaga.

In Lisbon Obama will chastise his NATO and NATO partnership auxiliaries and foederati, as is the prerogative and wont of the global suzerain and as his predecessor George W. Bush has done recently, for being chary of expending more blood and treasure for the war in Afghanistan. However, he will also display the magnanimity befitting his preeminent stature by patting his European satraps on their bowed heads and intoning, “Well done, good and faithful servants. You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.”

With the European continent placed securely under the multi-circled Achilles shield of NATO, U.S. nuclear weapons, an interceptor missile system and a cyber warfare command, Washington is moving to realms as yet not completely subjugated.
Africa has been assigned to the three-year-old U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and perhaps only five of the continent’s 54 nations – Eritrea, Libya, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe – have avoided becoming ensnared in bilateral military ties with the Pentagon and concomitant U.S-led military exercises and deployments.

The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the Middle East: Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Yemen.

Two years ago Washington reactivated its Fourth Fleet for the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America and last year’s coup in Honduras and this September’s attempted coup in Ecuador are proof that the U.S. will not allow developments in Latin America to pursue their natural course unimpeded.

The U.S. has intensified efforts to forge and expand military alliances and deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, but there is still a small handful of countries there not willing to accept a subordinate role in American geostrategic designs. They are, to varying degrees and in differing manners, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. Attempts to replicate the “color revolution” model used in former Soviet republics in Myanmar and Iran since 2007 have failed, “regime change” plans for North Korea are of another nature, and neither China nor Russia appears immediately susceptible to equivalents of the so-called Rose, Orange, Tulip and Twitter revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, respectively. The preferred technique being applied to Russia at the moment is cooption, though its success is not guaranteed as the U.S. and NATO military build-up around Russia’s borders continues unabated.

What’s left is the military expedient. In the first half of November the quadrivirate in charge of U.S. foreign policy – President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen – all toured the Asia-Pacific area. Collectively they visited ten nations there: India, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

Clinton and Gates were in Malaysia at separate times and both joined Mullen on November 8 for the annual Australia-United States Ministerial (AUSMIN) meeting in Melbourne, where the U.S. military chief called the 21st century the “Pacific century.” [1]

In India Obama secured what William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, estimated to be the sixth largest arms deal in U.S. history. [2]

In Australia, Gates and Mullen won a backroom arrangement to move U.S. military forces into several Australian bases.

While in New Zealand, Clinton in effect renewed the Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) Security Treaty as a full tripartite mutual defense pact after a 24-year hiatus in regard to her host country.

On November 13 Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan “thanked the United States…for supporting Tokyo in a series of recent disputes with Russia and China” [3], an allusion to a statement by Clinton on October 27 that the U.S. would honor its military assistance commitment to Tokyo over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute with China and her spokesman Philip Crowley’s affront to Russia five days afterward over the Kuril Islands, which he identified as Japanese territory. [4]

In a tete-a-tete ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Yokohama, the Japanese head of state “sought US President Barack Obama’s assurance on defence in the Asia-Pacific region,” as “Tokyo’s territorial disputes with China and Russia are becoming high priorities for Kan, who told Obama through a translator, ‘The US military presence is only becoming more important.'” [5]

Verbatim, Kan said:

“Japan and the United States, at this meeting of APEC, of pan-Pacific countries, we shall step up our cooperation. So we agreed on doing that. And in Japan’s relations with China and Russia, recently we’ve faced some problems, and the United States has supported Japan throughout, so I expressed my appreciation to him for that.

“For the peace and security of the countries in the region, the presence of the United States and the presence of the U.S. military I believe is becoming only increasingly important.” [6]

In return, Obama “voiced support for Japan to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and reaffirmed the U.S.-Japan security alliance.”

He also assured Kan that the U.S.-Japan alliance is “the cornerstone of American strategic engagement in the Asia Pacific” and “the commitment of the United States to the defense of Japan is unshakable.”

According to a U.S. armed forces publication, “While Obama’s support for the continuing security alliance is no surprise, it comes amid tension in Japan over China’s…claims on territory in the East China and South China seas.” [7]

In less than five months the Pentagon has made its military presence felt throughout the Asia-Pacific area:

The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy participated in Exercise Crocodile 10 in East Timor (Timor-Leste) from June 19-26, which included “weapons firing skills, amphibious assault serials, jungle training, flying operations, and a helicopter raid on an abandoned prison” and provided “an opportunity for multi-national forces to work together in the planning and conduct of a complex military exercise.” [8]

In October of 2009 2,500 U.S. and Australian troops engaged in maneuvers in the country, which marked the first U.S.-East Timor joint military exercise.

This July the U.S. led the multinational Angkor Sentinel 2010 command post and field exercises in Cambodia with American forces and troops from the host nation, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia and the Philippines.

For 40 days in late June and throughout July the U.S. led the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 war games in the Pacific Ocean off Hawaii with 32 ships, five submarines, more than 170 planes and 20,000 troops from all four branches of the American armed forces and from Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea, Singapore and Thailand.

From July 25-28 the U.S. conducted joint war games with South Korea, codenamed Invincible Spirit, in the Sea of Japan/East Sea with the involvement of 20 warships including the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington, 200 warplanes including F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, and 8,000 troops.

The next month U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific presided over the Khaan Quest 2010 military exercise in Mongolia. In the same month American and British troops ran the Steppe Eagle 2010 NATO Partnership for Peace exercise in Kazakhstan.

USS George Washington and the USS John S. McCain destroyer led the first-ever joint U.S.-Vietnam military exercise, consisting of naval maneuvers in the South China Sea, in early August.

Less than a week later the U.S. and South Korea began this year’s Ulchi
Freedom Guardian military exercise in the latter country with 30,000 U.S. and 50,000 South Korean troops participating. [9]

In early September Washington and Seoul held an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Yellow Sea.

At the end of the same month Indian troops joined U.S. marines and sailors in Exercise Habu Nag 2010, the fifth annual bilateral U.S.-India amphibious training exercise with that codename, in the South China Sea off the coast of Okinawa.

In October at least 3,000 U.S. troops participated in the nine-day Amphibious Landing Exercise 2011 in the Philippines. “The bilateral training exercise, conducted with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is designed to improve interoperability, increase readiness and continue to build professional relationships between the two countries.” [10]

At the beginning of the same month U.S. warships and troops joined 6,000 Australian soldiers and counterparts from New Zealand for Exercise Hamel in northeast Australia, described in the local press as “massive war games.” [11]

Also in October, South Korea for the first time hosted a multinational military exercise with 14 members of the U.S.-created Proliferation Security Initiative, which included ships and military personnel from the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan.

U.S. marines “conducted urban training exercises” in Singapore on November 6. A Marine Corps lieutenant present “gave a short class on identifying danger areas in a combat environment” and “talked about isolating them by sight, or suppressive fire, and the importance of gaining footholds in enemy territories.” [12]

On November 14 the U.S. and Indian armies completed the 14-day Yudh Abhyas 2010 military exercise in Alaska. Last year’s Yudh Abhyas featured the largest U.S.-India joint military maneuvers ever held.

100,000 American and another 50,000 NATO troops are fighting in the tenth year of their collective war in Afghanistan. The U.S. is escalating deadly drone missile strikes and NATO is increasing helicopter gunship raids in Pakistan.

The Pentagon has indeed marked this as its Asia-Pacific century.

1. U.S. Department of Defense, November 7, 2010

2. Business Insider, November 6, 2010 click here Obama, Gates And Clinton In Asia: U.S. Expands Military Build-Up In The East, Stop NATO, November 7, 2010, click here

3. Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 13, 2010

4. U.S. Supports Japan, Confronts China And Russia Over Island Disputes, Stop NATO, November 4, 2010, click here

5. Deutsche Presse-Agentur, November 13, 2010

6. The White House, November 13, 2010 Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Kan of Japan in Statements to the Press in Yokohama, Japan click here

7. Stars and Stripes, November 14, 2010

8. Australian Government, Department of Defence, June 24, 2010

9. U.S.-China Crisis: Beyond Words To Confrontation, Stop NATO, August 17, 2010, click here

10. U.S. Marine Corps, October 22, 2010

11. Australian Broadcasting Company, October 4, 2010

12. U.S. Marine Corps, November 9, 2010

November 19, 2010

Guam preservation groups suing military to protect a Chamorro village

The Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that Guam cultural preservation groups and individual residents have sued the U.S. military to protect Pagat, a sacred site in Guam:

The Guam Preservation Trust, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and individual residents of Guam are suing the U.S. military to protect a Chamorro village from the $10.3 billion military buildup on the island.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court yesterday, names as defendants the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in the Pacific, the Joint Guam Program Office and their officers, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

The plaintiffs say in their lawsuit that the buildup of military facilities to accommodate the move of 8,600 U.S. service members from Okinawa will force the relocation of Pagat village, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Associated Press reports:

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu said the Navy failed to adequately consider alternative locations that would have less of an impact on the environment and historic sites. It further alleged the Navy failed to adequately examine the environmental consequences of its actions.

November 15, 2010

Court Denies Hawaii’s Request for Dismissal of Suit against Basic Health Hawaii

As Yokwe Online reports, U.S. District Court Judge Seabright denied the State of Hawai’i motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit brought by Hawai’i residents from the Compact of Free Association (COFA) countries of Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau. The State of Hawai’i cut off health insurance for these residents and instituted a lesser insurance program called Basic Health Hawai’i. This new plan does not cover many of the critical services needed by Micronesian islanders in Hawai’i, many of whom are refugees of U.S. nuclear testing in their home islands or of the intentional economic and social underdevelopment of their islands during the U.S. strategic trust rule over Micronesia. The COFA residents’ lawsuit seeks to restore equal health benefits as provided to other Hawai’i residents.

While the United Nations mandated decolonization for all colonies under UN trusteeship in the aftermath of World War II, Micronesia was a special case under the “strategic trust” of the U.S. Essentially, Micronesia was treated as spoils of war. U.S. military and civilian planners debated how to administer the islands and fulfill the mandate to assist the islands in their process of self-determination. The U.S. wanted to maintain a permanent military presence in Micronesia and Okinawa to maintain hegemony over the Northern Pacific Ocean – the American Lake.

Seabright’s rejection of the State of Hawai’i’s motion to dismiss the COFA lawsuit is a good sign that at least the COFA residents of Hawai’i will get their day in court. Unfortunately the hearing will be too late for the 27 people who have died since September 1, 2009 as a result of being denied critical care.

>><<

Source: http://www.yokwe.net/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2706

Court Denies Hawaii’s Request for Dismissal of Suit against Basic Health Hawaii

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled yesterday to deny the State of Hawaii’s motion to dismiss a class-action suit on behalf of migrants from the Compact of Free Association (COFA) countries of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau.

Earlier this year, the COFA citizens residing in Hawaii filed the class action suit against the State’s Department of Human Services (DHS) officials, challenging the new Basic Health Hawaii (BHH) program which reduces the benefits and services previously provided to critically-ill dialysis and cancer patients.

HAWAII DISTRICT COURT: Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief May be Granted as to COFA Residents

The suit was filed on behalf of the over 7,000 Marshallese, Micronesians,and Palauns who are eligible for the State’s health program.

The Plaintiffs claim, in Korab et al v. Koller et al, filed August 23, 2010, in Hawaii District Court, that the BHH violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it provides less health benefits than the State of Hawaii’s (the “State”) Medicaid program offered to citizens and certain qualified.

It also claims a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) because BHH is not administered in the most integrated setting appropriate to meet the medical needs of this specific population.

At a hearing on November 2 in regard to Hawaii’s request for dismissal, Judge Seabright said he was struggling over the case. Micronesian community representatives reported that elimination of medical benefits has impacted many, including 27 who have died since Sept. 1, 2009.

The new ruling rejects the State’s characterization of their actions “as simply creating a brand new benefits program where one did not exist.”

The Court stated in the November 10 decision:

For the last fourteen years Defendants have provided COFA Residents the same benefits as those provided to citizens and other qualified aliens, creating a unified program treating citizens, qualified aliens, and non-qualified aliens the same, regardless of federal funding. Accordingly, the issue is not whether a state must create a benefits program for certain groups of individuals where no program exists, but rather where a program involving state funding already exists, whether a state may then exclude certain groups from that program based on alienage.

The Court also said that the Plaintiff’s assertion, regarding BHH’s limitation of benefits requiring them to seek care in a hospital setting, “may be sufficient to state a claim for violation of the ADA.”

– by Aenet Rowa, Yokwe Online, November 11, 2010

November 15, 2010

Tomgram: Juan Cole, The Asian Century?

Source: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175319/tomgram%3A_juan_cole%2C_the_asian_century/

Tomgram: Juan Cole, The Asian Century?

Posted by Juan Cole at 9:15am, November 11, 2010.

For Barack Obama, midterm 2010 has already been written off as a crushing Republican triumph, but that’s hardly the full story. After all, approximately 29 million Americans who voted for him in 2008 didn’t bother to stir for him or the Democrats in 2010. Think of it this way: he’s less a man who lost to the opposition than a man who lost his own dispirited base, much of which is by now thoroughly disappointed, if not mad as hell, and evidently not particularly interested in supporting him anymore.

Like many presidents in defeat, he promptly left town (or “the bubble,” as he’s taken to calling it) for places as far east as possible, in this case all in Asia. In the wake of an electoral blowout, this previously planned diplomatic journey of goodwill was quickly recast as a search for American jobs. A little late to launch that search, of course, and India may not be the perfect fit either. After all, any American who has ever made that desperate call for computer or other technical assistance and found him or herself on the phone with some young person not in Bangor, Maine, but Bangalore, India, probably won’t be overwhelmed by the allure of India’s ability to deliver jobs to the U.S.

Nonetheless, the president gamely arrived in India touting one of two industries which make things that go boom in the dark, where the U.S. still can’t be beat. No, I’m not talking about Hollywood. You wouldn’t take Hollywood to Bollywood, after all. I’m talking about that other American boom-time business under bust-time conditions: the making of high-tech weaponry. India was once a Russian bailiwick when it came to arms sales, but no longer. So the president arrived with a Boeing deal to sell C-17 transport planes to the Indian military for up to $5.8 billion (and so, supposedly, create 22,000 new American jobs). A “preliminary agreement” was inked on this trip, while the two countries agreed on a counterterrorism security initiative, and the U.S. lifted certain export controls on dual-use technology as well.

If weapons sales abroad could pull the U.S. out of its present job doldrums, however, they would have done so long ago. In the post-Cold War era the U.S. practically cornered the global arms market. If you want to count on anything, however, count on this: we’d be perfectly happy to arm to the teeth the two great regional rivals in South Asia, India and Pakistan, if they’ll let us. After all, we arm the world (and worry about it later). Think of today’s piece by Juan Cole, who runs the invaluable Informed Comment website and whose latest book is Engaging the Muslim World, as a preview presidential tour of the coming ruins of the American empire. Tom

Obama in Asia
Meeting American Decline Face to Face
By Juan Cole

Blocked from major new domestic initiatives by a Republican victory in the midterm elections, President Barack Obama promptly lit out for Asia, a far more promising arena. That continent, after all, is rising, and Obama is eager to grasp the golden ring of Asian success.

Beyond being a goodwill ambassador for ten days, Obama is seeking sales of American-made durable and consumer goods, weapons deals, an expansion of trade, green energy cooperation, and the maintenance of a geopolitical balance in the region favorable to the United States. Just as the decline of the American economy hobbled him at home, however, the weakness of the United States on the world stage in the aftermath of Bush-era excesses has made real breakthroughs abroad unlikely.

Add to this the peculiar obsessions of the Washington power elite, with regard to Iran for instance, and you have an unpalatable mix. These all-American fixations are viewed as an inconvenience or worse in Asia, where powerful regional hegemons are increasingly determined to chart their own courses, even if in public they continue to humor a somewhat addled and infirm Uncle Sam.

Although the United States is still the world’s largest economy, it is shackled by enormous public and private debt as well as fundamental weaknesses. Rivaled by an increasingly integrated European Union, it is projected to be overtaken economically by China in just over a decade. While the president’s first stop, India, now has a nominal gross domestic product of only a little over a trillion dollars a year, it, too, is growing rapidly, even spectacularly, and its GDP may well quadruple by the early 2020s. The era of American dominance, in other words, is passing, and the time (just after World War II) when the U.S. accounted for half the world economy, a dim memory.

The odd American urge to invest heavily in perpetual war abroad, including “defense-related” spending of around a trillion dollars a year, has been a significant factor further weakening the country on the global stage. Most of the conventional weapons on which the U.S. continues to splurge could not even be deployed against nuclear powers like Russia, China, and India, emerging as key competitors when it comes to global markets, resources, and regional force projection. Those same conventional weapons have proved hardly more useful (in the sense of achieving quick and decisive victory, or even victory at all) in the unconventional wars the U.S. has repeatedly plunged into — a sad fact that Bush’s reckless attempt to occupy entire West Asian nations only demonstrated even more clearly to Washington’s bemused rivals.

American weapons stockpiles (and copious plans for ever more high-tech versions of the same into the distant future) are therefore remarkably irrelevant to its situation, and known to be so. Meanwhile, its economy, burdened by debts incurred through wars and military spending sprees, and hollowed out by Wall Street shell games, is becoming a B-minus one in global terms.

A Superpower With Feet of Clay

Just how weakened the United States has been in Asia is easily demonstrated by the series of rebuffs its overtures have suffered from regional powers. When, for instance, a tiff broke out this fall between China and Japan over a collision at sea near the disputed Senkaku Islands, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered to mediate. The offer was rejected out of hand by the Chinese, who appear to have deliberately halted exports of strategic rare-earth metals to Japan and the United States as a hard-nosed bargaining ploy. In response, the Obama administration quickly turned mealy-mouthed, affirming that while the islands come under American commitments to defend Japan for the time being, it would take no position on the question of who ultimately owned them.

Likewise, Pakistani politicians and pundits were virtually unanimous in demanding that President Obama raise the issue of disputed Kashmir with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his Indian sojourn. The Indians, however, had already firmly rejected any internationalization of the controversy, which centers on the future of the Muslim-majority state, a majority of whose inhabitants say they want independence. Although Obama had expressed an interest in helping resolve the Kashmir dispute during his presidential campaign, by last March his administration was already backing away from any mediation role unless both sides asked for Washington’s help. In other words, Obama and Clinton promptly caved in to India’s insistence that it was the regional power in South Asia and would brook no external interference.

This kind of regional near impotence is only reinforced by America’s perpetual (yet ever faltering) war machine. Nor, as Obama moves through Asia, can he completely sidestep controversies provoked by the Afghan War, his multiple-personality approach to Pakistan, and his administration’s obsessive attempt to isolate and punish Iran. As Obama arrives in Seoul, for instance, Iran will be on the agenda. This fall, South Korea, a close American ally, managed to play a game of one step forward, two steps back with regard to Washington-supported sanctions against that energy-rich country.

The government did close the Seoul branch of Iran’s Bank Milli, sanctioning it and other Iranian firms. Then, the South Koreans turned around and, according to the Financial Times, appointed two banks to handle payments involving trade between the two countries via the (unsanctioned) Tehran Central Bank. In doing so, the government insulated other South Korean banks from possible American sanctions, while finding a way for Iran to continue to purchase South Korean autos and other goods.

Before the latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions South Korea was doing $10 billion a year in trade with Iran, involving some 2,142 Korean companies. Iran’s half of this trade — it provides nearly 10% of South Korea’s petroleum imports — has been largely unaffected. South Korea’s exports to Iran, on the other hand, have fallen precipitously under the pressure of the sanctions regime. Sanctions that hold Iran harmless but punish a key American ally by hurting its trade and creating a balance of payments problem are obviously foolish.

The Iranian press claims that South Korean firms are now planning to invest money in Iranian industrial towns. Given that Obama has expended political capital persuading South Korea to join a U.S.-organized free trade zone and change its tariffs to avoid harming the American auto industry, it is unlikely that he could now seek to punish South Korea for its quiet defiance on the issue of Iran.

China is the last major country with a robust energy industry still actively investing in Iran, and Washington entertains dark suspicions that some of its firms are even transferring technology that might help the Iranians in their nuclear energy research projects. This bone of contention is likely to form part of the conversation between Obama and President Hu Jintao before Thursday’s G20 meeting of the world’s wealthiest 20 countries.

Given tensions between Washington and Beijing over the massive balance of trade deficit the U.S. is running with China (which the Obama administration attributes, in part, to an overvalued Chinese currency), not to speak of other contentious issues, Iran may not loom large in their discussions. One reason for this may be that, frustrating as Chinese stonewalling on its currency may seem, they are likely to give even less ground on relations with Iran — especially since they know that Washington can’t do much about it. Another fraught issue is China’s plan to build a nuclear reactor for Pakistan, something that also alarms Islamabad’s nuclear rival, India.

Rising Asia

If you want to measure the scope of American decline since the height of the Cold War era, remember that back then Iran and Pakistan were American spheres of influence from which other great powers were excluded. Now, the best the U.S. can manage in Pakistan is the political (and military) equivalent of a condominium or perhaps a time-share — and in Iran, nothing at all.

Despite his feel-good trip to India last weekend, during which he announced some important business deals for U.S. goods, Obama has remarkably little to offer the Indians. That undoubtedly is why the president unexpectedly announced Washington’s largely symbolic support for a coveted seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a ringing confirmation of India’s status as a rising power.

Some Indian politicians and policy-makers, however, are insisting that their country’s increasing demographic, military, and economic hegemony over South Asia be recognized by Washington, and that the U.S. cease its support of, and massive arms sales to, Pakistan. In addition, New Delhi is eager to expand its geopolitical position in Afghanistan, where it is a major funder of civilian reconstruction projects, and is apprehensive about any plans for a U.S. withdrawal from that country. An Indian-dominated Afghanistan is, of course, Pakistan’s worst fear.

In addition, India’s need for petroleum is expected to grow by 40% during the next decade and a half. Energy-hungry, like neighboring Pakistan, it can’t help glancing longingly at Iran’s natural gas and petroleum fields, despite Washington’s threats to slap third-party sanctions on any firm that helps develop them. American attempts to push India toward dirty energy sources, including nuclear power (the waste product of which is long-lived and problematic) and shale gas, as a way of reducing its interest in Iranian and Persian Gulf oil and gas, are another Washington “solution” for the region likely to be largely ignored, given how close at hand inexpensive Gulf hydrocarbons are.

It is alarming to consider what exactly New Delhi imagines the planet’s former “sole superpower” has to offer at this juncture — mostly U.S. troops fighting a perceived threat in Afghanistan and the removal of Congressional restrictions on sales of advanced weaponry to India. The U.S. military in Afghanistan is seen as a proxy for Indian interests in putting down the Taliban and preventing the reestablishment of Pakistani hegemony over Kabul. For purely self-interested reasons Prime Minister Singh has long taken the same position as the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, urging Obama to postpone any plans to begin a drawdown in Afghanistan in the summer of 2011.

The most significant of the Indian purchases trumpeted by the president last weekend were military in character. Obama proclaimed that the $10 billion in deals he was inking would create 54,000 new American jobs. Right now, it’s hard to argue with job creation or multi-billion-dollar sales of U.S.-made goods abroad. As former secretary of labor Robert Reich has pointed out, however, jobs in the defense industry are expensive to create, while offering a form of artificial corporate welfare that distorts the American economy and diverts resources from far more crucial priorities.

To think of this another way, President Obama is in danger of losing control of his South Asian foreign policy agenda to India, its Republican supporters in the House, and the military-industrial complex.

As the most dynamic region in the world, Asia is the place where rapid change can create new dynamics. American trade with the European Union has grown over the past decade (as has the EU itself), but is unlikely to be capable of doubling in just a few years. After all, the populations of some European countries, like powerhouse Germany, will probably shrink in coming decades.

India, by contrast, is projected to overtake China in population around 2030 and hit the billion-and-a-half-inhabitants mark by mid-century (up from 1.15 billion today). Its economy, like China’s, has been growing 8% to 9% a year, creating powerful new demand in the world market. President Obama is hoping to see U.S. exports to India double by 2015. Likewise, with its economy similarly booming, China is making its own ever more obvious bid to stride like a global colossus through the twenty-first century.

The Hessians of a Future Asia?

Unsurprisingly, beneath the pomp and splendor of Obama’s journey through Asia has lurked a far tawdrier vision — of a much weakened president presiding over a much weakened superpower, both looking somewhat desperately for succor abroad. If the United States is to remain a global power, it is important that Washington offer something to the world besides arms and soldiers.

Obama has been on the money when he’s promoted green-energy technology as a key field where the United States could make its mark (and possibly its fortune) globally. Unfortunately, as elsewhere, here too the United States is falling behind, and a Republican House as well as a bevy of new Republican governors and state legislatures are highly unlikely to effectively promote the greening of American technology.

In the end, Obama’s trip has proven a less than effective symbolic transition from George W. Bush’s muscular unilateralism to a new American-led multilateralism in Asia. Rather, at each stop, Obama has bumped up against the limits of American economic and diplomatic clout in the new Asian world order.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney thought in terms of expanding American conventional military weapons stockpiles and bases, occupying countries when necessary, and so ensuring that the U.S. would dominate key planetary resources for decades to come. Their worldview, however, was mired in mid-twentieth-century power politics.

If they thought they were placing a marker down on another American century, they were actually gambling away the very houses we live in and reducing us to a debtor nation struggling to retain its once commanding superiority in the world economy. In the meantime, the multi-millionaires and billionaires created by neoliberal policies and tax cuts in the West will be as happy to invest in (and perhaps live in) Asia as in the United States.

In the capitals of a rising Asia, Washington’s incessant campaign to strengthen sanctions against Iran, and in some quarters its eagerness for war with that country, is viewed as another piece of lunatic adventurism. The leaders of India, China, and South Korea, among other countries, are determined to do their best to sidestep this American obsession and integrate Iran into their energy and trading futures.

In some ways, the darkest vision of an American future arrived in 1991 thanks to President George H. W. Bush. At that time, he launched a war in the Persian Gulf to protect local oil producers from an aggressive Iraq. That war was largely paid for by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, rendering the U.S. military for the first time a sort of global mercenary force. Just as the poor in any society often join the military as a way of moving up in the world, so in the century of Asia, the U.S. could find itself in danger of being reduced to the role of impoverished foot soldier fighting for others’ interests, or of being the glorified ironsmiths making arsenals of weaponry for the great powers of the future.

Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

Copyright 2010 Juan Cole

November 10, 2010

Military public affairs officer “apologizes” for racist remarks

The Pacific News Center reports that the military Public Affairs Officer Paula Conhain, who made racist and demeaning remarks about a Chamorro man, sent a weak email “apology” to the PNC:

JGPO D.C. Public Affairs Officer Conhain Apologies for Comments

Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:15

Written by Clynt Ridgell Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:27

Guam News – Guam News

Guam – JGPO D.C. Office Public Affairs Officer Paula Conhain has sent PNC a response to insulting comments she made while having lunch with other military officers in a restaurant in Hagatna Guam.

As you may recall “We Are Guahan member” Cara Flores Mays was having lunch when she overheard a disturbing conversation amongst at least three military officers namely D.C. JGPO Communications Director Paula Conhain, marine forces pacific forward public affairs officer Lt. Colonel Aisha Bakkar, and JGPO Colonel Paul Pond. Flores-Mays says Conhain was making fun of the Chamorro accent of an elderly Chamorro man. She says Conhain questioned whether or not the man really had a degree at the University of Guam and ridiculed the man’s lack of teeth. Mays posted this on Facebook and it drew a response from Lt. Colonel Bakkar who apologized for the incident. Today PNC received an email from Conhain who also apologizes for the incident.

She says “Unfortunately portions of the conversation were taken out of context. I apologize if there was an impression that the discussion was offensive which was not my intent. I am committed to understanding the Guam community and Chamorro culture and to considering them as we work to move the program forward.”

November 9, 2010

Conversation by military officers offends local residents

Source: http://pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9220%3Acasual-conversation-by-military-officers-insults-residents&catid=45%3Aguam-news&Itemid=156

Casual Conversation by JGPO Officers Insults Residents

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 November 2010 19:42

Written by Clynt Ridgell Tuesday, 09 November 2010 18:42

Guam News – Guam News

Guam – We Are Guahan member Cara Flores Mays was having lunch at a restaurant in Hagatna when she overheard a conversation held amongst at least three military officers including D.C. JGPO communications director Paula Conhain, Guam JGPO public affairs officer Colonel Aisha Bakkar and Colonel Pond.

“I was actually very disturbed because I overheard Paula Conhain making fun of an older Chamorro gentleman she was making fun of his accent she was making fun of his UOG education and then she made a comment about the number of teeth that he had and she made the comment so so how many teeth does he have three? And I was just very disturbed by that conversation,” said Flores-Mays adding

“She was just making fun of the way that he talks and the accent that he had and questioning whether he was truly educated because of his accent.”

After hearing these comments Mays posted what she had heard on Facebook. Colonel Bakkar responded to her comments saying “Unfortunately Cara is correct about the comments made by individuals from off-island eating lunch with me.” Bakkar apologized for not stopping the conversation, and stated “Please know that her uninformed beliefs about Guam and it’s people are not shared by marine corps leadership.”

Mays says that the officers also spoke about a new strategy that JGPO would employ in order to get more people to be in favor of the buildup. “I was really disgusted by the strategy to use people in our own community against our own community so to use mayors and our Manamko and especially their stories to use those things to sell the buildup to our community I think is a disgusting idea,” said Flores-Mays

She says this conversation is indicative of the attitude that the military has towards Guam and the buildup in general. “I felt that her comments were definitely disrespectful arrogant and prejudiced and I was outraged when she was talking about his accent becuase I immediately thought about my grandmother and how much I missed her accent and hearing her speak and how her accent for me represents home,” said Flores-Mays adding “You know these are the people that have been assigned to oversee the buildup and these are the prejudices they have.” She says that in the very least the military should give Guam the respect it deserves. “Guam has given so much more than any other community has ever given and we’re being asked for so much more and in their asking us for so much more they can’t even give us respect,” she said.

Bakkar is the only individual who has come forward and apologized for the conversation. PNC news attempted to contact Paula Conhain via email this afternoon but it would’ve have been around one or two A.M. D.C. Time so we have yet to receive a response.