UN Vote Upgrades Palestine to "non-member state" Status

The Big News

While alarmists warn that abrupt changes equate to instability and uncertainty, some developments just keep defying the status quo. Palestine last week has successfully been granted a "non-member" observer State status at the United Nations General Assembly. The 193-member assembly adopted a vote that saw 138 in favor and 9 against the resolution. Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said this is a significant step in achieving Palestine's independence as well as brings it closer to rectify "unprecedented historical injustice" inflicted on the Palestinian people since 1948.

Unsurprisingly, the upgrade has been met with condemnation in Israel. Just as the vote concluded, Israel announced it will go ahead with new settlements in occupied territory including a high-profile construction plan near Jerusalem. Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev said that this development will further withdraw constructive dialogue and that "its going to hurt peace."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will withhold badly-needed tax transfers to Palestinians and that his government "rejects the U.N General Assembly decision."

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice also openly denounced the resolution, echoing her Israeli allies saying that her government does not support a measure that undermines direct talks and that the November 22 decision did "not establish Palestine as a state." She also added that the decision will not advance peace in the Middle East.

With Washington's backing, Israel lobbied voting nations to oppose the measure, but failed miserably. Israel's position was so unpopular that even its traditional allies/sympathizers either abstained or voted for the Palestinians.

On the other hand, the Israeli and American statements were met with concern by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, expressing that such "would represent any almost fatal blow to remaining chances for securing a two-state solution." Catherine Ashton, the European Union's foreign policy chief was quoted as saying "the European Union has repeatedly stated that all settlement construction is illegal under international law and constitutes an obstacle to peace."

The Big Repercussions

Finally in its modern period, Palestine now has the capacity for self determination, especially before an international criminal court. It can now claim rights to independent development, free of Israel. This means that Palestine can now independently control its borders, or assert its own security and pursue its own trade with the world.

There can be no denying that the Palestinian upgrade to statehood can mean only good things for its people and its future. Abbas was jubilant and optimistic for his people, saying "we now have a state...the world has said loudly, ‘Yes to the state of Palestine."

But as these developments seal a better self-determination for Palestine, Israel is met with a new set of problems of its own. For one, with the upgrade to non-member observer state status, Palestine can now be a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to Switzerland's accession in 1946 when the General Assembly accepted it as a Permanent Observer to the United Nations. As such, Palestine now can file complaints against Israel in the world court. Palestine now also has the choice to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly even genocide.

Can the US (and Israel) block complaints by Palestine? Unfortunately for them, they cannot, since they are not signatories of the Rome treaty. Much like how they arrogantly behaved at the recent Assembly, the US  announced back in 2002 that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," and that, "[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature." On the other hand, Israel's indifference and naive behavior betrays not only international trust but also its very existence — it does not recognize the resolution that permitted the Palestinian upgrade to non-member observe state status and yet it forgets the fact that its very own existence was a result of 1948 UN resolution which permitted its right to self determination and independent existence.

Israel's Timing, not a Coincidence?

So Israel decides to attack an old target; indeed they've done a good effort in misleading the world into thinking it is close to attacking Iran or Syria after the American elections. It was supposed to be just a matter of when and not which. Indeed, it is a well-played deception that only means harm to Israel's and the West's enemies. There has been uneasy speculation whether Israel will attack before or after the US elections. Nevertheless, Israel was more expected to attack once a new US president assumes office.

As it went, the re-election of Barack Obama was a doubled-edged sword in its own right as the actual Israeli aggression came earlier than expected and surprised with its choice of target. What a surprise it has been indeed. On the one hand, an informed expert can find refuge in Israel's recent past, and future — that it was back in 2008 (US presidential elections) it last attacked the brutally repressed Palestinians, and that it will be holding elections come January 2013. Is Benjamin Netanyahu playing out the failed cards of his defeated presidential bet Mit Romney? He was open to favor Romney, but nevertheless admitted that he will continue a hard stance against its enemies regardless of who wins the US presidential elections, a fact vindicated by its fresh attacks on Palestine.

How can a nation pretend to be threatened when Israel itself brags about its precision missiles and air power while its enemy is not even allowed to have its own airport? Can Israel ever be threatened when it has nuclear weapons that it promises to use not as a last resort?

Is there any conscience among Israeli leaders when they continue to ban and isolate Gaza's interaction with the outside world? Indeed there is no conscience in indulging in efforts to ban fishermen to fish more than a mile from their borders, and when it pursues to block the entry of basic goods such as school books, fruits, paper, and even chocolates for concern of 'national security'. Sardonic as it seems, but how do you keep reminding the world of the Berlin Wall when you keep downplaying or even hiding the existence of the Israeli West bank barrier wall?

If the blocking of these most basic of human needs do not haunt their conscience, then it is no surprise that Israel continues to derail peace efforts from Gazan leaders, such as their recent assassination of military leader Ahmed Jaabari, who was already proposing a longer-term cease fire (assisted by Egypt) when he was killed by Israel defense forces. Despite that, however, Israel is insisting it is only responding to rocket fires from Hamaz. But with the polarization of the international landscape, this time Israel cannot escape fresh war crime charges by no less than the Arab League on the side of Palestine.

Although the fighting has stopped, we are but left to wonder when Israel will assert itself again. To which I pose a curiosity: does Israel have qualms against Washington's 'pivot' to Asia? Is it left vulnerable and wanting?

Why American Exceptionalism Leads to Oppression

It is fashionable among the conservative elite to overplay, commend, and acquiesce America’s greatness. Their political correctness insists that America is “embraced” by people around the world who share their will to defend “freedom.”

In his book, A Nation Like No Other,   Newt Gingrich points out that the perceived decline of American primacy has its roots in downright unsound policies and bureaucracies back home. To him, even to deny America’s “Exceptionalism” is to run against the very principles to which the “Founders of Independence” held on to in the past. He finds utter distaste in Obama’s belief that other nations, especially those who held power in the past, have the right to believe in their own exceptionalism. Indeed, Gingrich joins his fellow egotistical citizens who condemn Obama’s statement “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

His book presents the most insipid experience yet on American braggadocio; it offers a peak into how virtues are undermined by political agenda. Allow me to guide you to his unfortunate thoughts.

In the book, Gingrich expresses his derision of the concept of what he calls “Big Government.” Quoting Professor John Wallis at the University of Maryland, Gingrich points out that the creation of “groups within the government…to the power profit, or protection they acquire by the favour of these persons, (are) but enemies to the constitution.” He concludes that “the biggest threat to civil society today is the growth of Big Government.” Has he forgotten that the transfer of immense wealth to the “one percent” was actually the brainchild of Ronald Reagan himself by enacting wanton deregulation? Is he even aware that it was during those times when the elite started dismantling the industries and relocated them offshore? It seems Gingrich is not aware that the 2008 recession was the cause of unsound republican policies and military posturing around the world. He seemed to forget that the strict regulation of the private sector was what’s needed to solve this unprecedented economic apocalypse.

If he is truly concerned with “people’s liberties and security through hard work”, then how come did he and his fellow republicans allow labor and all that work be transferred overseas? To be responsible for the dismantling of factories and production ironically backfires against securing private property rights, which he hypocritically and deceivingly defended in his book.

He also maintains that “the Founders sought to diffuse governmental power so that no single person, group, or governing branch could accumulate enough to encroach on the people’s unalienable rights.” Then again, how come did he and his fellow republicans ignore the voices of its people who argued against waging an ostracized war against Iraq? Didn’t George W. Bush went ahead and snubbed them in their faces? Indeed this ignoring traces its justification in his belief that “the Founders were adamantly opposed to direct democracy” which ironically goes against the same’s assertion that it “would fail to protect true liberty and would allow for the “tyranny of the majority.”” He further quotes John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

And yet he has the nerve to share that “subsequent presidents heeded Washington’s caution to prepare for war while seeking to avoid it…America showed the world that, though it did not seek war, it would defend itself from foreign attack.” But the opposite is what Gingrich prescribes his country to do. He encourages maintaining peace and safety which “is best maintained through a robust military capacity”. And here again, he goes on a hypocritical assertion that “America leads the world in spending on the military and on national security precisely to ensure that our wars are as rare and as swift as possible.” Do we need to mention America’s yearning to destroy another country accused of aspiring for nuclear parity with Israel? As such, it is undeniable that he and his fellow republicans endorse, focus, and thrive on and heed to the economic juggernaut that is the military industrial complex run by their elites.

He also focuses on America’s flawed foreign policy in the 1970s when the US scaled down (at least the overt ones) on its military commitments and disengaged with its allies elsewhere, especially in Vietnam. He was deeply concerned with the policy of détente adopted during that time as well as with the signing of the second SALT II with the Soviet Union because “the treaty…erode(d) U.S. strategic advantages” and that Carter adopted “policies that accepted declining power in the interests of “peace.””

Gingrich eulogized Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” where America once again started building up its military might in the 1980s. Reagan added that “we’re not a warlike people…We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance.” He encouraged Americans to take sides and take action by warning to “label both sides equally at fault” and caution “to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

The former House Speaker also exaggerates what role, if any, the US has played in the dissolution of the other superpower. This is often overlooked by the West. It is often cited that Reagan, together with Thatcher and John Paul II where the tidal forces that pushed their rival to its demise and eventual collapse. Gingrich believed that “the disappearance of the Soviet Union was the end result of a comprehensive and morality-based strategy to promote freedom around the world.” Isn’t this aggrandizing and self-serving — credit grabber as they call it?

Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s assertions belong to the unpopular. He is among the American leaders who fall trap to dealing with everything through military might. He is opposed to “Big Government” at home while backing America’s “Big Government” treatment of the world. He is utterly opposed to Obama’s “reset with Russia” policy, with Obama’s engaging in “dialogue” with problematic states, and accuses his president of “elevating the tool of multilateralism into an end in itself…categorically rejects the very idea of American dominance.” He finds delight in fear mongering, where he accuses Obama of being a “socialist” and that America is headed in a more Europe direction.

Gingrich even rejects the promotion of sustainable energy in his homeland. He categorically opposes Obama’s moratorium on drilling, saying that it increases the United States dependence on foreign oil. Instead, he calls for “an all-out effort to increase domestic oil and gas drilling” and allow “producers to do what they do best: creating affordable and reliable energy.” He further adds that encouraging energy production, including domestic drilling, will create jobs and grow the economy.” It is thus tempting to deduce that Mr. Gingrich is not aware of the merits of pursuing renewable energy, not to mention the catastrophic effects of climate change.

In the end, it is he and his republican partners who are guilty of protecting and advancing the interests of the privileged few while also discounting the welfare and liberties of the majority.   And to think that like-minded people rule Washington all the more confirms the menace of America’s supposed exceptionalism.  Indeed, they are exceptional, but in a bad way.

Capitalism: As Tired as the Environment it Plundered (PART III)

PART III: Militarism as a Tool of Economic Interests

I remember putting up Views from the East while the soon-to-be-called Arab Spring was raging on. Last year, the news was swarm with the headlines "Tunisia", "Egypt", ”Libya", "Yemen", "Bahrain", and up to this day, "Syria". Rewind a decade before that, the news was "Afghanistan" and "Iraq". Indeed, with the humiliating absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), more people are aware today of the real agenda behind those conflicts (spell blood for oil). The major conflicts of the opening rounds of the 21st century point us to conclude that America's harsh stance against Syria is a prelude to an imminent conflict with the greater "evil", Iran. After dropping assertions that Saddam Hussein hid his WMDs in Syria back in 2005, claims that Syria today harbors them inevitably raises yet another round of curiosity regarding America's WMD accusations. Just think about it - Afghanistan is to Iraq what Syria is to Iran.

Time and again the strategy here is the same system of covert action and propaganda instigated by the 'sole superpower of the world': from the South American killing squads of the 1960s to supporting Mujahedin against the Soviets in the 1980s, to the conflicts in Africa, South Asia and the Balkans of the 1990s, and to the arming of rebels in Syria today. How did it came to be that America and its Anglo allies seemed not to respect and actually violate established international laws regarding the support of rebellion, regardless of whether they are for the greater good or otherwise? What then is the real agenda behind all these military adventures?

For much of its history, America has been all about the labels 'profit', 'growth', 'competition', 'imperialism', all of which are part of the grander framework of Capitalism. Through this perspective, it is not hard to contemplate that not only are these wars part of an elaborate scheme of plundering the resources of the world for their own benefit, but also making more money out of them (remember Monsanto?). Put more bluntly, Capitalism can grow and sustain itself by grabbing resources while also gaining from the process of grabbing resources. What are the examples of these?

A good case in point is Pakistan. In November 2007, Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf cracked down on protests and activists and undermined human rights in the process. As a result of this move, Pakistan lost military aid and deals with the Netherlands and Switzerland. For its part, the United States said it will review its contracts with the country. However, in a 2007 report by Arms Control Today, it was indicated that "Washington...would likely not prevent any weapons transfers, asserting such a decision could undermine counter-terrorism efforts." As part of the "global war on terror", US policy toward Pakistan meant not only supporting it against terrorism (which also means effectively dragging Pakistan into its military orbit), but also making sure it patronized American military hardware (which is sound business). In fact, weapons sales went up ever since, even though it meant sales and transfers of high-technology weapons, military training, and other military assistance to morally-questionable governments and regimes.

Of course, Pakistan is just one part of America's military customers. The United States has offered military assistance to some countries that it had not aided previously in this way. For instance, Yemen has received grants to acquire U.S weaponry for the last 11 years, but none in the 11 years prior to 2001. Turkmenistan is now buying U.S. weaponry, and Kyrgyzstan is now permitted to make commercial purchases of U.S. weapons. Even more telling, 18 of the 25 countries in this series received more military assistance and 16 concluded more arms sales with the United States during the five years after the September 11 attacks than they had during the period between 1990 and 2001.

Data from the Arms Control Association also show that in the first five years following September 11, 2001, the United States sold nearly five times more weapons through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) to 25 countries than during the five years prior to that date. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006, FMS to these countries increased from about $1.7 billion to $5.3 billion. DCS for these 25 countries have also reached new highs, rising from $72 million during fiscal years 1997-2001 to more than $3 billion during fiscal years 2002-2006. Pakistan had the largest increase in military sales (FMS and DCS) in the five-year period, signing agreements for $3.6 billion in U.S. defense articles. Other beneficiaries of the war on terrorism arms sale bonanza were Bahrain, which saw an increase of $1.6 billion, and Algeria, which saw an increase of nearly $600 million. Sounds good business?

It is not just this supply of arms and training that rings the alarm bells, the United States continues to 'innovate' its tricks to prevent (or foster?) these self-serving wars. Back in 2009, when talks of withdrawal and 'Iraq is now safer' where headlines, a strange, seemingly backward report surfaced: a member of the newly formed Iraqi parliament has accused the US and the British of carrying out untoward civilian bombings. The Sadrist lawmaker, Maha al-Dori linked the escalating violence in the country with the withdrawal of US forces, and that the 'occupiers'' are the ones who are responsible for a new wave of violence and overall insecurity. This betrayal aims to create at its core an illusion of insecurity in the country and merit the prolonged stay of American military 'advisers'. Who can argue? Those bombings show Iraq cannot yet stand without America. And thus this justifies their continued presence up to this day.

This practice is what we can refer to as a closed-loop cycle: with increased conflicts come increased weapons sales and with it comes an increase in energy (oil) dependence. But why rely on foreign sources of energy when in fact America can and has historically produced its own? The reality today is that America has been running out of access to cheap oil since after the second Industrial Revolution,  proven by the relentless expansion of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, an alternative to this challenging and unnecessarily expensive drilling must be found at all cost. So the bottom line is Yes - corporate America needs these wars. No wonder the US military-industrial complex receives the biggest incentives, budget, and employs more than any other industry in the country. For sure, Dwight D. Eisenhower will be very displeased to see the military to be out of control, who himself warned that the military-industrial complex must never be allowed to "endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

Instead of relying heavily (or solely) on arms and military training as the primary tools of foreign policy, the United States and its allies should start scaling back on these activities and promote not only true and unstained peace in 'failed states', but also promote self-sufficiency among them. It is deeply dismaying that Anglo-America has continued to defy morals; that they continue to abuse humanitarianism to promote 'peace' and use them to expand their economic agendas; that it has pursued bullying through sanctions that exacerbate the international situation; and that it has proudly pursued unjustly practices to pursue its cancer of greed in the belief that "there is no alternative", as Reagan and Thatcher believed to death.

It is about time to stop scolding countries that have become economically competitive if not successful (think Singapore, China, Russia, Brazil, India) by pursuing an alternative sociopolitical system (especially Scandinavian countries) and give in to the reality that Capitalism has disappointed the expectations of many, that it is in a decline and has damaged not just humanity, but also the world. The plague of Capitalism should be incarcerated to the dustbins of history, for it has hatched and grew from the sufferings of humanity and paved the way for the irreversible catastrophe of climate change. If we fail so, future generations will be in a more desperate situation than we are today. We must not allow the future generations to blame all of us; after all, all these scourge was caused by those who belonged to the class called Capitalists. The Bible can't stress enough how it is against the rich and greedy: that the rich will have a hard time entering heaven, if at all.

Capitalism: Tired as the Environment it Plundered (PART II)

PART II: A Briefer on Poverty and Hunger

One of the World Bank's objectives include the statement "the encouragement of the development of productive facilities and resources in less developing countries". One of its focus involve developing countries in the fields such as human development, which include education and health. Quite sardonically, in 2010, it reported that "Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."

Such figures clearly point to inquiries on the hows and whys these came to be despite the promise of a better life (under Capitalism) and the promises of unprecedented economic integration (under Globalization). Is it really overpopulation that caused hunger or is it poverty to blame? As was learned in Part I of this discussion, since the elite (Capitalists) used education as a tool to undermine the real workings of this world, it is thus hidden from the majority of humanity that the real cause of poverty is overpopulation. This is the accepted reasoning since they controlled what and how we learn. In this way, the rich where always absolved from the responsibility of acting on the issue of poverty, and hence, hunger.

How common lands where distributed among the elite play an undeniable role in discussing the roots of poverty and hunger. In Africa, for instance, it is estimated that 80% of the population depend on arable land. But what if, as a result of privatization, these lands where taken away? Decades of liberalization (patterned after the West but not applicable to the Third World) have greatly decreased self-sufficiency among farmers, while at the same time doing nothing on how food can be economically available for them.

But are these lands acquired to produce more food per unit area and make them cheaper to acquire? History had it that there will always be a shortage of everything to keep costs high and profits going (growth - the universal word of Capitalism). Still, the primary reason for the shortage in arable land is their usage: for industrial production, mega-dam projects, beef production that benefit only the countries of the investors, for appropriation to golf courses, production of tobacco, and even the conversion offood to fuel (corn-to-ethanol and bio-fuel revolution in the early 2000s) as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Just in the case of tobacco production, the situation seems to suggest a discouraging picture. Tobacco production degrades the land while also requiring more wood to cure it. Outside of soil degradation, this industry puts stress on water resources by requiring fast-growing but water-hungry trees, such as eucalyptus. In addition, their production encourages more smoking which degrade people's health and increase medical expenses.

The same situation applies for coffee production. Although the production of coffee has had economic benefits such as employment, their production increased after the 1960s, but coffee price also fell more than 50% since. As such, its production is not sustaining itself well. Coffee plantation necessitates millions of hectares of land, not to mention pesticides that degrade the soil (which contribute to irreversible erosion), as well as waste pulp which pollute the water ways.

Another major contributor to land misuse is the textile/garments industry. As if the reallocation of arable land is not enough, the textile industry is known to put a real strain on water resources. The production of garments require a very large quantity of water: the textile industry is the third largest consumer in the world after the paper and oil industries. In its production, textiles require more chemicals as well (dyeing process) and also more energy to heat it. Even bigger than consumption, waste water from the process pollute river systems on a grand scale (taking into account their rank in the worst polluting industries).

In the case of bio-fuels, a little bit of political blaming has dominated the discussion, especially on the issue of whether bio-fuels such as ethanol do significantly affect the price of food. Proponents of the fuel, particularly the United States and some Western countries report that their production contribute to less than 3% on the price of food. However, in a leaked World Bank report (The Guardian, July 2008), the World Bank reported that "Bio fuels have forced global food prices up by 75%". In fact, in official statements, the United States has placed the blame on rising demand from developing countries, particularly India and China.

Decades of liberalization policies (which are export- and self-serving oriented) have also contributed to poverty and hunger. Under the guise of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), for-export crops (mostly to Northern Hemisphere destinations) have replaced staple crops, which in turn hurt local food supplies and where available, make them expensive. Encouraged by free-trade agreements and Globalization, liberalization also contributed to the removal of subsidies allocated for smaller-scale agriculture and farming. The removal of subsidies in turn make local players vulnerable which puts them at a disadvantaged position against gargantuan multinational corporations. In this way, this closed-cycle loop is complete; to quote Richard H. Robbins, "To understand why people go hungry you must stop thinking about food as something farmers grow for others to eat, and begin thinking about it as something companies produce for other people to buy." And yet, as the West views subsidies as the main barrier against 'free-trade' which must be abolished, their agriculture are the most heavily subsidized in the world, especially in Europe. This double-standard does not only contribute to the problem of poverty and hunger, but also to trade practices, otherwise known as protectionist policies.

Capitalism: Tired as the Environment it Plundered (PART I)

PART I: History of Socio-Economic Classes

I'd like to begin a challenging topic by admitting to what most laypeople consider as such: that hearing the apocalypse of capitalism/imperialism has become a tiresome theme. Indeed, it is a change of tone for my own creation Views from the East. But what if we begin by digging how ever did our society end up living to work instead of working to live?

In the past decade, as the developing world became more prominent in the running of the global economy and politics, it is imperative to focus on viewing the world as they see it. And this means focusing on the period before the French Revolution up to the late 19th century.

At about that time, the powers of Europe (most notably the British Empire) have become tired of influencing and colonialising near abroad; indeed, the discovery of the furthest lands (today known as South and Southeast Asia) where driven by the need to compete. At least before the 16th century, countries (or more precisely for that time, native lands) in the region where dominated by primitive hunters and gatherers. The idea of slavery came about when the most powerful men (rulers) realized the native lands can be bordered and be arable, hence the creation of agriculture. Thus, agriculture not only gave rulers their own ancestral land, but also can be used for what soon became known as barter, or trade, which is the foundation of the framework called economy.

So when did Capitalism enter the scene? As stated earlier, the powers of Europe exhausted their resources competing in the near abroad and went on to compete somewhere else. To etch an economic system based on the privatization of the manufacturing of goods for profit (Capitalism for short), a framework of domination has been devised. This clever domination, in the form of Imperialism, is the root of all misery that has plagued mankind ever since.

It is perhaps better to understand Imperialism by asking the question "why do I need work to live?" If you are more a success as defined by Capitalism, then you might ask "if I earn more, can I establish my business? Will I be happier if I had people work for me for my own profit?"

To answer this, we need to backtrack a bit. From being hunter-gatherers to slaves, landlords became merchants when a new system of trade activity was introduced: profit. The concept of the profit became a norm with the full swing of the period known as the Age of Imperialism. From now on, all economic activities will revolve around the concept of profit. This Western 'gift' was to be established at all cost, using the guise of economy, politics, and even culture, or collectively known as ideological state apparatus. In simple terms, ISA is the establishment of a system (in the guise of a state) to further the economic interests of capitalists. In defining so, we might start asking who then are the capitalists? Let us allow German philosopher Karl Marx to identify the socioeconomic classes of man: at the bottom are the farmers (who virtually own nothing), followed by the assembly workers (factory workers). Next in the classes of man are petite-bourgeois (middle-class, the educated, and sometimes shop keepers and members of the government).   And at the top of this dangerous hierarchy are the national and international bourgeois, or the owners, who are themselves the capitalists.

Indeed, to exist is to be enslaved by Capitalists; through Imperialism, the delusional framework of political (conflict and judicial), economic (through an imbalance in trade with the aim of creating debt; Colonialism and Fascism disguised as education ), and cultural {religion and family values (through the establishment of norms, discontent can be pacified)}, has thus been created. In so defining these dangerous illusions, we have also successfully arrived at the root cause of poverty.

The Post-Kim Jong-Il Era and the Wider Asia-Pacific Politiscape

It has been a good 3 months since the death of former North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il; its almost a quarter of a year since the death of the 'dear leader', a good enough time frame to assess whether the North has made any 'progress' in becoming a country that is 'diplomatically-acceptable' to the West.

Despite mixed-reactions on his death and the installment of its new premier Kim Jong-un, 2012 commenced with a new US defense stance, where Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced, with utter confidence, that the US military will increase its "institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection, and deterrence in Asia-Pacific." He also added that, despite settling for obvious (economic) tradeoffs, the US "will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.” Furthermore, the US will re-balance its "global posture and presence, emphasizing the Pacific and Middle East- these are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future.”

Together with its North-Asian partner South Korea, the US was quick to follow up on this posture by staging a huge military exercise off the Peninsula, which began on March 1. It involved some 200,000 regular South Korean troops and reservists and about 12,800 US troops. The two-stage 'defensive in nature' military exercise naturally is seen by North Korea as a threat to its regime, and must be tackled with extreme caution. The North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun declared "“If a war breaks out on the peninsula, only a nuclear catastrophe will be triggered.”

Containing China

The US leadership is also firm in its Southeast Asian posture. In their new report "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense", it was confirmed that Washington will be building better military alliances and reestablish closer military ties with the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, and of course, Taiwan. In January, the US has completed a new joint military exercise with the Philippine military aimed at countering alleged Chinese intervention in disputed waters. And that does not end there, during a visit to the Philippines by no less than Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, both nations signed "The Manila Declaration" which meant closer cooperation "to enhance the defense, interdiction, and apprehension capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Philippines." It also indicated that the US "also reaffirm(s) the treaty as the foundation of...(their) relationship for the next 60 years and beyond."

Meanwhile, in a visit to Canberra late last year, President Barrack Obama disclosed that it will focus America's might in Australia and Asia, where he announced “as we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.” Moreover, both nations signed an agreement to increase US military presence in Northern Australia by upgrading the troops there from 250 to 2,500 personnel.

Undeniably, Bush's "war on terrorism" will now be replaced by patrolling the greater region of the Asia-Pacific. Does the Pacific miss being an arena of an Arms Race? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has enjoyed being the sole unchallenged power in the region. For China, though, the breakneck development of its economy necessitates the protection of its interests, where the protection of energy lanes becomes more vital than ever. Indeed, in this global game of energy security, the US is holding back not only China's access to energy, but also its capability to protect those interests.

Still, it seems Washington is not satisfied threatening China from the East; in an unprecedented stance, Mrs. Clinton also visited Burma, a long-time Chinese ally. In  an effort to distance Burma from China, Clinton said that countries should be 'smart shoppers', which meant that they should veer away from countries that are more interested in 'extracting your resources than in building your capacity.' Evidently, this statement is for its giant neighbor, where Burma is heavily reliant on. Beijing has invested heavily in this tiny nation for some resources in return for aid as well as access to the Indian Ocean, having the objective of becoming less reliant on the Malacca Strait, a region heavily policed by the West. Furthermore, Washington has established the Lower Mekong Initiative that aimed to relax Chinese influence in the member countries of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand (which recently received F-16 fighter jets) and Vietnam.

documents:
US Department of Defense: Sustaining US Global Leadership 2012
US Department of State: The Manila Declaration

further read:
IHS Janes
World Socialist Website
Tom Dispatch