The Specter of US meddling in Asian Affairs

It’s only almost a year since America declared its policy of pivoting its messy militaristic adventure to Asia, and now we have news that it sent two B-52 strategic bombers over the disputed islands between China and Japan.

The flyovers, which is 'part of a regular military exercise' to the region, comes at a perfect time as China declares more control of the region, with a November 25 announcement that aircraft flying over the disputed territory must submit flight plans and communicate with Chinese aviation authorities via an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) policy.

Only in the course of a day the US expressed its dismay. In this most recent unarmed bomber aircraft patrol, Pentagon spokesman Steve Warren told Reuters “we have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus (Japan’s name for the disputed islands). We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies.”

The arrogant announcement comes after Kerry’s rhetoric that China’s new controls over the airspace “constitutes and attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was quoted as saying the Chinese announcement “will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Only America calls the shots anywhere in the world

Never minding the sovereignty of other countries, where the US comes in, trouble and tensions comes out. Regardless of where US troops are stationed in the area (South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia), clearly the US is over-extending its military to show Beijing who’s the ‘police of the world.’

Clearly this dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is a matter two sovereign nations must settle themselves, without the meddling of a third party. Such is the case with the Philippines, with the South China Sea, where the tiny island nation plays puppet to the US’s aggressive military policy in the area.

What these smaller nations fail to know is their role in playing the chess game for America’s larger pivot to Asia policy. It’s a win-win situation overall, let these countries fall prey to US manipulation against China while not committing too much military resources and increased arms sales.

It is almost foolish for these satellite countries to be slave to American policy by projecting a harder unilateral stance against Beijing in the form of ‘territorial disputes’, not knowing they themselves are in more trouble when the situation in the area escalates to open hostility.

US encourages Japanese remilitarization for the sake of containing China

The Chinese reaction and increased patrol in the area comes after recent Japanese provocation.

Ever since the arrests of Chinese fishermen in 2010 and last year’s purchase by the Japanese government of the islands (knowing well they are disputed territory) , China’s actions can be seen more as a reaction to these American-backed provocations.

The international media is replete with the usual suspect keywords of 'an aggressive China' for seeking to 'change the status quo' against 'aggrieved' neighboring countries. Many fail to see through the news. It can be remembered that just last year, the US increased its military forces in Australia and conducted ever-larger military exercises in the region to intimidate and contain China’s influence. The more recent announcement that US military troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond 2020 (despite Obama’s promise to remove them in 2014) is suspect enough since the country shares a border with China.

What the US fails to realize is the scale of its bullying in the region. Just last week, it concluded a mammoth military exercise with Japan which involved 34,000 troops and 350 warplanes, focusing on how to defeat Chinese anti-ship capabilities and a naval blockade to cripple China’s economy once a conflict breaks out. Sadly, we can only refer to the American reaction to Soviet troops stationed in Cuba half a century ago. Can anyone remind America what it feels like to have gargantuan military buildups and war exercise performed in their own backyard?

Europe an Ally, but an Enemy as well?

This week will see the European Summit discuss a quite unusual issue: that of America’s snooping on its allies. Barely a week has passed since the revelations that America’s NSA tapped on government phone calls from Spain and France, and now we have Germany’s top leader Angela Merkel to add to this sorry list of compromised allies.

The fresh NSA leaks showed that the NSA has been tapping on the Chancellor’s phone calls as far back as 2002.

This recent revelation by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden infuriated both Paris and Berlin, where Merkel was quoted saying “Spying between friends—that’s just not done.” “I said that to US President Barack Obama when he came to Berlin and again on the phone [Wednesday],” Merkel said.

As hard-hitting as these relationship snippets between the Western allies are, the mood and tone Britain is quite disconnected from its European friends.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was more worried about how these things are revealed in the first place, expressing concerns that the Snowden leak “is frankly signaling to people who mean to do us harm how to evade and avoid detection”, citing the recent Kenya mall massacre. He added that “it (revelation) is going to make our world more dangerous”.

Just a few days ago, a conservative British politician called for the prosecution of the paper Guardian for publishing NSA documents and “aiding terrorism and endangering national security.” The fear-mongering official diverted the issue of America spying on its allies and instead argued that “once an adversary knows if and how we can read their communications, they will change their behavior.”

Rewind just a couple of weeks ago and you end up opening your morning papers with the less-publicized furry of Brazil’s president Dilma Roueseff over similar NSA accusations. And if you go back a decade ago, you end up with a leaked NSA memo calling for increased “surveillance of and interception of phone calls and emails from United Nations delegations crucial to the (then) upcoming Security Council (Iraq invasion) vote.”

“Everyone spies on friends”

Surprisingly for a conflict-hungry leader, Obama pacified Merkel’s anger, saying he did not know about the spying. The same air brushing language was employed by the president earlier this year: "We should stipulate that every intelligence service —not just ours, but every European intelligence service, every Asian intelligence service, wherever there's an intelligence service — here's one thing that they're going to be doing: They're going to be trying to understand the world better, and what's going on in world capitals around the world…If that weren't the case, then there'd be no use for an intelligence service."

However, these days, not even his allies are impressed. French president Francois Hollande demanded the US to immediately stop any more eavesdropping, saying “we cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies.”

Snowden’s status in Russia

It was August 1 when the NSA whistleblower was granted his application to seek temporary political asylum in Russia. He has since left the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow and his whereabouts are not disclosed, although it is believed Edward Snowden might now intend to apply for full refugee status.

According to Veronika Krasheninnkova, Director General of Institute of Foreign Political Studies and Initiatives in Moscow, Russia has no choice but to grant Snowden asylum.

The Director said “this is the decision made by an independent sovereign state. Additionally, well, Russia has been left without much choice. Mr. Snowden’s passport was cancelled when he was on Russia’s territory. And furthermore when President Obama said on June 27 that he would not send fighter jets to intercept the plane transporting Mr. Snowden, and only a few days later indeed a plane was intercepted with the President of Bolivia Eva Morales on the suspicion that Mr. Snowden was on board. So in this situation it was very difficult to conduct negotiations with Washington. I think that was the only right thing to do and Russia did it.”

She also added that “what is appalling in this situation in the United States is that a young man who helped the government to fight against glaring violations of American constitutional law and International Laws instead of being helped by the government is being prosecuted. Well, that is, and President Obama who as a trained constitutional lawyer  definitely knows the Constitution, well, it is too bad that they have to face hundreds plus years of prison rather than indeed being helping those cases being investigated and the true perpetrators of these violations being punished.”

Social Upheaval of the Times: A New Perspective

The span of time since the unraveling of socialism a little over twenty years ago has given us, contemporary observers, the opportunity to look at this event with unprecedented depth and a bigger perspective. Indeed, that span has uncovered and brought back from obscurity the real factors that contributed to the collapse of this ideology, very much like how history is vindicated well after it has unfolded. What is obvious to us today surely was not clear for that age's participants and observers, thus, a better say on what truly happened, from the personalities who betrayed socialism to the unwelcome external elements that intervened, is aching to be told especially in this time of mass protests in Europe and privacy scandals plaguing America.

Almost exactly twenty years before the financial blunder of the West, Eastern Europe was undergoing a major political transformation; the masses are confronted with a choice that would dictate how their lives will be from then on: to keep under socialism or to succumb to the allure of the supposedly more democratic ways of their Western neighbors. The reverse is true today: Americans are increasingly becoming aware but less patient with how they should be governed, from how taxpayer money should be used in times of crisis to how their private lives are eroded by an increasingly paranoid government. Without realizing it, people are citing elements of socialism to serve as antidote (Occupy Movement) to the woes of contemporary life in 'the land of the free.' In Europe, calls for a loosening of the highly bureaucratic and elitist European Union is needless to say, gaining more ground as state after state succumb to strings-attached-ridden bailouts and the claws of austerity measures eating at people's welfare and ultimately, their existence.

How can you preach 'democracy' when you treat your citizens with distrust, as with the recent Manning-Assange-Snowden expose reveal? In fact, even America's allies can't escape this inexorable surveillance menace. How can you preach 'more integration' for the so-called European Union if you continue to keep out the assignment of management of the continent beyond the approval of citizens? Such trappings were the wedge of classic anti-socialist/communist rhetoric during the Cold War. Can we look at who's speaking now? Indeed we can, with the help of what others call "the ordeal of careful scrutiny."

With Age Comes Greater Understanding: The Truth behind Socialism's Collapse in the 1980s

The typical Western triumphalist thinking has all the success-over-socialism-the-enemy covered in the Cold War dialogue, where claims rest mostly in the belief that socialism is doomed from the beginning, as was the case with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the specific case of the dissolution of the USSR, there are six theories that try to 'explain' why socialism failed, including:

• flaws of socialism
• popular opposition
• external factors
• bureaucratic counter-revolution
• lack of democracy and over-centralization, and
• the Gorbachev factor

The first theory argues that socialism was doomed from the start because it had an inherent anti-human nature flaw. It is misguided thought because it requires a predisposition that socialism in the USSR should've failed before even more pressing challenges, such as collectivization or the Nazi invasion, had gripped the relatively young socialist state.

The second theory subscribes to the idea that popular opposition brought down socialism in the Soviet Union and even Eastern Europe. However, subscribers to this theory fail to explain the fact that a real opposition to Gorbachev did not turn out in the beginning of his reforms. To begin with, mass discontent did not appear during Gorbachev's early years as General Secretary. Moreover, surveys showed that people were actually satisfied with their lives and the system.

While others falsely believed that, some were comfortable with blaming external factors as behind the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory believe in the pressure that Reagan put on the reforming Soviet system, especially on military terms. On the contrary, despite rhetorical musings, there is no evidence of such triumphalism, especially on the buildup of arms that was supposed to 'bankrupt' the Soviets into spending. In fact, archives show that the American military buildup was not reciprocated by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory fail to cite the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the plan of Gorbachev to end conscription in the military as well as the eventual reduction of the armed forces.

The fourth theory promote the belief that as Gorbachev's reforms unleashed forces beyond the control of the state, slow-moving leaders were left with no choice but to ride the waves of a fast-emerging market economy by privatizing state assets for their own wealth. Although some in the elite saw an opportunity in the unraveling of the centralized economy, it was motivated by their interest in hanging on to power, rather than subscribing to the return of capitalism.

The fifth theory traces the root of the Soviet collapse to the inability of the state to "democraticize", at least in the Western sense of the word. However, over time, the meaning of democracy changes. In Roger Keeran's and Thomas Kenny's thesis, neither capitalism nor liberalism has an exclusive claim to democracy. To be sure, democracy came to the United States in gradual terms, and was constantly improved as rights became more pervasive and expanded. In fact, 'popular participation' was built-in in the Soviet political and decision-making system. Indeed, the spread of power was even more dispersed than in a Western democracy. As for over-centralization, scholars miss the fact that the USSR was the first socialist country to embark on such economic path; there is no guarantee the plan will work, but nevertheless it produced a system that will achieve the goals of socialism, including free education, housing, guaranteed jobs, zero-inflation and others.

The sixth theory also has the trappings of an incomplete thesis: that Gorbachev was the man to blame, especially because of his abandonment of traditional communism. There is no denying that Gorbachev's policies unleashed wanton forces beyond his control. However, few recall that his earlier policies where a mirror of Andropov's reforms. At best, this theory fails to fully convince, especially since Gorbachev, according to Keeran and Kenny, "was both a legatee of a certain tradition and the product of his times and not just a lone factor making history."

Rebuffing Western Though on the Collapse: Other Areas of Discussion

Even after the end of the First World War, it is undeniable that the Soviet people underwent a major upheaval, when the country retreated from the major war and succumbed to civil war. To think that the ‘crisis’ from 1985 onward was an insurmountable challenge would therefore be invalid, after all, the USSR had survived far greater calamities after the Second World War.

Although the economy of the USSR was slowing down in the 1980s, economists still saw the single digit GDP growth as manageable, one that did not threaten the stability of the country’s economy. Although the price of oil surely caused trouble to Soviet finances, adjusted for inflation, the price of oil was higher than in the previous decade.

The Soviet Union’s military and diplomatic standing is correctly judged as having accomplished or managed well it’s objectives in the 1970s through to the 1980s. Even with Reagan’s military buildup, especially with the threat of SDI, this did not receive serious attention by military and economic planners in the USSR; simply SDI was treated as unfeasible in the short to medium term. Years later, historian Adam Ulam would quip that in 1985, “no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power, and its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR.”

The real situation then was, as with the previous decade, the USSR of the 1980s was a stable one, with no unemployment, no inflation, no mass protests and strength in its foreign policy. There were problems, but there was clearly no real crisis that can threaten the country’s existence. Perhaps more importantly for a country that had many autonomous republics and regions; there were no observable conflicts among its nationalities and ethnicities.

Even with a one-party system, the Soviet bureaucratic machine had many decision makers from top to bottom. Millions participated in the collective soviets, which are institutions of power. More than 150 million workers were involved in unions, and contrary to bourgeoisie denunciations, these institution are not ‘fake’ and functioned with vitality and much room for policy. As for the people themselves, a referendum as late as 1991 showed that the majority of Soviet people (75 percent) where in favor of keeping the Union intact.

Indeed even during the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Soviet central planning in politics and economics was more complex than ever because of the expansion of the economy and the increased freedoms of its people. In fact, as Roger Keeran says “it was the erosion of planning and the flowering of the second (underground) economy that raised barriers to economic growth in the USSR.”

As for the Soviet leader himself, Thomas Kenny rightly observes that “we do not believe that Gorbachev ever acted consciously at the outset to betray socialism and restore capitalism. In contrast to Andropov, who was a deep and genuine Marxist-Leninist, Gorbachev was a brilliant actor…without great theoretical preparation” but that over time Gorbachev “took the conscious decision that he was no longer a communist, but a social democrat…he no longer believed any more in planning, social ownership of the means of production, the role of the working class, socialist democracy.”

America has the Exclusive Right to Bomb the World

US Secretary of State John Kerry meeting Syrian rebels

The past few months since the Syrian chemical weapon incident have seen a sensational back and forth action in international politics. On the one hand, Obama had played a very safe but misleading role in the resolution of the conflict.

Obama cautious on the outcome of British Commons vote

There is no denying the American president played his Democrat-cards well. As the representative of the party supposedly-opposed to wars abroad (unlike the Republicans), he halfheartedly  rallied for an intervention on the Syrian conflict by waiting for the outcome of the British House of Commons on their vote against an attack on Syria.

The epic August 30 disavowal against David Cameron’s support for another British-and-American misadventure reassured the international community that a decade is not too distant to forget the humiliation and outcome of the Iraq and Afghan carnage wrought by the United States. Despite the UK's backing out of the Syria strike, Obama says the US will "continue to consult" its British ally.

Obama ‘consults’ Congress on Syria intervention

In a ‘true’ Democrat move, Obama, the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, played again a safe but misleading path to a ‘resolution’ on the Syria conflict by presenting Congress intelligence reports that apparently proved Bashar al-Assad’s hands on the most recent chemical attack. Certainly, on the back of Obama’s head, he knows he will be denied the vote he needs for authorization of another ‘coalition of the willing’ on Syria.

Now who could deny Obama’s heroism after the Congress turn-down? Undeniably in his Oval Office, the president is whispering he did what he could but that Congress was to blame for a failure to authorize the bombing of another Muslim country. At a lecture at the University of Michigan, David North described the US Syria policy as possibly a “carefully planned diplomatic masterstroke.”

American media’s disgusting propaganda  against Syria

Below the official Washington statements, the media, headed by CNN, has been skillfully playing their deception, including:

• The dropping of the word ‘alleged’ chemical weapons use from news

• That if it weren't for America’s threat, the Syrian government will not be willing to negotiate (from the beginning, Bashar Al-Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and so the willingness-to-negotiate trophy should go to Russia, not the US)

• That Syria’s possession of chemical weapons violates international rules, forgetting that this is the ‘best’ Syrian deterrent against Israel’s far more destructive and illegal possession of nuclear weapons

• That the Syrian rebels are being likened to the ‘freedom fighters’ supported by the West and Saudi Arabia against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan back in the 80s

• In lieu of the threat to use force, there is no mention on how extensive the West supports the rebels in Syria. In fact, the decision to use force is in large part dictated by the desperate situation of the Syrian rebels

Russia’s role in conflict resolution

If there is any other international leader who should be eulogized for brokering a deal on the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, it should be Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin leader knows that a peace deal is the only path to Syria’s return to normalcy, and he knew this from the beginning. Record-wise, Putin was a staunch renouncer of Western interventionism in the past.

In a recent gathering with academics and research analysts in Russia, he felt comfortable in criticizing the West’s double standards (especially with Israel), hypocrisy, and moral decline. Vis-à-vis Israel, the Russian leader proposed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which happens to include Israel’s secret nukes and Syria’s chemical weapons.

Also at the recent Shanghai Security Organization (SCO) meeting held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin insisted that “military interference from outside the country without a UN Security Council sanction is admissible” and that the summit jointly opposed “Western intervention in Syria, as well as the loosening of the internal and regional stability in the Middle East.”

As in the past, China, for its part, mostly favors Russia’s foreign policy. At the SCO meeting, Chinese president Xi Jinping expressed his country's opposition to a Western-led strike against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran,  a major energy supplier to China.

The Iran Response

Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, perceived as a moderate statesman, attended the SCO meeting, where he agreed on keeping Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, adding that this has given “hope that we will be able to avoid a new war in the region.”

The Post-Chavez Venezuela

The charismatic Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has not only historically rattled his opponents abroad when he was living, but also today that the world missed one of the most progressive and populist leaders with his death on March 5. The four-term democratically-elected President may have passed away, but his revolution and legacy lives on especially in the hearts of the majority of his people and in Latin America.

Chavez was frequently portrayed by the United States as the 'crazy oddball' especially when he expressed his counter-Western views especially after the US invaded Afghanistan. Even a former American president called him an 'ass' on national television, while his son branded Chavez as among those supporting the 'axis of evil.' On his death, some in Congress openly celebrated his demise, with Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declaring “Good riddance to this dictator.”

Despite those mainstream comments  (at least in the West), Chavez is the champion of empowering the poor, by not only improving their social conditions (through oil revenues) but also by empowering them in the local political discourse. Chavez ended the duopoly of elitist corruption of the past when he got into power in 1999. The immensely charismatic leader offered his people a different kind of democracy, one that truly engaged and nurtured the pulse of his people. He brought reforms that favored the poor, which constitute more than half the population of Venezuela.

Although the US often demonizes Chavez' 'oil weapon', oil-financed programs benefit some eight percent of the country's population, especially in the education and housing sectors, helping millions. Indeed, it is hard to support a coup against a leader who has the backing of his people, and was democratically-elected four times in one of the most transparent elections anywhere. Regardless of his portrayal in the US, Chavez has not threatened to cut oil exports to the US.

Post-Chavez

President Chavez' death certainly has people from the Left and Right scrambling on how to continue or cut the leader's revolution. It is widely feared at home whether the concerns of the poor will be met in an event Chavez' health stops him from doing his duties properly. Although the opposition had a quite acceptable performance against the President in the December 2012 elections, the opposition's unity is still fragile. The patience and persistence of  Henrique Capriles will certainly be under more intense scrutiny this time. With backing from the US, will the opposition finally gain power? Or will Chavez' hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro continue the populist revolution? However, while many supported Chavez, it is not clear whether the support will trickle down to his protege and allies.

Indeed, the world can only hope to empathize with Venezuela during this uncertain times, and external powers with double standards should resist the temptation to exploit again and intervene.

recommended reading: Hugo Chavez and Socialism

The World in 2013

The changing of the calendar is always a euphoric moment for humanity. As exciting as it is though, world events will be more like just an evolution of the previous year, except perhaps for China, which will see a new leadership this summer.

For one, in Washington, Barack Obama will continue on with his second term, although with a new lineup of secretaries. The European Union will continue to be haunted by austerity issues and economic volatility, with recession not a remote possibility. Chinese manufacturing will slump, especially compounded by a looming housing bubble.

In the Middle East, the specter of the so-called Arab Spring will linger, especially in Egypt and Libya, where their supposedly new leaders are confronted by mass protests and calls for 'real' reforms. The increased Western pressure on Syria and Iran will continue to play a role in the price of energy as a new war looms in the Persian Gulf.  Diamond prices will continue to go down as gem stones take on new prominence and increase in their value.

Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization will put increasing pressure on the West to lower or eliminate government subsidies and protectionist policies. Emerging economics like India, Brazil and Indonesia will play more important global economic roles this year as well.

In the consumer electronics sector, Apple and Google will continue to battle each other through patent wars and the like, which will stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Samsung will be bringing the war to Apple on this front as well, rather than the reverse. The tired brands of Microsoft and Nokia will continue to push fresh ideas on their products and services to regain market share.

Indeed, this year will be a continuation of the events of last year. Nevertheless, it is an exciting year ahead.