Messages In This Digest (19 Messages)

Messages

1.: U.S. Uses Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield To Defend Global Empire

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:54 am (PDT)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/u-s-reserves-use-of-nuclear-arms-missile-shield-to-defend-its-empire

Stop NATO
April 13, 2010

U.S. Reserves Use Of Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield To Defend Global Empire
Rick Rozoff

This month has seen the signing of an agreement on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II by U.S. and Russian heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on the 8th and the release of the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, both of which are being widely interpreted as heralding the downgrading of the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy.

In fact the new treaty on the reduction of the nuclear arsenals of the two nations that account for 90-95 percent of the world's supply of such weapons, with a commensurate cutback in the delivery systems for them, is a quantitative advance in the direction of eliminating the deadliest and most destructive weapons ever devised by man, but still leaves 3,100 deployed nuclear weapons in both nations' quivers and thousands more in storage.

Similarly, the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), in stating for the first time that the U.S. will not employ nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states - with two notable (and critically important) exceptions, which will be examined below - also has been construed by some observers as another milestone on the road to a world free from the threat of nuclear war and in the worst case thermonuclear annihilation.

With the two-day, 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. following so closely on the START II agreement and the release of the Nuclear Posture Review, the world press is abuzz with almost millenarian optimism regarding the prospects for a planet free of nuclear weapons. American establishment news agencies and political commentators - half government ventriloquist dummies and half mock devil's advocates - are rightly celebrating the START II and the Nuclear Security Summit as victories for their nation. The first allows the U.S. to forge ahead with programs like international interceptor missile deployments and Prompt Global Strike [1]; the latter positions Washington as sole arbiter and main enforcer in regards to nuclear proliferation worldwide.

The only naysayers are American superhawks for whom anything other than uncontested U.S. strategic military superiority with the fervent willingness to use it is an unwarranted concession if not a treasonous capitulation.

The above are often congress persons from districts which are home to large arms manufacturers' headquarters and production facilities and others on the payroll of the military-industrial lobby.

When leading officials of the current administration issue bellicose foreign policy statements the press often attributes those pronouncements to pressure from or fear of the opposition Republican Party, especially in a congressional election year like 2010. However, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has retained George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and has installed Bush-era U.S. European Command and North Atlantic Treaty Organization top military commander James Jones as its national security adviser. It is also not a Republican administration that requested and has secured an unprecedented $708 billion dollar military budget for next year.

Regarding international military strategy, except for which weapon systems are favored over others there is continuity in the White House that verges on indistinguishability.

To illustrate how little has changed since the heated days following the attacks in New York City and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, on April 11 - the day before the two-day Nuclear Security Summit in Washington - President Obama boldly asserted "We know that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them."

Aside from the curious choice of preposition to accompany "would have no compunction," the U.S. head of state evidently has no compunction about claiming to know the intentions of al-Qaida or about making such an assertion without revealing how he knows it to be true. Perhaps it is sufficient simply to assume any enemy of the "world's sole military superpower" is actuated by the most nefarious of designs and has the ability to carry them out.

In the 1700s the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote of the predatory masters of the jungle that he who terrorizes also trembles. Establishing unchallenged dominance based on force means that the sound of every twig being broken and the rustling of every leaf trigger a heightened state of vigilance and the instinct to strike. There is always a threat and always a prey.

Obama added "The central focus of this nuclear summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to U.S. security - both short term, medium term and long term - would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon." In his meetings on April 11 with the heads of state of India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan and South Africa, Obama was flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, hardly a peace-loving coterie. (The only substantive agreement to come out of the meetings had nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. Instead the U.S. gained the right to fly troops and military equipment for the war in Afghanistan over Kazakhstan, which borders both China and Russia, after first passing over the North Pole.)

On the same day the country's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were featured on NBC's "Meet the Press," CBS's "Face the Nation" and ABC's "This Week" and "gave interviews meant to reassert the nation's military strength." [2] In the last-named program (taped on April 9), Clinton's comments included:

"We'll be, you know, stronger than anybody in the world as we always have been with more nuclear weapons than are needed many times over. And so we do not see this [the new Nuclear Posture Review] as in any way a diminishment of what we are able to do."

"I think if you actually read the nuclear posture review, you would make three conclusions. First - we intend to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent. Let no one be mistaken. The United States will defend ourselves, and defend our partners and allies. We intend to sustain that nuclear deterrent by modernizing the existing stockpile. In fact, we have $5 billion in this year's budget going into that very purpose." [3]

Gates touted both facets of the new U.S. international military strategy, the ability to deliver rapid, long-range first strikes with conventional weapons and to then hide behind a globally expanding missile shield should retaliation ensue:

"We have more robust deterrents today, because we've added to the nuclear
deterrent missile defense. And - and with the phased adaptive approach
that the president has approved, we will have significantly greater
capability to deter the Iranians, because we will have a significantly
greater missile defense.

"We're also developing this conventional prompt global strike, which
really hadn't gone anywhere in the - in the Bush administration, but
has been embraced by the new administration. That allows us to use long
range missiles with conventional warheads. So we have - we have more
tools if you will in the deterrents kit bag than - than we used to." [4]

In her "Face the Nation" appearance Clinton said "we leave ourselves a lot of room for contingencies" and Gates stated that if other countries don't, in Washington's estimate, adhere to the stipulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) then "all bets are off." Both addressed Iran and North Korea, the remaining two-thirds of George W. Bush's "axis of evil," as the main targets of their attention.

So much for the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reversing the U.S. doctrine of "reserving the right" (see below) to wage nuclear attacks, even so-called preemptive nuclear attacks, against non-nuclear nations. The other key point is Clinton's use of the phrase "our partners and allies," which is an expression that is repeated like a red thread throughout the Nuclear Posture Review and the new Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

The NPR includes the contention that "In pursuit of their nuclear ambitions, North Korea and Iran have violated non-proliferation obligations" - and as such are not excluded from nuclear strikes - and "as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces. These nuclear forces will continue to play an essential role in deterring potential adversaries and reassuring allies and partners around the world." [5]

The U.S. "will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states" only if the latter "are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

"The United States is...not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons," and "reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat."

Just as the U.S. will decide itself which countries are and are not in compliance with the NPT (whatever the International Atomic Energy Agency says on the matter) and which that are not will be subjected to sanctions and even direct military attacks, so it "reserves the right" to use nuclear weapons, including in advance of an attack, against any state that is accused of developing biological weapons or harboring non-state actors that are doing so. Precisely the language of President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after September 11, 2001.

With the unspoken assumptions added in parentheses, the NPR statement on biological weapons reads: The United States reserves the (exclusive, arbitrary, unilateral) right to make any adjustment in the (non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states) assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the (real or hypothetical or contrived) biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat (as was done with Iraq in 2003).

To demonstrate that Iran and North Korea are not the only countries that the NPR is developing contingency plans against, it also mentions that "Russia remains America's only peer in the area of nuclear weapons capabilities," and "the United States and China's Asian neighbors remain concerned about China's current military modernization efforts, including its qualitative and quantitative modernization of its nuclear arsenal."

Though its main emphasis remains the one that served as the pretext for the war against Iraq seven years ago: "In coming years, we must give top priority to discouraging additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities and stopping terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear bombs or the materials to build them." The occupant of the Oval Office and the name of his worldwide military campaign - transformed from the global war on terror to overseas contingency operations - may have changed, but nothing else has except the public inclusion of a nuclear component to the strategy. The next Niger "yellow cake" fabrication may lead to a far more catastrophic conflagration.

Hillary Clinton reinforced the point on April 11: "We fear North Korea and Iran, because their behavior as - the first case, North Korea being - already having nuclear weapons, and Iran seeking them - is that they are unpredictable. They have an attitude toward countries like Israel, like their other neighbors in the Gulf that makes them a danger." [6]

Gates added on "Face the Nation": "Because North Korea and Iran are not in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty....All options are on the table." [7]

On April 12 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that an attack on Iran would be "the worst possible scenario," and "if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons. And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths." [8]

On the same day the chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov said that air strikes against Iran by the U.S. and Israel would be "unacceptable," and that "This is a last resort that exists in the plans of both the United States and Israel." [9]

To insure the ability to deliver just such strikes, "The NPR concluded that the current alert posture of U.S. strategic forces with heavy bombers off full-time alert, nearly all ICBMs on alert, and a significant number of SSBNs at sea at any given time should be maintained for the present."

Speaking of the U.S. global missile shield project in early February, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said "We believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the United States will stand by our security commitments to them and will help to negate the coercive potential of regional actors attempting to limit U.S. influence and actions in key regions.â€ [10]

No nation on earth will be permitted to respond to American political and military intrusions in its neighborhood or off its coast. And potential first strike-related interceptor missile deployments will be installed under the guise of protecting the U.S.'s "allies and partners."

The allies and partners in question are first of all the other 27 members of NATO, which are covered under the bloc's Article 5 mutual military assistance provision and, for the most part secondarily, other military client states throughout the world. The partners that Clinton emphasized the Nuclear Posture Review included as covered by the U.S. nuclear umbrella and conceivably even to launch nuclear attacks on behalf of.

Possible scenarios for the implementation of this policy include, with the U.S. intervening on behalf of the first belligerent, conflicts or confrontations between:

-Israel and Iran, Lebanon and Syria or any combination of the three.

-The Persian Gulf monarchies - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - and Iran.

-South Korea and North Korea.

-Japan and North Korea.

-Colombia and Venezuela and Ecuador.

-Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

-Canada and Russia in the Arctic Circle.

-Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia hosts a small contingent of Russian peacekeepers and is a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. In a major conflict between the two South Caucasus countries Turkey, a NATO member, would be pressured to intervene on behalf of Azerbaijan.

-Moldova and Transdniester. The second also has Russian troops on its territory and NATO member Romania would almost certainly enter the fray on Moldova's side should a major armed conflict erupt.

-A resumption of fighting between Djibouti, where the U.S. bases its Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa and approximately 2,000 troops, and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa, with pressure on American client Ethiopia to intervene as it did in Somalia in 2006.

-A less likely but by no means impossible armed altercation between Australia, which last year approved its largest military buildup since World War II, [11] and one of its neighbors, in the most dangerous instance Indonesia.

Canada is a founding member of NATO and Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Moldova, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates are NATO partner states under the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and Contact Country programs and several of them - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel and Moldova - have individual NATO partnerships.

With the exception of ice-bound Antarctica, the "allies and partners" rationale would permit Washington to threaten the use of or to in fact employ nuclear weapons on every continent.

If the realization of what an elastic interpretation of the Nuclear Posture Review, "with a lot of room for contingencies" and when "all bets are off," portends is not yet present in the U.S. itself, it is becoming so elsewhere. On April 11 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticized President Obama for threatening his nation with a nuclear attack, stating "An example of this is the recent statement by the US president, who implicitly threatened the Iranian nation with the use of nuclear arms." [12]

On the same day it was reported that the Iranian embassy in Denmark issued a similar condemnation of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stating:

"The former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's Wednesday article" - "The case for western missile defence" in The Guardian - "which raised some issues about Iran, was full of misinterpretations, ill-intent, and false accusations about Tehran's peaceful nuclear and missile activities."

"He, like others who seek any opportunity to spread their warmongering views, has once again resorted to preconceptions, lies and deception." [13] The Iranian Foreign Ministry has announced plans to raise the issue in the United Nations Security Council.

Rasmussen is the main ringleader of the U.S.'s major "allies and partners."

The NPR states "Although the risk of nuclear attack against NATO members is at an historic low, the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons - combined with NATO's unique nuclear sharing arrangements under which non-nuclear members participate in nuclear planning and possess specially configured aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons contribute to Alliance cohesion and provide reassurance to allies and partners who feel exposed to regional threats."

It also maintains that "Any changes in NATO's nuclear posture should only be taken after a thorough review within and decision by the Alliance.

"In Asia and the Middle East where there are no multilateral alliance structures analogous to NATO the United States has maintained extended deterrence through bilateral alliances and security relationships and through its forward military presence and security guarantees."

Part of February's Ballistic Missile Defense Review policy is to "Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle East," as well as to "Invest in further development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat matures." [14]

It is not indicated when if ever Iran is expected to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the U.S., a patent absurdity. Whether, for example, it would occur before or after al-Qaida acquires nuclear weapons according to Washington's claims is not specified.

The NPR states that "As President Obama has made clear, today's most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism."

It also contains a pledge to "maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter attack on the United States, and on our allies and partners."

"Agile and flexible U.S. military forces with superior capabilities across a broad spectrum of potential operations are a vital component of this broad tool set."

The Ballistic Missile Defense Review also advances plans to "Pursue a number of new GMD [Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, supposedly abandoned last September 17] system enhancements, develop next generation missile defense capabilities, and advance other hedging strategies including continued development and assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor," and to develop "new capabilities such as a land-based SM-3 system (tentatively called 'Aegis Ashore')" and "increasingly capable PATRIOT batteries for point defense, the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar for detecting and tracking ballistic missiles, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries for area defense, space-based sensors, and sea-based capabilities such as the SM-3 Block IA interceptor."

The putative purpose for doing so is because the "ballistic missile threat is increasing both quantitatively and qualitatively, and is likely to continue to do so over the next decade." Twenty years after the end of the Cold War.

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines additional plans to:

Assure access to space and the use of space assets

Expand future long-range strike capabilities

Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems

Centralize command of cyber operations

The army is to maintain "7 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries" and the Navy "10â€"11 aircraft carriers and 10 carrier air wings 84 â€" 88 large surface combatants, including 21â€"32 ballistic missile defense-capable combatants and Aegis Ashore." [15]

The Nuclear Posture Review parallels the above plans with the demand for "U.S.-based nuclear weapons that could be deployed forward quickly to meet regional contingencies," and to "Retain the capability to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter-bombers and heavy bombers" in part "to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America's security commitments."

Whereas other nations' military doctrines mention defending their own homelands, "as a global power, the strength and influence of the United States are deeply intertwined with the fate of the broader international system â€" a system of alliances, partnerships, and multinational institutions that our country has helped build and sustain for more than sixty years."

The Quadrennial Defense Review also states: "Our deterrent remains grounded in land, air, and naval forces capable of fighting limited and large-scale conflicts in environments where anti-access weaponry and tactics are used, as well as forces prepared to respond to the full range of challenges posed by state and non-state groups."

For six decades Washington has built military alliances around the globe and at an accelerating pace since the end of the Cold War. "Allies and partners" are military outposts that will be defended - preemptively and with nuclear weapons if deemed necessary - and will be used as springboards for attacks on other nations.

1) Prompt Global Strike: World Military Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons
Stop NATO, April 10, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/prompt-global-strike-world-military-superiority-without-nuclear-weapons
2) Washington Post, April 12, 2010
3) ABC News, April 11, 2010
4) Ibid
5) Nuclear Posture Review Report
U.S. Department of Defense, April 2010
http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf
6) ABC News, April 11, 2010
7) American Forces Press Service, April 12, 2010
8) Russian Information Agency Novosti, April 12, 2010
9) Russian Information Agency Novosti, April 12, 2010
10) American Forces Press Service, February 1, 2010
11) Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO
Stop NATO, May 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/australian-military-buildup-and-the-rise-of-asian-nato
12) Press TV, April 11, 2010
13) Press TV, April 11, 2010
14) Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report
U.S. Department of Defense, February 1, 2010
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/1002BMDR.pdf
15) Quadrennial Defense Review Report
U.S. Department of Defense, February 2010
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: New U.S. Nuclear Strategy: A Warmed-Over "Novelty"

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:54 am (PDT)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article164868.html

Voltaire Network
April 9, 2010

New U.S. nuclear strategy: a warmed-over "novelty"
by Manlio Dinucci, Tommaso di Francesco

-Washington has just published its new nuclear doctrine as well as signed the new treaty on arms control with Russia in the midst of a big media fanfare. And yet, upon closer scrutiny, the position of the Obama administration does not mark any real shift from that of its predecessors. It simply attunes the policy of the Bush administration to todayâ€™s reality. Even worse, it dodges the two main questions: Will the anti-missile shield reactivate the arms race? Will nuclear weapons be replaced by strategic arms which will prove even more destabilizing?

The day before formally releasing the Nuclear Posture Review, which lays out U.S. nuclear strategy [downloadable below], and three days ahead of signing the new START treaty with Russia in Prague, President Barack Obama gave a glimpse of the basic guidelines of his new strategy in an interview with the New York Times [1].

What does the novelty consist in? "If you are a non-nuclear weapons state that is compliant with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), you have a negative assurance we will not be using nuclear weapons against you." But if the state violates the NTP - according to Washingtonâ€™s incontrovertible judgement - the United States can no longer guarantee that it will refrain from using nuclear arms against it.

Here, Obama is pointing his finger at Iran and North Korea, but especially at Iran which is accused of having defied the international community by developing a nuclear programme that "on the current course would provide it with a military nuclear capability". President Obama, the interviewer recalls, has already declared that he "could not live with a nuclear-capable Iran".

In substance, this means that the United States reserves the right to a first strike, that is to a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack in order to prevent a country like Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons.

Whereas President Bushâ€™s strategy contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against a vast array of threats, President Obamaâ€™s strategy - writes the New York Times - "limits" their use. A somewhat relative limitation since it condones the use of nuclear weapons not only against a nuclear state, but also against "a State that did not sign or was incompliant with the Non-Proliferation Treaty".

Paradoxically, in the interview, Obama asserts that both "the United States and Israel are very concerned over Iranâ€™s behaviour", neglecting to mention that while Iran is a party to the NPT and the target of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israel has never signed the NPT and possesses a powerful nuclear arsenal that was never subjected to international inspection. And while Iran has no nuclear weapons, Israel keeps about one hundred of them aimed at Iran and other countries in the region.

The same thing can be said about the United Statesâ€™ other ally, Pakistan, that is the owner of nuclear weapons but has never adhered to the NPT. To the question regarding Pakistanâ€™s nuclear stockpile, on which the United States has so far spent at least 100 million dollars to "secure", Obama replied "Iâ€™m not going to talk about the details of Pakistanâ€™s nuclear". This confirms that the new nuclear strategy of the United States continues to apply the usual double standard criteria.

These are not the only ambiguities. While, on the one hand, he proclaims the reduction of nuclear weapons, on the other hand, President Obama declares that "we maintain a potent deterrent" and "we invest in improved infrastructure to ensure the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons". And as he announces the "limitation" on the use of nuclear arms, White House officials are saying that the new strategy allows for "nuclear reprisals against a biological attack": in other words, against a nonnuclear country accused, possibly on the basis of "evidence" provided by the CIA, of having carried out or attempted to carry out a biological attack against the United States.

Moreover, to the question regarding the new generation of "conventional" weapons that the United States is developing, blurring the boundary between conventional and nuclear weapons, Obama retorted that he didnâ€™t intend to get into details. He adopts the same attitude when it comes to U.S. nuclear arms in Europe. In respect of the anti-missile "shield" that the U.S. intends to deploy in Europe, threatening to compromise the new START treaty, Obama chooses to remain silent. However, one who does speak out - and itâ€™s a cold shower - is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who, two days before the Prague Summit, warned that "Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from the new START if the impact of the anti-missile "shield" to be set up by United States significantly outweighs the efficiency of Russiaâ€™s nuclear strategic potential" [2].
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: NATO's Uncounted Arms: France To Retain Nuclear Weapons

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:55 am (PDT)

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/13/6364242.html

Voice of Russia
April 13, 2010

France will not give up nuclear weapons - Sarkozy

France will not fully give up its nuclear weapons, because doing so would â€œjeopardizeâ€ its security, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview with CBS on Monday as global leaders gathered for a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington earlier in the day.

Right now, France has 300 nuclear warheads, Sarkozy explained, pointing to a previous 30-percent reduction of the countryâ€™s nuclear arsenal.

Sarkozy also singled out 4 nuclear-powered submarines the French Navy is equipped with to contribute to national security.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: U.S. Warships Arrive Off Scottish Coast For NATO War Games

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:55 am (PDT)

http://www.eucom.mil/english/fullstory.asp?article=US-Ships-Arrive-Coast-Scotland-Joint-Warrior

United States European Command
April 12, 2010

U.S. Ships Arrive off Coast of Scotland for Joint Warrior exercise
Apr 12, 2010
Navy Mass Communication Specialist Second Class Nikki Smith
Destroyer Squadron 24 Public Affairs

FASLANE, Scotland: U.S. Navy ships led by Commander, Destroyer Squadron 24 (DESRON 24) arrived in Faslane, Scotland, April 9 to participate in Joint Warrior 10-1, a multinational semi-annual exercise held off the coast of Scotland.

The guided-missile destroyers USS Laboon (DDG 58) and USS Barry (DDG 52), the guided-missile cruisers USS Vella Gulf (CG 72) and USS Vicksburg (CG 69), the guided missile-frigate USS Kauffman (FFG 59), and the fleet-replenishment-oiler USNS Leroy Grumman (T-AO 195) will participate in the exercise's coalition course, which is run by the Joint Tactical Exercise Planning Staff (JTEPS) in the United Kingdom.

Navy Capt. Aaron C. Jacobs, commodore of DESRON 24, and his staff are embarked aboard Laboon for the exercise and fully integrated into a joint maritime operating environment.

Jacobs said this exercise will challenge ships with Fleet Irregular Warfare Training (FIWRT), stress individual platforms with disaggregate operations, and strengthen the Navy's ability to work with its allies.

"These are skill sets we often don't have the opportunity to practice, and Joint Warrior is a great venue," Jacobs said. "The work for this exercise has been in process for months, and we are finally here to execute one of the most important exercises for independent deployment certifications."
....
DESRON 24 Operations Officer Lt. Cmdr. Greta Densham said that a benefit of the exercise is the chance to work with allies.

"It's a unique opportunity for the ships to prepare for operations with coalition partners and practice NATO tactics, techniques, and procedures that they otherwise wouldn't see in a U.S. exercise," Densham said.
....
The two-week long exercise, Joint Warrior 10-1, allows participating navies to practice joint maritime operations in a controlled environment. Nations participating in the exercise are Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: Georgia: Obama Delivers "Political Message" To Russia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:56 am (PDT)

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22187

Civil Georgia
April 13, 2010

Georgian FM: U.S. will Never Allow Georgiaâ€™s Intâ€™l Isolation

Tbilisi: Georgiaâ€™s participation in nuclear security summit in Washington is a clear sign that Russia has failed to achieve its goal to internationally isolate Tbilisi, Grigol Vashadze, the Georgian foreign minister said.

The Georgian delegation, led by President Saakashvili is participating in the summit held on April 12-13.

â€œThe most important in the fact that we are participating in this conference is that despite many efforts, the Russian Federation has failed to achieve Georgiaâ€™s isolation,â€ Vashadze told Rustavi 2 television station in Washington.

He said that although Georgia â€œhas neither nuclear arsenals nor nuclear energyâ€ the country was anyway enlisted among â€œlimited number of countriesâ€ taking part in the high-profile summit in Washington.

â€œWe are here first and foremost because it is a political message, which President Obama also expressed during a phone conversation with President Saakashvili on April 6; the United States and the current administration will never allow Georgiaâ€™s isolation,â€ Vashadze said.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: Kirguizistán y la batalla por Asia Central

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:57 am (PDT)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/kirguizistan-y-la-batalla-por-asia-central

Stop NATO
April 12, 2010

Kirguizistán y la batalla por Asia Central
Rick Rozoff

El Presidente kirguiz Kurmanbek Bakiyev fue depuesto cinco años después y de la misma manera en la que llegó al poder: mediante un levantamiento sangriento.

Elegido presidente dos meses después de la denominada Revolución de los Tulipanes de 2005, que ayudó a fraguar, fue desde entonces el jefe de estado de la principal nación de tránsito en la guerra de EEUU y la OTAN en Afganistán.

Artículo completo:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/kirguizistan-y-la-batalla-por-asia-central

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: China: Military Ties With U.S. Still On Hold

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:57 am (PDT)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_military_china_041310/

Associated Press
April 13, 2010

China: Military ties with U.S. still on hold
By Cara Anna

TIANJIN, China: Military exchanges between China and the United States are still suspended, a Peopleâ€™s Liberation Army spokesman said Tuesday, despite a recent warming of relations between the countries.

China cut military ties with the United States earlier this year after the Obama administration said it would go ahead with a planned sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan.

The sale of helicopters, missiles and other weapons came before President Obama had a White House meeting with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing accuses of trying to separate Tibet from China. The countries have also tangled this year over trade disputes and cyberspying accusations from Google Inc.

Hard-liners in the Chinese military argued for punishing the U.S. by withholding cooperation on issues such as Iran and climate change.

Military exchanges with the United States are â€œstill suspended,â€ said Xin Guo, a Bejiing-based foreign affairs official from the PLA Air Force.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: Caspian-Black Seas: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania Pact On Gas Supplie

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:57 am (PDT)

http://en.trend.az/capital/pengineering/1668912.html

Trend News Agency
April 13, 2010

Azerbaijan, Romania and Georgia signed memorandum on gas supplies
E. Ismailov

Azerbaijan, Baku: Today Azerbaijan, Georgia and Romania signed a memorandum on cooperation in gas sphere in Bucharest, SOCAR Representation in Romania said today.

According to representation, the document was signed by Minister of Industry and Energy Natik Aliyev, Minister of Economy, Commerce and Business Environment of Romania Adriean Videanu and Georgian Energy Minister Alexander Khetaguri.

The project envisages construction of two terminals for liquefied natural gas - one in Georgia, another in Romania. According to preliminary data, the project cost will amount to 4-6 billion euros.

A memorandum on the implementation of this project was signed between Georgia and Romania in October 2009, as well as between Romania and Azerbaijan earlier this year. It envisaged establishing a working group to sign a memorandum.

Today, the construction of the terminal processing Azerbaijani gas at Georgia's Black Sea coast (SOCAR owns the oil terminal in Kulevi) and its transport by ships to Romania or Bulgaria for further shipment via domestic gas pipeline network of Europe are being discussed. The project is considered in two directions - LNG and CNG. The first one is the construction of gas liquefaction plant, and the second - delivery of gas directly to the ship for its compression. It deals with about 7-20 billion cubic meters of gas.

SOCAR head Rovnag Abdullayev said that there are intentions to prepare a feasibility study of the gas export project from the Black Sea coast of Georgia. "Preparation of a feasibility study will allow us to identify the most advantageous option [gas exports via the Black Sea]. We have several options, including the export of LNG and CNG. There are also possibilities for transit through Turkey. The variety of these options will allow us to choose the right path," he said.

Abdullayev said that Romania and Bulgaria are interested in a project of gas export via the Black Sea. Talks are held with both parties now.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: Boeing To Expand Hypersonic Prompt Global Strike Weapon

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:42 pm (PDT)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4581322&c=AME&s=AIR

Defense News
April 13, 2010

Boeing Could Expand Hypersonic Follow-on Efforts
By JOHN REED

-The Pentagon is looking at what mix of missiles and aircraft it will use to spy on and strike enemies in heavily defended airspace.
Several areas being studied include a new cruise missile for the U.S. Air Force and Navy, and the Prompt Global Strike effort to allow U.S. commanders to hit a target anywhere on earth with a conventional munition within an hour.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - If all goes well with this year's four test flights of the hypersonic Boeing X-51A Waverider, the firm could add a rapid global-strike scramjet to its list of potential follow-up projects, said Steve Johnston, Boeing's director of Advanced Space Exploration.

The list already includes the X-51A+, which would test a scramjet's ability to change direction and splash down onto a targeted area at sea; and Rapid Identification and Prosecution of Targets in Denied Environments (RIPTIDE), which "would be more of an operationally representative configuration" that would include sensors and weapons, Johnston said during an April 13 briefing with reporters here.

This, however, is several years away since funding for X-51A+ is not set to begin until fiscal year 2011, according to Johnston.

Both RIPTIDE and the X-51A programs are funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory.

The upcoming X-51A tests, set to begin in a matter of weeks, are meant to test the engine, heat-resistant fuselage materials and guidance systems during a five-minute burn while flying faster than Mach 6. This is enough time for the aircraft to reach the hottest, sustained heat levels it is expected to experience as it flies through the upper reaches of the atmosphere at more than six times the speed of sound.

Once this is done, the company will begin looking at how to tweak the engine and optimize the X-51A+ to carry precision navigation equipment necessary to fly complex flight patterns, Johnston said.

"The RIPTIDE program will be about further optimizing the airframe; taking weight out of it, making it more of an operationally representative configuration, while also starting to couple some payload style subsystems," Johnston said. "It's still a flight test program ... geared towards a weapons application."

He did not elaborate on the specific payloads being carried on the airframe.

Boeing has also begun looking at how to build a hypersonic plane that has deployable wings and landing gear, a serious improvement over today's single-shot scramjets, Johnston said.

Johnston could not provide a schedule for RIPTIDE development.
....
The Pentagon is looking at what mix of missiles and aircraft it will use to spy on and strike enemies in heavily defended airspace.

Several areas being studied include a new cruise missile for the U.S. Air Force and Navy, and the Prompt Global Strike effort to allow U.S. commanders to hit a target anywhere on earth with a conventional munition within an hour.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: West Africa: U.S. Military In Week-Long ECOWAS Exercise

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 pm (PDT)

http://www.afriquejet.com/news/africa-news/ecowas-armed-forces-hold-one-week-joint-military-exercise-2010041147499.html

Afrique en ligne
April 13, 2010

ECOWAS Armed Forces hold one-week joint military exercise

-"Operationally, the Armed Forces of the sub-region are not all the same. We have English, French and Portuguese-speaking military. To operate, there is need to train together to asses the operational readiness of the Eastern Battalion. The United States will be part of the exercise."

Abuja, Nigeria: A one-week multi-national military exercise involving Armed Forces from the ECOWAS member states and the US will hold in Benin Republic from 12 to 18 April, PANA reported from here.

Code-named "EXERCISE COHESION Benin 2010", the military exercise, which is aimed at evaluating the operational and logistics readiness of the Eastern Battalion of the ECOWAS Stand-by Force, spearheaded by Nigeria, is part of the overall preparation for the operationalisation of the African Standby force by December 2010.

Nigeria's Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Paul Dike, who is the current chairman of the ECOWAS Committee of Chiefs of Defence Staff, will be in Cotonou, the capital of Benin, to oversee the exercise.

The Nigerian Air Force (NAF) is to airlift the 128 Sierra Leonean military contingent to the exercise.

The Nigerian contingent, made up of 530 officers and men, will depart by road for the exercise on Monday.
....
According to Air Chief Marshal Dike, "the exercise is part of the evaluation of the Eastern Battalion of the ECOWAS Standby Force which has its location in Nigeria. The other battalion is based in Senegal.

"Operationally, the Armed Forces of the sub-region are not all the same. We have English, French and Portuguese-speaking military. To operate, there is need to train together to asses the operational readiness of the Eastern Battalion. The United States will be part of the exercise."
....
"It is expected to boost ECOWAS' participation as a major stakeholder in the African Union (AU) exercise designed to test the operational readiness of the African Standby Force, comprised of the Standby Forces of the continent's six Regional Economic Communities (RECs)."

Towards the new Standby Force, a three-day meeting in Freetown, Sierra Leone, on 11 December, 2009 by the ECOWAS Chiefs of Defence Staff on 11 December, 2009, approved a Brigade Structure and Composition for the ESF.

The 6,500 ECOWAS Standby Force includes the Main Brigade and a Task Force which is expected to deploy in 14 days instead of the 30 days previously planned, in conformity with the African Union standards.
....
The ECOWAS Defence Chiefs will also discuss the situation in Guinea Bissau as part of the continuing efforts to resolve the crisis.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.: Expanded Swedish Sub Fleet To Solidify EU-NATO Baltic Control

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:30 pm (PDT)

http://www.barentsobserver.com/sweden-to-invest-in-new-submarines.4769261-116321.html

Barents Observer
April 12, 2010

Sweden to invest in new submarines

-[T]he Baltic Sea area remains stable, with only Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg breaking the circle of EU and NATO-affiliated countries.

The Swedish Government proposes to spend billions of kronor on two new state-of the-art submarines while also upgrading two older vessels, Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors has revealed.

Mr. Tolgfors underlines that the Baltic Sea area remains stable, with only Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg breaking the circle of EU and NATO-affiliated countries. However, one can never rule out long-term risks and incidents, which could also be of a military nature, Tolgfors wrote in the Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet.

The multi-billion kronor investment is to be included in next week's spring budget proposal.

Swedish ship building company Kockums AB in February signed a contract with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration regarding the construction of next-generation submarines. The two new submarines are planned to be delivered to the Swedish Navy in 2018-2019, and will be replacing two subs of the Södermanland class. Along with the two new vessels, two Gotland class attack submarines will also receive major upgrades as part of the investment.

Finland and Sweden have initiated and built up a system for joint surveillance of the Baltic Sea. The cooperation has expanded, and eight countries now share civilian and military information on maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea through the SUCBAS system. The Baltic Sea is trafficked by 2000-3000 vessels at all times. The oil transport in the area has doubled in amount and is expected to increase even more.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12.: Swedish Nuclear Bomber Designed To Strike USSR

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:36 pm (PDT)

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2698/the-blue-and-yellow-bomb-part-3

ArmsControlWonk
April 13, 2010

The Blue and Yellow Bomb (Part 3)
Andreas Persbo

[Abridged]

Yesterday, I attended a meeting with the International Law Association in Brighton, and the Swedish nuclear programme was raised again. It is interesting that so much international attention has been given recently to what, essentially, is a but a side note in the broader Cold War narrative. Perhaps itâ€™s because Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, reportedly likes to talk about it at meetings....

A while back, a friend from a Swedish ministry also asked my why I had not, in my previous posts on the Swedish programme, had not mentioned the Swedish delivery vehicle, SAAB project 1300, or the A36 tactical bomber.
....
The Swedish Nuclear Bomber

...I decided to find out more about the A36 bomber. This was a single seat, single engine, delta-wing design. The company planned to use the RR Olympus engine, used in the Vulcan and later used in the Concorde, to give the plane some speed. It was, after all, only supposed to make a quick dash over the Baltic, hit the Soviet embarkation ports, and then make a fast escape back to Sweden.

The aircraft was designed to carry one free-fall nuclear weapon (carried in an internal bay). The weight of the weapon was given as no more than 800 kilograms (or 1760 lb.). Some sources puts the weight of the payload to 600 kilograms (or 1320 lb.). The internal bay was only put into design due to concerns of accidental detonations caused by high air friction.

This was a fast plane, designed to hit Mach 2.2 at high altitudes and at least Mach 1.2 at lower runs....

The project was submitted in 1952 but was cancelled in 1957, to allow for more resources to go into the JA-37 project.

Effects testing

In 1956 and 1957, the Swedish military conducted a number of massive conventional explosions for research purposes at Nausta in Northern Sweden. The first test serious was given the code-name â€˜Siriusâ€ and involved three benyl charges (633, 6,040 and 61,000 kilograms). The military wanted to study intense pressures, and were, for some reason, also interested in the height of the mushroom cloud. According to some sources, they noted heights of between 350 and 1,020 meters.

The second series, code-named â€˜Vegaâ€™, involved two benyl charges (5,000 and 36,000 kilograms). These tests aimed to explore weapons effects, and the military had therefore deployed a number of vehicles, airframes and other materials at the site.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

13.: Report: U.S. Seeks Military Base In Kazakhstan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:41 pm (PDT)

http://eng.24.kg/politic/2010/04/12/10952.html

24.kg (Kyrgyzstan)
April 12, 2010

Kazakhstan suggested US to open military base on its territory
Daniyar Karimov

Bishkek: Kazakhstan suggested that the US create in its territory a military base instead of the Transit Center at Manas in Bishkek. According to the information-analytical portal "K2Kapital," the statement was voiced by Michael McFaul, a special assistant to President Obama for Russia, Eurasia and Caucasus affairs.

He said that the proposal was stated by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev at a meeting with the US President Barack Obama in Washington. â€œThe leaders discussed the possibility of US troops to fly in Afghanistan through the North Pole and the territory of Kazakhstan from the US," McFaul underlined, "that is more convenient than flights through Europeâ€ .

According to "K2Kapital," the US looks for an alternative path for its military troops' flight to Afghanistan. Notwithstanding that the interim government head Roza Otunbaeva stated that the new state administration will follow all agreements concerning the Transit Center at Manas.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

14.: Berlin Conference To AFRICOM: West Divides Up Africa

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:10 pm (PDT)

http://allafrica.com/stories/201004070050.html

The Herald (Zimbabwe)
April 7, 2010

Germany - Hotbed of Imperialism
Itai Muchena*

The hodgepodge of geometric boundaries that today divide Africa into 50 plus irregular nations under Eurocentric subjugation all started in Berlin, Germany on November 15, 1884.

The infamous Berlin Conference still remains Africa's greatest undoing in more ways than one, where colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African continent and tore apart the social, political and economic fabric that held the continent together.

By the time independence returned to Africa between 1956 and 1994, the African realm had acquired a colonial legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate wholly independent from the former colonial masters.

Some Africans had been too much battered, some bruised, some undignified and others brainwashed so much that up to today, Africa is battling to remain united due to continued and uncalled for interference, at every opportunity, by the imperialist hawks.

Today, the same Germany - the womb that gave birth to colonialism - is unashamedly hosting and developing AFRICOM, the United States of America superior military command formed to superintend on America's milking of African resources, at the expense of not only Africa but other fair dealing countries of the world.

There is no doubt that Germany is seeking re-colonisation of Africa, this time, creating space for its big brother, the United States of America.

The giant military project is not only an affront to African democracy but an insult to African humanism as it seeks to reverse all the gains brought about by independence - from sovereignty to control of natural resources and self governance.

Africa will not forget that in 1884 at the request of Portugal, German chancellor Otto Von Bismarck called together the major western powers of the world to negotiate questions and end confusion over the control of Africa. Africa itself was not invited because Europe believed Africans had no meaningful contribution to make towards shaping their own destiny.

Bismarck saw an opportunity to expand Germany's sphere of influence over Africa and desired to pitch Germany's rivals to struggle with one another for territorial integrity. Today, current Chancellor Angela Mickel is playing exactly the same role, pitching America against other economic powers in a battle to control Africa's strategic natural resources.

Before the Berlin Conference 80 percent of Africa and its natural resources had remained under traditional and local leadership but thereafter the new map of the continent was superimposed over the one thousand indigenous cultures and regions of Africa. Concurrently, Africa's wealth - as pronounced by its vast human and natural resource base - was appropriated by the colonisers.

As a result, the new countries lacked and still lack rhyme or reason and divide coherent groups of people and merged together disparate groups that really did not get along.

All in all, 14 countries were represented: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (unified from 1814-1905), Turkey, and the United States of America.

France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time.

At the Berlin Conference the European colonial powers scrambled to gain control over the interior of the continent. The conference lasted until February 26, 1885 - a three-month period where colonial powers haggled over geometric boundaries in the interior of the continent, disregarding the cultural and linguistic boundaries already established by the indigenous African populace.

By 1914, the conference participants had fully divided Africa among themselves into 50 countries.

Great Britain targeted a Cape-to-Cairo collection of colonies and almost succeeded through its control of Egypt, Sudan (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), Uganda, Kenya (British East Africa), South Africa, and Zambia (Southern Rhodesia), Malawi (Nyasaland), Zimbabwe (Northern Rhodesia), and Botswana. They also controlled Nigeria and Ghana (Gold Coast).

France took much of western Africa, from Mauritania to Chad (French West Africa) and Gabon and the Republic of Congo (French Equatorial Africa).

Belgium and King Leopold II controlled the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgian Congo) while Portugal took Mozambique in the east and Angola in the west.

Italy took Somalia (Italian Somaliland) and a portion of Ethiopia while Germany took Namibia (German Southwest Africa) and Tanzania (German East Africa). Spain claimed the smallest territory - Equatorial Guinea (Rio Muni).

Today, Africa has stood firm against the hosting of AFRICOM and the same Germany has offered an alternative and will host AFRICOM until 2012, when it is envisaged the US would have found a suitable base in Africa.

Sadc in particular and the African Union in general, have said no to this project but the Americans are not resting on their laurels. They are still working out ways of penetrating African governments in order to get a strategic African country to host AFRICOM.

The truth, however, remains that once Africa allows the hosting of AFRICOM, it will have subcontracted all its powers to AFRICOM, to USA and its exploitative military ventures.

After a review of numerous potential locations for the establishment of AFRICOM headquarters, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has elected to keep the new command in Stuttgart, Germany at least for now, Pentagon officials say.

"Secretary of Defence Gates decided to delay a decision on the permanent location of US Africa Command headquarters until early 2012," said Defence Department spokeswoman Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Hibner, last week.

Until then, AFRICOM'S headquarters will remain in Stuttgart, "the decision has been delayed until US Africa Command has more experience in working with partner nation militaries and thus a better understanding of its long-term operational requirements," wrote Hibner.

After fierce resistance from Africa, which should continue through experienced leaders like President Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, Omar al-Bashir, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and new but progressive thinking ones like Jacob Zuma, Bingu waMutharika and Rupiyah Banda, AFRICOM seems to have hit a brick wall on finding an African host.

"We certainly looked at a number of alternatives," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a news release. "But at the end of the day, it was determined that for now, and into the foreseeable future, the best location was for it to remain in its current headquarters."

In Stuttgart, AFRICOM officials say the focus now is on building up the new command.

Though it was officially activated on October 1, there has been a steady stream of speculation worldwide about where AFRICOM would eventually set up its headquarters. Potential sites have ranged from Charleston, SC, to Morocco and Monrovia, to other locations in Europe such at Rota, Spain.

"It's become a phenomenon that the discussion of AFRICOM always hinges on where it's going. Where we're going is here (Stuttgart). What's important for us is to build the command," said Vince Crawley, AFRICOM spokesman. "Looking for office space stateside is something that is well-intended, but something way down the road."

But whether the Pentagon's latest statement on AFRICOM will quell the speculation remains to be seen. For instance, despite repeated statements that the initial plan to place AFRICOM headquarters in Africa was shelved, reports routinely crop up asserting otherwise. The most recent case occurred a couple weeks ago with Moroccan media outlets reporting that a deal was struck for AFRICOM to locate its headquarters in the port city of Tantan.

It will be folly for Africa to think that AFRICOM commanders have rested their case on finding a compliant African country to host them because keeping the new command in Stuttgart will allow it to gain greater operational experience and foster relationships with both African and European partners.

Once AFRICOM moves to African soil, Africa is doomed and finished. It will have to religiously follow the American exploitation gospel and the founding fathers of the African revolution will turn and wince in their graves from anger and disappointment.

*Itai Muchena is reading politics at Ohio State University, US.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.: U.S., Indian Military Discuss "Red Dragon's Long-Term Intentions"

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:14 pm (PDT)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-India-military-brass-discuss-Chinas-rising-power/articleshow/5790605.cms

Times of India
April 13, 2010

US, India military brass discuss China's rising power
Rajat Pandit

NEW DELHI: Wary as they both are of Chinaâ€™s long-term intentions, India and US came together on Monday to discuss Beijingâ€™s galloping modernisation of its 2.25-million strong armed forces and its strategic moves in the Asia-Pacific region.

The â€˜Red Dragonâ€™, with its spreading wings, was a prominent presence in the room during the talks visiting US chief of naval operations chief Admiral Gary Roughead held with the top Indian military brass, including Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma and Army chief General V K Singh, on Monday.

Both sides, among other things, shared their assessments of Chinaâ€™s transborder military capabilities and its increasing presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). China, of course, has also forged extensive maritime links with IOR countries like Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius and Madagascar. Sources said Chinaâ€™s ambitious aircraft carrier building programme was of particular interest since this is one arena in which it actually lags behind even India.

At present, while China may have as many as 62 submarines, with 10 of them being nuclear-powered and three armed with long-range ballistic missiles, and 75 major warships, it does not have an aircraft carrier.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

16.: U.S. Arctic, Kazakh Military Route Threatens Russia, China, Iran

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:53 am (PDT)

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20100414/158577160.html

Nezavisimaya Gazeta
April 14, 2010

Americans to fly to Afghanistan via North Pole and Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan has granted permission to the United States to fly through its airspace when delivering troops and equipment to Afghanistan via the Arctic. The agreement was reached during a recent meeting between President Barack Obama and President Nursultan Nazarbayev in Washington.

The two countries broached the issue when the Pentagon suspended deliveries via the Transit Center at Manas in Kyrgyzstan after last week's unrest in that Central Asian country.

Mike McFaul, an Obama security advisor, told journalists that the two presidents had discussed flights from the United States to Afghanistan via the North Pole and Kazakhstan, which is more expeditious than flying over Europe.

Several media, including Radio Liberty, have reported that the transit agreement was signed on Sunday.

The transit issue was discussed in the absence of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who arrived in Washington after the Obama-Nazarbayev meeting. The region is within Russia's special interest zone where a fierce geopolitical struggle is currently under way.

Leonid Ivashov, president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, who had been chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's main department of international cooperation for years, said that the U.S.-Kazakh transit agreements "threaten the interests of Russia and other countries, notably China and especially Iran against which the United States is preparing a military operation."

"Russia has no legal reason to prevent them from signing the agreements because it is a signatory of the ICAO convention and hence should allow planes from the signatory countries to fly over its territory," the general said.

Russia supports the U.S.-led NATO operation in Afghanistan and hence the U.S. presence in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries, he said. On the other hand, such a presence may have a negative geopolitical implication since the U.S. could theoretically use its military aircraft flights for reconnaissance purposes against China, in particular the nuclear weapons R&D center in western China.

Ivashov also said that America could deploy a military base in Kazakhstan similar in size to the Kyrgyz facility.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

17.: U.S. To Base Two ABM Surveillance Sites In Czech Republic

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:00 am (PDT)

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czechs-may-join-missile-defence-warning-system/462970

Czech News Agency
April 14, 2010

Czechs may join missile defence warning system

-Obama wants to develop a new missile defence architecture that would be mobile and capable of reacting to threats more flexibly and in which NATO would be more involved.
-The Czech Republic repeatedly indicated that it is eager to take part in the new missile defence system that is to be developed in several stages.
Romania recently agreed to host ground elements of the new system. The United States plan to negotiate with Bulgaria, too.
-Bartak said he discussed the reinforcement of the Czech military mission in Afghanistan with Tauscher and Flournoy.

Washington: The Czech Republic may be a part of a new warning system against possible enemy missile attacks, Czech Defence Minister Martin Bartak told CTK after his talks on missile defence during the Washington Nuclear Security Summit held on Monday and Tuesday.

Bartak met Michele Flournoy, U.S. under secretary of defense, and Ellen Tauscher, under secretary of state.

He said this concerned sharing of data from commanding and observing elements placed in two locations in the Czech Republic.

"We will see the same data as our U.S. allies and at the same time," Bartak said.

He said the Czech Republic is prepared to participate in the system. The United States promised to speed up the process, he added.

The United States originally planned to build a missile defence radar in the Czech Republic and locate interceptor missiles in Poland. However, a majority of Czech citizens opposed the idea of a U.S. base in their country.

When Barack Obama replaced George Bush as president, the U.S. administration started reconsidering this plan. Last autumn, Obama announced that it was scrapped.

Obama wants to develop a new missile defence architecture that would be mobile and capable of reacting to threats more flexibly and in which NATO would be more involved.

The Czech Republic repeatedly indicated that it is eager to take part in the new missile defence system that is to be developed in several stages.

Romania recently agreed to host ground elements of the new system. The United States plan to negotiate with Bulgaria, too.

Like in the case of the system promoted under George Bush, the new missile defence plans, which the USA says is aimed against Iran, is strongly opposed by Russia.

Moscow said the U.S. system might harm the strategic balance between Russia and the USA. U.S. representatives dismiss this and they want Russia to participate in the system.

Bartak said he discussed the reinforcement of the Czech military mission in Afghanistan with Tauscher and Flournoy.

"We told our U.S. allies that unfortunately the reinforcement cannot be pushed through unless the Czech Social Democrats support it," he said, referring to the CSSD´s opposition to the increase in the number of Czech troops.

Bartak said the Czech military might send up to 800 soldiers to its current Afghan contingent that has 535 members now.

He said the Social Democrat "No" to the reinforcement weakens the Czech position in the multi-national forces operating in Afghanistan. The Czechs for example are not represented in the command, he added.

The Czech government decided to propose a change in the structure of the Czech Afghan mission instead of its reinforcement. The government hopes that it might push this proposal through parliament by the May elections.

Bartak pointed out that the Afghan mission needs to be reinforced now, not in 2011 or 2012.

Bartak accompanied Prime Minister Jan Fischer who also represented the Czech Republic at the Washington Nuclear Summit.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

18.: 'Tulip' Legacy: Kyrgyzstan Could Be Second Afghanistan - Russia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:08 am (PDT)

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/14/6410249.html

Voice of Russia
April 14, 2010

Kyrgyzstan risks turning into second Afghanistan - Medvedev

The head of Kyrgyzstanâ€™s interim government Roza Otunbayeva does not rule out negotiations with the ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

A new vice premier, Azimbek Beknazarov, is heading for the pro-Bakiyev south for talks, she told reporters on Wednesday.

After the opposition stripped Bakiyev of immunity, he said he was ready to quit but demanded safety guarantees for him and his family. Meanwhile, the situation remains tense.

An army motorcade is moving towards Jalal-Abad, Interfax reports. Earlier, Russiaâ€™s President Dmitry Medvedev, meeting with politicians in the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in the worst-case scenario, Kyrgyzstan risked splitting into North and South.

If that happens, extremists might start flowing in, turning the country into a second Afghanistan.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

19.: Post-Nuclear Security Summit: Georgia Says "Seized Enriched Uranium"

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:12 am (PDT)

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22193

Civil Georgia
April 14, 2010

Georgia Says Seized Small Amount of Enriched Uranium

Tbilisi: Georgia has foiled illicit trafficking of â€œa small amount of highly enriched uraniumâ€ , or HEU, last month, the Georgian Interior Ministry said on April 14.

It said that law enforcement agencies seized HEU from â€œa group of foreign citizensâ€ , who have been detained.

The Interior Ministry has declined a request for details of the case, saying that â€œadditional information will be available after the investigation is completed.â€

The ministry said that Georgia had already informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the case.

The Interior Ministryâ€™s statement comes after the Georgian delegation announced at the high-profile nuclear security summit in Washington on April 13 that Georgia foiled eight attempts of illicit trafficking of enriched uranium during the last ten years, including the recent one in March, 2010.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)