Category: North Korea

  • South Korean shipbuilders have taken the opportunity at the 2023 edition of the MADEX International Maritime Defense Industry Exhibition to showcase a range of innovative new surface warfare combatant designs. Hanwha Ocean, formerly Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME), highlighted several new concepts, including the Joint Strike Ship concept aimed at delivering decapitation attacks against […]

    The post South Korea unveils new warship concepts appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.



  • This week, the United States and South Korea kicked off their springtime joint military drills—the largest in five years. North Korea has long protested these war drills, calling them a rehearsal for invasion. Not surprisingly, then, North Korea conducted submarine-fired cruise missiles tests on Sunday.

    We can expect these tit-for-tat provocations to continue as long as everyone continues to go by the same playbook. While the United States cannot control North Korea’s behavior, the Biden administration can take steps to end the tensions that have permeated the Korean Peninsula for more than 70 years—chiefly, by pivoting its strategy toward getting back to the table with North Korea and negotiating a peace agreement. The Biden administration should follow the lead of Congress, which is once again calling for a peace-first approach to formally end the Korean War.

    On March 1, Congressman Brad Sherman and 20 original cosponsors re-introduced the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act, the first time that legislation on peace in Korea has been re-introduced in Congress. The bill calls for diplomacy with North Korea to formally end the Korean War, a review of travel restrictions to North Korea, and the establishment of liaison offices in the US and North Korea. First introduced in 2021, it was the first bill calling for an end to the Korean War, following the success of the first House Resolution, H.Res.152, in the 116th Congress, which also called for ending the war.

    Officially ending the Korean War is important because the unresolved war is the root cause of tensions in Korea. While the armistice agreement signed in 1953 ended active fighting of the Korean War, it was always meant to be replaced with a peace agreement. To this day, it has not been, and there are no guardrails preventing a resumption of active fighting. Thus, replacing the armistice with a formal peace agreement would go a long way toward building peace and stability in Korea.

    While the President could formally end the Korean War through executive powers alone, Congressional support is important to building the political will for a long-lasting peace agreement

    As Congressman Sherman stated at his press conference announcing the re-introduction of the bill, “The continued state of war on the Korean Peninsula does not serve the interests of the United States nor our constituents with relatives in North and South Korea.” The re-introduction of the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act provides an opportunity to reinvigorate diplomacy and end this war once and for all.

    This opportunity comes at a time of heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula. In 2022, North Korea conducted an unprecedented number of missile tests, including testing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could in theory strike the US mainland. Both the US and North Korea maintain dangerous nuclear postures and first-strike capabilities, and in September 2022 North Korea passed a law lowering the threshold for a nuclear first strike. The US has also doubled down on its nuclear first-use policy, despite support for a no-first-use policy from President Joe Biden as a candidate. In a further raising of tensions, earlier this year President Yoon Suk Yeol declared South Korea may build its own nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, the US, South Korea, and Japan continue to strengthen their conventional capabilities to deter North Korea, ramping up bilateral and trilateral exercises.

    Compounding the danger of these developments are the larger geopolitical forces at play in the region. The US-China great-power competition continues to grow more dangerous, with provocations that could escalate into a military conflict. Additionally, Japan recently announced its largest military build-up since World War 2, including doubling defense spending by 2028 and developing new counter-strike capabilities aimed at China.

    Formally ending the Korean War with a peace agreement provides an opportunity for cooperation between all parties and could act as a stepping stone to reversing the militarization in the Asia-Pacific region and healing historic wounds from the last century’s wars. Approaches of previous US administrations across partisan lines have failed to improve the security crisis in Korea. The Biden administration has an opportunity to change course and restart negotiations with North Korea. Instead of saying that they are ready to meet North Korean anywhere and anytime, they should try a new peace-first approach that has the potential to address the root cause of tensions.

    Congress has an especially important role to play in calling on the administration to take a different approach to North Korea policy. While the President could formally end the Korean War through executive powers alone, Congressional support is important to building the political will for a long-lasting peace agreement and demonstrating that multiple branches of the US government support a new relationship with North Korea and an end to the war. And Congressional support is growing.

    In the last Congress, 46 members of Congress representing both sides of the aisle cosponsored the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act, including several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. To have this much support for ending the Korean War in the midst of a stalemate in US-North Korea talks and the escalating arms race should not be downplayed.


    This is a particularly important year to build support for a new US approach; July 27, 2023 marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Korean War armistice, and it’s long past time to replace the 1953 ceasefire with a peace agreement to formally end the war. For the sake of the Korean people, and people around the world, we need to end the state of war that has persisted for more than 70 years. It is time to close this chapter of war and open the door to a transformed, peaceful US-North Korea relationship.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • This story originally appeared in Truthout on March 3, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    The U.S. military encirclement of China threatens to escalate into an Asia-Pacific war, with the Korean Peninsula at the focal point of this dangerous path. Garrisoned with nearly 30,000 combat-ready U.S. forces manning the astonishing 73 U.S. military bases dotting its tiny landmass, South Korea is the most critical frontline component of U.S. military escalation in northeast Asia.

    Since the Obama administration’s 2012 “pivot to Asia,” Washington has intensified tensions with Beijing, doubling down on a “full-scale multi-pronged new Cold War” through the Indo-Pacific Strategy pursued by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Sixty percent of U.S. naval capacity has been transferred to the Asia-Pacific region, and 400 out of 800 U.S. worldwide military bases and 130,000 troops are now circling China.

    [The US’s] goal is to force China’s hand by triggering and escalating a hybrid war on multiple fronts, including military, technology, economy, information and media.

    This is a reflection of Washington’s Asia-Pacific grand strategy, which views China as the U.S.’s top security challenge and prioritizes the maintenance of U.S. regional hegemony through military force by “defending the homeland, paced to the growing multi-domain threat posed by the PRC [People’s Republic of China].”

    It promotes the vision of an empire with unipolar hegemonic ambitions, expanding the theater of war in northeast Asia and distributing the totality of threats facing China. Its goal is to force China’s hand by triggering and escalating a hybrid war on multiple fronts, including military, technology, economy, information and media.

    This strategy is based on chaining together a regional “anti-hegemonic coalition” of U.S.-armed allies encircling China from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia and Indonesia in the south. In spite of the significant state-level and public resistance in these nations toward U.S. pressure to choose between allegiance to Beijing and allegiance to Washington, this vision has been largely realized thanks to unrelenting U.S. coercion through successive administrations.

    Three important implications of this grand strategy, which places the Korean Peninsula at the pernicious center of intensified China-U.S. competition, merit attention: 1) the accelerated remilitarization of Japan; 2) the revitalization of extremist hardline North Korea policies in both Washington and Seoul; and 3) the intensification and expansion of belligerent wargames targeted at China and North Korea.

    First, Washington’s military encirclement of China strategy bolsters Japan’s military build-up program. The U.S., despite having imposed a “pacifist” constitution on Japan in the wake of WWII, has for decades aggressively pushed for Japanese rearmament as a necessary adjunct of Washington’s efforts to dominate the Asia-Pacific. Labeling Japan a “failed peace state,” Gavan McCormack points out the ironic trajectory of its transformation into “one of the world’s great military powers” as a state actively girding for war under a so-called pacifist constitution. “With US encouragement, over time Japan built formidable land, sea, and air forces, evading the constitutional proscription by calling them ‘Self-Defence’ forces (rather than Army, Navy, and so on),” McCormack writes. “Other states with good reason to know and fear Japanese militarism (Australia included) also abandoned their commitment to the idea of its permanent demilitarisation…. [Its] constitution steadily sidelined, by early 21st century Japan was one of the world’s great military powers.”

    Tokyo’s defense budget will grow 56 percent over the next five years, from $215 billion to $324 billion

    Thus, Japan’s Security Policy echoes U.S. goals such as the complete denuclearization of North Korea, the stoking of tensions on Taiwan and the continued U.S. military presence in Okinawa. Home to more than 50,000 U.S. troops, Tokyo has steadily laid the groundwork for its own remilitarization program by characterizing North Korea as an existential threat, and designating Beijing’s regional activities as a danger to its homeland. According to the retired Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) Admiral Tomohisa Takei, China has been the main target for Japanese rearmament, “using North Korea’s threat as cover.”

    At their most recent summit in January, President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida agreed to work together to “transform Japan into a potent military power” to counterbalance China. Tokyo’s defense budget will grow 56 percent over the next five years, from $215 billion to $324 billion, raising its military spending to parity with that of NATO countries. Tokyo is also adopting a new policy of acquiring “counterstrike” capabilities against other nations as part of a recharacterized “self-defense” posture — an alarming development in a region still suffering from the historical legacy of Japan’s brutal imperial policy during WWII, and raising the fear that Japan may decide to carry out a unilateral attack against North Korea. Washington considers the remilitarization of Japan — which aspires to become the world’s third-largest military power after the U.S. and China — to be the linchpin of U.S. security interests in Asia.

    Second, Washington’s zero-sum stance against China obstructs its ability to craft a sensible North Korea policy. Thus far, despite Washington’s rhetoric of “seeking diplomacy and deterrence with North Korea,” and repeated claims of having “reached out to Pyongyang multiple times,” the Biden administration has not moved beyond its standing offer for talks with no preconditions. Moreover, the Biden administration’s recent appointment of a new special envoy for North Korean human rights issues shows that Washington intends to maintain its heavy handed policy of employing military threats and economic sanctions against Pyongyang. In other words, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken has stated, the United States will “maintain pressure on North Korea until Pyongyang changes course,” i.e. surrenders to U.S. terms. Even moderate experts have warned against the Biden administration’s preference for relying on “ineffective [and] ill-suited tools” such as “isolation, pressure, and deterrence,” intensifying U.S.-South Korea military exercises, and redeploying U.S. strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula. The goal of Washington’s North Korea policy, however, is not to achieve rapprochement with Pyongyang or establish peace in the Korean Peninsula, but rather to nurture and even enhance the purported “North Korean threat” as a pretext to rally South Korea and Japan behind its goal of containing China.

    Washington’s anti-China policy, which binds South Korea to the service of U.S. geopolitical strategic interests and keeps it in a subservient client-patron relationship with the U.S., also has the ancillary effect of empowering extremist far right factions in South Korea. These politicians exploit the North Korean threat as justification for domestic repression under South Korea’s National Security Laws — among the most draconian in the world — empowering them to leverage red-baiting and worse against any critics or perceived threats to their grip on power.

    Washington’s anti-China policy, which binds South Korea to the service of U.S. geopolitical strategic interests and keeps it in a subservient client-patron relationship with the U.S., also has the ancillary effect of empowering extremist far right factions in South Korea.

    Case in point: South Korea’s far right president, Yoon Suk-yeol, who was elected by a razor-thin margin of 0.7 percent barely eight months ago, is already leaving his mark, having established a “republic of prosecution” that pursues the politics of fear and prosecution domestically on the one hand, and subordinates South Korea’s sovereignty to Washington’s interests on the other. The “most disliked leader in the world” garnered a disapproval rating of 70 percent in a recent Morning Consulting survey, and faces massive and sustained public demand for his immediate resignation. It is noteworthy that in spite of Washington’s stated foreign policy goal of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights, the U.S. remains silent on Yoon’s “atavistic reversion” of vitally democratic South Korea into a newly repressive national security state. According to K.J. Noh, “South Korea’s essential role as the closest and largest military force projection platform against China, its role in a ‘JAKUS’ (Japan-South Korea-U.S. military alliance), its cooperation with NATO, its stated plans to join a Quad-plus, and its assumption of a submissive position toward U.S. decoupling and economic enclosure against China make it far too valuable to criticize or undermine regardless of its excesses.”

    Indeed, Yoon has tirelessly pressed ahead with dangerous hawkish foreign policies. Against the absolute majority of Korean public opinion (over 65 percent) who prefer neutrality and a “balanced policy,” Yoon has unwaveringly committed to stand with the U.S. in its hegemonic strategic rivalry with China. During the 2022 Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, Yoon unveiled Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which is effectively cribbed from Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy designed to contain China. Moreover, Yoon has repeatedly advocated not only the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea, but has also declared his intention to arm South Korea with nuclear weapons, significantly raising the danger of a regional nuclear arms race.

    Third, Washington’s stance against China fuels belligerent ongoing wargames targeted at China and North Korea on the Korean Peninsula. The U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises — the world’s largest bilateral peacetime military drills — involve live fire drills, carrier battle group and submarine maneuvers and strategic nuclear bombing raids by aircraft. They have also explicitly included the rehearsed attack and occupation of North Korea as well as the “decapitation” of its leadership: a “plan for regime collapse and occupation.”

    Since the 2022 Biden-Yoon summit when Yoon agreed to the repositioning U.S. strategic nuclear-capable assets closer to the Korean Peninsula, South Korea has conducted near-monthly joint military exercises with U.S. forces. Under the GSOMIA (General Security of Military Information Agreement), which aims to create a “three eyes” intelligence-sharing grouping against China, these exercises also include joint maneuvers with the Japanese military. Coupled with the deployment of U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries in South Korea, these drills form a crucial aspect of regional U.S. war preparations. Leveraging South Korea and Japan to collect and share military intelligence as military subcontractors is a principal component of U.S.-led military action. In the case of South Korea, the reduction of sovereign military assets to virtual pawns in a U.S.-led conflict goes even further, with Washington explicitly accorded the authority to take full control of the South Korean military in the event of any war.

    The frequency and intensity of regional U.S.-led joint exercises have increased exponentially in the past year, ramping up tensions. In June 2022, the U.S. and South Korean militaries, for the first time in more than four years, held a three-day joint naval exercise involving U.S. strategic nuclear assets with the stated purpose of “reinforcing allies” against “North Korea’s mounting weapons ambitions.” Two months later, South Korea and Japan participated in the U.S.-led RIMPAC — the “grandest of all war games” — with the nominal goal of countering “North Korea’s evolving missile threats.”

    In spite of U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s claim that Washington does not “seek a new Cold War, an Asian NATO, or a region split into hostile blocs,” the U.S. is promoting NATO’s Asia-Pacific expansion to close the military circle around China, as demonstrated by its drive to extend NATO’s influence to Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. South Korea is fast becoming an important part of NATO’s Asia-Pacific expansion, as attested by Yoon’s attendance at the 2022 NATO meeting in Spain, in which China was singled out as a state that “challenge[s] our interests, security, and values and seek[s] to undermine the rules-based international order.” South Korea also became the first Asian country to join NATO’s Cyber Defense Group, a move that critics argue is laying the groundwork for war in Asia.

    There is little doubt that under the far right Yoon administration, U.S. pressure on South Korea to serve in a vanguard role as a pawn against China will increase.

    Moreover, the scope and scale of U.S. regional military exercises will increase by a factor of 20 for the first six months of 2023 alone. The resumption of U.S.-South Korean joint live-fire exercises will be augmented by the addition of new and highly provocative “nuclear table-top drills,” which simulate region-wide nuclear conflict under the guise of deterring a North Korean nuclear attack. The proliferation of these U.S.-led military exercises in the Korean Peninsula and the Asia-Pacific region reveal Washington’s mounting resolve to drag South Korea into conflicts beyond the Korean Peninsula for the simple reason that South Korea, which has remained a U.S. garrison state since the Korean War, hosts the most lethal U.S. military footprint proximate to Beijing, including the world’s newest and largest U.S. military base in Pyeongtaek.

    U.S. officials have been quite blunt about South Korea’s subordinate role in Washington’s imperial quest. Gen. Robert Abrams, U.S. Forces Korea commander from 2018 to 2021, stated in 2021 that in addition to “threats from North Korea,” South Korea must join the U.S. in developing “new operational war plans” to counter China’s military influence in the region. Accordingly, former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper predicted in 2022 that South Korea would inevitably “intervene with the United States in the Taiwan Strait should a conflict break out between Taiwan and China.” There is little doubt that under the far right Yoon administration, U.S. pressure on South Korea to serve in a vanguard role as a pawn against China will increase. Washington’s resolve to push its exorbitant imperial privilege by any means necessary is forcing South Korea down a risky and self-destructive path that promises little benefit for the Korean nation itself.

    What is happening now is the U.S. empire’s response to its most significant challenge to date, and represents an evolution of its militaristic posture in order to prevent its demise. As Tim Beal points out:

    For American hegemony the struggle is existential, and without hegemony the United States will be much diminished and poorer; it will have to live within its means rather than drawing sustenance from its empire. Hegemonic power has various dimensions — political, military, ideational, economic and financial. The US is being challenged, indeed is faltering, in each of these in various ways and to differing degrees.

    First and foremost, in intensifying its offensive against Beijing, Washington has shifted both risk and burden to allies that form its “vanguard against China,” enabling the U.S. to dictate decisions and procure imperial benefits while distributing the costs to vassal states. In order to justify its burgeoning military regional presence and intensified control over South Korea, Japan and Taiwan to bolster its posture against China, the U.S. needs to keep regional tension high. Despite the U.S. position that it is “open to talks” with North Korea, continued sanctions (including those targeting the civilian and medical sector), expansion of the U.S. military presence in the region, intensification of multinational military drills, and continued political rhetoric from Washington ensure that tensions with the north remain elevated. This benefits both Washington and the extremist regime in Seoul, and ensures South Korea’s perpetual relegation to the status of a U.S. neocolonial state.

    The greatest threat to peace and stability in northeast Asia is the U.S. Indo-Pacific military encirclement of China, which by design serves to escalate tensions and create a dangerous cycle of provocation and response. Washington’s hegemonic quest — the highest manifestation of 21st-century imperialism — is the antithesis of peace in the Korean Peninsula, the Asia-Pacific region, and beyond. When one factors in the Pentagon’s openly aggressive National Defense Strategy, which sanctions the use of nuclear weapons against non-adversaries, the intensified U.S. focus on maintaining hegemony and regional dominance at all costs takes on an even more ominous character, suggesting that the Korean Peninsula has the potential to serve as the flashpoint for a conflict of much wider scale and scope.

    Hawkish U.S. policies have consistently failed to garner public support in South Korea. According to a series of polls conducted in 2021, 61 percent of South Koreans support relaxing sanctions against the north and 79 percent support peace with Pyongyang, with an additional 71 percent supporting a formal end-of-war declaration between the two Koreas. These sentiments persist even among Yoon supporters, a majority of whom support an inter-Korean peace treaty, breaking with his rhetoric of a tougher stance toward North Korea. The South Korean Democratic and Progressive Parties, as well as major civil and labor organizations, support military deescalation with the North and maintenance of neutrality in the Washington-Beijing competition. Democratic Party Chairman Lee Jae-myung has repeatedly warned against South Korea becoming a “pawn in the plans of other states,” pledging his party to the principles of independence and sovereignty.

    A few years from now, after the Biden and Yoon administrations have ended, North Korea will likely not have been denuclearized and South Korea may emerge as the nuclear front line in the U.S. rivalry with China and Russia, setting the stage for the Korean Peninsula to serve as the main battleground in a new Cold War. If Biden has a genuine interest in achieving lasting regional security, he should pursue a broader vision in which nations can coexist. According to the latest poll, a significant majority of Americans support tension-reducing policies with North Korea and China, and 7 in 10 Americans are supportive of a summit between Biden and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Over half of those polled support a full-fledged peace agreement to finally end the 73-year-old Korean War — an unresolved conflict that has left nearly 5 million casualties and forcibly separated 10 million Korean families on either side of the 38th parallel, including more than 100,000 Korean Americans.

    Instead of narrowly focusing on the threat of China and exploiting the North Korean threat as a cover for a militaristic and volatile anti-China policy, the Biden administration should recognize that peace in the Korean Peninsula is not only obtainable, but can lay the groundwork for a broader and more stable regional order based on coexistence.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The U.S. military encirclement of China threatens to escalate into an Asia-Pacific war, with the Korean Peninsula at the focal point of this dangerous path. Garrisoned with nearly 30,000 combat-ready U.S. forces manning the astonishing 73 U.S. military bases dotting its tiny landmass, South Korea is the most critical frontline component of U.S. military escalation in northeast Asia.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This story originally appeared in Truthout on Jan. 12, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    An updated excerpt from a book about the Trump presidency reveals that the former president had considered issuing a nuclear strike on North Korea and blaming it on another country.

    The book, “Donald Trump v. The United States,” authored by The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt, has been updated in a new edition that will be available next week. NBC News, which obtained copies of the new edition, reported on the updates, which detail conversations between Trump and John Kelly, who served as his chief of staff from July 2017 to January 2019.

    The new edition reveals additional information about Trump’s feelings on North Korea, including his desire to attack the country.

    Trump “cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility,” the new edition of the book says.

    “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen,” Trump told Kelly at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, in August 2017, just eight days after Kelly took over as chief of staff.

    According to Schmidt’s book, Trump also discussed North Korea with Kelly “behind closed doors in the Oval Office,” where Trump “continued to talk as if he wanted to go to war.”

    During this period of his presidency, the former commander-in-chief hinted at using nuclear weapons against North Korea, saying that he could blame a nuclear attack on a country other than the U.S., Schmidt says in his book.

    Trump “cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility,” the new edition of the book says.

    Kelly and other military leaders responded by warning Trump of the economic repercussions and the lives that would be lost if he started a war with North Korea.

    The book cites dozens of interviews with former Trump officials, including people who worked in Kelly’s office when he served as chief of staff.

    Tensions between Trump and Kim culminated in January 2018, when Trump warned Kim in a Twitter post that he could strike the country with nuclear weapons at any moment.

    “North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” Trump wrote.

    Trump’s attitude toward Kim changed later that year, however. After an endorsement from his then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the two began exchanging correspondences. Trump would go on to visit North Korea later in his presidency.

    Trump would often brag about his notes from Kim, which he has described as “love letters.” The letters were among the hundreds of classified documents he took from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate at the end of his presidency. Trump also reportedly took sensitive documents regarding the nuclear weapons capabilities of other nations, hiding them at his Palm Beach, Florida, residence until the FBI retrieved them during a search of the property in August 2022 and returned them to the federal government.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • An updated excerpt from a book about the Trump presidency reveals that the former president had considered issuing a nuclear strike on North Korea and blaming it on another country. The book, “Donald Trump v. The United States,” authored by The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt, has been updated in a new edition that will be available next week. NBC News, which obtained copies of the new edition…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Republic of Korea L-SAM (Long Range Surface to Air Missile) successfully conducted a missile intercept in testing according to local media reports of 22 November 2022 citing government sources. L-SAM is intended to counter the growing ballistic missile threat presented by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea). Its development was initiated in […]

    The post ROK L-SAM Intercepts Target in Test appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    A new Bloomberg article titled “‘Sloppy’ US Talk on China’s Threat Worries Some Skeptical Experts” discusses the dangerous cycle in which pressures in the US political establishment to continually escalate hostilities with Beijing provokes responses that are then falsely interpreted as Chinese aggression.

    Bloomberg’s Iain Marlow writes:

    The hawkish narrative “limits room for maneuver in a crisis,” said M. Taylor Fravel, director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Any effort to defuse tension could be characterized as “conciliatory or not tough enough,” he said.

     

    China has been consistent on Taiwan and there’s little public evidence to suggest it’s sped up the timeline to take Taiwan, said a former senior US official who worked on China policy but asked not to be identified.

     

    The former official said the hawkish tone in DC has contributed to a cycle where the US makes the first move, interprets Chinese reactions as a provocation, and then escalates further.

    Bloomberg quotes Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund, who says this cycle of self-reinforcing escalation could “end up provoking the war that we seek to deter.”

    We just saw this same self-perpetuating cycle of military escalation exemplified against North Korea, where tensions have again been flaring after a long pause. The US and South Korea initiated a provocative military drill designed to menace the DPRK, Pyongyang responded by launching missiles in its own show of strength, and the Pentagon announced an extension of the drills in response to that response.

    Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp explains:

    The US and South Korea are extending massive aerial war games after North Korea put on a massive show of force in response to the drills.

     

    Washington and Seoul started their Vigilant Storm exercises on Monday, which were initially scheduled to run 24 hours a day for five days. This year’s Vigilant Storm is the largest-ever iteration of the drills, involving nearly 100 American warplanes and 140 South Korean aircraft, and about 1,600 planned sorties.

     

    Pyongyang made it clear it would respond to the Vigilant Storm drills, and it launched 23 missiles on Wednesday, which is said to be the most North Korea has fired in a single day. North Korea also fired over 100 artillery rounds on the same day and launched six more missiles on Thursday.

     

    Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the extension of Vigilant Storm after a meeting with his South Korean counterpart, Lee Jong-sup. “I’ve consulted with Minister Lee and we’ve decided to extend Vigilant Storm, which is our long-scheduled combined training exercise, to further bolster our readiness and interoperability,” Austin said.

    “So they launch these war games, provoke a bunch of North Korean missile launches and then say they have to extend the war games because of the missile launches,” tweeted DeCamp.

    DeCamp quotes another DPRK official who warns that the extension of the US-ROK war games may provoke further escalations, saying “The irresponsible decision of the US and South Korea is shoving the present situation, caused by provocative military acts of the allied forces, to an uncontrollable phase.”

    We’ve been seeing this same cycle repeated year after year: US military expansionism and aggression in a given part of the world receives pushback from the people who live there, and the US responds to that pushback with more military expansionism and aggression. The official narrative is that the US is responding to unprovoked aggressions from the other side, conveniently omitting its own antecedent aggressions and provocations — a manipulation tactic the western media are always happy to facilitate.

    In reality it’s not hard to determine who the aggressor is when one party is flying to the other side of the planet to menace the borders and security interests of the other, especially when ramping up militarism in more and more parts of the world facilitates both the US military-industrial complex and the unipolarist objectives of US empire managers. But because the US empire has the most sophisticated narrative control system ever devised, enough people in enough places that matter swallow the official story despite its self-evident absurdity.

    A system which perpetuates and exacerbates itself while pretending to solve the problems it creates is often called a self-licking ice cream cone. Because that type of system is promoted by those serving the most powerful and belligerent power structure on earth, one might call US militarism a self-licking boot.

    We’ve been watching the self-licking boot of US militarism exemplified for decades in the “war on terror” scam, where US military interventionism destabilizes geostrategically crucial parts of the world and makes the locals who’ve suffered under US bombings want to harm their persecutors, and the response is to ramp up military expansionism in those parts of the world in the name of fighting terrorists and protecting US troops.

    We been watching it in Ukraine, where US aggressions provoked an invasion by a government the US empire has long targeted for destruction, and that invasion is now being used to advance longstanding US strategic objectives while continually expanding US military involvement in the region.

    And we’ll be sure to see more and more of it as the US accelerates toward global conflict on two fronts simultaneously while mainstream media pundits cheer it on, despite all available evidence indicating that we are witnessing something profoundly stupid and crazy. The US will continue ramping up aggressions against Moscow and Beijing, those governments will respond, and we will be told that the US must respond to these outrageous provocations by ramping up aggressions.

    Repeat ad nauseum.

    Lick, lick.

    _______________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • In my decades of doing what I do, I’ve encountered so many folks patently unwilling to accept that their beloved Land of the Free™ is capable of the horrendous criminality it openly perpetrates as policy. (Such a cultic mindset, of course, is partly responsible for such blind trust vis-a-vis the “pandemic.”)

    With all this in mind, I’ll continue sharing evidence to highlight that the leaders of God’s Country™ are just as craven as any of its official enemies (read: all those labeled “the next Hitler”). For starters, here’s a dam good example…

    It is informative to note that of the 185 Nazis indicted at Nuremberg, only 24 were singled out for the death penalty. That their crimes merited capital punishment in the eyes of the Tribunal can serve as a measuring stick when we review similar crimes committed by the good [sic] guys.

    Among those two dozen executed Nazis was the German High Commissioner in Holland who ordered the opening of Dutch dikes to slow the advance of Allied troops. Roughly 500,000 acres were flooded and the result was mass starvation.

    Surely, this type of tactic is solely the domain of the uncivilized and depraved… right?

    Meanwhile, the United States Air Force (USAF) — fresh from fighting the forces of evil during the Good [sic] War — bombed the Toksan Dam (among others) during the Korean War in order to flood North Korea’s rice farms.

    Here’s how the good [sic] guys at the USAF justified the same tactics that the Nuremberg Tribunal saw worthy of the death penalty less than a decade earlier:

    “To the Communists, the smashing of the dams meant primarily the destruction of their chief sustenance — rice. The Westerner can little conceive the awesome meaning that the loss of this staple food commodity has for an Asian — starvation and slow death.”

    Since U.S. General Douglas MacArthur had already ordered the USAF to “destroy every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” south of the Yalu River boundary with China, the lethal dam busting should’ve come as no surprise.

    And it “worked.”

    Estimates vary but somewhere between 1.2 and 3 million North Korean civilians were killed — via one good [sic] guy method or another.

    This dam-busting/people-starving technique, culled from the wartime strategy of one of Hitler’s 24 best and brightest men, continued right on into Vietnam — with orders coming directly from the top, you might say.

    In a now-declassified memorandum dated April 15, 1969, God’s favorite evangelist Billy Graham, having just returned from “meeting missionaries” in Bangkok, gave his approval to a U.S. proposal that could potentially drown thousands and starve many more.

    The holy [sic] man urged President Richard Nixon to blow up dikes “which could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.”

    With or without Rev. Graham’s heavenly sanction, the U.S. bombing of dikes in South Vietnam was already a common and uncontroversial tactic employed by the good [sic] guys.

    FYI: Dam-busting by the U.S. never stopped — as demonstrated by the 2017 bombing of the Tabqa Dam on the Euphrates River in Syria.

    Of course, you’re free to justify such war crimes in your patriotic mind. But, if you do so, you also surrender all claims of the U.S. being The Home of the Brave™.

    Here’s a better idea:  Never trust your government — or the banks and corporations that own it.

    The post When the Good [sic] Guys Slaughter Civilians with God’s “Permission,” are they Still Good Guys? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • South Korean shipbuilder Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) has launched the lead ship for the second and improved batch of three Sejong Daewang (KDX-III)-class guided-missile destroyers being built for the Republic of Korea Navy (RoKN). The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced on 28 July that the new KDX-III Batch II destroyer, the future ROKS Jeongjo […]

    The post Hyundai Heavy Industries launches first KDX-III Batch 2 destroyer appeared first on Asian Military Review.

  • The value of unmanned aerial vehicles continues to grow in importance, with indigenous development increasing in all categories. Regional military forces are accelerating their acquisition and development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as part of ongoing modernisation efforts amid an increasingly uncertain geopolitical situation. In most of these cases, applications such as border/maritime patrol and […]

    The post Asia Pacific UAV Compendium 2022 appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The ROK Army trial of Hanwha Defense’s Redback IFV has ended successfully after six weeks of pilot run The Redback showcased its high-performance maneuvrability in off-road environments during a media invitation event The Defense Acquisition Program Administration announced intent to acquire the “Korean version of Redback” through a “fast-track R&D program” Shortlisted for Australia’s LAND […]

    The post Redback infantry fighting vehicle demonstrates maneuvers for ROK Army trial appeared first on Asian Military Review.

  • The Republic of Korea Army (RoKA) is set to commence local trials of the Hanwha Defence Australia AS21 Redback infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), the South Korean government’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said in a 30 March statement. The effort, which will be headed by the RoKA’s 11th Maneuver Division from April to May this […]

    The post South Korean Army augments Redback export efforts appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Golden Rule anti-nuclear boat sails in San Diego Bay, April 1, 2019.

    January 22 marked one year since the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which the U.S. has refused to sign, became a binding treaty. To commemorate that anniversary and in anticipation of the impending release of the Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, Veterans For Peace (VFP), a non-governmental organization that exposes the costs and consequences of militarism and war and seeks peaceful, effective alternatives, issued its own Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

    The Pentagon’s 2018 NPR says the United States can use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks, including cyberattacks, in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies and partners.” This would allow the U.S. to engage in the “first use” of nuclear weapons. Anti-nuclear activists are pushing Joe Biden to reverse Donald Trump’s policies set forth in the 2018 NPR, including the first-use policy. Moreover, first use of nuclear weapons violates international law. It would also spell disaster for the survival of the planet.

    VFP’s 10-page NPR replaces the goal of “full spectrum dominance” over the globe with “full spectrum cooperation.” It calls on the U.S. to implement a verifiable No First Use policy, take nuclear missiles off hair-trigger alert and remove the sole authority of the president to launch a nuclear war. VFP urges the United States to begin good faith negotiations with the goal to eliminate all nuclear weapons and take immediate measures to decrease the risk of an accidental nuclear war. It also calls on the U.S. to sign the TPNW.

    The TPNW prohibits the transfer, use, or threat to use nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. States party to the treaty pledge “never under any circumstances” to “develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

    Eighty-six countries have signed the treaty and 57 have ratified it, which makes them parties to the accord. Once it had 50 parties, the TPMW entered into force on January 22, 2022.

    But the five original nuclear-armed countries — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — boycotted both the treaty negotiations and the vote. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India, also nuclear-armed countries, did not participate in the final vote.

    “The danger of a devastating nuclear war is greater than ever,” Gerry Condon, a Vietnam-era veteran and former president of VFP, told Truthout. “We cannot leave the future of the planet in the hands of the generals, the cold warriors and the weapons manufacturers who have brought us one terrible war after another.”

    The U.S. Is Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Although the United States is a party to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it continues to violate the provisions of that treaty. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said in a 2005 release by the Institute for Public Accuracy, “The U.S. government is not adhering to Article VI of the NPT and we show no signs of planning to adhere to its requirements to move forward with the elimination — not reduction, but elimination — of nuclear weapons.”

    In the years since, the United States has actually moved in the opposite direction. The Obama administration advanced a policy, which Donald Trump and Joe Biden continued, to develop leaner and meaner nuclear weapons. The proposed U.S. budget calls for nearly $2 trillion over the next 30 years to build two new bomb factories, planes, missiles, submarines and redesigned warheads.

    The Veterans For Peace Nuclear Posture Review Is Geared Toward Preventing War

    Ken Mayers, a VFP national board member, said in an email to Truthout, “When we considered all the Nuclear Posture Reviews since the first one in 1994, we concluded that they all leaned towards war. We decided that veterans should speak up and push our government to correct that posture by standing up for peace. That is the consistent theme of the VFP Nuclear Posture Review.”

    It urges the Biden administration to take the following steps (which I summarized with some additional explanations below):

    1. Implement a No First Use and No Launch on Warning (“Hair Trigger Alert”) policy that entails separating warheads from delivery vehicles;
    2. Decommission Intercontinental Ballistic Missile silos and weapons because they can only be used as a first strike weapon;
    3. Replace the president’s exclusive authority to launch a nuclear attack with a safer, collective process that is less likely to lead to a rash decision to launch nukes;
    4. End Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (a U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense system to shoot down short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles), as well as other anti-ballistic missile systems;
    5. Sign and ratify the TPNW;
    6. Actively initiate and pursue negotiations with an aim toward reducing international tensions and a goal of effecting a major reduction in nuclear arms and promoting strategic stability;
    7. Summon all of the nuclear-armed countries to the table to negotiate a path toward nuclear disarmament, as required by the NPT;
    8. Join with China and Russia to negotiate space-ban and cyber-ban treaties;
    9. Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere around the globe;
    10. Reimplement the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and eliminate all missile “defense” systems;
    11. Reimplement the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which required the U.S. and the USSR to eliminate and permanently renounce all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles that had ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers;
    12. Work with U.S. allies to remove U.S. nuclear weapons that are stationed in the following NATO countries: Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands;
    13. Recall to the United States all submarines armed with nuclear weapons, ground the nuclear bombers, and dismantle the missile sites;
    14. End the “nuclear modernization program,” which includes new nuclear weapons research, design, expansion, refurbishment, laboratory testing and sub-critical testing. Pass the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act (HR 2850), which would redirect the funds to non-carbon, non-nuclear energy systems in order to reduce the impact of climate change and provide benefits to society;
    15. Appropriate adequate funding to clean up nuclear production and testing facilities, uranium mines and mills, and nuclear waste sites in the U.S. and Pacific nuclear test areas. Develop facilities and technologies to handle radioactive materials; and
    16. Create economic conversion plans to assist nuclear industry workers in making a transition to constructive employment.

    VFP Urges Biden to Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal and Negotiate Peace Treaty With North Korea

    As the United States continues to violate the NPT, it maintains a provocative posture toward North Korea (which has nuclear weapons) and Iran (which doesn’t).

    Veterans For Peace proposes that the Biden administration implement a five-point plan to revive U.S.- DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea) talks to end the expensive “forever” U.S. war against the DPRK. The plan includes: an agreement to implement the U.S.-DPRK Joint Statement from the Singapore Summit; negotiation of a peace treaty to replace the outdated 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement; an end to all joint exercises between the U.S. and South Korea, Japan and other countries against the DPRK; the lifting of all sanctions against the DPRK; and the cessation of all threats against North Korea and removal of the U.S. missile system from South Korea.

    Meanwhile, VFP is calling on Biden to concretely shift course in relation to Iran. The Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. But one year into his presidency, Biden still has not rejoined the agreement despite his campaign promise to do so. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran pledged not to enrich uranium above the level that could be used for a bomb, in return for the lifting of U.S. sanctions. After Trump renounced the JCPOA, he reimposed punishing sanctions on Iran. VFP urges Biden to lift the sanctions and re-enter the JCPOA.

    VFP’s Nuclear Posture Review is a critical document, which, if implemented, would go a long way toward protecting the world from a nuclear war. The Biden administration has the power to move effectively toward nuclear disarmament.

    “The U.S. could lead the world to eliminate all nuclear weapons. If we take the first steps, others will follow. That will only happen with a major shift in U.S. foreign policy, however,” Condon said. “We need to push our political leaders to peacefully adjust to a multi-polar world that it no longer dominates. Only then will we have real peace and security.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Republic of Korea Army (RoKA) has received two new 6×6 multirole Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) developed by Hyundai Rotem, the company announced on 10 January. Hyundai Rotem said the two Multi-Purpose UGVs (MPUGVs) were delivered to the service following six months of evaluation by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and the RoKA, with […]

    The post RoK Army receives new Hyundai Rotem UGVs appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has awarded contracts to homegrown defence primes Hanwha Systems and LIG Nex1 to supply ground-based communication terminals linked to the ANASIS-II (Army Navy Air Force Satellite Information System-II) military communications satellite. The two companies are expected to manufacture eight different ground-fixed and vehicle-based communication devices that will […]

    The post Hanwha Systems and LIG Nex1 strengthens comms with ANASIS-II military satellite appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • President Joe Biden sits at a desk

    Speaking at a New Hampshire campaign event in 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden told the crowd, “We don’t need more nuclear weapons, period.” After the bluster and apocalyptic theatrics of Donald Trump, many voters hoped Biden’s decades of nuclear arms control experience would bring restraint and stability to the United States’ nuclear policies.

    In Biden’s own words, “If you want a world without nuclear weapons, the United States must take the initiative to lead the world,” and yet, one year into his presidency, Biden has continued many of the nuclear weapons programs that began or advanced under Trump.

    Currently, the U.S. is pursuing a nuclear weapons modernization program that was launched by the Obama-Biden administration that is expected to cost at least $1.7 trillion by 2046. This includes large spending increases on a controversial low-yield smaller nuclear warhead, the total replacement of the intercontinental ballistic missile force, new B-21 strategic bombers, B-52 upgrades, more destructive nuclear warheads, as well as other programs.

    Additionally, on December 27, Biden signed into law the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, a nearly $770 billion military bill that includes almost $28 billion for nuclear weapons. As of September 2020, the U.S. had a total inventory of 5,600 stockpiled nuclear warheads which, together with Russia, represent approximately 91 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

    Below, eight analysts, activists and nuclear specialists offer Truthout their assessment of Biden’s first year of nuclear policies.

    Increased Transparency

    Compared to his predecessor, Biden has been more transparent in disclosing nuclear budget, stockpile and dismantlement figures, says Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. For his increased transparency, the extension of a major arms treaty, and for initiating strategic talks with Russia and China, Kristensen gives Biden a grade of “B.”

    With respect to the incomplete disclosure and slowing rate of dismantling retired nuclear warheads, however, he gives Biden a “C.” Furthermore, he’s concerned Biden’s forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review might not adopt a no-first-use nuclear weapons policy.

    “[Biden’s] general military strategy and foreign policy are beefing up offensive capabilities and posturing in response to Russia and China,” Kristensen told Truthout. “Many see that as necessary to deter those countries, but it may also work to stimulate their activities further.”

    Saving New START

    On the plus side, Biden earned widespread praise for extending the New START Treaty, which limits U.S.- and Russian-deployed long-range nuclear weapons, before it was set to expire two weeks into his presidency. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, called the extension an “important and common-sense step.” John Tierney, a former congressman and executive director of the nonprofit Council for a Livable World, described the treaty’s extension as “one bright spot” in Biden’s first year, which he said was a “serious disappointment” otherwise.

    “On the whole, the Biden administration has rubber-stamped every major big-budget nuclear weapons system produced under the Trump administration,” Tierney told Truthout. He further criticized Biden for failing to miss “low-hanging fruit,” including opportunities to cancel a new “unnecessary and wasteful” submarine-launched ballistic missile nuclear warhead, a life-extension program for the outdated B-83 megaton gravity bomb, and “more useable” nuclear weapons.

    “At the moment,” Tierney said, “We must give [Biden] a ‘C-minus’ — a passing grade, but only barely.”

    Grassroots movement Beyond the Bomb’s executive director, Cecili Thompson Williams, told Truthout that even though Biden has stated support for a no-first-use policy, a more rational nuclear posture has not been a Biden administration priority.

    “Without that leadership, nuclear hawks at the Department of Defense are once again succeeding in their resistance to common-sense changes to make our nuclear policy safer,” Thompson Williams said. Also giving Biden a “C-minus,” she called his first year “disappointing but with potential to improve.”

    In September, 29 members of Congress wrote to Biden to implore him to reduce excessive spending and over-reliance on nuclear weapons. This was followed by a letter to the president sent in December and signed by almost 700 scientists and engineers calling for a reduction in the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security.

    In Search of Strategic Stability

    When Biden became president one year ago, he inherited four major international nuclear challenges: Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Vowing to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, Biden said the U.S. was “prepared to return to full compliance if Iran does the same.”

    Assal Rad, a senior research fellow with the National Iranian American Council, tells Truthout that despite high hopes that Biden would reverse Trump’s actions which helped drive the U.S. and Iran dangerously close to all-out war in 2019-20, in many ways, the Biden administration has continued the Trump administration’s “maximum-pressure” policy.

    The continuation of sanctions that are devastating Iran’s citizens and its economy, Rad says, has only hindered efforts to revive the deal. She criticizes Biden for failing to act swiftly during the window of opportunity he had in his first five months as president to seek progress with Iran’s previous, more engagement-friendly Hassan Rouhani administration before staunch conservative Ebrahim Raisi was elected in June.

    “The Biden administration now finds itself in a much more challenging position to restore the deal,” Rad said. “Now, more than ever, we need diplomatic resolutions to global issues and an even-handed approach on nuclear proliferation.” On Biden’s Iran nuclear policy, Rad gives the president a “C” for not “succeeding to accomplish anything but not yet entirely failing by escalating tensions further.”

    A Dangerous Status Quo

    After whiplash diplomacy in which Trump threatened to “totally destroy North Korea,” only to later fawn over “beautiful letters” he received from Kim Jong Un, Northeast Asia analysts were hopeful the Biden administration would lead to a less erratic, more substantive phase of nuclear diplomacy.

    Although Biden said he shares South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s stated goal of “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” Christine Ahn, executive director of Women Cross DMZ, tells Truthout, “much of this is rhetoric,” and the Biden administration has not changed what she called the “failed policies of sanctions, military exercises and the travel ban.”

    “The U.S. will continue these militaristic policies until North Korea makes progress on denuclearization, which won’t happen as long as the U.S. continues its hostile policies,” Ahn said. She gives Biden a grade of “D” because “he hasn’t done anything to improve relations with North Korea [including declaring an end to the Korean War], which will be pivotal to advance denuclearization.”

    Strategic Stability

    After Russia and the U.S., China is the third-largest nuclear weapons state. While China is expanding its nuclear capabilities, its arsenal remains a fraction of the other two countries. Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Nuclear Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, tells Truthout that Biden understands the importance of direct engagement on nuclear matters with China’s President Xi Jinping.

    Writing from Beijing, Zhao noted that Biden achieved “some success” by prompting Xi to acknowledge the importance of discussing strategic stability at their first virtual meeting in November, something Xi previously did not acknowledge.

    In its broadest sense, Zhao said, “strategic stability” refers to the maintenance of generally stable bilateral [U.S.-China] relations. More narrowly, it refers to a stable nuclear relationship by mitigating a nuclear arms race or the use of nuclear weapons.

    Zhao called the Biden administration’s nuclear policymaking “pragmatic” for his willingness to start with less-difficult issues such as crisis prevention and confidence-building measures. Zhao gives Biden an “A-minus.”

    The Good, the Bad and the Incomplete

    Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl G. Kimball, told Truthout that Biden’s first year of nuclear policy has been a mix of good (New START); bad (an enormous nuclear budget); and incomplete or mixed (Iran, North Korea). “It’s not a simple answer that can be boiled down to a letter grade,” Kimball said.

    In July, the association published an issue brief which details why Biden’s 2022 nuclear budget is “very unhelpful,” what Kimball described as an “excessive and extremely costly plan to upgrade all major aspects of the nuclear weapons arsenal.” Exactly what the role and purpose of nuclear weapons is in Biden’s national security strategy will be detailed in the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review, expected in early 2022.

    “The jury is still out on whether the president will follow through on his pledge during the campaign, and in his interim national security strategy, to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and to restore U.S. leadership on nuclear arms control and disarmament,” Kimball said. “I have my deep concerns about whether this Nuclear Posture Review will do that.”

    The one area where Kimball gives Biden an “F” is for his failure to speak about the importance of reducing growing nuclear competition and the need to pursue a world without nuclear weapons. “I think it’s a failure of leadership in his first 12 months not to have delivered a major or even a minor policy speech on the subject,” Kimball said.

    If Biden choses to do so, he can change that when the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons commences in New York on January 4.

    Nuclear Weapons Are Now Illegal

    One of the most notable nuclear developments of Biden’s first year in office occurred just two days after he was sworn in as president. On January 22, the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force, making nuclear weapons illegal under international law. Adopted and ratified by at least 58 countries, the U.S. and the other eight nuclear-weapons-possessing nations oppose the ban.

    As Arms Control Association’s Kimball points out, the TPNW contributes to a common goal shared by nuclear-armed states and non-nuclear-armed states, which is the pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons. The TPNW also reinforces the taboo against the possession and use of nuclear weapons.

    Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, notes that when Biden took office, he inherited a disarmament situation that was “in tatters,” but says the TPNW created a bright spot. “Instead of embracing this, the Biden administration has aggressively attacked the TPNW and relentlessly pressured allies to abandon the treaty.”

    Biden’s disarmament policy, Fihn told Truthout, is a “D-minus” — “not the leadership that can save us from nuclear disaster.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In a major development in the Korean peace process, South Korea, North Korea, China and the United States have agreed to declare an end to the Korean War. The announcement was made by South Korean president Moon Jae-in on Monday, December 13, who said the four parties to the Korean War agreed “in-principle” to formally declare its end, 71 years after it broke out in 1950.

    The post South Korea Declares Multilateral Agreement To End Korean War appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Northrop Grumman has signed a raft of agreements with South Korean companies Huneed and LIG Nex1 to pursue a Republic of Korea Air Force’s (RoKAF’s) requirement for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System-Korea (JSTARS-K). Northrop said in a statement that the JSTARS-K system will be based on the Gulfstream G550 business jet and will […]

    The post Northrop Grumman eyes South Korean JSTARS-K requirement appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • On October 12 I referred the report Freedom on the Net [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/12/report-freedom-on-the-net-2021/ and on 24 April to the latest RSF report [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/04/24/world-press-freedom-index-2021-is-out/]. Now my attention was drawn to another tool to measure internet censorship:

    Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population (4.66 billion people) uses the internet. It’s our source of instant information, entertainment, news, and social interactions.

    But where in the world can citizens enjoy equal and open internet access – if anywhere?

    In this exploratory study, our researchers have conducted a country-by-country comparison to see which countries impose the harshest internet restrictions and where citizens can enjoy the most online freedom. This includes restrictions or bans for torrenting, pornography, social media, and VPNs, and restrictions or heavy censorship of political media. This year, we have also added the restriction of messaging/VoIP apps.

    Although the usual culprits take the top spots, a few seemingly free countries rank surprisingly high. With ongoing restrictions and pending laws, our online freedom is at more risk than ever.

    We scored each country on six criteria. Each of these is worth two points aside from messaging/VoIP apps which is worth one (this is due to many countries banning or restricting certain apps but allowing ones run by the government/telecoms providers within the country). The country receives one point if the content—torrents, pornography, news media, social media, VPNs, messaging/VoIP apps—is restricted but accessible, and two points if it is banned entirely. The higher the score, the more censorship. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IBnNS/3/

    The worst countries for internet censorship

    1. North Korea and China (11/11) – No map of online censorship would be complete without these two at the top of the list. There isn’t anything either of them doesn’t heavily censor thanks to their iron grip over the entire internet. Users are unable to use western social media, watch porn, or use torrents or VPNs*. And all of the political media published in the country is heavily censored and influenced by the government. Both also shut down messaging apps from abroad, forcing residents to use ones that have been made (and are likely controlled) within the country, e.g. WeChat in China. Not only does WeChat have no form of end-to-end encryption, the app also has backdoors that enable third parties to access messages.
    2. Iran (10/11): Iran blocks VPNs (only government-approved ones are permitted, which renders them almost useless) but doesn’t completely ban torrenting. Pornography is also banned and social media is under increasing restrictions. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are all blocked with increasing pressures to block other popular social media sites. Many messaging apps are also banned with authorities pushing domestic apps and services as an alternative. Political media is heavily censored.
    3. Belarus, Qatar, Syria, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and the UAE (8/11): Turkmenistan, Belarus, and the UAE all featured in our “worst countries” breakdown in 2020.  But this year they are joined by Qatar, Syria, and Thailand. All of these countries ban pornography, have heavily censored political media, restrict social media (bans have also been seen in Turkmenistan), and restrict the use of VPNs. Thailand saw the biggest increase in censorship, including the introduction of an online porn ban which saw 190 adult websites being taken down. This included Pornhub (which featured as one of the top 20 most visited websites in the country in 2019).

    https://comparite.ch/internetcensorshipmap

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • It is almost taken for granted, if not an article of faith, in the progressive milieu (e.g., here) that the US empire is declining. Does this hold up, or is it comfort food for the frustrated hoping for the revolution?

    First, it is essential not to confuse the ongoing decline of the living conditions of US working people with a decline in the power of the US corporate empire. The decline of one often means the strengthening of the other.

    In the aftermath of World War II, the US was the world manufacturing center, with the middle class rapidly expanding, and this era did end in the 1970s. It is also true the heyday of uncontested US world and corporate neoliberal supremacy is over, its zenith being the decade of the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its allies. Now, looming on the horizon is China, with the US empire and its subordinate imperial allies (Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Italy) unable to thwart its rise this century, even more than when China stood up in 1949.

    Yet the US imperial system still maintains decisive economic and political dominance, cultural and ideological hegemony, backed by tremendous military muscle. If US ruling class power were in decline, why have there been no socialist revolutions ­­­− the overturning of capitalist rule ­­­− in almost half a century? What would the world look like if the US lacked the muscle to be world cop?

    Imperialism continually faces crises; this is inherent to their system. The question is: which class takes advantage of these crises to advance their interests, the corporate capitalist class or the working class and its allies at home and abroad. In the recent decades, capitalist crises have resulted in setbacks for our class, and a steady worsening of our conditions of life.

    Previous proponents of US empire decline have predicted its demise with an expanding Communist bloc, then Germany and Japan with their supposedly more efficient capitalist production methods, then the European Union encompassing most of Western Europe into a supra-national entity, then the Asian Tigers, and then BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). All challenges turned out to be wishful thinking. Now the proponents of decline expect China itself will soon supplant US dominion.  We explore a number of the economic, political, and military difficulties the US empire confronts in its role as world cop.

    Imperial Decline or Adjustments in Methods of Rule?

    A common misconception among believers of US ruling class demise holds that imperial failure to succeed in some particular aim signifies imperial weakening. Examples of setbacks include Afghanistan, the failure to block North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, catastrophic mishandling of the COVID pandemic, and seeming inability to reign in the mammoth US national debt. However, throughout history, successful maintenance of imperial hegemony has never precluded absence of terrible setbacks and defeats. Most importantly, the fundamental question arising from a setback is which class learns to advance its interests more effectively, the imperial overlords or the oppressed.

    The US rulers, as with other imperial nations, have proven adept at engineering more effective methods of control from crises, as Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine illustrates. For instance, in the mid-20th century the imperial powers were forced to relinquish direct political governance of their colonial empires, often due to costly wars. Until after World War II, the Western nations owned outright most of Africa and much of Asia. Yet this new Third World political independence did not herald the end of imperial rule over their former colonies. The imperialists simply readjusted their domination through a neocolonial setup and continued to loot these countries, such as siphoning off over $1 trillion  every year since 2005 just through tax havens.

    Likewise, for seven decades the imperial ruling classes endured repeated defeats attempting to overturn the seemingly invincible Russian revolution. But they only needed to succeed one time, using a new strategy, to emerge victorious.

    A third example, the growing US national deficit due to the cost of the war on Vietnam forced Nixon to no longer peg the value of the dollar to gold at $35 an ounce. After World War II, the US had imposed the dollar as the international reserve currency, fixed at this exchange rate.  Today gold is $1806 an ounce, yet the dollar continues as the world reserve currency. The US rulers resolved their crisis by readjusting the manner their dollar reigned in international markets.

    A fourth example is the world historic defeat dealt the empire at the hands of the Vietnamese. Yet Vietnam today poses no challenge to US supremacy, in sharp contrast to 50 years ago.

    The US ruling class is well versed in the lessons gained from centuries of Western imperial supremacy. They have repeatedly demonstrated that the no longer effective methods of world control can be updated.  Bankruptcy in methods of rule may not signify a decline, but only the need for a reset, allowing the domination to continue.

    Part 1:  US Economic and Financial Strength

    Decline in US Share of World Production

    A central element of the waning US empire argument comes from the unparalleled economic rise of China. As a productive powerhouse, the US has been losing ground. As of 2019, before the COVID year reduced it further, the US share of world manufacturing amounted to 16.8%, while China was number one, at 28.7%.

    Similarly, the US Gross Domestic Product itself (GDP) slipped from 40% of the world economy in 1960 to 24% in 2019. GDP is the total market value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country.

    When GDP is measured by the world reserve currency, the dollar, the US ranks first, at $21 trillion, with China number two at $14.7 trillion. Using the Purchasing Power Parity measure of GDP,  which measures economic output in terms of a nation’s own prices, China’s GDP surpasses the US at $24.16 trillion. By either measure, a steady US erosion over time is evident, particularly in relation to China, and a major concern for the US bosses.

    Worsening US balance of trade reflects this decline. In 1971 the US had a negative balance of trade (the value of imports greater than the value of exports) for the first time in 78 years. Since then, the value of exports has exceeded that of imports only two times, in 1973 and 1975. From 2003 on, the US has been running an annual trade deficit of $500 billion or more. To date the US rulers “pay” for this by creating dollars out of thin air.

    Ballooning US National Debt

    The ballooning US national debt is considered another indicator of US imperial demise. The US debt clock puts the national debt at $28.5 trillion, up from $5.7 trillion in 2000. According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) numbers, the US debt is 118% of the GDP, near a historic high point, up from 79.2% at the end of 2019.

    The international reserves of the imperialist nations do not even cover 2% of their foreign debt. In contrast, China tops the list with the largest international reserves, which covers 153% of its foreign debt.

    However, today US debt as a percent of GDP is lower than in World War II, at the height of US economic supremacy. Germany’s debt to GDP ratio is 72%. Japan’s is 264%, making its debt over two and a half times the size of the country’s GDP. China’s is 66%.

    Yet a key concern with the ballooning national debt − inflation caused by creating money backed with no corresponding increase in production − hasn’t been a problem in any of these countries, not even Japan. The immediate issue with debt is not its size in trillions of dollars, but the degree annual economic growth exceeds the annual interest payment on the debt.

    In the US, this payout costs almost $400 billion a year, 1.9% of GDP. Federal Reserve Board president Powell stated: “Given the low level of interest rates, there’s no issue about the United States being able to service its debt at this time or in the foreseeable future.” Former IMF chief economist and president of the American Economic Association, Olivier Blanchard likewise declared: “Put bluntly, public debt may have no fiscal cost” given that “the current US situation in which safe interest rates are expected to remain below growth rates for a long time, is more the historical norm than the exception.” According to these ruling class economists, the huge size of the US national debt presents no economic difficulty for their bosses.

    Technological Patents

    Patents are an indicator of a country’s technological progress because they reflect the creation and dissemination of knowledge in productive activities. Today China is on the technological cutting edge in wind power, solar power, online payments, digital currencies, artificial intelligence (such as facial recognition), quantum computing, satellites and space exploration, 5G and 6G, drones, and ultra-high voltage power transmission. In 2019, China ended the US reign as the leading filer of international patents, a position previously held by the US every year since the UN World Intellectual Property Organization’s Patent Cooperation Treaty System began in 1978.

    The failure of the US rulers to thwart China’s scientific and technological advances threatens the preeminence the US holds on technological innovation. Rents from the US corner on intellectual property is a major contributor to the US economy. The drastic measures the US has taken against Huawei exemplify the anxiety of the empire’s rulers.

    US technological superiority is now being challenged. Yet, as John Ross points out, “Even using PPP measures, the US possesses overall technological superiority compared to China…. the level of productivity of the US economy is more than three times that of China.”1

    The US Still Controls the Global Financial Network

    While the world share of US manufacturing and exports has shrunk, the US overlords still reign over the world financial order. A pillar of their world primacy lies in the dollar as the world’s “reserve currency,” an innocuous term referring to US sway over the global financial and trade structure, including international banking networks, such as the World Bank and the IMF.

    Following the 1971 end of the dollar’s $35 an ounce peg to gold, Nixon engineered deals with the Middle East oil exporting regimes, guaranteeing them military support on condition they sell their oil exclusively in dollars. This gave a compelling new reason for foreign governments and banks to hold dollars. The US could now flood international markets with dollars regardless of the amount of gold it held. Today, most of the world’s currencies remain pegged directly or indirectly to the dollar.

    To facilitate growing international trade, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) was created in 1973. SWIFT is a payment and transaction network used by international banks to monitor and process purchases and payments by individuals, companies, banks, and governments. Dominated by the US, it grants the country even greater mastery over world trade and financial markets. Here, China poses no challenge to US supremacy.

    After the euro became established, the percent of world reserves held in US dollars diminished from the 71% share it held in 2001. Since 2003, the dollar has kept the principal share, fluctuating in the 60-65% range. Today, the percent of world nations’ currency reserves held in US dollars amounts to $7 trillion, 59.5% of international currency reserves.

    In 2021 the dollar’s share of total foreign currency reserves is actually greater than in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Because only a few reserve currencies are accepted in international trade, countries are not free to trade their goods in their own money. Rather, over 90% of nations’ imports and exports requires use of the dollar, the euro, or the currencies of other imperial states. The Chinese RMB, in contrast, constitutes merely 2.4% of international reserves, ranking China on the level of Canada. The US continues as the superpower in world currency reserves, while China is a marginal player.

    The US Dollar as the World Reserve Currency

    The US maintains preeminence because banks, governments and working peoples around the world regards US dollar as the safest, most reliable, and accepted currency to hold their savings.

    A capitalist economic crisis, even when caused by the US itself, as in 2008, actually increases demand for the dollar, since the dollar is still viewed as the safe haven. People expect the dollar to be the currency most likely to retain its value in periods of uncertainty. Ironically, an economic crisis precipitated by the US results in money flooding into dollar assets, keeping world demand for dollars high. The 2008-09 crisis enabled the ruling class to advance their domination over working people, fleecing us of hundreds of billions of dollars.

    SWIFT data show that China’s RMB plays a minor role in world trade transactions.  While China has become the world exporter, its currency was used in merely 1.9% of  international payments, versus 38% for the US dollar, with 77% of transactions in the dollar or euro. This means almost all China’s own imports and exports are not traded in Chinese currency, but in that of the US and its subordinates.

    Being the leading force in SWIFT gives the US a powerful weapon. The US rulers can target countries it seeks to overthrow (such as Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Iran) with sanctions declared illegal by the United Nations. SWIFT enables the US rulers to prevent those countries’ access to their overseas bank accounts, blocks their access to international trade as well as loans from the World Bank, the IMF and most international banks. The US uses its authority in the World Trade Organization to prevent countries like Venezuela from demanding the WTO punish the US for disrupting Venezuela’s legitimate trade by means of these sanctions.

    Arguments that China and Russia are abandoning the dollar point out that, while in 2015 approximately 90% of trade between the two countries was conducted in dollars, by spring 2020 the figure had dropped to 46%, with 24% of the trade in their own currencies. This shows some increasing independence, yet almost twice as much China-Russia trade still takes place in the dollar rather than in their own money. Further, their moves from the dollar have been in reaction to US imposed sanctions and tariffs, forcing them off the dollar, not from their own choice to cast aside the dollar as the international currency.

    If China and Russia had the means to create a new world economic order they could withdraw their over $1.1 trillion and $123 billion invested in US Treasury bonds and use the funds to start their own international financial structure.

    That China pegs the RMB to the dollar, rather than the dollar pegged to the RMB, also indicates the economic power relations between China and the US. China has expressed unease about the US potential to cut China off from the SWIFT network. Zhou Li, a spokesperson for China’s Communist Party, urged his party’s leaders to prepare for decoupling from the dollar, because the US dollar “has us by the throat… By taking advantage of the dollar’s global monopoly position in the financial sector, the US will pose an increasingly severe threat to China’s further development.”

    While China has displaced the US as the primary productive workhouse of the world, it remains far from displacing the US as the world financial center. The size of China’s economy has not translated into a matching economic power.

    Part 2: Military and Ideological Forms of Domination

    The US regards as its Manifest Destiny to rule the world. The US bosses equate their national security interests with global security interests; no place or issue is insignificant. The US sees its role as defending the world capitalist order even if narrow US interests are not immediately and practically involved.

    The Question of a US Military Decline

    The second central element of the waning US empire argument is based on the US armed forces failures in the Middle East wars. However, they overlook that the US rulers suffered more stinging defeats in Korea 70 years ago and Vietnam 50 years ago, when the US was considered at the height of its supremacy. While over 7000 US soldiers and 8000 “contractors,” a code word for mercenaries, have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is much smaller than the 41,300 troops killed in Korea, or the 58,000 in Vietnam. Although in wars against Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, the US ruling class could not achieve its aims, these peoples’ anti-imperial struggles were derailed, a US key objective. To the extent the peoples of these countries “won,” they inherited a country in ruins.

    Likewise, the rising British empire suffered defeats at the hands of the US in 1783 and 1814, but this had little impact on 19th century British global ascendancy.

    Save Iraq in 1991, the US has not won a war since World War II. Yet even in its heyday, the US military did not take on and defeat another major power without considerable outside aid. Spain was mostly defeated in Cuba and the Philippines before the US attacked. The US entered World War I after the other fighting forces were reaching exhaustion. In World War II, the Soviet Red Army broke the back of the German Wehrmacht, not the US. Only against Japan did the US military play a key role in crushing an imperial rival, though even here, the bulk of Japanese troops were tied down fighting the Chinese.

    While today, the US military is reluctant about engaging in a full-scale land war, this has been mostly the case for the whole 20th century before any alleged imperial deterioration. Previously, the US rulers proved adept at not entering a war until it could emerge on top once the wars ended.

    The “Vietnam syndrome,” code word for the US people’s opposition to fighting wars to defend the corporate world order, continues to haunt and impede the US rulers when they consider new military aggressions. This “syndrome,” which Bush Sr boasted had been overcome, has only deepened as result of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles. Yet the corporate class took advantage of these wars to loot trillions from public funds, with working people to pay the bill.

    The US is spending over a trillion dollars to “upgrade” a nuclear capacity which could wipe out life on the planet.  Even if US military capacity were diminishing in some areas, this is immaterial so long as the US still can, with a push of the button, annihilate all it considers opponents, even if this means a likely mutually assured destruction. The US also possesses similarly dangerous arsenals of biological and chemical weapons. It is not rational to think the US rulers spend mind-boggling sums of money on this weaponry but will not use them again when considered necessary to preserve their supremacy.

    The US empire’s military dominion remains firmly in place around the world. Peoples’ struggles to close US military bases have met with little success. US ruling class de facto military occupations overseas continue through its over 800 bases in over 160 countries. These constitute 95% of the world’s total foreign military bases.

    To date, if there has been any lessening of US military destructive capacity, no new armed forces or uprisings have dared to take advantage of this. If some national force considered it possible to break out of the US world jailhouse, we would be seeing that.

    Hybrid Warfare: US Regime-Change Tools Besides Military Intervention

    Military victory is not necessary for the US rulers to keep “insubordinate” countries in line. It suffices for the US to leave in ruins their attempts to build political and economic systems that prioritize national sovereignty over US dictates.

    When incapable of overturning a potential “threat of a good example” through military invasion, the US may engineer palace coups. Since 2000, it has succeeded in engineering coups in Honduras, Bolivia, Georgia, and Haiti, to name a few.

    Alternatives to fomenting a military coup include the US conducting lawfare to overturn governments, as seen in Paraguay and Brazil. The US ruling class also skillfully co-opts “color revolutions,” as seen in the Arab Spring and in the implosion of the Soviet bloc. Worldwide, the US regularly violates the sovereignty of nations through its regime-change agencies such as the CIA, USAID, and NED.

    Besides invasions, coups, lawfare, election interference, and color revolutions, the US relies on its command over the global financial system and the subservience of other imperialist nations. This enables the US overlords to impose crippling sanctions and blockades on countries that assert their national sovereignty. The blockades on Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Syria constitute a boot on their neck, which have only become more severe the more these peoples valiantly defend their independence.

    Condemnation of these blockades by working people and nations worldwide has yet to have material effect in constraining this imperial cruelty against whole peoples. Rather than a decline of the US empire’s ability to thwart another country’s right to determine their own future, there have been changes in method, from overtly militaristic to more covert hybrid warfare. Both are brutal and effective means of regime change.

    US-First World Ideological Hegemony

    The corporate leaders of the West wield world dominion over the international media, including news services, social media, and advertising. Their Coke and Disney characters, for instance, have penetrated even the remotest corners of the world. Today most of the world’s viewers of the news are fed a version of the news through media stage-managed by the US and its subordinate allies. In addition, there are almost 4 billion social media users in the world, with six social media companies having more than one billion users. China owns just one of these. Only the US and its subordinates have world reach in their control of news and social media, while China does not.

    Ramon Labanino, one of the Cuban 5, illustrated how the US rulers use their media to foment the July 12 regime change operation in Cuba:

    We are in the presence of an international media dictatorship, the big media are in the hands of imperialism and now the social networks and the alternative media also use them in a masterful way. They have the capacity, through data engineering, bots, to replicate a tweet millions of times, which is what they have done against Cuba. A ruthless attack on social networks and in the media to show a Cuba that is not real. On the other hand, we have an invasion in our networks to disarticulate our computer systems so that even we cannot respond to the lies. The interesting thing is the double purpose, not only that they attack us, but then we cannot defend ourselves because the media belong to them… Within the CIA, for example, they have a special operations group that is in charge of cyber attacks of this type and there is a group called the Political Action Group that organizes, structures and directs this type of attack.

    Worldwide use of media disinformation and news spin plays a central role in preserving US primacy and acceptance of its propaganda. As Covert Action Magazine reported:

    United States warmakers have become so skilled at propaganda that not only can they wage a war of aggression without arousing protest; they can also compel liberals to denounce peace activists using language reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Take the case of Syria. The people and groups one would normally count on to oppose wars have been the ones largely defending it. They have also often been the ones to label war opponents as “Assad apologists” or “genocide deniers”—causing them to be blacklisted.

    The ruling class media’s effective massaging of what is called “news” has penetrated and disoriented many anti-war forces. This illustrates the appalling collapse of a world anti-war opposition that almost 20 years ago had been called “the new superpower,” not some decline of the US as world cop. Corporate media operations play a role comparable to military might in perpetuating US global control.

    Part 3: The Threat US Rulers Perceive in China

    Secretary of State Blinken spelled it out:

    China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system, all the rules, values and relationships that make the world work the way we want it to, because it ultimately serves the interests and reflects the values of the American people.

    China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin responded to Washington’s view that the international system operates primarily to advance US corporate interests:

    The ‘rules-based order’ claimed by the US…refers to rules set by the US alone, then it cannot be called international rules, but rather ‘hegemonic rules,’ which will only be rejected by the whole world.

    Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently said:

    The United States has declared limiting the advance of technology in Russia and China as its goal…They are promoting their ideology-driven agenda aimed at preserving their dominance by holding back progress in other countries.

    The Challenge China Presents to US Rulers Differs from that of the Soviet Union

    China’s development poses a threat to imperialist hegemony different from the former Soviet bloc. China competes in the world markets run by the Western nations, slowly supplanting their control. China’s economic performance, 70 years after its revolution, has been unprecedented in world history, even compared to the First World countries. In contrast, the Soviet economy after 70 years was faltering.

    China does not provide the economic and military protection for nations striving to build a new society the way the Soviet Union had. The importance of the Communist bloc as a force constraining the US was immense and is underappreciated. The Communist bloc generally allied itself with anti-imperialist forces, encouraging Third World national liberation struggles as well as the Non-Aligned Movement. The Communist bloc’s exemplary social programs also prompted the rise of social-democratic welfare state regimes (e.g., Sweden) in the capitalist West to circumvent possible socialist revolution.

    Now, with no Soviet Union and its allies to extend international solidarity assistance to oppressed peoples and nations, countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are much more on their own to defend themselves against US military maneuvers and blockades.

    As John Ross points out, China is capable of slowly supplanting US-First World power over a long period of time, but in no position to replace these imperial states as world hegemon, nor does it desire to do so. US products are being driven out by China’s cheaper high-quality products and China’s more equitable “win-win” business arrangements with other countries, offering the opportunity for Third World countries to develop. However, China cannot displace the US in the world financial system, where the US and its allies retain overwhelming control.

    The US has proven incapable of impeding China from becoming an independent world force. No matter the tariffs and sanctions placed on China, they have had little impact. Yet, the US has caused China to digress from its socialist planned economy, through US corporations and consumerist values penetrating the Chinese system.

    Part 4:  The World if the US were in Decline

    Revolutions on the International Stage

    A weakened US imperialism would encourage peoples and nations to “seize the time” and score significant gains against this overlord’s hold on their countries. Yet since shortly after 1975, with the victories in Vietnam and Laos, a drought in socialist revolutions has persisted for almost half a century. If the US empire were in decline, we would find it handicapped in countering victorious socialist revolutions. However, the opposite has been the case, with the US rulers consolidating their hegemony over the world.

    This contrasts with the 40-year period between 1917 and 1959, when socialist revolutions occurred in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, eleven countries across eastern Europe, and Cuba. These took place in the era of US rise, not decline. During this period, the US empire had to confront even greater challenges to its dictates than presented by today’s China and Russia in the form of the world Communist bloc, associated parties in capitalist countries, and the national liberation movements.

    During the period of alleged US imperial demise, it has been socialist revolution that experienced catastrophic defeats. In the last 30 years, the struggle for socialist revolution has gone sharply in reverse, with the US and its subordinates not only blocking successful revolutions but overturning socialism in most of the former Communist sphere. The last three decades has witnessed greater consolidation of imperial supremacy over the world, not a deterioration.

    The socialist revolutions that continue − North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba − have all had to backtrack and reintroduce private enterprise and capitalist relations of production.  North Korea has allowed the growth of private markets; Cuba relies heavily on the Western tourist market. They have this forced upon them to survive more effectively in the present world neoliberal climate.

    A victorious socialist revolution, even a much more limited anti-neoliberal revolution2 , requires a nation to stand up to the imperial vengeance that enforces neo-colonial subjugation. Small countries, such as Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela, have established political and some economic independence, but they have been unable to significantly advance against crushing blockades and US-backed coups in order to create developed economies. Historically, the only countries that have effectively broken with dependency and developed independently based on their own resources have been the Soviet Union and China.

    Raul Castro made clear this world primacy of the US neoliberal empire:

    In many cases, governments [including the subsidiary imperial ones] do not even have the capacity to enforce their sovereign prerogatives over the actions of national entities based in their own territories, as these are often docilely subordinated to Washington, as if we were living in a world subjugated by the unipolar power of the United States. This is a phenomenon that is expressed with particular impact in the financial sector, with national banks of several countries giving a US administration’s stipulations priority over the political decisions of their own governments.

    A test of the US overlords’ decline can be measured in the struggle against US economic warfare in the form of sanctions. To date, the US can arm twist most countries besides China and Russia into abiding by its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. The US rulers still possess the power and self-assurance to ignore United Nations resolutions against economic warfare, including the UN General Assembly’s annual condemnation of the US blockade on Cuba. The peoples and nations of the world cannot make the US rulers pay a price for this warfare.

    Domestic Struggles by the Working Class and its Allies that Shake the System

    If the US empire were weakened, our working class could be winning strikes and union organizing drives against a capitalist class on the defensive. But the working class remains either quiescent, its struggles derailed, or most strikes settled by limiting the degree of boss takebacks. The 1997 UPS and 2016 Verizon strike were two that heralded important gains for workers. So far, however, the weakening class at home is not the corporate bosses, but the working class and its allies.

    The workers movement has not even succeeded in gaining a national $15 minimum wage. The US rulers can spend over $900 billion a year on its war machine even during a pandemic that has killed almost 700,000, amid deteriorating standard of living  − no national health care, no quality free education, no raising of the minimum wage − without angry mass protests. This money could be spent on actual national security at home: housing for the homeless, eliminating poverty, countering global warming, jobs programs, and effectively handling the pandemic as China has (with only two deaths since May 2020). Instead, just in the Pentagon budget, nearly a trillion dollars a year of our money is a welfare handout to corporations to maintain their rule over the world. This overwhelming imperial reign over our workers’ movement signifies a degeneration in our working class organizations, not in the corporate overlords.

    A weakened empire would provide opportunities for working class victories, re-allocating national wealth in their favor. Instead, we live in a new Gilded Age, with growing impoverishment of our class as the corporate heads keep grabbing greater shares of our national wealth. Americans for Tax Fairness points out:

    America’s 719 billionaires held over four times more wealth ($4.56 trillion) than all the roughly 165 million Americans in society’s bottom half ($1.01 trillion), according to Federal Reserve Board data. In 1990, the situation was reversed — billionaires were worth $240 billion and the bottom 50% had $380 billion in collective wealth.

    US billionaire wealth increased 19-fold over the last 31 years, with the combined wealth of 713 billionaires surging by $1.8 trillion during the pandemic, one-third of their wealth gains since 1990.

    This scandalous appropriation of working people’s wealth by less than one thousand bosses at the top without causing mass indignation and working class fightback, encapsules the present power relations between the two contending classes.

    With a weakened empire, we would expect a rise of a militant mass current in the trade unions and the working class committed to the struggle to reverse this trend. Instead, trade unions support corporate governance and their political candidates for office, not even making noise about a labor party.

    With a weakened empire, we would expect the US working people to be turning away from the two corporate parties and building our own labor party as an alternative. In 2016 the US electorate backed two “outsiders,” Bernie Sanders and Trump, in the primaries against the traditional Democratic and Republican candidates, but this movement was co-opted with little difficulty. That the two corporate-owned parties still wield the power to co-opt, if not extinguish, our working class movements, as with the mass anti-Iraq war movement, the Occupy movement, the Madison trade union protests, the pro-Bernie groundswells in 2016 and 2020, shows the empire’s continued vitality, not deterioration.

    In 2020 most all liberals and lefts capitulated to the Democrats’ anti-Trumpism, under the guise of “fighting fascism.” The “resistance” became the “assistance.” The promising Black Lives Matter movement of summer 2020 became largely absorbed into the Biden campaign a few months later. If the corporate empire were declining, progressive forces and leftist groups would not have bowed to neoliberal politicians and the national security state by climbing on the elect-Biden bandwagon. The 2020 election brought out the highest percent of voters in over a century to vote for one or the other of two neoliberal politicians. This stunning victory for the US ruling class resulted from a stunning surrender by progressive forces. To speak of declining corporate US supremacy in this context is nonsense.

    Likely Indicators of a Demise of US Supremacy

    For all our political lives we have been reading reports of the impending decline of US global supremacy. If just a fraction of these reports were accurate, then surely the presidential executive orders that Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, and Cuba are “unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security of the United States” would have some basis in reality.

    If US corporate dominion were declining, we might see:

    • The long called for democratization of the United Nations and other international bodies with one nation, one vote
    • Social democratic welfare governments would again be supplanting neoliberal regimes
    • Replacement of World Bank, WTO, and IMF with international financial institutions independent of US control
    • Curtailing NATO and other imperialist military alliances
    • End of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency
    • Dismantling of US overseas military bases
    • Emergence of regional blocs independent of the US, replacing the current vassal organizations (e.g., European Union, OAS, Arab League, Organization of African Unity)
    • Nuclear disarmament rather than nuclear escalation
    • Working peoples of the world enforcing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
    • A decline of the allure of US controlled world media culture (e.g., Disney, Hollywood)

    Part 5: Conclusion:  US Decline looks like a Mirage

    Proponents of US decline point to two key indicators: its diminished role in global production and ineffectiveness of the US ruler’s military as world cop. Yet, the US rulers, with the aid of those in the European Union and Japan, maintain world financial control and continue to keep both our country and the world under lock and key.

    The US overlords represent the spokesperson and enforcer of the First World imperial system of looting, while compelling subservience from the other imperial nations. None dare pose as potential imperial rivals to the US, nor challenge it in any substantial manner.

    It is misleading to compare China’s rise to the US alone, since the US represents a bloc of imperial states. To supplant US economic preeminence, China would have to supplant the economic power of this entire bloc. These countries still generate most world production with little prospect this will change. A China-Russia alliance scarcely equals this US controlled First World club.

    To date, each capitalist crisis has only reinforced the US rulers’ dominion as the world financial hub. Just the first half of this year, world investors have poured $900 billion into the safe haven US assets, more than they put into funds in the rest of the world combined. So long as the US capitalists can export their economic downturns to other countries and onto the backs of its own working people, so long as the world turns to the US dollar as the safe haven, decline of US ruling class preeminence is not on the table.

    The last period of imperial weakening occurred from the time of US defeat in Vietnam up to the reimposition of imperial diktat under Reagan and his sidekick, Margaret Thatcher. During this time, working peoples’ victories were achieved across the international stage: Afghanistan, Iran, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, and Grenada; Cuban military solidarity in Angola, Vietnam’s equivalent in Cambodia; revolution in Portugal and in its African colonies, in Zimbabwe, and seeming imminent victories in El Salvador and Guatemala. At home, a rising class struggle current arose in the working class, as in the Sadlowski Steelworkers Fight Back movement and the militant 110-day coal miners strike, which forced President Carter to back down. This worldwide upsurge against corporate rule ended about 40 years ago, as yet unmatched by new ones.

    Proclamations of a waning US empire portray a wishful thinking bordering on empty bravado. Moreover, a crumbling empire will not lead to its final exit without a massive working peoples’ movement at home to overthrow it. Glen Ford observed that capitalism has lost its legitimacy, especially among the young: “But that doesn’t by itself bring down a system. It is simply a sign that people are not happy. Mass unhappiness may bring down an administration. But it doesn’t necessarily change a system one bit.”

    Capitalism is wracked by crisis – inherent to the system, Marx explained. Yet, as the catastrophe of World War I and its aftermath showed, as the Great Depression showed, as Europe in chaos after World War II showed, capitalist crises are no harbinger of its collapse. The question is not how severe the crisis, but which class, capitalist or working class, takes advantage of it to advance their own interests.

    A ruling class crisis allows us to seize the opportunity if our forces are willing to fight, are organized, and are well-led. As Lenin emphasized, “The proletariat has no other weapon in the fight for power except organization.” In regards to organization, we are unprepared. Contributing to our lack of effective anti-imperialist organization is our profound disbelief that a serious challenge at home to US ruling class control is even possible.

    Whatever the indications of US deterioration as world superpower, recall that the Roman empire’s decay began around 177 AD. But it did not collapse in the West until 300 years later, in 476, and the eastern half did not collapse for 1000 years after that. Informing a Roman slave or plebe in 200 AD that the boot on their necks was faltering would fall on deaf ears. We are now in a similar situation. The empire will never collapse by itself, even with the engulfing climate catastrophe. Wishful thinking presents a dysfunctional substitute for actual organizing, for preparing people to seize the time when the opening arises.

    1. John Ross, “China and South-South Cooperation in the present global situation,” in China’s Great Road, p. 203.
    2. There is a continuous class struggle between popular forces demanding increased government resources and programs to serve their needs, against corporate power seeking to privatize in corporate hands all such government spending and authority. This unchecked corporate centralization of wealth and power is euphemistically called “neoliberalism.”  An anti-neoliberal revolution places popular forces in political control while economic power remains in the hands of the capitalist class.
    The post Is the US Global Empire Actually in Decline? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • People are seen watching television footage of a missile launch

    While North Korea’s recent missile tests should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the country’s ongoing conflict with the United States and South Korea, they show that North Korea is continuing to develop more powerful weapons.

    In fact, this latest development was entirely predictable because the Biden administration has taken at least two concrete actions that actively fuel tensions on the Korean Peninsula: continuing joint military exercises with South Korea and lifting the cap on South Koreas missile development.

    To recap the recent history that got us here, former U.S. President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018-2019. At the Singapore summit in 2018, they agreed to establish new relations, build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and work toward the complete denuclearization of the peninsula, but the talks broke down the following year. Trump continued with a policy of maximum pressure on North Korea — layering on sanctions and conducting joint military exercises with South Korea.

    In this year’s annual New Year address, Kim Jong Un said his country will no longer engage in talks with the U.S. unless Washington drops its “hostile policy.” And he directed his country to develop more and better missiles.

    Thus far, the Biden administration has done nothing to change course from Trump’s policy of maximum pressure on North Korea. While Biden’s attention to other priorities, such as the pandemic and Afghanistan, is understandable, continuing to ignore North Korea is turning the Korean Peninsula into a powder keg.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Here’s what the Biden administration can do to end the dangerous arms race on the Korean Peninsula.

    Stop the Military Exercises

    The United States keeps around 28,500 soldiers in South Korea. This is a legacy of the Korean War, which was halted nearly 70 years ago with an armistice — not a peace treaty — leaving the peninsula in a perpetual state of war.

    South Korea and the United States stage joint military exercises several times per year. The U.S. and South Korea call the exercises “defensive and routine,” but history has shown that these exercises don’t actually deter North Korea. In fact, they do the opposite — they provoke North Korea to carry out its own military exercises or weapons tests.

    It’s also important to note that they are based on operation plans that include preemptive strikes, deposition of the North Korean leadership, precision strikes that take out their key installations and counterinsurgency operations — basically a plan for regime collapse and occupation.

    Due to their provocative nature, these exercises have been the main obstacle to efforts for peace-building and reconciliation between the two Koreas. For example, in July, North and South Korea re-established their inter-Korean hotline — a sign of hope amid stalemated talks among all sides. But that hope was quickly dashed as it was followed immediately by nine days of joint military exercises held by the U.S. and South Korea in August.

    Stop Fueling an Arms Race in Korea

    Since the end of the Korean War, the U.S. and South Korea have had an arrangement of extended nuclear deterrence. In other words, South Korea agreed to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for protection under the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella. Hence, South Korea has not developed its own nuclear capability — although there are reactionary voices in South Korea that have long advocated that the country do so.

    At their summit in May of this year, President Biden and South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed to terminate an agreement between their countries that had previously capped the range of South Korea’s ballistic missiles to 800 kilometers (roughly 500 miles). South Korea is now able to build ballistic missiles with larger payloads and longer ranges.

    Not surprisingly, North Korea reacted angrily to the removal of the missile restrictions and accused the U.S. of applying a double standard — because while the U.S. is trying to stop North Korea from developing ballistic missiles, it is encouraging South Korea to do so.

    Earlier this month, South Korea tested its first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a delivery system for nuclear weapons. South Korea is the only country without nuclear weapons that has developed an SLBM.

    Could this mean that South Korea is headed toward developing nuclear weapons? If so, both sides will be nuclear — an obviously dangerous situation for the peninsula, as well as for the entire region.

    Don’t Exacerbate the Situation

    Pyongyang has been consistent in its message to Washington. In all its past agreements with the U.S., in Kim Jong Un’s New Year addresses every year, and through its official public statements, Pyongyang has called for an end to the U.S.’s “hostile policy.” Yet Washington often shrugs and says, “We don’t understand.”

    Perhaps it’s time to review our actions toward North Korea to assess what might possibly be perceived as hostile. Perhaps it’s the Pentagon’s war plans that envision regime collapse and occupation. Or perhaps it’s the sanctions that have cut off the country’s ability to trade with the rest of the world.

    It is disingenuous for Washington to say it is willing to talk with the North Koreans but doesn’t understand what they want. It’s clear what they want. The question is: Does the U.S. have the political will to end this forever conflict? At 71 years, the Korean War is, in fact, the longest ongoing U.S. overseas conflict.

    Unfortunately, U.S. weapons contractors stand to gain much by keeping this conflict going. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, for example, are among the top 10 purchasers of arms from the U.S. But their profit is at the detriment of millions of people in the region and now our own national security in the U.S.

    Negotiate a Peace Agreement to End the Korean War

    As long as the Korean War remains unresolved, the Korean Peninsula will be mired in a perpetual arms race.

    According to North Korean state media, its latest cruise missile flew over 900 miles, changed trajectories along the way and made circles before hitting their targets. The test was not reported by the U.S. or South Korea before North Korea’s state media announcement — making one question whether they were able to detect the missile test when it occurred. If not, it shows increasing sophistication in North Korea’s missile technology.

    This tit-for-tat weapons buildup is costly for all parties — mainly the people of North Korea and the taxpayers of South Korea and the U.S. It is also dangerous. The Korean Peninsula is heavily armed on both sides and still in a temporary ceasefire. U.S. military generals have warned about the danger of miscalculations and accidental skirmishes leading to a catastrophic war there.

    This is why Korean Americans and peace groups across the U.S. have come together to press for a peace agreement to officially end the Korean War.

    The North and South Korean leaders agreed to pursue a peace agreement in their Panmunjom Declaration in 2018. They agreed to pursue talks with the U.S. and possibly China to end the Korean War. (The U.S. was a key party to the Korean War, as well as a signatory to the armistice, and still holds wartime operational control over the joint forces in South Korea, so it needs to be involved in any discussion about ending the war.) China has already expressed support for the idea of a peace agreement. The key missing party is the U.S.

    A bipartisan bill in Congress — the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act (H.R.3446) — calls on the Biden administration to “pursue serious, urgent diplomatic engagement with North Korea and South Korea in pursuit of a binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.”

    President Biden’s theme is to “Build back better.” The best thing he can do to reduce the threat of nuclear war with North Korea and build back better on the Korean Peninsula is to end the Korean War with a peace agreement.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) announced on 16 September that the country will indigenously develop and operate a new Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) from Naro Space Center in Goheung County from 2024. The facility, which is located around 485 km from Seoul, is operated by the state-run Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI). The […]

    The post South Korea pushes indigenous military space development appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The Republic of Korea Navy (RoKN) has successfully conducted underwater ejection tests of an indigenously developed submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from its newly commissioned KSS-III diesel-electric submarine, according to local reports. The authoritative Yonhap News Agency reported on 7 September that the SLBM tests were carried out on the previous week by the Agency for […]

    The post South Korea conducts underwater ballistic missile ejection test from KSS-III submarine appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • South Korea is in advanced stages of developing a large surface-to-surface missile (SSM) with a 3,000 kg-class warhead and a range of between 350 and 400 km, Yonhap News reported on 2 September citing local sources. The unnamed SSM, which is said to be “as powerful as a tactical nuclear weapon” is in the final […]

    The post South Korea eyes improved ballistic missile capabilities appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The development of unmanned aerial vehicles is growing apace, especially in China. New longer range ISR platforms are also on the procurement list of several nations. Regional military forces continue to develop and field unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as part of ongoing modernisation efforts, with an eye on applications – such as border/maritime patrol and […]

    The post Indo Pacific UAV Directory 2021 appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Quod deus vult perdere prius dementat. (Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad).

    One of the more enduring mysteries of Australian foreign policy is its continued adherence to the American way of war. One has only to look at the history of the post-World War II period to be presented with a host of examples of where Australia has followed the United States into one war after another where a compelling Australian national interest is impossible to identify.

    This history of adherence began in Korea in the war that raged in that country between 1950 and 1953. It will be recalled that for years following World War II both the North and the South of Korea waged a guerrilla campaign against each other. The war commenced when the North invaded the South and made major moves on the Southern capital of Seoul and were on the verge of capturing it.

    The United States, already alarmed at the Communists taking over China the previous year, reacted to the North’s invasion of the South.  Taking advantage of the temporary non-presence of the Russians in the Security Council, and with China’s seat still held by the defeated Nationalists (a disgrace that lasted a further 22 years) the United States pushed through a resolution in the Security Council authorising military intervention.

    Australia was one of the countries that willingly joined this ostensible United Nations action to restore the status quo in Korea. An expeditionary force was rapidly gathered and succeeded in expelling the North from the South of Korea. The United States commander Douglas MacArthur was not content with restoring the status quo. He invaded the North and moved all the way to the Chinese border. We now know that his intention was to invade China and endeavour to restore the Nationalist government. That, of course, was never mentioned at the time.

    The United States presence on their border brought the Chinese into the war and they rapidly succeeded in pushing the United States and its allies, including Australia, back south of the border. Stalemate then ensued for the next two years until an uneasy peace deal was reached. This has never been ratified and the North and South of Korea are still technically at war.

    Australia’s next involvement in United States aggression was to take part in the war on Vietnam which was precipitated by the South of the country refusing to allow a national election that would undoubtedly have been won by the North’s Ho Chi Minh.

    Australia’s involvement in that fiasco lasted more than a decade before the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972 saw that government withdrawing Australian troops. That action earned the animosity of the Americans, who together with their agent, the Governor General John Kerr,worked tirelessly for the defeat of the Whitlam government which they achieved in November 1975. Since that time no Labor government has dared to cross the United States. Australia’s foreign policy is an unbroken chain of adherence to United States aggression ever since.

    This manifested itself in 2001 when Australia joined the attack on Afghanistan. That commitment ended only two weeks ago when Australian troops were unilaterally and suddenly withdrawn from Afghanistan. The fate of the hundreds of Afghanis who worked with Australian troops during that 20 years is still undecided. They appear to have been abandoned, although public pressure may force a change of heart by the government.

    One of the least mentioned features of that conflict was that the Labor Party, although opposing the initial engagement, did nothing to withdraw Australian troops during the six years they were in government during that 20 year involvement.

    Similarly, Australia was among the first of the western nations to join the entirely illegal invasion of Iraq. Again, the Labor Party retained that commitment when they were in power, although they initially opposed it. The Australian troops still occupy that country despite a unanimous resolution of the Iraqi parliament demanding that they leave. The Australian government does not bother to justify its position to the Australian parliament and in that they are unchallenged by the Labor opposition. That commitment is also rapidly approaching the 20th anniversary.

    Australia’s most recent show of support for United States aggression has been to join the so-called “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea. It is in Australia’s willingness to join in blatantly anti China exercises that the gap between self-interest and adherence to United States aggression is most marked. China is Australia’s largest trading partner by a considerable margin, although the future of that relationship is now seriously in doubt. There can be no clearer example of a country pursuing a foreign policy that is manifestly at odds with its national interest than the Australian government conflict vis-à-vis China.

    The United States alliance goes beyond joining a succession of wars of minimal national interest to Australia. The United States has a number of military bases in Australia, of which arguably the most important is the electronic spying facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. This base had also been targeted by the Whitlam Labor government. It is absolutely no coincidence that the sacking of the Whitlam government by the attorney general John Kerr occurred the day before Whitlam was to announce to the Australian parliament his government’s intention of closing the Pine Gap facility.

    That also is a policy that has been abandoned by the Labor opposition. Their foreign policy is not indistinguishable from that of the Liberal government. The fate of the Whitlam government, the last to demonstrate even an inkling of foreign policy independence, is a lesson has been well absorbed by the president Labor leadership.

    Even the ignominious United States withdrawal from Afghanistan has been insufficient to encourage even a modicum of rethinking Australia’s foreign defence stances. It can only be a matter of time before Australia follows the United States into yet another war of aggression somewhere in the world. There is no reason to believe that the eventual outcome of that conflict will differ in any way from the experience of the past 70 years: vast expense, huge loss of human life and eventual humiliating retreat.

    China may eventually demonstrate to the Australians that there is a price to pay for this endless adherence to the violence of a fading empire. It is a price that Australia will not bear lightly.

    The post In Foreign Policy Australia Proves to be a Slow Learner first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Activists, including several Korean-Americans, rally against possible U.S. military action and sanctions against North Korea, across the street from the United Nations headquarters on August 14, 2017, in New York City.

    Noam Chomsky recently argued that the Biden administration’s foreign policy remains committed to maintaining U.S. global hegemony through sanctions and nuclear weapons. Nowhere else in the world is this more evident than in the Korean Peninsula, where the U.S. is pressuring its “ally” South Korea into the front lines of a long-simmering confrontation with China, and where a nuclear standoff between the U.S. and an increasingly isolated North Korea remains a real possibility.

    On the early morning of May 13, residents of the central farm town of Seongju, South Korea, joined in protest against the deployment of the latest battery of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in their backyard. Chained together to form a human barrier, they physically blocked the road to the nearby U.S. base. Two thousand South Korean police forcibly dispersed them — the second time in a month they had clashed with residents protesting the missile system — injuring dozens, including women and elderly farmers.

    In the wake of the ensuing public relations fiasco, South Korea’s Defense Minister reportedly admitted that the forcible removal of the villagers blocking the base was in response to a request by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III. The South Korean government had hoped that acceding to Austin’s request would help secure President Joe Biden’s support for resuming the inter-Korean peace process.

    The timing of this incident, just a week before South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s planned May 21 visit to Washington for his first summit with Biden, may foreshadow what is to come. Moon believes it is time to take action on North Korea, and is expected to press Biden to engage in diplomacy with Pyongyang. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the stalled denuclearization talks with the North are expected to top the agenda next week, odds of a breakthrough at this point seems slim.

    Biden will likely tout the U.S.-South Korea alliance, which is the cornerstone of U.S. regional containment policy, and whose framework, according to historian Bruce Cumings, is based on two pillars: isolating North Korea from the rest of the world while pressuring South Korea to serve as a forward base for the U.S.’s ongoing East Asian operations. This “alliance” reduces South Korea to the status of an occupied frontline outpost, saddling it with the burgeoning cost of supporting the massive U.S. military presence on its soil, depriving it of the authority to craft independent state policy and subordinating its military to U.S. command in the event of conflict. Framed by the neocolonial subtext that favors maintenance of this one-sided status quo, inter-Korean diplomacy is dismissed as a high-risk endeavor, leaving the two Koreas in a state of perpetual war.

    This containment policy also manufactures and perpetuates the myth of the North Korean threat, a decades-long adjunct of U.S. domestic politics accorded credibility in great part by a relentless propaganda campaign. Like Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, Biden’s priority appears to be to subsume South Korea within global network of strategic U.S. outposts under the mantle of multilateralism, forcing a permanent military occupation on its people in order to further hem in China.

    Biden’s Policy Centers on Containing the “Enemy”

    The first pillar of containment that Cumings describes is clearly evident in Biden’s new North Korea policy, which was announced two weeks ago after a lengthy review. Drafted by top-level officials with ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex, the administration’s plan is being presented as a “calibrated, practical approach to diplomacy with the North with the goal of eliminating the threat to the United States.” Despite minor tactical differences, however, Biden’s policy amounts to little more than a repackaging of the failed approaches of previous U.S. administrations toward Pyongyang. There has been no mention of security guarantees for North Korea, implementing a peace treaty to end the 70-year-old war or reassessing sanctions that primarily target the civilian sector.

    In fact, in spite of North Korea’s unilateral 2018 moratorium suspending nuclear weapons tests, Washington has not only refused to reciprocate, but has added hundreds of more brutal sanctions against the North. A senior U.S. official told the Washington Post that the Biden administration intends to “maintain sanctions pressure” for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, further eroding any realistic prospect for achieving a diplomatic solution, the Strategic Competition Act currently under consideration in Congress recommends maintaining “sustained maximum economic pressure” against North Korea indefinitely. Adding to the chorus of hostility, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the objective of any talks would be “complete denuclearization,” adding that “the diplomatic ball is in [North Korea’s] court.” It goes without saying that the United States does not plan to commit to a reciprocal abandonment of its own nuclear weapons as part of any such negotiations.

    While ratcheting up tensions with the North has done little to enhance prospects for diplomacy, it has enabled an administration heavily influenced by the U.S. military-industrial complex to rationalize an $18 billion defense package to develop a new interceptor program nominally designed to counter North Korean and Iranian missiles.

    U.S. Still Won’t Allow South Korea to Make Its Own Decisions

    The second pillar Cumings describes, the coercion of South Korea to subordinate itself to American national security interests, was brazenly summed up by former president Trump’s declaration that Seoul can do “nothing without our approval.” While the present administration may not trumpet this viewpoint quite as openly, it is clearly evident in Biden’s North Korea policy. Much of the current administration’s foreign policy team consists of Obama-era hardliners, including Secretary of State Blinken, who served as deputy secretary and national security adviser under Obama and has long advocated anti-China policies. It is therefore worthwhile to review the Obama administration’s legacy of pressuring South Korea to implement policies detrimental to North-South amity in furtherance of Washington’s broader anti-China strategy.

    In the aftermath of Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test in 2016, the Obama administration pressured South Korea to close the Kaesong Industrial Complex, where some 120 South Korean manufacturers had employed over 50,000 North Koreans for over a decade. That same year, the administration pressured South Korea into joining the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which mandates that the U.S.’s most hardened East Asian outposts, South Korea and Japan, share defense technology and tactical strategy with the U.S. in support of wartime military operations in the East Asian theater.

    Additionally, South Korea is still subordinated to the OPCON (Operational Control) provisions first instituted by the U.S. during the Korean War. These provisions, which specify “authority to perform functions of command over subordinate forces,” dictate that the South Korean military may operate independently only in peacetime, and is subject to full U.S. control in the event of war. The Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP), a nonprofit and nonpartisan international research and policy organization, notes that “apart from South Korea, only fragile states like Afghanistan and Iraq have entirely put their forces under foreign command in modern times.” While OPCON is nominally scheduled to be returned to the South Korean military next year, the ISDP bluntly states that the notion that “OPCON will be completed [in 2022] is not a given. Several significant roadblocks can impede or completely stop the transfer’s progress in the coming years.”

    In this context, the GSOMIA, lauded by former Secretary of State Mark T. Esper as “an effective tool for the United States, Korea and Japan … in times of war,” represents an additional incremental erosion of South Korean sovereignty. Under this agreement, South Korea is not only obliged to surrender military control to the U.S. in the event of war, but it is also forced to throw in its lot with Japan, with which it is still at odds over acceptance of responsibility for crimes committed by Japanese troops during their brutal 35-year occupation of Korea. For this reason, the majority of South Koreans oppose the GSOMIA as a further detriment to their sovereignty.

    In 2017, the Obama administration forced through the initial installation of the controversial THAAD anti-missile system despite nationwide protests and fierce opposition by local residents, unleashing a five-year war on the small rural community in which the battery was deployed. Biden is widely expected to follow Obama’s footsteps and pressure President Moon Jae-in into the installation of additional THAAD batteries as well as the forward deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles on South Korean soil.

    In March of this year, the Biden administration, following in the footsteps of its predecessors, pressured Seoul into bearing a heavier burden for hosting the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea through a defense cost-sharing deal. In addition to being bound to spending billions every year on U.S. military hardware (South Korea is the 4th largest importer of U.S. weapons), Koreans will have to make excessive contributions to the living costs of the U.S. troops stationed on their soil, covering 92 percent of the $10.7 billion cost of the new U.S. military base in Pyeongtaek, and providing additional rent-free land for the network of U.S. military bases and exclusive military leisure and entertainment facilities throughout South Korea.

    Noting that Washington continues to pressure Seoul into purchasing American weapons and bearing the costs of its garrisons without making any genuine effort to resolve tensions on the Korean Peninsula, former presidential adviser Moon Chung-in stressed the need to free the Korean peninsula from its “geopolitical trap” by ending U.S.-South Korea alliance in its present form.

    It’s Time to End the Containment Policy

    To sum up, the basic framework of the U.S.’s foreign policy in the Korean Peninsula has remained unchanged throughout successive U.S. administrations. Its goal remains to “contain the North and to restrain the South.” Unless Biden changes this approach, his North Korea policy will be a non-starter. Forcing South Korea to join an anti-China bloc under the framework of the U.S. Indo-Pacific plan will alienate the majority of South Koreans who do not feel a clear and present threat from China, their premier trade partner, and forcing yet another Cold War on a nation that has yet to overcome the legacy of destruction and division left by the last one.

    The alternative is to end the root cause of the decades-long stalemate — the U.S.’s containment policy. According to a recent survey, over 70 percent of Americans support a peace agreement with North Korea, and an even number of South Koreans support lifting sanctions against the North in favor of diplomacy. Meanwhile, 73 percent of South Koreans believe that Biden should restart talks with North Korea.

    In his summit next week with Moon, Biden has an unprecedented opportunity to end decades of hostility, division and occupation. By taking the historic step of supporting inter-Korean engagement and reconciliation and working toward a peace treaty to finally end the 70-year-old Korean War, Biden could help free Koreans from the tragic cycle of division, occupation and hostility that continues to define them as a nation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Western manufacturers are now seeing increasingly successful small arms designs emerging from Asia. The weapon carried by every soldier not only impacts on their effectiveness in combat but also makes a statement becoming a part of the overall identity of a country’s military. The selection of that weapon can also be a matter of national […]

    The post Higher Caliber appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • A transformation of enormous global significance has just begun, and the world will never be the same – digital currencies. The digital yuan is here for good, and more will follow.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.