Canada Opens Arctic To NATO

Plans Massive Weapons Buildup

By Rick Rozoff

(Sunday, August 29, 2010)

Courtesy Of "Media Monitors"

---

"Canada requires an adversary to justify large-scale arms acquisitions. In the past three years it has bought and leased 120 Leopard tanks from Germany and the Netherlands for the war in Afghanistan. It has purchased and used Israeli-made Heron drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) for the same war theater and beyond, one of which crashed near a military base in Alberta last month knocking out power lines."

---

The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently concluded the largest of a series of so-called Canadian sovereignty exercises in the Arctic, Operation Nanook, which ran from August 6-26.

Harper, Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces General Walter Natynczyk visited the nation's 900 troops participating in the "Canadian Forces' largest annual demonstration of Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic" [1] which included "Canada's air force, navy, coast guard...testing their combat capabilities in the frigid cold." [2]

Nanook military exercises were commenced in 2007 when Russia renewed its claims to parts of the Arctic and resumed air patrols in the region after an almost twenty year hiatus. They are complemented by two other Canadian military drills in the region, Operation Nunalivut in the High Arctic and Operation Nunakput in the western Arctic.

Canada is formally involved in territorial disputes with two other Arctic claimants: The United States over the Beaufort Sea lying between Canada's Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and the American state of Alaska, and Denmark over the Hans Island between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Denmark's Greenland possession on the other end of the Arctic.

Four of the five nations with Arctic claims, all except Russia, are founders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization whose charter commits member states to mutual military assistance.

With the melting of the polar ice cap and the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans for the first time in recorded history, the scramble for the Arctic - reported to contain 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of undiscovered oil according to last year's U.S. Geological Survey - is under way in earnest. The military value of the navigability of the passage is of even greater and more pressing significance.

The George W. Bush administration's National Security Presidential Directive 66 of January 12, 2009 states:

“The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.” [3]

The U.S. insists that the Northwest Passage is open to international navigation while Canada claims it as solely its own. Yet Ottawa has accommodated Washington at every turn while persisting in saber-rattling comments and actions alike vis-a-vis Russia.

Sixteen days after the release of the White House's Arctic directive of last year NATO conducted a two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in Iceland attended by the military bloc's secretary general, its two top military commanders and the chairman of its Military Committee, and stated that “Clearly, the High North is a region that is of strategic interest to the Alliance.” [4]

Although Canada's territorial disputes in the Arctic are with fellow NATO members the U.S. and Denmark, the three nations have recently coordinated their strategies and in this year's Operation Nanook have for the first time collectively participated in military exercises in the Arctic region.

In mid-July NATO's chief European military commanders, Admiral James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and General Sir John McColl, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, arrived in the Canadian capital at the invitation of the nation's military chief, General Walter Natynczyk. The three consulted on "how to take the Alliance forward" and Stavridis "conveyed his latest appraisal of NATO's progress in Afghanistan and commended Canada on its contributions to NATO's efforts around the world." [5]

Canadian Defence Minister MacKay stated almost two years ago: “We are concerned about not just Russia’s claims through the international process, but Russia’s testing of Canadian airspace and other indications...(of) some desire to work outside of the international framework. That is obviously why we are taking a range of measures, including military measures, to strengthen our sovereignty in the North.” [6]

A year ago Canada and the U.S. conducted a 42-day joint Arctic expedition to survey the continental shelf for future bilateral demarcation, following a more modest effort along the same lines in 2008 and followed this year by one with U.S. and Canadian ships from August 7 to September 3. The latter was announced two weeks after a Russian research vessel left St. Petersburg on a mission to delimit the borders of Russia's Arctic continental shelf.

The U.S. State Department described the purpose of this year's expedition: "The mission will help delineate the outer limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean for the U.S. and Canada, and will also include the collection of data in the disputed area where the U.S. and Canada have not agreed to a maritime boundary." [7] It is being held in the Canada Basin, the Beaufort Shelf, and the Alpha Mendeleev Ridge. The last, along with the Lomonosov Ridge, is the basis of Russian Arctic claims.

On May 14 Canada and Denmark signed a military agreement, a memorandum of understanding pledging to collaborate more closely in the Arctic "through enhanced consultation, information exchange, visits, and exercises," according to the Canadian Forces. [8] The preceding month Denmark deployed a unit to participate in the Operation Nunalivut exercise in the High Arctic.

The Royal Danish Navy sent the HDMS Vaedderen ocean patrol vessel and the HDMS Knud Rasmussen offshore patrol vessel to join the recently concluded Nanook 10 exercises, where they were joined by the U.S. Second Fleet's naval destroyer USS Porter and the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Alder "for the purpose of exercising and increasing...interoperability with Arctic allies."

As for the Canadian contribution, "The Air Force [provided] air movement and mission support through the CC-177 Globemaster III, CC-130 Hercules, CP-140 Aurora, CH-146 Griffon, and CC-138 Twin Otter aircraft.

"The maritime component [included] Her Majesty's Canadian Ships (HMCS) Montreal, Glace Bay and Goose Bay; and Canadian Coast Guard Ships CCGS Des Groseilliers and CCGS Henry Larsen." [9]

Military personnel involved included "About 900 Canadian troops [who patrolled] parts of the Eastern and Northern Arctic by air, land and sea." Another "600 military personnel from the Danish Royal Navy, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard are also [took] part in the operation." [10]

In the words of Lieutenant Commander Albert Wong of Canada Command, "They're our allies. Collaboration is part of what Canada does." [11]

This year's exercise was based in Resolute Bay in the Nunavut federal territory where the Harper government is building a new army Arctic warfare training center in Resolute and a deep-sea port for the Nanisivik Naval Facility to be constructed on Baffin Island. Canadian Navy Lieutenant Commander Robert Houle said before the event that "2010's military operation will push further north than in past years." [12] That is, north of the Arctic Circle for the first time.

"The US Navy 2nd Fleet, the US Coast Guard and the Royal Danish Navy...joined in the war games in an effort to enhance the allies' capabilities to cooperate in Arctic waters." [13]

In fact the NATO allies collaborated to an unprecedented degree, as "Danish and American vessels" conducted "ocean exercises throughout eastern Nunavut." [14]

After visits by Canada's defense and military chiefs to inspect the multinational war games, Prime Minister Harper arrived in Resolute on August 25, the penultimate day of the 20-day military maneuvers, to - in the words of one of the nation's main news agencies - rally the 1,500 Canadian, American and Danish troops present. [15]

Harper's visit to inspect the exercise occurred only hours after another - potentially dangerous - publicity stunt by his government: Dispatching CF-18 fighter jets (variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet) to allegedly ward off two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (Bear) strategic bombers patrolling off Canada's northern border, "something the Russian military does frequently." [16]

Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, "said the two CF-18 Hornet fighters visually identified the two Russian aircraft approximately 120 nautical miles north of Inuvik in Northwest Territories," [17] over international waters.

The timing of the Canadian action, as that of its announcement, was calculated. As was a comparable incident in February of 2009 when then recently installed U.S. President Barack Obama paid his first visit abroad to Ottawa, to meet with Harper, and his host scrambled warplanes to intercept a Russian Tu-95 bomber - on a routine mission thousands of kilometers from the Canadian capital - in a show of bravado and of loyalty to his ally south of the border.

"The Russians said then the plane never encroached on Canadian airspace and that Canada had been told about the flight beforehand." [18]

Last year Canada's prime minister and defence minister made the following comments:

Harper: “We have scrambled F-18 [CF-18] jets in the past, and they’ll always be there to meet them.”

MacKay: “When we see a Russian Bear [Tu-95] approaching Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18.” [19]

A few days before Operation Nanook began, July 28, Canada also deployed CF-18 fighters against Russian Tu-95 bombers "as debate rage[d] over whether Canada needs the next generation of fighter jets to replace the nearly 30-year-old CF 18s. The Harper government has committed to buying 65 F-35 stealth fighters at a cost of $9 billion. Critics have said such Cold War-type jets are no longer needed." [20]

The same source provided background information concerning what is being fought over:

"Canada is in a race with Russia and other Arctic nations to lay claim to the frozen territory that may hold untold treasures.

"Geologists believe the Arctic shelf holds vast stores of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold and minerals. A 2007 Russian intelligence report predicted that conflict with other Arctic nations is a distinct possibility, including military action 'in a competition for resources.'" [21]

Regarding the later occurrence on August 24, "The Prime Minister's Office used the incident to promote Ottawa's plan to buy 65 stealth fighter jets for $16 billion." [22]

The discrepancy in (Canadian) dollar amounts is attributable to Ottawa's attempt in May to underestimate the actual cost of the purchase when Defence Minister MacKay said "There is eye-watering technology now available, and a fifth-generation fighter aircraft will be brought to Canada after the year 2017." [23], but failed to disclose the total cost.

When in-service support and other additional outlays are included, the total package will be $16 billion, according to a major Canadian newspaper "one of the most expensive military equipment purchases ever." [24]

In fact the F-35 Lightning II fifth generation stealth fighter project also has been estimated to be "the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program" at a cost of $323 billion for 2,443 of the warplanes. [25]

Last month Defence Minister MacKay confirmed that Canada will buy 65 of the Joint Strike Fighters. At the same time Ottawa announced that the $3 billion Joint Support Ship project will be restarted, as "the military [wants] Joint Supply Ships to be capable of carrying army vehicles and to provide support to ground forces ashore. The ships would also have an air-force element on board, having helicopters and repair facilities for those aircraft. A hospital would also be included on the vessels." [26]

On August 25 Dmitri Soudas, Harper's director of communications, trumpeted the news of the non-encounter between Canadian and Russian military aircraft and laid the bravado on thickly - and not without a purpose. His comments included:

"Thanks to the rapid response of the Canadian Forces, at no time did the Russian aircraft enter sovereign Canadian airspace.

"The Harper Government has ensured our Forces have the tools, the readiness and the personnel to continue to meet any challenges to Canadian sovereignty with a robust response.

"This is true today, it will be true tomorrow and it will be true well into the future.

"The CF-18 is an incredible aircraft that enables our Forces to meet Russian challenges in our North. That proud tradition will continue after the retirement of the CF-18 fleet as the new, highly capable and technologically-advanced F-35 comes into service. It is the best plane our Government could provide our Forces, and when you are a pilot staring down Russian long range bombers, that's an important fact to remember." [27]

The Associated Press reported on the above statement that "Soudas noted...Canada's recent purchase of 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets from U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. The $8.5 billion purchase, one of the biggest military equipment purchases in the country's history, was due to be debated at a parliamentary defense committee hearing on Wednesday. [August 25, the date of Soudas' comments]. The jets will replace the Air Force's aging fleet of CF-18s." [28]

According to a Canadian journalist:

"This week...we learned that the Cold War is not, in fact, over and that Russia remains an active threat in the north....Harper's press spokesman, noted Sovietologist Dimitri Soudas, explicitly turned the Russian flyby into an argument for a $16-billion, sole-sourced upgrade of Canada's fighter-plane fleet." [29]

Canada requires an adversary to justify large-scale arms acquisitions. In the past three years it has bought and leased 120 Leopard tanks from Germany and the Netherlands for the war in Afghanistan. It has purchased and used Israeli-made Heron drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) for the same war theater and beyond, one of which crashed near a military base in Alberta last month knocking out power lines.

It has also acquired Chinook, Griffon and Mi-8 helicopters for NATO's war in South Asia, where it has deployed 2,830 troops and where 151 of its soldiers have been killed.

The Polar Epsilon spaced-based satellite project is being developed for the Arctic, and while in Resolute Bay on Wednesday Prime Minister Harper reiterated that the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, a three-spacecraft fleet of satellites that is the centerpiece of Polar Epsilon, "will provide the Canadian military with daily coverage of Canada's land mass and ocean approaches 'from coast-to-coast-to-coast, especially in the Arctic.'" [30]

In June defense chief MacKay disclosed that Canada will spend over $30 billion "to build 28 large vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and navy, as well as 100 smaller ships." [31]

Canada is, as NATO's top military commander Admiral Stavridis remarked in Ottawa last month, providing the Western military bloc and the Pentagon indispensable services around the world. In the Arctic as much as if not more than anywhere else.

Notes:

[1]. Xinhua News Agency, August 7, 2010

[2]. Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010

[3]. NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic, Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ykg5fer

[4]. Ibid

[5]. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, July 11, 2010

[6]. Canwest News Service, September 12, 2008

[7]. Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 27, 2010

[8]. Nunatsiaq News, May 24, 2010

[9]. Xinhua News Agency, August 7, 2010

[10]. CTV, August 25, 2010

[11]. Nunatsiaq News, June 16, 2010

[12]. CBC News, August 3, 2010

[13]. Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010

[14]. CBC News, August 18, 2010

[15]. Canadian Press, August 25, 2010

[16]. CTV, August 25, 2010

[17]. Xinhua News Agency, August 25, 2010

[18]. Associated Press, August 25, 2010

[19]. Encroachment From All Compass Points: Canada Leads NATO Confrontation With Russia In North, Stop NATO, August 5, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yktp2nu

[20]. Toronto Sun, Quebec Media, Inc. Agency, July 30, 2010

[21]. Ibid

[22]. CTV, August 25, 2010

[23]. Canwest News Service, May 28, 2010

[24]. Ottawa Citizen, July 12, 2010

[25]. PBS Newshour, April 21, 2010

[26]. Ottawa Citizen, July 12, 2010

[27]. CBC News, August 25, 2010

[28]. Associated Press, August 25, 2010

[29]. Susan Riley, The Russians aren't coming, Ottawa Citizen, August 27, 2010

[30]. Agence France-Presse, August 25, 2010

[31]. Xinhua News Agency, June 4, 2010

Pentagon Revives & Expands Cold War Military Blocs

"Not having a serious adversary, active or fancied, has never been an impediment to American military expansion throughout the Asia-Pacific region and indeed the rest of the world. In fact the lack of a credible challenger allows for accelerating the pace of the expansion. Never more so than now."

By Rick Rozoff
(Saturday, September 18, 2010)
Courtesy Of "Media Monitors"

The year before the Korean War began the United States established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Western and Southern Europe to contain and confront the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies. NATO opened the door for the Pentagon to maintain, expand and upgrade, and gain access to new, military bases in Europe from Britain to Turkey, Italy to Norway, West Germany to Greece.

During the Korean War and after its end in 1953 (with Greece and Turkey having been absorbed into NATO), the U.S. replicated the NATO model to varying degrees throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) Security Treaty was set up in 1951 as troops from all three nations were fighting in Korea. Australian and New Zealand troops would also fight under American command in the Vietnam War under ANZUS obligations.

In 1954 the U.S. and fellow NATO founders Britain and France created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) with Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand as members and South Korea and South Vietnam as Dialogue Partners.

With U.S. encouragement and support, the next year Britain oversaw the creation of the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), also known as the Baghdad Pact Organization, which included Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan. In 1958 the METO/Baghdad Pact supported the U.S.'s deployment of 14,000 troops to Lebanon under the so-called Eisenhower Doctrine.

After the anti-monarchical revolution in Iraq of the preceding year led to that nation leaving the bloc in 1959, METO was renamed the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO): There could be no Baghdad Pact without Baghdad itself where its headquarters had been. (Half a century later the Iraqi capital is home to United States Forces – Iraq headquarters.)

METO/CENTO, like SEATO before it, was modeled after NATO and served the same purpose as the original: To encircle the Soviet Union and its allies and, in the first-named instance, allow the Pentagon to penetrate the USSR's southern flank as NATO did its extended western one. CENTO was dissolved in 1979 after the revolution in Iran and the withdrawal of that country.

All Asia-Pacific SEATO members and partners except for Pakistan - Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and South Vietnam - provided the U.S. with troops for the war in Vietnam, but Pakistan withdrew in 1973 because SEATO hadn't supported it in its 1971 war with India. France followed suit in 1975 and SEATO was disbanded two years later, three years after the U.S.-Chinese rapprochement formalized by Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1972.

With China the U.S.'s regional and global ally against the Soviet Union, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization served no further purpose.

ANZUS was weakened in 1984 when a new government in New Zealand forbade all nuclear weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships from entering its ports. Two years later the Pentagon suspended security guarantees to New Zealand under the ANZUS Treaty, though Australia has maintained its obligations to both the U.S. and New Zealand.

The end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union a generation ago eliminated any conceivable rationale for the continuation of Cold War-era military blocs, but instead NATO has expanded from 16 to 28 full members in the interim and has also gained forty new cohorts under several partnership programs. NATO members and partners now account for over a third of the nations in the world.

The North Atlantic bloc, for example, includes Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia in its Mediterranean Dialogue program; Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in its Istanbul Cooperation Initiative; Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea as NATO Contact Countries; and Afghanistan and Pakistan are subsumed under the Alliance-led Tripartite Commission, which met again in Kabul last month. NATO and U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is now 150,000-strong.

All eight former Soviet republics in the South Caucasus and Central Asia are members of NATO's Partnership for Peace transitional program. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan also have Individual Partnership Action Plans and Georgia a specially designed Annual National Program.

NATO has expanded into former and current territory and integrated past and present members of SEATO, CENTO and ANZUS.

What has also been underway over the past eight years is the consolidation of what is referred to as an Asian NATO which ultimately will include most all members of CENTO, SEATO and ANZUS and dozens of other nations as well.

Australia has the largest contingent of troops - 1,550 - serving under NATO command in Afghanistan of any non-member state and New Zealand has over 200 doing the same with more on the way. Other Asia-Pacific states that have provided NATO with troops for the Afghan war are South Korea, Singapore, Mongolia and Malaysia.

The U.S. is using a 21st century expeditionary - a global - NATO as its meta-military bloc.

It is also developing closer bilateral military ties with every nation in Asia except China, North Korea, Myanmar, Bhutan, Iran and Syria.

During the last month and a half alone U.S. troops and warships have participated in military exercises in and off the shores of Cambodia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Vietnam and Nepal.

In the broader Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. led the biggest-ever biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) war games, the world's largest multinational naval exercise, from June 23-August 1, with an estimated 22,000 troops, 34 ships, five submarines and over 100 aircraft involved.

RIMPAC military maneuvers were begun in the Cold War period (1971) and initially consisted of three nations: The U.S., Australia and Canada.

This year's war games, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, featured the participation of five times as many countries: The U.S. and NATO allies Canada, France and the Netherlands. Asia-Pacific nations Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Tonga, and South American states Chile, Colombia and Peru. In addition, Brazil, India, New Zealand and Uruguay were invited to send teams of observers.

The quintupling of the number of nations participating in RIMPAC war games indicates the degree to which the Pentagon is integrating bilateral military partners into broader regional formations and ultimately into a global network, nowhere more so than with the war in Afghanistan. The majority of the Asia-Pacific nations in this year's RIMPAC exercise - Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and Tonga (which recent reports document will provide several hundred marines) - have assigned troops to serve under NATO's International Security Assistance Force in the South Asian country.

Last month's Khaan Quest military exercise in Mongolia, the latest in a series of what until recently had been bilateral U.S.-Mongolian affairs, included troops from, in addition to the U.S. and the host nation, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

The 19-day Angkor Sentinel 2010 command post and field exercises in Cambodia ending on July 30 were led by U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific and included in all over 1,000 troops, including contingents from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines.

The U.S. is currently conducting the large-scale, 10-day Valiant Shield exercises on and near Guam, the new hub for the Pentagon's operations in the Asia-Pacific region, with an aircraft carrier, amphibious ships and an Air Force expeditionary wing. On September 1 a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle was flown from California to the Andersen Air Force Base on Guam.

The Pentagon is planning a $278 million program to expand interceptor missile testing on the Hawaiian island of Kauai for ship-based Standard Missile-3 (and soon land-based versions of the same in the Baltic and Black Seas regions) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missiles. Washington's strategy for a layered, global missile shield system already includes the participation of Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the Asia-Pacific area, with India soon to be included.

In a revival of ANZUS emblematic of the reactivation of U.S. Cold War military alliances, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell recently revealed that the U.S. and New Zealand will soon resume military training and joint exercises after a 26-year suspension of both.

U.S. military activity in Northeast and Southeast Asia has raised tensions with China to an intensity not seen since the first decade of the Cold War.

In late July the U.S. and South Korea held war games codenamed Invincible Spirit in the Sea of Japan with 8,000 troops, 20 ships and submarines - led by the USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier - and 200 aircraft, including U.S. F-22 Raptors.

Last month USS George Washington and the USS John S. McCain guided missile destroyer led the first-ever joint naval exercises with Vietnam, in the South China Sea.

Shortly after those maneuvers ended the U.S. and South Korea began 11 days of war games in the second country, the latest of annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises, this one featuring 27,000 American military personnel and 500,000 from South Korea.

USS George Washington is to head to the Yellow Sea in waters close to those claimed by China as part of its exclusive economic zone for more military exercises with South Korea, including anti-submarine warfare drills. The exercises were planned for September 5-9, but postponed because of a tropical storm. Last week Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell insisted that "The USS George Washington will indeed exercise in the Yellow Sea."

Admiral Robert Willard, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, the largest of the Pentagon's Unified Combatant Commands, was in South Korea in late July, in the Philippines in mid-August and in Japan the following week. The focus of his visits was China.

Last week Willard spent two days in India, a nation that until now has remained outside regional military blocs and that with its 1.1 billion citizens has a population larger than those of all SEATO, ANZUS and CENTO nations combined, the U.S., Britain and France included. Since then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee signed the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship in 2005, the Pentagon has strengthened ties with one of Asia's two largest states.

While in New Delhi Admiral Willard met with Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, Admiral Nirmal Verma and General V.K. Singh, respectively the heads of India's air force, navy and army. Later this month Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony and navy chief Verma will travel to Washington, D.C., and Verma will also visit U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii.

India under Jawaharlal Nehru was a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. Throughout the 40 years of the Cold War it never joined a military bloc.

Now, however, it is being recruited by Washington as both a bilateral strategic military ally and as a - as the largest and most decisive - partner in a U.S. organized Asia-Pacific military alliance that dwarfs in comparison the Pentagon's earlier efforts in that direction from 1951 onward.

Not having a serious adversary, active or fancied, has never been an impediment to American military expansion throughout the Asia-Pacific region and indeed the rest of the world. In fact the lack of a credible challenger allows for accelerating the pace of the expansion. Never more so than now.

Arming Israel Is "In Our National Interest"

Ministerial committee led by Netanyahu, Barak authorizes purchase of most advanced fighter jet in world at cost of NIS 10 billion. First F-35 plane to 'make aliyah' in 2015

By Attila Somfalvi
Latest Update: 09.16.10, 21:54
Courtesy Of "Y Net News"

The US State Department on Thursday justified selling arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia after a ministerial committee headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak authorized the purchase of 20 F-35 stealth fighter jets.

"Procuring the most advanced fighter jet in the world is a significant step towards bolstering the State of Israel's military capability," said Netanyahu.

Later Thursday, US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said that selling American-made military equipment to Israel and Saudi Arabia was a "national interest".

Crowley refused to confirm reports of a $60 billion arms deal to the Saudi government, but justified selling arms to US allies in the Middle East in order to strengthen them before Iran.

Israel's decision to purchase the fighter jets for about NIS 10 billion ($2.66 billion) was preceded by a series of long discussions. Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Air Force Commander Ido Nehushtan participated in Thursday's meeting.

The plane is slated to become operational by 2015, but Israeli pilots will be able to train on them much prior to this in the US.

The F-35 fighter is considered the most advanced fighter jet today.


The main hurdle to signing the deal was its steep price as well as the costs associated with integrating Israeli systems on it. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz demanded that an additional discussion be held on the matter, but the decision was ultimately made by the ministerial committee.

After receiving the go ahead for acquiring the fighter jets, Defense Minister Barak expressed his hopes that the F-35 will help Israeli maintain its aerial superiority and technological advantage in the region, perhaps even in a face off with Iran.

AFP contributed to this report

US Sticking With The Monroe Doctrine

Latin America

By Karine Walsh
November 26, 2009
Courtesy Of Global Research

Interview with Arnold August at Le monde cette semaine (The World this Week), a francophone radio program hosted by André Pesant, aired on CIBL Radio-Montréal on November 22, 2009

While the U.S. government is amplifying its hostile interventions in the south, André Pesant recalled the ideological origins of U.S. foreign policy in a radio episode entitled Honduras, Colombia, Cuba - the United States is Pursuing the Monroe Doctrine: All of America to the North-Americans. It is during a speech to Europeans delivered on December 2, 1823, that the Republican U.S. President James Monroe would set guidelines to be adopted by United States diplomacy in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the same vein, Pesant evoked the concept of an African proverb used by Roosevelt in 1901: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt used this expression for the first time at the Minnesota State Fair, on September 2, 1901, twelve days before the assassination of President William McKinley which propelled him into the presidency of United States. This "big stick" policy led the United States to assume a role of international police, protecting its interests in Latin America, mainly in the Caribbean region, through the use of military reprisals if deemed necessary. The radio host considered that a century after this statement, the same " big stick " policy still seems to be enforced, a week away from the presidential election boycotted by the vast majority in Honduras: "While U.S. imperialism was suggesting an excessively publicised no-win deal to President Zelaya, it also took military control of Colombia." Contrasting with the complicit silence of the mainstream media linked to the so-called international community, Pesant mentioned "the very lively voice of Fidel Castro", referring to his recent reflections on the matter, published in several websites: "The Annexation of Colombia to the United States" on November 6 and "The Bolivarian Revolution and Peace "on November 18. Pesant's guest on this radio show was Arnold August, a journalist, lecturer, author of several articles on the coup in Honduras published in some prestigious alternative websites, and specialist in participatory democracy in Cuba. In his view, it is still the same aggressive U.S. policy towards Latin America that has prevailed for two centuries: "This policy of domination over Latin America began immediately after the United States war of Independence in 1787. Even before the speech by James Monroe in 1823, which would define the principles of the country's foreign policy towards Latin America, in 1807 Thomas Jefferson declared that he saw in Cuba the most interesting acquisition for the United States. This policy of control applies to all of Latin America; the outward appearances and political parties taking power in the White House change from time to time, but the policy has remained the same." Pesant reminded listeners about the harsh reality of American history, the historical inheritance of the US ruling class; a slave-owning class that acquired its wealth through the shameless importation and exploitation of African slaves. "The history of the United States consists of the looting of natural resources both outside and inside the US, including the extermination of the aboriginal peoples," he pointed out. Concerning Honduras, Pesant placed the issue in the context of the aggressive U.S. policy of domination over the continent enforced during two centuries and also in the light of current events, with on one hand, the negotiation of a bad deal imposed on Zelaya, and on the other hand the installation of 7 U.S. military bases in Colombia. August recalled that one of the factors leading to the military coup on June 28 was Zelaya's decision, with the support of the Honduran people, to join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA, its Spanish acronym). According to August, this important decision is directly linked to the coup in Honduras and to the recent public announcement of the installation of military bases in Colombia, even though the latter was decided upon a long time ago. "ALBA was established 5 years ago, first by Venezuela and Cuba. This has resulted in the movement's wave effect, other countries becoming members: Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Honduras, and soon possibly Paraguay, which will bring the current membership to 10 countries, something that is not negligible. The fact that Honduras has taken the decision to join ALBA, whose members reject the political, economic and military domination of the United States, was an affront to the United States which they have not accepted. The coup against Zelaya was not only an assault against Honduras, but upon all countries of ALBA and even against all the countries of South America." Pesant asked his guest about the term military which government officials and the press in general have carefully refrained to associate with the June 28 coup. August, who has written several articles on this particular issue, namely one entitled "Honduras: Consistent Positions by both Sides Elevate the Constituent Assembly as the Solution", explains the important significance in avoiding the term military: "There is a law in the United States, specifically Section 7008 of the 2009 Appropriations Act, clearly entitled military coups, which states that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree. By refraining to officially classify the coup as a military one, Washington keeps the door open for the November 29 elections, even if Zelaya had not been returned to power. The White House also gives itself the luxury of cultivating doubts hovering over Zelaya's head regarding the legal framework of his activities that led to the coup. Nevertheless, the electoral process is bound to be a disaster for both the coup perpetrators and the U.S. government." Referring to an article published recently by August, Pesant mentioned a press release dated November 17, issued by Harris Corporation, which confirms that Washington is far from reducing its efforts of control and repression against the Honduran resistance. August said that in fact this international communications and information technology company was awarded the U.S. Southern Command (SouthCom) Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems operations and maintenance program for Joint Task Force (JTF) Bravo at Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras. August concluded the interview by stressing the correlation between recent events in Latin America, including the establishment of Yankee military bases in Colombia: "We must firstly take note of the fact that Colombia shares its border with Venezuela and Ecuador, two countries that are building an alternative social system and that are strongly rejecting neo-liberalism. Rafael Correa, as promised prior to his election, has recently announced the closure of the only U.S. military base on the territory of Ecuador, an initiative that Zelaya also intended for the base in Honduras. Not far away, in Bolivia, Evo Morales is also the advocate of well thought-out and strong views against American domination over the continent. We cannot separate these events: the military coup in Honduras and the establishment of 7 U.S. military bases in Colombia. I learned this morning that yesterday Micheletti clearly said that anyone calling for a boycott of elections in Honduras is likely to end up in jail; the Honduran people are undergoing increasing repression." On the balance sheet of the full account of aggressive acts against other nations, August recalled the upholding of the U.S. blockade against Cuba, which has resulted in over 50 years of suffering for the Cuban people, in spite of its UN condemnation by an overwhelming majority of member-states. The naval base on the island's territory of Guantanamo has been occupied by U.S. forces in complete illegality for over a century at a time when Cuba was on top of the list on US annexation policy. Karine Walsh is a social justice activist. She hosts a francophone radio program called Dimension Cubaine (hosted by the Table de concertation de solidarité Québec-Cuba) at a Montreal Community channel, Radio Centre-Ville.

Global Research Articles by Karine Walsh

Washington's Military Accord With Colombia

Washington Alters U.S. Air Force Document to Hide Intentions Behind Military Accord with Colombia

By Eva Golinger
November 27th 2009
Courtesy Of Venezuelan Analysis

In an explicit attempt to hide Washington’s military objectives in South America, a U.S. Air Force document submitted to Congress in May 2009 that provoked deep concerns in the region has been modified and re-published on November 16, 2009. The official U.S. Air Force document, revealed and denounced by this author on November 4th, explained the justification for a $46 million request to improve the military installations in one of the seven bases Washington will occupy under the military accord signed on October 30th between Colombia and the United States. The modified document has eliminated all mention of war and military operations in the region, as well as offensive language directed at Colombia’s neighbors, Venezuela and Ecuador. Nevertheless, Washington’s intentions remain the same.

The original Air Force document dated May 2009 outlined the importance of the military base in Palanquero, Colombia to enable “full spectrum military operations” in South America. The original military document also detailed the necessity of investing $46 million to improve the airfield, ramps and other essential installations on the base, converting it into a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) for U.S. military missions in the region.

Original U.S. Air Force document, May 2009:

“Establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero best supports the COCOM’s (Command Combatant’s) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship. Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-U.S. governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.”

The U.S. Air Force document dated November 16, 2009 and sent to the Congress under the title, “Addendum to reflect terms of the U.S.- Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement signed on 30 October 2009,” alters the original controversial language, eliminating key terms and references that provoked grave concerns in the region. The November 16th Air Force document makes no mention of establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero, Colombia, however it does consistently refer to Palanquero as a “location”, retaining the original intentions. Furthermore, the monetary request is reduced by a mere $3 million to $43 million, evidencing that the original project remains almost 100% in tact. Congress had previously approved the initial $46 million request made by the Pentagon last Spring, conditioning the funds on the final signing of the U.S.- Colombia military accord, which was solidified on October 30th. But the November 16th U.S. Air Force document makes a clear attempt to disguise the original intentions by eliminating the provocative language referring to “full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region… where security and stability is under constant threat from… anti-US governments.” That language in particular sparked immediate concerns and accusations regarding Washington’s intentions to utilize Colombia as a launching pad to attack countries such as Venezuela, considered erroneously “anti-U.S.” by many.

The modified U.S. Air Force document of November 16, 2009:

“This project at Palanquero best supports the Combatant Command’s (COCOM) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship [with Colombia]. Development of this project provides a unique opportunity to support an important partner in a region of the western hemisphere where security and stability are under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.”

The original U.S. Air Force document identified Palanquero as the perfect place to enable the implementation of the U.S. global mobility strategy because it “provides access to the entire South American continent.”

Original U.S. Air Force document from May 2009:

“Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of…operations areas…its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the U.S. military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of Cape Horn…”

The modified document dated November 16, 2009 eliminates all references and language referring to the “mobility mission” and “access to the entire South American continent”. However, the global mobility strategy remains an official military policy and defense strategy of the Pentagon, evidenced in the White Paper: Global en Route Strategy of the Air Mobility Command of the U.S. Air Force, and the Pentagon’s budget request and justification submitted in early 2009. Both documents specifically refer to the urgency and necessity of occupying the Palanquero base in Colombia in order to guarantee U.S. global mobility for military operations and missions.

The modified U.S. Air Force document of November 16, 2009 additionally erases all original language referring to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance operations that would take place from the Palanquero base. Furthermore, all references to “regional access”, “theater security cooperation” and “expeditionary warfare capability” in the region have been eliminated.

Original U.S. Air Force document, May 2009:

“Development of this CSL will further the strategic partnership forged between the U.S. and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability.”

Modified U.S. Air Force document, 16 November 2009:

“Access to Colombia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of counter narco-terrorist operations areas; the runway and existing airfield facilities will reduce construction costs; its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the U.S. military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crises, and assure access and presence at minimum cost. The taxiway and ramp/apron areas are deficient and in their current configurations severely limit the operational capabilities of this location. Additionally, the operations and support facilities need to be expanded to service a wide array of aircraft that mutually agreed activities may entail.”

Despite the modifications to the U.S. Air Force document more than six months after the original was sent to Congress, the intentions behind the U.S. military agreement with Colombia remain the same. No evidence exists demonstrating a change in the Pentagon’s global mobility strategy - it is an official state policy included in the Global Defense Posture Strategy, in place at the present time. The military base in Palanquero, Colombia has been identified several times in different Pentagon documents as the perfect site – a unique opportunity – to guarantee continental access in South America, facilitating “full spectrum military operations” in Latin America.

Washington can try to erase its language regarding intentions of war, espionage and military operations in Latin America, but the U.S. can’t erase the truth. The original U.S. Air Force document from May 2009 remains the principal justification behind the U.S.-Colombia military accord.

Original U.S. Air Force document, May 2009, in English: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf

Traducción no oficial al español: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/traduccion_del_documento_de.pdf

Modified U.S. Air Force document, 16 November 2009 original and translation available at: http://www.centrodealerta.org/noticias/ultima_hora_washington_alte.html

See also:

• 05/11/2009: Official US Air Force Document Reveals the True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement
• 17/11/2009: Chavez Rejects U.S. Mediation in Venezuela-Colombia Spat, U.S. Withdrawal is “Only Solution”
• 09/11/2009: Colombia-Venezuela: The Threat of Imperialist War Looms in the Americas

True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement

Official US Air Force Document Reveals The True Intentions Behind The US-Colombia Military Agreement

By Eva Golinger
Source: Postcards from the Revolution
November 6, 2009
Courtesy Of Global Research

An official document from the Department of the US Air Force reveals that the military base in Palanquero, Colombia will provide the Pentagon with “…an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America…” This information contradicts the explainations offered by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the US State Department regarding the military agreement signed between the two nations this past October 30th. Both governments have publicly stated that the military agreement refers only to counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations within Colombian territory. President Uribe has reiterated numerous times that the military agreement with the US will not affect Colombia’s neighbors, despite constant concern in the region regarding the true objetives of the agreement. But the US Air Force document, dated May 2009, confirms that the concerns of South American nations have been right on target. The document exposes that the true intentions behind the agreement are to enable the US to engage in “full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies…and anti-US governments…” The military agreement between Washington and Colombia authorizes the access and use of seven military installations in Palanquero, Malambo, Tolemaida, Larandia, Apíay, Cartagena and Málaga. Additionally, the agreement allows for “the access and use of all other installations and locations as necessary” throughout Colombia, with no restrictions. Together with the complete immunity the agreement provides to US military and civilian personnel, including private defense and security contractors, the clause authorizing the US to utilize any installation throughout the entire country - even commercial aiports, for military ends, signifies a complete renouncing of Colombian sovereignty and officially converts Colombia into a client-state of the US. The Air Force document underlines the importance of the military base in Palanquero and justifies the $46 million requested in the 2010 budget (now approved by Congress) in order to improve the airfield, associated ramps and other installations on the base to convert it into a US Cooperative Security Location (CSL). “Establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero best supports the COCOM’s (Command Combatant’s) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship. Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.” It’s not difficult to imagine which governments in South America are considered by Washington to be “anti-US governments”. The constant agressive declarations and statements emitted by the State and Defense Departments and the US Congress against Venezuela and Bolivia, and even to some extent Ecuador, evidence that the ALBA nations are the ones perceived by Washington as a “constant threat”. To classify a country as “anti-US” is to consider it an enemy of the United States. In this context, it’s obvious that the military agreement with Colombia is a reaction to a region the US now considers full of “enemies”. COUNTERNARCOTICS OPERATIONS ARE SECONDARY Per the US Air Force document, “Access to Colombia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. The strong security cooperation relationship also offers an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America to include mitigating the Counternarcotics capability.” This statement clearly evidences that counternarcotics operations are secondary to the real objetives of the military agreement between Colombia and Washington. Again, this clearly contrasts the constant declarations of the Uribe and Obama governments insisting that the main focus of the agreement is to combat drug trafficking and production. The Air Force document emphasizes the necessity to improve “full spectrum” military operations throughout South America – not just in Colombia – in order to combat “constant threats” from “anti-US governments” in the region. PALANQUERO IS THE BEST OPTION FOR CONTINENTAL MOBILITY The Air Force document explains that “Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of…operations areas…its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the US military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the US ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of Cape Horn…” ESPIONAGE AND WARFARE The document additionally confirms that the US military presence in Palanquero, Colombia, will improve the capacity of espionage and intelligence operations, and will allow the US armed forces to increase their warfare capabilities in the region. “Development of this CSL wil further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability.” The language of war included in this document evidences the true intentions behind the military agreement between Washington and Colombia: they are preparing for war in Latin America. The past few days have been full of conflict and tension between Colombia and Venezuela. Just days ago, the Venezuelan government captured three spies from the Colombian intelligence agency, DAS, and discovered several active destabilization and espionage operations against Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela. The operations - Fénix, Salomón and Falcón, respectively, were revealed in documents found with the captured DAS agents. Approximately two weeks ago, 10 bodies were found in Táchira, a border zone with Colombia. After completing the relevant investigations, the Venezuelan government discovered that the bodies belonged to Colombian paramilitaries infiltrated inside Venezuelan territory. This dangerous paramilitary infiltration from Colombia forms part of a destabilization plan against Venezuela that seeks to create a paramilitary state inside Venezuelan territory in order to breakdown President Chávez’s government. The military agreement between Washington and Colombia will only increase regional tensions and violence. The information revealed in the US Air Force document unquestionably evidences that Washington seeks to promote a state of warfare in South America, using Colombia as its launching pad. Before this declaration of war, the peoples of Latin America must stand strong and unified. Latin American integration is the best defense against the Empire’s aggression. *The US Air Force document was submitted in May 2009 to Congress as part of the 2010 budget justification. It is an official government document and reaffirms the authenticity of the White Book: Global Enroute Strategy of the US Air Mobility Command, which was denounced by President Chávez during the UNASUR meeting in Bariloche, Argentina this past August 28th. I have placed the original document and the non-official translation to Spanish that I did of the relevant parts relating to Palanquero on the web page of the Center to Alert and Defend the People “Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los pueblos”, a new space we are creating to garantee that strategic information is available to those under constant threat from imperialist aggression. Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” (2006 Olive Branch Press) and “Bush vs. Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela” (2007, Monthly Review Press). Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government’s efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America.

Eva Golinger is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Eva Golinger