December 06, 2013| News | John Glaser

131003-D-BW835-1320

Foreign Policy reports that Japan is stiffening the state’s ability to classify information and punish whistleblowers and is even rolling back their pacifist constitution to get “in line with U.S. preferences.”

The new law, which passed Japan’s upper house Friday, will give agency heads discretionary power to classify 23 types of information in four categories — defense, diplomacy, counter-terrorism, and counter-intelligence — and stiffens penalties for leaking state secrets, even in cases of journalists exposing wrongdoing. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has insisted that the law is necessary if Japan is to maintain effective diplomatic partnerships with the United States and other allies.

Washington, for its part, has long supported stronger secrecy laws in Japan, if only to make it easier for the two nations to share information.

…The measure is part of a larger effort by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to move away from Japan’s pacifist past and establish a stronger military posture that is congenial to, or in line with U.S. preferences, according to Samuels. Among other initiatives, Abe plans to create Japan’s version of the U.S. National Security Council, the coordinating body of American foreign policy, and is pushing to reinterpret Japan’s constitution to expand its military’s limited self-defense role — giving it the authority to aid the United States and other allies, if they’re attacked.

These developments should be viewed in the context of the Obama administration’s Asia Pivot, which is helping to militarize U.S. allies in Asia so they can assist in containing a rising China.

2 Comments

December 06, 2013| News | John Glaser

Video streaming by Ustream

No Comments

December 06, 2013| News | John Glaser

3310404474_3c4edfd07c_z

Today you can watch much of the world praise the life and mourn the death of former South African President anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela. Scores of U.S. leaders and political pundits with platforms to reach millions of Americans are expressing admiration for Mandela today, but I have barely seen a single acknowledgement of the fact that the U.S. strongly opposed Mandela’s struggle and strongly supported the white supremacist apartheid system in South Africa. There has been almost no mention in the mainstream that Mandela remained on the U.S.’s terrorism watch list until 2008. Mandela spent 27 years in prison, thanks in part to the CIA assisting the apartheid regime’s secret police in his arrest.

This white-washing mostly occurs on television. Cable news is especially vapid. There are a few exceptions in print/digital media. One comes from Peter Beinhart:

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan placed Mandela’s African National Congress on America’s official list of “terrorist” groups. In 1985, then-Congressman Dick Cheney voted againsta resolution urging that he be released from jail. In 2004, after Mandela criticized the Iraq War, an article in National Review said his “vicious anti-Americanism and support for Saddam Hussein should come as no surprise, given his longstanding dedication to communism and praise for terrorists.” As late as 2008, the ANC remained on America’s terrorism watch list, thus requiring the 89-year-old Mandela to receive a special waiver from the secretary of State to visit the U.S.

…In South Africa, for decades, American presidents backed apartheid in the name of anti-communism. Indeed, the language of the Cold War proved so morally corrupting that in 1981, Reagan, without irony, called South Africa’s monstrous regime “essential to the free world.”

Believe it or not, there is an aspect of this hypocritical praise of Mandela that is mentioned even less than the media coverage of his passing. That is the uncomfortable similarity that Israel’s occupation of Palestine now has with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Continue

11 Comments

December 05, 2013| News | John Glaser

3 Comments

December 04, 2013| News | John Glaser

Obama-confused[1]

As the U.S. wrestles with the Karzai government to finalize a security agreement that would govern thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for another decade, virtually everyone across every spectrum agrees that pulling out completely – the so-called ‘zero option’ – would be reckless and dangerous for America.

The U.S.-backed regime in Afghanistan is too weak to sustain itself without continued U.S. presence and aid, say supporters of keeping troops there. The Taliban is still alive and well, they add, and could provide al-Qaeda with a safe haven to attack the U.S., so we’ve got to stay!

First of all, if ten years of nation-building hasn’t established a self-sustaining government in Afghanistan, another ten won’t either. Second, the alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is heavily exaggerated these days. The Taliban have shown zero interest in attacking any Western targets outside the borders of Afghanistan, and their alliance with al-Qaeda has cost them too much over the past decade to eagerly welcome them back in a September 10, 2001 style arrangement. Even if al-Qaeda did set up shop there, having a “safe haven in Afghanistan is hardly an essential ingredient in launching terrorist attacks on America. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan did nothing to enable the 9/11 attacks, which is why the attacks were planned and carried out in Europe and the U.S.

Steven Metz at World Politics Review is one of the few in the mainstream to embrace the benefits of the “zero option.” He says the real question is whether the costs of continuing the occupation for another decade is worth the reasonably expected benefits (which are few).

But ultimately the question for the United States is not simply whether the Taliban and al-Qaida have a relationship, but whether the security benefits gained from a military presence in Afghanistan and billions of dollars in aid sustained for an indeterminate period justify the costs.

Such a commitment would be worthwhile only if it turned out that, one, the Taliban have not learned anything from the past 12 years—that is, if, once freed from direct American military pressure, they would again allow al-Qaida to use Afghan territory to launch attacks on the United States; and two, keeping roughly 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and sending billions of dollars in assistance would actually make a difference in preventing an al-Qaida attack on the United States or other American targets. Clearly a U.S. counterterrorism program with a major presence in Afghanistan would be more effective than no U.S. presence. But the issue is whether the increased effectiveness is worth not only the direct costs of the aid and U.S. troops, but also the opportunity costs, since that money and those troops could be doing something else that directly augments American security or prosperity.

Ultimately, it is hard to make a persuasive case that the benefits of sustaining a direct role in Afghanistan justify the costs.

Large majorities of Americans want to pull out of Afghanistan, and that’s with virtually nobody on TV or in the newspapers actually making the argument for the zero option. Even under the most favorable assumptions, the costs of continuing “the mission” in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits, if one could conceive of any.

2 Comments

December 04, 2013| News | John Glaser

US Navy fleet in Asia-Pacific

US Navy fleet in Asia-Pacific

China’s recent attempt to establish an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over disputed territory in the East China Sea was met with shock and horror from the U.S. and its Asian allies. But the shock and horror, as always with American foreign policy, is cynically selective.

First, China’s strategic maneuvers on the disputed land and maritime territories are always “escalatory” and “destabilizing” whereas similar actions by the U.S. or its allies are exactly the opposite. Secondly, U.S. opposition to China’s growing naval presence and expanding influence in the Asia-Pacific is based on disingenuous pro-America bias.

So, yes, China’s declaration of an ADIZ over disputed territory was something of an escalation in the international rivalry over the East China Sea. But if China’s action was an “escalation” which attempted to “alter the status quo,” as U.S. officials keep saying, then surely Japan’s decision in 2012 to purchase and then nationalize the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (claimed by both Japan and China) was an escalatory attempt to change the status quo too.

And if China’s call for incoming aircraft to identify themselves to Chinese authorities was a “destabilizing” action, then surely it was equally destabilizing for the U.S., Japan, and South Korea to fly B-52 bombers and other military aircraft through the zone in defiance, without telling China. These actions could have easily “increase[d] the risk of miscalculation and misunderstandings” as Chuck Hagel warned about China’s ADIZ declaration.

The second point is perhaps more fundamental to this clash in the Asia Pacific. The primary argument from U.S. officials and pundits for why China can’t be allowed to make further naval gains in its own backyard is that America’s navy patrols the seas to ensure “freedom of navigation,” and China can’t be relied upon to do that.

First of all, as the International Crisis Group notes, “China’s domestic law…recognizes that, ‘All states, subject to international laws and the laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China, enjoy the freedoms of navigation and over-flight in its exclusive economic zone…’” (EEZs extend 200 nautical miles off the coast of a country).

This argument that if the U.S. didn’t patrol the Earth with its navy, nobody would be able to enjoy freedom of navigation is absurd. In fact, a large part of the reason behind a worldwide naval presence is so the U.S. can choke off oil or trade to potential belligerents. That’s why we have fleets of navy warships patrolling the Persian Gulf every day. That’s why the U.S. navy makes the rounds in the East and South China seas, also high traffic for trade. So when people scream about China not respecting freedom of navigation, what they really mean is that they don’t want China to have the kind of naval control that the U.S. has.

Policing the world is strictly an American prerogative, don’t you know!?

8 Comments

« Previous Entries