High noon on the East China Sea

Some say it's "about time" the world had another world war. Let's hope not.

The Japanese media are in a frenzy, anticipating war by next month over the Senkaku Island/ADIZ dispute. China's provocative act of establishing a new air defense zone will only serve to undermine its foreign policy interests.

Sample article: Impending Japan-China war has the makings of a Clancy classic

article link

Ultimately Beijing may not want war, it probably views the ADIZ move as a bargaining tool against the Japanese over the Senkakus.

But in a worrying sign, China is showing it's willingness to risk conflict.  Someone said "war is politics by other means".

I only hope Barack Obama is up to the challenge, rather than him being distracted by his health care shambles.

Which one is the faker? (Watch funny video on fake sign language guy.)

China has in recent decades enjoyed "most favored nation" trading status with the US, which I guess is a euphemism for "friend we trade with but overlook the human rights abuses of". Well, with actions like this, China shouldn't be regarded as a "trusted friend" of the West anymore.

China wouldn't have made this move unless it thought it could deal militarily with any contingency that arose, particularly with regard to Japan.  China has been building its military for decades, ostensibly for defensive purposes. But it's using its new military powers for aggressive purposes, as it addresses grievances it perceives. 

When South Korea objected to the zone, China said it wasn't directed at them but at Japan. (As though that somehow makes it better for the Koreans, who are allied with Japan?!) The Koreans have now expanded their own zone tit-for-tat style.

With this move China is saying "we are ready" and "we are willing to take on all comers".

Of course China is nothing like on a par militarily with America. But with a huge standing army it would be impossible to defeat on home territory.

Any escalation to conflict risks not only the obvious negative consequences of any military conflict but, due to the World-China and US-China economic relationship, a total global depression perhaps greater than the 1930's one.

The air defense zones of other countries were set up under peaceful circumstances for rather more pragmatic purposes. There's no controversy over the North American zones, for example, because there are no other rival countries nearby.

And, the air defense zones of other nations, such as Japan and the US, are only for aircraft landing in those countries. More importantly, they do not overlap. For example, America has no extended air defense zone over Cuba.

Regarding ownership of the Senkakus: it's arguable as to who owns it, China or Japan. Even Taiwan's in on the mix. You can argue that China really owns them, but then you could also argue Manchuria should still be part of the Japanese Empire. Where you draw the line is subjective.

At present the arbiter of such disputes is called "the status quo". By defying the status quo, China is defying the entire US-led post-WW2 world order.   

By the way, where is the UN in this dispute?! What a useless bunch of do nothing pen-pushing parasites they prove to be time and time again.

*****************

The international order is more fragile than it seems. We have been lucky to experience such stability in the post-WW2 period. But a broader view of history shows that borders are temporary, stability illusory. 

In history might makes right. Empires rise and fall; borders are redrawn. After all, being fair is for chumps when you can just steal land.

This can only serve to have a destabilizing effect on China's relation with the Western allies, and could see the US becoming more prominent in the dispute, rather than less prominent, as apparently anticipated by Beijing. 

Beijing had hoped the move would drive a wedge between Japan and the US. It had hoped that the US would be preoccupied elsewhere in the world such as the Middle East. 

And perhaps China believed the hype that the US's superpower status is waning. Instead it has had the opposite effect -- of renewing and revitalizing the alliance between South Korea, Japan and the United States.

Since WW2 America has had a binding defense pact with Japan, where Japan would take on a pacifist constitution and, in theory, have a passive defense force. Another requirement was that Japan would not develop nuclear weapons, and in exchange the US would provide the nuclear umbrella needed for Japan's defense.

China's move tests this pact. In my opinion, this is no time for the US-led West to back down, even if means total thermonuclear conflict. If it means war, then so be it. Perhaps the only peaceful way out is for true political reform in China.

But how likely is such reform in the near term given the brutality of the oppressive Chinese regime, as exemplified in things like the Tiananmen Massacre?

 Axl Rose had the right idea about China

If Japan cannot call on the US for the favour it's been saving up for 65 years since the second world war, it may have to reconsider its pacifist constitution, expand its military and develop nuclear weapons of its own.

My guess is Japan has enough weapons grade plutonium to make a number of working A-bombs in a few months or even weeks. Either way, whether Japan develops nuclear weapons or not, the prospect of conflict, including nuclear conflict, between China and the West, looms.

======================

Update: Article says US should be deploying for war and mobilizing now. This could be thermonuclear Armageddon -- WW3. I hope Obama is not asleep at the wheel.

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/12/defense-analysts-u-s-should-plan-for-war-with-china/

Team America: World Police

The question of whether the US should attack Syria is not about justice or chemical weapons, it's about whether the US should be the world policeman.  It's a role America has been stuck with since WW2.  

Although nominally a republic, thanks to their security posture and global military deployment, the US is effectively an empire.  The critical element in that empire is oil and therefore the critical area is the Middle East.

The other issue is that the American military industrial complex is so big it needs to be fed with war every now and then to justify its existence; preferably two or three small ones and one big one per decade. 

I cringed when I saw Obama in Russia at a press conference at the G20 trying to justify US involvement in Syria.  He was too honest in explaining the situation saying e.g. that well America is the only country with this capability.  Yes, but that's not justification for war.

Obama is a good talker, but when it comes to the War On Terror he needs to take a leaf out of George W Bush's book and stop the "maybes" and talk more terms of absolutes.  He needed to talk up the War On Terror aspect more.  

Has the beneficial effect of 9-11 as being a Pearl-Harbor-like-event for US imperialism really dried up so much?  Did Bush ruin international sympathy over 9-11 with the Iraq war?  Certainly Americans are tired of war and of the War On Terror in general.

Who's responsible for the Syrian chemical weapons attack?

Chemical warfare agents are extremely difficult to manufacture and distribute.  A ragtag bunch of rebels in the Syrian desert can't make such weapons.  Of all the weapons you could want to use, chemical weapons are the least practical and least cost effective to make.

So that leaves the Syrian regime and western powers such as Israel and the US who could actually make weaponisable chemical weapons and deploy them to Syria.  Syria is one of the few non-signatories to the chemical weapons convention and is thought to possess a stockpile of them.  But I don't see an incentive for Assad to use these weapons on his own people.  The West, however, does have an interest insofar as generating a pretext to attack.

The Grand Chessboard

False flag attacks are how any major power gets the ball rolling on military action.  Military conflict is politics by other means...someone said (I think Hitler).  If the US wants to be involved in conflict: it will be. 

Whether it's the Gulf of Tonkin to start the Vietnam war or the explosion in the battleship Maine to start the Spanish-American war: it will happen if the will and means are there.

The United States wants to be involved in the Middle East as part of what Zbigniew Brzezinski described as the grand chessboard -- control of the world's most strategic area in the oil rich Central Asia/Middle East.  Put it this way: if this chemical attack happened in Uganda would the US be prepared to become involved?  Of course not, there's no oil in Uganda!

The Grand Chessboard

The reason events in the Middle East are always in the US's vital national interest is because without importing oil from the middle East to power their vehicles, the economy would grind to a halt.  That's why many in the US are desperate to develop fracking so as to finally free it from Middle Eastern oil dependency.

There are two factions in the Middle East roughly divided along the Sunni - Shia fracture in Islam.  The Sunni-Saudi side is backed by the US.  They tolerate Israel in return for US assistance (where "assistance" is of the kind of a mafia protection racket; we assist you or we break your legs).    The other side is the Shia Iran/Syria side backed by Russia.  (Most in Syria are Sunni Muslim but Assad is Shiite.) Let's call this side the axis of evil.

The axis of evil is backed by Russia, but Russia is not the superpower it used to be.  One of the strange things I hear of the coming war in the Middle East is that it will lead to WW3, I don't agree.  I think the limited action in Syria will lead to worse consequences such as Iranian involvement, and I think that's kind of the point -- to provoke Iran into a response that will lead to a wider Middle East conflict which the US is ready for -- that's what they've been preparing for all this time: confrontation with Iran.  

All Syrian attack contingencies from the US military planers would include the possibility of Iranian retaliation. But it's not going to lead to all out WW3; that's a ridiculous notion.

Russia backs Syria and Iran, but it's not going to start WW3.  China is even less likely to become involved.  China sells most of its stuff to the US and holds trillions in US government bonds.  It's not going to fight the golden goose that lays its economic eggs.

The Report From Iron Mountain

The Report From Iron Mountain was released in 1967.  Some say it's a hoax; if so it's a hoax about a true thing.  It basically says that the US has a war-based economy, continuing from the WW2 economy, and that economy needs to be fed with a war every now and then to keep it going.

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul proposed pulling back from the Empire and the war based economy to a pre-war stance of bringing the troops home and defending the US within its borders.  This would cost a lot less and allow the federal budget to be balanced and the deficit finally reduced -- Paul's so-called austerity plan.  

Most US voters have the view that America should no longer be the world policeman, and case in point: should not get involved in Syria.  If Congress doesn't authorise military action against Syria then it's time to re-examine the US's position as Team America: World Police.

Surprise landslide victory for Coalition?

There's a landslide election victory in the offing for the Liberal/National Coalition, and apparently it's quite an unexpected surprise to mainstream TV commentators such as those I have been watching on Sky News. To me it's not that surprising.

My own survey of people I know is that most are pissed off with Labor.  Only the rusted-ons are voting Labor this election.  But the polls and the main stream media (MSM) have been saying it was a much closer race until this point.  At the beginning of the campaign some Labor commentators were even saying they could win.

I've always taken a grain of salt about polls and about anything the MSM has to say in general.   One problem is not everyone answers a poll; another is the drop-off in land-line use.  Polls are usually cold-calling by telephone and not everyone, teenagers for example, are receptive to a telephone survey.  Not everyone answers the phone at night.  And some people hang up as soon as they know it's a survey.

Another problem is the margin of error which is usually around 3%.  A swing of 6% could mean nothing statistically due to the margin of error, yet all movements no matter how small will be reported by a MSM who is desperate to stay relevant and stop losing ratings to the alternative media.

At the end of the day polls don't mean as much as a real vote.  In 5 days time the will of the electorate will no longer be subject to media spin, and I expect a landslide victory to the Coalition.

=====================

How will I be voting?  Not Labor and not Greens, that's how.  Beyond that, don't know.  Last year there were only four candidates for the seat of Rankin in the lower house to choose from: Labor, Green, Lib/Nats and one other...can't remember, maybe an independent.  It doesn't matter how I vote though as Rankin (think Logan City, Queensland) is a perennial Labor seat.

I think I voted conservative for the first time last election in 2010.  In my youth I voted Greens and preferenced Labor.  In my middle age I don't think I can vote Green ever again in my life -- I've grown and they are even further out of touch with reality.  I'll consider Labor again in a generation once they clean up their act.

I wish there was a libertarian party in Australia along the lines of US Congressman Ron Paul.  Though I'm not a traditional conservative, strangely the main stream party closest to my views now are the Nationals -- something I never thought I'd say in my youth.

Speaking of Nationals, good luck to Barnaby Joyce in Tony Windsor's seat of New England.  (I was raised in Armidale, NSW in that electorate.)  I may not be as conservative as Barnaby, but the refreshing thing about him is his straight talking attitude.  And he sticks up for Australia.

Tony Abbott can come across as hyper-scripted and minder-managed.  Joyce is like the opposite: everything he says sounds like it was just blurted off the top of his head, which I like.  Barnaby for PM!

West to solve problem it created in Syria

What motivation does the Assad regime have to commit acts such as the recent chemical attacks against its own people? Syria's ruling Assad regime is an undemocratic tin-pot dictatorship that no one really likes, but the current strife in Syria is not it's fault.  Assad has no reason to rock the boat by attacking "democracy movements".

All of the agitation in Syria is the fault of the West and the rebels it backs.  The rebels are no more democratic than Assad.  They don't care for democracy or western values and freedoms.  They are there to commit whatever atrocities they want and to win power in Syria.  All of the atrocities attributed to Assad are committed by these western backed rebels with materials and training also supplied by the West.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already admitted that NATO materially supports the Syrian rebels.  For months the BBC has been promoting military intervention in Syria.  Its news reports always depict Syria in the colour of blood red.

The West wants to become involved in Syria and has been positioning itself for this for months.  The main problem with military involvement in Syria is Iran.  The US military wouldn't attack Syria unless contingencies involving Iran's response were considered.  At the moment Iran is surrounded by various US military deployments including mechanised brigades in Kuwait, bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and aircraft carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

I incorrectly predicted a year ago that an attack Syria, Iran or both was imminent.  I was wrong then but it looks like only by a year.  Here comes another unjust war like Libya and Iraq. It's on again.