Sadeq Khan
On September 1, 2014, Global Research published an on-line article on “Obama’s War on Ukraine” and warned about possible design of “Permanent Deployments” of NATO Forces on Russia’s Doorstep.
In its introduction, the article said: Amidst a slew of unverified allegations in recent weeks of Russian invasions, violations of Ukraine sovereignty and NATO’s current claim of Russian troops and Russian tanks fighting on the side of the federalist rebels, the upcoming annual NATO Heads of State Summit in Wales, threatens a widening violence and heightened military activity throughout eastern Europe. Add to the equation that the tide of war appears to be turning against the US-imposed Kiev government as a successful offensive by the rebels captured the coastal town of Novoazovsk near Crimea opening a new front in the southeast and holding the line in Elenovka as rebel forces maintain their ground in Donetsk, the Kiev government needs to save face by claiming that Russian troops are aiding the out-manned, under-supplied rebels.
Russia’s envoy to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov added that the only Russian troops in Ukraine were the nine paratroopers who wandered across the border recently while on patrol. In its conclusion, the article raised the issue of assurances given by Western powers at the time of dissolution of the Warsaw Pct, and quoted, as Russian President Vladimir Putin did in his address to the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, the-then NATO General Secretary Manfred Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990, who said at the time: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”.
Russia-US proxy confrontation
Two and half months later in mid-November, present NATO Commander-in-Chief General Philip Breedlove has raised an alarm again that Russian tanks and heavy artillery have crossed borders into Ukraine and propped the eastern separatists up to fight the Kiev government forces, Russia has promptly denied the allegation and dubbed it as anti-Russian psy-war propaganda. The UN Security Council met, took note of the accusation and counter accusation about NATO instigation to Kiev after its parliamentary elections to violate the ceasefire in Ukraine and retake rebel-held eastern parts, and ended without any resolution. The fragile ceasefire in Ukraine had meanwhile held, however uneasily, and facilitated both the parliamentary polls under Kiev government and separatist polls in the eastern parts held by rebels. But guns are shelling again mercilessly on crowded habitations in rebel zones, prompting Human Rights Watch to protest crimes against humanity.
Significantly, however, neither the White House nor the State Department were owning any “information” of their own over the Ukraine situation, but simply referring to the reports of close Ukraine-watch by NATO and OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) for Russia-bashing from time to time. US President Barack Obama had also in a television interview end-September publicly ruled out any chance of war between NATO and Russia, explaining: “We come to the aid and assistance, so if you mess with the NATO country, then there will be a military confrontation. And Putin understands that. But I do think there’s a possibility of Russia moving in a better direction.” Implied threat of overwhelming military capacity of the sole superpower was nonetheless put on record, and situation on the ground in Ukraine was a very unstable stalemate indeed, in proxy “military confrontation between Russia and NATO.”
Europe to become irrelevant: Gobachev
Commenting on the situation, former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev warned a symposium on security in Europe 25 years after the fall of the “Wall” in Berlin on November 8, that Western policies toward Russia championed by Washington had led to the current crisis, and “if the confrontation continues, Europe will be weakened and become irrelevant.”
Amid the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, he called on western leaders to de-escalate tensions and meet Russia halfway to mend the current rift. He said the world was on the brink of a new Cold War in consequence of the US-led Western bloc’s “short-sighted policies of seeking to impose one’s will and fait accompli while ignoring the interests of one’s partners.” He gave a list of examples of those policies, including the expansion of NATO and the development of an anti-ballistic missile system, military interventions in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the west-backed secession of Kosovo, the crisis in Syria and others. And now, the Ukrainian crisis is a “blister turning into a bleeding, festering wound.” For the west to tone down its anti-Russian rhetoric and seek points of convergence, as the Russian leadership was willing to do its part, as evidenced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s keynote speech at the Valdai Forum: “Despite the harshness of his criticism of the West and the United States in particular, I see in his (Putin’s) speech a desire to find a way to lower tensions, and ultimately to build a new basis for partnership.”
Whether or not Europe (and US military leadership of NATO) was at all listening to Gorbachev, US President Barack Obama was personally present in the APEC CEO summit to hear Chinese President Xi Jinping’s call for common efforts “to create and fulfil an Asia Pacific dream.” Xi Jinping listed several challenges facing the region, such as lingering impacts of the international financial crisis, fragile recovery in some economies, the daunting tasks of raising economic equality and efficiency, as well as different directions and priorities in accelerating the regional economic integration process. Suggesting that the development prospects of the region far outweigh those challenges, he said the dream is about acting in the spirit of the Asia-Pacific community and out of a sense of shared destinies, following the trend of peace, development and mutually beneficial cooperation, and jointly working for the prosperity and progress of the region. He added that the dream is about staying ahead of global development and making greater contribution to the well-being of mankind; the dream is also about having more economic vibrancy, free trade and investment facilitation, better roads, and closer people-to-people exchanges. Moreover, the dream is about ensuring greater security and prosperity for the people and giving children a better environment to grow, work and live. To realize the Asia-Pacific dream, the region should redouble efforts to forge a partnership of mutual trust, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation and jointly build an open economy. In addition, the region’s economies need to explore new drivers for growth and draw a blueprint for comprehensive connectivity.
‘US a pacific nation’: Obama
That appeal was warmly received by the summit of Asia-Pacific leaders, who “approved the roadmap for APEC to promote and realize the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific,” as mapped by Beijing, and pre-viewed “the official launch of the process towards the FTAAP.” Chinese advocacy of the FTAAP (Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific) overlaps the focus of the United States on concluding difficult negotiations for its favoured Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) grouping. The TPP aims for a loosening of trade restrictions and embraces 11 other Pacific Rim countries including Japan, Canada, Australia and Mexico, while notably excluding China and Russia. The competing priorities have thrown the US-China trade rivalry into sharp relief during the Beijing meeting.
President Obama in his remarks at the summit said: “America is a thoroughly Pacific nation. We’ve always had a history with Asia. And our future-our security and our prosperity-is inextricably intertwined with Asia.
“In the 21st century, the pursuit of economic growth, job creation and trade is not a zero-sum game. One country’s prosperity doesn’t have to come at the expense of another. If we work together and act together, strengthening the economic ties between our nations will benefit all of our nations. That’s true for the nations of APEC, and I believe it’s particularly true for the relationship between the United States and China.
“The United States welcomes the rise of a prosperous, peaceful and stable China. I want to repeat that: We welcome the rise of a prosperous, peaceful and stable China. In fact, over recent decades the United States has worked to help integrate China into the global economy-not only because it’s in China’s best interest, but because it’s in America’s best interest, and the world’s best interest. We want China to do well. We compete for business, but we also seek to cooperate on a broad range of shared challenges and shared opportunities. Whether it’s stopping the spread of Ebola, preventing nuclear proliferation, or deepening our clean energy partnership, combating climate change, a leadership role that, as the world’s two largest economies and two largest carbon emitters, we have a special responsibility to embrace. If China and the United States can work together, the world benefits.
Complicated development
“Even as America works to deepen our bilateral ties with China, we’re focused this week on deepening our ties with all the APEC economies, including reducing barriers to trade and investment, so that companies like yours can grow, create new jobs, and promote prosperity across the Asia-Pacific region.
“Since 2006, we’ve worked together toward the ultimate goal of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, and APEC has shown a number of pathways that could make it a reality. And one of those pathways is the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and 11 other nations. Once complete, this partnership will bring nearly 40 percent of the global economy under an agreement that means increased trade, greater investment, and more jobs for its member countries; a level playing field on which businesses can compete; high standards that protect workers, the environment, and intellectual property. And I just met with several other members of the TPP who share my desire to make this agreement a reality.
“Obviously every country is different-no country is following the same model. But there are things that bind us together, and despite our differences, we know there are certain standards and ideals that will benefit all people.
“That’s why we’re here. It’s why we’ve worked so closely together these past several years. And as long as I’m America’s President, I’m going to be invested in your success because I believe it is essential to our success as well.”
Ahead of the summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin promised ever-closer cooperation as they held talks on their shared and converging trade, investment and geopolitical interests. The two sides signed a series of agreements to step up their multi-billion-dollar natural resources collaboration. The two countries also decided on trading in each other’s currencies eliminating the dollar tag for bilateral currency exchange, thereby subverting the “wall” of sanctions regime the US is enforcing against Russia. Russia’s biggest lender Sberbank and China’s state-owned Export-Import Bank of China signed accords, including deals on insurance, and a framework agreement on credit lines.
Geopolitical complexities looming
Also ahead of APEC meet, China-Japan summit in Beijing witnessed a significant turn-around in Sino-Japanese relations. Visiting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan stated: “Together with President Xi, I would like to seek a right approach to Japan-China relations in the 21st century from a comprehensive and long-term perspective. I believe it is important to cooperate mutually at various levels on four points: (?) Promoting mutual understanding between citizens; (?) Further deepening economic relations; (?) Cooperation in the East China Sea; and (?) Stabilizing security environment in East Asia.” In reply, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated: “Based on the four basic documents between Japan and China and the recent four items of common ground, I would like to develop Japan-China relations in line with the concept of Mutually Beneficial Relationship based on Common Strategic Interests.
“An agreement has already been reached on a maritime crisis management mechanism, and I would like to see continued communication at the working level.”
The APEC summit was followed by two days of official China visit by US President Obama. New York Times in its commentary called the visit “fruitful”, but was dissatisfied with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “old-fashioned lecture” to the press and his warnings to foreign governments not to meddle in the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, and to foreign journalists to obey the law in China.
The commentary noted that the cooperation that Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi announced this week was real. Their joint plan to confront climate change could transform negotiations for a new global climate treaty. Their pledge to warn each other’s militaries about exercises could avert a calamitous clash in the treacherous waters of the South and East China Seas.
The Times of India reported from Beijing:
Chinese President Xi Jinping emerged stronger after the two-day Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which was known to have been dominated by the United States in the recent past. APEC accepted two important proposals that were pushed by China to widen its own sphere of influence. India, which did not attend despite being invited to join as an observer, may have to consider the implications of China’s achievements at the summit. Pakistan and Bangladesh attended as observers. Xi clearly stole the show at the summit, with US President Barack Obama talking about accommodating China, observers said. Leaders of Asia-Pacific countries agreed to move towards a new free-trade zone strongly backed by China. Though Obama said the US-backed TPP was not meant to contain China’s influence, it was clear China had created a powerful rival to it in the form of the FTAAP.
Official attendance in the APEC summit notwithstanding, it appears that Bangladesh government leaders and opposition politicians, distraught in their petty power games including violent verbal and physical confrontations, as well as in hollow self-glorification, are summarily oblivious of such important developments in the APEC as may change the course of geopolitics and socio-economic trends in the region.
Source: Weekly Holiday
