By Finian
Cunningha
This article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27709
November 17, 2011
Like a schoolyard bully, President Barack Obama is
flexing American military muscle as he currently sweeps through the
Asia-Pacific region. The nominal impetus for the tour was the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Hawaii last week. But rather than
discussing “economics” (the E in APEC), the salient focus for Obama and his
entourage appears to be “war” ~ and in particular laying down battle lines to
China.
Testy relations with China is nothing
new for Washington given recent months of US haranguing over trade and finance,
but what Obama’s bombast signals is a sinister ramping up of the militarist
agenda towards Beijing.
As if bouncing underlings and lackeys
into his gang, the American president has moved on from Honolulu with stopovers
in Australia, Indonesia and elsewhere. Given the primary economic power of
China in the hemisphere, it might be thought appropriate for Obama to make a
cordial visit to Beijing to discuss partnerships and policies to revive the
global economy.
But no. The omission of China on this
major US tour seems to be a deliberate snub to Beijing and a message to the
region: that China is to be isolated and ringfenced. This is the stuff of
warmongering writ large.
The blatant aggression is naturally
smoothed over and made palatable by the Western mainstream media. Reporting on
Obama’s unilateral belligerence at the APEC, the Washington Post bemoans: “Try
as he might to focus Asian and Pacific leaders on forging new economic
partnerships during a regional summit here, President Obama has spent much of
his time in private meetings with his counterparts discussing another pressing
concern: national security [that is, US military power].”
The Financial Times reports
breathlessly: “Barack Obama will not set foot in China during his swing through
the Asia-Pacific region... yet the country’s rapid economic ascent and military
advances will provide the backdrop for almost everything he does on the trip.”
Note the assertion that it is China’s
“military advances” that are prompting US concerns, not the more reasonable and
realistic observation that Washington is the one beating the war drums.
The FT goes on to say: “The Pentagon
is quietly working on a new strategy dubbed the AirSea Battle concept, which is
designed to find ways to counter Chinese military plans to deny access to US
forces in the seas surrounding China.”
In “seas surrounding China” it may be
thought by some as entirely acceptable for Beijing to “deny access to US
forces”. But not, it seems, for the scribes at the FT and other Western
mainstream media, who transform US offence/Chinese defence into Chinese
offence/US defence.
One can only imagine how that same
media would report it if China announced that it was intending to patrol
nuclear warships off California.
As previously noted by Michel
Chossudovsky at Global Research, the South China Sea’s untapped reserves of oil
and other minerals are a major driver in US maneouvring. China stands to have
natural territorial rights to these deposits and has much more valid claim to
the wealth than the US, whose counter-claims on the matter seem at best
arrogant and at worst provocative.
Again, one can imagine the US and
mainstream media reaction if China was eyeing oil and gas fields off Alaska.
But there is a bigger geopolitical
agenda here, as Global Research has consistently analysed. The increasing US
militarism in Asia-Pacific is apiece with the globalization of war by the
US/NATO and its allies. The shift in policy is, as the Washington Post lamely
tells us, “the US reasserting itself as a leader in the Asia-Pacific after
years of focusing on [illegal] wars in the Middle East.”
However, this is not a dynamic that
should be viewed as somehow normal and acceptable. This is, as we have stated,
an escalation of global aggression by powers that are “addicted to war” as a
matter of policy.
Top of the US hit list is China.
Washington’s criminal wars in Iraq and Libya have in particular been aimed at
cutting China out of legitimate energy investments in the Middle and East and North
Africa (and Africa generally).
That in itself must be seen by
Beijing as a flagrant assault on its overseas’ assets. Not content, it seems,
with achieving that dispossession of vital Chinese energy interests, Washington
is now pushing its insatiable appetite all the way into China’s domain.
But such unprecedented aggression is
made to appear by the US government and the dutiful mainstream media as a
natural entitlement where refusal by the other party is perversely presented as
“military plans to deny access”.
Obama’s visit to Australia this week
is undoubtedly aimed at further twisting the threat to China. In Darwin, the US
president is overseeing the opening of a base that will see for the first time
US Marines being able to conduct war games on Australian soil. Thousands of
kilometers from China, this development may at first seem inconsequential. But
then we are told that the move is designed to station US military “out of the
reach of Chinese ballistic missiles”. The insinuation is unmistakable and
menacing: China is an imminent threat. Somehow, without issuing any such
aggressive moves, Beijing is suddenly made to look as if it is prepared to
launch ballistic missiles at US installations.
It is tempting to call this US-led
dynamic of global war “dysfunctional”. But, disturbingly, it is not merely
dysfunctional. The global war dynamic is a function of the collapse of
capitalism and democracy in the US and Europe (the brutal police crackdown on
Occupy protesters across the US is evidence of the latter). War on the world is
the logical outcome of this failed system, as history has already shown us with
the horrors of World War One and Two.
Karl Marx once noted: “History
repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce”. To avert another “farce” in
which the horrors of history are repeated, we need to once and for all
challenge the root cause: capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.