OMNI NEWSLETTER #1 US PACIFIC IMPERIALISM,
MAY 8, 2012.
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace.
movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for opposition to empire, militarism, and
wars.
For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and ecology
Contents
Tom Hayden, US Brinkmanship
Dick, Breaking News: China’s Eastward Movement
Asian NAFTA
Jeju Island
San Juan, Intervention in Philippines
US Pacific Empire
Vandenberg Space Command
New Provocations
Hawaii Largest Pentagon Command
The Opinion Pages Room for Debate
« Room for Debate Home
·
·
Containment Risks Permanent Brinksmanship
Tom Hayden
recently, of
Driven by market interests and lingering superpower aspirations, our government is heading
into a new cold war against China with little public debate or Congressional oversight.
We may deny it, but it’s already a new cold war to China’s top defense spokesman, Col. Geng
Yansheng. President Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, boasts that “American
is back” in the Pacific while Hillary Rodham Clinton extols America’s “ Pacific Century.” The
United States is deploying nearly 100,000 military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region,
including Japan, South Korea, Guam, and new joint ventures with the Philippines, Singapore
and
close-to-shore skirmishes
into ... distant regions
nine countries — including Chile, but not yet China.
Facebook Twitter May 2, 2012 writes and teaches in Los Angeles. He is the author, most "The Long Sixties.'' Australia. Eleven aircraft carriers are afloat and 11 littoral combat vessels are readied for against any Chinese effort to “erode the U.S. ability to project power .” Behind the military muscle is a plan for a free-trade zone involving
What if China deployed combat vessels and 100,000 troops on our coasts to
protect its access to the sea lanes of the Americas?
Are we blindly solipsistic by nature, or is it once again a reputational anxiety about appearing
“soft”? Does the phrase “post-cold war” make some people feel adrift? By comparison, what if
China deployed close-combat vessels and 100,000 troops on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts to
protect its access to the sea lanes of the Americas?
China is a secretive one-party state with ambitions to project military dominance to the edges
of its historic sphere of influence. Nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and Myanmar welcome a
certain American role in balancing the Chinese impulse to hegemony. But the new
containment policy also increases the risks of permanent brinksmanship and unwinnable
wars.
Militarizing of the U.S.-China relationship does nothing to advance transparency, democracy
or sustainable economic development in either country. Instead it promotes the corporate
export of thousands of union jobs from the United States to a brutal sweatshop economy,
allowing Apple
will transform China into a democracy have little credibility these days, 22 years after
Tiananmen Square.
If we can intervene so easily with military forces in China’s backyard, why is it impossible to
cut subsidies for Apple and other multinationals or enact an enforceable code of corporate
conduct for American businesses employing teenage labor in China?
Further, buttressing the fossil-fuel status quo by deploying our Navy to protect the choke
points of oil and commerce strangles any possibility of a rapid American transition to
conservation and renewables.
Critics of cold war thinking are not isolationists at all. But where is the push to
internationalize democratic processes and a sustainable resource economy? Cold war thinking
reinforces the military hardliners on all sides in a dynamic that becomes permanent precisely
because no one dares to “lose.”
to become the world’s most profitable corporation. Claims that market forces
Join
CHINA
Report by Dick Bennett
Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate. ’S PACIFIC EMPIRE
The revelation of China’s secret eastward expansion burst upon the world as unexpectedly
as a tsunami. Ironically with the tons of money paid to China by the US for interest on loans
and from the trade deficit, China--the CIA and Pentagon announced today-- had purchased
islands eastward half way across the Pacific and had made plans to buy more almost to the
shores of the Western Hemisphere.
The Capitol, even Capitol Hill shook with outrage. We knew they were still communists
and our enemies. Look how they captured China after WWII. Look how they have undersold
us for the past generation, while we generously funded their economic revival. We will stop
their aggression!
After the noise died down a little, media began to provide information and analysis.
Japan’s economic desperation following the earthquake and tsunami of 2010 triggered the
eastward movement. World economic crisis, initiated by the US meltdown of 2008, made
the expansion easier, though other factors played a part. Especially worrisome was the
speed and trajectory—one US official, who declined to give his name because of national
security, said it was like several spears beginning at Beijing thrown from stepping stone to
stone eastward toward San Francisco forming roughly a “U”.
Apparently China first bought islands from Japan within a few months following the
tsunami. The first purchase was Iwo Jima, southeast from Beijing, The Japanese thought
they got a good price, since the island was anyway virtually uninhabitable from the thousands
of unexploded shells throughout the island. At first China was prepared to buy all of the
Bonin Islands, but since, declared one CIA report denied by the CIA later, its purpose was to
secure the ocean from US threats, it purchased Marcus Island instead, but for a much greater
price per acre since (one anonymous source suggested) Japan had realized the closer their
islands were to the US the more valuable they were.
Southward China moved to buy one in the Solomon Islands, the Kiribati, Tuvalu (their
population fleeing to New Zeeland, but the water-soaked airfield can be raised), Wallis and
Futuna (France not needing it, nor New Caledonia), Vanuatu, altogether a shield between
Australia and the US.
Back to its more directly eastward movement, China bough more islands from Japan in
the Parasel and Sakishima, and then found islands in Micronesia—Palau, Truk, Yap. Their
plans, with an immense sigh of security, were to buy from there eastward to west of Central
America.
But then the secret slipped out. The US had not spent a trillion dollars on electronic
spying for nothing. And the CHINA PLOT was exposed.
Congress exploded with righteous anger. Why would China do that to their trade ally
and financial friend? And when a Chinese official claimed they were only balancing power in
the Pacific, Congressman Froth expressed astonishment that the Chinese would equate
eastward movement to the U.S. westward. After all, the US had been moving westward—
away from Europe he emphasized—for over 300 years! And at enormous expense and
sacrifice. The US westward movement was virtually preordained, something inevitable. But
China moving eastward was clearly envious and spiteful.
The US, he argued, fought war after war to bring civilization and progress to the
continental USA. And then we extended our largesse across the Pacific. Think of it! Look at
the achievement on your map: Hawaiian Islands, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Marshall
Islands, Wake Island, the N. Marianna Islands, Guam, the Philippines* (forming a boundary to
the South China Sea), South Vietnam (well, attempted), Okinawa (the east boundary of the
East China Sea), Formosa, South Korea (the east boundary of the Yellow Sea), Cheju
Island?? Jeju??, and all the islands we purchased with US blood against the Japanese, and
now our latest base in Australia.
We have earned the right to our westward possessions. They are integral to our
meaning, to our unity. They are (for Froth was devout) our paraclete. MORE TO COME
ASIAN NAFTA ON STEROIDS
From: Beatriz and Brooke, Global Trade Watch [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Round of secrecy continues
gtwinfo@citizen.org] suesactivism@mchsi.com
Sue,
As trade negotiators and their corporate "advisors" resume their secret
talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement,
Australian activists have taken to the streets, while advocates from all of
the involved countries are trying to pry out any information about what is
happening behind closed doors.
Join activists in demanding transparency. [
From the few draft chapters of the pact that have leaked, it is clear that
this deal is heading towards being NAFTA-on-steroids with Asia - *with more
job offshoring, more unsafe imported food and products, and even a ban on
Buy America procurement.*
While 600 U.S. corporate trade "advisors" have full access to the
negotiating texts and negotiators, the rest of us are locked out. Even the
Australian Chamber of Commerce joined with civil society groups demanding
access to the texts from the chief negotiators of the involved countries. If
this is supposed to be a 21st century agreement, a representative from the
Chamber rightly asked, then why not make it transparent?
But, the chief negotiators continued to refuse access. In fact, the lead
Australian negotiator, in response to someone noting that even the World
Trade Organization - hardly a paradigm of openness - allows access to draft
negotiating texts, proudly announced without the slightest sense of irony:
"THIS is not the WTO!"
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, has been in
Australia on the hunt for text. Unfortunately, not even the best binoculars
could view the text details at the Melbourne Australia Convention Center
(see photo [
]
9 ]).
*Join activists from around the Pacific and take action before another round
of secretive negotiations is wrapped up.*
Get inspired! Tell your governor and members of Congress to demand
transparency and stop the corporate-power overload in the TPP. [
After you take action, be sure to check out pictures from activists in
Australia and follow Lori on Twitter as she navigates the secrecy from down
under.
Sincerely,
Beatriz and Brooke
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
]
STILL MOVING WESTWARD, SURROUNDING CHINA
JEJU ISLAND
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
A LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS
Here is the evidence Capt. Kim. The mayor of Gangjeong village with other Jeju Islanders and their
supporters yesterday protesting against the plan to blast Gureombi rock. You can't keep denying the
growing international opposition to this Navy base! (See below for details about Capt. Kim)
·
Longtime peace activist Joseph Gainza hosts the show and several folks
called in. We talked a good while about Jeju Island and the Aegis
destroyers (made here in Maine) that will be ported at this base. I asked
listeners to call the South Korean embassy in Washington DC (202-939-
5600). I just called myself and spoke to a very combative Capt. Kim who
tried to tell me that the people of Gangjeong village support the Navy
base and that U.S. warships will never port there. I told him I had just
returned from a conference on Jeju Island where I heard the elected
mayor of Gangjeong, the former governor of Jeju, and the head Catholic
Bishop of Jeju all speak out in opposition to the base. Capt. Kim is full of
lies and he is trying to blunt the opposition to the base. I concluded my
conversation with him Korean-style (forceful with each other) and told him
that their right-wing government's cover was blown - that people all over
the world know that they have become military partners with their former
imperial occupier (Japan) and the U.S. in a tragic and dangerous new
strategy to surround China.
I just finished an hour long radio interview with a station in Vermont.
·
the work of many dedicated activists who are pushing hard to
information
saw this morning from Australia, Japan, the UK and
also organizing on behalf of the villagers. Below is a remarkable email I
received this morning from GN board member Agneta Norberg who lives
in Stockholm, Sweden. She was one of those arrested with us last week
when she nimbly moved her 75-year old body under the razor wire on
Gureombi rock.
It is amazing what kind of reaction it has been since I returned to Sweden from
Jeju. First, the newspaper in the county were I was born, up in the North, a rather
prestigious liberal paper gave me a whole page today. With photo and correct text.
Now the national radio called and a very popular journalist will visit me and make a
portrait of who I am and what brought me to Jeju and he asked me specifically to
give a frame why people are resisting there. So it is worth getting arrested. But the
result must be a large protest storm all over the world. I just wanted to give a small
positive glimpse in the darkness.
- Agneta
Evidence that people all over the world are becoming aware of this is share about Jeju Island. Just a couple examples are the emails I Guam where they are
Bruce K. Gagnon
Candle
Light »
Jeju
Island »
Protest
Will »
City
Light »
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
2 attachments —
You have one new message.
Dick: Strangely, some of our acquisitions disliked our occupation, Philippines in
particular, the “first Vietnam” some have called it, for their fierce, bloody
resistance. And the US continues to occupy the country, as Prof. E. San Juan
has told in several articles and books. See, for example, the US participation in
putting down several ongoing rebellions:
UNRELENTING U.S. INTERVENTION IN THE
PHILIPPINES AND MORO SOVEREIGNTY
philcsc
neocolonialism
SPECULATIVE PROVOCATIONS
unrelenting U.S. Intervention in the Philippines and the question of Moro Sovereignty by E.
San Juan, Jr.
PART ONE:
RE-VISITING THE MORO HOMELAND
Except for natural disasters such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, or the sinking of a ferry with
hundreds of victims, nobody notices what’s going on in the Philippines today. But now that
Britney Spears just belted out her tempting warble of “sneaking into the Philippines, ” can the
PENTAGON Special Forces not be far behind to get a piece of the action? Before you can
say “Yo Mama!” US troops are found already “embedded” in the Empire’s most Americanized
islands where savage class wars have been raging for decades.The US invaded the
Philippines in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, but it created the “first Vietnam” (to
quote the historian Bernard Fall) when 1.4 million Filipino recalcitrants had to be “neutralized”
to convert the revolutionary Philippine Republic into an “insular possession.” Mark Twain
praised the US government’s success in acquiring “property in the three hundred concubines
and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu,” referring to the “civilizing
mission” of US diplomacy over the Muslim inhabitants of the southern Philippines (E. San
Juan, US Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines, 2007). But in the 1906 siege at Mt.
Dajo and the 1913 rout at Mt. Bagsak, both in Jolo, the US military had to massacre
thousands of Muslim men, women and children to complete the islands’ pacification. The
victors seemed not to have learned anything, so history is repeating itself.A hundred years
after, the U.S. seems to be doing the job again.By the last week of September, the total
casualty figure surpassed three hundred as government troops (with their US
advisers/trainers) and Moro (Muslim citizens of the Philippines) militants clashed in the
southern Philippines. The scale of violence and magnitude of civilian suffering reached a
crescendo enough to alarm the European Union, but not Bush, Condoleeza Rice, nor the two
US presidential candidates. BBC News (9/26/2008) reported that the International Committee
of the Red Cross bewailed the plight of tens of thousands of refugees and evacuees, the
indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the potential for sectarian “ethnic cleansing.” More than
120,000 people have died since fighting broke out 40 years ago between the Muslim
separatists and the neocolonial state, with no end in sight.
With full-scale war between the formidable Moro guerillas and the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) about to sweep the country, the U.S. military presence suddenly caught
media attention. It was confirmed by government officials that the headquarters of the U.S.-
Philippines Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines (JSOTF-P) is found inside Camp
Navarro of the AFP’s Western Mindanao Command in Zamboanga City, Mindanao . Accessed
only by U.S. personnel, the physical infrastructure was sealed by permanent walls, concertina
wires and sandbags, with visible communication paraphernalia (satellite dishes, antennaes,
etc.). From this place, US military operations against domestic insurgents–whether belonging
to the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) or to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF), or the New People’s Army (NPA)–are launched and
directed. In lieu of economic-social reforms, the government’s militarist solution to poverty,
unemployment, and extra-judicial killings and kidnappings–over 1,000 victims so far–will only
create a refugee crisis, more atrocities and “collateral damage” of innocent civilians, loss of
national sovereignty, and impunity for criminal violence committed by the military and
police. . . . [This is a major article. D]
| January 4, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Tags: ABU SAyyaf.us imperialism, colonialism, Islam, Moro, , State terrorism, terror | Categories: COMMENTARY ON CURRENT EVENTS, , UNTIMELY OBSERVATIONS | URL: http://wp.me/phYOK-9M
US IMPERIALISM PACIFIC OCEAN
Imperialism
AmericanImperialismInPacific
/
In the latter half of the 19th century the industrialized nations within Europe were aggressively laying
claim to land across the globe in an effort to build empires. A map of the world from the period looks
like a patchwork quilt of competing Imperial countries. The United States was not blind to this
phenomenon of expansion and knew that its survival as a respected world player would rest on its
ability to take and maintain overseas possessions. After what is now the western United States was
tamed the expansionists within the U.S. began to look across the Pacific for areas of influence. There
were many forces driving the imperialist cause; nationalism, capitalism and Social Darwinism (Also
see:
created a smaller more intimate world and American expansion and Imperialist moves in the Pacific
saw the U.S. extend its influence in the region and gain territory while at the same time exporting
(sometimes forcing) its own way of life on to the local populations with mixed results. This process
continued after the end of the Second World War in response to the perceived threat of the spread of
communism. The aim was always to protect American interests within the pacific while at the same
time attempting to ensure the growth of a pro-American democratic government. This is pattern of
American international involvement that has been repeated across the planet.
Pacific Ocean (Library of Congress)
Social Darwinism) to name a few1. International trade and improvements in technology had
Hawaii
Since its official discovery in 1778 by Captain James Cook of Britain Hawaii has always been seen as
a strategic midway point between the west coast of America and Asia. American missionaries arrived
as early as 1820 to preach Protestantism and through their hard work managed to convert most of the
chiefs and local populations of Hawaii. Sugar quickly became the main export of Hawaii and the
majority of the plantations were held by wealthy Americans. In fact American citizens by 1890 were in
control of over seventy-five percent of Hawaii’s wealth. The country was united under the
Kamehameha dynasty of rulers until 1874 when the final king died without and heir. Elections were
held and with great controversy King Kalakaua was elected. Unrest over his election led to the
eventual intervention of the United States and Britain who landed troops at Honolulu. 1887 saw a
group of wealthy Americans on the island force the King to accept changes to the constitution. The
changes ensured that only the wealthy would be allowed to vote and striped the Kings powers and
transferred them to the elected legislature
government by negatively affecting the sugar trade which in turn pushed the wealthy Americans on the
island to lobby for annexation. On July 7th, 1897 congress passed the Newlands resolution to annex
Hawaii.
Although all people on Hawaii became U.S. citizens in 1900 the U.S. handling of Hawaii speaks
volumes to American opinions to the peoples of the Pacific. They scoffed at the local Kings and
covertly looked to install the American style of governance. Money inevitably was an integral factor in
the eventual annexation of Hawaii. As stated above wealthy Americans owned the vast majority of
wealth and naturally they would want to protect it. The economic fruits of Hawaii proved too valuable
for there to be a chance of them to fall under an opposing European powers control. Hawaii also was
the next natural step of American western movement. The islands in regards to American interests
were simply too important for control to be in the hands of an opposing imperial power. See also
2. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 further undermined the local
American Imperialism in Hawaii
Midway, Samoa and Japan
In 1867, Secretary of state William H. Seward claimed the islands of Midway in the Pacific. Given its
prime location northeast of Hawaii and approximately half way between the West coast of the United
States and Japan it is a perfect way station for both military and merchant vessels. Due to the islands
being uninhabited little stood in the way of the United States annexing the islands. This marks
America’s first annexation of a territory not on the North American continent
the setting for a major turning point in the Second World War, the battle of Midway, where the
Japanese navy was soundly defeated by U.S. forces.
The United States won exclusive coaling rights at the port of Pago Pago of Samoa in 1878 and
officially annexed the area in 1889. This was a result of escalating tensions between competing
Samoan warlords and the arrival of warships from the United States, Britain and Germany
respectively. To diffuse tensions, and possibly war, the three powers met in Berlin and split the islands
into three different protectorates. All this was done without consulting the local Samoans. This
agreement between the three powers speaks to the growing influence of America within the pacific.
Had the United States not previously expanded its control into Hawaii and Midway they would not
have had the leverage and strength within the region grab themselves a share of these valuable
islands. American Samoa still exists as a territory of the United States
Japan and the United States have had a contentious relationship. It was Commodore Perry of the U.S.
navy who steamed into Japanese waters aboard modern warships bristling with cannon in 1854. The
Japanese had no weapons that could counter such fire power. This was due to the fact that for over
two hundred years Japanese ports had been closed to foreign merchants and rifles and cannon were
shunned in favor of the traditional sword and bow. Despite being a highly developed culture which
rivaled that of the European powers in terms of knowledge and higher thinking they could no longer
resist modern weapons. Thus the Shogunate in control of Japan reluctantly signed the treaty of
Kanagawa in 1854
America used it superior firepower to force Japan to enter the world stage they did not, like other
pacific territories, allow themselves to be controlled by western powers. They gladly jumped into
modern techniques and used America, among other nations, as a model for becoming a modern
nation. Fifty years after Perry the Japanese defeated the Russians in a modern war, marking the first
time a “yellow” race had defeated a major Western power. The U.S. by forcing Japan to accept its
trade had opened a Pandora’s Box and unleashed a new world power which had direct control within
the Pacific and would, in time, threaten the United States itself.
3. These islands were also 4. 5. This treaty officially opened up Japan to western trade and influence. While
The Philippines
The Philippines (Library of Congress)
Whereas the acquisitions and actions mentioned above were important first steps in the spread of
American influence in the Pacific they were not significant enough to make the United States serious
players in Asian affairs. The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana gave the United States a unique
opportunity to extend itself right into the heart of Southeast Asia. The destruction of the Maine led to
the outbreak of the Spanish-American war, and while the War began over events that occurred in the
Caribbean, it meant that the war would also be fought in South East Asia. The Spanish held the
Philippine islands and it was the last remaining jewel in their crumbled former empire and it was here
that the first victory of the War was won
Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish fleet in the Philippines at Manila bay. This coupled
with events in the Caribbean saw the Spanish resistance in the war crumble and in December of 1898
the treaty of Paris was signed between the warring nations. The treaty saw Spain cede possession of
Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States in exchange for twenty million U.S.
dollars. Despite the Filipinos controlling much of the country and declaring themselves a democratic
nation with a constitution, the United States refused to end the occupation. As a result the Philippine-
American war broke out, lasting on and off for the better part of a decade. The Americans saw their
role in the Philippines as one of delivering civilization to the savages but the Filipinos felt betrayed by
America installing itself in the place of the previous imperial rulers. The war was a fierce guerilla war
which can be compared to that fought between the U.S. and the Native Americans. Regular civilians
suffered while the war dragged on for years. The main insurrection was put down in 1901 and saw two
hundred thousand Filipinos killed and five thousand American troops dead. Sporadic fighting
continued on the islands for years after. Despite the animosity between the locals and American forces
the Philippine economy grew well. The United States promised to remove themselves from the
Philippines once a “Stable government” had been established while those that voiced their dissent
against the American colonial power were sent to prison. An obvious hypocrisy appears in that the
U.S. leaders in the Philippines took the rights of free speech that they enjoyed as Americans away
from those they governed. These rights were suspended in order to bring an American system of
government into place.
6.
China (Pre-WWII)
China, much like Japan, was treated differently by the United States. Long before the United States
had become players within the pacific region, Imperialist European powers had been growing rich on
China’s valuable trade resources. While too large and populous for any one Western nation to control,
the areas next to the coast had been divided into separate spheres of influence that were presided
over by each European nation. The U.S. government needed a way into the Chinese markets. While
they had already negotiated the treaty of Wanghia in 1844 that granted America a “most favored
nation” clause, there were similar treaties created a few years later that guaranteed other nations the
same rights
The outbreak of the Boxer rebellion in 1900 in Beijing led to America and other European nations to
send military forces into the city and end the rebellion. Yet another move that was welcomed by the
American merchants. After the rebellion Secretary of State John Hay sent a message to the other
Imperial nations asking that Chinese borders and territories be respected and to promote free trade
with China. This became known as the open-door policy and would become an important aspect of
American diplomacy. America as a nation was built upon free trade and enterprise so it should come
at no surprise that they should wish to foster the same spirit within the largest, most populous and
potentially richest nation in the Far East.
7.
China (Post-WWII)
Now it is time to fast forward to after the end of the Second World War. In December of 1945 President
Truman sent Gen. George Marshall to China to attempt to end the civil war that was raging between
the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists (CCP) under Mao Tse-tung. Marshall as
treated well by the CCP and was led to believe that the CCP “desired a democracy based… on the
American style”
Manchuria by threatening to remove American aid. This led to a fifteen day respite in fighting. A delay
that cost the Nationalists the civil war for it gave the retreating CCP forces time to regroup and
establish rail links to the Soviet Union and build an unshakeable base in Northern Manchuria. From
this base the CCP forces would go on to conquer the whole of China. The decision by Marshal to halt
the advance of the Nationalists is one of the worst mistakes in the history of American foreign policy.
For not only did it allow one of histories most brutal leaders to assume power over the largest
population in the world, it led to the vast Chinese markets being closed off to the entire western world
for the remainder of Mao’s life
Vietnamese wars, surely increasing American casualties in both wars.
8. This led to Marshall pressuring Chiang not to pursue the communists into northern 9. It also allowed for Chinese troops to assist in both the Korean and
Vietnam (Pre-War)
Vietnam 2001 (Library of Congress)
American actions in Vietnam before the outbreak of the Vietnam War were also mishandled. Before
American involvement, Vietnam had been a colony of France and after the end of the Second World
War they wanted to keep it. The Vietnamese, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh began to revolt and
began a war of independence that would last for almost a quarter century. The United States saw
Vietnam as the keystone to a free and democratic South East Asia. Senator John F. Kennedy argued
that the Vietnamese economy was vital to the economy of South East Asia, and thus by default
equally important to the U.S. economy
theorists warned then the rest of the region would quickly follow. Instead they wished to create a
thriving democratic nation that could spread the tenets of free trade and thus advance American
influence. This was never going to be easy. The North was the industrialized section of the country
with Southern Vietnam trapped in a colonial economy based upon rice and rubber. Slowly the United
States began to move France out of the picture and claim full control over building Southern Vietnam
into a prosperous nation.
The U.S. backed a man called Ngo Dinh Diem. They did not back him because he would make the
especially charismatic leader required to rule a nation in such turmoil. Instead they gave Diem U.S.
support because he was the most pro-American man with the correct training available. It helped that
he lived in New Jersey for a time in exile. Diem’s government was oppressive and he began to make
authoritarian reforms to consolidate his own power. The U.S. was not ready to back the Elections that
the U.N. had mandated because it feared that Ho Chi Minh would prevail. Once again this shows a
U.S. tendency to undermine its own message of a free and equal society in territories that they are
attempting to build just that. The government itself was corrupt and positions within government were
awarded upon loyalty to Diem, not ability. The aid sent from the U.S. to Vietnam went into the wrong
areas such as building an army and importing consumer goods, when the majority of it should have
been used upon building and improving infrastructure and the quality of life within the rural areas, in
which ninety percent of the South Vietnamese population lived
realized that wholesale changes were needed to bring about the desired result, the situation in the
country had deteriorated to the point where a military presence was required. And we all know what
happened after that. Also See:
Conclusion
10. If Vietnam were to fall to the communist threat as domino 11. By the time the United States cold war containment
Can American Imperialism within the Pacific region be considered a success? Like many things
America has undertaken it did well in some aspects and terrible in others. Unlike other Imperialist
powers the U.S. did not lose all off their territories within the region. Hawaii and Samoa respectively
show this and allow America to still wield influence within the region. We were very successful in
helping the Japanese become the world power they are today, you could say we forced them into it,
but after our initial prods their pace of modernization is unparalleled and in current times the two
countries maintain a strong relationship. The mistakes though, are incredibly glaring. America seems
to have always held a strong paternalistic feeling towards those countries we are attempting to “help”.
It seems that it always comes down to America demanding something or it will withdraw aid.
because Americans have always served their own interests first, sometimes to their own
detriment
First century it develops an ability to listen to those we want to extend our great institutions towards,
perhaps they will be more willing to listen in return.
This is . Let’s hope that as the great nation of the United States of America moves into the Twenty-
“
By MacGregor Eddy, Space Alert! (Winter 2012), p. 2.
Vandenberg Space Command Dominates the Pacific”
Vandenberg Space C ommand is located
in Southern C alifornia 200 miles north
of Los Angeles. Poised at the edge of the
Pacific, the base routinely tests I ntercontinental
Ballistic Missiles (IC BM’s).
These long-range high speed hydrogen
bomb delivery systems are tested several
times a year landing in the once beautiful
Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall I slands.
Every three years Vandenberg does an
extended range test all the way to Guam.
If North K orea or I ran tests a few missiles,
hysteria breaks out worldwide.
When the US does these routine tests, it
does not even make the news except as a
local story. Many peace activists are not
aware that these tests occur, much less
the general public.
David K rieger, President of the Nuclear
Age Peace F oundation, said, “The US
moratorium on nuclear testing remains
incomplete as long as we continue testing
missiles designed to carry nuclear
warheads. Minuteman III missiles are
used solely to deliver nuclear warheads.
“The Nuclear Age Peace F oundation
seeks the abolition of all nuclear weapons
worldwide. T he F oundation calls
on the US and all countries around the
world to recognize their full obligation to
halt all nuclear testing – not only of the
warheads, but also of nuclear-capable
missiles. T he preamble to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation T reaty (NPT) calls
upon the 189 countries that signed the
NPT to facilitate ‘the elimination from
national arsenals of nuclear weapons
and the means of their delivery.’
“The US is demonstrating a stark
double standard by condemning missile
tests of other nations while continuing to
conduct them on a regular basis itself.
Continued testing of Minuteman III missiles by the US sends a provocative
message and encourages other countries
to pursue their own nuclear weapon and
missile delivery programs.”
Over the years, a dedicated band from
Catholic Worker communities, Women’s
International League for Peace and
Freedom, and the Global Network (since
1999) have held protests at the base.
These protests also opposed the Star
Wars “missile defense” interceptor test
launches that also take place from Vandenberg
(mostly failed interceptions)
and the launch of the polar orbit satellites
used to conduct war from space.
Until 2008, most of the protests were
held during K eep Space for Peace Week,
Hiroshima Day, or other special days
chosen by the peace movement. I n August
of 2008, a small protest was held
at night at the time of an IC BM launch.
The base authorities over-reacted with
heavily armed security surrounding the
protesters (three women) and trying to
intimidate us. Since then, IC BM launch
time protests have been held at Vandenberg.
T wice there have also been companion
protests at the Los Angeles Space
and Missile center in El Segundo, which
tracks the IC BM trajectory. T here have
been nighttime arrests of F r. Louie Vitale,
Sister Megan R ice and myself, who have
gone onto the base to ask the commander
to comply with international law.
On September 21, 2011 the USAF scheduled an IC BM night launch toward
Kwajalein atoll. September 21 is the UN
International Day of Peace. T hat day is
officially recognized each year by the
United Nations General Assembly as a
day for “commemorating and strengthening
the ideals of peace both within
and among all nations and peoples.”
This launch was denounced all over
the world, with many nations expressing
surprise that the tests were being
conducted. T his campaign made people
worldwide aware that these launches
are taking place. T he 9/21 launch was
postponed.
These IC BM Minuteman III nuclear
capable delivery systems are the ones
that are armed and set in silos in 450
locations around the Midwest of the
USA. T hese cold war legacy hydrogen
bombs are on hair trigger alert, thus
greatly increasing our risk of accident.
Each IC BM carries up to 3 to 12 warheads
and can travel 5,000 miles in 30 minutes.
Once launched they cannot be recalled.
(
The launching of these tests increases
tensions around the world, and sends
a message that the US disregards its
moral obligations under Article VI of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation T reaty. T his
states that the nuclear powers must engage
in good faith disarmament efforts.
It also violates the 1996 I nternational
Court of Justice decision stating that the
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons
is a violation of international law.
The few medium range missiles of
the DPRK (North K orea) are used as a
pretext for the military build up in the
Pacific. T he proposed naval base at Jeju
Island, although directed toward C hina,
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/)
Vandenberg AFB is a key launch site for US ICBM and Star Wars tests.
uses the North K orea missiles as its
pretext. T he Pacific Missile R ange F acility
at Barking Sands is being expanded
on K auai in the Hawaiian I slands. T his
build up also uses the North K orean
“threat” as an excuse.
The island peoples of the Pacific pay
the price for this military build up. Jeju,
Guam, the Marshall I slands, Hawaii,
Okinawa all join in the call for peace in
the Pacific.
On F ebruary 24-25, protests are
planned around the world to demand
a stop to the next IC BM test launch.
In Santa Barbara, Daniel Ellsberg and
David K rieger will hold a press conference
and rally at 11 am on F eb 24 to
demand a halt. At midnight (11:55 pm F eb
24), a front gate protest will be held at
Vandenberg Space C ommand six miles
north of Lompoc in C alifornia. I n the Los
Angeles area, a noon protest will be at
the Space and Missile tracking center in
El Segundo, which is key to the launch.
These launches are world events and a
protest can be held at a US embassy or
consulate anywhere. C ontact macgregoreddy@
Vandenberg and El Segundo events.
—
Women’s International League for Peace
for details about the MacGregor Eddy is a member of the
& Freedom and serves on the Global Network’s
Advisory
1. Peace Protests at
Base
Vandenberg Space Command / Air Force
vandenberg
You +1'd this publicly.
Jan 23, 2012 –
Vandenberg Space Command dominates
email
2. Peace Protests at
Base
protest-macgregor. blogspot.com / Cached - Similar Undo posted by MacGregor at 4:32 PM 0 Comments Links to this post ... the Pacific .... embassy or consulate anywhere. macgregoreddy@gmail.com for details about the Vandenberg ... Vandenberg Space Command / Air Force
vandenberg
You +1'd this publicly.
Jan 8, 2012 –
Boothe and
3. 2011-10-02 - Peace Protests at
Command
vandenberg
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 2, 2011 –
and the 21st-century mix of orbital platforms is 70 percent
Boothe and
4. Keep
Control
You +1'd this publicly.
MacGregor Eddy
Lompoc, California, are really all about -- they're part of U.S. military
5.
vandenberg
You +1'd this publicly.
Jan 22, 2012 –
front gate protest will be held at
macgregoreddy
6. [PDF]
protest-macgregor.blogspot.
20 Years of Organizing to Keep
www.
You +1'd this publicly.
File Format:
Dec 31, 2011 –
Dominates
7. Report WILPF
Space for Peace space4peace.org/newsletter/Spa
You +1'd this publicly.
MacGregor Eddy's
MEMBER CHARGES
about how the U.S. drive to
8. Peace Protest at
midnight
You +1'd this publicly.
Jun 8, 2009 –
at the front gate of
military buildups that are all about
9. democracyforwashington : Message: FW:
Actions
You +1'd this publicly.
2 posts - Sep 12, 2007
Undo report on the October 8 rally and demonstration follows below: WILPF VANDENBERG SPACE COMMAND WITH WAR .... Stacey talked dominate the world will extend to ... Vandenberg Air Force base launch ICBM .. . Cached - Similar Undo by MacGregor Eddy Monday Jun 8th, 2009 5:55 PM ... The protest will be held Vandenberg Space Command - Intersection of Hwy 1 .... massive US dominating the world. Space Week Loca l .. . Cached Undo
MacGregor Eddy
Vigil at main gate, 1:00 pm) Dennis Apel jdapel@.
Vision for 2020 that would
Get more discussion results
(831) 206-5043 macgregoreddy@. ... 27) Vandenberg AFB, CA (Oct 13 ... rejecting the U.S. Space Command dominate space for ...
10. [PDF]
NEWS &
You +1'd this publicly.
File Format:
gates of
renamed
middle aged truckers and locals with attitudes‚—
“
Announcements Create New Provocations in Asia”
Undo PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Vandenberg Air Force Base on ... declared Eddy MacGregor of ... The base was Vandenberg in ... Force Space Command's 30th Space ...... old timer regulars— dominated the ... Tone Deaf US Foreign Policy
By Alice Slater
On UN Day, at a panel on Nuclear
Disarmament, Secretary General Ban-ki
Moon spoke about his 2008 five-point
proposal for nuclear disarmament, including
the requirement for negotiations
to ban the bomb. I t was dismaying when
the next speaker, a retired US Air F orce
General, Michael Mosley, breezily assured
the audience and his fellow panelists
that it certainly was now possible to
rid the world of nuclear weapons, since
atomic bomb technology is thoroughly
out of date. He boasted that today “we”
have long range attack weapons of such
Space Alert! (Winter 2012) p. 3.
“
that we no longer need nuclear weapons
in the US arsenal.
Our conventional weapons are ever
so superior to those of any other nation.
He said this as his fellow co-panelists,
the R ussian and C hinese ambassadors,
took in the full import of his braggadocio,
to my extreme embarrassment as
a US citizen. Did the General consider
for a moment the effect his words were
having on the ambassadors and the other
non- US participants in the meeting? His
astonishing disregard for the effect of
such provocative war talk on our fellow
earth mates seems to be a major failure
of our “tin ear” foreign policy.
Hillary C linton proclaimed a similarly
tone-deaf policy in an article in November’s
F oreign Affairs, “America’s Pacific
Century,” remarking that now that the
wars in I raq and Afghanistan were winding
down, we are at a “pivot point” and
that “one of the most important tasks
of American statecraft over the next
decade will be to lock in a substantially
increased investment—diplomatic economic,
strategic and otherwise—in
the Asia-Pacific region.” C alling for
unbelievable precision and lethality”
“
defined it to include “forging a broadbased
military presence” in Asia…that
would be “as durable and as consistent
with American interests and values as
the web we have built across the Atlantic…
capable of deterring provocation
from the full spectrum of state and nonstate
actors.” She added that just as our
NATO alliance “has paid off many times
over…the time has come to make similar
investments as a Pacific power”.
Citing our T reaty alliances with Japan,
South K orea, Australia, the Philippines
and T hailand as the “fulcrum for our
strategic turn to the Asian-Pacific,” she
also spoke of the need to expand our
relationships to include I ndia, I ndonesia,
forward-deployed” diplomacy, she
Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia,
Mongolia, Vietnam, and the Pacific
Island countries. While acknowledging
“
on both sides of the Pacific,” stating
that “some in our country see C hina’s
progress as a threat to the United States;
some in C hina worry that America
seeks to constrain C hina’s growth” she
blithely asserted, “we reject both those
views … a thriving America is good for
fears and misperceptions that “linger
China and a thriving C hina is good for
America
lines up a host of new nations in
an expanded Pacific military alliance,
providing them with missile defenses,
ships, and warplanes, encircling C hina.
What is she thinking?
Shortly after C linton’s article appeared,
Obama went to Australia to
open up a new military base there with
a token 250 US soldiers, and a promise
of 2,500 to come with plans for joint
military training, promising that “we
will allocate the resources necessary to
maintain our strong military presence
in this region.” He also adopted the
”. T his said as the US aggressively
“
military ties with the Philippines and
announced the sale of 24 F -16 fighter jets
to I ndonesia. C linton also recently paid a
visit to Myanmar, long allied with C hina,
to re-establish relations there.
In her article’s conclusion C linton
bragged, “Our military is by far the
strongest and our economy is by far the
largest in the world. Our workers are
the most productive. Our universities
are renowned the world over. So there
should be no doubt that America has
the capacity to secure and sustain our
global leadership in this century as we
did in the last.” Didn’t anyone tell her
that the number of Americans living below
the official poverty line, 46.2 million
people, was the highest in the 52 years
the census bureau has been publishing
those figures? Or that the United States
deteriorating transportation infrastructure
will cost the economy more than
870,000 jobs and would suppress US
economic growth by $3.1 trillion by 2020,
according to the American Society of
Civil Engineers?
The tone-deaf quality of US foreign
policy pronouncements is like an infant
who pulls the covers over his head to
play peek-a-boo, thinking he can’t be
seen so long as he can’t see out. C hina
has responded as would be expected. A
Pentagon report warned C ongress that
Manila Declaration,” pledging closer
China was increasing its naval power
and investing in high-tech weaponry
to extend its reach in the Pacific and
beyond. I t ramped up efforts to produce
anti-ship missiles to knock out aircraft
carriers, improved targeting radar,
expanding its fleet of nuclear-powered
submarines and warships and making
advances in satellite technology and
cyber warfare. What did we expect? And
now, having provoked C hina to beef up
its military assets, the warmongers in
the US can frighten the public into supporting
the next wild burgeoning arms
The author with one of the famous Jeju Island sea diving women in
Gangjeong village during her recent visit
race in the Pacific for what appears to be
endless war.
This month, Mikhail Gorbachev, writing
in T he Nation, observed the US elite’s
“
Cold War, and the references to the US as
a “hyperpower,” capable of creating “a
new kind of empire”. He said, “thinking
in such terms in our time is a delusion.
No wonder that the imperial project
failed and that it soon became clear that
it was a mission impossible even for the
winner’s complex” after the end of the
United States.” T he opportunity to build
a “truly new world order was lost.” T he
US decision to expand NATO eastward
“
Nations and thus weakened it. We are
engulfed in global turmoil, “drifting in
uncharted waters. T he global economic
crisis of 2008 made that abundantly
clear.“
Sadly, the powers in control of US
public policy and their far-flung global
allies appear to have learned nothing
from the extraordinary opportunity we
lost for a more peaceful world at the C old
War’s end. We are now repeating those
expansionary designs in Asia, and “thus
we continue to drift towards unparalleled
catastrophe” as Albert Einstein
observed when we split the atom which
usurped the functions of the United
“
of thinking”.
changed everything save man’s mode
—
of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and
serves on the Board of the Global Network.
Alice Slater is the New York Director
“
Space Alert! (Winter 2012). P. 11.
made possible by its heavy military
presence across the vast Pacific Ocean,
which is directed from Hawaii. “We’ve
seen over the past 30-plus years the
region really blossom both economically
and politically and people tend
to forget or not even realize a reason
for that is that the US has ensured
stability in Asia and the Asia-Pacific,”
said Michael Mazza, a security expert
at the conservative American Enterprise
I nstitute think tank. Based just
outside Honolulu USPACOM (Pacific
Command) covers an area from C alifornia
to I ndia that is home to five of
the world’s 10 biggest economies. On
any given day, the US Navy has 50–60
ships in the region. Some 325,000 military
and civilian personnel, or about
one-fifth of total US military strength,
serve under USPACOM, including
about 80,000 troops stationed in Japan
and South K orea. Lately, [Secretary of
War] Leon Panetta has gone to great
lengths to reassure allies that the US
military will maintain a strong posture
in the Pacific despite looming Pentagon
spending cuts at home. “We are
not anticipating any cutbacks in this
region. I f anything we are going to
strengthen our presence in the Pacific,”
Hawaii Hosts Largest Pentagon Command” US control in the Asia-Pacific is
Panetta said in T okyo late last year.
Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:
No comments:
Post a Comment