Wednesday, February 18, 2015


Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.
( #1 May 8, 2012; #2 August 22, 2012; #3 Nov. 25, 2012; #4 Jan. 12, 2013; #5 March 27, 2013; #6 July 5, 2013; #7 August 12, 2013; #8 Nov. 8, 2013; #9 Jan. 2, 2014; #10 Feb. 3, 2014; #11 Feb. 26, 2014; #12 April 21, 2014; #13, June 26, 2014; #14 Sept. 24, 2014).
Thanks to Marc Quigley all of my newsletters are placed properly in OMNI’s web site.
What’s at stake:   “China has experienced very little except humiliation and defeat in its relations with the West” (J. William Fulbright, 1966).   China’s rise is not occurring at the expense of the United States (Donald Gross), and China is not threatening the US militarily, but the reverse is true.

Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:    For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and ecology movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for opposition to empire, militarism, and wars.   Here is the link to the Index    See: Continental US Westward Expansion, Genocide, Indigenous People of Americas, Korean War, Pentagon, TPP, US Imperialism, Vietnam War, WWII Colonial Pacific, and more.
See Nuclear Free Independent Pacific DAY.doc, No Bases Network, Nuclear Weapons.
My blog:
It's the War Department

Contents # 14 at end

Contents US Westward Imperialism, Pacific/E. Asia Newsletter #15
Recent OMNI Newsletters Related to US Imperialism

US in Asia, Vietnam, Laos,
 Branfman, Voices from the Plain of Jars, 2nd ed.
Tran and Reid, Vietnam

Trans-Pacific Partners (NAFTA on Steroids)
Public Citizen, TPP
TPP, Contact Your Legislators
Working Families, Sign the Petition
Progressive Secretary

   J, William Fulbright on China and Vietnam
    Donald Gross, The China Fallacy, US/China Cooperation Possible
    Dick, Associated Press Reports Meeting of Allies vs. China

Global Empire, East Meets West
Nick Turse on Chad

2014 Recent OMNI Newsletters Related to US Imperialism
Capitalism, Snowden, Wars, Armistice DAY, UN DAY, Indigenous People’s DAY, Westward Imperialism  
US Capitalism
Voices from the Plain of Jars
Life under an Air War
Second Edition

Edited by Fred Branfman with essays and drawings by Laotian villagers
Foreword by Alfred W. McCoy

New Perspectives in Southeast Asian Studies
Alfred W. McCoy, R. Anderson Sutton, Thongchai Winichakul,
and Kenneth M. George, Series Editors 

“A classic. . . . No American should be able to read [this book] without weeping at his country’s arrogance.”
—Anthony Lewis, New York Times

During the Vietnam War the United States government waged a massive, secret air war in neighboring Laos. Fred Branfman, an educational advisor living in Laos at the time, interviewed over 1,000 Laotian survivors. Shocked by what he heard and saw, he urged them to record their experiences in essays, poems, and pictures. Voices from the Plain of Jars was the result of that effort.

When first published in 1972, this book was instrumental in exposing the bombing. In this expanded edition, Branfman follows the story forward in time, describing the hardships that Laotians faced after the war when they returned to find their farm fields littered with cluster munitions—explosives that continue to maim and kill today.

“Today, the significance of this book’s message has, if anything, increased. As Fred Branfman predicted with uncommon prescience, the massive U.S. bombing of Laos during the Vietnam War marked the advent of a new kind of warfare—automated, aerial, and secret—that is just now emerging as the dominant means of projecting U.S. power worldwide.”
—Alfred W. McCoy, author of Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation Branfman (1942–2014) was a writer and activist on issues of peace and climate change who lived in Santa Barbara, California, and in Budapest.
After his passing, the New York Times published an extendedobituary reflecting upon the role of this book in his life's work as a peace activist.

Media & bookseller inquiries regarding review copies, events, and interviews can be directed to the publicity department at or (608) 263-0734. (If you want to examine a book for possible course use, please see Course Books in the left sidebar. If you want to examine a book for possible rights licensing, please see Rights & Permissions in the left sidebar.)

Of Related Interest:
The cover of Viet Nam has the title in yellow gold on a field of red, under that, an old map of a part of Viet Nam.Viêt Nam
Borderless Histories
Edited by Nhung Tuyet Tran and Anthony Reid
"Vitally important not only for Vietnamese studies, but also for broader efforts in Southeast Asian studies to recover the pluralities and fluidities of the past. This volume makes a convincing case for the emergence of a real generational and analytical shift in the field."—Mark Philip Bradley, Northwestern University

May 2013
LC: 2012032677 DS
196 pp.   5 1/2 x 8 1/4  
34 b/w illus.
Book icon
Paper $19.95 s
ISBN 978-0-299-29224-9
E-book logo
eBook $15.95
ISBN 978-0-299-29223-2

Adobe Digital Edition (PDF)
About our e-books
Printing and cut/paste allowed, access on six different devices.
Shopping cart

Review cart contents
Secure checkout

“[In Laos,] where a right-wing government installed by the CIA faced a rebellion, one of the most beautiful areas in the world, the Plain of Jars, was being destroyed by bombing. This was not reported by the government or the press, but an American who lived in Laos, Fred Branfman, told the story in his book Voices from the Plain of Jars.”
—Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States

“In this small, shattering book we hear—as we are so rarely able to do—the voices of Asian peasants describing what we can barely begin to imagine.”
—Gloria Emerson, New York Review of Books

Prior edition: Harper & Row USA, 1972, Paper ISBN 0-060-903

Trans-Pacific Partnership
Public Citizen vs. TPP
To Dick, 10-28-14
Negotiations in Australia, aimed at hatching a final Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, came to a close earlier this week. Given the extreme secrecy of the process, there is no way for the public, Congress or the press to find out what really happened.

Supporters of the dangerous 12-nation deal are using terms like “endgame,” “breakthrough” and “finish line.” We’ve heard this spin before. But thanks to growing opposition, TPP deadlines in 2012 and 2013 were missed.

We know that a lot of TPP issues seem to be unresolved. But we also know that very bad deals often get done in secrecy when the pressure to make a deal — any deal — is on. We can’t afford to wait and see.

The outstanding issues will decide if the medicine we need is affordable, if more devastating financial crises are in our future and if corporations can use investor-state panels to attack our laws and raid our governments’ treasuries.

The best thing we can do is to make sure that IF there ever is a finished TPP, there won’t be any Fast Track to railroad it through Congress.

Take action now. Email your representative to say “no” to fast-tracking the TPP.

Please read my earlier alert, copied below, for more information.
As always, thanks for all you do.

Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
October 24, 2014
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiators are holding closed-door meetings in Australia this week and next.

President Barack Obama wants to announce a TPP deal when he’s in Asia for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in mid-November. So U.S. negotiators are looking to finalize the 12-country deal despite mounting evidence that this dangerous corporate fantasy should not be completed — now or ever.

As negotiators rush to meet Obama’s arbitrary deadline, some members of Congress are seeking to revive Fast Track in the upcoming lame-duck session after the elections.

Email your representative to say “no” to fast-tracking the TPP.

Fast Track would allow the president to sign the TPP without congressional approval and then railroad the deal through Congress in only 90 days with limited debate and no amendments. Congress — which has constitutional authority over trade — would be forced into an up-or-down vote on the TPP with no opportunity to change the dangerous parts of the deal.

We cannot allow this to happen.

The TPP threatens to impose binding, retrograde rules on non-trade matters that affect our daily lives — undermining food safety, restricting Internet freedom, raising medication prices, rolling back financial regulations and anti-fracking policies, and more.

Urge your representative to refuse to fast-track the TPP.

Some members of Congress are working on a replacement for Fast Track, a so-called “Smart Track.” It is not yet clear if this will be the real Fast Track replacement we so desperately need, or just another anti-democratic Fast Track in disguise.

A real replacement for Fast Track would guarantee Congress a steering wheel and an emergency brake for runaway “trade” deals. For example, Congress should be able to vote to approve an agreement before it is signed by the president.

Take a stand against the TPP and send your representative this list of must-haves for a workable Fast Track replacement.

Thank you for all you do.  In solidarity,
Melanie Foley
Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
About GTW | Contact Us | Write Your Rep | Support Us
Stay informed and speak out when it counts. Sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network or other online announcements. If you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from Public Citizen in the future, please click here.
Public Citizen employees are members of SEIU Local 500. We support the right of workers in the United States and around the world to organize freely. Union Yes!
Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. All Rights Reserved
215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, 3rd Floor
Washington, DC

Find out more, speak up and spread the word:;http://www.ExposeTheTPP....

NAFTA on steroids

Joe Dinkin, Working Families via mail.salsalabs.n
Jan 24, 2015)

to me
Remember NAFTA? The trade agreement that sent thousands of jobs overseas and drove down wages at home?
Imagine NAFTA on steroids and you get the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The TPP will make it easier for corporations to ship job overseas, roll back Wall Street reforms, and drive up the costs of medicines. 
President Obama is asking for "fast-track" authority from Congress to quickly pass the agreement with limited debate.But members of Congress don't even know what's in it! The deal has been kept secret, accessible only to corporations and heads of state. 
The TPP was written in secret by advisers from some of the largest multinational corporate conglomerations in the Western hemisphere. 
Even members of Congress haven't been given access to the entire 29-chapter document! President Obama is hoping to "fast track" it through Congress with a quick up or down vote before they get a chance. 
We need to make sure Congress knows we stand against secret policies that hurt working people.
Thanks for all you do.
Joe Dinkin
Working Families

1/25/2015 Gmail ­ Tell Washington to oppose the Trans­Pacific Trade Partnership agreement (TPP) 1/2 Dick Bennett Tell Washington to oppose the Trans­Pacific Trade Partnership agreement (TPP) 2 messages Progressive Secretary Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:06 PM Reply­To: "" To: "James R. Bennett" Dear Dick, Here is a new Progressive Secretary letter. This letter supports campaigns by many organizations opposing the Trans­Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The treaty allows corporations to sue governments in trade tribunals for expected "lost profits." These "tribunals" aren't US courts. They're international arbitration tribunals and they're empowered to award massive payments to corporations. Anything done in the public interest is likely to result in "lost profits." That means that a tribunal ruling allows foreign corporations to override our laws. Oppose this treaty by sending a letter to the President and to the Senate. The Senate must reject the Trans­Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement (treaty). With the assistance of 600 corporate advisers, the administration negotiated the TPP secretly, ignoring Congress and the American people. Former Trade Representative Ron Kirk said that if Americans knew what was in it, they would oppose the agreement. And no wonder. The TPP — the biggest corporate power grab in history — will allow corporations to overturn laws that protect the public and the environment if those laws result in lost (corporate) profits. The TPP will hurt American manufacturing, guaranteeing that the USA treat businesses incorporated in TPP countries equally with U.S. firms when bidding on government contracts. Like NAFTA, the TPP will drive down wages. Please show your allegiance to the people you represent. Stop the TPP. Click here to send this letter or to learn more (you can edit the subject or the letter itself in the next step, if you wish).1/25/2015 Gmail ­ Tell Washington to oppose the Trans­Pacific Trade Partnership agreement (TPP) 2/2 To ask friends to sign this letter, forward this link (doesn't contain your personal contact information): action_KEY=10838 Sincerely, Kathie Turner, Executive Director Be a Fan on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter Want to make Progressive Secretary even better? Suggest a letter | Recruit a Friend Donate | Volunteer Progressive Secretary Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:06 PM Reply­To: To: [Quoted text hidden]

J. William Fulbright Testifies on China and Vietnam
[United States senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas supported the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed President Lyndon Johnson to expand U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War (1959-1975). But Fulbright had begun to question the U.S. role in the war by 1966 when he testified at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on U.S. policy toward China and Vietnam. Fulbright, who was chairman of the committee, warned that U.S. engagement in Vietnam could lead to a war with China.  --Dick]
J. William Fulbright Testifies on China and Vietnam
China has experienced very little except humiliation and defeat in its relations with the West, including Russia and, to some degree, America. One of our leading Chinese scholars, Prof. John K. Fairbank, who is the director of the East Asian Research Center of Harvard University, believes that the rapacious behavior of Europeans in China in past centuries has a great deal to do with the irrationality and hostile behavior of China's current leaders.
Words like "extraterritoriality" and "unequal treaties" are far too antiseptic, too bland, to describe China's humiliation by Western imperialism. In human terms, the coming of Western civilization to China in the nineteenth century meant the plundering of China's wealth by foreigners and the reduction of most of the Chinese to an inferior status within their own country. Missionaries were immune from Chinese law and treated the Chinese as heathen, except, of course, for the converts who also claimed immunity from Chinese law and used the power conferred by their foreign association to intimidate their fellow citizens. Foreign goods were exempted by treaty from internal toll taxes imposed by the Manchu Dynasty to pay for the Taiping rebellion of the mid-19th century, with the result that Western companies destroyed their Chinese competitors in the sale of such products as timber, oil, tobacco and, of course, opium. Each of China’s disastrous nineteenth century wars with the West was followed by the levy of a huge indemnity or some further incursion on the economic life of the country.
It is of great importance that we try to learn something more about the strange and fascinating Chinese nation, about its past and its present, about the aims of its leaders and the aspirations of its people. Before we can make wise political -- and perhaps military -- decisions pertaining to China, there are many questions to be asked and, hopefully, answered: What kind of people are the Chinese? To what extent are they motivated by national feeling? To what extent by ideology? Why are the Chinese Communist leaders so hostile to the United States and why do they advocate violent revolution against most of the world's governments? To what extent is their view of the world distorted by isolation and the memory of ancient grievances? To what extent, and with what effect on their Government, do the Chinese people share with us and with all other peoples what Aldous Huxley has called the simple human preference for life and peace?
We need to ask these questions because China and America may be heading toward war with each other and it is essential that we do all that can be done to prevent that calamity, starting with a concerted effort to understand the Chinese people and their leaders.
The danger of war is real. It is real because China is ruled by ideological dogmatists who will soon have nuclear weapons at their disposal and who, though far more ferocious in words than in actions, nonetheless are intensely hostile to the United States. In the short run the danger of war between China and America is real because an "open-ended" war in Viet-Nam can bring the two great powers into conflict with each other, by accident or by design, at almost any time. Some of our military experts are confident that China will not enter the war in Viet-Nam; their confidence would be more reassuring if it did not bring to mind the predictions of military experts in 1950 that China would not enter the Korean war, as well as more recent predictions about an early victory in Viet-Nam. In fact, it is the view of certain China experts in our Government that the Chinese leaders themselves expect to be at war with the United States within a year, and it is clear that some of our own officials also expect a war with China.
Our ultimate objective must, of course, be political: the prevention of war between China and America. At present there appears to be a growing expectation of war in both countries and, as Professor [Gordon W.] Allport points out, "what people expect determines their behavior." Perhaps a concerted effort to increase our understanding of China and the Chinese would alter that fatal expectancy, and perhaps if our expectations were altered theirs too would change. It is anything but a sure thing but, considering the stakes and considering the alternative, it seems worth a try.
The Chinese today, like Americans a hundred years ago, are in an agitated and abnormal state of mind. It is not only within our means but, as a great and mature Nation, it is our responsibility, as [United Nations Secretary General] U Thant so wisely pointed out, to try to understand the causes of China's agitation and to try to find some remedy.
[Source: Congressional Record, March 7, 1966.]

“Obama defends commitment to Asia Pacific region” by Julie Pace (AP). 

A similar version from Brisbane, Australia, was published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Nov. 16, 2014), from which I am quoting, “Obama, Allies Discuss Pacific-Region Security.”
Pace:  “Eyeing Chinese aggression, President Barack Obama and the prime ministers of Japan and Australia committed today to deepen their military cooperation and work together on strengthening maritime security in the Asia Pacific.”
Chinese aggression?  For example?  (Pace here using the language of the military triumvirate.  See later.)    Rather, the US has moved across the Pacific Ocean relentlessly expanding its bases closer and closer until surrounding China:  Hawaii, Guam (a super-size carrier battle group) , Philippines, Japan (Okinawa the firepower of 10 carrier battle groups, which the US also has roaming the seas, China not yet one), South Korea (Jeju Island)—pan-Asian military treaties to contain “Chinese aggression.”   And now three agree to “’deepen the already strong security and defense cooperation,’” now tightening the drawstring with Japan to the north and Australia to the South, both already firm allies with the US against the fearsome foe, but there can never be enough reassuring threatening control for the pathologically insecure. 
Pace:  Asia Pacific is “a region rife with disputes between China and its neighbors over claims to waters and islands.”
Waters?   Islands?   Sounds fearsome Pace, but your job is to know and give specific information, not merely mirror your subject.  
What is the threat?  What is China’s role, President Obama asked in a speech a the University of Queensland?   “By virtue of its size and its remarkable growth. . ..”?  Where’s the aggression in that?
Pace: “The president has tried to show the region’s leaders that he retained the ability to deliver on promises to deepen U.S. engagement in Asia and the Pacific, an effort he sees as a central part of his foreign policy.”
By this point in the report we realize how much a euphemism is the word “deepen.”   President Obama is referring to unimaginably massive weaponry and surveillance throughout the Pacific and East Asia.   And who makes US foreign policy by the way?   And what should be said regarding the dangerously unrestrained growth of the US president’s power since the beginning of WWII? 

Pace:  Quoting Obama: “’There are times when people have been skeptical of this rebalance, they’re wondering whether America has the staying power to sustain it.’”  Rebalance?!   The statement is so blatantly self-deluding or deliberately deluding the US public that surely Pace, if she has studied this subject, later wondered about her staying power.

Pace:  Quoting Obama again:  “’I’m here to say that American leadership in the Asia Pacific will always be a fundamental focus of my foreign policy.”  Now I wonder about the staying power of the Asian leaders, so arrogant is this statement.  But of course, given “Beijing’s provocative actions in territorial disputes in waters off its borders” (Pace), US leadership is necessary?   Provocative?  Example?  “The conflict between China and Japan over a string of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. . . .”

Reporting a meeting of three biased participants led by the leader of the one super-power, Pace could write and quote no differently; she could not editorialize, in her own voice at least.  But she could have followed the fundamental training and practice of journalists, of reporting both sides.   How do Chinese leaders respond to Obama’s statements?  How do opposition leaders in Australia and Japan?  How do opponents in the US?   Of course, she was writing against a deadline, but that is a feeble excuse for accepting a puppet’s role.

The China Fallacy:
How the U.S. Can Benefit from China's Rise and Avoid Another Cold War by Donald Gross
Published:     11-08-2012
Tell others about this book
About The China Fallacy
American critics who deeply fear a "China threat" have unduly influenced government policy. "China hawks" believe China intends to push the United States out of Asia and dominate the world. Protectionists argue that China threatens American jobs and prosperity.

This authoritative work examines why and how the U.S. should stabilize and improve its relations with China. It first assesses the threat posed by China, addressing such issues as military capability, Taiwan, the trade deficit, human rights and democracy. It then discusses the rationale for rapprochement between the two countries in order to achieve a stable peace. It makes the case for a fundamental shift in U.S. policy and efforts by both countries to increase their cooperation. It analyzes the benefits to the United States of this policy shift along with the potential impact on Japan, Taiwan, and both Koreas.

This significant work on U.S.-China relations will be an essential resource for the academic and policy community as well as of interest to the general reader on a topic of great public concern.
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction: The Unfulfilled Promise of U.S.-China Relations
2. The Real Military Balance
3. Rapprochement and a Stable Peace
4. China's Economic Juggernaut
5. Democracy and Human Rights in China
6. The "Soft Power" of China's Foreign Policy
7. Getting It Right: A New Framework Agreement for U.S.-China Relations
8. Realizing Japan's Foreign Policy Goals
9. Achieving Korean Reunification
10. Conclusion: The China Fallacy
11. Epilogue
“This thrilling and thought-provoking volume by Gross (senior associate, Pacific Forum, Center for Strategic and International Studies) seeks to challenge the conventional wisdom underlying current policy toward China. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All readership levels.” –  Choice

“The China Fallacy is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand American policy toward China. Its thoughtful recommendations on improving U.S.-China relations should be weighed seriously by all concerned with the impact of China's rise.” –  Samuel R. Berger, United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001

“Understanding the complexity, risk and opportunity of China's rise will drive American opinions and policy making well into the 21st century. This book makes an important contribution to that end.” –  John Huntsman, former United States Ambassador to China

Donald Gross. The China Fallacy: How the U.S. Can Benefit from China's Rise and Avoid Another Cold War. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.  Rev. by
Kai Chen in Peace and Change 10/2014; 39(4). DOI: 10.1111/pech.12093.  [“Gross’s main argument is to criticize the fallacy that ‘China’s rise is occurring at the expense of the United States.’”     My 14 newsletters support the argument, citing evidence and arguments of the US threat to China.   I haven’t read the book yet.  –Dick]   

See Russia/Ukraine Newsletter, Middle East Newsletters (Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel/Palestine).
Nick Turse | The Outpost That Doesn't Exist in the Country You Can't Locate 
Nick Turse, TomDispatch, Reader Supported News, Nov. 23, 2014.
Turse writes: "Admit it. You don’t know where Chad is. You know it’s in Africa, of course. But beyond that? Maybe with a map of the continent and by some process of elimination you could come close. But you’d probably pick Sudan or maybe the Central African Republic. Here’s a tip. In the future, choose that vast, arid swath of land just below Libya."

Contents of Westward Imperialism Newsletter #14
Dick, Militarizing Japan, Analysis of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial.
Dick, P.M. Abe Reinterpreting Article 9, Chicago Tribune editorial.
Dick, Celebrating War Heroes

China Joke
China Removes Its Oil Rig from Waters Claimed by Hanoi
Dick, Nothing Like Fear and Loathing of China for Making Friends with Vietnam
Magdoff and Foster, Why the US Is Encircling China

EU/NATO’s Eastward Movement: Westward Meets Eastward Imperialism
No Bases Campaign: International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Bases


No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)