PDA

View Full Version : Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.



Ray
03-04-2012, 09:09 AM
Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes. Pics inside.


The Armies of India and Indonesia concluded a week-long joint military exercise today. The operational part of the first-ever platoon-level joint training exercise, Exercise ‘Garuda Shakti’, was conducted at the Indian Army’s elite 'Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School’ (CIJWS), Vairengte in Mizoram.

Training together to counter the scourge of insurgency in various contemporary scenarios including jungle warfare, Chakravyuh, the three-day outdoor validation exercise, tested the weeklong training, imparted at various Counter Insurgency (CI) modules and at the plethora of firing ranges in the guerrilla warfare school. Chakravyuh ended with the busting of a simulated insurgent hideout in Mizoram’s Lushai Hills, in the wee hours today, after a grueling nightlong march.

The Indonesian National Army (Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Darat, TNI-AD, in short) troops led by Lt Col Gatot Heru Puana of KOSTRAD (Indonesian Army’s Strategic Reserve Command) belonging to the 13th Infantry Brigade comprised of five officers, six Non-Commissioned Officers and 14 Privates. Troops from the 19th Madras Infantry Battalion, of 21 Mountain Division under Eastern Command, currently deployed in CI operations in the northeast sector, comprised the Indian side.

“They are very sincere, devoted, well-prepared and eager to learn,” said CIJWS Commandant, Maj Gen AK Sen, talking about the Indonesian troops while observing from close quarters the ‘slithering’ and ‘special heliborne operations’ from an IAF Mi-17 flown in from nearby Kumbhirgram airbase in Silchar, Assam. “The visiting troops were put through a rigorous initiation process, and they fared as good as their Indian counterparts,” he added.

The exercise which began on February 20, is aimed at building closer military-to-military ties, among its many other objectives. “This training has actually helped us to know each other’s procedure and drills including firing tactics,” said Gen Sen, adding that the firing ranges at CIJWS particularly interested the Indonesian troops, just as they did to the Bangladeshi, Polish and Israeli troops who trained here in the recent past.

CIJWS Vairengte has over 13 different types of firing ranges catering to every conceivable indoor and outdoor scenario, ranging from urban, semi-urban to rural settings. Bringing in realism in training, Infantry Weapons Effect Simulation System (IWESS) and Small Arms Training Simulators (SATS) are also extensively used. The landscape and the inimitable replicated settings here in CIJW make it the most preferred destination to train for several armies of the world.

For proper assimilation of the nuances in CIJW operations for the Indonesian troops, all training and attack drills were coordinated by having two mixed platoons (comprising around 30 soldiers each) of KOSTRAD soldiers and the Indian Infantry troops, overseen by senior military observers.

Praising the professionalism of the Indian Infantry soldiers, the leader of the Indonesian troops, Col Gatot observed that the Indian troops are very well equipped to fight the insurgents. While finding some of the training tactics very similar, he said that the concept of ‘Buddy’ system was something they would like to emulate. “Back home we operate in big groups,” he says.

A conglomeration of more than 17,500 islands on either side of the equator, the Indonesian Republic whose national fabric represents ‘Unity in Diversity’ as much as it is avowed here in India, has also been besieged with terror-related attacks in recent times. “Our counter-insurgency related operations are mostly in the border areas,” the Colonel apprised, adding that the training would come in good stead upon their return.


The formal closing of ‘Ex-Garuda Shakti’ will take place tomorrow, with both sides exchanging feedback and mementoes, and rounding off with a military-style campfire with gourmet meals, comprising both Indian and Indonesian delicacies, including cultural exchanges.

DPR MoD

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/32610-joint-india-indonesian-army-exercise-garud-shakti-concludes-pics-inside.html#post438562

Ray
03-04-2012, 09:10 AM
It appears that the 'containing China' mantra of the US is being taken seriously.

Dayuhan
03-04-2012, 10:42 AM
I'm not sure that "training together to counter the scourge of insurgency" necessarily equates to "containing China". Joint naval or air defense exercises would be more oriented toward that goal.

PS: Even if the Indians and Indonesians were to hold exercises specifically aimed at countering potential Chinese threats, would that necessarily be a response to an American mantra? The Indians and the Chinese don't need the US to tell them what's over their near horizon. It's entirely possible that the Indians and Indonesians could act on their own initiative.

Ray
03-04-2012, 05:09 PM
Making friends

Strengthening a network of alliances around China is the other pillar of the strategy. "We will emphasise our existing alliances, which provide a vital foundation for Asia-Pacific security. We will also expand our networks of co-operation with emerging partners throughout the Asia-Pacific region."

Already the US has close defence relationships with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Australia. It is working to build ties with Vietnam, Indonesia and is "investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India".

What all this amounts to is a very robust message of deterrence to China. The US will contest any challenge to its dominance. It will cement core alliances with China's neighbours and protect its interest in East Asia.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16446401

Ray
03-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Sustaining US Global Leadership

Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges. In order to credibly deter potential adversaries and to prevent them from achieving their objectives, the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged. In these areas, sophisticated adversaries will use asymmetric capabilities, to include electronic and cyber warfare, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced air defenses, mining, and other methods, to complicate our operational calculus. States such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities, while the proliferation of sophisticated weapons and technology will extend to non-state actors as well. Accordingly, the U.S. military will invest as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) environments........

Provide a Stabilizing Presence. U.S. forces will conduct a sustainable pace of presence operations abroad, including rotational deployments and bilateral and multilateral training exercises. These activities reinforce deterrence, help to build the capacity and competence of U.S., allied, and partner forces for internal and external defense, strengthen alliance cohesion, and increase U.S. influence. A reduction in resources will require innovative and creative solutions to maintain our support for allied and partner interoperability and building partner capacity. However, with reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations......

Over the past ten years, the United States and its coalition allies and partners have learned hard lessons and applied new operational approaches in the counter terrorism, counterinsurgency, and security force assistance arenas, most often operating in uncontested sea and air environments. Accordingly, similar work needs to be done to ensure the United States, its allies, and partners are capable of operating in A2/AD, cyber, and other contested operating environments. To that end, the Department will both encourage a culture of change and be prudent with its ““seed corn,”” balancing reductions necessitated by resource pressures with the imperative to sustain key streams of innovation that may provide significant long-term payoffs.


http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

Ray
03-04-2012, 05:30 PM
China's official defence spending to rise by 11.2% in 2012

China's official defence spending will rise by 11.2% in 2012, pushing it above $100bn (£65bn) for the first time, the government has announced.

Beijing's defence budget has risen each year for two decades to become the world's second-biggest, behind the US.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17249476

KingJaja
03-04-2012, 07:41 PM
China's official defence spending will rise by 11.2% in 2012, pushing it above $100bn (£65bn) for the first time, the government has announced.

Beijing's defence budget has risen each year for two decades to become the world's second-biggest, behind the US.

They can afford to increase their budget without borrowing money :D.

davidbfpo
03-04-2012, 08:57 PM
A platoon level exercise involving infantry is hardly awesome. In fact IIRC there is a post on a similar level exercise between India and PRC, in China - now that was significant politically given their history of hostility.

Indonesia has had little international military co-operation for a long time, the only exception I am aware of is limited military engagement with Australia; there has been significant Australian Federal Police engagement with Indonesia for many years.

Not sure whether Indonesia contributes or has contributed to UN missions either, although I recollect a presence in Cambodia many years ago. Ah, just checked they currently have just under 2k committed (police & military) and mainly with UNIFIL.

If this tiny step develops, especially with naval exercises then I'd be impressed.

Bill Moore
03-04-2012, 10:52 PM
Indonesia participates in a number of regional military exercises, and has participated in multinational Naval exercises with India. Indonesia is a nation to watch as it is an up and coming regional economic power that is making significant investments in modernizing its military (long overdue). As the world's largest Muslim majority nation its potential to be major regional actor in the next few years if their economy continues to expand has implications because it can demonstrate that a Muslim nation can succeed economically without huge reserves of oil (though Indonesia is an oil producing nation) and democratic government. In addition to their peacekeeping efforts in Lebanon they sent sent observers to the disputed Thailand-Cambodia border region. I believe they sent peace keepers to Sudan also. I don't think they're part of the multinational counter piracy task force off Somalia, but their Navy did resolve an incident there last year.

Dayuhan
03-04-2012, 11:11 PM
Ray, how do any of these quotes and links suggest that a small infantry exercise focused on insurgency is related to "containing China", or that any South/Southeast Asian military cooperation is caused by a US policy position?

Of course SE Asian nations, and India, are keeping a wary eye on China's military emergence. That's not because the US tells them to, it's because they're neighbors and naturally concerned. Not necessarily fearful, yet, but concerned. That does not mean, of course, that this specific exercise had anything to do with "containing China"... the nature of the exercise suggests that it didn't.

It's fairly obvious that countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam or the Philippines cannot compete with China in the acquisition or deployment of conventional military forces. That doesn't mean they have no options. I'd think they'd be well advised to look closely at the asymmetric naval model employed by the Iranians: focus on small, fast, missile-equipped patrol boats and land-based missiles. They wouldn't be able to defeat the Chinese, just as the Iranians can't defeat the US navy, but they could pose enough of a threat to commerce and to the straits of Malacca that to provide a real disincentive to conflict.

Ray
03-08-2012, 06:45 AM
The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations. These exercises, though small in size, is basically to establish the core groups, which will impart instructions back home. Therefore, though small in outward appearance is contributory to training the soldiers back home. There is where the importance of these interactivity lies.

Singapore, for instance, extensively uses Indian Armed Forces assets to keep themselves fighting trim.

Bill Moore
03-08-2012, 08:15 AM
Posted by Ray,


The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

I like it:D


The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations.

Agreed, but also think we're in a time where alliances are more likely to shift with changes in the wind. The regional states will adapt a hedging strategy to minimize the hegemonic influence of the regions three powers (U.S., China and India). This will force the regional powers to moderate their behavior and act in a way that is non-threatening if they want to maintain influence in the region. In the long run this may be good for all concerned. Unless the Chinese are stupid, and I suspect that is NOT the case, I think they'll be forced to moderate their behavior once they realize acting like the regional bully isn't working.


These exercises, though small in size, is basically to establish the core groups, which will impart instructions back home.

Multinational exercises have implications well beyond the small scale engagement. There are diplomatic discussions and agreements between the countries that facilitate these exercises, and these excerises, even small in scale send a message to the international community. At the tactical level the knowledge gained is often valuable, and as you said the knowledge is further proliferated when the exercise participants return.

Dayuhan
03-08-2012, 09:48 AM
The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

Is it really "The US's strategic vision" or are a number of nations developing their own strategic visions that overlap in various ways... and not in others. Indonesian participation in a COIN exercise with India, for example, might be aimed largely at demonstrating independence from the US and Australia, the traditional military supporters. That may or may not be part of an American strategic vision.


The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations.

"Aggressive hegemonic" would be an overstatement... it's not like they're emulating the US and sending troops into faraway countries. Still, a more assertive posture than before and one to which regional states will respond in their own ways, which will sometimes overlap. More a continuing round of pushing and shoving around the edges than desperate resistance to a hegemonic power.

davidbfpo
03-08-2012, 02:18 PM
An Indonesian former defence minister has commented, under the headline 'China’s Military Buildup No Cause for Concern: Juwono':
Former Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono says he believes China’s move to boost military spending by 11 percent this year won’t jeopardize East Asia’s stability as it merely represented an “annual ritual” reflecting “the tussle between the government and the military.”

Link:http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/chinas-military-buildup-no-cause-for-concern-juwono/502965

Hat tip to Lowy Institute (Australia)

Ray
03-08-2012, 05:32 PM
"Aggressive hegemonic" would be an overstatement... it's not like they're emulating the US and sending troops into faraway countries. Still, a more assertive posture than before and one to which regional states will respond in their own ways, which will sometimes overlap. More a continuing round of pushing and shoving around the edges than desperate resistance to a hegemonic power.

China has a long way to go before they can emulate the US.

Indeed there will be pushing and shoving, but the nations are getting ready not to be pushed too far.

The manner in which Vietnam, an old enemy of the US, readily took the US help and conducted naval exercises with the US in the South China Sea, as also the manner in which Philippines took the US help and allowing the US troops to 'rotate' US troops being stationed in the Subic Bay base (from where they forced the US to quit) is indicative of the 'concerns' these nations have towards the Chinese moves.

What makes the Nations wary is that China has scant regards for what the world order feels. They do exactly what they want and that to many is scary!

jmm99
03-08-2012, 09:16 PM
I suspect (pure gut reaction) that the end game is a South & East Asian Nation Group, continental-insular, that would look something like this (inside the orange-brown perimeter):

1578

Should the US "put together" this Group ? Not in my Worldview. Should the US be a member of this Group ? Not in my Worldview. But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

Just a couple of comments on my map. Australia-NZ are in a separate blue box. Why ? They are colonialized nations where the predominant culture relates back to Europe, but adapted to local conditions and a mix of immigrant groups. The same might be said of the Americas. However, Australia-NZ have obvious direct links to the South & East Asian Group. So, Australia-NZ would be expected to have a different Worldview from, say, the US; but, the common cultural links are still strong (so blue lines for them as well).

The South & East Asian Group either were not colonized by European states, or the colonizations did not take; thus, in the latter case, sovereignty came back to the indigenous peoples.

My take and mine alone.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
03-08-2012, 09:54 PM
Indeed there will be pushing and shoving, but the nations are getting ready not to be pushed too far.

This is true, but I think the scale of Chinese assertiveness and the degree of threat posed by China to anyone is often substantially exaggerated.


also the manner in which Philippines took the US help and allowing the US troops to 'rotate' US troops being stationed in the Subic Bay base (from where they forced the US to quit) is indicative of the 'concerns' these nations have towards the Chinese moves.

There are no US troops stationed at Subic, not any publicly announced plans to station any there. Stepped up port calls are expected.


What makes the Nations wary is that China has scant regards for what the world order feels. They do exactly what they want and that to many is scary!

That sounds like they're emulating the US!

Ray
03-09-2012, 02:34 AM
But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

That is exactly what is happening.

Ray
03-09-2012, 02:47 AM
This is true, but I think the scale of Chinese assertiveness and the degree of threat posed by China to anyone is often substantially exaggerated.

In a world of diminishing resources, every nation is jockeying to get the maximum out of the seas.

It is natural for China to grab what it can since its long term aim is to rule supreme and even overtake the US as a superpower. I would be surprised if it is canvassed that China is merely doing what she is doing just to keep herself afloat.

In such a scenario, the Chinese activities prove to be a threat to the interests of the neighbouring nations and those who share the waters with her. The threat is more real since the neighbouring nations are in no position to counter the Chinese forays with any conviction.

One has to be a neighbouring nation to realise the threat China poses.




There are no US troops stationed at Subic, not any publicly announced plans to station any there. Stepped up port calls are expected.

Two decades after evicting U.S. forces from their biggest base in the Pacific, the Philippines is in talks with the Obama administration about expanding the American military presence in the island nation, the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China.

Although negotiations are in the early stages, officials from both governments said they are favorably inclined toward a deal. They are scheduled to intensify the discussions Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March. If an arrangement is reached, it would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of U.S. Marines in northern Australia and to station Navy warships in Singapore.

http://www.astheworldsleeps.org/node/4149




That sounds like they're emulating the US!

Nothing wrong to realise that US sometimes can be right!

Dayuhan
03-10-2012, 10:59 AM
One has to be a neighbouring nation to realise the threat China poses.

I haven't the burden of being a nation, but I live less than 60km from the South China Sea and less than 800 from the China mainland, which I suppose makes me a neighbour of sorts. I can't say I feel threatened at this point.


Two decades after evicting U.S. forces from their biggest base in the Pacific, the Philippines is in talks with the Obama administration about expanding the American military presence in the island nation, the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China.

Although negotiations are in the early stages, officials from both governments said they are favorably inclined toward a deal. They are scheduled to intensify the discussions Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March. If an arrangement is reached, it would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of U.S. Marines in northern Australia and to station Navy warships in Singapore.

I was in Subic a few months ago, much discussion of this. Certainly there will be more port calls (the US Navy has put out a tender for a tank farm and fueling station, among other signs), but for a whole host of reasons a permanent presence or actual stationing of ships or personnel looks quite unlikely.

Ray
03-10-2012, 05:35 PM
I haven't the burden of being a nation, but I live less than 60km from the South China Sea and less than 800 from the China mainland, which I suppose makes me a neighbour of sorts. I can't say I feel threatened at this point.

Indeed you haven’t been burdened being a nation.

I believe you were a Peace Corps worker. With due regards and without being indelicate, I take it thus that you are not a Filipino by birth. If that assumption is right, I would be surprised that one can imbibe the local psyche and mindset in such a short span of time. However, a person of foreign descent, living in another country, even if he is naturalised, does not have the same apprehensions as a local since the foreigner has the route out to his native land in case of security problems.

I am aware that there are many Filipinos who are against allowing the US to set foot on Filipino soil. However, a Govt takes decisions based on geopolitical and geostrategic realities. Yet, in a democracy, no Govt can divorce itself from the local sentiments either. Hence, deliberations and decision are not quite transparent, and instead is implemented in a roundabout manner, and sometimes even with secret understanding that are not in the public domain.

If indeed there was no threat perceived by Philippines, the timing of the naval exercise with the US could have been deferred for an opportune time when the ‘heat’ had cooled off in the South China Sea. But no, it was held with much fanfare, bringing forth angry responses from China. If indeed, as some would say, these exercises were ‘routine’, it would not have drawn such hostile response from China.

Therefore, that there is threat perceived by the Philippines Govt is no figment of imagination.


US TO ROTATE UP TO 4,000 TROOPS IN PHILIPPINES http://bonginvirginia.blogspot.in/2012/02/us-to-rotate-up-to-4000-troops-in.html

It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

Not only that, the second naval vessel is being transferred to the Philippines. One does not ‘transfer’ ships without some sort of a military understanding. I believe that there are request to modernise their air force too!

Obviously, the Philippines perceives a threat from China and hence Philippines has backdown from its high horse of not allowing US to set foot in the Philippines, there being no other way out!

Dayuhan
03-11-2012, 12:43 AM
I would be surprised that one can imbibe the local psyche and mindset in such a short span of time.

It'll be 33 years in September, minus a few spent elsewhere. Not exactly a short time. In my observation there is no "local psyche and mindset". There are many, sometimes overlapping, sometimes radically different, often contradictory.


However, a person of foreign descent, living in another country, even if he is naturalised, does not have the same apprehensions as a local since the foreigner has the route out to his native land in case of security problems.

Yes, I can leave, as can most Filipino officials. Extended presence in the region does not make one entirely of the region, but it provides a clue.


I am aware that there are many Filipinos who are against allowing the US to set foot on Filipino soil. However, a Govt takes decisions based on geopolitical and geostrategic realities. Yet, in a democracy, no Govt can divorce itself from the local sentiments either. Hence, deliberations and decision are not quite transparent, and instead is implemented in a roundabout manner, and sometimes even with secret understanding that are not in the public domain.

US forces have been setting foot on Philippine soil almost continuously since the departure of the bases, in one form or another. The objection isn't to "setting foot", the objection is to permanent occupancy of facilities, with all that goes with it. It's a complicated objection, and I doubt that you want to hear a detailed analysis, however well informed, of why the bases were removed.


If indeed there was no threat perceived by Philippines, the timing of the naval exercise with the US could have been deferred for an opportune time when the ‘heat’ had cooled off in the South China Sea. But no, it was held with much fanfare, bringing forth angry responses from China. If indeed, as some would say, these exercises were ‘routine’, it would not have drawn such hostile response from China.

Therefore, that there is threat perceived by the Philippines Govt is no figment of imagination.

There is a perception of threat, or perhaps more accurately a perception of potential threat. That perception is weighed against various other considerations.

The large exercises occur every year, and have for decades. Occasional smaller exercises are also held on a regular basis. There is always an objection from China. The media don't report this as a story unless there's some context that makes it interesting. The Chinese know the schedule. They're perfectly capable of creating an incident... a wee intrusion, or harassment of a fishing boat, timed to make a scheduled exercise look like an overreaction.


It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

Not everybody in the Philippines wanted the bases removed. The Philippine military certainly didn't, nor did their allies in politics. Under the circumstances at the time they couldn't successfully oppose it, though many tried. Are they now "eating crow" by changing their minds, or are they playing up the Chinese threat to regain a posture they never wanted to lose? Little is obvious in Philippine politics, or I suppose in most politics.


Not only that, the second naval vessel is being transferred to the Philippines. One does not ‘transfer’ ships without some sort of a military understanding. I believe that there are request to modernise their air force too!

There's been a military understanding for decades, since Philippine independence, and old US hardware is routinely given to the Philippines. There's been some effort to change that - some helicopters were recently purchased from a Polish manufacturer - but the Philippine military remains essentially dependent on second hand US goods. They would dearly love to modernize the air force, but they really can't afford it. I personally think they'd do better building a functioning air defence system and investing in maritime surveillance and fast patrol boats with missile and anti-aircraft capability than by buying F-16s, but my opinion is pretty irrelevant!


Obviously, the Philippines perceives a threat from China and hence Philippines has backdown from its high horse of not allowing US to set foot in the Philippines, there being no other way out!

The Philippine elite feels more threatened by domestic rebellion than they do by the Chinese... could they be using the China threat to pull in assistance and a presence that they hope can be converted to support against what they see to be a more immediate threat?

Always many factors involved.

I would expect an increase in exercises and in transient visits. I would not expect any permanent facility that could be called a "base".

I wish the blog you linked to had cited a source on this:


The US Department of Defense now plans to rotate as many as 4,000 Marines to Australia, Hawaii and the Philippines, including forward operating bases in Sulu and Zamboanga City, according to various news reports.

I seriously hope nobody is stupid enough to be seriously contemplating that.

Ray
03-26-2012, 03:50 PM
I suspect (pure gut reaction) that the end game is a South & East Asian Nation Group, continental-insular, that would look something like this (inside the orange-brown perimeter):

1578

Should the US "put together" this Group ? Not in my Worldview. Should the US be a member of this Group ? Not in my Worldview. But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

Just a couple of comments on my map. Australia-NZ are in a separate blue box. Why ? They are colonialized nations where the predominant culture relates back to Europe, but adapted to local conditions and a mix of immigrant groups. The same might be said of the Americas. However, Australia-NZ have obvious direct links to the South & East Asian Group. So, Australia-NZ would be expected to have a different Worldview from, say, the US; but, the common cultural links are still strong (so blue lines for them as well).

The South & East Asian Group either were not colonized by European states, or the colonizations did not take; thus, in the latter case, sovereignty came back to the indigenous peoples.

My take and mine alone.

Regards

Mike


The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'.

Unlike before where the US directed such grouping by organising them into an Alliance, headed by the US, this time around, they have done it is a very subtle way.

Sensitive to the requirement of preserving 'nationalism' of each country, the US is not directing any country. Instead, the US is merely 'assisting' all to realise the 'effectiveness' of achieving a common strategic perspective and the US is merely 'acquiescing' to be around the area to help and be effective 'just in case'!

This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

The fact that inspite of security issues being bilateral, it is worth noting that the ranks that participate in Naval Exercises with the US in these waters keep increasing. Of course, it is not against any nation, but merely honing the issue of 'interoperability'.:p

Australia and NZ are the wet blankets. Maybe there is some method in the madness in this too!

My views.

Ray
03-26-2012, 03:56 PM
One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

Mere presence, having an 'escape route' does not give the real apprehension of the sons of the soil.

For instance, the Green Card holders in the US, who preferred not to opt for US citizenship, found it odd that the US was so obsessed with the threat of the USSR.

But the Americans were convinced that there was a threat from the USSR.

There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Second generation British of Pakistani origin perpetuated horrors in the UK. They were convinced that they were right.

But the other British citizens did not share their views.

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Dayuhan
03-27-2012, 02:38 AM
One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

And yet you tell me with great confidence, from India, that:


It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

On what basis do you make this assessment?


There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Possibly a minor point, but the first time he was elected pretty much nobody thought there was a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan.


Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Can anyone claim to have "ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people" in any land, native or not? There are a pretty diverse range of psyches and mindsets in most lands.

I can tell you with some confidence that most Filipinos feel far more threatened (with good reason) by the mendacity, corruption and ineptness of their own politicians than they do by China, and that the Filipino elite feels more threatened (with equally good reason) by domestic threats than by anything the Chinese might do. That's pretty obvious just from observing the discourse on both sides.

Discussion of an expanded US military presence, by both those who favor it and those who oppose it, tends to revolve far more around local issues than around the supposed China threat. Of course the situation with China is part of the discourse, but it's not a dominant part and there's little to indicate that any part of the populace feels imminently threatened. Of course various groups are trying to use the "China threat" card to their advantage, both in relations with the US and in domestic politics, but that is based as much on opportunism as on perceived threat.


The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'...

...This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

I'm not at all convinced that what's happening is the result of brilliant strategy on the part of the US (some here would think that an oxymoron). I don't think it's centrally directed at all, just a matter of a number of nations reacting to a changing situation in the way they see fit.

I suspect that you're somewhat overstating the extent of a rise in both Chinese belligerency and the reaction from the US and local powers. Exercises in the area have been going on for a long time; they tended to be somewhat larger back in the days when Clark and Subic were operating. The pushing and shoving with the Chinese has been going on sporadically for a long time as well. Just because there's more media notice now doesn't mean things have fundamentally changed. The one thing that is substantially different is the Vietnam/US engagement, but of course that traces back to a whole host of factors, and the Vietnamese have more reason to fear China than most in SE Asia do.

Bob's World
03-27-2012, 09:12 AM
I generally agree with Dayuhan's assessment.

I don't sense much panic among those nations feeling the growing embrace of China's growing sphere of influence. Currently there is far more good than bad, as China works to buy favor and extend their tentacles outward. As wise observers and policy commentators, such as Walter Lippmann in his day, have noted, it is reasonable to expect major powers to establish and nurture a sphere of influence as a component of their national security.

China's sphere has been compressed for a long time. Russia's sphere collapsed about them and the expansion of NATO to codify that collapse is very provocative on the part of the West. Other major powers who have had their sphere's compressed considerably in recent years certainly includes Japan, England, France, Turkey, Germany and Iran to name but a few more modern ones. The US has expanded its own sphere to fill space where others have retracted. To see that current high-water mark as some enduring "norm" would be very foolish. It happened, but it is not natural, and therefore not sustainable in any cost effective way. It is not necessary either, and a reasonable adjustment to make room for the growing influence of rising powers is in no way an American "defeat," but rather simply a return to more normal balances of influence between many regional hubs of power and influence.

That said, the US remains an attractive partner and counter for many smaller nations who find themselves within such spheres of regional influence. As Ibn Saud reportedly explained to FDR in the course of striking his deal with the US to accept US influence in exchange for a guarantee of the preservation of his family's control over Arabia in the waning days of WWII, "frankly, we really don't want any foreign influence here, but you Americans are far less likely to colonize us than some European power, and besides...you are so very far away."

The world is an increasingly smaller place, but for many the observations of Ibn Saud still ring true. The US is often the lesser evil when it comes to external influence, and besides, we are still so very far away.

In the post Cold War era, as the Soviet threat faded, the US found its presence and influence faced with growing resistance for this very reason. We had gone from being the lesser of two evils to being an unwanted house guest who had overstayed our welcome. And like many such house guests, we had grown so comfortable in our stay that we were oblivious to the growing clues that it was time to go home. Or at least substantially modify the terms of our presence. In the Middle East the governments wanted us to stay by in large, but among the populaces who were growing increasingly frustrated with the impunity of these governments, unrest began to grow. This was and remains an unrest that destabilizes that region. Certainly the Israel issue and the enduring dispute between Shia and Sunni remain, but overlaid on this is political friction of a US presence and influence that has been too intrusive for too long. High time to find a more appropriate position there.

In the Pacific an opposite effect is occurring. As China rises, so too does US influence in the region. in fact, there is nothing better for the growth of US influence in the Asia Pacific region than China's continued rise. We did not suddenly become "more liked" by the government of Myanmar, rather we became more necessary in the eyes of that government to help balance their relationship with China, and presumably India. Likewise with the Philippines.

The US tends to place far too much emphasis on the importance of shared or conflicting ideologies, or values or forms of governance, and not nearly enough on the role of shared or conflicting interests. That is part of the unique character of America. That said, it is an aspect of our character we need to become a bit more pragmatic about, and become much more focused on finding interest-based positions to build our foreign policies around. Once we make that shift, I suspect everyone will find it much more settling than having to deal with the moody, emotional giant we have been over the past 70 odd years.

We just need to relax, and embrace that immutable reality: More often than not, we are the lesser of two evils. That should be enough.

Ray
03-27-2012, 06:09 PM
And yet you tell me with great confidence, from India, that:

With that much of confidence as a person as Mark Tulley, or William Dalrymple, who have lived their lives in India and care for India, and while concerned about the Sino Indian situation, are not as concerned as Indians.




On what basis do you make this assessment?

If the Filipinos were that uppity about their national identity, sovereignty and their 'independent' space wherein they threw the US out without any hesitation, then what could be the reason that they are now allowing US troops on their soil, euphemistically covered as 'rotational'?

If that is not eating crow, what is?

Imagine India which 'threw out' the British allowing British troops on their soil on 'rotational' basis. Whatever would they do that for, unless they are incapable of defending themselves and require the British to help them on their way?!




Possibly a minor point, but the first time he was elected pretty much nobody thought there was a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan.

And the second time?

When the bodybags were coming in, in torrents?



Can anyone claim to have "ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people" in any land, native or not? There are a pretty diverse range of psyches and mindsets in most lands.

Sure.

Does an Anglo Saxon mind think like a Han?

Can a Anglo Saxon mind think like a Filipino?

If so, then there would be no requirement for diplomatic dialogues. All would be on the same grid!


I can tell you with some confidence that most Filipinos feel far more threatened (with good reason) by the mendacity, corruption and ineptness of their own politicians than they do by China, and that the Filipino elite feels more threatened (with equally good reason) by domestic threats than by anything the Chinese might do. That's pretty obvious just from observing the discourse on both sides.

Nothing earth shaking at what you say.

What is more important?

Survival from daily problems created by domestic policy errors or Foreign Policy errors?

What concerns the Americans first? Jobs or if Iran is to be attacked?

Isn't that obvious?




Discussion of an expanded US military presence, by both those who favor it and those who oppose it, tends to revolve far more around local issues than around the supposed China threat. Of course the situation with China is part of the discourse, but it's not a dominant part and there's little to indicate that any part of the populace feels imminently threatened. Of course various groups are trying to use the "China threat" card to their advantage, both in relations with the US and in domestic politics, but that is based as much on opportunism as on perceived threat.

The threat of external forces can never be dominant, when domestic life is at strife.

Isn't that obvious?

Do Indians put the threat from China, before worrying about the Budget that will burden them further?

Do Americans put the threat of Iran before thinking if the economy will return to normal and they can live their lives again in the way they are accustomed to?


I'm not at all convinced that what's happening is the result of brilliant strategy on the part of the US (some here would think that an oxymoron). I don't think it's centrally directed at all, just a matter of a number of nations reacting to a changing situation in the way they see fit.

That is the brilliance of the US strategy of late.

Like China's Peaceful Rise, they are not appearing belligerent or appearing to be ganging up as is the popular perception of the past.

US has quietly broken the OPEC cartel and now they are breaking up the Middle East in a quiet and calm way. Has any US govt been able to break up the Muslim solidarity till now or even get Gaddafi to eat crow? They have cleverly sold their favourites like the Egyptian dictator, given the impression that the US is 'pro people', generated the latent desires of the population of the Middle East, and has gone whole hog to encourage uprisings.

Of course, not all the uprisings will go the US' way for the moment, the second phase will balance it all.

It is all very well to abuse the US Govt as a bunch of chumps, but I see a method in the madness and it is fools who underestimate the US.


I suspect that you're somewhat overstating the extent of a rise in both Chinese belligerency and the reaction from the US and local powers. Exercises in the area have been going on for a long time; they tended to be somewhat larger back in the days when Clark and Subic were operating. The pushing and shoving with the Chinese has been going on sporadically for a long time as well. Just because there's more media notice now doesn't mean things have fundamentally changed. The one thing that is substantially different is the Vietnam/US engagement, but of course that traces back to a whole host of factors, and the Vietnamese have more reason to fear China than most in SE Asia do.

The pushing and shoving is not the same old pushing and shoving.

The US has it mission and they are doing it real well without the usual US signature and instead a very diplomatic manner that misses the eye and that is the greatness of the current foreign policy success of the US.

A very matured way indeed!

Dayuhan
03-27-2012, 11:04 PM
With that much of confidence as a person as Mark Tulley, or William Dalrymple, who have lived their lives in India and care for India, and while concerned about the Sino Indian situation, are not as concerned as Indians.

Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.


If the Filipinos were that uppity about their national identity, sovereignty and their 'independent' space wherein they threw the US out without any hesitation, then what could be the reason that they are now allowing US troops on their soil, euphemistically covered as 'rotational'?

If that is not eating crow, what is?

Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.


Imagine India which 'threw out' the British allowing British troops on their soil on 'rotational' basis. Whatever would they do that for, unless they are incapable of defending themselves and require the British to help them on their way?!

They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.


And the second time?

When the bodybags were coming in, in torrents?

There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".


Does an Anglo Saxon mind think like a Han?

Can a Anglo Saxon mind think like a Filipino?

If so, then there would be no requirement for diplomatic dialogues. All would be on the same grid!

Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.


Nothing earth shaking at what you say.

Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.


That is the brilliance of the US strategy of late.

Like China's Peaceful Rise, they are not appearing belligerent or appearing to be ganging up as is the popular perception of the past.

Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.


US has quietly broken the OPEC cartel and now they are breaking up the Middle East in a quiet and calm way. Has any US govt been able to break up the Muslim solidarity till now or even get Gaddafi to eat crow? They have cleverly sold their favourites like the Egyptian dictator, given the impression that the US is 'pro people', generated the latent desires of the population of the Middle East, and has gone whole hog to encourage uprisings.

OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.

JMA
03-28-2012, 07:48 AM
One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

Mere presence, having an 'escape route' does not give the real apprehension of the sons of the soil.

...

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Ray you are absolutely correct. In addition a knowledge of the languages and actually living amongst the people is essential.

Even then (as in parts of Africa) even speaking the local language but living in a separate community limits ones intimate knowledge of what the local people are thinking (which is quite often diverse anyway) and why (this is often the important aspect).

Dayuhan
03-28-2012, 08:44 AM
Ray you are absolutely correct. In addition a knowledge of the languages and actually living amongst the people is essential.

Even then (as in parts of Africa) even speaking the local language but living in a separate community limits ones intimate knowledge of what the local people are thinking (which is quite often diverse anyway) and why (this is often the important aspect).

For once I agree completely with JMA... will wonders never cease. Speaking multiple languages and living among the people gives a perspective that living in an expat enclave or other restricted area never can, even for decades. In addition a knowledge of the history, national and local, is important... not just "the history" as recorded by distant scholars, but the multiple historical narratives perceived by various subsets of the populace.

Not that all of that would mean that "one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!", but it would be a start. How many people can honestly claim to have ingrained themselves in the psyche and mindset of all the people even in their own land?

It's also true citizens of a country who have spent all or most of their lives in one part of their own country often have a terribly limited understanding of people in other parts of that country. How well does an urban sophisticate in Manhattan understand an Oklahoma wheat farmer? Could an academic in Mumbai or Delhi claim a full understanding of the vast diversity of populaces and narratives that makes up India? In my neighborhood we get Filipino visitors from manila who are more clueless than any of the foreigners, who haven't the slightest grasp of local language of custom and carry some of the most absurd stereotypes about indigenous people.

Ray
03-28-2012, 09:07 AM
Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.

Indeed there are many strata in society. Joe the Plumber or even Sarah Palin would not understand Foreign Policy as would Hilary Clinton, Obama or John McCain.

But I am sure that even Joe the Plumber, because of the media would know how horrid USSR was, even if it was not true and instead propaganda and media hype!



Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

If the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted? If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

It is good to justify issues, but then one cannot just squeeze as the Gospel with a shoe horn in a tight shoe!

If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view. They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?




It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nothing is amusing.

Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!


Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.


So, what is happening?

No US troops around?




They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?


Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.

Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.




There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".

Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?



Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.



Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.



Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.



OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.[/QUOTE]

Ray
03-28-2012, 09:28 AM
Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.

Indeed there are many strata in society. Joe the Plumber or even Sarah Palin would not understand Foreign Policy as would Hilary Clinton, Obama or John McCain.

But I am sure that even Joe the Plumber, because of the media would know how horrid USSR was, even if it was not true and instead propaganda and media hype!



Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

It the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted? If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

It is good to justify issues, but then one cannot just squeeze as the Gospel with a shoe horn in a tight shoe!

If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view. They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?




It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nothing is amusing.

Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!


Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.


So, what is happening?

No US troops around?




They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?


Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.

Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.




There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".

Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?




Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

If that is so, how come the Japanese business man does not think like anyone else but a Japanese?


Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.

So, what do you feel is the reason there is these dialogues when it is useless?




Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.

Excellent!

Minor in that China claims its territory and fishing rights!



Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

So, the truth surface inspite of your playing ping pong.

The bold part says it all!


The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.


You are seeing the trailer.

Wait for the actual movie.



OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

Why don't you google?

Don't take my word for it!


I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.

If you can't attribute it to the US, do let us know how it is happening like a Domino effect?

The Muslims have suddenly seen light?

Dayuhan
03-29-2012, 01:12 AM
Ray,

Again, I think you're trying to push events in the Philippines into a China-dominated paradigm where they really don't belong... the situation between the Philippines and China is only one part of a complicated picture, and by no means the most important part. I'm trying to make that point without resorting to extended expositions on modern Philippine political history, which would be a digression from the thread topic and which are a matter of very little interest to most people here and most people anywhere.


It the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted?

Not totally delighted, but not totally heartbroken either. With the end of the Cold War and a general move toward military retrenchment the loss was seen as manageable.


If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

A minority of what? The Philippine Senate voted 12-11 to reject the proposed treaty. During the negotiations for the treaty it was made clear that the Senate regarded the compensation offer as inadequate and would reject it, but the offer was not raised.


If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view.

Again, a majority of what? A majority of the Senate was all that was required... actually even there a majority wasn't needed, as passage of a treaty requires a 2/3 majority.

Whether that majority in the Senate reflected a majority of the popular view is open to question, but most of those who observe closely believe that it did not. After the treaty was rejected, President Aquino (who supported ratification of the treaty) tried to get the decision overturned through a referendum. The effort bogged down in legal issues (the Constitution provides for legislation to be overturned by referendum, but makes no such provision for a treaty), and was eventually abandoned. Again nobody knows for sure, but the consensus seems to be that a referendum to overturn the decision would probably have passed.

So if the decsion didn't reflect a popular majority, how did it get made? Bunch of reasons really, but two stand out.

First, that Senate was the first post-Marcos Senate, and was dominated by opponents of Marcos, many of whom were deeply suspicious of the US, on account of extended US support for Marcos. Their stand on the bases was a minor or non-existent consideration in their election; they were elected because they were opponents of the hated dictator. They also turned out to be against the bases, or at least in favor of getting a much larger compensation package.

A second factor was the emergence of a quite unlikely coalition, which probably didn't represent a popular majority but still carried considerable political weight. The left had always wanted the bases out, but never had the political clout to do anything about it. They ended up being supported by a broad social conservative coalition, including the Catholic Church and much of the conservative business community. This included many elements one would normally expect to support the US, but was turned against by the sprawling prostitution ghettos around the bases and the pretty accurate) perception of arrogance and racism from base authorities, particularly involving crimes committed by Americans against Filipinos.


They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

Again, which "they" are you talking about here? And why would anyone see "no way out"? Are you assuming a perception of imminent threat from China? If so, on what is that assumption based?


No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?

Again, basing of US troops in the Philippines is not under discussion. There is discussion (though no specific proposal has been offered here) of expanding the presence under the current Visiting Forces Agreement, which places a number of restrictions on movement and activity. That does not necessarily relate to China, as the Philippine Government faces far more imminent military threats from within.


Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!

Is that "real threat" in, or are you assuming that is and viewing developments in that light without placing them in local context.


So, what is happening?

No US troops around?

There are about 600 US soldiers here; that number goes up and down depending on movements and on scheduled exercises. They are on a specific mission to train and support Philippine troops engaged in operations against the ASG and other insurgent/bandit/terrorist/etc elements in Basilan and Jolo. They are not legally permitted to engage in combat. Bringing in a larger contingent without such a specific mission would be very controversial. Philippine officials may have discussed this with their US counterparts, but they have not released any such proposal locally. Port calls and exercises happen regularly and have for years.

It's widely assumed that US exercises with Philippine and regional forces are a response to specific incidents involving China. This is generally not the case. The exercises are scheduled far in advance and the Chinese know when they are happening. More likely that the Chinese are tossing up incidents to fit the schedule and make it look like the US is doing a knee-jerk reaction.


You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?

Actually they're pretty shrewd. China is in no way the biggest military problem they face, and the actual nature of the "threat" is not one that will be affected by the presence of some US troops. The US has certain issues with supporting the Government's efforts to suppress its multiple cyclic insurgencies, so playing the China card is more likely to get stuff than playing the insurgency card.


Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.

I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the perceived threat, and I'm not sure those assumptions are consistent with what's actually going on locally.


Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?

Fickle, yes... most people are. Totally idiotic, no, though sometimes emotion has to settle before people start seeing through the bull####.


If that is so, how come the Japanese business man does not think like anyone else but a Japanese?

Truth or stereotype? Most assumptions about "national character" are stereotype based and few survive extended exposure to a culture and it's people.


So, what do you feel is the reason there is these dialogues when it is useless?

When did I say it was useless? People with divergent interests can always discuss ways to balance their interests, and can seek win-win solutions to that divergence.



So, the truth surface inspite of your playing ping pong.

The bold part says it all!

Only if you assume that the desire for military aid is a response to a threat from China. There's little basis for such an assumption, given the far more imminent threats in the picture.


You are seeing the trailer.

Wait for the actual movie.

I don't expect to see a major confrontation any time soon. Little to justify it on either side, barring major political events in China.


Why don't you google?

Don't take my word for it!

I don't need to Google, been following that situation closely for many years.


If you can't attribute it to the US, do let us know how it is happening like a Domino effect?

The Muslims have suddenly seen light?

And why would Muslims not see light? How is some vast and devious American strategy needed to explain why people who see a neighbor toss out a dictator might get the idea of tossing out their own? If you're going to seriously propose that the Arab Spring was the result of American Design, you'll need to produce some tangible evidence to support that conclusion, thought it's really a matter for another thread.

Ray
03-29-2012, 06:33 AM
PHL, Vietnam navies to jointly patrol Spratlys
Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:28 Rene Acosta / Reporter

THE Philippines and Vietnam have moved closer to jointly patrolling their claimed maritime territories in the disputed Spratly Group of Islands that are being aggressively claimed by China.

The standard operating procedure for the joint patrol by the country’s Navy and the Vietnam People’s Navy (VPN) of the Northeast Cay and Southwest Cay, both on the South China Sea, was signed by Vice Admiral Alex Pama, Navy flag officer in command and the Vietnam Navy’s commander in chief Adm. Nguyen Van Hien.

Lt. Col. Omar Tonsay, Navy spokesman, said Northeast Cay is occupied by the Philippines, and it is located 45 kilometers northeast of Pag-asa, the biggest island that is currently occupied by the country.

On the other hand, the Southwest Cay is occupied by Vietnam, and it is located 3 kilometers away from Northeast Cay....

Aside from the joint-maritime patrol, the Philippines and Vietnam also forged defense cooperation, with Pama and Hien signing an MOU on the “Enhancement of Mutual Cooperation and Information Sharing” between the two navies.


http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/25103-phl-vietnam-navies-to-jointly-patrol-spratlys

Dayuhan
03-29-2012, 10:26 AM
Given the state of the Philippine Navy, I doubt that the Chinese are shaking in their boots... but the show must go on, and it will. Expect more push-and-shove around the edges, but not much more than that.

Ray
03-30-2012, 07:38 AM
PLA researcher says U.S. aims to encircle China

Earlier this month, Obama told Asia-Pacific leaders that the United States was "here to stay," announced plans to set up a de facto military base in northern Australia and chided China for refusing to discuss its South China Sea disputes at regional forums.

"The United States is making much of its 'return to Asia', has been positioning pieces and forces on China's periphery, and the intent is very clear -- this is aimed at China, to contain China," Luo wrote in the commentary, which quickly spread across the Chinese Internet.....

But they do illustrate the undercurrents of nationalist ire with Washington that Beijing's policy-makers face.

Luo was among several PLA officer-pundits who lambasted U.S. policy earlier last year, before both governments moved to ease tensions over Taiwan, Tibet and other disputes.

Analysts have said that although the PLA is firmly under the thumb of China's Communist Party, officer-analysts have been given some leeway to strike a tougher tone in their comments.......

But Luo, at least, appears emboldened to speak out again.

He said the United States should keep focused on its "war on terror" against Islamist militants.

"China has not provoked U.S. interests, so what are you doing running to Asia to encircle China?," wrote Luo.

"If you shift your strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific, who will protect your own backyard. Don't you worry about a second September 11 incident?," he asked, referring to the devastating 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/28/us-china-usa-pla-idUSTRE7AR07Q20111128



The Chinese are shaking in their boots and biting their nails in agony at the way the US is encircling her by using proxies and standing behind them with all its might.

This part of Luo's harangue is so pathetic and it indicates that the fear of being encircled is giving rise to delirious incoherence in logical thought!


He said the United States should keep focused on its "war on terror" against Islamist militants.

"China has not provoked U.S. interests, so what are you doing running to Asia to encircle China?," wrote Luo.

"If you shift your strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific, who will protect your own backyard. Don't you worry about a second September 11 incident?," he asked, referring to the devastating 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

Ray
03-30-2012, 07:57 AM
Ray,

Again, I think you're trying to push events in the Philippines into a China-dominated paradigm where they really don't belong... the situation between the Philippines and China is only one part of a complicated picture, and by no means the most important part. I'm trying to make that point without resorting to extended expositions on modern Philippine political history, which would be a digression from the thread topic and which are a matter of very little interest to most people here and most people anywhere.

While you may be right about the dynamic of domestic politics, the issue of external threat generally concerns the Govt, MPs, and a few of the intelligentsia who concern themselves in these issues.

The remainder population may have a general idea, but are too concerned with their daily rota and problems of existence that they are only concerned when they are attacked. Till then, they are complacent and hope that the Govt Is looking after their interests.

The livelihood of fishermen, who are blocked or challenged by China, would cause the common man concern, because the issue will be nearer their comprehension level. Violation of the EEZ they would hardly understand and so it will not be on the radar of concern.


Not totally delighted, but not totally heartbroken either. With the end of the Cold War and a general move toward military retrenchment the loss was seen as manageable.

With the closure of the Cold War era, the whole world put their guard down.

However, with new ‘threats’ emerging, rekindling of the fears of a new Cold War is gradually coming into being, and more so in Asia, since the ‘wrangling’ has shifted from the Europe to the Far East and the Indian Ocean. I would be surprised if the Govts of the region, given China’s belligerent posture and hegemonic aspirations would not be worried about this development.

One must not forget that these countries of the Asia Pacific region have experienced colonialism and imperialism (except Thailand and Japan). They realise , for good or for worse, that one will have to assert herself through every means including loose alliances or firm alliances, lest they are once again shackled to a new ruler or be subjugated to the whims and fancies of a bigger nation even if not made a vassal.


A minority of what? The Philippine Senate voted 12-11 to reject the proposed treaty. During the negotiations for the treaty it was made clear that the Senate regarded the compensation offer as inadequate and would reject it, but the offer was not raised.

A minority view.

If the Senate voted 12 -11, it just proves that it was a close call and the rejection was a near miss prompted not by security concerns but because of, what was felt, was an ‘inadequate’ offer, if I have understood you correctly.


Again, a majority of what? A majority of the Senate was all that was required... actually even there a majority wasn't needed, as passage of a treaty requires a 2/3 majority.

Whether that majority in the Senate reflected a majority of the popular view is open to question, but most of those who observe closely believe that it did not. After the treaty was rejected, President Aquino (who supported ratification of the treaty) tried to get the decision overturned through a referendum. The effort bogged down in legal issues (the Constitution provides for legislation to be overturned by referendum, but makes no such provision for a treaty), and was eventually abandoned. Again nobody knows for sure, but the consensus seems to be that a referendum to overturn the decision would probably have passed.

So if the decsion didn't reflect a popular majority, how did it get made? Bunch of reasons really, but two stand out.

First, that Senate was the first post-Marcos Senate, and was dominated by opponents of Marcos, many of whom were deeply suspicious of the US, on account of extended US support for Marcos. Their stand on the bases was a minor or non-existent consideration in their election; they were elected because they were opponents of the hated dictator. They also turned out to be against the bases, or at least in favor of getting a much larger compensation package.

A second factor was the emergence of a quite unlikely coalition, which probably didn't represent a popular majority but still carried considerable political weight. The left had always wanted the bases out, but never had the political clout to do anything about it. They ended up being supported by a broad social conservative coalition, including the Catholic Church and much of the conservative business community. This included many elements one would normally expect to support the US, but was turned against by the sprawling prostitution ghettos around the bases and the pretty accurate) perception of arrogance and racism from base authorities, particularly involving crimes committed by Americans against Filipinos.

OK.

So it means that domestic political overrode the necessity of security, and more so, the world was cooling down from the tensions of the Cold War.




Again, which "they" are you talking about here? And why would anyone see "no way out"? Are you assuming a perception of imminent threat from China? If so, on what is that assumption based?

‘They’ means the Philippines.

If there is a way out, could you inform us as to what is the way out?

The indications and the manner in which the US is being roped in and joining various loose coalitions as the joint patrol with the Vietnamese are the assumptions. It is obvious that if the Philippines felt there was no threat from China, it would be rather odd that one starts patrolling the South China Sea with another country when it had never done so before the threat posed by China.

If indeed there was no threat from China, why patrol the seas and that too with another nation? It could have well been business as usual and status quo ante before the threat of China came into being.




Again, basing of US troops in the Philippines is not under discussion. There is discussion (though no specific proposal has been offered here) of expanding the presence under the current Visiting Forces Agreement, which places a number of restrictions on movement and activity. That does not necessarily relate to China, as the Philippine Government faces far more imminent military threats from within.

It is rather interesting a thought that a country that sent the US packing should bring in the presence of US troops for quelling ‘internal threats’ to the Philippines Govt? Is the US some ‘guns on hire’ to foist a Govt of another country from internal threats?




Is that "real threat" in, or are you assuming that is and viewing developments in that light without placing them in local context.

The indicators point to that direction.

I would be surprised that the Philippines is getting US warships to combat ‘internal threats’, more so, when she is entering into Agreements with other countries to undertake joint patrols and immediately succeeding from the joint exercise with the US Navy, which thereafter did an naval exercise with Vietnam.

They very fact that both the Navies of the region (Philippines and Vietnam) undertook exercises with the US Navy one after the other, the Philippines Navy acquiring US Naval vessels and then entering into an Agreement with Vietnam to undertake Joint Patrolling, does indicate that this is the aftermath of Lessons Learnt after the Naval Exercises with the US Navy.

The fact that there was sharp criticism from China is another indicator that the exercises were aimed against China.

It would be extraordinary that Philippines does not find China a threat and yet provokes China to get verbally ballistic!


There are about 600 US soldiers here; that number goes up and down depending on movements and on scheduled exercises. They are on a specific mission to train and support Philippine troops engaged in operations against the ASG and other insurgent/bandit/terrorist/etc elements in Basilan and Jolo. They are not legally permitted to engage in combat. Bringing in a larger contingent without such a specific mission would be very controversial. Philippine officials may have discussed this with their US counterparts, but they have not released any such proposal locally. Port calls and exercises happen regularly and have for years.

One is well aware what these so called ‘training missions’ are all about. One does not allow training missions if one does not have security concerns.

There is no embargo on ‘training missions’ to have multiple aims.

Ray
03-30-2012, 07:57 AM
It's widely assumed that US exercises with Philippine and regional forces are a response to specific incidents involving China. This is generally not the case. The exercises are scheduled far in advance and the Chinese know when they are happening. More likely that the Chinese are tossing up incidents to fit the schedule and make it look like the US is doing a knee-jerk reaction.

These exercises do not address single incidents.

These exercises are aimed at a general strategic aim.

One does not undertake exercises just for the sake of exercising its forces to keep them trim. All exercises have aims. India does annual exercises with the US and other navies ‘for anti piracy interoperability’. That is eye wash. One does not do anti piracy ops in areas that are not infested with pirates!


Actually they're pretty shrewd. China is in no way the biggest military problem they face, and the actual nature of the "threat" is not one that will be affected by the presence of some US troops. The US has certain issues with supporting the Government's efforts to suppress its multiple cyclic insurgencies, so playing the China card is more likely to get stuff than playing the insurgency card.

Bringing in a US presence to be a threat in being to the Moro Muslim rebellion is like a red rag being shown to a bull!

So, the Philippines Govt wants to raise the hornets’ nest?

I find it naïve and too simplistic an explanation since I wonder if that meets the US strategic interest too! I would think that if the Moros were to be eliminated and not aggravated, 600 US soldier would not do the trick.

At best, the stationing of US troops (whatever be the strength) is basically to have a ‘core group’ on which a larger force can build up on, if and when the necessity arises. Till then, they remain a ‘threat in being’ and a warning of greater things to come!


I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the perceived threat, and I'm not sure those assumptions are consistent with what's actually going on locally.

I am not looking at local issue but the external issues and the indicators as I have already explained.


Fickle, yes... most people are. Totally idiotic, no, though sometimes emotion has to settle before people start seeing through the bull####.

I think the American Govt is neither fickle nor idiotic, nor do I feel that those who voted the Govt in are so. I find the US and its govt very focussed in their aims, even if the aims are not internationally appreciated. The US reminds me of the Canadian Mounties motto – Mounties always get their man!

You may not appreciate it because you are in the Philippines which has a history of closeness to the US. I see what is happening in India and what has happened in Vietnam! India does not want to surrender its sovereignty, and yet she is voting with the US against her interests. Vietnam, a avowed enemy of the US, has sunk her pride and ‘aligned’ with the US.

So, to feel that the US is a lost soul meandering in the dark, is not right!


Truth or stereotype? Most assumptions about "national character" are stereotype based and few survive extended exposure to a culture and it's people.

Maybe.
I go by report of the US on business with the Japanese.
Now, if the US chaps are wrong, then I am wrong and you alone are right!


When did I say it was useless? People with divergent interests can always discuss ways to balance their interests, and can seek win-win solutions to that divergence.

The way you address issues indicates so!


Only if you assume that the desire for military aid is a response to a threat from China. There's little basis for such an assumption, given the far more imminent threats in the picture.

Surely it is not to act as if one is the new bloke on the block!


I don't expect to see a major confrontation any time soon. Little to justify it on either side, barring major political events in China.’

No one has said there will be a major confrontation.

China is still not equipped to take on the US and its allies and friends.




I don't need to Google, been following that situation closely for many years.

I would say you are lucky that you are aware of the news and views of all, to include the countries that are China’s neighbour without Googling.


And why would Muslims not see light? How is some vast and devious American strategy needed to explain why people who see a neighbor toss out a dictator might get the idea of tossing out their own? If you're going to seriously propose that the Arab Spring was the result of American Design, you'll need to produce some tangible evidence to support that conclusion, thought it's really a matter for another thread.

One would then have to start from the time and manner how the Pope toppled the apple cart in Poland and how enemies of the US were slowly squeezed out and then how the focus shifted to another lot that were causing great anxiety to the US.

But as you rightly said, it is for another thread.

Bob's World
03-30-2012, 08:52 AM
Small countries in critical locations or possessing critical resources appreciate very well that larger countries will exercise their interests with them in some way or another. Balancing larger powers to find the least intrusive and disruptive mix of that external influence is the best one in that position can hope for.

The US is often perceived as a favorable partner to balance the growing influence of some other state. The US is also apt to mistake that desire for our ability to help balance a situation as "friendship" and treat the relationship like a friendship rather than more pragmatically like a business relationship. No one stays too late after a business meeting concludes, but we've all been guilty of, or a victim of, a friend not knowing when it's time to go home; or being too eager to press the latest thing he or she is excited about upon you so that you too can share in that goodness.

A practical assumption is that as China rises in power in Asia, there will be a commensurate rise in US influence. India is too close, and Europeans too much baggage. The US has her own baggage though, and accumulating more all the time.

American foreign policy too often tends to seem a lot more like high school relationships than mature business partnerships. At a certain level that might be charming, but damn it gets us into a lot of avoidable dramas.

The worst thing the US could do is attempt to revitalize the Cold War and attempt to "contain" China. The smartest thing is to recognize that the boat of US influence rises on the sea of Chinese power. Enjoy the ride. Far more than anything the US could say or do, the rise of China opens doors for US influence across Asia-Pacific. Just so long as we don't assume that means everyone wants to be our friend and have us move in. They aren't, and they don't.

Ray
03-30-2012, 06:41 PM
The critical issue for the US is whether they are ready to lose their slot as the Nation that still calls the shot.

If they are to be Neville Chamberlain, then who can stop them!

Bob's World
03-30-2012, 07:59 PM
My experience in Asia is that nation's there are very much about calling their own "shots."

What has gotten the US in trouble in the region is thinking that we should be calling shots that aren't ours to call. Far better we allow and support the appropriate parties in calling those shots, using our own power and influence to provide a counter-balance to rising Chinese power.

The fact is that there is room, opportunity, and certainly risk for several powerful states in the Asia-Pacific region. The key is finding the right balance to help prevent any from being tempted to overplay their hand. As I said, the US historically has been seen as excellent choice as a partner by states with growing concerns of powerful states that are much closer and more likely to make an aggressive play to control them. We already see US influence on the rise in the region. I predict this trend will continue.

Dayuhan
03-30-2012, 10:35 PM
My experience in Asia is that nation's there are very much about calling their own "shots."

What has gotten the US in trouble in the region is thinking that we should be calling shots that aren't ours to call. Far better we allow and support the appropriate parties in calling those shots, using our own power and influence to provide a counter-balance to rising Chinese power.

I would also say that nations here are calling their own shots, and that they are not really aligning with the US or moving into a US camp, rather they are managing their relations across a spectrum of countries in line with their own perception of their own interests... which after all is what anyone would rationally expect.

I don't know how much "influence" the US could really be said to have in SE Asia, at least if we take the OED definition of "influence": the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something. I don't think we're having any such effect or that we have any such capacity: we're not changing the way anyone thinks or acts, and we're certainly not directing anyone's character, development or behaviour. We (and they) are simply finding areas where interests overlap and working to enhance those interests.

In short, our relations with SE Asian countries are moving into a peer-to-peer mode, more resembling relations with Europe than the old-school patron-client relationships that used to characterize relations with the developing world. That's probably least true in the Philippines, but even there we aren't calling any shots, far less so in the rest of the region.

I'm not at all sure that US influence (defined as above) is rising in the area: we do not have and are not gaining the capacity to persuade or compel any of these nations to do anything they don't want to do or weren't already doing. I also don't think it's accurate to think that the SE Asian nations are joining a US camp or falling in line with a US strategy. None of this is directed or orchestrated by the US; the nations involved are calling their own shots for their own reasons.


the US historically has been seen as excellent choice as a partner by states with growing concerns of powerful states that are much closer and more likely to make an aggressive play to control them. We already see US influence on the rise in the region. I predict this trend will continue.

China's a long way from making an aggressive play to control anyone in the area, and I'm not sure that's really the concern. Also most of these nations are not really looking to the US as a first choice partner, rather as one partner among several. The Vietnamese, those closest to the perceived problem, engage with the US, but are also engaging actively with India (including proposed joint ventures in offshore energy projects in disputed areas) and other SE Asian nations, while buying most of their arms from Russia. That's true elsewhere in the region as well: most states are not looking for a big brother to protect them, rather to build a network of supporting alliances. Assuming that it's all US-centric is, I think, a mistake.

Dayuhan
03-31-2012, 04:03 AM
Bringing in a US presence to be a threat in being to the Moro Muslim rebellion is like a red rag being shown to a bull!

So, the Philippines Govt wants to raise the hornets’ nest?

I find it naïve and too simplistic an explanation since I wonder if that meets the US strategic interest too! I would think that if the Moros were to be eliminated and not aggravated, 600 US soldier would not do the trick.

I wouldn't make assumptions about sectarian conflict in the Philippines based on observations in the Middle East and South Asia, very different environment, very different conflict. The US presence in the south has been in place for over a decade and it has not in any way raised a hornet's nest or provoked more conflict. It's actually had a calming influence and has been well accepted by the local Muslim populaces, mainly due to the perception (accurate IMO) that the Philippine military and government behave better with Americans watching them. The larger Muslim groups see the US less as a rival than as a potential mediator that has in the past tried (albeit ineffectually) to persuade the Philippine government to take a less hard-line stance on many of their core issues.

It should be noted that there is not and has never been any intention to eliminate the Moros: the US forces have been scrupulously kept away from the MILF, the larger and more influential rebel group. The mission was more to disrupt one of the smaller group sand attempt to neutralize its connection to the AQ/JI trunk line, a mission that has been fairly successful, though attempts to resolve the underlying drivers of insurgency have been far less effective.


At best, the stationing of US troops (whatever be the strength) is basically to have a ‘core group’ on which a larger force can build up on, if and when the necessity arises. Till then, they remain a ‘threat in being’ and a warning of greater things to come!

A "threat in being" to whom? Certainly not to the Chinese.

I don't see the presence in the south as a core group on which a larger force can be built on: the location and environment would be most unattractive for basing a larger force. Port and airport facilities are grossly inadequate and there'd be all manner of security/force protection issues. if the Philippine government ever decided that it was necessary to invite more Americans in, I doubt it would be built on that base, more likely they'd be positioned in completely different locations. I don't think that's very likely to happen.


I am not looking at local issue but the external issues and the indicators as I have already explained.

Viewing external issues and indicators alone will give you a very inadequate understanding of the local issues and of why local decisions are made.


I think the American Govt is neither fickle nor idiotic, nor do I feel that those who voted the Govt in are so.

I wouldn't say the Government is idiotic, though they sometimes do idiotic things and often stray annoyingly close to idiocy. Fickle they certainly are, by design: fickleness is unavoidably built into the US political system.


You may not appreciate it because you are in the Philippines which has a history of closeness to the US. I see what is happening in India and what has happened in Vietnam! India does not want to surrender its sovereignty, and yet she is voting with the US against her interests. Vietnam, a avowed enemy of the US, has sunk her pride and ‘aligned’ with the US.

I wouldn't know about India, but I don't think the Vietnamese have "aligned with the US", nor do I think they've had to sink their pride to deal with the US. They are pragmatic; they won their war and have no reason to shy away from engagement if it suits their perceived interests, whether economic or military. If it suits them they'll deal with the US or anyone else, but they'll do it for their own reasons and at their own initiative and to the extent that they see fit. They are not in the US camp, they are in their own camp.


No one has said there will be a major confrontation.

China is still not equipped to take on the US and its allies and friends.

They also have no reason or need to "take on the US and its allies".


One would then have to start from the time and manner how the Pope toppled the apple cart in Poland and how enemies of the US were slowly squeezed out and then how the focus shifted to another lot that were causing great anxiety to the US.

But as you rightly said, it is for another thread.

For another thread perhaps, but it illustrates a point: just because things happen that suits the US doesn't mean that the US made those things happen. Eastern Europe and ultimately Russia rebelled against communism; that suited the US well, but it wasn't the outcome of a US strategy or of any US action. People simply got sick of submitting to a system that didn't provide for their needs and their desires. Communism didn't fall because the US brought it down, it fell because it sucks and people hate it. Similarly, people who take actions that seem to fit in with US objectives aren't necessarily pawns of US strategy, they aren't joining the US camp, or being directed by the US... they're simply following their own perceived interests, which happen, for now at least, to be at least tangentially compatible with those of the US.

Ray
03-31-2012, 05:02 AM
Ray you are absolutely correct. In addition a knowledge of the languages and actually living amongst the people is essential.

Even then (as in parts of Africa) even speaking the local language but living in a separate community limits ones intimate knowledge of what the local people are thinking (which is quite often diverse anyway) and why (this is often the important aspect).


Valid point.

Having had the experience of foreigners living and working in India, some on long tenures, some short and some making India practically their home, it is my observation that there are three types of such people.

1. Those whose circles were limited to their own people, local intellectuals, local professionals.

2. Those who had come to India for professional studies and research.

3. Those who made India their home.

The first group may have known one of the Indian languages and while they thought they understood India, in actuality understood only the 'intellectual'/ professional India. In actuality, they did not understand the 'real' India.

The second group who came for professional studies or research, understood India in their field of specialisation. They were better versed in understanding India because during their research or professional studies, they also had to interact with people, not specifically in their field alone. This is more so the one who had to undertake field study in the rural area.

The third group who made India their home or even second home and who had no hesitation to 'muck in' with the locals of all strata of society and lived in their neighbourhood and not in exclusive upmarket localities, understood India best amongst foreigners.

The missionaries, journalists/ writers who have made India their second home and their like would fall in this category.

However, they still would not be totally conversant with the psyche and mindset of an Indian. Even an Indian would not understand the psyche of other Indians from different parts of India, since it varies immensely. Therefore, even such foreigners would not be totally 'in the know' of the psyche and mindset.

It is also important that the locals should like you so that they share their views without hesitation.

Why I say this is because the last Counsel General in Kolkata, Beth A. Payne , dressed like an Indian and ingratiated herself with the locals and was the toast of the town, even with the Communists who were ruling Kolkata and who were not too well disposed to the US. She went out of her way to identify with the locals, rather than stand on a high horse that normally the western diplomats are prone to do.

Like it or not, while I cannot say that when she left, she became an expert on India, but this much I can say is that the anti US feeling that is natural for Communists went down exponentially and even the population at large (a large majority of Communist sympathisers) had become mellowed!

Just my observation.

Ray
03-31-2012, 07:38 AM
As far as the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring etc. Now, if that is not of US’ making and it is merely happenstance, then God and Destiny is surely an American manufacture!

I would find it too simplistic to believe that ‘people got disgusted by the system’ and demanded a change!

Just one example to illustrate.

If indeed the Russians got disgusted with the system and changed, then how come Russia’s Communist Party, relegated to the political margins after the fall of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago, has seen an astounding comeback in elections as voters rebuked Prime Minister Vladamir Putin’s 12-year reign?

Bob's World
03-31-2012, 09:29 AM
most states are not looking for a big brother to protect them, rather to build a network of supporting alliances. Assuming that it's all US-centric is, I think, a mistake.

Agreed. I am merely talking to the US node of a multi-nodal equation. Every nation pursues their interests (or should), and there is indeed a balancing going on.

Building partners around shared interests and appreciating and balancing risks against conflict where interests diverge is simply smart business. A business I don't think the US does very well as we tend to put too much emphasis on the security model that played out during the Cold War, with the globe broke up into a couple of idologically divided camps competing against each other and for influence over the rest. We are too apt to ride an alliance or a grudge too long, and think in terms of friends and foes, rather than being more flexible, pragmatic, and interest-driven.

Arguably that was not the best model to establish post WWII either, but we did and we muddled through. Now? It continues to cast a shadow on US foreign policy and how we approach problems and relationships around the globe.

Ray
03-31-2012, 05:47 PM
The manner in which the current US Administration is being successful is the manner in which she is handling Myanmar is worth praise. None so far could change the chemistry!

One may not appreciate what the US is doing in the Middle East wholeheartedly, but the manner the US has put the cat amongst the pigeons in an obscurantist region is worth note!

Bob's World
03-31-2012, 06:59 PM
I give little credit to the US, other than being willing to reach out to Myanmar government, and not bite off our nose to spite our face. But I believe Myanmar wants to be able to enjoy the benefits of their very lucrative relationship with China, without undue worry of becoming the first Chinese province to reach the Indian Ocean and reduce the critical vulnerability of having all ports East of the Malacca Straights.

Shared interests and balancing of power. This is what nations need to do. I believe the Obama administration more willing to be pragmatic than the Bush Administration was; but also that Myanmar government is probably more nervous about the the growth of Chinese influence in their country as well.

Dayuhan
03-31-2012, 10:14 PM
Building partners around shared interests and appreciating and balancing risks against conflict where interests diverge is simply smart business. A business I don't think the US does very well as we tend to put too much emphasis on the security model that played out during the Cold War, with the globe broke up into a couple of idologically divided camps competing against each other and for influence over the rest. We are too apt to ride an alliance or a grudge too long, and think in terms of friends and foes, rather than being more flexible, pragmatic, and interest-driven.

Arguably that was not the best model to establish post WWII either, but we did and we muddled through. Now? It continues to cast a shadow on US foreign policy and how we approach problems and relationships around the globe.

I don't think I'd call that a model that we established, more a balance that evolved... the other guys also played a major role in establishing it. It's gone now, and a new balance is still evolving, a more complicated one as it involves many points. SE Asia and the US actually represent good examples of how areas once pulled apart in cold war bipolarity can emerge in ways more driven by nations' own perception of their own interests, and how the US can interact with them as peers, rather than in a patron/client relationship.


As far as the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring etc. Now, if that is not of US’ making and it is merely happenstance, then God and Destiny is surely an American manufacture!

People eventually resist dictatorships. That trend has worked against the US - a number of dictators that the US called allies have fallen to popular uprisings - and it has also worked for the US, as dictators opposed to the US have fallen to popular uprisings. That reality is not of US manufacture.

This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that the Arab Spring was made in the USA. Most observers seem to think the US was caught by surprise by the whole chain of events.


I would find it too simplistic to believe that ‘people got disgusted by the system’ and demanded a change!

Just one example to illustrate.

If indeed the Russians got disgusted with the system and changed, then how come Russia’s Communist Party, relegated to the political margins after the fall of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago, has seen an astounding comeback in elections as voters rebuked Prime Minister Vladamir Putin’s 12-year reign?

Disillusionment happens. After 12 years of the new despot, the old despot becomes a figure of nostalgia. That doesn't mean the old despot wasn't thoroughly hated at the time it was deposed, it just means the new despot has taken over the central role of hate figure and target of frustration.

People demanded change then, they got what seemed to be change but turned out not to be change. Now they're demanding it again. Not so hard to understand, and there's no reason to see an American hand in any of it.

Bill Moore
03-31-2012, 11:42 PM
Posted by Ray,


As far as the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring etc. Now, if that is not of US’ making and it is merely happenstance, then God and Destiny is surely an American manufacture!

I would find it too simplistic to believe that ‘people got disgusted by the system’ and demanded a change!

Just one example to illustrate.

If indeed the Russians got disgusted with the system and changed, then how come Russia’s Communist Party, relegated to the political margins after the fall of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago, has seen an astounding comeback in elections as voters rebuked Prime Minister Vladamir Putin’s 12-year reign?

You're absolutely correct, and those changes are due largely the DImE in DIME, and it takes time to set the stage for these changes to take effect. There is no other global leader that promotes these changes, quite the contrary the only other legacy and current powers (USSR, China) fought against the trend in hopes of preserving their oppressive governments. You see this now with their responses to Syria, and China keeps North Korea on life support.

Dayuhan
04-01-2012, 03:38 AM
There is no other global leader that promotes these changes

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

Ray
04-01-2012, 09:32 AM
Bill,

You are absolutely correct.

In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

The same Church that lay low when the Jews were being exterminated by Hitler! Political handmaidens can come from strange sectors!

As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/01/us-envoy-encouraged-by-democracy-ngos-prospects-as-egyptian-liberals-conduct-post-mortem-on-crushing-defeat/

Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even our pro US PM who has never said a word against the US (he told Bush India loves you Mr Bush! [when the non European world was seething will anger]), was forced to state that US funded religious NGOs were behind the ruckus over the Russian Nuclear power plant being commissioned in Tamilnadu.

In many countries the US Peace Corps was accused of spying. Nothing surprising. There is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

Backwards Observer
04-01-2012, 09:43 AM
Anjing menggonggong, kafilah tetap berlalu.:)


RI, China ink $17.4b deals

Indonesia inked dozens of business and strategic agreements in several sectors with China, Asia’s largest economy, during the state visit of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Beijing on Friday.

The signings were made after talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao, in which both sides reaffirmed the importance of bilateral relations.

The agreement covered cooperation in areas including trade, tourism, anti-drug efforts and fisheries management.

In the business sectors, Indonesian companies signed 15 investment agreements with Chinese corporations in Beijing on Friday worth a total of US$17.4 billion.

“The business agreements are an indication of the growing cooperation between the two countries,” President Yudhoyono said in a speech after meeting with Wan Jifei, the head of the Chinese Council for the Promotion of International Trade at a hotel in China’s capital city.

RI China ink 17.4B deals (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/03/24/ri-china-ink-174b-deals.html) - Jakarta Post - March 24, 2012.

Bob's World
04-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Indonesia is a great example. A nation working to solidify their hard-earned independence and sovereignty. They act in their best interests when they make deals like these with China to help them develop their own economy. They also act in their best interest when they seek to balance their relationships with powerful nations such as China, Japan, India and the US. This is what states do.

The US burned a lot of influence in the early years following 9/11 when there was so much focus on the Islamic aspect of AQ's operation. Being the largest Muslim populace on the planet, many eyes turned to Indonesia as a nation we needed focus our security efforts upon. But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.

Indonesia does not want to be a radical Islamist state, nor does it want to be a Chinese satellite, nor does it want to be a ward of the US. Indonesia wants to be a sovereign state defined and governed on its own terms. Self-determination at work.

The US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into. As Chinese influence grows, states like Indonesia will naturally reach out to other partners, such as the US and India, to provide balance. It is in their interests to do so.

Ray
04-01-2012, 07:13 PM
While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

Dayuhan
04-03-2012, 02:13 AM
But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.


Indonesia had its share of issues with foreign influence during the Cold War.

Like many in the Middle East, Indonesians are willing to cheer and support AQ's fight against foreign intervention in Muslim lands. Also like many in the Middle East, they are quite willing to accept help from Islamist movements where their own local issues (traditionally involving sectarian conflict in Sulawesi et al). Also like many Muslims elsewhere, very few beyond a small core want anything to do with the idea of an Arab-ruled Calihate, or with local terrorism, or with the prospect of having an AQ-allied government.


he US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into.

Much of today's Sinophobia seems to me curiously unspecific... people seem convinced that we need to fear China but unsure of what they are afraid that the Chinese will do. I sometimes come away feeling that they simply feel bereft without someone to fear.


While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

One wouldn't want to stereotype, but in general SE Asian Muslims are much less socially conservative than those in South Asia and the Middle East, even in places where Islamic radicalism has a foothold. That of course varies widely with location: an Indonesian Muslim from Jakarta is likely to be a lot less conservative than one from a rural village.

There have been some efforts to impose a more conservative outlook, notably in Malaysia and Indonesia (such as the current proposal to ban skirts above the knee) but the fact that the clerics see the need to try to force such moves is in itself testimony to the reality that the culture does not demand them.

Dayuhan
04-03-2012, 02:42 AM
In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

Again this looks like a topic for another thread, but...

I think the impact of foreign influence on domestic rebellion is being vastly overrated here. Rebellions against strong governments that have full command of their armed forces will typically fail. Foreign support will only change that if it takes the form of direct military intervention.

Rebellions succeed when governments lose their mojo. This happens: regimes age, tyrants lose their potency, the populace becomes restive, the military and police apparatus begins to waver in their loyalty. Not all states are mighty, and when the regime or the tyrant grows weak, the mighty become vulnerable. Mubarak didn't fall because foreigners conspired against him, he fell because his own armed forces wouldn't back him when push came to shove.

The presence or absence of foreign support is far from the only variable determining success or failure of a revolution, unless of course the foreign support takes the form of direct military intervention


As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/01/us-envoy-encouraged-by-democracy-ngos-prospects-as-egyptian-liberals-conduct-post-mortem-on-crushing-defeat/

There's nothing here that even remotely suggests that the Arab Spring was a product of US intervention... this piece deals with so-called "democracy NGOs" in the post-Arab Spring environment.


Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Of course, but how effective are these NGOs, really? Certainly they have no capacity to create revolution, nor have they any capacity to make a revolution succeed if the government being rebelled against is not ripe for it. All the NGOs on earth wouldn't bring down a Gadaffi... it took direct military intervention.


Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

A lot of countries, including Pakistan, accept the conditions for aid, take the aid, and then ignore the conditions or make nothing beyond a superficial and very nominal attempt to meet the conditions. The US is no great puppet master; they get played as often as they play others.

Bill Moore
04-03-2012, 06:44 AM
Posted by Dayuhan,


Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

My post,


You're absolutely correct, and those changes are due largely the DImE in DIME, and it takes time to set the stage for these changes to take effect. There is no other global leader that promotes these changes, quite the contrary the only other legacy and current powers (USSR, China) fought against the trend in hopes of preserving their oppressive governments. You see this now with their responses to Syria, and China keeps North Korea on life support.

In short I agree with myself:D


Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader?

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not). People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied). A case in point where people thought they had the support of the U.S. and acted out against a dictator was the Shi'a and Kurds after DESERT STORM.


Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off? Yes, they needed the ideas of freedom that their educated leaders learned in the West, and they needed foreign support to sustain their revolutions.


Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved? Acting on their own volition yet, especially when they believe they have a chance of succeeding. We didn't have to provide armed support to the Poles, only moral, informational and financial (along with the Catholic Church).

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

Ken White
04-03-2012, 03:45 PM
...I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not)...
...
We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.Only change I'd make would be to "almost every time" in the first quoted paragraph. At least insofar as actual versus hoped for results... :D

Dayuhan
04-04-2012, 03:05 AM
Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not).

Rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation is as old as tyranny and foreign occupation, which is pretty old. Certainly rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation dates back to well before the concept of democracy... in fact it dates back to a time when folks in "the West" were still painting themselves bright colors and bashing each other with clubs. Our ideas have likely shaped the rhetoric of rebellion to some degree (the ideas of communism, if not the substance, have also helped shape and inspire many rebellions against tyranny) but I think we're giving ourselves way too much credit if we pretend that there would be no rebellions without our ideas or our promotion of those ideas.


People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied).

Again I think this overlooks a key element in the dynamics of rebellion. Oppressive regimes are typically in a constant state of very low level rebellion. People are constantly pushing the regime. Most of these efforts fail, and most are never even noticed by outsiders, but the populace sees very clearly. They also see when the point comes when the regime fails to push back, when the security forces waver, when the people around the tyrant seem ready to break away. The key element is not foreign support, unless the foreign support comes in the form of direct military intervention. If the regime is strong, foreign support doesn't matter: all the moral support and democratic ideals on earth couldn't make Tiananmen succeed. They won't bring down Assad either.

The key to me is not the foreign support (again barring direct intervention), but rather the moment when the populace perceives that the tyrant has lost his mojo. The aura of invincibility shatters, the barons start looking for a new leader, the armed forces become reluctant to use force lest they be held accountable down the line. Once that perception hits, it snowballs very fast. It's an internal phenomenon and it has little or nothing to do with foreign support.


We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

We sometimes take credit where it's not due, and we sometimes assume that all that happens in the world revolves around us and our influence. Recently on another thread I saw a comment that one positive outcome of the Vietnam War is that "we" prevented a communist takeover of Indonesia and Thailand. Didn't say anything, as it wasn't an appropriate venue for dispute, but definitely a bit of the "whoa, say what?" reaction...

Ray
04-05-2012, 04:35 PM
Who decides what is an Oppressive regime?

The Chinese don't think that they are under an oppressive regime.

And yet, others do!

Tibetans feel they are oppressed, but nothing happens!

And yet, Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions happen!

And the Mali coup?

Dayuhan
04-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Who decides what is an Oppressive regime?

The people living under the regime, of course. Who else would have an opinion that means anything?


The Chinese don't think that they are under an oppressive regime.

"The Chinese"? Obviously they don't all think the same thing. Some feel the regime is oppressive, some don't, presumably a whole lot are in between. There are Americans who think they live under an oppressive regime.


Tibetans feel they are oppressed, but nothing happens!

And yet, Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions happen!

The Arab Spring and Color Revolutions happened when the populace not only felt it was oppressed, but perceived that the regime was vulnerable. That's obviously not the case in Tibet. Is there any specific evidence suggesting that foreign support is a key variable in any of these cases?


And the Mali coup?

A coup is a completely different thing, generally not connected to any popular sentiment or perception.

Ray
04-06-2012, 03:05 PM
Media hype is what gives 'credence' to who is 'oppressed'

The west feels that Muslim women are oppressed. How come the Muslim women don't claim they are oppressed?

I would be surprised if any country will ever let it be known that it is supporting rebels or encouraging/ assisting rebellion!

Dayuhan
04-06-2012, 10:32 PM
Media hype is what gives 'credence' to who is 'oppressed'

To outside observers, yes, but outside observers aren't the ones who rebel.


The west feels that Muslim women are oppressed. How come the Muslim women don't claim they are oppressed?

Maybe because they aren't allowed to talk? Any time you deal with a group as large as "Muslim women" or "the Chinese" there will be diversity of opinion. Some feel oppressed, some don't.


I would be surprised if any country will ever let it be known that it is supporting rebels or encouraging/ assisting rebellion!

Lots of countries supported the rebels in Libya, and didn't try to hide it. Of course that support didn't mean much until it arrived in the form of cruise missiles and air strikes. Lots of countries openly support the rebels in Syria, but unless that support takes a much more aggressive and material form, it's not going to overthrow the regime.

Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

Ray
04-07-2012, 09:56 AM
To outside observers, yes, but outside observers aren't the ones who rebel.

Let us come closer home.

I presume you, as a resident of Philippines, subscribe to the fact, or should it be the idea, that the Moros are an 'oppressed lot'.

Do let us know, we 'outsiders' about how the 'insiders' opine.




Maybe because they aren't allowed to talk? Any time you deal with a group as large as "Muslim women" or "the Chinese" there will be diversity of opinion. Some feel oppressed, some don't.

What makes you come to the conclusion that burkha-ed women don't talk or are not allowed to talk?

Where did you get that idea from?

I have Muslim friends in India, whose wives have of late taken to the burkha, they used to talk earlier and they still talk now.

They tell me that they are flaunting their Islamic identity just to cock a snook at the idea that they are a subjugated lot!




Lots of countries supported the rebels in Libya, and didn't try to hide it. Of course that support didn't mean much until it arrived in the form of cruise missiles and air strikes. Lots of countries openly support the rebels in Syria, but unless that support takes a much more aggressive and material form, it's not going to overthrow the regime.

Lots of countries?

Like?

The West?


Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

Can there ever be?

Which country will go tomtoming that they are coming to destroy another country, unless it is a declared war.

Just for starters here is something to chew upon

The CIA School of Assassination at Fort Bragg
http://ciaschool.tripod.com/

and this:


The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of screwing up every "secret" armed intervention it ever undertook. From the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Republic of Congo, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, the "secret war" in Laos, aid to the Greek colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of Salvador Allende in Chile and Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra war against Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the agency's activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States. The CIA continues to get away with this primarily because its budget and operations have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to its constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.
http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

This is in the open forum.

I am sure other powers that be are doing the same, even if it does not have the US reach!

Could we not waste our time to substantiate what is obvious and true?

Ken White
04-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Just for starters here is something to chew upon

The CIA School of Assassination at Fort Bragg
http://ciaschool.tripod.com/

and this:


http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

This is in the open forum.

I am sure other powers that be are doing the same, even if it does not have the US reach!

Could we not waste our time to substantiate what is obvious and true?The CIA and Fort Bragg are Apples and Breadfruit -- that 'relationship' is testy to say the least. All things considered, if you believe much that is in the first link, I have a Bridge I can sell you. That foolishness is totally laughable. Starting with the attempts to whitewash the Kennedy brothers who started a war to boost the US economy and their domestic political prospects -- and had no intention of leaving as the latter day apologists often have tried to contend. It simply gets worse from there... :rolleyes:

As for the CIA, generally speaking, try Hanlon's Razor... :D

The second link is more accurate and less politicized but is hardly and indictment of anything or anyone. Nations use fair and unfair means to achieve their aims. Who knew? :wry:

Re: your question on Libya / Syria; for the former, in addition to the west add Qatar and the UAE plus Egypt at a minimum. For Syria, the Arab League -- almost all of them -- and Turkey for starters. :cool:

Ray
04-07-2012, 06:17 PM
Re: your question on Libya / Syria; for the former, in addition to the west add Qatar and the UAE plus Egypt at a minimum. For Syria, the Arab League -- almost all of them -- and Turkey for starters.

Libya. Obviously Qatar would support. Its Sheik is in the minority (Sunni) and requires to be salvaged by the US and the Saudis. UAE too has been a pro West lot.

Syria. Indeed the Sunni Arab League would be against Shia governed Syria with links to Shia Iran! Nothing out of the ordinary.


Nations use fair and unfair means to achieve their aims. Who knew?

Just the point.

If one has the capability and it is in the Nation's interest, then it would surely be used!

And why not?

But it will never be officially acknowledged.

Do nations acknowledge they have spies operating in foreign countries?

Even when they are caught, they are disowned!

Do nations acknowledge that the NGOs are funded and nurtured for ulterior motives?

The Peace Corps, which otherwise was a good idea, have been accused of being spies!

Ministers of foreign countries, including mine, have been allegedly recruited by foreign countries. Anyone will acknowledge that?

Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!

Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?

Ken White
04-07-2012, 07:25 PM
...Nothing out of the ordinary.True; the point was merely that your allegation was incorrect.
Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!Also true -- and nothing out of the ordinary. ;)
Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?Almost certainly not. Nor, apparently and so far as is known, was he a a very good whatever he was... :D

Dayuhan
04-08-2012, 01:11 AM
Libya. Obviously Qatar would support. Its Sheik is in the minority (Sunni) and requires to be salvaged by the US and the Saudis. UAE too has been a pro West lot.

Syria. Indeed the Sunni Arab League would be against Shia governed Syria with links to Shia Iran! Nothing out of the ordinary.

Of course it's nothing out of the ordinary. The sanctions and verbal support coming from the US and Europe are also nothing out of the ordinary. Given Syria's close relationship with Iran, we can also expect that there's a bit of covert skullduggery going on. That's not likely to make any difference if the regime and its armed forces hold together.


Ministers of foreign countries, including mine, have been allegedly recruited by foreign countries. Anyone will acknowledge that?

Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!

Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?

We all know that covert operations happen. That doesn't mean that any given event was necessarily the outcome of a covert operation. Certainly I see no credible reason to suppose that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions were the outcome of US covert operations.

Ray
04-08-2012, 04:09 AM
We all know that covert operations happen. That doesn't mean that any given event was necessarily the outcome of a covert operation. Certainly I see no credible reason to suppose that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions were the outcome of US covert operations.

True.

Collective conscience of different peoples but of the same region/ area ignites simultaneously.

Referring to communism in Indochina, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put the Domino effect theory into words during an April 7, 1954 news conference:
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

So, it is but a Domino Effect happening all around in the 'oppressed world'!

The issue still remains - how did Indo China or even China get influenced by Communism for the Domino effect to happen, when it was an European and Russian phenomenon and not a Oriental One? How was a foreign concept injected in Oriental societies? Surely, there would have been some 'encouragement' by interested foreign elements. Or not?

You feel that the historical distaste that Sunnis have for Shias and vice versa is not at play when the Sunni Arab League gangs up on Shia Syria duly supported by Shia Iran?

Ray
04-08-2012, 04:51 AM
Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

While I have no problem with the Colour Revolution or the Arab Spring or the Iraq War or the US reasserting itself in the Asia Pacific Region because each is a geostrategic necessity, if seen from the US standpoint, I do find it difficult to credit the 'purer than driven snow' justifications as wholesome truths.

Each nation has to look after its own interests. It is easier, if not axiomatic, for Nations that are powerful. And because they are powerful, they have larger number and more sophisticated instruments to pursue their strategic and political aims, at times with total disdain for international opinion. Therefore, to feel that events around the world is self driven or self combustible, is a bit artful.

Therefore, in my limited knowledge of geostrategy and geopolitics, I believe that the momentous events are not solely self driven or self ignited.

Just as one found the spread of Communism and the 'struggle of the proletariat' and such things, which were foreign to cultures and political ideology of many countries that was affected, were not an instant upheaval caused by domestic philosophy, I find that it is too simplistic to believe that the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring, Iraq War etc are but a self expression of 'oppressed people' revolting against the shackles of modern slavery!

Since you are from the Philippines, you would be aware that the Hilarion del Rosario aka ahmed Santos is a Filipino who converted to Islam while working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1991. Therefore, for a staunch Catholic to convert to Islam without Saudi Mullahs' encouragement would be too hard to believe. Further, such a man would proselytise and convert many more Catholics and organise, fund, arm such Catholic converts into a radical Islamic terrorist organisation without Wahabbi backing would also be a bit extraordinary a phenomenon to believe.

But ask a Wahabbi. He will deny any connection or support! He will claim it is but a natural, home-grown reaction to Catholic domination and historical US subjugation of the Muslims, especially the Moros or some such wild justification!

Bob's World
04-08-2012, 12:16 PM
Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

The provision of support does not cause the unrest and instability, nor does any ideology that might come attached to that support (be it Wahabbi, Democracy or Communism or any other such message).

Arab Spring is not caused by AQ, it is caused by how various populace groups feel about their conditions of governance and lives, and their belief that new governance is the key to better lives. AQ has worked to leverage that energy for years, but does not cause that energy. The same is true elsewhere.

This is an uncomfortable reality for governments to come to grips with. Far easier to blame some bogeyman or ideology, or source of funding and weapons. US Stinger missiles did not cause the resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan, they just helped the movement to be successful. Thank god the Russians have not seen it in their interests to similarly accelerate the resistance to our presence there now.

Dayuhan
04-08-2012, 01:47 PM
While I have no problem with the Colour Revolution or the Arab Spring or the Iraq War or the US reasserting itself in the Asia Pacific Region because each is a geostrategic necessity, if seen from the US standpoint, I do find it difficult to credit the 'purer than driven snow' justifications as wholesome truths.

I certainly wouldn't accuse the US of purity; I just don't think they have the capacity to generate revolutions on demand.

RCJ made this comment:


Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

and it's true to some extent, It's important to realize, though, that many of these "flash revolutions" are not the product of some organized movements to redress grievances. They can emerge independently of any such movement and there's rarely enough time for anyone to try to leverage them. In the instance with with I'm most familiar, the Manila uprising in '86, bothe the NPA and the USA failed to anticipate the form events would take and were forced into reactive positions. I see evidence of the same phenomenon in Tunisia and Egypt, and in the Color Revolutions.


Therefore, in my limited knowledge of geostrategy and geopolitics, I believe that the momentous events are not solely self driven or self ignited.

Of course all powers pursue their own interests, but it's a fallacy to assume that all that happens is therefore a product of great powers pursuing their interests. The efforts of the great powers may prove redundant, and events may emerge that bypass them. They can also have a wide range of unintended consequences.

I'd say that any attempt to attribute the Arab Spring or Color Revolutions to US agency has to have a stronger basis than the simple assumption that the US must have been involved because it must have been involved.


Since you are from the Philippines, you would be aware that the Hilarion del Rosario aka ahmed Santos is a Filipino who converted to Islam while working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1991. Therefore, for a staunch Catholic to convert to Islam without Saudi Mullahs' encouragement would be too hard to believe. Further, such a man would proselytise and convert many more Catholics and organise, fund, arm such Catholic converts into a radical Islamic terrorist organisation without Wahabbi backing would also be a bit extraordinary a phenomenon to believe.

I'm very familiar with the Balik-Islam movement, the short and less than happy life of the Rajah Solaiman Group, and the career of Ahmed Santos. I did a fair bit of research on the subject at one point, including fairly extensive interviews. I haven't time to discourse on the subject now, especially as I tend to go verbose on such things, but I think you're misreading it in some quite substantial ways.

Ray
04-08-2012, 06:14 PM
Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

The provision of support does not cause the unrest and instability, nor does any ideology that might come attached to that support (be it Wahabbi, Democracy or Communism or any other such message).

Arab Spring is not caused by AQ, it is caused by how various populace groups feel about their conditions of governance and lives, and their belief that new governance is the key to better lives. AQ has worked to leverage that energy for years, but does not cause that energy. The same is true elsewhere.

This is an uncomfortable reality for governments to come to grips with. Far easier to blame some bogeyman or ideology, or source of funding and weapons. US Stinger missiles did not cause the resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan, they just helped the movement to be successful. Thank god the Russians have not seen it in their interests to similarly accelerate the resistance to our presence there now.

I have not said AQ is involved. Arab League is not AQ.

I merely stated that the Sunni Arab League is naturally not very comfortable with Shia regimes around them, given their historical sectarian temporal rivalries, inspite of having the same God and Prophet.

In so far as the paragraph in bold.

Have you read Unholy Wars by Cooley?

Or the Bear Trap by Brig Yousaf of the ISI, who organised the Mujahideens?

Ray
04-08-2012, 06:23 PM
The Anglo-American support apparatus
behind the Afghani mujahideen

by Adam K. East

Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in December 1979, the U.S. administration, first under Carter and then under Reagan, launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or "mujahideen" (holy warriors), as they came to be known. In addition to overt and covert funding operations by various U.S. governmental agencies for the mujahideen, a plethora of private "aid" agencies, think-tanks, and other odd outfits joined the fray, with the ostensible aim of helping the Afghans to liberate their nation from the clutches of the Soviet invaders.

However, a closer look at the activities of these private agencies reveals that there was much more at stake. As the profiles below show, the source of policy for most of these groups was British intelligence. As such, these groups lobbied the U.S. Congress, set up conferences, launched pro-mujahideen propaganda campaigns, and, in some cases, even provided military training for various mujahideen groups. U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, and the region, was largely determined by the aims of these "committees," which also represented the controlling "mediators" between the mujahideen and British policy.

Some of the members and leaders of the organizations profiled below were also involved with some of the figures in the drugs-for-guns related Iran-Contra networks of then-Vice President George Bush and his sidekick Oliver North.
Afghan Aid U.K./Radio Free Kabul

Afghan Aid U.K. (AIUK), together with Radio Free Kabul of London, were the two most important coordinators of Afghan mujahideen aid efforts internationally throughout the Afghan War.

Afghan Aid U.K. was set up in Peshawar, Pakistan, by Romy Fullerton, in the early stages of the war. She was the wife of the British journalist John Fullerton, who has written extensively on Afghanistan, and the Afghan War. The main sponsor and funder of the group was Viscount Cranbourne, currently Lord Privy Seal (chief of the Queen's Privy Council), and Leader of the House of Lords.

Viscount Cranbourne is a member of the Cecil family, one of the oldest and most powerful oligarchical families in Britain, whose ancestor, Lord Burghley, was the Lord Privy Seal and Lord Treasurer of Queen Elizabeth I. Viscount Cranbourne is the son and heir to the current Sixth Marquis of Salisbury. His grandfather, the Fifth Marquis, had been a British colonial secretary in World War II, and a postwar foreign minister, as well as having been Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords. His great-great-grandfather, the famous Third Marquis of Salisbury, had been the British prime minister and foreign minister from 1878-87, and again 1900-02; he helped lay the basis for World War I. The family motto is, "Late, but seriously."

AIUK's initial refugee aid programs were soon expanded to include numerous other services, including medical and agricultural aid, and it even offered a hostel for British journalists. According to one U.S. journalist, AIUK received "considerable British government funding" in addition to "massive amounts of money" from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In order to solicit U.S. government funds for this British operation, Viscount Cranbourne once appeared before the U.S. Congress Special Joint Task Force on Afghanistan, where he attracted considerable attention by twirling his full-length cape around his chair before seating himself to testify.

AIUK funneled much of its support to Masood in the north of the country, to the Tajiks (as opposed to the Pushtuns in the south). Masood's brother is currently the Afghan "ambassador" to London.
Radio Free Kabul

Radio Free Kabul was formed almost immediately after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Lord Nicholas Bethell, a former lord-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth II. A career British intelligence official with a specialization in Iranian and Arab affairs, Lord Bethell had served in the Mideast and Soviet sections of official British intelligence, MI6. Lord Bethell had been a decades-long friend and colleague of British intelligence operative Kim Philby, who "defected" to the Soviet Union in 1963.

Radio Free Kabul, which was formed virtually single-handedly by Lord Bethell, was run out of Coutts and Co., the private banker to Queen Elizabeth.

In 1981, Lord Bethell accompanied British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on a tour of the United States dedicated to drumming up support for the mujahideen. Thatcher and Lord Bethell met over 60 congressmen and senators, and aided in organizing the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, the de facto U.S. arm of Radio Free Kabul. In 1983, Radio Free Kabul sponsored the formation of Resistance International, which pulled together various "freedom movements" sponsored by the Thatcher and Reagan-Bush administrations, including the Afghan mujahideen, the Nicaraguan Contras, anti-Castro Cubans, and various anti-communist eastern European and African movements.

Lord Bethell was also the British sponsor of the operations of Jon Speller, a former aide to CIA director Allen Dulles, who played an instrumental role, as did Bethell, in coordinating the operations of the Sikh independence movement (Khalistan), which was allied to the Afghan mujahideen.

Other figures on the board of Radio Free Kabul included:

Ray Whitney, a former British intelligence official who had for years run the disinformation operations unit of the Foreign Office, the so-called Information Research Department. Whitney's outfit was the model for the Reagan administration's new creation, the National Endowment for Democracy.

Winston Churchill III, the grandson of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a leader of Britain's Conservative Party, who was reportedly the main financial backer of the group.

Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the former head of the British Foreign Office when two of his employees, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess of the Philby ring, fled to Moscow.

Baron Chalfont, the former British foreign secretary and longtime defense correspondent, with a particular expertise in Mideast affairs.

Continued

Ray
04-08-2012, 06:25 PM
Afghanistan Relief Commitee

The Afghan Relief Committee was established in 1980 by Wall Street investment banker and spook John Train, who handles the family fortunes of some of the oldest and most powerful U.S. establishment families, such as the Mellons. The organization was housed in Train's investment consultant office. Train was the president of the group, and, according to a 1980 Washington Post article, "its financial whiz." Simultaneous with his founding of ARC, Train was organizing a "media salon" of press prostitutes to launch a massive slander attack on EIR's founder, Lyndon LaRouche.

The stated purpose of the ARC was to raise "seed money" for medical organizations treating casualties among the mujahideen. After receiving the Relief Committee's seed money, the medical organizations were expected to go elsewhere for financing. The ARC was especially fond of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami group (see article, p. 26).

Also operative were Leo Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC), whose Peshawar-based office was staffed mostly with Hekmatyar's gang; the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); and the State Department's Agency for International Development. CIA director William Casey was on the IRC's board of directors, and served as its president at one time. Cherne was then vice-director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), with offices at the White House.

From its inception, the ARC worked closely with Freedom House, which had been chaired by Cherne since the 1940s, and whose treasurer, Walter Schloss, was a longtime business associate of Train. Rosanne Klass, vice president of the ARC, was also the director of Freedom House's Afghanistan Information Center, and had formerly been the founding director of the Afghanistan Council of the Asia Society.

Founders of the ARC, in addition to Train, included four former U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan: Francis L. Kellogg, a decades-long associate of Train from the prominent grain-interest family; Train's cousin Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.); and the ubiquitous professors Louis Dupree and Thomas Gouttierre, both longstanding Afghan hands for U.S. intelligence. Jeane Kirkpatrick, later the Reagan administration ambassador to the U.N., was co-chairman of the group.

The main known financial beneficiaries of the group were:

Doctors Without Borders, run by Ronny Brauman in Paris. This organization, whose most prominent representative was Danielle Mitterrand, wife of President François Mitterrand of France, also received money from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Freedom Medical of Washington, D.C.

Aide Medicale International

Sainte Sud of Marseilles

Most money to such groups, although not these specifically, originated with the International Rescue Committee or Relief International. The first two listed received almost all of ARC's funds.

ARC on-the-ground operations (like those of many other western organizations) were based in Peshawar, Pakistan, the main Pakistani base of the mujahideen. ARC-funded physicians were smuggled into Afghanistan from this base. Foreign national physicians were preferred for this function.

ARC also worked with the National Endowment for Democracy, the congressionally created funding conduit for Project Democracy, on two NED Afghan projects: the Writers Union of Free Afghanis and Freedom House's Afghan Information Center. The two groups were dedicated to training Afghan mujahideen spokesmen in "communication skills." Additionally, the group received NED grants to operate schools inside Afghanistan.

Honorary co-chairmen of the group drawn from the Congress included: Senators Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, Alfonse D'Amato (R) and Daniel Moynihan (D) of New York, Claiborne Pell, Gordon Humphrey (R) of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah, and Representatives Charles Rangel (D) of New York and Bill McCollum (R) of Florida.
Committee for a Free Afghanistan

CFA was founded in 1981 in the aftermath of a trip by Prime Minister Thatcher and Radio Free Kabul founder Lord Bethell to the United States, dedicated to building U.S. support for the mujahideen. The founding executive director of CFA, Karen McKay, was reputed to be the mistress of Lord Bethell. From its inception, the CFA acted as the U.S. arm of Bethell's London-based Radio Free Kabul.

McKay, a major in the Rapid Deployment Force reserves, had spent four years in the U.S. Army's Delta Force, studying unconventional warfare in the 1960s. Following active duty, McKay spent nine years in Greece and Israel as a freelance journalist, during which time she also studied for a doctorate in history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She returned from Israel shortly before taking over CFA.

CFA's publicly known funding came largely from the Heritage Foundation, an offshoot of the British Fabian Society, the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation headed by Paul Weyrich, and Accuracy in Media, of which CFA was a formal arm.

CFA also held numerous conferences and other events throughout the early and mid-1980s, which attempted to organize Americans to support the Afghan mujahideen cause, while simultaneously raising funds. It also put out a publication called the Free Afghanistan Report.

The committee actively lobbied Congress. In addition, it managed to gain the sympathy of some high-ranking military officials.

Although the CFA provided funds for almost all of the "Peshawar Seven" groups of mujahideen, the Jamiat-e-Islami, of Burhanudeen Rabbani and his military commander Ahmad Shah Masood, was CFA's favored group. It brought various mujahideen leaders to Washington in order to influence the decision-making regarding aid for the Afghan War.

In late 1981, McKay took part in a conference in Paris organized by Lord Bethell aimed at patching together an alliance of the more traditionalist groups of the mujahideen, under the banner of the Islamic Federation of Mujahideen. The groups included the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan of Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani—the group most patronized by Lord Bethell; the Afghan National Liberation Front of Sebghatullah Mojaddidi; and the Islamic Revolutionary Movement of Mohammed Nabi Mohammedi.

CFA was also engaged in raising funds for Radio Free Kabul, International Medical Aid, and Doctors Without Borders.

Continued

Ray
04-08-2012, 06:26 PM
Some of CFA's key figures included:

Maj. Gen J. Milnor Roberts, chairman of the CFA board of directors, a member of the board of the U.S. branch of World Anti-Communist League (WACL) during the 1980s, and executive director of the Reserve Officers Association. In 1984, Roberts expressed satisfaction over the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which he stated benefited the Afghan War against the Soviets. He also later told a journalist that the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi would help western interests in the region.

Charles Moser, professor of Slavic Studies at George Washington University.

David Isby, author of a book for Jane's Defense Weekly of Britain, which analyzed Soviet weaponry. Isby was working for Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Calif.) when he joined the CFA. He later became a contributing editor and Soviet analyst for Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Brig. Gen. Theodore Mataxis, who served as a "military adviser" to the mujahideen, and also paid regular visits to the Salvadoran-based Contras, and the Cambodian rebels in Thailand. From 1986-70, Mataxis was a senior officer with the Army's Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Iran.

The list of CFA's Council of Advisers also included Gen. John Singlaub, the former international president of WACL who was deeply involved in various Iran-Contra operations; former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency head Gen. Daniel Graham; former Reagan-Bush administration National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen; Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Claiborne Pell, Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), and Paul Simon (D-Ill.); and Representatives Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.), Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), and Charles Wilson (D-Tex.).

Other members of its advisory council included Washington Times editor Arnaud de Borchgrave, whose cousin Alexander de Marenches was then running French intelligence; and two known CIA operatives, Louis Dupree and Thomas Goutierre. A Peace Corps veteran of Afghanistan, Goutierre is now the director of the Center for Afghan Studies at the University of Nebraska. Dupree, formerly with the U.S. Military Academy, has written a book on Afghanistan and also authored many articles for Soldier of Fortune during the Afghan War.

Fundraisers for the CFA included the Bush-linked televangelist Pat Robertson, former Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke, and former U.S. Attorney General Eliot Richardson.
Federation for American Afghan Action

The FAAA was founded in 1983, with the help of Paul Weyrich and his Coalition for America, the Heritage Foundation, and the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, of which it was a de facto arm. The first executive director of the Federation for American Afghan Action, which was based at the Heritage Foundation, was Andrew Eiva. Eiva's career started at West Point; upon graduation in 1972, he went on to command paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne Division in North Carolina. While with the 82nd, Eiva also led a detachment of Green Berets which specialized in Soviet weapons, tactics, and languages.

Eiva officially gave up his West Point commission in 1980, and went to Afghanistan and other places in order to train the mujahideen. He reportedly trained Afghan guerrillas in bases in West Germany and the United States. Later that year, Eiva came to know Louis Dupree of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, and soon became president of the Free Afghanistan Alliance in Massachusetts. In that capacity, he came in contact with the CFA's Charles Moser, who brought him to Washington, D.C.

A few notable figures who were on the FAAA board of directors include:

Louis Dupree of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan.

Don Weidenweber, who founded American Aid for Afghans (AAA) in 1980, which organized the delivery of combat supplies to the Afghan mujahideen, and which worked closely with Lord Bethell's Radio Free Kabul.

Matthew D. Erulkar, formerly with the Peace Corps in Zaire, who worked as the legislative director of FAAA, and executive director of its American Afghan Education Fund. In 1985, he formed an organization called the Afghan Support Team in Washington, D.C. That same year he claims to have covertly penetrated the Soviet Union with the Afghan mujahideen, "carrying Korans and other Islamic texts."

In cooperation with Senator Tsongas and others, FAAA introduced legislation in Congress to provide funds for the mujahideen in 1984-85. Its May 1985 International Conference on Afghanistan, held in Virginia, was attended, among others, by:

Louis Dupree, FAAA board member.

Edward Luttwak, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Col. Robert Downs (USAF, ret.), an expert in "clandestine air resupply operations," according to Karen McKay.

Anthony Arnold, a former CIA officer and author of Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Perspective, whose overseas service included two years in Afghanistan.

Ralph Magnus, a former United States Information Service (USIS) official in Kabul (1962-65). From 1983-84, Magnus served as the original project director of "Americares For Afghans," a project of the Americares Foundation, with responsibility for establishing ties between Americares and the Peshawar offices of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, and the Belgian group Solidarité Afghanistan. Americares was created by George Bush's career-long associate, Robert C. Macauley, and included the president's brother, Prescott Bush, on its board.

Angelo Codevilla, legislative assistant to Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.).

Mike Utter, executive director of the International Medical Corps. IMC worked closely with the American Aid for Afghans and was also contracted by the USAID to help resupply the Nicaraguan Contras. IMC was instrumental in the effort to send Stinger missiles to the Afghan mujahideen, and also helped to force CIA Deputy Director John McMahon out of office. McMahon had reportedly displayed hesitancy in sending Stingers to the Afghans.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_mujahideen_control.html




This should indicate what can be done without the world knowing it!

It had to be done for strategic interests.

Dayuhan
04-08-2012, 09:33 PM
This should indicate what can be done without the world knowing it!

It had to be done for strategic interests.

Yes, we all know about US support for the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. It was not exactly secret at the time. What I don't see is how you jump from there to the assumption that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by US interventions.

Ray
04-09-2012, 05:49 PM
It was not exactly secret at the time.

It is good to know that.

However, Yousaf and Cooley seem to suggest that it was hush hush.

Why live in denial?

Check this:

link (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=2vOQT18zlWUC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=US+denied+support+to+Zia+and+the+Mujahideens&source=bl&ots=xLCOrf4TFT&sig=v7h9ow_oGpbtxRKuEVOU7fu04KQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CCDT6nAOsjirAfjg6XPBQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=US%20denied%20support%20to%20Zia%20and%20the%20M ujahideens&f=false)



If Pakistan was denying, how come the US was active and it was no secret.

What was the route that the US was assisting, if not with Pakistan's assistance?

For discussion, one cannot ignore the universal truth, just to deflect an issue!

In my country such a way of squashing discussion is in Punjabi Maine Dasiya. That means - I am saying so. Period!

You maybe saying so, but the facts prove otherwise!

Ray
04-09-2012, 06:00 PM
What I don't see is how you jump from there to the assumption that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by US interventions.

Maybe later in time, this too would be claimed as not to be a secret.

Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

Dayuhan
04-09-2012, 10:46 PM
If Pakistan was denying, how come the US was active and it was no secret.

What was the route that the US was assisting, if not with Pakistan's assistance?

Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.


For discussion, one cannot ignore the universal truth, just to deflect an issue!

What "universal truth" would that be?


In my country such a way of squashing discussion is in Punjabi Maine Dasiya. That means - I am saying so. Period!

You maybe saying so, but the facts prove otherwise!

Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?


Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

How so?

Ray
04-10-2012, 01:25 PM
Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.

A very ingenious explanation - everyone knew of it except the Govt which kept denying it!

What can one say with that type of an explanation.



What "universal truth" would that be?

Apparently, you don't seem to be in the loop.




Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?

Should we say all know of it and official denial makes no difference?




How so?

All know about it.

Dayuhan
04-11-2012, 03:19 AM
This is getting silly.

Of course there are times when governments do things and deny them. Often the denials don't hold up for long: there's informed speculation, then leaks, then evidence. In the case of aid to the Contras the denials were eventually exposed, in the case of Afghanistan the aid was eventually admitted, in each case the truth was widely known before the denials ended.

In the cases of the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions, is there any evidence, even informed and credible speculation or analytical opinion suggesting that events were a consequence of American action? Or do you simply assume that there must have been American action because no dictatorial regime, however decrepit, can possibly be overthrown from within without foreign assistance?

I can tell you for certain that the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, generally acknowledged as the first of the "Color Revolutions", was not an outcome of any US action... if it's possible in one place, why should it not be possible in others?

I don't see any "universal truth" in this picture at all.

Ray
04-11-2012, 06:51 AM
Indeed it is getting silly.

The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

What a Govt does covertly is never known immediately. Events that occur can never be pinpointed then. They remain conjectures. The reality is uncovered later! To believe that there is no external influences is being naive.

Interesting isn't it that the existence of MI6 was not officially acknowledged until 1994.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/521906/mi6-boost-recruitment-prospects-launch-first-website/

Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

Why only the US being in the game of regime change. Though the US officially recognises it as a policy! How does one change regimes? Every time with wars?

USSR too have toppled/ influence rebellion dotting modern contemporary history. Marcos is just one along the line. Marcos was getting too hot to handle. Just like that loyal stooge, Zia, who dies in a mysterious air crash! Ask the Pakistanis and they have a different tale to tell than what the US, Israel, USSR or even India has to tell!

How about Patrice Lumumba? Gone by the writ of Fate?

Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

Dayuhan
04-11-2012, 07:41 AM
The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

They were known, they just weren't publicly admitted. this is not at all uncommon.


Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

Assisting a spontaneous rebellion and initiating a rebellion are entirely different things.


Marcos was getting too hot to handle.

Possibly so, but his removal was not a product of any US action.


Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

The argument so far seems to be that the US conducts covert operations, therefore any event that seems to favor the US must be the product of a US covert operation. Surely you see the fallacy.

Have you any actual evidence suggesting that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions are consequences of US policy or strategy? Any credible scholars or analysts arguing that they were?

If not, perhaps we should simply accept that many things happen in the world without US initiation or involvement, and get back to the thread topic.

Ray
04-11-2012, 09:25 AM
No bed time stories, please!

Dayuhan
04-11-2012, 09:39 AM
Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

Ray
04-11-2012, 02:17 PM
Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

You are welcome to pretend that it is not!

Dayuhan
04-11-2012, 09:10 PM
Given the absence of any evidence or body of credible informed opinion to suggest that these events were/are consequences of US action, it's pretty clear which position involves pretense.

Ray
04-12-2012, 08:19 AM
We are all aware of evidence.

Heard of Iraq and Saddam bristling with WMD (like Uncle Scrooge with bank notes) that another chamcha (poodle) felt that it would be delivered in 45 minutes?! That to some was 'solid' evidence and go to town about!

What a pity that one selectively finds evidence and then discards the events as they unfold without a whiff of suspicion since it does not suit the temperament and the agenda.

Like China is in a phase of Peaceful Rise and the confrontations in the South China Sea is a mirage, or at least, just routine and fun and games!

Nations are tumbling down because of a writ from God!!

Ray
04-12-2012, 08:52 AM
Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

Really?

India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

Dayuhan
04-12-2012, 11:25 AM
India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

When a nation achieves independence, or when a long-lasting dictator is removed, a power vacuum is created. Often the government that takes over is weak and unable to fully fill that vacuum. Various parties and factions compete to fill the vacuum and seize power for themselves, creating instability. Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

Foreign powers do meddle and conduct covert operations. That doesn't mean that everything that happens in the world is a consequence of external meddling and covert operations: many things happen that are not controlled and even engaged foreign powers are often taken by surprise. Whatever has happened in any given case must be assessed on the basis of evidence specific to that case. Just because the US has supported coups in Latin America does not mean that every coup everywhere has support from the US or any other outside power.

Ray
04-13-2012, 08:40 AM
Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

Interesting is all one can say.

Analyse Congo to start with!

Blood Diamonds is a fiction?

It is just that the wild blokes running in the bush?!

It just may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability!

I like Carl's -Your quote is another variation of the "Oh yeah!" argument. ;)

Ray
04-13-2012, 08:46 AM
Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

Dayuhan
04-15-2012, 01:57 AM
And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

Ray
04-15-2012, 06:10 AM
They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

If Kashmir, Communists in Indonesia, the internal issues of Bhumiputra are not instability, then one wonders what is! They came into being how? A peep into history will indicate that the environment that was left by those who ruled left fertile ground for instability to happen.