Sunday, May 31, 2015

Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS

Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS
Posted by Louise Turner in Middle East, News, US 2 days ago

[Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS]
82 9104

5 Comments

Advertisement

Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.

The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in order to isolate the Syrian regime.

The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

Advertisement

Examiner reports:

Advertisement

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.

The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Advertisement

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq. The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Ramadi.

The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups — in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S. ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the weapons shipment.

Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS

Posted by Louise Turner in Middle East, News, US 2 days ago

82 9104

5 Comments

Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

Examiner reports:

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.
The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq. The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Ramadi.
The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups — in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S. ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the weapons shipment.
Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS

Posted by Louise Turner in Middle East, News, US 2 days ago

82 9104

5 Comments

Examiner reports:

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA To Train ISIS

Posted by Louise Turner in Middle East, News, US 2 days ago

82 9104

5 Comments

Examiner reports:

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Hillary Clinton Helped ISIS Rise To Power, Declassified Docs

Hillary Clinton Helped ISIS Rise To Power, Declassified Docs
Posted by Sean Adl-Tabatabai   in News, US     3 days ago

[Hillary Clinton Helped ISIS Rise To Power, Declassified Docs]
18 1714

2 Comments

Advertisement

Declassified Department of Defence documents show that Hillary Clinton played a significant role in the rise of power of terrorist group ISIS.

The document were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act by Washington watchdog Judicial Watch.

Wnd.com reports:

Advertisement

    They confirm WND reporting over the past three years of evidence that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was involved in shipping weapons from Benghazi to support the al-Qaida-affiliated militias fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, effectively arming the Sunni jihadists who morphed into ISIS.

    Advertisement

    The documents further confirm WND reporting that the goal of the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack that killed Stevens was to force the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, the “blind sheik” in U.S. prison serving a life sentence for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and to avenge death of a prominent Libyan al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan.

    “These documents are jaw-dropping,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.”

    Advertisement

    Fitton referenced in particular a Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, dated Sept. 12, 2012. It documents that the attack on the Benghazi compound had been carefully planned by the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, BOCAR, which aimed “to kill as many Americans as possible.”

    The document, dated the day after the Benghazi attack, was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.

    The free WND special report “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.

    “If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president,” Fitton observed.

    “These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” Fitton stated.

    He said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits.”

    “The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,” Fitton said.

    Plan to release the blind sheik

    The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” provides additional evidence for a WND article Jan. 27 reporting that James “Ace” Lyons – a former four-star admiral who served as the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and a founding member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi – proposed that the attack was an Obama administration-orchestrated kidnapping attempt that went “terribly wrong.”

    Lyons speculated that the Obama administration wanted to give the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels operating in conjunction with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to kidnap Stevens and exchange him for the blind Sheik. The purpose of the plan, Lyons says, may have been to furnish the Obama administration with a pretext to justify to the American public the release of the blind sheik to then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, complying with a request Morsi made in his 2012 acceptance speech on becoming president of Egypt.

    The Department of Defense documents released by Judicial Watch further reveals that a-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri sent BCOAR leader Abdul Baset, AZUZ, into Libya to seek revenge “for the U.S. killing of Aboyahiye (ALALIBY) in Pakistan.”

    The documents provide additional evidence for a 2013 WND story reporting the Benghazi attack was in response to Zawahiri’s request to avenge the U.S. drone killing of Libyan al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area June 4, 2012.

    CIA ‘not well organized’ narrative disputed

    The newly released DOD and State Department documents also differ from the account of the Benghazi attack Michael Morell, the recently retired CIA deputy director, gives in his current book, “The Great War of Our Time.” On Page 206, he argues that viewing a CIA video of the Benghazi attack made in “real time” caused him to conclude that “with little or no advance planning, extremists in Benghazi made some phone calls, gathered a group of like-minded individuals to go to the TMF.”

    In Morell’s narrative, the 9/11 Benghazi attack “was not well organized” but “seemed to be more of a mob that had come to the TMF with the intent of breaching the compound and seeing what damage they could do.”

    “When you assess the information from the video, there are few signs of a well-thought-out plan, few signs of command and control, few signs of organization, few signs of even the most basic military tactics in the attack on the TMF,” Morrell said.

    “Some of the attackers were armed with small arms; many were not armed at all. No heavy weapons were seen on the videotape,” Morell continued. “Many of the attackers, after entering through the front gate, ran past buildings to the other end of the compound, behaving as if they were thrilled just to have overrun the compound. They did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting vandalism.”

    Morell stressed that the Obama administration, despite his objections to the contrary, has refused to make available for public viewing the yet classified CIA “real time” video of the Benghazi attack.

    Weapons shipped to Syria

    Judicial Watch also noted the DOD documents released this week contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.

    An October 2012 DOD report confirmed:

    Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

    During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the (Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

    A DIA document further detailed:

    The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

    The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

    Another Defense Intelligence Agency report, written in August 2012, the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria, said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al-Qaida and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

    Judicial Watch noted the sectarian direction of the war in Syria was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS.

    The DIA document noted the following:

    This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

    Judicial Watch commented that some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

    On Feb. 26, Judicial Watch has reported on State Department documents obtained by the Washington-based watchdog organization in a separate FOIA lawsuit that revealed aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-helped-isis-rise-to-power-declassified-docs/#sthash.5iUSOh2G.dpuf

The New Silent Missile That Can Destroy Enemy Electronics With Microwave Pulses

The New Silent Missile That Can Destroy Enemy Electronics With Microwave Pulses

May 28, 2015 | ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD

Share this article

From Ocean's Eleven to Star Trek, weapons that wipe out enemy electronics are a staple of science fiction films.

For years, scientists have been attempting to create such a weapon as part of Champ, or the Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project.

Now, the US Air Force claims it has advanced the technology, and says it can deploy it using the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM).

According to Foxtrot Alpha, once integrated into JASSM, Champ will be a 'first day of war' standoff weapon.

Because it can be launched by both bombers and fighters, Lockheed's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, is an ideal platform for Champ.

'The capability is real … and the technology can be available today,' said Major General Thomas Masiello, the Air Force Research Laboratory.

'That's an operational system already in our tactical air force'

In 2012, aircraft manufacturer Boeing successfully tested the weapon on a one-hour flight during which it knocked out the computers of an entire military compound.

During Boeing's experiment, the missile flew low over the Utah Test and Training Range, discharging electromagnetic pulses on to seven targets, permanently shutting down their electronics.

DARPA?s High-Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) has demonstrated sufficient laser power and beam quality to advance to a series of field tests. The achievement of government acceptance for field trials marks the end of the program's laboratory development phase and the beginning of a new and challenging set of tests against rockets, mortars, vehicles and surrogate surface-to-air missiles at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Boeing said that the test was so successful even the camera recording it was disabled.

Although the project is shrouded in secrecy, experts believe the missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon.

This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy which causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.

Keith Coleman, Champ programme manager for Boeing's prototype arm Phantom Works, claims the technology marked 'a new era in modern warfare'.

'In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy's electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive,' he said during the initial test.

However, experts fear that the project could create an arms race, with countries scrambling to build their own electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Professor Trevor Taylor, Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, has previously said the Western world would be more vulnerable attack because of its increased reliance on electronics.

'Should the US be known to have developed such a technology to the production stage, it would drive others to try to act similarly,' he said.

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/May28/282.html#aUbmBmbAIgDksApH.99

Paradigm Shift Needed in ASEAN’S Approach to South China Sea Dispute

May 27, 2015

Chan Hoi Cheong

In late April, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) concluded its 26th summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The summit took place amidst China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, which continue to be a potential flashpoint in the region. While the issue has received significant attention from member states, meaningful progress on the dispute is still slow with the bloc shying away from criticizing China directly over its behavior in the area. The final statement with a day-later release however was still stronger than usual, as Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak stressed upon an urgent need to address ongoing reclamation works in the South China Sea.
The heavier than usual statement, as expected, triggered an angry reaction from Beijing, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei saying that ASEAN should refrain from making statements about the dispute as not all of its members are involved. This is yet another indication of Beijing’s preference for bilateral solutions instead of those negotiated through multilateral framework such as ASEAN. More importantly, Beijing’s exploitation of the bloc’s inability to come together as a united force in the South China Sea dispute could also be regarded as a driving force in its ever-increasing assertiveness in the region.
As host of this year’s summit, Malaysia’s decision to avoid overtly irking China in the South China Sea dispute is a clear reflection of Najib administration’s desire to lead the bloc in a neutral direction while maintaining Kuala Lumpur’s close economic ties with Beijing. While this year’s statement was stronger than previous ones, vocal critics of China such as the Philippines and Vietnam still insisted that it should have gone further, namely by calling for an international tribunal. The Philippine President Benigno Aquino, for instance has called for a stronger regional stand and said the dispute was a “regional issue” with several ramifications, namely freedom of navigation and damage to maritime environments.
This was not the first time a host country has sought to tone down criticism of China’s behavior in the South China Sea. Similarly in 2012, Cambodia’s refusal to be drawn into the dispute ultimately led to the breakdown of the summit with members failing to agree on a joint communique mentioning the Scarborough Shoals, a contested area between China and the Philippines. The episode was disastrous as it led to acrimonious exchanges between Phnom Penh and Manila as well as demonstrating that the “ASEAN way” of consensus had failed miserably. The absence of a communique that year also illustrated that not all members have shared strategic concerns when it comes to the South China Sea, further dealing a blow to a coherent response to China’s aggressive stance.
Although Indonesia’s then-foreign minister Marty Natalegawa managed to narrow the differences by way of “shuttle diplomacy,” the underlying problem still lies in Beijing’s ability to establish close economic ties with the individual countries of the bloc. In most cases, these countries’ interdependence on China for trade also bears with it an opportunity cost, such as offering concessions on security-related matters like Beijing’s adherence to the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Without balancing economic interests and security ones, China will be able to jostle the bloc around whenever it feels threatened by individual member states in the bloc by offering various incentives to other members, splitting them further apart.
In addition, ASEAN’s decision-making formula of consensus among all member states for a proposal to move forward is detrimental in this case. As demonstrated in the Cambodia incident, a veto by a member will effectively kill any proposal therefore preventing progress on the matter. This is because in contrast with common economic goals as laid down in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), members do not share a common view when it comes to their “threat perception” of China. For countries like Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, the South China Sea dispute is ultimately an issue between their neighbors such as Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Beijing, and as such is not worth risking their bilateral ties for. Without clearly defining the strategic interests of ASEAN, this has not only resulted in frustration among member states but also set a dangerous precedent should there be disputes over security-related matters with other big powers in the future.
Critics have argued that the failure to speak with one voice is ASEAN’s biggest diplomatic challenge since its formation, and it will likely to make the bloc less relevant despite its aspiration to become a viable economic community by 2015. The absence of a clear response to the dispute is worrying against the backdrop of recent developments such as the 2013 showdown at the Second James Shoal and the placement of an oil rig close to Vietnam by China, both of which have the potential to escalate into armed conflict. Increasingly intimidated, it is therefore not surprising that countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have instead chosen to deepen their security ties via traditional tools such as strengthening bilateral dialogues and improving diplomatic co-ordination on the South China Sea issue. For Hanoi and Manila, China’s so-called “nine-dashed line” is simply illegitimate and the adoption of common positions among them is vital for the ultimate culmination of the South China Sea dispute as a bloc-wide strategic issue.
The division within ASEAN needs to be resolved so that the talks to establish a Code of Conduct (COC), often rejected by China, can move forward and be implemented. However, against a backdrop of China’s closer economic links with individual member states, such unity will most likely be harder to forge as national interests often supersede regional ones therefore making a paradigm shift more necessary than ever. This means the so-called “gradual progress and consensus through consultations” approach that require all ten-member states to reach an agreement will need to be changed. Instead, the “ASEAN-X” formula that has been used on trade, investment, and economic issues shall now be considered for security-related matters of such magnitude. Under this formula, a reasonable majority of member states will be able to make a decision despite a veto so that it can prevent a single state from hijacking the entire agenda due to a conflict of interest. In the South China Sea dispute, this means member states, particularly claimants such as Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines as well as interested stakeholders like Indonesia and Singapore can pursue the establishment of a COC in the area while Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos can opt out by abstaining from the voting process.
The change in voting mechanism however should also come with a pursuit of continuous stability in the region. Malaysia’s chairmanship of ASEAN could be a starting point for a new dynamic in the resolution of the South China Sea dispute. Apart from being a claimant, its close ties with China would also be beneficial in pushing the COC agenda ahead. With a combination of incentives and diplomatic capital, Kuala Lumpur should play smart diplomacy within the bloc and with China in reaching a breakthrough on one of the most dangerous disputes of the present day.
Although the summit in Kuala Lumpur has produced a less than desired result on the South China Sea, the room to maneuver is still available for ASEAN and China to steer themselves away from a collision course and head toward the COC instead. The willingness of both sides to abide by international conventions for now should serve as a foundation in restoring the trust deficit between individual member states and Beijing.
However, the question is how long it will take before such adherence to international convention comes to an abrupt end due to unilateral action by any claimant, or even an outside force that destabilizes the region thus undermining Southeast Asia’s relative stability for decades. There have already been signs of tension last week with the Chinese navy warning the United States to back off from the South China Sea after the latter’s deployment of P-8A Poseidon aircraft for surveillance purpose in the area. If mismanaged, this development, together with the Philippines’ and Vietnam’s alliance with the US, could be a tipping point towards full-blown military conflict between the two major powers in the near future.

Washington’s “Two Track Policy” to Latin America: Marines to Central America and Diplomats to Cuba

By Prof. James Petras

Global Research, May 28, 2015

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-two-track-policy-to-latin-america-marines-to-central-america-and-diplomats-to-cuba/5452255

Everyone, from political pundits in Washington to the Pope in Rome, including most journalists in the mass media and in the alternative press, have focused on the US moves toward ending the economic blockade of Cuba and gradually opening diplomatic relations. Talk is rife of a ‘major shift’ in US policy toward Latin America with the emphasis on diplomacyand reconciliation. Even most progressive writers and journals have ceased writing about US imperialism.

However, there is mounting evidence that Washington’s negotiations with Cuba are merely one part of a two-track policy. There is clearly a major US build-up in Latin America, with increasing reliance on ‘military platforms’, designed to launch direct military interventions in strategic countries.

Moreover, US policymakers are actively involved in promoting ‘client’ opposition parties, movements and personalities to destabilize independent governments and are intent on re-imposing US domination.

In this essay we will start our discussion with the origins and unfolding of this ‘two track’ policy, its current manifestations, and projections into the future. We will conclude by evaluating the possibilities of re-establishing US imperial domination in the region.

Origins of the Two Track Policy

Washington’s pursuit of a ‘two-track policy’, based on combining ‘reformist policies’ toward some political formations, while working to overthrow other regimes and movements by force and military intervention, was practiced by the early Kennedy Administration following the Cuban revolution. Kennedy announced a vast new economic program of aid, loans and investments dubbed the ‘Alliance for Progress’ to promote development and social reform in Latin American countries willing to align with the US. At the same time the Kennedy regime escalated US military aid and joint exercises in the region. Kennedy sponsored a large contingent of Special Forces ‘Green Berets’ – to engage in counter-insurgency warfare. The ‘Alliance for Progress’ was designed to counter the mass appeal of the social-revolutionary changes underway in Cuba with its own program of ‘social reform’. While Kennedy promoted watered-down reforms in Latin America, he launched the ‘secret’ CIA (‘Bay of Pigs’) invasion of Cuba in 1961and naval blockade in 1962 (the so-called ‘missile crises’). The two-track policy ended up sacrificing social reforms and strengthening military repression. By the mid-1970’s the ‘two-tracks’ became one – force. The US invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965. It backed a series of military coups throughout the region, effectively isolating Cuba. As a result, Latin America’s labor force experienced nearly a quarter century of declining living standards.

By the 1980’s US client-dictators had lost their usefulness and Washington once again took up a dual strategy: On one track, the White House wholeheartedly backed their military-client rulers’ neo-liberal agenda and sponsored them as junior partners in Washington’s regional hegemony. On the other track, they promoted a shift to highly controlled electoral politics, which they described as a ‘democratic transition’, in order to ‘decompress’ mass social pressures against its military clients. Washington secured the introduction of elections and promoted client politicians willing to continue the neo-liberal socio-economic framework established by the military regimes.

By the turn of the new century, the cumulative grievances of thirty years of repressive rule, regressive neo-liberal socio-economic policies and the denationalization and privatization of the national patrimony had caused an explosion of mass social discontent. This led to the overthrow and electoral defeat of Washington’s neo-liberal client regimes.

Throughout most of Latin America, mass movements were demanding a break with US-centered ‘integration’ programs. Overt anti-imperialism grew and intensified. The period saw the emergence of numerous center-left governments in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Honduras and Nicaragua. Beyond the regime changes , world economic forces had altered: growing Asian markets, their demand for Latin American raw materials and the global rise of commodity prices helped to stimulate the development of Latin American-centered regional organizations outside of Washington’s control.

Washington was still embedded in its 25 year ‘single-track’ policy of backing civil-military authoritarian and imposing neo-liberal policies and was unable to respond and present a reform alternative to the anti-imperialist, center-left challenge to its dominance. Instead, Washington worked to reverse the new party- power configuration. Its overseas agencies, the Agency for International Development (AID), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and embassies worked to destabilize the new governments in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay and Honduras. The US ‘single-track’ of intervention and destabilization failed throughout the first decade of the new century (with the exception of Honduras and Paraguay.

In the end Washington remained politically isolated. Its integration schemes were rejected. Its market shares in Latin America declined. Washington not only lost its automatic majority in the Organization of American States (OAS), but it became a distinct minority.

Washington’s ‘single track’ policy of relying on the ‘stick’ and holding back on the ‘carrot’ was based on several considerations: The Bush and Obama regimes were deeply influenced by the US’s twenty-five year domination of the region (1975-2000) and the notion that the uprisings and political changes in Latin America in the subsequent decade were ephemeral, vulnerable and easily reversed. Moreover, Washington, accustomed to over a century of economic domination of markets, resources and labor, took for granted that its hegemony was unalterable. The White House failed to recognize the power of China’s growing share of the Latin American market. The State Department ignored the capacity of Latin American governments to integrate their markets and exclude the US.

US State Department officials never moved beyond the discredited neo-liberal doctrine that they had successfully promoted in the 1990’s. The White House failed to adopt a ‘reformist’ turn to counter the appeal of radical reformers like Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. This was most evident in the Caribbean and the Andean countries where President Chavez launched his two ‘alliances for progress’: ‘Petro-Caribe’ (Venezuela’s program of supplying cheap, heavily subsidized, fuel to poor Central American and Caribbean countries and heating oil to poor neighborhoods in the US) and ‘ALBA’ (Chavez’ political-economic union of Andean states, plus Cuba and Nicaragua, designed to promote regional political solidarity and economic ties.) Both programs were heavily financed by Caracas. Washington failed to come up with a successful alternative plan.

Unable to win diplomatically or in the ‘battle of ideas’, Washington resorted to the ‘big stick’ and sought to disrupt Venezuela’s regional economic program rather than compete with Chavez’ generous and beneficial aid packages. The US’ ‘spoiler tactics’ backfired: In 2009, the Obama regime backed a military coup in Honduras, ousting the elected liberal reformist President Zelaya and installed a bloody tyrant, a throwback to the 1970s when the US backed Chilean coup brought General Pinochet to power. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, in an act of pure political buffoonery, refused to call Zelaya’s violent ouster a coup and moved swiftly to recognize the dictatorship. No other government backed the US in its Honduras policy. There was universal condemnation of the coup, highlighting Washington’s isolation.

Repeatedly, Washington tried to use its ‘hegemonic card’ but it was roundly outvoted at regional meetings. At the Summit of the Americas in 2010, Latin American countries overrode US objections and voted to invite Cuba to its next meeting, defying a 50-year old US veto. The US was left alone in its opposition.

The position of Washington was further weakened by the decade-long commodity boom (spurred by China’s voracious demand for agro-mineral products). The ‘mega-cycle’ undermined US Treasury and State Department’s anticipation of a price collapse. In previous cycles, commodity ‘busts’ had forced center-left governments to run to the US controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF) for highly conditioned balance of payment loans, which the White House used to impose its neo-liberal policies and political dominance. The ‘mega-cycle’ generated rising revenues and incomes. This gave the center-left governments enormous leverage to avoid the ‘debt traps’ and to marginalize the IMF. This virtually eliminated US-imposed conditionality and allowed Latin governments to pursue populist-nationalist policies. These policies decreased poverty and unemployment. Washington played the ‘crisis card’ and lost. Nevertheless Washington continued working with extreme rightwing opposition groups to destabilize the progressive governments, in the hope that ‘come the crash’, Washington’s proxies would ‘waltz right in’ and take over.

The Re-Introduction of the ‘Two Track’ Policy
After a decade and a half of hard knocks, repeated failures of its ‘big stick’ policies, rejection of US-centered integration schemes and multiple resounding defeats of its client-politicians at the ballot box, Washington finally began to ‘rethink’ its ‘one track’ policy and tentatively explore a limited ‘two track’ approach.

The ‘two-tracks’, however, encompass polarities clearly marked by the recent past. While the Obama regime opened negotiations and moved toward establishing relations with Cuba, it escalated the military threats toward Venezuela by absurdly labeling Caracas as a ‘national security threat to the US.’

Washington had woken up to the fact that its bellicose policy toward Cuba had been universally rejected and had left the US isolated from Latin America. The Obama regime decided to claim some ‘reformist credentials’ by showcasing its opening to Cuba. The ‘opening to Cuba’ is really part of a wider policy of a more active political intervention in Latin America. Washington will take full advantage of the increased vulnerability of the center-left governments as the commodity mega-cycle comes to an end and prices collapse. Washington applauds the fiscal austerity program pursued by Dilma Rousseff’s regime in Brazil. It wholeheartedly backs newly elected Tabaré Vázquez’s “Broad Front” regime in Uruguay with its free market policies and structural adjustment. It publicly supports Chilean President Bachelet’s recent appointment of center-right, Christian Democrats to Cabinet posts to accommodate big business.

These changes within Latin America provide an ‘opening’ for Washington to pursue a ‘dual track’ policy: On the one hand Washington is increasing political and economic pressure and intensifying its propaganda campaign against ‘state interventionist’ policies and regimes in the immediate period. On the other hand, the Pentagon is intensifying and escalating its presence in Central America and its immediate vicinity. The goal is ultimately to regain leverage over the military command in the rest of the South American continent.

The Miami Herald (5/10/15) reported that the Obama Administration had sent 280 US marines to Central America without any specific mission or pretext. Coming so soon after the Summit of the Americas in Panama (April 10 -11, 2015), this action has great symbolic importance. While the presence of Cuba at the Summit may have been hailed as a diplomatic victory for reconciliation within the Americas, the dispatch of hundreds of US marines to Central America suggests another scenario in the making.

Ironically, at the Summit meeting, the Secretary General of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), former Colombian president (1994-98) Ernesto Samper, called for the US to remove all its military bases from Latin America, including Guantanamo: “A good point in the new agenda of relations in Latin America would be the elimination of the US military bases”.

The point of the US ‘opening’ to Cuba is precisely to signal its greater involvement in Latin America, one that includes a return to more robust US military intervention. The strategic intent is to restore neo-liberal client regimes, by ballots or bullets.

Conclusion

Washington’s current adoption of a two-track policy is a ‘cheap version’ of the John F. Kennedy policy of combining the ‘Alliance for Progress’ with the ‘Green Berets’. However, Obama offers little in the way of financial support for modernization and reform to complement his drive to restore neo-liberal dominance.

After a decade and a half of political retreat, diplomatic isolation and relative loss of military leverage, the Obama regime has taken over six years to recognize the depth of its isolation. When Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, claimed she was ‘surprised and disappointed’ when every Latin American country opposed Obama’s claim that Venezuela represented a ‘national security threat to the United States’, she exposed just how ignorant and out-of-touch the State Department has become with regard to Washington’s capacity to influence Latin America in support of its imperial agenda of intervention.

With the decline and retreat of the center-left, the Obama regime has been eager to exploit the two-track strategy. As long as the FARC-President Santos peace talks in Colombia advance, Washington is likely to recalibrate its military presence in Colombia to emphasize its destabilization campaign against Venezuela. The State Department will increase diplomatic overtures to Bolivia. The National Endowment for Democracy will intensify its intervention in this year’s Argentine elections.

Varied and changing circumstances dictate flexible tactics. Hovering over Washington’s tactical shifts is an ominous strategic outlook directed toward increasing military leverage. As the peace negotiations between the Colombian government and FARC guerrillas advance toward an accord, the pretext for maintaining seven US military bases and several thousand US military and Special Forces troops diminishes. However, Colombian President Santos has given no indication that a ‘peace agreement’ would be conditioned on the withdrawal of US troops or closing of its bases. In other words, the US Southern Command would retain a vital military platform and infrastructure capable of launching attacks against Venezuela, Ecuador, Central America and the Caribbean. With military bases throughout the region, in Colombia, Cuba (Guantanamo), Honduras (Soto Cano in Palmerola), Curacao, Aruba and Peru, Washington can quickly mobilize interventionary forces. Military ties with the armed forces of Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile ensure continued joint exercises and close co-ordination of so-called ‘security’ policies in the ‘Southern Cone’ of Latin America. This strategy is specifically designed to prepare for internal repression against popular movements, whenever and wherever class struggle intensifies in Latin America. The two-track policy, in force today, plays out through political-diplomatic and military strategies.

In the immediate period throughout most of the region, Washington pursues a policy of political, diplomatic and economic intervention and pressure. The White House is counting on the ‘rightwing swing’ of former center-left governments to facilitate the return to power of unabashedly neo-liberal client-regimes in future elections. This is especially true with regard to Brazil and Argentina.

The ‘political-diplomatic track’ is evident in Washington’s moves to re-establish relations with Bolivia and to strengthen allies elsewhere in order to leverage favorable policies in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba. Washington proposes to offer diplomatic and trade agreements in exchange for a ‘toning down’ of anti-imperialist criticism and weakening the ‘Chavez-era’ programs of regional integration.

The ‘two-track approach’, as applied to Venezuela, has a more overt military component than elsewhere. Washington will continue to subsidize violent paramilitary border crossings from Colombia. It will continue to encourage domestic terrorist sabotage of the power grid and food distribution system. The strategic goal is to erode the electoral base of the Maduro government, in preparation for the legislative elections in the fall of 2015. When it comes to Venezuela, Washington is pursuing a ‘four step’ strategy:

(1) Indirect violent intervention to erode the electoral support of the government

(2) Large-scale financing of the electoral campaign of the legislative opposition to secure a majority in Congress

(3) A massive media campaign in favor of a Congressional vote for a referendum impeaching the President

(4) A large-scale financial, political and media campaign to secure a majority vote for impeachment by referendum.

In the likelihood of a close vote, the Pentagon would prepare a rapid military intervention with its domestic collaborators seeking a ‘Honduras-style’ overthrow of Maduro.

The strategic and tactical weakness of the two-track policy is the absence of any sustained and comprehensive economic aid, trade and investment program that would attract and hold middle class voters. Washington is counting more on the negative effects of the crisis to restore its neo-liberal clients. The problem with this approach is that the pro-US forces can only promise a return to orthodox austerity programs, reversing social and public welfare programs , while making large-scale economic concessions to major foreign investors and bankers. The implementation of such regressive programs are going to ignite and intensify class, community-based and ethnic conflicts.

The ‘electoral transition’ strategy of the US is a temporary expedient, in light of the highly unpopular economic policies, which it would surely implement. The complete absence of any substantial US socio-economic aid to cushion the adverse effects on working families means that the US client-electoral victories will not last long. That is why and where the US strategic military build-up comes into play: The success of track-one, the pursuit of political-diplomatic tactics, will inevitably polarize Latin American society and heighten prospects for class struggle. Washington hopes that it will have its political-military client-allies ready to respond with violent repression. Direct intervention and heightened domestic repression will come into play to secure US dominance.

The ‘two-track strategy’ will, once again, evolve into a ‘one-track strategy’ designed to return Latin America as a satellite region, ripe for pillage by extractive multi-nationals and financial speculators.

As we have seen over the past decade and a half, ‘one-track policies’ lead to social upheavals. And the next time around the results may go far beyond progressive center-left regimes toward truly social-revolutionary governments!

Epilogue

US empire-builders have clearly demonstrated throughout the world their inability to intervene and produce stable, prosperous and productive client states (Iraq and Libya are prime examples). There is no reason to believe, even if the US ‘two-track policy’ leads to temporary electoral victories, that Washington’s efforts to restore dominance will succeed in Latin America, least of all because its strategy lacks any mechanism for economic aid and social reforms that could maintain a pro-US elite in power. For example, how could the US possibly offset China’s $50 billion aid package to Brazil except through violence and repression.

It is important to analyze how the rise of China, Russia, strong regional markets and new centers of finance have severely weakened the efforts by client regimes to realign with the US. Military coups and free markets are no longer guaranteed formulas for success in Latin America: Their past failures are too recent to forget.

Finally the ‘financialization’ of the US economy, what even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) describes as the negative impact of ‘too much finance’ (Financial Times 5/13/15, p 4), means that the US cannot allocate capital resources to develop productive activity in Latin America. The imperial state can only serve as a violent debt collector for its banks in the context of large-scale unemployment. Financial and extractive imperialism is a politico-economic cocktail for detonating social revolution on a continent-wide basis – far beyond the capacity of the US marines to prevent or suppress.

The Geopolitical Stakes of the 2016 Philippine Elections

http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/the-geopolitical-stakes-of-the-2016-philippine-elections/

The Geopolitical Stakes of the 2016 Philippine Elections

The outcome of next year’s presidential election will have significant implications for the country’s foreign policy.

By Jeffrey Ordaniel

May 28, 2015

"...These domestic political dynamics in the Philippines could prove to be very consequential in Manila’s diplomacy in the years ahead. Already, Binay has indicated that he would have a different China policy than the one pursued by Aquino. Local media quoted him recently as saying, “we have to accept the fact that China has all the capital and we have the property over there, so why don’t we try to develop that property as a joint venture? Apparently, Binay has also not been briefed on why a joint venture with China on equal terms would be a violation of the country’s constitution, the document he would have to vow to defend should he be elected president...Overall, a consensus in the ruling party is slowly forming and its members seem to be zeroing in on a Roxas-Poe or Poe-Roxas presidential ticket to take on the populist Binay..."

For almost four years now, the Philippines has been Southeast Asia’s fastest growing major economy. Once dubbed the “sick man” of Asia, the country’s image has enjoyed a turnaround under President Benigno Aquino III. The Philippines sovereign credit rating has been upgraded from junk to investment grade by all major credit rating agencies. Though still lagging its peers in ASEAN, foreign direct investment and tourism figures have all seen remarkable upticks. Investments in human and economic infrastructure through public-private partnerships, overseas development assistance, and other schemes have been unprecedented under the current administration, despite bureaucratic and other delays.

Most significantly, though, Aquino’s foreign policy has made headlines around the world. Specifically, Manila has drawn closer to Washington. In April 2014, the two treaty-allies signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which will soon see American troops with their air and naval assets rotate through Philippine military bases, including Subic Bay and Palawan, both facing the contested South China Sea. The Philippines also filed a case against China through a UN-backed court to invalidate the infamous nine-dashed line map in the South China Sea, while simultaneously internationalizing the disputes, connecting them to wider international concerns such as freedom of navigation and access to global commons. The legal move is the boldest yet among ASEAN-claimant countries. Both the EDCA, an external balancing act, and the arbitration case, an appeal to the rule of law and for favorable global public opinion, represent Manila’s resolve in defending its sovereign claims and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, the Philippines has embarked on a modest military modernization program that, if realized, will give its armed forces submarines and other assets required for the military’s envisioned “minimum credible defense” capabilities by 2020. Overall, Manila’s South China Sea policy under Aquino has been to internationalize, to legalize, and to balance China.

However, come May 2016, the country’s economic, security, and foreign policies will all enter a state of flux, as the Philippines gears up to hold its fifth presidential election since returning to democracy in 1986. The ruling Liberal Party has yet to decide on its presidential ticket for next year’s election, but Aquino has already indicated that Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, the current secretary of Interior and Local Government and a losing vice-presidential candidate in 2010, is his top choice for a successor. In an interview with the local media, the president said of Roxas, “He has demonstrated quite a wide range of expertise in so many different assignments. He is a valuable member of the Cabinet. He has been a staunch leader of the party… And he has demonstrated the ability to sacrifice, previously, for instance, when he gave way to me. So all of these traits should point out that he is – to my mind, as far as our coalition is concerned – at the top of the list.”

In fact, Roxas was supposed to run for president in 2010, when he was at his prime in terms of name recognition and popularity, but gave way to Aquino whose own mass appeal and corruption-free image were catapulted by the sudden death of his mother, democracy icon and former President Cory Aquino in 2009.

However, Roxas has not been performing well in recent opinion polls. Currently leading the pack is Vice President Jejomar Binay of the opposition party, United Nationalist Alliance. Binay’s populist platform, which focuses on social welfare programs for the poor, seems to be resonating. However, the vice-president is hounded by allegations of massive corruption during his long stint as mayor of the country’s financial district, Makati. The country’s Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) was recently successful in urging the courts tofreeze Binay’s bank accounts, and those of his immediate family members and alleged fronts. AMLC argued that the total of the bank accounts and transactions in question had reached 16 billion pesos (about $358 million) since 2008, amounts inconsistent with statutory declarations made. Since that revelation, Binay has seen his trust ratings plummet, although he still holds the lead in presidential polls.

Binay’s answer to these allegations is a blanket denial, dismissing them as politically motivated. Still, opinion polls in the coming months may move against him, especially as the case against the vice-president moves forward in court.

Because the Philippines has a weak, multi-party system, the ruling party is also reportedly eyeing neophyte Senator Grace Poe, an independent, as its alternative standard-bearer, if not as the vice-presidential partner of the less popular Roxas. Grace is the daughter of Fernando Poe, the losing opponent of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the 2004 election, an election Arroyo critics say was largely rigged. Should the ruling party play it safe, Poe will be its presidential candidate. Should she win, she will be the third woman to rule the Philippines.

Diplomatic Implications

These domestic political dynamics in the Philippines could prove to be very consequential in Manila’s diplomacy in the years ahead. Already, Binay has indicated that he would have a different China policy than the one pursued by Aquino. Local media quoted him recently as saying, “we have to accept the fact that China has all the capital and we have the property over there, so why don’t we try to develop that property as a joint venture?” China has long called for joint development in the South China Sea, but other claimant-states’ unease with Beijing’s premise of “indisputable sovereignty” has prevented any progress on the idea.

Apparently, Binay has also not been briefed on why a joint venture with China on equal terms would be a violation of the country’s constitution, the document he would have to vow to defend should he be elected president. But some in the Philippine Left – who have always been against an American presence in the country – have already expressed support for Binay, among them University of the Philippines Professor Harry Roque, who has asked the country’s Supreme Court to block the implementation of EDCA and declare the U.S.-Philippine deal unconstitutional.

Already, Binay’s stated China doctrine has drawn criticism from the West. Scholar Malcolm Cook wrote, “If Binay wins and follows through on these views, it would be a return to the policy preferred by Aquino’s predecessor, President Macapagal-Arroyo… The foreshadowing of a second reversal of Philippines policy on its maritime boundary dispute with China in two presidential terms shows how divided the Philippine political elite and their financial backers are on this issue and its place in Philippines-China relations. A second reversal in two presidential terms would rightfully reinforce views within ASEAN, and in Washington and Tokyo, about the unreliability of the flip-flopping Philippines, and would throw into doubt the wisdom of aligning their South China Sea approaches with the policy prevailing in Manila at any given moment.” It goes without saying that a Binay win would give China reason to celebrate.

If the Liberal Party’s candidate wins, either Roxas or Poe, a continuity of policy, for at least six more years, is likely. It would signal consistency in the Philippines’ relations with the U.S., which has recently stepped up its South China Sea engagements in a bid to delegitimize China’s land reclamation in disputed areas. It would also be good news for Japan, which has been calling for greater rule of law in East Asia, a call echoed by Aquino’s decision to pursue a court case against Beijing. As the standard-bearer of the ruling party, Roxas is expected to largely continue Aquino’s foreign policy direction.

It is also worth noting that Poe formerly held both Filipino and American citizenship. She renounced her dual-citizenship and reverted back to being a “natural-born Filipino” before serving the Aquino Government in 2010. Hence, an anti-American foreign policy would be least expected from a Poe presidency. Overall, a consensus in the ruling party is slowly forming and its members seem to be zeroing in on a Roxas-Poe or Poe-Roxas presidential ticket to take on the populist Binay.

In May 2016, both Washington and Beijing will have something at stake in an election that will very likely demonstrate the interplay of a country’s domestic politics and its foreign policy choices.

Jeffrey Ordaniel is a PhD Candidate at the Security and International Studies Program of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo.

Roland San Juan

Sunday, May 31, 2015