http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/05/why-are-your-spices--seasonings-exposed-to-half-a-billion-chest-xrays-worth-of-radiation.aspx?e_cid=20111105_DNL_art_3
Never Buy Meat, Potatoes or Herbs With This Label on it
Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 05 2011 | 54,382 views
Irradiated herbs, seasonings and spices are exposed to HALF A BILLION chest X-ray's worth of gamma radiation. This information is clearly publicized by the USDA and FDA.
The FDA presently supports the use of Cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors on all domestically produced conventional food.
The level of gamma-radiation used starts at 1 KiloGray -- equivalent to 16,700,000 chest x-rays -- and goes all the way up to 30KiloGray (500,000,000 chest x-rays or 10,000 times a human lethal dose).
According to Green Med Info:
“Despite the irresponsible promotion of this process as safe, food irradiation destroys much of the vitamin content of food, produces a number of toxic byproducts: formaldehyde, benzene, and formic acid, as well as unique radiolytic products, e.g. 2-alklycyclobutanoes, that have been demonstrated to be cytotoxic (damages cells), genotoxic (damages DNA), and carcinogenic (causes cancer) in test tube and animal studies.”
By Dr. Mercola
You're probably well aware that certain foods, like milk and juices, at your grocery store are pasteurized -- a process that uses heat to kill off bacteria from your food, and in the process destroys nutrients and denatures the food.
But you may not know that foods may also be irradiated -- a process that exposes your food to radiant energy, including gamma rays, electron beams and X-rays.
Irradiation was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1963, and today is used on more than 40 food products dispersed throughout 37 countries. If this sounds a bit alarming to you, you are not alone.
After nuclear disasters like the Fukushima meltdown in Japan, radiation poisoning to food is one of the primary health concerns. So how is it that food processors can expose your food to radiation on purpose, in the name of food safety?
Are There Health Risks to Eating Irradiated Food?
The FDA claims, "Irradiation is an important food safety tool in fighting foodborne illness," noting that the sources and amounts of radiation applied to foods are not strong enough to cause the food to become radioactive. They also state that "food irradiation does not significantly change the nutrient content, flavor, or texture of food." However, as Sayer Ji, found of GreenMedInfo.com, states:
"The FDA presently supports and actively promotes the use of Cobalt-60 culled from Nuclear Reactors as a form of "electronic pasteurization" on all domestically produced conventional food.
The use of euphemisms like "food additive" and "pasteurization" to describe the process of blasting food with high levels of gamma-radiation cannot obviate the fact that the very same death-rays generated by thermonuclear warfare to destroy life are now being applied to food to "make it safer" …
This is not a hypochondriac's rantings, as we aren't talking here about small amounts of radiation. The level of gamma-radiation used starts at 1KiloGray (equivalent to 16,700,000 chest x-rays or 333 times a human lethal dose) and goes all the way up to 30KiloGray (500,000,000 chest x-rays or 10,000 times a human lethal dose)."
As you might suspect, exposing food to the equivalent of hundreds of millions of x-rays does not appear to be an innocuous act. Alternatively, evidence to date suggests it may be having a detrimental effect on the health of those who consume it.
A New Class of Food Contaminants
2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) are radiolytic derivatives of triglycerides found exclusively in irradiated food. The compounds are generated proportionally to fat content of the food and the dose of absorbed radiation.
Research in animals suggests the compounds may promote tumor growth and colon cancer, and studies show 2-alkylcyclobutanones are able to cross the intestinal barrier, enter into the bloodstream, and be stored in the fat tissue of an animal. The compounds have also been shown to be cytotoxic and genotoxic, which means they may damage cells and DNA, respectively. Studies on human cells also revealed potential cancer-causing effects, with researchers concluding "this compound may be regarded as a possible risk factor for processes in colon carcinogenesis related to initiation and progression."
More Reasons to be Wary of Irradiation
Needless to say, the research to date is raising major red flags that irradiation is NOT as safe as food safety officials would have you believe. In addition to the formation of potentially toxic 2-ACBs, irradiation leads to the formation of furan from ascorbic acid, fructose, sucrose, or glucose. Furan in foods has been linked to liver toxicity, including carcinogenicity.
Another study found that cats developed "mysterious" and "remarkable" severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis, after being fed a diet of irradiated foods during gestation. When they were taken off the irradiated foods, they slowly recovered. This is a major clue that irradiated foods deserve some serious regulatory scrutiny, but unfortunately they have already infiltrated the food system. And it's not as though this concerning evidence was just recently brought to light. One paper on potential dangers, prepared for the meeting of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Irradiated Food, dates back to 1969. The author stated:
" … irradiation can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens."
Does Irradiation Actually Mask Filthy Food Production?
The FDA is quick to state that "Irradiation is not a substitute for good sanitation and process control in meat and poultry plants. It is an added layer of safety." But it is, in essence, a tool to wipe out bacteria, parasites and other potential pathogens that linger in food. This means food manufacturers have an out of sorts … After all, they're going to nuke everything later anyway, so why go to the trouble of actually growing your food in sanitary conditions to begin with?
Irradiation is essentially a very effective medium for masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. The foundational solution to this problem lies in preventing contamination at the source -- on the farm, during processing and shipping, and so on -- not in wiping out pathogens later using questionable technological interventions like radiation! There simply shouldn't be any need for irradiation, as there simply shouldn't be E. coli in your lettuce or Salmonella in your poultry in the first place.
So why is there?
Our "global food system," which encourages farming on a massive scale, poses steep problems for food safety. Not only can one batch of contaminated spinach or peppers easily sicken people across an entire country, but it's very difficult to trace a contaminated food back to its source … and even harder to then pinpoint the source of the contamination.
Public health agencies like the FDA use the term "field-to-fork continuum" to describe the path any given food takes on the way to your plate, and during any of the following steps, contamination is possible:
Open field production
Harvesting
Field packing
Greenhouse production
Packinghouse or field packing
Repacking and other distribution operations
Fresh-cut/value-added processing
Food service and retail
Consumer
As you can see, the more steps your food goes through before it reaches your plate, the greater your chances of contamination becomes.
But again, the solution is not to subject your foods to radiation to make them "safe" … they should be safe from the get-go, and this is one of the primary reasons why I encourage you to think long and hard about the sources of your food. If you are able to get your food directly from the field or after harvest, such as directly from a farmer or farmer's market, you knock out five potential operations that could expose your food to contamination, not to mention you'll have assurance the food has not been irradiated.
Do You Want to Avoid Irradiated Foods?
In the United States, the following foods may be irradiated:
Fresh meat and poultry (including whole or cut up birds, skinless poultry, pork chops, roasts, stew meat, liver, hamburgers, ground meat, and ground poultry) Wheat and wheat powder White potatoes
Many spices Dry vegetable seasonings Fresh shell eggs
Fresh produce
Fortunately, the FDA currently requires that irradiated foods include labeling with the statement "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation" and the international symbol for irradiation, the radura:
irradiation symbol for radiation
However, there are exceptions:
Irradiated meat used in another product (such as sausage) does not have to contain the radura image on the package (it does have to list irradiated meat in the ingredients, though).
Restaurants are not required to disclose the use of irradiated foods. So be aware that any time you eat out, you have no way of knowing if your food has been irradiated.
You can also avoid irradiation by choosing locally grown, organic foods as much as possible. Certified organic foods may not be irradiated, and foods from a small, local farm are unlikely to be either. So, as I've said many times before, supporting the small farmers in your area and, as much as possible, getting your food from these types of high-quality, small-scale local sources is one of the simplest ways to access pure, unadulterated food.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
World War 3: A Foregone Conclusion?
http://www.infowars.com/world-war-3-a-foregone-conclusion-2/
Share
20
in Share0
(Be sure to click all the way thru the story...it's in 3 parts..button's at the bottom under the ad rt now, soon to change. Or you can click at the very lower right "view as single page"..)
Image
BeforeItsNews
by Zen Gardner
The hypno-induced psychotic public can't even hear the war drums any more, no matter how loud. They've become background music, white noise or something to tap your foot to. With sadistic glee still warm over Gadhafi's public torture and execution through the streets of Libya, the bloodthirsty mind-controlled western public will count a Syrian overthrow a nice after dinner mint, while monstrous illegal death drone attack reports on innocent civilians in Pakistan and Somalia are savored pastries while sipping their morning coffee.
A monstrous world unleashed while citizens nod and sway to the rhythm of dystopian mechanized war and control.
WW3 Conditioning Complete - They Won't See It Coming
Such is today's surreal world environment. 10 years of genocidal wars and now these latest barbaric atrocities in Libya have made their inroads even broader, in the middle east and even more in the human mind. And as they continue their saber rattling and massive propaganda campaigns, little do people realize they're garnering a tsunami of unspoken public permission with each passing day.
What few are realizing is a war with Iran will no doubt initiate at least a limited nuclear conflagration, the effects of which will change history forever. Diabolically couched as a pre-emptive strike on a rogue nation to save Israel and US interests, such a move will inevitably draw China and Russia into the conflict.
Don't think so? When you come to realize that's exactly what they want, that's when you'll know you're waking up.
When you know a New World Order is the desired outcome, you realize the old world order needs to be debunked, crippled and reset. The global financial and economic structure has been brought to the brink. Sovereignty is being scuttled worldwide, and the population is taking to the streets.
Need I say more?
It's Now Become This Blatant--"6 Reasons For War With Iran"
While these war drums have been continual from every quarter for quite a while, today's news blasted "6 Reasons for War" (but without that true title):
UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East
Whitehall figures say Iran is 'newly aggressive - and we are not sure why'
Iran 'has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushing for invasion
Tel Aviv test-fires rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads into Iran
Report reveals China continues to supply Tehran with missiles and other conventional weapons
Obama says nuclear programme remains a threat and calls on Iran to reveal its intentions
Read more: here
Here's another. Sounds like today but it's from almost 3 and half years ago! The foundation is laid.
U.S. Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff speaks to journalists in Bahrain, Monday, June 30, 2008. Cosgriff said that any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)
Newser – Is Washington, or its Israeli allies, really ready to attack Iran? "The threats, counterthreats, and counter-counterthreats … have reached new levels of hysteria in recent days," Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post. Rumblings of an Israeli strike prompted Tehran threats to close oil-shipping lanes. That would be an “act of war,” declared one US admiral—a statement superiors didn't back down from.
President Bush reiterated that “all options are on the table,” while the State Department said it couldn’t deter Israel. Dick Cheney's daughter Liz was more direct, saying: “The Iranians have to believe that we will use force.” So is this a bluff? And could it lead to real war? “It is high stakes,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs says. “I’d just leave it at that.” Source
The Whole Plan For World War 3: A One World Order
The planning for a third world war goes as far back as Washington enshrined 33rd degree leading Freemason Albert Pike in the 1800's. Here he lays out just exactly what the full intended accomplishment would entail, down to the doctrine of belief a New World Order would demand of its constituents.
Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.
Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."
Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3
After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.
(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…
We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization...
..and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off. Source
Long Time Coming...
Although Pike's pronouncements seem a bit esoteric, he's not the only "visionary", if you will, who revealed or foresaw the design for a final conflagration to bring about the New World Order. The concept is rife in historical data and even prophetic writings from the likes of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, throughout the Bible and even heavily reinforced by those who study the Bible code.
A host of political science analysts who track these trends have also seen this coming. Below is Webster Tarpley, respected researcher and author, on the insanity of the very real possibility of a Third World War.
Be Prepared
Any way you look at it, be forewarned and prepared emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and practically.
While a nuclear world war seems an unlikely horror that sane men and women would want to avoid at any cost, a quick look at history, and especially current events, shows something very ugly and aggressive is marching towards a self defined goal that does not represent you and me. It's their design, and apparently must be done at any cost.
That, my friend, is a fact of life in the world we're living in. However, we are conscious humanity and we will triumph despite the death throes they are willing to put themselves and the innocent people of the earth through.
Don't Despair
We're all here for a purpose and it's really a wonderful time to be alive. Only not facing the truth will bring on trauma in the days to come. As we participate in this amazing consciousness shift and spiritual awakening that's taking place and realize the empowerment it gives us, the very reality of this planet will continue to change.
Their tool is fear, to keep us preoccupied and distracted and living in their projected reality. Turn it completely off.
If we stop participating, stop conforming through fearing and fixating on their projected assaults of their visual and mental states, and separate and expose their falseness, love and truth will manifest in increasingly amazing ways. And each of us then becomes a vessel to help enliven and encourage the brave souls we have the privilege to be with on this wonderful journey!
I know...wild ride, eh? Ha! Laugh in their faces!! We are eternal!
Much love, Zen
PS. And now, the inimitable Snordelhans from Heretic Productions takes it to another level.....enjoy...
More recent posts:
Phoenix False Flag Nuke Back On The Table?
HAARP Involved in "Freak" Snow On Occupiers?
www.zengardner.com
Share
20
in Share0
(Be sure to click all the way thru the story...it's in 3 parts..button's at the bottom under the ad rt now, soon to change. Or you can click at the very lower right "view as single page"..)
Image
BeforeItsNews
by Zen Gardner
The hypno-induced psychotic public can't even hear the war drums any more, no matter how loud. They've become background music, white noise or something to tap your foot to. With sadistic glee still warm over Gadhafi's public torture and execution through the streets of Libya, the bloodthirsty mind-controlled western public will count a Syrian overthrow a nice after dinner mint, while monstrous illegal death drone attack reports on innocent civilians in Pakistan and Somalia are savored pastries while sipping their morning coffee.
A monstrous world unleashed while citizens nod and sway to the rhythm of dystopian mechanized war and control.
WW3 Conditioning Complete - They Won't See It Coming
Such is today's surreal world environment. 10 years of genocidal wars and now these latest barbaric atrocities in Libya have made their inroads even broader, in the middle east and even more in the human mind. And as they continue their saber rattling and massive propaganda campaigns, little do people realize they're garnering a tsunami of unspoken public permission with each passing day.
What few are realizing is a war with Iran will no doubt initiate at least a limited nuclear conflagration, the effects of which will change history forever. Diabolically couched as a pre-emptive strike on a rogue nation to save Israel and US interests, such a move will inevitably draw China and Russia into the conflict.
Don't think so? When you come to realize that's exactly what they want, that's when you'll know you're waking up.
When you know a New World Order is the desired outcome, you realize the old world order needs to be debunked, crippled and reset. The global financial and economic structure has been brought to the brink. Sovereignty is being scuttled worldwide, and the population is taking to the streets.
Need I say more?
It's Now Become This Blatant--"6 Reasons For War With Iran"
While these war drums have been continual from every quarter for quite a while, today's news blasted "6 Reasons for War" (but without that true title):
UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East
Whitehall figures say Iran is 'newly aggressive - and we are not sure why'
Iran 'has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushing for invasion
Tel Aviv test-fires rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads into Iran
Report reveals China continues to supply Tehran with missiles and other conventional weapons
Obama says nuclear programme remains a threat and calls on Iran to reveal its intentions
Read more: here
Here's another. Sounds like today but it's from almost 3 and half years ago! The foundation is laid.
U.S. Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff speaks to journalists in Bahrain, Monday, June 30, 2008. Cosgriff said that any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)
Newser – Is Washington, or its Israeli allies, really ready to attack Iran? "The threats, counterthreats, and counter-counterthreats … have reached new levels of hysteria in recent days," Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post. Rumblings of an Israeli strike prompted Tehran threats to close oil-shipping lanes. That would be an “act of war,” declared one US admiral—a statement superiors didn't back down from.
President Bush reiterated that “all options are on the table,” while the State Department said it couldn’t deter Israel. Dick Cheney's daughter Liz was more direct, saying: “The Iranians have to believe that we will use force.” So is this a bluff? And could it lead to real war? “It is high stakes,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs says. “I’d just leave it at that.” Source
The Whole Plan For World War 3: A One World Order
The planning for a third world war goes as far back as Washington enshrined 33rd degree leading Freemason Albert Pike in the 1800's. Here he lays out just exactly what the full intended accomplishment would entail, down to the doctrine of belief a New World Order would demand of its constituents.
Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.
Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."
Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3
After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.
(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…
We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization...
..and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off. Source
Long Time Coming...
Although Pike's pronouncements seem a bit esoteric, he's not the only "visionary", if you will, who revealed or foresaw the design for a final conflagration to bring about the New World Order. The concept is rife in historical data and even prophetic writings from the likes of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, throughout the Bible and even heavily reinforced by those who study the Bible code.
A host of political science analysts who track these trends have also seen this coming. Below is Webster Tarpley, respected researcher and author, on the insanity of the very real possibility of a Third World War.
Be Prepared
Any way you look at it, be forewarned and prepared emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and practically.
While a nuclear world war seems an unlikely horror that sane men and women would want to avoid at any cost, a quick look at history, and especially current events, shows something very ugly and aggressive is marching towards a self defined goal that does not represent you and me. It's their design, and apparently must be done at any cost.
That, my friend, is a fact of life in the world we're living in. However, we are conscious humanity and we will triumph despite the death throes they are willing to put themselves and the innocent people of the earth through.
Don't Despair
We're all here for a purpose and it's really a wonderful time to be alive. Only not facing the truth will bring on trauma in the days to come. As we participate in this amazing consciousness shift and spiritual awakening that's taking place and realize the empowerment it gives us, the very reality of this planet will continue to change.
Their tool is fear, to keep us preoccupied and distracted and living in their projected reality. Turn it completely off.
If we stop participating, stop conforming through fearing and fixating on their projected assaults of their visual and mental states, and separate and expose their falseness, love and truth will manifest in increasingly amazing ways. And each of us then becomes a vessel to help enliven and encourage the brave souls we have the privilege to be with on this wonderful journey!
I know...wild ride, eh? Ha! Laugh in their faces!! We are eternal!
Much love, Zen
PS. And now, the inimitable Snordelhans from Heretic Productions takes it to another level.....enjoy...
More recent posts:
Phoenix False Flag Nuke Back On The Table?
HAARP Involved in "Freak" Snow On Occupiers?
www.zengardner.com
Friday, November 4, 2011
Indonesia’s New Submarine Bids: An undersea Buildup?
RSIS presents the following commentary Indonesia’s New Submarine Bids: An undersea Buildup? by Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 159/2011 dated 4 November 2011
Indonesia’s New Submarine Bids:
An undersea Buildup?
By Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto
Synopsis
Jakarta is to decide on the supplier for its new submarines by the end of this year. Although some doubt whether the new boats would boost Jakarta’s underwater warfare capability, they reflect the Navy’s push for its modernisation plan.
Commentary
INDONESIA IS to decide on the supplier of up to three submarines for its Navy by the end of 2011. South Korea and Germany-Turkey are currently the leading contenders for a contract worth USD1.1 billion. The purchase is to replace the two archaic Type-209/1300 diesel-electric boats acquired from Germany in 1981.
Some argue that Jakarta’s bid goes beyond mere modernisation and points more to a naval build-up. The Indonesian government has stipulated the need for at least six to twelve submarines to attain the “minimum essential forces” by 2029. It is still questionable though whether these submarines would bolster the Navy’s undersea arm as modernisation often proves to be cosmetic.
Troubled Bids
Submarine procurement has already been in the Navy’s wish-list since 2005, when it unveiled the “Green-Water-Navy” blueprint. But, tender processes have been frequently postponed, citing financial reasons. The last one saw the Navy opting for Russian Kilo-and Amur-class subs, but was shelved as Indonesia was unable to commit a 15% down payment. The current process started last year, with Russia, France, Germany, and South Korea as bidders. In mid-2011, the Navy disqualified Russia’s Kilo and Germany’s U-209, leaving only South Korea’s Type 209/1200 Chang Bogo and France’s Scorpene.
Analysts are divided on the reason for disqualification. Some argue that Jakarta prefers smaller boats, for which the Kilos/Amurs are ill-suited. Others recall that Russia and Germany were too late in submitting their proposals. In general, many believe that Jakarta already has its eyes on Seoul’s offer of three boats, as compared to France’s two, for the same amount of money.
Nevertheless, Germany re-entered the bid through Turkey to offer its U-209 and since then has emerged as the second strongest bidder. But despite Turkey’s deal, which includes a “sweetener” of one additional boat for lease, its offer of only two boats does not entice Jakarta. Furthermore, Indonesia already has 30 years of cooperation with Seoul ranging from building its patrol and amphibious assault ships to refitting its Cakra submarines. IHS Jane’s also reports that Seoul would get eight Indonesian CN-235 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) in exchange for two Chang Bogos.
The issue of whether Indonesia is going to use an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which permits a submarine to submerge longer, remains hazy. But even a modest offer to install Korea’s Chang Bogo with a flank array sonar system, which enables longer range detection and localisation of targets, was dismissed for financial reasons. Thus, an AIP system may be unlikely at present, though it is not impossible in a better fiscal climate, because not only would it raise unit cost, but AIP-submarines would also be too expensive for the Navy to maintain and operate.
However, for the first time Indonesian subs will be armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, possibly with the SM-39 Exocet, while still relying on the locally-manufactured torpedoes as it does on the Cakras. The local naval shipyard, PT. PAL, is involved in the technology transfer scheme in the deal. The first two boats will be built at the Korean dockyards, while the third at PT. PAL’s. But with such a small number, Jakarta is unlikely to master submarine technology anytime soon, as it ideally requires dozens of boats and decades of operational experience.
Historical Lessons
History shows that Jakarta is still a long way off to effectively translate naval hardware into warfare, especially submarine warfare. The latter puts enormous strains on crew training and requires high technological literacy to maintain stealth, yet must still wreak havoc on the enemy. Failing this, a submarine is just a vulnerable tin can at sea, although a well-manned submarine fitted only with modest technology could still be a potent threat for surface warships. The sinking of South Korean corvette Cheon An by a North Korean midget submarine is one example.
Indonesia started to operate submarines in early 1960s with twelve Whiskey¬-class boats acquired as part of Soviet military aid. The boats were immediately put into action against the Dutch West Guinea in 1961-1962, and against Malaysia and British Commonwealth forces during Konfrontasi (Confrontation) in 1963-1966. However, these boats, by themselves, were of limited utility as an offensive platform. Following a diplomatic freeze with Moscow in mid-1960s, Jakarta gradually phased out the Whiskeys.
A rapprochement with the West gave it another opportunity to revamp military hardware. In 1981, Indonesia purchased two Type-209/1300 (Cakra-class) boats from West Germany, which are still in service.
Undersea Ambitions
Jakarta’s naval planners seem to learn from history. A joint submarine exercise with the United States, Singapore and South Korea is being planned and expected to be finalised by early 2012. Obviously, the exercise is to familiarise Jakarta with the latest doctrinal and operational trends in submarine warfare in anticipation of operating the new subs. At least, Jakarta can portray a higher degree of resolve to countries questioning or disputing its maritime territorial claims.
China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea and a dispute with Malaysia over Ambalat waters off East Kalimantan helped propel naval modernisation forward. Jakarta recently increased its military procurement budget by 35% to IDR64.4 trillion (USD7.5 billion) in 2012. With this purse, it should have more to spend on its naval shopping spree.
As more submarines proliferate in and around Southeast Asia, Jakarta’s build-up is only part of the picture. IHS Jane’s forecasts that by 2020, Southeast Asia will have at least 13 submarines, with Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines recently joining the race. This could lead regional navies to invest more in anti-submarine warfare assets. As the best platform to hunt a submarine is also a submarine, Jakarta’s bid seems to be justified.
Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto is a research analyst with the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is also a former researcher at the Centre for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACoS), University of Indonesia.
No. 159/2011 dated 4 November 2011
Indonesia’s New Submarine Bids:
An undersea Buildup?
By Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto
Synopsis
Jakarta is to decide on the supplier for its new submarines by the end of this year. Although some doubt whether the new boats would boost Jakarta’s underwater warfare capability, they reflect the Navy’s push for its modernisation plan.
Commentary
INDONESIA IS to decide on the supplier of up to three submarines for its Navy by the end of 2011. South Korea and Germany-Turkey are currently the leading contenders for a contract worth USD1.1 billion. The purchase is to replace the two archaic Type-209/1300 diesel-electric boats acquired from Germany in 1981.
Some argue that Jakarta’s bid goes beyond mere modernisation and points more to a naval build-up. The Indonesian government has stipulated the need for at least six to twelve submarines to attain the “minimum essential forces” by 2029. It is still questionable though whether these submarines would bolster the Navy’s undersea arm as modernisation often proves to be cosmetic.
Troubled Bids
Submarine procurement has already been in the Navy’s wish-list since 2005, when it unveiled the “Green-Water-Navy” blueprint. But, tender processes have been frequently postponed, citing financial reasons. The last one saw the Navy opting for Russian Kilo-and Amur-class subs, but was shelved as Indonesia was unable to commit a 15% down payment. The current process started last year, with Russia, France, Germany, and South Korea as bidders. In mid-2011, the Navy disqualified Russia’s Kilo and Germany’s U-209, leaving only South Korea’s Type 209/1200 Chang Bogo and France’s Scorpene.
Analysts are divided on the reason for disqualification. Some argue that Jakarta prefers smaller boats, for which the Kilos/Amurs are ill-suited. Others recall that Russia and Germany were too late in submitting their proposals. In general, many believe that Jakarta already has its eyes on Seoul’s offer of three boats, as compared to France’s two, for the same amount of money.
Nevertheless, Germany re-entered the bid through Turkey to offer its U-209 and since then has emerged as the second strongest bidder. But despite Turkey’s deal, which includes a “sweetener” of one additional boat for lease, its offer of only two boats does not entice Jakarta. Furthermore, Indonesia already has 30 years of cooperation with Seoul ranging from building its patrol and amphibious assault ships to refitting its Cakra submarines. IHS Jane’s also reports that Seoul would get eight Indonesian CN-235 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) in exchange for two Chang Bogos.
The issue of whether Indonesia is going to use an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which permits a submarine to submerge longer, remains hazy. But even a modest offer to install Korea’s Chang Bogo with a flank array sonar system, which enables longer range detection and localisation of targets, was dismissed for financial reasons. Thus, an AIP system may be unlikely at present, though it is not impossible in a better fiscal climate, because not only would it raise unit cost, but AIP-submarines would also be too expensive for the Navy to maintain and operate.
However, for the first time Indonesian subs will be armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, possibly with the SM-39 Exocet, while still relying on the locally-manufactured torpedoes as it does on the Cakras. The local naval shipyard, PT. PAL, is involved in the technology transfer scheme in the deal. The first two boats will be built at the Korean dockyards, while the third at PT. PAL’s. But with such a small number, Jakarta is unlikely to master submarine technology anytime soon, as it ideally requires dozens of boats and decades of operational experience.
Historical Lessons
History shows that Jakarta is still a long way off to effectively translate naval hardware into warfare, especially submarine warfare. The latter puts enormous strains on crew training and requires high technological literacy to maintain stealth, yet must still wreak havoc on the enemy. Failing this, a submarine is just a vulnerable tin can at sea, although a well-manned submarine fitted only with modest technology could still be a potent threat for surface warships. The sinking of South Korean corvette Cheon An by a North Korean midget submarine is one example.
Indonesia started to operate submarines in early 1960s with twelve Whiskey¬-class boats acquired as part of Soviet military aid. The boats were immediately put into action against the Dutch West Guinea in 1961-1962, and against Malaysia and British Commonwealth forces during Konfrontasi (Confrontation) in 1963-1966. However, these boats, by themselves, were of limited utility as an offensive platform. Following a diplomatic freeze with Moscow in mid-1960s, Jakarta gradually phased out the Whiskeys.
A rapprochement with the West gave it another opportunity to revamp military hardware. In 1981, Indonesia purchased two Type-209/1300 (Cakra-class) boats from West Germany, which are still in service.
Undersea Ambitions
Jakarta’s naval planners seem to learn from history. A joint submarine exercise with the United States, Singapore and South Korea is being planned and expected to be finalised by early 2012. Obviously, the exercise is to familiarise Jakarta with the latest doctrinal and operational trends in submarine warfare in anticipation of operating the new subs. At least, Jakarta can portray a higher degree of resolve to countries questioning or disputing its maritime territorial claims.
China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea and a dispute with Malaysia over Ambalat waters off East Kalimantan helped propel naval modernisation forward. Jakarta recently increased its military procurement budget by 35% to IDR64.4 trillion (USD7.5 billion) in 2012. With this purse, it should have more to spend on its naval shopping spree.
As more submarines proliferate in and around Southeast Asia, Jakarta’s build-up is only part of the picture. IHS Jane’s forecasts that by 2020, Southeast Asia will have at least 13 submarines, with Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines recently joining the race. This could lead regional navies to invest more in anti-submarine warfare assets. As the best platform to hunt a submarine is also a submarine, Jakarta’s bid seems to be justified.
Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto is a research analyst with the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is also a former researcher at the Centre for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACoS), University of Indonesia.
EAS and Non-Traditional Security: How about Health and Food Concerns?
RSIS presents the following commentary EAS and Non-Traditional Security: How about Health and Food Concerns? by Ong Suan Ee. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 158/2011 dated 4 November 2011
EAS and Non-Traditional Security:
How about Health and Food Concerns?
By Ong Suan Ee
Synopsis
The East Asia Summit has been a forum for various non-traditional security issues spanning energy security to disaster management. It is time to broaden the scope to include the crucial issues of health beyond pandemics and food security.
Commentary
NON-TRADITIONAL security (NTS) issues have ranked high on the East Asia Summit’s (EAS) agenda since its establishment in 2005. Calls for greater collaboration on key NTS issues such as energy security, climate change, disaster management, and infectious diseases have featured prominently at past summits. However, there is a notable absence of EAS discussion on two areas -- health security issues beyond the scope of infectious diseases, and food security.
EAS and Health Security
Pandemic influenza was identified as the EAS’ primary health priority during its inception in 2005. This is unsurprising given that numerous infectious diseases, including dengue and malaria, are endemic across many member states. Additionally, the damaging socioeconomic consequences of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and avian influenza (H5N1) in 2005 resulted in heightened awareness of threats from infectious diseases among EAS member states.
This awareness helped cement the sustained political support that has propelled the EAS’ pandemic preparedness and response agenda. In recent Summits, the EAS focussed on pandemics and related challenges including regional stockpiling and access to affordable medicines and vaccines, particularly H1N1.
The 2009 EAS Chairman’s Statement describes H1N1 as both a “challenge to economic growth” and a threat to the “well-being of peoples”. This suggests that the international health problems prioritised by the EAS are also those most potentially disruptive to economic development. If this is indeed the case, it would be wise for the EAS to take heed of the global non-communicable disease (NCD) burden -- an issue that has gained significant momentum this past year.
The United Nations has played an integral role in raising the profile of NCDs in 2011. Of special relevance is the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases. NCDs are only the second health issue to be the subject of a high-level meeting attended by heads of state and government – the last was HIV/AIDS a decade ago. Incidentally, both have been described by the UN as “emerging health issue(s) with a major socio-economic impact”.
This flurry of large-scale activity appears justifiable by sheer numbers alone: a recent report by the UN Secretary-General noted that 36 million people die annually from NCDs, amounting to 63 per cent of global deaths. Of those, nine million are under 60 years of age, adversely affecting the number of able, contributing participants to the global workforce. Also, 90 per cent of those deaths occur in developing countries, resulting in tremendous socio-economic opportunity costs for emerging and transitional economies worldwide.
The rise of NCDs also entails serious health consequences for member states, placing additional burdens upon states’ health facilities, healthcare systems and often already-stretched medical workforces. This is of particular concern for Southeast Asian members of the EAS.
According to Asian Trends Monitoring, most Southeast Asian countries’ health systems are built to manage endemic infectious diseases, not chronic NCDs. Further, they argue that NCD responses across these countries are neither well-coordinated nor well-funded. Also; continued challenges to policy implementation – such as the increase of NCDs among the urban poor -- remain largely unaddressed. Will the NCD issue make its debut at this month’s EAS in Bali?
EAS and Food Security
Since the global food price crisis of 2007-2008, food security has occupied a firm spot on the international stage. This has not escaped the EAS, with food security cited as a serious concern at EAS Foreign Ministers’ Informal Consultations, notably in 2008 and 2011. However, food security appears to be given less importance than other NTS issues considered critical by the EAS.
During the 2008 Informal Consultation, food security was primarily addressed in relation to its overlap with the energy sector and the need to balance the dual priorities of using agricultural crops for food and biofuel production. Similarly, the 2011 Informal Consultation in Bali saw the foreign ministers emphasise greater regional cooperation on food and energy security, recognise the synergetic relationship between food and energy security and encourage balanced, sustainable growth across both areas.
It is evident that the EAS is mindful of the far-reaching, multi-sectoral impact of the challenges of food security upon all member states. Therefore the absence of food security from the agenda of the Summits themselves is all the more puzzling.
For example, the 2009 EAS Chairman’s Statement made no mention of food security, despite the protracted effects of the global food price crisis. In the 2010 EAS Chairman’s Statement, food security was not identified as one of the EAS’ five priority areas, namely finance, education, energy, disaster management and influenza preparedness. It only received brief mention, and even so in the context of reaffirming commitments to further disaster management cooperation.
In arguing whether or not food security should be tabled as a stand-alone concern in the forthcoming EAS in Bali, we need look no further than the recently-released Global Hunger Index 2011. Evidence of the pervasiveness of food security challenges within the EAS is clear: two out of the 18-member coalition of EAS member states -- Laos and India -- were found to have ‘alarming’ rates of hunger, while five others (Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar) recorded ‘serious’ levels of hunger severity.
The uncertainty of the global food trade system also provides a compelling reason for the EAS to highlight food security on its agenda. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011 report cautioned that food price volatility and high prices are likely to continue and possibly increase in the near future, making farmers, consumers and countries more vulnerable to poverty and food insecurity. This trend has wider implications for all EAS member states, from major food-producing countries like United States, India and China to small, import-dependent states like Singapore.
Moving Forward
The absence of the emergent and pressing global issues of health security beyond infectious diseases and food security beyond the scope of energy concerns impedes the EAS’ primary goal. That is to promote member states’ collaboration, exchange and cooperation on key regional and global political and economic issues. It would certainly be in the EAS’ interest to consider the broader scope of health security and introduce food security in the EAS Summit in Bali.
Ong Suan Ee is Senior Research Analyst at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
No. 158/2011 dated 4 November 2011
EAS and Non-Traditional Security:
How about Health and Food Concerns?
By Ong Suan Ee
Synopsis
The East Asia Summit has been a forum for various non-traditional security issues spanning energy security to disaster management. It is time to broaden the scope to include the crucial issues of health beyond pandemics and food security.
Commentary
NON-TRADITIONAL security (NTS) issues have ranked high on the East Asia Summit’s (EAS) agenda since its establishment in 2005. Calls for greater collaboration on key NTS issues such as energy security, climate change, disaster management, and infectious diseases have featured prominently at past summits. However, there is a notable absence of EAS discussion on two areas -- health security issues beyond the scope of infectious diseases, and food security.
EAS and Health Security
Pandemic influenza was identified as the EAS’ primary health priority during its inception in 2005. This is unsurprising given that numerous infectious diseases, including dengue and malaria, are endemic across many member states. Additionally, the damaging socioeconomic consequences of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and avian influenza (H5N1) in 2005 resulted in heightened awareness of threats from infectious diseases among EAS member states.
This awareness helped cement the sustained political support that has propelled the EAS’ pandemic preparedness and response agenda. In recent Summits, the EAS focussed on pandemics and related challenges including regional stockpiling and access to affordable medicines and vaccines, particularly H1N1.
The 2009 EAS Chairman’s Statement describes H1N1 as both a “challenge to economic growth” and a threat to the “well-being of peoples”. This suggests that the international health problems prioritised by the EAS are also those most potentially disruptive to economic development. If this is indeed the case, it would be wise for the EAS to take heed of the global non-communicable disease (NCD) burden -- an issue that has gained significant momentum this past year.
The United Nations has played an integral role in raising the profile of NCDs in 2011. Of special relevance is the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases. NCDs are only the second health issue to be the subject of a high-level meeting attended by heads of state and government – the last was HIV/AIDS a decade ago. Incidentally, both have been described by the UN as “emerging health issue(s) with a major socio-economic impact”.
This flurry of large-scale activity appears justifiable by sheer numbers alone: a recent report by the UN Secretary-General noted that 36 million people die annually from NCDs, amounting to 63 per cent of global deaths. Of those, nine million are under 60 years of age, adversely affecting the number of able, contributing participants to the global workforce. Also, 90 per cent of those deaths occur in developing countries, resulting in tremendous socio-economic opportunity costs for emerging and transitional economies worldwide.
The rise of NCDs also entails serious health consequences for member states, placing additional burdens upon states’ health facilities, healthcare systems and often already-stretched medical workforces. This is of particular concern for Southeast Asian members of the EAS.
According to Asian Trends Monitoring, most Southeast Asian countries’ health systems are built to manage endemic infectious diseases, not chronic NCDs. Further, they argue that NCD responses across these countries are neither well-coordinated nor well-funded. Also; continued challenges to policy implementation – such as the increase of NCDs among the urban poor -- remain largely unaddressed. Will the NCD issue make its debut at this month’s EAS in Bali?
EAS and Food Security
Since the global food price crisis of 2007-2008, food security has occupied a firm spot on the international stage. This has not escaped the EAS, with food security cited as a serious concern at EAS Foreign Ministers’ Informal Consultations, notably in 2008 and 2011. However, food security appears to be given less importance than other NTS issues considered critical by the EAS.
During the 2008 Informal Consultation, food security was primarily addressed in relation to its overlap with the energy sector and the need to balance the dual priorities of using agricultural crops for food and biofuel production. Similarly, the 2011 Informal Consultation in Bali saw the foreign ministers emphasise greater regional cooperation on food and energy security, recognise the synergetic relationship between food and energy security and encourage balanced, sustainable growth across both areas.
It is evident that the EAS is mindful of the far-reaching, multi-sectoral impact of the challenges of food security upon all member states. Therefore the absence of food security from the agenda of the Summits themselves is all the more puzzling.
For example, the 2009 EAS Chairman’s Statement made no mention of food security, despite the protracted effects of the global food price crisis. In the 2010 EAS Chairman’s Statement, food security was not identified as one of the EAS’ five priority areas, namely finance, education, energy, disaster management and influenza preparedness. It only received brief mention, and even so in the context of reaffirming commitments to further disaster management cooperation.
In arguing whether or not food security should be tabled as a stand-alone concern in the forthcoming EAS in Bali, we need look no further than the recently-released Global Hunger Index 2011. Evidence of the pervasiveness of food security challenges within the EAS is clear: two out of the 18-member coalition of EAS member states -- Laos and India -- were found to have ‘alarming’ rates of hunger, while five others (Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar) recorded ‘serious’ levels of hunger severity.
The uncertainty of the global food trade system also provides a compelling reason for the EAS to highlight food security on its agenda. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011 report cautioned that food price volatility and high prices are likely to continue and possibly increase in the near future, making farmers, consumers and countries more vulnerable to poverty and food insecurity. This trend has wider implications for all EAS member states, from major food-producing countries like United States, India and China to small, import-dependent states like Singapore.
Moving Forward
The absence of the emergent and pressing global issues of health security beyond infectious diseases and food security beyond the scope of energy concerns impedes the EAS’ primary goal. That is to promote member states’ collaboration, exchange and cooperation on key regional and global political and economic issues. It would certainly be in the EAS’ interest to consider the broader scope of health security and introduce food security in the EAS Summit in Bali.
Ong Suan Ee is Senior Research Analyst at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Will Israel Really Strike Iran?
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/will-israel-really-strike-iran-1706381.story
Will Israel Really Strike Iran?
By Bruce Riedel, MSNBC, The Daily Beast, Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Suddenly the Israeli press has become fixated on stories that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is considering a military attack on the Iranian nuclear program. Some very reputable Israeli journalists are reporting that the prime minister and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, are pushing the cabinet to vote in favor of an attack. An Israeli strike on Iran could create a firestorm of violence from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea and put thousands of American soldiers and diplomats at risk. Today Israel tested one of its long-range missiles, adding to the tension.
The story began to break last Friday with an article claiming that Netanyahu and Barak were pushing for an attack on Iran this fall. The journalist who wrote the story, Nahum Barnea, is one of Israel's best reporters and is highly respected. Subsequent news stories have focused attention on a large Israeli Air Force training exercise in late October that took place on the Italian island of Sardinia, in which IAF long-range fighter bombers practiced an extended-range attack plan with the Italian, German, and Dutch air forces. Now Israel has test-fired one of its Jericho missiles, which can hit targets all over Iran.
The Iranians, of course, have noticed all the Israeli press accounts. Iran's chief military leaders have warned this week that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in “heavy damage” in Iranian retaliation against both Israel and American targets. Iran has been saying that for years. Tehran believes Israel would attack it only with an American green light. Since the IAF would be using American-supplied jets and bombs, the Iranian argument cannot be dismissed lightly.
Iran and its allies in the region, especially Syria and Hizbullah, are already under enormous pressure from the international community on a number of fronts: Iran for allegedly plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington; Syria for killing thousands of its own citizens in the Arab Awakening; and Hizbullah for murdering former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005. The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear program this month, which could ratchet up the issue further. It is an extraordinarily tense and dangerous moment in the Middle East, and trigger fingers are itchier than ever.
Iran's capability to retaliate for an Israeli strike against the U.S. is enormous. It could encourage its Shia allies in Iraq to attack American forces, as they seek to withdraw from the country before the end of the year, or the American diplomats who will stay behind. It could encourage the Afghan Taliban, with which it has developed a closer relationship in the last couple of years, to step up its attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Italian forces in Afghanistan are particularly vulnerable, since they are deployed near the Iranian border around Herat, but American bases across the country would be even more at risk than they are today. U.S. bases in the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, would be in range of Iranian missiles and terrorists. Hizbullah and Iran have contingency plans for attacks on American diplomatic and other targets across Europe, Africa, Asia, and here at home. They don't need to rely on Mexican drug cartels to hit inside America.
Of course, Iran and its allies can also strike at Israel. Hizbullah proved in 2006 that it can turn northern Israel into a war zone, forcing the mass evacuation of Haifa and other cities. Now it has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. Iranian missiles could target Tel Aviv as well. And Syria has chemical warheads for its missiles.
Israel can mount a tough defense and has the capability to strike back hard. Of course, it also has a nuclear deterrent. Ehud Barak famously warned Saddam Hussein in 1990 that if Iraq fired chemical weapons at Israel, he should look at his watch because in less than an hour Baghdad would be vaporized by a Jericho. The U.S. can strike Iran even harder. We can hope that deterrence would keep the Persians from blowing up the region.
The whole Israeli press hullabaloo may be just a media invention or some trial balloon that will fade away. The Obama team could also quietly make clear to Bibi that a strike is a bad idea. Sanctions and sabotage have slowed Iran's nuclear program down considerably. The former head of the Mossad has publicly urged continued diplomacy and covert action to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Meir Dagan has said an Israeli attack would be a “stupid idea.” He is right.
Of course, Iran and its allies can also strike at Israel. Hizbullah proved in 2006 that it can turn northern Israel into a war zone, forcing the mass evacuation of Haifa and other cities. Now it has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. Iranian missiles could target Tel Aviv as well. And Syria has chemical warheads for its missiles.
Israel can mount a tough defense and has the capability to strike back hard. Of course, it also has a nuclear deterrent. Ehud Barak famously warned Saddam Hussein in 1990 that if Iraq fired chemical weapons at Israel, he should look at his watch because in less than an hour Baghdad would be vaporized by a Jericho. The U.S. can strike Iran even harder. We can hope that deterrence would keep the Persians from blowing up the region.
The whole Israeli press hullabaloo may be just a media invention or some trial balloon that will fade away. The Obama team could also quietly make clear to Bibi that a strike is a bad idea. Sanctions and sabotage have slowed Iran's nuclear program down considerably. The former head of the Mossad has publicly urged continued diplomacy and covert action to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Meir Dagan has said an Israeli attack would be a “stupid idea.” He is right.
Will Israel Really Strike Iran?
By Bruce Riedel, MSNBC, The Daily Beast, Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Suddenly the Israeli press has become fixated on stories that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is considering a military attack on the Iranian nuclear program. Some very reputable Israeli journalists are reporting that the prime minister and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, are pushing the cabinet to vote in favor of an attack. An Israeli strike on Iran could create a firestorm of violence from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea and put thousands of American soldiers and diplomats at risk. Today Israel tested one of its long-range missiles, adding to the tension.
The story began to break last Friday with an article claiming that Netanyahu and Barak were pushing for an attack on Iran this fall. The journalist who wrote the story, Nahum Barnea, is one of Israel's best reporters and is highly respected. Subsequent news stories have focused attention on a large Israeli Air Force training exercise in late October that took place on the Italian island of Sardinia, in which IAF long-range fighter bombers practiced an extended-range attack plan with the Italian, German, and Dutch air forces. Now Israel has test-fired one of its Jericho missiles, which can hit targets all over Iran.
The Iranians, of course, have noticed all the Israeli press accounts. Iran's chief military leaders have warned this week that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in “heavy damage” in Iranian retaliation against both Israel and American targets. Iran has been saying that for years. Tehran believes Israel would attack it only with an American green light. Since the IAF would be using American-supplied jets and bombs, the Iranian argument cannot be dismissed lightly.
Iran and its allies in the region, especially Syria and Hizbullah, are already under enormous pressure from the international community on a number of fronts: Iran for allegedly plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington; Syria for killing thousands of its own citizens in the Arab Awakening; and Hizbullah for murdering former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005. The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear program this month, which could ratchet up the issue further. It is an extraordinarily tense and dangerous moment in the Middle East, and trigger fingers are itchier than ever.
Iran's capability to retaliate for an Israeli strike against the U.S. is enormous. It could encourage its Shia allies in Iraq to attack American forces, as they seek to withdraw from the country before the end of the year, or the American diplomats who will stay behind. It could encourage the Afghan Taliban, with which it has developed a closer relationship in the last couple of years, to step up its attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Italian forces in Afghanistan are particularly vulnerable, since they are deployed near the Iranian border around Herat, but American bases across the country would be even more at risk than they are today. U.S. bases in the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, would be in range of Iranian missiles and terrorists. Hizbullah and Iran have contingency plans for attacks on American diplomatic and other targets across Europe, Africa, Asia, and here at home. They don't need to rely on Mexican drug cartels to hit inside America.
Of course, Iran and its allies can also strike at Israel. Hizbullah proved in 2006 that it can turn northern Israel into a war zone, forcing the mass evacuation of Haifa and other cities. Now it has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. Iranian missiles could target Tel Aviv as well. And Syria has chemical warheads for its missiles.
Israel can mount a tough defense and has the capability to strike back hard. Of course, it also has a nuclear deterrent. Ehud Barak famously warned Saddam Hussein in 1990 that if Iraq fired chemical weapons at Israel, he should look at his watch because in less than an hour Baghdad would be vaporized by a Jericho. The U.S. can strike Iran even harder. We can hope that deterrence would keep the Persians from blowing up the region.
The whole Israeli press hullabaloo may be just a media invention or some trial balloon that will fade away. The Obama team could also quietly make clear to Bibi that a strike is a bad idea. Sanctions and sabotage have slowed Iran's nuclear program down considerably. The former head of the Mossad has publicly urged continued diplomacy and covert action to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Meir Dagan has said an Israeli attack would be a “stupid idea.” He is right.
Of course, Iran and its allies can also strike at Israel. Hizbullah proved in 2006 that it can turn northern Israel into a war zone, forcing the mass evacuation of Haifa and other cities. Now it has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. Iranian missiles could target Tel Aviv as well. And Syria has chemical warheads for its missiles.
Israel can mount a tough defense and has the capability to strike back hard. Of course, it also has a nuclear deterrent. Ehud Barak famously warned Saddam Hussein in 1990 that if Iraq fired chemical weapons at Israel, he should look at his watch because in less than an hour Baghdad would be vaporized by a Jericho. The U.S. can strike Iran even harder. We can hope that deterrence would keep the Persians from blowing up the region.
The whole Israeli press hullabaloo may be just a media invention or some trial balloon that will fade away. The Obama team could also quietly make clear to Bibi that a strike is a bad idea. Sanctions and sabotage have slowed Iran's nuclear program down considerably. The former head of the Mossad has publicly urged continued diplomacy and covert action to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Meir Dagan has said an Israeli attack would be a “stupid idea.” He is right.
UNESCO Palestine decision sets off U.S.-U.N. confrontation
latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-unesco-palestinians-20111101,0,3148099.story
latimes.com
UNESCO Palestine decision sets off U.S.-U.N. confrontation
The move to admit Palestine as a member state triggers laws that bar the U.S. from funding any U.N. body that makes that move. The cutoff deprives UNESCO of 22% of its funding.
By Edmund Sanders and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
7:09 PM PDT, October 31, 2011
Reporting from Jerusalem and Washington
A decision by the United Nations' cultural organization to admit Palestine as a member state set off a confrontation between the U.S. and the U.N., threatening to strip Washington of influence in several key international agencies while cutting off a major source of contributions to the world body.
The Obama administration said it would end funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization hours after the group Monday voted 107 to 14 to accept the Palestinian Authority as a full member. The UNESCO action triggered U.S. laws from the early 1990s that bar Washington from giving money to any U.N. body that grants state status to the Palestinian territories.
U.S. officials said they would block a planned payment of $60 million to the group next month, and warned that they could be forced to halt payments for other U.N. groups as well if they accede to Palestinian requests for full membership.
The cutoff deprives UNESCO of 22% of its funding, and could force the agency, which focuses on literacy, human rights and the preservation of historic sites worldwide, to soon begin laying off employees, diplomats said.
At the same time, U.S. officials warned that American interests could be damaged if Washington is forced by similar future votes to cut off funding for other international agencies essential to U.S. business and security interests.
One such body, the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization, helps U.S. high-tech, entertainment and other industries protect their property rights, including patents, around the world. The group's bylaws require that members who fail to pay their dues eventually lose their voting rights.
U.S. officials huddled with high-tech lobbyists Monday to warn them that Palestinian membership in the intellectual property group "would have serious implications for U.S. leadership in this organization," the State Department said in a statement.
Other potentially affected organizations include the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has helped Western governments monitor Iran's nuclear program, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Organization.
"We see considerable potential damage if this move is replicated in other U.N. organizations," said Victoria Nuland, the chief State Department spokeswoman.
Palestinians have talked about seeking membership in additional international bodies, including the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court.
The Palestinian Authority approached UNESCO after prospects dimmed for the bid it began in September to win full membership in the United Nations. The United States has said it would veto that proposal.
While UNESCO membership will take the Palestinians only a short way toward their goal of enhanced international standing, it embarrassed the Obama administration by highlighting its relative isolation on the issue.
Administration officials criticized the UNESCO move as a blow to U.S. efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table to reach a deal that would end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and create a Palestinian state.
The vote, said Nuland, was "regrettable, premature and undermines our shared vision of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Administration officials had made it clear they would prefer to have Congress avoid this collision with other U.N. members, stressing their support for the mission of UNESCO and the other U.N. agencies. But a long list of pro-Israel members of Congress of both parties declared that there would be no backing down on the law.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, said the UNESCO vote was "an affront to the international peace process and an impediment to negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians."
Dylan Williams of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel lobby that opposes the cutoff of funds, warned that the United States "is going to have to disengage, one by one, from a lot of organizations that are critical to our national security and economy."
Palestinians hailed the UNESCO vote as a morale booster in their campaign to win statehood recognition. Some described it as a dress rehearsal for a vote to gain full membership in the U.N., which could come up at the U.N. Security Council in early November.
"This is an important turning point in Palestinian history," said Palestinian Authority official Yasser Abed-Rabbo. "It means that the majority of the world supports Palestinians' right to become an independent state and a member of the international community."
After the vote at UNESCO's Paris headquarters, one audience member shouted in French, "Long live Palestine!"
Israeli officials condemned the vote, saying it would change little on the ground and would make Palestinian leaders less likely to return to negotiations. The Foreign Ministry said it would reevaluate its cooperation with UNESCO in light of the decision.
"UNESCO deals in science, not science fiction," said Israeli ambassador to UNESCO Nimrod Barkan. Despite that, he said, the group "admitted a nonexistent state."
Among the 107 nations voting in favor of Palestinian membership were Russia, China, India, France and Brazil. The 14 voting against the measure included the U.S., Canada and Germany. Another 14 nations abstained, including Britain and Italy.
Palestinians — who until now have had observer status in UNESCO — say they will use their membership to seek internationally protected World Heritage status for several religious and historical sites in the West Bank, such as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. They rejected a compromise that would have allowed them to sign certain UNESCO conventions without being a full member.
Washington has long had a rocky relationship with UNESCO. The U.S. boycotted the agency between 1984 and 2003, accusing it of anti-American and anti-Western bias. Former President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO, hoping to use the agency to spread democracy and Western values to the developing world.
edmund.sanders@latimes.com
paul.richter@latimes.com
Times staff writer Sanders reported from Jerusalem and staff writer Richter from Washington.
Special correspondents Maher Abukhater in Ramallah and Devorah Lauter in Paris contributed to this report.
latimes.com
UNESCO Palestine decision sets off U.S.-U.N. confrontation
The move to admit Palestine as a member state triggers laws that bar the U.S. from funding any U.N. body that makes that move. The cutoff deprives UNESCO of 22% of its funding.
By Edmund Sanders and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
7:09 PM PDT, October 31, 2011
Reporting from Jerusalem and Washington
A decision by the United Nations' cultural organization to admit Palestine as a member state set off a confrontation between the U.S. and the U.N., threatening to strip Washington of influence in several key international agencies while cutting off a major source of contributions to the world body.
The Obama administration said it would end funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization hours after the group Monday voted 107 to 14 to accept the Palestinian Authority as a full member. The UNESCO action triggered U.S. laws from the early 1990s that bar Washington from giving money to any U.N. body that grants state status to the Palestinian territories.
U.S. officials said they would block a planned payment of $60 million to the group next month, and warned that they could be forced to halt payments for other U.N. groups as well if they accede to Palestinian requests for full membership.
The cutoff deprives UNESCO of 22% of its funding, and could force the agency, which focuses on literacy, human rights and the preservation of historic sites worldwide, to soon begin laying off employees, diplomats said.
At the same time, U.S. officials warned that American interests could be damaged if Washington is forced by similar future votes to cut off funding for other international agencies essential to U.S. business and security interests.
One such body, the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization, helps U.S. high-tech, entertainment and other industries protect their property rights, including patents, around the world. The group's bylaws require that members who fail to pay their dues eventually lose their voting rights.
U.S. officials huddled with high-tech lobbyists Monday to warn them that Palestinian membership in the intellectual property group "would have serious implications for U.S. leadership in this organization," the State Department said in a statement.
Other potentially affected organizations include the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has helped Western governments monitor Iran's nuclear program, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Organization.
"We see considerable potential damage if this move is replicated in other U.N. organizations," said Victoria Nuland, the chief State Department spokeswoman.
Palestinians have talked about seeking membership in additional international bodies, including the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court.
The Palestinian Authority approached UNESCO after prospects dimmed for the bid it began in September to win full membership in the United Nations. The United States has said it would veto that proposal.
While UNESCO membership will take the Palestinians only a short way toward their goal of enhanced international standing, it embarrassed the Obama administration by highlighting its relative isolation on the issue.
Administration officials criticized the UNESCO move as a blow to U.S. efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table to reach a deal that would end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and create a Palestinian state.
The vote, said Nuland, was "regrettable, premature and undermines our shared vision of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Administration officials had made it clear they would prefer to have Congress avoid this collision with other U.N. members, stressing their support for the mission of UNESCO and the other U.N. agencies. But a long list of pro-Israel members of Congress of both parties declared that there would be no backing down on the law.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, said the UNESCO vote was "an affront to the international peace process and an impediment to negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians."
Dylan Williams of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel lobby that opposes the cutoff of funds, warned that the United States "is going to have to disengage, one by one, from a lot of organizations that are critical to our national security and economy."
Palestinians hailed the UNESCO vote as a morale booster in their campaign to win statehood recognition. Some described it as a dress rehearsal for a vote to gain full membership in the U.N., which could come up at the U.N. Security Council in early November.
"This is an important turning point in Palestinian history," said Palestinian Authority official Yasser Abed-Rabbo. "It means that the majority of the world supports Palestinians' right to become an independent state and a member of the international community."
After the vote at UNESCO's Paris headquarters, one audience member shouted in French, "Long live Palestine!"
Israeli officials condemned the vote, saying it would change little on the ground and would make Palestinian leaders less likely to return to negotiations. The Foreign Ministry said it would reevaluate its cooperation with UNESCO in light of the decision.
"UNESCO deals in science, not science fiction," said Israeli ambassador to UNESCO Nimrod Barkan. Despite that, he said, the group "admitted a nonexistent state."
Among the 107 nations voting in favor of Palestinian membership were Russia, China, India, France and Brazil. The 14 voting against the measure included the U.S., Canada and Germany. Another 14 nations abstained, including Britain and Italy.
Palestinians — who until now have had observer status in UNESCO — say they will use their membership to seek internationally protected World Heritage status for several religious and historical sites in the West Bank, such as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. They rejected a compromise that would have allowed them to sign certain UNESCO conventions without being a full member.
Washington has long had a rocky relationship with UNESCO. The U.S. boycotted the agency between 1984 and 2003, accusing it of anti-American and anti-Western bias. Former President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO, hoping to use the agency to spread democracy and Western values to the developing world.
edmund.sanders@latimes.com
paul.richter@latimes.com
Times staff writer Sanders reported from Jerusalem and staff writer Richter from Washington.
Special correspondents Maher Abukhater in Ramallah and Devorah Lauter in Paris contributed to this report.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can
from STRATFOR
Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can
October 31, 2011 | 2123 GMT
Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can
By Lauren Goodrich
U.S.-Russian relations seem to have been relatively quiet recently, as there are numerous contradictory views in Washington about the true nature of Russia’s current foreign policy. Doubts remain about the sincerity of the U.S. State Department’s so-called “reset” of relations with Russia — the term used in 2009 when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed a reset button to her Russian counterpart as a symbol of a freeze on escalating tensions between Moscow and Washington. The concern is whether the “reset” is truly a shift in relations between the two former adversaries or simply a respite before relations deteriorate again.
The reset actually had little to do with the United States wanting Russia as a friend and ally. Rather, Washington wanted to create room to handle other situations — mainly Afghanistan and Iran — and ask Russia for help. (Russia is aiding in moving supplies into Afghanistan and withholding critical support from Iran.) Meanwhile, Russia also wanted more room to set up a system that would help it create a new version of its old empire.
Russia’s ultimate plan is to re-establish control over much of its former territories. This inevitably will lead Moscow and Washington back into a confrontation, negating any so-called reset, as Russian power throughout Eurasia is a direct threat to the U.S. ability to maintain its global influence. This is how Russia has acted throughout history in order to survive. The Soviet Union did not act differently from most of the Russian empires before it, and Russia today is following the same behavioral pattern.
Geography and Empire-Building
Russia’s defining geographic characteristic is its indefensibility, which means its main strategy is to secure itself. Unlike most powerful countries, Russia’s core region, Muscovy, has no barriers to protect it and thus has been invaded several times. Because of this, throughout history Russia has expanded its geographic barriers in order to establish a redoubt and create strategic depth between the Russian core and the myriad enemies surrounding it. This means expanding to the natural barriers of the Carpathian Mountains (across Ukraine and Moldova), the Caucasus Mountains (particularly to the Lesser Caucasus, past Georgia and into Armenia) and the Tian Shan on the far side of Central Asia. The one geographic hole is the North European Plain, where Russia historically has claimed as much territory as possible (such as the Baltics, Belarus, Poland and even parts of Germany). In short, for Russia to be secure it must create some kind of empire.
There are two problems with creating an empire: the people and the economy. Because they absorb so many lands, Russian empires have faced difficulties providing for vast numbers of people and suppressing those who did not conform (especially those who were not ethnic Russians). This leads to an inherently weak economy that can never overcome the infrastructural challenges of providing for the population of a vast empire. However, this has never stopped Russia from being a major force for long periods of time, despite its economic drawbacks, because Russia often emphasizes its strong military and security apparatus more than (and sometimes at the expense of) economic development.
Maintaining a Strong State
Russian power must be measured in terms of the strength of the state and its ability to rule the people. This is not the same as the Russian government’s popularity (though former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s popularity is undeniable); it is the ability of the Russian leadership, whether czar, Communist Party or prime minister, to maintain a tight grip on society and security. This allows Moscow to divert resources from popular consumption to state security and to suppress resistance. If the government has firm control over the people, popular discontent over politics, social policies or the economy do not pose a threat to the state — certainly not in the short term.
It is when the Russian leadership loses control over the security apparatus that Russian regimes collapse. For example, when the czar lost control of the army during World War I, he lost power and the Russian empire fell apart. Under Josef Stalin, there was massive economic dysfunction and widespread discontent, but Stalin maintained firm control over both the security apparatuses and the army, which he used to deal with any hint of dissent. Economic weakness and a brutal regime eventually were accepted as the inevitable price of security and of being a strategic power.
Moscow is using the same logic and strategies today. When Putin came to power in 1999, the Russian state was broken and vulnerable to other global powers. In order to regain Russia’s stability — and eventually its place on the global stage — Putin first had to consolidate the Kremlin’s power within the country, which meant consolidating the country economically, politically and socially. This occurred after Putin reorganized and strengthened the security apparatuses, giving him greater ability to dominate the people under one political party, purge foreign influence from the economy and build a cult of personality among the people.
Putin then set his sights on a Russian empire of sorts in order to secure the country’s future. This was not a matter of ego for Putin but a national security concern derived from centuries of historic precedent.
Putin had just seen the United States encroach on the territory Russia deemed imperative to its survival: Washington helped usher most Central European states and the former Soviet Baltic states into NATO and the European Union; supported pro-Western “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; set up military bases in Central Asia; and announced plans to place ballistic missile defense installations in Central Europe. To Russia, it seemed the United States was devouring its periphery to ensure that Moscow would forever remain vulnerable.
Over the past six years, Russia has pushed back to some degree against Western influence in most of its former Soviet states. One reason for this success is that the United States has been preoccupied with other issues, mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. Moreover, Washington has held the misconception that Russia will not formally attempt to re-create a kind of empire. But, as has been seen throughout history, it must.
Putin’s Plans
Putin announced in September that he would seek to return to the Russian presidency in 2012, and he has started laying out his goals for his new reign. He said Russia would formalize its relationship with former Soviet states by creating a Eurasia Union (EuU); other former Soviet states proposed the concept nearly a decade ago, but Russia is now in a position in which it can begin implementing it. Russia will begin this new iteration of a Russian empire by creating a union with former Soviet states based on Moscow’s current associations, such as the Customs Union, the Union State and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. This will allow the EuU to strategically encompass both the economic and security spheres.
The forthcoming EuU is not a re-creation of the Soviet Union. Putin understands the inherent vulnerabilities Russia would face in bearing the economic and strategic burden of taking care of so many people across nearly 9 million square miles. This was one of the Soviet Union’s greatest weaknesses: trying to control so much directly. Instead, Putin is creating a union in which Moscow would influence foreign policy and security but would not be responsible for most of the inner workings of each country. Russia simply does not have the means to support such an intensive strategy. Moscow does not feel the need to sort through Kyrgyz political theater or support Ukraine’s economy to control those countries.
The Kremlin intends to have the EuU fully formed by 2015, when Russia believes the United States will return its focus to Eurasia. Washington is wrapping up its commitments to Iraq this year and intends to end combat operations and greatly reduce forces in Afghanistan, so by 2015, the United States will have military and diplomatic attention to spare. This is also the same time period in which the U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in Central Europe will break ground. To Russia, this amounts to a U.S. and pro-U.S. front in Central Europe forming on the former Soviet (and future EuU) borders. It is the creation of a new version of the Russian empire, combined with the U.S. consolidation of influence on that empire’s periphery, that most likely will spark new hostilities between Moscow and Washington.
This could set the stage for a new version of the Cold War, though it would not be as long-lived as the previous one. Putin’s other reason for re-establishing some kind of Russian empire is that he knows the next crisis to affect Russia most likely will keep the country from ever resurging again: Russia is dying. The country’s demographics are among some of the world’s worst, having declined steadily since World War I. Its birth rates are well below death rates, and it already has more citizens in their 50s than in their teens. Russia could be a major power without a solid economy, but no country can be a global power without people. This is why Putin is attempting to strengthen and secure Russia now, before demographics weaken it. However, even taking its demographics into account, Russia will be able to sustain its current growth in power for at least another generation. This means that the next few years likely are Russia’s last great moment — one that will be marked by the country’s return as a regional empire and a new confrontation with its previous adversary, the United States.
Read more: Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can | STRATFOR
Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can
October 31, 2011 | 2123 GMT
Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can
By Lauren Goodrich
U.S.-Russian relations seem to have been relatively quiet recently, as there are numerous contradictory views in Washington about the true nature of Russia’s current foreign policy. Doubts remain about the sincerity of the U.S. State Department’s so-called “reset” of relations with Russia — the term used in 2009 when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed a reset button to her Russian counterpart as a symbol of a freeze on escalating tensions between Moscow and Washington. The concern is whether the “reset” is truly a shift in relations between the two former adversaries or simply a respite before relations deteriorate again.
The reset actually had little to do with the United States wanting Russia as a friend and ally. Rather, Washington wanted to create room to handle other situations — mainly Afghanistan and Iran — and ask Russia for help. (Russia is aiding in moving supplies into Afghanistan and withholding critical support from Iran.) Meanwhile, Russia also wanted more room to set up a system that would help it create a new version of its old empire.
Russia’s ultimate plan is to re-establish control over much of its former territories. This inevitably will lead Moscow and Washington back into a confrontation, negating any so-called reset, as Russian power throughout Eurasia is a direct threat to the U.S. ability to maintain its global influence. This is how Russia has acted throughout history in order to survive. The Soviet Union did not act differently from most of the Russian empires before it, and Russia today is following the same behavioral pattern.
Geography and Empire-Building
Russia’s defining geographic characteristic is its indefensibility, which means its main strategy is to secure itself. Unlike most powerful countries, Russia’s core region, Muscovy, has no barriers to protect it and thus has been invaded several times. Because of this, throughout history Russia has expanded its geographic barriers in order to establish a redoubt and create strategic depth between the Russian core and the myriad enemies surrounding it. This means expanding to the natural barriers of the Carpathian Mountains (across Ukraine and Moldova), the Caucasus Mountains (particularly to the Lesser Caucasus, past Georgia and into Armenia) and the Tian Shan on the far side of Central Asia. The one geographic hole is the North European Plain, where Russia historically has claimed as much territory as possible (such as the Baltics, Belarus, Poland and even parts of Germany). In short, for Russia to be secure it must create some kind of empire.
There are two problems with creating an empire: the people and the economy. Because they absorb so many lands, Russian empires have faced difficulties providing for vast numbers of people and suppressing those who did not conform (especially those who were not ethnic Russians). This leads to an inherently weak economy that can never overcome the infrastructural challenges of providing for the population of a vast empire. However, this has never stopped Russia from being a major force for long periods of time, despite its economic drawbacks, because Russia often emphasizes its strong military and security apparatus more than (and sometimes at the expense of) economic development.
Maintaining a Strong State
Russian power must be measured in terms of the strength of the state and its ability to rule the people. This is not the same as the Russian government’s popularity (though former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s popularity is undeniable); it is the ability of the Russian leadership, whether czar, Communist Party or prime minister, to maintain a tight grip on society and security. This allows Moscow to divert resources from popular consumption to state security and to suppress resistance. If the government has firm control over the people, popular discontent over politics, social policies or the economy do not pose a threat to the state — certainly not in the short term.
It is when the Russian leadership loses control over the security apparatus that Russian regimes collapse. For example, when the czar lost control of the army during World War I, he lost power and the Russian empire fell apart. Under Josef Stalin, there was massive economic dysfunction and widespread discontent, but Stalin maintained firm control over both the security apparatuses and the army, which he used to deal with any hint of dissent. Economic weakness and a brutal regime eventually were accepted as the inevitable price of security and of being a strategic power.
Moscow is using the same logic and strategies today. When Putin came to power in 1999, the Russian state was broken and vulnerable to other global powers. In order to regain Russia’s stability — and eventually its place on the global stage — Putin first had to consolidate the Kremlin’s power within the country, which meant consolidating the country economically, politically and socially. This occurred after Putin reorganized and strengthened the security apparatuses, giving him greater ability to dominate the people under one political party, purge foreign influence from the economy and build a cult of personality among the people.
Putin then set his sights on a Russian empire of sorts in order to secure the country’s future. This was not a matter of ego for Putin but a national security concern derived from centuries of historic precedent.
Putin had just seen the United States encroach on the territory Russia deemed imperative to its survival: Washington helped usher most Central European states and the former Soviet Baltic states into NATO and the European Union; supported pro-Western “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; set up military bases in Central Asia; and announced plans to place ballistic missile defense installations in Central Europe. To Russia, it seemed the United States was devouring its periphery to ensure that Moscow would forever remain vulnerable.
Over the past six years, Russia has pushed back to some degree against Western influence in most of its former Soviet states. One reason for this success is that the United States has been preoccupied with other issues, mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. Moreover, Washington has held the misconception that Russia will not formally attempt to re-create a kind of empire. But, as has been seen throughout history, it must.
Putin’s Plans
Putin announced in September that he would seek to return to the Russian presidency in 2012, and he has started laying out his goals for his new reign. He said Russia would formalize its relationship with former Soviet states by creating a Eurasia Union (EuU); other former Soviet states proposed the concept nearly a decade ago, but Russia is now in a position in which it can begin implementing it. Russia will begin this new iteration of a Russian empire by creating a union with former Soviet states based on Moscow’s current associations, such as the Customs Union, the Union State and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. This will allow the EuU to strategically encompass both the economic and security spheres.
The forthcoming EuU is not a re-creation of the Soviet Union. Putin understands the inherent vulnerabilities Russia would face in bearing the economic and strategic burden of taking care of so many people across nearly 9 million square miles. This was one of the Soviet Union’s greatest weaknesses: trying to control so much directly. Instead, Putin is creating a union in which Moscow would influence foreign policy and security but would not be responsible for most of the inner workings of each country. Russia simply does not have the means to support such an intensive strategy. Moscow does not feel the need to sort through Kyrgyz political theater or support Ukraine’s economy to control those countries.
The Kremlin intends to have the EuU fully formed by 2015, when Russia believes the United States will return its focus to Eurasia. Washington is wrapping up its commitments to Iraq this year and intends to end combat operations and greatly reduce forces in Afghanistan, so by 2015, the United States will have military and diplomatic attention to spare. This is also the same time period in which the U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in Central Europe will break ground. To Russia, this amounts to a U.S. and pro-U.S. front in Central Europe forming on the former Soviet (and future EuU) borders. It is the creation of a new version of the Russian empire, combined with the U.S. consolidation of influence on that empire’s periphery, that most likely will spark new hostilities between Moscow and Washington.
This could set the stage for a new version of the Cold War, though it would not be as long-lived as the previous one. Putin’s other reason for re-establishing some kind of Russian empire is that he knows the next crisis to affect Russia most likely will keep the country from ever resurging again: Russia is dying. The country’s demographics are among some of the world’s worst, having declined steadily since World War I. Its birth rates are well below death rates, and it already has more citizens in their 50s than in their teens. Russia could be a major power without a solid economy, but no country can be a global power without people. This is why Putin is attempting to strengthen and secure Russia now, before demographics weaken it. However, even taking its demographics into account, Russia will be able to sustain its current growth in power for at least another generation. This means that the next few years likely are Russia’s last great moment — one that will be marked by the country’s return as a regional empire and a new confrontation with its previous adversary, the United States.
Read more: Russia: Rebuilding an Empire While It Can | STRATFOR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
