plans for global navy

::::::::

Proliferation Security Initiative And US 1,000-Ship
Navy: Control Of World's Oceans, Prelude To War
Rick Rozoff

In of the most monumental and sweeping, though
frequently overlooked, efforts by the former Bush
administration to project worldwide military dominance
and in so doing further vitiate international
relations is what its initiator, John Bolton, in his
capacity of Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control
and International Security at the time called the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

Officially launched on May 31, 2003, the PSI was the
broadest application of international power projection
by the US in the post-Cold War era, entailing as it
does nothing less than the ability to conduct naval
surveillance, interdiction and eventually unbridled
military action in all the world's oceans.

Following and supplementing Operation Enduring Freedom
and its six areas of responsibility from South Asia to
the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean to the
Caribbean Sea, and the NATO prelude to and prototype
of the Proliferation Security Initiative, so-called
Operation Active Endeavor which has for over seven
years now placed the entire Mediterranean Sea under
its control, the PSI is a military operation
unilaterally devised and implemented by Washington
without prior consultation with the nations and
peoples in the targeted areas.

And like Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Active Endeavor (in the second category that follows),
its self-proclaimed mission is unlimited in
geographical scope and in historical time.

The PSI was announced with the alleged objective to,
according to the ever complacent New York Times,
"interdict nuclear materials and
contraband". A broad enough charter to include most
any naval operation anywhere and for any actual
purpose Washington wants to employ it.

One that, though, right off paralleled Washington's
manipulative conflation of weapons of mass destruction
with 'global terrorism,' as will be seen further on.

And simply to extend US and allied naval presence and
war fighting capabilities to geostrategically vital
and coveted sea lanes, waterways, coastal regions,
energy and military transit routes and into whichever
seas at whichever times doing so meets current
political and strategic exigencies.

The main focus of the PSI in the preponderance of
allusions to it in its early days was North Korea.

Later Iran would be increasingly identified as a
putative rationale for extending it into the Persian
Gulf and, if the US and its allies could devise some
method of getting there, the landlocked Caspian Sea.
Indeed former Defense Secretary Donald Misfield was an
avid advocate of what he deemed a Caspian Guard.

The Caspian Sea is, of course, an inland body and not
accessible to navies except for those of its five
littoral states.

As will be demonstrated below, the PSI didn't take
long to hunt for 'North Korean contraband' in the
Aegean and Black Seas, the Persian Gulf and the South
China Sea, inter Alia, if its main concentration
remains Asia.

The same May 22, 2006 New York Times article from
which the earlier citation emanates also included this
revealing addendum: "The initiative also involves
efforts to restrict financing and suspect commercial
transactions for Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and
other countries."

The countries mentioned are four of the seven indicted
by the US government immediately after the 9/11/2001
attacks as "state supporters of terrorism," to wit
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and
Sudan.

The current author wrote on September 12, 2001 that of
the above seven states, only one, Sudan, had any
previous connection with Osama bin Laden, one severed
over five years before; that none of them had
recognized the Taliban order in Afghanistan (though
firm US allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates had, and the Emirates is the only Arab
nation with a military contingent in Afghanistan to
compound the irony); and that three of the seven
targeted countries - Iran, Iraq and Syria - had been
victims of the very extremism that they were accused
of supporting.

The "state supporters of terrorism" were supplemented
and in most cases superseded by then National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice during her Senate
confirmation hearing for Secretary of State in January
of 2005 when she unveiled the new hit list, the
"outposts of tyranny": Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar
(Burma), North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Of the above nations, some have multi-party
parliamentary systems; some are one party states; five
have secular governments, one has a religious one;
regarding religious background, three are
predominantly Christian, two Buddhist and one Muslim.

The sole conceivable link they have in common is that
each has been the subject of intense and unrelenting
efforts by the US and the West in general to isolate
it locally and stigmatize it internationally
preparatory to intended 'regime change.'

And all six have close state-to-state relations with
both Russia and China.

One has to assume that an adversary, a 'threat' is
required in each continent and critical region, so
Europe has Belarus; Africa, Zimbabwe; Latin America,
Cuba; the Middle East, Iran; and Asia, presumably
because of its comparative size, Myanmar and North
Korea.

Cuba, Iran and North Korea are the only states to have
been passed on from "state supporters of terrorism" to
"outposts of tyranny."

If, as with the above contrived designations, the
initial rationale for the PSI was both nebulous enough
to serve any purpose and sufficiently malleable to
adjust to the desire for planned deployments against
new adversaries of convenience, the evolution and
extension of it gave the lie to its foundation myth
and revealed its advocates' real intentions.

A brief chronology of the PSI since its infancy and
into its current state will illustrate that its
purview is far broader than chasing cargo coming out
of and heading to North Korea.

As the Initiative started to gain steam into its
second year, veteran Indian journalist Siddharth
Varadarajan emphasized the skepticism if not suspicion
it aroused among major world, and especially Asian,
powers:

"Rather than extra-legal instruments to check
proliferation like the Proliferation Security
Initiative, Russia and China are emphasizing the need
for multilateral legal systems. And anticipating that
the U.S. programme of missile defence will very soon
lead to the militarisation of space, the two countries
are demanding a ban on any arms race in outer space."
(The Hindu, July 4, 2005)

The above is an inspired linking and juxtaposition of
genuine proliferation concerns versus largely phantom
versions serving ulterior geopolitical objectives.

That is, the US regularly thwarts otherwise unanimous
opposition in the United Nations to the militarization
of space while raising the specter of smuggling in
often obscure corners of the world which other,
including local, nations fail to observe or register
concerns about.

A major Indian daily commented on PSI three days
before the above quote that:

"The PSI [Proliferation Security Initiative] is a
controversial U.S.-led multinational initiative
involving the interdiction of third-country ships on
the high seas. Apart from its dubious legality, the
PSI explicitly undercuts a genuinely multilateral and
balanced approach to the problem of proliferation.
Among the major countries in Asia opposed to the PSI
are China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Iran."
(The Hindu, July 1, 2006)

That two of the four countries just mentioned border
the Strait of Malacca which connects the Indian to the
Pacific Ocean is not a coincidence.

The significance of the Strait has been commented upon
by major US military leaders in relation to the US's
1,000-ship global navy plan examined later in this
article.

Less than a year after the inauguration of the PSI,
Malaysia's then deputy prime minister and defense
minister Najib Razak said of a regional manifestation
of the PSI that "this touches on the question of our
national sovereignty."

The London Financial times characterized the concern
as follows:

"Malaysia and Indonesia oppose a proposal by
Washington to deploy US marines with high-speed boats
to guard the Malacca Straits, one of the world's
busiest shipping lanes....
"The Regional Maritime Security Initiative was
disclosed during congressional testimony last week by
Admiral Thomas Fargo, head of the US Pacific Command.
"The proposal grows out of the Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI)...."
(Financial Times, April 5, 2004)

Almost two years later Indonesian Foreign Minister
Hassan Wirajuda, in rejecting participation in the
PSI, explained his nation's opposition:

"'If Indonesia joined the initiative, the United
States or others big countries can conduct an
interdiction to check whether the ships passing the
waters carrying out materials links to mass
destruction weapon,' said [FM Hassan Wirajuda]
"In addition, the initiative was not initiated through
a multilateral process, but only a group of nations
that have a common goal to conduct a certain
initiatives, Wirajuda said.
"The initiative was against the convention of
international law on marine, the United Nations
Convention on the Law on the Sea of 1982, Wirajuda
stressed."
(Xinhua News Agency, March 17, 2006)

It didn't take much time to confirm Indonesia's and
Malaysia's apprehensions.

In August of 2005 the US, Britain, Australia, New
Zealand and Japan conducted Exercise Deep Sabre as
part of the Proliferation Security Initiative from
Singapore's Changi Naval Base in the South China Sea.

China's Xinhua News Agency provided this description:

"Exercise Deep Saber (XDS)...involves some
2,000 personnel from the military, coast guard,
customs and other agencies of 13 PSI countries
including Singapore, the United States, Britain and
Australia, as well as ten surface vessels and six
maritime patrol aircraft."
(Xinhua News Agency, August 15, 2005)

Another nation in the Far East that has refused to
join the PSI, which now has 70 affiliated countries,
is South Korea.

It fears that its neighbor to the north will interpret
a unilateral naval blockade of its shoreline and
forcible storming and impounding of its vessels as
what they are - acts of war - and that a new
full-scale peninsular war might ensue.

Three years ago North Korean state media raised just
such a prospect.

"North Korea warned South Korea against
sparking a 'nuclear war' by joining a US-led
international drill aimed at intercepting weapons of
mass destruction, state media reported.
"South Korea said last month it would send a team to
'observe' a US-led Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI) drill off Australia in April
"Minju Joson, the North's government-published
newspaper, also warned Saturday that Seoul's joining
the drill would 'bar the inter-Korean relations from
favorably developing and entail ... a nuclear war to
the Korean Peninsula.'"
(Agence France-Presse, February 12, 2006)

Today's Agence France-Presse reports on a 'study' by
the American Council on Foreign Relations which states
"The United States and its allies might
have to deploy up to 460,000 soldiers to North Korea
to stabilize the country if it collapses and an
insurgency erupts, a private U.S. study said Jan. 28."

The precise number of troops stipulated suggests the
CFR analysis is hardly an academic one.

And it rather blithely mentions in passing that:

"'North Korea abuts two great powers - China and
Russia - that have important interests at stake in the
future of the peninsula. That they would become
actively engaged in any future crisis involving North
Korea is virtually guaranteed.'"

Not that the US has not recklessly ignored South
Korea's concern in pressuring Seoul on the matter.

The PSI is the international naval component of a far
larger US-dominated effort to expanded Western
military domination worldwide through NATO.

An article called "U.S. Wants Korea to Forge Military
Ties With NATO," observed:

"[A South Korean official] said Washington aims to
prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
by North Korea by taking advantage of NATO in addition
to the PSI...."
(Chosun Ilbo, November 23, 2006)

In a news dispatch titled "Incoming administration may
consider joining U.S. missile defense program," a
South Korean newspaper reported that:

"South Korea has been reluctant to join the PSI in the
past for fear of inciting the North, though it was
recently reported that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade proposed to the transition team that the
matter be given serious consideration."
(Hankyoreh, January 21, 2008)

The PSI has also been exploited to shore up other
components of Asian NATO, including Australia and New
Zealand.

In April of 2006 the US, Australia, Britain, Japan,
New Zealand and Singapore held a three-day
"international anti-terror exercise" in northern
Australia.

In July of last year a similar exercise was held in
New Zealand, which once prided itself on its alleged
neutrality, that was reported on by a local newspaper:

"In what will be seen as another step in breaking down
the 20-year freeze by the Americans on joint
participation in routine military exercises, its
military will be strongly represented in a contingent
of more than 30 coming to Auckland for Exercise Maru.
"The exercise...is being organised as part of New
Zealand's commitment to the Proliferation Security
Initiative."
(The Dominion Post, July 22, 2008)

In the interim between the Australian and New Zealand
PSI military exercises a 41-nation drill, Pacific
Shield 07, was conducted off Japan:

"Ships and planes from Australia, Britain, France,
Japan, New Zealand, and the United States were
deployed on day one of the three-day drill in the Sea
of Sagami off Tokyo Bay...under the
Proliferation Security Initiative put forward by US
President George W. Bush in 2003."

As an element of India's incorporation into both Asian
and Global NATO, it too has been targeted for
inclusion in the PSI.

An Indian commentary from 2007 remarks:

"In recent years, New Delhi seems to be bending over
backwards to accommodate the "strategic interests" of
Washington. Joint military exercises involving the
armies of the two countries have intensified in scope
and magnitude since they began in the mid-1990s.
"Washington's desire to encircle China with a pro-US
alliance is well known. The Japanese leadership has
been calling on New Delhi to join in
Washington-inspired projects such as the Proliferation
Security Initiative."
(Frontline, July 14-27, 2007)

And in the same year Siddharth Varadarajan wrote:

"Though India remains opposed to the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI), the last two ‘Malabar’
naval exercises have seen PSI-related drills such as
maritime interdiction and VBSS
(visit-board-search-seizure) operations."
(The Hindu, July 5, 2007)

The worldwide and ever expanding search for "North
Korean contraband" has followed a curious path from
the Indian Ocean into the Persian Gulf and the
Mediterranean and the Black Seas.

In October of 2006 warships from US, Britain, France,
Italy, Australia and Bahrain participated in a PSI
exercise off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf.

John Bolton's successor in the State Department Robert
Joseph had prepared the groundwork earlier by having
"recently visited Iran's neighbors, Bahrain, the
United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, in addition to Egypt, for discussions about how
to handle the threat from Iran. The consultations
dealt with working together within the context of the
Proliferation Security Initiative...."
(U.S. Department of State, April 21, 2006)

Five months before the Persian Gulf exercise the US
led Anatolian Sun-2006, a multinational naval exercise
off the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

An Italian news source issued this report:

"Turkey will host a joint military exercise
with US troops in the eastern Mediterranean beginning
on Wednesday - a show of strength that comes as
Washington is increasing pressure on Tehran over its
nuclear programme.
"Ostensibly part of the Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI) against Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD), US officials cited in the New York Times
newspaper described the manoeuvres as a sign of
Washington's determination to stop missile and nuclear
technology from reaching Iran."
(ADN Kronos International, May 23, 2006)

In reference to the same operation the New York Times
added that, "The United States is trying to persuade
friendly countries near the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea
and Indian Ocean to join in the exercises...."
(New York Times, May 22, 2006)

Moving further west, the US recruited Cyprus to the
PSI in April of 2005.

In May of last year the US and Poland officiated over
another PSI operation, Adriatic Shield 08, hosted by
Croatia, which included participation from Bosnia,
Croatia, Italy, Montenegro and Slovenia.

Seven months later the US Congress would praise
Croatia - it of the notorious US-directed Operation
Storm of 1995 and of lingering nostalgia for the Nazi
collaborationist Ustasha - with a resolution
expressing the US's certitude that "Croatia can give a
significant contribution to NATO and that it has
already sent its contingent to Afghanistan "as part of
NATO-led International Security Assistance Force [and]
Croatia "is participating in the Proliferation
Security Initiative with like-minded nations across
the world...."
(Hina, December 15, 2005)

At last year's NATO summit in Romania, Croatia was
invited to join the Alliance as a full member and will
be inducted as one at the April 3-4 60th Anniversary
NATO summit.

Likewise the Ukraine's American proxy Viktor
Yushchenko, NATO's ticket to a 2,400 kilometer border
with Russia, a year ago vowed that "Ukraine actively
interacts with NATO member-states within the new
mechanisms of cooperation in the compliance and
implementation of fundamental treaties related to
international security. In particular, our state has
acceded to the Proliferation Security Initiative...."
(ForUm, January 16, 2008)

Regarding the general issue of the relationship of the
PSI with Global NATO, these excerpts from a 2005
speech by Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in
Japan will clarify matters:

"[W]e want to ensure that a much larger proportion of
our military forces are readily available for
operations far away from home.
"We also realize full well that tackling today’s
global threats requires the broadest possible
international cooperation and so we are enhancing
relations with our partner countries across Europe,
the Caucasus, and Central Asia, and in North Africa
and the Middle East.
"And like many NATO Allies, you [Japan] are also an
active participant
in the Proliferation Security Initiative...."
(NATO International, April 4, 2005)

The preceding accounts establish that, just as with
Washington's stationing of third position, potential
first strike, interceptor missile sites in Eastern
Europe, North Korea and Iran are pretext rather than
cause.

And the underlying, unremitting, ruthless strategy is
for expanding and maintaining global military
deployments for both blackmail and attacks.

If the US's Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan
aims at insuring among other tasks US and allied naval
control of the Indian Ocean; if Operation Enduring
Freedom - Philippines brings Western naval power into
Southeast Asia; if Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn
of Africa solidifies control of the Arabian Sea, the
Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, with recent assistance
from NATO and the EU in Operation Atalanta; if NATO's
Operation Active Endeavor controls all navigation into
and throughout the Mediterranean, complemented by the
German and other NATO nations' naval blockade of
Lebanon, soon to be replicated with Gaza; if all these
operations secure domination of critical parts of the
world's oceans and seas, the Proliferation Security
Initiative is increasingly the overarching structure
that integrates them all.

And lying behind and underpinning the PSI is what the
current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the
US armed forces Michael Mullen, while developing this
strategy as Chief of Naval Operations, called the
Thousand-Ship Navy in an October 29, 2006 column in
the Honolulu Advertiser.

The 1,000-Ship Navy, Mullen said, “[Is] a global
maritime partnership that unites maritime forces, port
operators, commercial shippers, and international,
governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address
mutual concerns."

The following year the US Navy publication Navy
Newsstand summarized the matter:

"Vice Adm. John G. Morgan, Jr., deputy chief of Naval
Operations for Information, Plans and Strategy and
Rear Adm. Michael C. Bachman, commander of the Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Command, explained that the
1,000-ship Navy is a network of international partner
navies who will work together to create a force
capable of standing watch over all the seas.
"Vice Adm. John G. Morgan, Jr., deputy chief of Naval
Operations for Information, Plans and Strategy and
Rear Adm. Michael C. Bachman, commander of the Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Command, explained that the
1,000-ship Navy is a network of international partner
navies who will work together to create a force
capable of standing watch over all the seas.
"'A new naval era is coming and we’re doing exciting
things in preparation for it,' Morgan said. 'The Navy
is being challenged....The Navy’s traveling around and
getting the idea of a 1,000-ship Navy to patrol the
seas, out to the world.”
“'This 1,000-ship Navy idea is all about a global
maritime network, a huge network of sharing,' said
Morgan. 'That’s the biggest challenge we’re facing: a
network of many integrated countries’ navies with one
goal in mind of patrolling the world’s seas.'"

Authors Bio:
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years.
He lives in Chicago, Illinois.
Is the manager of the Stop NATO international email list at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/