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."
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.
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."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
