Tag Archives: Asia-Pacific

Both International And National Security Starts At Home – US in the picture.


The Peacemakers.

“I have not seen anywhere else in the world a gun lobby that has the same level of influence on its own government as the NRA does in the United States.”    –Andrew Feinstein.

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of insidious forces working from within.” – Douglas MacArthur.

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all” – John F. Kennedy

The topic for today is the importance  of both increased national and international security and the nature of leadership we need in a changing world. However the focus will be on the first one, with an example of things starting at home in the US. Both with proper legislation and law enforcement within the domain and control  of US Congress. The US here is just an example and different examples do exist all over the world.

Related image

When times are economical challenging, foreign policy matters are rarely the topic of discussion. But in recent weeks issues on both foreign policy and security worked their way up within the public domain of attention.

During the crisis with North Korea in which China played for certain a role of influence for the better, – we had first the Boston Marathon bombings with the related questions about terrorist connections.  This is relatively a new element that from areas where you don’t expect it, people find their way on US ground and evolve in personalities able to prepare bombs with the intention to kill indiscriminately. And so they did, as others may do again anywhere.  Both inside the US and outside the US.

Related image

Whilst the airliner plot over the Atlantic and  World Trade Centre attacks are unlikely to happen anymore in the identity as they evolved, – the prospect of terror from a different kind seems to be more of an issue in the future.

It is terror of a different kind than 9/11. But it is the terror on top of increased gun violence in the US anyway, and from both sides of the spectrum there is easy access to guns, assault weapons and other tools to inflict destruction.

Related image

It’s a warning that dynamics in society are changing and that we need to be mindful of the fact that we are simply not ready for this.

Proper legislation in line with the spirit of our time and similar law enforcement need to be in place.  This being prepared in a proactive way by anticipation on the dynamics in society.

Related image

Within those recent dynamics in the US the civil war in Syria did break the news with a high index of suspicion of chemical warfare being used against the opposition in Syria. This followed by an Israeli bombing near Damascus to prevent the transport of missiles and chemical weapons close to the borders of Israel.

At the same time Congressional hearings in the US provided more detail about what happened in Libya when the US ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans were murdered during a terrorist attack. Lacking the total picture, some Republicans claim that the White House should be held responsible for either insufficient protection or misleading information.  It would seem that the dynamics within the domain of some Republican members of US Congress go that far that they would like any effort to try to impeach President Obama on this issue, if they could.  A reflection of a “House Divided” where some members of this honourable branch of Government lost touch with both reality and the priorities of this country.

Related image

It illustrates the dangerous paradox in this country, the downfall of democracy when Congress is misaligned on some major topics and obstructive elements are able to block progress against the will of the majority of voters.

Related image

This is not new and it may happen anywhere in countries with democracies. It might be considered as the play game of democracy but in some events it’s a dangerous play game setting the tone for more little fruitful dynamics in society…

Whilst not proven perhaps, there is more chance a society at peace or stable in itself at times of peace, – will sustain the disharmony at times of no peace better than the kind of society already divided in itself.

It illustrates somehow as well the sad thing that people often tend to stick together in crisis only, but go their own way when there are no dangers on the horizon.

We live however in a world where simple escalating events may lead to massive drama’s all around.

For this reason the  topic to be discussed today is an interesting one as the perceptions about leadership, democracy and security are almost as different as the dimensions about security and leadership on its own. Issues about eg Israeli’s and Palestinian security have different perceptions all around the world. History shows that people can make a difference within certain positions.

Interestingly we had recently 2 US Presidential candidates with different perceptions and personalities. The person who started his US Presidency in 2009 was able to continue in 2013.  The perceptions of one leader and the choices being made on behalf of international security may define the outcome of many future dynamics. Likewise within the US,  US Congress may define the outcome on other dynamics.

It’s a matter of leadership and being proactive, with inclusive views.

The nature of fast growing  and increasing  economic and financial interdependence of countries around the world, with all sorts of growing  interactions, –  need a far stricter international security than ever before.  It all starts in home land activities, to get grip on those things we don’t want, those things being disruptive for our well-being in the countries where we live, – the things affecting national security.  An issue for all of us, wherever we may live.

Both National and International security are in ways connected.

Related image

Speaking about security at a challenging time in US history, we only need to look back some 150 years ago.

A time where US Congress and legislative issues paved the way for the dynamics leading to the US civil war in the 18th Century.

President Lincoln would not have been the person history remembers if he would not have been challenged after his Presidential election to lead his country through one of the most difficult times in US history.

He was the unexpected President exposed to the worst, which through a combination of circumstances made him the best!

Some would say that the American civil war in those day  was a security and a significant emancipation issue for the US as a Union.

Emancipation still to be remembered, still to be remembered by those members of the Republican Party who are unable to see that emancipation and  inclusive progresses are ongoing issues in history. Running behind the important social and political events of time will catch up with those who have to deal with the implications in the future. History learns that not being proactive comes at a cost.

Related image

Being true what he said in his inauguration, President Lincoln did not allow a minority to disintegrate the Union, –   but he preserved the Union, by which he followed through with his planned declaration of Emancipation to end slavery.

He succeeded as part of the Republican movement at the time to create the next endeavour in US history, keeping the right balance on the required issues of national security in his days.

Whilst generally Southern Democrats were obstacles for Emancipation in the 1860 ties, – Northern Republicans are generally stumbling blocks for 21st  Century US progress. Both with exceptions within  each party in the days of President Lincoln and today. True is that the Republicans were the driving force for progress  one and half century ago.

Republicans should take this on board.

The last still in a most divided America.

Related image

Congressional choices long ago by overturning the so-called Missouri compromise which intended to restrict slavery, played part in the  evolving drama in the 1860ties, before it actually happened.

Today we jump a fair bit in time. To illustrate that divisions can go one way or the other but unresolved within the required legislation will lead to all sorts of processes in society hard to contain.

Also an issue subject to  Congressional choice.  The choice either being proactive or reactive.

It is not long ago  the National Rifle Association moved to block a UN treaty on gun control. The NRF serves strongly the interest of both national and international arms deals, with a high level of influence in US Congress.  Clear is that  US Congress has been willing to serve the power position  of the NRA by simply not approving Presidential proposals to revise gun legislation. The majority however of US voters wants a change in the current legislation on gun control as increasing gun violence disrupts a nation and may compromise eventually national security, the last because the current legislation is not aligned with changing dynamics in US society with more gun related violence and deaths, – both at the cost of children and adults.

.Related image

Whilst some 700000 people died during the American civil war at the time of President Lincoln,- more even died as a result of unlawful gun use in the US over various decades.

The downfall of a democracy is that a minority may act against the will of the constitutional rights of voters. Voters to have their voice  properly represented in the legislation a country deserves.  It is true that the ignorance of a few voters – in the words of John F Kennedy –  may impair the security of all. In some cases the security of a Republic.

Congressional ignorance on the issue of gun control may disregard national security interest where it comes to the protection of US citizens. Voters want to reduce the risk  of more generalised and increasing gun violence in the US as the extremes will come together in the context of changing social dynamics. The last  as part of increased globalisation. Congress is not allowing those facts to be considered within the concept of national interest and as such  tolerating  the death toll of existing gun violence, –  eventually debilitating the US ability to keep control in own house. Getting worse when the forces of external terrorism meet existing dynamics in US society with more or less free access to unrestricted guns and assault rifles, enabling massacres at large scale.

A matter of national security.

Congressional choices may define future dynamics whilst the US President is almost powerless to change this at a time this being required.

It’s a matter of poorly understood national security of the United States of America. The dynamics of society turning into  increasing and senseless massacres, – the last often caused by  ill minded and mentally disrupted people from which the statistics say they are only on the increase.  Meanwhile US Congress allowing to be influenced more by NRA interest, and not  taking the dynamics in society or the wishes of voters on board.

Related image

Douglas MacArthur within a different context reflected once his concern for his own great Nation; “not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within”.

He was right in one sense, but today the danger comes from 2 directions, – both from threats within and without,  and with the current Congressional attitude towards increased gun control as is today, – this is a potential menace to the security of the Union.

Lincoln would have turned away from this, – if he could!   It is a matter of emancipation, constitutional emancipation.

Where history changed with new dilemma’s to be sorted, – the ask of true leadership is more profoundly needed all over the world.

But it all starts at home to have the required legislation and law enforcement in place.

We are faced with different dilemma’s this century.

True leadership is required today when the proper balance gets disrupted with lots of things being at stake. And often as it proved in history it falls back on people with a distinct personality and attitude, – bright in their assessment and determined in their actions.

The last applies for US Congress as well. An honest and fair assessment being required, both based on the choice of people being represented and the dynamics in society.

If we speak about the issue of security in a broader sense:

Not only  increased globalization is asking for stricter national and international security, but also  a new political economy with shifting influence from west to east and a population growth hardly possible to sustain, – with an increased unstable relationship between our fragile global civilisation and an increased depletion of our resources.

The last will become vital in the future.

Hence from an international perspective, international security in the Asia-Pacific region can’t be allowed to be compromised by nuclear dictators as eg in North Korea.

Related image

Similarly US security can’t be compromised by increasing gun violence inflicted by more  people turning their hatred on society,  with the same easy access to guns and rifles because Congressional legislation did not follow the trend in society.

Rifles and gun’s being far more advanced than when the Constitution was written. Dynamics within society and international far more different than they have ever been. The US more at edge than ever before.

The issues of both national and international security are getting more important as more things can go wrong at the same time with wider implications faster speed and greater destruction and disruption.

Without the right tools, the right brains and the best possible  assessment, – we lose both momentum and direction for a more stable world.

Related image

And again it all starts at home.

If we look at the Middle East, the situation in Syria is a prime example of major dangers and the potential of an escalating conflict. Civilisation and reason totally lost.

There have been dangers and evils in the past, so will there be evils and dangers in the future and we need to recognise them at an early stage.

When Lincoln made his Emancipation declaration amidst the American Civil war, – it took still hundred years before the Civil Rights movement got its way into proper and equal legislation for each American citizen.

I hope the desired emancipation on gun control and the required restrictions on gun related violence will not take an other 50 years in the US.  It would be a massive drain on society, both for victims and their families, but also for those who have to work in authority within the given restrictions of  incomplete gun legislation.

Related image

People in the police force have families as well.

Fortunately there is no room for racial hatred anymore, but whilst the last  belongs largely to the past new issues of friction and potential hatred arise at the spectrum of social development, – with mixture of cultures and religions, and increased travel from various countries around the world.

Being multicultural in one sense is good and has the potential to bring the goodness of different nations together. The downfall could be when people from poverty stricken area’s in today’s world travel at different countries, – with at times the narrow and restricted perception of only blind hatred. Receiving in some occasions terrorist training in their homeland of origin,  with a mission to destruct and destroy.

Related image

Alqaida has eg booklets designed to help terrorists overseas to make bombs and strike and kill in various ways. The target quite often seems to be the US  and its allies.

We might be horrified to know of what is possible to happen, – but most of us get horrified when it happens. Whilst we need to love our neighbour as ourselves, we have to denounce the persons and groups inflicting violence and terrorism. Similar with countries deliberately exporting this sort of people or ideology to be held accountable in line with international law, – the last subject for renewal and change at various levels to combat the dangers of our time.

But again it starts at home.

Insufficient restrictions on international nuclear control and allowing more countries to have access to nuclear weapons by lack of internal law enforcement is asking for more dictators or other countries “pulling the trigger”, – like allowing more people in the US to have access to lethal rifles and other dangerous guns, – is asking for a more unstable society, – creating a situation with potential “mass pulling of triggers” where the US army may have to act against its own citizens at times of national unrest.

Related image It seems correct that the Bush Administration prepared for FEMA concentration camps in case of social unrest. More important is that the triggers for social unrest never escalate in the use of massive gun violence in one society, – just for the sake of civilisation and protection of citizens. The law simply needs to be adapted to prevent an almost unlimited access is some States.

Again a matter of Congressional choice, but it would not seem they see it this way with some members of this establishment even devoted to get the Obama Administration down on what happened in Benghazi, Libya. Not being able to take the long view but using the short-sighted view to debilitate proper Governance at a time this being required makes jurisdiction stagnant.

 

Just an illustration how members of Congress can add to a “House divided” by not getting the priorities right.

It happened in the past, with US civil war just 150 years ago. It is for some part up to Congress to prevent this ever happening again by reducing increasing gun violence in a similar divided nation on different issues by proper legislation in line with the spirit of time.

With eg the Boston bombing just recently behind, an alleged terrorist rail  plot being foiled in Canada, sarin – gas being possibly used in Syria, and North Korea “one click away” from pushing the launch button of firing ballistic missiles, – it is clear that changing international patterns are evolving into more risk involving scenario’s waiting to become reality. both national and international.

This is what I mean when I say that at some stage  the extremes are coming together, both from outside the country and inside the country.

At the end of the day the means to have control is largely a  matter of the right legislation being in place with the proper law enforcement and the proper people right for our time. This both applies at the arena of national and international politics.

National Security starts at home and coming back on the US, Congress should act in favour of increased gun control.

A matter of civilised and effective legislation to support both national security and the safety of US citizens.

On the extremes outside – and within the context of international security and coöperation against terrorism  – it is  encouraging that President Putin from Russia emphasised the need for increased international intelligence coöperation,  as prevention at an early stage is the better substitute.

Related imageG8 summit in Ireland, June 17, 2013

Some nations posses the power to abolish any form of human poverty but also any form of human live.  Both  a matter of responsibility and choice, – a matter actually of priority to support any extended nuclear freeze proposals,  and contain the current level of nuclear experience where it comes to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.

Whilst most nations appreciate the responsibilities on this and have already reduced their nuclear arsenals, new powers arise with the wish to have those weapons as well, – and with a clear intent to either use them or apply international blackmail.

Those countries are an issue of serious concern. They need to be stopped at the earliest possible stage through reason and if reason and sanctions do not help, through force if so required, – in line with international coöperation by those nations committed to stop the dangers to multiply.

The UN plays a central role.

International security on this is based on the practical choice not to allow any new country to develop those weapons, – regardless the question whether it is good or wrong that other countries do already  have those weapons. It is clear that with increasing countries having access to nuclear or chemical weapons it is getting more difficult to keep the world secure.

Same applies with providing at times even more unpredictable people an almost free access to fire arms, – as such creating increasing difficulties to prevent massacres of any kind as result of gun violence, the last with a potential domino effect.

Related image

Stable we can make it through more succesful partnerships on the issues we face in the 21st century. US Congress is not much familiar with succesful partnerships on this issue of restricting gun violence.

Science is able to unleash the powers of destruction by human choice, unless we prevent humankind and powers to make this choice, – by restricting at least the powers who are able to destruct each other.  Most of them who are nuclear now do realise that the choice of such destruction means self-destruction,  involving all humanity.

Likewise science provides terrorists the means to unleash powers of more limited destruction, both by senseless shootings or bomb blasts at areas of their choice. However the means by which terrorists are able to apply this destruction in the future is by no means sure and increased international coöperation is required to recognise at an early stage the features of certain persons and groups committed to terror

Whether terror is provoked or inflicted by guns or bombs makes in essence not much difference when we consider the lethal outcome on both children and adults. School shootings where people die are as terrible as disrupted sport events where people are killed through the hands of terrorists using bombs. Those tools need to be be banned from the street with the restriction (if the Constitution can’t be changed as yet) of gun’s being controlled, registered and only in the hands of mindful people, – and assault rifles being excluded in any case for “civil use”.

We live in a world insufficient prepared for terrorism, – which does not mean we have to learn to live with terrorism as if this would be our fate.

Related image

 

Both National and International security starts at home in our own countries with the things we can control, with proper legislation and law enforcement on issues being required in the context of changes in society, changes in the way children are brought up and the way they become adults, apart from the changes related with globalization and the technology which brings people down from different countries.

Whilst it is hard to change or control the mindset to take lives for no reason, it is easier to control or limit the means by which we are able to do this.

This applies both to guns and nuclear weapons, –  and it all starts at home where we are privileged to make choices on restricting the tools and dynamics of violence.

US Congress should reconsider the issue of effective gun legislation for the benefit of a more secure society where people are becoming slowly less at risk of violence as due to unlawful use of bullets, – regardless whether those bullets come from US citizens or people who travel from overseas to inflict violence for the reason of hatred against US society.

Waiting for escalating gun violence in the future, wherever it comes from, is pointless. The warnings are there, written already in the hearts of many people who lost loved ones in this repetitive cycle of non-required violence, –  waiting to get worse only.

Related image

We have neither right to inflict suffering nor death on another human being unless there is an unavoidable necessity for it and any culture or country which endorses the right to bear arms amongst it citizens has blood on the law provision it provides on this and will pay at later date a price being higher than initially intended at the time those laws were made.

Related image

The clause on the right to bear arms in the US Constitution is a serious defect considering the time spirit of the 21st Century and lays the foundation of the potential destruction of it’s culture through internal destructive forces, – if not adapted.

Thanks!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

 

2013 – 2014 Genocide in the Pacific or even worse?


Hiroshima model (before the bomb)
Hiroshima model (before the bomb) (Photo credit: JaviC)

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

 
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy.
 
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
 
It works the same in every country.”  – Herman Goering
 

 

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”  – ?Julius Caesar 

 
 
 
With the US more and more involved in  the Asia-Pacific region as part of a “China containment strategy” and securing trade, a potential pending conflict between the US and China should first be an issue between the US and China in which no other countries should be involved. However reality shows that the US is creating strategic strongholds from which they intend to operate, if required, with all available nuclear power abilities and other advanced weapon systems getting increasingly in place. The nuclear power availability may reach up to half a million the strength of what has been dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Both US citizens and Chinese citizens apart from all those countries within this region don’t deserve a fate at least 100 times worse than what happened in Hiroshima, either by calculation or by error. It is up to US citizens as well to accept or not accept this as war in this region will reach the US as well.
 
Secondly it would be wise for the super powers to start straightaway high level negotiations about bilateral “fear reduction”, reduction of arms and further more a detailed mutual cooperation to keep both the Asia-Pacific area and the world free of a potential and devastating conflict, besides improving the means by which this world is still able to provide a margin for itself. The last is a healthy economic trade environment, not based on isolation and preparing for war but based on an inclusive “all party approach” with fair principles at its core. Besides this tackling the roots of poverty and improve education at all corners around the globe. This is what I would call taking the “high road” of constructive risk reduction for the benefit of people around the world, as the concept of a potential conflict between the above superpowers and the preparations for this in place already, are not within the spirit and reasoning being required for our times to control risk and prevent war.
Related image
 
Military power being allowed to drive at different intervals and grades a country’s foreign policy has been allowed to use the fear part among people to take wide-range steps to defend and attack if so required, with the development of an excessive war machinery. This trend is quite clear in the US. The military industrial complex is complex in its motives. It is an advanced industry on its own and with no exception a powerful force in each country. In earlier history more often Soviet leaders were guided by the military forces, like the US was often guided by it’s own military forces. So is and will be the Chinese leadership guided by their own military forces. In some occasions the roles of those forces may get quite dominant as often they will prove with whatever intelligence that they are “right”. Intelligence of this nature has not always been evidence based and if it was evidence based not rarely this evidence was created by actions provoking the other party to act in a particular desired way, confirming the justification of distrust and escalating the steps for itself feeding perceptions. Those perceptions in the past started with the perceived impression of opponents and reached at different times the perception of potential and real enemies. Sometimes those perceptions were right, sometimes those perceptions were wrong.
 
Both in this and future generations however we can’t afford the potential paranoia of some military representatives guiding governments on actions being proper, as whichever country is guided by the wrong intelligence in the hour of greatest danger, – all out war will be inevitably the result at a scale never seen before.
Related image
 
The dynamics are complex and leaders of countries may at some extend realise the complexities of their own war departments so to say. However the influence is often significant if we watch the patterns at various countries. Those power dynamics between the civilian representatives of a country weather democratic or having the format of a “Committee” and the military are different and obvious for most countries, the super powers in particular included. They are what we call the realities of this world. Expensive realities though as a significant amount of the national budget is devoted to improve and maintain military forces and it’s intelligence to detect the actions and wrongdoings of the other party, the opponent or the enemy if worse. Sometimes history did create enemies to provide an excuse to go to war, sometimes there was a real enemy which was never stopped at an early stage. The last creating war of a different kind, what we call a justified war. But even a just war is not justified in its implications if prevention was not the early tool of choice to change the dynamics leading up to such a war. Again not always possible as there have been and there will be always people seeking power to embrace conflict and war and they always find support within the domain of their military forces. Neither the nature of military forces is bad nor the people filling the positions, but often they are the prisoners of their own restricted “target” perceptions as there is little grace under military rule once the full force of military  power finds its way in either a controlled war or a non-controlled war. An order to fight is simply an order to kill the enemy as vigorous as possible.
Related image
 
History provides us millions of stories about people who died in conflict or war and many countries have their ways to remind those who died for their country. On those days  the brief memory on the agony of war and the sadness and pain it inflicted, but every time through the generations there have been new wars and new genocides and the intentions to prevent those things reoccurring have never been strong enough in the history of man kind because if the spirit to change things really for the better was strong enough, we would not face the challenges we have today.
 
The point is not who is to blame for this, the point is leading nations to take responsibility to give examples and ripples of hope to turn the tide in history. Change it we must because only this way we will find the eternal blessing of being caretakers of this world. If not we will face uncontrolled destruction as when the powers of war are escalating no leaders will be able to control those powers anymore, – as no country with nuclear powers will be prepared to surrender once attacked with the devastating impact of the destruction inflicted.
 
It is pointless to play games with this warfare or playing the wrong card to provide evidence of superiority as such gesture could easily be miscalculated and war could start by error, –  people including generals being in place at the wrong time. Such a war will come at a cost larger than ever before and lack of responsibility for taking the right direction would be to blame for this. Hence we need to stop this process as the signs and warnings are eminent on both sides of the Pacific.
 
Evidently the US did start this process with high gear and still silent preparations for the Pacific with not unlikely an escalation in 2012 – 2013. A nuclear error within the context of the current “build up” in the Pacific will never be considered as an error but will be responded with a full nuclear reply, – hence the reason to be proactive in efforts to reverse the reciprocal perception of both countries that each of them could be a danger for their national security as within those perceptions the build up to conflict and potential error will be eminent.
Related image
This is what responsible superpowers need to prevent as winning such a potential conflict is an illusion whilst preparing for it is not the same as prevention, – not anymore in a scenario like this.
 

How grave are the dangers? 

Consider the following:

China’s military capacity has been changed in so far that it’s defence budget is focussed to get widespread Anti-Access/Area Denial strategies (A2/AD.), which is a concern for the US.

“Sea denial” in case of conflict would seem to be China’s military strategy in case of conflict to inflict both significant costs and erode enemy forces by targeting the weakness of the enemy in battle.
 
The Chinese forces are able to attack from both the air, main land China, but also from the surface of the sea and below.
 
Submarines play a key role in the Chinese defence systems, if attacked a hard job for anti-submarine warfare if enemy’s would take China on board in battle.
 
Those submarines are both conventional and nuclear and if the US would contemplate to attack China, both US forces at sea including aircraft carriers would sustain likely much losses.
 
Like the US made it pointless for any country to attack US homeland with missiles from both the sea and the air, China made it pointless for any country to do similar.
 
Advanced weapons systems on both submarines and land based missile and air forces would meet China’s aim to deny the waters near the Chinese coast to any combat forces if so required.
 
Whilst  the antisubmarine warfare capabilities (AWS) of the United States are not that ideal anymore after the Cold War with the Soviet Union stopped, the U.S. has remained a qualitative unmatched technology on their existing submarines.
 
The problem for the US is that their numbers on superior submarines are down which is not likely to improve dramatically as due to US the budget deficit.
 
With the U.S. Navy having problems in the AWS domain, it has placed a renewed focus on ASW training and detection in the Pacific.
 
At present there are US submarines in both Hawaii, Guam and California with a base to be planned in both Singapore and Australia.
 
If U.S. submarines containing nuclear cruise missiles would strike against targets in mainland China this would provoke an immediate escalation into a 3rd world war, affecting both homeland China and the Us as well.
 
US submarines as due existing technology may sustain the Chinese A2/AD defence force. Most likely the US will increase it’s acquisition of well advanced submarines, including unmanned equipment and the application of fixed sensors in the seas near China to detect and destroy Chinese submarines in time of war. Hence now US coöperation being sought in both the Philippines and Vietnam to use equivalent equipment at the junction between the Chinese Sea and the Western Pacific to the early detection and destruction of Chinese submarines, again at times of war.
 
The incidents at the Chinese Sea lately played the US in it’s favour to get the coöperation being required from both those countries and Australia.  
 
Whilst the US does not admit, their increased activities in the Pacific are of a potential first strike nature, with the Chinese only now increasing both their defence and target range if any country would contemplate to compromise their borders and security at a large-scale.
 
If the Chinese would build a first strike capability in and above the seas close to the US the US would see this as a provocation, like Cuba in the past inflicted provocation to the US with Soviet missiles being able to attack the US.
 
The difference is that the Soviets inflicted this at the time and the US is inflicting this now in the Pacific, trying even to build up relations with controversial states like Burma at the border of China. Hillary Clinton will visit Burma tomorrow the 30th of November 2011 to assess the situation with a view to turn the leaders to a place more favourable to public opinion, but crimes and torture and human trafficking have never been (properly) addressed.
 
The reasoning for the US is to secure vital Sea Lanes in the Pacific, both for the purpose of trade and military access if so required. Apart from this the containment policy towards China aims to affect  both China’s trade ability as a faster growing economic power than the US, and apart from this to “tighten” the perceived “Tiger in its cage”.
 
Chinese wisdom will dictate its leaders to respond slow, but perhaps with more leadership than the US demonstrates at this point in time.
 
China has different trading partners and till so far demonstrated to play win-win in business dealings, providing the US even with excessive loans to help their war’s in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Their advised stance in matters is not to move within the changes as created by the US now, within an US context of lack of economic growth and perhaps reduced long-term sustainability, as the US like Europe “played with money” not even existing, paying towards program’s of various nature whilst the deficits increased – the last causing chaos on international markets, including recession at home.
 
“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”  
 
This is what President John F Kennedy said in 1963, not too long before he was assassinated by the representatives of Pentagon and CIA hardliners. Hardliners who wanted to pursue the Vietnam war at all cost.
 
How just is current US policy in the Pacific region if it does take part in the “silent” preparation for war, with such forces being increasingly concentrated, – and relatively so close to China, whilst North Korea could trigger potentially this conflict among the 2 super powers. 
Related image
The last 2 powers which failed to contain North Korea as a more profound threat than either China or the US could be to each other, as reason still dominates the last direction of those 2 countries with the highest nuclear and other potential of total destruction.
North Korea could trigger however a conflict where even for the 2 major super powers on earth there might be a point of no return with any small error of calculation.

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Australia’s role in the Asia – Pacific Region


English: Paul Keating in 2007 - crop.
English: Paul Keating in 2007 – crop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“In  my  time  I  have  seen  truth  that  was  anything  under  the  sun  but  just,  and  I  have  seen  justice  using  tools  and  instruments  I  wouldn’t  want  to  touch  with  a  ten-foot  fence  rail”      – William  Faulkner  (Knight’s Gambit 1949)

Justice, balance of power and peace

 

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating said the other day that China must be welcomed into the world as a shared partner and a vital economic power, not a military or political challenge to be contained. He made a speech in November 2004 in Beijing in which he stated that he believed that China would become an economic competitor of the United States, but not a strategic competitor, and its military growth was unlikely to be about force projection.

Related image

Keating still thinks “the rise of China is one of the great events of all economic and human history and I think this will be overwhelmingly a positive thing for the region and the world”.

Related image

Whilst the White House and the Pentagon have different views, Australia seems now verbally part of the US containment policy as part of a well prepared Presidential visit to Australia.
 Related image
The US perception is that the model from China based on communism and the ruling of a committee is doomed to fail and President Obama is speaking about this in the Australian Parliament. President Obama says: “With our new focus on this region …. We’re here to stay. … History’s on the side of the free. … By upholding core principles, we partner with democracies.”
Related image
The speech is basically saying that the United States is back and some would say we can’t help  thinking that the commentary was somehow about the old Soviet Union.
Related image
 
It should be clear that China is not the old Soviet Union and trying to contain China with new military alliances could well prove to be an error of judgement. This speech should have been held in Washington and not in the Australian Parliament.
 
Like the US needs space and being ready to defend it, China is entitled on space as well as long as the occupation of this space is not based on domination. China proves already in Africa to increase space and to make sure there is a supply of recourses for China, but all this is based on sound economic principles and a win win situation for countries being involved. As long it continues this way other countries have the benefit of China s as well, which is positive.
 
Containment of China unprovoked could lead to conflict. China need to be able to emerge, not as a dominating power but as a power contributing to both its own welfare and the welfare of other nations. Similar the US needs to play a role in the Asia-Pacific area, but based on the same principles and in concert with other powers, to watch and maintain stability and coöperation in this vital area.
Related image
 
The US position should not be based on inflated cold war sentiments being dominant some decades ago, within their stance against Communism in the former Soviet Union.
 
Let’s face it, apart from human rights issues which will be addressed in China for the better in the future, China never exposed real threat in foreign policy and their issues with the Chinese Sea are not much different from what the US feel as their entitlements close to their borders. Like the US, China is not free from injustice but on foreign policy “let’s not sweat the small stuff” as was once reflected in an interesting booklet, and let us “seek to understand first”.
Related image
 
The world and the US are justified concerned about the movements from both Iran and North Korea and allowing those countries getting away with nuclear military expansion would be the same mistake as was allowing Germany to rearm itself after the 1st world war. In a broader sense the US itself after the second world war has been involved in various conflicts until recently where the legitimate question could be raised why matters were not dealt with differently as those conflicts did cost millions of lives, – all for some part due to CIA and Pentagon driven policy. The freedom in the US goes that far that when a US President is not alignment with Pentagon and/or CIA policy he may be assassinated like happened with President John F Kennedy in November 1963. The result was a dramatic escalation of US military involvement in Vietnam at a cost of millions of lives and like Australia followed US footsteps in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it followed US footsteps in Vietnam without ever realising that those choices in essence were ill contemplated, based on dependence and not interdependence.
Related image
 
The Pentagon at the time of former President G.W.Bush has been working on a new China war plan with the most advanced weapons being ready for use in case of conflict. The US announced only this week the creation of “the Air Sea Battle Office”, which is precisely designed how to work out how to counteract China’s growing missile dominance, its dominance in the region with fighter aircraft, new versions of fighter aircraft and warships.
Related image

Some realism is right. Whilst not being in favour for any arms race, any country is running a defence policy. The US is doing the same. What we see evolving requires the need to prevent domination of any country, the Pentagon policies included. Hence we need a region accommodating China without building a military structure around it. The US would not like it when other countries would do this at the disadvantage of the US. China likewise does not like this at the disadvantage of China. Australia again without much realistic consideration is again following the footsteps of the US-based on dependence. “Australia’s dependence on a major power lies deep in our national psyche” said once.
Related image
Within context countries like Iran and North Korea impose a far greater danger than China and trying to contain China will only improve the chance on conflict among superpowers on those potential dangerous nations,- which is simply stupidity in the worst possible way. China has enormous leverage on those countries and seeking support and coöperation from China as an ally and not a country requiring to be contained in the dogmatic views of the Pentagon, would make the world a safer place.
If we look at history we may hope that any US President is fully in charge of the Pentagon and it’s generals and President Obama’s message in the Australian Parliament is considerably coated with Pentagon policy, brilliantly delivered however but to be watched carefully on the implications for the region. Australia did swallow the rhetoric against China without taking the long-term view.The point is that there is already the 7th US fleet in the Pacific with bases in Okinawa and Guam, but the new message is that the US is getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that they are coming here. There are many Republicans in the US talking about “knocking China over” and whilst President Obama is far more moderate he represents a country showing extreme dynamics. US Congress is a reflection of at times dysfunctional Republican behaviour and taking the long view I don’t think Australia should be dragged into policies of the Pentagon which were not always that fruitful in the past. On foreign policy matters we can’t complain about China till so far where as US foreign policy could have been dealt with clearly differently on various occasions. There was once a Pacific war and we don’t need a new one! China is Australia’s biggest trading partner and China reflects an emerging power with no evidence of desiring to dominate the world as they know history. They represent a country where despite human rights issues some one and a half billion of people have been dragged out of poverty and by no means should this country be compared with the former USSR. Obviously nothing is fool-proof in history but this applies to the US as well and whilst Australia is an important ally of the US, good intentions in this area are always subject to proof and if Obama’s rhetoric will be followed by strongly driven Pentagon policies in the Asian Pacific region we may need to be perhaps on our guard of the US as well because an increase of US military activity in history was not rarely followed by US inflicted war down the line, – at times.
Related image
Pentagon and CIA policies are stronger than US Presidents at times, even in the US as a democracy. Whilst President Johnson could not coop anymore with his own inflicted escalation of the Vietnam war, he resigned in 1968. The most succesful Presidential candidate opposing the Vietnam war (Robert Kennedy) was assassinated by the military wing of the Pentagon (the CIA)  and this provided a more Pentagon friendly candidate, Richard Nixon, the chance to be elected US President and continue Pentagon driven policy.
Related image
The reflections of Australian foreign minister Kevin Rudd on the recent 7.30 News report were more of a hardline response to China and for a person with such a claimed insight knowledge of China this was not a demonstration of wise and insightful diplomacy as Australia as a middle power did change position after Obama’s visit, as it would seem.
 
As a middle power Australia should be more independent in it’s role in the Pacific as the “core values” of the US did not always seem what it could and should have been, and foreign policy of China till so far did show greater stability than what the US did if we count the wars over the last decades and the millions of deaths in military conflict. Democracy can be the core value but history did prove that democracy was neither perfect nor always carried by people who had high standards of integrity and a broader view.
 
Kevin Rudd said: “We’re not going to have any national security policy dictated by any other external power.” However the exemption seems the US and the Pentagon. Kevin Rudd represents Australian policy when he later says: “That’s a sovereign matter for Australia. We don’t seek to dictate what the Chinese about their national security policy.”
Australia would be wise not to allow their own national security to be dictated by either the US or China. The difference is that China till so far made no efforts to instruct Australia on issues of national security but the US did.
Related image
For the region applies that Australia as a middle power needs to play in concert with other powers and not co creating an alliance to contain a super power like China, which neither provoked Australia in any way nor provoked any other country in any significant way.

This means that it is in Australia’s interest to have both productive and friendly relations with the US and China, providing leverage and an example in better communication when those 2 super powers may get carried away with different opinions.

Whilst safe with President Obama, the US under some Republican Presidents was not always the country defending the core values of both Democracy and human rights. It would seem that there are too many ideas what the core values of a democracy should be. The majority vote at a particular time in history is not always the right choice and does not always show the right action as being clearly demonstrated in US Congress.

The development of Australia as a great middle power continuing to play the role being required, as happened in the 1980s and ’90s did include foreign policy like APEC and it’s leaders’ meeting, the ASEAN regional forum, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Canberra Commission for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, the Cairns Group etc. This should not be thrown away by a Pentagon dominated foreign policy in Australia.

Neither that we have foresight in how power will evolve in the United States Government in the years lying ahead, nor do we have foresight how power will evolve in China, but as a great middle power Australia has an obligation to maintain a pleasant and peaceful co-existence with surrounding states and a close military alliance with the US to contain China whilst not being provoked as a nation will not pay any dividend to Australia and is compromising the role Australia could play as a middle power, and as such the foreign policy of Australia at present (if not revised) could prove to be a floored one by principle and on principle with little insight in historical dynamics.

Related image

The policy of containment of China at this stage in history is wrong and without proper base, guided actually by US rhetoric and Australia should have known better. Former US Vice President Al Gore did describe in his book “The Assault On Reason” the US dynamics when George W Bush ordered forces to invade Iraq, the damage being done to the US as a democracy as Bush played the public with a fear of terrorism campaign whilst the US Senate stand mute then, like it stayed mute on various other occasions including political assassinations.

Related image

Australia should not allow “assault on reason” within the Asia-Pacific area and whilst the dynamics in Australian Parliament may show at times doubt on reason both in terms of style and quality, as a country we need to be stronger than this.

The answer to this problem is that what could have been done differently yesterday can be corrected tomorrow and only fools don’t change their mind in the course of history. New beginnings depend on endings and to make them in the right way the right time and for the right reason!

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

The Asia – Pacific Challenge


http://cdn.theguardian.tv/brightcove/2012/3/26/120326ObamaHu-16×9.mp4

“Tact is the ability to describe others as they see
themselves.” – Abraham Lincoln 
Speaking about  an increasing shift in US troops from the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region.
It would seem that the 21st century will be America’s Pacific century with promoting trade and economic ties, but also enhancing security of sea lanes for trade and regional stability with increasing capacity of deterring provocations. The response however to unavoidable provocations is as important as the provocations themselves and in the response lies the road as how to balance the world into the right direction and avoid war, – the last being the most significant obligation of civilization.

I guess this is the crux of President Obama’s visit to some countries in the Pacific, however the last statement not as clearly expressed as Kennedy did on June 10th 1963 during his “Peace Speech” for the American University, – where he reached beyond the cold war sentiments of his time and of the US establishment in those years

Related image

The response to either errors or provocations is a responsibility of both superpowers and the Pacific might be an area of provocation and confrontation if both superpowers are not careful in their approach.

Related image

We may understand the concerns from China about the “sudden” shift of US foreign policy and renewed interest in the Pacific. The US considers itself a key player in the Pacific as well, with a focus on productive and fruitful economic relationships, – however prepared to defend security interest of both the US and allies if provoked. The last is not new, but signifying a renewed affirmation following perceived provocations in the Chinese Sea by China, – creating a sense of discomfort at the Pentagon. However not being discussed face to face with the Chinese leadership and still pending, or only briefly discussed in the last couple of days.

Related image

Obama made clear that the military expansion is a top priority whilst tailing down US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority,” Obama said. “As a result, reductions in U.S. defence spending will not — I repeat, will not — come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific.”


This is not particular a laid back and wait and see policy but a clear message to friends and potential opponents, a message to China as well. However balancing the world into the right direction and avoid war is still the most significant obligation of civilization. US President John F Kennedy in his “Peace Speech” for the American University on June 10th 1963, made this more clear to the world than President Obama ever did.

 

No reason for China to worry if their intentions are peaceful on the long-term without wish to dominate, but the Pacific area is a concern as there are more players causing potential conflict, – last but not least North Korea as well. The mixture of support treaties are quite complex and both India and the US are working towards more coöperation to counteract concerns about China. China has both close connections with North Korea and a business interest in Iran. Hence the increasing complexity of the Pacific scenario, with more military deals in the make.

Related image

“Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in this region,” Obama told the Australian Parliament. “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay.” There will be an agreement with Australia which will enhance the military coöperation between the 2 countries. While U.S. officials cited the need to respond to regional natural disasters as a reason for the agreement, concern over China’s military expansion is widely acknowledged as the driving factor. The United States has based some of its most advanced weapons in the Pacific, including squadrons of F-22 fighters and C-17 transport planes, – equipment suitable for cyber – and electronic warfare.

It can’t be denied that this new element of strategic power being implemented in the region has been received with mixed observations in China and Obama failed in his diplomacy to visit China at the same time. Nelson Mandela (most likely!) would have done this, because it is most important not to create misunderstandings in the communication with the major superpowers as it is vital to have close and constructive working relations with China.

 

Whilst this is perhaps not a choice by principle by the Pentagon, this should be a choice by principle of the US President after various shortcomings in US foreign policy and inflicted war’s under his predecessors.

In April 2007 Obama said about China: “China is rising and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitor’s.”  Meanwhile the Chines government owns many hundreds of billions of dollars of US Treasury bills, assisting to fund America’s budget and trade deficits. In a speech to the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in September 1982, Deng Xiaoping said: “No foreign country can expect China to be its vassal, nor can it expect China to accept anything harmful to China’s interests”.

 

This is still the situation, even though this was said in 1982. It is for China important that there is no interference from outside with internal dynamics, for sure not in the public domain with people being opinionated out of proportions perhaps.

My suggested approach would have been different to China, and the most significant notation I missed in any of the speeches was something along the lines  like this:

“To the Chinese, our overseas neighbours, I would like to say this. – Whilst being different by tradition and history, both our countries have much in common through our mutual interest and endeavours  towards an enduring peace and stability in this region, the last so important for both economic growth and our people. Whilst history often shows evidence of conflict, let’s embrace the opportunity walking the road to a persistent peace, knowing that every man-made problem can be discussed, – preferably before an issue gets a problem. The Chinese have a culture rich in history and far older than ours and we respect this culture, though we have differences in the way we perceive eg human rights and fair trading… The people of China living across the borders of this at one time most advanced civilization on earth live both in fear and hope,  both for the future of their country and the right balance of requiring natural recourses and increasing consumer demand. Likewise, the people of our country sustaining the agony of economic recession and various war’s do live both in fear and hope as well. The people of both China, the US and other countries  have in common that they all want to earn a living -to live- and look after their families and loved ones. They have in common that they want to learn in live to create meaning for the future and we all have problems with balancing resources and consumer demand, with at this stage in the US a demand for intensified job creation and increased productivity. The people’s of both our countries and all countries are far more important than our government’s today, and for the sake of humanity let’s never give up on peace, – a concept so often ignored but at the same time so important… Knowing that our own history as well has not always been perfect perhaps, errors are made in other countries as well,-  and let’s try to resolve our differences for the sake of an enduring stability in this area, –  like differences at other places in the world have been resolved in a good spirit of hope. We owe this to our people, to your people, – knowing that war can’t be an answer anymore to conflict, for certain not in conflict between superpowers. It’s pointless to prepare for the last as preparing for the last is preparing for self-destruction. The more we put realistically into our efforts for mutual understanding and agreement on the major issues and challenges , caused at times by countries less responsible perhaps by seeking military adventure and domination , – the more we are able to offer to this world. If we are able to agree on this concept, we have already the blessing of the children of this generation who have to build the future after we have gone. We have the blessing of old Chinese wisdom then as well. So let us work together and live in peace; – not only for the sake of the countries in this Asia-Pacific region but for the countries who are dependent on stability at this part of the world.”

Related image

I guess such a message to the Chinese would have been well received, and would have been able to reduce both reservations and distrust. It is part of the language to be used, language being important to build bridges and avoid the seeds of conflict. It is the intention so often reflected in old Chinese wisdom, not always valued perhaps by past leaders, – like the wisdom of Lincoln or Kennedy often seemed to have been forgotten by some of the US President’s in later US history. Both cultures have imperfections, but responding to each other with wisdom and restraint will avoid situations like those e.g. happened in Vietnam, where millions of people died in conflict. A conflict later on by historian’s considered as a lack of judgement, even by participants of US Administrations at the time, – regretfully in retrospect many years later.

Within the current strategic decision-making, prepared at least for two years already within the US military establishment and pushed from a different angle as well by former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, – the US President’s visit to Australia has been well prepared and his speeches were well-timed, more as tactics of the US military establishment than a leadership acknowledgement how important it is to keep world peace.

We need to realise that in the US President’s do come and go and whilst US President Obama might be well able to make the right choices to support peace, his change of military tactic is causing serious digestion issues in China, – and the concerns reflected by Indonesia are realistic.

We don’t need a new cold war scenario, the times are too dangerous and too unpredictable in case of any miscalculation. China may have as much distrust in the US as the US has in China and Australia is following  closely in the footsteps of the US, – footsteps not always been that fortunate in the past. Any new Republican (?tea party) President might change the nature and intend of an agreement as the Pentagon sees fit, based on CIA information not always being complete. The reality proves that both China and the US will avoid at all cost a war on their own soil and as proved in the past, all US war’s were fought outside their borders, – often far away.

Related image

President Obama’s Australian visit follows last weekend’s 19-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which highlighted the need for new measures supporting job growth in the US. Needless to say succesful. During the Hawaiian summit, Obama emphasised the importance of the Pacific being an area of global economic security, and he requested China to do more to help strengthen the world economy with fair trade and sticking to international rules. However he did not reach out far enough to ease tensions.

Again, – to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world (as the Greeks) wrote so long ago, requires a shift in modern thinking where traditional thinking does include the option of excessive and more brutal force than ever before, against the will and the interest of the majority of people. This type of shift in thinking and perception is simply progress in the way we see the world and change is the motivator of this progress in non violent change for the better, and looking for mutual stability in an area of potential tension. However this type of change has enemies not to be underestimated. Those enemies  again are usually the extremists being extreme in their intolerance and in their accusations. It is paramount to give them no grounded base for their accusations. Those enemies can be found in both the US military force and the Chinese military force (actually in any military force), and as leaders of major super powers it would be better to learn the lessons from some predecessors. The Cold War between the US and Russia (USSR at the time) ended because of the intervention of leaders reaching out eventually, beyond the military background powers. The personal approach is vital to end and prevent conflict and Obama’s mission being applauded widely in Australia was more personal and warm here than what it could have been in China.

Related image

Inclusive leadership which breaks the ice in economic endeavours, emphasising what we have in common as a people (despite differences), is more helpful than straight on showing strength by increasing miliary capacity and creating alliances within the domain of potential force. It could have been a second step if all communication failed. The Chinese might be far more rigid in dynamics of government, but this does not take away that their culture endured over time and sustained over time and will change over time through different principles than both being familiar in the US and Australia. Mutual respect and friendship facilitates a mutual learning experience with positive outcomes for those countries realising the importance of this and refusing to repeat cold war dynamics as we had in the past.

The wisdom of Chinese leaders is perhaps not going that far that they realise it would be wise to help domestic reforms in the direction of a democracy, – however despite shortcomings in human rights their intend is both stability at home and stability within the domain of economic growth, recognising that change is inevitable as generations and values do change. The Chinese leadership however wants to be in control of this change as uncontrolled change may have undesired side effects. At the end of the day this is up to the Chinese and the dynamics of their society.

There is a rule in international diplomacy and Nelson Mandela did stick to this rule in South Africa to overcome differences. The rule is to visit your potential opponent and sort matters out before they blow out of proportions. The incidents in the Chinese Sea did give the US an excuse to increase their military presence without resolving the issue straight on with the Chinese leadership. It seems a move which could have been dealt with differently and the concerns of Indonesia about potential escalation are justified.

Let’s put it this way: communication is the cornerstone of international diplomacy at the level between the US and China, and where one party fails, the other party does not need to take a robust example of increasing (quietly) a very significant military presence which in US history often led to war far outside their borders. There is something to say at times in favour for face to face discussion and delaying a response allowing the other party to correct itself. US Generals (eg Air Force Maj.Gen. Michael Keltz) did only add to the military mission with a reflection on the nature of the most advanced weapons being around (shortly) in the Pacific.

Related image

Whilst the US budget perhaps does not come at the expense of the Asia Pacific, a military confrontation will come at the cost of the Asia Pacific. Where indeed the Chinese made apparently new claims on the Chinese Sea, the American’s traditionally different communicator’s failed to discuss this straight on face to face with the Chinese leadership and President Obama reflected a response both in line with US military strategy and the importance of increasing jobs and economic activity at home in the US. It’s a smart move before the US Presidential elections in 2012 and perhaps this move is required to help his re-election in the interest of the free world, as long as he keeps the bigger picture in mind.

Related image

Democracy is not always perfect, neither is the way for an enduring and lasting peace. However it is better to have an imperfect peace rather than a devastating war at a cost not measurable anymore in human dimensions.

For this reason “The Indian talking stick” should be right at the centre of the Asia – Pacific relations, as only this will offer creatively better scenario’s based on “win – win”, as Stephen Covey would say. It means listening talking and reasoning along the line of acceptable alternatives for all parties being involved.

This is the only way forward.

It requires a shift in strategy and thought process.

It is the only way forward as we are living on the edge of the sword of Damocles, – this century with both such a potential dangerous future and outcome, but also this century with the opportunity to make the right choices the avoid the most dangerous dynamics on earth.

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

 

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/