Archive

Tag Archives: United States

Afghanistan’s political and social turmoil has been aggravated by different intentions of the participating nations that constitute the coalition forces. In the short term, the fragile Afghan regime is finding it difficult to tame its restive domestic situation. Still, a prescription could help bring the country out of the mess if key players adopt a peaceful and reconciliatory approach in their push for the end of the war.The United States should first put an end to the war. The anti-terror war, which the former US administration of George W Bush launched in 2001, has turned out to be the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence in the past years. To promote much-needed reconciliation among the parties concerned, the US should end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.

Public opinion within the US on the war has undergone dramatic change. According to a recent poll, opinion in favor of the war has declined from 53 percent in April to 39 percent, while opinion opposed to the war has increased to 58 percent from 46 percent. The US Congress has also cast doubt over the Obama administration’s Afghanistan strategy. The opposition from 74 percent Democrats and 70 percent independent votes to the war would be a big restraint on the Obama administration’s larger military strides given that the new president cannot afford to bet his political fate on a unpopular war. Since taking office as president, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan. The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon’s pressures. If Obama resolutely decides to stop the war, that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US’ peaceful image and enhance the president’s personal political prospects.

Another way to help Afghanistan break the current deadlock is to promote reconciliation among the Afghan government, the Taliban and the country’s major warlords, all being key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country’s prospect. In addition to the US factor, the chaos in Afghanistan is also closely related to the long-standing domestic strife between factions. Afghanistan experienced numerous wars and conflicts in history, including invasion by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the US war. The war-ravaged Asian nation is undergoing a chaotic battle that has involved the US-led coalition forces, its government troops and domestic warlords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people.

Afghanistan’s political disorder is also the main cause of its domestic chaos. The country’s presidential election on Aug 20 has so far failed to produce a final result. The recount of votes in more than 600 polling stations alleged to have suffered fraud is expected to last another two or three months, which will add to the chaos. The US has urged Afghan president Hamid Karzai to hold a second round of voting. It seems that Karzai has hammered home the perception that the US is not a reliable partner that can help end Afghanistan’s current predicament. Talks, he thinks, is the only way out. The Afghan president is likely to open the process of tri-party peace talks with the Taliban and major warlords provided that the US ends its military action.

Support from the international community is needed to help Afghanistan make a substantive move toward peace. The international community can take advantage of the ever-mounting anti-war calls within the US to prompt the Obama administration to end the war and withdraw US troops. Germany, France and Britain have planned an international conference this year to discuss the gradual withdrawal of Afghanistan military deployment. International pressures may offer Obama another excuse to withdraw US troops. The UN Security Council should carry the baton from the three European nations to convene a conference on the Afghanistan issue and try to reach a consensus among its five permanent Security Council members and draft a roadmap and timetable for resolution of the thorny issue. In the process, a ticklish issue is whether parties concerned can accept the Taliban as a key player in Afghanistan and how to dispose of the Al Qaeda armed forces, an issue that has a key bearing on the outcome of any international conference on the Afghanistan issue.

Surely, an international peacekeeping mission is needed in the absence of US troops. With the aid of international peacekeepers, the Afghanistan government and its security forces can be expected to exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security.

The author is deputy secretary-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies

By :  The News International

PM favours civil-military scrutiny of US terms

By Kamran Khan

ISLAMABAD: The government is gently moving in a direction where it may reject the Kerry-Lugar Bill in its present shape. The rejection will be accompanied by a request to the US Congress and the Obama administration for an understanding of Pakistan’s sovereignty and its right to decide issues of national security and foreign policy, according to several senior Pakistani officials and an important federal cabinet minister. The sources spoke to this correspondent on condition of anonymity.

“I’ll be very very surprised if Pakistan accepts the Kerry-Lugar Bill with its present formulations because the nation wouldn’t allow a trade-off between sovereignty and US aid,” said an important federal cabinet member, reflecting the prevailing sense in government circles on the issue.

Less than a week after the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill by the American Congress, the civil and military leadership in Pakistan is sharing strong concerns with opposition politicians, the media, intellectuals and clerics over certain provisions in the bill where the US government has sought to oversee the key components of Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security. A public outrage was witnessed in the country as the content of the Kerry-Lugar Bill became public last week.

Renowned columnist and MNA Ayaz Amir wrote in his weekly column in The News: “This is less an assistance programme than a treaty of surrender.” “Thank God, Kerry and Lugar did not think of getting the name of Pakistan changed!” wrote renowned columnist Anees Jillani in an op-ed article in Dawn.

Amid growing concerns across the country that an increasingly controversial Kerry-Lugar Bill has also prejudged Pakistan as a state allowing bases for terrorist operations in the tribal areas and cities, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has ordered a hold-back of an official response from the government on the bill until it is fully examined by parliament and the country’s military leadership, senior officials said.

As a result of this decision that will entail several actions over the next two weeks, these sources said, the premier also sent an urgent message on Sunday to Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, now in Washington, not to make any comment on the bill during his public engagements there.

In the backdrop of an upheaval in the media and political circles soon after the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, laced with somewhat insulting clauses, Gilani held an important review of the bill with Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in an unpublicised meeting on Sunday.

An informed official said an initial review of the Kerry-Lugar Bill by military strategists also shares a negative perception on various clauses of the bill and it is being shared with US security and military officials at various levels.

A federal cabinet minister said the prime minister has devised a multi-tier transparent review of the bill. Parliament and the prime minister want to carry out a threadbare examination of the bill followed by a similar scrutiny by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC). Officials said the military- and security-related elements of the Kerry-Lugar Bill would soon be placed before the corps commanders of the Pakistan Army as well as the three services at the Joint Staff Headquarters level to assist the prime minister in drafting Pakistan’s official response.

A suspicion is gaining strength in the civil and military leadership that some elements of the Kerry-Lugar Bill aim specifically at creating a deep wedge between the civilian authority and the General Headquarters (GHQ) by raising well-settled issues and linking them with the US aid to Pakistan. The most provocative clause of the bill on this issue states: “An assessment of the extent to which the government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.” The clause clearly dictates an upside down approach to turn the way the military and civilian authorities function in their well defined domains in Pakistan, an important official source observed.

“I think this is mischief to create a huge civil-military conflict but this will not happen. The prime minister fully understands the game,” the minister said.

Pakistani officials are unanimous in their opinion that the bill was a humiliating document for the country that has been offered to the government in exchange for Pakistan’s critical support in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In post-Kerry-Lugar Bill discussions held quietly by the prime minister, some officials favour a transit treaty for Pakistan with Nato and American forces for a smooth flow of military and non-military supplies from the port of Karachi to Afghanistan. Some 5,000 containers of military and non-military supplies for the US and Nato forces are cleared through the port of Karachi for various destinations in Afghanistan every month, an official informed.

As controversial elements and critical strings attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill continue to unfold, there is a growing impression in the opposition circles and the security establishment that Pakistan’s diplomatic corps, particularly its embassy in Washington, failed to convince the US lawmakers on matters of mutual security interest, thus clauses were added in the bill that may compromise Pakistan’s sovereignty over issues of critical national interest. Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani consistently maintains that neither the United States nor the government of Pakistan had a sway over content of the bill and Indian lobbying power far outweighs Pakistan’s meagre resources to lobby the US Congress.

The bill determines that major Pakistani cities such as Quetta and Muridke near Lahore were serving as bases for terrorist operations and Pakistan would have to mount operations in these cities to ensure flow of financial assistance under the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

The bill also carries a damning declaration that Pakistani military and its intelligence services support extremist and terrorist groups and desires that this perceived support is “ceased” for continued flow of funds to Pakistan.

The bill has so far not divided the Pakistani political spectrum along party lines. Condemnation of controversial clauses of the bill has been heard both from the leaders of the PPP, including Mian Raza Rabbani, and whole range of PML-N leaders besides more aggressive protests from the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Tehrik-e-Insaf.

Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Ch Nisar Ali Khan set the ball rolling for an anti-Kerry-Lugar Bill campaign in Pakistan on Monday when he stood up on the floor of the Lower House to declare that the bill only protects the rights and objectives of the American government while for Pakistan it has mortgaged even the future of Pakistani children.

By: Presstv

Pakistan’s former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hamid Gul

The following is a transcript of a Press TV interview with Pakistan’s former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hamid Gul.Q: The US is planning to establish military bases inside Pakistan. Can you expand on that?

A:They are expanding the embassy and they are bringing in security staff, in the garb of security staff which is not according to the diplomatic norms. And I think the Chinese are objected to that. The Chinese ambassador held a press conference here in Islamabad about a week or ten days ago and he said that, for instance, this is infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty and secondly that we have also struck at expansion of embassy but we trust Pakistan’s security apparatus to look after us and why are the Americans are doing that. So I think this is a quite big indicator that the Chinese are concerned about our security and so should be everybody else because we know that these security contractors which are being brought like the old Blackwater now under the name of, the new name of Xe and there is the Extreme Dynamic company and there are several others. They are recruiting people from here at very high wages. They are mostly the ex-servicemen, ex-Army officers and men. And besides we think that there are special forces who operate into the garb of locals but basically are American agents and it is a cross mix of the CIA which is known as Delta Force, which is the Marines and the Navy Seals and the Orange Force, which means the Orange Force are actually the hired killers. They are either recruited locally or from abroad or brought in from America and they speak the local lingo. They wear the same dress. And they sort of grow beard, etc. So this is a very dangerous move they are making. So that is the basis on which I said. Besides, I have feared that the new policy which Obama will probably announce in March next year as they have already said so. That is going to be taking bases on long leases in Afghanistan because of the weak Karzai government which is likely to emerge after the announcement of the polling results. And secondly, they are making a tremendous investment in Afghanistan. They are bringing in troops again as security guards but really they are the hardened, trained military men. There are already three thousand five hundred of them and one thousand more are coming. So slowly and gradually, the Indians are moving into this area. The same model is going to be, I think, applied rather at a limited scale in Pakistan because of these security arrangements they are making. They have an excuse. They are trying to create an excuse. They have announced for Pakistan over a period of five years 7.5 billion dollars that is 1.5 billion dollars per year and so far for this year they have disbursed only 174 million dollars which is nothing to the government. There is still the money they are making it quite open that it is going to be spent directly by the Americans in Pakistan in various areas. So they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan. And for that the excuse is that because we are spending this money directly on projects, therefore we need the security guards and we are bringing in the contractors. But in reality, what I fear is that, they really want to go for Pakistan’s nuclear assets. They are inching close to those nuclear assets day by day. They are getting very close and I am sure they are, because of their intelligence tentacles there, they are trying to gather information so that whatever surgical operation they have to carry out against our nuclear assets in connivance with Israel and India those will be totally taken out and nothing will be left in the hands of Pakistan. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this because they have been saying in the past that the end game of war against terrorism is going to be in Pakistan. And that is what disturbs us the most because now they are saying that Taliban are in control of 80 percent of Afghanistan and that al-Qaeda is no longer present in Afghanistan but that a large number of al-Qaeda people are present inside Pakistan and if we think that they are there then we have a right to strike them and we will. That is what the last statement, a very categorical statement made by Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen that was very alarming because he very categorically said that if they find that there are targets inside Pakistan, al-Qaeda targets, then we will strike them. So it is a preparation which is being made. A psychological conditioning which is being done of the international communities, the real powers as well as the Pakistani nation and the Pakistani government.

Q:Do you think the Americans are trying to disintegrate Pakistan through this process?

A:I know the Indians are playing games inside Baluchistan. They are trying to create subversion and acts of sabotage are occurring every day. And they are trying to destabilize Pakistan. But disintegration is a very strong word. I do not think this words needs to be used. But I think they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.

Q:And the United States who wants to use Pakistan as a front against China, Iran and other countries in the region.

A:No, I do not think Pakistan can be [used for this purpose]. Even if Pakistan is very weak and is lost hypothetically, I do not think they will pluck out all the nuclear assets of Pakistan. It is not possible. I think the Americans should think twice before they attempt this because a frustrated Pakistan can do a lot of damage. But off course they have designs against Iran. They have designs against China. But, at the moment, I do not see Pakistan being used as a proxy for America against China or Iran for that matter.

Q:You talked about Blackwater. What role these contractors have been playing in the region? Mr. Aslan Beik said on a television interview in Pakistan that Blackwater has played a role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Rafik Hariri in Lebanon.

A:I do not know about Aslan Beik’s statement but what I think is that Blackwater has a very bad record. They were operating in Iraq and they were guilty of many acts of misconduct and killings and rape and kidnapping and also pillage of property but this was settled at that time because I think North Carolina indicted them and they were banned. But now they have started operating under a new name, a new title of Xe Worldwide Services. So, as far as this issue is concerned, I think this comes out from some report from Seymour Hersh, the famous American journalist. He has supposed to have said that Dick Cheney’s agency Blackwater had something to do with the assasination of Benazir. So that is what I know.

Q:You earlier said that American is going to establish military bases in Peshawar and there was a hotel which was bombed in the city and it is said that the hotel was going to be used by the Americans as their base. Can you comment on that?

A:Yes, that is right, because initially they were trying to come in the days of Pervez Musharraf. I think he had entered into some kind of agreement for them to allow 750 people from Blackwater to claim Frontier Corps which is a paramilitary force operating on our border with Afghanistan. And they were to set up this in a fort in Peshawar. Then their presence was reported in this hotel. And this was bombed and it was commonly believed, although no official reports have ever come out, that two floors of that hotel had been occupied by Blackwater basically, I mean, this security contractor. But some people suggested that the marines were also there. It is possible that they were the special forces because, when we say marine, it formally becomes the Armed Forces of America. But the Special Forces are known to have been operating in this area for some time now and they were the ones who created probably some of the trouble in Swat valley where the Pakistani army is still engaged in operations.

Q:If you wanted to put it in one sentence, what is America’s long-term goal that it is seeking in Pakistan?

A:Well, long-term goal for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan and, I think, a Baluch leader in London held a press conference and he talked a greater Baluchistan and he talked about the Kurd areas, he talked about Iranian Baluchistan and he talked about the Pakistani Baluchistan. So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran’s progress in the nuclear field.

by Rick Rozoff

The United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are expanding their nearly eight-year war in Afghanistan both in scope, with deadly drone missile attacks inside Pakistan, and in intensity, with daily reports of more NATO states’ troops slated for deployment and calls for as many as 45,000 American troops in addition to the 68,000 already in the nation and scheduled to be there shortly.

The NATO bombing in Kunduz province on September 4 may well prove to be the worst atrocity yet perpetrated by Western forces against Afghan civilians and close to 20 U.S and NATO troops have been killed so far this month, with over 300 dead this year compared to 294 for all of 2008.

The scale and gravity of the conflict can no longer be denied even by Western media and government officials and the war in South Asia occupies the center stage of world attention for the first time in almost eight years.

The various rationales used by Washington and Brussels to launch, to continue and to escalate the war – short-lived and successive, forgotten and reinvented, transparently insincere and frequently mutually exclusive – have been exposed as fraudulent and none of the identified objectives have been achieved or are likely ever to be so. Osama bin Laden and Omar Mullah have not been captured or killed. Taliban is stronger than at any time since their overthrow eight years ago last month, even – though the name Taliban seems to mean fairly much whatever the West intends it to at any given moment – gaining hitherto unimagined control over the country’s northern provinces.

Opium cultivation and exports, virtually non-existent at the time of the 2001 invasion, are now at record levels, with Afghanistan the world’s largest narcotics producer and exporter.

The Afghan-Pakistani border has not been secured and NATO supply convoys are regularly seized and set on fire on the Pakistani side. Pakistani military offensives have killed hundreds if not thousands on the other side of the border and have displaced over two million civilians in the Swat District and adjoining areas of the North-West Frontier Province.

Yet far from acknowledging that the war, America’s longest since the debacle in Vietnam and NATO’s first ground war and first conflict in Asia, has been a signal failure, U.S. and NATO leaders are clamoring for more troops in addition to the 100,000 already on the ground in Afghanistan and are preparing the public in the fifty nations contributing to that number for a war that will last decades. And still without the guarantee of a successful resolution.

But the West’s South Asian war is a fiasco only if judged by what Washington and Brussels have claimed their objectives were and are. Viewed from a broader geopolitical and strategic military perspective matters may be otherwise.

On September 7 a Russian analyst, Sergey Mikheev, was quoted as saying that the major purpose of the Pentagon moving into Afghanistan and of NATO waging its first war outside of Europe was to exert influence on and domination over a vast region of South and Central Asia that has brought Western military forces – troops, warplanes, surveillance capabilities – to the borders of China, Iran and Russia.

Mikheev claims that “Afghanistan is a stage in the division of the world after the bipolar system failed” and the U.S. and NATO “wanted to consolidate their grip on Eurasia…and deployed a lot of troops there,” adding that as a pretext for doing so “The Taliban card was played, although nobody had been interested in the Taliban before.” [1]

A compatriot of the writer, Andrei Konurov, earlier this month agreed with the contention that Taliban was and remains more excuse for than cause of the United States and its NATO allies deploying troops and taking over air and other bases in Afghanistan and the Central Asian nations of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In the case of Kyrgyzstan alone, there were estimates at the beginning of this year that as many as 200,000 U.S. and NATO troops have transited through the Manas air base en route to Afghanistan.

Konurov argued that “With Washington’s non-intervention if not downright encouragement, the Talibs are destabilizing Central Asia and the Uyghur regions of China as well as seeking inroads into Iran. This is the explanation behind the recent upheaval of Uyghur separatism and to an extent behind the activity of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.” [2]

It must be kept in mind, however, that for the West the term of opprobrium Talib is elastic and can at will be applied to any ethnic Pushtun opponent of Western military occupation and, as was demonstrated with the NATO air strike massacre last Friday, after the fact to anyone killed by Western forces as in multi-ethnic Kunduz province.

The last-cited author also stated, again contrary to received opinion in the West, that “the best option for the US is Afghanistan having no serious central authority whatsoever and a government in Kabul totally dependent on Washington. The inability of such a government to control most of Afghanistan’s territory would not be regarded as a major problem by the US as in fact Washington would in certain ways be able to additionally take advantage of the situation.” [3]

An Afghanistan that was at peace and stabilized would then be a decided disadvantage for plans to maintain and widen Western military positioning at the crossroads where Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Pakistani and Indian interests meet.

The Russian writer mentions that Washington and its NATO allies have employed the putative campaign against al-Qaeda – and now Taliban as well as the drug trade – to secure, seize and upgrade 19 military bases in Afghanistan and Central Asia, including what can become strategic air bases like former Soviet ones in Bagram, Shindand, Herat, Farah, Kandahar and Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The analyst pointed out that “The system of bases makes it possible for the US to exert military pressure on Russia, China, and Iran.”

It suffices to recall that during the 1980s current U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was the CIA official in charge of the agency’s largest-ever covert campaign, Operation Cyclone, to arm and train Afghan extremists in military camps in Pakistan for attacks inside Afghanistan. A “porous border” was not his concern at the time.

Konurov ended his article with an admonition:

“There is permanent consensus in the ranks of the US establishment that the US presence in Afghanistan must continue.

“Russia should not and evidently will not watch idly the developments at the southern periphery of post-Soviet space.” [4]

Iran’s top military commander, Yahya Rahim-Safavi, was quoted in his nation’s media on September 7 offering a comparable analysis and issuing a similar warning. Saying that “The recent security pact between US and NATO and Afghanistan showed the United States has no plan to leave the region,” he observed that “Russia worries about the US presence in Central Asia and China has concerns about US interference in its two main Muslim provinces bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.” [5]

To indicate that the range of the Western military threat extended beyond Central Asia and its borders with Russia and China, he also said the “presence of more than 200,000 foreign forces in the region particularly in South-West Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Middle East, the expansion of their bases, the sale of billions of dollars of military equipments to Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and looting their oil resources are the root cause of insecurity in South-West Asia, the Persian Gulf region and Iran,” and noted that “US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf had been a cause for concern for Russia, China and Iran.” [6]

The Iranian concern is hardly unwarranted. The August 31 edition of the Jerusalem Post revealed that “NATO’s interest in Iran has dramatically increased in recent months” and “In December 2006, Israeli Military Intelligence hosted the first of its kind international conference on global terrorism and intelligence, after which Israel and NATO established an intelligence-sharing mechanism.”

The same article quoted an unnamed senior Israeli official as adding, “NATO talks about Iran and the way it affects force structure and building.” [7]

Six days earlier an American news agency released a report titled “Middle East arms buys top $100 billion” which said “Middle Eastern countries are expected to spend more than $100 billion over the next five years” the result of “unprecedented packages…unveiled by President George W. Bush in January 2008 to counter Iran….” [8]

The major recipients of American arms will be three nations in the Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq – as well as Israel.

Other Gulf states are among those to participate in this unparalleled arms buildup in Iran’s neighborhood. “The core of this arms-buying spree will undoubtedly be the $20 billion U.S. package of weapons systems over 10 years for the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. [United Arab Emirates], Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.” [9]

A week ago Nicola de Santis, NATO’s head of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative Countries Section in the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, visited the United Arab Emirates and met with the nation’s foreign minister, Anwar Mohammed Gargash.

“Prospects of UAE-NATO cooperation” and “NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” were the main topics of discussion. [10]

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was formed at the NATO summit in Turkey in 2004 to upgrade the status of the Mediterranean Dialogue – the Alliance’s military partnerships with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania and Algeria – to that of the Partnership for Peace. The latter was used to prepare twelve nations for full NATO accession over the last ten years.

The second component of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative concerns formal and ongoing NATO military ties with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council: The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered), Kuwait, Oman and Qatar.

In May of this year France opened its first foreign military base in half a century in the United Arab Emirates.

In addition to U.S. and NATO military forces and bases in nations bordering Iran – Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan and increasingly Azerbaijan – the Persian Gulf is now becoming a Pentagon and NATO lake.

China is also being encroached upon from several directions simultaneously.

After the visit of the Pentagon’s Central Command chief General David Petraeus to the region in late August, Kyrgyzstan, which borders China, relented and agreed to the resumption of U.S. military transit for the Afghan war.

Tajikistan, which also abuts China, hosts French warplanes which are to be redeployed to Afghanistan this month.

Mongolia, resting between China and Russia, hosts regular Khaan Quest military exercises with the U.S. and has now pledged troops for NATO’s Afghan war.

Kazakhstan, with Russia to its north and China to its southeast, has offered the U.S. and NATO increased transit and other assistance for the Afghan war, with rumors of troop commitments also in the air, and is currently hosting NATO’s 20-nation Zhetysu 2009 exercise.

Late last month China appealed to Washington to halt military surveillance operations in its coastal waters, with its Defense Ministry saying “The constant US air and sea surveillance and survey operations in China’s exclusive economic zone is the root cause of problems between the navies and air forces of China and the US.” [11]

A spokeswoman for the American embassy in Beijing responded by saying, “The United States exercises its freedom of navigation of the seas under international law….This policy has not changed.” [12]

The war in Afghanistan was launched four months after Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security and economic alliance with a military component. Now the Pentagon and NATO have bases in the last three nations and military cooperation agreements with Kazakhstan.

In 2005 India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as observer states. Now all but Iran are being pulled into the U.S.-NATO orbit. No small part of the West’s plans in South and Central Asia is to neutralize and destroy the SCO as well as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), founded in 2002 by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Belarus.

Uzbekistan joined in 2006 but after General Petraeus’s visit to the country last month it appears ready to leave the organization. Belarus, Russia’s only buffer along its entire Western border, may not be far behind.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the U.S. and NATO immediately moved on Central Asia, and the war in Afghanistan has provided them with the opportunity to gain domination over all of South as well as Central Asia and to undermine and threaten the existence of the only regional security bodies – the SCO and CSTO – which could counteract the West’s drive for control of Eurasia.