CIA, MI6 and Mossad: Together against Syria ...

The West is doing its best to destabilize the situation in Syria, author and journalistWebster Tarpley told RT. According to him, civilians have to deal with death squads and blind terrorism, which is typical of the CIA.

“What average Syrians of all ethnic groupssay about this is that they are being shot at by snipers. People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war – it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it’s a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it’s got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,” he explained.

He added that Syrian society is the most tolerant society in the Middle East, the one place where all kinds of people live together in remarkable harmony, Muslims and Christians of all kinds. 

“This is a model of a peaceful coexistence of various ethnic groups. The US policy right now is to smash theMiddle East according to ethnic lines,” he added.

Assad’s rule is increasingly being called illegitimate. But the US and Europe do not seem concerned that getting rid of the Syrian president could cause even more violence, as was seen in Egypt, believes Tarpley.

“After Libya becoming a bloodbath with 150.000 dead and now with Egypt showing what it was all along – there was no revolution there, it was a complete failure and now people are beginning to understand that. Still, Mrs Clinton and Ms Rice (sic) continue to push this bankrupt model of the colour revolution, backed up byterrorist troops – people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a growing movement inside the Islamic community, which says ‘We want reconciliation, we want law and order, and we want legality’,” he said.

Read More

Jewish prophecy suggests Messiah may be coming soon ...

A medieval Jewish prophecyregarding the coming of Israel’s Messiah appears to correspond to the current situation in the Middle East,Israel National News reported at the weekend.

A piece of rabbinic literature known as the Yalkut Shimoni touches on many futurescenarios both for the nation of Israel and for the world. In its section on the biblical Book of Isaiah and the propheciescontained therein, a rabbi cited by the Yalkut Shimoni states:

“In the year in which the Messiah-King appears, all the nations of the world are provoking each other. The King of Persia provokes an Arab king and the Arab king turns to Aram for advice.”

That description closely mirrors Iran’s defiant nuclear program and the tension it is creating with Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. But what happens next? According to the Yalkut Shimoni:

“The King of Persia goes back and destroys the entire world. And all the nations of the world are in panic and distress and they fall upon their faces and are seized with pains like those of a woman giving birth…”

A recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) confirmed that Iran is working on nuclear weapons and that it could probably field such weapons in no more than a year’s time. That means diplomatic efforts have failed, and barring a dangerous preemptive strike by Israel and/or America, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons.

Many in the West are now focusing their efforts on downplaying the dangers of a nuclear Iran. They argue that just as theSoviet Union did not use its nuclearweapons against the West, so, too, will Iran show restraint. But such commentaries fail to take into account the deeply ingrained religious ideology of those who rule Iran, who see themselves as the instruments of Allah in ushering in a new golden age for Islam.

What does all this mean for Israel, assuming the Yalkut Shimoni is accurate? The text reads:

“…and Israel are in panic and distress and asking ‘where shall we go? Where shall we go?,’ and He says to them ‘my sons, do not fear; all that I have done, I have done only for you. Why are you afraid? Do not fear, your time of redemption has come, and the final redemption is not like the first redemption, because the first redemption was followed by sorrow and servitude under other kingdoms, but the final redemption is not followed by sorrow and servitude under other kingdoms.”

Israel is indeed already showing signs of that panic and distress. Over the past month, Israel has been engaged in tense public debate over whether or not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and newspaper spreads have detailed what could happen to the Jewish state both if it attacks and if it does not. Meanwhile, Israel’s Home Front Command has been practicing for a massive unconventional missile barrage on Tel Aviv.

It is not known who exactly compiled the Yalkut Shimoni, but the oldest surviving copy dates to around 1310 AD. Many of the rabbis quoted in the Yalkut Shimoni lived far earlier, during the Talmudic era in the first and second centuries AD.

Source

Read More

Is the U.S. goading China in the South China Sea dispute?

During U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Australia this week, he told the Australian Parliament, “Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in this region. The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay.”

Along with making this quite bothersome promise, at least for those of us that don’t fancy perpetual war plaguing the entire planet in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” on the American taxpayer’s dime, Obama said that American military expansion is a top priority.

That’s right, Obama actually said that military expansion is a top priority, despite the fact that the U.S. debt is so massive it makes one’s head spin with incredulity.

CNN published, “Obama made it clear that the military expansion is a top priority in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,” which is interesting seeing as we are far from being in the wake of either war at this point.

Obama also made it painfully clear that, “reductions in U.S. defense spending will not – I repeat, will not – come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.”

Apparently we can count on the United States continuing to threaten China over the South China Sea dispute for the entirety of the foreseeable future, despite our less-than-stellar economy and horrific debt.

For many individuals like me, bells started ringing the second the news of increased troop presence in Australia broke.

This is because the United States has been somewhat covertly fighting back against China in the South China Sea dispute, but this announcement represents a massive escalation on the part of the U.S.

In more accurate terms, it is only covert in the sense that the United States government hasn’t come right out and said, “We’re fighting China in the South China Sea dispute.”

Back in June of this year, I reported on the United States arming the countries opposed to China in the South China Sea dispute, which includes Vietnam and the Philippines.

The goading is not just on the part of the United States seeing as earlier this year a live-fire drill was conducted by the Vietnamese in the South China Sea.

However, the United States is undoubtedly choosing sides by providing arms and participating in the massive SEACAT exercise with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members which include thePhilippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

It is worth pointing out that Indonesia’s military commander voiced concern over Indonesia possibly being pulled into the South China Sea dispute when the 2,500 U.S. Marines are deployed in Australia along with the state-of-the-art fighter jets and transport planes.

”Their military fleets would very likely go back and forth through our waters, given the analysis that the planned base will have to conduct [military exercises] due to rising tension in the South China Sea,” Admiral Agus Suhartono told The Jakarta Post. ”We haven’t learnt clearly what this deal is but we have been studying the plan and analyzing any potential impacts on Indonesia … we have begun consulting all sources.”

In the latest meeting of the ASEAN nations at the East Asia Summit, some additional nations took part including Japan, South Korea, India, China, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Russia.

When a similar, but less tense, standoff of sorts occurred months ago, the Chinese issued similar warnings to those uttered in the recent days.

The Chinese vice foreign minister said, “I believe some countries now are playing with fire. And I hope the US won’t be burned by this fire.”

These are unarguably pointed words, and in the wake of Obama’s announcement the rhetoric has only become more heated.

Today Reuters reported that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that, “’outside forces’ had no excuse to get involved in a complex dispute over the South China Sea, offering a veiled warning to the United States and others not to stick their noses into the sensitive issue.”

That warning is far from veiled, there is only one major military power escalating its presence and thus threatening the Chinese over the South China Sea, and that is the United States.

Keep in mind that the ASEAN countries aren’t the only players in this dispute. In September of this year, after warning the Indian state-owned oil company ONGC multiple times that joint energy explorations with Vietnam amounted to a violation of China’s sovereignty, the Indian government pledged to continue.

Back in September the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the United States has been fighting many protests on the part of China regarding their surveillance activities in the South China Sea.

Furthermore, they point out that the U.S. is trying to encourage its democratic allies in the region, especially India, which has a fairly powerful military, Australia, which has a relatively powerful military unto itself and which is now going to house at least 2,500 U.S. Marines within 5 years according to Obama, and Japan.

The White House has said that Obama seeks to bring up the South China Sea dispute at yet another summit coming up on Saturday but China said it will not discuss the issue, opting instead to deal bilaterally with the nations which are directly involved in the dispute.

“[The South China Sea dispute] ought to be resolved through friendly consultations and discussions by countries directly involved. Oustide forces should not, under any pretext, get involved,” Wen told the leaders of the ASEAN nations.

Wen is clearly telling the United States government that they have no part taking place in discussions regarding the dispute and that no intervention will be tolerated under any conditions.

The United States is infamous for couching wars of aggression in terms of “humanitarianism” as seen in Libya, and China is well aware that the United States would use plenty of propaganda and outright lies to justify their intervention.

This statement by Wen is essentially declaring these future possibilities null and void, something which likely will not make the goons in Washington happy.

China realizes that the United States is already getting involved via proxy with India, Vietnam and the Philippines, but the increased forces in Australia – which, within five to six years, will be a full Marine ground task force – are undoubtedly making tensions rise.

However, the increased American presence in the Pacific is far from just a full-fledged ground force presence but also some of the United States’ most sophisticated aerial weaponry.

In a call to journalists on Wednesday from Hawaii, the director of strategic planning and policy for the United States Pacific Command, Major General Michael Keltz said that the United States has already based squadrons of F-22 fighter jets and C-17 transport planes.

“The F-22s provide leading-edge technology for potential air-to-air combat as well as cyber and electronic warfare,” Keltz said.

This should be ringing more alarm bells for my readers out there as one of the most significant fronts between the United States and China is the nearly infinite front that is cyberwarfare.

Of course China consistently denies any of the allegations of attacks on American targets, but experts from the online security firm McAfee disagree and an image from footage shot at a Chinese military university show evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, why would the United States need massive transport planes and the most sophisticated in fighter technology if there weren’t plans to actually utilize such equipment?

Whatever the case, the massive troop increase in the region is far from reassuring to the Chinese and for good reason.

The United States has no real duty or right to intervene in the region, even under the guise of “maintaining peace and security.”

Yet the United States is already utilizing this excuse, as made clear by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to reporters.

Rhodes used the excuse of natural disasters and claimed that there is “a demand signal from the nations of the region.”

Rhodes said, “we believe it’s not just entirely appropriate, but an important step to dealing with the challenges of the future of the Asia Pacific region.”

Clearly, Rhodes is speaking of China, but if that was a bit too ambiguous, he made it quite explicit in saying, “What we look at is how does our general force posture allow us to protect U.S. interests, protect our allies, and … secure the region broadly. China is obviously a piece of the Asia Pacific region, an emerging power.”

Yet if that wholly unambiguous message wasn’t clear enough, he added that the deal is “part of the U.S. sending a signal that we’re going to be present, that we’re going to continue to play the role of underpinning security in this part of the region. Part of that context is a rising China.”

Once again, the United States is playing the role of the “world police force” even though it not only puts American lives at risk but also sullies our international reputation while piling on debt when our economy can’t even handle the debt we have.

The timing of Obama’s visit to Australia is also quite interesting, given that he postponed trips in 2009 and 2010 due to “domestic political considerations” but not this year, when anti-Corporatism protests are breaking out throughout the nation and being met with brutal police responses.

It is also quite interesting that the coordinated crackdown on the Occupations, which involved some 18 cities, occurred right after Obama left the continental United States.

What I find quite troubling about this entire fiasco is that a major mainstream Australian publication said that the troop increase in the Asia-Pacific region is “the strongest sign yet that Australia will be at the centre of anew world order.”

I guess it is only okay to say the loaded phrase “new world order” if you’re a mainstream news outlet or a world leader like Barack Obama or the sorry excuse for a human being that is Henry Kissinger; otherwise you’re a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Some writers, including Mira Permatasari, a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung, Indonesia, seem to be under the impression that Russia is siding with the United States in the effort to counterbalance the rising power of China.

I would disagree and point out that China-Russia relations are better than ever, as Dr. Richard Weitz, Senior Fellow and Director at the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, elucidates in writing, “The relationship between the Chinese and Russian governments is perhaps the best it has ever been. The leaders of both countries engage in numerous high-level exchanges, make many mutually supportive statements, and manifest other displays of Russian-Chinese cooperation in what both governments refer to as their developing strategic partnership.”

Furthermore, Russia Today reported last month, “Just recently, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev said that he was happy with the steadily-consolidated bilateral trade, scientific and technical ties with Russia’s biggest neighbor.”

We must also weigh Ahmadinejad’s call for a united front against the West during June’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting which included Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, India, Mongolia and Iran.

While Russia in China didn’t jump up in support of this call by Ahmadinejad, Russia warned of severe consequences if a military strike was carried out on Iranian soil, indicating that the Russians would take Iran’s side if such a strike were to occur.

It is also quite interesting that the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta referred to both China and Indiaand “others” as “threats” yesterday, citing their status as “rising powers” as reason to “try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we’re never going anywhere.”

Of course the Pentagon Captain John Kirby spokesman later backtracked and told reporters that Panetta did not see either China or India as military threats.

“Any suggestion that he was implying that either country was a military threat is just false,” Kirby said.

On its face, this statement by Kirby is nothing short of absurd and to appropriate Kirby’s own words, “is just false.”

China seems to be trying to win over the support of ASEAN nations through promises of $10 billion in loans and lines of credit which is in addition to the pledge made two years ago of $15 billion in loans.

Furthermore, China said that they will establish a $473 million fund which will help promote expanding maritime cooperation, navigational cooperation, environmental protection, and efforts to combat transnational crimes.

That’s not all, Wen also said that China seeks to increase financial cooperation with ASEAN nations by increasing local currency swaps along with encouraging “the quoting of China’s yuan and ASEAN currencies in each other’s interbank foreign exchange.”

It seems to me that with the American presence in the Asia-Pacific region on the rise with no sense of slowing down, China is going to seek increasing ties with ASEAN nations and others, be it militarily, scientific, or financial.

China just vowed to strengthen its military ties to North Korea as well. The Associated Press reports, “China’s army wanted to enhance understanding and mutual trust and strengthen practical exchanges with the North Korean military.”

They also attempt to minimize the timing, which is likely calculated by writing, “Although Li’s trip was likely planned in advance, recent remarks by President Barack Obama asserting the U.S. military’s continuing presence in Asia have riled Beijing.”

If you can honestly reconcile all of these uncannily timed events, statements and proclamations as pure coincidence, I have wonderful ocean front property in Oklahoma you might be interested in.

Any support that China can get at this point will likely be welcomed and taken advantage of in the South China Sea dispute given that the Japanese have already expressed support for the drastic increase in the American presence in the region.

“We regard this as a demonstration of the United States’ commitment in the Asia-Pacific region,” a spokesman for the Japanese foreign ministry said on Friday, according to the AAP.

Clearly this is a heated dispute which is hitting home for Indonesia’s foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, who said the U.S.-Australian agreement would create a “vicious circle of tension and mistrust,” according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

A quite biting editorial was published in The Jakarta Post today, the title of which quite aptly sums up the brief article, “US Base? NIMBY” where NIMBY means Not In My Back Yard.

The author writes, “The presence of the US base just south of Indonesia is simply too close for comfort,” adding, “For Indonesia, or for most Southeast Asian nations for that matter, the move is not exactly the kind of signal that they are looking for in terms of greater US engagement with Asia.”

I couldn’t agree more and the author’s point that, “Obama’s choice of timing in making the announcement now is bound to stir up controversy,” is quite important because it is very unlikely that the timing of this announcement was purely coincidental.

All of this leads to the conclusion that the South China Sea dispute will be one to watch closely in the coming months and years as it could indeed be a powder keg of sorts, although I sincerely hope that is not the case.

This issue is a multifaceted one that will likely prove to be quite influential in the decisions various countries make in the near future, for good or bad.

If you have information, articles, or comments to share with me, please do not hesitate to email me directly atAdmin@EndtheLie.com while I promise to read every single one of your emails personally, I cannot guarantee a reply although I do respond to as many as humanly possible.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lieand has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

Read More

US terror drone kills 6 in NW Pakistan ...

Press Tv

Six people have been killed in a US assassination drone attack inPakistan’s North Waziristan tribal region near the country’s northwestern border withAfghanistan.

The Tuesday attack took place in Miranshah Bazaar, part of the town of Miranshah, the main town of NorthWaziristan.

“At least six militants were killed when a US drone fired two missiles on a rebel compound in the bazaar,” said a security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, quoted in an AFP report.

The identities of those killed could not be immediately verified, the official added.

Over 60 US assassination drone attacks have been reported in Pakistan so far in 2011.

The US has deployed its assassination drones to launch airstrikes inside Pakistan’s tribal belt.

Relations between Islamabad and Washington have soured over the unauthorized attacks. Pakistan insists that the airstrikes by the remotely controlled, unmanned aircraft violate its sovereignty.

Washington claims its drone strikes target militants, although casualty figures indicate that the aerial bombings have led to the loss of hundreds of Pakistani civilians.

Rights activists have condemned the US assassination drone strikes as extra-judicial assassinations against civilians.

Read More

New EMP Weapon Used On Citizens In Spain ...

In Spain three weeks ago in a town called Alzira population (maybe about 50,000 people) 30 kilometres south of Malaga a big shot politician flew in by helicopter. The landing zone was in the local police station which was based close the centre of the town .The politician was coming to the town to sort out the compensation claims and worries of the peoples where a nearby local forest and bush fire had damaged property .These forest and bush fires are a common event in the dry October end of summer tinderbox Spanish country side.

The difference this time was that the local police force used some high tech device from the police station that caused most all electronic items within 500 meters of the police station to be knocked out for about one hour.  The Police told the locals it was a safety wave .This safety wave effect lasted for about one hour in the early morning times while the Helicopter flew in and about one hour later flew out. The effects were no mobile phones in that 500 meter radius of the police station would work. No cars within that field effect could be made to start their engines. All other cars outside the region were not allowed to enter this safety wave region so it’s not known if they can knock out engines that were running at the time of the safety wave event.

All satellite TV and cable TV devices in the safety wave region were knocked out also. We are talking a region festooned with multi story apartment blocks with hundreds if not thousands of normal Spanish going about their normal lives unaware that there was some sort of test of a safety wave device about to be given to them.

There seems to have been other unconfirmed issues suggesting pace makers and other medical devices were effected both within the safety wave region and possibly further than the safety wave field. There seemed to have been a local spike in death rates that day and for several days it was rumoured that the local funeral homes had a spike in burials.

There was no forewarning to the locals about this Police safety wave machines existence or its deployment for that day. Only under severe discontent from the locals suffering some bizarre event early morning in the central part of town forced the police to tell the locals they deployed this safety wave machine. The local and Spanish Main stream media didn’t mention this event which is pretty much the norm in Spain where the main stream media tows the political commands from thegovernment.  I was passing through the town a few days after the event to visit friends and got the story from the locals who were not happy to be the receiving end of these high tech devices that they had no idea even existed in their obscure stick Ville town in Spain.

This device is probably an offshoot of the Iraq war where to defend helicopters landing in the city centres frommissiles and other attacks. If a jamming signal jams the incoming missiles electronics there is an increased chance that the missile will miss the target be it helicopters or the local police /army bases or even the Parliament or town halls.

Any attempt to launch missiles within the 500 meter radius protection zone will probably mean the missiles trigger and guidance systems will fail. Any attempt to use car bombs or ramming the target with modern cars or trucks could be more likely to fail. The bombs trigger systems could fail also. However older fashioned cars and trucks which don’t use electronic systems could be more able to get past these safety wave devices and bomb and IED trigger systems can be made to resist safety waves using shielding systems. Most modern new cars from about 1999 to 2000 are also now running using electronic systems and are actually designed to cause the car engines to quit when the police trigger the safety wave devices near to them. These smaller mostly hand held devices that police cars can use are to disable cars within 100 meters of the cop car with the safety wave devices. All police car in modern European countries could soon like the USA police cars which are now able to stop most all car chases using these hand held safety wave devices. The Police car in the USA in car chases now triggers the safety wave device and the modern car that is being chased by the USA police car will suffer the motor stopping when its electronic ignition systems receive this signal to stop the engine. The result is the car chase finishes sooner.

However the same safety wave signal from the USA police is causing several other cars within the field of the police car to also stop their motors with no warning and this has caused accidents to innocent parties who were not involved in the car chases. This hand held cop car safety wave system could also lead to more motorway pile ups like the recent London UK M25 crash that killed several peoples. This larger safety wave jamming device will probably affect most all electronic devices within the protection zone estimated to be 500 meters radius. It is probably some sort of massive EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) devise that creates a local magnetic pulse causing electronic devices that are not protected from this safety wave devise to fail. The biggest risk from cops having these devices in Europe or elsewhere and randomly using them is that anybody on pacemakers and intricate medical devices like diabetic pumps could suffer injuries or death from an unannounced use of this safety wave machines in their regions. If the police forces supply some warningsuch as one day in advance their intention to deploy the safety wave the bad guys Al-CIA-DA (Al Qaeda) would receive forewarning a big politician is coming to town. The Al Qaeda might know ways to circumvent the safety wave from their CIA training manual meant for the rent a bogie man Al Qaeda terrorists.

They Al Qaeda know for instance not to use no electronic solutions for attacks The CIA manuals for Al Qaeda would suggest use primitive mortar fire or use older vehicles for ramming targets and shield electronics for IED and detonators for bombs .

Until more information arrives it could be advisable for all peoples on pace makers or similar medical devices to try not to live beside sensitive targets like Political centres, town halls, army or police stations. We can assume that all of these places in Europe will get these safety wave devices devises if they don’t already have them. Expect more false flag attacks from AL-CIA-DA units to European
targets to drag Europe into a war with Iran and Syria as the USA army forces hasn’t sufficient army strength to do these wars and will try to ensure Europe fights these wars alongside Israel and the USA. We can also assume these safety wave devices will increase their range from the present known 500 meters. If enough points in the towns have these safety wave devices the whole town will become a non-electronic run town for the duration of the safety wave which could be made to last weeks or months if the powers to be decide to use them in that way. Even Hospitals which would generally not have EMP or safety wave protected equipment could suffer huge spikes in death and injury rate while a safety wave is pressed into service nearby to them.

Research is still on-going on this event or similar events in Spain and Europe or world-wide. All feedback from all sources especially army and police force members who have worked with these so called safety wave devices appreciated
Diarmaid O Seigefriede

Read More

US drone raids kill over 120 in 2 days ...

At least 127 people have been killed in separate US assassination drone strikesin Somalia and Pakistan’s northwestern tribal region bordering Afghanistan over the past two days.

On Thursday, 41 people were killed and 33 others were injured when the US militarylaunched a assassination drone attack on the outskirts of Hoomboy town, which is situated in Somalia’s southern region of the Middle Juba.

The aerial attack followed a US assassination strike against Jamame town in Somalia’s southern Jubbada Hoose region. At least 28 people were killed and dozens more were wounded.

Meanwhile, at least three people were killed in a non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone attack onPakistan’s northwestern region of North Waziristan on Thursday.

The attack took place in Darpa Khel village, which is located about four kilometers (two miles) west of Miranshah, the main town in the district of North Waziristan.

Local security officials said a drone fired two missiles on a compound in the attack.

On Wednesday, the US remote-controlled assassination drones launched aerial attacks on Qeydar and Marodile villages, which are situated between Guriceel and Balanbale districts in Somalia’s central region of Galguduud.

Somali tribal elders said that at least 38 people were killed and more than 74 people were also injured in the strikes.

Earlier in the day, 20 people were killed and 60 others were injured after a US assassination drone launched a strike on the outskirts of Kismayo, a strategically important port city on Somalia’s Indian Ocean coast located some 500 kilometers (310 miles) south of the Somali capital Mogadishu.

The US says its remote-controlled unmanned assassination drones target militants. However, reports have shown that most of those killed in such aerial attacks are civilians.

Read More

U.S. Natural Gas Find off Vietnam Could Raise Tensions with China ...

First, the good news…

U.S. oil company ExxonMobil is reporting a “potentially significant” gas discovery off the coast of Vietnam, stating in a press release, “We can confirm ExxonMobil Exploration and Production VietnamLimited drilled its second exploration well offshore Danang in August 2011 and encountered hydrocarbons.”

ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company by market value. While Vietnam, an oil exporter and the third-largest oil producer in South Asia, began offshore exploration of its reserves in the 1970s, Hanoi only started in 2004 awarding offshore exploration concessions to a plethora of foreign companies, including those from the U.S., Canada and India with  ExxonMobil receiving concessions from the Vietnamesegovernment allowing it to explore blocks 117, 118 and 119 off Danang, an area that Vietnam insists is well within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone under international maritime law.

The bad news?

The South China Sea’s offshore resources are currently claimed by six countries – China, Vietnam, Taiwan,Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines, with competing claims overlapping in a crazy quilt pattern. Given the billions of dollars at stake for exploiting the undersea energy resources, it is unlikely that the contradictory claims will be resolved anytime soon, making Southeast Asian waters a potential flash point for conflict.

The devil is in the details and in this case the United Nations unwittingly played the role of Lucifer when in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Part V, Article 55 defined an “exclusive economic zone” (EEZ) for countries with maritime frontiers  as extending 200 nautical miles from a nation’s coastline.  Needless to say, in congested waters this clause was a subject of dispute, as nations raced to define their new offshore parameters, a contest only heightened by the world’s increasing addiction to hydrocarbons.

Like Pontius Pilate, the UN washed its hands of bilateral and regional disputes arising from the convention and devolved negotiations to the parties involved, which account for the current impasse in the South China Sea, as the 1982 UNCLOS agreement did not establish any adjudication mechanism for resolving disputes.

According to Hanoi, Vietnam’s exploration efforts in what it maintains are incontestably within its EEZ waters have come under increasing harassment from Chinese naval units. In May Vietnam’s state oil and gasmonopoly PetroVietnam claimed that Chinese ships had harassed and damaged its oil exploration ships.

As ExxonMobil has a license from the Vietnamese government to explore blocks 117, 118 and 119 off the coast of Danang, an area that Hanoi claims falls well within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone under international maritime law, will/can ExxonMobil apply its influence in Washington to safeguard its interests?

The future?

The founder of the modern Vietnamese state, Ho Chi Minh, reportedly said before his death in 1969, “Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff French shit for five years than to eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life.”

It is essential that China shut down Vietnam’s uppity attitude now, as a number of other international companies besides ExxonMobil have recently found oil in the region, including Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd., Britain’s Premier Oil PLC,Russia’s state-owned Gazprom OAO and France’s Total SA, and Beijing will hardly want to take on the governments behind them.

As for Hanoi’s obstreperous attitude, those with an historical memory might recall that China and Vietnam fought a brief but bloody border war in 1979, four year after the country was unified. The Chinese Global Times newspaper recently editorialized that nations involved in territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Seas should “mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons” if they remain in conflict with Chinese policy.

At present ExxonMobil is adopting a low profile approach. ExxonMobil Upstream Media Relations official Patrick McGinn said only of the discovery, “Data from the well are being analyzed. Our first well offshore Vietnam did not encounter hydrocarbons.”

The issue is not minor for Vietnam, as its fossil-fuel production and exports have recently declined.

The final wild card if diplomacy fails is power projection, and China’s recent commissioning of its first aircraft carrier, the Soviet-era Varyag bought from the Ukraine, began sea trials in July. Chinese sources have said Beijing is also building two indigenous carriers.

For those interested in history, which has rather more resonance in Asia than the West, it might be noted that the Varyag has been renamed the Shi Lang.

Shi Lang was a Chinese admiral who served the Ming and Qing dynasties, revered for leading the amphibious assault and conquest of the Kingdom of Tungning  in 1681. Tungning is now known as Taiwan.

So, given the competing claims in the South China Sea, will international law or force prevail?

Place your bets, but remember your history – and hold your nose..

Source

Read More

NATO’s Next War: Syria, the Arab Yugoslavia of the Middle East ...

Surrounded by the Turkish veteran member of NATO in the north, the Israeli NATO partner and the navy fleets of the member states patrolling the Mediterranean in the west, the alliance’s Jordanian partner in the south, and in the east hosting a NATO mission in Iraq, which is expected to develop into the 12th Arab partner, and lonely swimming in a sea of the Arab and Israel strategic allies of the United States, the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad stands as the Yugoslavia of the Middle East, that has to join the expansion southward of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as well as the “new world order” engineered by the U.S. unipolar power, kicked out as the odd regional number, or join Iraq and Libya in being bombed down to the medieval ages.

Following its latest military success in opening the Libyan gate to Africa, the U.S. – led NATO seems about to recruit its 13th Arab “partner,” thus paving the way for the United States to move its Africom HQ from Germany to the continent after removing the Gaddafi regime, which opposed both this move and the French – led Mediterranean Union (MU), a removal that is in itself, for all realpolitic reasons, a threatening warning to the neighboring Algeria to soften its opposition to both Africa hosting Africom and NATO expanding southward and to drop off whatever reservations it still has to the revival of the MU, which lost its Egyptian co-chair with President Nicolas Sarkozy with the removal of former president Hosni Mubarak from power in Cairo.

The U.S. and NATO are poised now to shift focus from Arab North Africa to the Arab Levant to deal with the last Syrian obstacle to their regional hegemony. The U.S. administration of President Barak Obama seems now determined to make or break with the al-Assad regime, distancing itself from decades long policy of crisis management pursued by predecessor U.S. administrations vis-à-vis Syria, which stands now in the Middle East as former Yugoslavia stood in the wake of the collapse of the former Soviet Union when a series of ethnic and religious wars wrecked it, creating from its wreckage several new states, until the Serbian core of the Yugoslav union was bombed by NATO in 1999 to make Serbia now a hopeful member of the alliance.

However international and regional strategic geopolitical factors are turning Syria into a border red line that might either herald a new era of multipolar world order, which puts an end to the U.S. unipolar order, if the U.S. led alliance fails to change the Syrian regime, or completes a U.S. – NATO total regional hegemony that would preclude such a long awaited outcome, if it succeeds:

* Internally, the infrastructure of the state is strong, the military, security, diplomatic and political ruling establishment stands coherent, unified and potent, and economically the state is not burdened with foreign debt and is self-sufficient in oil, food and consumer products. Imposing a complete suffocating economic and diplomatic siege on the country seems impossible. What is more important politically is the fact that the pluralistic diversity of the large Syrian religious and sectarian minorities deprives the major and better organized Islamist opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood of the leading role it enjoys in the protests of what has been termed the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

* Contrary to western analyses, which expect the change of regimes by the “Arab Spring” to be a motivating drive for a similar change in Syria, the changes were bad examples for Syrians. The destruction of the infrastructure of the state, especially in Iraq and Libya, and leaving their national decision making to NATO and U.S., at least out gratefulness to their roles in the change, is not viewed by the overwhelming majority of the Syrians, including the mainstream opposition inside the country, as an acceptable and feasible price for change and reform. The Arab Egyptian veteran and internationally prominent journalist, Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, in an interview with the Qatar based Aljazeera satellite TV Arabic channel, cited these bad Iraqi and Libyan examples as alienating the Syrian middle class in major city centers away from supporting the protests demanding change of regime; he even accused Aljazeera of “incitement” against the Syrian regime of al-Assad.

* This overall internal situation continues to deter outside intervention on the one hand and on the other explains why the opposition has so far failed to launch even one protest of the type that moved out millions of people to the streets as was and is the case in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, especially in major population centers like the capital Damascus, Aleppo, both which are home to about ten million people.

* Moreover, the resort of a minority of Islamists to arms allegedly to defend the protesters has backfired, alienating the public in general, the minorities in particular, and highlighting their external sources of funds and arming, thus vindicating the regime’s accusation of the existence of an outside “conspiracy,” but more importantly diverting the media spotlight away from the peaceful protests, weakening these protests by driving away more people from joining them out of fear for personal safety as proved by the dwindling numbers of protesters, and dragging the opposition into a field of struggle where the regime is definitely the strongest at least in the absence of external military intervention that is not forthcoming in any foreseeable future, a fact that was confirmed in the Libyan capital Tripoli on October 31 by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: “NATO has no intention (to intervene) whatsoever. I can completely rule that out,” Reuters quoted him as saying.

* Geopolitically, it is true that western powers after WW1 succeeded in cutting historical Syria to its present day size, but Syrian pan-Arab ideology and influence is still up to historic Syria, and is still consistent with what the late Princeton scholar Philip K. Hitti called (quoted by Robert D. Kaplan in Foreign Policy on April 21, 2011) “Greater Syria” — the historical antecedent of the modern republic – “the largest small country on the map, microscopic in size but cosmic in influence,” encompassing in its geography, at the confluence of Europe, Asia, and Africa, “the history of the civilized world in a miniature form”. Kaplan commented: “This is not an exaggeration, and because it is not, the current unrest in Syria is far more important than unrest we have seen anywhere in the Middle East.” The change of the regime in Syria will not bring security and stability to the region; on the contrary, it will open a regional Pandora box. Syrian President al-Assad was very well aware of this geopolitical reality when he told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph recently in a weekend interview that Syria “is the (region’s) fault line, and if you play with the ground, you will cause an earthquake”.

* The regional repercussions of a sectarian civil war in Syria are a deterrent factor against both militarization of pro-reform peaceful protests and foreign military intervention in support thereof. Therefore, when NATO and the U.S. pressure or encourage their regional allies in Turkey and the GCC Arab countries to foment Sunni sectarian strife in the Syrian ally of Shiite Iran as a prelude to civil war, their only pretext for military intervention, they are in fact playing with a regional fire that will not save neither the perpetrators nor the “vital” interests of their NATO-U.S. sponsors.

* Regionally, Iran’s possible loss of its Syrian bridge to the Mediterranean, while its routes to the strategic sea could easily be closed via the Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Red sea and the Suez Canal by the fifth and sixth U.S. fleets as well as the by fleets of the NATO member states and Israel, and pro- U.S. governments overlooking these sea lanes, is an Iranian red line the trespassing of which could create a situation fraught with potential risks of regional war eruption.

* Regionally also, less a U.S. – NATO decision to go to an all out war on Iran and Syria, military intervention in Syria would not be on the agenda unless guarantees are in place that Israel will be out of reach of expected Iranian and Syrian retaliation.

* The timing of the U.S. – NATO shift of focus on Syria coincides with a deadlocked Palestinian – Israeli peace process and the failure of Barak Obama administration to deliver on its promises to its Arab allies, thus alienating the most moderate among them, namely Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is still being pushed to a collision course with the American sponsor of the process by the U.S. – led international campaign against his overdue bid to secure the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations.

The failure of the U.S. peace mediator applies more counterproductively to the Syrian – Israeli peace making. Al-Assad regime came to power in a coup d’etat with the precise aim of engaging the U.S. – sponsored peace process in the Middle East. More than forty years later the United States has yet to deliver. This failure erodes the influence of the moderate pro-U.S. Arabs, stands as the biggest obstacle to building a U.S. – Arab – Israeli front against Iran, which is an American and Israeli regional priority, and adds ammunition and forces to the Syrian protagonist. Abbas’ reconciliation accord with the Syrian – based Hamas is a good example to ponder in this context; another is the Palestinian leader’s latest pronounced option of dissolving the self-ruled Palestinian Authority under Israeli military occupation, which would be a death blow to the Arab – Israeli peace process.

* This failure of the U.S. “sponsorship” was a major contributing factor to the changes of the “Arab Spring” in a chain of pro-U.S. Arab regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. However this failure vindicates Syria’s “resistance” ideology, justifies its strategic defensive coordination with Iran, reinforces the popular support for both countries in the region, and gives credibility to the argument of the regime in Damascus that the U.S. and NATO are fueling Syrian protests in the name of change and reform, but in fact exploiting these protests to “change the regime” and replace it with one that is more willing to accept the Israeli – U.S. dictates for peace making.

* The scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of the year is another regional adverse factor against military intervention in Syria. This withdrawal is leaving Iraq unquestionably under a pro – Iran ruling regime. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was on record in opposing regime change in Syria precisely because of the Iranian influence. Iraq is now overtly replacing Turkey as a strategic depth for its Syrian western neighbor, providing a strategic link between the allies in Damascus and Tehran, after Turkey’s U-turn on its “strategic cooperation” with Syria, its U-turn on its nine-year old “zero problem based relations” with Arab and Islamic neighbors, and its subscription to NATO and U.S. plans for Syria as a member and ally respectively.

* Internationally, the latest Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UN Security Council is indication enough that the U.S. – NATO endeavor to change the Syrian regime has trespassed another red line. Loosing its navy facilities in Syria would leave Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and render it a U.S. – NATO lake. China whose competitive edge in Africa is being challenged following the change of regime in Libya would view the fall of Syria to become a U.S. – NATO launching ground against Iran as a real threat to its similarly competitive partnership with Iran. Chasing Beijing also out of Iran will render the emerging Chinese economic giant at the mercy of NATO partners if they succeed in securing their control over Iran and Syria because such a control will secure also their control of both strategic oil reserves in the Middle East and central Asia. This is absolutely a Chinese red line.

* Diplomatically, U.S. – NATO plans of military intervention in Syria has been denied any cover of United Nations legitimacy by the Russian and Chinese vetoes. Legitimacy of the Arab League is still lacking; freezing the membership of a member state, like was the case with Libya, needs consensus, which is not forthcoming.

TWO OPTIONS

This is the geopolitical strategic context in which the Syrian pro-democracy transformation is desperately trying to survive the U.S. – NATO undemocratic means of coercing Syria into compliance. Both mainstream opposition inside the country and the ruling regime are almost in consensus on reforms and fundamental changes that will move Syria to what is being now termed as “the second republic” through dialogue.

Both this opposition and the regime are on record against the militarization of the peaceful popular protests demanding reform and change and more adamantly against foreign intervention whatever form it takes, but both are seeking internal national unity as well as foreign support for a package of reforms inclusive of lifting the martial law, limiting the role of intelligence arms of the state to national security, empowering the civil society, curbing political and economic corruption, political pluralism, competitive elections, changing party, electoral and media laws, balancing the executive – legislative power, promoting judiciary and rule of law, and more importantly ending the constitutional Baath Party monopoly of power. Carnegie Endowment in its “Reform in Syria: Steering between the Chinese Model and Regime Change” of July 2006 proposed most of the reforms. In less than six months, President al-Assad has already issued successive presidential decrees enacting all these reforms.

However the U.S. – NATO axis of “the responsibility to protect” advocates are persistent on creating facts on the ground that would empower them for foreign intervention and place them in a position to trade their support of this reform package internally in exchange externally for Syrian foreign policy agenda, which has nurtured during four decades of al-Assad rule a network of regional and international alliances that enabled Syria to maintain a defense option in its 44-year old struggle to liberate the Israeli – occupied Syrian Golan Heights and to stand steadfast against dictating conditions on Damascus to make peace with Israel on Israeli terms.

These adverse factors leave the U.S. and NATO with two options:

First pressuring NATO member, Turkey, to discard its nine-year old “zero-problem based relations” with its regional neighbors to what Liam Stack described in the New York Times on October 27 as “hosting an armed opposition group waging an insurgency … amid a broader Turkish campaign to undermine Mr. Assad’s government” in its southern Syrian neighbor, which is the same reason why Turkey has been for years waging military incursions into Iraq and why Ankara was on the brink of war with Syria late in 1990s.

Second, to escalate the militarization of the peaceful protests. On August 14, 2011, Israel’s Debka Intelligence news reported that developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers. According to Israeli intelligence sources: NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are drawing up plans … to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers … The delivery of weapons to the rebels is to be implemented “overland, namely through Turkey and under Turkish army protection … According to Israeli sources, which remain to be verified, NATO and the Turkish High command, also contemplate the development of a “jihad” involving the recruitment of thousands of Islamist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war … Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria!

The editorial board opinion of The Washington Post on September 28, 2011 had a foresight: “The appearance of such forces is not to be welcomed, even by those hoping for an end to the Assad regime.”

However, the U.S. and NATO seem now in a race against time in pursuing exactly that goal through those two options to preclude the implementation of the Syrian package of reforms, until the ruling regime is coerced into compliance to trade their support of these reforms for the current Syrian foreign policy agenda.

But because the Syrian foreign policy, like the foreign policy of all countries, serves the internal prerogatives in the first place, which is in the Syrian case the liberation of Syria’s Israeli-occupied lands, Syria is not expected to comply. Therefore the Syrian “resistance” continues, and the regional conflict as well.

Nick Cohen wrote in The Jewish Chronicle on August 30 this year: “Syria is a story that cries out for coverage. But it is not receiving the play it deserves.” Cohen was and is still right, but he has yet to address Syria from a completely different approach.

Source

Read More