Obama tells Asia, U.S. "here to stay"

[Greater China]

Asia-Pacific: America's New Anti-China Plot Unfolds

Taking it to signify its return to Asia-Pacific, the US seeks to turn the latest East Asia Summit into a forum concerning the South China Sea dispute. China has showed strong opposition to this move.

Coupled with strengthened US-Australia and US-Philippines military alliances, this move is only a part of US new Asia-Pacific strategy. These acts bring great pressure to China and it is now expected that China will take some countermeasures.

The US is carrying out smart power diplomacy that takes China as its target in Asia. Stopping it is not realistic, but it is equally unrealistic to expect China to stand idly by and indulge Asian countries as they join the US alliance to guard against China one by one. Confronted with such frictions, which has the most resources and means at its disposal? Is an all-out confrontation possible? These should be the real concerns.

A prominent change is that the US is intensifying action in the Asia-Pacific region and is encouraging China's neighboring countries to challenge China. This is a new application of soft power.

If an "anti-China alliance" is really built in Asia, the US should provide more economic benefits to its followers. It should convince those countries that joining the US is more profitable. Only providing verbal support for sovereignty issues in disputed waters and signing agreements to provide security protection is far from enough.

A new impetus for economic growth is absent from the stagnant US economy. Its strategic demand to contain China conflicts with the realistic view of using China to stimulate economic recovery.

The strategic nature of competition between China and the US in the Asia-Pacific will be murky for the time being. However, China has gained more stakes when dealing with the US. It is hard to say whether the US holds more advantages in China's neighboring area. The potential for economic cooperation between China and its neighboring countries is great. China should learn to use this to protect its political interests. Any country which chooses to be a pawn in the US chess game will lose the opportunity to benefit from China's economy. This will surely make US protection less attractive.

Naval disputes are only a small part of East Asian affairs. The US and other countries seek to defend private interests by taking advantage of them. As long as China increases its input, it will make countries either pay the price for their decision or make them back the doctrine of solving maritime disputes through cooperation.

East Asian affairs should be handled under the coordination of relevant countries. No one dominant force is wanted. China has more resources to oppose the US ambition of dominating the region than US has to fulfill it. As long as China is patient, there will no room for those who choose to depend economically on China while looking to the US to guarantee their security.

Source: GlobalResearch.ca

 

[Kevrai]

Last I heard americans were leaving afghanistan after being unable to defeat some blokes in pyjamas so much for their f16s

They're leaving afghanistan after they achieved their main objective, which was to kill OBL.

 

[gambit]

Last I heard americans were leaving afghanistan after being unable to defeat some blokes in pyjamas so much for their f16s

We have no problems returning to Afghanistan over and over to be 'defeated' again and again...Just like we were 'defeated' in Iraq.

 

[Xracer]

They're leaving afghanistan after they achieved their main objective, which was to kill OBL.

ohhhh Really
is he Deador an excuse to get out of Afghanistan cause i have no money left

 

[r3alist]

Not good in my point of view... US is not doing any thing good in this region,





US is making all nations foe of each other for their interest ..

I know it, you know it, somehow it's still gonna happen.

 

[Birbal]

PolitiFact | The truth about Gov. Rick Perry and secession

The Truth about Rick Perry, Secession, and State Sovereignty « Truth on the Market

PolitiFact Texas | Gov. Rick Perry recaps his comment on Texas seceding from the United States; does he repeat accurately?

"Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

"You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? So. But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot."

 

[khanz4996]

obama is right they are here to stay in asia to bury us flag and start a new begining of 32 disunited states of america

 

[Kevrai]

ohhhh Really
is he Deador an excuse to get out of Afghanistan cause i have no money left

hey his family is currently in your countries custody......you can ask them is he's dead!

 

[monitor]

US-China in Asia-Pacific
Posted on November 22, 2011
S P Seth

US President Barack Obama’s just concluded Asia-Pacific trip is a strong signal that the US will re-energise its engagement with the region. It is important to remember that the US has been the dominant economic and military presence in the region since after World War II. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US sway was even more complete. China had started as an emerging economy in the 80s under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership after the Cultural Revolution and it depended on the US and its western allies for entry into their markets and into global trade forums like the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

However, early in the present century, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as part of its global war on terror, where it is still stuck, especially in Afghanistan. With the US distracted and increasingly mired in these two wars, China was able to raise its regional profile backed by impressive economic growth, and a steady rise of its military power. There was a growing feeling in the Asia-Pacific region that the US might not stick around for long, with China eventually replacing it as the dominant power. The global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, which the US and Europe are still struggling with, tended to further increase this pessimism about the US.

It is against this backdrop of China’s rise, and its impact on the region, that President Obama forcefully declared during a daylong visit to Australia that the US is an Asia-Pacific power and it is here to stay. As the US unwinds its military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is shifting its focus to Asia-Pacific where history will be made in this century. Obama said, “The US has been, and always will be a Pacific nation.” Therefore, “Let there be no doubt. In the Asia-Pacific in the 21st century, the US is all in.”

The choice to make this declaration is important as both the US and Australia are further expanding their military and strategic alliance against the backdrop of a perceived threat from a rising China. The US-Australia military alliance under the ANZUS Treaty is being beefed up with the stationing of US marines in the country’s north, and with the use of naval and air facilities in the country’s west. Both the US and Australia deny that their expanded military relationship is directed against China, but there is very little doubt that China is seen as a likely threat.

President Obama said in Canberra, “The US will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future, by upholding core principles [of human rights] and in close partnership with allies and friends.” In other words, China is forewarned that the US will not quietly fade away, and that it will not have an easy time with its neighbours unhappy with maritime disputes with China. These smaller countries are being assured that they can bank on the US to stand their ground. At the same time, the US will not let up on China on violation of human rights and the promotion of democracy.

The assertion of China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea is likely to become a regional flashpoint at some point. China’s smaller neighbours, like the Philippines and Vietnam, have competing claims to the Spratly group of islands in the South China Sea that have caused some naval incidents blamed on China. The US and the Philippines are taking steps to boost their defence relationship. The US and Vietnam are also forging closer political and military ties, and there has even been talk of a former US military base (of the Vietnam War time) being revived. The US and Japan are already close military allies, with their alliance further beefed up in the last few years. China and Japan too have competing maritime claims in the East China Sea, leading to naval skirmishes not long ago. At the same time, the Korean Peninsula remains a live wire with North Korea unwilling to give up its nuclear capability. Though China is opposed to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, it is not inclined to team up with the US and Japan, among others, to turn on Pyongyang.

And Taiwan, of course, remains a live issue, with China claiming it as its own territory with the right to take military action if it were to declare independence. The US acknowledges China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, but is against the use of force by China to achieve it. At the same time, China’s sovereignty claim over the South China Sea is creating nervousness that it might interfere with open sea-lanes. All in all, Asia-Pacific is potentially a time bomb with all these claims and counter-claims.

The South China Sea featured in the just-concluded East Asia Summit in Bali against China’s wishes, and is likely to become part of its agenda in subsequent summits. Beijing would prefer its discussion at a bilateral level between the concerned countries with competing claims. It regards the US as an external force that should not have anything to do with regional disputes. The US, of course, is determined to raise its Pacific profile as one that is and has always been a Pacific power. In other words, the US’s decision to make its Asia-Pacific policy a priority is likely to further complicate US-China relations.

And Australia is right in the middle of it, being a willing, if not enthusiastic, partner of the US’s policy to contain China, if necessary. China’s People’s Daily warned Australia that it cannot play both sides of the coin hoping to maximise its economic gains from a booming trade relationship with China while siding with the US strategically. It said, “Australia surely cannot play China for a fool. It is impossible for China to remain detached, no matter what Australia does to undermine its security.”

More importantly, though, Barack Obama’s revitalised Asia policy goes beyond Australia. In a way, it tells Beijing that the gloves are off and the US will make a determined stand in the Asia-Pacific region to stave off China’s push into the region and to push out the US. And for this, the US will foster new and reinforce old military and strategic ties with regional countries with maritime disputes with China or otherwise keen for a countervailing force to China’s rise. How this US-China competition for power will unfold is anybody’s guess. One thing is certain: the Pacific Ocean is unlikely to live up its pacific name with the new unfolding power game.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au
-Daily Times

 

[muse]

A reality check for the US
Stephan Richter



As the US is winding down its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it now wants to turn its attention to the Asia-Pacific region. This announcement is as grandiose as it is self-serving. It reveals two principal US weaknesses.

The first is the country’s inability to make actual hard choices. The second is its illusory belief that, in contrast to all other nations, it does not have to live with the consequences of its past actions

To lay the groundwork for President Obama’s current Asia trip, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently penned a long article titled ‘America’s Pacific Century’ in Foreign Policy magazine. She argued that her country now wants to “lock in a substantially increased investment” in the Asia-Pacific region and, she added, “The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the US will be right at the centre of the action.”

It would have shown strategic acumen and a clear-headed sense of priorities, if that article had been published in the first year of the Obama administration. But now? From a budgetary perspective, the past 10 years clearly represented the maximum the US will be able to dedicate to foreign (including military) affairs for the foreseeable future.

To assume anything other than severe cutbacks at a time when the country’s infrastructure is crumbling, and when police, firefighters and teachers are being laid off, attests to the misbegotten priorities of the US elite.

Ask leaders in Asia, and you will receive truly disbelieving looks. Many are rendered speechless by the patrician attitude that the current US administration exhibits, after having stood with the Bush administration’s ill-fated strategies for too long. Most Asian leaders have also had to contend with scarce financial resources for most of their careers. Unlike their US counterparts, they know from up close that governing means choosing.

If you talk to leaders in Europe, they are downright amused by the highly transparent American effort to sell the US turn toward Asia as a not-so-gentle reminder that the Europeans better fall in line, lest they be left behind by the American-Asian tandem. Senior European officials point out calmly that the US government is far from alone in shifting its attention to Asia. In other words, it is a competitive world out there — and let’s see who fares better in Asia over the long haul.

In addition, there is a widespread feeling both in Asia and in Europe that the US government ought to relent on its inclination to give great-sounding speeches and publish heroic articles. Whom are they trying to convince? Others? Hardly. Themselves? That is probably much closer to reality.

The boastful US rhetoric is primarily indicative of one thing: a desperate desire to hold on to a world and options — financial, economic or diplomatic — that are no longer truly in reach of the US. As mighty as the country still is, especially militarily, its tendency to be overly ambitious in its rhetoric diminishes its national power.

The US strategy of maximising global aspiration largely by rhetoric leads to a serious imbalance on the domestic front. The American people are oversold a bill of goods — namely, global supremacy (as a presumed return on their hefty investment) — that is turning out to be more hollow every day.

Truth be told, the US investment in foreign relations has mostly been an investment in the business(!) of foreign relations. Hence the overreliance on defence spending (and sales to foreign militaries, as well as the extremely well-paid contractors in war zones). And one should not forget the all-too-mercenary character of its so-called development aid machinery.

Foreign policy as a for-profit business? That is the gruesome reality of today’s Washington — and the clear opposite of what the country’s wise Founding Fathers had in mind. Their concept was great: to focus on commerce to build alliances, not armies. In today’s Washington, their path has been sadly turned onto its very head.

The writer is the president of The Globalist Research Centre, a think tank based in Washington, DC

 

[anon45]

PolitiFact Texas | Gov. Rick Perry recaps his comment on Texas seceding from the United States; does he repeat accurately?

From your source...

However Perry doesn't get to his assertion that Texas has the right to secede or his speculation about "who knows what may come" from people angry about actions in Washington.

 

[muse]

A future America? America must be synonymous with Hope, all else is BETRAYAL:


Schurz: The True Americanism


What is the rule of honor to be observed by a power so strongly and so advantageously situated as this Republic is? Of course I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults if they should be offered to it. But, surely, it should not, as our boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world, with a chip on its shoulder, shaking its fist in everybody’s face. Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments upon its rights. But, surely, it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interest collide with the notions of others, fall into hysterics and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence. As a true gentleman, conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense. In its dealings with other nations it should have scrupulous regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. With all its latent resources for war, it should be the great peace power of the world. It should never forget what a proud privilege and what an inestimable blessing it is not to need and not to have big armies or navies to support. It should seek to influence mankind, not by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in wars prevented. It should be so invariably just and fair, so trustworthy, so good tempered, so conciliatory, that other nations would instinctively turn to it as their mutual friend and the natural adjuster of their differences, thus making it the greatest preserver of the world’s peace.

This is not a mere idealistic fancy. It is the natural position of this great republic among the nations of the earth. It is its noblest vocation, and it will be a glorious day for the United States when the good sense and the self-respect of the American people see in this their “manifest destiny.” It all rests upon peace. Is not this peace with honor? There has, of late, been much loose speech about “Americanism.” Is not this good Americanism? It is surely today the Americanism of those who love their country most. And I fervently hope that it will be and ever remain the Americanism of our children and our children’s children.

– Carl Schurz, “The True Americanism,” speech delivered on Jan. 2, 1896

 

[fallstuff]

Here is the glden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules . I wonder who is holdin the gold.

 

[Greater China]

Terrorism US top priority, not ‘return to Asia’

The recent moves made by the US in the Asia-Pacific region sent a clear message to China that the US would not hesitate to subject China to a new containment strategy.

While still busy engaging in political outreach, the Obama administration has made a series of strategic miscalculations. We feel the urge to advise the US to be more observant of the current situation, be more careful in identifying allies and opponents, be aware of priorities; and be more cautious with its approach.

First of all, the US should realize its enemy is still international terrorism, not China. It was not a coincidence that the 9/11 attacks took place right after then President George W. Bush declared the US rivalry with China.

And the present disgruntlement voiced by a few on the economic rise of China was taken by the current administration as a well-stated fact that China's mere presence would be a threat to US security. This deliberately ignores the many benefits brought by the Chinese, such as job creation, cheap consumer products, and investment opportunities.

China has never intended to use its military power to threaten or invade other countries, but only for self-defense. There is no reason for China to challenge US might unless its sovereignty and territorial integrity are threatened.

The US engagement in the Middle East is far from complete. Although the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan feels like a conclusion, the US political engagements in the aftermath of the war is no less challenging than its military engagement was. If the various issues of post-war construction are not carefully handled, the result could be a return to the pre-war state of affairs.

Compare to the Middle East, the threat posed by the Asia-Pacific region is significantly less worrisome. Scanning the region, we don't see any country which could possibly be a hotbed of terrorism, or which could pose an immediate threat to US national security. The safety of maritime transport, and the national security of ally countries are the US' chief proclaimed interests. Yet, weighing those two to the national safety of the US territory, it is obvious which and where is more important.

Also, foreign policy the US takes need to be more reflective of the current situation. Living in the present-day global village, cooperation is the key word. "Peaceful development" is what everyone's aiming for, except the US, which seems oblivious of the general trend but is single-mindedly targeting the wrong country, at a wrong time, using the wrong approach.

The containment strategy the US has been using against China has yet to have any effect on the country's growing power. Through trying to lock China out of the UN, then the WHO, and then shutting-off of technology transfer and military equipment, the US has created arbitrary hurdles and barriers only to see China became the second largest world economy and build up considerable military might.

The US should realize that the old-fashioned containment strategy does not work well on China, and seeking cooperation and partnership is by far the best option. Instead of meddling until China acquires the power to say no to the US' on-and-off goodwill, the US should be aware of the long-term consequences of its decisions.

Another reason for the US to think hard about a "return to Asia" is that almost all previous US aggression in the region ended badly. At the moment it is possibly the worst time for the US to flex its muscles, considering its economy is facing the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, social discontent is rife, and its international reputation is under great strain.

The switching of strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region is inevitably introducing gaps in the attention paid to international terrorism, which is the real threat. We simply want to point out the loopholes of the US diplomatic strategy out of goodwill to help it avoid another 9/11.

Global Times

 

[Guest01]

Terrorism US top priority, not ‘return to Asia’

The recent moves made by the US in the Asia-Pacific region sent a clear message to China that the US would not hesitate to subject China to a new containment strategy.

While still busy engaging in political outreach, the Obama administration has made a series of strategic miscalculations. We feel the urge to advise the US to be more observant of the current situation, be more careful in identifying allies and opponents, be aware of priorities; and be more cautious with its approach.

First of all, the US should realize its enemy is still international terrorism, not China. It was not a coincidence that the 9/11 attacks took place right after then President George W. Bush declared the US rivalry with China.

LoL, is the reference to 9/11 a in the context of Bush's declaration a threat of something sinister to come. What exactly is the article trying to imply? Another terrorist attack soon? Either this is the famous communist party logic or a clear threat of a terrorist incident in US.

And the present disgruntlement voiced by a few on the economic rise of China was taken by the current administration as a well-stated fact that China's mere presence would be a threat to US security. This deliberately ignores the many benefits brought by the Chinese, such as job creation, cheap consumer products, and investment opportunities.

Ahh the benevolent communist party..... The said benefits have been clearly the most disastrous event for not just US and European economies but also for - what used to be - the asian tigers. The impudent currency farce ensured that the export oriented economies of Asia will just die. So much for peaceful rise.

China has never intended to use its military power to threaten or invade other countries, but only for self-defense. There is no reason for China to challenge US might unless its sovereignty and territorial integrity are threatened.

Yeah sure. Ask Japan / Korea (the sane one) / R.O.C / Vietnam / and now recently Phillipinnes & even Myanmaar about the self defense strategy of the communist party. When you make the discrimation of others as your self defense goal, rest assured that it is not indeed peaceful rise. The double speak though comes thru clearly by finding no reason for US involvement. The Bully is scared of the bigger one clearly.

The US engagement in the Middle East is far from complete. Although the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan feels like a conclusion, the US political engagements in the aftermath of the war is no less challenging than its military engagement was. If the various issues of post-war construction are not carefully handled, the result could be a return to the pre-war state of affairs.

Compare to the Middle East, the threat posed by the Asia-Pacific region is significantly less worrisome. Scanning the region, we don't see any country which could possibly be a hotbed of terrorism, or which could pose an immediate threat to US national security. The safety of maritime transport, and the national security of ally countries are the US' chief proclaimed interests. Yet, weighing those two to the national safety of the US territory, it is obvious which and where is more important.

Trying to make logical (communist party logic version) reasons for keeping the US tied up in Middle East? One one hand support Iran + Pakistan with the objective of keeping the US tied in the wars while China continues to get away with its "peaceful rise" version of bullying.

Also, foreign policy the US takes need to be more reflective of the current situation. Living in the present-day global village, cooperation is the key word. "Peaceful development" is what everyone's aiming for, except the US, which seems oblivious of the general trend but is single-mindedly targeting the wrong country, at a wrong time, using the wrong approach.

Yeah sure. Nice name for land and revenue grab. LoL.

The containment strategy the US has been using against China has yet to have any effect on the country's growing power. Through trying to lock China out of the UN, then the WHO, and then shutting-off of technology transfer and military equipment, the US has created arbitrary hurdles and barriers only to see China became the second largest world economy and build up considerable military might.

The dragon seems to be crapping bricks with a clear fear that the honey-moon and good times could be over with now the focus back on China and the obfusciation not working seemingly anymore.

The US should realize that the old-fashioned containment strategy does not work well on China, and seeking cooperation and partnership is by far the best option. Instead of meddling until China acquires the power to say no to the US' on-and-off goodwill, the US should be aware of the long-term consequences of its decisions.

Another reason for the US to think hard about a "return to Asia" is that almost all previous US aggression in the region ended badly. At the moment it is possibly the worst time for the US to flex its muscles, considering its economy is facing the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, social discontent is rife, and its international reputation is under great strain.

And now the refence to the past even with the fearful knowledge that it was someone else fighting for China in the previous engagements while now it is starkly clear that there is no other shoulder to aim the gun from this time. All the shoulders got used up it seems and even North Korea not toeing the Beijing line. There is for sure Pakistan, but what relevance do the Pakistani Generals have in the East Sea / Pacific.

The switching of strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region is inevitably introducing gaps in the attention paid to international terrorism, which is the real threat. We simply want to point out the loopholes of the US diplomatic strategy out of goodwill to help it avoid another 9/11.

Global Times

This takes the cake. To reiterate, on one hand continue to support regimes who are encouraging terrosim in Middle East and on the other hand raise that bogey to keep the real threat obfusciated. With an inconsequential China, there will be direct action possible against terrorists. Just look at South Asia and one can see that clearly.

Rock and a hard place stuff this.