Pierre Leblanc, Walter Sebastian and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The nuclear sector is bouncing back from the nuclear crisis that erupted after the tsunami of March 11, 2011, in Japan. Therefore, despite all the negative publicity since the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear crisis began, it appears that the nuclear sector is over the worse because many new plants are in the pipeline. Also, the government of Japan is enhancing the development of the nuclear sector in several nations.

Last year the government of Japan showed its hand along with Japanese companies after intense negotiations with Vietnam. The upshot being that Japan will help Vietnam with its nuclear ambitions. Turkey is also discussing major developments in this field with Japan. This would imply that Japan will “break free” from the “Fukushima debacle” because bureaucrats understand the importance of the nuclear sector and this also applies to national security.

It remains to be seen if Japan will adopt a duel policy whereby Japanese companies expand their projects abroad but cut back at home. Or, it could be that bureaucrats believe that time is on their side and that gradually the nuclear angle will re-emerge in Japan.

Last week in India the government approved the start of the Kudankulam plant and this follows on from President Obama giving the thumbs up to build a new nuclear reactor in America. Also, with hundreds of millions of people in China and India being without electricity then the nuclear angle is viewed to be a viable way to solve this internal energy crisis. Of course, the nuclear angle isn’t the only alternative but according to the Prime Minister of South Korea, Kim Hwang Sik, the costs involved in renewable energy and the restrictions of technology means that the nuclear option is viable because of several important factors.

Many new nations also hope to build their first nuclear reactors and currently you have 61 reactors which are under construction. Therefore, nations like Chile and Egypt want to join the nuclear club. This may be viewed negatively within anti-nuclear circles and by many ordinary citizens who worry about certain aspects of the nuclear sector. However, the nuclear sector is clearly not fading away despite all the images of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear crisis.

The future of the nuclear sector is mainly based on its cost effectiveness but of course major companies like Areva are intent on spending vast resources on new safety mechanisms.  This in turn will enable nuclear power nations like China, India, and the Russian Federation, to focus on expanding this sector. At the same time, new safety mechanisms will be used in the market to persuade a skeptical general public in order to obtain new contracts in non-nuclear power nations.

In an article published on the Bloomberg website which was co-written by Yuriy Humber, Sangim Han and Shinhye Kang, it is stated that “The so-called nuclear renaissance isn’t limited to Asia’s economic growth. Countries including Poland and Turkey say that the risks and costs of rising fossil fuel prices and security of supply make nuclear generation a must for them.”

“Turkey’s disagreement with Russia’s OAO Gazprom (GAZP) over discounts led to the cancellation of a contract for as much as 6 billion cubic meters of annual gas purchases last year. By building two nuclear plants the country can cut its dependence on gas imports from Russia, its biggest fuel provider, and save as much as $7 billion over four years, Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said Dec. 15.”

“For companies like Kazatomprom, the state nuclear company of Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium exporter, that bodes good profits. The company is a shareholder in Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric, which is due to build the first new U.S. reactor in 30 years in Georgia State. Kazatomprom also has ventures with Russia’s Rosatom Corp., which is due to build and run Turkey’s first nuclear plant.”

The United Kingdom last year also confirmed a list of eight new nuclear power stations to be built in the future. All the new plants will be adjacent to existing plants and clearly the nuclear option is deemed essential in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the future of this sector looks bright providing it remains cost effective and new safety mechanisms are implemented.

leejay@hotmail.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-25/nuclear-industry-says-back-on-track-after-fukushima-speed-bump-.html

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The sectarian divide in Pakistan claimed the lives of more innocent Shia Muslims who were singled out and brutally murdered. Currently it is understood that 18 Shia Muslims were killed by Sunni Islamic fanatics after having their identity checked. This brutal incident took place in Kohistan which is in northern Pakistan.

It is reported that Sunni Muslims who were traveling with fellow Shia passengers were spared death because of their religious affiliation which was shared by the brutal Sunni Muslim terrorists. This applies to the militants checking the identity cards of all the individuals and then murdering the Shia because of their “blind hatred.”

This incident highlights the reality that you have no “Muslim religious brotherhood” which is often highlighted in the West. In recent years you have had untold massacres of Shia Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and other nations. The one common theme is that they are being butchered by Sunni Muslim fanatics who believe in enforcing their monoculture worldview. Also, in nations like Bahrain the Shia community is excluded from the engines of “real power” and in so-called moderate Malaysia the Shia faith is illegal.

Other religious minorities also suffer in Pakistan and this applies to Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. Not only this, when moderate Sunni Muslims openly rebuke militancy then they also face “the sword of Sunni Islam.” After all, Salman Taseer spoke out against religious discrimination but many Sunni Muslims celebrated the death of this brave moderate Sunni Muslim.

Bill Roggio in an article published by The Long War Journal highlights the fact that even moderate branches of Sunni Islam are turning against “all notions of justice and freedom.” The article states that “Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court Wednesday and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam.”

“Mumtaz Qadri, 26, made his first appearance in an Islamabad court, where a judge remanded him in custody a day after he allegedly sprayed automatic gunfire at the back of Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard. A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside. The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case.”

“As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted “death is acceptable for Muhammad’s slave.” The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled “God is great.”

“More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan’s majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws.”

“The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” the group warned in a statement, adding politicians, the media and others should learn “a lesson from the exemplary death.”

“Jamat leader Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri paid “glorious tribute to the murderer … for his courage, bravery and religious honor and integrity.”

Therefore, the recent massacre of Shia Muslims by Sunni Muslim fanatics in Pakistan highlights the complete indoctrination of individuals who believe that killing innocent people is the work of God. This brutal act is not only cold-bloodied and callous but it is a clear reminder that “year zero” which crushed all forces of Buddhism and Hinduism in Afghanistan, is now intent on creating “year zero within the Islamic faith itself.”

This applies to crushing the enormous diversity within the Islamic faith whereby vast numbers of different sects hold different thought patterns. Sunni Islamic radicalism is not only at war against the non-Muslim world but it is also at war against the “diversity of the Islamic world.” Therefore, the desire for Sunni Islamists is for a complete monoculture to crush different thought patterns. More worryingly, the death of Salman Taseer highlights that moderate forces within Sunni Islam in Pakistan are also turning against justice and freedom.

It is essential that all moderates in Pakistan, irrespective of religion or no faith, work together to crush all forms of radicalism because Islamic indoctrination is crushing the nation of Pakistan. The potential of this nation is enormous because you have so much vibrancy in many sectors. However, religion is being used by ideologists in order to crush this diversity and richness.

In simple terms, the light of “Salman Taseer” is based on a Pakistan of moderation and modernization. His light will continue to shine brightly providing people re-take the nation from zealots which want to crush diversity. Yet, the brutal murder of Salman Taseer, and the recent massacre of Shia Muslims by radical Sunni Muslim fanatics, is a clear indicator that the “forces of darkness” are bent on creating “a year zero.”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/01/pakistani_lawyers_moderate_mul.php

http://moderntokyotimes.com

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

Olivier LeCourt and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

In late 2011 it became apparent that the government of Japan was intent on spreading its international influence. Indeed, it could be argued that the current government is more open to influencing the world stage than past governments for many a decade. Therefore, each new development became like a new piece in a complex jigsaw and clearly this “forward thinking” is badly needed because in the past Japan’s “quietist policy” meant that other nations took advantage.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda continues to press ahead with important geopolitical agendas. This applies to recent agreements with the Philippines; making positive overtures to South Korea; making it known that he would visit North Korea providing the abduction issue could be solved; sending peacekeeping troops to South Sudan; the first ever bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India; agreements with Vietnam in the area of nuclear plants; Japan will help to fund a Southern Corridor linking Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar; currency initiatives with China; and in other important areas.

At the same time Japan is offering an olive branch to Europe providing the European Union will focus on serious reforms and implement sound economic policies.  If this occurs, then Japan will buy more Eurobonds and help nations like Greece alongside other economic powers in 2012 in order to stabilize the situation.

Turning back to the announcement in late 2011 that Japan and India will hold their first ever bilateral naval exercise in 2012, then this will be welcomed by America and Australia which is a regional power in its own right.  After all, Australia sent military forces to East Timor, Iraq, and other nations, and it is essential that all democratic powers move closer together in order to maintain regional stability.

It is easy to view the bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India and see this move to be aimed, at least partly, at China but this would be overstepping the mark. After all, Japan also desires closer ties with China but leaders in Tokyo must also boost relations with democratic powers. Therefore, instead of adopting “a quietist policy” and “constrained policy” it is in the interest of Japan and democratic powers to see a more robust foreign policy.

India may view this move to be more political and leaders in New Delhi are worried about aspects of China’s foreign policy.  This applies notably to China’s support of Pakistan, border issues between China and India and China’s port link ups in Gwadar port (Pakistan), Chittagong port (Bangladesh), Hambanota (Sri Lanka), and the Irrawaddy Corridor (Myanmar) which will open up the Bay of Bengal.  Therefore, China’s geopolitical expansion is growing and this applies to the Bay of Bengal, Strait of Hormuz, Indian Ocean, and other areas and this is leading to maritime concerns.

However, while Japan does have some vested interests because important maritime issues concern all nations which operate or rely on trade and energy resources to pass through important sea-lanes; it is clear that Japan is more focused on border disputes within northeast Asia.

Japan, however, is intent on showing China that its military expansion and increasing geopolitical expansion and claims over border disputes with many nations, isn’t going to constrain Japan. On the contrary, it will merely boost Japan’s awareness that countermeasures will be implemented and deeper relations will be forged with other nations throughout various parts of Asia.

Noda and various ministries aren’t interested in negative policies towards China because trade between Japan and China is enormous.  Also, for much of history the best scholars from both nations visited each other and cultural interaction was enormous.  Without a shred of doubt the impact of many aspects of Chinese culture influenced Japan for many centuries and clearly Japanese scholars and ideas influenced China.

In historical terms China and Japan don’t share a history like France and England which was based on war and regional hostility in many periods of history.  Therefore, prior to the end of the late nineteenth century China and Japan wasn’t a threat to each other.

If is therefore hoped that relations between Japan and China will blossom in the future and clearly they have come a long way since China began to open-up.  However, Japan, like any nation state, must be prepared to protect its own geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the joint naval exercise between Japan and India which will take place next year shouldn’t be viewed negatively by China or any other nation.

Instead, it should be seen for what it is and this applies to a major power developing cordial military relations with another democratic power, in order to boost security and other important ties.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

China continues to grow rapidly in the economic field and for many nations China is a stabilizing factor in a changing world.  This applies to the ongoing development of many powerful economic sectors in order to modernize and develop the infrastructure. However, while the economic power of China is welcomed the same does not apply to military modernization. Therefore, are regional nations and America justified to raise issues about the military build- up of China?

According to political powers in China the modernization of the PLA is natural and organic.  After all, the geopolitical reality of China means that this nation is rightly worried about many external issues. Also, political elites in the Chinese Communist Party are also worried about sensitive ethnic and religious issues within China.

Therefore, it appears that China does have a lot to be worried about and the reality of the role of America in Northeast Asia means that rulers in Beijing are concerned about any possible containment policy.   Not that all aspects of America’s foreign policy are deemed to be against the natural interest of China.

It must be stated that the armed forces of America and NATO are intent on crushing Sunni Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan.  This policy is in the interest of China because in western regions of this nation you have ethnic and religious issues aimed at Beijing. Also, Japan is contained by America and the fear of Japanese nationalism and military modernization is reduced by the current reality and because of constitutional factors in Japan.

China claims that military modernization is natural and no different from other major powers which also have geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the geopolitical reality of China and the shared space with many regional nations is the real issue behind China’s insecurity.

The region of Northeast Asia is very diverse and varied and China needs to focus on multiple areas. This applies to geography, economics, politics, religion, ethnicity, and many other factors. Added to this diverse reality is the nuclear dimension and this factor is a cause of concern. Also, it is factual that America, the Russian Federation, China, and India, are all major military powers and they share space in various geopolitical areas.

Therefore, the nuclear dimension alone is more than problematic because America, China, the Russian Federation, India, North Korea, and Pakistan, are all nuclear powers. Japan is also a nuclear power by stealth because of the de facto reality that this nation is protected by America and in the past Japan allowed American nuclear submarines within the waters of Japan.  It is also clear that Japan could develop nuclear weapons if this nation desired. However, constitutional factors, the legacy of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, alongside being protected by America means that currently it is not feasible but if internal changes occurred in Japanese politics then it is a distant possibility, even if remote to many people.

If we look at the geopolitics of China, then it is clear that they overlap in many parts of Asia. For example Central Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Eurasia, the Mekong delta, and South China Sea region. This vast area is very diverse and China faces multiple challenges with regards to expanding its influence and defending any weak area within the geopolitical space of China.

Taiwan is a complex matter but this issue is contained within a small geographic region; therefore, the role of America and other outside nations is a concern for China.  This applies to political dimensions and the fact that Taiwan could be a launching base during the worse-case scenario between China and America.  However, it is most unlikely that America would give complete support to Taiwan because of self-interests. Also, relations between China and Taiwan are complex because economic ties continue to grow and both have vested interests in the economic modernization of China.

The economic angle means that trade investments between America and China, just like China and Taiwan, are enormous and you have major economic linkages. Despite this, you do have tensions based on currency manipulation and other factors and clearly you have a lobby in America which is concerned about China.

China is also worried about certain aspects of America’s foreign policy and this applies to bases being dotted in many nations throughout Asia. After all, America has military bases in Japan and South Korea respectively, and Guam is being developed in order to increase the leverages of America. Also, America has bases in other parts of Asia and Australia is a powerful ally despite the population of this nation being relatively small given the size of its landmass.

Therefore, China is concerned about the real intentions of America and a declining power is sometimes more dangerous because if trade problems or military issues did occur, then issues like Taiwan could be manipulated. Again, this is the worse-case scenario but for military leaders in China they must be prepared for multiple worse-case scenarios in order to protect China and this also applies to protecting powerful energy routes.

Tensions with India also remain, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite growing trade. India is also rightly concerned about China’s military support towards Pakistan and both nations share a complex relationship.  This also applies to territorial disputes, the role of India based on the Dalai Lama and Tibetan nationalism in India, and other complex issues based on protecting important sea-lanes and space.

China and India also court Myanmar because of geopolitical concerns and the same applies to other strategic nations in the region.  Therefore, while tensions may appear to be contained you still have negative aspects within the rising ambitions of both China and India. However, growing economic trade and the threat of Islamic terrorism alongside the influence of the Russian Federation, which seeks to unify all three nations in order to utilize mutual vested interests, means that a major military clash is most unlikely outside the area of the territorial dispute (military clash would be contained to a small border issue).

Overall, China is right to worry about vast areas of the geopolitical reality of this nation and military modernization is based on this fact and the need to protect energy routes and other important factors. Internal issues related to Islam in west China and Tibetan nationalism, alongside political dissent, indicates that China is faced with both internal and external factors. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and nations in Central Asia. In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China`s recent military modernization was enhanced by military purchases bought from the Russian Federation.

Also, the military spending of America is much higher and from China’s point of view it is clear that America is based in the backyard of China but China is not based in the backyard of America. Therefore, according to the military doctrine of China it is about protecting the nation from many possible scenarios during a time of conflict. However, it is not based on expansionism but protecting self-interests and the nation state of China.

In light of everything, it is clear that China is modernizing the armed forces based on the geopolitical reality of this nation. Alarmists appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill because China’s statecraft is based on conflict resolution. Also, even during worse-case scenarios then China does not desire a major military confrontation outside of a limited space. This applies to the fact that the government of China is firmly focused on economic modernization, stabilizing internal issues, protecting energy routes and trying to resolve the growing gap between cities and the countryside.

Therefore, China’s military modernization is natural and based on protecting the nation state from hostile forces. It is not based on military confrontation and intimidating neighbors. Also, it must be remembered that China could have taken Hong Kong much earlier if this nation had desired but China’s statecraft meant that patience was the virtue.

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

B.Raman

As President Obama nears the end of his first term and gets ready to seek a second term, he has sought to give a new focus to the US foreign policy towards Asia.

2.This new focus is marked by two characteristics.Firstly, an open and uninhibited expression of US concerns over China’s ever-increasing economic and military capabilities and its far from transparent intentions. Secondly, an open expression of the US determination to maintain and strengthen its capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region in order to safeguard the strategic interests of not only the US, but also other like-minded countries which share the US concerns over China’s capabilities and intentions. Prominent among such like-minded countries are Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Vietnam and India.

3. While the first three years of Obama’s first term were marked by preoccupation with the threats emanating to the security of the US Homeland from the Af-Pak region and from the global terrorists operating from that region, the coming years of the Obama Presidency will be marked by a new preoccupation with likely threats to the US economic, commercial and other strategic interests from the increasing capabilities and intentions of China and to the critical infrastructure —civilian as well as military– in the US Homeland from the well-concealed Chinese cyber war capabilities.

4.The US does not anticipate a conventional war with China, but it does fear a major threat from China to its naval primacy in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean regions and to its commercial interests in the region marked by the passage of nearly US $ 1.2 trillion of its foreign trade every year through the South China Sea. The US also fears a major threat to its critical infrastructure in the US Homeland as well as overseas from the Chinese cyber war capabilities.

5. The US nervousness is increased by the fact that while considerable information is available on China’s modernisation and expansion of its conventional, nuclear and space-related capabilities, very little information is available on China’s cyber war capabilities. Till recently, fears over likely threats to US nationals and interests from the attempts of Al Qaeda-led global terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities remained an important driving force of the US strategic doctrine. Since the beginning of last year, there are indications that fears over likely threats to the US critical infrastructure, in times of peace and war, from China’s cyber war capabilities have become an important driving force of the US strategic doctrine relating to the Asia-Pacific region.

6. Since May last year, there have been reliable reports in sections of the US media about the examination of the outlines of a cyber war doctrine to meet the new needs of the expanding threat scenario. A significant element of the cyber war doctrine reportedly under contemplation is making explicit the US determination to use its military forces in response to a cyber attack if the gravity of the attack crosses a certain threshold. These reports of a cyber war doctrine under evolution and the recent decisions of the Obama Administration to maintain and strengthen its military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region are meant to convey a carefully-disguised cautionary to China to behave itself not only in the high seas, but also in the cyber space. The US is determined to prevent China from acquiring an asymmetric advantage in cyber space by threatening China with a military response against targets in its territory to neutralise its cyber war capabilities should it become necessary.

7. The Pentagon’s strategic defence guidance document titled “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense” released at a press conference attended by Obama on January 5,2012, says as follows: “Over the long term, China’’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways. Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China’’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region. The United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law.␣ ␣ Working closely with our network of allies and partners, we will continue to promote a rules-based international order that ensures underlying stability and encourages the peaceful rise of new powers, economic dynamism, and constructive defense cooperation.”

8. The focus in the Pentagon document released to the media is on China’s non-cyber capabilities, but there are reports that the US is equally concerned—if not more—over China’s cyber warfare capabilities and intentions.

9. The US is still keen on strengthening a co-operative convergence with China to restore the health of the global economy, to deal with problems relating to climate and environment and to de-nuclearise Iran and North Korea. Nuclear non- proliferation will continue to be an important US foreign policy objective. For this, it needs the co-operation of China. At the same time, there are growing concerns in Washington DC that the USA’s benign strategic intentions and objectives might not be matched by equally benign Chinese intentions and objectives. It would, therefore, be necessary to reinforce the US presence and capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.

10. This objective is sought to be achieved by a unilateral revamp of the US presence and capabilities and through co-operation with other like-minded and equally concerned countries without giving an impression of an attempt to promote a new alliance to contain China. What the new Pentagon document talks of is not a new alliance, but a network of US allies and partners. Though not explicitly stated, the US obviously views Japan, South Korea and Australia as allies in this network and India, Vietnam, the Philippines and possibly other ASEAN countries as partners. These unilateral and multilateral efforts will be projected in the months to come not as an attempt to contain China, but as an exercise to bring China into the mainstream of Asian peace and security.

11. The US is interested in India playing an activist role in this new exercise for a network of allies and partners, but does India reciprocate this interest? The answer to this is not clear. India has already been playing an activist role in relation to its strategic co-operation with Myanmar, Vietnam , Japan and South Korea. It has also been increasing its strategic co-operation with Singapore and Australia. Its relations with the US have improved in the fields of counter-terrorism and maritime security. But India is still inclined to view these relationships as without any linkages or networking which could trigger off alarm in Beijing.

12.India and the other Asian countries with which India has established a one-to-one strategic partnership share the openly expressed US concerns over China’s capabilities, intentions and objectives, but they are not prepared to say so openly. They would want to promote a policy of mutual consultations and assistance in security matters, but not in a manner that could alarm China.

13.India has its own unique concerns relating to China arising from the failure of the India-China border talks to make any progress and the growing strategic co-operation between China and Pakistan. It has to evolve its own strategy for dealing with China in a manner that would not make these two issues more complex and complicated than they are now. What would be in India’s interest is not a networked relationship, but a mutually assisted and reinforced relationship on a one-to-one basis with a gradually expanding basket of issues that could promote a strategic convergence.

14.Two such issues in the Indo-US strategic basket relate to counter-terrorism and maritime security. The time has come to add cyber security not only against non-State actors, but also against common States of concern to this basket. China’s undetermined cyber warfare capabilities could pose as much of a threat to India as they do to the US. The time has also come for the US and Indian Navies to think of a graduated surge in their navy-to-navy co-operation by way of training, joint exercises, exchanges of visits, intelligence liaison etc. ( 8-1-12)

( Salient points of a presentation that I will be making at a seminar on Re-evaluating US Foreign Policy Towards Asia being jointly organised at the University of Madras on January 9,2012, by the Chennai Centre For China Studies, the Centre For Asia Studies, Chennai, and the Department of Politics and Public Administration of the University of Madras )

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. )

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/01/main-elements-of-us-foreign-policy.html

Please visit the website of B.Raman at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/ for more in depth reports about international relations, terrorism, and geopolitics.

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The United States put pressure on China and Japan to introduce sanctions on Iran’s oil industry and sadly Japan showed its weakness once more. However, China showed its independence by remaining neutral. After all, the government of America is an ally of Pakistan despite the complex relationship. Also, it is clear that India and Pakistan continue to spend vast sums on their respective military capabilities, including the nuclear angle. This in itself shows the lack of either sincerity or commitment on behalf of America and other nations like France which lambast Iran over the nuclear issue.

If political leaders in Tokyo believe that Iran is a threat to the national security of Japan or that Iran is an international threat, then clearly Japan must state this categorically and not hide behind the political intrigues in Washington. However, Iran does not have any ill intent towards Japan and clearly with China, India, Israel, and Pakistan, having nuclear weapons in Asia, it is understandable for Iran to be concerned about this reality from their respective geopolitical point of view.

Therefore, Japan should only follow suit on the grounds of national interests and the interest of the international community. However, the national interest of Japan isn’t threatened by Iran and the international community is divided on this issue because of so many internal pressing issues throughout every continent. This fact would imply that Japan bowed down to the “messenger,” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, because why is Japan deciding on this now?

It must be stated that September 11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, have one common theme and this applies to radical Sunni Muslims being involved in the deaths of American civilians and American soldiers. The Shia community in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have not protected or funded global terrorist networks which were responsible for September 11, London, Bali, and countless terrorist attacks in Iraq and Pakistan. Therefore, the government in Tehran is much more responsible than the ruling elites in Saudi Arabia which have many ratlines and hidden agendas.

The Finance Minister of Japan, Jun Azumi, commented that “In the past five years, we have reduced… the amount of oil imported (from Iran).” He further continued by stating that “We wish to take planned and concrete steps to further reduce this share, which now stands at 10%.”

However, after the devastating March 11 tsunami hit Japan in 2011 this unleashed the tragedy of the nuclear crisis in Fukushima. Therefore, Japan is already facing many energy shortfalls and this political burden will further put pressure on political leaders in Tokyo.

Timothy Geithner commented that ”We are working very closely with Europe and Japan and allies around the world to substantially increase the amount of pressure we bring on Iran…We very much appreciate the support Japan has provided standing with us and the international community in support of this very important strategic objective.”

China took a neutral stance because political leaders made it clear that they hoped for a resolution to be found between Iran and the nuclear watchdog (International Atomic Energy Agency). Also, political leaders in Beijing stressed that oil related issues should not be solved by relating this to the nuclear issue. Liu Weimin a ministry spokesperson for the government of China commented that “To place one country’s domestic law above international law and press others to obey is not reasonable.”

Japan also stressed that they will seek more oil exports from other nations in the Gulf. However, at a time when Shia Muslims are being persecuted in Bahrain and continue to be second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia – then this would appear to be taking an anti-Iran stance for no reason. Therefore, political leaders in Tokyo should think more deeply before becoming entangled in the web of America and Saudi Arabia.

If Japan sincerely believes that Iran is a threat to the national security of Japan and that this nation threatens the international community, then by all means Japan must stand firm with America. However, it would appear that Japan doesn’t believe this and that the only binding factor is the pressure put on Tokyo by political leaders in Washington. The timing for Japan, with internal energy problems, could not be worse and domestic issues should have meant more than the political meddling of America and Saudi Arabia.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Prophet Mohammed, the Banu Qurayza, Kashmir, and Mansuur Mohammed

Lee Jay Walker

Global Security News

Banu Qurayza were followers of Judaism and all males over puberty were beheaded while Mohammed watched

 The prophet of Islam is being re-vamped in the West and many Muslims desire to gloss over the harsh reality of their own prophet.  In modern times Mohammed is the great family man despite marrying countless numbers of wives, getting divorced many times, having sex with concubines, and marrying a child.  Yet the Mohammed of Arabia who ruled with an iron-fist and what his followers did to non-Muslims can be witnessed by events in the 7^th century and right up to modern times.

The events that I refer to applies to the systematic annihilation of all male Jews who were over the age of puberty and the ongoing barbarity of radical Islam in modern day Somalia and Kashmir.

Therefore, the Banu Qurayza tribe who followed Judaism and the Muslim convert to Christianity in Somalia in modern times, Mansuur Mohammed; represent the reality and barbarity of Islam and the same applies to the destruction of Hinduism in Kashmir.  In these three events, we can see what happened to ancient Christianity in Nubia, what awaited the Zoroastrians of Persia, what awaited the fate of Buddhists and Hindus in Afghanistan, and what awaited so many other faiths by the sword of Islam.

Before focusing on this issue, it is clear that other faiths have spread by the sword but unlike Islam, no other faith can claim that their prophet was responsible for such hatred or that laws were stated which supported jihad, dhimmitude, and enslavement.  Also, while other faiths have looked deep “into their own personal demons” the same does not apply to the Islamic world.

It is clear that human failings like overt nationalism, the control of resources, feudalism, and many upheavals have happened in history.  However, you can not equate the negatives within the Buddhist world or Christian world on the teachings of Buddha or Jesus.  After all, both supported peace and stood up to the status quo by challenging people to focus on love, compassion, and a fair society.

However, the prophet of Islam is very different because in his world view it was clear that force and coercion were political and religious tools.  Mohammed clearly supported the notion of Islamic jihad; stealing from the defeated enemy; enslaving people who did not accept dhimmitude; and laying the foundation of a brutal legal system which kills apostates, chops the hands of petty criminals, and stones people to death for adultery despite the fact that Mohammed did adultery with his concubines.

Often people like to clump all religions together, however, it doesn’t wash because not once did Buddha or Jesus kill nor did they desire political power or to marry countless number of women while claiming to be religious.  On the contrary, Mohammed rewards Muslims for killing non-Muslims, by having virgins waiting for them when they sacrifice themselves during jihad. 

Jesus, however, gave his own life in order that others can find salvation and of course you have no pre-conditions because people are free to reject him or accept him and only the afterlife will judge providing you have an afterlife?

In Islam this is seen to be weak and the God of Mohammed seeks control, power, to enforce dhimmitude, to kill in the name of Allah, and to install a legal system which favors Muslims over the inferior non-Muslims.

I will now turn back to the 7^th century and the lifetime of Mohammed because he set in motion a religion which would engulf many parts of the world and this applies to terror, war, dhimmitude and Islamic jihad.

Matthias Kuntzel, the author of Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the roots of 9/11 highlights on page 65 that “In 627 the Qurayza tribe was exterminated following a siege of Medina by the Meccans.  Mohammed went to the marketplace in Medina and had graves dug there.  Then the Jews were brought to him and beheaded at the gravesides – between 600 and 900 men in all.  The executions lasted the whole day…..Most of the women and children were sold into slavery in Medina, the remainder in Syria and Najad.”  (Johan Bouman, op. cit., p.86)

Therefore, the prophet of Islam supported the entire massacre of all Jewish males who followed the religion of Judaism and who were over puberty. Mohammed just sat back and watched this gruesome act and did nothing, apart from divide the spoils afterwards.  This barbaric act took place under the rule of Mohammed in the 7^th century and in this sense the beheading of Muslim apostates to Christianity in Somalia can be linked to the deeds of Mohammed.

Given this, Mansuur Mohammed who was beheaded in Somalia for being an apostate in the 21^st century, joins the Islam of Mohammed and the 7^th century because he met the same barbaric fate.   Koranic prayers would have been recited while beheading the Banu Qurayza and the same applies to the al-Shabaab (al-Shabab) in Somalia who were reciting the Koran and shouting in joy while cutting the head off a Christian convert.

In my article called Killing Christians in Somalia, burning Bibles in Pakistan and stealth jihad. I stated that “…we have silence when Christians are being beheaded while Muslims recite the Koran and shout “Allah Akbar” while killing someone in such a brutal way”.

In the minds of Islamists who support the ways and deeds of Mohammed they are following in the footsteps of their bloodthirsty prophet.  Therefore, the beheading of Mansuur Mohammed who converted from Islam to Christianity in Somalia is connected to the “same evil forces” which were unleashed by Muslims under Mohammed during his lifetime.

Mohammed clearly approved of the entire slaughter of all Jewish males over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza and he just sat back and watched the beheadings, one after one, into the hundreds, and eventually every Jewish male over puberty was killed for remaining loyal to Judaism. 

The mind of Mohammed was clearly evil because at no time did he try to stop his followers from doing this brutal crime.  In direct contrast to Jesus who stopped the prostitute from being killed by stoning to death we have the prophet of Islam who endorses such barbaric methods.  Mohammed not only watched this brutal genocide of all male followers of Judaism over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza; for this was not enough because he also enslaved the Jewish women and children of this tribe and plundered all their wealth which was to be shared by the victorious Muslims.

Mohammed now “set in stone the brutality of Islam” and this applies to jihad, dhimmitude, jizya, killing apostates, stoning people to death for adultery (despite doing adultery himself), plundering the wealth of the vanquished and enabling the forces of evil to kill in the name of God.

Islamists all over the world, irrespective if they are in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or wherever, support the methodology of Mohammed and many desire to spread this faith and enforce dhimmitude on the people of the book or to massacre and destroy the foundations of Buddhism, Hinduism, and other faiths.  At the same time you have Islamists within the democratic world, for example in America, Germany, India, the UK, and other nations, who desire to spread Islam and to weaken the foundations of democracy in order to Islamize the entire world.

In our own lifetime we have witnessed the Islamization of Kashmir “in silence “and a civilization which nurtured this land for thousands of years and the Hindus of this area may end up like the Buddhists and Hindus of Afghanistan?  This applies to the complete Islamization of an area which once had a flourishing Hindu civilization but just like the destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism in Afghanistan by Islamic forces and then the destruction of all signs of this culture, the same fate awaits the Hindus of Kashmir if Islamists get their way.

If you check the website of http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html it states the following:

“Terrorism in Kashmir is an ideological struggle with specified political commitments which are fundamentalist and communal in character.

Terrorist violence is aimed at achieving the disengagement of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from India and its annexation to Pakistan. It is, the continuation of the Islamic fundamentalist struggle for the homeland of Pakistan which claims Jammu and Kashmir state on account of its Muslim majority character. 

The major dimension of the terrorist violence in Kashmir is the terrorists’ commitment to the extermination and subjugation of the Hindus in the state because Hindus do not subscribe to the idea of separation from India, nor do they expect to be governed by the authority of the state which derives its sanction from the law and precedent of Islam. Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) have always been in the forefront of the struggle against secessionism, communalism and fundamentalism. Hence this peace loving minority with a modern outlook became the main victim of terrorist violence. The strategies involved in the terrorists’ operation against the Hindus in Kashmir include:

“The extermination of Hindus; subjecting Hindus to brutal torture to instill fear among them in order to achieve their submission; and to engineer a forced mass exodus of Hindus from the land of their ancestors and birth by way of issuing threatening letters, kidnappings and torture deaths on non-compliance of the terrorists’ dictates and ensure the destruction of the secular and pluralistic character of the socio-political fabric of the Kashmiri Society.”

If we go back to Arabia before Mohammed and during his early life then it is clear that Arabia was pluralistic and you had Christians, Jews, Pagans, and other faiths.  However, during the lifetime of Mohammed the sword would be taken to Pagans and the followers of Judaism, once Mohammed obtained power.  Also, just like the destruction of all non-Muslim faiths in Afghanistan (Buddhism, Hinduism, and others) by the followers of Islam the prophet of Islam had done the same and in time the same fate would await the Christians of Arabia.

Therefore, Mohammed had supported the entire destruction of Arab Paganism and Judaism, and in time the same fate would await Christians once complete Islamization had taken over all aspects of society.  Modern Islamists are connected with this 7^th century methodology because Islamists are doing the same in Kashmir with regards to the destruction of Hinduism.

The followers of Islam are also killing every single apostate that they can find in Somalia and all Christians converts face being beheaded or killed in other ways, while their children are being taken and converted to Islam.  Buddhists in southern Thailand face the same Islamic methodology and many Buddhist priests have been killed alongside other Buddhists and moderate Muslims who are deemed to be apostates for supporting pluralism.

The mindset of the prophet of Islam is ongoing and lives on within the brutal legal system of Islamic Sharia law; the destruction of other faiths by the followers of Islam in Kashmir, southern Thailand, Somalia, and in other parts of the world; and the mindset of Mohammed lives on within every murder of an innocent Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or other in Pakistan.

After all, the followers of Islam desire to enforce dhimmitude on non-Muslims (Egypt, Iran, and others) or the eradication of non-Muslim faiths within an Islamic monoculture (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and others).  Therefore, the beheadings of over 600 followers of Judaism in the lifetime of Mohammed and the beheading of the Christian convert, Mansuur Mohammed, in the 21^st century are connected.

The same applies to the ongoing Islamization of Kashmir where a rich Hindu civilization is under threat from complete Islamization.  Therefore, the Hindus of this region are like the Arab Pagans and followers of Judaism in the time of Mohammed because both face extermination and the destruction of their culture and all traces of Hindu architecture is under threat. However, while the world remembers the destruction of Buddhist symbols in Afghanistan not a murmur is being said in the international community about the plight of Hindus in Kashmir.

In truth, it is clear that Mohammed and the mindset of Islamists are the same and jihad and plunder goes hand in hand.  The 7^th century and 21^st century are the same in the minds of Islamists because they desire power, control, dhimmitude, jizya, and so forth; liberals can fool themselves but history teaches us that Islam destroyed many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, and Zoroastrians societies. 

If leaders in democratic societies desire to ignore history and a living history of Islamization in Kashmir, Pakistan, southern Thailand, and in other parts of the world in the 21^st century then the sword of Islam and stealth jihad will work hand in hand in order to obtain power in new lands.

Matthias Kuntzel : Jihad and Jew-Hatred; Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker 

Modern Tokyo Times

Prime Minister Noda and other leading politicians are intent on expanding the influence of Japan internationally and the latest pledge of two trillion yen looks very promising. This applies to developing the transportation infrastructure of south-east Asia and creating a new network which will open up the region to Japanese companies and other nations.

The “southern corridor” is intended to link Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) with Phnom Penh (Cambodia) and Bangkok (Thailand), and ultimately with the Dawei Seaport (Myanmar). Therefore, Japan pledged to give ASEAN two trillion yen in order to create a new economic hub and help with exporting and importing respective goods with India.

Also, given piracy in the Malacca Straits and other factors, then this development would open up parts of India for trade and bypass many negative factors which currently exist. Not only this, nations like Cambodia and Myanmar would benefit greatly and the construction boom would set in motion many other developments.

Not all the two trillion yen will be given to this sole project but clearly this was an important aspect of the pledge to ASEAN. Therefore, the construction of highways, roads, and ports, would help the entire region and reduce costs. Also, it is a reminder to China that Japan is waking up from a deep sleep because the “quietist policy” appeared to hinder Japan’s long term prospects.

Of course, the economic factor is the main concern and Japan values economic trade with China and hopefully in the future both nations will increase economic and political initiatives. However, often in the past it seemed that Japan lacked real resolve and this can be seen by China developing relations with many African nations because a vacuum existed.

After all, modernity happened in Japan first and given the natural resources of many African nations and the need for major economic development, it was essential for Japan to lead the way. Yet this never happened and clearly many African nations have sided with China in the international arena based on politics coming out of Beijing.

Noda, the new leader of Japan, is certainly intent on focusing on the international arena and this can be seen by recent events.  This applies to making positive overtures to South Korea; a possible visit to North Korea providing the abduction issue can be solved; agreement of nuclear reactors being built in Vietnam and other economic initiatives; first ever bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India; deployment of peacekeeping troops to South Sudan; promising to focus on territorial issues with the Russian Federation based on mutual understanding; and other initiatives.

Naoyuki Fukuda, who is a staff writer at The Asahi Shimbun, commented that “The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which is taking a leading role in infrastructure export policy, is aggressively seeking ways for Japanese manufacturers to set up bases in India, a vast market with high annual growth.”

“If a parts supply chain could be established between Japan and India through the southern corridor, Japanese parts manufacturers would reap huge benefits,” said a high-ranking ministry official.”

“A major point for the corridor’s construction will be the development of the economic special zone at Dawei in Myanmar, which currently has no overland routes to Thailand.”

The “southern corridor” sounds like a great plan because it will open up the region to major trade and development and India looms large in the minds of many companies. However, you still have many obstacles and this applies to political factors and other areas but the idea does seem feasible.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201111190032　The Asahi Shimbun

http://moderntokyotimes.com

The situation in Kabul should pose increasing concerns not only to the US and Afghanistan, but also India. The steady weakening of the security situation in the Afghan capital a year before the US Presidential elections is reminiscent of the weakening of the security situation in Saigon, the Vietnamese capital, in 1974, which inexorably led to the capture of Saigon by the Vietcong and the hasty withdrawal under humiliating conditions of the US forces in 1975.

2. The steadily deteriorating situation in Kabul was once again highlighted by a suicide attack against a bus carrying International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel on October 29, 2011, in which five US soldiers, eight American civilians, three Afghan civilians and one Canadian were killed. The attack, for which responsibility has been claimed by the Taliban, was carried out by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber. The incident has been described by local observers as one of the worst ground attacks against foreign troops in Kabul since 2001.

3. There were two other incidents the same day—- but away from Kabul. In the first reported from the South, three ISAF soldiers were reportedly killed by a man in Afghan army uniform. The gunman was ultimately killed.

4.In the second incident outside Kabul, a teenage girl carried out a suicide attack on a building of the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, in the eastern province of Kunar, killing herself and wounding several NDS personnel.

5.In September, there was a commando style attack on the US Embassy and the ISAF headquarters in Kabul which lasted 20 hours, causing many casualties in the area around—but not in the US Embassy itself. The US blamed the Haqqani network for these attacks and started a PSYWAR campaign against the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for allegedly using the Haqqani network for promoting Pakistan’s strategic objectives in Afghanistan.

6. The war of words between the US and Pakistan and US threats of an aid cut-off if Pakistan did not sincerely act against the network have had no impact on the ground situation in Afghanistan as seen from the incidents of October 29 in Kabul and outside.

7. The latest incidents illustrate that while the US may be making headway in its counter-terrorism operations against Al Qaeda and its terrorism affiliates, it is badly stuck up in its counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban and the Haqqani network. The US pressure on Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network has come too late—- long after the Taliban and the Haqqani network succeeded in infiltrating into Afghan territory, and in establishing a wide network of sleeper cells, which are no longer dependent on the sanctuaries in the Pakistani territory for their sustenance and motivation.

8. Even in the unlikely event of Pakistan acting against the sanctuaries of the Haqqani network in Pakistani territory, the presence of many well-motivated and well-trained sleeper cells inside Afghanistan would continue to come in the way of US attempts to reverse the ground situation.

9. The Pakistan Army already visualises tactical advantages and a likely strategic turning-point in the ground situation in Afghanistan. The tactical advantages arise from the success of the Taliban and the Haqqani network in establishing a network of sleeper cells inside Afghan territory. The strategic turning-point visualised by Pakistan would, in its calculation, arise from an increasing pressure in the months before the Presidential elections on President Barack Obama to find a way out for extricating the US out of Afghanistan without humiliation or a loss of face for the US.

10. The Pakistan Army feels that only it will be in a position to prevent a humiliating situation for the US for which Washington will have to pay a price in the form of coming to terms with the ground reality of a Pakistani presence and control in Afghanistan and a dilution of the Indian presence and influence. Easing of the US pressure on Pakistan to act against the anti-India jihadi groups such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) could be part of this price.

11. It would be unwise of India to view Pakistan as a cornered nation without any exits unless it acts against terrorism emanating from its territory. It is presently a cornered nation all right, but the deteriorating ground situation in Afghanistan and the ultimate US dependence on Pakistan to avoid a humiliating withdrawal could provide Pakistan with a feasible exit option.

12. India should undertake an exercise as to how much of its presence and influence in Afghanistan would be sustainable in the event of a weakening of the US position and how to sustain it. We should not extend and expand our direct and open presence and influence beyond realistic limits. A greater injection of realism into our Afghan policy is called for.

Olivier LeCourt and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda continues to press ahead with important geopolitical agendas. This applies to recent agreements with the Philippines, making positive overtures to South Korea, making it known that he would visit North Korea providing the abduction issue could be solved, sending peacekeeping troops to South Sudan, and now the first ever bilateral naval exercise will take place between Japan and India.

At the same time Japan is offering an olive branch to Europe providing the European Union will focus on serious reforms and implement sound economic policies.  If this occurs, then Japan will buy more Eurobonds and help nations like Greece alongside other economic powers.

Turning back to the announcement that Japan and India will hold their first ever bilateral naval exercise in 2012, then this will be welcomed by America and Australia which is a regional power in its own right.  After all, Australia sent military forces to East Timor, Iraq, and other nations, and it is essential that all democratic powers move closer together in order to maintain regional stability.

It is easy to view the bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India and see this move to be aimed, at least partly, at China but this would be overstepping the mark. After all, Japan also desires closer ties with China but leaders in Tokyo must also boost relations with democratic powers. Therefore, instead of adopting “a quietist policy” and “constrained policy” it is in the interest of Japan and democratic powers to see a more robust foreign policy.

India may view this move to be more political and leaders in New Delhi are worried about aspects of China’s foreign policy.  This applies notably to China’s support of Pakistan, border issues between China and India and China’s port link ups in Gwadar port (Pakistan), Chittagong port (Bangladesh), Hambanota (Sri Lanka), and the Irrawaddy Corridor (Myanmar) which will open up the Bay of Bengal.  Therefore, China’s geopolitical expansion is growing and this applies to the Bay of Bengal, Strait of Hormuz, Indian Ocean, and other areas and this is leading to maritime concerns.

However, while Japan does have some vested interests because important maritime issues concern all nations which operate or rely on trade and energy resources to pass through important sea-lanes; it is clear that Japan is more focused on border disputes within northeast Asia.

Japan, however, is intent on showing China that its military expansion and increasing geopolitical expansion and claims over border disputes with many nations, isn’t going to constrain Japan. On the contrary, it will merely boost Japan’s awareness that countermeasures will be implemented and deeper relations will be forged with other nations throughout various parts of Asia.

Noda and various ministries aren’t interested in negative policies towards China because trade between Japan and China is enormous.  Also, for much of history the best scholars from both nations visited each other and cultural interaction was enormous.  Without a shred of doubt the impact of many aspects of Chinese culture influenced Japan for many centuries and clearly Japanese scholars and ideas influenced China.

In historical terms China and Japan don’t share a history like France and England which was based on war and regional hostility in many periods of history.  Therefore, prior to the end of the late nineteenth century China and Japan wasn’t a threat to each other.

If is therefore hoped that relations between Japan and China will blossom in the future and clearly they have come a long way since China began to open-up.  However, Japan, like any nation state, must be prepared to protect its own geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the joint naval exercise between Japan and India which will take place next year shouldn’t be viewed negatively by China or any other nation.

Instead, it should be seen for what it is and this applies to a major power developing cordial military relations with another democratic power, in order to boost security and other important ties.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com