Offensive Behaviour
The Western Minority is spending big on weapons & military expansion. But their expanded armed forces are stationing closer & closer to China & Russia. Is Western Defense just offensive behaviour?
UPDATE:?Russia’s top diplomat called on the United States and Europe to respect other members of the international community and stressed that no one ever granted the "Western minority" the right to speak on behalf of the entire humankind.
Despite all the determined, and well-funded, efforts of?Greg Sheridan, his mates at?ASPIand in the media to beat the war drums and the legal?shenanigansaround the role of the Governor General in declaring war, it is by no means inevitable that Australia will go to war against China.
Military spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2022, and the United States now spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined.
The Albanese government on Monday released a declassified version of the much-anticipated defence strategic review. The review is largely internally coherent, but there’s a dissonance between the rhetoric and the substance – noting the absence of substantial additional resource allocation. Perhaps this reflects the political headwinds faced by the Albanese government.
Japan is removing its pacifist mask as it continues attempts to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, Chinese experts said on Wednesday, following reports that Tokyo is likely to deploy a surface-to-air missile defense unit at Japan's closest self-defense force base to China's Taiwan region.?
The Western Minority
Sergei Lavrov UN remarks 25 April 2023
Russia’s top diplomat called on the United States and Europe to respect other members of the international community and stressed that no one ever granted the "Western minority" the right to speak on behalf of the entire humankind.
The world has approached perhaps an even more dangerous line than the one it was close to during the Cold War, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the UN Security Council at a meeting on effective multilateralism through defending the principles of the organization's Charter.
According to Lavrov, the future of international relations depends on the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine. He called on the United States and Europe to respect other members of the international community and stressed that no one ever granted the "Western minority" the right to speak on behalf of the entire humankind. They should behave decently and respect all members of the international community," he stressed.
"The West has long been uncomfortable negotiating in universal formats such as the United Nations," he said, adding that to substantiate its course toward undermining multilateralism it introduced the "idea of democracies against autocracy." Along with summits for democracy, whose participants are selected by the "self-proclaimed hegemon, it is establishing other clubs for the chosen, which act as a workaround to the United Nations." They are "devised to undermine talks on relevant topics under the United Nations’ auspices, to impose non-consensus concepts and solutions that serve the West." "First, they negotiate something […] with a few participants and then present these agreements as the position of the international community."
The Ukrainian issue cannot be considered in isolation from the geopolitical context. "This is not about Ukraine at all but about how international relations will be built in the future: via a solid consensus based on a balance of interests or via the aggressive and explosive promotion of [the West’s] hegemony. "It is obvious to any impartial person that the Nazi regime in Kiev cannot be seen as representing the residents of the territories that refused to recognize the outcome of the bloody state coup in February 2014 and against whom the coup plotters unleashed a war against."
"Once again, as during the Cold War, we have come to a dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous line," Lavrov said. "The situation is exacerbated by the loss of faith in multilateralism, as Western financial and economic aggression destroys the benefits of globalization. The US and its allies abandon diplomacy and demand that relations be clarified on the battlefield."
"While propagating its ‘rules’ on the international stage, it (the West - TASS) has a stranglehold on multilateralism and democracy at home by utilizing ever more repressive tools to suppress any dissent - just as the criminal Kiev regime, with the backing of its teachers: the US and its allies, is doing," the minister said.
According to Lavrov, a "successful open system of economic and security cooperation has evolved for decades around ASEAN." "This system has produced consensus approaches that satisfy both the ASEAN Ten and its dialogue partners."
But now, "the US and its allies have employed significant resources in an effort to undermine multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific Region." "Bloc-based approaches that undermine ASEAN-centric multilateralism are evident in the creation of the AUKUS military alliance, into which both Tokyo and Seoul and even a number of ASEAN countries are pushed. Under the aegis of the United States, mechanisms are being created to interfere in maritime security issues with the aim of ensuring the unilateral interests of the West in the waters of the South China Sea."
"There has always been a quantitative and personnel imbalance in favor of the West at the UN, but until recently, the secretariat has tried to remain neutral. Today, however, this imbalance has become chronic and secretariat employees ever more frequently allow themselves politically motivated behavior inappropriate for international officials," he said. ""I am calling on the esteemed Secretary General to see to it that all of his employees observe the requirements of objectivity in accordance with Article 100 of the UN Charter."
Read more?here.
US Offensive Profligacy
Defense spending by the United States?accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2022, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). U.S. defense spending increased by $71 billion from 2021 to 2022, in part due to a military aid sent to support?
Ukraine in its ongoing conflict, and the United States now spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined (up from outspending the next 9 countries combined in 2021).
SIPRI’s definition of defense spending is broader than the definitions that are most frequently used in fiscal policy discussions in the United States, and according to their calculations, the United States spent $877 billion on national defense in 2022. SIPRI includes discretionary and mandatory outlays by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, and the National Intelligence Program. By contrast, the national defense budget function ($766 billion in 2022) excludes outlays by the Department of State and certain programs of the Department of Energy. Nonetheless, the SIPRI comparison provides useful insights on the sheer scale of U.S. defense spending relative to other nations.
Defense spending accounts for a sizable portion of the federal budget and the United States vastly outspends other nations. In determining the appropriate level of such spending in the future, it will be important to evaluate whether it is being used effectively and how it fits in with other?national priorities.
Read more?here.
Taiwan's 2 journeys, 2 roads, war or peace?
Despite all the determined, and well-funded, efforts of?Greg Sheridan, his mates at?ASPIand in the media to beat the war drums and the legal?shenanigans?around the role of the Governor General in declaring war, it is by no means inevitable that Australia will go to war against China.
There is opposition at home and serious doubts within the US national security elite and the military, about the ability of the US to?prevail?in a short, localised war. In the background there is the dawning realisation that America no longer has the?industrial muscle?to churn out the munitions for modern industrial warfare. Stockpiles of munitions are?depleted, and there are difficulties in ramping up production. Reserves of European allies are being rifled to sustain the war in Ukraine and pressure is being put on?South Korea?to antagonise its neighbour Russia to send artillery shells to Ukraine. Europe is conflicted, torn between subservience to US strategy and the economic imperative of maintaining a good relationship with China. This was illustrated by the recent visit of Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Emmanuel Macron, President of France. Von der Leyen was cruelly taken through the?tradesman’s entrance, being regarded as the?head?of America’s civilian branch office in Europe (NATO handles the military aspect) while Macron was accorded the status of a state visit appropriate to the leader of an important country. Macron for his part, aided by the lingering legacy of Gaullist independence with his advocacy of ‘strategic autonomy’, in effect declared that France wanted no part of an American war over Taiwan. Washington, and its acolytes in Europe were not well pleased:?Emmanuel Macron served Xi Jinping a strategic triumph on a silver platter
China is being annoyingly uncooperative. Despite the hysteria in much of the mainstream media American?experts?tend to acknowledge that the likelihood of China invading Taiwan is slight. Mark Milley, Chief of the US General Staff has played down the?possibility. Since generals usually exaggerate threats to secure more funding that rings true. China has mounted military exercises after provocations such as the Pelosi visit and the Tsai-McCarthy meeting; such gestures are part of the lexicon of international affairs. If Taiwan declares independence Beijing naturally reserves the right to use force to preserve territorial integrity, but all governments do that. But even then, the invasion scenario that the media uses with such gusto to generate war fever is the least likely?response. The challenge for Beijing is to combine a forceful warning of the consequences of separatism, with a subtle encouragement of anti-separatist forces in Taiwan.
Tsai Ing-wen’s formal title, which illustrates some of the key contradictions in the issue, is?President of the Republic of China. Her government has created a new,?passport. The cover describes itself in English as ‘TAIWAN passport’, and in Chinese as the passport of the Republic of China. How can a place that calls itself the Republic of China be not part of China?
Ma Ying-jeou, former president of that same Republic of China (2008-16) is also a former Chairman of the Kuomintang (KMT) one of the two major Chinese political parties, the other being the Gongchandang, or Communist Party (CCP). The KMT and CCP have shared origins in that they both were responses to the dire state of China during and after the collapse of the Qing dynasty (1911), devastated by the impact of Western imperialism (with Britain in the lead) and soon to face the onslaught of Japanese imperialism. Japan’s first overseas conquest was Taiwan, in 1895. The KMT and CCP both revere the nationalist leader Sun Yat-sen, and, although rivals, did fight together against Japan. Taiwan was restored to China in 1945 and the defeat of the KMT in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 saw it hole up there under US protection.
领英推荐
The DPP is by contrast a Taiwanese party, drawing on those who have lived in Taiwan for generations. But they are Han Chinese; the proportion of Han in?Taiwan(95%) is higher than that of the?Mainland?itself (92%). Taiwan has been separated from the rest of China since 1895 and the sense of Taiwanese identity is strong. However declaring independence would be disastrous with Taiwan being used as a?pawn?by America in its struggle to prevent the rise of China. A high degree of?autonomy?within China offers the best solution to ending the Civil War. A KMT victory in the January 2024 election might just provide a road, undoubtedly tortuous and difficult but with hope, to that peaceful destination. Bad news for the warmongers, but good news for both sides of the Taiwan Straits, for Australia and the wider world.
Read more?here.
Offensive Australian Strategic Review
The Albanese government on Monday released a declassified version of the much-anticipated?defence strategic review. The review is largely internally coherent, but there’s a dissonance between the rhetoric and the substance – noting the absence of substantial additional resource allocation. Perhaps this reflects the political headwinds faced by the Albanese government.
The review highlights a shift from describing the defence of Australia in narrow, conventional military terms to a broader approach that requires a “whole-of-nation effort”.
faces increasing competition that operates on multiple levels – economic, military, strategic and diplomatic – all interwoven and all framed by an intense contest of values and narratives.
A large-scale conventional and non-conventional military build-up without strategic reassurance is contributing to the most challenging circumstances in our region for decades.
It focuses on the need for Australia to develop long-range strike capabilities, notably with longer-range missiles (it says we’re in the “missile age”) and advanced nuclear-powered submarines.
The emphasis is on a “focused force”, with five tasks:
Four of these five tasks involve acting well beyond Australia’s shores. That’s a significant shift.
The report lists six priorities, and 62 recommendations, for defence acquisitions.
The first priority is acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, of which Australia already has a plan following the?AUKUS announcement in March. The government recognises conventional diesel-electric submarines are now vulnerable to detection, due to advances in surveillance. Nuclear-powered subs are less likely to be spotted as they don’t have to come up for a “snort” to refuel.
Second is improving our precision strike capability. Guided weapons and explosives are in short supply, in part thanks to the war in Ukraine, but also because we’ve tended not to develop large stockpiles. The government also plans to invest in developing the ability to manufacture advanced munitions onshore, especially long-range guided weapons. Officials privately advise that they expect we will produce licensed versions of United States’-sourced weapons systems to equip the ADF.
The third priority is about supporting the second pillar of the AUKUS (the first pillar is the submarines). This focuses on acceleration of technology such as artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and longer-range precision guided munitions.
Fourth is the redevelopment of Australia’s northern bases, from Cocos (Keeling) Islands ranging to the air bases and other defence infrastructure across northern Australia.
Fifth is investment in recruitment and retention of ADF personnel. The previous federal government?projected a nearly 20,000 increase in uniformed defence personnel. The current government committed to follow through on that, with an increase of 5% per year, but there was little to show for any further surge.
Sixth is an emphasis on improving relations with the region, with a particular focus on Pacific Island nations.
The review advocates for weapons with a longer range instead, such as “HIMARS” (high mobility artillery rocket systems), which is currently being used by Ukrainian forces on the battlefield.
The thinking now is not just about air, land and sea forces, but also cyber and space. The report emphasises a robust cyber capability. The Australian Signals Directorate’s cyber program, called REDSPICE, is part of the mix.
Read more?here.
Japan’s Ring of Fire
Japan is removing its pacifist mask as it continues attempts to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, Chinese experts said on Wednesday, following reports that Tokyo is likely to deploy a surface-to-air missile defense unit at Japan's closest self-defense force base to China's Taiwan region.?
Citing ministry spokesperson Takeshi Aoki, Japan's Jiji Press reported on Tuesday that the ministry of defense plans to deploy a surface-to-air guided missile unit on Yonaguni, a remote island in southwestern Japan that is about 110 kilometers from China's Taiwan region and 150 kilometers from China's Diaoyu Islands.?
Yonaguni is Japan's closest land to Taiwan island and to key military bases along the Chinese mainland's southeastern coast. Japan has been deploying monitoring stations on Yonaguni to snoop on activities of both the mainland and Taiwan.?
Japan on December 16 approved three documents - the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Program Guidelines, and the Mid-Term Defense Program - in one of?the country's largest defense shake-ups since World War II. The documents involve Japan's biggest military post-war build-up plan, with $320 billion to buy missiles "capable of striking China," its "greatest strategic challenge."?
On December 11, policy chief of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Koichi Hagiuda said Japan needs to increase its military spending when meeting with secessionist leader Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan on December 11.??
Therefore, Chinese experts said not only Yonaguni, but also the entire Ryukyu Islands is expected to be at the forefront of Japan's military deterrence against China in the next five years, with the ability to deploy weapons to strike important military installations within enemy territory.?
This means that in the future, Japan may completely get rid of its post-war pacifist image that was of great importance to its economic development, to become a country that poses a threat to its neighbors, develops its military industry, and is likely to use force abroad, Liu warned.?
This will be the biggest change in East Asia since World War II and will bring great danger to the whole Asia-Pacific region, Liu added.?
Read more?here.