Weaponisations

US stops India diamonds, US has Pakistan cancel Iran pipeline, US still occupies Iraq & Syria, Australia a de-facto nuclear state, US attacks Indonesia neutrality, US failed to impose English in Japan

UPDATE:?Offshore subsidiaries of Indian diamond merchants have had fund transfers worth almost $26m frozen after US authorities claimed the rough diamonds were mined in Russia. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) singled out UAE subsidiaries of Indian jewellers it claims have connected suppliers with Russian investors.

Pakistan has cancelled the building of its major gas pipeline with Iran due to the threat of economic sanctions imposed by the United States. The decision seemingly concludes around a decade of expectations for the project.

U.S. and Iraqi defense leaders discussed an enduring strategic relationship between the two nations during talks at the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III welcomed Iraqi Defense Minister Thabit Muhammad Al-Abassi for a discussion on U.S.-Iraq joint security cooperation dialogue yesterday.?

Australia’s Pacific neighbours deserve much better from our foreign minister. Australia is becoming a de facto nuclear armed state. Australia has allowed US nuclear propelled—and quite likely nuclear armed—submarines free access to Australian naval bases, US Air Force nuclear weapons capable B-52 bombers have access to at least two RAAF air bases, and more than two-thousand US Marines are permanently stationed on our soil.

Indonesia could unwittingly be drawn into great-power military conflict due to its strategic location, especially if the U.S. operates in Indonesian waters. This makes it a focal point for regional and global interests and places it in a challenging position as the U.S. militarises the region.

After August 6, 1945, the US attempted and failed in imposing the English language in Japan. Japanese language remained a symbol of pride and identity following the devastation suffered after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

US freezes Indian diamond merchant payments

By Economic Times of India

Offshore subsidiaries of Indian diamond merchants have had fund transfers worth almost $26m frozen after US authorities claimed the rough diamonds were mined in Russia. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) singled out UAE subsidiaries of Indian jewellers it claims have connected suppliers with Russian investors.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a US government arm, has, in the last couple of months, frozen about a dozen fund transfers worth nearly $26 million by multiple offshore firms belonging to Indian jewellers, for alleged import of rough diamonds mined in Russia.

The entities that have been directly impacted are UAE subsidiaries of Indian diamond houses. The dollar payments by these UAE firms were stalled amid suspicions that their suppliers have Russian origin, or have investments and other connections with Russian miners and sanctioned entities.?

The dollar payments never reached rough diamond sellers, following instructions from US authorities to banks that hold the nostro accounts of the suppliers' banks, a person in the diamond industry told ET.?

A nostro account is a foreign currency account that one bank has with another. It is used to facilitate settlement of cross-border trade and forex transactions.?

The close-knit diamond trade across the world is using its influence to put across their point, contain the damage and salvage the situation.

When contacted, Vipulbhai Shah, chairman of the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), said, "We, as the industry body, have taken up the matter with the ministry of commerce and the Indian embassy in the UAE because the payments for imports were made by UAE subsidiaries of Indian diamond companies. Around $26 million, involving about a dozen payments, are stuck."

He added, "We are also trying to explain to OFAC that the payments were made to non-sanctioned entities and even to some Russian entities well before the sanctions came into place. There is very little direct import of diamonds from Russia."

The US Treasury Department's OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted countries, regimes and terrorists based on American foreign policy. Many in the trade link the OFAC action to the stance articulated in the G7 leaders; statement of February 24: "Given the significant revenues that Russia extracts from the export of diamonds, we will work collectively on further measures on Russian diamonds, including rough and polished ones, working closely to engage key partners.

Kirit Bhansali, founder of Smital Gems and vice-chairman of GJEPC, said, "There will be another round of talks with G7 nations soon, where the Indian government will try to find a middle ground so rough diamond supply can be ensured, while the interests of the US government are protected."

"Some of our Dubai-based importers who made remittance through banks there have not received payments for almost six months," Bhansali said. "The UAE government and the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre have taken up the matter with OFAC."

Read more?here .

US sanctions end Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline

Pakistan has cancelled the building of its major gas pipeline with Iran due to the threat of economic sanctions imposed by the United States. The decision seemingly concludes around a decade of expectations for the project.

According to Pakistan's?Dawn?newspaper, the country's Minister of State for Petroleum, Dr Musadik Malik, said in written testimony to the National Assembly that, "Pakistan has issued a Force Majeure and Excusing Event notice to Iran under the Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement (GSPA), which resultantly suspends Pakistan's obligations under the GSPA."

He confirmed that the pipeline – which aimed to supply 750 million cubic feet of gas per day to Pakistan from its western neighbour – "is stalled due to international sanctions on Iran", and will only resume once the sanctions are lifted and no longer threaten to hit Pakistan's own state-owned entities. In that regard, "No date and deadline can be given for the completion of the Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project."

In his policy statement placed on the floor of the National Assembly, the minister also clarified Iran's stance on the matter, saying that Tehran had disputed Islamabad's force majeure notice. Earlier this year, Iran?warned ?Pakistan that if it failed to complete its side of the pipeline deal and fulfil the contract by March 2024, then it would be hit with a penalty of $18 billion.

Malik outlined, however, that the dispute can only be settled through international arbitration if Iran does not accept Pakistan's notice. Consequently, "The exact amount of a penalty, if any, is subject to the outcome of the arbitration to be determined by the arbitrators."

Pakistan's force majeure notice based on external factors beyond its control comes a week after the visit to the country by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, during which he urged the completion of the project as one that would benefit both nations. He also discussed with his Pakistani counterpart, Bilawal Bhutto, potential solutions to existing financial problems between them.

Amid Pakistan's existing economic crisis, the nation of over 240 million people experiences regular blackouts of around 12 hours per day and sometimes more, making the supply of gas and electricity a major priority for the Pakistani government.

While Iran has reportedly completed its side of the project, having constructed hundreds of kilometres of the pipeline, Pakistan has long questioned its ability to finish its end of the line due to its rampant economic struggles and the threat of US sanctions.

In recent years, Islamabad has attempted to persuade Washington to exempt it from sanctions and measures in order to allow it to complete the pipeline project. Just as the US government temporarily?exempted ?humanitarian relief-related trade from the sanctions imposed on Syria after the deadly earthquake that struck the country in February, Pakistan may similarly seek sanctions exemption in relation to its energy supply from Iran.

"The Government of Pakistan is engaged with the US authorities, through diplomatic channels, to seek exemption for the project," said Malik. "All necessary actions are being taken to construct the gas pipeline at the earliest".

Despite those overtures by Pakistan earlier this year, the US has not given any response. If Washington does not give the green light for the project to go ahead on humanitarian and energy grounds, it is expected that Islamabad will demand that it pays any penalty imposed by Tehran.

Read more?here .

U.S. Extends Iraq Occupation

U.S. and Iraqi defense leaders discussed an enduring strategic relationship between the two nations during talks at the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III welcomed Iraqi Defense Minister Thabit Muhammad Al-Abassi for a discussion on U.S.-Iraq joint security cooperation dialogue yesterday.?

This U.S.-Iraq bilateral engagement is an umbrella for the thousands of US and NATO troops occupying Iraq and northern Syria blocking terrestrial transport links across the region. Citing the activities of ISIS the U.S. and coalition forces will continue their occupations in both Iraq and Syria.

The US occupation is set to last years into the future under the new strategic whole-of-government partnership. The U.S. side, chaired by Celeste Wallander, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, includes other officials from Defense, the State Department, the Joint Staff, U.S. Central Command, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and the National Security Council.?

The US command structure oversees the continued occupation of Iraq and Syria and seek to “normalise” the bilateral military relationship through arms sales, which create a dependency within Iraq for US weapons and weapons systems, services and ammunition. The architecture for the colonisation of Iraq relies on a tried and true regime of exercises, military training and exchange programs for officers and NCOs.?

Using ISIS as an excuse the US is obscuring the large numbers of troops operating from its bases in Iraq able to conduct wide-area security operations, keeping pressure on the Syrian government and extracting Syrian oil to fund its operations.

With a view to extending its military influence in the region following the Iran-Saudi rapprochement the US seeks to expand the relationship into the economy, government ministries and agencies and harness Iraq’s voice in regional frameworks and diplomacy.?

The Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Al-Sudani has admitted that Iraq is struggling to regain stability, sovereignty and security and reintegrate into the region and its multilateral institutions.

Read more?here ?and?here .

Penny Wong’s nuclear delusion

By Ainsley Barton

Australia’s Pacific neighbours deserve much better from our foreign minister. Australia is becoming a de facto nuclear armed state. Australia has allowed US nuclear propelled—and quite likely nuclear armed—submarines free access to Australian naval bases, US Air Force nuclear weapons capable B-52 bombers have access to at least two RAAF air bases, and more than two-thousand US Marines are permanently stationed on our soil.

Australia might not be a nuclear power, but we are, by measure of the Albanese government’s unbridled enthusiasm, a more than willing launching pad for the greatest nuclear-armed military in history.

Australia is to become a de facto nuclear armed state.

Yet, over the weekend, for some reason Foreign Minister Penny Wong took to Twitter proclaiming:

Australia joined Pacific partners in signing the Rarotonga Treaty, establishing a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the South Pacific, on this day in 1985.

Nearly 40 years later it’s still a regional cornerstone as we work towards a world without nuclear weapons.

It beggars belief that a senior member of our executive government could make such a boast. More so than Howard and Morrison, and Julia Gillard (who acquiesced to the Obama Administration’s decision to station US marines in Darwin), Foreign Minister Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Prime Minister Albanese have almost completely ceded our sovereignty to another nation. A nation armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons deployed across the Pacific and North Asia.

Just as its made a mockery of accountability by allowing nuclear capable military assets to be based on our shores without parliamentary—let alone public—consultation, this government is now making a mockery of our neighbours in the Pacific.

The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, the people of the Pacific have suffered like no others in America’s voracious pursuit to amass a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire planet.

According to figures published by PACE University, the U.S., Britain and France have detonated 318 nuclear devices in the Pacific. The misery visited upon the people of the Marshall Islands is without comparison, the overwhelming majority of U.S. weapons tests occurred in these islands across the atolls of Bikini and Enewetak. The combined yield of those atomic weapons is some 14,000 times greater than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Though his words might have been better chosen, accusing Wong of “running around the Pacific islands with a lei around [her] neck handing out money”, Paul Keating’s criticism of the foreign minister earlier this year has been further validated rather than diminished by her latest comments.

The foreign minister appears to be every bit as tone deaf as, now opposition leader, Peter Dutton was in 2015, when he joked in range of an open microphone that, Pacific Islands under threat of climate change had “water lapping” at their doors.

By opening our doors to U.S. nuclear weapons, we have no right to claim solidarity with the Pacific on banning them. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Is China a military threat in the Pacific? That’s doubtful. Despite its rapid military build-up, China is a generation behind U.S. military capability. U.S. military spending it three times that of China and, as with the Middle East and Europe, the U.S. is Asia’s overwhelmingly dominant military power.

Is China a geopolitical threat in the Pacific? Absolutely. But the Chinese don’t kick doors down, they knock on doors bearing gifts. There’s often a thin line dividing economic incentives and economic coercion, however, it’s hard to argue that China slapping on trade bans or calling off aid is anywhere near as intimidatory as having the U.S. Seventh Fleet parked off your coast.

One thing about Chinese diplomacy most of the west, particularly its mainstream media, is blissfully unaware of, is the approach China has to smaller nations. Unlike western nations they don’t ride roughshod over the locals by first proclaiming their moral superiority. For all the ham-fisted moves of China’s Foreign Ministry, contempt is rarely a starting point for its diplomacy.

Contempt for those outside of the Euro/Anglosphere world, based on its self-invented “rules-based order” only works for the U.S. because it’s backed by economic and military might.

Despite the motivations for, what Keating calls Australia “running around the Pacific islands”, by tying ourselves to the U.S., it’s a policy founded in contempt. De facto contempt as we acquiesce to the wishes of Washington, just as we are a de facto nuclear-armed nation.

Minister Wong might have been genuine in stating her desired goal to work towards a “world without nuclear weapons”. As long as her government relentlessly pursues the goal of ensuring U.S. military expansion into Australia continues unchallenged, it’s an affront to Australians and an insult to our Pacific neighbours to feign concern for the proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction.

Ainsley Barton is an alias, he is a former political adviser to the Liberal Party and mainstream media journalist, presently engaged in consulting work in Canberra.

Read more?here .

US drags Indonesia into war on China

Indonesia could unwittingly be drawn into great-power military conflict due to its strategic location, especially if the U.S. operates in Indonesian waters. The country is strategically located in Southeast Asia, with a vast archipelago stretching between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Its location makes it a critical maritime hub, connecting major shipping routes between Europe, East Asia and Australia. This gives Indonesia significant geopolitical importance and makes it a focal point for regional and global interests. Indonesia’s strategic location, however, also places it in a challenging position as U.S.- China rivalry intensifies.

For a very long time, Jakarta has preferred to avoid taking sides in great power rivalry, advocating?neutrality ?instead when engaging major powers. A critical question is whether neutrality is sufficient to ring-fence Jakarta’s interests in the event of a U.S.-China military conflict.

Will Indonesia suffer the same fate as the US war on Vietnam when it ignored Laos and Cambodia’s neutrality during the Cold War. Cambodia’s strategic location saw the US drop millions of tonnes of bombs in its territory and catalyse the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

Indonesian defense officials privately express concerns that US military development in the north and south of the country could threaten Indonesia’s security and stability in the long run. Despite Indonesia not being a claimant state in the maritime and territorial disputes involving Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, its maritime boundaries and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are affected by the tensions in the region.?

To the south, the United States has been stepping up its military presence in Australia to counter China. In July 2023, Australia and the U.S. announced an increased?U.S. rotational presence ?in Australia, including frequent U.S. nuclear propelled and armed submarine visits in Western Australia, more access to Australian air bases for U.S. air assets including nuclear armed B-52’s, and plans to?pre-position ?U.S. military stores and materials in Bandiana, Australia. This announcement came a few years after Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced AUKUS to counter China and militarise the Indo-Pacific region centered around the provision of nuclear submarines to Australia.

Several Indonesian defense officials privately pointed out that China’s military installations and assets in the South China Sea are high-value?targets ?in any U.S. led military conflict. Indonesian officials believe that any U.S.-led military operations against Chinese military assets in the South China Sea would likely involve the Americans (and its allies) transiting through the Indonesian archipelago from Australia centred on East Timor’s EEZ route north. One senior Indonesian naval officer privately pointed out China would probably include such a scenario in its planning and may choose to engage U.S.-led forces in the Indonesian archipelago.

Any U.S. led military activities in the Indonesian archipelago will turn the region into a graveyard. However, Indonesia will endure the most collateral damage. Most of Indonesia’s domestic and international trade is handled via?sea routes . Thus, any military clash within the Indonesian archipelago would hamper the movements of goods and people between some of the more than 17,000 Indonesian islands and impact Indonesia’s international trade. Furthermore, any destruction involving nuclear submarines will have devastating economic and environmental consequences for the Indonesians, a key concern expressed privately by some Indonesian defence officials.

History shows that strategic location, not neutrality, plays a more significant role in determining a state’s security during military conflicts involving major powers. Jakarta will have to consider this factor as the U.S. intensifies its provocations and militarisation of the region.?

Read more?here .

How Japan overcame US language bomb

By S N Sahu

After August 6, 1945, the US attempted and failed in imposing the English language in Japan. Japanese language remained a symbol of pride and identity following the devastation suffered after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The sinister scenario emerging from that atomic havoc generated an impression that Japan’s unconditional surrender and the rule established by the American occupation forces would bring about a drastic change in its culture as well.?

It was believed within and outside Japan that a country after its defeat and surrender would hardly be able to retain its cultural liberty, which would be badly annihilated by the American values. It was widely believed that Japan’s very identity, which was best represented by the predominance of the Japanese language in every sphere of that country, would be endangered. It was even thought by the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers General Douglas A. MacArthur that with a calculated design encompassing widespread military, political, economic, and social reforms Japan’s culture could be altered beyond recognition.

While serving in the Prime Minister’s office in 2007, I was informed by the then joint secretary of the economic affairs department, Sanjay Krishna that my name had been recommended for a visit to Japan. After I reached the shores of the island country, I attended a Japanese professor’s lecture on Japanese culture. The professor asked a question as to why America easily dropped atomic bombs on Japan but failed to ‘drop’ English. It was a highly thought-provoking question and no one could raise their hands to answer it.

I was completely astonished to realise that America found it easy to exercise ‘hard power’ over Japan by dropping two atomic bombs, leading to much devastation, whereas it could not impose the English language, its soft power, on that country. That binary of the United States (US)’ hard power registering a victory over Japan and its soft power facing defeat made me think about the reasons behind Japan’s success in overcoming American soft power even as it was caught in the whirlpool of calamity caused in the aftermath of the atomic bomb.

As none could answer the deeply profound question posed by the Japanese professor, he himself answered it. He said that the commander of the American occupation forces, General MacArthur, was asked by the US government to introduce English in Japan. After taking efforts for four years, he sent a report stating that it would be impossible to introduce English in the island country. Explaining the reason behind the bleak prospects of English succeeding in Japan, the professor said that in his country, right from the days of the promulgation of the Japanese Fundamental Code of Education of 1872, education was imparted to everyone in the Japanese language and communication across the length and breadth of the country was carried out in that language. Even science, technology, and medical education were imparted in Japanese to successive generations of students. That is why the US authorities found it impossible to introduce English in Japan.

The celebrated American professor Joseph Nye Jr coined the term soft power and asserted that in the future, the idea of soft power would be more valuable than hard power in shaping foreign policy and diplomacy in the globalised world.

It is well known that soft power is defined in terms of power that is based on economic and cultural influence through persuasion and attraction. This is in contrast to the hard power associated with values of imposition, coercion, force, and arm twisting. The Japanese language is part of the huge reservoir of Japan’s soft power. So the failure of the US to impose English in Japan marked the triumph of the Japanese language. It clearly signalled the victory of Japan’s soft power at a time when that country was reeling under the catastrophic ruin inflicted by the dropping of the atomic bomb.

As the world marks the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan on August 6 every year, people should remember that Japan refused to be trounced by the US’ soft power represented by the English language. Rather, Japan emerged victorious in keeping the English language at bay and upholding the Japanese language which defines the pride and self-esteem of Japan.

To this day, the Japanese language is ruling the hearts and minds of the Japanese people. They may learn the English language to interact with the rest of the world, but their own language defines their core identity and pride.

The Japanese overcame the disaster they faced and set a shining example of success for the rest of the world. The success of the Japanese language in taking forward the cause of Japan from the ruins of the atomic disaster teaches the whole world to safeguard our cultural liberty in a diverse world. This remains at the heart of Japan’s rise and should be remembered foremost on the occasion of the anniversary of the day the atomic bomb fell.

Read more?here .