Text Fwd: Wikileaks Cables Reveal Foreign Office Mislead Parlaiment Over Diego Garcia 위키 릭스는 디에고 가르시아에 관해 외교 사무소가 영국 의회에 오도 했음을 폭로

* Image source & caption: same as the link
'WikiLeaks cables suggest the Foreign Office knows its plan
to declare Diego Garcia a marine park will end any chance of islanders winning the right to return Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian'

____________________________________________________

* Text sent from Martha Duenas with the below quoted on Dec. 4, 2010

'The displacement of the Chagossian people of the island of Diego Garcia is justified using references to "strategic" purposes and "security." These are the exact terms used in the rationale & promotion of the military buildup in Guam. The British Indian Ocean Territory - BIOT which encompasses the 55 islands surrounding and including Diego Garcia, and the Mariana Island National Marine Monument prohibit activities in the area. Military activities are EXEMPT from any of the prohibitions and regulations.

Diego Garcia and the Mariana Islands are poised to fulfill the United States Department of Defense "Full Spectrum Dominance Vision 2020." '
____________________________________________________

The Guardian UK
Wikileaks Cables Reveal Foreign Office Mislead Parliament Over Diego Garcia
: UK official told Americans that marine park plan would end the 'Man Fridays' hopes of ever returning home
Rob Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday, 2 December 2010

The Foreign Office misled parliament over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base, according to secret US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

More than 2,000 islanders – described privately by the Foreign Office as "Man Fridays" – were evicted from the British colony of Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s. The Foreign Office, backed by the US, has fought a long legal battle to prevent them returning home.

The islanders' quest to go back will be decided by a ruling, expected shortly, from the European court of human rights.

New leaked documents show the Foreign Office has privately admitted its latest plan to declare the islands the world's largest marine protection zone will end any chance of them being repatriated.

The admission is at odds with public claims by Foreign Office ministers that the proposed park would have no effect on the islanders' right of return. They have claimed the marine park was a ploy to block their return, claiming it would make it impossible for them to live there as it would ban fishing, their main livelihood.

In May 2009, Colin Roberts, the Foreign Office director of overseas territories, told the Americans Diego Garcia's value in "assuring the security of the US and UK" had been "much more than anyone foresaw" in the 1960s, when the plan to set up the base was hatched.

"We do not regret the removal of the population since removal was necessary for [Diego Garcia] to fulfil its strategic purpose," he added under a passage that the Americans headed "Je ne regrette rien".

READ MORE

____________________________________________________

* Wilbert van der Zeijden who also forwarded the same article through the 'no US bases' group had a some comment as the below quoted on Dec. 2, 2010

'Friends,

A very intresting wikileaks document was released today. Several things are of importance:

- The UK government "do[es] not regret the removal of the populatio, since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic importance"

- The UK government has developed the plan for a Chagos marine protected area with the sole purpose of keeping the Chagossians out! the wording they use is painful and all telling: there will be no "Man Fridays." It is a term that was also used for the Chagossians in the 1960's when they were forcefully removed from their Islands. The document goes on to say that the UK asserts that "establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to the resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents". To achieve all this, the UK has managed to convince eco-groups like Pew charitable Fund and Greenpeace that the Marine Park was is a good ecological idea. The fact that they now try to establish it by violating the human rights of the Chagossians, is not much of a problem according to the British government official in the document, because "the UK's environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians' advocates."

Like the Mauritian government said a couple weeks ago: There's little point in talking by now - it is time for action!

Wilbert'
____________________________________________________

& David Vine, nousbases group has some response on the article. Check the below:

Foreign Policy in Focus on Dec. 3, 2010
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Use of Environmentalism by US and UK as Pretext to Keep Natives From Returning to Diego Garcia
By David Vine, December 3, 2010

Text Fwd: [famoksaiyanfriends] Cost of An Empire: Five Expensive, Controversial US Military Bases (not in Iraq or Afghanistan)

* Text informed from Martha Duenas on Oct. 5, 2010

Oct 04, 2010 - 10:53 AM | by GlobalPost

U.S. servicemen sit inside a C-17 Globemaster waiting to take off for Afghanistan at Manas Air Base near Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek, February 13, 2009. Photo by Reuters

By Patrick Winn

BANGKOK, Thailand—If you spin a globe and randomly point to a country, there’s a one-in-five chance the U.S. military runs a piece of the nation underneath your finger.

The U.S. Defense Department has real estate in 46 countries and American territories, adding up to a whopping 837 overseas locations. It manages roughly 1,300 square miles, a combined area considerably larger than Rhode Island. Throw in bases within the territories and 50 states and you’ve got Ohio.

Beyond massive complexes in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, there are little-known holdings scattered around the planet: an old Dutch mine, a communications tower on Australia’s west coast, and an army sniper range in Djibouti.

How much does overseeing this sprawling foreign footprint really cost? The exact cost of managing troops, bases, fleets, and materiel overseas is difficult to determine. The think tank Foreign Policy in Focus estimates at least $250 billion.

But that doesn’t factor in the political price. Though protected by American might, even Japan and the Philippines have questioned U.S. troops’ presence there as a slight to their sovereignty. Lesser allies like Ecuador and Uzbekistan have even evicted U.S. bases in recent years.

Here’s a look at five U.S. military bases that have proven costly and controversial.

Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia
Location: Extremely remote island in the Indian Ocean
Real Estate: 595 buildings on 7,000 acres.
Value: $2.6 billion (Represents U.S. military’s estimated cost of replacing facilities in today’s economy. Does not include deployed aircraft, vehicles or ships.)

How is it useful?

Diego Garcia is an American military strategist’s dream. Located in an abyss of ocean 1,200 miles south of India, it’s close enough to the Middle East to launch B-2 bombing runs into Afghanistan. It’s also within flying distance to Africa and near enough to Asia to intimidate China. But its distant location ensures against the threat of counter-attack and offers a safe haven for refueling aircraft carriers and bombers. There’s little threat of being kicked out, as the barely inhabited island is owned by the United Kingdom.

Why is it criticized?

The U.S. and U.K. governments have used almost all of the tiny island for military facilities. This involved clearing out the 1,000-plus native inhabitants, who claim they were rounded up, shipped to British island territories and dumped possessionless into slums. Their appeals are tangled up in Britain’s legal system. Diego Garcia is also alleged to house secret CIA prisons for American enemies, though the island’s remoteness makes that claim extremely difficult to investigate.

Incirlik Air Base
Location: Southern Turkey
Real Estate: 675 buildings on 3,300 acres
Value: $1.7 billion

How is it useful?

More than any base outside Afghanistan and Iraq, this Mediterranean air field has proven indispensable in fighting America’s 21st century wars. First established in the aftermath of World War II, Incirlik saw little action before the September 11 attacks. It has since become a core launching pad for U.S. refueling missions and troop movements into neighboring Iraq. The base also hosts dozens of nuclear bombs, potentially deterring Iran from any future nuclear strike.

Why is it criticized?

The base’s nukes are a sore point not just for Iran but for Russia, which also lies within striking range. The Cold War-era gravity bombs, more primitive than modern cruise missile warheads, are not believed to be immediately deployable. But they continue to rankle Russia and impede negotiations to nuclear proliferation. The base has occasionally soured U.S.-Turkish relations as well. In 2003, Turkey’s leaders resisted U.S. pressure to launch direct strikes into Iraq from Incirlik. Some Middle Eastern nations also resent a majority Muslim nation’s pivotal role in the American-led war.

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay
Location: Cuba
Real Estate: 1,400 buildings on 28,800 acres
Value: $2.6 billion

Why is it useful?

Acquired through the Spanish-American War, this base is a refueling stop, a logistics hub for Caribbean anti-narco missions, and a launchpad for “migrant ops,” which involves picking up islanders on creaky U.S.-bound vessels. However, the outpost is most valuable as a maximum security prison for “war criminals” and other detainees. Its various detention areas—some open-air, some air-conditioned—can hold more than 1,200 prisoners, notably major Al Qaeda figureheads.

How is it criticized?

Guantanamo’s critics have turned its name into a byword for American human rights abuse, an image the base has confronted with its latest slogan: “Safe, Humane, Legal, Transparent.” The Red Cross claims that U.S. personnel’s treatment of inmates there—allegedly including beatings and loud music exposure—is “tantamount to torture.” President Barack Obama has suggested moving prisoners to a high-security facility in Illinois and a former adviser to Sen. Ted Kennedy proposes transforming the camp into a relief center for Haitians affected by the recent earthquake.

Transit Center at Manas
Location: Near Kyrgyzstan’s capital, Bishkek
Real Estate: An estimated 37 acres of land and 200-plus facilities, all leased
Value: $63 million annual rent

Why is it useful?

U.S. troops pouring in or out of Afghanistan are likely to pass through this busy hub, which is a quick flight away from the war zone. Built amidst the run-up to the Afghanistan conflict, the base is an expansion of the Kyrgyzstan capital’s once-sleepy international airport. Unlike in other nations, the Kyrgyz government permits the U.S. to launch bombers, fighter jets and gunships from its soil.

How is it criticized?

The Transit Center’s clunky name—re-branded last year from the more militant-sounding Manas Air Base—is a reflection of its political sensitivity. A former soviet state, Kyrgyzstan has faced extreme pressure from Russia to rid itself of an American base. This imposition was sweetened by a recent $2 billion Russian loan. Kyrgyz leaders parlayed this bickering between foreign powers into cash when the U.S. agreed last year to quadruple the base’s rent to $63 million. Still, a violent April coup in the nearby capital may have realigned the country’s leadership in favor of Russia. Aggravating anti-U.S. sentiment is a U.S. airman’s 2006 fatal shooting of a Kyrgyz civilian and a female officer’s bizarre and poorly substantiated account of being kidnapping by locals.

Kadena Air Base
Location: Okinawa, a southern Japanese island
Real Estate: 1,850 buildings on nearly 11,000 acres
Value: $6.4 billion

Why is it useful?

Occupied after brutal fighting in World War II, Okinawa is the heart of the U.S. military’s power in Asia. The island hosts most of the 47,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan. Kadena, the Pacific’s largest American military complex, is home to an aerial attack, special forces, and intelligence gathering squadrons. If conflict erupted in Taiwan or the Koreas, and the U.S. decided to strike, the base would play a crucial role in carrying out those missions.

How is it criticized?

Under a long-standing, post-war agreement, Japan actually pays the U.S. about $2 billion each year to host American forces. Many Japanese are weary of paying this bill and crowds flock to rallies in favor of the military’s ouster. The U.S. has agreed to relocate 8,000 troops to Guam, a Pacific island and U.S. territory. But even that reduction will be paid for by $6 billion in Japanese funds. Their anger is compounded by several high-profile rape charges, including a marine’s 2008 conviction for “abusive sexual conduct” perpetrated against a 14-year-old girl.

Text Fwd: U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send Message

* Image source: same as the link: The U.S.S. Ohio, a guided-missile submarine, moors at a harbor in Pusan, South Korea, on Feb. 21, 2008 (Choi Jae-Ho / AFP / Getty Images)

* Text sent from Rick Rozoff on July 8, 2010

Times Magazine
July 8, 2010
U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send a Message
By Mark Thompson
_____________________________________________________________

-The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan.
That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-foot USS Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms likely were sounded when the USS Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, the same day....The Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 additional Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood....The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st Century.
_____________________________________________________________

Washington: If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there was a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese Navy last week. A new class of U.S. super weapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they now hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads.

Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan.
(See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.)

That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-foot USS Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms likely were sounded when the USS Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, the same day. And the klaxons would have maxed out as the USS Florida surfaced the same day at the joint U.S.-British naval base at Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 additional Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."

U.S. officials deny any message is being directed at Beijing, saying the Tomahawk triple-play was a coincidence. But they did make sure news of the new deployments appeared in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post — on July 4, no less. The Chinese took notice quietly. "At present, common aspirations of countries in the Asian and Pacific regions are seeking for peace, stability and regional security," Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Wednesday. "We hope the relevant U.S. military activities will serve for the regional peace, stability and security, and not the contrary."
(See pictures of the most expensive military planes.)

Last month, the Navy had announced that all four of the Tomahawk Tridents were operationally deployed away from their home ports for the first time. Each vessel packs "the firepower of multiple surface ships," says Capt. Tracy Howard, commander, Submarine Squadron 16 in Kings Bay, Ga., and can "respond to diverse threats on short notice."

The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st Century. Reduced tensions since the end of the Cold War has seen the U.S. scale back its deployment of nuclear weapons, allowing the Navy to reduce its Trident fleet from 18 to 14. (Why 14 subs, as well as bombers and land-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons, are still required to deal with the Russian threat is a topic for another day.)
(See "Obama Shelves U.S. Missile Shield: The Winners and Losers.")

Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that's not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe. "We're there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment," Navy Rear Adm. Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk Trident set sail in 2008. "We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform."
(Comment on this story.)

The submarines aren't the only new potential issue of concern for the Chinese. Two major military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region are now underway. More than three dozen naval ships and subs began participating in the "Rim of the Pacific" war games off Hawaii on Wednesday. Some 20,000 personnel from 14 nations are involved in the biennial exercise which includes missile exercises and the sinking of three abandoned vessels playing the role of enemy ships. Nations joining the U.S. in what is billed as the world's largest-ever naval war game are Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. Closer to China, CARAT 2010 — for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training — just got underway off Singapore. The operation involves 17,000 personnel and 73 ships from the U.S., Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.
(See "Hu's Visit: Finding a Way Forward on U.S.-China Relations.")

China is absent from both exercises, and that's no oversight. Many nations in the eastern Pacific, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. And the U.S. military remains concerned over China's growing missile force — now more than 1,000 — near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks' arrival "is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region," Glaser says. "It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be." No doubt Beijing got the signal.

See pictures of President Obama visiting Asia.

See "Why Is China Slowing Its Military Spending?"

===========================
Stop NATO
Blog site:

Video Fwd: "Standing Army" _ a new documentary

* Text Fwd by Jean Downy on March 18, 2010

'"Standing Army" -- a new documentary from an Italian and Italian-American director--where citizens are still protesting the expansion of a US military base into the last green space in Vincenza--a World Heritage site. The filmmakers connect the dots between continued U.S. military expansion around the world under which the Obama administration's only change to Bush policies has been acceleration in South America. In Japan and Guam, we see the same bellicose faces who have been pushing for expansion since the 1990's and 2000's under Clinton, Bush--unchanged with Obama.'

Thomas Fazi (28/05/1982) is an Anglo-Italian researcher, translator and interpreter. He collaborates regularly with various Italian publishing houses.

Enrico Parenti (07/12/1978), a former IDEP film student, is an Italian-American free-lance filmmaker. He works regularly as cameraman and editor for various Italian and foreign televisions. He is the author of a short documentary shot in Brazil and currently has a documentary on Ethiopia in post-production. He has worked as director of photography on the documentary GIVING VOICE by Alessandro Fabrizi.'

"Over the course of the last century, the US has silently encircled the world with a web of military bases unlike any other in history. Today, they amount to more than 700, in at least 100 countries. No continent is spared. They are one the most powerful forces at play in the world today, yet one of the less talked-about. They have shaped the lives of millions, yet remain a mystery to most.

Why do countries like Germany, Italy and Japan – more than 60 years after the end of World War II and almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War – still host hundreds of US military bases and tens of thousands of US soldiers?

What role do the bases play in maintaining US hegemony in the world?

How will they shape our future?

Is a global military presence the last resource of an economically-, politically- and culturally-declining empire?

How do the bases impact the lives of local populations and how do these interact with their uniformed neighbours?

We will answer these and other crucial questions both through the words of prominent intellectuals, experts on the subject, political and military leaders, ex-government and CIA officials, philosophers and political activists – some of whom we have already interviewed: Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Chalmers Johnson and others – and through the shocking but often inspiring stories of those directly affected by US bases: the citizens of Vicenza, struggling to stop the construction of yet another military base in their hometown; the Diego Garcia islanders, violently expelled from their island in the Indian Ocean to make space for a US military base, and who have been fighting for years to return to their birthplace; the many Japanese women brutalized by US soldiers in Okinawa; the various grassroots movements in Europe and Asia struggling for a base-free world; as well as those living inside the bases: the men and women who are often sent to faraway lands with little or no preparation for what they’ll find there."