[국문 번역] Text Fwd: Nobel's Pro-Military Agenda and NATO's Future World Order 노벨상의 친 군사적 안건과 나토의 미래 세계 질서

* Image source: Google, ' Thorbjoern Jagland 토르비요에른 재글랜드

* Image source: Google, Liu Xiaobo 리우 지아오보

_____________________________________________________

* Text sent from Rick Rozoff and Bruce Gagnon on Oct. 19, 2010
* 릭 로조프와 브루스 개그논, 2010년 10월 19일 보냄

New America Media
뉴 아메리카 미디어
October 18, 2010
2010년 10월 18일
Nobel's Pro-Military Agenda and the Future World Order
노벨상의 친 군사적 안건과 나토의 미래 세계 질서
Yoichi Shimatsu
요이치 시마추
__________________________________________________
Excerpt 발제

-The emerging connections between NATO and America’s East Asian allies are starting to reveal the New Strategic Concept: the coming naval encirclement of China and Russia. With ground troops on bases in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, the circle is closing. The world is plunging into the Second Cold War.

-나토와 미국의 동아시아 동맹국들간의 떠오르는 연결들은 새로운 전략적 개념을 드러내기 시작하고 있다: 중국과 러시아에 대한 해군 봉쇄, 아프가니스탄과 키르지스탄 기지들의 지상 군대들로 그 써클들은 닫아지고 있다. 세계는 두번째 냉전을 향해 던져지고 있다.

-The fact that an open warmonger heads the Nobel Peace Committee has completely discredited what was once the world’s most prestigious Peace Prize. That honor is now just another weapon in the arsenal of the Great Powers mobilizing to reassert their authority over their former colonial domain. The goal of the West is not democracy and human rights; what its leaders really desire is domination and warfare. The intentions are clear. Thus we must each prepare, in our different ways, for the coming bloodshed.

-공개적 전쟁광들이 노벨 평화 위원회의 수장들에 있다는 사실은 한때 세계에서 가장 권위있던 평화상의 신용을 완전히 떨어뜨린다. 그 명예는 현재 그들의 전 식민지 영역에서 그들의 권위를 거듭 주장하기 위해 움직이는 위대한 강대국들의 무기고에서 또다른 무기일 뿐이다. 서구의 목적은 민주주의와 인권에 있지 않다. [서구의] 지도자들이 진정 욕망하는 것은 지배와 전쟁이다. 그 의도들은 명확하다. 그러므로 우리 각자는 다가올 유혈을 위해 다른 길들로 준비해야 한다.

-Meanwhile, Jagland’s colleagues among the Norwegian defense forces have recently initiated military-technology deals with South Korea and Japan at a time of regional tensions with China. The conservative government of President Lee Myung-bak is pursuing a crash program to build a new generation of Sejong-class KDX-3 destroyers. In the wake of the past summer’s South Korean ship-sinking crisis, Seoul is putting renewed emphasis on anti-submarine warfare.

-그러는 동안 노르웨이 국방 군대, 재글란드의 동료들은 최근 중국과의 긴장들이 있는 시점에 남한과 일본과의 군사-기술 거래들을 시작했다. 이명박 대통령의 보수 정부는 세종급 KDX-3 구축함들의 신 세대를 짓는 파괴 프로그램을 추구하고 있다. 지난 여름, 남한 배 침몰 위기로 깨어나며 서울은 대항 잠수함 전쟁에 새로운 강조를 두고 있다.
__________________________________________________

In its most recent selections of peace laureates Barack Obama and Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has been pushing the strategic agenda of its chairman since 2009. Outside of European policy circles, Thorbjoern Jagland has no celebrity status, yet he is among the most powerful figures influencing the future global order.

가장 최근의 노벨 평화상 수상자인 버락 오바마와 리우 지아바오 선정에서 노벨 평화상 위원회는 2009년 이 후 그 위원회 의장의 전략적 안건을 밀고 있었다. 유럽 정책 써클의 외곽에서 토르비요에른 재글란드는 유명 인사의 지위를 갖고 있지 않으나 미래의 세계 질서에 영향을 주는 가장 힘있는 인물들 중의 하나이다.

The veteran Norwegian Labour Party politician has taken a stance similar to that of Britain’s Tony Blair in support of European Union integration and a strong alliance with Washington to ensure Western leadership in international affairs. He has served as Norway’s prime minister, foreign minister, speaker of the parliament known as the Storting, and current chairman of the Council of Europe, a body that backed the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during the Cold War.

그 노련한 노르웨이 노동당 정치가는 국제 업무에서 서구의 지도력을 확보하기 위해 유럽 연합 통합과 워싱턴과의 강한 동맹을 지지하는 점에서 영국의 토니 블레어와 유사한 입장에 있었다. 그는 노르웨이의 수상으로, 외무 장관으로, 스토팅으로 알려진 [노르웨이] 국회의 대변인으로, 그리고 냉전시 유럽 연합과 나토 (북대서양 조약 기구)를 지지했던 유럽 위원회의 현재 의장으로 일해왔다.

His political career has been defined by his close relationship with NATO. He sat on the Norwegian government’s standing committee on defense and was a key player in NATO parliamentary conferences.

그의 정치적 경력은 그의 나토와의 가까운 관계에 의해 정의된다. 그는 노르웨이 정부 국방 상임 위원회에 앉아 있으며 나토 의회 회담의 핵심 인물이었다.

On his home turf, Labour is the party of choice for the Norwegian officer corps. Despite its relatively small size, Norway is a significant military player due to its strategic location near the former Soviet Arctic Fleet base at Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula. Throughout the Cold War, the Norwegians—every male citizen is a soldier and has a rifle—were the front line on the Russian border.

그의 고국 세력권내에서 노동당은 노르웨이 관리 군단의 선택 당이다. 노르웨이는 상대적으로 작은 규모에도 불구, 콜라 반도 무르만스크의 전 소연방 함대 기지 근처에 있다는 그 전략적 위치로 인해 중요한 군사 역활을 한다. 모든 남성 시민들이 군인이며 총을 갖고 있는 노르웨이인들은 냉전 기간 내내 러시아 경계의 전선에 있었다.

A Military Mentality

군사 정신성

That vanguard role continues today, with Norwegian troops on the ground in Afghanistan, its naval vessels curbing piracy off Somalia, Pentagon anti-ballistic missile systems and anti-satellite technology waging the struggle for outer space, and the world’s most advanced anti-submarine technology. Norway has the highest per-capita troop deployment among NATO’s 28-member states.

그 선봉 역활은 노르웨이 군대가 아프가니스탄 지상에 있고 그것의 해군 전함들이 소말리아 해적들의 재갈을 물리는 등 오늘날에도 계속된다. 미 국방부의 대항 탄도 미사일 시스템들, 외계 우주를 위한 투쟁을 수행하는 대항 위성 기술, 그리고 세계에서 가장 선진인 대잠수함 기술. 노르웨이는 나토의 28회원 국가들중 군대 배치로 말하자면, 가장 높은 총인구당 비율을 기록하고 있다.

The challenge for the West has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, with a new potential enemy taking shape in an economic coalition known as the BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and, most feared of all, China. Jagland, as a public voice for NATO strategists, is calling on an enlarged Western alliance to stand down the resurgence of military powers China and Russia and disrupt their ever-closer relationships with Brazil and India.

서구의 도전은 BRICs, 브라질(Brazil), 러시아(Russia), 인디아(India) 그리고 가장 두려움의 대상인 중국(China)으로 알려진 경제 연합으로 새로운 잠재적 적이 모양을 갖춤과 더불어 소 연방 이후 변화되었다. 나토 전략가들의 공개된 목소리인 재글란드는 중국과 러시아의 군사력의 재기를 중지시키고 그들의 브라질과 인도와의 더 가까워진 관계를 방해하기 위해 확대된 서구 동맹을 부르고 있다.

At a NATO-sponsored conference of European parliamentarians last year, Jagland spoke tough words: “When we are not able to stop tyranny, war starts. This is why NATO is indispensable. NATO is the only multilateral military organization rooted in international law. It is an organization that the U.N. can use when necessary — to stop tyranny, like we did in the Balkans.” His reference was to the NATO bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of the now-terminated Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia in the late 1990s.

작년 나토에 의해 후원된 유럽 국회 회담에서, 재글란드는 거칠게 말했다: “우리가 전제 정치를 멈추지 못하면 전쟁은 시작됩니다. 이것이 왜 나토가 필요불가결한 이유입니다. 나토는 국제법에 근거한 유일한 다국간 군사 기구입니다. 그것은 유엔이 필요하다면, 우리가 발칸에서 한 것처럼, 전제 정치를 멈추기 위해 사용할 수 있읍니다. 그의 언급은 1990년대 말 현재는 끝난 유고슬라비아 사회주의 공화국에 대한 나토의 폭탄 공격, 침략, 그리고 점령을 언급한 것이었다.

To summarize his message: If, anywhere in the world, tyrants cannot be overthrown by peaceful means, war is inevitable — and NATO will wage that war.

그의 메시지를 요약하면: 세계 어디서나 전제 정치는 평화적인 방법에 의해 타도되지 않으면, 전쟁은 불가결하다-그리고 나토는 전쟁을 수행할 것이다.

These are chilling words coming from the chairman of the Nobel Peace Committee. Jagland later said on announcing the peace prize for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo: “We have to speak when others cannot speak. As China is rising, we should have the right to criticize. We want to advance those forces that want China to become more democratic.”

이는 노벨 평화 위원회 의장에게 나온 것치곤 으슬으슬하게 하는 말이다. 재글랜드는 중국 반체제 인사 리우 지아오보에게 평화상을 발표하면서 말했다. “우리는 다른 이들이 말할 수 없을 때 말해야 한다. 중국이 떠오르면서, 우리는 비판할 권리를 갖고 있다. 우리는 중국이 더 민주주의적이 되도록 원하는 그 세력들을 진전시키길 원한다.”

A term like “advance those forces” is eerily similar to the euphemisms in Japanese textbooks that describe “advances” into foreign territory on continental Asia. It reflects a militaristic mindset.

“그 세력들을 진전시키기”같은 용어는 아시아 대륙 외국 영토로의 “진전”을 묘사하는 일본 교과서들의 완곡 어법과 불가사의하게 무섭게 유사하다. 그것은 군사적 사고 방식을 반영한다.

The New Global Order

새로운 전지구적 질서

At the 2009 NATO conference, Jagland dropped a hint of what was to come: “We must build alliances and adapt to new realities. [We must] understand and debate how democratic rights can be upheld in the 21st century. How freedom can be assured. What kind of alliances we need to that end. And we need a New Strategic Concept.”

2009 나토 회담에서 재글란드는 무엇이 올지 흘끗 비쳤다: “우리는 동맹들을 구축하고 새로운 현실들을 채택해야 한다. [우리는] 어떻게 민주주의적 권리들이 21세기에 유지될 수 있는지 이해하고 토론[해야 한다]. 어떻게 자유가 확신될 수 있는가. 그 목적을 위해 어떠한 종류의 동맹들이 필요한가. 그리고 우리는 새로운 전략적 개념들을 필요로 한다."

Among his political foes in Norway, Jagland is called “our own George Bush Jr.” It’s good joke, but not when considering the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or while Jagland, with this latest Nobel Peace prize, has just precipitated a damaging diplomatic crisis between the West and China. The controversy will only worsen when the Nobel medallions are given out in December.

노르웨이의 정치적 적들 사이에서 재글란드는 “우리의 조지 부쉬 주니어”라고 불린다. 그것은 좋은 농담이나 이라크와 아프가니스탄 침략들을 고려하거나 재글란드가 이 최근의 노벨 평화상으로 서구와 중국간 해로운 외교 위기를 막 촉진시켰을 때는 그렇지 않다. 논쟁은 노벨 메달들이 12월에 주어질때 오직 악화되기만 할 뿐이다.

The Nobel scandal has already scuttled the Norwegian oil firm Statoil’s plans to sell Beijing the Peregrino oil field offshore of Brazil — the first real blow against the BRIC coalition. Politicians and businessmen who are eager about emerging international trade opportunities are simply naive about geopolitics. Once again, the civilians have been outflanked by the military.

그 노벨 추문은 브라질 앞바다 페레그리노 석유 단지를 베이징에 팔려는 노르웨이 석유 회사 스타토일의 계획들을 허둥지둥 달아나게 했다- BRIC 연합에 맞서는 척번째 진짜 일격. 떠오르는 국제 무역 기회들에 대해 열심인 정치인들과 사업가들은 지리 정치학에 대해서는 순진하기만 하다. 다시 한번 시민들은 군대의 계책에 말려진다.

NATO’s Asian Allies

나토의 아시아 동맹들

Meanwhile, Jagland’s colleagues among the Norwegian defense forces have recently initiated military-technology deals with South Korea and Japan at a time of regional tensions with China. The conservative government of President Lee Myung-bak is pursuing a crash program to build a new generation of Sejong-class KDX-3 destroyers. In the wake of the past summer’s South Korean ship-sinking crisis, Seoul is putting renewed emphasis on anti-submarine warfare.

그러는 동안 노르웨이 국방 군대, 재글란드의 동료들은 최근 중국과의 긴장들이 있는 시점에 남한과 일본과의 군사-기술 거래들을 시작했다. 이명박 대통령의 보수 정부는 세종급 KDX-3 구축함들의 신 세대를 짓는 파괴 프로그램을 추구하고 있다. 지난 여름, 남한 배 침몰 위기로 깨어나며 서울은 대잠수함 전쟁에 새로운 강조를 두고 있다.

Norwegian shipbuilders, including the Kongsberg Group, are the world leader in sonar and electronic warfare systems. The Norwegian Nansen-class of anti-submarine destroyers is top of the line. The Royal Navy of Norway has decades of real-life experience at chasing Soviet, now Russian, U-boats. The military ties between Oslo and Seoul go back to the Korean War, when Norway sent a military medical unit as an ally.

콘스버그 그룹을 포함한 노르웨이 선박 건조자들은 음향및 전자 전쟁 시스템들에 있어 세계에서 선두를 이끈다. 노르웨이 난센급 대잠 구축함들은 그 첨단을 달린다. 노르웨이 왕립 해군은 현재는 러시아인 소비에트의 U-보우트를 수십년간 쫒았던 실제 경험을 갖고 있다. 오슬로와 서울간 군사적 유대는 한국 전쟁으로 거슬러 올라가는데, 노르웨이는 동맹으로서 군대 의료 부대를 보냈었다.

Meanwhile in Tokyo, the Japanese defense industry recently hosted a high-level Norwegian military delegation. Among the topics of discussion was the growing naval threat of China and the need for NATO and the US-Japan security alliance to cooperate to defend the new Arctic Sea passage. As global warming melts the polar ice cap, the waters north of Russia can be navigated.

그러는 동안 도쿄에서 일본 방위 산업체들은 최근 고위급 노르웨이 군대 대표들을 맞았다. 토론의 주제들은 중국의 자라나는 해군 위협과 새로운 북극 해상길을 방어하는데 협조하기 위한 나토, 그리고 미-일 안보 동맹의 필요에 관한 것이었다. 전지구적 온난화가 극지역 얼음 정상을 녹이면서 러시아 북쪽의 물들은 항해될 수 있다.

The emerging connections between NATO and America’s East Asian allies are starting to reveal the New Strategic Concept: the coming naval encirclement of China and Russia. With ground troops on bases in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, the circle is closing. The world is plunging into the Second Cold War.

나토와 미국의 동아시아 동맹국들간의 떠오르는 연결들은 새로운 전략적 개념을 드러내기 시작하고 있다: 중국과 러시아에 대한 해군 봉쇄. 아프가니스탄과 키르지스탄 기지들의 지상 군대들로 그 써클들은 닫아지고 있다. 세계는 두번째 냉전을 향해 던져지고 있다.

The Peace Laureate

평화 수상자

How does an obscure dissident sitting in a Chinese prison figure into this grand plan for global conflict? Liu Xiaobo’s personal link with Norway started during his days as a visiting scholar to the University of Oslo in 1988. At that moment, the Soviet Union was in a deep crisis of disintegration. NATO strategists were anxious about the prospect of Moscow being saved in the nick of time by its onetime friend and ally, China. Faxes out of the Chinese Embassy in Moscow were of utmost concern, but were indecipherable, being written in Chinese.

어떻게 중국 감옥에 앉아있는 잘 알려지지 않은 반체제 인사가 전지구적 갈등의 이 웅장한 계획에서 모습을 드러내는가? 리우 지아오보와 노르웨이의 개인적 연결은 그가 1988년 오슬로 대학 방문 학자로서의 시절에 시작되었다. 그 당시, 소비에트 연방은 붕괴의 깊은 위기에 있었다. 나토 전략가들은 한때 중국의 친구요, 동맹이었던 중국에 의해 수렁의 시간에서 구해지는 소련의 전망에 대해 불안해했다. 모스크바 주재 중국 대사관의 팩스는 가장 우선적인 관심사였으나 중국어로 쓰여져 해독할 수 없었다.

Back in those dark days of the Cold War, there weren’t many Chinese in Scandinavia, so Liu was a rare commodity — a scholar from Beijing who loathed Beijing. Whether Liu became a NATO asset is a matter of top-secret classification. Oslo’s repeated inquiries about him through two decades, the Western media’s patronage, and the Nobel selection over other Chinese dissidents indicate some sort of special bond. Whatever the hidden details of his foreign involvements, Liu’s Peace Prize is serving as the bugle call for NATO’s global crusade against so-called “tyranny.”

냉전의 어두운 시절을 돌이키면, 스칸디나비아에는 많은 중국인들이 있지 않았으므로 리우는 드문 상품이었다-베이징을 혐오하는 베이징에서온 학자. 리우가 나토의 자산이 되었는지는 최고의 비밀급 문제이다. 이십년간 오슬로의 그에 대한 반복되는 탐문들, 서구 언론의 후원, 그리고 중국 반체제 인사들을 제친 그에 대한 노벨의 선택은 어떤 특별한 결속의 종류를 가리킨다. 그의 외국 참여의 은폐된 세부들이 어떠하든 리우의 평화상은 이른바 “전제 정치” 에 맞선 나토의 전지구적 십자가를 부르는 나팔 소리로 종사한다.

The fact that an open warmonger heads the Nobel Peace Committee has completely discredited what was once the world’s most prestigious Peace Prize. That honor is now just another weapon in the arsenal of the Great Powers mobilizing to reassert their authority over their former colonial domain. The goal of the West is not democracy and human rights; what its leaders really desire is domination and warfare. The intentions are clear. Thus we must each prepare, in our different ways, for the coming bloodshed.

공개적 전쟁광들이 노벨 평화 위원회의 수장들에 있다는 사실은 한때 세계에서 가장 권위있던 평화상의 신용을 완전히 떨어뜨린다. 그 명예는 현재 그들의 전 식민지 영역에서 그들의 권위를 거듭 주장하기 위해 움직이는 위대한 강대국들의 무기고에서 또다른 무기일 뿐이다. 서구의 목적은 민주주의와 인권에 있지 않다. [서구의] 지도자들이 진정 욕망하는 것은 지배와 전쟁이다. 그 의도들은 명확하다. 그러므로 우리 각자는 다가올 유혈을 위해 다른 길들로 준비해야 한다.

*Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo, is a Hong Kong–based writer on renewable energy for European business publications and news commentator for the Bon Ocean Network (BON) in Beijing.

•요이치 쉬마추, 도쿄 재팬 타임즈 위클리의 전 편집자는 유럽 사업 출판들을 위한 재생에너지에 대해 글을 쓰는 홍콩 기반 작가이자 베이징 본 오우션 넷워크 (Bon Ocean Network (BON)) 의 뉴스 논평자이다.

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

Text Fwd: South Korea, “The most Dangerous Country in the World”

_____________________________________________________________________________________
*The text below was sent from Torbjörn Björkman, a Sweden journalist who visited South Korea from Dec. 1 to 7, 2009, thanks to introduction by Agneta Noberg who has visited South Korea last April when there was the International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race. Torbjörn Björkman works for the Swedish Friendship Organisation, Sweden, which has a long time history, and founded after the end of the Korean war. When the organization was set up, it was centred around the Swedish investigators who had visited the North Korea and investigated the indiscriminate U.S. bombings against the civilians during the Korean war, 1950 to 1953.

His organization publishes the magazine four times a year (In the below image, a photo of Pyeongyang, North Korea is in cover). He has also translated Bruce Gagnon’s No Gun Ri visit report in last October, 2009 in Swedish
Torbjörn Björkman has himself visited the North Korea four times before. It was his first visit to South Korea, this time and he has met the activists from various organizations to interview them (Photo below). Bruce Gagnon has also met many of them in Torbjörn Björkman’s article here, in August 2009. The emphases below are by No Base Stories of Korea.

Click the images for larger view

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Torbjörn Björkman says on Feb. 3, 2010

"This is a translation of the article in the weekly paper Proletären no 3 in January and Korea Information, the paper from the Swedish Friendship Organisation, Sweden. Proletären is printed in 4.000 copies. The Swedish Friendship Organisation in 400 copies. It´s nearly the same article in the two papers."

Click the image for larger view
_____________________________________________________________________________________

South Korea, “The most Dangerous Country in the World”
by Lena Thomsson based on the talk with Torbjörn Björkman

Click the image for larger view

North Korea gets some attention in Swedish mass media, but there have been very few reporters from Western countries to North Korea. But North Korea couldn’t exist without it’s antipole South Korea. However, no Swedish reporter gives any interest to South Korea, this big country with more than 50 millions inhabitants.

In December 2009, Torbjörn Björkman visited Seuol to learn more about South Korea.

- I made an interview with Agneta Noberg this autumn, Torbjörn Björkman says. She works with spreading information about Nato and took part in an Conference in South Korea. During the discussion with her, I got the idea to go there. Our knowledge about South Korea is very bad. We know less about South Korea, than about North Korea, despite our knowledge about North Korea comes from the imperialistic propaganda.

- My visit in Seoul turned to be quite different to what I have thought and could expect, continue Torbjörn Björkman. Many persons in organisations that I meet see South Korea as a prison.

One of them Torbjörn Björkman met in Seoul was Kim Young-je working as unification director of the KCTU, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.

- We must get human rights, Kim Young-je said. The division between North and South is one of the big problems of the humanity.

Is caught in two sentences the Korean problem, in a new way for me. The construction of the Korean peninsula in two separate stats; The Democratic Peoples Republic Korea and The Republic [of] Korea, is a product of the US Imperialism and is total undemocratic. The most of the Koreans had [chosen a] united Korea. Without to understand the US oppressing of South- and North Korea we can’t see the questions of the human rights. The US-imperialism is the problem. This is the background to that the Korean peninsula is one of the most militarized areas in the world, were the government force an expansion of the already very large military exercise areas and where US now are expanding there bases. South Korea has 40 times more military investments than North Korea. It is easy to se[se] the grotesque proportions in armaments of South Korea, one of the most armed military in Asia. One of the representatives of Veterans for Peace in Korea proclaimed that South Korea is the most dangerous country in the world. The best way to describe the Korean peninsula is to describe the US-imperialistic tyrannize over the Korean people. In South Korea, it occurs through agents in the South Korea government. Against North US all the time have trade restrictions and an alert political blockade that affect the country with brutal power.

Torbjörn Björkman knows the problem. The journey to Seoul was his first to South Korea, but he has visited North Korea several times. The people in South and North suffer hard through the 38th degree. South Koreas formal democratic freedom, have great restrictions through the National Security Act, implemented after the war and give no different political opinions any space. Any contact with North Korea and North Koreans is prohibited. Any, that break this law, can be put in prison. Under the president Kim Dae Jung, they used a smoother use of this act, but now the mode of application now is harder. The acts make the two formal resolutions between North and South unlawful. The lay make North Korea to an anti nation, a treachery state and an enemy.

- US make a mistake in the division of the Korean peninsula and the prevent of the unification, says Lee Kyeong-won from PKAR, Pan Korean Alliance for reunification of Korea, when he let Torbjörn Björkman to make his first interview after got away from prison, accused for broken the National Security Act when he visited the North Korea. Through this act the US continue to dominant the country.

2008 it was still possible to go to North Korea, but not any more. The only way to get permission is to travel in groups, for instance a sport club.

In a party organised by Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea, SPARK, Torbjörn Björkman was invited to say some worlds. He says:

- I got enthusiastic applause from the 200 gests when I told them that I love North Korea and that it’s a very nice country and nice people and that I have been in Pyongyang 4 times. I said that I worked for the united Korea and for better relations between North and South. They saw it important what I said, that I spoke positively about North Korea. I got greetings with me to give to there relatives in North, the next time when I go there. They saw it important that I spoke positively about North Korea.

- South Korea is a prison for the people, says Torbjörn Björkman, because they cannot speak free or cannot contact there relatives or friends in the North.

- The right wing in South Korea has been strong since the Japanese colonial time. In 1997 started a broad people movement that chose Kim Dae Jung to president. His ”sunshine politic” pushed North and South near to another and ended in a summit with him and Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang 2000 and gave Kim Dae Jung the Nobel Peace Price this year.

The first real opening in the contacts between North and South was not in the political field, but through the sport. The trade unions that worked for unification decides to organise a football match with workers from South and North. The right wing didn’t dare to oppose it and the match accomplished in Pyongyang the 15th of August 1999.

- The South Korean workers are forbidden to speak, said Kim Young-je. We are forbidden to discuss about socialism and communism. We have censure against our thinking. We in South are prisoners. In North are 25 millions forced to isolate themselves.

- Even if South Korea has a high economical standard, we cannot speak of human rights in a country that control of the minds.

Unavoidable, a discussion about the Korean peninsula must include the question about nuclear weapons. What is the South Koreans saying in that question?

- This question is very important in South Korea, says Torbjörn Björkman. All the organisations I met had it in there program. PKAR have the nuclear weapon as the central question.

Lee Kyeong-won says:
- The central question in the Korean peninsula is the nuclear weapons. US have the nuclear umbrella in South. We must have a peace treaty, we must have collaboration between US and North Korea, but US do not want peace. That is why there will be no honest discussions.

- The SPARK started 1994 just because the nuclear question, under the first crisis about the North Korean nuclear weapons, said Oh Hye-Ran, one of the investigators in SPARK, when the meet Torbjörn Björkman in her office in central Seoul. We are fighting against the hostile politic against North Korea and we want peace and unification between North and South. We want that the South break the connections with US and that US leave the Korean peninsula. We want that the armistice will chance to a peace treaty.

In the SPARK's Office also works the peace investigator [K]o Yong-Dae. He wants to discuss the classification of weapons that started under the 90th. The weapons were divided into protection weapons and aggressive weapons, defensive and offensive, a theory that disappeared among the investigators when Nato expanded eastward.

The Korean Peninsula is a centre for develop new systems of weapon, says Yo Yong-Dae. It is important to let people know about this, to get them to understand the train of thought.

Trade unions, the peace movement and the movement for the united Korea are in different ways connected to each other. Even the trade unions have an opinion in the question of nuclear weapon.

The majority of the South Koreans be aware of that North Korea has nuclear weapons because the treat from US, says Kim Young-je. The trade unions are against nuclear weapons. They want them to be liquidated, but they are aware of that North Korea has them against the US threat.

Cheong Wook-sik from the organisation Peace Network says:
- The central question is not if North Korea are threatening with nuclear weapons, but that we have to built the Korean Peninsula as a zone without nuclear weapons and in the long run create a world without nuclear weapons.

- The militarism is central for the Korean question in south, where the government se[se] North Korea as the main enemy, he continues. Men it’s an asymmetric threat. South Koreans military investments with US support are much bigger than North Koreas. North Korea wants a peace agreement, not this armistice. However, US do not accept this. There is an unbalance in military power. South Korea-US has the initiative in the case of conventional weapon. Therefore North Korea has to built nuclear weapons and missiles.

- I cannot understand the critic against North Korea, accused in lack of democratic rights, says Cheong Wook-sik, if you at the same time accused China or South Korea in those deficits.

Torbjörn Björkman have a great memory from the journey; a protest meeting on the way to another meeting in the question for unification between South and North. The protest meeting was outside of the KCTU and was to support the ongoing streak among the railway workers. To catch the trade unions leader stood many police officers outside the building. The right wing government Lee Myung-bak sees all streaks as illegal and the trade unions leaders arrested. Björkman says:

- There is no accident occurrence that we met police officers against workers in streak when we went to a meeting about unification between North and South. The solution of two stats and the workers fight in South is a direct result of that US made South Korea to there vassal state. This is also a product of the Japanese colonial power, there fascism and there fight against the communism, that is the people influence.

In the meeting about unification, we put ourselves with enthusiasm behind a big photo with Kim Jung Il and Kim Dae Jung in the summit the year 2000.

Kim Bung Tae is a represent for Veterans for Peace in Korea. He says:
- I have a brother [in law] who is artist in North Korea. He recently got a gold medal in Beijing for his art. As South Korean, I have no possibility to meet or to get in contact with my brother [in law]. That is why I ask you, that the next time you come to Pyongyang, give my brother [in law] a greeting from me.

We let the old soldier get the last word before, we say “Good Bye”:
- I am glad to meet real friends for peace.

Lena Thomsson (* Lena Thomsson is wife of Torbjörn Björkman)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

* Sent from Agneta Noberg on Wed, Feb 3, 2010


National Security Archive Update, February 2, 2010

Seeing human rights in the "proper manner"
The Reagan-Chun Summit of February 1981

For more information:
202/994-7000 or wampler@gwu.edu

http://www.nsarchive.org

Washington, DC, February 2, 2010 - Twenty-nine years ago today, less than two weeks after his inauguration, President Ronald Reagan rolled out the welcome mat at the White House for South Korean president and strongman Chun Doo Hwan, despite internal U.S. government concerns about Chun's poor human rights record. Over the previous year, Chun's regime had brutally suppressed the Kwangju student protests and thrown dissident leader Kim Dae Jung into prison. Nevertheless, the new administration, keen to send a strong signal of support for key anti-Communist allies, decided to reverse the previous U.S. policy of voicing public criticism of South Korean repression of its domestic opposition.

Today, the National Security Archive is posting a set of formerly classified documents that provide a revealing window into this pivotal moment in U.S.-South Korean relations. The materials include the memorandum of conversation of Reagan's meeting with Chun on February 2, 1981, Reagan's State Department briefing book, as well as White House memos and State Department cables. The records illuminate the delicate balancing act Reagan's advisers chose to follow in squaring the White House's eagerness to reinvigorate the security relationship with Seoul with the need to avoid the impression of uncritical approval of Chun's repressive human rights policies.

Among other insights into the risky new policy, the documents (acquired through the Freedom of Information Act and from presidential libraries) describe:

* Secretary of State Alexander Haig's acknowledgement that Reagan's invitation to Chun "spoke louder than words" about the administration's desire to strengthen ties to South Korea.

• National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen's euphemistic take on the state of play in South Korea: "Human rights survives as a concept, but in a broadened context."

* Chun's response to Reagan's assurance about potential U.S. approaches to Pyongyang: "I take your words as a gift, and they will allow me to return home with an easy mind."

* U.S. assurances that South Korea can rely on it for supplies and technology for its nuclear power program.

Reagan's warm reception of Chun was the public side of a strategy that favored handling human rights concerns behind closed doors. In the short term, the new U.S. approach engendered deep mistrust and suspicion of the U.S. for its role in legitimizing the South Korean government. Over the longer term, the combination of public political support and private encouragement of reform yielded mixed results.

This year, the National Security Archive will publish through ProQuest a major document collection, "U.S.-Korean Relations, 1968-2000," which explores the complex history of the two countries' ties.

http://www.nsarchive.org/

_____________________________________________________________________________________
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRIVACY NOTICE The National Security Archive does not and will never share the names or e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any other organization. Once a year, we will write you and ask for your financial support. We may also ask you for your ideas for Freedom of Information requests, documentation projects, or other issues that the Archive should take on. We would welcome your input, and any information you care to share with us about your special interests. But we do not sell or rent any information about subscribers to any other party.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

* Two videos about Gwangju

1. Kwangju Uprising - news cast (Youtuve URL)
'American news casts on the 1980 Kwangju Uprising in South Korea.'



2. Resurrection of Oppression: May, Month of Uprising (Link is HERE)


'The video informed at the PKAR (Pan-Korean Alliance for Reunification) was screened on the May 12 press interview for the release of the six arrested unification activists under the National Security Law. The press interview was participated by more than 100 people from the 80 organizations.

The video compares the current situation of the oppression by the Lee, Myung Bak government, South Korea to the oppression of the military dictatorship, in the city of Kwangju during the two weeks since May 18, 1980 when the general and soon-self-becoming President, Chun, Doo-Hwan murdered more than 2000 Kwangju citizens for cementing his regime, against the Korean people’s wish of the Democracy, called “The Spring of Seoul”, after the death of the precedent military dictatorship, Park, Jung-Hee who had been murdered by his staff months before.'

Text Fwd: Swedes, Finn, Korean Among NATO Afghan Fatalities

StopNATO
Swedes, Finn, Korean Among NATO Afghan Fatalities

Canada.com
December 31, 2009
ISAF casualities in Afghanistan

ISAF has suffered 1,481 casualties in Afghanistan as of Dec. 31, 2009. (This
figure does not include four Canadian non-military casualties)

U.S. 860
U.K. 244
CANADA 138 (does not include civilian deaths - one diplomat, two aid workers
and one journalist)
FRANCE 36
GERMANY 34
DENMARK 30
SPAIN 26
ITALY 22
NETHERLANDS 21
POLAND 16
ROMANIA 11
AUSTRALIA 11
ESTONIA 7
NORWAY 4
CZECH REPUBLIC 3
LATVIA 3
TURKEY 2
PORTUGAL 2
HUNGARY 2
SWEDEN 2
SOUTH KOREA 1
LITHUANIA 1
FINLAND 1
BELGIUM 1
===========================
Stop NATO
Blog site:

Site Fwd: Designer Jeans Made in North Korea

December 4, 2009

Designer Jeans Made in North Korea

In a surprise development, designer jeans will be sold in upscale stores in Sweden that have been manufactured in North Korea. The NoKo (a play on the abbreviation of North Korea) jeans are products of a joint venture between Swedish entrepreneurs and a North Korean firm (above photo shows the garment factory in North Korea making the jeans).

Besides the obvious buzz surrounding this peculiar development, what is really interesting is the motivation behind the Swedes. They were not big garment company executives looking for low wages, rather they started with a simple desire to get to know North Korea better (see their story on a video on their website) and the jeans idea (transmitted in an email to North Koreans) blossomed into a concrete project that may test the waters for more robust joint ventures with North Korea. The fact that North Korean authories approved this venture with apparent novices suggest the willingness on the part of North Korea to try new economic ventures with the citizens of the outside world.

It also helped that Sweden and North Korea have diplomatic relations, as United Kingdom does, hence examples of joint ventures with North Korea coming out of these two European countries. It also supports an argument that economic engagement with North Korea may aid in reduction of tensions that North Korea has with the outside world. With diplomatic relations in place, there are many opportunities of multi-level contacts and exchanges between peoples and officials that may lead to better mutual understandings and a path towards reduction of tensions and animosities. On this end, the U.S. authorities need to heed, especially in light of the upcoming trip to North Korea by the special envoy Ambassador Stephen Bosworth next week.

Text Fwd: Probe Into Foreign Defense Firms Widening

Korea Times
10-06-2009 18:14
Probe Into Foreign Defense Firms Widening:
British Company Becomes Second Target of Investigation After Saab
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter

An investigation into bribery cases allegedly involving foreign defense firms may widen as more evidence of illegal lobbying activities by foreign companies has emerged, a military source said Tuesday.

The move comes as the Defense Security Command (DSC) is conducting a probe into Saab, a Swedish defense and aerospace company, which is suspected of having offered bribes to the president of an advisory defense think tank at the National Assembly.

During an analysis of materials confiscated from the Security Management Institute (SMI), new evidence has emerged that another foreign defense firm allegedly gave bribes to the institute, the source told The Korea Times, asking not to be named.

He declined to identify the other foreign company concerned, but other sources said it is believed to be a U.K.-based multinational defense manufacturer.

``Investigators are still analyzing confiscated goods and will summon related officials, if necessary,'' the source said.

DSC commander Lt. Gen. Kim Jong-tae said during a parliamentary audit of the administration later Tuesday that his command was investigating six suspects and secured four witnesses.

``Our command began this investigation earlier this year when we secured evidence that classified information on the KF-X program was being leaked to the Swedish firm,'' Kim said. ``Suspects will be summoned from Thursday for questioning.''

Completion of the investigation is scheduled for late this month, he added.

The DSC is probing the case in cooperation with the Seoul Prosecutors' Office and the National Intelligence Service, the source said.

Under the authorization of the prosecution, the command raided Saab's branch office here and SMI headquarters in southern Seoul to seize documents and computer files in a bid to uncover their alleged connection.

Prosecutors traced the bank accounts of officials from Saab and SMI.

The source privy to the investigation said Saab was suspected of having offered 300 million won to 500 million won to the SMI president, a former head of the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, to receive classified information on a national fighter development project codenamed KF-X.

Observers say the ongoing intensive probe of major foreign defense companies is in line with President Lee Myung-bak's push to eradicate irregularities in huge arms deals.

In August, Lee was quoted as saying that he believes that about 20 percent of the defense budget could be saved annually if military authorities don't receive ``rebate payments'' in weapons deals.

He called for general defense-spending reductions amid the economic downturn.

Cheong Wa Dae later cut next year's budget proposal submitted by the Ministry of National Defense to a 3.8 percent increase from last year. The ministry had originally proposed a 7.9 percent increase.

``The probe of Saab seems to be the beginning of a wider investigation into illegal lobbying activities by foreign firms and their agencies,'' a defense expert said. ``Depending on the results of the ongoing investigation, many arms acquisition projects, including the KF-X program, could be affected.''

The KF-X project, aimed at creating an indigenous combat aircraft in partnership with a foreign aircraft giant to replace the Air Force's older F-4s and F-5s, has drawn proposals from major Western fighter houses.

Saab has been among the most active bidders by offering a new design for a super-cruising stealth fighter. It also asked South Korea to join its Gripen next-generation program to forge a broader fighter development partnership.

Other foreign manufactures that have shown interest in the KF-X include Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Eurofighter. The KF-X has been controversial, however, since many defense analysts see it as unviable economically and technically.

The Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University commissioned by the government to examine the feasibility of the KF-X is known to suggest lower operational requirements for the new fighter jet.

In its interim report revealed earlier this year, the center recommended a plan to produce about 250 F-16-class fighters after 2010 with the help of foreign firms.

The center asked foreign firms about their views on the per-plane cost estimate of $50 million, as well as budget-sharing ideas and technology transfer.

In a 2007 feasibility study by a local economic policy think tank, the KF-X project was assessed as unsound economically as it would cost at least $10 billion, but would reap only $3 billion in economic benefits.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

[Text fwd]: [Exclusive] Swedish Firm Probed Over Fighter Development Plan

A model of the KF-X fighter jet

Korea Times
A model of the KF-X fighter jet
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
10-05-2009 17:51

Saab, a Swedish defense firm, is being investigated here over alleged illegal lobbying of a defense research institute affiliated with the National Assembly regarding a South Korean fighter development program, sources said Monday.

Prosecutors recently raided both the firm's branch office and the headquarters of the Security Management Institute (SMI) in southern Seoul to seize documents and computer files as part of its three-month investigation into their alleged connection, the sources said.

Prosecutors have also traced the bank accounts of Saab officials and the SMI president to uncover alleged financial transactions between the two sides, they said.

SMI has served as an influential research agency regarding major South Korean arms acquisition and development programs since it was established as an advisory agency to the Assembly in 2005.

It was also designated by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration last October as an agency for studying weapons programs, cost analyses and defense technology development plans.

"The prosecution has almost completed its investigation of Saab and SMI and is closely analyzing confiscated material," a source told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity.

"It is a rare and intensive probe into a foreign defense firm and is expected to affect future arms improvement programs involving foreign manufacturers, depending on the results," he said.

Prosecutors said SMI was suspected of having offered classified information on the KF-X indigenous fighter development program to Saab or written up parliamentary documents on the KF-X partnership in favor of the Swedish company, in return for compensation.

A Saab official declined to comment on the issue, while an SMI representative denied the allegation and argued the investigation was merely a routine inspection of the parliamentary advisory institute.

"This incident may deal a blow to Saab in its ongoing and future businesses," the source said, adding the firm is considering cancelling its participation in the Seoul Air Show slated for Oct. 20 to 25.

In a related move, the Defense Security Command investigated the state-funded Agency for Defense Development earlier this year over a possible information leak to Saab, which was conducting a joint feasibility study on key arms development programs.

Saab has engaged in various weapons procurement projects in the country, such as the integration of a naval radar system and the export of its artillery-detecting radar system.

The KF-X project, aimed at creating an indigenous combat aircraft in partnership with a foreign aircraft giant to replace the Air Force's older F-4s and F-5s, has drawn proposals from major Western fighter houses.

Saab has been among the most active bidders by offering a new design for a super-cruising stealth fighter. It also asked South Korea to join its Gripen next-generation program to forge a broader fighter development partnership.

Other foreign manufactures that have shown interest in the KF-X include Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Eurofighter. The KF-X has been controversial, however, since many defense analysts see it as unviable economically and technically.

The KF-X was cut again in next year's defense budget proposals submitted by the Ministry of National Defense earlier this month.

The Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University commissioned by the government to examine the feasibility of the KF-X is known to have suggested lower operational requirements for the new fighter jet.

In its interim report revealed earlier this year, the center recommended a plan to produce about 250 F-16-class fighters after 2010 with the help of foreign firms.

The center asked foreign firms about their views on the per-plane cost estimate of $50 million, as well as budget-sharing ideas and technology transfer.

In a 2007 feasibility study by a local economic policy think tank, the KF-X project was assessed as unsound economically as it would cost at least $10 billion, but would reap only $3 billion in economic benefits.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

Text Fwd: Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO

* Text Fwd by Rick Rozoff on Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Stop NATO
May 6, 2009
Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO
Rick Rozoff

On March 2, 2009 the Australian Department of Defence released a 140-page white paper called Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific century: force 2030 (1), which announced $72 billion in new military spending for an island nation of barely 20 million inhabitants with no adversaries except those it chooses to make for itself.

The document details the Australian government's plans to acquire and expand a full spectrum - air, sea and land - arsenal of advanced weaponry in the nation's largest arms buildup since World War II. Canberra will replace six submarines with double that amount possessing greater range and longer mission capabilities, "hunter-killer submarines" [2], representing "a big new investment in anti-submarine warfare" [3] ; three new destroyers "specialising in air warfare" [4], which presumably be be Aegis class ones with missile killing capacity, and eight new frigates.

All of the above are to be equipped with land-attack cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, almost certainly of the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile variety, which will make Australia "the first regional defence force to have the potent weapons system." [5]

The nation is also to acquire 46 Tiger [German-French Eurocopter multi-role combat] helicopters, Hercules and other new generation military transport planes, 100 armored vehicles and, most alarmingly, 100 F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters. The last is a Lockheed Martin-manufactured fifth-generation, multi-role stealth-capable military strike fighter capable of short- and medium-range bombing.

Australia has been working with Norway on the Joint Strike Missile, "a newly developed anti surface warfare and land attack missile that will be adapted to meet an uncovered operational need on the F-35 Lightning II - Joint Strike Fighter" [6], which will be available for the 100 of the latter Australia plans to obtain.

In addition, plans include "the veteran AP-3 Orion [anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare] fleet being replaced with a mix of at least eight P-8 Poseidon [US Navy anti-submarine warfare and electronic intelligence] long-range surveillance aircraft, together with up to seven unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, possibly the US-made Global Hawk...." [7]

Insular, comparatively isolated, unthreatened Australia has no legitimate reason to amass such an array of offensive, advanced weapons for use on land and sea and in the air. An article in a major Australian daily entitled "Kevin Rudd's push for missile supremacy," referring to the prime minister's unprecedented peacetime military expansion, states inter alia that the "navy will acquire a formidable arsenal of long-range cruise missiles for its new submarines, destroyers and frigates, able to strike at targets thousands of kilometres from Australia's shores." [8]

To project deadly force thousands of kilometers from its shores, in various interpretations of the new military policy, is based on designs that "Our military strategy will be a proactive one in which we seek to control the dynamic of a conflict, principally by way of sea control and air superiority" and "The government intends to place greater emphasis on our capacity to detect and respond to submarines" [9] and "Force 2030...will be a more potent force in certain areas, particularly in undersea warfare and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) surface maritime warfare, air superiority, strategic strike, special forces, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and cyber warfare" for use in a potential "wider conflict in the Asia-Pacific region."

What the nature of that conflict might be and which nations are viewed as prospective co-belligerents in it was alluded to in a feature in the Financial Times: "Joel Fitzgibbon, defence minister, said the country's first defence white paper in almost a decade acknowledged the continued regional dominance of the US. But he warned of 'strategic tensions' arising from new powers, particularly China but also India, and the re-emergence of Russia." (10)

India is a red herring as it too is enmeshed in US-led plans for the creation of an Asian-Pacific military bloc unless, of course, a change in the political leadership and foreign policy orientation of the country would ally it with Russia and China, thereby in fact creating "strategic tensions" from the West's point of view.

The white paper, as seen above, grants the United States "regional dominance" in an area thousands of miles away from the superpower yet simultaneously attempts to strike a pose of Australian assertiveness and even self-reliance and independence. This is quite in keeping with the foreign policy of the Nixon-Kissinger years in which certain key allies were assigned the role of regional military policemen and enforcers or, as many described it at the time, regional subimperialist strongholds.

There is no truth is this 'patriotic' posturing, though. Australia is being built up as the major military strike force in its neighborhood and far beyond even as it is being integrated ever more tightly with the Pentagon. And NATO.

In February of 2007 in an article called "Secret new US spy base to get green light," it was announced that "Australia's close military alliance with the United States is to be further entrenched with the building of a high-tech communications base in Western Australia" which "will provide a crucial link for a new network of military satellites that will help the US's ability to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia" and "will be the first big US military installation to be built in Australia in decades, and follows controversies over other big bases such as Pine Gap and North West Cape."[11]

Last September Australian Prime Minister Rudd visited Hawaii and met with the head of the Pentagon's Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy Keating, to brief him "on the Australian Defence Force deployments in East Timor and Solomon Islands.

"The pair are understood to be discussing broader strategic trends in the western Pacific, including the steady build-up in regional maritime capabilities.

"Admiral Keating told a seminar at the East-West Center in Honolulu in July that Asia wanted the US to maintain a strong and visible presence throughout the region. 'It is certainly in the minds of all our friends, partners and colleagues that the US should maintain military superiority in the theatre.'" [12]

Australia has more troops serving with its US counterparts and under NATO command in Afghanistan, over 1,000, with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announcing a few days ago that 400 more (including some to serve with the Special Operations Task Group elite combat group) on the way, than any other non-NATO member.

Australian troops, along with those from New Zealand, are among the foreign forces scheduled to be evicted from the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan where US and NATO personnel have been stationed for several years in pursuit of the war in Afghanistan.

Last June the nation's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, was already calling for an expansion of the Afghan War theater to include neighboring Pakistan, saying: "I think we've got to start looking at the border between Afghanistan not just as a bilateral issue between those two nations, but a regional issue in which the international community has to play a role." [13]

In the same month the head of Australia's Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said of the US and NATO war in South Asia: "I would say it's an endeavour that will last at least 10 years." [14] If so Australia has no plans to leave.
As it will not leave Iraq. Australia's troops were among the first to enter Iraq after the March 2003 invasion and are among the few national contingents that are remaining there. At the end of 2008 the Iraqi parliament, not without dissension, passed a resolution authorizing individual agreements on the only non-US troops there: Those from Australia, Britain, Estonia, Romania and NATO.

In January of this year when the head of the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, announced plans for aggressive naval moves in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia, Australia was one of the first nations to offer support.

A month earlier Australian Prime Minister Rudd traveled to the United Arab Emirates "where Australia is in the process of consolidating its air crews and Middle East command headquarters in a single secret base." [15]

This April Australia completed its first command of the Combined Task Force 152, a permanent naval surveillance and interdiction operation in the Persian Gulf run by the US Naval Forces Central Command. "The Royal Australian Navy's command rotation also saw the integration of representatives from Australia, the U.S., Bahrain and other Gulf Cooperation Council nations into the CTF 152 staff." [16]

Australia also participates in Combined Task Force 150, a sister operation in the Gulf of Oman and the Horn of Africa.

Last summer the commander of the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Admiral James Winnefeld, referred to Iran as an "unpredictable adversary" that "demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for Australia or NATO response." [17]

Like the secret consolidated Australian base in the United Arab Emirates, Winnefeld was evidently speaking of matters not known to the general public or ordinarily divulged by Western military officials.

In February Canberra announced that it was quadrupling the amount of Pakistani military officers to be trained in Australia for the expanding war in South Asia, the same month that Australian troops killed five Afghan children while engaged in a combat mission.

Foreshadowing what would become this month's defense white paper, in September of last year Prime Minister Rudd stated that his nation needed "an enhanced naval capability that can protect our sea lanes of communication and support our land forces. We need an air force that can fill support and combat roles.'' [18]

The press wire service from which the above is quoted reminded its readers that "Australia still has 1,000 personnel in and around Iraq, about 1,000 soldiers under NATO command in southern Afghanistan and about 750 peacekeepers in East Timor and 140 in the Solomon Islands."

In the case of the last two nations, Australia's role is indeed that of a subimperialist regional policeman, with its nearly nine-year deployment in East Timor (Timor Este) as much a matter of protecting preferential oil and natural gas concessions in the Timor Gap and defying its major regional rival Indonesia as it is one of peacekeeping.

Though in the same news conference reported above, Rudd also affirmed that "Australia will strengthen security cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore."

There are two significant aspects to the last statement. The first is the nation not mentioned, China, and the second is that it reflects a basis for what for several years now has been referred to as Asian NATO.

The expression has been used since the beginning of this century but first gained wider currency after then US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz paid a five-day trip to Japan, South Korea and Singapore in May of 2003. The first two countries already had troops stationed in Iraq, and South Korea and Singapore would later deploy military forces to Afghanistan with the Japanese navy playing a supporting role in the Indian Ocean.

Asian NATO has been referred to with increased frequency over the past several years and the concept, and project, was poignantly demonstrated in the 2007 Malabar naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal where warships from India, United States, Japan, Australia, and Singapore engaged in the largest multinational exercise of its sort - 25 ships - in Indian history. The exercises ranged from "Vizag on the eastern seaboard to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands that guard the approaches to the Strait of Malacca, considered the world's busiest waterway." [19]

The Malabar exercises before 2007 were bilateral US-India affairs but two years ago were employed to showcase an emerging American-led Asian military bloc.

In most discussions of Asian NATO the term is used metaphorically, as in an Asian-Pacific military alliance that parallels the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Euro-Atlantic zone, if in no other manner than it is becoming a military bloc in a world that has only one other, NATO.

This loose connotation of the term doesn't do justice to the truth.

Even with the addendum that Asian NATO is an attempt by Washington to reproduce NATO in the Asia Pacific, also under its domination, it is not the full truth.

In fact what has developed is an ever-broadening structure for integrating Asian nations directly with NATO as well as with its individual members, the US primarily of course, and an extension of NATO into the East. Previous articles in this series have examined direct NATO penetration of Asia and the South Pacific [20], the stationing of the bloc's military forces and the securing of permanent bases from the Balkans to the eastern rim of the Caspian Sea [21] and efforts by the US and its NATO allies to establish a global naval fleet to dominate most of the world and the Asia Pacific region in particular. [22].

The main components of this absorption of the Asia Pacific zone include individual partnerships; establishment of bases and positioning of military, including combat, forces; actual invasions, wars and occupations; conducting regular Western-led multinational military, including live-fire, exercises; recruiting and deploying troops from Asian nations to war zones like those in Afghanistan and Iraq; and in general integrating the military of Asia Pacific states under the direction of individual NATO nations and the alliance collectively.

Applying the above criteria, as will be shown below or has been examined in reference to the South Caucasus and Central Asia in the Stop NATO articles referred to earlier, there are few nations in the entire Asia Pacific area, including the South Caucasus and West Asia (the Middle East), that are not to some degree involved in the process of creating a Western-dominated Asian military bloc.

Excluding several smaller island nations in the South Pacific, those exceptions are Russia, China, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, Bhutan, Iran and Syria.

In addition to collective NATO partnerships partially or entirely outside of Europe and North America - Partnership for Peace includes all three South Caucasus and all five Central Asian former Soviet republics; the Mediterranean Dialogue takes in all North Africa nations on the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea from Mauritania to Egypt except for Libya as well as Israel and Jordan; the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative includes the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with Oman and Saudi Arabia soon to follow, NATO has a category of individual partnerships it refers to as Contact Countries.

This is how NATO itself describes it:

"In addition to its formal partnerships, NATO cooperates with a range of countries that are not part of these structures. Often referred to as 'other partners across the globe' or 'Contact Countries', they share similar strategic concerns and key Alliance values. Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand are all examples in case." [23]

The Alliance has de facto individual partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan and heads up a Tripartite Commission with both nations for the prosecution of the war in South Asia.

Asia Pacific partners are also integrated in other fashions.

Last autumn the US Congress "passed a bill...aimed at helping South Korea purchase American weapons systems cheaper and faster in order to
strengthen the Korea-U.S. alliance, as well as increased interoperability between the two countries' militaries. Under the bill, South Korea will be granted the same status as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and three FMS [foreign military sales]-favored nations - Australia, Japan and New Zealand." [24]

When the Senate passed an equivalent resolution days later, a South Korean official stated, ``Now we can call the highest U.S. FMS group `NATO+4.' That is a symbolic move to prove the Korea-U.S. alliance has been upgraded further.'' [25]

Australia and Japan both participate in a NATO/Partnership for Peace Trust Fund in Azerbaijan, the Alliance's main military outpost on the Caspian Sea and the most pivotal partner for trans-Eurasian energy strategies.

This January NATO held a conference in Turkey called Changing Security Environment and a Renewed Transatlantic Vision for the 21st century which "highlighted the importance of setting up cooperation ties with countries such as Japan and Australia." [26]

This year the Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 was scheduled to visit Pakistan, Australia and Singapore and travel through the strategic Strait of Malacca - the first time the bloc would penetrate this part of the world - but was diverted to the coast of Somalia. However, the warships joined with the Pakistani navy for a two-day exercise in late April.

In September of last year NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General John Craddock, visited Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Japan to "provide their leadership with an assessment of the current operations in Afghanistan and express his appreciation for their efforts in the NATO-led mission." [27]

Australia is the only non-NATO country involved in the global SeaSparrow (ship-borne short-range anti-aircraft and anti-missile missile) system, along with members Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the US.
This March it was announced that "Australia is set to conclude a deal with NATO on exchanging secret military information" in order to insure "a deeper strategic dialogue between Australia and NATO and increased cooperation on long-term common interests." [28]

In June of last year NATO deployed AWACS to Australia for the first time for Exercise Pitch Black "a Royal Australian Air Force led exercise with international participation that includes 3,000 participants and more than 60 aircraft from Australia, the United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, France and the E-3A Component." [29]

The E-3A is "NATO's Flagship Fleet. The E-3A Component is the world's only integrated, multi-national flying unit, providing rapid deployability, airborne surveillance, command, control and communication for NATO operations." [30]

"This historic deployment to Australia is another example of our transformation into a world-wide deployable force," said Brig. Gen. Stephen Schmidt, Component Commander.

"We are a lead element of the NATO Response Force and our daily mission requires that we be prepared to deploy on short notice to any location in the world as required by the Alliance...." [31]

Last winter NATO conducted joint training in Germany with Afghan troops and their counterparts from the United States, Germany, France, Hungary, Canada, Slovenia, Slovakia, Italy...and Australia.

In the same month perhaps the most influential - and infamous - Australian, media baron Rupert Murdoch, citing the "Russian invasion of Georgia," delivered himself of this demand:

"Australia needs to be part of a reform of the institutions most responsible for maintaining peace and stability. I'm thinking especially of NATO....The only path to reform NATO is to expand it to include nations like Australia. That way NATO will become a community based less on geography and more on common values. That is the only way NATO will be effective. And Australian leadership is critical to these efforts." [32]

Murdoch echoed demands of a Republican presidential candidate in last year's primary campaign: Rudolph Giuliani, who in 2007 called for NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore to its ranks as full members.

This January NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer while visiting Israel spoke on this and related topics:

"NATO has transformed to address the challenges of today and tomorrow. We have built partnerships around the globe from Japan to Australia to Pakistan and, of course, with the important countries of the Mediterranean and the Gulf. We have established political relations with the UN and the African Union that never existed until now. We've taken in new [countries], soon 28 in total, with more in line.

"[The] Alliance is projecting stability in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in the Mediterranean (with Israeli support), and elsewhere - including fighting pirates off the Somali coast...." [33]

The incoming US ambassador to NATO, the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, is reportedly an advocate of "Washington want[ing] NATO to be expanded by inviting counties like Australia, Japan, Brazil and South Africa and becom[ing] a global organization...." [34]

The mainstays for the evolving Asian NATO, or as Daalder's, Scheffer's and Giuliani's positions make clear an Asian NATO plus, are Australia and Japan with India eyed as the third leg of the stool.

Australia and Japan both have, in addition to hosting US military bases and deploying forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, entered on yet more dangerous ground by joining the American worldwide interceptor missile system.

In May of 2007 "Australia said...it had joined the U.S. and Japanese missile defense plans and would consider the deployment of a missile shield on its soil" at the same time that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer announced that his "organization will create its own missile defense system, which would be linked to the American system." [35]

With US interceptor missile installations in place at Fort Greely on the Alaskan mainland and the Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea facing Russia, the incorporation of Japan and Australia into the missile shield system complements plans for similar facilities and deployments in Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and elsewhere in Europe, neutralizing Russia's deterrent and retaliation capabilities on both ends of its territory.

Ahead of a visit to Japan in October of 2007 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said "Moscow regarded the joint missile defense effort as an 'object of concern,' expressing wariness over what he called the possibility that the system could be directed against Russia and China.

"We oppose the construction of missile defense systems whose purpose is to ensure military superiority." [36]

Lavrov would reiterate Russian concerns late last year when he "mentioned the problem of antimissile defences, which actually stands to reason, since the United States seeks to build such system on a global basis and deploy, among others, some of the system elements in Asia and the Pacific."

The report from which the preceding came concluded with the observation that "Moscow has major strategic interests in Asia and the Pacific, interests that invariably clash with no less significant US interests." [37]

A week later the US and Japan, in a significant return of the latter's military to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, conducted a sea-based interceptor missile test.

"The Japanese missile destroyer Chokai will take part in a training firing session as part of the American-Japanese programme for testing a sea-based missile defence system, Christopher Taylor, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency says, adding that the destroyer which is equipped with the AEGIS BMD Weapon System and with the Standard -3 interceptor missiles, has already arrived at the U.S.-operated Pearl Harbor Base in Honolulu.

"Missile defence complexes the Japanese destroyers are equipped with are linked to the U.S missile defence system.

"They can receive information about targets and provide it to the American warships, equipped with both missile defence systems and bases for interceptor missiles in Alaska and California." [38]

The US has also shifted substantial military forces and focus from Okinawa to Hokkaido on the Sea of Japan immediately across from Russia.

It is not only Russia that is alarmed by these developments and not only Australia and Japan that are being integrated into the global American interceptor missile, so-called son of Star Wars, network.

Last December the defense ministers of China and Russia met in Beijing and "Anatoly Serdyukov and Liang Guanglie [discussed] a project by the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan to establish a regional missile defense system. China is against the project...." [39]

Earlier in the year Andrew Chang, a Hong Kong-based military expert, remarked on the US missile shield component in Asia that "it is aimed at targeting not only North Korea but China as well" and that "that China has every reason to voice unease over the matter, adding that US plans stipulate the deployment of elements of the missile defense shield also in Japan and Australia.

"Aside from missile interceptors, an array of high-power radars will be deployed in the areas – a move that will make it possible for the US to track down China’s launchings of its missiles from the main launch pad in the Shangsi province." [40]

The purpose of Asian NATO, then, is to establish US and broader Western military superiority, even invincibility, throughout Asia across the full spectrum of ground, air, naval and space forces and weapons.

Lastly, the following survey of reports over the past few months is not an exhaustive one, but provides an overview on how the web of Western military penetration of the Asia Pacific region is simultaneously widening and tightening.

As an illustrative example, the US has just completed the two-week (April 16-30) Balikatan 2009 joint military exercise in the Philippines, the latest in a series of annual war games. This year 5-6,000 US troops participated and at one point US Marines conducted a drill that can only be training for use against unarmed civilians - "'When you've got a big crowd agitated and moving at you,'" the nonlethal grenade would be a good choice." [41]

The exercise was held on the grounds of the former Clark Air Base which the US Air Force had vacated in 1991, one of only a few bases the US has departed voluntarily. Not only were US Marines back on the site of the base, but F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft were employed for Balikatan 2009, the first American warplanes operating in the Philippines in sixteen years.

The Pentagon also deployed the PHIBRON-11, the Navy's only forward-deployed amphibious squadron, consisting of four warships, from Japan for the occasion.

The war games, note, were conducted in a nation that is waging several years-long counterinsurgency operations against not only the Abu Sayyaf Group but also the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the secular New People's Army.

That war is backed by and includes the direct participation of US military forces (and those of Australia) who have established camps in Mindanao.

Given that the war games were designed for combat operations in an armed conflict zone, it's revealing that military observers were present from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos and South Korea. [42]

May 2008:

The defense ministers of Japan and South Korea met to "boost three-way military ties with the U.S." and to "revive a suspended three-way military dialogue with the United States as soon as possible...."

South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee "also met his Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon and stressed the need for a military information protection accord between the two countries." [43]

June:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Japanese and Australian foreign ministers Masahiko Komura and Stephen Smith, respectively, met at the third ministerial meeting of the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and vowed to "to work in close strategic partnership to boost stability and security in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the world at large." [44)

July:

US Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Carrol Chandler, mentioning that the US Air Force has partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, said "We're not at war in the Pacific, but we're really not at peace, either," and stated that a "good example of...bilateral cooperation is missile defense." [45]

It was announced that a large US military contingent would participate in Exercise Maru in New Zealand along with Australian warships and aircraft and with Japan contributing a P3 Orion surveillance aircraft.

"In what will be seen as another step in breaking down the 20-year freeze by the Americans on joint participation in routine military exercises, its military will be strongly represented...." [46]

The US hosted the annual Rim of the Pacific naval exercise in Hawaii which involved naval forces from Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Peru, the United Kingdom, Singapore and the US.

"A total of 35 ships, six submarines, 150 aircraft and 20,000 personnel from the maritime forces of the 10 nations were involved in the exercise.

"[T]he 22-day sea phase exercise which covered combined anti-submarine and air defence exercises including the live-firing of the missile off the Hawaiian coast...." [47]

In a related development, the 2008 Pacific Rim Airpower Symposium was held in the capital of Malaysia, hosted by Royal Malaysian Air Force and US Pacific Air Forces' 13th Air Force officials and including the participation of delegations from Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam.

"'Through this symposium, we have a great opportunity to share and understand what each nation brings to the battlefield,' said Lt. Gen. Loyd S. "Chip" Utterback, the 13th Air Force commander." [48]

August:

The Japanese defense ministry announced that in his upcoming visit to the United States the country's defense minister would discuss a series of proposals for expanding bilateral military cooperation including "rendering ...logistical support by Japan to a group of US battleships in the Indian Ocean that are involved in a military operation in Afghanistan.

"[T]he last few years saw Japan and the US successfully cement bilateral military cooperation, including the joint deployment of missile defense
systems....Aside from missile interceptors, an array of high-power radars will be deployed...." [49]

September:

Australian and New Zealand troops were among 2,000 from the Anglo-Saxon quint, along with forces from Britain, Canada and the United States, that trained in Germany for warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"[A] group of New Zealand soldiers are practicing breaking into buildings and then making instant decisions on whether the occupants are friendly or hostile.

"The Kiwis are taking part in joint exercises with four other English-speaking nations — the U.S., Britain, Canada and Australia — designed to help them operate together and work out any kinks before they hit the battlefield...." [50]

October:

India and Japan signed a defense pact during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Tokyo, "a security cooperation agreement under which India and Japan...will hold military exercises, police the Indian Ocean and conduct military-to-military exchanges....Japan has such a security pact with only two other countries - the United States and Australia." [51]

In a trip to the Czech capital of Prague, US Missile Defense Agency chief Henry Obering and Czech first Deputy Defence Minister Martin Bartak signed a framework treaty on strategic cooperation in missile defence, about which the local press revealed, "The United States has signed a similar agreement only with Australia, Britain, Denmark, Italy and Japan." [52]

A New Zealand government website inadvertently divulged that military ties with the US were being strengthened.

"After decades of cold-shoulder treatment, United States military brass are now saying a US-New Zealand military partnership is vital to meet security challenges in the Pacific region.


"Joint military exercises are on offer again, according to US Air Force commander Lieutenant General Loyd S. Utterback, who was in Wellington last month for a conference hosted by air force chief Air Vice-Marshal Graham Lintott." [53]

November:

Spanish Defense Minister Carme Chacon and her Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon signed an agreement for defense industry cooperation. "Earlier this year, the two members of NATO [verbatim] struck a deal to enhance cooperation between their naval forces." [54]

December:

Australia and Japan signed an agreement in Tokyo to increase security cooperation and to conduct more joint military operations.

"Japan only has a similar security pact with the United States, while
Australia has agreements with the US and Great Britain." [55]

Japan's parliament voted to extend the nation's naval operations in the Indian Ocean to support the US-NATO war in Afghanistan by another year.

January 2009:

The outgoing US ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, called for Tokyo to play a larger role in global military missions "including reinterpreting its pacifist constitution to allow it to defend an ally if attacked." The Japanese constitution forbids what it calls collective defense.

Evoking a hypothetical case, "if a Japanese destroyer failed to eliminate a missile launched from Asia on the basis that it was headed for the US," Schieffer warned "I think the American people would find that very difficult to understand the value of the alliance with Japan."

He added that, in regards to US-Japanese post-World War II military relations, a "redefinition would be appropriate." [56]

The Financial Times reported that "The US is in preliminary talks with India over the sale of missile shield systems" in reference to Pakistan and "other volatile countries in the region." [57]

An Indian press service reported that "After signing its biggest-ever military deal with the US for eight long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy for $2.1bn, New Delhi is now eyeing to fast track three key military pacts with Washington." [58]

February:

In a visit to Japan US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Washington and Tokyo had "agreed to intensify consultations and coordination with the Republic of Korea, Australia, and India, which share universal values." [59]

March:

The head of Singapore's military, Lt-General Desmond Kuek, visited India to meet with his counterpart, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, to discuss increasing military ties and to sign pacts for joint military training.

"Singapore has signed similar agreements for training facilities with countries like the US, France, Australia, Thailand and Taiwan...." [60]

The US deployed F-15s to Thailand for Exercise Cope Tiger 2009 to engage in air combat training with the Thai and Singaporean air forces.

An American military official speaking of the exercise said:

"This exercise is a great opportunity to hone our air combat skills while
practicing against different adversaries than we normally train against here.

"This will facilitate any responses to regional events or contingencies in the future." [61]

Gen. Songgitti Jaggabatara, chief of the defense forces of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, invited the Philippines to join in a US-led multinational military exercise in his country.

"We have a multi-national exercise between Thailand, the United States, Indonesia, Singapore, and Japan and the Philippine Armed Force still is an observer. After this, maybe the Philippine Armed Force will join the exercise."
[62]

Cambodia announced it will host a US and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) military exercise.

Pol Saroeurn, Commander-in-Chief of Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, said: "It is an honor for Cambodia to be chosen by ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the superpower U.S. as the location for such a large-scale international military exercise" and recalled that in 2008 his forces had participated in a three-week exercise in Bangladesh in 2008 which "involved some 400 soldiers from 12 countries, including Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nepal, Brunei, Mongolia, Tonga, Cambodia and the U.S." [63]

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd met in Seoul and signed a bilateral security treaty, one which "calls for increasing joint military training exercises and peacekeeping operations, as well as military-to-military exchanges and cooperation in defense industry, including the exploration of airborne early warning and control aircraft." [64]

April:

American arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin officials met with ranking Indian naval officers to discuss Aegis ship-launched anti-missile missile acquisitions.

"Apart from the US Navy, the Aegis system is operational on Japanese, South Korean, Norwegian, Spanish and Australian naval vessels." [65]

In coordination with US-supplied Aegis class destroyer and joint US-Japanese ground-based missile shield elements, Japan announced what the government called its first strategic space policy.

By which is meant not only space surveillance but preparing for warfare in outer space. Joining the United States in the militarization of the heavens. Plans for Asian NATO are not limited to Asia. Or to the Earth.

1) Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific century: force 2030 (PDF)
http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf
2) Christian Science Monitor, May 3, 2009
3) The Australian, April 25, 2009
4) Financial Times, May 4, 2009
5) The Australian, May 2, 2009
6) F-16.net, May 1, 2009
7) The Australian, April 25, 2009
8) The Australian, May 2, 2009
9) Ibid
10) Financial Times, May 4, 2009
11) Sydney Morning Herald, February 15, 2007
12) The Australian, September 23, 2008
13) Agence France-Presse, June 15, 2008
14) Agence France-Presse, June 4, 2008
15) Sydney Morning Herald, December 22, 2008
16) U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs, April 27, 2009
17) Zee News (India), July 4, 2008
18) Bloomberg News, September 10, 2008
19) India Defence, September 3, 2007
20) Stop NATO, January 24, 2009
Global Military Bloc: NATO's Drive Into Asia
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/36946
21) Stop NATO, March 4, 2009
Mr. Simmons' Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37672
22) Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
Proliferation Security Initiative And US 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of World's Oceans, Prelude To War
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37058
23) NATO International, March 9, 2009
24) Korea Times, September 24, 2008
25) Korea Times, October 2, 2008
26) Xinhua News Agency, January 30, 2009
27) NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, September 1, 2008
28) Canberra Times, March 13, 2009
29) NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, June 13, 2008
30) NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force, April 23, 2009
31) NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, June 13, 2008
32) ABS CBN News (Philippines), November 5
33) Ha'aretz, January 10, 2009
34) Russia Today, March 13, 2009
35) Russian Information Agency Novosti, May 22, 2007
36) Associated Press, October 13, 2007
37) Voice of Russia, November 8, 2008
38) Voice of Russia, November 17, 2008]
39) Russian Information Agency Novosti, December 10, 2008
40) Voice of Russia, August 29, 2008
41) Stars and Stripes, April 26, 2009
42) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, January 29, 2009
43) Yonhap News Agency (South Korea), May 31, 2008
44) Xinhua News Agency, June 27, 2008
45) Pacific Air Forces, July 11, 2008
46) The Dominion Post, July 22, 2008
47) Bernama.com (Malaysia), July 29, 2008
48) Air Force Link, July 23, 2008
49) Voice of Russia, August 29, 2008
50) Associated Press, September 25, 2008
51) Reuters, October 25, 2008
52) Czech News Agency, October 30, 2008
53) The Dominion Post, October 11, 2008
54) Agence France-Presse, November 25, 2008
55) Radio Netherlands, December 18, 2008
56) Agence France-Presse, January 14, 2009
57) Financial Times, January 7, 2009
58) Indo-Asian News Service, January 6, 2009
59) The Hindu, February 18, 2009
60) Times of India, March 3, 2009
61) Air Force Link, American Forces News Service, March 6, 2009
62) Xinhua News Agency, March 3, 2009
63) Xinhua News Agency, March 3, 2009
64) Defense News, March 5, 2009
65) Indo-Asian News Service, April 23, 2009

* Related articles: StopNATO
Malaysia Conference: Anti-NATO Event A Tremendous Success
World Futures Online
May 6, 2009