Text Fwd: [Hankyoreh Editorial] Opportunistic troop deployment [한겨레 논평] 기회적인 유나이티드 아랍 에미레이츠 군대 파병안

Hankyoreh
[Editorial] Opportunistic troop deployment
Posted on : Nov.4,2010 15:21 KST

Excerpt

However, this latest deployment is problematic first and foremost because it lacks a strong rationale that can be explained directly to the international community. According to the Lee government’s explanation, the military cooperation card likely contributed to South Korea’s earning the construction bid. But however beneficial it may be in terms of moneymaking, traveling from country to country without any concern for justification is something that a mercenary squad would do. In short, this deployment bears no connection with the mission of the Republic of Korea’s armed forces, nor has there been any social consensus formed that it is acceptable to hand such duties to the nation’s armed forces.

This deployment is also likely to have major side effects in light of the thorny political situation in the Middle East. One immediate result will be alarm from Iran, which is located just across the Persian Gulf from the UAE and has maintained a tense relationship with the country. If South Korean forces are positioned there, Iran’s military forces will be designated as a hypothetical enemy. Diplomatic relations between South Korea and Iran, already severely strained due to our participation in the U.S.-led sanctions against the country, are very likely to become even more uncomfortable. Nor is the attack on a South Korean oil pipeline in Yemen a few days ago a matter to be passed over lightly.

_________________________________________________________
Related blogs 관련 블로그

Thursday, November 4, 2010
Text Fwd: Seoul to dispatch troops to UAE
서울, 유나이티드 아랍 에미레이츠에 군대 파견 계획

Friday, November 5, 2010
Text Fwd: [Boris Volkhonsky] Yemen_ New Venue For U.S. Geopolitical Great Game
[보리스 볼콘스키] 예멘_ 미국의 큰 지리정치학적 게임의 새로운 장소

Text Fwd: [Boris Volkhonsky] Yemen_ New Venue For U.S. Geopolitical Great Game 예멘, 미국의 새로운 지리 정치학 큰 게임의 새로운 장소

* Image source: Global Research

* Image & caption source: Voice of Russia

Yemeni engineering student Hanan al-Samawi (C), who was suspected over the thwarted cargo jet bomb plot, attends a rally in Sanaa University a day after releasing her, in Sanaa, Yemen, on 01 November 2010. Photo: EPA
________________________________________________________

Global Research, Nov. 2, 2010 or Voice of Russia, Nov. 1, 2010
Yemen: New Venue For U.S. Geopolitical Great Game
: Why Yemen? Is the West choosing a new target?
by Boris Volkhonsky

-[T]he timing for the attacks (or, attempted attacks, or, presumably attempted attacks) was chosen very carefully. The United States face the mid-term elections, and the Democratic administration is heading for a worst defeat in decades. If we look back at a not so distant past, we can remember that a highly resonant terrorist attack is probably the best way to raise the rating of the ruling administration.

-Obama’s administration is looking at a new point of applying its attempts and initiatives. After the obvious failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, they may be looking at Yemen as a new venue of their geopolitical Great Game. The strategic importance of that country is hardly to be over-estimated. The power that controls Yemen, would control the most vital sea routes from Europe to Middle East, South and Southeast Asia.

-Of course, the clock of history cannot be reversed and turned backwards. But learning from the past seems to be very useful. And looking back at the 1980s, we may state that it was the US who, by supporting the mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan, created the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Now, by violently fighting them in the Middle East, they are turning the whole Muslim world against themselves and their allies.


Last weeks attempted attacks – either at US-bound aircraft or some synagogues somewhere in the US, presumably in Chicago – remain the hottest topic in Western media.

The pure facts run as follows. Last Friday two packages containing explosives were found on cargo planes which initially flew from Sanaa, Yemen, with destination in the US. One package was found in Dubai, the other one in East Midlands Airport near Nottingham, England. Both packages – one carried by UPS, the other one by FedEx – were addressed to synagogues in Chicago. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attempted attacks, but the security official were very quick in attributing the plot to the Yemeni section of Al-Qaeda.

The incident was followed by intense search of all cargo and passengers’ baggage in several US airports. Also, reports show that 26 more suspicious packages were detained in Yemen. On Saturday, Yemeni officials arrested a 22-year-old woman Hanan al-Samawi, a suspect in the plot. But later on Sunday, she was released on bail after it turned out that someone stole and used her identity card to plant the packages containing explosives.

Meanwhile, the panic has stricken the US and Western Europe. Most countries of the West upgraded the level of terrorist alert. Great Britain even declared a ban on any aircraft that started its flight in Yemen, to k\land on Britain’s territory.

The whole story needs some clarification.

First, why Yemen?

The fact is that the Yemeni authorities have a very poor control over their territory, and definitely have lesser desire to fight international terrorism than their Saudi neighbors. As a result, some notorious figures in the terrorist movement have found a safe haven in Yemen, especially after Afghanistan and Pakistan ceased to be such as a result of constant military activities.

Second, why now, and why Chicago?

Actually, the timing for the attacks (or, attempted attacks, or, presumably attempted attacks) was chosen very carefully. The United States face the mid-term elections, and the Democratic administration is heading for a worst defeat in decades. If we look back at a not so distant past, we can remember that a highly resonant terrorist attack is probably the best way to raise the rating of the ruling administration. And an attack uncovered before it was executed gives additional points to the authorities. So, whatever the real motives of the terrorists, the whole uncovered plot is designed to give Barack Obama and the Democrats a couple of points due to ‘voting out of compassion’. The fact that the explosives were addressed to synagogues in Chicago (Obama’s native town) speaks for itself.

Then, what follows next?

A most obvious answer would be that Obama’s administration is looking at a new point of applying its attempts and initiatives. After the obvious failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, they may be looking at Yemen as a new venue of their geopolitical Great Game. The strategic importance of that country is hardly to be over-estimated. The power that controls Yemen, would control the most vital sea routes from Europe to Middle East, South and Southeast Asia. At the moment, if anyone controls this vital region are the Somali pirates. For the US, taking hold of a territory there with prospects of building its military bases, would mean a return to the scene that, due to the failures of the recent one or two decades, seems at present lost.

But then, there is another and probably most crucial question. What means the US is ready to use against a force that from the very beginning was a pure US invention, i.e. Al-Qaeda?

READ MORE

Text Fwd: U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

*Corazon Valdez Fabros informed the text.

Washington Post
U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role
By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2010; A01

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.

One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."

'More access'

Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"We have a lot more access," a second military official said. "They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly."

The White House, he said, is "asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, 'Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.' "

The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.

The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."

That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.

Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.

"In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence," Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. "In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander."

Chains of command

Gen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.

The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.

The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.

"Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus," a military official said. "Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn't know how to do what we do."

Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call "general purpose forces." Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to "control who comes in and out of their country," the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan -- where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 -- by that government's delay in issuing the visas.

Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones," one official said.

Questions remain

The force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan's western tribal areas, attacks such as last year's in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.

The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification -- the permission of the country in question -- is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.

Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president's authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based," said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush's administrations.

The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.

Text Fw: Japan's First Overseas Base Aims At Expanding Military Boundaries

* Text informed by Stop NATO on April 29, 2010

Xinhua News Agency
April 28, 2010
Japan's first overseas base aimed at expanding military boundaries
Yu Zhixiao

BEIJING: Japan is building its first overseas military base in Africa's Djibouti
on the Gulf of Aden in an attempt to probe what waters its military can legally
reach farthest, analysts say.

In the name of better combating notorious Somali pirates, Japan is busy setting
up a 40-million-U.S.-dollar military base, which is expected to be completed
early next year.

Currently, some 150 Japanese soldiers battling piracy are stationed in a U.S.
base in Djibouti, which is at the southern end of the Red Sea.

The Japanese authorities say some 2,000 Japanese vessels, accounting for 10
percent of the world total, sail through the Gulf of Aden each year. Some 90
percent of Japanese exports rely on the crucial sea lane, which has been overrun
by rampant piracy.

On occasion, Japanese vessels have been hijacked by pirates.

The Japanese base, undeniably, would add momentum to the country's anti-piracy
efforts in the region.

But observers say that by establishing the base, the Japanese government is also
exploring how far it can go in increasing its military clout in the world.

According to the Peace Constitution ratified in 1947 after World War II, Japan,
to abstain from waging war, couldn't have a standing army and its warships
couldn't operate overseas.

But in October 2001, soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Japanese
lawmakers approved the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, which allowed the
dispatch of Japanese warships and soldiers overseas.

Moreover, in July 2009, Japanese lawmakers passed the Anti-Piracy Law, which
provided Japanese self-defense forces with more mobility to use military power.
It also stipulated that the Japanese prime minister could send troops overseas
to conduct "anti-piracy" operations without approval of the parliament.

The base in Djibouti is Japan's latest effort to increase its military influence
in the world, analysts say.

Many countries are watching closely, and hope the base can play a constructive
role in cracking down on Somali pirates and contribute to regional peace and
stability.
===========================
Stop NATO
Blog site

Text Fw: South Korea Takes Over U.S.-Led Horn Of Africa Warship Group

* Text informed by STOP NATO on April 26, 2010

Stars and Stripes
April 27, 2010
South Korea takes Task Force 151 helm


The South Korean navy has assumed command of Combined Task Force 151, the international group of military personnel conducting counterpiracy operations off the eastern coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden, officials stated in a news release.

Rear Adm. Boem-rim Lee took command Wednesday. He replaces Rear Adm. Bernard Miranda, of the Singapore navy, who commanded the task force since January, according to a Combined Maritime Forces news release.

The U.S. Navy created the task force in January 2009 to counter piracy of commercial vessels and fishing boats in the regional waters.

The European Union and NATO operate similar maritime patrols in the region, as do nations that deploy ships independent of the task forces, including China, India, Japan and Russia.
===========================
Stop NATO

Blog site:

Text Fw: Japanese Military Joins U.S. And NATO In Horn Of Africa

Japanese Military Joins U.S. And NATO In Horn Of Africa
Rick Rozoff
April 25, 2010


Japanese navy commander Keizo Kitagawa recently spoke with Agence France-Presse and disclosed that his nation was opening its first overseas military base – at any rate since the Second World War – in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.

Kitagawa is assigned to the Plans and Policy Section of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, as his nation’s navy is called, and is in charge of the deployment.

AFP quoted the Japanese officer as stressing the unprecedented nature of the development: “This will be the only Japanese base outside our country and the first in Africa.” [1]

The military installation is to cost $40 million and is expected to accommodate Japanese troops early next year.

Djibouti rests at the confluence of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, across from strife-torn Yemen, and borders the northwest corner of equally conflict-ridden Somalia. The narrow span of water separating it from Yemen is the gateway for all maritime traffic passing between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.

Naval deployments to the Gulf of Aden by several major nations and alliances – the U.S., NATO, the European Union, China, Russia, India, Iran and others – are designed to insure the free passage of commercial vessels through the above route and to protect United Nations World Food Programme deliveries to Somalia. The second concern in particular led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1838 in 2008, which requests that nations with military vessels in the area suppress the capture of ships and their crews for ransom. An anti-piracy mission.

However, the above-mentioned Japanese naval officer was more direct in identifying his nation’s interest in establishing a military base in Africa. Kitagawa also told AFP that “We are deploying here to fight piracy and for our self-defence. Japan is a maritime nation and the increase in piracy in the Gulf of Aden through which 20,000 vessels sail every year is worrying.”

The term self-defense is not fortuitous. Article 9 of the 1947 Japanese Constitution explicitly affirms that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

As such, in the post-World War Two period the nation’s armed forces have been called the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF).

The Constitution also expressly prohibits the deployment of military forces outside of Japan, stating that it is “not permissible constitutionally to dispatch armed troops to foreign territorial land, sea and airspace for the purpose of using military power, as a so-called overseas deployment of troops, since it generally exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense.”

For MORE READING

[국문 번역] Text Fwd: Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways 예멘과 전략적 물길들의 군사화

* Bruce Gagnon blog and also from Kyle Kajihiro and Viviane Lerner on Feb. 9 , 2009
2009년 2월 9일 브루스 개그논 블로그 및 카일 카지히로와 비비안 러너로부터

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways:
Securing US Control over Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden
By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 7, 2010

예멘과 전략적 물길들의 군사화:
소코트라 섬과 아덴만에 대한 미국의 통제를 확보하기
마이클 초스도프스키
글로벌 리서치, 2010년 2월 7일


"Whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene." (US Navy Geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred Thayus Mahan (1840-1914))

“누구라도 인도 해양에서 해양 패권을 확보하는 자가 국제 무대의 현저한 플레이어가 될 것이다.” (미국 해군 지리전략가 제독 알프레드 타이우스 마한 (1840-1914))

The Yemeni archipelago of Socotra in the Indian Ocean is located some 80 kilometres off the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometres South of the Yemeni coastline. The islands of Socotra are a wildlife reserve recognized by (UNESCO), as a World Natural Heritage Site.

인도 해양에 있는 예멘의 소코트라(Socotra) 군도는 아프리카 곶으로부터 80 킬로미터와 예멘 남쪽 해안으로부터 380 킬로미터에 떨어진 곳에 위치한다. 소코트라 군도는 (유네스코에 의해) 세계 천연 유산 장소로 인정받는 야생 보호 지역이다.

Socotra is at the crossroads of the strategic naval waterways of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (See map below). It is of crucial importance to the US military.

소코트라는 홍해와 아덴만 (아래 지도 참조) 의 전략적 해군 수로들의 교차점에 있다. 이곳은 미국 군대에서 결정적으로 중요한 지점이다.


MAP 1 지도 1



Among Washington's strategic objectives is the militarization of major sea ways. This strategic waterway links the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

워싱턴의 중요한 전략적 목표 중 하나는 주요한 물길들을 군사화하는 것이다. 전략적 물길은 지중해에서 수에즈 운하, 홍해, 걸프만을 거쳐 남아시아와 극동으로 연결된다.

It is a major transit route for oil tankers. A large share of China's industrial exports to Western Europe transits through this strategic waterway. Maritime trade from East and Southern Africa to Western Europe also transits within proximity of Socotra (Suqutra), through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. (see map below). A military base in Socotra could be used to oversee the movement of vessels including war ships in an out of the Gulf of Aden.

이는 오일 탱커들의 주요한 수송 통로이다. 서구 유럽으로 가는 중국 산업 수출의 커다란 몫은 이 전략적 물길을 통해서이다. 아프리카 동쪽과 남동쪽으로부터 서구 유럽에 이르는 해양 무역 역시 아덴만과 홍해를 거쳐 소코트라 Socotra (서쿼트라 Suqutra) 근해를 거친다. (아래 지도 참조). 소코트라 군사 기지는 아덴만 안팎을 오가는 전쟁선들을 포함한 배들의 움직임을 관할하기 위해 사용될 수 있다.

"The [Indian] Ocean is a major sea lane connecting the Middle East, East Asia and Africa with Europe and the Americas. It has four crucial access waterways facilitating international maritime trade, that is the Suez Canal in Egypt, Bab-el-Mandeb (bordering Djibouti and Yemen), Straits of Hormuz (bordering Iran and Oman), and Straits of Malacca (bordering Indonesia and Malaysia). These ‘chokepoints’ are critical to world oil trade as huge amounts of oil pass through them." (Amjed Jaaved, A new hot-spot of rivalry, Pakistan Observer, July 1, 2009)

[인디안]해양은 중동, 동아시아, 아프리카를 유럽과 미국에 연결시키는 주요한 바닷길이다. 그것은 국제 해양 무역을 활성화시키는 네 개의 결정적 접근 수로길들을 갖는데, 이집트 수에즈 운하, 밥-엘-만테브(지부티와 예멘을 경계), 호르뮤즈 해협( 이란과 오만 경계) 그리고 말라카 해협(인도네시아와 말레이시아 경계)들이다. 이 ‘쐐기 포인트들 chokepoints’ 은 상당한 석유량이 그 곳들을 지남으로 인해 세계 석유 무역에 결정적이다.(암제드 자비드, 경쟁의 새로운 뜨거운 지점, 파키스탄 오브저버, 2009년 7월 1일)

MAP 2 지도 2


Sea Power 해상 권력

From a military standpoint, the Socotra archipelago is at a strategic maritime crossroads. Morever, the archipelago extends over a relatively large maritime area at the Eastern exit of the Gulf of Aden, from the island of Abd al Kuri, to the main island of Socotra. (See map 1 above) This maritime area of international transit lies in Yemeni territorial waters. The objective of the US is to police the entire Gulf of Aden seaway from the Yemeni to Somalian coastline. (See map 1).

군사 관점에서 볼 때, 소코트라 군도는 전략적 해양 교차로에 있다. 게다가 그 군도는 아브드 알 쿠리 섬 에서 소코트라 주요 섬에 이르기까지 아덴 만의 동쪽 출구의 상대적으로 큰 해양 지역으로 연장된다. ([사이트]위의 지도 1을 볼 것) 이 국제 수송 해양 지역은 이 예멘 영토 물길에 존재한다. 미국의 목표는 예멘에서 소말리아 해안에 이르기까지 아덴만 전체 바닷길을 단속하는 것이다. (지도 1을 볼 것)

Socotra is some 3000 km from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, which is among America's largest overseas military facilities.

소코르타는 디에고 가르시아 미 해군 기지로부터 3천 킬로 미터 떨어진 곳에 있는데 그 곳은 미국의 가장 큰 해외 군사 기지의 하나에 속한다.


The Socotra Military Base 소코르타 군사 기지


On January 2nd, 2010, President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command met for high level discussions behind closed doors.

2010년 1월 2일, 살레 대통령과 미 중[동]부 사령부 US Central Command 사령관인 데이비드 페트라우스 장군은 밀실에서 고위급 토론을 가졌다.

The Saleh-Petraeus meeting was casually presented by the media as a timely response to the foiled Detroit Christmas bomb attack on Northwest flight 253. It had apparently been scheduled on an ad hoc basis as a means to coordinating counter-terrorism initiatives directed against "Al Qaeda in Yemen", including "the use [of] American drones and missiles on Yemen lands."

살레-페트라우스 모임은 언론에 의해 노스 웨스트 배행기 253에 대한 허를 찌른 디트로이트 성탄절 폭탄 공격에 대한 시의적절한 대응으로 별 생각없이 표현되었다. 그것은 “예멘 군도에 미국 무인 비행기들과 미사일들[의] 사용등”을 포함, “예멘의 알 케에다”에 대항하는 대 테러 구상들을 형성하는 수단의 하나로 분명히 긴급 특별 대응책으로 계획되었었다.

Several reports, however, confirmed that the Saleh-Petraeus meetings were intent upon redefining US military involvement in Yemen including the establishment of a full-fledged military base on the island of Socotra. Yemen's president Ali Abdullah Saleh was reported to have "surrendered Socotra for Americans who would set up a military base, pointing out that U.S. officials and the Yemeni government agreed to set up a military base in Socotra to counter pirates and al-Qaeda." (Fars News. January 19, 2010)

그러나 몇몇 보고서들은 살레-페트라우스 모임들이 소코트라 섬의 완전히 자리잡은 군사 기지 건설을 포함, 예멘에서의 미국 군대 참여를 재정의하려는 의도에서 나왔음을 확인했다. 예멘 대통령 알리 압둘라 살레가 “ 미 관리들과 예멘 정부가 해적들과 알케다에 대항하기 위해 소코트라에 군사 기지를 세우도록 동의했음을 지적하며 군사 기지를 세울 미국인들을 위해 소코트라를 항복시켰음”이 보고되었다. (파르스 뉴스, 2010년 1월 19일)

On January 1st, one day before the Saleh-Petraeus meetings in Sanaa, General Petraeus confirmed in a Baghdad press conference that "security assistance" to Yemen would more than double from 70 million to more than 150 million dollars, which represents a 14 fold increase since 2006. (Scramble for the Island of Bliss: Socotra!, War in Iraq, January 12, 2010. See also CNN January 9, 2010, The Guardian, December 28, 2009).

1월 1일, [예멘의 수도] 사나에서 있었던 살레-페트라우스 모임 1일 전에 페트라우스 장군은 바그다드 언론 회담장에서 예멘에 대한 “안보 보조”가 7천만에서 1억 5천만 달러의 두 배 이상 증가하리라는 것을 확인시켰는데 그 비용은 2006년 이후 14배 이상 증가를 나타낸다. (희열의 섬을 위한 쟁탈: 소코트라! 이라크 전쟁, 2010년 1월 12일자 CNN, 2009년 12월 28일자 가디안 역시 보길).

This doubling of military aid to Yemen was presented to World public opinion as a response to the Detroit bomb incident, which allegedly had been ordered by Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

이 예멘에 대한 군사적 원조를 2배로 늘린 것은 세계의 대중들에게 예멘의 알케다 작전들에 의해 명령되었다고 [이미] 단언되었던 디트로이트 폭탄 사고에 대한 대응의 의사 표시로 표현되었다.

The establishment of an air force base on the island of Socotra was described by the US media as part of the "Global war on Terrorism":

소코트라 섬 공군 기지 건설은 미 언론에 의해 “테러리즘에 대한 전 지구적 전쟁”의 일부로 묘사되었다:

"Among the new programs, Saleh and Petraeus agreed to allow the use of American aircraft, perhaps drones, as well as "seaborne missiles"--as long as the operations have prior approval from the Yemenis, according to a senior Yemeni official who requested anonymity when speaking about sensitive subjects. U.S. officials say the island of Socotra, 200 miles off the Yemeni coast, will be beefed up from a small airstrip [under the jurisdiction of the Yemeni military] to a full base in order to support the larger aid program as well as battle Somali pirates. Petraeus is also trying to provide the Yemeni forces with basic equipment such as up-armored Humvees and possibly more helicopters." (Newsweek, Newsweek, January 18, 2010, emphasis added)

민감한 주제들에 대해서 얘기하며 익명을 요청한 한 예멘 상급 관리는 다음과 같이 말한다. “새로운 프로그램들 중, 살레와 페트라우스는 작전들이 예멘인들로부터 사전 승인을 받는 한 “해중 미사일들 seaborne missiles” 과 마찬가지로 미국 비행기, 아마도 무인 비행기들 사용을 허락하도록 동의하였다. 미국 관리들은 예멘 연안에서 200 마일 떨어진 소코트라 섬이 소말리 해적들과의 전투와 마찬가지로 보다 큰 원조 프로그램을 지지하기 위해 [예멘 군대 관할 아래] 작은 가설 활주로에서 완전한 기지로 보강될 것이라고 말한다. 페트라우스는 또한 예멘 군사력에 무장한 험비들 Humvees 과 아마도 더 많은 헬리콥터들등 기본 장비들을 제공하려 시도하고 있다.” ( 2010년 1월 18일 뉴스 위크, 강조 덧붙여짐)

Existing runway and airport 현존 활주로와 공항

US Naval Facility? 미국 해군 시설?

The proposed US Socotra military facility, however, is not limited to an air force base. A US naval base has also been contemplated.

그렇지만 제안된 미국 소코트라 군대 시설은 공군 기지에 제한되지 않는다. 미국 해군 기지 또한 숙고되었다.

The development of Socotra's naval infrastructure was already in the pipeline. Barely a few days prior (December 29, 2009) to the Petraeus-Saleh discussions (January 2, 2010), the Yemeni cabinet approved a US$14 million loan by Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) in support of the development of Socotra's seaport project.

소코트라 해군 하부 구조 개발은 이미 파이프라인에 있었다. 페트라우스-살레 토론(2010년 1월 2일) 겨우 며칠전 (2009년 12월 29일)에 예멘 내각은 소코트라 항구 프로젝트를 위해 아랍 경제 개발을 위한 쿠웨이트 재단 Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED)으로부터 1천 4백만 달러 대부받는 것을 승인했다.

MAP 3 지도 3


The Great Game 거대한 게임

The Socotra archipelago is part of the Great Game opposing Russia and America.

소코트라 군도는 러시아와 미국을 반대하게 하는 거대한 게임의 일부이다.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a military presence in Socotra, which at the time was part of South Yemen.

냉전 당시, 소비에드 연방은 당시 남예멘의 일부였던 소코트라에 군대를 주둔했다.

Barely a year ago, the Russians entered into renewed discussions with the Yemeni government regarding the establishment of a Naval base on Socotra island. A year later, in January 2010, in the week following the Petraeus-Saleh meeting, a Russian Navy communiqué "confirmed that Russia did not give up its plans to have bases for its ships... on Socotra island." (DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), January 25, 2010)

겨우 일년 전에 러시아인들은 소코트라 섬에 해군 기지를 설치하는 것과 관련, 예멘 정부와 새롭게 다시 토론을 갖는 것을 시작했다. 1년 후인 2010년, 페트라우스-살레 만남 후에 러시안 해군 커뮤니케는 “러시아는 소코트라 섬에 자신의 배들을 위한 기지를 갖는 계획을 포기하지 않았다는 것을 확인시켰다. (2010년 1월 25일, 방어와 안보 러시아)

The Petraeus-Saleh January 2, 2010 discussions were crucial in weakening Russian diplomatic overtures to the Yemeni government.

2010년 1월 2일 페트라우스-살레 토론들은 러시아 정부가 예멘 정부에 외교적 교섭을 하게 하는 것을 결정적으로 약하게 했다.

The US military has had its eye on the island of Socotra since the end of the Cold War.

미국은 냉전이 끝나갈 무렵부터 소코트라 섬을 노리고 있었다.

In 1999, Socotra was chosen "as a site upon which the United States planned to build a signal intelligence system...." Yemeni opposition news media reported that "Yemen's administration had agreed to allow the U.S. military access to both a port and an airport on Socotra." According to the opposition daily Al-Haq, "a new civilian airport built on Socotra to promote tourism had conveniently been constructed in accordance with U.S. military specifications." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), October 18, 2000)

1999년, 소코트라는 “미국이 중요한 신호 정보 시스템을 짓기로 계획한 장소로 선택되었다….” 예멘의 반대 언론들은 “예멘 행정부는 소코트라 항구와 공항 양쪽에 미국 군대 접근을 허락하기로 결정했었다”라고 보고했다. 반대 일간 신문 알-하크에 따르면, “관광을 추진하기 위해 소코트라 위에 세워지는 새로운 민간 항공이 미국 군 세부 지침에 따라 건설되었다”라고 말했다. (2000년 10월 18일, 피츠버그 포스트-가제트(펜실바니아))

The Militarization of the Indian Ocean 인도 해양의 군사화

The establishment of a US military base in Socotra is part of the broader process of militarization of the Indian Ocean. The latter consists in integrating and linking Socotra into an existing structure as well as reinforcing the key role played by the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos archipelago.

소코트라의 미국 군대 기지 설립은 인도 해양 군사화의 더 광범위한 과정의 일부이다. 후자는 소코트라룰 현존하는 구조로 통합, 연결하면서 또한 차고스 군도의 디에고 가르시아 군사 기지에 의해 행사되는 핵심 역활을 강화한다.

The US Navy's geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan had intimated, prior to First World War, that "whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean [will] be a prominent player on the international scene.".(Indian Ocean and our Security).

미 해군 지리전략가 제독 알프레드 T. 마한은 1차 대전전에 “누구라도 해양 패권을 확보하는 자가 국제 무대의 현저한 플레이어가 될 것이다.”라고 위협했었다. (인도 대양과 우리의 안보)

What was at stake in Rear Admiral Mahan's writings was the strategic control by the US of major Ocean sea ways and of the Indian Ocean in particular: "This ocean is the key to the seven seas in the twenty-first century; the destiny of the world will be decided in these waters."

마한 제독의 글들의 촛점은 주요 해양 길들과 특별히 인도 해안에서 미군의 전략적 통제와 관한 것이었다: “이 해양은 21세기 일곱 바다의 열쇠이다: 세계의 운명은 이 물들에서 결정될 것이다.”

MAP 4 지도 4


Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, which hosts the award winning website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty and The New World Order". He is contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

마이틀 초스도프스키는 오타와 대학 경제학 교수(명예) 이자 수상받은 웹사이트, www.globalresearch.ca 를 주관하는 몬트리올 세계화 연구 센터의 감독이다. 그는 국제적 베스트 셀러인 “가난의 세계화와 새로운 세계 질서”의 저자이다. 브리태니카 백과 사전의 공헌자이며 쿠알라 룸푸르 전쟁 범죄 위원회의 회원이자 독일 베를린의 시민권리와 인간 존엄 보호를 위한 인권상 수상자 이다. 그의 글은 20개국 이상에서 출판되었다.


Related Global Research Article: See Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean, Global Research, 8 January 2010.

관련 글로벌 리서치 글: 릭 로조프, 미국, 나토 아프리카 곶과 인도 해양으로 아프간 전쟁 확장하다. 2010년 1월 8일

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=17460

Text Fwd: COURAGE TO END TOTAL WAR

* Image source: same as the blog below

Bruce Gagnon blog on Jan. 1, 2009
COURAGE TO END TOTAL WAR

It’s a brilliant strategy if you think about it. Make the public afraid of each other. Every person could be a terrorist - everyone is suspect. There is no better way to defeat an organized anti-war opposition than to make the people terrified of each other.

The corporate oligarchy is now doing under Obama what it could not accomplish under Bush. Total war. The anti-Bush movement in the US and worldwide was gaining too much ground. So the oligarchy let the air out of that balloon. In Bush’s place they put in a magician who has proved very effective at keeping the left off balance and thus unable to pump new life into the reeling anti-war movement.

So now it’s Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Somalia and Yemen. Next could be Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. National Public Radio (NPR) reporter Tom Gjelten did a story called “Afghan War Could Spill Over Into Central Asia” on December 31 that upped the fear meter and brought back the Vietnam-war era worry of the “domino theory”. You must watch the slight of hand ….the modus operandi in action again.

Bush, or John McCain for that matter, would have been resisted at every step of this new escalation. But many “progressives” are frozen into place by the handiwork of the magician and a deferential Congress under the control of the other war party. The “execution” of this masterstroke has worked as well as the insides of an expensive Swiss watch.

The oil and military industrial oligarchy have created a situation where the public is so primed for fear by the slavish media that they are ready to strip their constitutional rights down to the bare bone in order to be “protected” by big daddy.

Few are asking the legitimate question of why people are fighting against the US around the world? What are they upset about? Could it possibly be that we are increasingly occupying their lands and grabbing their natural resources? Does it take a rocket scientist to see this? All the talk about our troops protecting our freedoms overseas is pure bloviation.

In the end this total war plan is destroying our economy at home. More than 40 states are now in fiscal crisis. Here in Maine public education is being eviscerated and social programs are next on the block to have their heads removed. But teachers or workers inside of the social service agencies are unwilling to raise their voices and say the obvious – bring our war $$ home so we can maintain social progress. They have been made job scared. Instead, they call for more taxes that an already belabored public rejects out of hand, and they are dismissed as socialists. Thus those trying to preserve domestic tranquility get marginalized. Meanwhile, few are willing to make the connections and speak the truth about the very real, local consequences of endless war.

So as Obama’s total war rages overseas it is also being waged on us here at home. Except, because they have us focused 24-7 on the antics of a hapless airplane bomber, we are taking our eyes off the ball that is being ripped right out of our hands. That is the value of Obama, the magician.

We have sadly become slaves, chained to wars, as we watch our very social fabric torn apart. But we remain silent, as we have been programmed to do. And still, in the midst of all that, we boast about our great freedoms here at home as we strip down to our underpants at the airline security check-in.

There is a way out but it takes courage. The courage to speak up, to defend our constitution, to defend social progress, to defend the future generations. Real courage is needed to call for an end to total war.

posted by Bruce Gagnon | 11:11 AM
___________________________________________________________________
2 Comments:

Blogger BuelahMan said...

Bruce,

You forgot one corner of the world that our military presence is ever expanding: S America (specifically in Columbia's 7 new bases).

It MUST include S America to be full spectrum.
1/1/10 12:10 PM

Blogger Bruce Gagnon said...

Right, thank you for pointing out that serious omission
1/1/10 12:13 PM

Text Fwd: 2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World

Rick Rozoff (also in)Stop NATO
2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World
December 31, 2009
Rick Rozoff

January 1 will usher in the last year of the first decade of a new millennium and ten consecutive years of the United States conducting war in the Greater Middle East.

Beginning with the October 7, 2001 missile and bomb attacks on Afghanistan, American combat operations abroad have not ceased for a year, a month, a week or a day in the 21st century.

The Afghan war, the U.S.'s first air and ground conflict in Asia since the disastrous wars in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960s and early 1970s and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's first land war and Asian campaign, began during the end of the 2001 war in Macedonia launched from NATO-occupied Kosovo, one in which the role of U.S. military personnel is still to be properly exposed [1] and addressed and which led to the displacement of almost 10 percent of the nation's population.

In the first case Washington invaded a nation in the name of combating terrorism; in the second it abetted cross-border terrorism. Similarly, in 1991 the U.S. and its Western allies attacked Iraqi forces in Kuwait and launched devastating and deadly cruise missile attacks and bombing sorties inside Iraq in the name of preserving the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait, and in 1999 waged a 78-day bombing assault against Yugoslavia to override and fatally undermine the principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty in the name of the casus belli of the day, so-called humanitarian intervention.

Two years later humanitarian war, as abhorrent an oxymoron as the world has ever witnessed, gave way to the global war on terror(ism), with the U.S. and its NATO allies again reversing course but continuing to wage wars of aggression and "wars of opportunity" as they saw fit, contradictions and logic, precedents and international law notwithstanding.

Several never fully acknowledged counterinsurgency campaigns, some ongoing - Colombia - and some new - Yemen - later, the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003 with a "coalition of the willing" comprised mainly of Eastern European NATO candidate nations (now almost all full members of the world's only military bloc as a result of their service).

READ MORE

Second attack in Yemen raises possibility of additional attacks on S. Koreans

* Image source/ caption*
As in the original article below

‘A Yemeni investigator collects remains from the suicide bombing attack that targeted South Korean officials, in San’a, Yemen, Wednesday, March 18, 2009. A suicide bomber on Wednesday struck a convoy carrying South Korean officials sent to Yemen to investigate a bombing earlier in the week that killed four tourists from the country. No one was hurt, officials said. (AP Photo)’

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/345004.html
Posted on : Mar.19,2009 11:39 KST
Modified on : Mar.19,2009 11:52 KST

Second attack in Yemen raises possibility of additional attacks on S. Koreans
: Al-Qaeda may not be stopping at isolated terror attacks and may have targeted Koreans after it saw the effects of the first incident

The situation in Yemen is taking a new turn as a government rapid response team sent to investigate a terrorist attack on Korean tourists in the city of Shibam was attacked Wednesday with what is believed to be a terrorist bomb. Some are analyzing this as a calculated attempt by terrorist leaders to increase the effects of its initial attack with a “second terror bombing” targeting South Korea. The incident is reminiscent of the 2007 nightmare in Afghanistan in which a group of Koreans were abducted.

The bombing Monday in Shibam, which left four Korean tourists dead, was planned as the first “operation” conducted following the formation of “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” reported Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based satellite TV channel well-acquainted with the Islamic world. This means that the operation was carried out with special import attached to it by the newly formed Al-Qaeda organization.

The second terrorist attack targeting the government rapid response team and surviving family members of the victims is provoking concerns that it may have been a signal from Al-Qaeda that it is not stopping at isolated terror attacks. The speculation is that even if Al-Qaeda did not initially single Koreans out when carrying out the first attack in Shibam, they may have done so with the second attack after seeing the considerable effects of the first incident in South Korea and internationally.

The 2007 kidnapping of Koreans in Afghanistan did not target Koreans in particular either. But it had a greater impact on international society because people from Northeast Asian countries are not often the victims of terrorist attacks in Middle Eastern countries. Added to this was the fact that South Korea had deployed soldiers to Afghanistan as a country allied to the United States, and the Taliban reaped a greater political effect with the kidnapping of Koreans than with previous kidnappings of Westerners when it was met with the withdrawal of Korean forces. The current incident as well is generating more interest than terrorist attacks on Western tourists.

There is the possibility that Al-Qaeda may be using this incident as part of an effort to express its opposition to the redeployment of South Korean soldiers to Afghanistan, which the United States is calling for, and that it could try to wage a war of international opinion on the expansion of the U.S. troop deployment to Afghanistan. In a recorded message last month, the leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasser al-Wahaishi, said that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh had permitted military operations by a multinational navy, including British and French forces in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea, in order to suit Western tastes. There is also a possibility that Al-Qaeda will take issue with South Korea’s recent deployment of its Cheonghae Unit to the sea off the coast of Somalia.

There are only 190 or so Koreans living in Yemen, but companies like Samsung, GS Holdings and Hyundai Heavy Industries are present in petroleum and gas development and infrastructure building efforts, providing sufficient room for Al-Qaeda to increase its effects on South Korea.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

* Related blog*
http://koreareport2.blogspot.com/2009/03/koreans-become-terrorism-targets-in.html