Connect with us
nato nato

Defense

NATO’s “new containment strategy” to contain China in the areas of influence of its member states

Avatar photo

Published

on

We can understand the mechanisms and dimensions of competition and conflict between China and NATO, and the Chinese reaction strategy to control the NATO’S members economically and logistically, by controlling the largest major European ports overlooking the seas and oceans, managing and operating or developing those ports and making them a source for managing and operating containers and giant Chinese cargo ships.

   Based on the Chinese threat to the areas of influence of the (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) “NATO”, according to its estimates, for more than a year, the demands of the alliance’s officials have been publicly repeated to control Chinese influence and encroachment in the main areas of the Baltic states, Europe, eastern, central and western Europe. The responses and the confrontation mechanism of the NATO leaders came to China,  then (The reaction of the United States and NATO member countries to encircle and contain China, and launch a number of new NATO strategies with the aim of reducing China in their important areas), as follows:

NATO Secretary-General “Jens Stoltenberg” acknowledged the need to confront the escalating Chinese threat, stressing: “China responds in an aggressive manner to others when any criticism is directed against it”, at the same time acknowledging the difference and some “difficult discussions” between the alliance countries during the period  The presence of Donald Trump in the White House.

The “new containment theory of China” also includes “financial disagreements about sharing the burdens of confrontation with China among the thirty members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was stated by “Stoltenberg” as the Secretary of the Alliance, by saying:

 “Trump has often complained that other members of the alliance are not paying their fair share of the financial burden related to the common defense, to the point that he has talked about withdrawing his country from the alliance”

 As for “NATO’s new strategy towards China during the Joe Biden administration”, this is what Stoltenberg explained, stating that:

 “We now have a new American president who is more committed than his predecessor, Trump, to the duties of NATO, supports Europe’s security, and is ready to invest more in NATO as well”

 It also began (new signs of a shift towards security challenges coming from China, and NATO’s recognition that it is at the heart of its defenses and areas of influence), and this new shift towards “challenging the Chinese threat” appeared during the NATO summit in London in 2019, when the NATO Secretary of the Alliance. “Stoltenberg” was warning its member states, saying:

“The Alliance countries have to face the fact that China is getting closer and closer to Africa, the Arctic, cyberspace, and even Europe”

Thus, we understand the increasing American influence within the “NATO”, and Washington’s success in creating a general anti-Chinese atmosphere among the thirty members of the NATO countries, through the statement of the “London Summit of the NATO Meeting 2019”, and the issuance of the final statement for the first time, a declaration in which it stated that:

   “China represents a potential strategic threat, and that China’s “increasing influence in international politics” presents opportunities and challenges, which we need to face together as an alliance”

We have here the most important analysis, which is that “NATO speeches have become identical to the same American speeches regarding China without providing any evidence for any accusations related to it”. The strategic analysis remains here, regarding:

  What is the nature of the challenge that China poses to NATO and its countries, despite what appears to be a geographical distance between the two sides and different areas of influence?

Despite the lack of clarity on the “mechanism of China’s direct threat to the security of Europe and NATO”, Washington confirms that the security of Europe and NATO members is in danger, because China represents a full spectrum of challenges for NATO, which prompted NATO military leaders – upon their understanding of the American point of view – emphasizing that:

  “Although China does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, Beijing’s growing influence and confident diplomacy in Europe has had major repercussions for transatlantic security and economy”

 We find here (NATO members linking the economic expansion of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative to Europe and the impact on the security of NATO countries), and this came through a public statement in which they expressed:

  “China’s investments in vital infrastructure projects in Europe, from telecommunications networks to port facilities, may weaken NATO’s ability to respond to international crises diplomatically or militarily if necessary”

According to the raised and incomprehensible discussions among NATO members, which in my view are an indirect repetition of the same accusations launched by the United States against China, NATO emphasized “the danger of the Chinese company Huawei to the security of NATO”,  by emphasizing:

  “If some NATO allies include Huawei’s equipment in their 5G networks, then questions can arise about the safety of these networks, given the close relationship between the company and the Chinese Communist Party” … According to their exact expression

Here, we find the military and strategic link between NATO and the increasing Chinese influence, according to statements issued by them, with the statement:

  “The sensitive military supply chains of the NATO alliance may become highly dependent on China, as happened recently with the F-35 fighters”

In a new attempt to change NATO’s strategy, through (linking NATO’s military roles with the need for it to play other political roles), the public statements of NATO Secretary General “Jens Stoltenberg” came in:

  “NATO must take a greater political role in world affairs, even to help the Indo-Pacific countries compete with the rise of China”

In an official acknowledgment by NATO members of the Chinese military threat to their security, this came in the statement of the “NATO summit in London” (3-4 December 2019), confirmed that:

“We should consider the rising Chinese military power as a potential new enemy”

In reference to this explicit text about the priority of the Chinese threat in the “new security agenda of NATO and its members”, this represented an upcoming initiative of NATO, which represents a major shift in relation to the alliance’s basic objectives, as well as its strategic and defense objectives. The NATO statement confirmed this, by emphasizing:

  “We realize that the increasing influence of China and its international policy presents opportunities and challenges at the same time, and here we must as an alliance deal jointly with them”

In a new statement from NATO regarding the “Chinese threat and the new global security and military imbalance”, here came the warning of NATO Secretary-General “Stoltenberg” in June 2020, in an interview with the German newspaper “Welt am Sonntag”, emphasizing that:

 “The global balance of power may change violently, especially that China is at the gates of Europe, so NATO must warn against the strong and rapid rise of China in the recent period”

The new agenda of NATO to contain China is represented through the “mechanism of collective union and Western security mobilization to confront China”, which is what the Secretary General of NATO stressed, that:

 “We must be united by the Western alliance of NATO in the face of this Chinese power and new challenges”

 What stopped the Egyptian researcher is the conflicting and contradictory statements of NATO Secretary General, Tess Stoltenberg, regarding China, and his assertion that “the Chinese do not directly threaten the security of NATO, and these statements contradict other previous statements”, through the statement of the Secretary of the Alliance again, by saying:

 “China does not pose any direct threat to any NATO country so far, but serious developments are observed in the South China Sea, and Beijing has increased its attempts to restrict the freedom of movement of ships in international waters”

Through this analysis to understand the new direction of NATO towards China, the Egyptian researcher concluded that the tense relations between China and the United States, the most prominent member of NATO, may cast a shadow of confrontation and escalation on relations between NATO members, especially the Europeans and Beijing.

We find here, many (contradictory and different speeches by NATO through official statements that the researcher has followed them), and it suffices to point out here to confirm “NATO” in a new statement said that: “Although the confrontation between China and the alliance is “not desirable and not inevitable”. However, the alliance statement rewarned that:

 “The alliance’s failure to prepare for China and manage the challenge it represents may make confrontation more likely over time”

   Here, simply, we can understand the “extent of those American pressures on its European partners in NATO”, and try to force them to “adopt a new security agenda to confront China, and share the same American ambitions”.

Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Contemporary Atlantic Alliance: An “Existential” Expansion that Obviates the Evil of Fighting

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: NATO

The behavior that characterized the reactions of US President Joe Biden and Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Jens Stoltenberg, about the identity of the missile that fell on Polish territory, is not critical. The two men were keen to deny Moscow’s responsibility for its launch, and content themselves with a simple and simplistic narrative saying that it was a Ukrainian air defense missile that deviated from its course in the face of Russian attacks. The origin is the sufficiency of the evil of the clash with Moscow, on the part of the Atlantic involvement in particular, because whether the narrative that is is correct or fabricated, no one on both sides of the ocean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea is ignorant of the dangers of a spark like this, which represents an escalation capable of igniting a confrontation like that. The funniest thing in the context is that the White House and NATO contacts with the Polish government did not aim at consolation or tightening the bonds and solidarity, as much as they exercised a series of pressures so that Polish President Andrzej Duda would not request the activation of Article 4 of the NATO Charter, which obliges allies to consult if a member state feels that its territorial integrity or its political independence or security is under threat.

     The principle of the clash, or the sufficiency of its evil either, brings one back to the fact that NATO is not the only military alliance in our contemporary world; And it is not the only reminder, almost, that mankind lived the Cold War throughout an entire and integrated era, just as well; Rather, it is also an alliance of intersecting, converging or opposing interests, often subject to give and take according to the principles of bargaining, settlement, and quota. This does not mean that NATO is not a geographical-civilian-cultural quota, according to what humanity understood from the words of former Czech President Vaclav Havel, two decades ago when his country hosted a NATO summit unlike any other, simply because it was considered a “transformation summit”. At that time, Havel said, in an unmistakable tone of warning, that “the alliance should not expand outside a very specific arena of civilizations that are generally known as Euro-Atlantic or Euro-American civilizations, or simply the West.” Was it Turkey that was meant by that implicit definition that does not completely succeed in purifying all the racist odors? Or were the countries in which Muslim communities still live? What is the motive for issuing this warning when the summit is discussing the expansion of the alliance in eastern and southern Europe, and the inclusion of seven new countries in the club? And which of these countries (which received their membership documents in the alliance at that time: Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, and Lithuania) did not meet the criteria of the Euro-Atlantic civilization track?

     Some argue, as these lines do, that such questions remain superfluous, whoever asked them, as long as the alliance’s military-political structure is, and as long as the United States is at the forefront of its leadership and direction on various levels, from which considerations of America’s geo-political interests are not absent in the first place. Indeed, the French and Germans do not stop harassing the Pentagon, and the right in Spain lost the battle of the sacred alliance with Washington, and the legacy of the alliance in Libya, Iraq, and Syria is not at all a significant harvest … On the other hand, all members of the alliance know that the shock of 9/11 granted the United States more than a military license; Washington also spared the embarrassment of consulting with Atlantic allies whenever the bell rang in a church. And if the Prague meeting deserved to be called the “Transformation Summit,” this was not primarily for military reasons, but rather because NATO penetrated all the former Warsaw Pact sites, and reached Russia’s back, belly, and flank, north, south, east, and west!

     It is also true that the balance within the alliance is not only imbalanced in favor of the United States but rather lacks a set of elements that allow the use of the term “balance” in any tangible sense. The correspondent of the British newspaper “The Independent” chose a funny way to express this imbalance, so he recorded the fact that the American delegation to that summit of transformation occupied seven floors of the Hilton Hotel that hosted the delegations, compared to one floor for the Dutch delegation, for example! In other, more indicative terms, the United States alone spends one billion US dollars daily on defense affairs, while the total of the 15 European members of the alliance spends nearly 500 million dollars. The world needed the tactlessness of former US President Donald Trump to read tweets like this one: “Without success, for years Presidents have tried to get Germany and other rich Atlantic nations to pay more for protection from Russia. They pay a small portion of their alimony. The United States pays tens of billions of dollars more than it should subsidize Europe and loses a lot in trade. Or this: “Above all, Germany has begun to pay Russia, the country from which it seeks protection, billions of dollars for its energy needs through a pipeline from Russia. this is unacceptable! All NATO nations must implement the 2% commitment, and this must rise to 4%.

     And the situation is that the Atlantic began as an American military arm in practice, where the European units affiliated with it are nothing more than a completion of the external decoration; And so the alliance remains today, even after it has grown in number, in equipment, and the area of deployment. It has expanded from 12 founding countries to 15 in the fifties of the last century, until it has reached 32 countries today, including Sweden and Finland; Among them are three former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and seven former members of the now-extinct Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Poland), and there is a discordant mix in the record of those aspiring to the membership that includes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and …Ukraine!

     As for the level of ideological preaching, military doctrine, and tactical cover, the justifications for the existence of the alliance can begin with the assertion that it is “the largest and most successful alliance in history,” according to former US Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell; It will not end with the certainty of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who apostatized from the Gaullist philosophy and restored France to the military leadership of the alliance) that NATO is the only guarantor of European security, which has come and has not come for decades; In addition to the certainty of a country like the Czech Republic, that the difference between its reliance on European defense, versus the American defense, is like the difference between earth and sky!

     Whatever these “existential” questions, or others, the matter is the same in terms of the immortality of the alliance’s essence, militarily and politically. As long as the United States is the most important country in ensuring its survival, and in strengthening its technological fork in particular, both in defense and attack. The French and Germans indeed tried to harass Washington before the invasion of Iraq in 2003; And Afghanistan, under Obama, turned from a secondary front to a central one… But it is also true that Western Europe (capitalism, free, relatively healthy because of the grace of the United States in protecting the free world and capitalism…), is not allowed to flourish more than the prosperity of the United States itself, and to unify its ranks by detracting from the principle of American hegemony over the international system. That is why the United States pours whatever oils it wants on wars here and there, and it does not find embarrassment when it avoids the evil of fighting, and there are no big differences here between Trump and Biden in terms of the lack of diplomacy or the excessive use of it.

Continue Reading

Defense

Leaving the legacy behind: Analyzing Gen. Bajwa’s six years of Command

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: dawn.com

The military is a country’s most potent institution. The army has been the most important and responsible institution in Pakistan during the 75 years since its independence and the country’s founding. Assuming what is considered the most powerful position in the country Pak Army chief is expected to ensure a secure and stable environment in the country and Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa proved him a person having great real leadership qualities. Currently, Gen. Bajwa will be retiring by the end of November 2022 after commanding the Army for six years. Due to the significance of the title, the army chief plays a crucial role in leading the armed forces and maintaining the nation’s peace and stability, and Gen. Bajwa has performed his duties admirably. He truly left a noteworthy legacy. His philosophy has received high praise and served as the foundation for his vision of Pakistan.

Owing to the complex and volatile geo-strategic environment of the region it is quite challenging to balance the risks of conflict with India, a nuclear-armed rival, and instability and tension that may arise with Afghanistan on its western border. During the Bajwa administration, the Pakistan Army launched Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad in February 2017 and Operation Khayber IV to flush out terrorist sleeper cells throughout the nation as well as purge the tribal regions of militant strongholds. This led to extraordinary accomplishments in the fight against terrorism and the refurbishment of peace in Afghanistan for the region’s long-term development. One of the major achievements of Gen. Bajwa’s tenure was the fencing of the Afghan border. The 2,600 km long fence along the Afghan border has almost been finished by the Pakistani Army.

Goals and objectives are always attained through consistency and adherence to the plan. Gen. Bajwa has consistently spoken out in favor of the Kashmir cause, stating that “peace and stability will remain elusive” in the absence of a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute. His well-founded actions led to promoting Islamabad’s diplomacy and mediation with the surrounding nations. A prime example of his statesmanship is his choice to reinstate the cease-fire along the line of control separating Pakistan and India.

Under Bajwa, Pakistan’s internal security significantly increased. The “Bajwa Doctrine,” which envisioned a stable Pakistan at peace with its neighbors, was his pitch for a peaceful nation. The Royal United Services Institute coined the phrase “Bajwa Doctrine” after his speech at the 54th Munich Security Conference in 2018. In addition to emphasizing democracy and ensuring proper respect for the state’s institutions, the doctrine placed a strong check and balance on putting an end to terrorism and also urged Paki-citizens, particularly the young, to combat extremism, claiming that it is a major catalyst for terrorism.

Similarly, under the leadership of General Ba­jwa, Pak-ar­my’s efforts contributed to the completion of the socio-eco­nomic development projects in Balochistan. Due to COAS’ ef­forts (bringing allpar­ties under one table) for a national consensus, Pakistan was saved from an $11 billion penalty in the Reko Diq case. The project was reconstituted and aimed at excavating huge gold and copper reserves from the site in Balochistan.

Subsequently, Pakistan made unexpected progress with its FATF action plans, as well during last 6 years. The frantic efforts of both the civilian and military leadership enabled Pakistan to project sustainable and irre¬versible progress by enacting laws that addressed various legal, financial, and terrorism-related issues. As a result, Pakistan was taken off the Financial Action Task Force (FATF”grey) list.”

Another feather in the cap of Gen. Bajwa is reducing the friction in civil-military relations. He had the vision that an institution like the military could develop into a mediator and supporter of democracy. Gen. Bajwa will always be appreciated as a pro-democracy general, who not only stabilized civilian governments and provided space for democratic forces but also limit the military’s role to that mandated by the constitution. This proves that he has demonstrated his responsible attitude toward democracy and politics by maintaining this neutral stance.

Gen. Bajwa improved Pakistan’s international diplomacy. His covert efforts prevented Pakistan from going into economic default and made it possible for the governments to get much-needed financial support from foreign lenders in exchange for rollovers from China and Saudi Arabia. Additionally, under Bajwa’s tenure, Pakistan’s initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and relations with nations like the United States have improved significantly. Gen. Bajwa’s unceasing efforts for Pakistan earned him the Nishan-e-Imtiaz, Hilal-e-Imtiaz (Pak-Military), and many other international awards. The country is honored to have courageous soldiers like him.

Continue Reading

Defense

The Ukraine War is a sales-promotion campaign for Lockheed and other U.S. ‘Defense’ Contractors

Avatar photo

Published

on

On 3 December 2021, a year ago, Lockheed Martin shares cost $333.81. On 23 November 2022, they cost cost $481.07. That’s a 44% gain during this year-long period. 

$4,027.26 is the S&P on 23 November 2022, and it was $4,701.46 on 24 November 2021. That’s a 14% decline during this year-long period. 

A dollar invested in the S&P became $0.86, but in Lockheed became $1.44, and that is 68% more than the S&P market-average performance. 

That’s the benefit of owning a controlling interest in a mega-corporation whose market is the Government in which you have purchased a controlling interest (by political donations and lobbyists), as compared to not.

And you will see there that though the stock-price of Lockheed soared after Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the rise in its stock-price actually started on 3 December 2021. Perhaps that was when U.S.-Government insiders got their first clear indications that the U.S. Government was going to force Russia to invade Ukraine in order to prevent Ukraine from ever being able to join NATO so as for the U.S. to place its missiles only 317 miles away from The Kremlin.

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 3 December 2021, all 45 of them, and here are all 3 of the ones there featuring national defense or international relations:

“Shell pulls out of a U.K. oil field targeted by climate activists”

“With No Resources, Authority or Country, Afghan Ambassador Presses On”

“Why Peng Shuai Has China’s Leaders Spooked”

NONE has to do with national defense or international relations at all, but 100% of the news-stories are instead domestic-affairs articles, even the ones on global warming and on the former Afghan Ambassador, and on the Chinese tennis star. This fact (0 out of 45 being ‘defense’ or international-relations) goes to exemplify that if anyone is interested in warfare or other international-relations topics, it’s NOT the general public. Who might it be, then? Perhaps it’s the types of people who control firms such as Lockheed and other ‘Defense’-contractors — firms that sell only to the U.S. Government and to its allied (or vassal) Governments such as in NATO, and so these firms need to control their own Government in order to control their sales-volumes and their profits — which they manifestly do (the U.S. Government is bipartisanly neoconservative — pro-increasing the U.S. empire)

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 23 November 2022, and these are the 8 international-relations stories there:

“Will Mexico Be the Next Venezuela?”

“Ukraine Fights for Peninsula That Could Prove Critical to War’s Next Phase”

“Missiles for Poland Raise Questions on NATO Stance in Ukraine War”

“Ukraine raided a holy site amid suspicion of an Orthodox Church tied to Moscow”

“Buffeted by Economic Woes, U.K. Starts to look at Brexit With ‘Bregret’”

“Even the Saudi Team Is Stunned After Its Victory Over Argentina”

“England Had a Game, but First Its Fans Had a Quest. For Beer.”

“France decisively beat Australia, capping a wild day at the World Cup”

Five of those 8 concern international relations and national defense. All of a sudden, after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 because America rejected on 7 January 2022 Russia’s demand on 17 December 2021 “Article 6: All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States”, America’s public care at least a little about international relations and national defense.

But: Is Ukraine actually about defending America, at all? Of course, it isn’t, but it very much is about Russia’s national defense, because it has the closest border to Moscow of any nation, being only around 300 miles away from The Kremlin. Though keeping Ukraine out of NATO is a national-defense imperative for Russia, it’s no national-defense issue, at all, for America. It is purely a neoconservative issue for America. It is a U.S.-and-allied billionaires’ issue, NOT authentically about “defending” the United States. It is, instead, actually, the most effective marketing campaign for the billionaires who control Lockheed Martin and its Government, the U.S. Government. And THAT is the reason why NO billionaire — not a single one of them in either the U.S. or the UK — advocates for and donates to, writers and organizations that are anti-neoconservative: anti-imperialist. Not a single one of them is and does. They are invested in warfare, against their ‘competitors’ (the countries that they DON’T yet control, and which they therefore are obsessed to “regime-change”).

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia3 hours ago

The Taliban Finally Granted Permission to the Former President Karzai to leave Afghanistan

Based on the information, the former president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was permitted to leave the country. At a time,...

South Asia8 hours ago

The Charisma and Chaos of Imran Khan

The chances of Imran Khan winning the elections of 2018 were quite murky. Despite his unparalleled fan base and populist...

Southeast Asia11 hours ago

Can ‘border guard’ diplomacy strengthen ties between Myanmar-Bangladesh?

The 8th Border Conference between Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and Myanmar Border Guard Police (BGP) has started. The conference, which...

Economy13 hours ago

The Upcoming Recession and its Ramifications on the World Economies

The recent decision of the new head of Twitter, Elon Musk, to sack approximately 50 percent of the workforce is only indicative...

South Asia22 hours ago

Chattisgarh Elections 2023: Future of United Progressive Alliance and BJP

Chattisgarh, the 9th largest state of India by area and 17th most populous state with population of 30 Million will...

Eastern Europe1 day ago

Azerbaijan is to open an embassy in Israel: timely or little late?

“Time to open that bottle!” tweeted with joy George Deek, Israel`s Ambassador in Azerbaijan on November 18, by posting a...

biden-foreign-policy biden-foreign-policy
Americas1 day ago

Ron Paul: Biden Administration accept that it has a “Zelensky problem”

“Last week the world stood on the very edge of a nuclear war, as Ukraine’s US-funded president, Vladimir Zelensky, urged...

Trending