Connect with us


China’s new security strategy: Global challenges to confront US influence and NATO policies

Avatar photo



The report of the NATO Military Committee came to the meeting of the foreign ministers of NATO countries during the meeting held from 1-2 December 2020, entitled: “NATO Reform Report until 2030”, through which about (138 recommendations to be implemented within ten years), including considering Russia as the biggest opponent of NATO during the next ten years, and the fear of “China’s rise as a major challenge to NATO members”. Therefore, the “NATO reform report” recommended for “the establishment of an advisory body to NATO to coordinate Western policies towards China”.

   This report issued by NATO to set public recommendations to “curb China’s rise and influence”, has angered China, and made it respond in practice by taking “escalation security and military measures, considering that Washington is the reason behind the NATO report in confronting it”. The Egyptian researcher here will try to summarize the most prominent Chinese defenses. The new security, defense and military, whether before or after the “NATO reform report until 2030”, as follows:

China considered for the first time in the NATO’s report as “China has been officially included in a report issued by NATO), while identifying the Chinese threat and growing Chinese influence in Europe and the world, as the “strategic concept” that should be focused on, in the “NATO Reform Report within 10 years from the date of its release” in December 2020 to 2030.

The important point for the Chinese here is to ask about the main purpose of the “NATO 2030” reform report, and is the focus on building the future of NATO related only to the threat to China? The Chinese response came, saying: “The last official “strategic concept of NATO” has been written at the end of 2020, more than 10 years ago, i.e. around 2010, at which time China was not mentioned or referred to at all.

The Chinese accusation of the United States of America being behind the “NATO Reform 2030 report”, and the proof of this is: The proposal of the administration of former US President “Barack Obama” for a strategy of “rebalancing the Asia-Pacific region without focusing on the Chinese threat or confronting China’s policies”, which is the opposite of the incident now and Washington’s attempt to “shift the geopolitical focus to China”, with the US official claim to openly view China, as an “enemy”, while the truth of this, according to the Chinese, is “the inability of the United States of America to compete with China in the economic, technological and military fields”.

The Chinese did not fail to focus on “the uselessness of NATO from the ground up”, through the reference in Chinese reports, that:

   “The  “NATO 2030 Report” was issued at a time when the importance of NATO’s existence is increasingly being questioned, with French President Emmanuel Macron asserting in a public statement in 2019, that NATO is suffering from “mental death”, due to a lack of strategic coordination among its members, as well as  On American hegemony over most of his decisions”

The well-known Chinese Professor, “Zhang Jian”, Assistant Dean of “China Institute of Modern International Relations”, and Director of the European Institute in Beijing, commented that:

  “The nature of NATO determines that it does not comply with the requirements of peaceful development in the world today, in contrast to the concepts advocated by China globally, such as the concept of win-win cooperation, which enjoys popular support in the Asia-Pacific region, while NATO failed to achieve any consensus for its policies”

China responded to those (American attempts to create a copy of NATO near its areas of influence), and Chinese criticism came publicly for any attempt by NATO to create a “copy of NATO in the heart of Asia and the Pacific”, because that is not possible in the future. Chinese official reports stated that:

 “If NATO expands by force to include the Asia-Pacific region, then it will no longer be NATO in the traditional sense of the alliance, and it will become more complex, loose, virtual, and politicized”

 Chinese media reports, as well as all official Chinese responses, refuted that:

 “The intention of NATO to treat China as an enemy, or even as a potential competitor and an imaginary enemy, will inevitably lead to an increase in regional tensions”

The Chinese response to Washington and the West’s criticism of it was that “China has chosen the path of peace and development initiatives for the benefit of the peoples and the world, not confrontation”, and the published Chinese newspapers issued at Beijing, emphasizing:

  “Peace and development is still the dominant trend in the world, but peace and stability also depends on strength. Here, China must maintain strategic determination, adhere to the path of peaceful development, and avoid walking towards a direction led by others, and at the same time, we must be ready in  China to protect our legitimate rights and fundamental interests”

The first official move by (the official Chinese mission to the European Union in Brussels) to respond to the NATO report by classifying it as an enemy, came China’s reaction to classifying it as a strategic challenge to NATO, as China was quick to direct accusations to NATO countries, and affirmed that:

  “North Atlantic countries adopt the mentality of the “Cold War and the politics of bloc”

China has publicly defined its security, defense and military priorities without fear during the coming period, emphasizing the following:

  “China is committed to a military policy of a defensive nature and seeks defense and military modernization as a reasonable, open and transparent justification, so China calls on all NATO countries to stop exaggerating the Chinese threat theory”

An official statement published by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing also stated that it did not understand the matter, and accused NATO of applying “double standards”, in terms of asking NATO member states to increase their military spending.  However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement noted explicitly that:

  “If China is being criticized for its military spending that does not exceed 1.3 percent of its GDP, then China does not represent a systematic challenge to anyone, and it is determined to protect its sovereignty, security and development interests”

The “Beijing News” newspaper of the Communist Party of China published in its report on June 16, 2021, an opinion article published in which it said:

 “Chinese propaganda apparatuses accompanied Joe Biden’s trip to Europe with a message now known, relating to the alleged defeat of the West and the rise of the East. In an opinion piece in the Chinese newspaper, a prominent Chinese sociologist described the G7 as “the beginning of the downfall of Western power”

In general, China continued its readiness in its areas of interest and influence to confront the United States of America and its intention to provoke China there. American tensions and its naval presence under the pretext of protecting the interests of its allies in the countries bordering this vital and strategic maritime region.

Chinese government newspapers reported that (the Chinese Air Force sent for the first time long-range bombers, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, at an air base airport in the South China Sea), in response to China’s expanding US claims to take care of the interests of its Asian allies, such as: (Japan and South Korea), and others about the disputed area.

What is new in the matter is (Chinese newspapers directly refer to the Chinese power, indirectly referring to the United States of America with the Chinese readiness towards its movements), and this is what the official “China Daily” newspaper mentioned, in a report, about:

 “The Chinese Air Force has conducted take-off and landing exercises, with an H-36K bomber, in the South China Sea”

However, despite the American mobilization attempt against China, criticism has become directed at NATO itself, and it has been likened to the phrase that “NATO is in a state similar to clinical death”, as French President “Emmanuel Macron”, described it, due to the retreat of the United States about its leadership role, its dedication to its conflict with China, and its attempt to mobilize countries with it.

Where the United States of America caused a state of division within “NATO”, considering Russia as a prominent opponent of NATO, and considering the threat of the Chinese threat to be getting stronger at all levels, and describing China as (the new opponent of the NATO military alliance).

Therefore, French President “Macron” called for the necessity of (NATO to move away from the vows of the Cold War with Russia and China), with his clear call to NATO, that:

 “Efforts should focus more on combating terrorism, which has become a troubling security challenge for the entire world, especially with former President Trump making a shift in the relationship with Russia by withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement, accusing Moscow of violating the terms of what was agreed upon”

In a new American attempt to mobilize the capabilities of “NATO” against China, and to call for the necessity of dealing with Beijing, the statements of German Foreign Minister “Heiko Maas” came in April of 2019, stating:

  “China will become the main point on both sides of the Atlantic during the twenty-first century, and the danger of China will be a challenge in all aspects, and therefore it is important to understand things well to understand what the situation requires from NATO”

In the latest statements of NATO Secretary General “Jens Stoltenberg”, he said:

 “Beijing is dragging the global balance of power to a new formula, and that this fact presents some opportunities for decision-makers in the West, but it is not without challenges, and that NATO does not intend to go to the South China Sea, but it must realize that China is becoming “closer and closer”. In view of the huge investments it is pumping into the infrastructure level for its “Belt and Road” initiative”

NATO Secretary General “Jens Stoltenberg” was not satisfied with his previous statements against China, but also warned against the growth of its power in large parts of the world. That’s meaning: “China did not intervene militarily in other countries”. Hence, the matter is just a repetition of the same American accusations against Beijing, with Stoltenberg’s assertion:

   “The large Chinese presence in Africa and the North Pole of land and cyber competition, and that China has become the owner of the second largest defense budget in the world. This would appeal to Trump, who presents himself as the Western official who understood the power of Beijing and took the initiative to reduce it”

The United States of America is issuing continuous warnings to confront Chinese influence and distrust of Beijing’s growing capabilities in European countries, and the administration of President “Joe Biden” has issued an explicit call to European countries to “show resistance to China’s investments in the digital sector, especially in the “fifth network Communications generation”, where Washington accuses Chinese companies such as “Huawei” of spying, while China is denying. This confirms my earlier notion that Washington plays a “dual role” within NATO, mixing the economic with the military and the political in relation to China.

As for the Chinese response, China has announced several times that it is well aware of what is being planned within NATO, led by Washington, and the Chinese government newspaper, “Global Times”, which is published in English in China, published a report in which it confirmed:

  “China believes that European countries have two options, either blindly following the United States of America, or continuing to cooperate with Beijing despite the American warning.  You can bear the losses and consequences if you decide to close the door to Chinese 5G technology”

At the end of 2015, China issued (a new anti-terror law that for the first time legalizes sending Chinese troops on combat missions abroad without a UN mandate). While, the Chinese President “Xi Jinping” pledged:

  “By 2049, China will turn into a world leading country, in terms of complex national forces and broad international influence, and China will work to build a stable international order, through which the Chinese recovery can be renewed at all levels and areas of importance”

With the increase in (the intensity of military and naval tensions between Taiwan and China), due to the US support for Taiwan in the face of China, which reached its climax after (the United States imposed several sanctions on the Chinese army under the pretext of interfering in Taiwan affairs), as well as with the expansion of the scope of Chinese military operations.  In the Taiwan Strait, in rejection of US secession and intervention demands, in addition to the trade war between Washington and Beijing, additionally “Taiwan and China’s strengthening of their military positions in the South China Sea”, with Washington’s assistance to the Taiwan side in confronting China.

China is trying to counter the American influence in the Taiwan Strait, Beijing intensified military and diplomatic pressure, and (carried out air and naval exercises around the island, and persuaded some regions that support Taiwan to stop doing so). But, with the increase of US support for Taiwan, Beijing considers it a province in rebellion against the authority of the People’s Republic of China warned Taiwan, as it “should not enjoy any kind of independence”. This prompted Chinese President “Xi Jinping” to emphasize in most of his political speeches since the advent of US President “Biden”, stressing:

   “The two parties – in reference to China and Taiwan – represent part of the Chinese family, and that the demands for Taiwan’s independence were an opposite current to history with no future ahead”

   Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, it is noted the extent to which China has shown a new, more assertive foreign policy towards the United States of America and its security allies, mainly in the “NATO”, which coincided with the call of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, to adopt a policy of “seeking to achieve improvements in its  Foreign Affairs”, especially in light of the American provocation and its interference in Chinese affairs and its areas of influence, especially after (Washington sent two warships through the Taiwan Strait) at the beginning of October 2021, which is the second operation of its kind in one year, which prompted China to warn Washington of its policies.  Hostility in the Taiwan Strait and prepare for it.  It is a wave of Chinese hostile policy to the United States of America, after the US-Taiwanese rapprochement increased since the Taiwanese President (Tai Ing-wen) assumed the presidency of Taiwan in 2016, and it belongs to the (Democratic Progressive Party) which tends to independence.

  Hence, we find that in the midst of a series of complications and global confrontations against China by the United States of America and its allies, Beijing has adopted a new military and defense strategy, based on (defending its interests and adopting a developmental approach to help others through its Belt and Road Initiative “BRI”).

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


America Produces Biological Weapons; Does Russia? Does China?

Avatar photo




On November 26th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US ‘military biological activities’ a threat to the world – Russia”, and reported that the U.S. Threat Reduction Agency (an Orwellian name for an American threat-increasing agency) has issued its “DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY STRATEGY FISCAL YEAR 2022 – 2027”, and says that the DTRA document 

openly identifies expanding the US’ ability to “identify, characterize and exploit adversary WMD vulnerabilities” as one of its goals. Another of its aims is to recognize “potential WMD warfighting obstacles” and find “solutions” to help the US and its allies “win during the conflict.”

Washington’s stated intention of strengthening the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) has been met with doubt from Moscow. Russia has repeatedly raised the issue of the real goal of the Pentagon’s research programs at various international sites, [but] … these questions remain unanswered to date. 

In late October, Russia filed an official complaint claiming that US-backed biological activities are taking place in Ukraine and requested a UN probe into the matter. The UN Security Council rejected Moscow’s proposal, with the US, UK, and France voting against it.

The DTRA’s document itself opens:

In his Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, published in March of 2021, President Biden focused the Nation’s instruments of power on China and Russia as “pacing threats,” in a frankly acknowledged shift to strategic competition. Secretary of Defense Austin’s published priorities for the DoD have done the same. These developing strategies have revectored the Nation’s national security interest in partnerships and international leadership; on securing the homeland; and in mounting an effective, integrated deterrent to adversary use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and emerging threats.

The document goes on to say:

The United States faces a complex and volatile security landscape. As identified by Secretary Austin’s 2021 Defense Planning Guidance, China remains the pacing threat and seeks to replace the current international rules-based order [America’s proposed replacements of U.N.-based international laws] with one centered on [against] Beijing. While Russia does not pose the same long-term military, economic, or diplomatic challenges as China, it too is highly capable, and seeks near- to medium-term hegemony within its region. [America demands continued and increased U.S. “hegemony” throughout the world.]

In other words: under President Biden, the production of epidemic-producing pathogens will be increased, as part of “a frankly acknowledged shift to strategic competition” against China and Russia.

Page 10 of the document says:



The Agency enhances the Joint Force, allied, and partner ability to compete and, when necessary, win against potential WMD-armed adversaries. Today, potential adversaries believe that WMD are critical to shape the battlespace, exert coercive influence, and achieve military aims. The impact of conflicts with WMD-armed adversaries are mitigated by developing counter-WMD technical solutions, highlighting WMD warfighting challenges and adversary vulnerabilities through strategic and operational analysis, and supporting DoD plans and exercises focused on CWMD threats. The Agency provides the Joint Force, allies, and partners with unique insight into adversary WMD force posture, doctrine, and systems. In particular, DTRA examines how potential adversaries plan to employ and integrate WMD during conflict. This better prepares U.S. and allied forces for overmatch within a WMD battlespace. To this end, the Agency will:

Expand our ability to identify, characterize, and exploit adversary WMD vulnerabilities; Strengthen target characterization and servicing requirements for WMD hard targets;

Develop non-traditional planning solutions to emerging WMD problems, to include preventing further WMD employment following adversary first use; and

Recognize potential WMD warfighting obstacles as well as potential solutions to enable the Joint Warfighter to win during conflict.

But is China, and is Russia, actually developing and producing biological weapons — or is America itself instead actually leading the way toward a pandemic-plagued global future?

On 28 May 2020, I headlined “The Stupid Insanity of Biological-Warfare R&D” and argued:


There is much speculation that the coronavirus-19 or Covid-19 was invented in a research-and-development (R&D) biological-warfare (B-W) lab, which might have been one in China, the U.S., or perhaps some other country; but, if that is the case, then that country’s entire military top brass and Commander-in-Chief (C-i-C) are not merely stupid but insane, for the following very simple reason: NO weapon is usable in war if it cannot be effectively and controllably targeted, and B-W weapons cannot be effectively and controllably targeted — they are contagious and respect no national boundaries and therefore endanger instead of protect the people who live in the country that has such a stupid and insane government, a government that is doing B-W R&D. Any such government (any country that is doing B-W R&D) is so bad that it needs to be immediately overthrown by its own population, because its own population is being mortally and severely threatened by that government’s stupidity and its insanity: its entire military top brass including its C-i-C must therefore be placed on trial for possible treason, at least in order to more-accurately define the very meaning of “treason,” a term whose meaning is not yet sufficiently clearly defined. (Is there no due-diligence requirement for public servants? Is there no accountability at all for any public servant who harms the public, no matter how badly? Public office entails enormous power, which is why it is so sought; but, along with that power needs to come full accountability. Does that exist? If not, is the nation effectively, then, a dictatorship?)

Ever since at least 1952 (and that 764-page document takes about ten to 30 minutes to load, but here are some excerpts), the U.S. Government has actually been doing R&D (research and development) into the use of bacteria and viruses as weapons to conquer countries that it wants to add to its empire (“allies,” or vassal-nations — not merely friendly nations but instead governments, including some barbaric dictatorships, that would prejudicially favor the products of U.S.-based international corporations; this is the U.S. international-corporate empire that became the U.S. Government’s supreme international-relations policy-objective to expand globally starting on 26 July 1945 . That biological-warfare (B-W) R&D tactic was part of America’s ‘anti-communist’ campaign, and it started in this American imperial invasion mainly against North Korea but also against China. The U.S. Government lied and denied that it was true, but subsequently an international scientific team investigated exhaustively into the matter and published the evidence which showed that it had, in fact, happened. Mainly the North Korean population had been bombed with contagious bacteria, but (as is common with R&D) the hoped-for results from this experiment (in this case an uncontainable spread of a deadly infection only in the bombed area) failed. Unfortunately, that failure (of an insanely stupid program) did not terminate the U.S. Government’s B-W R&D, and the same U.S. regime remains in place and continues to this day.

For example, the great investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva headlined on 20 September 2018, “‘Diplomatic Immunity’ Used to Traffick Human Blood and Pathogens for Secret Military Program” and opened:

The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo for a secret US military program. Internal documents, implicating US diplomats in the transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover were leaked to me by Georgian insiders. According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia’s capital Tbilisi.

This military facility is just one of the many Pentagon biolaboratories in 25 countries across the world. They are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program – Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.

Instead of investing in the health of its own citizens the US government has spent $161 million of US taxpayer money on the Lugar Center in Tbilisi for research on deadly diseases and biting insects abroad. (©Al Mayadeen TV)

The secret facility is located just 17 km from the US Vaziani military airbase in Georgia’s capital Tbilisi.

The Pentagon biolaboratory is heavily guarded. All passers-by within a radius of 100 m are filmed although the military biolaboratory is located within a residential area.

I am being filmed while talking to local residents on the street near the Pentagon biolaboratory and I want to know why the security guards are filming me. (©Al Mayadeen TV)

The security guards warn me that if I do not comply, show my passport and leave this place, I will be arrested. My official request to the Lugar Center for access to the facility and for interviews has also been rejected.

Secret experiments at night

However, I go back at night when the laboratory is seemingly still working. No matter how far the distance the air is laden with the smell of chemicals. This smell coming from the Lugar Center at night is blown by the wind to the residential area. Local residents from the Alexeevka neighbourhood, where the laboratory is located, complain that dangerous chemicals are being secretly burnt at night and that hazardous waste is being emptied into the nearby river through the laboratory’s pipes.

Gaytandzhieva there was reporting on what is clearly a U.S. B-W R&D facility, and so there can be little reasonable doubt that the U.S. Government is so insatiably voracious as to be placing the entire world’s safety at risk in order to advance its imperialistic objective.

What use can there actually be for this R&D? Whom does it actually benefit? Has any U.S. President, or any member of the U.S. Congress, pressed to defund all such taxpayer-financed operations and to prosecute the persons who created them? Is there no accountability? The United States has a higher percentage of its population in prison than does any other country on this planet, and so why are not perhaps half of them released and maybe just a thousand of the key individuals who did this immense harm placed there instead? Why is this not being investigated by the same U.S. Government that created the problem? Is there no accountability except against the poorest (such as in America)?

There are allegations that the Government of China likewise engages in this stupid and insane R&D. Consequently, the Editor-in-Chief of China’s Global Times newspaper, Hu Xijn, headlined on May 18th, “If coronavirus did not originate in China, Trump team’s campaign strategy will collapse” and he said via a youtube:

“The European Union is proposing an investigation into the origin of the coronavirus. As long as the investigation is scientific and fair, Beijing has no cause for concern. I think that Washington is the one that should be worried. Beijing has maintained that the coronavirus is an enemy of humankind no matter where in our global society it came from. Beijing has always taken this stance, which is shared by the majority of the world’s countries. Only Washington has politicized the coronavirus’s origins as a way to divert responsibility toward China for the US federal government’s ineffective handling of the pandemic. Now that early COVID-19 cases in the US are still being discovered, I believe the Trump administration has become very nervous. If the investigation finds that the coronavirus did not originate in China, or even finds that it originated in the US, the Trump team’s campaign strategy will collapse. As long as the WHO leads the investigation, and investigates China, the US and the whole world, it will be a good thing. If it finds that the virus originated in China, the US political offensive has already spent most of its energy. If it finds the opposite, which might be the case, it will be a heavy blow to the Trump administration.”

If the virus did originate in a Chinese B-W R&D lab, then the next question is: Who actually benefits from that R&D? All such individuals should be tried at the International Criminal Court (like America’s never were) for violating the existing international laws against such ‘weapons’; but, also, the question would be essential to pursue, of why such stupid and insane ‘weapons’ are being pursued — who benefits from ANY such R&D. Is it not blatantly clear “that the coronavirus is an enemy of humankind no matter where in our global society it came from”? That’s the point here. The United States Government is this stupid and insane, but is China’s also?

As regards the penalties that ought to be imposed against any such perpetrators, there is something else that is clear, and it is that a distinction must always be made between institutional criminality that is unintentional but the result only of failure to carry out due diligence — in other words, purely a result of incompetence —  versus institutional criminality that entails the CEO’s actual intention to achieve some criminal goal.


Russia says: “In late October, Russia filed an official complaint claiming that US-backed biological activities are taking place in Ukraine and requested a UN probe into the matter. The UN Security Council rejected Moscow’s proposal, with the US, UK, and France voting against it.” In other words: the U.N. Security Council voted politically on this — voted only on a partisan basis. RT’s article (as is unfortunately normal there and in all ’news’-media) provided no link to the alleged sources, the U.N.S.C. debate, and to the vote there on it; but, if Russia’s proposal was phrased in a partisan, instead of neutral, way, then that vote-outcome was inevitable and Russia itself was largely to blame for its failure. However: if it was not, then why is Russia hiding from the public what their precise proposal was? That wouldn’t be very bright of them. But was it the case? (‘News’-reporting that hides its sources is no better than gossip.)

Are OTHER Governments, and not ONLY America’s, producing biological-warfare ‘weapons’ — such UNTARGETABLE mass-murdering ‘weapons’ as these pathogens? Why are Russia and China doing nothing to force that issue to the public’s attention? Any U.N.S.C. proposal on the matter needs to be clearly nonpartisan. Otherwise, failure on it will be inevitable, and the entire matter will continue to be ONLY an international political football — as it is

Continue Reading


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

Avatar photo



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


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

Avatar photo



Image source:

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



Terrorism Terrorism
Defense57 mins ago

America Produces Biological Weapons; Does Russia? Does China?

On November 26th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US ‘military biological activities’ a threat to the world – Russia”, and reported...

South Asia5 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 Asia10 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 Asia13 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...

Economy15 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 Asia24 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...